How To Lose Fat – The TRUTH About Fat Loss

It kind of flies in the face of "eat more to lose weight!"

Ok. I'll poop on this party just a little bit.

I don't disagree with the article at all. Each of us chooses the strategy for our caloric deficit... the "diet of choice" then enables us to lose and then maintain loss for the long-term. Some choose moderation, and eat whatever they want within their caloric limit. Some prefer some sort of structure, whether that's vegan, vegetarian, paleo, low-carb, low-fat, whatever.

BUT...

This article doesn't address people who are metabolically deranged. Metabolic disorders have an impact on how someone achieves that caloric deficit. People who have been obese for years may not have a normally-functioning liver and pancreas. For example, their ability to regulate insulin has an impact on how their body stores or breaks down fat. If you've never been obese and are fortunate to have a normally-functioning pancreas... then cal deficit regardless of diet is much easier. Eat Twinkies. But MANY people trying to lose weight have been obese for years and have a disordered metabolism. So figuring out how to achieve that cal deficit, and what foods enable them to achieve that in a sustainable way based on how their pancreas and hormones respond can be challenging. That's why is doesn't seem "simple" to some people to just moderate their intake. What they eat (specifically their macro percentages) may indeed have an important impact on their ability to achieve their cal deficit.

Similarly, people who suffer from thyroid issues, or who have undiagnosed food intolerances may not lose weight by just trying to eat at a deficit. They may need to change (gasp... eliminate!) the foods that cause them digestive issues, or (gulp!) take drugs to regulate their hormones, so that they have a fighting chance of making their bodies respond to their weight loss efforts.

No, there aren't special snowflakes. But the cal in / cal out equation is not always simple for people to figure out for their own bodies... and... different diets may, in fact, have an impact on their ability to regulate that cal in / cal out.

Finally, my beef with the studies cited...

The first one, Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss - basically compared a high sucrose diet to... a high carb diet (equal carbs, but just not sucrose). So... if you eat a high carb diet of sucrose vs a high carb diet of some other sugar... there's not much difference. Hmmm.... brilliant!

Comparison of isocaloric very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk. This one is pretty interesting. Similar fat loss in VLCARB compared to low fat/high carbohydrate diets. But, VLCARB was more effective in improving triacylglycerols, HDL-C, fasting and post prandial glucose and insulin concentrations. Perhaps this is saying VLCARB would be a better diet choice for those who want to reduce risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets. Ok... this study was AhMAaaaaZING! Take 54 obese people, and feed them 1100 kcals for 6 weeks, comprised of essentially the same macro ratios. Surprise... they all lose and no difference between the groups. They're eating the same food, just arranged differently! Man, anyone can create a stupid study.

Again... the article is fine in general terms. It just doesn't address the issues that real people face when they are TRYING to eat at a deficit by just counting calories and find it a struggle. And... why'd he pick such stupid studies.

It kind of flies in the face of "eat more to lose weight!"

It kind of flies in the face of "eat more to lose weight!"

I'm not sure you understand the actual premise behind that idea then. Eat more to lose weight doesn't mean eat more than you burn in a day or even eat at your maintenance level. You still eat a a caloric deficit, you just don't eat a super low calorie level while doing so. You still lose weight with a 200, 300, 500, or 700 calorie deficit. But you will lose weight at a slightly slower and healthy pace than doing a dramatic calorie cut down to 1200 or 1000 calories (or less) a day.

It also looks at the fact that the closer you get to your goal weight, the smaller you deficit should be in order to continue losing weight. And then, when you do reach your goal, it's a easier transition into maintenance because your body is already used to consuming a healthy amount of food to fuel the body so it's not as much of a shock to the system when you start eating up to your maintenance levels.