I'm not defending it but how can you debunk something when you have digested the full concept
The fact that weight loss isn't linear should tell you its not purely as simple as cals in vs. cals out.................
You are taking one part, but because you don't know what else is a factor in the view it won't make sense.
This stuff interest me so I'm just trying to learn which you really can't do without being open and exploring ideas.
Responding to the bolded......no, actually it doesn't tell me that. Because stating that weight loss should be linear is a complete misrepresentation of the argument.
Human Thermodynamics simplified into basic algebra form is
A - B = C
A is calorie expenditure
B is calorie consumption
C is net calorie difference, which results in either weight gain or weight loss. Approximately 3500 calories needed to gain a pound of fat, approximately 2500 calories needed to gain a pound of muscle. I'm not 100% but I believe the inverse is also true even for muscle, a 3500 calorie defecit to burn a pound of fat and a 2500 calorie defecit to burn a pound of muscle. What proportions your body chooses between fat vs. muscle depends on a lot of factors
Now, in this equation, by stating that weight loss should be linear that would mean you are going under the assumption that
A is a constant and
B is a variable. But that is not the case, and no one would say it is the case so the whole argument is a logical fallacy.
A and
B are both variables. Linear weight loss/gain is not expected, period.
Calorie expenditure also has it's own basic algebra form,
D + E + F = A
D being resting metabolic rate
E being energy used through physical activity which includes everything from weight lifting to brushing your teeth to digesting food
F being the thermic effect of food, which means that some foods require more calories for your body to digest, therefore you actually burn more calories just in the act of eating these foods. (Protein takes like 20% of the total calorie intake just to digest it, while simple sugars take something much smaller like 5%)
A once again is total calorie expenditure
As you can see,
A is made up of enough variables that expecting linear weight loss is silly. That doesn't change the laws of Human Thermodynamics or make them irrelevant. Calories are our body's source of energy. We don't get energy from the sun like plants or from anywhere else. There is NO other factor in weight loss or weight gain other than calories in vs. calories out. The problem is that calculating calories out is incredibly difficult and variable.
There is no way we can keep
E constant from day to day.
E is far more than intense exercise,
E is everything from the number of breaths and blinks and swallows and farts you do each day, to the temperature in the room, to stimulant consumption, to sleep patterns, etc etc etc. Great variation.
There is no way we can keep
F exactly the same either, although we can come close if we try and eat the exact same foods
D is also a variable, and this is where the whole concept of "set point" comes into play. Simply using an online metabolic calculator is not a way to get the exact measurement for
D, although it can be surprisingly accurate. Your body will adapt when being treated in a consistent manner. This is why some people hit plateau's in their goals. At this point, there needs to be a re-evaluation in calorie intake to adjust to this new set point. That doesn't prove that Thermodynamics are false, it just proves that you don't have
A (calorie expenditure) calculated correctly anymore in your weight loss equation and adjustments will need to be made.
I listened to the part of the podcast where he discusses thermodynamics and various other chunks of the podcast and he pretty much agrees with 100% of what I said above. But he is being disingenuous about so many points it is ridiculous (even ignoring the thermic effect of food as an already established variable in calorie counting and making it seem like an unknown concept). And in the end, it is still quite clear to me that his overall purpose is to once again create a caloric defecit/stalemate with the body through a particular way of treating food/eating and pass it off as revolutionary. He is downplaying caloric importance all the while manipulating you psychologically to control your calories. And he is misrepresenting the arguments from the 'calorie crowd'.....basically cherry picking ideas that less knowledgeable members of that crowd would have and arguing against those ideas which never should be in the discussion any way.
He is attempting to simplify an already simple concept and slapping a wild and controversial title on it. To sell a book. That is my problem with him and my problem with every other nutrition salesperson. Not that his ideas are wrong. When people like myself talk about "calorie counting" as a way to lose weight, we are well aware that there are other variables that come into play. But they are all secondary factors. For 99% of people, calorie counting alone will allow them to reach their modest goals.
Tell a fat person that they don't have to count their calories and instead they just need to eat chicken and vegetables all day. With this guys ideas, they will lose weight (I agree with that). Now, talk to them a year later and find out what happened. Inevitably, they got sick of always eating "healthy" and are most likely fat again because human psychology is a fragile thing and they have taken to binge eating and are back to their old ways.
Now, tell that same person that they can do the same healthy eating, but also can eat ice cream every day as long as it fits within a set calorie budget. Or cookies, or cake, or candy, or whatever. Demonstrate the idea of serving sizes and portion control. Who do you think has the psychological advantage over the long term? Which group will have a higher percentage of fatties 5 years down the road? Both groups will have failures, but those who are taught that calories don't really matter that much are pretty much doomed.
Once people understand the basic concept of weight loss (thermodynamics), weight loss becomes exponentially easier. Unfortunately they fail to come to this understanding because they are bombarded constantly by people preying on their desperation and impressionability and I hate it and so should you. Even good ideas like this guy in the podcast has do nothing but confuse and add murkiness to a clear subject.
For the record, here is a bit of anecdotal evidence that goes 100% against some of the "facts" presented by the podcast:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mcdonalds-diet-iowa-teacher-loses-37-pounds-but-is-it-healthy/
These are extreme examples merely to prove a point. The "calorie counting crowd" (myself) obviously still recommends eating healthy foods mostly for a variety of other reasons (satiety mostly which is a huge psychological factor to have long term success)
