To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More

Post by venomsnake » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:31 AM UTC

pizza234 wrote: post #21

venomsnake wrote: post #3

Isn't it obvious - you BMR is 2-3 times higher than your all other energy expenditures for the day. If you overeat nothing can save you ...

It's not obvious, actually; exercise also affects the BMR, as a matter of fact, according to some theories, certain types of exercise increase the BMR more than certain others (I don't express any support for this, just pointing out). Although we're not talking about huge amounts, when having a precise dieting regime, even a few hundred calories of "good weight loss" matter. Definitely nothing can save one from overe…

Post by roel_v » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:32 AM UTC

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #23

joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

Be amazed all you want, but you're conflating two different issues, as does everyone who discusses it the way you do. Your attitude on this is actually a public health risk, because you're implying eating "better" is necessary to lose weight, and eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. "Yes, you can lose weight, you just need to spend $60 more a week on things I consider bette…

Post by realharo » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:33 AM UTC

paulojreis wrote: post #20

joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

Yeah, this looks like one of the (many) downsides of the quantifiable self. Nutrition professionals almost always advocate for diversity, but the Internet-wisdom thing is this approach. I guess it's just easier to do the simple math of in minus out (instead of actually trying to understand the nutrition of a complex organism).

Post by WildUtah » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:34 AM UTC

snez wrote: post #12

joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building. Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.

Post by joelrunyon » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 8:37 AM UTC

snez wrote: post #12

joelrunyon wrote: post #5

Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind. That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."

Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building. Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.