I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I’m pretty sure that nearly all of the various weight loss theories, diets, fads, and beliefs fall under four primary categories:
The Calorieists
The calorieists believe that body fat is regulated purely by surpluses and deficits of energy. If you take in more than you burn off, then you gain fat. If you take in less than you burn off, then you lose fat. Plain and simple. Because both common sense and an endless array of short-term studies show that this is true, the calorieists feel that science is firmly on their side, or that they are firmly on the side of science. Calorieism is notoriously defended with arrogance and vicious condescension when met with contradiction of any sort.Ironically, it’s science and long-term studies that show how short-sighted and incomplete the calories in calories out model of body fat regulation really is. Manipulating energy surpluses and deficits forcefully with either diet or exercise will result in temporary changes in weight, but it also results?in?extensive bodily compensation for the change?in energy balance, making forced calorie manipulation ultimately a fruitless strategy for the vast majority of those who attempt to rely upon it for permanent fat loss. More comprehensive studies?reveal the dark side of calorieism, showing not only futility when it comes to?lasting weight loss, but psychological, emotional, and metabolic harm as a frequent?end?result.
The Qualityists
Qualityists believe that if you change what you are eating to include more wholesome foods’that your weight will gravitate towards a healthy range automatically.There are many qualities to’the iconic health foods: fruits, vegetables, legumes, lean protein–that result in higher satiety scores, meaning that people feel full after eating fewer calories. These qualities include lower palatability, higher water content, higher fiber content, and other qualities that, at the end of it all, result in food with a lower calorie density. There are other complex factors at play as well that are too complex to discuss here, but overall this point of view has great scientific credibility. While people may eat fewer calories when eating a nutritious diet, and this diet may be equal in calories to someone losing weight by?counting calories, I do believe there is a fundamental difference psychologically and metabolically to losing weight while feeling full as?opposed to losing weight and feeling hungry. That’s why I’ve endorsed the book Forever Fat Loss as well as’spent time discussing this with obesity researcher Stephan Guyenet. But I do feel the?qualityists are missing something, namely?how unrealistic it is to attempt to eat a perfectly clean diet in a society that doesn’t eat that way. For most, it’s not sustainable, and it can make restricted foods all the more attractive and fuel binge eating behavior. Not for everyone, but that is definitely a common reaction to trying to eat a puritanical diet.
The Hormonalists
The hormonalists are those that step outside of calories completely and start looking at the hormonal triggers of fat storage. This includes the low-carbers (insulin is the enemy), the anti-estrogenists (estrogen is bad m’kay), and others. While the anti-insulinists are wrong about many tenets that have been grandfathered into the low-carb movement as fact (when indeed they aren’t the least bit factual), there are some highly sophisticated hormonalists out there. I consider myself to be one of them, as hormones such as leptin and a bunch of molecules and biochemicals you’ve never heard of are hormonal controllers of energy balance in the body. I’m unaware of any research that denies or contradicts this. The basic position of hormonalists is that human beings have differences in fat cell size, number, appetite, fat storage, desire for physical activity, etc., and that hormonal differences between individuals is primarily responsible. This is an easily-observable truth, as you can go pretty much anywhere in the United States and similar countries and see an assortment of absurdly lean people ordering the same thing off of the same menu at the same ghetto chain restaurant as the morbidly obese people sitting next to them. It’s also easy to observe that young people are lean eating a lot and as they get older they eat less and get fat due to a variety of hormonal changes that occur with aging. To say that weight regulation is all about conscious food choices is an utter absurdity for those with two eyes and an ability to use them. The fact that females have a higher bodyfat percentage than males the world over should be another sign of complete irrefutability that hormones play a dominant role in bodyweight distribution.
The Metabolists
I’m obviously a metabolist as well as a hormonalist, and really, the two are interchangeable since ultimately it is hormones that control metabolic rate, and metabolic rate that has a huge impact on bodyweight distribution and obesity-proneness. As anyone here has experienced I’m sure, the ability to gain weight eating to appetite drops in direct proportion to?a rise in?body temperature–one strong indicator of your metabolic rate on a pound-for-pound basis (total basal metabolic rate is an irrelevant and misleading figure, as the bigger people are, the lower their mass-specific metabolic rate as a general rule, and the higher their basal metabolic rate, making it seem that big people have higher metabolic rates when the opposite is true). The lower your body temperature, usually the easier it is to gain fat. As body temperature rises, fat gain slows down and eventually stops altogether almost regardless of what or how much you are eating. Much research is needed here.
If I were an obesity research scientist I would put all my focus on studying the hormones, body composition, fat cell count and size, and resting metabolic rates of infants after performing various metabolic interventions on the parents prior to conception and during pregnancy and lactation. That’s ultimately where I think the battle of the bulge will be won–basically figuring out what makes some people fat proof even in the modern world (naturally lean people), and trying to intervene before children are even born and during the first two years of life’to prevent obesity-proneness. Sadly, I think there is more promise in this area of research than any other, yet research here is extremely scarce. The limited research I’ve seen suggests that linoleic and arachidonic acid levels in the mother’s tissues and breast milk could be primary determinants of obesity-proneness. Anyway, that was?a fun exercise. Hopefully it makes for good discussion and a good summary.
About the Author
Matt Stone is an independent health researcher, author of more than 15 books, and founder of 180DegreeHealth. He is best known for his research on metabolic rate and its central role in many health conditions as well as his criticisms of extreme dieting. You can read more of his work in over 500 free articles on the site or in his books HERE.
I don’t think there is any “calorieist” out there that thinks it’s only the number of calories you eat that determines how much fat/weight you’ll lose or gain. The amount of calories you burn through your basic metabolism (obese people actually burn more calories than skinny ones with the same level of activity)and the quantity of exercise is essential in determining whether you are running a calorie surplus or deficit. Nor I’m sure is there any calorieist that would deny that kids generally burn more calories than a 70 year old adult. So I’m not really sure what the point of this post is as you’ve simply set up a straw man and knocked him down. Sorry…
No, calorieists don’t believe that it’s only the food we eat that determines bodyweight, which is why I made sure to mention that it wasn’t ONLY food consumption that determined this “equation.” Really where the division lies is between those who believe that calorie balance is mostly up to voluntary controls (how much we decide to consume and burn), vs. involuntary controls (how much we want to eat, how much we want to exercise, how many calories we burn at rest, how much fidgeting we do, etc. etc.).
But if you want to pretend that I built a strawman and that I only mentioned the calories in side of the equation so that you can be dismissive about the entire article for your own personal convenience, then hey, knock yourself out.
Nice article! Appreciate the breakdown of the different theories. Obviously we need this type of discussion to figure out why none of the theories have been able to fix our current rise in obesity despite more tools, food options and incentives to not be obese. There are so many variables to consider, but the most interesting are the people that make significant effort (Do ers) and that are unsuccessful vs. the people that don’t make significant effort (Settlers). Many of the Doers are successful accomplished people that are not use to failing. Unfortunately, we seem to group all weight issues as the same, but obviously there are deep seeded mechanisms that go beyond our current understanding. Thanks again for the article and thoughts.
Oh, I know many that ONLY talks about kcal in/out. That laugh out loud at those who speak about metabolism – “haha does not matter, it’s kcal in/out that counts in all cases, even if your body demands less” (not thinking about hunger or energy less nutrition deficiency when not needing enough kcal to keep normal sized).
But those people are not seen in health groups in FB or so, they are seen in internet communities that are about whatever but health. People not interested, know nothing.
Hi Matt,
I read you “12 Myths” and really loved it. I have autoimmune thyroid disease and was experimenting with paleo. Your book helped explain what was going haywire with my body.
My comment at the moment is just that – when you talk about mother’s breast milk, I just think what’s being left out is the vast number of babies fed formula. That must have an impact, too.
I agree, research suggests it does. Leptin may play a role, and other hormones. The delivery mode matters, bottle feeding, regardless of it containing formula or mothers milk, increases the risk of obesity. So does a Cesarean section, maybe due to the change of gut flora. Of course formula also changes gut flora and if mom has an unhealthy gutflora it also has an impact.
I know it’s been a year…but I just wanted to say that I think stress is truly the biggest factor. The fact that babies that are bottle fed or c-section are more likely to be obese seems to me a product of stress. I know we love all the detailed science and nutrition facts but I think stress is the biggest predictor of eating habits and metabolism and I think it is very stressful for a baby and a mom to bottle feed and go through c-section. The oxytocin is lacking in both cases and the hormones that are produced from natural, unmedicated birth and immediate and lasting breastfeeding relationship. Case in point: I was determined to only breastfeed my second child for 8 months because I felt doing it for 2+ years with my first drained my body of every nutrient. However, now that he is a year, I can’t get myself to stop breastfeeding. The stress of ending that incredibly intimate and nourishing relationship is more than I am willing to let go of. Luckily, after finding Diet Recovery 3 months ago I have faith I can eat myself through another couple of years of nursing without being drained again.
Just wanted to say that after 9 years of parenting, including 6 years of breastfeeding 2 kids, I completely agree with you. I bf my first for 3 years and last year at 8 she started gaining a ton of fat. I bf my second also for 3 years and he is stick skinny at 5. My daughter has had a very stressful life, much more then my son and she has always had a low bbt. My son is a little furnace. My son prefers meat and fruit and my daughter prefers carbs and dairy. I dont know if her obesity is stress related, genetic (husbands mother and sister are hugely obese, my side is thin), hormonally connected (she’s beginning puberty), or just access to high calorie food. I do think stress matters but I think we all react differently to it. I react to it by worrying, cleaning and exercising which makes me skinny. She reacts with overeating, blaming, biting her nails and watching videos, never being physically active. Ayurveda says we have different constitutions, she earth and me air. I like that explanation albeit not very scientific.
Hi Matt!
Great post and thank God for your smart brain
What about the Gut Bacteria-ists? Like your best mate Richard N… Or the Genetic Theorists (thrifty genes and stuff)?
And the exercisists – that believe that irrespective of diet, unless you exercise you won’t get thin.
Exercisists are still part of the calorieist camp. You can eat as much as you want if you burn it all off. It’s kind of true until you sprain an ankle and gain 30 pounds.
Genetic theorists fall somewhere in the hormonalists and metabolists camps. Gut Bacteria-ists fall into mostly the calorieist group, but of course believe that gut bacteria have hormonal and metabolic effects as well, which is true.
I think also adding to the mix is the idea that we have ‘enjoyed’ two to three generations with reduced selective pressure (as in natural selection) from bacterial (antibiotics) and viral (vaccinations) infections.
Not having two such effective limiters of the population (particularly limiting the less robust infants and children) means that weaker individuals are surviving to pass on genes. That has to have an effect on the robustness (particularly metabolic) of the populations that have had the most access to antibiotics and vaccinations.
That’s a factor, but I don’t think it’s one that factors into obesity specifically that much. We’ve definitely watered down our health with these great medical inventions though. Always a trade off when you try to cheat nature.
Nice summary. I’m currently trying Forever Fat Loss, but I’m an emotional eater, and after five weeks, there hasn’t been a single day in which I’ve been 100% compliant. It’s rough.
You’ll become a non-emotional eater if you will eat the food when you are hungry. Whatever the food is…and with self talk that says all food is good food and useful for my body. No shaming for choices of food. It may take many months or years to become a completely non-emotional eater, but you will see a difference in a few weeks or months by comparison to now. Go that route and don’t look back. It’s a journey and you will have much more fun with your life if you start now to just eat the food.
Oh, perfection never helped anyone become a better person. Let go of being perfect at eating and it will be easier to let go of attempts to be perfect in other areas of your life. You will always be an imperfectly perfect human. Just be. Forgive yourself, too.
I would recommend women,food and God by Geneen Roth which is not just for women and isn’t about God, more about emotional eating. Explaining and advising. I’ve found it useful.
Fascinating post, especially the idea that the real money in preventing obesity may be research aimed at prenatal and newborn nutrition. I would add that another factor (based solely on observation) is the amount of daily activity and play kids get. As you know from your Carbondale years, you pretty much can’t find an overweight kid in the Colorado ski towns. We split time between Denver and Steamboat. The kids in Steamboat are riding their bikes everywhere, skinny as kids on the streets of India and eating the same junk food (Food Ninjas) as kids in Denver, who are fatter and usually getting driven somewhere. This exercise effect does not seem to be as potent however in adults for whatever reason. tx
There’s no doubt that sedentarism is a big factor in bodyweight distribution. In fact, of the voluntary controls, it’s probably the biggest factor. But there are also many involuntary controls of physical activity as well, which is why kids are so much more active than the elderly. Again, that points more to hormonal/metabolic differences, not laziness.
Clicked on the link for Forever Fat Loss and nearly peed my pants when I saw a pic of the author. I’ll take your endorsement for him Matt because I trust your opinion, but are you sure he can empathise with us ‘voluptuous’ types who still eat pretty clean but still can’t lose weight???
Haha. I think so. There’s a lot of good info in there that has nothing to do with eating as well. Overall it’s definitely decent.
Well I do strongly believe in calories, but not that it it the only factor at all. It’s a complex total of psychology, genes, hormones and environment (the food industry being part of that). But lowering calories does cause weight loss.. it’s a blunt but effective short-range weapon, but there might be some collateral damage (especially if wielded way too wildly) which needs to be addressed. It’s a short term “solution” (band-aid) for a long term problem (wound). IMO.
Hi Matt,
You state that:’The lower your body temperature, usually the easier it is to gain fat’. Makes sense. In your opinion, if this doesn’t work for you, there’s (likely) something the matter other than just problematic eating habits? (I’m skinny and have low body temperature. Eating a lot.)
I wonder if there is a correlation between rates of breastfeeding and the recently publicized leveling, or perhaps slow down in rates of childhood obesity…
Another factor that likely ought to be considered is the formula used over the years; fat content, type of fat, and such. It will be interesting to see what happens with childhood obesity rates once people get back on the saturated fat bandwagon…because that could happen.
Over the years formula just keeps getting higher and higher in linoleic acid. They are now talking about making formula 20% corn oil. Same with human breast milk. Both could easily be lowered in the content of linoleic acid and both would be a lot healthier for babies in terms of obesity-resistance than they are currently. This quote from a very scientific source speaks volumes about what is wrong with our whole food chain (5-7 times the linoleic acid content of cow’s milk!):
“Essential fatty acids lineoleic and alpha lineolinic acid play a crucial role in neurodevelopment. Approximately 5-7% of total calories in human milk and 1% of total calories in cow milk is lineoleic acid. The amount of lineoleic acid considered adequate is controversial but it in generally agreed it should not be more than 20%. For this reason all cow milk based formulas add vegetables oil (containing relatively large amounts of lineoleic and lineolinic) to their preparations. Most commercial infant formulas contain at least 10% of total fatty acids as lineoleic acid.”
I pray for the day that infant formula and human breast milk alike contain 1% linoleic and %1 linolenic instead of this batshit crazy 20%, 10% racket.
My feeling is that they are all right in one way but also wrong at the same time. The body weight regulation system is probably so complex that it can’t be understood completely and that there are probably thousands of factors involved, each changing from day to day, or moment to moment.
It is interesting to read about things like leptin though…
I have found that any period of forced calorie restriction longer than a day or two results in a pretty dramatic series of negative changes. Even a few days will bring my body temp down, my skin will become dry, I will be exhausted, tired and depressed. Chronic fatigue basically. But after going back to eating as much as I want 3 meals a day, but without snacks, I find my calorie intake can go lower then when I restrict food intentionally, but strangely enough without the negative side effects.
I have read about how leptin can have strange effects, ie you can eat lots of calories but if your not sensitive enough to leptin your body can think it’s starving and tank your metabolic rate or alternately you can eat a small amount but if your body ‘senses’ it’s getting enough the metabolism is still cranking.
Either way I think it’s interesting that I can eat the same amount of calories under different circumstances but with dramatically different results, depending on what my body probably thinks is happening.
Amen Big Guts. Complex enough that I become quite suspicious of those confident that they’ve found the answer. And stellar observation about how powerful your perception is when it comes to your metabolic reaction to X number of calories. That’s the biggest drawback in clean eating, as many will instantly manifest deprivation physiology when they create no-no foods.
All these theories have one thing in common: it’s good to loose weight/you’re prettier/healthier when you loose weight;
Weight loss theories? I say fuck it! (thanks Caroline Haagen for thefuckitdiet.com)
To be more precise ;-)
Why loose weight?
Why do you want to become “natural” slim?
Thank god, there are more people who refuse to be refuse the norm of being skinny:
http://nypost.com/2014/08/12/fatkini-body-awareness-campaign-floods-social-media/
find more on this on Twitter: #fatkini
Thank god, there are more people who refuse the norm of being skinny:
http://nypost.com/2014/08/12/fatkini-body-awareness-campaign-floods-social-media/
find more on this on Twitter: #fatkini
I’m not as interested in weight loss, because the vast majority of people who attempt to do something to lose weight end up not only failing at losing weight, but compromising their mental, emotional, and physical well-being doing so while making themselves even fatter than if they had not fought it.
Also, most of the research points to the causes of obesity taking place in the prenatal period and the first few years of life, so anything done after that has less of a point.
But I do think that excess fatness is not ideal from a health standpoint, not fun (even aside from the aesthetic concerns people may have, I’m just talking functionality), is a new phenomenon, and it has a cause.
Not to take anything away from Caroline. Surely you must know what a big fan of hers that I am. But people who say fuck it and swell up to 300 pounds are always going to be unsatisfied on some level, just like people carrying around suitcases full of bricks are always going to wish they could put them down and walk without them. Nomesayin?
You forgot the IF-ers! Although i suppose you can fit them into the Hormonalists, because intermittent fasting attempts to play with leptin, ghrelin, glucagon, insulin and HGH.
There’s also group we might call the chronologists, who believe food should be precisely timed, like pre/post workout, carb backloading, carb cycling, any macro cycling, eat every X hours, don’t eat before/after X o’clock, breakfast should be biggest meal, dinner should be biggest meal, etc.
Also, the metabolists are divided between Peat-atarians, who believe fructose or sucrose should be the main calorie source, and the Matt Stone-erians, who believe starch should be the main source.
Man i can talk about this till the grass-fed pastured cows come home…
I wouldn’t say that I believe starch is superior to sugar. I encourage free experimentation with the relative ratios of starch to sugar.
I fall in the gut bacteria-ist camp after I experienced a profound transformation brought about by cleaning up my gut. Last year I discovered fermentation evangelist Sandor Katz, a late stage AIDS patient who recovered his vitality through fermented foods, and after a good worming I then started consuming incredible amounts of homemade fermented foods (sauerkraut, beet kvass, raw milk kefir). Once my gut was populated by the correct commensal bacteria, 40 pounds of baby weight (although 5 years after the birth of my son can it really be called baby weight?) shed effortlessly. No longer did it seem that a million little voices inside me were crying out for their food of choice: sweets, bread and processed crap. I developed a ‘sour’ tooth and was no longer tormented/preoccupied by my sweet tooth. For the first time in my life, my weight reached homeostasis. I can fast effortlessly for a day. I can finally trust my cravings because it’s what my body truly needs. I am no longer suffering from my monthly sinus infections and haven’t recalled the last time I was sick, probably because as much as 80% of the immune system resides in the gut. Also, no free floating anxiety, probably due to the whole gut-immune-brain axis. The blind men are feeling around the elephant and arguing that it’s ears (calories), a tail (hormones), a trunk (Qualityists), etc. The elephant is the GUT and the trillion organisms that comprise it.
Hi Matt,
From recently talking to top biophysics scientists about this , the biggest thing people such as Lyle McDonald, Colpo and CarbSane cannot counter or grasp is that:
The chemical energy from food is relevant and necessary to fuel us- to grow tall or grow fatter.,BUT NOT SUFFICIENT. Extremely important point..
We need good nutrition to fuel growth to get tall- BUT ONLY those with the GENES to grow tall will actually get very tall. The same is true with obesity. Fat cell creation is most definitely a regulated process stressed the scientists. Genes have a monumental say in who gets to be Manuel Uribe size.
The word “energy” is the most abused and EXPLOITED term in all of science said the physicists and biophysicists to me. Cranks are always using it.
The human body derives its energy from the chemical energy contained in the chemical bonds of the food we digest and CONVERTS it into heat, kinetic energy and thought. It mixes it with oxygen to give us energy and power us.
There is no such thing as a “scientific law.” Journalists use this erroneous term all the time. Laws in science do not mean what they mean in society. “Scientific Principle” is more accurate. These “laws” are useful and they work reliably. That is the ONLY reason they are used. many laws in the past have been modified , amended or even shown wrong. Nothing is immutable in science. There is nothing sacrosanct. It is very, very, very well accepted among physicists that there is PLENTY of physics we do not understand yet, nor can we measure it. There is physics wellll beyond what we currently know. Black Hole observations show us this, as do recent observations of rogue planets which were sling shot at tremendous speeds ( over a million miles per hour) traveling through space. We did not know this about gravity.
This is the point CarbSane et al are completely shut down by the scientists:
“The first law of thermodynamics, or the conservation of energy principle, does NOT “require” that excess calories get converted to fat. Converting excess calories to fat and then storing fat is SOMETHING THE BODY MUST ACTIVELY DO. It is NOT something that will just happen automatically in the absence of anything else being done with those calories.(chemical energy)
The starch versus sugar thing is funny. I used to suffer from ‘brain fog’ until I included more sugar in my diet. Often if I get that spaced out, vague feeling after eating it means that either
a) it’s been to long since I’ve eaten a meal and my brain sort of shuts down, or
b) I didn’t eat enough, or
c) there wasn’t enough sugar in the meal, possibly too much fat at the expense of sugar (i.e I ate bacon and eggs with toast) but it usually clears up with a glass of orange juice or whatever.
Usually it’s c).
Not a lot of sugar is necessary I’ve found but important for clear thinking and feeling relaxed.
I find that just about EVERYONE does better with some of both, with wildly varying proportions from way high sugar:starch to way high starch:sugar. Complete exclusion of one or the other doesn’t usually work out well for most that I’ve encountered. I’m split on it because I feel benefits and drawbacks to high sugar (improved sex drive, body odor, physical energy, and digestion but greater emotional instability and tendency to gain fat easier) and benefits and drawbacks to high starch (greater satiation/satisfaction, much calmer mood, tendency to lose fat easier).
I think you missed one of the weight loss belief groups, I would call them “The Emotionalists”. This is the group that think excess weight is a representation of emotional baggage and losing weight is an epic journey of self-knowledge. Oprah popularized this tangent and people still believe that obesity is a representation of psychological failings. I don’t know if serious nutritionists still buy into it, but it still permeates popular thinking. I guess the question is whether people are using cognitive therapy to aid in weight loss.
True. I think you did bust me somewhat Nira, although people that have made serious cases for the role of emotions in weight distribution point to hormonal changes due to the emotions that could favor fat storage. The Cortisolists! And it’s a factor for some individuals no doubt. It’s unreal how many people report gaining weight with new jobs, divorces, death in the family, etc. etc. to infinity.
My own mother for example has gained 20 pounds over the last 10 years. She gained 10 pounds in a single month twice without noticing any changes in her eating. Both were during the first month of starting a new job. The other 118 months during that timespan she’s been perfectly weight stable. She eats at McDonald’s every day and hardly drinks anything besides full sugar Coca Cola and does ZERO exercise. Her diet and lifestyle doesn’t make her gain weight, but stress surely does.
I gained ten pounds of tubby over 4 weeks after I geeked out and read all of your books in the span of a few days. That was in Feb. this year. The weirdest thing is for the first time in my life, I cannot CANNOT loose weight, no matter what I try, since I put on that 10 lbs. It’s cemented onto my body. SO WEIRD. My body is doin’ it’s own thing, and I wish I understood it.
Me too! But I have put on about 20 lbs that won’t budge. I have decreased calories, increased my activity level by doing lots of yard work and walking, and went on a vacation that involved lots of hiking. Nada. At first I put on the weight after reading Matt’s stuff and then tried to follow Ari’s stuff and put on more. Maybe it’s my age though, I’m almost 50. Still, I hate not being able to fit into my clothing and feeling so heavy. Last summer I could hike so much faster and for longer. 20 pounds later, my feet hurt more and I just couldn’t muster the strength to get to the passes like a year ago. Feeling very frustrated.
This is for Celine:
I was in the same boat, with my energy gone and my fitness at the lowest level of my life. I started instituting very small, sustainable changes (getting up early and doing 15 minutes of strength trainin–kettlebells, bodyweight, pilates, eating salads for lunch, having a high protein smoothie for breakfast, smaller portions at dinner) and have seen a slow reversal. The weight is coming off and most importantly I have energy again. I don’t hate movement like I did for a while. These things I did were simple and sustainable. I’m only 90% compliant. I cut myself slack on the week-ends and don’t feel deprived. Even though exercise is the smaller factor in weight loss, compared to diet, sometimes it’s best to focus on it. Focus on improvements in strength over obsessing about body composition. As you gain strength you will loose fat and gain energy.
Miss Thang, I understand your frustration, I am a Trainer and Nutritionist, currently in the process of obtaining my Functional Diagnostic Nutrition Cert, I have read and support all of Matts books as well as MANY more (over 25 different Hardcopy Paleo/Primal books and 27 different Paleo/Primal Ebooks , not to mention my other various nutrition books, from Paleo to Vegan and everything in between), I have been researching, educating and working in this field, Changing bodies and looking for the truth in all the BS, for the last 21 years now. If you need help, as Im sure Matt Stone is a busy man, I am willing to assist you at no cost, I am willing to do this in order to get more people to understand how to REALLY lose body fat and become healthy, using what works long term, not “What works” short term, instead of being confused by all the pseudoscience Dogma being pushed out there today, it can be a confusing and frustrating area. If you really need help and are sick of not “getting it”, or not understanding what to do to lose body fat, let me know, via email, at nick.west77@me.com, (Facebook works great too) anyone else who reads this and needs help, feel free to do the same, I fully support and use all of Matt Stones work, he is a pioneer in this field, a modern day Heretic willing to go counter to “Conventional Wisdom” ( an Oxymoron at best), which is why I like his books and blog. like him, I too have trouble thinking INSIDE the box.
Matt stone, have you watched PHD author Paul Jaminet’s recent AHS presentation on obesity? He has some very interesting thoughts on the subject – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLwzoolfXQE&list=UUSIUpXeC1QEjNm54X7KylkQ
matt, on a completely different topic but kind of the same :) would LOVE for you to write an article on your thoughts/findings/research on the world of intermittent fasting, like leangains and the such, there are many people who prescribe by this lifestyle and i have yet to hear you atlk about metabolism and body composition and fasting… thanks for reading!
Ari Whitten wrote something about that on one of his facebook sites. He has 2 facebook sites (one is a fanpage where he mostly seem to post) but I can’t remember which one it was. Anyway, he says that IF doesn’t really help. I read up alot on IF also…. Anyway, though there are some differences between Matt and Ari, they seem fairly tight in their attitudes and approaches to health.
Matt, I think you missed a big theory… the naturalists. These are the ones focused on not eating unconsciously or emotionally, but naturally in response to hunger and taste.
Representative books:
Diets Don’t Work
Diets STILL Don’t Work (possibly the best of all of them)
Eat What You Love, Love What You Eat
The Gabriel Method (he mixes this with Qualityism)
I Can Make You Thin
Eat.Q.
P.S. I’ve been trying Ari’s Forever Fat Loss, and got nowhere ? couldn’t do anything to stop my bingeing until I started using the Naturally Thin rules in Diets STILL Don’t Work and I Can Make You Thin. Now it’s working for me, but is it still Forever Fat Loss, or is it Naturally Thin with NEAT and sleep?
Anyway, for my money, the Naturalist school is likely the winner.
I like it Jon. That’s a great comment, and the naturalists–or instinctivists as I might call them, of which I am one in part, definitely provide an important piece of the puzzle.
@Matt Instinctivists! Ha! I like that!
@Ann, Right you are. I had moderate success in the past with Gabriel and I Can Make You Thin… Had forgotten about it until hitting the wall with Ari’s whole-fool qualityism. Then I realized that this “naturalist” school is really the only thing that’s taken from the natural eating patterns of almost everyone in the world until they’re old enough to develop an eating dysfunction. Most very young children can say, “No, I’m not hungry.” Getting back to that after years, it’s amazing how many times during the day I actually don’t even know if I’m hungry or not. But slowly, the skill seems to be returning, and damn, effortlessly. Matt will probably count “naturalism” as “calorieism”? physically it’s similar, but there’s something going on that’s different.
At any rate, it figures to be the easiest to sustain, because it’s taken from life habits of literally hundreds of millions who sustain it effortlessly throughout their lives.
Red Ari’s book, and then started having nightmares of not eating all my homemade pasta, bread, pizza, cake, pancakes, venetian pastries, cookies; not eating my experimental homemade asian food; not using spices; thought of all the misery I would be put through; and realized that it was probably impossible for me to try to eat fruit, veggies, and protein everyday all day. I also just can’t seem to eat very much fruit even if I try, I mean I can eat fruit with cereal or eat an apple or a banana, or make a fruit smoothie, or drink orange juice, but I can’t go downtown on fruit when I want something sweet. I also keep accidentally putting my steamed veggies inside canelones, sorrentinos, or raviolis with ricotta and topping them with meat sauce and cheese. And for some reason my quincy’s keep turning into jam or fruit loaves and eaten with soft cheese.
I love this.. you really made me laugh.. Thank You!
I still liked Ari’s book and I like what he’s about, I just couldn’t eat that way.
Obesity is a poly-factorial disease with many different inputs required – genetics, circadian rhythms, calories, microbiome, metabolic rate, micronutrient status, sleep, stress etc.
Paul makes this case very well and argues that some inputs are actually health enhancing, for example a high calorie nutrient dense diet is health enhancing. So reducing calories will help you lose weight because it’s reducing one of those ‘inputs’ but it does so at the expense of your health – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLwzoolfXQE&list=UUSIUpXeC1QEjNm54X7KylkQ
As a previous chef who is now an MD, i would say, based on observation, more than fact, that enjoying your food immensely is much more important for your health than being a certain bodyweight or bodyfat percentage. That is why Matt Stone’s recipe ebook is much more important than any diet specific books which purport to tell you how to lose weight or look differently. Food is really important and fun. Exercising outdoors is also. Both together seem to make people happy and then they live a long time. tx wade
Where is Matt’s recipe book??? I can’t seem to find it anywhere! Thanks!
So, what is one to do? How does this translate to daily life in terms of eating and exercise?
Good post, thanks