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

Calories in, calories out

possiblywrong.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#21

Post by bluecalm »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #13
ragecore wrote: 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 strug…

It's not a radical notion. It would be radical to assume anything else without very strong evidence. I am the same way as you are btw. What changes it for me is very low-carb diet. After few days of suffering I actually stopped being hungry and went some days with one/two small meals. I forgot to eat few times until like 7pm. I imagine that people who are like that by default have it much easier to keep healthy weight.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#23

Post by hhorse »

You lost 25 pounds over 75 days (abysmal progress)? By forcing yourself into a calorie deficit that you can't sustain? And you're going to gain all the weight back? And you have to constantly monitor your caloric intake, ruining the inherent joy of eating and paying attention to your body's signals?

That's really awful man. I'm so sorry for you. Anyone can already see the path you're about to go down. You'll be moody, hungry, feel bad, and regain the weight. It's the same diet story thousands of times over. Your prediction and result is also not the norm. When closely measuring calories and energy expenditure, very few people achieve the desired weight loss. Not that half a pound a day is desirable. You can do much better.

It's incredibly obvious that if you're losing weight that you're in an energy deficit. It's also a worthless observation. As "dieting" has proved time and time again, it's unsustainable for humans and has no long term benefits. Sure you can go hungry all the time, but who cares? You're not solving nor addressing the problem. It's like liposuction. People get severely depressed because they attempt what you're experimenting with, thinking it will work.

At 6'4 and 250 pounds, you are clinically obese. You are going to die sooner than most people, and it's going to be painful. This is something to take very seriously, and something worth getting emotional about. People's lives are ruined by thinking being in a constant calorie deficit is a good way to get healthy. Debating calories in / calories out is why people end up obese in the first place. Unless you have a genetic condition, you're carbohydrate intolerant.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#24

Post by thomaskcr »

jaredsohn wrote: post #15
jafaku wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

100 calories a day is almost a pound a month - that's actually pretty significant when you get to the "almost in shape" phase and losses drop to the 3-4 lb a month range.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#25

Post by jaredsohn »

thomaskcr wrote: post #24
jaredsohn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

100 calories a day is almost a pound a month - that's actually pretty significant when you get to the "almost in shape" phase and losses drop to the 3-4 lb a month range.

But it probably takes a lot of work to get there (not sure how many pounds of muscle that is offhand.) Also, to actually build the muscle (rather than improve your CNS) you will need to bulk for awhile.

I personally (when I lost as much as 60 pounds and started lifting for the first time in almost a decade) found lifting to be very helpful from a motivational standpoint, but it was controlling my diet and running that caused most of the weight to come off.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#26

Post by bokonist »

MicroBerto wrote: post #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 f…

I had great success starting from a strict calories in vs. calories out diet, and then iterating on what I ate to make myself the most satiated per calorie eaten. Turns out that the diet that solves for satiation ends up being a lot of plain chicken and meat, beans, roasted veggies, modest amounts of starch, and no sugar. (Eating a handful of jelly beans would make be starving 30 minutes later).

The other thing I found, is that I had to avoid foods that tasted too good. Basically any food that combines fat, simple starches, and a sweet sauce will taste too good and give you an overwhelming urge to overeat. If I wanted to eat a burrito for lunch, I would cut it in half, put the other half in the fridge, and save it for dinner, before I even started to eat my lunch. Burritos are quite satiating, and you actually diet while eating them, you just have to portion control, and will yourself past the ten minutes when you are done with the first half and so tempted to eat the other half.

I've wondered if the reason why so many diet strategies succeed in the short run, but fail in the long run, is because they are all hacks to make you eat less tasty food. If you just eat fat, or just eat carbs, or just eat whole wheat, or whatever, your food will be less tasty. In the long run though, people like eating tasty food, and so they keep making exceptions to the diet in the name of taste, and they are back to their normal eating habits.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#27

Post by nkozyra »

Cacti wrote: post #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…

> 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.

Not to get into a pissing match, but I think "well proven" needs some citation here.

The role of insulin does not bypass thermodynamics.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#28

Post by thomaskcr »

jaredsohn wrote: post #25
thomaskcr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 calories a day is almost a pound a month - that's actually pretty significant when you get to the "almost in shape" phase and losses drop to the 3-4 lb a month range.

But it probably takes a lot of work to get there (not sure how many pounds of muscle that is offhand.) Also, to actually build the muscle (rather than improve your CNS) you will need to bulk for awhile. I personally (when I lost as much as 60 pounds and started lifting for the first time in almost a decade) found lifting to be very helpful from a motivational standpoint, but it was controlling my diet and running tha…

You're totally right, and even over some long period of time your losses from extra muscle will be dwarfed your losses due to lifestyle changes.

My philosophy is that if you don't enjoy your health regime, whether its a diet, running, lifting, crossfit (I know, booooo) or some combination -- you're going to give it up as soon as possible. Lifting is something that I think a lot of people find enjoyable because it really doesn't have that misery factor of other workouts (I personally love that, I'm a rower which is basically a sport predicated on collectively loving misery more than the other team). People tend to stick with lifting longer, if not forever. That extra 200 calories 3 or 4 times a week, plus the boost in metabolism over the lifetime of a person is more valuable in my opinion than only dieting/running for a year and then being relieved when you cross the finish line and stop.

When people ask me how to lose weight (I cut pretty hard every year and it's dramatic), I point them towards lifting -- maybe they would lose more weight short term by controlling their diet and running, but people never stick to that stuff. A lot of my friends, mostly girls, have been doing some lifting program now for a couple of years (5-3-1 is my favorite) and they have stuck with it because its enjoyable. They eventually get dragged in and discover protein and macros and by then they're already invested in lifting and enjoying it -- it's part of their lifestyle now.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#29

Post by MicroBerto »

bokonist wrote: post #26
MicroBerto wrote: post #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 f…

I had great success starting from a strict calories in vs. calories out diet, and then iterating on what I ate to make myself the most satiated per calorie eaten. Turns out that the diet that solves for satiation ends up being a lot of plain chicken and meat, beans, roasted veggies, modest amounts of starch, and no sugar. (Eating a handful of jelly beans would make be starving 30 minutes later). The other thing I fou…

That's actually a great point, and something I've told friends in a "broscience" fashion: There is nearly nothing in nature that combines fats and carbs. It's almost like you need to choose one or the other - balance is how you get into trouble, because then you think everything is legal.

Take, for instance, potato chips -- and not the low-fat Baked Lay's or Quest Chips kind. If you're on a "balanced diet", they're legal. But good luck measuring them and not eating the entire bag.

It sounds like your success was mainly in portion control. Eating standing up helps you get full faster too, as does focusing on chewing a lot (also prevents choking and other benefits).

The biggest problem I forgot to mention above, however, is that people will read all sorts of literature, but when it comes to actually weighing their food with a food scale (costs literally $20) and counting their calories and macros, they all fail. Yes, it's a pain in the arse, but you learn so much by recording everything you eat. But people simply don't want to do it, and it drives me nuts.

This also leads me to believe that there's a massive business opportunity somewhere in there to make it easier to do (I have ideas but am too busy).

Re: Calories in, calories out

#30

Post by letstryagain »

Cacti wrote: post #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…

Calorie counting already takes this into consideration. When we say '100g of raw tomato has X calories' we are talking of what your body gets out of it when you eat it, not the calories theoretically in the tomato.
Post reply on HN