Quote (EndlessSky @ Aug 1 2012 06:59pm)
Both of these have been generally disproven, so be careful when using them for judgment. There are far too many exceptions to generalize for or against trans/sat fats ex: some are the healthiest foods on earth.
The 'law of thermodynamics' fallacy of calories in/out has been disproven too. The body has thousands of regulations interacting to influence your metabolism, in many cases reducing net calorie gain just stalls your metabolism proportionally and leaves you with the same initial net increase.
The best option is to find someone who is already healthy with a similar body type and mimic their diet/lifestyle. Some consistently healthy things though are natural, raw, and local foods; rigorous exercise 2+ times a week; and of course limiting serving sizes. People who eat less than 1800 calories a day are proven to cause less oxidative damage to their bodies over time, essentially slowing the aging process.
No, it's just more complex. What you eat, when you eat, how much you eat, when you exercise, how you exercise, hormones in the womb, genetic predisposition, etc, all play a huge role in how many calories your body burns. But if, all accounted for, you expend more energy than you take in, you have a net loss and you will lose weight.