Can you elaborate on the calorie deficit not working part? Because calorie deficit is pretty much the only way to lose weight as the body will make up that deficit by using it’s own fat stores.
Comment on [deleted]
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks agoMost vegetables are far less calorie dense than virtually all other foods. In addition, plants and fungi are high fiber foods. Fiber is well known to promote satiety, being a natural way to promote our own body’s expression of glp-1 hormones.
One of the biggest challenges in weight loss is that most people’s appetites are survival machinery evolved to avoid starvation at all costs in environments that may potentially be lacking in food - but we now live in an industrial environment that not only has removed all the ways we would normally get exercise naturally through physical labor; but has surrounded us at every angle by extremely calorie dense junk food that’s specifically formulated to be addictive and hijack that survival machinery.
Exercise is important but you can’t out-exercise a bad diet, and starvation (which is exactly what a calorie deficit is) does not work either. Any method that works has to be able to deal with our toxic food environment. That’s why the glp-1 drugs are popular even though they tend to plateau. And that’s why vegans tend to average the lowest body weight of any dietary group.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 2 weeks ago
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
It often doesn’t work in the sense that people try to achieve a calorie deficit by eating less, which causes their appetite to increase significantly. Many people are unable to resist overeating in our industrialized societies that constantly bombard us with addictive foods. So yes, a calorie deficit is necessary, but it’s also necessary to have a way to deal with appetite or else maintaining a calorie deficit becomes unsustainable.
That’s why plant-centric diets are a great choice - you can eat as much as you want to satiety, and still be able to lose weight.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 2 weeks ago
Fair point, i can see it from that perspective and yeah focusing on satiety is better alternative and more sustainable than just eating less, but still eating junk.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
So you’d need 4 stomachs full of vegies per day?
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Lulz. I would not recommend a diet made of purely vegetables for a prolonged period of time.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Ah btw, why do they group fruits and veggies together? Fruits are also relatively calories dense.
And also corn, wtf. Corn is potato and beans category.
While i agree with your point (exercise or not, you’d need to chanhe your meal lan to lose weight), that graphic has issues.
FishFace@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
It depends wildly on the fruit and vegetable. For example, cabbage is about 0.25 calories per gram but carrot is 0.36, and strawberries are 0.32. An apple is 0.5. (All numbers from Wolfram Alpha).
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Yeah I do agree about the fruits, that is a little strange. Fruit would probably sit somewhere between veggies and beans. Maybe they just average it?
I think it’s just the issue of trying to simplify things. You can endlessly get into the details and end up with a monstrously complicated and useless infographic that is technically accurate. For example, even in the category of vegetables alone - carrots are technically more like potatoes, but colloquially still seen as a vegetable. And corn, despite being a grain is nutritionally more on the starchy side making that also more like potatoes.
But if the graphic reflected all that, the basic idea would get lost.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Btw, where is pasta here?
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
In between meat and potatoes, beans, and rice.