I received an email the other day that sums up how popular diet/fitness misinformation can leave people frustrated, upset, angry and eventually to flat out give up on the idea of getting in shape.

So the email went something like this:

“I just read your book and it says my RMR is approx 1250 calories. I want to lose 2lbs per week because that is supposed to be a realistic weight loss goal…but to do that you say you have to create a 1000 calorie deficit each day, that means I can only eat 250 calories per day…but I also heard that you should never eat below 1200 calories per day…so how is this possible?!”

What is a realistic weight loss goal?

Of course I’m paraphrasing and this is not the exact words, but this is a very typical email I get every week.

There are a few different flaws and fallacies in this statement…did you notice them? If not, I’ll show you.

Fallacy #1. There is no scientific proof that 2lbs per week of weight loss is a safe or realistic goal that all adults humans can or should expect to achieve. This is a claim based on FTC advertising standards. You only hear this number because marketers aren’t allowed to say any more by law. If they could the number would likely be 10lbs per week. That doesn’t make it any more or less correct, because neither number is based on scientific evidence.

A 6’5 260lbs man can easily expect to lose up to even 4lbs per week, however a 5’1 woman is hardly in the same position. Instead of setting a weight loss goal based on poundage (ie: 1lbs, 2lbs, 3lbs per week) you should be looking at it as a percentage of your bodyweight.

A 6’0 tall man who weights 220lbs with a RMR of approximately 2000 cals/day could easily create a 1000 calorie deficit each day by cutting his calories to 1500/day and burning an additional 500 calories in a good hard workout (mix of weights and cardio).

1500 is still plenty of calories to feel relatively satisfied while still creating a fair sized deficit to facilitate a significant weekly weight loss.

Also 2lbs of weight loss represents less than 1% of his total bodyweight.

Now change the person to a 5’1 woman with an RMR of 1250 calories. She would have to eat around 750 calories per day as well as burning off an additional 500 in the gym. This is starting to sound more like torture than a reasonable diet plan.

The fallacy is that 2lbs is a good target for all body sizes…it is not. Smaller people have smaller metabolisms and shouldn’t expect to lose as much total weight as a bigger person. It would be more realistic for her to shoot for 1lbs of weight loss which would only require a 500 calorie daily deficit…this could be achieved with a much more reasonably daily calorie intake around 1000 calories with a 250 calorie burn from a workout. Doesn’t that sound much more realistic?!

Fallacy #2: 1200 calories is the minimum you should eat in a day

I don’t know where this number comes from and I will be spending some time in the near future looking it up. However based on the RDI and RDA for nutrients the actual lower limit for calories (when you add up the individual recommendations for protein, carbs and fats) comes out to around 800 calories per day for women and 900 for men. So even according to the RDA you can easily eat well below 1200 and get your daily requirements of protein carbs and fats.

These two false assumptions are leading many people down a path of frustration and weight loss failure.

Setting realistic weight loss goals is the first step to success.

Letting go of your fear of eating less food is the second step.

Once you realize it’s ok to eat a bit less food then you will start to see things really change.

John

I was having a good discussion about calories in vs out the other day and someone made a statement that really struck me. We were discussing the common reaction of shock and disbelief when people realize how low their BMR really is and how few calories they really need on a daily basis to lose weight.

Do you really think the bigger burger will allow you to enjoy life more than the smaller one?

We then started to discuss that this refusal to accept the truth about our calorie needs (and how low they really are) is at the root of why people fall for diet scams that promise you to be able to eat as much food as you want (as long as they’re the right kinds). Of course this style of dieting always fails because you’re never taught what is really responsible for weight loss (a caloric deficit).

At this point I asked what the big deal was about eating less and why it’s so unappealing that people will fight against it even in the face of sound logic and scientific evidence.

And then someone said this statement: “People fear eating less calories because they think it means they’re not going to enjoy life as much”

That’s pretty sad…it’s sad because it’s true.

Essentially calories, and food, and the unchecked ability to eat as much food as we like seems to be one of the only sources of enjoyment or pleasure in a persons life (this is sad).

So the concept of taking even a few calories away on a daily basis (say 500) sounds or feels like you’re literally taking away that persons ability to enjoy life or be happy.

Now think about that for a moment. If the happiness of your life comes down to the volume of calories you can eat in a day, then you’ve got some major work to do in all areas.

Yes food is important, it’s fun, it’s part of celebrations and social events and all of that stuff…but it shouldn’t be the sole source of your happiness. If you’ve got a well adjusted life and you’ve got your relationships, emotions, career, and finances in control, then food shouldn’t/won’t be your primary source of pleasure/escape/enjoyment.

Unfortunately many people don’t have their relationships, finances, career in shape, and one of the easiest ways to relieve the stress and pressure is to mass consume calories. So I guess from this standpoint it would suck to tell a person to eat less of them.

To me the root of most weight problems has nothing to do with nutrition and everything to do with getting the rest of your life in order. Once you start working on the other area’s of your life eating less food becomes much easier.

John

I was looking at the calorie counts on a few baked goods at panera bread the other day while trying to decide on what to eat. Many of the items were within 50 calories of each other but there were some big calorie bombs in there that were 200-300 calories higher.

Some of these items are double the calories of the others.

A 200 or 300 calorie difference is quite obvious and a no brainer if you’re trying to reduce calories. There is simply no hope of losing weight if you’re consistently making the highest calorie choices when you eat. But the real trick to getting really lean is also making the 50 calorie choice as well.

When it comes to losing weight every little bit counts, even the difference between a 200 calorie item or a 250 calorie item really matters. I know it doesn’t sound like much, but over the course if a few days and a few weeks these little decisions could add up to losing a pound of fat or not.

If you eat 3 times per day, and you find a way to cut out just 50 more calories each time, that is an extra 150 calorie deficit each day x 7 days that is already 1050 calories for the week…or a 3rd of a pound of fat. Add that to just an extra 15-20 minutes in the gym to burn an added 50 calories and it all starts to add up.

Once you understand the concept of calories in vs out and what your daily calorie needs are, the little things really do matter. This could be the difference between having sugar or sweetener in your coffee, or having milk vs cream in your coffee.

Even taking a fat burner can add a few extra calories to your daily burn. And all of it matters.

Weight loss is tough. Effectively dropping even 1 pound of fat in a week takes a daily effort. And it’s the little things that seem trivial that will end up determining if you get there or not.

We all tend to selectively forget some of the food we eat when we add up our daily intake. Making the effort to find the lower calorie choice in as many was as possible will always serve you well.

John

I just got back from Starbucks and I had one of the most revealing and shocking conversations with the Barista.

When I go to Starbucks I get a grande coffee misto with 1-pump of flavor shot.

Does this look more like a coffee or a milkshake

The flavor shot is approx 70 calories, and there is about 40-50 calories worth of milk, so overall my coffee is about 120 calories. That’s not bad and it’s a very satisfying morning creature comfort that I simply will no give up for any reason.

The interesting thing is that I have to specifically ask for 1-pump of flavor…the standard amount of flavor shots in a grande is 4-pumps…that means a grande with the ‘normal’ amount of flavor is approximately 300 calories (the venti usually has 5 shots for a total of 350 calories)

But that’s not the shocking part. I asked the Barista “what is the most flavor shot pumps you have put in a drink for someone?”…she told me that they have a regular customer who gets 10-pumps!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

That is 700 calories in one drink!

They also have other drinks that come with a standard 7-pumps of flavor, that’s approx 500 calories standard without asking for extra shots.

The flavor shot pumps we’re taking about deliver approximately 18 grams of sugar per pump.

Obviously the 10-pump drink person is an outlier, but the Barista told me it’s pretty normal for people to get the regular 4 or 5 pump drinks with whip cream and some chocolate or caramel topping, and they’ve got regulars who ask for their drinks ‘extra sweet’ which means an extra pump or two.

If you went to starbucks and got one of these drinks with a slice of banana bread or some other food item on the side you could easily be consuming 800-900 calories (and that is just a morning stop for a coffee and a treat!)

For most people that is almost half of their daily BMR right there, and I guarantee most starbuck goers don’t even consider their morning coffee stop as a ‘meal’.

I’m amazed that people can handle that much sweetness. I think my 1-pump is plenty sweet enough, I couldn’t imagine 4 (let alone 10!…10-pumps!…that’s approx 180grams of sugar in one drink…seriously WTF?!)

It seems that places like Startbucks are simply ice cream parlors masquerading as coffee shops.

They are essentially the socially acceptable place to mass consume cups of sugar, caramel, whip cream, and chocolate without feeling like you’re doing anything ‘wrong’.

Think about it, how many times per week does the average person stop at Dairy Queen for a milkshake or blizzard. If you did this every morning you’d be labeled unhealthy, a junk food/fast food addict etc…it just wouldn’t feel right.

BUT it’s perfectly normal to stop into a coffee shop every morning for a cup of sugar and fat that is essentially no different than a milkshake from DQ.

(the Barista even told me that they have a regular who comes in at 5am for a venti frappuccino…for anyone unfamiliar, a frappucino is essentially a milkshake with a shot of coffee added…about 550 calories)

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all ripping on Starbucks, in fact I love the coffee and choices they have. They’re not forcing anyone to order or drink anything they serve…that is purely a free choice of each customer…they’re just serving what people want, and apparently people want milkshakes (but without the social stigma of ordering a milkshake every day).

What I am doing is trying to show you how easy the calories can add up when it comes to drinks like coffee.

On one extreme you can get a plain black coffee which has zero calories. On the other end you’ve got these multi-flavored cappucino and latte offerings with multi-pump flavor shots, whip cream and syrup toppings etc.

The Social Perception of “Coffee”

Socially a plain black coffee and a frappucino or latte or cappucino are all considered ‘coffee’ to some degree, but when you break them down to their parts one of them has zero calories and the other can have as many calories as big mac from McDonalds!

So can you lose weight while drinking coffee?

Well that depends on what your definition of coffee is. If you’re the frappuccino/cappuccino quadruple pump whip cream drinker I’d guess that you’re going to have trouble losing weight.

On the other hand if you pay attention to the amount of calories you’re adding to your coffee then you can easily add these tasty drinks to an effective weight loss program.

The disturbing point is that a 4-pump 350 calorie drink is ‘normal’ and my 1-pump 100 calorie drink is the exception to the rule.

John

In light of the media exposure and proclaimed “twinkie diet” that professor Mark Haub was on the good food vs bad food debate rages on.

I firmly believe there is no such thing as a good or bad food if you don’t consider the dose. In other words you can achieve any lifestyle/fitness/body composition goal you want eating a mix of foods that include the so called ‘bad’ foods.

The only way to improve a Twinkie: Deep Fry it!

If you stop and think about all the foods that are considered ‘good’ and all the foods that are considered ‘bad’ you will quickly find out that one of the most consistent things about each group is their relative caloric density.

In other words, most foods that are considered ‘bad’ are very calorically dense (they are high in calories per gram), and the foods that are considered good largely end up being lower in caloric density (less calories per gram).

Could it be that the good and bad food people are really just trying to say ‘high’ vs ‘low’ caloric density foods?

If it’s not caloric density what could it be? Vitamin content? Mineral Content? Fiber? Fat (or lack thereof)? Some other yet discovered ‘phytonutrient’?

If this secondary list is what really makes a food good or bad then a multivitamin protein paste or bar would have to be considered the best food, but that doesn’t seem right does it?

I think the answer is food is just food, and all of it can have it’s place in any diet no matter what your goals are…even a Twinkie…and damn are they ever tasty!

But if I’m wrong can you let me know what you think the criteria should be for judging if a food should be deemed ‘good’ or ‘bad’?

John