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.

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.

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, I’d never recommend anyone try to actually eat like that. I’m 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 is… clear undeniable proof that fat loss occurs strictly as a result of eating less total calories."

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!