4 ms·

I don't get why calories in/calories out is so hard to believe. There's a lot of sort of optimizations you can do within it like playing with macronutrient rati

I don't get why calories in/calories out is so hard to believe. There's a lot of sort of optimizations you can do within it like playing with macronutrient ratios or timing and looking at aspects of food like glycemic load or satiety, but at the end of the day, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose weight. You can either eat less or exercise more, but given the relative difficulty of those two things, eating less is probably easier. Exercise also has benefits beyond weight management, so you should also probably find something that works for you. It might not be easy to do, but it's not really much more complicated than that.

Fricken 3y ago
I think that for someone out of condition and sedentary the idea of starting up some kind of sustainable fitness practice is quite a bit more intimidating than the idea getting on some kind of diet plan. It can be hard to picture oneself thinking of exercise as something that can be fun and rewarding beyond the health benefits, it is however possible for it to be a thing you love to do and look forward to. Diets fail 95% of the time. Calories in/calories out isn't wrong, obviously. From a physics perspective it is clearly less effort to sit still and not eat than it is to go do physical work of some sort. Once you introduce human psychology into the equation, however, everything changes.
BrandoElFollito 3y ago
I am not a biologist, but what about calories that just go through your body without being absorbed? Or maybe there are calories that do not turn into get but muscle? You still getting weight, but good weight? Of course, if you need x calories and get less that x, your body will need to burn something. Maybe brain or muscles and not fat? Again, I do not know much about that but it just may be more complicated than just cals in vs cals out.
kcplate 3y ago
>It might not be easy to do… Understatement of the year. Which is why people who preach CICO and “just eat less” can set off those folks who have been down the diet rabbit holes. I can only relay my own experience. It’s not CICO that is important, that’s just a formula. The important thing is satiety. You need to get to a point of eating less by activating your satiety center with less calories than before. If you are constantly hungry on any diet trying to eat less calories, you will ultimately fail without an external factor preventing you from eating more.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  I did mention satiety. My own experience includes obesity that probably bordered on morbid and disability subsequent to a childhood disorder. Basically, if you have two working legs, count yourself lucky that you can do exercises that I can’t. But I still have to figure out how to eat right and exercise within my own limitations, there is no other way to maintain a healthy weight.
delichon 3y ago
> It might not be easy to do, but it's not really much more complicated than that. "Might not be easy to do" is an extreme underestimate of the difficulty in fixing this by willpower alone. It is very hard to do for the long term. I was a chronic yo-yo dieter that did it over and over again ... until I couldn't. After enough of that my body just demanded to eat, and I could no more refuse than I could refuse to breathe. I became a bulimic binge eater. If I could have just said no, forever, I assume you're right and it would have worked, uncomplicated. But having lost 100+ pounds multiple times, dude, I tried really fucking hard, and failed. Nothing worked until I gave my body the nutrition that it was trying to get by binging on junk. Then it became easy to do with my hormones no longer working against me.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  I’m not sure I understand your last statement there. It sounds like ultimately it did become easy, but it took awhile to figure out what worked for you. That’s the thrust of my point actually; you have to figure out what works for you within the context of calories in / calories out.
  - woleium 3y ago
    They are saying that once they worked out a good balance of nutrient rich foods, rather than the pizza/pasta/etc managing weight became easier. i.e. that the body is after nutrient x and will force you to consume as many calories as is necessary to obtain the desired nutrient

Fricken 3y ago

I think that for someone out of condition and sedentary the idea of starting up some kind of sustainable fitness practice is quite a bit more intimidating than the idea getting on some kind of diet plan. It can be hard to picture oneself thinking of exercise as something that can be fun and rewarding beyond the health benefits, it is however possible for it to be a thing you love to do and look forward to. Diets fail 95% of the time. Calories in/calories out isn't wrong, obviously. From a physics perspective it is clearly less effort to sit still and not eat than it is to go do physical work of some sort. Once you introduce human psychology into the equation, however, everything changes.

BrandoElFollito 3y ago

I am not a biologist, but what about calories that just go through your body without being absorbed? Or maybe there are calories that do not turn into get but muscle? You still getting weight, but good weight? Of course, if you need x calories and get less that x, your body will need to burn something. Maybe brain or muscles and not fat? Again, I do not know much about that but it just may be more complicated than just cals in vs cals out.

kcplate 3y ago

>It might not be easy to do… Understatement of the year. Which is why people who preach CICO and “just eat less” can set off those folks who have been down the diet rabbit holes. I can only relay my own experience. It’s not CICO that is important, that’s just a formula. The important thing is satiety. You need to get to a point of eating less by activating your satiety center with less calories than before. If you are constantly hungry on any diet trying to eat less calories, you will ultimately fail without an external factor preventing you from eating more.

silverquiet 3y ago
I did mention satiety. My own experience includes obesity that probably bordered on morbid and disability subsequent to a childhood disorder. Basically, if you have two working legs, count yourself lucky that you can do exercises that I can’t. But I still have to figure out how to eat right and exercise within my own limitations, there is no other way to maintain a healthy weight.

delichon 3y ago

> It might not be easy to do, but it's not really much more complicated than that. "Might not be easy to do" is an extreme underestimate of the difficulty in fixing this by willpower alone. It is very hard to do for the long term. I was a chronic yo-yo dieter that did it over and over again ... until I couldn't. After enough of that my body just demanded to eat, and I could no more refuse than I could refuse to breathe. I became a bulimic binge eater. If I could have just said no, forever, I assume you're right and it would have worked, uncomplicated. But having lost 100+ pounds multiple times, dude, I tried really fucking hard, and failed. Nothing worked until I gave my body the nutrition that it was trying to get by binging on junk. Then it became easy to do with my hormones no longer working against me.

silverquiet 3y ago
I’m not sure I understand your last statement there. It sounds like ultimately it did become easy, but it took awhile to figure out what worked for you. That’s the thrust of my point actually; you have to figure out what works for you within the context of calories in / calories out.
- woleium 3y ago
  They are saying that once they worked out a good balance of nutrient rich foods, rather than the pizza/pasta/etc managing weight became easier. i.e. that the body is after nutrient x and will force you to consume as many calories as is necessary to obtain the desired nutrient