5 ms·

It's great a calorie counting approach works for this guy, but it has a horrible clinical track record. Dozens of studies conclusively show it does not work in

It's great a calorie counting approach works for this guy, but it has a horrible clinical track record. Dozens of studies conclusively show it does not work in the long run absent focus on the composition of the calories. Even in clinical studies where they control everything the subjects eat it doesn't work. There is good empirical data on how to eat and exercise to get and stay thin. There's no reason to rely on outlier anecdotes like this. The prescription is: minimize starch and sugar (hard to do without eating fat), eat infrequently (don't snack), brief bouts of difficult exercise (sprinting, lifting) on an empty stomach. p.s. The headaches he describes are from very poor insulin sensitivity. He has a more serious health problem than body fat. The starchy/sugary diet he continues to eat leaves him at risk of disease. He says he still lives on junk fast food. What's the point of being thin but malnourished? p.p.s. Caffeine is not an appetite suppressant.

radu_floricica 17y ago
Calorie counting always works - when you want to lose a lot of weight and lose it quickly. For maintaining long term you can't stick with it though, so you most likely want to make lifestyle changes, including exercise. Exercise is fundamentally hard for weight loss. It takes a lot of time exercising in order to make a difference. Eating 600 calories less is not that hard - but from a bit of googling it looks like it would take 1.5 hours of continuous aerobics (plus time for changing and shower - that's over 2h every day). I'm not terribly out of shape, but I'm pretty sure I can't do 1.5h of aerobic and still stand. Also, I'd be famished afterwards. If you have good data for exercise, please share. Otherwise it's still anecdote vs anecdote.
- likpok 17y ago
  A few points about exercise: Some of the point I have heard is to change the metabolism, so that while you are doing other things, you are burning more calories. The other issue is that simply eating less will cause you to lose muscle, not necessarily fat. Lifting will let you keep the muscle.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    Also, regardless of trying to lose weight or not, you can't sit on your ass all day, every day. So, maybe not an 2 hours of aerobics each day, but 30 minutes of something, for your heart and bones.
- kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
  Calorie counting doesn't even work well in the short term. Metabolism drops dramatically at the cellular level on restricted calories. Insulin levels are the key to fat catabolism/anabolism. Calories are secondary. You can get fatter in caloric deficit if you're just eating sugar, or injecting loads of insulin. The value of exercise for weight loss has little to do with burning calories. It's about hormones. Brief, intense exercise boosts growth hormone and testosterone, which make you shed fat independent of calories burned. Your body reconfigures. Note that endurance exercise doesn't really have this effect. Anaerobic exercise on an empty stomach directly burns fatty acids released from body fat. A quick lifting session (20m) while hungry followed by a one or two hour fast will burn a lot of fat. Aerobic exercise with a focus on calories is fairly useless, as you indicate. It simply burns down glycogen levels which are then replenished at the next meal with little impact on fat reserves, unless you go for a very long run or bike ride. But then this has the effect of dramatically boosting appetite, which can negate the effect.
  - radu_floricica 17y ago
    I object that calorie counting doesn't work, especially coming from a summer of losing 6 kg with no exercise. Granted, I did pay attention to my insulin (lots of fat, no carbs for the first month or so). However what you say about anaerobic exercise sounds interesting. I'll google it more thoroughly when I have the time.
    - cschneid 17y ago
      It makes sense if you think about it. The body is like "I need energy!" and your glycogen stores are like "sorry dude, all out", so it goes and robs the fat-convenience store for its twinkies. The issue is working out hard enough to take out all the glycogen stores, and not eating for a while (which just replenishes them). Note, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it sorta makes sense. Post any research you find here.
  - Locke1689 17y ago
    As long as you're not doing anything drastic and your basal metabolism stays fairly constant, reducing your caloric intake works fine. Second law of thermodynamics.
dboyd 17y ago
The empirical data that I've read and used was to... - count calories, and ensure that I maintain a calorie deficit (which is the only way to burn body fat). - eat frequently, to reduce hunger and maintain an optimum metabolic rate. - brief bouts of difficult exercise (3x30 minutes of anaerobic and 3x30 minutes of aerobic exercise a week) (the on an empty stomach part isn't very helpful). - but, first and foremost, set goals and measure progress. I've lost 25 pounds of body fat and gained 7 pounds of muscle mass in the last 14 weeks using this approach. For the first 4 weeks I used the "Lose It!" application on my iPhone to help me better understand my calorie intake and burn rates. I couldn't recommend that application more. My best source of information that I've found had been this... http://www.amazon.com/Body-Fat-Solution-Principles-Maintaining/dp/1583333290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257184352&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Body-Fat-Solution-Principles-Maintaini... (Note that the paperback is coming out in December.)
- kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
  > eat frequently The human body is made to run off a gas tank of fat reserves, not to be tethered to an extension cord of continuous eating. Eating every couple hours is historically impossible, and just on that basis one can reason it's likely maladaptive. You eat a proper meal, insulin levels spike to put the energy in fat and glycogen, insulin levels drop, then you switch over to running on the fat and glycogen. You are not built to always stay in the "post-meal" state of elevated insulin and fat storage. There is no basis to the idea that eating frequently boosts metabolism. I think the practice really has origins in the body building community where they want somewhat elevated insulin levels in order to pack on mass. Body builders pack on fat along with muscle and then shed the fat later for competition. Some recent studies indicate that the same life extending benefits of calorie restriction can be had by eating only every other day. The point is to spend much time with low insulin levels. > I've lost 25 pounds of body fat and gained 7 pounds of muscle mass in the last 14 weeks using this approach. Notice how you never hear from people who have stayed thin for years by counting calories. The research indicates it just doesn't work. Even in the short term we only get these anecdotes of success and the data indicates it's not very effective.
  - 17y ago
TrevorJ 17y ago
I'd really like to hear some info on the headaches from you if you have any links - it sounds like something I deal with.
chadaustin 17y ago
Original author here. In this thread, I see a lot of "calorie counting is not sustainable" responses. For me, the key notion is that forcing yourself to count calories recalibrates what you think about food. I grew up thinking that fatty meats were "bad" and rice was "good". In terms of kcal, white rice is brutal. While on the diet, I basically stopped eating rice and alcohol, because I'd rather spend those calories on a piece of meat or fruit. I've since stopped counting and have stayed the same weight. Maybe calorie counting doesn't work for everyone, but it's certainly simple and easy. (p.s. Where did I say I still lived on junk fast food? I eat a ton of fresh fruit and vegetables - my diet is all over the place. That just happens to include cheez-its sometimes. :))
- cakesy 17y ago
  It would be useful to say how long you have maintained the same weight after stopping the diet.
  - adzp 17y ago
    That's not the point. In order to maintain weight-loss, it's important to think of how and what you eat as a permanent lifestyle change. A temporary "diet" of any kind will never work for losing and then keeping the weight off.
jmathes 17y ago
I'm one of 4 people who tried the same diet. We are all IRL friends with the original author, and he got us into it. It worked for all of us. I lost 60lbs in 40 weeks using this diet, and only felt healthier as I went along. before: http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v274/234/41/1171451781/n1171451781_30088008_4900.jpg http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v274/234/41/1171... after (contains puppy): http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1171451781&v=photos&so=45#/photo.php?pid=30889804&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=1171451781&id=1171451781 http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1171451781&v=phot... I didn't get headaches, and caffeine is an indirect appetite suppressant in that it makes me more interested in what I'm doing and less distracted by hunger.
jstevens85 17y ago
>Dozens of studies conclusively show it does not work in the long run absent focus on the composition of the calories. Even in clinical studies where they control everything the subjects eat it doesn't work. If my Internet wasn't capped, I could easily list a dozen academic papers describing clinical studies where subjects lost considerable amounts of weight after being put on low calorie diets. In all of these studies, the addition of regular exercise had a measurable but small affect on weight loss.

radu_floricica 17y ago

Calorie counting always works - when you want to lose a lot of weight and lose it quickly. For maintaining long term you can't stick with it though, so you most likely want to make lifestyle changes, including exercise. Exercise is fundamentally hard for weight loss. It takes a lot of time exercising in order to make a difference. Eating 600 calories less is not that hard - but from a bit of googling it looks like it would take 1.5 hours of continuous aerobics (plus time for changing and shower - that's over 2h every day). I'm not terribly out of shape, but I'm pretty sure I can't do 1.5h of aerobic and still stand. Also, I'd be famished afterwards. If you have good data for exercise, please share. Otherwise it's still anecdote vs anecdote.

likpok 17y ago
A few points about exercise: Some of the point I have heard is to change the metabolism, so that while you are doing other things, you are burning more calories. The other issue is that simply eating less will cause you to lose muscle, not necessarily fat. Lifting will let you keep the muscle.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  Also, regardless of trying to lose weight or not, you can't sit on your ass all day, every day. So, maybe not an 2 hours of aerobics each day, but 30 minutes of something, for your heart and bones.
kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
Calorie counting doesn't even work well in the short term. Metabolism drops dramatically at the cellular level on restricted calories. Insulin levels are the key to fat catabolism/anabolism. Calories are secondary. You can get fatter in caloric deficit if you're just eating sugar, or injecting loads of insulin. The value of exercise for weight loss has little to do with burning calories. It's about hormones. Brief, intense exercise boosts growth hormone and testosterone, which make you shed fat independent of calories burned. Your body reconfigures. Note that endurance exercise doesn't really have this effect. Anaerobic exercise on an empty stomach directly burns fatty acids released from body fat. A quick lifting session (20m) while hungry followed by a one or two hour fast will burn a lot of fat. Aerobic exercise with a focus on calories is fairly useless, as you indicate. It simply burns down glycogen levels which are then replenished at the next meal with little impact on fat reserves, unless you go for a very long run or bike ride. But then this has the effect of dramatically boosting appetite, which can negate the effect.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  I object that calorie counting doesn't work, especially coming from a summer of losing 6 kg with no exercise. Granted, I did pay attention to my insulin (lots of fat, no carbs for the first month or so). However what you say about anaerobic exercise sounds interesting. I'll google it more thoroughly when I have the time.
  - cschneid 17y ago
    It makes sense if you think about it. The body is like "I need energy!" and your glycogen stores are like "sorry dude, all out", so it goes and robs the fat-convenience store for its twinkies. The issue is working out hard enough to take out all the glycogen stores, and not eating for a while (which just replenishes them). Note, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it sorta makes sense. Post any research you find here.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  As long as you're not doing anything drastic and your basal metabolism stays fairly constant, reducing your caloric intake works fine. Second law of thermodynamics.

dboyd 17y ago

The empirical data that I've read and used was to... - count calories, and ensure that I maintain a calorie deficit (which is the only way to burn body fat). - eat frequently, to reduce hunger and maintain an optimum metabolic rate. - brief bouts of difficult exercise (3x30 minutes of anaerobic and 3x30 minutes of aerobic exercise a week) (the on an empty stomach part isn't very helpful). - but, first and foremost, set goals and measure progress. I've lost 25 pounds of body fat and gained 7 pounds of muscle mass in the last 14 weeks using this approach. For the first 4 weeks I used the "Lose It!" application on my iPhone to help me better understand my calorie intake and burn rates. I couldn't recommend that application more. My best source of information that I've found had been this... http://www.amazon.com/Body-Fat-Solution-Principles-Maintaining/dp/1583333290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257184352&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Body-Fat-Solution-Principles-Maintaini... (Note that the paperback is coming out in December.)

kingkongreveng_ 17y ago
> eat frequently The human body is made to run off a gas tank of fat reserves, not to be tethered to an extension cord of continuous eating. Eating every couple hours is historically impossible, and just on that basis one can reason it's likely maladaptive. You eat a proper meal, insulin levels spike to put the energy in fat and glycogen, insulin levels drop, then you switch over to running on the fat and glycogen. You are not built to always stay in the "post-meal" state of elevated insulin and fat storage. There is no basis to the idea that eating frequently boosts metabolism. I think the practice really has origins in the body building community where they want somewhat elevated insulin levels in order to pack on mass. Body builders pack on fat along with muscle and then shed the fat later for competition. Some recent studies indicate that the same life extending benefits of calorie restriction can be had by eating only every other day. The point is to spend much time with low insulin levels. > I've lost 25 pounds of body fat and gained 7 pounds of muscle mass in the last 14 weeks using this approach. Notice how you never hear from people who have stayed thin for years by counting calories. The research indicates it just doesn't work. Even in the short term we only get these anecdotes of success and the data indicates it's not very effective.
- 17y ago

TrevorJ 17y ago

I'd really like to hear some info on the headaches from you if you have any links - it sounds like something I deal with.

chadaustin 17y ago

Original author here. In this thread, I see a lot of "calorie counting is not sustainable" responses. For me, the key notion is that forcing yourself to count calories recalibrates what you think about food. I grew up thinking that fatty meats were "bad" and rice was "good". In terms of kcal, white rice is brutal. While on the diet, I basically stopped eating rice and alcohol, because I'd rather spend those calories on a piece of meat or fruit. I've since stopped counting and have stayed the same weight. Maybe calorie counting doesn't work for everyone, but it's certainly simple and easy. (p.s. Where did I say I still lived on junk fast food? I eat a ton of fresh fruit and vegetables - my diet is all over the place. That just happens to include cheez-its sometimes. :))

cakesy 17y ago
It would be useful to say how long you have maintained the same weight after stopping the diet.
- adzp 17y ago
  That's not the point. In order to maintain weight-loss, it's important to think of how and what you eat as a permanent lifestyle change. A temporary "diet" of any kind will never work for losing and then keeping the weight off.

jmathes 17y ago

I'm one of 4 people who tried the same diet. We are all IRL friends with the original author, and he got us into it. It worked for all of us. I lost 60lbs in 40 weeks using this diet, and only felt healthier as I went along. before: http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v274/234/41/1171451781/n1171451781_30088008_4900.jpg http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v274/234/41/1171... after (contains puppy): http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1171451781&v=photos&so=45#/photo.php?pid=30889804&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=1171451781&id=1171451781 http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1171451781&v=phot... I didn't get headaches, and caffeine is an indirect appetite suppressant in that it makes me more interested in what I'm doing and less distracted by hunger.

jstevens85 17y ago

>Dozens of studies conclusively show it does not work in the long run absent focus on the composition of the calories. Even in clinical studies where they control everything the subjects eat it doesn't work. If my Internet wasn't capped, I could easily list a dozen academic papers describing clinical studies where subjects lost considerable amounts of weight after being put on low calorie diets. In all of these studies, the addition of regular exercise had a measurable but small affect on weight loss.