Hacker News Reader

Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

This has been a very hot topic on HN in the past, so I suspect the comments section will soon blow up.

I've always though of the "calories in vs calories out" technique for weight loss to be the starting point for the majority of people trying to lose weight. Reign in how many calories you're eating, start burning a few more (even just walking a block or two for most people is a great start) and you'll see 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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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 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

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 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.

Until there are effective ways to curb appetite, this problem will persist. Any overweight or obese person can tell you that your brain goes into autopilot mode till you get your food fix. There is instant regret, but that is after eating.

That is not true though. You can easily reduce the amount of food you eat by changing what you eat. Try to eat a diet high in fat and low in carbs. You'll find it extremely difficult to over eat. Then try the opposite, high carb and low fat. In my experience it is easy to keep eating until you feel sick.

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

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.

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.

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)

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

>>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".

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.

>"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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> crossfit (I know, booooo)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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-...

> 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

Forgot to post the link to the original citing article.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com