Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2005
Looking for advise
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Maggie - 10 Mar 2005 01:46 GMT Hi; I am new here, and i wasnt sure where to post my question. I have been reading quite abit here and i like what i read... Well i am not on any program to loose weight but i am trying on my own... I have one problem, im not sure where to start... this is what i got... I am about 5ft, 176pounds, two years ago i quit smoking, but weight is what got me. I am still a non smoker, i have gain 20 pounds or more in the last two years... i am not an active person, i try, i really do, but my knee's are killing me , often swelling up. my ankels are not in good shape, never was, but with extra weight its been difficult.. i tore leigaments few years back on both ankles, ( not at the same time, different times) due to my pregnancy. anyways, should i count calories? or points, maybe low carb or high carb?? I am not a junk food eater, i love fruits & veggies, i dont eat at nites, and my friends i eat healthy but they cant understand why i gain. i dont eat fatty foods, like fast food stuff.. if i do, its very rare and it has to be somewheres , where i have no choice... i lovee fish, i can have that every day... (but i dont, once a week , fridays ) i use to walk before, but my knees would lock, wasnt so bad then, but with the extra pounds its harder, thanks
Ignoramus12418 - 10 Mar 2005 03:51 GMT You do not have to be in any kind of organized program to lose weight. Most persons who lost weight and kept it off did their own program. (source, _Keeping it Off_). Counting calories is a foolproof approach to dieting, although you may get by with portion control, which would accomplish the same thing. (for example, eat 3 meals only from a small plate to be filled with anything you want, once per meal).
If exercise is too painful at your weight, you can as well skip exercise or do very little of what you can.
Do not be intimidated, a lot of people started off in just as bad position as you are in and they are doing great. What's important is being consistent.
 Signature 223/173.2/180
Doug Freyburger - 10 Mar 2005 18:43 GMT > I have been reading quite abit here and i like what > i read... Well i am not on any program to loose weight > but i am trying on my own... I have one problem, im > not sure where to start... On the coin collecting group the standard advice is "Buy the book before you buy the coin". The general sentiment works just fine here.
Popular weight loss plans are popular because they work. They work because they are carefully designed and tested. As much as a decade of work goes into each of them. Consider what your chances are if you make up your own plan as you go compared to taking advantage of a decade of work by someone else.
> anyways, should i count calories? or points, maybe > low carb or high carb?? Those are the most popular options: Low calorie, low fat and low carb. There are other types of plans out there that use principles that aren't as easy to come up with on your own.
> I am not a junk food eater, i love fruits & veggies So far you've described just about every plan you'll find.
> and my friends i eat healthy but they cant > understand why i gain. There are always reasons. The human body does not behave in obvious ways.
So take a step back and see if what you're already doing fits some class of plans. If you're currently high-carb/low-fat then that isn't working so go for low-carb/high-fat. Or vice versa depending on what you already eat.
> i lovee fish, i can have that every day... Another point common to nearly every plan available.
Read some plans. Read a couple of low fat ones, a couple of low carb ones, a couple of low calorie ones. They all work and everyone is different so none of them work for everyone. Once you have learned, then pick using that education, and using the fact that what you currently eat isn't working.
Meghan Noecker - 11 Mar 2005 01:20 GMT >Popular weight loss plans are popular because they >work. I have to disagree with this. Most plans work for the shorterm, but they are just "diets" to most people, and will not work in the long run because people think it is a short term thing.
Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers are very popular, but what percentage actually keeps the weight off long term? They give the impression of working since people lose while they are on it, but if the person hasn't changed their whole way of life and eating, then they will be back, and that is what these companies count on - return customers.
To assume that something works because it is popular is not a good idea. Diet pills are popular and do give results. But that isn't a good plan and certainly not for long term results.
There are many good plans that work, but only of it is a long term change in the way of eating and exercising. Basically - eat less and move more. How you do that is it up to you. No need for a fancy "diet".
-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
Carol Frilegh - 11 Mar 2005 09:46 GMT > >Popular weight loss plans are popular because they > >work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers are very popular, but what percentage > actually keeps the weight off long term? The rate of recidivism in almost all types of weight loss is 98%. This does not have to apply but be advised the 2% who are successful usually have to work very hard at keeping weight off.
 Signature Diva ***** The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman
Meghan Noecker - 11 Mar 2005 10:14 GMT >> Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers are very popular, but what percentage >> actually keeps the weight off long term? > >The rate of recidivism in almost all types of weight loss is 98%. This >does not have to apply but be advised the 2% who are successful usually >have to work very hard at keeping weight off. I knew it was pretty bad, but I couldn't remember the numbers. That is why I think of it more as a scam. Technically it works, but they usually aren't teaching a life long change. So, when you get off and gain weight, then you can go back and use their services again. Most people still think of a diet as a temporary thing. You go on the diet, lose the weight, and then go back to normal. They don't understand that maintenance is very similar to the "diet". And it is life long.
So, the actual plan makes less of a difference than the attitude and determination to stick with it as a way of life.
-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
SnugBear - 12 Mar 2005 02:34 GMT > Most > people still think of a diet as a temporary thing. You go on the diet, > lose the weight, and then go back to normal. They don't understand > that maintenance is very similar to the "diet". And it is life long. It was a really wonderful revelation to me to understand that it's not *normal* to eat huge quantities of calorie and fat laden food.
 Signature Walking on . . . fresh snow tomorrow! Laurie in Maine 207/115 New Scale Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03
Meghan Noecker - 12 Mar 2005 03:25 GMT >> Most >> people still think of a diet as a temporary thing. You go on the diet, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >It was a really wonderful revelation to me to understand that it's not >*normal* to eat huge quantities of calorie and fat laden food. Yes, I still have a hard time with portions. I look at what the portion should be, and I think that is tiny. I know that some things like candy bars and pop use smaller serving sizes so that the calorie information look nicer. So, it is hard for me to truly believe that meat portions really should be that small. I'd rather skip the side stuff and just eat more meat.
-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
Chris Braun - 12 Mar 2005 04:15 GMT >>> Most >>> people still think of a diet as a temporary thing. You go on the diet, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >meat portions really should be that small. I'd rather skip the side >stuff and just eat more meat. I'm with you there, Meghan. This isn't a bad approach, except maybe if the meat you usually eat is high in saturated fat -- like if you eat steak every day. You can still add in plenty of veggies for very few more calories. The stuff I skip or go very light on is the starchy stuff -- pretty high in calories and not nearly as good as meat :-).
A fellow carnivore --
Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004
Polar Light - 12 Mar 2005 08:47 GMT >>Yes, I still have a hard time with portions. I look at what the >>portion should be, and I think that is tiny. I know that some things [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > starchy stuff -- pretty high in calories and not nearly as good as > meat :-). Meat isn't a problem for me, I'm not vegetarian but I'm not crazy about meat, I eat more chicken & turkey than red meat & mostly as a source of protein. To me, it is the 'starchy' stuff where I find the 'right' portions impossibly small, like 250g of fresh pasta or ravioli being TWO servings. Rice, noodles, mashed potatoes, beans, I could eat triple servings of this stuff. I do my best to avoid it (or have small amounts) whilst losing weight 'coz it piles on the calories though.
Chris Braun - 12 Mar 2005 04:13 GMT >> Most >> people still think of a diet as a temporary thing. You go on the diet, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >It was a really wonderful revelation to me to understand that it's not >*normal* to eat huge quantities of calorie and fat laden food. Amazing, isn't it :-). Restaurants brainwash people into thinking otherwise. One experience that amused me was when I went to breakfast at IHOP (pancake house chain) with Tom, my trainer. I ordered the breakfast I always got at the diner we usually went to -- 2 fried eggs, English muffin, grapefruit juice. I had to order this piece by piece, as all the IHOP menu offerings are big "breakfast specials" with lots more stuff. The young waitress asked me, with an expression somewhere between concern and incredulity, "Is that all??? Don't you want any meat? Any pancakes or French toast?" I assured her that that was a perfectly adequate breakfast for me -- actually more than I generally eat. I guess she had come to think their 1000 calorie breakfasts are actually normal eating.
Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004
Ignoramus2923 - 12 Mar 2005 05:09 GMT > generally eat. I guess she had come to think their 1000 calorie > breakfasts are actually normal eating. I must say that I eat 1,000 calorie breakfasts on perhaps half of my days. :) These would not involve pancakes though. You made a good point, that restaurants promote excessive quantity of relatively cheap food as "value" to the customer, even though it really is not "value", from the standpoint of economics and consumer utility.
 Signature 223/173.3/180
Nunya B. - 12 Mar 2005 18:48 GMT >>> Most >>> people still think of a diet as a temporary thing. You go on the diet, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > generally eat. I guess she had come to think their 1000 calorie > breakfasts are actually normal eating. I get the same reaction from waitstaff when ordering my typical breakfast out - one egg, canadian bacon, no toast. There has been this commercial for Denny's on lately that advertises some behemouth breakfast with 3 kinds of meats and a lot of other crap for only 4.99! It makes me nauseous to look at it.
 Signature the volleyballchick
Meghan Noecker - 13 Mar 2005 09:40 GMT >I get the same reaction from waitstaff when ordering my typical breakfast >out - one egg, canadian bacon, no toast. There has been this commercial for >Denny's on lately that advertises some behemouth breakfast with 3 kinds of >meats and a lot of other crap for only 4.99! It makes me nauseous to look >at it. I have never finished a breakfast at a restaurant. I get a full second meal out of it.
I usually just eat the pancakes at the restaurant (I never make them at home). I usually can't even finish those. Then I take the eggs and meat home for a different meal.
-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
Mary_Gordon@tvo.org - 13 Mar 2005 17:29 GMT I used to travel a lot for work - no glamorous locations - I worked on transmission line construction for a utility company, and thus spent time in all kinds of teeny middle of no-where kind of towns and villages, where I ate in little local diners with the local crew foremen, the construction super, the environmental coordinators, the local community relations person etc.
Meals were so inexpensive it would kill you NOT to take advantage of them, and they were usually package deals (i.e. today's special...which came with all kinds of stuff. Typical breakfast was a mound of eggs, bacon, toast, hashed browns, juice, coffee. Lunch would be something like soup, a big sandwich like a clubhouse, a mountain of home fries, dessert, milk, coffee (all included). And then dinner was similar, soup or salad, a huge meal with veg, meat with gravy, more home fries, bread, dessert, AAAAAAAAAIIIEEEEEEEEeeee!
Always about 10 times more food than you would eat had you been at home, and it made keeping a lid on your weight extremely challenging. It wasn't "fast food" but plain, hearty truck stop kinda over the top calorific cooking with huge servings. And it was yummy. And I did WANT it! Give me that Blue Plate Meatloaf and gravy and the mound of mashed potatoes any day of the week....eeeeek! And the tapioca pudding with whipped cream on the top! For lunch AND dinner 5 days a week!
Because meals were a very important social thing, plus the place most business got conducted, it was also next to impossible NOT to eat with the "guys" and get anything done.
I'd hope I'd be better about it now, since I have way more steely resolve in my spine than I had back then, but anyone who has to eat in restaurants due to travel or the nature of their work, has their work cut out for them.
Mary G.
Polar Light - 11 Mar 2005 11:03 GMT >>Popular weight loss plans are popular because they >>work. > > I have to disagree with this. Most plans work for the shorterm, but > they are just "diets" to most people, and will not work in the long > run because people think it is a short term thing. I agree, and let's not forget that the vast majority of weight loss plans are commercial ventures. At the very least you have to buy the book. Many also promote other products like 'special' foods & recipe books. You're not obliged to buy these but they can be tempting. All in all, they're multi-million dollar ventures!
> Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers are very popular, but what percentage > actually keeps the weight off long term? They give the impression of > working since people lose while they are on it, but if the person > hasn't changed their whole way of life and eating, then they will be > back, and that is what these companies count on - return customers. These can be good for people who benefit from a support group but they're also highly commercial.
> There are many good plans that work, but only of it is a long term > change in the way of eating and exercising. Basically - eat less and > move more. How you do that is it up to you. No need for a fancy > "diet". You couldn't have put it better. A DIY approach works just as well as any 'plan'. If you want to spend $20 you can buy FitDay PC, it has all the necessary info & you can formulate your own plan: low carb, low fat, high protein... the info is all there.
SnugBear - 12 Mar 2005 02:44 GMT > You couldn't have put it better. A DIY approach works just as well as > any 'plan'. If you want to spend $20 you can buy FitDay PC, it has all > the necessary info & you can formulate your own plan: low carb, low > fat, high protein... the info is all there. There are people who feel if they haven't paid money for something it's not worth anything. Walking outside for free isn't as good as paying for a gym membership; Weight Watchers is expensive so it must be good. I don't disrespect motivation from any source as long as it works and I've invested plenty in my own transformation but *paying* for it was never motivating for me.
 Signature Walking on . . . fresh snow tomorrow! Laurie in Maine 207/115 New Scale Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03
Polar Light - 12 Mar 2005 08:38 GMT >> You couldn't have put it better. A DIY approach works just as well as >> any 'plan'. If you want to spend $20 you can buy FitDay PC, it has all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not worth anything. Walking outside for free isn't as good as paying for > a gym membership; This is very true. Walking/jogging/running is FREE, just as slimming should be. You need to buy food but this is irrespective of whether you're losing weight, getting fat or maintaining. Dieting itself doesn't have to cost anything.
> Weight Watchers is expensive so it must be good. I > don't disrespect motivation from any source as long as it works and I've > invested plenty in my own transformation but *paying* for it was never > motivating for me. It hasn't been for me either, although I can see that sometimes paying can be motivating in the sense of wanting to get a return on your investment. This is how gym memberships work for many people, the need to justify the expense motivates them to go, whilst they'd probably find good excuses not to work out @ home. Could be the same with diets, only the cost of individual items such as a diet book or a box of Atkins Bars isn't high enough to keep you on track.
SnugBear - 12 Mar 2005 18:54 GMT > This is very true. Walking/jogging/running is FREE, just as slimming > should be. I agree with you *but* I DID have to buy 5 pairs of sneakers the year I lost weight. I kept walking the soles right off them! lol Now they last me much longer.
I'm on my way out to snowshoe for the second time today!
 Signature Snow everywhere!!! Laurie in Maine 207/115 New Scale Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03
Doug Freyburger - 11 Mar 2005 11:17 GMT > >Popular weight loss plans are popular because they > >work. > > I have to disagree with this. Most plans work for the shorterm, but > they are just "diets" to most people, and will not work in the long > run because people think it is a short term thing. Thanks for pointing out my error.
Plans get popular because they work in the short term. Plans stay popular partially because they work in the short term and partially because a few people manage to arrive at maintenance on them and serve as examples.
So in my opinion it's a good idea to 1) use a published plan (because it's tested so you're not just guessing), 2) that's remained popular for years (to weed out the most faddish ones), 3) that has a written maintenance phase (any plan without a maintenance phase can never cross from a diet to a way of life), 4) that you think you may be able to stay on its maintenance phase (if you believe in your heart the plan is nonsense there's no way you will stick to it).
That's what I intended to mean and I abbreviated my comment down much too far.
> Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers are very popular, > but what percentage actually keeps the weight off > long term? For published plans, the maintenance phase makes or breaks every one. Any plan without a maintenance plan isn't one I'd start.
> There are many good plans that work, but only of > it is a long term change in the way of eating and > exercising.
> Basically - eat less and move more. Including strategies to keep metabolism up because overdoing the eat-less part triggers defensive starvation modes. Moving more might or might not overcome excessive cutting of intake.
> How you do that is it up to you. No need for a fancy > "diet". Make vs buy decision. There is plenty of room for error when making it up on your own. Witness folks posting about going zero carbs (then disappearing off the radar screen of course) or about cutting to 800 calories for years or whatever. Good plans should avoid those pitfalls. There's no such thing as a plan that covers all of the issues that come up, but a good plan handles a bunch of them.
Mary Gordon - 11 Mar 2005 02:03 GMT Maggie, I lost 60 lb between September and January, almost entirely via diet (I'm 5' 6" and I went from 195 down to 135...which I'm just south of now). It isn't rocket science. Its strictly an energy equation. What comes in has to be less than what goes out, or you won't lose weight. I've made every excuse in the books over the last many years for not being able to lose weight. In the final analysis, it was all a bunch of hooey. I dunno, maybe its like quitting smoking - maybe before I wasn't ready to really tackle it, and I had to make a bunch of false starts.
Honestly, I don't think which diet you pick matters that much. Low carb, low fat, low carb AND low fat, low calorie, whatever! The only thing that matters is that you find one that you can live with and stick to, whether that is Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Atkins, or any of the endless variations and ideas there are out there. Any of them will work if you commit to them - there isn't a magic single answer. Different ones will suit various lifestyles, preferences etc. better. You just have to find one that fits you and your life, stop kidding yourself, and get serious.
I also think you have to get totally serious about success, and set the scene to get you there. I filled my house with stuff I could eat, so there would never be a day when I was scrambling for choices (I have a fridge full of veggies and a pantry full of low calorie stuff). I did the things that many diet plans recommend. I ate breakfast every day (including protein). I kept a food diary. I drank tons of fluids (and still do) - that magic 8-10 glasses a day. I did whatever I had to do to avoid situations where I would eat without thinking about it (i.e. whatever triggers you to munch out, whether that is being bored on the weekend in front of the tube scarfing maple cookies and popcorn, or hanging out with friends at the Sports bar swilling beer and eating chicken wings. A food diary will help you be more conscious of what you are putting in your mouth. We eat a lot of stuff on the fly without really savouring it. I also bought a scale so I could tune into appropriate serving sizes (and boy, my previous idea of a reasonable portion was WAAAAAAY skewed).
You have to plan to change your habits - because losing the weight is only 1/10 of the fight. Keeping it off means you can't go back to same old same old, and thats the real war.
I was never a huge overeater, but the weight did creep on over time (20 lb over the last 2 years alone, the rest came from 3 babies). To lose the weight, I had to make some radical changes. I mean, think about it. If you wanted to lose 2 lb a week, that would equate to reducing your intake 1000 calories a day, which would mean eating about HALF of your current intake for the average woman. The first weeks were totally tough, but I got into a groove, and when the pounds started to come of fairly steadily a pound or two a week, talk about positive reinforcement. I also graphed my loss, which was a good idea because I would get very discouraged about stalls, but when you graphed the overall progress, the line went steadily down (i.e. the blips were just blips and the trend was steadier than was apparent day to day).
You have to look at this as a marathon, not a sprint. Don't tell yourself you'll "try" since that is self talk double speak for failure. Make up your mind to go all the way, and do it. And if you fall off the horse, you dust yourself off and get back on, since a couple of lapses shouldn't mean you just give up.
All these years I've been kvetching and whining and feeling guilty and miserable about my weight - and all that time the ability to do something about it was mine. Flash ahead 6 months. Do you want to be the same, or maybe fatter? Or do you want to put this phase beyond you and move onto doing what I'm doing - figuring out how to stay where I've gotten to, but LOVING my new body.
Mary G.
Ignoramus21682 - 11 Mar 2005 02:42 GMT This is a very wise post that should be saved somewhere.
i
> Maggie, I lost 60 lb between September and January, almost entirely > via diet (I'm 5' 6" and I went from 195 down to 135...which I'm just [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Mary G.
 Signature 223/173.2/180
joni - 11 Mar 2005 06:21 GMT > This is a very wise post that should be saved somewhere. Loved it! Saved it to my folder of favorite posts on my desktop. Yes occasionally amidst the daily fodder a wise worded gem like this gets posted :-) Sometimes its just not what you say (things you know but somehow dont hear it said well enough)but its how you phrase it that makes for a lightbulb moment of complete understanding. Thanks Mary for inspiring me today to keep at only what I can do for myself, to quit my whining and excuses and get on with my journey to a healthier life!
<<joni>>
Marguerite Dedam - 17 Mar 2005 23:19 GMT Hi there all;
Sorry it taken me a while to respond, i caught the flu and been out of commission for a while...but, i see i got quite a bit of respond, great advise....thanks,
Heidi - 11 Mar 2005 05:24 GMT Nice post, Mary. Thanks for taking the time to share all that.
Heidi
> Maggie, I lost 60 lb between September and January, almost entirely > via diet (I'm 5' 6" and I went from 195 down to 135...which I'm just [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Mary G.
|
|
|