Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024·Ideas
Badges
Activity
For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have vastly different weight gain/loss outcomes.
I don’t know if I agree with the word “vastly”. People have done Twinkie diets where they eat nothing but Twinkies (plus some supplements to get the bare minimum) and they lost weight.
Still, I’ll edit my idea to say that people should get all the nutrients they need while in a deficit.
For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have vastly different weight gain/loss outcomes.
I don’t know if I agree with the word “vastly”. People have done Twinkie diets where they eat nothing but Twinkies (plus some supplements to get the bare minimum) while monitoring calories and they lost weight.
Still, I’ll edit my idea to say that people should get all the nutrients they need while in a deficit.
Most people are overnourished. One way to take control is to measure your daily energy expenditure and not eat above that.
Using an online calculator like https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html, you can get a decent estimate of your daily caloric needs.
Then, using https://cronometer.com/, track your food to ensure you don’t exceed your daily caloric needs.
By eating in a 500-calorie deficit, you can lose about a pound per week. Lift heavy weights a couple of times a week so the weight you lose is fat, not muscle.
This is a simple way to do body recomposition.
Most people are overnourished. One way to take control is to measure your daily energy expenditure and not eat above that.
Using an online calculator like https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html, you can get a decent estimate of your daily caloric needs (aka your caloric maintenance).
Then, using https://cronometer.com/, track your food to ensure you don’t exceed your daily caloric needs.
By eating in a 500-calorie deficit, you can lose about a pound per week. Lift heavy weights a couple of times a week so the weight you lose is fat, not muscle.
Avoid a prolonged deficit. Eat high-quality foods so you get all the macro- and micronutrients you need (Cronometer will tell you). Recalculate your caloric maintenance once a month or so to make sure you don’t hit a wall.
This is a simple way to do body recomposition.
#4219·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 days agoA chronic calorie deficit will trigger a suppression of the active thyroid hormone T3. Lowering T3 causes a lowering of the metabolic rate, which lowers the rate of caloric burn at rest.
For this reason, CICO dieting often hits a wall when the body adjusts to the new low calorie lifestyle.
An alternative is to improve the quality of the foods, such that the metabolic rate increases while caloric intake is kept the same (or even increased too, by a lesser amount). This would be preferred by the body as it is a more complete solution: all nutrient requirements are being met and energy is being produced and utilised in abundance.
I think it is much more useful to think of the body as a dynamic energy-processing system, rather than a ledger of calories.
Yes, there are many factors that influence how many calories the body metabolizes. I’d add fiber content and thermic effect. But I think of them as footnotes to the CICO model, not criticisms. Taking them into account makes CICO more accurate. Cronometer takes them into account.
#4222·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 days agoWhile following this kind of protocol does help some people lose weight, the model it is based off is incomplete.
'Calories in vs calories out' dieting is based on the idea that each person has a fixed rate of at which they burn calories at rest, proportional to their bodyweight. This fails to account for the fact that ‘calories out’ depends entirely on the metabolic state of the individual, which is highly dependent on the quality of their nutrition.
Some diets lack certain key nutrients required for efficient metabolism, thereby inhibiting the body’s ability to utilise calories. Some diets also contain metabolic toxins that diminish the body’s ability to utilise calories.
For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have vastly different weight gain/loss outcomes.
While following this kind of protocol does help some people lose weight, the model it is based off is incomplete.
#4212 is not meant as a complete guide but as a high-level overview.
#4222·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 days agoWhile following this kind of protocol does help some people lose weight, the model it is based off is incomplete.
'Calories in vs calories out' dieting is based on the idea that each person has a fixed rate of at which they burn calories at rest, proportional to their bodyweight. This fails to account for the fact that ‘calories out’ depends entirely on the metabolic state of the individual, which is highly dependent on the quality of their nutrition.
Some diets lack certain key nutrients required for efficient metabolism, thereby inhibiting the body’s ability to utilise calories. Some diets also contain metabolic toxins that diminish the body’s ability to utilise calories.
For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have vastly different weight gain/loss outcomes.
For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have vastly different weight gain/loss outcomes.
I don’t know if I agree with the word “vastly”. People have done Twinkie diets where they eat nothing but Twinkies (plus some supplements to get the bare minimum) and they lost weight.
Still, I’ll edit my idea to say that people should get all the nutrients they need while in a deficit.
#4219·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 days agoA chronic calorie deficit will trigger a suppression of the active thyroid hormone T3. Lowering T3 causes a lowering of the metabolic rate, which lowers the rate of caloric burn at rest.
For this reason, CICO dieting often hits a wall when the body adjusts to the new low calorie lifestyle.
An alternative is to improve the quality of the foods, such that the metabolic rate increases while caloric intake is kept the same (or even increased too, by a lesser amount). This would be preferred by the body as it is a more complete solution: all nutrient requirements are being met and energy is being produced and utilised in abundance.
I think it is much more useful to think of the body as a dynamic energy-processing system, rather than a ledger of calories.
On a general note, your writing would benefit from simplification. I’ve noticed this throughout your contributions on V, but here are some examples from this specific idea:
“will trigger a suppression of” -> ‘suppresses’
“causes a lowering of” -> ‘lowers’
“An alternative is to improve” -> ‘Instead, improve’
“is kept the same” -> ‘stays the same’
“This would be preferred by the body” -> ‘The body would prefer this’
“utilised” -> ‘used’
I like to follow George Orwell’s writing advice (especially 2, 4, and 5):
- Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- Never use a long word where a short one will do.
- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- Never use the passive [voice] where you can use the active [voice].
- Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
- Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
#4219·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 days agoA chronic calorie deficit will trigger a suppression of the active thyroid hormone T3. Lowering T3 causes a lowering of the metabolic rate, which lowers the rate of caloric burn at rest.
For this reason, CICO dieting often hits a wall when the body adjusts to the new low calorie lifestyle.
An alternative is to improve the quality of the foods, such that the metabolic rate increases while caloric intake is kept the same (or even increased too, by a lesser amount). This would be preferred by the body as it is a more complete solution: all nutrient requirements are being met and energy is being produced and utilised in abundance.
I think it is much more useful to think of the body as a dynamic energy-processing system, rather than a ledger of calories.
A chronic calorie deficit will trigger a suppression of the active thyroid hormone T3. Lowering T3 causes a lowering of the metabolic rate, which lowers the rate of caloric burn at rest.
#4212 doesn’t advocate a chronic deficit. Still, I’ll edit it to say that people shouldn’t be in prolonged deficits.
#4148·Dennis Hackethal, 5 days agoWiener’s critique of the dollar applies to gold, too. Both fluctuate. I see no rational preference for gold following from his argument.
The value of gold is anchored, see #4155. The dollar has no such anchor.
#4214·Erik Orrje, 3 days agoThe easiest lever to pull when trying to lose weight is satiation. That can be done artificially through GLP1-agonists, but in the case of nutrition, that's best accomplished by an increased protein and fibre intake.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but potatoes seem to be a good source of fiber. Very filling.
Carbonated water and diet sodas also feel filling, and they don’t even have calories. Diet sodas can help people lose weight. I like to drink Diet Coke when I’m on a cut. The caffeine gives me energy.
Most people are overnourished. One way to take control is to measure your daily energy expenditure and not eat above that.
Using an online calculator like https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html, you can get a decent estimate of your daily caloric needs.
Then, using https://cronometer.com/, track your food to ensure you don’t exceed your daily caloric needs.
By eating in a 500-calorie deficit, you can lose about a pound per week. Lift heavy weights a couple of times a week so the weight you lose is fat, not muscle.
This is a simple way to do body recomposition.
#4161·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 days agoWhat asset you measure in and what asset you trade for don't necessarily need to be related.
There is nothing wrong with trading goods for dollars. This is more an argument against measuring the changing value of assets across time in dollars.
What asset you measure in and what asset you trade for don't necessarily need to be related.
What are some cases where they wouldn’t be related?
I don’t see how one could determine a good time to sell an asset without knowing what it’s worth in one’s target asset.
#4155·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 4 days agoThinking in terms of gold is less arbitrary than thinking in dollars because gold is anchored in physical reality, whereas the dollar is anchored in political decree. When you choose to measure your wealth in a unit just because you want to trade for it later, you are prioritising the convenience of a transaction over the integrity of the measurement.
Measurement requires a constant. If you measure a table with a rubber band, the "length" of the table changes depending on how hard you pull the band. The US dollar is that rubber band. Its supply and value are subject to the whims of central bankers, interest rate policies, and the shifting needs of government deficit spending. Gold, however, is a physical element with a high stock-to-flow ratio. Its total supply grows at a very slow, predictable rate that no person can speed up by decree. Measuring in gold allows you to see the real change in an asset's value, independent of the currency’s volatility.
Gold's value is anchored by the arbitrage of mining. If the value of gold rises significantly, it becomes profitable to mine more, which eventually brings the value back into equilibrium with the cost of production. This creates a feedback loop rooted in physics, economics and labour. The dollar has no such anchor; the cost to "produce" a trillion dollars is the same as the cost to produce one dollar: a few keystrokes. Using a unit that costs nothing to create to measure things that require real work is an arbitrary standard.
But if you decided, despite the dollar’s shortcomings, that you want to trade an asset for dollars, you wouldn’t measure your asset in ounces of gold. You’d measure it in dollars, wouldn’t you?
Or are you saying one should never trade assets for dollars?
Dollar-Cost Averaging
Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) is when you invest a fixed amount on a regular basis regardless of market developments.
This practice can work well long term for assets that reflect the value of the entire stock market (or a big part of it).
Long term, we can expect the stock market as a whole to gain value. So if you invest part of your income every month, say, then your position will grow in the long run.
In the meantime, you get to reduce risk by not investing all your money at once. You also get to react to developments that affect the stock market and can decide to interrupt your investment schedule. But I personally like ‘boring’ investment strategies, meaning strategies that are automated and reliable.
#4143·Benjamin DaviesOP, 7 days agoMeasuring the stock market in fiat is more arbitrary than measuring it in gold.
A short video relating to that:
https://youtu.be/AGNvdN1Lw9A?si=b5vO7kx_pTRgEgrZ
I think it would be arbitrary to measure the value in any unit that you aren’t hoping to trade your asset for.
For example, if you eventually want to get gold in exchange for your asset, measure the number of ounces your asset is worth and sell at an opportune time.
If you want to get dollars, measure your asset in dollars. Etc.
#4149·Dennis Hackethal, 5 days agoBut gold isn’t fiat. The government can’t create more gold out of thin air.
I don’t see how it matters for his argument. The value of anything fluctuates.
#4148·Dennis Hackethal, 5 days agoWiener’s critique of the dollar applies to gold, too. Both fluctuate. I see no rational preference for gold following from his argument.
But gold isn’t fiat. The government can’t create more gold out of thin air.
#4143·Benjamin DaviesOP, 7 days agoMeasuring the stock market in fiat is more arbitrary than measuring it in gold.
A short video relating to that:
https://youtu.be/AGNvdN1Lw9A?si=b5vO7kx_pTRgEgrZ
Wiener’s critique of the dollar applies to gold, too. Both fluctuate. I see no rational preference for gold following from his argument.
#4124·Dennis HackethalOP revised 8 days agoVeritula should have some way to acknowledge an idea, including a way to show that a thread is resolved, at least for the time being, without having to comment.
Emoji reactions (#2159) are implemented as of ea482fb.
#4143·Benjamin DaviesOP, 7 days agoMeasuring the stock market in fiat is more arbitrary than measuring it in gold.
A short video relating to that:
https://youtu.be/AGNvdN1Lw9A?si=b5vO7kx_pTRgEgrZ
Wiener says the dollar can go up or down in value (usually down; prices usually rise).
He suggests that, due to this volatility, measuring the value of something in dollars is like measuring the width of a physical object using a rubber band. He implies that this measurement is unreliable and arbitrary because you can ‘stretch’ it just like a rubber band.
He concludes that we should measure the value of something in ounces of gold instead.
Am I understanding Wiener correctly?
Apparently, stocks have fallen since the dot-com bubble when measured in gold instead of dollars: https://x.com/elerianm/status/1976237139185574170
Some comments suggest measuring stocks in gold is arbitrary, others say this development is simply due to inflation.
Are they right or is this development a deeper sign that the economy is in trouble?
#2242·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoThose run the risk of turning Veritula into yet another social network like Reddit or messenger like Telegram.
This is speculation, see #4106. If it really becomes an issue, I can retire the feature or improve it.
#2466·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoNot if I do reactions on a per-paragraph basis. I think that’s a new feature none of those sites have.
I plan to go piecemeal by starting with reactions to ideas as a whole, then maybe to paragraphs/block-level elements down the line.
Would this work better as a criticism of #4058? That way, the relationship between these ideas might be clearer, and there’d be the possibility of a criticism chain.