2 ms·
> Take pasta and rice for example, both have around the same calorific value however, the carbon chains in rice are much longer than those in pasta. It doesn't
by EMM_386 5y ago
> Take pasta and rice for example, both have around the same calorific value however, the carbon chains in rice are much longer than those in pasta.
It doesn't matter. This is over-analyzing the simple fact that reducing intake results in weight loss.
Like I said, this is an unpopular opinion due to the difficulty people have in losing weight.
But I did it and I have the facts to back it up. And I managed to get over my body's natural fight against it by simply continuing to intake less calories.
If my body doesn't continue to get a constant influx of energy, it stores less as fat reserves. It's all proven by raw results.
The truth is you can lose weight on a diet of Cheetos, pasta and soda. It's not healthy, and you may die sooner than you planned, but you will lose weight, as long as the intake is less than the expenditure.
- BFLpL0QNek 5y agoIf you read a lot of the top body builders who are professionals at getting to single digit body fat methodically and repeatedly they’ll agree with you. If you burn more calories than you eat you’ll loose weight. Doesn’t matter what those calories are. As you say if you choose to eat low nutrient food below your required daily intake you may loose weight but wouldn’t recommend it for a healthy diet. Choosing better calories may help loose weight quicker as overall health improves but the fundamentals are the same, you are consuming less than your body requires. Some people may be surprised that if they eat better the volume of food they eat increases but total calories decrease. It’s surprising how calorie dense junk food is which leaves you hungry as low volume so you eat more to feel full.