[grecy]

> The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it.

Of course, that's why you have to constantly Analyze how much fuel your body is burning, and reduce the rate accordingly.

> The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake).

Indeed, though again, that doesn't impact the basic statement:

If you eat less energy less than you burn, you will lose weight.

[Torrents]

I think you are ignoring the fact that many people are able to eat way more calories than they burn, yet those extra calories simply don't convert to fat. I am not excessively active yet I eat significantly more calories than many people I know, yet I don't gain weight.

From things I've read [1] it seems that the vast majority of people consume more calories than they 'burn' but only in some people is it converted to unwanted weight gain. The real question, as many people have been referring to, is how do you determine whether your body hangs onto the extra calories as weight or simply disposes of it.

Saying "If you eat less energy than you burn, you will lose weight" is certainly true, but is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced." It's true...but not really helpful or meaningful.

1 - http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259

[grecy]

> is akin to saying: "If you never get in a car your chances of dying in a car accident are significantly reduced."

Very bad analogy.

It's more like saying "If you burn more gas each day than you put in, you'll eventually start burning up your reserve tank, (until you run out)."

> but not really helpful or meaningful.

It's extremely helpful and meaningful. For the massive majority of people that are overweight, they simply need to eat less calories. Not less food. Less calories. The original article here is showing what 200 calories looks like, so it's extremely helpful for people trying to eat less of them.

You would be shocked how many people have no idea a mountain of apples is equal to a small amount of alcohol, etc. Once they learn this, they lose weight.

Source: I lived with two girls who lost over 100lbs each at Weight Watchers, one of them became a WW representative, and for years I went to meetings with her as moral support. Over the years I've personally seen at least 1000 people go from being completely helpless with weight loss to losing somewhere between 50-200lbs each. All they did was eat less calories than they were burning. Nothing else. (WW obfuscates that with their points system, but it's just calories/50)

[stephenhuey]

Myth: For a long time people have claimed that calories in just needs to be below calories out. Recent studies have confirmed that not all calories affect us the same way when it comes to weight gain and loss.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/23/study-the-best-and-wor...

Put a stop to this myth. The type of food actually matters!

[grecy]

Lets be perfectly honest here. A person that is 100lbs+ overweight is eating an enormous number of calories just to maintain that weight.

I don't even care if the keep drinking coke and eating fries, as long as they cut their calorie intake somewhat, down to below what they are using, they will lose weight. Period.

Losing weight at that point is the most important thing.

Once they've done that for a while, their body adapts and they'll have to cut more calories, as an ongoing process. In years, they will have lost a lot of weight, and they will have to cut things like Coke and fries, but that's years down the road.

For now, they need to eat less calories. Fullstop.

[tadfisher]

> A person that is 100lbs+ overweight is eating an enormous number of calories just to maintain that weight.

The point that you are missing is that this is not necessarily true. In fact, the converse may be true; that obese people require less calories to maintain their weight because they live a more sedentary lifestyle.

> I don't even care if the keep drinking coke and eating fries, as long as they cut their calorie intake somewhat, down to below what they are using, they will lose weight. Period.

> Once they've done that for a while, their body adapts and they'll have to cut more calories, as an ongoing process. In years, they will have lost a lot of weight, and they will have to cut things like Coke and fries, but that's years down the road.

And they will be literally starving, dealing with the effects of malnutrition, and have almost no energy to complete daily tasks. Switching to healthier sources of nutrition first will provide the energy the person needs as well as the ability to control caloric intake, which greatly enhances the chances of success.

You seem to have made up your mind about a subject you know little about. This isn't a simple single-variable equation.

[grecy]

> The point that you are missing is that this is not necessarily true.

A body burns more calories for every pound of fat it has to maintain, even if sitting on the couch all day.

> You seem to have made up your mind about a subject you know little about.

Read my other comments here. I've personally witnessed at least a thousand people lose 50-200lbs each over the years due to my involvement with Weight Watchers. I think I have a good idea of what is required for people to lose weight.

What's your experience?

[waterlesscloud]

The use of sentences like "Period." and "Fullstop." really has become a giant red flag.

I guess that's handy, actually.

[grecy]

Point taken.

I do want to point out I'm not using them to indicate "end of conversion" or "shutup" or anything like that, I'm using them to indicate that is the end of my solution/problem... as in there are no if/buts or maybes.