131–140 of 219 posts
Personally I think this is a great way to control your weight. The diet doesn't say anything about what to eat, just how much (in calories). It doesn't necessarily make it easier, but it does give you constant feedback, which can help you stay motivated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note, going to the Gym is also a great way to put on weight, so, I wouldn't correlate "going to the gym" and adding/losing weight. There's good research that shows even high-metabolic activity like running 5 miles/day isn't correlated with losing weight (though it is well correlated with increased aerobic capacity). Basically, any diet whatsoever will result in you losing weight. Just measuring/charting your weight i…
Anecdotally, I added 40 miles per week of running (actually performance-oriented running, not just casual jogging) to my lifestyle over the past year and it has had literally zero effect on my weight, or, according to my Fitbit Aria scale, my bodyfat. I also haven't been trying to lose weight and have been doing quite a bit of bodyweight strength exercising, so I am not at all surprised by this. I did drop my resting…
"I learned that it is really hard to accurately measure calories consumed, even if you are trying. " I'd just like to highlight this, because it is profoundly true. There are probably very few people who have the patience to log everything they eat, diet or no diet, unless they have some kind of payoff close at hand! Even if you do log everything you eat, it's still not easy. Here are just a few reasons why: 1. The b…
> There are probably very few people who have the patience to log everything they eat, diet or no diet, unless they have some kind of payoff close at hand! After trying a few apps, I have found MyFitnessPal and tracking what I eat has become my daily routine. The app makes it very easy, has a great database of foods and in my case, I can almost always choose from my food history with 1 tap. I'm in the 9th week of my…
"I learned that it is really hard to accurately measure calories consumed, even if you are trying. " I'd just like to highlight this, because it is profoundly true. There are probably very few people who have the patience to log everything they eat, diet or no diet, unless they have some kind of payoff close at hand! Even if you do log everything you eat, it's still not easy. Here are just a few reasons why: 1. The b…
>Packaged food often does not have anywhere near the same calories as the label claims. Food manufacturers often aren't very precise and they have an incentive to underestimate. Source? If they aren't within 20% they can be shut down by the FDA. Not exactly something you would want to risk.
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.
Gut bacteria are a big confounder among a bunch of other things. Different types can do a lot of things differently, like extract more calories from the same food. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/ci-gbi091012.... They can even mess with your mind to make you crave junk food. http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/08/116526/do-gut-bacteria-rule... Transplanting them from a thin human to an obese mice slimmed the…
> 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…
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 people you might want to consider the effect of diet composition, adequacy and timing on your appetite.
I also note: sample of one. Duration: 2 months (of people who lose weight over a 2 month period only a small fraction keep it off). Statistical significance: 0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fructose does not lead to an insulin spike and goes directly to the liver
Fructose spikes insulin, most macronutrients do. Even protein spikes insulin. Fructose has produced less of a spike than other simple sugars.
Dietary fat does not have any effect on insulin, btw.
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…
Have you seen one that actually claims to prove it? I was looking for something conclusive, and have come up with a lot of explanations why the numbers diverge (atwater factors are inaccurate, everyone is self reporting, BMR not properly estimated, etc, etc.).
A theory that works for 70% of the cases and fails to explain the remaining 30% is WRONG, even if you have no better competing theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100 calories a day is almost a pound a month - that's actually pretty significant when you get to the "almost in shape" phase and losses drop to the 3-4 lb a month range.
I lifted weights for four years and I have not gained even ten pounds of muscle, so less than a 40 calorie a day change. Less than four pounds a year difference.
One good thing about muscle is that it can burn fat quite happily. Unlike the brain.