Key Assumptions – Calories Part III

/, Calories, Health and Nutrition/Key Assumptions – Calories Part III

Key Assumptions

Click here for Calories Part I and Part II. Here’s how we conventionally think about obesity.

CRaP

Conventional Theory of Obesity

Assumption#1 Calories in and calories out are independent

The first key assumption is that calories in and calories out are independent of each other. That is, if you reduce calories in, calories out are not affected. This is crucial. If a reduction of ‘calories in’ causes a reduction in ‘calories out’, then weight is not lost. It is only the “margin” or the difference between calories in and calories out that matters. We covered this on the previous post.

We focus on the intake of caloric energy because it is easy. Simply measure what you eat in a day, add up the calories and boom. You have your answer. To understand what is going on with total energy expenditure (TEE) is much, much harder. That’s why we don’t think about it and make the erroneous assumption that it is constant.

Calories In, Calories Out

Calories In, Calories Out

Let’s consider the TEE of a person who is obese. Many people assume that they have ‘slow’ metabolism. In other words, the TEE is low and therefore, for the same amount of calories, this person will be prone to weight gain. This is the familiar calories in, calories out model.

For example, Adam eats 2000 calories a day and TEE is 2000 calories. Fat is neither gained nor lost. Zeke eat 2000 calories a day but TEE is 1500 calories. 500 calories of fat are put away into storage.

So, is the problem that obese people have a low TEE? Let’s look at this article “High energy expenditure masks low physical activity in obesity”. In this study, lean and obese subjects had their Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) measured by doubly labeled water, Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) by indirect calorimetry and activity energy expenditure (AEE) or ‘exercise’, measured by multisensor activity monitors.

Sounds very difficult and even a little painful. So what were the results? Did obese subjects have a ‘slow’ or ‘low’ metabolism? Ummm… no. Actually quite the opposite. Lean subjects had a mean TDEE of 2404 calories while the obese had a mean TDEE of 3244 calories. The obese subjects also spent less time in ‘exercise’, but despite this, had a much higher TDEE. What gives?

The obese subject’s body was not trying to gain weight, it was trying its darndest to lose weight. The body was trying to burn off the excess energy. So, then, why are the obese… obese? Over time, their body should return to leanness. The short answer is that the Caloric Reduction as Primary model is incorrect. A scale is the wrong way to think about how the body handles energy.

The body acts much more like a thermostat. There is a specific Body Weight Set Point and the body tries to maintain that set point. The proper question, then is not how many calories we eat or not, but what adjusts the Set Point? In other words ‘What makes us fat’ or “What is the aetiology of obesity?”

We can also see from this example that there is quite a variation in the TEE from one person to the next. In fact, somebody can have a TEE 50% higher than another. What causes this? Do foods and eating behavior have any influence on this? We will consider this in further detail in future posts.

Assumption#2 Conscious Control of ‘Calories In’

The second assumption is that ‘calories in’ is under conscious control. We somehow ‘know’ how many calories we are ingesting. We can choose to eat or to not eat. Hunger is merely an inconvenience and plays no part in weight homeostasis (maintaining a stable weight). It is the conscious brain that makes the decision to eat or not, based on calories.

We already know that this assumption is not true. There are numerous interacting hormonal systems that tell our body when we are hungry and when we are not. Leptin, ghrelin, cholecystokinin, peptin YY are only some of the most obvious examples of hormones involved in hunger and satiety. Clearly, it is not merely the brain’s ‘decision’ to eat or not, but a complex hormonal balance.

If the decision to eat or not was purely a conscious one, then primitive tribal peoples should have seen numerous examples of both super obese and super skinny people because they did not even know what a calorie was (imagine that!). In fact, primitive peoples had virtually no obesity, even in the face of abundant food. Knowing caloric intake or the caloric value of food is not necessary to maintain a healthy weight. Until recently, we talked of foods that made us fat or thin, not calories.

This, of course, should have been entirely obvious. Consider this. We eat about 2000 calories a day. Over the course of 1 year, we will have eaten about 2000*365 = 730,000 calories. If we gain about 1-2 pounds per year of weight, that is roughly 7000 calories. So that is only an error rate of 0.00958.

In other words, we match our calories in and calories out to an accuracy of greater than 99%. This is because each and every one of us counts every morsel of food we eat, and calculate our TDEE and decide whether we should eat that extra string bean? We are designed to eat until our bodies tell us to stop, not to fulfil some caloric quota. It is important to understand hunger and satiety signaling and its hormonal control. Instead, the Caloric Reduction as Primary (CRaP) model ignores this and assumes that all eating is under voluntary control.

That is simply ridiculous. Obviously, there are automatic systems in the body that tell us when to eat, what to eat, and how much energy to expend in exercise, basal metabolic rate etc. It is just like assuming that we need to consciously tell ourselves when to breathe, and if we forget, we are likely to asphyxiate. No, that is just wrong.

Assumption#3 Conscious Control of ‘Calories Out’

The third assumption is that ‘Calories Out’ is under conscious control. We control how much exercise we do, and we assume that everything else is stable. This makes the assumption that exercise consumes a major proportion of our daily energy needs. We often assume that “Diet and Exercise” means that diet and exercise are 50-50 partners in weight management.

Consider that a person who does no exercise at all still requires almost 2000 calories/ day. If you have ever looked a calorie counter on a treadmill, you may have noticed that after about 45 minutes of a brisk walk, the amount of calories burned is usually something on the order of 150 or 200 calories. In other words – not even 10% of our daily caloric needs. The other 90% is what we should concentrate on.

Most of our daily energy expenditure is used for generation of body heat and other metabolic housecleaning (Basal Energy Expenditure). Assuming that this is a stable and unchanging over time, we ignore it. We assume that the only variable that changes is the energy expended in voluntary exercise/ activity. We shall soon see that this is also not true. Basal Energy Expenditure is not stable and can change up or down 50%.

Continue to Calories Part IV here

Begin here with Calories I

Click here to watch the entire lecture: The Aetiology of Obesity 1/6 – A New Hope

2017-09-02T11:54:32+00:00 0 Comments

About the Author:

Dr. Fung is a Toronto based kidney specialist, having graduated from the University of Toronto and finishing his medical specialty at the University of California, Los Angeles in 2001. He is the author of the bestsellers ‘The Obesity Code’ and ‘The Complete Guide to Fasting’. He has pioneered the use of therapeutic fasting for weight loss and type 2 diabetes reversal in his IDM clinic.

Leave a Reply

7 Comments on "Key Assumptions – Calories Part III"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Subra
Guest

The error rate of 1% is interesting.
On days I eat only 1200 calories or less, I gain weight. Substantial part of this 1200 calorie was carb and low fat. On other days I eat 1800 calories of fat, protein and 100gm of carb, my weight reduces. How may people have checked their weight after counting calories.

sharal
Guest
I was always slowly losing weight following low-cal diet. My intake varied from 1800 to 1300 cal, but it always worked. I managed to lose a lot of weight, once it was about 15kg. And no, I am not 150kg obese guy, I got under 70kg on my diet. Being 175cm tall man, this is healthy a weight. So yes, my experience tells me that reduced caloric intake works. I am not saying that this is the only way to lose weight, but it definitely works. Also, paleolithic and tribal people havent had any problems with obesity, this is true.… Read more »
George
Guest

Maybe you should write your own blog? 🙂

trackback

[…] פוסט זה מוגש כשרות לאנשים שלא יכולים ו/או קשה להם לקרוא באנגלית. הזכויות על התוכן שייכות לכותב של הפוסט המקורי. את הפוסט המקורי ניתן למצוא בכתובת הזאת. […]

Anne
Guest
Thank you so much Dr Fung!! Sadly for me, at age 66, I am not new to trying to lose weight. I have been especially out-of-control the past 20+ years struggling to stay under 200 pounds. Over past 3 years, I developed high blood pressure (now on meds for that) and the HgbA1c crept up to 6.1 last test. So I am definitely on the path to poorer health – unless I change things – which I am determined to do! I think my problem started because of mixed messages and family pressure to engage in low calorie dieting since… Read more »
Kat Lakie
Guest

Good one George

Roger Bird
Guest

Jason, I just love your sense of humor!!!

wpDiscuz