The Fundamentals of Fat Loss Diets Part 1

I did an online interview of some sort a while back and one of the questions I was asked was this “What are the basic components of fat loss diet that you would recommend?  That is, if you had to give the most general fat loss diet approach, what would it be?”  Another way of phrasing the question might be thus: What’s the simplest fat loss diet you can draw up, with the fewest details for people to get obsessive over?

This is actually a very good question and, while I can generally answer it in about 4 sentences, I’m going to do my best to stretch it out into a full length article by overexplaining everything and giving at least some of my rationale for the different recommendations. In many places, I’ll be linking out to other articles on the site that go into individual topics in more detail.

Since this is going to get long, I’m actually going to divide the article into two parts. Today I’m going to focus on what is probably the most contentious area of diet set up, on Tuesday next week, I’ll cover the other factors that I use to set up a basic fat loss diet.


Complexity vs. the Fundamentals

It’s quite common, and this is true in all aspects of, well, everything, for people to want to get into really involved interpretations before they have the fundamentals down.  I see it in training and I see it in diet; of course the industry tends to pander to that by providing unbelivably complicated training and diet programs that, for most people, simply aren’t necessary.

People always want advanced training programs long before they have the basics down; and they tend to be drawn to overly complicated diet plans when they don’t even have the basics down.  I have probably contributed to this to some degree as I do tend to write complicated dieting approaches from time to time (e.g. The Ultimate Diet 2.0).

Of course, there are times, usually for very lean folks dealing with all of the myriad issues involved in getting very lean that necessitate such complex approaches.  The UD2, for example, is an advanced diet for advanced dieters; it’s assumed in that book that the folks reading it have spent a couple of years getting the fundamentals in place.  That’s why I didn’t spend any time discussing those fundamentals in that book; if you don’t already have the basics of eating and nutrition down, you aren’t ready for it.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop people from trying from time to time.

But at the end of the day, and again this is true in training and in diet, the fundamentals are the most important.  Until you have those in place, none of the advanced stuff makes a difference.  And, generally speaking, you find that once you have the fundamentals in place, the advanced stuff doesn’t add that much.  Again, in specific situations, worrying about the details matters (e.g. very lean natural bodybuilders trying to get super lean); for most people it doesn’t.

I’d note, semi-tangentially, that there tend to be individual personality differences in how people approach these kinds of topics.  Some people are, shall we say, a bit obsessive compulsive (I’m one of them) about things like nutrition and training.  They are the ones who, as Dan Duchaine once phrased it, want nutrition with ‘all the plumbing’.   They want diets to be set out in terms of how many seconds to wait between sets, protein and amino acid recommendations must be set to the milligram, etc.  Amusingly, these folks want all of the details whether they are necessary or not in the first place (usually they are not).

At the other extreme are people who get overwhelmed by that type of information, they want easy generalities and lots of detail puts them off.  Many people are somewhere in between the two, they want enough details to get the job done well but not so much that they get paralyzed by it.  But I’m getting off topic.


The Fundamentals of Fat Loss

Ok, before I talk details, let me spell out how I would set up the most basic fat loss diet on the planet.  These criteria are in order of importance, by the way and are:

  1. Create an appropriate caloric deficit/set caloric intake appropriately
  2. Set protein intake
  3. Set dietary fat intake
  4. Everything else depends

Anyone who has read any of my books may recognize this to some degree since I tend to focus on the first 3 and leave 4 up to the specifics of the situation.  Now, I’m actually going to spend a bit of time on #1 and for that reason will discuss #2-4 next Tuesday so that this doesn’t get too long to read.


Create an Appropriate Caloric Deficit/Set Calories

Ok, this is probably the one that will cause the most controversy which is why I’m going to spend the most time on it.  A constant and never-ending cry, and one that has recently come back to life due to some popular but misguided books, is that calories don’t count, or thermodynamics doesn’t apply to humans or other nonsense.  In that vein, a current meme (look it up) is that the energy balance equation is incorrect for various reasons; I addressed this in some detail a little while back in the article The Energy Balance Equation.

In case you can’t take the time to go read it in full, I’ll only say that the people saying that calories in vs. calories out don’t understand the energy balance equation; in fact I saw some hysterical examples of this in a recent thread on a fitness forum, people tossing out examples that they thought disproved the energy balance equation but which only showed that they really had no idea what they were talking about.  Again, the problem isn’t with the equation, the problem is with people who don’t understand what it represents.  Read the article for more.

But the simple fact is this, the ONLY way to force the body to call on stored energy (e.g. body fat) is to create an imbalance between energy intake (from food) and energy expenditure (this side of the equation comprises a number of factors discussed in detail in Metabolic Rate Overview).   That’s why this is the primary criterion in how I set up fat loss diets.  I don’t give a damn what else you do, if you haven’t created an imbalance between intake and expenditure (and you’ll see that there are different ways of achieving this goal), nothing else will matter.


Creating the Deficit: Different Paths to the Same Goal

Now, there are many different ways to create this imbalance and I think that also lends itself to confusion.  Each of the below can work to some degree and makes it look like it’s not just calories in vs. calories out.  But it still is.

For example, a traditional way is to simply reduce total food intake, that is reduce the quantity of food such that less calories are being eaten.  Certainly this works because, by definition, eating less means you’re taking in less calories than when you were eating more.

Another is to change the quality of food but this tends to introduce a subtle confound that most people seem to forget (and that I discuss in detail in Is a Calorie a Calorie): some foods are relatively harder to overeat than others.    Or, put differently, some food are easier to overeat than others.

If changing the quality of food eaten causes people to eat less, and that causes weight/fat to be lost, it’s easy to confuse the quality of the food with the total caloric expenditure.  But it’s not the quality of the food per se that is causing the weight/fat loss or gain; it’s the change in total caloric intake due to the change in food quality.

I would mention that changing the macronutrient content of the diet can have a small impact in this regards.  For the most part, switching out carbs and fat doesn’t do much despite what many claim. The difference in the thermic effect of food for carbs vs. fat is about 3% so for every 100 calories you switch out one for the other, you might see a 3 calorie difference in energy expenditure.

I’d note that carbs have a the advantage here with a thermic effect of 6% compared to 3% for fat.  But the effect tends to be so small as to be irrelevant unless you are looking at whole scale changes to diet.  Again, if you replace 100 calories of fat with carbs, you burn 3 more calories per day.  If you replace 1000 calories of fat with carbs, you burn 30 calories more per day; you’ll lose an extra pound of fat every 116 days.  Whoop de doo.

And while I know someone is going to bring up the issue of gluconeogenesis on ketogenic diets in the comments, I’ll only point out that the impact of this is small and disappears after about 2-3 weeks (when the body shifts to using ketones for fuel).  As well, any increase in expenditure from this pathway is balanced against a loss of the thermic effect of carbs.

As well, direct research (by Brehm) shows that there is no difference in resting metabolic rate for ketogenic vs. carb-based diets; the thermic effect of food was higher in the high-carb condition.  If there were a true metabolic advantage in terms of energy expenditure for ketogenic diets, someone would have been able to measure it by now.  They haven’t and they aren’t going to and all of the theorizing about it doesn’t change the fact that direct research hasn’t supported the concept.

Now, protein has the biggest impact in terms of the thermic effect of food, switching out carbs or fat with protein tends to increase the energy out side of the equation but you have to make pretty large scale changes for it to be particularly significant.   I’d note that protein also tends to be the most filling of all the nutrients and studies show that increasing dietary protein intake tends to cause people to eat less calories.   Which is another huge confound; if increasing protein makes folks spontaneously eat less, it looks like it was adding the protein per se that did the magic.  But it wasn’t, it was the effect of increasing protein on total energy intake that caused the fat loss. Like I said, a subtle confound that people tend to miss a lot.

Another way of course is to use activity to increase energy expenditure.  That increases the energy out side of the energy balance equation.  I’ll do a full article on the role of activity in weight/fat loss (and it’s more complicated than I’m making it sound here since I don’t have space to cover it in full) but this is one valid way to do it.  Activity not only increases energy expenditure but also impacts on the quality of weight loss (e.g. fat vs. muscle) and can impact on appetite (both positively or negatively depending on the specifics).  Again, I don’t have space to cover it here but will in a future article.

The problem for most is that the amount of calories that can be expended by most people in exercise is not large.  An irony that I”ve mentioned before is that the only people who can usually burn a ton of calories in activity are trained athletes; and they usually don’t need to lose fat.  But the reality is that an hour of activity for most people will not burn a staggering number of calories.  Usually caloric restriction per se or a combination of cutting calories and increasing activity is going to be more realistic.

And before you start typing out comments about how all of the above is flawed and thermodynamics doesn’t hold for humans or all of that other nonsense, consider the following realities:

  1. The number of people who have lost fat by making excuses about thermodynamics and other nonsense: zero.
  2. The number of people who have lost fat by creating a deficit in one of the ways I’ve mentioned: all of them.

End of discussion.

Of course, someone will point to someone who did lose fat without ‘counting calories’ but invariably they did something dietarily that I described above: made a wholesale change to the types of food that they were eating that caused them to spontaneously eat less food.  Which still makes me right; they created an imbalance between intake and expenditure, they just did it in a way that looked ‘different’ than simply counting calories.  But it still had the same end result.  They still created a caloric deficit, it was simply ‘hidden’ by what looked like something else.

And make no mistake, I would love it to be different, I would love to be able to tell you how to magically lose fat without some change in your eating or activity or creating an imbalance in the energy balance equation; I want magic to be real too.  And when I figure that magic out, I’ll be a billionaire.  And until that happens, the reality is that to lose fat you must create some imbalance between intake and expenditure.  It may not be what you want to hear but it is the truth.


Setting Calories

Ok, with that introduction out of the way, how do you set calories for a basic fat loss diet?  A value that has been used for absolutely years is 10-12 cal/lb, and I explain where that value comes from to some degree in How to Estimate Maintenance Calories.  Essentially it’s a 20% reduction from a rough maintenance estimate of ‘About 15 cal/lb or so’.

I’d note that this is your basic moderate deficit diet, as I discuss in Setting the Deficit – Small, Moderate or Large there can be various pros and cons to using smaller or larger deficits.  But, once again, here I’m focusing on simplicity and the basics and trying to avoid any source of complication.

In general, 10-12 cal/lb tends to be a decent starting point for fat loss diets.  Please note that this is only a starting point and will always have to be adjusted based on real-world changes.   Some people with high activity levels may need higher calories than that, and folks with lower daily activity levels may need less.

In the modern world, with daily activity levels going down (especially if you work in a sedentary job), lower caloric intakes are altogether too often required. I have known many people who had to go to 8 cal/lb with an hour per day of low to moderate intensity cardio to lose fat effectively.  I was one of them back when my daily activity entailed sitting in front of the computer all day and doing an hour or so of weight training a few times per week.  Now that I train about 18 hours per week, I can diet with higher calories if needed.

I’d note that, for various reasons discussed in Lean Mass or Total Weight to Set Calorie Levels, I tend to use total weight to set starting caloric intake levels.  As noted in the paragraph above, you always have to make adjustments based on real-world changes in body composition and it’s simply faster and easier to use total weight; it avoids issues with trying to get a good estimate of body fat percentage and saves people the trouble of all that pesky math.  In my books I often use a more complicated approach but this article is about simplicity so use total weight.

And that ends Part 1 of the article.  In Part 2, which I’ll post next Tuesday, I’ll address points 2-4 from the section above: protein requirements, fat intake, and the ‘it depends’ part of the diet.  See you then.

Read A Primer on Fat Loss Diets Part 2.



24 thoughts on “The Fundamentals of Fat Loss Diets Part 1

  1. Before the low carb bigots post. On the two realities you said FAT, and not weight.

    Just in case the ex fatty starts arguing that he lost 20 lbs by switching to zero carbs and eating sticks of butter.

  2. Lyle, despite how irritating you can be at times, I still enjoy your writing. We haven’t corresponded in a long time, but I still read your stuff from time to time. You do have a gift… 🙂

    In any event, what is your take on the Beraradi et al argument around “energy flux”? It applies to this article in the sense that you advocate setting a particular calorie deficit (20% or 500 cal or whatever) as the basic thermodynamic starting point. I have no quibble with this; I spent too many years in graduate school to believe magic diet faries somehow negate the 2nd Law of Theromodynamics…

    To summarize the “energy flux” argument, Berardi and others suggest that, for example, a 500 calorie deficit at a higher intake/burn rate is more effective than the same 500 calorie deficit at a lower intake/burn rate. That is, ramping up the burn rate to 4000 calories and limiting intake to 3500 calories is somehow more effective at shedding fat/maintaining muscle than burning 2500 calories and limiting intake to 2000 calories.

    Simple thermodynamics would suggest they are equivalent.

    However, the arguments that Berardi makes are: (i) the higher intake creates a better hormone profile, even in the face of a 500 calorie deficit, (ii) the body is getting more “secondary and tertiary” nutrients at the higher intake and thus “reacts” better, (iii) the act of doing more exercise (necessary to increase the burn rate) sends some kind of signal to the body to maintain muscle mass and preferentially use fat.

    Some of this makes sense, in light of your own writings on the hormonal response of the body to energy imbalance. Some of it seems like “bro science” to me.

    Of course, the “energy flux” argument absolutely goes against the anti-aging protocol known as CRON or Calorie Reduced Optimal Nutrution, and there is A LOT of peer-reviewed evidence that CRON actually works…


  3. I’ve seen the following statement made a few times on this site, and I don’t know exactly what it means: “An irony that I’ve mentioned before is that the only people who can usually burn a ton of calories in activity are trained athletes”. Could someone expound a bit, please?

  4. The level of training that you are talking about seems amazingly high….an hour a day of cardio plus weight training? Wouldn’t take just make you very hungry and make it difficult to keep consumption at 8 cal/lb? I’ve struggled with my weight for the longest time but have recently just made a simple commitment to do 30 minutes of activity per day alternating days between weight training and light cardio on the elliptical. I find that doing any more than that puts me in a position where my body craves food and I tend to over eat .

  5. Great article Lyle,

    I agree with your idea of most of us over complicating the details. Over analyzing has been the anchor that’s dragged me down for years, and left me a fatty in the process. At 28% body fat there is no need for zig-zag diets, complicated workout routines or magic potions.
    At this stage there’s freedom in consistently keeping it simple.


  6. I guess I’m one of those low-carb ex-fatty bigots — inadvertently so. I’ve always only cared about strength, never weight or fat. But I got a systemic candida infection, and was told to stop all carbs. I occasionally cheat with berries, but otherwise I’ve been very low carb for about four months now. In the process I went from 245lbs to 205. My ideal weight is probably 220. I have six-pack abs now, something I only had once before (when I spent two months above 5000 meters altitude and lost 75 lbs despite eating two breakfasts, lunches and dinners every day) but I’m starting to feel like a skinny guy, which I don’t like. The one moderately high carb food I can eat for candida is plain yoghurt, so I’ve been eating litres of full fat plain yoghurt, but am still losing weight. Without counting calories, with drinking coconut oil straight from the bottle multiple times a day, and now without really wanting to.

    I follow your logic (and am extremely grateful for your logical approach) and understand that you’re trying to explain a mechanism here. I’m certain your explanation is correct. And yet from a practical results-oriented perspective, shifting to eating only protein, fats, and veggies works in the sense that I eat as many calories as I want to (albeit of limited foods, which is a bummer) and am relentlessly losing weight. Even if the logic most people use to justify their no-carb diets is wrong, the end result seems to work.

    As soon as I kick this candida I’m going back to carbs — I miss beer and bread too much. But this experiment has taught me a way to lose weight that works, should I ever find myself single again, or whatever. I know actually counting the calories would drive me bonkers.

  7. I of course agree with what you’re saying, and I am not even sure how anyone could argue on a fundamental level — it’s kind of like arguing about whether 1 +1 = 2.

    However, I think there is one aspect to the equation that neither you nor anyone else I have read has covered that may or may not have a significant impact on real results. That is, 100 calories ingested does not equal 100 calories actually available for expenditure by the body since a portion of the energy contained in food is not digested and ends up coming out the other end. What I think is fascinating (and I may be in a group of one on this) is that the type of food one eats, and the way that food is prepared may have an impact on the percentage of calories ingested that actually are used by the body.

    There was some recent research done by someone at Stanford that showed a correlation between cooking food and the creation of modern societies — basically, that they occurred at the same time. Not that surprising. The conclusion, however, caught my eye because the scientist theorized that the cooking may have actually led to the ability of man to form more modern societies because they were able to more efficiently digest their food and thus were not as hungry, prone to starvation, etc.. And, he showed that humans digest cooked food more efficiently than raw.

    It seems logical to me anyway to apply this insight into modern life where survival is no longer the problem and see that overprepared, overcooked food (most of America for example) might lead one to get more calories out of the same amount of food as someone else who is ingesting a similar amount of calories but is eating raw fruits and vegetables, rare fish and meats and/or “whole foods” of many varieties (quinoa). This could help explain the fascination with “raw food” as a diet technique and also might help to explain some of the results of ketogenic diets and the like (substituting harder to digest foods for easier ones). It also might stand to reason that different people digest foods differently which could explain the very different results that people seem to have on similar diets.

    Anyway, food for thought…

  8. Britt: Nice introduction, do you usaually find that spitting in people’s face before asking them a favor works well? In any case, I am familiar with Berardi’s argument. I consider it as absurd of most of what he writes. But fundamentally you can train more and eat more or train less and eat less. He’s just manipulating different parts of the energy balance equation. But since most in the real world can’t train 20+ hours/week (as in the elite athlete examples he likes to trot out), I find most of his arguments irrelevant to most that live in the real world.

    Maxpot: The realities of exercise are this: the average person can burn perhaps 5-10 calories/minute with activity. Over an hour, that’s 300-600 calories. Contrast that to the ease of reducing food intake. The only person who can burn a ton of calories are generally trained athletes who can maintain a high caloric expenditure for extended periods of time.

    Sean: 1 hour total per day. Either weights or cardio. Not both per day.

    Boldizar: I’ve addressed your point in other articles. here’s the problem: for many people, ad-lib low carb diets DO lead to extra food intake. And once people have gotten the nonsensical idea that ‘calories don’t count’, they refuse to accept that they do. So even if FOR YOU end result is the same, for many, not understanding the mechanism still causes problems. Lowcarb diets reduce food intake which causes weight loss. Except when they don’t. Which is often And that’s when the problems start

  9. Kenny: Read my energy balance equation article from two weeks ago, I address all of this and it’s all factored in. As I state in that article

    “Now, energy in is actually the simplest aspect of all of this, this represents the number of calories that you ingest each day from the nutrients protein, carbs, fat, fiber and alcohol.

    Of course, even that is not so simple. First and foremost, not all foods are digested with identical efficiency…

    Put differently, some energy is lost prior to digestion (and shows up in the feces), never to be absorbed by the body. But strictly speaking you can make an adjustment on the energy in side of the equation to take digestibility into account with a correction factor (which would vary depending on the nutrient in question) ”

    And while I focused primarily on other aspects that affect digestion/assimilation, your example, changes in metabolizable food energy due to cooking or whatever simply changes the input value of energy in. So, nothing is being ignored in the least.

    Basically, if eating 100 calories of raw food only means that your body absorbs 80 calories, that means that the value on the energy in side of the equation is 80, not 100. The equation still holds perfectly.

  10. I’m definitely not an athlete, elite or otherwise, but I can easily handle an hour of cardio and an hour of strength training in a day, is there a reason you only do one or the other? I’m starting to get self-conscious that I exercise too much, though it doesn’t seem it to me. I rarely do strength training two days in a row, unless you count yoga, which I don’t.

    You’re right, even this amount of exercise won’t cause weight loss if I’m not careful about intake, though I think it helps blood sugar stability, mood, and likely much more. I can eat a huge breakfast, and not eat for 10 hours, nor get hungry. I can eat small meals every two hours. I can eat an ice cream cone and not crash. But for the most part, what has helped me to lose weight is not the calorie counting, but the change to mostly whole foods. Not entirely, and when I eat otherwise (such as pizza) I practice portion control, and don’t eat until stuffed. I eat moderate carb, moderate fat, moderate protein, and I don’t complicate it. I used to, but got frustrated, and somewhere along the line I discovered it didn’t matter. Maybe exercising 2+ hours a day gives me more leeway here than I might have otherwise. Anyway, I don’t count, don’t stress, don’t worry.

    I love your common sense. I’m trained as a chemist, and generally believe nothing that can’t be proven with math. I never have to wonder how you got from A to B, as you always explain, even if sometimes the explanation makes my eyes glaze over. Thanks for putting this info out there.

  11. Lyle, I believe I owe you an apology. I meant for my comment to come off as a bit light-hearted and with grudging admiration of your writing. It clearly didn’t work, as it seems to have just ticked you off. In any event, I didn’t mean it that way and I just wanted to publicly make that clear. (Note the smiley face and the rueful acknowledgement of your gift as a writer). You are an excellent writer and, regardless of any friction between us, I enjoy your work. I also support it financially as your records no doubt indicate – I have purchased every one of your publications.

    Keep up the good work and stay in good cheer.


  12. Lyle, first off, you are the man, I love reading your material, and even more how you pimp smack the people that try to discredit you with the most powerful tool in fitness–science, facts, and research!

    I started at 21% bodyfat after about 6 months of dieting, I am 6 weeks into your UD2 and I have lost 21 pounds, and recomped like a true champion, even people who see me everyday, even the people that I live with can tell! Granted I did not follow your directions (in regards to learning how to plan a diet over years) everything has worked EXACTLY,To the tee, how you said it would: body weight fluctuation, types of fatigue during my workout, but most importantly, burning fat, and gaining muscle, which I can prove with a journal I have kept measuring progress in the gym and my weight loss from the start, not to mention before and 4 week pictures and my soon to be had after pictures.

    Thanks for leading the way in a world full of followers Lyle, I cannot thank you enough, rest assured I will be a fan for a very long time!!!

  13. For those of you who are interested in this, the following is a response from Gary Taubes to Dr. George Bray who, like Lyle, misinterpret the research on the subject of low carb and fat loss as well as miss the enitre point of Good Calories Bad Calories which Lyle is obviously referring to in this article.

    Simply omit the name Bray and insert the name McDonald:

    “Much of Bray’s critique hinges on his assertion that I believe that obese individuals do not eat more than lean individuals. He quotes a line from GCBC, but by doing so out of context directs attention away from the critical observation that must be explained. ‘Even if it could be
    established’, I wrote and Bray quotes, ‘that all obese individuals eat more than do the lean – which they don’t – that only tells us that eating more is associated with being obese’.

    The keyword in the sentence, however, is ‘all’. It must be the case, as discussed in GCBC, that the obese tend to eat more than the lean, because they tend to expend more
    energy than the lean. This does not mean, however, that all lean individuals expend less energy than all obese individuals of comparable height, sex and bone structure. The
    distributions of calories consumed overlap, as do the distributions of calories expended. This is the observation that requires explanation. I do not mention doubly labelled
    water in this context, because the necessary observations were made with calorimeters nearly a century ago (3).

    In this context, Bray’s statement ‘that obese people eat more food energy than do lean people’ is either meaningless – is he indeed claiming that it’s impossible to find lean
    individuals who naturally expend more energy on a daily basis than obese individuals of comparable height, sex and bone structure? – or it is indefensible. The relevant point is
    how greatly energy expenditure and metabolic rate ‘might differ between any two individuals of equal weight, or how similar [they] might be among individuals of vastly different
    weights’ (GCBC, p. 278).

    Bray also consistently confuses associations – the obese eat more than the lean; the obese are in positive energy balance as they fatten – with causes and effects. Do they get
    fatter because they overeat, as Bray continues to imply, or do they overeat because they’re getting fatter. The goal of science is to correctly determine causality. In these two
    competing hypotheses, the causalities are diametrically opposed.

    The point is that people like Lyle, Bray, Krieger and a host of other people of their ilk think that because the obese eat more than the lean (on average) than they can blame obesity on eating too much. And that’s nonsense. You still don’t know whether they eat more because they’re getting fatter or because they’re getting fatter because they’re eating more. And second of all, as Gary says in his response the key thing is that some obese people do eat less than some lean people of similar bone structure, age, sex, etc. And that’s what you have to understand.

    A type I diabetic can’t get fat no matter how much he eats without taking insulin. Explain that. No insulin, no fat storage. Lyle has stakes much of his rep on a calorie is a calorie idea – an idea that is untrue.

    And when it comes to fat loss, the laws of thermodynamics are essentially irrelevant. No one is disputing the laws themselves – but they have little bearing on HOW we gain or lose fat. The 2nd law tells us what CAN happen – not what will happen. If I eat 500 caloires more than I need I may or may NOT gain fat. There is no gaurantee I will gain fat. This is why people who invoke the 1st law get it wrong. We are not walking ATM machines.

    Here are my priorities for a successful fat loss program in order of importance:

    1. Control insulin by lowering carbohydrate intak to under 60 grams a day for most
    2. Ensure that all carbs come from non starchy vegetable sources
    3. Ensure adequate protein intake
    4. Ensure adequate saturated fat intake since the bulk of the calories eaten will be derived from fats

    And there are studies that indicate a lower carb intake on an ad libitum diet works best. Start with the A to Z Diet.

  14. I suppose the confusing part in the article is where it says that energy intake (food) must be lower than energy expenditure.

    It would be clearer to say something along the lines of ‘amount of energy your body converts from the food you eat’… Because everyone will get different amounts of energy (wether instant or stored as fat) from the exact same food item, depending on their body’s response to it.

    Which explains why a type 1 diabetic will have a harder time gaining weight without insulin

  15. 1. Type I diabetes is irrelevant to normal physiology, as it is a pathophysiological state. Despite what Gary Taubes says.

    2. The difference in energy yield between individuals will not vary that much.

  16. comparing a normal/healthy individual vs someone who has metabolic/physiological disorders and using those discrepancies to discredit the energy equation is not appropriate.

    The equation holds true when compared against the same person.

    Great site and information Lyle.

  17. Two things, this post made me want to write up my own ideas about this subject, so I did, it’s here
    and I think that there must be something to the debate over whether quality of food really counts. A simple personal experiment shows that this must be so; eat a day of fast food and see how you feel, then eat a day of real food (no processed food at all) and see how you feel (anyone remember ‘Supersize me’?).

    Now, I am fully aware that this ‘proves’ nothing, but shows that energy calculations, by themselves are not the whole game, and dogmatic thinking, on either side, will get us nowhere.

    It seems sensible that the two parts (energy needs/calculations) and consuming real food must be brought together to create a diet that works to lose weight.

    Good luck all, and keep up the good work Lyle, you’re an inspiration.

  18. I don’t think I ever said that the energy calculations were all that mattered but I’ve addressed this issue in detail in other articles. For example Is a Calorie a Calorie. Of course different foods can impact on things such as energy levels, health, etc. Different issue than what I was talking about here is all.

  19. The anti energy balance crowd should put their money where their mouth is and consider an experiment: a random sampling of 100 adult Americans; they are confined to a secure compound for three months; their activity is confined to a maximum of one hour of walking per day; they are forced to consume 5000 calories derived from fats and proteins – meats, seafood, cheese, butter, oils etc. I would bet cold cash they all gained weight – despite the absence of carbohydrates. Then, for the next month they would be put a concentration camp/gulag type diet – hard biscuits, gruel, stale bread, minimal animal foods/fats say at 800 calories. Again, I would put cold hard cash they all loose weight – despite that the diet was almost all carbohydrates.

    The whole anti energy balance/low carb obsession is generally a covert marketing gimmick to sell more fatty products to the general public. The classic example: the name “Bacon and eggs” was popularized by Edward Bernays in the 1920s. To promote sales of bacon, he conducted a survey of physicians and reported their recommendations that people eat hearty breakfasts. He sent the results of the survey to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as a hearty breakfast.

    Mr. McDonald cannot be blamed if the anti energy balance crowd have succumbed to propaganda and pseudo science.

  20. The studies have been done. They are called metabolic ward studies and there are plenty of them out there. And energy balance always holds (Anthony Colpo has written extensively about this). It’s only when you start cherry picking self-reported studies that you see the differences. Guess which studies the anti energy balance crowd focuses on. Guess which group they selectively ignore.

  21. Lyle if someone is cutting and uses a carb cycle approach(moderate deficit) and cuts volume to much when cutting and possibly add in 1-2 rest days for recovery can this lessen there actual maintenance and need for carbs thus the carb cycle if not aggressive enough will just make them maintain there weight. I know you have said in previous articles that weightlifting doesn’t burn as many calories as people think and the focus is maintain tension on the bar and let diet and cardio do the work so i just wanted to know your opinion if this is a possibility

  22. My method is to meet my protein goal, get 8-10 servings of fresh fruit and veg, drink enough water, and then i can eat whatever i want until i meet my calorie goal. As a short female i don’t get many calories to play around with so i try to get my protein from low fat choices and my starch from whole grains, to stretch my calories and maximize nutrition. If i was a big guy i might not have to worry about those things so much.

Leave a Comment