Support NeoGAF

[Bealost]

Sometimes I like to chime out of frustration, but other than that you guys are free to eat however you want. My overall health is fine, and judging my health by the context of single foods is pretty damn ridiculous (and funny).

Calories in v. Calories out works. Counting macros works. Most of your arguments, seemingly, against it are that some people get hungry or that it is unhealthy.

The fact is people can lose weight with poor eating habits (brb eating 1 Twinkie a day). I'm not encouraging that. I'm encouraging people to stop worrying about individual foods, meet your macronutrient requirement (proper amounts of protein, carbs, and fats), take a multivitamin for insurance, and eat at a deficit.

I ate ice cream once a week while I was cutting. Am I saying, " OMG ICE CREAM DIETTTT!!!!!! ONLY EAT ICE CREAM AND LOSE WEIGHT"?

Not at all. I'm just trying to get over the mindset that most people on a diet usually have (demonize one category of food, or one specific ingredient - fats, sugars, carbs, anything).

Eat proper macronutrients, eat at a calories deficit = lose weight.

+1000

 

[borghe]

Are we talking about the same volume of food, the caloric equivalence or what here?

I quoted your other post, but can just quote this instead to respond (we are two different guys in case you didn't notice)

I did the whole caloric deficit thing.... WORST MOVE EVER.

First, as you probably already know, all calories are not equal. Eating 200g of sugar is not the same as eating 200g of protein. Eat 200g of sugar in a day and I don't care what kind of calorie deficit you have, you are going to not lose weight (and you are going to feel insanely hungry because of the insulin spike)

second, not only are calories not equal, but how your body processes calories is also not equal. The more muscle mass you have, and the denser your muscle mass, the better your muscle thermogenics is, the lower your insulin resistance is, the more efficiently your digestive system works, etc.

finally in regards to the quality of the food, likewise this also is not the same. Eating 25 raisins isn't the same as eating 25 grapes. drinking a cup of apple juice isn't the same as eating 4 apples.

I lost 60 pounds on the belief that caloric deficit is the key... and at the end of it I found myself losing about 50% muscle and 50% fat. HAD I UNDERSTOOD NUTRITION, I could have still lost 60lbs, but lost instead like like 85% fat and 15% LBM and have been down to like 7% body fat from the get go (at 8% now). Instead I got down to around 14% body fat following the "calorie deficit above all" mantra, and then have spent the last 14 months getting rid of that remaining 6% of body fat.

paleo diet to me is a revolution. eat when you're hungry. stop when you're full. don't worry about carbs. don't worry about fat. just eat lean meats and fresh fruits and veggies, and eat as much as your body needs. Doing this for 14 months has still seen me lose fat, all the while gaining strength (and muscle, being that my weight has stayed where I want it to)

don't fall into the calorie deficit beyond all.. I mean if that were true, you could just run like 1400 miles a week, eat 1000 calories a day, and lose 8lbs every single week!! At 240lbs, after 31 weeks you would weigh -8lbs!! Don't buy the calorie math. We are smarter than that now and have a much better idea of nutrition and how specific foods and calories affect our bodies.

edit - at the very least, read the paleo diet.. it's not to hard to see through recorded history that many of our most common health issues in the modern era came about around the same time we started incorporating many of these foods into our diets. Even if you don't care and don't want to give up your favorite foods, at least read up on this stuff and understand exactly what it's doing in/to your body.

Well that's where exercise comes in, right? Many people here will tell you (rightly) that exercise is not mandatory for weight loss but I think we'd all have to agree it is mandatory for health. I started adding exercise a couple of months ago and I've stepped it up lately with more vigorous workouts and I definitely feel better for it. I'm still out of shape by anyone's standards (can't do a single pull-up) but I'll get there. And of course the more weight you lose the easier exercise becomes.

absolutely that's what exercise is for.. that's kind of what I was getting at.. there is such a huge focus on weight loss... and some even go so far as to openly mock exercise "I don't care about being ripped, I just don't want to be a fatty". I was in a different (bad) place when I started... where the weight actually WAS secondary to the health. but knowing what I do now... losing the weight while still being out of shape to me seems like buying that gorgeous new 71" Kuro plasma screen and setting it on top of a milk crate for a stand. If you're going to lose weight (not you specifically), then go for the whole package and be able to do something with that new body as well..

 

[ant_]

First, as you probably already know, all calories are not equal. Eating 200g of sugar is not the same as eating 200g of protein. Eat 200g of sugar in a day and I don't care what kind of calorie deficit you have, you are going to not lose weight (and you are going to feel insanely hungry because of the insulin spike)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

And your argument against a caloric deficit is ridiculous. YOU lost LBM so you assume that caloric deficit = lose LBM?

No. that's where counting macronutrients comes in. Eat enough protein at a moderate deficit = minimize lost LBM

 

[borghe]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

And your argument against a caloric deficit is ridiculous. YOU lost LBM so you assume that caloric deficit = lose LBM?

No. that's where counting macronutrients comes in. Eat enough protein at a moderate deficit = minimize lost LBM

ahh yes, the twinkie diet.. the rationalization of all calorie counters everywhere.

the problem with the "twinkie diet" is that we don't know:

precisely what his diet was beyond twinkies
precisely how many twinkies he ate in a day (it says every three hours, but obviously it was not exactly every three hours 24/7)
what his diet was like before he started the weight loss
if he exercised or not

the "news" behind this story was so freaking incomplete from a dietary perspective that it's insane anyone would/could credit it as a source. Furthermore, it says nothing about exercise (or lack thereof). If he were eating a twinkie every three hours for example, and then going for a 20 minute run right after, of course he wouldn't spike insulin.

I promise you I could eat pizza every single day and lose weight also!! We can force our bodies to do many things they weren't built to do.

And if you notice, it never talks about small dense LDL... the REALLY bad shit... which was guaranteed through the roof (as it has to be with that much sugar)

edit - as for ME and my weight loss, I was at about 190g of protein a day on workout days, and around 140-160g a day on non-workout days. and I got a lot stronger, a lot bigger muscles, etc. but to fight that "calorie in vs. calorie out" I put running in there... so even at over 1:1 grams of protein, I STILL lost muscle mass subscribing to that stupid theory. had I left all of that crap at the door, eaten healthy, and let my body regulate itself (as I have for the past 14 months) it would have gotten itself to where it needs to be (which it has).

but to each their own. I'm honestly not going to berate anyone for losing weight.. I just hope people see this back and forth and read up on ALL sides of weight loss and make their own informed decision. Had I done that almost two years ago, shit knows I wouldn't have ever bothered with calories in/calories out (or ever screwed around with western periodization exercising or running........)

ok, I'm done.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

And your argument against a caloric deficit is ridiculous. YOU lost LBM so you assume that caloric deficit = lose LBM?

No. that's where counting macronutrients comes in. Eat enough protein at a moderate deficit = minimize lost LBM

I like how you chose that as an example of his argument against caloric deficit instead of this:

don't fall into the calorie deficit beyond all.. I mean if that were true, you could just run like 1400 miles a week, eat 1000 calories a day, and lose 8lbs every single week!! At 240lbs, after 31 weeks you would weigh -8lbs!! Don't buy the calorie math. We are smarter than that now and have a much better idea of nutrition and how specific foods and calories affect our bodies.

I really don't see how anyone can think it's as simple as calories in/calories out and that all calories are equal. When hormones govern so much in our bodies, why are some people so quick to dismiss them when it comes to body composition? The simplicity of calories in/calories out is attractive, sure, but it's simply not accurate.

 

[ant_]

ahh yes, the twinkie diet.. the rationalization of all calorie counters everywhere.

the problem with the "twinkie diet" is that we don't know:

precisely what his diet was beyond twinkies
precisely how many twinkies he ate in a day (it says every three hours, but obviously it was not exactly every three hours)
what his diet was like before he started the weight loss

the "news" behind this story was so freaking incomplete from a dietary perspective that it's insane anyone would/could credit it as a source. Furthermore, it says nothing about exercise (or lack thereof). If he were eating a twinkie every three hours for example, and then going for a 20 minute run right after, of course he wouldn't spike insulin.

You're right that it's not a scientific study by any means. And I do admire your ease to discredit the entire story/diet idea.

edit - and regards to your LBM loss, your deficit was probably too high.

 

[borghe]

You're right that it's not a scientific study by any means. And I do admire your ease to discredit the entire story/diet idea.

it has nothing to do with discrediting it.. it has to do with that when this story made the rounds, there is a TON of shit involving health and nutrition that we never knew regarding it. It says that he ate fruit and protein shakes.. but to put it another way, a twinkie is 150 calories. if he ate every 3 hours during waking hours (16), he'd go through 5 twinkies or 750 calories, 135g of carbs and 90g of sugar. So what were the other 1000 calories he ate? did he have a substantial amount of carbs beyond that? Sugars beyond that? Hell, that's only TWO cans of soda a day.. if he had very little carbs beyond the twinkies, this still counts as a low-carb diet for crying out loud.

Without knowing these things, arguing "it doesn't matter what kind of calories they are" is moot.. because we don't know what other kinds of calories there were.

edit - comparatively, look at ultra-low-carb diets.. I know people on sub-50g carb diets who lose weight, despite the fact that they're consuming in excess of 2500 calories with no exercise... yes it's another diet that I'm firmly against, but it still goes to show that calorie deficit is not all. there are also plenty of studies out there with the paleo diet, where people are consuming 2000-2200 calories a day with moderate exercise, and losing between 3-5lb per week... These people ARE NOT hitting calorie deficits of 1500-2500 calories a day (i.e. their bodies don't require 3500-4700 calories a day)

edit 2- in regards to my LBM, ues, my deficit was too high, ANOTHER problem with calorie restriction. People get so addicted to that scale that they ignore what they're really doing... losing fat. It gets into your head "hey, if I trim this helping down a little bit, that will be another .2lb this week!" It's what happened to me, and what happens to every success on calorie restriction. Now if you don't care about that, fine.. but as I was doing strength training at the same time, by the time I had lost all of my weight, all I could do was shake my head at how inefficient a path I took to do so. Had I done paleo (or even atkins) during the entire time, I could have still lost the same weight and kept more LBM during that time (and seen bigger gains). that's all I'm trying to say. I saw ALL of my results with calorie restriction, AND STILL am telling people not to do it.. shouldn't that really tell people something?

 

[SeanR1221]

Going back on my high protein, moderate carb and very low fat diet has shed the pounds from my low carb higher fat diet. Plus I'm putting up bigger numbers at the gym. . Different strokes, I guess.

I would love to see peer reviewed articles on the dangers of peanut butter. All the low carb stuff I've found hasn't been that great...

 

[elrechazado]

actually we do know what the twinkie diet guy ate. Hint, it wasn't just twinkies like so many people who use this "study" to sell their theory of caloric equality:

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/11/16/the-twinkie-diet/

 

[Akim]

People are such diet nazis when they figure out something that works for them. It's hilarious and kinda sad.

 

[noire]

deleted

 

[Bealost]

I guarantee you that if you were losing weight on the paleo diet, than you were eating at a calorie deficit. Just because you weren't counting calories doesn't make that not so. Most people can't "just eat until their full" because people are so accustomed to overeating. At my heaviest, I could eat an entire large pizza and still not be "full".

Here's what I've been doing based on what I've read. I aim for a 500 kcal deficit every day. I try to eat 1g protein/lb of body weight (very rarely do I actually get that much). And I lift heavy things. Lifting heavy things is for two reasons, 1) to preserve my lean body mass, 2) to make myself more physically fit (I can officially do 7 chin ups now, not a lot, but a LOT for me).

Losing weight is all about diet, ANY diet will work, as long as you are eating at a deficit, some may be easier than others. Eating more protein helps you spare your lean body mass when on a deficit.

Training (especially lifting weights) also helps preserver your lean body mass, and you can even gain some muscle if you are especially untrained as I was.

There are definitively some foods out there I would absolutely avoid, mostly because they are very calorie dense and nutritionally void (aka regular soda, candy etc). Beyond stuff like , eat what you want, the cleaner the better.

Eat FOOD, not too much, lots of plants -> win.

Edit:: and as far as getting to really low (<14% - 15%) bf goes, take that to the fitness thread. Once we aren't overweight we can worry about that last 6% bf. (not saying you shouldn't try to spare LBM when dieting, of course you should. The goal is really to lose body fat, not scale weight.) And off to the gym /rant.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

People are such diet nazis when they figure out something that works for them. It's hilarious and kinda sad.

Obviously, people like to proselytize what worked for them. For many people, finally finding a reliable method to lose weight is an amazing experience and they want to share that with others.

I don't fault anyone for professing what method they think works best, but I do think looking at the science (from what studies are available) of it all is more important than any anecdotal evidence.

I guarantee you that if you were losing weight on the paleo diet, than you were eating at a calorie deficit. Just because you weren't counting calories doesn't make that not so. Most people can't "just eat until their full" because people are so accustomed to overeating. At my heaviest, I could eat an entire large pizza and still not be "full".

Here's what I've been doing based on what I've read. I aim for a 500 kcal deficit every day. I try to eat 1g protein/lb of body weight (very rarely do I actually get that much). And I lift heavy things. Lifting heavy things is for two reasons, 1) to preserve my lean body mass, 2) to make myself more physically fit (I can officially do 7 chin ups now, not a lot, but a LOT for me).

Losing weight is all about diet, ANY diet will work, as long as you are eating at a deficit, some may be easier than others. Eating more protein helps you spare your lean body mass when on a deficit.

Training (especially lifting weights) also helps preserver your lean body mass, and you can even gain some muscle if you are especially untrained as I was.

There are definitively some foods out there I would absolutely avoid, mostly because they are very calorie dense and nutritionally void (aka regular soda, candy etc). Beyond stuff like , eat what you want, the cleaner the better.

Eat FOOD, not too much, lots of plants -> win.

You may be right about the bolded, but it's ridiculous to assume that your caloric requirement (in terms of pure caloric numbers) to maintain weight is a static number. It's changing every day depending on your body composition, diet, and activity level (also what type of activities your doing). There's no way you can say, "okay I need 1800 calories, so I'm going to eat 500 less than that every day to lose a pound every week." and even be remotely accurate. You're ignoring that calories from the different macronutrients are used in different ways. Calories from protein, for example, are used preferentially to calories from carbohydrates in certain situations.

There are just way too many factors in play to say it's as simple as calories in/calories out. If you create a big deficit by starving yourself of what your body craves, then yes, you will most likely lose a decent amount of weight. That's hardly sustainable in the long term, though.

 

[noire]

deleted

 

[elrechazado]

Here's something I don't understand. Here you're using glycemic load to say that wheat is worse than sucrose. A few posts before this, you told someone that rice is better than wheat, while it has an even higher glycemic load than wheat.

I think he's referring to the glycemic index, not the load, maybe that's where you're confusing his point. Glycemic index for wheat bread is incredibly high, higher in many cases than pure sugar for example. glycemic load of the same depends on the quantities consumed.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Yeah it's only natural to evangelize whatever method works for you. I have to make a conscious effort not to do it because you want to share what worked (and many people ask) but it's really easy to become a diet/nutrition bore if you're not careful.

In other news, I'm down to 193.5lbs! Only about 15 away from my target!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Here's something I don't understand. Here you're using glycemic load to say that wheat is worse than sucrose. A few posts before this, you told someone that rice is better than wheat, while it has an even higher glycemic load than wheat.

I didn't say wheat is worse than sucrose, necessarily, I just said it spikes your blood sugar more than sucrose. I was talking about the glycemic index, by the way, of which wheat will rank higher than rice (unless we're talking about products made from rice starch). Honestly, the glycemic index part was just a piece of trivia that I found interesting. There are many more reasons why wheat should be avoided beyond its negative effect on your blood sugar (although that is a big part of it).

Also, when I say that rice is better than wheat, I mean that it's less bad for you, and I still recommended that people generally avoid it when trying to lose weight.

 

[FallingEdge]

Is this who I think it is?

Yes. Yes it is.

Too bad we didn't get a chance to kick it at Evo =/

 

[FallingEdge]

Again, there are multiple ways to achieve your goal. You just have to do what feels the best for you. If you are one to enjoy carbs, then doing a diet based around carbs in your macros is perfectly fine. If you prefer a more paleo or low carb diet, that will work as well. Intermittent Fasting is another solution if you want to eat big meals. Everyone's goal should not be losing weight, but losing fat. You want to retain as much muscle as you can while losing the fat.

Find the lifestyle that works for you, eat proper foods, hit the gym, and make adjustments as necessary.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

I liked this thread better when it was more support and suggestions and less arguing. :\

I think the best way to use this thread is to pick and choose various methods and see if they work for you until you find something that fits. I am currently trying the low carb thing to see if it might work for me.

 

[RoninChaos]

Yes. Yes it is.

Too bad we didn't get a chance to kick it at Evo =/

You mother fucker. lol

How you doing? I'm trying to get right with the weight and fitness since I actually got a regular fucking job that doesn't fuck my entire life up.

 

[noire]

deleted

 

[FallingEdge]

You mother fucker. lol

How you doing? I'm trying to get right with the weight and fitness since I actually got a regular fucking job that doesn't fuck my entire life up.

Doing good man, still posting on SRK. Though not as much these days. I need to hit up the Lounge thread more lol.

Glad that you got your thing going for you. If you need help with this stuff, I'm always down. Get up at me!

 

[Bealost]

I obviously don't mean I need the same exact amount of kcal every day, or get exactly a 500 deficit every day. Its more of a day to day average.

There are definitely some people (body builders/figure models mostly) that have their caloric needs calculated to within about a 100 kcal/day. Especially when dieting for a contest.

Sorry for all the arguing, just after some of the posts I was finding it hard to bite my tongue anymore with some of the crazy claims being made.

Maybe I'll put my progress pictures up here some time, Still a bit self conscious though, so it may take some prodding.

Keep fighting the good fight!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I can't reasonably respond to anything you have to say at this point. The statement that I quoted from your last post basically flies in the face of every nutrition/weightloss/training article I have ever read.

When it comes down to it ALL that matters in losing weight is a caloric deficit. The trick to it is doing it in a way that is easy to stick to (until you are at your goal weight, when you begin to eat at your maintenance levels) and doing it without having problems with malnutrition.

When losing weight you aren't "on a diet" you are changing your diet to what your body requires. As opposed to eating substantially more than your body requires.

I may be wrong, but I think his point was that calories in/calories tends to fail, because it sends the message that people can continue eating whatever they want, as long as they eat under a certain amount of calories. Just as you said, you need to change your diet to what your body requires. If you continue eating shit (albeit less shit), most people will be hungry all of the time. At that point you have to use your willpower to starve your body of what it craves. That sounds like forcing your body to behave in an abnormal way to me.

This is why focusing on calories in/calories out is a flawed idea, and the focus should be put on what you eat rather than how much you eat. That's the whole concept behind paleo, primal, low-carb, sensible-carb, etc. diets. You find out what foods you can eat that will satiate you while at the same time not encourage fat accumulation. From there, from a general health quality perspective, you further eliminate foods that contain nasty toxins, anti-nutrients, and other undesirable elements. Whatever foods remain can be freely consumed until you feel full.

I realize everyone is different, but unless you have incredible willpower, a simple calories in/calories out program that disregards what you put in your mouth, as long as you fall under X calories, is just not sustainable (or healthy, for that matter).

 

[Dead]

After several weeks of being very very strict, I Allowed myself to splurge today

Texas style BBQ beef brisket, mixed rice with ham, bacon, spices and half a slice of jalapeno bread.

feltgoodman.gif

 

[Bealost]

Can't we just agree that we should eat food (Think things that your great grandparents would recognize as food, actual food), Not too much of it, with lots of plants (focusing on leafy plants and not seeds (grains)). Is a good general diet?

What are Gaf's rules for linking to semi-commercial sites? There's a website with lots of articles on nutrition/training that I found to be a helpful resource when I started my journey, and would like to post it. The creator has also written a bunch of books though and he also sells them through his site, is that kosher?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Can't we just agree that we should eat food (Think things that your great grandparents would recognize as food, actual food), Not too much of it, with lots of plants (focusing on leafy plants and not seeds (grains)). Is a good general diet?

What are Gaf's rules for linking to semi-commercial sites? There's a website with lots of articles on nutrition/training that I found to be a helpful resource when I started my journey, and would like to post it. The creator has also written a bunch of books though and he also sells them through his site, is that kosher?

I'll agree with that!

Regarding the linking of sites, I think it should be fine--Mark's Daily Apple gets linked in this thread rather often. The Fathead documentary site does, too.

 

[Bealost]

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com

Lots of information that feels credible to me. I haven't checked his sources or anything, and have taken a lot of what hes said for granted because a lot of what he has said has been echoed on other sites I have read.

Tons of information. Interested to know people thoughts/reactions to any of it.

 

[elrechazado]

After several weeks of being very very strict, I Allowed myself to splurge today

Texas style BBQ beef brisket, mixed rice with ham, bacon, spices and half a slice of jalapeno bread.

feltgoodman.gif

Splurging is awesome. Until I oversplurge, and then feel gross. And I usually can't splurge a little, so I find myself having to be extremely strict. In other words, I can do just fine eating no cookies, but if I eat just one, I say screw it, and eat a whole tray.

It's probably a good thing I don't drink or do drugs, or I'd have killed myself by now.

 

[Dead]

Splurging is awesome. Until I oversplurge, and then feel gross. And I usually can't splurge a little, so I find myself having to be extremely strict. In other words, I can do just fine eating no cookies, but if I eat just one, I say screw it, and eat a whole tray.

It's probably a good thing I don't drink or do drugs, or I'd have killed myself by now.

awww

Luckily I was able to moderate myself and keep to water only.

What I find amazing, is how easily I went off soda cold turkey. Its been a month+ and its been water 100% of the time, ive had no cravings whatsoever for the stuff. I remember the last time I went off soda it was a total fail. Really happy about it.

 

[AceBandage]

So, here's my basically final results.

Starting 190lbs (2009)

Now 145lbs

No old pics, sadly. I hated having my picture taken back then. =/

 

[infiniteloop]

Result.

 

[borghe]

what zefah is saying is absolutely my point and the biggest flaw IMHO with calories in/calories out. It doesn't teach nutrition. It's a tool, it works, but it's not a long term answer. Along the way the person has to still learn about nutrition, and there is nothing inherent in the philosohpy that teaches that. Even atkins', as much as I am against it, teaches you "hey, if you stay on this after you reached your goal, good for you!". Calories in/calories out is simply not a sustainable long term nutrition diet, nor is it meant to be.

Can't we just agree that we should eat food (Think things that your great grandparents would recognize as food, actual food), Not too much of it, with lots of plants (focusing on leafy plants and not seeds (grains)). Is a good general diet?

we can absolutely agree on this. 100%. I'll also stop the arguing now and get back to the support. If calorie restriction works for you (in general, not specifically), then stick with it. Just please please please, if you choose to do it, read up at some point on proper nutrition. The number two or three failure of calorie restricted diets is that when people get to their target weight, they go back to old eating habits.. and not even the over eating, but the quality of what they eat. Why spend all of that time losing the weight, to just go back to eating fast food or snack foods? Of course that's not just limited to calorie restricted diets... but in my experience, diets that are based on long term nutrition goals tend to better change WHAT people eat, as compared to temporary diets (which a calorie restricted diet inherently is a temporary diet)

 

[LosDaddie]

Ah, it seems the Low Carb zealotry argument has come up again. :lol

Sometimes I like to chime in out of frustration, but other than that you guys are free to eat however you want. My overall health is fine, and judging my health by the context of single foods is pretty damn ridiculous (and funny).

Calories in v. Calories out works. Counting macros works. Most of your arguments, seemingly, against it are that some people get hungry or that it is unhealthy.

The fact is people can lose weight with poor eating habits (brb eating 1 Twinkie a day). I'm not encouraging that. I'm encouraging people to stop worrying about individual foods, meet your macronutrient requirement (proper amounts of protein, carbs, and fats), take a multivitamin for insurance, and eat at a deficit.

I ate ice cream once a week while I was cutting. Am I saying, " OMG ICE CREAM DIETTTT!!!!!! ONLY EAT ICE CREAM AND LOSE WEIGHT"?

Not at all. I'm just trying to get over the mindset that most people on a diet usually have (demonize one category of food, or one specific ingredient - fats, sugars, carbs, anything).

Eat proper macronutrients, eat at a calories deficit = lose weight.

Well said! Some people go a little too far evangelizing their diet.

Can't we just agree that we should eat food (Think things that your great grandparents would recognize as food, actual food), Not too much of it, with lots of plants (focusing on leafy plants and not seeds (grains)). Is a good general diet?

Of course. It's worked for people in the past, and continues to work for people now.

After several weeks of being very very strict, I Allowed myself to splurge today

Texas style BBQ beef brisket, mixed rice with ham, bacon, spices and half a slice of jalapeno bread.

feltgoodman.gif

:lol
No reason to feel guilty. It's perfectly fine to have a Cheat Day once a week, actually. It keeps you sane, and let's your body know it's not starving. I've been having one each week and have continued to lose weight.

 

[harSon]

what zefah is saying is absolutely my point and the biggest flaw IMHO with calories in/calories out. It doesn't teach nutrition. It's a tool, it works, but it's not a long term answer. Along the way the person has to still learn about nutrition, and there is nothing inherent in the philosohpy that teaches that. Even atkins', as much as I am against it, teaches you "hey, if you stay on this after you reached your goal, good for you!". Calories in/calories out is simply not a sustainable long term nutrition diet, nor is it meant to be.


we can absolutely agree on this. 100%. I'll also stop the arguing now and get back to the support. If calorie restriction works for you (in general, not specifically), then stick with it. Just please please please, if you choose to do it, read up at some point on proper nutrition. The number two or three failure of calorie restricted diets is that when people get to their target weight, they go back to old eating habits.. and not even the over eating, but the quality of what they eat. Why spend all of that time losing the weight, to just go back to eating fast food or snack foods? Of course that's not just limited to calorie restricted diets... but in my experience, diets that are based on long term nutrition goals tend to better change WHAT people eat, as compared to temporary diets (which a calorie restricted diet inherently is a temporary diet)

How exactly is this exclusive to calorie restriction? It's likely true of any diet.

Edit: I should have read the rest of the paragraph

Having said that, a Calorie Restriction diet is not supposed to be a temporary diet. You're supposed to scale down your calorie consumption as you continue to lose weight, and stick with whatever number of calories your at to maintain weight once you've reached your goal from that point on. It's no more temporary than a Low Carb diet. A lot of people I've seen on a strict Ketosis diet say they'll balloon their carb consumption to 100-150g once they hit their goal and transition into maintaining weight. That's not exactly maintaining a diet considering the only way you're going to reach that number is to eat foods that most would consider to be a bad source of carbs. People like to eat foods that are bad for them, it's simple as that and not restricted to any one nutritional plan.

 

[harSon]

don't fall into the calorie deficit beyond all.. I mean if that were true, you could just run like 1400 miles a week, eat 1000 calories a day, and lose 8lbs every single week!! At 240lbs, after 31 weeks you would weigh -8lbs!! Don't buy the calorie math. We are smarter than that now and have a much better idea of nutrition and how specific foods and calories affect our bodies.

I'm personally on a low-carb diet now. But I remember back in High School, when I first started playing football my freshman year, I lost a ridiculous amount of weight with nothing but an intense amount of cardio. I lost well over 20 pounds in the first month, and roughly 45 pounds total over the course of Summer conditioning. It was strictly cardio with very little weight training (Push ups and Lunges for example, both of which I faked), and my diet consisted of Fast Food and Junk. The team used to literally go to Burger King and a local Pizza join during our breaks in between practice or after practice had ended. I had to have been eating at least 3000 calories, if not more a day, but it didn't seem to matter considering I was losing ridiculous amounts of weight regardless.

 

[Einbroch]

Okay, I'm just not hungry anymore, and it's...bad? I don't know. Low carb btw. I eat like 1200 calories and I just don't feel hungry. Not in starvation mode or anything, but eating all this protein and stuff just makes me feel guilty that I'm not starving or anything.

By the way, turkey bacon is delicious. I almost...GASP...prefer it to regular bacon.

 

[Bealost]

Okay, I'm just not hungry anymore, and it's...bad? I don't know. Low carb btw. I eat like 1200 calories and I just don't feel hungry. Not in starvation mode or anything, but eating all this protein and stuff just makes me feel guilty that I'm not starving or anything.

By the way, turkey bacon is delicious. I almost...GASP...prefer it to regular bacon.

What are your stats? 1200 seems incredibly low unless your TDR is in the 2k range which is actually kinda hard to do. Loss of apatite can actually be a sign that you are going into starvation mode.

 

[Buckethead]

Want to get to 170.

Spoiler

Do your worst NFL-GAF

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Damn good work Bucket. I do have to say the glasses and short hair was a good change too.

 

[SeanR1221]

Am I the only one surrounded by inshape people who pretty much have no care about their diets?

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Am I the only one surrounded by inshape people who pretty much have no care about their diets?

Nope. I hate it too, not for them, for me. Having my grandfather's genetics I am just build a bit bigger and have a slow-ass metabolism, so I have always been chubby, meanwhile 3 of my good friends were skinny with super metabolisms and could eat whatever they want.

It has caught up to one of them, he is still skinny but has a belly now, the other two exercise a bit at least.

 

[borghe]

Am I the only one surrounded by inshape people who pretty much have no care about their diets?

the great thing about being in shape is kind of sort of that

It sucks, you're right. It's not even in shape people. Especially if you are around people in general who don't give a shit about what they eat, it's very difficult to maintain whatever diet you have.

A lot of what I used to do for this was almost wear it like a badge of pride. they can put that stuff into them, but I'm well onto my goals and not going to mess that up for a meal or splurge into something silly because I ignore my willpower. I found when I kind of said that out loud, people, even the most blatant, would really show a lot of respect for it.

 

[cuevas. PhD.]

Spoiler

Do your worst NFL-GAF

Great job buddy.

 

[Guardian Bob]

Am I the only one surrounded by inshape people who pretty much have no care about their diets?

Same... At work people eat like mad! We get lunched and breakfasts here (plus beer) and people go mad. And they are all in good shape.

 

[elrechazado]

bucket, I mean this in the nicest way possible - you went from an overweight redheaded chick to a badass looking handsome dude. And I say that with a staunch record of unblemished heterosexuality.

 

[Ilive1up]

Want to get to 170.

Spoiler

Do your worst NFL-GAF

damn, you now look like chris conley from saves the day. congrats!

 

[harSon]

Want to get to 170.

Spoiler

Do your worst NFL-GAF

I'll put aside my hatred for the Packers for a sec and give you a huge congratulations. You look great dude, awesome work.

 

[noire]

deleted