Comment by soneca | Hacker News Reader

Comment by soneca | Hacker News Reader

"In this book we obey the laws of thermodynamics"

Repeating a comment I made below, this makes no sense at all to me!!

His argument in his post saying Taubes is wrong is "The laws of physics are unavoidable". That makes no sense at all! There is no logical reason to believe that calories (a thermodinamic unity) is transformed in fat in our body - and no science to prove it either.

This is the same as saying that all fat should go to the feet because of Gravity and the laws of physics are unavoidable. It is pure non-sense.

Do you know how to measure calories on food? You burn it and measure the heat it generates. How this apply to our body function is a mistery to me. To anyone actually.

Taubes theory is based on hormones, which is what the medicine proved for the last century that is what regulates all kind of function in our bodies. Make much more sense to think how a diet affect hormones and how it affects are body producing fat, no??

Calories in - calories out must be relevant to a thermal plant, no to our body producing fat.

Come now. It's a matter of physics that you can't make stuff from nothing, and you can't do things without energy.

That's not to say that body fat is strictly dependent on caloric intake, but to certain extremes, there's no way around that fact.

Exactly!

What is calorie? Is is something? No! It is a unity of measuring heat. That's it! Doesn't matter at all.

Anything can become fat on your body, but what decides it is the hormones saying to your body "this will become fat, this will become muscle or blood or etc, and this is pee or poo".

Counting calories is a proxy at most. But people started to treat the proxy as thing in itself, which it isn't.

What is a foot? is it something? No! It is a unit of measuring distance, That's it. Doesn't matter at all.

calories * X is proportional to weight loss, but X seems more important than calories in all but the most silly edge cases.

Nope. As far as having an effect on weight loss, net-energy balance (energy added - energy used) is several magnitudes more important than anything else, and the "energy added" side of this equation is entirely calories. Hormones are driven by your environment, and food is a huge environmental stimulus, especially when we're limiting our discussion to weight-loss. But don't conflate that with the idea that hormones are more important; they are subject to your environment (the food you eat), not the other way around.

Over 100 years of hospital-ward, double-blind, clinical trial weight-loss research have ALL shown the exact same thing; Nothing comes remotely close to the effect calorie intake has on weight. The macronutrient content of diet (ie. low-carb, mostly sugar, or high protein) and meal timing has NO significant effect and is completely drowned out by the influence of calorie intake.

But of course that's boring and difficult. What sells books and adverts on Dr. Oz is "calories don't matter".

Except for silly edge cases?

Okay then eat your recommended calories worth of cocopuffs for breakfast, since it's all about energy. Calorie counting oversimplifies the problem. Sure it might describe what is going on, but it can be a poor guide for a dieter trying to decide what to eat next.

Edge cases are exactly that; not typical and therefore need special consideration. But these are rare in the general public.

I didn't say its ALL about energy, just that nothing comes close to the contribution of calories in weight-loss. The type of food you eat is completely drowned out by how much food you eat. So you CAN eat only cocopuffs and lose the exact same weight you'd lose eating a "balanced diet" consisting of the same # of calories (which means both diets contain the same amount of energy), although you risk becoming malnourished over time.

If a dieter's goal is to lose weight, the amount of food they eat (or more precisely the amount of food + amount of activity) is most important. This fundamental principle makes it easy to decide what to eat next. However if the goal is long term health, athletic performance, or growing muscle, then we need to modify how we choose. But it's really not that complicated for almost everyone; just eat mostly whole foods.

But can't you use the same argument for mass? Why focus on calories and not kilograms?

Mass isn't very useful, because our bodies aren't powered by mass-to-energy reactions. Different foods have different energy densities with respect to what our bodies can digest and use. Calories seem to be the best measurement in that respect.

This article explains everything you need to know: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.htm...

He claims that Excess dietary fat is directly stored as fat, which is opposite of what Taubes claim, that when you eat things as bacon, the fat you eat isn't stored as fat in your body.

I read all related articles about fat and didn't find where he defends this claim (only general explanations about different types of fat and its relation to heart diseases).

Also I am no expert at this topic at all, and I wouldn't understand all the scientific study both sides claim to have. But make sense to me that the fat I eat isn't stored as the fat in my belly, as cow milk doesn't become milk for mothers, and as osteosporis (the lack of calcium on your food) isn't easily fixed by eating more calcium on your food.

Ok, people are downvoting my comment because I am not convinced by their arguments (or worse, just have a different opinion on a polemic topic). That's it, I quit, no more nutrition debate on HN for me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com