The Smarter Science of Slim

<snip>
Nobody believes such sorcery!

This is terrible. It amounts to "eat fewer calories and exercise more" but does so by demonizing certain types of foods and flatly denying actual known science.

Nah. I've read the book and the essential points seem to be if you focus on nutrient dense, whole foods with high levels of satiety you are less likely to over eat (and therefore retain a calorie deficit although that is not explicitly stated.) He doesn't demonise foods so much as saying certain foods make it easier for some people to remain full and satisfied and to put them first.

He also recommends much less volume of exercise but at a greater intensity.

I don't think there is any "magic" to it but I have no doubt that as an approach it will help people by having a readily accessible template to make conscious choices from.

"Nutrient dense" food would be food that has many calories per gram, such as cheese or cookies. Perhaps you meant micronutrient dense?

Look at all the "I can't eat 1200 calories a day, it's too much food!" threads. What do they all have in common? These people have abandoned everything besides "healthy" food like veggies and lean meats.

The natural effect of limiting yourself to "whole" foods is generally that you eat fewer calories. That's why you lose weight doing this. Same thing with Atkins: it's hard to eat too many calories while eating no carbs, and that's why it works for most people.

However, you get the exact same effect eating the same number of calories of other food.

You even point this out yourself: it's not that the foods are healthier and make you lose weight, it's that they fill you up more so you just naturally eat fewer calories.

It all comes back to calories. It always does. If you're losing weight, you're eating a calorie deficit. There's no magic to getting there: if you want to eat some Pop-Tarts, go ahead as long as it fits in your calories. There's no magic substance in Pop-Tarts that makes you get fat any more than there's a magic substance in broccoli that makes you thin.

The real tragedy is when people keep themselves from eating foods they genuinely enjoy for as long as they can because someone convinced them they need to, until they can't hold out anymore and then binge on it. Then everything falls apart.

Anyway, the OP is all about "calories really don't matter; eat nothing but good whole healthy foods and you'll lose weight." This amounts to "eat fewer calories" but then specifically rejects eating fewer calories as the causitive mechanism. It offers no insight on how to enjoy "unhealthy" foods in a healthy way. It offers no insight on body composition, how to stop losing weight and instead maintain or gain weight, etc.

I believe that understanding why something works is the key to flexibility, and flexibility is the key to long term success. The vast majority of people who set out to lose weight and get in shape will not benefit from a diet that specifically excludes extremely common and enjoyable foods. These people are much better served by being taught how to enjoy those foods in the context of a health diet, rather than simply being told not to eat them.

Just eat food. Food that you can find in nature. Eat plenty of non-starchy vegetables, seafood, lean meat, low fat cottage cheese and low fat greek yoghurt, eggs, berries and citrus fruits natural fats, nuts, drink plenty of water. Fill your body with good QUALITY food and it will have no room for anything else

idk where you find low fat cottage cheese and greek yoghurt in nature o.0

We don't find milk-bearing animals in nature?? Then where did they come from--are they sophisticated robots do you think?

When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.

I think this is spot on.

Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.

The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.

While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?

It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)

I believe that understanding why something works is the key to flexibility, and flexibility is the key to long term success. The vast majority of people who set out to lose weight and get in shape will not benefit from a diet that specifically excludes extremely common and enjoyable foods. These people are much better served by being taught how to enjoy those foods in the context of a health diet, rather than simply being told not to eat them.

On an intellectual level, I agree with you.

On a practical level I don't think it matters at all. If it works for someone over the long term it works. End of debate. If it doesn't then they should try something else.

Knowing does not necessarily mean applying. Calorie counting and yes, even flexible dieting routinely fails to deliver long term success for some people. Dieting, even so called "lifestyle change" dieting has horrific failure rates. As many success stories as there are on this forum there are people saying they have regained or "it's just not working".

We need more elegant solutions, not less, more viewpoints and discourse not just "eat less move more" as a public policy statement.