A review of the book Burn by Herman Pontzer

[kib1]

Got me thinking … We really need an in depth analysis of the unutilized calories in our feces to be part of the Out equation. As we discuss ad nauseum, CICO is at best an incomplete explanation, but maybe the equation would balance a trifle better if we were considering that particular avenue of CO.

[OldDoug]

Waste is certainly part of the ‘Out.’ Is this a problem? If anything, I’d rather have more go through without being digested or metabolized.

I disagree that CICO is an incomplete explanation (the equation is going to balance, the math is going to work out, etc.). It doesn’t pronounce on what type of calories were involved - it’s just a statement of quantities. It’s saying, “Here’s what the deal is…” In effect, it’s little different from saying “I gained weight” or “I stayed the same” or “I lost weight.” – Should be evident in the first place.

“CICO doesn’t tell us what type of calories are involved.” --Sure, but who is pretending that it does? Why is this such a frequent argument?

[PaulL]

We can convert ATP to calories, joules, etc. (a mole of ATP gives us ~7.3 calories).

So are you saying, then. that it is the conversion of ATP into heat energy that causes the body to do work? I thought it was the electric potential of the ions when the third phosphorous was liberated from the remaining ADP. I hadn’t heard that the whole molecule was combusted. Do you know what the reaction looks like? I had some notion that the phosphorous and the ADP were recombined at some point and the whole process started over. Huh! I must have gotten the idea from a now-superseded textbook.

[Shinita]

If we really believed it was all about the calories, we’d be counting the caloric content of the fibre we eat

Yes, it’s an important point: the same food doesn’t give the same amount of energy to everyone (I include animals too but it seems people are different regarding digesting fibers too).
Cellulose is 0 “calorie” to me but it’s way more for a cow… (IDK if it’s a correct interpretation of calorie but as calorie content data doesn’t use all the caloriemeter calories - I suppose all carbs have calories there even if a human can’t digest it - , I think so).
Our calorie in CI is what we actually use, not what we eat and food items have some vaguely correct calorie content for humans. Maybe the average one if humans produce too big differences… (Later I realized we can use the calorimeter CI too, we just need to adjust the CO part then. Main thing that the CI and CO should cover everything. Oh I so could use some better style of talking, oh well.)
It’s still not good as protein calorie and carb calorie are different… Not like carb calories are the same but protein is quite different from them as far as I know. It doesn’t matter in my tracking and guessing about my potential fat-loss as my protein intake is always in its own range. I don’t care what my energy balance would do if I had 500g protein a day and little else (especially that I would suffer from protein toxicity and feeling utterly awful anyway. but it’s the same for 50g protein. it’s way out of my normal ranges).
But there are mysteries everyone, we are simply a too complex system. But energy still don’t get created or disappear, that is useful to know.
There are intricacies but that doesn’t mean we can’t just track and help our fat-loss that way. Maybe yes, maybe not. Maybe it works in some cases and not in others. It’s never accurate but nothing is accurate, I don’t even have how much calories my food has according to a calorimeter, not even vaguely sometimes. So trusting in calories too much never seemed a sane idea to me. But vaguely, for the right person on the right woe… Calories do matter a lot and we may be able to make educated guesses. But I rather focus on amounts of food (how much of which kind), not just macros. If I could, I would eat similarly every week, the less factors change, the better (my body and circumstances still are subject to change, we just can’t control everything, far from it). If I lose fat just fine that way, that’s informative and the same should work for a while. Macros are worse when they belong to very different food items, they may act differently in my body. Maybe it’s a small difference for me, I suppose so. But it seems many people are different. I am all for choosing the right food items anyway as health and feeling well is the most important thin. Fat-loss is fine when needed but only if it’s healthy and if possible, feels fine.

[kib1]

CI (as we understand a calorie, as computed on a bomb calorimeter) - CO (calories burned by base metabolism in the common understanding of how that works, plus calories in some way used to rebuild cells, plus calories used in physical effort above base metabolism, plus calorie stored as fat, plus calories somehow not utilized and excreted somewhere from the body) = 0.

The problem with the equation is not the mathematics. The problem with the equation is that somewhere along the line, common understanding is flawed.

Why we keep having this CICO argument is because some people refuse to take it further and insist that everyone else is criticizing the simple algebra. The problem’s not the math. The problem is that CICO is cultural shorthand for a mechanistic explanation of how fat loss works that’s incorrect, or at least incomplete.

I don’t think anyone is questioning algebra. Or even thermodynamics. Not even Shinita. The point is that calories in as we understand them minus what we thought was the way calories were used within the body, a very mechanical and fixed process, cannot be a complete picture, or everyone who could do math would lose the same amount of stored fat energy regardless of what sort of calories they were eating, and in direct proportion to how much exercise they did.

[PaulL]

That’s the best way of putting it I’ve come across yet, thank you!

[OldDoug]

So are you saying, then. that it is the conversion of ATP into heat energy that causes the body to do work? I thought it was the electric potential of the ions when the third phosphorous was liberated from the remaining ADP. I hadn’t heard that the whole molecule was combusted. Do you know what the reaction looks like? I had some notion that the phosphorous and the ADP were recombined at some point and the whole process started over. Huh! I must have gotten the idea from a now-superseded textbook.

Yeah, Paul, it is the ‘electric potential.’ Same as when a compound that gets oxidized loses electrons. The electron energy states and the bond energies change, whether we look at ATP to ADP and back, or what happens in our old buddy the bomb calorimeter.

You had said,

I find it highly ironic that such new thinking has failed to disloge the century-and-a-half-old notion that the burning of food to ash is relevant to how the human body actually responds to food. The hypothesis made sense, back when burning up food to see how much heat it released was all we knew how to do, but you’d think the discovery of ATP and its role in fueling bodily activities would have displaced it.

My point is that it doesn’t change anything. We can look at ATP as in the human body (or in a plant, for that matter), or we can look at the heat from a calorimeter, or we can look at the work done by a steam engine, etc. It still all stems from fuel being used for energy. ATP doesn’t materialize out of the aether. It’s made from the stuff we take in, and across all the above, the conservation of energy and matter apply.

[OldDoug]

The problem with the equation is not the mathematics. The problem with the equation is that somewhere along the line, common understanding is flawed.

Why we keep having this CICO argument is because some people refuse to take it further and insist that everyone else is criticizing the simple algebra. The problem’s not the math. The problem is that CICO is cultural shorthand for a mechanistic explanation of how fat loss works that’s incorrect, or at least incomplete.

KM, that’s pretty reasonable, and yeah - ‘cultural shorthand’ is a good way to put it.

But I would say that it’s a good mechanistic explanation, i.e. if CI < CO then one will lose weight. And regardless of whether one counts calories or not, and regardless of the type of diet, exercise, etc., one has, if one loses fat (short of surgical removal), then it’s because on a net basis they’ve been taking fat out of storage for energy, supplementing any other ‘In’ for energy. For fat loss, any diet that is effective works because of CICO, not in defiance of it.

Whether it’s “cultural” or not, it’s silly to in effect put words in CICO’s mouth, yet this type of strawman argument is seen all the time.

I don’t think anyone is questioning algebra. Or even thermodynamics. Not even Shinita. The point is that calories in as we understand them minus what we thought was the way calories were used within the body, a very mechanical and fixed process, cannot be a complete picture, or everyone who could do math would lose the same amount of stored fat energy regardless of what sort of calories they were eating, and in direct proportion to how much exercise they did.

The energy balance only tells us so much; nobody should be pretending that there is nothing more. This is a given.

Losing the same amount of stored fat energy - when fasting, most people lose about a half pound or ~225 grams of fat per day (really big people with a lot of fat can lose a bit more). We really are very much the same, usually, in respects like this.

I don’t think there’s any question that the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis operates, at least for many people; I’m really sure I’ve experienced it. But the energy balance does not pronounce upon what macronutrients are involved. And yet this is often pointed to as some sort of failing.

Additionally, there are many criticisms based on “I cut calories and didn’t lose weight” (or didn’t keep it off). This is without knowing what the ‘Out’ side was doing, and sometimes without even considering it. This is as nonsensical as anything.

The next thing you know, it’s “thermodynamics don’t apply to people,” or (not recently, here) “calories don’t matter.”

[CFLBob]

Sorry for going missing. Having some home/life issues that are sucking up a lot of time and attention - and lots of bucks.

My point about thermodynamics is poorly stated. I’m not saying that thermodynamics doesn’t apply. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics are called laws because laws of physics cannot be broken. When tested in a well-constructed experiment, they’re always confirmed.

My perspective is irrevocably shaped by working with and designing control systems - feedback systems - for decades. When I see something like the experiments that show basal metabolic rate goes down in response to reducing food intake, I automatically see a control loop. Some chemical is being secreted somewhere in the body that tells our metabolism to slow down. There are untold numbers of these control loops in our bodies. Our body is an adaptive system that does virtually everything by itself. We think we have control, but it’s not as straightforward as “just eat less and move more.”

That’s what I got out of Pontzer’s book. I’ve seen the report in the first paragraph before; about the hunter-gatherers burning the same amounts of calories as office workers. I hadn’t seen that the second part that when more calories are burnt in exercise that the body turns down resting energy use. It makes sense in the light of our being adaptive systems. Perhaps if our body decides (somehow) that food is unlimited this won’t happen, or won’t turn down RMR as much. There’s the possibility that the exercise trains us to be more efficient and that’s what turns down the RMR for the rest of the day.

[OldDoug]

I’m not saying that thermodynamics doesn’t apply. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics are called laws because laws of physics cannot be broken. When tested in a well-constructed experiment, they’re always confirmed.

Thank you, Bob. (!) If we could only always stick to things that are definitely true, or identified as opinion…

I’ve seen the report in the first paragraph before; about the hunter-gatherers burning the same amounts of calories as office workers.

Which IMO is kind of mind-blowing, at least at first glance. That said, I’ve seen claims that ‘cave people’ didn’t work many hours a day. Like lions where if good kills are made fairly quickly, they essentially just lie around the rest of the time.

I hadn’t seen that the second part that when more calories are burnt in exercise that the body turns down resting energy use. It makes sense in the light of our being adaptive systems. Perhaps if our body decides (somehow) that food is unlimited this won’t happen, or won’t turn down RMR as much. There’s the possibility that the exercise trains us to be more efficient and that’s what turns down the RMR for the rest of the day.

If we’re programmed to lean toward ‘survival’ by storing energy when possible, or conserving it, then yes - it makes sense that our systems would adapt and slow down the metabolism. Rather a bummer if fat loss is what’s desired… I’d like to see a rigorous study with a wide variety of subjects, to see if “exercise results in a lowering of metabolism during non-exercise hours” (and the magnitude of it).

My own experience is that intense exercise does not slow our RMR below normal, at least for some time after exercise, like one hour. It may be that the body is still working a little harder to clean waste products, etc., and that later things really do decline below what they’d have been without the exercise. If spread out over the majority of hours in a day, it wouldn’t take much of a decline to offset the added energy usage from exercise. An early hard lesson for me was related to the idea that “exercise burns off food” - “Oh, you ate that hamburger, and now you want to burn it off…? So go run 5 miles (8 km)…”

[PaulL]

Interestingly, we have this discussion every so often, and I don’t recall anyone ever denying the validity of the laws of thermodynamics. The point one side of the argument appears to be making is that the laws of thermodynamics tell us all we need to know about human growth and fat acquisition and shedding, whereas the other side of the argument seems to be saying there are plenty of other factors involved, which combined make the laws of thermodynamics a far less relevant part of the picture. But no one is saying that the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply.

Taubes’s point always seems to get disregarded in these discussions, namely that the laws of thermodynamics say nothing about the direction of causality. They are equations, and equations work in both directions. So which are we to believe: that the growing adolescent starts eating excessive quantities of food, which thereby cause him or her to grow up (but not fat, in the usual course of things)? Or that the young person’s hormones put him or her into growth mode, which thereby causes the food intake (and the growth in specific places, including those places where young women add fat, but young men don’t)? And knowing the answer in this case, why do we assume that it’s excessive caloric intake and not some hormonal fat-deposition mode that is the cause of fat acquisition?

If Taubes is right, then trying to use caloric intake and output as the primary lever to control body composition is not going to work. Interestingly, Kevin Hall’s study of the Biggest Loser contestants actually shows this: the contestants’ bodies responded to the low-caloric, strenuous-excercise regime by permanently lowering their metabolic rate by a significant amount. We also know from the entire history of the human race that permanent caloric deficit combined with excessive exercise results in death from starvation, long before the predicted fat loss actually occurs. “Rabbit starvation” is another example, this time of a situation in which the person is eating plenty of calories, possibly an excess, and still dies of malnutrition. So from this, I conclude that it cannot possibly be about caloric intake versus expenditure and no other factors. And again, notwithstanding the wishes of the Coca-Cola Company to the contrary.

[OldDoug]

Interestingly, we have this discussion every so often, and I don’t recall anyone ever denying the validity of the laws of thermodynamics. … But no one is saying that the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply.

I disagree, Paul. There have been many instances of claiming that “calories are irrelevant,” and the like.

the “laws” of “thermodynamics” don’t apply to humans.

I like Bob - I like everybody on this thread, and at this point there is nobody on the forum that I don’t like. I don’t mean to pick on Bob, here, but the above is an example.

Going back to September, 2019:

Can we please stop repeating the “You have to eat at a deficit to lose weight on KETO” lie?

the matter of the First Law of Thermodynamics is easily dealt with. It is a red herring, because it applies only in the case of closed systems, and we know that the human body is not a closed system.

---

I think that the argument is resolvable, but often there are statements that are imprecise enough to be wrong, and non-sciency arguments advanced ‘against science,’ as it were.

The point one side of the argument appears to be making is that the laws of thermodynamics tell us all we need to know about human growth and fat acquisition and shedding,

I disagree. Not “all we need to know,” but rather some more specific things which will always be true, no matter what. An example - obviously, hormones affect what we’re talking about here, and thermodynamics does not talk about hormones. However, the thermodynamics of the situation will be after-the-fact of hormonal action.

One can say that “hormones have effect, here.”
One can say that 'the laws of thermodynamics are always obeyed."

It is not that they are mutually exclusive, but that they are both true.

The physical reality of the possible situations includes: CI > CO, CI = CO, and CI < CO. But that is not saying that there is nothing more to consider about “human growth and fat acquisition and shedding.” The hard science that we have only goes so far, and that it goes no further is not a rational argument against that science itself.

…whereas the other side of the argument seems to be saying there are plenty of other factors involved, which combined make the laws of thermodynamics a far less relevant part of the picture.

Certainly there are other factors involved, but in no way does that make thermodynamics “less relevant.” This does not mean that “fat loss will be easy for everybody.” But there’s still no getting around reality.

Taubes’s point always seems to get disregarded in these discussions, namely that the laws of thermodynamics say nothing about the direction of causality. They are equations, and equations work in both directions.

I agree that his point doesn’t get much discussion. From a hard science point of view, I don’t think it changes anything. Whatever the direction of the equation, there will be an energy balance, and in the end there will be the physical reality of the situation - the actual mass of atoms and molecules in various places.

So which are we to believe: that the growing adolescent starts eating excessive quantities of food, which thereby cause him or her to grow up (but not fat, in the usual course of things)? Or that the young person’s hormones put him or her into growth mode, which thereby causes the food intake (and the growth in specific places, including those places where young women add fat, but young men don’t)? And knowing the answer in this case, why do we assume that it’s excessive caloric intake and not some hormonal fat-deposition mode that is the cause of fat acquisition?

I don’t think this is merely a matter of belief. Do we not know that hormones affect all this?

Isn’t ‘fat aquisition’ itself due to hormones, in the first place? The action of insulin on adipocytes (for example) - this, along with other hormones, accounts for adolescent females developing the fatty layer in skin, and insulin also accounts for an old guy storing more fat in fat cells. The thermodynamics of these can be exactly the same.

A Type 1 diabetic with no insulin, who cannot store fat - obviously a different situation, but there too thermodynamics will be present and apply just as much as anywhere else.

“Hormones” is not an argument against thermodynamics, and vice-versa. They are both true and applicable.

If Taubes is right, then trying to use caloric intake and output as the primary lever to control body composition is not going to work.

This neglects quite a few things. It does work for a vast amount of people, to begin with.

It’s also true that if actually done, then CI < CO will result in weight loss.

The statement is too over-generalized to be true. I think we can agree that just reducing CI will often not be a sustainable, pleasant, effective course of action for fat loss. But this does not deal with CO, so it’s so incomplete as to be inapplicable.

How about the statement, “Just cutting energy intake will often fail as a long-term measure for fat loss or weight maintenance.”?

[Shinita]

I don’t think anyone is questioning algebra. Or even thermodynamics. Not even Shinita.

Why am I the example when I am a firm believer of CICO…? CICO always works, I always said! Oh well, whatever.

[Shinita]

There have been many instances of claiming that “calories are irrelevant,” and the like.

ctviggen:

I saw that many times too. Of course calories matter a lot… Maybe more for some of us but they do.
I understand some people have “strange” (probably not if someone knows how a human body may work, I definitely don’t) experiences regarding calories and results but saying it doesn’t matter and we should eat more, not less, that wouldn’t help some (quite many) of us. I tried more (without wanting to), didn’t help at all. It may be right for some, sure. It’s why it’s so hard to give advice, what works for one may be the opposite of what works for another.

How about the statement, “Just cutting energy intake will often fail as a long-term measure for fat loss or weight maintenance.”?

It sounds good to me Way better than many things regarding calories I have read on this forum.

[OldDoug]

It’s why it’s so hard to give advice, what works for one may be the opposite of what works for another.

People certainly can be quite different. Sometimes, if we know one person’s situation, then maybe we can give good advice. But so much has to come from the individual themself - the desire and motivation in the first place, and the willingness to find what works.

Some people like to have and track lots of data. Maybe we want to ‘count calories’ or not. I certainly don’t think anybody has to do that. We don’t even have to say write, type, etc., ‘calories.’

But - if we find a way to lose fat, then the body is taking it out of storage for energy, and metabolizing it. The physics of the situation are there, and working for us.

[velvet]

I lost 125 pounds without ever paying any attention to calories or portion size and what have you. All I ever counted was carbs. And this old woman can eat, well not as much now as I did on my journey. On my journey you could see me eating 4 strips of bacon and 4 fried eggs in the morning, some sort of meat, cheese, hardboiled egg salad with lots of mayo for lunch, and 2 hamburgers and 2 porkchops with the carbs of the day (all veggies}.

I am sure that was a ton of calories. I just ate as much as I wanted when I wanted, as long as the carbs were in order. Everything was smothered in butter.

You can’t argue with success, you can try to figure out why it worked and how it fit in, but that’s what I did. I am close to my desired weight now, and I am also easily sated now, so I don’t eat all that much anymore.

[OldDoug]

You can’t argue with success

Agreed. And happiness is the greatest genius.

[Shinita]

Some people like to have and track lots of data. Maybe we want to ‘count calories’ or not.

Yes it’s a big difference… Not just the inclination to do it. Some people track religiously and they SHOULDN’T as they mess with themselves. I saw horrible examples. I track as it’s informative and I like collecting certain numbers (and I don’t really know how to stop for long but eventually I will learn that) but if tracking has effect on my decisions, it’s drawing conclusions and choosing my food items better. I definitely WON’T stop eating just because my target macros (if I have any. I don’t really but I have some very vague ideas about the “right” ones. it’s flexible) are up or maybe already were doubled… If I want more food, I eat more food. Maybe one shouldn’t be THIS free either but it is me…
Some people have even very wrong target macros and they just ignore their body’s cries. That’s sad.

I needed tracking on my original keto or else I couldn’t keep my carbs low enough. It’s way better now that I mostly eat carnivore food but it’s still super easy to go over my ~40-45g net carb ketosis carb limit with just a few extra bites. (It might not help that eating 45g carbs on carnivore is very easy too. To me, carnivore = animal food items and I have a raging milk stage. Without milk I stop around 20g.)
So the actual woe may require tracking on keto.
Some people need tracking to avoid too low protein or calories (whatever people think of calories, if one tracks 800 kcal, it’s starvation and should be changed). Or they want to see their various nutrients.
That’s fine. But some people should never track or weigh themselves as they just can’t handle it well, their attitude is wrong to get upset if the numbers (which don’t even say as much about them as they think) don’t do what they want them to do. Those people shouldn’t track.

It’s better not to track if we can get away with it. We don’t lose fat or gain muscle or whatever because we track anyway But it can help the reason for it if we are lost.

All I ever counted was carbs.

I can’t really separate them. If I count carbs, I count everything. Except if I ignore the fat I add to things but that was usually pretty little and guesswork would have been close enough. Maybe because I ate vegetarian keto for long so everything brought carbs…? And if I already measure 30 different things a day, I better get my fat and protein macros (well, their guesstimation as it’s impossible to track them properly) too It was informative to see what my protein macro does. I don’t need it to ensure I get enough or little enough to avoid protein toxicity, it’s always right in that sense but I still was curious.

I need to eat little (in my eyes, at least. I was used to eat a ton of high-carb) to lose fat, carbs don’t seem to matter as long as my calories are low enough (good luck for that though. but I usually eat very low-carb anyway for way more important reasons than my elusive fat-loss) so tracking is theoretically especially useful for me. Not really as it doesn’t make me eat any less… Sometimes the opposite due to how the brain works… But I keep it in check so it just don’t have much effect on my actual day. I may do better choices in the future though. As I tracked so many various days and I saw what satiated me well and what doesn’t. It is quite useful for me.
The most fun is still my record numbers… I don’t want my high records often but they still entertains me and educate me about my own body and abilities. I noticed some of my limits too.

[lisanke]

A book review from me on Goodreads:

Wow, could this author have found a way to mention his research work with the Hadza again?
Seriously, adding a SJW speech on fossil fuels to the ending chapter was Over-the-top as this book was suppose to be about human metabolism… which it incorrectly portrays as, calorie in minus calorie out equals weight gain or loss… what a Useless conclusion.
The author seems to think that everyone who claims that food intake is more than just calories is a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or suffers (ironically) from the well-described symptoms of Dunn and Kruger. Ironic because the author appears to delve deeply into topics he has no expertise in… that exactly with which he accuses those with alternative theories about healthy diet.
Especially, the author Kevin Hall NIH is cited as the source dismissing Keto diets! Also, without citation the author dismisses Fasting. Seriously, there was very little discussion of the metabolic effects of food types and eating timing on especially leptin ghrelin insulin cortisol glucagon… there was a brief mention of the pituitary gland being like a wad of chewed gum at the based of ones brain… seriously, the author tells us more about his barfing in the woods after excessive drinking more than talking to Anyone about the seriousness of (Not weight loss) but Fat Loss.
What I find most disturbing is, the author seems to conclude that all “weight loss” is Over-eating and using a scale Anybody can achieve weight loss… IMO nobody wants “weight loss”! they want to have a healthy body without excess of external fat… and some want even healthier Internal Organs and no or minimal metabolic disorder.

In regard to a book on how to be Healthy, this book SUX! You’d might be healthier eating his book rather than reading it If you think indigestible fiber promotes BMs!

I gave Pontzer’s book 1 star (they don’t allow less). Also, my local AAAS science monthly meeting had Pontzer. I tried to ask a question about his Calorie in equals Calorie out nonsense But those propping him up would have it asked. These scientist who are wrong, IMO Need Correcting. I see a lot of discussion here and I sample a few positive statements about the book; I’d ask people carefully consider that the author is almost completely wrong regardless of the techniques he used to measure calories on his well-mentioned tribe of volunteers.

[OldDoug]

Especially, the author Kevin Hall NIH is cited as the source dismissing Keto diets!

Agreed that that’s not a strong point.

Hall demonstrates an initial bias, really a ‘purpose’ against ketogenic eating, rather than a real looking for the truth. His methods reflect that.