4 ms·

Proponents of alt-truth theories misunderstand the claim ;-) Yes, we can talk about the thermic effect of food, about how absorption of food differs depending

Proponents of alt-truth theories misunderstand the claim ;-) Yes, we can talk about the thermic effect of food, about how absorption of food differs depending on quality of food, stress, gut health, etc, but on average the effect was measured and is ... negligible. There’s also another misunderstanding ... just because calories are what matters in weight loss or weight gain, it does not follow that counting calories is the best strategy for achieving your goals. It’s a logical fallacy basically, used by alt-truth proponents as evidence that the theory is unsound. For all practical purposes however a calorie is a calorie.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Yeah, I find the "calories in equals calories out" argument stupid not because it's wrong (it's basically the first law of thermodynamics), but because it's relatively useless, and because its proponents usually use it to imply stuff that isn't true. For example, "calories in" and "calories out" are not independent variables. A reduction of calories in will normally result in the body lowering metabolic rate, resulting in a reduction of calories out. Similarly, humans aren't robots. Any "solution" that basically tells people to ignore their hunger, one of the body's most basic physiological responses, is not a viable society-wide solution.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Any "solution" that basically tells people to ignore their hunger, one of the body's most basic physiological responses, is not a viable society-wide solution. But people have lost track of what hunger is! They tell you they're hungry but really they're bored / depressed / just used to eating constantly even when not actually hungry. They need to ignore being bored, which they think of as 'hunger' so you need to tell them to ignore their 'hunger' for them to understand.
  - nmfisher 6y ago
    > But people have lost track of what hunger is! This is exactly right, and also why I highly encourage people to experiment with fasting (for at least 24 hours) to reset your baseline for what real hunger actually feels like. What we normally associate with "hunger" is actually a hormonal response from the body's release of ghrelin. It's not real hunger. You're not going to die if you don't eat. Moreover, we also experience "boredom" hunger, which isn't even a hormonal response, it's simply a mental addiction to the feeling of something tasty in your mouth. It's absurd that we've conditioned society to believe that stuffing our faces with food upwards of three times a day is "normal". It's not. That's why obesity rates are through the roof and CVD is the number one killer. That being said, I'm doubtful that telling the average person this will have any effect on their eating habits. So OP may be right that it's no solution to tell people to "ignore that feeling you think is hunger". You can lead a horse, but you can't make it drink.
- bad_user 6y ago
  The reduction in metabolic rate is also negligible ;-) We are talking about ~200 kcal and for many people not even that. And yes there are exceptions. Hypothyroidism for example can yield a bigger reduction, but no more than 300-400 kcal. This is why people suffering from hypothyroidism should get treatment first. Maintain an average 500 kcal deficit (from the baseline calculated for your sex, age, height and current weight) and you will lose weight. Conversely if you don't lose weight fact of the matter is you still eat too much. And yes, counting calories might not be the best strategy for that 500 kcal daily deficit, but if what you're doing doesn't work, then you know why and can take measures.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I'm not sure that's necessarily true. It seems very plausible that there's a cultural component, where societies with healthier weights are more willing to ignore mild hunger.
- dahart 6y ago
  > Any “solution” that basically tells people to ignore their hunger [...] is not a viable society-wide solution. This is a really good point, IMO, because part of the problem is our food itself, with unnaturally and unnecessary high amounts of processed carbohydrates. That kind of food causes hunger to increase. > A reduction of calories will normally result in the body lowering metabolic rate This is totally true, but is so commonly stated as somehow proving that calories shouldn’t be counted. Sure, the body adapts, sure calories aren’t perfect or absolutely constant, but if you need to lose weight, what is the alternative? You have to eat less, so slightly lower metabolic rate may be a natural part of the process. BTW, how much lower is my metabolic rate if I reduce my caloric intake by 10%? How much lower can my metabolic rate go? If you’re going to point at metabolic variability, those questions need to be answered. The answer can’t be to ignore calories and not eat less, right? That would be far less effective than counting calories imperfectly. So what other action should someone take?

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

Yeah, I find the "calories in equals calories out" argument stupid not because it's wrong (it's basically the first law of thermodynamics), but because it's relatively useless, and because its proponents usually use it to imply stuff that isn't true. For example, "calories in" and "calories out" are not independent variables. A reduction of calories in will normally result in the body lowering metabolic rate, resulting in a reduction of calories out. Similarly, humans aren't robots. Any "solution" that basically tells people to ignore their hunger, one of the body's most basic physiological responses, is not a viable society-wide solution.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> Any "solution" that basically tells people to ignore their hunger, one of the body's most basic physiological responses, is not a viable society-wide solution. But people have lost track of what hunger is! They tell you they're hungry but really they're bored / depressed / just used to eating constantly even when not actually hungry. They need to ignore being bored, which they think of as 'hunger' so you need to tell them to ignore their 'hunger' for them to understand.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  > But people have lost track of what hunger is! This is exactly right, and also why I highly encourage people to experiment with fasting (for at least 24 hours) to reset your baseline for what real hunger actually feels like. What we normally associate with "hunger" is actually a hormonal response from the body's release of ghrelin. It's not real hunger. You're not going to die if you don't eat. Moreover, we also experience "boredom" hunger, which isn't even a hormonal response, it's simply a mental addiction to the feeling of something tasty in your mouth. It's absurd that we've conditioned society to believe that stuffing our faces with food upwards of three times a day is "normal". It's not. That's why obesity rates are through the roof and CVD is the number one killer. That being said, I'm doubtful that telling the average person this will have any effect on their eating habits. So OP may be right that it's no solution to tell people to "ignore that feeling you think is hunger". You can lead a horse, but you can't make it drink.
bad_user 6y ago
The reduction in metabolic rate is also negligible ;-) We are talking about ~200 kcal and for many people not even that. And yes there are exceptions. Hypothyroidism for example can yield a bigger reduction, but no more than 300-400 kcal. This is why people suffering from hypothyroidism should get treatment first. Maintain an average 500 kcal deficit (from the baseline calculated for your sex, age, height and current weight) and you will lose weight. Conversely if you don't lose weight fact of the matter is you still eat too much. And yes, counting calories might not be the best strategy for that 500 kcal daily deficit, but if what you're doing doesn't work, then you know why and can take measures.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. It seems very plausible that there's a cultural component, where societies with healthier weights are more willing to ignore mild hunger.
dahart 6y ago
> Any “solution” that basically tells people to ignore their hunger [...] is not a viable society-wide solution. This is a really good point, IMO, because part of the problem is our food itself, with unnaturally and unnecessary high amounts of processed carbohydrates. That kind of food causes hunger to increase. > A reduction of calories will normally result in the body lowering metabolic rate This is totally true, but is so commonly stated as somehow proving that calories shouldn’t be counted. Sure, the body adapts, sure calories aren’t perfect or absolutely constant, but if you need to lose weight, what is the alternative? You have to eat less, so slightly lower metabolic rate may be a natural part of the process. BTW, how much lower is my metabolic rate if I reduce my caloric intake by 10%? How much lower can my metabolic rate go? If you’re going to point at metabolic variability, those questions need to be answered. The answer can’t be to ignore calories and not eat less, right? That would be far less effective than counting calories imperfectly. So what other action should someone take?