Comment by nl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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...

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.

> 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.

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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com