6 ms·

Calories can only be restricted temporarily. Your body has finite stores of energy until you run out of it and die of starvation. So over long periods of time,

Calories can only be restricted temporarily. Your body has finite stores of energy until you run out of it and die of starvation. So over long periods of time, you consume almost exactly as much calories as you use. The only way to consume less calories over your lifetime is to use less calories over your lifetime. And for this you need to move less. So "calorie restriction" is opposite from higher activity levels (exercise).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> only way to consume less calories over your lifetime is to use less calories over your lifetime. And for this you need to move less Outside elite athletes, most people burn a significant minority of calories on physical activity [1]. Again, we have actual research around calorie restriction + exercise. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003580/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003580/
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  Again, this is wrong way to think about it. All people have a huge static component to the calories that are used by our bodies. But this component is pretty much the same for all people. Our livers, our hearts, our brains are all constructed the same and use the same amounts of energy. Where our bodies differ for the static component is based on our activity levels. Our Basal Metabolic Rate is higher when we have active lifestyle and tend to be lower when we are sedentary. So, again, to use less energy you have to move less because regular exercise will increase your BMR or (depending how you think about it) prevent it from dropping. You can't have low basal metabolic rate AND be regularly exercising.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > this component is pretty much the same for all people We have evidence time-restricted feeding reduces basal metabolic rates [1]. > to use less energy you have to move less Most of us carry a lot of fat, particularly around the organs, that makes all sorts of processes from physical activity to the mundane inefficient. The point of calorie restriction, nutrition and exercise is to cut out that inefficiency. We have strong evidence it can be done. Per the article and reams of research. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737674/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737674/
- vkazanov 3y ago
  Just walking around burns quite a lot of calories. 10-15k steps a day can burn up to 500-600 kcal. That's like 20-30% of a recommended daily intake! Note that this is the least traumatic way of calorie usage.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > 20-30% of a recommended daily intake Between junk calories and inefficient metabolism from a sedentary lifestyle, almost everyone has this surplus in their energy balance.
  - xvector 3y ago
    It is thought that our bodies compensate to regain calories expended via exercise in other mechanisms (through hunger, metabolism adjustments, and other mechanisms.)
    - vkazanov 3y ago
      Yes, to a limited extend. But monitoring calorie intake vs expenditure really does make a difference. I went through multiple cycles of controlled 10kg+ weight gain and loss, and I must say that just by walking extra couple miles a day while enforcing the calorie limit can make all the difference. What doesn't work for weight control is just doing more sports - this is easily compensated by hunger.
      - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
        It is biggest trap for people who want to exercise to lose weight. Because their bodies compensate by eating more and they are surprised they are not losing weight and they think that exercising does not work. Which is completely wrong way to look at it. You want to get healthier to lose weight not lose weight to get healthier. And exercise is one of the best ways to help you get healthier even if it does not directly and immediately lead to losing weight.
        theonlybutlet 3y ago
- arghwhat 3y ago
  Any absorbed calories not used one way or another end up stored. At the end, you'll only have one body worth of unused energy, making it a rounding error compared to a lifetime of used energy even for the morbidly obese. The only catch is that the truly extreme cases have a notably higher energy requirement to stay alive (more tissue needs more energy), which could skew their numbers a bit to have somehow resembled a more active person.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    A fat person works harder exercising than a fit person. Their hearts and digestive systems are constantly working harder, and they’re wasting energy on inflammation. By losing weight, they can both increase their activity level and decrease their calories in and out. We know calorie restriction + exercise works in mice. So this isn’t a thermodynamic problem. We in tech tend to think from first principles; calories in = calories out seems obvious. The problem is it’s misleadingly simplifying—there is a lot in between that is significant. In any case, I don’t think this is therapeutically inclined. It’s simply hinting at an underlying mechanism we may be able to exploit.
    - arghwhat 3y ago
      > A fat person works harder exercising than a fit person. Primarily because of improper muscle activation, and from their body weight making the exercise more intense. Athletes increase their cardiovascular and metabolic throughput (i.e., allowing them to burn even more calories and thus work even harder), and repeating an activity increases muscle control, allowing more coordinated and balanced movements (e.g., keeping themselves and external weights balanced without erratic, wasteful compensatory movements). They might also have a diet that absorbs better, as athletes try to absorb absurd amounts of calories. A larger person does have a higher base energy consumption, although this is not caused by inflammation - it's just that any tissue need energy. If this was not the case, even just a few kilocalories overeating would cause unbounded growth - instead, energy requirements for a person lie on a curve, and slight overeating for one body weight just means that you reach equilibrium at a slightly higher body weight, with any combination of food intake + activity + body composition having some (although possibly absurd) body mass equilibrium. Of course, being morbidly obese does introduce high risk of certain diseases that have an energy cost and waste (e.g., mismanaged diabetes and sugar in urine), but I consider that somewhat separate. Caries in = calories out is a thermodynamic problem. Thermodynamics account for inefficient processes. If you take fewer calories in, it always means that your body will be doing less or taking its energy from elsewhere. The body has plenty of ways to do this, including reducing base metabolism at certain costs. The sheer number of backup plans the body has available for any particular function is fascinating, but they are generally all costlier than the primary ones. However, do not let that deter you from exploring this further. Collecting data on health outcomes of human behaviors is almost impossible without massive datasets - can't exactly cage people up in labs to test them.
- JeffSnazzy 3y ago
  > Again, we have actual research around calorie restriction + exercise. Again, you're missing the other side of the comparison implied by "restriction"—restricted from what? You can't just avoid calories entirely.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > restricted from what From baseline. Which for almost every person is higher than is healthy. > can't just avoid calories entirely Who said this? Even the title says “eating less” not “starve and die.”
    - JeffSnazzy 3y ago
      > Which for almost every person is higher than is healthy Why not just say "eat baseline calories"? Assuming everyone is overweight is weird.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Why not just say "eat baseline calories"? This is like saying “everything in moderation.” What’s moderation? The whole point is drawing the new baseline. > Assuming everyone is overweight is weird Again, straw man. Nobody said as much. What is suggested by the research is we eat and expend more calories than is efficient.
        JeffSnazzy 3y ago
        > This is like saying “everything in moderation.” What’s moderation? Presumably, not always "less than what you're currently doing".
    - watwut 3y ago
      This assumption is why eating disorders are on the rise. Increasing amount of population eats significantly less then they need and are terrified of eating more. And at every step, they hear that they surely eat too much.
- watwut 3y ago
  Yeah, calorie restriction plusbexercise makes you tired, passive and prone to sickness.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> only way to consume less calories over your lifetime is to use less calories over your lifetime. And for this you need to move less Outside elite athletes, most people burn a significant minority of calories on physical activity [1]. Again, we have actual research around calorie restriction + exercise. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003580/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003580/

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
Again, this is wrong way to think about it. All people have a huge static component to the calories that are used by our bodies. But this component is pretty much the same for all people. Our livers, our hearts, our brains are all constructed the same and use the same amounts of energy. Where our bodies differ for the static component is based on our activity levels. Our Basal Metabolic Rate is higher when we have active lifestyle and tend to be lower when we are sedentary. So, again, to use less energy you have to move less because regular exercise will increase your BMR or (depending how you think about it) prevent it from dropping. You can't have low basal metabolic rate AND be regularly exercising.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > this component is pretty much the same for all people We have evidence time-restricted feeding reduces basal metabolic rates [1]. > to use less energy you have to move less Most of us carry a lot of fat, particularly around the organs, that makes all sorts of processes from physical activity to the mundane inefficient. The point of calorie restriction, nutrition and exercise is to cut out that inefficiency. We have strong evidence it can be done. Per the article and reams of research. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737674/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737674/
vkazanov 3y ago
Just walking around burns quite a lot of calories. 10-15k steps a day can burn up to 500-600 kcal. That's like 20-30% of a recommended daily intake! Note that this is the least traumatic way of calorie usage.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > 20-30% of a recommended daily intake Between junk calories and inefficient metabolism from a sedentary lifestyle, almost everyone has this surplus in their energy balance.
- xvector 3y ago
  It is thought that our bodies compensate to regain calories expended via exercise in other mechanisms (through hunger, metabolism adjustments, and other mechanisms.)
  - vkazanov 3y ago
    Yes, to a limited extend. But monitoring calorie intake vs expenditure really does make a difference. I went through multiple cycles of controlled 10kg+ weight gain and loss, and I must say that just by walking extra couple miles a day while enforcing the calorie limit can make all the difference. What doesn't work for weight control is just doing more sports - this is easily compensated by hunger.
    - onetimeuse92304 3y ago
      It is biggest trap for people who want to exercise to lose weight. Because their bodies compensate by eating more and they are surprised they are not losing weight and they think that exercising does not work. Which is completely wrong way to look at it. You want to get healthier to lose weight not lose weight to get healthier. And exercise is one of the best ways to help you get healthier even if it does not directly and immediately lead to losing weight.
      - theonlybutlet 3y ago
arghwhat 3y ago
Any absorbed calories not used one way or another end up stored. At the end, you'll only have one body worth of unused energy, making it a rounding error compared to a lifetime of used energy even for the morbidly obese. The only catch is that the truly extreme cases have a notably higher energy requirement to stay alive (more tissue needs more energy), which could skew their numbers a bit to have somehow resembled a more active person.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  A fat person works harder exercising than a fit person. Their hearts and digestive systems are constantly working harder, and they’re wasting energy on inflammation. By losing weight, they can both increase their activity level and decrease their calories in and out. We know calorie restriction + exercise works in mice. So this isn’t a thermodynamic problem. We in tech tend to think from first principles; calories in = calories out seems obvious. The problem is it’s misleadingly simplifying—there is a lot in between that is significant. In any case, I don’t think this is therapeutically inclined. It’s simply hinting at an underlying mechanism we may be able to exploit.
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    > A fat person works harder exercising than a fit person. Primarily because of improper muscle activation, and from their body weight making the exercise more intense. Athletes increase their cardiovascular and metabolic throughput (i.e., allowing them to burn even more calories and thus work even harder), and repeating an activity increases muscle control, allowing more coordinated and balanced movements (e.g., keeping themselves and external weights balanced without erratic, wasteful compensatory movements). They might also have a diet that absorbs better, as athletes try to absorb absurd amounts of calories. A larger person does have a higher base energy consumption, although this is not caused by inflammation - it's just that any tissue need energy. If this was not the case, even just a few kilocalories overeating would cause unbounded growth - instead, energy requirements for a person lie on a curve, and slight overeating for one body weight just means that you reach equilibrium at a slightly higher body weight, with any combination of food intake + activity + body composition having some (although possibly absurd) body mass equilibrium. Of course, being morbidly obese does introduce high risk of certain diseases that have an energy cost and waste (e.g., mismanaged diabetes and sugar in urine), but I consider that somewhat separate. Caries in = calories out is a thermodynamic problem. Thermodynamics account for inefficient processes. If you take fewer calories in, it always means that your body will be doing less or taking its energy from elsewhere. The body has plenty of ways to do this, including reducing base metabolism at certain costs. The sheer number of backup plans the body has available for any particular function is fascinating, but they are generally all costlier than the primary ones. However, do not let that deter you from exploring this further. Collecting data on health outcomes of human behaviors is almost impossible without massive datasets - can't exactly cage people up in labs to test them.
JeffSnazzy 3y ago
> Again, we have actual research around calorie restriction + exercise. Again, you're missing the other side of the comparison implied by "restriction"—restricted from what? You can't just avoid calories entirely.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > restricted from what From baseline. Which for almost every person is higher than is healthy. > can't just avoid calories entirely Who said this? Even the title says “eating less” not “starve and die.”
  - JeffSnazzy 3y ago
    > Which for almost every person is higher than is healthy Why not just say "eat baseline calories"? Assuming everyone is overweight is weird.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Why not just say "eat baseline calories"? This is like saying “everything in moderation.” What’s moderation? The whole point is drawing the new baseline. > Assuming everyone is overweight is weird Again, straw man. Nobody said as much. What is suggested by the research is we eat and expend more calories than is efficient.
      - JeffSnazzy 3y ago
        > This is like saying “everything in moderation.” What’s moderation? Presumably, not always "less than what you're currently doing".
  - watwut 3y ago
    This assumption is why eating disorders are on the rise. Increasing amount of population eats significantly less then they need and are terrified of eating more. And at every step, they hear that they surely eat too much.
watwut 3y ago
Yeah, calorie restriction plusbexercise makes you tired, passive and prone to sickness.