Calories in, calories out(possiblywrong.wordpress.com)
possiblywrong.wordpress.com
Calories in, calories out
http://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/calories-in-calories-out/
31 comments
I don't really disagree with you, but.
These suggestions ignore the (soft) limitations of human agency. The degree of difficulty in (not) eating an additional (something) has never been really quantified in sufficiently broad spectrum of situations, to my knowledge.
A generally helpful and encouraging life can lead to many positive changes, weight loss not least among them.
Maybe instead of telling fat people to lose weight, we should be inviting them to parties, and when they get there, treating them like everyone else.
Just a thought.
These suggestions ignore the (soft) limitations of human agency. The degree of difficulty in (not) eating an additional (something) has never been really quantified in sufficiently broad spectrum of situations, to my knowledge.
A generally helpful and encouraging life can lead to many positive changes, weight loss not least among them.
Maybe instead of telling fat people to lose weight, we should be inviting them to parties, and when they get there, treating them like everyone else.
Just a thought.
Why would removing disincentives for being fat reduce the number of fat people? Should we also make smoking cool to reduce the # of smokers?
I know that kids making fun of me in school really motivated me to lose weight.
Not.
Not.
Treating people like shit is not cool. And that’s all that needs to be said about this, really.
It’s not ok to treat people worse because of their weight.
It’s not ok to treat people worse because of their weight.
A) The question is a positive one, not a normative one. Your reply is irrelevant.
B) Now that fat people harm the rest of us (via Obamacare and rules forcing employer health insurance to charge everyone the same), its hardly clear that social opprobrium is unwarranted.
B) Now that fat people harm the rest of us (via Obamacare and rules forcing employer health insurance to charge everyone the same), its hardly clear that social opprobrium is unwarranted.
[deleted]
> 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'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
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
This is a little bit misleading because it's measuring up to 2 hours after the food was eaten, while some foods take longer than that to digest and to affect satiety. For example, an apple is very satisfying for two hours (high fiber and water content), but not so much after that. A food high in casein like yogurt (unsweetened) is actually going to satisfy you for up to 8 hours because of how long it takes to digest casein.
Yeah, that's a fair point. But to me all that shows is that we need more measurements like the satiety index, as well as raw measurements like calorie count.
Nothing clever about it.
I'm just following the Weight Watchers formula, which I've personally seen hundreds of people lose thousands of pounds using.
I've seen people completely shocked they're "allowed" to eat virtually unlimited quantities of salad and fruit while still losing enormous quantities of weight.
I honestly believe the vast majority of people who are struggling to lose weight really have no idea about the different between "quantity of food" and "amount of calories".
I'm just following the Weight Watchers formula, which I've personally seen hundreds of people lose thousands of pounds using.
I've seen people completely shocked they're "allowed" to eat virtually unlimited quantities of salad and fruit while still losing enormous quantities of weight.
I honestly believe the vast majority of people who are struggling to lose weight really have no idea about the different between "quantity of food" and "amount of calories".
I also know a woman who eats tons of fruit and has fatty liver / is overweight. She is consuming way too much fructose for her condition. Weight Watchers is not a magic bullet and doesn't work for everyone!
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 an alcoholic that they shouldn't drink (or don't go over 20g of alcohol a day or w/e). It just misses the problem. Nobody thinks it's great idea to stuff yourself and become obese, the problem is that something (genetics/environment/stuff in food) makes people want to eat a ton more food than they should.
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.
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.
Also with drugs you have an option to go cold turkey which is what works for many addicts (well, often with some pharmacological help in first stages). With food you don't really have that option which makes it more difficult.
That is why one obvious approach to try is to go cold turkey on some foods which are causing the addiction.
I mean we certainly need a lot more research on that but it seems the reason people do well on low-carb high fat or high protein is that they eliminate what caused the addiction for them.
If that's the case then any research which controls for amount of calories is missing the point of what is actually helpful to people as it already assumes the final goal (having people eating less). It is still interesting question if calorie is in fact a calorie but this question isn't in my mind the important one when it comes to solving obesity problem.
More interesting is discovering what behaviors (including both restricting certain foods as well as life style habits like many meals vs few meals, eating breakfast or not etc. etc.) help people to actually stick to calorie deficit while feeling reasonably well during the process.
I mean we certainly need a lot more research on that but it seems the reason people do well on low-carb high fat or high protein is that they eliminate what caused the addiction for them.
If that's the case then any research which controls for amount of calories is missing the point of what is actually helpful to people as it already assumes the final goal (having people eating less). It is still interesting question if calorie is in fact a calorie but this question isn't in my mind the important one when it comes to solving obesity problem.
More interesting is discovering what behaviors (including both restricting certain foods as well as life style habits like many meals vs few meals, eating breakfast or not etc. etc.) help people to actually stick to calorie deficit while feeling reasonably well during the process.
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 was some research that showed that the brain goes into hunting mode _for protein_, and it gets satiated when enough protein is had.
But, today's sugary foods contain less protein than before, so we keep eating these foods until the quota of protein has been met. This is why probably the keto diet reduces appetite.
But, today's sugary foods contain less protein than before, so we keep eating these foods until the quota of protein has been met. This is why probably the keto diet reduces appetite.
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.
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.
Have you tried high protein-low carb instead of high fat-low carb?
I think I've tried most combinations to be honest ;) I change my diet depending on my goals. For example, I will start upping the carbs (probably to 40% or so) soon due to change in exercise schedule and the carb requirements for explosive exercise.
Currently, its around 40-50% protein, 25-30% fat and remaining carbs (fruit and vegetables mostly). I weight and log all my food intake (well, 95% or so, the rest I eyeball it when I go out to eat with my family, but even then I try to keep it simple, grilled steak with veggies, no sauces or oils. That way at least I have an idea on the macros/calories). I prefer to work in ranges to have a bit more freedom than a set number. For example, its 9pm after dinner and I have 82kcal remaining for the day, and since my protein and fat goals for the day were achieved, I'll be eating 12 green olives (weighted) with a bit of garlic as a snack that will get me 5kcal over my daily limit.
It maybe overkill for some, but it works for me. I used to box and had to make weight, knowing and controlling (weighting) the food worked for me, so whenever I want to change my body composition or my work and workout changes, it is my go-to tool and it works. I'm sure it will work for most other people short of some medical issues, but many people don't stick to it or fool themselves by 'forgetting' to log that cookie at work or those 2 spoons of sugar in each of the 4 cups of coffee they have per day. Now, appetite control is something different, and regarding that, I know many folks have problems with, both physical/hormonal and mental to which I don't want to say anything as I don't want to impose my views on other folks and don't know what they have/are going through. I actually try to stay away from nutrition discussions here in HN since there is so much crap flying based on the hip bloggers of the time that I gave up. (fad now for hacker-like mentality seems to be the Paleo and Keto diets being the holy grail of dieting. While both have good, and bad things about it, and I'm sure they have worked for various people, it is almost like discussing which religion is right)
Currently, its around 40-50% protein, 25-30% fat and remaining carbs (fruit and vegetables mostly). I weight and log all my food intake (well, 95% or so, the rest I eyeball it when I go out to eat with my family, but even then I try to keep it simple, grilled steak with veggies, no sauces or oils. That way at least I have an idea on the macros/calories). I prefer to work in ranges to have a bit more freedom than a set number. For example, its 9pm after dinner and I have 82kcal remaining for the day, and since my protein and fat goals for the day were achieved, I'll be eating 12 green olives (weighted) with a bit of garlic as a snack that will get me 5kcal over my daily limit.
It maybe overkill for some, but it works for me. I used to box and had to make weight, knowing and controlling (weighting) the food worked for me, so whenever I want to change my body composition or my work and workout changes, it is my go-to tool and it works. I'm sure it will work for most other people short of some medical issues, but many people don't stick to it or fool themselves by 'forgetting' to log that cookie at work or those 2 spoons of sugar in each of the 4 cups of coffee they have per day. Now, appetite control is something different, and regarding that, I know many folks have problems with, both physical/hormonal and mental to which I don't want to say anything as I don't want to impose my views on other folks and don't know what they have/are going through. I actually try to stay away from nutrition discussions here in HN since there is so much crap flying based on the hip bloggers of the time that I gave up. (fad now for hacker-like mentality seems to be the Paleo and Keto diets being the holy grail of dieting. While both have good, and bad things about it, and I'm sure they have worked for various people, it is almost like discussing which religion is right)
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?
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.
You can get a similar effect just by switching from eating a lot of grains to eating a lot of vegetables.
[deleted]
>>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".
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".
>"You need to eat less
In the first 4 words you've already missed the entire point.
Never once has it ever been said you should eat less.
Just eat less calories, not less quantity.
In the first 4 words you've already missed the entire point.
Never once has it ever been said you should eat less.
Just eat less calories, not less quantity.
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 skipping the bulk phase.
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 obese are already carrying extra muscle mass). A pound of muscle burns about 6 calories at rest, you have to add a ton to impact on metabolic rate (see also the next issue I discuss, low metabolic rate isn’t a problem). And that takes a lot of time, time better spent focusing on active fat loss."
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-...
"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 obese are already carrying extra muscle mass). A pound of muscle burns about 6 calories at rest, you have to add a ton to impact on metabolic rate (see also the next issue I discuss, low metabolic rate isn’t a problem). And that takes a lot of time, time better spent focusing on active fat loss."
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dissecting-...
> 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
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
Forgot to post the link to the original citing article.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese...
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/training-the-obese...
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 things that are relatively effortless changes and then 2) just track everything you eat (you don't even need to look up calorie information initially) so you have the data in case you want to start making other dietary changes. I have also found that restricting your diet to a small set of foods where you deeply know the nutritional data, etc. and can build a routine out of it and moving from carbs to proteins are also really helpful.
I think a really good first step is to 1) drop soda, sweets, or other things that are relatively effortless changes and then 2) just track everything you eat (you don't even need to look up calorie information initially) so you have the data in case you want to start making other dietary changes. I have also found that restricting your diet to a small set of foods where you deeply know the nutritional data, etc. and can build a routine out of it and moving from carbs to proteins are also really helpful.
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.
But it probably takes a lot of work to get there (not sure how many pounds of muscle that is offhand.) Also, to actually build the muscle (rather than improve your CNS) you will need to bulk for awhile.
I personally (when I lost as much as 60 pounds and started lifting for the first time in almost a decade) found lifting to be very helpful from a motivational standpoint, but it was controlling my diet and running that caused most of the weight to come off.
I personally (when I lost as much as 60 pounds and started lifting for the first time in almost a decade) found lifting to be very helpful from a motivational standpoint, but it was controlling my diet and running that caused most of the weight to come off.
You're totally right, and even over some long period of time your losses from extra muscle will be dwarfed your losses due to lifestyle changes.
My philosophy is that if you don't enjoy your health regime, whether its a diet, running, lifting, crossfit (I know, booooo) or some combination -- you're going to give it up as soon as possible. Lifting is something that I think a lot of people find enjoyable because it really doesn't have that misery factor of other workouts (I personally love that, I'm a rower which is basically a sport predicated on collectively loving misery more than the other team). People tend to stick with lifting longer, if not forever. That extra 200 calories 3 or 4 times a week, plus the boost in metabolism over the lifetime of a person is more valuable in my opinion than only dieting/running for a year and then being relieved when you cross the finish line and stop.
When people ask me how to lose weight (I cut pretty hard every year and it's dramatic), I point them towards lifting -- maybe they would lose more weight short term by controlling their diet and running, but people never stick to that stuff. A lot of my friends, mostly girls, have been doing some lifting program now for a couple of years (5-3-1 is my favorite) and they have stuck with it because its enjoyable. They eventually get dragged in and discover protein and macros and by then they're already invested in lifting and enjoying it -- it's part of their lifestyle now.
My philosophy is that if you don't enjoy your health regime, whether its a diet, running, lifting, crossfit (I know, booooo) or some combination -- you're going to give it up as soon as possible. Lifting is something that I think a lot of people find enjoyable because it really doesn't have that misery factor of other workouts (I personally love that, I'm a rower which is basically a sport predicated on collectively loving misery more than the other team). People tend to stick with lifting longer, if not forever. That extra 200 calories 3 or 4 times a week, plus the boost in metabolism over the lifetime of a person is more valuable in my opinion than only dieting/running for a year and then being relieved when you cross the finish line and stop.
When people ask me how to lose weight (I cut pretty hard every year and it's dramatic), I point them towards lifting -- maybe they would lose more weight short term by controlling their diet and running, but people never stick to that stuff. A lot of my friends, mostly girls, have been doing some lifting program now for a couple of years (5-3-1 is my favorite) and they have stuck with it because its enjoyable. They eventually get dragged in and discover protein and macros and by then they're already invested in lifting and enjoying it -- it's part of their lifestyle now.
> crossfit (I know, booooo)
Why the "boo"? Just interested to know. I don't do crossfit!
Why the "boo"? Just interested to know. I don't do crossfit!
Lots of people just hate crossfit for various reasons -- most of it stems from the fact that they combine speed and strength, and a lot of athletes will sacrifice form for speed which can cause injuries.
The other reason is that crossfit is the Harvard of workouts -- you'll know someone is doing it because they'll tell you, constantly. My girlfriend hates it because people talk about it constantly on facebook.
I personally like to add some work-cap style workouts occasionally. I like their test workouts and a lot of their workouts are fun to adjust and add to my normal cycles. As with a lot of things, if you don't focus on doing it correctly and police yourself - you're opening yourself up to injury.
We have a crossfit gym near work I've been meaning to try out - I don't really have any problems with the program, the haters are just very passionate and vocal on the internet about their feelings towards the program.
The other reason is that crossfit is the Harvard of workouts -- you'll know someone is doing it because they'll tell you, constantly. My girlfriend hates it because people talk about it constantly on facebook.
I personally like to add some work-cap style workouts occasionally. I like their test workouts and a lot of their workouts are fun to adjust and add to my normal cycles. As with a lot of things, if you don't focus on doing it correctly and police yourself - you're opening yourself up to injury.
We have a crossfit gym near work I've been meaning to try out - I don't really have any problems with the program, the haters are just very passionate and vocal on the internet about their feelings towards the program.
Thanks for that.
> The other reason is that crossfit is the Harvard of workouts -- you'll know someone is doing it because they'll tell you, constantly. My girlfriend hates it because people talk about it constantly on Facebook.
I have also found people who practice crossfit talk about it endlessly. Anyone know why?
> The other reason is that crossfit is the Harvard of workouts -- you'll know someone is doing it because they'll tell you, constantly. My girlfriend hates it because people talk about it constantly on Facebook.
I have also found people who practice crossfit talk about it endlessly. Anyone know why?
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 gained about 15 pounds of muscle in 3 years from lifting. To put on muscle you need to have the protein intake and carbohydrate and protein intake timing is also important.
One good thing about muscle is that it can burn fat quite happily. Unlike the brain.
One good thing about muscle is that it can burn fat quite happily. Unlike the brain.
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.
It was my intention, but I wasn't very successful. I even tried bulking pretty hard, but the gains were mostly in fat with very small gains in strength/muscle.
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.
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.
I don't think lifting weights to lose weight or fat is the answer. Weight is 80% mouth 20% gym. You'll have to wait a very long time to see reduced fat; much of initial strength gains are simply cns training; it's difficult to add muscle mass while cutting.
_RPM(1)
We deal with this all the time when recommending diet supplements at my startup. When it comes to losing weight, yes, calories in vs. calories out is the most important step to start with.
Sure, protein has a higher TEF (thermic effect of food), and yadda yadda yadda there are some other minor things involved, but they're just not enough for you to discredit the calorie situation.
However, when it comes to burning fat, the next most important thing (after you have determined a reasonable caloric deficit) is to maintain a "high" level of protein.
Too low of protein, and you're going to lose too much muscle mass. Ultimately, this is what's leading to so many "skinny fat" dieters. You get a lot of it from people who do nothing but cardio cardio cardio.
It turns out that all the low-fat vs. low-carb wars are really meaningless, because most of those studies don't control protein - which is MORE important! That last low-fat vs. low-carb study that came out was miserably guilty of this, because protein intake has actually been shown to be more significant than carb or fat control[1].
After you've situated your calories, then your protein (and you are consistent about it), then you choose your carbs and fats however it pleases you. There are extremes on both sides.
What's important is you find something that you can be successful with, and keep that protein number up. Lest you be skinny fat, which I personally feel is worse than being "muscular fat".
In the bodybuilding community, some people have taken this to extremes with Flexible Dieting, or "IIFYM" (If it Fits Your Macros...). Basically, the idea that proper quantities (as discussed above and below) are more important than food quality. I will err on that side of the argument, but the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle when attempting to achieve overall health.
Finally, it's worth noting that while total caloric intake and macronutrients are most important when it comes to weight and aesthetics, please eat some damned vegetables too. And corn is not a vegetable.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22935440
Sure, protein has a higher TEF (thermic effect of food), and yadda yadda yadda there are some other minor things involved, but they're just not enough for you to discredit the calorie situation.
However, when it comes to burning fat, the next most important thing (after you have determined a reasonable caloric deficit) is to maintain a "high" level of protein.
Too low of protein, and you're going to lose too much muscle mass. Ultimately, this is what's leading to so many "skinny fat" dieters. You get a lot of it from people who do nothing but cardio cardio cardio.
It turns out that all the low-fat vs. low-carb wars are really meaningless, because most of those studies don't control protein - which is MORE important! That last low-fat vs. low-carb study that came out was miserably guilty of this, because protein intake has actually been shown to be more significant than carb or fat control[1].
After you've situated your calories, then your protein (and you are consistent about it), then you choose your carbs and fats however it pleases you. There are extremes on both sides.
What's important is you find something that you can be successful with, and keep that protein number up. Lest you be skinny fat, which I personally feel is worse than being "muscular fat".
In the bodybuilding community, some people have taken this to extremes with Flexible Dieting, or "IIFYM" (If it Fits Your Macros...). Basically, the idea that proper quantities (as discussed above and below) are more important than food quality. I will err on that side of the argument, but the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle when attempting to achieve overall health.
Finally, it's worth noting that while total caloric intake and macronutrients are most important when it comes to weight and aesthetics, please eat some damned vegetables too. And corn is not a vegetable.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22935440
I had great success starting from a strict calories in vs. calories out diet, and then iterating on what I ate to make myself the most satiated per calorie eaten. Turns out that the diet that solves for satiation ends up being a lot of plain chicken and meat, beans, roasted veggies, modest amounts of starch, and no sugar. (Eating a handful of jelly beans would make be starving 30 minutes later).
The other thing I found, is that I had to avoid foods that tasted too good. Basically any food that combines fat, simple starches, and a sweet sauce will taste too good and give you an overwhelming urge to overeat. If I wanted to eat a burrito for lunch, I would cut it in half, put the other half in the fridge, and save it for dinner, before I even started to eat my lunch. Burritos are quite satiating, and you actually diet while eating them, you just have to portion control, and will yourself past the ten minutes when you are done with the first half and so tempted to eat the other half.
I've wondered if the reason why so many diet strategies succeed in the short run, but fail in the long run, is because they are all hacks to make you eat less tasty food. If you just eat fat, or just eat carbs, or just eat whole wheat, or whatever, your food will be less tasty. In the long run though, people like eating tasty food, and so they keep making exceptions to the diet in the name of taste, and they are back to their normal eating habits.
The other thing I found, is that I had to avoid foods that tasted too good. Basically any food that combines fat, simple starches, and a sweet sauce will taste too good and give you an overwhelming urge to overeat. If I wanted to eat a burrito for lunch, I would cut it in half, put the other half in the fridge, and save it for dinner, before I even started to eat my lunch. Burritos are quite satiating, and you actually diet while eating them, you just have to portion control, and will yourself past the ten minutes when you are done with the first half and so tempted to eat the other half.
I've wondered if the reason why so many diet strategies succeed in the short run, but fail in the long run, is because they are all hacks to make you eat less tasty food. If you just eat fat, or just eat carbs, or just eat whole wheat, or whatever, your food will be less tasty. In the long run though, people like eating tasty food, and so they keep making exceptions to the diet in the name of taste, and they are back to their normal eating habits.
One thing I can immediately think of is avocados - they are both high in fat and carbohydrate, though 80%+ of those carbs are fibrous.
One way I've managed to make dieting more sustainable (which is the most important part, making sure you find a healthy diet you can stick to in the long run) are cheat days/meals. This allows you to program in "tasty" meals without the psychological guilt and adverse health affects from these typically unhealthy treats. Most nutritionists will agree that if you adhere to your diet 90% of the time, you're going to be successful. That means in a typical 3 meal/day diet, you've got roughly 2 meals / week where you can cheat and eat whatever without it affecting your health or body composition.
My approach, which has allowed me to increase my strength without increasing my body weight, has been through a cyclical ketogenic diet. As always, YMMV, but I have determined through my own empirical research that I am not well carb-adapted, and staying low carb (<50g net carbs) all week doesn't negatively affect my energy levels or strength, in fact it improves moreso than when I ate carbs after workouts. Nonetheless, I love me some carb-rich foods, so once a week, after my biggest workout of the week, I eat roughly 400+g of carbs to refuel glycogen, satiate my desire for a "tasty meal" and overall reward myself for adhering 90%+ to my diet for the week.
What's important here is that you plan for the cheat, and that allows you to still enjoy life and food without it negatively affecting your health and body composition.
One way I've managed to make dieting more sustainable (which is the most important part, making sure you find a healthy diet you can stick to in the long run) are cheat days/meals. This allows you to program in "tasty" meals without the psychological guilt and adverse health affects from these typically unhealthy treats. Most nutritionists will agree that if you adhere to your diet 90% of the time, you're going to be successful. That means in a typical 3 meal/day diet, you've got roughly 2 meals / week where you can cheat and eat whatever without it affecting your health or body composition.
My approach, which has allowed me to increase my strength without increasing my body weight, has been through a cyclical ketogenic diet. As always, YMMV, but I have determined through my own empirical research that I am not well carb-adapted, and staying low carb (<50g net carbs) all week doesn't negatively affect my energy levels or strength, in fact it improves moreso than when I ate carbs after workouts. Nonetheless, I love me some carb-rich foods, so once a week, after my biggest workout of the week, I eat roughly 400+g of carbs to refuel glycogen, satiate my desire for a "tasty meal" and overall reward myself for adhering 90%+ to my diet for the week.
What's important here is that you plan for the cheat, and that allows you to still enjoy life and food without it negatively affecting your health and body composition.
That's actually a great point, and something I've told friends in a "broscience" fashion: There is nearly nothing in nature that combines fats and carbs. It's almost like you need to choose one or the other - balance is how you get into trouble, because then you think everything is legal.
Take, for instance, potato chips -- and not the low-fat Baked Lay's or Quest Chips kind. If you're on a "balanced diet", they're legal. But good luck measuring them and not eating the entire bag.
It sounds like your success was mainly in portion control. Eating standing up helps you get full faster too, as does focusing on chewing a lot (also prevents choking and other benefits).
The biggest problem I forgot to mention above, however, is that people will read all sorts of literature, but when it comes to actually weighing their food with a food scale (costs literally $20) and counting their calories and macros, they all fail. Yes, it's a pain in the arse, but you learn so much by recording everything you eat. But people simply don't want to do it, and it drives me nuts.
This also leads me to believe that there's a massive business opportunity somewhere in there to make it easier to do (I have ideas but am too busy).
Take, for instance, potato chips -- and not the low-fat Baked Lay's or Quest Chips kind. If you're on a "balanced diet", they're legal. But good luck measuring them and not eating the entire bag.
It sounds like your success was mainly in portion control. Eating standing up helps you get full faster too, as does focusing on chewing a lot (also prevents choking and other benefits).
The biggest problem I forgot to mention above, however, is that people will read all sorts of literature, but when it comes to actually weighing their food with a food scale (costs literally $20) and counting their calories and macros, they all fail. Yes, it's a pain in the arse, but you learn so much by recording everything you eat. But people simply don't want to do it, and it drives me nuts.
This also leads me to believe that there's a massive business opportunity somewhere in there to make it easier to do (I have ideas but am too busy).
My diet was partly portion control, but I also weighed food and used myfitnesspal. It did require greatly simplifying my diet. I would make five pounds of food at a time in a slower cooker, and have my meals all portioned out for the next few days. It was somewhat monotonous but that is actually a benefit. What made the diet stick and work, was that I knew with absolute scientific certainty that if I 1) counted calories 2) always underestimated 3) stuck to it, then it was 100% certain that I would get the results I wanted. And sure enough, ten weeks later, I was 15 pounds lighter and people were commenting on how good I was looking.
My recommendation to dieters is to not do it halfheartedly. Go all in, read reddit fitness, geek out on dieting, count calories, come up with new recipes, set a complete routine around cooking the right food, etc. That way you won't be tempted to make exceptions and you will know with 100% certainty that you will get results.
My recommendation to dieters is to not do it halfheartedly. Go all in, read reddit fitness, geek out on dieting, count calories, come up with new recipes, set a complete routine around cooking the right food, etc. That way you won't be tempted to make exceptions and you will know with 100% certainty that you will get results.
Any favorite recipes?
Pulled chicken with salsa - 3 pounds of chicken, mixed breasts and thighs. 48oz salsa, three cans of 15oz beans. Mix together, put in slow cooker for 4 hours on high. Pull the chicken and mix in a cup of cheddar cheese. Simple, satiating, and very good.
Pulled pork Put a pork butt/shoulder in the slow cooker. Douse with a 16oz bottle of root beer. Cook on low for 8 hours. Pull apart. Mix in BBQ sauce and cheddar cheese to taste. This can end up tasting too good, so you might need to portion control when you eat it.
Roast beef (or roast lamb, or roast anything) Buy an oven roast and rub in salt and pepper. Cook according to the times laid out here http://www.thehealthybutcher.com/livetoeat/volume23/TheHealt... Very simple, yet amazingly delicious right out of the oven.
Baked Chicken Buy a mix of thighs and breasts. Slice the breasts in half so they are the same thickness as the thighs. Brush with olive oil and sprinkle with salt and pepper. Cook at 400 degrees until they are 160degrees internal temp (37 minutes in my oven, when laid out on a rack, not on the baking pan directly). Once you have baked the chicken, you can eat straight up the first night. Then in succeeding nights you can mix with tomato sauce and do pasta, mix with cheese and make a quesadilla, mix with coconut milk, red curry paste, and peanut butter and do a thai chicken, etc. By doing the work of cooking the chicken all in one night, in following nights you can make a variety of healthy, delicious meals in under 10 minutes. Just reheat the chicken in a sauce and you have instant goodness.
Roast veggies But three 1pound bags of frozen veggies - brussel sprouts, "fiesta mix", brocoli, whatever you like. Put in strainer and run water over to thaw out a bit. Dry. Put on baking pans. Brush with olive oil, salt, and pepper. Put in oven at 425 degrees for 25 minutes. If using multiple pans, switch the racks half-way through. It is even better if you do fresh veggies, but it is more prep work in cutting them to the proper size.
Pulled pork Put a pork butt/shoulder in the slow cooker. Douse with a 16oz bottle of root beer. Cook on low for 8 hours. Pull apart. Mix in BBQ sauce and cheddar cheese to taste. This can end up tasting too good, so you might need to portion control when you eat it.
Roast beef (or roast lamb, or roast anything) Buy an oven roast and rub in salt and pepper. Cook according to the times laid out here http://www.thehealthybutcher.com/livetoeat/volume23/TheHealt... Very simple, yet amazingly delicious right out of the oven.
Baked Chicken Buy a mix of thighs and breasts. Slice the breasts in half so they are the same thickness as the thighs. Brush with olive oil and sprinkle with salt and pepper. Cook at 400 degrees until they are 160degrees internal temp (37 minutes in my oven, when laid out on a rack, not on the baking pan directly). Once you have baked the chicken, you can eat straight up the first night. Then in succeeding nights you can mix with tomato sauce and do pasta, mix with cheese and make a quesadilla, mix with coconut milk, red curry paste, and peanut butter and do a thai chicken, etc. By doing the work of cooking the chicken all in one night, in following nights you can make a variety of healthy, delicious meals in under 10 minutes. Just reheat the chicken in a sauce and you have instant goodness.
Roast veggies But three 1pound bags of frozen veggies - brussel sprouts, "fiesta mix", brocoli, whatever you like. Put in strainer and run water over to thaw out a bit. Dry. Put on baking pans. Brush with olive oil, salt, and pepper. Put in oven at 425 degrees for 25 minutes. If using multiple pans, switch the racks half-way through. It is even better if you do fresh veggies, but it is more prep work in cutting them to the proper size.
> The biggest problem I forgot to mention above, however, is that people will read all sorts of literature, but when it comes to actually weighing their food with a food scale (costs literally $20) and counting their calories and macros, they all fail.
There recently was a story in Norwegian media about a person that had gone down some X kgs (basically from overweight to more healthy) -- by eating a strict diet of ready-made meals (heat in the microwave type stuff). The reason behind this anecdote? They all list calorie content. No need to measure (again). Is it a healthy diet? Probably not (high salt, high fat, low vitamins, little variation... the list goes on).
But it's easy to then try and follow up on calorie count.
There recently was a story in Norwegian media about a person that had gone down some X kgs (basically from overweight to more healthy) -- by eating a strict diet of ready-made meals (heat in the microwave type stuff). The reason behind this anecdote? They all list calorie content. No need to measure (again). Is it a healthy diet? Probably not (high salt, high fat, low vitamins, little variation... the list goes on).
But it's easy to then try and follow up on calorie count.
This is basically how Nutrisystem works. They send you prepackaged meals, and you supplement them with fresh fruits and vegetables. (It's really hard to overeat fresh fruits and vegetables, even with poor measuring.)
Yep! People have even lost weight on McDonald's, because you can at least get a ballpark for calories.
That said, those same people are probably dying inside from the quality perspective!!
That said, those same people are probably dying inside from the quality perspective!!
"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.
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.
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-...
[1] http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2012/01/look-at-testing-with-new-...
There's a fun piece of math you can do with this model. Given the relation
It'd be interesting to see how accurate this is.
w[t+1] = w[t] + (c[t] - alpha * w[t] - beta * d[t] * w[t]) / 3500
w[t] = c / (alpha + beta * d) + const * (phi ** t)
w = c / (alpha + beta * d)
w = 2000 / 12.5 = 160 lb
w = 2500 / (12.5 + 0.63 * 5) = 160 lb
It'd be interesting to see how accurate this is.
As you gain weight, you burn more calories passively. I'm 155lbs and could imagine it being difficult walking around with what amounts to nearly a barbell and two 35lb plates should I be in the extremely obese range for a man my size.
Assuming no lifestyle changes - I might be less excited to ride my bike with a 115 lb bag on my back - you should reach some sort of thickquilibrium.
Assuming no lifestyle changes - I might be less excited to ride my bike with a 115 lb bag on my back - you should reach some sort of thickquilibrium.
Nice work. Your predicted result gives you a nice hypothesis to test the calorie in calorie out model. Surprisingly accurate! It was also interesting that the prediction tended to overstimate the weight loss. Something systematic that needs adjusting?
I'd love for someone to do this with beer.
I'd love for someone to do this with beer.
I would love to see him repeat this two more times, once eating nothing but white rice, and once eating nothing but cooked chicken. I'd be willing to bet that all three scatter plots would be largely indistinguishable from one another.
The problem is that eating white rice is low in protein, and you'll lose body tissue that's not fat. Eating just chicken you'll lose glycogen which is 80% water, so you'll lose more weight, while losing the same amount of fat.
So when you go into extreme diets, there is a problem with measuring exactly what is going on if all you use is a scale.
So when you go into extreme diets, there is a problem with measuring exactly what is going on if all you use is a scale.
I've often wondered how we've come to the consensus of:
carbohydrate = 4 kilocalories protein = 4 kilocalories fat = 9 kilocalories alcohol = 7 kilocalories
It seems difficult to quantify this accurately without fully understanding human metabolism and how it utilizes energy sources.
carbohydrate = 4 kilocalories protein = 4 kilocalories fat = 9 kilocalories alcohol = 7 kilocalories
It seems difficult to quantify this accurately without fully understanding human metabolism and how it utilizes energy sources.
The biggest problems for me having nothing to do with science and everything to do with social pressures / self control. I was on a keto diet (low carb/high fat) and lost about 45 pounds. Then I started having to travel for work and giving into going out to lunch because I don't want to appear anti-social. For a while I was able to make low carb choice but some places just don't have that option. Also have been skipping the gym because of money (can't afford a second membership) and time constraints (work 8-6, drive back to the hotel to be on calls until bed time) on the project. I put all of the weight back on. Within about 18 months I lost and gained 45lbs.
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/out controls weight, yes.
But I’ve only been able to lose fat and gain muscle by eating a diet that keeps my blood sugar stable. I think this is the real benefit of avoiding high-glycemic carbs, not some magical exemption from thermodynamics.
I’d be interested to help test this.
My own experience is that calories in/out controls weight, yes.
But I’ve only been able to lose fat and gain muscle by eating a diet that keeps my blood sugar stable. I think this is the real benefit of avoiding high-glycemic carbs, not some magical exemption from thermodynamics.
I’d be interested to help test this.
> 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 % body fat by weight, which means confounding "amount of weight that is fat" with "amount of weight that is anything" doesn't lose you much in practice.
2. Total weight is extremely easy to measure, always desirable in a metric.
And, as you note, while replacing fat mass with muscle mass generally makes men more attractive, the same is not true for women, who are in my experience the vast majority of the "worried about their weight" audience.
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 % body fat by weight, which means confounding "amount of weight that is fat" with "amount of weight that is anything" doesn't lose you much in practice.
2. Total weight is extremely easy to measure, always desirable in a metric.
And, as you note, while replacing fat mass with muscle mass generally makes men more attractive, the same is not true for women, who are in my experience the vast majority of the "worried about their weight" audience.
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.
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.
>>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.
There are a lot of formulas to estimate body fat at home. Sample website I just googled: https://www.linear-software.com/body-fat-calculator.html
Most are caliper based but there is one based on belly/neck measurement. No idea how accurate those are in general but they give very similar estimations in my case.
There are a lot of formulas to estimate body fat at home. Sample website I just googled: https://www.linear-software.com/body-fat-calculator.html
Most are caliper based but there is one based on belly/neck measurement. No idea how accurate those are in general but they give very similar estimations in my case.
> the same is not true for women
Many men would disagree.
Many men would disagree.
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 you constant feedback, which can help you stay motivated.
[0] http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/
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 you constant feedback, which can help you stay motivated.
[0] http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/
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.)
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.)
Diets are more about getting people to not feel hungry. This is done by reducing carbs, and increasing fat/protein. So, people won't "feel hungry" on a low carb diet, and thus, they are less likely to binge or gorge on some snack.
I think it is amazing how little we really know about our bodies and how they work.
I also think it is amazing how much we do know and people simply don't give a shit about!
Smoking is terrible for you. Sugar is terrible for you on a daily basis. Highly processed foods are terrible for you.
Everybody knows these things... but nobody gives a shit and the obesity and diabetes epidemic rages on.
I personally think calories are what you track when you eat processed crappy food. Eat real raw foods, which usually have no nutrition labels, and calories don't really matter.
I also think it is amazing how much we do know and people simply don't give a shit about!
Smoking is terrible for you. Sugar is terrible for you on a daily basis. Highly processed foods are terrible for you.
Everybody knows these things... but nobody gives a shit and the obesity and diabetes epidemic rages on.
I personally think calories are what you track when you eat processed crappy food. Eat real raw foods, which usually have no nutrition labels, and calories don't really matter.
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?
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?
He didn't consider two things:
- Water. This is either in your digestive system, your bladder or "your body" (blood plasma and also water in tissues and glycogen in muscles - http://8fit.com/blog/glycogen-gluconeogenesis-and-water-weig... )
- Food. You eat food, not calories. Yes, some parts are not digestible, and some are staying in your digestive system right now
- Water. This is either in your digestive system, your bladder or "your body" (blood plasma and also water in tissues and glycogen in muscles - http://8fit.com/blog/glycogen-gluconeogenesis-and-water-weig... )
- Food. You eat food, not calories. Yes, some parts are not digestible, and some are staying in your digestive system right now
Dr. Israetel does a great video series on this topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szzo5Uy5aQU. Calories in/out is ultimately the foundation to weight loss/gain, but is not the whole picture. Macronutrient arrangement, nutrient timing, and food quality/composition also play a role in optimizing health and body composition.
I find this discussion very weird.
Of course calories in/calories out explains your weight loss/gain. I haven't seen a single study that shows anything except this.
But of course that isn't the whole story.
The big issue with using calorie restriction for weight loss is that it take significant self control for long periods of time (months).
People take that as a moral judgement of people who don't lose weight: they assume that it means they are mentally weak.
But the truth is that there are alternatives. The thing that most calorie in/out advocates miss is that it's calories over time that matter. If one can spread digestion of the same calories over a longer period of time the subject will generally feel less hungry.
This is where high-protein, anti-processed food, anti-sugar and insulin reaction people have a point: High protein, high fiber and unprocessed foods generally have a high satiety index[1][2]. This means a person eating them will feel less hungry for longer for the same amount of calories.
Naturally this links back to calories in: if someone who is trying to lose weight doesn't feel hungry they don't have to have so much self control.
To me the low satiety index of confectioneries and soda drinks explains why sugar is so dangerous: It's digested very quickly and contains lots of calories, which is the worst possible combination for weight control.
I don't understand why satiety isn't discussed more in weight control, since to me it is the key factor.
(This is all from the perspective of someone who lost nearly 20kg via calorie counting)
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104
[2] http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload...
Of course calories in/calories out explains your weight loss/gain. I haven't seen a single study that shows anything except this.
But of course that isn't the whole story.
The big issue with using calorie restriction for weight loss is that it take significant self control for long periods of time (months).
People take that as a moral judgement of people who don't lose weight: they assume that it means they are mentally weak.
But the truth is that there are alternatives. The thing that most calorie in/out advocates miss is that it's calories over time that matter. If one can spread digestion of the same calories over a longer period of time the subject will generally feel less hungry.
This is where high-protein, anti-processed food, anti-sugar and insulin reaction people have a point: High protein, high fiber and unprocessed foods generally have a high satiety index[1][2]. This means a person eating them will feel less hungry for longer for the same amount of calories.
Naturally this links back to calories in: if someone who is trying to lose weight doesn't feel hungry they don't have to have so much self control.
To me the low satiety index of confectioneries and soda drinks explains why sugar is so dangerous: It's digested very quickly and contains lots of calories, which is the worst possible combination for weight control.
I don't understand why satiety isn't discussed more in weight control, since to me it is the key factor.
(This is all from the perspective of someone who lost nearly 20kg via calorie counting)
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104
[2] http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload...
I haven't seen a single study that shows anything except this.
Actually, there is one.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2011.48/full
The experimental group was prescribed a standard low-calorie diet (20% protein, 30–35% fat, 45–50% carbohydrates, 1,300–1,500 kcal) providing carbohydrates mostly at dinner, whereas the control group received a standard low-calorie diet (20% protein, 30–35% fat, 45–50% carbohydrates, 1,300–1,500 kcal), providing carbohydrates throughout the day
So they were isocaloric.
Anthropometric changes after 6 months are presented in Table 3. Significant weight loss, BMI, abdominal circumference, and body fat percentage reductions were found in both groups. Significantly greater weight loss was observed in the experimental group vs. the control group at the end of the study (11.6 vs. 9.06 kg, P = 0.024).
But the weight loss was different.
It looks like did not live in a ward though.
Participants, who did not attend meetings with the dietitian, did not adhere to the diet or exceeded the caloric range of 1,300–1,500 kcal/day, were excluded from the study.
But I'm not sure how they found out that a person exceeded his caloric range.
Actually, there is one.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2011.48/full
The experimental group was prescribed a standard low-calorie diet (20% protein, 30–35% fat, 45–50% carbohydrates, 1,300–1,500 kcal) providing carbohydrates mostly at dinner, whereas the control group received a standard low-calorie diet (20% protein, 30–35% fat, 45–50% carbohydrates, 1,300–1,500 kcal), providing carbohydrates throughout the day
So they were isocaloric.
Anthropometric changes after 6 months are presented in Table 3. Significant weight loss, BMI, abdominal circumference, and body fat percentage reductions were found in both groups. Significantly greater weight loss was observed in the experimental group vs. the control group at the end of the study (11.6 vs. 9.06 kg, P = 0.024).
But the weight loss was different.
It looks like did not live in a ward though.
Participants, who did not attend meetings with the dietitian, did not adhere to the diet or exceeded the caloric range of 1,300–1,500 kcal/day, were excluded from the study.
But I'm not sure how they found out that a person exceeded his caloric range.
> Of course calories in/calories out explains your weight loss/gain. I haven't seen a single study that shows anything except this.
Have you seen one that actually claims to prove it? I was looking for something conclusive, and have come up with a lot of explanations why the numbers diverge (atwater factors are inaccurate, everyone is self reporting, BMR not properly estimated, etc, etc.).
A theory that works for 70% of the cases and fails to explain the remaining 30% is WRONG, even if you have no better competing theory.
Have you seen one that actually claims to prove it? I was looking for something conclusive, and have come up with a lot of explanations why the numbers diverge (atwater factors are inaccurate, everyone is self reporting, BMR not properly estimated, etc, etc.).
A theory that works for 70% of the cases and fails to explain the remaining 30% is WRONG, even if you have no better competing theory.
Hmm but you can still lose weight by eating low satiety index foods, as long as a calorie deficit is present. This means eating smaller portions of these foods. It just takes more self control because the body "feels hungry" when in fact it isn't.
Of course. That's the point!
"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 best foods to eat on a diet don't come in prepackaged portions with the calorie count labelled on the back.
2. 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.
3. The ideal way to measure the absorbable caloric content of food would be to feed it (and nothing else) to human test-subjects (other animals can metabolize foods quite differently; e.g. grass and cows) for an extended period of time while strictly regulating the test-subjects' physical activity. Measure the weight change, and there you have it. Yeah... This experiment is never going to happen. That's why we stick food in a calorimeter, burn it, and consider the heat it provides to be a measure of its caloric content. This crude method provides decent estimates on average, but can occasionally be misleading.
For these reasons, I'm actually a bit surprised that the author's data matches the theory so closely. This indicates the author scrupulously measured his portion sizes, found accurate estimates for the caloric content of the foods he ate, and logged everything. This is seriously impressive. If the author had failed to log something as insignificant as the sugar and cream he puts in his coffee it would have thrown his numbers way off over a period of 75 days. Similarly, he must have scrupulously recorded his physical activities. 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.
One other thing worth pointing out is that weighing yourself daily and plotting it on a graph like this is a fantastic way to observe progress and stay motivated to stick to your new routine. First, if you don't regularly observe your weight then you have no feedback. If you fail to accurately measure your caloric intake/expenditure the results might not be as desired. Feedback is necessary. However, daily feedback can be wildly misleading if you don't place it in context. If you look at the author's data, there are plenty of ups and downs around the trend. For example, on day 7 he observed a large gain and on day 8 a large loss. If the author only kept the previous day's weight in his head he might conclude that he did poorly on day 6 and made up for it on day 7. In reality, he might have consumed very healthy, fiber-rich food (e.g. a lot of beans) on day 6 and a bunch of sugar-rich processed garbage on day 7. The author might have stored away some fat on day 7 but wound up weighing less on day 8 purely because of passing the fiber from his meal on day 6. Pure sugar doesn't leave much behind to be passed!
I do question the worth of calculating your caloric deficit. It's simply too hard to get an accurate measure of consumption. However, measuring your weight regularly and plotting it so you can observe the larger trend is invaluable. About five years ago I dropped 60 pounds (it's still off, and I've gained lean muscle mass). I didn't count calories. I simply measured my weight regularly and plotted it on a graph similar to the author. I looked at the larger trend and made small adjustments gradually to keep it going in the right direction. If you don't weigh yourself regularly you can undo months worth of progress with one new bad habit. If you don't place your weight in context you'll have difficulty identifying habits that are a problem. Finally, watching that line steadily come down is a fantastic way to stay motivated.
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 best foods to eat on a diet don't come in prepackaged portions with the calorie count labelled on the back.
2. 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.
3. The ideal way to measure the absorbable caloric content of food would be to feed it (and nothing else) to human test-subjects (other animals can metabolize foods quite differently; e.g. grass and cows) for an extended period of time while strictly regulating the test-subjects' physical activity. Measure the weight change, and there you have it. Yeah... This experiment is never going to happen. That's why we stick food in a calorimeter, burn it, and consider the heat it provides to be a measure of its caloric content. This crude method provides decent estimates on average, but can occasionally be misleading.
For these reasons, I'm actually a bit surprised that the author's data matches the theory so closely. This indicates the author scrupulously measured his portion sizes, found accurate estimates for the caloric content of the foods he ate, and logged everything. This is seriously impressive. If the author had failed to log something as insignificant as the sugar and cream he puts in his coffee it would have thrown his numbers way off over a period of 75 days. Similarly, he must have scrupulously recorded his physical activities. 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.
One other thing worth pointing out is that weighing yourself daily and plotting it on a graph like this is a fantastic way to observe progress and stay motivated to stick to your new routine. First, if you don't regularly observe your weight then you have no feedback. If you fail to accurately measure your caloric intake/expenditure the results might not be as desired. Feedback is necessary. However, daily feedback can be wildly misleading if you don't place it in context. If you look at the author's data, there are plenty of ups and downs around the trend. For example, on day 7 he observed a large gain and on day 8 a large loss. If the author only kept the previous day's weight in his head he might conclude that he did poorly on day 6 and made up for it on day 7. In reality, he might have consumed very healthy, fiber-rich food (e.g. a lot of beans) on day 6 and a bunch of sugar-rich processed garbage on day 7. The author might have stored away some fat on day 7 but wound up weighing less on day 8 purely because of passing the fiber from his meal on day 6. Pure sugar doesn't leave much behind to be passed!
I do question the worth of calculating your caloric deficit. It's simply too hard to get an accurate measure of consumption. However, measuring your weight regularly and plotting it so you can observe the larger trend is invaluable. About five years ago I dropped 60 pounds (it's still off, and I've gained lean muscle mass). I didn't count calories. I simply measured my weight regularly and plotted it on a graph similar to the author. I looked at the larger trend and made small adjustments gradually to keep it going in the right direction. If you don't weigh yourself regularly you can undo months worth of progress with one new bad habit. If you don't place your weight in context you'll have difficulty identifying habits that are a problem. Finally, watching that line steadily come down is a fantastic way to stay motivated.
> "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 alpha<10, or >15, for example?
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 alpha<10, or >15, for example?
> One other thing worth pointing out is that weighing yourself daily and plotting it on a graph like this is a fantastic way to observe progress and stay motivated to stick to your new routine.
This is absolutely the most important "diet" that I've done - having a mobile phone app, I use "Libra" on Android, that prompts me every morning for my weight and shows the trend curve. I can easily see now that my weight consistently goes down when I'm exercising and watching my diet, which is a slow process of experimentation in lifestyle, and it stalls if I'm only doing one of those or neither. Previously monitoring my day-to-day weight was ineffective due to the fluctuations you mentioned.
This is absolutely the most important "diet" that I've done - having a mobile phone app, I use "Libra" on Android, that prompts me every morning for my weight and shows the trend curve. I can easily see now that my weight consistently goes down when I'm exercising and watching my diet, which is a slow process of experimentation in lifestyle, and it stalls if I'm only doing one of those or neither. Previously monitoring my day-to-day weight was ineffective due to the fluctuations you mentioned.
Agreed 100%. I don't use it to track weight, but being "Fitbit shamed" when I don't hit 10,000 steps per day is a strong motivator. More athletically speaking, so is missing workouts and thereby kudos from my friends & followers on Strava & Garmin Connect. On days when I really just don't feel like running, this makes the difference between getting out of the house and wasting more time on the innerweb.
> 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!
After trying a few apps, I have found MyFitnessPal and tracking what I eat has become my daily routine. The app makes it very easy, has a great database of foods and in my case, I can almost always choose from my food history with 1 tap.
I'm in the 9th week of my diet, which simply means burning 1000 kcal more a day than I consume. My results are similar to the one in the blog post - spare 7000kcal a week and lose 1 kg.
Sure, measuring calories is imprecise at best, but my results speak another language.
The fitbit app sucks, it isn't well thought out and has numerous UI bugs. I had the fitbit one step tracker for a while until I lost it. Now I'm using my iPhone as step tracker, as I'm almost always carrying it in my pocket.
After trying a few apps, I have found MyFitnessPal and tracking what I eat has become my daily routine. The app makes it very easy, has a great database of foods and in my case, I can almost always choose from my food history with 1 tap.
I'm in the 9th week of my diet, which simply means burning 1000 kcal more a day than I consume. My results are similar to the one in the blog post - spare 7000kcal a week and lose 1 kg.
Sure, measuring calories is imprecise at best, but my results speak another language.
The fitbit app sucks, it isn't well thought out and has numerous UI bugs. I had the fitbit one step tracker for a while until I lost it. Now I'm using my iPhone as step tracker, as I'm almost always carrying it in my pocket.
The MyFitnessPal app is great and includes a barcode scanner which makes it super easy to find the calories/macros for a big chunk of your food. It also allows you to set your goals for your macros (fat/protein/carbs) which is very handy. I'm able to hit my macro goals within +/- 5% a day which seems quite good.
I weigh and log virtually everyting (not coffee/tea/water though) but as you said, measuring calories is imprecise at best. I'm currently targeting ~3400kcal a day and I would estimate a healthy error margin of +/- 400kcal a day on that figure.
The biggest benefit is that it makes me totally conscious of what's going into my body and developing a feel for the caloric content of various foods (e.g. wow I had no idea 2 cups of spinach was only ~10 calories!).
I weigh and log virtually everyting (not coffee/tea/water though) but as you said, measuring calories is imprecise at best. I'm currently targeting ~3400kcal a day and I would estimate a healthy error margin of +/- 400kcal a day on that figure.
The biggest benefit is that it makes me totally conscious of what's going into my body and developing a feel for the caloric content of various foods (e.g. wow I had no idea 2 cups of spinach was only ~10 calories!).
I use MFP and weigh my food. Everyone gets caught up on the science and numbers. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the calories are exact or not. If you aren't losing weight then you trim some more out of your diet. If you are losing weight and that's your goal then you keep doing what you are doing. The tracker just helps give you a guideline and history.
>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.
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
* 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.
How often do you think the FDA verifies that calorie labels are correct. I'm willing to bet it's not that important to them.
20% is a lot.
The question of "...is what you eat more important than how much?" Went unanswered it appears. Essentially, what if he ate the same calories each day but improved the number of calories he burned per pound of body weight? A hypothesis I've seen scattered around the t00b lands is eating sugar effectively lowers that value (I think it's alpha in his analysis). I wonder how much one can change that and how so.
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.
I've also tried training that way, and didn't see good results.
As a 6'4", 200lbs male my maintenance calories going to the gym 2.5 times a week (5 times every 2 weeks) was 2700. But once you get thinner, the weight loss slows because of slowing metabolism, so under 190lbs (and under 15% bf) my maintenance probably decreased by a lot because my weight loss slowed considerably.
> 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).
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).
Supermarket chicken is injected with saline solution to make it look more plump and appealing. This solution, as well as much of the water that was inside the meat to begin with, evaporates during cooking.
Anyone have insight on how "my thyroid" affects weight gain/loss? As in, does TDEE decrease when something is wrong with the thyroid? If a typical TDEE is 2200 calories, then with thyroid problems, will it go down to 1500, or is 2100 a more likely figure?
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.
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 struggle for me to keep a normal weight. I've spoken to some very thin people, and they don't seem to experience hunger in the same way I do. These people forget to eat, get full very quickly, and when they get full, they lose all of the sense of pleasure they get from eating, they immediately want to stop. Me? I have an urge to eat quickly and I can eat way past "enough". I'm pretty sure I could eat 2000 calories for dinner if I didn't stop myself, but the reasonable mark is at about 900. I can never "forget" to eat, my body/brain doesn't let me.
It's pretty clear that some people have stronger sex drives than others. I don't understand why it's such a radical notion that some people have a stronger sense of hunger than others. If you've never been overweight, chances are it's not an active effort or perfect habits on your part, it's just the way your body/brain works, it's largely genetics.
I used to be overweight, lost weight, but it's a constant struggle for me to keep a normal weight. I've spoken to some very thin people, and they don't seem to experience hunger in the same way I do. These people forget to eat, get full very quickly, and when they get full, they lose all of the sense of pleasure they get from eating, they immediately want to stop. Me? I have an urge to eat quickly and I can eat way past "enough". I'm pretty sure I could eat 2000 calories for dinner if I didn't stop myself, but the reasonable mark is at about 900. I can never "forget" to eat, my body/brain doesn't let me.
It's pretty clear that some people have stronger sex drives than others. I don't understand why it's such a radical notion that some people have a stronger sense of hunger than others. If you've never been overweight, chances are it's not an active effort or perfect habits on your part, it's just the way your body/brain works, it's largely genetics.
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.
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.
It's not a radical notion. It would be radical to assume anything else without very strong evidence.
I am the same way as you are btw. What changes it for me is very low-carb diet. After few days of suffering I actually stopped being hungry and went some days with one/two small meals. I forgot to eat few times until like 7pm. I imagine that people who are like that by default have it much easier to keep healthy weight.
Of course you can have a stronger hunger/desire to eat than other people. I have a high desire to eat, but I also love spending three hours exercising. I walked one hour to the gym on foot, lifted weights for one hour and walked another hour back. I could spend three hours playing ping pong or basketball. I never used to do that before, but I learned to love it. I don't do it every day, because my body wouldn't last, but I do it often enough to offset sometimes eating a very large meal.
So, if you believe "calories in, calories out", obviously. But, if you think that's all there is to dieting I have another question: do you believe in free will?
This has nothing to do with beliefs. It's a falsifiable statement.
Um, did you read, or try to understand, at all, thr second sentence?
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 mice down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/health/gut-bacteria-from-t...
Jet lagged gut bacteria can contribute to obesity.
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/jet-lagged-gut-bacteri...
Diet soda can alter gut bacteria to make one gain weight.
http://www.prevention.com/health/diabetes/artificial-sweeten...
There are more gut bacteria than human cells in our body, and they actually release chemicals that affect the brain and have evolved to do that and there are a lot of other factors that influence gut bacteria, including what got passed on from your mother, what foods you ate during your life, what antibiotics you took etc. etc.
And gut bacteria is just one variable among things like activity levels, pollution levels, sleep amount and quality(not sleeping well can make you eat about 600 calories more the next day), peers(hanging out with obese people is likely to make you obese, obese people tend to have obese pets!), poverty, car ownership, smoking, tastebud sensitivity, commute time(people with longer commutes tend to be obese),genetics,water intake, muscle mass,stress levels, food additives, pregnancy, childbirth, menopause, time of the month for women, free time in a day(try cooking at home and exercise working 2 grueling jobs to make ends meet), drug side effects, emotional eating, type of exercise, micronutrients in food,portion sizes in restaurant, food advertising, food subsidies, vitamn level, thyroid function, insulin sensitivity, liver health, distribution of fat around body parts and inside organs,will power, processed foods, food availability and cost etc. etc. Some of these variables affect the others in a chaotic state machine kind of way.
It's no wonder that all these low carb, low fat, paleo, etc. diets are not one-size-fits-all solutions and that such discussions descend into WORKED-FOR-ME!!! Y U NO DO IT?!! platitudes. 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 wouldn't be so crowded."
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 mice down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/health/gut-bacteria-from-t...
Jet lagged gut bacteria can contribute to obesity.
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/jet-lagged-gut-bacteri...
Diet soda can alter gut bacteria to make one gain weight.
http://www.prevention.com/health/diabetes/artificial-sweeten...
There are more gut bacteria than human cells in our body, and they actually release chemicals that affect the brain and have evolved to do that and there are a lot of other factors that influence gut bacteria, including what got passed on from your mother, what foods you ate during your life, what antibiotics you took etc. etc.
And gut bacteria is just one variable among things like activity levels, pollution levels, sleep amount and quality(not sleeping well can make you eat about 600 calories more the next day), peers(hanging out with obese people is likely to make you obese, obese people tend to have obese pets!), poverty, car ownership, smoking, tastebud sensitivity, commute time(people with longer commutes tend to be obese),genetics,water intake, muscle mass,stress levels, food additives, pregnancy, childbirth, menopause, time of the month for women, free time in a day(try cooking at home and exercise working 2 grueling jobs to make ends meet), drug side effects, emotional eating, type of exercise, micronutrients in food,portion sizes in restaurant, food advertising, food subsidies, vitamn level, thyroid function, insulin sensitivity, liver health, distribution of fat around body parts and inside organs,will power, processed foods, food availability and cost etc. etc. Some of these variables affect the others in a chaotic state machine kind of way.
It's no wonder that all these low carb, low fat, paleo, etc. diets are not one-size-fits-all solutions and that such discussions descend into WORKED-FOR-ME!!! Y U NO DO IT?!! platitudes. 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 wouldn't be so crowded."
> There are more gut bacteria than human cells in our body
"[That] is technically true, in the sense that Vin Diesel is outnumbered by a small bag of crickets."
http://carcinisation.com/2014/08/14/science-journalism-march...
"[That] is technically true, in the sense that Vin Diesel is outnumbered by a small bag of crickets."
http://carcinisation.com/2014/08/14/science-journalism-march...
The rebuttal is itself technically true but I think misses the point of the original statement: The gut is a complex system which has direct effects on many other systems in the body, including the brain. The resultant feedback loops are not well understood at the current time.
If you treat the gut as a simple "food processor" that does nothing more than take in food, break it down and transfer the resluting proteins & sugars into the bloodstream then you're vastly over simplifying things. Yes, it's perfectly true that gut bacteria do not make up a huge percentage of your body mass, but you could say the same thing about your kidneys & anyone who claimed that the kidney "just takes waste products from the bloodstream and excretes them as urine" would be over simplifying things enormously. That statement is as true as the "gut bacteria are only 1% of your body mass" one, but it also misses out on a lot of complexity - the kidneys are involved in all sorts of hormonal feedback loops & can go wrong in many weird and wonderful ways. The same is true of the gut, and that's the point of the original statement about the vast number of gut bacteria IMO - it's reminding us that the digestive system is in fact very complex and an active participant in hormonal feedback loops that affect the rest of the body, including those that affect how much we want to eat.
If you treat the gut as a simple "food processor" that does nothing more than take in food, break it down and transfer the resluting proteins & sugars into the bloodstream then you're vastly over simplifying things. Yes, it's perfectly true that gut bacteria do not make up a huge percentage of your body mass, but you could say the same thing about your kidneys & anyone who claimed that the kidney "just takes waste products from the bloodstream and excretes them as urine" would be over simplifying things enormously. That statement is as true as the "gut bacteria are only 1% of your body mass" one, but it also misses out on a lot of complexity - the kidneys are involved in all sorts of hormonal feedback loops & can go wrong in many weird and wonderful ways. The same is true of the gut, and that's the point of the original statement about the vast number of gut bacteria IMO - it's reminding us that the digestive system is in fact very complex and an active participant in hormonal feedback loops that affect the rest of the body, including those that affect how much we want to eat.
I don't think that anyone understands that sentence in the way that this is trying to debunk. Are there people who read that sentence and think that there's a larger amount of gut bacteria than human body in the human body by weight or volume?
That would require that there be people that think that the human gut itself weighs more than the rest of the body.
>"[That] is technically true, in the sense that Vin Diesel is outnumbered by a small bag of crickets."
In what sense is Vin Diesel not outnumbered by a bag of crickets? Combat skill?
That would require that there be people that think that the human gut itself weighs more than the rest of the body.
>"[That] is technically true, in the sense that Vin Diesel is outnumbered by a small bag of crickets."
In what sense is Vin Diesel not outnumbered by a bag of crickets? Combat skill?
Alternately, if your body was the world, the nation of "You" would be a single unified hyperpower formed by the intermarried populations of China, India, the USA, and the next 100 biggest countries.
The "Microbe Nations" would be Monaco all the other table-top countries and tiny one-man-on-an-island republics, and they would also fight amongst themselves.
The "Microbe Nations" would be Monaco all the other table-top countries and tiny one-man-on-an-island republics, and they would also fight amongst themselves.
Thanks for linking me to this. I too made the incorrect assumption.
I read somewhere the mass of gut bacteria in a persons body is about a pound.
BRB, working on the marketing copy for my Antibiotics Diet for Weight Loss (TM).
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
——
[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.
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.
Did you read the paper? They studied women with and without diagnosed eating disorders as part of the research.
From a cursory read, it looks pretty damning to me - I'm not qualified to do a deep dive in the research methodology, but the conclusions look sound.
From a cursory read, it looks pretty damning to me - I'm not qualified to do a deep dive in the research methodology, but the conclusions look sound.
Yes, sorry. The stuff about humans was a bit obs urred but I should have read it more carefully.
I'm still trying to work out how many humans were used. It's a frustratingly dense read on mobile.
EDIT: 65 control; 27 anorexia; 14 binge eating disorder.
It's interesting, but I want to see very many more samples taken from women at different hospitals and the community.
I'm still trying to work out how many humans were used. It's a frustratingly dense read on mobile.
EDIT: 65 control; 27 anorexia; 14 binge eating disorder.
It's interesting, but I want to see very many more samples taken from women at different hospitals and the community.
The paper is very dense, overall. It is detailed in the legend of the 4th figure:
... Ctr, n=65, AN, n=27 BN, n=32 and BED, n=14
Crt = controls, AN = anorexia, BN = bulimia, BED = binge eating disorder.
http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n10/fig_tab/tp201498f4.h...
... Ctr, n=65, AN, n=27 BN, n=32 and BED, n=14
Crt = controls, AN = anorexia, BN = bulimia, BED = binge eating disorder.
http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n10/fig_tab/tp201498f4.h...
The did the tests in mice. Where do you see the studies with humans?
From the abstract:
Finally, we show that plasma levels of anti-ClpB IgG crossreactive with α-MSH are increased in patients with AN, bulimia and [binge eating disorder], and that the [eating disorders] Inventory-2 scores in [eating disorders] patients correlate with anti-ClpB IgG and IgM, which is similar to our previous findings for α-MSH auto-Abs.
Search in text for "Anti-ClpB antibodies in ED patients" for the details.
Finally, we show that plasma levels of anti-ClpB IgG crossreactive with α-MSH are increased in patients with AN, bulimia and [binge eating disorder], and that the [eating disorders] Inventory-2 scores in [eating disorders] patients correlate with anti-ClpB IgG and IgM, which is similar to our previous findings for α-MSH auto-Abs.
Search in text for "Anti-ClpB antibodies in ED patients" for the details.
It looks like it is as "mental" as tetanus and botulism...
A friend of mine spent one month in solitary confinement as a "treatment" for her anorexia, when she was 14. That was 15 years ago, in France...
The study linked above found cross-reactive antibodies in anorexia, bulimia and binge eating disorders patients.
The next step would be to attempt fecal transplant for these patients.
A friend of mine spent one month in solitary confinement as a "treatment" for her anorexia, when she was 14. That was 15 years ago, in France...
The study linked above found cross-reactive antibodies in anorexia, bulimia and binge eating disorders patients.
The next step would be to attempt fecal transplant for these patients.
Causative? Or correlated? Couldn't the causation go the other direction? (Would just read the paper but it won't load on this phone.)
Causative. The full text is available in HTML for free, what kind of phone are you using?
> 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 arguing with thermodynamics.
"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 arguing with thermodynamics.
Calories = calories is all you need to know.
Unless
* You care about your productivity or health, in which case getting sufficient balanced nutrition is important.
* You care about body composition eg going on a diet is liable to lose you large quantities of lean body mass which sets you up for rebound weight gain down the track.
* You are one of those rare people who are affected by hunger. If you are one of those people you might want to consider the effect of diet composition, adequacy and timing on your appetite.
I also note: sample of one. Duration: 2 months (of people who lose weight over a 2 month period only a small fraction keep it off). Statistical significance: 0.
Unless
* You care about your productivity or health, in which case getting sufficient balanced nutrition is important.
* You care about body composition eg going on a diet is liable to lose you large quantities of lean body mass which sets you up for rebound weight gain down the track.
* You are one of those rare people who are affected by hunger. If you are one of those people you might want to consider the effect of diet composition, adequacy and timing on your appetite.
I also note: sample of one. Duration: 2 months (of people who lose weight over a 2 month period only a small fraction keep it off). Statistical significance: 0.
Couldn't have said it better myself! Jade Teta has a fantastic article on this — http://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/a-calorie-is-sometimes... — including so-called HEC (hunger, energy, cravings)
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.
Gary Taubes has written a lot about it.
The thing is, how many calories does a piece of food contain? What is says on the packet? Probably not. Second is, how much calories do you burn? The same amount as the watts you generated on the circuit machine? Probably not.
And of those calories you got in, how many left through the waste canal?
Obviously it is a question of calories in = calories out, the question is whether what we are measuring is even close to either side of that equation.
And of those calories you got in, how many left through the waste canal?
Obviously it is a question of calories in = calories out, the question is whether what we are measuring is even close to either side of that equation.
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.
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.
> 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?
Conversion of body weight to a form that has less stored energy per unit of weight mass (e.g., fat to muscle). That's unlikely with zero calorie intake (since activity, which is difficult to maintain with a too-extreme deficit, and protein are both important to it), but it balances the calorie equation just as well as weight loss does.
More generally on the point under discussion, adjusting caloric intake alone without changing calorie output is expected to produce weight loss if a bunch of other factors are held constant, but the way humans are constructed, its actually not at all simple to adjust calorie intake and not alter calorie output or any of the other relevant factors -- in fact, many of them the body will itself change as a result of a change in calorie input.
Conversion of body weight to a form that has less stored energy per unit of weight mass (e.g., fat to muscle). That's unlikely with zero calorie intake (since activity, which is difficult to maintain with a too-extreme deficit, and protein are both important to it), but it balances the calorie equation just as well as weight loss does.
More generally on the point under discussion, adjusting caloric intake alone without changing calorie output is expected to produce weight loss if a bunch of other factors are held constant, but the way humans are constructed, its actually not at all simple to adjust calorie intake and not alter calorie output or any of the other relevant factors -- in fact, many of them the body will itself change as a result of a change in calorie input.
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 feel satiated on fewer calories, and lose weight without having to count calories, strictly regiment your diet, or suffer through hunger pangs.
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 feel satiated on fewer calories, and lose weight without having to count calories, strictly regiment your diet, or suffer through hunger pangs.
> 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.
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.
Whilst that's true, you really shouldn't use that as the argument - the point being made is that your body's ability to use a calorie in one type of food is different to your body's ability to use a calorie in another type of food.
A calorie = a calorie, but accessing it, sorting it, and storing it, depends on the package it comes in.
A calorie = a calorie, but accessing it, sorting it, and storing it, depends on the package it comes in.
calorie in/out is true, BUT we have no way to measure what we put in and out. That's the problem with most peoples simple assumptions "you have eaten so and so many calorie, therefore .." - it is completely unimportant what you eat. It is important what is usable by your body. And there the "calorie in != calorie out?" research starts ..
I agree. I'm demonstrating how saying that calories in = calories out is both absolutely true and completely meaningless.
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 effective than a low calorie diet at losing weight given the same amount of caloric expenditure.
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 effective than a low calorie diet at losing weight given the same amount of caloric expenditure.
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.
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.
That may be where the confusion comes from.
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.
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.
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.
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!' etc etc
while its true gut bacteria makes a difference, it is also true and proven that gut bacteria adjusts to your food intake. it is more likely that a persons weight problems can be moderated by diet and exercise than anything else. diet is most easily moderated by good eating habits.
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!' etc etc
while its true gut bacteria makes a difference, it is also true and proven that gut bacteria adjusts to your food intake. it is more likely that a persons weight problems can be moderated by diet and exercise than anything else. diet is most easily moderated by good eating habits.
> 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 diet for basically the rest of your life.
If the diet doesn't fit you, you will be fighting your body every single day, and your body might cave in and it becomes your new norm, or you can't stand it anymore and go back to your previous behavior.
Fighting your body until it gives up is such a brute force method it's just hell on earth (we say "your body", but litteraly you're punishing yourself). Experimentally the vast majority of people won't be able to brute force their behavior And metabolism, and have to find a diet that fits them. S
What I'm saying is sustaining low calorie intake is a result of having a diet that works. The relevant part is to find that diet in the first place.
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 diet for basically the rest of your life.
If the diet doesn't fit you, you will be fighting your body every single day, and your body might cave in and it becomes your new norm, or you can't stand it anymore and go back to your previous behavior.
Fighting your body until it gives up is such a brute force method it's just hell on earth (we say "your body", but litteraly you're punishing yourself). Experimentally the vast majority of people won't be able to brute force their behavior And metabolism, and have to find a diet that fits them. S
What I'm saying is sustaining low calorie intake is a result of having a diet that works. The relevant part is to find that diet in the first place.
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
> One can't just stop taking heroin for few months
That's exactly the point; but not in the way you intended.
That's exactly the point; but not in the way you intended.
>It's not about fighting your body, it's about having discipline.
The whole reason for the lifestyle change is so that you don't need discipline. Forcing yourself to go to the gym against your desire is only going to last so long.
What helps is to realise that "things I enjoy doing" is a flexible category and that by getting good at activities you can move them into that category. This may also mean giving up or doing less of existing hobbies.
I used to play a lot of computer games, now my default activity on a Saturday is to play tennis, go swimming, or climb. There's friends who still structure their free time around gaming, I don't see those friends as much any more because the degree to which we share a hobby has changed.
A lifestyle change is inherently disruptive - almost by definition it will change how you socialise and with whom.
Frequently people want to change their lives without changing who they are (which I understand) but that's inherently a tricky proposition. If old-you was that great, you wouldn't be where you are now.
The whole reason for the lifestyle change is so that you don't need discipline. Forcing yourself to go to the gym against your desire is only going to last so long.
What helps is to realise that "things I enjoy doing" is a flexible category and that by getting good at activities you can move them into that category. This may also mean giving up or doing less of existing hobbies.
I used to play a lot of computer games, now my default activity on a Saturday is to play tennis, go swimming, or climb. There's friends who still structure their free time around gaming, I don't see those friends as much any more because the degree to which we share a hobby has changed.
A lifestyle change is inherently disruptive - almost by definition it will change how you socialise and with whom.
Frequently people want to change their lives without changing who they are (which I understand) but that's inherently a tricky proposition. If old-you was that great, you wouldn't be where you are now.
> 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.
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.
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.
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 is effective too. Chewing 7 times with every bite will do it.
High protein diets are particularly awesome for a number of reasons though - in the first couple months you drop a ton of water, which makes the scale drop quickly, which is emotionally rewarding. And, eating a lot of protein tends to result in more rapid satiation. (Water and Dietary Fiber are good here too - so a simple diet trick is, four glasses of water with every meal).
Protein is also good when you are lifting, so is an important component in building muscle mass...
Basically, any diet whatsoever will result in you losing weight. Just measuring/charting your weight is effective too. Chewing 7 times with every bite will do it.
High protein diets are particularly awesome for a number of reasons though - in the first couple months you drop a ton of water, which makes the scale drop quickly, which is emotionally rewarding. And, eating a lot of protein tends to result in more rapid satiation. (Water and Dietary Fiber are good here too - so a simple diet trick is, four glasses of water with every meal).
Protein is also good when you are lifting, so is an important component in building muscle mass...
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.
I believe body fat estimations based upon weight and electrical conductance measurements are really flawed, especially for individuals outside of a quite narrow 'normal'. It's only a little better than a BMI measurement in my opinion. If you want to know, get yourself to a bodpod or some other accurate measurement system.
But do you feel better? I used to be able to run 5k in less than 20 minutes (10k races are very popular here), but now I can't even run 1k.
If you lost fat and gained muscle, you're doing OK :)
If you lost fat and gained muscle, you're doing OK :)
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.
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.
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 bar back squat.
I did SS for 7 months, but the last few months my gains slowed. I gained some muscle and fat, but they changed the scale at the gym and I don't know how much weight I ACTUALLY gained because the old one was off by like 10 pounds and they changed it half way through so it had me confused. I probably gained 15 lbs, half of which being muscle. Didn't gain much more after that, even though I continued working out, nothing has been very effective after the initial five months or so.
My stats after 7 months: https://imgur.com/Pmnmkc8
Two years later, they barely improved: https://imgur.com/P7qGI5n
My stats after 7 months: https://imgur.com/Pmnmkc8
Two years later, they barely improved: https://imgur.com/P7qGI5n
Yeah, that's expected. SS is a beginner program designed to be done for only 3-6 months. When your progress on your lifts stalls out, it's time to switch to a periodized intermediate program such as Texas Method[1], which will have you doing ramped work sets and taking deload weeks to allow for more recovery time between your max effort sessions.
[1] http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/The_Texas_Method
[1] http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/The_Texas_Method
I wasn't interested in strength gains anyway, so I did a few different hypertrophy programs, but nothing had really amazing results for me.
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...
"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...
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...
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...
I hadn't seen that yet so thanks for the link. Amazing gains by him!
there's also no way he's 21% body fat
calipers are just an approximate estimate of someone's body fat percentage, and in this case because of body fat distribution (all the fat is very evenly distributed) they're way off, by as much as 5%
calipers are just an approximate estimate of someone's body fat percentage, and in this case because of body fat distribution (all the fat is very evenly distributed) they're way off, by as much as 5%
What would you estimate his BF% at based on the photos?
going to the Gym is also a great way to put on weight
given a calorie surplus.
given a calorie surplus.
I think the first law of thermodynamics has us covered there.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
> actually, almost ANY diet works. if you are over weight and reduce your calorie intake: you.will.loose.weight.period.
This is absolutely false.
1) there's of course the obvious cas where you're consuming 5000 kcal/day and burning 2500, and then cut that to 4000 kcal consumed -- still gonna gain, albeit more slowly.
2) less obviously but perhaps more importantly, reducing caloric intake can reduce metabolism (because your body thinks food is more scarce) and therefore also reduce calories out!
3) the types of foods you eat help determine whether your body stores the energy as fat -- which is triggered by insulin. Replacing fat calories with sugar calories (as was done extensively in the late 20th C rush to low fat foods) even if the total caloric intake is slightly lower can actually accelerate weight gain.
This is absolutely false.
1) there's of course the obvious cas where you're consuming 5000 kcal/day and burning 2500, and then cut that to 4000 kcal consumed -- still gonna gain, albeit more slowly.
2) less obviously but perhaps more importantly, reducing caloric intake can reduce metabolism (because your body thinks food is more scarce) and therefore also reduce calories out!
3) the types of foods you eat help determine whether your body stores the energy as fat -- which is triggered by insulin. Replacing fat calories with sugar calories (as was done extensively in the late 20th C rush to low fat foods) even if the total caloric intake is slightly lower can actually accelerate weight gain.
> 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").
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").
I think you would be taken more seriously if you used the metric system.
> (Aside: I am intentionally sticking with U. S. customary units of pounds, miles, etc., to be consistent with much of the related literature.)
From the article, it sounds like dietary science in the US is done with imperial units. It was written by an American for a primarily American audience. Americans track their weight in pounds. Those seem like pretty good reasons to not use metric to me.
From the article, it sounds like dietary science in the US is done with imperial units. It was written by an American for a primarily American audience. Americans track their weight in pounds. Those seem like pretty good reasons to not use metric to me.
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.
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.
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.
I have quite a bit of advice on this topic, targeted directly at programmers on my podcast on fitness for software developers, Get Up and CODE: http://getupandcode.com
Uhh. "Are all calories equal? I don't know, but it'd be nice to know." Why is this even a blog post? It literally tells us nothing.
It's calories in, calories out, only if you stick to specific foods.
It's well proven that raw foods, despite being slightly higher calorie content than their cooked version, contribute significantly less calories because FAR less is digested and absorbed.
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.
So we _know_ that it's not just calories in, calories out. It just seems that way sometimes, because most studies don't really change the fundamental type of food (that is, it's almost assuredly cooked food still, and at least somewhat similar in the processing done (e.g. no candy bar but they're still eating white bread)). Everyone's just repeating the same study over and over, not realizing they weren't fundamentally changing the inputs.
It's well proven that raw foods, despite being slightly higher calorie content than their cooked version, contribute significantly less calories because FAR less is digested and absorbed.
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.
So we _know_ that it's not just calories in, calories out. It just seems that way sometimes, because most studies don't really change the fundamental type of food (that is, it's almost assuredly cooked food still, and at least somewhat similar in the processing done (e.g. no candy bar but they're still eating white bread)). Everyone's just repeating the same study over and over, not realizing they weren't fundamentally changing the inputs.
Calorie counting already takes this into consideration. When we say '100g of raw tomato has X calories' we are talking of what your body gets out of it when you eat it, not the calories theoretically in the tomato.
"not the calories theoretically in the tomato."
There goes my plan to weigh the tomato and multiply by the c^2.
There goes my plan to weigh the tomato and multiply by the c^2.
> 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.
The role of insulin does not bypass thermodynamics.
Not to get into a pissing match, but I think "well proven" needs some citation here.
The role of insulin does not bypass thermodynamics.
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 what's "in the tank" at any given moment. Thermodynamics argument just doesn't mean anything. It's probably the most silly way to end sensible discussion on this topis.
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 4 kilocalories" is simplistic and in all likelihood flawed.
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 4 kilocalories" is simplistic and in all likelihood flawed.
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?)
I'm confused, where did I say carbohydrates are not easily digested?
Human bodies can vary when it comes to efficiency of converting food to energy.
I do not doubt this, but is there any evidence that these variances are significant? Treating human bodies as 100% efficient food to energy converters is useful for practical reasoning about weight loss; unless these factors are significant, focusing on macronutrients, genetics, or the "hormonal situation" is just getting lost in the weeds.
I do not doubt this, but is there any evidence that these variances are significant? Treating human bodies as 100% efficient food to energy converters is useful for practical reasoning about weight loss; unless these factors are significant, focusing on macronutrients, genetics, or the "hormonal situation" is just getting lost in the weeds.
> 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 it I think), after that ... any sugar that hits your liver is converted to straight fat.
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 it I think), after that ... any sugar that hits your liver is converted to straight fat.
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'm always very leery about these hard-and-fast #s in terms of measurements that kick off some process that we should expect in all humans.
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'm always very leery about these hard-and-fast #s in terms of measurements that kick off some process that we should expect in all humans.
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.
If you were thinking of substituting fructose for glucose in your diet, to get a lower insulin response, reconsider.
Fructose spikes insulin, most macronutrients do. Even protein spikes insulin. Fructose has produced less of a spike than other simple sugars.
Fructose is shunted directly to the liver. It does have a glycemic index of 19, but that's on par with some sugar alcohols (which generally speaking are thought to not have an effect on blood sugar).
> Even protein spikes insulin
Can you explain this mechanism? From my research, this is a demand-driven process via gluconeogenesis. The effect on blood sugar is so minimal here as to suggest that insulin secretion is nominal at best.
> Even protein spikes insulin
Can you explain this mechanism? From my research, this is a demand-driven process via gluconeogenesis. The effect on blood sugar is so minimal here as to suggest that insulin secretion is nominal at best.
It doesn't really spike it, it barely moves it. Its glycemic index is 18, I can't find its insulin index, but it's low.
Dietary fat does not have any effect on insulin, btw.
Dietary fat does not have any effect on insulin, btw.
Your liver may only be able to store about 400-600 kCals of glycogen, but your skeletal muscle tissue scan store a great deal more. The catch here is that only those muscle tissues can use that glycogen (and are very resistant to using ketones and/or free fatty acids).
This is why nutritional ketosis is driven primarily by hepatic glyocgen depletion.
Many cyclical ketogenic diets use this hack to replete glycogen in their muscle tissue (in the form of a once per week carb refeed) in order to fuel glycolytic workouts during the week. While it's hard to completely avoid filling your hepatic glycogen stores during the refeed, they can be burned through pretty quickly by the brain in the course of a day or two provided you restrict dietary carbohydrate to < 20g/day. It's also worth noting that glycogen repletion is generally preferential to muscle tissue first, then the liver second.
This is why nutritional ketosis is driven primarily by hepatic glyocgen depletion.
Many cyclical ketogenic diets use this hack to replete glycogen in their muscle tissue (in the form of a once per week carb refeed) in order to fuel glycolytic workouts during the week. While it's hard to completely avoid filling your hepatic glycogen stores during the refeed, they can be burned through pretty quickly by the brain in the course of a day or two provided you restrict dietary carbohydrate to < 20g/day. It's also worth noting that glycogen repletion is generally preferential to muscle tissue first, then the liver second.
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
you can store 100g of glycogen or even more, depending on how low you are at the moment and how big your muscles are
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 significant weight loss over a long period of time.
Don't beat yourself up when you have a "bad" day, because the success of this technique is not measured in days. It's not even measured in weeks or months, it's measured in a unit of "the rest of your life".
After many months tending to years of this, and many pounds lost, the approach can be fine tuned and what is being eaten can be examined in slightly more detail.
Once you've mastered crawling, you can move onto walking and running, but it's simply too difficult to jump straight into running where there are so many gains to be made from simple crawling.