“Calorie Theory” and the Flat Earth

The truth is, the conventional wisdom about why we get fat is simply wrong. It’s not about energy balance; it’s not about “overconsumption of calories” or “taking in more calories than we burn.” It’s about something else entirely: how the human body regulates fat metabolism and the accumulation of fat in our adipose tissue.

-Gary Taubes

Even though our understanding of biology has improved and the causes of obesity are better understood, we still have some flat Earthers that can’t get past the overly simplistic and trivial “calorie theory,” aka “eat less, move more.”

Like anything else, reality depends on the frame of reference of the observer. If someone has a minor weight issue, or people around them do, a simple “eat less, move more” more approach does work. This gives one the erroneous conclusion that this is all that matters. It’s like someone that only sees the world as flat-

“The world must be flat, just look at it.”

This is how the world really is. For day to day living, this does not matter to a lot of people. All they need to know is east, west, north, and south. The same can be said for the folks hung up on “eat less, move more.” If this is all they see, and it seems to work, they think that this is all there is.

What the Flat Earthers Don’t See:

Calorie theory ignores hormones. The above quote by Taubes, author of “”Why We Get Fat,” is a quick summary of why hormones drive weight. Calorie theory is simply wrong, but it just appears to be correct if one has limited experience or a limited frame of reference.

People who do lose weight by moving more and eating less have not done enough damage so that hormones matter much. Good for them, but it doesn’t not apply to everyone. Their calorie theory is incorrect in the same way that the Earth is not flat.

Who Cares?

Hormones matter a lot, when they matter. Hormones matter when one is insulin resistant, when leptin signaling is off, when thyroid hormones are out of whack, when their endocrine system is wrecked after taking steroid medications, and for a lot of similar reasons.

Some will say that obesity is the cause of the above, and stop making excuses. This is also wrong. It doesn’t matter anymore once the weight is there and the hormone problem is real. What matters is what to do about it. It’s not a reversible process where you just eat less and move more, and the problem goes away. If this were true, there would be no diet books and no diet websites. Life would be simple, but it just isn’t. The world is not flat.

Share on Facebook

5 Responses to “Calorie Theory” and the Flat Earth

  • js290 says:

    Actually, the “calorie theory” is always true. Like any Law of Science, conservation of energy is always true. That’s why they are called “laws of science.” But, as you point out, conservation of energy doesn’t explain why or how energy is partitioned by the body. It, like all the the laws of science, says for us to exist in this universe, it cannot be violated. It is indeed hormones that dictate why and how energy is partitioned by the body. Calorie counters are simply pointing out something that’s always true, which is not particularly enlightening. It’s like Ralph Wiggum finding his own trowel blade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ73MFbVVlI

  • Steve says:

    Hey.. welcome.

    You may like this article on Pubmed-

    “”A calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/

    Conservation of energy does work, but calorie counters have NO idea what to do with it!

  • correcty fairy says:

    Thank you for the link, Steve. It should be diseminated more widely on these casual diet forums, especially when the debate becomes so heated and irrational that MDs and PhDs start throwing down scientifically unsupportable claims. It’s a very good reminder to the wayward of ground principles.

    (And for those who can’t follow the chemistry in the review, maybe they should shut up for a while.)

    SBM is better than EBM because EBM relies on studies but SBM relies on studies + prior plausibility. BIG difference.

  • Michael says:

    here’s a simple experiment you can do at home:

    1. do as little exercise as possible for the next week, don’t deliberately expend energy

    2. on days 1 to 5, overeat sugars, cakes, french fries, etc. high glycemic carbs.
    count calories and make sure you eat 3000+
    you’ll gain a couple of pounds

    3. on days 6 & 7, cut all sugars / high glycemic carbs and overeat fat, coconut milk, whipping cream, etc.
    count calories and eat as much as or more than your daily calorie intake during days 1 to 5
    you’ll either don’t gain weight or lose some, despite an equal or bigger caloric intake.

    last time I tried this I gained 10 pounds during the first five days and lost 4 pounds during days 6 and 7

    ha! I can bend the laws of physics!! I’m ready for the X-Men Academy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

News Feed