Articles like this are far too common, generic and pretty useless. X may be better than Y! Here's a study that proves it. Oh wait no, Y is better than X because this study proves it. Eat well and exercise. That's it.
To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
221–230 of 238 posts
Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
#222Articles like this are far too common, generic and pretty useless. X may be better than Y! Here's a study that proves it. Oh wait no, Y is better than X because this study proves it. Eat well and exercise. That's it.
I understand that from the zoomed out perspective, when you learn about advancements in the field from newspapers, magazines or blogs, it looks that way. But this is mostly the fault of various media sensationalizing findings, drawing their own conclusions and prioritizing shocking headlines over levelheaded critique of scientific study results as well as framing it in the proper context.
The total body of scientific evidence is not really in such disarray as the reporting would have you believe.
However, your conclusion still hits the mark; eat well and exercise.
Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I gave you links explaining the downsides. A calorie deficit diet does not guarantee fat-loss, it's more likely that your muscles break down before your fat. Your metabolism slows, making it even harder to lose weight, you'll be stuck in a vicious cycle. And finally, a big enough deficit can trigger starvation (medically) which tells your body to store fat as much as it possibly can. Meaning that as soon as you s…
None of the claims you just made are correct. You did not link to scientific evidence, you linked to articles on the Internet.
Here you go. Clinical study performed at the University of Minnesota on the effects of reduced calorie intake. At least those men did lose weight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen...
>> None of the claims you just made are correct.
Must be fun to be able to ignore everything everyone says unless they did a Phd on the subject, while never actually presenting any arguments yourself.
Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> but there is no such thing as smoking in a healthy way But there is a way to be overweight in a healthy. Basically everyone at the gym is overweight (officially anyway) because of their muscle mass. >>> Exercise is great, it's terrific, but not over eating is much more important. True. But there is a difference between over eating and under eating. I never said we should over eat, I just don't agree with under ea…
No, having muscle doesn't make you overweight, no matter how much of it you have. The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically. Im not sure what you mean by under eating, but eating fewer calories than you spend is the only way to lose fat, other than surgery.
>>> The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically.
Dictionary definition "above a weight considered normal or desirable."
The WHO definition "a BMI greater than or equal to 25 is overweight"
Not sure what definition you use, most gym-heads are technically overweight.
But discussing semantics is not the topic here.
Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, having muscle doesn't make you overweight, no matter how much of it you have. The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically. Im not sure what you mean by under eating, but eating fewer calories than you spend is the only way to lose fat, other than surgery.
>>> The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically. Dictionary definition "above a weight considered normal or desirable." The WHO definition "a BMI greater than or equal to 25 is overweight" Not sure what definition you use, most gym-heads are technically overweight. But discussing semantics is not the topic here.
Not being able to understand the difference between excess muscle and fat is not semantics.
BMI is a tool applied to populations, used on individuals it can be very inaccurate, which is why nobody does it outside of blogs and magazines.
Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the claims you just made are correct. You did not link to scientific evidence, you linked to articles on the Internet.
Here you go. Clinical study performed at the University of Minnesota on the effects of reduced calorie intake. At least those men did lose weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen... >> None of the claims you just made are correct. Must be fun to be able to ignore everything everyone says unless they did a Phd on the subject, while never actually presenting any arguments yourself.
That experiment does not support any of your claims.
Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you go. Clinical study performed at the University of Minnesota on the effects of reduced calorie intake. At least those men did lose weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen... >> None of the claims you just made are correct. Must be fun to be able to ignore everything everyone says unless they did a Phd on the subject, while never actually presenting any arguments yourself.
That experiment does not support any of your claims.
Quoting:
>>> Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis
>>> Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase
>>> There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate.
Depending on the amount of calorie deficit, the symptoms may not be as sever, but they are there. I don't really understand why you can't accept basic science.
Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
#228There really isn't that much science to it. On paper its really really simple. To loose weight, you must expend more energy than you absorb. However, conversely to get fit, you will need to eat a balanced diet, with enough calories to replace damaged muscles. However on the weight loss front here are the golden rules: Some people exercise (exercise expends energy) Some people reduce energy consumption (eat less, or e…
> Some people exercise [...] Some people reduce energy consumption [...] There are no other options.
There is at least one other way besides exercise to expend energy: cold exposure.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/does-glo...
Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
That experiment does not support any of your claims.
Quoting: >>> Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis >>> Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase >>> There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the…
A moderate caloric deficit is not starvation, however. So the experiment in question is completely unrelated to your claims. Science does not say that a caloric deficit automatically is starvation, you alone are making that claim.
Re: To Lose Weight, Eating Less Is Far More Important Than Exercising More
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoting: >>> Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis >>> Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase >>> There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the…
A moderate caloric deficit is not starvation, however. So the experiment in question is completely unrelated to your claims. Science does not say that a caloric deficit automatically is starvation, you alone are making that claim.
>>> Science does not say that a caloric deficit automatically is starvation, you alone are making that claim
I never said that. Eating 100 calories less a day is not starvation, duh. But that diet it's not really effective at losing weight, now is it?
I know it's hard to admit being wrong on the internet, but you have no argument here.
You don't need to starve yourself to suffer from those symptoms. Your metabolism slows because it literally doesn't have the same energy to work. Meaning you'll get fat very easily. This doesn't even need a scientific paper, it's just common sense.
If you read closer, the Minnesota experiment showed that when terminating a low calorie diet the body becomes primed to gain fat FIRST before anything else. And your metabolism slows, making it extremely hard to continuously lose weight.
And most importantly, it doesn't work long-term. You can't just lose the weight, you have to stay like that.
Finally, no medical organisation recommends it unless you have a valid medical reason to do so.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/low-calorie-diets
"For people who are overweight but not obese (BMI of 27-30), very low-calorie diets should be reserved for those who have weight-related medical problems and are under medical supervision."
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/very-low-calorie...
"Most people who want to lose weight do not need to eat a very low calorie diet."