You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I know that I shouldn't weigh myself, and I also know that there are diets out there that advocate lots of protein and few carbs, etc., etc. At the same time, I know that - on here especially - there is the 'eat less, do more' brigade, that suggests weight loss is simple. But for me, it is not proving to be.
15 days ago, I cut my calorie intake almost in half, and have only exceeded 2000 calories once in the last two weeks. I am averaging probably about 1900 calories every day. Using MyFitnessPal, I am consuming about 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat as part of my 1900.
In addition, I have done 30 minutes of swimming daily, save for 3 days on which I was too sick to go, and commute to work by bike most days.
For all that, I lost a kilo in the first number of days, which I assume was water weight, but I haven't dropped anything since. 10 years ago, I went through exactly the same process, with the exact same approach to diet and exercise, and lost consistently and steadily each week for a few months until I was down to 75 kgs, whereas I can't seem to shake anything now.
I know it is, as someone on here said, a marathon not a sprint, but I need some encouraging signs at this stage! Either that or some pointers. 🙁
Simple solution - Too many carbs. Swap protein to 50% and carbs to 30% and see how you go.
More complex solution - list your actual diet and we can look at what you are actually eating.
Alright kudos, I'll look at that. The only thing is, I get sick of protein, and I never had to make such a radical change to the make-up of my diet before.
I mean, of course quantities change, but the switch from 50% carbs to 50% protein seems a bit artificial and unsustainable. I want to make sure that, as well as losing weight, I also change my terrible eating habits.
But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, so I don't mind hearing it.
I am averaging probably about 1900 calories every day.
I can sympathise. I've been on a diet since Jan 1st and I've been consuming around 1500 calories per day maximum.
I was 108 kilos on Jan 1st and am now 100kg. I've done this before (started at 110kg and got down to 100kg) and did it the same way. Just not eating very much in general but making sure the diet is balanced.
This time I'm aiming for 95kg, which will be lightest I've been in over 10 years.
It's working and there may be lot's of variables that are making a difference but really it's not any more complicated than calories in/calories out.
The hard part is putting up with the vague and persistent sense of hunger although that is actually getting easier.
[b]15 days ago[/b], I cut my calorie intake almost in half...
For all that, I lost a kilo in the first number of days,
Am I missing something?
Your weight took a long time to put on. It will take a long time to lose (if you do it sensibly in a long term sustainable way).
A kilo in 15 days is excellent progress.
Unless you have changed it then MFP sets the weight loss at 1lb per week. So 1kg (2.2lbs) in 2 weeks is ahead of goal. Well done.
How much water are you drinking? you need to be properly hydrated to flush the toxins away and there for lose weight.
What food are you eating? Calories really are not the be all and end all of losing weight,
Its about the eating the right food. Good clean non processed food.
swap potatoes for sweet potatoes. No bread.
Eat as many fruits, veg as you like. esp green veg. Avoid caffiene and booze.
Try some HIIT training. Or hill sprints on your bike. Short sharp bursts. Tabata training is very good.
Drawing on my own experience.... could it be possible that you have been sleepwalking and breaking into Greggs?
Certainly seems like you're doing all the right things. Especially when considering the calories in vs calories out. Perhaps the weight isn't moving, but changing? Muscle mass is denser than fat.
Shout at me if I'm wrong.
Calories really are not the be all and end all of losing weight,
Really? I thought that was the whole point. You lose weight when you consume fewer calories than you burn.
Have you considered the 5:2 fasting diet?
Eating the right food is about losing weight. Eat as natural non processed food as you can.
Stay well clear of all low fat processed food.
Low fat processed food= chemical shit storm. Which will make your body hold onto fat.
Avoid the fads (idiet, fasting, tabatha training etc.)
Continue what your doing, make sure you are being honest with yourself with what you enter in myfitnesspal.
Give it a month, if you find you haven't lost weight then, knock another 100 off your daily total or increase your exercise. Springs around the corner so exercise will be easier.
Be patient, your 10 years older than last time, it becomes harder to lose the weight with age.
Dump the carbs for a few days each week. Weight just falls away.
Your plan of action sounds fine to me. Just keep doing it for 15 months rather than 15 days and i'm sure you'll see a big difference.
What are you eating, what's your start weight, what's your goal weight and what's your current weight, what's your daily activity level etc. etc. etc.
What's the make up of your 50% carbs?
That's your fuel for swimming and cycling.
Also be wary of the data in MFP, the Calories are often right but there's a lot of stuff where the Carbs, Protein and Fat are either not there or totally wrong. Always check the data with the packets.
Also do you drink alcohol? If so are you remembering to log that.
I dropped from 100ish to 68 but am back up to 78ish just now, using calorie counting thrugh MFP, and was losing at around 1kg a week (I was set for 500g a week), but that involved big weekend road rides and commuting as hard and fast as I could (which isn't very).
My diet is utter baws, if I could get my head to take the chocolate out of it, it would be easy...
I've got 360kcal left for the day, oops.
[i]So what am I doing wrong, then?[/i]
Not much really, 2kg in 2 weeks is good.
If you think more diet change is necessary, alter the composition of the 1900 calories to more vegetables. You still want enough energy to exercise.
Instead of five a day, aim for 7 or 8 a day.
Nice to see all the old generalisations and misconceptions getting another airing.
Some diets work for some people, other diets work for others. An eating plan that makes you eat in an un-natural way for a short period of time is very likely not going to lead to a long term weight loss.
For me, the principles of the idave diet are sound. Avoiding food and drink which induce an insulin response seems to cut out cravings for sweet and fatty food and affects the way your body lays down and consumes fat.
How much sugar are you putting in? I don't mean actually adding sugar yourself, I mean how much food do you eat that has added sugar? Here's a clue, if it comes in a packet or a tin, it's almost certainly got sugar added. If it says low fat on the outside, it definately has sugar added.
How do you think your body responds when it finds the calories dropping? Do you think it maintains the same metabolic rate?
Starving your body is not the right answer. It's the right foods that needs to go in. List the foods here so we can all argue about them.
As others have said - you're not doing badly - you didn't get overweight in 2 weeks so don't be suprised you haven't become skinny in 2 weeks.
Above all - ignore anyone who tries to tell you about Toxins - they are talking utter, utter, utter crap...
My personal preferred method of weight loss: Dysentry. 10 kilos in 10 days - which given my starting point made a fair bit of difference to my appearance...
IDIET...........for the win 😀
15 days ago
stick with what you are doing, don't go down the faddy diet route, if you eat healthily with fewer processed foods and refined sugars and continue the exercise you will lose weight. you obviously have the ability to stick to a plan without wavering you just need a little patience.
Your taking in 1900 cal and your body needs probably 2300-2500 to go every day, realistically you're not "that" far in deficit. 2kg loss over that period is pretty good, well done, keep going.
BigJohn + 1
We are all different. MFP and calories in/out....move more just doesn't work for me.
Find out what food types and proportions are right for you and the weight will reduce naturally.
If you eat what is right for you, you will feel satisfied and counting calories will be irrelevant, as you will only eat what you need.
Different foods do different things to your body. It's NOT really as simple as calories in vs calories out. This link hints at the complexity involved
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really-makes-us-fat.html?_r=0
[i]The only thing is, I get sick of protein[/i]
really, what protein are you eating then?
It's NOT really as simple as calories in vs calories out.
Calories are a pretty blunt estimate and I don't doubt that our bodies are for more subtle than that, BUT I do think there is an issue with people overthinking weightloss.
[i]"Calories In < Calories Out"[/i] does work.
Yes, it is oversimplifying. Yes, it is an imprecise estimate. Yes, I'm sure food types, insulin spikes, GI, star signs and sun spots etc matter.
But at the end of the day: simple is good!
[i]"Calories In < Calories Out"[/i] is an easy to understand and easy to stick to simplified model that results in weightloss.
Good article that. I have absolutely no training in this area but I've always been immensely suspicious of the calories stuff. It made no sense to me whatsoever and I suspect, that without the incessant shite from people who are making money out of calorie control, it makes little sense to anyone else either.
My body is my body. Yours is yours. They are different in the same way we have different coloured hair and a different sized cock, they consume at different rates and they're not stupid, out bodies are the result of millions of years of evolution, they're pretty smart. In times of plenty they will speed up their processing, in times of little they haul it back. It's pretty obvious when you think about it.
As is what you put in being the important thing, not how much of it. if you're cocking up its internal governance by filling it with starnge substances, it'll go all cockeyed on you.
Avoid the fads (idiet, fasting, tabatha training etc.)
Do you mean Tabata? What's wrong with it? It's a mental calorie-burner and all round fitness-accelerator from my experience...
I think any post on any diet/ weight loss thread needs:
178cm and 75kg
Stats....
I'm with GrahamS on this, it's pretty easy to over think this, stop putting food in your mouth, is pretty much all that's required if you want to loose a bit of weight.
I've always been immensely suspicious of the calories stuff. It made no sense to me whatsoever and I suspect, that without the incessant shite from people who are making money out of calorie control, it makes little sense to anyone else either.
makes sense to me from a purely physics point of view.
Calorie is a measure of energy. Energy makes things go.
The fact that one person's engine may be more or less fuel efficient than mine, or have a better ECU, is largely irrelevant.
If I put in less energy into my system but require the same amount of work from it then something has to give (fat stores).
(188cm / 86kg, down from 99kg when I started MFP)
If I put in less energy into my system but require the same amount of work from it then something has to give (fat stores).
Well no. See, your body's not a simple heat engine. It has three or four different kinds of fuel, and three or four different engines that all work in different ways and different times. Plus you don't just get a low fuel light when one thing's low, you get a complex shift in the behaviour of the whole vehicle.
In short, not all calories are the same, not all energy expenditure is the same, and not everyone's body responds the same way to different calories and expenditure.
But at the end of the day: simple is good!
Not really. You could apply gross oversimplifications to anything. Want to get rich? Easy, make more money, spend less!
Technically correct, but not helpful in any way.
So, basically, your body is a Toyoto Prius? Or 2 Toyoto Prius's duct taped together? God was actually quite a bit ahead of his time, wasn't he?
molgrips - MemberIf I put in less energy into my system but require the same amount of work from it then something has to give (fat stores).
Well no. See, your body's not a simple heat engine. It has three or four different kinds of fuel, and three or four different engines that all work in different ways and different times. Plus you don't just get a low fuel light when one thing's low, you get a complex shift in the behaviour of the whole vehicle.
In short, not all calories are the same, not all energy expenditure is the same, and not everyone's body responds the same way to different calories and expenditure.
But at the end of the day: simple is good!
Not really. You could apply gross oversimplifications to anything. Want to get rich? Easy, make more money, spend less!
Technically correct, but not helpful in any way
For a fat bloke, you think (eat) too much.,
Yeah I get all that mol and I understand what you are saying, but at the end of the day the simplified model does work.
How many people have reduced their calorie intake, increased their exercise and gained weight as a result?
You could apply gross oversimplifications to anything.
Yep, and that's what we do with any remotely complex system that we want people to be able to understand without spending years researching it. We develop a "good enough" model that may not be the whole truth but works.
I'm with the simpletons on this 🙂 Eat less move more is as good and easy as it gets. Now I'm slightly longer in the tooth I have to eat even less and move even more to get the same result, something I've yet to manage!
I've seen it mentioned a lot so I just joined that there myfitnesspal and put in my meals and activities for the last 4 days. I was happy to see that for 3 of the 4 days I was in significant calorie deficit (the days I rode in). The day I was in surplus for everything (drove in) it was a snickers that took me over the edge, actually seeing that had a pretty big impact and will hopefully stop me eating another. I already said no to Friday afternoon cake!
Big red numbers I can understand. Complicated analysis of the human body I could probably understand too if I had the time or the energy to spare, but I don't.
165cm
Don't know, will weigh myself later (for MFP)
Molgrips - thanks for that link. I've been struggling to understand how the various food types are used by the body and that makes more sense than most stuff I've read.
FWIW I'm currently on a low-carb eating strategy and I've felt a difference in how my body reacts when my stomach starts to feel empty. Previously I'd have felt fatigued and slow. Now I just carry on at the same level.
I've lost about 1kg per week since I started it.
just joined that there myfitnesspal and put in my meals and activities for the last 4 days. I was happy to see that for 3 of the 4 days I was in significant calorie deficit
Beware that the general consensus seems to be that MFP massively overestimates the calories for cycling (and a few other exercises).
I generally knock at least a third off what it (or Endomondo) says.
You're probably still under, but possibly not by as much as you imagined.
How overweight are you? If you're not very overweight, weight loss is slower if you want to lose a few pounds than if you have stones to lose.
I've been trying to lose weight on the 5:2 fast diet. I'm not overweight, just want to lose between 5 and 7 lbs really, but I find it hard because I get really hungry if I really cut my calories.
[quote=vickypea ]I get really hungry if I really cut my calories.
Your hunger levels will depend what upon those remaining calories are made up of.
Your hunger levels will depend what upon those remaining calories are made up of.
True.
You'd have to eat around 10 kilos of cabbage to get to 2100 kcal 😉
Finally getting back to this, although it may be too late.
In any case, I am 5'10", and weigh just under 15 stone (or about 94 kgs).
I want to be 12 stone (or around 75 kgs, which is what I was when I first came to the UK 10 years ago (and stayed like that for about 3 years after).
I'll post what I am eating as soon as I get a chance.
Like many others have said, not sure you're doing too much wrong - p'raps just expecting too much a little too soon?
I have lost just over 7kg since beginning of the year. MFP and more riding helps, but some weeks see more weight loss than others - just happy that is going in the right direction - slowly but surely; which despite all the differing views seems to be the one thing that most advice agrees on.
Keep on keeping on.
Thanks, I was wondering how I could be in deficit by nearly 2000 calories and still alive!Beware that the general consensus seems to be that MFP massively overestimates the calories for cycling (and a few other exercises).I generally knock at least a third off what it (or Endomondo) says.
You're probably still under, but possibly not by as much as you imagined.
OP, I meant to say earlier that it sounds to me like you're doing just fine. Slow and steady is best IMO, if you lose it too fast you risk your body hoarding and getting into a binge/starve type cycle.
A kilo over 2 weeks is a sensible level of weight loss, and is pretty sustainable over a period of time.
I lost around 12 kilos last year over a period of about 4-5 months, and I was averaging 0.5 to 1 kilo per week weight loss. At that sort of level I could eat sensibly without going hungry, so I wasn't tempted to start snacking.
I've never bothered analysing % carb or protein intake - I just stick to sensible portions and eat plenty of fruit and veg. If I need a snack between meals it'll be more fruit.
I've been increasing my exercise lately by adding in some midweek gym sessions to my usual weekend walking/biking and have been at around 73kg since xmas. Since adding in the gym sessions I've been making a conscious effort to increase my protein intake by drinking milk after workouts and a putting an egg or two in my packed lunch, but other than that I've pretty well stuck to the same sort of diet.
Very good diagram here of why you should eat clean non processed food to lose weight.
I have lost over 2 stone in the past 15 months by eating clean and keeping hydrated. http://beingfabat40.wordpress.com/my-programme/
This diagram?
[img] 
?w=1806&h=1626[/img]
Well I'm convinced! Who needs science when you have a nice diagram from someone trying to sell you something.
I have lost over 2 stone in the past 15 months by eating clean and keeping hydrated.
I've lost 2 stone in 9 months whilst enjoying sausages, bacon, crisps and processed foods.
you're eating too much. stop eating.
Lots of different advice as usual, with the same old chestnuts trotted out once again, [i]as usual[/i]. It really is not as simple as 'eat less than you burn' if you want to get maximum weight loss.
I've tried most of the current and 'old' methods at some point or another and the only thing which has been sustainable for me is a combination of idave, low carb, regular eating (eat something with protein every 4 hours and before you go to bed), good quality low saturated fat food, loads of water and most important of all, only low to moderate levels of exercise ie. mainly walking/gentle bike rides for the first few weeks of any change in eating. I can't remember the exact physiology for this but it works, as I lost the weight in just 3 months with very little effort or increase in exercise.
I dropped 2 1/2 stone 2 years ago and it only increases slowly if I've been a serious pig for weeks. A couple of 3 day 'strict' spells, eating whatever I fancy on day 4, sheds 1/2 a stone for me in a week and I'm 53!
did you see how christian bale lost weight to become "The machinist"? from a proper hefty bloke solid muscle. he stopped eating apart from an apple or a tin of tuna a day. He lost a shitload of weight and had a HUGELY SLIM BODY. TERRIBLY SLIM. wHICH IS GOOD
Love these threads, always fun.
Back to the OP, don't think of it as either a marathon or a sprint. It's a lifestyle change, if you're gaining weight it's a permanent change that's required not a temporary one.
I'm sure all these fancy dancy new fangled weight loss techniques can shift weight (although anecdotal evidence suggests the weight returns in examples I know from friends). But what you want is a permanent dietary and exercise shift that is healthy to maintain until you are on you death bed.
15 days is nothing, absolutely nothing.
I'll be very interested to see what the OP is actually eating (and when) after re-reading this again now I'm properly awake!
I can see why he is frustrated at a relatively low weight loss after halving calories (are you absolutely sure about that?) and upping exercise. Is there any difference in waist size/body shape? 2 weeks is a very short space of time and all it might take is a little tweek or adjustment of how the carb intake is achieved.
What piemonster says
is the keywhat you want is a permanent dietary and exercise shift that is healthy to maintain
[i]In any case, I am 5'10", and weigh just under 15 stone (or about 94 kgs).
I want to be 12 stone (or around 75 kgs, which is what I was when I first came to the UK 10 years ago (and stayed like that for about 3 years after).
[/i]
From your original post you kinda implied that you'd halved your daily calories to 2000. So if you've been on (upto) 4000 calories for +5 years, then it'll take a fair few weeks for your body to start adjusting.
Also, these calories, are they decent fresh ones of out of a packet?
You've done really well. Seriously.
As above, loosing weight, and keeping it down it about a life style change, and that one is hard to do.
Just keep what you are doing, and also, keep a diary of what you are eating and drinking.
That way, you can look back and see, what you need to change.
Me, I have a sugar problem (which I solve by having just banana and milk for one (the whole day) and that cures me for a couple of weeks)
The other, is Alcohol, but I haven't got the Mother in Law to leave the house yet.
Keep going..
You may find you are not eating 1900 but 2300 or more. You really have to be pedantic if you want to count calories.
Also you need to aim for 1600 cal to get more off.
Initially you should be able to shifty 1kg a week for a month then it will slow as you body adjust. You need to up you excerise to compensate.
it's great eh, makes me wonder what the people that are so slim in parts of africa are doing, those slim people with nothing to eat. I reckon people are slim cos they don't have stuff to stick in their gob. I don't know how to turn that into a succesful modern western diet program though.. the not having enough to get fat diet?....
Great thinking kevevs.
He wants to speed up his wait loss, so following on from your your logic, I would suggest the OP pops over there and picks up one of the endemic diseases to kick-start things. Nothing with too many long term debilitating effects of course (that [b]would[/b] be silly) - something like amoebic dysentery should fit the bill quite nicely 8)
y'know, I knew it had some negatives..
180cm/74.5kg. Jan 1 unsurprisingly same height but 83.2kg. MFP, 1800 calories, no booze in the week, cook all our food, more fresh veg and fruit etc. Smaller plates - this definitely helps. Target weight was 77kg but I kept going. Rode two/three times a week and did a bit more walking.
In the last couple of weeks I've relented a bit and scoffed a bit of chocolate and the odd bag of crisps. Weight has stayed about the same. So while it all is a bit complicated, I'm a simple bloke and just eat less but make it good stuff, make sure treats are treats and go exercise. It's made a massive difference to me on the bike.
Can't see me going back now, always been a bit weak willed but the improvements in riding bikes which I love and feeling a whole load better far outweighs (!) getting back on the beer and pies.
OP should just crack on for a bit longer and see what happens. You're certainly not doing yourself any harm!
3500 cals per pound, or 7000 per kilo, or thereabouts
you are guessing your BMR and your calorie intake, but probably overestimate the former and underestimate the latter.
I started on mfp just after new year,targeting 1600cals per day. I found mfp great not just for the 'absolute' numbers but also to show me where stuff I thought wasn't so bad actually was,so I now have a better understanding of which foods are regular vs sometimes vs rarely. However, i also found sticking to 1600cals per day quite hard with my lifestyle, I enjoy eating out with my family and I also travel with work and eating out with colleagues and customers when you are counting cals is hard.
So 4 weeks back, I switched to the 5:2 plan, which suits me way better. I think the things I learned from mfp are still useful, my intake even on eating days is usually pretty close to the 2500 +/- that is about normal for a man of my build, rarely exceeds except on special occasions, and is generally just healthier (less refined carbs/ bread, less red meat, more veg, etc). The fast days are no problem, porridge for breakfast and then grilled fish or chicken plus shedloads of veg for dinner. And the weight's coming off still at the same healthy rate of 1-2lbs per week; so far about 20 lbs gone in 9 weeks ( had a couple of big losses in WK 1 and 2 which wasn't a surprise since i went on to 1600cals per week after eating my own bodyweight in Christmas goodies the week before!!), now much more regular and stable.
You'd have to eat around 10 kilos of cabbage to get to 2100 kcal
You would also need to live by yourself! 😈
Lols.......
woody have you seen american psycho?
woody have you seen american psycho?
Nope, Why do you ask and would you recommend it?
There is some right old cobblers on this thread.
Yes, the body is a complex chap but the following is simple and true: if you eat fewer calories than you need to maintain your weight you will lose weight.
Eat less, move more, stick to a balanced diet. That's all there is to it.
I know, easier said than done, but that's how it is.
Carry on.
There is some right old cobblers on this thread.
There's a fair bit in that post.
You cut your calories almost in half and still get 1900! That was a chunk of overeating.
The big thing I find is people underestimating portions. "Oh that's about 50g so that's 200 kcals" when infancy it's more like double...
That link to Huffington Post is the biggest load of guff I've read in a long time!!
Fat. All fats release nine calories per gram when burned. But omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life, while trans fats clog your arteries, leading to a heart attack. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Calorific value is not directly related to nutritional value, HOLD THE ****ING PRESS you heard it here first folks
The big thing I find is people underestimating portions.
Yep!
A set of digital kitchen scales was a major eye-opener for me.
Lots of foods have big stars on them boasting [i]"only X calories per serving"[/i] - but the scales reveal that their [i]"suggested serving size"[/i] wouldn't feed a baby robin.
Yep!A set of digital kitchen scales was a major eye-opener for me.
Lots of foods have big stars on them boasting "only X calories per serving" - but the scales reveal that their "suggested serving size" wouldn't feed a baby robin.
Digital scales told me that I was actually eating [b]two[/b] servings of breakfast every day. D'oh!
I was more like 3 servings!
Switched to Oats So Simple. Nice measured amount, relatively low calorie and slow release energy.
(I usually pep it up with 20g of currants to add some flavour and some faster release)
[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/ ]This study[/url] seems to demonstrate that it is NOT simply a case of calories in vs calories out.
Two groups on calorie restricted diets, one low fat and one very low carb ketogenic. The ketogenic group lost more weight despite taking on more calories.
Like I said, I have no doubt that reality is a lot more complex than "Calories In vs Calories Out" BUT that simplified model is easy to follow and does work.
Also, carbs are tasty.
Easy to follow? I seriously don't think so, since everyone knows it and most people fail to follow it.
[i]Also, carbs are tasty.[/i]
Perhaps so, certainly more so that a prescribing a dumb-down strategy of calorie restriction combined with a bit of shooting in the dark.
😉
Easy to follow? I seriously don't think so, since everyone knows it and most people fail to follow it.
Sorry, I meant "follow" as in "comprehend", rather than "adhere to".
But surely if folk have difficulty adhering to a simple calorie reduction - where the calorie information they need is pretty readily available and plenty of good alternatives exist - then I suspect they struggle much more with "low carb ketogenic" or any other more complex and restrictive system?
Well no, I don't think so. The problem with low calorie diets is that you can get really hungry. When you're hungry, it becomes more and more difficult to avoid eating high energy snacks. Your digestive tract is a significant part of your nervous system, and has a huge hold over your brain and consequently your actions. This is why calorie restriction is hard, because you get really hungry.
Eating carbs makes you MORE hungry in the long run, which makes it worse. Eating higher protein or fat diets make hunger far more manageable, which means either you can deal with the hunger or cravings much more effectively, or you just don't feel like eating any more.
Easy to follow? I seriously don't think so, since everyone knows it and most people fail to follow it.
It's easy to follow if you track exactly how much you eat and know what the calorific value is AND have the willpower to not overeat.
It is not easy to follow if you enjoy the taste of cakes. I think that's almost certainly the overriding factor!
[i]But surely if folk have difficulty adhering to a simple calorie reduction - where the calorie information they need is pretty readily available and plenty of good alternatives exist - then I suspect they struggle much more with "low carb ketogenic" or any other more complex and restrictive system?[/i]
I'll admit, some folk are [i]turned off[/i] by the science. However, surely some things in life need to be understood. Its not like you can defer any knowledge of the highway code, until after you have obtained your driving license.
Some of the [i]issues[/i] I see with [i]simple[/i] calorie restriction are.
1. Too many calories from foods which do not satiate the subject. Will leave them feeling hungry and so more inclined to break their daily, weekly, caloric allocation. This may be endured by the subject, short term, but will cause issues longer term, I'm thinking.
2. Caloric provenance. Some foods, mostly the processed stuff is just generally not too good for a person. Getting your self determined daily caloric allowance from sources which may include or rely heavily upon processed foods may yield a smaller waistline, but how well will it leave a person, on the inside ?. As has been mentioned before, waistline dims, scale weights are basic, possibly even crude markers of good overall physical health. imo.
Also, once the subject reaches their desired weight, how do you calculate your weight maintenance cals ?.
In Taubes example, even eating just 20 cals more than your energy neutral requirements will have you several pounds over weight, over 5, 10 years.
Can one really eat, everyday, within 20 cals of their daily, energy neutral requirement ?.
In my opinion, its a bit more than cal counting.
Yet it seems to suit some people.
So fair play.
🙂