If we establish, in line with the law of thermodynamics, that a caloric deficit is the only true principle that exists in the pursuit of reducing body fat, then we can further establish that all named diets are merely methods. If these methods encompass this principle, they could, in the right circumstances, all be equally effective. This is to say that many roads can lead to the same destination. This statement goes a long way in dissolving the warring tribes within nutrition that state any one method is universally superior, in fact the determining factor in the success of a ‘diet’ seems to be how well the individual can adhere to its methodologies.

Returning to the opening statement, the ability to sustain a calorie deficit can be enhanced by managing the levels of hunger or satiation while calories are restricted. If an individual experienced little to no hunger during a period of calorie restriction, this process would likely be far easier to maintain. The opposing thought is also true, if extreme levels of hunger are felt throughout this process, the likelihood of a successful outcome is bound to be low. 

Eating ‘clean’ is a term that is thrown around regularly regarding weight loss and often describes choosing more colourful, light options at mealtimes such as salads, smoothies and soups. While these meals can be very nutritionally dense, they are unlikely to curb hunger long term and despite best intentions this will likely lead to the individual to dip into the not so ‘clean’ side sooner or later. 

With this consideration, the choice of foods that are consumed during a calorie-controlled diet start to matter not only in regards to their nutritional contribution, but also for their place on the satiety index with foods that are high in protein or fibre generally placing higher and providing more satiety. While it has been proven many times that calorie-controlled diets comprising solely of hyper palatable, processed foods (the Twinkie diet, the McDonalds diet) result in weight loss and even improved health markers, often due to the fat loss itself, the proponents of these diets are usually very vocal about plausibility of long-term success and the perpetual feelings of hunger during these periods. The main takeaway from diets of this nature is that they highlight just how important the energy equation is when considering body weight.

A successful strategy would likely group together several factors such as nutritional density, calorie cost, satiety promotion and personal preference (do you enjoy the foods your consuming)? A practical application of this could be seen in the choice of a carbohydrate source such as potato versus rice. Potato is high on the satiety index, contains a considerable amount of potassium (twice that of a banana), is a whole food and is very versatile in how it can be presented. If the individual enjoys potato, then this becomes a slam dunk for the potato in this scenario, and that’s not to say rice would be a poor choice either. If the script was flipped however and the individual’s goal was to sustain a calorie surplus in order to gain weight, they may not necessarily want to choose the most satiating options, especially if they are struggling to hit their daily calorie target.

While we know that the multi-dimensional approach of nutrition and exercise is more powerful than either approach alone, the type of exercise included could also play a large role in the adherence to a calorie deficit. Like with ‘clean’ eating, the go to is often cardio based activities like running, swimming or high intensity interval work such as battle ropes and burpees. The logic is sound on paper, these are great ways to burn calories, however they are also great ways to increase hunger. Swimming, in particular, has the double whammy effect of not only burning calories during the activity but also requiring energy to reheat the body post exercise. Again, on paper this double dip into the calorie reserves looks promising, but what can manifest is a sharp increase in hunger and the possibility of overcompensation in the form of consuming more than what was burnt.

All the above serves to stress just how important the consideration of hunger, or its counterpart satiety, is when the goal is to adhere to a calorie deficit. Dieting in this manner is essentially simulating a period of famine and it would be unreasonable to expect the body to perform at its peak during this period. It would be equally unreasonable to expect no hunger signals to be present at all. Sound suggestions usually entail dieting in blocks of time and sustaining periods of maintenance or even surplus in between. This approach seems to yield more sustainable results long term and allows training to be undulated according to the current energy intake of the body.