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

141–150 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#141

Post by Paul_S »

obsurveyor wrote: post #130
Paul_S wrote: post #126

You lose weight by eating less in the same way that you achieve success by working hard. One doesn't necessarily follow the other but unless you do it you can't possibly expect anything but more of the same.

Neither of these are true. Plenty of people work hard but don't achieve success, just the same way plenty of people eat less but don't lose weight. The body is a wonderfully efficient and adaptable machine and its own processes can sabotage your efforts to change it. There's also genetic predispositions that are a factor as well.

I think you should read my second sentence in the original post again. Working hard does not guarantee success - we both agree on that one. I hope we can also agree that unless you do work hard you are unlikely to achieve success.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#142

Post by Retric »

x0x0 wrote: post #96
hueving wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Packaged food often does not have anywhere near the same calories as the label claims. Food manufacturers often aren't very precise and they have an incentive to underestimate. Source? If they aren't within 20% they can be shut down by the FDA. Not exactly something you would want to risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/calorie-detective.... * bodega muffin. 640 claimed, 735 actual * starbucks pretend coffee. 370 claimed, 393 actual * chipotle burrito. 1175 claimed, 10% over * some veggie sandwich. 228 claimed, 100% over * subway sandwich. came in under 4/5 of tested food underestimated, some wildly

Those where not pre packaged.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#143

Post by bluecalm »

mirsadm wrote: post #88
IndianAstronaut wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's up with HN downvoting any comment containing mention of low-carb diets ? They work for tons of people. It's interesting argument as to why they work (do people just eat less, if so why or is there some other mechanism ?) but denying that for many people cutting out curb solves willingness to eat too much problem is just ridiculous. It's also experience of many people that keeping calories in range on standard/high carb diet is constant struggle while it's easy on low carb. How is it possible that comments containing this information + something from personal experience are constantly downvoted on this site?

Re: Calories in, calories out

#144

Post by weego »

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…

going to the Gym is also a great way to put on weight

given a calorie surplus.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#145

Post by annnnd »

> I learned that a chicken thigh loses over 40% of its weight from grilling...

Wow, seriously? Does that depend on whether the chicken is raised on farm (in open spaces, with enough room to run around) versus in battery cage? I would expect it matters a lot (the taste is _very_ different to me).

Re: Calories in, calories out

#146

Post by possiblywrong »

beloch wrote: post #67

"I learned that it is really hard to accurately measure calories consumed, even if you are trying. " I'd just like to highlight this, because it is profoundly true. There are probably very few people who have the patience to log everything they eat, diet or no diet, unless they have some kind of payoff close at hand! Even if you do log everything you eat, it's still not easy. Here are just a few reasons why: 1. The b…

> "For these reasons, I'm actually a bit surprised that the author's data matches the theory so closely... The fit is so perfect I actually suspect he... ah... played with his data slightly after the fact. A "fortuitous" choice for alpha is obviously helpful too."

Author of the linked blog post here. I made the comment that "if I had instead chosen 12, or 13 (for alpha), the resulting predictions would not agree nearly as well." This is perhaps overstating the "luck" of my initial midpoint choice. Here is a quick plot showing the same data with predictions using 12, 12.5, and 13: http://imgur.com/lP5sjwB

(Note also that a better least-squares estimate of alpha is actually about 12.7.) Even these "endpoints" still look to be in reasonable agreement with measurements. That is, if 12 to 13 calories per pound really represents most of the range of variability among the (male) population, then one can likely make useful predictions without needing to be spot-on with their choice of alpha.

Of course, it's a valid question whether 12 to 13 really covers a large chunk of the distribution. Are there men out there with alpha15, for example?

Re: Calories in, calories out

#147

Post by bluecalm »

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

Yeah, and giving up heroin, smoking or alcohol are just matter of discipline as well. People are just lazy slobs who can't control themselves why should we ever think about how to help those people if all that is needed is just stop taking heroin/drink alcohol/smoke cigarettes. Oh, and I've never been addicted to cigarettes/alcohol/heroin so I have found that I just need to cut on those for few months if they affect me somehow. It's not about fighting your body, it's a about having discipline.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#148

Post by bryanlarsen »

coldpie wrote: post #128
Keats wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The main mistake people do is thinking of it as a diet, instead of changing a lifestyle. Yes. It really gets to me when people say they're going on a diet. There's no such thing as "going on a diet." There is only "changing your diet." If you change your diet for a while, lose weight, and then go back to your previous diet, you will gain the weight back.

Worse, you may gain the weight back and more since the diet may have reduced your metabolism and/or made changes to your gut flora.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#149

Post by BSousa »

mirsadm wrote: post #88
IndianAstronaut wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wish people stopped saying this. I do well on a low carb diet, but seriously, I'll eat a pound of bacon (900 kcal) in one sitting if I don't stop myself. I can eat a pound of entrecot easily as well (960 kcal) and still stuff myself after (heck, I used to east 1/2 pount of entrecot + 2 pounds of spinach in a meal and still be hungry, and i'm 150 pounds 5'6) I won't even start with the very high-fat foods (butters, cheeses, etc). Low carb-high fat is not a magic pill to eat less. And if you want to do an experient, eat 1000 calories of vegetables (most are carb heavy) and in another day 1000 calories of bacon and let me know which is easier.

Better advice: just stop eating highly processed food and you will fell fuller for longer. If you can't eat it raw or with just one transformation (cooking for example) don't. Flour for example has separation of the germ, milling, reconstitution (water) and cooking so yes, even wholewheat bread is highly processed.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#150

Post by BSousa »

bluecalm wrote: post #143
mirsadm wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's up with HN downvoting any comment containing mention of low-carb diets ? They work for tons of people. It's interesting argument as to why they work (do people just eat less, if so why or is there some other mechanism ?) but denying that for many people cutting out curb solves willingness to eat too much problem is just ridiculous. It's also experience of many people that keeping calories in range on standard/…

It is not the low-carb by itself, is the whole magic around low-carb that people defend without much scientific basis. That and when talking about low-carb, they are actually comparing highly processed crap carbs vs healthy semi lean meats/fats.
Post reply on HN