As an ex-scientist, and generally fairly technical person, this is always the argument I've previously believed. However, the problem with this mindset is that it does assume that the body is just a store for energy, and that all energy within that system is accessed equally and symmetrically. Instead we have a range of different biochemical pathways for different ways of burning energy, and they are *not* symmetric and equal. You can burn sugar or fat from the bloodstream relatively easily, but it's much harder to burn stored fat.
So if calorific intake is lower than energy expended, rather than getting thinner, you get hungry and weak (prior to the point that you trigger ketosis). On 20 June 2017 at 13:39, David Richards <ausdot...@davidsuniverse.com> wrote: > I've been avoiding this conversation. I've had arguments with friends > over this. However, I decided to give my two kilojoules since, while its > OT, its very relevant to IT types that generally tend to have a sedentary > life style. > > There is a fundamental law of physics at work here: Conservation of > energy. The change in energy in a system (fat, glucose, protein, etc) is > energy in (kilojoules absorbed from food) minus energy out (moving, > thinking, living). It doesn't matter what your body does or what form the > energy is in. If you use more energy than you absorb, you will lose weight. > > I've counted kilojoules, tracked exercise and monitored weight. Doing > this, I was able to lose weight quite successfully and with little > difficulty. People mention hormones and starvation mode, etc. This > doesn't somehow override conservation of energy. It just means you have to > continually monitor how your weight is changing based on the kilojoules > in/out. As your body becomes more efficient at absorbing energy and more > efficient at living, you will need to decrease the kilojoules in to > compensate. > > My anecdotal example: I would set a target average daily kilojoule intake > (averaged over each week) and monitor my weight. When it stopped going > down, I decrease my target daily average until I started losing weight > again. When I started, my daily target was around 8000 kJ (before that I > was eating closer to 10000 kJ). By the time I got to my target weight, I > had decreased it to 6000 kJ. I was less hungry, had more energy, ate > healthier and spent less money on food. > > David > > "If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes > will fall like a house of cards... checkmate!" > -Zapp Brannigan, Futurama > > On 20 June 2017 at 14:32, Bec C <bec.usern...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'd have to respectfully disagree. Tried it and lost weight. >> >> >> On Tuesday, 20 June 2017, Stephen Price <step...@lythixdesigns.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Nope. >>> >>> If you cut calories and have any carbs in your system then you will have >>> insulin in your system and your body will be in storing mode. Impossible to >>> lose ANY weight if you are only storing. >>> >>> To bring it back on topic for the list it would be like being only able >>> to append records to a database table and not be able to delete. If you can >>> never delete then its impossible to make the table smaller. >>> >>> Insulin = store only. >>> >>> It's hormonal not caloric. You would put weight on if your lower >>> calories were high carb/sugars. Try it. >>> >>> >>> -- piers more pedantry at http://piers7.blogspot.com/
