WOW a personal attack to start things off, nice. I'll take you up on your offer to point out the several reasons. Though I doubt you have any you will actually offer up.I could point out several reasons that should occur to anyone with the mental capacity of at least the average ten year old.
So you really think that without a serious medical condition, someone who is eating less than the body needs to operate on a daily biases they will not lose weight? What exactly do you think those multi billion dollar business targeting weight loss are doing? They are selling pills that cause you to feel full, (causing you to eat less = less cals) limit the amount you can eat by reducing the size of the stomach, (again less cals) or the length of intestinal tract to limit the amount the body can absorb ( and again, less cals) The others being thermo based, and they do what..... yep attempt to burn more cals. Hmm there's a pattern here.If weight loss was really as easy as saying "cals in < cals out", then there wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry being fuelled by it.
So wait, does this scientifically sound diet have more or less calories than the body needs? If there is a medical condition that eliminates cal in<cal out reducing weight, what does willpower have to do with it?It requires a scientifically sound diet plan, most importantly willpower, and the achievement of balance between a semi-sensible diet (that allows one to enjoy food as well as getting their dietary requirements) and exercise when all is said and done.
There is it! No, if you need to lose weight there is nothing about enjoying food, it is the enemy. You eat what you need to, not what you like or want. You have a choice, you can either complain about being fat or you can complain about the food you can eat, it's up to you. I'll be waiting for your explanation as to how cal in < cal out does not cause one to lose weight.that allows one to enjoy food
WOW a personal attack to start things off, nice. I'll take you up on your offer to point out the several reasons. Though I doubt you have any you will actually offer up.
So you really think that without a serious medical condition, someone who is eating less than the body needs to operate on a daily biases they will not lose weight?
So wait, does this scientifically sound diet have more or less calories than the body needs?
I don't even know where to begin. Weight loss is no more difficult than cals in < cals out. Regards of how you get to that state, if you take in less than you burn you will lose weight. To say that if one exercises as part of a weight loss program it will not have an impact because that person will eat more is about as stupid a thing as I have ever read. Even if the caloric intake stays the same and you exercise you will lose or not gain at the old rate as fast. The ONLY way you will not lose is if you eat more. It does not take a fucking mathematician or PHD to grasp that concept. To even flote the concept that exercise does not contribute to weight loss does a diservier to anyone looking for info on the subject. I am 285 and take in about 7000 - 8000 calories a day. If I quit working out and ate the same I would balloon to 350 in about a month. I can drop 10 pounds in about 2 weeks by limiting intake to 3500 and maintaining my current lifting schedule.
It wasn't intended as a personal attack. I can see why it could be interpreted that way, and my apologies for wording it ambiguously.
But since you ask:
1) Too few calories = fairly immediate problems such as fainting, lethargy, inability to be productive, etc.
2) an improperly balanced diet could result in a myriad of health problems; look up deficiency symptoms for many vitamins (and frankly in terms of scoring I'd say the list of symptoms for each deficiency counts as a reason in itself)
3) Balanced diet again - calories are obviously not the be-all and end-all of diet planning, it's perfectly possible to have an utterly crap diet which is calorifically sound.
4) Saying that it's purely a matter of cals in < cals out is gross over-simplification; anyone who has attempted to lose or gain weight will attest to the fact that say simply under-eating or over-eating for one day will not result in noticeable (ie. with a set of weighing scales) change, because the body is capable of altering its requirements depending on the amount of food that's coming in. For example, starvation tactics are well-known to cause inconsistent outcomes.
5) Gross-oversimplification again - I have a diet plan that has worked in the past to reach my target weight. Due to extraordinary circumstances I went off the plan for a while and then went back on it, and obviously my weight drifted off course. Despite being back on it for at least two months, my weight has barely shifted (though in the last week it has started to shift again).
6) Saying it's only just a matter of cals in < cals out will make many people think they can 'bargain' with their body along the lines of "well, if I grossly under-eat one day, it will off-set the day that I over-ate and I will continue to lose weight": Nope.
7) Peoples' lack of understanding of dietetics leading to assumptions based on the incorrect things that they "know", such as assuming that a food substance prepared in one way will have the same amount of calories to if that food has been prepared in a different way.
The OP has a serious medical condition, which is why I'm trying doing my best to avoid giving advice that might run counter to his doctor's opinion, because I don't know him, I haven't seen his notes, and I'm not a medical professional. Have a browse through his posts if you don't believe me.
Of course a scientifically sound diet (for someone who needs to lose weight) will have less calories in than for one for someone who is maintaining their weight. My original point was that you were grossly over-simplifying the solution by suggesting that that's all there is to it.
In the long term, the most important point by far is for a person to be able to come up with a diet plan that helps them maintain their weight and get a reasonable amount of exercise into the mix, because a diet plan that feels like self-punishment is not a sound long-term strategy for most people. The same applies at least to some extent with the diet a person adopts in order to invoke the weight change, because weight change is generally a slow process.
I agree, but your talking about what the person does in the face of what they know to be the opposite of what they need to do, not that cals in < cals out will lose weight.the problem is, most of society thinks 500 calories burning in a workout equates to 500 extra they could potentially eat..... when in reality, they would be so much better off not eating 500 and skipping the 500 calorie workout.
if you are putting things in on a priority list, diet is number 1 on the list... genetics is also a huge factor, and activity level is a distant 2/3rd after that.
the times I was my leanest, I did ZERO cardio. kept my regular lifting schedule... at my heaviest is when I trained/lifted/cardio'd the most. for some it has a HUGE psychological affect; that well, Im physically doing more, so I need to fuel that activity. I know personally, I not only want to eat more the more active I get, I need to eat more as well.... and having a want and a need really justifies that extra snack or meal.
There is nothing in your reply that disputes that cals in < cals out is the only way to lose weight.
perhaps because your babbling on about some other means by which to lose weight then consuming less than the body needs.You've completely missed the point in my responses to you. Never mind.
Right but with exercise you increase the amount burned every day. Now if you use that as a reason to eat more, then all bets are off.That asshole managed to lose weight eating twinkies. I dont think he exercised.
So yeah, it really is all about reducing calories.
Not so cutting-edge. This has been discussed since 2012 in literature, though depending how long since the doctor was in school, it might be considered cutting-edge.Apparently, they were reading some cutting-edge research? Exercise matters very little in weight-loss?
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/3/16845438/exercise-weight-loss-myth-burn-calories
(Don't get me wrong, regular exercise is good for you, but possibly, not that important for weight loss.)
Right but with exercise you increase the amount burned every day. Now if you use that as a reason to eat more, then all bets are off.
It is unhealthy as hell but yes, if you just eat table sugar under your basal rate you will lose weight. Your body really doesn't care what you eat, it burns what it needs to support itself and stores the rest.
Apparently, they were reading some cutting-edge research? Exercise matters very little in weight-loss?
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/3/16845438/exercise-weight-loss-myth-burn-calories
(Don't get me wrong, regular exercise is good for you, but possibly, not that important for weight loss.)
Since you mention math and science, lets consider chemistry class 101 (or physics 101). For the questions below, assume we are at the same point on Earth, so gravity is constant, and mass and weight are interchangeable.Weight loss is no more difficult than cals in < cals out.
The ONLY way you will not lose is if you eat more. It does not take a fucking mathematician or PHD to grasp that concept.
Since you mention math and science, lets consider chemistry class 101 (or physics 101). For the questions below, assume we are at the same point on Earth, so gravity is constant, and mass and weight are interchangeable.
Question 1) Suppose you have a black box. That black box + its contents weighs 200 lbs. Suppose you put 5 lbs of stuff into the black box. Suppose you take 3 lbs of stuff out of the black box. Now, how much does the black box + contents weigh?
Question 2) Suppose you have a red box. That red box + its contents weighs 200 lbs. Suppose you put stuff with 5000 calories into the red box. Suppose you take stuff with 3000 calories out of the red box. Now, how much does the red box + contents weigh?
Question 3) If you could only answer question #1, do you still think weight loss is just calories in vs calories out?
In reality, the only thing that matters for weight loss (mass loss) is mass in < mass out. This is the conservation of mass, a law that won't be broken unless you are a nuclear reactor. The problem is that mass out is difficult for people to measure. So we use calories as a substitute. But calories are not actually a perfect substitute. Focusing only on calories gets the mess that we have now of the vast majority of people finding that they can't exercise their way thin and the vast majority of people failing to meet and maintain their weight goals. Calories are related to conservation of mass, but you are focusing on a scientifically incorrect equation if you only consider calories.
Hint: I already covered that if you actually read my post.(Hint mass is not the same as weight.)
That is our point. What you think "everyone knows" is in fact wrong. It isn't far off from the truth, but it is in fact wrong. A calorie balance / imbalance is not the same thing as conservation of mass. If you consume more mass than you expel, then you will gain mass. No matter how many calories you consume or how many calories you burn.To argue against that is to argue that everything we know about weight loss, how the body works and caloric intake is wrong.
Absolutely, that should be your starting point. From what I recall, that would already be reducing your incoming calories per week by a few thousand.Sorry to hit-n-run post, I forgot I started this thread.
I think that the first thing that I need to do, is cut out the Mt. Dew and sugared Tea.
If I can do that, and eat moderately, I think that I can lose some weight.
Some of it too, may be hormone-related, and related to some fairly strong meds I'm on, that have weight gain as a side-effect.
I'd be interested in your source for your thinking behind this.Hint: I already covered that if you actually read my post.
That is our point. What you think "everyone knows" is in fact wrong. It isn't far off from the truth, but it is in fact wrong. A calorie balance / imbalance is not the same thing as conservation of mass. If you consume more mass than you expel, then you will gain mass. No matter how many calories you consume or how many calories you burn.
Now, it is hard to eat mass without eating calories. And it is hard to expel mass without using calories. So, they are certainly related. But the whole 3500 calories = 1 pound is a blatant non-scientific lie that far too many people perpetuate.