6 ms·

Very few public, true fitness instructors and dietitians are following the simplest rule ever - decrease calories to lose weight. This method is not that popula

by funkyy 11y ago

Very few public, true fitness instructors and dietitians are following the simplest rule ever - decrease calories to lose weight. This method is not that popular, its to tricky since it requires for person to calculate foods, which makes it unpopular for lazy. But it is absolutely the best method to lose weight fast, decrease calorie intake and create shortage.

npsimons 11y ago
A million times this. People think that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to them because "biology is complex!", which sounds an awful lot like the creationists. You can't outrun your fork. Even if you want to create a caloric deficit through increased activity level, you'll need to hold intake constant, therefore you most likely have to track it to begin with. These days with things like MyFitnessPal there is no excuse. And while it's possible to lose weight without tracking (I've done it), it's not nearly as straightforward. If people are truly lazy, they'd put down the fork, as that's all that's needed, no time "wasted" at the gym necessary. But hunger is a hard thing to beat, and willpower can be used up, not to mention a lot of other factors (mindless eating, eating for comfort or to self-medicate, etc).
- Floegipoky 11y ago
  People tend to overlook the pervasiveness of food addiction
  - npsimons 11y ago
    > People tend to overlook the pervasiveness of food addiction People have this misconception that "addiction" can only be to something that you can live without (such as drugs, alcohol, gambling, the Internet or gaming), when in truth you can be addicted to anything. If there's anything I'd demonize refined sugar for, it would be that it's easy to get addicted to, especially as it's put into far too many foodstuffs. Otherwise, it's just calories, and if you want it, fit it into your daily caloric budget.
- kristiandupont 11y ago
  I used to have this viewpoint but now I'm ashamed of it. I'm athletic, and my body weight tends to stay the same no matter what I eat and how much I exercise. I've gone on serious binges just for the fun of it and not gained a pound. I've also gone through days of food poisoning without noticing any significant drop in weight. I now make an effort to eat healthy, not because of weight but because I think it's the best thing to do for my body and future even if I don't see any difference at the moment. Sure, calories in and out matter, but it's very clear to me that the human body is complex, and if someone else has a body that reacts similar to mine, only with a significantly higher normal, I feel very sorry for them.
- johnward 11y ago
  >A million times this. People think that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to them because "biology is complex!", which sounds an awful lot like the creationists. Well there are ways that make hitting a calorie deficit easier for some people. For me that tends to come from low carbs and lots of fat. I'm still losing weight because I'm at a deficit but I'm able to maintain that because I don't feel hungry like I do when I eat carbs.
sirtastic 11y ago
This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. At 148 I still had excess fat on my body and no matter how hard I worked out it went nowhere. I was borderline starving myself and everything I read said "it's simple calorie in vs out". It became obvious to me that wasn't always true. It's frustrating to hear people spew that when I'm weighing chicken breasts with 110% certainty of what my caloric intake is vs my out and here I was, not losing a damn pound. I wish I could say I know what was going on. I have theories as I spent months of my life trying to turn the tables. I eventually gave up and just continued to lift weights and eat normal. Now 4 years later I still have that fat I couldn't lose but I'm a lot bigger (muscle). That fat hasn't gone anywhere and in the 4 years I've yo-yo'd with different attempts to get rid of it. The fat I have is not normal.
- soundwave106 11y ago
  One problem with calories is it definitely is not a simple mathematical "calories in / calories out" formula. Roughly it is a good guideline. But the body also is able to adapt to changes in calorie consumption and mass. (See myth #1.) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=articleResults http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=article... Most advice I've heard suggests that going way below your basal metabolic rate calorie consumption isn't that great of an idea, because your body adapts to that reduced calorie range (some people call this "starvation mode"). I would hazard a guess (though this is just a postulate without any data I could find) that this especially applies when you are at a more "normal" weight already. There's a reason why weight loss is often described as a "lifestyle change".
  - sirtastic 11y ago
    I've considered "starvation mode" and for a while I tried cycling my caloric needs (high week, vs low week or two) in fruitless attempts to game my body. I attempted this in larger cycles as well, several months normal vs several weeks of intense dieting. Same issues. The fat wouldn't budge, I'd drop all the water my cells held onto during carb up periods and the fat would sit there. Gives the impression I've lost weight but it was really just water. My theory from my research is that the fat in question is the oldest (fat I've had since youth) and do to it's age has poor vascularity which inhibits the bodies ability to mobilize it. I've read somewhere that your body will over time reduce blood flow to fat (the veins will over time diminish in size and density those areas) which reduces the flow of hormones into that fat and subsequently your bodies ability to break it down and expel it when needed. I'm no anatomy expert and this is something I read many years ago so I can't argue it's accurate.
soundwave106 11y ago
Very true. Sugar is not the entire story of why calorie consumption increased, after all. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf "ERS data suggest that average daily calorie intake increased by 24.5 percent, or about 530 calories, between 1970 and 2000. Of that 24.5-percent increase, grains (mainly re-fined grain products) contributed 9.5 percentage points; added fats and oils, 9.0 percentage points; added sugars, 4.7 percentage points; fruits and vegetables together, 1.5 percentage points; meats and nuts together, 1 percentage point; and dairy products and eggs together,-1.5 percentage point.)" I do think going light on highly processed food (including refined sugar and refined grains), and going light on calorie dense oils and fats is pretty good advice for any diet. But that's entirely due to the impact on calorie consumption, not due to any other health bogeyman.
wnevets 11y ago
This is the qualitative to saying drug addiction can be cured by just stop doing drugs. While technically true, it's much easier said than done.
- Floegipoky 11y ago
  It's tricky though because you can't quit food cold-turkey. You have to overcome the addiction while still partaking in it.
brbsix 11y ago
Certain diets (the food and drink regularly consumed) make it much easier to decrease calorie intake. This is partially why it bothers me so much to hear "a calorie is just a calorie". "A calorie is just a calorie" if you happen to be a calorimeter. The person consuming only unprocessed meats and vegetables is going to have a much easier time consuming 2000 cal/day in perpetuity than someone who's in an addictive cycle consuming sugary, processed foods like might be found at your average American buffet. I've tried both and the former is a breeze.
beachstartup 11y ago
you're just plain wrong on your first point. most fitness instructors/trainers tell their clients to eat less and eat better, and to count calories. i don't even know where you got this idea. you're conflating the bullshit commercials you see on tv with actual, real life trainers at actual real life gyms. second, and more importantly, this advise is nearly useless. this is like telling an alcoholic to just drink less, or a heroin addict to just stop using. yes, great. eat less, thanks bro. what a revelation. obese people are addicted to food. they are killing themselves and it's a psychosomatic issue, not a math problem. it requires education, a real desire to change, sometimes special diets to break mental barriers, and a lot more work than just a simple statement like "eat less calories". i guess you must think everyone else is just stupid, right? so simple! just eat less calories. silly addicts, if they only knew about physics...
rayiner 11y ago
On a website where we talk about smartphone apps to do the most trivial things, it seems weird to glorify any method of losing weight other than the easiest and shortcut-iest.
ZeroFries 11y ago
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but you don't even need to track calories. Just have a mindful sense when you eat, slow down, and ask "do I need to eat this? Will it make me healthier and stronger?" before most meals, and try to answer "yes" 90% of the time you actually eat.
- tdkl 11y ago
  This is like playing darts blindfolded.
  - ZeroFries 11y ago
    The dart board is a moving target, anyways. All I care about is an average weight loss over a period of time. Maybe it's from experience, but I've never had problems consistently losing or gaining weight by eating by feel.
- sridca 11y ago
  > This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but you don't even need to track calories. Just have a mindful sense when you eat,[...] I neither track calories, nor have "a mindful sense" when eating. My trick is to have no limitations in regards to the kind of food I eat with one rule: eat no more than one meal a day.
mikeash 11y ago
That simplest rule ever isn't unpopular because it's "tricky," it's unpopular because hunger is one of our most fundamental motivators, and it's extremely difficult to consistently overcome it. It's on the same level as advocating abstinence as a method of birth control. Sure, it works great if you can do it, but expecting people to actually stick to it, or calling them names when they don't, is ridiculous. Weight loss is hard because you need to figure out some motivator which can outweigh the drive to eat, or you need to figure out a way to satisfy the drive to eat without actually eating lots of calories. It seems to me that fancy advice like "more protein, less sugar" or "avoid processed food" just boils down to this second one; these are foods which fill you up more for any given number of calories.
rhinoceraptor 11y ago
It's an obvious, but entirely uninteresting fact. It's like telling poor people the way to escape poverty is to make more money than they spend. Of course that is true, but they would be more interested in how to do it, not what to do.

by funkyy 11y ago

npsimons 11y ago

A million times this. People think that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to them because "biology is complex!", which sounds an awful lot like the creationists. You can't outrun your fork. Even if you want to create a caloric deficit through increased activity level, you'll need to hold intake constant, therefore you most likely have to track it to begin with. These days with things like MyFitnessPal there is no excuse. And while it's possible to lose weight without tracking (I've done it), it's not nearly as straightforward. If people are truly lazy, they'd put down the fork, as that's all that's needed, no time "wasted" at the gym necessary. But hunger is a hard thing to beat, and willpower can be used up, not to mention a lot of other factors (mindless eating, eating for comfort or to self-medicate, etc).

Floegipoky 11y ago
People tend to overlook the pervasiveness of food addiction
- npsimons 11y ago
  > People tend to overlook the pervasiveness of food addiction People have this misconception that "addiction" can only be to something that you can live without (such as drugs, alcohol, gambling, the Internet or gaming), when in truth you can be addicted to anything. If there's anything I'd demonize refined sugar for, it would be that it's easy to get addicted to, especially as it's put into far too many foodstuffs. Otherwise, it's just calories, and if you want it, fit it into your daily caloric budget.
kristiandupont 11y ago
I used to have this viewpoint but now I'm ashamed of it. I'm athletic, and my body weight tends to stay the same no matter what I eat and how much I exercise. I've gone on serious binges just for the fun of it and not gained a pound. I've also gone through days of food poisoning without noticing any significant drop in weight. I now make an effort to eat healthy, not because of weight but because I think it's the best thing to do for my body and future even if I don't see any difference at the moment. Sure, calories in and out matter, but it's very clear to me that the human body is complex, and if someone else has a body that reacts similar to mine, only with a significantly higher normal, I feel very sorry for them.
johnward 11y ago
>A million times this. People think that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to them because "biology is complex!", which sounds an awful lot like the creationists. Well there are ways that make hitting a calorie deficit easier for some people. For me that tends to come from low carbs and lots of fat. I'm still losing weight because I'm at a deficit but I'm able to maintain that because I don't feel hungry like I do when I eat carbs.

sirtastic 11y ago

This doesn't always work. Many people, myself included can fail to lose weight on a restricted calorie diet. I spent 12 months eating below 1200 while working out religiously (4-6 days a week with 30sh mins of cardio followed by 45sh mins of weight lifting). In the beginning I lost weight and fast. At 5'9 I went from 240 down to 148 lbs in 7 months. At 148 I still had excess fat on my body and no matter how hard I worked out it went nowhere. I was borderline starving myself and everything I read said "it's simple calorie in vs out". It became obvious to me that wasn't always true. It's frustrating to hear people spew that when I'm weighing chicken breasts with 110% certainty of what my caloric intake is vs my out and here I was, not losing a damn pound. I wish I could say I know what was going on. I have theories as I spent months of my life trying to turn the tables. I eventually gave up and just continued to lift weights and eat normal. Now 4 years later I still have that fat I couldn't lose but I'm a lot bigger (muscle). That fat hasn't gone anywhere and in the 4 years I've yo-yo'd with different attempts to get rid of it. The fat I have is not normal.

soundwave106 11y ago
One problem with calories is it definitely is not a simple mathematical "calories in / calories out" formula. Roughly it is a good guideline. But the body also is able to adapt to changes in calorie consumption and mass. (See myth #1.) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=articleResults http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=article... Most advice I've heard suggests that going way below your basal metabolic rate calorie consumption isn't that great of an idea, because your body adapts to that reduced calorie range (some people call this "starvation mode"). I would hazard a guess (though this is just a postulate without any data I could find) that this especially applies when you are at a more "normal" weight already. There's a reason why weight loss is often described as a "lifestyle change".
- sirtastic 11y ago
  I've considered "starvation mode" and for a while I tried cycling my caloric needs (high week, vs low week or two) in fruitless attempts to game my body. I attempted this in larger cycles as well, several months normal vs several weeks of intense dieting. Same issues. The fat wouldn't budge, I'd drop all the water my cells held onto during carb up periods and the fat would sit there. Gives the impression I've lost weight but it was really just water. My theory from my research is that the fat in question is the oldest (fat I've had since youth) and do to it's age has poor vascularity which inhibits the bodies ability to mobilize it. I've read somewhere that your body will over time reduce blood flow to fat (the veins will over time diminish in size and density those areas) which reduces the flow of hormones into that fat and subsequently your bodies ability to break it down and expel it when needed. I'm no anatomy expert and this is something I read many years ago so I can't argue it's accurate.

soundwave106 11y ago

Very true. Sugar is not the entire story of why calorie consumption increased, after all. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf "ERS data suggest that average daily calorie intake increased by 24.5 percent, or about 530 calories, between 1970 and 2000. Of that 24.5-percent increase, grains (mainly re-fined grain products) contributed 9.5 percentage points; added fats and oils, 9.0 percentage points; added sugars, 4.7 percentage points; fruits and vegetables together, 1.5 percentage points; meats and nuts together, 1 percentage point; and dairy products and eggs together,-1.5 percentage point.)" I do think going light on highly processed food (including refined sugar and refined grains), and going light on calorie dense oils and fats is pretty good advice for any diet. But that's entirely due to the impact on calorie consumption, not due to any other health bogeyman.

wnevets 11y ago

This is the qualitative to saying drug addiction can be cured by just stop doing drugs. While technically true, it's much easier said than done.

Floegipoky 11y ago
It's tricky though because you can't quit food cold-turkey. You have to overcome the addiction while still partaking in it.

brbsix 11y ago

Certain diets (the food and drink regularly consumed) make it much easier to decrease calorie intake. This is partially why it bothers me so much to hear "a calorie is just a calorie". "A calorie is just a calorie" if you happen to be a calorimeter. The person consuming only unprocessed meats and vegetables is going to have a much easier time consuming 2000 cal/day in perpetuity than someone who's in an addictive cycle consuming sugary, processed foods like might be found at your average American buffet. I've tried both and the former is a breeze.

beachstartup 11y ago

you're just plain wrong on your first point. most fitness instructors/trainers tell their clients to eat less and eat better, and to count calories. i don't even know where you got this idea. you're conflating the bullshit commercials you see on tv with actual, real life trainers at actual real life gyms. second, and more importantly, this advise is nearly useless. this is like telling an alcoholic to just drink less, or a heroin addict to just stop using. yes, great. eat less, thanks bro. what a revelation. obese people are addicted to food. they are killing themselves and it's a psychosomatic issue, not a math problem. it requires education, a real desire to change, sometimes special diets to break mental barriers, and a lot more work than just a simple statement like "eat less calories". i guess you must think everyone else is just stupid, right? so simple! just eat less calories. silly addicts, if they only knew about physics...

rayiner 11y ago

On a website where we talk about smartphone apps to do the most trivial things, it seems weird to glorify any method of losing weight other than the easiest and shortcut-iest.

ZeroFries 11y ago

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but you don't even need to track calories. Just have a mindful sense when you eat, slow down, and ask "do I need to eat this? Will it make me healthier and stronger?" before most meals, and try to answer "yes" 90% of the time you actually eat.

tdkl 11y ago
This is like playing darts blindfolded.
- ZeroFries 11y ago
  The dart board is a moving target, anyways. All I care about is an average weight loss over a period of time. Maybe it's from experience, but I've never had problems consistently losing or gaining weight by eating by feel.
sridca 11y ago
> This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but you don't even need to track calories. Just have a mindful sense when you eat,[...] I neither track calories, nor have "a mindful sense" when eating. My trick is to have no limitations in regards to the kind of food I eat with one rule: eat no more than one meal a day.

mikeash 11y ago

That simplest rule ever isn't unpopular because it's "tricky," it's unpopular because hunger is one of our most fundamental motivators, and it's extremely difficult to consistently overcome it. It's on the same level as advocating abstinence as a method of birth control. Sure, it works great if you can do it, but expecting people to actually stick to it, or calling them names when they don't, is ridiculous. Weight loss is hard because you need to figure out some motivator which can outweigh the drive to eat, or you need to figure out a way to satisfy the drive to eat without actually eating lots of calories. It seems to me that fancy advice like "more protein, less sugar" or "avoid processed food" just boils down to this second one; these are foods which fill you up more for any given number of calories.

rhinoceraptor 11y ago

It's an obvious, but entirely uninteresting fact. It's like telling poor people the way to escape poverty is to make more money than they spend. Of course that is true, but they would be more interested in how to do it, not what to do.