Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wenc 3423 days ago
The only problem is that calories in = calories out assumes a steady-state where there is no change in internal energy (dU/dt), which is not a good assumption.
1 comments
kj01a 3423 days ago
The change in internal energy is negligible. The only exception is medical disorder.

If you want to lose weight and you are not, eat less. If the amount you eat goes below say 1200 calories and you're still not losing weight, go to a doctor.

It's that simple.

link
switchbak 3423 days ago
It's just not that simple, and that's the issue. And this kind of over-simplification can lead to a lot of victim blaming.

The role of sugar (especially fructose) and carbohydrate intake in obesity is very important, and there's far more to it than that.

I think it'd be a lot more challenging for someone to be obese with the same caloric amount of avocados than cheetos, for example.

link
kj01a 3422 days ago
When it comes to obesity the victim is to blame.

>I think it'd be a lot more challenging for someone to be obese with the same caloric amount of avocados than cheetos, for example

As I've said elsewhere, the fact that some foods are more calorie dense than other is irrelevant.

link
switchbak 3422 days ago
The person who does the eating is the one who gets fat, yes. But if that person is eating low quality, highly processed foods with ingredients that are far more likely to cause metabolic dysfunction, then it's not just an issue of portion size (and yes, eating too much is definitely an issue too).

And I was saying for the _same_ caloric amount, regardless of density. Never mind though, pretty clear you're a troll.

link