Is it really as simple as less calories?

[StockholmCalling]

I’m somewhat of a yo-yo dieter and at my lowest was around 9st and over 15st at my heaviest. I have some weight to lose and I don’t want to do the same as I’ve always done, which is usually quite restrictive. Great results but ultimately not sustainable. I don’t want to cut out carbs and sugar completely but do want to be able to moderate better and not rely on them as an emotional crutch.

If I literally just keep to a sensible amount of calories with moderate exercise should this work? I’ve convinced myself in the past that only cutting these things out completely works for me but like I say it’s just not sustainable long term. Obviously I know I can’t use my entire calorie allowance on carbs but I don’t have to cut them out completely, right?

Also, exercise does not make you lose weight. Most scientists who have looked at this in any depth agree.

I can vouch for that too - I do a lot of exercise but for example, have been injured for 2 months and it has made no difference to weight - strength and wellbeing maybe, but not weight. It makes you stronger, fitter and is good for mental health, but it doesn't make you lose weight

The problem is that you won’t be able to sustain a deficit of calories if you don’t radically cut sugar and carbs, as you’ll be too hungry

He’s a bariatric surgeon.

surely if there were any real evidence that keto or insulin or whatever diet they peddle actually worked, there’d be no need for bariatric surgery?

I think a big negative with diets is people seeing them as a temporary thing. As soon as you go back to 'normal' you regain the weight. You need to find something that suits you for 90% of the time with the occasional meals out etc allowed as treats to keep you from giving up.

I've been intermittent fasting 16:8 since September and even as a post menopausal woman I've found it really easy to fit in around my life. I don't have breakfast until 11am, I have lunch at 2 and evening meal at 6.30-7pm. No eating or drinking except water or black tea/coffee outside of those times. If I follow it properly I feel no need to eat different food to my 'normal'. It's a gradual weight loss. I've lost 11 lbs in 18 weeks. I plateaued over Christmas, but that was fine. The main benefit for me is that I don't feel any need to snack as my meals sustain me during the 8 hours and a few snacks can be included with the 8 hours. I don't get hungry in the evening. I am ready for my muesli at 11, but that isn't a big problem.

I'm not sure of the science, but I believe the theory goes that during the 16 hour 'fast' you start to burn fat rather than sugar/carbs as the sugar has been used up. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. I just know it is working for me and I'm eating a sensible amount of whatever I like.

Think of it more as calories absorbed/ laid down as fat vs calories used vs calories eaten vs calories expelled through poo - the latter is around 4%.

High fibre, low glycaemic load, high protein, high ‘good fat’ diets allow a greater calorie intake than high processed food diets, simply because the calories consumed are less likely to be laid down as fat.

Increasing muscle mass helps too, as that promotes a higher metabolic rate.

If you want to eat rubbish food then yes, count calories. If you want to be healthy then focus on quality of food rather than quantity.

I agree with whichever PP mentioned the ‘recommended calorie intake’ which is 2000 for women. I am an average height woman, and I do proper exercise for at least 30 minutes 5 times a week. In other words, I have muscle and I burn calories through exercise. My daily calorific requirements rarely exceed 1800, so if I wanted to lose weight by going into calorie deficit, I would need to reduce intake to 1200-1300 calories. If I didn’t exercise my calorie intake would need to fall below 1000, and I think at this level, unless you have a dietician, it becomes difficult to ensure proper nutrition AND good gut health.

Having said all that, I find good quality food more satisfying, so a lot easier not to over eat.

So many people eat too much food. Even too many vegetables or "healthy" things. They wonder why diets don't work for them
Calorie defecit. Only way to lose weight, can do it having mc Donald's only if you so desire

I am 48kg and have hovered around there for at least 7 years
I was 42 kg at 12 weeks pregnant which was too small for my liking
I am 5ft
I have lost almost 40 kg since I had my last baby in March

@RandomPerson42 fruit has far more nutritional value than just Vit C!

Fibre and antioxidants are important. In fact, apples have been proven, in a recent study, to lower blood pressure and aid heart health because of the flavonoids in their skins.

So although they are carbs and contain calories, you are far better off eating an apple than a biscuit.

To be honest, assertions like this irritate me. Exercise most definitely does help you lose weight. A programme of UT2 light aerobic, low intensity work that is sustainable for 30 mins+ at 55-70% of max HR will burn fat. Of course exercise needs to go hand in hand with sensible eating but throw away 'exercise does not make you lose weight' comments are misleading and not very helpful.

I coach at my local rowing club. We are not an elite club and take on 'non athletes' which means people of all shapes and sizes, often people who have done no exercise since leaving school decades earlier. Without fail, those who stuck with the three month programme lost 'weight'. Those who subsequently took up the sport were different people 12 months later.

@DanseAvecLesLoups I agree, there's some quite dangerous statements on this thread and many others like it. A lot of posters on mumsnet threads in general seem hyper-focused on just one aspect of weight loss, usually that carbs are the evil enemy, and have lost sight of the need for a holistic approach to health. That's what achieving weight loss is for: health. Sure, there's a certain amount of vanity, a lot of societal pressure, damaged body image and individual psychology but ultimately it's for health. Keeping that in mind is key to achieving goals.

I'm not sure of the science, but I believe the theory goes that during the 16 hour 'fast' you start to burn fat rather than sugar/carbs as the sugar has been used up

For years I used to only eat in the evening. Equivalent to a 20 hour fast. I still managed to become overweight.

Intermittent fasting just means fewer calories consumed because of the reduced allowed eating period. At least it usually does for people used to eating three meals a day plus snacks. There is no magic to it.

Re: intermittent fasting.

I'm not sure of the science, but I believe the theory goes that during the 16 hour 'fast' you start to burn fat rather than sugar/carbs as the sugar has been used up. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. I just know it is working for me and I'm eating a sensible amount of whatever I like.

If you, quote please include the context.

It is that simple and it isn't. Calorie deficit is the key, burn more than you consume. The bigger the deficit the more weight you will lose. But if you restrict yourself too much then it isn't sustainable because its not realistic. Losing weight slowly is going to be more enjoyable and far more achievable than trying to restrict yourself too much to lose weight fast.

Food is just fuel. Each day your body needs x amount of fuel to keep going. If you put more in than you use then your body will store it as fat (reserves). If you put less fuel in than you use then your body will take from the reserves (fat) to make up the deficit. So if you consistently eat less fuel than your body uses then you will lose fat.

You could lose weight by only eating junk food, as long as the calories in each day are less than the calories you are burning each day then you will lose weight. You will be ridiculously hungry and feel like absolute shit but you will lose weight. This is where eating the right foods comes into play. A healthy, balanced diet will ensure that you don't feel constantly hungry and will make you feel good.

The more you move, the more calories (fuel) you burn. Exercise will help to make that deficit a bit bigger, or it can give you more calories to play with so that you don't feel restricted. But exercise doesn't have to only mean sweating in the gym. Take the stairs instead of the lift. Park further away. Take the kids swimming or for a kick around at the park rather than to the cinema. Do some extra house work. Etc etc. Walking is one of the easiest ways to burn more calories. If you usually take the car on the school run or to the local shop, but realistically you could just walk, then walk. If you have a spare 30 minutes with nothing to do, then get your shoes on and go for a walk. Obviously these examples don't apply to everyone and some people are restricted in exercise by health. But there are always ways to incorporate moving more into your every day life.

Yes but I think there are things you can do to help yourself. The only way I can keep my calories at a lower level and still be comfortably full is by eating a decent whack of protein at each meal. Side effect is a reduction in carbs and I find it easier to not snack. filling up on veg just doesn’t work for me. However eating a lot of protein means I’m finding staying under 1500 calories a lot easier.

Eh? those ways of eating not working is not the reason why bariatric surgery exists..

people who have sugar addictions and disordered relationships with food can’t always make the lifestyle changes needed

a magical, easy to follow diet for weight loss could be invented- people with food issues still wouldn’t be able to follow it.

surgery is the option that gives the best outcome for these people

Very often just cust cutting calories works for only a short time until the person hits a plateau due to the body adjusting the metabolism to the new normal of less calories.

Bizzarely there is some evidence to suggest that exercise actually causes the body to reduce its BMR.

No one should be eating 1000 calories unless they're a toddler.

Not if eating is their main source of energy and nutrients, but if they weigh 300lbs and a lot of that is stored in fat cells, then they have reserves that their body can use. The 1000 calories are then about providing the nutrients it cannot make itself, which is remarkably easy to do with that number of calories.

surely if there were any real evidence that keto or insulin or whatever diet they peddle actually worked, there’d be no need for bariatric surgery?

Bariatric surgery works for weight loss because it enforces a very low calorie diet on those who have it done.

Although nearly everyone I know who has had bariatric surgery, has regained most of the weight.

Very often just cust cutting calories works for only a short time until the person hits a plateau due to the body adjusting the metabolism to the new normal of less calories.

If this was true there wouldn't be famines.

And no I'm not suggesting to not eat but just to say I don't square the thinking with the fact that people who consistently under-eat aren't overweight. It's the amount you have to continue to cut for it to work is the problem.

usually that carbs are the evil enemy,

Processed carbs are not particularly good, crisps, biscuits, cake, most bread or similar products, pasta and white rice. Carbs can be found in lots of vegtables other than starchy ones.
You can eat a very healthy diet without all of the above, decent protein, dairy, good fats in moderation, legumes, and lots of vegtables and some fruit, nuts and seeds.

You can lose weight or fat with carbs.

Is yes calories consumed v calories expended.

Everyone knows what to do.
The hard bit is taking action and doing it consistently over a long period of time and picking yourself up when things are not so good. Recommend using My Fitness Pal, weighing food so you know how much is in there.

You could eat Mars bars all day, every day and still lose weight, as long as you were in a calorie deficit. Not very healthy mind you.

This is my theory and I try to practice it.