4 ms·

In this case perfect is the enemy of good. The calorie is not perfect but I don't think there is a perfect measure. Is it good enough for a diet? Yep. Make

by kaiju0 8y ago

In this case perfect is the enemy of good. The calorie is not perfect but I don't think there is a perfect measure. Is it good enough for a diet? Yep. Make a diet plan. Eat for two weeks. Record result. If you are losing 2 lb a week good. If not adjust percentages. You will be hungry. The end.

citeguised 8y ago
Yes! Refinement is the key. Losing weight by counting kcal is a skill which requires practise and consciousness. I need to get to know what kinds of food work for me; how I handle certain situations like sickness or times with travel (anything off routine, really). After quite a long time of doing it, I believe the reason it works for me personally, is that the accountability towards the calorie-app keeps me off chocolate (big candy-bowl at work which I pass multiple times a day). My problem is: As soon as I stop counting, the accountability towards the counting-app is lost, and the junk-food is back on the plate. After several months I'm back to ~95 kg and it's on to counting again (usually triggered by too-tight pants).
chongli 8y ago
That approach has been shown not to work for the vast majority of people. The problem is the "you will be hungry" bit. Scott Alexander blogged about an hypothesis for the obesity crisis that points to high-reward, high-calorie, low-satiety foods as the problem [1]. I find this argument compelling, as it fits well with Paul Graham's compelling thesis that capitalism optimizes for addictiveness [2]. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-brain/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry... [2] http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html
- paulsutter 8y ago
  The Slate Star Codex link is really interesting > In the 1970s, scientists wanted to develop new rat models of obesity. This was harder than it sounded; rats ate only as much as they needed and never got fat... Then, almost by accident, someone tried feeding the rats human snack food, and they ballooned up to be as fat as, well, humans.
- avinium 8y ago
  [1] is fascinating, and gives a much better explanation of my comment above that "it's not as simple as the law of thermodynamics". The endocrinology and psychology of "why do we feel hungry?" and "why do we overeat?" are incredibly important to weight loss. That's not to say that you can't lose weight with caloric restriction - of course you can. But noone in the CICO* crowd can explain why most people struggle with it. It's easy to chalk it up to "weak-minded fatties". The more interesting question is - could we bolster the weak-minded through nutritional adjustment, supplements or fecal transplants? * Calories-in, calories-out
wcarron 8y ago
Disclaimer: opinions incoming. 2lb a week is very aggressive in the long run. That's a 1000 kCal deficit per day. While it may work for some it's not generally regarded as a sustainable target deficit. It may work for a few weeks, but then it can't be maintained and weight rebounds. There are other side effects like constant tiredness, hunger, irritability, trouble sleeping, etc. that easily throw weight loss off the rails. Again, might work for some people; but 1 Lb or 0.5kg per week is what I typically see recommended.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  That's true for people who are only slightly overweight. If you're obese or close to it 2lb / week is easy because the amount you have to eat just to maintain your current weight is ludicrous.
- exolymph 8y ago
  It depends on how much you weigh in the first place. The heavier you are, the more aggressively you can diet. Gotta adjust over time.
- Rapzid 8y ago
  1lb to 2lb a week sounds reasonable to me, particularly when paired with an exercise routine. Taking a year to lose 50lbs seems like a huge motivational issue.. I recall reading about a study over the past couple years that indicated people on crash diets were more likely to hit their goals and not more likely to regain the weight. And that's much more aggressive. IMHO if somebody wants to lose weight, I would recommend they clear it with their doc and get after it with as much(little?) energy as they can muster!

by kaiju0 8y ago

citeguised 8y ago

Yes! Refinement is the key. Losing weight by counting kcal is a skill which requires practise and consciousness. I need to get to know what kinds of food work for me; how I handle certain situations like sickness or times with travel (anything off routine, really). After quite a long time of doing it, I believe the reason it works for me personally, is that the accountability towards the calorie-app keeps me off chocolate (big candy-bowl at work which I pass multiple times a day). My problem is: As soon as I stop counting, the accountability towards the counting-app is lost, and the junk-food is back on the plate. After several months I'm back to ~95 kg and it's on to counting again (usually triggered by too-tight pants).

chongli 8y ago

That approach has been shown not to work for the vast majority of people. The problem is the "you will be hungry" bit. Scott Alexander blogged about an hypothesis for the obesity crisis that points to high-reward, high-calorie, low-satiety foods as the problem [1]. I find this argument compelling, as it fits well with Paul Graham's compelling thesis that capitalism optimizes for addictiveness [2]. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-brain/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry... [2] http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html

paulsutter 8y ago
The Slate Star Codex link is really interesting > In the 1970s, scientists wanted to develop new rat models of obesity. This was harder than it sounded; rats ate only as much as they needed and never got fat... Then, almost by accident, someone tried feeding the rats human snack food, and they ballooned up to be as fat as, well, humans.
avinium 8y ago
[1] is fascinating, and gives a much better explanation of my comment above that "it's not as simple as the law of thermodynamics". The endocrinology and psychology of "why do we feel hungry?" and "why do we overeat?" are incredibly important to weight loss. That's not to say that you can't lose weight with caloric restriction - of course you can. But noone in the CICO* crowd can explain why most people struggle with it. It's easy to chalk it up to "weak-minded fatties". The more interesting question is - could we bolster the weak-minded through nutritional adjustment, supplements or fecal transplants? * Calories-in, calories-out

wcarron 8y ago

Disclaimer: opinions incoming. 2lb a week is very aggressive in the long run. That's a 1000 kCal deficit per day. While it may work for some it's not generally regarded as a sustainable target deficit. It may work for a few weeks, but then it can't be maintained and weight rebounds. There are other side effects like constant tiredness, hunger, irritability, trouble sleeping, etc. that easily throw weight loss off the rails. Again, might work for some people; but 1 Lb or 0.5kg per week is what I typically see recommended.

EpicEng 8y ago
That's true for people who are only slightly overweight. If you're obese or close to it 2lb / week is easy because the amount you have to eat just to maintain your current weight is ludicrous.
exolymph 8y ago
It depends on how much you weigh in the first place. The heavier you are, the more aggressively you can diet. Gotta adjust over time.
Rapzid 8y ago
1lb to 2lb a week sounds reasonable to me, particularly when paired with an exercise routine. Taking a year to lose 50lbs seems like a huge motivational issue.. I recall reading about a study over the past couple years that indicated people on crash diets were more likely to hit their goals and not more likely to regain the weight. And that's much more aggressive. IMHO if somebody wants to lose weight, I would recommend they clear it with their doc and get after it with as much(little?) energy as they can muster!