[yupper32]

Losing weight is just consuming fewer calories than you burn.

Any diet advice or strategies are just ways to achieve that. Keto, low carb, intermittent fasting, whatever. It's all just getting you to consume fewer calories than you burn. Often it gets you to feel full with fewer calories so you don't overeat. It's easy to see how drinking more water falls into all of this.

However, anything claiming to switch around body chemistry or change your metabolism is either wrong or micro optimizing.

Edit: People are getting very hyped up about my comment. To be clear:

- I'm not hating on the article. I said in my post that it's easy to see how drinking water helps when you understand what causes weight changes.

- I'm not hating on Keto and Intermittent fasting or whatever. They work, and they largely work because you end up consuming fewer calories than you burn. It's not largely because of some change in your body's chemistry.

- It's harder to lose weight eating shittier food because it often doesn't make you full, causing you to eat more. Eating 1200 calories of chocolate bars a day will (often for most people) make you lose weight, it just won't feel very good doing it. That's why what you eat is just as important as how many calories you consume.

[zug_zug]

meh, this is the kind of statement that sounds meaningful but isn't really useful at all. It's like saying "The only way to make money is to have more income than you spend." Like great, but mostly worthless advice, the really important advice IS the details (e.g. different investments, getting promoted, etc) or in the dieting case it's details like like drinking calories, many different medications cause weight gain, hormonal levels, etc.

[dabbledash]

I think it would be a meaningful statement if 90% of advice about saving was some variation of “how to save money without making a budget!”

People seem to desperately want some trick to losing weight that isn’t “eat less food.” It won’t be forthcoming. You can’t trick your body into losing weight. We are adapted to scarcity, but food is not scarce.

[zug_zug]

Let's first define "bad advice" and "good advice."

"good advice" - Advice that actually works, and makes the person like you more

"bad advice" - Advice that doesn't help the person and makes the person like you less.

"Eat less food" would fall in the latter category, pretty obviously.

---

"Everybody should have infinite self control" is an obscenely naive starting point that erases the whole practical problem. The practical problem is "What habits require the minimum amount of self-control/unpleasantness to get the results I desire"?

[dabbledash]

I think weight loss is an area where giving advice is a bad idea unless it’s specifically asked for. It’s not like it’s hard to figure out what to do, it’s just incredibly difficult to do it.

If I were asked, i’d say that all diets that produce a calorie deficit are similarly effective and to try different things until you hit on the plan you can see yourself following for the rest of your life (at maintenance calories). Lots of people lose weight, maintaining is the biggest challenge.

[zug_zug]

I do think it can be hard to figure out what to do though -- e.g. diet soda says 0 calories, but does it mess with your metabolism? (research is undecided). Personally I've done keto and found it less effort than working out every day. Some people don't understand that 10 chinups burns comparable calories to walking up the stairs. Also muscle weighs more than fat, so scales may be a fairly bad measurement.

[dabbledash]

That’s true. I remember being so surprised when I found out how few calories I burned running a mile! There are other reasons to exercise obviously, but it’s easy to overestimate how important it will be to weight loss for sure.

[scotty79]

You might be surprised how many people were helped by internalizing this simple noncircumventable truths.

Until they do they are susceptible to many get rich (or slim) quick schemes and dreaming they can eat their cake and have it too.

You may go into details once you firmly internalize the base. Not before.

[watwut]

Like, that thing above is promoted all the time - while Americans are getting heavier and heavier. And while most people who loose weight gain it back again and some more.

As an advice, it is most common and there are no promissing long term weight loss results of it.

[0xcde4c3db]

> Like, that thing above is promoted all the time - while Americans are getting heavier and heavier. And while most people who loose weight gain it back again and some more.

I suspect that this is largely because for the average person, the majority of their physical activity is a response to the physical organization of their environment rather than a specific lifestyle choice. We've spent the past ~70 years filling America with places where not only does one need to deliberately seek out excuses to physically move, economic and infrastructure factors might also demand that one spend upwards of an hour per day sitting in a motor vehicle.

[yupper32]

It's not the most common advice.

Not many understand what causes weight gain and weight loss. As evidenced by my massive amount of downvotes.

[haltingproblem]

Totally agree. I would further argue and diet is just a methodology on how to sustainably consume less calories than you spend. A successful diet is sustainable. An unsuccessful one is not.

When I began Keto, several intelligent and well-meaning friend made that exact same comment. A year later they are asking me what is the best way to start and stay on keto ;)

[MathYouF]

A lot of social circles live flat out in denial of the simple truth of weight loss and perpetuate the idea that it's not this simple, but it really is.

Genetics and medication might affect your appetite, metabolism, water retention levels, fat storage areas, ect., but at the end of the day one only needs to know one number and follow one rule to lose fat:

Number: Daily caloric expenditure

Rule: Consume items with fewer total calories than the above number

Measure weekly for best results.

Daily caloric expenditure can be approximated with heart rate data over a day and your height & weight.

The exact weight lost if it's only fat will be 1lb per 3500 kcal deficit.

You must consume 2g of protein daily per lb of muscle (approximating this requires calipers) to not lose muscle mass.

Water weight will vary, but over a week the number ought to go down if you're eating at an actual deficit.

You'll see the results in the mirror after a month if you actually do the above.

[sethammons]

> Losing weight is just consuming fewer calories than you burn.

Of course. And your body is a dynamic system that changes how and where it uses and stores energy based on the source of the energy. Your body responds differently to 100 calories of table sugar compared to 100 calories of nuts.

I _lost_ weight by increasing the amount of food I was eating. Obviously this means that I had to start burning or otherwise shedding more calories otherwise we broke physics. It is important to note that "losing weight is just consuming fewer calories than you burn" is not the same as "eat less and you'll lose weight" since eating less can cause your dynamic system to require less calories.

[amelius]

> Losing weight is just consuming fewer calories than you burn.

A lot of people consumed more calories in their 20s and 30s than later in life. Yet in their 40s and 50s they gain weight, with the same sedentary lifestyle or even after taking up a sport.

Something is missing in your equation ...

[handrous]

Can confirm, regularly ate 4,000-5,000 calories/day from ages ~13-22. Did some weight lifting for part of that time, a little bike riding, but wasn't a serious athlete, certainly. Was slim, at my slimmest drew comments sometimes because my face was so gaunt people thought I might be sick.

... Then all changed very abruptly (there was little transition, on the order of weeks). Basically had to get used to being hungry most of the time, to keep from shooting toward obese territory. Sucks. I mean, the stuff I was eating as a teenager was going to kill me early in life anyway so it's good I don't do that anymore (so much pizza, snack food, fried food, and soda) but I'm not sure I appreciated, at the time, how special it was to be able to down a large pizza, a couple orders of fries, a couple liters of soda, a bag of chips [edit: and not a single-serve bag...], a snickers, plus a pile of toast or eggo waffles, day after day after day, and still look quite good at the swimming pool.

[nsxwolf]

Some people's bodies at various times in their lives seem to either refuse to incorporate consumed calories or waste them by some mechanism that isn't well understood. Everyone has known someone who is slim and eats a lot and isn't especially active.

But we apparently pretend this isn't true because it's unscientific, 3500 calories in a pound, and all that.

[handrous]

Yeah, I was consuming so much and was only moderately active, that I can't believe it was all going to growth. Much of that time I wasn't even getting taller, or gaining weight, just maintaining. All I can figure is my body was throwing away a lot of it, one way or another. Maybe I had very hungry gut bacteria, which I killed by accident, somehow. I dunno.

[_se]

Not really. They just burn fewer calories by sitting around when they get older. Calorie count remains constant, burn goes down, weight goes up.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Not really. Physics, biology, and nutrition science all agree pretty conclusively that eating fewer calories than you expend will lead to weight loss.

There are a large number of factors that go into some people seeming to be able to eat large numbers of calories while others can't despite similar expenditures that we're still figuring out, but if you want a 100% guaranteed way to lose weight it is this: track your calories and make sure you eat fewer than you expend. If you want to keep it off, don't eat more than you expend.

Source: lost >150lbs and kept it off until this pandemic fiasco where I put about 30 of it back on.

As noted by others, this is simple. It is not necessarily easy. We're still working on figuring out why some people find it easy and others don't. Gut microbiome science seems promising.

[reverend_gonzo]

There’s nothing missing. People tend to overestimate their calorie expenditure and underestimate their calorie intake.

Also, metabolic rate slows down with age.

But the equation is the same: calories in - calories out = calories kept.

[jahnu]

The equation still stands. If they are gaining weight in their 40s onwards they are burning fewer calories than they are consuming for whatever reason. Metabolic changes perhaps.

[yupper32]

Nothing is missing. They're just burning fewer calories as they age. I'm not saying that metabolism isn't a factor (and that changes with age), it's just not something that eating more x or less y is going to change in any meaningful way.

[eloff]

It can, through the second order effects you mentioned yourself. Eating more x or less y can definitely help you reduce your calorie intake without feeling hungry all the time.

[dllthomas]

What if x is amphetamines?

[dabbledash]

What’s missing? People in their 40s and 50s have a lower basal metabolic rate.

[chrsig]

It seems like you're assuming that rate of burn is constant with respect to age. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, though.

[danobi]

Your metabolism can change during your life. Different people can also have different metabolisms.

[zdragnar]

Exercise != burning calories. The efficiency of your metabolism isn't constant, and changes in response to both age and fitness.

Calories in vs calories out is nothing more than the second law of thermodynamics.

[JohnWhigham]

Calories aren't equal, otherwise you'd feel sated for the day with 2000 calories of sugar (spoilers: you don't). Every year, we're finding out how much we still don't know about the body regulates our fat stores via hormones. Dr. Jason Fung is a leading researcher on this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKC3hiyLeRc)

[zdragnar]

A calorie is a unit of measure.

Satiation is how you feel... It might change your ability to regulate how much you consume, but it doesn't change how much you gain or lose weight, because all calories are equal. 900 satiating calories add up just the same as 900 empty calories.

[stonemetal12]

The second law of thermodynamics is defined on closed systems, so unless you are the type of person who doesn't eat or breathe then it isn't really applicable.

It is rather like saying E=MC^2 is good diet advice.

That's not to say CICO isn't true, but trying to link it to base physics is a red herring.

[blairbeckwith]

I mean, not according to the laws of physics.

[user3939382]

Losing weight has as much to do with controlling hormones associated with fat storage.

[yupper32]

NO. IT. DOESN'T.

"As much"? Are you joking? This is why America is overly obese. So many people like you make weight loss seem so complicated when it's not.

CICO is the vast vast vast vast vast majority of the situation. You can completely ignore hormones and such and JUST pay attention to CICO and you'll lose weight 99.9% of the time.

[user3939382]

I’d refer you the research of Dr. Jason Fung or Dr. Robert Lustig, for example: https://youtu.be/ZKC3hiyLeRc

Here’s an article on keto from a medical journal https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(1...

Even the experts debating here aren’t contesting the role of insulin in weight loss, but rather the secondary effects like those on LDL. Here in turn is a talk by a doctor from UC Berkeley explaining more about that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gZt9DQqtZI&t=217s

From what I can tell, the sole focus on calories is the result of early misunderstandings and oversimplification of biochemistry in 1980s nutritional science.

Anecdotally, I did a 3 month experiment where I increased my calories (lots of olive oil, avocado, nuts, butter, etc) but consuming almost no carbs (and mostly carbs from vegetables) and I lost 8 notches off my belt.

[yupper32]

You're mixing up general health/a good diet with what causes weight loss. I'm simply here trying to get people to understand that the vast vast majority of what causes weight changes is how many calories you're consume, and how many calories you're burning during the day.

LDL cholesterol levels have nothing to do with weight loss. They have everything to do with how healthy you are.

Separating the two is extremely important when educating the masses, and most people, like you, refuse to do so. That is why I used capital letters. Not because I'm close minded.

When you separate the two, you are able to have people understand why certain diets work, and why they might not work. You can't just do Keto, for example, and expect to lose weight if you eat 3000 calories of chicken a day. (I'm just using Keto as an example, regardless of it's health benefits).

Then diets are easily understood. You have two parts:

Part 1: How do I lose weight? Consume fewer calories than I burn.

Part 2: How do I be healthy while losing weight and beyond? [insert whatever research you have]

Right now, people advocate mostly for Part 2. Then people trying to lose weight are confused when they don't and give up.

> Anecdotally, I did a 3 month experiment where I increased my calories (lots of olive oil, avocado, nuts, butter, etc) but consuming almost no carbs (and mostly carbs from vegetables) and I lost 8 notches off my belt.

Congrats, you consumed fewer calories than you burned.

[user3939382]

I pointed you to scientific research where even the experts on both sides of the debate agree that keto leads to weight loss. Keto is explicitly not a calorie-based approach. In my personal experiment I lost weight while increasing total calories. If you really care about this topic please watch the first video I linked you to. With all due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[yupper32]

> In my personal experiment I lost weight while increasing total calories.

No you didn't, unless you increased exercise or were already losing weight. You can not lose weight without being at a calorie deficit. Did you even count those calories before and after?

> Keto is explicitly not a calorie-based approach.

Neither are most diets. They all try to do the same thing: hope the person ends up eating fewer calories than they burn.

Keto helps people stay full with fewer calories. Intermittent fasting hopes that the person doesn't eat more calories in the short period of time they're allowed to eat.

[keymone]

important to note that amount of calories you burn is heavily affected by chosen diet. as you start consuming less, your body responds by lowering temperature, reducing your willingness to move and think, etc, all of which reduce calorie burn, so you may think you're in deficit when you're not.

[ljm]

It's important to keep active, possibly more active than you normally are. Make it a lifestyle choice so you can replace old habits.

Remaining fully sedentary and running a 1000 calorie deficit isn't maintaining a diet, it's starving yourself. You'll get the weight back as soon as you call the diet a success and go back to your 'default' lifestyle.

(This of course doesn't apply to everyone: medical reasons, disability, etc.)

[throwaway1777]

This is not entirely correct. Foods are not processed in the same way by the body. Imagine eating a diet of 2000 calories of chocolate bars and chips vs 2000 calories of steak. Do you really think these would have the same effect in terms of health or even weight loss?

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

A nutrition professor lost 27lbs eating Twinkies: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...

Calories are calories. There are other mechanisms involved as far as general health and satiety, but at the end of the day CICO is king.

[MathYouF]

The steak allows for MPS (muscle protein synthesis) which means your body will have protein available to repair muscle mass which regularly breaks down throughout the day. If your diet has no protein a much higher part of the weight you lose will be muscle mass instead of fat mass, which is why two people on the above diets will look very different.

[delecti]

You're not going to feel the same, but I don't think anyone's ever shown that there's a meaningful difference in energy content in calories of different types.

So I think they'd have the same effect for weight loss, but maybe not health, and probably not quality of life (I think the person eating candy bars would feel pretty lousy).

[yupper32]

Overall health, of course not. You'd probably feel like shit just eating chocolate bars (and also feel hungry all the time). Weight loss? Pretty much the same.

You can look up stories of people losing weight by counting calories and eating nothing but candy bars.

[passivate]

Hmm, I think what OP might be getting at is that there is a difference in digestive efficiency when breaking down different foods and converting them to energy. A calorie is a calorie, except when it isn't.

[yupper32]

And what I'm saying is that is a micro optimization that doesn't matter too much. It over complicates weight loss.

[passivate]

I don't know if its micro or not, I still remain open to the idea. For e.g. I have work friends (with similar activity levels to mine) who can eat tons of rice and remain skinny and if I do that I know for a fact that I'm gonna put on 10lbs. Our ethnicities are different, but I don't know if that explains it.

[yupper32]

You don't understand that different people will burn different amounts of calories as a base?

I'm not and have never said that if two people eat the same amount, it'll impact them the same.

I said that you need to burn more calories than you consume.

[BoxOfRain]

>and also feel hungry all the time

That's basically how low-carb works for me, if I eat fewer carbs I'm less hungry and miserable all the time so I eat less calories too.

[watwut]

Weight loss wont be the same. In one csse you will feel tired and passive most of day and wont be able to be active.

[yupper32]

It honestly feels like most of the people here are being purposely obtuse. Why in the world would you think you need to reply with this?

I CLEARLY meant, all activities the same, 2000 calories is 2000 calories. I even mentioned that you'll feel like shit just eating chocolate. What more do you people want from me?

[slinkyblack]

the point of measuring that in calories is that it should be roughly equivalent amount of energy intake for both things. the biggest difference is going to be you need less chocolate to reach 2000 calories

[hsbauauvhabzb]

Drinking water makes you fill fuller which in turn reduces your calorie intake. Tfa states this.

[yupper32]

That's what I said:

> It's easy to see how drinking more water falls into all of this.

[xrisk]

it’s not that simple. your diet can affect how many calories your body burns. in my case i dropped to eating ~800 calorie diets and i actually lost weight slower (presumably because my body went energy conservation mode?)

[zdragnar]

It really is that simple, as you said in your post. Your metabolism (rate of burning calories) is not constant. Your actual consumption of calories versus your actual burning of calories dictates weight gain or loss (barring degenerative diseases).

If you are 800 calories, and burnt 1100, you would lose weight slower than if you ate 900 and burnt 1300.

[president]

You're getting downvoted but the basic premise is correct. Eat less, lose weight. The problem is that most people do not have the mental/physical fortitude to follow-through with it, and I don't blame them because it is hard to change your lifestyle. Most of these weight loss programs, if they aren't outright scams, are just essentially giving people a framework for their weight loss journey because forming a habit for lifestyle change is the most important thing to staving off weight gain in the long term.