3 ms·

> I think the main problem is that many people simply say "I can't lose weight because of my metabolism." And this isn't true whatsoever. If instead they said "

> I think the main problem is that many people simply say "I can't lose weight because of my metabolism." And this isn't true whatsoever. If instead they said "I lose weight at a slower rate than normal people because of my metabolism," or perhaps "cheat days have an inordinate effect on me because of my metabolism," I agree that _many_ people can be delusional about their caloric intake (and their activity), but my suspicion is that calories-in/calories-out is messier than the simple thermodynamic argument.

dqv 5y ago
There are so many factors. Here's a great example: my husband has been focusing on weight loss for the past few months because he feels best at a certain weight. He had been using "zero-calorie" cooking spray, reasoning that "regular oil" had more calories. I warned him that it was advertising and that it's just regular oil that is 1/n (just checked and n=753) serving size to allow them to say it was 0 calories per serving. He didn't believe it. He plateaued with his weight loss and couldn't figure out how a 2500, 2500, 3500 diet was no longer giving him the expected results. Until he cut out the "zero-calorie" cooking spray. No one sprays that cooking spray for only 250ms.
- busyant 5y ago
  Agreed. From what I understand, "0 calories" really means < 5 per "serving." And you're correct. Nobody sprays for 250 ms. For what it's worth... Part of my original comment is based on the fact that I have been _carefully_ monitoring my food intake AND activity for the past 18 months. I will tell you over that period, I wake up and weigh myself. Each morning, my scale says that I weigh between 166.6 and 168.0--without fail. I measure my food with a scale, but I will _also_ tell you that my caloric intake varies between 1800 and 2600 calories per day. My activity varies as well (I won't go into details). But my weight is PINNED to 167 pounds. Day after day after day. To me, this information just screams that my body is modulating its caloric intake based on what I eat and how active I am. Now, I know, this is "anecdata." But I can't be the only person who has observed this.

dqv 5y ago

There are so many factors. Here's a great example: my husband has been focusing on weight loss for the past few months because he feels best at a certain weight. He had been using "zero-calorie" cooking spray, reasoning that "regular oil" had more calories. I warned him that it was advertising and that it's just regular oil that is 1/n (just checked and n=753) serving size to allow them to say it was 0 calories per serving. He didn't believe it. He plateaued with his weight loss and couldn't figure out how a 2500, 2500, 3500 diet was no longer giving him the expected results. Until he cut out the "zero-calorie" cooking spray. No one sprays that cooking spray for only 250ms.

busyant 5y ago
Agreed. From what I understand, "0 calories" really means < 5 per "serving." And you're correct. Nobody sprays for 250 ms. For what it's worth... Part of my original comment is based on the fact that I have been _carefully_ monitoring my food intake AND activity for the past 18 months. I will tell you over that period, I wake up and weigh myself. Each morning, my scale says that I weigh between 166.6 and 168.0--without fail. I measure my food with a scale, but I will _also_ tell you that my caloric intake varies between 1800 and 2600 calories per day. My activity varies as well (I won't go into details). But my weight is PINNED to 167 pounds. Day after day after day. To me, this information just screams that my body is modulating its caloric intake based on what I eat and how active I am. Now, I know, this is "anecdata." But I can't be the only person who has observed this.