thehog said:
This is hopelessly oversimplified and simply not true. The body doesn't peform it's own daily calculation of calories in, calories out. It absorbs and uses carbohydrates, proteins and sugars contained within the foods in differnt ways. ie a one calorie can of diet coke will not been processed in the same manner that a 200 calories piece or chicken. You may gain weight from the coke and probably will due to it's contents and not its caloric total.
Additionally there is a significant shift away from calories in favour for high fat/protein, low carb diets.
Calorie counting for the most part due to the processed nature or food is next to pointless. At best a guide.
It's a little old school and no wonder Froome, Wiggins and Sky moved to lower carb diets.
I disagree, and the reason I disagree is as follows. Food is an energy source (that's why its measured in Calories or Joules). Energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can change form, to produce heat, etc. Fat is how the body stores excess energy - ie more calories have been taken in than used up. Conversely when more energy is used than has been taken in the body goes hunting for energy stores to burn. Easily convertible stores are used first (for instance if a gel has just been consumed during a race, it is high sugar / energy content and easily converted in to useable energy). When these are done with the body will burn fat stores. Converting fat to energy takes a lot of effort and energy itself. This is what happens to marathon runners when they 'hit the wall' - the body is starting to burn fat. People tell me it feels like you have run in to a wall and you cant move - I've had it happen to me at the end of a really long ride, it took me 10 minutes to do the last mile.
Its a pretty well known rule of thumb that 1 lb of stored fat is equivalent to about 3500 calories - so if you want to lose 2 lb a week then you need a deficit of 7000 calories (1000 a day if you like) compared with what you body will use normally.
The other thing about the body is that muscle consumes energy - both during exercise and afterwards, and protein helps muscle grow. So by exercising muscles (or building bigger ones) you can burn more calories.
Now, I'm not saying these 'diets' that you mention don't work, low carbs, high protein, shakes, etc. I'm sure they do - but if you analyse them I bet they come down to more calories being used than being consumed. For instance the low carb diet would work because 'simple' carbs (bread, potatoes, white pasta, etc.) are easy for the body to burn for fuel and if you have enough of them then the body doesn't go hunting for the fat stores. By ditching the carbs and eating a high protein (chicken or fish for instance) and high vegetable (veggies have very low calories for their bulk) you are making the body hunt for the fat stores - that's why the nutribullet works so well.
Its like KB said though - it has to be a lifestyle change. I know loads of people who have calorie counted and lost a ton of weight - the problem is they cant stick with it because they go too extreme to start with and try and live on lettuce and celery. This then tends to lead to yo-yo dieting.
The supplements (garcinia nonsense) that you see advertised usually also contain a lot of caffeine since this is meant to increase you metabolism. It does, to a certain extent, but it isn't the magic bullet for weight loss - if it was everyone would be shouting it from the roof tops. What they don't say in those adverts is that you have to combine the supplement with dietary changes and also exercise (sound familiar?). You cant just take the pill and sit there for 3 weeks and expect to lose a ton of weight - those sorts of things just don't exist (well not legally or generally available).