5 ms·

> it's as simple as calories in, calories out I recently saw a study that was a great example of why it isn't this simple: Intermittent fasting, with the same

by Andys 12y ago

> it's as simple as calories in, calories out I recently saw a study that was a great example of why it isn't this simple: Intermittent fasting, with the same average daily calories consumed, resulted in more rapid weight loss than no fasting.

maxerickson 12y ago
What were the details? If it's a statistically measurable 0.5% then who cares, if it's 15% then wow...
sp332 12y ago
Fasting accounts for the calories in, what about the calories out?
- tomp 12y ago
  If I understand intermittent fasting correctly, you eat the same amount (so calories in/calories out don't change), you just don't eat for a part of the day (e.g. 12 hours) or every second day and eat that much more in the "allowed" window.
  - girvo 12y ago
    Whoah interesting. That's been how I've eaten for a number of years now, through nothing other than a quirk with how I feel hungry. Odd, very odd. I wonder if thats why my weight (I'm slender but fit, despite not exercising as much as I want to) stays exactly the same. But then, I'm also fairly young (heading into my mid-20's), so a quick metabolism and the fact I'm likely still growing helps too. Just interesting to think about though!
eliben 12y ago
Interesting. This actually seems to be in line with the low carb approach which claims that fats starts getting burned only after all the carbs are gone. It's less extreme though, in the sense that true "keto" approaches say a few days are needed to enter a true ketonic state with very low carb consumption.
mason55 12y ago
What gets lost in these discussions is the intricacies of calories in vs. calories out. Bodyweight should always vary based on calories in vs. calories out. You can't create mass from nothing and if you're burning more calories than you take in then you have to lose mass or else your body is a perpetual motion machine. What people ignore is that: 1. Certain things change calories out. In some women (for example those with PCOS) their calories out drops dramatically and continues to vary based on their calories in. Their bodyweight is still obeying the laws of calories in vs. calories out but the calories out drops and so it feels like there must be something else going on, that cals in vs. cals out doesn't work. 2. What people really care about is not bodyweight but bodyfat. So even though everyone obeys calories in vs. calories out you can still change what your body does with those calories by adjusting your macronutrient ratios (nutrient partitioning). Decreasing carbs can change your insulin response and cause your body to lose more fat vs muscle which is what people really want. Also your body uses carbs to create glycogen which is stored as water weight. 3. Different macronutrients affect satiety differently. If you just binge on carbs you'll generally be hungry again very soon. If you eat high fat then you'll be full longer. There are also microoptimizations that occur like shifting leptin levels. It's the source of a lot of arguments. One camp says keto is magic, the next says it's just a trick to keep your calories low, and both are right. Diets like keto do help you keep your calories low, you can't binge and eat 5000 calories of meat and lose weight, but there are also other benefits. TL;DR: Shit's complicated
- hysteresisloop 12y ago
  Personal anecdotal evidence: I disagree. It's simple. I met a former USMC drill instructor who at 45 was 4% bf and could bench several times his weight. He told me he exercised 5 minutes a week (one for another discussion) and ate at McDonald's every day. I grew up in France eating "organic" and plenty of veggies and so on and I was intrigued by the idea that "what" didn't matter, only "how much". I thought I'd give it a shot, and ate McDonald's for one or more meals a day, keeping the total around 1300 kcal/day, and each meal below 400 kcal. I still remember the look a friend gave me as I ate 1/3 of an avocado bacon thickburger from CJ and chucked the other 2/3 into the bin. I lost 7kg in 8 weeks starting at 35% bf. I also increased the weights on big machines (leg press, bench, weighted pull up) by around 20% during that time. Felt perfectly healthy throughout, and mostly not hungry. I also exercised around 10 minutes once a week, walked around 100m a day to and from work and otherwise spent the time sitting. I might do it again this time with a health checkup before and after to get some hard data. Looking back at the papers, books and other "evidence" I read, I found it very hard to find any that controlled for calorific consumption. I want to see a study that goes, for example, paleo vs McDonald's, at equal kcal/day, hydration and meal timing. I want to see the variance not explained away by simple calories in/out.

by Andys 12y ago

maxerickson 12y ago

What were the details? If it's a statistically measurable 0.5% then who cares, if it's 15% then wow...

sp332 12y ago

Fasting accounts for the calories in, what about the calories out?

tomp 12y ago
If I understand intermittent fasting correctly, you eat the same amount (so calories in/calories out don't change), you just don't eat for a part of the day (e.g. 12 hours) or every second day and eat that much more in the "allowed" window.
- girvo 12y ago
  Whoah interesting. That's been how I've eaten for a number of years now, through nothing other than a quirk with how I feel hungry. Odd, very odd. I wonder if thats why my weight (I'm slender but fit, despite not exercising as much as I want to) stays exactly the same. But then, I'm also fairly young (heading into my mid-20's), so a quick metabolism and the fact I'm likely still growing helps too. Just interesting to think about though!

eliben 12y ago

Interesting. This actually seems to be in line with the low carb approach which claims that fats starts getting burned only after all the carbs are gone. It's less extreme though, in the sense that true "keto" approaches say a few days are needed to enter a true ketonic state with very low carb consumption.

mason55 12y ago

What gets lost in these discussions is the intricacies of calories in vs. calories out. Bodyweight should always vary based on calories in vs. calories out. You can't create mass from nothing and if you're burning more calories than you take in then you have to lose mass or else your body is a perpetual motion machine. What people ignore is that: 1. Certain things change calories out. In some women (for example those with PCOS) their calories out drops dramatically and continues to vary based on their calories in. Their bodyweight is still obeying the laws of calories in vs. calories out but the calories out drops and so it feels like there must be something else going on, that cals in vs. cals out doesn't work. 2. What people really care about is not bodyweight but bodyfat. So even though everyone obeys calories in vs. calories out you can still change what your body does with those calories by adjusting your macronutrient ratios (nutrient partitioning). Decreasing carbs can change your insulin response and cause your body to lose more fat vs muscle which is what people really want. Also your body uses carbs to create glycogen which is stored as water weight. 3. Different macronutrients affect satiety differently. If you just binge on carbs you'll generally be hungry again very soon. If you eat high fat then you'll be full longer. There are also microoptimizations that occur like shifting leptin levels. It's the source of a lot of arguments. One camp says keto is magic, the next says it's just a trick to keep your calories low, and both are right. Diets like keto do help you keep your calories low, you can't binge and eat 5000 calories of meat and lose weight, but there are also other benefits. TL;DR: Shit's complicated

hysteresisloop 12y ago
Personal anecdotal evidence: I disagree. It's simple. I met a former USMC drill instructor who at 45 was 4% bf and could bench several times his weight. He told me he exercised 5 minutes a week (one for another discussion) and ate at McDonald's every day. I grew up in France eating "organic" and plenty of veggies and so on and I was intrigued by the idea that "what" didn't matter, only "how much". I thought I'd give it a shot, and ate McDonald's for one or more meals a day, keeping the total around 1300 kcal/day, and each meal below 400 kcal. I still remember the look a friend gave me as I ate 1/3 of an avocado bacon thickburger from CJ and chucked the other 2/3 into the bin. I lost 7kg in 8 weeks starting at 35% bf. I also increased the weights on big machines (leg press, bench, weighted pull up) by around 20% during that time. Felt perfectly healthy throughout, and mostly not hungry. I also exercised around 10 minutes once a week, walked around 100m a day to and from work and otherwise spent the time sitting. I might do it again this time with a health checkup before and after to get some hard data. Looking back at the papers, books and other "evidence" I read, I found it very hard to find any that controlled for calorific consumption. I want to see a study that goes, for example, paleo vs McDonald's, at equal kcal/day, hydration and meal timing. I want to see the variance not explained away by simple calories in/out.