5 ms·

The problem with these types of posts is that while there's a grain of truth in there (burn more calories than you take in), we're still not able to easily dete

The problem with these types of posts is that while there's a grain of truth in there (burn more calories than you take in), we're still not able to easily determine a number of key pieces of information that would allow us to really understand how to be successful: 1) How many calories do you need at your target weight? 2) What is your basal metabolic rate? 3) As you cut out calories and lose weight, how much is your basal metabolic rate changing? The problem is that for people who are predisposed to store excess energy as fat rather than burning it off, as we cut back on our calories, our body reacts by becoming more efficient to try to avoid emptying out our fat stores. This means that for some people losing a pound a week could require cutting out anywhere from 500-1000 calories per day. --So when people suggest cutting out 500 calories per day, and you either don't see any loss or you see a much lower loss than the pound per week, that can be even more demoralizing than trying to cut out 1000 calories per day if you knew that would allow you to average that pound a week of loss.

PaulKeeble 6y ago
The various studies done also show that most people regain the weight back 6 months to a year down the line. Right now the only thing we can be sure of is that weight loss only works for the minority in the long term and the only way to be slim is to always be that way. We did at least work out why processed foods appeared to be more calories, turns out we spend about 20% more energy digesting food that isn't highly processed. Which also goes to show that calories in calories out is far over simplified when people are suggesting deficits that could easily be less than 20% of daily intake. It is a chemical process and a very complex one at that and right now food science is basically garbage tier with very little in the way of good studies, most of the better end is on mice and rats.
- 0x008 6y ago
  Well, to give another point of view: I think it is pretty much understood, what is healthy and what is not and also what leads to weight loss and what doesn't. The problem is that people don't stick with it.
  - giantDinosaur 6y ago
    People not sticking with it is really an added point to the reality that calories in/out is a very poor model for losing weight, even if it is completely correct at a physical level.
    - RikNieu 6y ago
      Isn't that like saying doing exercise is a poor model for getting fit because people don't stick to it?
      - giantDinosaur 6y ago
        It depends. Do you see losing weight as a purely physical phenomenon, or do you see it as one that's heavily influenced by psychology and other such factors? The actual physical act of losing weight i.e. reducing one's mass needs to be distinguished, in my opinion, from all the factors that actually go into that. If it turns out that in response to hunger that your brain secretes a hormone that makes you much more hungry than the average, the psychological aspect of losing weight has been compromised, even while the physical laws stay the same.
        RikNieu 6y ago
        Of course psychology comes into play. I'd know, that's what kept me from making progress with this for years. But that does not subtract from the fact that to lose weight you need to consume less calories. > If it turns out that in response to hunger that your brain secretes a hormone that makes you much more hungry than the average, the psychological aspect of losing weight has been compromised, even while the physical laws stay the same. I don't agree. You lose weight by eating less calories. If you need to manage your implementation of that technique because you have some condition that deviates from the norm, sure, that's something you have to deal with. To return to my exercise analogy, I have a medical condition that makes exercise difficult. So I have to work around my unique limitation. But I don't go around saying that doing cardio and working out is not the correct way of getting fit.
- tallanvor 6y ago
  Yes, keeping weight off over the long haul is extremely difficult, and only gets harder the more weight you lose. I know that for myself, beyond having to try and watch what I'm eating, I also have to stay much more active than the average person because I know that I have a slow metabolism - my body wants to hang on to every bit of energy it can. I think there is proper research going on when it comes to food science, and weight loss, but finding the good studies among the junk is difficult. We do know that there are some drugs and supplements that have moderate effects, but mostly by acting as an appetite suppressant.
  - nradov 6y ago
    It is highly unlikely that you really have a "slow metabolism". Outside of a few rare medical conditions, metabolic rates only vary by a few percent for a given height, weight, and sex. It's more likely that you're underestimating calorie consumption. I recommend getting a resting metabolic rate test to accurately quantify your baseline. https://www.dexafit.com/services/rmr-metabolic-test https://www.dexafit.com/services/rmr-metabolic-test SGLT-2 inhibitors are effective for weight loss and don't suppress appetite. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40265-019-1057-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40265-019-1057-0
nradov 6y ago
That's mostly wrong. Everyone is predisposed to store excess energy as fat. Cutting back calories doesn't cause a significant increase in metabolic efficiency (unless you're really suffering from starvation which wouldn't apply to anyone on a regular calorie restriction diet). The reason that weight loss tends to slow down for most people on diets is that it simply takes less energy to maintain a lower body mass. So to sustain the same rate of weight loss they would have to keep decreasing calorie intake. Resting metabolic rate tests are widely available for about $75. You just sit in a chair for a few minutes while a machine measures your exhalations. This is worth doing occasionally if you can afford it to establish an accurate baseline. A lot of people blame their failure to lose weight on a "slow metabolism" which is almost never correct: metabolic rates for individuals with a given height, weight, and sex differ by only a few percent.
wasdfff 6y ago
I don’t know why people subscribe to arbitrary numbers on the internet vs just experimenting. If you want to lose weight, you eat less and burn more and that is it. Not losing enough weight? Don’t quit. Just run more and eat even less. Or run even more and maintain your diet. There is no human that won’t shed weight like water off a roof if given energy expenditure coupled with restricted intake. And its easy to overwhelm yourself with energy expenditure if you wanted to still eat like a pig: start running up and down bleachers until you are on the verge of puking and watch the pounds fly off. The reason why so many people are overweight is because they spend their life sitting in bed, sitting at work, sitting in their car, burning tens of calories. Then they try cutting out a 300 cal muffin from their daily intake and wonder why it takes 6 months to lose 5 lbs. You need activity, especially if you don’t have activity in your life. It’s who we are as animals. Early humans would walk game down until it was exhausted and sitting down no longer able to even stand. Then our ancestors would calmly walk up to the delirious antelope on the verge of death and poke it with a stick or beat it with a rock. Today, no one bothers making time to burn those calories, and that’s ultimately why people get fat. Modern suburban living has coddled us from physical activity, such as walking.

PaulKeeble 6y ago

The various studies done also show that most people regain the weight back 6 months to a year down the line. Right now the only thing we can be sure of is that weight loss only works for the minority in the long term and the only way to be slim is to always be that way. We did at least work out why processed foods appeared to be more calories, turns out we spend about 20% more energy digesting food that isn't highly processed. Which also goes to show that calories in calories out is far over simplified when people are suggesting deficits that could easily be less than 20% of daily intake. It is a chemical process and a very complex one at that and right now food science is basically garbage tier with very little in the way of good studies, most of the better end is on mice and rats.

0x008 6y ago
Well, to give another point of view: I think it is pretty much understood, what is healthy and what is not and also what leads to weight loss and what doesn't. The problem is that people don't stick with it.
- giantDinosaur 6y ago
  People not sticking with it is really an added point to the reality that calories in/out is a very poor model for losing weight, even if it is completely correct at a physical level.
  - RikNieu 6y ago
    Isn't that like saying doing exercise is a poor model for getting fit because people don't stick to it?
    - giantDinosaur 6y ago
      It depends. Do you see losing weight as a purely physical phenomenon, or do you see it as one that's heavily influenced by psychology and other such factors? The actual physical act of losing weight i.e. reducing one's mass needs to be distinguished, in my opinion, from all the factors that actually go into that. If it turns out that in response to hunger that your brain secretes a hormone that makes you much more hungry than the average, the psychological aspect of losing weight has been compromised, even while the physical laws stay the same.
      - RikNieu 6y ago
        Of course psychology comes into play. I'd know, that's what kept me from making progress with this for years. But that does not subtract from the fact that to lose weight you need to consume less calories. > If it turns out that in response to hunger that your brain secretes a hormone that makes you much more hungry than the average, the psychological aspect of losing weight has been compromised, even while the physical laws stay the same. I don't agree. You lose weight by eating less calories. If you need to manage your implementation of that technique because you have some condition that deviates from the norm, sure, that's something you have to deal with. To return to my exercise analogy, I have a medical condition that makes exercise difficult. So I have to work around my unique limitation. But I don't go around saying that doing cardio and working out is not the correct way of getting fit.
tallanvor 6y ago
Yes, keeping weight off over the long haul is extremely difficult, and only gets harder the more weight you lose. I know that for myself, beyond having to try and watch what I'm eating, I also have to stay much more active than the average person because I know that I have a slow metabolism - my body wants to hang on to every bit of energy it can. I think there is proper research going on when it comes to food science, and weight loss, but finding the good studies among the junk is difficult. We do know that there are some drugs and supplements that have moderate effects, but mostly by acting as an appetite suppressant.
- nradov 6y ago
  It is highly unlikely that you really have a "slow metabolism". Outside of a few rare medical conditions, metabolic rates only vary by a few percent for a given height, weight, and sex. It's more likely that you're underestimating calorie consumption. I recommend getting a resting metabolic rate test to accurately quantify your baseline. https://www.dexafit.com/services/rmr-metabolic-test https://www.dexafit.com/services/rmr-metabolic-test SGLT-2 inhibitors are effective for weight loss and don't suppress appetite. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40265-019-1057-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40265-019-1057-0

nradov 6y ago

That's mostly wrong. Everyone is predisposed to store excess energy as fat. Cutting back calories doesn't cause a significant increase in metabolic efficiency (unless you're really suffering from starvation which wouldn't apply to anyone on a regular calorie restriction diet). The reason that weight loss tends to slow down for most people on diets is that it simply takes less energy to maintain a lower body mass. So to sustain the same rate of weight loss they would have to keep decreasing calorie intake. Resting metabolic rate tests are widely available for about $75. You just sit in a chair for a few minutes while a machine measures your exhalations. This is worth doing occasionally if you can afford it to establish an accurate baseline. A lot of people blame their failure to lose weight on a "slow metabolism" which is almost never correct: metabolic rates for individuals with a given height, weight, and sex differ by only a few percent.

wasdfff 6y ago

I don’t know why people subscribe to arbitrary numbers on the internet vs just experimenting. If you want to lose weight, you eat less and burn more and that is it. Not losing enough weight? Don’t quit. Just run more and eat even less. Or run even more and maintain your diet. There is no human that won’t shed weight like water off a roof if given energy expenditure coupled with restricted intake. And its easy to overwhelm yourself with energy expenditure if you wanted to still eat like a pig: start running up and down bleachers until you are on the verge of puking and watch the pounds fly off. The reason why so many people are overweight is because they spend their life sitting in bed, sitting at work, sitting in their car, burning tens of calories. Then they try cutting out a 300 cal muffin from their daily intake and wonder why it takes 6 months to lose 5 lbs. You need activity, especially if you don’t have activity in your life. It’s who we are as animals. Early humans would walk game down until it was exhausted and sitting down no longer able to even stand. Then our ancestors would calmly walk up to the delirious antelope on the verge of death and poke it with a stick or beat it with a rock. Today, no one bothers making time to burn those calories, and that’s ultimately why people get fat. Modern suburban living has coddled us from physical activity, such as walking.