> "What, you don't believe in thermodynamics? What a crackpot!"
Come back to me when you've heard a few people say that it is physically impossible for them to lose weight regardless of what they do. They think they could be eating nothing but celery and water and still maintain an upwards trend.
Thermodynamics works. That means it is always possible to lose weight, not that it is always easy.
A weight-loss plan that works is an engineered calorie deficit. Calories in-calories out is the basic outline, but you need to get the details right to find a plan you'll stick to long enough to have a decent impact.
You can engineer a calorie deficit through diet only, exercise only, or a mix; personally, I had very good results with something that was mostly due to a major change in diet with no change in my exercise habits, which mainly consist of walking for a few hours a day. Other people are actually capable of exercising a huge amount more than they have been and making only a modest dietary change. And there are people in between.
And then there are specific foods. Ultimately, no food is bad in itself, and every diet has to meet all your needs, including emotional needs. It can be easier to lose weight and keep it off by banning certain kinds of food, but that is not necessary. Demonizing foods is psychologically unhealthy because it leads to a sin-guilt-redemption cycle that inhibits a rational approach to this engineering problem.
My point, again, is that once you get the details worked out, as long as you actually are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight. There is nothing more to it. The fad diet pushers can fuck off.
I agree with your remark, but would like to make an addition: apart from diet and exercise, there is a third variable that controls the calorie balance: culture/customs.
For example, the amount of clothing one wears and the temperature at which one keeps ones living quarters in winter affects calories 'out', as does what one does while waiting for a cab/train/appointment (standing still vs walking around). Those are areas where I think easy gains can be made, even when forgetting about the elephant in the room 'get out of your car', which, apparently, is very hard to do for many people.
And, as with all dieting related stuff, for most people, there is no need for drastic action. Gaining 3 grams of body weight per day brings you 20 kg extra body weight going from 20 years to 40 years of age; that is what happens to most people. Your diet/exercise plan, similarly, is good enough if it leads to 3 grams of weight loss a day.
Except that it's not that easy. Your body will conserve energy if you're hungry, making you feel colder and more lethargic. If you go without a sweater, you'll burn more calories and end up eating more.
I think the point is to be healthy over being thin. Some people have bigger bodies and have a metabolism that leads to them carrying more weight. There's nothing wrong with this. I mean, obesity is another thing in itself - nobody is naturally obese unless they suffer from some sort of medical condition, but the point is if we eat healthy - a decent amount of nutrients without going hog-wild, avoiding shitty processed foods, and also doing a good amount of physical activity, it will make our bodies happy and we can be healthy. I do hate the social pressure to conform to some sort of mythical perfect body, but at the same time I think looking after your body - not starving or totally over-indulging it is important.
I think that may have been true at some point. But I believe that we are now manufacturing foods that are legitimately bad. Unless you are not counting those things as "food", which I would totally agree with.
I like Michael Pollans's advice: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." And "food" here is defined as you would expect (hint: Twinkies don't qualify)
In the Michael Pollan definition of food, there is no such thing as bad food.
Come back to me when you've heard a few people say that it is physically impossible for them to lose weight regardless of what they do. They think they could be eating nothing but celery and water and still maintain an upwards trend.
Thermodynamics works. That means it is always possible to lose weight, not that it is always easy.
A weight-loss plan that works is an engineered calorie deficit. Calories in-calories out is the basic outline, but you need to get the details right to find a plan you'll stick to long enough to have a decent impact.
You can engineer a calorie deficit through diet only, exercise only, or a mix; personally, I had very good results with something that was mostly due to a major change in diet with no change in my exercise habits, which mainly consist of walking for a few hours a day. Other people are actually capable of exercising a huge amount more than they have been and making only a modest dietary change. And there are people in between.
And then there are specific foods. Ultimately, no food is bad in itself, and every diet has to meet all your needs, including emotional needs. It can be easier to lose weight and keep it off by banning certain kinds of food, but that is not necessary. Demonizing foods is psychologically unhealthy because it leads to a sin-guilt-redemption cycle that inhibits a rational approach to this engineering problem.
My point, again, is that once you get the details worked out, as long as you actually are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight. There is nothing more to it. The fad diet pushers can fuck off.