this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
94 points (91.2% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
2350 readers
370 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are they wrong? I don't understand. A calorie is a calorie; it doesn't change energy composition. The calorie is just a measurement of energy content in a given product. If it's 15, it's 15. The energy content doesn't change just because you eat it at 2 am. Your body processes the calories differently, not the calorie itself is diffrent. Am I misunderstanding the study?
You're misunderstanding is you think the basal metobalism while asleep is the same as awake...
I'm sure there's lots of other things, but that's what really giving you trouble right now.
It's an incredibly basic part of biology
Why does that matter? If I burn 2000 calories a day, why does it matter if I burn them at a lower rate while asleep? I’m still going to burn more later, no?
Because you use less calories while you sleep, so excess calories are converted to fat...
And it's harder to burn calories of fat than use calories directly.
So eating late in the day leads to new fat forming. If you ate the same earlier, it would be used immediately for fuel
This is all incredibly basic stuff...
What's that supposed to mean exactly?
Your body loves fat.
It wants as much as possible.
To burn fat, you have to first use everything in your stomach, and then push through "the wall" where you keep exercising after your body says you need to quit.
Then your body will start the process to burn and use fat for energy.
So if you eat a lot at night and convert it to fat as you sleep. It's going to be harder to work off that fat than if you had ate earlier in the day.
This article mentions that one of the factors is that late at night you have fewer hormones suppressing appetite so you would potentially eat more. That makes sense as a reason you would gain weight. It does say that you burn fewer calories at that time too (which might mean you convert more of it to fat at that time, and if you don’t burn those excess calories later you’re going to be stuck with it…)
But I don’t understand what you’re saying. It almost certainly takes more energy to convert calories to fat and then back to usable energy for your body to use… So what? If you eat 2000 calories, turn some of it into fat, and then burn 2000 additional calories later (in addition to the energy spent converting it to fat) you’re technically going to be burning more calories than you’re eating and you will lose weight.
I’m sure there is an effect of when you eat and how that makes you store fat and how that can unintentionally cause you to consume more calories than you think… but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense to me thermodynamically.
Because you think a human body wants to be "healthy" ...
It doesn't, it wants to pack on all the fat it can to survive periods where food isn't plentiful.
We didn't evolve for unlimited cheap calories, our bodies still act like we're living in caves.
Seriously, this is all very very basic stuff, you'll learn a lot more reading about this then asking questions on social media and hoping you not only get the right answer, but explained in a way that makes sense.
BECAUSE THIS IS A HELL OF A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN CICO
Something I've been unable to explain in a way you can understand.
I doubt bolded all caps will help, but that's literally my last hailmary.
Go read some actual scientific texts if you want to learn more.
My point is just that if you’re expending as much energy as you consume you wouldn’t be able to pack on fat forever. That just doesn’t make sense because fat can be converted into energy, but you’re using energy up. I’m sure that the time that you eat can have an impact on 1) how much you eat, 2) whether and maybe where your body stores energy as fat, and 3) your metabolic rate which impacts how many calories you burn, and 4) maybe if you store energy as fat it’s harder to access and you wouldn’t feel as energetic or eager to burn it mentally, because as you say we’re kind of hard wired to want to be fat in case of famine. I’m not disputing any of that… But I don’t understand how eating after midnight would let you store more energy than you consume in the long term. If you actually eat 2000 calories and actually burn 2000 calories, where does the extra fat come from? I’m sure you can maybe trick your body into having a higher body fat percentage or something, but the calories and carbon atoms have to come from somewhere, no?
To be very clear, I’m not saying it’s easy to lose weight. It’s very hard for a lot of reasons: calorie counts are inaccurate, and knowing how many calories you’ve burned is extremely difficult, and all the while your body is going to fight you because it “wants” to be prepared to have no food (mentally you won’t want to do it, and my understanding is that your metabolism can slow down as well making it even harder to burn off extra calories)… But at the end of the day, if you actually intake 2000 calories and actually burn 2000 calories, I do not understand how you would be able to build up more fat. You would necessarily have breathed out all of the carbon you would need to build the extra fat molecules. Saying it’s “just calories in and calories out” is dismissive of how hard it is to lose weight and all of the factors that make it extra hard, but I do not see how you can gain fat if you actually manage to pull it off?
lol, what? No, do you misunderstand me on purpose?
To make it clear what I meant before: my point is the calorie is never the changing part in the equation; it just is what it is—a calorie measurement (a calorie is a calorie). But the other part of the equation, your body, is ever-changing depending on a lot of factors like the time of the day, health, etc.
The simple calorie intake to burnt calories ratio is still a valid stat since energy is a constant.
It's an incredibly basic part of physics. ;)
(Why are you so condescending? It's weird how you acknowledge my points and seem to mean the same thing, but at the same time, you think I am wrong and do not understand it.)
Well, I could try explaining it again so that in a couple days you reply again still upset at me that you cant understand it...
Or I could just block you, then Ill completely forget you exist and never have to try and explain stuff again ..
Let me think about that
lol, what? Sorry, your highness. I'll never doubt you again 😂 who hurt you?
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
I really don't understand what's going on in this thread. Like... We know how sugars and fats are turned into energy that your body can use. It's not the full story, but as an example, look at the formula for aerobic respiration, which reacts glucose (C6H12O6) and oxygen (O2) to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), and energy...
C6H12O6 + 6 O2 ---> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + energy
At the start you only have 6 carbon atoms (all in the glucose) and at the end they all end up in CO2 molecules, which you will exhale. Fats are organic molecules made up primarily of carbons and hydrogens... If you consume 2000 calories worth of glucose and burn it all, you have no carbons left to make additional fat. Burning fat is more complicated than glucose, but the ultimate result is the same... The carbons get bound into CO2 and you exhale them. You cannot make fat from nothing, if you get rid of more carbons than you consume you're eventually going to "lose weight" (or maybe "lose fat" would be more accurate... eventually you'll have to use the carbons in your fats to make the CO2 that you exhale. You could still potentially gain weight if you had more water in your body, though).
I think what people are trying to get at is that telling people to count calories and that "calories in < calories out" isn't always helpful advice for people who want to lose weight. That's very fair. There's a number of factors that make it incredibly hard to lose weight. I think a huge problem with "calories in < calories out" is just that "calories" aren't as meaningful as you'd hope in every day life. It's very hard to know exactly how many calories you actually absorb when you eat different kinds of foods, and how many calories you absorb may depend on other factors like the time of day, what other stuff you've eaten, etc... And it's also pretty much impossible for somebody to know how many calories they actually burn during a day (you don't know what your base metabolic rate is, and fitness trackers are notoriously inaccurate). If you're trying to have a 100 calorie deficit per day or something, you don't actually have a lot of margin for error. That plus all of the discomfort and misery associated with losing weight makes it a difficult task, so I totally agree that it's insensitive to tell somebody to "just do calories in < calories out" when dieting... But physically speaking that is what's happening in every case when somebody loses fat through diet and/or exercise.
Oh, I get your point, and it makes sense. Thank you for elaborating, sir!
I do not question the study or its content or you; I question the statement the gentleman made before that a "calorie is not a calorie, and that's what people don't get".
My point/my opinion was that saying "a calorie is not a calorie and that's what people don't understand" is wrong.
In my opinion, a calorie is always a calorie. A food does not change its calorie value based on when you eat it. What people don't understand is how their body "uses" these calories. But this does not change the calorie content of the food; it just changes how you absorb them. It's not that people don't understand calories; it's that they don't understand the reaction that happens when the "calories" are ingested.
A pancake will always have x amount of calories, no matter if you eat it now, throw it away, or eat it at midnight or as breakfast; it will be x amount of calories. But depending on your body and in which state it is, it will absorb not all or it will absorb differently. The pancake and its calorie contents exist outside of your body and how you absorb/use them; it's not the "changing part" of the equation.
Here is how I define a calorie, which is a fixed value:
A unit of energy equivalent to the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 °C (now often defined as equal to 4.1868 joules).
A unit of energy, often used to express the nutritional value of foods, equivalent to the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 °C, and equal to one thousand small calories; a kilocalorie.
If you want to claim that a calorie is not a calorie, I say word it differently since this is not true. A calorie is just a fixed value. You mean people don't understand what happens after ingesting.
My point was never that calorie counting is all you need; my point was dismissing it outright is wrong, since it still tells a story, not the whole story, but certainly a part of it.
Does this make sense?
TLDR: I agree with the sentiment that a calorie is not just a calorie and understand what is meant by that. However, my issue is that it is a bit misspoken since calories are determined before you ingest/digest/absorb/pass them through. It is an expression of the energy content of a food/object, not of what you effectively get out of it when you eat it. My whole point is not to disagree with the sentiment but how it is communicated. Maybe people just don't generally know what a calorie actually means or how it relates to our metabolism.
Yeah, we’re actually both in complete agreement. I’m just getting shit in this thread too for saying a calorie is a calorie too :P. So, I feel like I’m going insane because of this dude who’s super mad and all of the downvotes for what seem like completely reasonable statements to me, and nobody is actually explaining where I’m wrong… I think weight loss is just a pretty emotionally charged topic.
In some sense I think there are two meanings of calorie to people. There’s the actual physical energy definition, and there’s the slightly more informal usage of “how much food I consumed” and while ultimately they’re both supposed to be measures of the same thing they’re not really the same because like… I dunno, if you chug a gallon of mineral oil or something and all of your food goes through you undigested (I don’t know if that would work, but it feels like it would haha), you’re not actually going to absorb those calories. This shouldn’t make a difference for what a calorie actually is, but I guess it changes what it means in practice for people? Like if a pancake and a pineapple have the same amount of calories when you burn them in a bomb calorimeter, but you only absorb 80% of the pineapple’s calories as opposed to 100% of the pancakes due to indigestible fibre or whatever, that calorie measurement isn’t actually useful to people. But fundamentally, in the physics sense of everything, if you burn a calorie you actually absorb… it’s gone and you don’t have anything left to store as fat to gain weight. What time you consume calories won’t change this (maybe it changes your metabolism or something and you ultimately burn fewer calories, but if you actually burn all of the calories you actually absorb… I don’t understand how you could gain fat. The carbon is gone).
Haha, same - yes, I think you are right - I think we come from the perspective that a calorie is what the definition says it is, which is an energy unit. And this makes the saying "a calorie is not a calorie" sound wrong. Yeah, seems like it's an emotional trigger for some, which is understandable.
I don't get why this is such a problem to point out that maybe they themselves use the word calorie in a different context than it was actually intended to be used. And this does not help the confusion surrounding the topic.
The problem, I think, is that a calorie is used to describe the energy content of something and not for anything else. It is useful for food since the inherent value of energy that we need to transform every day to survive can also be expressed in calories (and so can be almost anything), which makes it easy to eyeball how much energy we can "absorb/transform" from a given product. But this does not describe how healthy or nutritious or anything else the product is or how your body is going to deal with it; it just describes the energy content of the thing.
A calorie is a measurement of energy and nothing else.
And I am sure you are right; at the end of the day, you can boil it down to one number that's either negative, 0, or positive, i.e., your calorie deficit. If it's negative, you used more energy than you took in, so you will need to take that energy from somewhere, which will result in some form of burning of fat or other tissues to transform the stored energy into something we can use actively, which then means you will lose weight over time. Energy can't be created, at least not to my limited knowledge, only transformed. Of course, given that your body works within the normal human norms.
Anyway, thanks for the nice interaction. 😄
I wish you all the best this year! Have a great life!