6 ms·
I’m not sure this is true. As you ramp down eg carbs you ramp up protein and fat, sometimes significantly. It’s not clear that a caloric deficit is the reason y
by kareemm 7y ago
I’m not sure this is true. As you ramp down eg carbs you ramp up protein and fat, sometimes significantly. It’s not clear that a caloric deficit is the reason you’re losing weight.
- phkahler 7y agoThere are a lot of people, especially on HN, that think delta_weight = calories_in - calories_burned is all there is to it. There is a lot of truth in that, but it seems to not be the whole story. Some eating habits cause us to eat more or less, while others seem to change our metabolism. What you eat and when you eat it seem to make a difference beyond just that simple equation.
- anthonypasq 7y ago> What you eat and when you eat it seem to make a difference beyond just that simple equation. evidence?
- Yeehaw789 7y agoGoogle epigenetics
- naasking 7y agoIt doesn't change the fundamental principles though. Meal timing and composition can affect how your body burns those calories (resting metabolic rate, thermic effect of food, etc.), but they're relatively minor effects overall. At best, meal composition and timing can improve adherence, and that's a very important factor.
- jjeaff 7y agoMinor effects that can have drastic effects over the long term. I have seen plenty of people wax about how metabolic variation in healthy people is only a few percentages. Well 2% is a HUGE difference. That means if two people eat exactly the same diet and same level of activity, assuming a 2000 calorie daily intake, the person with a 2% slower metabolism is going to be 40 lbs heavier over a 10 year period.
- naasking 7y agoMetabolic rate is not static. That 2% difference would not persist beyond a short time frame. Both bodies would down regulate metabolism to roughly the same levels given the same caloric deficit over time. One might change faster than the other, but the differences aren't as significant over longer time frames as you imply.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoA human body obeys thermodynamics.
- Yeehaw789 7y agoTrue. As well as when and what foods you eat may change your metabolism.
- rhinoceraptor 7y agoTo paraphrase Peter Attia, this is akin to answering the question, "Why is Bill Gates so rich?" with, "Because he gained more money than he spent". What we really care about is why people are eating more than they expend, and how we can get people to lose weight and maintain a healthy weight unconsciously.
- leshow 7y agoExcept in this case you can actually control how much money you get.
- gamblor956 7y agoFor the human body, chemistry matters more than thermodynamics... For example, diet soda has no calories, but has biochemical interactions that mimic those of regular soda, resulting in the trigger of hormones like insulin that trigger the body to store fat. Even worse, other biochemical reactions can kill the good gut flora lower down in your digestive system. Based on some studies, you're arguably better off just drinking regular soda despite the calories.
- Yeehaw789 7y agoHow is this downvoted? There is nothing even slightly controversial in that statement.
- logfromblammo 7y agoThat "delta_weight = calories_in - calories_burned" expression is absolutely technically correct--the best kind of correct. But... Some forget that calories_in is the output of a function with multiple input variables, and calories_burned is also the output of a function with multiple input variables, plus whatever your wrist-worn fitness monitor says you burned directly through exercise. If you stand in the freezing cold for 15 minutes, and then go back inside, and you still have some brown fat left after infancy, it will add to calories_burned for a little while. If you are insulin resistant, and you cut carbs out of your diet for a while, that will tend to deduct from calories_in, because the foods you are now eating impact your competing appetite and satiety functions differently, such that satiety is winning more often now. If you exercise vigorously, your calories_burned rises by when you burned directly, but you will also increase metabolism for a few hours afterward, and the fitness monitor won't tell you that, but it will also boost your appetite function, and your food scale might catch that.
- fredophile 7y agoIt really is just calories_in - calories_burned. If you change your eating habits and now eat less you have reduced calories_in. If you changed your eating habits and it boosted your metabolism you've increased calories_burned.
- jjeaff 7y agoCalories in minus calories burned minus calories passed through without metabolizing at all.
- snazz 7y agoHow significant is that unmetabolized calorie count in an average 2,000 calorie diet?
- gamblor956 7y agoDepends on your diet. For example, fiber is an un-digestible carb (to a human). If you eat a lot of veggies, wheat, or whole grains, you get a lot of fiber.
- fredophile 7y agoI used calories_burned because that's what the post I replied to used. calories_out would be more accurate and include undigested calories.
- phkahler 7y agoSure, but what if the increased metabolism has the same calorie intake as prior to the change? In that case "just eat less" is not what leads to weight loss, its "eat the right things". Ditto for the other changes that make one less hungry.
- fredophile 7y agoNeither my comment, nor your comment that I replied to, mentioned "just eat less". Your comment said that calories in minus calories out doesn't work. It does.
- homonculus1 7y ago>Some eating habits cause us to eat more or less, while others seem to change our metabolism. In other words, "calories in" and "calories burned".
- anthonypasq 7y ago> It’s not clear that a caloric deficit is the reason you’re losing weight. umm what... That is the only way to lose lean body mass. You should be thinking "its not clear that removing carbs is reason you're losing weight." Your bayesian priors are completely backwards. The reality is that protein and fat are more satiating so people eat less and lose weight when they cut out carbs.
- kareemm 7y agoCICO is too simple a model. Satiety is a factor but it’s facile to say fat satiates more so you eat fewer calories. If I understand it correctly that’s not how leptin works (satiety hormone). It doesn’t trigger at eg 500 calories regardless of which macro you ate. In reality it’s more nuanced: “It is true that fat has more calories than carbohydrates, including sugar. But by that logic, a sugary beverage is better for you than a handful of nuts. That’s just not what the unbiased studies have shown. Looking only at calories ignores the metabolic effects of each calorie; the source of the calorie changes how you digest it and how you retrieve energy from it.” From https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-sugar-coating-it-all-calories-are-not-created-equal-2016110410602 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-sugar-coating-...
- leshow 7y agoI wouldnt claim that fat satiation causes someone to eat fewer calories either. But I disagree that the quote you presented somehow claims that a person can lose weight while not being in a deficit. It's physically impossible. That doesn't mean other processes aren't going on, or that you shouldn't consider other things like macronutrients and micronutrients when trying to construct a "healthy" diet.
- gamblor956 7y agoIt's definitely possible to lose weight without being in a deficit of calories. For example, insufficient protein (or protein precursors like amino acids) can cause the breakdown of muscle, which is denser and weighs more than fat. You'd have to have a sizable excess of calories to have the fat storage to cancel out the loss of muscle mass.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vorpalhex 7y agoAll weight loss is due to caloric deficit in the end. There's no magic from eating fat/protein/carbs. It does happen in the US that most of our carb heavy food is also very calorie dense and doesn't give us a lot of satiety, so by targeting low carb it's easier to be in a calorie deficit (which is why I do low carb).
- sorenn111 7y agoThis statement neglects the role that hormones and other bodily functions play in homeostasis. Calorie-in calorie-out has not really stood the test of time/testing. The body can save calories in a number of weird ways when it needs to
- vorpalhex 7y agoI'd love to see some research supporting that statement because caloric restriction has been consistently upheld by longitudinal analysis and meta-analysis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31303390 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31303390
- leshow 7y agoJust because overall energy balance will determine whether you're generally losing or gaining weight doesn't mean hormones aren't important, or that macro/micros aren't also important. I'm not sure what you're basing the fact that energy balance hasn't "stood the test of time". It's been well researched for decades.
- gamblor956 7y agoAll weight loss is due to caloric deficit in the end. Not true. It's possible to lose different types of weight (i.e., muscle or bone) due to the body's inability to repair such tissue in the absence of proper diet sources. For example, if you drink 2000 calories/day as your only food source, you will lose bone mass and muscle mass over time, and the fat stored by your body (if any) will weigh less than the bone or muscle mass lost. There's no magic from eating fat/protein/carbs. Fat, carbs, and protein all have different roles in the body. Luckily, our diets generally get enough of all 3 that it's not that much of an issue...but lots of research shows that having the optimal balance of FPC for your current body condition and activity results can drastically affect performance, sleep, behavior, etc.