6 ms·

It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. But while a calorie equals a calorie, the body reacts differently to fast calories and slow calori

by lukifer 15y ago

It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. But while a calorie equals a calorie, the body reacts differently to fast calories and slow calories: a steady supply of blood sugar, vs. spikes and troughs. This affects feedback loops of insulin, satiety, etc., prompting people to overeat. Side note: I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times.

aneth 15y ago
> It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. Are you sure? I've lost plenty of weight following a low carb diet while eating tons of high calorie dark chocolate and oily meats.
- ukdm 15y ago
  Me too. Just spent 8 weeks on a low carb diet and lost 17 pounds so far. Calories do not factor into it. Low carbs and low sugar intake lead to weight loss.
  - frou_dh 15y ago
    You can lose fat if you eat nothing but Doritos and a Coke 3 times a day. Weight loss is far more straightforward to achieve than health and fitness.
    - wpietri 15y ago
      Do you have evidence for that? The Lustig view on the biochemistry of fat creation and insulin resistance is pretty persuasive.
      - frou_dh 15y ago
        Try it. I have (not that exact combo, but the same ballpark). Or find one of the many people who eat terribly but not excessively and are thin. I didn't say it was in any way a good idea - just a retort to the OP's position that short term weight loss is not about calories.
        wpietri 15y ago
        I don't think a skinny guy who eats junk food proves anything. I believe that ukdm's position is not that calories are entirely irrelevant, just that if you focus on low carbs and low sugar, then counting calories in practice doesn't matter.
    - lukifer 15y ago
      You can, but you won't. Blood glucose is tied to willpower, so once you crash, it's exceedingly difficult to not eat more sugar.
- lukifer 15y ago
  Preaching to the choir, I've been paleo for three months and lost almost 40 lbs. I'm just talking about the physics involved: caloric energy used vs. caloric energy consumed. If you could measure them perfectly, there would be a loss.
  - aneth 15y ago
    > If you could measure them perfectly, there would be a loss Again, how do you know? Below someone says diet follows the laws of thermodynamics. That's hogwash. While our bodies certainly follow all laws of physics, that has nothing to do with diet. We are perfectly capable of expelling unconsumed dietary energy.
    - lukifer 15y ago
      Thermodynamics doesn't govern diet so much as it does everything in the known universe. ;) But I'll admit that my statement is merely a highly probable assumption. If fat doesn't leave based on burning it for energy, where does it go?
      - cjp 15y ago
        When in ketosis, excess ketones are expelled in the urine.
- jwingy 15y ago
  The basic equation is: calories consumed - calories burned = weight loss (or gain) If you lost weight it means you burned more calories than you ate.
  - Kaizyn 15y ago
    This is widely believed but not true or supported by scientific evidence. Have a look at Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for a rundown on much of the relevant research.
    - jwingy 15y ago
      I didn't read the book but I wonder if what the scientific evidence concludes isn't necessarily the refutation of that equation, but rather that it's more complicated than x-y=z. For example, foods that require a bit more energy to consume such as foods high in fiber. I mean, calories are just a unit of measure for energy, so if you consume energy, it must go somewhere, either expended or stored in the body. What happens if the body lacks the energy for its processes...doesn't it then burn fat? If you turn fat into energy, that means less mass in the form of fat, with the excess energy dissipating into heat. Isn't this just physics?
      - stdbrouw 15y ago
        Yeah, Taubes' main point (simplified) is that your muscle and organ cells are pretty good at burning fat, unless you eat lots of carbohydrates, which releases insulin, which will tell your body to stow away any fat that's in your bloodstream instead of burning it. So while consumed - burned = loss is still true, eating a diet that is high on carbs will reduce the amount of calories you burn from the same caloric intake. Carbohydrates also have the added problem of making your blood sugar swing, which leads to hunger pangs and bigger appetites. Paradoxically, it's not fat that makes you fat, it's hormones and pasta/rice/potatoes/bread/sugar because they mess with those hormones. If your body wants more energy, it will find a way to get it, either by inducing you to overeat, or by making you less active. So fixing your hormone balance (specifically insulin levels) is more effective than trying to control your food intake. Of course, the fact that many restaurants and diners in the US serve really big portions, that most of us don't do a lot of exercise, that we have very easy access to high-calorie foods, that the food industry precision-engineers foodstuffs to be addictive... all of that surely doesn't help, but if Taubes is correct those environmental factors are not the chief cause of obesity.
DanBC 15y ago
> Side note: I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times. It's a neat idea, and I'd enjoy collecting all that data too. Would this data be useful for researchers? Or is it just too much information? And there are risks of knowing too much about your body. People can develop anxiety illnesses (such as hypochondria, which has unfortunate popular connotations but in severe forms can be distressing and expensive) when they become too aware of their heartbeat, for example. See also full body MRI scans which are pointless unless you have an idea of what you're looking for.
ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago
"I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times." http://youtube.com/watch?v=bt-lv6IJPxc http://youtube.com/watch?v=bt-lv6IJPxc (animation of a hypothetical, nanotech-based, dermal display) P.S. I have a reply to your McLuhan comment, but I've been too busy/lazy to have typed it out yet.
- lukifer 15y ago
  Oh, man. I want one. > I have a reply to your McLuhan comment, but I've been too busy/lazy to have typed it out yet. Haha, that's beautiful. Better get it out of your head before the idea half-life expires. ;) Allow to me say pre-emptively that the Myers-Brigg abstraction is relevant to the medium/message issue. People inclined towards [P]erception can are more likely to suss out the author's intent regardless of how it is transmitted; people who lean [S]ensory are more likely to influenced by the subjective experience of the idea's packaging.

by lukifer 15y ago

aneth 15y ago

> It's true that you don't lose weight without caloric deficit. Are you sure? I've lost plenty of weight following a low carb diet while eating tons of high calorie dark chocolate and oily meats.

ukdm 15y ago
Me too. Just spent 8 weeks on a low carb diet and lost 17 pounds so far. Calories do not factor into it. Low carbs and low sugar intake lead to weight loss.
- frou_dh 15y ago
  You can lose fat if you eat nothing but Doritos and a Coke 3 times a day. Weight loss is far more straightforward to achieve than health and fitness.
  - wpietri 15y ago
    Do you have evidence for that? The Lustig view on the biochemistry of fat creation and insulin resistance is pretty persuasive.
    - frou_dh 15y ago
      Try it. I have (not that exact combo, but the same ballpark). Or find one of the many people who eat terribly but not excessively and are thin. I didn't say it was in any way a good idea - just a retort to the OP's position that short term weight loss is not about calories.
      - wpietri 15y ago
        I don't think a skinny guy who eats junk food proves anything. I believe that ukdm's position is not that calories are entirely irrelevant, just that if you focus on low carbs and low sugar, then counting calories in practice doesn't matter.
  - lukifer 15y ago
    You can, but you won't. Blood glucose is tied to willpower, so once you crash, it's exceedingly difficult to not eat more sugar.
lukifer 15y ago
Preaching to the choir, I've been paleo for three months and lost almost 40 lbs. I'm just talking about the physics involved: caloric energy used vs. caloric energy consumed. If you could measure them perfectly, there would be a loss.
- aneth 15y ago
  > If you could measure them perfectly, there would be a loss Again, how do you know? Below someone says diet follows the laws of thermodynamics. That's hogwash. While our bodies certainly follow all laws of physics, that has nothing to do with diet. We are perfectly capable of expelling unconsumed dietary energy.
  - lukifer 15y ago
    Thermodynamics doesn't govern diet so much as it does everything in the known universe. ;) But I'll admit that my statement is merely a highly probable assumption. If fat doesn't leave based on burning it for energy, where does it go?
    - cjp 15y ago
      When in ketosis, excess ketones are expelled in the urine.
jwingy 15y ago
The basic equation is: calories consumed - calories burned = weight loss (or gain) If you lost weight it means you burned more calories than you ate.
- Kaizyn 15y ago
  This is widely believed but not true or supported by scientific evidence. Have a look at Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for a rundown on much of the relevant research.
  - jwingy 15y ago
    I didn't read the book but I wonder if what the scientific evidence concludes isn't necessarily the refutation of that equation, but rather that it's more complicated than x-y=z. For example, foods that require a bit more energy to consume such as foods high in fiber. I mean, calories are just a unit of measure for energy, so if you consume energy, it must go somewhere, either expended or stored in the body. What happens if the body lacks the energy for its processes...doesn't it then burn fat? If you turn fat into energy, that means less mass in the form of fat, with the excess energy dissipating into heat. Isn't this just physics?
    - stdbrouw 15y ago
      Yeah, Taubes' main point (simplified) is that your muscle and organ cells are pretty good at burning fat, unless you eat lots of carbohydrates, which releases insulin, which will tell your body to stow away any fat that's in your bloodstream instead of burning it. So while consumed - burned = loss is still true, eating a diet that is high on carbs will reduce the amount of calories you burn from the same caloric intake. Carbohydrates also have the added problem of making your blood sugar swing, which leads to hunger pangs and bigger appetites. Paradoxically, it's not fat that makes you fat, it's hormones and pasta/rice/potatoes/bread/sugar because they mess with those hormones. If your body wants more energy, it will find a way to get it, either by inducing you to overeat, or by making you less active. So fixing your hormone balance (specifically insulin levels) is more effective than trying to control your food intake. Of course, the fact that many restaurants and diners in the US serve really big portions, that most of us don't do a lot of exercise, that we have very easy access to high-calorie foods, that the food industry precision-engineers foodstuffs to be addictive... all of that surely doesn't help, but if Taubes is correct those environmental factors are not the chief cause of obesity.

DanBC 15y ago

> Side note: I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times. It's a neat idea, and I'd enjoy collecting all that data too. Would this data be useful for researchers? Or is it just too much information? And there are risks of knowing too much about your body. People can develop anxiety illnesses (such as hypochondria, which has unfortunate popular connotations but in severe forms can be distressing and expensive) when they become too aware of their heartbeat, for example. See also full body MRI scans which are pointless unless you have an idea of what you're looking for.

ThaddeusQuay2 15y ago

"I'm really looking forward to future biofeedback tech. It'd be interesting to know my blood sugar level and heart rate at all times." http://youtube.com/watch?v=bt-lv6IJPxc http://youtube.com/watch?v=bt-lv6IJPxc (animation of a hypothetical, nanotech-based, dermal display) P.S. I have a reply to your McLuhan comment, but I've been too busy/lazy to have typed it out yet.

lukifer 15y ago
Oh, man. I want one. > I have a reply to your McLuhan comment, but I've been too busy/lazy to have typed it out yet. Haha, that's beautiful. Better get it out of your head before the idea half-life expires. ;) Allow to me say pre-emptively that the Myers-Brigg abstraction is relevant to the medium/message issue. People inclined towards [P]erception can are more likely to suss out the author's intent regardless of how it is transmitted; people who lean [S]ensory are more likely to influenced by the subjective experience of the idea's packaging.