"Weight management is actually much more complex than just ‘energy in’ versus ‘energy out."
No, it's not. Maybe it's more difficult to measure calories (that salad ranch dressing has more calories than that hamburger), but people should be encouraged to balance their calorie intake everyday. For what it's worth, here's why Americans are obese:
50 extra calories / day x 365 days / year x 1 lb / 3,500 calories = 5 lbs / year
Multiplied by 10 years, and you get 50 lbs over weight. In twenty years you are 100 lbs over weight.
Bottom line is that people are eating just a little too much every day, and that adds up over time. My advice for losing and maintaining weight: Have 5 x 400 calorie meals each day and exercise for 30 minutes. The chore of finding 400 calorie meals is well worth the effort because you'll see just how many calories each item you consume contains.
It's not so simple. People are different. Some people won't need your plan because they stay at low weight no matter what they eat. Others won't be able to follow your plan because it would require superhuman willpower.
I'm an example of the first category. I'm 6'2'' and 160 lbs, and have been like this for years. At age 27 I spent a whole year working from home, eating at McDonalds 1-2 times every day, going to sleep at 5am, and not exercising at all. Resulting weight gain? About five pounds, which I promptly lost after joining a gym. More recently, at age 32, I took a two-week vacation and literally spent it all in bed, playing video games and eating large amounts of chocolate and pastries. Resulting weight gain? Zero (actually a slight loss). This happened last month.
Since I'm at one extreme end of the scale, it's very easy for me to believe that there are people at the other end, who won't be able to follow your plan at all. Restrict them to 2K calories/day, and they just won't fall asleep unless they get a snack. They need a different way.
The laws of thermodynamics are true as far as they go, but they don't have anything to say about genetics, metabolism, hunger, or willpower. These are the real important factors in weight loss. The sooner we move away from a virtue-based worldview, the sooner we can start actually solving it.
The author's theory is that the issue is not on of metabolism, but that people overeating do not have a good "I'm full" mechanism.
Most people like you that "can eat all they want and not gain weight" in reality... don't. They balance out their intake naturally, if not in the scope of a meal, over a day or so.
For example the concept of leaving unfinished food on the plate it completely alien to me (or not going for seconds if available), while most normal people just stop when they feel they are ok.
In my very personal and anecdotal experience every time I started dieting counting calories and exercising I have always lost weight, consistently, while when I stopped I gained weight back (again, consistently and predictably).
Most other diets that have a scientific basis should be efficient as well, since what they all have in common is to enforce some sort of control on your intake.
Either way I agree that it's about genetics and willpower but, not having the possibility to change genetics, the mechanism to counter it exists and it's not a mystery, it's really a psychological issue, IMHO.
I am one of the "eat whatever shit in a big quantity and never gain weight" people, and I think you may have a point. After discussing it turns out if you add anything I don't eat that much.
First, I never eat in the morning. And I mean never, I can't eat after waking up, I always need a few hours before being able to eat without being disgusted, I know it's bad but I don't think it has an effect really (I don't do it since I'm like 12 or 13).
Second, I NEVER eat between meals. I don't do snacks, unless someone give one to me or whatever, but you get the point, I don't fucking eat some chocolate bar everyday at 4pm, or eat chips all day because I'm bored.
I often only eat good food, or what I think is good food at least. I never use the microwaves, always buy "fresh" meat, eat vegetables aswell (only recently, not when I was a teenagers).
So in the end, I may eat like a savage during the meal earning my reputation, but in the end I don't really eat a lot of shit.
Anyway since I watched Fed Up I understand while US kids are obese. Their public cafeteria in school literally are fast food. Not to mention the retards crying out for freedom when the gouvernement even think about taking action into kids diet.
I won't even start on the sugar and science thing because it sound very threatening but I don't know enough to judge how accurate it is, even though I have no doubt it's very likely given history (hello smoking industry).
> I am one of the "eat whatever shit in a big quantity and never gain weight" people
I'm the same way.
> First, I never eat in the morning. And I mean never, I can't eat after waking up, I always need a few hours before being able to eat without being disgusted,
I'm the same way.
> I know it's bad
Why do you think it is bad? Because everyone has told you that you need a good breakfast? That it's the most important meal of the day? That's all recent and new ideology. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20243692
> I often only eat good food, or what I think is good food at least. I never use the microwaves, always buy "fresh" meat, eat vegetables aswell (only recently, not when I was a teenagers).
Here we are different. I eat good and "bad" food.
If I had to guess why I can eat anything and everything (including lots of sugary drinks) with little to no exercise and not gain weight it would be this: food passes through me. My digestive tract doesn't absorb food that well, a lot of calories just go through me. (TMI: Honestly, some foods can go through me in 2 hours.) That's what I think. (No, I don't care to go to the doctor to figure out if its true or to "fix" it because frankly, it doesn't negatively affect me as far as I'm concerned.)
The author's theory? Why do I care what the creator of Autodesk's theory on weight loss and diet is?
Why is Hacker News so fast to pooh-pooh the study in the linked article and declare it as fake science, but we're happy to accept a completely unproven and untested theory from someone with no expertise in the field? Because it's called "The Hacker's Diet"?
You wouldn't give a nutritionist's opinion on Javascript frameworks much credence, so don't take your diet advice from programmers.
One supports the opinion of the commenters, the other doesn't, so "obviously" the one which supports their opinion is good and the other one is just fake science.
> Some people won't need your plan because they stay at low weight no matter what they eat.
This is just not true. I find that the people who say that actually eat a lot less calorie wise than they think. Eat 4500 calories per day for 2 years and see if you stay skinny. McDonalds 2 times a day is more like 2000 calories at the very high end. It takes time to eat 4500 cals per day, most skinny people can't do it at all but it's easy for fat people. Eating only unhealthy food every day doesn't really say anything about energy in vs energy out
My guess is that you simply overestimate how much you eat, perhaps by a lot. I'm pretty sure that people who are skinny without much struggle (or struggle to gain weight) generally overestimate their caloric intake, and people who struggle with their weight generally underestimate their caloric intake.
It really is that simple and these vague self-reports are worse than useless.
People aren't capable of "judging" how many calories they consume. I bet if we compared you to someone who's gaining weight we'd find your ideas of "portion" are off by a factor of 2-3 and that's why they're gaining weight and you're not.
It's probably true that I eat less than a typical overweight person. But the thing is, I eat as much as I want, and sometimes even a bit more. Do you think it's just because our ideas of portion size are different? I think it's more plausible that I'm just less hungry than they are, for some reason that has nothing to do with willpower.
You're right, there are certainly many mental factors that contribute to weight gain, such as hunger, willpower etc. that vary from person to person. However, as far as actual physical weight gain (controlling for height and muscle mass), the dominating factor is calories in vs. calories out.
For people like you who are tall and skinny and it seems impossible to gain weight, you are either not eating as much as you think you are consistently (i.e. not correctly tracking your calorie intake) or you are grossly underestimating how many calories obese people consume on a daily basis.
Just eating at McDonalds 1-2 times a day doesn't mean anything if you are just getting a burger, but if you get three burgers, a large fry and large coke on a daily basis, that is going to make a difference.
Along with mental factors, poor dietary upbringing, as well as horrible (and consistently changing) nutrition advice are strong contributors to problems with weight gain.
Very true. I'm the same height as you and weigh 230. I eat like a bird (not exactly but likely less than 2000 calories per day) and do not lose any weight. The only time I've managed to lose weight was on a raw vegetable juice diet.
While you're certainly right that from a thermodynamic sense it is definitely a case of energy in vs energy out, you're presenting it in very simplistic terms and I think you're missing the point of the article.
There's all sorts of poorly understood processes happening in our body that affect the amount of energy stored as fat. That "1 lb / 3500 calories" figure you quoted isn't an absolute law, but more like a rule of thumb. What we don't fully understand is to what extent things like gut bacteria, environmental toxins, sleep cycle etc alter that figure. The body's a hugely complex system.
The recent study explicitly says that people on the same diets today are fatter than they were 40 years ago. Assuming their finding is true, that means that either metabolisms are slower or the rate at which bodies gain fat from excess calories is higher than it used to be.
We as a society have been filling the world with all sorts of never-seen-before chemicals which our bodies and the huge interdependent ecosystem we live in are unable to deal with. We've spent the last 60 years pumping our livestock full of drugs to make them bigger and live longer. It's not outwith the sphere of possibility that one or a combination of these contribute to changes in the way humans store fat.
> That "1 lb / 3500 calories" figure you quoted isn't an absolute law, but more like a rule of thumb.
And it's not even a very useful rule of thumb. Research suggests [1] that because of how the energy dynamics work in practice (i.e. a sack of ideally functioning fat cells is a pretty unrealistic model for human metabolism), most people need an estimated deficit of much more than 3,500 calories to actually burn a pound of fat.
Its the psychological problem. Quitting smoking, for example, would be pretty easy without the addiction aspect. Likewise, considering low carb for example, losing weight is really easy when your appetite almost entirely disappears and a world full of candy bags and giant size corn syrup sodas has no similar instant gratification for low carb'ers. People who are used to neopuritan joys of dieting such as agonizing craving don't understand that the main point of low carb is not feeling hungry leads to imploded 'energy in' as you state etc.
Also when I fall off the wagon for a day and eat a ton of bread or b-day cake or whatever I can't tell the difference between indigestion due to systemic shock of my digestive system vs the stereotypical "binge and fall asleep on the couch" I remember from my self and observation of others. A pizza makes me lay on the couch in a tired state like many other people I've observed, but I can eat a steak then go to the park with kids full of energy no problem.
I've gotta chime in and express my support for aabajian. It really is this simple. Everyone else that says it isn't and that we aren't accounting for the burn rate of different calories (carb vs fat vs protien) are just making excuses. The simple fact is that today's foods are easier to eat and more energy dense. If you don't want to gain weight you have to eat fewer calories. The talk about balance is good for your overall health and maintaining proper bodily function, but there is a direct relationship between calories that your body digests and your weight (coupled with your energy expenditure).
The fact is that a man in 2006 burns less energy than the man in 1988, so if they ate the same diet the 2006 man should weigh more (as the study finds). We move less, have more comfortable environments (energy is cheaper so we can afford to keep our homes at a better temp). A man in 1988 had to walk down the hallway to send a fax, now we just send emails. A man in 1988 used to physically move to attend meetings, now we just [video]teleconference. Life was just a little bit harder in 1988, and that means that we burned more energy then. Coupled with the increase in average height (healthy tall people have higher BMIs than short people, and height increase is a trend in humans that has existed for a long time), people in 2006 are clearly going to be bigger. If you want to weigh the same amount you either have to burn more calories to make up for the fact that your life is easier now or you have to eat less.
aabajian has pretty much hit the nail on the head. I will point out that as you gain weight your resting metabolic rate increases to support keeping your extra mass alive, so 50 calories extra per year may not exactly turn into 100 lbs of extra weight, your energy expenditure to keep the mass alive and to move it all around may catch up to that extra 50 calories.
Do you really believe that eating only 50 extra calories a day will result in someone gaining 5 lbs in one year? 50 calories is about 14 grapes. How many guys are in the gym everyday and eating way above their daily needs to try and gain weight, but can't? If it really was this simple do you really think this would even be a discussion?
Guys in the gym trying to "gain weight" are trying to gain muscle, not fat. Fat is easy to gain, you can get it from overeating. Naturally building muscle takes much longer. (http://scoobysworkshop.com/expectations/)
I know if I burn 500 calories of fat I'll loose 1 lb in a week. And this is a 500 cal deficiency. But since I don't know how much of the burger I've digested or how much intensely my body is working to, say, regulate my T; I have no clear idea how much less I should eat
That being said N. Americans eat horribly and I agree they should put some thought into what they eat.
(Btw, I'm 6ft 2, trying to loose a few lb to get back to the mid 170s)
I have to laugh at the whole idea of the 2000 calorie diet and recommended daily amounts. If you think for just a second or two, it's a ludicrous idea to stipulate that everyone shall eat 2000 calories, be you man or woman, short or tall, child or old fogy. If you are a 5' petite woman, you may find that on a 2000 calorie diet, you don't remain petite for very long. If you are a 6'5", powerfully built man that expends tremendous amounts of energy at work, you may need 3-5 times that many calories just to maintain[1].
Human beings exist on such a wide spectrum, on so many attributes, that simply declaring that what is good for the ideal median person is exactly what everyone else should do is insane.
> "50 extra calories / day x 365 days / year x 1 lb / 3,500 calories = 5 lbs / year"
"One late night, I had had enough of the infomercials and turned on PBS to find, sure enough, a fitness guy talking about diets. ... The fitness expert explained to the studio audience that the quick fixes lauded by late-night infomercials didn't work and that they weren't sustainable. He said that what we really need are simple lifestyle fixes that do not require us to change our natural tendencies, changes that make an impact before we have a chance to screw it up with our unhealthy food choices. And his first suggestion? Smaller plates.
Now riveted, I watched as the man explained that our natural human behavior is to fill our plates with food and, because Mom said so, clean that plate right up by eating everything on it. I still don't get Mom's logic--there are children starving in Africa, so I need to get fat? But the "clean-your-plate club" was instilled in me and probably in you, too. The message is ingrained. Changing that habit for a day is a no-brainer. But changing it permanently? That's hard. Some would say it's nearly impossible. This is why so many people who diet gain the weight back, why people rarely follow through on New Year's resolutions past the end of January, and why it's so difficult to be disciplined with your spending.
As I continued to watch the program, the expert went on to say that rather than work to change our "eat everything on the plate" behavior we simply need to change the size of our plates. When we use smaller plates, we dish out smaller portions, thus eating fewer calories while continuing our natural human behavior of serving a full plate and eating all of what is served.
...
A 2012 report by Koert Van Ittersum and Brian Wansink in the Journal of Consumer Research identifies the average plate size in America as having grown 23% between the years 1900 and 2012, from 9.6 inches to 11.8 inches. Running the math, the article explains that, should this increase in plate size encourage an individual to consume just fifty more calories per day, that person would put on an extra five pounds of weight... each year. Year after year, that adds up" [1]
Start will smaller plates and work on disciplining yourself to only one plate.
[1] Profit First: A simple System to Transform Any Business from a Cash-Eating Monster to a Money-Making Machine by Mike Michalowicz ( http://amzn.to/1RkuTIO affiliate link )
While this is a good point along with hiding cereals, leaving fruit in view, using red plates and other proven tricks it does smack a little of the "quick hack".
They're all good things do to but if you want to lose weight you need to move more and eat better.
No, it's not. Maybe it's more difficult to measure calories (that salad ranch dressing has more calories than that hamburger), but people should be encouraged to balance their calorie intake everyday. For what it's worth, here's why Americans are obese:
50 extra calories / day x 365 days / year x 1 lb / 3,500 calories = 5 lbs / year
Multiplied by 10 years, and you get 50 lbs over weight. In twenty years you are 100 lbs over weight.
Bottom line is that people are eating just a little too much every day, and that adds up over time. My advice for losing and maintaining weight: Have 5 x 400 calorie meals each day and exercise for 30 minutes. The chore of finding 400 calorie meals is well worth the effort because you'll see just how many calories each item you consume contains.