14 ms·

LOL ok, so "eat a diet and time your eating in a way that promotes healthy hormone balance and use of fat as energy" is a silver bullet but "use our magic equat

by mcfunk 7y ago

LOL ok, so "eat a diet and time your eating in a way that promotes healthy hormone balance and use of fat as energy" is a silver bullet but "use our magic equations based on state of the art info from 1958 to calculate your daily food needs and all your food and exercise as numbers and if your equation balances you'll lose weight" isn't. Sure.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
You don't need any magic equations. It's really much more simple than that: if you're not losing weight, eat fewer calories until you are.
- coldtea 7y ago
  In fact, just weight yourself each day, and unless you weight less than the day before, eat very little. Repeat, and you'll shed weight (the so-called "graph/grid paper diet"). https://kottke.org/09/07/the-steve-ward-diet https://kottke.org/09/07/the-steve-ward-diet
coldtea 7y ago
>"eat a diet and time your eating in a way that promotes healthy hormone balance and use of fat as energy" is a silver bullet If it promises you to lose weight without limiting your calorie intake (e.g. have your weight loss cake and eat it too), then yes. >but "use our magic equations based on state of the art info from 1958 to calculate your daily food needs and all your food and exercise as numbers and if your equation balances you'll lose weight" isn't The laws of thermodynamics don't change because we don't have good formulas to calculate the exact amount of calories a person has a basic metabolic rate just based on their weight and height... Calories still matter, and you should still limit your intake -- whether you do it approximately by "state of the art info from 1958" or with modern medical tests and expensive equipment. Or you know, just with eating less that you normally do, even without counting calories (if you ate 1 steak per day, and you change it to 1/2 a steak, you're eating half as much calories, even if you don't know how many exactly). Skipping BS deserts will cut even more... No great science required, millions of people have lost way by just eating less...
- kazinator 7y ago
  Some people don't want to lose "weight", but "fat" (often specifically "subcutaneous fat", often from some specific body area). If you're already very fit and lean, but have some stubborn fat around the "love handle" area or elsewhere, "eat less" doesn't cut it any more. Sure you can reduce that area, but not completely, and while the rest of you turns into an ugly skeleton.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Some people don't want to lose "weight", but "fat" (often specifically "subcutaneous fat", often from some specific body area). The latter people are then delluded, surgery aside, you can't lose targeted fat from a specific body area. You lose fat across your body AND from that area, or you don't lose fat. At best, you can trait that area and build some muscle next to the fat.

by mcfunk 7y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

You don't need any magic equations. It's really much more simple than that: if you're not losing weight, eat fewer calories until you are.

coldtea 7y ago
In fact, just weight yourself each day, and unless you weight less than the day before, eat very little. Repeat, and you'll shed weight (the so-called "graph/grid paper diet"). https://kottke.org/09/07/the-steve-ward-diet https://kottke.org/09/07/the-steve-ward-diet

coldtea 7y ago

>"eat a diet and time your eating in a way that promotes healthy hormone balance and use of fat as energy" is a silver bullet If it promises you to lose weight without limiting your calorie intake (e.g. have your weight loss cake and eat it too), then yes. >but "use our magic equations based on state of the art info from 1958 to calculate your daily food needs and all your food and exercise as numbers and if your equation balances you'll lose weight" isn't The laws of thermodynamics don't change because we don't have good formulas to calculate the exact amount of calories a person has a basic metabolic rate just based on their weight and height... Calories still matter, and you should still limit your intake -- whether you do it approximately by "state of the art info from 1958" or with modern medical tests and expensive equipment. Or you know, just with eating less that you normally do, even without counting calories (if you ate 1 steak per day, and you change it to 1/2 a steak, you're eating half as much calories, even if you don't know how many exactly). Skipping BS deserts will cut even more... No great science required, millions of people have lost way by just eating less...

kazinator 7y ago
Some people don't want to lose "weight", but "fat" (often specifically "subcutaneous fat", often from some specific body area). If you're already very fit and lean, but have some stubborn fat around the "love handle" area or elsewhere, "eat less" doesn't cut it any more. Sure you can reduce that area, but not completely, and while the rest of you turns into an ugly skeleton.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Some people don't want to lose "weight", but "fat" (often specifically "subcutaneous fat", often from some specific body area). The latter people are then delluded, surgery aside, you can't lose targeted fat from a specific body area. You lose fat across your body AND from that area, or you don't lose fat. At best, you can trait that area and build some muscle next to the fat.