[gore90-]

"(calories in, calories out just doesn't cut it)"

Why not?

There is not some amazing mystery to why so many people are overweight. They eat more food (energy) than there body uses. Possibly over a long period of time. Just look at people's shopping carts at the grocery store.

Yes we understand so little of the body's biological processes but that doesn't mean CICO is not an extremely useful idea and something to put into action.

[falcolas]

How many calories are you taking in? The answer is: It depends. There's a huge number of factors involved in simply identifying the number of calories present in the food we eat. Some studies show as much as a 20% difference in what was on the label and the actual caloric content. And that doesn't even account for how many calories are actually absorbed by the body - a value which has even more confounding factors.

How many calories are you expending? The answer is: It depends. How (warm|cold) is it? What's your average body temperature? How much clothing do you wear? What's your genetic makeup? Doing a lot of thinking? What's your current exercise regimen? Is your body in state X where it burns (more|less) calories than state Y? Are you sick?

Calories in and calories out sounds good on paper and seem obvious to an engineers mind, but if you can't tell how many calories are involved on each side of the equation, it's a meaningless measure.

[schwap]

How many calories are you taking in per day to 0.1 kcal? The answer is if you want to lose weight it doesn't matter. You just need to average a deficit over time.

We are not sending a rocket to the moon here. Just because something cannot be measured exactly doesn't mean it's worthless to measure.

[falcolas]

> The answer is if you want to lose weight it doesn't matter. You just need to average a deficit over time.

If this were the case, Weight Watchers (which is at its core a calorie limiting system) should have a near 100% success rate. It doesn't. A casual perusal of Google shows closer to a 50% success rate for a 5% body weight change.

I can't think of many medical treatments where we go "yeah, a coin toss level of success is good enough for me."

As for the accuracy of the measurements - it does matter. Healthy weight loss rates are, mathematically, in the 10% calorie reduction range. That's less than the error rate for the caloric labeling of many foods.

[6cd6beb]

>If this were the case, Weight Watchers (which is at its core a calorie limiting system) should have a near 100% success rate. It doesn't. A casual perusal of Google shows closer to a 50% success rate for a 5% body weight change.

First off - that's an astonishing success rate against a backdrop of an article saying, literally, surgery is the only reliable option.

Second off - You're assuming 100% compliance. I know people with personal trainers who are gaining weight because they don't stick to the program. I halfheartedly went through a weightlifting routine for years and got nowhere because I never really stuck to the program. 100% compliance in the field of weight loss is just not going to happen.

[sohex]

I don't think you can draw meaningful conclusions from a self-enforced system like Weight Watchers either though. Self reporting particularly when it comes to anything diet related is going to be heavily skewed. There will always be social pressures within a group like that to over report exercise and under report intake.

[falcolas]

If you can't trust the results of a self-selected group of individuals who are paying a good chunk of cash for the express purpose of loosing weight... who the hell can you trust?

[sohex]

Generally speaking you're absolutely right, but with diet the social pressures are significant enough to compromise analysis even if the group is paying for it. There have been quite a few studies on the topic, e.g.: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103...

[6cd6beb]

>if you can't tell how many calories are involved on each side of the equation, it's a meaningless measure.

Incorrect. It's an imprecise measure. You said "Some studies show as much as a 20% difference in what was on the label and the actual caloric content". So then the labels are accurate within a 20% margin of error at worst.

Sounds like a pedantic little nag but then again

- "Star Spangled Blizzard - Mini" - 430 calories

- 1 serving of broccoli (1/2 cup, cooked) - 25 calories

A 50% margin of error would be fine given some of the choices out there. With that said, you usually don't pick between a dq blizzard or broccoli. More reasonable comparisons would be a blizzard vs water (0 cal) or broccoli vs french fries (regular size - 290 cal).

In a nutshell: if a thermostat's off by up to 10 degrees it can still ballpark whether the temperature's livable.

https://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/Company/Nutrition/Treats/

https://www.dairyqueen.com/us-en/Company/Nutrition/Treats/

https://www.livestrong.com/article/402398-what-is-a-serving-...

[falcolas]

This is, almost literally, a comparison between apples and orange candy. The two are so incomparable that it's meaningless.

Now then, if you were comparing a Starbuck's chocolate muffin and a Blizzard as a treat to fit into your diet without blowing it - could you?

[forgottenpass]

if you were comparing a Starbuck's chocolate muffin and a Blizzard as a treat to fit into your diet without blowing it - could you?

If I'm having a "treat" then I'm already blowing my diet; regardless of if the number fits within a calorie goal.

A calorie budget is a bit like a financial budget. Just because I have allocated a point up to which I can "spend" each day, the long-term goals are a force to minimize day-to-day spend even within that allocation.

[ensiferum]

Not every calorie is the same or cause the same metabolic effecs. Thats why calorie in calorie out fails. Its about the quality of the food. The real culprit is carbs and especially sugars and high fructose corn syrup which is as good as poison.

[baal80spam]

> Not every calorie is the same

This is nonsense. It's like saying that not every kilogram is the same.

[majewsky]

> It's like saying that not every kilogram is the same.

Would you consider a kilogram of gold "the same as" a kilogram of air?

Caloric content refers to the amount of energy released when you literally burn the food in question. But our bodies do not literally burn food. They metabolize it in a sophisticated chemical process that converts said energy into a form that the body can use to do work. The rate and effectiveness of this metabolism is clearly influenced by the type and composition of food. For more information, enter "glycemic index" into your favorite source of knowledge to learn why this measure is important for how food is processed. Just as a small glimpse into the complexity of the metabolism.

[masonic]

  Would you consider a kilogram of gold "the same as" a kilogram of air?

More relevant would be, "is a kilogram of fat the same as a kilogram of muscle?"

[ensiferum]

This is the basic FUD that that sugar industry is spreading. Currently their strategy is to try to tarnish any study that would find negative health effects from too much sugar intake. It's the same strategy that was used by the tobacco industry many decades ago.

Still I'm hoping that some sense will prevail eventually and the sugar industry will be regulated. Before that happens though I'm afraid a lot more people will have to suffer from Type 2 diabetes.

[randomFacts]

The mystery is in why some people eat more than they need and others don't. It's easy to say eat less calories, but until we solve the underlying biological reasons why certain people get full before overeating and don't gain weight and why certain people are always regaining lost weight your solution isn't going to help very many people.(Hint, see the satiety signals and hunger hormone comment I made lower down.)

[dsego]

There is a new trend of carnivore diets and I've noticed a lot of testimonials on youtube, where people swear they can eat as much meat as they want and still lose weight. Also some supposedly cured inflammations and other issues, probably because eating only meat is an extreme elimination diet.

[virtuallynathan]

It is however a very tasty elimination diet. I've tried it; ate all kinds of beef, lamb, pork, and fish: muscle meat, liver, roe, eggs, and somes dairy. Re: inflammation - I don't know what my hsCRP was beforehand, but during this experiment it was below the detectable range; all other inflammatory markers were low as well (insulin, IFG-1, fibrinogen, homocysteine, ferritin). I was only hungry about once a day, and leaned out quite a bit.