|
|
|
|
|
by glaugh
4657 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
> 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.