Counting calories doesn't stop you sinking beers, of course. You just have to count them... Nor does it mean your target has to be 2500 calories day after day. It can be 2300 during the week and 3000 at the weekends. Just as effective.
Anyone who suggests their weight loss plan is the way that people have to try has already marked themselves out as a untrustworthy cove to be drowned out by copious use of an foghorn. Or worse. What works for individuals is very much a personality fit.
Ultimately, as discussed up thread, the theory is very simple: calorie intake < calories used. Or calories used > calorie intake - the semantic meaning is the same but the order used carries a nuance; the 'greater than' form implies increasing exercise as the key, and the 'less than' implies decreasing the amount consumed. Most successes are likely to be a mixture from column a and column b.
It doesn't matter how someone looking to lose weight achieves that inequality. Or the timeframe the intake/expenditure is averaged over. Or indeed that they know the ratio. Just that overall there is an inbalance in favour of the burn rate.
Anyone who suggests their weight loss plan is the way that people have to try has already marked themselves out as a untrustworthy cove to be drowned out by copious use of an foghorn. Or worse. What works for individuals is very much a personality fit.
Ultimately, as discussed up thread, the theory is very simple: calorie intake < calories used. Or calories used > calorie intake - the semantic meaning is the same but the order used carries a nuance; the 'greater than' form implies increasing exercise as the key, and the 'less than' implies decreasing the amount consumed. Most successes are likely to be a mixture from column a and column b.
It doesn't matter how someone looking to lose weight achieves that inequality. Or the timeframe the intake/expenditure is averaged over. Or indeed that they know the ratio. Just that overall there is an inbalance in favour of the burn rate.
Comment