4 ms·

It's analogous to weight-loss arguments. It is true that calories = calories-in - calories-out. It cannot not be true. It just isn't helpful.

hector_vasquez 7y ago
How are you defining a "calorie"? The number printed on the package? Because that number is basically meaningless.
- solveit 7y ago
  That number happens to be remarkably accurate. More accurate than required by law in fact. It also happens to accurately predict changes in a person's weight if you know everything they're eating.
  - V-2 7y ago
    While it certainly differs from country to country, FDA allows a discrepancy of 20%. That's significant. There have been studies that showed the labels to be off by 25%. And even if the numbers were accurate, they're still rule-of-thumbish, because human metabolism doesn't simply ingest all energy available in a food. For instance you'd absorb roughly 40% more calories from peanut butter than from actual peanuts (of the same calorical value). There are more reasons why counting calories isn't nearly as accurate a method as people tend to assume, but these two are really sufficient.
  - was8309 7y ago
    Isn't the low carb argument that for proteins more is passed and don't need to be burnt off, but for carbs almost all calories must be burnt off? How many calories do I take in and therefore must burn off thru exercise if I swallow a penny?
    - solveit 7y ago
      I think the low carb argument is that processed carbs mess with your blood sugar levels, making you hungrier, but the discourse around nutrition is messed up enough that there are many low carb arguments, some of them mutually contradictory. As for your penny, zero, unless I'm greatly mistaken, which is why pennies don't come with nutritional labels.
      - narag 7y ago
        THE low carb argument is ketosis. That's not even controversial. If you look it up on Wikipedia, it's described in a very aseptic way, it just a basic fact of metabolism. If you look at low carbs diets articles instead, a cloud of disinformation appears.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - war1025 7y ago
    A question I've had that I never really looked into or found an answer to: How does calories in vs calories out work regarding the energy left in food that is not extracted (i.e. the caloric value of poop basically). Is digestion / energy extraction pretty consistent throughout the population or do the specifics of people's digestive systems play a role in how many calories are actually available to the body? Basically, would a constipated person's digestive tract pull more energy out of the food since it is in the intestines longer?
jimktrains2 7y ago
That phrase is usually used to remind people that eating less is as if not more important than exercising to lose weight. It takes a lot of effort to burn a Calorie and next to no effort to consume one.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Aka “you can’t outrun the fork.”
  - viridian 7y ago
    A common joke on weightlifting and bodybuilding forums when someone asks how to get shredded abs to to tell them to add 'fork-putdowns x F' to their routine. x F is the format used to mean "repeat until failure", and it's funny because it really is the best way to get all of the fat off your midsection so your abs are visible.
jlawson 7y ago
I found it helpful. In a world where a million distracting influences are promising cheats, shortcuts, and easy ways to get to the goal, a single true statement to focus attention and wipe away the bullshit is incredibly useful.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Sugar and insulin response are critical to weight loss. The more overweight, the more you're insulin resistant, the harder it is to actually lose weight. Once you hit metabolic syndrome you've got a big problem on your hands. The CI-CO model is not sufficient to model weight loss effectively. Especially since with caloric restriction your BMR slows down to match your reduced intake (which doesn't happen with fasting, FWIW). tl;dr: The only time CI-CO is truly accurate is when CI=0.
  - jlawson 7y ago
    CI doesn't have to be 0. That's total nonsense. You think if you eat one grape per day suddenly you won't lose weight, or something? Who said anything about 0? CI-CO is accurate if CI<CO. There is absolutely no way it cannot be. This doesn't depend on any kind of reasoning about biology or insulin or hormones at all. It's the law of conservation of energy. That's the beauty of it. It always works. If CO<CI, you will lose weight. There has never been an exception to this in the history of life, and there never will be. Even fasting, which you mentioned, only works as a means to an end. And that end is CI<CO. Research shows that the actual timing of fasts is irrelevant; the same calories eaten in 6 hours per day have the same effect if eaten over 16 hours of the day. But when people fast they tend to eat less overall; it's all that matters. So many people try to follow your path, and figure out a way to manipulate complex metabolic systems they don't understand to try to wheedle the body into dropping pounds. It works only rarity, and 98% of people on this path are just deluding themselves to avoid facing the fact that they need to get CI down under CO. So they take refuge in complexity, endlessly finding ways to rationalize away the need to do the actual work.
  - esyir 7y ago
    That's an extreme overgeneralization that's wrong in just the right places to be misleading. While there is a reduction in energy expenditure associated with the reduction of caloric intake, it is not equivalent to the reduction in caloric intake. For instance, in a study of obese women, a reduction of (4.3 +-(4.6) kcal/kg) was observed in a calorie restriction diet of 20kcal/kg Similarly, in a different study, a 30% calorie intake reduction was linked to only about a 5% reduction in total energy expenditure. CI-CO is not a perfect model, in that it doesn't perfectly estimate weight loss rates, but the general concept holds true. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/85/1/73/4649429 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/85/1/73/4649429

hector_vasquez 7y ago

How are you defining a "calorie"? The number printed on the package? Because that number is basically meaningless.

solveit 7y ago
That number happens to be remarkably accurate. More accurate than required by law in fact. It also happens to accurately predict changes in a person's weight if you know everything they're eating.
- V-2 7y ago
  While it certainly differs from country to country, FDA allows a discrepancy of 20%. That's significant. There have been studies that showed the labels to be off by 25%. And even if the numbers were accurate, they're still rule-of-thumbish, because human metabolism doesn't simply ingest all energy available in a food. For instance you'd absorb roughly 40% more calories from peanut butter than from actual peanuts (of the same calorical value). There are more reasons why counting calories isn't nearly as accurate a method as people tend to assume, but these two are really sufficient.
- was8309 7y ago
  Isn't the low carb argument that for proteins more is passed and don't need to be burnt off, but for carbs almost all calories must be burnt off? How many calories do I take in and therefore must burn off thru exercise if I swallow a penny?
  - solveit 7y ago
    I think the low carb argument is that processed carbs mess with your blood sugar levels, making you hungrier, but the discourse around nutrition is messed up enough that there are many low carb arguments, some of them mutually contradictory. As for your penny, zero, unless I'm greatly mistaken, which is why pennies don't come with nutritional labels.
    - narag 7y ago
      THE low carb argument is ketosis. That's not even controversial. If you look it up on Wikipedia, it's described in a very aseptic way, it just a basic fact of metabolism. If you look at low carbs diets articles instead, a cloud of disinformation appears.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- war1025 7y ago
  A question I've had that I never really looked into or found an answer to: How does calories in vs calories out work regarding the energy left in food that is not extracted (i.e. the caloric value of poop basically). Is digestion / energy extraction pretty consistent throughout the population or do the specifics of people's digestive systems play a role in how many calories are actually available to the body? Basically, would a constipated person's digestive tract pull more energy out of the food since it is in the intestines longer?

jimktrains2 7y ago

That phrase is usually used to remind people that eating less is as if not more important than exercising to lose weight. It takes a lot of effort to burn a Calorie and next to no effort to consume one.

sokoloff 7y ago
Aka “you can’t outrun the fork.”
- viridian 7y ago
  A common joke on weightlifting and bodybuilding forums when someone asks how to get shredded abs to to tell them to add 'fork-putdowns x F' to their routine. x F is the format used to mean "repeat until failure", and it's funny because it really is the best way to get all of the fat off your midsection so your abs are visible.

jlawson 7y ago

I found it helpful. In a world where a million distracting influences are promising cheats, shortcuts, and easy ways to get to the goal, a single true statement to focus attention and wipe away the bullshit is incredibly useful.

arcticbull 7y ago
Sugar and insulin response are critical to weight loss. The more overweight, the more you're insulin resistant, the harder it is to actually lose weight. Once you hit metabolic syndrome you've got a big problem on your hands. The CI-CO model is not sufficient to model weight loss effectively. Especially since with caloric restriction your BMR slows down to match your reduced intake (which doesn't happen with fasting, FWIW). tl;dr: The only time CI-CO is truly accurate is when CI=0.
- jlawson 7y ago
  CI doesn't have to be 0. That's total nonsense. You think if you eat one grape per day suddenly you won't lose weight, or something? Who said anything about 0? CI-CO is accurate if CI<CO. There is absolutely no way it cannot be. This doesn't depend on any kind of reasoning about biology or insulin or hormones at all. It's the law of conservation of energy. That's the beauty of it. It always works. If CO<CI, you will lose weight. There has never been an exception to this in the history of life, and there never will be. Even fasting, which you mentioned, only works as a means to an end. And that end is CI<CO. Research shows that the actual timing of fasts is irrelevant; the same calories eaten in 6 hours per day have the same effect if eaten over 16 hours of the day. But when people fast they tend to eat less overall; it's all that matters. So many people try to follow your path, and figure out a way to manipulate complex metabolic systems they don't understand to try to wheedle the body into dropping pounds. It works only rarity, and 98% of people on this path are just deluding themselves to avoid facing the fact that they need to get CI down under CO. So they take refuge in complexity, endlessly finding ways to rationalize away the need to do the actual work.
- esyir 7y ago
  That's an extreme overgeneralization that's wrong in just the right places to be misleading. While there is a reduction in energy expenditure associated with the reduction of caloric intake, it is not equivalent to the reduction in caloric intake. For instance, in a study of obese women, a reduction of (4.3 +-(4.6) kcal/kg) was observed in a calorie restriction diet of 20kcal/kg Similarly, in a different study, a 30% calorie intake reduction was linked to only about a 5% reduction in total energy expenditure. CI-CO is not a perfect model, in that it doesn't perfectly estimate weight loss rates, but the general concept holds true. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/85/1/73/4649429 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/85/1/73/4649429