Im working against a deadline... and this means... its procrastination time! Todays procrastination is a thought-experiment Ive been thinking about idea of energy balance and the idea that calories dont matter - the absolute idea (calories full-on do not matter) and Im interested in what happens when you take it out of the context of weight loss. As an example - if calories dont matter, and therefore energy balance doesnt matter then could we argue that a 69 350 pound man actually does NOT need more calories then a 52 100 pound woman? He might need more nutrients but NOT more calories? So providing the food is nutritious enough, and meeting the right mix of carbs, fats and proteins that you deem appropriate based on whatever diet you believe in... a 69 350 pound man and a 52 100 pound woman should be able to remain weight stable while eating the same amount of food over an extended period of time? Does it also mean that an extremely active 61 200 pound professional athlete who exercises intensely 3 hours a day does not need to eat more to maintain his weight than a 61 200 pound sedentary non-athlete? Perhaps a different mix of macronutrients, but not an overall more These arent meant to be sarcastic, in-your-face type of passive aggressive questions, but rather real thought experiments... Is there a way these statements could be accurate? And keep in mind this isnt an argument on low-carb or paleo or anything of that nature, but rather of the concept that calories dont matter in its truest concept - that energy balance or thermodynamics dont apply in the human system.
Posted on: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:44:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015