[grecy]

See, you're doing it. You're making it too complicated, which makes people give up.

It's physically impossible for a body to gain weight if it's burning more calories than it's using.

That's like saying my gas tank will overflow if I burn 10 gallons a day and put in 9 gallons a day... that makes no sense. I'm using more than I'm putting in, so it must go down over time.

Keep it simple, stick to the basics, play the long game (i.e. you're in this for the rest of your life, not the next few weeks/months)

[saurik]

I think it's more like saying that "putting in fewer calories than you burn" is not actionable advice as the things you eat affect what is burned and what it does, and why you do anything at all. If you want to contribute to less air pollution: wear a jacket and a hat on cold days, and wear a thin t-shirt and shorts on warm ones; this is simple advice that will cause you to not keep messing with thermostats to feel comfortable, using less electricity and gas. In contrast, the "simplest" advice to "use less fuel" is going to cause you to sit there cold and sad while you try to force yourself to not mess with the thermostat; maybe you figure out the jacket thing, maybe you don't: it wasn't really useful advice, and it required willpower. If I want to burn more calories than I metabolize, I can either force myself to be hungry all the time (which might have negative ramifications), or I can eat foods that are more likely to provide bioavailable energy over longer periods of time that are less likely to turn rapidly into fat due to resulting insulin spikes: I will then be less hungry, and I will eat less without even realizing it <- that's "more complex", sure, but it is in another way "much easier", as changing what you eat can be easier than insisting that you have to eat less and go without something your body is demanding.

[grecy]

> I think it's more like saying that "putting in fewer calories than you burn" is not actionable advice

It's extremely actionable, and I've seen it work for hundreds and hundreds of people (I attended Weight Watchers to support my roommates. Both of them went on to become WW leaders, and I made so many good friends there I kept going back year after year. I have personally been involved in the lives of well over 500 people losing well over 100lbs each)

> as changing what you eat can be easier than insisting that you have to eat less and go without something your body is demanding.

I never said anything about eating less. You miss read.

[saurik]

>> I think it's more like saying that "putting in fewer calories than you burn" is not actionable advice

> It's extremely actionable ...

There is no clear-cut action from that optimization request. In comparison, "eat less" or "eat different in this specific way" are examples of things that are actionable.

> and I've seen it work for hundreds and hundreds of people (I attended Weight Watchers to support my roommates. Both of them went on to become WW leaders, and I made so many good friends there I kept going back year after year. I have personally been involved in the lives of well over 500 people losing well over 100lbs each)

This means that it is "effective", not that it is "actionable".

>> as changing what you eat can be easier than insisting that you have to eat less and go without something your body is demanding.

> I never said anything about eating less. You miss read.

Well, now it isn't clear what you mean at all, because you've said you advocate Weight Watchers while also advocating a simple belief that "it's physically impossible for a body to gain weight if it's burning more calories than it's using". The people at Weight Watchers are very clear that "we know that a calorie isn’t just a calorie": they advocate modifications in the kinds of things that you eat and the way you live your life that will lead to a healthier body and, as a side effect, weight loss; in the process, they have a fairly complex equation that assigns "points" to different food items based on a bunch of different quantifiable metrics. This is exactly the kind of "too complicated" advice that you complained at glaugh about.

[grecy]

>> I never said anything about eating less. You miss read.

>Well, now it isn't clear what you mean at all, because you've said you advocate Weight Watchers while also advocating a simple belief that "it's physically impossible for a body to gain weight if it's burning more calories than it's using". The people at Weight Watchers are very clear that "we know that a calorie isn’t just a calorie": they advocate modifications in the kinds of things that you eat and the way you live your life that will lead to a healthier body and, as a side effect, weight loss; in the process, they have a fairly complex equation that assigns "points" to different food items based on a bunch of different quantifiable metrics. This is exactly the kind of "too complicated" advice that you complained at glaugh about.

You know what the complicated formula is? calories/50.

(Full disclosure: It has some very tiny adjustments if it has too much fat it gets an extra 1/2 point.. lots of fiber gets -1/2 point.)

You wanna know how well this works? I've seen people eat their daily points intake by eating nothing other than Big Macs (for most people it's around 4 daily). I've also seen a guy eat nothing other than chips and beer, but not go over his points.

They all lost weight, because they ate less calories than they used, which the WW points system is all about.

As I said, I've seen hundreds of people lose staggering amounts of weight, and I've never seen a single person that didn't lose weight when they ate less calories than they used. It never made a lick of difference what they ate, only the amount of calories they consumed.

[glaugh]

I'm sympathetic to that argument. It's tough to write one comment that addresses two audiences:

(1) person who wants some simple, clear guidance

(2) you and me who are debating at a slightly different level what advice we should give to #1.

So here's maybe a better way of making my argument:

1. Eat fewer carbs.

2. If you want evidence/science/logic, read the Taubes book.

[Addressed towards #2ers only:] I agree that too often people make great the enemy of the good. But I actually think it's just unhelpful to say "Eat less or exercise more" relative to "Eat fewer carbs". The amount of energy your body burns is dramatically influenced by hormones and the type of food you eat, that's by far the easiest lever to pull to lose weight. The Taubes book talks at length about the flaws in the thermodynamic metaphor. I confess I'm doing a poor job of communicating the argument.

Also thanks for the feedback, the good vs. great thing is a bit tricky.

[grecy]

I know what you mean about having the conversation at two different levels.

> 1. Eat fewer carbs.

I don't agree. I could cut out all the carbs I'm eating and still be eating well over 3000 calories a day (in fact, I do that right now, personally). Eating fat-soaked deep fried junk is the bad one. Carbs are no the enemy. Calories are.

I also never say to a beginner "eat less calories" because people trying to lose weight have a very, VERY big emotional attachment and reaction to the word calories. That's why weight watchers hides that with their points system. They just say you can eat x points today, we don't care how you do it, go nuts. (The formula is points = calories/50). Eat a whole loaf of white bread or a massive pile of pasta today for all they care. As long as you stay under your points allocation, it doesn't matter, you will lose weight.

In the long, long run, you can tweak that.

[mixmastamyk]

I think your larger point is right re: sheer calories.

But, there's a significant difference in what people want to do or think they do), and what they actually do.

The fact that sugars and starches spike blood sugar, which later falls rapidly causing hunger pangs, makes it very difficult to stay on plan. These people feel like they're starving.

Alternatively, a person eating fish and veggies soaked in olive oil never experiences the spike, burns fat slowly, and can stay hunger-free for most of the day. I.e., what may be a higher calorie meal in the short-term, allows one to take in fewer calories over the course of the full day... since there is little desire to snack.