4 ms·

Previously, I never believed the notion that calories in/calories out was wrong - it always seemed too much like "feel good science" to me. Y'know, where a diet

Previously, I never believed the notion that calories in/calories out was wrong - it always seemed too much like "feel good science" to me. Y'know, where a diet says it's not your fault that you're overweight, it's just because of the darn environment around you, so feel good about yourself, etc, etc. I think I was mistaken. There was a thread on here with a video that was just incredibly insightful and it was a big part of what convinced me. I'm starting to rethink my own nutrition and diet. "Sugar: The Bitter Truth", +132 points, 86 comments http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980 Takes a while to watch the video, but it was very worthwhile for me and highly recommended.

JulianMorrison 17y ago
It's obviously right by conservation of energy, but it's equivocating the word "in". Food is "in" when you eat it, but calories are "in" when they're digested and metabolized - that's several steps further down the pipeline.
- billjings 17y ago
  That's part of the issue. Eating slower has been suggested to help losing weight for that reason - it gives your satiety response time to kick in. The issue with calories in minus calories out is not equivocating the word "in", though. It is that it doesn't provide a useful model of how weight gain works. "Calories in" and "Calories out" are not independent variables, they are managed by the body's various feedback systems. Changing one of them will almost always change the other. Going for a run will make you hungrier, and undereating will lower your energy level and probably make you hungrier as well. Based on a lecture of his I've seen, I'm convinced that his major hypothesis is God's own truth - that "calories in - calories out" is not a useful model for controlling weight, and that the regulatory systems of the body are what you have to get at to have a real effect on body weight. I am sold on the idea that diet is one way to get at those systems effectively. I'm eager to read his book to find out more about the case he's making.
  - Psyonic 17y ago
    Honestly, you might just want to stick with the notes. The book is full of good information, don't get me wrong, but it's a tough read. It's dense and slow-going, but thorough. These notes contain everything you practically need to know, so unless you're really interested in understanding it in depth, the notes will probably do.

JulianMorrison 17y ago

It's obviously right by conservation of energy, but it's equivocating the word "in". Food is "in" when you eat it, but calories are "in" when they're digested and metabolized - that's several steps further down the pipeline.

billjings 17y ago
That's part of the issue. Eating slower has been suggested to help losing weight for that reason - it gives your satiety response time to kick in. The issue with calories in minus calories out is not equivocating the word "in", though. It is that it doesn't provide a useful model of how weight gain works. "Calories in" and "Calories out" are not independent variables, they are managed by the body's various feedback systems. Changing one of them will almost always change the other. Going for a run will make you hungrier, and undereating will lower your energy level and probably make you hungrier as well. Based on a lecture of his I've seen, I'm convinced that his major hypothesis is God's own truth - that "calories in - calories out" is not a useful model for controlling weight, and that the regulatory systems of the body are what you have to get at to have a real effect on body weight. I am sold on the idea that diet is one way to get at those systems effectively. I'm eager to read his book to find out more about the case he's making.
- Psyonic 17y ago
  Honestly, you might just want to stick with the notes. The book is full of good information, don't get me wrong, but it's a tough read. It's dense and slow-going, but thorough. These notes contain everything you practically need to know, so unless you're really interested in understanding it in depth, the notes will probably do.