Michael Eades' new weightloss paradigm

(Alec) #72

You’ve just blown my mind… I have always been uncomfortable with the calories thing, and I didn’t really understand why. But you just explained it here perfectly.

My conclusion here is that as a unit of measuring the energy we can derive from a certain foodstuff, calories is a pretty crap measure, and we need something better.

My view on CICO has always been that it may be true scientifically, but it is not useful as there are just too many variables and unknowns that are bloody hard to measure even vaguely accurately. You have just added to that the issue that the measurement unit itself is not really measuring the reality here.

Is there a better unit of measure of the energy we derive from the chemical changes that happen to the food we eat within the body? I am assuming that biologists understand all this and are ahead of the game here?

(Doug) #73

As I said above, about the Eades video - The Einstein stuff is silly. Human bodies don’t mess with atomic nucleii.

Mass to energy conversion - Eades puts it this way, also as I said above: “when you take food in, you extract the energy from the food… Make CO2 and H2O…”

“Calories” doesn’t have to be it. We can go with ATP or other things, and it doesn’t matter anyway - living organisms require energy to go on living, regardless of the units of energy we use. Combustion energy - hydrocarbons and oxygen make carbon dioxide and water, just like the human body does. Intermediate steps, if any, are not going to make energy magically appear or disappear - in the end it’s all the same, as with mass.

As above, it indeed ends up all the same. Chemical equations do balance, and energy and mass conservation apply.

No violation, Holmes - thermodynamics is fine. It consumes energy to make more order. We’re making ATP all the time, for example, and though we get energy back when we use it (when we change it to ADP, etc.), it’s not a perpetual motion machine. That we’re not 100% efficient in this process does not mean that energy magically disappears. Rather, it appears as waste or other products, like heat.

No laws are violated, and we’re not closed systems.

Quite reasonable. But what I see are wishful-thinking assumptions on the ‘mass-balance’ side, while the preconceptions of energy usage in an organism and the conservation of both mass and energy are accurate.

By definition, of course mass balance is always there. Why would it be hard to accept that the same is true for energy?

The Eades video - it is presented that for the same amount of energy, one can intake much less mass in fat versus carbs. The crowd oohs and ahhs, and that does apply to the ‘in’ side. Things are very buddy-buddy, and Bikman, Westman, etc., make comments. Now no question that these people are very good with diet, ketogenic stuff, etc. But why in the world did nobody realize that when it comes to the ‘out’ side, the supposed ‘advantage’ of eating less mass with fats is reversed - that when it comes to burning fats versus carbs, much less mass is lost.?

To link ‘mass balance’ and keto diet weight loss, rather than energy balance, doesn’t matter. It’s like saying "That low-carb diet of yours didn’t really cause you to get better, metabolically, and lose weight. Rather, it was that your insulin resistance declined, that your fatty liver got non-fatty, and your body fat decreased." One could say that, looking at the end-result conditions. But the fact is that eating low-carb is what caused it. And for losing fat, the fact is that it happens when our bodies can access our fat stores, and need energy.

The insulin thing alone - somebody is losing weight on a keto diet, and hears about this ‘mass balance’ deal. Suddenly they think they are losing weight because they’re eating less mass in fat than they would with carbs. But that’s not what is actually operative. They are losing weight because they’re not eating carbs and have a much lower insulin level, which allows them access to their fat in the first place. ‘Mass balance’ is there, but it’s just noting conditions as they are, exactly the same as CICO does. It’s a reflection of things, not the driver.

(Doug) #74

The unit of energy we choose doesn’t matter. A mole of ATP gives us ~7.3 calories. At the level of ATP, and breaking hydrocarbon bonds to make carbon dioxide and water, and all the interactions of atomic particles that occur, the energy amounts are exact, and always the same - this is quantum mechanics.

Measuring energy (like our energy consumption/output) is hard, yes. But that’s going to be true regardless of the unit of energy we pick.

(Alec) #75

But what we need is something that is usable for your average person. I would love to know how much energy I am taking in and how much is going out. I am guessing that this is going to be hard regardless of units of measure?

By the way… if we measure in units of ATP, is it true that if I take in more ATP than I expend then my mass will increase? Can unused ATP be stored as bodyfat?

(Doug) #76

Calories is as good as anything for the average person, even if they have a resting metabolic rate tester or other type of respirometer. There are also things like the Mifflin St. Jeor equation, and online calculators. But almost nobody is going to be doing that stuff. On the ‘out’ side - it’s just plain tough to measure.

ATP - this is a very short-term thing in our cells. We’re endlessly recycling ATP - we go through roughly our own body weight in it every day, more if we’re exercising a lot. The amount of ATP in our food - I never thought of that; not sure there is any. “Unused” ATP - there essentially isn’t any. If we’re doing something like sprinting, then ATP use is at maximum, and for ~3 minutes afterwards ATP replenishment is at maximum. Our making new ATP closely follows our usage.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #77

The energy released from chemical reactions in vitro can be observed and calculated. The body’s use of catalysis is a complicating factor, but can be accounted for, at least to a first approximation. (Catalysts lower the energy barrier and make reactions possible that generally would require a higher temperature or pressure.)

In other posts, I’ve suggested ATP yield as the main measure of the energy content of food, since all bodily processes use the reduction of ATP to ADP to provide the necessary energy. The resulting electrical potential from the movement of protons and electrons is what actually does the work. It can surely be calculated, as well.

My point, precisely.

Which is the chemical energy store in the molecular bonds, not the energy from the conversion of mass to energy. Again, that was my point.

Because we are not what we eat; we are what our body does with what we eat. And it does different things, when given different foods.

Which is precisely what people are objecting to in the CICO hypothesis, as it is commonly stated. Of course, as Dr. Eades has pointed out, both the CICO folks and the CIM folks have now been bickering for so long, that both models have become excessively complicated. If Dr. Eades’s graphic is correct, the only real difference between them now is how one conceptualises the sequence of steps. Sort of how you can have the test at the beginning of a FOR loop and at the end of at WHILE loop, but they are both just loops.

(Doug) #78

And yet the mass and the energy involved will be what they will, no magic involved.

It’s silly to insist on things being simpler than they are. Nobody with any sense will guarantee a certain outcome beforehand, because it matters what the individual does. That Eades’ charts are more complex than some other renditions is not a bad thing. It’s necessary, to be accurate. They include storage - and as the context is usually people who want to lose fat, it would be nonsensical to pretend it’s not there or that it doesn’t matter.

To lose fat, you have to configure CICO correctly. Or, you have to configure the mass balance correctly. Either one will suffice, but it’s the individual who has to do the work.

I don’t think it’s excessive. To leave something out that can or does operate wouldn’t necessarily be good. If we accept doing without some explanations, then we’re back to intake, storage, and outflow.

Agreed. And why would there have to be differences? Same as for mass balance and energy balance, which are both reflections of reality. Mass balance is saying, “Here’s the situation…” and CICO is saying the same thing.

Not sure what you mean there, Paul.

As far as a “new weight loss paradigm,” however, at the very least Eades (or anybody else) should address the fact that the greater energy density of fats - which seems like a good thing on the ‘in’ side - is exactly countered on the ‘out’ side by the lower energy density of carbs.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #79

Sorry! I thought you had programming experience. (Emily Litella mode: on) Never mind! (Emily Litella mode: off)

BTW: Have you read Meerman’s paper? What did you think? I’ve been meaning to ask.

(Doug) #81

Not always, just most of the time. He gives the numbers in the video. Doesn’t matter - that has nothing to do with what I said. We’re not debating the merits of ketogenic eating. My point is that the supposed advantage of fats under the mass balance deal is that they are more energy dense, i.e. for a given amount of energy one will eat less mass if it’s fat, versus carbs. Okay, fine and dandy. But as soon as we go to the ‘out’ side and metabolism takes place, then that “advantage” instantly vanishes, because the fat burner is burning less mass than they would be if they were burning carbs. And with all those normally really smart people in the room where the video was shot, nobody even mentioned it.

No. CICO and mass balance both are the end result, carbs, proteins, fats, insulin, etc., all already taken into account.

Again, no. The context is weight loss, usually, and really - almost always just fat loss. Merely looking at in and out doesn’t get it, because there is storage - that’s the fat people want to lose. If one acknowledges that some of the “In” can come from fat storage and become part of the “Out,” then cool.

(Doug) #82

:smile: Oh yeah, man, I do, but like Basic, Fortran, Cobol and some dang thing called “assembler language.” Uh, 1970s so pushing toward being 50 years out of date. :smirk:

(KM) #84

You’re reasonably proposing that calories ingested + calories stored (body fat) = calories out.
CI + CS = CO.
Or CI - CO = CS.

But it’s more like CI*X - CO = CS, X being a variable for the qualities of CI beyond its simple thermic value. the value of X fluctuates wildly depending on what the content of CI is, and we apparently don’t have much quantitative data about X (other than knowing that the X factor for fat v. carbs is very different), which makes the whole equation relatively useless in terms of predicting CS.

Edit: We know that the X factor for fat makes a ketogenic diet ideal for -CS (i.e. weight loss.) CICOphants are basically X deniers, as I see it.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #86

Just a note: almost all life on Earth can metabolise glucose. The ability is extremely ancient and developed very early in the evolutionary history of life. We have evolved to metabolise fat as well as glucose, and there are reasons why skeletal muscles prefer fat over glucose and ketones, but we have never lost the ability to metabolise glucose, and that is a good thing. The only problem with glucose metabolism is the oxidative stress it causes, which may be why fatty-acid metabolism evolved in the first place. And we always have to bear in mind that we are the only mammal that enters ketosis as easily as we do; in all other mammals it is seen only at the end stages of starvation.

(KM) #88

I think my X factor is probably chemical / hormonal, as we’ve been saying, the differing ways in which macronutrients are manipulated by the body. The reason there are differing methods … ??? Yes, it could be evolution, a secondary or tertiary method of energy utilization emerging as that other energy source became available or became necessary. I believe evolution is driven by environment. It could just be biochemistry we haven’t considered. “Like dissolves like”, for example, that was a biggie in our chemistry class. Perhaps ingested fat “loosens” fat in the body somehow, making it more bioavailable? It’s a fascinating question, and I definitely don’t know the answer!!

(Doug) #89

CI - CO = CS, yes. :slightly_smiling_face: Can be a negative number, of course.

But CI + CS = CO… I just woke up and have to think about that one. Uh…

CI - CS = CO, really, right? No big deal.

I don’t think it’s the qualities of CI, really. You’re proposing a multiplier for CI, no? But the amount of energy going in is a fixed amount. The variables (and there are many possible ones) occur after that, modifying the amount stored and the amount going out.

“The qualities of CI” - I assume you mean the insulin response, if any, that it provokes. This indeed is variable between the macronutrients, but the effect takes place within the individual person, affecting CS and CO. One person may have a much greater effect from insulin than another. The variability is with respect to CS and CO, on an individual basis. So it’s going to get more mathematical… :hushed:

I’d put it as CI - (CS x Y) = (CO x Z), where Y and Z total up to 1. CI is a fixed number, per instance. So, the end quantities for (CS x Y) and (CO x Z) will equal CI. So if CS ends up at 23% of CI, then CO must finish at 77% of CI, for example.

While it’s not that easy to measure the energy going out, I do think the above will predict things.

That factor applies in different ways from person to person. Yes, keto is good for accessing fat stores, but among the macronutrients it is not the ‘in’ side that is being modified; it will be what it will be. The difference is how the given person responds to it. Let’s say you’re not insulin resistant and I am. With the same intake, I will tend to store more as fat, or take less out of storage, than you will, the effect being more pronounced as the carbohydrate portion of the intake increases. The variability is with CS and CO.

Mass balance is reality. CICO is reality. They are the end products off all that happens here.

(KM) #90

Thing is, lol, the response I deleted in the first place was a direct challenge to your statement that all was copacetic if we include CS in the CICO equation. My gut response at 5 am was, “You can’t DO that!” If you take ten apples and put them in your fridge, and then you take out twelve apples, you can’t say “all’s well and 10=12 because oh yeah, there happened to be two apples in the fridge already.” Of course there would have to be, at least in the world as we know it, but that’s not an equation, it’s a supposition created to make the equation work.

(Doug) #91

Michael, it’s the same thing as before. That guy ignores insulin and its effects, and tries to attribute it all to the varying energy densities of the maconutrients, while forgetting that what he looks at is reversed on the ‘out’ side.

Here’s the first part of his conclusion: the food property that increases body weight is its mass and not its Calories. That is not true, as stated. What actually determines things is how we respond to whatever mass of whatever macronutrients we eat. Two different people, one really insulin-resistant and one not - they eat the exact same thing. The former will tend to gain more body weight than the latter, with the effect being more pronounced as the carbohydrate portion of the food increases, and with it being less pronounced as the fat portion increases.

This is not to say that ‘the food property that increases body weight is its calories.’

That is not true, as stated, either. Again, what really matters is what the individual person does with the intake.

Mass balance and energy balance show what happens, after the fact.

(Doug) #92

No problem. :slightly_smiling_face: There is much we don’t know, and for almost all of us this stuff is very theoretical; we don’t or can’t measure things accurately.

The ‘storage’ thing has to be there, and it’s very important. The context of the whole deal is almost always “how to lose fat.” I look at it like there is Intake, and there will be Storage (net additions, net withdrawls, or no change) and then there will be the ‘Out’ side (metabolism, waste, excretion, etc.).

There really is nothing else. Whether we look at it in terms of mass or energy, that covers everything.

(KM) #93

:hugs::innocent::smiling_face_with_three_hearts::star_struck::partying_face::partying_face::partying_face:Well that is the crux of all of it, perhaps where the whole CICO debate can be laid to rest within this forum. Because as far as I can see, that is precisely what the people who blindly insist that Calories In Equal Calories Out are saying. And why so many people here, me included, are pulling their hair out - it clearly isn’t true.

(Doug) #94

Paul, that really is cool. And I guess “thank goodness,” eh?

(Doug) #95

“Calories In Equal Calories Out” - show me someone who actually says that. It’s nonsensical to say that they have to be equal (and I’d argue just as strongly with such a speaker as with anybody :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:). Thus my insistance on Storage being included.

Calories In/Calories Out are two separate quantities.

How about ‘Mass In/Mass out’? How can there be rational, logical arguments against that? It’s just an accounting of reality, no? Mass balance and energy balance or CICO are the same in that respect.