Upgraded Medium Chain Snake Oil
August 27, 2015 10:28 AM Subscribe
The founder of Fitocracy explains how consumers fall for dubious fitness fads, with special emphasis on the work of Dave Asprey, "The Bulletproof CEO" (previously and previously).
Hah! My gf just upped her tutoring price by a substantial margin and instituted a waitlist - because she's genuinely full, not as a marketing tactic - and the waitlist already has three people on it panting to pay the fuck-you price.
posted by restless_nomad at 10:44 AM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad at 10:44 AM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Is this a warning sign or a how to guide?
posted by miyabo at 10:57 AM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by miyabo at 10:57 AM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Don't think much of this comment? What if I told you the first ten people to favourite it will receive a Special Gift?
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:05 AM on August 27, 2015 [33 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:05 AM on August 27, 2015 [33 favorites]
The magic bullet for fitness and weight loss? Probably reduce calorie intake and increase exercise until you're burning more calories than you take in. That's the easy part, i.e. the theory. What people are really looking for is short cuts. There aren't really any short cuts.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 11:08 AM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by GallonOfAlan at 11:08 AM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
What if I told you the first ten people to favourite it will receive a Special Gift?
This has to be something deeply-ingrained, here, because even knowing it was a joke, I still felt this little rush that I actually got to be in the first ten.
Having had a friend who was doing the paleo thing, I got talked into trying the buttered coffee thing, and it wasn't the grossest thing I ever had, but it was up there. Paleo in general, at least as I've seen friends do it, has seemed to be somewhere along the lines of 90% just eating sensibly and 10% random restrictions to make it feel like you're doing something special, and yet people seem to get more excited about it because peanuts and gluten.
posted by Sequence at 11:10 AM on August 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
This has to be something deeply-ingrained, here, because even knowing it was a joke, I still felt this little rush that I actually got to be in the first ten.
Having had a friend who was doing the paleo thing, I got talked into trying the buttered coffee thing, and it wasn't the grossest thing I ever had, but it was up there. Paleo in general, at least as I've seen friends do it, has seemed to be somewhere along the lines of 90% just eating sensibly and 10% random restrictions to make it feel like you're doing something special, and yet people seem to get more excited about it because peanuts and gluten.
posted by Sequence at 11:10 AM on August 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
Setting your own price is a constant source of stress for freelancers. Am I pricing myself out? Will they say no because I'm asking for too much? I really need the money, so should I just suck it up and do it for less, just this once?
I'm finding that asking for more, nerve-wracking as it is, is the effective strategy more often than not.
posted by gottabefunky at 11:12 AM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm finding that asking for more, nerve-wracking as it is, is the effective strategy more often than not.
posted by gottabefunky at 11:12 AM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
Don't think much of this comment? What if I told you the first ten people to favourite it will receive a Special Gift?
Crap. It said 8 favorites so I clicked, but I came in at #11 :(
posted by zachlipton at 11:16 AM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
Crap. It said 8 favorites so I clicked, but I came in at #11 :(
posted by zachlipton at 11:16 AM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
I've always known that Bulletproof = Inedible. If you can't shoot a hole through it, you'll never digest it.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:25 AM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:25 AM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Don't worry if you weren't in the first ten favorites! There's going to be a second bonus kicker comment within the next 24 hours! Just refresh this page to see if it's been posted!!!
posted by boo_radley at 11:26 AM on August 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by boo_radley at 11:26 AM on August 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
I have a genetic disorder. Getting the right diagnosis was incredibly empowering and resulted in dramatic weight loss. I still can't quite get rid of the pot belly and it makes me crazy. But given the number of people who have tried all the standard advice without getting the results they want, I think the search for "a magic bullet" is evidence that there is a great deal we don't understand. It isn't just proof that lots of people are gullible. It is proof that something is somehow missing from our general mental model of the problem space.
I did get the thing I was missing: information about how my body functioned differently. This led to me getting a lot more things I was missing, nutritionally. That led to weight loss I was not looking for. Unsurprisingly, the men who adored me when I was a BBW are no longer a part of my life. I didn't really want to get thinner because I kind of expected that outcome and I was really crazy about one of those men and didn't want to lose him.
It has been an interesting journey and it makes me spend a lot of time wondering how in the hell one could try to genuinely make a difference in the world (not just in the diet and fitness space, but that too). It seems like an inherently hard problem to solve. I got better by trading short term costs for long term gains. Most things seem to make money by trading short term gains for long term costs then washing their hands of the long term costs. Then we wonder why the world is so messed up.
posted by Michele in California at 11:28 AM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
I did get the thing I was missing: information about how my body functioned differently. This led to me getting a lot more things I was missing, nutritionally. That led to weight loss I was not looking for. Unsurprisingly, the men who adored me when I was a BBW are no longer a part of my life. I didn't really want to get thinner because I kind of expected that outcome and I was really crazy about one of those men and didn't want to lose him.
It has been an interesting journey and it makes me spend a lot of time wondering how in the hell one could try to genuinely make a difference in the world (not just in the diet and fitness space, but that too). It seems like an inherently hard problem to solve. I got better by trading short term costs for long term gains. Most things seem to make money by trading short term gains for long term costs then washing their hands of the long term costs. Then we wonder why the world is so messed up.
posted by Michele in California at 11:28 AM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
Matt Perger has a write up on this that got released last week. It's an interesting read On how some of the ideas behind that gross stuff play out.
posted by furnace.heart at 11:30 AM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by furnace.heart at 11:30 AM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's no one-size-fits-all diet - different people and physiologies respond differently to different diets. One thing that I hate to see trotted out, though, is the simple "calories in, calories out" talk, as if it's an inviolable law of physics and there aren't any other mitigating factors. Your body's insulin response matters a great deal, for example. The satiety of the foods you eat also ends up mattering. How active and athletic you are matters a great deal, not just in terms of calories, but in terms of intake and burning of carbohydrates for energy. Heavy activity naturally makes you hungrier, too, and our bodies are smart enough to try to self-regulate when possible. If you tend towards being sedentary, though (as most of us are, I imagine), and if your body and tastes respond well to it, eating a high fat, low carbohydrate diet will generally leave you satiated, will fix your hunger response, and the result is that you'll eat less and not think about food all that much unless you need it. This isn't faddish or snake oil, in fact it's also acknowledged by some of the experts in this article.
I don't do the butter in your coffee thing. I tried it once and agree with Greg Nog that it tastes awful. As part of a total high fat low carb lifestyle, It might not be the worst thing, though? Especially if you're cutting out the sugar and nasty artificial creamers. I take my coffee with a dollop of heavy whipping cream and I imagine it's more or less the same effect with less obnoxiousness. The Bulletproof guy is spewing a bunch of bullshit, no doubt, but I don't think we should throw out the entire idea of introducing more fat into your diet. I've been exploring it since this metafilter post about the new DGAC report. Personally, my brain has been feeling wonderful since, which is an unexpected side effect. I'm very interested in the psychological effects, and the idea of fat as a kind of medicine, and it's certainly been helping with weight loss.
posted by naju at 11:34 AM on August 27, 2015 [14 favorites]
I don't do the butter in your coffee thing. I tried it once and agree with Greg Nog that it tastes awful. As part of a total high fat low carb lifestyle, It might not be the worst thing, though? Especially if you're cutting out the sugar and nasty artificial creamers. I take my coffee with a dollop of heavy whipping cream and I imagine it's more or less the same effect with less obnoxiousness. The Bulletproof guy is spewing a bunch of bullshit, no doubt, but I don't think we should throw out the entire idea of introducing more fat into your diet. I've been exploring it since this metafilter post about the new DGAC report. Personally, my brain has been feeling wonderful since, which is an unexpected side effect. I'm very interested in the psychological effects, and the idea of fat as a kind of medicine, and it's certainly been helping with weight loss.
posted by naju at 11:34 AM on August 27, 2015 [14 favorites]
It's cool that he mentioned r/fitness - my knowledge of fitness and nutrition has increased dramatically over the past three years almost entirely due to a bunch of subreddits. Wondering about keto? Go to r/keto and find out how it works or doesn't work for actual people who are not trying to sell you product. Outside of internet forums and some books, I think, there is no good information on this stuff on the net. Everything else is marketing and people helping create the churn on social media by re-sharing how shitty Food Babe is. I think everyone has kind of understood this since forever, but the siren song of outrage porn and "lol gluten free food" is so powerful.
posted by MillMan at 11:35 AM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by MillMan at 11:35 AM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
Seconding MillMan. The /r/fitness FAQ is excellent.
posted by chrchr at 11:40 AM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by chrchr at 11:40 AM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wondering about keto? Go to r/keto and find out how it works or doesn't work for actual people who are not trying to sell you product.
It's got shitheads like any other subreddit, but /r/keto is full of tremendously supportive, helpful people.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:45 AM on August 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
It's got shitheads like any other subreddit, but /r/keto is full of tremendously supportive, helpful people.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:45 AM on August 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
I gave up on the fitness reddits when I posted looking for exercises I could do with my bad knee, and all I got was "STOP EATING SO MUCH, FATSO!" This despite saying that I've been cutting down on my calorie intake, and wanting to up my activity level.
So basically, I wanted to smack them until candy came out.
That said, my current situation (stop eating so much, walk as much as you can) seems to be working, based on my need for a new belt because I ran out of holes I could use on the one I have now. And it's been about the only thing that DID work - I've tried some of the quick-loss things and in general they worked not at all, except for the ones that had side effects that reminded me of eating sugar free gummy bears.
posted by mephron at 11:52 AM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
So basically, I wanted to smack them until candy came out.
That said, my current situation (stop eating so much, walk as much as you can) seems to be working, based on my need for a new belt because I ran out of holes I could use on the one I have now. And it's been about the only thing that DID work - I've tried some of the quick-loss things and in general they worked not at all, except for the ones that had side effects that reminded me of eating sugar free gummy bears.
posted by mephron at 11:52 AM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's no one-size-fits-all diet - different people and physiologies respond differently to different diets. One thing that I hate to see trotted out, though, is the simple "calories in, calories out" talk, as if it's an inviolable law of physics and there aren't any other mitigating factors.
What I think is so tough about that is that it really is just that simple. The problem is that the "calories in" is VERY complicated and so is the "calories out". I could take two identical meals and even though they have the same number of calories, if I serve them to two different people, they'll absorb different amounts of those calories. The same is true of the same person, served the same meal, at two different times in the day. 2,000 calories of fat is very different than 2,000 calories of protein. The list goes on and on and on.
The "calories out" aren't any better. I can do squats and measure how far that weight traveled so I can tell with some precision how many calories it takes to lift it. But I can't really tell you how many calories I used since I'm going to burn calories differently based on a whole host of variables (time of day, how well I warmed up, what I ate last, how long ago, how good/bad my form is, etc.). I burn fewer calories today to lift the same amount of weight that I did when I started because my body is simply more efficient at that movement. And then, once I'm done working out, my metabolism stays in an elevated state burning more calories at rest for another 12 hours (or maybe up to 24 hours?). Oh, and you have to hope that the combination of your body and the exercise you like don't make you more hungry.
So yeah, if you can measure your calories in and calories out, you can pretty precisely predict changes in weight. The trouble is, nobody can measure either of those things with any reasonable accuracy, even in a lab. I'm certainly not going to be able to do it at home. You can count calories but, even if that was accurate, you're still going to have to do some work to figure out which calories you can have that won't leave you ravenously hungry and/or malnourished.
So all you can really do is try to eat better, try to get more exercise, and monitor your results. Then it's just a matter of adjusting things until you find a level that you can maintain.
I've resigned myself to the fact that I am an overweight person and I'm going to struggle with it forever. Right now, I'm winning but I know that the tide can turn at any time and I'm going to have to be okay with it if it does. I figure that as long as I keep up with the exercise and generally eat healthy, I'll still be pretty healthy, even if I'm fat.
posted by VTX at 12:12 PM on August 27, 2015 [17 favorites]
What I think is so tough about that is that it really is just that simple. The problem is that the "calories in" is VERY complicated and so is the "calories out". I could take two identical meals and even though they have the same number of calories, if I serve them to two different people, they'll absorb different amounts of those calories. The same is true of the same person, served the same meal, at two different times in the day. 2,000 calories of fat is very different than 2,000 calories of protein. The list goes on and on and on.
The "calories out" aren't any better. I can do squats and measure how far that weight traveled so I can tell with some precision how many calories it takes to lift it. But I can't really tell you how many calories I used since I'm going to burn calories differently based on a whole host of variables (time of day, how well I warmed up, what I ate last, how long ago, how good/bad my form is, etc.). I burn fewer calories today to lift the same amount of weight that I did when I started because my body is simply more efficient at that movement. And then, once I'm done working out, my metabolism stays in an elevated state burning more calories at rest for another 12 hours (or maybe up to 24 hours?). Oh, and you have to hope that the combination of your body and the exercise you like don't make you more hungry.
So yeah, if you can measure your calories in and calories out, you can pretty precisely predict changes in weight. The trouble is, nobody can measure either of those things with any reasonable accuracy, even in a lab. I'm certainly not going to be able to do it at home. You can count calories but, even if that was accurate, you're still going to have to do some work to figure out which calories you can have that won't leave you ravenously hungry and/or malnourished.
So all you can really do is try to eat better, try to get more exercise, and monitor your results. Then it's just a matter of adjusting things until you find a level that you can maintain.
I've resigned myself to the fact that I am an overweight person and I'm going to struggle with it forever. Right now, I'm winning but I know that the tide can turn at any time and I'm going to have to be okay with it if it does. I figure that as long as I keep up with the exercise and generally eat healthy, I'll still be pretty healthy, even if I'm fat.
posted by VTX at 12:12 PM on August 27, 2015 [17 favorites]
The sales email I was sending technically ticked all the right boxes: it was well-positioned, engaging, and clearly priced—the exact formula I had been taught in Wharton Marketing 101. ... Surely nobody would be gullible enough to be lured by a false impression of scarcity.
Jesus H. Christ, dude, ask for your Wharton tuition back.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:16 PM on August 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
Jesus H. Christ, dude, ask for your Wharton tuition back.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:16 PM on August 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
So yeah, if you can measure your calories in and calories out, you can pretty precisely predict changes in weight
People with cystic fibrosis can eat 5000 calories a day and remain dangerously underweight. Most of them are rail thin. A few are obese.
Getting healthier dramatically reduced how much food I require to get through the day. The most dramatc weight loss I experienced was due to addressing my medically caused tendency to retain water. I did walk more as part of the process of addressing that. But, it was clearly not about burning calories.
So, as I said above, I think the human race doesn't yet have all the answers for this weght loss and fitness problem space. (I personally hate the calories in, calories out mantra.)
posted by Michele in California at 12:20 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
3. Build a List of Trusted Sources
In which case, Yoni Freedhoff would like a word with you (previously).
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 12:30 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
In which case, Yoni Freedhoff would like a word with you (previously).
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 12:30 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Seconding /r/keto. I went on it, and while my weight plateaued after I lost a small amount, it's done wonders for my a1c and cholesterol/triglyceride levels, which, for a diabetic with hyperlipidemia who's trying to reduce his dependence on medications, is kind of a big deal. I think most people on it are skeptical of the Bulletproof Coffee dude even if they're bullish on MCTs; his woo about mycotoxins is a red flag.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:34 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:34 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Don't take it so hard, item. Bro Science previously on the Blue.
posted by Falling_Saint at 12:43 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Falling_Saint at 12:43 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't do the butter in your coffee thing. I tried it once and agree with Greg Nog that it tastes awful. As part of a total high fat low carb lifestyle, It might not be the worst thing, though? Especially if you're cutting out the sugar and nasty artificial creamers. I take my coffee with a dollop of heavy whipping cream and I imagine it's more or less the same effect with less obnoxiousness. The Bulletproof guy is spewing a bunch of bullshit, no doubt, but I don't think we should throw out the entire idea of introducing more fat into your diet. I've been exploring it since this metafilter post about the new DGAC report. Personally, my brain has been feeling wonderful since, which is an unexpected side effect. I'm very interested in the psychological effects, and the idea of fat as a kind of medicine, and it's certainly been helping with weight loss.
I've been doing keto since the end of May, and drinking my coffee with all kinds of fat in it for a little over 2 months now -- 2 cups of coffee, 2 tablespoons of butter (just plain old butter, nothing fancy), 2 tablespoons of coconut oil, 2 tablespoons of heavy cream, a pinch of stevia powder, blend it all together with an immersion blender so it ends up with a slight head of foam on it like a latte. It's as you said: bulletproof coffee without the weird marketing bs that goes along with it. Keeps me full for hours. Makes it easier to do intermittent fasting. Weight has been coming down steadily, energy levels are good... the taste of the coffee is very similar to a latte, just a little more fatty, so I'm wondering if those who have tried it and found it gross maybe didn't actually blend the coffee but just threw some butter into a cup of black coffee and called it good. It was pretty gross the one time I tried it like that.
posted by palomar at 12:57 PM on August 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
I've been doing keto since the end of May, and drinking my coffee with all kinds of fat in it for a little over 2 months now -- 2 cups of coffee, 2 tablespoons of butter (just plain old butter, nothing fancy), 2 tablespoons of coconut oil, 2 tablespoons of heavy cream, a pinch of stevia powder, blend it all together with an immersion blender so it ends up with a slight head of foam on it like a latte. It's as you said: bulletproof coffee without the weird marketing bs that goes along with it. Keeps me full for hours. Makes it easier to do intermittent fasting. Weight has been coming down steadily, energy levels are good... the taste of the coffee is very similar to a latte, just a little more fatty, so I'm wondering if those who have tried it and found it gross maybe didn't actually blend the coffee but just threw some butter into a cup of black coffee and called it good. It was pretty gross the one time I tried it like that.
posted by palomar at 12:57 PM on August 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
People with cystic fibrosis can eat 5000 calories a day and remain dangerously underweight. Most of them are rail thin. A few are obese.
Then they aren't really getting all 5,000 of those calories in are they? That's exactly my point. They might be eating 5,000 calories but only absorbing 1,000 of them. I have to measure my calorie intake based on the nutrition information but that information tells me almost nothing about how many calories I'll actually absorb from it. So if I could actually measure my calories in in an accurate way, "calories in" would actually mean something. But we can't so it doesn't except for in an abstract way.
It's like we're trying to measure a car's fuel usage by measuring how much gas we put in it without taking into account that we're putting the fuel in by standing five feet away and spraying gas in the direction of the fuel door.
posted by VTX at 1:03 PM on August 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
Then they aren't really getting all 5,000 of those calories in are they? That's exactly my point. They might be eating 5,000 calories but only absorbing 1,000 of them. I have to measure my calorie intake based on the nutrition information but that information tells me almost nothing about how many calories I'll actually absorb from it. So if I could actually measure my calories in in an accurate way, "calories in" would actually mean something. But we can't so it doesn't except for in an abstract way.
It's like we're trying to measure a car's fuel usage by measuring how much gas we put in it without taking into account that we're putting the fuel in by standing five feet away and spraying gas in the direction of the fuel door.
posted by VTX at 1:03 PM on August 27, 2015 [8 favorites]
Seconding /r/keto.
Thirding. Specifically, the LCHF angle on keto. I've lost 50 pounds since January with no exercise. It was prescribed to me by a doctor. It's not for everyone. But holy crap is it working for me.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:04 PM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
Thirding. Specifically, the LCHF angle on keto. I've lost 50 pounds since January with no exercise. It was prescribed to me by a doctor. It's not for everyone. But holy crap is it working for me.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:04 PM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
boo_radley: "Don't worry if you weren't in the first ten favorites! There's going to be a second bonus kicker comment within the next 24 hours! Just refresh this page to see if it's been posted!!!"
We're almost ready to post that bonus kicker comment! Stick around and refresh this page to be the first in line!
posted by boo_radley at 1:15 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
We're almost ready to post that bonus kicker comment! Stick around and refresh this page to be the first in line!
posted by boo_radley at 1:15 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I know very little about ketones, but I was told by a diabetes educator that they're what kill Type I diabetics who aren't treated with insulin.
posted by clawsoon at 1:15 PM on August 27, 2015
posted by clawsoon at 1:15 PM on August 27, 2015
Then they aren't really getting all 5,000 of those calories in are they? That's exactly my point.
This is true. And it is exactly why I say we clearly are missing something or the "calories in, calories out" formula would work for everyone. It doesn't.
It's like we're trying to measure a car's fuel usage by measuring how much gas we put in it without taking into account that we're putting the fuel in by standing five feet away and spraying gas in the direction of the fuel door.
It's more like we are trying to measure a car's fuel usage and some cars have gremlins that are secretly syphoning the gas and others have ...some other bizarre problem that we can't see (I don't really have time today to sit around making up imaginary examples for this metaphor). If I stood five feet away and sprayed gas all over the car, any idiot could tell me "There's your problem!" But when I try to eat like other people and it gets vastly different results, no one can readily say why.
I think some of the missing pieces are genetics -- and I don't mean "you are fat because you have fat genes" -- and gut biome.
posted by Michele in California at 1:16 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is true. And it is exactly why I say we clearly are missing something or the "calories in, calories out" formula would work for everyone. It doesn't.
It's like we're trying to measure a car's fuel usage by measuring how much gas we put in it without taking into account that we're putting the fuel in by standing five feet away and spraying gas in the direction of the fuel door.
It's more like we are trying to measure a car's fuel usage and some cars have gremlins that are secretly syphoning the gas and others have ...some other bizarre problem that we can't see (I don't really have time today to sit around making up imaginary examples for this metaphor). If I stood five feet away and sprayed gas all over the car, any idiot could tell me "There's your problem!" But when I try to eat like other people and it gets vastly different results, no one can readily say why.
I think some of the missing pieces are genetics -- and I don't mean "you are fat because you have fat genes" -- and gut biome.
posted by Michele in California at 1:16 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh christfuck I just linked to a site called 'broscience'. Somebody stab me please
Pillow-smothering is traditional in cases like this
posted by thelonius at 1:24 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Pillow-smothering is traditional in cases like this
posted by thelonius at 1:24 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
I have to measure my calorie intake based on the nutrition information but that information tells me almost nothing about how many calories I'll actually absorb from it.
Right. So the other part of the formula is the "calories out" part. What you're supposed to do is measure how many calories you're eating, and track it, and weigh yourself regularly and track your weight, and use the number of calories you've eaten and the change in your weight to calibrate your metabolic rate. To work an example a little bit: A lb. of fat is roughly 3500 calories. If you eat, say, 2800 calories a day, and find that after two weeks you've gained a lb., that would tell you that you ate 3500 calories above maintenance during that period, meaning that your maintenance calories (or the amount you would eat to maintain the same weight) would be 2550. To lose a lb./week you would eat 1985 calories per day. So, it doesn't actually matter that the calories on the package are wrong or that you absorb them differently than most people, as long as you're consistent with how you measure. I first encountered this as The Hacker Diet, but it's the thing people refer to when they're talking about "calories in/calories out".
I'm not advocating for this at all, because this isn't the right place to dispense fitness advice. I'm just explaining how the system works.
posted by chrchr at 1:24 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
Right. So the other part of the formula is the "calories out" part. What you're supposed to do is measure how many calories you're eating, and track it, and weigh yourself regularly and track your weight, and use the number of calories you've eaten and the change in your weight to calibrate your metabolic rate. To work an example a little bit: A lb. of fat is roughly 3500 calories. If you eat, say, 2800 calories a day, and find that after two weeks you've gained a lb., that would tell you that you ate 3500 calories above maintenance during that period, meaning that your maintenance calories (or the amount you would eat to maintain the same weight) would be 2550. To lose a lb./week you would eat 1985 calories per day. So, it doesn't actually matter that the calories on the package are wrong or that you absorb them differently than most people, as long as you're consistent with how you measure. I first encountered this as The Hacker Diet, but it's the thing people refer to when they're talking about "calories in/calories out".
I'm not advocating for this at all, because this isn't the right place to dispense fitness advice. I'm just explaining how the system works.
posted by chrchr at 1:24 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm surprised that tapeworms haven't taken off as a weight-loss cure-all.
posted by clawsoon at 1:28 PM on August 27, 2015
posted by clawsoon at 1:28 PM on August 27, 2015
I'm surprised that tapeworms haven't taken off as a weight-loss cure-all.
That's why we have the FDA: Because someone once sold tapeworm eggs as "weight loss pills."
posted by Michele in California at 1:30 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's why we have the FDA: Because someone once sold tapeworm eggs as "weight loss pills."
posted by Michele in California at 1:30 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm surprised that tapeworms haven't taken off as a weight-loss cure-all.
Once someone figures out how to market them as Bowel Bros, I'm sure they'll gain traction.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:31 PM on August 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
Once someone figures out how to market them as Bowel Bros, I'm sure they'll gain traction.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:31 PM on August 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm surprised that tapeworms haven't taken off as a weight-loss cure-all.
For one thing, they don't always stay in your gut.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:33 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
For one thing, they don't always stay in your gut.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:33 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ahh. Dude.
Hidden Epidemic: 
Tapeworms Living Inside People's Brains
That was one of the cites in the Wikipedia article.
I clicked.
Goddamn.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:35 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hidden Epidemic: 
Tapeworms Living Inside People's Brains
That was one of the cites in the Wikipedia article.
I clicked.
Goddamn.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:35 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ketosis != Ketoacidosis.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:38 PM on August 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:38 PM on August 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
ew can we get back to coffee and butter
posted by naju at 1:38 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by naju at 1:38 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Bull(sh)itproof coffee
also, Simpsons did it first
posted by Existential Dread at 1:40 PM on August 27, 2015
also, Simpsons did it first
posted by Existential Dread at 1:40 PM on August 27, 2015
Tapeworms in your coffee?
posted by clawsoon at 1:40 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 1:40 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
ew can we get back to coffee and butter
Ok.
If I get my hands on some butter from grass-fed cows, it is so getting slathered on warm slices of nice-ass bread, and not going in my fucking coffee.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:40 PM on August 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Ok.
If I get my hands on some butter from grass-fed cows, it is so getting slathered on warm slices of nice-ass bread, and not going in my fucking coffee.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:40 PM on August 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Kerrygold grass-fed butter is almost certainly available at your local grocers, so slather on!
posted by chrchr at 1:50 PM on August 27, 2015
posted by chrchr at 1:50 PM on August 27, 2015
Welp, that's dinner sorted!
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:56 PM on August 27, 2015
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:56 PM on August 27, 2015
So I think we're basically arguing the same thing. "Calories in, calories out" is pretty worthless as a concept. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that what makes it so appealing is that it is true on a basic level and it makes intuitive sense. It's just that the execution of it is WAY more complicated than anyone really wants to deal with.
It's basically what's working for me but instead of actually counting calories, I'm just weighing myself often (with the understanding that it fluctuates a lot throughout the day) and if I see my downward trend start to reverse itself, I just try to eat less. Since I'm also lifting heavy weights twice a week, I'm also measuring my size since sometimes I don't lose weight but DO lose volume since muscle is denser than fat. I honestly think that, by not stressing out too much about it, it actually works better for me.
But I understand the appeal of fitness marketing. Like with my weightlifting. The most effective exercise is the one you'll stick with and weightlifting is the only thing I've found that I know I can stick with. Even then, I need to be working from home and put a weight set in my basement for it to work. I don't like lifting weights, it's not an activity I enjoy. The delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) I could do without, and making sure that I eat enough protein and stuff is a pain too. It all takes a lot of work, results are slow, it's painful, and it's a lot of hassle. If someone told me that I could do something different and get the same results while mitigating even just one of things I don't like about it and I get why people suddenly sit up and pay attention.
Fitness is actually pretty simple, but it takes time and hard work and here we have some very convincing people telling us that there is an easier way. It seems silly not to try. But we don't yet understand enough about the human body to come up with way to do it that doesn't suck and maybe we never will.
So, unless you're getting your fitness advice from a researcher or someone who understands that level of work, just tune them out. People at places like Evidence Based Fitness are the folks you want to listen to. That guy is an M.D. and statistician and isn't selling anything to folks like me. It's my go-to fitness and diet resource.
posted by VTX at 2:26 PM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's basically what's working for me but instead of actually counting calories, I'm just weighing myself often (with the understanding that it fluctuates a lot throughout the day) and if I see my downward trend start to reverse itself, I just try to eat less. Since I'm also lifting heavy weights twice a week, I'm also measuring my size since sometimes I don't lose weight but DO lose volume since muscle is denser than fat. I honestly think that, by not stressing out too much about it, it actually works better for me.
But I understand the appeal of fitness marketing. Like with my weightlifting. The most effective exercise is the one you'll stick with and weightlifting is the only thing I've found that I know I can stick with. Even then, I need to be working from home and put a weight set in my basement for it to work. I don't like lifting weights, it's not an activity I enjoy. The delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) I could do without, and making sure that I eat enough protein and stuff is a pain too. It all takes a lot of work, results are slow, it's painful, and it's a lot of hassle. If someone told me that I could do something different and get the same results while mitigating even just one of things I don't like about it and I get why people suddenly sit up and pay attention.
Fitness is actually pretty simple, but it takes time and hard work and here we have some very convincing people telling us that there is an easier way. It seems silly not to try. But we don't yet understand enough about the human body to come up with way to do it that doesn't suck and maybe we never will.
So, unless you're getting your fitness advice from a researcher or someone who understands that level of work, just tune them out. People at places like Evidence Based Fitness are the folks you want to listen to. That guy is an M.D. and statistician and isn't selling anything to folks like me. It's my go-to fitness and diet resource.
posted by VTX at 2:26 PM on August 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
I know very little about ketones, but I was told by a diabetes educator that they're what kill Type I diabetics who aren't treated with insulin.
That's diabetic ketoacidosis. Extreme ketosis overwhelms the body's ability to regulate the pH of the blood. Ketogenic diets induce a much lower level of ketosis which, in healthy people, does not significantly alter physiological pH.
posted by dephlogisticated at 2:41 PM on August 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
That's diabetic ketoacidosis. Extreme ketosis overwhelms the body's ability to regulate the pH of the blood. Ketogenic diets induce a much lower level of ketosis which, in healthy people, does not significantly alter physiological pH.
posted by dephlogisticated at 2:41 PM on August 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
Great link, VTX. This article has given me a new motto: "When you see yet another list-y article on how to do something better, just remember to take a dump."
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 2:42 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 2:42 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
VTX,
You started out talking to me and then, I dunno, maybe just went from there to general pontificating.
In case you were still talking "to" me: I lost scads of weight. I am dramatically smaller. I did not count calories or do any of the things you are talking about. It wasn't exactly easy, but it was certainly ...better than the way I used to have.
I think I learned some important things along the way. It is, at best, challenging to try to discuss with people. The world in general likes to reply to my thoughts on the subject with statements like "Fifteen years of steady forward progress is not evidence you know anything. Wilder coincidences have happened." Or "You are just a sample of one. It is anecdotal."
Suffice it to say, I see it vastly different from how it sounds like you see it but I am in no position to defend my views.
posted by Michele in California at 2:43 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
You started out talking to me and then, I dunno, maybe just went from there to general pontificating.
In case you were still talking "to" me: I lost scads of weight. I am dramatically smaller. I did not count calories or do any of the things you are talking about. It wasn't exactly easy, but it was certainly ...better than the way I used to have.
I think I learned some important things along the way. It is, at best, challenging to try to discuss with people. The world in general likes to reply to my thoughts on the subject with statements like "Fifteen years of steady forward progress is not evidence you know anything. Wilder coincidences have happened." Or "You are just a sample of one. It is anecdotal."
Suffice it to say, I see it vastly different from how it sounds like you see it but I am in no position to defend my views.
posted by Michele in California at 2:43 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
When did Bulletproof Coffee go from coffee-with-butter to this super-specific MCT oil thing? Seems like the point where it turned from just an idea into a specific product that you could only buy from Approved Outlets.
And I don't drink coffee, but I've had Tibetan Butter Tea and, yeah, horrible. Not my cup of tea.
posted by GuyZero at 3:23 PM on August 27, 2015
And I don't drink coffee, but I've had Tibetan Butter Tea and, yeah, horrible. Not my cup of tea.
posted by GuyZero at 3:23 PM on August 27, 2015
Can I just say that the "snake oil" illustrated in the, uhh, illustration - creatine - is actually one of the very few "fitness supplements" that has actually undergone extensive scientific scrutiny and has proven efficacy.
I have no idea what "Creatine 5000" might mean though. Five thousand creatines is a lot.
Also Snake Oil is a very fun party game and butter + MCT in your morning coffee makes for a surprisingly nourishing drink if you can be bothered with the fuckaround.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:29 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have no idea what "Creatine 5000" might mean though. Five thousand creatines is a lot.
Also Snake Oil is a very fun party game and butter + MCT in your morning coffee makes for a surprisingly nourishing drink if you can be bothered with the fuckaround.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:29 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
(Having said that, just adding thickened cream to your coffee is way more delicious.)
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:42 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:42 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
As a "husky" young man in my teens some thirty years ago, a family doctor brusquely introduced me to the "calories in/calories out" formula. "There weren't any fat people in the concentration camps, were there?" he said.
And then he smirked smugly, having just opened this young man's mind to the dietary secret I'd been missing all along: that I needed to more closely emulate the lifestyle conditions of a prison camp.
Because as we all know, prison camp residents were the very pictures of health, what with their enviable scale weights. And that is what the doctor really cared about, right, health?
posted by thebordella at 3:46 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
And then he smirked smugly, having just opened this young man's mind to the dietary secret I'd been missing all along: that I needed to more closely emulate the lifestyle conditions of a prison camp.
Because as we all know, prison camp residents were the very pictures of health, what with their enviable scale weights. And that is what the doctor really cared about, right, health?
posted by thebordella at 3:46 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
prison camp residents were the very pictures of health, what with their enviable scale weights.
That reminds me of this photo essay of Hell's Angels motorcycle club members from 1965.
Here's a population of dudes that likely didn't much care about health. Heavy drinkers, smokers and lots of drug use.
Yet they look much, much healthier than a typical sample of motorcycle club members today. In theory, these two groups are living the same or very similar lifestyles. But in the 1965 photos, you won't find anyone that is obese.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:09 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
That reminds me of this photo essay of Hell's Angels motorcycle club members from 1965.
Here's a population of dudes that likely didn't much care about health. Heavy drinkers, smokers and lots of drug use.
Yet they look much, much healthier than a typical sample of motorcycle club members today. In theory, these two groups are living the same or very similar lifestyles. But in the 1965 photos, you won't find anyone that is obese.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:09 PM on August 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
They didn't have breastaurants in those days.
posted by box at 5:10 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 5:10 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
grass-fed butter
As opposed to the butter from dairy cattle we keep in cages and force feed turnips?
posted by phoque at 5:28 PM on August 27, 2015
As opposed to the butter from dairy cattle we keep in cages and force feed turnips?
posted by phoque at 5:28 PM on August 27, 2015
Right. So the other part of the formula is the "calories out" part. What you're supposed to do is measure how many calories you're eating, and track it, and weigh yourself regularly and track your weight, and use the number of calories you've eaten and the change in your weight to calibrate your metabolic rate.
Counter point:
Water: 0 Calories in. But 1kg per 1L consumed (and not removed due to perspiration, respiration, urination, defecation, etc.).
posted by MikeKD at 6:27 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Counter point:
Water: 0 Calories in. But 1kg per 1L consumed (and not removed due to perspiration, respiration, urination, defecation, etc.).
posted by MikeKD at 6:27 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Whenever somebody gets very smug about "calories in, calories out" I like to ask them how many calories they burned yesterday (no estimating!) and how many calories their body absorbed (being as that's a different number from the number of calories that entered their digestive system). The answer usually involves me being fat.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:28 PM on August 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:28 PM on August 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
Water: 0 Calories in. But 1kg per 1L consumed
A person's weight definitely fluctuates within a couple of lbs from day-to-day. You can mitigate that somewhat by measuring at the same time each day, and by taking an average of the last n days.
I like to ask them how many calories they burned yesterday (no estimating!)
Why no estimating? It's impossible to measure precisely, but one can establish a useful estimate over a couple of weeks.
posted by chrchr at 7:10 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
A person's weight definitely fluctuates within a couple of lbs from day-to-day. You can mitigate that somewhat by measuring at the same time each day, and by taking an average of the last n days.
I like to ask them how many calories they burned yesterday (no estimating!)
Why no estimating? It's impossible to measure precisely, but one can establish a useful estimate over a couple of weeks.
posted by chrchr at 7:10 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've woken up in the morning 3kg lighter than I was when I went to bed the night before, and that's even before pooping (though does include night-time weeing). If we're talking about fat loss, body weight is actually a pretty ordinary way of determining it: body measurements are better.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:27 PM on August 27, 2015
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:27 PM on August 27, 2015
Why no estimating? It's impossible to measure precisely, but one can establish a useful estimate over a couple of weeks.
Even ten calories a day is a pound a year, and if you think you have anything resembling that precision for those numbers (which, if you're gonna be smug about your caloric balance, you fuckin' oughta) you're a silly person.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:30 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
Even ten calories a day is a pound a year, and if you think you have anything resembling that precision for those numbers (which, if you're gonna be smug about your caloric balance, you fuckin' oughta) you're a silly person.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:30 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't think you have that precision at all. I think you can have a useful estimate, which can be used in conjunction with a scale to tell you if you're eating too much or too little, and by approximately how much. I am not a registered dietician. This is not dietic advice, etc..
posted by chrchr at 8:48 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by chrchr at 8:48 PM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not particularly overweight, but I am a bit of a nerd, so I took notes on my food and exercise for 90 days and attempted to predict my weight (grouping days into 3 day buckets to try to iron out randomness). There was a tiny positive correlation -- I lost about 15% of the weight predicted by the calories-in/calories-out formula -- but the r^2 was massive (I forgot the value), a statistician would laugh at it.
A lot of that is that calorie estimates are REALLY far off, I'd be shocked if I could get within 40% by eyeballing the things I eat every day. I'm sure I could fix that by going on a medically exact manufactured-food diet, but food is a huge part of my social and professional life and I don't think I could manage that even for a week.
The other thing is that even 90 days is a fairly small sample size -- given the massive random variance in both variables I'd like to do a 10 or 20 day averages, but then I wouldn't have enough independent data points to find any meaningful correlation. If I bother to keep up my note taking for a few years it might be possible to tease out some kind of relationship.
posted by miyabo at 9:30 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
A lot of that is that calorie estimates are REALLY far off, I'd be shocked if I could get within 40% by eyeballing the things I eat every day. I'm sure I could fix that by going on a medically exact manufactured-food diet, but food is a huge part of my social and professional life and I don't think I could manage that even for a week.
The other thing is that even 90 days is a fairly small sample size -- given the massive random variance in both variables I'd like to do a 10 or 20 day averages, but then I wouldn't have enough independent data points to find any meaningful correlation. If I bother to keep up my note taking for a few years it might be possible to tease out some kind of relationship.
posted by miyabo at 9:30 PM on August 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
(Having said that, just adding thickened cream to your coffee is way more delicious.)
Sure, but if you whipped that cream, think of the, um, is it 'burn'? You know what I mean. Exercisy thing.
posted by pompomtom at 9:31 PM on August 27, 2015
Sure, but if you whipped that cream, think of the, um, is it 'burn'? You know what I mean. Exercisy thing.
posted by pompomtom at 9:31 PM on August 27, 2015
Note that trying to estimate calories at restaurants is a black art. Everything bad that is too gross for you to do at home happens in a restaurant. All milk is whipped cream and everything has sugar added, including meat and salad. When the Cheesecake Factory was forced to publish calories in CA it was harsh -- many of the salads had over 2000 calories.
posted by benzenedream at 10:42 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 10:42 PM on August 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've gone from 220 to 180 pounds doing keto. The craziest side effect of this was the one time a friend of a friend once made me an admin of a bullet proof diet support Facebook group just because he spotted me trying out this kind of coffee. Fast forward a few years later and admins later Dave Asprey adds me to Facebook.
Anyways, I've heard some people say that cutting carbs really just cuts out the junk food in your life or you end up eating less calories by limiting food choices. I can easily out eat 5 friends combined while getting AYCE KBBQ so it feels like it's something more than just calories in/out for my own body in this case.
posted by RichAndCreamy at 12:06 AM on August 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
Anyways, I've heard some people say that cutting carbs really just cuts out the junk food in your life or you end up eating less calories by limiting food choices. I can easily out eat 5 friends combined while getting AYCE KBBQ so it feels like it's something more than just calories in/out for my own body in this case.
posted by RichAndCreamy at 12:06 AM on August 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ugh, that second marketing email sounds exactly designed to send me running.
The first one sounds perfect, clear prices and a description of what that buys (not something I want, but still). The second one, with the 24 hours remaining, only 10 spots left! I would inst-delete on principle.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 3:35 AM on August 28, 2015
The first one sounds perfect, clear prices and a description of what that buys (not something I want, but still). The second one, with the 24 hours remaining, only 10 spots left! I would inst-delete on principle.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 3:35 AM on August 28, 2015
The low carb thing has always made sense to me at least in a thermodynamic sense. Your body burns glucose and a lot of carbs are pretty chemically similar so your body doesn't have to work very hard to turn that into glucose and burn it. But if you're not eating carbs, your body has to turn fat into glucose and that has to be a less efficient process. So if you eat 2,000 calories of fat you end up losing a lot of it in the conversion to stored fat and then glucose which is basically the same as not having eaten those calories. So it's very different than 2,000 calories of simple carbs. And I think that it's only supposed to work with enough inefficiency to make a difference if you're cutting out most/all carbs.
And that might be part of it but the reason it works for a lot of the people it works for is that they just eat less food.
But it does illustrate another reason why calories in/calories out breaks down. It's still 2,000 calories but good luck figuring out how of each actually gets absorbed, lost to conversion and storage processes, etc.
posted by VTX at 5:48 AM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
And that might be part of it but the reason it works for a lot of the people it works for is that they just eat less food.
But it does illustrate another reason why calories in/calories out breaks down. It's still 2,000 calories but good luck figuring out how of each actually gets absorbed, lost to conversion and storage processes, etc.
posted by VTX at 5:48 AM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, fat has more than twice the energy density of carbs. If you want to raise someone's weight who has trouble eating, you "densify" their diet by adding a whole bunch of fat. I've had to do this a couple of times for my daughter, who has trouble chewing. It works.
Fat: 37 kJ/gram
Carbs: 17 kJ/gram
posted by clawsoon at 7:17 AM on August 28, 2015
Fat: 37 kJ/gram
Carbs: 17 kJ/gram
posted by clawsoon at 7:17 AM on August 28, 2015
Yes, if you add fat to a diet already rich in both fat and carbohydrates, it will not assist in weight loss. No, that is not relevant to LCHF diets.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:19 AM on August 28, 2015
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:19 AM on August 28, 2015
On the other other hand, if you assume that distinct classes of molecules (fats, carbs, protiens, etc) have different uses as construction materials for building your meat covered organically grown robot, then maybe there is more to it than which fuels burn the fastest, longest, etc and how many fuel credits each packet carries for its size.
I mean, you know, maybe food is also like pipes, roof tiles and cement for constructing your house, rather than just electric versus coal versus wood burning stove for heating it.
posted by Michele in California at 9:50 AM on August 28, 2015
I mean, you know, maybe food is also like pipes, roof tiles and cement for constructing your house, rather than just electric versus coal versus wood burning stove for heating it.
posted by Michele in California at 9:50 AM on August 28, 2015
Next time anyone suggests it's as simple as calories in/calories out, point them to this chart of human metabolism.
posted by miyabo at 12:13 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by miyabo at 12:13 PM on August 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nthing /r/keto (I'm down over 100 lbs eating LCHF) and to paraphrase a comment I saw on /r/fitness about this article, even most of those who drink bulletproof coffee think Asprey's a snake oil salesman. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, though.
posted by callmejay at 1:31 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by callmejay at 1:31 PM on August 28, 2015 [3 favorites]
On the other hand, fat has more than twice the energy density of carbs. If you want to raise someone's weight who has trouble eating, you "densify" their diet by adding a whole bunch of fat. I've had to do this a couple of times for my daughter, who has trouble chewing.
That might be the first example I've ever heard of why the energy "density" of a food might be relevant to anybody, especially people trying to LOSE weight. It's not like energy density has a strong inverse correlation with satiety, despite the implications of the low-fat crowd.
posted by callmejay at 1:34 PM on August 28, 2015
That might be the first example I've ever heard of why the energy "density" of a food might be relevant to anybody, especially people trying to LOSE weight. It's not like energy density has a strong inverse correlation with satiety, despite the implications of the low-fat crowd.
posted by callmejay at 1:34 PM on August 28, 2015
"Energy dense" is another way to say "high calorie". Clawson's formulation above:
Fat: 37 kJ/gram
Carbs: 17 kJ/gram
. . . is the more often expressed as:
Fat: 9 calories/gram
Carbs: 4 calories/gram
(just to restate in more familiar terms).
posted by chrchr at 2:32 PM on August 28, 2015
Fat: 37 kJ/gram
Carbs: 17 kJ/gram
. . . is the more often expressed as:
Fat: 9 calories/gram
Carbs: 4 calories/gram
(just to restate in more familiar terms).
posted by chrchr at 2:32 PM on August 28, 2015
I've heard some people say that cutting carbs really just cuts out the junk food in your life
I've lost weight by cutting out carbs and I suspect that in my case, this is the key. Cutting out carbs eliminated almost all the crappy food that I would mindlessly stuff into my face. The are probably other factors at work and I might do as well with a little portion control, but cutting carbs is an easy shortcut for me to eating more mindfully.
posted by Drab_Parts at 2:48 PM on August 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've lost weight by cutting out carbs and I suspect that in my case, this is the key. Cutting out carbs eliminated almost all the crappy food that I would mindlessly stuff into my face. The are probably other factors at work and I might do as well with a little portion control, but cutting carbs is an easy shortcut for me to eating more mindfully.
posted by Drab_Parts at 2:48 PM on August 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
If cutting out carbs means cutting out junk food, then you're probably cutting out a lot of fat, too, since many junk foods are high in both. A potato chip, for example, is about 50% carbs and 35% fat by weight. A donut is 50% carbs and 25% fat. A chocolate chip cookie is 60% and 30%.
But when you convert that to calories, you discover that the energy density of fat means that both potato chips and donuts are giving you most of their calories in the form of fat. So, for many people, cutting out "junk carbs" means that they're actually cutting out just as many calories from fat as from carbs.
I wonder if what makes junk food junky is that it somehow turns of the satiety-producing effect that many fats usually have.
posted by clawsoon at 3:18 PM on August 28, 2015
But when you convert that to calories, you discover that the energy density of fat means that both potato chips and donuts are giving you most of their calories in the form of fat. So, for many people, cutting out "junk carbs" means that they're actually cutting out just as many calories from fat as from carbs.
I wonder if what makes junk food junky is that it somehow turns of the satiety-producing effect that many fats usually have.
posted by clawsoon at 3:18 PM on August 28, 2015
To make it concrete: Drab_Parts, which foods did you cut out when you cut out the "crappy food that I would mindlessly stuff into my face"?
posted by clawsoon at 3:20 PM on August 28, 2015
posted by clawsoon at 3:20 PM on August 28, 2015
clawsoon: pizza, pasta, pita chips, pretzels. You know, the p's. Seriously though, it stopped me from running out for two slices of pizza as a snack when things were hectic at work. Or from eating a big, not particularly healthy sandwich. Or big plates of pasta. And a lot of the things I would pour into a bowl and eat in large volumes while watching tv. I think it introduced a large degree of mindfullness to my eating (that was previously lacking).
posted by Drab_Parts at 2:03 PM on August 29, 2015
posted by Drab_Parts at 2:03 PM on August 29, 2015
« Older Mormon breast implants and Jewish Dowries | Mapping the beautiful chaos of informal transit Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Kitteh at 10:38 AM on August 27, 2015