poopshovel wrote: Do you drink? I hit a wall after losing 15 lbs. Conventional wisdom is that I'll need to cut out the booze to go any further than that.
Dump the six pack for 3 fingers of Scotch on the rocks. It still metabolizes to sugar but there is a hell of a lot less calories going in.
Dr. Hess wrote: OK, Eric. Try it the other way then: Eat more and exercise less. Let's see which way works. Some people just gotta argue.
LOL
I am not advocating eating more, I am advocating eating differently, it is not a simple as Calorie in / Calorie out.
Eat less exercise more is flawed. If that truly worked then we ALL would be thin, it is not a matter of discipline.
(please start quoting your credentials)
Eat better exercise more.
Eating less is stupid, eat more lean meat and vegetables and kill fried stuff and crap food, start lifting weights and you'll lose fat and build muscle no matter how much you eat.
EricM wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: OK, Eric. Try it the other way then: Eat more and exercise less. Let's see which way works. Some people just gotta argue.LOL I am not advocating eating more, I am advocating eating differently, it is not a simple as Calorie in / Calorie out. Eat less exercise more is flawed. If that truly worked then we ALL would be thin, it is not a matter of discipline. (please start quoting your credentials)
OK, Eric. I'll quote my credentials:
Credentials said: Doctor of Medicine
Now it's your turn.
I will agree that not eating crap food is important, and 1KCal of HFCS does more damage than 1KCal of protein or other carbohydrates, but I have no hard data on that, just observations.
Dr. Hess wrote:Credentials said: Doctor of Medicine
Awesome.
I've found its the exercise side for me, just being in a car or office all day vs. walking everywhere in college has added 10-15 lbs the past couple years.
EricM wrote: Eat less exercise more is flawed. If that truly worked then we ALL would be thin, it is not a matter of discipline.
no, we would not all be thin, because some of us would still choose to eat more than we need.
59 years old and lost 32 lbs . Started at 5' 10", 195 and now weigh 163. I did it by carefully watching my carbohydrate intake and limiting it to 275 gm/day. I am exercising 3 days per week and I eat 6 times a day. I had to make some dietary changes, but I still manage pasta a couple of times a week and pizza once, so I'm not suffering on rabbit food ,or anything. And, the first 15 lbs came off sitting in a recliner all day, no exercise.Most of my excess weight was all around my waste, too.
poopshovel wrote: Do you drink? I hit a wall after losing 15 lbs. Conventional wisdom is that I'll need to cut out the booze to go any further than that.
So that's why even though I've been counting calories and going to the gym 4 days a week I still am not losing any weight?
I don't even drink "that" much anymore. Maybe 2-3 beers spread out over dinner/movie after work. I'll also throw in that during the week, including the beers, I probably only eat 1600-1700 calories. Occasionally on the weekends might drink enough to get warm and fuzzy, but crap.
I mean no doubt, I can tell I'm getting stronger and in better shape. But the actual fat I'm trying to burn won't go anywhere. Boooo.
I cut out bread a year ago - which was tough because I love good bread more than I do chocolate. But it's really made a difference: 27" waist again, down from 29". Also work out regularly, doing crunches and planks. This one is really good for whittling the inches off your waist, and is easy to do at home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSj3_vrtnII
RossD wrote: Beer is a helluva drug.
That looks like a tasty and vitamin B filled meal.
I definitely just need to eat better... being in school for 2 years and then moving 4 times in 6 months throws your diet out the window. Now that things have calmed down, I love cooking my own meals (so tasy, so cheap, and so easy)! Too bad I'm poor these past two weeks (eating A&W for lunch). I weigh ~153 pounds right now, I'd like to be 145 (mainly to get rid of my small beer gut that is only noticeable with my shirt off).
Listen to Dr. Hess.
I think it was two years ago, that I went from 160 pounds to 135 pounds. How? Eating less and exercising more. And by "exercising more," I mean I exercised more every week. If you really want to lose weight, you have to work hard for it. My exercise of choice was running. The first week, I ran ten miles, and increased my weekly mileage ten percent every week. After a few months, I was up to about 30 miles.
As far as eating goes, I have found that when I exercise more, I want to eat healthier. Why? Because running five days a week is a big commitment; why ruin it with food that makes me feel like crap?
To lose weight, you need to burn more calories than you consume. Fast food is so bad because there is a lot of fat, which has more than double the calories per gram than calories from carbohydrates. You need more calories of fatty food to feel full. Beer and alcohol has a ton of calories, too. I just searched for an imperial stout off the top of my head, Old Rasputin, and it has 303 calories per bottle.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:poopshovel wrote: Do you drink? I hit a wall after losing 15 lbs. Conventional wisdom is that I'll need to cut out the booze to go any further than that.Dump the six pack for 3 fingers of Scotch on the rocks. It still metabolizes to sugar but there is a hell of a lot less calories going in.
I'm offended. Note I said "booze." Booze > Beer. Beer is for amateurs and homosexuals. Though I'm guessing the handle of whiskey consumed at the mitty = probably more than a couple beers worth of calories.
Dr. Hess wrote: OK, Eric. I'll quote my credentials:Credentials said: Doctor of MedicineNow it's your turn.
No offense, I'm sure you bloody well earned your honorific, but I've known plenty of doctors who, uh, yeah. Doctor Oz?
In reply to MitchellC:
Holy crap. Rasputin is my beer of choice. 303. Hmmm. Might need to limit those a tad.
Oh, and I agree with everything you said.
In reply to paanta:
The good doctor certainly didn't make an argument for authority. The other guy tried to start a battle of credentials. When it comes to health, M.D. is the highest credential. It doesn't mean they are always right but it does mean they are highly credentialed.
poopshovel wrote: I'm offended. Note I said "booze." Booze > Beer. Beer is for amateurs and homosexuals.
Sorry. I misunderstood. You need to drink harder. Replace as many meals as you can with 120pf bourbon or stronger.
Weightloss tip: The shakes between getting out of bed and draining the 1st 5th of the day really burn a lot of calories as do the convulsions that follow so ride them as long as you can each morning.
I have a couple of bottles of real Bahamian rum. Suppose I start replacing my high gravity beer with that. I drink cheap American beer instead of water when I am doing stuff around the house on Saturday afternoons - running a power saw, working on the car, cutting tree limbs. I don't think American beer really has any calories in it nor much alcohol for that matter, so I figure I am good doing that.
You should post that on WikiPedia, GPS. Then we'll all know it's true and we can link to it when we tell others.
Otto_Maddox wrote: In reply to paanta: The good doctor certainly didn't make an argument for authority. The other guy tried to start a battle of credentials. When it comes to health, M.D. is the highest credential. It doesn't mean they are always right but it does mean they are highly credentialed.
Oh, I know it wasn't a formal argument formal argument from authority. I just hate seeing it even come up. It's more directed at the asker of credentials than the credential giver in this case. It's weak sauce given how little anyone understands about obesity. No one can tell you how to lose weight because no one knows how to do it successfully.
Diet and exercise work, but look at how few people can successfully lose weight and keep it off in spite of huge pressures to do so. Single digit percentages. Point is, nobody really knows why we're a bunch of lardasses and what works for one person probably won't work for the next.
Last week my wife caught a presentation by a bigshot biostatistician at an NIH conference. It was insane. Just some tidbits from his talk: He looked at obesity and average weight across all sorts of different species and found that everything that lives near humans is getting bigger, from pet cats to ferral animals. No one knows why.
Another study looked at lab rats cut to 95% of their caloric intake and they GAINED weight because they compensated by moving less. Merely cutting calories slightly doesn't do it, which goes against a lot of what we're told. They could force them to lose weight by putting them on treadmills or making them swim, but they didn't do it on their own.
Best part was a very un-PC bit about the genetics of poverty. There was a great twin study showing that a child born to rich parents and put into a poor environment as an infant won't get fat at the same rate as people who were born to poor parents. Wrap your head around that. To a very statistically significant level, poverty and obesity are genetically determined and linked.
Oh, and while it's not been shown in humans yet, there are several other species for which viruses can cause obesity.
ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT ITS HOPELESS.
In reply to paanta:
Well, I get what you are saying but I don't know that it is hopeless. A lot of us are genetically built just like our dads or our brothers but through a little hard work and discipline we stay thinner than they are. It is all relative, I suppose. I still recommend eating smaller portions of healthier foods while exercising more. You might not end up looking like Brad Pitt but you'll be healthier in the long run.
In reply to paanta:
your twin study is a perfect example how there is both a genetic and an environmental element to much of what we as humans experience / demonstrate.
i contend that to create wealth takes intelligence, and that intelligent people don't tend to breed with mouth-breathers (which is a term i like better than "retards" although i do use both in mixed company). so the rich twin in poor home shows us that genetics can overpower some amount of environmental crap.
perhaps hopeless to solve in one generation, but i vote for less breeding by mouth-breathers as a long-term plan for weight loss of the human race.
yep, i said it.
The atmosphere of office jobs really makes weight loss difficult. After forty, fifty, sixty hours of mentally-fatiguing work per week, the last thing that most people want to do is go home to exercise. And if you live out in the sticks, there may not be many places to exercise in the first place.
I worked an internship in a corporate atmosphere, and I felt like I aged a few years in those two months. I found as many excuses as I could to walk to the opposite end of the building just to prevent myself from going stir crazy. I work in a retail environment where I am on my feet at least eight hours per day, but I feel less tired when I leave work now than when I was sitting on my butt all day. The dynamics of eating as a group always seemed to steer towards unhealthy options. Otherwise I would just bring leftovers or a sandwich.
It's not that people don't know how to lose weight, it's just that the human body was not developed to sit in a chair all day and eat at Chiles. Even if you exercise for thirty minutes per day, if all you do the other 23.5 hours is sit on your butt, well, you're not doing yourself many favors. Many people are also in denial of what they are actually consuming. Many will think, "good thing I'm eating a salad today!" while they completely cover their meager greens with cheddar cheese and drench it with ranch dressing. Or they will drink a soda, or load their coffee with sugar, etc., etc. Just a century and a half ago, refined sugar was pretty rare.
A lot of the problems stem from the food supply itself. I work in grocery, and I know all too well that unhealthy foods are frequently promoted the hardest. The "why" is a bit complex, but a big reason is that unhealthy foods are cheap temptations that drive sales up. When we have brown rice on sale, no one is banging down the doors, but when 18 packs of Bud are on sale at cost, that brings people into the store, who of course buy a lot of other stuff. Advertising oftentimes strives to sweep the broadest stroke, so unfortunately it means catering towards the lowest common denominator.
In reply to AngryCorvair:
It is too late for selective breeding to help the OP.
paanta wrote: Point is, nobody really knows why we're a bunch of lardasses and what works for one person probably won't work for the next.
What is this "we" schit frenchman? Do you really think "nobody really knows"? :)
Seriously... your trainer, people who write books, people who make a living at selling fitness have no good reason to clear up all the confusion but getting fit is as easy as having some discipline. Exercise frequently and eat well. Forever. That is really it.
You'll need to log in to post.
