Weight Loss Support - Article on REAL fat loss...




View Full Version : Article on REAL fat loss...


JossFit
01-25-2013, 07:42 PM
I just feel like this is common sense and worth the read!

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat/


Garnet2727
01-25-2013, 07:54 PM
That is an excellent article that has certainly put some things into perspective for me. Particularly since I'm battling some physical limitations right now. Thank you for posting it.

coffeeshopgirl
01-25-2013, 08:02 PM
Good article JossFit - thanks for sharing!

It's amazing how simple it really is. I have always loved the quote "It's simple, but not easy" when it comes to challenges, and I think this article really speaks to that.

Simply put, just create a calorie deficit. However, food can be so many things for stress eaters, and eating in excess can give you a greater comfort than sitting with the most skilled counselor. While it's simple, it's certainly not (always) easy.

I definitely needed to see this article. Way to bring it back to basics! Thanks again Joss!


elvislover324
01-25-2013, 08:06 PM
Thanks for sharing that article. It's a nice and easy read for me, some articles that get linked are too complicated for me (lol).

The comments after the article and additional links were helpful too.

sontaikle
01-25-2013, 08:09 PM
Word. It's amazing how people just don't want to hear it.

RavenWolf
01-25-2013, 08:18 PM
Fantastic article! Thanks for sharing!

Vex
01-25-2013, 08:46 PM
100% agree.

JohnP
01-25-2013, 09:36 PM
There is some gold in the comments. He should have put this into the primary article, near the top.

So many people, when you tell them fat loss is an equation of energy and energy is measured in calories will start to protest in a variety of ways about this, that and the other thing. While all those things matter for a number of reasons nothing will matter if you're not in an energy deficit. He says it well...

"I am in COMPLETE agreement with the fact that the source of your calories, the foods you eat, the quality of those foods, your full macronutrient breakdown, meal frequency, diet organization and so on are all definitely important factors of your diet in terms of adherence and sustainability (and obviously overall health, too).

They are the things that will allow you to consistently eat the amount of calories you need to eat to make your body do what you want it to do. No doubt about that at all.

The purpose of this post was to point out that despite the things being said/written/sold by some very stupid people on a fairly regular basis, itís ALWAYS about calories first and foremostÖ not the other way around."

Silverfire
01-25-2013, 10:06 PM
Great link!! Thanks

JohnP
01-26-2013, 12:30 PM
This should be a sticky

novangel
01-26-2013, 12:57 PM
Awesome link!

Simply put… a caloric deficit. That is the scientifically proven “secret” to losing fat. It literally can’t happen any other way.

Truth! I didn't learn any of this until I came to 3FC. I'm eternally grateful for this website and all the information the members provide. :hug:

Prior to coming here I was totally clueless.

novangel
01-26-2013, 01:16 PM
For sure make this a sticky!

newleaf123
01-26-2013, 01:51 PM
Loved it!

Daimere
01-26-2013, 01:53 PM
I love it. I get so sick of the phrase "eating clean" being thrown around like it's a holy weight loss grail (especially around tumblr).

LockItUp
01-26-2013, 02:49 PM
I don't buy it. There has GOT to be another way, an easier way. Like a pill, or cutting out one specific food, or hopping up and down on one foot 2 minutes a day!!!!! ;)


Thanks for sharing!!! LOVED it!

kaelah
01-26-2013, 03:07 PM
Excellent article, and one I will continue to refer to if I'm feeling lost. Thanks!

Moving Forward
01-26-2013, 04:03 PM
Great article! Thanks for sharing.

ChickieChicks
01-26-2013, 04:43 PM
Best article I've ever seen on the topic! SUMS IT ALL UP. :)

pavvie
01-26-2013, 05:59 PM
:bravo::cp::cp:

excellent article... thanks for posting! I have had various iterations of the calories in vs. out conversation with friends, family, coworkers, etc. I am always baffled by individuals who insist that other factors are immeasurably more important than just keeping track of what fuel you're giving your body (and how disappointed people are when I tell them that's how I've lost and then managed my own weight). I think I'll be sending this around to friends.

Samantha18
01-26-2013, 08:41 PM
Great article! Thanks for sharing!

amandie
01-27-2013, 05:41 PM
I do not know why but I totally read this in (what I would think to be) JohnP's voice. Something about that no-nonsense-straight-to-the-point really made it that way for me, lol. Lovelovelove the article! Agree that it should be a sticky.

Amarantha2
01-27-2013, 07:03 PM
Amen.

Cali Doll
01-27-2013, 07:07 PM
Excellent article!! Thanks for sharing!

JossFit
01-28-2013, 06:13 AM
Glad you all liked it! I'm pretty to-the-point so it really resonated with me as well. I was having a very similar converstation with someone just the day before I saw this (via Facebook) and the person was crying and lamenting her situation and saying "but I'm active and I don't eat fast food so if you can tell me why I'm huge you'd become my favorite person..." (Or something to that effect).
I tried explaining the calorie concept but I think it fell on deaf ears... too much work to count them up I suppose.

JudgeDread
01-28-2013, 11:07 AM
Definately a good article. It's funny how I try to explain this to my coworkers. One is on the Paleo Diet, yet I tried to explain that it's still calories that make a difference.

But people want to believe what they want...

BeachBreeze2010
01-28-2013, 11:13 AM
I certainly agree with what is written! However, I think that weight loss for the sole purpose of weight loss misses the point. Yes, I want to lose weight - BUT I want it to be a side effect of living a healthy lifestyle. I eat healthy nutritious foods, aka unprocessed, mostly vegan diet, because it is good for my body. Inside that, I count calories because I am trying to lose weight. I could eat healthfully and not lose weight if I eat too many calories of healthful foods. Honestly, I would consider myself better off even carrying extra weight if it's for that reason rather than my old lifestyle of eating too many calories of nutritionally empty foods. But, I digress.

I agree with the article and understand that he's trying to make a simple point but I would hate for someone to sacrifice their health by simply cutting calories to lose weight as if that in itself will improve their health. I see way too many people on here struggling with hunger and staying on a meal plan that doesn't include healthy foods. Perhaps if we incorporate both - healthful foods and calorie restriction, we will lose weight and be healthy and stick to the new lifestyle.

JohnP
01-28-2013, 12:51 PM
I eat healthy nutritious foods, aka unprocessed, mostly vegan diet, because it is good for my body.

I would hate for someone to sacrifice their health by simply cutting calories to lose weight as if that in itself will improve their health.

These two statements are baffling to me. Unless you've got your own definition of what improves health - losing weight by itself does improve health and the body makes little differentiation between macro and micro nutrient sources.

I eat quite a bit of processed food and meats, aka "unhealthy" or "dirty" foods and I'd be willing to put my health up against yours or anyone's on this board. How do you measure health? I'm not entirely sure - blood panel levels - resting heart rate - blood pressure? I'm probably deficient in vitamin D right now but when the sun starts shining a little more that should level out.

To take it a step further, I've yet to see any evidence that tells me one diet is superior to another long term health so long that the bodies micronutrient needs are being met. The China study showed that there is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to longevity and avoiding disease. Other lifestyle factors seem to be at least if not more important that the specific diet one follows. The exception would appear to be the diet you're proclaiming to be healthy. The vegan diet.

I personally don't consider a diet where one needs to be supplementing micronutrients to maintain their life to be one we as humans are designed to thrive on. I suppose through very careful dietary choices you could live without supplementing vitamin B but would you attempt to breastfeed a child for any length of time without supplementation? I wouldn't risk it.

Sorry for what probably seems like a rant. I just wouldn't want someone to read your post and think that they should start eating a vegan diet to be healthy.

gailr42
01-28-2013, 01:42 PM
Great article.

Amandie, I had the very same thought - JohnP, for sure.

Devoncroix
01-28-2013, 02:06 PM
This article is spot on.

Sorry this post is a bit long!

I gained all of my current weight eating 80-90% whole & organic (not the high calorie organically processed kind either) foods. Granted I have/had a bad habit of drinking my calories (soda made with real sugar, high calorie coffee house coffee's, Mike Lemonade's, and various cocktails & wine) but most of the weight gain was simply due to overeating "healthy" food. Whole grains, whole wheat pastas, brown rice, nuts, grass fed organic meat, cooked veggies with organic butter. All of this food is healthy in moderation but I simply ate too much of them. Combined with the fact that I had 3 abdominal surgeries in three years so my calories out were pretty low, I gained a considerable amount of weight.

What surprises me the most about the reality of calories out > calories in = weight loss is that it is the absolutely last thing people want to hear. It is/should be such a simple concept. Once I figured it out, weight loss became so easy!

The first time I lost weight I started by looking into all the "methods" that were out there. All of the resources that are available online now were not available then, or at least I never found them. My doctor at that time was not a lot of help and just said to pick something and stick with it. But pick what? I noticed that low carb meant high fat, low fat meant high carb. I even tried one fad diet, the three day diet (my m-i-l still swears by it), that was a disaster. About a week into it and my husband told me to STOP. I was dizzy and unfocused and almost fainted a few times.

I always have found artificial sweeteners to be dangerous, but I was told splenda was a new product that was natural and wonderful. So I tried some yogurt that had it. I became extremely ill, I didn't even realize it was the yogurt at first. Every morning I had extreme nausea for a couple of weeks, I went to my doctor because I thought I was pregnant. I had a full bloodwork panel and nothing showed up. I started googling, and somehow stumbled on a site that mentioned splenda and & digestive issues. I stopped eating the yogurt, then was fine again. No more artificial sweeteners for me.

So here I was a mess, I was actually in tears one day, I was working out and going to the gym but could not figure out how to get my diet right. Finally I sat down and really looked at all the options, what did they have in common? Fewer calories. We had actually been considering switching to whole foods anyway because we had watched Super Size Me. So we started switching which made it easier for me to cut calories. I eyeballed and kind of guessed how much I should be eating based on how hungry I felt. I switched what I was eating until I could eat the fewest amount of calories without getting hungry. I lost 100 pounds using this simple equation (and was never hungry). Since I wasn't logging actual numbers I couldn't figure out how to stop losing though. This time I plan to focus on getting to the point I felt the healthiest last time and switching the equation to calories in = calories out = steady weight.

TLDR; calories in < calories out = weight loss = weight loss in easy (to understand) mode.

April Snow
01-28-2013, 02:23 PM
To muddy the waters a bit, here is an interesting article about why a calorie isn't always a calorie, and why 2 people won't always process the same calorie in the same way.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/

JossFit
01-28-2013, 02:38 PM
AprilSnow I wholeheartedly agree that macronutrient ratios change the game drastically, but for many on this forum, worrying about macronutrients ahead of overall calories is getting them into trouble.

The article is meant for more of the weight-loss 'every man' so to speak.

BeachBreeze2010
01-28-2013, 03:34 PM
These two statements are baffling to me. Unless you've got your own definition of what improves health - losing weight by itself does improve health and the body makes little differentiation between macro and micro nutrient sources.

I eat quite a bit of processed food and meats, aka "unhealthy" or "dirty" foods and I'd be willing to put my health up against yours or anyone's on this board. How do you measure health? I'm not entirely sure - blood panel levels - resting heart rate - blood pressure? I'm probably deficient in vitamin D right now but when the sun starts shining a little more that should level out.

To take it a step further, I've yet to see any evidence that tells me one diet is superior to another long term health so long that the bodies micronutrient needs are being met. The China study showed that there is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to longevity and avoiding disease. Other lifestyle factors seem to be at least if not more important that the specific diet one follows. The exception would appear to be the diet you're proclaiming to be healthy. The vegan diet.

I personally don't consider a diet where one needs to be supplementing micronutrients to maintain their life to be one we as humans are designed to thrive on. I suppose through very careful dietary choices you could live without supplementing vitamin B but would you attempt to breastfeed a child for any length of time without supplementation? I wouldn't risk it.

Sorry for what probably seems like a rant. I just wouldn't want someone to read your post and think that they should start eating a vegan diet to be healthy.

I think you've oversimplified what I'm saying. I am not trying to say that the only healthy way of eating is vegan. That is my choice, but not for everyone. What I am saying is that in the article, he talks about being able to lose weight even living on Twinkies as long as you cut calories. So, yes, you could do that. But that's not healthy and to me, misses the point of weight loss. The person that lives on drive thru food, foods that are nutritionally empty and junk foods but keeps their calories low and loses weight has not improved their health as much as they think.

JohnP
01-28-2013, 04:33 PM
I think you've oversimplified what I'm saying....The person that lives on drive thru food, foods that are nutritionally empty and junk foods but keeps their calories low and loses weight has not improved their health as much as they think.

I understand exactly what you're saying and you just did it again. Where are these "nutritionally empty" foods you're referring to? Also, you're making an extreme example to try and prove your point. Where has anyone suggested a person should live on drive through and junk foods?

As for the twinkie diet - you may have not read the whole article because the author says the following:.

"Yes, what Mark did is a CRAZY extreme example, and NO, Iíd never recommend anyone try to actually eat like that. Iím all about getting a sufficient amount of protein, fat and carbs primarily from higher quality, natural, nutrient-dense foods you enjoy, and keeping the typical junkier foods to a sane yet enjoyable and sustainable minimum.

What I want you to do however is look at this example for what it isÖ clear undeniable proof that fat loss occurs strictly as a result of eating less total calories."

BeachBreeze2010
01-28-2013, 04:41 PM
Thank you for sharing your opinions, but let's agree to disagree, John. I feel like you are taking my words and spinning them to be a counter point for an angle that I am not taking. I don't want to argue. To each his own.

devadiva
01-28-2013, 07:27 PM
I read all the articles and find them interesting,I have one question that did not seem to be addressed.....if you lower your calories to get the deficit.. Through eating and exercise,by a large degree after a period of time your body adjusts to fewer calories and learns to live on that.AKA starvation mode.......For instance I am 61 fairly active( waitress) need to lose 15lbs more.I am at 144 5'5" my allotted calories are around 1300 a day. To maintain so to lose need to drop near 1,000. i already run 3 to 4 days 40 to 70 min each and weight train 2days 60 min. I am not losing at all right now at 900 to 1000 calories a day, for the last 2 weeks.And yes I do measure and track EVERYThing.

JohnP
01-28-2013, 08:41 PM
Thank you for sharing your opinions, but let's agree to disagree, John. I feel like you are taking my words and spinning them to be a counter point for an angle that I am not taking. I don't want to argue. To each his own.

Sounds reasonable and I apologize I am not trying to spin your words or make an argument for you that you're not making. Perhaps we don't disagree at all on ths subject as I clearly don't understand your position.

One final thing to conside on the twinkie diet. Dispite eating mostly crap his health markers (blood test results) improved. Obviously it wasn't his diet so it must have been simply losing the fat. A different diet could have improved them more, I'm sure.

Renwomin
01-28-2013, 08:58 PM
When I started reading this I internally started saying, "But wait, wait wait!" then I realized the author's point. What threw me for a loop at first was the fact that many of the things mentioned in the bullets can really help you create that caloric deficit. I'm so used to articles like this to be about some secret, odd way to lose weight! :dizzy:

35X35
01-28-2013, 10:53 PM
I really loooveeed this article! As someone who has been on every plan imaginable, I lost weight on every single one and at more or less the same rate (so they all "work" when there's a calorie deficit).

I GAINED a lot of weight eating very, very "cleanly" because I was overeating and causing a surplus. In fact, most of the weight I've gained has been on a very "clean" diet -- not because I felt eating clean would prevent weight gain, but because I just didn't keep track of calories and overate.

I've eaten pretty "clean" in general over the last 10 years (a lot of raw foods, mostly vegetarian, very little processed, no added sugar blah blah) and still got over 300lbs so I know for a FACT eating clean in and of itself has NO bearing on weight.

At one point in my early 20's I was the slimmest I have been in my adult life living on cigarettes, diet coke, and one very large unhealthy meal a day at the food court when I worked in retail at the mall. I'm not suggesting I was the picture of health or recommending that way of living, just sayin'.

I think for me, different plans help to either increase or decrease cravings and the chance of overeating so they "work" in that way to aid in what is really important: creating a calorie deficit. For example, many people find eating lower carb helps curb the tendency in them to over-eat or binge so it aids them in maintaining a calorie deficit, so they say low carb "works".

Anyway, I totally agree with the article and I like the straightforward, no nonsense style of it :)

sontaikle
01-29-2013, 08:14 AM
I think what happens with this article and others talking about weight is that we immediately start equating weight loss with overall health. Eating nutritious foods does not necessarily make one thin, while eating unhealthy foods does not necessarily make one fat. Just as the article said, it's about caloric intake FOR WEIGHT. If you want to worry about your health, that's another matter entirely.

Is it a good idea to eat twinkies all day? Probably not. You can lose weight eating them if you watch how many calories you eat, but you're not going to get much nutrition from eating twinkies.

We all know the regular soda-addicted fast food connoisseur who barely fits into a size 0. We get angry because we eat healthy and exercise while they sit on their bum eating a Big Mac and never gain weight. We pull our hair out, wondering why when the truth is simply something we don't want to hear: They're eating the appropriate amount of calories and we aren't.

I know how it is. I got angry for years, just pretty much accepting the fact that I must have a slow metabolism (I don't; I had my thyroid tested), I must be large framed (I'm not), or it must be in my genetics that I was obese (No. We all just eat too much). When I finally pushed the excuses aside and realized that I was eating too many calories—it wasn't my metabolism, frame size or genetics—I was able to lose the weight.

NolaMama
01-29-2013, 08:50 AM
This is a wonderful article. I know from personal experience that it doesn't really matter what you eat but how much of it you eat.

When I started my sophmore year of college I weighed in at about 155. Because of a stressful and hectic schedule I really only had time for one meal a day... Which usually consisted of a burrito, bag of chips and a diet coke. By winter break I was down to 127 and held steady the rest of the year. Not to mention, I went for a blood work up that year and my family physician told me I was one of the healthiest college students he had seen in his career. Of course, I didn't tell him that I had been living on a diet of greasy mexican food and processed snacks. I accepted the compliment and continued on my junk food diet until the following year when I started to settle into my routine and made more time for additional meals. That's when I started packing on the weight again.

That's always stuck with me. And even now with a less hectic life I only wish I had the willpower to hold out for only one meal daily. Would I be at a "healthy" weight again? I believe there is another article out there based on a "diet" where you fast for 24 hours, only eating one meal a day. The people who follow this swear by it and there is no rules or restrictions on how much or what you can and cant eat. Makes you think!

BeachBreeze2010
01-29-2013, 09:10 AM
This is a wonderful article. I know from personal experience that it doesn't really matter what you eat but how much of it you eat.

When I started my sophmore year of college I weighed in at about 155. Because of a stressful and hectic schedule I really only had time for one meal a day... Which usually consisted of a burrito, bag of chips and a diet coke. By winter break I was down to 127 and held steady the rest of the year. Not to mention, I went for a blood work up that year and my family physician told me I was one of the healthiest college students he had seen in his career. Of course, I didn't tell him that I had been living on a diet of greasy mexican food and processed snacks. I accepted the compliment and continued on my junk food diet until the following year when I started to settle into my routine and made more time for additional meals. That's when I started packing on the weight again.

That's always stuck with me. And even now with a less hectic life I only wish I had the willpower to hold out for only one meal daily. Would I be at a "healthy" weight again? I believe there is another article out there based on a "diet" where you fast for 24 hours, only eating one meal a day. The people who follow this swear by it and there is no rules or restrictions on how much or what you can and cant eat. Makes you think!

This was my point - yes you can lose weight and be thin eating this way. Of course. Weight is calories in/out. I just have a hard time believing that creating a calorie deficit with junk food is a way to health. Just pointing out the difference between healthy eating and weight loss. I eat healthy to take care of my body and I count calories to lose weight. My definition of healthy eating was not my point. I'm sorry for getting my feathers ruffled but feel like as soon as people hear the "v" word, they focus on that and miss the rest. :hug:

Rana
01-29-2013, 10:30 AM
The one thing I did want to contribute to the discussion (and I do agree with the article) is that the issue is knowing how many calories you need to maintain weight, lose weight, or gain weight.

I can guess that if I eat 3000 calories a day, I will gain.

I can guess that if I eat 300 calories a day, I will lose.

But finding the in-between range is really difficult. It is trial and error and frustrating trial and error because even other people who are your size may not have the same caloric needs to gain, lose, or maintain.

My biggest frustration with calories in/calories out is that it does simplify it too much, because we don't have an accurate measure for what is just "right" to lose or gain.

The equations that we use to get a guideline are just that -- a guideline. It may work for you and it may not.

It's only been in the last year that I've discovered that I can't compare myself to other women my age, size, or height in terms of caloric needs because of PCOS. Recent studies have show that women with PCOS need less calories to maintain, and thus, gain on an amount that another woman would either maintain or lose.

:(

The crux of the losing weight issue is there too -- knowing what you need exactly.

BeachBreeze2010
01-29-2013, 10:47 AM
It is interesting because there are studies out there about how fat itself can be an "organ" of sorts. When we have too much of it, our bodies function differently - and not in a good way - hormone disruption, lowered insulin resistance, etc. Losing that extra fat does help improve health because now the extra fat is gone. I would completely expect blood levels to improve with weight loss regardless of how it was done - and that in itself is a success. It really amazes me to see all of the mechanisms our bodies have to keep fat, especially once we have it. It can feel defeating at times, but the overall theory works - calories in/out - and I take a lot of comfort from that. When the scale isn't moving, I remind myself that I am not a deviation of science. Eventually creating a calorie deficit will work - and if it doesn't (over a period of a few weeks, not days), then I must not be creating a calorie deficit and I need to go back and make sure I am recording and measuring EVERYTHING. And that is the only way - I think - to know what your calorie intake needs to be to lose weight - track, record, measure, observe, trial and error, correct where needed.

guacamole
02-06-2013, 04:11 PM
For me it's not the concept of creating a calories deficit that is confusing, it's how to calculate how many calories you are burning to create the deficit.

Calculating the number of calories I am eating during the day is pretty simple thanks to technology. I know that I can eat fewer calories than I need to maintain my weight to create a calorie deficit - but the eating fewer calories alone at this point will not create enough of a deficit to help me lose weight (unless I want to live on 500 calories per day, which I don't). I also need to burn calories through exercise and that's where it gets tricky. I've used apps to track walking, jogging, biking, treadmills, elliptical. I burn a few hundred calories at most. I don't get it when I read that people ate 1800 calories for the day, calculated that they burned 2200 calories through exercise, and so wound up with a calorie deficit of -400 for the day.

How the heck are they burning 2200 calories per day? I've biked 20 miles and had a 550 calorie burn to show for it according to my exercise app. Are people counting breathing, pooping, stair climbing, digesting their food, blinking? How do you get that much of a calorie deficit in one day? That's what confuses me, because people's calculations seem so random when it comes to counting calories burned through exercise. I sure don't have a handle on it.

Skellig19
02-06-2013, 04:58 PM
Are people counting breathing, pooping, stair climbing, digesting their food, blinking? How do you get that much of a calorie deficit in one day?

For the most part, yes.

For example my BMR (Base metabolic rate) is 1900-2000 approximately. These are the calories used to "run my body." So to maintain my weight I would need to eat around 1900-2000 calories a day. To lose weight more quickly, you can add exercise which will burn a few more calories (say 200), leaving me 2200 calories to eat to maintain. To lose 1 pound I need to create a deficit of around 3500 calories a week. That's 500 calories a day. Without exercising I need to eat 1500 calories to lose 1 pound a week. With exercising I can increase that to 1700 calories. If you want to lose 2 pounds, you need to eat less.

As you get lighter, your BMR will get lower so when I reach my goal weight I will probably need to eat less than 2000 calories to maintain.

Make sense? Your body uses a ton of calories to function. It's pretty neat!

freelancemomma
02-06-2013, 06:12 PM
I don't get it when I read that people ate 1800 calories for the day, calculated that they burned 2200 calories through exercise, and so wound up with a calorie deficit of -400 for the day.

Maybe the 2,200 represents the total energy expenditure: BMR + NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) + TEF (thermic effect of food) + exercise.

F.

Arctic Mama
02-06-2013, 06:58 PM
AprilSnow I wholeheartedly agree that macronutrient ratios change the game drastically, but for many on this forum, worrying about macronutrients ahead of overall calories is getting them into trouble.

The article is meant for more of the weight-loss 'every man' so to speak.

Certainly. KISS, right? I lost the first fifty pounds with a bunch of cheats and JUST calorie counting. I didn't focus on my macros or even my body's feedback, and lost just fine. Tweaking prematurely might have just driven me crazy unnecessarily. Beyond that I was fighting my endocrine system with hypoglycemia, the physiological push to regain homeostasis at my prior weight, and autoimmune symptoms that hadn't cleared up. That necessitated being more careful with my food.

But while I certainly believe certain diets are far more healthful than others, or easier to manage and live on than others, in the end energy balance DOES matter. And for a good handful of dieters, it is the only part of the equation they need to concern themselves with to gain the biggest leaps in losses and energy. Fine tuning is something of a maintenance/perfecting game, not one needed for basic restructuring of food consumption :)

JohnP
02-06-2013, 07:04 PM
Maybe the 2,200 represents the total energy expenditure: BMR + NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) + TEF (thermic effect of food) + exercise.

F.

What about SPA? :D

TripSwitch
02-06-2013, 08:28 PM
I could definitely use more SPA in my life... and I wouldn't mind going to a spa either come to think of it... :)

Pink Hurricane
02-06-2013, 11:32 PM
LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS! This should definitely be a sticky, it's all about science and physics, and that's not my inner nerd coming out... :D

JossFit
02-07-2013, 06:15 AM
Certainly. KISS, right?

Exactly - at least at the onslaught! (KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid)

Fine tuning is something of a maintenance/perfecting game, not one needed for basic restructuring of food consumption :)

Definitely. Sometimes getting people to realize the difference is a exercise in futility. Some people CANNOT be convinced that macronutrient ratios or food quality play a part, while others swear up and down that macronutrient ratios are the ONLY thing that matters. Why is it so hard to imagine that it really is BOTH, but that the degree that each plays a role varies?