Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / August 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Small Change, Big Weight-Loss Payoff

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Odell Carmichael - 12 Aug 2004 13:35 GMT
Small Change, Big Weight-Loss Payoff
By Karen Berney

We are a fat nation obsessed with losing weight.

According to a 1999 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study, 35 percent of
America's adults (75 million) are slightly or moderately overweight, and 26
percent (56 million) are obese or grossly overweight. Anyone up to 30
pounds above the target weight for their body size is overweight, says the
CDC, and another 30 pounds over target weight is considered obese.

The CDC notes that half of us are trying to lose weight, not only through
diet and exercise but by using commercial weight-loss products and services
worth $33—$50 billion a year.

There may be a better way: eating 100 less calories a day. We put on 1.8 to
2.0 pounds each year, calculated professor James Hill of the University of
Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, in an article published in
Science (February 7, 2003).

How can we prevent this weight gain? Since each pound is equivalent to
3,500 calories, creating a deficit of about 100 calories daily — the
equivalent of 10 potato chips — should allow us to stop gaining at least 1
pound each year, contends Hill.

Take in Less Than You Need
But losing weight is different from not gaining weight, points out
Katherine Tallmadge, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the
American Dietetic Association in Washington, D.C. Assuming your body needs
2,000 calories a day to meet its energy requirements — the average for most
women — and you consume 300 fewer calories than 2,000 daily, you could shed
30 pounds a year. That's because your body will take the extra 300 calories
it needs for energy from stores of fat.

Now, that may sound extreme, but, Tallmadge, like Hill, believes "small
changes can make a big difference." Consider this: By halving that 200- to
300-calorie nightly snack, you could drop 15 pounds a year. Step up your
level of activity by walking around the office instead of shooting out
emails nonstop and you could strip away another 100 calories daily, or 10
pounds a year.

How to Knock Out Calories
Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
day? The often-repeated formula is to combine eating less calories with
regular cardiovascular exercise (see Get Fit in As Little As Two Hours a
Week and weight training (see The Three Exercises You Must Do for a Tighter
You). Do all three, and you're guaranteed to melt away fat. But be
forewarned: Your body can only metabolize a certain amount of fat — 1 to
1.5 pound(s) a week — on a low-calorie diet, says Tallmadge. At some point,
the fat will turn to muscle, which is why you want to build muscle when
losing weight.

"You don't have to feel like you are on a diet or depriving yourself when
eating fewer calories to lose weight," says Tallmadge, author of Diet
Simple. She has rarely met a woman who cannot lose weight and keep it off
on 1,800 calories a day, she says, especially if she eats a good breakfast.

It's All About Planning
Tallmadge's No. 1 weight-loss tip is to plan. You have to grocery shop with
a list in hand so you can prepare the tasty breakfast above, or bring your
600-calorie lunch to work. Otherwise, you're going to grab Chinese takeout
or a burger and mistakenly plough through a 1,000-calorie dinner and 1,800
calories a day.

Save food preparation time by buying frozen fruits and vegetables. Not only
is frozen more convenient, but the food can actually be more nutritious
than fresh produce, Tallmadge says. Frozen foods are picked when ripe and
frozen immediately, whereas fresh produce is often picked early, so it can
sit longer on grocers' shelves.

Storing prepared meals in one-serving-size plastic containers also aids in
controlling portion size in the land that prizes super-sized, biggie
everything!

Stick With It
A surefire way to stick with fewer calories each day, says New York City
dietitian Julie Walsh, is to maintain a written record of what you eat and
when you eat it. Nothing piles up the calories faster than "mindless
eating," which is when you consume food — not because you are hungry, but
because your body is fatigued or your mind is bored. Simply becoming
conscious about your eating habits can jolt new eating behavior, says
Walsh.

To reinforce new eating habits, Walsh suggests that you weigh yourself
about once a week. Since so many women live in mortal fear of stepping on
the scale, the knowledge that the dreaded event is approaching can help
keep your eating in check.

Finally, stay happily engaged and busy with work, hobbies, friends and
family, advise both Walsh and Tallmadge. The truth is, when you have a
fairly wonderful life, you're not as interested in overeating.
Lictor - 12 Aug 2004 14:53 GMT
> There may be a better way: eating 100 less calories a day. We put on 1.8 to
> 2.0 pounds each year, calculated professor James Hill of the University of
> Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, in an article published in
> Science (February 7, 2003).

Which actually shows that the human body in its natural regulated state is
able to manage its inputs at a very high level of accuracy, since it's able
to maintain a totally constant body weight over decades...
On the other hand, it shows how hopeless calorie counting is. The margin of
error between calorie tables (using average food while you use real food),
your own metabolism (that you can only approximate), your varying level of
activity, your periods and so on, far far exceed these 100 calories a day.

> Now, that may sound extreme, but, Tallmadge, like Hill, believes "small
> changes can make a big difference." Consider this: By halving that 200- to
> 300-calorie nightly snack, you could drop 15 pounds a year.

What nightly snack? Many obeses do not have nightly snack. I'm not going to
ruin brushing my teeth by having a nightly snack...

> But be
> forewarned: Your body can only metabolize a certain amount of fat - 1 to
> 1.5 pound(s) a week - on a low-calorie diet, says Tallmadge.

Your body can metabolize whatever it needs to fuel you. It's only that to
lose more than that, you have to starve yourself and you will face a deficit
in micro-nutriments.

> At some point,
> the fat will turn to muscle, which is why you want to build muscle when
> losing weight.

No, there is *no* metabolic pathway to build proteins from fats or carbs.
You can only break proteins into other stuff (carbs), but not the other way
around. If people did turn the fat to muscle, we would have muscles in all
the wrong places. :p
You can lose fat *and* build muscles at the same time, but that's two
completely separate events. You can slim yourself without building any
muscle, and you can build a bunch of muscle without losing a single pound of
fat.

> "You don't have to feel like you are on a diet or depriving yourself when
> eating fewer calories to lose weight," says Tallmadge, author of Diet
> Simple. She has rarely met a woman who cannot lose weight and keep it off
> on 1,800 calories a day, she says, especially if she eats a good breakfast.

The problem is counting these 1800 calories a day, there is no way to have
enough precision to handle such a small deficit.
It's better to let the body handle the calculations. Except in genetic or
metabolic obesity (a minority), the body regulating systems are already
geared towards losing weight and will push on their own in that direction,
at their own pace. Since these regulation systems are in command of the
hunger sensation, you can't feel hunger while following its downward slope.
The not-so-easy trick is of course to stop listening to all the diet
bullshit and tune on your own body instead...

> It's All About Planning
> Tallmadge's No. 1 weight-loss tip is to plan. You have to grocery shop with
> a list in hand so you can prepare the tasty breakfast above, or bring your
> 600-calorie lunch to work.

Ahhh, I know there would be a catch... So, it's not a diet, but you have to
buy Good Stuff from a list, so that you avoid eating all the Bad Stuff...
Right...
If you need a 200 calories deficit, who cares where it comes from? Who cares
if you hit the limit through a single meal a day or continuous snacking
throughout the whole day? Who cares if you get your 1800 calories eating
from the list or from McDonald?
It's always amazing how they start with the right idea (small deficit,
calories are calories, following a slow slope) and then have to introduce
some moral issues in the deal (Chinese take-away, bad! Fruits and
vegetables, good!)...

> Save food preparation time by buying frozen fruits and vegetables. Not only
> is frozen more convenient, but the food can actually be more nutritious
> than fresh produce, Tallmadge says. Frozen foods are picked when ripe and
> frozen immediately, whereas fresh produce is often picked early, so it can
> sit longer on grocers' shelves.

Yeah, it's interresting if the goal is to stay healthy, but has nothing to
do with losing weight. Old wisdom is to only tackle a single task at a
time... Either you're losing weight or you're trying to eat healthy food.

> Storing prepared meals in one-serving-size plastic containers also aids in
> controlling portion size in the land that prizes super-sized, biggie
> everything!

Following your hunger does that job marvelously. You don't even need to buy
new plastic containers that will add to existing pollution...

> Nothing piles up the calories faster than "mindless
> eating," which is when you consume food - not because you are hungry, but
> because your body is fatigued or your mind is bored.

Well, she seems to know hunger is a good regulation system. But somehow she
doesn't trust what she knows.
All these words might have been put to better use if they had given tools to
handle being bored or fatigued without eating.

> To reinforce new eating habits, Walsh suggests that you weigh yourself
> about once a week. Since so many women live in mortal fear of stepping on
> the scale, the knowledge that the dreaded event is approaching can help
> keep your eating in check.

Good advice.

Overall, rather better than most dieting advices... All the little pieces
are there, not too much crap... But somehow they don't push their reasonning
far enough.
The Voice of Reason - 13 Aug 2004 04:32 GMT
> > Now, that may sound extreme, but, Tallmadge, like Hill, believes "small
> > changes can make a big difference." Consider this: By halving that 200- to
> > 300-calorie nightly snack, you could drop 15 pounds a year.
>
> What nightly snack? Many obeses do not have nightly snack. I'm not going to
> ruin brushing my teeth by having a nightly snack...

Since when did 'obese' become a noun? Also it's just an example. It
might be a handful of chips with your tea, or a can of coke, or
something insignificant that adds up over time.

> You can lose fat *and* build muscles at the same time, but that's two
> completely separate events.

That is possible to very difficult other than during newbie-gains, and
under complex CKDs.

> You can slim yourself without building any
> muscle, and you can build a bunch of muscle without losing a single pound of
> fat.

In fact you're more likely to gain fat whilst building muscle.

> > "You don't have to feel like you are on a diet or depriving yourself when
> > eating fewer calories to lose weight," says Tallmadge, author of Diet
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> The problem is counting these 1800 calories a day, there is no way to have
> enough precision to handle such a small deficit.

Not really. Count up to 1800, and if you're not losing at the desired
weight then adjust the number accordingly. This works for anyone who
honestly tries it.

> It's always amazing how they start with the right idea (small deficit,
> calories are calories, following a slow slope) and then have to introduce
> some moral issues in the deal (Chinese take-away, bad! Fruits and
> vegetables, good!)...

Yes that annoys me too, although they sometimes have a point. What
bothers me is when they give a list of facts and discretely mix in
some of their preferences.

> Yeah, it's interresting if the goal is to stay healthy, but has nothing to
> do with losing weight. Old wisdom is to only tackle a single task at a
> time... Either you're losing weight or you're trying to eat healthy food.

It's very simple to do both. Healthy foods are often very compatible
with losing  AND gaining weight. Although I must admit I have lost
weight eating far from a healthy diet (2000 calories of pizza in a day
is still enough to lose weight for me).

> > Storing prepared meals in one-serving-size plastic containers also aids in
> > controlling portion size in the land that prizes super-sized, biggie
> > everything!
>
> Following your hunger does that job marvelously. You don't even need to buy
> new plastic containers that will add to existing pollution...

Not necessarily, it's very easy to eat only when hungry and still
over-eat. People don't generally have good self-portion-control. Also
similar meals with slight differences can have vast differences in the
number of calories in them.

> > To reinforce new eating habits, Walsh suggests that you weigh yourself
> > about once a week. Since so many women live in mortal fear of stepping on
> > the scale, the knowledge that the dreaded event is approaching can help
> > keep your eating in check.
>
> Good advice.

I weight myself every day straight after getting up in the morning
then follow the moving average, it seems to be pretty reliable at it
smooths out the natural variations.
Lady Veteran - 12 Aug 2004 15:40 GMT
SSFA is not interested in this drek. Please peddle your information
elsewhere.

LV

Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
For every person with a spark of genius, there
are a hundred more with ignition trouble.
- -Unknown
- -------------------------------
Nikko - 12 Aug 2004 20:02 GMT
> Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
> do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
> day? The often-repeated formula is to combine eating less calories with
> regular cardiovascular exercise (see Get Fit in As Little As Two Hours a
> Week and weight training (see The Three Exercises You Must Do for a Tighter
> You).

So what are the three exercises?  Got a link to that article?
Rocky Spears - 13 Aug 2004 00:50 GMT
>> Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
>> do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>So what are the three exercises?  Got a link to that article?

http://health.discovery.com/centers/womens/weight_loss/fat_nation.html
The Voice of Reason - 13 Aug 2004 03:42 GMT
> > Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
> > do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> So what are the three exercises?  Got a link to that article?

I haven't seen the article, but I'd guess:
Bench Press (chest, triceps, shoulders)
Snatch (legs, lower back, forearms, traps, abs)
Barbell row (upper back, biceps, forearms)
EricBazilian - 13 Aug 2004 16:00 GMT
> > > Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
> > > do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Snatch (legs, lower back, forearms, traps, abs)
> Barbell row (upper back, biceps, forearms)

The workout regimen was recently posted in the fitness section of
'Mens Health' (http://www.menshealth.com).
tcomeau - 13 Aug 2004 15:21 GMT
> Small Change, Big Weight-Loss Payoff
> By Karen Berney
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> equivalent of 10 potato chips ? should allow us to stop gaining at least 1
> pound each year, contends Hill.

James O. Hill, Ph.D., Professor of Pediatrics and Director, Center for
Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center,
Denver, CO. Research support from Amgen, Hoffman-LaRoche, Procter &
Gamble, and Knoll Pharmaceuticals; has received consultant fees from
Knoll, Roche Laboratories, International Life Sciences Institute, and
Procter & Gamble and is a consultant to the Duke Diet and Fitness
Center. (Newark Star-Ledger, 2/17/97). President, North American
Association for the Study of Obesity. (USA Today, 9/1/98) Lead author
of a study on olestra supported by a grant from Procter & Gamble. (Am.
J. Clin. Nutr. 1998;67:1178-85) Co-wrote (with Barbara Rolls) a 1998
report for ILSI on "Carbohydrates and Weight Management." Participated
in a 3/25/99 panel assembled by the Sugar Association to inform New
York magazine editors about obesity, calories, and activity. (Sugar
Association's 1999 annual report,
http://www.foodingredientsonline.com; accessed 03/30/99) Research on
the effects of covert substitution of olestra for conventional fat on
spontaneous food intake supported by Procter & Gamble. (Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 1998;67:1178-85) Research on the role of carbohydrates in weight
management was supported by the Sugar Association. (Letter from Sugar
Association to USDA; on file with CSPI; 4/16/99) Research on using
Orlistat for weight maintenance funded by Hoffmann-La Roche. (Am. J.
Clin. Nutr. 1999;69:1108-16) Member of the Foodfit.com advisory board.
(http://www.foodfit.com/about/advisoryBoard.asp; accessed 11/11/00)
Research on weight management supported in part by Abbott
Laboratories. (J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 2001;20:26-31) Member of the
McDonald's Corporation Global Advisory Council on Healthy Lifestyles;
formed to "help guide the company on activities that address the need
for balanced, healthy lifestyles."
(http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/press/corporate/2003/05212003/;
accessed 6/23/03) Receives consulting fees from HealtheTech, Johnson &
Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Coca-Cola. Receives speakers fees from
Abbott Laboratories, Roche Laboratories, and Kraft Foods. Receives
research funding from M&M Mars. (N. Engl. J. Med. 2003:348;2082-2090)
Member of the expert advisory board for the American Council for
Fitness and Nutrition. (http://www.acfn.org/about/advisory.html;
accessed 10/31/03)

*********

This man is an industry whore of the worst kind. He has attacked the
low-carb diet on numerous occasions. He isn't interested in helping
people lose weight. He is interested in furthering the sales of the
various companies that have given him money. Anything he says is
tainted by the stink of his industry connections.

The International Life Sciences Institute is a non-profit set up by a
bunch of for-profits and exists simply to push their corporate
agendas. Any doctor or researcher affiliated with ILSI is extremely
highly suspect in terms of their personal and professional integrity.

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/international_life_sciences_institut
e.html


TC
tcomeau - 13 Aug 2004 15:33 GMT
> Small Change, Big Weight-Loss Payoff
> By Karen Berney
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> pounds above the target weight for their body size is overweight, says the
> CDC, and another 30 pounds over target weight is considered obese.

<snip>

> Take in Less Than You Need
> But losing weight is different from not gaining weight, points out
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> Simple. She has rarely met a woman who cannot lose weight and keep it off
> on 1,800 calories a day, she says, especially if she eats a good breakfast.

<snip>

A bit of info about the american dietetic association:

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/american_dietetic_association.html

AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
 
A public policy workshop held in March 2001 was sponsored by American
Soy Products, California Dried Plum Board, Egg Nutrition Center, Food
Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Kashi, National
Soft Drink Association, Sodexho, and Marriott Services. (ADA Courier,
5/01)

Published a "Biotechnology Resource Kit," which was funded by the
Council for Biotechnology Information." (ADA "Dear Member" letter;
2000)

[See entry for Council for Biotechnology Information]

ADA and DuPont have an agreement that enables ADA to place nutrition
information on the web site http://www.webmd.com/. Dupont is an
investor in WebMD. (ADA Press Release, 10/16/00)

In fiscal year 2000, the following companies contributed $10,000 or
more: BASF Corp., Bristol Myers/Squibb, California Avocado Company,
The Catfish Institute, ConAgra Foods, DMI Management, EcoLab, Galaxy
Nutritional Foods, Gerber Products Company, Kellogg, Knoll
Pharmaceuticals, Lipton, Mars, Inc., Mead Johnson Nutritionals, McNeil
Consumer Products Company, Monsanto, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Dairy Council, National Fisheries Institute,
National Pasta Association, The Peanut Institute, Potato Board,
Procter & Gamble, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Ross Products Division,
Abbott Laboratories, Viactiv, Worthington Foods. (ADA/ADAF 2000 Annual
Report, http://www.eat right.org/; November 11, 2000)

ADA and American Pharmaceutical Association (pharmacists) announced a
joint consumer-education program on supplements; it is funded by
Monsanto Life Sciences Company (press release, 11/8/99).

The ADA co-produced, with funding from the ConAgra Foundation, a
packet of information on food safety titled "Home Food Safety: It's in
Your Hands." (Funding disclosed on packet on file at CSPI, Nov. 1999)

The American Dietetic Association has announced that it will be
seeking to endorse food products (Nov.-Dec. 1997 ADA Courier).

The American Dietetic Association has received funding from numerous
companies and receives underwriting for "fact sheets" on topics
related to the companies' products. Major ($100,000+) donors include:
Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Weight Watchers International, Campbell Soup,
National Dairy Council, Nestlé USA, Ross Products Division of Abbott
Labs., Sandoz, Coca-Cola, Florida Department of Citrus, General Mills,
Monsanto, Nabisco, Procter & Gamble, Uncle Ben's, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.
(Nov-Dec 1996 ADA Courier)

The following companies and organizations sponsored information
sessions at the ADA's 2002 Food and Nutrition Conference, held in
Philadelphia, PA:

Almond Board of California
American Egg Board/Egg Nutrition Center
Aramark
ADM Kao LLC
Balance Bar Company
ConAgra Foods
DuPont Protein Technologies
General Mills
Gatorade Company
Gerber Products Company
H.J. Heinz
Hormel
Internationl Food Information Council
International Life Sciences Institute
Mars, Inc.
McNeil Nutritionals
MET-Rx
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Dairy Council
Pharmavite
Procter and Gamble
Quaker Oats
Ross Product Division
Sodexho Health Care Services
Sysco Corporation
United Soybean Board
United States Potato Board
Wheat Foods Council
(http://www.eatright.org/fnce/sponsors02.html; accessed 2/24/03)

In 2002, the ADA entered into a partnership with Gerber Products
Company to form the Start Healthy Nutrition Advisory Panel. The panel
includes both experts from Gerber and ADA.
(http://www.eatright.com/pr/2002/102102.html; accessed 2/24/03)

******

These people are not interested in your health or weight problem.
These non-profits are owned by for-profits.

TC
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.