# My rant about 'calorie deficit' b.s.



## bozmandb9 (27 Oct 2013)

Guys, not meaning to get at anybody, but one thing which winds me up is when people advise that all you need to do to lose weight, is to create a calorie deficit, i.e. burn more calories than you take it. I'm sorry but this is just wrong, and dangerous advice.

Try it yourself, create a calorie deficit eating fast food, see how long you live for, let alone how much weight you lose!

It may well be that we put on weight due in part to ingesting too many calories, but a more significant problem is the poor quality of these calories, and the fact that they are 'empty calories' of little of no nutritional value, and often very difficult for the body to process due to being highly processed, artificial foods. If you doubt this, look at what is happening as the 'Western diet' is introduced in China and India.

Another issue is that the highly processed foods which are the problem, lead us to over consume, since they are designed to make us eat more, for example by including MSG (which by the way can be hidden behind many names which you wont recognise).

Diet drinks are also a big problem, although they contain fewer calories, they make us consume more calories overall. They are proven to contribute to weight gain over time.

Bottom line is this. Weight loss is not rocket science, and you don't need to track calories, you don't need to do loads of research, you already know what to do. Foods which grow naturally are good to eat, stuff which is created in factories is not. Don't fall for the marketing hype, don't overcomplicate things, eat the stuff which our bodies have evolved to process over the millennia, not the stuff which has been invented over the past 50 years, as the obesity crisis has taken hold.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (27 Oct 2013)

OK


----------



## Dan B (27 Oct 2013)

It's not wrong at all. It is however massively unhelpful - it's a bit like saying "all you need to do to win the 100m world record is run faster than everyone else"


----------



## 400bhp (27 Oct 2013)

All you need to do to lose weight is create a calorie deficit.


Oh, hang on....


----------



## david k (27 Oct 2013)

i think to initially lose weight and if your really overweight and need a start its a focus for early weight loss.


Long term you are perfectly correct, you need to live and eat healthy as opposed to just calorie count


----------



## steve52 (27 Oct 2013)

both are true, but the fast food one will make you feel like crap


----------



## uclown2002 (27 Oct 2013)

Is this the same muppet who eats 20-30 bananas daily?


----------



## Ian_w (27 Oct 2013)

Work out your maintenance calorie intake, eat 500 per day less than maintenance from clean foods. Stay away from fizzy drinks and enjoy one cheat meal a week to keep yourself sane. You will lose weight, has worked and does work for thousands of bodybuilders.


----------



## vickster (27 Oct 2013)

Ian_w said:


> You will lose weight, has worked and does work for thousands of bodybuilders.


But sooo boring  And who wants to look like a bodybuilder


----------



## Ian_w (27 Oct 2013)

Maybe not the Mr olympia guys but the natural lads have very good physiques *creeps off back to the gym :-)


----------



## vickster (27 Oct 2013)

Lots of gyms lads tend to look like apes though...5'5, with stumpy weedy legs and nasty overmuscled arms...and normally as pale as a pint of milk...


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (27 Oct 2013)

Put the clocks forward again, someone thought too much in the extra hour


----------



## Ian_w (27 Oct 2013)

vickster said:


> Lots of gyms lads tend to look like apes though...5'5, with stumpy weedy legs and nasty overmuscled arms...and normally as pale as a pint of milk...


Yep a lot of people are allergic to the Squat rack ;-)


----------



## vickster (27 Oct 2013)

And sunshine it seems
...does seem to a be a disproportionate number of gingers though...trying to compensate?


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> Is this the same muppet who eats 20-30 bananas daily?


?

Does that sound to you like the balanced diet I'm talking about? Don't think I'm the muppet here mate!


----------



## Sittingduck (28 Oct 2013)

Nothing wrong with tracking calories and creating a regular and healthy deficit. If that method works for a whole bunch of people then who are you to dismiss it.


----------



## VamP (28 Oct 2013)




----------



## Hill Wimp (28 Oct 2013)

Eat less, exercise more and get a life


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> Nothing wrong with tracking calories and creating a regular and healthy deficit. If that method works for a whole bunch of people then who are you to dismiss it.




Did you actually read what I wrote before you replied?

My point is, the mantra of 'create a calorie deficit' with no focus on WHAT you're eating is plain wrong. As for 'who am I to dismiss it' I'm someone sharing their opinion on an Internet forum. You?


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

Hill Wimp said:


> Eat less, exercise more and get a life



Or, eat better, exercise smarter, and don't quote meaningless cliches!


----------



## Hill Wimp (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Or, eat better, exercise smarter, and don't quote meaningless cliches!



There is nothing meaningless about eating less and exercising more just ask the numerous people on thisforum that have done just that and have very successfully lost weight and got a lot fitter.

Your preaching is not very attractive.


----------



## Sittingduck (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Did you actually read what I wrote before you replied?
> 
> My point is, the mantra of 'create a calorie deficit' with no focus on WHAT you're eating is plain wrong. As for 'who am I to dismiss it' I'm someone sharing their opinion on an Internet forum. You?


 
Yeah, I did thanks. 

Perhaps you might adjust the tone of your opinions, so that they come across as less ranty. Just a thought...


----------



## tmesis (28 Oct 2013)

Calorie counting is not the whole answer, but if you consume more calories from natural whole-foods than you expend, you will gain weight. If you consume less calories from processed foods than you expend, you will lose weight, but it is, of course, far easier to consume less calories when eating natural, whole-foods.


----------



## ColinJ (28 Oct 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> Yeah, I did thanks.
> 
> Perhaps you might adjust the tone of your opinions, so that they come across as less ranty. Just a thought...


It did come across as ranty, but to be fair, the title of the thread should have given you ample warning ...


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Did you actually read what I wrote before you replied?
> 
> My point is, the mantra of 'create a calorie deficit' with no focus on WHAT you're eating is plain wrong. As for 'who am I to dismiss it' I'm someone sharing their opinion on an Internet forum. You?


Sorry but I eat what I want when I want. If I start to put on weight, I cycle a bit more. Does this count as "creating a calorie deficit"? It's worked for 45 years though even though Pot Noodles are one of my favourite breakfasts.

I still think losing weight is about burning more calories than you take in. Losing weight and feeling healthy while doing it is probably more complicated though.


----------



## Shaun (28 Oct 2013)

Personal insults removed - keep to the topic being discussed please; and be respectful in your replies - all of you!!

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2013)

I took your post in the spirit of the rant I think you meant. You clearly had something in mind when you wrote it. Unfortunately, gaining and losing weight is not simple nor easy for many people, though it's easy to simplify it for others in your own mind. In reality it rarely works that way. Check out the blog of our own gb155 if you want to understand how complex losing weight is and think whether your advice would have worked for him when you have.


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

ColinJ said:


> It did come across as ranty, but to be fair, the title of the thread should have given you ample warning ...



Nice to see somebody can and does read and understand English! And can take my post in the spirit it was meant!

Just to give others a clue, when I put a heading, 'here is my reasoned discourse on ...', it will be a lot less ranty! When I head a post 'rant' please don't get all upset when it's ranty.

Lecture over!


----------



## Shaun (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Nice to see somebody can and does read and understand English! And can take my post in the spirit it was meant!
> 
> Just to give others a clue, when I put a heading, 'here is my reasoned discourse on ...', it will be a lot less ranty! When I head a post 'rant' please don't get all upset when it's ranty.
> 
> Lecture over!



Perhaps you should post future "rants" on your user profile then!!


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

Crackle said:


> I took your post in the spirit of the rant I think you meant. You clearly had something in mind when you wrote it. Unfortunately, gaining and losing weight is not simple nor easy for many people, though it's easy to simplify it for others in your own mind. In reality it rarely works that way. Check out the blog of our own gb155 if you want to understand how complex losing weight is and think whether your advice would have worked for him when you have.



I totally agree Crackle, and this is really my point. For many people losing weight can be a serious and complicated matter, and a matter of life and death. That is why it really gets my goat, when people say "it's just a matter of creating a calorie deficit", which is why I wrote my rant.

There's a lot of research to indicate that a calorie deficit can be counter productive, for example the Minnesota study, which showed that calorie deficit leads to a disproportionate reduction in metabolic rate, meaning no effect of calorie deficit, and that limiting calories can lead to weight gain in excess of weight loss if and when the reduced calorie diet is ceased, and if it maintained, unless it is very well balanced nutritionally, it can lead to health issues, including symptoms of malnutrition, and osteoporosis. 

There's a lot of research on the subject, which I've studied extensively, and I'm passionate about it, since I found that much 'conventional wisdom' and advice, is not only wrong, but potentially counter productive, and even dangerous. Personally I used a well balanced diet, with no calorie deficit, and lots of well planned exercise/ training, to achieve my 25 kilo weight loss, which is now maintained over 5 years, and gives me a pretty ideal BMI, bearing in mind I'm now an athlete competing a regional level (masters athletics).


----------



## Booyaa (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Guys, not meaning to get at anybody, but one thing which winds me up is when people advise that all you need to do to lose weight, is to create a calorie deficit, i.e. burn more calories than you take it. I'm sorry but* this is just wrong*, and dangerous advice.



So just to pick up on this, if I eat the "correct" calories, I won't loose weight by creating a calorie deficit? I don't do this, nor would I contemplate it, but your comment is just plain wrong.


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Personally I used a well balanced diet, with no calorie deficit, and lots of well planned exercise/ training, to achieve my 25 kilo weight loss, which is now maintained over 5 years, and gives me a pretty ideal BMI, bearing in mind I'm now an athlete competing a regional level (masters athletics).


So let's just get this straight. You took in as many calories as you expended during exercise and still lost weight?? And 25 kilos at that. Given the "muscle weighs more than fat" theory, that is very remarkable.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> So let's just get this straight. You took in as many calories as you expended during exercise and still lost weight?? And 25 kilos at that. Given the *"muscle weighs more than fat"* theory, that is very remarkable.


1kg is 1kg right?


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> 1kg is 1kg right?


Yeah ok. But per waistline inch.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> Yeah ok. But per waistline inch.


Eh?


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Eh?


If in doubt, confuse the issue. That's my motto.

Anyway forget the muscle/fat thing. I'm still interested how you can consume as many calories as you burn but still lose weight.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> If in doubt, confuse the issue. That's my motto.
> 
> Anyway forget the muscle/fat thing. I'm still interested how you can consume as many calories as you burn but still lose weight.


You did it all by yourself


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You did it all by yourself


It's a skill. And I'm even managing to do it without alcohol lately.!


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

Booyaa said:


> So just to pick up on this, if I eat the "correct" calories, I won't loose weight by creating a calorie deficit? I don't do this, nor would I contemplate it, but your comment is just plain wrong.



I'm saying if you eat the 'wrong calories' for example you create a calorie deficit, but get your reduced calories from the wrong source, for example fast food, there is a very good chance that you will not lose weight. Your metabolism will slow, you'll get sick, and probably lose muscle, but almost certainly not lose fat. Conversely if you eat the right calories for your metabolism, and eat the right foods, i.e. a well balanced healthy diet, yes, amazing as it may seem, you do lose weight, and probably faster and more sustainably than by trying to create a deficit.

You can argue that the deficit is there anyway if you are not including extra calories for your exercise, but this is what I'm trying to get across, it's not a straight equation, quality matters as much as quantity where calories are concerned, if you doubt me try a month on McDonalds and come back and tell me I'm wrong!


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> I'm saying if you eat the 'wrong calories' for example you create a calorie deficit, but get your reduced calories from the wrong source, for example fast food, there is a very good chance that you will not lose weight. Your metabolism will slow, you'll get sick, and probably lose muscle, but almost certainly not lose fat. Conversely if you eat the right calories for your metabolism, and eat the right foods, i.e. a well balanced healthy diet, yes, amazing as it may seem, you do lose weight, and probably faster and more sustainably than by trying to create a deficit.
> 
> You can argue that the deficit is there anyway if you are not including extra calories for your exercise, but this is what I'm trying to get across, it's not a straight equation, quality matters as much as quantity where calories are concerned, if you doubt me try a month on McDonalds and come back and tell me I'm wrong!


I think if you eat McDonalds for a month but still burn off more calories than you consume, you'll lose weight. You will have to exercise a lot but you'll still lose weight.

Now if the point you're trying to make is that eating McDonalds for a month and exercising a lot won't make you healthy, that I accept but I still think the basic premise of exercise more than you eat will see you lose weight.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> There's a lot of research on the subject, which I've studied extensively, and I'm passionate about it, since I found that much 'conventional wisdom' and advice, is not only wrong, but potentially counter productive, and even dangerous. Personally I used a well balanced diet, with no calorie deficit, and lots of well planned exercise/ training, to achieve my 25 kilo weight loss, which is now maintained over 5 years, and gives me a pretty ideal BMI, bearing in mind I'm now an athlete competing a regional level (masters athletics).



There is a lot of research and you have to pick through it carefully but to lose 25kg you must have had a deficit, even if you didn't consciously set out to do that. I totally agree about a balanced diet but it's more complex than that and if you go and read gb155's blog, you'll see a perfect example of that.


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> If in doubt, confuse the issue. That's my motto.
> 
> Anyway forget the muscle/fat thing. I'm still interested how you can consume as many calories as you burn but still lose weight.



The muscle/ fat thing is another red herring, I went through that period when I would gain weight whilst working out loads, and blame it on additional muscle, B.S. Now I've gone from around 35% to 12% body fat, and my weight is a low as it's ever been, but I have one hell of a lot more muscle, or at least much more strength.

But to build muscle, it's essential to have good nutrition, so what worked best for me was when my P.T put me on a plan where I was on 2,500 calories, spread throughout the day. Think it was roughly 100 grams protein, 70 grams carbs, and 50 grams green vegetables per serving, x 6 per day. Never hungry, performance and strength increased massively. Try doing that with calorie deficit. He's an elite athletics coach, and although I'm only a 'veteran', the body still works the same!

Now the only caveat on all of this, is that I was training for strength rather than endurance, so there may be a very different profile to ideal diets for cyclists, but the principles about balanced nutrition still apply, as do the facts about calorie deficit. Here's a good article which explains why, since I'm clearly failing to!

http://charlotteord.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-500-calorie-deficit-myth.html


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> The muscle/ fat thing is another red herring, I went through that period when I would gain weight whilst working out loads, and blame it on additional muscle, B.S. Now I've gone from around 35% to 12% body fat, and my weight is a low as it's ever been, but I have one hell of a lot more muscle, or at least much more strength.
> 
> But to build muscle, it's essential to have good nutrition, so what worked best for me was when my P.T put me on a plan where I was on 2,500 calories, spread throughout the day. Think it was roughly 100 grams protein, 70 grams carbs, and 50 grams green vegetables per serving, x 6 per day. Never hungry, performance and strength increased massively. Try doing that with calorie deficit. He's an elite athletics coach, and although I'm only a 'veteran', the body still works the same!
> 
> ...


In the 2nd World War scenario given in that article, the men lost weight by cutting their calorie intake. I fully understand the findings of what happens AFTERWARDS but that doesn't alter the fact that cutting calorie intake will result in weight loss.

Also that article is about fasting diets not increasing your exercise rate to match your consumption. If I personally want to lose weight, I don't change what I eat, I up my exercise levels. It seems to work. When I reach the weight I want to be at I revert to normal exercise levels which are enough to maintain a particular weight (I assume consumption naturally matched to my normal exercise level).


----------



## Hill Wimp (28 Oct 2013)

Great this works for you, fantastic, however plans like the Fast Die/5:2 which you plainly don't agree with also work for an awful lot of other people and you cannot argue that it doesn't as there are too many people who can prove you wrong and many are on this forum. I know someone that has been doing this for almost 3 years now and he has shed 4 stone, has kept it off and is still going strong.

Edit - Just read Martins post above and got to agree, if i want to lose weight, i have just returned from holiday and the jeans are a bit snug, i will use my tried and tested method of cutting down and exercising more, works every time, funny that !


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Oct 2013)

Hill Wimp said:


> Great this works for you, fantastic, however plans like the Fast Die/5:2 which you plainly don't agree with also work for an awful lot of other people and you cannot argue that it doesn't as there are too many people who can prove you wrong and many are on this forum. I know someone that has been doing this for almost 3 years now and he has shed 4 stone, has kept it off and is still going strong.


Yet, the weightloss has never been anything but a side effect of eating that way.


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> In the 2nd World War scenario given in that article, the men lost weight by cutting their calorie intake. I fully understand the findings of what happens AFTERWARDS but that doesn't alter the fact that cutting calorie intake will result in weight loss.
> 
> Also that article is about fasting diets not increasing your exercise rate to match your consumption. If I personally want to lose weight, I don't change what I eat, I up my exercise levels. It seems to work. When I reach the weight I want to be at I revert to normal exercise levels which are enough to maintain a particular weight (I assume consumption naturally matched to my normal exercise level).



They did indeed, but they also became very ill, as well as gaining a lot more weight when they finished the restricted calorie period, so perhaps I should be clearer. If you want to lose weight in the short term, and possibly make yourself ill, then reducing your calorific input with no focus on quality of nutrition, or ensuring you ingest sufficient micro-nutrients will indeed make you lose weight (including probably lean muscle). If however you wish to lose FAT, and lose it for the long term, then you do indeed need to focus on quality of nutrition, and ensure balance and sufficient micro-nutrients.


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

How about this for an analogy. Trying running your car with the fuel too lean in order to save fuel!


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

Just for the record, and to be clear, I totally agree that people gain weight by eating too much. All I'm saying is that the solution is to eat the right amount, make sure it's the right food, and do plenty of exercise, is that so difficult to accept? Why must we eat too little, especially when we are trying to improve athletic performance? 

Can you not see that the body will get rid of fat stores when you stop the over supply, you don't need to under supply.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> But to build muscle, it's essential to have good nutrition, so what worked best for me was when my P.T put me on a plan where I was on 2,500 calories, spread throughout the day. Think it was roughly 100 grams protein, 70 grams carbs, and 50 grams green vegetables per serving, x 6 per day. Never hungry, performance and strength increased massively. Try doing that with calorie deficit. He's an elite athletics coach, and although I'm only a 'veteran', the body still works the same!



I don't disagree with this nor the thrust of the article. I think it's key for getting into final shape but a lot of people stop before they get there. Also, the research says our bodies don't react the same way as we get older. 

I basically agree with what you're saying but I think you're being too simplistic.


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

Crackle said:


> I don't disagree with this nor the thrust of the article. I think it's key for getting into final shape but a lot of people stop before they get there. Also, the research says our bodies don't react the same way as we get older.
> 
> I basically agree with what you're saying but I think you're being too simplistic.



Possibly so, I'm not intending to go into too much detail. 

I think we can all agree that if you eat too much you put on weight, and if you eat certain toxic foods in high quantity you'll gain it faster.

OK, so let's take the calorie deficit thing to it's logical conclusion, why not reduce your calories by 1,500 a day, and lose 3 lbs per week?* Because you'd not be able to function right? You body needs the correct nutrition. I'm saying the correct nutrition is your metabolic rate, if you are correctly and healthily nourished and take plenty of exercise, you'll be healthier than if you eat too little, and this is a plan you can live with forever. 

If it's simplistic, then great. Why over complicate? What am I missing? I know a lot more which I could add, but I don't see a reason to make this more complicated.

* I hope you guys can see when you think this through that of course the relationship is not linear, you really think you'd lose 5 lbs per week if you eat zero calories? And would you lose 1/10th of a pound per week with a 50 calorie per day deficit? The 500 per day is arbitrary, and based on erroneous assumptions.


----------



## Shaun (28 Oct 2013)

I think you're mixing your message @bozmandb9 - a *calorie* is exactly the _same_ regardless of the food / drink source it comes from - it is a generic unit to describe the calorific value of any given food or drink; however not all food and drink has the same _nutritional_ value and some foods can negatively impact on your health and wellbeing, even if they have _less_ calorific value.

So whilst you _could _consume fewer overall calories via a fatty / sugary / salty fast food diet - sweets - energy drinks, etc. it is unlikely to be as _healthy_ for you as a diet that includes more fresh fruit, vegetables, oats, pulses, grains and non-processed meats.


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> one thing which winds me up is when people advise that all you need to do to lose weight, is to create a calorie deficit, i.e. burn more calories than you take it. I'm sorry but this is just wrong, and dangerous advice.





bozmandb9 said:


> They did indeed, but they also became very ill, as well as gaining a lot more weight when they finished the restricted calorie period, so perhaps I should be clearer. If you want to lose weight in the short term, and possibly make yourself ill, then reducing your calorific input with no focus on quality of nutrition, or ensuring you ingest sufficient micro-nutrients will indeed make you lose weight (including probably lean muscle). If however you wish to lose FAT, and lose it for the long term, then you do indeed need to focus on quality of nutrition, and ensure balance and sufficient micro-nutrients.


I think the problem is the way you started the thread. A calorific deficit is not the same as reducing your calorific input which is just one way of creating a deficit. If you'd started your rant as "Reducing your calorific intake is not the way to lose weight in the long term" I would have agreed with you.


----------



## Sara_H (28 Oct 2013)

Eh? I'm on a mission to lose a bit of weight and a cam of diet pop at lunchtime makes life worth living. And a packet of wotsits on a weekend night.


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Eh? I'm on a mission to lose a bit of weight and a cam of diet pop at lunchtime makes life worth living. And a packet of wotsits on a weekend night.


And to me, if you then go for a 10 mile bike ride and have a bit of spinach, you're doing fine.


----------



## michaelcycle (28 Oct 2013)

Oh good lord.

The basis of all weight loss is an energy / calorie deficit. However, we all have a certain degree of biochemical individuality and this will determine how easy or difficult it is to achieve that deficit in a real world scenario for any consistent period of time depending on the foods we eat. 

The most important thing in a dieting regime is adherence - the ability to stick to the plan. In addition if the plan closely aligns with your goals and you see success with it then it creates a self reinforcing cycle which helps further with adherence.

Some people thrive on a high quality food approach. Some people find it too restrictive and feelings of deprivation cause them to fall off it. The individual needs to find a way that fits in with their preferences and that takes a bit of experimentation. Do you need to count calories? Absolutely not. Do calories count however? Absolutely.

What people do not need is zealots, be they CICO zelaots, Taubes Zealots or whatever.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Oct 2013)

If I live on a diet of junk food and reduce the amount of junk food I eat and move about more so as to create a calorie deficit I'll lose weight right?

If I was going to have a rant it would be over the nation's dumbass obsession that slim/thin equals fit and healthy.


----------



## michaelcycle (28 Oct 2013)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If I was going to have a rant it would be over the nation's dumbass obsession that slim/thin equals fit and healthy.



Or that having visible abdominal muscles is the epitome of fitness *snort*


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Oct 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> Or that having visible abdominal muscles is the epitome of fitness *snort*


Abs which are created in the kitchen,not a gym


----------



## Booyaa (28 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> I think the problem is the way you started the thread.


Exactly!

I don't think many disagree with the overall "analysis" but the way it was written screamed of a tabloid writer for the Sun trying to make a dull story interesting.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> What am I missing?



One of the main things you're missing is why people eat badly in the first place and the complications that causes when they try to lose weight. For many, how to lose weight is not the first message they need to hear. In fact it's some way down the line. You mentioned crap food but you need to examine why we have crap food, who buys it, why they buy it, what message makes them buy it, the list goes on.


----------



## Sittingduck (28 Oct 2013)

Ok, can we have a group hug now?


----------



## martint235 (28 Oct 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> Ok, can we have a group hug now?


No cos we're all to fat and unhealthy to get our arms around each other. Plus the KFC bargain buckets would get squashed.


----------



## Sara_H (28 Oct 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> Ok, can we have a group hug now?


I'd rather have a muffin and a frappuccino.


----------



## Sittingduck (28 Oct 2013)

I'm going to get told off but I just had 2x Custard slices from Sainsbo's. Well - they were stickered items, afterall


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (28 Oct 2013)

I'm off to ride me bike...






The long way round to a coffee stop


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> I'm going to get told off but I just had 2x Custard slices from Sainsbo's. Well - they were stickered items, afterall


Stickered to your fingers were they?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Oct 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> Ok, can we have a group hug now?


Sure. So long as you don't then expect me to share my food with the group.


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

Crackle said:


> One of the main things you're missing is why people eat badly in the first place and the complications that causes when they try to lose weight. For many, how to lose weight is not the first message they need to hear. In fact it's some way down the line. You mentioned crap food but you need to examine why we have crap food, who buys it, why they buy it, what message makes them buy it, the list goes on.



Believe me, been there, done that, got the T-shirt. But decided to give this a rest now, anybody who would like to get into more detail is welcome to contact me and I'll refer you to the resources I've used!


----------



## uclown2002 (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Believe me, been there, done that, got the T-shirt. But decided to give this a rest now, anybody who would like to get into more detail is welcome to contact me and I'll refer you to the resources I've used!


Not likely but thanks for dropping by.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Believe me, been there, done that, got the T-shirt. But decided to give this a rest now, anybody who would like to get into more detail is welcome to contact me and I'll refer you to the resources I've used!


Fair enough. Diet threads are nearly as contentious as helmet debates.


----------



## gavintc (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Give it a rest you clown. Do you get off on being offensive? Ironic comment in your signature!


Pot, kettle - read some of your own posts, they do come across as a tad offensive and preachy.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Oct 2013)

Crackle said:


> One of the main things you're missing is why people eat badly in the first place and the complications that causes when they try to lose weight. For many, how to lose weight is not the first message they need to hear. In fact it's some way down the line. You mentioned crap food but you need to examine why we have crap food, who buys it, why they buy it, what message makes them buy it, the list goes on.



You didn't mention GB155's blog. You let the side down.


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

gavintc said:


> Pot, kettle - read some of your own posts, they do come across as a tad offensive and preachy.



Sorry but I think that's ridiculous, please give me an example of how it can be offensive to give my opinions on weight loss based on my experience? If it doesn't work for you, don't do it, but don't cry about it! As for preachy, how many times do we have to go back on this, when somebody (i.e. me) heads a thread as 'rant' what do you expect? If you don't want to read a rant, don't read it!

Anyway, as I said, it's done now, let's move on.


----------



## Sittingduck (28 Oct 2013)

I bet you're one of those people who always has to get the last word


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

No I'm not!


----------



## bozmandb9 (28 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> You didn't mention GB155's blog. You let the side down.


By the way, I've read it, and watched the video(s), and have nothing but admiration and utmost respect!


----------



## 400bhp (28 Oct 2013)

mmmmm pizza


----------



## uclown2002 (28 Oct 2013)

Huge bottle of Pepsi Max for me


----------



## PK99 (28 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> But to build muscle, it's essential to have good nutrition, so what worked best for me was when my P.T put me on a plan where I was on 2,500 calories, spread throughout the day.



2500 calories per day probably was a calorie deficit if you were working out with a personal trainer.

care to fill in a few more numbers:
Age
height
start weight
how many days a week working out and for how long.

(eg
age 55
5 ft 10
weight 220 pounds
working out 5 times a week 
= maintenance intake of 2900 calories per day
and 2500 perday = Calorie deficit of 400 per day)

It would be interesting to see your numbers.



FWIW, I've had a pretty good diet for many years:
I do all the cooking. Every meal from fresh never any processed food, rarely use sugar in cooking, never bake, never have biscuits or cake in the house, fish at least once a week, chicken 2/3 times a week, regularly had non meat days. lots of pasta and rice, minimal us of oils and only the right ones. Lots of exercise 100-150 miles a week on the bike year round. I ate all the right things, i just ate too much of them.

Eating the same things with a calorie deficit (my way via the 5:2 diet) has produced a significant weight loss without increasing the amount of exercise i do.


----------



## benb (29 Oct 2013)

Hill Wimp said:


> Great this works for you, fantastic, however plans like the Fast Die/5:2 ...



Personally I'd steer clear of a method called Fast Die.


----------



## Rob3rt (29 Oct 2013)

lol at this thread and at the OP! Seriously... never heard of carrot cake, lemon slices, fruit cake etc, combine cake mix with fruit and/or veg, nutrients + cake, yup! Now, eat one less slice of cake per day and calorie deficit is achieved, cake + nutrients + weight loss = the holy grail!


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

Laugh all you like Rob, then tell me about your weight loss and athletic achievements?

Honestly, I give up, try to share a little genuine knowledge and just get abuse. How about this. Anybody believing in the 'calorie deficit theory'. You are very welcome to it, with my complements. Hope it goes well for you.

I do notice though, that nobody has given any attempt at answering my questions about the flaws in the calorie deficit theory.


----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Laugh all you like Rob, then tell me about your weight loss and athletic achievements?
> 
> Honestly, I give up, try to share a little genuine knowledge and just get abuse. How about this. Anybody believing in the 'calorie deficit theory'. You are very welcome to it, with my complements. Hope it goes well for you.
> 
> I do notice though, that nobody has given any attempt at answering my questions about the flaws in the calorie deficit theory.


 
That's because you sound like a nobber 

Calorie deficit works. Deal with it.


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> That's because you sound like a nobber
> 
> Calorie deficit works. Deal with it.



Did you just get out of school? Is that the most intelligent response you can come up with? Must be the effect of aspartame on the brain. Honestly my eight year old could come up with better than that!


----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

And you sound like an evangelizing snake-oil salesman with nothing of genuine worth to offer. 5 pages of a thread with nobody wanting to buy whatever you're selling? No wonder you are getting desperate.


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

I love it when people revert to vitriol and personal insults rather than responding to reasonable questions. I acknowledge I've challenged a belief you're very attached to, and clearly it's too challenging for you to consider it sensibly. Good luck with your calorie counting, and try not to get too upset by people offering genuine well meant advice on internet forums!

(Here's a little link on why you should avoid stress!http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53304)


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> I love it when people revert to vitriol and personal insults rather than responding to reasonable questions. I acknowledge I've challenged a belief you're very attached to, and clearly it's too challenging for you to consider it sensibly. Good luck with your calorie counting, and try not to get too upset by people offering genuine well meant advice on internet forums!


So you respond by calling people stupid...


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> So you respond by calling people stupid...



Where? I did certainly question whether a puerile insult was the best response, and challenge him to answer the questions I had put, but I don't recall calling anybody stupid. I don't revert to personal insults, don't really find it necessary, or productive.

I have tried to end this thread several times, all I can say is, if you really think calorie counting/ deficit works for you, then good on you, I'm happy for you, and wish you well.

I'm suggesting another approach which worked for me. I'm not forcing anybody to read, or follow my advice, and don't see why anybody should attack me for offering it. If anybody wants to debate the ins and outs sensibly I'm happy to do so, since I've done a lot of research, if not, let's just drop the subject.


----------



## uclown2002 (29 Oct 2013)

To OP


bozmandb9 said:


> Where? I did certainly question whether a puerile insult was the best response, and challenge him to answer the questions I had put, but I don't recall calling anybody stupid. I don't revert to personal insults, don't really find it necessary, or productive.
> 
> I have tried to end this thread several times, all I can say is, if you really think calorie counting/ deficit works for you, then good on you, I'm happy for you, and wish you well.
> 
> I'm suggesting another approach which worked for me. I'm not forcing anybody to read, or follow my advice, and don't see why anybody should attack me for offering it. If anybody wants to debate the ins and outs sensibly I'm happy to do so, since I've done a lot of research,* if not, let's just drop the subject*.



Please let's do; as VamP points out, no one is buying what your selling!

But good luck to you.


----------



## PK99 (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> I love it when people revert to vitriol and personal insults rather than responding to reasonable questions. I acknowledge I've challenged a belief you're very attached to, and clearly it's too challenging for you to consider it sensibly. Good luck with your calorie counting, and try not to get too upset by people offering genuine well meant advice on internet forums!
> 
> (Here's a little link on why you should avoid stress!http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53304)



You seem to have spent the whole thread arguing against a straw man of your own invention. Your point seems to be: Calorie deficit without good nutrition is a bad thing. No one has ever suggested it is a good thing!!

You say that what worked for you was a nutritious diet of 2500 calories while working out with a personal trainer. ie in your own words you were calorie counting. And, it seems to me very likely that, if you were working out regularly and building muscle, 2500 calories per day represented a significant calorie deficit from that needed to feed BMR plus exercise expended calories. After all, the best NHS advice is that "An average man needs around 2,500 calories a day to maintain his weight." Working out in the gym with a personal trainer took you out of the "average" category, with the direct implication that 2500 calories was a calorie deficit

Would you care to share your age/height/weight so that we can plug them into an online calculator and see for ourselves?

Also, you have not responded to my post earlier where I remarked that i have for many years had (if i may say so) an exemplary diet it terms of fresh, nutritious food with all meals cooked from scratch. I just ate too much. Only by continuing to eat exactly the same things but less of them did i manage to lose weight.

Ultimately, all weight loss diets work in the same way: Over time consume more calories than you burn and weight increases. Over time, consume fewer calories than you burn and weight decreases.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Where? I did certainly question whether a puerile insult was the best response, and challenge him to answer the questions I had put, but I don't recall calling anybody stupid. I don't revert to personal insults, don't really find it necessary, or productive.





> clearly it's too challenging for you to consider





> I have tried to end this thread several times, all I can say is, if you really think calorie counting/ deficit works for you, then good on you, I'm happy for you, and wish you well.


Then leave it.



> I'm suggesting another approach which worked for me. I'm not forcing anybody to read, or follow my advice, and don't see why anybody should attack me for offering it. If anybody wants to debate the ins and outs sensibly I'm happy to do so, since I've done a lot of research, if not, let's just drop the subject.


No. You've done nothing but preach whilst totally ignoring the significant success members of this forum have had doing precisely what it is you preach against, deficits/counting.


For someone who wants to sensibly debate, you don't bring it across well..


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Then leave it.
> 
> 
> No. You've done nothing but preach whilst totally ignoring the significant success members of this forum have had doing precisely what it is you preach against, deficits/counting.
> ...



No.

I've raised questions on the calorie deficit theory, and nobody has seen fit to answer them. To debate, I need another party to engage, not just insult. How is giving my opinion preaching, and how is it worse than those who believe in the calorie deficit theory stating this as fact?

Oh, and I certainly haven't ignored the success member of the forum have had, I'm merely suggesting that what's worked for them has been more down to the quality of calories, not the quantity, along with the benefits of exercise. 

To be honest, you get fat, because you eat too much, and usually of the wrong thing, so a substantial reduction in what you eat, along with an increase in exercise is bound to have a beneficial effect. Furthermore, I suspect most people who follow this approach, end up eating more healthily as well, all of which will work well. All I'm suggesting is that these are the solutions, and you don't have to long term, eat less than you need, since it will lead to unwanted consequences.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> No.
> 
> I've raised questions on the calorie deficit theory, and nobody has seen fit to answer them. To debate, I need another party to engage, not just insult. How is giving my opinion preaching, and how is it worse than those who believe in the calorie deficit theory stating this as fact?


You aren't exactly inviting anyone to engage. Which says a lot, because I've been up to my neck in bullshit threads on here and even I can't be bothered.


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You aren't exactly inviting anyone to engage. Which says a lot, because I've been up to my neck in bulls*** threads on here and even I can't be bothered.



What do you want, a formal invitation? Why are you getting so aggro?


----------



## vickster (29 Oct 2013)

What was the question?  And what is the OP actually suggesting or trying to sell - not this banana nonsense again? Please enlighten us


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

User3094 said:


> Your point is debunked by the many skinny alcoholics I know.



Not quite sure how? Surely they debunk the calorie deficit theory, since they ingest shedloads of calories, and they stay skinny. Really proves my point, that it's not down to the quantity of calories, but the quality. Different calories will have a different effect on the body.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> What do you want, a formal invitation? Why are you getting so aggro?


You're doing a great job of ending the thread. I'm "aggro"?


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

User3094 said:


> Booze not only has shed load of calories but your point was about the _type _of calories.... and yet they stay skinny? *
> 
> * Although not particulary healthy!



Exactly, I'm questioning the assertion that if you create a calorie deficit, you will lose weight, based on the assumption that a calorie is a calorie, and that there is a linear relationship between calories ingested, and weight gain/ loss.


----------



## vickster (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Exactly, I'm questioning the assertion that if you create a calorie deficit, you will lose weight, based on the assumption that a calorie is a calorie, and that there is a linear relationship between calories ingested, and weight gain/ loss.



What are you saying people should do? Is this another veganism/bananaism/fruitarian type thread?


----------



## PK99 (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> No.
> 
> I've raised questions on the calorie deficit theory, and nobody has seen fit to answer them. .



You were working to a Calorie deficit, 2500 Calories while working with a personal trainer IS almost certainly a deficit. Yes or no?

Would you care to restate your questions ?

do you dispute the folllowing NHS guidance:



> An average man needs around 2,500 calories a day to maintain his weight. For an average woman, that figure is around 2,000 calories a day. These values can vary depending on age and levels of physical activity, among other factors.
> 
> *What are calories?*
> Calories are a measure of how much energy food or drink contains. The amount of energy you need will depend on:
> ...


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

vickster said:


> What are you saying people should do? Is this another veganism/bananaism/fruitarian type thread?


You'd think so wouldn't you.

No, bizarrely I'm only suggesting that we should eat a balanced diet, avoiding highly processed foods. Not quite sure why it's so controversial! I'm sure there's no problem with a bit of cake, so long as it's carrot cake!


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

PK99 said:


> You were working to a Calorie deficit, 2500 Calories while working with a personal trainer IS almost certainly a deficit. Yes or no?
> 
> Would you care to restate your questions ?
> 
> do you dispute the folllowing NHS guidance:



No, as I clarified, it used the 2,500 as a base, and was adjusted for exercise. I can't remember the exact calorie count, but bizarrely I can remember that it was basically 6 x 100g protein, 70 grams carbs, and 50 grams vegetables, per day. I suspect you'll find it comes out at around 3,000 calories.

And yes, I'm most certainly questioning the NHS guidelines. For four decades now we've been fed a load of B.S. about nutrition by the authorities, who have encouraged 'low fat' diets, which tend to encourage people to eat more processed food, which is usually higher in sugar, and much lower in nutritional value and actually makes them fatter. If you think the NHS guidelines are gospel, then take a look at how much success the NHS achieves in treating overweight and obesity through diet advice!


----------



## Hip Priest (29 Oct 2013)

I can't be bothered reading all this, but am I allowed to eat cheese balls or not?


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I can't be bothered reading all this, but am I allowed to eat cheese balls or not?


Eat as many as you like up to 2,000 calories per day, and apparently you'll lose weight!


----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> I love it when people revert to vitriol and personal insults rather than responding to reasonable questions. I acknowledge I've challenged a belief you're very attached to, and clearly it's too challenging for you to consider it sensibly. Good luck with your calorie counting, and try not to get too upset by people offering genuine well meant advice on internet forums!
> 
> (Here's a little link on why you should avoid stress!http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53304)



Not sure where you're seeing vitriol?

We are all just having a good laugh. You have really not challenged anyone and it seems quite unlikely that you have anything challenging to bring to the party.

You do seem quite desperate to get you athletic accomplishment willy on the table though, so come on, entertain us


----------



## uclown2002 (29 Oct 2013)

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Not sure where you're seeing vitriol?
> 
> We are all just having a good laugh. You have really not challenged anyone and it seems quite unlikely that you have anything challenging to bring to the party.
> 
> You do seem quite desperate to get you athletic accomplishment willy on the table though, so come on, entertain us



You can ignore the questions vamp, they don't go away. Not desperate at all my friend, so I'll pass thanks!


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/


 Not sure what you think this proves uclown. One persons experience does not prove a point. Also I've said many times in this thead, of course if you go from eating too much, to eating less, you'll lose weight. You'll also lose weight short term, by restricting pretty much any food group, be it protein, carbs, or fat.

As he himself said, he wouldn't stay on that diet, and the doctors were not sure about the long term consequences, but if it appeals to you, please go for it, let us know how it's worked after a few years (assuming you're not dead).


----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> One persons experience does not prove a point.



Unless it's your personal experience, right?


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Unless it's your personal experience, right?



Not at all, as I've said, I've done a lot of research, which led me to get the experience.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> One persons experience does not prove a point.


Great shot! But you've just kicked the ball into your own goal


----------



## Shut Up Legs (29 Oct 2013)

Dan B said:


> It's not wrong at all. It is however massively unhelpful - it's a bit like saying "all you need to do to win the 100m world record is run faster than everyone else"


Sometimes, the "all you need to do X is to do more of X" advice actually helps, though . For example, all you need to be better at cycling up hills is to cycle up hills more often!

I agree with the OP, though: eat good foods in moderation, and get enough exercise.


----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Not at all, as I've said, I've done a lot of research, which led me to get the experience.



While the rest of us have done no research, and prefer to labour on in ignorance


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Great shot! But you've just kicked the ball into your own goal



Sorry mate, Vamp beat you to it, and I already replied, but if you'd like one of my sources, here's one! http://www.drbriffa.com

But there are plenty online, as I know there are also plenty supporting the calorie deficit theory. And really, I've got to say again, if you don't like what I'm saying, just ignore it.

I would love it if somebody would respond to a couple of questions though like:

The point about skinny alcoholics, they ingest loads of calories without gaining weight.

Also, if you truly believe that there is a linear relationship between calories and weight gain/ loss, then why pick a 500 calorie deficit? Why not choose a 1,500/ day deficit and lose weight three times as fast? Also do you really believe that if you had a 50 calorie deficit you'd lose 1/10th lb per week? 

You can knock me all you like, but I think you can't really disagree with the point I'm making, that it's not as simple as 'a calorie is a calorie'. I'm pretty certain every person on this forum who's trying to lose weight, makes some sort of effort to ensure they ingest healthy calories. I'm just suggesting that in my opinion, and from what I've read and learned, it is perhaps more important to focus on quality of calories, than just focussing on quantity. Within reason of course, I'm not suggesting that you should overeat. However what I found, was that in focussing on high quality calories, I was eating a lot of food, and it was almost impossible to overeat.


----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

Hmm. I eat a lot of high quality calories and my N=1 experience is that it most certainly is possible to overeat. In fact it's just as easy to get fat on highly nutritious unprocessed food.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2013)

*My rant about 'pizza' b.s.*

Pizza taste effin shiite right. All this b.s about pizza being tasty is just b.s. Mushrooms on melted cheese, WTF. Pepperoni, who the fack eats that on anything but a pizza. Losers. And you can shove those jalopenos (pronounced halopenos for those who want to eat pizza in a dumb posh restaurant like pizza hut or whatever).


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Hmm. I eat a lot of high quality calories and my N=1 experience is that it most certainly is possible to overeat. In fact it's just as easy to get fat on highly nutritious unprocessed food.


Out of interest, why do you eat high quality calories, if you believe that it is only the calorie deficit which is important, or do you perhaps agree with me, that quality of calories is extremely important too?

The meals I posted above, try them, and if you can overeat, I'll be amazed. 100g chicken/ turkey, 70 grams brown rice, 50 grams green vegetables, six times daily, substitute each constituent for alternatives from same groups (i.e. protein carb vegetable) for variety. It should come out at around 3,000 calories I think.

Oh, and it's clearly not as easy to get fat on unprocessed food, I'm sure you'd agree for example that transfats are extremely difficult for the body to process, and therefore very likely to make you fat, and you'll only find them in processed foods, not in natural.

Also on a high protein diet, you also benefit from the thermic effect of eating, which effectively elevates your metabolic rate (and makes you warm!) Further proving that all calories are not created equal! It's down to quality, group, and timing, as much as quantity.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2013)

Not enough official research done on the negative effects of sugar yet, Ill give you that.


----------



## PK99 (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> You can knock me all you like, but I think you can't really disagree with the point I'm making, that it's not as simple as 'a calorie is a calorie'. I'm pretty certain every person on this forum who's trying to lose weight, makes some sort of effort to ensure they ingest healthy calories. I'm just suggesting that in my opinion, and from what I've read and learned, it is perhaps more important to focus on quality of calories, than just focussing on quantity. Within reason of course, I'm not suggesting that you should overeat. However what I found, was that in focussing on high quality calories, I was eating a lot of food, and it was almost impossible to overeat.


.
As i have said several times without your seeming to notice, i have long had a diet of outstandingly good calories - but ate too many of them. Restricting my calorie intake on 2 days a week with no other changes of significance has take off 2 stones with no additional exercise.

Wrt why not a 1500 deficit? You seem to have missed the idea that long term gross deficits change metabolic rate AKA switching the body to starvation mode. It is you who has a hang up about a linear relationship, no one here is arguing there is. Another straw man of your own invention.

You rant against calorie counting yet advocate carb counting, protein counting and veg counting viz


> 6 x 100g protein, 70 grams carbs, and 50 grams vegetables, per day


 do you not recognise that counting food components is a proxy for counting calories?

My approach to the 5:2 diet involves no ongoing calorie counting - I now know what a roughly 500 or 600 calorie meal looks like, and it does not matter if i am out by 100/200 calories sometimes as there is still a big deficit on that day and one day at a time does not kick the body into starvation mode.


----------



## VamP (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Out of interest, why do you eat high quality calories, if you believe that it is only the calorie deficit which is important, or do you perhaps agree with me, that quality of calories is extremely important too?
> 
> The meals I posted above, try them, and if you can overeat, I'll be amazed. 100g chicken/ turkey, 70 grams brown rice, 50 grams green vegetables, six times daily, substitute each constituent for alternatives from same groups (i.e. protein carb vegetable) for variety. It should come out at around 3,000 calories I think.
> 
> ...



Quality of food is important - that is such a trivial point that you'd be mad to think it merited a debate. What we are all laughing at is your assertion that calorie balance doesn't matter.


----------



## vickster (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Sorry mate, Vamp beat you to it, and I already replied, but if you'd like one of my sources, here's one! http://www.drbriffa.com


Oh is the point to get us to spend money on some geezer's ebooks and tapes and seminars? He does have lovely long shiny curly hair though


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Not enough official research done on the negative effects of sugar yet, Ill give you that.



Really there is, but the lobbyists in Washington prevent it from being acted on. In 2004, the WHO (World Health Organisation), was due to publish new guidelines warning about sugar, the food industry lobbyists in Washington persuaded the US Govt to intervene. They were unsuccessful in the end, but details are here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/d...and-the-guidelines.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

PK99 said:


> .
> As i have said several times without your seeming to notice, i have long had a diet of outstandingly good calories - but ate too many of them. Restricting my calorie intake on 2 days a week with no other changes of significance has take off 2 stones with no additional exercise.
> 
> Wrt why not a 1500 deficit? You seem to have missed the idea that long term gross deficits change metabolic rate AKA switching the body to starvation mode. It is you who has a hang up about a linear relationship, no one here is arguing there is. Another straw man of your own invention.
> ...



OK, and how many time have I said "if you eat too much, then you'll clearly lose weight by reducing the amount you eat"! All I'm saying is you don't need to go from too much, to too little.

Why the issue with my focus on making sure I get the right amount? This is exactly what I'm advocating?

I absolutely agree that long term deficits change metabolic rate, it's one of the points I'm making, which to me makes the calorie deficit method pointless. I'm glad the 5:2 diet works for you, and I have no issue with it.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Really there is, but the lobbyists in Washington prevent it from being acted on. In 2004, the WHO (World Health Organisation), was due to publish new guidelines warning about sugar, the food industry lobbyists in Washington persuaded the US Govt to intervene. They were unsuccessful in the end, but details are here:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/d...and-the-guidelines.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm



When I said "official" I was referring to it being mainstream officially accepted.


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

vickster said:


> Oh is the point to get us to spend money on some geezer's ebooks and tapes and seminars? He does have lovely long shiny curly hair though



No the point was to show it's not just my point of view, that I've researched it a lot. I have no interest whatsoever in selling his books, and I'm happy to give another source, however I think we can be safe in assuming that he won't be inundated with orders. And do you seriously think I'd be going to these lengths to try to push books or seminars to such an unreceptive audience?


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2013)

> Dr Briffa is a former columnist for the _Daily Mail_


----------



## bozmandb9 (29 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> When I said "official" I was referring to it being mainstream officially accepted.



Oh, in that case I quite agree.


----------



## michaelcycle (29 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Out of interest, why do you eat high quality calories, if you believe that it is only the calorie deficit which is important, or do you perhaps agree with me, that quality of calories is extremely important too?



Who exactly disagrees with that?

Except for obese people, where a quick reduction in weight even if it is achieved through less than ideal food choices because the benefits outweigh the risk, quality of calories is going to be important. The ultimate determinant of body fatness is quantity of calories (we have tightly controlled metabolic ward studies involving isocaloric diets dating back to the 1930s confirming this) but quality of calories makes exceeding quantity much more difficult and helps with calorie partitioning (the amount of energy devoted to muscle repair over fat storage and other groovy stuff) etc etc.


----------



## PK99 (30 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Out of interest, why do you eat high quality calories, if you believe that it is only the calorie deficit which is important, or do you perhaps agree with me, that quality of calories is extremely important too?
> 
> .



You REALLY do seem confused:

Good nutrition ie quality of food is related mainly to health

Calorie balance ie quantity of food is related mainly to weight.

If I mainline sugary biscuits all day, I will put on weight, but am likely to be unhealthy

If I mainline organic steak, olive oil and artizan bread, I will put on weight, but am likely to be healthy.


----------



## bozmandb9 (30 Oct 2013)

PK99 said:


> You REALLY do seem confused:
> 
> Good nutrition ie quality of food is related mainly to health
> 
> ...


Not confused just bored. Certain people here seem determined to argue for the sake if it, ignore it when I put direct questions, and deliberately misinterpret what I say. 

I've made my point, some people have agreed, others don't. That's all.


----------



## vickster (30 Oct 2013)

I still don't really get your point? That eating only processed food isn't very good for you - well I think we all know that but often it just tastes soooo good 

I don't need to pay some curly long haired dude to tell me that


----------



## VamP (30 Oct 2013)

vickster said:


> I still don't really get your point? That eating only processed food isn't very good for you - well I think we all know that but often it just tastes soooo good
> 
> I don't need to pay some curly long haired dude to tell me that


 
I might take conditioner advice from him though


----------



## bozmandb9 (30 Oct 2013)

vickster said:


> I still don't really get your point? That eating only processed food isn't very good for you - well I think we all know that but often it just tastes soooo good
> 
> I don't need to pay some curly long haired dude to tell me that


Not at all. 

The point is that whilst eating too much makes us overweight, and the solution is to eat less, we don't need to eat too little to lose weight, we can eat the right amount, especially if we focus on eating healthily.


----------



## vickster (30 Oct 2013)

Well yes obviously, so why the rant ?!


----------



## Sittingduck (30 Oct 2013)

It is down to your interpretation of 'too little' and 'the right amount'. These fluctuate, dpending on your level of activity and goals, as we all know.

OP: The rear guard action you seen fit to fight on this thread has been commendable, I must say. Stubborn and misguided but commendable.

Anyway - I though the thread was finished a couple of days ago... what happened??!!


----------



## bozmandb9 (30 Oct 2013)

vickster said:


> Well yes obviously, so why the rant ?!


Well that's the whole point of the rant. The calorie deficit theory says you should eat too little, not the right amount.

@ Sittingduck, it's not really interpretation is it. Too little, would be the amount which puts you in calorie deficit, and 'the right amount' would balance your intake against your calories burned.

So how is this misguided? 

I'm happy to finish the thread, or happy to respond, especially if it seems like we might be making progress!


----------



## vickster (30 Oct 2013)

But to lose weight you need to expend more calories than you take in - be that eating less, exercising more, having a limb amputated?


----------



## bozmandb9 (30 Oct 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> It is down to your interpretation of 'too little' and 'the right amount'. These fluctuate, dpending on your level of activity and goals, as we all know.
> 
> OP: *The rear guard action you seen fit to fight on this thread has been commendable, I must say*. Stubborn and misguided but commendable.
> 
> Anyway - I though the thread was finished a couple of days ago... what happened??!!



And thank you, I've never been one to back down if I know I'm in the right, overwhelming odds don't bother me, or insults, in fact they just make me more determined!


----------



## bozmandb9 (30 Oct 2013)

vickster said:


> But to lose weight you need to expend more calories than you take in - be that eating less, exercising more, having a limb amputated?



Ah, that is the very point we are 'debating'. Whilst a surfeit of calories leads to weight gain, weight loss can be achieved by consuming the right amount of calories, you don't need to 'burn more than you take in'. The body doesn't really let you do this anyway. When you eat less than you burn, the body reduces the metabolic rate, so you don't end up with a calorie deficit anyway, and you are under-nourishing your body. This can lead to muscle wastage, and to people who are very skinny, but still with a fat belly, because the body will still be inclined to store fat whilst you are not supplying it's needs.

My assertion, is that to lose weight, you simply need to eat the right amount of food, in a healthy way. The right amount being what your body needs according to your metabolism and activity levels, and that food group, food quality, combinations, and timing of food are all key factors in achieving the right balance, and hence the advice of 'create a calorie deficit of 500 calories per day' is misleading at best.


----------



## bozmandb9 (30 Oct 2013)

vickster said:


> But to lose weight you need to expend more calories than you take in - be that eating less, exercising more, having a limb amputated?


Also there's a big difference between losing weight, and losing fat. I am assuming that most people would rather do the latter, if they only want to lose weight, then as you say, simplest solution is to chop off a limb. If you only want to lose weight, then a calorie deficit may be the easiest route, so long as you don't mind losing lean muscle, instead of fat, and the strong possibility that when you cease the calorie deficit diet, you will put on more weight than you lost, because you've slowed your metabolism, lost muscle (which again reduces your energy needs), and starved your body, creating a perfect storm for weight gain after the diet period.

My way may take longer, but it works for life, and encourages lean muscle gain, and fat loss, whilst keeping the body well nourished, and you're never hungry.


----------



## vickster (30 Oct 2013)

I presume that if you lose weight and exercise, you will inevitably maintian muscle and lose fat. You will lose 'size' but not necessarily weight if you consume and burn the same amount of calories as I understand it. It depends whether you wish to look as trim but be the same weight. This is my issue, I look slimmer, lose some size, but weigh the same, it's a bugger

What is 'your way', I don't remember you specifying?! Are you a qualified dietician?


----------



## PK99 (30 Oct 2013)

bozmandb9 said:


> Not confused just bored. Certain people here seem determined to argue for the sake if it, ignore it when I put direct questions, and deliberately misinterpret what I say.
> 
> I've made my point, some people have agreed, others don't. That's all.


you have ignored my direct questions.

eat the correct amount for the weight you want to be and if you are overweight you will lose weight, but that amount is a calorie deficit at your current weight.


----------



## bozmandb9 (30 Oct 2013)

vickster said:


> I presume that if you lose weight and exercise, you will inevitably maintian muscle and lose fat. You will lose 'size' but not necessarily weight if you consume and burn the same amount of calories as I understand it. It depends whether you wish to look as trim but be the same weight. This is my issue, I look slimmer, lose some size, but weigh the same, it's a bugger
> 
> What is 'your way', I don't remember you specifying?! Are you a qualified dietician?



My way, is to consume the right amount of calories I need, and ensure that I eat a healthy balanced diet, instead of 'dieting' i.e. restricting my overall calorific intake, or any particular food group, for the short term.

No, I'm not a dietician, I learned 'my way' from dieticians such as Dr Briffa, and numerous athletics coaches and personal trainers, none of which told me I needed to create a calorie deficit, all of which told me I need to eat clean, and meet my body's needs, not exceed, and not under nourish.


----------



## Scoosh (30 Oct 2013)

We're going round in circles now and there is very little to be gained by leaving the thread open.

So it is No longer open for further replies.


----------

