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

From: Dunne E. Dawe (never_at_never.again)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:04:03 +0800

On 29 Oct 2004 07:55:42 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) posted:

>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.

Yes, absolutely, but, as I've said, so long as your "weight" refers to
fat and glycogen molecules stored.

>It isn't vague at all.

Not when worded correctly, no.

>And what measurement was omitted?

I've already mentioned some, but the energy excreted in urine, faeces
etc, and energy lost by radiation.
Then there is accurate determination of exactly what the weight change
consisted of.

>The concept is simplicity itself.

Yep, when worded correctly.

>The more caloric deficit the more weight loss.

Yep the more energy store 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?

Well setting aside that bathroom scales are often rather inaccurate,
the measurements of energy in the food ingested was apparently not
done. I imagine that tables of averages were used. The amount of
energy expended was not measured but estimated from tables of rough
approximations. Just about everything except the gross weight change
was only roughly approximated.

>> >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.

I've already explained that a couple of times and just here again.
The assumptions made about calorie deficits and the assumptions made
of what exactly was lost (qualitatively) are open to strong dispute,
scientifically.

>The
>"caloric-deficit equals weight-loss" concept implies a linear
>relationship.

Calorie balance and energy storage molecules are directly
proportional. Yes, but this study didn't measure these and so can
really not draw any conclusions on this matter. And as it was actually
a study of dydlipidaemia, I'm not surprised.

>It is supposed to be simple math, maintain a caloric
>deficit of X number of calories and you will lose Y numbers of pounds.

Of energy molecules stored. And it is a simple piece of arithmetic.
Unfortunately, the numbers needed to do this simple sum are not
available here.

>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?

Yes. But as I've tried to get through to you, you haven't got the
numbers here.

>> >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.

And glycogen. In fact although the body doesn't store energy as
muscle, muscle protein if lost or gained will have a weight effect of
about 4 cal per gram of the protein involved.

>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.

No they don't. That will only apply to energy storage molecules. I
would have though someone as experienced as you at thinking about this
would have this simple concept under his belt.

>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.

Water? For instance?

>> >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?

The caloric deficit has certainly not beeen established, but even if
it had been, water can account for a considerable proportion of the
gross weight.

>> >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,

Not obvious at all. As I've explained above. It is really only a rough
guess.

>and you have accomplished this by obviously consuming a low calorie
>diet

How low, exactly?

>and by obviously working out constantly (thus burning more
>calories),

How many more though?

>as they are doing on this show,

That is far fom being established.

>then you cannot account for
>any weigh gain (where did those calories come from?),

Making the bold assumption that the weight gain actually involved any
calories...

>you cannot
>account for failure to lose weight. The only result that is
>mathematically possible is a weight loss.

Given the correct starting figures, yes, but GIGO (garbage in, garbage
out) Your raw data is crap (pardon the technical language)

>In this scenario, it is very very unlikely that your caloric
>calculations are wrong.

No, calculators today are very reliable :-)

>How could they be?

Ummm, garbage for raw data, perhaps?

>Their diets are monitored.

But not measured for energy content?

>They are being monitored for cheating.

Fine, if you say so. Umm, what can I sell you..

>And it is even less likely that
>the weight measurements are wrong, *same* scale from beginning to end.

Yep, we will give them the benfit of the doubt here and deem the
scaled accurate to eleven decimal places :-)
But what have they actually weighed?

>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.

Yes. Although as explained, the calorie deficit has NOT been
established with any accuracy, and the weight change has not been
analysed. BTW, were these folk on the stage for the entire time of the
show?

>> >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?

You honestly can't see it? You measured weight. How much of it was
water?

>> >> >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.

How many calories are required to add 5 kg of water to the body?

>> >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.

If you say so.

>They are being
>closely monitored.

24/7?

>The producers appear to be looking for cheating.

Well then, it COULDN'T have occurred!!! :-)

>Cheating would be just the thing to create tension and conflict and
>thus make for on-air ratings-grabbing fireworks.

Yep..

>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.

Huh? What evidence are you trying to burdon us with here?
That's the beauty of science. It short circuits (ao to speak) this
self delucional tendency of all human beings.

So where is the science here? Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.

>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.

Actually, if you realise what you are doing, and this crew patently do
not, the laws of thermodynamics apply to absolutely everything.
Nothing has ever been shown to breach them in a couple of hundred
years of diligemnt trying. That is why they have been elevated to the
status of "Laws". They apply when you put in accurate data of a closed
system, and by closed it means that all parameters are measured -- all
energy in and out is accurately measured (or otherwise known)

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

See above. That is NOT what the law states. It only applies to energy.

>> >> >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.

I'm afraid that I've seen in the archives that you disagree with the
conservation of energy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
assume that you have learned that the laws of thermo always apply.
I still can't undertsand why you can't see that nett energy IN will
exactly equate to a known number of energy storing molecules in the
body. What goes along with these is very variable. But of course in
this poor little experiment, you don't even have much of the necessary
raw data.

>What I am saying is this. The body is not a simple black box.

Ah but it is. Everything on this Earth is. Just because it is complex
and difficult to measure, does not mean that it does not adhere to all
the known physical and chemical rules of the universe.

>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.

By "calculated", you surely mean "measured".
You are correct. It is expensive and difficult to measure all these
with any degree of accuracy. Every time it has, however, the laws of
the Universe are upheld, precisely.

>The body can use up all the energy in a given food.... or not.

Yep, and if it uses less, then that excretion of energy will be
measured and accounted for. Such as a diabetic losing weight coz he is
piddling out glucose and thereby losing energy.

> 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.

Well more the hormonal effects of the body because of the status of
the different molecules absorbed (not just ingested, mind) in relation
to the bodies status of awake, sleeping, working hard, stresssed etc

>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.

Nope. In normal folk, the glucose levels are tighly controlled. There
are many foods (steak) that will boost insulin levels temporarily, but
diet has very little effect on blood glucose in the normal person. Now
in the diabetic....

>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.

Correct.

>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?".

But of course, it normally doesn't. It stores the energy for a rainy
day. That is a survival technic that we have evolved to have and has
been very beneficial in the past, but rather a problem for modern man.

>The laws of thermo predict the maximum energy available in the food,
>and nothing else.

No, they do much more. The conservation of energy one tells us that if
X calories go in, and Y come out, then X-Y will be stored. The weight
of these storage molecules will be accurately known, so long as we
know which types are involved.

>It cannot be used to predict fat storage or fat loss
>in humans.

Of course it can, because the steady state human takes in X, uses Y
and then stores Z. X=Y+Z There is virtually none excreteted in the
steady state human. Of course, if this human suddenly increases this
or that component of his food, some more might be wasted, but in
steady state, virtually none is wasted. The human body is very
efficientat capturing valuable energy.

>The numbers are way too simplistic to account for the
>incredibly complex and adaptable workings of the human metabolism.

Complex for sure, but X=Y+Z is the bottom line.

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

When you don't understand the overall thing. You seem to be not seeing
the forest, just a lot of trees and they are confusing you.

>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.

And they always are, unless they are ill. The effort to achieve a long
term calorie deficit is very very difficult for most folk. Hence the
failure rate of ninety-odd percent.

>But that isn't the case, is it?

Very few who try succeed in creating and enegy deficit. It is very
difficult.

>> >> >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.

Trends are only valid when the raw data is valid. GIGO.

>They restricted calories in and increased
>calories out. That should have lead to weight loss.

Yep, but as they really didn't know what the energy balance parameters
were, they really have NO predictive validity.
 
>> >> >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.

I do know. I'm having difficulty explaining it to you, because you
seem to keep moving the goalposts. Your undertstanding of some basic
chemical principles seems rather poor. I keep suggesting to you that
you bone up on the basics, and then look at some of the explanations
that you have been given and then it should all be clearer.

>> >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.

Again, not necessarily. Fat storage molecule, yes, spot on. Gross
weight could be anything. If you are constipated, or just had a bulky
meal, there could be several pounds or more just in the GI tract. That
is not actually bodyweight, but the scales will weigh it and thus be
several pounds out and that is just one possible reason for the
anomaly you see. There are many more which I have tried to explain to
you.

>It
>ain't supposed to be complicated.

Sorry, where does it say that? Life is complicated.

>But somehow it always is, isn't it?

Yep. Beautiful, isn't it?

>Especially when it does not work in the real world.

What doesn''t work. Despite a few flaws of engineering, the human body
is a wonderful mechanism in my estimation.

>> >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.

I underestimated your problem, and I apologise for that, but please
bone up on the basics of biochemisty and physiology. It will help you
enormously to understand these problems that you seem so enmeshed in.

>How does the body detect it's caloric state, whether a deficit or
>excess.

Did you not read my explanation in anoher thread? Apparently not.
The body does not measure calories per se. It does not see an energy
excess or deficit. It sees lesser or greater amounts (concentrations)
of molecules which contain (in their bonds) different amounts of
measurable energy.
If there is too much say glucose in the blood steram, very quickly
things happen to absorb this excess. Many places it can go.
Similarly, if there is a lot of fat in the bloodstream, it will tend
to be taken up by the fat cells (lipocytes).
If there is a shortage of glucose, then the body detects this by the
concentration of the glucose molecules remaining and certain things
happen as a consequence of this dearth of glucose and you are made to
feel hungry and the liver will pump out more glucose.
So it is the concentration of various energy containing molecules in
the blood stream that the body can detect and appear like it is
measuring calories and saying "Ohoh, I need some more calories, or I
have too many, better put some in the bank account".

>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?

Not the caloric state, (as I just said and have explained to you
before), but the concentrations of the different molecules in the
blood steram.

> How exactly does this work and
>where do the caloric state fit within the various metabolic processes?

Molecules again. When there is an excess, it will be stored (law of
mass action or when there is a higher concentration on one side of an
equation, the reaction will move to the other side). Similarly for
molecular deficits.