11 ms·

I hate all these click-bait articles. Losing weight is simple, it's just CICO. Calories In, Crust of the earth Out Edit: I feel like a lot of people are arguin

• Melatonic 4y ago
  Simple does not mean easy. In fact sometimes a simply difficult problem is the hardest.
  • elil17 4y ago
    That is absolutely true. I'm not trying to tell anyone this isn't a hard challenge. But I think we can all lose weight this way given enough effort.
• shadowpho 4y ago
  98% of people are unable to follow your "simple" idea. Hence, it's not simple by definition. Furthermore, it's not that simple. Lots of other factors affect metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which have huge effect on weight loss\gain.
  • MuffinFlavored 4y ago
    It's simple by definition but not easy to do. Cravings (fat, sugar, filling boredom with eating, depriving yourself from flavor of diet soda/soda) is easier said than done.
    • elil17 4y ago
      It's true, spending time eating can distract from the only real way to lose weight, which is by reducing the mass of the planet Earth. Stay focused, everyone! Together we can do it.
      • bluGill 4y ago
        No way, I'm already at a good healthy weight. If I lose 20 lbs my doctor will get concerned, and I'll end up spending a lot of time getting tests for various cancers.
        • dwohnitmok 4y ago
          If you follow elil17's suggestion your concern is moot. There won't be any doctors. Anywhere.
  • squeaky-clean 4y ago
    > Crust of the earth Out Read the linked article, they're making a pun.
  • throw0101c 4y ago
    > Hence, it's not simple by definition. simple != {easy, convenient, etc}
    • elil17 4y ago
      Exactly, thank you. Simple != convenient is absolutely the best way to summarize it. Losing weight this way is extremely inconvenient. It does mean that earth will become uninhabitable. But that does not mean that it's not worth the hard work!
      • function_seven 4y ago
        You’re ignoring genetics. We have evolved to store fat to survive in harsh conditions, but this does not mean we can survive a missing crust and exposed mantle. Perhaps CRISPR can help?
        • the_mar 4y ago
          there were no fat ppl in concentration camps. genetics matter but not as much as you think they do
          • function_seven 4y ago
            With the Earth’s crust missing I assure you that certain genotypes will fare worse than others.
    • swyx 4y ago
      insert obligatory Rich Hickey mention
  • elil17 4y ago
    People are always going to make these arguments. Yes, I know that there's scientific evidence that your mass effects your weight and that hunger, metabolism, etc. effect your mass. But we have to look at effect sizes. Whatever diet you try, you are only every going to have, at most, a modest effect on your own mass which will indirectly lower your weight. I challenge people to go out there and start launching chunks of matter on escape trajectories from Earth. Yes it is hard, yes it takes a lot of energy, but you will start reducing the force of gravitational attraction acting on you. These are real results, not just a temporary change.
    • idrios 4y ago
      I'm inclined to agree with the parent comment on this, maybe argue they're being conservative. I'd say closer to 99.999% of people would struggle with this weight-loss plan, and hurling chunks of matter from your backyard to out of earth's orbit doesn't sound simple to me. But I'm not gonna knock an idea before I've tried it.
      • elil17 4y ago
        Fair, but if just 1 person can do it, it works for everyone on Earth.
        • EGreg 4y ago
          Have you personally shown people how to do this? Can you link to some testimonials or endorsements from former clients? After all, anyone can say anything, and even point to lottery winners, but I want to learn from the best what it takes to actually win the lottery. I myself am not a success coach but the other day, someone very successful told me that anyone can succeed at a startup. All they have to do is get their billionaire parents to give them a small loan of 10 million dollars, and let them iterate through and fail a few times. The key is to go back to the family trough and then you can get bailed out multiple times. If your parents are not billionaires then there are ways to fix it. This can work for anyone. He showed that such an approach actually pays off because in the end you make back everything you lost AND you can now afford an amazing car and TV! His friend said he was “reducing a hard problem to a much harder problem”. But what does his friend know, he is poor by comparison and seems bitter
  • addisonl 4y ago
    > 98% of people are unable to follow This would imply 98% of people are overweight which, even in America, is far from the truth.
    • parker_mountain 4y ago
      Yeah, it's much closer to 65%. And it's been constantly ticking upwards for years. Haha, uh oh. e: overweight Americans are about 32.5% of the population. Obese is another 36.5%.
    • elil17 4y ago
      I think they key question is "overweight" compared to what? Yes, far less than 98% of people are overweight compared to a baseline created by doctors that was essentially biased by the existing distribution of weights in western society. But 100% of Americans are overweight compared to how much they would weigh if the Earth's mass was reduced by 50%.
  • parker_mountain 4y ago
    > Lots of other factors affect metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which have huge effect on weight loss\gain. Metabolism/energy levels/etc are Calories Out. If your metabolism is low, your Calories Out is lower. Look at BMR, such as https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/bmr https://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/bmr Very simple. CICO. e: there are relatively rare medical conditions, such as water retention, that can affect weight loss. A better term might be "body fat percentage". But the end result is that if you want to lose body fat, consistently intake less calories than your body uses for energy.
    • elil17 4y ago
      I think if we're looking at body fat percentage that's a very different question, and something that's probably more in the realm of biology than physics. But weight loss is simple, it's not going to be effected by medical conditions or "metabolism" if you can just reduce the mass of the Earth.
  • notyourday 4y ago
    > Furthermore, it's not that simple. Lots of other factors affect metabolism, hunger and energy levels, all of which have huge effect on weight loss\gain. It is that simple: people simply are looking for an excuses why they aren't willing to do it. I'm going to again plugin this guy https://hubermanlab.com/how-to-lose-fat-with-science-based-tools/ https://hubermanlab.com/how-to-lose-fat-with-science-based-t... because his lectures are amazing and he breaks down the actual scientific consensus on these topics rather well. He is neuroscientist and tenured associate professor in the Department of Neurobiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine who has made contributions to the brain development, brain plasticity, and neural regeneration and repair fields.
  • gilded-lilly 4y ago
    I once lost 17kg (50 pounds) by caloric restriction (500cal deficit per day). I’ve got news for you: you will be slightly hungry most of the time. Meals will be the highlight of your day.
    • Broken_Hippo 4y ago
      You only know that you were slightly hungry most of the time. For you, meals were the highlight of your day. But you didn't need to go hungry. Folks lose weight by caloric restriction and fill up on a lot of fruits and (non-starchy) vegetables. Some folks have luck with legumes and beans and filling foods. Some folks snack and don't have meals. And the experience of hunger changes, too! Sometimes, in the same person and definitely between folks. Examples: I used to smoke. Nicotine is an excellent appetite suppressant, and honestly made it easier to lose weight. High stress can make me lose most of my appetite or do the opposite. I menstruate. A few days each month, I have indescribable hunger. It is hormone driven, and unlike other hungers I've experienced. Suddenly, I feel like I've skipped meals. It consumes me. I can't do anything about it, but if I eat a little, I can go back to paying attention to other things. Not me personally, but there are a number of drugs that increase your appetite, too. Again, the point really is that hunger isn't as simple as "you'll be slightly hungry most of the time".
      • gilded-lilly 4y ago
        Interesting. You may be right - in fact, I’d never considered filling up on broccoli or other calorically thin ingredients to suppress hunger. I was just working on the assumption that hunger is the body’s response to caloric deficit (in the absence of drugs).
        • otabdeveloper4 4y ago
          True hunger is a feeling of deep fatigue, not a craving to eat something. What we call "hunger" is just habit of eating food regularly. You can untrain yourself, just like with any other habit.
    • 4y ago
  • throwaway729562 4y ago
    It’s simple but not easy.
  • gloryjulio 4y ago
    Simple != easy. Simple/complex vs easy/hard if this illustration helps
  • gcanyon 4y ago
    "simple" <> "easy"
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • jannie123 4y ago
    simple != easy
• oDot 4y ago
  Someone can correct me here, but I believe CICO is false, due to the the difference of efficiency in difference foods and the different people consuming them, leading to significant differences compared to CICO values.
  • parker_mountain 4y ago
    CICO is not false, and that is at most a +-10% variance. Food absorption is definitely is a part of Calories In. If you're worried that you're absorbing more or less calories versus other people, adjust your Calories In. More likely, you are miscounting calories - a common mistake that people trying to lose weight make. For example, you'd be surprised how many calories are in that packet of creamy sauce that came with your fast food! CICO is hard to stick to, because we are biologically wired to enjoy high calorie diets. As a result, lots of people have come up with justifications as to why it wasn't their fault that they failed to adhere to it. The reality is that weight loss is simple. It's very difficult, especially if you're not willing to completely overhaul your diet and relationship with food as an American.
    • TaupeRanger 4y ago
      Don't eat breakfast and don't gorge on snacks before bedtime. That will be a huge benefit to most people that struggle. Now...getting the willpower to stick with it is another battle...
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • parker_mountain 4y ago
        Personally, I drink these 100 cal nutrition drinks for breakfast, or have a banana, and a sparkling water. I've settled on - Very lightweight breakfast (~100 cal) - Light lunch (~700 cal) - Heavy dinner (~1400 cal) - Hard liquor only (tall single vodka/soda is my goto) You'll notice that's over 2000~ a day. I also walk a lot, use an exercise bike instead of the couch when watching TV, and bicycle everywhere I can. On lazy days, I adjust downwards. One thing I've done that's helped a lot is eating a low carb diet - I did keto, found it was incredible effective in losing weight, but kinda brutal. Instead, a low carb (non-ketosis) diet allows for some carbs but significantly reduces "empty calories".
• jasonpeacock 4y ago
  It's not. What you eat is just as important as how much you eat. The body is complex, self-regulating system with hystersis and set points. You should go learn about "metabolic syndrome". And everyone's body reacts differently, so there's no one solution.
  • elil17 4y ago
    >And everyone's body reacts differently, so there's no one solution. Absolutely disagree. F = G(m1)(m2)/(r^2). It's that simple, it's physics. Reduce m1 and your F goes down, same for everybody on the planet.
    • aidenn0 4y ago
      But how do you reduce m1 without reducing r? TFA (correctly) points out that many attempts to reduce m1 will also reduce r, which can be counterproductive.
      • monknomo 4y ago
        hollow earth - just find a way to eject the convenient liquid layer inside the earth elsewhere
        • aidenn0 4y ago
          Sure, there are ways around it, but someone who is only given the "CICO" advice is likely to run afowl of r naturally being correlated to m1.
    • jasonpeacock 4y ago
      It's not physics, it's biology. There are processes that adjust and compensate to changes in the body and diet. For example, if my BMR is 3600cal, and I don't eat for a day, why am I not 1lb lighter? Or if I fast for 5 days, why am I 13lbs lighter and not 5lbs lighter? Why is it easier for obese people to lose weight initially, but then harder to lose that last 10lbs? Which is also true for non-obese people.
• stronglikedan 4y ago
  > these click-bait articles Did you read the article? It didn't seem like click-bait to me.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • elil17 4y ago
    I did. It gets into all this stuff about "density" and "distance from the center of the Earth." I just feel like that is missing the point. As I said, weight loss is simple CICO, Calories In, Crust of the earth Out. You don't need to think about it any more than that, no matter what "scientific publications" like XKCD tell you.
  • lovingCranberry 4y ago
    You didn't get the joke :( > Calories In, Crust of the earth Out
• skellera 4y ago
  I’m surprised how many people stopped reading at CICO. It’s like a meta example of clickbait in 3 sentences.
  • elil17 4y ago
    Yes, next time I get annoyed at someone on HN I plan to return to this thread and remind myself that I'm in the elite 1% of commenters who actually read the article and the other comments before I write something.
    • sshine 4y ago
      I'd get offended, but I wasn't paying enough attention to what the conversation is about to understand what side to be on!
  • dnissley 4y ago
    I think it's more that people did not even bother to open the article
• pid-1 4y ago
  Also, you don't need git, just memorize code changes.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• allsunny 4y ago
  i get the joke but reminds me of a good talk where some googlers got a little upset when gary taubes started going into the problems with CICO thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4
• secabeen 4y ago
  My favorite fact about weight loss is that most of the actual physical loss of atoms is through your breath.
  • geertj 4y ago
    Yes! Through CO2 to be precise.
  • swyx 4y ago
    so does that mean working out more => more breath/CO2 => more weight loss? trying to reconcile this with the conventional advice that weight loss is 90% about eating right
    • space_fountain 4y ago
      The problem with working out to loose weight is that your body knows it takes more calories and so it happily ups your appetite
    • DiggyJohnson 4y ago
      I don’t see why these things must be as interconnected as you’re question suggests. If you have a relatively constant outflow of breath, measurably but not drastically affected by exercise, the CICO conception could still account for the net difference in body mass.
      • dTal 4y ago
        Your exhalations are a direct result of the chemical reaction that gives you energy: C + O2 -> CO2. C is your carbon-based food, O2 is your inhalation, and CO2 is your exhalation. When you burn more calories, you increase the speed of that reaction, and you breath out more CO2. That is why exercise makes you lose weight (and why it makes you heat up). They are inextricable. The mass has to go somewhere!
    • jvalencia 4y ago
      I can't remember where I read it unfortunately, but yes, breathing harder will contribute to weight loss. edit: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/breathing-exercises-for-weight-loss https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/breathing-exercises-for...
• make3 4y ago
  While this is true strictly speaking, whether weight-loss actually happens is 99% a psychological thing, and ignoring that is ridiculous. People aren't magical machines with infinite, perfect willpower, ignoring that this is the main factor is completely out of touch. That's what the whole conversation is about, how to make it easier for people, more realistic. Find foods that make people feel sated while still eating less for example. Find ways to make habits. etc.
  • tsimionescu 4y ago
    Not really - your psychology really has absolutely nothing to do with how much force the Earth exerts on you (and everyone else). CICO captures this perfectly: the more Crust of the earth Out, the less force the Earth will exert on us, so we'll all weigh less. No amount of psychology will help or prevent you from losing those newtons of weight!
• d0mine 4y ago
  If it were that simple you and your car would be able to use the same fuel--it is likely a bad idea in most cases.
• poulpy123 4y ago
  You misunderstand simple for easy, and the fact that you refer to physics for something that belongs to biology and psychology show that you don't really know what you're talking about
  • jkqwzsoo 4y ago
    You're totally missing the joke. Read the article and check back.
  • tsimionescu 4y ago
    Weight really has very little to do with biology, and nothing to do with psychology. It is a simple matter of how much the earth's mass bends space-time - the more mass we eject of the earth, the less bent space-time will be in the vicinity, the less we'll all weight. It really is the simplest weight loss method possible, it will work for everyone living on the planet at once, and the article presents it (and its difficulties) quite clearly - not sure why you'd go off topic by talking about biology and psychology.
• sagebird 4y ago
  Why go to space at all? Just stretch your arms until they form a great circle around the Earth. Where your hands meet, hold a dumbell the mass of your bodice. Once your hands interlock, you can safely lift your feet from Earth's tyrannical force and you will gracefully float like a ring of pure joy.
  • thfuran 4y ago
    But what if I don't have a bodice? Do I need to go get one or can I just skip the dumbbell too?
    • just_boost_it 4y ago
      Without the bodice you would be out of balance while holding the dumbbell. If you're making a ring around the world, you must learn to reason circularly.
• g_log 4y ago
  CICO is true, of course, but it doesn't do justice to how interesting the whole topic of weight loss is. Why do some people need more food to reach satiety, why do some people move more, for example.
  • tsimionescu 4y ago
    To be fair, in the CICO model, everyone on Earth would lose the exact same amount of weight, regardless of any of the factors you mention - or at least, the weight loss we'd experience from truly following the tenets of CICO could easily offset any individual mass modification from food or exercise! It's also true that you'd get far more, and quicker, weight loss by increasing your distance from the earth instead of reducing the earth's mass, but that seems a little selfish...
• iamthepieman 4y ago
  This is utter trash and clearly you're a shill for the CICO industry. The real secret to weight loss is CICU Calories in, Centripetal force Up. This has been suppressed for decades by rocket scientist, the government, Elon Musk and other elites. The only real thing that will be shrinking under CICO is your bank account as it's drained dry by the subsidies for crust flingers. Under CICU your weight will go down as energy is expended to increase the rotational speed of the earth. This will not only leave the crust intact but would also allow us to see multiple sunsets/sunrises in a single "day".
• karaterobot 4y ago
  It's never been this evident to me how few people on HN even read the comments they spend time replying to.
  • Nition 4y ago
    I always knew that a lot of people didn't read the article before commenting, but I'm still surprised at the number replying here without reading the whole three-sentence comment.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• bergenty 4y ago
  I actually dislike any extended conversation on losing weight. Just stop eating is basically the answer. It sounds blunt but it feels like we need to hammer the message in.
• themitigating 4y ago
  So you provide a single, simple method of weight loss and then you edit your comment when attacked and add a single case of weight loss to make your point. You then claim there's no possibility for debate, it's proven, and you reiterate how simple it is
  • elil17 4y ago
    I did write all of that, because I’m absolutely right. Google Yuri Gagarin and you’ll understand. He lost 100% of his body weight.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• boplicity 4y ago
  It's not "basic physics." You're implying that "calories in" are all absorbed equally. We poop. Literally. Calories go out that are never absorbed. Every body does this differently. Is that physics too? Also: some people get calories from certain foods that other people don't get calories from. Is that physics? Can you lose weight from a calorie restriction diet? Of course! But don't claim that it's the only answer. It's not. The human body deserves more respect than that.
  • elil17 4y ago
    Of course many diets could work for losing weight. But that’s going to be 20 pounds max for most people. I’m saying that we can lose potentially 50% or even nearly 100% of our body weight through some simple physics. F=G(m1)(m2)/(r^2)
    • boplicity 4y ago
      > even nearly 100% of our body weight through some simple physics. You're really drifting away from reality here. You're going to die well before you lose even close to 100% of your body weight. Yikes!
      • pricci 4y ago
        He/She is only drifting away from earth
        • boplicity 4y ago
          I've been had. I think I need a break from the internet. lol.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • klooney 4y ago
    Some calorie measurements are done via bomb calorimeter- you measure before eating, and then, er, after eating, and subtract the difference. So the inefficiency of poop can be baked in. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-the-calorie-is-broken/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-the-calorie-is-b...
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• addicted 4y ago
  This really doesn’t work. BMR is a thing. Gut bacteria are a thing. How your body conserves energy is a thing. How your body tries to find efficiencies while doing the same thing is a thing. Insulin is a thing. The only way the CICO model has any value is through it’s most trivial “physics based” interpretation at which point it’s not useful in any way. It’s like saying “Developing software is simple. It’s Code in, Executable out”. Its not wrong, but it’s also a completely pointless statement, which only serves to trivialize a complex issue and end discussion on it. You could write that comment on every software development related article on HN and dismiss the article as clickbait on that basis, which would obviously be ridiculous, even if your statement wouldn’t be wrong.
• otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  No. "Calories" are a measure of fuel heat capacity, not nutrition. Alcohol is more caloric than Coca-Cola, but drinking two liters of alcohol per day won't make you obese.
  • elil17 4y ago
    I think the fact that calories are a measure of energy in fuel makes calories extremely relevant to the Calories In, Crust of the earth Out weight loss method.
• wodenokoto 4y ago
  > Calories In, Crust of the earth Out I think a lot of people didn't notice the "Crust of the earth"-part in "Crust of the earth Out". I gotta admit, I was a bit confused why there was a "calories in, calories out" argument in response to TFA and how it could connect to orbital mechanics. I consider myself trolled along with most of my sibling commentors!
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• a_c 4y ago
  Moving from asia to europe, I find sugar way more prevalent here in europe. Desserts everywhere and sweeter. Drinks are sweetened, breads are sweetened. My sugar consumption has increased significantly compared to my asian life and I don't even have a sweet tooth.
  • retinaros 4y ago
    most of the salty food in asian countries contain some sugar especially in restaurants
  • arnvald 4y ago
    Haha, for me moving the other direction was shocking. What do you mean the desert is red bean paste? Beans are not sweet! Where's chocolate?! Over time though I got used to it and started enjoying it, now that I live again in Europe I actually miss Asian deserts
    • a_c 4y ago
      Glad you enjoyed the time in asia :)
  • elil17 4y ago
    I would agree that Asia is a much better place to go to work on weight loss, but not because of food or sugar. They have the JSA, Roscosmos, and CNSA, whereas Europe only has the ESA.
    • kthejoker2 4y ago
      Your commitment to this thread is awe-inspiring.
• simmerup 4y ago
  Like a good engineer I used to follow CICO religiously. It’s so simple and ‘right’, you just budget your calories and that’s all that matters. This led to me eating treat bags of sweets for lunch. Cycles of months putting on weight and then the following months doing a 500 deficit per day to lose it. Radical hunger spikes l, nights awake in bed because I was so hungry and dreams of eating marshmallows. Lack of nutrients. By the end of it I’d lost a lot of hair (I put a lot of this down to the inflammation caused by insulin resistance), my sweat smelled sweet, my temperature was totally out of whack, and maintaining my weight was a constant struggle. However, since fasting and eliminating sugar from my diet I’ve maintained my weight with way less effort. By focusing on low GI food, nutrient dense food, Ive reduced my hunger pangs, my sweat smells normal, my hairs started to grow back, my sleep has improved, I recover faster from exercise, etc. So yeah, CICO works. But it’s not optimal. The worst thing about my new diet is just how expensive and time consuming it is compared to just reading the calories on a packet and buying the cheapest thing that fits my daily budget. But it’s worth it.
  • bumby 4y ago
    CICO is simply saying caloric deficit with is the main mechanism of weight loss. It is not saying that a caloric deficit is all that is needed for optimal health or that all calories are created equal from a health perspective. Health and weight loss shouldn’t be conflated. I would venture to guess that your new diet of fasting and nutrient dense foods is still giving you a caloric deficit to lose weight. You’ve just swapped counting calories for alternatives that serve as a proxy for reducing caloric intake. Ex. - intermittent fasting makes it easier to create a deficit because you're reducing the amount of time you can shove calories into your intake port - carnivore diet works because you're cutting out all the carbohydrates in your diet and protein/fat tend to be more satiating, resulting in fewer calories overall - Low GI foods reduce the amount of caloric-dense food options and reduce ghrelin, making you less likely to binge They just use a different heuristic to ultimately reduce calories. IMO this is one of the causes of yo-yo dieting. A proxy works well for a while and people lose weight. But then it stops being a good proxy for creating a caloric deficit and they plateau. Leading them to drop it, gain the weight back, and then jump onto the next fad that will serve as a rough proxy for caloric deficit again.
• foxyv 4y ago
  Have you heard of planetary fasting? Pretty much you just stop absorbing sunlight and the planetary insulin levels drop when all of the carbohydrate producing plants die off. Works great!