Weight: Energy Balance Model Vs Hormonal Model

Bruno26

1. The Energy Balance Model of Obesity.

German diabetologist Carl van Noorden early 1900s.

Obesity is due simply to ingesting too many calories regardless of whether they originate from fat, carb or protein. According to this model we must regain control of our appestats by conscioulsy matching the (reduced) number of calories eaten each day with the increased number of calories we expend in physical activity. Until 30-50 years ago the appestat has worked perfectly without requiring any conscious input is conveniently ignored by adherents the calorie-counting model of weight control. A key basis for this model is that we control our food intake on the basis of conscious regulators - i.e. we can conscioulsy choose to be the weight that we are. As a result if we gain weight it is simply because we have become slothful and gluttonous- we lack discipline and motivation. Therefore the global obesity epidemic is the reult of a massive failure of human willpower that began in the last 50 years. The solution is to regain our resolve and correct wrong energy balances. By counting calories, controlling portions and removing fat we will become lean. This logic suggests a reduced calorie diet will be the most effective weight loss option. This model is brailnless - it ignores any potential role for the human brain in regulating both energy intake and expenditure. It ignores the role of the appestat that for all but the last 50 years of human history has been preicse in directing exactly how much we need to eat each day to keep our bodies at a stable weight.

Versus

2. The Hormonal Insulin model of Obesity

Originated in Germany in early twentieth century.

Hormones especially insulin are the crucial drivers of weight gain. Calories when ingested from carbs, protein and fat act quite differently. Calories from carbs are uniquely obesogenic.

Carbs cause increased secretion of the fat building hormone insulin, that specifically stores as fat any excess calories ingested as carbohydrate.

Insulin promotes fat storage.

The defeat of Germany in WWII and the adoption of English as the universal scientific language buried this theory until recently.

Eating low carb stimulates neither appetite nor excessive insulin secretion.

Which theory / solution is best?

Mellor

Ok Bruno, I'll humour you. The info above is present in quite a biased fashion, but thats to be expected, thats fair enough. But a lot of it is simply incorrect, or grossly representing.
I'll also ask you a few questions throughout, straight forward answers would be appreciated. You are free to argue, debate, re-butt anything I say afterwards, of course.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Obesity is due simply to ingesting too many calories regardless of whether they originate from fat, carb or protein.

Body fat is stored food energy. In order to store food energy as fat, there needs to be a calorific surplus within the system. Simply because energy cannot be created from thin air, that's a basic fact of physics.

Regardless of the theory of how different macros act, or whether it always happens. It's a fact that to gain fat there must be an energy surplus. Do you agree with this fat?

Until 30-50 years ago the appestat has worked perfectly without requiring any conscious input is conveniently ignored by adherents the calorie-counting model of weight control.

That's not true. Not even close tbh.
There have always been people whose appetite exceeded their needs, or as you put it, their appestat's didn't work.
Hippocrates (who lived c.400BC) wrote that "Corpulence is not only a disease itself, but the harbinger of others". This is essentially indentical to opinion today.
Historically, being overweight was an attractive quality, as it was a sign of affluence. Only those that could afford excess food and the opportunity to gain weight. And, those that had the opportunity, didn't hesitate to eat to their hearts content.
It's a bit far to suggest that through coincidence, the upper classes are hormonal failings of their appestats, while the lower classes were lucky enough to have perfectly functional appestat glands.

A much more realistic reason is simply that the poor could hardly afford to meet their needs, let alone consume excess food. The wealthy could, so they did. BTW, the wealthy man's diet was much more abundant in meat and fats and other luxuries foods.

A key basis for this model is that we control our food intake on the basis of conscious regulators - i.e. we can conscioulsy choose to be the weight that we are. As a result if we gain weight it is simply because we have become slothful and gluttonous- we lack discipline and motivation.
Therefore the global obesity epidemic is the reult of a massive failure of human willpower that began in the last 50 years.

People are the size they are because of the food they choose to eat. Where its conscious or unconscious if a different matter, I dont see the relevance here. But there's are a whole host of physiological and environmental reasons involved there.

To put it simply, a typical person in the 1800, 1850, 1900 and 1950 likely couldn't afford to to be fat. Food was expensive for a start, especially the junk and sweets. The poor simply could only afford the bare essentials. Even with the financial means to buy and eat what ever they wished. The food available was very different. There was no frozen pizza, no fast food nearby, no convenience food. Most food was made from scratch. Eating and cooking was a much more labour intensive process.
If somebody wanted a double portion of dinner, it meant twice as much work. Making a 2000 calorie meal took a bit of effort.

That's not the case today. Mass production, centralisation, and the ease of national and internationals freight means that a very different selection of food is available today. And thats jsut the supermarket, home cook meals have declined. Convenience food is everywhere. If somebody wants two dinners, they just put on the microwave twice, or even easier they just order it. It takes just as much effort to say large burger meal as it does to say small burger meal. The only extra work involved is eating it!

Its a lot most cost effective these days to feed your family this convenience junk. My weekly shop is generally spent on real food. If I was to spend the same cash on convenience food. I'd probably get double the calories. When the comes the typical diet, weight gain is almost inevitable.

The solution is to regain our resolve and correct wrong energy balances. By counting calories, controlling portions and removing fat we will become lean. This logic suggests a reduced calorie diet will be the most effective weight loss option.

Strawman. A low fat diet is flawed for many reason. You are associating it with portion control to drag the latter down. A common debate tactic, but it shows weakness in the core argument.

I don't think calories reduction alone is the most effective. And the logic doesn't suggest that either, as you suggest. Mush mroe can be done to optimise it.
No matter what your dietary choices are. Low carb, low fat, paleo, vegetarian. Losing weight requires reducing calories, whether this is done actively (counting calories) or passively (through food choices, or through reducing carb intake) doesn't matter.

Another question, say somebody eats a paleo-ish, reduced carb type diet made up entirely of real food. But they also wish to add mass for sport. They don'r precisely count their cals, they just increase portions, eat a bit more often, eat a bit more.
What do you think will happen? Gain weight, lose weight or stay the same.

This model is brailnless - it ignores any potential role for the human brain in regulating both energy intake and expenditure. It ignores the role of the appestat that for all but the last 50 years of human history has been preicse in directing exactly how much we need to eat each day to keep our bodies at a stable weight.

As above, the appestat hasn't been remotely precise outside of the last 50 years.
Henry the 8th had a 52" waist. A girth he achieve with an insatiable appetite for meat.

2. The Hormonal Insulin model of Obesity

Originated in Germany in early twentieth century.

Hormones especially insulin are the crucial drivers of weight gain. Calories when ingested from carbs, protein and fat act quite differently. Calories from carbs are uniquely obesogenic.

Excess carbs are obesogenic. As is excess fat.
Insulin plays a role in a large number of functions. Accepting that calories consumption is a key factor in weight gain doesn't mean no other factors are recognised.

Carbs cause increased secretion of the fat building hormone insulin, that specifically stores as fat any excess calories ingested as carbohydrate.
Insulin promotes fat storage.

Insulin has a very complex role in the body. Calling it the fat building hormone ignores a lot of these.
The bolded part is wrong btw. When excess carbs are consumed, its over simplistic to say these are store as fat. Quite simply that doesn't happen.
To repeat clearly, excess carbs are not converted to fat under any realistic circumstances.

Consumption of excess carbs, results in the increased oxidation of dietry carbs. Which means reduce oxidation of dietary fat, which in turn is stored direct as fat.
Eg, if somebody daily needs are 100%, and they eat 30% protein, 30% fat, and 60% carbs. Which is 20% over their needs
The body doesn't convert excess carbs to fat. Why would it, its a waste of energy. It's more efficient to burn these for energy, and sort the dietary fat directly.
The net effect might be the same, body fat is increased. But the high fat brigade repeatedly insists on ignoring these functions in order to present its diet in a prettier package. I don't see the need tbh. Hiding information only damages their information.

The defeat of Germany in WWII and the adoption of English as the universal scientific language buried this theory until recently.

This one was the strangest point tbh.
Carl van Noorden, who you suggest is responsible for the energy balance theory was also German. The "early 1900s" and the "early 20th certury" are the same period. His ideas faced the same international issues.

Which theory / solution is best?

As you've presented them above. Both approaches are very flawed.

The first looks at calories but isn't looking at food quality.
The second is looking at macro content, but ignoring energy content.

I don't know any competent person who would suggest either approach is optimal. I also don’t know why you insist in dealing in ridiculous extremes.
My approach, would be to incorporate the positives of both and eliminate the negatives of both.

So, eat real food as much as possible. Avoid processed food. Be aware of calories content and run a small deficit is the aim is weight loss, or a small surplus if the aim is weight gain. Where possible chose unpackaged food – use a common sense approach to this.
The bulk of my diet is meat, vegetables, eggs, dairy (as long as you have no dairy issues), fruit. Carbs intake is tailored to suit training needs. I don’t expect an unfit beginner trying to lose a bit of weight via 3 sessions a week, to have the same energy needs as an amateur athlete peaking for competition.

I don’t see what is so difficult about that. It’s really simply.
And importantly, it removes all the extreme dogma that makes up the bulk of the nonsense regarding diet.

Hanley

Native Inuit people don't eat carbs. They're massively fat.

Discuss.

Alf Veedersane

I like this.

"In fact, classifying yourself as low-carb or high-carb or whatever might be the problem. Just eat in a way that works for you. Let the carb intake fall wherever you feel best but don’t become a zealot about it. And certainly do not be a dick to people over it. Chill out.

Don’t be that zero-carb guy who sees it as THE way. And don’t be the anti-low-carb guy to talks to people like they’re idiots just because they like eating a diet low in carbs."

Bruno26

Hanley wrote: »

Native Inuit people don't eat carbs. They're massively fat.

Discuss.

You still have not responded to my previous post!

They do eat carbs now. Before they traded with USA food companies they lived on very few carbs. They were not fat then. This is well documented.

Hanley

Bruno26 wrote: »

You still have not responded to my previous post!

Surprisingly, I don't keep a running log of every post I have and haven't responded to on boards.

Bruno26

Hanley wrote: »

Surprisingly, I don't keep a running log of every post I have and haven't responded to on boards.

Do you accept my response about the Inuits?

Bruno26

@ mellor. I accept quite a lot of what you say to be true. There have been fat people for thousands of years. Henry drank serious amounts of alcohol and consumed lots of sugar along with lots of meat.

It is my view that those who struggle with weight would be far better served seeking a solution via the hormonal model. This model takes care of the energy balance model without the need to be concerned about it.

fungie

Bruno26 wrote: »

1. The Energy Balance Model of Obesity.

German diabetologist Carl van Noorden early 1900s.

Obesity is due simply to ingesting too many calories regardless of whether they originate from fat, carb or protein. According to this model we must regain control of our appestats by conscioulsy matching the (reduced) number of calories eaten each day with the increased number of calories we expend in physical activity. Until 30-50 years ago the appestat has worked perfectly without requiring any conscious input is conveniently ignored by adherents the calorie-counting model of weight control. A key basis for this model is that we control our food intake on the basis of conscious regulators - i.e. we can conscioulsy choose to be the weight that we are. As a result if we gain weight it is simply because we have become slothful and gluttonous- we lack discipline and motivation. Therefore the global obesity epidemic is the reult of a massive failure of human willpower that began in the last 50 years. The solution is to regain our resolve and correct wrong energy balances. By counting calories, controlling portions and removing fat we will become lean. This logic suggests a reduced calorie diet will be the most effective weight loss option. This model is brailnless - it ignores any potential role for the human brain in regulating both energy intake and expenditure. It ignores the role of the appestat that for all but the last 50 years of human history has been preicse in directing exactly how much we need to eat each day to keep our bodies at a stable weight.

Versus

2. The Hormonal Insulin model of Obesity

Originated in Germany in early twentieth century.

Hormones especially insulin are the crucial drivers of weight gain. Calories when ingested from carbs, protein and fat act quite differently. Calories from carbs are uniquely obesogenic.

Carbs cause increased secretion of the fat building hormone insulin, that specifically stores as fat any excess calories ingested as carbohydrate.

Insulin promotes fat storage.

The defeat of Germany in WWII and the adoption of English as the universal scientific language buried this theory until recently.

Eating low carb stimulates neither appetite nor excessive insulin secretion.

Which theory / solution is best?

I'm a physicist, you cant break the first law of thermodynamics.

/thread

Dermighty

Hanley wrote: »

Native Inuit people don't eat carbs. They're massively fat.

Discuss.

Probably the delicious seals they eat.

fungie wrote: »

I'm a physicist, you cant break the first law of thermodynamics.

/thread

I'm a mechanical engineer, you can't break the first law of thermodynamics.

/thread

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

You still have not responded to my previous post!

They do eat carbs now. Before they traded with USA food companies they lived on very few carbs. They were not fat then. This is well documented.

I would presume they are eating more overall, if they have better trading channels to receive goods and foodstuffs.

ford2600

Dermighty wrote: »

I'm a mechanical engineer, you can't break the first law of thermodynamics.
/thread

I'm one of them to, and if your going to apply the First Law you better apply the second one to?

Is the metabolism of fat/protein/carbs equally efficient? If the various macronutrients require different and more steps for metabolism, and given any closed system tendency towards disorder, doesn't the more steps mean less efficiency and therefore need to be considered in any meaningful energy balance equation?

I've no idea what the inefficiencies might amount to, probably small or tiny as to be insignificant.

Also the First Law applies to closed systems no?

@Mellor sums it up well and I don't believe thermodynamics is particularly useful here.

Get away from dogma and there are still many interesting questions to be answered.

fungie

ford2600 wrote: »

I'm one of them to, and if your going to apply the First Law you better apply the second one to?

Is the metabolism of fat/protein/carbs equally efficient? If the various macronutrients require different and more steps for metabolism, and given any closed system tendency towards disorder, doesn't the more steps mean less efficiency and therefore need to be considered in any meaningful energy balance equation?

I've no idea what the inefficiencies might amount to, probably small or tiny as to be insignificant.

Also the First Law applies to closed systems no?

@Mellor sums it up well and I don't believe thermodynamics is particularly useful here.

Get away from dogma and there are still many interesting questions to be answered.

Eat 5000cals from butter everyday for 6 months and come back to me and say thermodynamics isnt that useful

ford2600

fungie wrote: »

Eat 5000cals from butter everyday for 6 months and come back to me and say thermodynamics isnt that useful

You need thermodynamics for that?

If you have anything intelligent to add on efficiencies I'm all ears.

fungie

ford2600 wrote: »

You need thermodynamics for that?

If you have anything intelligent to add on efficiencies I'm all ears.

I was using an extreme example to show how you do need to know how many calories you are eating.

as for efficiencies, I would imagine the effect is largely negligible otherwise it would be a well known and a promoted thing but I am open to correction.

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

I would presume they are eating more overall, if they have better trading channels to receive goods and foodstuffs.

Perhaps. Certainly eating more carbs. They got fat when carbohydrate processed foods were introduced. They would still be of normal weight if they still ate their traditional diet.

thegreatiam

So I'm not fat I just have big hormones?

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

Perhaps. Certainly eating more carbs. They got fat when carbohydrate processed foods were introduced. They would still be of normal weight if they still ate their traditional diet.

But does the documentation you cite examine whether they are simply eating more?

thegreatiam

Oryx wrote: »

But does the documentation you cite examine whether they are simply eating more?

Or static housing was more readily available meaning that they could spend longer times in one place without the need to constantly relocate to areas of food abundance.

Or better food prep methods were introduced meaning that they didn't have to rely so much on frozen seal fat buried under the ice.

and transport and logistics were all improved so goods were more easily available

All in all, the developments of the last 60-70 years have been quite handy for the people in harsher climates

Bruno26

For the engineers.

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

But does the documentation you cite examine whether they are simply eating more?

I'm sure they eat more and move less. That is eat more processed carbs and probably less fish as a consequence.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'm sure they eat more and move less. That is eat more processed carbs and probably less fish as a consequence.

Youre sure? That's anecdotal and completely meaningless. You don't know. Certainly, something is going on. But to empirically say its because of processed carbs is not something you can state.

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

Youre sure? That's anecdotal and completely meaningless. You don't know. Certainly, something is going on. But to empirically say its because of processed carbs is not something you can state.

Would they be fat now if carbs were not introduced to their diet?

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

Would they be fat now if carbs were not introduced to their diet?

That question is based on your own presumption that the introduction of carbs is the reason they are now fat(ter). Youre asking me to confirm that for you. I cannot. You have provided no evidence that carbs are the culprit here.

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

That question is based on your own presumption that the introduction of carbs is the reason they are now fat(ter). Youre asking me to confirm that for you. I cannot. You have provided no evidence that carbs are the culprit here.

You presume they eat more. You've nothing to base this on.

Bruno26

Hanley wrote: »

Native Inuit people don't eat carbs. They're massively fat.

Discuss.

This statement is incorrect. It does not differentiate between traditional and modern Inuit diet. Yet it gets three thanks! Nobody dares critique. Herd mentality alive and kicking.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

This statement is incorrect. It does not differentiate between traditional and modern Inuit diet. Yet it gets three thanks! Nobody dares critique. Herd mentality alive and kicking.

Insults to other posters does not help your case.

You presume they eat more. You've nothing to base this on.

So you agree that your presumptions carry no more weight than mine?

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

Insults to other posters does not help your case.

So you agree that your presumptions carry no more weight than mine?

There was no insult in saying that.

No- they got fat when they ate a western modern diet.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

There was no insult in saying that.

No- they got fat when they ate a western modern diet.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

That article makes no reference to whether their calorific intake changed. It does however mention that they were very active as part of their 'old' lifestyle. And you have changed your argument from carbs to western diet.

thegreatiam

Bruno26 wrote: »

There was no insult in saying that.

No- they got fat when they ate a western modern diet.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

How about Native Americans, live a similar lifestyle. nomadic, live off the land active hunters etc. yet their diet has always contained corn as a staple. as well as other "western carbs". certainly a lot more than the genetically similar arctic people they are closely related to.

Alf Veedersane

I'm gonna throw this out there and I realise it might sound crazy but...what about keeping an eye on your calories in and out AND eating good, unprocessed food?

#maverick

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

That article makes no reference to whether their calorific intake changed. It does however mention that they were very active as part of their 'old' lifestyle. And you have changed your argument from carbs to western diet.

They got fat from changing to a western (carb processed) diet. Is it that difficult to comprehend?

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'm gonna throw this out there and I realise it might sound crazy but...what about keeping an eye on your calories in and out AND eating good, unprocessed food?

#maverick

In doing the second part there is no need to do the first part.

ford2600

Bruno26 wrote: »

In doing the second part there is no need to do the first part.

I don't have to leave my house to know that is bo!!ix

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

They got fat from changing to a western (carb processed) diet. Is it that difficult to comprehend?

You lack specifics, you lack evidence. But other than that I get what youre trying to say. But its far too woolly and vague to back up the main argument youve tried to make here.

Bruno26

ford2600 wrote: »

I don't have to leave my house to know that is bo!!ix

Counting calories has been around approximately 100 years. Very few people were overweight prior to the twentieth century. Eat real unprocessed food- near impossible to be fat- therefore unnecessary to count.

thegreatiam

Bruno26 wrote: »

Counting calories has been around approximately 100 years. Very few people were overweight prior to the twentieth century. Eat real unprocessed food- near impossible to be fat- therefore unnecessary to count.

starvation and poverty and having to toil 18 hours a day also makes it pretty easy to not care about calories.

Frosty McSnowballs

I haven't had a carb since 2006. Why is me so fat?

thegreatiam

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

I haven't had a carb since 2006. Why is me so fat?

hormones, you're riddled with em.

Bruno26

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

I haven't had a carb since 2006. Why is me so fat?

You have

ford2600

Bruno26 wrote: »

Counting calories has been around approximately 100 years. Very few people were overweight prior to the twentieth century. Eat real unprocessed foodsible to be fat- therefore unnecessary to count.

I've eaten hflc in order to compete in ultra endurance cycling where it is highly advantageous "to me" to use my body fat as almost my entire energy supply.

While eating that way I lost considerable body fat, 16% to 12% approximately.

Fat loss wasn't a goal.

At same time my wife wished to lose a little food, and did what you propose. It didn't work.
Diet was excellent quality food with all grains rice pasta sugar excluded. She is now mixing portion control with a cardio/weight training and seeing results. She eats some good quality carb.

So as I said I don't leave to leave my house to know what you propose isn't a silver bullet

generic2012

ford2600 wrote: »

I've eaten hflc in order to compete in ultra endurance cycling where it is highly advantageous "to me" to use my body fat as almost my entire energy supply.

While eating that way I lost considerable body fat, 16% to 12% approximately.

Fat loss wasn't a goal.

At same time my wife wished to lose a little food, and did what you propose. It didn't work.
Diet was excellent quality food with all grains rice pasta sugar excluded. She is now mixing portion control with a cardio/weight training and seeing results. She eats some good quality carb.

So as I said I don't leave to leave my house to know what you propose isn't a silver bullet

You hardly think the fact that you were training for ultra endurance cycling might be affecting your conclusion at all?

Frosty McSnowballs

thegreatiam wrote: »

hormones, you're riddled with em.

Hhhmmmm, I don't remember eating them though! How many hormones are in a Snickers?

Bruno26 wrote: »

You have

No waaaaaaay! :rolleyes:

ford2600

generic2012 wrote: »

You hardly think the fact that you were training for ultra endurance cycling might be affecting your conclusion at all?

I've cycled on a much higher carb diet also. Fat loss, but not weight loss, only occured once I omitted carbs as main fuel supply.

My conclusions pertain to me only. I'm very open to reasons as to why my example of one went the wsy it did!

Bruno26

ford2600 wrote: »

I've eaten hflc in order to compete in ultra endurance cycling where it is highly advantageous "to me" to use my body fat as almost my entire energy supply.

While eating that way I lost considerable body fat, 16% to 12% approximately.

Fat loss wasn't a goal.

At same time my wife wished to lose a little food, and did what you propose. It didn't work.
Diet was excellent quality food with all grains rice pasta sugar excluded. She is now mixing portion control with a cardio/weight training and seeing results. She eats some good quality carb.

So as I said I don't leave to leave my house to know what you propose isn't a silver bullet

I would need to see exactly what she ate before I could comment. On some of the podcasts I listen to it has been discussed that hflc may suit men better than women for some reason.

generic2012

Any chance of anyone supplying an independent peer reviewed article that would suggest that calories don't matter if you eat high enough fat or you eat under 50 grams of carbs or whatever. Comparing the observational findings of an anecdotal society or one person cannot be considered as evidence, or lack of, of anything. It is far to unreliable and flimsy a source.

If people believed things without evidence or because one person said something happened, which is what is being asked of people here, society would cease to exist. It's not a big ask.

If something has an effect it can be measured.

Just supply a peer reviewed article showing that measurement.

If you say it can't be measured it should just be ignored using a swift stroke of occom's razor.

If you say it doesn't have an effect then what are we talking about?

TL;DR If what you talk about exists, then there is evidence of it existing. Show us that evidence in a reliable form such as an article that has gone through the peer review process. If there is no evidence of it existing then any who believes it exists is deluded.

siochain

Hanley wrote: »

Native Inuit people don't eat carbs. They're massively fat.

Discuss.

Fat and healthier than native [insert what ever nation you like] fat processed carb and trans fat muncher

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

Any chance of anyone supplying an independent peer reviewed article that would suggest that calories don't matter if you eat high enough fat or you eat under 50 grams of carbs or whatever. Comparing the observational findings of an anecdotal society or one person cannot be considered as evidence, or lack of, of anything. It is far to unreliable and flimsy a source.

If people believed things without evidence or because one person said something happened, which is what is being asked of people here, society would cease to exist. It's not a big ask.

If something has an effect it can be measured.

Just supply a peer reviewed article showing that measurement.

If you say it can't be measured it should just be ignored using a swift stroke of occom's razor.

If you say it doesn't have an effect then what are we talking about?

TL;DR If what you talk about exists, then there is evidence of it existing. Show us that evidence in a reliable form such as an article that has gone through the peer review process. If there is no evidence of it existing then any who believes it exists is deluded.

Calories do matter- they just don't need to be counted if one eats a particular way.

Bruno26

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/news/la-heb-calories-robert-lustig-20120628

Link to study in article

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Calories do matter- they just don't need to be counted if one eats a particular way.

How can you say that when there is no evidence to support your claim?

thegreatiam

Bruno26 wrote: »

Calories do matter- they just don't need to be counted if one eats a particular way.

Driving in a particular way will ensure that you don't go over the limit even if you never look at your speedo. just because you dont track your calories doesnt mean that they are irrelevant.