5 ms·

Diet and exercise is actually very well understood, and the same thing will 'work' for everybody. There just happens to be a lot of bullshit floating around.

by leshow 11y ago

Diet and exercise is actually very well understood, and the same thing will 'work' for everybody. There just happens to be a lot of bullshit floating around. For example your claim about the size of your wife's deficit... unless you tracked eveyr calorie she ate and she remained weight stable for weeks for you to get an average intake: you have no idea what her maintenance intake is and thus no idea how big of a deficit she is in. Caloric requirement calculators are bullshit, there's too much individual variation. As for losing weight; it's pretty simple. Resistance train a few times a week, to maintain muscle mass, consume around 0.8-1g of protein per lb of LEAN mass, and be in a moderate deficit of a hundred or so calories, and continue to make adjustments my lowering food intake and/or increasing activity to keep the fat loss moving as your caloric maintenance changes to your lower body mass. just an aside, there is no 'ultra efficiency mode' you comment here: >I just couldn't lose anymore despite caloric restriction is completely bogus, unless you're suggesting your body violates the law of conservation of energy

mistermann 11y ago
> Diet and exercise is actually very well understood, and the same thing will 'work' for everybody. > just an aside, there is no 'ultra efficiency mode' you comment here: Do you genuinely believe that metabolism doesn't vary across individuals, or for an individual over time? Do you think the bodies of all individuals have precisely the same ability to both absorb calories from ingested food, as well as produce motion with the exact same efficiency? Do you believe enzymes present in the digestive system have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the calories in / calories out calculations? Do you think every calorie you put into your body is converted into energy?
- mikekchar 11y ago
  1 kg of fat is about 7700 calories. So if you are in deficit by 1100 calories per day, then you should lose about 1 kg of fat. Assuming that you have a base metabolism of 2000 calories per day (average for a male of average size), and say you did an hour of moderate aerobic exercise (like jogging) every day (600 calories per day), the with a diet of 1500 calories, you should find yourself losing about 1kg a week on average. If you are not losing any weight with the above, then the potential explanations are: - You are in ultra efficiency mode: In other words, you are burning only 900 calories a day. - You are not running an hour a day. - You are not eating 1500 calories a day. Let's say you are 70 kg. It takes 1 calorie of energy to raise 1 kg of water by 1 degree. You are roughly 15 degrees above ambient temperature. Thus it takes 1050 calories to raise your temperature from ambient to body temperature. It is highly unlikely that your body will be able to maintain body temperature for an entire day on 900 calories. Thus, the only other explanation are the other two.
- Evgeny 11y ago
  Do you genuinely believe that metabolism doesn't vary across individuals, or for an individual over time? It differs a bit. Therefore, the problem is to find out a particular individual's calorie requirements, which is achieved by carefully tracking calories and weight. I.e. if the weight is stable, we found this person's calorie requirements. Do you think the bodies of all individuals have precisely the same ability to both absorb calories from ingested food, as well as produce motion with the exact same efficiency? For weight loss purposes it is not so important. There is a top limit on energy to be absorbed, i.e 9 cal from a gram of fat. If a person only absorbs 8, good for him, but there is no way he will absorb 10. Do you believe enzymes present in the digestive system have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the calories in / calories out calculations? Again, there is a hard limit on how many calories can be extracted from a unit of food. Do you think every calorie you put into your body is converted into energy? For the purpose of weight loss, not so important. You digest only half of what you put in your body - good news, you can eat more and still lose weight. You digest everything - also no big deal. It's just that you cannot magically eat 1g of fat and suddednly gain 100g bodyweight from it.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    You did a fairly decent job of discrediting your "the same thing will 'work' for everybody" statement. "top limit on energy to be absorbed" is one of those interesting statements that sounds like an answer and proof of something, but actually isn't relevant and is a dodge of the question I actually asked. Of course there's an upper limit to what calories can be absorbed from food, you can't consume that which literally isn't there - the question is, is is the caloric content that is actually extracted the same for all people (which is a subset of the question does the same thing work for everybody).
    - Evgeny 11y ago
      You did a fairly decent job of discrediting your "the same thing will 'work' for everybody" statement. My "same thing works for everybody" is, in other words, "every person has a number of calories N, eating under which he will lose weight". I think I stayed pretty consistent. And yes, N may vary over time, but it still exists. the question is, is is the caloric content that is actually extracted the same for all people I can only restate that yes, it is different and no, it is not very important if our goal is weight loss. Suppose I extract 1500 calories from a meal, and you 1800 calories from the same meal. But the "thing that works for everyone" remains: you track your calories and weight, I track mine, maybe my weight is stable at 2000 calories per day, yours at 1700 calories per day. Then we just respectively start lowering our intake until we reach the desired rate of weight loss. Algorithm remains the same, we just plug in our own numbers. which is a subset of the question does the same thing work for everybody No, I can't see relevance. For lack of better example, all homes are different, some may have only rectangular rooms, some have oddly shaped rooms etc. So kind of "everyone is different". And still, anyone can easily calculate the space in square meters, or at least achieve a very close approximation for all practical purposes. So it does "work for everybody".
- leshow 11y ago
  Nowhere did I state that metabolism doesn't vary across individuals. On the contrary I think that individuals have vastly different caloric requirements. None of this means that a caloric deficit and increased activity won't cause all individuals to lose weight, just that the absolute value will differ between individuals.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    > Nowhere did I state that metabolism doesn't vary across individuals. "the same thing will 'work' for everybody." "just an aside, there is no 'ultra efficiency mode' you comment here: >I just couldn't lose anymore despite caloric restriction is completely bogus, unless you're suggesting your body violates the law of conservation of energy" If metabolism can vary by individual, why is it impossible for the metabolism for one individual to change over time? Serious question, I honestly don't know.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > None of this means that a caloric deficit and increased activity won't cause all individuals to lose weight, just that the absolute value will differ between individuals. Do you accept that the caloric value may vary in one person due to changes in gut flora? Or changes in metabolism?
    - leshow 11y ago
      Maintenance caloric requirements change as your body mass changes (and composition). It's pretty obvious that, for example, your maintenance requirement at 200 lbs will be different from your maintenance requirement at 150 lbs; you have less tissue to sustain.
      - mistermann 11y ago
        Any comments on the question asked? (Gut flora & metabolism)
        mikekchar 11y ago
mikekchar 11y ago
I just wanted to say that I generally agree with the above (was unsure whether to reply to the parent post or this one). My only real quibble is that I think the protein requirement is too high (even of lean mass). Possibly I'm a special case, but 0.6g per lb of lean mass has been enough for me to gain muscle. The "ultra efficiency mode" is definitely one of the more unfortunate things to come out of the low carb camp, IMHO. generally speaking, unless you have a disease or physical disorder (like hyper thyroid) you are going to be burning/eliminating about 1400 - 2500 calories a day. It can be quite a bit higher for some diseases or disorders where you can't process food. Running is a great exercise for counting calories because it expends a pretty predictable 80-110 calories per mile (depending on pace). Other exercises can be extremely variable (to the point where I have seen people overestimate the calories by factors of 3-5). Do not trust exercise machines for caloric output. Every single one I've seen is off by at least 50% (they flatter you so that you demand their machine). But generally speaking, if you do aerobic exercise continually for 1 hour, you will burn 5-600 calories. If you eat 1600 calories, then you will have a balance of about 1000 calories, which will certainly be in deficit for the average person (if you are really small, then it might not be, but I suspect it will be even then). So why do people hit plateaus? - They vastly overestimate the calories burned from exercise. - They vastly underestimate the calories eaten. Mostly it is the latter. It is not hard at all to put 100 calories of butter on a slice of bread. It is dramatically easy to put 200 calories of salad dressing on a salad. It is easy to say, "I only had a muffin and a coffee for breakfast" without realizing that said muffin (with butter) and coffee (with cream and sugar) could easily be in the 500 calorie range. My friend used to go to subway for lunch and have a 6" salami sandwich, one of those small bags of chips, and a sweetened iced tea for lunch. He had no idea he was pushing 1000 calories for lunch (the muffin and coffee for breakfast, 6 inch subway sub for lunch and... sorry... maybe you can have half an apple for dinner). So, it is quite easy to loose weight when you are 220 lbs and burning 2500 calories a day. But then when you get down to 170 lbs and are burning 1900 calories a day, suddenly that miscalculation for how much exercise you are doing, or the 300 extra calories you are eating, but didn't realize makes a massive difference. Similarly, if you have health issues (especially digestion) that cause you to eliminate food rather than digest it when you are heavier, it can make a dramatic difference later if you get healthier and start actually processing this food. The overestimation of exercise is a bad one because it is often fuelled by industry lies. Go to a gym and someone will tell you that you are burning 1000 calories an hour lifting weights, or that adding a kg of muscle will increase your metabolism by 100 calories a day or some other such nonsense. My brother (who is otherwise a very intelligent person) once thought that he could burn 1600 calories an hour on a bicycle (possibly if he is in the Tour de France, but pushing 150 watts is more than most beginners can handle for an hour and results in 540 calories an hour). Stuff like that makes me fairly angry...

by leshow 11y ago

mistermann 11y ago

> Diet and exercise is actually very well understood, and the same thing will 'work' for everybody. > just an aside, there is no 'ultra efficiency mode' you comment here: Do you genuinely believe that metabolism doesn't vary across individuals, or for an individual over time? Do you think the bodies of all individuals have precisely the same ability to both absorb calories from ingested food, as well as produce motion with the exact same efficiency? Do you believe enzymes present in the digestive system have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the calories in / calories out calculations? Do you think every calorie you put into your body is converted into energy?

mikekchar 11y ago
1 kg of fat is about 7700 calories. So if you are in deficit by 1100 calories per day, then you should lose about 1 kg of fat. Assuming that you have a base metabolism of 2000 calories per day (average for a male of average size), and say you did an hour of moderate aerobic exercise (like jogging) every day (600 calories per day), the with a diet of 1500 calories, you should find yourself losing about 1kg a week on average. If you are not losing any weight with the above, then the potential explanations are: - You are in ultra efficiency mode: In other words, you are burning only 900 calories a day. - You are not running an hour a day. - You are not eating 1500 calories a day. Let's say you are 70 kg. It takes 1 calorie of energy to raise 1 kg of water by 1 degree. You are roughly 15 degrees above ambient temperature. Thus it takes 1050 calories to raise your temperature from ambient to body temperature. It is highly unlikely that your body will be able to maintain body temperature for an entire day on 900 calories. Thus, the only other explanation are the other two.
Evgeny 11y ago
Do you genuinely believe that metabolism doesn't vary across individuals, or for an individual over time? It differs a bit. Therefore, the problem is to find out a particular individual's calorie requirements, which is achieved by carefully tracking calories and weight. I.e. if the weight is stable, we found this person's calorie requirements. Do you think the bodies of all individuals have precisely the same ability to both absorb calories from ingested food, as well as produce motion with the exact same efficiency? For weight loss purposes it is not so important. There is a top limit on energy to be absorbed, i.e 9 cal from a gram of fat. If a person only absorbs 8, good for him, but there is no way he will absorb 10. Do you believe enzymes present in the digestive system have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the calories in / calories out calculations? Again, there is a hard limit on how many calories can be extracted from a unit of food. Do you think every calorie you put into your body is converted into energy? For the purpose of weight loss, not so important. You digest only half of what you put in your body - good news, you can eat more and still lose weight. You digest everything - also no big deal. It's just that you cannot magically eat 1g of fat and suddednly gain 100g bodyweight from it.
- mistermann 11y ago
  You did a fairly decent job of discrediting your "the same thing will 'work' for everybody" statement. "top limit on energy to be absorbed" is one of those interesting statements that sounds like an answer and proof of something, but actually isn't relevant and is a dodge of the question I actually asked. Of course there's an upper limit to what calories can be absorbed from food, you can't consume that which literally isn't there - the question is, is is the caloric content that is actually extracted the same for all people (which is a subset of the question does the same thing work for everybody).
  - Evgeny 11y ago
    You did a fairly decent job of discrediting your "the same thing will 'work' for everybody" statement. My "same thing works for everybody" is, in other words, "every person has a number of calories N, eating under which he will lose weight". I think I stayed pretty consistent. And yes, N may vary over time, but it still exists. the question is, is is the caloric content that is actually extracted the same for all people I can only restate that yes, it is different and no, it is not very important if our goal is weight loss. Suppose I extract 1500 calories from a meal, and you 1800 calories from the same meal. But the "thing that works for everyone" remains: you track your calories and weight, I track mine, maybe my weight is stable at 2000 calories per day, yours at 1700 calories per day. Then we just respectively start lowering our intake until we reach the desired rate of weight loss. Algorithm remains the same, we just plug in our own numbers. which is a subset of the question does the same thing work for everybody No, I can't see relevance. For lack of better example, all homes are different, some may have only rectangular rooms, some have oddly shaped rooms etc. So kind of "everyone is different". And still, anyone can easily calculate the space in square meters, or at least achieve a very close approximation for all practical purposes. So it does "work for everybody".
leshow 11y ago
Nowhere did I state that metabolism doesn't vary across individuals. On the contrary I think that individuals have vastly different caloric requirements. None of this means that a caloric deficit and increased activity won't cause all individuals to lose weight, just that the absolute value will differ between individuals.
- mistermann 11y ago
  > Nowhere did I state that metabolism doesn't vary across individuals. "the same thing will 'work' for everybody." "just an aside, there is no 'ultra efficiency mode' you comment here: >I just couldn't lose anymore despite caloric restriction is completely bogus, unless you're suggesting your body violates the law of conservation of energy" If metabolism can vary by individual, why is it impossible for the metabolism for one individual to change over time? Serious question, I honestly don't know.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > None of this means that a caloric deficit and increased activity won't cause all individuals to lose weight, just that the absolute value will differ between individuals. Do you accept that the caloric value may vary in one person due to changes in gut flora? Or changes in metabolism?
  - leshow 11y ago
    Maintenance caloric requirements change as your body mass changes (and composition). It's pretty obvious that, for example, your maintenance requirement at 200 lbs will be different from your maintenance requirement at 150 lbs; you have less tissue to sustain.
    - mistermann 11y ago
      Any comments on the question asked? (Gut flora & metabolism)
      - mikekchar 11y ago

mikekchar 11y ago

I just wanted to say that I generally agree with the above (was unsure whether to reply to the parent post or this one). My only real quibble is that I think the protein requirement is too high (even of lean mass). Possibly I'm a special case, but 0.6g per lb of lean mass has been enough for me to gain muscle. The "ultra efficiency mode" is definitely one of the more unfortunate things to come out of the low carb camp, IMHO. generally speaking, unless you have a disease or physical disorder (like hyper thyroid) you are going to be burning/eliminating about 1400 - 2500 calories a day. It can be quite a bit higher for some diseases or disorders where you can't process food. Running is a great exercise for counting calories because it expends a pretty predictable 80-110 calories per mile (depending on pace). Other exercises can be extremely variable (to the point where I have seen people overestimate the calories by factors of 3-5). Do not trust exercise machines for caloric output. Every single one I've seen is off by at least 50% (they flatter you so that you demand their machine). But generally speaking, if you do aerobic exercise continually for 1 hour, you will burn 5-600 calories. If you eat 1600 calories, then you will have a balance of about 1000 calories, which will certainly be in deficit for the average person (if you are really small, then it might not be, but I suspect it will be even then). So why do people hit plateaus? - They vastly overestimate the calories burned from exercise. - They vastly underestimate the calories eaten. Mostly it is the latter. It is not hard at all to put 100 calories of butter on a slice of bread. It is dramatically easy to put 200 calories of salad dressing on a salad. It is easy to say, "I only had a muffin and a coffee for breakfast" without realizing that said muffin (with butter) and coffee (with cream and sugar) could easily be in the 500 calorie range. My friend used to go to subway for lunch and have a 6" salami sandwich, one of those small bags of chips, and a sweetened iced tea for lunch. He had no idea he was pushing 1000 calories for lunch (the muffin and coffee for breakfast, 6 inch subway sub for lunch and... sorry... maybe you can have half an apple for dinner). So, it is quite easy to loose weight when you are 220 lbs and burning 2500 calories a day. But then when you get down to 170 lbs and are burning 1900 calories a day, suddenly that miscalculation for how much exercise you are doing, or the 300 extra calories you are eating, but didn't realize makes a massive difference. Similarly, if you have health issues (especially digestion) that cause you to eliminate food rather than digest it when you are heavier, it can make a dramatic difference later if you get healthier and start actually processing this food. The overestimation of exercise is a bad one because it is often fuelled by industry lies. Go to a gym and someone will tell you that you are burning 1000 calories an hour lifting weights, or that adding a kg of muscle will increase your metabolism by 100 calories a day or some other such nonsense. My brother (who is otherwise a very intelligent person) once thought that he could burn 1600 calories an hour on a bicycle (possibly if he is in the Tour de France, but pushing 150 watts is more than most beginners can handle for an hour and results in 540 calories an hour). Stuff like that makes me fairly angry...