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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
By this reasoning, abstinence-only sex education is a sure way to stop teen pregnancies and spread of STDs.
Your analogy is false.
If you opt for it, then yes of course, abstinence-only sex education is a sure way to stop ten pregnancy.
Similarly, if you opt to change your lifestyle and start living healthier, and follow through, it will work.
If someone tries to force you, of course it will fail (in both of these cases). There is no way to stop someone else from being fat. We can only change ourselves.
The issue is not whether it works; it’s whether someone can stay compliant long enough for it to work
It's a lifestyle, the optimal basic lifestyle, the one were you don't shorten your life/healthspan by decades. It's how thing were intended to be really.
It's funny how proposing an healthy diet is unrealistic and watching fatties eat themselves to death is the new normal, complete value inversion and looser mentality
Long enough in this case meaning forever.
Behavioural changes work, the issue is that most people don't actually change their behaviour.
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.
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.
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.
Did you get an iberian to lay the pattern in your vomitorium?
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.
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.
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.
> 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".
>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/
Cool but then again what does calorie "unrestrication" cause? Tip: look at the top leading causes of death in the US
No, that's incorrect reading of this.
It's already factored in our algorihtm: https://macrocodex.app/knowledge/macrocodex/smart-calorie-bu...
[flagged]
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.
[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.
I'd caution: GLPs reduce your appetite, but they do not fix your diet.
I am not anti-GLP, someone who believes using GLP drugs is cheating and people should achieve that with blood, tears, and sweat. I see it as a "tool" in the arsenal. I've no use for GLP as I've no problem sustaining deficits as large as 600-700kcal for long. But I've met people who can't do this, so for them GLP is a valid choice, but I'd recommend they pair it with proper dieting and lifestyle changes.
You want to eat good stuff and avoid stuff not good for you; blanket reducing appetite may result in loss of both good and bad.
Here's what GLP users say about the macrocodex method: https://www.reddit.com/r/tirzepatidecompound/comments/1omfgx...
The guide linked in the above post is macrocodex's prototype method, which was later formalized into an app.
I don't want to make strong claims on this, but using GLPs may increase the risk of developing gallbladder stones, as GLPs make it very easy to eat far less than necessary.
A proper macro and calorie balanced diet can give you better results with a smaller GLP dose.
Use GLPs if your actual problem is staying on a "sustainable deficit." Many people who use macrocodex report they do not feel hungry when on such a small deficit, but there are a few who are hungry even at a deficit as low as 300 kcal; for them, GLPs are more suitable, but not a replacement for proper dieting and lifestyle changes.
Most importantly for A) is dropping sugar. Calorie restriction doesn't have to mean being hungry all the time. First drop sugar, you'll be hungry all the time until the withdrawal subsides, then eat at a slight calorie deficit. It doesn't feel different than a slight calorie surplus at this point. I do that and I am in complete control over my weight. This whole discussion seems totally misguided to me.
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?
macrocodex helps you figure out your "total calorie burn in 24 hours."
How difficult is it? Just eat below the orange line to lose weight and eat above the orange line to gain weight: https://macrocodex.app/assets/hero-tdee-line.v3.1b8c60c2271f... In the image, you see the app continuously updates maintenance calories from observed evidence; on the homescreen, it provides the calorie and macro targets you need to follow: https://macrocodex.app/assets/flow-targets.v3.edc3f34458a1.p...
It was never this easy, imho. Many people used TDEE calculators in past, which suffer from the limitation described here: https://macrocodex.app/knowledge/rethink/adaptive-tdee/#tdee...
It's useful for both Newbies and Pros.
When a person figures out their maintenance calories and looks for the average metabolic rate / maintenance calories for their height, weight, and gender, they realize they are not "genetically inferior" or have some serious issue which is stopping them from progressing if their maintenance calories are within average range!
Just knowing that there is nothing wrong with your metabolism gives people enough push to continuously walk on this path and achieve their goal.
>I mean, observing the weightloss / gain or lack thereof itself will tell you whether you need more of a calorie deficit or surplus.
You can read app reviews and these will tell you, complete newbies are having great success with this approach.
If you ask a layman on the street, they'll tell you eat less to lose weight, eat more to gain weight.
The question is: what is less, and what is more? How many calories precisely do we need to eat to achieve 1lb per week of weight loss?
Your total calorie burn for the day changes week to week; people don't know how to make the right adjustments.
Many people crash diet; they lose weight, then they cannot sustain it for long, binge eat, and gain it all back.
What key knowledge are they missing? Sustainable deficit. If you apply a sustainable deficit over a longer period of time, you may not "suffer" as much as you would otherwise
I am not saying drastic deficits are not useful; they are to those who are experienced. Let's say an MMA guy or bodybuilder can do it just fine!
Also, for lean bulking in natural bodybuilding, you need a specific rate of weight gain; let's say for a beginner it's a weight gain of 0.25–0.5% of body weight/week. It's hard for many to achieve this precise range because your maintenance calories are changing all the time!
And if you are an advanced lifter, then the rate of gain you want to target is even smaller: 0.1–0.25%/week.
That's why pro natural bodybuilders use Macrocodex and find it useful.
seems like a very reductionist view of human metabolism. human body weight is composed of many factors that don't directly depend on metabolism in the sense of "burning calories", as i am sure you are aware.
for those that aren't, you can't actually measure metabolic rates this way.
for a way to actually measure it see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_calorimetry
I've linked the method above; let me know which part you disagree with.
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.