←back to thread

228 points curmudgeon22 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
rubyn00bie ◴[] No.26612442[source]
This is not surprising to anyone who has ever walked into a GNC, or other health food store... is it even news? They’ve been selling shit like “redline” for many years to do exactly this.

Power fat burner: caffeine + blood thinner. That’s most of what things like redline do. Is it going to work if you don’t exercise? Nope, but it sure as hell does help if you are exercising.

I’d really only recommend it to people focused on losing a lot of weight. If you’re trying to lose 10lbs it’ll never make a difference. If you’re trying to lose 100lbs though, then yeah, 6-12 months worth of slightly increased metabolic rate will probs have a net positive affect.

replies(6): >>26612495 #>>26612694 #>>26613029 #>>26613173 #>>26613275 #>>26615156 #
bserge ◴[] No.26613275[source]
And no amount of exercising will ever be better than just... eating less. The only surefire way to lose weight fast. People hate this one simple trick.
replies(3): >>26613941 #>>26615113 #>>26616262 #
scrollaway ◴[] No.26616262[source]
Eating less can change your metabolism.

What you eat can change your metabolism.

This CICO bullshit is honestly no better than middle age alchemy beliefs from people who don't realize humans are far more complex machines than a high school science fair battery but feel smart calling out newton's third law.

Your gut flora, your metabolism, your stress levels, what times you eat, your heart rate, your existing muscle mass, your sleep, vitamin levels, all those affect how much you burn actively and passively, how much you absorb from your food, what sources of energy your body decides to burn, and your energy levels as a whole.

Weight loss is fucking hard for a reason. "Just eat less to lose weight" is akin to telling someone "just use a linter to fix your code". Good idea? Maybe. It usually helps. Silver bullet? fuck no, i don't need to tell you it's way more nuanced and complicated than that.

replies(1): >>26616433 #
halfmatthalfcat ◴[] No.26616433[source]
You can say the exact same thing for Keto, IF or any other alternative meal planning. There are pros and cons to eating in different ways. Throwing out CICO with the bathwater is excluding potentially millions of people who don't have the time, money or opportunity to "just eat healthier".

We have to be realistic on how we communicate how to lose weight _for the masses_. Trust me, I ventured into dietetics only to be jaded at various national and multinational attempts at building watered/dumbed down meal planning advice but throughout the years I realized that you have to have simple and easy to follow guidelines (everyone can understand CICO) so that on the whole, we're getting people to lose weight.

I'm not saying CICO is the silver bullet, far from it, but it WORKS.

replies(1): >>26638999 #
1. jfengel ◴[] No.26638999[source]
CICO is the core of any effective diet. The rest of it is all about trying to enforce it. Which is all about keeping people from feeling hungry, bored, or otherwise failing to follow through.

Most diets work for the first few weeks because people are engaged by the novelty. Longer term compliance depends a lot on the person, both mentally and physically (including all the complexities of muscle mass, gut biome, and the whole nine yards). There's no silver bullet. You just have to keep at it until you find something that you can stick with.

What works for me is doing my own cooking, keeping a lot of vegetables around, and getting out of the house so that I'm too busy to stuff snacks into my face. I suspect that would work for a lot of people -- though that last part is really difficult with an office job.

That's me. Everybody else, good luck.