Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If I had a dollar for every pound someone here has lost recently, I'd buy myself one of those Peloton cycles.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

It really is as simple as calories in/calories out. But people don't want to hear it.

FWIW, from the book review I linked above earlier, which I really do recommend:

The [calories in, calories out] model is the idea that our body weight is determined by voluntary decisions about how much we eat and move, and in order to control our body weight, all we need is a little advice about how many calories to eat and burn, and a little willpower. The primary defining feature of this model is that it assumes that food intake and body fatness are not regulated. This model seems to exist mostly to make lean people feel smug, since it attributes their leanness entirely to wise voluntary decisions and a strong character. I think at this point, few people in the research world believe the CICO model.

[Debate opponent Dr. David] Ludwig and I both agree that it provides a poor fit for the evidence. As an alternative, Ludwig proposes the insulin model, which states that the primary cause of obesity is excessive insulin action on fat cells, which in turn is caused principally by rapidly-digesting carbohydrate. According to this model, too much insulin reduces blood levels of glucose and fatty acids (the two primary circulating metabolic fuels), simultaneously leading to hunger, fatigue, and fat gain. Overeating is caused by a kind of “internal starvation”. There are other versions of the insulin model, but this is the one advocated by Ludwig (and Taubes), so it will be my focus.

But there’s a third model, not mentioned by Ludwig or Taubes, which is the one that predominates in my field. It acknowledges the fact that body weight is regulated, but the regulation happens in the brain, in response to signals from the body that indicate its energy status. Chief among these signals is the hormone leptin, but many others play a role (insulin, ghrelin, glucagon, CCK, GLP-1, glucose, amino acids, etc.)

That's a neuroscientist named Stephan Guyenet, whose book is the subject of the review.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Rebutting Sebby: sociotropic voters, not pocketbook voters.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Interesting to hear about everyone's different regimes, and I'm envious of the time many of you have to work out. My commute is probably worse than anyone else's, and there's just no way I could get to a gym for any length of time on a weekday. Mostly I run and do cardio stuff at the gym. If I can get three workouts in during the week, thats great, and I typically run 3-4 miles or do 30-40 minutes on an elliptical machine. Longer runs on the weekend, weather permitting.

Due to a health scare (major to me, but totally minor compared to what other people here have been through), I've been focused on losing weight and getting healthier, and most of that is diet. I am pretty skeptical of diet fads and people who suggest one-size-fit-all regimes -- I think everyone has to find something that works for them, which is hard. The single best thing I've read on the subject is this book review, which I found totally fascinating. (I bought the book but haven't gotten to it yet.) I have a friend whose wife has them fasting all day one or two days a week, which sounds faddish and miserable to me, but different strokes, amiright?

I am currently against all diets. They're all stupid and cannot be maintained. I think the best way to lose weight is to gradually change the way you eat. Increase sashimi intake by one or two nights a week. Order a side salad instead of fries every other time. Cut way down on sugar. And reduce drinking to one to three days a week.

Once you get there, order the fish when you wanted the steak. Have chicken breast when you want the pork. Add another sushi day per week. Have one large meal a day and eat protein-and-veggie-heavy, much smaller meals the rest of the time.

Take in fewer calories than you expend.* But if you try to change the way you eat all at once, you will fail.

TM

*And yes, I see that based on that review, I guess I am now a smug lean person.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

FWIW, from the book review I linked above earlier, which I really do recommend:



That's a neuroscientist named Stephan Guyenet, whose book is the subject of the review.

I've stolen this but I like the summary:

"Diets with identical calorie intakes but different macro nutrient ratios have different effects on body composition, physical performance, TEF, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, and many other physiological factors. Genetics also are a factor. So in this sense a calorie is not a calorie especially if you consider where it is derived from - protein, CHO, or fat.

In terms of WEIGHT loss (as an example), a calorie is a calorie. If two groups of people maintain a daily intake of 2000 calories (say both groups are in a 500 calorie deficit) and group A derives the calories from toast, coffee with cream and sugar, hamburger and fries, pizza, ice cream, etc..and group B obtains the calories from egg whites, oatmeal, chicken, fish, green vegetables, sweet potatoes, brown rice, etc...both will lose WEIGHT. The degree of lean mass and fat loss would likely be different though. Group B may also perform better, feel better, and end up looking better."

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I've lost 55 pounds since February using the Sparkpeople app. I limit to no more than 1500 calories a day (and I pretty much eat the same thing for breakfast and lunch every day during the week and my kitchen scale and I are pretty close during dinner). I have a much better sense of what portion sizes are now.

I go to yoga about three times a week, run two or three times a week and go to a spin class once a week. I'm stupid religious about getting 10,000 steps a day. I track fitness through my polar heart rate monitor, my Up fitness tracker and my nike+ ipod running tracker.

Outstanding. Congrats.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

It really is as simple as calories in/calories out.

There's really quite a bit of science on this and it's just not as simple as that.

Although it's is a useful shorthand. If you're net negative you're probably not going in the wrong direction, but you aren't necessarily making progress.

When I lived in France for a mere 2 months I lost 15 lbs - and barely exercised at all.

Re exercise, really? How'd you get around? Drive from your driveway to the drive through to park immediately in front of your office?

One reason the French and the rest of the world do better than us is that they have a lot more movement built into their transportation. Obviously not the only factor, as they also typically haven't had their systems fucked with by the food industry's drive to put processed sugar in everything.

They just eat less of it.

I don't think they went through the "low fat" phase we went so hard for in the '90s that super-charged the addition of processed sugars. And I think they do way less processed foods in general.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I am currently against all diets. They're all stupid and cannot be maintained. I think the best way to lose weight is to gradually change the way you eat. Increase sashimi intake by one or two nights a week. Order a side salad instead of fries every other time. Cut way down on sugar. And reduce drinking to one to three days a week.

Once you get there, order the fish when you wanted the steak. Have chicken breast when you want the pork. Add another sushi day per week. Have one large meal a day and eat protein-and-veggie-heavy, much smaller meals the rest of the time.

Take in fewer calories than you expend.* But if you try to change the way you eat all at once, you will fail.

TM

*And yes, I see that based on that review, I guess I am now a smug lean person.

You had me until "reduce drinking to one to three days a week".

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Anyway, I dropped about 75 pounds, which exceeded my goals, but have lost some of my discipline (stupid beer) and put 25 or so back on. Need to get back on the horse and shed half of that and I'll call it good.

Damn. That is very impressive.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I've lost 55 pounds since February using the Sparkpeople app.

Fantastic.

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Yeah, biking is very low impact, except when it is very high impact. I guess I'd rather injure myself mountain biking than flipping a giant tire.* But, to be fair, I love kettlebells because of the dynamic strength, but just like crossfit, working with kettlebells is a fantastic way to seriously injure yourself if you don't have an instructor who is obsessed with form.

* I have an MTB race this weekend, and if I crash and get injured, it will be your fault, and I will be fucking pissed.

So did you crash?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

You had me until "reduce drinking to one to three days a week".

I did not crash, but I had paralyzing leg cramps for much of the final hilly two miles of the race.

AND I BLAME YOU.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

So did you crash?

Ha. I was responding as you wrote that. No, but I'm still fucking pissed. See above.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I am currently against all diets. They're all stupid and cannot be maintained. I think the best way to lose weight is to gradually change the way you eat. Increase sashimi intake by one or two nights a week. Order a side salad instead of fries every other time. Cut way down on sugar. And reduce drinking to one to three days a week.

Yeah, don't diet, but many of us do need to permanently change the way we eat. Basically, I only get fries if there isn't another option.

Also, start reading the labels. Added sugar is everywhere. I make an extra grocery stop to get bread that has minimal sugar in it (it helps that the coop has other items I also want and can't get at the regular grocery store).

Once you get there, order the fish when you wanted the steak. Have chicken breast when you want the pork.

One thing that you realize when you start tracking, everything (btw, I did that too when I was taking it seriously) is that the difference between the proteins isn't that big. Whether it's chicken or pork, the danger mostly lurks in what you have with it. So I'd say order the asparagus instead of the mashed potatoes.

ETA: And while I don't disagree with your substitution strategy, for me, bright line rules, like no french fries, are better than ones that depend on making smart choices when hungry. As RT (I think) said, tracking your food also gets a lot easier if you basically eat the same thing repeatedly.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

You had me until "reduce drinking to one to three days a week".

Yeah. Why do you think I can't drop the last 7 pounds to get to an ideal, "I can actually see abs," weight?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yeah, don't diet, but many of us do need to permanently change the way we eat. Basically, I only get fries if there isn't another option.

Also, start reading the labels. Added sugar is everywhere. I make an extra grocery stop to get bread that has minimal sugar in it (it helps that the coop has other items I also want and can't get at the regular grocery store).



One thing that you realize when you start tracking, everything (btw, I did that too when I was taking it seriously) is that the difference between the proteins isn't that big. Whether it's chicken or pork, the danger mostly lurks in what you have with it. So I'd say order the asparagus instead of the mashed potatoes.

Also, it is truly unfair, but genetics absolutely plays a very large role. When I was in my 20s, I would have an unhealthy lunch and frequently just eat multiple appetizers for dinner. Never gained a pound. In my 30s, I could drop weight by eating healthy for a few weeks. Now, I absolutely need to cut down on drinking, sugar, and fries to really drop weight and I'm active as hell. I've always been very active, but I am definitely lucky to have the genes I have (and they're not from my mother's side of the family, that's for sure).

I realized that a calorie has different effects on different people in my 30s and became way less judge-y and shitty about weight issues. It's just not that simple to drop weight for certain body types. Your body wants to be where it wants to be. And to get below that weight, it is extremely hard. The problem is, we can change what weight our body wants to be by adding fat cells. When I tore up my knee the second time and kept eating the way I always ate up until that point, I gained like 10 pounds and my body has wanted to be close to that weight ever since. You can deflate those fat cells, but they don't go away.

TM