The human body is not a bomb calorimeter. Simply cutting calories in (and running to try to increase calories out) reduced my energy and crushed my mood. My body compensated for lower input with lower output.
Cutting out sugar and grains, on the other hand, improved all of those things, and dropped 50 pounds off me despite actually cutting out the running as well. I never had to count anything; without the broken satiety mechanism, I'm not going to accidentally eat 20 oz of steak like you might accidentally eat a half a pound of spaghetti.
This is the point where you say "ok but that's just a trick to reduce your calories in," but that's entirely the point: calories in and out is descriptive, not prescriptive. Thermodynamics says that if I am losing weight I am consuming less energy than I am expending; it does not say that if I consume less energy that my expenditures will remain constant and fat will disappear.
I lost 44 lbs on a disassociated diet, which is now over and my weight is stable by abstaining from sugar, as otherwise I only try to eat healthy, but I do not count calories or whatever.
Congratulations on your 30 lbs loss. Unfortunately not many people can abstain from eating. For some people it's a source of depression.
What works for you doesn't necessarily work for somebody else - and have you noticed how some people can eat whatever they want without getting fat? Freaking bastards.
>I lost 44 lbs on a disassociated diet, which is now over and my weight is stable by abstaining from sugar, as otherwise I only try to eat healthy, but I do not count calories or whatever.
It doesn't matter if you count it or not if you lost weight you were taking in less energy than you were expending.
>What works for you doesn't necessarily work for somebody else - and have you noticed how some people can eat whatever they want without getting fat? Freaking bastards.
Those people are a myth and it's been proven, they just consider "eating a lot" to be less than the amount needed to get them to gain weight. I mean I could eat 2000 calories of chocolate everyday and aside from the massive problems related to not getting enough vitamins/macros I'd still be losing weight.
Anyway congrats on the weight lost, we're all gunna make it bro.
Really? Then couldn't one subsist by just eating one or two bars of chocolate per day and some vitamin pills? Or maybe a liter of coke per day would work just as well? It would be a very cost efficient way of eating as both candy and vitamins are cheap around here (well, not vitamins but a bottle of pills last a long time).
I've always assumed that that wouldn't work which is why I'm skeptical to your "it's all about the calories" argument.
Well chocolate doesn't actually have that much to it (a regular chocolate bar is only like 250 calories) so it'd have to be more than two bars a day.
The main problem (as I'm told) with eating nothing but pure calorie sources supplemented with...uh, supplements is that the cost of the supplements is very high. Remember you need protein, carbs(I guess these wouldn't be in short supply on the candy bar diet) and fats plus micronutrients too or your body will start to break and those supplements aren't cheap.
I do know people that subsist mostly on protein shakes, rice and various supplement pills when they are doing hard cuts for body building competitions and while it's stressful on your body you aren't going to die from it.
Agreed -- the method I explained was just calories in/out. The problem I had was that I didn't have enough data. The app and calorie counts on menus give me the data.
