This is a work in progress. I will come back to it every now and then when I have time and feel like it and complete/change/correct what I wrote. Any and all comments, in the comment section or by e-mail, are welcome.
When I talk about weight loss, I mean what most people think of: the loss of body fat, nothing else. The same is true for weight gain: I am talking about the gain of body fat.
This is not an unimportant consideration, because many people think they are losing a lot of weight when they start a new diet and become disillusioned when that rapid weight loss slows down or stops a few days later. This type of weight loss is not true weight loss in the first place: one starts eating less, and one will automatically decrease the amounts of food being processed in one's intestines. That weight will automatically come back once one starts to eat normally again. However, since it was never actually part of our bodies, it should not be taken into account.
Unfortunately, weight scales cannot distinguish between these different types of weight. There are better ways, but these take more work, more time and more money. Weight scales are simply the easiest tool we have, and when we take their limitations into account, it is possible to learn to live with those limitations.
There is a lot of confusion and controversy surrounding the subject of weight loss and there are still many unknowns, which is precisely why there is a lot of ongoing research. However, there is one thing that we can say with the utmost confidence:
Taking in less energy than one needs to stay alive will lead to weight loss.
This is one of the few things in biology and indeed in science where there is not a single verifiable example to contradict it. It is about as absolute a truth as we can possibly get in science.
If you find yourself doubting this, try finding confirmed examples of prisoners who gained weight while living in the infamous concentration camps of the second world war. Try finding confirmed examples of people with anorexia nervosa who gained weight. Wonder why hunger strikers are often force-fed to keep them alive. Wonder what killed Bobby Sands. It may not be convenient, it may be unpleasant, but reality does not care about how we feel about it. It merely is.
This reality is not fully bidirectional. Eating more than one needs to stay alive will usually lead to weight gain, but not always and not always to a predictable extent. That is confusing, and certainly frustrating for many, but it is also–alas–reality.
A commonly heard phrase is that weight loss is not about 'calories in, calories out' (CICO). This claim is nonsense. However, it would be correct to say that weight loss 'is not only about calories in, calories out'. There are many elements that make this simple principle difficult or impossible to heed, but they do not change the reality of it in the slightest way.
Genetics, our surroundings, hormones, junk food, good food, the microbiome and others–kown or yet to be discovered–all have a role to play, but they do not change the fundamental principle in any way. There is not a single verifiable case of a person (or any other organism for that matter) who has gained weight while consuming less energy than he/it/she needs to stay alive.
A common proposition for humans is to consume 500 calories less than usual. While that will often lead to weight loss, it is far from guaranteed. 500 less than usual may sound good, but there remains a very real possibility that this reduction is insufficient.
In some cases at least, such a reduction will merely slow down weight gain and not lead to weight loss. Although I am not aware of any cases, it is at least conceivable that there are people for whom such a reduction would not have any measurable effect.
William Banting's free booklet "Letter on corpulence" is often cited as one of the first diet books. I have been unable to find the first edition, but the second one can be found. It occupies a special place in the dieting universe because he made no money off it. On the contrary, it cost him money because he distributed it for free to people who asked for it. That fact alone makes his booklet a lot more credible than the current onslaught of 'miracle' and 'breakthrough' diet books.
I attach some importance to it, for historical reasons, but also because his diet–which was not created by him, he was merely using it–has been called by many as a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet. I do not think this is correct. In fact, he explicitly stated that he was avoiding certain high-fat foods, such as butter. That doesn't strike me as high-fat.
What is true, is that he was trying to avoid carbohydrates to a certain extent. This is what he wrote:
When looking at the quantities, it seems also quite clear that this is a calorie-restricted diet. More than anything, that is what made him lose weight.
Stay away from assorted alternologists, quacks, gurus and television experts. Overweight is a real problem, and it requires advice and treatment from real experts, not storytellers with books and courses and supplements to sell.
Please do not believe me. Look it up. To wet your appetite, see here what überquack Dr. Oz, a genuine physician no less, admits about the nonsense he is spouting on television. The interesting part starts at 47m21s. Contrary to what he says, people who are fat do not need 'hope'. They need help. That help exists.
If you have trouble with your weight, please consult a genuine physician first and a registered dietitian next.
When I talk about weight loss, I mean what most people think of: the loss of body fat, nothing else. The same is true for weight gain: I am talking about the gain of body fat.
This is not an unimportant consideration, because many people think they are losing a lot of weight when they start a new diet and become disillusioned when that rapid weight loss slows down or stops a few days later. This type of weight loss is not true weight loss in the first place: one starts eating less, and one will automatically decrease the amounts of food being processed in one's intestines. That weight will automatically come back once one starts to eat normally again. However, since it was never actually part of our bodies, it should not be taken into account.
Unfortunately, weight scales cannot distinguish between these different types of weight. There are better ways, but these take more work, more time and more money. Weight scales are simply the easiest tool we have, and when we take their limitations into account, it is possible to learn to live with those limitations.
There is a lot of confusion and controversy surrounding the subject of weight loss and there are still many unknowns, which is precisely why there is a lot of ongoing research. However, there is one thing that we can say with the utmost confidence:
Taking in less energy than one needs to stay alive will lead to weight loss.
This is one of the few things in biology and indeed in science where there is not a single verifiable example to contradict it. It is about as absolute a truth as we can possibly get in science.
If you find yourself doubting this, try finding confirmed examples of prisoners who gained weight while living in the infamous concentration camps of the second world war. Try finding confirmed examples of people with anorexia nervosa who gained weight. Wonder why hunger strikers are often force-fed to keep them alive. Wonder what killed Bobby Sands. It may not be convenient, it may be unpleasant, but reality does not care about how we feel about it. It merely is.
This reality is not fully bidirectional. Eating more than one needs to stay alive will usually lead to weight gain, but not always and not always to a predictable extent. That is confusing, and certainly frustrating for many, but it is also–alas–reality.
A commonly heard phrase is that weight loss is not about 'calories in, calories out' (CICO). This claim is nonsense. However, it would be correct to say that weight loss 'is not only about calories in, calories out'. There are many elements that make this simple principle difficult or impossible to heed, but they do not change the reality of it in the slightest way.
Genetics, our surroundings, hormones, junk food, good food, the microbiome and others–kown or yet to be discovered–all have a role to play, but they do not change the fundamental principle in any way. There is not a single verifiable case of a person (or any other organism for that matter) who has gained weight while consuming less energy than he/it/she needs to stay alive.
A common proposition for humans is to consume 500 calories less than usual. While that will often lead to weight loss, it is far from guaranteed. 500 less than usual may sound good, but there remains a very real possibility that this reduction is insufficient.
In some cases at least, such a reduction will merely slow down weight gain and not lead to weight loss. Although I am not aware of any cases, it is at least conceivable that there are people for whom such a reduction would not have any measurable effect.
William Banting's free booklet "Letter on corpulence" is often cited as one of the first diet books. I have been unable to find the first edition, but the second one can be found. It occupies a special place in the dieting universe because he made no money off it. On the contrary, it cost him money because he distributed it for free to people who asked for it. That fact alone makes his booklet a lot more credible than the current onslaught of 'miracle' and 'breakthrough' diet books.
I attach some importance to it, for historical reasons, but also because his diet–which was not created by him, he was merely using it–has been called by many as a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet. I do not think this is correct. In fact, he explicitly stated that he was avoiding certain high-fat foods, such as butter. That doesn't strike me as high-fat.
What is true, is that he was trying to avoid carbohydrates to a certain extent. This is what he wrote:
 |
| Letter on corpulence, 2nd edition (1863), pages 16-17 |
Stay away from assorted alternologists, quacks, gurus and television experts. Overweight is a real problem, and it requires advice and treatment from real experts, not storytellers with books and courses and supplements to sell.
Please do not believe me. Look it up. To wet your appetite, see here what überquack Dr. Oz, a genuine physician no less, admits about the nonsense he is spouting on television. The interesting part starts at 47m21s. Contrary to what he says, people who are fat do not need 'hope'. They need help. That help exists.
If you have trouble with your weight, please consult a genuine physician first and a registered dietitian next.
Comments
Post a Comment