Physiqonomics

+1 on all of them. I would add reading. That has helped me a lot to calm down. Re health: I recently discovered a great blog with in-depth articles about how to lose weight: https://physiqonomics.com PS: Don't get distracted by the seemingly arrogant profile picture. His content is really good.

> not eating slows down your metabolism Starvation mode is a myth. Well, kinda. You do enter "starvation mode" where your metabolism significantly slows down, but only if you're actually starving. Simply eating in a caloric deficit will not do anything to your metabolism. The beginning of this article talks about that in great detail: https://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/

I don't think it's grains in particular that mess with satiety - it's carbohydrate-heavy diets (particularly simple carbohydrates) vs protein/fats. Protein in particular is known to be highly satisfying, and it tends to be less calorie-dense than carb-heavy foods. Carb-heavy foods are everywhere, because they prepare easily and keep for a very long time, and provide a lot of calories in a small package. Sugar + fat together make our brains super happy and trigger the "put all of that in my face now" response. In the right form, even starchy carbohydrates can be really easy to put down - consider a big bowl of mashed potatoes or white rice for example! I actually agree with you about IIFYM needing the right personality type. http://physiqonomics.com/fat-loss/ is probably my favorite "how to be not fat" page in existence and it outlines that issue quite well - if you can be disciplined to stop eating, then IIFYM works great. If you can't, then full abstinence is pretty necessary. I find that I'm much more successful on an IIFYM diet than an abstinence diet, because on the latter I find myself craving the "forbidden fruit" and it eats at me until I crack, then I feel guilty, and it spirals from there. On IIFYM, I can let myself have whatever I'm craving, knowing that I just have to make up for it with the rest of my intake that day. The actual mechanical part of counting macros is pretty trivial once you've learned how to do it (MyFitnessPal learns your dietary habits quickly,…

Not necessarily. > In 2016, Pontzer and colleagues published a study putting forward the constrained energy model: Energy expenditure does increase with more activity, but only to a point. Once physical activity gets really high, the body will adjust other components of the metabolism to keep your daily energy expenditure within a narrow range https://physiqonomics.com/biggest-losers/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/study-office-worker…

> The simplest problem with this approach is that budgeting, like dieting, doesn’t work This is a bad comparison. If you’re truly counting calories and consuming at a deficit you’re going to lose weight. https://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/

Well, he does actually look like that. And he’s only 25, so he’s still a bit arrogant :-) But, what he’s saying agrees with my experience, at three times his age: train with weights, have a caloric deficit emphasizing low carb, and walk for an hour on the days you aren’t lifting. https://physiqonomics.com/cardio-or-weights/

Check this out - https://physiqonomics.com/fat-loss/ helped me a lot (I lost 23 kg since March).

Are you sure? Exercising to the point of burning >1000 calories is not trivial. You're basically committing to run like 8 miles just for that amount. Then you'll still be hungry with the additional food. Your BMR is far more important to weight loss than what most people can do with exercise. http://physiqonomics.com/exercise-pointless/

This article covers more than just fat loss, but goes over the whole spectrum of how to plan your diet. http://physiqonomics.com/fat-loss/

"yes it's not as simple as calories in/calories out, but calories are still the most important" : http://physiqonomics.com/calories/ tl;dr: outrunning your fork is _prohibitively hard_. In my personal experience, weight loss and fitness are not orthogonal, but they aren't the same vector, either. In agreement with the NYT link, I exercise because I want to be fit, because I want to prevent injuries, because I don't like being depressed, and because I want to do the previous items until I'm 90. Personal vanity is real, but secondary.

2016: https://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/

> but I think the conclusions one draws from it fail to take into account how much the body can control expenditure. Yes, this is has been observed and studied. From this page: https://physiqonomics.com/constrained-energy-model/ the relavent source materials are: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26832439/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453886/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34519717/ So, yes, it seems that the body "compensates" and controls expendeture as you've suggested. Speaking in general, there are a lot of details to consider for CICO. When people count calories to below their TDEE, their estimate of TDEE is just that, an estimate, not their actual TDEE. When calories are counted, how accurate are calories being counted? FDA regulations in the US call for the nutritional information on packaging to be +/- 20%, and when audited, the information is often found to be outside that ranges. Every gram of glycogen stored in your muscles, the body also stores 4 grams of water. The cycle of exercise, fasting, caloric restriction, and refeeding and glycogen storage are going to cause large swings in weight that can make it hard to pull out trends until several weeks/months have gone by, but frequently people are micro-focused on daily weight flucuations and draw their conclusions about diet and weightloss from what is effectively changes in glycogen storage/water weight.

> Some average-sized adult males get overweight with just 1300-1700/calories a day due to slow metabolisms or other genetic factors. I think this is largely a myth. (The 1700 calorie end is vaguely plausible but not the 1300 calorie end). There was a good article posted here a while ago [1] which talked about this. Now, it isn't necessarily easy to maintain a certain calorie count, in terms of either knowing how much you're eating or actually sticking to it despite hunger pangs. And some foods can help you feel fuller with less, you can have different balance of muscle vs fat at the same weight, etc. In those senses I agree with people who say calories in calories out isn't the whole story. But in the end, thermodynamics always wins. Quote from the article: > Starvation Mode is this wacky idea that if you eat too little an amount of calories for an extended period of time your body stops burning fat; in fact, it starts doing the opposite–you start gaining weight ‘even when consuming 800 calories’. Sound familiar? > So, how much truth is there to this? > Well, see, Starvation Mode is an odd one. Because, while it’s not entirely correct, it’s not entirely incorrect either. > The correct part: When you reduce calories, more specifically as you begin to get leaner, there is, in fact, some slowing of metabolic rate. > The incorrect part: Due to this low-calorie consumption your body decides fuck you and proceeds to enter this phantom zone of otherworldliness where the…