The argument of the fungibility of calories (the ability to replace one for another without any change in stored energy) is not my problem with the Energy Balance hypothesis, nor is it really central to that hypothesis any more than the theory of gravity is dependent on a meter being a meter.
I really have 5 problems with the Energy balance theory;
- It oversimplifies energy consumption
- It assumes an impossible accuracy with energy intake
- The assumption that body fat always releases energy
- The math doesn’t check out
- The moral issue
1. The problem with energy Consumption
The theory lumps all energy expenditure OTHER than discretionary exercise and the energic cost of digestion into a black box called the resting metabolic rate (RMR). This is then treated as a value that doesn’t change and used along with exercise and how much protein is in your meal to determine your “Calories Out”.
The reality is that our RMR changes based on what we just ate, how much energy is in circulation, what hormones are acting upon adipose tissue, how much activity we are doing, how hydrated we are, the status of our essential nutrition.
Experimentally we’ve seen caloric restriction drop RMR by as much as 25% (biggest loser 6 year followup), and caloric over supply increase it by as much as 400% (Ethan Sims Vermont prison overfeeding study).
2. The problem with counting calories
“Calories In” is also subject to imprecision, but even still the fancy that we can count the number of calories being consumed flies in the face of the inbuilt inaccuracy of our labeling laws, unpredictable changes in gut absorption rates, the contribution from microbiota, and the calories that exit the gut un-absorbed.
Even the most rigorous calorie counters are off by up to 20%, for a person eating 2000 calories a day that is an inaccuracy of 1/9th lb a day, or ±42 lbs a year.
3. Assuming body fat is willing to release energy
The amount of energy we can get from body fat will be constrained by how much insulin is in circulation, and the daily transaction limit for getting energy out of body fat.
If you are secreting more than about 13 mIU/l of insulin then you will have the same contribution of stored energy as someone who has almost no body fat at all. And even if you have virtually no circulating insulin, you will still be able to access only 31.5 kCal per day for each pound of body fat.
4. The problem with the math
The theory asserts that if you could accurately calculate Calories in, and Calories out then you could predict calories stored, but putting aside the impossibility of either of those as I’ve already discussed - the math doesn’t work because it’s not a simple function.
“Calories Out” changes based on “Calories In” so as soon as you think you’ve calculated caloric expenditure and turn your focus onto the caloric input - any change you make will change calories out again. The function is iterative, that is it changes every time you calculate it. Trying to use it to predict calories stored is like a dog chasing it’s tail.
5. The moral issue
But for me by far the biggest problem I have with CI:CO is that it moralizes a disease condition - it frames obesity a punishment for the sins of gluttony and sloth. It blames the victim.
That … and of course it doesn’t actually work to alter the disease state for the above reasons.
The reality is, in 99 cases out of 100, when you change the diet so obese people make less insulin by restricting sugar starch and protein - they rapidly lose weight and more importantly the biomarkers of the diseases that travel with obesity (Diabetes, CVD, Hypertension) disappear.
Did those people all of a sudden stop sinning? Or is there a simpler explanation?
Oh wait I have 6 problems with CI:CO …
It has been used by Coca Cola to sell sugar water to kids. Coke funded thousands of researchers as part of their “Energy Balance Consortium” initiative to do research “proving” the energy balance hypothesis.