Hacker News Reader

Comment by fatman | Hacker News Reader

Sounds promising. Calories in, calories out - the rest is just noise.

That times a thousand.

I've posted here about my experiences with weight loss before (tldr; I got involved with weight watchers, have personally been involved with hundreds of people losing hundreds of pounds each over ~10 years).

There is no person on this earth that can eat less calories than they use and not lose weight. It's not possible. So there are two very easy ways to lose weight.

1. Eat less calories (than you use).

2. Burn more calories (than you eat).

(or a combination of the two - as a lifelong program like Weight Watchers promotes.)

Obviously it can be hard for some people to eat less calories.

I'm not saying it's easy, I'm saying it's simple.

That's like saying: "flying is easy, just generate more lift than the airplane weighs - the rest is just noise." No shit, but life isn't so simple. At least for me, controlling weight (now that I'm pushing 30) has been about appetite management, and I've found that keto helps a lot. Not because it changes anything magic about the calorie balance, but because to me 500 calories of steak feels like a meal but 500 calories of pasta feels like a snack.

Thanks for posting a meaningless aphorism. Might as well have said "A penny saved is a penny earned" in a thread discussing poverty.

The forest is calories, so don't lose that.

However, the trees are macros.

Macros are important for goals. If your goal is simply "lose weight", sure, just care about calories. But if you have a more refined goal (recomp, spare muscle, lose bodyfat, athletic performance, build muscle etc), the macros are vital.

I do think people lose the forest from the trees. However, I find that people lose sight of the path through the trees just as often. Both are important.

Was a bit concerned with weight until I plateaued. Now I realize I am in a lot better shape, including blood sugar and lipids, even though I am stuck at this weight. I keep up the exercise and don't worry about the waistline so much. It is funny when I workout though. All these skinny people around the gym not sweating at all. If you don't sweat, I don't see why they bother.

I dunno. I know people who've lost 100lbs and kept it off doing keto.

I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it. The thing with low carb, in my experience, is that it does make it easier to eat less if you have the right attitude about it. I do it AND count calories. Also, just the fact that it cuts out most of the foods in the universe helps to make it an easy decision whether or not to eat something, whereas with just calorie counting all foods are available and that one bite can become 10 bites so easily. I believe those two things account for it's success rather than some trick subverting thermodynamics.

> I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it

By definition it would have to be true that you consumed fewer calories than expended. Calories in/calories out is not wrong, it's just not useful (or at least it's not a nearly complete picture).

Calories in/out are not independent variables. The type of calories you consume dictate at least: 1) how your body processes the calories you consume, 2) the energy you will have to expend, and 3) the hunger you will feel.

I know people who have lost 100lbs and kept it off by starving themselves. Just because a method gets you results doesn't mean it is healthy.

I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before.

Unfortunately I wasn't completely comfortable with the types of meals I ate with that lifestyle.

But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense. Especially after trying (and failing) diets based around that (weight watchers) multiple times.

>I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before

>But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense.

As a diet methodology, calories in vs calories out is not very effective for the general public. I too have lost more weight via keto.

But when I really tracked what I was eating I found keto simply kept my appetite under control better. This is extremely valuable but ultimately it was still down to calories.

(You also tend to drop a ton of water weight when you first start keto which makes it seem super effective at first)

Comparing how I felt doing keto with the keto flu vs. just plain calorie counting, I think the unique metabolism of ketosis makes your body not use everything you eat during keto. It's very hard to keep under 20g of carbs and not eat too much protein also. Much easier to just go to chipolte/subway and calorie count. If your lifestyle makes you make all 3 meals already, then keto is great. If you don't, then it's a lot of work.

Have you tried slow carb? Avoids dairy and adds legumes. I've found it easier to do and it's (probably) healthier.

Slow carb worked great for me for 6 months, lost 25 lbs!

But alas I got so sick of chicken for dinner and eggs for breakfast, and I guess just got too bored with the meals. Gained it all back :-(

(I actually haven't eaten an egg since then. And I avoid chicken now. I'm wondering if some people develop an aversion to foods they eat too regularly?)

To me this is like telling someone that wants to grow carrots that carrots are just atoms arranged in a certain way. It may be true, but it's not helpful. There are a ton of factors that influence both calories in and calories out, they aren't just noise.

(This is just a response to your comment, I didn't come away from the post thinking the book treats everything else as just noise.)

The devil is in the details.

It would sound more promising if he didn't have to write a book to explain it even better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com