Comment by rootusrootus
1 day ago
> which is highly effective
How are you defining highly effective? In the sense that a body will definitely lose weight when starved? Or in the sense that counting calories is broadly effective as a weight loss strategy?
The former is painfully obvious and entirely unhelpful, and the latter is provably false.
Counting macros is extremely effective. The general population doesn't have the discipline for it, but amoung sport coaches, actors, models, bodybuilders, this is *the* technique for achieving goals.
Anyway what's cute about this is that this isn't novel phenomenon. There are lots of parallels to this in other fields where often effective solutions do exist, but at a system level don't seem to work.
Telling people to diet doesn't fix population level obesity. Telling people about personal financial management doesn't stop people from accruing too much high interest debt. Telling teenagers to stop idolizing instagram influences doesn't fix body anxiety issues. Telling people to stop smoking/drinking doesn't fix addictions. 3-2-1 data backups absolutely work but people lose files all the time.
I think your comment is somewhat on track.
"general population doesn't have the discipline for it" — only that this feels somewhat condescending.
Let's agree that counting macros or going for calorie deficit is hard if it is not someones job. General population has other jobs, family, social life, other hobbies they enjoy more than fitness. It is not "just eat less" it is "spend considerable amount of time thinking about and planning your eating".
On the individual level it is a discipline problem. But the fact it has become an individual discipline problem is exactly the core issue.
If you turn things into individual discipline problems then surprise you get population level issues. As you pointed out people have other things to focus willpower on thats not this.
The fault, as it often does, lies in marketing. Turns out heavily marketed, hyper palatable food, designed to be minimally satiating so you maximally over eat is great for profits and terrible for obesity.
> it is "spend considerable amount of time thinking about and planning your eating".
Nonsense. It doesn't take any more time. Just buy unprocessed, basic food, fruit and veg. When you open your cupboard, cook something tasty from what you have.
When you go to the supermarket, just don't walk into the aisles with snacks. Don't buy anything laden with sugar and fat.
Get into the habit of drinking black coffee instead of Starbucks' calorific drinks; it takes less than a week for your taste buds to adjust.
It's not rocket science. Just most people don't want to admit that every excess 100 calories they eat adds 11 grams of fat to their middle. Which adds up week by week, year by year.
3 replies →
I made a small change a while back that resulted in a lot of fat loss. I'm a startup CTO, kids, wife, 2 dogs, etc. Every Sunday I prepare lunch meals for the week. I make a big vat that consists of spinach, kale, riced cauliflower, peas, beans, and some ground meat. Then I put it in glass containers and eat that for lunch every day. Before I leave in the morning, I pull one out and put on whatever sauce and toppings I feel like. The hardest part is the initial cooking. I eat dinner with my family, I eat dessert sometimes. I lost weight so fast I was actually concerned for a while, but it leveled out. Meal prep is common and it fits in nicely with a busy job (no more running out to Jimmy Johns or whatever). Highly recommended
>In the sense that a body will definitely lose weight when starved?
If your maintenance calories are 2700kcal and you eat 300kcal less than that, is eating 2400kcal starving for you?
Most people cannot tell a difference if they eat 100-150kcal less in a day.
>Or in the sense that counting calories is broadly effective as a weight loss strategy?
Yes, it is, and the reason people fail with it is not because calorie counting doesn't work, but because people's maintenance calorie estimates are often poor.
Deficit = maintenance calories (TDEE) - calorie intake
In this, even if your calorie tracking is on point, a deficit requires you to have a decent estimate of maintenance calories.
To throw a monkey wrench into all this, your maintenance calories often shift downward as you progress in your "diet" journey.
calorie restriction can cause a reduction in resting metabolic rate through "metabolic adaptation". that is, your body gets used to the deficit (by shedding metabolically active tissue and other things*) and burns less calories at rest. so, paradoxically, restricting or reducing your caloric intake can have no effect whatsoever on your weight.
see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9036397/
No, that's incorrect reading of this.
It's already factored in our algorihtm: https://macrocodex.app/knowledge/macrocodex/smart-calorie-bu...
Cool but then again what does calorie "unrestrication" cause? Tip: look at the top leading causes of death in the US
[flagged]
1 reply →
> Yes, it is, and the reason people fail with it is not because calorie counting doesn't work, but because people's maintenance calorie estimates are often poor.
I would have thought that it would mostly be because they can't resist that extra snack.
Or 'optimistically' underestimate the calories in the not pre-packaged food.
Serious question: Is there a significant variability in how the food calories are absorbed? Maybe different combinations are not absorbed equally efficiently (like with water/oil-based vitamins)
> I would have thought that it would mostly be because they can't resist that extra snack.
This is a pretty good inadvertent explanation for why a lot of people come into this discussion waving around morality arguments, lack of discipline, etc.
The average person gains a couple pounds a year. Adds up. How many calories do you think that is, amortized throughout the year? I'll help you with the math. It's 19. The average person eats 19 calories per day beyond maintenance.
It's not "weak willed slob cannot resist that extra snack."
I did not mean literally starving, I meant giving the body fewer calories than it wants.
I feel like discussions like this attract a number of people who've never actually been overweight and then lost the weight and tried to keep it off longer than a year. So much bro science, so much condescension, so much smug analysis that anybody who cannot resist their own body's hunger indefinitely are just weak.
A bit more complicated than that, CICO is not the answer. It's an observation, not a strategy.
The problem is: average person is bad at counting calories. They overestimate number of calories burnt, and severely underestimate number of calories consumed. Once you get your math right and get into real, not imaginary calorie deficit you'll start losing weight. Rule of thumb: whatever you think the amount of calories is in your current meal, double your estimate.
The average person eats 19 calories a day more than they need to.