Taubes says,

“the energy we consume
and the energy we expend
are dependent on each other….

These are dependent variables, not independent variables.
Change one, and the other changes to compensate.

To a great extent…the energy we expend from day-to-day
and week-to-week will determine how much we consume,
....while the energy we consume and make available to our cells…
will determine how much we expend.

The two are that intimately linked.
Anyone who argues differently is treating an extraordinarily complex
living organism as though it were a simple mechanical device.”

A 2007 article by the dean of Harvard Medical school and his wife,
who specialized in obesity research said

“An animal whose food is suddenly restricted
tends to reduce its energy expenditure
both by being less active
and by slowing energy use in cells, thereby limiting weight loss.

It also experiences increased hunger
so that once the restriction ends,
it will eat more than its prior norm until the earlier weight is attained.”

Taubes says  that the diet advice
given by our Health Authorities is wrong;

“eating less and/or exercising more
is not a viable treatment for obesity or overweight
and shouldn’t be considered as such.

It might have short-term effects…
Eventually, our bodies compensate.”

I believe Taubes is correct in his statements here,
and I know that, in my own body,
my food-intake and physical activity are connected.

After a day, or days, of little food-intake
I feel more tired and sleepy,
and I don’t feel energetic enough to accomplish my normal tasks,
let alone add in extra physical activities
I find that I can “push through these physical feelings” for awhile,
but exhaustion always seems to catch up with me.

After days of a great deal of physical activity,
I find myself ravenously hungry.
I can choose not to eat extra food….although it is difficult,
but eventually if I don’t eat more food
I wind up taking a very long nap….
which, of course, reduces the physical energy I’m using.

I’ve now had 5 full years of maintaining a large weight-loss
by eating less and exercising more.
I can report that this appears to work better in the short-term
than in the long-term for my own body,

During the past 3 years, each year it has become more
difficult to eat only the amount of food it takes to maintain my current weight,
AND, each year, I have found myself with less and less energy
for physical activities.

I am looking for Alternatives,
which is one reason that I am interested in the theories in this book.

Taubes starts out

“The very notion that we get fat because we consume more calories
than we expend would not exist without the misapplied belief
that the laws of thermodynamics make it true.
…
Obesity is not a disorder of energy balance,
or calories-in/calories-out or overeating,
and thermodynamics has nothing to do with this.”

There are three laws of thermodynamics.

“The first one…is known as the law of energy conservation:
all it says is that energy is neither created nor destroyed
but can only change from one form to another.”

He goes on

“All the first law says is that if something gets more or less massive,
then more energy or less energy has to enter it than leave it.
It says nothing about why this happens.
It says nothing about cause and effect.

It doesn’t tell us why anything happens;
it only tells us what has to happen
if that thing happens.
A logician would say that it contains no causal information.”

As an example,
Taubes suggests that instead of talking about why we get fat,
we could talk about why a room gets crowded.
In this example the energy we’re discussing is energy in entire people,
rather than just their fat.

So, we want to know why this room is crowded and so overstuffed with energy (people).

If I said, “the room is crowded because more people entered than left,”

You’d say…”Of course…But Why?”

If I then said, “rooms that have more people enter than leave
will become more crowded. There’s no getting around
the laws of thermodynamics”.

You’d say…”So what.?”…because I still haven’t given you any reason why.
I’m just repeating the obvious.

Taubes says

“This is what happens when thermodynamics is used to conclude
that overeating makes us fat.
Thermodynamics tells us that if we get fatter and heavier,
more energy enters our body than leaves it.
Overeating means we’re consuming more energy than we’re expending.
It says the same thing in a different way.

Neither happens to answer the question why.
Why do we take in more energy than we expend?
Why do we overeat?
Why do we get fatter?”

He goes on:

"The vast majority of experts who say that we get fat
because we overeat
or we get fat as a result of overeating
…are making the kind of mistake
that…should earn a failing grade in a high-school science class.”

Taubes says maybe we should start with the 1998 National Institutes of Health report
that said:

“Obesity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease that develops from
an interaction of genotype and the environment.

Our understanding of how and why obesity develops is incomplete,
but involves the integration of social, behavioral, cultural, physiological,
metabolic and genetic factors.”

I’ve read many books and online discussions about
the First Law of Thermodynamics.
So, despite my lack of knowledge about such Scientific issues,
I am familiar with what that First Law says.

Usually in these discussions, people wind up arguing about things like
the differences between energy burned inside an open container
and energy burned inside a closed container.

Frankly, this tends to make my eyes glaze over,
and I want them to talk about something more interesting to me,
or at least, something I could better understand.

I like the fact that Taubes gives a simple explanation 
of the First Law of Thermodynamics
and how, while that Law is always True,
it doesn’t explain what causes of obesity.

Also I definitely agree that obesity is a very complicated disease
and that no one completely understands how and why it happens.

Taubes says

“Where on our bodies we get fat,
and even when it happens,
are important questions”

He says we’ve known since the 1930s
that there is a large genetic component in obesity,
That body types run in families.
similarities in body types between parents, children, and siblings
are "as striking as facial resemblance".

Taubes gives examples to show that genes that determine relative adiposity
don’t have to do with appetite or physical activity,
but rather, what the body does with its calories.
He points out how men and women fatten differently.

“when boys become men, they become taller, more muscular, and leaner
…when a girl enters puberty as slender as a boy, and leaves it with the
shapely figure of a woman, it’s not because of overeating or inactivity,
even though it’s mostly the fat she’s acquired that gives her that womanly
shape and she had to eat more calories than she expended to accommodate that fat.”

Taubes talks about how animals are bred for different fat content.
He talks about a disorder known as Lipodystrophy, where a person’s fat distribution
moves over time. Like thin on top half and obese on bottom half.
He says they didn’t lose fat on their upper bodies because they underate,
or gain fat on their lower half because they underate,
and asks:

“But why is it that when fat loss and fat gain are localized like this—
--when the obesity or extreme leanness covers only half the body,
or only a part and not all—they clearly have nothing to do with how much
the person ate or exercised; yet when the whole body becomes obese or lean,
the difference between calories consumed and expended supposedly explains it? “

Taubes talks about how HIV drugs cause a loss of fat in some body areas
and a gain of fat in other body areas, and says

“If we can’t blame..(this)…on calories-in/calories-out,
maybe we shouldn’t blame ours, either.”

 I think most everyone knows Genetics is involved in obesity, and
body types running in families is something I’ve observed all my life.

I hadn’t really tried to connect the puberty issue with the obesity issue, although .
of course I realized sex hormones are responsible for the different fat distributions
that occur then.

The extremely thin on top and extremely fat on bottom, and the HIV drug
changing fat distribution was interesting,
and I think that it is Obvious that no one could really blame
calories-in/calories-out for the specific examples Taubes uses in his chapter.

Comparing those examples with ordinary obesity is interesting,
and is a different way to think about those issues.

I am content with the way my fat is distributed on my own body,
I would just like to have less of it.
That is also how I felt when I was fat
I like my personal body shape, I like my small waist and larger hips.
I never wanted to be tall and willowy, or have big breasts and small hips.
I just wanted to keep my same basic hourglass shape….without the fat,
and preferably get my bottom half to be able to wear the same size as my top half…
This is something, by the way…that I have achieved
...and that I work to maintain.

Taubes’ point seems to be that genetics plays a large part
in how much Fat we have, and the places where our Fat is distributed.
Also that hormones play a large part in where and when Fat is
distributed on males and females at puberty.

This IS the norm for everyone.

Taubes also discusses the fact that there are diseases and treatments of diseases
that also influence how much fat one has and where it is distributed on one’s body.

Pretty much all morbidly obese people ---like on the Biggest Loser --
look similar, when they are that fat.
But what I’ve observed is that fat people do carry their weight in different places,
for example some fat women have almost skinny legs and arms
with barrel chests and shoulders; some have enormous round bellies
with smaller chests and hips,
and some have large breasts and small hips, and others have large hips and small breasts,
Others have a giant hourglass shape, some top heavy, and some bottom heavy.

All of these body types can be very fat,
but with fat distributed differently on their bodies.
The way this fat is distributed is due to their genetics.

I think here Taubes is trying to get us to think about the fact that fat accumulation
is influenced by more factors than just what we eat and how much we exercise.

Taubes begins with the Theory that 1 lb of fat = 3500 calories.
Based on this, one only needs to overeat an average of 20 calories a day
to gain 2 lbs a year, and get from a lean 25 year old to an obese 50 year old.

20 calories is less than a bite of a hamburger,
3 potato chips, or 3 small bites of an apple.
He says that under this Theory..

"One or two bites or swallows to many (out of the hundred or two
we might take to consume a day’s worth of sustenance) and we’re doomed.

If the difference between eating not too much and eating too much
is less than a hundredth of the total amount of calories we consume,
and that in turn has to be matched with our energy expenditure,
to which we are, for the most part, completely in the dark,
how can anyone possibly eat with such accuracy?

To put it simply, the question we should be asking
is not why some of we get fat,
but how any of us avoids this fate.”

Taubes quotes a leading 1936 US authority on nutrition and metabolism,
who said

"We do not yet know why certain individuals grow fat.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we do not know
why all the individuals in this over-nourished community do not grow fat.
…..there is no stranger phenomena that the maintenance of a constant body weight
under marked variation in bodily activity and food consumption.”

Taubes surmises--perhaps we maintain our energy balance by watching the scale
or how our clothing fits,
but he points out that animals don’t do that.

He asks

“if eating in moderation means we consciously err on the side of too little food,
why don’t we all end up so lean that we appear emaciated.?
The arithmetic of calories-in/calories-out doesn’t differentiate
between losing and gaining weight;
it says only that we must match calories consumed to calories expended.”

Taubes ends the chapter with

"Surely something else is determining whether we gain fair or lose it,
not just the conscious or unconscious balancing act
of matching calories consumed and expended.”

 I’ve discussed my own experience with this in posts above,
Taubes’ brings up interesting points, and I cannot help but agree with them,
although I don’t feel at all certain that I’m going to totally agree with his end result.

Taubes points out the common weight-loss instruction:

“eat less and exercise more”

is exactly what we would do in order to make ourselves hungry.
His issue isn't  whether exercise should be part of a healthy lifestyle, but

“whether it will help us maintain our weight if we’re lean,
or lose weight if we’re not.”

 He says the answer to this question appears to be no.

Taubes talks about how the poorer people are, the fatter they’re likely to be.
And, the poorer they are, the more likely they are to work
at physically demanding jobs.

He talks about how the “exercise explosion” and “fitness revolution”
has occurred at the same time as the “obesity epidemic”.
Taubes discusses the dismal state of the major research
regarding the connection between exercise and weight loss,
and how that research has never provided proof that such a connection exists.
He specifically mentions a study published in 2006
based on thirteen thousand habitual runners, that found

“all these runners tended to get fatter with each passing year,
even those who ran more than forty miles a week – eight miles a day,
say, five days a week. “

Taubes says

“faith in the belief that the more calories we expend, the less we’ll weigh
is based ultimately on one observation and one assumption.
….The observation is that people who are lean
tend to be more physically active than those of us who aren’t
….the assumption is “that we can increase our energy expenditure (calories-out)
without being compelled to increase our energy intake (calories-in).”

The authors of the August 2007 guidelines
published by the American Heart Association
and the American College of Sports Medicine said:

“It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures
would be less likely to gain weight over time,
compared with those who have low energy expenditures.
.....So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling”

Taubes says,

“the idea that we get fat because we’re sedentary,
and we can get lean or prevent ourselves from fattening further
by upping our energy expenditure is at least a century old.

and

“if persons have been thinking about this idea for more than a century,
and trying to test it for decades,
and they still can’t generate compelling evidence that it’s true,
it’s probably not".

 My understanding is that the Biggest Losers devote from 6 to 8 hours a day
to heavy exercise, along with greatly reducing their calorie intake.
I’m certain that there is a massive inadvertent reduction of
their carbohydrate intake also, due to their severely restricted calories.
They certainly visibly increase their fitness, and they do lose weight.

During my lifetime, I have belonged to Gyms many times,
and participated in the activities they provide,
but I greatly prefer exercising at home. I don’t have to travel that way,
and this type of exercise it is a better fit for my personal preferences.

A few years ago, I began to believe that:

Exercise is for Fitness; (not weight-loss)
Nutrition is for health; (not weight-loss)
Lower-Calorie Food Intake is the key for weight-loss/maintenance.
Currently, due to Taubes’ writings, I’m entertaining the possibility
that Nutrition, MIGHT be a issue in weight-loss after all.

Regarding the issue of exercise and weight-loss/maintenance
I came to same conclusion as Taubes due to my own experience and previous study.

 I’ve done a great deal of study about the Scientific Research
on which the current Theories of weight-loss, calories, exercise etc. are based.
Due to my Research I am now going with the Theory that
no one really knows much about what happens
within the bodies of the healthy "formerly obese"
when they reach "normal" weight and
maintain a very large weight-loss for more than 3 years.
In other words, at this time I am an Experiment of One.

Within my own Experiment of One, I’ve experimented a great deal
with Low-Impact Exercise, and minor Strength Training.
My personal exercise equipment is set up in a corner of my family room
in front of an extra TV, VCR, and DVD player.—with long-corded headphones.
I have a treadmill, free-style Gazelle, and stationary bicycle,
resistance bands, small dumbbells, a stability ball, a step, a WII,
a polar wristband and chest band monitor, several pedometers, a BodyBugg,
along with an IPOD and numerous exercise DVDs and Videos.
All of this exercise equipment has been in regular use,
and is still ready for my use today, if I choose to use it.
During the past 6 years,
I’ve spent lengthy periods of time exercising 1 to 2 hours a day, 5 to 7 days a week;
short periods exercising from 4 to 5 hours a day 5 to 7 days a week;
short periods of time exercising 30 minutes a day 3 to 4 days a week;
and short periods of time where I did no exercise at all.
As part of this I did step-training and interval training.
I’ve spent long periods of time counting my daily steps,
and averaging above that 10,000 number.
I believe my record high for one day was a bit above 40,000 steps…
…and I don’t run or jog.

The point is,
My data indicates that….while this exercise did make my body “more fit”,
it did little to build muscle, and accomplished little or nothing for weight-loss.
The following information is one example of the personal data to which I refer.

At the beginning of 2009, I purchased a BodyBugg
which is allegedly the most accurate scientific measurement of individual energy
on the market today. Biggest Loser Contestants wear it.
I wore it continually 24/7 for 6 months.
I slept with it, and took it off only for the shower and spa.

 As a result I learned a great deal about my own exercise energy expenditure,
...in that according to the "charts" etc. my personal exercise calorie burn is quite high.
According to those charts, based on calories-in/calories-out
I should have lost about 20 lbs during the 6 months ...
..combining my exercise with my food intake calories...

It simply did not happen.
My food intake records were extremely accurate,
My activity records were based on BodyBugg calculations,
but in actuality my weight stayed the same.
Those "extra earned exercise calories" did absolutely nothing to make me lose weight.

I bought the BodyBugg with Display Unit. It came with 6 months free online access,
and I used both the Display and the Online info.
I used it from the Beginning of February through July,
and then stopped using it for quite some time.
I replaced it with a new BodyBugg, then did a couple more experiments
for shorter time periods…two to three months.

 While I was using it, I also made my own personal charts of the info,
and even though I’ve chosen not to renew my BodyBugg online access,
I have my total information stored on my computer.

Re food input, BodyBugg's online function has a food intake entry section
similar to DietPower – which is my ongoing computer food journaling tool,
but I found it extremely limited and chose to use it by simply
putting my DietPower daily calorie total into my online BodyBugg chart.

Just like DietPower, the BodyBugg uses the Harris/Benedict Formula for one's BMR,
or starting point. However, while DietPower assumes you are entering your food accurately
and drops your Metabolism rate when you don't lose weight as expected,

BodyBugg assumes you are NOT entering your food accurately.
It will not adjust your BASIC Metabolism Rate very much lower than Harris/Benedict
and basically tells you that you are cheating by eating too much
if your body doesn't follow the Harris/Benedict Formula.
The BodyBugg Coach kept telling me that BodyBugg shows that my Exercise Activity is GREAT
and that my FOOD records MUST be wrong,
that I MUST be cheating with food or making food recording errors.
However, I know that my DietPower daily food intake logging records
are as consistent and accurate as anyone's could possibly be.

What I found valuable about BodyBugg was the fact that
it measured my own body's ACTUAL activity rate and then translated that data
into calorie numbers….. (which were inaccurate for me personally
because they continued to be based on the Standard Harris/Benedict Formula) …
and I was then able to use my own math skills
to turn those BodyBugg personal numbers into a actual "activity factor percentages' numbers.

What I learned during that 6 months, was a confirmation
that my exercise pattern is a great deal of exercise for my own body,
and when translated shows that I have a very HIGH "activity factor percentage". 
 After that the formula breaks down.
My exercise and food intake together do not cause the "EXPECTED" weight-loss.
In other words, at my current NORMAL weight, exercise makes me "fit",
but does not result in related weight-loss.

I thought that BodyBugg would motivate me to exercise even more than I already did.
For the first five months it was motivating, but when I learned the truth about my Exercise,
it had the Reverse effect. I found the Actual Facts very discouraging,
and the for 3 months immediately following, (fall of 2009)
I began exercising less than I did in the 3 or 4 years BEFORE I got the BodyBugg.
My result was that I became less Fit, but didn’t weigh Heavier.

My muscle mass is NOT larger.
I think it must have something to do with my body's
being and holding at a NORMAL weight after a very large weight loss.

There is really no Current Scientific Knowledge about what or why
this is happening in my body. Would the same thing apply to others?
I don't know. I can only share my own information.
Before I reached "Normal" weight,
the standard scientific rules calories-in/calories-out seemed to basically apply to me.
However, the longer I have maintained at this Normal weight,
the less those rules seem to apply.
My body seems to be breaking all the known "Scientific Rules"
in order to get me to regain weight.
Here at the beginning of my 6th year of Maintenance, I would like to believe that
someday, my body's process will
"Normalize" to be more like those who have never gained and lost weight,
and that my body's MR and calorie needs will stop dropping lower and lower....
no matter what I eat or how much exercise I do.
but I have little effort to support such a belief.
At this time, I do believe that Taubes is correct about exercise.
I am certain that while exercise works to make me fit, and provide other health benefits,
exercise does little or nothing to help me, personally, lose weight or to
maintain my weight-loss.

My own experience is that I am more hungry after exercise,
and after exercise I very much crave sweet and starchy foods.

For me, the only food-related benefits of exercise are…,
that it might make me avoid fattening foods to keep from wasting my hard work,
and that during the time that I’m busy doing exercise, I’m not eating.