A few tips from me on losing weight

[age4short]

Too much rocket science for the average individual & just confuses the issue, Revert back to the basics and enjoy the ride.

> Eliminate wheat products, processed food, sugar, fast food, starch including breakfast cereals, bread, potatoes, beer, fizzy drinks, chocolate, crisps, fruit juices, pasta & pastry. After a few weeks you won't be craving all that junk.

> Speed up your metabolism - As you get older your metabolism slows down so try to eat 4 or 5 smaller meals during the day and even substitute a meal or two with a low carb protein shake with some fruit especially just before going to bed. Drink plenty of water during the day & snack on fruit and nuts.

> do your cardio stuff first thing in the mornings & maybe gym in the afternoons.

> Avoid overtraining - design your programme (weights) to train each body part only once a week with a couple of days of complete rest.

> Keep it interesting - Vary different exercises for each body part, same with cardio eg: running, rowing, biking, skipping, boxing, walking.

Everything in moderation and if you crave your favourite food a cheat meal or two a week ain't going to hurt, the problem is when it's everyday.

With all the amazing food & variety in Thailand your already half way there. As a rule to meal portion sizes without the hassle of calorie counting etc. try protein as the size of your palm & carbs the size of your fist, also when eating slow down and enjoy the different flavours.

Exercising during weight loss will give you much better results appearance wise.

The hardest part is making a start and much better to just ease into it eliminating the bad and adding the good as you go.

I'm sure most Asian ladies would appreciate their men to be in reasonable shape without going over the top & you will feel better physically & mentally.

All the best on your journey....Cheers

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[HardenedSoul]

I dont really subscribe to the low carb diet long term either as I have seen a lot of people try it and then revert back to their old ways and of course get fatter than what they were to start with. Sure they had impressive short term results but they went too radical and couldnt sustain it.

That's the clincher. Reverting back to their old ways is the problem.

Low carb nutrition requires a fundamental change in attitude towards certain foods.

[tropo]

I dont really subscribe to the low carb diet long term either as I have seen a lot of people try it and then revert back to their old ways and of course get fatter than what they were to start with. Sure they had impressive short term results but they went too radical and couldnt sustain it.

That's the clincher. Reverting back to their old ways is the problem.

Low carb nutrition requires a fundamental change in attitude towards certain foods.

It requires more than an attitude change, because it's going against nature. I low carb'ed for a whole year and it's hard work. It doesn't get easy. It's much more satisfying to eat carbs. Keep the carbs high quality and don't eat processed junk.

Low carb'ing will always be difficult to follow in the long run. Natural desire for the more satisfying carbs will win out. Better just stick with a moderate level of carbs and a more "normal" macronutient balance and just keep the quantity down. Back to the old calories in vs calories out. You can't beat simplicity.

[JSixpack]

My "religious" view, is that sticking to a low carb diet can't be a long term strategy.

Yes it can and has. Why not? You have no idea, actually. Just more hot air--we both know that.

Why not check out the low carb forums and sites so that you can know something about what you're saying? Check out the reddit discussion here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/keto

Article you'll need to read 10 times on why diets fail:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-diets-fail/#axzz2jMSNxkfp

It's a short term strategy, with quick reward (rapid loss of weight), while you have not yet changed your unhealthy behaviors. A recipe for future disaster.

No. A low-carb diet in fact changes your previous unhealthy behaviours into healthy. Hence it implies no future disaster. On the contrary. Now, people do get sick and die no matter what diet they're on. Similarly some people (George Burns is my favorite example) live to remarkable old ages despite major unhealthy behaviors--question is, are YOU one of them?

And you forgot this portion of the report:

EAL Recommendation [/size]“Having patients focus on reducing carbohydrates rather than reducing calories and/or fat may be a short-term strategy for some individuals. Research indicates that focusing on reducing carbohydrate intake ([/size]<35% of kcal from carbohydrates) results in reduced energy intake. Consumption of a low- carbohydrate diet is associated with a greater weight and fat loss than traditional reduced-calorie diets during the first 6 months, but these differences are not significant after 1 year” ([/size]Rating: Fair, Conditional[/size]) ([/size]11[/size]).[/size]

Not at all. That merely says that

IF you've SUCCESSFULLY managed to suffer through the common symptoms of the low-fat calorie-deprivation diet:

• fatigue,
• irritability,
• depression,
• trouble concentrating,
• headaches,
• insomnia,
• dizziness,
• joint and muscle aches,
• heartburn,
• colitis,
• premenstrual syndrome,
• water retention and bloating,
• feeling hungry all the time,
• feeling a lack of energy,

and you've SUCCESSFULLY busted your ass in the gym, possibly injuring your joints and back (as did the OP) for a year (as most people can't, hence the obesity rate), and have accordingly achieved in 12 months what would taken 6 w/ little effort via low carb,

THEN IF you have the remarkable discipline to continue eating like a rabbit forever (because there's no maintenance phase: if you stop--as most people do (see below)--you just go back to gaining weight)

THEN you can likely maintain the lower body weight the low-carber enjoys almost effortlessly while eating fish, lamb, steak and lobster, nuts and berries, cheese, eggs and butter, olive oil along with a wonderful variety of salad greens and other vegetables.

So it just doesn't help your case much at all, sorry.

The EAL also notes that safety has not been evaluated for long-term, extreme restrictions of carbohydrates ([/size]<35% of energy from carbohydrates) and specifically recommends that practitioners use caution in suggest-ing a low-carbohydrate diet for even short-term use in patients with osteo- porosis, kidney disease, or in patients with increased low-density lipopro- tein cholesterol ([/size]11[/size]). [/size]

Ah, well, let's see the stats of overweight people who've died while following calorie restricted diets or better still while exercising. There are always people for whom a particular diet isn't appropriate.

Not a show stopper. Here's what we have.

We do have randomized studies that went on for as long as 2 years, with no adverse effects and nothing but positive effects on health (12).

There is absolutely no reason to believe that these diets should cause problems down the line.

There are several populations around the world that have eaten almost no carbohydrates for very long periods of times (their whole lives).

These include the Inuit, which ate almost no plant foods, and the Masai in Africa which ate mostly meat and drank raw milk and blood.

Both of these populations ate lots of meat and fat, were in excellent health, with no evidence of many of the chronic diseases that are killing Western populations by the millions.

But what we DO have are long-term studies on low-fat diets. In the Women’s Health Initiative, the largest randomized controlled trial ever on diet, low-fat diets were proven to be completely ineffective.

After 7.5 years, the low-fat dieters weighed only 0.4 kg (1 pound) less than women eating the standard western junk food diet. There was also no reduction in heart disease (13, 14).

Bottom Line: Studies showing health benefits of low-carb have gone for as long as 2 years. Populations that have eaten low-carb, high-fat diets for long periods of time are in excellent health.

--http://authoritynutrition.com/10-things-dietitians-say-about-low-carb-diets/

So you haven't told me that why a low-carb diet shouldn't continue to work. Let's have your logical reason.

[tropo]

So you haven't told me that why a low-carb diet shouldn't continue to work. Let's have your logical reason.

(You do realise that milk is a fairly decent source of carbs?)

Of course low-carb dieting will continue to work. The question is will people stay on it? Some will, but most will find it difficult, as I do. I just don't enjoy low carbing for extended periods of time.

Of course there are indigenous people in some areas of the world who naturally eat low carb diets, but that's something that's ingrained in their behaviour over generations of eating that way due to locally available food choices.

There are quite a few indigenous populations who live very well on very high carb diets. Over recorded history (as opposed to the mythical paleo cave dwellers) there's far more examples of populations subsisting on high carb diets.

So why all the obese people? It's the processing of the foods which is the cause, not the proportion of macronutrients.

Eat a natural diet with a moderate level of carbohydrates, and all you have to worry about is calories in vs calories out.

Edited November 2, 2013 by tropo

[JSixpack]

(You do realise that milk is a fairly decent source of carbs?)

Of course low-carb dieting will continue to work. The question is will people stay on it? Some will, but most will find it difficult, as I do. I just don't enjoy low carbing for extended periods of time.

Outweighed by the protein and fat. Add in the blood and you've got low-carb.

For the fat-prone, it will boil down to either feeling hungry and counting every last calorie, but enjoying more what little he can eat--and probably giving up after a while--or eating to satiety, not much counting, and feeling full on low-carb even though pizza (normal pizza) isn't on the list.

Neither way is perfectly delightful. I and many others find the low-carb vastly easier: what you can't eat becomes less important than what you can (bacon!). But you have to be completely over the carb addiction and able to splurge once in a while w/o getting hooked again. Overweight people find it harder because, not surprisingly, they do crave bad carbs above all. Studies have shown this.

There are now a huge number of resources for delicious low-carb recipes.

Of course there are indigenous people in some areas of the world who naturally eat low carb diets, but that's something that's ingrained in their behaviour over generations of eating that way due to locally available food choices.

There are quite a few indigenous populations who live very well on very high carb diets. Over recorded history (as opposed to the mythical paleo cave dwellers) there's far more examples of populations subsisting on high carb diets.

True, but the point in dispute was that low-carb must necessarily be unhealthy, esp over a long period. No evidence to suggest that, and much to suggest it's a lot more healthy, all considered.

Nor do we need to resort to "generations" to explain anything. Modern carb addiction starts with feeding babies sugary drinks and food to shut them up and make them eat more easily.

Again beside the point, but, you see, the indigenous carbs aren't refined carbs but fibrous. Of course one can lose weight by eating only spinach. Not all carbs are bad; one simply needs to be aware some are better than others. Next one must understand that it follows that not all calories are created equal, but such an extraordinary leap requires overcoming a lifetime of brainwashing. This man did:

A few months ago, Sam upped his intake to a massive 5,000 calories every day. For three weeks he got these calories from a low-fat, high-carb diet; for another three, he ate more fat and cut right back on carbs.

He did exactly the same, moderate exercise regimen each time.

Now, according to the conventional wisdom, the weight gain would be the same on both regimens. After all, a calorie is just a calorie.

In fact, on the low-fat diet Sam stacked on 16 lb - more than a stone - and gained 3.7 in(9.5 cm) around his middle.

But when he ate more fat and cut his carbs, he added just 2½ lb and lost 1 in (2.5 cm) from his waistline.

'I've long been sceptical of the claim that all calories are created equal,' says Sam, who's just over 6 ft tall and normally weighs 14 st (89 kg).

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2459915/Could-low-fat-diet-make-EVEN-FATTER-As-experts-question-conventional-wisdom-diets-extraordinary-results-mans-experiment.html#ixzz2jaJj6PkE

So why all the obese people? It's the processing of the foods which is the cause, not the proportion of macronutrients.

If by processing, you mean "refined carbs" I can agree with you, but I'd avoid unrefined starches of the high glycemic variety as well.

Eat a natural diet with a moderate level of carbohydrates, and all you have to worry about is calories in vs calories out.

No. But I'll hit this again on another day. I'm hungry now for some curry chicken with skin on it and a nice salad smothered in olive oil and Italian spices. It's waiting . . . .

Edited November 3, 2013 by JSixpack

[tropo]

*deleted* (stand by for another installment later after I've finished my high-carb meal )

Edited November 3, 2013 by tropo

[MrHammer]

As my weight loss story has brought a lot of debate, the latest lowest weight was 97.1 kg which then with hydration (I had been drinking) now is stabilized around 98 kg, which then comes out at a weight loss of 5 kgs in about 4 months. About 8 kgs to go now.

I will say this, that I now believe JSixpack is right about cardio vs strength training for weight loss. I also now believe that cardio is better for weight loss, but the problem with cardio is that it is difficult to do in sufficiently high intensity if you're overweight. Running on a treadmill or stationary biking is horribly boring and unmotivating which makes it difficult to push yourself enough.

What I've found works however are two things. One is to stay a lot more active during the day, walking instead of riding, taking the stairs instead of elevator. The only problem with this is the insane humidity in Bangkok, the pollution and the poor sidewalks. It is much easier to walk around almost anywhere but Bangkok.

Second is to do a competitive sport. I used to play competitive basketball and decided to check out the games in Lumpini and Benjasiri. That was a very good idea, because I had forgotten how much I like playing basketball which itself is a very high intensive sport of sprints and explosive movements. Before you know it, you've spent 1.5 hours at high intensity something I simply cant do on a treadmill.

My conclusion is that finding a sport where you can't wait to play or do again is the best way to do cardio. Competition is even better because it really ups your intensity. There are also studies showing increased testosterone from competition.

Another thing I've begun doing is eating out more. I avoid having food around the house. Rather buy a good steak or a good pasta carbonara. I do not find Thai food to be very good for satisfying hunger. Too much rice, not enough meat.

In any case, I have a goal to make it 95 kg before Christmas, which would be almost a 10 kg weightloss in 6 months.

[Tolley]

As my weight loss story has brought a lot of debate, the latest lowest weight was 97.1 kg which then with hydration (I had been drinking) now is stabilized around 98 kg, which then comes out at a weight loss of 5 kgs in about 4 months. About 8 kgs to go now.

I will say this, that I now believe JSixpack is right about cardio vs strength training for weight loss. I also now believe that cardio is better for weight loss, but the problem with cardio is that it is difficult to do in sufficiently high intensity if you're overweight. Running on a treadmill or stationary biking is horribly boring and unmotivating which makes it difficult to push yourself enough.

What I've found works however are two things. One is to stay a lot more active during the day, walking instead of riding, taking the stairs instead of elevator. The only problem with this is the insane humidity in Bangkok, the pollution and the poor sidewalks. It is much easier to walk around almost anywhere but Bangkok.

Second is to do a competitive sport. I used to play competitive basketball and decided to check out the games in Lumpini and Benjasiri. That was a very good idea, because I had forgotten how much I like playing basketball which itself is a very high intensive sport of sprints and explosive movements. Before you know it, you've spent 1.5 hours at high intensity something I simply cant do on a treadmill.

My conclusion is that finding a sport where you can't wait to play or do again is the best way to do cardio. Competition is even better because it really ups your intensity. There are also studies showing increased testosterone from competition.

Another thing I've begun doing is eating out more. I avoid having food around the house. Rather buy a good steak or a good pasta carbonara. I do not find Thai food to be very good for satisfying hunger. Too much rice, not enough meat.

In any case, I have a goal to make it 95 kg before Christmas, which would be almost a 10 kg weightloss in 6 months.

The cardio vs resistance training for weight loss argument is an interesting one.

Firstly you need to look at body fat levels when you are attempting weight loss as this is the only true measure if you are looking for healthy outcomes.

So with that in mind doing resistance training might even put some weight on but provided it is muscle and not fat that is all good.

Further as you get older you lose muscle mass so it is important to do some resistance and it doesnt have to be a real lot to see positive benefits.

Added benefits of resistance training are that more muscle burns fat quicker boost metabolism. And of course with more muscle you will be more active which in turn will help with fat management.

You also reduce risk of osteoporosis and you will look and feel better so I would definitely incorporate resistance training in any weight loss regime.

You do get pretty hungry after resistance training so you need to manage what you eat carefully so you dont eat rubbish just because you are hungry.

I would also do cardio and if you can find a sport to do it in all the better. Cardio is a bit of a chore if you have to do it in the gym but if you play a sport then you get your cardio and have a bit of fun too. The good thing of cardio is that if it is heavy cardio then you usually dont feel like eating much afterwards so it is easier to keep your food intake down.

Having said all of that I still believe that if you are only going to do one thing then you are better of with resistance training. Remember too you can incorporate cardio in resistance training anyway if you do circuit style training.

The important thing is to stop looking at the weight scales are start looking at your fat levels and waist measurement and that will give you a better indication of how you are tracking in gettting into good physical condition.

As for food intake if you stick to eliminating refined carbs, and sugar and bread, and have brown rice as your carb fix and/or oats then you should do pretty well.

[singa-traz]

As my weight loss story has brought a lot of debate, the latest lowest weight was 97.1 kg which then with hydration (I had been drinking) now is stabilized around 98 kg, which then comes out at a weight loss of 5 kgs in about 4 months. About 8 kgs to go now.

...

My conclusion is that finding a sport where you can't wait to play or do again is the best way to do cardio. Competition is even better because it really ups your intensity. There are also studies showing increased testosterone from competition.

Another thing I've begun doing is eating out more. I avoid having food around the house. Rather buy a good steak or a good pasta carbonara. I do not find Thai food to be very good for satisfying hunger. Too much rice, not enough meat.

In any case, I have a goal to make it 95 kg before Christmas, which would be almost a 10 kg weightloss in 6 months.

Do you track your activities? There are a couple of solution for this: Runtastic, Endomondo, Fitbit, ...

I found it useful to have an history and a baseline of my activities. And if you do this with friends, you have a nice peer pressure, that can support your decision to do something. And if you publish them on a social network (FB, G+), it's always nice to get cheers from them.

Focusing on activities would also ensure you keep doing them, even after reaching your "ideal" weight goal.

[JSixpack]

I will say this, that I now believe JSixpack is right about cardio vs strength training for weight loss.

YAY!

There's no doubt about it, really.

I also now believe that cardio is better for weight loss, but the problem with cardio is that it is difficult to do in sufficiently high intensity if you're overweight. Running on a treadmill or stationary biking is horribly boring and unmotivating which makes it difficult to push yourself enough.

What I've found works however are two things. One is to stay a lot more active during the day, walking instead of riding, taking the stairs instead of elevator. The only problem with this is the insane humidity in Bangkok, the pollution and the poor sidewalks. It is much easier to walk around almost anywhere but Bangkok.

Fast walking is good. Try for 45 min. Best if you can add in short intervals of speed, but no matter. If you have your own machine at home, there's nothing like watching a series or movie while you do your cardio. Other than that, listen to music on your mp3 player. Helps immensely!

Bangkok: yep. Equipment needed: sweat band, water bottle, light hiking boots, mp3 player. And the obvious.

But I suggest the bigger shopping malls! You can hike forever in Central World.

My conclusion is that finding a sport where you can't wait to play or do again is the best way to do cardio. Competition is even better because it really ups your intensity. There are also studies showing increased testosterone from competition.

Exactly right. Sports are wonderful, 'long as you don't get injured of course.

Mark has some thoughts on this idea:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/10-tips-for-successful-play/#axzz2jeOmCkyH

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/i-hate-to-exercise/#axzz2jeOmCkyH

Another thing I've begun doing is eating out more. I avoid having food around the house. Rather buy a good steak or a good pasta carbonara. I do not find Thai food to be very good for satisfying hunger. Too much rice, not enough meat.

In any case, I have a goal to make it 95 kg before Christmas, which would be almost a 10 kg weightloss in 6 months.

The more refined carbs you eat (pasta),

fruits, and starches, the harder it will be for you to lose weight. Stick to meat, fish, and lots of veggies--and eat all you want. Do that, and fat won't hurt you, so you can add that in as well. You'll get used to it in 2 weeks.

So then you should be able to reach your goal. Good luck.

Edited November 4, 2013 by JSixpack

[JSixpack]

The point is that if you want to debunk the laws of physics, the onus is upon you to prove them wrong, not the other way around.

Time to lay this little chestnut to rest.

It's not a matter of debunking the laws of physics but merely a matter of debunking the misinterpretations and misapplications of those laws such as those promulgated by yourself. When you claim that an elephant must be bigger than a cheetah because it eats more--you see, some factors, rather important factors, have been, well, overlooked. (Before you get your knickers in a twist and think you win a point by denying you said that--no, you didn't say that, lterally.)

Here's a man with a degree in physics from Harvard who's also written several well-researched, well-respected books on nutrition as related to weight loss. He tells you exactly what your problem is with the thermo thing. In fact, he might be speaking directly to you. You'll need to watch this 10 times. There's much more, but this little excerpt should do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndy3SgqzHcY

[tropo]

The point is that if you want to debunk the laws of physics, the onus is upon you to prove them wrong, not the other way around.

Time to lay this little chestnut to rest.

It's not a matter of debunking the laws of physics but merely a matter of debunking the misinterpretations and misapplications of those laws such as those promulgated by yourself. When you claim that an elephant must be bigger than a cheetah because it eats more--you see, some factors, rather important factors, have been, well, overlooked. (Before you get your knickers in a twist and think you win a point by denying you said that--no, you didn't say that, lterally.)

Here's a man with a degree in physics from Harvard who's also written several well-researched, well-respected books on nutrition as related to weight loss. He tells you exactly what your problem is with the thermo thing. In fact, he might be speaking directly to you. You'll need to watch this 10 times. There's much more, but this little excerpt should do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndy3SgqzHcY

(You're putting a lot of effort in here. Now you're responding to earlier posts after you've already taken care of later ones....)

I watched the video once - that was sufficient.

The guy in the video explains that the laws of thermodynamics are always true and they are a given, however they are irrelevant to the problem of obesity because it doesn't explain causality.

I disagree that they are irrelevant. They're not the only factor, but not irrelevant. I believe he's taken it too far. (how dare me argue with a Harvard physicist)

Get back on that Google search engine. I really am interested in seeing the "there's much more".

[JSixpack]

I disagree that they are irrelevant. They're not the only factor, but not irrelevant. I believe he's taken it too far. (how dare me argue with a Harvard physicist:D)

Nice try, but we can all see that you, predictably, have no argument at all to support your disagreement but merely a cute lil' ol' me assertion pretending to be an argument.

So, given your response, it's boiled down to an amusing case of The Emperor's New Clothes.

I love this forum!

Get back on that Google search engine. I really am interested in seeing the "there's much more".

If you were really interested, you'd Google for yourself--or read a book. Why pretend?

This conviction that positive caloric balance causes weight gain is founded on the belief that this proposition is an incontrovertible implication of the first law of thermodynamics. . . .

For fifty years, clinicians, nutritionists, researchers, and public health officials have used this logic as the starting point for virtually every discussion of obesity. Anyone who challenges this view is seen as willfully disregarding a scientific truth. “Let me state,” said the Columbia University physiologist John Taggart in his introduction to an obesity symposium in the early 1950s, “that we have implicit faith in the validity of the first law of thermodynamics.” “A calorie is a calorie,” and “Calories in equals calories out,” and that’s that.

But it isn’t. This faith in the laws of thermodynamics is founded on two misinterpretations of thermodynamic law, and not in the law itself. When these misconceptions are corrected, they alter our perceptions of weight regulation and the forces at work.

The first misconception is the assumption that an association implies cause and effect. Here the context is the first law of thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation. This law says that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and so the calories we consume will be either stored, expended, or excreted. This in turn implies that any change in body weight must equal the difference between the calories we consume and the calories we expend, and thus the positive or negative energy balance. Known as the energy-balance equation, it looks like this:

Change in energy stores = Energy intake-Energy expenditure

The first law of thermodynamics dictates that weight gain—the increase in energy stored as fat and lean-tissue mass—will be accompanied by or associated with positive energy balance, but it does not say that it is caused by a positive energy balance—by “a plethora of calories,” as Russell Cecil and Robert Loeb’s 1951 Textbook of Medicine put it. There is no arrow of causality in the equation. It is equally possible, without violating this fundamental truth, for a change in energy stores, the left side of the above equation, to be the driving force in cause and effect; some regulatory phenomenon could drive us to gain weight, which would in turn cause a positive energy balance—and thus overeating and/or sedentary behavior. Either way, the calories in will equal the calories out, as they must, but what is cause in one case is effect in the other.

All those who have insisted (and still do) that overeating and/or sedentary behavior must be the cause of obesity have done so on the basis of this same fundamental error: they will observe correctly that positive caloric balance must be associated with weight gain, but then they will assume without justification that positive caloric balance is the cause of weight gain. This simple misconception has led to a century of misguided obesity research.

When the law of energy conservation is interpreted correctly, either of two possibilities is allowed. It may be true that overeating and/or physical inactivity (positive caloric balance) can cause overweight and obesity, but the evidence and the observations, as we’ve discussed, argue otherwise. The alternative hypothesis reverses the causality: we are driven to get fat by “primary metabolic or enzymatic defects,” as Hilde Bruch phrased it, and this fattening process induces the compensatory responses of overeating and/or physical inactivity. We eat more, move less, and have less energy to expend because we are metabolically or hormonally driven to get fat.

. . .

The second misinterpretation of the law of energy conservation inevitably accompanies the first and is equally unjustifiable. The idea that obesity is caused by the slow accumulation of excess calories, day in and day out, over years or decades, and the associated idea that it can be prevented by reductions in caloric intake and/or increases in physical activity, are both based on an assumption about how the three variables in the energy-balance equation—energy storage, energy intake, and energy expenditure—relate to each other. They assume that energy intake and energy expenditure are what mathematicians call independent variables; we can change one without affecting the other. “We cannot get away from the fact that, given no change in physical activity [my italics], increased food means increased weight,” as John Yudkin phrased it in 1959. “Yet this simple expression of the laws of conservation of mass and of energy is still received with indignation by very many people.” But Yudkin’s purportedly inescapable truth included an assumption that may not be physiologically plausible: “given no change in physical activity.” The question is whether one can actually change energy intake in a living organism without prompting compensatory changes in energy expenditure.

When Carl von Noorden suggested in 1900 that obesity could be caused by eating one extra slice of bread every day or climbing fewer flights of stairs, so that a few extra dozen calories each day would accumulate over a decade into tens of pounds, and when the USDA Dietary Guidelines, over a century later, evoked the same concept with the suggestion that “for most adults a reduction of 50 to 100 calories per day may prevent gradual weight gain,” they were treating human beings as though they are simple machines. “There is only one trouble,” as Hilde Bruch commented about von Noorden’s logic—“human beings do not function this way.” . . .

--Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories

[tropo]

I disagree that they are irrelevant. They're not the only factor, but not irrelevant. I believe he's taken it too far. (how dare me argue with a Harvard physicist:D)

Nice try, but we can all see that you, predictably, have no argument at all to support your disagreement but merely a cute lil' ol' me assertion pretending to be an argument.

So, given your response, it's boiled down to an amusing case of The Emperor's New Clothes.

I love this forum!

Get back on that Google search engine. I really am interested in seeing the "there's much more".

If you were really interested, you'd Google for yourself--or read a book. Why pretend?

I am interested, but unfortunately the way you bash your way across, and the snide remarks you make, and the insulting way you put forward your arguments assuming that everyone else is an idiot --- takes emphasis away from the debate and turns it into a pissing contest.

i.e. We want to disagree just for the hell of it.

Yes, I can Google quite fine thanks, but it's nice to see how a single remark can motivate you to work so hard. Right now, at this point of time I'm working on other things and don't have the spare time. You obviously have unlimited time to devote to this debate right now, so I'll leave the work to you.

The Harvard graduate who posted the video is using his qualifications to strengthen his point (that in itself is bad form), but he doesn't actually say anything other than the laws of thermodynamics are valid but they are irrelevant to the problem of obesity because they don't indicate causality.

Perhaps I should have viewed it 9 more times?

[Jingthing]

This Gary Taubes knows the score.

[tropo]

This Gary Taubes knows the score.

Yeah, you would like him, because he's basically saying that obesity is not caused by overeating.

Or put another way, eating more doesn't result in weight gain.

[Jingthing]

This Gary Taubes knows the score.

Yeah, you would like him, because he's basically saying that obesity is not caused by overeating.

Or put another way, eating more doesn't result in weight gain.

Is this like primitive and simplistic true believer FAITH in simple math about calories in and out like a religion?

[tropo]

This Gary Taubes knows the score.

Yeah, you would like him, because he's basically saying that obesity is not caused by overeating.

Or put another way, eating more doesn't result in weight gain.

Is this like primitive and simplistic true believer FAITH in simple math about calories in and out like a religion?

Most people observe an increase in weight (fat) when they start to eat more. Not one of my wife's impoverished family didn't gain a considerable amount of fat once we started putting more food on their table. I see this each and every day in poorer countries. I've seen weight increases at incredible rates of speed....just from eating more.

Isn't it amazing - that a person would gain weight from eating more? Is believing that eating too much is the basic cause of obesity some kind of crazy religion?

The chapter written by Taubs and posted by JSixpack above is a very good example of "baffling with bullshit" or perhaps "blinding with science"... then using his Harvard degree to add credibility to his ideas and books.

I don't mind if you're a Gary Taubes fanboy, but his word is far from gospel.

[Tolley]

The whole calories in calories out argument has never been correct or true. There are just way too many varialbes for it to be true. Casual observation can bear this out.

Many factors including things like digestive function, liver function, metabolic syndrome, thyroid function, testosterone levels, hormone imbalances etc will have an effect on weight gain or loss nonwithstanding actually calorie intake.

Then we need to look at the type of food being eaten and food combinations that also affect weight gain or loss so I will never buy the simplistic calories in calories out argument. It has been well proven now that eliminating sugars and carbs from the diet results in significant weight loss despite the fact that calorie intake may not have changed.

Of course if we take the calories intake argument to the extreme we would expect severe calorie restriction to result in weight loss as we would extreme calories intake to give weight gain. So in very general terms calories in calories out has some logic but it fails the test in too many other areas.

[robblok]

The whole calories in calories out argument has never been correct or true. There are just way too many varialbes for it to be true. Casual observation can bear this out.

Many factors including things like digestive function, liver function, metabolic syndrome, thyroid function, testosterone levels, hormone imbalances etc will have an effect on weight gain or loss nonwithstanding actually calorie intake.

Then we need to look at the type of food being eaten and food combinations that also affect weight gain or loss so I will never buy the simplistic calories in calories out argument. It has been well proven now that eliminating sugars and carbs from the diet results in significant weight loss despite the fact that calorie intake may not have changed.

Of course if we take the calories intake argument to the extreme we would expect severe calorie restriction to result in weight loss as we would extreme calories intake to give weight gain. So in very general terms calories in calories out has some logic but it fails the test in too many other areas.

I still believe in calories in vs calories out. That does not mean that the things you are talking about are right too.

They did an experiment in the Netherlands on stuff like coca cola and saw that kids that took it gained more weight then they should have only counting calories.

But I am always talking about this in healthy individuals they in general have no metabolic syndrome and thyroid and other problems. Even then eating less will cause them to loose weight and eating more to gain weight. Only the rate of burn has been decreased by their problems. That does NOT invalidate the calories out VS in it just ads more variables.

In truth most obese people are healthy and just eating too much and the wrong stuff. I refuse to believe they are all having health problems.

[Tolley]

The whole calories in calories out argument has never been correct or true. There are just way too many varialbes for it to be true. Casual observation can bear this out.

Many factors including things like digestive function, liver function, metabolic syndrome, thyroid function, testosterone levels, hormone imbalances etc will have an effect on weight gain or loss nonwithstanding actually calorie intake.

Then we need to look at the type of food being eaten and food combinations that also affect weight gain or loss so I will never buy the simplistic calories in calories out argument. It has been well proven now that eliminating sugars and carbs from the diet results in significant weight loss despite the fact that calorie intake may not have changed.

Of course if we take the calories intake argument to the extreme we would expect severe calorie restriction to result in weight loss as we would extreme calories intake to give weight gain. So in very general terms calories in calories out has some logic but it fails the test in too many other areas.

I still believe in calories in vs calories out. That does not mean that the things you are talking about are right too.

They did an experiment in the Netherlands on stuff like coca cola and saw that kids that took it gained more weight then they should have only counting calories.

But I am always talking about this in healthy individuals they in general have no metabolic syndrome and thyroid and other problems. Even then eating less will cause them to loose weight and eating more to gain weight. Only the rate of burn has been decreased by their problems. That does NOT invalidate the calories out VS in it just ads more variables.

In truth most obese people are healthy and just eating too much and the wrong stuff. I refuse to believe they are all having health problems.

Unfortunately the majority or people arent healthy at all. So I wouldnt even begin to use that as an argument. Heck the percentage of people diagnosed with type 11 diabetes is huge and then you have to consider all those that are running around without it being diagnosed and that is only one condition amongst many other potential condtions.

And of course you have conveniently ignored the research on low carb regimes as a mean to losing weight despite the fact this has been tested and proved numerous times

And you are still ignoring hormones. Why do you think older body builders take testosterone? Because they cant shift that fat around the gut regardless of how strict they are on diet.

Now I dont want to ignore the fact that personal responisbility needs to come into the equation nor the fact that how much you eat is a contributing to factor to weight gain but there are a lot of other variables that need to be considered as well.

[Jingthing]

The obesity research that is going to make a REAL difference in percentage of long term success rates is going to come from actual scientists who address the COMPLEXITY of the biological aspects of obesity, causes and solutions. The public may be left behind believing old wives tales.

[robblok]

The whole calories in calories out argument has never been correct or true. There are just way too many varialbes for it to be true. Casual observation can bear this out.

Many factors including things like digestive function, liver function, metabolic syndrome, thyroid function, testosterone levels, hormone imbalances etc will have an effect on weight gain or loss nonwithstanding actually calorie intake.

Then we need to look at the type of food being eaten and food combinations that also affect weight gain or loss so I will never buy the simplistic calories in calories out argument. It has been well proven now that eliminating sugars and carbs from the diet results in significant weight loss despite the fact that calorie intake may not have changed.

Of course if we take the calories intake argument to the extreme we would expect severe calorie restriction to result in weight loss as we would extreme calories intake to give weight gain. So in very general terms calories in calories out has some logic but it fails the test in too many other areas.

I still believe in calories in vs calories out. That does not mean that the things you are talking about are right too.

They did an experiment in the Netherlands on stuff like coca cola and saw that kids that took it gained more weight then they should have only counting calories.

But I am always talking about this in healthy individuals they in general have no metabolic syndrome and thyroid and other problems. Even then eating less will cause them to loose weight and eating more to gain weight. Only the rate of burn has been decreased by their problems. That does NOT invalidate the calories out VS in it just ads more variables.

In truth most obese people are healthy and just eating too much and the wrong stuff. I refuse to believe they are all having health problems.

Unfortunately the majority or people arent healthy at all. So I wouldnt even begin to use that as an argument. Heck the percentage of people diagnosed with type 11 diabetes is huge and then you have to consider all those that are running around without it being diagnosed and that is only one condition amongst many other potential condtions.

And of course you have conveniently ignored the research on low carb regimes as a mean to losing weight despite the fact this has been tested and proved numerous times

And you are still ignoring hormones. Why do you think older body builders take testosterone? Because they cant shift that fat around the gut regardless of how strict they are on diet.

Now I dont want to ignore the fact that personal responisbility needs to come into the equation nor the fact that how much you eat is a contributing to factor to weight gain but there are a lot of other variables that need to be considered as well.

Never for a minute did I say there are no other factors that contribute. I actually eat fairly low carb and have for a long time now. Though I do get my carbs of course.

The older bodybuilders take hormones for more reasons as only the fat around their belly. It might also help shifting fat around the belly but its more for keeping onto muscles.

I might have ignored the diabetic part, I am just not taking it as far as no carbs. But I have been relatively low carb high protein since I started my weight loss and it served me well. I tried a few times to go around zero carbs but that was not my thing.

[robblok]

The obesity research that is going to make a REAL difference in percentage of long term success rates is going to come from actual scientists who address the COMPLEXITY of the biological aspects of obesity, causes and solutions. The public may be left behind believing old wives tales.

JT,

Its either a case of eating too much or the wrong stuff.

In my opinion part of the problem is that there are a lot of bad addetives in the popular foods that are consumed. Producers would not want to change that easily. (high fructose corn syrup)

Even when that research about kids and drinking a can of coca cola a day was done in the Netherlands the representatives of coca cola flat-out denied it of course. Money is nr one for many big companies and in the USA corn growers and others that have been pointed out as unhealthy have large government backing. This isnt going away easy unless the consumer takes charge himself and does not take those potentially bad foods

[robblok]

This Gary Taubes knows the score.

Yeah, you would like him, because he's basically saying that obesity is not caused by overeating.

Or put another way, eating more doesn't result in weight gain.

There might be some relation to what you eat and weight gain a Dutch study shown that kids who drank coca cola (1 can each day provided by the researchers) gained more weight as could be expected from that one can.

So there might be some stuff that really does impede a persons metabolic rate. The question is what products are those and how much. I certainly don't believe you can eat all you want if you eat the right foods. It is just one factor of.

[Tolley]

The obesity research that is going to make a REAL difference in percentage of long term success rates is going to come from actual scientists who address the COMPLEXITY of the biological aspects of obesity, causes and solutions. The public may be left behind believing old wives tales.

A good naturopath in many cases can help with overall health issues that maybe affecting a persons ability to lose weight because they look at the condition of the whole body. No one size fits all. The changes dont happen overnight and they may require tweaking til you get things right but the body can heal itself and regain full vitality in most cases if the right path is taken.

The naturopath I see in Oz told me last time I saw her that the majority of people when faced with the changes required to fix their health are not prepared to do the hard yards and prefer quick fixes.

She says this is especially the case with younger people who are brought up with the notion of miracle cures and pills to fix everything.

[tropo]

Of course if we take the calories intake argument to the extreme we would expect severe calorie restriction to result in weight loss as we would extreme calories intake to give weight gain. So in very general terms calories in calories out has some logic but it fails the test in too many other areas.

You don't need to restrict calories to the extreme to lose weight. A moderate restriction will do the trick... of course, unless you can measure fat accurately you may not be able to quantify the results.

[tropo]

The obesity research that is going to make a REAL difference in percentage of long term success rates is going to come from actual scientists who address the COMPLEXITY of the biological aspects of obesity, causes and solutions. The public may be left behind believing old wives tales.

IMO this is nonsense. The only research scientists are interested in (due to allocation of research funds) is finding magic drugs.

Long term weight loss success is not a diet issue, or a scientific issue. It's a behavioral issue. People do not lose their taste for "nasty" foods. I was on a low carb and very clean diet for a year. Did I lose my taste for cakes, chocolate or ice cream (for example). No ***ing way. I probably craved it more.

You're using this idea that most diets don't work long term as an excuse for your lack of progress.

[tropo]

The changes dont happen overnight and they may require tweaking til you get things right but the body can heal itself and regain full vitality in most cases if the right path is taken.

This is just fantasy and quite typical of naturapaths. No matter how well you eat you're still aging and you're going to die when the body breaks down to the point where it can no longer sustain life. The clock is ticking.

Sure, you can improve on certain aspects of your health as you're going down, but you ARE going down.

I know you're a proponent of this idea that you can age in perfect health. One day you wake up in perfect health and then die.

Edited November 5, 2013 by tropo