Fat Burning Info

There are a thousand reasons why folks don't lose fat, but somewhere on top of this list is simply a fundamental lack of comprehension of these scientifically established principles of how to lose excess weight.

To show you exactly what I mean, let's start this off with a listing of things that DON'T cause fat loss.

Things That DO NOT Cause Fat reduction:

  • Eating healthy.
  • Eating less carbs.
  • Eating less sugar.
  • Not eating after 7 pm.
  • Cardio.
  • Weight training.
  • Building muscle and/or becoming stronger.
  • And MUCH more.

These are all things which can definitely enable a person lose fat and will certainly assist in the overall fat loss procedure. However, in and of themselves, not one thing on that list actually causes fat to be lost.

Actually, not a single one of these things actually requires to be carried out. You are able to certainly do the complete opposite of each thing on such list and still lose fat just fine provided that a single particular issue IS being done.

What really causes fat reduction? Let's find out...

The Way to Eliminate Fat: The One Complete Requirement

Simply put... a caloric deficit. That is the scientifically proven "key" to losing fat. It literally can't happen any other way.

So exactly what is a calorie shortage? It is what happens when you burn off more calories than you consume (or consume fewer calories than you burn off... just another way of stating the same thing).

Fundamentally, each and every person has a exceptional calorie maintenance level. Here is the number of calories that your body requires daily to burn for energy to complete all of the tasks it needs to carry out. From extreme exercise like cardio and weight training, to simplistic daily tasks like getting dressed and brushing your teeth, to the various physiological functions required to keep you living (like digesting and breathing).

Calories are what we use for energy to perform all of these things, and we provide these calories through the foods we consume.

The 3 Calorie Intake Scenarios

If we consume the identical amount of calories which our bodies will need to burn each day, we will be at our care level. Our weight will be maintained since all of the calories we had were supplied. No more, no less.

If we exceed this degree and so we consume MORE calories than our bodies have to use, all of the left over calories that weren't burned will then be stored on our body in some form for later usage. And guess what form it is most often stored in? Yup... body fat! This is referred to as a caloric surplus, and it's the one and only reason for fat profit.

But what we're interested in is the reverse of this... that a caloric deficit. This is what occurs when we consume LESS than our care level amount. What happens next is that our bodies are forced to find some other source of energy to burn instead. And guess what that origin most frequently is? Yup... your own stored body fat! And this is the one and only cause of fat loss.

Therefore, in the event that you keep your present weight eating 2500 calories per day (just an example), you will gain weight (mainly in the kind of body fat) if you have 3000 calories per day. But you'd lose weight (mainly in the kind of body fat) if you consumed 2000 calories per day.

Exercise Could Play A Role, Too

These are the proven basics of how to lose fat, which was a easy illustration of how to make the necessary caloric deficit via your diet alone (by eating less calories). I mention this since the exact same deficit might happen to be created by burning more calories (i.e. exercise). Exercise is important for burning more calories, but a info contained in books and on websites like the fat burning kitchen review can provide you with ideas about what to eat.

Meaning, you could have still eaten more than 2000 calories for the day in the previous example, but then burned an extra 500 through exercise thereby creating the same caloric deficit. Both scenarios would effectively cause fat loss, as could a third party situation where you did a mixture of both (diet AND exercise).

But no matter how you choose to do it, one absolute necessity ALWAYS stands. To be able to shed weight, you MUST make a caloric deficit. Nothing else works.

But Then How Do Other Fat Loss Pills Work?

This is the stage when lots of stubborn, misinformed or simply annoyingly stupid people want to say that other diets induce individuals to lose fat all the time, and these diets haven't anything to do with creating a caloric deficit.

I mean, folks shed weight on low carb diets, low-fat diets, paleo diets, vegetarian diets, diets that involve eating "clean" rather than "dirty," raw food diets, or not eating after a certain time at night, and many other kinds of diets that involve every habit, fad and strategy you can think of except the particular task of developing a caloric deficit. However, they have all caused people to successfully get rid of fat.

What the hell? If the only requirement for fat reduction is a caloric deficit, and each one of these diets haven't anything to do with a caloric deficit, then how do they work? Clearly I must be wrong about all this calorie stuff, right?


You see, each one of these diets and methods simply indirectly permit you to create that caloric deficit.

Any diet that actually causes you to get rid of fat did so because it induced you to create a caloric deficit. That is a fact. There is literally NOTHING else which may possibly make it happen. Here is the most basic proven science of the human body.

These diets and approaches might never come right out and admit say or that you simply need to eat less calories (partially because it doesn't match with their habit, partly because people really just do not want to hear that they have to count calories (oh no!) or [GASP!] eat less of these, and partially because it's difficult to make money off of something which is easy, clear and free.)

BUT each successful fat loss diet makes you do it anyhow. How? By getting you to do things that just so happen to restrict or lower your calorie consumption. For example...

  • Eating less carbohydrates means you are eating less calories.
  • Eating less fat means you're consuming less calories.
  • Eating less "filthy" crap food means you are consuming less calories.
  • Eating less processed foods means you are consuming less calories.
  • Eating less carbohydrates means you are consuming less calories.
  • Not eating after 7pm causes you to consume less calories.

A raw food diet, paleo diet, or vegan diet any remotely similar diet eliminates lots of the foods you had been regularly eating, which means you're now eating less calories.

Noticing a trend? In each and every case, less calories wind up being eaten. But what some people wrongly think is that it had been the reduction in carbs, or fat, or carbohydrates, or sugar, or junk foods, or processed foods, or not eating after 7pm or whatever else that caused it to happen.

It wasn't.

It had been the decrease in calories that indirectly came as a result of all of these additional things. This is the type of information you will typically find in various fat burning books. Sure, these "things" are what led to the deficit to be created, but the shortage itself is what really caused you to lose fat.

And that's the way most fat loss diets/methods operate despite not directly making you consume less calories. They convince you to do things that cause you to consume less calories anyhow.

There's A Ton Of Ways To Create Your Deficit... Pick Your Favorite

But if you want to create your caloric deficit by utilizing any of these diets and methods, that's perfectly okay by me. If any of these or other methods of eating appeal to you, then I'm all for you using it to accomplish your fat loss objectives.

But in the event that you'd rather simply right create your perfect caloric deficit and then get the calories you do eat from a great balance of fat, protein, and carbs comprised solely of foods you actually enjoy eating at a structure that's really convenient and more healthy for you, then that is fine by me also.

In actuality, it's exactly what I personally do and most often recommend. I explain Precisely How to do it (for FREE) right here: The Best Diet Plan

The point I am making nevertheless is that in each and every case with each other diet program or procedure, the reason it works is simply because a caloric deficit was current. And when it did not work, then it's simply because a caloric deficit was not present.

There's not any other magic or voodoo involved in the actual cause (or lack thereof) of fat reduction. At the end of the day it comes down to calories in vs calories out.

If for whatever reason you still aren't convinced that what I am saying is true and accurate (probably as a consequence of years of nutritional brainwashing), then allow me to present some additional evidence.

Still Do not Believe Me? Here Is Some Proof...

There's such an overwhelming (and apparently infinite) number of legitimate evidence showing that everything I have explained thus much is 100% true and accurate that I frankly don't even know where to begin.

So, here today is only a SUPER TINY sample of some of the numerous examples that come to mind...

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sugar diet during weight reduction.

This analysis took two groups of women and set them on comparable hypocaloric diets (meaning under a maintenance level of calories so that a caloric deficit was current). The only difference between the diets of the two groups is that 43% of one group's daily caloric consumption came out of sucrose (aka table sugar), whereas only 4% of the other group's daily caloric intake came out of sucrose. What happened? Despite one group eating a VERY high sugar diet and the other team eating an extremely low sugar diet. Both groups lost equal amounts of fat and body fat. Why? Because it's NOT the origin of your calories that causes fat loss, it's the existence of a caloric deficit.

Increased meal frequency does not promote increased weight reduction [...]

This analysis took 16 overweight women and men and divide them into 2 groups. Then they had each individual in each group produce the same sized caloric deficit and then have that same calorie intake daily for 2 weeks. HOWEVER, they had one group eat 3 meals per day, and the other team eat 6 meals a day. Guess what happened? They all lost the identical quantity of weight. In reality, the analysis showed that there wasn't any difference at all in fat loss, appetite control, or anything similar. Why? Because meal frequency does not impact your ability to lose fat or gain weight. A comparison of isocaloric very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and higher carbohydrate [...]

This research took 83 subjects, estimated the daily calorie requirements of every individual (aka their maintenance levels), and then resulted in a caloric deficit of 30%. They then split them up into 3 classes. The first had just 4% of the total daily calorie consumption coming from carbohydrates. The next had 50 percent of the total calorie intake coming from carbohydrates. The third had 70% of their overall calorie consumption coming from carbohydrates. Guess what happened? Though some individuals were ingesting a VERY LOW carb diet and many others were eating an extremely HIGH carb diet... they all lost the identical quantity of fat and body fat. Why? Since low carb or high carb is not what makes us gain or lose fat. Calories are, regardless of how many of them come out of carbohydrates.

Similar weight loss with low-energy food blending or balanced diets.

This analysis divided 54 obese patients up into two groups, both of which were set on low-calorie diets (meaning that a caloric deficit was present) and fed comparable percentages of protein, fat and carbs. HOWEVER, 1 group was given a more balanced diet constituted of meals that contained protein, fat and carbohydrates, while the second group had their carbohydrate and fat calories separated so that they were not eaten together in exactly the exact same meal. Guess what happened? They all lost the same quantity of weight and body fat. Why? Because the way you join foods, organize your foods and eat your daily calories is not what causes fat reduction. A caloric deficit is.

Fat loss is dependent on energy shortage just, independently of the method for weight loss.

This study split its subjects up into two classes, and had them both produce the same sized calorie shortage. On the other hand, the difference between them was the way this shortage was created. 1 group did it by eating less total calories (diet alone), but another team did it by burning more calories by doing cardio (a combination of diet AND exercise) and eating less calorie. But again, the complete weekly caloric deficit was exactly the exact same for both groups. What happened? They all lost the same quantity of weight and body fat. Why? Because a deficit of X calories is a deficit of X calories whether or not you burned those calories off through cardio or simply didn't consume them in the first location. Fat loss is not about the way you make the deficit; it's virtually the deficit itself.

The Twinkie Diet

This one is so F-ing incredible that a quick bullet point just doesn't do it justice.

And lastly, here's the holy grail of proof for anybody that's still slightly skeptical that this caloric deficit thing (and by "thing" I mean scientifically proven fact) is actually the singular response to the almighty "the way to lose fat" question.

In 2010, Mark Haub (who is a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University) wanted to prove the very same thing I have been explaining: that fat loss and fat gain always occur as a result of calories in vs calories out, also that a caloric deficit will ALWAYS cause an individual to lose fat no matter what food resources those calories come from.

To do this, Mark took matters to a very intense point-making level which I would never actually advocate, but absolutely adore with the goal of demonstrating that calories are what matter most.

Especially, Mark went on a 10-week diet made up of mostly snack foods. Twinkies, Doritos, Little Debbie cakes, Oreos, sugary cereals (think Corn Pops) and other equally less than nutritious foods that are all highly processed, lacking in nutritional value, loaded with sugar and "bad" carbohydrates, leading to "bad" fat, contain trans fat, and possess other similar traits which are common among typical "junk foods."

However, he also produced a caloric deficit.

He went from ingesting 2600 calories every day (his estimated maintenance level) to ingestion about 1800 calories per day instead. He just so happened to get the vast majority of these 1800 daily calories in the junkiest foods you can think of.

The purpose? To prove that despite his everyday diet being packed with sugar-filled garbage and crap food, he'd still lose fat just fine because a caloric deficit was current.

The Outcome? He dropped 27lbs in two months and reduced his body fat percent from 33.4 percent to 24.9%.

The conclusion? A caloric deficit is your sole cause of fat reduction. Even if these calories are derived from the shittiest sources known to mankind, fat will nevertheless be lost. It is not the source or the quality of these foods and the calories that they supply... it is the entire amount of it all.

And even though Mark didn't do a reverse variation of the "experiment," the contrary could be true, too. Meaning, creating a caloric excess, regardless of the content of these calories, will ALWAYS cause those excess calories to be stored in your own body in some form (most often as body fat).

This is just as true whether those calories are derived from only the safest, "cleanest," most natural and nutritious foods around the planet, or the exact same sort of junky garbage eaten in Mark's experiment. The caloric surplus itself, not the form in which that excess was provided, is what matters.

Or, to put it another way, eating a lot of "healthy" and "clean" foods will make you fat just the same as eating a lot of "unhealthy" and "filthy" foods will. It's always the "eating too much" part which causes this to happen, not the specific foods that were or were not eaten.

The Example Is Extreme, But Understand Its Point

Yes, that which Mark did is a CRAZY extreme example, and NO, I'd never recommended anyone attempt to actually eat like that. I am all about getting a sufficient amount of fat, protein and carbohydrates mainly from high quality, organic, nutrient-dense foods you like, and maintaining the typical junkier foods to some fair yet enjoyable and sustainable minimal.

What I would like you to do however is look at this case for what it is... clear, undeniable proof that fat reduction occurs strictly as a consequence of eating less total calories.

It doesn't happen as a consequence of exactly what you eat, if you eat or how you consume. It occurs solely as a consequence of HOW MUCH you eat. And when a dude losing weight while practically eating nothing but Twinkies and Oreos still does not prove that to you... then you're a lost cause.

So, for anyone who desired to know how to get rid of fat... here is how.

Yes, there are a million additional variables and components of your diet and exercise that play significant roles in successfully, permanently and efficiently getting you to lose fat (while also keeping lean muscle and being healthy), and a million ways to go about generating that deficit in a means that is as easy, sustainable and enjoyable for you as you can.

However, the big point I'm getting at is that ALL OF IT is totally irrelevant and useless for the objective of losing fat in the lack of that essential caloric deficit.

Anyone who disagrees or claims differently is often either wrong or just trying to offer you something that is certainly not worth purchasing. In other words, they ought to be ignored completely 100 percent of the moment.

Oh... and mocked, also.

Additional fat burning ideas are included in the document below: