Can someone help me understand why those who would like to lose weight can’t just eat less and exercise more?
Weight loss methods seem to be a topic that have gotten really complex on LW. And I don’t get it. I’ve read quite a bit on LW, et al about weight loss and dieting and just don’t get why it’s so complicated.
Note: I’m a strong believer in genetic differences in individual metabolism...from my recall something like 25% of BMR is presumed to be genetic. This would be incredibly consequential over time.
Since you participated in the discussion of the posts that critiqued Taubes beginning here, I don’t understand why you’d bring this topic up again if you’ve nothing new to say.
Can someone help me understand why those who would like to lose weight can’t just eat less and exercise more?
Yes. Try being less stubborn. Those threads are full of possible reasons why.
That’s part of the reason I’m asking—I didn’t come out of that discussion with a good answer. I would have expected otherwise.
Dieting is hard. You need to allocate resources to it to win. I’m going to start a calorie-deficit-creating diet on Monday. It will suck. I’ll be hungry. I’ll experience some fatigue. Crankiness, perhaps...
But I’m also going to lose some weight. If I stick to it. I’m going to start learning the guitar and playing chess regularly too. Maybe systematically reading through the LW sequences.
And I don’t understand how weight loss is fundamentally different that any of those pursuits. It will require an allocation of resources (time, focus, etc.) that I can’t use elsewhere—so it will be a sacrifice—but the pounds will come off if I just do the exercises and monitor my diet. My chess game? Not so sure. My guitar ability? I’m hopeful. Following and comprehending the sequences? We’ll see...
The weight loss, in contrast, will seem relatively predictable and automatic IF I follow the plan of regular exercise and diet control.
My assumption is that LW knows something I don’t—And I’d either like to (a) confirm that idea and understand what it is I’m wrong about so I’m no longer wrong, or (b) get rid of that wrong idea and try to share what I know bout being right.
I had hoped the Taubes discussion would help me clarify things, but it didn’t. It seemed to be complicating a simple thing. Without looking back, I believe I said so at the time.
I accept and understand (I think more than the average person) the idea of genetic metabolic privilege via increased BMR, etc… but I still don’t see any way losing weight can be attributed to much (if anything) apart from eat less, exercise more.
Can you point to something in the discussion you cited that you considered definitive? It seemed to be a contentious discussion with no resolution or consensus.
The weight loss, in contrast, will seem relatively predictable and automatic IF I follow the plan of regular exercise and diet control.
I agree.
Can you point to something in the discussion you cited that you considered definitive? It seemed to be a contentious discussion with no resolution or consensus.
I can’t. The discussion made me more open minded to the idea that dieting may be more complicated than I think. I personally find losing weight relatively easy.
I still don’t see any way losing weight can be attributed to much (if anything) apart from eat less, exercise more.
Me neither, in the sense that I’m sure if you control those two conditions with certainty the person will lose weight. What makes things complicated is that the metabolic and psychological responses to that energy deficit and weight loss can apparently make it very costly to some people.
Can someone help me understand why those who would like to lose weight can’t just eat less and exercise more?
They can.
If it’s not working, eat less and exercise more. Physics is physics.
The usual implied questions behind, though, are “Do you have enough motivation to eat sufficiently less?” and “For how long will you be able to keep it up and what happens afterwards?”.
Weight loss methods seem to be a topic that have gotten really complex on LW.
Because the two questions above are important ones and because EY tried to lose weight and it didn’t work for him.
just don’t get why it’s so complicated
Losing weight is not complicated. Maintaining the desired body configuration is—because it usually requires continuous effort.
The usual implied questions behind, though, are “Do you have enough motivation to eat sufficiently less?” and “For how long will you be able to keep it up and what happens afterwards?”.
I don’t see how that complicates anything. This applies to any pursuit.
Because the two questions above are important ones and because EY tried to lose weight and it didn’t work for him.
Oh.
Losing weight is not complicated. Maintaining the desired body configuration is—because it usually requires continuous effort.
Sure. But how is that not true of lot of things that require maintenance? Of course you’d need to be disciplined to maintain many “desired states of configuration”.
Some people find certain things take more effort than others. For many people, the willpower necessary to stay thin is more than they have. Given how problematic being overweight can be, this is a problem.
In the usual ways. Your body has its own ideas about your food intake which may or may not match what your consciousness decides. It also has a variety of levers to affect your brain—from outright feelings of hunger to subtle reduction of mental efficiency when it thinks itself underfed.
If I decide to consciously commit to any task, there will be obstacles. If I set out to increase my knowledge on a subject, I’ll fight boredom, distractions, etc. It will reduce my capacity for other tasks—both mentally and by consuming time.
Losing weight is difficult, but it seems much simpler to me than the discussion (and perhaps consensus) I’ve seen around here.
I’ve wondered if it’s due to body weight being such a personal issue?
In the ancestral environment, sweet food (i.e. fruits and honey) was difficult to find in the wild, and our brains got wired to take advantage of every little opportunity to recharge with those sweet calories.
Now that we can mass-produce corn syrup and all kinds of cheap calories, our ancestral urges play against our best interest.
Sure. But how is that not true of lot of things that require maintenance? Of course you’d need to be disciplined to maintain many “desired states of configuration”.
Humans are driven by a lot of instincts that have millions of years of evolution behind them. Beating those instinct for a short time is doable but it’s harder to beat them for longer timeframes.
The human body can reduce energy consumption at the cost of being less agile and feeling bad. It has various ways to sabotage a diet that for most people are outside of their conscious control.
I’ve lost 30 pounds in the last four months. I have a hard time losing weight unless I fast for a day or two at a time. Reducing portions at some meals just means I snack more later in the day when my attention has wavered. Hypothetically I could reduce portions at all meals, but realistically given the demands of my life that won’t happen. Avoiding meals altogether is easier for me because I don’t feel very hungry when my attention is absorbed in something other than food, so as long as I stay busy I’m fine. It also helps that I’ve got social anxiety and don’t like to go into the cafeteria where large crowds of students are.
Can someone help me understand why those who would like to lose weight can’t just eat less and exercise more?
Since I’ve been trying for almost, oh years and years, I possibly can point you into some directions.
On eating less: eating less what, exactly? There are people who just eat less carbohydrates, or less fats, or less sugars, etc, and they still get fatter. The point is that you can eat in quantity as much as you want, if you just eat less calories. Ah, but counting calories is no easy task: it’s pretty easy when you eat something that has been industrially produced , but when it comes to food you prepare yourself, or others prepare for you? How much calories is a portion of vitel tonné? It depends on the portion size, on the ingredients, on the preparation. How much calories are in a slice of angel food cake, prepared with only 80% of the eggs? Who knows? What if you’re forced to eat every day something different?
On the other side, even if you manage to reduce the calories eaten, you’ll get hungry, very hungry. There’s basically no amount of will-power or motivational hack that will work against hunger. It’s one of the primary instinct of life and will overwrite everything your conscious mind can come up with.
On excercising more: which specific excercises will you choose? Aerobic, anaerobic? Walking, running, swimming, weight lifting? You have to find the time of course to do those activities. And many of the thing you’re going to choose will either require too much time to have an impact on your diet, or will increase drastically your hunger, or will lower your metabolism by killing your thermogenesis outside the excercise.
So yes, losing weight is easy if you eat less and excercise more. But coming up with a way to do those things efficiently and reliably is a very difficult task.
Can someone help me understand why those who would like to lose weight can’t just eat less and exercise more?
Weight loss methods seem to be a topic that have gotten really complex on LW. And I don’t get it. I’ve read quite a bit on LW, et al about weight loss and dieting and just don’t get why it’s so complicated.
Note: I’m a strong believer in genetic differences in individual metabolism...from my recall something like 25% of BMR is presumed to be genetic. This would be incredibly consequential over time.
Since you participated in the discussion of the posts that critiqued Taubes beginning here, I don’t understand why you’d bring this topic up again if you’ve nothing new to say.
Yes. Try being less stubborn. Those threads are full of possible reasons why.
That’s part of the reason I’m asking—I didn’t come out of that discussion with a good answer. I would have expected otherwise.
Dieting is hard. You need to allocate resources to it to win. I’m going to start a calorie-deficit-creating diet on Monday. It will suck. I’ll be hungry. I’ll experience some fatigue. Crankiness, perhaps...
But I’m also going to lose some weight. If I stick to it. I’m going to start learning the guitar and playing chess regularly too. Maybe systematically reading through the LW sequences.
And I don’t understand how weight loss is fundamentally different that any of those pursuits. It will require an allocation of resources (time, focus, etc.) that I can’t use elsewhere—so it will be a sacrifice—but the pounds will come off if I just do the exercises and monitor my diet. My chess game? Not so sure. My guitar ability? I’m hopeful. Following and comprehending the sequences? We’ll see...
The weight loss, in contrast, will seem relatively predictable and automatic IF I follow the plan of regular exercise and diet control.
My assumption is that LW knows something I don’t—And I’d either like to (a) confirm that idea and understand what it is I’m wrong about so I’m no longer wrong, or (b) get rid of that wrong idea and try to share what I know bout being right.
I had hoped the Taubes discussion would help me clarify things, but it didn’t. It seemed to be complicating a simple thing. Without looking back, I believe I said so at the time.
I accept and understand (I think more than the average person) the idea of genetic metabolic privilege via increased BMR, etc… but I still don’t see any way losing weight can be attributed to much (if anything) apart from eat less, exercise more.
Can you point to something in the discussion you cited that you considered definitive? It seemed to be a contentious discussion with no resolution or consensus.
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree.
I can’t. The discussion made me more open minded to the idea that dieting may be more complicated than I think. I personally find losing weight relatively easy.
Me neither, in the sense that I’m sure if you control those two conditions with certainty the person will lose weight. What makes things complicated is that the metabolic and psychological responses to that energy deficit and weight loss can apparently make it very costly to some people.
They can.
If it’s not working, eat less and exercise more. Physics is physics.
The usual implied questions behind, though, are “Do you have enough motivation to eat sufficiently less?” and “For how long will you be able to keep it up and what happens afterwards?”.
Because the two questions above are important ones and because EY tried to lose weight and it didn’t work for him.
Losing weight is not complicated. Maintaining the desired body configuration is—because it usually requires continuous effort.
I don’t see how that complicates anything. This applies to any pursuit.
Oh.
Sure. But how is that not true of lot of things that require maintenance? Of course you’d need to be disciplined to maintain many “desired states of configuration”.
Some people find certain things take more effort than others. For many people, the willpower necessary to stay thin is more than they have. Given how problematic being overweight can be, this is a problem.
The problem is that your own body tries to sabotage your maintenance and it can get pretty tricksy (or brutal).
How so?
In the usual ways. Your body has its own ideas about your food intake which may or may not match what your consciousness decides. It also has a variety of levers to affect your brain—from outright feelings of hunger to subtle reduction of mental efficiency when it thinks itself underfed.
Of course. But isn’t this the case with anything?
If I decide to consciously commit to any task, there will be obstacles. If I set out to increase my knowledge on a subject, I’ll fight boredom, distractions, etc. It will reduce my capacity for other tasks—both mentally and by consuming time.
Losing weight is difficult, but it seems much simpler to me than the discussion (and perhaps consensus) I’ve seen around here.
I’ve wondered if it’s due to body weight being such a personal issue?
Kinda, but the thing is, there are different levels of difficulty that one faces when trying to do “anything”.
Sometimes it’s just a matter of establishing a habit.
Sometimes you need to get over a hill and then the activity will provide its own incentives (e.g. runner’s high).
And sometimes it’s just a hard slog all the way and any time you relax you backslide.
In the ancestral environment, sweet food (i.e. fruits and honey) was difficult to find in the wild, and our brains got wired to take advantage of every little opportunity to recharge with those sweet calories.
Now that we can mass-produce corn syrup and all kinds of cheap calories, our ancestral urges play against our best interest.
Humans are driven by a lot of instincts that have millions of years of evolution behind them. Beating those instinct for a short time is doable but it’s harder to beat them for longer timeframes.
The human body can reduce energy consumption at the cost of being less agile and feeling bad. It has various ways to sabotage a diet that for most people are outside of their conscious control.
So, it’s difficult?
There are many different ways of difficult.
Changing your blood pulse by will from 90 bpm to 60 bpm is difficult.
You are dealing with a bunch of inbuild mechanisms that you have to deal with and a lot of them are outside of your awareness.
I’ve lost 30 pounds in the last four months. I have a hard time losing weight unless I fast for a day or two at a time. Reducing portions at some meals just means I snack more later in the day when my attention has wavered. Hypothetically I could reduce portions at all meals, but realistically given the demands of my life that won’t happen. Avoiding meals altogether is easier for me because I don’t feel very hungry when my attention is absorbed in something other than food, so as long as I stay busy I’m fine. It also helps that I’ve got social anxiety and don’t like to go into the cafeteria where large crowds of students are.
Since I’ve been trying for almost, oh years and years, I possibly can point you into some directions.
On eating less: eating less what, exactly? There are people who just eat less carbohydrates, or less fats, or less sugars, etc, and they still get fatter. The point is that you can eat in quantity as much as you want, if you just eat less calories. Ah, but counting calories is no easy task: it’s pretty easy when you eat something that has been industrially produced , but when it comes to food you prepare yourself, or others prepare for you? How much calories is a portion of vitel tonné? It depends on the portion size, on the ingredients, on the preparation. How much calories are in a slice of angel food cake, prepared with only 80% of the eggs? Who knows? What if you’re forced to eat every day something different? On the other side, even if you manage to reduce the calories eaten, you’ll get hungry, very hungry. There’s basically no amount of will-power or motivational hack that will work against hunger. It’s one of the primary instinct of life and will overwrite everything your conscious mind can come up with.
On excercising more: which specific excercises will you choose? Aerobic, anaerobic? Walking, running, swimming, weight lifting? You have to find the time of course to do those activities. And many of the thing you’re going to choose will either require too much time to have an impact on your diet, or will increase drastically your hunger, or will lower your metabolism by killing your thermogenesis outside the excercise.
So yes, losing weight is easy if you eat less and excercise more. But coming up with a way to do those things efficiently and reliably is a very difficult task.
What people said, also metabolism.