3 ms·
The meaning of that rule is generally "if you consume less calories than you use, it is physically impossible not to lose weight". Which is definitely true. Yo
by fpig 10y ago
The meaning of that rule is generally "if you consume less calories than you use, it is physically impossible not to lose weight". Which is definitely true.
You can eat more than you use and not gain weight if you are not metabolising the food efficiently, but you can't eat less than you use and not lose weight. The former is limited by how badly you are able to mess up your body, the latter is limited by the fundamental laws of physics.
If you're at a calorie deficit, you will lose weight no matter what you're eating or what state your body is in.
- mdemare 10y agoNothing in the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents your body from turning some of your heart muscle into fuel, as bad of a plan as that may be.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- scriptkiddy 10y agoThat would still be losing weight(mass). The problem in this thread is that people are considering fat loss and weight loss to be the same thing. They're not. The simple truth is that a caloric deficit will always result in a net decrease in mass. This is fundamentally true of any system. Energy being removed from a system always results in a decrease in mass of that system. This is physics 101. Eating a caloric deficit will always cause a reduction in mass, though it may not be the mass you want to reduce. Eating at a caloric deficit without providing the body with the proper balance of macro-nutrients and exercise could lead to reductions in muscle, bone, and connective tissue mass. Reduction of carbohydrates in one's diet generally has a net positive effect in a caloric deficit due to the fact that there is essentially "more room" in the diet for higher quality nutrients such as proteins and fats. That said, cutting carbohydrates out entirely is a terrible idea as they are the body's primary source of short term energy.