Forum menu
so its calories in = calories out
But once again, 'out' is not defined in your equation.
But once again, ‘out’ is not defined in your equation.
Does it matter ? You adjust in till your chosen tracking methods move in the direction you wish. .
Your body is not creating energy from the air to store as fat.
Regardless of what this study says, calories don't magic in out of thin air.
You can strawman or ad hominem my post all you want, but that is the unavoidable truth.
Of course people lose weight at different rates, or gain weight faster than the other. I don't think anyone needed a study to understand that.
I don’t think anyone needed a study to understand that.
Hush that talk! Are you trying to singlehandedly bring down academia?
Of course people lose weight at different rates, or gain weight faster than the other. I don’t think anyone needed a study to understand that.
Yeah, just use your spider sense or common sense or whatever, no need to ever look a bit deeper into the actual reasons behind what sometimes can seem obvious.
so its calories in = calories out
But once again, ‘out’ is not defined in your equation.
Out is defined, its equal to in. Its a very simple equation.
You adjust in till your chosen tracking methods move in the direction you wish. .
It does matter because of what happens to people when they try and fail to lose weight.
Got on the scales for the first time in a while this morning. I’m blaming my genes... 😉
It does matter because of what happens to people when they try and fail to lose weight.
Why? What is it that makes you think eating less calories and exercising more is not the best advice for the vast majority of people. Yes its all made harder by socio economics, education, lifestyle, genes and maybe illness but the basic advice is true.
Yeah, just use your spider sense or common sense or whatever, no need to ever look a bit deeper into the actual reasons behind what sometimes can seem obvious.
Not terribly sure what argument you're trying to make here.
Got on the scales for the first time in a while this morning. I’m blaming my genes…
Yep, same for me. I’m going to open a bottle of wine and those liquer soaked cherries (covered in dark chocolate) while I read the study. 😂
Or the scales. Definitely not the Pom bears...
I bought Michael Mosley's new book "The Fast 800", so far I've dropped 9 pounds in 6 days. It takes a bit of willpower to get going but seeing a weight loss on the scales every day is enough motivation for me to keep going.
Hahaha did you see the video of Gemma Collins falling over? lol🤣
Why? What is it that makes you think eating less calories and exercising more is not the best advice for the vast majority of people. Yes its all made harder by socio economics, education, lifestyle, genes and maybe illness but the basic advice is true.
You totally misunderstand my point - I've never at any point said 'don't move more and eat what you want' have I? That's bloody ridiculous.
Of course eat less and move more is good advice for basically everyone. But the point is that some people, perhaps quite a few, will only lose a little weight, and some not at all. So the question is, why? Why, when we try to do what we know is right, do we not achieve results?
If people keep saying how simple it is, and yet we can't do it, this makes many people feel pretty shitty about themselves, like they have failures because they can't manage a simple task. Worse still, it makes other people think they are also failures because hey, it's easy for me look at my lovely body, you must be pathetic. I shouldn't have to point out how absolutely shitty that can be and how damaging it is for people who suffer.
The article demonstrates that if you try, and you fail, you may not be quite as useless as the self righteous would suggest - it might actually be naturally easier for some than others. That doesn't mean you should stop trying, although doubtless some will; but it means that you should expect things to be more difficult and perhaps accept that you can only expect to improve things a little.
Once again - eat healthily, not too much and do exercise, for a whole raft of reasons that are nothing to do with weight - but don't beat yourself up if you don't lose weight, and don't assume that if someone's fat they are weak willed and lying to you or themselves about their diet. Make sense?
I think this covers it:
Of course eat less and move more is good advice for basically everyone. But the point is that some people, perhaps quite a few, will only lose a little weight, and some not at all. So the question is, why? Why, when we try to do what we know is right, do we not achieve results?
I still can't work out your point, or even if you are arguing with yourself on this.
I think it's fair to say, that for the vast majority of people, it's not easy to lose weight.
But (and maybe it's the way my mind works) if i'm not getting the results I want, I would explore what I needed to do further. It's VERY well publicised that the majority of people underestimate (and outright lie to themselves) about the volume of food they eat (even when on a so called diet) and totally overestimate the amount of exercise they do (and subsequently 'eat back' those calories).
I have no doubt if people were really truthful about what went in, and tracked it properly, and were more honest about the frequency and type of exercise they do, then a lot more people would have a lot more realistic results.
You are right I dont understand your point, if people are in calorie deficit they will lose weight, its a very simple equation. Getting to that situation maybe harder for some than others and genetics seem to be correlated with thinness but as the article states its hard to extrapolate to the general population.
I still can’t work out your point, or even if you are arguing with yourself on this.
I think arguing with himself.
He's said "losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless." and then used this study to counter the hypothesis he's putting forward. I can't find anyone else saying "losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.", so just him arguing with himself.
My story: Last Feb I was obese. Very active, but obese. My doc told me in feb I was obese and my blood pressure was as high as it could go without needing treatment.
Six months later I'd lost 3 stone by running and cycling more and eating *far* less. 1 year on I've kept it off. I feel great, I've got more energy than ever. I can keep up with my kids, which means we can share more fun - that's a life changer. I've knocked 7 minutes off my 5km time. My blood pressure is 'ideal'. I sleep better.
I'm grateful he told me straight. I wish I'd be fat shamed years before. In our culture of obese people who fear anorexia a lot of us don't even realize we're fat and nobody ever tells us. I genuinely thought as an active person I was 'technically' obese because of muscle.
I'd urge anyone to embrace the calories in, calories out frame of mind. There's no substitute.
if people are in calorie deficit they will lose weight, its a very simple equation.
But it's not, because your body has loads of feedback loops to preserve fat, and oxidation of fat needs certain conditions. In some people the feedback loops are stronger than others. So for some, if you do lots of exercise and don't eat much you end up weak and your exercise intensity reduces, and your BMR falls, and you end up feeling like utter shite before you lose much actual weight.
You are focusing on the simple equation, which may be true in theory, but in practice it's surrounded by so many complex variables and conditions that calling it 'simple' is extremely unhelpful.
I think the amount and rate of fat loss that is practically achievable varies a lot from person to person. Out of three people I cycle with on a semi regular basis, one never gains weight, one does very slowly but loses easily, one gains it really quickly and loses more slowly. My weight hardly moves - 2kg is a huge swing either way for me and requires a massive amount of riding and moderate dieting over 6 months to shift. I can't diet hard and still ride to the degree I'm used to.
I have no doubt if people were really truthful about what went in, and tracked it properly, and were more honest about the frequency and type of exercise they do, then a lot more people would have a lot more realistic results.
Sure, that may be true, but by assuming that all fatties are simply in denial and if you just bucked your ideas up you'd be thin you are creating a highly damaging culture surrounding the issue.
He’s said “losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.”
Ah no, I think you' better go back and read around that quote a bit more - that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
Ah no, I think you’ better go back and read around that quote a bit more – that’s the exact opposite of what I’m saying.
You're saying both. You're saying “losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.” and then countering your own statement.
If you're claiming someone other than you is saying something like “losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.” then feel free to quote them with a link so we can check.
....but as far as I can see it's just you.
But it’s not, because your body has loads of feedback loops to preserve fat,
Well it is simple, you cannot change the laws of physics. You cant lose weight without being in calorie deficit and if you are you will lose weight (assuming you dont gain muscle). It is a very simple thing. It maybe be harder for some than others but the basic point stands.
you shouldn't really mix the facts and the feelings, that's going on a lot in here
measure food by the gram/calorie, measure work by mass/distance/time.... whats the measure of 'suffering' or tolerance to it?
You’re saying “losing weight is easy and if you struggle it’s because you’re feeble and useless.”
Can you link to that quote please?
I have no doubt if people were really truthful about what went in, and tracked it properly, and were more honest about the frequency and type of exercise they do, then a lot more people would have a lot more realistic results.
Yep. I want to lose 3-4kg during Jan - Mar (got a few uphill segments to beat!) and I know how many calories I need to take in and I know how many I take out during exercise. I use a diet tracker app to record everything and need to net 1700 calories a day and even sticking to 1700 calories is difficult for me so I must have been eating loads before.
2kg is a huge swing either way for me and requires a massive amount of riding and moderate dieting over 6 months to shift. I can’t diet hard and still ride to the degree I’m used to.
Just picking up on this, and being blunt, no wonder it’s a struggle for you then. As you put it, (massive) amounts of exercise, and only moderate diet changes doesn’t really work. It’s a classic confirmation of not being able to out exercise a bad diet. If it were me, I’d totally tip it on it’s head. You need a massive change in your diet & probably just worry about riding your bike (or whatever exercise you do) for fun.
Sure, that may be true, but by assuming that all fatties are simply in denial and if you just bucked your ideas up you’d be thin you are creating a highly damaging culture surrounding the issue.
So, what’s the answer then? Like a lot of things in life, if you put a half arsed effort in, you're only ever going to get a half arsed effort out.
Take an average suggestion of losing 20% of your daily calorie intake to lose weight. That 4-500 calories is remarkably easy fritter way by not doing it properly & tracking everything you put into your mouth. It sounds harsh, but it is the reality.
Just picking up on this, and being blunt, no wonder it’s a struggle for you then. As you put it, (massive) amounts of exercise, and only moderate diet changes doesn’t really work.
I didn't say moderate diet changes, I said moderately dieting, by which I mean moderate calorie restriction.
Believe me, I've tried every combination of exercise, duration, intensity, cardio, weights, calorie restriction (including food diaries and weighing food etc), low vs high GI etc etc. I have a very good understanding of how my own body responds. The issue has always been consistency for me - my lifestyle is not constant since my job sends me all over the place and sometimes I can get the riding in and sometimes I can't. But what's interesting is that some things that work once end up not working second or third time around, due to some kind of adaptation apparently.
If it were me, I’d totally tip it on it’s head. You need a massive change in your diet & probably just worry about riding your bike (or whatever exercise you do) for fun.
If I restrict calories too much, I can't ride for shit and it stops being fun. If I eat to fuel my riding and not feel tired all the time, I don't lose weight.
So, what’s the answer then? Like a lot of things in life, if you put a half arsed effort in, you’re only ever going to get a half arsed effort out.
The answer is to understand what's happening and how YOUR OWN body responds, and not feeling defeated if you don't get the same results as someone else. Or, crucially, not criticising other people for not getting the same results that you got. 'Well I managed it, why can't you?' can be pretty damaging. Because there are people out there who do the right thing and still aren't skinny.
As the expert said, we have less control than we might think. So you do your best, but don't give up when you don't get the results you thought you would.
If I restrict calories too much, I can’t ride for shit and it stops being fun. If I eat to fuel my riding and not feel tired all the time, I don’t lose weight.
here's a suggestion. How about stopping riding and just dieting? Go on a strict calorie deficit and don't exercise, then see what happens.
If I restrict calories too much, I can’t ride for shit and it stops being fun. If I eat to fuel my riding and not feel tired all the time, I don’t lose weight.
Give us some examples then - what is a 'normal' non diet day & what's a calorie restricted diet look like to you, what sort of macro's do you aim for? Do you eat back the calories you exercise?
What sort of riding/exercise are you doing with the dieting that's becoming hard & meaning you can't do it?
How about stopping riding and just dieting? Go on a strict calorie deficit and don’t exercise, then see what happens.
Thought about that, but it would frustrate me greatly. But it's still an option.
Give us some examples then – what is a ‘normal’ non diet day & what’s a calorie restricted diet look like to you, what sort of macro’s do you aim for? Do you eat back the calories you exercise?
What sort of riding/exercise are you doing with the dieting that’s becoming hard & meaning you can’t do it?
Well, if you want to talk about me, I can oblige. I am not currently counting macros because most of the time I eat away from home so it's too difficult to bother with. I'm currently following the iDiet plan which worked spectacularly the first time and seems to have less and less effect on my weight each time. However it has improved my fitness considerably. My current plan is to use my current work situation to increase the riding hours at lower intensity (currently done 21 hours this month about half road) and stick to the iDiet. Lost about 1.5kg since Christmas.
Incidentally I gained about 2kg when I started back in the gym lifting weights due to uncontrollable hunger which put me back to a long term 89kg or so - that was a shock. But it offset the 3kg I lost the summer holiday before last, where I did no exercise but spent a week floating in icy waters off Scotland with a snorkel on getting extremely cold. Yes, maybe calories in vs calories out, but I probably ended up developing some brown adipose tissue, so I lost 3kg in two weeks doing nothing but floating and eating biscuits, and it stayed off for about 6 months too.
Do you eat back the calories you exercise?
Yeah if the intensity is too high I end up getting hungrier and hungrier and I can't function so I have to have some calories back in, at which point my weight stabilises. I feel as if the yoyo on-off cycle has strengthened the feedback cycle somehow.
How about stopping riding and just dieting? Go on a strict calorie deficit and don’t exercise, then see what happens.
**** that! Just stop weighing yourself and judge fitness on recovery time, speed, reps anything other than stopping riding. I’m around 12st 4kg (only weigh myself when setting suspension). Got hugely back in to exercise last year. Weigh pretty much the same, but I’m a totally different shape and feel better. Lose the scales 😀
If I restrict calories too much, I can’t ride for shit and it stops being fun. If I eat to fuel my riding and not feel tired all the time, I don’t lose weight.
I had that nightmare dilemma at the start, I think most people do. I also think it gets worse before it gets better.
The question is do you want to lose weight? If you do you need to give up some stuff you like. If Riding is stopping you lose weight then you need to can the riding, or ride less fun rides. The good news is in 2 months you'll have so much spare energy you'll be back riding with a vengence. The bad news is the other stuff you have to give up will need to stay off the menu forever (but you won't miss them after a while).
If you don't want to lose weight that's great too, you might decide that leaving things as they are suits you better overall.
Recently we had a weight loss competition at work - I dropped 7.5Kg in 6 weeks through using the Wahoo Kickr trainer in the garage most nights and not eating much for an evening meal - mostly a nutty yoghurt and a few brazil nuts. Other than that I had my usual (weekday) crappy diet of a sandwich and a cappuccino for lunch, and a medium Caramel Latte in the morning - which in itself is a lot of calories.
The Kickr sessions were maybe 25 miles, maybe more sometimes, which isn't too much of a push if you are watching a movie on Netflix.
I weigh myself everyday and therefore have a reasonable idea of what foods will pile the weight on, and the effect on me of eating late.
I've since put weight on, but that's mainly laziness whilst I've had some patella tracking issues, which I seem to be getting to the end of - so will back on the trainer for some more weight loss, and then maybe some running as well.
I was the same weight before the competition when I was younger (26?) and dropped 2 1/4 stone through running and changing my diet only slightly - including eating more baked potatoes as I've found they help me loose weight, even if I pile the butter on to them...
This time I didn't lose as much because the competition was shorter, but I could have kept on going. I am 55 in a months time.
Katie Hopkins has it.. 😆
As the expert said, we have less control than we might think.
So the expert knows what we think? The paper didnt say that by the way, but it did say its hard to extrapolate the findings to the general population.
You might have more control than you think.
I think the biggest problem people have when trying to lose weight is not treating it as a lifestyle choice but instead some task, chore or objective you have to grind through for 6 weeks and then, phew, you can sit back - you've done it. And if you didn't - well just try again next Jan.
When you think of it as a lifestyle choice the strategy changes. Just as cycling is a 'lifestyle' hobby - if you started cycling tomorrow you wouldn't go straight into a Tour De France - you'd fail miserably, right? Instead you practice, evaluate, improve over time until your capacity allows you to achieve your goals.
It's the same with eating more or less. Don't jump in to a 500cal deficit straight away. Of course that's going to make you feel like shit. Drop 50cal first for a week or so. Then 100cal for a week or so. Evaluate how you feel, hows your insulin, how is your energy levels? Monitor and improve. You can't fix X years of poor nutrition in 6 months. It's a long game.
It's the same on the opposite. If you're underweight and only eating 1400cals a day, if you suddenly scoff 2400cals in a day every day you're going to feel like utter arse and probably put on fat surplus. You tickle yourself up, give your body chance to adjust. You increase by 200cals a week.
Fitness = training. When you train, you approach things differently.
Just stop weighing yourself and judge fitness on recovery time, speed, reps anything
The problem is that with an extra 10kg over the racing snakes I'll never be good at MTB racing. To compensate for that I'd need to gain an extra 50W or so of threshold power. But then, if that's possible, and I lost weight as well, I'd be even faster.
This summer I gave up trying to lose weight and ate to recover well. I smashed my PB on my test climb by 50 seconds in 5 minutes and got the KOM. Possibly aided by how dry it was, but still!
Winter is for dieting, summer is for eating and smashing it.
Ah it's a bit difficult.
That's a bit different fromnimngenitically disposed to not lose weight.
I'm pretty sure I'm genetically predisposed to relatively stable weight.
SaxonRider reckons he's gained 7kg whilst being off the bike injured. That just wouldn't happen to me in that amount of time.
Winter is for dieting, summer is for eating and smashing it.
5 pages in and I think we're getting there. 😀
James Smith calls it.
Looking at photos of the inhabitants of the concentration camps. Were all the people with the genetic predisposition to be fat screened out from the jews, gypseys, homosexuals, disabled and various others the nazis didn't like? Just wondering as very few of them came out of there looking fat. Diet or genetics?
There can only be a limited number of scientific explanations here and the report does not identify them
1: Appetite control
2: Expelling undigested calories down the toilet
3: Producing body heat
4: Higher activity levels
In the unlikely event that you have a problem with number 2, pun intended, then you are just going to have to work against those genes 1 & 4 and turn the heating down and wear less clothes 3
Have I missed anything?
Were all the people with the genetic predisposition to be fat screened out from the jews, gypseys, homosexuals, disabled and various others the nazis didn’t like?
If there were no people with a genetic predisposition to be fat in concentration camps, the only logical conclusion is that anyone with a BMI over 24.9 is a Nazi. 🙂
Have only skim read so apologies if said elsewhere...djglover gets quite close I think.
Calories in vs calories out is too simplistic, because it's not what goes in but what you do with them. Extreme example but bowel cancer sufferers suddenly and rapidly lose weight because the disease affects the way / efficiency of extracting calories from the food they ingest. Likewise thyroidism.
I do subscribe to the empirical approach that if you are losing weight then your expenditure is higher than your effective intake (or the opposite) and I agree you should then gain a sense of where your balance point is, and that most people are increasingly on the wrong side of that point.... but simply saying that someone gains or loses weight because their intake is higher than <insert number> when that number is individual to everyone is simplistic.
It is entirely possible for two people to have the same intake and expenditure numbers, but it to be too much for one and not enough for the other based on other factors and I'm perfectly prepared to believe that genetics could be one of those factors. That's not the same as saying someone is fat because of their genetics though - in the end they're fat because they still eat too much for the amount they expend.