5 ms·

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 sayi

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.

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.