Is what he said correct about Carbs?
Replies
-
The fat on your body is fat. Any excess calories, whether they are consumed as fat, protein, or carbs, are stored as fat ultimately. Some people personally do better on lower carb diets but it's not one-size fits all. It certainly isn't sustainable in the long run for many people.
You can lose weight without exercising. Losing weight is about 90% diet and 10% exercise.
Losing weight is 100% about calories in vs calories burnt. The rest is just ways to achieve that goal. If you are talking about being healthy then the things change a bit more. I can tell you that its proven those that exercise are more likely to lose the weight and keep it off as well they say.0 -
Biologically speaking, you do need carbs. They are the mainstay of energy production (ATP) is produced when glucose (and other carbohydrates - sugars, starches) and proteins and fats are broken down during cellular respiration. Carbohydrates are intergral parts of your cell membrane - and they are receptors on the outside of cells, among other things, Carbs are found in vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. so cutting them out of your diet completely is practically impossible.
Processed carbs like white bread and white rice are obviously not a necessary part of your diet - but just like you need proteins (our bodies only make 10 of the 20 amino acids we need - the rest come from the food we eat) - and lipids (again lipids serve lots of functions in your body), you need to consume carbs.0 -
The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight.
Leptin doesn't change the calories in versus calories out equation. It just makes adhering to the 'calories in' half of the equation more or less challenging, depending on how your body regulates and responds to leptin. You are correct that managing macros can help with regulation of appetite (and thus make it more likely that one will stay within their calorie goal), but in the end you still have to adhere to the correct 'calories in' level.0 -
Darn, double post.0
-
cutting out carbs usually means weight loss in a lot of people because they consume a lot of their calories from carbs. If you replace 100% of those carb calories with something else, you won't lose. It's about cutting calories, not carbs.0
-
The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight.
Leptin doesn't change the calories in versus calories out equation. It just makes adhering to the 'calories in' half of the equation more or less challenging, depending on how your body regulates and responds to leptin. You are correct that managing macros can help with regulation of appetite (and thus make it more likely that one will stay within their calorie goal), but in the end you still have to adhere to the correct 'calories in' level.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.0 -
cutting out carbs usually means weight loss in a lot of people because they consume a lot of their calories from carbs. If you replace 100% of those carb calories with something else, you won't lose. It's about cutting calories, not carbs.
I still think there may be some metabolic advantage of a low carb diet for some people, although it's merely a gut feel on my part. It doesn't seem to apply to me though.
However, what does it really matter? If low carb helps some people lose weight more effectively than the point is moot. Also if the carbs eliminated are refined, process foods like bread, sugar etc. then most probably they are going to improve their overall health as well. Sounds like a win win to me.0 -
If you cut down the carbs (no bread, potatoes, pasta, rice, sweets) - but keep loads of veggies and 1-2 pieces of fruit/day (do your research on which have more carbs and which less), you will find it easier and faster to lose weight. You will get less cravings and will probably have more energy. In conjunction with a high-protein diet, you will lose little muscle, which is great - you want to lose the fat.
You could try it for a month and see how you feel. But do your research first.0 -
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.
having read both his books, he does say calories don't matter at least from fat or protein as only cho makes you fat, which is garbage.0 -
I disagree, because all the macro analysis/fine-tuning in the world isn't going to help you lose weight if you're still eating over your TDEE. To say that calories in versus calories out is "useless" is ignoring the fundamental concept of weight loss. However you achieve it (low carb, no carb, all carb, all twinkies, whatever), you must eat fewer calories than you expend in order to lose weight. Managing macros is important for health and fitness goals and providing a greater chance at success based on personal preference and biology, but you have to do step A (determine calories in) before you do step B (determine how to get those calories in).The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight.
Leptin doesn't change the calories in versus calories out equation. It just makes adhering to the 'calories in' half of the equation more or less challenging, depending on how your body regulates and responds to leptin. You are correct that managing macros can help with regulation of appetite (and thus make it more likely that one will stay within their calorie goal), but in the end you still have to adhere to the correct 'calories in' level.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.0 -
I still think there may be some metabolic advantage of a low carb diet for some people, although it's merely a gut feel on my part. It doesn't seem to apply to me though.
However, what does it really matter? If low carb helps some people lose weight more effectively than the point is moot. Also if the carbs eliminated are refined, process foods like bread, sugar etc. then most probably they are going to improve their overall health as well. Sounds like a win win to me.
and yet controlled metabolic ward studies show there is no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets0 -
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm0 -
Then I will die a delicious death. (Edit - where oh where is the chocolate in that picture?)
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm0 -
Biologically speaking, you do need carbs. They are the mainstay of energy production (ATP) is produced when glucose (and other carbohydrates - sugars, starches) and proteins and fats are broken down during cellular respiration. Carbohydrates are intergral parts of your cell membrane - and they are receptors on the outside of cells, among other things, Carbs are found in vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. so cutting them out of your diet completely is practically impossible.
Processed carbs like white bread and white rice are obviously not a necessary part of your diet - but just like you need proteins (our bodies only make 10 of the 20 amino acids we need - the rest come from the food we eat) - and lipids (again lipids serve lots of functions in your body), you need to consume carbs.
There are cultures that eat little to no carbs and our bodies can generate glucose without carb intake. Saying that, many of us might be more optimal when eating some carbs although preferably from vegetables and not processed carbs as you say. I suspect there is a lot of individual variation regarding optimal macros. Perhaps this variation is genetic based on the fact that we evolved in different parts of the planet with access to different flora and fauna or maybe it's environmental or both.0 -
Then I will die a delicious death. (Edit - where oh where is the chocolate in that picture?)
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
I was lookin' for a picture of carbs that are very clearly not unhealthy.
Chocolate should be its own category of awesomeness. 0 -
having read both his books, he does say calories don't matter at least from fat or protein as only cho makes you fat, which is garbage.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.
He says a lot of things you chose to highlight that one point, I think most people are smart enough to extract value from it and discard what seems incorrect.0 -
having read both his books, he does say calories don't matter at least from fat or protein as only cho makes you fat, which is garbage.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.
He says a lot of things you chose to highlight that one point, I think most people are smart enough to extract value from it and discard what seems incorrect.
his hypothesis that carbs are the only macro that makes one fat due to their effect on insulin secretion is laughably wrong. the only decent part of his books was his stuff on the lipid hypothesis and how it came to be etc. Everything else is cherry picked garbage0 -
I disagree, because all the macro analysis/fine-tuning in the world isn't going to help you lose weight if you're still eating over your TDEE. To say that calories in versus calories out is "useless" is ignoring the fundamental concept of weight loss. However you achieve it (low carb, no carb, all carb, all twinkies, whatever), you must eat fewer calories than you expend in order to lose weight. Managing macros is important for health and fitness goals and providing a greater chance at success based on personal preference and biology, but you have to do step A (determine calories in) before you do step B (determine how to get those calories in).The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight.
Leptin doesn't change the calories in versus calories out equation. It just makes adhering to the 'calories in' half of the equation more or less challenging, depending on how your body regulates and responds to leptin. You are correct that managing macros can help with regulation of appetite (and thus make it more likely that one will stay within their calorie goal), but in the end you still have to adhere to the correct 'calories in' level.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.
It's pretty clear you are not actually reading my posts. We gain weight due to excess calorie intake, not arguing that at all. Taubes also says it's a tautology, btw.
So you look at a guy who is 100 lb overweight and you say, "you're fat because you eat too much". I think the fat guy knows that, everyone knows that. It doesn't help him lose weight though. He may try to cut his calories but find the cravings and hunger almost impossible to resist. He tries to exercise but find it has little impact unless he controls his intake as well. The question is, why has he been driven to overeat and why does he find it so hard to reduce his intake enough to lose some weight? THAT is why calories in/out is "useless" it tells us nothing than what is obviously true.0 -
I still think there may be some metabolic advantage of a low carb diet for some people, although it's merely a gut feel on my part. It doesn't seem to apply to me though.
However, what does it really matter? If low carb helps some people lose weight more effectively than the point is moot. Also if the carbs eliminated are refined, process foods like bread, sugar etc. then most probably they are going to improve their overall health as well. Sounds like a win win to me.
and yet controlled metabolic ward studies show there is no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets
Metabolic ward studies can be useful but they are usually short term and often have their own issues with design. The fact is, it's incredibly difficult to do any sort of long term study on real human beings.
Besides, I can sit here and tell you there are studies indicating anything, so if you are going to reference research, provide a link so we can all be elucidated.0 -
having read both his books, he does say calories don't matter at least from fat or protein as only cho makes you fat, which is garbage.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.
He says a lot of things you chose to highlight that one point, I think most people are smart enough to extract value from it and discard what seems incorrect.
his hypothesis that carbs are the only macro that makes one fat due to their effect on insulin secretion is laughably wrong. the only decent part of his books was his stuff on the lipid hypothesis and how it came to be etc. Everything else is cherry picked garbage
I found the history of the formation of the lipid hypothesis really interesting and in fact the history of much of the field of nutrition research was interesting. I agree that he was inconsistent at times but I still found much that was valuable in his book. As with everything it's best approached with an open mind and a grain of salt.
You touched on what is wrong with just about every discussion, book, article on nutrition, bias, cherry picking data and confusing correlation with causation. The last one is quoted so often it's almost cliched. I see terrible examples of science journalism where a journalist has an article referencing some study and when you read the paper you find that the scientist has mentioned many limitations that no firm conclusions have been drawn, etc. Yet the journalist will draw conclusions and cover their *kitten* by saying "according to Joe Smith nutritionist blah". No wonder people are so confused.0 -
Then I will die a delicious death. (Edit - where oh where is the chocolate in that picture?)
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
I was lookin' for a picture of carbs that are very clearly not unhealthy. Chocolate should be its own category of awesomeness.
I don't think carbs are the root of all evil, although I do think refined grain has little to offer us other than a cheap source of calories. Believe me, I love the stuff, been a huge bread eater my whole life and I still enjoy some from time to time. The picture is a bit silly though. You think that picture looks good and healthy because of conditioning over your lifetime in the same way that we see bacon cooking or a jar full of lard and think it looks unhealthy and we clutch our chests as if the mere sight of it will clog our arteries. LOL
Big chocolate fan too, love Dark Chocolate with Sea Salt and Almonds, amazing.0 -
I do agree with that and said that exact thing a few post up. However there is a metabolic advantage when it comes to macro division and when a higher protein diet is compared to the SAD or high carb diet (60-65%) the higher protein diet does seem to produce better weight loss. I think this is where a lot of the confusion started a decade ago regarding these comparisons. The low carb diet was the template for those comparisons with that high carb diet and somehow the data got lost in the translation. It wasn't actually the low carb diet that facilitated that observed metabolic advantage but the higher protein content in the low carb diet. anyway from there it was extrapulated that if the low carb diet was better then it was a ketogenic diet by default. The problem with this theory is in what mediated that metabolic advantage, which was thermodynamics. The thermic effect of protein which is fairly well known now, facilitated that metabolic advantage cpompared to a high carb with much of it coming from refined carbs aka the SAD diet. Getting back to the ketogenic diet and the myth that seems to have been perpetuated that it will burn fat as an energy source and somehow will allow for more weight loss is flawed simply because of the law of thermodynamics. The ketogenic diet is generally very low in carbs and high in fat and when compared to a diet that is equally as high in protein, that advantage I spoke of disappears and your right, in ward studies there clearly shows no advantage. But if you replace some of the calories coming from fat, which has no thermic effect to speak of and replace them with more carbs, like fiberous veg TEF can be increased simply because of the differences in TEF between fat and vegetables. Basically any higher protein diet will regardless of carb content shows that the ketogenic diet is not necessary if one is thinking it does somehow facilitate more weight loss compared to any other diet. imoI still think there may be some metabolic advantage of a low carb diet for some people, although it's merely a gut feel on my part. It doesn't seem to apply to me though.
However, what does it really matter? If low carb helps some people lose weight more effectively than the point is moot. Also if the carbs eliminated are refined, process foods like bread, sugar etc. then most probably they are going to improve their overall health as well. Sounds like a win win to me.
and yet controlled metabolic ward studies show there is no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets0 -
Most of the things in that photos are unhealthy for me. I'd take the apple and orange, natural source of vitamins. Occasionally the squash and carrots or maybe a splurge with a little rice. The rest means digestive hell and weight gain, increased appetite. I may splurge on them once in awhile like someone will have a little champagne on special occasions but I can't make them part of my routine lifestyle if I want to be healthy and slimmer.
I love carbs but the place they have in my diet are as sources of vitamins (veggies and limited fruit) or guilty pleasures that I pay for with discomfort. (grains) I can't see grains as sources of nutrition, most need to be "enriched" to add anything more than bulk and appetite stimulation.0 -
I disagree, because all the macro analysis/fine-tuning in the world isn't going to help you lose weight if you're still eating over your TDEE. To say that calories in versus calories out is "useless" is ignoring the fundamental concept of weight loss. However you achieve it (low carb, no carb, all carb, all twinkies, whatever), you must eat fewer calories than you expend in order to lose weight. Managing macros is important for health and fitness goals and providing a greater chance at success based on personal preference and biology, but you have to do step A (determine calories in) before you do step B (determine how to get those calories in).The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight.
Leptin doesn't change the calories in versus calories out equation. It just makes adhering to the 'calories in' half of the equation more or less challenging, depending on how your body regulates and responds to leptin. You are correct that managing macros can help with regulation of appetite (and thus make it more likely that one will stay within their calorie goal), but in the end you still have to adhere to the correct 'calories in' level.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.
It's pretty clear you are not actually reading my posts. We gain weight due to excess calorie intake, not arguing that at all. Taubes also says it's a tautology, btw.
So you look at a guy who is 100 lb overweight and you say, "you're fat because you eat too much". I think the fat guy knows that, everyone knows that. It doesn't help him lose weight though. He may try to cut his calories but find the cravings and hunger almost impossible to resist. He tries to exercise but find it has little impact unless he controls his intake as well. The question is, why has he been driven to overeat and why does he find it so hard to reduce his intake enough to lose some weight? THAT is why calories in/out is "useless" it tells us nothing than what is obviously true.
I AM reading your posts, and it's pretty clear that you're confusing utility with sufficiency. Is calories in versus calories out useless? No, it is necessary for weight management. Is calories in versus calories out SUFFICIENT for weight loss? Not for everybody. It is NECESSARY for all, but not SUFFICIENT for some.0 -
Your brain needs glucose...so you need some carbs every day.0
-
Your brain needs glucose...so you need some carbs every day.
Funny, can't you get glucose from amino acids?0 -
Human physiology has adapted to supply all the glucose the body requires in the absence of carboydrates and why carbohydrates are not considered essential nutirents. Ever hear of the ice age?Your brain needs glucose...so you need some carbs every day.0 -
I still think there may be some metabolic advantage of a low carb diet for some people, although it's merely a gut feel on my part. It doesn't seem to apply to me though.
However, what does it really matter? If low carb helps some people lose weight more effectively than the point is moot. Also if the carbs eliminated are refined, process foods like bread, sugar etc. then most probably they are going to improve their overall health as well. Sounds like a win win to me.
and yet controlled metabolic ward studies show there is no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets
Metabolic ward studies can be useful but they are usually short term and often have their own issues with design. The fact is, it's incredibly difficult to do any sort of long term study on real human beings.
Besides, I can sit here and tell you there are studies indicating anything, so if you are going to reference research, provide a link so we can all be elucidated.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/20/10/1104.full.pdf
http://www.ajcn.org/content/21/11/1291.full.pdf
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/11/4480.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968851
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23190730 -
Then I will die a delicious death. (Edit - where oh where is the chocolate in that picture?)
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
I was lookin' for a picture of carbs that are very clearly not unhealthy. Chocolate should be its own category of awesomeness.
I don't think carbs are the root of all evil, although I do think refined grain has little to offer us other than a cheap source of calories. Believe me, I love the stuff, been a huge bread eater my whole life and I still enjoy some from time to time. The picture is a bit silly though. You think that picture looks good and healthy because of conditioning over your lifetime in the same way that we see bacon cooking or a jar full of lard and think it looks unhealthy and we clutch our chests as if the mere sight of it will clog our arteries. LOL
Big chocolate fan too, love Dark Chocolate with Sea Salt and Almonds, amazing.
Nodding. Yup agree with you. I eat carbs, just choose not to eat a ton of them or refined carbs that have a bajillion ingredients in them. The more pure the better IMHO.0 -
I disagree, because all the macro analysis/fine-tuning in the world isn't going to help you lose weight if you're still eating over your TDEE. To say that calories in versus calories out is "useless" is ignoring the fundamental concept of weight loss. However you achieve it (low carb, no carb, all carb, all twinkies, whatever), you must eat fewer calories than you expend in order to lose weight. Managing macros is important for health and fitness goals and providing a greater chance at success based on personal preference and biology, but you have to do step A (determine calories in) before you do step B (determine how to get those calories in).The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight.
Leptin doesn't change the calories in versus calories out equation. It just makes adhering to the 'calories in' half of the equation more or less challenging, depending on how your body regulates and responds to leptin. You are correct that managing macros can help with regulation of appetite (and thus make it more likely that one will stay within their calorie goal), but in the end you still have to adhere to the correct 'calories in' level.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.
It's pretty clear you are not actually reading my posts. We gain weight due to excess calorie intake, not arguing that at all. Taubes also says it's a tautology, btw.
So you look at a guy who is 100 lb overweight and you say, "you're fat because you eat too much". I think the fat guy knows that, everyone knows that. It doesn't help him lose weight though. He may try to cut his calories but find the cravings and hunger almost impossible to resist. He tries to exercise but find it has little impact unless he controls his intake as well. The question is, why has he been driven to overeat and why does he find it so hard to reduce his intake enough to lose some weight? THAT is why calories in/out is "useless" it tells us nothing than what is obviously true.
I AM reading your posts, and it's pretty clear that you're confusing utility with sufficiency. Is calories in versus calories out useless? No, it is necessary for weight management. Is calories in versus calories out SUFFICIENT for weight loss? Not for everybody. It is NECESSARY for all, but not SUFFICIENT for some.
Right, you are agreeing with me essentially. You're just arguing semantics at this point. Of course the fat dude needs to know that calories are important but if that doesn't help him control his intake then it is useless to him. Can we agree on that? 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions