Is fat loss a science ?

becess96

So, a lot of people say fat loss is only about calories, and it doesn't matter if you eat 2000 calories of sugar or salad, or if you eat 3 times a day or 6, if you are trying to lose a pound you just need to burn 3500 calories. Is this the truth or does this 3 meals/6 meals thing with the blood sugar and insulin levels spike and all of that matter or it's just a myth ? Or like if you don't eat frequently (and you do intermittent fasting for example) your body goes into starvation mode and you burn muscle instead of fat ?Any help would be appreciated. I wish everyone a great day !:)

SingRunTing

Yes it is really only about the calories as far as losing weight goes.

HOWEVER, the rest can help you stick to your calories.

• Are you diabetic or someone who has strong reactions to blood sugar levels? Then maybe you should eat smaller, more frequent meals.
• Eating only high calorie dense food with little nutrition may leave you feeling hungry, so you should consider your macros to be more sated. Also, nutrition is important for health, even if not for weight loss.
• Some people like IF. It doesn't hurt you, so if its what helps you stick to your calories (averaged over the week), then go for it. No, you will not go into starvation mode in 1 day.

Kalikel

Science is a never-ending thing. What is assumed one year based on evidence may be disproven the next year after more evidence. People get all wrapped up around here posting links to studies, as if that ends it, lol. Nothing could ever change. Because, they say, "That's Science!"

The fact that Science is a never-ending, curious and industrious pursuit - that's what makes science so fun! The new stuff! Especially when science tells us one thing and then someone takes another look and says, "Hoo-boy! Check this out!"

I get a little saddened when people take a dogmatic approach to Science. They're missing the whole point, the thrill that is Science. Sometimes I don't like it - like when the astronomers took Pluto away (what the hell with that) - but the fact is that the discoveries never end. And that's cool. There really isn't a cooler subject than Science. There just isn't.

Read different ideas, see what sparks your interest and try different things out. See what works for you. That's way more scientific than, "Here is a study and that's that."

becess96

Thanks for the answers everyone. Yes I know these questions are being asked on a daily basis but it's because everyone has a different opinion so I'm somehow confused. Also really true, science is changing day by day.
Oh, I might have just a little question: why when someone is stuck on a weight and can't lose more they say "eat more so you burn more fat". But more food = more calories = more fat. How would that help you lose more fat ?

neanderthin

Only when we sit on our *kitten* all day.

StaciMarie1974

Yes, its about calories in vs calories out. But the other details may be important, depending on the person.

My husband and I are very different. I cannot go for long without eating. Meaning within an hour or two of waking up, and I need to eat something every few hours. If not I feel hungry, miserable and sometimes have issues where I can tell my blood sugar is 'off'. He is the total opposite. He can go almost all day without anything more than water, and have no ill-effects. (I really don't understand it, but I have seen it so do believe it.) This past Saturday for example he didn't have his first bite of food until about 1:30pm and this was after running some errands and an 1 hr, 20 minute hike. I'd had breakfast and a mid-morning snack and couldn't get to Subway fast enough. He was fine.

MityMax96

If you are a fairly normal person, and no serious health conditions, then yeah....comes down to overall calories you consume vs. what you need/use.

MityMax96

becess96 wrote: »

...... why when someone is stuck on a weight and can't lose more they say "eat more so you burn more fat". But more food = more calories = more fat. How would that help you lose more fat ?

Depends on the person really.
But if the person is not losing weight (and there are no health issues involved), then said person is not in a caloric deficit.

I have said many times and I will say again......if said person is saying they are eating only 800 calories / day and not losing, then they are lying.....or not tracking right....cause I assure you there are kids in Africa eating that much or less, and they are losing weight.....

Maybe we should educate those kids and tell them they are doing it wrong......if they ate those 800 calories the way our "no weight loss" person ate them, then they wouldn't be emaciated.

lemurcat12

Yes, it's the truth, and, yes, the other things might matter, but they are going to depend on individual differences.

For example, people differ in terms of what meal frequency works for them. Picking something that doesn't work for you (trying to force yourself to eat 6 times a day if you don't tend to be hungry that often) just because some study says that on average people do better eating that way ignores individual differences and that the reason one way works better has more to do with compliance than anything else.

Similarly, some people find that eating less carbs or carbs only with other foods makes them more satiated than eating a high carb diet. If that is the case for you, then you are more likely to stick to lower calories if you up your fats and protein relative to carbs. But it's not a science, it's personal experience and experimentation.

I find that what I eat makes a big difference to how easy it is for me to maintain a calorie deficit, and makes a difference in how I feel, but I also believe that if I suffered through what it would take to keep my calorie deficit eating just cake, I'd lose. I'd just be miserable while doing it. In an less extreme way that's how I feel about eating 6 meals a day or skipping breakfast or doing IF. I think I'd lose just fine doing all of those, but for me, because of how I tend to prefer to eat, it would be far harder to sustain an eating plan than doing what I do now--eating 3 meals. Your preferences will be your own, and that's what matters.

You won't go into starvation mode from eating once a day or doing IF, though, that's silly (I know it's a common myth) and starvation mode in the sense of "my body will hold on to fat" isn't real.

nicolalane716

Fat loss is a science - but no-one lives in a metabolic lab so things aren't as precise in the world we live in.

For the vast majority of people create an energy deficit and weight will follow a downward trend. The most precise tracking will still only give good estimates of energy values in and out - so any benefits to eating six times a day versus eating once a day will be lost in the general noise.

As long as your diet contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, proteins and fats that you need then you are good, after that then the very best diet is the one that you can stick to.

There will be different considerations for some people - mostly those who aren't normally healthy adults! But for most people it really isn't complicated - the mechanics of it all is the easy bit - it is the emotional bit where all the problems arise!

As for starvation mode - it isn't what most people think it is, and with all the myths and half truths out there any actual facts got lost long ago. There are plenty of explanations for weight loss plateaus - and none of them are "starvation mode"

Hope that helps.

ferdinandthong

SingRunTing wrote: »

Yes it is really only about the calories as far as losing weight goes.

No offense but really want to know the truth, is it mean that i can go for warrior diet (1 meal per day) and my dinner will serve a large pizza and i will lose fat? I dont really concern about weight but i serious about losing fat especially belly fat.

neanderthin

nicolalane716 wrote: »

Fat loss is a science - but no-one lives in a metabolic lab so things aren't as precise in the world we live in.

For the vast majority of people create an energy deficit and weight will follow a downward trend. The most precise tracking will still only give good estimates of energy values in and out - so any benefits to eating six times a day versus eating once a day will be lost in the general noise.

As long as your diet contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, proteins and fats that you need then you are good, after that then the very best diet is the one that you can stick to.

There will be different considerations for some people - mostly those who aren't normally healthy adults! But for most people it really isn't complicated - the mechanics of it all is the easy bit - it is the emotional bit where all the problems arise!

As for starvation mode - it isn't what most people think it is, and with all the myths and half truths out there any actual facts got lost long ago. There are plenty of explanations for weight loss plateaus - and none of them are "starvation mode"

Hope that helps.

QFT

uconnwinsnc1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE

Nekrachael

I'll just throw in this- you can still THRIVE while losing weight. Crappy food can totally result in weight loss, but you probably will not remain robust in health and well-being. Different people thrive with different diets- as in the way they eat.

As for the belly fat thing- you cannot tell your body "lose fat there!" You just have to keep at it. I've read repeatedly that most people hold onto the fat in the middle of our bodies the longest.

yarwell

There's a lot of variation in individuals even in controlled experiments :

MoiAussi93

The bottom line is many studies conflict. What science once believed to be true is later proven to be false. Cholesterol is an example. It was once "fact" that cholesterol in your diet caused high blood cholesterol and eggs were demonized. Now, that has been disproven and we are told that eggs are good for us. Very little in the fields of weight loss and nutrition has been 100% proven to be true...despite what anybody will tell you. Nobody on this site can tell you for sure...you need to read up on these topics yourself and make your own decisions.

Personally, I don't believe it is just calories...I really don't. Yes, calories are obviously very important. But I believe what you eat does make a major difference. For example, there are studies that prove that eating the exact same number of calories, you burn more calories a day eating more protein and less carbs. This is fact. Now, it is only about 100 calories more per day so you can't go crazy and eat unlimited quantities of protein. But over time that adds up. That is just one example.

There is also a lot of research indicating that insulin spikes have a very real impact on weight loss...and health in general. And based on my own experience, I tend to believe this.

And then if you consider overall health and not just weight, it becomes even more clear that what you eat is just as important as how much you eat. Certain foods are clearly much healthier, and some are very bad for you. You might be able to eat them in moderation and lose weight, but you aren't doing yourself any favors by doing so.

neanderthin

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

The bottom line is many studies conflict. What science once believed to be true is later proven to be false. Cholesterol is an example. It was once "fact" that cholesterol in your diet caused high blood cholesterol and eggs were demonized. Now, that has been disproven and we are told that eggs are good for us. Very little in the fields of weight loss and nutrition has been 100% proven to be true...despite what anybody will tell you. Nobody on this site can tell you for sure...you need to read up on these topics yourself and make your own decisions.

Personally, I don't believe it is just calories...I really don't. Yes, calories are obviously very important. But I believe what you eat does make a major difference. For example, there are studies that prove that eating the exact same number of calories, you burn more calories a day eating more protein and less carbs. This is fact. Now, it is only about 100 calories more per day so you can't go crazy and eat unlimited quantities of protein. But over time that adds up. That is just one example.

There is also a lot of research indicating that insulin spikes have a very real impact on weight loss...and health in general. And based on my own experience, I tend to believe this.

And then if you consider overall health and not just weight, it becomes even more clear that what you eat is just as important as how much you eat. Certain foods are clearly much healthier, and some are very bad for you. You might be able to eat them in moderation and lose weight, but you aren't doing yourself any favors by doing so.

We knew 4 decades ago that dietary cholesterol didn't have much effect on blood serum levels. Your also confusing weight loss with health, both are important and nowhere has anyone said it wasn't but thermodynamics have not changed and for weight loss it's still calories that matter. You can gain weight eating what would be considered healthy whole foods.

Liftng4Lis

MityMax96 wrote: »

If you are a fairly normal person, and no serious health conditions, then yeah....comes down to overall calories you consume vs. what you need/use.

+1

MoiAussi93

neanderthin wrote: »

We knew 4 decades ago that dietary cholesterol didn't have much effect on blood serum levels. Your also confusing weight loss with health, both are important and nowhere has anyone said it wasn't but thermodynamics have not changed and for weight loss it's still calories that matter. You can gain weight eating what would be considered healthy whole foods.

No, we did not know four decades ago that dietary cholesterol didn't have much effect on blood serum levels. If we did, all the major medical organziations would not have been telling everybody to severely limit egg consumption. Even now, when the research is fairly conclusive, American health organizations are very slow to change the recommendations...despite the fact that the British and others have all removed the recommendation to limit dietary cholesterol.

I am not confusing weight loss and health...perhaps you should reread my post. There is plenty of evidence that sugar and starchy carbs do have a negative effect on weight loss. It is not simply a question of calories. It is very foolish to ignore the evidence that proves otherwise.

lemurcat12

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

The bottom line is many studies conflict. What science once believed to be true is later proven to be false. Cholesterol is an example. It was once "fact" that cholesterol in your diet caused high blood cholesterol and eggs were demonized. Now, that has been disproven and we are told that eggs are good for us. Very little in the fields of weight loss and nutrition has been 100% proven to be true...despite what anybody will tell you. Nobody on this site can tell you for sure...you need to read up on these topics yourself and make your own decisions.

Personally, I don't believe it is just calories...I really don't. Yes, calories are obviously very important. But I believe what you eat does make a major difference. For example, there are studies that prove that eating the exact same number of calories, you burn more calories a day eating more protein and less carbs. This is fact. Now, it is only about 100 calories more per day so you can't go crazy and eat unlimited quantities of protein. But over time that adds up. That is just one example.

There is also a lot of research indicating that insulin spikes have a very real impact on weight loss...and health in general. And based on my own experience, I tend to believe this.

And then if you consider overall health and not just weight, it becomes even more clear that what you eat is just as important as how much you eat. Certain foods are clearly much healthier, and some are very bad for you. You might be able to eat them in moderation and lose weight, but you aren't doing yourself any favors by doing so.

Protein does require somewhat more calories to digest, but you can't really use that, since there are reasons a mostly protein diet is not healthy. That means that if you lower carbs you typically increase fat, and fat requires fewer calories than carbs on average to digest, especially whole foods like fruits and veggies and whole grains. That's why there's not a greater burn from digestion when you compare a typical low carb diet vs even the SAD.

Re insulin spikes, it differs from person to person, but unless you are insulin resistant I seriously doubt there is any significant effect so long as you avoid eating lots of processed carbs on their own (which you won't be if you eat food in the context of a balanced meal). More significantly, the theory here, even for those with insulin resistance is that spikes make you hungry so you consume more calories. Not that CICO is wrong. And the same with the digestive differences, as the burn from digestion is part of CO. Thus, I don't think either of these examples support at all the conclusion that calories aren't what matters.

Obviously, there will be ways of eating that are more healthy overall and help individuals sustain a calorie deficit better.