5 ms·

> ...aging Aging causes the calories out to decrease as a function of reduced metabolic activity and baseline caloric load. It is therefore necessary to redu

> ...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.
    - ltbarcly3 2y ago
      Sorry but you are not correct. If you find the number of calories you burn daily with your current diet, and you eat 500 calories below that, I will bet you $1000 that you can't find any combination of foods, whether its pure corn syrup or pure hog fat or anything else that cause you to gain weight as long as you keep the calories below that threshold. I'll bet another $1000 that there are no foods you can find where you don't gain weight eating 500 above that threshold. Show me the study that says otherwise. The "complex interaction" theory is just an excuse used by people for failing to cut calories enough to lose weight. Notice that people taking GLP1 drugs don't have to adjust for all these complexities at all.
      - marsovo 2y ago
        So certain are you? How are we measuring the calories for this bet, by what's on the package? How does that number on the package get measured? When I eat nuts, cashews, etc., did 100% of the food get digested and absorbed? A day later or so, there seems to be counterevidence of that plainly visible in the bathroom.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        ltbarcly3 2y ago
        You are mixing up 2 issues here. We're not debating what % of food gets digested, so it's off topic. We are talking about the theory that if you eat fructose, or if you eat 'highly processed foods' there is some complex hormone response that causes those calories to be preferentially stored as fat or to slow the metabolism down so they aren't burned. For sure you are correct when you say that the calories on the label of a food is just an estimate, and not a very good one.
        Pooge 2y ago
        > You are mixing up 2 issues here. When people talk about "restricting your caloric intake", they are very obviously talking about what's written on the package and not after making calculations based on whether it's fat, protein or carbohydrates. So I think both issues are very tightly related.
JeremyNT 2y ago
It's a tiresome bit of pedantry. Try this: when people on hn claim "ah but it's not calorie intake versus calorie expenditure!" you can assume in good faith that what they REALLY mean is "you are correct that it IS calorie intake versus calorie expenditure, AND there are subtle factors which impact both how efficient your body is at extracting energy from food and how efficient it is at performing work" It's unlikely for the poor grandparent poster that they unlocked some latent ability to extract calories more effectively by reducing their sugar intake, and of course Occam's razor SUGGESTS that they simply started consuming more or exercising less to compensate, but there ARE reasons we study things like this.
- dbspin 2y ago
  Strongly disagree - I've seen and had this argument multiple times on HN. There absolutely are a large cohort of people who do not accept that there are any factors other than 'calorie in, calorie out' that affect weight. Side note - this is remarkably similar to the 'when we say abolish the police, we mean abolish the police' conversation from a couple of years ago. In other words a classic motte and bailey. If we're going to have sensible conversations about diet and weight gain. Which socially in the West we are long past the necessity for, we need to start addressing these issues holistically. The pedantry here is the repetition of silly mantras like 'calorie in calorie out' or 'just exercise'. The nuance required is understanding - and indeed researching how the composition of diet, the pricing and availability of nutritious food, our perniciously sedentary workplaces etc all contribute to obesity. And more importantly what can be done about these things on an individual and societal level. Personally - I've found intermittent fasting to be the only way to control my weight. The research consensus seems to be that it's impact is simply through reduced calorific intake. However - this misses the fact that say one meal a day will actually change your gut microflora enough, and relatively rapidly, to reduce the cognitive load of healthier diet choices. You literally get less hungry and want highly processed, sweetened food less. And yes of course there's a complex interaction of motivation, behaviour patterns and so on at work also. This is why systemic approaches are always necessary to behaviour modification. And just to add - these aren't subtle effects. Age related weight gain, while keeping diet and exercise consistent is something all of us experience. Similarly, most women will experience menopausal related differences in metabolism, usually leading to weight gain. Eliding the reality of how weight gain and maintenance work isn't useful.

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.
  - ltbarcly3 2y ago
    Sorry but you are not correct. If you find the number of calories you burn daily with your current diet, and you eat 500 calories below that, I will bet you $1000 that you can't find any combination of foods, whether its pure corn syrup or pure hog fat or anything else that cause you to gain weight as long as you keep the calories below that threshold. I'll bet another $1000 that there are no foods you can find where you don't gain weight eating 500 above that threshold. Show me the study that says otherwise. The "complex interaction" theory is just an excuse used by people for failing to cut calories enough to lose weight. Notice that people taking GLP1 drugs don't have to adjust for all these complexities at all.
    - marsovo 2y ago
      So certain are you? How are we measuring the calories for this bet, by what's on the package? How does that number on the package get measured? When I eat nuts, cashews, etc., did 100% of the food get digested and absorbed? A day later or so, there seems to be counterevidence of that plainly visible in the bathroom.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - ltbarcly3 2y ago
        You are mixing up 2 issues here. We're not debating what % of food gets digested, so it's off topic. We are talking about the theory that if you eat fructose, or if you eat 'highly processed foods' there is some complex hormone response that causes those calories to be preferentially stored as fat or to slow the metabolism down so they aren't burned. For sure you are correct when you say that the calories on the label of a food is just an estimate, and not a very good one.
        Pooge 2y ago
        > You are mixing up 2 issues here. When people talk about "restricting your caloric intake", they are very obviously talking about what's written on the package and not after making calculations based on whether it's fat, protein or carbohydrates. So I think both issues are very tightly related.

JeremyNT 2y ago

It's a tiresome bit of pedantry. Try this: when people on hn claim "ah but it's not calorie intake versus calorie expenditure!" you can assume in good faith that what they REALLY mean is "you are correct that it IS calorie intake versus calorie expenditure, AND there are subtle factors which impact both how efficient your body is at extracting energy from food and how efficient it is at performing work" It's unlikely for the poor grandparent poster that they unlocked some latent ability to extract calories more effectively by reducing their sugar intake, and of course Occam's razor SUGGESTS that they simply started consuming more or exercising less to compensate, but there ARE reasons we study things like this.

dbspin 2y ago
Strongly disagree - I've seen and had this argument multiple times on HN. There absolutely are a large cohort of people who do not accept that there are any factors other than 'calorie in, calorie out' that affect weight. Side note - this is remarkably similar to the 'when we say abolish the police, we mean abolish the police' conversation from a couple of years ago. In other words a classic motte and bailey. If we're going to have sensible conversations about diet and weight gain. Which socially in the West we are long past the necessity for, we need to start addressing these issues holistically. The pedantry here is the repetition of silly mantras like 'calorie in calorie out' or 'just exercise'. The nuance required is understanding - and indeed researching how the composition of diet, the pricing and availability of nutritious food, our perniciously sedentary workplaces etc all contribute to obesity. And more importantly what can be done about these things on an individual and societal level. Personally - I've found intermittent fasting to be the only way to control my weight. The research consensus seems to be that it's impact is simply through reduced calorific intake. However - this misses the fact that say one meal a day will actually change your gut microflora enough, and relatively rapidly, to reduce the cognitive load of healthier diet choices. You literally get less hungry and want highly processed, sweetened food less. And yes of course there's a complex interaction of motivation, behaviour patterns and so on at work also. This is why systemic approaches are always necessary to behaviour modification. And just to add - these aren't subtle effects. Age related weight gain, while keeping diet and exercise consistent is something all of us experience. Similarly, most women will experience menopausal related differences in metabolism, usually leading to weight gain. Eliding the reality of how weight gain and maintenance work isn't useful.