Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / April 2004
New to a diet any advice please..?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Bob - 26 Apr 2004 12:08 GMT Hi People :)
A little bit about me....
43 Year old male unemployed since having numerous back surgery operations and over the last few years have put on weight upto 16st 9lbs. Previously I have never been out of work.
Typical food in a day...
Breakfast 6 weetabix 2 toasts
Lunch 2 Cheese and salad Sandwiches Fruit
Evening meal Fries 2 vegetable burger "thingies" Veg
Last meal 8 weetabix 2 Toast
Lots of additional fruit and pure fruit juice (around 1ltr) in the day and some chocolate. Other snacks sometimes consumed. Tea and coffee also.
Daily activity depending on pain management etc.....
Been on a diet for 1 week....
Breakfast 3 Weetabix
Evening Meal Jacket potato Veg 1 Veg type burger
Some fruit during the day and decaf coffee with sweetener. Had a good week in terms of activity and able to use an indoor cycle (sat upright) and cycled each day.
I have lost just over 7lbs in weight in that week.
Now I am very happy with the weight loss but how the heck do you.....
1. Keep focussed and not CONTINUOUSLY think about food. 2. Deal with hunger pangs and groans and gurgles. 3. Tell the difference between genuine hunger and just my usual craving...?
Also what would be my ideal weight...? I am 6ft tall and have a large frame - 44" chest 36" waist.
Thanks for any help
Bob
Lictor - 26 Apr 2004 13:07 GMT > Hi People :) Hi :)
> Typical food in a day... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 8 weetabix > 2 Toast Sounds like a lot, and a good candidate for a simple portion control ;) If you cut all these by 1/3 or 1/2, that would do most of the work for your diet, without really changing what you eat. I mean, except for the total amount, your diet is not *that* unbalanced.
> Lots of additional fruit and pure fruit juice (around 1ltr) in the day and > some chocolate. Other snacks sometimes consumed. Tea and coffee also. That's actually a lot of calories there, probably close to a full meal...
> Been on a diet for 1 week.... > > Breakfast > 3 Weetabix That's what I meant by portion control ;) When did you start to feel hungry after that? Or did you still feel hungry after eating these? 1 weetabix+soy milk is about all I can manage to eat for breakfast. lol
> Evening Meal > Jacket potato > Veg > 1 Veg type burger No lunch??? Weetabix are rather medium glycemic index. I would have expected you to have been hungry at lunch, or even before... Be careful with protein intake also, it looks like the veg burger was the only source of them for the whole day. If so, it's pretty low (especially since some veg burgers are actually more carbs than proteins).
> Some fruit during the day and decaf coffee with sweetener. They still don't come for free ;) Maybe they're the reason for no lunch?
> I have lost just over 7lbs in weight in that week. That's a *lot*! Most of it is probably water (do you drink enough?), but still... 3-4lbs/week is a good rate, for a man (women tend to be slower). 7lbs is not something you want to keep for several weeks.
> Now I am very happy with the weight loss but how the heck do you..... > > 1. Keep focussed and not CONTINUOUSLY think about food. By not starving yourself too much, and not skipping meals. If you're very hungry, you will start thinking about food all the time. Four things are sure ways to make you think about food all day long : - severe caloric restriction - cutting off completely something you really love, that can cause real craving - cutting off proteins (because your body *needs* them and will complain) or cutting food that brings high long term satiety (like fats). - skipping meals (unless you're *really* not hungry) This can also happen if you eat only high glycemic index food (like, only fast carbs, no fat, no protein), the food just doesn't last long...
> 2. Deal with hunger pangs and groans and gurgles. See above. You don't deal with these. You deal with slight hunger or the idea that it's ok to be hungry a short while before starting the next meal. You're not supposed to ignore hunger when it gets to the point where it hurts, you're just supposed to eat (a reasonnable amount of food). The point of dieting is not to starve yourself. It's to find a way of eating *less* that you can keep doing for the rest of your life. Can you imagine having hunger pangs, groans and gurgles for the rest of your life? Nope? Then, you will have to find a middle ground between over-eating and starving.
> 3. Tell the difference between genuine hunger and just my usual craving...? 2. sounds a lot like real hunger. The usual advice is to skip one meal or two, then what you are feeling *is* hunger. Hunger is the kind of thing you can feel after exercising for long. Also, hunger doesn't depend on food being in front of you, it's an internal state. Hunger comes from the belly, craving from the mouth, if the metaphors speaks to you.
Patricia Heil - 26 Apr 2004 13:08 GMT Replace the fries in the evening with veg. You aren't getting a wide enough variety of veg for good health. You need to eat that instead of so much weetabix.
> Hi People :) > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Bob Jayjay - 26 Apr 2004 14:00 GMT >Hi People :) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >6 weetabix >2 toasts Pardon the American... I don't know what weeabix are....
>Lots of additional fruit and pure fruit juice (around 1ltr) in the day and >some chocolate. Other snacks sometimes consumed. Tea and coffee also. Fruit juice and fruit are packed with additional sugar. Juice is concentrated sugar. Because of this, fruit juice is very high in calorie. Drinking 1 liter a day is a huge amount of calories and sugar.
One way to help with this is to try watering down your fruit juice. Start with a glass half full of juice and fill the rest with water. This will cut that calorie consumption in half, but still give you alot of flavor. Once you've satisfied that, then try to substitute half your drinking with only water and not juice. Eventually you'll find that you have cut that 1lt of fruit juice down to 1/4 lt juice and 3/4 water.
>Daily activity depending on pain management etc..... Are you working on physical therapy to help recover from your back problems?
>Been on a diet for 1 week.... >Breakfast [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >1. Keep focussed and not CONTINUOUSLY think about food. What I can see so far is that you have cut your calorie intake dramatically.
Your constant thinking of food is because you are so used to eating so much. You can either 1, increase food intake a bit. When you do, try to do it in the form of protein and a bit of fat. This will help satisfy your hunger longer, and not cause additional cravings. and 2. give it a couple weeks. Fight thru the thoughts and hunger pangs for a couple weeks. Give your body a chance to get used to your new eating and your tummy will stop with all its nonsense
>2. Deal with hunger pangs and groans and gurgles. 2 ways 1. see my above comments. 2. cut back on the carbohydrates (sugars, flours and starches). They tend to cause your body to crave more food.
>3. Tell the difference between genuine hunger and just my usual craving...? a couple tips when you feel "hungry"
1. drink a large glass of water and wait 20 mins. If you are still hungry, have a small snack and another glass of water.
2. Ask yourself this question. Am I so hungry that I would eat plain unlevened crackers? (boring, little flavored food) If the answer is yes, then have yourself a small snack and water.
Carol Frilegh - 26 Apr 2004 14:28 GMT > Pardon the American... I don't know what weeabix are.... Jayjay, Wheatabix are small shredded whole wheat cereal squares, rougher than Shreddies like the miniature Shreeded Wheat.
 Signature Diva ****** There is no substitute for the right food
Lictor - 26 Apr 2004 14:57 GMT > > Pardon the American... I don't know what weeabix are.... > > Jayjay, > Wheatabix are small shredded whole wheat cereal squares, rougher than > Shreddies like the miniature Shreeded Wheat. They are quite big actually. My "original weetabix" are around 19g a piece. A normal serving is considered 37.5g (2 weetabixes). Nutrition value (warning: French version, they might differ, and fibers are not included in carbs here) according to package : 100g of stuff : Protein 11.8g, Carbs 68g (of which sugars 4.7g), fats 1.9g (of which 0.6g saturated), fibers 10.g (soluble 2.6g, insoluble 7.5g). A serving (37.5g+150ml semi-skimmed milk) : protein 9.4g, carbs 32.7g (9g sugars), fat 3.1g (1.7g saturated), fiber 3.8g. They're pretty high in vitamins PP, B1, B2, B9 (30-40% of daily needs per serving) and magnesium and iron (15-30%).
As far as cereals go, they're actually pretty healthy. They're under all brans for fibers (but all brans are sometimes *too much*), but they're still pretty good there. They're mainly slow carbs (wholewheat), with close to no sugars, and proteins are at a decent level. They're not loaded with saturated fats as some brands are. But if they're really the 18g I eat, 14 of them a day is a "bit" too much (especially if you add the toasts)! Bob, what kind of weetabix are you talking about? Is that the large 19g ones?
Bob - 26 Apr 2004 15:33 GMT Hope that this reply one reply doesn't upset you good people as I thought that I can just combine the responses so far :)
> Sounds like a lot, and a good candidate for a simple portion control ;) If > you cut all these by 1/3 or 1/2, that would do most of the work for your > diet, without really changing what you eat. I mean, except for the total > amount, your diet is not *that* unbalanced. Agree that was my thought. The foods aren't "that" bad it is just excessive. My initial weight loss does not seem "that" big to me considering the volume of calories and sedentary lifestyle that I had compared to the fraction that I'm now consuming and physically using. My thoughts are is that I have a two stage approach to my weight loss...
1. Diet to get to my "ideal" weight 2. Diest as a way of life.
When stage 1 is complete I can then look to increase with sensible balanced food and move to stage 2. My urgency is the goal that I have set of three months to my 44th birthday and to get to my "ideal weight" - whatever that should be...?
> When did you start to feel hungry after that? Or did you still feel hungry > after eating these? 1 weetabix+soy milk is about all I can manage to eat for
> breakfast. lol After being used to the amounts that I eat hunger (or desire / craving to eat beyond hunger) kicks in pretty soon.
> By not starving yourself too much, and not skipping meals Might read a little silly but I'm having to relearn the difference from hunger to that of a craving or desire to eat when not hungry...!!!
> Replace the fries in the evening with veg. > You aren't getting a wide enough variety > of veg for good health. You need to > eat that instead of so much weetabix. I hadn't listed my entire consumption re-reading my list but I always eat around 5 to 8 potions of fruit and veg a day.
> Are you working on physical therapy to help recover from your back > problems? I have had numerous physiotherapy sessions and I'm trying hard not to go back for another surgical procedure that is more invasive. I hope the weight loss will help to take away some strain to the lower back as well.
> Pardon the American... I don't know what weeabix are.... Please see below.....
>They are quite big actually. My "original weetabix" are around 19g a piece. >A normal serving is considered 37.5g (2 weetabixes). Nutrition value >(warning: French version, they might differ, and fibers are not included in >carbs here) according to package : Yes those are them..!!! I would eat them in my wifes mixing bowl that she uses for baking with around a pint or so of milk a time. When I got upto 14 at a go I realised that things needed to change. My biggest issues (I think) has become too dependent on food beyond its neccesity exaggerated through health issues following back surgery and a more sedentary lifesytle.
Food has become a comfort to me.
Thank you to you all for your help :)
Bob
Lictor - 26 Apr 2004 17:17 GMT > Agree that was my thought. The foods aren't "that" bad it is just excessive. That's the idea. However, you don't have to make such a drastic change. Just reduce the portions for a week and see how things are going. If you're not losing weight, then reduce some more. And so on. Also be careful with the protein issue ;)
> My initial weight loss does not seem "that" big to me considering the volume > of calories and sedentary lifestyle that I had compared to the fraction that > I'm now consuming and physically using. Have you ever done a diet before? If you haven't, and if you still have good muscles under the fat, you might be among the lucky overweight people who still have a high metabolism. I mean, you gain weight "just" because you eat a *lot*, without compounding that with having your body on "economy" mode. This means that you *might* be able to lose weight just by eating *normal* sized portions. Maybe that's not the case, but if it is, you don't realize how lucky you are ;) If you are so blessed, the last thing you want to do is starving yourself, lose lean mass, and kick your body into starvation mode. That's why you want to keep the weight loss moderate.
> My thoughts are is that I have a two stage approach to my weight loss... > > 1. Diet to get to my "ideal" weight > 2. Diest as a way of life. The problem with this approach is the transition from 1 to 2. As you lose weight, you will need less and less calories to keep your weight. If overdo 1, you will have much lowered needs at your target weight. Besides, psychologically, it's still the idea that "the diet is a medication that you only have to do for a little while, even if it's unpleasant, and it will be better at target weight". Hence, the idea you have to do 1 as fast as possible. There are risks, like getting further cut from your feelings (hunger, satiety) or even triggering eating disorders. I still believe it's better to start with 2, and let your weight go down to your ideal weight. The ideal curve would be to start eating just what you will need to maintain your ideal weight - then you would not even need to stabilize, it would just happen on its own.
> My urgency is the goal that I have set of three > months to my 44th birthday and to get to my "ideal weight" - whatever that > should be...? That's not an emergency. An emergency is : "if I don't lose weight within two months, I'm going to die". You have to stop thinking in magical number. There is really nothing special about your birthday, if you reach your ideal weight one month before or after, nothing really special will happen. Likewise, there is no "ideal weight". At least, we can't compute that and come up with a number that will be your ideal weight. Your ideal weight will be : - whatever keeps you healthy. This means easing the back pain. This means mosing some belly, though whether a six pack is showing or not doesn't have much to do with health. If your BMI is under 27 [weight/(height*height), in kg and meters], you have no real extra health risk. This means bellow 197lbs. - whatever makes you feel well in your body. - whatever looks good in the mirror.
> After being used to the amounts that I eat hunger (or desire / craving to > eat beyond hunger) kicks in pretty soon. That's why you should do things slowly ;) You can also try to do more meals. Like, a breakfast, a 10am meal and then lunch. Instead of eating your 3 weetabix, you could just eat 2 at breakfast, and then 1 at 10am. Or just 2 of them, and then a fruit at 10am.
> Might read a little silly but I'm having to relearn the difference from > hunger to that of a craving or desire to eat when not hungry...!!! It's not silly, how do you think most of us actually managed to grow fat in the first place? But you have to understand that real hunger is not something you should fight and try to forget. It's something you have to learn to listen to again. So, this means eating when you're hungry, and only when you're hungry. And stopping when you're not anymore. That's why I'm concerned about crash diets that make you extremelly hungry with quick weight loss, because they cut yourself from these useful feelings. You can lose a lot of weight without tuning yourself to your hunger. But it's very hard to stabilize yourself long term that way.
> I hadn't listed my entire consumption re-reading my list but I always eat > around 5 to 8 potions of fruit and veg a day. That's why I think you are *rather* eating well (still some room to improve of course). But all these fruits and the juices can make you fat as easily as the weetabix can. So, that's also something you have to keep track of. Fruits are healthy, but this doesn't mean you can't grow fat on them ;)
> I have had numerous physiotherapy sessions and I'm trying hard not to go > back for another surgical procedure that is more invasive. I hope the weight > loss will help to take away some strain to the lower back as well. It does for many people. Have you asked your doctor about what kind of exercise you could do? Exercise would help with the weight, but if it's light enough not to hurt your back, I guess it could also improve the situation there. For instance, is swimming (backstroke can actually relax the lower back) an option for you? Just check with your doctor before doing anything, but if you haven't already had a serious discussion about "sport" with him, maybe it's the time to do it.
> >They are quite big actually. My "original weetabix" are around 19g a piece. > >A normal serving is considered 37.5g (2 weetabixes). Nutrition value [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > uses for baking with around a pint or so of milk a time. When I got upto 14 > at a go I realised that things needed to change. OMG! That's indeed a bunch of them, half a pack of cereals a day actually.
:-o
> My biggest issues (I think) has become too dependent on food beyond its > neccesity exaggerated through health issues following back surgery and a > more sedentary lifesytle. > > Food has become a comfort to me. Congrats for seeing this. :) Emotionnal eating a indeed a real problem, and something people tend to dismiss. However, dealing with it is at least as important as the diet. It will be an essential part of stabilizing your weight and even with losing it. The problem is that if you diet too hard and start to feel miserable, this can trigger emotionnal eating. You feel bad because of the diet, and eating makes you feel good, so you start craving and eating to offset the unease brought by the diet. Then, of course, you feel bad about the over-eating, and you can enter a whole vicious cycle. Even if you manage to resist, you still have to go without the comfort of food. Unless you find another way to deal with these issues, this can make life very unpleasant.
I mean, you're 40+, unemployed, with a health problem that is disabling. Back pain can actually mess up a whole lot of your life, it can make sleeping a chore, it can make every day moves a painful experience... This is a lot to deal with, and you are going to cut food, which is one source of comfort you will lose. Maybe you're among the people for whom merely dealing with the emotional eating would be enough. I mean, if you manage to lose weight and stabilize "naturally" on normal portions (instead of the vastly oversized ones you have been eating), then maybe just resolving the emotionnal eating issue could be enough. Maybe it would be worth it to try for a psychological approach, at least to help you along the way.
determined - 26 Apr 2004 17:28 GMT > > Agree that was my thought. The foods aren't "that" bad it is just > excessive. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > losing weight, then reduce some more. And so on. > Also be careful with the protein issue ;) Small consistant changes tend to last longer than fast drastic ones... I couldn't go from eating 1800 calories a day to 1200 over night (a personal example). I had to drop the calories by about 100 per week until I was at the lower level. It wasn't such a shock to my body. Same with exercise - people who are starting a "new life" of diet and exercise many times over do it and burn out shortly. I started with just walking a couple miles a day, until I felt like taking on more. It's a gradual process.
Bob - 27 Apr 2004 00:13 GMT > That's the idea. However, you don't have to make such a drastic change. Just > reduce the portions for a week and see how things are going. If you're not > losing weight, then reduce some more. And so on. > Also be careful with the protein issue ;) Yes I have now reconsidered the protein content of my diet :) I do at times have a tendancy to go for extremes and I recognise that for me it is either feast or famine. That issue will need addressing - I hesitate to write it will be done "at stage two"...!!!
> Have you ever done a diet before? If you haven't, and if you still have good > muscles under the fat, you might be among the lucky overweight people who > still have a high metabolism. I mean, you gain weight "just" because you eat > a *lot*, without compounding that with having your body on "economy" mode. > This means that you *might* be able to lose weight just by eating *normal* > sized portions. No I have never needed to diet upto certain health issues a few years ago where my lifestyle changed so much that food became too much of a comfort rather than just a means to live, as such.
> The problem with this approach is the transition from 1 to 2. As you lose > weight, you will need less and less calories to keep your weight. If overdo [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > will need to maintain your ideal weight - then you would not even need to > stabilize, it would just happen on its own. I understand the sense in the above but not being sensible has got me where I am and whilst I do not have a great deal of patience I realise that my initial approach might not be the best for a long term objective.
> That's not an emergency. An emergency is : "if I don't lose weight within > two months, I'm going to die". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be your ideal weight. Your ideal weight will be : > - whatever keeps you healthy. I understand - and thankyou for putting it into perspective. For many years my work and lifestyle was guided and influenced by goals and objectives that were attained or modified to suit as needed. Finding myself in a position of no longer having that control in the roles that I had established as being important to me must have influenced the way that I then turned to food and totally absolved myself of taking responsibility of any other sort of control - a sort of safety net I suppose.
> Maybe it would be worth it to try > for a psychological approach, at least to help you along the way. I recognised this and the first approach was several months with a cognitive psychiatrist. Several months later and a cocktail of SSRI's and anti depressants forced me to re examine just what little control that I had in my situation. Coming off the SSRI's were a major issue in themselves and whilst I do feel a counselling approach does have a value I beleieve that drugs do not, for me anyway.
I am learning to take responsibility back and have now found the courage to address my weight.
Thanks for your help
Bob
Chris Braun - 26 Apr 2004 21:35 GMT If your new plan is to eat only two meals a day, I think that's a mistake. It's better to eat smaller amounts more frequently to avoid excessive hunger and to keep your metabolism running more smoothly.
I don't think you're eating nearly enough protein. Are you a vegetarian? I'd recommend trying to include some protein with each meal. Like maybe for breakfast, have fewer Weetabix with some nuts mixed in, or substitute some toast w/ peanut butter. Do you put milk on the Weetabix? That will give you some protein. And where's the dairy in your diet? How about some low-fat cheese or yogurt for some of your snacks. You're eating mostly carbs, which will not tend to satisfy you as long as proteins or fats. Adding more proteins and fats to your diet will help control hunger.
Chris 262/153/ (145-150)
Bob - 27 Apr 2004 00:13 GMT > If your new plan is to eat only two meals a day, I think that's a > mistake. It's better to eat smaller amounts more frequently to avoid > excessive hunger and to keep your metabolism running more smoothly. I think that you are right there. I believe that my approach to this diet is not the best and I have learned more since posting within this group of the need to modify my thinking on how best to balance nutrionally my daily intake.
> I don't think you're eating nearly enough protein. Are you a > vegetarian? I'd recommend trying to include some protein with each > meal. I will eat fish and chicken, without skin, so I can't be defined as a vegetarian, now I will add those too my diet. But I had not considered the benefits of protein. Cottage cheese (low fat) is added to my Jacket Potato.
Thanks for your help
Bob
Heywood Mogroot - 27 Apr 2004 03:07 GMT > Hi People :) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 6 weetabix > 2 toasts I can only say what has worked for me these past 3 months . . .
First, I cut the carbs (sugar and starch) down drastically, to the bare minimum. Unless you've been very active immediately before eating, carbs are just empty calories that WILL go to fat, AND make you hungrier in the process.
I probably eat 30% of my calories as carbs, and I've been very happy with this WOE, as even though I'm maintaining a 1000 kcal/day calorie deficit, I am a lot LESS hungry than I was before. I've NEVER had a growling stomach on this diet! Amazing!
Second, fructose is bad for you, and fruits are expensive. I personally think a good A,C,E antioxidant vitamin taken with a meal is a better deal (but I could be wrong here, since most vitamin pills just get peed out). While it's tough to reach the 50g/day metabolic limit (apparently any more than this and your liver runs out of juice and just converts fructose to triglycerides and cholesterol) by eating just fruit, fruits are also wonderful little sugar bombs that you really don't need in a "balanced" 30% carb-30% fat -30% protein diet.
Third, the "balanced diet" thing. I've found great success not avoiding fat in my daily diet. Fat in moderation is great -- I think it really helps keep the body from getting distressed by the lack of calories that are coming in. Plus things with fat taste REALLY good.
Fourth, don't go on a crash diet. I'm breaking this rule since I'm shooting to lose ~50 lbs over 5 months, and I think everything over 1lb/week is a crash diet (but my target rate of 2 lbs/week is considered the maximum safe rate loss, so it's not so bad). If you are starving yourself you are doing something VERY VERY wrong.
Fifth. Eat smaller portions more often. Don't eat more than you are consuming with exercise and your base metabolism. Eg. don't load up on calories at night if you're just going to veg until morning.
Sixth, take a balanced regime of multivitamins. My regime, which I make no claims as to being good, is:
Morning meal: Centrum-style full multivitamin with everything Lunch meal: A,C,E antioxidants Dinner meal: Omega 3-6-9 unsaturated fats pill and a B-complex vitamin.
Altogether I'm taking in 400% or so for most vitamins. I'm hoping this counter-acts the lost-in-urine effect.
> Lots of additional fruit and pure fruit juice (around 1ltr) No wonder you're so hungry. The sucrose and fructose in this is overloading your system! Kill the fruit, and especially kill the juice. It's still sugar water.
> in the day and some chocolate. WTF? This isn't a diet. If you want to lose weight, get serious and prove to yourself that you don't need chocolate to live. It's all mental in the end, and everything unnutritious you put into your mouth is just pushing your goal further out.
> I have lost just over 7lbs in weight in that week. 7lbs of something. Most likely water, as your body is going, "WTF is happening?"
> Now I am very happy with the weight loss but how the heck do you..... one week does not a trend make. Wait a month. 7lbs/month is a very sustainable trend.
> 1. Keep focussed and not CONTINUOUSLY think about food. > 2. Deal with hunger pangs and groans and gurgles. drop your sugar and starch intake, eat more protein and unsaturated fat.
> 3. Tell the difference between genuine hunger and just my usual craving...? your body is telling you, hey how about some real food?
> Also what would be my ideal weight...? I am 6ft tall and have a large > frame - 44" chest 36" waist. 36" waist is pretty good, I'm 6' 1" and 40", and hope to get back down to 34". 233lbs was my peak too, and it's taken me 10 weeks to get down to 210, and dropped from 44" to 40". My goal is 180, but I think 190 would be about right for you.
Lictor - 27 Apr 2004 08:40 GMT > First, I cut the carbs (sugar and starch) down drastically, to the > bare minimum. Unless you've been very active immediately before > eating, carbs are just empty calories that WILL go to fat, AND make > you hungrier in the process. This is a very YMMV thing. Converting your carbs to fat is not really a problem, as long as you have a calorie deficit somewhere, the fat will eventually get burnt - and you will have lost some more energy through the carb-fat-carb conversions. Actually, calorie intake can be considered on a weekly basis rather than daily. Not all carbs are empty calories, some come with some vitamins (B group comes to mind) and fibers. The weetabix are pretty good carbs for instance (if you take only a couple a day!). As for carbs making you hungrier, this depends on the people. If you do not have reactive hypoglycemia (or insulino resistance or whatever), no, they won't. If you do, it's rather a matter of slowing down the carbs as much as possible, by always associating them with fat, proteins or fibers and by avoiding sugars (especially in juices). If you're trully overweight (ie, your body also "think" its overweight and that it should lose weight) and if you do a reasonnable diet, your body will tolerate a reasonnable calorie deficit before triggering the hunger.
> Second, fructose is bad for you, and fruits are expensive. I > personally think a good A,C,E antioxidant vitamin taken with a meal is > a better deal (but I could be wrong here, since most vitamin pills > just get peed out). You won't find vitamins A and E in fruits anyway, they're fat soluble vitamin. Anyway, multi-vitamins are nice, but I still perceive them as inferior to the real deal, if only because you can't eat multivitamins all your life. Fructose is bad for you if you load yourself with it. In a balanced diet, this should not happen. In normal circumstances, fructose has the large advantage of being a slow sugar (glycemic index in the 25 range) which is often associated with fibers (especially soluble ones, which seem to be the best) in fruits. In my experience, fruits provide slow release carbs, which are very nice when exercising. Though not all fruits are equal; bananas work great to recover *after* the exercise, but they're just awful in the middle of it (sugar is too fast, triggers a rollercoaster), apples worked much better for that. Fruits are interesting food, they do come with vitamins and oligo-elements, very important fibers (that will slow down carbs) and they're not too high calorie. But as usual, moderation in the key.
> While it's tough to reach the 50g/day metabolic > limit (apparently any more than this and your liver runs out of juice > and just converts fructose to triglycerides and cholesterol) by eating > just fruit, fruits are also wonderful little sugar bombs that you > really don't need in a "balanced" 30% carb-30% fat -30% protein diet. I beg to differ. In my experience, fruits in moderation are just slow release carbs. They're slower than a lot of so-called slow carbs (like many cereals).
> Third, the "balanced diet" thing. I've found great success not > avoiding fat in my daily diet. Fat in moderation is great -- I think > it really helps keep the body from getting distressed by the lack of > calories that are coming in. Plus things with fat taste REALLY good. Completely agreed there. Low fat is not a good thing. There is a lot of stuff you *need* in fats : calcium&vitamin D (you don't want to cut these when you have back problems), vitamins A&E, omega-3-6-9... Fats are also the best thing, along with fibers, to slow down carbs. It seems Bob is going a bit too low fat ;) The *only* fat you can totally cut without problem are trans fats (the ones in margarine, most industrial food, fast foods...), just get rid of those as much as you can, they're just plain evil. Other than that, I think a balance between the three kinds of fats is good, for instance with olive oil (monounsaturated, can be heated fine), butter (saturated) and colza (canola) or walnut oil (polyunsaturated, omega-3, do not heat and keep in the fridge). If you do use canola, buy this one in an organic shop, you want it cold extracted and *not* deodorized (otherwise, you get close to no omegas and trans fats instead). Same applies to olive oil, but usually you can find good quality one in regular supermarkets. Fat fish are also something you should not avoid, the fats there are very healthy.
> Fifth. Eat smaller portions more often. Don't eat more than you are > consuming with exercise and your base metabolism. Eg. don't load up on > calories at night if you're just going to veg until morning. More meals in smaller portions is always a good idea, and pretty easy to do (just split breakfast in two meals). I'm not so sure about not loading up at night, again, as long as there is a calorie deficit somewhere, the fat will eventually burn. Late dinner (9-10pm) has always been my main meal and has remained so, and this doesn't seem to slow down weight loss. But as a result, I do eat very small breakfasts, *1* weetabix is about all I can eat, my definition of a huge breakfast is a *small* cup of oatmeal with a kiwi - and I'm likely not to get hungry again until 2pm.
> Sixth, take a balanced regime of multivitamins. My regime, which I > make no claims as to being good, is: > Morning meal: Centrum-style full multivitamin with everything > Lunch meal: A,C,E antioxidants > Dinner meal: Omega 3-6-9 unsaturated fats pill and a B-complex > vitamin. Unless really overdone, multivitamins can not hurt, though it seems these vitamins are still inferior to the ones you get in your food. Some vitamins and minerals are bad in large quantity though. What's the logic behind getting omega-6 though? Usually, we already get *too much* of these through our diet (butter, animal fats, most oils), and this unbalances the equilibrium between -3 and -6 (they're antaganonists). It's also possible to overdo it, too many omega-3 are unhealthy. I don't think you need pills, canola oil can bring plenty of omega-3 (couple of spoons a day is above your daily needs), walnut oil has the ideal 1:5 ratio between -3 and -6 already, and fat fish can bring a lot of these.
> > Lots of additional fruit and pure fruit juice (around 1ltr) > > No wonder you're so hungry. The sucrose and fructose in this is > overloading your system! Kill the fruit, and especially kill the > juice. It's still sugar water. Semi-agreed. That's a *lot* of fruit juice. And fruit juice is the fruits minus the good things (less fibers, less vitamins, much faster carbs)... If you drink low quality fruit juice, you're also getting plenty of added sugars. Just eat real fruits in moderate quantities instead, that's a lot healthier and they don't raise hunger like juices do.
> > in the day and some chocolate. > > WTF? This isn't a diet. If you want to lose weight, get serious and > prove to yourself that you don't need chocolate to live. It's all > mental in the end, and everything unnutritious you put into your mouth > is just pushing your goal further out. Chocolate is not unnutritious, it has some potassium, iron, magnesium, calcium, vitamins A,B and E. It's high in saturated fats, but it doesn't raise cholesterol much, it's high in polyphenols (antioxydants, they can lower VLDL cholesterol). The high fat content also make it a rather medium-slow carb. So, that's not really empty food. Sure, you do not *need* chocolate to live. But it's still a very comforting food, that is not unhealthy. It doesn't make you fat either, unless you eat too much of it. I have been eating chocolate as part of my diet, and this doesn't slow down weight low as far as I can tell. Even when I was doing appetite control exercises with my nutritionnist (that's eating 4oz of chocolate instead of lunch for 4 days), if I remember correctly, I lost 5lbs that week. That's just another item where moderation applies - 1/2oz of chocolate a day is fine (just replace a fat free yogourt with that much chocolate, that's about the same calories), 10oz is not. Also, I'm talking about *real* chocolate, not we put together sugar-and-trans-fat-and-some-chocolate-flavor bar. Just read the content, if there is any other kind of fat other than pure cocoa fat, it's not real chocolate (also watch for cocoa content, should be at least 45%).
Heywood Mogroot - 27 Apr 2004 18:58 GMT > > First, I cut the carbs (sugar and starch) down drastically, to the > > bare minimum. Unless you've been very active immediately before > > eating, carbs are just empty calories that WILL go to fat, AND make > > you hungrier in the process. > > This is a very YMMV thing. agreed. I overstate the case against carbs.
> Converting your carbs to fat is not really a > problem, as long as you have a calorie deficit somewhere, the fat will > eventually get burnt - and you will have lost some more energy through the > carb-fat-carb conversions. Actually, calorie intake can be considered on a > weekly basis rather than daily. Not all carbs are empty calories, some come > with some vitamins (B group comes to mind) and fibers. When I speak of carbs, I'm referring to processed carbs.
> The weetabix are > pretty good carbs for instance (if you take only a couple a day!). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > possible, by always associating them with fat, proteins or fibers and by > avoiding sugars (especially in juices). yeah. I'd eat some pasta and a 16oz Mt Dew for lunch, and it would put be to sleep 2hrs later...
> > Second, fructose is bad for you, and fruits are expensive. I > > personally think a good A,C,E antioxidant vitamin taken with a meal is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > inferior to the real deal, if only because you can't eat multivitamins all > your life. Why not?
> > While it's tough to reach the 50g/day metabolic > > limit (apparently any more than this and your liver runs out of juice [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > release carbs. They're slower than a lot of so-called slow carbs (like many > cereals). OK, point taken. I've never eaten enough fruit to bonk on them, so again I am overstating the case.
> > Fifth. Eat smaller portions more often. Don't eat more than you are > > consuming with exercise and your base metabolism. Eg. don't load up on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > my definition of a huge breakfast is a *small* cup of oatmeal with a kiwi - > and I'm likely not to get hungry again until 2pm. I'm just going on what I've read. I guess the main thing is to not over-satiate yourself at night, since you aren't going to be doing anything with those carbs except processing them into fat cells.
> Unless really overdone, multivitamins can not hurt, though it seems these > vitamins are still inferior to the ones you get in your food. Some vitamins [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > day is above your daily needs), walnut oil has the ideal 1:5 ratio > between -3 and -6 already, and fat fish can bring a lot of these. Thanks for the info. ~1500kcal/day doesn't leave a lot of room for fats, so I'm taking a 3-6-9 flax/fish capsule daily. I couldn't find a 3-9 capsule, so I just got the 3-6-9.
> > > in the day and some chocolate. > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > pure cocoa fat, it's not real chocolate (also watch for cocoa content, > should be at least 45%). I've been thinking of substituting Kozy Shack vanilla pudding instead of vanilla yoghurt for breakfast now, so I guess I shouldn't rant against chocolate.
I've just cut out relatively empty feel-good snacks from my diet regimen, since these add up and with just 1500 kcal/day I've got to make every calorie count.
Heywood Mogroot - 27 Apr 2004 03:14 GMT > Hi People :) couple more things:
Drink at least 1/2 gallon (64-oz) of water a day. Drink more. Drink as much as you can. Fat loss requires water. Water through the kidneys cleans out the gunk from fat burning.
One trick I use is eating 1oz (~28 nuts) of smokehouse almonds for lunch. Gives me 200 kcal of protein and unsaturated fat, but more importantly water tastes really good with the flavoring.
Also, measure your waist with a tape measure, not pants. I could easily fit into 40" pants but the tape measure said 44" when I started this diet thing.
Bob - 28 Apr 2004 13:08 GMT > Drink at least 1/2 gallon (64-oz) of water a day. Drink more. Drink as > much as you can. Fat loss requires water. Water through the kidneys > cleans out the gunk from fat burning. ah again I was not aware of that - thankyou.
> One trick I use is eating 1oz (~28 nuts) of smokehouse almonds for > lunch. Gives me 200 kcal of protein and unsaturated fat, but more > importantly water tastes really good with the flavoring. Interesting as again I undervalued the importance of protein in my diet.
> Also, measure your waist with a tape measure, not pants. I could > easily fit into 40" pants but the tape measure said 44" when I started > this diet thing. <hangs head in shame> As I will not "feel" too comfortable in using a tape measure at this moment in time. I have been a great supporter of the Ostrich syndrome of burying my head in the sand and ignoring the too obvious...!!!!! It is only now that I feel able to take responsibility in sorting out my shape.
Thank you very much for your help :)
Bob
Beverly - 28 Apr 2004 14:43 GMT > > Also, measure your waist with a tape measure, not pants. I could > > easily fit into 40" pants but the tape measure said 44" when I started [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is only now that I feel able to take responsibility in sorting out my > shape. Get your head out of the sand and grab that measuring tape :) You might be making progress and not know it !!
You could also use a pair of pants as your reference point. I have some jeans and know when they become a little too snug around the waist that it's time to cut back on the calories.
Beverly
> Thank you very much for your help :) > > Bob Lictor - 28 Apr 2004 14:49 GMT > <hangs head in shame> As I will not "feel" too comfortable in using a tape > measure at this moment in time. Well, it seems you do use a scale, so why not a tape? A tape actually gives information that is as important as your weight. If you do exercise a lot, it's perfectly possible to *gain* weight while losing fat. With a scale, you will just freak out and wonder what the hell is going on. With a tape, you will notice the lost centimeters and know what is going on. As far as your look is concerned, the centimeters are way more important than your weight.
jmk - 28 Apr 2004 14:56 GMT >><hangs head in shame> As I will not "feel" too comfortable in using a tape >>measure at this moment in time. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > will notice the lost centimeters and know what is going on. As far as your > look is concerned, the centimeters are way more important than your weight. I don't use a tape measure. I can tell whether or not my close fit or are tighter or looser just fine, thanks. I lost about 80 pounds without ever using a tape measure. I simply don't feel that it is necessary. It is tool and if you find it to be useful, great. I just see no reason to attempt to force someone into using it if they don't want to.
 Signature jmk in NC
Heywood Mogroot - 28 Apr 2004 21:08 GMT > >><hangs head in shame> As I will not "feel" too comfortable in using a tape > >>measure at this moment in time. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It is tool and if you find it to be useful, great. I just see no reason > to attempt to force someone into using it if they don't want to. Pants are great as a relative measure, but for absolute measures (eg "36 inch waist") they lie.
Lictor - 28 Apr 2004 22:06 GMT > Pants are great as a relative measure, but for absolute measures (eg > "36 inch waist") they lie. Besides, not everyone wears tight fitting pants, I never really liked them, even when I was slim - I like feeling comfortable above all... I had lost 20lbs before I realized my cargo pants were starting to get really too large and needed to buy new ones. In the meantime, I had lost around 4.7 inches around the waist.
jmk - 29 Apr 2004 12:24 GMT >>Pants are great as a relative measure, but for absolute measures (eg >>"36 inch waist") they lie. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and needed to buy new ones. In the meantime, I had lost around 4.7 inches > around the waist. I never said that I wear tight fitting pants. I said that I can tell when the fit changes. I'm glad that measuring works for you. For me it was a useless PitA.
 Signature jmk in NC
jmk - 29 Apr 2004 12:23 GMT >>>><hangs head in shame> As I will not "feel" too comfortable in using a tape >>>>measure at this moment in time. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Pants are great as a relative measure, but for absolute measures (eg > "36 inch waist") they lie. I would contend that you don't *need* an absolute measure. Measuring is just a tool and it is one that I have successfully done without. As a result, I don't feel comfortable when I see this tool being more or less shoved down someone's throat. I mean, I think that people should use the tools that they are comfortable with and the tools that they find that work for them.
 Signature jmk in NC
Bob - 29 Apr 2004 20:31 GMT > I would contend that you don't *need* an absolute measure. Measuring is > just a tool and it is one that I have successfully done without. As a > result, I don't feel comfortable when I see this tool being more or less > shoved down someone's throat. I mean, I think that people should use > the tools that they are comfortable with and the tools that they find > that work for them. I do not "feel" comfortable about using a tape measure and I'm sure that it was suggested to mean well. In truth I am happier not really bothering too much with a set of scales once that I have got a better understanding of the food that I need to eat to get my weight down, and keep down.
Bob
Heywood Mogroot - 30 Apr 2004 06:08 GMT > > I would contend that you don't *need* an absolute measure. Measuring is > > just a tool and it is one that I have successfully done without. As a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > much with a set of scales once that I have got a better understanding of the > food that I need to eat to get my weight down, and keep down. #1 rule of dieting & eating healthier: do what works best for you
Bob - 30 Apr 2004 12:18 GMT > #1 rule of dieting & eating healthier: do what works best for you Agree but with the very generous help of you and the others that have given advice I can make a more informed choice of the method of dieting that I use.
Bob
Doug Freyburger - 30 Apr 2004 22:09 GMT > #1 rule of dieting & eating healthier: do what works best for you Of course there's no manual! Worse, what works for one doesn't work for another.
Figuring it out is an exercise in puzzle solving that is more effort and organization than most people are willing to do. That's why people want to buy books by someone who already figured it out. But notice that the books are all different. A clearcut sign that there is no one right anwser.
The brute force method: Keep a food journal. When you have problems, look at your recent foods. Try to find patterns that happen when you eat specific foods. Ideally start with an isolation plan that starts by removing all but a few foods, that then adds suspect foods back in one at a time. Way much work. But it's a very high yield process for anyone willing to put in that much work.
Heywood Mogroot - 29 Apr 2004 20:37 GMT > > Pants are great as a relative measure, but for absolute measures (eg > > "36 inch waist") they lie. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the tools that they are comfortable with and the tools that they find > that work for them. of course. the tale of the tape changes so slowly that I only bother with it every two or three weeks.
But since I quantify so much else with this diet thing, it's nice seeing actual numerical progress in the one thing I care about most (losing the tire) with this. Basically, I'm *not* stopping the daily deficit until I can fit in the 501's that started getting tight 10 years ago, and I'm still too big to try them on to see how close I am to this goal.
|
|
|