Sex only burns about 21 calories, according to new university study

[Malthus]

And lo and behold ...

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-05-28/features/1991148006_1_metabolism-calories-beltsville

[DGuller]

I simply don't believe it.

Look, food is like fuel. You need to burn a certain amount of it to do X effort, assume X is the amount they do every day. Assuming two people are the same size and strength they will, in all likelihood, use much the same fuel to do X amount of effort. It is not the case that person A is substantially more efficient than person B, can do X effort for less.

That being the case, if you reduce fuel intake (that is, food) to persons A and B below the amount they need to burn to do X effort, while not reducing the amount of effort they do each day, both persons will need to burn the same amount; they can't get it from food, so they must get it from somewhere - and that somewhere is going to be the fat that they have stored. So they will lose weight.

I find it much, much easier to believe that some people are simply "misremembering" the amount they are restricting their caloric intake, than to believe in some suspension of the laws of physics that allows one person to do X amount of effort for substantially less "fuel" than another.

However, seems an easy thing to scientifically test. All you'd have to do is get one of these magic people and monitor them day and night for food intake. See if you calorie-restrict person A (who claims this 'difficulty') exactly the same as person B (who is the same size and strength, diets and loses weight no prob), have them do the same daily routine, and see if, indeed, person A can't lose weight.

You seem to be making too many assumptions here.  Calories aren't just burned by "effort", they're also burned just to sustain life functions.  It's conceivable that such life functions have priorities, and that in case of calorie deficiency some life functions on the bottom of the priority list get their calorie budget reduced.  You can also simply have less energy when you consume less calories, so the thing that you assume is kept constant ("effort") would in fact be very hard to keep constant.

[The Brain]

Blueberries are 1 point per cup.

[Maximus]

I simply don't believe it.

Look, food is like fuel. You need to burn a certain amount of it to do X effort, assume X is the amount they do every day. Assuming two people are the same size and strength they will, in all likelihood, use much the same fuel to do X amount of effort. It is not the case that person A is substantially more efficient than person B, can do X effort for less.

That being the case, if you reduce fuel intake (that is, food) to persons A and B below the amount they need to burn to do X effort, while not reducing the amount of effort they do each day, both persons will need to burn the same amount; they can't get it from food, so they must get it from somewhere - and that somewhere is going to be the fat that they have stored. So they will lose weight.

I find it much, much easier to believe that some people are simply "misremembering" the amount they are restricting their caloric intake, than to believe in some suspension of the laws of physics that allows one person to do X amount of effort for substantially less "fuel" than another.

However, seems an easy thing to scientifically test. All you'd have to do is get one of these magic people and monitor them day and night for food intake. See if you calorie-restrict person A (who claims this 'difficulty') exactly the same as person B (who is the same size and strength, diets and loses weight no prob), have them do the same daily routine, and see if, indeed, person A can't lose weight.

You seem awfully sure of this.

Look, I'm not a doctor any more than you are but I think there's a very simple factor that you are missing that throws your theory into question. In agriculture it is called feed conversion ratio-- put simply it's the amount of energy in the food that is absorbed by the body. It can vary even among purebred stock on scientific diets in tightly controlled environments. Exactly how much it can vary among humans I do not know, but I wouldn't be surprised if one person's ratio could be 50% higher than another's.

[The Brain]

[Malthus]

You seem to be making too many assumptions here.  Calories aren't just burned by "effort", they're also burned just to sustain life functions.  It's conceivable that such life functions have priorities, and that in case of calorie deficiency some life functions on the bottom of the priority list get their calorie budget reduced.  You can also simply have less energy when you consume less calories, so the thing that you assume is kept constant ("effort") would in fact be very hard to keep constant.

Hence stating you measure persons of the same weight and strength.

Given that humans do not vary all that much in such essentials as what temperature they keep their bodies (if healthy), just what "life functions" is person A going to be burning up massive amounts of calories with, versus person B?

Also, see link above. When people's calorie intake is actually *observed* by third persons, somehow these magic effects disappear. Why, it's almost like some people aren't objective about the amount of food they consume! Imagine that. 

[Razgovory]

I imagine if you stop eating you will lose weight eventually.

[The Brain]

I imagine if you stop eating you will lose weight eventually.

katmai test this plz

[Malthus]

I simply don't believe it.

Look, food is like fuel. You need to burn a certain amount of it to do X effort, assume X is the amount they do every day. Assuming two people are the same size and strength they will, in all likelihood, use much the same fuel to do X amount of effort. It is not the case that person A is substantially more efficient than person B, can do X effort for less.

That being the case, if you reduce fuel intake (that is, food) to persons A and B below the amount they need to burn to do X effort, while not reducing the amount of effort they do each day, both persons will need to burn the same amount; they can't get it from food, so they must get it from somewhere - and that somewhere is going to be the fat that they have stored. So they will lose weight.

I find it much, much easier to believe that some people are simply "misremembering" the amount they are restricting their caloric intake, than to believe in some suspension of the laws of physics that allows one person to do X amount of effort for substantially less "fuel" than another.

However, seems an easy thing to scientifically test. All you'd have to do is get one of these magic people and monitor them day and night for food intake. See if you calorie-restrict person A (who claims this 'difficulty') exactly the same as person B (who is the same size and strength, diets and loses weight no prob), have them do the same daily routine, and see if, indeed, person A can't lose weight.

You seem awfully sure of this.

Look, I'm not a doctor any more than you are but I think there's a very simple factor that you are missing that throws your theory into question. In agriculture it is called feed conversion ratio-- put simply it's the amount of energy in the food that is absorbed by the body. It can vary even among purebred stock on scientific diets in tightly controlled environments. Exactly how much it can vary among humans I do not know, but I wouldn't be surprised if one person's ratio could be 50% higher than another's.

I'm pretty sure of it.

I got more sure of it when I read the article I posted above, in which the exact experiment I suggested was conducted with the results I anticipated.

Here's more: http://theconversation.edu.au/mondays-medical-myth-my-slow-metabolism-makes-me-fat-4962

Another common reason a slow metabolism is blamed for weight gain is the perception that an overweight person eats very little and still gains weight. But research shows people tend to eat more than they think and will typically report eating less food than they actually do as their weight goes up.

[DGuller]

Hence stating you measure persons of the same weight and strength.

The point is that there may be a correlation between calorie intake and automatic calorie expenditure, and it could differ between different people.  Some people may go into safe mode easily, which would be an evolutionary advantage if famines are common, and others could tap into fat reserves fairly easily.

Given that humans do not vary all that much in such essentials as what temperature they keep their bodies (if healthy), just what "life functions" is person A going to be burning up massive amounts of calories with, versus person B?

There isn't just one temperature.  There is core temperature, which is something I assume is non-negotiable, and then there is the temperature of the extremities.  It's conceivable that a human body may try to save on the energy bill by constricting blood vessels in the extremities, to reduce heat loss due to warm blood flow.  There are also all sorts of random movements that our body or muscles are doing, some visible and some not, and those may be reduced as the person becomes more lethargic.  I don't know if brain can vary the amount of energy that it consumes, but since it consumes a lot, that may also be a source of energy savings.

[Eddie Teach]

  I don't know if brain can vary the amount of energy that it consumes, but since it consumes a lot,

LOL, Brain is fat. 

[The Brain]

Why do these weight discussions always get retarded?

[Malthus]

Hence stating you measure persons of the same weight and strength.

The point is that there may be a correlation between calorie intake and automatic calorie expenditure, and it could differ between different people.  Some people may go into safe mode easily, which would be an evolutionary advantage if famines are common, and others could tap into fat reserves fairly easily.

Given that humans do not vary all that much in such essentials as what temperature they keep their bodies (if healthy), just what "life functions" is person A going to be burning up massive amounts of calories with, versus person B?

There isn't just one temperature.  There is core temperature, which is something I assume is non-negotiable, and then there is the temperature of the extremities.  It's conceivable that a human body may try to save on the energy bill by constricting blood vessels in the extremities, to reduce heat loss due to warm blood flow.  There are also all sorts of random movements that our body or muscles are doing, some visible and some not, and those may be reduced as the person becomes more lethargic.  I don't know if brain can vary the amount of energy than it consumes, but since it consumes a lot, that may also be a source of energy savings.

Right, one can assume all sorts of physiological processes - however actual experimentation appears to demonstrate this is horseshit and that most who claim they cannot (easily) lose weight by dieting are, in fact, simply not properly remembering or reporting what they eat.

From the above link:

The calorimeter, a 9-by-10-foot metal box, with eight-foot-high ceilings, provides no room for excuses. The floor, walls and ceiling are embedded with 80,000 sensors that pick up heat -- one measure of the

energy a body expends. The box also measures oxygen input and carbon dioxide output to calculate total energy expenditure.

Once in the box, a subject lives for 24 hours in a totally controlled environment, with a constant temperature of about 72 degrees. TV is available -- but it can be viewed only through the window, so that the set won't affect the temperature.

Meals arrive through a slot in the door. Exercise on a stationary bike in the corner is carefully monitored for 20-minute periods. A bed in the corner allows for a snooze.

The controlled environment allowed the researchers to conclude that people eating the same food and getting the same exercise in the same environment seem to metabolize or "burn up" the calories at very close to the same rate.

"There is some difference among subjects, related to the variation in spontaneous movement or what we call the fidget factor," Mr. Moe said. "However, the differences are rather
small -- it's not enough to make the difference in a 1,200-calorie diet vs. an 1,800-calorie diet."

To my mind this is something one can very easily test, so there really ought not to be much doubt about it.

[Malthus]

This is amusing:

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yjada/article/S0002-8223(07)00023-5/abstract

[DGuller]

This is amusing:

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yjada/article/S0002-8223(07)00023-5/abstract