7 ms·

I find it interesting that the submitter posted this as a result of deciding that "calories in, calories out" was a thought-terminating cliché[1]. Given that it

by flurie 5y ago

I find it interesting that the submitter posted this as a result of deciding that "calories in, calories out" was a thought-terminating cliché[1]. Given that it's a pithy rephrasing of the first law of thermodynamics, I'm curious if the submitter feels the same way about the other laws. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=28246836 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=28246836

deegles 5y ago
Responding to any discussing about weight loss with that phrase fits the description.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Specially because humans can't eat all matter. All calories come out, but some are undigested and don't contribute to nutrition.
- flurie 5y ago
  Continued, sustained discussion predicated on the phrase itself rather seems to disprove your point, doesn't it? Additionally, from the link: > Bennett explains that exceptions are made to the use of phrases, that would otherwise be considered thought-terminating if they are used in addition to evidence or strong claims.
  - smorgusofborg 5y ago
    When I hear sports discussions they don't spend a lot of time reminding us that everything is subject to the same gravity. If some jackasses did it would become a thought terminating cliché, and eventually we would be breaking out of it, but it would be tainting the direction of each discussion from the point where it was invoked.
    - flurie 5y ago
      Interestingly, I find myself subject to the opposite quite often. It's a common cliché in the US to describe superlative athletic ability as "defying gravity." Would you consider that a thought-terminating cliché? I'm happy to continue to discuss this with you, but I would ask that you please refrain from name calling.
    - kazoomonger 5y ago
      I think this analogy doesn't quite hold, as you don't have athletes saying "I can't throw as far as you because of gravity", whereas you really do have people making ridiculous claims when it comes to weight loss.
- strbean 5y ago
  When dealing with addiction, more thinking often ends in better rationalizations for addictive behavior. For that reason, I'm not sure "Thought-Terminating" is inherently a bad thing. Anecdotally, I've seen tons of people fight through different fad diets with no success. They spend tons of time talking about ways to trick their metabolisms, naturalistic arguments about what to eat and not eat, etc. Perhaps they would be more successful if they stopped over-thinking and focussed purely on reducing their portion sizes and increasing their exercise. Again anecdotally, it seems like usually exercise is emphasized along with diet at first, but quickly gets dropped. Within a couple weeks, the fad diet is forgotten as well.
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  Does it? Weight loss methods include a lot of pseudo science and I think it's important to keep in mind that whatever low fat or low carb or paleo diet you try is ultimately only going to succeed if you lower your calorie intake or raise your calorie expenditure. Obviously there are some exceptions to that rule if you aren't accounting for changes in calorie absorption or bmr, but everything I've seen or read seems to show that those variations are miniscule.
pc86 5y ago
It's a pithy rephrasing of an incorrect overgeneralization of the first law. Calories aren't the only thing that can affect weight. There are medical conditions, hormone levels, thermic effect of food, and at least one or two other things that are escaping me right now. Is it going to explain 20 pounds of bodyfat? Absolutely not. But "calories in, calories out" isn't backed up by the science.
- kazoomonger 5y ago
  CICO is 100% backed up by science. The point of repeating CICO is that there are people that legitimately try claiming "I ate only an apple a day and I can't lose weight!". This is clearly impossible. Now, you can get more specific than that and say "well this medical condition makes you more hungry" or "this medical condition means you can't get as much energy as you should from eating". But fundamentally, a condition like say PCOS isn't magic. It doesn't make you absorb food better, otherwise we would have already evolved to use that absorption process. Having said all that: yes, no two people are exactly the same, we're not bunsen burners, etc. But the reason you're[1] fat is because you eat too much. [1]: general you, not you specifically
  - quietbritishjim 5y ago
    > It doesn't make you absorb food better, otherwise we would have already evolved to use that absorption process. While I don't know about the first half of this sentence (though I have my suspicions!) it's pretty obvious the second half is false. You're saying that we all have to process food identically because evolution has selected the optimal result in humans. But evolution does not product perfectly consistent results. In fact it relies on producing inconsistent results! Because sometimes small flaws turn out to actually be a benefit and get selected, that's how evolation works. So the fact that humans are a result of evolution does not prevent different people from having different abilities to absorb nutrients. > But the reason you're[1] fat is because you eat too much. You went to the trouble of mentioning CICO and then totally forgot about CO! Obviously you could extend this sentence to "... and/or you don't do enough exercise" but, similar to the previous point, there are likely to naturally be variation in calorie outputs. In fact "running hot" might seem like a weakness but could be a perfectly valid evolutionary strategy, presuming it gave some other benefit (like sharper mind or stronger body, better for obtaining more food). It's quite possible for both strategies to be baked into one set of genes, perhaps selected by activity in childhood. --- It's self evident that CICO is true. It's just completely worthless for providing any insight. Very much a thought-terminating cliché as originally described.
carry_bit 5y ago
"mass in, mass out" is another truism, yet not many people plan their diets around that.
- pjc50 5y ago
  How many people measure their exhalation mass, though? (Yes, weight loss is substantially through exhaled CO2)
- flurie 5y ago
  I agree with you that this is both correct and unhelpful, but there's an interesting reason for that! It's because a good bit of weight loss is achieved through exhalation. If we had a way to measure that consistently and accurately, it would be more helpful information.
  - carry_bit 5y ago
    You can just weigh yourself periodically, weigh what you consume, and then compute how much mass has left your body. As a diet, you could plan out what you want to weigh over time, and then before each meal calculate how far below that goal you are and limit your consumption to the difference.
- philwelch 5y ago
  It's also technically more accurate since CICO doesn't account for water weight.
woopwoop 5y ago
I've always been confused by the "calories in, calories out" claim. It is usually used to mean that weight gain/loss is proportional to calorie surplus/deficit. But I don't understand how that is a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics. What I could believe is the claim that the number of calories stored in a person's body is proportional to their lifetime caloric surplus, from which it follows that the change in the number of calories stored on a person's body over a period of time is proportional to their caloric surplus over that period. But weight is not proportional to stored calories, since fat is more calorie dense than protein. So in order to gain muscle, lose fat, and maintain the same weight, doesn't a person have to run a caloric deficit?
Zababa 5y ago
I think the problem is that "calories in, calories out" is not that easy since it's hard to measure the calories in and the calories out precisely. "Calories out" especially, as most people will just tell people to use a TDEE calculator or some other approximation. When you're then asking them to have a 500 calories deficit, it is very possible that it won't work for them as they (as in, the tool they used) overestimated the "calories out" part. Edit: to expand on that, "calories in, calories out" is a classic motte and bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy). Here the motte is "it's easy for anyone to lose weight, just input a few numbers in a few apps". The bailey is "calories in, calories out is scientifically true". I've never seen advocates of calories in, calories out offering a more precise way to measure the consumption of calories than a TDEE calculator that you can find online, where you usually input your weight, height, age and sex. The "calories in" part is easier to deal with, as if you measure everything you put in your mouth, you have the upper bound of the calories you can absorb. Still, the calories out are hard to measure reliably, especially in people that already have a slower metabolism than others (which makes it easier for them to gain weight in the first place). There's also the distinction that "calorie intake" is often meant as "what you put into your mouth" but is actually "what you actually absorb".
- MichaelGroves 5y ago
  > I think the problem is that "calories in, calories out" is not that easy since it's hard to measure the calories in and the calories out precisely. You don't have to, precise calorie counting is a strawman argument against CICO. All the fat people I've ever known, which is most of my family and many of my friends, all eat way too much. I ate too much too, ever since I was a kid. Huge portion sizes and constantly grazing throughout the day without set meal times were the norm for me and those around me. After hearing CICO repeated often, I recognized these behaviors in myself and corrected them. I didn't need to count calories for any of it. Where I would once buy a pizza and devour it over the course of an evening, I now save half for lunch the next day. Anybody can do that if they choose to. By eating less, I've lost about 75 lbs in 5 years.
  - 5y ago
twic 5y ago
It's true, but it's irrelevant because you don't control the calories out.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wincy 5y ago
By that tack we should just drink gasoline since it has about 31,000 calories per gallon. It’s a very efficient source of calories.
lamontcg 5y ago
The actual problem of losing weight and maintaining it goes beyond thermodynamics and into the problems of satiety, willpower and psychology. Just going "it is trivially reducible to thermodynamics, why are we still talking about this?" is absolutely a thought-terminating cliche. And https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/

by flurie 5y ago

deegles 5y ago

Responding to any discussing about weight loss with that phrase fits the description.

ASalazarMX 5y ago
Specially because humans can't eat all matter. All calories come out, but some are undigested and don't contribute to nutrition.
flurie 5y ago
Continued, sustained discussion predicated on the phrase itself rather seems to disprove your point, doesn't it? Additionally, from the link: > Bennett explains that exceptions are made to the use of phrases, that would otherwise be considered thought-terminating if they are used in addition to evidence or strong claims.
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  When I hear sports discussions they don't spend a lot of time reminding us that everything is subject to the same gravity. If some jackasses did it would become a thought terminating cliché, and eventually we would be breaking out of it, but it would be tainting the direction of each discussion from the point where it was invoked.
  - flurie 5y ago
    Interestingly, I find myself subject to the opposite quite often. It's a common cliché in the US to describe superlative athletic ability as "defying gravity." Would you consider that a thought-terminating cliché? I'm happy to continue to discuss this with you, but I would ask that you please refrain from name calling.
  - kazoomonger 5y ago
    I think this analogy doesn't quite hold, as you don't have athletes saying "I can't throw as far as you because of gravity", whereas you really do have people making ridiculous claims when it comes to weight loss.
strbean 5y ago
When dealing with addiction, more thinking often ends in better rationalizations for addictive behavior. For that reason, I'm not sure "Thought-Terminating" is inherently a bad thing. Anecdotally, I've seen tons of people fight through different fad diets with no success. They spend tons of time talking about ways to trick their metabolisms, naturalistic arguments about what to eat and not eat, etc. Perhaps they would be more successful if they stopped over-thinking and focussed purely on reducing their portion sizes and increasing their exercise. Again anecdotally, it seems like usually exercise is emphasized along with diet at first, but quickly gets dropped. Within a couple weeks, the fad diet is forgotten as well.
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
Does it? Weight loss methods include a lot of pseudo science and I think it's important to keep in mind that whatever low fat or low carb or paleo diet you try is ultimately only going to succeed if you lower your calorie intake or raise your calorie expenditure. Obviously there are some exceptions to that rule if you aren't accounting for changes in calorie absorption or bmr, but everything I've seen or read seems to show that those variations are miniscule.

pc86 5y ago

It's a pithy rephrasing of an incorrect overgeneralization of the first law. Calories aren't the only thing that can affect weight. There are medical conditions, hormone levels, thermic effect of food, and at least one or two other things that are escaping me right now. Is it going to explain 20 pounds of bodyfat? Absolutely not. But "calories in, calories out" isn't backed up by the science.

kazoomonger 5y ago
CICO is 100% backed up by science. The point of repeating CICO is that there are people that legitimately try claiming "I ate only an apple a day and I can't lose weight!". This is clearly impossible. Now, you can get more specific than that and say "well this medical condition makes you more hungry" or "this medical condition means you can't get as much energy as you should from eating". But fundamentally, a condition like say PCOS isn't magic. It doesn't make you absorb food better, otherwise we would have already evolved to use that absorption process. Having said all that: yes, no two people are exactly the same, we're not bunsen burners, etc. But the reason you're[1] fat is because you eat too much. [1]: general you, not you specifically
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  > It doesn't make you absorb food better, otherwise we would have already evolved to use that absorption process. While I don't know about the first half of this sentence (though I have my suspicions!) it's pretty obvious the second half is false. You're saying that we all have to process food identically because evolution has selected the optimal result in humans. But evolution does not product perfectly consistent results. In fact it relies on producing inconsistent results! Because sometimes small flaws turn out to actually be a benefit and get selected, that's how evolation works. So the fact that humans are a result of evolution does not prevent different people from having different abilities to absorb nutrients. > But the reason you're[1] fat is because you eat too much. You went to the trouble of mentioning CICO and then totally forgot about CO! Obviously you could extend this sentence to "... and/or you don't do enough exercise" but, similar to the previous point, there are likely to naturally be variation in calorie outputs. In fact "running hot" might seem like a weakness but could be a perfectly valid evolutionary strategy, presuming it gave some other benefit (like sharper mind or stronger body, better for obtaining more food). It's quite possible for both strategies to be baked into one set of genes, perhaps selected by activity in childhood. --- It's self evident that CICO is true. It's just completely worthless for providing any insight. Very much a thought-terminating cliché as originally described.

carry_bit 5y ago

"mass in, mass out" is another truism, yet not many people plan their diets around that.

pjc50 5y ago
How many people measure their exhalation mass, though? (Yes, weight loss is substantially through exhaled CO2)
flurie 5y ago
I agree with you that this is both correct and unhelpful, but there's an interesting reason for that! It's because a good bit of weight loss is achieved through exhalation. If we had a way to measure that consistently and accurately, it would be more helpful information.
- carry_bit 5y ago
  You can just weigh yourself periodically, weigh what you consume, and then compute how much mass has left your body. As a diet, you could plan out what you want to weigh over time, and then before each meal calculate how far below that goal you are and limit your consumption to the difference.
philwelch 5y ago
It's also technically more accurate since CICO doesn't account for water weight.

woopwoop 5y ago

I've always been confused by the "calories in, calories out" claim. It is usually used to mean that weight gain/loss is proportional to calorie surplus/deficit. But I don't understand how that is a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics. What I could believe is the claim that the number of calories stored in a person's body is proportional to their lifetime caloric surplus, from which it follows that the change in the number of calories stored on a person's body over a period of time is proportional to their caloric surplus over that period. But weight is not proportional to stored calories, since fat is more calorie dense than protein. So in order to gain muscle, lose fat, and maintain the same weight, doesn't a person have to run a caloric deficit?

Zababa 5y ago

I think the problem is that "calories in, calories out" is not that easy since it's hard to measure the calories in and the calories out precisely. "Calories out" especially, as most people will just tell people to use a TDEE calculator or some other approximation. When you're then asking them to have a 500 calories deficit, it is very possible that it won't work for them as they (as in, the tool they used) overestimated the "calories out" part. Edit: to expand on that, "calories in, calories out" is a classic motte and bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy). Here the motte is "it's easy for anyone to lose weight, just input a few numbers in a few apps". The bailey is "calories in, calories out is scientifically true". I've never seen advocates of calories in, calories out offering a more precise way to measure the consumption of calories than a TDEE calculator that you can find online, where you usually input your weight, height, age and sex. The "calories in" part is easier to deal with, as if you measure everything you put in your mouth, you have the upper bound of the calories you can absorb. Still, the calories out are hard to measure reliably, especially in people that already have a slower metabolism than others (which makes it easier for them to gain weight in the first place). There's also the distinction that "calorie intake" is often meant as "what you put into your mouth" but is actually "what you actually absorb".

MichaelGroves 5y ago
> I think the problem is that "calories in, calories out" is not that easy since it's hard to measure the calories in and the calories out precisely. You don't have to, precise calorie counting is a strawman argument against CICO. All the fat people I've ever known, which is most of my family and many of my friends, all eat way too much. I ate too much too, ever since I was a kid. Huge portion sizes and constantly grazing throughout the day without set meal times were the norm for me and those around me. After hearing CICO repeated often, I recognized these behaviors in myself and corrected them. I didn't need to count calories for any of it. Where I would once buy a pizza and devour it over the course of an evening, I now save half for lunch the next day. Anybody can do that if they choose to. By eating less, I've lost about 75 lbs in 5 years.
- 5y ago

twic 5y ago

It's true, but it's irrelevant because you don't control the calories out.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wincy 5y ago

By that tack we should just drink gasoline since it has about 31,000 calories per gallon. It’s a very efficient source of calories.

lamontcg 5y ago

The actual problem of losing weight and maintaining it goes beyond thermodynamics and into the problems of satiety, willpower and psychology. Just going "it is trivially reducible to thermodynamics, why are we still talking about this?" is absolutely a thought-terminating cliche. And https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/