I have one question though. I think I’ve read most of your site at this stage and I think I can find most of the answer to my question but I can’t seem to find the complete answer and it would be nice to see it pulled together in one place. Now I understand the whole calorie deficit thing & I understand that you can create the deficit through diet & exercise. I also saw your article saying that, although weight training does have *some* effect on weight loss, its actually very small. I’ve also seen you virtually dismiss (:-)) cardio. The thing is, I haven’t seen all these things drawn together in one place. So: are you saying that changes to diet has BY FAR the greatest effect on fat loss? And that weight training and cardio have such a small effect on fat loss that, relative to diet, they are almost insignificant? Because that is the impression I’m getting. Actually – and I know this is not really possible – could you quantify their relative effects as you see them? e.g. diet 70%, cardio 20% weight training 10%. Again, I know, that’s not possible, but just to give a “feel” for their relative impacts. You can see what I’m getting at here: I’d like to get an idea for where to concentrate my efforts.
I have one question though. I think I’ve read most of your site at this stage and I think I can find most of the answer to my question but I can’t seem to find the complete answer and it would be nice to see it pulled together in one place. Now I understand the whole calorie deficit thing & I understand that you can create the deficit through diet & exercise. I also saw your article saying that, although weight training does have *some* effect on weight loss, its actually very small. I’ve also seen you virtually dismiss (:-)) cardio. The thing is, I haven’t seen all these things drawn together in one place. So: are you saying that changes to diet has BY FAR the greatest effect on fat loss? And that weight training and cardio have such a small effect on fat loss that, relative to diet, they are almost insignificant? Because that is the impression I’m getting. Actually – and I know this is not really possible – could you quantify their relative effects as you see them? e.g. diet 70%, cardio 20% weight training 10%. Again, I know, that’s not possible, but just to give a “feel” for their relative impacts. You can see what I’m getting at here: I’d like to get an idea for where to concentrate my efforts.
The primary con to this diet is that it can be extremely limited and difficult for some people to follow. The average fat intake is only 6% of your total calories, which is considerably lower than the recommended 20% to 35%. This limitation is because meat is omitted from the plan. Cutting out an entire food group may be too much of a restriction to maintain over the long-term, so some people do best by modifying this diet to allow for a moderate amount of meat. The high fiber intake may also pose a problem initially. It's best to slowly increase the amount of fiber you consume so your body can get used to it. The goal is always long-term weight loss and maintenance. This diet does have the research to support it, but it may need modifications to make it work for you.
Talk about a catch-22: Doing something healthy, like eating a low-cal meal, can make you less likely to exercise and more likely to gorge yourself with food later on. This is because of a phenomenon scientists call licensing, which happens when we feel that we've earned the right to be self-indulgent. Most people have a tendency to want to balance things out, says Kathleen Vohs, Ph.D., an associate professor of marketing at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. So when we do one thing that's good for our health, which often requires exerting plenty of discipline and self-control, we like to follow it up with something that lets us indulge ourselves.
The claims made about the health implications of carbohydrates and protein are controversial. As with other fad diets, one nutrient is being made to look like the enemy (carbohydrates), while protein is made to look like the key to weight loss and health. Most diets that are against carbohydrates use the arguments that we consume less fat and more carbohydrates than we did 10 years ago, and obesity is on the rise. This is half true. We consume more carbohydrates, which means we consume more calories. Our fat intake remains above the recommendations, but the percent of our total calories from fat has come down because we are now consuming more calories. Again, research clearly shows that a balance of each of these nutrients is needed and that an excess or deficiency in any of them will cause problems. This diet can be difficult to stick with long-term, so weight regain can be an issue.
Many people choose to forgo food from animal sources to varying degrees (e.g. flexitarianism, pescetarianism, vegetarianism, veganism) for health reasons, issues surrounding morality, or to reduce their personal impact on the environment, although some of the public assumptions about which diets have lower impacts are known to be incorrect.[3] Raw foodism is another contemporary trend. These diets may require tuning or supplementation such as vitamins to meet ordinary nutritional needs.

The conclusion? A caloric deficit is the sole cause of fat loss. Even if those calories come from the shittiest sources known to mankind, fat will STILL be lost. It’s not the source or the quality of those foods and the calories they provide… it’s the total quantity of it all. (Additional details here: Is Sugar Bad For You? How Much Should You Eat A Day?)

×