Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And since this is a weight loss forum, one would think that reducing total caloric intake would be part of the goal of changing one's eating habits.
You're conflating many issues here. Firstly, though caloric restriction is going to be important for any weight loss....its not something you can do long-term. Caloric restriction will, long-term, result in starvation. The important point about caloric restriction, I think, is whether you let your body do it naturally via a shift to health promoting foods or you do it unnaturally with a calculator. Now, as for macro nutrient ratios, the only way to reduce your caloric intake and maintain the same macro nutrient ratio is if you reduce, proportionally, fat, protein and carbs. If you reduce your caloric intake by eliminating some fat, then you'll change the macro nutrient ratio such that either protein and/or carb make up a greater share of the diet.
So, in the example given by the other poster. The meal after the fat reducing change has a higher proportion of protein and carb than the original meal. Its macro-nutrient ratios are entirely different....
Caloric restriction will -not necessarily- result in starvation. It isn't an absolute fact.
If you need 2000 calories to *maintain your current weight* and you reduce your caloric intake to only 1800 calories, you will lose weight (slowly). Eventually, you will have lost enough weight, that you will need 1800 calories to *maintain that weight.* And guess what - you're consuming 1800 calories already, so you don't need to do anything new, and you don't have to worry about starving to death.
Really - this isn't physics, or medicine, or even dieting. It's basic math.
Caloric restriction will, long-term, result in starvation.
Maybe on your planet.
But on Earth, if I want to lose weight and I'm eating 2,000 calories a day, I can restrict my calories to, say, 1,900. I will lose weight. I can eat 1,900 calories a day for the rest of my life and never starve. Hell, I can eat 1,500 calories a day and not starve.
Maybe if I reduced my calorie intake to 0 ... but I'd probably die of other issues before I died of starvation.
I restrict my calories everyday. I know that I do not want to eat over a certain amount of them if I want to maintain my weight, which is what I want to do. I happen to exercise a lot so I can eat a fair amount.
The whole notion that people do not have to worry about calorie intake is just silly. No matter what types of food you eat the calories are what matters.
Caloric restriction will -not necessarily- result in starvation. It isn't an absolute fact.
Of course it is, in fact its true by definition. Caloric restriction simply means eating less calories than your body needs to function. You can't do that long-term, once your fat stores are utilized you'll die of starvation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick
If you need 2000 calories to *maintain your current weight* and you reduce your caloric intake to only 1800 calories, you will lose weight (slowly). Eventually, you will have lost enough weight, that you will need 1800 calories to *maintain that weight.*
Yep, but you're ignoring the key point. The person eating 1800 and maintaining their weight is no longer practicing caloric restriction! Furthermore, this ignores the issue of ratios which is what I was talking about. Taking fat out of a meal, like you did in your example, is going to change the macro nutrient profile of the meal.
And you're right...its basic math. If you have a ratio and change one of the values while fixing the others (or not changing them proportionally)...the ratio changes as well!
But on Earth, if I want to lose weight and I'm eating 2,000 calories a day, I can restrict my calories to, say, 1,900. I will lose weight. I can eat 1,900 calories a day for the rest of my life and never starve. Hell, I can eat 1,500 calories a day and not starve.
Maybe if I reduced my calorie intake to 0 ... but I'd probably die of other issues before I died of starvation.
Maybe if you reduced your calorie intake to zero? Just maybe? You are speaking as if the body doesn't have minimal caloric requirements, but it certainly does. The only reason you're able to function with a calorie restricting diet is because well...you have a much of energy stored in fat and your body converts into usable energy. But that store of energy isn't limitless, once depleted you'll start to starve to death.
As far your example, let's assume this individual is overweight and it takes 2,000/calories a day to maintain their weight. Now, if they reduce their caloric intake to 1,900/calories they will, like you say, lose some weight....to the point where their diet is no longer calorie restricting. But that is just the point, at this point they no longer have a calorie restricting diet. Their diet is only calorie restricting in terms of their previous body mass, not their new body mass. Now can this be continued to 0/calories day? Obviously not, the body has certain minimal caloric needs and it will start to lose lean body mass and shut itself down after your fat stores have been depleted. Therefore, as I said, caloric restriction can't be practiced long-term. Its a short-term strategy to force your body to utilize its stored energy.
The whole notion that people do not have to worry about calorie intake is just silly. No matter what types of food you eat the calories are what matters.
Actually, I'd suggest the shoe is on the other foot. For millions of years our ancestors have maintained reasonable weights with no knowledge of nutrition whatsoever. They didn't worry about their calories...they didn't even know what calories were. Yet...they didn't become overweight. Why? What has changed? What is on the end of our fork of course....
The point isn't that calories don't matter, but instead that your body has an innate ability to maintain a healthy weight if you'd just give it the sorts of foods it was use to eating. The current obsession with calories is a symptom of the modern diet....
Actually, I'd suggest the shoe is on the other foot. For millions of years our ancestors have maintained reasonable weights with no knowledge of nutrition whatsoever. They didn't worry about their calories...they didn't even know what calories were. Yet...they didn't become overweight. Why? What has changed? What is on the end of our fork of course....
The point isn't that calories don't matter, but instead that your body has an innate ability to maintain a healthy weight if you'd just give it the sorts of foods it was use to eating. The current obsession with calories is a symptom of the modern diet....
WHat has changed since then? Just about everything. They were vary active back then and they did not eat or pleasure or out of boredom they ate out of necessity and they were never sure when the next meal was coming. This current society we live in equates food with pleasure. We eat for numerous reasons, fueling our bodies is probably last on the list.
When I say I count calories what I mean is I have a pretty good idea of the calorie content in most foods and I eat accordingly. People NEED to be mindful of how much they are putting into their bodies.
Calories always matter.
Just about everything. They were vary active back then and they did not eat or pleasure or out of boredom they ate out of necessity and they were never sure when the next meal was coming.
None of this is very accurate. If you observe more primitive societies, or heck observe our closest living ancestors, you'll find that they weren't particularly active. People work far more today then they use to in the past...which is interesting in itself. All observed primitive societies had food traditions and certainly ate out of pleasure, even non-human primates do it. Though food scarcity was likely to be a common issue in primitive societies, it wasn't so much an issue (at least routinely) in more complex societies. How common was obesity in ancient civilizations? Not at all.....yet these societies weren't being confronted with routine food scarcity.
People didn't just recently start to enjoy eating, its built into our DNA. What has changed is the sorts of foods at the end of our fork, obesity has only become widespread with the introduction of industrial food production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckyd609
When I say I count calories what I mean is I have a pretty good idea of the calorie content in most foods and I eat accordingly. People NEED to be mindful of how much they are putting into their bodies.
Calories always matter.
Sure, but if you're eating the right sort of foods you don't need to worry yourself about the calorie content...it will always be within reason and your body will maintain a healthy weight.
People didn't just recently start to enjoy eating, its built into our DNA. What has changed is the sorts of foods at the end of our fork, obesity has only become widespread with the introduction of industrial food production.
I agree with this statement - but what I don't agree with is your assertion that pretty much every single food item in the American diet is to blame. Diets like South Beach are designed to help navigate the American diet minefield. I concur that the plant based whole foods diet is probably one of the most effective, not without its own downsides, but for some people they do not want a major departure from their lifestyle to get healthier. Rather than wag a finger and call them weak for that lifestyle choice, the SB diet is a healthier alternative. There are no long term - large scale studies to support the effectiveness and diets like SB and Paleo because they are fairly new inventions. But the current studies out there are already showing very positive results including the present one posted by the OP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
