I don't really think this is consistent. Basically yes if you eat less calories than are used you must lose weight, but the ease of doing this depends on what you are eating.
I don't really think this is consistent. Basically yes if you eat less calories than are used you must lose weight, but the ease of doing this depends on what you are eating.
I know you can use a food scale to get a more accurate estimate of calories in but I'm still at a loss to determine an accurate estimate of calories out.
The trick IMO is to simply eat the same thing every day. That way you can remove things as needed to maintain weight loss. But, also adjust based on what you actually eat not just your goals.
And die from boredom removing the problem of obesity completely ...
Everyone has the right to choose which kind of cost they are willing to endure in order to lose weight - this includes refusing to pay any cost at all (and not losing weight).
Nothing comes for free.
Calorie counting works and eating fewer calories than you burn is the only way to lose weight. Far too many people start exercising a bit, continue to eat in the manner they've become accustomed to, and wonder why they don't lose weight. It's not rocket science; you just need to eat less and (probably) eat better.
Counting calories doesn't really work. What's working is restricting insulin in your system which allows your body to burn fat. When you have insulin it's impossible to burn fat.
Suggest having a ready of some of Gary Taubes and something like https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-...
It is, for the most part, but you're right; insulin spikes are a problem and you should not be gorging yourself on simple carbohydrates when on a diet. Of course, protein and fats can also contribute (ask any keto fan), so you have to eat in moderation and be mindful of your macros.
>Counting calories doesn't really work
Utter and complete nonsense. I have been actively monitoring and modifying my weight via calorie counting for more than two decades. I started boxing at 10, playing football and wrestling at 13, and to this day I still count calories and strength train at an intermediate competitive level ('competitive' in terms of what I lift in the big three at my weight, not to imply that I actually compete.)
I have helped many other people lose weight via calorie counting. It works, and to claim otherwise is simply ignorant. Of course quality of food is the next subject you broach with anyone trying to lose weight. No one should expect to lose weight and be healthy by eating 1200 calories of cake and another 500 in potato chips each day.
When you eat good food (increase your fat and protein as a % of your macros, stay away from processed sugars/carbs, increase your intake of vegetables, etc.) and limit calorie intake you lose weight. Speaking to most people in terms of insulin is a waste of time. They have no simple way to measure that, but if they eat under maintenance and eat generally good food they _will_ lose fat, and that's the goal.
It's simply a lot easier to tell someone to watch their calorie count and eat good food than it is to tell them to monitor their insulin levels. They get the second bit right if they do the first.
That's the opposite of the diets goals, is an easy issue for people to incur while thinking they're on track, and keto can make you more susceptible to GNG :)
Sausage and cheese is totally kosher: in moderation, ideally beside some leafy greens.
That is why it is important to keep protein under a certain threshold when on keto.
The other challenge is estimating how many calories you burn each day. There can be a large variation in resting metabolic rate let alone how many calories you burn with exercise.
These aren't accurate at all. How would they be? All they have to work with is height, weight, and BPM.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-fitness-tracker-ac...
Disclosure: I work for Fitbit, but don't speak for Fitbit.
I concede that Garmin integrates with chest straps that are more accurate, but who's going to wear one of those for around-the-clock calorie counting?
I realized that what I eat is fairly stable. There may be 20 different things I eat regularly. Eventually, I started memorizing the most often used ones.
I noticed that there is a pattern to which types of foods have what amounts of calories. For example, fresh fruit and many non-starchy veggies tend to be at around 50kcal/100gr. Starchy veggies got for about 100kcal/100gr. Meats are at around 250kcal/100gr. And so on. Using this, I was able to get estimates for things I don't eat often without needing to Google everything. I did look up things I ate a few times in order to test my estimates.
It is not super-accurate. However, writing it down is more important that writing it down accurately to the last calories.
Many parts of this process were not accurate. I weighed things roughly using an analog scale. I often estimated portion size by eye, as I got a sense of how much 200grams of meat is. I counted the calories using estimates a lot of time. It worked nonetheless.
After 6 months, my weight loss vs. estimated weight loss from calories spreadsheet was within 1kg! I was blown away by how close this was. It makes sense since things like your base metabolic rate and actual calories expenditure also varies, so super-accurate record keeping of food-in was not necessary.
You're right that being off by 100 calories systematically will force a bias. The trick is to be off in one direction one day, and in the other the other day. This way, the error mostly cancels out.
Measure your weight. Track your calorie consumption for N days, then measure your weight again. Then use the 3500 calories per pound conversion to figure out what calories out must have been to cause that.
For example, if over 30 days you ate 2000 calories per day and lost 3 pounds, then you must have burned 3500 * 3 excess calories total. That averages out to 350 calorie deficit per day, so your calories out must have been 2350.
Or if you ate 2000 calories per day for 30 days and your weight remained the same, then your calories out was 2000 as well.
I've been calorie counting for a long time (initially to lose weight, now just habit), and I do this sort of calculation every month or two in order to maintain my weight within a ~5 pound range.
The devil is in the details.
Sure the rule is simple: Calories in == Calories out
But you need to find out rather exactly how much you really burn, it's often less than you think.
And then you have to eat stuff that doesn't fill your daily calories with one meal, or else you will crave more later that day.
I tried that too. Lost 7lbs in 7 days and then a few more. I regularly skip breakfast, but to really make it work skipping lunch and keeping eating to a 4-hour window was really effective. I need to do some more of that. And it does reduce your appetite after a few days.
I can completely believe that helped in his endeavour.
Plus some people I trust said it was “good for your health”, so I didn’t bother to look further and just took their word for it.
Most of the intermittent fasters I've been following aren't going through some masochistic daily hunger-torture. They're just eating more "paleo" or "keto" so their diet is ripe with dietary fat. That makes going from three smaller, to two larger, or even a single huge meal a matter of habit that can be changed in a couple weeks.
It's also unproblematic to "cheat" on the fast when need arises. The idea is just to clock as much 'fasted' time as pragmatic.
It's way to easy to lose those 5 pounds, get "stuck", and get frustrated.