Are calories all that matter?

[skeptifem]

the body uses different calorie sources in different ways. fat and protein are used for important bodily functions BEFORE it is designated for stored fat, while carbs are easily converted into stored fats or usuable energy. It does boil down to calories in vs calories out but it is not the only factor in how you put on weight. What kind of weight is lost (muscle or fat) is an important issue effected by calorie sources.and like you said how filling/satisfying food is is very dependant on calorie sources, and therefore long term success.

Im sure im not the only one who has seen people who were thin, but had so little muscle tone that what little flesh they had was mostly fat, and some even had heavy cellulite on their bodies.

Is it theoretically possible to construct a diet with carefully chosen ingredients, where the average adult who needs 2000 calories, can eat 1,000 calories a day and not lose weight over time?

a diet that low in calories will make the body lower its metabolism over time to adjust to the intake level and you will hit a weightloss plateu w/o any exercise added, so to answer your question you will lose weight for awhile but the weight loss will stop. you would have a hard time working out anyway with such a low energy level without some sort of eating disorder thrown into the mix. a diet this low in calories is essentially a starvation diet.

Or can eat 3,000 calories a day and not gain weight?

I could imagine this happening during the refeeding of anorexic patients, their metabolism can get very high for a period during refeeding, but it doesnt stay that way forever. this happens after a period of weight gain however.

a high activity level could make this possible as well, though it would have to be a proffessional athlete level of activity, after all the muscle needed for such activity has been gained. body builders often eat a very high amount of calories just to maintain their level of muscle, but of course this is after the gaining has already occured.

but the atkins diet is based around the idea that it is very hard to gain weight while eating mostly protein and fat, which is true, but you would have an extremely hard time eating 3000 calories of only protein in a day because protein has the least calories per oz out of all 3 calorie sources and is generally much more filling than other sources. i guess it would be technically possible when eating only protein but it would be extremely damaging to the body, google 'rabbit starvation', it can kill you to stick to lean protein as a sole source of calories.

 

[big-E]

Reaching equilibrium

One thing I've never seen a good explanation for is why (most) people who consistently eat more calories than they burn don't just keep getting fatter and fatter... it's clear enough that if you eat 3000 cal and burn 2000 in a day you've got a 1000 cal surplus... but plenty of people who do have that surplus don't keep on getting heavier and heavier until they feature in a documentary of their own - they stabilise at a certain weight. What's the process that controls that?

Presumably there are factors which counteract the surplus - but it seems unlikely to me that e.g. the extra effort required to move could be sufficient. With all that insulation you definitely don't need to burn calories to keep warm...

Do the extra calories just get dumped (literally or metaphorically) and if so is there a system in the body for determining if there is 'enough' stored energy or is it a simple equilibrium-type reaction where fat is moving in and out of storage at rates dependent on concentration?

 

[The SkepDoc]

I believe that on a regular basis we are lied to even by the scientific community about diet and weight loss.[QUOTE/]

I wouldn't say "lying" but there certainly are some misunderstandings being promoted by well-meaning people who exaggerate. There is a good article on this subject at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E5065-2345-128A-9E1583414B7F0000 It's titled, "Obesity: An Overblown Epidemic."

I did not reduce my calorie intake when I lost weight. Why is this so hard to believe? [QUOTE/]

I can believe it to some extent. On some diets like the Atkins diet, people lose water weight and lose more weight initially, supposedly without restricting calories. Yet after the first 6 months, there is no difference, and people who are restricting carbohydrates have been shown to ingest fewer total calories.

America is full of people who are over weight, if the diet and weight loss information we are receivingis accurate and effective, they why are so many people overweight.

The information is accurate, but compliance is difficult. There's this insidious thing called hunger, which is fueled by genetic, psychological, and even social forces that are more powerful than human will power.

 

[The SkepDoc]

One thing I've never seen a good explanation for is why (most) people who consistently eat more calories than they burn don't just keep getting fatter and fatter... it's clear enough that if you eat 3000 cal and burn 2000 in a day you've got a 1000 cal surplus... but plenty of people who do have that surplus don't keep on getting heavier and heavier until they feature in a documentary of their own - they stabilise at a certain weight. What's the process that controls that?

Do the extra calories just get dumped (literally or metaphorically) and if so is there a system in the body for determining if there is 'enough' stored energy or is it a simple equilibrium-type reaction where fat is moving in and out of storage at rates dependent on concentration?

To a small extent the extras do get dumped. We stop absorbing some nutrients when we have enough - a pediatrician friend used to tell parents that giving their kids vitamins just created expensive pee. We think there is a mechanism in the brain called the appestat, probably in the hypothalamus, that establishes a "set point" and when people reach that set weight, their appetite decreases to where they ingest just enough calories to maintain that weight. We have no idea how it works. The hormone grehlin, secreted by the stomach, seems to be involved. This is an exciting avenue of research, because we might some day learn to adjust the set point.

 

[blutoski]

The information is accurate, but compliance is difficult. There's this insidious thing called hunger, which is fueled by genetic, psychological, and even social forces that are more powerful than human will power.

I have a friend who was a big advocate of Atkins. When he thought he had a zinger: "Well, we've had the FDA guidelines for twenty years, and people are only getting fatter." I pointed out that we've had the Atkins Diet for thirty years, and people are only getting fatter.

He said: "Yeah, but nobody's on the Atkin's Diet."

Bingo.

Nobody's adhering to calorie restriction either.

All the advice in the world is irrelevant if people just dismiss it, or rationalize doing the opposite.

 

[skeptifem]

One thing I've never seen a good explanation for is why (most) people who consistently eat more calories than they burn don't just keep getting fatter and fatter... it's clear enough that if you eat 3000 cal and burn 2000 in a day you've got a 1000 cal surplus... but plenty of people who do have that surplus don't keep on getting heavier and heavier until they feature in a documentary of their own - they stabilise at a certain weight. What's the process that controls that?

yeah but you still have to expend calories to keep that amount of tissue alive. and the fact that movements with that much weight are more strenuous to muscles. metabolism is effected somewhat by how many calories your body expects to take in as well.

people of a healthy weight who are simply large (tall, wide framed) need to eat more than others for the same reason.

Presumably there are factors which counteract the surplus - but it seems unlikely to me that e.g. the extra effort required to move could be sufficient. With all that insulation you definitely don't need to burn calories to keep warm...

as far as conteracting the surplus- i dont think there are too many things in place to do that. as far as natural selection goes genes that ensure weight gain are much more useful in the event of a famine, that was a thousand times more common of a problem than dying of obesity related illness back then.

Do the extra calories just get dumped (literally or metaphorically) and if so is there a system in the body for determining if there is 'enough' stored energy or is it a simple equilibrium-type reaction where fat is moving in and out of storage at rates dependent on concentration?

I know previously starved peoples bodies pass food much more slowly during refeeding, the body does seem to 'hold on' to food longer after malnutrition, but i am unsure if the opposite is true.

 

[skeptifem]

I have a friend who was a big advocate of Atkins. When he thought he had a zinger: "Well, we've had the FDA guidelines for twenty years, and people are only getting fatter." I pointed out that we've had the Atkins Diet for thirty years, and people are only getting fatter.

He said: "Yeah, but nobody's on the Atkin's Diet."

Bingo.

Nobody's adhering to calorie restriction either.

All the advice in the world is irrelevant if people just dismiss it, or rationalize doing the opposite.

the FDA guidelines used to be full of bad advice, for quite some time. this woman followed those guidelines, like so many others (low calorie, low fat, high carb diet combined with cardio exercise) without much of a result. she has written a few books and is well educated on matters of nutrition and fitness, heres her page on eating:

http://stumptuous.com/cms/displaysection.php?sid=4

goooood info here.

 

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I think body composition and the effect of that on metabolic rate can have a part to play - but varies from person to person.

I play rugby and my position needs me to have both stength and fitness, but as a part timer, it is difficult to concentrate on both aspects at the same time. So I kind of get into weights for a few months, and then cardio for a while, swinging between the two in a semi-obsessive way!

I have definately found that it is much easier to eat more and not add fat when I am have more muscle on my frame. But I'm probably adding weight as the muscles grow.

This is probably slightly off-topic, but IMO, just doing exercise like cardio isn't the most efficient way to lose or maintain weight. You can lose weight but increase the calorie supply and your body is desperate to store those calories. You need to build lean muscle mass and try to increase your metabolic rate that way.

Having said that, not everyone's body works the same way, and it is only through more advanced testing that your real metabolic rate can be identified. But in general I would still say - if you want to try to increase your metabolic rate, build and maintain lean muscle mass.

 

[NeilC]

Actually, both articles were reviews. The first article highlighted the results of a small pilot study to support its conclusions. The article I cited was a review of all the "wider body of evidence" - all the scientific literature - and it listed 198 references to support its conclusions. The American Academy of Family Physicians pretty much agrees, in a much more recent review. http://www.aafp.org/afp/20060601/tips/3.html

As I tried to point out before, even if there is "less usable energy" that may not translate into a clinically significant difference. An analogy is the lottery; buying a ticket technically increases your chance of winning, but for all practical purposes it does not significantly increase your chances of winning.

No point in splitting hairs on definition of article/review etc but my point was neither of them were studies as such - not trials of double blind type where one can review the procedure and therefore evaluate the results and conclusion. One can find other such reviews done by Atkins proponents that appear to show different results, no doubt because they select different trials.

Your last link, whilst demonstrating that in practical terms the various diets work out much the same in terms of success rate over a subject group, is not comparing eggs with eggs in reference to the question of are calories just calories. One group could eat all they like as long as it wasn't carbs (no daily calorie limit), the other limited fat % but also limited total calories. They didn't give two groups of people the same cals a day: one of nearly all protein and one nearly all carbs. Had they done that I suspect there would have been quite some difference. If that figure of a 1/3 of proteins cals being used up in it's conversion is correct then they would be consuming 1/3 less effective calories which would surely result in a significant difference in weight loss.

This could be a useful tool for dieters who can swap some of their carb cals for protein cals to get more weight loss per set daily calorie intake. This is a well known technique in some fitness circles, especially weight trainers who have an added incentive to eat more protein anyway.

 

[Ocelot]

Here's my next diet...

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html

But first I've got to quit smoking.

 

[Pidge]

My observations, ramblings and food for thought.

Fats eaten and and absorbed into the blood stream in digestion only two "usualy" ways out - metabolic processes or through the skin pores (a tiny amount in comparison), any excess is stored.

Excess sugars and digested starches (i.e. broken down into simple sugars) aborbed can be eliminated in urine, as well as being coverted to fats and stored. The "low GI" diet's basis is to avoid triggering the conversion of sugar into fats (i.e. reducing the insulin response)

Eliminating fat intake helps enormously with weight reduction, but lots of low intensity excerise (e.g. long moderate pace walks) (before meals?) is needed to encourage the release of the stored fat.

One question I have is how the body "chooses" to convert the sugar instead of eliminate it - If you "starve" yourself does the body react by hoarding everything it can? Do some people have a more active or senstive pancreas?

One simple trick with maintaing calorie intake but reducing the amount absorbed is to eat whole grains and vegetables rather than refined grains and processed foods. The gut has to do more work to breakdown the whole foods - if it manages to - as well as the low GI benefit - but I suspect, given the recent results of a study that showed different GI not having an impact on weight gain or loss, I think the main think is straight out how digestable the food is (i.e. how many usable calories does the body manage to extract).

Of course, whole foods and whole grains require a significant shift in "what tastes nice" - your pallete needs to adjust to the relatively blander foods - or liberally indulgances into spicier foods.

The calorie content of a food is measured by drying it out and literally burning the water-free remains. Not all of that energy may actually be available to the the body - 100 calories of sugar is almost certainly to be fully absorbed by the body, whereas 100 calories of brown rice will not be. Brown rice has a lower GI (longer time for the blood sugar level to rise), but the body cannot break down the fibre (e.g. cellulose).

My wife went onto the McGougall Diet, and lost around 30kg (67lb) over about 1 year. The Mcdougall diet is basically a low fat, vegan, whole-food diet. She is still "sort of" on it at the moment (it's hard when I can eat pretty much what I want* and not put on weight). Going vegan removes a very large source of most fats in a wetern diet - meat and animal products.

The catch is with any dieting is that you tend to a new equlibirum. If you go back to your old diet and excerise habits, your weight will simply go back on.

* I tend to avoid snacking unless I'm actively hungry, and I normally don't eat until I feel full, just until I'm no longer hungry. Eating low fat, vegan, somewhat wholefood meals as half of my diet may be helping as well... Right now it's 2.5 hours since dinner, which was a dish of (white) rice with a mushroom and tofu "stir fry" (no oil used) with brocolli, only enough to cover a small dinner plate, and a piece of fejoa and peach crumble for desert (no butter/margarine), and I've just realised I'm now hungry again.

Whoops, that ran on for longer than I was expecting.

 

[Pup]

Our own genetic make up and body types are also a overwhelming factor, no matter how much I eat or work out I will never look like a body builder I do not have the genes for it.

Agreed. I'm the same way--muscle bulk just ain't happening. If I exercise, I get the "runner's physique" rather than the "bodybuilder's physique," and my father was the same way. If I overeat without exercising, I add fat mostly in my stomach same as my father, unlike my mother, who got fat "all over."

However, I'm talking in this case purely about weight, rather than body type.

To set the record straight, I did not reduce my calorie intake when I lost weight. Why is this so hard to believe?

Because, if you also didn't increase the amount of calories you burned, the extra energy in the calories had to go somewhere. Where?

Can you point to any peer-reviewed studies where people changed their diet but did not reduce their calories or increase their exercise, and lost weight?

Aside from the weight-loss implications, there's also the unsettling thought that a person who's already underweight, due to illness, third-world famine or whatever, might be given a diet with full nutrition and full calories, yet still not be able to regain enough weight because they were eating the wrong things. So knowing what foods don't truly contribute the calories that they seem to, would be useful in those cases as well.

America is full of people who are over weight, if the diet and weight loss information we are receivingis accurate and effective, they why are so many people overweight. Nor believe that these over weight people want to be fat, lack willpower, or are unwilling to do the work required to lose weight.

I believe that's exactly the answer. Well, perhaps, not "want to be fat," but "don't want to be thin enough to put in the effort."

And to turn it around--if the only way to lose weight is to reduce calories, then that's why so many people are overweight. They're trying to avoid that central issue by going on low-carb diets, on low-fat diets, on various fad diets, trying to do anything but avoid meeting head-on the fact that they have to eat less and therefore, durn it, are sometimes going to feel hungry. Some of those diets may help them feel less hungry on the same calories, but I'd be interested in seeing any studies that show the change in diet, itself, without changing calories or exercise, reduced weight.

 

[The SkepDoc]

No point in splitting hairs on definition of article/review etc but my point was neither of them were studies as such - not trials of double blind type where one can review the procedure and therefore evaluate the results and conclusion. One can find other such reviews done by Atkins proponents that appear to show different results, no doubt because they select different trials.

One of the reviews was not written by anyone with an agenda, like the Atkins folks, and it cited 198 studies, among which were essentially everything in the literature on the subject. What more do you want?

 

[Dumbledore]

Really??!

So what I am hearing is that fat people just want to be fat and are unwilling to do the work to lose their unwanted weight, that basically their hunger drives them to it. That we are receiving accurate and effective weight loss information. What about the mutibillion dollar weight loss industry, would it not be in their interest to spread misinformation about weight loss? What about the body mass index that tells us that Brad Pitt, and George Clooney are over weight? I am not saying that losing weight is not difficult, what I am saying is their is a lot of misinformation out there coming from quacks as well as authorities. As far as not changing my calorie intake and losing weight is concerned, I changed what foods I was eating, so in essence my body processed those foods differently and my net calorie intake was less. I did not eat less calories, my body processed less calories. Further let me suggest that unless you have had a significant amount of unwanted weight and have tried repeatedly to get rid of it unsuccessfully you might not know what you are talking about. For those of you who have lost your unwanted weight I think that is wonderful, but that does not make you an expert in weight loss, especially since a myriad of physical, personal and psychological problems can cause unwanted weight gain. Unless you have struggled to lose weights you might not be aware of the fact that weight loss is not easy, beyond a notion you have heard of, and that trying to get accurate, effective information about it is like strolling through a field of land mines. It is easy to dismiss overweight people as lazy and not wanting to be skinny enough, this is not true their are many people who struggle their whole lives to lose weight unsuccessfully, they are not lucky enough to have the genes nor the help they need to lose their unwanted weight. Consider for a moment that these are people we are talking about, people who would like nothing more than to lose their unwanted weight!!!!

 

[ZirconBlue]

Further let me suggest that unless you have had a significant amount of unwanted weight and have tried repeatedly to get rid of it unsuccessfully you might not know what you are talking about. For those of you who have lost your unwanted weight I think that is wonderful, but that does not make you an expert in weight loss. . .

So . . . only people who have tried and failed to lose weight are qualified to discuss it?

 

[NeilC]

One of the reviews was not written by anyone with an agenda, like the Atkins folks, and it cited 198 studies, among which were essentially everything in the literature on the subject. What more do you want?

I'd like it to be specifically relevant to the point I was making. I've shown some scientific reasoning why eating the same calorie-amount of carbs and protein do not give the body the same amount of energy. The review is not a study refuting that fact. I made that point to address the question of whether calories are calories, whatever form they came in. The piece I linked to gives the reasoning why they are not. I'm not commenting on the relevance of that in terms of a real-life fat loss programme.

It's an interesting article and quotes lots of studies and other sources but as you know it is not primary evidence and as such one would need to look at each useage of each study and conclusions to verify it's relevance and validity against any particular argument.

I haven't got the time to do that but taking one random source-useage: " "Studies consistently show that under conditions of negative energy balance,
weight loss is a function of caloric intake, not diet composition (54)"

(54) is Hill JO, Drougas H, Peters JC. Obesity treatment: can diet composition play a role? Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:694 –7.

That article (again, not a study) concludes: "Diet composition is one of many variables that can influence the success of obesity treatment."

So diet composition DOES have an effect. It seems that it is not as relevant during the weightloss as after weightloss but it does have an effect. So can we infer that cals are not just cals?

I'm not arguing for the Atkins Diet. It seems an idiotic way to lose weight. I just want to know whether metabolising protein calories is significantly inefficient in comparison to carb calories to support or refute the statement that "calories are just calories". Seems to me that the way to do that is to quote an actual study done on people consuming set calorie amounts of mostly protein vs mostly carbs.

What I've read so far indicates that there is a difference.

 

[Hellbound]

So what I am hearing is that fat people just want to be fat and are unwilling to do the work to lose their unwanted weight, that basically their hunger drives them to it.

That's it. We're a culture that wants convenience and immediate resutls without having to put in much effort.

That we are receiving accurate and effective weight loss information.

Wrong. In fact, I believe people are pointing out exactly the opposite. 95% of the weight loss information anyone spouts these days follows the exact line of thinking you are pushing here. And people are not losing weight on these diets unless they reduce calories or increase exercise. We are recieving a LOT of misinformation, from the companies and individuals selling diet plans, diet foods, diet pills, and other diet related material. If I were to be really cynical, I'd suspect that many know their diet products are ineffective...which is exactly why they sell them.

What about the mutibillion dollar weight loss industry, would it not be in their interest to spread misinformation about weight loss?

Just covered that.

What about the body mass index that tells us that Brad Pitt, and George Clooney are over weight?

You can be fat without being overweight, and vice versa. However, before putting ANY value whatsoever on this statement, I'd have to know where you got your information, what measurement was used, and when the measurement was made.

I am not saying that losing weight is not difficult, what I am saying is heir is a lot of misinformation out there coming from quacks as well as authorities.

Well, so far the only data you've been repeating is that from the quacks.

As far as not changing my calorie intake and losing weight is concerned, I changed what foods I was eating, so in essence my body processed those foods differently and my net calorie intake was less. I did not eat less calories, my body processed less calories.

Wrong. You either ate less calories or burned more. Period. Several studies have been done to determine if the exact thing you are talking about actually works...the notion is unsupported.

Further let me suggest that unless you have had a significant amount of unwanted weight and have tried repeatedly to get rid of it unsuccessfully you might not know what you are talking about.

So those who fail to lose weight are experts? How about those of us that have unwanted weight and are successfully losing it through determination and application of willpower?

For those of you who have lost your unwanted weight I think that is wonderful, but that does not make you an expert in weight loss, especially since a myriad of physical, personal and psychological problems can cause unwanted weight gain.

Psychological and personal, yes, which is pretty much what we've been saying. People's psychology is such that they don't want to stick with the program. Heck, the whole idea that a diet is a temproary thing is an excellent example...the idea of "dieting down" to a weight. It's ineffective, you'll regain the weight when the diet ends. To lose weight you have to change your lifestyle. Permanently. Physical problems? Not nearluy as many as you believe there to be, except the problem of physical movement to the gym or away from the food.

Unless you have struggled to lose weights you might not be aware of the fact that weight loss is not easy, beyond a notion you have heard of, and that trying to get accurate, effective information about it is like strolling through a field of land mines.

Yes, precisely because of people selling ineffectual plans like the grapefruit diet, or the all-protein diet, or the banana-bread diet, or the chant-my-mantra-diet, or whatever fad or other ineffectual technique is "in" this year.

It is easy to dismiss overweight people as lazy and not wanting to be skinny enough, this is not true their are many people who struggle their whole lives to lose weight unsuccessfully, they are not lucky enough to have the genes nor the help they need to lose their unwanted weight.

No one is dismissing them as lazy or not wanting to, although this is the case for some. It takes an enormous amount of effort to change your life, which is what has to be done. Not everyone can do that, and most people need help with it. I did.

However, the effect of your genes on weight loss is negligible...that's an excuse...a rationalization. People would do much better facing up to the fact that they simply have trouble dieting, and seek professional help from licensed medical personnel and friends and family...rather than bouncing from fad diet to fad diet when they have trouble doing it on their own.

Consider for a moment that these are people we are talking about, people who would like nothing more than to lose their unwanted weight!!!!

I have, and I've been there.

And what I have to say is:

Cry me a GD river.

Get over yourself. Get up off the floor and quit feeling sorry for yourself. With the exception of very few medical conditions, you've done this to yourself through years of living a poor lifestyle. You may not be able to change it on your own. But it's not because of genes or stress or artificial sweetners or the phases of the moon. It's because of you.

Accept the fact that you may not have the determination or willpower to change on your own. Accept the fact that you are failing at losing. Accept the fact that you are not strong enough, right now, to make this change.

Sound sad and cyncial? Perhaps, but listen to the rest.

You did this to yourself, which means you can undo it. It's in your power. You may not be able to do it alone, but NOWHERE is a rule written that you can't ask for help. Get with co-workers, friends, family, and others. Start groups with others who are interested in losing weight, and encourage each other. Watch each other and point out failures. Be honest with yourself. Get professional help from physical trainers, nutritionists, and doctors. Making excuses will not make you lose weight. Jumping from fad diet to fad diet will not make you lose weight and keep it off.

You have to change your life, and I think almost all of us know how hard that is.

 

[The SkepDoc]

So what I am hearing is that fat people just want to be fat and are unwilling to do the work to lose their unwanted weight, that basically their hunger drives them to it. That we are receiving accurate and effective weight loss information. What about the mutibillion dollar weight loss industry, would it not be in their interest to spread misinformation about weight loss? What about the body mass index that tells us that Brad Pitt, and George Clooney are over weight? I am not saying that losing weight is not difficult, what I am saying is their is a lot of misinformation out there coming from quacks as well as authorities. As far as not changing my calorie intake and losing weight is concerned, I changed what foods I was eating, so in essence my body processed those foods differently and my net calorie intake was less. I did not eat less calories, my body processed less calories. Further let me suggest that unless you have had a significant amount of unwanted weight and have tried repeatedly to get rid of it unsuccessfully you might not know what you are talking about. For those of you who have lost your unwanted weight I think that is wonderful, but that does not make you an expert in weight loss, especially since a myriad of physical, personal and psychological problems can cause unwanted weight gain. Unless you have struggled to lose weights you might not be aware of the fact that weight loss is not easy, beyond a notion you have heard of, and that trying to get accurate, effective information about it is like strolling through a field of land mines. It is easy to dismiss overweight people as lazy and not wanting to be skinny enough, this is not true their are many people who struggle their whole lives to lose weight unsuccessfully, they are not lucky enough to have the genes nor the help they need to lose their unwanted weight. Consider for a moment that these are people we are talking about, people who would like nothing more than to lose their unwanted weight!!!!

You are hearing what you want to hear, not what is being said. No one has suggested that fat people want to be fat, that they are unwilling to work, or that they are lazy. There is a lot of accurate information out there, but there is also a lot of misinformation, especially from people who want to sell books and bogus weight loss products. We haven't even discussed BMI, which is only a rough guide that doesn't take muscle development into consideration. I posted a link to the article "Obesity: An Overblown Epidemic" which critiques BMI as well as questioning how important weight loss really is to health. No one has suggested weight loss is "easy." The principle is "simple," but the execution is difficult.

As for personal experience, I lost #20 in 3 months by counting calories and choosing more low calorie density foods that would make me feel fuller with fewer calories. I continue to watch my calorie intake and have not regained any weight. My husband was morbidly obese, and when I finally got the message across to him, he lost #60 in 5 months with the same system, without any exercise, and without ever feeling starved. As a family physician, I had quite a lot of experience in helping patients lose weight.

 

[The SkepDoc]

one would need to look at each useage of each study and conclusions to verify it's relevance and validity against any particular argument. I haven't got the time to do that

You haven't got the time to do that, yet you reject the conclusions of those who have done that. Those who have taken the time say that the high protein diet may produce a bit more weight loss in the short term, but not in the long term, and there are concerns about possible adverse effects. So, while technically a protein calorie may not have exactly the same results as a carbohydrate calorie, for all practical purposes a calorie is a calorie, and simple calorie counting is effective for losing weight.

 

[Pup]

Thanks everyone. I'm enjoying this discussion!

Here's a question, that's actually not hypothetical.

A couple months ago, I was one of a group of volunteers at a historic site portraying prisoners of war, for an educational film, as a living portrayal for visitors, and alone at night as a memorial. It was a moving experience, but to get to the mundane question...

Historically, the real prisoners had been fed a diet of about 1600 calories a day for months, and not much more for months or in some cases years before that.

Because the living-history roles were demanding physically and psychologically, the only way to get enough modern volunteers to portray the prisoners, was to ignore a height-weight requirement, so the participants were a cross-section of modern American males. Meaning some were, well, chunky.

I'd argue that even if some of the original men went into a situation like that a little overweight--historically no one was extremely obese since they were active soldiers going in--everyone would have come out normal or thin in weight, even without counting additional health problems due to malnutrition, exposure, poor sanitation, etc.

However, if weight loss is trickier and harder than we imagine, and dependent on more than trying to ignore the abundance of food around us, would it be possible for some overweight men to remain overweight even after months in that situation?