Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / August 2004
Small Change, Big Weight-Loss Payoff
|
|
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
|
|
|