Ben Beckerich wrote:Reading through this thread in one go, I think it's a perfect shining example of how futile a debate this topic really is. Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post, and there are as many arguments as posters...
For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.
The debate is indeed futile as long as differing opinions aren't weighted based on the fundamental scientific research / review that goes into them.
I suspect many of the opinions shared are based on reading websites or specific books from hack authors like Taubes. Sadly, you have to really know that your source is unbiased & well-versed on the literature, or read published research yourself.
WyomingSummits wrote: Yeah, what most fail to realize is that there are a myriad of differences from one person to the next. Med conditions, natural metabolism, genetics, exercise history over the period of one's life....they all add up. If it were as simple as calories in vs calories out, every fricken person in 3rd world countries would be a sack of bones. However, there are dozens of impoverished countries with people on extreme low calorie diets and are working manual labor jobs, yet they have a 30-40% obesity rate. The calorie vs output argument has a honeycomb's worth full of holes. The problem is that it's easier to prove what doesn't work than what does work!
You're wrong on the extremely low calorie diet claim, sorry. That's based on self-reporting data that is known to be flawed methodology.
The calorie in vs out model almost always applies. Metabolic ward studies verify this. However, there are certainly many more factors that affect that equation, like hormonal changes.
The equation is really more like
Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores
RMR = resting metabolic reate
TEF = thermal effect of food
TEA = thermal effect of activity
NEAT = nervous energy expenditure
NEAT,TEA, RMR can easily change depending on how much you are dieting. In addition, obviously hunger is affected by both caloric deficit and bodyfat levels. For instance, the anti-starvation hormone (leptin) tanks at low bodyfat levels, which makes it harder to restrict "Energy In". People who are chronically overweight may end up with leptin resistance, which can affect their long-term "set-point" so that the body puts up a fight in terms of hunger and metabolism at higher bodyfats than when the person used to be skinny (another reason why adosclescent obesity is particularly troubling). And so on...
All the scientists are aware of these things. Fundamentally, weight loss is still about a caloric deficit, which basically means you are going to have to feel hungry (w/o drugs). Protein is important in that it has the most satiating effect, and also prevents lean body mass loss as you diet down. Otherwise, the battle is about how best to deal with hunger. Some people prefer more frequent meals, other are better on less frequent. Intermittent fasting actually bumps up metabolic rate for a day or so, contrary to popular belief. Macro composition is also highly variable. Do whatever works best,
but you are going to have to have a caloric deficit.
Maintenance of weight loss is harder than losing weight. There are various tricks and drugs that may be needed depending on the individual.