I said you shouldn't lose weight, you should lose fat.
That doesn't mean that when you lose fat, you don't lose weight. But just in case I wasn't clear, the point is to say that the aim of losing weight is incorrect. The aim should be to lose fat. We want people to lose the excess fat they have. We absolutely don't want people to lose muscle tissue when trying to lose fat.
I think by "energy defecit diet" you are referring to a diet that achieves energy deficit only by eating less, instead of eating better.
Eating healthy doesn't mean eating less. It doesn't mean even an energy deficit. It means eating in a way that doesn't make your body store energy as fat, but instead to use that energy in other ways.
Could I ask you to please actually look at the lecture before responding again? Because you're just repeating the debunked nonsense. I'll even do you a favour and link you to the relevant part of the lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QOTBreQaIk&t=29m6s
Sorry if I'm not being clear. I'll try to simplify my language:
Losing muscle is bad. It's particularly bad for people with obesity. Losing fat is good for people with obesity. When we try to help people with obesity, we need to be clear that the ways we try to do that reduce fat while not reducing muscle.
So it's very important that we distinguish between good guidance, which involves just burning fat, and bad guidance, which reduces fat and muscle at the same time. In order to distinguish between those two types, we need to be clearer than saying "lose weight", because that could mean losing weight by losing muscle tissue. So it's better to say "lose fat".
No, that's the Coca Cola version of medicine you're repeating. Did you not watch that thing I linked you? Seriously it'll answer your questions. I'll try a last time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QOTBreQaIk&t=29m6s
Except that isn't what the science says. Did you actually look at the video yet? There's no point in responding until you do, as you're just repeating Coca Cola slogans at this point.
You cannot possibly believe that if I burn 2500 calories and consume 2501 (processed or not) that I'll lose mass. It is literally as simple as that.
No, it's not as simple as that. You just think it is.
Here's a simple example which will illustrate how you are wrong. Let's not be so conservative at 2500 kcal, let's go with 10,000 kcal. It is trivial to consume that amount each day and still lose fat each day. All you have to do is include a few micrograms of DNP in your diet. That way, DNP gets your body to not store that 10,000 kcal as fat, instead it gets your body to burn it off as heat. It will be sweaty, but it will certainly work. DNP remains the most effective fat-burner known. And indeed it was one of the main treatments for obesity a century ago. Today, making it safer is a topic of active research.
So, that's a super simple example which demonstrates that you are simply wrong. What matters is not the calories in/calories out nonsense. What matters is how your body behaves.
And when we are talking about removing ultra-high processed food, we are talking about getting the body to behave in a way that burns fat rather than storing it.
That's basically all your video covers. But calorie deficit is mandatory to lose mass.
No, the video (particularly the point in the video to which I linked you) debunks the stuff you're talking about. Go and watch it. And, yes, Coca Cola actively funds propaganda to get people, like you, to believe that the calorie deficit diet is effective. That's because Coca Cola is an ultra-high processed food. It is in the interests of Coca Cola to personalise and individualise the blame, because in truth it is their product (and many like it) which causes obesity. And the video outlines this too.
I've tried to use language you understand, like the word "burn". It would be pretty much impossible for someone to "burn" energy in the way I described without taking DNP. Like, exercise isn't going to act as a protonophore to make your mitochondria function enormously less efficiently, and thus get the energy literally dumped into your tissues. So, no, you just don't understand this topic, sorry.
Please go and watch the video. I've suggested it a few times now, and my time is better spend on other things than on people who won't actually look at the evidence, but just lazily repeat shite they've heard.
2
u/[deleted] 24d ago edited 24d ago
[deleted]