My rant about 'calorie deficit' b.s.

[bozmandb9]

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]

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

 

[bozmandb9]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Abs which are created in the kitchen,not a gym

 

[Booyaa]

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]

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.