Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

So my weight has been climbing steadily for a few years now.

I've heard good things about the "Hacker's Diet". It's definately oriented
to my geek lifestyle. ( http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/ )

The big idea is the idea of an "Eat Watch"/clock, a hypothetical device
that would tell you to start eating or stop eating based on your caloric
needs... fit folks have a well tuned one of these built-in, folks who tend
to be overweight need to use an artificical one, just like folks with poor
vision can use glasses.

The core ideas seem to be:
1. Carefully know # of calories in, and make sure its below your
guesstimated daily burn rate
2. Weigh-in daily, and here's some nifty software to let you chart a
weighted average
3. Weight loss is calories in minus calories out, though the day to day
water variance swamps a day of weight loss, which is why you take such
statistical care in step 2
4. Consider adding in this simple Royal Canadian Air Force-derived
exercise routine DAILY (which is "stepped" to start very easy, and then
progresses to be a very decent work out) but don't fool yourself because
the amount you can incidentally add with "extra" food overwhelms what you
can remove with extra exercise.

I've *always* though Daily Weigh-In made a lot of sense, despite the
conventional wisdom of doing it weekly. Ideally, either the daily news is
good, and you're happy, or it's bad, and you're encouraged to be more
strict.

So besides the difficulty in knowing calorie counts in social settings,
what are the gotchas of this sort of approach? Is calories in minus
calories burned a reasonable rule of thumb?

(Actually, it's similar to the approach I've successfully used once
befo daily weigh in, record that, and put an estimate of how "well" I
did in eating less.)

I would guess that one big bugaboo is your metabolism slowing down in
response, so that it becomes more and more difficult to eat few enough
calories to make a difference.

And he glosses over nutritiion; he thinks as omnivores, from a weightloss
perspective WHAT calories we eat just doesn't matter that much, though
obviously you want to maintain decent nutrition through all of this....

So anyway, I dig the palmpilot weight tracker you can get for this, which
does the graphing for you. (Before I used a palmpilot db, but it did no
graphing. The site also has some Excel spreadsheets) Also, I like the idea
of simple, scaling, no-props-needed, do-anywhere exercises for maintaining
and gradually improving conditioning.

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"There are two adults and one child. Majority rules.
Live like an animal or die." --James Israel

Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 14:10:32 GMT, Kirk Is wrote:
So besides the difficulty in knowing calorie counts in social settings,
what are the gotchas of this sort of approach? Is calories in minus
calories burned a reasonable rule of thumb?

The gotcha is that it may not be easy to stick with it due to being
hungry. Otherwise, if you do stick with it, calorie counting (a form
of eating less) is the only guaranteed way to lose weight.

(Actually, it's similar to the approach I've successfully used once
befo daily weigh in, record that, and put an estimate of how "well" I
did in eating less.)

Make sure to use some sort of a filter (moving average) to filter out
daily fluctuations.

I would guess that one big bugaboo is your metabolism slowing down in
response, so that it becomes more and more difficult to eat few enough
calories to make a difference.

It is mostly bull****.

i

Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

Ignoramus2833 wrote:
Make sure to use some sort of a filter (moving average) to filter out
daily fluctuations.

Yeah, that's what this program is all about...actually he goes on and on
about the math of it, but also provides a very convenient Palm application
(and Excel spreadsheet) that charts it out nicely.

Frankly I think just looking at a straight forward graph and blurring your
eyes a bit would get most of the the same idea...

I would guess that one big bugaboo is your metabolism slowing down in
response, so that it becomes more and more difficult to eat few enough
calories to make a difference.

It is mostly bull****.

Hope you're right!

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"There are two adults and one child. Majority rules.
Live like an animal or die." --James Israel

Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

Phil M. wrote:
Kirk Is wrote:
All this seems very sensible to me. Most weight-loss programs have as
their underlying structure, the caloric deficit equation. A lot of
diets hide this from the dieter by calling it low-carb, low-fat,
points, whatever. But underneath they depend on the physiological fact
that weight loss is determined by maintaining a caloric deficit.

yeah, I've noticed just what you said...even stuff with very specific
restrictions ala Atkins probably end up being calorie limiters, rather
than just weird glucose or other metabolism stuff.

(Actually, it's similar to the approach I've successfully used once
befo daily weigh in, record that, and put an estimate of how "well" I
did in eating less.)

You used it once before. I have to wonder why you stopped. Speaking for
myself, I know that maintaining a caloric balance is my way of eating
(WOE) for the rest of my life, unless at some point I no longer care
about my own health.

Well, I did a so-so job of thinking of it as a WOE change-- I was aware
that it's not as useful to think of it as a "diet", but once I had more or
less hit my goals I stopped the daily recording.

Why I stopped? I guess my WOE/WOL was inadvertantly tied in to some things
that changed. A divorce and a job change forced changes in the particulars
of my WOE, and the new WOE/WOL that emerged wasn't well constructed for
ongoing weight maintenence.

And he glosses over nutritiion; he thinks as omnivores, from a weightloss
perspective WHAT calories we eat just doesn't matter that much, though
obviously you want to maintain decent nutrition through all of this....

I haven't read the entire thing, but that does not sound good to me. If
you're reducing your calories, that gives you a smaller window in which
to get your needed nutrients in order to stay healthy. You have to be
even more carefull that you're eating that right foods.

Well, fair enough. I guess nutrition goes beyond the scope of the work, by
its own admission. Though I think in practice, people will eat more
nutritiously, because most of the bad stuff has a bad calorie/filling
ratio, and if you're very aware of calories you'll be looking for bulkier
stuff.

Kirk, 227/227/180...

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"There are two adults and one child. Majority rules.
Live like an animal or die." --James Israel

Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

Kirk Is wrote:
Phil M. wrote:
I haven't read the entire thing, but that does not sound good to me. If
you're reducing your calories, that gives you a smaller window in which
to get your needed nutrients in order to stay healthy. You have to be
even more carefull that you're eating that right foods.

Well, fair enough. I guess nutrition goes beyond the scope of the work, by
its own admission. Though I think in practice, people will eat more
nutritiously, because most of the bad stuff has a bad calorie/filling
ratio, and if you're very aware of calories you'll be looking for bulkier
stuff.

Yes. Although, at times I've considered a half gallon of ice cream for
breakfast, then calling it a day. ;-) This reminds me of certain
studies that are published like, "People Who Take a Daily Vitamin Show
to have Lower Blood Pressure." Well, duh. People who are taking
vitamins also tend to be concerned about nutrition and other aspects of
their lives.

--
Phil M.







Kirk, 227/227/180...

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"There are two adults and one child. Majority rules.
Live like an animal or die." --James Israel

Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

On 5/31/06 11:10 PM, in article , "Kirk
Is" wrote:

Is calories in minus
calories burned a reasonable rule of thumb?

Yes. That is really all it comes down to. Any way you can create a plan that
works for you that accomplishes that then - go for it!

doug

Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

On 5/31/06 11:41 PM, in article
, "Phil M."
wrote:

All this seems very sensible to me. Most weight-loss programs have as
their underlying structure, the caloric deficit equation. A lot of
diets hide this from the dieter by calling it low-carb, low-fat,
points, whatever. But underneath they depend on the physiological fact
that weight loss is determined by maintaining a caloric deficit.

Exactly. So whatever plan that psychologically works for you in achieving
that goal the more chance you will have of staying on it forever.

That is why I ended up doing calorie counting - it avoids the middleman and
just gets right to the point(s). :)

doug

Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:17:11 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:




On 5/31/06 11:30 PM, in article ,
"Ignoramus2833" wrote:

Make sure to use some sort of a filter (moving average) to filter out
daily fluctuations.

That is true. I often find that my daily "noise fluctuation" is larger than
my weekly loss! In other words, my daily weight, even measured the same time
each morning, might vary by 1 or even 2 pounds, even though the week-to-week
weight loss might average out at just 1 lb/week.

So the only thing that matters is the average loss over larger periods of
time.

I still weigh myself every day though.

doug

When I was losing, I weighed each day but recorded my weight weekly,
and I recorded the lowest weight I saw during the week :-). I realize
this isn't the least bit scientific (and I'm a math/computer geek by
training and profession), but it is more encouraging, and if it lets
you deceive yourself a little, the cumulative effect is still the
same. The weekly minimum decreases as surely as the weekly average
does over time.

Now I am in the mode of weighing only rarely (largely because I don't
have scales at home and don't generally go out of my way to do it at
the gym). I go by how my clothing feels and just weigh myself if I
feel a change. Now that I'm fairly small, I can tell the difference
of just a few pounds, whereas when I weighed 260 it took 10-15 pounds
before I noticed.

Chris
262/130s/130s
started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004

Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

On 6/1/06 7:28 AM, in article ,
"Chris Braun" wrote:

When I was losing, I weighed each day but recorded my weight weekly,
and I recorded the lowest weight I saw during the week :-). I realize
this isn't the least bit scientific (and I'm a math/computer geek by
training and profession), but it is more encouraging, and if it lets
you deceive yourself a little, the cumulative effect is still the
same.

You know, I thought about doing that too. And the average over time would be
the same, so I think that is legitimate.

On the other hand, grabbing the lowest weight for the week puts pressure on
your NEXT week. :)

doug

Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
 

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:33:08 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:




On 6/1/06 7:28 AM, in article ,
"Chris Braun" wrote:

When I was losing, I weighed each day but recorded my weight weekly,
and I recorded the lowest weight I saw during the week :-). I realize
this isn't the least bit scientific (and I'm a math/computer geek by
training and profession), but it is more encouraging, and if it lets
you deceive yourself a little, the cumulative effect is still the
same.

You know, I thought about doing that too. And the average over time would be
the same, so I think that is legitimate.

On the other hand, grabbing the lowest weight for the week puts pressure on
your NEXT week. :)

doug

This is true, but it felt easier to me somehow than worrying about
averaging. And there were times I probably went out of my way to get
an optimal low weight -- picking just the right time to weigh, or
doing it right after using the steam room or whatever -- but it all
came out the same in the end.

Chris
262/130s/130s
started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004