Input-Output=Net Accumulation
This is always true, by definition.
However we should always examine what we mean by each term.
Let us first examine Input.
Input= the net amount of kcal an individual obtains by the
consumption of a certain type of food
Now that will depend on the food and the individual. Certain
people have enzymes, products of genes, that convert the consumed more efficiently,
and they also have epigenetic factors that enhance conversion of the consumed
food into products that can be used or stored. Thus Input for one person
consuming the same food as another is NOT the same. Genes play a part in how
the physical raw input is processed in the individual to stored and used Input
in the body. Thus the net Input, that which is used and/or stored, may vary in
some statistical manner between humans.
For example certain southwest Indian tribes have genes that
allow highly efficient absorption meaning that they can live on poor quality
food but give rich foods they explode in weight and Type 2 Diabetes. Another
example, epigenetic, is from Netherlands in WW II where in 1944 mothers were
starved by Nazis and children born had epigenetic marks that allowed them to
survive on low caloric intake by up-regulating certain genes. Thus genetic and
epigenetic factors affect the conversion of Input and the net result can vary.
The epigenetic factors can be passed down to children and in some cases to
grandchildren. Thus environment via epigenetic changes can affect the genetic
makeup.
Having said this, one can develop a distribution of net
Input as a function of Gross Input, namely consumed food, and see that across a
large population there is, one can assume, a Gaussian like distribution. Some
people, most if you will, have a conversion rate of say 1, others may have a larger
or smaller conversion rate. It does not appear that a great deal has been done
examining this factor.
Output is basal metabolism rate and other factors whereby we
burn calories. That also varies dramatically. You walk 5 miles and I walk 5
miles and we each urn a different amount. Again Output may vary from individual
to individual. I may burn 100 kcal per mile walked and another may bur 75 or
125 kcal. Why the difference? Again it may be an amalgam of genetic or
epigenetic. It may also be the way one walks. Therefore Output like Input has
some form of distribution across large populations.
The problem thus is neither Input nor Output, it is Net
Accumulation. Thus for zero Net Accumulation we each must understand our
balance. Now that also may change as we may face different challenges.
Humans have the ability to use their intellect to measure a
set point, namely a scale and to measure their weight. Secondly humans have the
will power and intellectual capability to retain that set point.
Other animals spend all day hunting for feed and consuming
generally low calorie food, and somehow maintain a balance. Rarely do we see a
fat squirrel
The conclusions are:
1. Environment does affect what we see as net Input and net
Output and thus net Accumulation
2. Genetics and Epigenetics affect what each individual does
in terms of conversions
3. However as humans we have the ability/intelligence to
measure the set point and the will to maintain it.
4. One size fits all does not work. Each human is different
in how they convert Gross Input to Net Input and Gross Output to Net Output.
Thus the only true measure is the scale, namely weighing oneself and balancing
Input and Output to keep the scale at the required set point.
Thus when writes in the NY
Times and other journals of note speak of diet and weight control we hear
them state[1]:
FOR most of the last century, our
understanding of the cause of obesity has been based on immutable physical law.
Specifically, it’s the first law of thermodynamics, which dictates that energy
can neither be created nor destroyed. When it comes to body weight, this means
that calorie intake minus calorie expenditure equals calories stored.
Surrounded by tempting foods, we overeat, consuming more calories than we can
burn off, and the excess is deposited as fat. The simple solution is to exert
willpower and eat less. The problem is that this advice doesn’t work, at least
not for most people over the long term. In other words, your New Year’s
resolution to lose weight probably won’t last through the spring, let alone
affect how you look in a swimsuit in July.
All too often they oversimplify all factors. The basic law
holds, it is a definition, a tautology. The problem is the conversion rates
from Gross to Net, a factor that the authors above seem to struggle with but in
apparent ignorance. Basically they argue about some set point theory. Namely
humans eat until the set point and then stop. Eat too much, get fat, the set
point increases and the system is unstable. Fat Squirrels! However this totally
ignores the scale. If the goal is a BMI of 24.0-25.0 worst case, then just use
the scale, reduce food intake by the use of the will until the scale falls back
to the right range, and forget these putative set points, namely blaming some
other factor. Take responsibility.
The authors continue:
If this hypothesis turns out to
be correct, it will have immediate implications for public health. It would
mean that the decades-long focus on calorie restriction was destined to fail
for most people. Information about calorie content would remain relevant, not
as a strategy for weight loss, but rather to help people avoid eating too much
highly processed food loaded with rapidly digesting carbohydrates. But obesity
treatment would more appropriately focus on diet quality rather than calorie
quantity.
Obesity treatment is a non-issue by using a scale. Yes
indeed, forget the calories, measure the pounds. Scales are cheap!
Posts
