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

181–190 of 219 posts

Re: Calories in, calories out

#181

Post by illegalsmile »

iopq wrote: post #79
thomaskcr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have to assume that gaining mass/muscle/strength wasn't the intention of your weight lifting then. I can't imagine you're much stronger than you were 3 years ago which if that's what you're going for is just fine.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#182

Post by jschwartzi »

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.

You can get a similar effect just by switching from eating a lot of grains to eating a lot of vegetables.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#183

Post by logfromblammo »

jaredsohn wrote: post #15
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…

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…

Your metabolic rate increases during a workout and remains elevated for some time after you stop. The baseline increase from additional muscle mass is indeed almost negligible. But a daily 15-minute strength training workout intended to build and maintain that muscle may actually translate to 3 or 4 hours per day of additional calorie expenditure that might not be obvious to you.

Here's the hypothesis. The post-workout effect on metabolic rate burns more calories than the exercise itself.

Here's the experiment.

Begin with hydration. Drink excess water until urine has little color. Every day thereafter, after your first urination of the day, measure and record your body weight. Make no attempt to control food intake, but if you wish, record what you eat and attempt to subjectively rate your appetite before and after meals. Continue to drink excess water for the duration of the experiment.

First elimination. Do not exercise for one week. Do not repeat this phase if you choose to do additional iterations.

Control. Perform 60 consecutive minutes of cardiovascular exercise on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, for two weeks.

Elimination. Do not exercise for one week.

Experiment. Exercise enough to elevate your heart rate for 5 minutes at a time, at 4-hour intervals, 5 times a day. Do this for 2 weeks.

Elimination. Do not exercise for one week.

Repeat this cycle several times. Compare weight measurements for the 3-week control intervals with the 3-week experimental intervals. If they are significantly different, you have evidence for a post-exercise effect. This may help you devise a weight-loss plan compatible with your lifestyle.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#184

Post by logfromblammo »

gitaarik wrote: post #131

Since nobody has mentioned it yet, there's a diet called "The Hacker's Diet" [0] that is based upon this calorie in/out theory. The website also has a simple webapp where you can create your own chart to track your weight. Personally I think this is a great way to control your weight. The diet doesn't say anything about what to eat, just how much (in calories). It doesn't necessarily make it easier, but it does give…

That's great as a measurement regime and daily exercise program. But you will also need to follow a food composition diet that helps you to keep your "eat watch" calibrated correctly. This will vary by individual, and may require some experimentation.

Fresh, intact fruits and vegetables are often the foods highest in satiety per absorbed kilocalorie, but there's only one person that has your brain connected to your guts. You may find that hard-boiled eggs do the trick for you. Or guacamole. Or olives and feta cheese. Whatever it takes to reprogram your "eat watch" to alert in a way that helps you shed fat instead of gaining it.

(This post will probably only make sense after you read far enough into the parent post's link.)

Re: Calories in, calories out

#185

Post by logfromblammo »

iopq wrote: post #91
nkozyra wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard all of this before and frankly a lot of it seems anecdotal and poorly supported. First, we do know that simple sugars lead to insulin spikes, that's measurable and repeatable. All carbohydrates (save cellulose) are processed into the monosaccharide glucose at some point. And the finite amount of glycogen the liver can store probably also could use some attribution or citation. I haven't heard of that and I…

fructose does not lead to an insulin spike and goes directly to the liver

Where it can contribute to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which is similar to the liver damage seen in alcoholics.

If you were thinking of substituting fructose for glucose in your diet, to get a lower insulin response, reconsider.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#186

Post by JeremyNT »

This is a really great blog post.

I've been doing something similar (but less rigorous) over the past two years. I was obese at the start and decided to get back to my college-age weight. I have now lost 70 pounds using "calories in / calories out" as the sole consideration.

The challenge, as this blog post states, is knowing what calin and calout actually are.

I have often wondered: how do healthy weight people seemingly know how much they should eat to maintain weight? Many people can maintain a weight without meticulous logging and data collection. They seem to know how to consume the appropriate portion sizes instinctively, without having to learn the actual numbers underneath it all.

I have come to view the ability to know "how much should I eat?" as some combination of talent and skill. Some people seem to have much better intuition about this and need no training. Others, like myself, may live most of our lives without such intuition. Only through extensive data collection, observation, and analysis have I learned to approximate how much "calin" a meal will result in.

I wonder: is there a way to teach this ability to children? Is this something that some people learn early in life, which they retain for a lifetime? Is this an avenue that researchers are exploring?

Re: Calories in, calories out

#187

Post by randlet »

kyllo wrote: post #165
ghshephard wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different results for different people I guess - also your particular workout regime. Doing a lot of heavy lifting (Starting Strength) over nine months resulted in a about 20 pounds of muscle/fat gain for me (but more fat than muscle). This wasn't unexpected, and given my principal objectives were to lift heavy things, I wasn't too concerned. There is a certain amount of satisfaction associated with a 300 pound low b…

Yeah, Starting Strength is a gainer program, it's designed to make you as big and strong as you can possibly get in a 3-6 month time frame. I put on about 30 pounds from doing it, mostly muscle in my legs, butt, and back. Some of my gains were fat I'm sure, but probably not very much, because my waist size hasn't changed at all.

kyllo, you didn't say exactly how long you did SS for, but it's my understanding that gaining even 20lbs of muscle in 6 months is virtually impossible:

"Under the best possible circumstances (perfect diet, training, supplementation, and recovery strategies) the average male body can manufacture between 0.25 and 0.5 pounds of dry muscle tissue per week"[1]

For sure SS will get you stronger in an almost magical fashion (I'm currently doing a modified SS program) but expecting to gain 20lbs of muscle in a short period of time is unrealistic.

[1] http://www.t-nation.com/portal_includes/articles/2006/06-154...

Re: Calories in, calories out

#188

Post by scottious »

kyllo wrote: post #164
scottious wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cal…

You're right, but that's not what it's about. Try putting yourself on a strictly regimented, hypo-caloric, laboratory controlled diet for more than a few days. It will consume all the willpower you have and then some. The point is that enough sleep and exercise, the right mix of gut bacteria, and a diet consisting of sufficient protein, fat, and fiber, with very little simple sugars and starches, will allow you to fe…

> Try putting yourself on a strictly regimented, hypo-caloric, laboratory controlled diet for more than a few days. It will consume all the willpower you have and then some.

I don't disagree at all. I just think the conversation shouldn't be about "is it calories in vs. calories out?!" and more about "What can we do to make it easier for people to eat the right amount or run a calorie deficit?" Could we massively tax bad food and subsidize good food? Attempt to change culture? Figure out the underlying neurological issues involved in overeating and attempt to create a targeted treatment to ease these issues?

I guess I feel like a lot of people try to obfuscate the issue by saying "It's more complicated than just calories-in vs. calories-out" almost as a way of absolving themselves from responsibility. Because, yes, running a calorie deficit for a long time is HARD. Like, I have a friend who's convinced "it's just a thyroid issue I have, calories-in vs. calories-out doesn't matter". However if there were a magic pill that caused them to only ever want to eat at most 1500 calories per day and start loving the taste of vegetables more than anything with no side effects I guarantee you that suddenly they'd be losing weight.

Re: Calories in, calories out

#189

Post by kyllo »

randlet wrote: post #187
kyllo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Starting Strength is a gainer program, it's designed to make you as big and strong as you can possibly get in a 3-6 month time frame. I put on about 30 pounds from doing it, mostly muscle in my legs, butt, and back. Some of my gains were fat I'm sure, but probably not very much, because my waist size hasn't changed at all.

kyllo, you didn't say exactly how long you did SS for, but it's my understanding that gaining even 20lbs of muscle in 6 months is virtually impossible: "Under the best possible circumstances (perfect diet, training, supplementation, and recovery strategies) the average male body can manufacture between 0.25 and 0.5 pounds of dry muscle tissue per week"[1] For sure SS will get you stronger in an almost magical fashion…

Sure, but not all human tissue is either muscle fiber or fat. You gain other non-lipid mass in addition. Some of it is from increases in connective tissue. A tiny amount is from increased bone density. A large portion of it is from retaining more glycogen and water.

Did you see the articles about Zach, one of Mark Rippetoe's trainees? Based on skinfold caliper measurements, he gained 78 lbs in 6 months, 46 lbs of which was lean body mass, and 32 lbs of which was fat: http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t...

Re: Calories in, calories out

#190

Post by aantix »

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…

Forgot to post the link to the original citing article.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese...

Post reply on HN