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

271–280 of 359 posts

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

#271

Post by berdon »

partialrecall wrote: post #259
bscphil wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yes, this is exactly my point. I'm simply giving a measured defense of what berdon has been s…

Then I think berdon's concerns are misprioritized. It's very rare for the necessary reduction in CI to require medical supervision. The overwhelming majority of obese people in America are eating more than is reasonable to eat, and a reduction in consumption would improve their lives considerably with no real risk of malnutrition occurring. By focusing on obscure edge-cases, all we're really doing is to make it easie…

Partialrecall - my concerns are my own but the point I was attempting to make has nothing to do with what you're talking about. All of which I agree.

My point is the body is very complex and any attempt to simplify it is doing a disservice to anyone listening to you.

I was overweight for 20 years and lost the weight by calorie reduction. It works - clearly. But in a forum reserved for educational discussion I'm not OK glossing over the complexity of the body because it's true in the general case. That'd be as sinful as saying quantum physics is wrong because newtonian is generally the deciding set of rules.

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

#272

Post by dragonwriter »

Touche wrote: post #270
driverdan wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yogurt and fruit are full of sugar and aren't very healthy.

Not all sugar is the same. Fruits are extremely healthy for you.

Fruits are healthy, to the extent they are, because of the nonsugar components.

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

#273

Post by berdon »

dpark wrote: post #267
berdon wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I addressed your concerns over my TDEE by stating both instances occurred under the same level of activity and general conditions. In both instances, I lost about the same amount of weight weekly as well. I've also been counting calories for longer than 10 years and at that time I had a spreadsheet with such granular detail I could track the average duration and quantity of protein still within my gut based on averag…

You didn’t originally say that you lost weight at the same rate, making your statement almost meaningless. Now that you’ve added that statement, I honestly just don’t believe your assessment. This isn’t a judgement call and I’m not questioning your truthfulness. I simply think your observation was either biased, incomplete, or insufficient. My gut says you did this for too short of a period of time for the results to…

You're right, I didn't say I lost weight at the same rate. Oh well.

Cool? It seems you're mostly interested in your own opinions - both with regards to my empirical evidence and your connotation of the word. I'm not interested in either.

Also, your analysis of my losing weight on 3500 calories requiring my TDEE to be >3500 is drastically marred by your clear assumption that a calorie = a calorie. You're incapable of accepting anything that doesn't fall into line with that assumption. Strong bias.

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

#274

Post by skygazer »

magna7 wrote: post #218
skygazer wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, what you said is correct. If you could control your appetite, or response to it, you could lose weight on a calorie restricted diet of "fattening" foods. While I'm not a proponent of Jason Fung or his book, I have read it. From what I recall, where your as-long-as-I-could-control-my-portions diverges from Fung's book is that he believes its nearly impossible for people generally to ignore their appetite in the l…

Why aren't you a proponent of Fung? I'm just curious.

Oh, it's not that I find it controversial, favor an alternative or object to any of it. It seemed quite compelling, and I'm open to it. It's just that I've only read a single book on the topic, and health and physiology are fiendishly complex, and I long ago discovered that a single book, even if compelling and seemingly supported, may still not represent the whole picture.

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

#275

Post by Touche »

dragonwriter wrote: post #272
Touche wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all sugar is the same. Fruits are extremely healthy for you.

Fruits are healthy, to the extent they are, because of the nonsugar components.

Right, and it's almost impossible to eat so much fruit that the fructose causes harm.

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

#276

Post by bena »

scarface74 wrote: post #144
__jal wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some[1] will never drop the "simple physics" line because they don't care about learning about the biology of body weight, but rather reaffirming their aesthetic judgement that people they decide are overweight are also morally weak. [1] Emphatically not judging anyone posting here; that's not my goal. I'm simply bluntly stating what has become painfully clear after having this discussion multiple times.

It’s not about aesthetic judgement. If you won the genetics lottery and have a high metabolism, you will have more calories out. If you won the genetic lottery and grow to be 7 feet as oppose to be 5 foot 5, you will burn more calories and find it easier to be slim. I didn’t win the height genetic lottery or the higher than average metabolism genetic lottery, but I did win the mesomorph one. I naturally look muscular…

Somatotypes are pseudoscience.

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

#277

Post by scarface74 »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #255
scarface74 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Data” based on a sample set of 1 that can easily be explained by known phenomena? Did you measure your body fat percentage daily?

I understand that it's on me to prove my methodology, not expect you to assume I did it right. That is fair. The data is multiple points of weight recorded every day (4 times a day) over a month, with a follow up a few years continued observance based on the results. Also, daily exercise and daily diet were documented as well (during the month of testing). Granted, I did not measure "fat" with calipers or other metho…

Aren’t you arguing against your point? You cut down the amount of calories in and you increased calorie expenditure. You probably also gained lean muscle mass that helped to increase your basal metabolic rate.

This goes more to show what everyone knows based on accepted science.

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

#278

Post by bena »

Armisael16 wrote: post #188
hoschicz wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is absolutely false. I'm not saying it's impossible to keep losing weight by calorie restriction beyond 6 months, I'm saying that _sans further calorie restriction_ you don't lose weight. > Yes, it gets harder to continuously lose weight This is your body adjusting its basal metabolic rate and you having to implement further calorie restriction to achieve the same benefit.

People aren’t misunderstanding what you’re saying; what you’re saying is just wrong. It may be accurate within a limited range - a few hundred calories/day, perhaps - but is obviously wrong in the limit.

Yeah. To weigh 300 pounds you need to consume so many calories a day.

To weigh 200 pounds, you need to consume a different number of calories.

If you weigh 300 and start eating the 200 pound amount, you will lose weight. Slower over time as the difference between your weight and your consumption becomes less.

Once you reach 200 pounds, you won't continue to lose weight.

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

#279

Post by MichaelApproved »

mattsfrey wrote: post #128
MichaelApproved wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But metabolism has so many variables. You're drastically overestimating the difference in people's metabolism. > Some people are naturally skinny and others put on weight quickly. This is about appetite. Skinny people have a smaller appetite than overweight people. Show me a "skinny" person who can eat 4,000 calories a day and I'll show you a fat person.

This is a very false assumption, genetics absolutely do play a role in how much fat from dietary intake will be stored vs expelled as waste. Burning fat on the other hand, is universal and follows the law of conservation referred to in my other comment.

While I'm sure genetics makes a difference (as it does with everything), I doubt it's that significant. I'd be shocked if there's more than a 10% difference, if even that much.

Would love to see a source that backs up your claim.

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

#280

Post by tobylane »

mtreis86 wrote: post #258
RandallBrown wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you eat 500 calories and burn 600 calories, the energy has to come from somewhere . So in a sense it is actually a pretty simple physics problem. It gets tricky because calculating calorie consumption is really hard (how much of what you ate was actually turned into energy) and calculating calorie expenditure is probably even harder.

You're not counting the amount of energy gained through o2 and released as co2. That changes the calculation.

That’s the same process, the lungs are only collecting oxygen and returning waste carbon dioxide for the muscles doing said work.
Post reply on HN