4 ms·

>But in most cases, they quickly gain it back. So they gain it back once they stop being on calorie-restricted diets? This isn't a surprise to anyone. The poin

>But in most cases, they quickly gain it back. So they gain it back once they stop being on calorie-restricted diets? This isn't a surprise to anyone. The point of any of these things, CICO or otherwise, is that you do them for your lifetime as a lifestyle change.

dangrossman 8y ago
We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on. I just sourced this above. Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death" is not a reasonable "lifestyle change" to suggest. That's why "just count calories" is not the advice any respectable scientist would give an obese person, which I believe was @amasad's point.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  But to sustain a weight loss you basically do have to eat less, forever. I say this being 60 pounds below my highest weight (200 vs 260). Someone is talking about protein conversion, but I expect it is just harder to eat excess calories of meat. The 2 pounds of beef a day it would take many people to maintain body weight is a lot of beef to sit and eat.
- projektir 8y ago
  > We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on. We do? Last I checked we had a century of people being told that fat is bad and they should eat the fat-free high-sugar yogurt. CICO is still a hotly debated concept in many circles. Such as this thread. Calorie restriction doesn't tell you what you should or should not be eating. That is the beauty of it. It doesn't tell you what you do. It doesn't resign you to eating spinach for the rest of your life. It doesn't say you can never have ice cream. > Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death"... Is a strawman nobody suggested. Any diet that it seems you would prefer, that is more detailed/restrictive in its advice is nonetheless still a calorie restriction diet because nothing else would actually work. Calorie restriction and counting is a request for introspection. If it gets you to simply realize that big macs are really calorie dense, and that you'd break your daily limit with 3 of them, it has done its job. It's up to you to figure out if you have enough willpower to still include big macs in your diet. Mostly overweight people just have no idea how much they're actually eating.
- scarface74 8y ago
  I have mixed feelings about this line of argument. Both sides are technically correct. - If you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight no matter what the source of those calories are. - psychological, what you eat will make it easier to maintain a calorie balance and that varies based on the individual. For me, I ate like crap from the time I was 25-35 but maintained a healthy weight and a decent physique as a part time fitness instructor who worked out 12 times a week. I like working out so it doesn’t take discipline to work out and my wife will work out with me occasionally but she prefers going to the gym and taking classes. I stopped working out consistently for five years and my weight ballooned. I then tried to eat better but I couldn’t get the level of discipline necessary to lose weight. Then we moved into a house, I converted a room into a home gym and started exercising for 2 hours a day 3-4 times a week that burned about 1500 calories per workout. I got back down to my fitness instructor weight and size in 7 months. I also had to make it point not to eat more to compensate, and only “cheat” on the weekend. All that being said, when I was teaching and even now I tell people that they can’t exercise thier way to weight loss. Most people don’t have the stamina, the discipline, or the time to work out enough to burn 4000-5000 calories a week and maintain a calorie balance.

dangrossman 8y ago

We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on. I just sourced this above. Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death" is not a reasonable "lifestyle change" to suggest. That's why "just count calories" is not the advice any respectable scientist would give an obese person, which I believe was @amasad's point.

maxerickson 8y ago
But to sustain a weight loss you basically do have to eat less, forever. I say this being 60 pounds below my highest weight (200 vs 260). Someone is talking about protein conversion, but I expect it is just harder to eat excess calories of meat. The 2 pounds of beef a day it would take many people to maintain body weight is a lot of beef to sit and eat.
projektir 8y ago
> We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on. We do? Last I checked we had a century of people being told that fat is bad and they should eat the fat-free high-sugar yogurt. CICO is still a hotly debated concept in many circles. Such as this thread. Calorie restriction doesn't tell you what you should or should not be eating. That is the beauty of it. It doesn't tell you what you do. It doesn't resign you to eating spinach for the rest of your life. It doesn't say you can never have ice cream. > Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death"... Is a strawman nobody suggested. Any diet that it seems you would prefer, that is more detailed/restrictive in its advice is nonetheless still a calorie restriction diet because nothing else would actually work. Calorie restriction and counting is a request for introspection. If it gets you to simply realize that big macs are really calorie dense, and that you'd break your daily limit with 3 of them, it has done its job. It's up to you to figure out if you have enough willpower to still include big macs in your diet. Mostly overweight people just have no idea how much they're actually eating.
scarface74 8y ago
I have mixed feelings about this line of argument. Both sides are technically correct. - If you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight no matter what the source of those calories are. - psychological, what you eat will make it easier to maintain a calorie balance and that varies based on the individual. For me, I ate like crap from the time I was 25-35 but maintained a healthy weight and a decent physique as a part time fitness instructor who worked out 12 times a week. I like working out so it doesn’t take discipline to work out and my wife will work out with me occasionally but she prefers going to the gym and taking classes. I stopped working out consistently for five years and my weight ballooned. I then tried to eat better but I couldn’t get the level of discipline necessary to lose weight. Then we moved into a house, I converted a room into a home gym and started exercising for 2 hours a day 3-4 times a week that burned about 1500 calories per workout. I got back down to my fitness instructor weight and size in 7 months. I also had to make it point not to eat more to compensate, and only “cheat” on the weekend. All that being said, when I was teaching and even now I tell people that they can’t exercise thier way to weight loss. Most people don’t have the stamina, the discipline, or the time to work out enough to burn 4000-5000 calories a week and maintain a calorie balance.