In the end, there is only the energy balance…

Updated 12.15.2015
Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Jules Robert Mayer discovered or explicated this law in 1842 (as an absolute law it existed before humans noticed). Antoine Lavoisier discovered the law of conservation of mass even earlier, in 1785. These are absolute laws, and they hold for human biochemistry the same way they hold for physics. Complexity does not change the absolute laws of the universe.

Food and drink provide energy for the human body and require energy to be digested. The units of energy are calories or Joules. Most people are more familiar with the older unit calories. The "calorie" content of food is actually listed in kilocalories (kcal) because otherwise the number would be huge, and most humans don't work well with large numbers.

Food and drink are also mass added to the body. Food and drink, when broken down to basic atoms, consist primarily of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. Within the body, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen get eliminated as carbon dioxide and water; and nitrogen gets eliminated through urination. Any atoms not eliminated get stored. Human fat is built with carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms. Meerman didn't just do a TEDx talk, he and a co-author published the calculations in the BMJ. The conclusion is that most of the atoms in fat stores are eliminated via the lungs, which indicates the importance of moving more. Here is an interview with him if you'd rather not slog through the journal article.

It was Albert Einstein who realized the linkage between the two laws, but quantum physics is not required to recognize that weight loss comes down to the energy balance, the equations of which (see the first link) account for the elimination or storage of the atoms from food and drink and thus obey the law of mass conservation. Anyone on the internet trying to bring quantum physics into a weight loss presentation is attempting to "Baffle with Bullshit." The fact that the body doesn't obey quantum mechanics in no way disproves the energy balance equation.

Whether you look at it as an energy balance or a matter of mass conservation, the ONLY way to weigh less is to eat less energy (food and drink) than you expend. It doesn't matter what type of food you eat for weight loss (No, it REALLY doesn't). Eating for optimal health can be a different matter. But weight loss simply comes down to energy intake vs energy expenditure. I have previously presented my simplified version of the energy balance, and so will not rehash it again.

Even with McD's

None of the above is new territory for this site, but the inspiration for these latest thoughts was this article, which seems to be in response to this rant. The basics are that a science teacher (who is now a McDonald's spokesperson) ate 540 McDonald's meals chosen to meet a particular macronutrient (protein, fat, carbohydrates) mix (so no Supersize Me overeating was involved). In the process of doing so he lost 56 pounds and improved a bunch of his biomarkers. These facts unhinge some people.

It's about the energy balance and adherence. If you can adhere to a lower calorie total by eating McD’s Go for it! Not my cuppa, but all it is a calorie deficit and adherence. The teacher had to be in a calorie deficit or he would not have lost weight.

The ranting woman is no fan of fast food in schools, in fact, her site exists to complain about the quality of food in US school cafeterias. So it comes as no surprise that she is horrified and outraged by an example that it's not the type of food that matters, it's the amount. However, she does make a valid point when she notes that young teens that the movie from this experiment is targeting will not need 2000 calories a day to lose weight or even maintain their weight. They will need to eat less food than the adult male teacher, and this point is not made in the film. To quote her rant:

But here’s the real kicker. Even Cisna wasn’t able to eat everything on the McDonald’s menu while sticking to the diet plan he so carefully outlines in the film. Under the skeptical eye of Today show dietitian Joy Bauer, Cisna admitted (at the 3:30 mark) that on days when his student menu planners required him to eat more highly caloric McDonald’s entrées, it was impossible to consume a total of 2,000 calories without also exceeding his Daily Value limit on fat.  So for 21 out of the 90 days – almost a quarter of the experiment – he had to limit his calories even more severely, dropping down from 2,000 to 1,750. That’s a very low daily intake for a man of his considerable height (6 feet) and weight, but this relevant information is never disclosed in 540 Meals.

I would argue that this points to the weakness in the experiment's design, not the idea that it’s calories that matter. It's also a good example of why the idea “average” calorie intake needs to die. The notion that there’s an “average” for calorie intake is absurd. Different sized people need to eat different amounts of food— as do people who are differently active.

She is forced to admit that the guy is not wrong that calorie balancing can be done at McDonald’s. She does not admit that more people MIGHT DO THAT if people like her (and to a large extent the HAES crowd) would stop making weight loss seem so damn difficult. Severe restriction of calories is NOT necessary. Go ahead and have fries everyday, just buy the small not the large. Get the Bacon cheese burger, just don’t get two.

Should the movie be used in schools? I actually think yes, if it would get the kids talking and thinking about nutrition and choices. I am, it would seem, in the minority. The movie gave opponents a new McDonald's target to aim at, and the effort to keep it out of schools is growing. In fact, McDonald's is reported to have pulled the video, but it can still be viewed here. I did watch the video and say that it did not make me want to eat a Big Mac (a common claim by those who think it's just one big long McDonald's commercial). What I saw was a videotaped demonstration of the energy balance— all done without any need to don a dietary "hair shirt".

Look, IN NO WAY do I promote losing weight by eating fast food (McDonald's or other) but IT CAN BE DONE. In the end it's the ENERGY BALANCE THAT MATTERS, and ONLY the energy balance for weight loss.