Hacker Neue

Preferences
827a parent
Calories in / Calories out might be broadly accurate, but reality is a lot more complicated than that. People are really bad at tracking how many calories they take in. Its impossible to measure how many calories you're actually exerting with exercise. Its even more impossible to measure how many calories you pee, poop, perspire, breathe, and radiate out. Microvariations across your current body state, body temperature, and even the time of day can influence how efficient your gut is at absorbing incoming energy.

Some people operate with a goal of a caloric deficit of even something as small as e.g. 200kcal. But because all these things are impossible to measure accurately, a difference of just 10% beyond a daily BMR of 2000kcal isn't just a possibility; its the norm. You run for an hour; what if that burns an extra 50kcal that your Apple Watch did not account for? You eat a slice of bread which advertises it contains 80kcal; but it actually contains 100kcal [1]? You sleep poorly, which causes some mild systemic inflammation the next day, which raises your body temperature?

[1] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-calorie-counts-accura...

testing22321
The really cool part is you don’t have to accurately track how many calories go in and out. The proof is in the pudding.

If you had a car with a broken gas gauge you would just pump until it overflowed… same idea here.

Over a month or so if your weight is stable then you are putting in as many calories as you burn. If you’re gaining weight, you’re consuming more, and if you’re losing weight, you’re consuming less.

Adjust accordingly.

827a OP
Sure, but no one can actually do that accurately, for the aforementioned reasons. "I'm gaining weight; I should eat less": How do you structure that in a way that's actually actionable and drive results? Just a general sense that "eh I should eat less"? No one eats consistently enough, or exerts energy consistently enough, to actually make vibe-structuring cal-in/cal-out possible. You might think "I should work out more, that's more calories out" -> but ask literally any runner about how running affects their appetite and you'll realize quickly how wrong that is.

Hence: Why diets exist. That is the structure. There are good ones and bad ones.

Keto, for example, can work for weight loss not because there's anything particularly interesting about the way your body absorbs carbs versus protein and fat (there are differences, but its not the biggest reason why it can work). It can work for some people because typical protein and fat food sources are less calorically dense (by volume and weight) than carb sources. You may feel full faster; so you may naturally eat fewer calories.

Similarly: IF can work for some people because most people cannot physically eat enough to consume massive calorie counts if they time-restrict the hours they're allowed to eat. It also seems to come with some well-studied metabolic effects.

You don't have to accurately track inflows and outflows, but vibe-structuring your consumption and exertion habits based on outcomes is a privilege that, sure, some people have, but is not a panacea for every body and mind. Broadly, the people who need to make change who do this will not see the change they wanted.

testing22321
> No one eats consistently enough, or exerts energy consistently enough, to actually make vibe-structuring cal-in/cal-out possible

Of course we do!

You’re thinking of this the wrong way. The goal isn’t “eat less” as you said, it’s “consume less calories (energy)”

On any given month if you gain weight or maintain when you want to lose, then you need to consume less energy next month. For 99% of people, that means reduce sofa, reduce sugar, reduce fat (all the energy dense stuff)

Feeling hungry? Drink massive glasses of water and eat literally all the vegetables you physically can get in. I have whole carrots for snacks most days. Cauliflower too. Cucumber is great. Frozen peas on a hot day. All of it, as much as you can eat.

827a OP
You can feel that if you want, but the data is clear: 73% of Americans are overweight. Its not easy to lose weight. Managing caloric intake is hard. Eating the right things is hard. Activity is hard. Suggesting that structured systems, backed by science, which help achieve these goals are unnecessary conveniently ignores both the reality of America's weight issue, and the myriad of success stories many individuals have had leveraging these structured systems to meet their goals.
testing22321
At no point did I say it’s easy. I said it simple. They are not the same.

Also note Americans are more obese than the rest of the world. Like gun violence, police deaths, healthcare and so much more - the rest of the world can fix it. Why not America.

somenameforme
You're overestimating the difficulty here. You don't really need to wait a month either. There's plenty of variance on a day by day basis, but you can still generally see whether the number is trending up or down. And most people tend to cycle through the same foods, so portion control isn't particularly hard.

For instance this is something every single person who's into body building does, because you want to be in a slight caloric surplus when bulking, and then you want to get back into a slight calorific deficit when cutting.

This item has no comments currently.