Losing weight: the bottom line

J72FIT

Do I have to define the term "irritating" to you?

Nope, I understand the definitions of basic words unlike some people.

I am guessing Lyle's writing is backed by quite a bit of science...

stevencloser

But if Lyle's statement was true then eating nothing would be the quickest way to lose weight and we know that's not true.

But it is. Eating nothing will give you the fastest weight loss. Unhealthy as **** but physically speaking absolutely true.

Velum_cado

Love it! I've had more than one person tell me I should write a book about how I lost weight, but there'd be no point. I could tell you everything you need to know in one scabby little pamphlet.

J72FIT

I am guessing Lyle's writing is backed by quite a bit of science...

Too bad guessing isn't very scientific. Why don't you provide some of his scientific evidence that refutes my rebuttal instead of guessing that it exists.

You must be a blast at parties...

DebbieLyn63

Yes, the bottom line is that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.

I don't think anyone is trying to refute that statement. Only that it isn't quite so cut and dried in actual life for some people.

Finding out HOW MANY calories puts you in a deficit and keeps you there.
Finding ways to adhere to your calorie deficit.
Finding ways to resist the temptations that come your way that will take you over your calorie goal.
Finding out what foods you need to avoid if you have special medical conditions like Diabetes, etc.

These are all factors that complicate the simple CICO formula for some people.

Yes, there are many people who gained their weight simply by eating a bunch of high calorie crap all their lives, and when they started eating a normal amount of food, the weight came off with little effort.

There are others who have medical conditions, or emotional issues, that complicate matters. It is harder for them to lose the weight. And quite frankly, hearing people talk about how easy weight loss is, just pisses us off sometimes.

If it were that easy, why did you gain the weight in the first place? Why did it take you so long to decide to lose it? Did you really not know that eating a whole large pizza for dinner by yourself was not normal? Did it take reading a book that said, 'just eat less and exercise' to tell you what you needed to do?

Not everyone who is obese, got there by eating 5K+ calories a day.

stevencloser

But if Lyle's statement was true then eating nothing would be the quickest way to lose weight and we know that's not true.

But it is. Eating nothing will give you the fastest weight loss. Unhealthy as **** but physically speaking absolutely true.

Actually it's not. You need nutrients for proper energy conversion and metabolism. Without protein you'll lose significant lean mass and BMR will drop. In the case of obese people taking synthetic leptin is the quickest way to lose weight because when they lose weight their leptin levels drop which subsequently reduces BMR.

The 2000+ calorie deficit of not eating anything at all vs your regular 500 calorie-ish deficit in a good diet will still be higher even accounting for lowered BMR from loss of lean mass and other stuff like that. If we were talking about body composition and nutrition you would have your point and I would have agreed with you but the quote in OP is talking about the bottom line.

Bottom line means no matter who you are, no matter what your body composition is, no matter if you're vegan, paleo, keto or whatever, no matter if you have a disease that lowers your BMR, you can lose weight, and this is how: eat less calories than you burn. And that is true. There is no condition on this planet that changes this simple rule and every single working diet (that should additionally pay attention to nutrition details) has to adhere to that or else there won't be weight loss.
How much less you eat, what kind of foods you eat, macros, micros, exercise, all that comes after.

J72FIT

I am guessing Lyle's writing is backed by quite a bit of science...

Too bad guessing isn't very scientific. Why don't you provide some of his scientific evidence that refutes my rebuttal instead of guessing that it exists.

You must be a blast at parties...

Switching to ad hominem without ever providing a shred of science. You're contribution to forums is amazing.

I believe the burden of proof is on you my friend...

Burden of proof or in Latin, onus probandi, is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it.

J72FIT

Sorry OP. It really was a great post. Someone has diarrhea of the mouth this morning.

It's ok. In my life I have dealt with far worse...

J72FIT

I am guessing Lyle's writing is backed by quite a bit of science...

Too bad guessing isn't very scientific. Why don't you provide some of his scientific evidence that refutes my rebuttal instead of guessing that it exists.

You must be a blast at parties...

Switching to ad hominem without ever providing a shred of science. You're contribution to forums is amazing.

I believe the burden of proof is on you my friend...

Burden of proof or in Latin, onus probandi, is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it.

Um... I did. I provided three scientifically validated examples of how this fails. This is what you would call argument by dismissal. Or in laymen's terms, "who really cares when you don't even know the difference between a metaphor and an example."

Lol!

Why are you so angry?