5 ms·

You're of course leaving out the complexity in how "Calories in" and "calories out" are derived for individuals. Some people consume too much calorically as a

You're of course leaving out the complexity in how "Calories in" and "calories out" are derived for individuals. Some people consume too much calorically as a mental-health coping mechanism. Some people consume too much calorically because the food culture they were raised in promotes that. Some people consume too much calorically because they have a lack of real options to purchase fresh whole foods. Some people don't expend enough calories because their lifestyle makes it difficult (work + family + etc). Some people don't expend enough calories because the lifestyle they were raised with doesn't promote that. These are just some of the ways that simple equation you've posted become immediately more complex.

DoodleBuggy 10y ago
Every complexity you posted still comes down to consuming more calories than is needed. The reality is the vast majority of people eat way too much, and the dietary guidelines for caloric intake are far too high for a largely sedentary society.
- lucidguppy 10y ago
  It's easier to eat fewer calories when the foods you eat are high in water and fiber content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CdwWliv7Hg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CdwWliv7Hg
- lacampbell 10y ago
  That's one of the things you really have to accept if you want to lose weight - yes you will have to eat less, and yes you will feel hungry a lot.
  - montecarl 10y ago
    I do not want to sound like I am arguing with you for the sake of arguing, but I have lost weight and several of my friends and family have lost weight without feeling hungry by switching to a low carb (ketogenic) diet. It was so crazy to eat mostly fatty food and green vegetables and lose weight very quickly. One major thing I noticed was how much longer I was able to go without eating on this diet without feeling hungry. I used to feel very ill if I did not eat at least 3 meals at day. I can now, if I choose, eat a snack in the early afternoon and then eat dinner and feel fine (1.5 meals instead of 3).
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      This matches my experience as well. The transition period (~1.5 weeks, but especially brutal on days 2-5) was rough, but once established, it was the easiest diet to stay on if you could control your environment and mostly cook for yourself or choose where to eat. It is somewhat harder to stay on the diet while traveling, attending conferences, or business meetings. Having a host choose a place to eat, offer you local cuisine, etc makes it harder to stay in keto. Hunger though, was never a problem after the first full week.
      - Jach 10y ago
        Keto is great but there's still a willpower component, it can be more or less difficult depending on the person. I don't really like cooking a lot, but I don't mind eating the same things most of the time. It would be a lot harder for someone who hates cooking and hates eating the same thing all the time. While raw hunger never bothered me I did find cravings an occasional issue (never constant, but even after months never quite disappearing) and sometimes they'd be for things I haven't had in years. Eventually it might be something easy to satisfy like a pizza and when you give in once it's easy to say "screw it", though some people can only continue if they have an occasional cheat day. I'm an on-and-off-again keto dieter (I appreciate that for me it seems to take at least 2-3x as long to put the weight back on as it takes to take off as I inevitably revert to former diet choices...) and I never find the transition period difficult, but there's a consistent point where I hit "eh, still fat, but don't feel super fat anymore" and that's when the cravings or the pressures of eating non-keto with company have the highest chance of getting to me. There are also unforeseen stressors that can make things difficult (in my case a forced house move) but I'm ok with the state of flux. I don't want a six-pack physique enough, not really, and that's the last willpower component -- how long can you stick with it (and introduce more exercise), even with bumps and setbacks? My friend who introduced me to the diet lost 100 lbs by forcing himself to do keto for about 5 months, but he was fat enough at the start that he could stand to lose another 50 lbs but it's not as easy now. Still, he's much happier and healthier now than before. One's level of willpower is still involved even with how great keto is and is the difference between losing 50 lbs (not bad), 100 lbs (pretty awesome), and 150 lbs (your ideal).
    - 10y ago
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    You'd think that the link between "eating less" and "losing weight" is so well-proven that any subsequent study would re-validate it. Yet there's not a single study where 100% of participants who cut their caloric intake lost weight in 100% of the cases. The reports, at best, are "inconclusive". http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/ http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answ... On a global scale countries low on the obesity scale (Japan, Singapore, Korea, France) are not teeming with starving under-nourished citizens, and countries high on the obesity scale (Mexico, US) are not lacking gyms, exercise equipment, or opportunities for simple nature walks.
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      Being obese and eating less or feeling hungry doesn't mean you're starving or malnourished. That's complete hyperbole. The fact is if you're fat, you've conditioned yourself to eat too many calories, and eating a normal amount of calories will likely leave you feeling hungrier while you adjust.
      - prostoalex 10y ago
        And yet fasting diets do not consistently work, and it's the fattest countries of the world that have supermarket shelves full of low-calorie products (finding a low-calorie yogurt or low-fat cheese in a French supermarket would be a challenge) http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(96)00456-1/abstract http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(96)00456-1/abstract "In the adult US population the prevalence of overweight rose from 25.4% from 1976 to 1980 to 33.3% from 1988 to 1991, a 31% increase. During the same period, average fat intake, adjusted for total calories, dropped from 41.0% to 36.6%, an 11% decrease. Average total daily calorie intake also tended to decrease, from 1,854 kcal to 1,785 kcal (−4%). Men and women had similar trends. Concurrently, there was a dramatic rise in the percentage of the US population consuming low-calorie products, from 19% of the population in 1978 to 76% in 1991. From 1986 to 1991 the prevalence of sedentary lifestyle represented almost 60% of the US population, with no change over time."
- wavefunction 10y ago
  My point is that you can't just tell someone this simple equation and expect them to adopt it due to the elegant rationality of the solution. Somebody who is using food as a coping device has an underlying issue they have to tackle before they can reduce their caloric intake. I mean, you could force folks to eat less, but you really want them eating less because it's healthier for them and that they themselves recognize and embrace that truth so they adopt the healthier habits as their personal culture to re-transmit to family and friends.
revelation 10y ago
I don't understand, the equation doesn't change at all.
- Fricken 10y ago
  When your body is breaking down simple carbohydrates, it causes your blood sugar levels to spike, and during this period you're packing away more fat than you would otherwise. Combined with a sedentary lifestyle it's really bad. It does matter where you're getting your calories from. This is why poor people have greater obesity problems than the rest. Potato Chips, white bread, pasta, and of course sugar feature prominently in their daily calorie intake, these are the cheapest calories you can make a diet out of.
  - revelation 10y ago
    None of that matters, it's like jitter on a clock line. The timespans we are talking (months), these differences vanish. I'm sure there are tons of intricacies in how metabolism works, but glycogen storage in a human is about 2000 kJ. Once your deficit surpasses that (and we'll happily allow a multiple to account for any error here), your body will either consume fat or you'll experience actual low blood sugar and drop dead.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  The point is that there's a whole lot of complexity hiding behind "calories in" and "calories out". The behaviors of eating, the psychology and physiology of feeling full, of being active, exercising, etc are all very complex. The simple equation is hiding immense complexity.

DoodleBuggy 10y ago

Every complexity you posted still comes down to consuming more calories than is needed. The reality is the vast majority of people eat way too much, and the dietary guidelines for caloric intake are far too high for a largely sedentary society.

lucidguppy 10y ago
It's easier to eat fewer calories when the foods you eat are high in water and fiber content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CdwWliv7Hg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CdwWliv7Hg
lacampbell 10y ago
That's one of the things you really have to accept if you want to lose weight - yes you will have to eat less, and yes you will feel hungry a lot.
- montecarl 10y ago
  I do not want to sound like I am arguing with you for the sake of arguing, but I have lost weight and several of my friends and family have lost weight without feeling hungry by switching to a low carb (ketogenic) diet. It was so crazy to eat mostly fatty food and green vegetables and lose weight very quickly. One major thing I noticed was how much longer I was able to go without eating on this diet without feeling hungry. I used to feel very ill if I did not eat at least 3 meals at day. I can now, if I choose, eat a snack in the early afternoon and then eat dinner and feel fine (1.5 meals instead of 3).
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    This matches my experience as well. The transition period (~1.5 weeks, but especially brutal on days 2-5) was rough, but once established, it was the easiest diet to stay on if you could control your environment and mostly cook for yourself or choose where to eat. It is somewhat harder to stay on the diet while traveling, attending conferences, or business meetings. Having a host choose a place to eat, offer you local cuisine, etc makes it harder to stay in keto. Hunger though, was never a problem after the first full week.
    - Jach 10y ago
      Keto is great but there's still a willpower component, it can be more or less difficult depending on the person. I don't really like cooking a lot, but I don't mind eating the same things most of the time. It would be a lot harder for someone who hates cooking and hates eating the same thing all the time. While raw hunger never bothered me I did find cravings an occasional issue (never constant, but even after months never quite disappearing) and sometimes they'd be for things I haven't had in years. Eventually it might be something easy to satisfy like a pizza and when you give in once it's easy to say "screw it", though some people can only continue if they have an occasional cheat day. I'm an on-and-off-again keto dieter (I appreciate that for me it seems to take at least 2-3x as long to put the weight back on as it takes to take off as I inevitably revert to former diet choices...) and I never find the transition period difficult, but there's a consistent point where I hit "eh, still fat, but don't feel super fat anymore" and that's when the cravings or the pressures of eating non-keto with company have the highest chance of getting to me. There are also unforeseen stressors that can make things difficult (in my case a forced house move) but I'm ok with the state of flux. I don't want a six-pack physique enough, not really, and that's the last willpower component -- how long can you stick with it (and introduce more exercise), even with bumps and setbacks? My friend who introduced me to the diet lost 100 lbs by forcing himself to do keto for about 5 months, but he was fat enough at the start that he could stand to lose another 50 lbs but it's not as easy now. Still, he's much happier and healthier now than before. One's level of willpower is still involved even with how great keto is and is the difference between losing 50 lbs (not bad), 100 lbs (pretty awesome), and 150 lbs (your ideal).
  - 10y ago
- prostoalex 10y ago
  You'd think that the link between "eating less" and "losing weight" is so well-proven that any subsequent study would re-validate it. Yet there's not a single study where 100% of participants who cut their caloric intake lost weight in 100% of the cases. The reports, at best, are "inconclusive". http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answer-for-weight-loss/ http://time.com/2809007/eat-less-exercise-more-isnt-the-answ... On a global scale countries low on the obesity scale (Japan, Singapore, Korea, France) are not teeming with starving under-nourished citizens, and countries high on the obesity scale (Mexico, US) are not lacking gyms, exercise equipment, or opportunities for simple nature walks.
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    Being obese and eating less or feeling hungry doesn't mean you're starving or malnourished. That's complete hyperbole. The fact is if you're fat, you've conditioned yourself to eat too many calories, and eating a normal amount of calories will likely leave you feeling hungrier while you adjust.
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      And yet fasting diets do not consistently work, and it's the fattest countries of the world that have supermarket shelves full of low-calorie products (finding a low-calorie yogurt or low-fat cheese in a French supermarket would be a challenge) http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(96)00456-1/abstract http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(96)00456-1/abstract "In the adult US population the prevalence of overweight rose from 25.4% from 1976 to 1980 to 33.3% from 1988 to 1991, a 31% increase. During the same period, average fat intake, adjusted for total calories, dropped from 41.0% to 36.6%, an 11% decrease. Average total daily calorie intake also tended to decrease, from 1,854 kcal to 1,785 kcal (−4%). Men and women had similar trends. Concurrently, there was a dramatic rise in the percentage of the US population consuming low-calorie products, from 19% of the population in 1978 to 76% in 1991. From 1986 to 1991 the prevalence of sedentary lifestyle represented almost 60% of the US population, with no change over time."
wavefunction 10y ago
My point is that you can't just tell someone this simple equation and expect them to adopt it due to the elegant rationality of the solution. Somebody who is using food as a coping device has an underlying issue they have to tackle before they can reduce their caloric intake. I mean, you could force folks to eat less, but you really want them eating less because it's healthier for them and that they themselves recognize and embrace that truth so they adopt the healthier habits as their personal culture to re-transmit to family and friends.

revelation 10y ago

I don't understand, the equation doesn't change at all.

Fricken 10y ago
When your body is breaking down simple carbohydrates, it causes your blood sugar levels to spike, and during this period you're packing away more fat than you would otherwise. Combined with a sedentary lifestyle it's really bad. It does matter where you're getting your calories from. This is why poor people have greater obesity problems than the rest. Potato Chips, white bread, pasta, and of course sugar feature prominently in their daily calorie intake, these are the cheapest calories you can make a diet out of.
- revelation 10y ago
  None of that matters, it's like jitter on a clock line. The timespans we are talking (months), these differences vanish. I'm sure there are tons of intricacies in how metabolism works, but glycogen storage in a human is about 2000 kJ. Once your deficit surpasses that (and we'll happily allow a multiple to account for any error here), your body will either consume fat or you'll experience actual low blood sugar and drop dead.
hackinthebochs 10y ago
The point is that there's a whole lot of complexity hiding behind "calories in" and "calories out". The behaviors of eating, the psychology and physiology of feeling full, of being active, exercising, etc are all very complex. The simple equation is hiding immense complexity.