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

101–110 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#101

Post by michh »

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…

Same, I lost a lot of weight a couple of years ago and it was hard. And it's still difficult to keep the weight off, even though it's been 5 years since I lost it and am on a regular exercise routine.

I've pretty much learned to accept it's something I'll have to deal with for the rest of my life, rather than "I was fat once, I got rid of it, it's no longer a concern, the end."

It totally pisses me off to see people who can't manage to do the same being judged in awful ways by people who were lucky enough not to have to do it in the first place or for whom it was apparently relatively easy and assume it'll be just as easy for everyone else.

I count myself amongst the lucky, I'll never say "I could do it, so you can too." It's counter productive and an awful thing to hear when you're already really trying.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#102

Post by dgerges »

Just eat normally (fruits, vegetables, meat/fish from time to time, not too much bread...) for a long period of time and you'll get to your normal weight. All the rest is bullshit.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#103

Post by ghshephard »

"That is, even two different people of exactly the same weight, height, age, gender, and activity level do not necessarily burn calories at the same rate." The AJCN (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition), has tons of paper on these types of topics, and one of the clever things they do is use isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen (Doubly Labeled Water, DLW), to get an exact measurement of a persons metabolic rate.

They then use those exact measurements to do things like calculate how much the various activities like sitting, walking, typing, reading, running, sleeping, lying down quietly, etc... consume in terms of calories.

What's nifty (and surprising to me), is that for most people, the standard models that are based on age, weight, height, and gender are pretty good predictors as to how much energy you will consume doing a particularly activity.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#104

Post by iopq »

ghshephard wrote: post #100
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.

Note, going to the Gym is also a great way to put on weight, so, I wouldn't correlate "going to the gym" and adding/losing weight. There's good research that shows even high-metabolic activity like running 5 miles/day isn't correlated with losing weight (though it is well correlated with increased aerobic capacity). Basically, any diet whatsoever will result in you losing weight. Just measuring/charting your weight i…

I put on less than ten pounds of muscle, it hasn't been a good way to put on weight even when I tried to bulk and eat a surplus. When I did eat a surplus I gained fat, and some muscle, but mostly fat. I then cut and lost the fat, but retained very little muscle.

People have a very unrealistic expectation from how much muscle they can gain going to the gym. Some can do better than others, but as for me, I have a very slight frame so I have difficulty putting on muscle mass.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#105

Post by iopq »

narag wrote: post #98
iopq wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except I would have been unable to do low calories at the time because I felt it like starving, while low carbs was pleasant, sustainable (last time for two years) and worked like a charm. So if I lost 5 kg of water and "only" 15 kg of fat, so be it... as opposed to 0 kg of anything with low calories. In 30 years I've read a lot against low-carbs, but nothing that can reconcile the fact that it works.

Low carbs did make you eat lower calories, so if it works for you, that's great. A low calorie diet is not opposed to a low carb diet, a low carb diet is usually a low calorie diet.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#106

Post by nl »

iopq wrote: post #78
grecy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This, is true. But some foods make you feel less hungry for the same quantity consumed. I linked to studies[1] showing this, but judging from the downvotes it seems to be unexpectedly controversial.

The science is well established. It makes a lot of sense: people agree the glycemic index of food is important, and the satiety index builds on that look at the number of calories a food contains as well as how quickly it is absorbed.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8502279

Re: Calories in, calories out

#107

Post by DanBC »

pygy_ wrote: post #97
wfjackson wrote: post #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…

Gut bacteria (specifically e. coli ) have recently been identified as the root cause of both anorexia and bulimia [0]. I submited that paper here with no luck when it came out two weeks ago. —— [0] Bacterial ClpB heat-shock protein, an antigen-mimetic of the anorexigenic peptide α-MSH, at the origin of eating disorders http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n10/full/tp201498a.html

This is fascinating, thank you.

It's surprising to see a causal link between ED and gut flora. Anorexia is, when we adjust for factors, the most fatal mental illness.

Has anyone tested people who have a reliable diagnosis of either anorexia or bulimia? That would seem ethically easy enough. Especially since current treatment sometimes involves detention against the patient's ill in hospital, and forced naso-gastric feeding.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#108

Post by nl »

ghshephard wrote: post #103

"That is, even two different people of exactly the same weight, height, age, gender, and activity level do not necessarily burn calories at the same rate." The AJCN (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition), has tons of paper on these types of topics, and one of the clever things they do is use isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen (Doubly Labeled Water, DLW), to get an exact measurement of a persons metabolic rate. They th…

You can also do New Leaf testing which measures your caloric burn rate[1]. It's more for optimising nutrition for endurance sports than for weight loss though. Once it is done Garmin devices can load a New Leaf profile and tell you when you need calories (if you are doing an Ironman or something).

[1] http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2012/01/look-at-testing-with-new-...

Re: Calories in, calories out

#109

Post by sergiosgc »

Keats wrote: post #86
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…

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.

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

I like the Scott Adams' approach to discipline: self control, or motivation, is a finite resource. Just like attention span, or muscle endurance. You have to work around it, much as you work around your other limits. Dieting techniques are techniques to work around this limit.

This also means that saying it is about discipline conveys nothing actionable. It's like saying running the marathon is all about muscle endurance. True, but not actionable and thus useless.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#110

Post by eitally »

ghshephard wrote: post #100
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.

Note, going to the Gym is also a great way to put on weight, so, I wouldn't correlate "going to the gym" and adding/losing weight. There's good research that shows even high-metabolic activity like running 5 miles/day isn't correlated with losing weight (though it is well correlated with increased aerobic capacity). Basically, any diet whatsoever will result in you losing weight. Just measuring/charting your weight i…

Anecdotally, I added 40 miles per week of running (actually performance-oriented running, not just casual jogging) to my lifestyle over the past year and it has had literally zero effect on my weight, or, according to my Fitbit Aria scale, my bodyfat. I also haven't been trying to lose weight and have been doing quite a bit of bodyweight strength exercising, so I am not at all surprised by this. I did drop my resting heart rate to about 55bpm and knock 2 minutes off my 5k time (22min --> 20:00), though, which was my goal.
Post reply on HN