This is the second part of my response to Brad’s comment
Your post scratches at some scientific-sounding ideas of the involvement of genetics, but fails to cite any definitive research into inheritable weight-control issues. The mathematics behind maintaining a healthy weight are startlingly simple, and the mythology of “fat genes” and thyroid problems and impossible to shed pounds is merely there to sell books and gym memberships.
The body is a closed system and cannot create additional weight without an over consumption of calories. Joel S is correct — it’s literally impossible to gain weight by eating your “maintenance” number of calories without violating the first law of thermodynamics.
Previously, I talked a little bit about the scientific evidence for a genetic basis for obesity and gave a few links to some big papers on genes and obesity.
Now I’ll address the first law. So, first a minor nit to pick. The commonly repeated statement
it’s literally impossible to gain weight by eating your “maintenance” number of calories without violating the first law of thermodynamics
conflates energy balance and mass balance. This is somewhat important if you actually want to predict and measure weight loss. It is true that calories-in minus calories-out must equal the calorie content of the organism. However, not all tissue and body fluid have the same calorie/mass ratio. Thus, it is technically possible to gain mass while having a negative calorie balance.
As a super nerdy aside, mass balance must hold as well. That is mass-in minus mass-out must equal mass of the organism. So when the organism looses mass where does that mass go? Answer at the end.
So, yes calorie balance must hold. Calories-in minus calories-out must equal the calorie content of the organism.
Doesn’t this imply that we can control weight by controlling calories-in?
No.
For several reasons. First, is that calories-in and calories-out are not independent. If you feed a load of sugar to a five year-old you will witness one of the natural calorie balancing processes the body engages in.
Tolerance to a glycemic spike is actually one of the earliest breakdowns in the calorie regulation mechanism and I suspect that it is in part responsible for the mild weight gain that most adults experience and have experienced for generations.
However, even in adults one will find that consistent calorie restriction results in exhaustion, drowsiness, and a reduction in body temperature. Thus restricting calories-in reduces calories-out.
Secondly, you have no direct control over the composition of the weight loss. It could be fat, muscle, bone, hair, blood, etc. In general it is a combination of all of the above. Even in bariatric surgery, which shows great success in fat reduction, muscle loss is common and hair loss is not infrequent.
Muscle loss in particular is counter-productive because muscle is much more metabolically active than fat. Thus a loss in muscle reduces the regular amount of calories expended and thus reduces calories-out.
The combination of these factors is likely responsible for the plateau that most dieters experience where continued calorie restriction does not result in additional weight loss. Surprisingly the plateau appears even in Very Low Calorie diets of 500 kcals a day or less.
There is an intense debate over whether this could possibly be due to a reduction in the maintenance level to only 500 kcals. I am not sure where I side on this debate but it does seem that the plateau appears.
We should also note that hormone changes can induce changes in weight. The most obvious is human growth hormone. Since the first law must hold in all cases how is it possible that growth hormone can do what only a change in calorie balance can accomplish?
The short answer is that changes in body composition induce changes in calorie intake and expenditure. Teenage boys are famously hungry and they are all adding mass. The same is true for pregnant women.
Could it be that the same is true for the obese? I don’t know how we could rule it out.
Perhaps, a hormonal change induces the body to accumulate fat. The accumulation of fat then increases hunger to satisfy calorie balance. The individual then attempts to eat more. In addition, like pregnant women and teenage boys we should not be surprised that such an individual develops cravings for calorie dense food that would sicken a normal person.
Indeed, that’s one of the observations that makes us think this is hormonal. The behavior of many obese persons is not desirable to the non-obese. Many thin people do not want to eat ultra-high fat food.
Odd desires point to hormones. Again see the behavior of teenagers, both make and female, and pregnant women for notes on the strange desires that raging hormones can induce.
A more important observation, however, is that both thin and obese people seem to know how many calories they “need.” That is both the thin and the obese are typically in caloric equilibrium, neither gaining nor loosing weight. A person will often be 50lbs overweight for years.
How does their body “know” exactly the right number of calories to eat to maintain 50 lbs extra fat. It would be one thing if their weight was constantly fluctuating with the season, the opening of new restaurants, etc.
But that’s not what we observe. We observe either solid gaining trends or solid holding patterns. How does the body know that it needs exactly maintenance plus 500?
Moreover, how does the thin body know that it needs exactly maintenance? Most people have no idea what their maintenance level is and even if they did caloric estimates on food are only accurate to around 90% and not universally available. Are we really to believe that all thin people are counting up every calorie in and every calorie out to make sure they balance?
No, almost certainly their hormones are telling them. They are telling them they desire food or that they have had too much and now food is repulsive. Their hormones are telling them they really need a hardy steak or they are just “in the mood” for a salad. Their hormones are monitoring body composition and issuing feedback to the brain to tell the brain what to eat.
Thus when someone becomes obese our first suspect should be a breakdown in this feedback loop. This is where I believe that research needs to focus. What is the nature of this feedback breakdown and how can it be fixed?
Answer: When we loose weight were does the fat mass go?
It turns into air and water. Fat is a primarily a chain of carbon and hydrogen atoms. The carbon combines with the oxygen we breathe to produce carbon dioxide, which we breathe out. The hydrogen combines with the oxygen we breathe to produce water, which we urinate out.
Most of the mass, however, is carbon and so we loose weight primarily because the air we breathe out is slightly heavier than the air we breathe in.

27 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday ~ April 18th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Noumenon
[quote]Most people have no idea what their maintenance level is and even if they did caloric estimates on food are only accurate to around 90% and not universally available. Are we really to believe that all thin people are counting up every calorie in and every calorie out to make sure they balance? [/quote]
“Weight is regulated with great precision. For example, during a lifetime, the average person consumes at least 60 million kcal. A gain or loss of 20 lb, representing 72,000 kcal, involves an error of no more than 0.001%.”–Merck manual
Sunday ~ April 18th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Karl Smith
This is exactly my point, made hopefully more digestible for someone coming from the calorie-in vs. calorie-out school.
Sunday ~ April 18th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Does your body burn the normal calorie amount consumed everyday?
[…] Obesity and the First Law of Thermodynamics « Modeled Behavior […]
Sunday ~ April 18th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
rjs
i figure i missed some preceeding posts but nonetheless, as a medicated hypothyroid patient, i have an anecdote to add to your discussion…the early part of this past decade i started gaining weight, from a lifetime 140-150 up to near 175…that was not accompanied by additional food intake…when my muscle loss and lack of co-ordination became so severe that i was finally hospitalized, my condition was diagnosed and i was put on 200 mcg synthroid, which was far too much…despite eating twice as much as previously in rehab, my weight dropped to 120, even though i spent half the day in bed…finally they realized i was getting too much medication, & i was taken off it for 3 weeks till my blood levels returned to normal…
i am now on 75 mcg daily, and my weight fluctuates seasonly between 140 & 150lbs…i am 5’8”…
hope thats useful…
Sunday ~ April 18th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Luke Tunyich
Apart for the last three to four decades, obesity epidemic was unknown to any previous generation. On one hand there is huge problem of obesity and on the other hand there is a huge problem, because everyone thinks he knew why people becoming obese and what is causing obesity epidemic.
The scientific explanation about cause of obesity is based on belief that unused calories body storage as fat mass in fat tissues for later use.
Till 2005 people involved in research, treatment and prevention of obesity didn’t know that metabolic waste contain calories. (A significant amount of energy in food intake leaves body as metabolic waste.) Even today majority of them are not aware about that fact.
The public health agencies, the medical practitioners, and medical science researchers have to confront with the fact that “Counting Calories” is a huge blunder in medical science.
Many people involved in research, treatment and prevention of obesity have made a fortune, reputation, and lucrative career without knowing that significant percentage of energy leave the body as metabolic waste. Since 2008 they are editing their web page in attempt to hide their misconception from the public.
Please see the link relating to “Calories In – Calories Out”: http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/calories.htm
and the link relating to “Energy Balance” http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/energybalance.htm
In reality, the majority of obese people becoming obese without knowing why.
Much more is on my web site, http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/ , but I doubt that many health reporters will write about that. Such error in basic science is embarrassing not only for scientist but as well as for people without medical background. It is much more comfortable to blame obese people for their condition.
Luke Tunyich
Sunday ~ April 18th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
jazzbumpa
Certainly hormones play a vital role in body equlibria. Not least among these is insulin. The precondition or early onset of type II diabetes is characterized by increasing insulin resistance, which can induce its own metabolic spiral. Hormone changes with aging can also play a part.
As does genetics. The simplistic calories ingested, calories expended argument and denial of thyroid influence ignores every aspect of how the body processes food and extracts energy from it. Or, as Luke points out, loses it in waste excretion.
Individual body chemistry and metabolism vary greatly. This, I believe, is part of why there are so many fad diets: each of them works for SOMEBODY. And this is what marketersexploit. There’s probably someone out there who will do just fine on beer and donuts.
Good job of myth busting.
Cheers!
JzB
Monday ~ April 19th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
MarcTheEngineer
As a naturally “thin” person (ok let’s call it scrawny) I remember having a problem gaining weight due to my body reacting to me eating above my maintenance requirements.
I was working out and trying to increase my calorie consumption so that I could see more muscle gain – drinking those 1000 calorie mass-gainer shakes, etc. Problem was that one day I would consume 3000 -4000 calories and the next day I would have to basically force myself to eat anything because I wouldn’t get the least bit hungry until well into the evening.
In other words – I had a hard time even forcing myself to become “fat” (gain weight). I’ve given up on the mass-gainer shakes but I still notice that effect occur during holidays. The day after I stuff my face for X-mas dinner I won’t get hungry until very late in the day, similarly after a night of heavy drinking.
Just FYI
Tuesday ~ April 20th, 2010 at 2:20 am
John A
Picky, but consider –
“How does the [overweight/obese – fat] body know that it needs exactly maintenance plus 500?”
coming just after mentioning people who maintain, for example, 50 extra pounds for decades: such people are taking in maintenance, not maintenance_plus, even if some of it is to maintain fat cells.
So, trickier query for research: why do some peole estab;ish and then maintain a level of fat that is considered unhealthy, or at least outside the “norm?”
NB. I put “norm” in quotes since the “norm” for 1945 prisoners at Auschwitz is quite different from the “norm” of a footbal players of 2010. Or 7-foot Masai. Or 3-foot midgets. As Victor Buono said “I am not overweight, I am underheight. My weight is perfect for a person of seven feet eleven inches.”
Tuesday ~ April 20th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Karl Smith
John, thats exactly right. I worded that way to make the paragraph flow better for a non-technical audience, whom often conflate “maintenance” with what a thing person eats.
However, technically you are 100% correct. Maintenance, is where the body is in caloric equilibrium regardless of composition.
Wednesday ~ April 21st, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Luke Tunyich
In practical term it is possible to apply the Laws of Thermodynamics (First and Second) only in a close system where no energy coming in and no energy going out (all energy that coming in and out is measurable). That is the case with any mechanical engine. In the case of the human body, some energy is going out (the energy that practically isn’t possible to measure).
http://www.biomechanicsandhealth.com/calories.htm
Applying the law of thermodynamics on humans doesn’t explain anything concerning the weight gain/weight loss.
Saturday ~ November 6th, 2010 at 11:02 am
sonhal
bakwas
Monday ~ July 18th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Alex Faris
How come the discussion of physical activity’s role in weight management is not included? I would think that if you’re going to talk about endocrine function and hormone regulation that you would at least shed light briefly on how regular physical activity may be a contributing factor to the difference between “leaner” individuals versus “overweight/obese” individuals. Could it be that a modern “sedentary lifestyle” low in physical activity has changed demands on human evolutionary mechanisms which in turn has changed hormonal regulation in many individuals today?
Tuesday ~ July 19th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Razwell
The studies show increased physical activity NOT to be an effective morbid obesity treatment. It’s for health, not fat loss.
In fact, it’s a wretched failure for weight loss. Fat cells in HOARD MODE are not cooperating. With obesity, fat cell’s become disregulated via their receptors – a disease state.
Please look into Urgelt’ obesity video .
Too little is known to science about fat cell regulation and the chemical behavior of fat cell receptors. The caloric hypothesis is dead.
Razwell
Tuesday ~ July 19th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Razwell
There are MANY, MANY very hard working dedicated walkers and exercisers I see who are either obese or significantly overweight. Many obese poeple exercise and are NOT lazy at all. And the result? A few are fatter than ever. It is such a shame. All that effort for nothing ( weight loss wise) – At least they are improving their health though. They are VICTIMS of bad information and bad science and deeply held false beliefs.
The problem is exercise ‘s success rate is WRETCHED. And my own observastions of numerous overweight neighbors CONFIRMS what the studies demonstrate consistently.
Ah, the MYTH of exercise for fat loss. Linda Bacon has MUCH to say on this.
Sunday ~ June 30th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Razwell
The First Law of Thermodynamics is grossly ABUSED and MISUSED by Internet salesmen.They make incorrect EXTRAPOLATIONS. The First Law’s actual scope and reach are extremely limited.
Yes, the conservation laws are valid for life, HOWEVER, they SAY NOTHING about WHY a person gained weight or is obese. NOTHING. THis law does NOT AT ALL address numerous things- how the body has a mind of its own regarding weight- the biological safeguards, the comensatory mechanisms and much more.
Gary Taubes IS correct about what this law actually says. He has a degree in physics from Harvard. I have personally spoken to Dr. Tyson, Dr. Hawking and Dr. Susskind. They ALL say obesity is a BIOCHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL issue, NOT a physics problem.
I have explained this in detail on Gary Taubes’ blog for anybody interested.
People like Lyle McDonald, Anthony Colpo and Jamie Hale are DISCREDITED Internet salesmen who have a PHONY understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Thursday ~ March 19th, 2015 at 3:43 pm
Sasha Brokov
The first law says that you can’t get more than you put in. The second law says no system can be 100% efficient.
What the first law says, in application to the human body, is that if you consume 100 calories but burn 100 calories you will not gain weight.
What the second says, again in terms of the human body, is that your body cannot become so efficient that weight loss is impossible.
Wednesday ~ May 7th, 2014 at 9:58 pm
vigrx sample
It’s nearly impossible to find knowledgeable people in this particular subject, but you seem like you
know what you’re talking about! Thanks
Sunday ~ July 20th, 2014 at 1:51 pm
ravi
Thanq for this article, it is really awesome sharing your views. This leads us to success. keep writing these type of articles
Anjaan Songs Free Download listen to this is gud.
Saturday ~ August 23rd, 2014 at 8:29 pm
how to get rid of chin fat
Hi just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let you know a few of the
pictures aren’t loading properly. I’m not sure why but I
think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different internet browsers and
both show the same outcome.
Thursday ~ March 19th, 2015 at 3:34 pm
Sasha Brokov
I’m confused, how exactly can we get more energy out than we put in?
Thursday ~ March 19th, 2015 at 3:35 pm
Sasha Brokov
I’m confused. If calories in/ calories out is a myth, then why is gastric by-pass surgery effective? That surgery results in a reduced digestive system and limits the amount of food intake, thus limiting the number of calories. This surgery always results in dramatic weight loss. Why is this, assuming that what you say is true?
Thursday ~ March 19th, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Sasha Brokov
The First Law states that you cannot get more energy out than you put in. Yeah, I see that the body is like an open system in that more energy can be added, but in open systems internal energy is equal to energy added, less loss by inefficiencies.
But your argument seems to say that it doesn’t matter how little calories we take in, the body will just become more efficient. The Second Law of thermodynamics states that no system can be 100% efficient.
There is a certain amount of energy in, say, a loaf of bread. Our bodies extract the caloric value in that bread and use it as an energy source. It does not matter how efficient the body is, even in your body were 99.999999% efficient (which it isn’t) it is not possible to live indefinitely only on a single loaf of bread. If you try to do so, you will starve, but first you will burn the stored calories to make up for the deficit.
Please explain where I am wrong. Thank you.
Monday ~ March 23rd, 2015 at 5:09 pm
Veronica
This content is excellent but I see that you are not using the full earning
potential of your website. You can earn pretty good promoting products related to health and beauty niche, don’t waste
your traffic, just enter in google:
Polym’s earning ideas
Monday ~ March 23rd, 2015 at 5:17 pm
jane santosj
You are grossly abusing conservation principles, Sacha. They do not addres fat cell dysregulation. Gastric bypass leaves people still very fatty,like fatty smaller piece of human salami vs Big,but sirloin lean Bo Jackson in his prime. Does not work well,not anywhere near as good as advertised said Dr. Jeffrey Friedman. Obesitynis not explainedvat all by physics.The first law is
state eqaution and cannot and does not say anything whatsoever about whyvsomebody is obese it expains nothinglDr.ngeorge hrsy is on my side and told me this
It is biochemica l
ll i have vtalked to over v50 of them the totallloy support me.mYou are wrong.
Thursday ~ March 26th, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Jamie Colpo
Morgan Freeman go poopy !!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~
Friday ~ January 8th, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Mike Raz Banashak
Energy itself is NOT ANYTHING. Energy is an abstract PROPERTY of things. Caloroes CANNOT EVER TURN IMTO MATTER. Calories are a COMCEPT. THEYNARE NOTHING THEMSELVES….. Physics Ph.D. ‘s
OWN you fitness industry idiots…….
Sunday ~ March 13th, 2016 at 10:44 pm
Anthony Colpo
I am a total fraud and have been conning the public for a decade. I am sorry for stalking DurianRider and hitting him. This is my Internet apology.
Cheers,
Anthony