A few weeks ago I tripped and fell, twisting my knee. It was a very contemporary trip, I was consulting Google(tm) maps on my iPhone(tm) at the time
( Read more... )
That fact that you can move elements of an equation around doesn't remove the fact that the equation (not the equals sign in it) implies causation. You can do the same thing with F/M=A (force divided by mass equals acceleration) but that doesn't change the fact that if you apply as force to a mass then the force will most definitely be the thing that causes the acceleration. So while there are surely going to be metabolic issues that affect the ways in which you metabolise food and how efficiently and whether you'll be better able/more motivated to exercise, I'd still suggest that energy has to come from somewhere and if you don't make use of it then it's still going to be stored unless you can induce the body to just pass it straight through (and that particular strategy has own special issues). So I'm not seeing the ability shuffle variables in an equation as invalidating the scenario that equation represents, whether it says "basal metabolic load + exercise - calorific intake = net body mass loss or net body mass loss - calorific
( ... )
Your first point is a good one and I have changed the post to reflect the fact that it is about equations involving aggregates. It is treating the aggregates as single things which causes the problem.
Your second point, since it expands to cover aggregates, does not work so well. The point the book makes is the form by calories are ingested of itself affects one's propensity to engage in activity, to store fat or to pass it through. The equation has causation underlying it, but the equals sign does not tell you where that is.
If cal_in - cal_out is bigger than zero, then you gain weight. If it's less than zero, you lose weight. This agree with.
What's misleading about it is that cal_out is a function of cal_in. You change cal_in, that's going to change cal_out. In some people, increasing cal_in increases cal_out (they start fidgeting more). I can't recall a simply study saying that reducing cal_in reduces cal_out, but it certainly seems likely.
It takes very small changes in number of calories consumed to result in changes in weight. A fifty calorie a day difference--that's about 2% of the day's intake--results in a 5lb change over a year. Yet people don't swing in weight very much if left to their own devices. Somehow, there's some internal regulatory system that adjusts appetite and activity to ensure that weight stays pretty steady. If you're trying to lose or gain weight, you're fighting that very effective internal regulatory system.
Comments 3
Reply
Your second point, since it expands to cover aggregates, does not work so well. The point the book makes is the form by calories are ingested of itself affects one's propensity to engage in activity, to store fat or to pass it through. The equation has causation underlying it, but the equals sign does not tell you where that is.
Reply
What's misleading about it is that cal_out is a function of cal_in. You change cal_in, that's going to change cal_out. In some people, increasing cal_in increases cal_out (they start fidgeting more). I can't recall a simply study saying that reducing cal_in reduces cal_out, but it certainly seems likely.
It takes very small changes in number of calories consumed to result in changes in weight. A fifty calorie a day difference--that's about 2% of the day's intake--results in a 5lb change over a year. Yet people don't swing in weight very much if left to their own devices. Somehow, there's some internal regulatory system that adjusts appetite and activity to ensure that weight stays pretty steady. If you're trying to lose or gain weight, you're fighting that very effective internal regulatory system.
Reply
Leave a comment