[Closed] Exercise and fat use

Simplistic answer: If you don't refuel adequately and leave it until the energy in your liver and blood glycogen is consumed you'll get the effect known as bonk, hunger knock or "the wall" in running parlance. How long this takes depends strongly on the individual, how well they have developed their 'economy' and the intensity of exercise - but typically you've got 1-2 hours before you run out. Topping-up your energy reserves regularly through energy drinks and food so as not to overload your digestive system (diverting blood flow from the muscles) and keeping your glycogen stores topped up is key, as well as staying hydrated and maintaining your electrolytes. Fortunately, there is lots of advise available and conveniently packaged food and drink to make life easier. There are also advocates of ketogenic diets where you train your body to run on fats not sugars - quite a complex subject, but from knowing people who've done this, bonked on every ride for months on end!

Anyone know if we have to use up the 2,000 calories of carbohydrates before the fat stores are used, or by training at a lower intensity, fat is used as the primary fuel from the start of the exercise, leaving the carbohydrates in the liver/muscles; therefore after exercising we don’t get these cravings for carbohydrates?

The latter, simply.

I did keto (<20g/carbs/day) for 18 months. You lose your top 15% of power (when you have to burn anaerobically you need to burn carbs) but can ride all day on zero food and never even get hungry (as you've tens of thousands of calories available in your gut).

But if you don't want to do a very restricted diet - low intensity long rides. Eat proper balanced meals and maintain a small caloric restriction over time.

If you are disciplined you will lose weight.

maintain a small caloric restriction over time.

This.

It may be through restricting the foods you eat, eg paleo, keto, vegan, atkins.

It may be through restricting the time window, eg intermittent fasting.

It would may be through the amount, eg whole foods, weight watchers, weighing food.

Pick whichever suits you best to alter your eating habits.

For most people, changing some of the foods helps. For example, replace liquid calories and refined sugars/flours with non starchy vegetables should do it for 90% of people.

Keto here too. Over 30KG lost since mid Feb. Initially I bonked, but after a few weeks I became fat adapted and it no longer happens. I can head out for a ride or run early in the day and not have to worry about eating first or refuelling during the ride. I’m not an athlete pushing for every last watt though.
I tried simple calorie restriction but failed because I always felt hungry. On Keto I don’t feel hungry even though I’m on under 1800 calories per day.
It is restrictive; I really miss bananas, apples and melon, although I do eat strawberries and raspberries most days (with a good sized helping of double cream). Oh and chocolate. I really miss chocolate. Which is probably why I was fat...

Over 30KG lost since mid Feb. Initially I bonked, but after a few weeks I became fat adapted and it no longer happens.

Or you just got fitter/learnt to ride slower

I’m definitely not riding slower and I am fitter, but I’m on under 20g of carbs per day so my fuel is not coming from that.

Thanks, 30kg loss is impressive!!

When I ride anaerobically, I then crave carbs after the ride.

If by training at an easier intensity, I burn fat from the go, and possibly avoid the cravings for the carbs, I can then loose some bodyfat.

I’m looking more as a fat loss thing than riding with a group/bonking if the intensity is high.

I’m definitely not riding slower and I am fitter

No you would almost certainly be faster if 30kg lighter, you could well be putting less effort in and going slower.

If by training at an easier intensity, I burn fat from the go, and possibly avoid the cravings for the carbs, I can then loose some bodyfat.

Just ride harder and eat appropriately no need to over think it or look for the easy way.

Low intensity low O2 exercise will burn fat first. Fat is the preferred energy store to get used first but isn’t as quick and easy as carbs.

Low intensity low O2 exercise will burn fat first

Thats true but exercising harder will burn more fat and for longer after you have stopped exercising.

No you would almost certainly be faster if 30kg lighter, you could well be putting less effort in and going slower.

I'm definitely not going slower, but you carry on questioning me if it makes you happy.
And I lost that weight by going on a Keto diet, which I know you are opposed to.

When I ride anaerobically, I then crave carbs after the ride.

I have either bacon and eggs or a dirty-keto protein bar after a ride, mainly because it's usually lunch time.

I’m definitely not going slower,

As I said I would be astonished if you werent faster if 30kg lighter.

And I lost that weight by going on a Keto diet, which I know you are opposed to.

No I am just opposed to bullshit.

I'm expect you think all that bacon is really good for you too.

Show me the bullshit or STFU. Back up your claims about my diet with some facts.

I track all my food and today was under 16g of net carbs (I don't include fibre in my carb count). No bacon today though. Or yesterday for that matter. There'll be some tomorrow though. It's yummy.

Here's a before and after pic. The before pic would have been after several months of failed calorie control dieting, the after is the result of Keto.

by I tried simple calorie restriction

Keto is calorie restriction. You restrict them by cutting out carbs.

Unless you're rewriting the laws of thermodynamics then you're losing weight through exactly what you think you're avoiding:calorie restriction.

You're just calling it something else.

Well done on the weight loss and I'm glad you've found a method of cutting calories that works for you!

Thats true but exercising harder will burn more fat and for longer after you have stopped exercising.

That's only partially true.

There are a lot of effects that you can trigger by doing various types of exercise, and your body will respond differently. It also depends on what you've been doing up til now. For many people, doing short high intensity workouts is better for fat loss. But as cyclists we are well used to battering ourselves for two or three hours which for me at least places too great a load on my system to restrict calories - even if I feel like it's just a normal hard ride. Calorie restriction and hard riding means I feel like absolute crap, I don't recover, and even my BMR reduces. If I eat to recover then I don't lose weight. But I do get much faster and stronger. There are probably a few reasons for this - terrain is steep around here so at my weight if I don't dig in then I might as well walk up, which I'm not going to do; I also am naturally predisposed to hard efforts so it's what my legs want to do. Plus there's adaptation - what worked for me ten years ago when I first tried it doesn't work any more.

Start with the basic advice first, then if you struggle with that you need to adjust parameters to figure out why you're struggling.

No I am just opposed to bullshit.

I too am opposed to bullshit, being critically minded and having a science degree, however you are dismissing a lot of science with your cynicism I think. It's well documented that whilst the basic principles of reducing calorie intake and doing more exercise hold true for MOST people, there are lots of people who struggle, and it's not simply a case of these people greedy little piggies with no willpower and being in denial about it.

I too am opposed to bullshit, being critically minded and having a science degree, however you are dismissing a lot of science with your cynicism I think. It’s well documented that whilst the basic principles of reducing calorie intake and doing more exercise hold true for MOST people, there are lots of people who struggle, and it’s not simply a case of these people greedy little piggies with no willpower and being in denial about it.

This, i had this argument with AA before.  I lost 8kg over 4 months on keto.  Since then I’ve introduced more carbs as my training has changed.   My calorific deficit is at the status quo yet my weight started to rise in June/July as I went quite carb heavy.  I’ve reduced the carbs - same weekly deficit - and deferred to more protein and my weight’s started to reduce again.  FWIW I have an average 2100 cal deficit per week regardless of my proportionate macros.    I’ve struggled with weight fluctuation in all sports through my lifetime being 14.5 stone and muscular 25 years ago, 13 stone and fat 15 years ago,  now 11.5 stone and slim mtb but not road shaped now. I’ve always wondered what trigged my weight going up and down, now I’ve learned I’m sensitive to carbs in this matter.

Keto is calorie restriction

Keto is based on exactly what I wrote above re energy sources. If you restrict your sugar intake the body will use fat as an energy source.

If you take in sugar that stimulates insulin production which stimulates lipogenesis and a decrease in fatty acid oxidation. No sugar intake means the opposite.

You still have to use more energy than you take in obviously.

Show me the bullshit or STFU.

First law of thermodynamics

My calorific deficit is at the status quo yet my weight started to rise in June/July as I went quite carb heavy

How do you know you are measuring the calories correctly? How do you know your werent pushing harder and building muscle?

A few very fat people going on a diet and losing weight doesnt mean the type of diet is a magic bullet or that they have magically found that low intensity exercise causes greater calorie loss by some magic. True it may help at the margins with feeling full for longer, butvthe basic principle of eat well and exercise more will do it for almost everyone

Scanning and weighing the food that I eat.  I’m not arguing about it again, I know what’s working for me and the effects of changing my % macros are a constant and becoming predictable now.

If I eat “normally” 1800 Calories is unsustainable as I constantly feel hungry. Depending on what I eat, on some days 1500 is enough on Keto to stop the hunger pangs. Keto as a way of eating has enabled me to cut my calorie intake and lose weight in a way I’ve never managed before. I’d never make it through a day’s ride without breakfast and a snack before either.
Once I reach my target weight I’ll be able to eat more to sustain, but I’m actually enjoying the foods I eat now.
Of course I miss chocolate, bread, chips, pasta, etc but judging by the noise, smells and state of my turds they weren’t doing me any good at all.
My cholesterol was at 4.something before I started and as soon as I can get an appointment for a non-emergency I’ll get it checked again. My blood pressure is down from hypertensive to normal too.

You can piss and moan all you want. I’m happy with what I’m doing and the results I’ve got doing it.

First law of thermodynamics

...says you can get all your calorie needs by drinking 300ml of sunflower oil

But I suspect rapid (and somewhat alarming) weight loss would be the result of that as a diet.

I’m happy with what I’m doing and the results I’ve got doing it.

And so you should be, your pics show a remarkable transformation and as long as you are healthy you’ve  achieved something really quite commendable.

Here’s a before and after pic. 

Bloody hell, that's awesome! I'm off to look up keto diets... 🙂

Try and apply thermodynamics to a petrol car with diesel in the tank. There is some moronic BS on this thread.
Burn anyones turds and there is energy in them. Where does that come from?
kryton doomaniac et al, ignore the haterz. It is your body.

I think you’re missing the point AA, eliminating carbs in the keto diet stabilizes your blood sugar/insulin levels so when you restrict calories you don’t get the severe hunger pangs so it is a lot easier to maintain reduced calories and therefore lose weight.

Well done to doomaniac - glad you found a way to manage your weight that works for you, and that sounds sustainable in the long term. The worldwide multi billion pound weight loss industry exists solely because of the fact that it is so hard to do what you've done.

Try and apply thermodynamics to a petrol car with diesel in the tank. There is some moronic BS on this thread.

And what you posted is pretty much it.

Actual no, I read your second sentence thats even better.

Burn anyones turds and there is energy in them

says you can get all your calorie needs by drinking 300ml of sunflower oil

But I suspect rapid (and somewhat alarming) weight loss would be the result of that as a diet.

Correct, a balanced diet needs things other than just energy, although wouldnt sunflower oil only be keto, certainly low carb!!

Unless you’re rewriting the laws of thermodynamics then you’re losing weight through exactly what you think you’re avoiding:calorie restriction.

Which particular law are you talking about? When talking about nutrition and human metabolism the 2nd law is probably the most pertinent: Entropy. This law emphasises that all real engines - in fact all processes in the real world are inherently inefficient. The heat generated in the processing of food. The measured thermic effect of feeding of different macronutrients (protein, carb or fat) is different.

Calories are a measure of energy.In physics the definition of a calorie is given as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of water by 1 degree. Calories refer to a chemical reaction not the food itself

Once people realise that not all calories are equal and that human metabolism is based on hormones and feedback systems you start to learn why keto, intermittent fasting and atkins all work on helping you lose fat/use fat a a fuel source. They play to how hormones and this feedback system works in the body. The main hormones at play at insulin (controls fat utilisation and fat storage), leptin (controls hunger ) and grehlin (stimulates appetite). it's simple really.. if you reduce the amount of insulin in the body you will utilise more fat as a fuel source and reduce the amount of fat stored. Hunger is also reduced as the signalling works better. Higher GI carbs effectively bypass this system and doesn't tell the body you are full. Anyone can try this . try eating 3-4000 calories from cakes or doughnuts and 3-4000 calories from fat or protein. The effect will be different

it's also worth looking at the different metabolic pathways when eating either protein,carbs or fat. Going keto you introduce gluconeogenesis: the process of creating glucose from non carboyhydrate sources. This process from a an energy point of view is very expensive.

This book goes into a lot of detail about human metabolism and the science behind low carbohydrate diets.

I don't have a science degree, but it seems perfectly clear to me that there's a little more to it than simple thermodynamics.
Humans differ from an engine in that they have emotions and produce hormones which screw with the simple in/out equations.

This is interesting.

No one seems to discount the effects of testosterone on the body. Like insulin it's an anabolic hormone. It increases protein synthesis, and increases muscle mass and strength amoungst other things.

Also worth bearing in mind that exercise, especially intense exercise improves insulin sensitivity. it isn't just the use of energy its stopping the pronounced effects of insulin in the body - ie the effect of fat storage
https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/51/suppl_1/S271

Whats funny is that some of those on here backing keto diet even admit it led to them consuming less calories, whilst others dont confusing. Whilst the keto diet may work for some its not due to increased fat burning in low intensity exercise as the op was asking about. The discussion has been derailled into two conflicting parts, how to burn more fat (high intensity exercise mixed with recovery is the established view)and how to lose weight (eat less exercise more and it is in the eating less that a keto diet may help).

Also worth bearing in mind that exercise, especially intense exercise improves insulin sensitivity

Would also increase testosterone wouldnt it?

What I was going to post has already been posted.

Citing thermodynamics is pointless. Human bodies are way way more complicated than that. We all know people who stay skinny regardless of how much they eat or what exercise they do - they are not that uncommon. That alone should demonstrate that the simple thermodynamic equation does not hold true and there is a lot more going on.

First law of thermodynamics

What about the other laws of thermodynamics? If you look into the study of thermodynamics you'll realise why its the second law that is more pratical as it explains how energy is used to do work and how chemical reactions occur.

No real world energy system is 100% efficient. When talking about food if you're going to carry out all the work, physical and chemical using the energy from food then you can't do it perfectly efficiently. Some part of that energy MUST be wasted. If you are trying to lose weight the job of synthesizing and storing fat might be one that you want to run as inefficiently as possible

Whilst the keto diet may work for some its not due to increased fat burning in low intensity exercise as the op was asking about.

What is it then? Are you disputing how human metabolism works and the effect of hormones in the body? Is it not conceivable that different energy pathway systems are at play depending the macronutrient composition of food.

Do you still believe all calories are equal?

What is it then?

They are able to eat less would be by far the biggest impact.

Is it not conceivable that different energy pathway systems are at play depending the macronutrient composition of food

Respiration is respiration. Protein is absorbed as amino acids and feeds into cellular respiration by being converted to glucose or pyruvate AFAIK. Net result is the same number of ATP's

Do you still believe all calories are equal?

Of course they are, that like asking if all m are equal.

high intensity exercise mixed with recovery is the established view

That isn't true with regard to your statement about "burn more fat".   HIT is a quicker way to weight loss because is consume the 500g of Glycogen we carry around very quickly, but can also metabolise muscle at the same time as it consumes fat for recovery.   Its also a poor method for recovery if you don't replace carbs for recovery as because of that muscle metabolism.    Burning more fat efficiency is the endurance zone/high volume method, but people defer to HIT for a quick fix because they are time poor.   HIT can literally be hit & miss - excuse the pun - because you need to maximise your effort AND you carb ingestion to support the effort and the recovery.

No doubt you'll want to argue with me but just look at the training profile of any T Rex armed Pro cyclist which will tell you they eat more, yet perform less HIT even than your average STW average bike racer yet "light bulb moment" have a very low fat %.

This is a very good article on calories and thermodynamics by professor Richard Feinman
A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics

Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true "miraculous metabolic effect" – but it is subject to many exceptions.The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law.

T

he second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

Of course they are

How can they be? There are multiple ways to create ATP to make your muscles move, and they start with different things. And they have very different effects on your body and your brain.

I can easily eat a packet of chocolate biscuits, but I cannot eat a pack of butter. Why? Because they are different kinds of calories! You really are flying in the face of modern science here, I have no idea why you persist. We've already said that moderate calorie restriction is one way to lose weight, but there are many ways to get your body to reduce fat stores and that does not necessarily work for everyone in all circumstances.

What's more interesting is why you insist that the first thing you learned on the subject is the absolute truth and you will never accept any more information on the topic. Scientists shouldn't do this. There will always be more science.

Of course they are, that like asking if all m are equal.

Well that just shows your incorrect assumptions on how the human metabolism and thermodynamics actually works.

The metabolic pathways in the body are different for different types of calories.

Net result is the same number of ATP’s

As said up there. If gluconeogenesis is involved then this process is very costly (around 6 ATP) to turn a molecule of protein molecule a molecule of carbhydrate.

Lip bitten.

Looks reasonable but is just nonsense

Indeed. If you burn grass you get quite a bit of heat, if a cow eats it it gets a fair bit of that energy; if a rabbit eats it it gets less, and if we eat it we get nothing at all. How is this possible if a calorie is just a calorie and first law of thermodynamics?!

I thought that the second law of thermodynamics was best summarized as ‘things **** up’ - and that applies universally.

Indeed. If you burn grass you get quite a bit of heat, if a cow eats it it gets a fair bit of that energy; if a rabbit eats it it gets less, and if we eat it we get nothing at all. How is this possible if a calorie is just a calorie and first law of thermodynamics?!

Because you're choosing to ignore one of the body's energy outputs?

Your energy input is what you eat and drink. Your output energy is what you burn (CO2 in your breath and heat) PLUS what you excrete. if your total output is greater than your input you lose weight otherwise you gain weight and the laws of thermodynamics are preserved either way.

I thought the second law of thermodynamics was ‘things **** up’ - and it has universal application.

I love a good calories/metabolism/weight loss/exercise intensity thread. Just disappointed nobody's tried the "drink green tea to speed up your metabolism" one yet.

I love a good calories/metabolism/weight loss/exercise intensity thread.

Me too! <pulls up chair and opens a pack of biscuits />

Your energy input is what you eat and drink. Your output energy is what you burn (CO2 in your breath and heat) PLUS what you excrete. if your total output is greater than your input you lose weight otherwise you gain weight and the laws of thermodynamics are preserved either way.

Quite. Your energy output is not just your exercise output. In the case of grass, it'll come out of your mouth as you puke it back up. So yes, you have highlighted my point that the TOTAL energy output in all forms follows the first law, but this is not in any way practical information in the case of exercise for weight loss.

Well at least I've learned I can't eat grass to support my intervals, everyday a school day...

Last time I wnet keto I ate in excess of 2400 calories most days. Lots of cheese, cream and fatty meat, I lost a stone a month for 4 months.
Then beer and chips came back into my life..

Hmm yes.. when I was doing the low carb thing well (first time around) I hit a plateau, then I started eating more Twixes and I lost more weight. Clearly that enabled me to burn more calories, but it enabled me to burn MORE than the extra consumed. But I was already eating an absolute ton of low GI food.

And when I tried to get back onto the same diet, it was far harder and less effective on subsequent times. It's almost as if there are a lot of complex mechanisms and adaptations going on...

I think you’re missing the point AA, eliminating carbs in the keto diet stabilises your blood sugar/insulin levels so when you restrict calories you don’t get the severe hunger pangs so it is a lot easier to maintain reduced calories and therefore lose weight.

fat is digested slower thus keeping your stomach "full" for longer. Sugar speeds up digestion making your feel hungry in a quicker time.

fill up on sweets and sugary drinks you'll feel hungry again a lot quicker than if you have a fry up. A good fry up will keep you going till dinner time.

I can easily eat a packet of chocolate biscuits, but I cannot eat a pack of butter. Why?

because you'd be sick from eating all that butter.

fat is digested slower thus keeping your stomach “full” for longer. Sugar speeds up digestion making your feel hungry in a quicker time.

fill up on sweets and sugary drinks you’ll feel hungry again a lot quicker than if you have a fry up. A good fry up will keep you going till dinner time.

Not true. Fat and protein ingestion release more of the hormones PYY and grehlin which make you feel full.

I'm calling bullshit on 16g of carbs in a day. Whats your diet - pure lard?

If you burn grass you get quite a bit of heat, if a cow eats it it gets a fair bit of that energy; if a rabbit eats it it gets less, and if we eat it we get nothing at all. How is this possible if a calorie is just a calorie and first law of thermodynamics?!

Its only possible if you dont understand the concept.

A good fry up will keep you going till dinner time.

Is that southern poncy dinner or proper midlands dinner?

I’m calling bullshit on 16g of carbs in a day. Whats your diet – pure lard?

I dont think many people understand that veg other than potato has carbs in.

And I don't think that some people understand that's possible to eat very low carb.

so did you eat pure lard or only lean meats or did you have some veg to make the diet slightly healthier? a pure meat diet is very unhealthy

Edit - i'd be fascinated to know what you ate in a day to only have 16g of carbs and how unhealthy that diet would be

And I don’t think that some people understand that’s possible to eat very low carb.

I'm sure it is possible, I just dont want to do it!

Can i ask a slightly simpler but similar question to the OP?

I ride my bike hard for an hour or I ride my bike at a lower aerobic pace for an hour

Which one is better for fat loss???

I just dont want to do it!

Then don't, but stop attacking people who do.

All I know is I'm getting heavier and my fat% according to our scales is on the rise after being unwise to do sweaty exercise while my drained abscess heals from the inside out since last Tuesday. 🙁

Might put some of you off food and reduce Calorie intake! 😆

because you’d be sick from eating all that butter.

Exactly. Why? Is it that your body handles different forms of food differently?

I ride my bike hard for an hour or I ride my bike at a lower aerobic pace for an hour

Which one is better for fat loss???

Depends. If you smash it for an hour you will deplete your glycogen stores and get hungry, and if you deny that urge you may just end up feeling shit and jack it in after a few days.

If you ride slowly for an hour this isn't ideal (slow rides need to be 2-3hrs or more), but if you do it every day you will find it much easier to restrict your calories, so you might well lose more weight, as long as you don't just eat to compensate. But not doing this is far easier when you're not smashing it.

I’m calling bullshit on 16g of carbs in a day?

Eh?  Thats low to the extremes, yesterday I had 304g of carbs with my recent daily averages around 300.   Lowest was last Tuesday - a non workout day, which was 194g carbs.

Then don’t, but stop attacking people who do.

I havent attacked anyone, you seem to be the one getting angry because others have questioned what you wrote

That's not even low carb, never mind Keto!

Be aware, I stay under 22g of net carbs daily. That doesn't include fibre or low/zero GI sugar alcohols like Erythritol. I avoid maltitol where possible as it has a GI of 36.
I do a lot of baking and have come up with a recipe for a mean choc chip and pecan cookie that's under 1g of net carbs per cookie.

I ride my bike hard for an hour or I ride my bike at a lower aerobic pace for an hour

Which one is better for fat loss???

Depends. If you smash it for an hour you will deplete your glycogen stores and get hungry, and if you deny that urge you may just end up feeling shit and jack it in after a few days.

If you ride slowly for an hour this isn’t ideal (slow rides need to be 2-3hrs or more), but if you do it every day you will find it much easier to restrict your calories, so you might well lose more weight, as long as you don’t just eat to compensate. But not doing this is far easier when you’re not smashing it.

Bravo you wrote a lot and failed to answer the question.

The simple answer is, the first one ride hard for a hour. Your proportion of fat burnt might be lower but the total amount will be greater.

I havent attacked anyone, you seem to be the one getting angry because others have questioned what you wrote

More exasperated than angry at your pig headed inability to look at other evidence.

You may not consider what you are doing as an attack, but I've been called a liar by @tjagain and then had that quoted by you.

If I post up what I ate yesterday, or any other day, I already know it'll be attacked because you, and others, are too blinkered to accept that your way isn't the only way. The pictures speak for themselves; I have lost more weight by following the Keto diet than any other method I've tried. Once I reach my target weight I'll start adjusting my diet to allow me to sustain that weight.
I eat low GI fruit and veg pretty much every day, but I also eat eggs, bacon, cheese, olives, steak, chicken, sausages, pork chops, fish. I don't eat sweets, cakes, bread, cereal, pasta, potatoes or rice.

I read the first few posts but then tuned out when it got all closed minded.

Some of you might find this interesting.

https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/science-of-ultra/id1042673386?l=en&i=1000485802972

Plenty of examples of studies where eating more calories resulted in weight loss so shouting 1st law of thermodynamics isn’t particularly useful when it comes to the complexity of the human body.

All Calories are not equal but even with the depth of study done so far we don’t really understand all the effects. n=1 studies on the most important subject you can think of are more valuable than woo, thank you very much.

So, maybe I'm missing something but what exactly are "net carbs" vs "just carbs"?

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/net-carbs

The term "net carbs" simply refers to carbs that are absorbed by the body. To calculate the net carbs in whole foods, subtract the fiber from the total number of carbs. To calculate the net carbs in processed foods, subtract the fiber and a portion of the sugar alcohols.

EU nutrition panels already show net carbs.

Plenty of examples of studies where eating more calories resulted in weight loss so shouting 1st law of thermodynamics isn’t particularly useful when it comes to the complexity of the human body.

That only looks at half the issue.

All Calories are not equal

What about all cm or all °C

https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/science-of-ultra/id1042673386?l=en&i=1000485802972

Will have a listen later, got to walk the dog now!

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/net-carbs

...

EU nutrition panels already show net carbs.

Ah, thanks for that.