do you work out?

[Mr. Scram]

Neither losing weight nor bulking up were my goals which, was to become more healthy. The weight loss was unexpected and not planned.

In theory eating less can cause fat loss, but in practise isn't easy, is unsustainable, in the long term and ultimately results in muscle loss too. Exercising regularly is more sustainable and can result in a reduction in body fat, without the need to restrict energy intake. It's certainly much more healthy, than dieting which normally fails, in the long run.

The mistake a lot of people make is dieting instead of changing your eating habits. Torturing yourself for a little while is no use, you need to make permanent or long term changes. Obviously, those are going to be much less extreme.

Exercise isn't a very effective way to burn fat, simply because the extra energy spent is only a tiny fraction of the energy you use daily. Just staying alive and digesting foods consumes the vast majority of the energy you burn. Not to mention people that exercise tend to compensate their energy spent by eating more. Exercise makes hungry. That leads to the conclusion that sensibly reducing energy intake is a relatively effective way of reducing fat, although doing exercise does help creating an energy deficient state. Exercise does improve countless others things though, so going at it is certainly a good idea.

That being said, as always it's not as black and white as people make it to be. People have all sorts of ridiculous convictions when it comes to food and exercise. There's a lot of harmful nonsense floating around, often preached as absolute truth and defended to the death.

[CopperCone]

I do have to say though that when I was younger in the 18-20 year area I used to do jogging like jog 1-2 miles at 4am when I could not sleep in school, and the benefits I enjoy from weight lifting are far superior imo. I also used to do some things like circuit exercises with lighter weights (say up to 25lb dumbells) when I jogged, but not during jogging obviously

[nctnico]

Neither losing weight nor bulking up were my goals which, was to become more healthy. The weight loss was unexpected and not planned.

In theory eating less can cause fat loss, but in practise isn't easy, is unsustainable, in the long term and ultimately results in muscle loss too. Exercising regularly is more sustainable and can result in a reduction in body fat, without the need to restrict energy intake. It's certainly much more healthy, than dieting which normally fails, in the long run.

The mistake a lot of people make is dieting instead of changing your eating habits. Torturing yourself for a little while is no use, you need to make permanent or long term changes. Obviously, those are going to be much less extreme.

Exercise isn't a very effective way to burn fat, simply because the extra energy spent is only a tiny fraction of the energy you use daily. Just staying alive and digesting foods consumes the vast majority of the energy you burn. Not to mention people that exercise tend to compensate their energy spent by eating more. Exercise makes hungry. That leads to the conclusion that sensibly reducing energy intake is a relatively effective way of reducing fat, although doing exercise does help creating an energy deficient state. Exercise does improve countless others things though, so going at it is certainly a good idea.

My personal experience is that eating less isn't causing any weight loss at some point. It is like a new balance is achieved. For me doing exercise does help to lose weight but it is going slow.

That being said, as always it's not as black and white as people make it to be. People have all sorts of ridiculous convictions when it comes to food and exercise. There's a lot of harmful nonsense floating around, often preached as absolute truth and defended to the death.

I agree about the short term diets. These don't work long term and crap like don't mixing certain kinds of foods, etc isn't going to work either. The bottom line is that in order to lose weight you need to burn more calories than you eat.

[NiHaoMike]

What about the few who eat a lot, exercise little, and yet are really skinny? (I know a few who are like that, both on TV and in real life.) The vague answer is "they have a high metabolism", but do scientists know about the exact details?

[nctnico]

What about the few who eat a lot, exercise little, and yet are really skinny? (I know a few who are like that, both on TV and in real life.) The vague answer is "they have a high metabolism", but do scientists know about the exact details?

I know a few people like that too. I've read an interesting article about that in a science magazine. It seems that the amount of fat storage cells varies for each person. If a person doesn't have the storage space available then the excess food just goes out again.
High metabolism is not a good thing to have BTW.

[Zero999]

Neither losing weight nor bulking up were my goals which, was to become more healthy. The weight loss was unexpected and not planned.

In theory eating less can cause fat loss, but in practise isn't easy, is unsustainable, in the long term and ultimately results in muscle loss too. Exercising regularly is more sustainable and can result in a reduction in body fat, without the need to restrict energy intake. It's certainly much more healthy, than dieting which normally fails, in the long run.

The mistake a lot of people make is dieting instead of changing your eating habits. Torturing yourself for a little while is no use, you need to make permanent or long term changes. Obviously, those are going to be much less extreme.

What if your diet isn't that bad, yet you're still overweight? The only way to cut back would be to deliberately restrict intake, permanently, which lead to feelings of deprivation and eventually binge eating. What's worse is the muscle lost when one is restricting is only replaced with fat when the weight is regained. Another problem is it's common to overshoot one's starting weight too.

Exercise isn't a very effective way to burn fat, simply because the extra energy spent is only a tiny fraction of the energy you use daily. Just staying alive and digesting foods consumes the vast majority of the energy you burn. Not to mention people that exercise tend to compensate their energy spent by eating more. Exercise makes hungry. That leads to the conclusion that sensibly reducing energy intake is a relatively effective way of reducing fat, although doing exercise does help creating an energy deficient state. Exercise does improve countless others things though, so going at it is certainly a good idea.

In my experience, I've found the opposite to be true. Yes, I do compensate by eating more, but that's a good thing. If I didn't, I'd be badly malnourished by now. There's no way I could do the exercise I do and eat what I did before, without it damaging my health.

When I started my exercise regime, I did eat more, when I was more active but I didn't entirely compensate with extra energy intake, so I still achieved a net energy expenditure: only a small energy deficit is required to lose weight and it's not difficult to achieve this, by doing more intensive exercise. The weight came off very slowly, but I believe that was the best way. Now, my weight has stabilised, at a healthy level, I do fully compensate with extra energy intake, which is healthy, even if what I sometimes eat isn't. If I've neglected to eat enough for a day or so, I do get cravings and will eat some high energy food, which may not be ideal, but it's better than the alternative: malnutrition. Of course the most healthy thing would be to have eaten enough in the first place, but real life can get in the way.

One of the benefits of exercise is improved insulin response and a faster metabolism, due to increased lean body mass vs fat, which will make your body better at managing its own energy intake vs expenditure and less prone to excessive weight gain. The main reasons people tend to gain weight as they get older, is because their metabolism slows down and their insulin response deteriorates, which both lead to weight gain and exercise helps to prevent it.

In the past, I've tried all the standard advice about following a healthy, balanced diet, without restricting my intake and it didn't work. I still ended up overweight. It's genetic. If I live a sedentary lifestyle, I'll gain weight, even with a healthy diet. I don't keep gaining weight forever, but it all piles around my middle. No amount of dieting fixes it. Some people are lucky, their genes mean they can lead a sedentary lifestyle, eat what they want and not get fat. Then there are people worse off than me, who'll probably always be overweight to some degree, even with a healthy diet and exercise regime: the key for them is keeping it to a safe level.

That being said, as always it's not as black and white as people make it to be. People have all sorts of ridiculous convictions when it comes to food and exercise. There's a lot of harmful nonsense floating around, often preached as absolute truth and defended to the death.

I agree. One of the most harmful ones I see, is people believing that restricting their food intake is good or healthy. In reality restriction is generally bad. There may be exceptional circumstances, when it's a good idea, but it's not natural and tends to lead to disordered eating, whether it's clinically diagnosable: binge eating, bulimia, anorexia etc. or not.

[Miyuki]

My house is one big gym 
Just little digging today, then some add some cabless and pipes, put floor heating tube and pour concrete
It is nice to see outcome

[Bud]

What about the few who eat a lot, exercise little, and yet are really skinny? (I know a few who are like that, both on TV and in real life.) The vague answer is "they have a high metabolism", but do scientists know about the exact details?

All they need to do is to wait until they hit their 40th birthday. Then the countdown starts.

[NiHaoMike]

What about the few who eat a lot, exercise little, and yet are really skinny? (I know a few who are like that, both on TV and in real life.) The vague answer is "they have a high metabolism", but do scientists know about the exact details?

All they need to do is to wait until they hit their 40th birthday. Then the countdown starts.

One of them is about that old and shows no sign of weight gain. Also interesting to note that it seems to be most common with Asians, so genetics is definitely a factor.

[Leiothrix]

What about the few who eat a lot, exercise little, and yet are really skinny?

That's because people are crap about estimating what they eat.  Get them to actually count the calories they put in their face and it will most likely give the answer you'd expect.

[thermistor-guy]

What about the few who eat a lot, exercise little, and yet are really skinny? (I know a few who are like that, both on TV and in real life.). The vague answer is "they have a high metabolism", but do scientists know about the exact details

There is a phenomenon called TOFI - thin on the outide, fat on the inside. This is where some individuals seem to have normal body weight, but their internal organs are choked with fat. Instead of accumulating fat in adipose tissue and looking obese, these individuals store the fat in and around internal organs. Despite appearances, these individuals are well on the way to suffering from metabolic syndrome, diabetes type II, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and so on. External appearance can be misleading.

However, it is also known that humans, like other animals, defend a certain body weight via the operation of a feedback loop, mediated by Leptin. Leptin is a hormone  secreted by adipose tissue. It signals to your brain (the hypothalamus, which controls hunger) that you have enough energy stored to engage in daily life. The more fat you have, the more Leptin you secrete, and, if the feedback loop is working well, the less hungry you feel (over time).

Conversely, the less fat you have, the less Leptin you secrete, and the more hungry you feel, if - and this is a big if - the feedback loop is working correctly.

So some people stay skinny because they eat a lot from time to time, but other times they eat less, with the Leptin-mediated feedback stabilizing their body weight.

But certain diets can interfere with the feedback loop. In particular, diets high in carbohydrates can cause chronically high levels of Insulin in your bloodstream. Insulin acts on the brain as well as other organs. Chronically high insulin interferes with Leptin signalling in the hypothalamus. In effect, it reduces the feedback loop gain, causing "Leptin resistance".

So you get fat people whose adipose tissue is pumping out huge amounts of Leptin, but because their Insulin levels are chronically high, their brain gets increasingly "deaf" to the massive  Leptin signal. As far as their hypothalamus is concerned, these people are starving.  Their Leptin feedback loop is deranged by their high-carb diet, but the feedback is still working in a fashion.

Hence the phenomenon of fat people who are always hungry and who are regulating at a very high body weight. No matter what they do, it seems, they can't lose weight permanently. The answer is to change their diet, so that their Insulin is no longer chronically high; they regain Leptin sensitivity; and their hypothalamus starts regulating at a saner level of body weight.

[CopperCone]

if you are skinny then keep adding more weight each time you work out, even if its like some 1.25lb plates on a barbell (typically 2.5-5lb per workout), or get magnets to stick something like 0.5 lb - 1.25lb plates on your dumbells (you wanna ramp up dumbells slowly IMO).. your body will eventually not be able to perform the exercise without increasing muscular growth, it just won't be physically possible to do what your doing without some kind of growth some where, no matter what is going on with the metabolism or whatever.

[thermistor-guy]

Do you work out? I do strict heavy barbell exercises like stronglifts.

I noticed that engineers seem to enjoy doing 'fun' physical activities with more of a focus on cardiocentric/endurance activity then more then strict muscular exercises. Biking and climbing seem popular with engineers I know in particular. How do you fit in? Some also seem to enjoy jogging.

I enjoy aerobics. But I also enjoy heavy lifts (deadlift, clean, clean and jerk, etc.), and bodyweight calisthenics (front lever, dragon flag, pistol squat).

For aerobics, I do a hard one-hour session each week, either a "rolling hills" type routine on an elliptical cross-trainer, or interval training on a stationary bike (one minute sprint, one minute easy pace, repeat for the hour). I make sure the session takes me close to my limit - if I'm feeling stronger than normal, then I speed up. I also run to and from the gym, even on aerobics days, so I get a few hours of jogging per week that way.

Bodyweight calisthenics is where the real action is, for me. One of my current goals is to master a strict one-arm pullup. I can do posted pullups - that's where you pull up mainly with one arm, with the other arm providing some  support and balance. And I can do one-arm negatives, lowering myself by one arm from the top pullup position. But I can't do the strict one-arm concentric yet. Something to look forward to.

[NiHaoMike]

But certain diets can interfere with the feedback loop. In particular, diets high in carbohydrates can cause chronically high levels of Insulin in your bloodstream. Insulin acts on the brain as well as other organs. Chronically high insulin interferes with Leptin signalling in the hypothalamus. In effect, it reduces the feedback loop gain, causing "Leptin resistance".

Freelee The Banana Girl, a fitness model, actually advocates a high carb, low fat diet for those looking to lose weight as well as those who just want to be healthy. The key is that natural, unprocessed carbs like those found in fruit are very different from refined carbs.

Another point that I just remembered is that cold weather is something else that can help with weight loss. Apparently just 15 minutes of exposure to cold weather (not even that cold at 53F) is as effective as a hour of exercise, although it is important to note that it is not a substitute for diet and exercise - just another tool that can be used for weight loss. That might be one of Allie Moore's secrets to how she stays so skinny - she doesn't mind cold weather very much.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140211-shivering-cold-exercise-brown-fat-white-fat-irisin-metabolism-weight-loss/

On the contrary, particularly hot weather makes it difficult to get a lot of exercise activities done.

[thermistor-guy]

But certain diets can interfere with the feedback loop. In particular, diets high in carbohydrates can cause chronically high levels of Insulin in your bloodstream. Insulin acts on the brain as well as other organs. Chronically high insulin interferes with Leptin signalling in the hypothalamus. In effect, it reduces the feedback loop gain, causing "Leptin resistance".

Freelee The Banana Girl, a fitness model, actually advocates a high carb, low fat diet for those looking to lose weight as well as those who just want to be healthy. The key is that natural, unprocessed carbs like those found in fruit are very different from refined carbs...

Yes, it's called the fruit paradox: Fructose is a problematic nutrient, so how is it that consumption of raw fruit seems to be beneficial? The fibre in raw fruit helps slow done absorption, so the liver does not get a large sudden hit of fructose, unlike sodas loaded with HFCS. Fruit fibre is an ameliorating factor, but not the whole answer. Raw fruit also contains antioxidants and other bioactive ingredients that processing tends to remove. These ingredients help liver function (among other things), but I'm not sure that explains it either.  The fruit paradox is still a mystery.

I advocate raw fruit as a replacement for fruit juice. I also advocate fruit that is strongly or brightly coloured, a la Terry Wahls. The intense colour indicates the presence of antioxidants and other bioactive ingredients. So mango, passionfruit, papaya, kiwi fruit, berries, cherries, rockmelon, mandarines: yes. Pale coloured fruit, like bananas, apples, pears, I tend to avoid because there are more nutrient-dense fruits available. For the same fructose load, I get more nutritional bang for my buck.

Everyone differs in their tolerance of carbohydrates, and this tolerance tends to decrease as you get older. Some people do ok on high carbs, especially young people. But some people don't, even as children. To complicate matters, there is a plausible argument, put forward by Paul Jaminet and others, that some unrefined carbs (e.g. rice, starchy vegetables) are necessary to feed the bacteria in your gut, which in turn feed you. Some people have adverse reactions to paleo diets for this reason - their carb restriction is too extreme for their gut to handle.

Using myself as an n=1 experiment, and monitoring myself for how well I recover from hard workouts, I've settled on a diet that is moderately low-carb, moderately high-fat: meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, some nuts, some dairy (which I can tolerate), olive oil,  and coconut milk (plus some  other refinements I won't go into here).

If I eat really well, I can do hard workouts 36 hours apart with good recovery. If my nutrition is not on point, then takes me 48 hours or more for good recovery. The gym, and my runs to the gym, make it clear whether I'm getting it right.

If you are interested in nutrition, I recommend following the work of researchers in two areas: nutrition for elite athletes, and nutrition for treating chronic life-threatening disease. In both cases the stakes are high, and getting it right matters very much. Obsolete dogma from a bygone era doesn't cut it. Two names to start with are Jeff Volek (athletes) and Terry Wahls (life-threatening disease).

[thermistor-guy]

But certain diets can interfere with the feedback loop. In particular, diets high in carbohydrates can cause chronically high levels of Insulin in your bloodstream. Insulin acts on the brain as well as other organs. Chronically high insulin interferes with Leptin signalling in the hypothalamus. In effect, it reduces the feedback loop gain, causing "Leptin resistance".

...
Another point that I just remembered is that cold weather is something else that can help with weight loss. Apparently just 15 minutes of exposure to cold weather (not even that cold at 53F) is as effective as a hour of exercise, although it is important to note that it is not a substitute for diet and exercise - just another tool that can be used for weight loss. That might be one of Allie Moore's secrets to how she stays so skinny - she doesn't mind cold weather very much.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140211-shivering-cold-exercise-brown-fat-white-fat-irisin-metabolism-weight-loss/

On the contrary, particularly hot weather makes it difficult to get a lot of exercise activities done.

Bodily feedback sensing cold weather goes to your hypothalamus. After a swim in cold water, you typically feel hungry - your hypothalamus at work. It is an exquisite feedback system, balancing your hunger with your energy needs. But it is derailed by modern high-carb highly processed foods.

I run to the gym in all weather - hot, cold, raining. My body seems to have developed a conditioned response. As soon as I put my gym gear on, I feel warmer. It's got to the point where I need to keep my head shaved to promote heat loss, otherwise I overheat in the gym. All around me are guys with warm tracksuits, meanwhile I'm losing 0.5 kg per workout in sweat, in lightweight summer gear.

[Mr. Scram]

My personal experience is that eating less isn't causing any weight loss at some point. It is like a new balance is achieved. For me doing exercise does help to lose weight but it is going slow.

I agree about the short term diets. These don't work long term and crap like don't mixing certain kinds of foods, etc isn't going to work either. The bottom line is that in order to lose weight you need to burn more calories than you eat.

The body is quite annoying in the sense that it adapts in all sorts of ways to the changes that we make, often in ways counter productive to the desire to lose weight. It doesn't like to lose those comfy reserves it gathered, even when the idiot at the wheel decides he wants to throw them all out the window.

In the end it still boils down to what you say, output should exceed input.

[Mr. Scram]

Yes, it's called the fruit paradox: Fructose is a problematic nutrient, so how is it that consumption of raw fruit seems to be beneficial? The fibre in raw fruit helps slow done absorption, so the liver does not get a large sudden hit of fructose, unlike sodas loaded with HFCS. Fruit fibre is an ameliorating factor, but not the whole answer. Raw fruit also contains antioxidants and other bioactive ingredients that processing tends to remove. These ingredients help liver function (among other things), but I'm not sure that explains it either.  The fruit paradox is still a mystery.

I advocate raw fruit as a replacement for fruit juice. I also advocate fruit that is strongly or brightly coloured, a la Terry Wahls. The intense colour indicates the presence of antioxidants and other bioactive ingredients. So mango, passionfruit, papaya, kiwi fruit, berries, cherries, rockmelon, mandarines: yes. Pale coloured fruit, like bananas, apples, pears, I tend to avoid because there are more nutrient-dense fruits available. For the same fructose load, I get more nutritional bang for my buck.

Everyone differs in their tolerance of carbohydrates, and this tolerance tends to decrease as you get older. Some people do ok on high carbs, especially young people. But some people don't, even as children. To complicate matters, there is a plausible argument, put forward by Paul Jaminet and others, that some unrefined carbs (e.g. rice, starchy vegetables) are necessary to feed the bacteria in your gut, which in turn feed you. Some people have adverse reactions to paleo diets for this reason - their carb restriction is too extreme for their gut to handle.

Using myself as an n=1 experiment, and monitoring myself for how well I recover from hard workouts, I've settled on a diet that is moderately low-carb, moderately high-fat: meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, some nuts, some dairy (which I can tolerate), olive oil,  and coconut milk (plus some  other refinements I won't go into here).

If I eat really well, I can do hard workouts 36 hours apart with good recovery. If my nutrition is not on point, then takes me 48 hours or more for good recovery. The gym, and my runs to the gym, make it clear whether I'm getting it right.

If you are interested in nutrition, I recommend following the work of researchers in two areas: nutrition for elite athletes, and nutrition for treating chronic life-threatening disease. In both cases the stakes are high, and getting it right matters very much. Obsolete dogma from a bygone era doesn't cut it. Two names to start with are Jeff Volek (athletes) and Terry Wahls (life-threatening disease).

Can I ask what your background is?

[Mr. Scram]

What if your diet isn't that bad, yet you're still overweight? The only way to cut back would be to deliberately restrict intake, permanently, which lead to feelings of deprivation and eventually binge eating. What's worse is the muscle lost when one is restricting is only replaced with fat when the weight is regained. Another problem is it's common to overshoot one's starting weight too.

In my experience, I've found the opposite to be true. Yes, I do compensate by eating more, but that's a good thing. If I didn't, I'd be badly malnourished by now. There's no way I could do the exercise I do and eat what I did before, without it damaging my health.

When I started my exercise regime, I did eat more, when I was more active but I didn't entirely compensate with extra energy intake, so I still achieved a net energy expenditure: only a small energy deficit is required to lose weight and it's not difficult to achieve this, by doing more intensive exercise. The weight came off very slowly, but I believe that was the best way. Now, my weight has stabilised, at a healthy level, I do fully compensate with extra energy intake, which is healthy, even if what I sometimes eat isn't. If I've neglected to eat enough for a day or so, I do get cravings and will eat some high energy food, which may not be ideal, but it's better than the alternative: malnutrition. Of course the most healthy thing would be to have eaten enough in the first place, but real life can get in the way.

One of the benefits of exercise is improved insulin response and a faster metabolism, due to increased lean body mass vs fat, which will make your body better at managing its own energy intake vs expenditure and less prone to excessive weight gain. The main reasons people tend to gain weight as they get older, is because their metabolism slows down and their insulin response deteriorates, which both lead to weight gain and exercise helps to prevent it.

In the past, I've tried all the standard advice about following a healthy, balanced diet, without restricting my intake and it didn't work. I still ended up overweight. It's genetic. If I live a sedentary lifestyle, I'll gain weight, even with a healthy diet. I don't keep gaining weight forever, but it all piles around my middle. No amount of dieting fixes it. Some people are lucky, their genes mean they can lead a sedentary lifestyle, eat what they want and not get fat. Then there are people worse off than me, who'll probably always be overweight to some degree, even with a healthy diet and exercise regime: the key for them is keeping it to a safe level.

I agree. One of the most harmful ones I see, is people believing that restricting their food intake is good or healthy. In reality restriction is generally bad. There may be exceptional circumstances, when it's a good idea, but it's not natural and tends to lead to disordered eating, whether it's clinically diagnosable: binge eating, bulimia, anorexia etc. or not.

There is only one way of losing weight or fat the natural way and that's having more energy output than input. In short, you need to have an energy difficency. It's essentially basic thermodynamics. There are two parameters that influence this, which are the amount of energy spent and the amount of energy absorbed.

The amount of energy you spend is quite fixed. Men burn about 1500 to 1900 Kcal without doing anything else. Your body is heated, repairs to organs and tissues are being made and food is digested. If you go about your daily business and move about another 300 to 400 Kcal is added to that. This is where the requirements of approximately 1900 to 2300 Kcal a day for a grown man comes from. Most typical sports burn about 400 Kcal an hour if done enthusiastically. This differs from sport to sport, but 400 Kcal an hour seems to be a fairly common figure for active sports. Even if you exercise with quite some vigor for an hour a day every day, you see that it only represents a small fraction of the total energy spent. Moreover, research indicates that people working out compensate their energy burn by eating more. It's a natural impulse, as the body requires repairs and is trying to replenish the energy lost. The conclusion is that even if you dedicate one or more hours a day every day to sports, you will only influence the energy spent versus absorbed balance in a modest way. To quote an article: "Essentially, you’d need to run seven to 10 miles a day to lose one pound a week, says Holly Lofton, M.D., an assistant professor of medicine and director of the weight management program at New York University's Langone Medical Center. The average person can’t keep this up, especially without increasing their caloric intake."

The second part of the equation is the energy intake and that's where things become interesting. What you eat is almost entirely up to you. Of course, starving yourself significantly is unhealthy and causes the body to respond in counterproductive ways if it senses it needs to go into survival mode, but rather than only having a crummy 20% scale to play with, you essentially get 100% of the scale on this side of the equation. Food is incredibly energy dense, so eating too much quickly leads to an energy surplus. A single slice of pizza or chocolate muffin can offset that hour of vigorously exercising. You can eat a perfectly balanced diet when it comes to nutrients while still overeating on the caloric side. There's simply too much going in for what's going out. Your own reports confirm this: a healthy and balanced diet without intake restriction didn't work. It's not genetic, it's input versus output. Restricting your food intake is how you achieve a healthy weight, provided you don't overdo the deficit and assure you take in all the essential vitamins, minerals and other stuff your body needs. The minor deficit we're talking about won't lead to cravings or binge eating. It's creating huge and sudden deficiencies that does that, or maybe a complete and total lack of the most basic self-control and discipline. A kilogram of fat represents about 7000 Kcal of energy, so having a daily deficit of a few hundred calories will burn off the excess slowly but surely. Some recommend going as far as 500 Kcal a day. Exercising an hour a day every day takes quite a bit of dedication to pull off, while reducing your energy intake by a similar amount is trivially done.

It's important to recognize the difference between a balanced diet nutrient wise and energy intake. Losing weight is about energy intake versus output. On the other hand, a balanced diet ensures that your body has all the different substances it needs to keep everything running smoothly and create tissues properly. To make a crude comparison, energy intake is the fuel for the engine and nutrient intake is the oil. Both are essential in different ways. You can have a perfect balance of nutrients while have a vast excess of energy or a defitic You can also have a perfect energy intake while missing essential nutrients for constructing the various tissues and cells optimally. In extreme cases people have starved to death while having an abundance of energy available to them.

Finally I want to note that exercising is a very good idea. It is an excellent way of setting yourself up for a longer, healthier and happier life. Losing weight through exercise alone isn't very viable, but it certainly can complement a proper dietary regime.

[Zero999]

There is only one way of losing weight or fat the natural way and that's having more energy output than input. In short, you need to have an energy difficency. It's essentially basic thermodynamics. There are two parameters that influence this, which are the amount of energy spent and the amount of energy absorbed.

The amount of energy you spend is quite fixed. Men burn about 1500 to 1900 Kcal without doing anything else. Your body is heated, repairs to organs and tissues are being made and food is digested. If you go about your daily business and move about another 300 to 400 Kcal is added to that. This is where the requirements of approximately 1900 to 2300 Kcal a day for a grown man comes from. Most typical sports burn about 400 Kcal an hour if done enthusiastically. This differs from sport to sport, but 400 Kcal an hour seems to be a fairly common figure for active sports. Even if you exercise with quite some vigor for an hour a day every day, you see that it only represents a small fraction of the total energy spent. Moreover, research indicates that people working out compensate their energy burn by eating more. It's a natural impulse, as the body requires repairs and is trying to replenish the energy lost. The conclusion is that even if you dedicate one or more hours a day every day to sports, you will only influence the energy spent versus absorbed balance in a modest way. To quote an article: "Essentially, you’d need to run seven to 10 miles a day to lose one pound a week, says Holly Lofton, M.D., an assistant professor of medicine and director of the weight management program at New York University's Langone Medical Center. The average person can’t keep this up, especially without increasing their caloric intake."

What you say about intake vs expenditure is true, but the human body is far more complex than that. A reduction in intake, partly compensated for by a reduction in basil metabolic rate. The body starts to slow down, reducing its temperature, heart rate etc. to save energy. Exercise helps to counteract the reduction in BMR, as well as burning extra energy.

And what's wrong with losing weight really slowly? Fair enough running the equivalent of 10 miles per day may not be realistic, but 5 miles is and losing 0.5lb per week is a perfectly realistic and healthy. Slower is better, as there's less chance of the body compensating for the energy deficit.

The second part of the equation is the energy intake and that's where things become interesting. What you eat is almost entirely up to you. Of course, starving yourself significantly is unhealthy and causes the body to respond in counterproductive ways if it senses it needs to go into survival mode, but rather than only having a crummy 20% scale to play with, you essentially get 100% of the scale on this side of the equation.

No, you don't have 100% of the scale to play with on the other side of the scale, not to lose weight sustainably and safely. I'd say you probably have even less, than 20%. The body is very sensitive to a reduction in energy intake.

Food is incredibly energy dense, so eating too much quickly leads to an energy surplus. A single slice of pizza or chocolate muffin can offset that hour of vigorously exercising. You can eat a perfectly balanced diet when it comes to nutrients while still overeating on the caloric side. There's simply too much going in for what's going out. Your own reports confirm this: a healthy and balanced diet without intake restriction didn't work. It's not genetic, it's input versus output.

Yes it is genetic. I was eating according to my appetite signal, which is something I do not control and is a product of my genes. I don't monitor how much oxygen my body uses and there's no point in doing the same for food. It just isn't healthy! I've been there, done that and suffered the consequences!

Restricting your food intake is how you achieve a healthy weight, provided you don't overdo the deficit and assure you take in all the essential vitamins, minerals and other stuff your body needs. The minor deficit we're talking about won't lead to cravings or binge eating. It's creating huge and sudden deficiencies that does that, or maybe a complete and total lack of the most basic self-control and discipline. A kilogram of fat represents about 7000 Kcal of energy, so having a daily deficit of a few hundred calories will burn off the excess slowly but surely. Some recommend going as far as 500 Kcal a day. Exercising an hour a day every day takes quite a bit of dedication to pull off, while reducing your energy intake by a similar amount is trivially done.

No, even minor reductions in energy intake results in cravings, in the long term. I've tried to diet down to a healthy weight and it just didn't work, over the long term and it had nothing to do with lack of will power!

500Kcal per day will certainly result in binge eating. Experiments have been conducted in the past which prove this. Lower energy deficits, over longer periods of time, are more tolerable, but do eventually lead to cravings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

Your figures are all correct. Food is energy dense and exercise does result in in increase in energy intake, but the idea that restricting energy intake will result in a healthy weight, long term is flawed. It ignores the psychological and practical aspects of healthy eating. What happens if you've exhausted the number of calories in your food plan, yet you're still hungry? Do you eat a bit more and reduce the figure for the next day or go to bed hungry? Neither options are good.

Finally I want to note that exercising is a very good idea. It is an excellent way of setting yourself up for a longer, healthier and happier life. Losing weight through exercise alone isn't very viable, but it certainly can complement a proper dietary regime.

My personal experience tells me otherwise. I've tried restricting my calories, carbohydrate, fat etc. intake in the past, suffered from disordered eating and it only resulted in further weight gain, long term. Now, I eat intuitively, without restriction and still maintain a healthy weight, because I exercise regularly my body is in good shape. If I need to eat more, my appetite increases. If I need to eat less, my appetite decreases.

It's true body weight, is affected energy intake vs expenditure, but if you have a healthy body, an active lifestyle and eat a balanced diet, your body will manage you energy intake vs expenditure for you. No one counted calories, before the obesity epidemic, yet few people were overweight, so it clearly isn't the solution to the problem.

[Mr. Scram]

I'm actually advocating losing weight slowly. That's why I'm talking about a small deficit. 500 Kcal a day is already a lot in my book. That's a reduction of close to 25%! A small deficit seems key to avoid overshoot and other unwanted side effects. Meta research indicates that reducing calorie intake actually reduces cravings. I've posted a link below. Consistency is the key. I've talked about changing habits before and this is part of that. Without a deficit losing weight isn't possible. Whether that deficit is caused by reducing intake or increasing energy burn isn't entirely relevant, although I've explained in some detail why reducing intake is much more effecitive and likely to succeed. In both cases the improvement is the result of the deficit.

I understand you have some personal experiences that lead to you say "it just isn't healthy" to reduce energy intake, but that isn't really in line with what research shows us. Overdoing it or getting completely hung up on calorie counting can be harmful indeed, but it doesn't need explaining that extreme behaviours aren't what you'd want. For the same reason the Minnesota Starvation Experiment doesn't seem entirely relevant to the current discussion. The fact that "starvation" is in the name is proabably a clue that it's not a healthy dietary adjustment.

You say you weren't losing weight when you are eating according to your appetite signal. People's appetites aren't very reliable and can be way off. Regardless, even a perfectly balanced appetite isn't going to lose you weight, as it'll keep you exactly where you are. Calorie counting is an aid to eliminate the least trustworthy factor, the human and his estimates.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.12566

[nctnico]

You say you weren't losing weight when you are eating according to your appetite signal. People's appetites aren't very reliable and can be way off. Regardless, even a perfectly balanced appetite isn't going to lose you weight, as it'll keep you exactly where you are. Calorie counting is an aid to eliminate the least trustworthy factor, the human and his estimates.

I agree. A couple of years ago I was getting too heavy so I subscribed to a weight loss website. The general consensus over there was to keep track of what I ate and count the calories for a week. Based on such a list you can start to eliminate the major sources of calories (In my case chocolate paste on bread    ). Furthermore you should keep eating a healthy diet which has all the recommended food types (dairy, meat, fruit, bread, etc) to stay healthy. It is that simple but ofcourse that doesn't make authors of weight loss books any money.

[Mr. Scram]

I agree. A couple of years ago I was getting too heavy so I subscribed to a weight loss website. The general consensus over there was to keep track of what I ate and count the calories for a week. Based on such a list you can start to eliminate the major sources of calories (In my case chocolate paste on bread    ). Furthermore you should keep eating a healthy diet which has all the recommended food types (dairy, meat, fruit, bread, etc) to stay healthy. It is that simple but ofcourse that doesn't make authors of weight loss books any money.

For the sake of completeness, are you willing to share the outcome of your endeavour?

[nctnico]

I agree. A couple of years ago I was getting too heavy so I subscribed to a weight loss website. The general consensus over there was to keep track of what I ate and count the calories for a week. Based on such a list you can start to eliminate the major sources of calories (In my case chocolate paste on bread    ). Furthermore you should keep eating a healthy diet which has all the recommended food types (dairy, meat, fruit, bread, etc) to stay healthy. It is that simple but ofcourse that doesn't make authors of weight loss books any money.

For the sake of completeness, are you willing to share the outcome of your endeavour?

Approx -23kg which got me well into the BMI region which says OK. That took me about 5 years. And I'm still not happy about having to give up Nutella on bread. Every now and then I allow myself one slice for old times' sake. Now the next step is going to keep my weight stable.

[BocaDev]

These postings make me depressed.