> And the idea that fat = calories in - calories burned is a simplistic view that no serious nutritionist on either side of the debate believes.
I want to preface this comment by saying I am not attempting to be rude or combative, I am genuinely curious.
If a calorie is a measure of energy contained in food, and food is the only source of energy for a body, and one mechanism by which the body uses that energy is to store fat, then a positive change in fat matter stored can maximally be the value of calorie intake converted to mass (in some discrete time).
Or, a positive change in fat stored (mass) <= calories in (again, in some discrete time).
I want to preface this comment by saying I am not attempting to be rude or combative, I am genuinely curious.
If a calorie is a measure of energy contained in food, and food is the only source of energy for a body, and one mechanism by which the body uses that energy is to store fat, then a positive change in fat matter stored can maximally be the value of calorie intake converted to mass (in some discrete time).
Or, a positive change in fat stored (mass) <= calories in (again, in some discrete time).
Is this still too simplistic?