A 45 year old male who is 30 pounds overweight.

In the simplest terms it means he ate 105,000 more calories of energy than he required (30 pounds times 3500 calories per pound equals 105,000 calories).

An extra 105,000 calories over 45 years is 6.39 extra calories a day.

6.39 calories a day.  That's one grape.  Half a peanut.  A pistachio kernel.  A slice of apple.

It's -3 minutes of walking.

People with modest weight problems aren't eating an extra big mac a day (that would damn near kill them in under 5 years).  They're just miscalculating their caloric requirements by the smallest amount.

An extra order of mozzarella sticks can blow 3 months of balancing your diet.  Dieting sounds utterly hopeless.

Michael B you are so literal and STUPID!

How many times do I have to say that this calorie thing is not a linear relationship.

Wikipedia says the same thing.

(about you being wrong.)

How much muscle do you have.

How much fiber are you eating.

Do you eat a night or during the day.

Is your blood sugar slightly higher or lower than the norm.

How was your metabolism trained as a youth.

Wikipedia is wrong.

The more I eat, the more muscle I build, the faster I burn calories.

NOT a linear relationship.  THere is a curve in there.

I will ALWAYS lose weight when I eat more.

Citation needed.

I don't need a citation.  I KNOW.

quick Google:

"restricting calories will slow down our metabolism, consuming more calories will encourage our metabolic rate to operate quicker to use the extra calories (18.19). In addition thyroid activity (20,21), thermogenesis (22,23) and leptin (24) levels will each increase with overfeeding, which is going to create an anabolic environment."


http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=301

Anyway.

You can introduce all of the extra variables you want.  At the end of the day unused energy is stored in your body.  And the tiniest surplus will, over time, put you into the fatmaster zone.

Tell me why then, does simply cutting calories NOT work in the long run.

you're both saying the same thing.  increasing muscle mass increases the number of calories you need in a day, thereby allowing you to eat more.

How much more muscle mass to caloric intake to maintain the effect over time?  Is this relationship a straight line?

> Tell me why then, does simply cutting calories NOT work in the long run.

I didn't say anything of the sort.

In fact, walking an extra 30 minutes a day makes most people eat slightly more to compensate for the energy burned.  So does having an extra 20 pounds of beefcake muscle on your back.

Eating a little less a day makes most people more sluggish and totally uninterested in parking on the far end of the lot.

The kind of long-term weight problem (both the underweight and overweight kind) I'm talking about is a simple disconnect between energy in and energy out.  All it takes is +/- 6 calories a day.  This suggests something much more intrinsic is at work.

I'm not sure what the exact relationship is.  It *is* simple math: calories consumed - calories burned = weight gained (or lost if the number is negative) but all the stuff you do to increase your metabolism (building muscle, eating small meals six times a day, etc) basically increases the amount of calories you're burning, all the time.  I have no idea what the relationship might be, but if you are increasing your metabolism you're not going to screw up your whole diet by binging once in three months.

And some of it is genetics, some people naturally have a high metabolism.

Your 6.39 number and the calculations you give imply that those 6.39 calories will lead to a linear weight gain.

and this

"People with modest weight problems aren't eating an extra big mac a day (that would damn near kill them in under 5 years).  They're just miscalculating their caloric requirements by the smallest amount. "


...implies that those calories have a direct linear relationship to their modest weight gain.  It is your believe that somehow a person's genes "soak up" those 6 calories.  When in fact, the algorithm is much more complex.

"It *is* simple math: calories consumed - calories burned = weight gained (or lost if the number is negative"

Please admit, right now, that this is an oversimplification or you have a -1 karma.

Thank you. ;p

because in the long run, people don't stick to within range calorie diets.

but yeah being thin is a lot easier for some people than others. it's not fair. but then, a once-upon chubby thin person has more goal oriented behavior than a naturally thin one. let's ask thin people if they were once fat on their resumes.

> And some of it is genetics, some people naturally have a high metabolism.

That can't be the end of the story.  A lower metabolism is supposed to make you feel less hungry.  A higher metabolism more hungry.  Eating less makes you sluggish.  Eating more makes you less sluggish (within limits).

In theory you should always maintain.

I bet the genetics part is how out-of-wack your metabolism->eat signaling is.

sharky's right - if you eat an extra big mac a day, your body will probably increase its metabolism somewhat to compensate.  You'll put on some weight, but it won't kill you in five years.

So ... why don't they just eat at Subway???

what I'm trying to say is that the "calories consumed" part of the equation is very difficult to measure.  I generally agree with you, sharkfish, and I'm trying to make your point more clear.  The equation isn't wrong, but you can't easily measure all the parts of it.

eating less will only make you sluggish until your metabolism slows to compensate.  then you start getting used to it.

Also, there is a psychological aspect to being overweight, as any overweight person will tell you.  They eat for comfort, not just because they're hungry.

alright, I'm done, I'm going to bed. :)

ok.  What kills me is that "immeasurable" part.  Nobody knows exactly how much exercise, how much food, how much muscle to get your ideal weight.

You have to know your own body very well to be able to control the factors and get what you want.

I'm glad I wasn't born a skinny fat person who can't build muscle and therefore ages into a fat person for no apparent reason despite controlling caloric intake.

I have this one friend who is super skinny even though he eats an entire pizza a day by himself from time to time.  Someone I'd call naturally skinny.

Recently he started taking up the gym and now he looks like a motherfucking god.

*sigh*

Yeah, there's something to that mesomorph ectomorph endomorph classification, I'll grant you that.

"I have this one friend who is super skinny even though he eats an entire pizza a day by himself from time to time.  Someone I'd call naturally skinny."

I am that guy.  I think it was genetic metabolism (parents were super skinny).  Also, sometimes nervous energy helps people like me burn more calories.  I am getting less nervous and putting on pounds but maybe you start filling up on caffeine.

Michael B--I look forward to hearing details about your calorie restriction diet and results.

Someone on Nightline tonight was interviewed and he has been on 1900 calories (good, dense foods) for years.  He looks freaking emaciated and from the neck down, his body is the size of a teenage boy while his head is man-sized and gaunt.

I dunno.  People are weird.  Especially rich people.

Rich people seem all proud of their thinness.  I find it mostly unattractive.

Your calculations are way out Michael.

Firstly you will certainlyly have gained those extra 105,000 calories in much less time than 45 years, probably will have put them on in one go in a period of a year or two.

I've known at least one Black and one White person that said they only eat one meal a day, and they both had some chubbiness to them.  They weren't "fat" or oversized, but they had ample fat covering their muscle - i.e., not ripped in the slightest.

I don't have any excess fat in my legs that I would want to give up, and I have a lot of muscle in my legs, so there does seem a muscle/fat connection.  OTH, fat people somehow manage to move their weight, so maybe it's their big feet or hips or something that helps to support it in the abscence of lots of muscle,....

or perhaps they need a lot of mass to achieve enough gross muscle to move them along when walking.  Since the fat is rather light, really light compared to muscle.  By comparison, my legs feel very heavy, often, to me, or very light when energized.

> Michael B--I look forward to hearing details about your calorie restriction diet and results.

I was talking about no such thing.

But I'd be glad to broach the subject.  In a separate thread.

>>calories consumed - calories burned = weight gained

it's not that simple to define those amounts.

people digest differently.  one body might gain a lot of nutrients from an apple, while another person might get significantly less.  age, metabolism, physical state, etc. contribute to this differentiation.

some people's bodies are much more efficient, so they don't burn as many calories for a certain amount of work.

also, the type of weight people gain differs.  there's all kinds of places and ways to store excess calories.