A few tips from me on losing weight

[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.

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.

You are wrong. The major pharma companies are not seriously working on such meds now. To understand why, watch the show I suggested: The Men Who Made Us Thin. There will be revolutionary therapies in future but likely not in the form of a magic pill, more like other kinds of medical therapies. I'm sick of your nasty personal dirt slinging campaign against me. You speak from total ignorance of my actual POV or my actual experience -- your attacks are totally superficial, cheap, and not based on any reality. This is supposed to be a supportive forum, not a place for attack dogs against people who have long term obesity struggles. Speak to actual issues, fine, but bloody stop with your endless personal attacks, OK? If that's all you've got is continued repetitive personal digs, why say anything? You said it once, OK, such mean spirited nastiness once can be ignored as noise, but now how many times, I've seriously lost count.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Jingthing

[tropo]

You are wrong. The major pharma companies are not seriously working on such meds now. To understand why, watch the show I suggested: The Men Who Made Us Thin. There will be revolutionary therapies in future but likely not in the form of a magic pill, more like other kinds of medical therapies. I'm sick of your nasty personal dirt slinging campaign against me. You speak from total ignorance of my actual POV or my actual experience -- your attacks are totally superficial, cheap, and not based on any reality. This is supposed to be a supportive forum, not a place for attack dogs against people who have long term obesity struggles. Speak to actual issues, fine, but bloody stop with your endless personal attacks, OK? If that's all you've got is continued repetitive personal digs, why say anything? You said it once, OK, such mean spirited nastiness once OK, but now how many times, I've seriously lost count.

Stop crying mate ... I don't have a personal vendetta against you - that's all in your head.

If my posts bother you so much, put me on ignore, because I'm not about to stop posting to cater to your new found sensitivities.

You're always suggesting that dieting doesn't work long term. I'm telling you why I think that is - it's human behaviour.

If you think the major pharma companies have stopped looking for magic pills, you're dreaming. They are not interested in your health. They're only interested in making money.

Edited November 5, 2013 by tropo

[robblok]

JT

Actually I think companies would work on it as it would be a great money maker for them. Obesity is a problem and everyone want an easy answer so it would be a great market.

[FiftyTwo]

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 thats that.

But it isnt. 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 gainthe increase in energy stored as fat and lean-tissue masswill be accompanied by or associated with positive energy balance, but it does not say that it is caused by a positive energy balanceby a plethora of calories, as Russell Cecil and Robert Loebs 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 balanceand 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 weve 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 equationenergy storage, energy intake, and energy expenditurerelate 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 Yudkins 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 Noordens logichuman beings do not function this way. . . .

--Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories

I lost 12Kg in the last year, all with exercise, and lots of it.

I do so much exercise that I can now eat all I want, and I still lose weight.

Those friends that I exercise with, who were thin to start with, have problems keeping their weight up.

I started at 90Kg, am now 78Kg, and reducing.

One of them started at 75Kg, and is now 68Kg.

People get fat because they sit around all day, if you do a lot of exercise it is impossible to get fat.

As for those I quoted, keep looking for an excuse to be fat, and you will always be fat.

It takes hard work to be thin.

Edited November 5, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[Tolley]

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.

How much experience do you have with naturopaths?

Have you ever even seen one?

Look we all get old nobody denies that and of course as you age it gets more difficult to stay healthy but there are healthy old people out there.

But dont expect a healthy 80 year old to be doing the same things as a healthy 20 year old that is just not going to happen.

[FiftyTwo]

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.

When I was 30 I was a fat pudding, at double that age I am a slim athlete.

How much longer can I keep it up, don't know, but I do know an older guy that's 63 and can kick my ass.

You ain't dead until you're dead.

As for an 80 year old being fitter than a 20 year old.

Don't know, but at 60, I'll give that 20 year old a run for his money (with a 80% chance of winning).

Edited November 5, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[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.

How much experience do you have with naturopaths?

Have you ever even seen one?

Look we all get old nobody denies that and of course as you age it gets more difficult to stay healthy but there are healthy old people out there.

But dont expect a healthy 80 year old to be doing the same things as a healthy 20 year old that is just not going to happen.

Maybe you're lucky and everything is working just great, but despite a lifetime of trying to take care of my health I have problems which aren't going to get any better. If I can stop them getting worse that will be the best I can expect.

Yes, I had experience with naturapaths, but years ago. They're just guessing at what is best, just as everyone else does...but we have to pay for their guesses. I believe they're a waste of money, but don't worry, that's only a personal opinion.

I believe naturapaths are outdated due to the volume of information now available online. At least now it's easier to questions their suggestions and read debates on everything.

[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.

When I was 30 I was a fat pudding, at double that age I am a slim athlete.

How much longer can I keep it up, don't know, but I do know an older guy that's 63 and can kick my ass.

You ain't dead until you're dead.

As for an 80 year old being fitter than a 20 year old.

Don't know, but at 60, I'll give that 20 year old a run for his money (with a 80% chance of winning).

I've been in good shape all my life. I wasn't fat at 30 and I'm not fat now, so I'm in a better position to notice the natural decline which comes with aging, because I've been going to the gym since I was 15 years old (39 years in total).

Sure, I can run rings around many younger men in the gym (muscular endurance and strength wise - not running), but that doesn't change the fact I'm going down. The only reason I can give the young guys a run for their money is because they're not using their full potential and I work harder.

I'm not trying to be negative - just keeping it real.

[FiftyTwo]

Sure, I can run rings around many younger men in the gym (muscular endurance and strength wise - not running), but that doesn't change the fact I'm going down. The only reason I can give the young guys a run for their money is because they're not using their full potential and I work harder.

I'm not trying to be negative - just keeping it real.

At 54 you're going down.

At 58 I'm going up.

Sure at some stage we (exercise and training fanatics) reach our peak, but for 99% of the population, they never do.

I'm thinking most of the posters on this thread are nowhere near their peaks.

Edited November 5, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[tropo]

Sure, I can run rings around many younger men in the gym (muscular endurance and strength wise - not running), but that doesn't change the fact I'm going down. The only reason I can give the young guys a run for their money is because they're not using their full potential and I work harder.

I'm not trying to be negative - just keeping it real.

At 54 you're going down.

At 58 I'm going up.

Sure at some stage we (exercise and training fanatics) reach our peak, but for 99% of the population, they never do.

I'm thinking most of the posters on this thread are nowhere near their peaks.

I'm pretty sure I reached my strength peak several years ago (late 40's). That peak is starting to decline, mainly due to joint issues.

My new training moto is: "first, do no harm". It's easy to cause serious injuries if you're constantly trying to increase your weights. The same would be true if you're an endurance athlete and trying to go faster or longer. At some point you need to start training for your age. If you don't, serious injuries can result that may never heal.

By all means, be confident, but not over-confident.

[Tolley]

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.

How much experience do you have with naturopaths?

Have you ever even seen one?

Look we all get old nobody denies that and of course as you age it gets more difficult to stay healthy but there are healthy old people out there.

But dont expect a healthy 80 year old to be doing the same things as a healthy 20 year old that is just not going to happen.

Maybe you're lucky and everything is working just great, but despite a lifetime of trying to take care of my health I have problems which aren't going to get any better. If I can stop them getting worse that will be the best I can expect.

Yes, I had experience with naturapaths, but years ago. They're just guessing at what is best, just as everyone else does...but we have to pay for their guesses. I believe they're a waste of money, but don't worry, that's only a personal opinion.

I believe naturapaths are outdated due to the volume of information now available online. At least now it's easier to questions their suggestions and read debates on everything.

I am not worried at all what you think about naturopaths.

Most people think they are quacks so no news to me just as most people think that taking vitamins and supplements and eating organic food is a waste of money.

And there are lots of useless naturopaths and useless supplements on the market so if their experience is with said then they would think like that.

But the best thing i ever did was see a naturopath back in the early 80s because what she told me has kept me in good stead for years and believe me she doesnt believe in quick fixes but she will point you in the right direction and the rest is up to you. No miracle cures there. I have also sent many people to her over the years and she got great results with them as well provided they were prepared to make the necessary changes to diet lifestyle etc

Internet research will go only so far you cant beat experience with lots of people over many years and that is what these practioners have.

Of course there are no guarantees with any of us when it comes to health as there are a variety of factors that may occur which are outside of our control that may influence our long term well being like inherited condtions and mutant genes etc, also accidents. Life takes it toll emotionally as well for many people which then manifests in physical ill health.

[udit318]

hii i am udit i suggested u few tips from losing weight:

1.daily running within 2 km

2. neglect junk food

3.leave laziness

[Jingthing]

I would add:

Add more fresh vegetables especially leafy greens and broccoli, preferably daily.

Eat enough protein.

Cut starches like bread, pasta, white rice.

[robblok]

Getting loads more vegetables since I am juicing.. not sure if it helps weight loss but it sure does give me a lot more energy. (juicing vegetables that is not fruits)

Garlic / ginger / kale / carot / tomato / lime / beet root and whatever else i find. Its not only about loosing weight i like to have some energy too.

[udit318]

pls neglect your junk food

[pablodiablo]

just eat when your stomach is hungry, not when your head is hungry!! why do you think macdonalds has pictures of food every were? because they know how to make your head hungry, if you were filling your car with fuel you would not put in more than the tank could take, so why do it to your body, so next time you think your hungry ask the question is it my head or my stomach that is hungry? its that simple.

[tropo]

just eat when your stomach is hungry, not when your head is hungry!! why do you think macdonalds has pictures of food every were? because they know how to make your head hungry, if you were filling your car with fuel you would not put in more than the tank could take, so why do it to your body, so next time you think your hungry ask the question is it my head or my stomach that is hungry? its that simple.

You can't go against human nature. Perhaps you can resist temptation for a while, but people eat for pleasure, not just sustenance. Usually only poor people eat for sustenance alone.

Surely you can't say you don't "eat with your head"? You never eat anything for pleasure alone? Denying temptation is not "that simple" as you put it.

[singa-traz]

Focus on what you can control!

[JSixpack]

Yes, I can Google quite fine thanks, but it's nice to see how a single remark can motivate you to work so hard.

No, you've made this assertion several times here and there. I finally got around to dealing with it. Piece o' cake. You're welcome.

My main purpose in this thread is to help other forum members towards a low-carb diet where they might be more successful in their weight-loss efforts, and the thermo assertion is just one more red herring in the way.

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.

Dunno where you got that idea.

Nearly 14,000 posts since 2006 vs about 3,700 since 2004 says it all re: who has most spare time.

Before I post, I do usually take time to do a little research before just shootin' from the hip. Not a lot--it's just a forum--but some at least. I do that because I don't know everything already.

I find references from at least somewhat reputable sources that support one's view most refreshing around here.

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?

Gary Taubes not only has a degree in physics but also has written a couple of well-respected, well-received books, exhaustively researched, and numerous articles about nutrition specifically related to fat storage.

In the vid, he offered the logical proof of the irrelevancy and gave an analogy of a crowded room. Makes perfect sense. And you disagree because, well, you disagree. Of the two authorities, I think it's pretty obvious who has the credibility on this issue about thermo in this context. I don't see the logical fallacy in Taube's argument, yet I did pretty well in math and algorithms. You do, but are perhaps waiting to publish elsewhere.

I as well gave you an excerpt from the book Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health. He has a whole chapter on the issue--and a great deal besides--with the research demonstrating the empirical evidence. So you can read that and perhaps change your mind, or, lacking spare time, just continue to know what you know because you know it.

Edited November 8, 2013 by JSixpack

[Jingthing]

Focus on what you can control!

...

That approach has merit but also some limitations. For example, so many people are not REALLY in control of the messages their body might be telling them about feeling starved, deprived, and having cravings. The body sees "diets" as a threat to survival because biologically that's what they used to be. So this "will" to control behaviors is often fighting against a strong opponent, you body's basic instincts. I still do see merit in looking at shorter term behaviors, as much as you CAN possibly control, more closely.

If someone smacks you hard in the face, most people are going to FEEL pain even if they think they can control not feeling it. That's a limitation.

I also don't agree with the speaker's concept of DIETS. That actually goes against the core of his message. If you can successfully change your behaviors well enough that should be something you can sustain for a lifetime. This guy has clearly been on 50 "diets" and will be on 50 more. However, I get the impression he was never actually obese, so he doesn't have a serious problem anyway.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[singa-traz]

Focus on what you can control!

...

That approach has merit but also some limitations. For example, so many people are not REALLY in control of the messages their body might be telling them about feeling starved, deprived, and having cravings. The body sees "diets" as a threat to survival because biologically that's what they used to be. So this "will" to control behaviors is often fighting against a strong opponent, you body's basic instincts. I still do see merit in looking at shorter term behaviors, as much as you CAN possibly control, more closely.

...

Obviously, this can be hard (but who said life would be easy?).

Let's consider for a second, that changing behaviors (related to eating or being more active) is in the domain of the possible.

What can be done, what strategy to use to make them, the new behaviors, stick?

Example:

When having lunch/dinner, my parents taught me to finish my plate, and until today, I still feel guilty if I leave food on the table.

However, I can change that, and stop eating when I'm full. At first, it's unconfortable, but then, after a while you get use to it. At the end, my parents would rather see me healthy, than finishing my plate and sick.

I/we can't control my.ouir weight (directly), but I/we can control what and how much I/we eat.

I/we can control my activity level, how much I/we exercice.

Is it easy?. No. However, this is possible.

Can I go to a buffet lunch and not overeat?

Yes.

Hard?

Yes.

But, it's possible.

To come back to your comment "For example, so many people are not REALLY in control of the messages their body might be telling them about feeling starved, deprived, and having cravings.".

While they may not be able to control those "body messages" ... they are still in control on how they respond to those messages.

[Jingthing]

Again with the reductionist morality model not accounting for complexities including the biological.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

Again I like the guy's message but inspirational speeches are not going to long term success for most obese people anyway. For those just wanting to lose 10 pounds maybe better.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[singa-traz]

Again with the reductionist morality model not accounting for complexities including the biological.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

JT, I wish you the best in achieving your goals.

However, not sure where morality came into the discussion.

Personally, I gained 20KG in Asia and I accept that my past behavior is responsible for that.

The food did not jump by itself from the plate to my mouth.

I know what can trigger overeating for me:

1. Social pressure

2. Environment

3. Stress

And if I don't have an action plan for those, I know I will likely retake all the Kgs I have been loosing recently.

Running 30km per week is a piece of cake compare to addressing effectivelly those 3 points, which can be complexe as well.

Again, wish you the best.

[tropo]

Gary Taubes not only has a degree in physics but also has written a couple of well-respected, well-received books, exhaustively researched, and numerous articles about nutrition specifically related to fat storage.

So why even bother posting about this? Just refer to Gary Taubes for any and all information.

JSixpack = Gary Taubes. We get it.

[tropo]

Nearly 14,000 posts since 2006 vs about 3,700 since 2004 says it all re: who has most spare time.

Sooner or later the issue of post count comes up. Judging by your posts I'd say you have the most spare time.

Here's an example where statistics can lie. Have you heard of the guy who drowned crossing a river with an average depth of 12 inches?

If you investigated deeply you'd find that my post count over the last 2 years is very limited and has declined sharply, and it's limited to a few threads. I would bet yours is far higher at this point in time.

(I'm surprised I even had time to send this reply as a super typhoon has just hit our family home in the Philippines)

Edited November 8, 2013 by tropo

[Jingthing]

...

Again, wish you the best.

You too.

Praise the "Lord" and pass the garcinia cambogia!

Edited November 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[Chonburiram]

edit

Edited November 8, 2013 by Chonburiram

[JSixpack]

Gary Taubes not only has a degree in physics but also has written a couple of well-respected, well-received books, exhaustively researched, and numerous articles about nutrition specifically related to fat storage.

So why even bother posting about this?

To counter your ignorance, delusion, and misinformation on this particular point, acquired from birth, with the truth acquired by education, research, and science.

So then, with better information, members interested in losing weight, notably the obese and near-obese, might lose weight quickly and relatively painlessly without need to get into your hair shirt. That is, without worrying so much about calorie-counting at every meal, eating counterproductive carbs, going hungry, and uselessly busting their butts in the gym, pedaling furiously on an exercise bike , and risking injury.

Then they also have not so much a diet but a lifestyle in which their weight loss can more likely be maintained. The success rate of your method is very well known.

Just refer to Gary Taubes for any and all information.

If you read only one, he'll do admirably. Of course there have been many researchers working on the low-carb field. If you wanted to pick a starting point, you could go back to William Banting in 1862. In fact, over the course of my posts here and there on this general topic I've given references to various sources.

But in your case, since you won't read anything contrary anyway, what does it matter which of many I chose to quote? What point in giving you a list of others?

JSixpack = Gary Taubes. We get it.

But tropo = Il Tropo (Jane Brody). We got that.

Edited November 16, 2013 by JSixpack

[FiftyTwo]

Again I like the guy's message but inspirational speeches are not going to long term success for most obese people anyway. For those just wanting to lose 10 pounds maybe better.

I've lost 12Kg in 12 months, just by extreme exercise 3 times a week for 2 hours.

Still losing weight, can't eat enough to maintain my weight now.