6 ms·

I didn't buy this at all. Weight is a function of calories in and calories out. If you removed the calories from sugary drinks from your diet and kept the sam

I didn't buy this at all. Weight is a function of calories in and calories out. If you removed the calories from sugary drinks from your diet and kept the same level of activity, you will lose weight. Conversely, if you replaced those calories or reduced your activity, you will maintain weight. More than likely you unconsciously compensated for the loss of calories elsewhere in your diet.

dbspin 2y ago
I see this repeated all the time on Hackernews and this is absolutely not the case. Aging, gut microbiome changes and an enormous variety of medications can directly induce weight gain - while diet and exercise remain the same.
- infecto 2y ago
  I would have a hard time understanding how other factors would make up a heavier weighting than calories in vs calories out. I am certain there are other factors but I am not certain that those factor have make up the majority.
  - dbspin 2y ago
    Sure, happy to explain. Here's one example. "The mechanism of antipsychotics-induced weight gain (AIWG) is generally hypothesized by the alteration of glucose metabolism and increasing cholesterol and triglyceride levels." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9170991/#:~:text=The%20mechanism%20of%20antipsychotics%2Dinduced,syndrome%20(4%E2%80%936) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9170991/#:~:text=Th.... The problem seems to be that people confuse psychical activity with metabolic activity. The body isn't some kind of linear internal combustion engine. Numerous disease processes, medications etc will alter metabolic activity. A classic example is weight loss due to hypothyroidism.
    - CharlieDigital 2y ago
      > ...psychical activity with metabolic activity "Metabolic activity" therefore, you can still counter this by reducing your caloric intake to maintain a stable body mass.
    - infecto 2y ago
      I am not disagreeing that there are other factors and in some tail cases, like people who take antipsychotics, it may have larger weightings but fundamentally we are talking about caloric intake. I think we largely saying the same thing but with different views.
- ses1984 2y ago
  Evidence?
  - badlibrarian 2y ago
    Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Unless it's in a Hacker News thread containing the phrase "gut flora."
    - themaninthedark 2y ago
      Could it be possible that the sugar in the soda was being process by the gut microbes and their byproducts were blocking the absorption of the excess calories? By ceasing the sugar consumption, the byproducts were no longer present and the calories were then consumed by the body? Matter is neither being created nor destroyed, you are dealing with a bio reactor that has inputs and outputs and the bio reactor doesn't process everything with 100% efficiency.
      - badlibrarian 2y ago
        Evidence?
      - ses1984 2y ago
        How much biology do you know? The sugar in soda is already pretty simple, so what would gut flora actually do to it? What possible byproducts could there be from microbes processing fructose? If the sugars were entirely processed by the gut flora then that would generate a ton of heat and gas in the gut that would be uncomfortable at best or most likely just kill you. Does gut flora influence how nutrients get absorbed? Almost certainly. Is there a behavioral and/or metabolic component to weight loss? Again, almost certainly. But if you measure how many calories you were eating at maintenance and then eat 500 less per day, you will 100% lose weight. Will you lose a pound a week, the amount predicted by the simple caloric model of weight? You might lose a little less, but you will lose weight for sure.
  - dbspin 2y ago
    See my responses to other replies. Metabolic activity != physical activity. Theres a moralistic inclination on HN to view complex descriptions of weight gain as defences of sedentary lifestyles and bad diets. Inarguably both are bad, obesity is bad etc. That's a separate issue from understanding why weight has increased globally - independently of dietary changes - including in both wild and lab animal populations - https://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9194579/obesity-animals https://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9194579/obesity-animals
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  > ...aging Aging causes the calories out to decrease as a function of reduced metabolic activity and baseline caloric load. It is therefore necessary to reduce calories in to maintain weight. There can be no other way for the body to gain mass if not for caloric intake. Zero. You cannot gain any meaningful mass from water and air. Body mass is a conversion of ingested proteins, fats, and carbohydrates (along with other micronutrients); remove excess sources of protein, fats, and carbohydrates and the body has no mechanism to store excess energy.
  - dbspin 2y ago
    Right - we're in agreement. There are numerous factors which influence metabolic activity, all of them can influence weight gain or loss independently diet and exercise.
    - CharlieDigital 2y ago
      It's still calories in vs calories out. You age and the calories out decreases; therefore, to maintain a stable body mass, your calories in must decrease as well. If you do not decrease calories in, then the result is gain in mass due to storage of excess calories. Calories in, calories out.
      - dbspin 2y ago
        That's reductive to the point out outright inaccuracy. The calories you consume affect your weight differently depending on your level of metabolic activity. So the key mediator here is how your body processes the calories you consume. But talking about calories is wrong in any case. All calories are not the same. For example increasing glycemic index by consuming sugars and carbohydrates will lead to greater and more prolonged weight gain than consuming the same calorific load in protein - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12081852/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12081852/ It's simple misinformation to focus on calories rather than carbohydrate levels, physical activity, healthy gut bacteria etc.
        2y ago
Pooge 2y ago
Experts like Dr Giles Yeo would disagree with you on the subject. Processed food contributes more to weight-gain than would the same amount (in terms of calories) of a non-processed one. Increasing physical activity has NOT shown that it's a good way to lose weight. Being mindful of what you eat, on the other hand... A friend told me he wouldn't eat nuts because they are too caloric... ????
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  > Processed food contributes more to weight-gain than would the same amount (in terms of calories) of a non-processed one It's all calories. There is no mechanism by which the body gains mass without an excess of calories. It does not matter the source; the chemistry and physics do not exist by which the human body gains mass without an excess of calories. We are not plants; we do not gain mass via carbon dioxide + sunlight. Mass gain can only occur via caloric intake. The type of food and additives (ultra processed vs raw) can affect factors like satiation, water retention (not body mass), energy levels (and thus affect expenditure), etc. But for your body to gain cellular mass ("gain weight"), you necessarily have to have an excess of calories (calories consumed > calories expended).
  - Pooge 2y ago
    > It's all calories. Except that it is not. X calories of refined food would contribute more to weight-gain than would X calories of almonds. Taking directly from Dr Giles Yeo's book: I’m not asking anyone to count calories at all, because the number of calories, simply taken in isolation, and out of context from whence they came, is not a particularly useful piece of information. Don’t get me wrong, calorie information does of course have its place. For one thing, calories are useful in quantifying portion sizes, so a 200-calorie portion of French fries will have twice the energy as a 100-calorie portion of fries. [...] [We] now know that the Atwater factors, both general and specific, are inaccurate, because they don’t take into account diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT), which is the energy, given off as heat, that is required for the metabolism of food. Fat has a DIT value between 0 and 3 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of fat, it will cost between 0 and 3 calories to process. The DIT value for carbohydrates is between 5 and 10 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of carbs, it will cost between 5 and 10 calories to process. While protein has the highest DIT value at 15 and 30 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of protein, it will cost between 15 and 30 calories to process.

dbspin 2y ago

I see this repeated all the time on Hackernews and this is absolutely not the case. Aging, gut microbiome changes and an enormous variety of medications can directly induce weight gain - while diet and exercise remain the same.

infecto 2y ago
I would have a hard time understanding how other factors would make up a heavier weighting than calories in vs calories out. I am certain there are other factors but I am not certain that those factor have make up the majority.
- dbspin 2y ago
  Sure, happy to explain. Here's one example. "The mechanism of antipsychotics-induced weight gain (AIWG) is generally hypothesized by the alteration of glucose metabolism and increasing cholesterol and triglyceride levels." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9170991/#:~:text=The%20mechanism%20of%20antipsychotics%2Dinduced,syndrome%20(4%E2%80%936) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9170991/#:~:text=Th.... The problem seems to be that people confuse psychical activity with metabolic activity. The body isn't some kind of linear internal combustion engine. Numerous disease processes, medications etc will alter metabolic activity. A classic example is weight loss due to hypothyroidism.
  - CharlieDigital 2y ago
    > ...psychical activity with metabolic activity "Metabolic activity" therefore, you can still counter this by reducing your caloric intake to maintain a stable body mass.
  - infecto 2y ago
    I am not disagreeing that there are other factors and in some tail cases, like people who take antipsychotics, it may have larger weightings but fundamentally we are talking about caloric intake. I think we largely saying the same thing but with different views.
ses1984 2y ago
Evidence?
- badlibrarian 2y ago
  Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Unless it's in a Hacker News thread containing the phrase "gut flora."
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    Could it be possible that the sugar in the soda was being process by the gut microbes and their byproducts were blocking the absorption of the excess calories? By ceasing the sugar consumption, the byproducts were no longer present and the calories were then consumed by the body? Matter is neither being created nor destroyed, you are dealing with a bio reactor that has inputs and outputs and the bio reactor doesn't process everything with 100% efficiency.
    - badlibrarian 2y ago
      Evidence?
    - ses1984 2y ago
      How much biology do you know? The sugar in soda is already pretty simple, so what would gut flora actually do to it? What possible byproducts could there be from microbes processing fructose? If the sugars were entirely processed by the gut flora then that would generate a ton of heat and gas in the gut that would be uncomfortable at best or most likely just kill you. Does gut flora influence how nutrients get absorbed? Almost certainly. Is there a behavioral and/or metabolic component to weight loss? Again, almost certainly. But if you measure how many calories you were eating at maintenance and then eat 500 less per day, you will 100% lose weight. Will you lose a pound a week, the amount predicted by the simple caloric model of weight? You might lose a little less, but you will lose weight for sure.
- dbspin 2y ago
  See my responses to other replies. Metabolic activity != physical activity. Theres a moralistic inclination on HN to view complex descriptions of weight gain as defences of sedentary lifestyles and bad diets. Inarguably both are bad, obesity is bad etc. That's a separate issue from understanding why weight has increased globally - independently of dietary changes - including in both wild and lab animal populations - https://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9194579/obesity-animals https://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9194579/obesity-animals
CharlieDigital 2y ago
> ...aging Aging causes the calories out to decrease as a function of reduced metabolic activity and baseline caloric load. It is therefore necessary to reduce calories in to maintain weight. There can be no other way for the body to gain mass if not for caloric intake. Zero. You cannot gain any meaningful mass from water and air. Body mass is a conversion of ingested proteins, fats, and carbohydrates (along with other micronutrients); remove excess sources of protein, fats, and carbohydrates and the body has no mechanism to store excess energy.
- dbspin 2y ago
  Right - we're in agreement. There are numerous factors which influence metabolic activity, all of them can influence weight gain or loss independently diet and exercise.
  - CharlieDigital 2y ago
    It's still calories in vs calories out. You age and the calories out decreases; therefore, to maintain a stable body mass, your calories in must decrease as well. If you do not decrease calories in, then the result is gain in mass due to storage of excess calories. Calories in, calories out.
    - dbspin 2y ago
      That's reductive to the point out outright inaccuracy. The calories you consume affect your weight differently depending on your level of metabolic activity. So the key mediator here is how your body processes the calories you consume. But talking about calories is wrong in any case. All calories are not the same. For example increasing glycemic index by consuming sugars and carbohydrates will lead to greater and more prolonged weight gain than consuming the same calorific load in protein - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12081852/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12081852/ It's simple misinformation to focus on calories rather than carbohydrate levels, physical activity, healthy gut bacteria etc.
      - 2y ago

Pooge 2y ago

Experts like Dr Giles Yeo would disagree with you on the subject. Processed food contributes more to weight-gain than would the same amount (in terms of calories) of a non-processed one. Increasing physical activity has NOT shown that it's a good way to lose weight. Being mindful of what you eat, on the other hand... A friend told me he wouldn't eat nuts because they are too caloric... ????

CharlieDigital 2y ago
> Processed food contributes more to weight-gain than would the same amount (in terms of calories) of a non-processed one It's all calories. There is no mechanism by which the body gains mass without an excess of calories. It does not matter the source; the chemistry and physics do not exist by which the human body gains mass without an excess of calories. We are not plants; we do not gain mass via carbon dioxide + sunlight. Mass gain can only occur via caloric intake. The type of food and additives (ultra processed vs raw) can affect factors like satiation, water retention (not body mass), energy levels (and thus affect expenditure), etc. But for your body to gain cellular mass ("gain weight"), you necessarily have to have an excess of calories (calories consumed > calories expended).
- Pooge 2y ago
  > It's all calories. Except that it is not. X calories of refined food would contribute more to weight-gain than would X calories of almonds. Taking directly from Dr Giles Yeo's book: I’m not asking anyone to count calories at all, because the number of calories, simply taken in isolation, and out of context from whence they came, is not a particularly useful piece of information. Don’t get me wrong, calorie information does of course have its place. For one thing, calories are useful in quantifying portion sizes, so a 200-calorie portion of French fries will have twice the energy as a 100-calorie portion of fries. [...] [We] now know that the Atwater factors, both general and specific, are inaccurate, because they don’t take into account diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT), which is the energy, given off as heat, that is required for the metabolism of food. Fat has a DIT value between 0 and 3 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of fat, it will cost between 0 and 3 calories to process. The DIT value for carbohydrates is between 5 and 10 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of carbs, it will cost between 5 and 10 calories to process. While protein has the highest DIT value at 15 and 30 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of protein, it will cost between 15 and 30 calories to process.