[OreoCookie]

So I want to loose about 5 kilos. I weigh 77 kilos that distribute themselves over 1.80 m.

Before my knee surgery and everything I weighed about 72 kilos and I was pretty happy with that. Now I got a little fat around my tummy and I don't run as easily uphill as I used to.
So here's the deal:

I go running at least twice a week (2-4 times, 7.5 kilometers) which more or less totals to 20-25 k/week.

Once a week I do Judo, another favorite of mine.

I skip our cafeteria at my university and eat some (German) bread with pepperoni on it. Basically something that doesn't have too much fat and takes care of my hunger.

I try to eat less meat and more salad and fruits.

But still, I won't loose any weight. I outta ideas. Can you give me some hints?

[Timo]

move to the USA: pounds are easier to lose than kilos

[davesimondotcom]

Dude, I can only tell you how to lose some pounds. I don't know anything about kilos.

Seriously, the best thing you can do is just get more exercise, eat sensibly and you'll be fine.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Timo:
move to the USA: pounds are easier to lose than kilos

It's true. They are at least 2.2 times easier.

[MikeM33]

Can you exercise at all after the surgery? I'm lousy with diets myself and I recently busted-up my knee pretty bad. I've been gaining weight for the past month (plus) since the accident.

Anyway; what's always worked for me is a good regime of cardiovascular exercise. I have an exercise bike at home. You do 20 minutes straight (non-stop) then take a 10 minute break, then do another 20 minutes. But you should do it EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I don't know much about the Metric system LOL, but I can lose roughly 10-15 lbs a month if I do a good 80 minutes (total workout time, not including the breaks) or more on the bike every day.

Hungry in-between meals? Drink lots of water. You can fake out your body's hunger by just filling-up on water. When you start getting thinner you won't be able to eat as-much.

I also have a weight bench at home. The anaerobic exercise (like weight liftin) is good because it turns the protiens and calories into lean muscle mass, rather than allowing them to turn into fat.

Before my accident, I'd wake-up every day extremely early before work and do 4 x 20 minute sets on the exercise bike. 10 minute breaks in-between. It's easier to do cardiovascular exercise of this nature when you've just woken-up and perhaps had a little coffee Recalling my college health classes, the 20 minute sets of cardio is essential to get your heart rate into the "zone". Not sure what it all means biologically, but it's always stuck with me.

After work I'd lift weights. Because it doesn't require the endurance of a 20 minute set of cardiovascular exercise it's easier to handle even when you're a little tired after a long day at work. Just don't over-do it!!

Anyway that's what I do. I don't even diet at all. I've known people to struggle like hell with dieting. For me it's just simpler to do ALOT of exercise.

MikeM

[OreoCookie]

Ok, for the last ones that didn't switch to the metric system. 1 pound approximately equals to 0.452 kilos. 1 foot is approximate 0.30 meters.

In English units:

77.0 kg = 170 pounds
1.80 m = 6 foot

[talisker]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
So I want to loose about 5 kilos. I weigh 77 kilos that distribute themselves over 1.80 m.

Before my knee surgery and everything I weighed about 72 kilos and I was pretty happy with that. Now I got a little fat around my tummy and I don't run as easily uphill as I used to.
So here's the deal:

I go running at least twice a week (2-4 times, 7.5 kilometers) which more or less totals to 20-25 k/week.

Once a week I do Judo, another favorite of mine.

I skip our cafeteria at my university and eat some (German) bread with pepperoni on it. Basically something that doesn't have too much fat and takes care of my hunger.

I try to eat less meat and more salad and fruits.

But still, I won't loose any weight. I outta ideas. Can you give me some hints?

Doesn't sound like too bad a strategy you're following, but I wonder if you've got the eating thing right. My girlfriend went on a "Body Revolution" program about 6 months ago through our local gym. This comprised regular excercise, maybe a little more than you do but not too much, and a diet program. What was really interesting was the diet program - she got a plan for each week with recipes and shopping lists. In no way would you say the recipes were for traditional "diet" meals - these are full-on feeds with an interesting variety of meat, fish, veggies etc. They are fairly low fat in that they don't use cream or butter, and use spray oil when frying, but that's about it. She also had to eat breakfast, and mid-morning and mid-afternoon snacks (usually muesli bars, yoghurt, fruit etc). No silly "supplements" or diet-shake things in sight. I was eating the same meals as well, although not doing as much excercise, and she's lost a lot of weight, and I've lost quite a bit too. The recipes are so good that we're still making them even though she's officially finished the program.

So what I suppose I'm saying is that diet plays a huge part, and the key seems to be to not starve yourself at all, in fact don't even let yourself get hungry, but just keep it healthy and maybe change your cooking habits a little bit. I can't remember the last time I had a "ready meal" - we cook everything from fresh ingredients and it honestly doesnt take long at all.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Can you exercise at all after the surgery? I'm lousy with diets myself and I recently busted-up my knee pretty bad. I've been gaining weight for the past month (plus) since the accident.

Anyway; what's always worked for me is a good regime of cardiovascular exercise. I have an exercise bike at home. You do 20 minutes straight (non-stop) then take a 10 minute break, then do another 20 minutes. But you should do it EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I don't know much about the Metric system LOL, but I can lose roughly 10-15 lbs a month if I do a good 80 minutes (total workout time, not including the breaks) or more on the bike every day.

Hungry in-between meals? Drink lots of water. You can fake out your body's hunger by just filling-up on water. When you start getting thinner you won't be able to eat as-much.

I also have a weight bench at home. The anaerobic exercise (like weight liftin) is good because it turns the protiens and calories into lean muscle mass, rather than allowing them to turn into fat.

Before my accident, I'd wake-up every day extremely early before work and do 4 x 20 minute sets on the exercise bike. 10 minute breaks in-between. It's easier to do cardiovascular exercise of this nature when you've just woken-up and perhaps had a little coffee Recalling my college health classes, the 20 minute sets of cardio is essential to get your heart rate into the "zone". Not sure what it all means biologically, but it's always stuck with me.

After work I'd lift weights. Because it doesn't require the endurance of a 20 minute set of cardiovascular exercise it's easier to handle even when you're a little tired after a long day at work. Just don't over-do it!!

Anyway that's what I do. I don't even diet at all. I've known people to struggle like hell with dieting. For me it's just simpler to do ALOT of exercise.

MikeM

I'm up to 90-95 % with my right knee (miniscus completely torn twice). It's ok.

The problem is that I am in public transportation 3 hours a day and I still need to do some work at home. Thus I sit a lot.

I can spare an hour a day. And after a serious bike accident I hate to do exercise on Sundays (too many people on bikes are out).

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by talisker:
Doesn't sound like too bad a strategy you're following, but I wonder if you've got the eating thing right. My girlfriend went on a "Body Revolution" program about 6 months ago through our local gym. This comprised regular excercise, maybe a little more than you do but not too much, and a diet program. What was really interesting was the diet program - she got a plan for each week with recipes and shopping lists. In no way would you say the recipes were for traditional "diet" meals - these are full-on feeds with an interesting variety of meat, fish, veggies etc. They are fairly low fat in that they don't use cream or butter, and use spray oil when frying, but that's about it. She also had to eat breakfast, and mid-morning and mid-afternoon snacks (usually muesli bars, yoghurt, fruit etc). No silly "supplements" or diet-shake things in sight. I was eating the same meals as well, although not doing as much excercise, and she's lost a lot of weight, and I've lost quite a bit too. The recipes are so good that we're still making them even though she's officially finished the program.

So what I suppose I'm saying is that diet plays a huge part, and the key seems to be to not starve yourself at all, in fact don't even let yourself get hungry, but just keep it healthy and maybe change your cooking habits a little bit. I can't remember the last time I had a "ready meal" - we cook everything from fresh ingredients and it honestly doesnt take long at all.

Can you tell me more about the diet stuff. I am trying to look out what I am eating (and I don't plan on doing a diet diet). I just want to eat a bit more carefully.

[xi_hyperon]

I lost several pounds awhile back, and while exercise contributed, change in my eating habits played a big role too. Not just what I ate, but when I ate. I cut back on late night snacks, and ate lightly in the morning. Eating lightly in the morning keeps one's stomach from stretching, which lowers the appetite for the rest of the day. It sucked at first, but after awhile my stomach became accustomed to eating less.

F*ck fat count - watch the calorie intake. Foods labeled "lowfat" often contain almost the same amount of calories as the ones not labeled as lowfat. Instead, cut back severely on the amount of sugar intake, and that should help even if you're not being faithful to your exercise regimen (although you should try to stick to your regimen anyway).

If weekdays are the battle of the bulge, then weekends for me are a ceasefire. I do a bit of indulging Saturdays and Sundays... bake cookies, eat ice cream, consume chocolate in various forms. As long as I stick to some discipline during the week, it's nice to reward myself at the end.

Everyone's different. For me, the above has worked pretty well.

[justinf77]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Can you tell me more about the diet stuff. I am trying to look out what I am eating (and I don't plan on doing a diet diet). I just want to eat a bit more carefully.

I can help you out with this. You weigh 170 pounds, and want to lose a bit of weight. Primarily, you will want to focus on clean foods. Chicken, fish, lean beef, turkey, etc for proteins. Clean, whole grain carbs, like whole wheat bread, fruit, veggies, beans, etc. Try to stay away from processed foods, like sugary cereals and such. Have fats too, but good, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated ones, like in olive oil and natural peanut butter. For a list of good foods to eat, check out:

http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/172food.html

Yes, this is a bodybuilding website, but these guidelines are good for mostly everyone.

Also, make sure not to UNDEReat. You want to keep your metabolism going. For you, Id say 170 g of protein, 170 g of carbs, and about 85g of fat daily would help you lose weight. Weight train 2 days a week if thats all you have. If you want some exercise or workout advice, let me know.

Good luck man!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
I lost several pounds awhile back, and while exercise contributed, change in my eating habits played a big role too. Not just what I ate, but when I ate. I cut back on late night snacks, and ate lightly in the morning. Eating lightly in the morning keeps one's stomach from stretching, which lowers the appetite for the rest of the day. It sucked at first, but after awhile my stomach became accustomed to eating less.

F*ck fat count - watch the calorie intake. Foods labeled "lowfat" often contain almost the same amount of calories as the ones not labeled as lowfat. Instead, cut back severely on the amount of sugar intake, and that should help even if you're not being faithful to your exercise regimen (although you should try to stick to your regimen anyway).

If weekdays are the battle of the bulge, then weekends for me are a ceasefire. I do a bit of indulging Saturdays and Sundays... bake cookies, eat ice cream, consume chocolate in various forms. As long as I stick to some discipline during the week, it's nice to reward myself at the end.

Everyone's different. For me, the above has worked pretty well.

I don't count calories either, because I can't. I usually cook for myself and don't resort to ready made food.

And I do drink one beer a week (after Judo with the others). I don't eat candy (I just won't buy it).

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by justinf77:
I can help you out with this. You weigh 170 pounds, and want to lose a bit of weight. Primarily, you will want to focus on clean foods. Chicken, fish, lean beef, turkey, etc for proteins. Clean, whole grain carbs, like whole wheat bread, fruit, veggies, beans, etc. Try to stay away from processed foods, like sugary cereals and such. Have fats too, but good, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated ones, like in olive oil and natural peanut butter. For a list of good foods to eat, check out:

http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/172food.html

Yes, this is a bodybuilding website, but these guidelines are good for mostly everyone.

Also, make sure not to UNDEReat. You want to keep your metabolism going. For you, Id say 170 g of protein, 170 g of carbs, and about 85g of fat daily would help you lose weight. Weight train 2 days a week if thats all you have. If you want some exercise or workout advice, let me know.

Good luck man!

What kind of exercise could I do at home? I don't have the time (really) to go to a fitness center or something like that. What kind of exercises would you do if you were me?

[talisker]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Can you tell me more about the diet stuff. I am trying to look out what I am eating (and I don't plan on doing a diet diet). I just want to eat a bit more carefully.

Well these recipes we've been using have been for fairly normal sorts of meals, things like spaghetti bolognese, beef stroganoff, various ways of cooking fish, chicken, beef, pork etc. The key things have been that you always have a lot of vegetables with the meals, whether it's salad or boiled carrots, potatoes, cauliflower etc. The usual cooking methods are either baking in the oven, or frying using a spray-on oil (which if you use it sparingly is almost like dry-frying). To thicken sauces you usually use a bit of cornflour or maybe low-fat sour cream etc, or a lot of them use white sauces made with a bit of margarine, flour and skimmed milk. Quite often we have chicken or fish covered in some sort of coating (various combinations of breadcrumbs, flour, paprika, herbs..) and cooked in the oven. Or just use nice lean pieces of meat or fish on the barbecue or whatever.

Just really a case of cutting down the fat level a bit and having a good mix of proteins and carbohydrates in each meal. Really it just seems like "normal" cooking now - as far from a fad diet as it's possible to be I think. A big part of it is just thinking about what you're eating and planning out some meals for the week, rather than just grabbing what you can when you're hungry.

[justinf77]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
What kind of exercise could I do at home? I don't have the time (really) to go to a fitness center or something like that. What kind of exercises would you do if you were me?

Go to menshealth.com, click Fitness, then click Workout Series. You can do this one all at home. You will probably need to spend a couple hundred bucks on equipment. If you dont want to do that, you could try body weight only exercises. If I were you, check out the Fitness Message board over at forums.menshealth.com. Post this question there... those guys are really helpful and very knowledgable, and I learned a TON of stuff from them.

[malvolio]

And here I was thinking this was a thread about finding a place to hide your drugs...

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Timo:
move to the USA: pounds are easier to lose than kilos

Thing is that it is also one of the countries with the biggest weight problems.

[PB2K]

Just eat less and exercise more.

Everything else is bad for you and costs too much money

[Eug]

I skip our cafeteria at my university and eat some (German) bread with pepperoni on it. Basically something that doesn't have too much fat and takes care of my hunger.

Pepperoni is loaded with fat --> potentially high calories (depending upon how much you eat).

Just eat less and exercise more.

Yep, all the effective weight loss regimens have this in common. No magic to weight loss.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by malvolio:
And here I was thinking this was a thread about finding a place to hide your drugs...

It got my hopes up too

[Mulattabianca]

i am trying to make someone else (than me) lose 20 lb.
so, some things that do work:

- don't go under 1200 kcals/day if you diet. your metabolism screws, so your body thinks you are starving. as result, everything that you eat (over the minimal minimal body functions, like 200-300 kcal) is stored as fat. and that sucks. also that way you lose your muscles.

- do sports. muscles weight, but they burn. so no muscles, no burn and no weight loose. better transform your body to muscles, so you will burn more even when you do nothing. continueing of this - some bodybuilders told me recently that some doctors consider anorexics overweight: their body's fat content can be paradoxically over 30% (due to no muscle). muscles burn and are beautiful.

- drink a lot of water. in summer at least 6 pints a day. it helps you forget the hunger sometimes, and cleans your body. some exagerate and drink only iced water thinking that they burn more - forcing their body to use more energy to heat the body back warmer.

- use a lot of vegetables etc and fruit. they are healthy, have a lot of vitamins and minerals and fiber, taste good etc.

- use fish sometimes.

- of fat i see 2 theories: fat counts, and fat does not count. average western food (european / american) has 35-40+ % of caloric intake from fats vs. japanese food has in media 11 % of its intake. have you ever seen a japanese woman (or man, excluding sumos?) ? i think fat counts. don't use it too much. also - japanese non-fat body thing might derivate from sushi. it's low fat, high proteine, healthy etc. good stuff for you.

- the normal breakfast theory is "eat a huge breakfast, big lunch and a small dinner". i belive everyone has a different body. both for the body's needs and the times. i can't eat a huge breakfast, so normally just coffee, sometimes with fruit or milk, that's it. and i skip the lunch and have a light dinner. find when your body needs something. eat when hungry, when not, do something else.

- fruits and similar are best digested in the morning. (try fruit only for breakfast).

- do sports, walk, whatever. enjoy the summer out, and have more sex. post less. don't eat if you are not hungry.

[bracken]

Originally posted by Timo:
move to the USA: pounds are easier to lose than kilos

Don't move here, you'll just gain more.

Lots more.

[Mulattabianca]

Originally posted by bracken:
Don't move here, you'll just gain more.

Lots more.

i didn't get more.

[starman]

You could change your name from "OreoCookie" to something more healthy .

Mike

[maxelson]

Lost 30 pounds and this is how- it is simple, really.
Killed off junk food entirely.
Got rid of as many trans fatty acid containing foods as possible (YES, that means fake butter).

Snaks were fruit and nuts. End of the story.

Reduced carbs by about half. Increased protiens.

Reduced the BEER intake (which goes a LONG way, I'll tell you).

Reduced white sugar intake about 75%- avoided it entirely when I could.

And this is most important: ACTIVITY. I get at least an hour of physical work every day. If it is yard stuff, I modify HOW I do it to keep my heart rate up.

Here's the final thing: change your lifestyle. Dieting is for chumps. It is short term. Change the way you live. It is only hard at first. Body will follow the mind.

Eat sensibly. Increase physical activity. CHange your mindset. There is no other substitute.

Oh. Yeah. And smoke. Camels.

[Dogma]

Drink Tomato juice.

I don't know how it worked, but it did. I saw the tomato juice, thought "i quite like that", started drinking it more than anything else, had some serious johnny cash's, and have lost about half a stone in about two months. No other changes, same old slobbing about, same old food, same old everything, except I drink Tomato juice more than Coke etc.

Add some Worcestershire sauce and black pepper, or some Tabasco if you can't get Worcestershire. Give it a good mix, and hey presto - instant feel good drink. It's basically water anyway, just with some added extras from the tomatoes, but it does seem to work.

P.S. A "Johnny Cash" is a "bad case of the runs" aka "the burning ring of fire"

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Eug:
Pepperoni is loaded with fat --> potentially high calories (depending upon how much you eat).
Yep, all the effective weight loss regimens have this in common. No magic to weight loss.

I do exercise, far above average IMHO, and I do have just 5-6 hours of sleep a day already, so I have a limited amount of time to spend here ...

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Mulattabianca:
i am trying to make someone else (than me) lose 20 lb.
so, some things that do work:

- don't go under 1200 kcals/day if you diet. your metabolism screws, so your body thinks you are starving. as result, everything that you eat (over the minimal minimal body functions, like 200-300 kcal) is stored as fat. and that sucks. also that way you lose your muscles.

- do sports. muscles weight, but they burn. so no muscles, no burn and no weight loose. better transform your body to muscles, so you will burn more even when you do nothing. continueing of this - some bodybuilders told me recently that some doctors consider anorexics overweight: their body's fat content can be paradoxically over 30% (due to no muscle). muscles burn and are beautiful.

- drink a lot of water. in summer at least 6 pints a day. it helps you forget the hunger sometimes, and cleans your body. some exagerate and drink only iced water thinking that they burn more - forcing their body to use more energy to heat the body back warmer.

- use a lot of vegetables etc and fruit. they are healthy, have a lot of vitamins and minerals and fiber, taste good etc.

- use fish sometimes.

- of fat i see 2 theories: fat counts, and fat does not count. average western food (european / american) has 35-40+ % of caloric intake from fats vs. japanese food has in media 11 % of its intake. have you ever seen a japanese woman (or man, excluding sumos?) ? i think fat counts. don't use it too much. also - japanese non-fat body thing might derivate from sushi. it's low fat, high proteine, healthy etc. good stuff for you.

- the normal breakfast theory is "eat a huge breakfast, big lunch and a small dinner". i belive everyone has a different body. both for the body's needs and the times. i can't eat a huge breakfast, so normally just coffee, sometimes with fruit or milk, that's it. and i skip the lunch and have a light dinner. find when your body needs something. eat when hungry, when not, do something else.

- fruits and similar are best digested in the morning. (try fruit only for breakfast).

- do sports, walk, whatever. enjoy the summer out, and have more sex. post less. don't eat if you are not hungry.

Thanx. I will stay in Japan for a year, so I hope this will help me a bit

BTW, you are Italian, why do you think in pounds?

[Timo]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
BTW, you are Italian, why do you think in pounds?

We've already been over this: it's easier to lose pounds than kilos.

[c'mon, how 'bout a "LOL." throw us a bone]

[maxelson]

LOL!

Oreo- LAY. OFF. THE. CARBS.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by bracken:
Don't move here, you'll just gain more.

Lots more.

I did. I have lost them as soon as I came back here (within one or two months). It was about 4-5 kilos back then. Although I have never stopped running ...

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Timo:
We've already been over this: it's easier to lose pounds than kilos.

[c'mon, how 'bout a "LOL." throw us a bone]

I *am* laughing and smiling ... it just doesn't show on the web.

BTW: my hostmom has had a similar kind of humor -- I liked hers a lot ...

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Dogma:
Drink Tomato juice.

I don't know how it worked, but it did. I saw the tomato juice, thought "i quite like that", started drinking it more than anything else, had some serious johnny cash's, and have lost about half a stone in about two months. No other changes, same old slobbing about, same old food, same old everything, except I drink Tomato juice more than Coke etc.

Add some Worcestershire sauce and black pepper, or some Tabasco if you can't get Worcestershire. Give it a good mix, and hey presto - instant feel good drink. It's basically water anyway, just with some added extras from the tomatoes, but it does seem to work.

P.S. A "Johnny Cash" is a "bad case of the runs" aka "the burning ring of fire"

I am not sure about this one. A bloody mary is the only kind of alcoholic beverage known to me that I hate. Couldn't drink that stuff

[Timo]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
IBTW: my hostmom has had a similar kind of humor -- I liked hers a lot ...

who told you I wear dresses?

BOT: listen to max. Lay off the carbs.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Timo:
who told you I wear dresses?

BOT: listen to max. Lay off the carbs.

Believe it or not, my name is Max ...

BTW, my hostmom wore the pants, so don't worry about it.

[Eug]

Originally posted by maxelson:
LOL!

Oreo- LAY. OFF. THE. CARBS.

Carbs are not evil. There is no magical low carb diet. The only solution is reduced calories and/or increased caloric expenditure (ie. exercise).

BTW, I've lost about 7-8 lbs (3.5 kg) in the last two months on a balanced diet, with (I'm guessing) about 50-60% carb calories, 10-15% protein calories, and the rest fat (30%). I simply eat less overall and exercise more.

1.70 m, now 68-69 kg. My exercise consists of biking to work (12 km one way) a couple of times a week, with additional activities sometimes on the w/e.

[maxelson]

Not talking diet. Talking moderation. Most folks eat WAY too many carbs. WAY too many. Typical - too much fat, too much carb.
Back off. Increase protien, DECREASE carb (not eliminate), increase fresh fruits and veggies, ditch junk. He already does the physical stuff.
Easy. OK. Not easy, but effective and NOT a diet. It is a lifestyle.

[OreoCookie]

Thanx for all the advice guys (and Muttabianca, of course ).

[murbot]

At 6 feet an 170, shouldn't you be trying to GAIN 5 pounds?

Just seems so thin to me - I'm 5'10" and 190... I could probably lose 10 pounds but I'd feel like a skeleton at 170.

Just different body types I suppose - I have a buddy who's 6'1" and 210 with the lowest body fat of anyone I know. I hate him.

[Biggysteve]

Originally posted by Eug:
There is no magical low carb diet.

I lost 100 pounds last year. I think there is.

[Eug]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Not talking diet. Talking moderation. Most folks eat WAY too many carbs. WAY too many. Typical - too much fat, too much carb.
Back off. Increase protien, DECREASE carb (not eliminate), increase fresh fruits and veggies, ditch junk. He already does the physical stuff.
Easy. OK. Not easy, but effective and NOT a diet. It is a lifestyle.

Carb do not equal junk food. Carbs don't even suggest it necessarily.

Fruit has lots of carbs. Grains are mostly carbs. Veggies often have a lot of carbs.

Read up on standard North American diets. In fact, the average diet has LOWER carb percentages than are recommended. ie. often in the 40-50% range, whereas the recommended carb intake is 60%. The problem is the OVERALL calories are WAY too high:

eg. Say a person eats 3500 calories per day. 45% carbs, 40% fat, and 15% protein. (This approximates many bad North American diets.)

45% of 3500 = 1575 carb calories.
40% of 3500 = 1500 fat calories
15% of 3500 = 525 protein calories.

But in fact, perhaps that person should be eating a diet of 2500 calories, with the recommended 60% carbs, 30% fat, and 10% protein.

60% of 2500 = 1500 carb calories
30% of 2500 = 750 fat calories
10% of 2500 = 250 protein calories.

In other words this patient should only reduce carb calories slightly but should reduce fat intake dramatically. Indeed, even protein intake should be reduced dramatically as well.

Plus people eat crap carbs. A bottle of coke simply isn't the same thing as having a nice tomato, yet both are rich in carbs.

I lost 100 pounds last year. I think there is.

Good for you, but that just means you had an extreme case of lowered caloric intake and/or raised caloric expenditure. Basic chemistry.

It should be noted that most nutritionists and physicians consider 100 lbs of weight loss in a year too much. With that much weight loss it is inevitable that there is also considerable loss of muscle mass. The point of losing weight is to lose fat, not muscle.

Fortunately, for most overweight but otherwise healthy younger people, it's not a big deal. It might be easier for some people to lose both muscle and fat, and then try to build up the muscle later. OTOH, if a person has any other medical problems, 100 lbs of weight loss in a year can be damaging to health.

[Josh Reid]

Eug,

Biggysteve said "I lost 100 pounds last year. I think there is.(a magical low carb diet)", to which you responded, "Good for you, but that just means you had an extreme case of lowered caloric intake and/or raised caloric expenditure. Basic chemistry."

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. Please understand that with all the facts you quoted, you aren't entirely wrong, but you don't know enough facts of how a low-carb diet truly works to make a blanketed statement that Steve lost weight simply because he ate less. Many people on low-carbing actually are able to consume more or equal calories (from the proper foods) than they did before low-carbing. It isn't a simple "Exercise off more calories than you consume" way of eating. Let me re-word that to try to make it clearer; Eating low-carb puts your body in ketosis (not to be confused with the bad ketoacidosis). Ketosis means your body is using fat for energy instead of carbs & sugar. Your body doesn't have the chance to turn carbs into sugar and then stored fat. You get energy from the fat you eat, and the excess fat (if any) on your body.

While it's true that eating a tomato with lots of carbs IS in fact better than drinking a bottle of coke with lots of carbs, your logic is flawed. For some people's bodies (not everyone, but many people), any amount of sugar from many types of fruit is as harmful as plain white sugar, as it affects their blood glucose level in an extreme way. Yes, for example, a banana is certainly healthier overall than a can of coke, but it still would screw up low-carbers' diet for a day due to the high sugar content. I don't have the time right now to work out a lengthy, convincing article, but I urge you to check out www.lowcarbluxury.com (It's a woman's personal yet professional site about the low-carb way of eating. It's smartly-written and interesting.) In the past few years, she has lost over 100 pounds.

Here is a small bit of info from her FAQ:
"Be aware that there are still MANY misconceptions out there about this diet. You will face lots of skeptics and you may even argue with yourself a little. There are those that believe we are zero carb and eat NO veggies (we eat quite a lot), NO fruits (most plans allow for the low-sugar ones), no grains (we eat only the high fiber unprocessed ones rather than "their" highly processed bleached ones!). There are those who will tell you that ketosis is a "dangerous state" because they confuse it with ketoacidosis. There are those who believe that "fat makes you fat" (because it sounds logical) and will tell you you're going to give yourself a heart attack with all this fat you're eating (when in fact, bad cholesterol and triglycerides go down in almost every case where the low carber follows the plan properly.) And be aware these "opinions" may be held by those who are our nutritionists, our doctors (though more and more doctors are convinced of low-carb's healthfulness), nurses, and others. Care enough about your own life to do the research, to read the books, to make the effort."

As a low-carber myself, I urge everyone (whether needing to lose weight or not) to explore a low-carb (NOT no-carb) way-of-eating. Reading some of her articles on sugars & carbs are really educational and enlightening.

-Josh

[Cipher13]

OreoCookie: everyone I know who has used the Weight Watchers points plan has lost a shitload of weight.

I have no experience with it (apparently I'm dangerously underweight), but the meals and stuff they give you in the books are actually damn nice

I dunno, worth looking into I guess. I have no idea about weight loss... I'm one of the lucky ones that finds it impossible to gain weight.

[Biggysteve]

I'll just echo what Josh Reid said, and add that speaking in absolutes doesn't make you any more correct, Eug. I ate, on average, 2500 calories a day, with all my essential carbs coming from vegetables, and sometimes fruit. I experienced more muscle GAIN than loss. My tits and stomach are like bulbous, rock hard slabs of granite; I'll let you touch them for a quarter, if you don't believe me.

[Saul Goode]

Ditto on the low carb thing. 40 pounds in six months.

Many nutrition "experts" don't recommend losing weight fast, too bad there is no REAL conclusive proof that it does any real harm. As for the loss of muscle thing, you carry aroung a 100 pound weight 24/7 for a few years then stop, and see if you lose muscle. It's easy to lose muscle when you need them less.

If you read UP TO DATE studies, they are finding out how wrong we have all been about many aspects of our diets, like:

? With the exception of red meats which should be taken in moderation, the fats that are in fish and poultry are actually GOOD FOR YOU. All this stuff about avoiding certain fattier fish and not eating chicken skin turns out to be a load of crap.

? While trans fatty acids are stiill to be avoided, the oily fats in nuts and various oils are actually GOOD FOR YOU.

? Not only is there turning out to be nearly ZERO benefit to dietary intake of dairy products on bone loss, they should be taken sparingly because of it's contribution to an increase in cancer. The jury is still out on why, but the fat content seems to NOT be the cause, but rather the calcium itself.

? It is a myth that potatoes are really all that good for you. Most of it's nutritional value is in the skin which is rarely eaten. It is the ONLY vegetable the has not been shown to help in cancer prevention. The starch in potates metobolizes faster than table sugar, causing huge insulin spikes. (It is the number one vegetable associated with the onset of type II diebetes.) They should be eliminated from your diet altogether.

? Refined starches such as those in pasta and white bread should be either eliminated or used sparingly. Whole grains should be used instead in moderation.

Americans have been told for decades to eat lots of carbs and then work them off. And for decades we keep getting fatter. Seems like maybe we should realize that these "experts" don't know what the f*ck they were talking about and try something new.

[Xeo]

I'm 6'2" coming in at 300lbs. I just started a workout program last week that I'm going to try and keep up. I do running/biking/stairs and weight lifting every other day for the 5 weekdays. I guess I'm curious as to whether this is a good plan or not.

I haven't really changed my diet, other than I'm sure I'm eating less. Living on campus and having no pre-paid meal plan keeps me from spending money to eat. I end up eating a lot of turkey sandwiches, bananas, yogurt, peanut butter sandwiches, and the occasional trip to the cafeteria for whatever food they have there. It's not easy for me to buy food. I have a small dorm fridge and no freezer.

I really just want to get in shape. I will feel good about myself if I can do physical activities without getting so tired so fast. I also want to lose weight just to look better and that will come along with my first goal. My brothers and my dad are all big guys. I don't think I have a chance of hitting 200. I think I'd be too thin.

I refuse to do things to just lose weight. I want to lift weights and build muscle at the same time as losing fat. So are there any suggestions? What should I do differently? What is good?

[Eug]

Many people on low-carbing actually are able to consume more or equal calories (from the proper foods) than they did before low-carbing. It isn't a simple "Exercise off more calories than you consume" way of eating. Let me re-word that to try to make it clearer; Eating low-carb puts your body in ketosis (not to be confused with the bad ketoacidosis). Ketosis means your body is using fat for energy instead of carbs & sugar. Your body doesn't have the chance to turn carbs into sugar and then stored fat. You get energy from the fat you eat, and the excess fat (if any) on your body.

While it's true that eating a tomato with lots of carbs IS in fact better than drinking a bottle of coke with lots of carbs, your logic is flawed. For some people's bodies (not everyone, but many people), any amount of sugar from many types of fruit is as harmful as plain white sugar, as it affects their blood glucose level in an extreme way. Yes, for example, a banana is certainly healthier overall than a can of coke, but it still would screw up low-carbers' diet for a day due to the high sugar content. I don't have the time right now to work out a lengthy, convincing article, but I urge you to check out www.lowcarbluxury.com (It's a woman's personal yet professional site about the low-carb way of eating. It's smartly-written and interesting.) In the past few years, she has lost over 100 pounds.

Sorry, but repeating often-quoted diet fad theories or testimonials by individuals doesn't change the facts. Even low carb diets that work, work only by the basic rule that you must use more calories than you eat. It just so happens that in the case of low carb diets the calorie reduction is in carbs and not fats and proteins. In contrast to popular belief, these diets still must have an overall reduction in calories and/or an increase in exercise in order to work.

Indeed, while it's relatively common for a person to lose weight on a low carb diet, it's also quite common for such a diet to fail miserably. Furthermore, I know a person that has lost 70 lbs in 8 months on a relatively high carb diet. However, that doesn't make high carb diets magical either.

If you don't believe me, then believe the scientists (and not some random internet site). Here is a link to a meta-analysis of all the major low-carb diet studies out there, published by the Journal of the American Medical Association. (JAMA. 2003 Apr 9;289(14):1837-50.)

Efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets: a systematic review:

"We included 107 articles describing 94 dietary interventions reporting data for 3268 participants; 663 participants received diets of 60 g/d or less of carbohydrates--of whom only 71 received 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Study variables (eg, number of participants, design of dietary evaluation), participant variables (eg, age, sex, baseline weight, fasting serum glucose level), diet variables (eg, carbohydrate content, caloric content, duration) were abstracted from each study."

"Among obese patients, weight loss was associated with longer diet duration (P =.002), restriction of calorie intake (P =.03), but not with reduced carbohydrate content (P =.90)."

"CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content."

The results are quite clear. Eat less than you use, and you will lose weight. If it happens that the reduction in calories is from carbs and that works for you, then that's fine (esp. if you are able to maintain a more healthy than average low-carb diet). However, don't go around saying that people can eat more calories than before on a low-carb diet and somehow magically lose weight without increasing exercise, because that's just plain wrong.

[Josh Reid]

Eugene,

You really can be quite offensive. You say that the site I recommended is just "some random site" with no facts to back itself up. However, if you would've taken 15 minutes to visit it, you would see it has NUMEROUS studies, articles, and information to back itself up. It is a highly respected website.

Low-carbing is NOT a fad diet. There are people who treat it as if it's a fad like the "Grapefruit" diet, but it is not a fad. There have been numerous books written on the subject, and more & more often, respected doctors and universities are finding the benefits of a low-carb way of eating. Just last summer a high-profile article was published in the New York Times regarding low-carbing, by Gary Taubes. Here is a link to it, at a website other than the NYTimes, which would make you register to view it : What If It's All Been A Big, Fat Lie?

You say "Even low carb diets that work, work only by the basic rule that you must use more calories than you eat." It is not that simple. If you will listen, I will explain. The reason that low-carbing is not like any other diet such as a low-fat diet where you must lower your intake, etc....is because when you remove large amounts of carbs (essentially sugar) from your diet, your body goes into a state called Ketosis. Your body goes through a chemical CHANGE where you no longer utilize glucose/glycose for energy. Your brain, heart, body, now metabolize and burn FAT for energy. It stabilizes your insulin and blood glucose level. It lowers your bad cholestoral, and raises (if needed) your good cholestoral. It stabilizes triglycerides. This does NOT happen simply because you are eating less than before. It is because of WHAT you are eating. These things don't normally happen when you simply "eat less calories".

You mention that you know someone who has lost weight on a high-carb diet. I'm not saying that it's only possible to lose weight on a low-carb way of eating. However, it is much healthier and easier. Your friend was filling their body with starches, sugars (natural or in man-made products), and if they were doing a low-fat diet, probably staying hungry quite often. Low carbing is about quality or more specifically TYPE of food, NOT quanity. You don't want to become a glutton, but there is not a focus on limiting the quanities of food you eat. I guarantee your low-fat friend was limiting quanities & counting calories. Why make it that much harder on yourself? Also, a low-carb "diet" not only stabilizes your blood sugar level by not spiking your insulin every time you eat, but because you eat a healthy amount of fat, it is able to satiate you so you don't feel hungry as often. Another note, to scientifically prove to you that low-carbing is a DIFFERENT process of losing weight than low-fat dieting is this: When in Ketosis, your body expells "ketones", the carbon by-products of burned fat cells. These ketones expell in your urine, but you can't see them. However, there are testing strips (similar to how a pregnancy test works) that turn purple from white when ketones are present in the urine. Let's see if your high-carb friend is in ketosis. I guarantee you he's not.

Also, in almost every case, if someone currently has diabetes and adapts a low-carb way of eating, more times than not, they will essentially REVERSE diabetes and no longer require treatment for diabetes. It has also been shown to reverse the effects of heart disease. I'm not spouting lies here, there is proof to everything I have said, but you seem uninterested in exploring the information I give, and discount it as "often quoted fad-diet theories". I personally know people who were diagnosed with diabetes, started low-carbing, and are no longer considered to have diabetes. Does that happen with a low-fat diet? Nope.

And as far as your article from the "American Medical Association", I will look for the articles that I learned this from, but the AMA is a BIASED source. They have invested 20 years saying that low-fat is the way to go. They aren't going to change that stance now and have pie in their face. Read that article by Gary Taubes that I linked earlier. It explains more of what I'm talking about and quotes numerous university studies citing the benefits of a low carb diet.

I know that no matter how many facts I present to you, you won't ever see how you could possibly be wrong, but how much research have you done on the subject? I've spent hours upon hours over the past three years learning about low-carbing from various sources, and not just some "random internet site", a comment which I take offense to. It's obvious from that statement that you are unwilling to learn, so I won't waste my time arguing with you any longer. I just wanted to get this information out there to people who are following this thread.

-Joshua

[Josh Reid]

From the Gary Taube article, What If It's All Been A Big Fat Lie?


"Now researchers have finally decided that Atkins's diet and other low-carb diets have to be tested, and are doing so against traditional low-calorie-low-fat diets as recommended by the American Heart Association. To explain their motivation, they inevitably tell one of two stories: some, like Stunkard, told me that someone they knew -- a patient, a friend, a fellow physician -- lost considerable weight on Atkins's diet and, despite all their preconceptions to the contrary, kept it off. Others say they were frustrated with their inability to help their obese patients, looked into the low-carb diets and decided that Endocrinology 101 was compelling. ''As a trained physician, I was trained to mock anything like the Atkins diet,'' says Linda Stern, an internist at the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Hospital, ''but I put myself on the diet. I did great. And I thought maybe this is something I can offer my patients.''

None of these studies have been financed by the N.I.H., and none have yet been published. But the results have been reported at conferences -- by researchers at Schneider Children's Hospital on Long Island, Duke University and the University of Cincinnati, and by Stern's group at the Philadelphia V.A. Hospital. And then there's the study Stunkard had mentioned, led by Gary Foster at the University of Pennsylvania, Sam Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis, and Jim Hill, who runs the University of Colorado Center for Human Nutrition in Denver. The results of all five of these studies are remarkably consistent. Subjects on some form of the Atkins diet -- whether overweight adolescents on the diet for 12 weeks as at Schneider, or obese adults averaging 295 pounds on the diet for six months, as at the Philadelphia V.A. -- lost twice the weight as the subjects on the low-fat, low-calorie diets.

In all five studies, cholesterol levels improved similarly with both diets, but triglyceride levels were considerably lower with the Atkins diet. Though researchers are hesitant to agree with this, it does suggest that heart-disease risk could actually be reduced when fat is added back into the diet and starches and refined carbohydrates are removed. ''I think when this stuff gets to be recognized,'' Stunkard says, ''it's going to really shake up a lot of thinking about obesity and metabolism.''


Interesting, no?

-Josh

Oh, and Eug, isn't it interesting that they call the low-fat diet "low-fat, low-calorie", and the low-carb diet only "low-carb". They don't call it low-calorie because it is NOT. Simple.

[Eug]

I guarantee your low-fat friend was limiting quanities & counting calories.

Yep. And indeed, that is the point. As the research has proven, even if a low carb diet works, it works by controlling caloric intake. Now whether a person thinks caloric intake has increased on a diet is a different story. The belief that low carb diets allow INCREASED caloric intake is likely related to the simple well-documented fact that people are notoriously bad at estimating caloric intake themselves unless they actually measure it. Indeed, some studies have looked at for instance people who change from high cal foods to low cal foods and don't change weight. Guess what? Caloric intake remained unchanged, because the people were simply eating more low cal food. Similarly, people on low carb diets who lose weight actually have cut calories most of the time. So what if you're eating another chicken leg at dinner, if you've cut out the afternoon bag of Doritos. Low carb yes, but increased caloric intake? No.

The article in JAMA is peer-reviewed and was not commissioned by the American Medical Association, but was done by the Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention. And, it looks at diet protocols, outcomes and interestingly enough, NOT theory.

OTOH, Low Carb Luxury (which I did skim through BTW), is simply a private low carb diet advocacy site. Nice looking site, but it still is what it is.

Personally, I choose to trust peer-reviewed scientific research supported by strict protocols and statistics than I do the personal opinion of some diet advocates.

By the way, the NY Times piece is interesting, but sadly it is quite misleading. For instance, if you were to look at average caloric intakes in North America from 100 years ago and compared to now, you would know that the statement that "dietary recommendations -- eat less fat and more carbohydrates -- are the cause of the rampaging epidemic of obesity in America" is quite wrong. Carb increase over the two time periods has only increased mildly, while caloric intake has increased significantly. Why? Because of vastly increased fat intake, and moderately increased protein intake. In other words, in the last century as America has decreased the carb intake proportion, it has gotten fatter. This is a rather extreme example, but it does illustrate what I'm talking about.

The bottom line is that some people simply eat too much for their activity. If you choose to use a low-carb diet to lose that weight, that's fine, but it's always best to be armed with fact, and not just somebody else's theory and personal opinion.

Oh, and Eug, isn't it interesting that they call the low-fat diet "low-fat, low-calorie", and the low-carb diet only "low-carb". They don't call it low-calorie because it is NOT. Simple.

You're grasping at straws here. Semantics. It's low-carb AND low-calorie.

In all five studies, cholesterol levels improved similarly with both diets, but triglyceride levels were considerably lower with the Atkins diet. Though researchers are hesitant to agree with this, it does suggest that heart-disease risk could actually be reduced when fat is added back into the diet and starches and refined carbohydrates are removed. ''I think when this stuff gets to be recognized,'' Stunkard says, ''it's going to really shake up a lot of thinking about obesity and metabolism.''

Interesting yes, and I had read about such statements many moons ago. It will be even more interesting when the studies are published. However, I thought the point we're arguing about is caloric intake, not triglyceride and cholesterol levels.

Decreased caloric intake generally leads to lowered triglyceride levels, and current research suggests that this likely includes both low-carb and moderate to high-carb regimens. But the common thing here is decreased caloric intake.