Live data from Hacker News

Calories in, calories out

possiblywrong.wordpress.com

11–20 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#11
post #5
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, this isn't a body building website. Words like "ripped" are not appropriate, bro.

I'm not a native speaker. Is it a vulgar word? Didn't seem like that to me. And I didn't know people looking to lose weight wanted to do so specifically without gaining any muscle. My advice wasn't to become a body builder, just a healthy person.

[deleted]

Re: Calories in, calories out

#12
Gut bacteria are a big confounder among a bunch of other things. Different types can do a lot of things differently, like extract more calories from the same food.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/ci-gbi091012....

They can even mess with your mind to make you crave junk food.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/08/116526/do-gut-bacteria-rule...

Transplanting them from a thin human to an obese mice slimmed the mice down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/health/gut-bacteria-from-t...

Jet lagged gut bacteria can contribute to obesity.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/jet-lagged-gut-bacteri...

Diet soda can alter gut bacteria to make one gain weight.

http://www.prevention.com/health/diabetes/artificial-sweeten...

There are more gut bacteria than human cells in our body, and they actually release chemicals that affect the brain and have evolved to do that and there are a lot of other factors that influence gut bacteria, including what got passed on from your mother, what foods you ate during your life, what antibiotics you took etc. etc.

And gut bacteria is just one variable among things like activity levels, pollution levels, sleep amount and quality(not sleeping well can make you eat about 600 calories more the next day), peers(hanging out with obese people is likely to make you obese, obese people tend to have obese pets!), poverty, car ownership, smoking, tastebud sensitivity, commute time(people with longer commutes tend to be obese),genetics,water intake, muscle mass,stress levels, food additives, pregnancy, childbirth, menopause, time of the month for women, free time in a day(try cooking at home and exercise working 2 grueling jobs to make ends meet), drug side effects, emotional eating, type of exercise, micronutrients in food,portion sizes in restaurant, food advertising, food subsidies, vitamn level, thyroid function, insulin sensitivity, liver health, distribution of fat around body parts and inside organs,will power, processed foods, food availability and cost etc. etc. Some of these variables affect the others in a chaotic state machine kind of way.

It's no wonder that all these low carb, low fat, paleo, etc. diets are not one-size-fits-all solutions and that such discussions descend into WORKED-FOR-ME!!! Y U NO DO IT?!! platitudes. A calorie = a calorie is as true and as useless as answering the question "Why are there so many people inside the Super Bowl stadium during the game?" by saying "Because more people entered it than who left, if only people didn't get in, it wouldn't be so crowded."

Re: Calories in, calories out

#13
post #7

In bodybuilding terms, "cutting" is being under calorie deficit. It can wreak havoc with your mood systems and that's why people can't keep it up. Start small.

It's not just moods, it's also hunger. AFAIK, fMRI studies have shown that in morbidly obese people, the hunger part of their brain is constantly activated. They're actually hungry all the time, they have an irresistible urge to eat. I'm sure the large majority of them wish they were thinner, but to them, it's a painful struggle against biological urges.

I used to be overweight, lost weight, but it's a constant struggle for me to keep a normal weight. I've spoken to some very thin people, and they don't seem to experience hunger in the same way I do. These people forget to eat, get full very quickly, and when they get full, they lose all of the sense of pleasure they get from eating, they immediately want to stop. Me? I have an urge to eat quickly and I can eat way past "enough". I'm pretty sure I could eat 2000 calories for dinner if I didn't stop myself, but the reasonable mark is at about 900. I can never "forget" to eat, my body/brain doesn't let me.

It's pretty clear that some people have stronger sex drives than others. I don't understand why it's such a radical notion that some people have a stronger sense of hunger than others. If you've never been overweight, chances are it's not an active effort or perfect habits on your part, it's just the way your body/brain works, it's largely genetics.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#14
post #5
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, this isn't a body building website. Words like "ripped" are not appropriate, bro.

I'm not a native speaker. Is it a vulgar word? Didn't seem like that to me. And I didn't know people looking to lose weight wanted to do so specifically without gaining any muscle. My advice wasn't to become a body builder, just a healthy person.

I'm guessing the negative comment was due to a jocks vs. nerds cultural thing, combined with the fact that your advice was well.. bad.

I'd argue "the best first step" is not to start pumping iron, but to develop and execute a strategy that helps you to reduce your number of daily fork lifts.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#15
post #3
post #2

This has been a very hot topic on HN in the past, so I suspect the comments section will soon blow up. I've always though of the "calories in vs calories out" technique for weight loss to be the starting point for the majority of people trying to lose weight. Reign in how many calories you're eating, start burning a few more (even just walking a block or two for most people is a great start) and you'll see significan…

I have never been fat but as a sports guy I have read a lot about the subject and I'm pretty sure the best first step (as opposed to running, not as opposed to controlling your calories) is to start lifting weights if you are a guy. The more muscle you have, the more calories you will burn passively (at rest). And once you are done losing weight you will be ripped. It's like what people do in a bulk + cut cycle, but…

My understanding from regularly reading fitness forums is that the actual calorie loss you get from having muscle instead of fat is pretty negligible (maybe 100 calories/day depending on how much muscle you have). However, perhaps it could still help if it gives you esteem about your body (causing you to show more discipline with respect to diet).

I think a really good first step is to 1) drop soda, sweets, or other things that are relatively effortless changes and then 2) just track everything you eat (you don't even need to look up calorie information initially) so you have the data in case you want to start making other dietary changes. I have also found that restricting your diet to a small set of foods where you deeply know the nutritional data, etc. and can build a routine out of it and moving from carbs to proteins are also really helpful.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#16
post #6
post #2

This has been a very hot topic on HN in the past, so I suspect the comments section will soon blow up. I've always though of the "calories in vs calories out" technique for weight loss to be the starting point for the majority of people trying to lose weight. Reign in how many calories you're eating, start burning a few more (even just walking a block or two for most people is a great start) and you'll see significan…

I don't really disagree with you, but. These suggestions ignore the (soft) limitations of human agency. The degree of difficulty in (not) eating an additional (something) has never been really quantified in sufficiently broad spectrum of situations, to my knowledge. A generally helpful and encouraging life can lead to many positive changes, weight loss not least among them. Maybe instead of telling fat people to lose…

Why would removing disincentives for being fat reduce the number of fat people? Should we also make smoking cool to reduce the # of smokers?

Re: Calories in, calories out

#17
post #6
post #2

This has been a very hot topic on HN in the past, so I suspect the comments section will soon blow up. I've always though of the "calories in vs calories out" technique for weight loss to be the starting point for the majority of people trying to lose weight. Reign in how many calories you're eating, start burning a few more (even just walking a block or two for most people is a great start) and you'll see significan…

I don't really disagree with you, but. These suggestions ignore the (soft) limitations of human agency. The degree of difficulty in (not) eating an additional (something) has never been really quantified in sufficiently broad spectrum of situations, to my knowledge. A generally helpful and encouraging life can lead to many positive changes, weight loss not least among them. Maybe instead of telling fat people to lose…

[deleted]

Re: Calories in, calories out

#18
It's calories in, calories out, only if you stick to specific foods.

It's well proven that raw foods, despite being slightly higher calorie content than their cooked version, contribute significantly less calories because FAR less is digested and absorbed.

And it's equally well proven that weight gain is significantly due to the consumption of processed sugars (most carbohydrates that people eat these days), as they contribute far more sugar far quicker to the blood (and hence kick off an insulin reaction to lower the blood sugar by storing the sugar as fat). 1000 calories of white rice will contribute far more to weight gain than 1000 calories of, say, plain chicken.

So we _know_ that it's not just calories in, calories out. It just seems that way sometimes, because most studies don't really change the fundamental type of food (that is, it's almost assuredly cooked food still, and at least somewhat similar in the processing done (e.g. no candy bar but they're still eating white bread)). Everyone's just repeating the same study over and over, not realizing they weren't fundamentally changing the inputs.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#19
We deal with this all the time when recommending diet supplements at my startup. When it comes to losing weight, yes, calories in vs. calories out is the most important step to start with.

Sure, protein has a higher TEF (thermic effect of food), and yadda yadda yadda there are some other minor things involved, but they're just not enough for you to discredit the calorie situation.

However, when it comes to burning fat, the next most important thing (after you have determined a reasonable caloric deficit) is to maintain a "high" level of protein.

Too low of protein, and you're going to lose too much muscle mass. Ultimately, this is what's leading to so many "skinny fat" dieters. You get a lot of it from people who do nothing but cardio cardio cardio.

It turns out that all the low-fat vs. low-carb wars are really meaningless, because most of those studies don't control protein - which is MORE important! That last low-fat vs. low-carb study that came out was miserably guilty of this, because protein intake has actually been shown to be more significant than carb or fat control[1].

After you've situated your calories, then your protein (and you are consistent about it), then you choose your carbs and fats however it pleases you. There are extremes on both sides.

What's important is you find something that you can be successful with, and keep that protein number up. Lest you be skinny fat, which I personally feel is worse than being "muscular fat".

In the bodybuilding community, some people have taken this to extremes with Flexible Dieting, or "IIFYM" (If it Fits Your Macros...). Basically, the idea that proper quantities (as discussed above and below) are more important than food quality. I will err on that side of the argument, but the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle when attempting to achieve overall health.

Finally, it's worth noting that while total caloric intake and macronutrients are most important when it comes to weight and aesthetics, please eat some damned vegetables too. And corn is not a vegetable.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22935440

Re: Calories in, calories out

#20
post #14
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a native speaker. Is it a vulgar word? Didn't seem like that to me. And I didn't know people looking to lose weight wanted to do so specifically without gaining any muscle. My advice wasn't to become a body builder, just a healthy person.

I'm guessing the negative comment was due to a jocks vs. nerds cultural thing, combined with the fact that your advice was well.. bad. I'd argue "the best first step" is not to start pumping iron, but to develop and execute a strategy that helps you to reduce your number of daily fork lifts.

> I'm guessing the negative comment was due to a jocks vs. nerds cultural thing

Oh, yeah that happened to me a few times in the past, but more explicitly. The funny thing is my main activity is actually devops.

> daily fork lifts

LOL

Post reply on HN