= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on What should I have for dinner? (A case study in decision making) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (106)
Caloric expenditure is not strictly a function of behavior. Holding all else constant, including amount of exercise, reducing caloric intake will also reduce expenditure. Sometimes it will reduce it by more than the reduction in intake. Sometimes it will cause the body to fail to maintain muscles properly, in which case the reduction in expenditure will persist even after returning to old habits.
The energy-balance story is not literally false, but it is so oversimplified that it's useless; and worse, it acts as a curiosity stopper. If you are repeating it because you believe that hearing it more times will help people improve their health, then please stop, because it won't.
I know, this is why when people stop dieting and return to their original level of consumption, they sometimes end up heavier than before, as Janet mentioned. It's usually better to increase exercise rather than decrease calorie intake, but this thread is about diet, so I haven't really gone into that.
Not to say it can't, but I've never heard of this happening. Reference, please?
Once again, it seems I've stated my position badly. I really shouldn't have used the word "simple" in my opening post. Nothing in biology is simple.
I'm not trying to say you can cut food willy-nilly and still be healthy. I'm not trying to use energy balance as a curiosity stopper. I'm trying to use it to combat claims that you can eat as much "good" food as you want as long as you avoid "bad" food.
Hang on - does "as much 'good' food as you want" mean "arbitrarily much food", or does it mean "enough to sate appetite and no more"? My position is that the latter ought to be okay, and if it isn't, it's because something is wrong that needs to be dealt with directly, using thought and observation, not willpower.
I was using it to mean "arbitrarily much food". My position is similar: If you eat just until you're full and you get moderate exercise but you're still overweight, you should talk to your doctor. You may still need to change your eating or exercising habits, but you should do research first, and not make any sweeping changes all at once.
Changing your habits is always difficult, and that's where the willpower comes in. It should only be needed until you settle into your new habits, though. And you should never have to be constantly hungry, or end up having to eat almost nothing, as Janet said. Both outcomes are extremely unhealthy.
I think I'll add this to my original post to clarify my position. I seem to have come across as more extreme than I intended.
The last I heard, losing weight tends to increase appetite, not lower metabolism.
Starving yourself does reduce calories burned due to spontaneous fidgety behavior (are you really relaxed and holding still while you're at the computer?), as well as metabolic processes (even on a bodyweight-relative basis), by which I mean whatever energy is expended outside gross motion.
However, most people using this phenomena as an excuse are conveniently overestimating its magnitude (and/or underestimating their caloric intake). This helps them combat the stigma of moral weakness (often wrongly) associated with being fat.
I was talking about theories that starvation lowers basal metabolism, even after food is more available.