Search Ideas

Done as of e612125, polished as of 046438f.

Need the ability to exclude archived ideas from search results.

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 (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.

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.

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.

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.

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):

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive [voice] where you can use the active [voice].
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

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.

The value of gold is anchored, see #4155. The dollar has no such anchor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don’t see how it matters for his argument. The value of anything fluctuates.

But gold isn’t fiat. The government can’t create more gold out of thin air.

Wiener’s critique of the dollar applies to gold, too. Both fluctuate. I see no rational preference for gold following from his argument.

Emoji reactions (#2159) are implemented as of ea482fb.

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?

This is speculation, see #4106. If it really becomes an issue, I can retire the feature or improve it.

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.