Joined April 2011
Weight History

Start Weight
217.4 lb
Lost so far: 17.4 lb

Current Weight
200.0 lb
Performance: Steady

Goal Weight
174.2 lb
Still to go: 25.8 lb

colin.peck's Weight History


last weighin: losing 30.9 lb a week Down
on diet My own diet
last weighin: losing 0.3 lb a week Down
last weighin: losing 0.9 lb a week Down

colin.peck's Cookbook

cals: 54kcal | fat: 2.38g | carbs: 7.94g | prot: 1.58g
Chinese Style Green Beans in Garlic Sauce
A simple and tasty re-creation of a favorite Chinese restaurant side dish with fresh green beans and oyster, garlic and soy sauce.
cals: 213kcal | fat: 8.35g | carbs: 8.25g | prot: 25.70g
Baked Whitefish with Tarragon over Spinach
Purist cooking
cals: 131kcal | fat: 10.35g | carbs: 8.98g | prot: 2.55g
Caramelized Brussels Sprouts
Brussel sprout haters will be sure to change their mind after enjoying this fantastic dish.
view complete cookbook

colin.peck's Latest Posts

Wondering if Diet Pills are Dangerous for your Health?
Probably not dangerous and useless. Definitely a great supplement to someone else's wallet.
Stick to the method which is known to work : Diet and exercise.
posted 25 Feb 2016, 14:17
Calories IN versus Calories Out
I don't really care about Posture, Obesity or Luke Tunyich; agreed blaming posture on obesity sounds like a crock; but the overall gist of the Google search results would suggest that we do excrete Calories, which should be taken into account if calculating calorie deficit accurately. The amount of excreted calories could be significant for certain types of food.
posted 29 Jun 2015, 23:09
Calories IN versus Calories Out
Thanks for all your replies ppl.

About the Calories (energy) needed to digest food (Thermogenis), yes that is another interesting factor that also needs to be taken into account rather than just considering the gross calories printed on the label.

But what I was asking about was about the amount of calories we excrete.

I tried Googling "Faeces Calorific Cntent" and it returned 56,300 hits ! I didnt have time to read all these of course, but it would appear that a significant amount is excreted ie the gross values printed on the label are the energy content determined in a laboratory in a bomb calorimeter.
When tracking gross calories we assume that 100% of this energy is digested/extracted by our bodies, and what isn't used by our bodies is then stored as fat. This is not the case.
One interesting link is
"Weight loss treatments involving dieting, increased physical activity, diet pills and weight loss -bariatric surgeries were invented when obesity scientists believed that every single calorie in food intake, if not spent, will be converted into fat mass and stored in fat tissue. This belief was in line with the anabolism and catabolism theory.
It is embarrassing as it is unbelievable that for nearly a century long, generations of people involved in the research, treatment and prevention of obesity didn’t know that a significant amount of energy from food intake leaves the body as metabolic waste. In other words, they do not know that the human body excretes calories.
Until 2005, people involved in the research, treatment and prevention of obesity did not know that metabolic waste contains calories." End Quote.

So basically when we are tracking our calories we are using the gross value printed on the label , but in reality the net calories after taking into account excretion will be less than this, and thermogenesis will reduce the this value yet further.
posted 29 Jun 2015, 21:59
Calories IN versus Calories Out
I wasn't saying that a calorie is affected by the content of the food. Yes a calorie is a only unit of ennergy, that's exeactly the point I was trying to make - it is a value measured in a laboratory NOT a human body.

I was suggesting that the real or effective calorific value (to the human body) may depend on the type of food and maybe also on the individual's digestive efficiency, amongst other things.

So yes it (my question) boils down to the calorific of an individual's stools produced when eating these different types of foods; if indeed stools have any calorific value, not that I have any intention of eating stools Crying or Very sad I love my food too much.
I'm after a factual answer by someone who knows please, not speculation.
posted 25 Jun 2015, 21:02
Calories IN versus Calories Out
I am a strong believer in calorific deficit being the key to weight loss.

But are the calories of some foods more readily available to be used by the body than others? If so we should be able to eat more of these particular foods with less of the bad consequences. Or do our bodies digest 100% of everything we eat ?

Yes sorry to say but I'm talking about excretion Crying or Very sad Basically what is the calorific value of the digested foods that we pass out of our bodies. This surely should also be taken into account as part of the calories IN versus Calories OUT equation?

Calorific values are derived using a calorimeter in a laboratory where the total energy content of the food is determined. Whereas the calorific value seen by the human body could be completely different if the food is not totally digested. So the efficiency of digestion of different foods, and also the efficiency of different individual's digestive systems, could also be factors that need to be considered ? Or are our stools zero calorie stools ?
Anyone know the facts about this awful topic ?
posted 25 Jun 2015, 20:24
view all colin.peck's posts