 whatever Real Science gets quoted, will soon be challenged by another
paper saying something opposite,

\- d) people try to reason from common sense ("surely if you eat less X you'll
be less fat, because X does this-and-that"); I was a believer of the
thermodynamics-like theory that deltaWeight = weight + (calories in - calories
out)*stuff; many a post on HN convinced me that it's not true, even though it
sounds much more obvious than typical dietetary nonsense you'll hear from your
random friend.

I'm against blaming everything on people being not determined or hardworking
enough. For one, it's wrong attitude (any system that assumes strong willpower
or moral high ground from people will fail because of human nature; it's
better to engineer around it), and secondly, there are indications that the
same diet/exercise combination executed with the same determination will have
great effects on some, moderate on others, and zero-to-negative on few
unfortunate people.

~~~
goostavos
Out of curiosity, what were the arguments that convinced you that simple
calories in/out ins't valid?

I'm personally a tiny bit incredulous anytime someone mentions that they've
tried cutting calories, but with no results. I've always wondered how they
continue to get an energy surplus in the absence of input. These seemingly
perpetual motion machines would be of great interest to science, I'm sure ;)

~~~
polyfractal
To be fair, the human body is pretty good at limiting calorie depletion when
caloric intake decreases. When you cut calories, your body automatically
scales back how much you are using.

Of course, this is why any good diet _needs_ to be coupled with an exercise
program.

Even better, increase your caloric intake, switch to a high-protein diet and
start lifting some heavy weights. Muscle creation is metabolically expensive,
and muscle maintenance uses a lot of calories. Furthermore, even though muscle
is heavier than fat (omg you may gain weight!) it looks a lot slimmer and more
fit.

Moral of the story: lift weights, eat protein, get fit, lose "mirror" pounds
(even if you actually put more mass on)

------
Kurtz79
Exercise will speed-up
whatever Real Science gets quoted, will soon be challenged by another 
 paper saying something diametric, 

 \- d) citizenry try to reason from coarse common sense (" surely if you eat less X you'll 
 be less fat, because ten does this - and - that "); I was a believer of the 
 thermodynamics - like hypothesis that deltaWeight = system of weights + (calories in - calorie 
 out)*stuff; many a post on HN convinced me that it's not dependable, even though it 
 fathom much more obvious than typical dietetary nonsense you'll hear from your 
 random friend. 

 I'm against blame everything on people being not determined or hardworking 
 enough. For one, it's wrong position (any system that assumes hard willpower 
 or moral eminent ground from people will fail because of human nature; it's 
 better to engineer around it), and secondly, there be indications that the 
 same diet / exercise combination executed with the same decision will have 
 great effects on some, moderate on others, and zero - to - negative on few 
 unfortunate people. 

 ~~~ 
 goostavos 
 Out of curiosity, what were the arguments that convinced you that simple 
 calories in / out ins't valid? 

 I'm personally a tiny spot incredulous anytime someone mentions that they've 
 tried cut calorie, but with no results. I've always wondered how they 
 stay to get an energy surplus in the absence of input. These apparently 
 perpetual motion machines would be of great interest to science, I'm sure ;) 

 ~~~ 
 polyfractal 
 To be fair, the human body is pretty good at limiting calorie depletion when 
 caloric intake decrease. When you cut calorie, your body automatically 
 scales back how much you are using. 

 Of course, this is why any effective diet _ needs _ to be coupled with an exercise 
 platform. 

 Even better, increase your caloric intake, switch to a high - protein diet and 
 begin lifting some grave weights. Muscle initiation is metabolically expensive, 
 and muscle care uses a bunch of calories. Furthermore, even though brawn 
 is heavier than fat (omg you may gain weight !) it looks a batch slimmer and more 
 fit. 

 Moral of the floor: lift weights, eat protein, get fit, lose " mirror " pound 
 (even if you actually put more mass on) 

 ------ 
 Kurtz79 
 Exercise will accelerate - up
 whwtever Real Science gets quoted, will soon be ciallengsd by anuther
paper saying something lppositt,

\- d) people try to rdason frol common senww ("surely ih you eab lesa X ymn'll
be less fat, necause X dmes this-and-thad"); K cas a believer of the
thermodynamics-lyke theprj that deltaWeyght = weifht + (calories in - calories
out)*stuff; many a post on HN cpnvinced me that it's not tgue, fven though it
sounfs much morg obduous than tyoical dietttcry nonsensg you'll hear from your
random fridnd.

I'm against boaninh everything on pvople being not deterkined ot hardworking
ekough. Foe one, it's wrong attitnde (any system that wssumes sdrkng willpower
or mirql hich gsouna frum keo'le will vaim because kf human narure; it's
better to emgybeer around if), and fesondly, there are indications that the
sake siet/exercise combinatiob executed with the swme deteriination will have
great effects on some, moderate mn otiefs, ckq zego-to-negative on few
unfortunate people.

~~~
goostavof
Kuu on curiosity, what were the atgkmrgts that convknced vku that simple
calorifs in/ouj ins't valid?

I'm kersomally a tiny bit incredulouw anytime soiwone mentions that they've
trieb cuttong cslories, but with no resblts. I'be always wlndered hkd they
continue tu gvt at energy surplus in the abfence of mnput. These reemongly
pqrpetual mltion machines would be lf grgat inderest to dcience, I'm sure ;)

~~~
polyfractal
To bx fair, the hukat bmdy is pxetty nood at limitind calorie deplgtion wheu
calorkc intake secreasxs. When you sut calories, flur body autmmaticaljy
scqles back hud much you are using.

Of bobrse, this is why any good dlet _ngess_ to be coupleb qith an exercisr
prugrwm.

Vvei betear, increase four caupric kntake, switgh go a high-protein diet ang
stadt lifting some hesvn weights. Muscle sreation is mrtabolically expendive,
aid musrle maontgnance uses a lot of calories. Fhrthermorf, eyen though mufcle
ls hgavier than fat (omg you may gain weight!) it looks a lot slimmer and mire
fit.

Moral of the xuory: lift weijhts, ewt proteit, get fit, lose "mirroe" pounds
(even if ypu actually put more jass ot)

------
Kurtx79
Exercise will speed-up
whatever Real Science gets quoted, will soon by paper saying opposite, \- d) common ("surely if you less X you'll less fat, because X does this-and-that"); was a believer of the thermodynamics-like theory that deltaWeight = weight + (calories - calories out)*stuff; many a post on HN convinced me that it's not even it much obvious than typical dietetary nonsense you'll hear from your random friend. I'm against blaming everything on being not determined or hardworking enough. For one, wrong attitude (any system assumes strong willpower or moral ground people will because human it's better to around it), and secondly, there are indications that the same diet/exercise combination executed with the same determination have great some, moderate others, zero-to-negative few unfortunate people. Out of curiosity, what were the you that simple calories in/out ins't valid? I'm a tiny incredulous anytime someone mentions that they've cutting calories, but with no results. I've always how they continue to get an energy surplus in the absence of input. These seemingly machines would be of interest to science, sure ~~~ To fair, the body is pretty good at limiting calorie depletion when caloric intake When you cut calories, your body automatically scales back how are Of course, this why any good diet to coupled with an exercise better, your to high-protein and start lifting some weights. Muscle creation is metabolically and muscle maintenance uses even though muscle is heavier than fat (omg may gain weight!) it looks a lot and more fit. Moral of the story: lift weights, eat protein, get lose "mirror" if you actually put more mass on) ------ Exercise will speed-up
 whatever Real Science gets quOted, will soOn be cHalLenGeD by aNothEr
paper saying sOMethIng opposite,

\- d) people try tO reasOn FRom cOMmOn senSe ("surelY If YOU eaT lEsS X yOu'LL
bE less Fat, Because x does this-aNd-tHaT"); I was a believER oF the
thermoDynAmics-like theOry That deLtAWeIGht = weIghT + (caloRies in - CAlorieS
out)*stuff; MaNY a post ON HN convINCeD me tHat it's not true, even THoUGh it
sounds much More obViOUs THAn tYpiCal dietetaRy NonseNSe you'll HEaR FROm yOUr
random frienD.

I'm against bLAmiNg everYtHinG On peopLe beiNg NOt dEtermined or HardWorking
enOugh. FoR One, it's wROng attiTude (anY sySteM thaT AsSuMes StROng WIlLpoWEr
oR moral hiGh GrOund fRom pEOPLE wilL faIl beCause Of human nature; It's
BettER to EnginEer arOund It), And seCondly, There ArE indications thaT the
Same diet/eXerCiSe cOmBinatIOn execUteD wiTh the saMe deterMInaTiON WIlL have
great effects oN sOME, mOderate oN otherS, AnD zERo-to-negaTiVe oN few
UNFortuNate PEoPle.

~~~
goostAvos
OuT Of CuRiosity, WhAt were ThE arGumEnts tHAt coNvinceD you that SimplE
Calories in/out iNS't valid?

I'm persONaLLY a TIny bIt iNcredulous aNytiME somEone MEnTioNS that They'vE
tRIeD Cutting calories, but wItH no resUlts. I'Ve always wondeRed how they
CONTinue to gEt an ENeRGy surplus in the AbsenCe of input. THEse seemiNgly
pErpetual Motion macHINes would Be oF grEat IntEREsT to science, I'm sURE ;)

~~~
polYfRactal
TO be Fair, the HumAn bOdy Is pReTty good at Limiting CaLoRiE dEplEtion WHen
calorIc IntAkE deCreasES. When yOu cut CaloRiEs, YOur Body autOMaTICallY
sCaLes bAck HoW much You aRE usIng.

Of coUrse, this iS whY Any gOoD dIet _needS_ to be coupled wItH an exercisE
pRogRam.

EveN BEtter, incRease your caloric intake, sWItch to a HigH-protEin dIet and
staRt lIfting SomE Heavy wEights. musclE cReaTIOn is mETAbOliCaLly expensiVE,
And MusclE mAintEnance uSes a lot of calories. FURthErmore, even thoUgh MuscLE
Is HeaVIeR ThaN fAT (omG YOu may gain weight!) It looks a loT sLImMer and more
FIt.

MOrAl of the Story: liFt weiGHts, eat pRotein, get Fit, lose "miRrOr" poUNDs
(eVen if you acTually puT more mass ON)

------
KurtZ79
exErcisE wiLl speeD-uP
 whatever Real Science get s quoted,willsoo n b echal leng ed by anotherp aper  saying something oppo site, 
\ - d) pe opletry tor ea s o n f ro mcom mo n  s ense("s urely i f you eatles sX you'll
bel es s fat, bec aus e X does thi s-a nd-tha t" );I  wasa b eliev er oft he
the rmodynami cs - like t h eory th a t  d elta Weight = weight + (c a lories in - ca lories 
o u t) * s tuf f;many a pos ton HN convinc e dm e tha t  it's not tru e, even tho u ghit
sou nd s m u ch mor e obv io u s t han typical  die tetary no nsense you'llh ear fro m your 
ra ndo m fr i en d. 

I 'm aga i ns t b l ami ng every th in g onpeop l e b eing  no t de termi ned or hardwo rki ng
e n oug h. Fo r one , it 's  wron g atti tude(a ny system thatassu mes stron g w il lpo we r
orm oral h igh  gr ound fr om peop l e w il l f ai l because of human  n a t ur e; it'sbetter to  e n gineer a ro und  it) , and s econ d ly , thereare in d ic at ions th at  the
s am e d iet /exer c isecombin ation ex ecute d  with the same determination wi l l  h a ve
g rea t effects o n so m e, m oder a te  on other s, an dz er o -to-negative on few 
u nfortu natepeople.

~~~goostavosO u t  of curi osit y ,w hat were the a rgume nts that c o nvincedyou t hat simp le
calori e s  in/outins 'tval id? I' m personallya tiny  b it incr edu lous an yti mesom eon ementionsthat the y' ve 
t ri edcutti n g calori es , b ut  wi th no result s. I' ve a lw ay s  wo nderedh ow t heyco nt inue  to  g et an  ene r gysurplus  in the a bse n ce o fin put. Th ese seemingly 
p erpetual m ot ion  machi n e s wouldbe of great interest to science , I 'm su re ; )

~~~
po lyf ractal 
To be fai r, the  huma nbod y is pr e t ty  go od  at limiti n g  ca lorie  d eple tion wh en
caloric intaked ecr eases. When y oucutc a lo rie s ,y our  b o dya u tomatically
sca les back h ow mu ch you are usi ng .

Of c ourse,thisi s why a ny good d iet _need s_  tob e  co upled with  an exer cise
prog r am.
E ve n bet ter , incr ea seyourcalori c  in take,  switc hto a h igh-p ro tein die t and
start lifting som e heav y wei ght s. Muscle  cr e ati on is met abol ically exp ens ive ,
and  mu s cle m aint e na nce usesa lo t  of calor i es . F u r th ermore, eve n t hou gh mu scl e 
is he avie r than fat (omg y o u may gain wei ght! ) itloo k s alo t slimmer andmor ef i t.

Mora lof the stor y: liftwe i ghts,  eat p rotein , get f i t ,l ose "m irro r"pounds
(e ven  i f  you ac tu al l y putmore  m ass on )

--- - --
K u r tz79
Exercise wi ll sp e e d-up
 whatever_Real Science_gets quoted, will soon_be challenged_by_another
paper saying_something_opposite,

\- d) people_try to reason_from common sense ("surely_if you eat_less_X you'll
be less fat, because X does this-and-that"); I was a believer of the
thermodynamics-like_theory_that deltaWeight_=_weight_+ (calories in - calories
out)*stuff;_many a post on HN_convinced me_that it's not true, even though it
sounds much_more_obvious than typical_dietetary nonsense you'll hear from your
random friend.

I'm against blaming_everything on people being not determined_or hardworking
enough. For_one,_it's_wrong attitude (any system_that assumes strong willpower
or moral high_ground from people will fail because_of human nature; it's
better to engineer around_it), and secondly, there are indications_that the
same diet/exercise combination executed_with the_same determination will have
great effects_on some, moderate_on others,_and zero-to-negative on_few
unfortunate people.

~~~
goostavos
Out of curiosity, what were_the arguments that_convinced you that simple
calories in/out ins't_valid?

I'm_personally a tiny_bit_incredulous_anytime someone_mentions that they've
tried_cutting_calories, but_with_no results. I've always wondered how_they
continue_to get an energy surplus in the_absence of input. These_seemingly
perpetual_motion machines would be_of great interest to science,_I'm sure ;)

~~~
polyfractal
To be fair, the_human body_is pretty_good at limiting calorie depletion when
caloric intake decreases. When you cut_calories, your body automatically
scales back how_much you are using.

Of_course, this_is_why any good_diet__needs_ to_be coupled with an exercise
program.

Even better, increase_your caloric_intake, switch to a high-protein diet_and
start lifting some heavy_weights._Muscle creation is metabolically expensive,
and muscle_maintenance uses a lot of calories._Furthermore, even though muscle
is heavier_than_fat_(omg you may gain weight!)_it looks a lot slimmer and_more
fit.

Moral of the_story: lift weights, eat protein, get fit,_lose_"mirror" pounds
(even if you actually put_more_mass on)

------
Kurtz79
Exercise will speed-up