9 ms·

I think a seriously overlooked application of this principle is in nutrition and dieting. Over- or under- eating by a small percentage of your required intake m

I think a seriously overlooked application of this principle is in nutrition and dieting. Over- or under- eating by a small percentage of your required intake might not have a discernible effect immediately but really adds up over time, both for weight loss and gain.

jmmcd 7y ago
But that's not compounding in the sense of compound interest.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  Sure it is, if you think about how much harder it is to run at 225 pounds vs at 200 pounds.
  - jmmcd 7y ago
    Yeah, it's easier to run, but nah, because diminishing returns.
collyw 7y ago
I am pretty sure that only applies to certain people. I stay fairly skinny no matter what, though I do move about a lot.
- greyhair 7y ago
  How old are you? My father was thin until he turned 27. He was never huge, but at 27 he was 170lbs (6'2") and at his peak, around age 65, he was a little over 200. He warned me about that. At 27, I was also 170 lbs (6'2") (I am nearly a clone of my dad), and then slowly gained weight. I briefly ballooned to 215 around age 31, but hammered that back down to 185, but since then it has slowly climbed to 200 (at age 60). I am back down to 196. In my early twenties I could eat a large 'special' pizza by myself in about 45 minutes. Metabolism changes with age. I dearly miss being able to eat anything I wanted at any time with no consequences.
  - larrywright 7y ago
    When I was in my mid-20s I could also eat anything I wanted, and a big challenge for me was finding pants that were long enough (36” inseam) but also had a narrow enough waist. This was pre-internet, so the options were limited (I discovered early that Big & Tall stores required you to be both). Fast-forward 20-ish years, and I’m still just as tall but I don’t have any problem finding pants that fit me. Sigh.
  - growlist 7y ago
    Start lifting :)
  - collyw 7y ago
    45 now.
- rbavocadotree 7y ago
  Nonsense. Eat 4000 calories a day, every day, and lift heavy weights. You will quickly gain lots of weight.
  - jriot 7y ago
    Confirm. Went from 165 lbs running 55km races to 235 lbs with a 1,405 lbs powerlifting total in 5 years. I started this month to reverse the process, going to run a 50 miler next time this year.
  - collyw 7y ago
    So that would be close to double what I usually eat. I doubt I would find that easy, and it would probably involve lots of unhealthy crap.
- ahaferburg 7y ago
  I think the same applies principles apply as with bigger people saying they can't lose weight. You need to change your habits, and that is hard. https://thefitness.wiki/faq/why-cant-i-gain-weight/ https://thefitness.wiki/faq/why-cant-i-gain-weight/
glastra 7y ago
Adaptive thermogenesis says otherwise.
cko 7y ago
You’re talking addition and subtraction, compounding deals with multiplication.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  To reap the benefits of compound interest (in your favor), you need to stick to a plan. You can't dump your investment portfolio after 5 years. It's these small, daily decisions that add up over time. So while the output is multiplicative, the necessary input is only linear.
  - BoiledCabbage 7y ago
    Yes but the linear input is not the relevant part. The compounding is.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
      If you had to put in compounding effort, the compounding output would seem far less intriguing or worthwhile. If investment returns weren't exponential, or required exponential input to receive exponential output, it'd be far less useful of a concept.
- isoskeles 7y ago
  Multiplication is just a specific form of addition operations and is easily writable as such.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  The word 'add' is overloaded for both mathematical and non-mathematical purposes.
glofish 7y ago
It is not how it works at all. The fallacy here is that a human body is a machine with well-defined intake and output. How would one even know what is "exactly" the right amount? Over a year we consume 1 million calories. If one were just 0.1% off of systematically eating more (or less) than required then according to your model one would end up being 200 pounds fatter or 200 pounds leaner ... do you think that anyone can regulate up to 0.1% accuracy to what they actually need? eating a little more or less has absolutely not discernible effect the body adapts to it.
- JoshuaDavid 7y ago
  0.1% of 1 million calories is 1000 calories, which corresponds to about 0.3 pounds. If someone gains or loses 10 pounds in a year, that means they were around 35000 calories away from equilibrium throughout the year, which is more like 3-5%. So a 5% calorie deficit or surplus would have a fairly small effect during a single year, but over a decade or a lifetime the effect is huge.
  - glofish 7y ago
    oops, I sure got my digits wrong
- monadgonad 7y ago
  It is exactly how it works, and you're taking "a small percentage" to a ridiculous degree to fallaciously disprove it. Try eating 10% more or less than what you need each day, not 0.1%.
- NightlyDev 7y ago
  1 billion* 2 - 2.5 million calories a day is normal for people with a normal level of physical activity.
  - ac29 7y ago
    In the US, we tend to use food calories, where 1 Calorie == 1 kilocalorie. The capitalization of Calorie is intended to show the difference in units, but in most written language, often isn't used.

jmmcd 7y ago

But that's not compounding in the sense of compound interest.

loco5niner 7y ago
Sure it is, if you think about how much harder it is to run at 225 pounds vs at 200 pounds.
- jmmcd 7y ago
  Yeah, it's easier to run, but nah, because diminishing returns.

collyw 7y ago

I am pretty sure that only applies to certain people. I stay fairly skinny no matter what, though I do move about a lot.

greyhair 7y ago
How old are you? My father was thin until he turned 27. He was never huge, but at 27 he was 170lbs (6'2") and at his peak, around age 65, he was a little over 200. He warned me about that. At 27, I was also 170 lbs (6'2") (I am nearly a clone of my dad), and then slowly gained weight. I briefly ballooned to 215 around age 31, but hammered that back down to 185, but since then it has slowly climbed to 200 (at age 60). I am back down to 196. In my early twenties I could eat a large 'special' pizza by myself in about 45 minutes. Metabolism changes with age. I dearly miss being able to eat anything I wanted at any time with no consequences.
- larrywright 7y ago
  When I was in my mid-20s I could also eat anything I wanted, and a big challenge for me was finding pants that were long enough (36” inseam) but also had a narrow enough waist. This was pre-internet, so the options were limited (I discovered early that Big & Tall stores required you to be both). Fast-forward 20-ish years, and I’m still just as tall but I don’t have any problem finding pants that fit me. Sigh.
- growlist 7y ago
  Start lifting :)
- collyw 7y ago
  45 now.
rbavocadotree 7y ago
Nonsense. Eat 4000 calories a day, every day, and lift heavy weights. You will quickly gain lots of weight.
- jriot 7y ago
  Confirm. Went from 165 lbs running 55km races to 235 lbs with a 1,405 lbs powerlifting total in 5 years. I started this month to reverse the process, going to run a 50 miler next time this year.
- collyw 7y ago
  So that would be close to double what I usually eat. I doubt I would find that easy, and it would probably involve lots of unhealthy crap.
ahaferburg 7y ago
I think the same applies principles apply as with bigger people saying they can't lose weight. You need to change your habits, and that is hard. https://thefitness.wiki/faq/why-cant-i-gain-weight/ https://thefitness.wiki/faq/why-cant-i-gain-weight/

glastra 7y ago

Adaptive thermogenesis says otherwise.

cko 7y ago

You’re talking addition and subtraction, compounding deals with multiplication.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
To reap the benefits of compound interest (in your favor), you need to stick to a plan. You can't dump your investment portfolio after 5 years. It's these small, daily decisions that add up over time. So while the output is multiplicative, the necessary input is only linear.
- BoiledCabbage 7y ago
  Yes but the linear input is not the relevant part. The compounding is.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    If you had to put in compounding effort, the compounding output would seem far less intriguing or worthwhile. If investment returns weren't exponential, or required exponential input to receive exponential output, it'd be far less useful of a concept.
isoskeles 7y ago
Multiplication is just a specific form of addition operations and is easily writable as such.
loco5niner 7y ago
The word 'add' is overloaded for both mathematical and non-mathematical purposes.

glofish 7y ago

It is not how it works at all. The fallacy here is that a human body is a machine with well-defined intake and output. How would one even know what is "exactly" the right amount? Over a year we consume 1 million calories. If one were just 0.1% off of systematically eating more (or less) than required then according to your model one would end up being 200 pounds fatter or 200 pounds leaner ... do you think that anyone can regulate up to 0.1% accuracy to what they actually need? eating a little more or less has absolutely not discernible effect the body adapts to it.

JoshuaDavid 7y ago
0.1% of 1 million calories is 1000 calories, which corresponds to about 0.3 pounds. If someone gains or loses 10 pounds in a year, that means they were around 35000 calories away from equilibrium throughout the year, which is more like 3-5%. So a 5% calorie deficit or surplus would have a fairly small effect during a single year, but over a decade or a lifetime the effect is huge.
- glofish 7y ago
  oops, I sure got my digits wrong
monadgonad 7y ago
It is exactly how it works, and you're taking "a small percentage" to a ridiculous degree to fallaciously disprove it. Try eating 10% more or less than what you need each day, not 0.1%.
NightlyDev 7y ago
1 billion* 2 - 2.5 million calories a day is normal for people with a normal level of physical activity.
- ac29 7y ago
  In the US, we tend to use food calories, where 1 Calorie == 1 kilocalorie. The capitalization of Calorie is intended to show the difference in units, but in most written language, often isn't used.