Sorry guys, Calories in / calories out...

determines whats left in your bloodstream then lots of complex biological processes determine what to do with that and many other chemicals in your body. Some of which are removed naturally.

False. Caffeine increases calories out, without increasing calories in. Macronutrient ratios, feeding schedules, and compounds such as caffeine affect metabolism, which determines calories out.

Caffeine is a mild stimulant and appetite suppressant, thereby directly affecting both calories in and calories out.

It is, and yet the world of coffee drinkers still grows obese like everyone else. It's impressive.

Because it’s become common practice to add a pound of sugar and cream for whatever reason. Probably worse than a soda after doing that.

>Probably worse than a soda after doing that.

I take a half teaspoon of sugar plus about a tenth of a cup of milk in my coffee. That's 2 grams of sugar, for the sugar, plus 1.3g of sugar in the milk, so 3.3g of sugar for my coffee.

A 12oz can of coke, on the other hand, has 39 grams of sugar. A cup's worth of orange juice has 21 grams.

To get to a sugar value for my coffee that exceeds a soda, I would need:

- 10 teaspoons of sugar

or

- 3 cups worth of milk

or let's go 50/50

- 5 teaspoons of sugar with a cup and a half of milk.

Even flipping the milk to coffee creamer, which has 5 grams of sugar per serving, still requires a significant amount to be added to even near the sugar in a soda.

So let's keep it in perspective just how bad soda is compared to essentially everything else on offer. Hell you could drink about 8 750ml bottles of red wine before you hit the same sugar content as a can of coke.

Soda served in 6-8 oz portions for the same approximate price as wine or beer is ok (how it’s served in Germany). None of those things are good for you, but one or two on occasion won’t kill you.

Soda served in 20 oz bottles that are treated as single servings or as bottomless refills is horrifying. Watching my relatives constantly having a soda in hand is hard; watching my 6 year old nephew get given a medium-sized fast food cup of soda to go with his hamburger just about every day is soul-crushing, as is watching my little pre-verbal niece who is eager to eat blueberries and raw spinach leaves instead be fed the same crap her picky brother is willing to eat until she stops asking for more.

I can relate. I've family friend's who've completely acquiesced to the demands of their children for fast food, or heavily processed ready meals, soda and unfettered access to junk digital entertainment. It's an utter tragedy to witness knowing the cost it will bear on them in many regards as they grow up.

> Probably worse than a soda after doing that.

Nope! You'd be amazed at how much sugar is in soda.

Conservation of energy determines the minimum number of a calories one must ingest to stay alive, work, etc. There is no maximum, since the body can often burn off excess as heat or simply excrete some things. There is also no law that says that we all have the same metabolic behavior.

Metabolism is an incredibly complex process influenced by innumerable variables. "Calories in, calories out" is a good maxim for combating fad dieters...but it's not actually true.

Variance in metabolism at the extremes is less than the energy in a Snickers bar. It matters, but worrying about your metabolism without first sorting your overall intake is a classic case of premature optimization.

There are reasons to care about metabolism besides a desire to lose weight.

No doubt, but "I have a fast/slow metabolism" is cited as an excuse by a lot of people in regards to weight changes (or lack thereof), and it's an excuse that is more or less irrelevant compared to intake management.

A more accurate approach would be monitoring calories in/out AND your insulin level.

Yes, that's a decent simplistic viewpoint.

However, reality is rarely simplistic.