You are simply factually mistaken about the nature of herbivores generally. You are also, intentionally or not, engaging in equivocation between the concepts of what is nutritionally required to eat and what is biologically required to function further down the line. You are also engaged in an ongoing adjustment of your argument, apparently just for the sake of argument, without addressing the serious issues with your argument as it was originally presented.

For these reasons I’m not terribly interested in an ongoing dialogue with you on this topic. It’s simply not a productive use of my time to keep on reading large papers you link to but haven’t read yourself, then correcting the claims you make that the evidence you provide doesn’t support. I also do not feel any need to directly address the false claims you falsely accuse me of making, when my above posts already clearly contradict them. I trust that readers with a genuine interest will be able to navigate these posts without issue, and then delve into the textbooks worth of fully unsimplified research if it strikes their fancy to do so.

Have a good day

I get where you’re going, a human body isn’t quite comparable to those factors though, it’s a bit more complex than that, because what you’re trying to do is kick in a chemical reaction to release hormones to signal to your fat cells to release them, and that they no longer need to be stored.

In that premise you need to look at why your body stores fat, and in what mechanisms it releases them.

Fat is seen by the body as more of a battery, to save itself (you) if shortages should occur, which is kinda where the calories in vs calories out come from. Right, but, that’s a temporary, survival mechanism that you’re trying to kick in there, and when you tell your body you don’t need to be in survival mechanism mode, any more, it goes, “oh, look, we’re resting, that fat that I stored saved us, I need to save more”

You can’t continually operate in a calorie deficit, and exercising more than you intake. It’s not sustainable long term. Your body will try and bounce back to it’s “normal”.

Calories in and of themselves don’t have one static notion or rule, summing up all things edible to calories is entirely deceptive, in and of itself. Food offers different nutrients, and your body is really good at making the essential nutrients it needs, out of chemical reactions, from whatever you put in, other than some essential amino acids, which is can’t make on its own. But also, different foods do different things to your digestive system on the way through.

Calling all food calories, and trying to reduce it to a same action product, in the first part of the equation (calories in) is like saying anything with computing powers, is the same and can and does the same actions, but you can’t send emails with your alarm clock.

Different foods offer different energy output and productions in the body. You won’t get the same energy levels from fibre that you do from protein. So summing up all food into one label like that, ignores so many chemical factors that occur in the body when you digest food, and how different foods operate in said meat machine.

Not all calories are equal, so the premise is inaccurate, in that summation.

Calories out, similarly ignores huge wafts of data, chemical reactions, hormone functions, metabolic rates, genetics, gender (it has only ever been a model tested, if you can call it that, on males), age, and more. It, also similarly ignores the base systems of the body, and why it stores fat, what happens if you release fat in the wrong way, and the rubber band effect, that causes. I could go into so much detail about that part, but I’m already waffling.

I don’t know if thermodynamics matches how a human body sets off a chain reaction to release fat cells, but if I were to relate it to energy, which thermodynamics is a form of. Because we’re talking about a very complex system of chemical reactions. It’s a way too simplistic thing to relate it to, because the human body has so many hormones that all combined do so many different coded locks and key processes in the body. Adrenalin is a hormone, dopamine is a hormone, even histamine (allergy reactions) are hormones. And they all signal different actions to and within different cells of the body.

Whereas energy, in physics is a very simplistic thing that reacts the same every time, in so much as that they have equations that math it out, every time. You can calculate the energy loss, resistance, voltage, amps etc, and they’re the same, because it’s one form, not a complex system, which a human body is. It’s also not going to equate to the same calculable set of parameters in every human body, like you can with energy. Energy is “a” being equal to “c” divided by “b”, and it will always be the same. Every human body absorbs and processes different nutrient intake differently.

But imagine if you told everyone, instead, to find a long term comfortable sustainable diet rich with variety of fruits, vegetables, legumes and beans, nuts, meats. Less, ideally no, processed foods or junk foods, and just moved their body frequently and regularly, nothing big, just something. Minimally. (that not being the entirety of it) how many businesses and whole bodies of corporations does that message, put out of business?

See but I think we’re both actually saying the same thing. The amount of factors that go into calories in vs calories out, essentially makes it unusable. Just looking at calories as a base whole product, not the individual piece of food and the nutrients it provides, is mad. By that rationale you could just live on oranges. They’re calories, or junk food. Calories.

It’s not calculable, how one individual body absorbs, processes, and then manufactures the essential nutrients it needs, from “calories”. It’s essentially saying how much food in vs how much food burning out. But that’s not how fat is turned from fat to energy consumption, by the human body. It has nothing about the essential needs of the body.

It’s a myth perpetuated by diet industry that only keeps you on the hamster wheel of weight loss and, for most people not genetically gifted, never really works. Or only works short term but then your body goes into survival mode, and stacks it all, and more, back on.

Here’s a an article that might help say things better than I am. …edu.au/…/its-time-to-bust-the-calories-in-calori…

An example with an oversimplified diet to illustrate the point I think you’re trying to make: You have a diet that’s exclusively cake and you’ve determined that you need 2000 Calories of cake to maintain your weight. That 2000 Calories figure is an estimate and we don’t know exactly how much of it we’re actually absorbing. In reality, it’s actually more like 1800 Calories. Now all of a sudden, you switch your diet to eating exclusively cookies. You measure out exactly 2000 Calories of cookies and eat the same thing every day. But your Calorie estimate is wrong and you’re actually eating 2100 Calories of cookies per day. Now you gain weight on this supposed 2000 Calorie diet.

I argue that this doesn’t matter either. If you see that you’re gaining weight, then it means you’re eating too much. Reduce your Calorie target and you’ll be back on track. In a real world scenario, you’re going to have a much more varied diet than only cake or only cookies, and each item will come with their own measurement errors. But for most people, their diets are varied in a fairly consistent way, so these errors are also consistent on average. If you ever make changes in your diet (e.g. completely cut out McDonald’s), you’ll change both your estimated Calorie intake and target like in the example above. Adjust your numbers accordingly based on how your bodyweight moves and you’re good.

Of course, other ways of dieting are also effective. It depends mostly on what you can adhere to and your goals.