4 ms·

I prefer the other theory I've heard: the body's gauge on starvation is not based on caloric intake, but based on nutritional intake; ergo, low nutrition diets

I prefer the other theory I've heard: the body's gauge on starvation is not based on caloric intake, but based on nutritional intake; ergo, low nutrition diets that have sufficient calories (such as the Standard American Diet) make the body think winter is coming soon, and time to get extra plump. This is mainly the basis of my dieting. I reached a peak of 340, and in exactly a year, while maintaining the same CICO, but changing from the SAD to strict non-Keto Paleo, became 214, and then eventually slimmed down to the 175-185 range. I now eat mainly focused on nutritional density, and keeping the weight off is easy.

nickff 5y ago
CICO meaning calories-in-calories-out? Please avoid undefined and uncommon acronyms. Did you do food diaries/journals as you increased weight, and as you lost weight? I have lost significant amounts of weight by reducing caloric intake, and noticed that my records on the way up and down were very different.
- thefourthchime 5y ago
  I believe so. It sounds like he doing paleo without keto. I may be wrong, but basically just eat food on the perimeter of the super market. Veggies, meat, dairy. Nothing processed.
- temp_praneshp 5y ago
  In this context, it's a common acronym. Maybe you are just not as well read in this area as in others? Googling CICO on an incognito window are 100% hits for calories-in-calories-out.
  - nickff 5y ago
    That's how I figured it out, but I consider 'this context' to be Hacker News, where 'API' is common, but 'CICO' is not.
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      Reading the linked article is a prerequisite for discussion of said article. The term is defined in the article. Highly recommend it by the way.
      - nickff 5y ago
        It's defined in section two, on page seven, and only used three times. I will admit that I only read the introduction and conclusion, as I didn't want to spend two hours reading the 80-page paper.
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        I see your point, but if you’ve got a question over acronym usage, the right answer is not to ask somebody to do the prerequisite reading for you. You made it seem like it was their failing for using an acronym that you couldn’t be bothered to search for within the article in question.
- diplodocusaur 5y ago
  it's a common acronym and also mentioned in the article
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
joe_the_user 5y ago
The article does a plausible of refuting this and other common theories. It's quite detailed and it's worth a read in detail.
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  I only read to page 8 or 9 but I don't think the author did a very good job of refuting anything. In particular the author points out that we are eating about 20% more calories than we were 1970, but then argues that 20% is not all that much and no big deal. They then cite some papers where people ate more and gained weight, then stopped eating and lost the weight. But 20% is a lot, its huge. Do that every day your whole life, then yeah, your body is going to be different. You stomach is going to be larger, your whole body is going to be different. An yeah, dropping your calorie intake by 20% is going to be hard, really hard when all you have know your whole life is more!
  - keithwhor 5y ago
    I only read the first chapter of LotR and I don't understand what the big deal is. Hobbiton is a pretty shitty place to stage an adventure novel, seems boring.
    - jay_kyburz 5y ago
      My point was that the author did not make a good case for debunking even the first theory, and I had no reason to believe that they would do any better in the rest of the paper. I did wade through 7 pages of "mysteries" which was a kind of annoying way to frame the topic in the first place. Also, you make a good point, Hobbiton actually actually is a great place to start an adventure, and _is_ a compelling reason to continue reading.
      - keithwhor 5y ago
        Yeah I agree with you, that's what I was saying, I feel the same way about LotR. First book was a snooze and couldn't finish the rest.
908B64B197 5y ago
In a resource scarce world there are several valid "control loops" for hunger that result in survivable subjects. Always being hungry for instance. I'm surprised there isn't more studies on what exactly are the biochemical processes and neural input that leads to hunger. Having the body react to nutrient intuitively makes sense, since it can't really count calories but can easily detect a higher concentration of chemicals.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  > can't really count calories Sure it can. Your body knows whether it's putting glucose on the shelf or taking glucose off the shelf, because it's the one doing it. It knows how many reserves it's keeping, because it's the one keeping the reserves. See: leptin, but in general the problem of reliable energy storage/retrieval is a strict superset of the energy accounting problem and yet our bodies accomplish the storage/retrieval problem with many 9s of reliability.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  https://theconversation.com/chemical-messengers-how-hormones-make-us-feel-hungry-and-full-35545 https://theconversation.com/chemical-messengers-how-hormones...
cactus2093 5y ago
As far as I understand, the average person is not deficient in most dietary nutrients. It doesn't take a lot to get to sufficient levels, if you eat an orange here, some tomato sauce on your pasta there, one small salad or serving of vegetables with your dinner every couple of days, etc. you'll mostly be fine.
- mrfusion 5y ago
  > As far as I understand, the average person is not deficient in most dietary nutrients Even one or a few might be enough to cause a problem. I’d reckon most modern diets are at least deficient in magnesium and potassium. Possibly b vitamins too.
- ashika 5y ago
  while i more or less agree with your general thesis (bodies are good at grabbing what they need), tracking a few days of eating on cronometer or some other site that breaks out micronutrients is worth the effort in terms of getting an idea of your real intake and any holes. finding dietary sources you like for those blind spots can be tricky, but is far better than tossing a multivitamin over the wall and assuming you are good, imho.
drenvuk 5y ago
Did you read the paper in its entirety? Honestly, did you? It is filled with well researched arguments and quite a few facts that I found highly surprising. I say this as a guy who went from 270 lbs down to 180 then back to 240 then down to 200 and still struggling to stay put. The descriptions of leptin induced neuroses and people's varying mental states is highly accurate. The number of different cultures that don't have this obesity issue, my previous girlfriend who grew far fatter and taller than her peers after coincidently being fed antibiotics for a long term illness as a child. For goodness sake, did you even get to the part about the Macaques and the standard bmi distribution growing just like humans are? This situation isn't normal and congrats on losing weight but you're one triumphant data point in a growing sea of obesity.
- DiabloD3 5y ago
  Yeah, I read it. Wasn't a bad paper, just not my pet theory. Mind you, I did the reverse: I did the thing then researched why I just achieved what is claimed by many to have been vaguely impossible. Discovered a lot of amazing research that nobody really talks about. Leptin and antibiotic research both are extremely important to this field, to the point I've now watched it go from being obscure to commonly discussed within the now-merging Paleo and Keto communities by the common folk who aren't too big on reading papers. I'm not against any theory, I'm just favoring the theory that has the best support. Contamination theory isn't invalidated by my own personal point, I very well could have stopped the contamination source (by the methods proposed in the paper) by simply not eating infected food, which Paleo seems to significantly avoid.
fxtentacle 5y ago
The article nicely refutes this by comparing very reduced diets e.g. "only milk and red meat" to very variable diets and finding no significant difference.

nickff 5y ago

CICO meaning calories-in-calories-out? Please avoid undefined and uncommon acronyms. Did you do food diaries/journals as you increased weight, and as you lost weight? I have lost significant amounts of weight by reducing caloric intake, and noticed that my records on the way up and down were very different.

thefourthchime 5y ago
I believe so. It sounds like he doing paleo without keto. I may be wrong, but basically just eat food on the perimeter of the super market. Veggies, meat, dairy. Nothing processed.
temp_praneshp 5y ago
In this context, it's a common acronym. Maybe you are just not as well read in this area as in others? Googling CICO on an incognito window are 100% hits for calories-in-calories-out.
- nickff 5y ago
  That's how I figured it out, but I consider 'this context' to be Hacker News, where 'API' is common, but 'CICO' is not.
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    Reading the linked article is a prerequisite for discussion of said article. The term is defined in the article. Highly recommend it by the way.
    - nickff 5y ago
      It's defined in section two, on page seven, and only used three times. I will admit that I only read the introduction and conclusion, as I didn't want to spend two hours reading the 80-page paper.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        I see your point, but if you’ve got a question over acronym usage, the right answer is not to ask somebody to do the prerequisite reading for you. You made it seem like it was their failing for using an acronym that you couldn’t be bothered to search for within the article in question.
diplodocusaur 5y ago
it's a common acronym and also mentioned in the article

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

joe_the_user 5y ago

The article does a plausible of refuting this and other common theories. It's quite detailed and it's worth a read in detail.

jay_kyburz 5y ago
I only read to page 8 or 9 but I don't think the author did a very good job of refuting anything. In particular the author points out that we are eating about 20% more calories than we were 1970, but then argues that 20% is not all that much and no big deal. They then cite some papers where people ate more and gained weight, then stopped eating and lost the weight. But 20% is a lot, its huge. Do that every day your whole life, then yeah, your body is going to be different. You stomach is going to be larger, your whole body is going to be different. An yeah, dropping your calorie intake by 20% is going to be hard, really hard when all you have know your whole life is more!
- keithwhor 5y ago
  I only read the first chapter of LotR and I don't understand what the big deal is. Hobbiton is a pretty shitty place to stage an adventure novel, seems boring.
  - jay_kyburz 5y ago
    My point was that the author did not make a good case for debunking even the first theory, and I had no reason to believe that they would do any better in the rest of the paper. I did wade through 7 pages of "mysteries" which was a kind of annoying way to frame the topic in the first place. Also, you make a good point, Hobbiton actually actually is a great place to start an adventure, and _is_ a compelling reason to continue reading.
    - keithwhor 5y ago
      Yeah I agree with you, that's what I was saying, I feel the same way about LotR. First book was a snooze and couldn't finish the rest.

908B64B197 5y ago

In a resource scarce world there are several valid "control loops" for hunger that result in survivable subjects. Always being hungry for instance. I'm surprised there isn't more studies on what exactly are the biochemical processes and neural input that leads to hunger. Having the body react to nutrient intuitively makes sense, since it can't really count calories but can easily detect a higher concentration of chemicals.

jjoonathan 5y ago
> can't really count calories Sure it can. Your body knows whether it's putting glucose on the shelf or taking glucose off the shelf, because it's the one doing it. It knows how many reserves it's keeping, because it's the one keeping the reserves. See: leptin, but in general the problem of reliable energy storage/retrieval is a strict superset of the energy accounting problem and yet our bodies accomplish the storage/retrieval problem with many 9s of reliability.
maxerickson 5y ago
https://theconversation.com/chemical-messengers-how-hormones-make-us-feel-hungry-and-full-35545 https://theconversation.com/chemical-messengers-how-hormones...

cactus2093 5y ago

As far as I understand, the average person is not deficient in most dietary nutrients. It doesn't take a lot to get to sufficient levels, if you eat an orange here, some tomato sauce on your pasta there, one small salad or serving of vegetables with your dinner every couple of days, etc. you'll mostly be fine.

mrfusion 5y ago
> As far as I understand, the average person is not deficient in most dietary nutrients Even one or a few might be enough to cause a problem. I’d reckon most modern diets are at least deficient in magnesium and potassium. Possibly b vitamins too.
ashika 5y ago
while i more or less agree with your general thesis (bodies are good at grabbing what they need), tracking a few days of eating on cronometer or some other site that breaks out micronutrients is worth the effort in terms of getting an idea of your real intake and any holes. finding dietary sources you like for those blind spots can be tricky, but is far better than tossing a multivitamin over the wall and assuming you are good, imho.

drenvuk 5y ago

Did you read the paper in its entirety? Honestly, did you? It is filled with well researched arguments and quite a few facts that I found highly surprising. I say this as a guy who went from 270 lbs down to 180 then back to 240 then down to 200 and still struggling to stay put. The descriptions of leptin induced neuroses and people's varying mental states is highly accurate. The number of different cultures that don't have this obesity issue, my previous girlfriend who grew far fatter and taller than her peers after coincidently being fed antibiotics for a long term illness as a child. For goodness sake, did you even get to the part about the Macaques and the standard bmi distribution growing just like humans are? This situation isn't normal and congrats on losing weight but you're one triumphant data point in a growing sea of obesity.

DiabloD3 5y ago
Yeah, I read it. Wasn't a bad paper, just not my pet theory. Mind you, I did the reverse: I did the thing then researched why I just achieved what is claimed by many to have been vaguely impossible. Discovered a lot of amazing research that nobody really talks about. Leptin and antibiotic research both are extremely important to this field, to the point I've now watched it go from being obscure to commonly discussed within the now-merging Paleo and Keto communities by the common folk who aren't too big on reading papers. I'm not against any theory, I'm just favoring the theory that has the best support. Contamination theory isn't invalidated by my own personal point, I very well could have stopped the contamination source (by the methods proposed in the paper) by simply not eating infected food, which Paleo seems to significantly avoid.

fxtentacle 5y ago

The article nicely refutes this by comparing very reduced diets e.g. "only milk and red meat" to very variable diets and finding no significant difference.