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

81–90 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#81

Post by iopq »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #58
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 % b…

You can lose water weight to the tune of 10 pounds and conclude that a low carb diet is superior. But of course, once you lost those ten pounds and start eating carbs again you'll regain them as your body replaces that glycogen and conclude that carbs are the devil.

Just pinching your belly fat with a caliper every week and seeing the numbers go down is much more accurate. It doesn't matter what your body fat IS or how much it went down, as long as your caliper measurements decrease.

For the record, my caliper measurements were something like 25/14/27 (belly/chest/thigh) at a high body fat (maybe 18%?) and more like 17/6/18 in the low teens.

I didn't really see a point of actually trying to track my fat loss through caliper measurements because they were exaggerated, the calculators said I was higher bf% than I really was (19.3% but I wasn't that high), and then they said I was lower bf% than I really was after I lost it (12.1% but I wasn't that low). I only lost 10 lbs between a purported 7% change in BF from 200lbs to 190lbs.

But as a measurement of "yep, losing fat", it's very accurate.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#82

Post by iopq »

narag wrote: post #80
iopq wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's about 5kg of water loss that will mess up your statistics if you just measure weight. So if you are looking at weight, a low carb diet loses you more weight. If you look at fat, it performs the same as a medium or high carb diet.

That doesn't mean you can't lose fat on a low carb diet, of course.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#83

Post by adrianN »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #58
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 % b…

> the same is not true for women

Many men would disagree.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#84

Post by iopq »

nkozyra wrote: post #35
bluecalm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thermodynamics have nothing to do with it. Human bodies can vary when it comes to efficiency of converting food to energy. It may also depend on hormonal situation or genetics or w/e else. It may also well be that "calorie out" part depends to some extent of what is eaten. It's not like human bodies are perfect 100% efficient engines of converting food to energy and that rest of the body doesn't take into account wha…

Actually, thermodynamics and the conservation of energy is absolutely a factor - the questions you're bringing up have to do with the way we measure that energy usage and potential, not with the fact that energy is either used (stored) or expelled. The efficacy of metabolism is in my opinion very much the big question mark here, and why I think relying on one-size-fits-all concepts like "a carbohydrate translates to…

No, actually carbohydrates are extremely easily digested and used as energy directly by your muscles and other tissues. Fats are also easily digested and used as energy primarily when you sleep. It's protein that's hard to quantify (how much is converted to glucose? how much does it cost to generate 1 gram of tissue? how many calories does it take to digest?)

Re: Calories in, calories out

#85

Post by mirsadm »

iopq wrote: post #72
hrktb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You kind of contradict yourself then. Or are you saying eating high protein in the solution for everybody? I find eating high fat to work for me.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#86

Post by Keats »

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…

The main mistake people do is thinking of it as a diet, instead of changing a lifestyle.

If you are dieting for 3 months and then going back to how you were eating before, you're just losing your time.

I've never been fat so can't comment for that part but when I'm cutting/bulking I eat the same things but in different quantities.

It's not about fighting your body, it's about having discipline.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#87

Post by iopq »

trustfundbaby wrote: post #42
nkozyra wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It just has to do with the way the body deals with sugar. Sugar produced from the digestive process goes straight to your bloodstream as glucose if your body needs it, but if you already have enough ... it is sent to your liver where it is converted to glycogen. The rub is, your liver can only store so much glycogen (about 100mg of…

you're confusing glucose and fructose here

you can store 100g of glycogen or even more, depending on how low you are at the moment and how big your muscles are

Re: Calories in, calories out

#88

Post by mirsadm »

IndianAstronaut wrote: post #57
bluecalm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is not true though. You can easily reduce the amount of food you eat by changing what you eat. Try to eat a diet high in fat and low in carbs. You'll find it extremely difficult to over eat. Then try the opposite, high carb and low fat. In my experience it is easy to keep eating until you feel sick.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#89

Post by lucian1900 »

narag wrote: post #80
iopq wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Taking laxatives in large quantities (as some misguided young people do) does indeed reduce water mass significantly, besides screwing up one's digestive system.

That may be where the confusion comes from.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#90

Post by iopq »

mirsadm wrote: post #85
iopq wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You kind of contradict yourself then. Or are you saying eating high protein in the solution for everybody? I find eating high fat to work for me.

High protein is definitely the solution for everyone.

But how high depends on the level of activity and total caloric consumption. You can eat both high protein AND high fat. 40% of calories in protein, 50% of calories in fat, 10% of calories in carbs would be an example of a diet high in protein, fat and low in carbs.

For weight lifters I would recommend 1g of protein per pound of lean tissue (approximate) and the rest of the calories in carbs or fats however you want to distribute those, but some carbs before a workout.

Post reply on HN