Calories in, calories out

Post by nl » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 11:54 PM UTC

induscreep wrote: post #203

nl wrote: post #61

I find this discussion very weird. Of course calories in/calories out explains your weight loss/gain. I haven't seen a single study that shows anything except this. But of course that isn't the whole story. The big issue with using calorie restriction for weight loss is that it take significant self control for long periods of time (months). People take that as a moral judgement of people who don't lose weight: they…

Hmm but you can still lose weight by eating low satiety index foods, as long as a calorie deficit is present. This means eating smaller portions of these foods. It just takes more self control because the body "feels hungry" when in fact it isn't.

Post by MicroBerto » Sat, Oct 25, 2014, 2:27 AM UTC

e12e wrote: post #66

MicroBerto wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually a great point, and something I've told friends in a "broscience" fashion: There is nearly nothing in nature that combines fats and carbs. It's almost like you need to choose one or the other - balance is how you get into trouble, because then you think everything is legal. Take, for instance, potato chips -- and not the low-fat Baked Lay's or Quest Chips kind. If you're on a "balanced diet", they're l…

> The biggest problem I forgot to mention above, however, is that people will read all sorts of literature, but when it comes to actually weighing their food with a food scale (costs literally $20) and counting their calories and macros, they all fail. There recently was a story in Norwegian media about a person that had gone down some X kgs (basically from overweight to more healthy) -- by eating a strict diet of re…

Post by iopq » Sat, Oct 25, 2014, 12:12 PM UTC

kyllo wrote: post #209

iopq wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's also no way he's 21% body fat calipers are just an approximate estimate of someone's body fat percentage, and in this case because of body fat distribution (all the fat is very evenly distributed) they're way off, by as much as 5%

What would you estimate his BF% at based on the photos?

Post by kangax » Sun, Oct 26, 2014, 8:39 PM UTC

wavegeek wrote: post #136

jdminhbg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A calorie = a calorie is as true and as useless as answering the question "Why are there so many people inside the Super Bowl stadium during the game" by saying "Because more people entered it than who left, if only people didn't get in, it would be empty". "Why is it warmer in the summer than the winter?" "Because your hemisphere took in more calories than it gave off." True! And anyone who denies it is just argui…

Calories = calories is all you need to know. Unless * You care about your productivity or health, in which case getting sufficient balanced nutrition is important. * You care about body composition eg going on a diet is liable to lose you large quantities of lean body mass which sets you up for rebound weight gain down the track. * You are one of those rare people who are affected by hunger. If you are one of those p…

Post by dgerges » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 1:50 PM UTC

johnward wrote: post #135

dgerges wrote: post #102

Just eat normally (fruits, vegetables, meat/fish from time to time, not too much bread...) for a long period of time and you'll get to your normal weight. All the rest is bullshit.

The problem is for many people eating "normal" is what caused them to get so big in the first place. Most people in the US don't seem to see their diet as out of the ordinary even if they hit fast-food joints for every meal.