Re: biggest loser - strange stuff

From: Piezo Guru (gbusey_at_honmail.com)
Date: 10/28/04 

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:09:30 -0400

Very true. Calorie deficit = weight loss.

The formula is wrong getting there. Calories burned are higher for many
reason that they don't figure on. When you deprive calories your body goes
into economy mode and the calories burned or used goes down. Your hair and
nails stop growing and many other things happen. Your brain shuts down and
you become a Newsgroup poster.

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0410280841.4e9e54b1@posting.google.com...
> Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message
news:<ppj0o09nijksru9fngmhe7pm5gpt8aevfd@4ax.com>...
> > On 27 Oct 2004 09:45:37 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) posted:
> >
> > >I happened to catch the surreal "reality" show The Biggest Loser last
> > >night.
> > >
> > >Really interesting stuff. These overweight people are placed on
> > >classic calorie restricted diets and are made to go through heavy
> > >"calorie-burning" workouts. The theory being that a caloric deficit
> > >leads to weight loss.
> >
> > More than a theory, really, as nothing has EVER contradicted it.
> > (when measured properly, of course)
> >
>
> So you are suggesting that the measurement was wrong. How is that
> possible? The equation is - calorie deficit = weight loss. They ate
> less and exercised more and there was either a little weight loss, no
> weight loss or a small weight gain. The scale does not lie, does it?
> It is as straightforward a measurement as is possible. And as
> straightforward an application of the caloric deficit methodology as
> is possible.
>
> > >Apparently at the first weigh-in, all the participants lost
> > >considerable amounts of weight. Most in the low double digits. Between
> > >10 and 20 or more lbs. This re-inforces the idea that restricting
> > >calories and increasing calorie burning activities leads to weight
> > >loss. As expected, right?
> >
> > Well it did, although we were not told what the weight that was lost
> > consisted of.
> >
>
> Doesn't matter what the weight consisted of. If the body is at a
> caloric deficit it can do nothing but get smaller and if it is in
> caloric excess it can do nothing but get larger. If there is a caloric
> deficit the body must use up all the intake for energy and then use
> its own stores of fat. It is the law of thermodynamics. The body
> cannot create mass from a caloric deficit, period.
>
> > >But at the second weigh-in an odd thing happened. The individuals
> > >either lost very small amounts of weight, in the 3 or so lb range,
> > >lost no weight at all or actually gained a lb or three.
> >
> > And they had been locked away and definitely did not break their
> > regime? But of course, if they had lost some water and glycogen in the
> > first weigh in, the second would not be too surprising.
> >
> > This demonstrates admirably the need to measure accurately and to
> > determine accurately what the weight lost consists of. This is the
> > usual problem with these unscientific demonstrations. So long as
> > compliance was OK.
> >
>
> The measurements were done before they started on their diets, after
> the first period of time and at the end of the second period of time,
> using the same scale. They are being taped and monitored constantly.
> Do you have any evidence that they did break their regime?
>
> Plus they have much more incentive to stick to it. I would think that
> compliance would be much greater than in the real world.
>
> > >Now that is strange. They continued to restrict calories and they
> > >continued to "burn" a lot of calories in their workouts. Their caloric
> > >deficits would have stayed relatively consistent from the very
> > >beginning right up to the second weigh-in but their weight loss did
> > >not. Hmmmmmm.
> >
> > And you have not had the biochemistry of this common phenomenon
> > explained to you? Hmmmmmm.
> >
>
> I've yet to have it adequately explained. Feel free to try.
>
> > >I thought that a daily caloric deficit would lead to a steady weight
> > >loss.
> >
> > Well fat storage loss, actually, and it does. (when measured properly)
> > Are you sure you have not heard of this complication of just using
> > gross weight changes? I could have sworn...
> >
>
> How can the body create any mass in a caloric deficit state. According
> to the law of thermo, you cannot create something out of nothing. All
> energy must be accounted for. If you run a calculable caloric deficit,
> you must lose a mathematically calculable amount of weight. It's a
> basic law of physics.
>
> > >Just like a daily caloric excess will lead to a steady weight
> > >increase.
> >
> > As will drinking lots of water, or replenishing glycogen stores, or...
> >
> > >That is the formula isn't it. Too many calories equals
> > >weight gain, too little calories equals weight loss.
> >
> > "Fat store" gain or loss, actually, but now you know and hopefully
> > won't make this mistake again.
> >
> > >I am told
> > >repeatedly that there is no other factor that affects weight gain or
> > >loss nearly as much as calories.
> >
> > But haven't you been told a whole lot more? So why do you persist with
> > this rather obvious little canard?
> >
> > >Their caloric deficit was constant and consistent and their weight
> > >loss should have been constant and consistent, but it most definitely
> > >was not.
> >
> > See above. I guess it wasn't.
> >
> > >Even considering the probability of water loss, their weight
> > >loss was not consistent and has apparently come to a screeching halt.
> >
> > Does water not weigh?
> >
> > >Interesting.
> >
> > Really? I'm sure I've seen it in the archives here many times before.
> > I must do another search when time permits.
> >
> > BTW, please tell me what you are having further problems with
> > regarding energy balance. I am anxious to help you.
>
> Please point to any post in the archives that explains it in detail.
>
> Obviously I am having problems regarding the energy balance concept as
> applied to weight loss. Instead of re-iterating that an explanation
> exists, why do you not simply state how the energy balance equation
> works regarding weight loss? Or point me to it. You keep repeating
> that the explanation was posted but you fail to tell me where or you
> fail to provide the explanation.
>
> Interesting.
>
> TC