A Calorie is Not A Calorie - A Discussion of Thermodynamics

[amwassil]

I think several posters seem to define CICO - the hypothesis and diet/weight management systems - in a manner influenced by their knowlegde and possibly reluctant acceptance of at least some, if not all, of the insulin/hormone hypothesis that is the basis of keto. They’re essentially trying to combine both into something they can intellectual accept as valid. I can understand that, since keto actually works long term and CICO diets have a long term fail rate of 99+%. Hence they keep harping on the first law of thermodynamics, which no one denies, and add whatever hormonal influences and effects that they can not ignore because they explain the reality of metabolic management better than simple calories in and calories out.

I have no objections to they’re doing so and in fact wish them well in their efforts. However, they persistently criticize those of us who disagree as simplifying and misunderstanding REAL™ CICO when we actually state the mainstream understanding and interpretation. I for one quote and paraphrase the actual things proponents of CICO say about it, using the same terminology and understanding of that terminology. I know others here do so as well. We are not misunderstanding CICO and our critics simply undermine their own credibility by harping on it. Long upthread I challenged one these critics to cite something/anything that supported his interpretation and use of CICO terminology that contradicted my use. He has yet to do so. On the other hand, I have posted multiple citation from CICO researchers and commenters that use the terminology exactly as I do.

[amwassil]

And yet, that is the notion for which the acronym CICO is shorthand. Many people repeat this incorrect idea, including government health authorities the world over. Not to mention such respected bodies as the WHO, the American Heart Association, the American Dieticians’ Association, the American Diabetes Association, and their equivalents around the world.

You and we are actually in agreement about what CICO should mean. The problem is that the rest of the world uses the term “CICO” and the phrases “a calorie is a calorie” and “eat less, move more” in a way that neither you nor we agree with. So when you see disparaging remarks about CICO on these forums, please bear in mind that we are disagreeing with them and agreeing with you. We are not disagreeing with your notion of what CICO should mean, we are disagreeing with how they use the term and agreeing with you that they are using it wrong.

[amwassil]

Reminder.

The Insulin/Hormone Hypothesis includes all the first law stuff that’s in CICO. So all you folks arguing pro CICO based on the first law are howling at the moon.

The Insulin/Hormone Hypothesis does not deny the first law, it simply recognizes that the first law by itself is not sufficient. The article I linked in the OP offers an explanation why not. It may or may not be valid, although I suspect it is. First law just says overall energy must remain but says nothing about the final distribution of that energy. The OP argues that the second law explains how the energy distribution ends up and why that’s significant to metabolic management.

[OldDoug]

Tell you all what - I’m glad I don’t have e-mail notifications turned on for this thread.

Why do proponents of CICO (the weight management hypothesis) consistently declaim opposition as denial of the first law of thermodynamics?

Hey old boy, you’re confusing two different groups. The people who are proponents of that aren’t here. The people realizing that any argument that involves denying the first law of thermodynamics is necessarily faulty are here.

If we don’t keep those separate then surely we’ll just go around and around forever.

Billy Preston, baby - Will it go round in circles? Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

As if CICO = the first law.

(@KetoGolem - good answer.) Is anybody saying that CICO = the first law? Not on this forum, I think, and not out there in internet land even if they’re claiming that “watch what you eat” is the friggin’ Holy Grail. CICO only tells us so much (surely we can all agree on that…?).

My issue with this thread and the second law is that it doesn’t address anything anybody’s said on the forum about the quantities in CICO. In the end, I do agree with the article’s authors - there are different amounts of dissipation of energy that will occur as the different macronutrients are digested (and metabolized). However, this is a given. The authors do say “The analysis above might be said to be over-kill” - so I think they are aware. To be really complete and correct about the conclusion, then, we need to say that, “From the standpoint of the second law of thermodynamics, not all calories are the same in relation to what percent of available energy will remain after digestion/metabolization.”

Meanwhile, anybody can point to the first law, and say that it proves that “a calorie is a calorie,” and be just as correct. Thus, no big resolution here. We could all post articles about the first law and claim that calories are the same.

@amwassil - also, hey man, I’ve frequently been your antagonist on this forum, but in catching up on posts today I saw you say that you’re around 14% body fat. That’s excellent, and really the most important thing for all of us, I think - to find out how to be healthy and remain active and capable for a long time. There are a lot of us that haven’t done as well as you have, there. So, no matter what, you deserve a huge (and in a non-Covid environment a ).

Doug, don’t blame yourself for not readily grasping the meaning. Entropy is a tricky concept in and of itself, and it has to be spoken about carefully, to prevent misconceptions from arising in our thinking. That said, the term “negative entropy” is convoluted and obtuse, and Prof. Feinman usually speaks much more clearly than that. Try substituting “order” for “negative entropy” wherever it occurs, and see if it helps.

I suspect that this article is written in response to something, and I bet it would make more sense if we had the other article in hand. They also want to emphasise that something gets lost in the process of a chemical reaction, and they could have written “order” instead of “negative entropy”. It’s possible, however, that “order” conveys connotations they wished to avoid; it is also possible that in the conversation that this paper is part of, “negative entropy” has already been used, so they were stuck with it.

Paul, indeed - and while the forum was down I was reading something that mentioned at least one of the articles we’ve been talking about in this thread; there were ‘competing’ papers and other authors who disagreed, and there was back-and-forth stuff going on between the two groups, and it bears on the subject and like an idiot I didn’t make notes or write it down. It was enough hours ago that I’m totally blank on it… I don’t where or what the **** it was…

Anyway, yes - it does look like there was a ‘dialogue’ going on between authors/scientists. You’re also correct about the need for things “to be spoken about carefully, to prevent misconceptions from arising in our thinking.” Surely part of this debate is philosophical, and very sensitive to initial conditions, i.e. our viewpoint and how we approach the subject both loom huge. As individuals we’re going to be different there, to begin with, so it’s hard to bridge all the gaps, even if everything goes perfectly afterwards. And of course it never does.

[OldDoug]

Your welcome for my effort at an explanation it is kind of a more recent description of something not well explained or explored, I’m sure you’ll find some better ”jumbling“ else where?

No, I think you’ve established yourself as a master.

You gotta admit this was a funny one.

[atomicspacebunny]

the insulin/hormone hypothesis that is the basis of keto.

It’s always has been about lowering sugar (fructose/sucrose?) intake and not about insulin?

Diabetes is not really per say a glucose (fructose/sucrose?) problem, it is an insulin problem, lack of enough insulin or resistance to insulin.

Keeping insulin low by keeping glucose (fructose/sucrose?) intake low also keeps the brain from making fructose and the only organ in the body that can use fructose is the liver which it turns into visceral fat in excess or glucose?

Glucose, sucrose and fructose are three (3) different things?

Footnotes:

[1] ”…Glucose was first isolated from raisins in 1747 by the German chemist Andreas Marggraf. Glucose was discovered in grapes by Johann Tobias Lowitz in 1792 and recognized as different from cane sugar (sucrose). …” …More

• Chemical formula: C6H12O6

• Solubility in water: 909 g/L (25 °C (77 °F))

• Heat of combustion, higher value (HHV): 2,805 kJ/mol (670 kcal/mol)

• Heat capacity ( C ): 218.6 J/(K·mol)

[2] “…Because fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion from pancreatic β cells, the consumption of foods and beverages containing fructose produces smaller postprandial insulin excursions than does consumption of glucose-containing carbohydrate. …” …More

[3] “…How is fructose different from glucose? High-fructose corn syrup is cornstarch — glucose — with enzymes added to convert some of the glucose into fructose. The sweetener contains around 55 percent fructose. The new study — drawing on clinical trials, basic science, and animal studies — concludes that fructose is more damaging to health than glucose. …” …More

[4] “…Is fructose as bad as glucose? Your body converts fructose to glucose in the liver to use it for energy. Excess fructose places a burden on your liver, which may lead to a series of metabolic problems (13). …” …More

[5] “…Fructose is only harmful in large amounts, and it’s difficult to get excessive amounts of fructose from fruit. Summary Evidence suggests that fructose can cause harm when consumed in excess. However, there is not enough fructose in fruit to cause concern. …” …More

[amwassil]

@amwassil - also, hey man, I’ve frequently been your antagonist on this forum, but in catching up on posts today I saw you say that you’re around 14% body fat. That’s excellent , and really the most important thing for all of us, I think - to find out how to be healthy and remain active and capable for a long time. There are a lot of us that haven’t done as well as you have, there.

Thank you for that, Doug. But I have to admit that I don’t really have to do much and I really admire all the folks who struggle and do have to work hard. There’s lots to be said for genetics. I suspect it’s at least as important as either law of thermodynamics.

[PaulL]

It was enough hours ago that I’m totally blank on it… I don’t where or what the **** it was…

You, too, huh?

Hey, all you kids out there—don’t get old, okay?

(Now, what was I talking about?)

[KetoGolem]

Well, actually, proper nutrition science is extremely difficult, as Gary Taubes points out.

Aye, but that doesn’t mean the concepts or the theories are wrong (if nothing else, at that point it remains to be seen), nor that physical laws don’t apply (they do).

It’s more that you’ve sometimes had the attitude that just because it may be difficult to measure energy, it then follows that considerations of the energy balance are faulty.

If you cannot measure accurately, you don’t know what you are doing. That’s elementary carpentry, as well as elementary physics.

Not necessarily true, and the principle is the same - difficulty in measurement may or not be an issue. In no way does that determine the physical reality of what is going on, nor does it affect the applicability of laws in accordance with that reality.

For most of human history, we didn’t know about viruses and bacteria, but they were there. For hundreds of years - from Newton through Einstein - we couldn’t measure gravity’s effect on light, though there were theories rooted in calculus (and possibly an intuitive grasp of physics) that predicted it. It wasn’t until the Eddington/Dyson experiment that it was measured (which lent additional credence to Einstein’s general theory of relativity as well).

'Not measuring" may not even matter at all. Often, generalized truth through algebra or calculus can be had, i.e. for example “For all X and Y, the following equation will be true…” Variables are likewise considered in calculus as its applied to physics and other sciences. They literally are variable, changeable, fluctuating, etc., i.e. a quantity or function that may assume any given value or set of values. Once again, that does not change the truth of the formulas, theorems, etc.

I think that when some of us make points about the inaccuracy of measuring energy intake and expenditure, it’s in response to people who think they can calculate their macros and their energy use to the last calorie.

Has nothing to do with the applicability of physical laws, as above.

And the point of refuting that view is that energy in and energy out need to come within 0.2% of each other or—by the standard CICO view—the person will gain or lose fat.

There is no reason to refute it - it doesn’t matter when it comes to what we’re talking about. To say that difficulty in measurement = not knowing what you’re doing, is incorrect. The ability of a given person to exactly measure energy or not doesn’t affect the physics involved.

(And that’s assuming the standard figure of 3500 kilocalories to a pound of fat is correct, which it probably isn’t.)

How close would satisfy you? It’s been discussed on these recent threads already - the human mix of triglycerides in stored fat averages just under 9 calories per gram. Our fat tissue is ~87% fat. Do the math and you’re right there.

It seems that people conflate the admitted faults in just “counting calories” for weight loss with the value of knowing what’s happening with energy. You mention Sam Feltham eating 5000 calories a day and not getting fat. So, “calories” really isn’t a “dirty word.” Likewise, it’s common to have it brought up how the ‘Biggest Loser’ contestants had an average slowdown of ~789 calories per day in their metabolisms. So if we want to talk about calories, we can; no harm, no foul.

With Sam’s example, what was his energy expenditure doing? That would (obviously) be the first place to look, if we’re raising our eyebrows at his slight weight change. Beyond that, whether we have an accurate overall conception of what was going on with him or not, it, his example would not necessarily apply to people as a whole.

As Taubes points out, we are speaking here of one mouthful of food, or less. So how are you going to know whether this mouthful should be your last or if the previous one should have been—given the impossibility of making precise measurements? So our point is, why not give up the chase for precision and relax? Or better yet, why not let it all be handled by the same bodily mechanisms that served our ancestors so well?

Asked and answered in this thread, several times, actually.

You’re not required to do anything - you don’t have to measure or read research papers or care. That doesn’t mean there’s not an underlying scientific reality at work. It’s that way for all of us.

What percent of people know the ‘normal’ earthbound acceleration due to gravity? Not a big one. What percent know the formula for gravity or Newton’s law of universal gravitation? A truly tiny one.
What percent could calculate it or measure it? Exceedingly tiny.

And of course gravity is just as valid and operative, regardless, and regardless of what group a person is in. I make the first cut, but the last two are way beyond me, at least from memory. But I know that the physical laws will still be served, and I don’t pretend that it affects the validity of any truthful statements about gravity.

So when you see disparaging remarks about CICO on these forums, please bear in mind that we are disagreeing with them and agreeing with you.

Those remarks are not what the issue is on this forum.

We are not disagreeing with your notion of what CICO should mean, we are disagreeing with how they use the term and agreeing with you that they are using it wrong.

If it was just people saying, "What’s wrong is this -> “you need do nothing more than count calories to lose weight, no matter who you are,” (as one example), then there wouldn’t be all the posts about the matter. We’d all just agree and go on about other business. Yes, that’s definitely wrong.

While I don’t see you personally really doing this, what starts a good many of the arguments are untrue assertions (often involving necessary denial of the first law of thermodynamics), or just plain errors in logic or mathematics. We’ve all got opinions, blah blah blah… But logic and math really can be argued, eh?

1. Okay - both ‘sides’ in this forum debate agree that there’s a better, more complete conception of CICO than the “eat less, move more” or otherwise too simplified or outright faulty interpretations of it.

2. Both sides agree that “eat less, move more” or “just count calories” etc., won’t work for everybody and frequently is not a suitable long term weight loss approach for people.

Yet neither of those is really an issue on this forum.

What’s left is addressing what we do say, here, and where there is disagreement.

Keto activists maintain that the First Law certainly operates, but that it says nothing about the direction of causality.

Okay, good - no argument on this except perhaps that there’s an implication that the direction of causality would matter. If we’re talking about the validity of physical laws, then it wouldn’t, and the same for the three conditions of CICO (i.e. what’s going to happen for weight loss/gain/no change) even as quoted by those on the “anti-CICO” side here on the forum.

We assert that the notion that the sheer quantity of calories eaten determines what our body does with the food we eat is inaccurate and misguided. To say this is certainly not contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.

I think we all are agreed. (?) There is certainly more to it than that, and no apparent physical impossibility there.

Energy balance is indeed a factor in what happens, but the body’s hormonal response to the foods we eat is going to determine both the rate of energy expenditure, and also whether we will gain or lose lean tissue and/or gain or lose fat stores. Moreover, it is whether we are in gain or loss mode that will determine the energy imbalance, not the reverse. (And furthermore, if we are in fat gain mode, the hormonal response will also determine where in the body the extra fat will get deposited.)

All that people who advocate a ketogenic diet are saying is that the energy-balance model is too simplistic.

Once again I’m getting pressure from my wife to quit this. And I didn’t even spend much time on it yesterday. The Big K better go save his marriage pretty soon.

The state of the energy balance is an observation, not a necessary cause. Hormonal effects fit right in there with everything else - this is me saying ‘everything else.’ Hormones are without question a cause at times, i.e. yes indeed - being in loss or gain mode makes a big difference. While the energy balance doesn’t directly tell us what’s going on with hormones, the effects are there. If we’re using fat for energy and the stores of it are declining, then that’s easily detectable after a point, and the same for if stores are increasing.

Just what the energy balance tells us IS part of the issues in all these forum posts. Can we agree on where energy goes, to start with?

The whole package is “in,” then either metabolism, storage or excretion (waste).

If something substantial is missing here, what is it or what are they? It’s been asked before, and I’ve never seen a good answer.

[PaulL]

With Sam’s example, what was his energy expenditure doing? That would (obviously) be the first place to look, if we’re raising our eyebrows at his slight weight change. Beyond that, whether we have an accurate overall conception of what was going on with him or not, it, his example would not necessarily apply to people as a whole.

All right, it’s clear that you are missing the point of what I’m saying. Of course, energy expenditure was relevant, because his weight changed. The point is that the weight change was not what a CICO interpretation of the physics involved would have predicted. Since you do not appear to be having the same conversation I’m having, I will bow out at this point.

[amwassil]

Since you do not appear to be having the same conversation I’m having…

… persistently criticize those of us who disagree as simplifying and misunderstanding REAL™ CICO when we actually state the mainstream understanding and interpretation.

Some folks just can’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.

[amwassil]

@anon81060937 Please start your own topic if you want to discuss capitalism and the search for happiness. This topic is not the place for it. Thank you.

[atomicspacebunny]

As the heated debate gets deeper and juicier, a deeper dive into thermodynamics:

Brown adipose tissue in metabolic physiology:

Brown adipose tissue (BAT) occupies an unusual role in mammalian physiology. Although BAT possesses an oxidative capacity comparable to tissues like striated muscle and liver, it is incapable of producing ATP in any great quantity.1 Indeed, much like the extra-ocular superior rectus muscle (heater muscle) of Billfish such as Blue Marlin and Swordfish, BAT functions like a heater organ in mammalian endotherms. Intriguingly, like the Billfish heater muscle, BAT hails from a skeletal muscle lineage.2However, this is where the similarity ends. Unlike the heater muscle of Billfish, which generates heat through increased ATP hydrolysis on account of an inefficient sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ ATPase,3 BAT mitochondria are equipped with a specialized protein that functions as an energy transducer, short-circuiting the electron transport chain and turning the mitochondrion into a biologic furnace.4

Uncoupling protein 1 (UCP1), originally termed thermogenin owing to its role in non-shivering thermogenesis (NST), resides within the inner mitochondrial membrane.4 When activated, UCP1 permits significant inner membrane proton conductance, uncoupling mitochondrial fuel oxidation and respiration from ATP production.5 In keeping with the laws of thermodynamics, the electro-chemical potential generated by fuel oxidation in BAT mitochondria is largely dissipated as heat as opposed to being used for ADP phosphorylation. Thus, when switched on, UCP1 turns BAT mitochondria into small, internalized radiators - which can assist in maintaining the core temperature of endothermic mammals.1 While this role of BAT in NST has long been appreciated in certain mammals, only very recently has BAT been shown to be present and functional in adult humans.6 This has rekindled interest in a putative role for BAT in human energy metabolism, arising largely from the desire to manipulate BAT as a strategy to increase energy expenditure and substrate metabolism in the context of obesity and its metabolic complications. …” …More

Footnotes:

[1] Beneficial Role of Bitter Melon Supplementation in Obesity and Related Complications in Metabolic Syndrome

[2] Momordica charantia (Bitter Melon) Reduces Obesity-Associated Macrophage and Mast Cell Infiltration as well as Inflammatory Cytokine Expression in Adipose Tissues

[3] The anti-adiposity effect of bitter melon seed oil is solely attributed to its fatty acid components

[amwassil]

Good find! Bikman discusses uncoupling protein and BAT quite understandably here:

[atomicspacebunny]

Bikman is an expert on Brown Fat!

Thermodynamics of brown fat (BAT) at work in real-life:

[ElmosUzi]

What’s left is addressing what we do say, here, and where there is disagreement.

Yes, and while it’s often hard to do so (I know well, myself), keeping posts shorter versus longer helps as well. Too much lays around, right or wrong, and doesn’t get addressed, and eventually gets said again and again, to little purpose.

We should address what other people are saying.

[ElmosUzi]

Maybe it seems like a crusade.

So, are you Luke Skywalker or Don Quixote? Thinking pretty seriously that it’s the latter. Tilting at windmills, rather than responding to what the issues are, and always have been, on this forum.

The first law of thermodynamics does not redeem the universal failure CICO.

That’s silly. Even the most incomplete and unmindful-of-the-larger-picture “count calories” or “eat less and move more” strategy works for lots of people. So you’re wrong about “universal failure.” To be truthful, you can say those don’t work for everybody, and nobody is going to argue with you, because then you’re correct.

Meanwhile, how about addressing the scientific points brought up by people who are actually posting on the forum?

Why do proponents of CICO (the weight management hypothesis) consistently declaim opposition as denial of the first law of thermodynamics?

So who are you talking about? You’ve obviously got things mixed up, there. Other than maybe an out-and-out troll trying to bait people (?), has there ever been anybody on this forum that has been a proponent of CICO as you want to characterize it? This forum has been here the best part of four years.

Look at what Paul said:

You and we are actually in agreement about what CICO should mean. The problem is that the rest of the world uses the term “CICO” and the phrases “a calorie is a calorie” and “eat less, move more” in a way that neither you nor we agree with.

So Paul’s pretty reasonable about most things. But the “calorie is a calorie” remains woefully out-of-context. You can say, “So what?” or just note that such things are not rational arguments, here. From another thread; check it out:

Is a carb a carb by any other name

Yes, a carb is a carb - strings of glucose and/or fructose molecules of varying lengths.

So, context really does matter, and you can use all the same arguments for or against your statement there.

To be really complete and correct about the conclusion, then, we need to say that, “From the standpoint of the second law of thermodynamics, not all calories are the same in relation to what percent of available energy will remain after digestion/metabolization.”

Meanwhile, anybody can point to the first law, and say that it proves that “a calorie is a calorie,” and be just as correct. Thus, no big resolution here. We could all post articles about the first law and claim that calories are the same.

Right, so can we stop pretending that the out-of-context “a calorie is a calorie” matters either way?

The Insulin/Hormone Hypothesis includes all the first law stuff that’s in CICO.

Wow, this is so wrong. CICO doesn’t include or “have” the first law inside it. “Calories in, calories out.” Nothing there about the necessary relationships and statements in the first law. The point is that the first law applies to all of what we’re talking about, period. To assert or imply otherwise is incorrect.

Insulin can affect CICO - it may affect the disposition of the “in” from exogenous food, and/or relatively facilitate all or part of the “in” coming from fat stores. Does it affect the “out”? There’s a good question for everybody.

So all you folks arguing pro CICO based on the first law are howling at the moon.

Yet again, nobody is doing that. If you think somebody is, quote them. The point about the first law is that it illustrates the meaninglessness of the argument about “a calorie is a calorie,” and also renders many statements made by “anti-CICO” people on the forum demonstrably false.

What’s left is addressing what we do say, here, and where there is disagreement.

Back to this one. We need to quote the statements that violate the first law. It’s late and that’s a good project for another day, as it does address the discussion on the forum.

[KetoGolem]

(And that’s assuming the standard figure of 3500 kilocalories to a pound of fat is correct, which it probably isn’t.)

How close would satisfy you? It’s been discussed on these recent threads already - the human mix of triglycerides in stored fat averages just under 9 calories per gram. Our fat tissue is ~87% fat. Do the math and you’re right there .

It seems that people conflate the admitted faults in just “counting calories” for weight loss with the value of knowing what’s happening with energy. You mention Sam Feltham eating 5000 calories a day and not getting fat. So, “calories” really isn’t a “dirty word.” Likewise, it’s common to have it brought up how the ‘Biggest Loser’ contestants had an average slowdown of ~789 calories per day in their metabolisms. So if we want to talk about calories, we can; no harm, no foul.

With Sam’s example, what was his energy expenditure doing? That would (obviously) be the first place to look, if we’re raising our eyebrows at his slight weight change. Beyond that, whether we have an accurate overall conception of what was going on with him or not, it, his example would not necessarily apply to people as a whole.

All right, it’s clear that you are missing the point of what I’m saying. Of course, energy expenditure was relevant, because his weight changed. The point is that the weight change was not what a CICO interpretation of the physics involved would have predicted. Since you do not appear to be having the same conversation I’m having, I will bow out at this point.

Gotta call BS on this one. Nobody said energy expenditure was irrelevant, nor implied you said it was.

Surely your point was that his weight didn’t change very much, given the large amount he averaged eating each day.

Here’s what you said about Sam:

All that people who advocate a ketogenic diet are saying is that the energy-balance model is too simplistic. The First Law of Thermodynamics alone cannot explain how someone like Sam Feltham was able to able to eat 5000 kilocalories a day for a month on a low-carb, high-fat diet and not get fat.

The first law is going to be just fine - there should not be any argument about it. The alternative is ‘missing’ or ‘extra’ energy, and thus the question about “The whole package is “in,” then either metabolism, storage or excretion (waste). If something substantial is missing here, what is it or what are they? It’s been asked before, and I’ve never seen a good answer.”

For energy usage, metabolism and weight change are the two biggies. Excretion is normally very small. So, Sam had a small weight change. The obvious question is then what was his energy expenditure doing. You didn’t say what it was. It’s not that considerations of energy balance are too simplistic - not at all.

[atomicspacebunny]

I like to look at this from a Bariatric perspective also to get a concrete idea on the amount of food eaten.

“…As many as 50 percent of patients may regain a small amount of weight (approximately 5 percent) two years or more following their surgery. However, longitudinal studies find that most bariatric surgery patients maintain successful weight - loss long-term. …” …More

Now this tells me a little something?

That the amount of food of all caloric groups is what really matters, not whether or not your app said you need this ____many calories (…which would work fine if you barely have any body fat).

How much body fat you have on-board is not going to work if your counting calories and you don’t know what that is in calories and how fast you can expend a sum of it while putting more food into it?

If you have a lot of body fat, that’s a lot of calories; only problem is you cannot expend all that energy at once?

Perhaps eating let’s say a quarter of that stored energy that the rest of the stored calories would compensate for the rest? Then the stored lipids get oxidized?

[KetoGolem]

That the amount of food of all caloric groups is what really matters, not whether or not your app said you need this ____many calories (…which would work fine if you barely have any body fat) .

I don’t think there is a “one size fits all” way about this. Sometimes it is the total amount, and other times there will be other significant factors, as with the insulin level and insulin resistance.

If you have a lot of body fat, that’s a lot of calories; only problem is you cannot expend all that energy at once?

There is a limit on how much we can metabolize, over time. Who knows about the 31 calories per pound of fat per day, though? Ultramarathon runners and the like would exceed this, but to my knowledge always consume some food during such prolonged exercise.