7 ms·

Completely understand your perspective. I don't subscribe to the calories in < calories out = weight loss philosophy. I think calories are are pretty blunt inst

by zt 12y ago

Completely understand your perspective. I don't subscribe to the calories in < calories out = weight loss philosophy. I think calories are are pretty blunt instrument and that people's body respond to different foods differently. That is, one of the key ideas of the study is that different people respond to foods differently. Let's imagine that everyone had, for example, two responses to sugar: one where your insulin spikes and then comes down immediately and another where it spikes, plateaus, and then comes down later. (This is roughly true). One theory is that if you have one of those profiles your body will respond better (in a weight loss sense) to a low carb diet and if you have another profile then you'd response better to low fat diet. I don't know if that's true -- hence the study! But I think it makes some intuitive sense that our bodies burn calories, pass calories through, etc, differently and that those differences are partially based on the interaction between what we eat and our bodies (genetic) proclivities.

mikeash 12y ago
I think that saying calories are the key to weight loss is like saying altitude is the key to flight. If you want to fly, the key is to keep your altitude up. It is technically true and even useful in a way, but the truly difficult part is how to keep your altitude up. Run a caloric deficit and you will lose weight, guaranteed. Just like if you maintain altitude above the ground you're flying. But how to run a caloric deficit day to day is the trick. You can look at it and say "just eat less", but eating is such a deep, fundamental drive that it's never that easy.
- beachstartup 12y ago
  a common analogy is telling an alcoholic to 'just drink less' sure, it's true. but it's not very helpful for someone who is in serious psychological trouble.
  - icelancer 12y ago
    Satiety is a completely different issue. I have no problem with those who differentiate, but there are legitimately a lot of people who think the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to human biology.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Trouble is that there are a lot of people who think it's reasonable to tell an alcoholic to just stop drinking. They tend to be the same people who think that "just eat less" is good weight-loss advice, and they often have alcohol and weight problems.
icelancer 12y ago
> I don't subscribe to the calories in < calories out = weight loss philosophy. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the laws of thermodynamics either.
- nightski 12y ago
  The problem is measuring calories out. Often it is recommended to use an average value for your build and call it good. But this is not a very good model imho, and involves a lot of guesswork.
  - icelancer 12y ago
    Measurement is a different problem altogether. Again, my problem is not with speciality diets or finding good habits / regulating eating through macronutrient partitioning. I get it; trust me. But these diets show few benefits beyond "tricking" the person into eating fewer calories, period. There are other variables, but not when it comes to pure weight loss. Thermodynamics cannot be defeated by human biology. Otherwise we could hook up people who are not subject to these laws to treadmills with generators on them, and bam. Free power for the world.
    - nightski 12y ago
      It's not that I was disagreeing with you regarding thermodynamics, just that usually when that point is made the emphasis is on calories in (such as you are making). From what I have seen it seems that many things, including diet can have a strong effect on calories out. That is worth exploring. I just simply disagree with the fact that all diets show few benefits beyond tricking the person into eating fewer calories. How a particular diet makes you feel is an important part of the equation. If I eat a poor diet and work out, that workout is going to be terrible (even if I ate a lot of calories for example).
  - lrm242 12y ago
    Estimation of one's TDEE is pretty simple. Once you have a starting point, adjustment is common sense. If you're not losing weight at the rate you expect, lower your TDEE and thus lower your caloric budget. Now, adding cardio into the mix is where things can go off the rails. One reason cardio can be BAD for a diet is precisely because it is hard to measure how many calories you burn while exercising. Estimate too low and you end up in much too deep of a deficit to maintain the diet. Estimate too high and you're not losing as much weight as you want. These problems are easily solved over a long run if you can accurately do approximately the same amount cardio each time you do it, but this is also quite hard. Cardio is great for heart health and overall wellness. It's crap for losing weight effectively, IMO. The absolute easiest way to lose weight is to simply estimate your TDEE requirements using a sedentary activity level, eat at a 3,500 calorie deficit each week, preferably at 500 calories per day or cycled if you are lifting weights, and adjust accordingly.

by zt 12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

I think that saying calories are the key to weight loss is like saying altitude is the key to flight. If you want to fly, the key is to keep your altitude up. It is technically true and even useful in a way, but the truly difficult part is how to keep your altitude up. Run a caloric deficit and you will lose weight, guaranteed. Just like if you maintain altitude above the ground you're flying. But how to run a caloric deficit day to day is the trick. You can look at it and say "just eat less", but eating is such a deep, fundamental drive that it's never that easy.

beachstartup 12y ago
a common analogy is telling an alcoholic to 'just drink less' sure, it's true. but it's not very helpful for someone who is in serious psychological trouble.
- icelancer 12y ago
  Satiety is a completely different issue. I have no problem with those who differentiate, but there are legitimately a lot of people who think the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to human biology.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Trouble is that there are a lot of people who think it's reasonable to tell an alcoholic to just stop drinking. They tend to be the same people who think that "just eat less" is good weight-loss advice, and they often have alcohol and weight problems.

icelancer 12y ago

> I don't subscribe to the calories in < calories out = weight loss philosophy. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the laws of thermodynamics either.

nightski 12y ago
The problem is measuring calories out. Often it is recommended to use an average value for your build and call it good. But this is not a very good model imho, and involves a lot of guesswork.
- icelancer 12y ago
  Measurement is a different problem altogether. Again, my problem is not with speciality diets or finding good habits / regulating eating through macronutrient partitioning. I get it; trust me. But these diets show few benefits beyond "tricking" the person into eating fewer calories, period. There are other variables, but not when it comes to pure weight loss. Thermodynamics cannot be defeated by human biology. Otherwise we could hook up people who are not subject to these laws to treadmills with generators on them, and bam. Free power for the world.
  - nightski 12y ago
    It's not that I was disagreeing with you regarding thermodynamics, just that usually when that point is made the emphasis is on calories in (such as you are making). From what I have seen it seems that many things, including diet can have a strong effect on calories out. That is worth exploring. I just simply disagree with the fact that all diets show few benefits beyond tricking the person into eating fewer calories. How a particular diet makes you feel is an important part of the equation. If I eat a poor diet and work out, that workout is going to be terrible (even if I ate a lot of calories for example).
- lrm242 12y ago
  Estimation of one's TDEE is pretty simple. Once you have a starting point, adjustment is common sense. If you're not losing weight at the rate you expect, lower your TDEE and thus lower your caloric budget. Now, adding cardio into the mix is where things can go off the rails. One reason cardio can be BAD for a diet is precisely because it is hard to measure how many calories you burn while exercising. Estimate too low and you end up in much too deep of a deficit to maintain the diet. Estimate too high and you're not losing as much weight as you want. These problems are easily solved over a long run if you can accurately do approximately the same amount cardio each time you do it, but this is also quite hard. Cardio is great for heart health and overall wellness. It's crap for losing weight effectively, IMO. The absolute easiest way to lose weight is to simply estimate your TDEE requirements using a sedentary activity level, eat at a 3,500 calorie deficit each week, preferably at 500 calories per day or cycled if you are lifting weights, and adjust accordingly.