Bollocks. People (myself included) who think they are consuming less and moving more are underestimating how much they're eating and overestimating how much they're moving.

70 calories less is bupkas

A perfectly reasonable explanation would be there has also been drop in calorie expenditure and I didn't see that mentioned in the article (which I admittedly just skimmed) which suggest to me they didn't control for that variable?

Anyway this sort of data wouldn't bring the fundamental physics of weight loss into question anyway IMO simply because the potential for other variables to be involved is too large.

It's trivial enough to do well-controlled studies where energy intake is reduced and energy expenditure increased if someone wants to look at if "eat less, move more" doesn't work.

That research shows up in website sidebar ads with the byline "Doctors don't want you to know this one little secret to help you loose weight" and a little animated gif of someone squeezing their tummy.

There is a lot more at play here than people think.

1) What is the source of calories and the make up? You eat 1600 calories of sugar vs 1600 calories of veggies, vs 1600 calories of chicken, they will have a different result.

2) Are you in starvation mode? This happens when people under fuel and zap their Leptin levels

3) Is your body balanced? Do you have thyroid or GI issues or any slight allergies or gluten or lactose issues which is causing inflammation and not allowing your body to sythesize of utilize fat properly.

Biggest thing I think hurting people are processed foods, the nasty artificial sweetners which cause issues with metabolism, and all the crap, chemicals, estrogen and other hormones in the food supply.

When you look at the food supply, the amount of MSG that is hidden, the estrogen and growth hormones in a lot of the conventional milk, meat, and even water supply, is it any wonder.

A lot is a sedentary lifestyle, and I saw one article comparing a 60s housewife to a 2000s version and there was about 10 hours less a week of Housework that they contributed to the increase in the average females weight.

So the true cause of weight gain... IS FEMINISM.

I've read the CDC study. They interviewed people about what they had eaten the prior 24 hours, and asked them to estimate portion sizes.

Try to do this yourself. I can't even list exactly what I ate in that time, let alone estimate portion size with any degree of accuracy. There is no way this study has an accuracy greater than +/- a few hundred calories.

Also, think of it this way: we've been told over the past 5 years to eat less, and eat less fast food. So, when you're being interviewed by an authority figure, it's probably very easy to "forget" that you had the second hamburger, or the large vs. small fries.

The only thing useful about this study is that it shows that people will report that they eat less than they did 10 years ago. Which probably reflects on an awareness that officials want them to eat less. But it says absolutely nothing about how much they're actually eating.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest the number of Americans in starvation mode is insignificantly small.

Myth. It would be nice if people stopped propagating it.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

I'll also go out on limb and suggest people who are actually starving have no problem losing weight :)

Not arguing with you there, but I would argue that the majority of the people who "Diet" go into starvation mode, crash their leptin levels and then throw their body into fat storage mode. This is the prime reason for the yo-yo and why most dieters put on more weight post diet

Plus, people have no concept of portion sizes. Your typical 8 oz steak is two portion sizes, people will report it as one. Same with chicken, a lot of chicken in restaurants is 1 1/2 - 2 portions. And so on.

Or they say "I had a salad" and neglect the cup and a half of ranch dressing they smothered it in.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Yup

The types of food, (ie; empty calories) and when they are consumed plays a much big roll than total calories.

I admittedly have never looked into it in any depth, but my impression is that leptin levels are driven by fat mass not energy balance per se? I also thought leptin primarily affected appetite not energy storage (metabolism?)?

Fixed that for you. The rest is mostly correct, at least as the current understanding of leptin goes.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

http://europepmc.org/...CA2tHGLq64UJ4fqF8y.8

Yes total calories consumed - total calories spent = either a calorie surplus or calorie deficit. And when there is a surplus it is converted and stored as fat for future need and when there is a deficit fat can be converted to glycogen and used for energy when its not readily available through food. I think at first look 70 calorie either way isnt going to do anything. Thats a good sneezing fit of energy and just isn't that impressive.

I also agree with the post people are eating more than stated and moving less.

To further complicate the issue and why weight is not changing with the caloric change is what is being eaten. The human body metabolizes a 90 calorie hard boiled egg, rich in protein and some minerals much different than a 90 calorie doughnut made from sugar, enriched white flower dipped in a fryer and preservatives.

Interesting that they choose a picture of french fries for the article. Im in the healthcare profession and see alot of people with obesity as a complication to their orthopedic problems and I have been on a rampage about the quality of food consumed.

I personally think and share with people that the explosion of weight increase is tied to the use of artificial sweetners, junk preservatives, and fillers that are cheaper than quality materials from whole foods.

Artificial sweetners taste sweet. Therefore your brain signal is that you have ingested sugar and the ramp up begins chemically to absorb and digest an expected natural form of sugar. But there isnt any, the artificial sweetner is a molecularly modified substance and your body doesnt know how to process chemicals it wasnt intended to, if the body doesnt know how process, use and efficiently remove substances from the system, it ll just stack it up until it figures it out (stored as fat) . So from that point the brain has signaled a need for carbohydrates. this is when most people start reaching for snacks without really knowing it.
This is just one example of what we eat is as important as how much we eat

---

---------------------------------
Hold my Beer and watch this!

It's funny that I was stuck at 141lbs for 4 weeks and then switched from PJB to Cheese sandwiches for dinner and lost 3 lbs in the last 2 weeks.

CHEESE makes you lose weight!!!

Yeah, yeah, great. I'm not disputing the role of leptin. What I'm disputing is your bad terminology in calling it "starvation mode". It's nowhere near true starvation.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

They interviewed people about what they had eaten the prior 24 hours, and asked them to estimate portion sizes.

There are serious validity issues with this type of design

Don't forget outright lying, or subconsciously lying about food intake...it happens all the time...especially female reseach subjects. The long term studies have people sometimes reporting monthly dieting, where they don't keep track daily, but write up weekly, or even monthly, what they consumed...

If I eat 1600 calories a day in Big Macs vs. 1600 calories a day in salads and fruit, and I am burning 2000 cal / day, how does my body burn those 1600 calories I ingested differently?

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

This is one of those health magazine factoids that is thrown around constantly. Again not really my area of expertise so I've never looked into it but seems like it would be one of those trivial things that surely some dietician or exercise physiologist has tested?

Anyone know if there are studies that look at body weight and diet composition comparing calorie-matched "healthy" diet with a diet of "empty" calories?

I don't know of any with that specific thrust, but there are a few that have compared the fad diets (Atkins, Primal, Paleo, South Beach <insert moneymaking book/diet name here>), and found that simple calorie restriction regardless of the diet makeup played a greater role than anything.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |