For those who think weight loss is purely about caloric deficit

[SunsetRunner]

I found this article today and I feel it presents a well worded proposition about why a pure caloric deficit is an ineffective way to target a goal of weight loss.

https://medium.com/personal-growth/the-useless-concept-of-calories-50831730cc81 

Full Disclosure - I follow an LCHF eating strategy myself, which has been very successful.  I have also taken up watching my calories very closely in FitBit and log everything I eat - everything.  I still believe in targeting a calorie deficit as often as possible (my personal target is a 500 - 700 calorie deficit every day), but I also incorporate what I've learned about LCHF in terms of what calories I will eat.

I really think this is a good read for anyone who is counting calories but not getting the type of results they are expecting.

~dry_runner

P.S.  I am not open to a debate on this article, or LCHF as a whole.  If you know this isn't for you then don't trouble yourself to read it - I totally understand.

[emili]

I think calorie counting is not effective for overall improvement of health. A balance between low calorie high nutrient food and exercise is key to improve health and fitness. But, for weight loss without concern for muscle loss or nutrition there are countless, I mean countless studies and sources that say calories in vs out is the way to go. I lost 65 pounds on a low calorie diet. I did not include activity until I was 80% at my goal. I have kept it off for almost 4 years and have added a variety of activities to help me stay in shape. There are several here that will argue eat what you want you can outrun a giant pizza with extra cheese no problem. I think the journey to fitness is so varied and so personal- we can all argue and debate the best way for ourselves...which will be the worst way for someone else...

[SunsetRunner]

I agree with you. My own caloric deficit is achieved through regular running, cross fit sessions, walking and stair climbing.  My point about the article was to share a perspective about how not all calories are equal, just like a pound of sugar is not the same as a pound of lettuce.

[CantLoseIt]

Well that was highly enlightening...... thanks for sharing!

[Dominique]

The views of Dr. Jason Fung are well known: it all boils down to insulin, the "bad guy". Well, if people have success losing weight by focusing solely on regulating / suppressing insulin and entirely ignoring calories, it’s fine with me: whatever floats their boat.

[SunsetRunner]

I don’t believe it’s about ignoring calories but rather being aware of how certain foods may trigger an unwanted response from one’s body. Burning calories through various levels of exercise is equally important to me. 

If one finds a better way to achieve their goals through awareness of the role carbs might play in their system then I think one can be enabled to make better choices based on their individual experiences. 

[Daves_Not_Here · Accepted solution]

@SunsetRunner - thanks for providing this -- its a very coherent presentation, but I admit to confirmation bias because I'm enjoying very successful results with LCHF, so I'm the choir he is preaching to.  Strange thing for me is I'm eating high fat AND counting calories and finding I'm losing almost exactly 1 pound per 3,500 calorie accumulated deficit (so I find both ways of thinking to be consistent).

As to the role that insulin plays in weight gain and fat accumulation, just the anecdotal evidence seems overwhelming to me, from fetus weight gain due to gestational diabetes to every one of my friends and acquaintances with diabetes who really struggle with their weight when taking insulin.  One just needs to listen to Dr. Peter Attia's talks on how he continued to gain fat in spite of working out for literally hours a day, before finally cutting out the high-glycemic index carbs and then losing the fat.  In my case, I believe that's how I got to 240 pounds in spite of my exercise.  I think I am in a segment of the population that is pre-diabetic, insulin resistant, and who will tend to accumulate fat even in the presence of a caloric deficit. 

Here is one thing I've always been confused about:  carbs and protein contain about 4 calories per gram and fat contains 9.  So a pound of carbs or protein contains about 1,800 calories and a pound of fat contains 4,000.  I can't square that with burning 3,500 calories and losing a pound, regardless if I'm primarily burning glycogen or fat for fuel.  I would think I would lose weight at half the rate when burning fat because it has twice the energy density (yet I seem to lose weight faster when burning fat).  I suspect that the confusion arises because I don't fully understand the Krebs cycle and how dietary carbs and fat are digested, stored, and metabolized.  If anyone can link to a reference that explains this, I'd really appreciate it!

[Daves_Not_Here]

---

@Dominique wrote:

The views of Dr. Jason Fung are well known: it all boils down to insulin, the "bad guy". Well, if people have success losing weight by focusing solely on regulating / suppressing insulin and entirely ignoring calories, it’s fine with me: whatever floats their boat.

---

@Dominique - I've come to believe that, when it comes to calories versus insulin, it's not Either-Or, it's both.  I think to lose weight, you must sustain a calorie deficit.  And, for certain people like me, reducing insulin makes it easier to do that, because of how my appetite is suppressed.  Most days, I eat 1,000 to 2,000 calories less than I burn, and it's easy because I have no hunger to resist.

Secondarily, I believe insulin affects the rate at which fat is stored within the cells, and accessed for energy from them.  In my case, my recent weight loss seems to have spared muscle even though I haven't been lifting weights recently.  For example, my waist has gone from 40 to 33 inches, but my old suit jackets are still tight across my shoulders (I'm thinking due to weight lifting I did up to 4 months ago working on deltoids and lats).

Also, you mentioned that Fung's views are well known -- I think that is the case among the segment people like us who are interested in and study these ideas; however, I've been surprised how even the general educated population is unaware of the notion that insulin and obesity could be connected.  My personal life brings me in contact with a lot of educated and certified nutritionists, and when it comes to the idea that insulin might have a role to play in obesity, I would characterize their attitude as "curiously incurious".

Question to an insufferably arrogant and condescending besserwisser nutritionist:  "Why do you think people with diabetes have such a hard time losing weight?"

Nutritionist answer:  "Duuuuh!  I have absolutely no idea.  It's a complete mystery of nature, we have no working hypotheses, and the sun will explode before we figure this out.  Why would we nutritionists have intellectual curiosity in our chosen field of study?  Why would we be interested in understanding the single biggest health issue on the planet?  It's simple - anyone who is not naturally skinny like me is gluttonous and slothful, including all those fat-butt toddlers."

Oh.  I'm ranting again.  (not at you, @Dominique )