Check out my comment I made at KetoCon2019

[OldDoug]

Sigh

You’re talking about not maintaining the negative energy balance. We all (should) know that merely reducing caloric intake won’t necessarily equate to weight loss; that is a given - especially on this forum. And once again - this is not keeping the “calories out” side where it needs to be, if we are to test CICO. Denying the premise and then declaring that a hypothesis is false is illogical.

[MarkGossage]

That does not make sense.

You’re right it should of course have said “some people fast and don’t lose a pound”.
Which in the case of CICO should be 100% impossible as you should know.
Zero calories in has to lead to weight loss even if you lie in bed and do nothing unless you’re dead.

[MarkGossage]

Type 1 diabetics can shed kilos whilst eating loads… why is that?
Lack of insulin … that’s why it is one of the diagnostic tools used… excessive unintentional weight loss.

[OldDoug]

You’re right it should of course have said “some people fast and don’t lose a pound”.
Which in the case of CICO should be 100% impossible as you should know.
Zero calories in has to lead to weight loss even if you lie in bed and do nothing unless you’re dead.

You’re forgetting about water weight. As above, it can easily counteract or even totally swamp the weight loss from fat usage in a given day.

I’m saying “the math is going to work out.” You appear to be saying that “magic happens.” Fasting without drinking anything shows very clearly that the body loses ~0.5 lb of fat (plus an average of 1.7 lbs of water through the skin and via exhalation) per day. Bigger people, especially those with lots of fat, can lose a little more; smaller people and leaner people will lose less.

Type 1 diabetics can shed kilos whilst eating loads… why is that?
Lack of insulin … that’s why it is one of the diagnostic tools used… excessive unintentional weight loss.

Well sure - that is lots of “calories out” - coming out in the urine, even. It’s a hormonal effect, and nobody is saying those don’t matter. With Type 1 diabetics the need to get rid of sugar is often enough that the body will become dehydrated in its efforts to rid itself of sugar. There too - an obvious effect on weight. In the end, the math is still going to work out.

In the U.S. the National Institutes of Health has 3 metabolic chambers - where everything can be kept track of, even the gases the test subject is exhaling. These are whole-room calorimeters, and the math really does work out.

[Countdown2020]

Has anyone ever burned a pound of body fat in a bomb calorimeter to see how many calories it contains?

I, of course, don’t have a bomb calorimeter but do have a pen and paper :

1 gm fat = 9 cal.
454 gm fat (1 lb) = 4086 cal.

Not far off of 3500 calories in a lb of fat…

[MarkGossage]

And that is exactly where this CICO fallacy came from …
that the mathematics isn’t quite correct even then is an indicator that it could be flawed but no they keep on insisting…

[OldDoug]

And that is exactly where this CICO fallacy came from …
that the mathematics isn’t quite correct even then is an indicator that it could be flawed but no they keep on insisting…

Ohmigod how did I miss this?

Everybody should know that a gram of fat will almost never have exactly 9 calories. There is a range, because there are different types of fat. Come on, are people insisting that it’s really going to be 9.00000? Even our stored fat is a mixture of different triglycerides, and weight loss or gain changes this mixture; in no way is it a single, fixed, absolute quantity per unit of weight. Pure fat often tends to have more than 3500 calories in a pound. Our adipose tissue is not pure fat - while adipocytes are pretty cool because they are pretty extreme (comparatively large blobs of mostly fat with a thin layer of cytoplasm around them) - and 3500 calories per lb is a decent estimate or rule of thumb.

The math works out. What is fallacious is to insist on ‘magic.’

[ctviggen]

OK, so your argument appears to be that we really don’t know the amount of calories in a gram of fat or a pound of fat…but “the math works out”. That’s like saying 1.x + 1 = 2, even though we have no idea what the 1.x is.

Here’s what I want you to do. Get the best scale possible. Weigh and measure everything. Don’t exercise, as that throws too many variables in there. Take measurements for a while, say two weeks. Determine your calorie intake. For the next period of time, say 2-4 weeks, drop EXACTLY 500 calories a day. That should be one pound of fat per week.

Report back your results.

After all, “the math works out”.

[OldDoug]

OK, so your argument appears to be that we really don’t know the amount of calories in a gram of fat or a pound of fat…but “the math works out”.

We know some ranges and some very good approximations, Bob. That alone is not why the math works out however - why it works out is because there is no magic phenomenona happening. Each and every atom of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. - each and every molecule of matter that we are talking about either exists or not, and if it exists and we take it in, then there will be a disposition of it. Maybe it goes into storage, or is excreted, or is metabolized. But it does not magically disappear.

That’s like saying 1.x + 1 = 2, even though we have no idea what the 1.x is.

No, because in that case it’s obvious that it’s 1.0.

How about a more applicable deal? How about stating X = Y where X is the intake and Y is the total of storage, excretion and usage (metabolization)? We do not have to know the exact quantities to realize the truth of the statement.

Here’s what I want you to do. Get the best scale possible. Weigh and measure everything. Don’t exercise, as that throws too many variables in there. Take measurements for a while, say two weeks. Determine your calorie intake. For the next period of time, say 2-4 weeks, drop EXACTLY 500 calories a day. That should be one pound of fat per week.

Report back your results.

After all, “the math works out”.

Do you think that is really precise enough?

In principle, DUDE I would love to! What is needed is a whole room calorimeter.

https://www.maastrichtinstruments.nl/portfolio/room-calorimeter/#:~:text=A%20room%20calorimeter%20measures%20a,to%20determine%20the%20energy%20consumption.

In the whole world there are not many calorimeters large enough for a person to live in. I would very gladly do it for a week. This is keeping track of everything - the gases we breathe and exhale, etc. And yes, the math works out.

[MarkGossage]

How about stating X = Y where X is the intake and Y is the total of storage, excretion and usage (metabolization)?

X would never exactly equal Y your argument is fallacious at its very core. Which is exactly why CICO in reference to the human body is also fallacious. We are not bomb calorimeters… we do not consume units of energy.
Trying to conflate “calories” with food is a fools errand.

[ctviggen]

Here’s a study done in a metabolic ward. They fed them a diet of “normal” protein (NPD), “high” protein (HPD), and “low” protein diet (LPD). The diets were isocaloric (meaning they ate more than the “should”).

Here’s what they did:

You can see the baseline diet had 2,412 calories, the NPD was about 3,500/day, the HPD was about the same (3,400/day). After 8 weeks, one would think the NPD and HPD should be about the same weight (1000 cals/day x 56 days = 56,000 calories/3500 = +16 pounds). The LPD is +600 cals/day x 56 days = 33,600 calories = +9.6 pounds.

What actually happened?

Nothing close to that, and there were large differences in EE (energy expenditure) between the groups.

And the NPD = HPD in terms of muscle mass, but NPD actually lost muscle mass:

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/101/3/496/4569403

My opinion is that this whole “it’s all math” is just fine…until you actually look at studies. In fact, this study seems to be an anomaly, because usually higher protein = higher muscle mass, though in this case higher protein = higher EE (though, oddly this did not show up in weight).

The body is amazing, and doesn’t follow “rules” that we can articulate well enough at this point.

[ctviggen]

I mean, the higher protein people had about 400 calories/day of higher EE, yet this doesn’t appear in weight or muscle mass. Hmm… Did this just disappear?

Equation me out of this one. As I don’t get it.

[OldDoug]

X would never exactly equal Y your argument is fallacious at its very core.

If you posit that it’s unequal, then what do you think happens with the “extra” or “missing” atoms and molecules?

Which is exactly why CICO in reference to the human body is also fallacious.

Wrong. We are just talking about physics here.

We are not bomb calorimeters… we do not consume units of energy.

We don’t have to be bomb calorimeters, and we most certainly do consume units of energy. That is the way physics works.

[OldDoug]

Equation me out of this one. As I don’t get it.

Oh lord, Bob… But hey - good question.

You can see the baseline diet had 2,412 calories, the NPD was about 3,500/day, the HPD was about the same (3,400/day). After 8 weeks, one would think the NPD and HPD should be about the same weight (1000 cals/day x 56 days = 56,000 calories/3500 = +16 pounds). The LPD is +600 cals/day x 56 days = 33,600 calories = +9.6 pounds.

What actually happened?

Okay, let’s go with that - ‘predicted’ weight gain @3500 cals/lb:

LPD = 9.6 lbs
NPD = 16 lbs
HPD = 16 lbs

So then let’s compare that with the observed weight gain.

LPD gained ~3.6 kg = 7.92 lbs
NPD/HPD gained ~6 kg = 13.2 lbs.

At this point we have “missing calories” since the observed weight gain is less than the predicted.

LPD --> 9.6 - 7.92 = 1.68 lbs. Staying with the 3500 cals/lb deal, that’s 105 “missing” calories per day.

NPD --> 16 - 13.2 = 2.8 lbs or 175 “missing” calories per day.

HPD --> 16 - 13.2 = 2.8 lbs or 175 “missing” calories per day.

Increased energy expenditure as measured:

LPD = ~110 cals.
NPD = ~195 cals.
HPD = ~350 cals.

For the LPD, the observed weight gain left 105 cals/day to be ‘found.’ 110 were in the increased energy expenditure. Nearly perfect.

For the NPD, the observed weight gain left 175 cals/day to be ‘found.’ 195 were in the increased energy expenditure. Nearly perfect.

For the HPD, the observed weight gain left 175 calories to be ‘found.’ There were 350 in the increased energy expenditure, so a net of ~175 “extra.” Not perfect, but that’s only 5% of the daily calories, so not bad at all.

Across all three groups, the average accuracy is ~98%, which is really pretty astounding when you think about it. There is possible error every step of the way in the study, and we all (should) acknowledge that 3500 cals/lb begins as an estimate, despite how nearly perfect things worked out here.

[KidKeto]

Me taking notes on this thread I started 2 months ago

[IdesOfMarch]

Here’s what I want you to do. Get the best scale possible. Weigh and measure everything. Don’t exercise, as that throws too many variables in there. Take measurements for a while, say two weeks. Determine your calorie intake. For the next period of time, say 2-4 weeks, drop EXACTLY 500 calories a day. That should be one pound of fat per week.

How close would it have to be to satisfy?

I would think that within 20% would be pretty good. On a personal level most of us are not super-precise about weighing food, etc., if we’re even interested in counting stuff to start with.

Within 10% would be excellent. The 3500 calories/lb is a generalized estimate to begin with.

[ElmosUzi]

My opinion is that this whole “it’s all math” is just fine…until you actually look at studies. In fact, this study seems to be an anomaly, because usually higher protein = higher muscle mass, though in this case higher protein = higher EE (though, oddly this did not show up in weight).

Confounding factors have to be controlled for. While the report on the study you linked to has a lot of stuff in it (almost to an eye-glazing-over stage), it does appear that they did a good job of it. They didn’t specifically set out to compare increased caloric intake with weight gain (rather, they were focused toward changes in energy expenditure as related to body size and the effect of protein ratios), yet the data is quite useful.

The single largest energy usage, by far, is normal body maintenance and metabolism. This is with no change in weight or energy expenditure.

The diets were isocaloric (meaning they ate more than the “should”).

That’s not what the study did, in the pursuit of its stated purpose. The isocaloric part was only determining how many calories would result in not gaining weight. This is not dealing with any weight gain or increased energy expenditure. The “eating more” part came later.

With increased caloric intake here’s what they found. Taking the ‘Normal Protein’ group:

• 71% of energy went for normal body maintenance and metabolism.

• 24% of energy went for weight gain.

• 5% of energy went for increased energy expenditure.

Does that make sense? I wouldn’t have known what to predict, beforehand, but this study’s numbers look very good.

They didn’t examine everything - for example, there is some energy in solid waste as well as liquid waste, and the only mention I see is that they didn’t find nitrogen loss in stools. The amount of fat in solid waste is one possible confounder. From the lower end of the normal human range to the upper end of it is ~350%, so it’s considerably variable. (Where an individual has an abnormal amount of fat going through undigested, it can be a very significant confounding factor; nothing in the study points toward that being the case with the study subjects.)

It’s reasonable to expect that the energy content of solid waste would not change appreciably from the baseline period to the study’s end. Even had they examined it, and found some change, it would likely amount to no more than a rounding error (the raw amount of fat is normally very low compared to the total energy intake) or the inherent limitations on accuracy already present in the study. “The math” here looks excellent, and very complete, really - even to an amazing extent. It’s good science, with a nice control of possibly confounding factors.

Going back to comments from May -

• 1 Pound Of Body Fat 3,500 units of energy .

Except this is complete garbage. It’s a gross estimate, and studies cannot and do not show this to be correct. Why? Because you lower calories, your body lowers energy output. You raise calories, your body raises energy output.

There’s no reason to throw away the science there. A changing energy output does not affect the caloric content of our body fat.

You will notice that fat is typically considered to yield 9 calories per gram (actually, depending on the fatty acid in question, the caloric yield ranges from six-point-something to over nine)

Certainly, and that makes a difference. Basically, the more carbon atoms, the higher the caloric density will be, and we definitely observe that with triglycerides. Human fat is a combination of triglycerides, but a quite consistent one across individuals. The average is just under 9 calories per gram. For comparison, long-chain triglycerides average to 9 cals per gram, while medium-chain triglycerides average 8.3.

1 gm fat = 9 cal.
454 gm fat (1 lb) = 4086 cal.

Not far off of 3500 calories in a lb of fat…

Yes, and human fat tissue is not all fat.

Pure fat often tends to have more than 3500 calories in a pound. Our adipose tissue is not pure fat - while adipocytes are pretty cool because they are pretty extreme (comparatively large blobs of mostly fat with a thin layer of cytoplasm around them) - and 3500 calories per lb is a decent estimate or rule of thumb.

The 3500 calories/lb is a generalized estimate to begin with.

The science is actually better than that. The 3500 calories figure is not something just conjured up. This stuff is actually not very “mysterious.”

the metabolic yield should really be calculated on the basis of the net quantity of ATP produced.

We do know about energy consumption and density at the basic levels where they operate in the human body. The ATP to ADP conversion is where essentially ALL our energy comes from. A mole of ATP thus used under physiological conditions gives us ~7.3 calories. At the level of a cell, we know the energy involved in the oxidation of carbon and hydrogen atoms - for decades we’ve known, to a level of accuracy that would not even swing a day’s energy usage for a person by one calorie.

That “mole of ATP” is 240.974 grams, so we’re getting only 3% of a calorie per gram. Not much, eh? But we’re not changing ATP very much, there - we’re only knocking off one phosphorus group. We’re also really good at “recharging” the ADP into ATP; we use this like a battery, and the recharging is quick - we’ve got these big-butt ATP synthase molecules, and each one can give us back more than 100 ATP molecules per second.

When we go ‘back’ or ‘up’ to our stored fat, we have our triglyceride mixture - at a little less than 9 cals per gram. Call it 9 if you want to. Our adipose tissue is 87% fat. 9 x 454 grams x 87% = 3555 calories. We’re already within 2% of the 3500 figure. Go with the actual human mix of triglycerides at slightly less and bingo, we’re right on it. This was found out quite a few decades ago.

So if we are talking about human fat tissue and there being ~3500 calories in there, it’s not just just a myth, it’s what is actually in there.

[OldDoug]

While the report on the study you linked to has a lot of stuff in it (almost to an eye-glazing-over stage), it does appear that they did a good job of it.

Yeah, that glazing thing… Most of the information given doesn’t affect the discussion here, but you have to consider it to make sure.

I really wish they would give us the weight and energy balance figures as a numerical table, rather than the somewhat rudimentary pictures. I assume we are seeing computer plots, so probably very accurate, but hard numbers would be better. Sometimes they have links to more tables or a study appendix toward the side or bottom of the webpage, but nothing there that I saw. Now that I know what to look for, I’m tempted to do it over, as exact as possible.

[MutainKodescu]

My opinion is that this whole “it’s all math” is just fine…until you actually look at studies. In fact, this study seems to be an anomaly, because usually higher protein = higher muscle mass, though in this case higher protein = higher EE (though, oddly this did not show up in weight).

A look at the ‘hard science’ of it is good. This study gives us a lot to struggle through, but seems to be complete. What do you think is wrong with it?

[ElmosUzi]

Hard science all the way.