I'm not sure if I understand your analogy. I do know one thing for a fact: If you consume fewer calories than you expend - you will lose fat.
This is true - energy is energy, but calories are not a great way to represent it in the context of food and managing weight. It is currently the simplest way to compare one food product with another but I think something better could replace it.
Consider for example if the energy expended during the process of metabolising carbs, protein or dietary fat, and getting that energy stored as body fat, were considered a bit like an 'income tax' on calories-in. Consider a food package labelling system that used net values - calories minus 'tax' - instead of or in addition to calories - the raw energy in the food. Call the net value 'Metabolic Energy Units' or whatever. The result would be numbers on food packages that are much closer to the mark in answering the question that most people actually care about - the likely effect of that product on their weight. It still wouldn't be perfect, but it would perhaps be a step in the right direction.
I think it was Jason Fung (but others too) who said the calories in/calories out equation is based in physics, while the human body is about physiology. I don't have the smarts to explain that but it does seem to make sense given that it really does appear that it is what the human body DOES with the calories (which come from different sources) that counts. CICO, they say, is broadly accurate but can't explain hormonal responses.Calories in - calories out is still valid in a low carb context in my opinion. Yes 30% of protein calories are consumed in digestion, but that is part of the calories out equation. The human body cannot defy the laws of physics.
Thanks @AloeSvea ! But there was a lot of sciency stuff that I didn't quite grasp in the videos too. It's really thanks to Jason Fung for making the information accessible to everyone. I've just been watching another person who is saying that fructose is nature's way of saying winter is on its way - because fruit was available in autumn in cooler climates, and where people with an expression of a certain gene put on more body fat in response to fructose and therefore had a better chance of surviving the winter.You had the smarts,@jpscloud, to explain it perfectly well.
No, it isn't a fact. Often if you consume fewer calories your Resting Metabolic Rate will drop - an adaptation against starvation which 'bomb calorimeters' don't have!I'm not sure if I understand your analogy. I do know one thing for a fact: If you consume fewer calories than you expend - you will lose fat.
Yes, this is what happened to me, and the more you restrict calories, the less you need. I dieted so much that I could no longer lose weight on 1000 calories a day. Yet when I stopped dieting I found I lost 7 pounds that year (having previously gained 7 pounds a year at least)No, it isn't a fact. Often if you consume fewer calories your Resting Metabolic Rate will drop - an adaptation against starvation which 'bomb calorimeters' don't have!
I agree. The issue with reducing calories is that it provokes hunger, sends the body into starvation mode, and reduces metabolic rates. Calorie reduction as a means to weight loss is not all that effective in the real world.No, it isn't a fact. Often if you consume fewer calories your Resting Metabolic Rate will drop - an adaptation against starvation which 'bomb calorimeters' don't have!
Yes and no. As you lose weight, yes - the number of calories you need (RMR) will decrease - slightly. This is mainly because you are getting smaller and your body needs fewer calories to survive. You could mitigate this a bit with strength training.No, it isn't a fact. Often if you consume fewer calories your Resting Metabolic Rate will drop - an adaptation against starvation which 'bomb calorimeters' don't have!
No! Starvation mode is not a myth. You have simply been lucky not to suffer from it.Yes and no. As you lose weight, yes - the number of calories you need (RMR) will decrease - slightly. This is mainly because you are getting smaller and your body needs fewer calories to survive. You could mitigate this a bit with strength training.
As for "starvation mode" - this is pretty much a myth. Unless *maybe* you are actually starving - like zero calories eaten. But then you have bigger problems. Read up on the Minnesota starvation experiment.
No! Starvation mode is not a myth. You have simply been lucky not to suffer from it.
Back in 2007 my son and I had flu. We could eat nothing for several days and after that we managed around 200 cals for a couple of days and then around 400 -600 for a few days. The worst of the illness was over after 11 days. So ww consumed an average of 180 calories a day over the 11 days.
My son lost 11 1/2 pounds in 11 days. I lost just half a pound. That is starvation mode, brought on by many years of cutting calories and in doing so wrecking my metabolism. So don't tell me that some study or other has proved it doesn't exist. This is my lived experience and if it doesn't agree with the science, then the 'science' is wrong. It was after that bout of flu that I realised that there was no way that calorie counting would help me lose weight.
I've just read a little about the Minnesota starvation experiment. 6 months on around 1500 calories to start with. Wow ! I wouldn't call that semi starvation, I used to put weight on consuming that many. And the experiment was for only a year? In 2007 I had been trying to lose weight by reducing calories for over 25 years. Madness
See attached - graph of my resting heart rate over the Christmas period - pulled from my Fitbit. I went off my diet on December 18th, back on it for a few days between Christmas and New Year's, and back on it from Jan 2nd. The graph represents my body's efforts to reduce energy expenditure as you're describing - reducing my heart rate at rest to conserve energy when I'm eating less. I've lost 7.5Kg since then on a calorie controlled diet with exercise and my RHR averages around 63 BPM. No plateau, because there's only so much adapting a body can do to conserve energy. Just eat less and/or exercise more using weekly weight loss rate to guide changes and you'll pass the point at which a plateau would occur if your calories and exercise were fixed from the beginning. I do experience cold hands and feet sometimes and am often lethargic, particularly after exercise. I'm eating 150g to 160g of carbs per day.Your metabolic rate does reduce as weight comes off, but it also reduces far more to balance the intake of fuel. This is the reason that anyone on a calorie controlled diet plateaus. The body switches into an energy saving mode, it doesn't waste calories, it cuts out the less necessary functions, why do so many dieters feel the cold more, simply because the body saves heating energy by concentrating on heating the core and brain. lethargy is the bodies way of stopping wasting energy by moving unless needed.
The only way to avoid this is by varying calorie intake whilst dieting, to stop the energy saving mode.
How can I possibly believe the science when my own experience says otherwise?! My body doesn't react in that way. It did for the first 6 years or so of trying to diet and it was after that that I had to reduce calories more and more while getting ever fatter.Fair enough, if you don't want to believe in science, there is no point debating.
You missed the bit about the gruelling exercise they had to do.
At no point did I dismiss anyone's experience as "rubbish". All I said was that all weight loss ultimately works on a calorie deficit. Even a low carb high fat one. I don't rubbish anyones diet, and in fact follow a lower carb/GI diet myself.How can I possibly believe the science when my own experience says otherwise?! My body doesn't react in that way. It did for the first 6 years or so of trying to diet and it was after that that I had to reduce calories more and more while getting ever fatter.
The Minnesota Experiment was conducted on men. It has no relevance to me as a woman. Our hormones are different.
Please do not dismiss posters' real life experiences as rubbish. How can you possibly know what I have been through during the last 40+ years?
I don't rate Ancel Keys as a top scientist. He cherry picked countries in his 7 nations study. It was his theories that turned us away from saturated fats and cooked breakfasts in the 70s. It was after this that the nation got fat. Fat satiates us and is therefore helpful in controlling weight. Newer science has proved him to be wrong. My cholesterol is lower on a high fat diet than it was on a low calorie, low fat diet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?