Comment by tlamponi
3 years ago
> calories in - calories out was debunked a while ago.
Not really, it's just that calories-in is worst-case that's what's on the foods box, you cannot magically produce more energy but it's well known that not everything can be processed by the metabolism with the same efficiency.
So with extremes like your example the difference is naturally huge, but that doesn't matter in practice if one balances their consumption just somewhat it averages out and approaches something between upper (100%) and lower (0%) of efficiency, and in reality it rather close to the upper bound (averaged) as our metabolisms are quite efficient with the food most humans actually put into them.
Your glycemic index rule holds does not violate the calories in calories out rule, it's just more precise regarding the actual upper bound.
Not really. E.g. look at my second example, cold potatoes vs hot potatoes. Same calories, same exact ingredients, but hot potatoes are significantly worse than cold potatoes.
I dont have the link to hand, but there is a GL database maintained by Harvard, I think, that demonstrates this. I will look it up later for you.
It’s still calories in vs calories out. What changed is that our understanding of what determines calories in and calories out has become more nuanced. For instance, your examples
My examples demonstrate that calories in / calories out is false. I don't quite get your point? A calorie is a measure of the useful energy released from burning stuff in a furnace. It was invented to compare the efficiency of different fuels for steam engines. It has no relevance to humans, who don't use a furnace and steam power, but a complex chain of cascading chemical reactions.
1 reply →