Support NeoGAF

[Riki]

Number 9 is one I always questioned and was looking for in this list. People always told me "Fruits have TOO much carbs, you shouldnt eat it if you are trying to lose weight!"

There are definitely better for you fruits, though.
Berries, especially, are the most beneficial without being too high in sugars. Blueberries in particular are amazing health food.

I'm about 5"9 and was 18 stone 7 months ago, now im almost bang on 13.

I stopped drinking coke and eating chocolate and crisps. I walk over 4 miles a day and eat sensible meals always watching my calories.

still about 1.5 stone to go i reckon. Ive been fat all my life and finally got so sick of being over weight I really tried, at the rate im going it will be another couple months and ill be a healthy weight.

To anyone struggling with weight loss I would say you gotta really want to lose weight and give up that junk food.

Everyone really should give up drinking soda regularly either way. It's horrible for you, even beyond weight gain.

 

[Byakuya769]

You can, though. You can lose weight on a Twinkie diet, or a potato diet. These people didn't experience any health issues. Actually:

I can lose weight on a fudge sundae diet. That doesn't mean that it's "easy" or sustainable. Counting calories on foods that don't leave you feeling full is difficult. You're left feeling hungry, you're fostering sweet cravings, and you're spending a lot of money on supplements. Christ, people.'

 

[RM8]

I can lose weigh on a fudge sunday diet. That doesn't mean that it's "easy" or sustainable. Counting calories on foods that don't leave you feeling full is difficult. You're left feeling hungry, you're fostering sweet cravings, and you're spending a lot of money on supplements. Christ, people.'

What is not easy for you might be for other people. Not everyone thinks eating a burger with lettuce "buns" is easy, not everyone thinks gorging on bacon is easy.

 

[Byakuya769]

What is not easy for you might be for other people. Not everyone thinks eating a burger with lettuce "buns" is easy, not everyone thinks gorging on bacon is easy.

This is ridiculous, and a good example of why fad diets are such a big problem.

 

[Devolution]

What is not easy for you might be for other people. Not everyone thinks eating a burger with lettuce "buns" is easy, not everyone thinks gorging on bacon is easy.

His point is that all these things interact. Calorie counting an already shit diet isn't going to help a person out.

 

[RM8]

This is ridiculous, and a good example of why fad diets are such a big problem.

What is ridiculous? The fact that different diets work for different people?

BTW I'm not advocating a Twinkie diet.

 

[SRG01]

I can lose weight on a fudge sunday diet. That doesn't mean that it's "easy" or sustainable. Counting calories on foods that don't leave you feeling full is difficult. You're left feeling hungry, you're fostering sweet cravings, and you're spending a lot of money on supplements. Christ, people.'

Not to mention the study is hugely flawed. The infamous twinkie study cut about 800 calories from his diet. That's about the equivalent of cutting one meal a day, which would result in weight loss for anyone regardless of diet.

The proper control needs to be equivalent calories with healthy and junk food, controlling for exercise and muscle mass.

 

[Devolution]

Not to mention the study is hugely flawed. The infamous twinkie study cut about 800 calories from his diet. That's about the equivalent of cutting one meal a day, which would result in weight loss for anyone regardless of diet.

The proper control needs to be equivalent calories with healthy and junk food, controlling for exercise and muscle mass.

Also you can lose weight in various ways, doesn't make them particularly healthy or sustainable in the long run though.

 

[RM8]

But the whole point was proving that a calorie deficit is enough for weight loss, lol.

 

[Zoe]

Not to mention the study is hugely flawed. The infamous twinkie study cut about 800 calories from his diet. That's about the equivalent of cutting one meal a day, which would result in weight loss for anyone regardless of diet.

The proper control needs to be equivalent calories with healthy and junk food, controlling for exercise and muscle mass.

Really depends on what the goal of the study is. With your change, the goal wouldn't be weight loss.

 

[APF]

Our body does not have a clock that says I need this specific amount of calories today. The body needs fuel? If it doesn't find carbs/protein/fats it burns a lot of stored fat but also burns muscle mass.

Here's what's actually going on:

Your body expends a certain amount of energy at rest, just in order to be able to maintain basic capabilities--brain function, etc. Further, it requires energy in order to complete routine activity, such as walking around the house, going up and down the stairs, and so on; even fidgeting expends energy that the body needs to get from somewhere, as well as things like maintaining intense concentration. Combined, this energy expenditure is what we call your basal metabolic rate: the amount of calories you expend when maintaining a basic activity level. In other words, this is the "clock" saying how many calories you need every day.

On top of this there are major activities, like long walks or jogs, running, weight lifting, or other intensive exercise or sport. These activities also expend a certain amount of energy, both while being performed and when the body is winding down afterwards. If your current energy expenditure (your output) is greater than what's immediately available (your intake), your body starts to mobilize stored energy (muscle glycogen, body fat). Muscle protein will only be utilized for energy during periods of actual starvation--however there are other adaptations the body goes through in response to long-term caloric restriction (eg fluctuation of hormonal levels, lack of energy and nutrients for protein synthesis, loss of muscle glycogen stores as stated above), that put the body into a catabolic state and lead to a loss of muscle, but it's not primarily because the body needs to use muscle for energy when there is eg fat available. Unless you have a lot of muscle and little fat.

 

[Branduil]

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
Stay way from junk food.

And exercise regularly (doesn't matter which really, the focus on weight training is popular but not necessary, just maintain physical activity).

Simple.

Too simple. How are you supposed to make money off of selling people that?

 

[Devolution]

But the whole point was proving that a calorie deficit is enough, lol.

Point is it's better to balance off a diet with nutrient dense foods and activity rather than just starve yourself of calories. Especially since most people cannot sustain the latter.

 

[Byakuya769]

But the whole point was proving that a calorie deficit is enough for weight loss, lol.

No one ever refuted that in the thread.

 

[RM8]

Point is it's better to balance off a diet with nutrient dense foods and activity rather than just starve yourself of calories. Especially since most people cannot sustain the latter.

And I agree with this. Again, I'm not advocating a Twinkie diet or anything similar. I'm just saying there's no need to live in perpetual fear of any macronutrient.

 

[Devolution]

And I agree with this. Again, I'm not advocating a Twinkie diet or anything similar. I'm just saying there's no need to live in perpetual fear of any macronutrient.

The point people other people are making is that some calorie reduction is typically not looking at the actual dietary problem of "what am I eating and what is it doing to/for me?"

 

[RM8]

No one ever refuted that in the thread.

No, we've had our usual "you can't even dream about losing weight if you eat bread" posts in this thread.

The point people other people are making is that some calorie reduction is typically not looking at the actual dietary problem of "what am I eating and what is it doing to/for me?"

Uh, but I agree with this.

 

[davepoobond]

i dont know who to believe. these guys say this stuff but then other people who are more "reputable" go around and say the exact opposite.

 

[Byakuya769]

No, we've had our usual "you can't even dream about losing weight if you eat bread" posts in this thread.


Uh, but I agree with this.

One guy saying if you want to lose weight stop eating bread and then explaining his reasoning?

That's completely logical and he even walked it back to say he was saying what worked for him. Are you disagreeing that bread contains a lot of calories and carbs without much else? Do you disagree with the idea that you can rack up many calories through 3 rolls of bread, while not even feeling full?

By all means, eat bread. But it's good to know what you're eating and what it can do. A better diet and moderate exercise can change a life, what you're pushing back on leads to yoyo weights for a lot of people.

 

[RM8]

One guy saying if you want to lose weight stop eating bread and then explaining his reasoning?

That's completely logical and he even walked it back to say he was saying what worked for him. Are you disagreeing that bread contains a lot of calories and carbs without much else? Do you disagree with the idea that you can rack up many calories through 3 rolls of bread, while not even feeling full?

By all means, eat bread. But it's good to know what you're eating and what it can do. A better diet and moderate exercise can change a life, what you're pushing back on leads to yoyo weights for a lot of people.

I'm not saying bread isn't high-calorie, just that even if you're on a diet, you can have it in moderation without wrecking your weight loss.

And what exactly am I "pushing"? I really don't have any argument here that isn't "carbs are not evil". Really, I'm not trying to say or imply absolutely anything else.

 

[Fantastical]

And what exactly am I "pushing"? I really don't have any argument here that isn't "carbs are not evil". Really, I'm not trying to say or imply absolutely anything else.

You obviously came into this thread with the goal of looking for posts aimed at reducing bread intake.

 

[RM8]

You obviously came into this thread with the goal of looking for posts aimed at reducing bread intake.

Considering I think reducing calories equals weight loss, nope, I don't oppose people reducing bread intake or even removing bread or any other high calorie food item from their diets. But the second you post "I ate a grain of rice, now I won't be able to lose weight", then I'll be there in full Carb Defense Mode to protest

 

[Onion_Relish]

I can lose weight on a fudge sunday diet. That doesn't mean that it's "easy" or sustainable. Counting calories on foods that don't leave you feeling full is difficult. You're left feeling hungry, you're fostering sweet cravings, and you're spending a lot of money on supplements. Christ, people.'

...Tell me more about this "fudge sunday" diet

 

[Whitechocolatekrispies]

Anything outside of lots and lots of exercise coupled with not eating is a lie.

 

[APF]

Eating a meal with eg meat + bread is more satiating than eating a meal with meat alone, especially if that bread is fibrous / whole grain / etc. If post-meal satiety is your concern there's a benefit in allowing yourself to eat breads and grains, etc.

 

[Byakuya769]

...Tell me more about this "fudge sunday" diet

Haha, let's just wait for all the objective facts before we go further and let emotions get in the way

 

[Plinko]

I've lost 15 pounds in the last month and a half by simply doing 30-40 minutes of cardio 4-5 times a week, cutting out snacking and cutting back (but not eliminating) carbohydrates.

Still eat the things you love, just less of them. Makes things way easier. The list in the OP seems pretty solid, for me anyway.

 

[Impeccable]

Counting calories and profit, all there is to weight loss. It's goes without saying those calories should rarely come from high sugar foods.

Exercise isn't even a factor in the mix. Get your diet under complete control then worry about the exercise. Once you nail your diet and counting calories your body naturally will help you continue it. The first two weeks are the difficult part.

Fat man advice.

(It really isn't "easy" though, far from it.)

 

[Opiate]

lol. It's impossible talking about this with you since you think you know better than people who deal with their own diet and see things happen in action.

Anecdotal and personal experience is awful for this sort of highly complex biological phenomenon.

And yes they do it scientifically by figuring out what their body intakes and how it feels or weighs after they do. But you're stuck on devaluing their own statements based on whatever study you google that doesn't match their findings.

Correct. That is appropriate. Individual experience should be strongly devalued. I lost the weight I gained in my early 20s by eating a low fat, high carb diet. It worked great for me. So what now? Should I and Sapiens simply yell at each other until one of us gets tired?

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Here is how I lost weight:

Downloaded P90x and Insanity.

Stopped eating fast food and drinking soda.

Profit.

Awesome, so you surgically implanted a USB port on your body somewhere?

 

[Devolution]

Anecdotal and personal experience is awful for this sort of highly complex biological phenomenon.



Correct. That is appropriate. Individual experience should be strongly devalued. I lost the weight I gained in my early 20s by eating a low fat, high carb diet. It worked great for me. So what now? Should I and Sapiens simply yell at each other until one of us gets tired?

No. Just inform people of what worked for you because people who haven't tried it might find that it works for them. No need to push it as the solution though. I don't think you've actually read my posts properly. If someone extracts gluten from their diet and does feel better who am I to tell them they're wrong because this study says so? Really?

 

[Opiate]

No. Just inform people of what worked for you because people who haven't tried it might find that it works for them.

No. Again, this is wrong.. Do research. Look for what the scientific data is telling us. Anecdotal data is simply not appropriate for this sort of complex biological phenomenon.

I don't think you've actually read my posts properly. If someone extracts gluten from their diet and does feel better who am I to tell them they're wrong because this study says so? Really?

Of course you can tell them they're wrong -- I don't see why this is even controversial. If what you say is strongly contradicted by logic and evidence, you're wrong, the end. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. It sounds like ClassyPenguin has simply done more research and reading on this topic.

 

[Devolution]

No, this is a terrible idea. Do research. Look for what the scientific data is telling us. Anecdotal data is simply not appropriate for this sort of phenomenon.

Of course you can tell them they're wrong. I don't see why this is even controversial. If what you say is strongly contradicted by logic and evidence, you're wrong. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

Dear lord. People wouldn't even know about allergies and insensitivity to x before "studies" and "testing" if they didn't speak up about problems with a specific food and how they felt not eating that food vs eating that food. Anecdotal sure but telling others "hey I cut out x, try it" is not that big of a deal. We accept all kinds of food allergy issues as legitimate problems, do you need a blood test every time?

 

[APF]

People are notoriously bad at self-reporting.

do you need a blood test every time?

Of... course?

 

[RM8]

Dear lord. People wouldn't even know about allergies and insensitivity to x before "studies" and "testing" if they didn't speak up about problems with a specific food and how they felt not eating that food vs eating that food. Anecdotal sure but telling others "hey I cut out x, try it" is not that big of a deal. We accept all kinds of food allergy issues as legitimate problems, do you need a blood test every time?

Recently, I heard a cousin telling some of her friends that she has lost weight by drinking eggplant infusion. I mean...

 

[Ripclawe]

I disagree with cutting out all junk food, I lost around 70 pounds and ate at lunch for the last year of that loss almost daily diet of 1-2 mcdonalds snack wraps(grilled) along.

 

[Byakuya769]

Recently, I heard a cousin telling some of her friends that she has lost weight by drinking eggplant infusion. I mean...

And you would have three choices:

1) BULLSHIT, no science has demonstrated that!

2) Interesting, but did your eating habits change (investigate the claim).

3) Damn! I'm going to try this.

Devo sounds more like she'd go for #2, whereas you all are trying to make her sound like #3 and are in turn sounding like #1.

 

[Opiate]

Dear lord. People wouldn't even know about allergies and insensitivity to x before "studies" and "testing" if they didn't speak up about problems with a specific food and how they felt not eating that food vs eating that food. Anecdotal sure but telling others "hey I cut out x, try it" is not that big of a deal. We accept all kinds of food allergy issues as legitimate problems, do you need a blood test every time?

Most allergies are very straightforward -- you experience direct, sometimes fatal physiological symptoms, typically as an immediate response to even marginal contact with a substance.

Sensitivity to food is much more complex (in that it's much more difficult to diagnose), and anecdotal evidence should be strongly avoided. It's how things like Gluten-free diets get so overdiagnosed and cause so much anxiety over nothing; a tiny fraction of people are gluten intolerant, if the problem exists at all.

Giving people scientifically and medically unsound advice should be frowned upon. There can be significant harm in telling people, "well, this worked for me!"

 

[Devolution]

Most allergies are very straightforward; you experience direct physiological symptoms as a direct response to contact or ingestion of a substance.

Sensitivity to food is much more complex (in that it's much more difficult to diagnose them). It's how things like Gluten-free diets get so overdiagnosed and cause so many poor dietary choices; a tiny fraction of people are gluten intolerant, if the problem exists at all.

Giving people scientifically and medically unsound advice should be frowned upon.

What's unsound about cutting out empty carbs opiate? Or avoiding gluten?

 

[ClassyPenguin]

appearances can be deceiving

So you claim to know my educational record and research habits as well.
Good to know.

Intolerance and allergies are grossly over reported.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/food-allergies-facts-myths-and-pseudoscience/

And there have been studies that do show the nocebo effect of non-celiac gluten sensitivity.
That's not to say it doesn't exist, just that it's very tricky to know if it exists because of the nocebo effect. Further studies will determine that.
http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(13)00702-6/

And a podcast with the study's author.

 

[teh_pwn]

But the whole point was proving that a calorie deficit is enough for weight loss, lol.

Sure, but that's like tackling teenage pregnancy with abstinence programs.

Instead we should be teaching people the contraception of fast food: reduce food reward. Replace highly palatable food with traditional foods and your body will be much more likely to adjust hunger to target a healthy body fat %.

I'm sort of disappointed it hasn't taken traction in here.

Remember that an explanation of obesity that solely relies on increased caloric consumption is circular logic. There is no causality unless it's implied that everyone spontaneously decided to eat more calories, which I don't believe is a particularly compelling argument.

 

[Valnen]

Let's just say I'm okay with death 10 years earlier if the alternative is giving up pasta.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

There are scales out there that will determine your weight, approximate body fat percentage, and baseline metabolic rate (the amount of energy your body consumes just from living).

Hit up a local gym, physical trainer, or physician to try one out.

Those scales generally aren't very reliable/accurate. They're useful as long as the figures they give aren't taken as the gospel truth.

Runners usually have super slim physiques, even when compared to other athletes. I was under the impression that cardio was indeed the best kind of exercise for fat loss, I admit.

For middle and long distance runners this is more because being smaller aids endurance. For sprinters it's because any ounce of weight that isn't producing force is a waste. Compare that to say, an NFL player, who also trains to sprint as fast as possible but for whom extra mass, even fat, plays a role in the sport.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

.

 

[Opiate]

What's unsound about cutting out empty carbs opiate? Or avoiding gluten?

Because carbohydrates aren't the actual cause. People who go on exclusionary diets (i.e. don't eat X, don't eat Y, etc) have an extremely high incidence of gaining the weight back.

This really shouldn't be difficult to understand: telling people something that is factually untrue (such as suggesting that their problem is carbohydrates) may lead them to make factually unsound choices.

I'd like to know what terrible dietary choices this leads to as well.

Cutting out gluten when the person is not gluten insensitive, for example. Especially with the vague, non-specific symptoms that gluten sensitivity supposedly causes. It leads people down wrong paths.

If you have scientific data to disprove classypenguin's position, icarus, I'm all for it. He has provided considerably more evidence than you have, although his studies are epidemiological, so there is certainly room for more robust scientific evidence.

 

[Devolution]

Because carbohydrates aren't the actual cause. People who go on exclusionary diets (i.e. don't eat X, don't eat Y, etc) have an extremely high incidence of gaining the weight back.

This really shouldn't be difficult to understand: telling people something that is factually untrue (such as suggesting that their problem is carbohydrates) may lead them to make factually unsound choices.

You're just saying "will lead them to make factually unsound choices" without giving me a shred of evidence. This is a forum, for suggestions, not a scientific journal by the way.

 

[RM8]

Sure, but that's like tackling teenage pregnancy with abstinence programs.

Instead we should be teaching people the contraception of fast food: reduce food reward. Replace highly palatable food with traditional foods and your body will be much more likely to adjust hunger to target a healthy body fat %.

I'm sort of disappointed it hasn't taken traction in here.

Remember that an explanation of obesity that solely relies on increased caloric consumption is circular logic. There is no causality unless it's implied that everyone spontaneously decided to eat more calories, which I don't believe is a particularly compelling argument.

I've only been overweight once, in my early teens, and it was because I adopted a really bad diet. I'm not sure why it happened, I moved to a new city and maybe I started eating more to cope with change? I'm honestly not sure.

One day I decided to eat less and move more. And boom, I'm back in skinny mode forever. While eating rice, potatoes, muffins, cookies, pizza, etc. - I just think you can eat high calorie food items if you're smart about it. Again, I just don't think it should be stated as a fact that you should follow a super strict diet if you want to have a normal weight. It's as easy as looking at other people who are not overweight and don't deprive themselves from any entire group of food.

 

[teh_pwn]

Did someone say Science?

To be fair to the low carb group, many modern high reward foods get many of their reward factors from carbohydrate. High gluten dough is highly malleable, mixes with other foods, can be crunchy, consistent, warm.

You can still have rewarding food without carbs, it's just less common. For example, crispy bacon or pepperoni wrapped in melted cheese.

 

[APF]

For middle and long distance runners this is more because being smaller aids endurance. For sprinters it's because any ounce of weight that isn't producing force is a waste. Compare that to say, an NFL player, who also trains to sprint as fast as possible but for whom extra mass, even fat, plays a role in the sport.

Exactly. For whatever reason, people don't seem to think that athletes might also diet if the needs of their sport requires they weigh less. Gladwell has a good article in the New Yorker that touches on this a little (really it's about performance-enhancement in sport). Athletes will straight-up starve themselves if bodyweight is a hindrance, even in highly-energetic sports.

EDIT: Here's that article http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/09/09/130909crat_atlarge_gladwell?currentPage=all

 

[Opiate]

You're just saying "will lead them to make factually unsound choices" without giving me a shred of evidence. This is a forum, for suggestions, not a scientific journal by the way.

There's nothing wrong with posting suggestions. However, if someone comes out and says something similar to: "actually that's incorrect," and provides multiple scholarly articles as evidence (And most importantly, those articles are of robust design, with double blinding when possible, sound methodologies and large sample sizes), then your response should be, "I was wrong, I didn't really know much about this topic."

That is what my response was on this particular topic, for example. I relied on anecdotal data; then someone posted some studies; and then my response was, "oh, I guess I didn't know better. Thanks." Or, put differently: suggestions vary in quality. Suggestions based on arguments like "this worked for me," are orders of magnitude worse than arguments based on logic, evidence, and scientific data.