Question: weight loss and Fruit consumption in day

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Mm, sorry, still not seeing how that isn't just part of CICO.

...because the people losing the most weight while ingesting the same amount of calories weren't burning more calories than 2 of the 3 other groups?

 

[Roboramma]

...because the people losing the most weight while ingesting the same amount of calories weren't burning more calories than 2 of the 3 other groups?

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

...because the people losing the most weight while ingesting the same amount of calories weren't burning more calories than 2 of the 3 other groups?

I'm sorry, but your summary didn't include that info. It would be especially odd if different exercise regimes didn't result in different physical activity energy expenditures, different changes in lean body mass, and that all participants had the same BMR due to height, etc. I think you are confusing being at the same caloric diet with the same caloric deficit? That different people on the same calorie intake lose or gain or maintain weight is entirely within CICO, because they have different calories out.

 

[MikeG]

...because the people losing the most weight while ingesting the same amount of calories weren't burning more calories than 2 of the 3 other groups?

You can't know that. Besides, did you note the "strength training" element of two of the categories? This results in building up muscle bulk. Bigger muscles require more fuel to work them (there's a reason distance runners are tiny), and this fuel is burned even when at rest. Muscly people are burning more calories sitting in front of the TV than skinny people. Therefore, more Calories Out for the CICO calculation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How did you reach that conclusion?

Simple maths.

Say those doing 30 minutes of aerobic exercise were burning 100 calories with that exercise and those doing 30 minutes strength training were burning 100 calories. Those doing 15 minutes of aerobic exercise would burn 50 calories during that period and another 50 during the 15 minutes of strength training, making it 100 calories burnt in total.

But say that's not the case and that the strength training for 30 minutes burns 100 calories yet the aerobic exercise burns 500. 15 minutes of the former is still 50 calories, and 15 minutes of the latter would be 250 calories, making a total of 350 calories. The same is true for if the numbers are the other way round.

There is no way to burn half the calories of each of the two groups and end up burning more calories than any other group. At best you'll burn more than 2 groups and less than the third.

Yet still they lost more weight.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You can't know that. Besides, did you note the "strength training" element of two of the categories? This results in building up muscle bulk. Bigger muscles require more fuel to work them (there's a reason distance runners are tiny), and this fuel is burned even when at rest. Muscly people are burning more calories sitting in front of the TV than skinny people. Therefore, more Calories Out for the CICO calculation.

Correct. And that factor would be more significant in the group doing 30 minutes strength training every day than in the group only doing 15 minutes strength training every day, no?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No diet works for everyone: humans are different, no question.
But the fact that schemes like paleo, Atkins or Keto diets with very high caloric values work for some proves that calories alone aren't sufficient to make people gain weight.
Anecdotal, but everyone I know who used diets based on low glycemic index food has lost weight, often rapidly (though not necessarily sustainably - curse you potato chips!).

The whole reason why diet fads come and go is because they work so well for some and so little for others. But all that means is that you have to find out what makes your body tick, and eat/sleep/exercise accordingly.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But the fact that schemes like paleo, Atkins or Keto diets with very high caloric values work for some proves that calories alone aren't sufficient to make people gain weight.

I don't know about studies into the other diets, but when an extensive study was done of a few diets, including the Atkins, where people kept extensive diaries of what they ate, it was found that people on the Atkins diet were actually eating as few calories as those on calorie controlled diets. I can't find an online source, but in Ben Goldachre's book Bad Science, he says that this is why all fad diets that work actually work - even if you don't think you are, you're actually ingesting fewer calories.

 

[Ziggurat]

Simple maths.

But it isn't simple. A large fraction of the calories burned by exercise, particularly strength training, are not expended during the exercise itself, but is driven by anabolic processes to recover from the stress. That gets very complex, and you can't assume it's linear.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But it isn't simple. A large fraction of the calories burned by exercise, particularly strength training, are not expended during the exercise itself, but is driven by anabolic processes to recover from the stress. That gets very complex, and you can't assume it's linear.

...which is pretty much exactly the point I'm making.

I'm arguing against the proposition that weight loss is a simple matter of calories in vs. calories out.

I mean, at the very basic level, it doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics, of course. But the body is a complex machine with lots of different systems that interact in various ways. And what you ingest is more complex than just its base calorific value, there's also the matter of how easily those calories are converted to energy within the body. Hell, paper has a calorific value, but the body can't get energy from eating it at all.

So, yes, I'm very well aware that it's not a simple, linear equation. That's why I'm arguing against those who are arguing that it is.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It so simple the math that there are 5'10 people weighing 200 pounds with a BMI of 29 who eat 1700 kcal per day and gain weight, and people with exactly the same body built who eat 4500 kcal a day and lose 6 pounds a month.

 

[MikeG]

It so simple the math that there are 5'10 people weighing 200 pounds with a BMI of 29 who eat 1700 kcal per day and gain weight, and people with exactly the same body built who eat 4500 kcal a day and lose 6 pounds a month.

Giving only the "calories in" part of the story isn't of any utility in understanding the different outcomes in your examples. Let's see the "calories out" part, then we can talk.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

I'm arguing against the proposition that weight loss is a simple matter of calories in vs. calories out.

This argument only holds if you assume the "Calories out" side of the equation begins and ends with the 30 minutes of exercise. What others are saying is that with strength training, the calories out side continues at a higher rate after the exercise is complete whereas with cardio only, the calories out may be the same or higher during exertion, but does not sustain. Mixing the two provides both benefits. A higher burn rate during cardio, and more efficient muscles to burn calories while at rest.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

It so simple the math that there are 5'10 people weighing 200 pounds with a BMI of 29 who eat 1700 kcal per day and gain weight, and people with exactly the same body built who eat 4500 kcal a day and lose 6 pounds a month.

Those two people may be the same height and weight, but I assure you - they aren't the same build.

Back in August, I was 6' 4" and over 230 lbs. Therefore I must have been built like an NFL linebacker.

Nope. I assure you, that wasn't the case. I'm guessing every linebacker in the NFL could consume far more calories than me at that time and maintain or lose weight.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This argument only holds if you assume the "Calories out" side of the equation begins and ends with the 30 minutes of exercise. What others are saying is that with strength training, the calories out side continues at a higher rate after the exercise is complete whereas with cardio only, the calories out may be the same or higher during exertion, but does not sustain. Mixing the two provides both benefits. A higher burn rate during cardio, and more efficient muscles to burn calories while at rest.

You're posting this as if it is an argument against what I've posted, rather than agreeing with it.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

You're posting this as if it is an argument against what I've posted, rather than agreeing with it.

Color me confused. You said you were arguing against weight loss being a simple matter of Calories in / Calories out. If you agree with what I posted, then you can't be arguing against calories in / calories out.

If calories out exceed calories in - you will lose weight. How you get to that imbalance may vary - but it is that simple.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Color me confused. You said you were arguing against weight loss being a simple matter of Calories in / Calories out. If you agree with what I posted, then you can't be arguing against calories in / calories out.

If calories out exceed calories in - you will lose weight. How you get to that imbalance may vary - but it is that simple.

Again, I'm not disputing the first law of thermodynamics. I'm arguing against "calories in/ calories out" being "a simple matter".

 

[Spock Jenkins]

Again, I'm not disputing the first law of thermodynamics. I'm arguing against "calories in/ calories out" being "a simple matter".

How the body burns calories is complex. Weight loss is, however, as simple as calories in less than calories out.

 

[Ziggurat]

How the body burns calories is complex. Weight loss is, however, as simple as calories in less than calories out.

That is both true and useless.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Giving only the "calories in" part of the story isn't of any utility in understanding the different outcomes in your examples. Let's see the "calories out" part, then we can talk.

The first example may be 1500 Kcal. In the second example, energy consumption/oxidation takes some 2500 Kcal per day.