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

[The Brain]

This is amusing:

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

Hilarious.

[garbon]

Why do these weight discussions always get retarded?

And why do sex discussions turn into lame weight discussions?

[Malthus]

This is amusing:

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

Translation: the bigger you are, the bigger you think a "typical" portion size is.

Leading to the "I eat the same portions as [skinny person], yet I'm fat and they are skinny. Must be my magic metabolism making me fat" phenom. 

[Malthus]

Why do these weight discussions always get retarded?

And why do sex discussions turn into lame weight discussions?

This started out as a weight loss discussion. 

[DGuller]

Translation: the bigger you are, the bigger you think a "typical" portion size is.

Leading to the "I eat the same portions as [skinny person], yet I'm fat and they are skinny. Must be my magic metabolism making me fat" phenom.

That's not how I read it. 

The main dependent measure was self-selected portion size representing what each participant felt was their typical portion of 15 food/beverage items.

Seems like participants were selecting their typical portion size, not the typical portion for the population at large.

[Malthus]

Translation: the bigger you are, the bigger you think a "typical" portion size is.

Leading to the "I eat the same portions as [skinny person], yet I'm fat and they are skinny. Must be my magic metabolism making me fat" phenom.

That's not how I read it. 

The main dependent measure was self-selected portion size representing what each participant felt was their typical portion of 15 food/beverage items.

Seems like participants were selecting their typical portion size, not the typical portion for the population at large.

Well, only the abstract is available without paying.

I'm going by how this professor of nutrition interprets the study:

Increasing portion sizes may also affect what people now consider an average portion size for meals they serve at home – a phenomenon called portion distortion. The bigger a person is, the more likely they are to overestimate what a "normal" portion size is.

From: http://theconversation.edu.au/mondays-medical-myth-my-slow-metabolism-makes-me-fat-4962

So, I could take your interpretation - based on the abstract - or a professor of nutrition's interporetation - based, one assumes, on reading the study.

Not saying you are wrong necessarily, just pointing out why I read it that way.

[Barrister]

I dunno man.

Look, I've never significantly worried about my weight.  I avoid junk food, watch portion size, and I've never felt the need to formally diet.  I get the impression from you that you've had to diet once or twice, but that when you did the weight came off reasonably easily.

Not everybody is like that.  I do believe that "metabolism" plays a big part in a person's weight.

Obviously nobody can say that it is "impossible" for them to lose weight.  But it can be substantially harder in that they need to restrict their caloric intake to a much greater degree than other people would.

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.

But it's much, much more complicated than that.  Calories aren't fuel the same way that, say, gasoline is.

Different kinds of calories get converted into body energy at different rates.  Lots of different factors on how body energy gets stored as fat, and when and how fat stores get converted back into energy.

Anyways - I just find it is a bit much when people who have had no significant issues with their weight try and tell people who have how easy it is to lose weight.  And I say that as a skinny guy.

[garbon]

Why do these weight discussions always get retarded?

And why do sex discussions turn into lame weight discussions?

This started out as a weight loss discussion. 

I started the topic and I was posting about sex.

[Ed Anger]

I burned 42 calories today.

[DGuller]

Well, you linked to the abstract, so that's all I could go by.  I hope you can see why I didn't see the source of your amusement.

[Malthus]

But it's much, much more complicated than that.  Calories aren't fuel the same way that, say, gasoline is.

Different kinds of calories get converted into body energy at different rates.  Lots of different factors on how body energy gets stored as fat, and when and how fat stores get converted back into energy.

Anyways - I just find it is a bit much when people who have had no significant issues with their weight try and tell people who have how easy it is to lose weight.  And I say that as a skinny guy.

Actually, no it isn't. Or at least, in scientific studies when they have actually controlled access to food, this mysterious metabolism factor seemingly doesn't occur.

I would not say weight loss is "easy" at all. Psychologically, it can be extremely difficult, and is for many.

Take smoking for example - quitting smoking is extremely "easy" physically - you just stop doing it. No-one claims that some mysterious physiological force over which they have no control *makes* them smoke. But of course, actually quitting isn't easy at all.

Same with dieting. It is physically "easy" - just stop stuffing one's pie-hole, you will lose weight guaranteed. But mentally, it is very tough, as one must eat something. Unlike smoking, you can't just quit eating. You have to eat just so much and not more, and for many people, this is very tough to do.

[Malthus]

I started the topic and I was posting about sex.

If you were posting about sex, maybe you shouldn't have posted in Timmay-esque fashion an article about weight loss. 

[garbon]

I highlighted the relevant parts.

[garbon]

Also, if it was pulling a Tim, I'd never comment again after posting a news article.  It is telling that he isn't high up in our list of our most prolific posters but is by far the poster who starts the most threads.

[DGuller]

I wonder how fired up Malthus will get if we have a thread about uncircumcised fat guys.