the real science

pilot2007 wrote: »

Like most of us, we hear about the latest praise over some diet that is going to make us all lose weight. Adkins, south beach, paleo, and the raw food diet are a few that I have heard of. But what I am asking here, does anyone know the real science behind losing weight.

Yes. A lot of people do. The basics got figured out a while ago. Problem is, there are a lot of people in the world who are very clever. Some of them figured out that they can make a living by telling you what your dietician doesn't want you to know and your doctor will hate this site, send money now.

You eat food. It has calories in it. You go about your day, burning calories. If you take in more calories than you put out, you gain weight; if the numbers are the same, you stay the same weight; if you eat fewer calories than you burn, you lose weight. That's all there is to it.

There's some legitimate question over what's the best way to do that. Fibrous vegetables, protein, and fat, tend to be the things that make you feel full. I mean, you could wake up in the morning and eat spoonfuls of sugar until you hit your calorie allotment for the day, eat no more, and lose weight. You'd be starving but it would shrink your tummy, but most people wouldn't stick to a diet like that because constant starving is just too much. The challenge with losing weight isn't science, it's will power, and finding ways that make it easier for you as an individual.

pilot2007 wrote: »

Like most of us, we hear about the latest praise over some diet that is going to make us all lose weight. Adkins, south beach, paleo, and the raw food diet are a few that I have heard of. But what I am asking here, does anyone know the real science behind losing weight. I understand a good amount through my own research but not everything. Do not eat large meals, try to break it up in to smaller meals through the day to maintain your metabolism. Try to stay away from foods with a high glycemic index so your blood sugar does not spike telling your body to store. And maintain a lower calorie intake than what you have burned for the day to lose weight.

Is it that simple? Does the law of thermal dynamics rule our bodies? I do not know, so I turn to all of you in the same situation. Any information on the science would help. It would draw a much clearer picture on how to overcome this hurtle!

Calories in vs. Calories out.

AlphaCajun wrote: »

The only sentence that applies to actual science of weightloss is eat less calories than you burn. That's it. Size of your meals, how often you eat, what time you eat has little to no effect on weightloss. Stick to a moderate caloric deficit and succeed.

Edited to add, the reason all of these "diets" exist is you can't make money by telling people to eat less than they burn.. so the fitness industry has to devise "plans" to sell to people who want to think fad diets will make it easy..

All of this!!

It is calories in and calories out but please remember some foods are more nutritious than others. 150 calories worth of twinkie is 150 calories worth of broccoli but one will take you further than the other and with more nutrients.

It's not truly calories in calories out. People's metabolisms differ. Processed foods are easier to chew digest, so you get more calories out of them. There are all sorts of other variables such as time of day, sleep patterns, etc. You may require more of a calorie deficit than someone else of the same sex, height and weight.

That said, calorie counting generally works. Most diets are just complicated ways to cut calories by limiting your food choices.

The science of "will power" has proven that it is a diminishing resource. You can use it, but you will lose it if you do use it, so the trick of successful weight loss is to slowly adjust your habits so that week-by-week you ease into new habits which you quickly become comfortable with. Once you are comfortable, body and mind, with consuming hundreds of calories less than before, the weight falls off without 'acts of will' or such that you can't sustain.

MissusMoon wrote: »

Espressocycle wrote: »

It's not truly calories in calories out. People's metabolisms differ. Processed foods are easier to chew digest, so you get more calories out of them. There are all sorts of other variables such as time of day, sleep patterns, etc. You may require more of a calorie deficit than someone else of the same sex, height and weight.

There is a lot in this paragraph that is scientifically false.

Unless there is a serious health issue, metabolisms are not that different.

If I eat 100 calories of processed food or 100 calories of celery, I'm getting 100 calories into my body. The type of food does not matter.

Time of day food is consumed does not matter.

Sleep does impact cortisol levels and that can impact weight loss, so a gold star to you for that.

It takes 3500 extra calories to gain a pound. It takes a deficit of 3500 calories to lose a pound. That does not vary from person to person. Yes, people at different weights and heights and activity levels have a different baseline.

The type of food can matter. Example 1: The thermic effect of food. Some foods burn slightly more calories to digest than others do (e.g., protein has a higher TEF than carbs or fat). That can affect the "CO" side of CICO. Not saying it's enough to really matter, but it's there.

Example 2: We digest fewer calories from almonds than previously thought (~20% fewer).

An interesting post on the topic of calories:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/

That said, from a practical perspective, worrying about this probably unnecessarily complicates things. Eat food, evaluate results, adjust.

pilot2007 wrote: »

I appreciate everyone's response. Its shocking sometimes to think how simple the concept is of losing weight. The real struggle is with our basic human needs and drives for survival. Well here is to day 1, and tank you all again.

Right. Pretty much every other piece of advice you get (beyond things that aren't just complete bunk, like not eating carbs and fat at the same meal or the Beverly Hills Diet -- although even fad diets are just super low cal diets with made-up rationales) is simply a strategy that some people find helps them eat less than they burn.

That's why LCHF and paleo work for some, why eating lots of little meals works for some and intermittent fasting works for others, why some think eating breakfast is important and others find skipping it a good strategy, why some do better eating dinner late (me) and others do well with a hard cut-off after which they will not eat. It's all about you and what you find helps you keep a deficit. For me not snacking and eating on a (mostly) regular schedule helps. Some things probably make it easier for many people (eating more satiating foods, eating enough protein, understanding what you are eating, getting enough sleep). But it's all stuff we need to figure out for ourselves and anyone who claims that any of these rules is necessary or helpful for everyone is, basically, lying.