> The "type of calorie" theory is generally proposed by popular psuedo science articles that appeal primarily to overweight people who are looking for easy answers that don't require them to do something challenging.
"Pseudo science" like a guy who got an OBE for his research? That's a first one.
By "something challenging", are you referring to physical activity? Physical activity is good and must be done whether or not you need to lose weight. The point is that physical activity alone is not enough.
> By "something challenging", are you referring to physical activity?
I believe they are referring to self-control about the foods consumed. Were you being willfully obtuse about this, given this entire sub-thread is about calories and you're deflecting to exercise?
> I believe they are referring to self-control about the foods consumed.
Then I don't understand how "overweight people avoiding something challenging" would use the excuse of the "type of calorie". It's a much harder concept to understand that fat, proteins and carbohydrates are absorbed differently. And you would also need to calculate it manually as packages don't take into account the difference of the composition of the food.
> Were you being willfully obtuse about this, given this entire sub-thread is about calories and you're deflecting to exercise?
Excuse me, but I am not the one who originally mentioned physical activity. In fact, I cited 2 paragraphs of a book I read talking only about calories absorption, and only 1 sentence of my comments was related to physical activity. Is that insufficient for you?
I think you replied to the wrong comment because I didn't make any point in the one you responded to. It's whatever, because I'm not alone on this hill and many nutrition experts agree on this. And I've chosen to give them credit and believe them as I'm not an obesity researcher.
I think he was just expressing frustration that the people who seem to have the most 'knowledge' about weight loss also seem to be the people who are not able to manage their own weight. This is despite the fact that controlling your weight is incredibly simple to do, it's literally "do the most obvious thing". The truth is that this is very hard to do, and in the face of an inability to control their own behavior they instead convince themselves that there's something very complicated going on.
I agree a lot with what you say. I will take another sentence from the book because I agree with it and have noticed it first hand after changing my diet:
> If you focus on health, your weight will take care of itself
There are some mornings when weighing on the scale where I notice that I lost more than 1kg (compared to 24 hours before). More often than not, I didn't even have a so-called "cheat meal". I eat healthily 95% of the time, so even if I eat junk food and gain 800g in a day I know I'm going to lose them by just sticking to my usual healthy habits.
I guess this was just a really long way of saying: fluctuations in body weight don't matter day-to-day if you stick to a healthy diet.
Taking into account my body weight (I'm lean, with muscles, and shorter than average for a man), I eat way more than I should be. My rice portion, which is a side, is sometimes as much as 250g. And this is about half my plate. Then I eat fruits, nuts during the day. All this after having eaten oatmeal for breakfast (about 100g). Dinner is a bit smaller than lunch but I eat at least twice what my parents would eat (granted, they are older).
"Pseudo science" like a guy who got an OBE for his research? That's a first one.
By "something challenging", are you referring to physical activity? Physical activity is good and must be done whether or not you need to lose weight. The point is that physical activity alone is not enough.