Scientists Claim That Overeating Is Not the Primary Cause of Obesity
nutrition.org
nutrition.org
This isn't because eating less and exercising more don't make you lose weight (they do). It's because people don't follow the messaging.
Also, aren't Twinkies the exact kind of food that this says makes you obese? How does the Twinkie diet work then?
It is 'calories in calories out', but you have to actively find what your maintenance calories is over 2 to 3 week periods. So you effectively have to do cycles of cutting and maintenance to maintain an effective loss.
Doing this and keeping 30-40% protein in your meals will have you lose weight doing pretty much anything
I think where mainstream nutritional science is going is understanding that people's 'maintenance calories' is insanely hard to calculate for people outside the average. For instance hormones playing a much bigger role, where your calorie range is off from what models will say, so unless you know how to safely find that maintenance and treat your diet like science to find it you're going to constantly be over/under weight.
This science is showing more the combination of extremely fatty and carby food at once has a distinct reaction in our body. Where yes it is 'calories in calories out' but that doesn't mean that our bodies don't have their own agenda in terms of using the calories in for fat stores vs energy for activities. Almost like moving your maintenance calories to a lower number when you're eating mostly heavy fats and heavy carbs while being extremely stressed out has a ton of hormones that screams to your body save as much of this as possible.
If your diet is 30-40% protein and not having refined sugars, you'll feel fuller and won't feel the need for more carbs besides indulgence/treat. You don't need to do this to lose or maintain weight, but look at 300 calories of beef or chicken breast vs 300 calories of bread.
The only problem is cost, if you're not careful you go from a daily cost of 3-5$ in groceries to 10-15$ to eat enough protein. However, means doing bare minimum exercise daily with this diet going over in calories will build muscle, and going under (not going past 400-500 deficit) you can lose fat and gain muscle.
Isn't this a fairly easy problem to solve? Don't you just need to make a reasonable guess, calculate your expected weight change over some time period, then follow the diet to see what actually happens to your weight, and adjust your guess accordingly?
> If your diet is 30-40% protein and not having refined sugars, you'll feel fuller and won't feel the need for more carbs besides indulgence/treat. You don't need to do this to lose or maintain weight, but look at 300 calories of beef or chicken breast vs 300 calories of bread.
Agreed. Eating healthier kinds of food can make it easier to lose weight, by making you not still feel hungry after you've eaten the correct amount of food, and so making it require less self-control to stick to the diet.
It's easy if you do the work, weigh your food and find the number that's unique to your situation, which could take a month or so adding or taking away calories to find. Having a model to account for all the ephemeral things that plays into that unique number consistently for the population at large is the hard part
Nutritional science is hard because adherence to the diet is to be taken with a grain of salt, you have to just trust participants. Where outside of athletes I doubt may people have the energy to weigh everything, which also starts to feel unhealthy mental health wise making you seem crazy.
I get alot of push back for it myself, and have to plan around not weighing and counting calories to not get to anxious about it since I am so aware of how a small bit of extra food can have me 'lose' so much progress
Yep! People undercount their calories in like crazy, then go around telling everyone CICO doesn't work since they're still gaining weight even though they're at a 1000 calorie deficit, when they're really at a 1000 calorie surplus.
> a small bit of extra food can have me 'lose' so much progress
Do you mean as a one-time thing, or regularly? Because if the former, I don't see how.
When you're lifting heavy having one day at maintenance or a gain in the middle of a cut all of a sudden your body loves to get water weight/bloat/put on fat. It's hard to tell which, so I say 'lose' progress cause that weight/bloat/fat can be 1-3 pounds where I'm trying to lose .5-1 pound a week at most to avoid stretch marks. Normally I'd say this doesn't matter, so long as the trend line is down over all.
--my weirdly specific scenario that maybe interesting to fitness nerds-- However I'm in a fun very specific situation where I'm mtf trans, where I'm in fat redistribution the only science I have is like 2 studies showing that I lose fat is typical for males with normal testosterone and start generating fat as for a female with normal estrogen. So the trans 'bro science' approach is to use that logic and cycle 5-10 pounds on and off over time so you'll have better results appearance wise.
While I've noticed a bunch of anecdotal differences of losing and gaining fat from compared to when I wasn't on hormones 3 years ago and sucking at dieting. Now I'm at about 23-4% body fat that if I lose is coming from very specific sections of my stomach and not evenly distributed. So even at what would be healthy calorie deficit I get stretch marks from anything over 300cal and only small ones (if I do get them) when I'm doing 200-300.
This, and eating breakfast made a change. If you don't feel like eating breakfast is because you ate too late in the evening and still have food in the system.
Our dietary guidelines for the last few decades have been largely designed to serve the interests of the food industry and agriculture.
With my previous 2 cats, one pigged out and gained weight but the other cat didn't. Since both were about the same body size (length & height), I decided to measure how much the non-overeater was eating and feed that to both cats every day.
It worked great. What was amazing was how little food they really needed (both were indoor-only). I was feeding them about half of what the bag said to feed them based on their weight.
If the bag says to feed 1 cup per 15 lbs for example, it's a good bet they will gain weight. And the solution according to the bag's guidelines? Feed them 1.25 cups of course, because bigger animals need more food! Sheesh, what a racket...
Disclaimer: I don't know that the claim that sugar (and similar carbohydrates) are what causes weight gain is true, I'm just saying that this argument has been around for a long time.
EDIT: /s
Sweet tastes change a number of digestive processes, as does severe calorie restrictions.
Not really, though it needs expanded: Calorie surplus + high carb diet leads (via contributing to or exacerbating various metabolic conditions) more and harder to resolve obesity than the same calorie surplus with other macronutrient composition.
No it doesn't. High carb diets only make obesity more likely because they make it more likely that you'll have a calorie surplus.