Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by redthrowaway 3792 days ago
>I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others.

You think the first law of thermodynamics is bullshit?

4 comments

It isn't bullshit, but it isn't helpful information to someone trying to lose adipose mass.

Repeating it to a fatty as fat-loss advice is a lot like trying to teach someone to swim by continually telling them that water is wet. Absolutely true, but completely unhelpful.

The broken element in a fatty is a complex biochemical feedback system that ultimately does not send "start eating" and "stop eating" signals at appropriate times. The frontal cortex can consciously override it to some extent, by refusing to eat when the "start eating" signal is sent, but this is psychologically very stressful.

One of the great things about low-carb and keto diets is that the body's backup ketone-burning power system is usually not affected by the buggy firmware updates that have been applied to the carb-burning system over the years. Once you are adapted to it, you can consciously control your caloric intake as appropriate for your body-reform plan without getting bombarded by unsatiated appetite signals every waking moment of your day. You can eat a 1200 kcal diet without biting through the padlock on the fridge and gorging yourself on whatever is in there.

A fatty usually isn't fat because they want to be, or because they don't understand thermodynamic balance. They're fat because they have a little shoulder devil constantly whispering in their ear, that just won't shut up, ever.

  DEVIL:  Hey.  I want a doughnut.  I want a dozen doughnuts.
  FATTY:  No.
  DEVIL:  Get me a doughnut.  Do it.  Do it now.  Gooey jelly doughnut.
  FATTY:  Those are like 300 Calories.  Each.  So, no.
  DEVIL:  Don't care.  Ok, compromise.  3 beignets.  C'est si bon.
  FATTY:  No!
  DEVIL:  Fine.  Churros, por favor.  Me gusta.
  FATTY:  No.  No fried sugar-dough of any kind.  Will french fries work?
  DEVIL:  Super size!  Extra ketchup!  Fountain drink!
  FATTY:  [om nom nom]
  DEVIL:  Now I want chocolate.
As you can see from the example conversation, the fatty already knows that a doughnut has too many calories in it. That knowledge simply does not help to silence the imaginary anthropomorphization of appetite.
I love the dialogue there! When I'm up in the middle of the night (certain periods when my sleep schedule is off) I have this exact voice in my head, planning to go get a donut from my favorite shop when it opens. Luckily my desire to get in better shape has been keeping this urge under control, but it's amazing how persistent it is at convincing me otherwise.
There's obviously more to it than that. For a hypothetical example, if your diet caused your basal metabolism to increase, or for you to excrete more calories without metabolizing them, then it could induce a change in weight compared to a different diet with the same caloric intake.
That would be the calories out and calories in sides of the equation, respectively.
But the calories out side varies among individuals. Bodies aren't 100% efficient at extracting compounds between eating and excreting. Two people can eat the same exact foods, do the exact same exercises, and gain or lose different amounts of weight.
I don't think anyone's seriously claiming that everyone will react the same to diet and exercise, or that "calories in - calories out = weight lost" is the only word on weight loss.

It is, however, the final word.

So, you've made - repeatedly - the completely obvious point that, if you can account for every term in the equation, calories in - calories out = change in weight.

Thank you for that. Now if you'd like to adopt the assumption that your audience isn't brainless, let's talk about the interesting point that everyone wants to be talking about: that the 'calories out' number varies for the same 'calories in' number across people, diets, and behaviors.

And the stored calories, like body fat and glycogen? What side of the equation are those on? And the energy needed to convert complex carbs and protein into glycogen? The energy used converting glycogen to ATP?

If you can demonstrate everywhere the energy comes from and everywhere it goes and where and how it's used in the body, I imagine there's a nobel prize in it for you. There's still a lot we don't know about where all that energy comes from and goes.

>And the stored calories, like body fat and glycogen? What side of the equation are those on?

Weight loss...

>And the energy needed to convert complex carbs and protein into glycogen?

Energy out...

>The energy used converting glycogen to ATP?

Energy out...

The body is complex. Energy in - energy out = weight lost its not.

The problem with it is that figuring out 'calories in' and 'calories out' is almost impossible, and there isa huge list of things which effect them.

A statement which is true, but brings almost no information, isn't useful.

The problem is that there is basically no way to know calories in or calories out.