Losing weight in 5 weeks.

There are some really pedantic posts in this thread.

Bruno is right to some extent. If someone wants to lose weight and follows his guidelines he/she is likely to be successful. The underlying message is clear - eat clean and you will lose weight. This is true for 80% of people who just want to lose the beer gut or improve overall fitness.

However, in case this fails, which it certainly will - calorie counting is a must. The case in point would be formerly obese people or serious binge eaters who could actually put on weight by eating clean because the concept of food that they have is completely flawed in itself. In this case, a more strict monitoring of calorie intake is called for.


I count calories when I cut, and it works. This doesn't make it the only way. It can be daunting for beginners to be told that the only way to lose weight is to measure to the gram exactly how much you eat, especially when in many cases they could just cut out junk food. With regards to getting people to diet in the first place, this approach is bound to be more successful than forcing people to calorie count. For more precise aims such as single digit bodyfat etc. then calorie counting becomes close to essential for maximum efficiency.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Processed food, sugar and grain consumption fair enough they are the main reasons behind the obesity increases in the world but its hard to throw calorie counting in there and try to convince me its bad.

I hear what your saying eat healthy and you dont have to Calorie count. But surely if I am eating healthy anyway there is no harm in calorie counting as well just to see what I am taking in etc.

I know- probably a bit extreme to stick them all together. There is no harm in it. I just believe greater results are achieved and easier through the methods I choose to follow.

cletus van damme wrote: »

it's great but it's not a must , no exercise is a must.



I argue that is not enough.
I know people tell you this but the really fit people or the people with excellent body comp don't train like that. I agree- again I am talking about 90% of the population - not the elite.



a nice point but utter maddness in practial terms.
It has no basis in reality if you think about it.
whether I train or not probably doesn't change my kichen time very much - non training people still eat and some of them eating really healthy too.
I train about 6 hours a week. I'm not spending 24hours of my week on food prep.

I knew someone would think I meant that- probably could be phrased better.

What I mean is someone who is exercising loads particularly cardio and who spends little time on food prep will see little improvement. Basically the average person would be better served if time is limited in spending more on food prep and less on exercise as the results will be far greater.

ford2600 wrote: »

So for millions of years through famine and times of plenty humans, for most part managed to stay lean, but sometime in late 70's a large proportion of population just started to eat more?

Nothing to do with the demonising of fat, which at same time became part of official government policy in USA first and then Europe.

Any idea what triggered millions of people to "just start eating too much"?

So you don't think the increase in processed, calorie-dense food has nothing to do with it?

It's not necessarily that people started to eat a greater quantity of food but consuming more than their body was burning.


But I'm not sure what started to emerge in the 70s is all that relevant to the OP.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Processed food, sugar , these are to blame for most of obesity. There are a percentage who would be fat no matter what but the vast majority is diet related. Too many mcdonalds, crisps, cola, snickers bars

ford2600 wrote: »

So for millions of years through famine and times of plenty humans, for most part managed to stay lean, but sometime in late 70's a large proportion of population just started to eat more?

Nothing to do with the demonising of fat, which at same time became part of official government policy in USA first and then Europe.

Any idea what triggered millions of people to "just start eating too much"?

People have overeaten throughout history, its not just a recent thing. If you think people were all lean you were mistaken, wealthy people were often overweight. In times of depression and war though you'll see the opposite, for obvious reasons. If people can afford it they will overeat. Even now with the massive availability of good foods, relative wealth and easily available information people are overeating.

That's a good point.

Henry VIII was a bloater and he spent all day riding numerous wives to try get a son.

The French have a motto or some such that's saying "Let them eat cake"! It was actually brioche but that got lost in translation but it's a moot point.

Bruno26 wrote: »

We've been eating grains for about 12,000 years. Egyptians were the first who farmed grain and also the first to show signs of modern health problems due to grain consumption .

20th century wheat is very different to wheat prior to that- much worse effects on blood sugar levels.

Sugar consumption was minuscule before 20th century.

See William Banting !

Everything changed when a man named ancel keys castigated saturated fat and then in the 1977 the modern food pyramid was created by the US.

This is wrong.

There is evidence of grain consumption 100000 years ago with bread commonly eaten from 30k onwards.

Sugar consumption was anything but minuscule. Sugarcane was known about and eaten from before the 8th century and honey was widely eaten as a delicacy.

Willian Banting died over 120 years ago. The anecdotal evidence of an undertaker shows nothing.

LOL to stating that people only got fat after 1977. :pac::pac::pac:

ford2600 wrote: »

Can you name a population prior to 1970 where 50% plus are overweight or obese?
Of course there has always been fat people, but at epidemic levels? What has changed to make a civilization almost self destruct?

Sugar has never been eaten in same quantities as it is now, to say anything else is daft; some people can do quite well on lots of sugar others not so. Some people can tolerate it quite well until they get older and then problems arise later in life.

Beet production was first made popular under Napoleon in France, prior to then it was very much a luxury.

You don't see any connection with the deomonising of fat and the increased use of sugar in processed foods?

No. The connection is wealth.

runawaybishop wrote: »

This is wrong.

There is evidence of grain consumption 100000 years ago with bread commonly eaten from 30k onwards.

Sugar consumption was anything but minuscule. Sugarcane was known about and eaten from before the 8th century and honey was widely eaten as a delicacy.

Willian Banting died over 120 years ago. The anecdotal evidence of an undertaker shows nothing.

LOL to stating that people only got fat after 1977. :pac::pac::pac:

Please please point out where I said people got fat after 1977.

Of course people got fat from eating grains and whatever sugar was consumed.

It was miniscule. There was hardly any processed foods/ low fat options .

Bruno26 wrote: »

Eat over daily calorie amount and you will still lose fat

Adding that is unnecessary and needs too many qualifiers.

Not least the one about you miscalculating your TDEE.

Bruno26 wrote: »

That's your theory on miscalculation- everything I submitted on app was correct.

It's not unnecessary - it's pointing out to majority of people that is not necessary to count calories when eating the right foods.

The consensus is that it's poor at calculating your allowance.

You didn't point out that it's not necessary to count calories. You stated you could overeat and lose weight. If so.one has their TDEE correctly calculated then what you said was misleading.