Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

tidmutt

The main message of the study is that even though the hunter-gathers were more active than their western counter-parts, they did not burn any more energy.

Indeed, mainly because their average BMI is 20 and the men weigh 115 lbs and the women 95 lbs.

So their TDEE / RMR ratio is much higher, but TDEE still lower by about 400 calories/day.

Link to text quoted below:

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/26/modern-lazy-people-burn-as-many-calories-as-hunter-gatherers-so-what-makes-us-fat/

"In fact, even though total energy expenditure did vary considerably by age, gender and by body size, as anticipated, when the researchers looked at men of the same age who each weighed, say, 130 lbs., there was no discernible difference by lifestyle group in total daily energy expenditure. On average, the Hadza were much smaller than the Westerners, both in height and in weight (130 lbs. was at the high end for Hadza males). But statistical analysis suggests that the basic relationship between energy spent and lean body mass — not including the Westerners’ extra fat pounds — was essentially the same across societies, and across people big and small.

Those results are all the more surprising because the Hadza did appear to expend much more energy in physical activity, as they hunted and foraged. But activity differences did not translate into differences in total energy use. What’s more, even among members of the same society, Hadza people who walked a long way each day did not have measurably higher total expenditure than individuals who did not walk so much. It seems that people’s metabolisms may compensate somewhat for activity level.

The new findings seem to contradict popular beliefs that weight management is simply a matter of balancing what we eat with enough purposeful physical activity.

“The similarity in [total energy expenditure (TEE)] among Hadza hunter-gatherers and Westerners suggests that even dramatic differences in lifestyle may have a negligible effect on TEE,” the authors conclude in their study, which is published this week in the journal PLoS One."

It's always nice to see yet another contradictory piece of information about weight loss. LOL

Although I appreciate you posting it.

I'm really struggling with the results of this study. How on earth does someone who walks miles every day have the same energy expenditure as someone who doesn't. I can only guess those not walking must expend energy in other ways. Sure, we are amazingly adaptive, but you cannot change the laws of physics. How does someone's metabolism explain this result?

It all sort of gels with my belief that when it comes to the incredibly complex system that is the human body, we don't know *kitten*. Pardon the language. I do think it comes down to energy balance, but there is more to the story, variables that may explain why some are thin and other not so much.

tidmutt

My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.

The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.

Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.

The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.

"Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.

I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.

Why do you defend a diet that has never been shown to have anything going for it?

You still haven't posted those links...

epmck11

I've read this article -- and some different articles covering the study -- and I'm still somewhat suspicious and I'd advise nobody put too much value in the idea that active lifestyles don't burn more calories. The people conducting the study were anthropologists, not nutrition or even science experts. It was also only conducted over a 11 day period and the amount of people it was tested on was fairly small.

We'd need a larger sample size and also I'd prefer to see a head-to-head comparison of active Westerns vs. non-active Westerners. I'd like to see the results if they monitored the TDEE of construction workers, warehouse workers, farmers, etc. vs. office workers vs. endurance athletes, and then we could maybe get a more accurate understanding. But don't let this study discourage you from the importance of an active lifestyle (still, don't let a somewhat moderately active lifestyle let you think you're allowed to consume more than you should).

_VoV

I've read this article -- and some different articles covering the study -- and I'm still somewhat suspicious and I'd advise nobody put too much value in the idea that active lifestyles don't burn more calories. The people conducting the study were anthropologists, not nutrition or even science experts. It was also only conducted over a 11 day period and the amount of people it was tested on was fairly small.

We'd need a larger sample size and also I'd prefer to see a head-to-head comparison of active Westerns vs. non-active Westerners. I'd like to see the results if they monitored the TDEE of construction workers, warehouse workers, farmers, etc. vs. office workers vs. endurance athletes, and then we could maybe get a more accurate understanding. But don't let this study discourage you from the importance of an active lifestyle (still, don't let a somewhat moderately active lifestyle let you think you're allowed to consume more than you should).

I think an active lifestyle has a host of benefits, even if it doesn't bump up your TDEE.

Your ideas for further research would be fine if the observation wasn't obvious. I fear the Hawthorne effect would come into play, if people knew you were studying their activity levels. Then the results would not well represent actual lifestyles.

wackyfunster

I just read an interesting study on how hunter-gatherers burn about the same number of calories as Westerners do. You would think all that physically-demanding food gathering over the course of the day would burn tons of calories, but it apparently doesn't. What do you think? Are the laws of thermodynamics more complicated than we think?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200304.htm

It has more to do with homeostasis and efficiency of motion than thermodynamics. It's already been shown that African tribeswomen carrying 50+ pounds of water on their heads consume approximately 40% (IDR the exact number, so I made that one up... it was substantially less than 100%) of the energy an average westerner does walking at the same pace. That has nothing to do with thermodynamics... anything you do a lot, your body will become more efficient at doing.

This study suggests that the primary issue is not exercise-related (not that exercise isn't helpful to everyone), but dietary. I suspect it will not be very popular in the US, where we have very powerful corporations and industry lobbying organizations pushing very hard to ensure that nothing is done to impinge upon their ability to sell HFCS and soy/corn byproduct laden foods to the public.

The study I would like to see is a study that correlates obesity rates with average caloric density in a population, as I suspect that would be much more revealing.

Still, simply put, if you are not eating an excess of calories, you will not gain weight, regardless of your exercise levels. And regardless of exercise levels, if you do not eat at a caloric deficit, you will not lose weight.

Edit: And before any low-carb fanatics agree with me, there is nothing wrong with carbs, or even sugar. The issue is very calorically dense foods that are not very filling, and people with a poor understanding of nutrition and/or poor self-control.

Silverkittycat

The main message of the study is that even though the hunter-gathers were more active than their western counter-parts, they did not burn any more energy.

Indeed, mainly because their average BMI is 20 and the men weigh 115 lbs and the women 95 lbs.

So their TDEE / RMR ratio is much higher, but TDEE still lower by about 400 calories/day.

Link to text quoted below:

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/26/modern-lazy-people-burn-as-many-calories-as-hunter-gatherers-so-what-makes-us-fat/

"In fact, even though total energy expenditure did vary considerably by age, gender and by body size, as anticipated, when the researchers looked at men of the same age who each weighed, say, 130 lbs., there was no discernible difference by lifestyle group in total daily energy expenditure. On average, the Hadza were much smaller than the Westerners, both in height and in weight (130 lbs. was at the high end for Hadza males). But statistical analysis suggests that the basic relationship between energy spent and lean body mass — not including the Westerners’ extra fat pounds — was essentially the same across societies, and across people big and small.

Those results are all the more surprising because the Hadza did appear to expend much more energy in physical activity, as they hunted and foraged. But activity differences did not translate into differences in total energy use. What’s more, even among members of the same society, Hadza people who walked a long way each day did not have measurably higher total expenditure than individuals who did not walk so much. It seems that people’s metabolisms may compensate somewhat for activity level.

The new findings seem to contradict popular beliefs that weight management is simply a matter of balancing what we eat with enough purposeful physical activity.

“The similarity in [total energy expenditure (TEE)] among Hadza hunter-gatherers and Westerners suggests that even dramatic differences in lifestyle may have a negligible effect on TEE,” the authors conclude in their study, which is published this week in the journal PLoS One."

It's always nice to see yet another contradictory piece of information about weight loss. LOL

Although I appreciate you posting it.

I'm really struggling with the results of this study. How on earth does someone who walks miles every day have the same energy expenditure as someone who doesn't. I can only guess those not walking must expend energy in other ways. Sure, we are amazingly adaptive, but you cannot change the laws of physics. How does someone's metabolism explain this result?

It all sort of gels with my belief that when it comes to the incredibly complex system that is the human body, we don't know *kitten*. Pardon the language. I do think it comes down to energy balance, but there is more to the story, variables that may explain why some are thin and other not so much.

You are correct.

wackyfunster

RE: Paleo, main issues:
1) Everything about inflammatory foods is pure BS, and easily scientifically refutable (there are tests that measure inflammatory responses to foods in individuals... ever wonder why they haven't been used to show widespread inflammatory responses to specific classes of foods such as gluten and solanine? You guessed it: they don't exist. I personally have been tested, and my worst responses were to paleo-endorsed foods such as sweet potatoes and green vegetables *gasp* ...no response to gluten or solanine, not that ingesting large quantities of solanine is a good idea)
2) From what we know of ancestral diets, they consisted of 60-80% carbohydrates. This science does not jibe with what the paleo fad diet preaches.
3) Complete lack of focus on intermittent fasting, which was almost certainly the normal dietary pattern in hunter-gatherer societies, and HAS been shown to provide a large number of health benefits. I suspect that many of the health problems we are seeing now are more a symptom of meal frequency (resulting in constantly elevated insulin levels) than of specific macro intakes.

Good things about paleo:
Eating whole foods is certainly going to be better for your overall health than eating processed quasi-food crap.

Basically, it really is a fad diet. It is probably one of the least unhealthy ones out there, but still far from ideal. OTOH, for most people it would definitely be an improvement over their current diet, so despite whatever issues I have with it, it is still almost certainly better than the SAD.

Silverkittycat

Might be that the micronutrients in a woman’s diet influence how the DNA functions, and this interaction determines, at least in part, whether you are going to be more prone to being overweight as an adult. So this early ‘in-utero’ stage can be rather important in your adult health. An imbalance of micronutrients affects how energy is handled by cells.

Sorry, but I'm keen on genetics lately.... I think it's determined quite early whether you'll be overweight or not.

wackyfunster

Might be that the micronutrients in a woman’s diet influence how the DNA functions, and this interaction determines, at least in part, whether you are going to be more prone to being overweight as an adult. So this early ‘in-utero’ stage can be rather important in your adult health. An imbalance of micronutrients affects how energy is handled by cells.

Sorry, but I'm keen on genetics lately.... I think it's determined quite early whether you'll be overweight or not.

I honestly don't think genetics plays as big a role as people tend to think... I think it is definitely a factor, but I have yet to meet someone who did not lose weight if they start (accurately) tracking caloric intake and exercising (and this includes folks with thyroid problems, etc.). The biggest problem for most people (women especially since they are more prone to it for hormonal reasons) is mistaking water retention for lack of weight loss, and then giving up.

Also, a lot of key genetic factors can be modified by dietary habits, e.g. FOXO transcription is stimulated in response to fasting (along with HGH production, and a variety of other beneficial responses).

Silverkittycat

I agree with this, somewhat....

Also, a lot of key genetic factors can be modified by dietary habits, e.g. FOXO transcription is stimulated in response to fasting (along with HGH production, and a variety of other beneficial responses).

Stil think genetics has a bigger part in it than most know.

Silverkittycat

Also, a lot of key genetic factors can be modified by dietary habits, e.g. FOXO transcription is stimulated in response to fasting (along with HGH production, and a variety of other beneficial responses).

You'd be quite surprised with my results when lab ratting at USF, it didn't quite work the way they thought it would, especially in the production of HGH.

Don't you agree though that the maternal inheritance matters?The egg you developed from , with half of your chromosomes, was created in your mother's ovaries while she was still in your grandmother's womb. New research shows that that when our grandmothers passed those epigenetic signals to your mother she was also passing those signals to the egg that would provide half of your DNA.

You don't think that the early nutrition influenced the establishing of epigenetic marks?

I'm curious, not arguing.

AlabasterVerve

@wackyfunster

Edit: And before any low-carb fanatics agree with me, there is nothing wrong with carbs, or even sugar. The issue is very calorically dense foods that are not very filling, and people with a poor understanding of nutrition and/or poor self-control.

Is it really poor self control if the foods you're eating (or not eating) cause you to eat more? Of course not.

Call it a fad until you're blue in the face but that doesn't change the fact that study after study shows low carb diets -- with out any calorie restrictions, so all those people with poor self control can eat as much as they like -- to be at least as effective as calorie restricted diets and often do better. And that's not even touching upon the health benefits and the fact doctors prescribe low carb diets to their patients for a whole host of reasons--fads aren't used to treat disease.

@SilverkittycatNot quite the same thing but I thought this was video was pretty interesting. Basically, they're saying that obesity prevention needs to start before conception.

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 5): Generation XL
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=23719

---

Halton, T.L., Hu F.B. (2004). The Effects of High Protein Diets on Thermogenesis, Satiety and Weight Loss: A Critical Review.

Comments: Authors concluded by stating that “there is convincing evidence that protein exerts an increased thermic effect when compared to fat and carbohydrate.” For satiety, the evidence is also convincing “that higher protein diets increase satiety when compared to lower protein diets. This may enhance a dieter’s ability to ‘stick with’ a hypocaloric diet over the long term.”

Weigle DS. et al. (2005). A high-protein diet induces sustained reductions in appetite. Ad libitum caloric intake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations.

Comments: Authors conclude that an increase in protein from 15% – 30% of energy at constant carbohydrate intake produces large decrease in ad libitum caloric intake, and stated that “the anorexic effect of protein may contribute to the weight loss produced by low-carbohydrate diets.”

Ludwig DS, et al. (1999). High glycemic index foods, overeating and obesity.

Comments: All the diets were essentially equal in calories. Researchers conclude, saying “consumption of high-GI foods incudes hormonal and etabolic changes that limit availability of metabolic fuels and lead to overeating in obese subjects

http://www.awlr.org/carb-restricted-diets.html

http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

wackyfunster

Wrong. Studies show that HIGH PROTEIN diets are correlated with weight loss. When caloric and protein intake are controlled for, there is no difference between high carb and low carb.

Low carb is pointless for most people on this site. If you like it, then great, go for it, but don't delude yourself and mislead others.

Silverkittycat

You're not talking to me are you? I agree there.

wackyfunster

Also, a lot of key genetic factors can be modified by dietary habits, e.g. FOXO transcription is stimulated in response to fasting (along with HGH production, and a variety of other beneficial responses).

You'd be quite surprised with my results when lab ratting at USF, it didn't quite work the way they thought it would, especially in the production of HGH.

Don't you agree though that the maternal inheritance matters?The egg you developed from , with half of your chromosomes, was created in your mother's ovaries while she was still in your grandmother's womb. New research shows that that when our grandmothers passed those epigenetic signals to your mother she was also passing those signals to the egg that would provide half of your DNA.

You don't think that the early nutrition influenced the establishing of epigenetic marks?

I'm curious, not arguing.

I think that genetics is very relevant when talking about partitioning, which will determine how easy it is for someone to put on muscle/fat, but for people inside 2 standard deviations of normal, diet and exerise will be a bigger factor in overall fitness levels. Some people are naturally larger frame-wise, but when your primary measurements are body fat and skeletal muscle, I think that those differences mostly vanish as well.

AlabasterVerve

Wrong. Studies show that HIGH PROTEIN diets are correlated with weight loss. When caloric and protein intake are controlled for, there is no difference between high carb and low carb.

Low carb is pointless for most people on this site. If you like it, then great, go for it, but don't delude yourself and mislead others.

I'm glad you have it all figured out -- makes everything much easier when you know all the answers and everything fits neatly into your world view. But the researchers conducting the studies think additional research is warranted and while a low carb approach might not be required for everyone, for a whole lot of people having control of their appetite is a pretty big deal -- duluded and mislead though they might be.

Conclusions. The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation. glycemic index, obesity, dietary carbohydrate, diets, insulin.

VegesaurusRex

My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.

The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.

Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.

The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.

"Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.

I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.

Why do you defend a diet that has never been shown to have anything going for it?

You still haven't posted those links...

What links? Surely you are not asking me to repost links to the China Study, the German Study, the Framingham Study or any of the dozens of others that we have argued about in the past? If you are asking me to do that, why?

In case you are intersted, however, I will give you this link:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/slideshows/top-rated-diets-overall

I am not at all defending this "study," or its conclusions, or for that matter anything else it says. The US News College Report is about as accurate and scientific as this, but I did find it interesting that of all the diets mentioned (of which I am unaware of most) the Vegetarian diet, the Vegan diet, the Ornish diet , and virtually all of the veggie diets finished on top in just about every category, while the Paleo diet finished last. Any comments?

wackyfunster

Wrong. Studies show that HIGH PROTEIN diets are correlated with weight loss. When caloric and protein intake are controlled for, there is no difference between high carb and low carb.

Low carb is pointless for most people on this site. If you like it, then great, go for it, but don't delude yourself and mislead others.

I'm glad you have it all figured out -- makes everything much easier when you know all the answers and everything fits neatly into your world view. But the researchers conducting the studies think additional research is warranted and while a low carb approach might not be required for everyone, for a whole lot of people having control of their appetite is a pretty big deal -- duluded and mislead though they might be.

Conclusions. The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation. glycemic index, obesity, dietary carbohydrate, diets, insulin.

It's not an issue with appetite, or leptin supplementation would be effective or weight loss (it's not). It's an issue with poor eating habits and lack of self-control. I eat 200ish g of sugar on workout days pretty regularly, and would be willing to bet that if we compare our relative health, body composition, strength, and endurance that I would come out ahead on all counts (I would be happy to be proven wrong here, but I have only ever met a handful of low carbers in better shape than myself, while the number of people who regularly eat 500-2000g of carb in a day who are in better shape is fairly large). If insulin is the devil, you need to avoid meat as well, since e. g. fatty cuts of beef produce as much of an insulin response as grains. Even Lyle McDonald (who literally wrote the book on ketogenic diets) isn't sold on them any more.

AlabasterVerve

It's not an issue with appetite, or leptin supplementation would be effective or weight loss (it's not). It's an issue with poor eating habits and lack of self-control.

You believe that obesity is caused by "poor eating habits and lack of self-control" and that the science supports your theory? I can understand that, I used to think the same thing.

What I now believe is that some sort of disordered hormone reactions or imbalances are the cause of poor eating habits and an increase in appetite (i.e. lack of self control) and that results, of course, in obesity. It's absolutely heart breaking to hear dieter after dieter struggling with binging and insatiable appetites -- all the while desperately trying to figure out why they can't just "eat less and move more" -- when adopting a low carb lifestyle might be the exact thing they need to be successful but they don't even consider it because they think of it as a fad diet that's harmful to their health. .

I know that that is a really hard concept to wrap your head around -- especially if you've never experienced it yourself -- but coincidentally today's blog from Mark's Daily Apple addresses this and might offer some insight or be of interest to some:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/when-listening-to-your-body-doesnt-work/#axzz22GtiCWAz

Fortunately, the research and medical communities are finally acknowledging that there's something more going on in regards to weight loss and the research is reflecting that. Low carb diets have been shown time and time again to be an effective and healthful way to lose weight - they are not a fad.

wackyfunster

It's not an issue with appetite, or leptin supplementation would be effective or weight loss (it's not). It's an issue with poor eating habits and lack of self-control.

You believe that obesity is caused by "poor eating habits and lack of self-control" and that the science supports your theory? I can understand that, I used to think the same thing.

What I now believe is that some sort of disordered hormone reactions or imbalances are the cause of poor eating habits and an increase in appetite (i.e. lack of self control) and that results, of course, in obesity. It's absolutely heart breaking to hear dieter after dieter struggling with binging and insatiable appetites -- all the while desperately trying to figure out why they can't just "eat less and move more" -- when adopting a low carb lifestyle might be the exact thing they need to be successful but they don't even consider it because they think of it as a fad diet that's harmful to their health. .

I know that that is a really hard concept to wrap your head around -- especially if you've never experienced it yourself -- but coincidentally today's blog from Mark's Daily Apple addresses this and might offer some insight or be of interest to some:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/when-listening-to-your-body-doesnt-work/#axzz22GtiCWAz

Fortunately, the research and medical communities are finally acknowledging that there's something more going on in regards to weight loss and the research is reflecting that. Low carb diets have been shown time and time again to be an effective and healthful way to lose weight - they are not a fad.

I honestly haven't seen any evidence to support that... supplementing leptin in the obese shows NO CHANGE in eating behavior, so even completely suppressing any appetite does not change eating patterns. This indicates that the issue is not one of appetite disregulation, of but developing eating behaviors that are independent of the biological need for food.

Our bodies have evolved to experience salty, fatty, and sweet foods as physically pleasurable, and this reinforcement can create patterns of addictive behavior the same way that any other enjoyable substance can. The studies in suppressing dopamine pathways (associated with addiction) show remarkable effects in terms of weight loss, suggesting that obesity is more of an addiction problem than an appetite/hormonal problem. Most of the hormonal issues associated with obesity are adaptive mechanisms of the body to prevent further weight gain (e.g. insulin resistance prevents fat gain, which is why many bodybuilders stack clenbuterol+ephedrine, as this induces insulin resistance and allows gaining muscle mass with less fat gain, and a greater fat:muscle loss ratio when cutting).

The weight loss associated with low-carb diets have been shown to be the result two factors:
1) Reduced caloric intake
2) Increased protein intake

There are some serious downsides to low-carb:
1) Muscle loss
2) Much more difficult to gain muscle

This is why you almost never see extremely fit low-carbers, and one of many reasons why virtually every bodybuilder and endurance athlete consumes hundreds of grams of carbs daily.

There IS a good place for low-carb in the weight loss toolkit, but it's not relevant for most people on this site (it's handy when you are already extremely lean and trying to cut more body fat... personally I prefer intermittent fasting+carb cycling, which also results in ketosis, but low carb works ok as well... I personally find that it really compromises the quality of my workouts and recovery, but for short periods can see how it could be helpful to some people). For people over 10% body fat (men) and 18% (women) there is no advantage to a low-carb/high-protein diet vs.an isocaloric high-carb/high-protein diet. In fact, the high carb diet will have a small to moderate advantage, depending on quality of carb sources, due to the higher TEF of carbs vs. fats.

Since adherence is the most important factor in the success of any regimen, I think the more complex and restricted people make their diets, the more likely they are to fail to adhere, which is why I typically recommend setting a reasonable caloric deficit, eating ~1.5g protein/lb. LBM (assuming caloric restriction+weight training, 1g is only one of those are in play), and then not worrying about anything else. That is all that is required to achieve any weight loss goal. Once can certainly make it more complicated, and once body fat is low enough that FFA stop being readily available for metabolism it generally behoves one to do so, there is really not much point for people who are not already in great shape, unless they are willing to add a substantial amount of complexity to their diet/exercise regimen in exchange for perhaps 10-20% faster results.

Just my 2c.