3 ms·

I didn't see anything in the article that showed that people lost weight without eating less then they burn. This is still as far as I know the only way to lose

I didn't see anything in the article that showed that people lost weight without eating less then they burn. This is still as far as I know the only way to lose weight. What's stated in the article is that different people seem to manage to maintain doing so for longer with different strategies. They give as example people who are motivated enough to work through multiple plans and stratetegies over many years and continue to do so even when the weight loss is slow. It makes me conclude that to sustain weight loss you simply need to be very motivated, have good discispline and great patience. It seems they adapted strategies based on people's motivation. The girl who found logging all her meals too tedious instead adopted a more exercise strategy, etc. Nothing seems related to identifying which nutrients or foods are better processed, etc, for each individual. I'm sure there could be genetic, social, or chemical related causes to obesity, but I'm not seeing this article say that we identified any of those. It seems to all be about simply getting your act together and sticking with it. I suspect most people who gain back the weight lost do not do so while maintening the diet they used to lose it. The article makes it sound like so, but doesn't actually says so.

danaliv 9y ago
I think the problem with the "calories in < calories out" idea is that while it's not necessarily untrue, it's too simplistic to be useful. It's a bit like saying, well, if you'd just stop putting cocaine up your nose, you wouldn't be a drug addict anymore.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  And it also ignores the very difficult problem of counting "calories out". There are so many factors that affect calories out.
  - credit_guy 9y ago
    It's also very difficult to count "calories in". Pop quiz question: how many calories are there in a gram of fiber? If you answered zero, you are wrong. The correct answer is "nobody knows". Check the wikipedia article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber "In some countries fiber is not listed on nutrition labels and is considered to provide no energy. In other countries all fiber must be listed and is simplistically considered to provide 17 kJ/g (4.1 kcal/g) (because chemically fiber is a type of carbohydrate and other carbohydrates provide that amount of energy). In the US, soluble fiber must be counted as 4 kcal/g (17 kJ/g), but insoluble fiber may be (and usually is) treated as not providing energy and not mentioned on the label."
  - gaius 9y ago
    The ONLY reliable way to count calories out is to wear a mask that measures carbon dioxide exhaled - this is what you see them doing in labs with a volunteer on a treadmill or stationary bike hooked up to what looks like breathing apparatus. This obviously isn't practical for every day use but the data has been used to approximate calories out correlated with heart rate if body weight is known - several sports watches such as Suunto use this approach.
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      You also need to collect all sweat, urine, and feces and figure out a way to exactly measure the undigested calories found in it. So I would say the mask method is the BEST way, but not necessarily accurate.
- didibus 9y ago
  I agree in the sense that it might not be sustainable for someone to forever keep track of their calories. It's also challenging in the sense that while you could max out your daily calories from eating only cake, it wouldn't really give you enough nutrients to be sustainable. So I tend also to favor something that teaches people long lasting lifestyle changes and habits rewiring instead. This will be personal and different for everyone. Many lifestyle can work, and each can choose their own. But nothing is novel about this. The article hints at something novel, of the sort that if you changed your gut microbiome you might suddenly lose weight even if you keep eating the same way, because the body would metabolise differently. Or that each person has foods that make them fat, and if you identify what they are and cut them out, you can eat an infinite amount of the rest and you won't get fat. This would be really novel, but I failed to see proof of this in the article.
JoshMnem 9y ago
> I didn't see anything in the article that showed that people lost weight without eating less then they burn. This is still as far as I know the only way to lose weight. It isn't just calories in, calories out. There are other ways to lose weight that suggest there are other things at work. - https://www.sciencealert.com/human-trials-will-test-freeze-dried-poop-pills-as-a-weight-loss-treatment https://www.sciencealert.com/human-trials-will-test-freeze-d... - http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/health/fecal-bacteria-obesity/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/health/fecal-bacteria-obesity/
- didibus 9y ago
  It will be interesting to see the result of those studies, and I hope it turns out true, and a pill is all we will need in the future to allow ourselves to eat what we want while not gaining weight. But for now, there's no proof this is true, and it could turn out that it's diet which changes the gut. I'll be patient on this one though.
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    I'm generally skeptical about instant pill solutions. Food is fuel, not a recreational drug. If you don't eat the right fuel, there will be problems, even if you don't gain weight. I don't think that there is a way around that.
JoshMnem 9y ago
Here's another related article: http://www.sciencealert.com/gastric-bypass-surgery-gives-patients-a-new-set-of-helpful-microbes http://www.sciencealert.com/gastric-bypass-surgery-gives-pat... This is exactly what I'm trying to do with my diet experiments, though for general health, not just weight loss: "a future step for researchers could be to identify probiotics or diets that encourage the right kinds of microbes to grow to promote weight loss."

danaliv 9y ago

I think the problem with the "calories in < calories out" idea is that while it's not necessarily untrue, it's too simplistic to be useful. It's a bit like saying, well, if you'd just stop putting cocaine up your nose, you wouldn't be a drug addict anymore.

jjeaff 9y ago
And it also ignores the very difficult problem of counting "calories out". There are so many factors that affect calories out.
- credit_guy 9y ago
  It's also very difficult to count "calories in". Pop quiz question: how many calories are there in a gram of fiber? If you answered zero, you are wrong. The correct answer is "nobody knows". Check the wikipedia article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber "In some countries fiber is not listed on nutrition labels and is considered to provide no energy. In other countries all fiber must be listed and is simplistically considered to provide 17 kJ/g (4.1 kcal/g) (because chemically fiber is a type of carbohydrate and other carbohydrates provide that amount of energy). In the US, soluble fiber must be counted as 4 kcal/g (17 kJ/g), but insoluble fiber may be (and usually is) treated as not providing energy and not mentioned on the label."
- gaius 9y ago
  The ONLY reliable way to count calories out is to wear a mask that measures carbon dioxide exhaled - this is what you see them doing in labs with a volunteer on a treadmill or stationary bike hooked up to what looks like breathing apparatus. This obviously isn't practical for every day use but the data has been used to approximate calories out correlated with heart rate if body weight is known - several sports watches such as Suunto use this approach.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    You also need to collect all sweat, urine, and feces and figure out a way to exactly measure the undigested calories found in it. So I would say the mask method is the BEST way, but not necessarily accurate.
didibus 9y ago
I agree in the sense that it might not be sustainable for someone to forever keep track of their calories. It's also challenging in the sense that while you could max out your daily calories from eating only cake, it wouldn't really give you enough nutrients to be sustainable. So I tend also to favor something that teaches people long lasting lifestyle changes and habits rewiring instead. This will be personal and different for everyone. Many lifestyle can work, and each can choose their own. But nothing is novel about this. The article hints at something novel, of the sort that if you changed your gut microbiome you might suddenly lose weight even if you keep eating the same way, because the body would metabolise differently. Or that each person has foods that make them fat, and if you identify what they are and cut them out, you can eat an infinite amount of the rest and you won't get fat. This would be really novel, but I failed to see proof of this in the article.

JoshMnem 9y ago

> I didn't see anything in the article that showed that people lost weight without eating less then they burn. This is still as far as I know the only way to lose weight. It isn't just calories in, calories out. There are other ways to lose weight that suggest there are other things at work. - https://www.sciencealert.com/human-trials-will-test-freeze-dried-poop-pills-as-a-weight-loss-treatment https://www.sciencealert.com/human-trials-will-test-freeze-d... - http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/health/fecal-bacteria-obesity/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/health/fecal-bacteria-obesity/

didibus 9y ago
It will be interesting to see the result of those studies, and I hope it turns out true, and a pill is all we will need in the future to allow ourselves to eat what we want while not gaining weight. But for now, there's no proof this is true, and it could turn out that it's diet which changes the gut. I'll be patient on this one though.
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  I'm generally skeptical about instant pill solutions. Food is fuel, not a recreational drug. If you don't eat the right fuel, there will be problems, even if you don't gain weight. I don't think that there is a way around that.

JoshMnem 9y ago

Here's another related article: http://www.sciencealert.com/gastric-bypass-surgery-gives-patients-a-new-set-of-helpful-microbes http://www.sciencealert.com/gastric-bypass-surgery-gives-pat... This is exactly what I'm trying to do with my diet experiments, though for general health, not just weight loss: "a future step for researchers could be to identify probiotics or diets that encourage the right kinds of microbes to grow to promote weight loss."