4 ms·

Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) While true, that statement is useless. It doesn't take into account the effect insulin has on the ability

Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) While true, that statement is useless. It doesn't take into account the effect insulin has on the ability one has to actually take in those fewer calories. It also doesn't take into account metabolic pathways that allow one to eat more of certain kinds of foods than others. The scientific literature is pretty clear (once you filter out the government propaganda that caused 300 million people to be unwitting participants in a dietetic experiment): If you[1] want to loose weight and be healthier, screw calories and worry about insulin (full stop!) There is nothing that more closely predicts insulin reaction than the number of carbs you are eating. Cut out all the simple carbs (which includes the bags of sugar we've cultivated as most fruit) and focus on fats, protein and very complex carbs and you will lose weight. More importantly, nothing has been shown to affect metabolic disorder[2] as positively. I look at it like this: what do we use to fatten cattle up before we slaughter them? It's corn. Now look at every nutrition label to see what is in it. Is it surprising we are fat, too? 1. The body is incredibly complex. There are people who will respond better on other diets. So take any general study with a grain of salt and experiment on yourself to find what works! 2. High blood pressure, high cholesterol, heat disease, hypoglycemia, type 2 diabetes, gout, and others have all been lumped together into a disorder that strongly appears to be the result of hyperinsulenimia (eg too much insulin in the blood stream).

grecy 14y ago
You're still making it way too complicated. If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Of course, there are many, many, many tweaks to be made, but for the majority of people, who need to lose a massive amount of weight, if they eat less calories than they use, they will lose weight. End.
- elijahtaylor 14y ago
  > You're still making it way too complicated. Maybe it just is that complicated (not that I view the above as complicated, I just don't view it as simple as you make it). > If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Imagine an engine that behaves differently depending on the type of fuel is put in it. One type of fuel causes the engine to move slower and burn less gas per unit time. So you may continue to put in your 10 gallons a day with this new fuel, but you'll notice a surplus building up because it only burns say 5 gallons a day because of this change. The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it. That's what the parent was describing. Calories in and calories out are not independent variables despite how they are treated in some research and most popular media. The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake).
  - grecy 14y ago
    > The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it. Of course, that's why you have to constantly Analyze how much fuel your body is burning, and reduce the rate accordingly. > The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake). Indeed, though again, that doesn't impact the basic statement: If you eat less energy less than you burn, you will lose weight.
    - Torrents 14y ago
      I think you are ignoring the fact that many people are able to eat way more calories than they burn, yet those extra calories simply don't convert to fat. I am not excessively active yet I eat significantly more calories than many people I know, yet I don't gain weight. From things I've read [1] it seems that the vast majority of people consume more calories than they 'burn' but only in some people is it converted to unwanted weight gain. The real question, as many people have been referring to, is how do you determine whether your body hangs onto the extra calories as weight or simply disposes of it. Saying "If you eat less energy than you burn, you will lose weight" is certainly true, but is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced." It's true...but not really helpful or meaningful. 1 - http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259 http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259
      - grecy 14y ago
        > is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced." Very bad analogy. It's more like saying "If you burn more gas each day than you put in, you'll eventually start burning up your reserve tank, (until you run out)." > but not really helpful or meaningful. It's extremely helpful and meaningful. For the massive majority of people that are overweight, they simply need to eat less calories. Not less food. Less calories. The original article here is showing what 200 calories looks like, so it's extremely helpful for people trying to eat less of them. You would be shocked how many people have no idea a mountain of apples is equal to a small amount of alcohol, etc. Once they learn this, they lose weight. Source: I lived with two girls who lost over 100lbs each at Weight Watchers, one of them became a WW representative, and for years I went to meetings with her as moral support. Over the years I've personally seen at least 1000 people go from being completely helpless with weight loss to losing somewhere between 50-200lbs each. All they did was eat less calories than they were burning. Nothing else. (WW obfuscates that with their points system, but it's just calories/50)
- whatusername 14y ago
  That's because it is more complicated. Feel tired and lethargic after a big carny meal? Guess what - your body is driving on econo-mode and burning less fuel.
  - grecy 14y ago
    > Feel tired and lethargic after a big carny meal? Guess what - your body is driving on econo-mode and burning less fuel. Which means you have to adapt and eat (ever) less calories.
- allwein 14y ago
  The problem here is that many people make the mistake thinking that all of the calories "used" are calories expended as energy. For people with insulin issues, some of those calories are preferentially stored as fat and are never available to be used as energy, thus requiring them to eat more in order to make up the energy imbalance.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I've lost a massive amount of weight (170 pounds). It isn't that easy. If it was that easy, I would never have had to go to the lengths I went to in order to lose it and what I have to do to maintain that loss. What the basic calorie-in-calorie-out equation doesn't take into account is that it is a biological imperative to eat. That means you have to find the way to balance those calories that overcomes that. Some people (usually the people espousing "it's just a calorie") have a metabolism that, for whatever reason, either doesn't cause them to be hungry or allows them to eat whatever. Great for them. For those of us who struggle daily with this issue, "willpower" isn't enough. We need to find the way that overcomes the biological, hormonal imperative that drives people to eat. And just saying "cut calories" does not work. Three percent of obese people will manage to lose weight by dieting. Do you think they are just "too ignorant" to "get" the equation? Or are they just "too lazy" to do what needs to be done? Because I know that neither is the case. Edit: The other component, which really screws up an "engine" analogy, is that your "engine" becomes more efficient the less you feed it. If you need 1500 calories a day today and so start eating 1300 calories a day, soon, your engine will only take 1300 calories a day to run. Great, bump up the exercise so you burn 200 calories a day. Soon, your engine only needs 1100 calories a day and you feel lethargic all the time. Your body is not an car motor.
  - ohashi 14y ago
    Good for you. I haven't had as dramatic a change in weight, but it's been substantial (and on-going). You really hit the nail on the head, and it's hard to describe unless you've been there. I don't honestly believe it was a willpower issue, but a lack of information/advice. The generic eat less, exercise more didn't do anything for me. On a side note, I'd love to hear what sort of issues you have with maintaining?
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      Thank you, and congrats to you as well. All the problems can be summed up with "crappy carbs". It's actually a long story about what started me down that path (dealing with health issues), but I've actually put back on some weight (around 40 pounds...it's easy to be blind to oneself :(). What I've found is that when I start eating carb-rich food, my ability to stop snacking on carb-rich foods goes to zero. So I've cycled between maintaining where I eat a low-glycemic diet and not doing that and gaining. When I spoke of "biological imperative", I mean me: when I eat carbs, I can't stop. I never get full. I'm sure I'd be a Type 2 diabetic in about 5 years if I didn't make this change. A few weeks ago, I dumped the crappy carbs again. I'm back full-on low-carb and have lost about half of that[1]. This time, I'm going to learn from my mistakes. :) I'm going to follow the Atkins notion of gradually increasing carbs until you find your "critical carbohydrate level". Since I've bounced back and forth, I figure realizing that fact will be helpful in my long-term maintenance. 1. Yes, a very large percentage of this is water. I'm OK with that. :)
- rayiner 14y ago
  You're falling into the oversimplification trap. You can lose weight with a low calorie, high carb diet + running 4-5 hours a week. You can also lose weight with a low calorie, high protein/high fat diet + lifting weights 2 hours a week. Which routine is easier to keep? I think one of the reasons people fail at weight loss is because of the conventional wisdom of low-fat (read: low-flavor) diets combined with low-effectiveness exercises like running. It's pseudo-scientific crock. If you've tried the CW and failed, try something else. Have a couple of slices of bacon instead of that plain breadstick (and avoid the urge to blow your calorie budget by slathering it in butter!) and instead of spending hours on a treadmill do high-intensity weightlifting 3x30 min a week. For your average sedentary Aeron-chair dweller, that's going to be a far more likely path to success.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  Your car doesn't partition its energy. Your body does. Gary Taubs has some interesting things to say. It's not just calories, and there are absolutely individual variances. That said, macronitrient ratios and glycemic load likely play at least some role. This still doesn't make things terribly complex, and getting the basics down will help a lot.

grecy 14y ago

You're still making it way too complicated. If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Of course, there are many, many, many tweaks to be made, but for the majority of people, who need to lose a massive amount of weight, if they eat less calories than they use, they will lose weight. End.

elijahtaylor 14y ago
> You're still making it way too complicated. Maybe it just is that complicated (not that I view the above as complicated, I just don't view it as simple as you make it). > If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Imagine an engine that behaves differently depending on the type of fuel is put in it. One type of fuel causes the engine to move slower and burn less gas per unit time. So you may continue to put in your 10 gallons a day with this new fuel, but you'll notice a surplus building up because it only burns say 5 gallons a day because of this change. The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it. That's what the parent was describing. Calories in and calories out are not independent variables despite how they are treated in some research and most popular media. The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake).
- grecy 14y ago
  > The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it. Of course, that's why you have to constantly Analyze how much fuel your body is burning, and reduce the rate accordingly. > The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake). Indeed, though again, that doesn't impact the basic statement: If you eat less energy less than you burn, you will lose weight.
  - Torrents 14y ago
    I think you are ignoring the fact that many people are able to eat way more calories than they burn, yet those extra calories simply don't convert to fat. I am not excessively active yet I eat significantly more calories than many people I know, yet I don't gain weight. From things I've read [1] it seems that the vast majority of people consume more calories than they 'burn' but only in some people is it converted to unwanted weight gain. The real question, as many people have been referring to, is how do you determine whether your body hangs onto the extra calories as weight or simply disposes of it. Saying "If you eat less energy than you burn, you will lose weight" is certainly true, but is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced." It's true...but not really helpful or meaningful. 1 - http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259 http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259
    - grecy 14y ago
      > is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced." Very bad analogy. It's more like saying "If you burn more gas each day than you put in, you'll eventually start burning up your reserve tank, (until you run out)." > but not really helpful or meaningful. It's extremely helpful and meaningful. For the massive majority of people that are overweight, they simply need to eat less calories. Not less food. Less calories. The original article here is showing what 200 calories looks like, so it's extremely helpful for people trying to eat less of them. You would be shocked how many people have no idea a mountain of apples is equal to a small amount of alcohol, etc. Once they learn this, they lose weight. Source: I lived with two girls who lost over 100lbs each at Weight Watchers, one of them became a WW representative, and for years I went to meetings with her as moral support. Over the years I've personally seen at least 1000 people go from being completely helpless with weight loss to losing somewhere between 50-200lbs each. All they did was eat less calories than they were burning. Nothing else. (WW obfuscates that with their points system, but it's just calories/50)
whatusername 14y ago
That's because it is more complicated. Feel tired and lethargic after a big carny meal? Guess what - your body is driving on econo-mode and burning less fuel.
- grecy 14y ago
  > Feel tired and lethargic after a big carny meal? Guess what - your body is driving on econo-mode and burning less fuel. Which means you have to adapt and eat (ever) less calories.
allwein 14y ago
The problem here is that many people make the mistake thinking that all of the calories "used" are calories expended as energy. For people with insulin issues, some of those calories are preferentially stored as fat and are never available to be used as energy, thus requiring them to eat more in order to make up the energy imbalance.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I've lost a massive amount of weight (170 pounds). It isn't that easy. If it was that easy, I would never have had to go to the lengths I went to in order to lose it and what I have to do to maintain that loss. What the basic calorie-in-calorie-out equation doesn't take into account is that it is a biological imperative to eat. That means you have to find the way to balance those calories that overcomes that. Some people (usually the people espousing "it's just a calorie") have a metabolism that, for whatever reason, either doesn't cause them to be hungry or allows them to eat whatever. Great for them. For those of us who struggle daily with this issue, "willpower" isn't enough. We need to find the way that overcomes the biological, hormonal imperative that drives people to eat. And just saying "cut calories" does not work. Three percent of obese people will manage to lose weight by dieting. Do you think they are just "too ignorant" to "get" the equation? Or are they just "too lazy" to do what needs to be done? Because I know that neither is the case. Edit: The other component, which really screws up an "engine" analogy, is that your "engine" becomes more efficient the less you feed it. If you need 1500 calories a day today and so start eating 1300 calories a day, soon, your engine will only take 1300 calories a day to run. Great, bump up the exercise so you burn 200 calories a day. Soon, your engine only needs 1100 calories a day and you feel lethargic all the time. Your body is not an car motor.
- ohashi 14y ago
  Good for you. I haven't had as dramatic a change in weight, but it's been substantial (and on-going). You really hit the nail on the head, and it's hard to describe unless you've been there. I don't honestly believe it was a willpower issue, but a lack of information/advice. The generic eat less, exercise more didn't do anything for me. On a side note, I'd love to hear what sort of issues you have with maintaining?
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    Thank you, and congrats to you as well. All the problems can be summed up with "crappy carbs". It's actually a long story about what started me down that path (dealing with health issues), but I've actually put back on some weight (around 40 pounds...it's easy to be blind to oneself :(). What I've found is that when I start eating carb-rich food, my ability to stop snacking on carb-rich foods goes to zero. So I've cycled between maintaining where I eat a low-glycemic diet and not doing that and gaining. When I spoke of "biological imperative", I mean me: when I eat carbs, I can't stop. I never get full. I'm sure I'd be a Type 2 diabetic in about 5 years if I didn't make this change. A few weeks ago, I dumped the crappy carbs again. I'm back full-on low-carb and have lost about half of that[1]. This time, I'm going to learn from my mistakes. :) I'm going to follow the Atkins notion of gradually increasing carbs until you find your "critical carbohydrate level". Since I've bounced back and forth, I figure realizing that fact will be helpful in my long-term maintenance. 1. Yes, a very large percentage of this is water. I'm OK with that. :)
rayiner 14y ago
You're falling into the oversimplification trap. You can lose weight with a low calorie, high carb diet + running 4-5 hours a week. You can also lose weight with a low calorie, high protein/high fat diet + lifting weights 2 hours a week. Which routine is easier to keep? I think one of the reasons people fail at weight loss is because of the conventional wisdom of low-fat (read: low-flavor) diets combined with low-effectiveness exercises like running. It's pseudo-scientific crock. If you've tried the CW and failed, try something else. Have a couple of slices of bacon instead of that plain breadstick (and avoid the urge to blow your calorie budget by slathering it in butter!) and instead of spending hours on a treadmill do high-intensity weightlifting 3x30 min a week. For your average sedentary Aeron-chair dweller, that's going to be a far more likely path to success.
dredmorbius 14y ago
Your car doesn't partition its energy. Your body does. Gary Taubs has some interesting things to say. It's not just calories, and there are absolutely individual variances. That said, macronitrient ratios and glycemic load likely play at least some role. This still doesn't make things terribly complex, and getting the basics down will help a lot.