Calorie balance tells us that we have the control – that it is our responsibility to control our energy stores. But how true is this premise?
The thing is, the database of scientific literature is full of reasons why this concept may not be so valid. Basic biological principles show us what does control fat stores, and these principles seem to be lacking any sense of the idea that they can simply be overridden by conscious control.
Today we will examine some of the mechanisms by which fat stores do seem to be controlled, and then see if there is still room for a calorie-centered approach to weight loss.
Exploring Internal Factors Controlling Metabolism
One of the most often cited cases of fat storage control is ob/ob mice. These mice lack the Ob gene that allows for the production of a key controller of hunger – leptin. These leptin-lacking mice are incapable of controlling their hunger and naturally grow obese. Similarly, mice that lack the gene for the receptor of leptin (db/db) also can’t control their hunger and grow obese. These mice show us how a disruption in hunger signaling, either by a lack of messenger or receptor for the signal to stop eating, causing the rat to eat itself to obesity.
Note the driving force here – it is clear that it is a gene (and corresponding hormone) that is causing the end effect (obesity). These rats don’t keep eating because of a conscious decision to eat more food which would then result in a change in their body. Rather, the disrupted signal in their body (lack of a leptin signal) drives them to continue eating.
Okay, so obviously there are mechanisms under the surface working to drive our eating behavior and the behavior of our fat cells, but does this mean that our conscious control does not have the ultimate say – that, although these mechanisms exist under the surface that they can’t just be overruled by our conscious thought and action? Is there still room for calorie balance to be an effective method for controlling our behavior and thus forcing weight loss?
Gary Taubes, in his book Good Calories Bad Calories, brought to light a number of rat studies that appear to defy the usefulness of the calorie balance model. One of the most well-known cases the documents is the Zucker rat, defined by a specific genotype that causes these rats to put on fat at a much faster rate than normal mice. Although these mice do tend to consume more food than normal rats (which would be in line with calorie balance), these rats have been shown to carry excess fat mass even when calories are restricted. For instance, one study demonstrated that these rats have the same effects (excess fat storage – up to 50% of their body weight), even when these rats spend their lives with food restricted.
These Zucker rats demonstrate how by changing an internal factor (e.g. a gene), rats that eat the same amount as normal mice, or even Zucker rats forced to eat less than normal rats, still gain excess fat. To me, this doesn’t seem to be aligned with the concept that it is calories controlling an organism’s weight. If we are to lose weight by eating less, then how can we explain cases where eating less doesn’t seem to be a strong factor driving weight loss.
One particularly interesting study from the book is a group of rats that had their ovaries removed, which, as Taubes explains, ate “voraciosuly,” were less physically active, and grew obese. This again shows how the disruption of certain hormones produced in the ovaries drives changes in eating behavior and activity level, resulting in obesity. But it gets more interesting. In a group of ovary-lacking rats with calories set at the level they were at before the ovary removal surgery, the rats grew just as obese. This study shows that when specific hormone production is destroyed (ovary removal), rats grow obese, regardless of the amount eaten. They could be fed a normal amount, or excess, and they still put on the same amount of weight.
Taubes does a great job of documenting cases where it appears that it is not calories directing any sort of weight loss/gain, but rather, something deeper that regulates our hunger and energy storage. For more on the topic, I recommend his works.
Given these cases where it is clearly disruptions in genes/hormones driving the rats to put on weight (even in calorie-restricted circumstances), could it be that this “eat less” advice is the wrong advice – that the attention on this concept makes us overlook the factors that are actually at play?
Given the above evidence gathered from work on rats, it is clear that it is not calories that drive weight gain/loss – it is internal factors (e.g. hormones) that direct the flow of energy in the body. This leads me to think that we need to seriously reconsider why we even think about calorie balance at all. What is the use of calorie balance if it is clear that it is not a driving factor?
The answer – Well, we aren’t rats. We happen to be human, and what makes a human so remarkable is that remarkable brain of ours – a brain that allows us to make decisions based on outcomes that we can foresee. Given this, does it make sense to try to override these well-established metabolic drivers by forcing a calorie deficit, thus forcing the body to shed pounds?
Forcing a calorie deficit via conscious caloric restriction
Sylvia Tara, PhD, in her book The Secret Life of Fat, documents cases where calorie-restricted diets do not necessarily result in the best outcome. In one interesting study, she explains how “…they compared the food intake of twenty-six obese patients before and after they lost an average of 115 pounds. Although this was a significant amount of weight, these patients were still overweight and were termed ‘reduced-obese.’ This group required 28 percent fewer calories to maintain their reduced weight… when the scientists compared the food intake of the reduced-obese to that of control subjects who were never obese to begin with… the reduced obese were eating slightly fewer calories than the never-obese group, but their weight was still 60 percent higher.”
Here, we see the implementation of calorie balance falling short once again. These individuals are eating less – 28 percent less – and yet weigh 60 percent more. Conventional wisdom would tell them that, well, they just need to move more and keep eating less. But at what point do we stop telling an individual to eat even less?
At any point, could it be beneficial to stop eating less and instead eat more?
When eating more leads to losing more
All of these cases have been about when restricting calories falls short, but what about adding in calories? It makes sense to try to cause weight loss by restricting calories, but could we also cause weight loss by adding in more calories?
Fortunately, there are many such studies that we can examine to help us answer this question. A 2007 review examined several such studies and found a large number of isocaloric randomized control trials in which the addition of different nuts did not result in any weight gain. This means that, in two groups eating the same base diet with the same amount of calories, one group fed extra calories from different nuts did not gain any weight.
Even more impressive are the studies this paper (again, isocaloric, randomized control studies) in which the addition of either almonds, pecans, or walnuts led to a decrease in weight. These studies clearly do not support the hypothesis that to lose weight we should aim to eat less, and instead, point towards a more complex system at play. Clearly, there is more at work here than simple calorie counting.
Problems with calorie restriction:
“Although humans can modulate food intake by voluntary control in the short term, the almost invariable weight regain that occurs in obese persons after weight loss suggests that in the long term, biologically determined feelings of hunger and satiety may be more important than voluntary control of food intake” (1).
Let’s look at the facts. We all know that it is possible to lose weight by working to create a calorie deficit via counting calories. Energy balance is not wrong – if an individual can muster up the willpower to restrict energy intake, then weight loss may very well occur, given that there is not a corresponding reduction in energy expenditure.
The question still remains though – is this the best approach we can think of to get the population to focus on to help the most individuals manage their weight? Is it an effective approach to weight loss to tell individuals that all that really matters is that they control their energy intake such that they ensure a calorie deficit is created?
Again, given that this is the current dogma and that 70% of this country is overweight or obese, I think there may be a better option out there – an option that doesn’t rely on the use of the conscious mind to attempt to overpower the complex network that is the human metabolism.
My hope, by this point, has been to create a sense of doubt in the dogma that is calorie balance. We have been told for decades that it is all about calories – that weight loss is all about managing how much you eat and making sure it balances out with the energy you expend.
However, the data (and not to mention the theory), tell a different story.
To finish up, let’s look back at that theory behind the calorie balance model. Remember, as it goes, calorie balance gets its power because it comes straight from the first law of thermodynamics – the conservation of energy:
calories in – calories out = change in energy,
where change in energy is directly correlated with body weight because energy is stored in the bonds of stored fat.
Once again, I ask you to look at this very simple model and point out where the driving factor is. What is driving the energy loss; what is causing the right side of the equation to be negative?
The thing is, the driving factor of weight loss is not present in this equation. Instead, all this equation tells us is a basic fact, that a change in energy will be equal to any difference in calories in and calories out. That’s it!
It does not tell us that weight loss (the right side of the equation) can be caused by using conscious control to manage calorie intake – that is something extra added on top of the theory – something that is not always supported by the data.
There happen to be many factors that can cause a change in any piece of this equation (factors which we will get introduced to in the following article). However, changing one piece (e.g. calories in) will only result in a change anywhere else in the equation (e.g. calories in may just change calories out). The end result may or may not be a change in the variable we wish to address (change in internal energy).
Take Aways from Calorie Balance
Here’s the bottom line – We can play around with equations all we want, but this doesn’t mean we are causing any effective change. Calorie balance tells us nothing more than the simple facts that an energy deficit is just the difference between calories consumed and calories expended. It provides no information in regards to how any of this change is to occur, and for that we need to bring in some more information.
Instead of focusing on this concept of calories, a more effective focus would seem to be an understanding of the driving factors of fat storage vs. fat release. If we were to understand these factors, then maybe we could get somewhere.
Weight management is driven by a complex network with numerous variables and numerous driving forces, just a few of which have been mentioned thus far. Sure, the frontal lobe may be used to cause a calorie deficit by making a decision to consume fewer calories, but many other factors exist, and if we are to effectively address the obesity epidemic, we have got to stop putting our focus on only one factor – a factor which, as pointed out in the quote above, may really only play a small, temporary role in the overall management of the body’s fat stores.
So, is the calorie concept something that you wish to hold onto? Or does it need to be tossed out the window to make room for a different approach?
If we look to the cases documented above, along with many other tales of attempts at weight loss via calorie restriction, there is something to be said for turning away from this method – for forgetting the concept of calories to allow room for a stronger method to take hold.
That being said, this is an honest question – one that needs to be answered on an individual basis. It could very well be that calorie restriction has worked well for you – if that’s the case, should you throw out an approach that has seemed to be effective?
To help you answer this question, my recommendation is to continue on to the next article where I discuss the many factors that control the body’s metabolism.
Alternatively, I have created a method that I believe best encompasses the many factors at play. The Reprogrammed Approach to addressing the Excess Fat Accumulation Problem is the method I believe is best for helping individuals achieve this goal because it encompasses the many complexities discussed in the next article, while also taking calorie balance into consideration.
If you are interested in hearing the method, feel free to head straight over to it.
However, I am a strong believer in understanding any information before using it – especially when the stakes are as high as the health of our own bodies. Thus, I have two more articles devoted to helping you understand how your body actually regulates energy, including how the body regulates its fat stores. My belief is that, with an understanding of how your body operates, you have the ability to make choices that you believe will have the best outcome for your own body.
Thus, I recommend continuing on to the next article in this series to gain an understanding of how your metabolism works. Then, feel free to head over to the Reprogrammed Systems Approach to see what I believe to be the strongest method for tackling this particular problem.