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

51–60 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#51

Post by paulsutter »

Great work, but I’d propose that percent bodyfat is a better “north star” metric for health than weight itself. I’d like to have more muscle and less fat, and I think that’s true of most men. Focus on weight loss is one of the strangest widespread beliefs. Easy to test, ask a panel of women what male bodies are most attractive, and check the results against bodyfat and weight.

My own experience is that calories in/out controls weight, yes.

But I’ve only been able to lose fat and gain muscle by eating a diet that keeps my blood sugar stable. I think this is the real benefit of avoiding high-glycemic carbs, not some magical exemption from thermodynamics.

I’d be interested to help test this.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#52

Post by aantix »

jafaku wrote: post #3
grecy wrote: 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…

Coming from Lyle McDonald, one of the most respected trainers in the industry..

"Some of this also comes from the still gross misconception that ‘muscle burns a ton of calories’ (a myth I took apart in Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body – Research Review). That is, they hope to jack up metabolic rate by increasing muscle mass. Which is a futile activity because the effect is minimal (on top of the fact that the obese are already carrying extra muscle mass). A pound of muscle burns about 6 calories at rest, you have to add a ton to impact on metabolic rate (see also the next issue I discuss, low metabolic rate isn’t a problem). And that takes a lot of time, time better spent focusing on active fat loss."

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-...

Re: Calories in, calories out

#53

Post by rdlecler1 »

Nice work. Your predicted result gives you a nice hypothesis to test the calorie in calorie out model. Surprisingly accurate! It was also interesting that the prediction tended to overstimate the weight loss. Something systematic that needs adjusting?

I'd love for someone to do this with beer.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#54

Post by spudlyo »

rdlecler1 wrote: post #53

Nice work. Your predicted result gives you a nice hypothesis to test the calorie in calorie out model. Surprisingly accurate! It was also interesting that the prediction tended to overstimate the weight loss. Something systematic that needs adjusting? I'd love for someone to do this with beer.

I would love to see him repeat this two more times, once eating nothing but white rice, and once eating nothing but cooked chicken. I'd be willing to bet that all three scatter plots would be largely indistinguishable from one another.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#55

Post by arrrg »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #16
iolsantr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Treating people like shit is not cool. And that’s all that needs to be said about this, really.

It’s not ok to treat people worse because of their weight.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#56

Post by ddt »

nulldozer wrote: post #46

I think you would be taken more seriously if you used the metric system.

> (Aside: I am intentionally sticking with U. S. customary units of pounds, miles, etc., to be consistent with much of the related literature.)

From the article, it sounds like dietary science in the US is done with imperial units. It was written by an American for a primarily American audience. Americans track their weight in pounds. Those seem like pretty good reasons to not use metric to me.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#57

Post by IndianAstronaut »

bluecalm wrote: post #38
grecy wrote: 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…

Calorie counting technique is basically this: "You need to eat less, here is a nifty tool to help you to keep track and maybe make a bit motivated once you see all those numbers". That may work for some people but for vast majority it won't help at all. Overweight/obese people very often know they need to eat less, the problem is they can't do it. "Count calories and don't go over deficit" is basically like saying to…

Until there are effective ways to curb appetite, this problem will persist. Any overweight or obese person can tell you that your brain goes into autopilot mode till you get your food fix. There is instant regret, but that is after eating.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#58

Post by thaumasiotes »

paulsutter wrote: post #51

Great work, but I’d propose that percent bodyfat is a better “north star” metric for health than weight itself. I’d like to have more muscle and less fat, and I think that’s true of most men. Focus on weight loss is one of the strangest widespread beliefs. Easy to test, ask a panel of women what male bodies are most attractive, and check the results against bodyfat and weight. My own experience is that calories in/ou…

> I’d propose that percent bodyfat is a better “north star” metric for health than weight itself. I’d like to have more muscle and less fat, and I think that’s true of most men

That depends on the goals you have for your metric. % fat by weight is probably a better fit than total weight for describing body image, but there are two issues that help the viability of total weight:

1. There's not so much variation in % body fat by weight, which means confounding "amount of weight that is fat" with "amount of weight that is anything" doesn't lose you much in practice.

2. Total weight is extremely easy to measure, always desirable in a metric.

And, as you note, while replacing fat mass with muscle mass generally makes men more attractive, the same is not true for women, who are in my experience the vast majority of the "worried about their weight" audience.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#59

Post by yummyfajitas »

arrrg wrote: post #55
yummyfajitas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Treating people like shit is not cool. And that’s all that needs to be said about this, really. It’s not ok to treat people worse because of their weight.

A) The question is a positive one, not a normative one. Your reply is irrelevant.

B) Now that fat people harm the rest of us (via Obamacare and rules forcing employer health insurance to charge everyone the same), its hardly clear that social opprobrium is unwarranted.

Post reply on HN