4 ms·

> which is highly effective How are you defining highly effective? In the sense that a body will definitely lose weight when starved? Or in the sense that co

> which is highly effective How are you defining highly effective? In the sense that a body will definitely lose weight when starved? Or in the sense that counting calories is broadly effective as a weight loss strategy? The former is painfully obvious and entirely unhelpful, and the latter is provably false.

Detrytus 2mo ago
The problem is: average person is bad at counting calories. They overestimate number of calories burnt, and severely underestimate number of calories consumed. Once you get your math right and get into real, not imaginary calorie deficit you'll start losing weight. Rule of thumb: whatever you think the amount of calories is in your current meal, double your estimate.
- rootusrootus 2mo ago
  The average person eats 19 calories a day more than they need to.
faangguyindia 2mo ago
>In the sense that a body will definitely lose weight when starved? If your maintenance calories are 2700kcal and you eat 300kcal less than that, is eating 2400kcal starving for you? Most people cannot tell a difference if they eat 100-150kcal less in a day. >Or in the sense that counting calories is broadly effective as a weight loss strategy? Yes, it is, and the reason people fail with it is not because calorie counting doesn't work, but because people's maintenance calorie estimates are often poor. Deficit = maintenance calories (TDEE) - calorie intake In this, even if your calorie tracking is on point, a deficit requires you to have a decent estimate of maintenance calories. To throw a monkey wrench into all this, your maintenance calories often shift downward as you progress in your "diet" journey.
- someothherguyy 2mo ago
  calorie restriction can cause a reduction in resting metabolic rate through "metabolic adaptation". that is, your body gets used to the deficit (by shedding metabolically active tissue and other things*) and burns less calories at rest. so, paradoxically, restricting or reducing your caloric intake can have no effect whatsoever on your weight. see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9036397/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9036397/
  - vasco 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
  - faangguyindia 2mo ago
    No, that's incorrect reading of this. It's already factored in our algorihtm: https://macrocodex.app/knowledge/macrocodex/smart-calorie-burn-v2/#lessons-from-previous-work https://macrocodex.app/knowledge/macrocodex/smart-calorie-bu...
  - toasty228 2mo ago
    Cool but then again what does calorie "unrestrication" cause? Tip: look at the top leading causes of death in the US
- don_esteban 2mo ago
  > Yes, it is, and the reason people fail with it is not because calorie counting doesn't work, but because people's maintenance calorie estimates are often poor. I would have thought that it would mostly be because they can't resist that extra snack. Or 'optimistically' underestimate the calories in the not pre-packaged food. Serious question: Is there a significant variability in how the food calories are absorbed? Maybe different combinations are not absorbed equally efficiently (like with water/oil-based vitamins)
  - rootusrootus 2mo ago
    > I would have thought that it would mostly be because they can't resist that extra snack. This is a pretty good inadvertent explanation for why a lot of people come into this discussion waving around morality arguments, lack of discipline, etc. The average person gains a couple pounds a year. Adds up. How many calories do you think that is, amortized throughout the year? I'll help you with the math. It's 19. The average person eats 19 calories per day beyond maintenance. It's not "weak willed slob cannot resist that extra snack."
    - don_esteban 1mo ago
      Hmm, 19 calories per day is well within the margin of error when calorie counting.
- rootusrootus 2mo ago
  I did not mean literally starving, I meant giving the body fewer calories than it wants. I feel like discussions like this attract a number of people who've never actually been overweight and then lost the weight and tried to keep it off longer than a year. So much bro science, so much condescension, so much smug analysis that anybody who cannot resist their own body's hunger indefinitely are just weak. A bit more complicated than that, CICO is not the answer. It's an observation, not a strategy.
  - faangguyindia 2mo ago
    How do you think GLPs work if not by weight loss through deficit?
kingstnap 2mo ago
Counting macros is extremely effective. The general population doesn't have the discipline for it, but amoung sport coaches, actors, models, bodybuilders, this is *the* technique for achieving goals. Anyway what's cute about this is that this isn't novel phenomenon. There are lots of parallels to this in other fields where often effective solutions do exist, but at a system level don't seem to work. Telling people to diet doesn't fix population level obesity. Telling people about personal financial management doesn't stop people from accruing too much high interest debt. Telling teenagers to stop idolizing instagram influences doesn't fix body anxiety issues. Telling people to stop smoking/drinking doesn't fix addictions. 3-2-1 data backups absolutely work but people lose files all the time.
- ozim 2mo ago
  I think your comment is somewhat on track. "general population doesn't have the discipline for it" — only that this feels somewhat condescending. Let's agree that counting macros or going for calorie deficit is hard if it is not someones job. General population has other jobs, family, social life, other hobbies they enjoy more than fitness. It is not "just eat less" it is "spend considerable amount of time thinking about and planning your eating".
  - stevesimmons 2mo ago
    > it is "spend considerable amount of time thinking about and planning your eating". Nonsense. It doesn't take any more time. Just buy unprocessed, basic food, fruit and veg. When you open your cupboard, cook something tasty from what you have. When you go to the supermarket, just don't walk into the aisles with snacks. Don't buy anything laden with sugar and fat. Get into the habit of drinking black coffee instead of Starbucks' calorific drinks; it takes less than a week for your taste buds to adjust. It's not rocket science. Just most people don't want to admit that every excess 100 calories they eat adds 11 grams of fat to their middle. Which adds up week by week, year by year.
    - vladvasiliu 2mo ago
      This. If I cook a meal with mostly veg and lean meat, I can't overeat. I'll feel full fairly quickly and, most importantly, not think about food 2 hours later. But even with this kind of food, if I figure "sure, lemme have a sugary ice-cream", two hours later I'll be looking around the fridge and cupboards for some "quick bite". Just don't buy this crap. I find it's much, much easier to have none at all than to hope to be "reasonable" and only eat a bit.

Detrytus 2mo ago

The problem is: average person is bad at counting calories. They overestimate number of calories burnt, and severely underestimate number of calories consumed. Once you get your math right and get into real, not imaginary calorie deficit you'll start losing weight. Rule of thumb: whatever you think the amount of calories is in your current meal, double your estimate.

rootusrootus 2mo ago
The average person eats 19 calories a day more than they need to.

faangguyindia 2mo ago

>In the sense that a body will definitely lose weight when starved? If your maintenance calories are 2700kcal and you eat 300kcal less than that, is eating 2400kcal starving for you? Most people cannot tell a difference if they eat 100-150kcal less in a day. >Or in the sense that counting calories is broadly effective as a weight loss strategy? Yes, it is, and the reason people fail with it is not because calorie counting doesn't work, but because people's maintenance calorie estimates are often poor. Deficit = maintenance calories (TDEE) - calorie intake In this, even if your calorie tracking is on point, a deficit requires you to have a decent estimate of maintenance calories. To throw a monkey wrench into all this, your maintenance calories often shift downward as you progress in your "diet" journey.

someothherguyy 2mo ago
calorie restriction can cause a reduction in resting metabolic rate through "metabolic adaptation". that is, your body gets used to the deficit (by shedding metabolically active tissue and other things*) and burns less calories at rest. so, paradoxically, restricting or reducing your caloric intake can have no effect whatsoever on your weight. see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9036397/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9036397/
- vasco 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- faangguyindia 2mo ago
  No, that's incorrect reading of this. It's already factored in our algorihtm: https://macrocodex.app/knowledge/macrocodex/smart-calorie-burn-v2/#lessons-from-previous-work https://macrocodex.app/knowledge/macrocodex/smart-calorie-bu...
- toasty228 2mo ago
  Cool but then again what does calorie "unrestrication" cause? Tip: look at the top leading causes of death in the US
don_esteban 2mo ago
> Yes, it is, and the reason people fail with it is not because calorie counting doesn't work, but because people's maintenance calorie estimates are often poor. I would have thought that it would mostly be because they can't resist that extra snack. Or 'optimistically' underestimate the calories in the not pre-packaged food. Serious question: Is there a significant variability in how the food calories are absorbed? Maybe different combinations are not absorbed equally efficiently (like with water/oil-based vitamins)
- rootusrootus 2mo ago
  > I would have thought that it would mostly be because they can't resist that extra snack. This is a pretty good inadvertent explanation for why a lot of people come into this discussion waving around morality arguments, lack of discipline, etc. The average person gains a couple pounds a year. Adds up. How many calories do you think that is, amortized throughout the year? I'll help you with the math. It's 19. The average person eats 19 calories per day beyond maintenance. It's not "weak willed slob cannot resist that extra snack."
  - don_esteban 1mo ago
    Hmm, 19 calories per day is well within the margin of error when calorie counting.
rootusrootus 2mo ago
I did not mean literally starving, I meant giving the body fewer calories than it wants. I feel like discussions like this attract a number of people who've never actually been overweight and then lost the weight and tried to keep it off longer than a year. So much bro science, so much condescension, so much smug analysis that anybody who cannot resist their own body's hunger indefinitely are just weak. A bit more complicated than that, CICO is not the answer. It's an observation, not a strategy.
- faangguyindia 2mo ago
  How do you think GLPs work if not by weight loss through deficit?

kingstnap 2mo ago

Counting macros is extremely effective. The general population doesn't have the discipline for it, but amoung sport coaches, actors, models, bodybuilders, this is *the* technique for achieving goals. Anyway what's cute about this is that this isn't novel phenomenon. There are lots of parallels to this in other fields where often effective solutions do exist, but at a system level don't seem to work. Telling people to diet doesn't fix population level obesity. Telling people about personal financial management doesn't stop people from accruing too much high interest debt. Telling teenagers to stop idolizing instagram influences doesn't fix body anxiety issues. Telling people to stop smoking/drinking doesn't fix addictions. 3-2-1 data backups absolutely work but people lose files all the time.

ozim 2mo ago
I think your comment is somewhat on track. "general population doesn't have the discipline for it" — only that this feels somewhat condescending. Let's agree that counting macros or going for calorie deficit is hard if it is not someones job. General population has other jobs, family, social life, other hobbies they enjoy more than fitness. It is not "just eat less" it is "spend considerable amount of time thinking about and planning your eating".
- stevesimmons 2mo ago
  > it is "spend considerable amount of time thinking about and planning your eating". Nonsense. It doesn't take any more time. Just buy unprocessed, basic food, fruit and veg. When you open your cupboard, cook something tasty from what you have. When you go to the supermarket, just don't walk into the aisles with snacks. Don't buy anything laden with sugar and fat. Get into the habit of drinking black coffee instead of Starbucks' calorific drinks; it takes less than a week for your taste buds to adjust. It's not rocket science. Just most people don't want to admit that every excess 100 calories they eat adds 11 grams of fat to their middle. Which adds up week by week, year by year.
  - vladvasiliu 2mo ago
    This. If I cook a meal with mostly veg and lean meat, I can't overeat. I'll feel full fairly quickly and, most importantly, not think about food 2 hours later. But even with this kind of food, if I figure "sure, lemme have a sugary ice-cream", two hours later I'll be looking around the fridge and cupboards for some "quick bite". Just don't buy this crap. I find it's much, much easier to have none at all than to hope to be "reasonable" and only eat a bit.