Serious analytical inconsistencies challenge the validity of the energy balance theory

Abstract

Energy metabolism theory affirms that body weight stability is achieved as over time the average energy intake equals the average energy expenditure, a state known as energy balance. Here it is demonstrated, however, that weight stability coexists with a persistent energy imbalance. Such unexpected result emerges as a consequence of the answers to three fundamental problems: 1. Is it possible to model body weight fluctuations without the energy balance theory? And if so, what are the benefits over the energy balance strategy? 2. During energy balance, how the oxidized macronutrient distribution that underlies the average energy expenditure is related to the macronutrient distribution of the average energy intake? 3. Is energy balance possible under a low-fat diet that simultaneously satisfies the following conditions? (a) The fat fraction of the absorbed energy intake is always less than the oxidized fat fraction of the energy expenditure. (b) The carbohydrate fraction of the absorbed energy intake is always greater or equal to the oxidized carbohydrate fraction of the energy expenditure. The first of these issues is addressed with the axiomatic method while the rest are managed through analythical arguments. On the whole, this analysis identifies inconsistencies in the principle of energy balance. The axiomatic approach results also in a simple mass balance model that fits experimental data and explains body composition alterations. This model gives rise to a convincing argument that appears to elucidate the advantage of low-carbohydrate diets over isocaloric low-fat diets. It is concluded, according to the aforementioned model, that weight fluctuations are ultimately dependent on the difference between daily food mass intake and daily mass loss (e.g., excretion of macronutrient oxidation products) and not on energy imbalance. In effect, it is shown that assuming otherwise may caused unintended weight gain.

The energy balance theory: an unsatisfactory model of body composition fluctuations

“…Since mass is conserved, this extra 79g of nutrient mass will accumulate over time until mass balance is achieved like in the Figure 1 A. As explained by Arencibia-Albite [3], it is possible for an open system, such as the human body, to be at mass balance while the system experiences a persistent energy imbalance. Thus, the MBM does not violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.…”

“…Thus, the MBM does not violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The EBT, in contrast, ignores the Law of Conservation of Mass [3]. This Law dates from Antoine Lavoisier’s 1789 discovery that mass is neither created nor destroyed in any chemical reaction; hence, the mass of oxidized macronutrients will equal the mass of the excreted oxidation products.…”

“…This theoretical study utilized the MBM by Arencibia-Albite [3]. The algorithm for the simulations is similar to that in the original publication [3]. Feeding perturbations are induced by changing the macronutrients distribution.…”

“…Arencibia-Albite recently proposed that his mass balance model (MBM) of obesity explains the weight loss advantage of low-carbohydrate diets over isocaloric low-fat diets [3]. Contrary to the EBT, MBM maintains that body weight fluctuations are dependent on the difference between daily nutrient mass intake and daily mass excretion (e.g., elimination of macronutrient oxidation products) and NOT on energy imbalance.…”

“…When the energy fraction from dietary fat increases, while energy intake is clamped, mass intake decreases due to the significantly higher energy density of fat in contrast to other substrates (i.e., carbohydrates and protein). Such a drop in nutrient mass intake, as claimed by the MBM, is what explains the often superior weight loss observed in trials of low-carbohydrate diets versus isocaloric low-fat diets [3].…”