3 ms·

DiabloD3 almost certainly limited caloric intake at some point (at intake or somewhere in digestion). But your comment doesn't address some complexity in the wa

DiabloD3 almost certainly limited caloric intake at some point (at intake or somewhere in digestion). But your comment doesn't address some complexity in the way the body processes food, or in the food itself. For example, eating 200 calories of refined sugar is considerably worse in terms of your eventual absorption of energy than eating 200 calories of banana. This is at least partly because the banana consumes more energy in digestion, and partly because less of the energy in the banana will actually eventually be absorbed by your body. Parenthetically, the banana will not generate a considerable spike in blood sugar, something that, as I understand it, is very unhealthy. While it's not an awful rough guide, nutrition is not as simple as calories in vs. calories out. Better perhaps if you're counting the calories in your stool, but who's going to do that? (And besides, that still wouldn't be a complete solution). Also, in case you're reading this DiabloD3, congratulations. A drastic and I'm sure extremely challenging lifestyle change. I'm happy to hear about such a success story.

DiabloD3 11y ago
See, there lies a small problem: I can't measure caloric burn usefully. I can measure what little exercise I do, I can measure a rough amount of what it costs to merely be alive, but I can't measure beyond simple observations like that (I imagine such things can be measured, it is just invasive and expensive). Intake really hasn't changed, I ate 1500-2000 calories a day then, I eat 1500-2000 calories a day now. I didn't log it, but I did a lot of rough estimates based on things I regularly ate then, and regularly ate now. The only difference I've found is I feel like I'm eating more food now than I did then; but it's because carb-rich food is rather energy compact. Also, thanks. I only tell my story when someone has gone off the rails quoting the FDA party line of "caloric intake is 100% why you're fat", when it's a massively complex issue; and even with my lengthy reply, I feel I did a disservice in how complex the issue is. I tried reducing caloric intake, eating lots of "whole grains", limiting meat intake, all the stuff the FDA has recommended for decades: I only kept getting fatter. Caloric intake alone cannot explain why the world is getting fatter: what we're eating clearly does when my diet has worked for so many people, me included.

DiabloD3 11y ago

See, there lies a small problem: I can't measure caloric burn usefully. I can measure what little exercise I do, I can measure a rough amount of what it costs to merely be alive, but I can't measure beyond simple observations like that (I imagine such things can be measured, it is just invasive and expensive). Intake really hasn't changed, I ate 1500-2000 calories a day then, I eat 1500-2000 calories a day now. I didn't log it, but I did a lot of rough estimates based on things I regularly ate then, and regularly ate now. The only difference I've found is I feel like I'm eating more food now than I did then; but it's because carb-rich food is rather energy compact. Also, thanks. I only tell my story when someone has gone off the rails quoting the FDA party line of "caloric intake is 100% why you're fat", when it's a massively complex issue; and even with my lengthy reply, I feel I did a disservice in how complex the issue is. I tried reducing caloric intake, eating lots of "whole grains", limiting meat intake, all the stuff the FDA has recommended for decades: I only kept getting fatter. Caloric intake alone cannot explain why the world is getting fatter: what we're eating clearly does when my diet has worked for so many people, me included.