Question on dieting re: "calories out"

[x-ray_vision]

@Bill_Door

What astro said. I’ve controlled my weight using a low-carb diet for more than 10 years. When I see detractors like the one quoted by x-ray visionsay (speaking of Gary Taubes) things like

He also admits that people who restrict carbohydrates tend to eat less, and he says their energy expenditure increases.

like it’s a bad thing I get confused.

You have to take that quote in context. The next sentence is :

Wait! This sounds like support for very calories-in/out principle that he rejects.

She’s not saying it like it’s a bad thing. She’s saying several things he says sound like support of calories in/calories out, which he rejects.

[astro]

@x-ray_vision

You’re moving the goal post. I’m glad what worked for you worked for you and I didn’t deny that it did. Lots of different dieting strategies work. They all work based on the calories-in/calories-out model. Taubes denies this and it is a main theme in that book. I posted evidence that what Taubes claims is incorrect. And a few things that you claimed are incorrect. I posted some evidence that Americans are consuming more calories from fat than sugar than we were in the past. If you want to post evidence other than anecdotal and not just claim that Taubes is correct, I’ll be happy to debate you.

IIRC Taubes asserts that fat, protein and carbohydrate calories are dealt with differently by the body and have different effects. In reading his book and looking at his remarks about the thermodynamic relationship of calorie intake it does not appear (if read in context) he is denying that eating more calories than you burn will cause you to get fat, the issue for him is in answering “why”. For him (and he is militant on this) stating “more calories in - less calories out = obesity” is largely a useless abstract statement relative the the reality of why people get fat.

I think the distinction is that if you take a piece of his contextual statement that it’s about much more than the thermodynamic equation as a useful explanation for obesity and say he flatly denies the thermodynamic equation point blank that’s not an accurate representation of his position. His point is that it’s a useless knee jerk response to a very complex dynamic and that how the body process and deals with carbs is front and center in understanding that dynamic.

It is astounding how much bad science— .and so bad advice,
and a growing obesity problem— has been the result of the
experts’ failure to understand this one simple fact. The very
notion that we get fat because we consume more calories than we
expend would not exist without the misapplied belief that the
laws of thermodynamics make it true. When the experts write
that “obesity- is a disorder of energy balance*— a declaration that
can be found in one form or another in much of the technical
writing on the subject— it is shorthand for saying that the laws of
thermodynamics dictate this to be true. And yet they don’t.

Obesity- is not a disorder of energy balance or calories-
in/ calo ries-out or overeating, and thermodynamics has nothing
to do with it. If we can’t understand this, we’ll keep f allin g back
into the conventional thinking about why we get fat, and that’s
precisely- the trap, the century-old quagmire, that we’re trying to
avoid.

This is so simple that the problem with how the experts
interpret the law begins to become obvious. All the first law says
is that if something gets more or less massive, then more energy
or less energy has to enter it than leave it. It says nothing about
why this happens. It says nothing about cause and effect. It
doesn’t tell us why anything happens; It only tells us what has to
happen if that thing does happen. A logician would say that it
contains no causal information.

Health experts think that the first law is relevant to why we
get fat because they say to themselves and then to us, as the The
New York Times did, 'Those who consume more calories than
they expend in energy will gain weight/ This is true. It has to be.
To get fatter and heavier, we have to overeat. We have to
consume more calories than we expend. That’s a given. But
thennodynamics tells us nothing about why this happens, why
we consume more calories than we expend. It only says that if we
do, we will get heavier, and if we get heavier, then we did.

[x-ray_vision]

^ He’s wrong that “thermodynamics has nothing to do with it” and more. Again, my first reply to you was about how wrong he is regarding the claims you’ve made.

[Jackmannii]

I realized that my current, successful diet could be viewed as a reversed, modified 5:2 (binge 5 days, starve 2) diet.

5 days of the week my calorie intake looks like this:

breakfast: light
lunch: light
dinner: moderate

The other two days:

breakfast: light
lunch: light
dinner: moderate to heavy

On one of those two days, I allow myself a fairly sizable pasta dinner (though less than I used to consume); the other involves a weekly tradition of a night out for Mexican food. Because breakfast and lunch are restrained, total intake for those two days still comes out to a little less than maintenance, while for the other five days, calories are significantly below maintenance. Works well and there’s no starvation involved, elimination of favorite foods, or drastic cutbacks in whole classes of foods (i.e. carbs).

There may be something to be said for the “f… you” diet, wherein the participant is motivated to continue successfully on it despite all the naysayers who say it’s nonsense, or that the odds are overwhelmingly against you. If the OP manages to succeed with gorge-and-starve on that basis, bravo. I find the “98% fail-so-you’re almost certainly doomed” advice to be a small source of inspiration.

*Regarding the mantra of “we’re all different, so mainstream medicine’s recommendations can’t be expected to work”, here’s a typical example:

“In homeopathy, one cannot apply a single remedy on the simple basis of a single symptom or diagnosis. Each case must be taken on an individual basis. The remedies that are effective in different people with the same diagnosis may not be the same, especially in chronic illnesses. In fact, they most likely won’t be.” (instead, we’re supposed to believe a bunch of anecdotes people have been sharing for years, evidence be damned. Sounds a lot like what promoters of gimmick diets tell us).

[Ashtura]

This sounds simply like a variant of 5:2, mainly 4:3.

I highly doubt it has anything to do with any fancy buzzwords. Just pure calorie intake.

You eat like a pig 1 day, then fast an extra day than you would on 5:2 to compensate for eating like a pig.

You eat like a normal human being 2 other days. Then fast 2 days to allow for weight loss offsetting the normal days.

It’s simple calorie math. The only way this wouldn’t work is if you ate an insane amount of calories on your pig-out day.

3 “fast days” of say, 600 calories. That’s gonna be about 1 1/2 lbs loss. Then 2 days of normal eating, no weight loss. Then your pig out day you could eat almost **7,700 **calories and break even for weight maintenance (note these are “guy numbers” not gal numbers).

Anyway, unless you need to be airlifted out of bed by helicopter, you have to make a conscious effort to eat 7700 calories in a day, especially considering your stomach should be shrinking from fasting 3 days a week. That is a ton of food. A triple whopper with cheese, large fries, and 10 piece nuggets is 2,200 calories. You could eat that 3 meals a day on your pig out day and still lose a little bit of weight.

It’s really which one you can tolerate more. I don’t like the idea of 3 fast days, especially if they are at all consecutive. But, being able to really pig out once a week seems nice.

I’m currently on adkins and when I hit my target weight I’ll try this out as a maintenance diet and see how it goes.