4 ms·

But every nutritionist says "calories in, calories out"; that effectively counting calories and eating less is the only sure way to lose weight.

digitallogic 17y ago
On the surface, yes, less calories eaten than burned will result in losing weight, but only following this rule on the surface is dangerous. * Do you get enough of the necessary nutrients? * Do you eat so little that your body starts to reduce it's metabolism? * Do you have exercise program that continues after you stop a reduced calorie diet to rebuild the lost muscle tissue (your body burns both muscle and fat tissue when compensating for the missing calories)? * After the diet do you return to normal eating habits, or eat a diet that is balanced against your physical activity?
jerf 17y ago
Yes, but none of them can produce a study where that approach actually works beyond small, trivial weight changes. I don't care how many people tell me to do things that don't work, it doesn't make it work. Even if you put the "scientist" label on them, though to be honest, when a "scientist" tells me to do things that science itself has shown not to work I begin to wonder about the label "scientist". I'm not 100% confident about the "low carb" or "paleo" diets, but I am quite confident the standard line about fat and calorie counting being the key to losing weight is false. Science has abundantly demonstrated this. I recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for a long discussion. In this case I particularly recommend the discussion about how equality symbols do not imply a causal direction. I'm a little strident here because having dug into the issue I feel downright betrayed by people pushing "calories in/out" as if it's, well, truth. Because while the raw thermodynamics is true, everything else built on top of it is basically false.

4 ms·

But every nutritionist says "calories in, calories out"; that effectively counting calories and eating less is the only sure way to lose weight.

by antidaily 17y ago

digitallogic 17y ago
On the surface, yes, less calories eaten than burned will result in losing weight, but only following this rule on the surface is dangerous. * Do you get enough of the necessary nutrients? * Do you eat so little that your body starts to reduce it's metabolism? * Do you have exercise program that continues after you stop a reduced calorie diet to rebuild the lost muscle tissue (your body burns both muscle and fat tissue when compensating for the missing calories)? * After the diet do you return to normal eating habits, or eat a diet that is balanced against your physical activity?
jerf 17y ago
Yes, but none of them can produce a study where that approach actually works beyond small, trivial weight changes. I don't care how many people tell me to do things that don't work, it doesn't make it work. Even if you put the "scientist" label on them, though to be honest, when a "scientist" tells me to do things that science itself has shown not to work I begin to wonder about the label "scientist". I'm not 100% confident about the "low carb" or "paleo" diets, but I am quite confident the standard line about fat and calorie counting being the key to losing weight is false. Science has abundantly demonstrated this. I recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for a long discussion. In this case I particularly recommend the discussion about how equality symbols do not imply a causal direction. I'm a little strident here because having dug into the issue I feel downright betrayed by people pushing "calories in/out" as if it's, well, truth. Because while the raw thermodynamics is true, everything else built on top of it is basically false.