4 ms·

Ah, gotta love a good old "cAlOrIc rEsTrIcTiOn dOeS NoT WoRk". Yeah, thermodynamics do not apply to you. Also, this "article" is full of opinion.

by thefz 3y ago

justincredible 3y ago
Huh? He's saying that caloric restriction does work, but many people only achieve that by temporarily restricting their food options. The idea that dieting is a temporary change to your food habits is why most "diets" eventually fail.
paulpauper 3y ago
yeah so many obvious counterexamples to these. It's more like "things I disagree with"
unregistereddev 3y ago
The author argues that calorie /counting/ does not work. This is true. If you want to lose weight, it's theoretically simple: Eat less, possibly combined with becoming more active. But counting calories is not the best way to achieve this. Successful caloric restriction means consistently letting yourself get more hungry than you are comfortable with. Typically this requires a shift in mentality: You need to eat because you are hungry and stop eating when you are no longer hungry, as opposed to eating because you are stressed/bored/etc.
- paulpauper 3y ago
  It worked for me for what it's worth. I found that staying under 2000/day means i do not gain weight. this is easier than having to prepare special meals or other things. ymmv
- thefz 3y ago
  > The author argues that calorie /counting/ does not work. This is true. No, it is not. The misconception behind is that you have to be calorie-perfect. That is not what calorie counting is for: it's for ballparking and educating yourself. One should always count calories, measure weicght, and if the direction is going up/down adjust accordingly. You are not measuring fuel for a plane to fly, you are eyeballing caloric input for one sack of salty water that may or may not burn it all, and that is not supposed to be a perfect calculation. Besides, below they state: > The only way to lose weight permanently is to permanently change your food environment. Or, you know, drugs. Drugs are not the answer and fools' gold for those that hope to make zero change in their lifestyle, take the magic pill and voila.
- episteme 3y ago
  You don't have to be hungry to lose weight, nor is it about being uncomfortable. Counting calories teaches you which things are lower in calories and therefore can eat without feeling hungry while losing weight.
margalabargala 3y ago
I think the author's point is more "diets work for as long as you stick to them. If the diet is temporary then so will be the weight loss"
KyleBerezin 3y ago
Yea, its obviously based on opinion. I enjoyed it though. I guess if you want to be more objective, then "things that lack firm evidence" may be a bit better. I personally follow a calorie counting diet, but for most people, it is not an effective way to lose weight. Obviously it is because they have issues adhering to it, not some kind of free energy power source.

Ah, gotta love a good old "cAlOrIc rEsTrIcTiOn dOeS NoT WoRk". Yeah, thermodynamics do not apply to you. Also, this "article" is full of opinion.

by thefz 3y ago

Ah, gotta love a good old "cAlOrIc rEsTrIcTiOn dOeS NoT WoRk". Yeah, thermodynamics do not apply to you. Also, this "article" is full of opinion.

justincredible 3y ago

Huh? He's saying that caloric restriction does work, but many people only achieve that by temporarily restricting their food options. The idea that dieting is a temporary change to your food habits is why most "diets" eventually fail.

paulpauper 3y ago

yeah so many obvious counterexamples to these. It's more like "things I disagree with"

unregistereddev 3y ago

The author argues that calorie /counting/ does not work. This is true. If you want to lose weight, it's theoretically simple: Eat less, possibly combined with becoming more active. But counting calories is not the best way to achieve this. Successful caloric restriction means consistently letting yourself get more hungry than you are comfortable with. Typically this requires a shift in mentality: You need to eat because you are hungry and stop eating when you are no longer hungry, as opposed to eating because you are stressed/bored/etc.

paulpauper 3y ago
It worked for me for what it's worth. I found that staying under 2000/day means i do not gain weight. this is easier than having to prepare special meals or other things. ymmv
thefz 3y ago
> The author argues that calorie /counting/ does not work. This is true. No, it is not. The misconception behind is that you have to be calorie-perfect. That is not what calorie counting is for: it's for ballparking and educating yourself. One should always count calories, measure weicght, and if the direction is going up/down adjust accordingly. You are not measuring fuel for a plane to fly, you are eyeballing caloric input for one sack of salty water that may or may not burn it all, and that is not supposed to be a perfect calculation. Besides, below they state: > The only way to lose weight permanently is to permanently change your food environment. Or, you know, drugs. Drugs are not the answer and fools' gold for those that hope to make zero change in their lifestyle, take the magic pill and voila.
episteme 3y ago
You don't have to be hungry to lose weight, nor is it about being uncomfortable. Counting calories teaches you which things are lower in calories and therefore can eat without feeling hungry while losing weight.

margalabargala 3y ago

I think the author's point is more "diets work for as long as you stick to them. If the diet is temporary then so will be the weight loss"

KyleBerezin 3y ago

Yea, its obviously based on opinion. I enjoyed it though. I guess if you want to be more objective, then "things that lack firm evidence" may be a bit better. I personally follow a calorie counting diet, but for most people, it is not an effective way to lose weight. Obviously it is because they have issues adhering to it, not some kind of free energy power source.