There are only studies on the relationship between various foods and people's various belief systems.

In studies on medicine, it's well accepted that results from a placebo are statistically significant. This is because our physiology responds to our beliefs.

The same is true with food. The reason you can find science demonstrating various truths about nutrition which seem to be mutually exclusive or paradoxical to one another is that the results are always a reflection of the belief systems of those involved in the study.

Given the bashing of carbohydrates in the last 20 years, combined with all the facebook ads about how crossfit combined with a keto diet will get you into a mansion and driving a lambo, people's belief systems have been dramatically altered when it comes to nutrition.

As a guy who spent 20+ years monitoring everything he ate, constantly following new research, and trying every approach under the sun, I can tell you that nutrition is as personal as sexuality. No research is going to tell you who you'll be most attracted to, because it's a deeply personal expression of countless subconscious variables. Nutrition is the same.

Stop letting others be the authority on what you should eat. Listen to your body. It will tell you within a few minutes, if not instantly, what makes it work better and what doesn't. Find the things that leave you feeling energized. It doesn't matter if it's bacon and eggs or a large bowl of oatmeal. If you want to lose weight, still eat what leaves you feeling energized. Just eat less of it, and then explore what happens to you emotionally when you restrict calories and weight starts to drop.

Because weight is every bit as much about emotions in vs emotions out as it is calories in vs calories out. In the world of emotional therapy, I regularly see people's bodies change dramatically and quickly, with zero changes to diet, after certain pieces of emotional healing take place.

had to factor. I'm guessing top scientists and chemists went to other fields.

How can it be that in the 70s they figured out that 'fat' doesn't make you 'fat' and sugars and carbs were the real threats and yet it took another 30-40 years before the entire industry finally figured it out. Even to this day I run into dietitians that promote that old bullshit thinking.

....carbohydrate way." As if that was a good thing.

I get that not all calories are created equal. But weight loss is fundamentally a matter of physics in that you need to burn more calories than you are taking in. Or am I missing something?

It might be incomplete, but it's not wrong.

The incomplete part of it comes about in that the types of calories you consume are going to impact how you feel, and additionally, whether or not you are satiated. Those two factors can play in strongly to whether or not your eating habits are sustainable.

So, a person who eats all of their calories from, say, sugar, is going to have a much harder time limiting their caloric intake to their target amount than someone who eats primarily meats, veggies, and nuts.

Most of these "no counting calories" diets are just ways to trick yourself into eating fewer calories.

Americans have become convinced that cutting calories doesn't work by people with something to sell -- like the Canadian nephrologist who wrote The Obesity Code. People convince themselves they're fat not because they eat to much but because hormones or (unbelievably) they eat too little.

In the end it does come down to calories in and calories out. but your hormones impact how many calories you burn, so eating low carb or fasting impacts your hormonal response which, in turn, impacts the "calories out" side of the equation.

I would tell you that these "no counting calories" diets are not tricking a person into eating fewer calories. Fewer calories is often a product of better eating.

I think it's just a bit more nuanced then your first sentence, is my shorter answer.

If you are speaking generally about needing to operate at a caloric deficit to lose weight, "calories in, calories out" is an easy way to get the concept.


There are two immediate problems with this if we want to be more specific. The first is that your body does not digest all nutrients with same efficiency. Just because you eat something doesn't mean that all of the energy from that food will make it into your system. Fiber is counted on nutrition guides as 4 calories per gram, but the body doesn't digest fiber very well. It is unlikely that you will get those 4 calories into your system. "Calories in, calories out" still works here if you actually know what calories are going in... the problem is that you don't actually know what calories are making it in. Just counting your calories based on the food label won't necessarily give you the accurate number.

The second problem is that the quality of the calories in will impact the amount of calories that will go out. Gut health, digestion and absorption efficiency, fuel source, energy level, mental clarity are all impacted by the calories in. Making sure you have quality calories going in will help maximize the amount of calories you can burn. "Calories in, calories out" still is technically at play here, but it doesn't help you determine how to most effectively get the calories out. "The calories you take in will impact the calories you are able to burn" is a more accurate depiction of the relationship.

People use that phrase to mean something like: count the calories you take in and the calories you burn through activity, and if the latter is equal to or lower than the latter you're good. But that assumes that every calorie is equal. And there's now good evidence that consuming 100 calories from sugar and 100 calories from fat have different impacts on the bodies' reaction to those calories. For many people sugar causes metabolic reactions that make it more likely that those calories will be stored as fat rather than burned. So the type of calories you're putting in makes a big different. It's not fair to say all calories are the same so all you need to do is a simple mathematical equation of input and output.

Studies show people underestimate their calorie consumption by an average 30-40%. Obesity has little to do with what kinds of calories people are eating. It's that almost everyone eats way more than they think they do.

Calories in v. calories out still holds. That's one point. If you want to lose weight, you need to be taking in fewer calories than you are using.

The second point is that your body does not process all foods the same. Some foods (high in sugar and carbohydrates) are much easier for your body to process and store as extra energy. Others (fats and proteins) actually require more energy to process, meaning that from the accounting perspective, fewer calories are available for your body to store.

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

Weight loss =/= health.

You might feel shitty if you only eat sugar and starches, but if you eat at a caloric deficit you'll lose weight.

You might feel better if you eat veggies and lean proteins, but if you overeat them, you won't lose weight and, depending on how much, will gain.

But it's just false that to lose weight you need to eat certain kinds of foods.

Based on my observation (I've been tracking calories for nearly ten years now), while I've found a pretty direct correlation between "calories in" and weight, I've very little correlation between "calories out" and weight. In short, I haven't been able to exercise the pounds away.

I've found exercise to be helpful in almost every other way. Just not as a weight loss measure.

through exercise.

I run an 8:30 mile. I burn about 100 calories a mile or 500 calories in five miles.

I have seen people estimate they burned 500 calories in a 40 minute Zumba class.

Now think about how easy it is to run off 500 calories.

I run ten miles per week, which is right about the minimum recommended by the medical community. My experience is that exercise accounts for about 10% of your weight and diet 90%.

If I stopped running, I wouldn't gain a lot.

A few years ago I lost about 60 pounds in 9 months. That was due almost entirely to better diet. For me that meant portion control for dinner, a lot more vegetables and less carbs, and no drinking calories.

you can load your tank up with high octane or ethanol

the volume in your tank is the same

but your engine runs better and your MPG better on high octane

not perfect analogy - but you get the idea

not all calories are created equal with how your body/metabolism treats em

created equal. But weight loss is still a matter of calories in v. calories out. It is math at some point. Some foods may tip that math in your favor, but it is still math, right?

But how your body reacts to, say, 100 calories of intake can vary wildly based on what those 100 calories came from. Without sugar, there is no insulin and therefore no storage. If you're not active, you will 'store' that energy. Digesting and processing proteins and fats doesn't require insulin.

If I'm keeping my carb intake down, I don't even need to bother monitoring my calories. I'll lose weight if I just stick to low intensity workouts.

I say this as someone who once weighed 70 pounds more than they weigh right now.

Whether you were monitoring them or not.

Looks like this is already linked in the box, but worth relinking: http://physiqonomics.com/fat-loss/

My fat consumption increased substantially when I lost weight. Substantially.

When I had my initial weight loss, I wasn't working out. Zero activity level increase. And my calorie intake increased slightly after changing my diet.

There is a reason why the ketogenic diet works.

The reason the ketogenic diet works is that fat makes you feel satiated so it's easier to eat fewer calories.

You don't need to work out to create a caloric deficit.

If you were fastidiously tracking every calorie and have the hard numbers to prove you were eating more calories than your body was burning through metabolic activity and still lost weight, you should alert the NIH because you're a medical miracle.

The ketogenic diet still requires you to track calories and eat at a caloric deficit.

metabolize different types of food differently. That's just what I heard.