We tend to overcomplicate nutrition. Most of us do, and with good reason.
There is conflicting information all around us. But in essence it is quite simple. Simple yes, but not necessarily easy.
Analogies help in simplifying things I find. Anytime there is an abstract subject, I always ask for an example and that helps clarify and simplify the subject.
Let me venture to do the same when it comes to fat loss and nutrition, assuming most of us are familiar with saving money.
You want to save money to buy a car in 6 months. So you change certain habits like perhaps reducing money spent on eating out, cutting down on frivolous purchases and some essential purchases as well because you’ve set yourself a target of 6 months.
You save up enough money to buy the car.
You buy the car.
Now you don’t have a particular reason to save money so you go back to spending money the way you used to.
You want to save money for the future.
You cut down on frivolous spending and other areas that you can and you start putting money into various long term saving schemes.
You put aside a small amount of money every month to put into these schemes.
Since you’re looking at putting aside a small sum every month, you only cut down on non-essential spending not the essential spending.
Further you’re saving for the long term hence the changes that you’re making are changes you can sustain over the long term.
SCENARIO 1 OR SCENARIO 2?
When you equate scenario 1 and scenario 2 to nutrition and fat loss, scenario 1 is following a fad diet that requires you to make drastic changes that you cannot sustain. Once you reach your target you will eventually bounce back to your old ways because of this.
Scenario 2 is making small, sustainable changes that you can keep going for the long term. You make small, continuous progress and you keep it up for your lifetime.
Which would you rather do? Both when it comes to saving money and for fat loss? Scenario 1 or scenario 2?