• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fat loss confusion

My high weight was 242 lbs. I started trying to diet last January. After getting a cardiology checkup I started riding my 3-speed bike. I measured out a course that was 2 miles. Then I did two laps and then three. The most I did was five. So, I measured out another course that was 4.4 miles. I normally do one or two laps on this. When the weather is good, I ride my bike; otherwise I use a Health Walker for about 30 minutes. I have a lot more strength and stamina than when I started. If I don't lose weight for three days I typically exercise a little more.

My weight today was 200 lbs. I've lost 0.8 lbs per week for the past year.

I don't lift weights. I don't eat high protein. The fruit I eat is typically an apple or banana. I do eat vegetables. I drink cappuccino in the morning with skim milk and usually drink iced tea later. I normally put 1 tablespoon of sugar in my iced tea. I'm not avoiding carbohydrates. I keep the calories down and don't eat after dinner.
 
Last edited:
It's CICO. If you are going to eat like a lumberjack, you have to work like a lumberjack. Or like a body builder in training, 7,000 calories per day. If they don't have iron in their hands, they have food in their hands.

Currently, I am quite sedentary with a bad knee while awaiting replacement surgery. I'm eating 3,000 cal a day, gained 12 lbs in 6 months. That is only about 100 calories per day excess. Not too hard to exercise that off, eh Pipeline?

The difference between my weight spike and dip is 90 pounds. Lifetime highest to adult lowest in 40 years was five years, but most of the weight loss was 60 lbs in 3 months. Dip lasted longer than spike, but did creep up at 100 calories per day.
 
Orphia Nay said:
The weight loss was from calorie-counting, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

It's also worth mentioning that even without calorie counting, the act of paying attention to eating in and of itself has greater impact than any of the general diet strategies.

I've done some quantification in the past, and will have to rummage around for my notes, but I think the impact goes something like this:

  • food journal (IIRC, outperforms all other impacts combined)
  • eat without distractions (most common example is TV)
  • tableware size/shape/colour
  • in-food variety
  • macronutrient fiddling (practically no impact)
  • regular exercise (net zero impact over large populations)

For the most part, it's a strategy of environment management that can lead to more attention to the amount eaten.

I don't fully agree with Richard Wiseman on every topic, but his recent post aligns with my understanding of the current literature: [10 simple ways to lose weight]

He sorts the strategies into different categories (I put all the tableware tweaks into one category, for example). Also, I have not seen the original research behind his mirror suggestion, so at the moment I cannot confirm if it's sound advice.

Also, my category of removing distractions is intended to leverage the secondary impact of creating slower eating, but it actually only works for those who are eating alone. So he may have a good idea to pull it into its own category and isolate it from turning off the tv.

Lastly, I'd also like to review his references about photographing unhealthy foods. Not sure about the validity for that yet.
 
Jules Galen said:
Strafing Runs at the Chinese Buffet

Anyways, periodically I like to go to the Chinese Buffet down the street which is not only chocked full of Chinese food, but about every other type of food, too. They even have Mexican food and Italian food, too - they got it all. It's really a deal for $10. God bless these people.
Click to expand...

If you enjoy eating at places like this, bless your indiscriminate heart (or taste buds). They are not for me. I can cook a healthy, tasty meal for less than that at home or go to a local place for fresh, healthy food.

I can't imagine how AWFUL the quality of the ingredients and preparation have to be to be able to charge $10 for an all you can eat buffet and still make enough of a profit to stay in business.
 
blutoski said:
It's also worth mentioning that even without calorie counting, the act of paying attention to eating in and of itself has greater impact than any of the general diet strategies.

I've done some quantification in the past, and will have to rummage around for my notes, but I think the impact goes something like this:

  • food journal (IIRC, outperforms all other impacts combined)
  • eat without distractions (most common example is TV)
  • tableware size/shape/colour
  • in-food variety
  • macronutrient fiddling (practically no impact)
  • regular exercise (net zero impact over large populations)

For the most part, it's a strategy of environment management that can lead to more attention to the amount eaten.

I don't fully agree with Richard Wiseman on every topic, but his recent post aligns with my understanding of the current literature: [10 simple ways to lose weight]

He sorts the strategies into different categories (I put all the tableware tweaks into one category, for example). Also, I have not seen the original research behind his mirror suggestion, so at the moment I cannot confirm if it's sound advice.

Also, my category of removing distractions is intended to leverage the secondary impact of creating slower eating, but it actually only works for those who are eating alone. So he may have a good idea to pull it into its own category and isolate it from turning off the tv.

Lastly, I'd also like to review his references about photographing unhealthy foods. Not sure about the validity for that yet.
Click to expand...

Totally agree about the food journal. I use My Fitness Pal, but same thing.

Thanks for the Wiseman video and your comments.

Not sure I'd agree on the red plates tip. I'm sure I recall reading about studies that say white plates are best. Red is supposed to encourage appetite, which is why places like Chinese restaurants decorate with it.
 
blutoski said:
I don't fully agree with Richard Wiseman on every topic, but his recent post aligns with my understanding of the current literature: [10 simple ways to lose weight]
Click to expand...
Let's see.
1. Use smaller plates. I don't do this.
2. Eat with your non-dominant hand. I don't do this.
3. Drink from tall, thin glasses. I use a typical, 12 ounce drinking glass for iced tea. I use a very large cup which holds 20 ounces for cappuccino.
4. Put mirrors in the kitchen. I don't have any in the kitchen.
5. Chew gum when you feel hungry. I don't chew gum.
6. Eat more slowly. I don't make any special effort to eat slowly.
7. Use red plates or bowls. I don't have any.
8. Turn off the television when you eat. I don't do this.
9. Photograph your unhealthy food. This doesn't make any sense to me. How about not buying the unhealthy food?
10. Avoid different varieties of food. I don't do this. But then again, I don't typically have plates of cookies and cheese laying around.

I've lost another 3 1/2 lbs since my last post. That brings my total weight loss to over 45 lbs.
 
pipelineaudio said:
I'm now confused again, about exercise not being important to it. In order to sustain the level of activity that moved me from 195 to 185, my calorie count went up from 2200 calories a day to 4400 calories a day. I'm eating twice as much, but still losing weight. One hour before the skatepark, 500 calories of that are carbs.

Maybe exercise isnt that important generally, but in my case it sure seems to be
Click to expand...

This means that you seem to be burning 2800 calories or more per day in excess of your basal metabolic rate. For most people in our modern, sedentary, world that's unachievable on a long term basis. Of course if your work or hobby means that you are very active (IIRC Casebro lost a bunch of weight during a physically demanding pickup rebuild and MikeG's one-man house build meant that all the cake he was eating had no effect on his wasteline - until he stopped the build) then it's entirely possible but for me to do the same, I'd have to run for about 3 hours, 20 miles, every day.

To lose weight consistently, one needs a consistent caloric deficit. It is possible to do this through exercise alone BUT if you don't have the time or get sick or injured then it's far too easy not to create that deficit each an every day. OTOH, as long as your vigilant and motivated, it is possible to restrict your intake to ensure that you have a deficit.

Nearly 20 years ago I weighed 16 stone (225 lbs) and thought that I must be some kind of metabolic freak. I spent 8-10 hours a week in the gym on a combination of cardio and weights, played squash for a couple of hours a week and went out for runs a couple of times a week and was still quite podgy.

Then Mrs Don and I sat down and worked out how much we were eating. Apparently 1/2lb or dry pasta isn't a serving and a regular two sausage, two egg, four rashers of bacon and four slices of toast breakfast is not normal. I was only able to achieve a weight loss (of 50lbs, almost all of which I have maintained) when I restricted my calorie intake and completely revised my portion control. Over those years work and other commitments have meant that there have been times when exercise has been far more difficult, even impossible and I've had a broken leg and a crocked ACL which has meant that I've been on my backside for months at a time. While by level of fitness has ebbed and flowed, calorie control has meant that my weight has been reasonably constant.


tl;dr version: for most people not eating 500 kcal every day is more achievable more regularly than exercising 500 kcal every day.
 
The Don said:
This means that you seem to be burning 2800 calories or more per day in excess of your basal metabolic rate. For most people in our modern, sedentary, world that's unachievable on a long term basis. Of course if your work or hobby means that you are very active (IIRC Casebro lost a bunch of weight during a physically demanding pickup rebuild and MikeG's one-man house build meant that all the cake he was eating had no effect on his wasteline - until he stopped the build) then it's entirely possible but for me to do the same, I'd have to run for about 3 hours, 20 miles, every day.

To lose weight consistently, one needs a consistent caloric deficit. It is possible to do this through exercise alone BUT if you don't have the time or get sick or injured then it's far too easy not to create that deficit each an every day. OTOH, as long as your vigilant and motivated, it is possible to restrict your intake to ensure that you have a deficit.

Nearly 20 years ago I weighed 16 stone (225 lbs) and thought that I must be some kind of metabolic freak. I spent 8-10 hours a week in the gym on a combination of cardio and weights, played squash for a couple of hours a week and went out for runs a couple of times a week and was still quite podgy.

Then Mrs Don and I sat down and worked out how much we were eating. Apparently 1/2lb or dry pasta isn't a serving and a regular two sausage, two egg, four rashers of bacon and four slices of toast breakfast is not normal. I was only able to achieve a weight loss (of 50lbs, almost all of which I have maintained) when I restricted my calorie intake and completely revised my portion control. Over those years work and other commitments have meant that there have been times when exercise has been far more difficult, even impossible and I've had a broken leg and a crocked ACL which has meant that I've been on my backside for months at a time. While by level of fitness has ebbed and flowed, calorie control has meant that my weight has been reasonably constant.


tl;dr version: for most people not eating 500 kcal every day is more achievable more regularly than exercising 500 kcal every day.
Click to expand...

Basal metabolic rate can be more variable than you think. People working the arctic / antarctic can have a huge calorie intake even if not doing much exercise (look at the figures for the antarctic research scientists), much of the calories are consumed to keep you warm.

I have a theory (for which I have no evidence), that a contributing factor to modern obesity is modern heating. I think those of us in Northern areas have a tradition of food suitable for a cold environment which effectively no longer exists. If you look at old photos people dressed in heavy wool clothing, now cotton is the norm. Wooly hats were needed in bed. I would like to see a study that involved turning down central heating, having a cold bedroom and the impact that had on weight loss.
 
Planigale said:
I have a theory (for which I have no evidence), that a contributing factor to modern obesity is modern heating. I think those of us in Northern areas have a tradition of food suitable for a cold environment which effectively no longer exists.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me, if people are following a traditional diet while not making allowances for the reduced demand of living in a warm environment.

"Our bodies burn energy to keep us warm in a process called non-shivering thermogenesis (NST), they explain, which works even at pretty reasonable temperatures. They defined mild cold exposure as 64 degrees Fahrenheit." link

The trick would be not to up your food intake because you feel a little hungry because of the cold.
 
I fersure do crave fattier foods in the winter months. Any weight gains during the Holiday Season is NOT going to be from the TWO big meals at THX and Xmas.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Totally agree about the food journal. I use My Fitness Pal, but same thing.

Thanks for the Wiseman video and your comments.

Not sure I'd agree on the red plates tip. I'm sure I recall reading about studies that say white plates are best. Red is supposed to encourage appetite, which is why places like Chinese restaurants decorate with it.
Click to expand...

I think red encouraging appetite is an older wisdom that has since been disproven, and I'm not sure the original research specifically tested plate colour anyway. I believe the mechanism of action is more about the visibility of the food itself.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of inertia in hospitality, and I would suspect that a lucky colour like red has even more staying power in restaurants with Chinese operators. All my local examples have luck cats, too. Pretty sure the evidence shows they don't work either, but there they are.
 
Orphia Nay said:
The motto goes, "CICO for weight loss, exercise for health".
Click to expand...

My version is "Kitchen for weightloss; Gym for other health benefits."

Here's a new study on the topic of us having a limited amount of 'oomph' during the day, such that exercise makes us compensate with less energy in our other activities, for little or no net gain:


And, related to the findings that we're about as 'active' as previous generations, as far back as we have records... that's a longitudinal study; we find the same horizontally. Meaning: contemporary obese people are as active as contemporary thin people, even when we compare across nations. (ie: an obese American is as active as a thin Indian):


The best model that explains the literature is that exercise may be important for health, but probably not a critical factor for weight loss.
 
blutoski said:
My version is "Kitchen for weightloss; Gym for other health benefits."

Here's a new study on the topic of us having a limited amount of 'oomph' during the day, such that exercise makes us compensate with less energy in our other activities, for little or no net gain:


And, related to the findings that we're about as 'active' as previous generations, as far back as we have records... that's a longitudinal study; we find the same horizontally. Meaning: contemporary obese people are as active as contemporary thin people, even when we compare across nations. (ie: an obese American is as active as a thin Indian):


The best model that explains the literature is that exercise may be important for health, but probably not a critical factor for weight loss.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for that.

I'm really enjoying your posts on this topic. :thumbsup:
 
Planigale said:
Basal metabolic rate can be more variable than you think. People working the arctic / antarctic can have a huge calorie intake even if not doing much exercise (look at the figures for the antarctic research scientists), much of the calories are consumed to keep you warm.
Click to expand...

True, but realistically most of us spend most of our time in environments in the 16C-24C range. Arctic and Antarctic research scientists make up a small proportion of the population.

I've seen reference to studies that claim that restless people like me (I cannot sit still, I'm always shuffling around or jiggling a foot) burn a couple of hundred calories a day more than people like Mrs Don (who, when she isn't specifically doing something is incredibly still). However that's still only a couple of slices of bread or small biscuits (cookies) a day.


Planigale said:
I have a theory (for which I have no evidence), that a contributing factor to modern obesity is modern heating. I think those of us in Northern areas have a tradition of food suitable for a cold environment which effectively no longer exists. If you look at old photos people dressed in heavy wool clothing, now cotton is the norm. Wooly hats were needed in bed. I would like to see a study that involved turning down central heating, having a cold bedroom and the impact that had on weight loss.
Click to expand...

Yes the homes were cold but people compensated by wearing more clothing. I don't know how reliable this study referenced in Time magazine is but it seems to indicate that energy expenditure is pretty uniform the world over:

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/...ies-as-hunter-gatherers-so-what-makes-us-fat/

People in the West are fatter because we consume more (on average)

[anecdote]I work from home and because I'm a cheapskate I don't like to put the heating on unless Mrs Don demands it. My office during the winter is usually 16C (61F) and during a cold spell may even get down to 12C (54F) for a few days. Yes, it's chilly but a beanie and a couple of decent layers make it perfectly tolerable. The trouble is that I tend to put weight on in the winter.

In the summer, when it's - by U.K. standards - quite warm I tend to lose weight (mostly because I'm not that hungry) so I'm not sure it's as simple as cold house = thin people (but then again I can afford the extra food, it would be different if I could not)[/anecdote]

edited to add....

Here's a link to a BBC report on a study which looked at central heating and weight:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25849628

Having the central heating on may be contributing to our ballooning waistlines, Dutch researchers suggest.

They say higher temperatures in homes, offices and hospitals provide more comfort, but mean bodies no longer need to burn extra calories to keep warm.

A Maastricht University Medical Centre group says 19C (66F) is sufficient to provide the right balance.
Click to expand...

Then again, their definition of cold isn't the same as mine......

Dr Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt told the BBC: "19C is enough - and not for the whole day.
Click to expand...

My house is never that warm in winter, the thermostat is set to 17C :o

The NHS is also unsure and recommends a temperature between 18-21C. There is some evidence from a Japanese study that significantly lower temperatures can result in fat loss but that study was not systematic:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/01January/Pages/Central-heating-could-be-contributing-to-obesity.aspx



In its usual way the Daily Fail is less equivocal.....

How central heating is making you fat: Sitting in your cosy home stops you from burning calories
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...heating-making-fat-stop-burning-calories.html
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
Then again, their definition of cold isn't the same as mine...
Click to expand...

Something I discovered, on account of being married to a woman whose family is from the Caribbean.

We go down there in January sometimes - I sweat like a pig in my Bermuda shorts and flip flops, while everybody around me is in gloves and scarves.

"Because it's only 28 today".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom