Nick Comstock said:In reply to Suprf1y :
They've been preaching CICO for at least the last 35 years. As a species has our obesity issues got worse or better in that time?
Let's just say I disagree.
As a species has anyone listened?
I have seen documented case studies where people lost weight by eating literally nothing but fast food and calorie counting. That won't help you with overall health, but for weight loss it is all that matters.
Fueled by Caffeine said:calories work...
Every time. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
In reply to Suprf1y :
Calories are BS.
And the biggest fault is how they are measured. You burn them and measure how much thermal energy they put off, and then assume that how your body digests that energy is exactly the same. And by same- both the fault that heat energy is a good measure of how bodies consume energy AND that how each of those kinds of energy are consumed- sugar is not fat is not protein. Some are consumed very fast, some not so much, some slowly. All of them react differently when there is too much energy to be consumed, too.
But, to me, the assumption that a heat measurement has anything to do with how a mammal consumes food energy is crazy. I'm not a combustion engine.
alfadriver said:In reply to Suprf1y :
But, to me, the assumption that a heat measurement has anything to do with how a mammal consumes food energy is crazy. I'm not a combustion engine.
That's the fallacy in your argument.
I don't know anybody that makes that assumption, but the correlation of calories in and out is indisputable. And that's why calories are not BS.
Like I said on the last page, it's not a perfect way of measuring energy but if you reduce your caloric intake below what you require to maintain your weight - and it's a simple calculation, you will lose weight
In reply to Suprf1y :
But that IS the assumption, as it IS how calories are measured. How can you not make that assumption if you decide that burning stuff is a good measure of how much energy your body will need to consume them?
And it never worked for me- I tried that method for many years with no success what so ever. I tracked everything I ate, and when I worked out, I had a HR monitor to better give me a usage amount. And was in a calorie deficit that had more than enough room to account for measurement error.
Going to Atkins, then just being low carb worked, and I'm down 40lb, and barely work out as much as I did when I was +230. When I was running A LOT, that was closer to a 60lb deficit. So to just blanket assume that it's right is just as bad as blanket assuming that low carb is the best way to go- which I'm NOT saying, I'm just saying it works for me.
Being overweight is a symptom of being unhealthy. By counting calories you are treating a symptom. Not the cause. Yes you will lose weight but you may not be any healthier. Look at what's going on in China and Indonesia. Type 2 diabetes is skyrocketing and those people are not "fat". Being healthy should be the goal, a byproduct of that is less weight. And that's why I believe calories are BS.
In reply to Robbie :
I had very good luck on weight watchers but I couldn’t just do the tracking I needed to go to meetings. At one point I went from 390 to 310. Then things went to E36 M3 and I had to quit going and gained most of it back but when I was able to spend time on it I did well.
In reply to alfadriver :
Adkins works by reducing carbs which typically accounts for over half of the calories we consume.
It works due to calorie reduction.
This is not news.
In reply to Nick Comstock :
You're just talking in circles.
In reply to Suprf1y :
My logic has been known to make peoples heads spin...
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I downloaded Stupid Simple Keto, and it's just that. Stupid simple. They also have one for tracking Macros. The pro version is a 1 time $10 that gets you the barcode scanner. I've been very happy with how it works.
I'm not a combustion engine.
I'm just going to wander off on a pointless tangent now... But, I think an ICE and a person a lot closer than you'd expect.
Both require fuel to run, and different types of fuel accomplish different things. Some engines run hard and fast all the time, as do people. The opposite is also true, some are slow and steady.
Maybe think of sugar like nitrous. Hard and fast energy, but if you run it all the time, bad things will happen. Carbs, seemingly, are more like diesel (Ok not a great analogy) but for endurance activities, a steady load of carbs will maintain energy better than sugar, much like diesel will run a generator longer and more efficiently than gasoline.
Efficiency varies based on size, displacement, and fuel type, much like people. Also, much like people, there really isn't an optimum level of efficiency, it's more a moving target based on several factors.
One of the big byproducts of each is heat, and keeping things at an optimum temperature insures max efficiency even from horribly inefficient systems. The body will burn a hell of a lot of calories just trying to regulate temperature, and most of us have seen what heat soak does to a motor.
Intake and exhaust restrictions can further hamper efficiency problems on both.
I think most of all, anybody will happily sell you anythIng claiMing it makes the motor perform better. See octane booster, steroids, diet pills, and other snake oils.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts.
Results
Weight loss
The Atkins Diet says that you can lose 15 pounds (6.8 kilograms) in the first two weeks of phase 1 — but it also acknowledges that those aren't typical results. The Atkins Diet also acknowledges that you may initially lose water weight. It says that you'll continue to lose weight in phases 2 and 3 as long as you don't eat more carbs than your body can tolerate.
Most people can lose weight on almost any diet plan that restricts calories — at least in the short term. Over the long term, though, studies show that low-carb diets like the Atkins Diet are no more effective for weight loss than are standard weight-loss diets and that most people regain the weight they lost regardless of diet plan.
Because carbohydrates usually provide over half of calories consumed, the main reason for weight loss on the Atkins Diet is lower overall calorie intake from eating less carbs. Some studies suggest that there are other reasons for weight loss with the Atkins Diet. You may shed pounds because your food choices are limited, and you eat less since the extra protein and fat keep you feeling full longer. Both of these effects also contribute to lower overall calorie intake.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/atkins-diet/art-20048485
In reply to Toyman01 :
thank you.
This is day 5. I have successfully stayed within the goals set. I'm down 9.6 pounds from my high of 300# a week and a half ago. The fuzzy headedness has passed and I feel pretty good. I haven't really had any cravings for anything. Quitting smoking was much harder.
The diet is varied and actually pretty tasty.
Tonight's dish was spaghetti squash and chicken casserole with a salad on the side. Not exactly rice and gravy but still pretty tasty.
I have also been drinking gallons of water every day instead of milk or juices.
We'll keep on keeping on.
My girlfriend and I started it today in earnest.
Lunch was a sausage, spinach, egg casserole. Dinner was chicken cordon bleu casserole with a small salad.
Have a bunch of other recipes we've tried before as well. I know where I want to end up, but I just want to focus on consistent weight loss.
I already drink a ton of water and don't eat breakfast, so I'll be doing the 16/8 IF as well.
I've been doing keto for a year and a half. I lost 45 pounds and feel much better than I have in years. Much of it is cutting the sugar and not drinking calories. I've reached my weight goals but have been maintaining keto it because I get bloated and feel like ass when I go off. And for what it's worth, I fart way less too. Ymmv.
In my opinion the mechanical part of weight loss isn't really as important as whether or not you can get people to stick to whatever it is they are doing. I ran weight loss groups for over 20 years and had many life changing successes and I know what I can get people to do, but what works for you (actually works to make you leaner for a long time) is more important than what method you use.
Counting Calories works but there are mitigating factors that make it a little less simple for fat and or weight loss. Your body is more or less efficient at turning calories from different sources into useable energy. The stuff it turns into energy more quickly and efficiently is more capable of wrecking havoc with your energy and hunger levels while the stuff absorbed more slowly and less efficiently keeps your energy and hunger on an even keel but it can never get you quite as mentally sharp or energy filled. Different foods also have a drastic effect on how much water you hold so that changes how you look and how much you weigh when your fat levels may not have changed.
In general low to almost no carb works if you want to lose weight by following a simple rule. Eliminating everything processed is another way to loose weight by following a simple rule but it is a much more difficult rule to follow. Eating a moderate carb planned and balanced diet with low calories, proper meal spacing, and brief intense exercise is about the best feeling and most successful for fat loss way to diet if you can get your meal timing right and are willing to follow a strict plan.
A counter to all the best way to diet talk is this: every time I met someone who lost a ton of weight and kept it off for years on end I asked how they did it. The vast majority answered that they starved themselves in some hellish and unhealthy way to get thin, and after that they had some system which added up to they basically didn't eat very much.
These fad diets are just that...fads. Don't do them. A simple, balanced nutrition plan is long term sustainable and healthy. That includes proteins, fats, and yes...carbs. The issue most people run into is being wildly out of balance with macros (usually far too many carbs) and/or simply too many calories.
z31maniac said:I already ... don't eat breakfast.
That is not helping you any at all. Eating at least a small breakfast is necessary to get your metabolism moving for the day. Otherwise it stays in night mode until lunch.
Duke said:z31maniac said:I already ... don't eat breakfast.
That is not helping you any at all. Eating at least a small breakfast is necessary to get your metabolism moving for the day. Otherwise it stays in night mode until lunch.
There's a lot of conflicting information about whether that's actually true or not. I'm in the camp that it isn't true. The big thing about breakfast is that it helps people from overindulging later in the day. People who skip breakfast often wind up eating too big of a lunch/dinner/snacks. I don't eat breakfast on the weekends. I just keep that in mind when eating later in the day.
Duke said:z31maniac said:I already ... don't eat breakfast.
That is not helping you any at all. Eating at least a small breakfast is necessary to get your metabolism moving for the day. Otherwise it stays in night mode until lunch.
You also cut out the part about the reason I will continue to not eat breakfast is so can do intermittent fasting along with Keto.
Something to keep in mind when discussing just about anything we think we know...
A few examples of studies and articles in the past that told us what was good and what was bad. Taken from this article on common sense vs 'data'
They said saturated fat raises blood cholesterol and, in turn, heart disease. Now, Harvard Health reports that a “meta-analysis of 21 studies found insufficient evidence to conclude that saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease." Relatedly, they used to tell us to replace butter with margarine. Now, Harvard Health tells us it matters little.
Those fat opponents told us to eat more carbs. Then they said carbs are bad for you. But the most recent exhortation, reported in The Lancet, is moderate carbs.
They used to say coffee is bad. Now the consensus is summarized by the Mayo Clinic: For most people coffee is a net plus.
The advice used to be to eat small meals every few hours rather than big meals more hours apart. Now, Harvard Health encourages intermittent fasting: eating nothing for 14-16 hours a day, cramming all your calories into 8 to 10.
They used to tell us that it’s bad to skip breakfast. Now, a recent review of the literature concludes that unless you have diabetes, it doesn’t much matter.
They used to urge us to be thin. Then they said, “slightly overweight” is better. Now, research is back to recommending we be thin: moderately below-average BMI.
The standard recommendation for losing weight included vigorous exercise. But a recent review of the literature finds that exercise has little effect. (Perhaps in part because exercise increases appetite and entitlement.)
The standard recommendation used to be three days a week, 20 minutes of vigorous exercise: 80% of cardiac capacity. Now, it's 30 minutes of at-least moderate exercise every day.
They used to insist that it’s important to stretch before and/or after exercising. Recent metaevaluation suggests it's not.
Until recently, supplements, for example, fish oil and vitamin E, were touted. But recent, authoritative research finds that most vitamin and mineral supplements are “useless:”
They used to say marijuana was dangerous, the oft cited “Reefer Madness.” Then they said pot is innocuous. But as legalization has expanded, there’s been an explosion of research, and per the National Academy of Sciences review of over 100 studies, marijuana is more dangerous to mental and physical health than previously thought.
For decades, they said a glass or two of red wine a night was salutary. Then they said it doesn’t matter if it’s red or white. Then they said beer is fine too. Now, a new study in The Lancet says that even one drink is bad.
I
did Keto for a bit. It worked but helped to get my cholesterol up to 260 and my ldl went insane. Did lose a bunch of weight though. Eating more nuts to offset the “bad” fat doesn’t work with me as im highly allergic this is also the reason that veggie programs are so hard for me to do
Im going to try 40 40 20 split on the macros this time around. Good enough for Arnold. Good enough for me. Nothing like trying it out on yourself to know if it works.
Suprf1y said:Something to keep in mind when discussing just about anything we think we know...
A few examples of studies and articles in the past that told us what was good and what was bad. Taken from this article on common sense vs 'data'
They said saturated fat raises blood cholesterol and, in turn, heart disease. Now, Harvard Health reports that a “meta-analysis of 21 studies found insufficient evidence to conclude that saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease." Relatedly, they used to tell us to replace butter with margarine. Now, Harvard Health tells us it matters little.
Those fat opponents told us to eat more carbs. Then they said carbs are bad for you. But the most recent exhortation, reported in The Lancet, is moderate carbs.
They used to say coffee is bad. Now the consensus is summarized by the Mayo Clinic: For most people coffee is a net plus.
The advice used to be to eat small meals every few hours rather than big meals more hours apart. Now, Harvard Health encourages intermittent fasting: eating nothing for 14-16 hours a day, cramming all your calories into 8 to 10.
They used to tell us that it’s bad to skip breakfast. Now, a recent review of the literature concludes that unless you have diabetes, it doesn’t much matter.
They used to urge us to be thin. Then they said, “slightly overweight” is better. Now, research is back to recommending we be thin: moderately below-average BMI.
The standard recommendation for losing weight included vigorous exercise. But a recent review of the literature finds that exercise has little effect. (Perhaps in part because exercise increases appetite and entitlement.)
The standard recommendation used to be three days a week, 20 minutes of vigorous exercise: 80% of cardiac capacity. Now, it's 30 minutes of at-least moderate exercise every day.
They used to insist that it’s important to stretch before and/or after exercising. Recent metaevaluation suggests it's not.
Until recently, supplements, for example, fish oil and vitamin E, were touted. But recent, authoritative research finds that most vitamin and mineral supplements are “useless:”
They used to say marijuana was dangerous, the oft cited “Reefer Madness.” Then they said pot is innocuous. But as legalization has expanded, there’s been an explosion of research, and per the National Academy of Sciences review of over 100 studies, marijuana is more dangerous to mental and physical health than previously thought.
For decades, they said a glass or two of red wine a night was salutary. Then they said it doesn’t matter if it’s red or white. Then they said beer is fine too. Now, a new study in The Lancet says that even one drink is bad.
Yep, the studies outcome just depends on who is funding it. Everything kills you, everything is known toxic to California but nowhere else, etc, etc.
I think the takeaway is too live how you see fit and get on with it. None of us make it out alive.
You'll need to log in to post.
