In a word, yes. But, technically this is the wrong question.
The correct question is probably closer to, “What is the impact of the calories I consume on my body’s ability to store fat versus burn fat?”
The immediate follow-up question to some variant of this first question is, “Should I be counting calories?” In a word, no. But you’ll want to read this post fully to qualify that answer.
Before I answer these important questions, let’s spend a few moments reviewing five key concepts.
Key concept #1 – the definition of a calorie
A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy content. By formal definition a calorie is the amount of heat energy required to raise one gram of water from 14.5 to 15.5 degrees Celsius at atmospheric pressure. One-thousand calories is equal to 1 kilocalorie, or 1 kcal for short. Here’s where it gets a bit tricky. Most people use the term “kilocalorie” and “calorie” interchangeably. So when someone says, “a gram of fat has 9 calories,” they actually mean 9 kcals. The important thing to remember is that a calorie (or kcal) tells you how much energy you get by burning the food. Literally. In the “old days” this is how folks figured out the energy content of food using a device called a calorimeter. In fact, to this day this is how caloric content is measured when doing very precise measurements of food intake for rigorous scientific studies. As a general rule carbohydrates contain between 3 and 4 kcal per gram; proteins are about the same; fats contain approximately 9 kcal per gram.
[If you’re wondering why fats contain more heat energy than carbohydrates or proteins, it has to do with the number of high energy bonds they contain. Fats are primarily made up of carbon-hydrogen and carbon-carbon bonds, which have the most stored energy. Carbs and proteins have these bonds also but “dilute” their heat energy with less energy-dense bonds involving oxygen and nitrogen.]
Key concept #2 – thermodynamics primer
It might be a good time, if you haven’t done so recently, to give a quick skim to my previous post, revisit the causality of obesity. In this post I review, among other things, how the First Law of Thermodynamics explains fat accumulation and loss. To reiterate, the First Law of Thermodynamics says that the change in energy of a closed system is equal to the energy entering the system less the energy leaving the system. When we apply this to fat accumulation, it looks like this:
People like me (and others) get a bad rap from folks who lack the patience (or training, perhaps) to actually hear the entire argument through before throwing their hands in the air, waving them frantically, and screaming that we’re violating the First Law of Thermodynamics for asserting the Alternative Hypothesis (more on this below).
Let me be as crystal clear as possible, lest anyone feel the need to accuse me of suggesting the Earth is flat. The First Law of Thermodynamics is not being violated by anything I am about to explain, including the Alternative Hypothesis.
Key concept #3 – current dogma
Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend. This is almost true! To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended. Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write. The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat.
If you believe Current Dogma, of course you’ll believe that “calories count” and that counting them (and minimizing them) is the only way to lose weight.
Key concept #4 – the rub
Most folks — but not all — who subscribe to Current Dogma do so, in part, because they don’t appreciate one very important nuance. In the equation above, explaining the First Law of Thermodynamics, they assume the variables on the right hand of the equal sign are INDEPENDENT variables.
Let me explain the difference between independent and dependent variables for those of you trying to suppress any memories you once had of eigenvectors. As their names suggest, independent variables can change without affecting each other, while the opposite is true for dependent variables. A few examples, however, are worth the time to make this easy to understand.
- The weather and my mood are dependent variables. When the weather goes from gloomy to sunny my mood tends to improve as a result of it, and vice versa (i.e., when the weather goes from sunny to gloomy, my mood goes from good to bad). In this case the dependence is only one-way, though; my mood changing has no impact on the weather.
- My countenance and my interaction with people are dependent variables. When I smile it seems to cause a more positive interaction with the people around me. Similarly, when I’m having a good interaction with someone I tend to smile more. In this case the dependence goes both ways.
- My height (while I was still growing) and my hair length are independent variables. Both of these variables can change without any impact on each other.
How does this tie into the idea of the First Law? Let’s re-write the First Law with a bit more specificity:
The change in our fat mass is equal to what we eat and drink (the only source of energy entering our system) less all of the energy we expend.
Now let’s be even more specific on the “expend” part of the equation. We expend energy in four ways: Digestion (all the energy we require to break down food, plus the undigested portions that leave our body); Exercise (everyone knows what this is, but I tend to separate it from daily activity since people really like to focus on exercise); Daily activity (the non-exercise activity we carry out); Basal expenditure (the energy we expend “underlying” any activity – e.g., when you are resting).
Let me clarify something before going further. There are several ways to enumerate and account for our energy expenditure. I happen to do it this way, but you can do it other ways. The important thing is to make sure that you are collectively exhaustive when doing so (and mutually exclusive if you want to make your life easier – we call this MECE, pronounced “mee-see”).
The First Law is only valid when you consider ALL of the energy entering and leaving the system (i.e., your body).
Back to the independence versus dependence issue for a moment. If you look at the equation above, and believe the red box has no impact on the green box, and vice versa, you are saying that energy input and energy expenditure are independent variables. However, this is not the case, and that is exactly why this problem of energy balance is so vexing. In fact, the figure below is a more accurate representation of what is actually going on (and even this is a gross oversimplification for reasons I will mention shortly).
What you eat actually changes how you expend energy. Similarly, how you expend energy changes what (and how) you eat. To be even more nuanced, what you eat further impacts what you subsequently eat. As you increase (or decrease) in size, this impacts how you expend energy.
So there are actually a whole bunch of arrows all over this diagram (I’ve only shown 2: what you eat impacting how you expend, and vice versa. If I included all of the arrows, the diagram would get out of control pretty quickly).
I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, even though it may sound like it for a moment. When you exercise your appetite rises relative to when you don’t exercise. When you eat a high carb meal you are more likely to eat again sooner compared to when you eat a high fat/protein meal due to less satiety.
Key concept #5 – the Alternative Hypothesis
If, like me, you don’t subscribe to Current Dogma, you’d better at least have an alternative hypothesis for how the world works. Here it is:
Obesity is a growth disorder just like any other growth disorder. Specifically, obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Fat accumulation is determined not by the balance of calories consumed and expended but by the effect of specific nutrients on the hormonal regulation of fat metabolism. Obesity is a condition where the body prioritizes the storage of fat rather than the utilization of fat.
Why is this different from Current Dogma? Current Dogma says it doesn’t matter what you eat, it only matters how many calories that food contains. If you eat more calories than you expend, you gain weight. The last part is true, but the first part is not. The Alternative Hypothesis says it DOES matter what you eat and for reasons far beyond the stored heat energy in the food (i.e., the number of calories).
Let me use an example to illustrate this. Consider the following table of various substances known to contain a lot of stored energy. The table shows their energy content in units we usually use to describe energy density, kilojoules per gram (middle column), and I’ve converted to units we typically only use for food energy, kcal/g or “calories” per gram, (right column). [Here we need to be very clear to distinguish between a technical calorie and a kilocalorie, which is almost always what we mean.] A kilojoule is about 240 calories (not kilocal), so 1 kj is about 0.24 kcal, and therefore 1 kj/g is about 0.24 kcal/g.
I’ve highlighted, in bold, four rows of things we typically eat: fat (olive oil, to be specific) with about 8.9 kcal/g; ethanol with about 7.0 kcal/g; starch with about 4.1 kcal/g; and protein with about 4.0 kcal/g.
I’ve also included in this table some other substances known to contain chemical energy such as liquid fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, jet fuel), coal, and gunpowder. Hard to imagine a world without these chemicals, for sure.
A quick glance of the table, which I’ve ordered from top to bottom in terms of caloric density, would suggest eating olive oil would be more “fattening” than eating starch since it contains more calories per gram, assuming you subscribe to Current Dogma.
But that same logic would also suggest eating coal would be more fattening than starch and gunpowder less fattening than ethanol. Gasoline would be more fattening than jet fuel. Hmmmm. Anyone interested in testing this hypothesis (personally)? Despite my wildest self-experiments, this is one self-experiment I’ll pass on. Why? Well for the same reason you’d pass on it – you know that there are far more important consequences to drinking diesel or snorting gunpowder than their relative energy densities.
Sure, everything on this list is an organic molecule largely composed of the following four atoms: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Not to bore everyone with a lesson on organic chemistry, but it’s the actual bonds between these atoms that are responsible for their energy densities. When you “liberate” (i.e., break) the bond between an atom of carbon and hydrogen, for example, you release an enormous amount of stored chemical energy. This table tells you exactly how much energy you would release if you were to break the bonds in these molecules, but that’s all it tells you. You can’t actually know, just by looking at this table, if jet fuel is more paraffinic than diesel or if gasoline has more isomerization than propane. And, you certainly have no idea, from the information contained in this table, of exactly how each of these substances will impact the hormones, enzymes, and cell membranes in your body if you ingest them.
Is it relevant to our bodies that olive oil has about the same energy density (i.e., calories) as biodiesel (also known as fatty-acid methyl-ester)? Or, is it more relevant to us that consuming olive oil has a very different effect on our bodies than consuming biodiesel beyond anything to do with the calories contained within them? Obviously consuming equal caloric amounts of olive oil versus biodiesel will have a very different impact on our body. Why then is it so hard to appreciate or accept that equal caloric values of olive oil and rice could also have very different impacts on our body?
The upshot
Let’s get back to the question you actually want to know the answer to. Do calories “matter”, and should you be counting them?
Energy density (calories) of food does matter, for sure, but what matters much more is what that food does in and to our bodies. Will the calories we consume create an environment in our bodies where we want to consume more energy than we expend? Will the calories we consume create an environment in which our bodies prefer to store excess nutrients as fat rather than mobilize fat? These are the choices we make every time we put something in our mouth.
Our bodies are complex and dynamic systems with more feedback loops than even the most elaborate Tianhe-1A computer. This means that two people can eat the exact same things and do the exact same amount of exercise and yet store different amounts of fat. Does it mean they have violated the First Law of Thermodynamics? Of course not.
Similarly, genetically identical twins can eat different macronutrient diets (i.e., differing amounts of fat, protein, carbohydrates) of the same number of calories, while doing a constant amount of exercise, and accumulate different amounts of fat. Does this violate the First Law of Thermodynamics? Nope.
What you eat (along with other factors, like your genetic makeup, of course) impacts how your body partitions and stores fat. In case anyone is wondering how I got over 2,000 words into this post without mentioning the i-word, wonder no longer. Insulin, while not the only factor involved in this process, is probably at the top of the list. When you eat foods that have the double whammy of increasing insulin levels AND increasing your cell’s resistance to insulin, your body prioritizes fat storage over fat utilization. No one disputes that insulin is the most singularly important hormone for causing fat cells to accumulate fat. Somehow the dispute centers on what causes people (full of billions of fat cells) to accumulate fat.
All calories are not created equally: The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body.
Peter;
I have just found out about the low carb diet proposed on your website, The Eating Academy. Although I am trying to follow the diet, I must admit to a certain amount of confusion when it comes to calorie intake.
It’s easy to see, under your model of metabolism, why a body would not create new fat reserves even when consuming calories beyond it’s needs. Since there is so little insulin to drive that process, fat cells do not take up any excess. But what happens to the excesss? Is it simply excreted?
Further, if one’s intention is to lose weight, I fail to see how consuming calories in excess of the body’s need will allow this to occur. According to your model, no new fat will be deposited. But what mechanism would prompt the body to preferentially use fat reserves while sufficient, or even excess calories are presently being consumed? I have to be able to understand this.
Ibrom Evanston
I would also like to add: Thank you for putting this together. This is a great resource. You do a very great good here.
I don’t understand why Taubes, et al feel they need to be so cagey about this issue. Never a straight answer to this question. Still, after a ton of sleuthing, here is the answer. YOU MUST BE IN A CALORIE DEFICIT TO LOSE WEIGHT. There, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Yes, it matters tremendously if you are in ketosis. But even if you are in ketosis, you will not lose weight if you ingest calories surplus to what you expend.
Not sure what you mean about being cagey. I’ve never met a serious thinker on this topic who suggests weight loss doesn’t imply a caloric deficit. That’s a wonderfully descriptive fact that provides little explanation.
Peter, thank you for the courtesy of your reply. I am not trying to be simply argumentative here. Indeed, it is only due to Gary Taubes writing, and your website here that I have been able to take the first few steps in the long journey that is reclaiming my health and fitness. Still, when you state in the above article, “Should I be counting calories?” In a word, no.”, this confuses me. Because in order to metabolise my body’s stored fat, I do indeed need to be aware of how many calories my body is expending and how many calories I am consuming.
Thanks to you and Gary Taubes, I now have a much more fully nuanced understanding of how the food I eat affects my body, and this is crucial. But if the goal is reducing stored body fat, it seems like we come back around full circle to ‘calories in/calories out,” but with a greater depth of understanding of how differing macronutrients have different effects on the body.
Hey Ibrom,
When going Low Carb or Ketogenic after an adaptation period, your physiology changes to REDUCE hunger thus making it easier to eat less calories (negative caloric balance). So, ingestion of less calories is an EFFECT of the improved macronutrient profile. When eating a “balance” diet high in carbs it will tend to drive hunger up due to blood sugar and insulin fluctuations. If you believe the causal arrow goes in the other direction than you will be perpetually trying to cut calories below a certain level and most likely will be fighting against hunger, which is doomed to failure in the long run. There is no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Its all about what direction you believe the CAUSAL arrow is pointing in the equation.
Paul
Peter:
This is a very interesting article. I particularly like how you turn the tables on the static version of calories in vs. calories out and the [correct] dynamic nature of the thermodynamics.
However, with the high level material you present in your posts, I seriously invite you to consider that you are wrong about the concept of bond energies as a “storage of energy” in molecules. This is really 101 of Chemistry! Breaking bonds always involves input of energy; there is no energy in the bond that can be “liberated”. It is the sum of
1) breaking bonds (consumes energy)
and
2) forming new bonds (makes energy available)
that decides if reactions are exothermic or endothermic. If 1) is larger than 2) the reactions are endothermic and if 2) is larger than 1) it is exothermic. Please, have a look at the following passages and compare them with any textbook or even wikipedia on chemical bond energies:
“[If you’re wondering why fats contain more heat energy than carbohydrates or proteins, it has to do with the number of high energy bonds they contain. Fats are primarily made up of carbon-hydrogen and carbon-carbon bonds, which have the most stored energy. Carbs and proteins have these bonds also but “dilute” their heat energy with less energy-dense bonds involving oxygen and nitrogen.]”
and
”Not to bore everyone with a lesson on organic chemistry, but it’s the actual bonds between these atoms that are responsible for their energy densities. When you “liberate” (i.e., break) the bond between an atom of carbon and hydrogen, for example, you release an enormous amount of stored chemical energy. This table tells you exactly how much energy you would release if you were to break the bonds in these molecules, but that’s all it tells you.”
It simply does not work that way!!! No energy is ”released” when breaking bonds, you have to put energy in. Hopefully, you have energy available in the system from bonds being formed, otherwise you will have to add heat or sometimes radiation.
Hey Magnus – I think this is where Dr. Attia was going with that statement about bond breaking.
As long as you accept that the oxidation of carbon fuels is a primary source of energy, and that energy is ultimately used to regenerate ATP from ADP and Pi (inorganic phosphate), it’s like this: the more reduced a carbon atom is, the more free energy is released upon its oxidation.
A free energy of oxidation (delta G) comparison of a single carbon compound will show this… Methane (-820 kJ/mol) vs. Methanol (-703 kJ/mol) vs. Formaledhyde (-523 kJ/mol) vs. Formic Acid (-285 kJ/mol) vs. Carbon dioxide (0 kJ/mol).
TL;DR: Carbons in fats are better sources of fuel than glucose because their carbons are more reduced (less oxidized). Just count the number of oxygens in a molecule of glucose and compare that to a fatty acid and my previous statement should make sense.
Nikolas:
I agree with your explanation of less oxidized carbons in pure hydrocarbon chains vs. partly oxidized CHO being the reason for differences in enthalpies of combustion.
Already formed C-O, C=O bonds means less energy available when forming new bonds.
The problem, however, is that I cannot make Peters wording fit with that.
Bonds are not energy storages! They are sinks. C-C are not as deep sinks as C-O. Still sinks, though!
For example this: “When you “liberate” (i.e., break) the bond between an atom of carbon and hydrogen, for example, you release an enormous amount of stored chemical energy.”
No energy is released at this step, on the contrary! The fact that you get energy from oxidizing H and C to water and CO2 at a later reaction step does not change this fact!
Hey Magnus:
I’d have to say that chemical bonds are indeed stores of energy, or sinks if you will. When you disrupt a chemical bond in the case of oxidizing our fuels (glucose or lipid) we are liberating/freeing the energy that was stored in that bond. Particularly, oxidation will allow H+ (hydrogen cations, protons) to create a Proton Motive Force (PMF) in the inner mitochondrial membrane where the Electron Transport Chain (ETC) passes electrons down their reduction potentials though cytochrome proteins to indeed synthesize ATP.
So I would say that, yes, energy is released in this series of steps that starts with a reduced fuel (hopefully lipid!) and ends with water and carbon dioxide. Energy input is required to make bonds and energy is given off when breaking them (think, positive or negative enthalpy… in relation to exothermic or endothermic reactions). Weaker bonds are broken to create stronger ones. Inspecting that Gibbs Free Energy (delta G) and Enthalpy (delta H) of the overall reactions of cellular respiration indeed should indicate to us that energy has been liberated from a broken chemical bond.
Dr. Attia, feel free to chime in if I am misunderstanding your wording. Likewise let me know if we’re still not in agreement, Magnus. 😀
Thanks for all the time and effort you put into these posts Peter. I have a question I’ve been wanting to ask and I think this is the correct place for it. In your “How I l Lost Weight” post you say “Two things jump out at you, I’m sure: I eat virtually all of my calories in the form of fat and my total caloric intake has actually gone up by about 50%. Let me reiterate, I don’t exercise any more today than I did 2 years ago. In fact, if anything, I probably exercise a bit less (i.e., down from 3-4 hours per day to 2 to 2.5 hours per day).” Aren’t you saying here that your energy expenditure went down, your energy intake went up, and during that time you lost weight? Sorry if I am misunderstanding this and thank you in advance if you can find the time to reply.
It appears in me that my non-deliberate EE went up. In my experience this effect is highly variable in people, and may also be transient.
After speaking with and interviewing Dr. Dominic D’Agostino I learned that energy expenditure does go up on a ketogenic diet. Some of the mechanisms he touched on included: activation of uncoupling proteins (thermogenin) in the mitochondria and sympathetic nervous system activation (catecholamines) which directly affect heart rate, blood pressure and body temperature.
Hope you find that as interesting as I did.
Peter, for those individuals who are insulin resistant (but not yet diabetic) or who for whatever reason are unable to lose weight despite restricting carbohydrates (and unable to reach ketosis without starving) for over two years, what options do they have other than to experiment with different caloric intake levels? Too few calories means slowing metabolism, too many calories means greater fat storage? I must confess that as I absorb your messages, I am left with a sense of despair because it seems impossible for me to create an environment where my body will achieve a negative fat balance, despite my best efforts to do so. This seems like a needle that can’t be threaded…
It’s slow going, but the shift is starting… albeit an odd piece for the Weather Channel.
https://www.weather.com/video/experts-eat-more-fat-54828
My friends and I are having this debate about the logic behind the 3500 calorie deficiency diet theory… Or whatever you want to call it. Anyways, the easiest basic explanation that I could figure out to explain why calories are not all created equal is to think in terms of a square and a rectangle. For example, to say that because 3500 calories equals 1lb of body fat then to create a 3500 calorie deficit means that you would lose 1 lb. is like saying that because all squares are rectangles means that all rectangles are squares. One truth does not always mean that the “opposite” is true as well. This article is a great explanation of what I am trying to get them to grasp and explains the concept very well.
Hi Dr. Attia,
To quote Richard Feynman on this topic from his book “The Character Of Physical Law” :
“When you hear of calories, you are NOT eating something called calories, that is simply the amount of heat energy that is in the food.”
This is in sharp contrast to the “fitness gurus” who always talk about “eating calories.” We eat no such thing.
These gurus do not realize that the human body derives its energy from the energy in the chemical bonds of the food we digest. This energy is then converted into heat and kinetic energy ( and thought) To write down any precise equation for the total energy balance of something as complicated as the human body would be extremely difficult
It is worthy to note calorie labels are wildly inaccurate- to the tune of 10 % to as much as 85% off ! – as Dr. Jeffrey M. Friedman ( from Rockefeller University) notes during his lectures. 🙂
Top biophysicists and physicists gave me some info 🙂
Best wishes,
Raz
Brilliant – I was smiling at the end.
I have always done a decent amount of exercise. Having put on a stone over the past year, yes I know to increased calories, although with the increase of cycling, up to 200 miles a week…. still the fat gain.
Having lost weight before on low carb regimes, they do work, but I have always noticed I seem to get more energy and less lethargy from fats; ie Avocado… suggesting this to people, brings you back to ‘oh that’s really fattening’…. Hmmmm I can honestly say I’m looking forward to this little food intake change and to see what happens over the coming months !
Although…. what do I do on the cycle club run cake stop ?!
Get a coffee?
Peter,
I find your postings, blogs, writings, etc, fascinating. I know nothing about most of it. I’m just a 52 year old chauffeur with chronic lower back pain that happened upon your site in search of a connection between diet, my back problems and anti-inflammation. A little weight loss wouldn’t hurt either. As I have concluded after reading a lot on the subjects over the last several months, the low-carb or now the very low-carb diet seems to be garnering more authenticity. What makes your work so interesting is the technical, actually very technical, explanations. I look forward to reading more from you in regards to eating for overall good health! Oh, and your children are adorable.
Thanks again,
Tim
Thank you, Tim. Hope your back is on the mend.
I agree with every thing you say but I cannot for the life of me figure out why my girl friend who I love dearly eats a very high fat low carb diet and remains 45 pounds over weight .
Very frustrating for her, I’m sure, but unfortunately not that uncommon. More so in women than men. I think about this phenomenon more than most others, but commenting on it thoughtfully is beyond the scope of a comment/response.
I just found this site and am hoping to find some answers for the same issue. I’ve tried paleo, keto, AIP and others and still am having a heck of a time keeping the weight off. Maintaining is a very careful balance and some days it works and some days it doesn’t. I cannot figure out what is keeping me about 25 over my goal weight either! 🙁
Just completing 22 months on a very low carb diet (aiming for 20 gm a day). Initially lost 20 pounds in the first 2 months, then stalled, treading water around 211 pounds for 20 months. As you say, very frustrating. Early on I was using the inexpensive urine strips that never (maybe once) showed any ketosis at all. Very frustrating. Two months ago I got a Ketonix breathalyzer from Sweden. It shows I am everyday in the red (high) or in the yellow (medium) range of measured acetone in my breath. Everyday. Surprising. If the Ketonix is accurate, I’m in ketosis every day since I started using it 60 days ago. Wow. But, no budge on the weight.
I first became obese at age 6 way back in 1954 after a bout of Scarlet Fever. Consequently, I’ve spent 60 years dieting, often very successfully, but still the life long pattern is gain, lose, gain more. I was at a lifetime high when I started this latest iteration of dieting. About 6 years ago I had tried the low-carb diet and in about 4 months lost 60 pounds, which is why I went back to low-carb this time, but as I said, this time very different at only 20 pounds lost in 22 months. Very frustrating.
My hope is that the other benefits of low-carb are still happening even without weight loss. At 67, my blood measurements are good, and I don’t take any prescription meds. So, that alone is encouraging me to stay low-carb. My family is riddled with diabetes (from way back, long before it became epidemic). All four grandparents, one parent, and now my younger brother developed (old-age) diabetes. So far, I’ve no signs of it. My GP scolds me for asking about it at every visit. But at my age, weight, and family history, I don’t see why diabetes won’t suddenly develop.
In 2005, I developed symptoms of a blood disease that causes lymphocytes to over-produce a protein, that then thickens the blood. I’ve been treated with monoclonal antibody infusions for the past 4 years, and eating low-carb for the past, as I say, 22 months. At every visit, I remind my hematologist that I’m eating low-carb. He nods and notes that my blood measures, other than the viscosity, are good. I am hopeful, from my readings, that low carb is better for proliferative diseases, than high carb would be, even if only marginally. What is it they say, feed a fever, starve a cold?
In the last 9 months, my nose-bleeding episodes have stopped (holding breath, as it could be just a pause). Nice, and now if I could just lose some weight, it would be so nice.