That's going to make this discussion difficult. So then what happens to the excess calories on an all-fat diet while creating a caloric surplus?

Why do you use the term energy to define the creation of obesity, i.e. "an excess of energy could be stored"?

Once matter is converted into energy, it can't be stored. We can't convert it back.

But don't you get it, the human energy balance equation is not energy in, it's matter in. So to create obesity, we must have a matter surplus. We are not a quartz that can take motile energy and convert into another energy, electricity. We are not a thermodynamic pump that takes heat and converts it into motion. Our conversion capacity is one way only.

ps. What I believe should not make it any more difficult for you to explain how it works. If what you say is valid, then it should stand on its own, not rely on my gullibility.

Patrick, I know it's frustrating to try to convince somebody else who just doesn't want to see it your way and keeps finding all kinds of arguments to rationalize their view. Imagine how I feel right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ration...king_excuses%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning

Let me give you a few examples of rationalization.

You said:

To which I asked that you point out exactly which words we used differently. You haven't done this yet. I'm still waiting.
You said:

What you really mean is "that's going to be difficult to convince you then." It will be if you keep accusing me of doing something without actually telling me what it is that I'm doing.
You said:

No, we're not. I'm talking about cause and effect, just like Krieger is talking about when he talks about insulin and satiety. You're talking about the mechanism that explains this cause and effect. I don't care about mechanism when all that matters is cause and effect. Exactly like Krieger doesn't care about mechanism when he talks about cause and effect with insulin and satiety. But when I talk about cause and effect with insulin and hyperphagia, Krieger suddenly objects invoking the mechanism and the "extrapolation of one condition to another".

Are you really reasoning it out or just rationalizing your existing position?

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

I was referring here to the potential energy that these molecules have when used to create ATP which our cells use as energy. We store these molecules hence we store potential energy.

If using the term energy is too abstract for this discussion. I suggest we talk about the actual matter we intake and what happens to it instead.

So then what do you think happens to the 1kg of pure grass-fed lard a human being would ingest in one day? We know that close to 97% of it will be absorbed by the intestines. These fatty acids must go somewhere. They cannot stay in your bloodstream, it would become toxic in these amounts. Are you suggesting that we would simply excrete what we don't need?

Martin, you quote me not only out of context, but also out of sequence and from two completely different discussions.

I'll leave this dead track as is and concentrate my effort on the discussion we are having instead.

I may be guilty of rationalization sometimes, but I would also say that you seem to be guilty of psychological projection in this instance.

We could play this silly game of ad hominems, but it's not constructive and so once again I'll concentrate my efforts on the arguments themselves.

So the ball is in your camp.

Again you're doing it. You're saying I'm doing something (quoting you out of context, and out of sequence) but you're not saying exactly what I'm doing (which context this is, and which sequence this is). How can the discussion ever advance? No wonder it's a dead track.

I don't know what happens to the 1kg of lard because I've never seen anybody eat that much lard in one day. I agree that these triglycerides and fatty acids must go somewhere. But I don't agree that it would be toxic since I haven't seen anybody eat that much lard in one day: I don't know so I can't agree. I'm not suggesting anything.

However, what I have read a few people do is eat a boatload of fat meat and dairy for 30 days and still lose weight when the equation predicts he would gain weight or maintain weight. I don't know where the surplus fat went but it's obvious it didn't get stored in fat tissue. It's from this that I don't believe we can grow fat just by eating a boatload of fat.

I did read about one study that looked at humans who ate a boatload of fat (in the form of vegetable oil no less) but this time combined with a boatload of carbs too. Considering that the carbohydrate hypothesis says it's all about the carbs, keeping carbs in this study can't refute the hypothesis. To do this, we must take out all the carbs and eat only protein and fat.

I will continue to disbelieve that we can grow fat by eating only fat until somebody does a study that looks at humans who eat a boatload of fat and only a boatload of fat. No carbs, no protein, just fat. And preferably animal fat. I mean, what would be the point of proving we can grow fat by eating a boatload of vegetable oil? As if vegetable oil had ever been good for us to begin with.

Patrick, in your journal, you give us a pretty sophisticated equation that, if accurate, could predict what would happen to our weight if we ate a fixed amount of calories for a month let's say.

There's just one problem: The equation can never be accurate.

Why not? Because we have no idea whatsoever what the value is for E-out. For all our efforts at putting correct nutritional information on food labels, and all the effort we put in at measuring how much food we put on our plate, we still can't figure out for the life of me just how much energy we actually spend. So how then can this equation ever predict accurately what our weight will be? To tell it bluntly, it can't.

We can count steps taken, reps done, laps finished, weight lifted, balls thrown, hours spent swimming, etc. But unless we stay inside a calorimeter the whole time, we can't accurately measure E-out. Oh we can compare our activity level to that of another human which we did measure inside a calorimeter doing an equivalent activity but it's still not an accurate measure, it's a rough estimate that we're still not certain of. We just don't know.

But here's the real kicker. Just to lose the weight, we must spend the next several months inside a calorimeter to make sure we have the equation right all the time and not just a few times a week or month or whatever. Not only that but we have to stay inside this calorimeter for the rest of our lives to prevent us from gaining back the weight once we lost it because the problem of not knowing E-out if we're not inside a calorimeter doesn't just apply when we lose the weight, it applies all the time. Good luck with that.

If I followed your arguments properly, I can detect two sub discussions here. One about what happens to the molecules we ingest and the other about how these molecules affect our behavior (including of course how hungry we are and the likes).

I agree that physiology and psychology are interrelated. If I understand you correctly, and let me know if I'm wrong. You believe it is the lack of dietary carbs that makes you eat only when really in need of food.

I believe it is the monotony of eating only meat that gives the same result. If you were to eat only rice and occasionally some fish. You would have the same effect on satiety, because of the monotony of the diet. Even with such a high carb diet.

Now such beliefs are not very useful. What we need is to show evidence of this by throwing around studies. Are you willing to take the time to properly show evidence for your arguments? I will only bother if you are willing to do this.

I'll start with a proper definition of the energy balance equation observed and tested in humans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764961/

Actually, I believe that the very act of eating food will make this activity monotonous. I believe the monotony is an effect, not a cause. Just like I believe overeating is an effect, not a cause. Yet at the same time, I believe that the act of eating when hungry will make this activity a most pleasurable experience. Until we are sated at least.

I believe that only food can satiate. Thus, if we eat something that does not satiate, it's not food. I also believe that there are substances that are obviously not food, like drugs for example, that cause us to overeat. Bodybuilders for example use a drug called equipoise to make them overeat like there's no tomorrow during a bulking phase. Here it's obvious that overeating is an effect yet paradoxically the same group of people believe that overeating causes obesity. In fact, that's the very reason they use this drug: The drug makes them overeat, this overeating makes them grow bigger. Not for one second did they ever consider that the drug could make them overeat by creating a caloric deficit internally.

I believe that our behavior is dictated by our cells, rather by the collectivity of all our cells. I believe that cells will open and close receptors according to food status in a negative feedback loop fashion. Like this, when there's enough food, receptors are open or the signal is present, eating stops. When there's not enough food, the receptors are closed or the signal is absent, eating continues. The point is that our behavior is an effect, not a cause.

If we can modify the behavior of this receptor or signal, then we can affect eating behavior without actually changing the amount of food. Indeed, a similar concept is the basis for drugs like sibutramine. Sibutramine is said to reduce pleasure from eating. If satiety is the reduction of pleasure from eating, then reducing pleasure from eating directly through sibutramine would simulate satiety and we should stop eating. Never mind that before we cease to obtain pleasure from our food, we obtain a boatload of pleasure in response to the hunger which drives this pleasure in the first place. It's obvious from my point of view that something in what we eat causes the receptors to fail or ultimately the signal to fail thus causes eating to continue without regard for internal food status. Some talk about leptin, others talk about ghrelin. I'm just talking about the generic concept of food, hunger and satiety.