[grecy]

After attending hundreds of weight watchers meetings, and being involved with hundreds and hundreds of people losing a ton of weight, I still genuinely believe too many people make weight loss too complicated, which leads them to give up. Keep it simple (as the article did)

If you burn more calories (energy) than you eat, you will lose weight.

Obviously, you have choices. You can cut down on all the really high calorie stuff. You can increase your exercise to burn more. You can (ideally) do a bit of both.

Of the hundreds of people I've known that have lost life-changing amounts of weight, I would estimate less than 1% of them had any idea how calorie dense the foods they were eating (and drinking) every day really are.

For the majority of people that are severely overweight, all they have to do is cut out high calorie snacks like chips, soda and anything deep fried and they'll lose significant weight, without even getting off the couch.

[kcbanner]

This is true. I found by simply cutting out soda and juice I began losing weight. I also found that after not drinking soda for several weeks, when I would drink it I would find it far too sweet and have actually lost the taste for it.

[nicksergeant]

Try "flavored" seltzer water. I'm addicted to it now, and regular soda is largely undrinkable. You start to get used to the very, very subtle flavor in the seltzer water and after a while it just tastes like soda, but you're basically only drinking carbonated water.

[kps]

Agreed. Unflavoured seltzer is fine too. I don't like plain water, and was never a big fan of carbonated drinks (and definitely not soda water), but I do like carbonated water.

Since there is no inexpensive seltzer in my region (only stuff that costs more than milk or juice) I finally got a CO₂ tank and carbonate tap water myself, usually with a squirt of lemon. It's easier than I had expected.

[glaugh]

I think this thinking is tempting and reasonable, but it misses the role of hormones.

As an example, women gain weight during menopause because of hormones, not because they eat more.[1] So thinking of the body and losing weight as being purely calories in/out misses some important factors; namely, the hormone response to different kinds of foods.

It's uncontroversial that the body responds to carbohydrates with insulin, and also that insulin tends to provoke fat to store more of the available energy vs. it being available to muscles, brain, etc.

Putting that together into "Don't eat too many carbohydrates. Replace with healthy fats like grass-fed butter and meat, eggs, avocado, etc." is controversial; feel free to disagree. I've personally gotten a lot of mileage out of making that change, and even though I eat way more calories I'm 10 pounds skinner, more alert, etc.

That said, basically the anti-carb and anti-fat folks all agree on getting rid of chips, soda, deep fried stuff, so I'm not trying to say that advice won't work.

If this is interesting, it's all cribbed from Gary Taubes's "Why We Get Fat", which I can't recommend enough, lots of good science.

[1] http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/07/2791705/mayo-study-discover...

Edit: Added "too many" to "Don't eat carbs", since you do need to eat some, just not nearly what people typically eat.

[grecy]

See, you're doing it. You're making it too complicated, which makes people give up.

It's physically impossible for a body to gain weight if it's burning more calories than it's using.

That's like saying my gas tank will overflow if I burn 10 gallons a day and put in 9 gallons a day... that makes no sense. I'm using more than I'm putting in, so it must go down over time.

Keep it simple, stick to the basics, play the long game (i.e. you're in this for the rest of your life, not the next few weeks/months)

[saurik]

I think it's more like saying that "putting in fewer calories than you burn" is not actionable advice as the things you eat affect what is burned and what it does, and why you do anything at all. If you want to contribute to less air pollution: wear a jacket and a hat on cold days, and wear a thin t-shirt and shorts on warm ones; this is simple advice that will cause you to not keep messing with thermostats to feel comfortable, using less electricity and gas. In contrast, the "simplest" advice to "use less fuel" is going to cause you to sit there cold and sad while you try to force yourself to not mess with the thermostat; maybe you figure out the jacket thing, maybe you don't: it wasn't really useful advice, and it required willpower. If I want to burn more calories than I metabolize, I can either force myself to be hungry all the time (which might have negative ramifications), or I can eat foods that are more likely to provide bioavailable energy over longer periods of time that are less likely to turn rapidly into fat due to resulting insulin spikes: I will then be less hungry, and I will eat less without even realizing it <- that's "more complex", sure, but it is in another way "much easier", as changing what you eat can be easier than insisting that you have to eat less and go without something your body is demanding.

[grecy]

> I think it's more like saying that "putting in fewer calories than you burn" is not actionable advice

It's extremely actionable, and I've seen it work for hundreds and hundreds of people (I attended Weight Watchers to support my roommates. Both of them went on to become WW leaders, and I made so many good friends there I kept going back year after year. I have personally been involved in the lives of well over 500 people losing well over 100lbs each)

> as changing what you eat can be easier than insisting that you have to eat less and go without something your body is demanding.

I never said anything about eating less. You miss read.

[saurik]

>> I think it's more like saying that "putting in fewer calories than you burn" is not actionable advice

> It's extremely actionable ...

There is no clear-cut action from that optimization request. In comparison, "eat less" or "eat different in this specific way" are examples of things that are actionable.

> and I've seen it work for hundreds and hundreds of people (I attended Weight Watchers to support my roommates. Both of them went on to become WW leaders, and I made so many good friends there I kept going back year after year. I have personally been involved in the lives of well over 500 people losing well over 100lbs each)

This means that it is "effective", not that it is "actionable".

>> as changing what you eat can be easier than insisting that you have to eat less and go without something your body is demanding.

> I never said anything about eating less. You miss read.

Well, now it isn't clear what you mean at all, because you've said you advocate Weight Watchers while also advocating a simple belief that "it's physically impossible for a body to gain weight if it's burning more calories than it's using". The people at Weight Watchers are very clear that "we know that a calorie isn’t just a calorie": they advocate modifications in the kinds of things that you eat and the way you live your life that will lead to a healthier body and, as a side effect, weight loss; in the process, they have a fairly complex equation that assigns "points" to different food items based on a bunch of different quantifiable metrics. This is exactly the kind of "too complicated" advice that you complained at glaugh about.

[grecy]

>> I never said anything about eating less. You miss read.

>Well, now it isn't clear what you mean at all, because you've said you advocate Weight Watchers while also advocating a simple belief that "it's physically impossible for a body to gain weight if it's burning more calories than it's using". The people at Weight Watchers are very clear that "we know that a calorie isn’t just a calorie": they advocate modifications in the kinds of things that you eat and the way you live your life that will lead to a healthier body and, as a side effect, weight loss; in the process, they have a fairly complex equation that assigns "points" to different food items based on a bunch of different quantifiable metrics. This is exactly the kind of "too complicated" advice that you complained at glaugh about.

You know what the complicated formula is? calories/50.

(Full disclosure: It has some very tiny adjustments if it has too much fat it gets an extra 1/2 point.. lots of fiber gets -1/2 point.)

You wanna know how well this works? I've seen people eat their daily points intake by eating nothing other than Big Macs (for most people it's around 4 daily). I've also seen a guy eat nothing other than chips and beer, but not go over his points.

They all lost weight, because they ate less calories than they used, which the WW points system is all about.

As I said, I've seen hundreds of people lose staggering amounts of weight, and I've never seen a single person that didn't lose weight when they ate less calories than they used. It never made a lick of difference what they ate, only the amount of calories they consumed.

[glaugh]

I'm sympathetic to that argument. It's tough to write one comment that addresses two audiences:

(1) person who wants some simple, clear guidance

(2) you and me who are debating at a slightly different level what advice we should give to #1.

So here's maybe a better way of making my argument:

1. Eat fewer carbs.

2. If you want evidence/science/logic, read the Taubes book.

[Addressed towards #2ers only:] I agree that too often people make great the enemy of the good. But I actually think it's just unhelpful to say "Eat less or exercise more" relative to "Eat fewer carbs". The amount of energy your body burns is dramatically influenced by hormones and the type of food you eat, that's by far the easiest lever to pull to lose weight. The Taubes book talks at length about the flaws in the thermodynamic metaphor. I confess I'm doing a poor job of communicating the argument.

Also thanks for the feedback, the good vs. great thing is a bit tricky.

[grecy]

I know what you mean about having the conversation at two different levels.

> 1. Eat fewer carbs.

I don't agree. I could cut out all the carbs I'm eating and still be eating well over 3000 calories a day (in fact, I do that right now, personally). Eating fat-soaked deep fried junk is the bad one. Carbs are no the enemy. Calories are.

I also never say to a beginner "eat less calories" because people trying to lose weight have a very, VERY big emotional attachment and reaction to the word calories. That's why weight watchers hides that with their points system. They just say you can eat x points today, we don't care how you do it, go nuts. (The formula is points = calories/50). Eat a whole loaf of white bread or a massive pile of pasta today for all they care. As long as you stay under your points allocation, it doesn't matter, you will lose weight.

In the long, long run, you can tweak that.

[mixmastamyk]

I think your larger point is right re: sheer calories.

But, there's a significant difference in what people want to do or think they do), and what they actually do.

The fact that sugars and starches spike blood sugar, which later falls rapidly causing hunger pangs, makes it very difficult to stay on plan. These people feel like they're starving.

Alternatively, a person eating fish and veggies soaked in olive oil never experiences the spike, burns fat slowly, and can stay hunger-free for most of the day. I.e., what may be a higher calorie meal in the short-term, allows one to take in fewer calories over the course of the full day... since there is little desire to snack.

[kyllo]

Yep, and the diet part is the key because while you may burn 400 calories in an hour on the treadmill, you can eat a 400 calorie cookie in seconds. So I agree with the general idea that weight loss is 80% diet and 20% exercise, abs are made in the kitchen not the gym, etc.

Where the exercise comes in is keeping your metabolism from dropping off when you cut your calorie intake.

[grecy]

Indeed, for most people it's much easier to eat less calories than it is to burn a ton of them, but that's over complicating the issue and doesn't really need to be explicitly told to first-timers.

Let them figure that out on their own.

Once they have an appreciation for how many calories are jammed into that cookie, and how long they'll have to run on a treadmill to burn it off, they naturally won't be so interested in that cookie, which is great. Then show them how few calories are in an enormous garden salad.

[byoung2]

That's been my philosophy. I started by cutting out alcohol and soda and replacing it with water. What had been 3-5 drinks a week is now zero. I estimate that is about 500-700 calories eliminated per week for the past year, and I lost 7 pounds, so the math makes sense.

About 6 weeks ago I started replacing a few high calorie meals with low calorie meals per week (e.g. where I would have eaten a big breakfast, I just have cereal and toast, or instead of a big dinner, I'll eat a grilled chicken salad). I have been losing a pound per week for the last 6 weeks, but I can still go to lunch with coworkers, family, etc.

I didn't want to do anything drastic, because I'd get fed up and quit.

[grecy]

> I didn't want to do anything drastic, because I'd get fed up and quit.

That, in my opinion, is one of the most important attitudes to have. It's important to be realistic, and be aware of the fact that whatever you are trying to do, it's not just a fad you have to "tough out" for a few months until you get sick of it.

This is something you're going to do for the rest of your life.

We all need cheat days, and we all have bad weeks. The most important thing is to look at the long game, and always just slowly, slowly tend towards eating a few less calories, and trying to burn a few extra calories.

[quadlock]

All calories are not translated to weight equally, the efficiency your body uses them matters greatly.

Sure dieting couch-potatoes will lose weight, but it will include losing a lot of muscle.

I believe the most well researched book on fat control is Carb-Back Loading by John Kiefer, the references chapter is 50 pages, it's terribly fascinating.

[grecy]

> All calories are not translated to weight equally, the efficiency your body uses them matters greatly.

Who cares. A beginner doesn't need to know that.

It's like telling a first time driver to worry about double-clutching the gear changes.

Stick to the basics, as the person picks everything up, they can worry about the complicated stuff that builds on.

[jamesnvc1]

Kiefer's stuff is very well cited, but many of the citations are kind of specious - he has a history of citing studies that, upon perusal, are unrelated or contradictory to what he claims.

[zem]

"keep it simple" kind of glosses over the fact that he biked 30 miles a day. i really don't see myself being able to do that.

[grecy]

and you don't have to. You just have to eat less calories than you burn.