4 ms·

I don't understand why there is this constant search for a diet that isn't just calorie restriction - learning about caloric content and restricting yourself in

by dimitar 12y ago

I don't understand why there is this constant search for a diet that isn't just calorie restriction - learning about caloric content and restricting yourself in calories is much easier than following a diet. You basically eat the same foods you enjoy, but skip the occasional item that will take you overboard. Learning a few facts about caloric content of different types of food is much easier than changing your lifestyle.

johnking 12y ago
It's worth noting that whilst low calorie diets (of any macronutrient ratio), will usually aid weight loss, they won't all improve your health in other areas. This study also looked at other health markers (including triglycerides and cholesterol) and measured improvements.
- UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
  Calorie reduction doesn't improve health? Says who?
  - johnking 12y ago
    So to clarify on what I wrote: "they won't all improve your health in other areas" Meaning that there are different ways in which to reduce calories. If you were to lower your calorie intake below your expenditure, but do it through a high sugar diet, that may still result in weight loss, but it wouldn't necessarily improve other health markers.
jdminhbg 12y ago
> restricting yourself in calories is much easier than following a diet Apart from the usual caveats about each person being different, do you really think that weighing/measuring your food is easier than remembering not to eat a certain class of foods?
capisce 12y ago
It's not just about weight, but also about composition. From the article: While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat. “They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.” > learning about caloric content and restricting yourself in calories is much easier than following a diet Apart from cutting out certain foods, the low carb high fat group was allowed to eat how much they pleased. Sounds way easier than counting calories all the time.
kaitai 12y ago
Because it sucks being hungry and angry and moody and uncoordinated all the time. On my healthy 1800-calorie-a-day diet I once crashed my bike into a friends' bike in a roundabout because of a blood sugar crash that was leaving me shaking and with blurred vision. I was ravenous every morning at 10 am after my oatmeal at 8 (steel-cut, not instant!). Blood sugar fluctuations would lead me to divorce-inducing rage. And I still wasn't skinny. I was pushing "overweight" on the BMI scale despite biking 50 miles a week and weight training (Starting Strength). Switch to a lower-carb diet -- eggs & veggies for breakfast -- and now I'm serene and start feeling gradually hungry at some point, without the rage. Better digestion, too. And lost 10 lbs so fast I checked with a doctor to make sure I don't have cancer, as I have not changed my routine other than diet.

by dimitar 12y ago

johnking 12y ago

It's worth noting that whilst low calorie diets (of any macronutrient ratio), will usually aid weight loss, they won't all improve your health in other areas. This study also looked at other health markers (including triglycerides and cholesterol) and measured improvements.

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
Calorie reduction doesn't improve health? Says who?
- johnking 12y ago
  So to clarify on what I wrote: "they won't all improve your health in other areas" Meaning that there are different ways in which to reduce calories. If you were to lower your calorie intake below your expenditure, but do it through a high sugar diet, that may still result in weight loss, but it wouldn't necessarily improve other health markers.

jdminhbg 12y ago

> restricting yourself in calories is much easier than following a diet Apart from the usual caveats about each person being different, do you really think that weighing/measuring your food is easier than remembering not to eat a certain class of foods?

capisce 12y ago

It's not just about weight, but also about composition. From the article: While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat. “They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.” > learning about caloric content and restricting yourself in calories is much easier than following a diet Apart from cutting out certain foods, the low carb high fat group was allowed to eat how much they pleased. Sounds way easier than counting calories all the time.

kaitai 12y ago

Because it sucks being hungry and angry and moody and uncoordinated all the time. On my healthy 1800-calorie-a-day diet I once crashed my bike into a friends' bike in a roundabout because of a blood sugar crash that was leaving me shaking and with blurred vision. I was ravenous every morning at 10 am after my oatmeal at 8 (steel-cut, not instant!). Blood sugar fluctuations would lead me to divorce-inducing rage. And I still wasn't skinny. I was pushing "overweight" on the BMI scale despite biking 50 miles a week and weight training (Starting Strength). Switch to a lower-carb diet -- eggs & veggies for breakfast -- and now I'm serene and start feeling gradually hungry at some point, without the rage. Better digestion, too. And lost 10 lbs so fast I checked with a doctor to make sure I don't have cancer, as I have not changed my routine other than diet.