Are calories all that matter?

Excess sugars and digested starches (i.e. broken down into simple sugars) aborbed can be eliminated in urine, as well as being coverted to fats and stored. The "low GI" diet's basis is to avoid triggering the conversion of sugar into fats (i.e. reducing the insulin response)

glucose in urine is usually a sign of a medical problem, like diatbetes/insulin resistance or kidney damage.

Eliminating fat intake helps enormously with weight reduction,

cutting out all fat, or protein, or carbs is a bad idea. they all have their own roles within the body. Fat is an extremely essential nutrient to bodily proccesses and is an efficient calorie source- the fat you take in is used for many functions before fat storage. Its good for you to eat certain types of fat and it does not have an effect on blood sugar like an equal amount of carbs would.

http://stumptuous.com/cms/displayarticle.php?aid=33

but lots of low intensity excerise (e.g. long moderate pace walks) (before meals?) is needed to encourage the release of the stored fat.
sort of.

Low intensity cardio is more likely to burn off stored body fat than high intensity cardio or weightlifting, and its good for cardiovascular health. higher intensity exercise usually calls upon sugars and starches for fuel, but it makes a much larger amount of calories to perform and continues to burn calories after the work out is over. Fat is used in the repair and matinence of muscle tissue gained through training, many people lose body fat from weight training alone because of this.

http://stumptuous.com/cms/displayarticle.php?aid=21

body builders tend to use diet to 'cut down' their body fat for competition season. being that muscled makes them calorie burning machines.



One simple trick with maintaing calorie intake but reducing the amount absorbed is to eat whole grains and vegetables rather than refined grains and processed foods.

I dont know where you get the idea that it reduces absorption of calories(???) the fiber from vegetables is not digestable/caloric for the most part. whole grains and vegetables are useful because the fiber and longer proccessing time of the food within the body make it more filling and releases the glucose from the food at a slower rate, rather than having a rollercoaster level like you would if you slammed a few cans of soda, and the crash makes you feel very hungry and just generally crappy.




The calorie content of a food is measured by drying it out and literally burning the water-free remains. Not all of that energy may actually be available to the the body - 100 calories of sugar is almost certainly to be fully absorbed by the body, whereas 100 calories of brown rice will not be. Brown rice has a lower GI (longer time for the blood sugar level to rise), but the body cannot break down the fibre (e.g. cellulose).

the majority of fiber is not caloric. and the stuff that is considered caloric (sort of...)is used by digestive bacteria rather than being used for energy or storage the way other calories are.

My wife went onto the McGougall Diet, and lost around 30kg (67lb) over about 1 year. The Mcdougall diet is basically a low fat, vegan, whole-food diet. She is still "sort of" on it at the moment (it's hard when I can eat pretty much what I want* and not put on weight). Going vegan removes a very large source of most fats in a wetern diet - meat and animal products.
thats good that she lost weight, but just my 2 cents...

There are plenty of lean meat and lean animal products available. You can add healthy fats to it for flavor and still get the benefits of eating low glycemic index carbohydrates. If you want to go vegan thats fine, but animal products are an extremely efficient source of protein and tasty as hell, so I like having them in my diet.
 
However, if weight loss is trickier and harder than we imagine, and dependent on more than trying to ignore the abundance of food around us, would it be possible for some overweight men to remain overweight even after months in that situation?

yes, some could still be overweight. a calorie restricted diet can lower the metabolism and causes a plateu effect, where weightloss slows down a whole bunch. they would remain overweight if the initial weightloss was not enough to bring them into the normal range. having your metabolism do that makes you feel tired and like crap all the time though.
 
You haven't got the time to do that, yet you reject the conclusions of those who have done that. Those who have taken the time say that the high protein diet may produce a bit more weight loss in the short term, but not in the long term, and there are concerns about possible adverse effects. So, while technically a protein calorie may not have exactly the same results as a carbohydrate calorie, for all practical purposes a calorie is a calorie, and simple calorie counting is effective for losing weight.

I don't reject their conclusions out of hand just like I just don't blindly accept them since they are someone else's conclusions and not primary evidence. That is, I believe, a major tenet of skeptical thinking. I did look at a some uses of their references and pointed out one with some ambiguity, which stated that diet make-up DOES make a difference depending on what point of the diet cycle one is in.

I agree that calorie control is a good way to lose weight. It's certainly my diet of choice when I need to lose a bit of fat. But I'm also specifically interested in getting to the bottom of the "calorie is a calorie" issue and it seems that not all calories are equal.

The next question is whether they are different enough to have a practical application in real world dieting. I have two quesions on this:
1. Is the metabolic energy expenditure of protein so much larger as to be significant to make a practical difference?
2. If it is large enough to be significant, are there other biological factors in play that nullify or outweigh the difference under common circumstances? This might well be the case given some of the info in that review you linked to, which is most interesting I might add.

For some reason I cannot find a study comparing dieters eating equal calorie diets at both ends of the carb/protein spectrum. If I could find one that would help a lot. The studies I've read include comparisons of totally free protein/fat eating with calorie controlled medium/higher carb based diets which don't answer the question. Does anyone have a like for like study as I describe?
 
However, if weight loss is trickier and harder than we imagine, and dependent on more than trying to ignore the abundance of food around us, would it be possible for some overweight men to remain overweight even after months in that situation?

1600 cals is below the maintenance calories (that their basal metabolic rate + sedentary activity energy useage) for an average sized man (doing not a lot all day). So anyone fat going in would lose weight reasonably quickly, possibly very quickly depending on how fat or otherwise large they were and how much physical activity they do in camp. Then once they'd lost some body mass, especially muscle, their maintenance cals would drop and their weight should then stay at a steady level. I think 1600 is quite low so I'd guess everyone but the smallest guys would be quite substantially underweight. Their BMR would drop in response to the starvation. If they were forced to do work then they could easily be very underweight or die.

I don't think it is possible for anyone to remain overweight in that situation. You can't get around the fact that their calories out are more than their calories in.

In reality I'm guessing there would be food trading, stealing, bullying, work avoidance etc and possibly rat or insect eating too but I don't see anyone coming out lardy.
 
I realize

I realize that I am sad and just feeling sorry for myself.:( But the fact remains that thousands of people in this country are overweight, the real issue that we are ignoring is why this is so. Yes weight loss is hard and difficult, but is simply counting your calories, a diet that has been around for quiet some time, really worked for everyone then why are so many people over weight? Let me guess, people will not stick to the diet. I have know many people who have stuck to low calorie diets and they did not lose weight. Again let me guess, they didn't do the diet right. Many of these people we obsessed with losing weight the last thing they would do is eat something they shouldn't or go against the medical advice they recieved. When I commented that people who have lost weight might not know how it is for other people that is what I meant. Weight loss is a complicated and difficult issue that goes far beyond just counting calories, just because you lost weight for yourself does not make you an expert on how other people can lose weight. I am urging you to think, think beyond current scientific studies, and advice from the medical community. Think beyond the simple tactic of attributing the lack of weight loss by others as not following the diet correctly or not having the willpower to stay on the diet. Something more is going on. We are a nation of fat people, their are reasons for this that are not openly discussed or aknowledged.:o
 
Dumbledore:

Sorry, but you have to prove it. There's nothing out there to suggest this.

If people are coutning calories and aren't losing weight, then they're either: cheating and eating snacks on the side, underestimating their calories (very common to underestimate the size of a portion, and thus the calories in it), lowering their physical activity level at the same time (doing less because they feel more tired or hungry).

We are a nation of fat people, because everyone thinks like you do. They don't want to have to do the hard work. They want a "magic bullet" to lose weight, and that just doesn't happen. Eat less, exercise more. That's it.

I've seen it in myself and many of my family members. Most of my family members who have tried to lose weight were serious about it, some desperate. And I'd watch them have a cookie ("it's just one"!) or add in the 150 calories for 4oz. of meat to cover a 9oz. sirloin. Or go to McDonalds for a BigMac and count is as a 350 calorie cheeseburger. OR decide that going without food was making them miserable so they quit exercising. I've watched peopel whose lives, limbs, and eyesight are at risk violate doctor prescribed diets...and I don't think you can convince me all these people are suicidal.

And you're right, everyone is ignoring why we have so many people overweight, because no one wants to hear the truth. They want a super-diet, a magic bullet that's easy and quick. They don't want to do it the hard way, the healthy way, losing a pound or two a week at most. They want to drop 15 pounds in a month, and stay that way forever without having to work at it.

There are reasons for it that are not openly discussed, because people don't want to face facts.

I'm urging you to think. Think about how much study has been done in this area. Think about why a study done by a diet company might differ from those published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Think about why a lot of "fad" diets use preliminary studies, or unreplicated studies, as a basis for thier claims. Think about why all this research has not shown any truth to the claim that the type of calories play a major role.
 
I dont know where you get the idea that it reduces absorption of calories(???) the fiber from vegetables is not digestable/caloric for the most part. whole grains and vegetables are useful because the fiber and longer proccessing time of the food within the body make it more filling and releases the glucose from the food at a slower rate, rather than having a rollercoaster level like you would if you slammed a few cans of soda, and the crash makes you feel very hungry and just generally crappy.


Very interesting discussion so far. I lost 50 lbs a few years ago with The South Beach Diet. One key to my success was that by reading that book, I came to understand this concept (above), and more. Understanding the chemistry of the absorption and use of foods of various types within the body was very helpful to me in selecting ingredients to cook with that would help me feel satisfied and happy with my eating regimen, while losing weight at a very fast clip.

That I ate fewer calories was the intended result, not the day-to-day proximate purpose of my diet planning. My selection of high-fiber foods while eating until satisfied, and not beyond, was the formula for success. I never counted calories.

In summary:

1) High fiber diet
2) Don't eat when not hungry

#2, frankly, is easier said than done. But #1 helps a lot with that because it contributes to the stability of blood-sugar/insulin levels.

Oh, and 3) excercise, of course -- though most of my weight loss came before I started that part.
 
Dumbledore:

Sorry, but you have to prove it. There's nothing out there to suggest this.

If people are coutning calories and aren't losing weight, then they're either: cheating and eating snacks on the side, underestimating their calories (very common to underestimate the size of a portion, and thus the calories in it), lowering their physical activity level at the same time (doing less because they feel more tired or hungry).

but the problem is that calories out isnt a level playing field. Some people would have to devote an ungodly amount of time to working out in order to get into a normal bmi range. I know Ive met families that ate healthier/were more active than mine, but they were all somewhat overweight, and all had about the same body type/fat distribution, so I found it hard not to assume it was genetic. They were all healthier than me, thats for damn sure. lol.

the good news is that obese people can see a great improvement of health with a relativley small decrease in their body fat percentage.

there is currently a debate in the medical community about wether or not to diagnose a condition called 'metabolic syndrome', its basically a set of conditions that make it much harder for individuals to lose weight. its basically saying 'you have rotten genetic luck'. But a lot of people are saying that its not neccesary, im not sure which side of it im on yet...

some rather common conditions like make it extremely difficult to shed weight because of endocrine/hormonal issues.

We are a nation of fat people, because everyone thinks like you do. They don't want to have to do the hard work. They want a "magic bullet" to lose weight, and that just doesn't happen. Eat less, exercise more. That's it.

The dietary reccomendations the FDA handed out when I was growing up were quite flawed, and were not healthy over all. It was that fat free/avoid meat low impact exercise 3x a week for 30 minutes thing. It simply didnt work very well, many people found themselves losing weight but hanging onto body fat and feeling/looking like hell with that sort of routine.

I very much disagree that everyone wants the 'easy way out'. I think that people in general work hard at losing weight but have bad information on how to go about it. My experiences lead me to believe that people will try many things w/diet and exercise that are hard to do and dont see results, and THEN start looking for the quick fix because the stuff they tried doesnt work anyway, so they 'might as well' try hydroxy cut or whatever pills there are out there. Many of the diet and exercise programs out there technically work if followed, but they push aspects of the body to such extreme limits that you would have to be seriously obsessive to stick to it. The thousands of swindlers out there are detrimental to many, someone can spend hours on their ab contraption and have a strong core but not much else to show for their hard work. Or they might be lead to believe that because they cant reasonably become 'thin' its not worth it to do so much hard work. Appearance is considered much more important than health, the family i referenced before had a daughter who was the object of endless teasing about her weight despite her doing more about it than all the skinny kids making fun of her for being 'lazy'.

I think the key to ending this sort of problem is for fitness to be TAUGHT in school. physical education fails at this in america in an extreme way. it makes exercise a one-size-fits-all ordeal when it isnt, and it basically made me hate working out in general because to pass I was forced to do exercise I did not enjoy when there were enjoyable activities I could have been doing that gave me the same benefits. The benefits of exercise were vaugely, if at all, explained to me. during the weight training unit, no one explained reps or sets or the way to do weight training to make it effective, we were let into the weight room with someone to make sure we dont get injured, and they said "go". No one explained that spot reduction does not work, while i watched apple shaped kids do an ungodly amount of ab excersizes. No one explained the point of weight training at all, while I watched boys work on nothing except their upper bodies. Competitive work outs were the main focus of every PE class ive ever had, and this is obviously discouraging to children who are not fit or coordinated to begin with. The presidential testing was HUMILIATING.

NO ONE, no one explained diet outside of calories.


I've seen it in myself and many of my family members. Most of my family members who have tried to lose weight were serious about it, some desperate. And I'd watch them have a cookie ("it's just one"!) or add in the 150 calories for 4oz. of meat to cover a 9oz. sirloin. Or go to McDonalds for a BigMac and count is as a 350 calorie cheeseburger. OR decide that going without food was making them miserable so they quit exercising. I've watched peopel whose lives, limbs, and eyesight are at risk violate doctor prescribed diets...and I don't think you can convince me all these people are suicidal.

hunger is a force to be reckoned with, thats for sure. Its a fight against everything your body tells you to do, every day. Its extremely hard to break habits as well.

And you're right, everyone is ignoring why we have so many people overweight, because no one wants to hear the truth. They want a super-diet, a magic bullet that's easy and quick. They don't want to do it the hard way, the healthy way, losing a pound or two a week at most. They want to drop 15 pounds in a month, and stay that way forever without having to work at it.

I think you are over simplifying the issue. The prevelance of overweight people is a combination of cultural and health issues. I believe lack of education, a wealth of misinformation, a cultural focus on appearance rather than health, and conflicting messages about food all contribute strongly to the use of the quick fixes.

many people do know diet pills are unhealthy, but they take them because they just want to be thin.

In america we are constantly bombarded by conflicting messages, 'a snack you dont have to feel guilty about', 'reward yourself', 'only 100 calories, so you can feel good about eating again', "eat like a MAN", etc. These sorts of messages effect everyone, food is used as a comfort for many people and advertisers encourage this, even to children.

the wide prevelance of binge eating disorder needs to be examined imo. its the most prevelant eating disorder in america, and the ravenous, crazy hunger is the same as it is for bulimics, there is just no 'purge' stage. To people like that, food is a drug, bulimics/BED sufferers can eat themselves into debt if its severe. I have sympathy for people like that, I cant imagine how hard it must be to have an addiction to something you need to live. Like being an alcoholic who needs one beer every day to live, thats the closest comparison i can come up with. There are other emotional issues that cause people to over eat (that I believe are much more prevelant than BED, emotional eating is RAMPANT and encouraged). When people with these sorts of problems decide to work on their weight, they are almost never offered any kind of psychological help. they are told to stop being so lazy when they may need more than an eating/exercise program to achieve long term success.



There are reasons for it that are not openly discussed, because people don't want to face facts.

I'm urging you to think. Think about how much study has been done in this area. Think about why a study done by a diet company might differ from those published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Think about why a lot of "fad" diets use preliminary studies, or unreplicated studies, as a basis for thier claims. Think about why all this research has not shown any truth to the claim that the type of calories play a major role.

I agree, its important for people to be encouraged to do this. Its just that most people dont understand the difference between a peer reviewed study and the rest, this is another issue of people being undereducated in schools- its clear that america has fallen behind in science and math and nothings being done about it.
 
I have know many people who have stuck to low calorie diets and they did not lose weight.

I'll suggest something else, also touched on by Huntsman. The low calorie diet may not be low enough for them. Most calorie calculators for me show I could eat in the 2000-2200 range. Nope. If I eat more than about 1700 calories a day, I gain weight.

And for some reason, exercise doesn't have much impact. Went on a backpacking trip a couple weeks ago, where I walked an average of 18 miles a day for almost a week, still eating 1700 calories a day. Didn't lose a pound from start to finish.

So in theory, a dietician could put me on a program that should make me lose weight, like 1500 calories and two hours of exercise a day, and I could stick to it scrupulously, and barely see any results despite all the effort. And boy would that be depressing!

(To tie in with the prisoner-of-war question, with minimal exercise I figure I would have stabilized at about my current size or just below, 140 lbs. and 5'7". I was probably tied with two or three others for the thinnest modern man there, even though I was actually "normal" and not "thin.")
 
Went on a backpacking trip a couple weeks ago, where I walked an average of 18 miles a day for almost a week, still eating 1700 calories a day. Didn't lose a pound from start to finish.

A week may not have been long enough to see a difference. Other confounding factors might cause weight fluctuations, such as water loss and salt intake, and backpackers tend to eat different foods than they do at home. I have watched my own weight fluctuate by 2-3# from day to day for no obviously apparent reason.

So in theory, a dietician could put me on a program that should make me lose weight, like 1500 calories and two hours of exercise a day, and I could stick to it scrupulously, and barely see any results despite all the effort.

Here's what I used to advise my patients:
(1) Keep a careful food diary of everything that goes in your mouth: food, drink, chewing gum, everything.
(2) Establish your baseline calorie intake by eating the way you normally do for a week.
(3) Cut down by 500 calories a day.
(4) If you are not losing a pound a week, keep cutting down until you are.

This method has several advantages:
(1) Keeping a diary makes people more aware of what they are eating.
(2) It self-corrects for mistakes like mis-estimation of portion size or self-deceptive under-reporting.
(3) It allows cheating. Since average calorie intake is the key, you could splurge on 1000 extra calories one day and make it up by eating 100 fewer calories a day for the next 10 days.
(4) It allows the patient to choose the kinds of foods he enjoys eating and to distribute the calories however he wants (five 200 calorie snacks a day = one 1000 calorie meal a day)
(5) It HAS to work, if the laws of physics haven't changed.

Of course, the basic plan is simplistic, and other things like adequate nutrition and psychological factors also need to be addressed. I would have the patient bring in his diary at each followup visit so I could see whether his food choices were healthy and so we could discuss any problems he was having. This method is simple, easy to understand, respects patient autonomy, and puts the responsibility where it belongs: on the one who is putting the food in the mouth.

Sometimes just keeping a calorie diary is all it takes. For instance, I had one patient who was eating a lot of yogurt because she assumed it was lo-cal diet food. She had never actually looked at the label, and was astounded to learn that each yogurt cup contained 240 calories. The neat thing was that I didn't have to "tell" her - she came in all excited to tell ME what she had discovered!
 
Interesting thread! A few years ago I was a total fitness/diet freak (then I had a baby and that all went right out the window - fortunately, toddlers are like having a personal trainer, what with all the trips to the park and the ever increasing weight to lift!).

Anyway, I remember when I was doing some reading on metabolism finding a really interesting study - they looked, IIRC, at some skinny people who had always been skinny through their lives and compared them with some overweight people. I believe it was a controlled environment, where the participants basically moved into the lab for a week and were fed only what the researchers gave them - a strictly calorie controlled diet that was higher than what their estimated base metabolisms were, and they weren't permitted to excersize.

If I'm remembering the findings correctly, they found that the skinny people were fidgeters - when they were fed more calories than they needed, they literally got antsy - if they were sitting in a chair, they'd be tapping their feet, or constantly shifting position. Basically, naturally skinny people seemed to compensate for the excess calories by unconsciously increasing their activity levels, while the overweight people did not.

I thought that was really interesting - calories in are calories in, and we can control that. Calories out, though, what we use, we're much more at the mercy of our bodies.
 
I second the food diary - measure and weigh everything. Sites like www.fitday.com and www.thedailyplate.com can help do this online.

For overweight people there is normally a difference between what they eat and what they think they eat.
 
Thanks nails3jesus0

You touched on many points and ideas that I was trying to express. As I said before the cutting calorie diet is imperfect at best. There are many flaws inherent within it. This type of diet does not address the basic genetics of the the person which I assure does have quite a lot to due with weight loss, nor does it address different food types and how they are processed by the body. The low calorie diet has been around in its basic form for quite some time, for many people it does not work no matter how long they follow it. At its core the low calorie diet is a good concept but it needs to be modified to suit the person using it, such as the person's genetics and how their body reacts to different food types. In short the story on weight loss is not as simple as cutting calories. Another issue that has not been addressed is how eltist weight loss has become in this country. The rich who quite offend have more than enough time and money to devote to weight loss are able to stay skinny, for those of them who have weight problems. The poor however, lacking these essential quantiles have a much more difficult time with it. I do realize that there are many poor people who have lost weight, I am not saying that if you are poor that you can't lose weight. What I am saying is that if you are poor and have weight issuses the field is certainly stacked against you.
 
Here's my next diet...

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html

But first I've got to quit smoking.

Go for it Ocelot. I've been following this approach (not a diet, it's just a weight-measuring approach) for 11 months now and I'm down 20 pounds. I've been using the Palm OS tools that he also wrote to make the tracking easier, and it's given me the data I need to see how my choice of foods and activities is doing. I don't count calories at all, but I do eat less in total than I used to and smaller portions most of the time. I've dealt with the hunger problem by focusing on taste and texture--making sure the food I DO eat is really enjoyable stuff. I'm cooking more as a result, and that's not a bad thing either (certainly it's cheaper, and healthier).

Best of all, since I've been doing this for nearly a year, my eating habits are now a habit so I feel pretty confident in my ability to keep it up. My weight loss did slow down at the holidays, but that didn't bother me since I stayed with my mantra of eating what I like and liking what I eat. It just so happens that I really like pumpkin pie, and I make a darn good one :D
 
The low calorie diet has been around in its basic form for quite some time, for many people it does not work no matter how long they follow it.

Are you saying that for some people, no matter how low a calorie dieet they go on, they won't lose weight? That some people could eat, say, 1,000 or 800 or 600 calories a day indefinitely and never lose weight? How low could their calorie count go, without them either losing weight or becoming breathairians? :)

Or are you just saying that it's psychologically too difficult for them to eat as little as they'd need on a regular diet, given a normal environment with other food available?

Another issue that has not been addressed is how eltist weight loss has become in this country. The rich who quite offend have more than enough time and money to devote to weight loss are able to stay skinny, for those of them who have weight problems. The poor however, lacking these essential quantiles have a much more difficult time with it.

I know that ill health among the poor is sad, whether caused by malnourishment or obesity, but it still amazes me how prosperous first-world countries have become in just the last couple hundred years, when we can now lament that the poor are too fat.
 
I know that ill health among the poor is sad, whether caused by malnourishment or obesity, but it still amazes me how prosperous first-world countries have become in just the last couple hundred years, when we can now lament that the poor are too fat.

Not just in first-world countries. Brazil is a middle-income country and we also have high levels of obesity - 5th in the world if I remember well.

Low-income people occasionally earn part of their salaries as food tickets, with which they can buy meals (companies pay lower taxes with food tickets, as opposed to just adding the amount to the salaries).

Imagine you earn $500 a month and $160 for meals.That's $8 for a meal per day. With that, you can buy a plate with protein, rice, beans, legumes and vegetables. It's not great quality stuff, but it's decent. For comparison, I spend almost twice when I have lunch downtown.

OR you can pay $3 for an "x-everything". It's a sandwich with two buns, one hamburger, egg, cheese, ham, bacon, corn, peas, mayo, mashed potatoes, french fries (yes, both) and more cheese on top. With a sugary beverage well-diluted in tons of water. The difference between the $3 and the $8 is partly pocketed (minus 10% paid in the black market). If you're poor enough, the $90 you saved is an awful lot!

Also, there's a lot to be said about culture. Once, at McDonald's, I ordered a salad. The girl in the cashier looked at me conspiratorially and offered the version with chicken breast. I said no, thanks, just the salad. She gave me a disgusted look and asked "are you going to eat grass only??" People like her seem to think that salads do not "sustain" a person, so why eat it at all?

Otoh, middle-class people like me are taught early on that legumes and fruits give you the vitamins you need to grow up healthy and tall!

----
On a related note... as a foreigner, one thing that amazes me in the US is the size of the portions. I can't believe one can talk about obesity without mentioning this aspect of American society. The sizes of the sandwiches, salads and muffins in a Starbucks are ridiculous. And that's just one example. I remember once being in a museum when a group of young kids arrived and sat for a snack. My goodness, I was horrified by how much they ate! Small 8yos!

In a McDonald's in the US, I see people ordering the extra-large meals. All the time. In Brazil, that's extremely rare and it gets stares.

Starbucks haven't opened yet in Rio, but I'm curious as to how they will size their portions because, really, those muffins are double-sized for our standards.

In restaurants in the US, I could live perfectly well with half the portion and 1/5 of the fat. And I'm not the only one who says that - you can tell a person has been to the US the first time when they say, all excited "oh, their meals are huge! And they eat bacon for breakfast!!!".

Peanut butter. In packages that resemble buckets. 'nuff said.
 
You touched on many points and ideas that I was trying to express. As I said before the cutting calorie diet is imperfect at best. There are many flaws inherent within it. This type of diet does not address the basic genetics of the the person which I assure does have quite a lot to due with weight loss, nor does it address different food types and how they are processed by the body. The low calorie diet has been around in its basic form for quite some time, for many people it does not work no matter how long they follow it. At its core the low calorie diet is a good concept but it needs to be modified to suit the person using it, such as the person's genetics and how their body reacts to different food types.

And you're wrong. Genetics can make it easier or harder, but it's STILL about calories. Some people burn fewer calories than others, so need to lower their intake more (or exercise more) than others. BUt it's still calories. The food "type" has not been shown to affect anything (and much testing has been done).

I agree with pretty much all of what nails said, myself. I tend to get carried away a bit when so many people play the "I can't lose weight because of genes" card. Because it's BS. It may be harder, but you can lose weight.

Even then, I'd be suprised if even there's truth to the genetics/medical problem claims in 40% of those who claim this.

In short the story on weight loss is not as simple as cutting calories.

No, it isn't. There's also burning more calories. USe any combination of the two.

Another issue that has not been addressed is how eltist weight loss has become in this country. The rich who quite offend have more than enough time and money to devote to weight loss are able to stay skinny, for those of them who have weight problems. The poor however, lacking these essential quantiles have a much more difficult time with it. I do realize that there are many poor people who have lost weight, I am not saying that if you are poor that you can't lose weight. What I am saying is that if you are poor and have weight issuses the field is certainly stacked against you.

It's only stacked against you if you think you have to have a personal trainer and a $500 dollar a month specialty diet plan. Some things are harder without money, yes. But you can still buy healthy foods cheaply, with some looking around. And it takes very little in the way of equipment to do push-ups, sit-ups, walking, jogging, pull-ups, jumping jacks, crunches, hide-and-seek, soccer, or numerous other activities and exercises.

Sure, some peopel burn more calories than others. BUt it still comes out to calories in/calories out. The ONLY way you'll lose weight (short of surgery or having portions of your body chopped off) is if you take in fewer calories than you burn. Trying to suggest anything else is equivalent to proposing a "free energy" device or perpetual motion machine.
 
Go for it Ocelot. I've been following this approach (not a diet, it's just a weight-measuring approach) for 11 months now and I'm down 20 pounds. I've been using the Palm OS tools that he also wrote to make the tracking easier, and it's given me the data I need to see how my choice of foods and activities is doing. I don't count calories at all, but I do eat less in total than I used to and smaller portions most of the time. I've dealt with the hunger problem by focusing on taste and texture--making sure the food I DO eat is really enjoyable stuff. I'm cooking more as a result, and that's not a bad thing either (certainly it's cheaper, and healthier).

Best of all, since I've been doing this for nearly a year, my eating habits are now a habit so I feel pretty confident in my ability to keep it up. My weight loss did slow down at the holidays, but that didn't bother me since I stayed with my mantra of eating what I like and liking what I eat. It just so happens that I really like pumpkin pie, and I make a darn good one :D

ANd here is an excellent idea. It is all about calories, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to count the calories. Track what you eat normally, and use that to modify your habits. Get smaller portions, or eat lower-calorie foods (such as vegetables) in place of higher-calorie snacks (potato chips, ice cream, Snickers bars).

My problem is actually because I'm ex-military. You get used to consuming a large meal in 5 minutes or less. I have a tendency to eat too much, and before my stomach catches up I'm bloated. So that's my problem, and where I'm focusing efforts on the diet side. The exercise side I've got covered...have to keep in shape for my military commitments. But I've put on extra weight the last few years, and my body fat is too high (about 26% now). And it's been hell to try and get it off. I'd tried for about a year, using various methods, during which I went from 23% to 26%. Since I've started simply eating slower, and ordering smaller portions at restaurants (I still have this guilt feeling about leaving food on my plate, leftover from childhood I guess), I've dropped 5 pounds in about 8 weeks. Slow, but steady. And you know why? Because eating slower means I eat less. I went to bed hungry a few nights, but pretty soon my stomach had adjusted to a smaller size and I didn't feel so hungry, nor did I feel the need to eat as much. With the workout program I already had in place (calories again, burning more, you see) I've started losing.

No matter the diet, it's about calories.
 
My only diet tip: If your particular vice is chocolate, switch to dark chocolate instead of milk. I have found that a couple of squares of dark chocolate is more satisfying than a much larger amount of milk chocolate when you are just after a snack and not actively hungry.

ETA: ok that is in addition to my only other diet tip of cutting out the sugary drinks mentioned earlier...
 
To answer a previous question the person in question was on a 500 calorie diet a day, she lost some weight but then her body adjusted to this calorie intake level and she lost no more weight. So I will lay it on the table, dieting is more that cutting calories or burning more calories, despite what the medical community says. I have meet many, many people for which the cutting calorie diet does not work. These people followed the medical advice their doctor had given them to the letter. I realize that medical research disagrees with me on this point, I have no problem with this, from what I have seen the research is wrong in these particular cases. That is to say I value my personal experience above the research. Science and research can be wrong, missing some important factor, and it can be manipulated. Feel free to disagree with me, but it strikes me as a little odd that the only real answer we have for why people have not lost their unwanted weight is that they are not dedicated enough or following their diet properly, to me this does not add up. The US is full of people trying to lose weight, are their really only few chosen people who are up to the task of losing weight, or is something else going on, what is more likely? :cool:
 

Back
Top Bottom