4 ms·

People always end up believing what they want to believe, even if it's illogical or totally insane. But, no one has ever put on weight on a calorie deficit. NE

People always end up believing what they want to believe, even if it's illogical or totally insane. But, no one has ever put on weight on a calorie deficit. NEVER. This being said, you can get overweight or even obese if you eat too much, be it green beans or lard. Similarly, you can lose weight eating "bad" foods, if you maintain a calorie deficit. Obviously, for long term results, it's best to eat good food, exercise regularly and do both with moderation. That is it. This is all there is to know on that topic. PS: Anyone above 500 pounds can lose 100 pounds fairly quickly. Using such an achievement to prove that this or that miracle diet is best...is disingenuous.

Jimmie 14y ago
>But, no one has ever put on weight on a calorie deficit. NEVER. I want to be a pedant and correct that to "body fat" instead of "weight". A change in diet can stress the body into retaining extra water weight, causing a temporary increase in weight.
- EternalFury 14y ago
  There are definitely temporary adaptations and self-preserving mechanisms that slow down the process, but the laws of thermodynamics still hold. Also, the calorie deficit does not even need to be large. 100-200 calories a day will already make a bit change in the long run. Part of the problem is that people want results fast. Again, faster than even the laws of thermodynamics would permit.
glenra 14y ago
> But, no one has ever put on weight on a calorie deficit. NEVER. The vast majority of people who lose a substantial amount of weight through calorie restriction gain it all back and then some within a few years. Though they do lose in the short run (say, 6 months), they're worse off three years later than if they had never dieted at all. This simple fact - that dieting doesn't work in the long run - suggests that telling people to lose weight simply by dieting is BAD ADVICE. Given that doctors are giving people bad advice, there's still plenty of room for people to try to come up with BETTER advice.
- EternalFury 14y ago
  You need to re-read my post.
  - glenra 14y ago
    You wrote: "This is all there is to know on that topic." That seems pretty obviously false - there's more we know now and there's much much more we could know, even if we don't know it yet. Before that, you wrote: > Obviously, for long term results, it's best to eat good food, exercise regularly and do both with moderation. What exactly constitutes "good food" is one of the things under discussion and is something else "there is to know on this topic". Whether it's "best" to do both "with moderation" depends on how the terms are defined and what your goals are. For instance, it might well be better to exercise irregularly than regularly.

Jimmie 14y ago

>But, no one has ever put on weight on a calorie deficit. NEVER. I want to be a pedant and correct that to "body fat" instead of "weight". A change in diet can stress the body into retaining extra water weight, causing a temporary increase in weight.

EternalFury 14y ago
There are definitely temporary adaptations and self-preserving mechanisms that slow down the process, but the laws of thermodynamics still hold. Also, the calorie deficit does not even need to be large. 100-200 calories a day will already make a bit change in the long run. Part of the problem is that people want results fast. Again, faster than even the laws of thermodynamics would permit.

glenra 14y ago

> But, no one has ever put on weight on a calorie deficit. NEVER. The vast majority of people who lose a substantial amount of weight through calorie restriction gain it all back and then some within a few years. Though they do lose in the short run (say, 6 months), they're worse off three years later than if they had never dieted at all. This simple fact - that dieting doesn't work in the long run - suggests that telling people to lose weight simply by dieting is BAD ADVICE. Given that doctors are giving people bad advice, there's still plenty of room for people to try to come up with BETTER advice.

EternalFury 14y ago
You need to re-read my post.
- glenra 14y ago
  You wrote: "This is all there is to know on that topic." That seems pretty obviously false - there's more we know now and there's much much more we could know, even if we don't know it yet. Before that, you wrote: > Obviously, for long term results, it's best to eat good food, exercise regularly and do both with moderation. What exactly constitutes "good food" is one of the things under discussion and is something else "there is to know on this topic". Whether it's "best" to do both "with moderation" depends on how the terms are defined and what your goals are. For instance, it might well be better to exercise irregularly than regularly.