Nobody suggested that the body "run itself more efficiently". They suggested that the body _do less_.
This would be like if someone suggested that you could reduce gas consumption by not driving across the state, and for you to dismiss their argument as impossible because you just can't simply increase the MPG of the car.
Of course, your statement is probably factually correct, but it's a non sequitur!
This is another way of saying the exact same thing. Increased efficiency is doing less work.
"Of course, your statement is probably factually correct, but it's a non sequitur! "
It's a synonym! We are saying the same thing.
That's just not the definition of efficiency that I use.
Efficiency is a ratio of how much _useful_ work something does over how much energy it consumes. If you change the numerator _and the denominator_ in the same proportions the efficiency doesn't change. Therefore, we cannot use "how much work changes" as a short-hand to speak to a chance in efficiency, _unless_ we also note how the denominator is or isn't changing.
So, back to my analogy, the efficiency is the MPG and the "work" is the number of miles driven. Those are different things. You can reduce the number of miles you drive _without_ changing the MPG.
> We are saying the same thing.
From my definitions of words we are absolutely, categorically, not saying the same thing.
Have a good one!
I disagree. The reason I disagree is the impact of the different definitions on the original statement I was challenging:
> if a body could run itself more efficiently then it would by default.
Using my definition of "efficiency", this statement strikes me as self-evidently true.
Using your definition of "efficiency", this statement strikes me as probably false and strongly contradicts my priors. After all, every system in the face of input energy restrictions must do less total work.
So, if I accept your definition (which I'm happy to do for the conversation, since it's just a semantic difference), I think this statement is much less likely to be accurate, and certainly isn't self-evident.
Output / energy is the consensus definition of what it means to be efficient. The commenter you are replying to is being kind, but I guess I’m a little more callous…
Are you comfortable continuing with such a confusing definition of efficiency?
My opinion is that you are not recognizing the value of operating in a less-efficient (lower MPG, more power) mode. We can all spend more or less energy in a day as a function of the things we do. To me, it seems like you’re not recognizing this fact.
As I said above, the bulk of calories consumed in a day for a typical person are upkeep, not exercise related. You do not need to factor it into the overall equation. The changes are not significant enough.
"Starvation mode" theory is that the upkeep of the body changes significantly when calories are lower, preventing the body from losing weight. It's just not true. There are secondary effects (lethargy, no energy for increased exercise for athletes) but the vast majority of obese people do not exercise significantly to begin with so these effects can likewise be ignored. The baseline caloric upkeep -- which is something like 70+% of calorie burn for almost all fat people -- will never significantly change in terms of its efficiency. This is why you will always lose weight on a calorie restricted diet, even without exercise.
Hopefully this clears things up for you.
Of course, this is no way to live long term, but in a starvation situation it makes sense to reduce energy demand to the absolute minimum
Those effects I believe are also correlated with extremely low bodyfat moreso than a calorie deficit diet. In most cases a healthy person's body will simply consume fat to account for a deficit in the diet.
We unfortunately have a lot of data about starvation. The effects on the body are very clear. Body fat will go first. Most americans are in absolutely no danger.