SwampNut Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Portion control was the answer from many people pushing various diets. I've never bought into it. And the evidence is more and more obvious that this is not the answer. This is a well studied doctor and nutritionist's view on it from a few days ago. Also note that Weight Watchers has openly announced that their past diet plans were not really correct, as far as simply eating less and/or just going low fat. What you eat matters more than just how many calories it has. https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/the-new-rule-for-calories-per-pound-of-weight-loss/ If you’re eating the same diet that led to the original weight problem but just in smaller servings, you should expect your appetite to rev up by about 45 calories per pound lost. So, if you were cutting 500 calories a day through portion control alone, even before you were down a dozen pounds, you’d feel so famished that you’d be driven to eat 500 more calories a day and your weight loss could vanish. For this reason, if you’re dead set on eating the same diet with the same foods, just in smaller quantities, you have to cut down an additional 45 calories per pound of desired weight loss to offset your hunger drive. So, to take off that one pound, instead of consuming just 10 fewer calories a day using the 10 Calories per Pound Rule, you’d have to eat 10 fewer calories on top of the 45 fewer calories to account for the revving up of your appetite. Thus, it would be 10 + 45 = 55 fewer calories. Indeed, just by changing diet quantity and not quality, it takes 55 fewer calories per day to lose a pound, so that daily 500-calorie deficit would only net you about a 9-pound weight loss over time instead of 50 pounds. That’s why portion control methods can be such a frustrating failure for so many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampNut Posted January 4 Author Share Posted January 4 Today's blog adds to this on the topic of sugar. You know, the thing your tax dollars subsidize, including advertising to tell you that sugar is good for you. (Narrator voice: It's sure as fuck not.) I simply cut out simple sugars long ago. Eventually my tastes changed so I really need very little other substitutes for it. My one indulgence is about half a teaspoon of raw sugar (10-15 calories, 2-3 grams carbs) with espresso every morning. https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/sugar-and-gaining-weight/ The bottom line is that “randomised controlled trials show that increasing sugars intake increases energy [calorie] intake” and “increasing sugar intake leads to body weight gain in adults, and…sugar reduction leads to body weight loss in children.” For example, when researchers randomized individuals to either increase or decrease their intake of table sugar, the added sugar group gained about three and a half pounds over ten weeks, whereas the reduced sugar group lost about two and a half pounds. A systematic review and meta-analysis of all such ad libitum diet studies—real-life studies where sugar levels were changed but people could otherwise eat whatever they wanted—found that reduced intake of dietary sugars resulted in a decrease in body weight, whereas “increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase.” The researchers found that, “considering the rapid weight gain that occurs after an increased intake of sugars, it seems reasonable to conclude that advice relating to sugars intake is a relevant component of a strategy to reduce the high risk of overweight and obesity in most countries.” That is, it’s reasonable to advise people to cut down on their sugar consumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomek Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 4 hours ago, SwampNut said: Portion control was the answer from many people pushing various diets. I've never bought into it. No surprise you are still fat. No exercise, of course, either. In some other post you have made a claim exercise will make you fat. Lol. Anyway, please continue. Festival of absurd. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrick Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 4 hours ago, SwampNut said: you’d feel so famished that you’d be driven to eat 500 more calories a day Yes and no, I think. The science and math works, but introduce human variables into the equation and it alters the outcome - not the formula. He's introduced "feel" into the equation, and upped the caloric intake - arbitrarily changing the input values. The formula still stands, as he explains in his second paragraph. It's still calories in, calories out. Appetite shouldn't enter the scientific equation; it's basic biology. If the human psyche won't allow the subject to remain within the bounds of the equation, then they're changing the input numbers, not the science. It's a tidy explanation that lack of self-control is one reason diets fail, but it doesn't challenge the basic metabolic mathematics. Appetite can be overcome in a number of ways. If you're inevitably "driven to eat 500 more calories a day", you're destined to fail at any dietary alteration. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomek Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, SwampNut said: Today's blog adds to this on the topic of sugar. You know, the thing your tax dollars subsidize, including advertising to tell you that sugar is good for you. (Narrator voice: It's sure as fuck not.) I simply cut out simple sugars long ago. Eventually my tastes changed so I really need very little other substitutes for it. My one indulgence is about half a teaspoon of raw sugar (10-15 calories, 2-3 grams carbs) with espresso every morning. https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/sugar-and-gaining-weight/ The bottom line is that “randomised controlled trials show that increasing sugars intake increases energy [calorie] intake” and “increasing sugar intake leads to body weight gain in adults, and…sugar reduction leads to body weight loss in children.” For example, when researchers randomized individuals to either increase or decrease their intake of table sugar, the added sugar group gained about three and a half pounds over ten weeks, whereas the reduced sugar group lost about two and a half pounds. A systematic review and meta-analysis of all such ad libitum diet studies—real-life studies where sugar levels were changed but people could otherwise eat whatever they wanted—found that reduced intake of dietary sugars resulted in a decrease in body weight, whereas “increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase.” The researchers found that, “considering the rapid weight gain that occurs after an increased intake of sugars, it seems reasonable to conclude that advice relating to sugars intake is a relevant component of a strategy to reduce the high risk of overweight and obesity in most countries.” That is, it’s reasonable to advise people to cut down on their sugar consumption. I've never seen advertising saying "sugar is good for you". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhawkxx Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 6 hours ago, SwampNut said: Portion control was the answer from many people pushing various diets. I've never bought into it. And the evidence is more and more obvious that this is not the answer. It doesn't work for me over the long run but may vary for different people. I'm a all or nothing type, haven't had a slice of bread since 2008. You have to do what works for you meaning your body chemistry and mental workings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.