Here we go again: almost all diet advice is wrong (again)

[Alexander's Horse]

Man, I could really go for a burger right now.

Go for it

[Lorizael]

There is one factor and one factor only to weight gain or loss: Calories in vs. calories out. If you eat fewer calories than you consume, you will lose weight. You can increase calorie outtake by exercising, and you can reduce calorie intake by dieting. That's it. That's 100% of losing weight. You can blame genetics or something if you're a huge pussy but in the end it is always possible to lose weight. It's just a matter of willpower.

So do you have like a handbook of simplistic notions that you just copy from whenever particular keywords appear on Apolyton?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

no

telling someone "take in less calories than you burn" is simple and unhelpful

it doesn't matter if it is technically correct

It's kind of backed up by the laws of physics, which makes it more than "technically" correct.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Portion control and a ****-load of cardio. That's all you need.

[C0ckney]

Most people suck at counting calories and will insist they gained weight while eating 500 calories a day.

most people have a high capacity for lying to themselves and blaming everyone but themselves for their problems.

[Sava]

It's kind of backed up by the laws of physics, which makes it more than "technically" correct.

Closest analogy I can think of is talking about analyzing a sporting event and when asked how a particular team will win the game, the respondent says "score more points than the other team"

So no. It is not more than "technically correct". Given the inability to effective track calories in and measure energy expenditure, that answer is completely useless.

Don't get on the stupid train.

[Sava]

Portion control and a ****-load of cardio. That's all you need.

No. There is no "only" when talking about weight loss.

There are many ways to accomplish the same goal. Cardio is also very inefficient compared to high intensity interval training and strength training.

[I AM MOBIUS]

The source is the British medical journal so respectable.



I'm always interested in these stories because I grew up with people who were very long-lived and healthy but ate what they liked and paid no attention to the diet "rules".

A couple of things I did notice - they ate a sort of balanced diet and they never over-ate - gluttony and greed were actively discouraged. They also put a high premium on being physically active, even just through housework or gardening, and frowned on laziness. Getting outside "in the fresh air" or "sunshine" was encouraged, walking or sports, fishing, anything outdoors really.

Genetics must play its part but ancient rules like the Greek idea of moderation in all things and the Roman one of always leaving the table hungry seem like good ones to me. I try to apply them.

Another thing they did was they seemed much more in tune with their body than people today - if they craved a food, say some fruit, they got some and ate it. They got lots of sleep at night, had naps too.

They also ate some foods that were "good for you" even if they didn't like the taste. That would include certain sour fruits and vegetables when in season.

[I AM MOBIUS]

that's not a strategy... that's something a child would respond with or some jackass trying to be too literal

Um, that is Reg Collider all over. By his standards that is quite a good post.

[Sava]

Also, if we are talking purely about the number on the scale, the "energy in, energy used" is slightly less than "technically correct". There is the issue of water retention. Supplements like creatine prompt muscle tissue to retain more water. You will weigh more without necessarily seeing a change in body composition. Sodium can cause this too. A variety of medical conditions can make this happen as well.

" energy in, energy used " is overly simplistic, unhelpful, useless, and incomplete when talking about weight loss. Anyone whose weight loss strategy begins and ends with that is an idiot and should be summarily ignored.

[onodera]

HC sounded like Albie there, who once insisted that some people are more fit than others only because they exercise more.

[Pedotard]

Also, if we are talking purely about the number on the scale, the "energy in, energy used" is slightly less than "technically correct". There is the issue of water retention. Supplements like creatine prompt muscle tissue to retain more water. You will weigh more without necessarily seeing a change in body composition. Sodium can cause this too. A variety of medical conditions can make this happen as well.

" energy in, energy used " is overly simplistic, unhelpful, useless, and incomplete when talking about weight loss. Anyone whose weight loss strategy begins and ends with that is an idiot and should be summarily ignored.

Go ahead and write a diet book explaining all the ways people can lose water weight. I'm sure it'll sell.

[Sava]

Go ahead and write a diet book explaining all the ways people can lose water weight. I'm sure it'll sell.

I don't need to. The wiki on the fitness subreddit is an amazing resource with answers to all these questions.

Don't know what prompted the rolleyes... failed troll?

[Pedotard]

I don't need to. The wiki on the fitness subreddit is an amazing resource with answers to all these questions.

Don't know what prompted the rolleyes... failed troll?

When people want to "lose weight" they want to lose fat not just lower the number on the scale. Are you trolling?

[Sava]

When people want to "lose weight" they want to lose fat not just lower the number on the scale. Are you trolling?

Don't tell me this. Direct your statement to the dumbfucks claiming "weight loss" is all about "energy in, energy used".

Fat loss is an entirely different matter altogether.

You are actually supporting my argument modern conclusions based on scientific evidence.