Weight loss needed

For topics unrelated to bush walking or to the forums.

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby MrWalker » Sun 18 Jul, 2021 8:06 am

GPSGuided wrote:
CasualNerd wrote:I think the " calories in calories out" model is simplistic and flawed because we know for sure that the body reacts to different types of food. There are plenty of healthy omnivores and plenty of overweight vegetarians, it's not that simple.

Want to rewrite principles in physics?

CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.
MrWalker
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri 25 Nov, 2011 11:14 am
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby CasualNerd » Sun 18 Jul, 2021 11:32 am

GPSGuided wrote:Want to rewrite principles in physics?

I'm not in the business of nutrition research, but there's a ton of information on metabolic syndrome / insulin resistance / LCHF eating that are completely backed by research. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything I can just say it did wonders for my health.
User avatar
CasualNerd
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed 03 Aug, 2011 3:33 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Weight loss needed

Postby GPSGuided » Tue 20 Jul, 2021 7:39 am

MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.

At the core of biology, it’s physics.

All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6930
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby MrWalker » Tue 20 Jul, 2021 8:29 am

GPSGuided wrote:
MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.

At the core of biology, it’s physics.

All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.

I agree that if you don't eat at all then you will lose weight, but beyond that it's not so simple.

The number of calories you need each day is based on the average BMR (basal metabolic rate). This is the amount of energy you use up while resting (i.e the energy needed just to keep your heart beating, brain functioning, etc). The BMR accounts for about 70% of your daily calorie expenditure. But like any biological value BMR has wide variability. A standard rule of thumb is that most biological values (height, heart rate, hemoglobin value, etc) have a coefficient of variation of about 20%. That means that about 1/6th of people will be 20% higher than the average and 1/6th will be 20% lower than the average. Within our bushwalkers here, there would be some of us who have a BMR 50% higher than others.

The effect of this is that if you feed a group of people identical diets, some will lose weight, some will maintain weight, and some will gain weight. Then there are factors that can turn your normal BMR up and down. I think this is what CasualNerd was referring to. Carbohydrates, fat and protein have affects on your BMR and can increase or decrease it, so that some types of diets can make it harder or easier to lose weight, while maintaining the same calorie intake.

So the simple idea of calories in and calories expended ignores this huge individual variation.
MrWalker
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri 25 Nov, 2011 11:14 am
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby stry » Tue 20 Jul, 2021 8:43 am

MrWalker wrote:
GPSGuided wrote:
MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.

At the core of biology, it’s physics.

All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.

I agree that if you don't eat at all then you will lose weight, but beyond that it's not so simple.

The number of calories you need each day is based on the average BMR (basal metabolic rate). This is the amount of energy you use up while resting (i.e the energy needed just to keep your heart beating, brain functioning, etc). The BMR accounts for about 70% of your daily calorie expenditure. But like any biological value BMR has wide variability. A standard rule of thumb is that most biological values (height, heart rate, hemoglobin value, etc) have a coefficient of variation of about 20%. That means that about 1/6th of people will be 20% higher than the average and 1/6th will be 20% lower than the average. Within our bushwalkers here, there would be some of us who have a BMR 50% higher than others.

The effect of this is that if you feed a group of people identical diets, some will lose weight, some will maintain weight, and some will gain weight. Then there are factors that can turn your normal BMR up and down. I think this is what CasualNerd was referring to. Carbohydrates, fat and protein have affects on your BMR and can increase or decrease it, so that some types of diets can make it harder or easier to lose weight, while maintaining the same calorie intake.

So the simple idea of calories in and calories expended ignores this huge individual variation.


Way too much complication going on in this thread.

GPSGuided's use of the word "individual" in the penultimate sentence of his commonsense post seems to have been overlooked.
stry
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1333
Joined: Mon 10 Jun, 2013 6:28 pm
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby MrWalker » Tue 20 Jul, 2021 9:57 am

stry wrote:
MrWalker wrote:
GPSGuided wrote:At the core of biology, it’s physics.

All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.

I agree that if you don't eat at all then you will lose weight, but beyond that it's not so simple.

The number of calories you need each day is based on the average BMR (basal metabolic rate). This is the amount of energy you use up while resting (i.e the energy needed just to keep your heart beating, brain functioning, etc). The BMR accounts for about 70% of your daily calorie expenditure. But like any biological value BMR has wide variability. A standard rule of thumb is that most biological values (height, heart rate, hemoglobin value, etc) have a coefficient of variation of about 20%. That means that about 1/6th of people will be 20% higher than the average and 1/6th will be 20% lower than the average. Within our bushwalkers here, there would be some of us who have a BMR 50% higher than others.

The effect of this is that if you feed a group of people identical diets, some will lose weight, some will maintain weight, and some will gain weight. Then there are factors that can turn your normal BMR up and down. I think this is what CasualNerd was referring to. Carbohydrates, fat and protein have affects on your BMR and can increase or decrease it, so that some types of diets can make it harder or easier to lose weight, while maintaining the same calorie intake.

So the simple idea of calories in and calories expended ignores this huge individual variation.


Way too much complication going on in this thread.

GPSGuided's use of the word "individual" in the penultimate sentence of his commonsense post seems to have been overlooked.


Sorry about the Biology.
But the use of "individual" still doesn't make it correct. A single individual may find that their BMR varies due to the type of diet, as CasualNerd mentioned.
So a given individual might gain weight on one diet, but lose weight on a diet of exactly the same calories, but with a different distribution of fat, protein and carbohydrate, or even just by eating the main meal at different times of the day.
MrWalker
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri 25 Nov, 2011 11:14 am
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby Lamont » Tue 20 Jul, 2021 10:01 am

GPSGuided wrote:
MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.

At the core of biology, it’s physics.

All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.

Yep. Spot on.
User avatar
Lamont
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Sun 21 Feb, 2016 1:27 pm
Location: Upper Kumbukta West
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: https://www.againstmalaria.com/
Region: Other Country

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby Moondog55 » Tue 20 Jul, 2021 10:36 am

I'm reminded of the scene in the classic "Three Men in a Boat" where the doctors advice to the main protagonist is simply to walk ten miles each day and eat a large beefsteak for dinner.
Ve are too soon old und too late schmart
Moondog55
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 10268
Joined: Thu 03 Dec, 2009 4:15 pm
Location: Norlane Geelong Victoria Australia
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby north-north-west » Tue 20 Jul, 2021 8:17 pm

Lamont wrote:
GPSGuided wrote:
MrWalker wrote:CasualNerd is quite correct. Its biology not physics.

At the core of biology, it’s physics.

All that insulin resistance etc and etc are subset events under a basic caloric in-out framework. Clinically no individual under caloric negative balance can maintain the same weight. Those research knowledge are such good excuses for those who aren’t willing to put the hard work into weight loss, and great for the profit making diet industry.

Yep. Spot on.


To an extent. But those "subset events" affect the calorie out part of the equation. Hence the individual issues while on the same diet/exercise regimen.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
User avatar
north-north-west
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 13633
Joined: Thu 14 May, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: The Asylum
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Social Misfits Anonymous
Region: Tasmania

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby Moondog55 » Tue 20 Jul, 2021 10:07 pm

Individual MET aside it's still Calories in Vs Calories out and with me it's the Calories OUT that make the most difference.
I just simply burn far more calories when in the snow because it is a much more intense energy depleting environment compared to living and sleeping in an over heated house. Can't do much about the overheated house either due to medical issues here.
Add in skiing up and down hills while dragging a pulk or humping a 15 to 25 kilo pack and it's easy to see why my Calorie expenditure goes up. In the real world there are very few times when everybody eats exactly the same diet and amount of kilojoules while performing exactly the same amount of work, and we all know that training makes us more efficient so things change all the time.
Ve are too soon old und too late schmart
Moondog55
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 10268
Joined: Thu 03 Dec, 2009 4:15 pm
Location: Norlane Geelong Victoria Australia
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Weight loss needed

Postby stry » Wed 21 Jul, 2021 9:02 am

MrWalker wrote:
Sorry about the Biology.
But the use of "individual" still doesn't make it correct. A single individual may find that their BMR varies due to the type of diet, as CasualNerd mentioned.
So a given individual might gain weight on one diet, but lose weight on a diet of exactly the same calories, but with a different distribution of fat, protein and carbohydrate, or even just by eating the main meal at different times of the day.


My understanding of his use of "individual" is that it refers to all the little differences between each individual. Those differences do not break the nexus between energy consumed and energy utilized in any given individual.

north-north-west wrote:
To an extent. But those "subset events" affect the calorie out part of the equation. Hence the individual issues while on the same diet/exercise regimen.


I agree, but as above, the nexus between energy consumed and energy expended remains for all of us.

In any given, healthy body, energy taken in and not utilised must be dealt with, usually by storing it in some form. If energy taken in is insufficient, the shortfall must be made up from somewhere in the body.

DIfferences from body to body in how this balance is achieved don't alter the fact that it will be achieved - somehow. The fact that some of us gain or lose weight differently in response to different diets does not break the calories in/calories out nexus.
stry
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1333
Joined: Mon 10 Jun, 2013 6:28 pm
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Previous

Return to Between Bushwalks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests