Cal or Kcal

[Sakly]

There's a fundamental law of thermodynamics that says if you consume a certain number of calories of fuel, you'll either burn them or excrete them.

The body is an open system.

[gvcormac]

There's a fundamental law of thermodynamics that says if you consume a certain number of calories of fuel, you'll either burn them or excrete them.

The body is an open system.

So?

In rereading my post I see I neglected to include "store." You burn, excrete, or store every calorie (Calorie) you consume. Most of the storage is fat, but there's also glycogen, muscle, and other tissue.

I'm guessing -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you're alluding to the trope that since a bomb calorimeter is often used to measure food energy, it has no application to nutrition because we aren't bomb calorimeters. Nobody says you can measure nutritional calories by feeding a subject and measuring their temperature increase. That's the only reason I can think of that it would matter whether the body was an open or closed system.

[Sakly]

In rereading my post I see I neglected to include "store." You burn, excrete, or store every calorie (Calorie) you consume.

That's not true.

I'm guessing -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you're alluding to the trope that since a bomb calorimeter is often used to measure food energy, it has no application to nutrition because we aren't bomb calorimeters. Nobody says you can measure nutritional calories by feeding a subject and measuring their temperature increase. That's the only reason I can think of that it would matter whether the body was an open or closed system.

Fundamental law of thermodynamic is defined for a closed system, so regardless of what open system we are talking, it cannot be applied to it.

[iain]

There's a whole lot of dogma in this thread.

There's a fundamental law of thermodynamics that says if you consume a certain number of calories of fuel, you'll either burn them or excrete them. Except for fiber, you excrete very few of the calories you consume.

Some sources of calories (protien) require energy to consume. So a protein calorie, all things being equal, generates about 1/3 of a calorie of heat in the process of being digested.

"Calorie counting" is largely fruitless because it is done wrong. Just like budgeting. But you should be aware of calories, just as you should be aware of the price of things you're purchasing. If you are gaining unwanted weight, you should consume fewer calories; if you're spending more than you earn, you should purchase less. A calculator is not required. Just a course correction.

+1

The only truly "closed" system is the complete universe (or multi-verse on some assumptions). In reality all calculations are done on a system where the interaction outside that system is not significant when compared to that within the system. Yes we make use of some fats for structural purposes. We also convert carbs to fats and add some carbs to other structures (see glycosylation). But if you ignore the storage of fats, in adults this will almost always be minimal compared to the amounts burned. As the above indicates "Calorie counting" may well be a hopeless task (although for anyone doing an ultra-marathon the attempt is often useful), but keeping an eye on the Calories and adjusting as required is IMHO useful.

[gvcormac]

In rereading my post I see I neglected to include "store." You burn, excrete, or store every calorie (Calorie) you consume.

That's not true.

[ . . . ]

Fundamental law of thermodynamic is defined for a closed system, so regardless of what open system we are talking, it cannot be applied to it.

So if you consume 1,000 Calories of food, and you don't burn, excrete, or store it, where do those 1,000 Calories end up?

[Sakly]

In rereading my post I see I neglected to include "store." You burn, excrete, or store every calorie (Calorie) you consume.

That's not true.

[ . . . ]

Fundamental law of thermodynamic is defined for a closed system, so regardless of what open system we are talking, it cannot be applied to it.

So if you consume 1,000 Calories of food, and you don't burn, excrete, or store it, where do those 1,000 Calories end up?

Ups, sorry, you are right in this one. Too fast with my response.
This is exactly the reason why you cannot apply the method calories in - calories out (in terms of calories metabolized [stored or oxidized], like it is meant by this strategy). There is no way to measure excreted "calories" not metabolized by the body.
As said before, there is even no proper method to measure the input of the absorbed and metabolized part (regardless of storage or oxidation) of the food compartments.

[gvcormac]

Ups, sorry, you are right in this one. Too fast with my response.
This is exactly the reason why you cannot apply the method calories in - calories out (in terms of calories metabolized [stored or oxidized], like it is meant by this strategy). There is no way to measure excreted "calories" not metabolized by the body.
As said before, there is even no proper method to measure the input of the absorbed and metabolized part (regardless of storage or oxidation) of the food compartments.

There's no way to do this on an individual ongoing basis, but it has certainly been done in clinical settings. They need to capture everything and feed it into a calorimeter.

For practical purposes, the only Calories that you excrete in quantity are fiber. Unless you're diabetic, that is. This has been confirmed by the aforementioned clinical studies.

So when you add up the Calories from the food label, you can subtract fiber calories (4 times fiber grams). If you are a large consumer of sugar alcohols (*itol), you might need to factor them in, too. Fat excretion is less than 10% (0.9 times fat grams). Not sure about protein.

Here's one of many articles on the subject: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 602030134X

[Sakly]

Ups, sorry, you are right in this one. Too fast with my response.
This is exactly the reason why you cannot apply the method calories in - calories out (in terms of calories metabolized [stored or oxidized], like it is meant by this strategy). There is no way to measure excreted "calories" not metabolized by the body.
As said before, there is even no proper method to measure the input of the absorbed and metabolized part (regardless of storage or oxidation) of the food compartments.

There's no way to do this on an individual ongoing basis, but it has certainly been done in clinical settings. They need to capture everything and feed it into a calorimeter.

For practical purposes, the only Calories that you excrete in quantity are fiber. Unless you're diabetic, that is. This has been confirmed by the aforementioned clinical studies.

So when you add up the Calories from the food label, you can subtract fiber calories (4 times fiber grams). If you are a large consumer of sugar alcohols (*itol), you might need to factor them in, too. Fat excretion is less than 10% (0.9 times fat grams). Not sure about protein.

Here's one of many articles on the subject: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 602030134X

Was short on time to read your linked paper, so late reply.
First you agree there is no chance to get it done on individual basis. Then pointing out clinical settings, which did this measurements, which are worthless for the individual. The linked paper exactly shows this as well.
Your second abstract says, only fiber calories are excreted, but your third abstract contradicts saying less than 10% of fat as well.
Your linked paper shows this is highly individual.
Next mentioned factor from my side: food labels are +-20% off the scale, so using the labels for calculation doesn't work.
Counting calories works for the individual? Hm. Not convinced. To many variables have high variation, too many aspects are highly individual and behave different based on metabolism. The paper exactly points this out.

[gvcormac]

They aren't my papers; theyre just references I found from a cursory search in scholar.google.com

I'm not sure of your point. There is some imprecision in measurement of all three factors: energy consumed, energy expended, and energy excreted. That doesn't mean you can throw your hands up in the air and say that conservation of energy is not a thing.

It certainly is.

Is "calorie counting" a realistic way to determine energy balance? Probably not. But if you want to change the trajectory of your weight, you need to change your energy balance. You have direct control over what you eat and how much you move. You have a tiny amount of control over how much heat you radiate (e.g. clothing, room temperature, air circulation). You have even less control of your digestive efficiency, and most of the control mechanisms you do have would be considered eating disorders.

[Sakly]

I did not say that it is your work, only "your linked paper".

I also did not say "throw your hands up, there is no conservation of energy". I only said it does not apply to the body as open system. Many aspects pointed out show calories in - calories out does not work, as balance cannot be calculated. Now you agreed.

I would say, you agreed to this statement:

In the end it comes down to "tracking" your amount of food and your weight, adjust input according your goals, that's it.

Adding the aspect, you do not only have the control of what you eat, also control of how much of that.
The factor of macro nutrient composition also plays a (huge?) role, found no info about that in the paper as well.
I would change the above statement to

In the end it comes down to "tracking" your amount and kind of food and your body composition, adjust input according your goals, that's it.

But tracking composition isn't that easy.

[gvcormac]

But tracking composition isn't that easy.

Without stipulating that it matters much, it is as easy to track macros as overall calories. They are on the label for all packaged foods.

The trouble is that arguments such as your are advanced without evidence by keto/carnivore advocates, in order to discount the applicability of facts like conservation of energy.

Sure, you can lose weight on keto/carnivore. You can also lose weight on ultra-low-fat, or on a balanced diet.

[Sakly]

But tracking composition isn't that easy.

Without stipulating that it matters much, it is as easy to track macros as overall calories. They are on the label for all packaged foods.

I'm talking about body composition, not food composition.

The trouble is that arguments such as your are advanced without evidence by keto/carnivore advocates, in order to discount the applicability of facts like conservation of energy.

I never referenced a specific diet, nor suggested to follow a specific one. I only pointed out problems, which are valid and prevent using a method like CI-CO in any kind of diet.

Sure, you can lose weight on keto/carnivore. You can also lose weight on ultra-low-fat, or on a balanced diet.

Never argued against that. Absolutely agree.