4 ms·

It also ignores the role of macronutrients and digestive absorption rates entirely. For example, one could drink one cup of olive oil daily and get ~2000 calor

by boc 5y ago

It also ignores the role of macronutrients and digestive absorption rates entirely. For example, one could drink one cup of olive oil daily and get ~2000 calories into your body. You would probably start suffering immediately on that type of "diet" because 1. your body isn't going to run on pure fat forever, and 2. your digestive system isn't going to process that amount of olive oil effectively. Therefore it's not helpful to just say "Calories in, calories out" without actually looking at what you're eating.

yupper32 5y ago
No one is drinking a cup of olive oil daily (hopefully), so why use that as an example? What level of optimization are you getting by looking at macro nutrients and digestive absorption rates? More than 100 calories per day? I don't think it's worth the effort. I think a big problem is that whenever dieting is brought up, people throw out the basics and try to be fancy, talking about insulin and macro nutrients and fat burning and digestive absorption rates. Why? It's unnecessary to complicate it that much and turns people away. Then you have people starting Keto and being confused why they aren't losing weight, because they were told that ketosis is more important than keeping track of how many calories you're eating.
- boc 5y ago
  I actually don't disagree with your overall point when we're talking specifically about losing weight. For losing weight, it's all about limiting your consumption of calories from any source while increasing the amount of calories you burn daily. Similarly, when I'm bulking to gain muscle mass I just eat more calories than I usually feel comfortable eating. However that doesn't mean eating a ton of chips or soda or "empty" calories from alcohol, it means tons of actual food, whether it be chicken or pad thai or chocolate milk. IMO, it's much more important to be watching what you're eating when you're putting on weight. Personally I don't like the idea of keto because it seems really hard on your liver and kidneys, and that doesn't seem worth it at all from a health tradeoff perspective.
- tucosan 5y ago
  Complexity of the food source is key. The same amount of calories in sugar, olive oil, meat or chickpeas result in completely different absorption rates in the gut. While sugar will be immediately dumped to the blood stream, chickpeas will take hours to digest until all the sugars become accessible. The body needs to expend calories to access the calories in food high in fiber. Don’t forget about the varying responses of your gut microbiome to different foods. Some calories are easier to access for your body, because your gut microbiome has been inherited/adapted to them since early childhood. Some foods trigger a strong sugar spike in one person, while it does nothing in the next. It’s way more complex than the simple equation of calories in = calories out.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    You didn't answer my question. When it comes to weight loss, how much does it matter? Is it on the order of 100 calories a day? 300? 500? It may be complex, but if you're only changing the calories burned by 100 calories a day, then it hardly changes anything. At some point it matters, and at some point it doesn't.

by boc 5y ago

yupper32 5y ago

No one is drinking a cup of olive oil daily (hopefully), so why use that as an example? What level of optimization are you getting by looking at macro nutrients and digestive absorption rates? More than 100 calories per day? I don't think it's worth the effort. I think a big problem is that whenever dieting is brought up, people throw out the basics and try to be fancy, talking about insulin and macro nutrients and fat burning and digestive absorption rates. Why? It's unnecessary to complicate it that much and turns people away. Then you have people starting Keto and being confused why they aren't losing weight, because they were told that ketosis is more important than keeping track of how many calories you're eating.

boc 5y ago
I actually don't disagree with your overall point when we're talking specifically about losing weight. For losing weight, it's all about limiting your consumption of calories from any source while increasing the amount of calories you burn daily. Similarly, when I'm bulking to gain muscle mass I just eat more calories than I usually feel comfortable eating. However that doesn't mean eating a ton of chips or soda or "empty" calories from alcohol, it means tons of actual food, whether it be chicken or pad thai or chocolate milk. IMO, it's much more important to be watching what you're eating when you're putting on weight. Personally I don't like the idea of keto because it seems really hard on your liver and kidneys, and that doesn't seem worth it at all from a health tradeoff perspective.
tucosan 5y ago
Complexity of the food source is key. The same amount of calories in sugar, olive oil, meat or chickpeas result in completely different absorption rates in the gut. While sugar will be immediately dumped to the blood stream, chickpeas will take hours to digest until all the sugars become accessible. The body needs to expend calories to access the calories in food high in fiber. Don’t forget about the varying responses of your gut microbiome to different foods. Some calories are easier to access for your body, because your gut microbiome has been inherited/adapted to them since early childhood. Some foods trigger a strong sugar spike in one person, while it does nothing in the next. It’s way more complex than the simple equation of calories in = calories out.
- yupper32 5y ago
  You didn't answer my question. When it comes to weight loss, how much does it matter? Is it on the order of 100 calories a day? 300? 500? It may be complex, but if you're only changing the calories burned by 100 calories a day, then it hardly changes anything. At some point it matters, and at some point it doesn't.