Death of the Calorie (2019)(economist.com)
economist.com
Death of the Calorie (2019)
https://www.economist.com/1843/2019/02/28/death-of-the-calorie
102 comments
https://outline.com/LnhwGn
Has anyone figured out who or what is behind Outline?
I don't know but I know that I LOVE that person deeply
Anyone who has spent any time trying to get into shape (losing weight, lifting weights, doing cardio) knows that you will be bombarded by conflicting and downright dangerous information. Few industries are as loaded with misguided information and scammers than the fitness industry.
That said, I feel bad for anyone that struggles to lose weight and has to deal with all of the information and is trying to figure it all out. My recommendation is, calorie counting IS important (most people underestimate by 30% how many calories they eat in a day), but don't kill yourself over it. Focus on eating healthy foods, getting enough protein, and lift weights. Cardio is important for overall health, but you aren't going to burn enough calories for it to be a major source of weight loss. Lifting will make you feel better (fewer achy joints, easier to get up) and it's a lot more fun than cardio. If you are still gaining weight, cut your calories more. Weight gain is very personal and you'll need to spend time figuring out where your calorie intake needs to be. Age, genetics, etc. all play a role so there is no one-size-fits-all number to aim for. I used to be able to eat 3500 calories a day and not gain weight. Now in my 40's if I eat more than 2500 I put on weight.
Also, don't beat yourself up if you "have a bad day" and eat too much. Fitness is a lifelong goal, and eating a bag of chips one day isn't going to erase all of your work. Just try to have more good days than bad.
That said, I feel bad for anyone that struggles to lose weight and has to deal with all of the information and is trying to figure it all out. My recommendation is, calorie counting IS important (most people underestimate by 30% how many calories they eat in a day), but don't kill yourself over it. Focus on eating healthy foods, getting enough protein, and lift weights. Cardio is important for overall health, but you aren't going to burn enough calories for it to be a major source of weight loss. Lifting will make you feel better (fewer achy joints, easier to get up) and it's a lot more fun than cardio. If you are still gaining weight, cut your calories more. Weight gain is very personal and you'll need to spend time figuring out where your calorie intake needs to be. Age, genetics, etc. all play a role so there is no one-size-fits-all number to aim for. I used to be able to eat 3500 calories a day and not gain weight. Now in my 40's if I eat more than 2500 I put on weight.
Also, don't beat yourself up if you "have a bad day" and eat too much. Fitness is a lifelong goal, and eating a bag of chips one day isn't going to erase all of your work. Just try to have more good days than bad.
I think the missing pole in the tent of weight loss is that we don't acknowledge the psychology of it. Everyone who is overweight knows that they should eat less and move more. What always gets lost is the how. How do I consistently do this in the face a stressful life and constant time pressure? Everyone can walk past a tray of cookies once at the beginning of the day. After a stressful meeting where you were yelled at by your boss? No so easy and you may even eat two.
Like you said, exercise is important for overall health but is a horrible way to lose weight. We are going to eat cake at lunch because we claim we will workout later (but then don't). Exercising takes time to do, to change, to shower, to travel. People are likely to overeat after exercising because they feel famished even though they burned a fraction of the calories they think they did. I think people are probably better served with intermittent fasting and trying hard to control their grocery shopping to keep binge-able foods out of the house. The challenge here is if you are the only person in the house trying to lose weight.
We need a better life hack to lose weight in the 21st century. We are going to lie to ourselves about what we will do or why we didn't. This is actually the brilliance of the Planet Fitness pricing model. The majority of their customers barely go but for $10/month you can lie to yourself that you are "trying" and it is cheap enough to prevent cancellation. I think this is why people have initial success on WW or NutriSystem because it takes a lot of the mental load away. Don't think, just follow instructions.
Like you said, exercise is important for overall health but is a horrible way to lose weight. We are going to eat cake at lunch because we claim we will workout later (but then don't). Exercising takes time to do, to change, to shower, to travel. People are likely to overeat after exercising because they feel famished even though they burned a fraction of the calories they think they did. I think people are probably better served with intermittent fasting and trying hard to control their grocery shopping to keep binge-able foods out of the house. The challenge here is if you are the only person in the house trying to lose weight.
We need a better life hack to lose weight in the 21st century. We are going to lie to ourselves about what we will do or why we didn't. This is actually the brilliance of the Planet Fitness pricing model. The majority of their customers barely go but for $10/month you can lie to yourself that you are "trying" and it is cheap enough to prevent cancellation. I think this is why people have initial success on WW or NutriSystem because it takes a lot of the mental load away. Don't think, just follow instructions.
Sorry for not having references, but to add to your very good comment: Working out triggers hunger in us, and I believe I've read somewhere (research?) that hunger overcompensates compared to how much was burnt, so working out (regardless if cardio or weights) is actually bad for losing weight.
Then of course it can be good for your overall health (in particularly your mental one) so that in turn might help you (and be good for you), but if your only goal is losing weight, I'm not sure this talk about exercising is so good.
Then of course it can be good for your overall health (in particularly your mental one) so that in turn might help you (and be good for you), but if your only goal is losing weight, I'm not sure this talk about exercising is so good.
Working out too hard, i.e. anaerobically such as running or anything that gets you out of breath, can trigger hunger if you're not adapted to that level of exercise. It puts your body in high alert mode and you will have to balance out stress hormones and refuel immediate energy stores after. Pushing yourself to the limit is probably only a good idea if your body is already healthy enough to take the abuse.
If you want to lose weight, something less taxing that you can happily do for a longer time is a much better choice – work with your body and mind, not against them. Give your body time to hit those fat stores instead of putting it in overdrive and pulling energy from more direct sources of glycogen.
If you want to lose weight, something less taxing that you can happily do for a longer time is a much better choice – work with your body and mind, not against them. Give your body time to hit those fat stores instead of putting it in overdrive and pulling energy from more direct sources of glycogen.
No absolutely not. You may overcompensate initially, but your body re acclimates. The prevailing advice simply wouldn't be to start moving more for the obese/morbidly obese if this were the case
I don't disagree with you about the overall health benefits of regular exercise, but the entire point of the article was that the "prevailing advice" WRT weight management is often over-simplified to the point of worthlessness.
I used soaked chia seeds to fill the extra hunger. Some days I was "hungry" with a full stomach. Can I take advantage of the low calories of chia seeds or do I have to depend on hunger acclimation?
> The prevailing advice simply wouldn't be to start moving more for the obese/morbidly obese if this were the case
Considering the state of the obesity epidemic, maybe that prevailing advice is not working well?
Considering the state of the obesity epidemic, maybe that prevailing advice is not working well?
I'm not sure if this is a common thing, but working out has a satiating effect on me. I simply have less hunger when I exercise. The only exception is when I swim. That does increase hunger.
I wish I understood the reason.
I wish I understood the reason.
But now you’ve reduced a weight loss problem to a discipline problem, where you have access to a much wider array of techniques available.
> Cardio is important for overall health, but you aren't going to burn enough calories for it to be a major source of weight loss.
You need to build the stamina to keep it up. But assuming you can maintain a moderate to strenuous pace for 30 minutes you can burn off a small meal's worth of calories. An hour of moderate running can be around 600 calories for an adult male.
You need to build the stamina to keep it up. But assuming you can maintain a moderate to strenuous pace for 30 minutes you can burn off a small meal's worth of calories. An hour of moderate running can be around 600 calories for an adult male.
The same way people underestimate their caloric intake, I think unfortunately a lot of fitness apps and equipment overestimate calories burned. A recent 1 hr peloton class I did said said I burned a little over 1,200 calories. It was nearly 300 more than my Whoop band said I lost. I think both numbers were higher than what I actually did.
In my anecdotal experience my fitness apps generally underestimates calories burned while exercise equipment generally overestimates it. Like how my Garmin watch told me yesterday that I burned 300 kcal from running 10 km which is nonsense. It should be around 600 kcal if you do a rough estimation.
The problem with calorie counting and fitness trackers is that they assume all bodies are equally efficient, a calorie is a calorie but a person is not a person. It’s like driving for 2 hours and trying to estimate how much gas to fill for the next 2 hours without overflowing the tank, all this based on the mpg of a standard car.
Very few people who try to lose weight have the time or the stamina for an hour of strenuous cardio each day. For most people it's easier to not eat the calories than to burn them off.
I've found its easier to mentally separate them. Calorie restriction for weight loss, and cardio strictly for ... cardiovascular health.
Doing cardio for weight loss is fighting against whatever you are doing in the kitchen. It doesn't make much sense, unless you have the time and stamina to do it for the required duration and intensity (for me, weight loss happens only with an hour a day lap swimming non-stop).
Doing cardio for weight loss is fighting against whatever you are doing in the kitchen. It doesn't make much sense, unless you have the time and stamina to do it for the required duration and intensity (for me, weight loss happens only with an hour a day lap swimming non-stop).
Agreed, but ability to adapt to exercise is also very personal. I have a natural endurance for things like running, but other people don't (just like some people can gain muscle mass just by looking at a barbell, while others -- like me -- need to put in consistent, hard work in the gym to slowly build strength.)
I'd agree with that. A 3 hour bike ride in a moderately hilly area burns about 2000 calories, and that's a considerable number to bank. My lowest weight --and counting calories ruthlessly-- was when I was running regularly, even at just 2 or so miles, until my knee started giving me trouble.
Food is one of my sources of enjoyment and comfort. I've made it a point to notice that enjoyment. The enjoyment comes in the first few bites of food, so really that's all you need. Comfort is harder, I'm still working on that.
Also, YOU WILL BE HUNGRY at some points. That is normal. You will be hungrier if you eat a lot of sugar. (This is my experience and not medical advice)
I wonder if there have been 'good' studies into the human experience of hunger. It's extremely subjective, so I can't imagine it would be easy to do in the first place and near impossible to replicate.
Also, YOU WILL BE HUNGRY at some points. That is normal. You will be hungrier if you eat a lot of sugar. (This is my experience and not medical advice)
I wonder if there have been 'good' studies into the human experience of hunger. It's extremely subjective, so I can't imagine it would be easy to do in the first place and near impossible to replicate.
> Cardio is important for overall health, but you aren't going to burn enough calories for it to be a major source of weight loss.
I am sorry but this claim doesn't make a great deal of sense. For example, running expends about 1 kcal/kg/km [1,2].
On a personal note, I went from 105kg to 75kg body weight by doing endurance sports (for the avoidance of doubt, it was all fat loss with localised gain of muscle mass). I have a record of all workouts and almost-daily weigh-ins for 6+ years, and there's a very high degree of inverse correlation: during periods when I run/bike more, the weight goes down, and vice versa.
[1] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/11/3/116.full.pdf
[2] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1963.1...
I am sorry but this claim doesn't make a great deal of sense. For example, running expends about 1 kcal/kg/km [1,2].
On a personal note, I went from 105kg to 75kg body weight by doing endurance sports (for the avoidance of doubt, it was all fat loss with localised gain of muscle mass). I have a record of all workouts and almost-daily weigh-ins for 6+ years, and there's a very high degree of inverse correlation: during periods when I run/bike more, the weight goes down, and vice versa.
[1] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/11/3/116.full.pdf
[2] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1963.1...
It’s important to note that all running (or similar exercise) is not created equal. If you are over weight and you start running to lose weight it probably won’t work because your heart rate will likely hit the roof when you start jogging and thus you will be using the anaerobic system - burning sugar. This is the opposite of what you want to be doing. Instead, unhealthy people who need to lose weight should firstly get a HR monitor and only exercise below their aerobic threshold. This burns fat which is what they need to do! If they continue doing this, they’ll be able to move faster at the same HR and also improve their fat burning capabilities. This is how they will lose weight. It will take a lot of time and patience because initially they won’t be able to run because the HR goes too high.
Those who start running with high heart rates likely won’t see any weight loss and furthermore, the sugar burning of the anaerobic system will guide you towards eating more carbs and sugars.
I’m not an expert by any means but weight lifting is the opposite of what you need to do to lose weight as it always uses the anaerobic system.
Those who start running with high heart rates likely won’t see any weight loss and furthermore, the sugar burning of the anaerobic system will guide you towards eating more carbs and sugars.
I’m not an expert by any means but weight lifting is the opposite of what you need to do to lose weight as it always uses the anaerobic system.
It's true there exists a "fat burn zone" where the ratio of fat burned to calories spent is higher. It's not true that's it's beneficial for people trying to lose weight to limit their calories burned to that zone, though. What governs weight loss is total calories in vs. total calories out:
https://www.whoop.com/thelocker/fat-burning-heart-rate-zone/
Yes, to lose weight, one must burn more than they eat. That’s not in dispute! I’m also not saying you only need to run in aerobic zone to lose weight. My point was that, people who go for a run at a 160bpm+ HR are not doing themselves a favour because:
1) it stresses the body too much which releases cortisol and other hormones which don’t play well with weight loss 2) uses only the anaerobic system, so burns sugar, not fat 3) burning of sugar makes the body crave more sugar and refined carbs making it harder to eat healthier
They would be better off running at a slower pace for weight loss and eating a diet mostly comprising fat and protein (whilst keep in calories less then out calories). If you build up the aerobic system well, you’ll be super healthy, fit and find it difficult to put on weight!!
People who say running is too hard are not doing it right. Running is easy when doing it below aerobic threshold. We are literally designed to be able to run long distances. Your body has enough fat stores to run for tens of hours (providing you don’t deplete your glycogen stores!)
1) it stresses the body too much which releases cortisol and other hormones which don’t play well with weight loss 2) uses only the anaerobic system, so burns sugar, not fat 3) burning of sugar makes the body crave more sugar and refined carbs making it harder to eat healthier
They would be better off running at a slower pace for weight loss and eating a diet mostly comprising fat and protein (whilst keep in calories less then out calories). If you build up the aerobic system well, you’ll be super healthy, fit and find it difficult to put on weight!!
People who say running is too hard are not doing it right. Running is easy when doing it below aerobic threshold. We are literally designed to be able to run long distances. Your body has enough fat stores to run for tens of hours (providing you don’t deplete your glycogen stores!)
I agree with everything you write, but this is very subjective:
> and it's a lot more fun than cardio.
I, too, try to lift weights regularly, and acknowledge that it's important for health. But I detest doing it. Running, on the other hand, is incredibly rewarding for me and gives my brain a wonderful "reset" that I sorely miss without it.
> and it's a lot more fun than cardio.
I, too, try to lift weights regularly, and acknowledge that it's important for health. But I detest doing it. Running, on the other hand, is incredibly rewarding for me and gives my brain a wonderful "reset" that I sorely miss without it.
I suppose that is a very personal thing as well. As someone that was in cross country and hated it, I'm not a fan of cardio (but I still find ways to incorporate it). Conversely, I love lifting and look forward to it.
I feel the same, running is like meditation. Lifting weights feels downright stressful.
Sensible advice all around. I would just replace “gaining weight” by “gaining fat”. If you are lifting a lot then you may get heavier on the scale while losing fat. Attend to your waistline rather than the scale.
I sit all day in front of a pc or computer. If I don't work out, 400c calories is my weight gain threshold. You can even get away with guestimating calorie intake but what most people miss is when they think everyone burns 2500 cal/day just being idle. I wish I could eat even a 1000 ! Also, for weight gain/loss, idle burn means nothing, what you do with the surplus or deficient calories is what matters.
> If I don't work out, 400c calories is my weight gain threshold.
Is this hyperbole? Putting some numbers in a TDEE calculator, if you were about 60 cm tall and weighted 15 kg (2 feet, 33 lbs), you would still have a maintenance at more than 400 cal.
> I wish I could eat even a 1000 !
Unless you have dwarfism it would be very hard for anyone to eat 1000 cal/day and not be severely underweight.
Maybe you mean per meal and you have 3 meals/day?
Is this hyperbole? Putting some numbers in a TDEE calculator, if you were about 60 cm tall and weighted 15 kg (2 feet, 33 lbs), you would still have a maintenance at more than 400 cal.
> I wish I could eat even a 1000 !
Unless you have dwarfism it would be very hard for anyone to eat 1000 cal/day and not be severely underweight.
Maybe you mean per meal and you have 3 meals/day?
No, I mean per day. I measured this over a long time. That's why I said meausre and find out for yourself. That said 1000 veggie calories is nothing but a 1000 carb calorie means small but measurable weight gain for me. Perhaps I am supposed to be a herbivore? Lol
[deleted]
Cardio (especially running) is a major source of burn. Curious how you came to that conclusion. Yes, over the long term lifting is better because more muscle = higher resting metabolism = higher passive burn but in the short term, unless you’re doing high rep/highly hypertrophic exercises, cardio is the way to go.
> Cardio is important for overall health, but you aren't going to burn enough calories for it to be a major source of weight loss.
I beg to differ. I started running 10 km a day, and it made a world of difference!
I beg to differ. I started running 10 km a day, and it made a world of difference!
> I used to be able to eat 3500 calories a day and not gain weight. Now in my 40's if I eat more than 2500 I put on weight.
Could it be that chronic calorie reduction has made your body adapt?
Could it be that chronic calorie reduction has made your body adapt?
Without special efforts metabolism decreases naturally with age (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8361073/)
Even with special efforts, it’s only slowing/delaying the process, so progressively eating less is natural anyway.
Even with special efforts, it’s only slowing/delaying the process, so progressively eating less is natural anyway.
Metabolism doesn't decrease with age.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/metabolism-may...
Body composition changes gradually over time. Going from healthy and fit at 20 to overweight and unfit at 40 can be reversed, it's not an inevitable decline.
Eventually aging catches up, but it may not be until 60s or 70s when metabolism takes a noticeable hit.
As with so much science, they got it wrong, but knowledge is getting better.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/metabolism-may...
Body composition changes gradually over time. Going from healthy and fit at 20 to overweight and unfit at 40 can be reversed, it's not an inevitable decline.
Eventually aging catches up, but it may not be until 60s or 70s when metabolism takes a noticeable hit.
As with so much science, they got it wrong, but knowledge is getting better.
Intermittent fasting and the leangains regime show that what you eat, and when, is as important as how many calories you ingest.
To lose weight exercise is a 20-30%, and not even necessary under caloric restriction.
At the end it's all thermodynamics.
To lose weight exercise is a 20-30%, and not even necessary under caloric restriction.
At the end it's all thermodynamics.
Anecdotal reports here: I got diagnosed with Type II diabetes in the spring, after many years of being overweight. I've had a lot of success in losing weight (about 10 lbs a month), and while it is too early to make any claims, here's what I've found:
- The continuous glucometer has been very helpful. I've made a big effort to keep glucose down around 100 most of the time. For me, anyhow, this will almost automatically cause weight loss -- I just don't find it possible to eat enough of non-sugary foods not to lose weight.
- Fiber makes a huge difference. Fruit results in much slower glucose rises than, say, bread.
- Walking about an hour a day, on average, also helps. I don't think it's primarily because of the calories used (modest) so much as it keeps blood glucose in control, and that reduces the insulin spikes that create hunger.
All of this makes me think it might be controlling insulin spikes that really matters. It's not a "keto" diet, per se, but controlling blood glucose has somewhat of that effect.
- The continuous glucometer has been very helpful. I've made a big effort to keep glucose down around 100 most of the time. For me, anyhow, this will almost automatically cause weight loss -- I just don't find it possible to eat enough of non-sugary foods not to lose weight.
- Fiber makes a huge difference. Fruit results in much slower glucose rises than, say, bread.
- Walking about an hour a day, on average, also helps. I don't think it's primarily because of the calories used (modest) so much as it keeps blood glucose in control, and that reduces the insulin spikes that create hunger.
All of this makes me think it might be controlling insulin spikes that really matters. It's not a "keto" diet, per se, but controlling blood glucose has somewhat of that effect.
This sounds every much like my experience. After being diagnosed with diabetes and greatly reducing the carbs in my diet, I lost around 25% of my body weight over about eighteen months. (Overall I'm down a third from my peak weight ten or so years ago.)
I don't make a special effort to "diet" in the sense of eating less food, I just watch my carb intake. It's like I'm back in high school, in the sense that I don't put on weight even if I overeat (as long as I keep the carbs reasonable).
I don't necessarily think it's the diet for everyone, but it is certainly the right diet for my body.
I don't make a special effort to "diet" in the sense of eating less food, I just watch my carb intake. It's like I'm back in high school, in the sense that I don't put on weight even if I overeat (as long as I keep the carbs reasonable).
I don't necessarily think it's the diet for everyone, but it is certainly the right diet for my body.
A calorie is a measure of energy used, for example there is a direct conversion to kWh. If your body uses more energy than you eat, it must burn fat (weight loss). Our bodies aim to be efficient and won't expel energy, so if you eat more than you burn, you will gain weight. This is true regardless of macronutrient composition.
Calories are therefore at least a necessary consideration in diet and a healthy weight, but calorie consumption alone is by no means a sufficient measure of a healthy diet.
Calories are therefore at least a necessary consideration in diet and a healthy weight, but calorie consumption alone is by no means a sufficient measure of a healthy diet.
> If your body uses more energy than you eat, it must burn fat
This is totally wrong. The body can also slow down your metabolism, twitch less, think slower (if you had read the article you'd see this is addressed), decrease the effectiveness of your organs, not to mention "eat" some of your nonfat muscle mass.
The people advancing the CICO idea have obviously never struggled with their weight. It is super clear to me as a person who has bounced back and forth between fit to overweight for my entire adult life that there is nothing I could ever do to be as "skinny" as the skinny people I know, all of whom eat and drink way more than me, and usually don't exercise at all.
CICO is not real advice, it's telling people to develop eating disorders, i.e. starve themselves. And for what? To bolster the ego of you and the ~60% of people who are naturally less likely to accumulate body fat, who like to believe they are just smarter or know something about nutrition that people like me don't. But it's exactly the opposite. I know more about nutrition than any of my skinny friends. Social pressure has demanded that I do so. It doesn't actually help, and the smugness of commenters on HN doesn't either.
This is totally wrong. The body can also slow down your metabolism, twitch less, think slower (if you had read the article you'd see this is addressed), decrease the effectiveness of your organs, not to mention "eat" some of your nonfat muscle mass.
The people advancing the CICO idea have obviously never struggled with their weight. It is super clear to me as a person who has bounced back and forth between fit to overweight for my entire adult life that there is nothing I could ever do to be as "skinny" as the skinny people I know, all of whom eat and drink way more than me, and usually don't exercise at all.
CICO is not real advice, it's telling people to develop eating disorders, i.e. starve themselves. And for what? To bolster the ego of you and the ~60% of people who are naturally less likely to accumulate body fat, who like to believe they are just smarter or know something about nutrition that people like me don't. But it's exactly the opposite. I know more about nutrition than any of my skinny friends. Social pressure has demanded that I do so. It doesn't actually help, and the smugness of commenters on HN doesn't either.
> The people advancing the CICO idea have obviously never struggled with their weight.
...I've lost over 150lbs and am a staunch advocate of CICO as really the only thing that matters for weight loss.
> there is nothing I could ever do to be as "skinny" as the skinny people I know, all of whom eat and drink way more than me, and usually don't exercise at all.
Let's be fair here: you can be as skinny as them, it'll just be extremely hard and very unpleasant. I get where you're coming from though, it is difficult not to harbor an extreme amount of resentment for these people and the universe that didn't favor you in the same way. I have literally said to some people like this that, if I thought it would work, I would eat them to gain their power. For people like us, it is incredibly difficult to pull off.
> CICO is not real advice, it's telling people to develop eating disorders, i.e. starve themselves. And for what? To bolster the ego of you and the ~60% of people who are naturally less likely to accumulate body fat, who like to believe they are just smarter or know something about nutrition that people like me don't. But it's exactly the opposite. I know more about nutrition than any of my skinny friends. Social pressure has demanded that I do so. It doesn't actually help, and the smugness of commenters on HN doesn't either.
CICO works, and yeah I'd definitely say that for people like us it amounts to developing an eating disorder[0]. I'm also continually frustrated by my skinny unable-to-gain weight friends and workout collogues who, mistakenly, believe they know something I don't. Some of them have hyperthyroidism, their experience of food and weight gain is a completely different reality from minie.
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
...I've lost over 150lbs and am a staunch advocate of CICO as really the only thing that matters for weight loss.
> there is nothing I could ever do to be as "skinny" as the skinny people I know, all of whom eat and drink way more than me, and usually don't exercise at all.
Let's be fair here: you can be as skinny as them, it'll just be extremely hard and very unpleasant. I get where you're coming from though, it is difficult not to harbor an extreme amount of resentment for these people and the universe that didn't favor you in the same way. I have literally said to some people like this that, if I thought it would work, I would eat them to gain their power. For people like us, it is incredibly difficult to pull off.
> CICO is not real advice, it's telling people to develop eating disorders, i.e. starve themselves. And for what? To bolster the ego of you and the ~60% of people who are naturally less likely to accumulate body fat, who like to believe they are just smarter or know something about nutrition that people like me don't. But it's exactly the opposite. I know more about nutrition than any of my skinny friends. Social pressure has demanded that I do so. It doesn't actually help, and the smugness of commenters on HN doesn't either.
CICO works, and yeah I'd definitely say that for people like us it amounts to developing an eating disorder[0]. I'm also continually frustrated by my skinny unable-to-gain weight friends and workout collogues who, mistakenly, believe they know something I don't. Some of them have hyperthyroidism, their experience of food and weight gain is a completely different reality from minie.
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
You lost 150lbs and might be in a somewhat decent health, but will it be true for that person over the internet that might have nothing in common with you ?
The crux of these discussion on diet is that there is no universally reproductible method (CICO in isolation is just a principle and not a method) and starving he body will have different consequences for different people. Advocating any practice as “the only thing that matters” is a recipe for disaster.
Imagine if the actual solution for that person is to change jobs, or that starvation lead them to worse health issues than where they are now, stuffing CICO down their throat would just be cruel.
The crux of these discussion on diet is that there is no universally reproductible method (CICO in isolation is just a principle and not a method) and starving he body will have different consequences for different people. Advocating any practice as “the only thing that matters” is a recipe for disaster.
Imagine if the actual solution for that person is to change jobs, or that starvation lead them to worse health issues than where they are now, stuffing CICO down their throat would just be cruel.
I'd agree with the GP that for weight loss CICO is the only thing that matters. However, if you can find some method (restricting carbs, restricting fats, only eating during set times, etc) that naturally results in a calorie deficit and you can stick with then go far it. Just because you don't think of it as CICO doesn't mean it isn't the underlying cause of your weight loss.
If you define CICO as losing calorie some way or another, it really just means “weight reduction”. Telling someone 「“weight reduction” matters for dieting」 doesn’t feel very meaningful to me.
If someone with low financial literacy asked your advice on how to start a rainy day fund would you tell them to cut expenses and find ways to improve their income or would you just say "start saving". What's the difference between money in, money out and "start saving"?
In both the finance and nutrition examples you have two variables that you can adjust. In both cases they are not independent and changing one may affect the other or may affect other parts of your life that make it unsustainable. Eat less and do more is the correct advice for most people who want to lose weight.
In both the finance and nutrition examples you have two variables that you can adjust. In both cases they are not independent and changing one may affect the other or may affect other parts of your life that make it unsustainable. Eat less and do more is the correct advice for most people who want to lose weight.
I find that to be unlikely, frankly. There are a lot of strategies to achieve a better CICO ratio, and I think those have incredibly varied success rates for different people, but when it comes right down to it if you don't find a way to change that ratio then you will never succeed. In my experience, the most expedient way to do it is to count calories.
I also don't think this is anywhere near as "unhealthy" as people want to believe it is. I think that largely arises from our discomfort with being hungry, and our general intuition about which foods are "healthy" and which aren't. However, consider the case of nutrition professor Mark Haub, who ate nothing but garbage convenience store snacks for 10 weeks at a caloric deficit and not only lost 27lbs, but had all of his health metrics improve: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...
I also don't think this is anywhere near as "unhealthy" as people want to believe it is. I think that largely arises from our discomfort with being hungry, and our general intuition about which foods are "healthy" and which aren't. However, consider the case of nutrition professor Mark Haub, who ate nothing but garbage convenience store snacks for 10 weeks at a caloric deficit and not only lost 27lbs, but had all of his health metrics improve: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...
Reducing overall stress is a pretty well known way to improve health, and it often leads to better diets/lower fat ratio one way or another. I don’t think it’s hard to find stories of people losing weight after getting out of shitty jobs/damaging relationships.
Focusing on numbers (calorie counting etc.) can help people who like numbers and need to focus on something. But these people don’t need any push to go find numbers to follow. The same way I fundamentally like sport, I needed nobody’s advice to go do hours of sports when I felt my body was getting rusty.
Focusing on numbers (calorie counting etc.) can help people who like numbers and need to focus on something. But these people don’t need any push to go find numbers to follow. The same way I fundamentally like sport, I needed nobody’s advice to go do hours of sports when I felt my body was getting rusty.
not surprising to me. fasting has many health benefits. I've experienced it for myself.
If interested, check out "The science of fasting" documentary.
If interested, check out "The science of fasting" documentary.
> The people advancing the CICO idea have obviously never struggled with their weight.
> CICO is not real advice
I used CICO effectively to reduce my weight considerably. Indeed it is not a real advice, however for me it was a very good guiding principle that I feel was essential to help me achieve my goals.
By focusing on CICO it became clear that I had to find foods that I enjoyed eating and that made me feel fuller per calorie. I spent a fair bit of time thinking about meal compositions before starting due to this. I found ways to adapt my favorite dishes, both in portion size and ingredients.
Using CICO I only had the goal that my meals had to fit my calorie budget, had to be enjoyable to eat and had to keep me full till the next meal.
The principle also helped me stay on track, as it effectively means that it doesn't really matter what you do any given day, rather what you do each day. This made me avoid getting depressed and feeling hopless if I couldn't follow my plan for a day. My finish line got pushed ahead a day or two, no worries, just get back on track the next day.
I think the key though is that people are different. What worked for me will not work for everyone. For me, CICO was great.
I used CICO effectively to reduce my weight considerably. Indeed it is not a real advice, however for me it was a very good guiding principle that I feel was essential to help me achieve my goals.
By focusing on CICO it became clear that I had to find foods that I enjoyed eating and that made me feel fuller per calorie. I spent a fair bit of time thinking about meal compositions before starting due to this. I found ways to adapt my favorite dishes, both in portion size and ingredients.
Using CICO I only had the goal that my meals had to fit my calorie budget, had to be enjoyable to eat and had to keep me full till the next meal.
The principle also helped me stay on track, as it effectively means that it doesn't really matter what you do any given day, rather what you do each day. This made me avoid getting depressed and feeling hopless if I couldn't follow my plan for a day. My finish line got pushed ahead a day or two, no worries, just get back on track the next day.
I think the key though is that people are different. What worked for me will not work for everyone. For me, CICO was great.
> This is totally wrong. The body can also slow down your metabolism, twitch less, think slower (if you had read the article you'd see this is addressed), decrease the effectiveness of your organs
But all of those factors are included under "body uses less energy", no?
UPDATE: But I do understand what you're saying. Exercise can lower your BMR as the body tries to conserve energy. If that reduction is not met by a reduction in calories consumed, it stands to reason that you can actually gain weight after starting exercising. So gotta watch out for those lethargic days after lots of exercise.
> not to mention "eat" some of your nonfat muscle mass.
From my unscientific experience, for most people that should be accompanied by reduction in fat, too.
But all of those factors are included under "body uses less energy", no?
UPDATE: But I do understand what you're saying. Exercise can lower your BMR as the body tries to conserve energy. If that reduction is not met by a reduction in calories consumed, it stands to reason that you can actually gain weight after starting exercising. So gotta watch out for those lethargic days after lots of exercise.
> not to mention "eat" some of your nonfat muscle mass.
From my unscientific experience, for most people that should be accompanied by reduction in fat, too.
You are right that your body can burn muscle as well as fat. However, decreases to energy consumption ("metabolism") are minimal. Our bodies are evolved to use energy efficiently, if it were possible to do everything we do (or even some semblance of it), with far lower energy consumption, we'd already be doing it.
A good analogy might be fuel consumption in a car. Some savings can be made through efficient driving techniques, but ultimately there is a core amount of energy needed to transport the car across a given distance.
A good analogy might be fuel consumption in a car. Some savings can be made through efficient driving techniques, but ultimately there is a core amount of energy needed to transport the car across a given distance.
> if you eat more than you burn, you will gain weight
The converse isn't necessarily true: if you eat less than you burn, you might not lose weight but instead your body adjusts how much you burn.
Calories are amount of energy... released as heat when the food is burned. Or rather, the numbers you see on food products is some value derived from food composition. Anyhow, this is no way directly related to how much of resources your particular body will extract from food.
Counting calories has a benefit of making you aware of your habits, but dietology is not as simple as arithmetic.
The converse isn't necessarily true: if you eat less than you burn, you might not lose weight but instead your body adjusts how much you burn.
Calories are amount of energy... released as heat when the food is burned. Or rather, the numbers you see on food products is some value derived from food composition. Anyhow, this is no way directly related to how much of resources your particular body will extract from food.
Counting calories has a benefit of making you aware of your habits, but dietology is not as simple as arithmetic.
> The converse isn't necessarily true: if you eat less than you burn, you might not lose weight but instead your body adjusts how much you burn.
Depends how you read "eat less than you burn" One way you can interpret the quoted section is that you haven't even eaten less than you burn, you're still eating more or equal to, since the amount you burn has gone down.
Depends how you read "eat less than you burn" One way you can interpret the quoted section is that you haven't even eaten less than you burn, you're still eating more or equal to, since the amount you burn has gone down.
Problem is you only know the max potential input, not the actual input, which depends on your gut bacteria.
And also you're not directly measuring the output, which is different for everyone, and adjusts based on the input.
It's useful for making you think about everything you eat though, shall I eat this thing? Well, I'd have to record it in my spreadsheet, won't bother.
And also you're not directly measuring the output, which is different for everyone, and adjusts based on the input.
It's useful for making you think about everything you eat though, shall I eat this thing? Well, I'd have to record it in my spreadsheet, won't bother.
Direct control over an upper bound is quite sufficient to force a number downwards. All of the error terms point in the direction of undereating when the problem is overeating.
The real problem with calorie counting is that it is difficult.
The real problem with calorie counting is that it is difficult.
You aren’t even controlling the upper bound, because as explained these calories have not much to do with how your body processes them. For instance you might think you reduced the calorie count by forgoing 200 calories of bread to eat 150 calories of tofu, but if your body processes tofu better than bread, you’ve effectively increased your energy consumption while the count is lower on your spreadsheet.
Same way you might be eating the same amount of tofu everyday, assuming you have a steady calorie intake, while your actual ingestion rate will be all over the board. If/when you’ll be decreasing quantities your ingestion rate might go up enough to effectively increase the energy you take from it, creating weird states that don’t make any sense looking at the numbers from outside.
The lowering the upper bound only start to make sense when the body is really starving, in that your daily life has become hell, and you start lacking elements other than calorie. Some see that as a success, I see it as dangerous for most people.
The people dropping out of these diet don’t do so because they don’t have the guts, but because they end up worse that where they were at the beginning. It’s not everyone ending up there, so we’ll still hear the success stories of course.
Same way you might be eating the same amount of tofu everyday, assuming you have a steady calorie intake, while your actual ingestion rate will be all over the board. If/when you’ll be decreasing quantities your ingestion rate might go up enough to effectively increase the energy you take from it, creating weird states that don’t make any sense looking at the numbers from outside.
The lowering the upper bound only start to make sense when the body is really starving, in that your daily life has become hell, and you start lacking elements other than calorie. Some see that as a success, I see it as dangerous for most people.
The people dropping out of these diet don’t do so because they don’t have the guts, but because they end up worse that where they were at the beginning. It’s not everyone ending up there, so we’ll still hear the success stories of course.
Generally you not only count potential calories, but also measure you weight. You can then adjust calories up or down to keep hitting your targets as your body and your activity levels change.
If you read the article, you'll notice that this fact is acknowledged there. The issue is that energy in and energy out are not so simple as the Nutrition Facts make them seem. For example, different amounts of energy are consumed in the process of digesting various foods, and some energy is excreted undigested, in a way that depends on the food and the person. Similar complexities apply on the "calories out" side, where a large fraction of your energy expenditure is not directly controlled by your choice of activities like exercise. Ultimately there is some arithmetic of calories in minus calories out, but it is not captured by the simplistic calculations that are normally done.
> The issue is that energy in and energy out are not so simple as the Nutrition Facts make them seem.
"Calories in calories out" is a rule of thumb that is as true as "what goes up must come down". Which is to say that it's not true on the extreme margins, but it's true for virtually all of the cases anyone is likely to encounter in their lives.
"Calories in calories out" is a rule of thumb that is as true as "what goes up must come down". Which is to say that it's not true on the extreme margins, but it's true for virtually all of the cases anyone is likely to encounter in their lives.
I think this problem gets overstated by the anti CICO crowd. Most people will habitually make and eat the same, relatively small, collection of meals. If you're eating the same foods and nothing outside has changed (travel, stress, sleep, exercise, etc) then the difference between what the nutrition facts show and what your body gets out of the food should be pretty consistent.
The whole point of the article is that measurement inaccuracies and variation in energy extraction efficiency make that information practically useless.
Genetic variation of resting metabolism rate is only something like 600cal/day between the 5th and 95th percentiles.
So yes, a calorie is not just a calorie, but the maximum variation between individuals is such that the refrain, "they eat twice as much as me and don't gain weight while I do" is just not possible.
So yes, a calorie is not just a calorie, but the maximum variation between individuals is such that the refrain, "they eat twice as much as me and don't gain weight while I do" is just not possible.
Where are you getting that number from? "something like" makes it sound like you're just guessing.
Just the differences between men and women alone account for 500cal/day, so it would likely be substantially more at the 5th and 95th percentiles.
"they eat twice as much as me and don't gain weight while I do" seems 100% possible if you compare a 100 pound woman with a 300 pound man.
Just the differences between men and women alone account for 500cal/day, so it would likely be substantially more at the 5th and 95th percentiles.
"they eat twice as much as me and don't gain weight while I do" seems 100% possible if you compare a 100 pound woman with a 300 pound man.
> Where are you getting that number from?
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-t...
> Just the differences between men and women alone
> if you compare a 100 pound woman with a 300 pound man
I assumed it was understood that I meant while holding all other conditions constant.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-t...
> Just the differences between men and women alone
> if you compare a 100 pound woman with a 300 pound man
I assumed it was understood that I meant while holding all other conditions constant.
> I assumed it was understood that I meant while holding all other conditions constant.
Except you and the article are drawing the complete opposite conclusion of the paper they cite. They literally say resting metabolic rate doesn't really matter.
"Total daily energy expenditure varies several-fold in humans, not due to variation in resting metabolic rate, diet-induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis, but rather, due to variations in nonexercise activity. A variety of factors impact nonexercise activity, including occupation, environment, education, genetics, age, gender, and body composition"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534426/
Except you and the article are drawing the complete opposite conclusion of the paper they cite. They literally say resting metabolic rate doesn't really matter.
"Total daily energy expenditure varies several-fold in humans, not due to variation in resting metabolic rate, diet-induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis, but rather, due to variations in nonexercise activity. A variety of factors impact nonexercise activity, including occupation, environment, education, genetics, age, gender, and body composition"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534426/
My point is that for any two people with the same body weight, the variation in "what a calorie is" is not significant enough to claim that counting calories is useless, as the article seems to suggest.
Just one year ago I lost 12 excess kgs I gained over the previous year by doing nothing but counting calories. Took me 2 months.
Was really easy except having to say no to your desires to eat some more of that tasssssty food or sweeten your daily cup of tea with a chocolate bar. But I overcame myself because I have willpower.
As I understand the the calorie issue, unless the laws of Thermodynamics are proven wrong, titles like 'death of the calorie' are nothing but attention grabbing attempts. If the amount of your inbound energy (in the form of food) is smaller than your energy expenditure, the deficit energy is taken from storage, and there is NO way around it AT ALL.
Was really easy except having to say no to your desires to eat some more of that tasssssty food or sweeten your daily cup of tea with a chocolate bar. But I overcame myself because I have willpower.
As I understand the the calorie issue, unless the laws of Thermodynamics are proven wrong, titles like 'death of the calorie' are nothing but attention grabbing attempts. If the amount of your inbound energy (in the form of food) is smaller than your energy expenditure, the deficit energy is taken from storage, and there is NO way around it AT ALL.
People often say that you can't burn enough calories to contribute significantly to weight loss, but I don't think this is true.
I went from fat to lean by counting calories and exercising. An hour of hard cycling burns 1,200 calories for me. So assuming my body needs 2,400 cals per day to maintain itself, I can have a 1,200-calorie defecit by eating 2,400 and burning 1,200, or by being sedentary and only eating 1,200. The former is fairly easy to do, is compatible with family meals and a social life and makes me fit. The latter is just miserable.
I went from fat to lean by counting calories and exercising. An hour of hard cycling burns 1,200 calories for me. So assuming my body needs 2,400 cals per day to maintain itself, I can have a 1,200-calorie defecit by eating 2,400 and burning 1,200, or by being sedentary and only eating 1,200. The former is fairly easy to do, is compatible with family meals and a social life and makes me fit. The latter is just miserable.
> An hour of hard cycling burns 1,200 calories for me
This sounds like a huge over-estimate by your fitness tracker. If cardio used that many calories our species would be extinct.
This sounds like a huge over-estimate by your fitness tracker. If cardio used that many calories our species would be extinct.
[deleted]
This is an excellent article.
Salvador Camacho, the subject of the Economist article, has written a significant technical article on the subject. [0]
I'll comment that this point of view is completely in agreement with my personal experience over five decades. Low fat, "low calorie", and "lite" products are the exact opposite of what you want to eat, especially if you want to lose weight.
I first learned of these theories from Michel Montignac, whose advice became very popular in Europe in the '80s. [1] He was followed by many "low-glycemic" diets, e.g. Sugar Busters, "keto", and Paleo.
Gary Taubes has written two books on the subject, one popular and one directed at MDs and other professionals. [2]
The idea is to eat mostly fat and protein, with a limited amount of low glycemic carbs. Avoid high glycemic carbs like refined flour, sugar, and fruit.
I've found over the years that following such a diet while limiting food intake so you stay slightly hungry will result in fat loss. Eating a high fat diet to lose fat is counterintuitive, but it works.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28485680/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Montignac [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25818875
Salvador Camacho, the subject of the Economist article, has written a significant technical article on the subject. [0]
I'll comment that this point of view is completely in agreement with my personal experience over five decades. Low fat, "low calorie", and "lite" products are the exact opposite of what you want to eat, especially if you want to lose weight.
I first learned of these theories from Michel Montignac, whose advice became very popular in Europe in the '80s. [1] He was followed by many "low-glycemic" diets, e.g. Sugar Busters, "keto", and Paleo.
Gary Taubes has written two books on the subject, one popular and one directed at MDs and other professionals. [2]
The idea is to eat mostly fat and protein, with a limited amount of low glycemic carbs. Avoid high glycemic carbs like refined flour, sugar, and fruit.
I've found over the years that following such a diet while limiting food intake so you stay slightly hungry will result in fat loss. Eating a high fat diet to lose fat is counterintuitive, but it works.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28485680/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Montignac [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25818875
Amazing how an article so long misses expositing the most critical information.
You would never guess that: We know now that saturated fat is not just absolutely fine, but necessary for good health, particularly brain health; that the heart disease epidemic of the last century was caused not by "sat fat" but by trans fat -- margarine, Crisco, "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" -- and sugar.
You would never guess that: Half of all the sugar you are probably encounter is fructose, which your liver treats as a toxin it must neutralize; and that if blasted with more than it can, by eating (drinking!) it without enough fiber mixed in, it gets cirrhosis and you get sick and, probably, fat too; and that your body does not count the fructose when it decides whether you have eaten enough.
You would never guess that: We know now that saturated fat is not just absolutely fine, but necessary for good health, particularly brain health; that the heart disease epidemic of the last century was caused not by "sat fat" but by trans fat -- margarine, Crisco, "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" -- and sugar.
You would never guess that: Half of all the sugar you are probably encounter is fructose, which your liver treats as a toxin it must neutralize; and that if blasted with more than it can, by eating (drinking!) it without enough fiber mixed in, it gets cirrhosis and you get sick and, probably, fat too; and that your body does not count the fructose when it decides whether you have eaten enough.
I'm actually confused about the message this article tried to communicate.
Dieting is hard and sticking to a routine that consists of eating less than your body craves for requires a lot of willpower.
However questioning basic principles about how the humans energy system works as if it was an idea some mad scientist came up with is just absurd.
Yes, measuring a calorie is not easy and if you find out after counting calories for a few months that you didn't loose fat then probably drop your intake a little further, until you see the desired results.
A calorie is just a universal measure, but in the end you can use whatever measure you want (cups of rice, grams of potatoes, slices of cheese, mug of milk, egg) to measure your food intake.
If 2 cups of rice and 3 eggs won't cause weight loss then try 1 1/2 cups of rice and 2 eggs next time...
I've longed considered doing a diet based on mass rather than calories, as mass in vs mass out is a tautology. Maybe I should actually try it soon. It would be pretty simple:
1. Come up with a post-meal target weight goal, like say 5 pounds over your current weight, decreasing by 0.1 pounds per day. 2. Before each (significant) meal, weigh yourself. 3. Limit the weight of what you consume to the difference between the target weight at the moment to your current weight.
If the target is sufficiently above your current weight initially and the rate of decrease is realistic, it should glide you into the correct portion sizes for your weight loss goal. Your measurements of the food could even include some of the packaging; as long as that's typical, it'll calibrate accordingly.
Cooking for yourself? Rather than trying to estimate calories from ingredients, just break out your kitchen scale! Eating at a restaurant that doesn't list the calories on menu items? Just pack a scale!
1. Come up with a post-meal target weight goal, like say 5 pounds over your current weight, decreasing by 0.1 pounds per day. 2. Before each (significant) meal, weigh yourself. 3. Limit the weight of what you consume to the difference between the target weight at the moment to your current weight.
If the target is sufficiently above your current weight initially and the rate of decrease is realistic, it should glide you into the correct portion sizes for your weight loss goal. Your measurements of the food could even include some of the packaging; as long as that's typical, it'll calibrate accordingly.
Cooking for yourself? Rather than trying to estimate calories from ingredients, just break out your kitchen scale! Eating at a restaurant that doesn't list the calories on menu items? Just pack a scale!
1 kg of water won't do the same to your body than 1 kg of peanut butter.
Weight loss and physical fitness is just a never ending battle. You will have small victories and defeats but the main thing is that you keep fighting. It’s a pain in the ass but so is dealing with all the health problems if you don’t. So try calorie counting, keto, vegan, carnivore, whatever just keep working at it. You are unique and what works for you will be as well, hell what works changes year by year also.
My own personal journey just took a turn as I had been trying to lose weight for rock climbing for years and could not cut through a certain weight. It turned out I needed to way reduce my protein intake for a time so I could shed some useless chest/arm/leg muscles, but it took a year or two of super low calorie fatiguing diets to make an adjustment and figure it out.
My own personal journey just took a turn as I had been trying to lose weight for rock climbing for years and could not cut through a certain weight. It turned out I needed to way reduce my protein intake for a time so I could shed some useless chest/arm/leg muscles, but it took a year or two of super low calorie fatiguing diets to make an adjustment and figure it out.
Misconceptions:
1. BMI is a good measurement of health. Some of the fittest people I know are classed as 'morbidly obese'.
2. Fat and salt are bad.
3. You need lots of carbohydrates in your diet.
4. All calories are the same. Even that all carbohydrates are the same. Checkout how your body processes glucose vs fructose and how much gets converted to fat.
5. Assuming alcohol has no effect on the processing of food.
6. 'Low-carb' or 'low-sugar' food is definitely good for you. They tend to use Maltitol - you may as well consume sugar [1].
The list goes on. No wonder there is an obesity crisis when 'experts' giving dietary advice don't understand this stuff themselves.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/is-maltitol...
1. BMI is a good measurement of health. Some of the fittest people I know are classed as 'morbidly obese'.
2. Fat and salt are bad.
3. You need lots of carbohydrates in your diet.
4. All calories are the same. Even that all carbohydrates are the same. Checkout how your body processes glucose vs fructose and how much gets converted to fat.
5. Assuming alcohol has no effect on the processing of food.
6. 'Low-carb' or 'low-sugar' food is definitely good for you. They tend to use Maltitol - you may as well consume sugar [1].
The list goes on. No wonder there is an obesity crisis when 'experts' giving dietary advice don't understand this stuff themselves.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/is-maltitol...
I commiserate with the struggles in this story.
If you want a true dive-in-the-deep-end strategy that will work, try fasting. No, not intermittent fasting where you still eat every day, but alternate day fasting. Or eating every 3rd/4th/5th day. It will suck, but it will dissolve your addiction to food and give you control you never thought you had. Check out Snake Diet (https://www.youtube.com/c/SnakeDiet). Cole is extreme, but he gets results (I think he does consulting via a Facebook group and he frequently talks about successes with clients).
If you want a true dive-in-the-deep-end strategy that will work, try fasting. No, not intermittent fasting where you still eat every day, but alternate day fasting. Or eating every 3rd/4th/5th day. It will suck, but it will dissolve your addiction to food and give you control you never thought you had. Check out Snake Diet (https://www.youtube.com/c/SnakeDiet). Cole is extreme, but he gets results (I think he does consulting via a Facebook group and he frequently talks about successes with clients).
> I was thinking about food all the time.
That is the main problem. Obsessing over something makes you tired, it is like obsessing over an ex. It is hard to break a social habit, since you will constantly remind yourself of the good old days when you still did it, and depression/low energy etc kicks in. That has nothing to do with the food, it is just in your head. Doesn't make it easy to fix, but thinking that it is your body going into starvation mode will make it even harder to get over.
That is the main problem. Obsessing over something makes you tired, it is like obsessing over an ex. It is hard to break a social habit, since you will constantly remind yourself of the good old days when you still did it, and depression/low energy etc kicks in. That has nothing to do with the food, it is just in your head. Doesn't make it easy to fix, but thinking that it is your body going into starvation mode will make it even harder to get over.
I'm really curious about more of those hacks on how to make food digest more poorly (like the dried toast), so your body doesn't absorb as much energy from it.
Do I understand correctly, that the only thing Camacho was measuring were calories, without checking the amount of carbs vs fats vs proteins contained in what he ate?
It seemed like it, but wasn't clear. It said,
He ditched his heavily processed low-calorie products and focused on the quality of his food rather than quantity.
it seems weird to me that with all the time and energy spent to measure everything to the point of obsession , one would not even take in account the rest of the nutrients.
It feels like a made up story to prove a point.
Initially, and that didn't work for him.
Discussed at the time:
Death of the Calorie - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403762 - March 2019 (74 comments)
Death of the Calorie - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403762 - March 2019 (74 comments)
The problem with calorie counting is you're sort of modelling the human body on simple machines, like say, cars.
But the body is actually a complex system, and the core quality of a complex system is adaptation.
This means you can cut calroies below your current burn rate and still gain weight, because your burn rate will change.
To illustrate: suppose you consume 4000 calories a day, with your body burning 3000 of them and storing 1000. Does cutting to 2500 guarantee you will be burning 500 extra calories from your fat storage? Not at all. Your body can easily adapt by burning 2000 calories and storing 500.
Obviously the numbers are just for illustration purposes and I'm not claiming they are realistic by any means.
What you really want is to inroduce changes that make your body adapt into accessing your fat storage for energy.
So if we go back to the above (obviously flawed) example: what you want is to make your body burn all the input you are giving it (even if it remains at 4000) AND on top of that burn, say, 500 calories from its fat storage.
How do you do that?
I can't claim to have the answer, but two things come to mind:
1. Walking.
I've personally lost weight by just walking a lot - with no changes to deit. By a lot I mean several hours a day.
Needless to say, I was single then. It's not really easy to do when you have family and children.
But the point is: exercise. Exercise that requires energy.
The good thing about walking is it's generally relaxing. You can actually walk for 2~3 hours and genuinely be enjoying yourself.
For exercising: I'm find exercise-band based workouts at home to have a similar effect: they use energy but I'm generally enjoying myself when I'm doing them. It's a bit different from weight lifting in that you can easily adjsut the resistance to be just right for your skill/experience/strength level, so that you do get a real workout, but don't feel like your muscles and bones are dying.
2. Hormones.
Cortisol and Insulin.
By eating during a short window (intermittent fasting) you can limit the amount and duration in which your body uses the energy from the food (regulated by insulin).
Working out while fasted (say, after you wake up and before you eat) will teach your body to access its fat storage for energy. And apparently it also increases your metabolic rate for several hours after.
By sleeping well, removing stress, and avoiding coffee, you can reduce the amount and duration in which cortisol is circulating in your body.
The thing about low-calories diets is they feel like stress and increase cortisol, thus sabotaging the whole thing.
Being stressed and not having enough sleep is the surest way to absolutely oblitirate your "will power" and make you want to eat for comform.
Incrase the amount of protein in your food is another thing that apparently helps regulat your hormones in a desireable way. And anyway it's needed if you workout (which you should, if you want to lose fat).
But the body is actually a complex system, and the core quality of a complex system is adaptation.
This means you can cut calroies below your current burn rate and still gain weight, because your burn rate will change.
To illustrate: suppose you consume 4000 calories a day, with your body burning 3000 of them and storing 1000. Does cutting to 2500 guarantee you will be burning 500 extra calories from your fat storage? Not at all. Your body can easily adapt by burning 2000 calories and storing 500.
Obviously the numbers are just for illustration purposes and I'm not claiming they are realistic by any means.
What you really want is to inroduce changes that make your body adapt into accessing your fat storage for energy.
So if we go back to the above (obviously flawed) example: what you want is to make your body burn all the input you are giving it (even if it remains at 4000) AND on top of that burn, say, 500 calories from its fat storage.
How do you do that?
I can't claim to have the answer, but two things come to mind:
1. Walking.
I've personally lost weight by just walking a lot - with no changes to deit. By a lot I mean several hours a day.
Needless to say, I was single then. It's not really easy to do when you have family and children.
But the point is: exercise. Exercise that requires energy.
The good thing about walking is it's generally relaxing. You can actually walk for 2~3 hours and genuinely be enjoying yourself.
For exercising: I'm find exercise-band based workouts at home to have a similar effect: they use energy but I'm generally enjoying myself when I'm doing them. It's a bit different from weight lifting in that you can easily adjsut the resistance to be just right for your skill/experience/strength level, so that you do get a real workout, but don't feel like your muscles and bones are dying.
2. Hormones.
Cortisol and Insulin.
By eating during a short window (intermittent fasting) you can limit the amount and duration in which your body uses the energy from the food (regulated by insulin).
Working out while fasted (say, after you wake up and before you eat) will teach your body to access its fat storage for energy. And apparently it also increases your metabolic rate for several hours after.
By sleeping well, removing stress, and avoiding coffee, you can reduce the amount and duration in which cortisol is circulating in your body.
The thing about low-calories diets is they feel like stress and increase cortisol, thus sabotaging the whole thing.
Being stressed and not having enough sleep is the surest way to absolutely oblitirate your "will power" and make you want to eat for comform.
Incrase the amount of protein in your food is another thing that apparently helps regulat your hormones in a desireable way. And anyway it's needed if you workout (which you should, if you want to lose fat).
Your description above is not how the body works. To support a mass M must require a quantity of energy E obtained from food. The attempt to alter this model with “loose” ideas about “burn rates” therefore does not make sense.
The mathematics of weight loss is laid out clearly in 20 minutes here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE
The mathematics of weight loss is laid out clearly in 20 minutes here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE
Let's suppose (it's probably true) that there's an absolute minimum amount of calories your body must use per day to stay alive today.
Is that amount even sufficient to stay alive every day? Maybe your body can reduce some organ function for some amount of time, but it can't keep it shutdown forever.
ok, let's assume we're talking about the minimal burn rate that can sustain your body without shutting down any organ function what so ever.
Does that mean your body is burning exactly that amount of calories every day like a clock?
Certainly not. It's probably burning a lot more to help you move and think and deal with the daily stressors.
When you cut calories what generally happens is you feel lethargic. As if you can't muster the energy to do what you want to do and which you could previously do without problems.
I'm not into "studies" but I'm pretty sure there are some studies that show people who cut calories after a while their body adapts and lowers their base metabolic rate.
Is that amount even sufficient to stay alive every day? Maybe your body can reduce some organ function for some amount of time, but it can't keep it shutdown forever.
ok, let's assume we're talking about the minimal burn rate that can sustain your body without shutting down any organ function what so ever.
Does that mean your body is burning exactly that amount of calories every day like a clock?
Certainly not. It's probably burning a lot more to help you move and think and deal with the daily stressors.
When you cut calories what generally happens is you feel lethargic. As if you can't muster the energy to do what you want to do and which you could previously do without problems.
I'm not into "studies" but I'm pretty sure there are some studies that show people who cut calories after a while their body adapts and lowers their base metabolic rate.
Yes, when calories are cut below a certain level, your body downregulates "NEAT" (non-exercise activity thermogenesis), which includes activities like fidgeting, walking around a lot or walking instead of driving, taking stairs instead of elevators, etc. This actually accounts for a considerable number of calories.
Furthermore, a mass M needing energy E is too simplistic because it neglects environmental factors. A mass M in sub-Saharan Africa or a tropical jungle will require considerably more than E for maintenance than the same mass M in a relatively mild climate. This is because your body expends energy to regulate homeostasis (sweating and increased heart rate to cool the body in hot and humid conditions), so more difficult environments require more energy.
That said, "calories in vs. calories out" is still true, you just have to consider that your "calories out" responds to the number of calories in. Drop them too low too quickly, and your NEAT drops to maintain energy balance. But, you can force your body to expend more of that energy by requiring yourself to walk (increasing NEAT), or putting yourself in uncomfortable environments (like saunas), or my forcing yourself into strenuous exercise regimes (weight lifting, HITT, etc).
Furthermore, a mass M needing energy E is too simplistic because it neglects environmental factors. A mass M in sub-Saharan Africa or a tropical jungle will require considerably more than E for maintenance than the same mass M in a relatively mild climate. This is because your body expends energy to regulate homeostasis (sweating and increased heart rate to cool the body in hot and humid conditions), so more difficult environments require more energy.
That said, "calories in vs. calories out" is still true, you just have to consider that your "calories out" responds to the number of calories in. Drop them too low too quickly, and your NEAT drops to maintain energy balance. But, you can force your body to expend more of that energy by requiring yourself to walk (increasing NEAT), or putting yourself in uncomfortable environments (like saunas), or my forcing yourself into strenuous exercise regimes (weight lifting, HITT, etc).
For the studies type:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803033/
Total energy expenditure is constrained not additive.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803033/
Total energy expenditure is constrained not additive.
Real curious to hear how Peter Wilson has disproven the first law of thermodynamics, but unfortunately this clickbait bullshit is paywalled.