Alwyn Cosgrove: "Calories in vs out = BS"

[Al Shades]

TMUSCLE: You've battled cancer. Twice. Not many people can say that. What lessons did that teach you? I don't mean the "enjoy the little things/ work less, love more" kind of thing; I mean lessons that you learned about the body?

Alwyn Cosgrove: Okay. There are a few things. The caloric balance model of calories in, calories out? Bull****.

I was in a negative caloric state (and vomiting) for months, lost muscle mass but gained weight (fat). I know the growth of the disease and the drugs involved in treating it change everything ? but I had a malignant disease, wasn't eating or training towards the end and probably gained 20lbs. Even after the treatment, without chemo, it took a long time to cut the weight ? so it's not just about calories.

Massive levels of cortisol have profound negative partitioning effects; calories go away from muscle and towards fat. I get that ? but to create "mass" where there is no additional raw material ? no fuel or building blocks present, violates the entire caloric balance model.

For the same reason that giving someone Testosterone will increase muscle mass and cause fat loss without training or changing diet, women in our gym will experience body comp changes when they're going through menopause ? even if training and caloric intake remains unchanged.

We see studies all the time about how adding a grapefruit to the diet increases fat loss despite being eucaloric. The low-carb studies have shown people losing fat when eating more calories as compared to high-carb diets. We've seen studies that show a loss in fat when you add in fish oil to the diet despite no change in calories. The caloric balance model just isn't complete.

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_a...alwyn_cosgrove

Yes, it's on T-Nation. That doesn't mean anything by itself. Nearly every well known coach and author has been featured on T-Nation at one time or another.

AC has now joined the growing list of respected fitness authors and coaches who have either questioned or outright renounced the conventional "caloric model" of body recomposition.

Other people from this list include Patrick Arnold and Charles Poliquin.

See the following thread for references:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...1&postcount=45

[fyre500]

My problem with the statement is that he was on drugs to battle the cancer. They could (and most likely) have easily modified the chemical balance in his body and altered the way his body stores fat. He also gives an example of someone using Testosterone. Using an anabolic steroid modifies your body's chemical balance as well.

[papasmurf2217]

I'd like to see an activity and caloric breakdown of what and how much he was eating during that period of time in which he gained 20 pounds. However, I do not see him backing up his claim with any information regarding the two?

[Al Shades]

My problem with the statement is that he was on drugs to battle the cancer. They could (and most likely) have easily modified the chemical balance in his body and altered the way his body stores fat. He also gives an example of someone using Testosterone. Using an anabolic steroid modifies your body's chemical balance as well.

But that's the whole point. Hormones matter. A person's hormonal state is the primary determinant of his ability to gain or lose weight and the body composition he is capable of achieving. That is what I, Alwyn, Pat Arnold, and Diana Schwarzbein (endocrinologist cited by Charles Poliquin) have been saying.

I'd like to see an activity and caloric breakdown of what and how much he was eating during that period of time in which he gained 20 pounds. However, I do not see him backing up his claim with any information regarding the two?

How do you expect to be able to measure such data consistently, in the real world? I don't think you can.

[papasmurf2217]

How do you expect to be able to measure such data?

I understand that he was vomiting on a regular basis, but was he compensating by eating more? He says he was in a negative caloric state, why should I believe him? He doesn't give me any information saying that he "ate 1500 calories/day and vomited 3 times". He also fails to mention how long it took him to gain the weight. Do you see where I am coming from? There are many holes in his "data".

My question is why should I believe this guy, a man with cancer and on drugs, who says in two paragraphs that "calories in, calories out" means nothing? Why should I believe his extreme case in which he is battling cancer when there is another article that says the model works fine http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-equation.html ?

[fyre500]

But that's the whole point. Hormones matter. A person's hormonal state is the primary determinant of his ability to gain or lose weight and the body composition he is capable of achieving. That is what I, Alwyn, Pat Arnold, and Diana Schwarzbein (endocrinologist cited by Charles Poliquin) have been saying.

My point of view is that for most people, calories in vs. calories out is perfectly fine. Most people are trying to drop to a mediocre bodyfat level (12-15%), not down to a bodybuilding competition level (4-6%). Those who are cutting in preparation for a show have completely different guidelines. They are attempting to drop their bodyfat down to dangerous levels.

Most of the people on this website are not and will not ever be involved in competitive bodybuilding. The majority of them are teenagers and young adults just trying to put on some mass or cut down to a respectable bodyfat. Unless someone has a debilitating disease or is on some sort of medication that modifies the body's chemistry, calories in vs. calories out works just as it should.

[adoniscomplex]

alwyn is a smart guy but he is using a sole personal experience and acting as if its science
id feel different if he was like ive worked with 1k people and they have all had such and such result

[Al Shades]

alwyn is a smart guy but he is using a sole personal experience and acting as if its science
id feel different if he was like ive worked with 1k people and they have all had such and such result

What the hell is wrong with using personal experience as science?

You wouldn't disagree with it if it were some research scientist in a lab giving his personal experience, would you?

Like many others on this board, you seem to have a completely erroneous understanding of what the process of "science" is all about.

What makes you think Alwyn hasn't worked with plenty of people? He writes further on in the same article that he bases his views on his extensive coaching experience.

[Al Shades]

I understand that he was vomiting on a regular basis, but was he compensating by eating more?

I would take his statement of being in a negative caloric state as well as the fact that he was vomiting to imply that this was not the case.

He says he was in a negative caloric state, why should I believe him? He doesn't give me any information saying that he "ate 1500 calories/day and vomited 3 times". He also fails to mention how long it took him to gain the weight. Do you see where I am coming from? There are many holes in his "data".

There are holes in every set of data. It is impossible to resolve this dispute with math equations. If that wasn't the case, it would have been done already.

My question is why should I believe this guy, a man with cancer and on drugs, who says in two paragraphs that "calories in, calories out" means nothing? Why should I believe his extreme case in which he is battling cancer when there is another article that says the model works fine http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-equation.html ?

1) Because he wasn't only using his own experience as an example. Read the rest of what he wrote and consider it:

For the same reason that giving someone Testosterone will increase muscle mass and cause fat loss without training or changing diet, women in our gym will experience body comp changes when they're going through menopause ? even if training and caloric intake remains unchanged.

We see studies all the time about how adding a grapefruit to the diet increases fat loss despite being eucaloric. The low-carb studies have shown people losing fat when eating more calories as compared to high-carb diets. We've seen studies that show a loss in fat when you add in fish oil to the diet despite no change in calories. The caloric balance model just isn't complete.

That sounds very similar to what Pat Arnold said, doesn't it?

a person can reduce calories and take an anabolic steroid and gain muscle and bodyweight. i have seen it happen. i have seen it happen to myself

look up the term "feed efficiency".

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...&postcount=130

2) The article you cited does not claim the model works fine. It attempts to rehabilitate the model by qualifying it with numerous additional factors. In other words, it demonstrates that the caloric model, in its simplest form, is woefully inadequate.

From the article:

"Now, energy in is actually the simplest aspect of all of this, this represents the number of calories that you ingest each day from the nutrients protein, carbs, fat, fiber and alcohol.

Of course, even that is not so simple. First and foremost, not all foods are digested with identical efficiency
...
There can be some variance between different sources of the same nutrient as well
...
I?d mention that, currently, no-one knows how to modify this in any useful fashion (although weight loss per se appears to cause the gut bacteria to shift to a different type) but that technology (through the use of pre- or pro-biotics) will likely come through in a few years.
...
Even that's not complete and there are other things that can go on the energy out side of it, various inefficiencies in biochemical pathways (that basically waste calories through heat) and such things.
...
Here's what I want to talk about now: every factor on the right hand side, BMR/RMR, TEF, TEA and SPA/NEAT can change based on environment.

"Inaccurate" or "incomplete" is not the same thing as invalid. The caloric balance model is an example of a theory that looks good on paper but has little real world application due to the number of variables involved with it and the complexity of measuring them independently.

If you followed my links you would have seen that such variables had already been addressed in similar fashion by Pat Arnold:

ONe thing people always forget

in addition to the factor of calories in, and metabolic rate, is the issue of nutrient utilization.

Bodies can vary greatly in their ability to process, store, and utilize calories in food. Some people can eat 1000 calories a day and derive 1000 calories of energy from it while others are so inefficient at digestion, assimilation, and metabolism of food that they have to ingest maybe 2000 calories of food to get 1000 calories of energy

they have done studies with anabolic steroids and shown that they do not really raise the metabolic rate measurably. However, animals can take steroids and eat the same amount of food that control animals do yet gain alot more weight? What is going on here? Its nutrient utilization, feed efficiency, call it what you will

This is why the advice "just eat more" is poor. Sometimes eating smarter can put more weight on you then just eating more. Also, the advice of having to eat more to gain weight from steroids is wrong.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...9&postcount=23

[papasmurf2217]

2) The article you cited does not claim the model works fine. It attempts to rehabilitate the model by qualifying it with numerous additional factors. In other words, it demonstrates that the caloric model, in its simplest form, is woefully inadequate.

The equation is perfectly valid and humans are as subject to the laws of thermodynamics as anything else in the universe. Physics is not just a good idea, kids, it?s the law.

Most claims that the energy balance equation is invalid are due to people simply not knowing what they are talking about. The equation is valid, it has to be, what?s invalid are people?s assumptions about how things should work.

...?

[Al Shades]

"Inaccurate" or "incomplete" is not the same thing as invalid. The caloric balance model is an example of a theory that looks good on paper but has little real world application due to the number of variables involved with it and the complexity of measuring them independently.

...!

You can come up with an equation with variables for absolutely anything.

It doesn't mean a thing until you can define all the variables and measure them consistently.

[papasmurf2217]

So nothing works on paper and everything is different for everybody.

We know this.

Are you suggesting, rather than "eat more/eat less", for people to eat "better foods"?

[adoniscomplex]

What the hell is wrong with using personal experience as science?

You wouldn't disagree with it if it were some research scientist in a lab giving his personal experience, would you?

Like many others on this board, you seem to have a completely erroneous understanding of what the process of "science" is all about.

What makes you think Alwyn hasn't worked with plenty of people? He writes further on in the same article that he bases his views on his extensive coaching experience.

alwyn works with tons of people yet he is using personal experience of his own
the issue here is every trainer bitches when someone says i got hoyyge doing this
alwyn would call bs on stuff like that

after reading the full interview i do to some point agree
cals in v cals out is very important but other things are likely to be going on

[Al Shades]

So nothing works on paper and everything is different for everybody.

We know this.

Are you suggesting, rather than "eat more/eat less", for people to eat "better foods"?

It depends on the context. In some cases, yes, though not all. You have to look at the whole picture. If someone is unable to gain or lose, I'd look at their hormones first before telling them to adjust calories. Dietary composition matters because foods are capable of influencing hormones.

By the way, there are plenty of theories that work equally well on paper and in the real world. Calories in vs out just isn't one of them.

alwyn works with tons of people yet he is using personal experience of his own
the issue here is every trainer bitches when someone says i got hoyyge doing this
alwyn would call bs on stuff like that

Well, I certainly wouldn't. Those types of personal anecdotes are exactly what I seek out. I want to know, in peoples' own words, what worked for them and what didn't. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a legitimate process of inquiry.

[fyre500]

It depends on the context. In some cases, yes, though not all. You have to look at the whole picture. If someone is unable to gain or lose, I'd look at their hormones first before telling them to adjust calories. Dietary composition matters because foods are capable of influencing hormones.

By the way, there are plenty of theories that work equally well on paper and in the real world. Calories in vs out just isn't one of them.

"Hormones" just sounds like one more excuse for fat people that say they've tried everything and just can't lose weight. Why is hormones such a big deal? I know they play an influence on your body composition but saying that it's necessary to check their hormone levels instead of just telling them to watch what they eat and monitor their food intake is ridiculous.

Those who are obese (due to caloric excess reasons, not diseases such as diabetes) could easily lose weight just by monitoring their food intake, keeping a food log, and modifying accordingly. It's not rocket science. It's reasons like the hormone argument and more that discourages people from losing weight. They think there's so much data that needs to be mapped and so much work that needs to be done to drop some fat. The truth is that all they need to do is know what's being shoved into their mouth.

[Al Shades]

"Hormones" just sounds like one more excuse for fat people that say they've tried everything and just can't lose weight. Why is hormones such a big deal? I know they play an influence on your body composition but saying that it's necessary to check their hormone levels instead of just telling them to watch what they eat and monitor their food intake is ridiculous.

Those who are obese (due to caloric excess reasons, not diseases such as diabetes) could easily lose weight just by monitoring their food intake, keeping a food log, and modifying accordingly. It's not rocket science. It's reasons like the hormone argument and more that discourages people from losing weight. They think there's so much data that needs to be mapped and so much work that needs to be done to drop some fat. The truth is that all they need to do is know what's being shoved into their mouth.

I don't disagree. That's why I said it all depends on the context. Part of what that involves is the sort of person you're dealing with. Hormones can be used as an excuse but so can calories. Weak-minded individuals will latch onto anything. It's just as easy to imagine people justifying poor diets on the basis of a caloric deficit as it would be for them to blame hormones.

I do not support blanket recommendations for all training populations.

[nick1990]

yeah saw this article this morning and thought to post it, but thought it might cause a lot of controversey lol

[adoniscomplex]

Well, I certainly wouldn't. Those types of personal anecdotes are exactly what I seek out. I want to know, in peoples' own words, what worked for them and what didn't. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a legitimate process of inquiry.

hardly , talk to regular people about weight loss is everyone of them says i tried everything

[SeanEH]

I would take his statement of being in a negative caloric state as well as the fact that he was vomiting to imply that this was not the case.

I would take his statement of being in a negative caloric state while gaining fat as a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of negative caloric state. Weight could fluctuate depending on water retention (definitely a possibility with chemo) regardless of calories, but if body mass is being added then a caloric surplus exists. If this is not so, then let's hear your definition of caloric surplus.

[NDame616]

I understand that he was vomiting on a regular basis, but was he compensating by eating more? He says he was in a negative caloric state, why should I believe him?

I've personally met Alwyn. Nice as hell, great guy, friendly, etc.

If he told me he banged Miley Cyrus anally, I'd believe it.

He wouldn't just lie about stuff like this to make a point.

[s.o.u.p]

I've always had my gripes about calories in/calories out, were human beings, not baloons.

Lyle macdonald just put out a page on how how it's much more complicated than that.

He even extended the equasion, and still said it's not enough.

I think that making the food side of the equasion oversimple allows for someone to call someone else less dedicated or lazy, and that's why people like it so much.

Some people just don't know what to expect, there's a large fluxuation of information out there, how much should someone expect to gain from a certain amount of cals on a certain diet, how much should someone expect to lose from a caloric defecit and no carbs?

Hormones make a big difference too, sure the energy storage might be the right amount, but how much would go to muscle? How much to fat?

People really should be focussing on composition, and putting less emphasis on overall weight.

[signature166]

Al, thanks for posting the article and defending your initial statement. Though we may ultimately disagree, I admire your perseverence, rationality, and civility.

Alwyn Cosgrove's battle against cancer, and his success in the face of such painful adversity is nothing short of awe-inspiring. I have a deep respect Alwyn Cosgrove and his opinions on training, fat loss, and nutrition. The context and content of this interviewer places me, as the critic, in a precarious position. I am not saying anything negative about Alwyn Cosgrove's powers of self-perception, but rather the lack of objectivity and bondage to bias inherent in all of us as human beings. Furthermore, and of equal importance, the editors at T-Muscle deliberately alter the style, tone, and substance of the articles they publish. What is displayed on your computer screen are not the words that the author submitted for publication, or spoke at the interview, or, in the alternative, the opinions that the authors express in the article/interview are not the same ones they would express if speaking in person with you over coffee or a protein shake.

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_a...alwyn_cosgrove

Yes, it's on T-Nation. That doesn't mean anything by itself. Nearly every well known coach and author has been featured on T-Nation at one time or another.

It does mean something. It means that its been edited to include hyperbole and inflammatory language that provokes and produces controversy thus bringing more attention, more views, and, as part of the plan, more supplement sales.

Saying otherwise is completely dishonest. Besides that, and I don't care what TC or Lou Schuler have to say about this, this interview was published in suspicious proximity to Lyle McDonald's outstanding article on the Energy Balance Equation. Lyle is a critic of the guys over at T-nation, and he's not trying to keep it a secret.

But that's the whole point. Hormones matter. A person's hormonal state is the primary determinant of his ability to gain or lose weight and the body composition he is capable of achieving. That is what I, Alwyn, Pat Arnold, and Diana Schwarzbein (endocrinologist cited by Charles Poliquin) have been saying.



How do you expect to be able to measure such data consistently, in the real world? I don't think you can.

Lol, I enjoy how you put your name first in the above list of incisive pioneers. Yes hormones matter, they alter the numerical values of the RMR/BMR, SPA, and "Change in Body Stores" part of the equation, but they don't change the laws of physics as represented--albeit incompleley--by the equation. I have no issue with looking for "real world" methods of helping people achieve their body composition goals, and I believe that a thorough understanding of the complex model of the energy balance equation (not the cals = cals out oversimplification) and physiology will best guide the search.

What the hell is wrong with using personal experience as science?

Because its not science and his experience wasn't a product of the scientific method. Though he has been successful and produced "real world" results in thousands of clients, this doesn't mean that his opinion about his personal experience (the primary evidence against the energy balance equation in the interview) has been properly examined for validity threats and properly qualified after such an examination.

You wouldn't disagree with it if it were some research scientist in a lab giving his personal experience, would you?

I would absolutely disagree unless he was talking about his personal experience of learning about the subject matter that he was studying through the application of the scientific method in carrying out structured, reproducible trials (or experiments) while reading the relevant peer-reviewed literature on the subject. I wouldn't listen to him if he was giving his personal experience about how great his wife is in bed or how wonderful his cooking tastes.

Like many others on this board, you seem to have a completely erroneous understanding of what the process of "science" is all about.

What makes you think Alwyn hasn't worked with plenty of people? He writes further on in the same article that he bases his views on his extensive coaching experience.

LOL! C'mon Al, you're smarter than this. You don't get to redefine science to suit your purposes. Alwyn has worked with plenty of people and he does have extensive coaching experience, but that doesn't make him a scientist (under any meaningful definition of the word).

I would take his statement of being in a negative caloric state as well as the fact that he was vomiting to imply that this was not the case.



There are holes in every set of data. It is impossible to resolve this dispute with math equations. If that wasn't the case, it would have been done already.



1) Because he wasn't only using his own experience as an example. Read the rest of what he wrote and consider it:



That sounds very similar to what Pat Arnold said, doesn't it?

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...&postcount=130

If he was in a negative caloric balance then he would have necessarily been losing fat or losing muscle or both. He doesn't even mention the possibility that he continued to gain weight through the retention of water, rather than gaining fat itself. Lyle's article covers this issue. I am inclined to think he was retaining water as a result of the powerful chemotherapy and the resultant miserable condition.

Either way, he doesn't directly address the decrease in SPA/NEAT and BMR/RMR that comes from being treated for cancer while stopping the training that he had been doing for years and losing muscle mass, nor does he address the issue of water retention.

2) The article you cited does not claim the model works fine. It attempts to rehabilitate the model by qualifying it with numerous additional factors. In other words, it demonstrates that the caloric model, in its simplest form, is woefully inadequate.

From the article:


"Inaccurate" or "incomplete" is not the same thing as invalid. The caloric balance model is an example of a theory that looks good on paper but has little real world application due to the number of variables involved with it and the complexity of measuring them independently.

If you followed my links you would have seen that such variables had already been addressed in similar fashion by Pat Arnold:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...9&postcount=23

The fact that older models were "woefully inadequate" says nothing about the knowledge and the insight that we gain from using the updated, more complete versions of the energy balance equation as a guide when planning body composition programs or helping someone to overcome a plateau when they are struggling with fat loss or muscle gain.

...!

You can come up with an equation with variables for absolutely anything.

It doesn't mean a thing until you can define all the variables and measure them consistently.

Lyle clearly defined enough variables to make the equation useful in almost all contexts for almost all purposes. Measuring them consistently is a separate issue. If I were a betting man, I would put money on measurement of the different variables becoming easier and easier over time.

It depends on the context. In some cases, yes, though not all. You have to look at the whole picture. If someone is unable to gain or lose, I'd look at their hormones first before telling them to adjust calories. Dietary composition matters because foods are capable of influencing hormones.

By the way, there are plenty of theories that work equally well on paper and in the real world. Calories in vs out just isn't one of them.

If you want to make the incompleteness argument against the energy balance equation you must admit that it applies with equal force to your argument about looking at hormones and the effects of dietary composition on hormones. The same qualification I made above about the rapidity of progress applies to your choice of using hormone levels to determine dietary composition.

Well, I certainly wouldn't. Those types of personal anecdotes are exactly what I seek out. I want to know, in peoples' own words, what worked for them and what didn't. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a legitimate process of inquiry.

I want to know what the relevant literature says, and, when it is incomplete, I'll go ask people for explanations in their own words to fill in what remains of the gaps. It is a legitimate process of inquiry, but it is no substitute for the scientific method and its built-in controls.

I don't disagree. That's why I said it all depends on the context. Part of what that involves is the sort of person you're dealing with. Hormones can be used as an excuse but so can calories. Weak-minded individuals will latch onto anything. It's just as easy to imagine people justifying poor diets on the basis of a caloric deficit as it would be for them to blame hormones.

I do not support blanket recommendations for all training populations.

Neither do I.

Al, for people like you who are concerned with "real world" results and "real world" applicability, then you should be the first person to recognize the limitations of Cosgrove's experience with the energy balance equation while undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer. His very specific circumstances has virtually no applicability to almost everyone in the physique community. In fact, its even less applicable than the scientific studies that most of the "real world" guys claim have little to no applicability to the "real world."

Thanks again for posting the article and the other references.

[Autobody]

Where in the energy Balance equation does AAS / cortisol fit? While I am sure we can all agree that this man's peice is n=2, I do think there exsists the "possibility" for different factors for weight gain outside of Calories in Calories out.

[papasmurf2217]

I've personally met Alwyn. Nice as hell, great guy, friendly, etc.

If he told me he banged Miley Cyrus anally, I'd believe it.

He wouldn't just lie about stuff like this to make a point.

Nah, I wasn't knocking him. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about and I have a vast amount of respect for anyone who has to go through what he did. Based on my understanding of how weight gain works, I was just trying to piece together how he gained the 20 pounds.

[signature166]

1. Where in the energy Balance equation does AAS / cortisol fit?
2. I do think there exsists the "possibility" for different factors for weight gain outside of Calories in Calories out.

1. Here is the more better equation from Lyle McDonald's article:

Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores

Cortisol and AAS effect the "Change in Body Stores" by increasing fat mass and decreasing muscle mass and by increasing muscle mass while decreasing fat mass respectively. They alter the partitioning of incoming nutrients and the reusing or disposal of byproducts of tissue breakdown and remodeling.

2. There exists the "possibility" for different factors for weight gain outside of the absurd, gross oversimplification of a model expressed by the equation Calories in Calories out (assuming you mean cals in = cals out).

There's a difference between not understanding the energy balance equation itself and there being "possibilities" outside of the laws of physics. Furthermore, there is a difference between trying to apply a simple, incorrect, or incomplete model to the net effect of a number of simultaneous, interrelated processes and there being "possibilities" outside the laws of physics.

If there are issues with the completeness of the current model (which, if you read the article I linked above in detail there are, but they are small) then strive to create a better model, don't scrap the one we have in favor of anecdote, biased personal experience, or broscience.

[SDC77]

Anecdotal and utterly useless evidence for anyone other than Alwyn Cosgrove. I respect his workout creations but he is retarded if he actually believes this crap applies to regular people not having radioactive material pumped into their veins.

[dustinlima]

i vote for thermodynamics and the different molecules energy likes to present itself as

[Opies]

laws of physics > anecdotal evidence

Calories in vs out IS the final word. That does not mean we fully understand it by a long stretch, and there are no doubt a myriad of factors at work, but the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken by cancer drugs and cortisol

[gonna_be_big]

laws of physics > anecdotal evidence

Calories in vs out IS the final word. That does not mean we fully understand it by a long stretch, and there are no doubt a myriad of factors at work, but the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken by cancer drugs and cortisol

i agree with this man.. everyone is like oh its not that simple you have to consider lots of variables - like NEAT for example.

now wouldnt calories burnt from NEAT count as "calories out" - same as TEF.

nobody is saying JUST to factor in the calories spent during the day and through exercise and ignore other functions the body has! its all just included in part of this simple equation.

[Al Swearengen]

laws of physics > anecdotal evidence

Calories in vs out IS the final word. That does not mean we fully understand it by a long stretch, and there are no doubt a myriad of factors at work, but the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken by cancer drugs and cortisol

so hormones play no role in body composition? lulz

you have so much to learn as do we all. if there is one thing that cannot be disputed it would be this statement, "hormones run our bodies and our world"