Comment by faangguyindia
1 day ago
You can just go on a calorie deficit and it will reduce your visceral fat when you start getting lean enough.
But obviously, most people are a lot more interested in finding a magic food which does this rather than a proven calorie deficit, which is highly effective.
> highly effective
Purely behavioral lifestyle interventions have the lowest long term success rates of all available treatments for obesity. It's especially unreliable if you have weight loss targets higher than 15%.
They are of course still widely recommended due to numerous benefits other than weight loss, but "highly effective" is just wrong in the context of obesity treatments.
Hasn't it been found that the best diet is the one you'll actually do?
I seem to remember a meta analysis a decade ago or so finding that the particulars (high protein, atkins, paleo, whatever) didn't really matter so much as the the willingness and commitment to the change.
Why? Information worked for smoking in combination with price increases and forbidden to smoke in certain places. Only 5% in Sweden smoke now.
> Purely behavioral lifestyle interventions have the lowest long term success rates of all available treatments for obesity.
What? Surely changing one's behaviour - particularly the parts of behaviour that caused the obesity in the first place - is a sure way to stop being obese.
Effectiveness is two parts: does it work in isolation, and are people able to do it.
Running a marathon a month is a sure way to improve your health. However, less than 1% of people would be willing to do that. So it’s not an effective solution.
It’s an effective solution if we just ignore life, sure. But solutions are rooted in pragmatism.
The issue is not whether it works; it’s whether someone can stay compliant long enough for it to work
17 replies →
By this reasoning, abstinence-only sex education is a sure way to stop teen pregnancies and spread of STDs.
3 replies →
Weight regain is common, especially after isolated lifestyle changes. Most people lose weight but do not keep it off over time.
3 replies →
This problem literally did not exist until the 80s. I don't think the human brain/body evolved much since then so surely there is another problem. The only solution is behavioural, everything else is cope.
It's the same thing for the mental issues epidemic... you can't build a completely hostile environment to human life and well being and then say "welp, I guess we need drugs to make you feel normal now", now they'll sell us the drug and the cure, and you'll be clapping and thanking them for saving you, truly amazing.
I think the cope is actually believing that some magic thing made people more lazy between now and the 80s.
You’re right we didn’t evolve since the 80s. But our food has certainly changed. It’s not like some God from above put laziness in peoples brains just now. No… people were always lazy.
It’s just that you could be accidentally skinny before. You can’t be accidentally skinny now, it has to be intentional.
1 reply →
> this problem literally did not exist until the 80s.
Henry VIII might have a word for you on that one, as would many other of history’s aristocrats. The only thing that’s really changed is the cost of food that used to be reserved for kings.
3 replies →
"I don't think the human brain/body evolved much since then so surely there is another problem."
What really changed is the foodscape. And quite thoroughly so. Even basic agricultural products like wheat, corn or fruit are different from the variants 50+ years ago, there was a concerted effort to make them bigger, pesticide-resistant, more sweet, more energy-dense...
I remember the apples of the 1980s. Nowhere near as sweet as today, some were thoroughly sour. And these are considered the healthy choice now.
"The only solution is behavioural, everything else is cope."
This is like, your opinion, man. An opinion that can make you feel smug, but that is no victory. In practice, GLP-1s are doing what a generation of preachers like you could not - making people more thin and healthier.
In a sense, it is you who is coping hard and defending a "solution" which provably never worked on a population scale.
2 replies →
Why not, though? Eating is fun and pleasurable. If we can figure out a way to eat the things that we want, in the quantities that we want, while maintaining our health, why shouldn't we try?
I've lost weight through forcing myself into a calorie deficit, and it works really well, but it's not particularly fun.
> Why not, though? Eating is fun and pleasurable
Sure but food doesn't have to equate to consume large quantities of junk food for it to be pleasurable.
We can learn to have a healthy meal with a reasonable portion that is as satisfying.
You always end up with the people pushing these foods being those who sell them. And then others start selling fake foods with similar claims.
For the "eat to get slimmer" claim, I think we're at the point where "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
> You always end up with the people pushing these foods being those who sell them.
What do you mean by "these foods"? Just buy unprocessed food and 99% of the problems disappear. There is no fake, no people trying to sell you these out of malicious intent. Just buy local food people had access to in 1900 and you'll cure all your problems.
1 reply →
Did you get an iberian to lay the pattern in your vomitorium?
To do it right it requires quite an effort to no go too much into calorie deficit.
It definitely is not "you can just go on a calorie deficit", that is how jo-jo effect works.
For average person that has children, full time job, and whole range of adult responsibilities it is hard. Not impossible but hard, this is why people are looking fo easier solutions.
I think what's important is to consider the difficulty of making these choices, and to set up your environment so that it's easier to make the right choice.
I've lost weight and kept it off by making sure I don't have sweets and other types of food that I know I'll down in ten minutes. But if I don't have any on hand, I won't eat any.
Ditto for normal food: if I increase the portion of filling, low-calorie foods (think salads and other greens), with a lot of protein, I know I won't have cravings later in the day and feel full longer. But if I buy fatty sausage, with a hefty helping of salty cheese, I'll eat until I explode.
If when I'm hungry I have a choice between "a quick bite" of something very palatable, calorie-rich but nutritionally poor, and a "good" meal, I know I'll make the wrong choice. But if my only choice is the good meal, I'll eat that and stay on track.
This also has a positive feedback effect: after a while, not only did I stop craving various junk foods, but they actually don't register as food anymore when I see them in ads or similar. Which, of course, makes it easier to stick to the "diet". Now, when I'm hungry, I crave "actual" food. The other day I couldn't have lunch on time, and all I could think of was a fat bowl of lettuce with some roasted chicken breast and yogurt. Walking in front of the local McDonald's peddling their latest mystery burger didn't do anything to me.
The vast majority of people who lose weight by calorie restriction gain it back, so I wouldn't call it highly effective. Short term yes, but long term, definitely not.
Why do they gain the weight back though? I'd hazard a guess they stop the calorie restriction and go back to their old habits.
Short term "diets" are nonsense. The solution is permanent lifestyle changes.
Abstention is commercially a no go zone, eating 'different' is a goldmine. It is why 'going on a diet' in the 1970's still meant eating less, while starting in the 1980's the phrase was turned into just eating the latest industry fad miracle food.
Also, the same on the exercise side: the most efficient fat loss exercise (literally oxidizing body fat) is moderate intensity high volume aerobic one. You don't need a gym membership, a coach, or a fancy machine to do this. And if you are already a member in a gym, the gym won't be very happy with you doing 2-4 hours of zone 2 there. They'd rather you hire a personal trainer who will give you some resistance exercises, each "targeting" fat at some part of the body. They are exhausting and you will feel completely spent after doing them for 30 mins. The faster you get tired and more damage you cause to the muscles ("burn") the better is the exercise regimen (and less likely you oxidize any fat).
You can induce a calorie deficit by eating foods that fill you up but don’t have many calories. Also avoiding the sugar-spike carbs cause leaving you even hungrier shortly after works also.
A good dietician is worth a few consults if you don’t have the will power to just fast. And as a bonus you don’t lose muscle mass as well because they’ll focus on keeping protein up.
>A good dietician is worth a few consults if you don’t have the will power to just fast. And as a bonus you don’t lose muscle mass as well because they’ll focus on keeping protein up.
Fasting is like using a nuke where a bullet would do.
How will a dietician measure your maintenance calories? How will they continuously update your macros and calories when your maintenance calorie change week to week?
I am making a claim here: most dietician will not be able to track your maintenance calories better than MacroCodex's algorithm.
Many dieticians simply rely on BMR/TDEE static formulas, and the limitation of this approach is that it cannot reliably track a user's actual maintenance calories well through the span of their dieting journey.
People regain those weight. I have gone through many sessions of those, and I have realized that the only effective way to do this is to change the whole lifestyle. My lifestyle nowadays makes my weight stable around 75-77KG.
But changing lifestyle is virtually impossible for parents who also work, and have a bunch of issues here and there. Remaining the current lifestyle without dropping to a worse one is difficult enough.
Just wanted to pop in and say you are 100% correct. I don't understand what happened with food and ozempic. Suddenly we are supposed to be okay with fat people again, like back in 2016. The world moved on from woke.
Also this pic says it all, if everyone is so loved and beautiful why is everyone hopping on the ozempic train...?
https://imgur.com/a/WLgQnHc
[flagged]
Metabolism was an excuse when we could not reliably estimate it outside laboratory; today we can do that too, for completely free (we run a public benefit app for this).
Method here: https://macrocodex.app/knowledge/rethink/adaptive-tdee/
People can find the algorithm here: https://macrocodex.app/knowledge/macrocodex/smart-calorie-bu...
In fact, our claim on the app is results within 2-5 weeks for both weight gain and weight loss; I've yet to find a guy who did not achieve success with this.
Calorie deficit is the most effective method for weight loss.
What's funny is when people actually measure their metabolism with this approach, they realize they aren't far off from the average!
The claim is usually that A) people have an inflexible appetite and will be increasingly driven to eat while at a caloric deficit, B) at some point this is almost involuntary and that point differs between people (e.g. consider not eating for three weeks; some people can do it on a hunger strike or a fast, but it really sucks), and C) some people have a slower metabolism which puts them under greater pressure to eat.
I don't disagree that calorie restriction is effective. I just think that you're dropping appetite from the equation when GLP-1 agonists have proven that reducing appetite is effective too.
4 replies →
I'm not quite sure why or how estimating metabolism helps here?
I mean, observing the weightloss / gain or lack thereof itself will tell you whether you need more of a calorie deficit or surplus. What does an independent metabolism estimate buy you?
8 replies →
they were forced labor camps plagued with disease and malnutrition. so, not a great thing to base an argument of caloric intake and weight loss on, and honestly, a horrific thing to bring up casually as a means to make a point.
You misunderstand what you're calling an excuse.
> which is highly effective
How are you defining highly effective? In the sense that a body will definitely lose weight when starved? Or in the sense that counting calories is broadly effective as a weight loss strategy?
The former is painfully obvious and entirely unhelpful, and the latter is provably false.
Counting macros is extremely effective. The general population doesn't have the discipline for it, but amoung sport coaches, actors, models, bodybuilders, this is *the* technique for achieving goals.
Anyway what's cute about this is that this isn't novel phenomenon. There are lots of parallels to this in other fields where often effective solutions do exist, but at a system level don't seem to work.
Telling people to diet doesn't fix population level obesity. Telling people about personal financial management doesn't stop people from accruing too much high interest debt. Telling teenagers to stop idolizing instagram influences doesn't fix body anxiety issues. Telling people to stop smoking/drinking doesn't fix addictions. 3-2-1 data backups absolutely work but people lose files all the time.
I think your comment is somewhat on track.
"general population doesn't have the discipline for it" — only that this feels somewhat condescending.
Let's agree that counting macros or going for calorie deficit is hard if it is not someones job. General population has other jobs, family, social life, other hobbies they enjoy more than fitness. It is not "just eat less" it is "spend considerable amount of time thinking about and planning your eating".
5 replies →
I made a small change a while back that resulted in a lot of fat loss. I'm a startup CTO, kids, wife, 2 dogs, etc. Every Sunday I prepare lunch meals for the week. I make a big vat that consists of spinach, kale, riced cauliflower, peas, beans, and some ground meat. Then I put it in glass containers and eat that for lunch every day. Before I leave in the morning, I pull one out and put on whatever sauce and toppings I feel like. The hardest part is the initial cooking. I eat dinner with my family, I eat dessert sometimes. I lost weight so fast I was actually concerned for a while, but it leveled out. Meal prep is common and it fits in nicely with a busy job (no more running out to Jimmy Johns or whatever). Highly recommended
>In the sense that a body will definitely lose weight when starved?
If your maintenance calories are 2700kcal and you eat 300kcal less than that, is eating 2400kcal starving for you?
Most people cannot tell a difference if they eat 100-150kcal less in a day.
>Or in the sense that counting calories is broadly effective as a weight loss strategy?
Yes, it is, and the reason people fail with it is not because calorie counting doesn't work, but because people's maintenance calorie estimates are often poor.
Deficit = maintenance calories (TDEE) - calorie intake
In this, even if your calorie tracking is on point, a deficit requires you to have a decent estimate of maintenance calories.
To throw a monkey wrench into all this, your maintenance calories often shift downward as you progress in your "diet" journey.
calorie restriction can cause a reduction in resting metabolic rate through "metabolic adaptation". that is, your body gets used to the deficit (by shedding metabolically active tissue and other things*) and burns less calories at rest. so, paradoxically, restricting or reducing your caloric intake can have no effect whatsoever on your weight.
see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9036397/
4 replies →
> Yes, it is, and the reason people fail with it is not because calorie counting doesn't work, but because people's maintenance calorie estimates are often poor.
I would have thought that it would mostly be because they can't resist that extra snack.
Or 'optimistically' underestimate the calories in the not pre-packaged food.
Serious question: Is there a significant variability in how the food calories are absorbed? Maybe different combinations are not absorbed equally efficiently (like with water/oil-based vitamins)
1 reply →
I did not mean literally starving, I meant giving the body fewer calories than it wants.
I feel like discussions like this attract a number of people who've never actually been overweight and then lost the weight and tried to keep it off longer than a year. So much bro science, so much condescension, so much smug analysis that anybody who cannot resist their own body's hunger indefinitely are just weak.
A bit more complicated than that, CICO is not the answer. It's an observation, not a strategy.
The problem is: average person is bad at counting calories. They overestimate number of calories burnt, and severely underestimate number of calories consumed. Once you get your math right and get into real, not imaginary calorie deficit you'll start losing weight. Rule of thumb: whatever you think the amount of calories is in your current meal, double your estimate.
The average person eats 19 calories a day more than they need to.