4 ms·

"calories in - calories out" is blatantly true, the problem is how to achieve it with small annoyance and willpower investment. Or with at least disable one.

"calories in - calories out" is blatantly true, the problem is how to achieve it with small annoyance and willpower investment. Or with at least disable one. (Like answer "vastly increase your income" is blatantly true answer to "how to stop being poor" while not being sufficient to achieve anything)

Pooge 1y ago
I'm just going to say that I vastly prefer the—subjective—measure of eating healthily than counting calories.
- purple_turtle 1y ago
  The problem is that many people so fat that they unable to move under own power claim to be eating healthily.
  - Pooge 1y ago
    Yes well it's the same thing as an alcoholic saying that they're not alcoholic. I said "subjective" but we have a pretty good idea of what constitutes a healthy diet—and it's one that contains a lot more vegetables than the average human eats as the original comment advised.
- const_cast 1y ago
  Which method works best varies person to person. But how they work, in the context of weight loss, is identical. That being, lower calorie consumption. This goes for intermittent fasting, too. The trouble is that eating healthy is hard, expensive, and time consuming. People largely don't want to do it. Counting calories can work for those people, as it may allow them to continue to eat the foods they love.
  - Pooge 1y ago
    > The trouble is that eating healthy is hard, expensive, and time consuming It definitely is time consuming because you have to cook your own meals (which a lot of people in my country do in any case). But "hard and expensive"? I don't believe it. I guess it could be expensive if you live in a country where vegetables and fruits are expensive, but this is not the case in my country—and I live in one of the most expensive countries in the world. And I guess it could be hard if you're a picky person or addicted to sugar/salt. Eating out and prepared meals are the best way to spend your money on unhealthy food.
jacknews 1y ago
Sure, conservation of energy, but are the colories actually going in, and how, and how many coming out? Some people can eat and eat and stay slim, even without much exercise.
- purple_turtle 1y ago
  > Some people can eat and eat and stay slim, even without much exercise In my experience people described this way typically do not eat as much. For example they often drink much less calories or eat a lot on parties, but do not snack massively on typical day. In rare cases they have something weird with health or metabolism (parasites or severe health issue that as side effects results in severe weight loss).
- Pooge 1y ago
  > Some people can eat and eat and stay slim, even without much exercise. This is me. Around 10 years ago I ate McDonald's and kebab at least once a week and was very much considered slim. Now I eat healthily and almost always of my own cooking. I also exercise, but that's for my health and not my weight. But I also eat much much more now than I did 10 years ago.

Pooge 1y ago

I'm just going to say that I vastly prefer the—subjective—measure of eating healthily than counting calories.

purple_turtle 1y ago
The problem is that many people so fat that they unable to move under own power claim to be eating healthily.
- Pooge 1y ago
  Yes well it's the same thing as an alcoholic saying that they're not alcoholic. I said "subjective" but we have a pretty good idea of what constitutes a healthy diet—and it's one that contains a lot more vegetables than the average human eats as the original comment advised.
const_cast 1y ago
Which method works best varies person to person. But how they work, in the context of weight loss, is identical. That being, lower calorie consumption. This goes for intermittent fasting, too. The trouble is that eating healthy is hard, expensive, and time consuming. People largely don't want to do it. Counting calories can work for those people, as it may allow them to continue to eat the foods they love.
- Pooge 1y ago
  > The trouble is that eating healthy is hard, expensive, and time consuming It definitely is time consuming because you have to cook your own meals (which a lot of people in my country do in any case). But "hard and expensive"? I don't believe it. I guess it could be expensive if you live in a country where vegetables and fruits are expensive, but this is not the case in my country—and I live in one of the most expensive countries in the world. And I guess it could be hard if you're a picky person or addicted to sugar/salt. Eating out and prepared meals are the best way to spend your money on unhealthy food.

jacknews 1y ago

Sure, conservation of energy, but are the colories actually going in, and how, and how many coming out? Some people can eat and eat and stay slim, even without much exercise.

purple_turtle 1y ago
> Some people can eat and eat and stay slim, even without much exercise In my experience people described this way typically do not eat as much. For example they often drink much less calories or eat a lot on parties, but do not snack massively on typical day. In rare cases they have something weird with health or metabolism (parasites or severe health issue that as side effects results in severe weight loss).
Pooge 1y ago
> Some people can eat and eat and stay slim, even without much exercise. This is me. Around 10 years ago I ate McDonald's and kebab at least once a week and was very much considered slim. Now I eat healthily and almost always of my own cooking. I also exercise, but that's for my health and not my weight. But I also eat much much more now than I did 10 years ago.