Fat shaming

[cbrunny]

Doh. You started out so well there. Then you had to throw in that last bit. So, you claim that calories are all different, but all you need is less of them. Those two sentences are incompatible.

Lets just start out with conservation of MASS. (Mass in) - (Mass out) = (Mass gained or lost). That's really all there is to it. Not calories; science 101 states that. All scientists think that is true until you talk about food; then basic science goes out the window and people think (Calories in) - (Calories out) = (Mass gained or lost). Unless your body is a nuclear reactor, that statement violates the basis of physics and chemistry.

Now, mass in is easy to understand but it is extremely difficult to control long term for most people. Mass out is where the differences lie. Some food is easily digested, some isn't. Food types (high fiber is almost the polar opposite of high sugar; high protein helps with controlling mass in, and so on), exercise, gut bacteria, quantities above your ability to digest, general health level, etc. all affect the mass out portion.

Wait, what?

What is the mass of a single calorie?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Wait, what?

What is the mass of a single calorie?

I would presume the notion was that calorie = 'effect on body equivalent to x mass of fat gained + y work done'. I personally think the notion is ridiculous at face value but it apparently must be entertained as long as a large portion of our population feels it's interchangeable with gasoline.

 

[cbrunny]

I would presume the notion was that calorie = 'effect on body equivalent to x mass of fat gained + y work done'. I personally think the notion is ridiculous at face value but it apparently must be entertained as long as a large portion of our population feels it's interchangeable with gasoline.

I still don't understand what you mean. call me dumb but I need a better explanation.

 

[Kaido]

Notably missing from that article was his pre-twinkie diet caloric intake. If he cut from a metabolically stable (for him) 4000cal/day to a metabolically starvation (for him) 1800cal/day, I have no doubt he'd drop some weight. I worked with a gentleman (34ish? yrs old) who ate, literally, entire pizzas at a time, two foot long subs.. truly enormous quantities of food. He was around 6'4''? about 200lbs, and didn't look in any way overweight. He just had an absolutely absurd metabolism.

He also died of a heart attack at 35, so there's that.

Shhh let me eat my brownies in peace 😀

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I still don't understand what you mean. call me dumb but I need a better explanation.

Well a large number of people have the impression that 1 calorie = quantity of work + fat stored, as in if the body doesn't burn said calorie, it goes to fat, with a very easily-discerned ratio irrelevant of caloric source. In addition, they have the impression that 1 human = x cal/day at idle, x cal/day at y work level, etc. This leads them to the conclusion that weight loss comes from eating x cal (below a given threshold), regardless of caloric source. This would fall in line with how a simple machine processes a fuel source, such as a IC engine.

I personally feel that's incorrect based on my own experiences and what (admittedly limited, I'm a sysad, not a nutritionist) research I've done. I feel that the effects on a body from a given calorie can swing wildly from person to person, age to age, and source to source. There could be plenty of other factors not even addressed as well (rate of caloric storage based on current caloric intake level, stomach flora considerations, level of recent activity, level of recent (1-5 days) caloric intake, etc).

 

[cbrunny]

Well a large number of people have the impression that 1 calorie = quantity of work + fat stored, as in if the body doesn't burn said calorie, it goes to fat, with a very easily-discerned ratio irrelevant of caloric source. In addition, they have the impression that 1 human = x cal/day at idle, x cal/day at y work level, etc. This leads them to the conclusion that weight loss comes from eating x cal (below a given threshold), regardless of caloric source. This would fall in line with how a simple machine processes a fuel source, such as a IC engine.

I personally feel that's incorrect based on my own experiences and what (admittedly limited, I'm a sysad, not a nutritionist) research I've done. I feel that the effects on a body from a given calorie can swing wildly from person to person, age to age, and source to source. There could be plenty of other factors not even addressed as well (rate of caloric storage based on current caloric intake level, stomach flora considerations, level of recent activity, level of recent (1-5 days) caloric intake, etc).

ok... but there's a huge difference between person to person and within a single person.

That is.. if I eat a Snickers bar, the effect that Snickers bar has on my body is guaranteed to be at least slightly different than if you ate it. This is for all the reasons you list and then some.

Also, I eat a Snickers bar and as a result of that I'm over my BMR for a 24 hour period by the number of calories in a Snickers bar, the effect is still guaranteed to be different than if you ate it with the exact same result.

Instead it likely makes sense to think about calories as a percentage of your BMR if you're going to compare across people, but even then for the reasons you mentioned that isn't generally a good idea.

If both of us eat it and both go over our BMR, both of us will gain weight, just different amounts of it.

But back to my question... it seems like dullard is suggesting that 1 calorie has a specific mass. I'm just looking for him to clarify what is meant by that, and if he can explain a bit further why he believes that to be the case. Since a calorie is a unit of energy, this has me curious.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

ok... but there's a huge difference between person to person and within a single person.

That is.. if I eat a Snickers bar, the effect that Snickers bar has on my body is guaranteed to be at least slightly different than if you ate it. This is for all the reasons you list and then some.

Also, I eat a Snickers bar and as a result of that I'm over my BMR for a 24 hour period by the number of calories in a Snickers bar, the effect is still guaranteed to be different than if you ate it with the exact same result.

Instead it likely makes sense to think about calories as a percentage of your BMR if you're going to compare across people, but even then for the reasons you mentioned that isn't generally a good idea.

If both of us eat it and both go over our BMR, both of us will gain weight, just different amounts of it.

But back to my question... it seems like dullard is suggesting that 1 calorie has a specific mass. I'm just looking for him to clarify what is meant by that, and if he can explain a bit further why he believes that to be the case. Since a calorie is a unit of energy, this has me curious.

I agree to the above, with the caveat that I also feel that a calorie from source x does NOT have the same effect as a calorie from source y, which was the big source of the hubub surrounding the last ... 4? pages of this thread.

The mass thing came from a response regarding my posts where it was stated that consuming x mass of food could not give your greater than x mass of fat, based on physics. He wasn't stating the calories are able to be related to mass, beyond what the body converts into mass (in the form of fat, muscle, etc). Just that people get a simple formula of 'x + y = z' in the form of something simple, like mass, but then try to apply that same formula to the body's processing of calories where x + y does not always = z.

 

[dullard]

TIL gut bacteria is the same in all individuals and has no effect on health.

Are you serious? Gut bacteria varies dramatically from person to person. Heck just take a strong antibiotic and see how things change for you.

Admittedly, there aren't long term studies on gut microbiome and weight as this is a new field. But short therm studies show significant effects. Here are a couple:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299712?dopt=Abstract&holding=npg

The present study shows that the Lactobacillus rhamnosus CGMCC1.3724 formulation helps obese women to achieve sustainable weight loss.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20216555?dopt=Abstract&holding=npg

RESULTS:
In the active FM group, abdominal visceral and subcutaneous fat areas significantly (P<0.01) decreased from baseline by an average of 4.6% (mean (confidence interval): -5.8 (-10.0, -1.7) cm(2)) and 3.3% (-7.4 (-11.6, -3.1) cm(2)), respectively. Body weight and other measures also decreased significantly (P<0.001) as follows: body weight, 1.4% (-1.1 (-1.5, -0.7) kg); BMI, 1.5% (-0.4 (-0.5, -0.2) kg/m(2)); waist, 1.8% (-1.7 (-2.1, -1.4) cm); hip, 1.5% (-1.5 (-1.8, -1.1) cm).

 

[dullard]

Wait, what?

What is the mass of a single calorie?

That is my point exactly. We need to do conservation of mass when we are talking about mass of a person, not conservation of energy.

 

[Kaido]

Most of the bro-science in H&F is every bit as bad. Worse, even.

But if it's a meme, then it has to be true!

 

[Kaido]

TIL gut bacteria is the same in all individuals and has no effect on health.

Did you just assume my gut flora?

😀

 

[Kaido]

Yeah, AT H&F is hardly where all the great minds in fitness science hang out 🙂

All kidding aside, some great stuff in there though.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Lets use your own numbers.

Suppose calorie A gives you 1.0 X mass and calorie B gives you 1.1 X mass. Suppose you ate 1000 of calorie A and 1000 of calorie B (2000 total calories). Then, according to your own numbers, that would lead to 1000 * 1.0 X + 1000 * 1.1 X = 2100 X mass.

Now, suppose your statement was true that all you need to do is eat less calories. 1950 of calorie B is less than the 2000 total calories above. What does that give us? 1950 * 1.1 X = 2145 X mass. So more mass with less calories? How can it be, you just told me that all that mattered was less calories.

Using your own numbers (albeit clearly made up numbers) disproves your own statement. If calorie types are different, then no you can't only focus on fewer calories. You would also have to focus on calorie type.

You stated the exact point I was making in your last comment, so we're saying the same thing even though you think we aren't. I literally said that in a previous post.

Your equations and conclusions are only valid before the conversion factor is known, but it was already given and I already conceded that point in a previous post. The math you just tried to use to disprove my comment isn't applicable as it takes place after the conversion factor has been determined. How the energy is stored depends on the which compound is absorbed and that's why the mass conversion won't be the same. Cells can't handle an arbitrary amount of energy in an arbitrary form; there are discrete values for all of these ratios. Given that information and the caloric value of a specific type of food, you can determine how much mass is gained per unit volume, which most certainly is measurable in terms of calories (joules).

In terms of calories only, if you need to eat 2000 calories to maintain a given weight and you decide to consume both A and B, you can adjust the intake of each food as a system of equations to make it work. Eat 2000 of A or 1818 of B to achieve the exact same result because the conversion to mass was already given. If you know the conversion of a given mass, you can work the equation from the other direction to achieve the same result for an unknown amount of calories. This is the exact reason you can go on a McDonald's-only diet and still lose weight even if the food is total crap. The number of calories you need to consume will be less than if you ate a different type of food, so knowing the total number of calories you can eat is obviously important. You're saying I'm conflating the effect of two different types of calories with regard to the same goal, but that's not what I said at all.

Also, even if I was wrong, which I'm not, none of this does would do anything to disprove my previous post about the required amount of mass to increase waist size. There is no way to make a fundamental argument that can disprove the amount of mass required to increase the volume of a human body by a certain amount. It makes zero difference how much you eat of what type of calorie if the volume and density aren't enough to account for the increased body mass, which has a relatively constant density given the required equilibrium of a stable weight. Osiris claimed he could readily increase his waist size by eating very little bad food in a week on top or even in place of his regular diet, which is false no matter how you slice it. Pun intended.

My last contract was for a hospital in Denver and the data model I developed was specifically designed for this exact application. 513 people contributed weekly food logs and biometric measurements for six months as the basis of the model. While that doesn't make me an expert in that particular field, I have a huge amount of data to prove exactly what I'm saying and I actually am an expert at big data analysis. That's the beauty of this type of thing - perfectly representation of the underlying system isn't necessary to make an accurate model of how it behaves. Actually, it could be a black box and the results wouldn't be different at all.

The bottom line is you need to put less food in your mouth if you want to lose weight.

 

[nakedfrog]

Are you serious? Gut bacteria varies dramatically from person to person. Heck just take a strong antibiotic and see how things change for you.

I'm sorry, I genuinely thought I'd applied the most sarcasm to that post that the structure would bear.

 

[dullard]

I'm sorry, I genuinely thought I'd applied the most sarcasm to that post that the structure would bear.

My sarcasm meter is broken. Can I borrow that hammer from your avatar to bash in my head a bit?

 

[MrDudeMan]

No, my assertion was that *I* gain weight while eating a relatively lean caloric intake (1200-2100/day), and that others who have issues maintaining weight levels might experience different results if they tear out the carbs and eat a bunch of protein and fat. I don't believe I ever said that every person on the planet will gain weight eating 1200cal/day of krispy kremes, just that eating an equivalent caloric density (within reason, no 600/day and no 6000/day) of primarily carb food will have a different effect than the same density of carbless food. These sweeping generalizations about what I stated affecting every person on the planet came from you, not me. In addition, the sweeping generalizations about how to lose weight also came from you (everyone should eat less).

You absolutely can not get fat by eating 1200 calories per day of any food as long as you are over 4' tall. Maybe you are a midget, which would make me wrong. Assuming you aren't, everything else you've said about your own experience, by definition, must be incorrect because it's all based on that premise. I see this has all been a waste of time since you still think something so ridiculous is possible. Clearly you haven't been to a place where malnutrition is an issue. It makes no difference what any of those people eat - they are all emaciated and it's because of lack of food. The volume of food you eat is extremely important when weight gain is the goal. It stands to reason the opposite is true with the opposite goal.

In terms of 'sweeping generalizations', I don't think you know what that means. Eating less food than you were eating the day before will cause weight loss if your weight was stable. That's not a generalization. That's conservation of energy and, more fundamentally, logical.

This thread is exactly why there is an H&F forum here, because you get all of this incorrect and misinformation when asking a buncha fat nerds in ATOT.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not a fat nerd and I do have data to backup my assertions.

Started as a fat shaming thread, followed by me trying to help out a fellow poster, followed by a dizzying array of posts by people who insist they know better (which ironically loops us back to the fat shaming theme).

Several people in here do know better than you. Saying it isn't so doesn't make it true.

Also black men over 50 are more prone to prostate issues, raising up all the white man's costs. Shame! It's an outrage!

If these same men were ramming gerbils up their asses, which resulted in prostate issues, then it would be an outrage. Developing a prostate issue isn't the same as shoveling fries. Terrible, terrible comparison. Also, race has nothing to do with this especially because it's not an optional variable, which is another indicator that your post was stupid.

 

[dullard]

You stated the exact point I was making in your last comment, so we're saying the same thing even though you think we aren't.

You said both (a) calorie type doesn't matter and (b) calorie type does matter in the same post. I'm just pointing out that you were contradicting yourself. I'm not getting into your arguments with the others.

 

[cbrunny]

That is my point exactly. We need to do conservation of mass when we are talking about mass of a person, not conservation of energy.

What?

 

[cbrunny]

Are you saying the upper limit of maximum weight gain from any given thing you eat is equal to the mass of the thing you eat?

 

[dullard]

Are you saying the upper limit of maximum weight gain from any given thing you eat is equal to the mass of the thing you eat?

Shocking idea, isn't it. Although you did mix weight and mass in the same sentence; I'll forgive that minor issue.

I just love calorie "math".
1) Supposedly 9 Calories per gram of fat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy#Nutrition_labels
2) Supposedly 7700 Calories to gain a kg: http://www.livestrong.com/article/304137-how-many-calories-per-kilogram-of-weight/
3) Thus, each 1 kg of fat you eat, equals 9000 Calories, which equals 1.17 kg gained!
Hurrah for even simple math that doesn't add up!

I believe this is how the universe was created. The great spaghetti monster kept eating pure fat, and each time he ate 1 kg, a free 0.17 kg appeared from nowhere!

Speaking of which, I think I need some pasta with olive oil tonight.

 

[Red Squirrel]

How much of a manlet are you again as being 140 pounds for a man is healthy for someone about 5'5'' last I checked?

5'6" 🙁

I've never seen myself as being short, I just see everyone as being too tall. 😛

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Shocking idea, isn't it. Although you did mix weight and mass in the same sentence; I'll forgive that minor issue.

I just love calorie "math".
1) Supposedly 9 Calories per gram of fat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy#Nutrition_labels
2) Supposedly 7700 Calories to gain a kg: http://www.livestrong.com/article/304137-how-many-calories-per-kilogram-of-weight/
3) Thus, each 1 kg of fat you eat, equals 9000 Calories, which equals 1.17 kg gained!
Hurrah for even simple math that doesn't add up!

I believe this is how the universe was created. The great spaghetti monster kept eating pure fat, and each time he ate 1 kg, a free 0.17 kg appeared from nowhere!

Speaking of which, I think I need some pasta with olive oil tonight.

1 lb of fat is generally considered 3500 calories.
100 grams of fish oil has 902 calories.
453 grams in a pound
4,086 calories in a pound of fish oil.
Free fat!

 

[Humpy]

5'6"

LOL

 

[cbrunny]

Shocking idea, isn't it. Although you did mix weight and mass in the same sentence; I'll forgive that minor issue.

I just love calorie "math".
1) Supposedly 9 Calories per gram of fat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy#Nutrition_labels
2) Supposedly 7700 Calories to gain a kg: http://www.livestrong.com/article/304137-how-many-calories-per-kilogram-of-weight/
3) Thus, each 1 kg of fat you eat, equals 9000 Calories, which equals 1.17 kg gained!
Hurrah for even simple math that doesn't add up!

I believe this is how the universe was created. The great spaghetti monster kept eating pure fat, and each time he ate 1 kg, a free 0.17 kg appeared from nowhere!

Speaking of which, I think I need some pasta with olive oil tonight.

So... you're not actually talking about what I think you are trying to say then. You're actually talking about a single calorie's place within an entire metabolic system, in which case the math you've suggested here is actually completely irrelevant since it isn't possible to accurately measure a single calorie's "lifecycle" within the human body from input to output. It isn't even possible to measure to the calorie an individuals actual BMR - only estimates.

Also, LOL at anyone that thinks "Livestrong" is reputable, not to mention wiki, though I do know the 9 cals/g of fat is common and considered accurate.

Also, Yeah it actually makes complete sense that the upper limit of maximum mass gain is the mass of the object eaten. But I also don't think anyone here suggested otherwise, at least that I saw.

 

[cbrunny]

LOL

I'm 5'6". Suck it.