5 ms·
The problem with calorie counting is you're sort of modelling the human body on simple machines, like say, cars. But the body is actually a complex system, and
by hsn915 5y ago
The problem with calorie counting is you're sort of modelling the human body on simple machines, like say, cars.
But the body is actually a complex system, and the core quality of a complex system is adaptation.
This means you can cut calroies below your current burn rate and still gain weight, because your burn rate will change.
To illustrate: suppose you consume 4000 calories a day, with your body burning 3000 of them and storing 1000. Does cutting to 2500 guarantee you will be burning 500 extra calories from your fat storage? Not at all. Your body can easily adapt by burning 2000 calories and storing 500.
Obviously the numbers are just for illustration purposes and I'm not claiming they are realistic by any means.
What you really want is to inroduce changes that make your body adapt into accessing your fat storage for energy.
So if we go back to the above (obviously flawed) example: what you want is to make your body burn all the input you are giving it (even if it remains at 4000) AND on top of that burn, say, 500 calories from its fat storage.
How do you do that?
I can't claim to have the answer, but two things come to mind:
1. Walking.
I've personally lost weight by just walking a lot - with no changes to deit. By a lot I mean several hours a day.
Needless to say, I was single then. It's not really easy to do when you have family and children.
But the point is: exercise. Exercise that requires energy.
The good thing about walking is it's generally relaxing. You can actually walk for 2~3 hours and genuinely be enjoying yourself.
For exercising: I'm find exercise-band based workouts at home to have a similar effect: they use energy but I'm generally enjoying myself when I'm doing them. It's a bit different from weight lifting in that you can easily adjsut the resistance to be just right for your skill/experience/strength level, so that you do get a real workout, but don't feel like your muscles and bones are dying.
2. Hormones.
Cortisol and Insulin.
By eating during a short window (intermittent fasting) you can limit the amount and duration in which your body uses the energy from the food (regulated by insulin).
Working out while fasted (say, after you wake up and before you eat) will teach your body to access its fat storage for energy. And apparently it also increases your metabolic rate for several hours after.
By sleeping well, removing stress, and avoiding coffee, you can reduce the amount and duration in which cortisol is circulating in your body.
The thing about low-calories diets is they feel like stress and increase cortisol, thus sabotaging the whole thing.
Being stressed and not having enough sleep is the surest way to absolutely oblitirate your "will power" and make you want to eat for comform.
Incrase the amount of protein in your food is another thing that apparently helps regulat your hormones in a desireable way. And anyway it's needed if you workout (which you should, if you want to lose fat).
- relueeuler 5y agoYour description above is not how the body works. To support a mass M must require a quantity of energy E obtained from food. The attempt to alter this model with “loose” ideas about “burn rates” therefore does not make sense. The mathematics of weight loss is laid out clearly in 20 minutes here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE
- hsn915 5y agoLet's suppose (it's probably true) that there's an absolute minimum amount of calories your body must use per day to stay alive today. Is that amount even sufficient to stay alive every day? Maybe your body can reduce some organ function for some amount of time, but it can't keep it shutdown forever. ok, let's assume we're talking about the minimal burn rate that can sustain your body without shutting down any organ function what so ever. Does that mean your body is burning exactly that amount of calories every day like a clock? Certainly not. It's probably burning a lot more to help you move and think and deal with the daily stressors. When you cut calories what generally happens is you feel lethargic. As if you can't muster the energy to do what you want to do and which you could previously do without problems. I'm not into "studies" but I'm pretty sure there are some studies that show people who cut calories after a while their body adapts and lowers their base metabolic rate.
- naasking 5y agoYes, when calories are cut below a certain level, your body downregulates "NEAT" (non-exercise activity thermogenesis), which includes activities like fidgeting, walking around a lot or walking instead of driving, taking stairs instead of elevators, etc. This actually accounts for a considerable number of calories. Furthermore, a mass M needing energy E is too simplistic because it neglects environmental factors. A mass M in sub-Saharan Africa or a tropical jungle will require considerably more than E for maintenance than the same mass M in a relatively mild climate. This is because your body expends energy to regulate homeostasis (sweating and increased heart rate to cool the body in hot and humid conditions), so more difficult environments require more energy. That said, "calories in vs. calories out" is still true, you just have to consider that your "calories out" responds to the number of calories in. Drop them too low too quickly, and your NEAT drops to maintain energy balance. But, you can force your body to expend more of that energy by requiring yourself to walk (increasing NEAT), or putting yourself in uncomfortable environments (like saunas), or my forcing yourself into strenuous exercise regimes (weight lifting, HITT, etc).