6 ms·

> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us. Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken

> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us. Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons. There are a lot of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the incredible cultural pressures that prey on those biological incentives (taco bell spends a lot of money to encourage you to make bad health decisions). Salt, cholesterol, fat, carbs - these are distractions from being healthy. People who eat healthy amounts of reasonable food (although even then, there's that guy who ate twinkies for a year and managed to lose weight by keeping his calories in check) rarely suffer from poor nutrition. Yeah, everyone knows that guy who was a vegan and ran every day for 40 years and keeled over at 45 from a heart problem. He's the exception.

DougWebb 12y ago
Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. Neither of which have any direct or consistent correlation to physical activity or food consumed. And that's the problem; everyone's body responds differently to a host of factors, and we don't understand the factors or the responses.
- bronbron 12y ago
  Not to sound like a dick, but: > Neither of which have any direct or consistent correlation to physical activity or food consumed. is almost always bullshit. People who truthfully track their calories and err on the side of caution (did I eat 1 cup of yogurt or 1.5?) rarely end up surprised. Sure, some people have thyroid conditions. If you do, you're the minority and you should get it treated. Otherwise, your body is pretty much the same as everyone else's with respect to metabolic rates (when age is factored in).
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Nutrition isn't exclusively (or even primarily) about weight loss. To say that all of the health effects from everything we consume are well known and settled is silly. edit: I shouldn't even say "health" effects; just systemic effects period. Not only is nutrition not exclusively about weight loss, it isn't even about self-improvement. Rather, it's about a basic understanding of the construction and functioning of the human body.
    - bronbron 12y ago
      > Nutrition isn't exclusively (or even primarily) about weight loss. Maintaining a healthy weight is the primary health problem for the vast majority of people concerned about their personal nutrition.
      - lukeschlather 12y ago
        Keeping weight low is the primary metric that people currently track and associate with their health, but that doesn't mean weight is the primary problem, just that people think it is.
        bronbron 12y ago
        > Keeping weight low is the primary metric that people currently track and associate with their health, but that doesn't mean weight is the primary problem, just that people think it is. It absolutely is the primary problem for most people concerned with nutritional issues in developed nations. Obesity (which is quickly becoming the epidemic it's made out to be) carries all sorts of nasty side-effects that are well documented.
      - true_religion 12y ago
        Fair enough, but the article isn't about weight loss and a lot of research is done on how X food affects the chances of getting Y chronic condition later in life or how to best feed your children so they grow up to their full potential. It's pretty uninteresting to reduce nutrition science to simple dieting.
superuser2 12y ago
Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification.
- bronbron 12y ago
  > Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Your basal metabolic rate is not much different from the guy next to you of similar age and weight, barring some extremely rare circumstance. I don't know what to tell you, other than that. > Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. Exercise is probably the least important part in proper weight maintenance, because of all the reasons you listed. Most people promoting the 'calories calories calories' mantra will tell you the exact same thing. Your diet, and specifically how much you're consuming (regardless of carbs/fats/salt/etc.) is critical, the rest is secondary. > There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification. Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    I was with you until the last sentence. I'm from a whole family of skinny people. We eat like horses, just to maintain our weight. Nobody gets even a little tummy bulge until they're 45 or 50. My middle son is currently 6'3" and 150 lbs and eats constantly, the highest-calorie foods available to him, as much as several other people. Always has. When in high school for an after-school snack we baked one frozen pizza for the family, one for him. This is clearly some genetic thing - I was the same way; my nieces are the same way (one getting married in a size 2, that had to be taken in). Eats ice cream by the quart, as often as she can get it.
tbrownaw 12y ago
Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20?
- bronbron 12y ago
  > Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. Not really, unless we're counting death. Most people gain weight as they get older. > If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20? You're phrasing that the wrong way. Your BMR changes depending on your current weight. If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight (probably somewhere in the 220-240 lb range). To gain 300 pounds over 30 years would require you to constantly be consuming more and more as time goes on. You're also completely negating the fact that most people would (and probably do) have a 'reality check' once they get into the 200+ range, and reduce their caloric intake (though unfortunately most likely only to resume their high caloric intake once they've dropped in weight a little).
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight You're agreeing with the post then, that very long term it's pretty even.
    - bronbron 12y ago
      Oh, sure, after reading your post I think I see what that post was getting it. I didn't originally. Originally I thought the poster meant "it can't be that simple because otherwise everyone would be 500 pounds", but yes, over time it does become true.
chc 12y ago
If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be. I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition.
- bronbron 12y ago
  > If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. In most developed nations (which, admittedly I assume HN is largely composed of), people have problems with overconsumption as opposed to underconsumption. You're right though, your ideal scenario is energy burned === energy taken in an appropriate weight range for your height and muscular stature. > Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be. It's really, really not. > I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition. I'll repeat what I said in another comment: Maintaining a healthy weight is (or should be, at least) the primary concern of the vast majority of people concerned with their personal nutrition.
Padding 12y ago
> Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. I guess that's the equivalent of Stroustrup's "If you understand int and vector you understand C++", for nutritionists.

DougWebb 12y ago

Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. Neither of which have any direct or consistent correlation to physical activity or food consumed. And that's the problem; everyone's body responds differently to a host of factors, and we don't understand the factors or the responses.

bronbron 12y ago
Not to sound like a dick, but: > Neither of which have any direct or consistent correlation to physical activity or food consumed. is almost always bullshit. People who truthfully track their calories and err on the side of caution (did I eat 1 cup of yogurt or 1.5?) rarely end up surprised. Sure, some people have thyroid conditions. If you do, you're the minority and you should get it treated. Otherwise, your body is pretty much the same as everyone else's with respect to metabolic rates (when age is factored in).
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Nutrition isn't exclusively (or even primarily) about weight loss. To say that all of the health effects from everything we consume are well known and settled is silly. edit: I shouldn't even say "health" effects; just systemic effects period. Not only is nutrition not exclusively about weight loss, it isn't even about self-improvement. Rather, it's about a basic understanding of the construction and functioning of the human body.
  - bronbron 12y ago
    > Nutrition isn't exclusively (or even primarily) about weight loss. Maintaining a healthy weight is the primary health problem for the vast majority of people concerned about their personal nutrition.
    - lukeschlather 12y ago
      Keeping weight low is the primary metric that people currently track and associate with their health, but that doesn't mean weight is the primary problem, just that people think it is.
      - bronbron 12y ago
        > Keeping weight low is the primary metric that people currently track and associate with their health, but that doesn't mean weight is the primary problem, just that people think it is. It absolutely is the primary problem for most people concerned with nutritional issues in developed nations. Obesity (which is quickly becoming the epidemic it's made out to be) carries all sorts of nasty side-effects that are well documented.
    - true_religion 12y ago
      Fair enough, but the article isn't about weight loss and a lot of research is done on how X food affects the chances of getting Y chronic condition later in life or how to best feed your children so they grow up to their full potential. It's pretty uninteresting to reduce nutrition science to simple dieting.

superuser2 12y ago

Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification.

bronbron 12y ago
> Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Your basal metabolic rate is not much different from the guy next to you of similar age and weight, barring some extremely rare circumstance. I don't know what to tell you, other than that. > Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. Exercise is probably the least important part in proper weight maintenance, because of all the reasons you listed. Most people promoting the 'calories calories calories' mantra will tell you the exact same thing. Your diet, and specifically how much you're consuming (regardless of carbs/fats/salt/etc.) is critical, the rest is secondary. > There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification. Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  I was with you until the last sentence. I'm from a whole family of skinny people. We eat like horses, just to maintain our weight. Nobody gets even a little tummy bulge until they're 45 or 50. My middle son is currently 6'3" and 150 lbs and eats constantly, the highest-calorie foods available to him, as much as several other people. Always has. When in high school for an after-school snack we baked one frozen pizza for the family, one for him. This is clearly some genetic thing - I was the same way; my nieces are the same way (one getting married in a size 2, that had to be taken in). Eats ice cream by the quart, as often as she can get it.

tbrownaw 12y ago

Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20?

bronbron 12y ago
> Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. Not really, unless we're counting death. Most people gain weight as they get older. > If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20? You're phrasing that the wrong way. Your BMR changes depending on your current weight. If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight (probably somewhere in the 220-240 lb range). To gain 300 pounds over 30 years would require you to constantly be consuming more and more as time goes on. You're also completely negating the fact that most people would (and probably do) have a 'reality check' once they get into the 200+ range, and reduce their caloric intake (though unfortunately most likely only to resume their high caloric intake once they've dropped in weight a little).
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight You're agreeing with the post then, that very long term it's pretty even.
  - bronbron 12y ago
    Oh, sure, after reading your post I think I see what that post was getting it. I didn't originally. Originally I thought the poster meant "it can't be that simple because otherwise everyone would be 500 pounds", but yes, over time it does become true.

chc 12y ago

If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be. I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition.

bronbron 12y ago
> If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. In most developed nations (which, admittedly I assume HN is largely composed of), people have problems with overconsumption as opposed to underconsumption. You're right though, your ideal scenario is energy burned === energy taken in an appropriate weight range for your height and muscular stature. > Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be. It's really, really not. > I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition. I'll repeat what I said in another comment: Maintaining a healthy weight is (or should be, at least) the primary concern of the vast majority of people concerned with their personal nutrition.

Padding 12y ago

> Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. I guess that's the equivalent of Stroustrup's "If you understand int and vector you understand C++", for nutritionists.