How to lose weight - it's simple

Anoneemoose

fireblade28 wrote: »

This is spot on. Will power takes some exercising. The more often you use it the better you get at using it. There are hormones such as gherlin and leptin that regulate hunger. These are affected by body mass.

The type of food doesn't really matter as much as the amount.

Case in point http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

It takes a defecit of 3500 calories to lose a pound of fat. Which if you drank an extra glass of water that day you wouldn't notice if you weighed yourself. That's a big loss of calories for such a small change.

People you need to be more patient. 2 weeks isn't gonna cut it to see a difference. We are talking 3 months minimum.

It's also not a diet it's a permanent change. Everyone can do it but only if you want to.

Yeah, cos it really is that simple.

I have calorie restricted and it led to bingeing. I really, REALLY want to be the weight I used to be but I am still overweight. And believe me, I have tried, pretty much everything. I lived on shakes for 4 months, so if that doesn't prove this 'will power' you speak of, then I don't know what will.

As I say, I am not convinced of the physics regarding the calorie in vs calorie out theory. I have read plenty to contradict that.

And as for the it's the amount, not the type of food..so, if I had 250 kcals of chicken and veg, as opposed to a chocolate bar, then that would have the same effect on my body?? I think not.

As others have said, there are lots of things associated with obesity, emotional eating, comfort, social eating etc etc. These things shouldn't be overlooked or dismissed, and as I said, if it really was that simple, there would be no such thing as obesity.

fireblade28

Anoneemoose wrote: »

Yeah, cos it really is that simple.

I have calorie restricted and it led to bingeing. I really, REALLY want to be the weight I used to be but I am still overweight. And believe me, I have tried, pretty much everything. I lived on shakes for 4 months, so if that doesn't prove this 'will power' you speak of, then I don't know what will.

As I say, I am not convinced of the physics regarding the calorie in vs calorie out theory. I have read plenty to contradict that.

And as for the it's the amount, not the type of food..so, if I had 250 kcals of chicken and veg, as opposed to a chocolate bar, then that would have the same affect on my body?? I think not.

As others have said, there are lots of things associated with obesity, emotional eating, comfort, social eating etc etc. These things shouldn't be overlooked or dismissed, and as I said, if it really was that simple, there would be no such thing as obesity.

So the studies that exist show that the energy argument is the overriding principle. The physics you can't debate because its a law.

The human body part is as you stated more complex and a biological system so it doesn't perfectly apply but practically speaking its the best thing we have. Calories is the simplest way you can go to lose weight.

If you put out more energy than you take in you will lose body mass regardless of what type of food you eat. You have to!
So if I eat 2000 calories of twinkles and 2000 of chicken and veg and I need 2500 to maintain my weight. Then I will lose weight on both. Will I be as healthy on twinkles? probably not, but will it work? YES! The professor showed this.

Will you lose weight at the same rate? Probably not. There's what will work and what is optimal.

Medical conditions are a separate problem which need to be addressed first. But for the majority of people they don't apply they just eat too much because they can't control themselves. Sugar is addictive like a drug. Its never gonna be easy but it can be done some people just need to exercise more willpower than others thats life.

bigfreddiel

Having read through the thread, I agree with a few points, especially addiction. That's a tough one but just ask yourself what you want - lose weight - yes - well just do it!

Eating healthy food, obviously, it's as quick to knock up a tasty healthy meal as it is to heat something in the oven, and probably cheaper.

For example chilli con carne for four, I use 120gms of mince, one onion, one ton of toms and one tin of kidney beans, and one green pepper. Prep time five mins, simmer for an hour, add rice yum! Cost £3. Dead easy.

So that's that one dealt with.

Another common theme in the replies, no one has said they tried eating less. Plenty of calorie counting, waste of time. Just eat less.

Exercise, just do what you can, I walk everyday, 30 mins at least, if you can't do that just do whatever you can.

Final tip, just say to yourself 'I can' and do it good luck fj

BTW My target is 70kg, need to lose 5kg, but it's not happening, so I'm in the same boat as all of you who are too heavy

Jamiesmum

It's 100% how much you eat. You can eat Mcdonalds every day and still lose weight so long as it's within your calories for the day. People don't understand portions until they learn to weigh/measure their food. You can't eyeball 100g of cheese!

You may not be healthy for it but you'll still lose weight.

Unless there is a health issue going on underneath if you eat less you will lose weight, anyone who says you can't is crazy.

I also think alot of people underestimate how many calories are in their fluids, too.

Exercise can help you burn calories. It will help you be fitter. It's not a huge part of losing weight but it's a massive part of a healthy life style.

fireblade28

Yeup you can do it eating McDonald's as well! Impressive improvement

Here http://http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10

Anoneemoose

fireblade28 wrote: »

So the studies that exist show that the energy argument is the overriding principle. The physics you can't debate because its a law.

The human body part is as you stated more complex and a biological system so it doesn't perfectly apply but practically speaking its the best thing we have. Calories is the simplest way you can go to lose weight.

If you put out more energy than you take in you will lose body mass regardless of what type of food you eat. You have to!
So if I eat 2000 calories of twinkles and 2000 of chicken and veg and I need 2500 to maintain my weight. Then I will lose weight on both. Will I be as healthy on twinkles? probably not, but will it work? YES! The professor showed this.

Will you lose weight at the same rate? Probably not. There's what will work and what is optimal.

Medical conditions are a separate problem which need to be addressed first. But for the majority of people they don't apply they just eat too much because they can't control themselves. Sugar is addictive like a drug. Its never gonna be easy but it can be done some people just need to exercise more willpower than others thats life.

As I said, I still don't believe it really is that simple. I can see that that one person lost weight doing an experiment with less calories than he needed.

That doesn't take into consideration the effect different types of food have on our bodies though and what that means for real people who aren't doing an experiment. For example, if I eat something sweet, my blood sugar levels change, leading me to crave more sweetness or have a drop in energy. This in turn leads me to 'need' to eat something else. A biological response which doesn't care how many calories I have previously eaten in that particular day. Obviously this is a very basic example.

I did myfitnesspal for 3 months and exercised - before being diagnosed with my illness - and I lost nothing (well, actually I did 1lb), nor did my measurements change. And I weighed everything. I also underestimated or often didn't count any exercise I did at the gym, because I had read that the calories burned on mfp for exercise were largely inaccurate.

I stand by my point, weight loss is not that simple. Calorie counting may have its place in physics for experimental purposes, but not when it comes to actual real life situations, where people have emotions, feelings, hormones etc etc.

fireblade28

Anoneemoose wrote: »

As I said, I still don't believe it really is that simple. I can see that that one person lost weight doing an experiment with less calories than he needed.

That doesn't take into consideration the effect different types of food have on our bodies though and what that means for real people who aren't doing an experiment. For example, if I eat something sweet, my blood sugar levels change, leading me to crave more sweetness or have a drop in energy. This in turn leads me to 'need' to eat something else. A biological response which doesn't care how many calories I have previously eaten in that particular day. Obviously this is a very basic example.

I did myfitnesspal for 3 months and exercised - before being diagnosed with my illness - and I lost nothing (well, actually I did 1lb), nor did my measurements change. And I weighed everything. I also underestimated or often didn't count any exercise I did at the gym, because I had read that the calories burned on mfp for exercise were largely inaccurate.

I stand by my point, weight loss is not that simple. Calorie counting may have its place in physics for experimental purposes, but not when it comes to actual real life situations, where people have emotions, feelings, hormones etc etc.

I can't be bothered to look for all the studies but there are plenty on pubmed you can read and do the research yourself.

Here is what examine have to say which are an independent group that collect and assess many studies from the scientific literature

https://examine.com/nutrition/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss/

You are correct about the effect of sugar. It makes insulin spike which causes those things you listed but it doesn't overrule the energy balance unless of course you eat loads of stuff because of it.

Obviously there must have been something amiss with what you were doing. I suspect, as is often the case an overestimation of how many calories you actually need.

I have never used myfitnesspal but they give you a calories estimate based upon the miffin formula from what I have just looked at. All formulas are just estimates and you will need to continually adjust as you go along which I imagine the app doesn't mention.
Sometimes we overestimate our activity or our body just needs less than other people.

If you can say you did everything perfectly, water , sleep, no eating at weekends, not going crazy when you go out. tracking everything. Then it may be worth seeing a medical professional unless of course its related to your illness anything hormonal or thyroid based will make it much trickier.

bigfreddiel

And another thing, as well as eating less, yes it is that simple, give up low fat foods, they are loaded with sugar, so to help you get less fat just eat less, low sugar content food, preferably fresh as opposed to processed.

For example, ditch low fat yoghurt, low fat spreads, butter and normal yoghurt is fine, after all you do t eat that much of it.

Get used to reading the lables food packets and to get familiar with what the values mean. Remember 4mg of sugar is a teaspoon.

Good luck fj

theoretica

Anoneemoose wrote: »

That doesn't take into consideration the effect different types of food have on our bodies though and what that means for real people who aren't doing an experiment. For example, if I eat something sweet, my blood sugar levels change, leading me to crave more sweetness or have a drop in energy. This in turn leads me to 'need' to eat something else. A biological response which doesn't care how many calories I have previously eaten in that particular day. Obviously this is a very basic example.
...
Calorie counting may have its place in physics for experimental purposes, but not when it comes to actual real life situations, where people have emotions, feelings, hormones etc etc.

I think what you are talking about is not just calories in, but how satisfying those calories are - so how easy it is to stick to them. Some people will have the will power to stick to the calories counted regardless of how they feel - but not many. Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just that it isn't realistic to expect people to do it. I don't see it as an either/or - calorie counting has its place, but isn't the whole answer by itself - nor is type of food all by itself. As so often when real people are involved I believe the answer is 'it's complicated...'

Anoneemoose

theoretica wrote: »

I think what you are talking about is not just calories in, but how satisfying those calories are - so how easy it is to stick to them. Some people will have the will power to stick to the calories counted regardless of how they feel - but not many. Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just that it isn't realistic to expect people to do it. I don't see it as an either/or - calorie counting has its place, but isn't the whole answer by itself - nor is type of food all by itself. As so often when real people are involved I believe the answer is 'it's complicated...'

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. As I said numerous times, "it's not that simple". I can see that calorie counting 'works' in the clinical, experimental situations. However, as I have said, it doesn't when it comes to real people, in real life situations.

I also think willpower is irrelevant. The research shows that most people who diet (95%), do not keep the weight off long term and that is another thing that needs to be taken into consideration and why it is 'not that simple'. Most people can ride out on 'willpower' in the first flush of new diet excitement, but it is not something that carries them long term.

And whichever way you look at it, calorie counting is just another form of dieting or restriction, no matter how people dress it up.

I have also read a lot that shows that people who 'weight cycle' and are overweight or obese are likely to be less healthy than those who didn't bother with the losing and gaining of weight in the first place - which inevitably occurs in the large majority of circumstances.