The Truth About Obesity

By Sandy Szwarc 07/14/2003

link to article

In the fight against obesity, we're told: 'Being fat is simply a matter of energy balance. It's easy to lose weight, just eat 3,500 calories less than you burn and you'll lose a pound. We've become a fat nation because .............. check link for full article

link to article

This is one of the most common fallacies around and shows both a blatant abuse of the laws of physics and a total unwillingness to ask if the claim makes sense.

The laws of physics require that the only way to GAIN a pound of fat is to have consumed AT LEAST 3500 more calories than have been expended (assuming that no internal conversion of other tissues to fat has occurred, which is a pretty fair assumption).

But this in NO WAY says that that in order to LOSE a pound of fat you must expend 3500 calories more than you consume. The laws of physics merely say that 3500 calories of potential energy must somehow leave your body - and there are more ways to accomplish this than simply through conversion to kinetic energy in some manner.

Like most systems that convert chemical potential energy to mechanical energy, the human body is not very efficient. But, as a result, small CHANGES in that effeciency can have significant impacts of how much fat gain or loss a certain amount of calorie excess or defecit has.

The notion that if you only eat 3500 calories a day less than you do now you will lose a pound of fat doesn't hold up to the most elementary sanity check. If true, then the reverse claim would also have to be true as a consequence - that someone that neither gained weight nor lost weight consumed EXACTLY the amount of calories that they expended. Do we REALLY believe this? Do we really believe that if we expend 2248 calories today that we are going to eat exactly 2248 calories of food? Average over time, you say? Okay. If a person weighs the same today that they did a year ago, it means that, on average, they consumed food that was, on average, within 10 calories (a Tic Tac) of what they consumed each day. Do we REALLY believe that if someone had done exactly what they did for that year and ate exactly what they did for that year except for adding ten Tic Tacs a day that they would have gained ten pounds? Which is more likely, that everything is in this fine a balance and that your hunger is controlled to this fine a level or that the body is able to adjust any of a multitude of responses ranging from metabolic rate, heat production, and eliminating food slightly more or less digested in order to compensate for small imbalances?

How right you are, wbahn.I get tired of all of these self-styled experts. On the one hand, they say, "a calorie is a calorie" but on the other hand they want you to believe that fat calories are worse than carb calories. "its not the baked potato or the pasta, its the butter that you put on it." For ages they reasoned, without any experimental proof, that "complex" carbohydrates MUST be slower to break down than sugar. So why is the baked or boiled potato so high on the glycemic index? They don't want to talk about that. "whole grains" is repeated endlessly. And, sure, whole grain has more nutrients than unenriched white flour. But, so what? As far as how our bodies use it, its sugar.They reasoned that a bunch of semi-digestable silage would make you feel full, but they don't want to believe that a good fatty steak would do that. We know that, if you eat "complex" carbohydrates, "whole grains" and starches, watch your insulin levels skyrocket. I don't believe you'll ever see an obese person who isn't getting plenty of carbs, just like the pyramid people want. Bah.

wbahn,

Why don't you e-mail a copy your comments to the author of the article?

In this case it's not necessary since this particular article is generally taking to task this common myth. I have in the past (and will in the future) send such feedback to such authors as time permits. It is, of course, usually ignored.

This is the main story and it's been around for 50 years. . I keep seeing this in almost every article on obesity. Carbs are cheap ! and the poor have to make do with them.

danny