4 ms·

> The phrase that being overweight is "simply calories in vs calories out" is both trivially true and completely unhelpful. Why is it completely unhelpful? The

> The phrase that being overweight is "simply calories in vs calories out" is both trivially true and completely unhelpful. Why is it completely unhelpful? The corollary is that if you adjust your intake to X (where X might have to be determined empirically for the individual), and use planning and your conscious brain to know when and what to eat, you _will_ lose weight. This is a revelation to some people, who, once they realize the simplicity of it and plan around it, are able to completely change their bodies. Many of these same people try various intuitive plans that don't work for them (because they don't have the intuition) or try to manipulate exercise first (which makes some people increase appetite). If you don't believe me that it works, is useful, and is a revelation, go lurk on the myfitnesspal forums for a while or /progresspics on reddit and read how people succeed.

linkydinkandyou 11y ago
Agreed! How hard is it _not_ to do something? If you eat less than your BMR, you will lose weight. Period. The fact that _maybe_ there are some people who can overeat and poop it out instead of storing it as fat is interesting, but so what. Obesity is the worst problem facing America right now, and we're all enablers.
JPKab 11y ago
The reason that it isn't helpful, despite you're peer reviewed, laboratory evidence cited on MyFitnessPal postings, is that the causal mechanism that common sense derives from this is completely incorrect. People aren't fat because they eat too much. People (and mammals) eat too much because their fat cells are being metabolically triggered by environmental and/or genetic factors to store fat at a higher than normal rate, diverting calories from operational needs, thus stimulating hunger. Bears don't go into hibernation because they've gotten fat. They get fat because their endocrine system begins gearing up for hibernation, and telling their fat cells to kick into overdrive growing. They will literally burn muscle while simultaneously gaining fat in this stage, like all hibernating mammals. The other side effect of growing fat cells is massive hunger, obviously. In humans, simple things like not eating sugar can help correct the endocrine factors which, for a lot of people, cause the fat cells to do this. However, genetic factors are going to be a different story. I say this as somebody who is fit and active, but have had running buddies who are fat. Pitting will-power against metabotically driven hunger ends, in the long-term, with biology winning every time. Without endocrine/genetic factors taken into account, reduction in calories in simply causes a mammalian body's system to reduce calories out by making the subject less energetic.
- asdfgtyuiohj 11y ago
  It's not even as simple as that. Calories in/calories out works if all you're calculating is how many calories are retained. It does not even tell you whether you will be putting on fat or not. Depending on your nutritional balance, timing of nutrient intake, hormonal balance, etc., you may be at a caloric deficit _and still put on fat_. Having a caloric deficit doesn't mean you're losing fat. You may be losing lean tissue while increasing fat, which can still lead to weight loss, but isn't what people usually are trying to achieve. Two people with the same caloric deficit/surplus may develop very differently over time while having the same levels of physical activity and caloric intake and 'output'.
- Almaviva 11y ago
  If we reduce to core principles, if you know your stuff, there's probably not much to disagree on. There are many factors affecting variables like appetite, subjective energy level, energy used through spontaneous movement, many hormones and so on. But, if you're an individual trying to decide what works and what doesn't in a field where the popular media is full of misinformation, I have a really hard time seeing the position that counting calories is _completely_ unhelpful. > "Pitting will-power against metabotically driven hunger ends, in the long-term, with biology winning every time." Yet, awareness of calories in vs calories out can be a way to plan your strategies, to know from the start whether a given strategy can even work or not, from the point of view of physics. Many people try things that this simple knowledge would rule out. A lifestyle change that does not result in a negative energy balance will not cause someone to lose weight, period. It's also a framework where you can discover what works for yourself. Does lowering carbs vs lowering fat affect your appetite at the same calorie level? How does burning an extra 500 calories through exercise make you feel vs lowering food intake by that amount? These are valuable things to know, again for an individual on a personal quest, not talking about making public policy or population science. Some people find an intuitive lifestyle change that successfully allows them to lower their body fat and keep it down. Bravo. Some people also succeed more mechanically with conscious calorie control. I have a hard time seeing the argument that both of these can't be useful and successful.
- daemonk 11y ago
  I don't know the research on this area very well. Does that mean for some people, their bodies will actually store the intake as fat preferentially even if the intake is a minimal amount for survival? You can actually die by eating a minimal amount of food because your body doesn't know to use it for energy and, instead, stores it as fat? Are there any studies on this phenomena?
nkuttler 11y ago
Calories in vs calories out is simple thermodynamics, human nutrition is complex biochemistry. The real question is, why should anybody have to count calories? Is there a way of eating that leads to the same level of satiety with fewer calories?
- Almaviva 11y ago
  It's not "the" question, but it's "a" question. What I don't understand is why people balk at counting calories as part of a successful plan to change body composition, but plan everything else. Should you only go to the gym intuitively, or is it useful to count sets, weights, plan a certain time of day, maybe measure heart rates, plan rest periods and so on? Why is food different? We know the human body is adaptable to an incredible variance of conditions, including the fact that we know that if anything, prolonged caloric restriction seems to cause adaptations that _increase_ lifespan. So what's the objection to counting and measuring?
  - nkuttler 11y ago
    I think that counting calories, while certainly helpful, is not a long term solution. I prefer to eat in a way that triggers certain hormonal responses that lead to me eating fewer calories naturally. (Yeah, that means no carbs)
randallsquared 11y ago
> Why is it completely unhelpful? The corollary is that if you adjust your intake to X (where X might have to be determined empirically for the individual), and use planning and your conscious brain to know when and what to eat, you _will_ lose weight. People talk about how hard it is to lose this way, but although I've tried diet after diet, I only recently understood intuitively the reverse: why some people can't understand how difficult it is for some. When I moved to a new area this year and went to a new GP, he wanted to talk about my weight, of course (I'm 42, but everything else about my health was quite good). I explained that I had managed to lose about 50 pounds since my peak in 2012, through various diets like intermittent fasting, keto, and sometimes just counting calories for a bit. He suggested I try an appetite suppressant. I scoffed a bit, saying that my problem wasn't that I was too hungry, since I rarely ate so infrequently as to experience hunger. Instead, I said, my problem was that I ate when I was bored, or when friends were, or ate to improve other experiences like TV or movies, or just because it had been a while and I felt increasingly that I "ought" to eat. He didn't argue with me, but just mildly pointed out that it might well not work, but why not give it a shot for a few weeks and see? So I agreed. That was three months ago, and on the appetite suppressant I've lost another 50 pounds. But that's not my point, exactly. My worldview around food has changed. Before, I assumed that people who were thin were either heroically couting every calorie they ate, or had some weird biology that meant that they couldn't gain even when they tried. I think both of those sets do exist (since I know people in each), but now I realize that there is a large group of people out there who simply don't care about food that much. I didn't even understand that I had this constant drive to eat until it vanished; I'd never not experienced it, as far back as I can remember. I didn't know what people were talking about when they talked about appetite, because the only thing that ever changed was hunger, until I started taking the suppressant.
- sudoherethere 11y ago
  "but now I realize that there is a large group of people out there who simply don't care about food that much." This. I used to be a member of this group. In college and early twenties, I had friends who didn't care about food. Now most of my friends only focus seems to be food, how to eat it properly, how much to eat, where to eat, what is healthy. It is frustrating sometimes but it is hard to find friends in mid 30s who are into playing sports, bars, pool, and video games as much as me.

linkydinkandyou 11y ago

Agreed! How hard is it _not_ to do something? If you eat less than your BMR, you will lose weight. Period. The fact that _maybe_ there are some people who can overeat and poop it out instead of storing it as fat is interesting, but so what. Obesity is the worst problem facing America right now, and we're all enablers.

JPKab 11y ago

The reason that it isn't helpful, despite you're peer reviewed, laboratory evidence cited on MyFitnessPal postings, is that the causal mechanism that common sense derives from this is completely incorrect. People aren't fat because they eat too much. People (and mammals) eat too much because their fat cells are being metabolically triggered by environmental and/or genetic factors to store fat at a higher than normal rate, diverting calories from operational needs, thus stimulating hunger. Bears don't go into hibernation because they've gotten fat. They get fat because their endocrine system begins gearing up for hibernation, and telling their fat cells to kick into overdrive growing. They will literally burn muscle while simultaneously gaining fat in this stage, like all hibernating mammals. The other side effect of growing fat cells is massive hunger, obviously. In humans, simple things like not eating sugar can help correct the endocrine factors which, for a lot of people, cause the fat cells to do this. However, genetic factors are going to be a different story. I say this as somebody who is fit and active, but have had running buddies who are fat. Pitting will-power against metabotically driven hunger ends, in the long-term, with biology winning every time. Without endocrine/genetic factors taken into account, reduction in calories in simply causes a mammalian body's system to reduce calories out by making the subject less energetic.

asdfgtyuiohj 11y ago
It's not even as simple as that. Calories in/calories out works if all you're calculating is how many calories are retained. It does not even tell you whether you will be putting on fat or not. Depending on your nutritional balance, timing of nutrient intake, hormonal balance, etc., you may be at a caloric deficit _and still put on fat_. Having a caloric deficit doesn't mean you're losing fat. You may be losing lean tissue while increasing fat, which can still lead to weight loss, but isn't what people usually are trying to achieve. Two people with the same caloric deficit/surplus may develop very differently over time while having the same levels of physical activity and caloric intake and 'output'.
Almaviva 11y ago
If we reduce to core principles, if you know your stuff, there's probably not much to disagree on. There are many factors affecting variables like appetite, subjective energy level, energy used through spontaneous movement, many hormones and so on. But, if you're an individual trying to decide what works and what doesn't in a field where the popular media is full of misinformation, I have a really hard time seeing the position that counting calories is _completely_ unhelpful. > "Pitting will-power against metabotically driven hunger ends, in the long-term, with biology winning every time." Yet, awareness of calories in vs calories out can be a way to plan your strategies, to know from the start whether a given strategy can even work or not, from the point of view of physics. Many people try things that this simple knowledge would rule out. A lifestyle change that does not result in a negative energy balance will not cause someone to lose weight, period. It's also a framework where you can discover what works for yourself. Does lowering carbs vs lowering fat affect your appetite at the same calorie level? How does burning an extra 500 calories through exercise make you feel vs lowering food intake by that amount? These are valuable things to know, again for an individual on a personal quest, not talking about making public policy or population science. Some people find an intuitive lifestyle change that successfully allows them to lower their body fat and keep it down. Bravo. Some people also succeed more mechanically with conscious calorie control. I have a hard time seeing the argument that both of these can't be useful and successful.
daemonk 11y ago
I don't know the research on this area very well. Does that mean for some people, their bodies will actually store the intake as fat preferentially even if the intake is a minimal amount for survival? You can actually die by eating a minimal amount of food because your body doesn't know to use it for energy and, instead, stores it as fat? Are there any studies on this phenomena?

nkuttler 11y ago

Calories in vs calories out is simple thermodynamics, human nutrition is complex biochemistry. The real question is, why should anybody have to count calories? Is there a way of eating that leads to the same level of satiety with fewer calories?

Almaviva 11y ago
It's not "the" question, but it's "a" question. What I don't understand is why people balk at counting calories as part of a successful plan to change body composition, but plan everything else. Should you only go to the gym intuitively, or is it useful to count sets, weights, plan a certain time of day, maybe measure heart rates, plan rest periods and so on? Why is food different? We know the human body is adaptable to an incredible variance of conditions, including the fact that we know that if anything, prolonged caloric restriction seems to cause adaptations that _increase_ lifespan. So what's the objection to counting and measuring?
- nkuttler 11y ago
  I think that counting calories, while certainly helpful, is not a long term solution. I prefer to eat in a way that triggers certain hormonal responses that lead to me eating fewer calories naturally. (Yeah, that means no carbs)

randallsquared 11y ago

> Why is it completely unhelpful? The corollary is that if you adjust your intake to X (where X might have to be determined empirically for the individual), and use planning and your conscious brain to know when and what to eat, you _will_ lose weight. People talk about how hard it is to lose this way, but although I've tried diet after diet, I only recently understood intuitively the reverse: why some people can't understand how difficult it is for some. When I moved to a new area this year and went to a new GP, he wanted to talk about my weight, of course (I'm 42, but everything else about my health was quite good). I explained that I had managed to lose about 50 pounds since my peak in 2012, through various diets like intermittent fasting, keto, and sometimes just counting calories for a bit. He suggested I try an appetite suppressant. I scoffed a bit, saying that my problem wasn't that I was too hungry, since I rarely ate so infrequently as to experience hunger. Instead, I said, my problem was that I ate when I was bored, or when friends were, or ate to improve other experiences like TV or movies, or just because it had been a while and I felt increasingly that I "ought" to eat. He didn't argue with me, but just mildly pointed out that it might well not work, but why not give it a shot for a few weeks and see? So I agreed. That was three months ago, and on the appetite suppressant I've lost another 50 pounds. But that's not my point, exactly. My worldview around food has changed. Before, I assumed that people who were thin were either heroically couting every calorie they ate, or had some weird biology that meant that they couldn't gain even when they tried. I think both of those sets do exist (since I know people in each), but now I realize that there is a large group of people out there who simply don't care about food that much. I didn't even understand that I had this constant drive to eat until it vanished; I'd never not experienced it, as far back as I can remember. I didn't know what people were talking about when they talked about appetite, because the only thing that ever changed was hunger, until I started taking the suppressant.

sudoherethere 11y ago
"but now I realize that there is a large group of people out there who simply don't care about food that much." This. I used to be a member of this group. In college and early twenties, I had friends who didn't care about food. Now most of my friends only focus seems to be food, how to eat it properly, how much to eat, where to eat, what is healthy. It is frustrating sometimes but it is hard to find friends in mid 30s who are into playing sports, bars, pool, and video games as much as me.