Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

espn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 359 posts

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#231

Post by Dylan16807 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #31
brandonmenc wrote: post #7

> Robert Sapolsky, who studies stress in primates at Stanford University, says a chess player can burn up to 6,000 calories a day while playing in a tournament Citation, please. I see him making this claim in a number of articles and talks, but am having trouble finding an experiment verifying this.

Thanks for pointing this out. There is an old reddit thread [1] that calls this into question that links to a study that says the max calorie burn they found was 132 cal/hr [2]. (Don't have full access to the study so just going by the reddit comment) [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/s2tb2/chess_burns_... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18987876

And if that's a total burn (hard to tell without the paper), only about 50 of that is from the activity...

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#232

Post by scarface74 »

glogla wrote: post #211
partialrecall wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing difficulties with precise measurement of inputs and outputs, but I don't think the difficulty of making those measurements refutes the core idea of CICO at all. The difficulty of actually implementing CICO suggests we should have sympathy for those who fail. This doesn't refute CICO.

CICO is mostly nonsense, because you can't control neither CI no CO. CI is based what people eat, but how much and how often people eat (if you don't expect perfect and infinite willpower) is based on how hungry they are, and that is hormonally controlled, based on complex feedback loop that includes insulin levels (so what you eat and how often) and activity levels. CO includes many things you have no conscious cont…

Yes you can both control what you eat and how much you burn. In my heyday when between teaching fitness classes and training for runs, I was burning conservatively 5000 to 7000 calories a week, eating like a horse, and not gaining weight for over a decade.

After I stopped working out but didn’t cut back what I was eating enough, I gained 40 pounds over the next three years - and that’s a lot when you’re short.

The last two years, I’ve adjusted my calories in (brought them down) and my calories out - about 3000-4000 a week and I’m back down to about 5 pounds above my fitness heyday weight.

But, I would never tell anyone else the best way to lose weight is via exercise. Studies show that hardly ever works because people overestimate how much they burn exercising and underestimate how much they eat. Also in my experience, people statistically never get to the point where they exercise long enough, hard enough or consistently enough to lose weight. I would always tell people to focus on their diet and tell them to talk to a dietitian if they wanted to lose weight.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#233

Post by DanBC »

dpark wrote: post #227
glogla wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CICO is mostly nonsense, because you can't control neither CI no CO. CI is based what people eat, but how much and how often people eat (if you don't expect perfect and infinite willpower) is based on how hungry they are, and that is hormonally controlled, based on complex feedback loop that includes insulin levels (so what you eat and how often) and activity levels. CO includes many things you have no conscious cont…

> CICO is mostly nonsense, because you can't control neither CI no CO. This is a wholesale abdication of responsibility and an embrace of victimhood. Yes, there are elements of calories out that aren’t fully in your control. However these place a lower bound on calories out. You can absolutely increase your exercise and activity level. On the other side, you are very much in control of your calories in. You can choos…

> You can absolutely increase your exercise and activity level.

Exercise is important for health. Exercise does not help people control weight, and it may make people heavier.

The fact that people insist they're scientific while ignoring the evidence is particularly frustrating.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#234

Post by will4274 »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #169
castlecrasher2 wrote: post #37

Eat less, lose weight. I read long ago that if you want to maintain weight, eat until you're a little bit hungry. If you want to lose weight, eat until you're still pretty hungry. I've been following the latter on and off over the years, and have been doing it again for the past 8 weeks and have lost a pound a week. I've found it to be much easier than calculating BMR/caloric rate then calculating calories and settin…

You can actually eat more and still lose weight. You just have to eat foods that are low in calories, like cruciferous vegetables, water-based oatmeal, brown rice. You can eat a few apples and still be eating fewer calories than if you ate a single bran muffin. The whole carbohydrates in the apple also mean that you're less likely to spike your blood sugar and experience glycation, than if you were to eat the process…

Carrots are my weight-loss jam. Whole bag of mini-carrots - only 100 calories. They also give you particularly voluminous waste, which makes you feel like you're being successful at losing weight.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#235

Post by [deleted] »

dpark wrote: post #183
berdon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing weight and gaining weight is simple physics. Nothing about the body is simple. - There is a virus that studies suggest (show correlation) increase weight gain [1] - There is a study that shows water in != water out (unfortunately my googlefu is failing me though). - Empirical: I've lost weight eating 900 calories/day and I've lost weight eating 3500 calories/day with the same level of exercise. The difference…

> Empirical I think the word you’re looking for is “anecdotal”. No one here knows anything about your TDEE so it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that you could lose weight on 3500 calories/day. If your TDEE is >3500, then yeah, weight loss. Especially since the thermic effect of food is quite high for protein, and that people suck at accurately recording or even measuring their actual intake.

[deleted]

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#236

Post by loco5niner »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #21
sbmthakur wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of sleep pretty much affects every system in the body. Metabolism being no exception. Mathew Walker covers this in detail in Why we sleep .

Sure, but I found something more specific. I tracked weight loss for a month. Eating only one meal a day. I recorded multiple times a day my weight. Only in the morning did I actually record any "loss". So, I did some tests for this. I stayed up all night to see if I lost weight in the morning like every other day, but I didn't. I slept, woke up in the afternoon, and I had lost .5 pounds from the previous day. Someth…

The special thing that happens during sleep is the subject does not generally eat or sleep during that time.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#238

Post by UnFleshedOne »

highace wrote: post #80
EGreg wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood this point of view. It’s like people who didn’t believe in washing hands until bacteria were discovered. Yes sure calories in calories out. But metabolism has so many variables. It can be revved up and burn a lot of calories. It can become quiescent when you are in starvation mode. What causes it to start using the fat reserves is definitely more than a univariate analysis. If there is a catalyst t…

This still boils down to calories in/out though. Metabolism goes under the 'out' column. It fluctuates, sure, but it's just as much an 'out' variable as exercise is.

The body has a choice: burn the stuff now or lower metabolism and store the stuff for later. You can lower your intake, and the system can decide to lower metabolism to store some more. Obviously this can't go on forever, but maybe it can go on enough to impact other factors, like availability of glucose to run willpower.

Or not. Figuring out how and if those adjustments are made and how to control them is the next step after you say "calories in = calories out", which is only a first and smallest step in figuring it out.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#239

Post by partialrecall »

bscphil wrote: post #215
scarface74 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So exactly how do you explain mass just coming out of nowhere?

I think all berdon is trying to say by "not simple physics" is that even though CICO is true , it's not helpful to people trying to lose weight because there are many other conditions (e.g. a virus) that can affect the body's metabolism - to a limited extent. This particular virus seems to make you fatter even on a precise calorie controlled diet, which implies it must reduce your metabolism. For the record I disagre…

CO may be difficult for a person to manipulate, and raising CI to put on weight may be physically difficult, expensive, or ineffective. However, reducing CI takes willpower but will make you lose weight. If you reduce it enough. Somebody may have a CO so low that the reduction in CI required to lose weight might require medical supervision (e.g. to prevent malnutrition.) That's probably not the case for most people though; certainly not people like myself. If I mustered the willpower to eat less, I would doubtlessly lose weight.

If I were to fall for some of the new-age mumble jumble about weight being some innate genetic trait like iris color, I'd think myself helpless. If I were such a person, being informed of CICO would doubtlessly improve my life.

Re: The grandmaster diet: How to lose weight while barely moving

#240

Post by dpark »

glogla wrote: post #223
dpark wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to discuss the socioeconomic reasons for the rise in obesity, I think there’s plenty of meat there to discuss meaningfully. That’s very different from discussing gut flora or gut neural connections or metabolism. Indeed, all the ways that “people are different” are irrelevant because the rise in obesity is a societal problem . It’s not about the individuals and their differences. If you’re an individual w…

> focus on calories in and calories out because those are the biggest factor A lot of people tried that, and it didn't work, but we never got to "why doesn't it work for so many people" because people like you keep parroting "CICO! You're just weak! CICO! CICO!!" even though it helps nobody. Of course, calories in and calories out are mostly out of your control, but we're past that, since this has now become about mo…

You’ve now accused me of calling people both stupid and weak, when I’ve done neither of those. You’re not even trying to have an actual constructive conversation. If your goal is to have mutually beneficial discussions or even just to educate those you disagree with, you might try not being so hostile.

More to the point, you haven’t said anything meaningful about society’s obesity problem except to assert that everyone with a weight problem is a victim completely lacking in agency.

Post reply on HN