eat less & move more
In order to lose fat, you need to eat less and move more. You need to start exercising. You need to move until your sweat glands are awoken from their seven-year slumber. You need to watch what you put into your body, too. Think twice before you high dive into that three-cheese nacho casserole you baked to heal every emotional wound you've ever suffered.
If you eat less and move more your body will be ready for beach season in short order… or so the story goes.
Unfortunately, “eat less and move more” is awful fat-loss advice, competing with single-ply toilet paper as humankind's biggest blemish.
Telling someone who wants to lose fat to eat less and move more is like being a basketball coach and telling your players the key to winning is scoring more points than the other team.
Duh.
There's a difference between a statement and a strategy.
“We won the game because we scored more points than the other team” is a true statement. That doesn't make “score more points than the other team” a good strategy. Likewise, “you need to eat less and move more to lose weight” is a true statement. That doesn't mean “eat less and move more” is a good strategy.
It's not.
If you want to know why and you're inclined to take advice from someone who eats sauerkraut and sardines for lunch, then keep reading…
“Eat less and move more” comes from (a somewhat incomplete understanding of) the Energy Balance Equation.
Our bodies need energy every second of every day to keep us alive. To satisfy this energetic need, we eat food; our bodies derive energetic material from food. When our energy feed exceeds our energy need, we accumulate stored energetic material. When our energy need exceeds our energy feed, we use (and thus, lose) stored energetic material.
Body fat is stored energetic material, which means losing fat follows the same formula as decreasing stored energetic material: You need a consistent energy deficit. The amount of energy your body needs must be greater than the amount of energy you feed, which will force your body to use previously stored energetic material.
Assuming you aren't currently losing weight, there are two ways to bias the Energy Balance Equation in your favor. First, increase the amount of energy your body needs. You can do this by moving around more. Second, decrease the amount of energy you feed your body. You can do this by eating less.
And thus, you get flat-headed nerf herders saying, “FAT LOSS IS EASY ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS EAT LESS AND MOVE MORE.”
Good intentions.
But dumb.
Because the Energy Balance Equation is like a Transformer:
It doesn’t understand why Megan Fox keeps injecting fillers into her face. No. Wait. That’s not right. Here’s what I meant to say: The Energy Balance Equation is more than meets the eye. Much like those early 90's MagicEye pictures, you need to squint your eyes and look past the flat two-dimensional world you initially see.
The answer to all of your problems is hidden within this MagicEye picture.
When first confronted with the Energy Balance Equation, it's easy to expect it to behave rather mechanically, like a car. There's output/need, which is the amount of fuel it takes you to idle and drive around. There's input/feed, which is the amount of fuel you accumulate at the gas station. There's storage/excess, which is the amount of fuel inside of your tank and any red canisters you happen to have in your trunk.
Body fat is excess fuel. Losing fat means having less excess fuel relative to a precise moment in time. If you want less excess fuel tomorrow, you have to either drive around more than you usually do or fill your tank less than you usually do.
Makes sense.
Until it doesn't.
Squint your eyes.
1
Lose muscle mass?
The Energy Balance equation says [energy need] > [energy feed] results in a decrease of stored energetic material. This is true. Unfortunately, this doesn't guarantee fat loss.
You have other forms of stored energetic material, of which muscle mass is included. In other words, when [energy need] > [energy feed], your body can break down and use muscle mass to cover the spread.
The good news is body fat is your body's default form of stored energetic material. The better news is there are ways to encourage fat loss instead of muscle loss during a calorie deficit. Of course, after good news and better news, you should expect bad news. If you're a flathead with a two-dimensional understanding of the Energy Balance Equation, you WON’T nudge your body in the right direction, because:
Energy isn't everything.
“Eat less and move more” crowns energy king. It says the energetic component of food is the only thing that matters, and the energetic component of exercise is the only thing that matters.
No.
Nah.
Nope.
Never.
Here's why.
2
Food isn't energy.
Food is more than energy. Food is also nutrients. And nutrients are just as important as energy. If you don't believe me, eliminate iodine from your diet and watch as your neck grows a goiter the size of a gourd. Or eliminate vitamin C from your diet and let scurvy eliminate you from existence.
“Eat less” says nothing about nutrients, which insinuates that eating 100 calories of armadillo dung is equal to eating a 100-calorie banana.
It’s not.
In an absolute sense, all calories are equal. But since calories are contained within foods and foods are never separated from nutrients, all calories are not equal.
There’s another important lesson to be learned from food being more than energy:
“Eat less” is vaguer than gender-neutral pronouns. It doesn’t specify how much less, which is like trying to bake a cake and following a recipe that tells you to add flour without telling you exactly how much flour to add. Add too much flour, your cake will be concrete. Don't add enough flour, your cake will be chowder.
Likewise, consuming too few calories has consequences. You won't get many nutrients. Not good considering one nutrient helps with muscle retention and the obvious: a nourished body, on the whole, will function better than a malnourished body.
Even worse, if you sink your food intake towards starvation, you’ll probably trigger some gnarly (undesirable) metabolic adaptations. Speaking of which…
3
Metabolic damage?
Your car doesn't care how much fuel it has. Your body very much cares how much energy it has, which is why your body plays defense against “eat less and move more.” Otherwise said, when you tip the Energy Balance Equation in your favor for fat loss, your body fights back.
This is easier to understand if you parallel your body and energy with your brain and money.
- Body = Brain
- Energy = Money
When you create a disparity between your income and your expenses, you’re forced to use your savings to pay the bills. This keeps you afloat, but there’s a catch. Your savings are finite.
If your body runs out of savings, you die. You’re not MC Hammer. You don't want to die. Your body cares about survival, not six-pack abs, boulder shoulders, and looking taut in tighty whities. And so, sacrificing savings is a short-term band-aid, not a viable long-term solution.
Think about how this would play out in your life. What would happen if your expenses consistently eclipsed your income and you were draining your savings? What would you do?
Cancel the premium cable package. Set the thermostat at a higher temperature during the summer. I don’t know where this Brazzars subscription came from, but that needs to go, too.
You’d HAVE to find ways to lower your expenses. To shrink the gap between income/feed and expenses/need. To slow the rate of withdrawal and prolong survival. Your body can do the same thing and try to bridge the gap between the amount of energy you're feeding and the amount of energy it needs.
What does this mean?
Quite simply, your body finds ways to downregulate its metabolism. Your resting metabolism decreases; you use less energy at rest than you otherwise would.
And the theory that I stand behind (despite having astonishingly little evidence for):
The degree to which your body adapts, to “undo” the impact of an energy deficit depends a great deal on the severity of the energy deficit. Losing your job and having zero income is much different than getting demoted and taking a small pay cut.
Larger calorie deficits trigger more severe “negative” metabolic adaptations, which include not only increased hunger pangs and cravings but also reduced satiety signaling. This will make it harder to stick to your diet and also allow you to plow more food down your piehole, upon your inevitable fall off the wagon.
Did you know crash dieters tend to regain all of the weight they lose… and then some? Now you know. Here's something you don't know:
4
Rapid-fire round.
First, “move more” insinuates churning through 500 calories during a jog has the same physiological impact as spit roasting 500 calories during heavy weighted squats.
It doesn’t.
If your sole concern is the number of calories you burn when you exercise, you might as well hire a graphic designer (in advance), to Photoshop your upcoming beach vacation pictures. Otherwise, you’re gonna be the skinny-fat center of attention.
But sure… just “move more” I guess.
Second, different foods have different effects on satiety. For instance, 500 calories of potatoes will probably fill your belly more than 500 calories of pasta. If you eat specific kinds of foods, you will be able to feel more full and satisfied during a deficit.
But sure… just “eat less” I guess.
Third, food preparation impacts the Energy Balance Equation because the amount of energy you consume isn't the same as the amount of energy left over for absorption. For example, research has shown you'll have more calories left over for absorption after eating peanut butter as compared to whole peanuts. This means 500 calories of peanut butter will yield more energetic material than 500 calories of whole peanuts.
But sure… just “eat less” I guess.
Fourth, I'm not out of ammo, but I'm done pulling the trigger. There are more reasons why “eat less and move more” is single-ply advice, dished out only by those donning a scarlet letter of stupidity. You need to squint your eyes and look beyond the Energy Balance Equation's flat surface… unless, of course, you’re willing to eat infinitely less, move infinitely more, sacrifice your muscle mass, and murder your metabolism.
Don't be a flathead.
Do you need to eat less? Yes. But not too much less. And preferably more of certain foods: ones that convince your body to preserve muscle tissue, ones that will keep your body happy, ones that will keep you full and satisfied.
Do you need to move more? Yes. But some of it should be the type of moving that’ll convince your body to preserve (or perhaps build) muscle tissue.
Do you need my simple yet powerful 60-day skinny-fat transformation challenge? Yes. But only because I’ve been withholding the specifics of my strategies in order to ensure the information gap will be too large for you to ignore.