4 ms·

Interesting, that from my reading it looks like using non-sugar sweeteners caused -570 calories daily intake reduction, but somehow just -0.71kg of body weight.

Interesting, that from my reading it looks like using non-sugar sweeteners caused -570 calories daily intake reduction, but somehow just -0.71kg of body weight.. Edit: it is 570 kJ = 136 calories.

laweijfmvo 4y ago
You need -500 calories every day for a week in order to lose 1 pound.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  I think it is -0.71kg of total body weight loss, not just per one week.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  * +/- up to 20% deviation (some people absorb more or less calories in their food) * until your metabolism adapts to consistent calorie deficit, which causes up to 50% decrease in weight loss Maintenance Phase had a fascinating episode about calories being significantly more complicated than we expected.
dmix 4y ago
This is the punchline of every keto book. The whole ‘you just need to eat less calories to lose weight’ thing that has been pushed since post-WW2 despite having almost no solid evidence supporting it for long term weight loss. The best one that destroys the woo-y history of calorie (and fat) obsessed health science (or lack of science) is the book “The Case for Keto” by the author who wrote “The Case Against Sugar” and “Good Calorie Bad Calorie”.
- EMM_386 4y ago
  > The whole ‘you just need to eat less calories to lose weight’ thing CICO, or "calories in, calories out", is obviously real. If you don't eat food, you will lose weight and eventually starve to death.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    There’s a difference between consumption tied to metabolic rate and satiation. Carbs make you consume more calories, proteins and fats are better at moderating your caloric consumption closer to your metabolic rate. A can of Coke doesn’t satiate your, but it’s almost 300 calories with almost no nutritional value, so you’re going to consume more calories than you otherwise would.
    - throwaway821909 4y ago
      But we should start there and everything else should just say "this will help you feel less hungry with less calories". If you had the willpower to just drink 1500 calories of Coke for a day, you would lose weight, you'd also feel hungry all the time (and die eventually but that's beside the point). (p.s. they say it's 140)
      - toomuchtodo 4y ago
        I’m mistaken. As I review the 12 Fl oz Mountain Dew can in my fridge, it appears it’s 170 calories. I was remembering the same bottle closer to 23 oz I picked up at the gas station for someone earlier today.
    - jclos 4y ago
      Anything that states that an entire macronutrient is more satiating than another macronutrient is crank science and you should dismiss it. High fibre "carbs" for example are incredibly satiating.
      - evol262 4y ago
        "What is glycemic index?" This isn't "crank science". This is just lack of knowledge. High fibre "carbs" have a lower glycemic index. Fats have essentially none, and protein is low. Food -> glucose -> insulin release -> glycogen update by liver/muscles -> leptin release for satiety Simultaneously: lower blood sugar -> ghrelin release -> hunger This is just the difference between burning gunpowder and charcoal.
- tpush 4y ago
  Gary Taubes (the author of those books) is about as far from a serious scientist, or even science communicator, as one can get without being an obvious charlatan. Saying 'the science got it all wrong!' while citing pop-sci books from Amazon is a bit ironic.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Do you have a specific complaint here? Or what specifically he got wrong in his books? Or some studies you can point me to connecting a low calorie diet with sustained weight loss? Or is this just a pithy attack on reading books by journalists who summarizes scientific research? I’m always open to be shown wrong. Otherwise I don’t really care about defending this specific author. I found his to be the best summary on the subject among multiple books, articles, and studies.
    - evol262 4y ago
      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/
      - dmix 4y ago
        So the sample neither exercised enough nor reduced their caloric intake, so it neither supports nor discredits caloric restrictions? Sounds about par for the course.
        evol262 4y ago
        No, the point of this study is "those who claimed they reduced caloric intake but did not lose weight did not actually reduce it -- they're poor at estimations, so they got it wrong, and this actually works".
        dmix 4y ago
        That's one hell of a weak study
- NovaVeles 4y ago
  Yeah... nah. Simply on CICO (well more just monitoring CI) I have lost 40Kg/90 Pounds over the last 5 years. It does work.
- victorvosk 4y ago
  Right... its more likely our bodies are probably some miraculous, fuel-less generators capable of producing energy (and fat) from thin air. Meanwhile, in my own anecdotal, completely unscientific personal study, I went to eating one meal a day 6 weeks ago and have lost 10 pounds, despite eating all sorts of stuff you are not supposed to eat (sugar) during that one meal each day.
- culopatin 4y ago
  Why do you think there is no evidence that if you reduce calorie intake you lose weight? Are you saying that if your calorie intake was 0 you would remain fat? Why are anorexic people skinny then?
leereeves 4y ago
From the table on page 1? > Total energy intake (kJ/day) > Energy intake –569 (low) It's 569 kJ, which is only 136 Calories.
- riku_iki 4y ago
  You are right, thank you.

Interesting, that from my reading it looks like using non-sugar sweeteners caused -570 calories daily intake reduction, but somehow just -0.71kg of body weight.. Edit: it is 570 kJ = 136 calories.

laweijfmvo 4y ago

You need -500 calories every day for a week in order to lose 1 pound.

riku_iki 4y ago
I think it is -0.71kg of total body weight loss, not just per one week.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
* +/- up to 20% deviation (some people absorb more or less calories in their food) * until your metabolism adapts to consistent calorie deficit, which causes up to 50% decrease in weight loss Maintenance Phase had a fascinating episode about calories being significantly more complicated than we expected.

dmix 4y ago

This is the punchline of every keto book. The whole ‘you just need to eat less calories to lose weight’ thing that has been pushed since post-WW2 despite having almost no solid evidence supporting it for long term weight loss. The best one that destroys the woo-y history of calorie (and fat) obsessed health science (or lack of science) is the book “The Case for Keto” by the author who wrote “The Case Against Sugar” and “Good Calorie Bad Calorie”.

EMM_386 4y ago
> The whole ‘you just need to eat less calories to lose weight’ thing CICO, or "calories in, calories out", is obviously real. If you don't eat food, you will lose weight and eventually starve to death.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  There’s a difference between consumption tied to metabolic rate and satiation. Carbs make you consume more calories, proteins and fats are better at moderating your caloric consumption closer to your metabolic rate. A can of Coke doesn’t satiate your, but it’s almost 300 calories with almost no nutritional value, so you’re going to consume more calories than you otherwise would.
  - throwaway821909 4y ago
    But we should start there and everything else should just say "this will help you feel less hungry with less calories". If you had the willpower to just drink 1500 calories of Coke for a day, you would lose weight, you'd also feel hungry all the time (and die eventually but that's beside the point). (p.s. they say it's 140)
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      I’m mistaken. As I review the 12 Fl oz Mountain Dew can in my fridge, it appears it’s 170 calories. I was remembering the same bottle closer to 23 oz I picked up at the gas station for someone earlier today.
  - jclos 4y ago
    Anything that states that an entire macronutrient is more satiating than another macronutrient is crank science and you should dismiss it. High fibre "carbs" for example are incredibly satiating.
    - evol262 4y ago
      "What is glycemic index?" This isn't "crank science". This is just lack of knowledge. High fibre "carbs" have a lower glycemic index. Fats have essentially none, and protein is low. Food -> glucose -> insulin release -> glycogen update by liver/muscles -> leptin release for satiety Simultaneously: lower blood sugar -> ghrelin release -> hunger This is just the difference between burning gunpowder and charcoal.
tpush 4y ago
Gary Taubes (the author of those books) is about as far from a serious scientist, or even science communicator, as one can get without being an obvious charlatan. Saying 'the science got it all wrong!' while citing pop-sci books from Amazon is a bit ironic.
- dmix 4y ago
  Do you have a specific complaint here? Or what specifically he got wrong in his books? Or some studies you can point me to connecting a low calorie diet with sustained weight loss? Or is this just a pithy attack on reading books by journalists who summarizes scientific research? I’m always open to be shown wrong. Otherwise I don’t really care about defending this specific author. I found his to be the best summary on the subject among multiple books, articles, and studies.
  - evol262 4y ago
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/
    - dmix 4y ago
      So the sample neither exercised enough nor reduced their caloric intake, so it neither supports nor discredits caloric restrictions? Sounds about par for the course.
      - evol262 4y ago
        No, the point of this study is "those who claimed they reduced caloric intake but did not lose weight did not actually reduce it -- they're poor at estimations, so they got it wrong, and this actually works".
        dmix 4y ago
        That's one hell of a weak study
NovaVeles 4y ago
Yeah... nah. Simply on CICO (well more just monitoring CI) I have lost 40Kg/90 Pounds over the last 5 years. It does work.
victorvosk 4y ago
Right... its more likely our bodies are probably some miraculous, fuel-less generators capable of producing energy (and fat) from thin air. Meanwhile, in my own anecdotal, completely unscientific personal study, I went to eating one meal a day 6 weeks ago and have lost 10 pounds, despite eating all sorts of stuff you are not supposed to eat (sugar) during that one meal each day.
culopatin 4y ago
Why do you think there is no evidence that if you reduce calorie intake you lose weight? Are you saying that if your calorie intake was 0 you would remain fat? Why are anorexic people skinny then?

leereeves 4y ago

From the table on page 1? > Total energy intake (kJ/day) > Energy intake –569 (low) It's 569 kJ, which is only 136 Calories.

riku_iki 4y ago
You are right, thank you.