You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Group Rationality Diary, November 1-15 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: therufs 03 November 2014 03:58AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (18)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 14 November 2014 03:54:46PM *  2 points [-]

I am much less sure that calorie balance is the sole determinant of weight loss

Physics is pretty adamant it is.

a year of specifically focusing on calorie balance has fallen far short

You're measuring your input side, you don't have data for the output side. The calorie expenditure is not stable, besides it depending on the environment, your body will adjust your metabolic rate depending on the calorie availability.

In fact, if you know how many calories you consumed, you can calculate your average calorie spending rate from the changes in your weight. If your weight loss stalled (your weight stays the same), it means your calorie expenditure is equivalent to the calorie input.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 November 2014 05:00:37AM 11 points [-]

Physics is pretty adamant it is.

Physics is even more adamant that mass-in-mass-out is the determinant of weight balance. Try drinking less water, which is very massy, and eating lighter foods. I hear fat has more calories per gram than protein or carbs, so if you take your calories by fat you can't help but lose weight! Right? If you were previously taking in most of your calories as protein and carbs, changing all your calories to fat can't help but nearly halve your mass-in. As long as you don't inhale more air to make up for it, and keep breathing out and sweating and excreting the same amount, physics says you literally can't help but lose mass! Literally every time someone keeps strictly to the MIMO diet, they lose mass - period. Every time someone gains mass, strict examination shows that they took in more mass than the MIMO diet says they should, given how much they were excreting, exhaling, and sweating. If you keep to the MIMO diet and still have problems with your weight, it's probably because you're not staying in the same gravity and have moved to a heavier planet. If you can't keep to the MIMO diet, you just need more willpower to avoid taking that extra inhalation.

Modulo caloric loss by e.g. ketones in urine, physics says CICO has to be 'true in some sense', but it doesn't say CICO has to be any more useful than MIMO.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 November 2014 08:15:34PM 4 points [-]

physics says CICO has to be 'true in some sense', but it doesn't say CICO has to be any more useful than MIMO.

CICO is correct, to quote Yvain, in the best way -- it's technically correct.

As to being useful, as usual, it depends. I know you didn't find CICO useful, but lots of other people did. Your personal experience doesn't generalize well as you should know :-)

Comment author: [deleted] 16 November 2014 05:58:43PM 2 points [-]