-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Calories In - Calories Out To Lose Weight?
- Thread starter Arnold
- Start date
It leads to bad practices. If you believe it works, in spite of the facts, then you try lowering calories. But humans are evolved to resist famines. So a cascade of hormonal changes happen to resist loss and trigger hunger. Basal metabolism drops almost permanently.
It ignores that the calories out part is at least as variable as the calories in part.
On a technical front the number of significant digits is utterly wrong. Portions matter and portions are 100 calories each. In science the number of significant digits *matters*. There is a real difference between 100 and 101. In actual food eaten, no there is not a difference between 100 and 101. That?s noise not data.
Portions matter, but even if you correct the number of digits all of the previous issues apply. Portions matter, but they are the WRONG thing to MEASURE.
People who notice the literal truth of ?calories in versus calories out? on lab instruments fixate on the issue. When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail! it triggers tunnel vision on strategies and worse causes people to ignore the ultimately simple test - Are there fat people at the mall.
It causes people to ignore hunger drivers. Get people permanently hungry and they aren?t going to lose on your plan. Simple as that. Any plan that ignores hunger is nonsense. And any person who goes on a plan and isn?t hungry commits nonsense by asserting no one else is hungry on that plan type. Hunger MATTERS. Hunger saps will. And different people have vastly different hunger levels.
If all you measure are calories, or if you measure everything from a perspective of calories there is no option to pay attention to hunger. It?s a problem of the tunnel vision.
It causes people to ignore strategies that work but that use slightly higher calories. Even though the data is there. Any study that shows people who are more calories lost more must be rejected because of the tunnel vision with worldofdiets. And thus vast numbers ignore the hormonal interactions of any plan that triggers loss that way.
It?s a failed method, in spite of the fact of laboratory instruments. An idea can be true in a literal sense and still be an utter failure in practice.
Hunger *matters*. Net flow of fat out of storage *matters*. Portion count and size matters, but only as a tool to drive the previous two not as a primary driver.
It ignores that the calories out part is at least as variable as the calories in part.
On a technical front the number of significant digits is utterly wrong. Portions matter and portions are 100 calories each. In science the number of significant digits *matters*. There is a real difference between 100 and 101. In actual food eaten, no there is not a difference between 100 and 101. That?s noise not data.
Portions matter, but even if you correct the number of digits all of the previous issues apply. Portions matter, but they are the WRONG thing to MEASURE.
People who notice the literal truth of ?calories in versus calories out? on lab instruments fixate on the issue. When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail! it triggers tunnel vision on strategies and worse causes people to ignore the ultimately simple test - Are there fat people at the mall.
It causes people to ignore hunger drivers. Get people permanently hungry and they aren?t going to lose on your plan. Simple as that. Any plan that ignores hunger is nonsense. And any person who goes on a plan and isn?t hungry commits nonsense by asserting no one else is hungry on that plan type. Hunger MATTERS. Hunger saps will. And different people have vastly different hunger levels.
If all you measure are calories, or if you measure everything from a perspective of calories there is no option to pay attention to hunger. It?s a problem of the tunnel vision.
It causes people to ignore strategies that work but that use slightly higher calories. Even though the data is there. Any study that shows people who are more calories lost more must be rejected because of the tunnel vision with worldofdiets. And thus vast numbers ignore the hormonal interactions of any plan that triggers loss that way.
It?s a failed method, in spite of the fact of laboratory instruments. An idea can be true in a literal sense and still be an utter failure in practice.
Hunger *matters*. Net flow of fat out of storage *matters*. Portion count and size matters, but only as a tool to drive the previous two not as a primary driver.
Similar threads
