Hacker News Reader

Comment by EMM_386 | Hacker News Reader

Although it may not be a popular opinion, CICO (calories in, calories out) obviously works. It's simple science and I'm down 25 pounds in a year.

It requires strict adherence like anything else. It's often not enjoyable.

But if you follow it, you will lose weight. And "zero calorie" alcohol isn't really zero calorie, obviously.

This isn't about metabolic rate or anything else. I had my thyroid gland completely removed 30 years ago and have been dependent on levothyroxine ever since. I could theoretically "cheat" by artificially increasing my metabolism (take more levo, like some bodybuilders do), but I didn't. I just cut calories.

View on HN

Calories is an extremely reductive measure and isn't really good for much more than a general rule of thumb for evaluating food. The problem with calories comes from how the caloric value of food is determined: quite literally incinerating the food and measuring the released heat.

This is obviously not how your body digests food and disregards completely the macro structure of what you're taking in. Take pasta and rice for example, both have around the same calorific value however, the carbon chains in rice are much longer than those in pasta. The implication of which is that it will take your body more time and energy to digest rice than pasta meaning that the energy release to your body will be quite different. Looking just at calorific value though, one would erroneously conclude that these two foods are more or less identical.

> Take pasta and rice for example, both have around the same calorific value however, the carbon chains in rice are much longer than those in pasta.

It doesn't matter. This is over-analyzing the simple fact that reducing intake results in weight loss.

Like I said, this is an unpopular opinion due to the difficulty people have in losing weight.

But I did it and I have the facts to back it up. And I managed to get over my body's natural fight against it by simply continuing to intake less calories.

If my body doesn't continue to get a constant influx of energy, it stores less as fat reserves. It's all proven by raw results.

The truth is you can lose weight on a diet of Cheetos, pasta and soda. It's not healthy, and you may die sooner than you planned, but you will lose weight, as long as the intake is less than the expenditure.

If you read a lot of the top body builders who are professionals at getting to single digit body fat methodically and repeatedly they’ll agree with you.

If you burn more calories than you eat you’ll loose weight. Doesn’t matter what those calories are.

As you say if you choose to eat low nutrient food below your required daily intake you may loose weight but wouldn’t recommend it for a healthy diet. Choosing better calories may help loose weight quicker as overall health improves but the fundamentals are the same, you are consuming less than your body requires.

Some people may be surprised that if they eat better the volume of food they eat increases but total calories decrease. It’s surprising how calorie dense junk food is which leaves you hungry as low volume so you eat more to feel full.

In my opinion, CICO works when you start from a high point but tapers off afterwards.

Like when I weighed 235 (which is high for my 5 foot 2 inch frame) I had breakfast, lunch and I could, literally, eat two burgers and some fries and a soda for dinner and still lose weight cause I ate no snacks in between but after I got down to 200 lbs CICO had little bearing on anything I did.

Now I really had to watch the quality of the food I ate in addition to the amount of calories. (i.e. simply eating less wasn't good enough).

Also, it bears mentioning that alcohol was not a thing for me. I barely drink (i.e I have like the equivalent of a beer for every 2 months). So it wasn't an option to give it up because it really wasn't a part of my diet anyways.

But it's not hard to see why those who give alcohol up have a positive response.

As you lose weight the calories out declines proportionally, and so you have to keep reducing calories in to maintain the same rate of weight loss. Your body expends significant energy just keeping that excess adipose tissue alive and carrying it around during daily activities.

I usually notice severe metabolism slowdown when sitting for prolonged periods of time. I can eat 800-1200 kcal and not lose any weight (and I’m 200lbs).

After I start hiking for 4 hours a day I’m losing weight even on 2300 kcal.

So it seems my programmer lifestyle is messing me up.

I highly doubt you can actually maintain weight on 800 kcal/day regardless of activity level. That isn't really scientifically plausible. Most people significantly underestimate their caloric intake by not weighing portions or failing to count snacks and beverages.

I use a gram scale and eat only plants with home made bread. What can I say? On average it’s probably 1100kcal per day and weight loss seems invisible.

Maintaining 200 lbs weight even at 1100 kcal/day is still unlikely. That should produce a slow weight loss. Due to natural daily fluctuations it may take several weeks to see a significant change on the scale.

Have you had a resting metabolic rate test? They can tell how many calories you burn based on exhaled gases. I weigh about the same as you and burn about 1700 kcal/day just sitting on the couch.

https://www.dexafit.com/services/rmr-metabolic-test

I did not have any testing but thanks for making me aware simple tests exist.

> I usually notice severe metabolism slowdown when sitting for prolonged periods of time. I can eat 800-1200 kcal and not lose any weight (and I’m 200lbs).

I'm also a software engineer and I too sit for absurdly long periods of time.

Your body will use the minimum necessary. If you sit for a long time, most of that energy will be directed towards your brain.

At the end of the day, you simply have to reduce energy intake below baseline requirements. Then you will lose weight.

Note this is an absurdly unhealthy way to lose weight, as you will be neglecting cardiovascular health, muscle mass, bone strength, etc. In my experience, this can lead to "brain fog" and other issues programmers don't want, so that also has to be carefully balanced.

But you will lose weight, if that is the goal.

It's there any scientific evidence that extra energy is directed towards your brain rather than stored as fat?

I don't know about specifically to your brain (that seems implausible), but there is NEAT: non-exercise activity thermogenesis. Your body adjusts energy expenditure by hundreds of calories up or down by subconsciously making you fidget more or less.

It's not "directed". It simply goes to whatever has the highest energy requirements.

If you are sitting still at your desk all day, not moving a muscle, your brain has a large energy requirement.

So your muscles will waste, your bones will likely become brittle, but the energy coming in will go where it needs to.

Sitting still doesn't increase your brain's energy requirements. Excess energy is mostly used to build fat (and repair other tissue).

Lots of people lose weight. Very few people can keep it off. Call us back in five years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com