Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!)
While true, that statement is useless. It doesn't take into account the effect insulin has on the ability one has to actually take in those fewer calories. It also doesn't take into account metabolic pathways that allow one to eat more of certain kinds of foods than others.
The scientific literature is pretty clear (once you filter out the government propaganda that caused 300 million people to be unwitting participants in a dietetic experiment):
If you[1] want to loose weight and be healthier, screw calories and worry about insulin (full stop!)
There is nothing that more closely predicts insulin reaction than the number of carbs you are eating. Cut out all the simple carbs (which includes the bags of sugar we've cultivated as most fruit) and focus on fats, protein and very complex carbs and you will lose weight. More importantly, nothing has been shown to affect metabolic disorder[2] as positively.
I look at it like this: what do we use to fatten cattle up before we slaughter them? It's corn. Now look at every nutrition label to see what is in it. Is it surprising we are fat, too?
1. The body is incredibly complex. There are people who will respond better on other diets. So take any general study with a grain of salt and experiment on yourself to find what works!
2. High blood pressure, high cholesterol, heat disease, hypoglycemia, type 2 diabetes, gout, and others have all been lumped together into a disorder that strongly appears to be the result of hyperinsulenimia (eg too much insulin in the blood stream).
If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters.
Of course, there are many, many, many tweaks to be made, but for the majority of people, who need to lose a massive amount of weight, if they eat less calories than they use, they will lose weight. End.
I've lost a massive amount of weight (170 pounds). It isn't that easy. If it was that easy, I would never have had to go to the lengths I went to in order to lose it and what I have to do to maintain that loss.
What the basic calorie-in-calorie-out equation doesn't take into account is that it is a biological imperative to eat. That means you have to find the way to balance those calories that overcomes that.
Some people (usually the people espousing "it's just a calorie") have a metabolism that, for whatever reason, either doesn't cause them to be hungry or allows them to eat whatever. Great for them.
For those of us who struggle daily with this issue, "willpower" isn't enough. We need to find the way that overcomes the biological, hormonal imperative that drives people to eat.
And just saying "cut calories" does not work. Three percent of obese people will manage to lose weight by dieting. Do you think they are just "too ignorant" to "get" the equation? Or are they just "too lazy" to do what needs to be done? Because I know that neither is the case.
Edit: The other component, which really screws up an "engine" analogy, is that your "engine" becomes more efficient the less you feed it. If you need 1500 calories a day today and so start eating 1300 calories a day, soon, your engine will only take 1300 calories a day to run. Great, bump up the exercise so you burn 200 calories a day. Soon, your engine only needs 1100 calories a day and you feel lethargic all the time.
I've attended hundreds of Weight Watchers meetings over many years and I've personally seen at least 1000 people go from being completely helpless with weight loss to losing somewhere between 50-200lbs each. It's a great achievement.
> What the basic calorie-in-calorie-out equation doesn't take into account is that it is a biological imperative to eat.
I didn't say eating less calories than you burn is mentally easy. It takes discipline and hard work, no doubt about it. We all have slip-ups and set backs along the way, which is all part of it. Nothing worth doing is easy.
> And just saying "cut calories" does not work. Three percent of obese people will manage to lose weight by dieting. Do you think they are just "too ignorant" to "get" the equation? Or are they just "too lazy" to do what needs to be done? Because I know that neither is the case.
In my experience watching at least a thousand people lose a massive amount of weight, every single one of them did it by slowly reducing their calorie intake, and increasing their activity to burn more calories.
Why did they need WW for that?
There are a variety of reasons, though I think Number 1 is that people honestly don't know fries, coke, burgers, chocolate, alcohol, etc. aren't food and you shouldn't eat them regularly. They are so enormously calorie dense they mess everything up.
Reason number 2 is simply being completely and utterly overwhelmed by the contradictory and complicated information about weight loss, causing them to give up completely. This is evidenced by the > 200 comments here.
> Your "engine" becomes more efficient the less you feed it.
Of course it does!
So next week/month will be a different intake/burn than last week/month. It's a constant process to make sure you're eating less than you take in. Although, again being honest here, anyone that is 100lbs+ overweight can likely just cut out one enormous calorie dense food (soda or fast food for a lot of people) and they will lose weight for a long time before they need to re-jig the equation, because they've been eating an enormous number of calories for a very long time.
Don't be confused and think I said it's an easy process to achieve. Many people find it one of the hardest things they will ever do in their lives. I said it's a simple process to understand.
Good for you. I haven't had as dramatic a change in weight, but it's been substantial (and on-going). You really hit the nail on the head, and it's hard to describe unless you've been there. I don't honestly believe it was a willpower issue, but a lack of information/advice. The generic eat less, exercise more didn't do anything for me.
On a side note, I'd love to hear what sort of issues you have with maintaining?
All the problems can be summed up with "crappy carbs". It's actually a long story about what started me down that path (dealing with health issues), but I've actually put back on some weight (around 40 pounds...it's easy to be blind to oneself :().
What I've found is that when I start eating carb-rich food, my ability to stop snacking on carb-rich foods goes to zero. So I've cycled between maintaining where I eat a low-glycemic diet and not doing that and gaining. When I spoke of "biological imperative", I mean me: when I eat carbs, I can't stop. I never get full. I'm sure I'd be a Type 2 diabetic in about 5 years if I didn't make this change.
A few weeks ago, I dumped the crappy carbs again. I'm back full-on low-carb and have lost about half of that[1]. This time, I'm going to learn from my mistakes. :) I'm going to follow the Atkins notion of gradually increasing carbs until you find your "critical carbohydrate level". Since I've bounced back and forth, I figure realizing that fact will be helpful in my long-term maintenance.
1. Yes, a very large percentage of this is water. I'm OK with that. :)
That sounds very familiar from personal experience. Weight loss wasn't/hasn't been a straight down affair. Holidays, life, things get in the way and my experience mirrors yours quite closely from the sound of it. Even a couple days of bad carbs in a row I can see a scale jump 5, 8, 10 pounds (it seems insane, mostly water I am sure, but still insane to see that in a few days). I've been trying to learn and balance myself out and watch for those things. I do enjoy some of those bad carbs every once in a while. Figuring out how to have them occasionally and not ruin my health was/continues to be an interesting (and I feel life long) experience. It's nice to know I am not alone with those issues. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it so candidly, I really appreciate it. If you ever feel the need to reach out to someone and talk about it feel free, I would be happy to talk, learn and share.
Maybe it just is that complicated (not that I view the above as complicated, I just don't view it as simple as you make it).
> If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters.
Imagine an engine that behaves differently depending on the type of fuel is put in it. One type of fuel causes the engine to move slower and burn less gas per unit time. So you may continue to put in your 10 gallons a day with this new fuel, but you'll notice a surplus building up because it only burns say 5 gallons a day because of this change. The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it.
That's what the parent was describing. Calories in and calories out are not independent variables despite how they are treated in some research and most popular media. The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake).
Myth: For a long time people have claimed that calories in just needs to be below calories out. Recent studies have confirmed that not all calories affect us the same way when it comes to weight gain and loss.
Lets be perfectly honest here. A person that is 100lbs+ overweight is eating an enormous number of calories just to maintain that weight.
I don't even care if the keep drinking coke and eating fries, as long as they cut their calorie intake somewhat, down to below what they are using, they will lose weight. Period.
Losing weight at that point is the most important thing.
Once they've done that for a while, their body adapts and they'll have to cut more calories, as an ongoing process. In years, they will have lost a lot of weight, and they will have to cut things like Coke and fries, but that's years down the road.
For now, they need to eat less calories. Fullstop.
> A person that is 100lbs+ overweight is eating an enormous number of calories just to maintain that weight.
The point that you are missing is that this is not necessarily true. In fact, the converse may be true; that obese people require less calories to maintain their weight because they live a more sedentary lifestyle.
> I don't even care if the keep drinking coke and eating fries, as long as they cut their calorie intake somewhat, down to below what they are using, they will lose weight. Period.
> Once they've done that for a while, their body adapts and they'll have to cut more calories, as an ongoing process. In years, they will have lost a lot of weight, and they will have to cut things like Coke and fries, but that's years down the road.
And they will be literally starving, dealing with the effects of malnutrition, and have almost no energy to complete daily tasks. Switching to healthier sources of nutrition first will provide the energy the person needs as well as the ability to control caloric intake, which greatly enhances the chances of success.
You seem to have made up your mind about a subject you know little about. This isn't a simple single-variable equation.
> The point that you are missing is that this is not necessarily true.
A body burns more calories for every pound of fat it has to maintain, even if sitting on the couch all day.
> You seem to have made up your mind about a subject you know little about.
Read my other comments here. I've personally witnessed at least a thousand people lose 50-200lbs each over the years due to my involvement with Weight Watchers. I think I have a good idea of what is required for people to lose weight.
I do want to point out I'm not using them to indicate "end of conversion" or "shutup" or anything like that, I'm using them to indicate that is the end of my solution/problem... as in there are no if/buts or maybes.
I think you are ignoring the fact that many people are able to eat way more calories than they burn, yet those extra calories simply don't convert to fat. I am not excessively active yet I eat significantly more calories than many people I know, yet I don't gain weight.
From things I've read [1] it seems that the vast majority of people consume more calories than they 'burn' but only in some people is it converted to unwanted weight gain. The real question, as many people have been referring to, is how do you determine whether your body hangs onto the extra calories as weight or simply disposes of it.
Saying "If you eat less energy than you burn, you will lose weight" is certainly true, but is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced." It's true...but not really helpful or meaningful.
> is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced."
Very bad analogy.
It's more like saying "If you burn more gas each day than you put in, you'll eventually start burning up your reserve tank, (until you run out)."
> but not really helpful or meaningful.
It's extremely helpful and meaningful. For the massive majority of people that are overweight, they simply need to eat less calories. Not less food. Less calories. The original article here is showing what 200 calories looks like, so it's extremely helpful for people trying to eat less of them.
You would be shocked how many people have no idea a mountain of apples is equal to a small amount of alcohol, etc. Once they learn this, they lose weight.
Source: I lived with two girls who lost over 100lbs each at Weight Watchers, one of them became a WW representative, and for years I went to meetings with her as moral support. Over the years I've personally seen at least 1000 people go from being completely helpless with weight loss to losing somewhere between 50-200lbs each. All they did was eat less calories than they were burning. Nothing else. (WW obfuscates that with their points system, but it's just calories/50)
The problem here is that many people make the mistake thinking that all of the calories "used" are calories expended as energy. For people with insulin issues, some of those calories are preferentially stored as fat and are never available to be used as energy, thus requiring them to eat more in order to make up the energy imbalance.
You're falling into the oversimplification trap. You can lose weight with a low calorie, high carb diet + running 4-5 hours a week. You can also lose weight with a low calorie, high protein/high fat diet + lifting weights 2 hours a week. Which routine is easier to keep?
I think one of the reasons people fail at weight loss is because of the conventional wisdom of low-fat (read: low-flavor) diets combined with low-effectiveness exercises like running. It's pseudo-scientific crock. If you've tried the CW and failed, try something else. Have a couple of slices of bacon instead of that plain breadstick (and avoid the urge to blow your calorie budget by slathering it in butter!) and instead of spending hours on a treadmill do high-intensity weightlifting 3x30 min a week. For your average sedentary Aeron-chair dweller, that's going to be a far more likely path to success.
That's because it is more complicated. Feel tired and lethargic after a big carny meal? Guess what - your body is driving on econo-mode and burning less fuel.
Your car doesn't partition its energy. Your body does. Gary Taubs has some interesting things to say. It's not just calories, and there are absolutely individual variances. That said, macronitrient ratios and glycemic load likely play at least some role.
This still doesn't make things terribly complex, and getting the basics down will help a lot.
While true, that statement is useless. It doesn't take into account the effect insulin has on the ability one has to actually take in those fewer calories. It also doesn't take into account metabolic pathways that allow one to eat more of certain kinds of foods than others.
The scientific literature is pretty clear (once you filter out the government propaganda that caused 300 million people to be unwitting participants in a dietetic experiment):
If you[1] want to loose weight and be healthier, screw calories and worry about insulin (full stop!)
There is nothing that more closely predicts insulin reaction than the number of carbs you are eating. Cut out all the simple carbs (which includes the bags of sugar we've cultivated as most fruit) and focus on fats, protein and very complex carbs and you will lose weight. More importantly, nothing has been shown to affect metabolic disorder[2] as positively.
I look at it like this: what do we use to fatten cattle up before we slaughter them? It's corn. Now look at every nutrition label to see what is in it. Is it surprising we are fat, too?
1. The body is incredibly complex. There are people who will respond better on other diets. So take any general study with a grain of salt and experiment on yourself to find what works!
2. High blood pressure, high cholesterol, heat disease, hypoglycemia, type 2 diabetes, gout, and others have all been lumped together into a disorder that strongly appears to be the result of hyperinsulenimia (eg too much insulin in the blood stream).