If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Calorie Counting Pitfalls and the Hacker's Diet?
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|