I finished Wednesday’s blog (about the ineffectiveness of exercise from a weight loss perspective) with the following sentence;
“But let’s be honest, it’s much easier to eat a few hundred fewer calories each day than it is to ‘burn them off'”
You may have noticed that I said “fewer calories”.
Not “less food”.
That was deliberate.
Because “less food” isn’t necessarily needed.
It’s one way, sure.
But it’s not the only way.
We can actually end up eating more volume of food if it has lower calorie density.
If we’re make tactical choices and half the average calories per 100g of what we’re eating, we could eat 50% more volume for a 25% reduction in calories.
We’re not ‘stoking our metabolism’ (I’ll cover that tomorrow), we’re just reducing ‘calories in’ even though we’ve increased volume.
There is, of course, no right or wrong.
There is, as they say, “more than one way to skin a cat”.
But if “eating less” creates feeling of restriction and excess hunger……..
Then maybe “eating fewer” (but possibly more) might feel more doable?
Much love,
Jon ‘and farer’ Hall
P.S. For a doable AND super effective approach to getting in shape, try our risk free trial via www.myrise.co.uk/apply
——————————————————————-
RISE in Macclesfield was established in 2012 and specialise in Group Personal Training weight loss programmes for those that don’t like the gym and find diets boring and restrictive!
