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

151–160 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#151

Post by hrktb »

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.

First, congratulations.

IMO "the diet that works" can be anything. For some people it actually can be to eat anything they want, but at specific times of the day (and because for instance, they don't actually want to eat that much, it's just a matter of setting limits or not). I don't believe in a diet working for everyone, I think it's complicated, especially as it can affect a lot of other things in your everyday life, and whatever works for someone is fine.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#152

Post by Evgeniuz »

bluecalm wrote: post #147
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.

>>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 fou…

I think the author of previous comment meant that changes need to persistent, not transient. One can't just stop taking heroin for few months to improve their health and then go back using it again. Same with food - if you want your weight to stick, you need to adhere to your diet permanently and don't start eating junk food once you hit your target weight.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#153

Post by scottious »

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.

At some level though, it HAS to be a simple matter of calories in vs. calories out. I will bet a large sum of money that if you literally give an obese person ONLY water and necessary vitamins for 3 months that they'll lose weight. You'll never find somebody who hasn't eaten anything for a month and is maintaining their weight.

Sure it's an extreme case, meant only as a thought experiment, but it's obvious that 0 calories in and non-zero calories out absolutely MUST mean weight loss. What are the alternatives?

Here's the thing... I'm willing to change my mind. Totally willing. Here's what it will take: Show me a person who is overweight and goes on a VERY strict, almost laboratory controlled diet for 6 months. Everything strictly regimented and monitored. If that person simply cannot lose weight then fine, Gary Taubes wins.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#154

Post by stefantalpalaru »

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

Add to that the ridiculous habit of shortening "kilocalorie" to "calorie" when talking to humble folk without temptation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie (yeah, the wikipedia article makes it even more ridiculous with its "small"/"large" calorie language, somewhat in the vein of "up goer five").

Re: Calories in, calories out

#155

Post by CuriouslyC »

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 would rephrase his statement as:

You lose weight by having a good plan and taking consistent action to follow it. You achieve success the same way.

I honestly believe that the problem with people who work really hard and never achieve success is that they didn't formulate a good plan. You can be the fastest runner in the world but you're never going to win a race if you run in the wrong direction.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#156

Post by bluecalm »

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.

>>There is instant regret, but that is after eating.

Yes and this is symptom of addiction. From that you can see that advice of "eat less" or "count calories" is as useful as "don't take anymore heroin". The only useful advice is about how to change your lifestyle/eating habits to be able to eat less not that you should eat less in the first place.

Think about it like an athletic coach, do you tell the sprinter that he should run faster and count seconds or do you tell him what drills to do to actually become faster ? "Count calories" is the same as "just run faster and count seconds".

Re: Calories in, calories out

#157

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Calories in, calories out

#158

Post by CuriouslyC »

bdaw11 wrote: post #93

Conversely, if you're done with losing fat and wish to add some muscle I would recommend the High Intensity Training technique, described in e.g. the book High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way. The basic idea is to train once or twice a week for around 30 minutes, send as big a signal as possible to your body that your muscles are inadequate, and then recover until the next session.

Not to be a downer, but I have spent a lot of time in powerlifting/bodybuilding circles, and I've never met anyone with an advanced physique that told me that type of training worked for them.

I've also tried training that way, and didn't see good results.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#159

Post by stephen »

aantix wrote: post #52
jafaku wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> on top of the fact that the obese are already carrying extra muscle mass

Huh...I follow Lyle, but I've read the exact opposite in Body by Science: in cross-sectional views of obese people (CT scans), their muscles are small, weak, and atrophied.

IIRC, Body by Science makes the assertion that their muscles are essentially starved, because the metabolic system/insulin insensitivity/etc. are shunting energy primarily into fat cells.

And, with strength training, you can turn the metabolic tide back into energy getting into/being used by the muscles.

Disclaimer: It's been awhile since I read the book, and I might mistakenly being integrating ideas I'd read elsewhere.

Hrm, no pictures (which IIRC are convincing), but here's an article:

http://www.bodybyscience.net/home.html/?page_id=57

Re: Calories in, calories out

#160

Post by scottious »

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…

You know, I never really understood this point until I myself faced addiction. I've never had any issues with eating too much or drinking too much but once I discovered weed I was smoking every day for years and on days that I said I wouldn't I found it somehow happening as if there's another person living in my brain who's only purpose in life is to get high. I realized that I was less in control than I thought I was. It's funny because everybody says, "Weed is completely non addictive!!"

I managed to quit, but it was quite hard to do. It really took a major major shift in thinking and a lot of psychological withdrawals. I imagine this is what it's like for people who over eat, and I sympathize.

Post reply on HN