One Planer
Global Moderator
Okay fair point on muscle v fat weight thing, it's like sayinf which is heavier a tonne of feathers or a tonne of lead, obviously they weigh the same. What I failed to get across is that muscle is denser than fat and for, shall we say for the sake of argument one cubic foot of fat is going to weight less than the same measure of muscle.
Can we also, or the sake of argument differentiate between fat and weight, you can have two people, same height, same weight, just one is primarily built up of fat, the other is lean muscle, the terminology while some may think is just semantics, the difference are a t polar opposites.
I disagree and agree, in the first instance, in a resting state, a person to maintain their current state requires 2000 calories, to gain weight put on fat, they eat 2500 calories, to lose weight or reduce fat they eat 1500 calories, that is a person with a sedantory lifestyle, your basic couch potato
If said person now decides to start exercising and they maintain the same 2000 calorie intake, they will start to burn fat and as a result become lighter, if said person eats 2500 calories, then they will gain or maintain the same weight, but at the same time burn fat, if said person exercies but reduces their calory intake to 1500, they will lose fat, muscle and potentially do themselves more harm than good.
Like I said in my previos post. Without hydrostatic weighing and clinical testing at every stage you will never, for 100% sure, know what the body has reduced, be it fat/muscle/water/all of the above. It's best guess.
Even the most hardcore bodybuilder working on fat reduction leading up to competition will not know 100% for sure what he's losing. Difference is these tend to use dehydration and duiretic medication which i swhy some many faint and suffer debilitating cramp.
I disagree, okay this example may be a bit extreme, but someone eating 2000 calories derived from poultry, fish, legumes, vegetables etc... healthy stuff, if they decrease the calories based on this diet then calory counting in this instance would work, but many people when calory counting cheat and sneak a bag of crisps, ice cream, confectionary then all of a sudden their daily intake is shot, if they stick to the 2000 rule, they go hungry and are doing themselves more harm than good, they are effectively starving themselves, if thy then eat to fill the hunger, they exceed their daily calory count and put on fat.
There was a program on TV last week which was about people in hospital waiting for gastric surgery so they could lose fat, these people were obese, massive. One guy was in for 2 weeks, he was on a low calory diet, fresh veg chicken etc...he weighed in at 304lbs, after two weeks of being in hospital and eating well, he was still 304lbs, why because he wasn't moving and when the tuck shop trolley came round he was buying fizzy pop and crisps. It wasn't until the surgen put through endscopic hell that the penny dropped and he stopped the snacking, and did some walking and lost some fat.
The point I'm trying to make is that counting calories is all good if you are eating the right stuff, but if those calories are made up of mainly sugars and saturated fats, calory counting is pointless.
For someone to lose weight, it has to be a lifestyle choice, they have to want to make the changes that will make a difference to them. To make those changes they have to want to eat differently and exercise more. The people that want to lose weight get bogged down with the huge number of diet plans and the huge number of exercise regimes, to that end it's personal choice and you have to go with what works for the individual.
If my body has a requirement of say 2500 calories per day to maintain my weight. If i eat 2500kcal of clean food (Your examples) or 2500kcal of junk food, will I gain weight?
Of course changing to a healthy(er) lifestyle is the first step, and a good one, but for uneductated folk, they take the wrong end of the stick.
As I said in my last post. When I was a persoanl trainer I lost count of the number of people who came to me and listed their previous to current diets. They went from eating, in some case double their requirement, to bearly half their requirement and wondering why they have headaches, are snappy and have little energy or motivation to exercise. People thing that dieting means you should be hungry, this is part of the problem. It's all about how fast the weight comes off, not how sustainable they redcution is.
Knowing what you eat currently, calorie wise, as compared to what you need is a major step in understanding. Like I said, people have a tendancy to go to the extreme, like I listed above, when it is not required.
I'll pose a question.
Male, 30 yeras old, 6ft, 250lb sedentary life style, no fitness history decides he wants to change his lifestyle and lose weight. He has a target weight of 190lb.
How do you explain to him a safe, sustainable way to lose weight, that will not yo-yo, without counting calories?
Does he know how much to reduce from his current diet?
Does he even know what his current calorific intake is?
It's easy to say eat less and do more, but as you rightly say, it often does more harm than good and end up right back where they started, if not heavier.
Last edited: