Re: biggest loser - strange stuff - answer the question, Dawe

From: tcomeau (tunderbar_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: 29 Oct 2004 07:55:42 -0700

Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message news:<d0o3o0hv4n47l1cchh35sqpqeuualmp6pk@4ax.com>...
> On 28 Oct 2004 09:41:01 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) posted:
>
> >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.
>
> Yes. (or the compliance -- there appear to be plenty of areas of
> vagueness) Also plenty of omitted measurement.
>

But the trend is obvious. Less calories consumed and more calories
expended is supposed to lead to weight loss, period. It isn't vague at
all. And what measurement was omitted? The concept is simplicity
itself. The more caloric deficit the more weight loss.

> >How is that possible?
>
> Is this a serious question?
>

Yes it is. What measurement was wrong and how is it possible to
mis-read a scale?

> >The equation is - calorie deficit = weight loss.
>
> Simplistically, yes. The "weight" will be a gram for every four
> calories of glycogen and a gram for every 9 calories of fat. There is
> also the concomitant muscle loss with other weight loss, and the water
> and supportive tissue associated with all of this, but yes, your
> equation is correct.
>

Then how is it possible for someone to maintain a reasonably
consistent caloric deficit over a period of time and have the weight
loss not be reasonably consistent or even have weight-loss be
non-existent or worse yet, to actually put on a few lbs. The
"caloric-deficit equals weight-loss" concept implies a linear
relationship. It is supposed to be simple math, maintain a caloric
deficit of X number of calories and you will lose Y numbers of pounds.
What is it, 9000 calories in a kilogram of fat, right, roughly 4000
calories in a lb of fat, right? Simple math. Simple concept, laws of
thermo, right?

> >They ate
> >less and exercised more and there was either a little weight loss, no
> >weight loss or a small weight gain.
>
> See above. Your confusion appears to be not distinguishing between
> gross weight and fat store weight.
>
> >The scale does not lie, does it?
>
> Nope, but it only shows "gross weight" change.
>

Why is it limited to fat weight. The laws of physics say that you
cannot gain any mass if the intake of energy is less than is needed to
maintain the system in a neutral state. They are consuming less
calories and expending more, therefore, theoretically they are in a
constant calorie deficit state. There is no excess calories to convert
into mass, fat or protein or anything else, gross or otherwise.

> >It is as straightforward a measurement as is possible.
>
> Of the gross weight, it certainly is.
>

see above.

> >And as
> >straightforward an application of the caloric deficit methodology as
> >is possible.
>
> Not really, it measures gross weight (reasonably accurately) Period!
>

see above.

> >> >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.
>
> Um, yes it does. See above. The aim of the exercise is to lose fat
> stores.
>
> >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.
>
> Not the body necessarily, but the fat/glycogen stores.

How do you explain weight gain in a constant caloric deficit state?

>
> >If there is a caloric
> >deficit the body must use up all the intake for energy and then use
> >its own stores of fat.
>
> Yes. But of course meals are a bolus dose of energy, and energy use is
> continuous over time. A meal's energy will be typically stored and
> then mobilised. But yes. I agree
>
> >It is the law of thermodynamics.
>
> Well an application of this. The conservation of energy. An amount of
> energy (say 1000calories) can not reduce or increase. You must account
> for every single calorie. If you do something and you can only account
> for 990 calories, you have made an error because that 10 calories
> still exists and your calculations/measurements MUST be wrong!
>

Exactly. If you are in an obvious and constant caloric deficit state,
and you have accomplished this by obviously consuming a low calorie
diet and by obviously working out constantly (thus burning more
calories), as they are doing on this show, then you cannot account for
any weigh gain (where did those calories come from?), you cannot
account for failure to lose weight. The only result that is
mathematically possible is a weight loss.

In this scenario, it is very very unlikely that your caloric
calculations are wrong. How could they be? Their diets are monitored.
They are being monitored for cheating. And it is even less likely that
the weight measurements are wrong, *same* scale from beginning to end.
If the caloric calculation are resonably accurate and indicate an
obvious caloric deficit and the scales are of sufficient quality to
provide a reasonably consistent measurement, then you have to accept
that the calculations are indicative of a consistent caloric deficit
state and the scale measurements are more than adequate enough to
clearly indicate the weight trend.

> >The body
> >cannot create mass from a caloric deficit, period.
>
> Of course it can, but not of energy-containing molecules. Water is a
> non-energy-containing molecule. Every litre weighs 2.2 lbs!
>

And your point?

> >> >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?
>
> No, but more importantly, do you have a shred of evidence that any
> calories were created or destroyed? What else was measured?
>

It appears that by your insistence that the laws of thermo apply
directly to weight management and the evidence of this obvious
mathematical anomaly, that the only way these people could gain weight
is if mass was created in the absence of the necessary energy. How is
this possible? Either the laws of thermo applies or it doesn't.

> >Plus they have much more incentive to stick to it. I would think that
> >compliance would be much greater than in the real world.
>
> Quite possibly, but compliance is a very difficult problem. The human
> animal is very prone to fool itself and rationalise, but then this is
> only one of many explanations of what you seem to see as an anomaly.
> Again, what else was measured?
>

Compliance, in this case, seems to not be an issue. They are being
closely monitored. The producers appear to be looking for cheating.
Cheating would be just the thing to create tension and conflict and
thus make for on-air ratings-grabbing fireworks.

The human animal is very prone to fool itself and rationalize. Which
explains why some people will adhere to such stupid, outdated and
unrealistic nonsense in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.

The laws of thermo are not directly and mathematically applicable to
accurately and consistently predict weight gain or loss in humans
using the currently accepted caloric values of food.

Weight was measured. In a caloric-deficit state, weight must decrease.
It's the law.

> >> >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.
>
> You seem to think that weight = fat. It certainly doesn't.
> You also are citing a crude experiment where all the variables have
> not been measured. What was the caloric content of these folks'
> faeces, urine sweat, radiation and so on? You have measured a few
> parameters, and when you find an apparent anomaly, seem to claim that
> the laws of thermodynamics have been broken.
> You wrote above:"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."
> This is a very brave assumption without all the parameters being
> accurately measured. You don't even know the composition of the gross
> weight loss here.
>

There is the problem. You seem to think that I am saying that the laws
of thermo have been broken and that I am saying that the body did, in
fact, created something out of nothing or, conversely, that energy can
dissappear. Because you adhere to the laws of thermo as being directly
and mathematically applicable to predict weight in humans, this is the
only logic you can understand.

What I am saying is this. The body is not a simple black box. It is
not a simple closed mechanical system where the energy-in is easily
calculated by reading numbers off a food calorie value table, nor is
the energy-expended is easily calculated.

The body can use up all the energy in a given food.... or not. It can
use it for energy or for tissue rebuilding, depending on the state of
the body and the hormonal effects of the foods eaten. A
high-refined-carb diet will cause a high blood glucose level which
will trigger insulin spikes which will in turn trigger fat storage
regardless of any caloric deficit or excess.

The body will never be able to get more calories from food than is
physically and mathematically possible, hence the applicability of the
laws of thermo to the human body. And it will never make energy
dissappear into nothing.

But it can extract the energy it needs, use the various nutrients for
tissue maintenance and other processes, and then lose the excess
energy and excess nutrients thru a myriad of processes like those you
mentioned: "faeces, urine sweat, radiation and so on?".

The laws of thermo predict the maximum energy available in the food,
and nothing else. It cannot be used to predict fat storage or fat loss
in humans. The numbers are way too simplistic to account for the
incredibly complex and adaptable workings of the human metabolism.

And for someone to try to give some sense of validity to the
ridiculously simplistic notion of the calorie theory is truly idiotic.

If it was as simple as calories-in vs calories-out, anyone who wanted
to be thin and put in even a moderate amount of effort would be thin.
But that isn't the case, is it?

> >> >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.
>
> The caloric deficit state has certainly not been established here as
> I've tried to explain above, and water has zero calories per gram.
>
> >According
> >to the law of thermo, you cannot create something out of nothing.
>
> Correct. So where have you established that fat molecules have been
> created from nothing? You are using gross weight for fat store, and
> your calorie inputs and outputs are only approximately known, or
> completely unknown.
>
> >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.
>
> Absolutely, and almost none of that was done here.

The trends are obvious. They restricted calories in and increased
calories out. That should have lead to weight loss.

>
> >> >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.
>
> Sorry, I've seen them while browsing but really have no spare time at
> the moment to look for them again -- work calls :-). I've explained
> it again, I'll just leave it there for the moment. Maybe someone else
> can explain this further to you.
>

Whay can you people not simply answer "I don't know". It would at
least make you look honest.

> >Obviously I am having problems regarding the energy balance concept as
> >applied to weight loss.
>
> Yes, but if you grasp two main points, you should understand better:
>
> 1. gross weight gain/loss is not the same as fat/glycogen store
> gain/loss
>
> 2. Energy balance sheets comprise many more measurements than just
> estimates of calories put in your mouth, and the change on the
> bathroom scales
>

But the concept is simple, caloric deficit equals weight-loss. It
ain't supposed to be complicated. But somehow it always is, isn't it?
Especially when it does not work in the real world.

> >Instead of re-iterating that an explanation
> >exists, why do you not simply state how the energy balance equation
> >works regarding weight loss?
>
> Well I've just tried, several times, I thought.
> Please pose any questions again that arise from these explanations.
>

No you haven't. You thought wrong.

How does the body detect it's caloric state, whether a deficit or
excess. And once the caloric state is detected what are the
bio-chemical changes that trigger fat storage or fat burning as a
direct result of the caloric state? How exactly does this work and
where do the caloric state fit within the various metabolic processes?

> >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.
>
> Really?
>
> >Interesting.
>
> Really!!