7 ms·
Nothing I said was "indignant." Just stating that there's other things besides such strict calorie counting. On top of the fact that when practically put into
by joelrunyon 11y ago
Nothing I said was "indignant."
Just stating that there's other things besides such strict calorie counting. On top of the fact that when practically put into play for people in real life, "calorie counting" feels restrictive, doesn't account for satiety (which then causes hunger & tends to lead to binges).
Re: better - tons of vegetables, high quality meats, low-sugar fruits, nuts and seeds. Carbs when-appropriate pre/post workout.
- jsmthrowaway 11y agoI've practically put calorie counting into play in real life, it doesn't feel restrictive, and I ignore hunger. It's almost like broad, sweeping generalizations are tough to make about human bodies and people. You didn't answer my question about "better." EDIT: You still didn't answer my question about quantifying "better."
- sorenbs 11y agoThere exists a group of people for whom ignoring hunger is not an option. I have been interviewing a bunch of nutritionists here in London about this and if they are to be believed this group make up a large percentage of obese people, which kinda makes sense :-) Hence the advice to eat foods that make you feel full before you reach your desired calorie intake.
- tjogin 11y agoYou are confusing "calorie counting", which is a method of losing weight, with a "caloric deficit" being the number one factor for losing weight, which is a fact. It doesn't matter if you count calories or not. What matters is that you achieve a caloric deficit. Any method that is applied successfully to achieve weight loss has resulted in a caloric deficit, whether or not that method was calorie counting.
- vilmosi 11y agoCalorie deficit is harmful for you though, there's an imbalance. You tell your body it's starving. As soon as you have an extra calorie to spare, you're body will immediately store it as fat, making your hard work essentially meaningless in the long run.
- venomsnake 11y agoLet me guess you are female and practice haes? Only there I have heard such delusions.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tjogin 11y agoNone of what you just said is correct, not a syllable of it, really. You should read up on the available scientific evidence.
- vilmosi 11y agoWhat scientific evidence? Let me guess, some blog post from a company that sells said diet? Give me a break. Starving your body does indeed make you lose weight, that's true. It's just not a healthy way to do it. Nor is it long term. Your body will more than compensate for it as it regains all the weight you lost as soon as you eat like a regular person. http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/ http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/ http://breakingmuscle.com/endurance-sports/calorie-restriction-for-endurance-athletes-why-its-not-always-a-good-idea http://breakingmuscle.com/endurance-sports/calorie-restricti...
- tjogin 11y agoNo, I'm talking about actual scientific evidence published in peer reviewed scientific journals. There are mountains of it available. Being in a caloric deficit is not starving yourself, it just means that over a period of time, usually a full day, you spent more energy than you consumed, and the difference is taken out of your energy storage, which is mostly adipose tissue. This is how fat loss happens.