Because so many times, people who count calories because weight loss comes from CO > CI, also turn around and say categorically, that means "eat less and exercise more".

when in realty, to get metabolic CO > CI, one might need to eat more and exercise less; or do more of both; or do less of both.

I don't think people are arguing about arithmatic of calories. It's when the argument goes 'because CO must be greater than CI to lose mass, that means one must eat less and exercise more" when that is just dumb.

I found it interesting that one can 'starve to death' but still die with a "pot belly" if you don't eat enough of the right foods.

Hmmm, it must be a bore for you to have to talk to us.

So far you've provided no evidence to back up your assertions, and now you've resorted to name-calling.



Because you don't understand the science, and you show no inclination to learn.



According to wikipedia:

"... Carpenter suffered heart failure... The LA coroner gave the cause of death as 'heartbeat irregularities brought on by chemical imbalances associated with anorexia nervosa.' ...

"The autopsy stated that Carpenter's death was the result of emetine cardiotoxicity due to anorexia nervosa. Under the anatomical summary, the first item was heart failure, with anorexia as second. The third finding was cachexia, which is extremely low weight and weakness and general body decline associated with chronic disease. Emetine cardio toxicity implies that Carpenter abused ipecac syrup, an easily obtained emetic medicine that is only meant to be taken by persons who have accidentally swallowed poison."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Carpenter#Death



You can lose weight by cutting calories, but you can't sustain the loss. You'll be hungry and lethargic and your metabolism will slow. Why is that so hard to follow?



As I said, we must be a real bore for you. Or are you merely amused by us?

This whole discussion inspired me to break out my copy of Taubes this weekend and re-read parts of it.

I found this on p. 295 (I bolded the part which is what I think kilton was trying to say with his CI=CO argument):

"The obese have a constitutional predisposition to accumulate slight excesses of fat in their adipose tissue, which in turn induces compensatory tendencies to consume slightly more calories than the lean or expend slightly less. Obese individuals will put on fat until they have counterbalanced the influence of this underlying disorder. Eventually, these individuals achieve an energy balance--everyone does--but only at an excessive weight and with an excessive amount of body fat."

It's more accurate to speak of the body being in energy balance or homeostatis. The language of CI and CO implies that the whole thing is driven by how much is eaten and how much is exercised off. But it isn't. It's driven by hormones.

Edited to fix typo.

Exactly...it's a chemical processes. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is more suited to cover a chemical processes. The first, conservation of energy, is more suited to cover a mechanical process. Everyone wants to cling to the first though.

I think y'all are missing something.

CO/CI can also explain those cases where people can seemingly consume a HUGE number of calories and never gain. Their bodies have ways using them and wasting energy. They fidget more. They have loads of futile cycles, their body temperature goes up.

Haven't you ever experienced the enormous Thanksgiving meal and your temperature goes up and you feel hot and sweaty that night and kick off all your blankets? Even I have that happen and I think I've got a very thrifty metabolism. But the people who trend towards thinness have it happen more.

Anyway how many calories your body can waste seems to be related to your age, your gender and probably most of all, your genetics.

Plus, I wonder how many "naturally thin" people have undiagnosed celiac disease...

Since I started doing BBS/HIT it seems my life has turned into one long, low-grade hot flash that gets noticeably hotter after I eat (as a mid-century female, I know what a real hot flash is), and my muscles want to constantly twitch and flex.

A couple days ago I put on a belt I haven't been able to wear for over a year and my co-workers have started commenting on my "weight" loss. Since my weekly workout total time under load is only about 10-12 minutes (6 exercises, one set each of 6-8 reps), it's unlikely to be due to fat burned while lifting weights.

It sounds good, but I don't think I can stand to buy another book that promises more than it can deliver. I'd love to hear if you continue to have success. And don't forget to let us know if it stops working too.

Boy, I know the feeling. Actually, even worse, another book I'll scarcely look at and follow through with.

Yea, same here. I see one of our local libraries has five copies on order. There's already a hold on one copy!

I think my mom has a library card at that library, so I'm going to have her put a hold one copy for me. I think I can invest 12 minutes a week to see if it works. Thing is... I'm trying to commit myself to trying ONE THING AT A TIME. That way if something starts working, I won't be left wondering WHICH of the three or four things I'm trying worked.

Currently I'm trying to see if eliminating AS helps.

I struggle with gardening books that way.

You don't have to get the book to do HIT, there is plenty of info on the BBS site and other HIT sites. Knowing how it works is motivating for me, and $10 for the Kindle version seemed a small price to pay, but I mainly wanted it for the information on physiology and metabolism, not because I need it to do HIT.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/c...ract/251/6/E664




To the extent that very low and zero carb are analogous to fasting, this seems to suggest that Martin might be right about glycogen depletion being less of an issue for those of us eating that way. Not quite the same kind of exercise Wyvrn was talking about, of course.

If I understand the difference between insulin sensitivity and responsiveness (highly questionable), an increase in insulin sensitivity means that less insulin is required to get a particular response from a cell, and and increase in responsiveness refers to an increase in the maximum possible response to increasing insulin. Anybody know if that's anywhere close to right?

Sigh. Calories in = Calories out during calorie maintenance. I say calorie, not weight, because some things, like water, that don't have any usable calories, can be gained or lost.

So... calories in=calories out, when calorie stores do not change. Now that I understand that, I'll have my six-pack in no time.

I don't know if anybody has posted this blog entry yet;
the thumbtack hypothesis

Peter cites a study where lean people move more than heavy people. But the study shows the heavier people burning the same number of calories in movement as the lean. They move less distance, but they move more stuff.

I totally buy into the idea that exercise can alter hormones and stuff in such a way as to alter fat storage-- in either direction, up or down.

That's right, the kind of exercise I'm talking about exhausts the fast twitch (pale) fibers, which run primarily on anaerobic glycolysis. This study was about the effect on red (slow twitch) fibers. So it would make sense that in fed rats, there would be fewer nutrients (fat mainly) from outside the cell available for aerobic metabolism (assuming higher baseline insulin resistance due to the standard carby lab chow) and the cells would attempt to meet demand by consuming more glycogen. In fasted rats, less glycogen would be consumed because their system would be pre-conditioned with lots of fat mobilized and available to meet demand aerobically.

Because the study is about slow twitch fibers, I think the difference has less to do with insulin's effect on the muscle fibers than insulin's effect on HSL in the adipocytes making substrate for aerobic metabolism available (or not). In other words, the fed rats used more glycogen because there wasn't as much fat available.

That insulin sensitivity in slow twitch cells was increased regardless of glycogen depletion isn't a surprise. Insulin has other jobs besides moving glucose into cells. Increasing respiration would increase the demand for amino acids and other nutrients.

What's the name of the book?

I am really glad you started this thread Wvyrn.

While I am not doing the same sort of exercise routine as you're mentioning here (BBS), I am convinced that starting a weight training routine did something to my metabolism. I've noticed some of the same changes that you're mentioning. Dropped about ten pounds in the course of three months of a newbie weight training routine, but dropped a lot more sizes than that. It was really strange - at first it seemed like the weight training was interfering with weight loss, but then...out of the blue, all my clothes were too big.

Meanwhile, I've been slacking off on the weight training lately - and yet, the effect still seems to be there. I do *not* know what happened, but the weights did something.

So, it seems like exercise is something of a game changer. Much like going 'low carb' in the first place. I can't say exercise helps weight loss, but I can say that it makes a huge, huge difference. Reminds me of all the calorie debates going on - we say that calories don't make a difference, that it's all about the composition of those calories, and that there is something hormonal going on. Well...

I think the same is true of exercise.