Obese Man to Sue NHS for letting him get fat.

[Pappa]

I need to know one thing so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that a person can, in fact, take in fewer calories than go out and still gain mass? Or, the reverse, are you claiming that a person can take in more calories than go out and still lose mass?

Nobody's ever claimed that on this forum Coito.

[Coito ergo sum]

I need to know one thing so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that a person can, in fact, take in fewer calories than go out and still gain mass? Or, the reverse, are you claiming that a person can take in more calories than go out and still lose mass?

Nobody's ever claimed that on this forum Coito.

You're answering for him?

The reason I asked the question is because lots of things are said on this form about how "it's not calories in/calories out." what's that mean, exactly?

[Pappa]

You're answering for him?

I don't see why you need to ask the question, the answer is obvious. It's not a claim he made.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're answering for him?

I don't see why you need to ask the question, the answer is obvious. It's not a claim he made.

Not clearly or explicitly which is exactly why I asked the question. If he had made that allegation explicitly, I wouldn't have had to ask him if that's what he means or implies. - His post wasn't clear on that point, and he appeared to take issue with my assertion that calories in/calories out is indubitably the determining factor in mass loss.

There is nothing wrong with asking him to be specific about it, is there? it's not an insult. Most people get pissed off when someone draws a conclusion from a post without asking. I was making sure I understood him correctly.

Nobody - most certainly not me - has claimed that the chemical processes in the alimentary canal are "simple" - but, their complexity doesn't change the fundamental fact that taking in fewer calories than go out is a necessary requirement to losing body mass. If you don't do that, you won't lose body mass. Period. In that regard it is quite simple. Not easy, mind you, but simple.

[Sisifo]

Hi, by the way :-)

The nutrition science, when dealing with food as a mathematical formula carbs+protein+fat+other nutrients, hasn't been very successful so far and its advice should be taken with a healthy dose of schepticism. Regardless of what you say, the digestion reactions have not been quite as determined as thermodynamics. The metabolization of food is not one, but a myriad of chemical reactions far more complicated that calories-in and calories out.

I've not suggested it isn't a complicated process. However, the chemical processes in the body are measurable, and not magical.

I need to know one thing so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that a person can, in fact, take in fewer calories than go out and still gain mass? Or, the reverse, are you claiming that a person can take in more calories than go out and still lose mass?

The chemical processes in the body are not magical, but they are very far from measurable, or even acknowledged in a way that can issue foolproof advice based in nutrients.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hi, by the way :-)

The nutrition science, when dealing with food as a mathematical formula carbs+protein+fat+other nutrients, hasn't been very successful so far and its advice should be taken with a healthy dose of schepticism. Regardless of what you say, the digestion reactions have not been quite as determined as thermodynamics. The metabolization of food is not one, but a myriad of chemical reactions far more complicated that calories-in and calories out.

I've not suggested it isn't a complicated process. However, the chemical processes in the body are measurable, and not magical.

I need to know one thing so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that a person can, in fact, take in fewer calories than go out and still gain mass? Or, the reverse, are you claiming that a person can take in more calories than go out and still lose mass?

The chemical processes in the body are not magical, but they are very far from measurable, or even acknowledged in a way that can issue foolproof advice based in nutrients.

Nutrients are different than calories. Yes, they are measurable. Not only measurable, but measured. And, there are peer reviewed journal articles by the ream to demonstrate such measurements.

But, in any case, are we agreement on calories in/calories out? Yes? You have to take in fewer calories than go out in order to lose body mass?

[Sisifo]

Hi, by the way :-)

The nutrition science, when dealing with food as a mathematical formula carbs+protein+fat+other nutrients, hasn't been very successful so far and its advice should be taken with a healthy dose of schepticism. Regardless of what you say, the digestion reactions have not been quite as determined as thermodynamics. The metabolization of food is not one, but a myriad of chemical reactions far more complicated that calories-in and calories out.

I've not suggested it isn't a complicated process. However, the chemical processes in the body are measurable, and not magical.

I need to know one thing so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that a person can, in fact, take in fewer calories than go out and still gain mass? Or, the reverse, are you claiming that a person can take in more calories than go out and still lose mass?

The chemical processes in the body are not magical, but they are very far from measurable, or even acknowledged in a way that can issue foolproof advice based in nutrients.

Nutrients are different than calories. Yes, they are measurable. Not only measurable, but measured. And, there are peer reviewed journal articles by the ream to demonstrate such measurements.

But, in any case, are we agreement on calories in/calories out? Yes? You have to take in fewer calories than go out in order to lose body mass?

The chemical processes of food and its interactions during digestion and metabolization are still mostly ignored. The articles you mention are being contested -not just reviewed or polished- continuosly, at the point of getting opposite conclusions from different reviews.
As per your question, you want a simple answer when I am precisely saying that things are not so simple. To lose body mass, you have to make your body use its own body mass. No more, no less. A cronic alcoholic, drinking daily more than 3500 Kcal in alcoholic beverages can lose weight dramatically. Same with the "just carbs" diet, or similars. The body will use the storage trying to syntethise the lacking nutrients: from organ's tissues, body fat, or bone mass, even.
On the other hand, a low calories, high protein diet typical in bodybuilding increases enormously the body mass through muscle development.
Do you really believe that 2500 kcal of sugar taken in sodas fatten the same as those calories in a pack of fruit, vegetables and meat?

[Coito ergo sum]

As per your question, you want a simple answer when I am precisely saying that things are not so simple.

By not that simple, do you mean that you can lose body mass by taking in more calories than go out?

To lose body mass, you have to make your body use its own body mass. No more, no less. A cronic alcoholic, drinking daily more than 3500 Kcal in alcoholic beverages can lose weight dramatically.

Only if more calories go out than stay in.

Same with the "just carbs" diet, or similars. The body will use the storage trying to syntethise the lacking nutrients: from organ's tissues, body fat, or bone mass, even.
On the other hand, a low calories, high protein diet typical in bodybuilding increases enormously the body mass through muscle development.

Body mass, even muscle development increases in body mass, simply can't occur unless the body takes in more calories than go out. It's a physical impossibility unless you are claiming that mass can be created out of nothingness.

Do you really believe that 2500 kcal of sugar taken in sodas fatten the same as those calories in a pack of fruit, vegetables and meat?

Fruit, vegetables and meat are not "the same" as soda. Taking in exclusively sugar is certainly unhealthy, and an unhealthy diet can reduce basal metabolic rate. Someone taking in 2500 calories of one type of food can end up reducing their basal metabolic rate, while taking in other foods may increase basal metabolic rate. Further, some foods take more energy than other foods just to digest. All that doesn't change the fact, however, that if more calories go out than come in, then mass MUST go down. There is no alternative. And, the reverse is equally true.

Take celery, for instance. It is reported to take as many or more calories to burn celery in the digestive tract as are contained in the celery to begin with. That's one of the great things about vegetables. They take a lot of work for your body to digest them, and that means "more calories out." Sugars, on the other hand, take almost nothing to digest and get into the blood stream, so if you take in 100 calories of sugar, less of it is gotten rid of by the digestive processes than 100 calories of celery.

[Sisifo]

Body mass, even muscle development increases in body mass, simply can't occur unless the body takes in more calories than go out. It's a physical impossibility unless you are claiming that mass can be created out of nothingness.

If you insist on using an energy measure (calories) to determine mass, and disregard mass (protein) creating mass, we are not in the same page. Or book. Or library. To save time, words and sleep, I throw the towel. It seems that we have both said our arguments, and we are just repeating ourselves without mutual understanding.

[Coito ergo sum]

Body mass, even muscle development increases in body mass, simply can't occur unless the body takes in more calories than go out. It's a physical impossibility unless you are claiming that mass can be created out of nothingness.

If you insist on using an energy measure (calories) to determine mass, and disregard mass (protein) creating mass, we are not in the same page. Or book. Or library. To save time, words and sleep, I throw the towel. It seems that we have both said our arguments, and we are just repeating ourselves without mutual understanding.

Mass and protein are not the same thing. Protein has mass, but not all mass is protein. Carbs and fats also have mass.

I haven't used an energy measure to determine mass. It's correct, though, that proteins, carbs and fats have a certain number of calories per gram.

[maiforpeace]

I think he lost the towel Sisifo.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think he lost the towel Sisifo.

[JimC]

Hi, by the way :-)

The nutrition science, when dealing with food as a mathematical formula carbs+protein+fat+other nutrients, hasn't been very successful so far and its advice should be taken with a healthy dose of schepticism. Regardless of what you say, the digestion reactions have not been quite as determined as thermodynamics. The metabolization of food is not one, but a myriad of chemical reactions far more complicated that calories-in and calories out.

I've not suggested it isn't a complicated process. However, the chemical processes in the body are measurable, and not magical.

I need to know one thing so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that a person can, in fact, take in fewer calories than go out and still gain mass? Or, the reverse, are you claiming that a person can take in more calories than go out and still lose mass?

The chemical processes in the body are not magical, but they are very far from measurable, or even acknowledged in a way that can issue foolproof advice based in nutrients.

Nutrients are different than calories. Yes, they are measurable. Not only measurable, but measured. And, there are peer reviewed journal articles by the ream to demonstrate such measurements.

But, in any case, are we agreement on calories in/calories out? Yes? You have to take in fewer calories than go out in order to lose body mass?

I suspect I see the point of confusion here. I think Sisifo is pointing out that we cannot predict the actual total energy being absorbed by a given individual just by measuring the calories in the food consumed, because individuals differ in the efficiency of absorbtion, and (possibly, not certainly...) there can be variation in the rate of absorbtion depending on the food combination.

In addition, the variation in basal metabolic rate means that there will not be a fixed amount of fat laid down for any given amount of calories absorbed/ exercise done.

However, I think CES is insisting on this particular point, that for any given individual to lose weight, there simply must be either a reduction in total calories consumed and absorbed, or an increase in exercise or both, which is surely correct. There is a chance that altering the way you combine foods, or when you eat, may have a small effect on the efficiency of absorption, but I would doubt it was significant.

However, there are many useful tricks to reduce total calorie input without feeling hunger pangs, including eating lots of unprocessed food full of fibre, which makes you feel full without adding to the calorie input.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hi, by the way :-)

The nutrition science, when dealing with food as a mathematical formula carbs+protein+fat+other nutrients, hasn't been very successful so far and its advice should be taken with a healthy dose of schepticism. Regardless of what you say, the digestion reactions have not been quite as determined as thermodynamics. The metabolization of food is not one, but a myriad of chemical reactions far more complicated that calories-in and calories out.

I've not suggested it isn't a complicated process. However, the chemical processes in the body are measurable, and not magical.

I need to know one thing so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that a person can, in fact, take in fewer calories than go out and still gain mass? Or, the reverse, are you claiming that a person can take in more calories than go out and still lose mass?

The chemical processes in the body are not magical, but they are very far from measurable, or even acknowledged in a way that can issue foolproof advice based in nutrients.

Nutrients are different than calories. Yes, they are measurable. Not only measurable, but measured. And, there are peer reviewed journal articles by the ream to demonstrate such measurements.

But, in any case, are we agreement on calories in/calories out? Yes? You have to take in fewer calories than go out in order to lose body mass?

I suspect I see the point of confusion here. I think Sisifo is pointing out that we cannot predict the actual total energy being absorbed by a given individual just by measuring the calories in the food consumed, because individuals differ in the efficiency of absorbtion, and (possibly, not certainly...) there can be variation in the rate of absorbtion depending on the food combination.

If that is the confusion, then I will concur with you that we cannot predict total energy absorbed by a given individual JUST by measuring the calories. But, we can predict the actual total energy consumed, and with reasonable accuracy nutritionists, dietitians and personal trainers do this all the time.

[

In addition, the variation in basal metabolic rate means that there will not be a fixed amount of fat laid down for any given amount of calories absorbed/ exercise done.

However, I think CES is insisting on this particular point, that for any given individual to lose weight, there simply must be either a reduction in total calories consumed and absorbed, or an increase in exercise or both, which is surely correct. There is a chance that altering the way you combine foods, or when you eat, may have a small effect on the efficiency of absorption, but I would doubt it was significant.

That is precisely my point.

[
However, there are many useful tricks to reduce total calorie input without feeling hunger pangs, including eating lots of unprocessed food full of fibre, which makes you feel full without adding to the calorie input.

Surely, there are such methods.

My objection is to the gimmicks that come up over and over again and get repackaged - Atkins - high carbs - low carbs - fruit diets - Hollywood diets - eat only fat - eat only meat - grapfruit and toast diets - the list goes on and on.

This stuff isn't rocket science. Americans weren't fat, by and large, 50 years ago. it's no coincidence that we eat much more every day and burn far fewer calories every day than we did 50 years ago, and now we're much fatter. One of the things that I have trouble understanding is the tenacious resistance to this plain and obvious fact. We move around much less than we did (less walking, less playing, more television, more video games, more sedentary jobs, etc.), and we eat much more than we did. Why do we search for other reasons that we're a fat country now?

[Coito ergo sum]

“To return to the average weights of the 1970s, we would need to reverse the increased food intake of about 350 calories a day for children (about one can of fizzy drink and a small portion of French fries) and 500 calories a day for adults (about one large hamburger),” Swinburn said. “Alternatively, we could achieve similar results by increasing physical activity by about 150 minutes a day of extra walking for children and 110 minutes for adults, but realistically, although a combination of both is needed, the focus would have to be on reducing calorie intake.”

Swinburn B. Increased energy intake alone virtually explains all the increase in body weight in the United States from the 1970s to the 2000s. 2009 European Congress on Obesity; May 6-9, 2009; Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Abstract T1:RS3.3.