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

71–80 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#71

Post by iopq »

hspak wrote: post #37
jdminhbg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 would be empty". "Why is it warmer in the summer than the winter?" "Because your hemisphere took in more calories than it gave off." True! And anyone who denies it is just argui…

There's been work and research that state gaining weight is not a simple matter of calorie in = calorie out. Gary Taubes has written a lot about it.

This is untrue, it IS that simple. When we talk about fat gain or loss, of course. Cutting out carbohydrates will make you lose glycogen, which contains mostly water (4 parts water, 1 part glucose).

It's very easy to lose water weight and say you lost more than you were supposed to lose because you're using weight as a measurement. If you use the amount of fat you have on your body, a low carb diet is no more effective than a low calorie diet at losing weight given the same amount of caloric expenditure.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#72

Post by iopq »

hrktb wrote: post #65
autokad wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actually, almost ANY diet works. if you are over weight and reduce your calorie intake: you.will.loose.weight.period. people have a tendency to either not adhere to the diet over time or not partake in the diet at all by listening to people say: all these other magical factors effect your weight, why bother? negative platitudes if you will. 'its not that 4000 calorie a day diet that is making you fat, its genetics!'…

> actually, almost ANY diet works. if you are over weight and reduce your calorie intake: you.will.loose.weight.period. What we are saying here is that you reduce your calorie intake within the range where gut bacteria can act, it might not have any effect, or even negative effect. If you reduce your calorie intake below the level gut bacteria activity matters, you will lose weight, but only if you can sustain the di…

Oh please. I was 230+ lbs six years ago (30% bf or so), and now I'm 194lbs at around 15% bf.

I lost 15% of my weight and kept it off. It's not that hard. It's not punishing myself, it's going to the gym and taking protein supplements. The "diet that works" is eating a lot of protein because it's the most filling.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#74

Post by wastedhours »

hspak wrote: post #37
jdminhbg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 would be empty". "Why is it warmer in the summer than the winter?" "Because your hemisphere took in more calories than it gave off." True! And anyone who denies it is just argui…

There's been work and research that state gaining weight is not a simple matter of calorie in = calorie out. Gary Taubes has written a lot about it.

Whilst that's true, you really shouldn't use that as the argument - the point being made is that your body's ability to use a calorie in one type of food is different to your body's ability to use a calorie in another type of food.

A calorie = a calorie, but accessing it, sorting it, and storing it, depends on the package it comes in.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#75

Post by iopq »

spudlyo wrote: post #54
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.

The problem is that eating white rice is low in protein, and you'll lose body tissue that's not fat. Eating just chicken you'll lose glycogen which is 80% water, so you'll lose more weight, while losing the same amount of fat.

So when you go into extreme diets, there is a problem with measuring exactly what is going on if all you use is a scale.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#76

Post by throwaway283719 »

There's a fun piece of math you can do with this model. Given the relation

  w[t+1] = w[t] + (c[t] - alpha * w[t] - beta * d[t] * w[t]) / 3500
and assuming c, d are both constant (i.e. assume they are your long-run average of calories consumed and exercise done) you can solve to get

  w[t] = c / (alpha + beta * d) + const * (phi ** t)
where phi is a number smaller than 1, and const is some constant that depends on your initial weight. Over time, the phi t term decays away, and you are left with your long-term stable weight,

  w = c / (alpha + beta * d)
Using c = 2000, alpha = 12.5, beta = 0.63 and d = 0 you get a long-run stable weight of

  w = 2000 / 12.5 = 160 lb
On the other hand, if you eat 2500 calories per day but run five miles, you get

  w = 2500 / (12.5 + 0.63 * 5) = 160 lb
so if you want to eat an extra 500 calories per day, you should run 5 miles per day.

It'd be interesting to see how accurate this is.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#77

Post by iopq »

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…

Of course you can have a stronger hunger/desire to eat than other people. I have a high desire to eat, but I also love spending three hours exercising. I walked one hour to the gym on foot, lifted weights for one hour and walked another hour back. I could spend three hours playing ping pong or basketball. I never used to do that before, but I learned to love it. I don't do it every day, because my body wouldn't last, but I do it often enough to offset sometimes eating a very large meal.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#78

Post by iopq »

grecy wrote: post #64
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…

> The degree of difficulty in (not) eating an additional (something) You've missed the entire point. Never once has it ever been said you should eat less. Just eat less calories, not less quantity. (This reply is so important I replied to two different people with it)

You think you're being clever, but you're really not. Your body measures the calories you've consumed, not quantity.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#79

Post by iopq »

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.

I lifted weights for four years and I have not gained even ten pounds of muscle, so less than a 40 calorie a day change. Less than four pounds a year difference.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#80

Post by narag »

iopq wrote: post #71
hspak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been work and research that state gaining weight is not a simple matter of calorie in = calorie out. Gary Taubes has written a lot about it.

This is untrue, it IS that simple. When we talk about fat gain or loss, of course. Cutting out carbohydrates will make you lose glycogen, which contains mostly water (4 parts water, 1 part glucose). It's very easy to lose water weight and say you lost more than you were supposed to lose because you're using weight as a measurement. If you use the amount of fat you have on your body, a low carb diet is no more effecti…

Sorry but this is complete bullshit. I don't do Atkins any more. I can lose weight other ways more easily now. But when I did, twice many years ago in my twenties and my thirties, there's no way I could lose 20 kg of just water. It was very obviously fat. Anyone could see and touch.

I don't know where this absurdity of water losing came from, but It's utterly ridiculous.

Post reply on HN