The Simplicity of Weight Loss

[JSixpack]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Let's examine these two statements. (1) "You gain weight because you eat more than you expend."

Peter Attia agrees this is almost true, but not 100% true. He describes it as the Current Dogma. What he claims is more true, is statement (2) "If you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat."

 

Well, I've got news for Peter Attia. There's not just a possibility that another factor is involved, there's absolute certainty that many other factors are involved.

 

<pompous drivel snipped>

 

Only news to you, pal, as Attia elaborates the definition of overeating.

 

Why is this different from Current Dogma?  Current Dogma says it doesn’t matter what you eat, it only matters how many calories that food contains.  If you eat more calories than you expend, you gain weight.  The last part is true, but the first part is not. The Alternative Hypothesis says it DOES matter what you eat and for reasons far beyond the stored heat energy in the food (i.e., the number of calories).

          --http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

 

Now that active blog page (only one page; Attia has a lot of writing following up all the implications) addressing a basic concept misunderstood by the masses has a place for comments but for some strange reason I didn't see your enlightenment of Attia posted there. Huh? His thousands of followers would certainly love to hear your "news" and Dr. Attia himself could express his appreciation and everyone could subscribe to your most informative blog. Go for it!

 

I love this forum!

[VincentRJ]

On ‎4‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 6:32 AM, JSixpack said:

 

You were asserting that a physicist can't have something intelligent to say about dieting. Since you're advocating fasting yourself then that was a particularly fatuous statement to make about Fung. Nobody is or has questioned any "basic laws." What a red herring. What we are questioning is the applicability in particular situations.

 

 

I never made any such comment. You're misinterpreting what I wrote. This is what I wrote:

 

"Physics is the most basic foundation of all the sciences. If something is not in agreement with basic Physics, then something is wrong. Alarm bells should be ringing.

 

And I wrote that in response to the following comment by dontoearth.

 

One last thought. Dr. Fung spent a year studying physics and said that at no time was any of physics related to the human body. I can't remember if that is in his book or his video lectures.

 

Now we've sorted that out, let's address your following point.

 

"Well, you've finally discovered fasting. I've mentioned it previously and we had a thread about it recently where I gave some useful info:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/935814-has-anyone-ever-tried-the-5-2-intermittent-fast-diet/#comment-11024728

 

I discovered the benefits of fasting long before the date of the above thread, and what I found particularly interesting when I read the scientific research a few years ago, was not the inevitable result of weight loss due to fasting, which is pretty obvious as you agree, but the health benefits that result when the body is freed from the chores of digesting food for a few days.

 

Research on mainly mice and rats has shown that fasting is as effective in curing cancer as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but without the unpleasant side effects. Fasting combined with radiotherapy is the most effective treatment of all, and with reduced side effects.

 

Regular fasting was also found to prolong life. Most ailments have small beginnings. The first signs of cancer, for example, might be undetectable because the growths are so tiny and not yet malignant. However, your body will likely detect the problems during fasting, and nip them in the bud.

 

Everybody, I mean everybody, knows that none of the survivors of Auschwitz were overweight. Knowing that fact has never helped anyone and so is useless. The breezy meataxe approach ain't gon' work. Nobody's going to fast continuously for long periods. 30 days! LOL.

 

How do you know it has never helped anyone? There's a concept called 'denial', whereby people choose to ignore fundamental facts because such facts might provoke unpleasant emotions if they are accepted as true. I would have thought that the historical examples of the effects of food deprivation would make it more difficult for anyone to be in denial about the fact that eating less always results in a weight loss, if one's activities remain the same. Imagine if there didn't exist any stories or images of skinny people and starvation, whatever the cause, and we lived in societies where everyone was well fed and most people were overweight. Don't you think the denial would be greater?

 

I've had discussions with a number of intelligent but overweight women on this issue, over the years, and have been amazed at the degree of denial. One woman whom I first met around 30 years ago, who was quite slim and of normal weight at the time we first met, was almost unrecognisable when I met her again about 20 years later, because she had put on so much weight. She attributed her weight gain to the effects of the menopause.

 

At the time I discussed the issue with her, she was convinced that she wasn't eating too much and was considering a plan whereby it was recommended to eat the same amount of food per day as always, but divide the total quantity of food into 6 smaller meals instead of the usual 3 larger meals.

The rationale for this plan was that the body (with its native intelligence) would not create fat reserves if it got used to anticipating another meal in a shorter period of time.

 

What a clever sales pitch!    However, the body is not that stupid.

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

Only news to you, pal, as Attia elaborates the definition of overeating.

 

Why is this different from Current Dogma?  Current Dogma says it doesn’t matter what you eat, it only matters how many calories that food contains.  If you eat more calories than you expend, you gain weight.  The last part is true, but the first part is not. The Alternative Hypothesis says it DOES matter what you eat and for reasons far beyond the stored heat energy in the food (i.e., the number of calories).

          --http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

 

Now that active blog page (only one page; Attia has a lot of writing following up all the implications) addressing a basic concept misunderstood by the masses has a place for comments but for some strange reason I didn't see your enlightenment of Attia posted there. Huh? His thousands of followers would certainly love to hear your "news" and Dr. Attia himself could express his appreciation and everyone could subscribe to your most informative blog. Go for it!

 

I love this forum!

 

I stand corrected. I never realised that there is a 'current dogma' that states it doesn't matter what you eat. I'm 74 years old and I've know since around the age of 10 or 12 that wholesome food is always important. I've always chosen wholemeal bread over white bread, and brown rice over white rice.

 

I was under the impression that this fact was widely advertised. I was under the impression that those who ignore such advice about eating wholesome food, were either ignorant of dietary matters, or in in a state of denial about such matters, or deliberately chose to sacrifice their health for the enjoyment of tasty food, which they perhaps cannot resist.

 

I can't recall ever reading anywhere that it doesn't matter what type of food you eat. How that has become a current dogma, beats me. Can anyone else reading this confirm that they used to believe, in modern times, that it doesn't matter what type of food one eats?

 

I've mentioned in at least one of my posts in this thread, that eating wholsome food when not fasting, is very important. Regardless of issues of obesity, eating wholesome food is an obvious requirement for anyone concerned about his health.

[JSixpack]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

How do you know it has never helped anyone? There's a concept called 'denial', whereby people choose to ignore fundamental facts because such facts might provoke unpleasant emotions if they are accepted as true. I would have thought that the historical examples of the effects of food deprivation would make it more difficult for anyone to be in denial about the fact that eating less always results in a weight loss, if one's activities remain the same.

 

Sorry, gotta avoid tripping up on the forum rule against "bickering."

 

"Eating less" doesn't address "less of what," as all calories aren't created equal--hence you're in Current Dogma.

 

Never helped anyone 'cause nobody's gon' try to eat as if they lived in Auschwitz. Now the proof of that is obviously all around you among the masses who actually do want to lose weight. Yes, they know. You're not getting any traction w/ the meataxe approach, which is why I suggested you begin to make yourself useful after these 5 pages or so.

 

I wouldn't say that you're in denial, merely ignorant. Best thing you could do, really, is to start by just reading Attia, one of many in the field who know that eating less doesn't necessarily result in weight loss. That fact is being widely recognized nowadays after decades of ineffective CICO approaches to dieting.

 

 

[ClutchClark]

All of this bickering is ridiculous.

 

The lot of you could ruin a wet dream.

 

you guys have degenerated to the point that you chastise someone for the claim that eating less helps lose weight? 

 

Maybe its time to get your nose out of your books and go exercise.

Edited September 5, 2016 by ClutchClark

[JSixpack]

6 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

All of this bickering is ridiculous.

 

The lot of you could ruin a wet dream.

 

you guys have degenerated to the point that you chastise someone for the claim that eating less helps lose weight? 

 

Maybe its time to get your nose out of your books and go exercise.

 

No, maybe it's time for you to study up on the matter so that you know what you're talking about.

 

Next.

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

Sorry, gotta avoid tripping up on the forum rule against "bickering."

 

"Eating less" doesn't address "less of what," as all calories aren't created equal--hence you're in Current Dogma.

 

Never helped anyone 'cause nobody's gon' try to eat as if they lived in Auschwitz. Now the proof of that is obviously all around you among the masses who actually do want to lose weight. Yes, they know. You're not getting any traction w/ the meataxe approach, which is why I suggested you begin to make yourself useful after these 5 pages or so.

 

I wouldn't say that you're in denial, merely ignorant. Best thing you could do, really, is to start by just reading Attia, one of many in the field who know that eating less doesn't necessarily result in weight loss. That fact is being widely recognized nowadays after decades of ineffective CICO approaches to dieting.

 

 

 

Read my previous post. I've always been aware of the importance of a wholesome diet. My own increase in weight was due to a change to a sedentary life style when I got a job in an office, combined with taking up drinking wine and beer as a replacement for smoking, and also drinking too much fruit juice which I thought was very nutritious until I read of the dangers of fructose.

 

What amazes me is that people can continue to put on weight, to the stage of obesity, without taking action. It doesn't happen overnight. It's a gradual process over many years. Denialism is perhaps the explanation.

Edited September 5, 2016 by VincentRJ

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Read my previous post. I've always been aware of the importance of a wholesome diet. My own increase in weight was due to a change to a sedentary life style when I got a job in an office, combined with taking up drinking wine and beer as a replacement for smoking, and also drinking to much fruit juice which I thought was very nutritious until I read of the dangers of fructose.

 

What amazes me is that people can continue to put on weight, to the stage of obesity, without taking action. It doesn't happen overnight. It's a gradual process over many years. Denialism is perhaps the explanation.

 

A post based on personal experience is worth ten cut & pastes.

 

Thanks for the personal insight.

[JSixpack]

16 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

I stand corrected. I never realised that there is a 'current dogma' that states it doesn't matter what you eat. I'm 74 years old and I've know since around the age of 10 or 12 that wholesome food is always important. I've always chosen wholemeal bread over white bread, and brown rice over white rice.

 

I was under the impression that this fact was widely advertised.

 

No. You're not realized the implications of CICO and somehow you've managed to remain completely innocent of the changing definitions of what wholesome is. They've had a major detrimental impact on public health. It's an interesting subject with a lot to explore but you may start your learning experience here:

 

http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/usda-food-pyramid.html

 

And do publish your enlightenment of Dr. Attia on his blog page. Go to the source, man!

[MissAndry]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

What amazes me is that people can continue to put on weight, to the stage of obesity, without taking action. It doesn't happen overnight. It's a gradual process over many years. Denialism is perhaps the explanation.

 

It crept up on me over about 10 years, not to mention I didn't like me or my life all that much at the time.

Trying my best to lose weight now, cutting out all soft drinks has helped, having my teeth smashed in has also helped a lot. Hard to overeat through a straw, another 3 weeks of that left. And going around on a bicycle under my own power can't do much harm.

[balo]

Some studies shows that if you eat less you will live longer. If you eat 1 or 2 meals per day your body will adapt and you will lose the feel of being hungry. I only eat 2 meals myself and drink a lot of water and some juice. I have not gained weight for almost 10 years and I'm over 50.

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

No. You're not realized the implications of CICO and somehow you've managed to remain completely innocent of the changing definitions of what wholesome is. They've had a major detrimental impact on public health. It's an interesting subject with a lot to explore but you may start your learning experience here:

 

http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/usda-food-pyramid.html

 

And do publish your enlightenment of Dr. Attia on his blog page. Go to the source, man!

 

I haven't got the time to go to these sources and make comments. I'm interested in many subjects, such as Buddhism, Philosophy, Health, Environment, Climate Change, and so on.

I started commenting on this forum because the Buddhism section of the site has slowed down, and fasting (or at least moderation in eating) is a part of the Buddhist way of life.

 

The one-meal-a-day requirement for Buddhist monks is based on a practical observation that such a regime is healthy. I know that some monks, usually abbots,  are overweight and I would suspect that those monks are breaking the rules, and not restricting themselves to one meal a day.

 

What I understand from my current reading on this subject, is that many of the foods that were previously demonised, such as Full Cream Milk, Full Cream Yoghurt, Butter, Coconut Oil with its saturated fat, and so on, are now accepted as healthy, provided they are taken in moderation.

 

This is no different to what I understood about 60 years ago.

 

I'm still waiting for a link to some reputable advice that claims it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you restrict your calories.

Edited September 5, 2016 by VincentRJ

[PumbaBangkok]

On Saturday, September 03, 2016 at 3:26 PM, robblok said:

 

Thing is even the study you mention does not go into the body setpoint... why.. because its normal for the body to defend itself after weightloss.. but there is no research how long this take and if its permanent. That study would just be too long.

 

Thing is people dont need to go below 1000 calories but it will go slower. Believe me I hated slow just like you. But even now I count and calculate my food.. i am still off and even I can under-report. I thought I was at 1500 cals but I am over that amount. Small things add on and I have been doing this a long time. 

 

But I am still loseing weight.. real slow but its going down. (less then half a kg a week)

Robblok , that seems a nice safe rate of loss to me

[JSixpack]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

What I understand from my current reading on this subject, is that many of the foods that were previously demonised, such as Full Cream Milk, Full Cream Yoghurt, Butter, Coconut Oil with its saturated fat, and so on, are now accepted as healthy, provided they are taken in moderation.

 

This is no different to what I understood about 60 years ago.

 

But then maybe if you'd cut the rice, bread, and whatever other starch and sugar, you'd have no need of fasting, rendering moot your main point. Sounds better to most people, I imagine. Yeah, enjoy the sensual pleasure of eating tasty food and lose weight too.

 

Quote

I'm still waiting for a link to some reputable advice that claims it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you restrict your calories.

 

Well, no, you don't go to any link from reputable sources that I give you. Busy man immersed in Buddhism, Philosophy, Health, Environment, Climate Change, and so on, though not Nutrition of course.  So then I spoon feed a little excerpt and give a link inviting you to learn more but you just take that out of context and create confusion. No more of that wasting time, sorry. I find that you're not really serious about learning anything but just know what you know and love repeating it, as is so often the case here. So I'll be winding down now.

 

However, I'll give a link to some disreputable advice, how's that.

 

Quote

 If you are really serious about losing weight, then simply fast. A normal person without any serious medical conditions can safely fast for about 30 days. Try a day or two first, then gradually increase the period.

 

Alternatively, just try eating only one meal a day, say around lunch time, with no other snacks during the day. You're not going to die.

      --http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/940711-the-simplicity-of-weight-loss/#comment-11105613

 

Simply fast. Now it's either simple or it isn't. These statements taken alone do imply it doesn't matter what you eat--because you're not eating anything--safely for 30 days. It rather makes sense, doesn't it. If you fast long and often enough, then you can make it impossible to absorb enough calories to make up for all you've lost during the fasting. Duh. Now you'll say it's not simple, as you said blah, blah.

 

Well, me, I'll say again that the best thing for people to do who've tried diets in hope of weight loss and failed (including low-carb), or need to get rid of that last stubborn couple o' kilos, is to try intermittent fasting but in one of its several recognized, documented, supported varieties, which seem unknown to our student of Buddhism, Philosophy, Health, Environment, Climate Change, and so on. LOT of info on the net from knowledgeable people and sane programs to follow. You're not going to get that here--as should be pretty obvious by now.

 

That was fun. Good luck w/ your weight loss, members. JSixpack out!

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

Hhmm!  Looks like JSixpack is one of those people in denial.

 

 

[MissAndry]

Today I have cycled 25Km (including a very steep hill), 10 push ups and 20 sit ups.

I have eaten 1 7-11 grilled ham and cheese sandwich and 1 banana and chocolate smoothie.

I might have a bowl of 'Great Grains Banana nut crunch' with milk later.

 

I think today is going to be a net weight loss day.

[ClutchClark]

4 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

Today I have cycled 25Km (including a very steep hill), 10 push ups and 20 sit ups.

I have eaten 1 7-11 grilled ham and cheese sandwich and 1 banana and chocolate smoothie.

I might have a bowl of 'Great Grains Banana nut crunch' with milk later.

 

I think today is going to be a net weight loss day.

 

That is certainly a crappy meal plan...

[robblok]

4 hours ago, PumbaBangkok said:

Robblok , that seems a nice safe rate of loss to me

I don't expect much more .. once your lean removing the last bits of fat are hard.. your body will resist and resist. 

 

Not really complaining though but would like it to go faster (human nature). But given that I already feel good and have a 82 cm waist  im not complaining. 

[tominbkk]

7 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

All of this bickering is ridiculous.

 

The lot of you could ruin a wet dream.

 

you guys have degenerated to the point that you chastise someone for the claim that eating less helps lose weight? 

 

Maybe its time to get your nose out of your books and go exercise.

I find it a great discussion.  If the science is too much for you and a healthy debate is not to your liking you don't have to join in with your poopy talk!

[tominbkk]

2 hours ago, MissAndry said:

Today I have cycled 25Km (including a very steep hill), 10 push ups and 20 sit ups.

I have eaten 1 7-11 grilled ham and cheese sandwich and 1 banana and chocolate smoothie.

I might have a bowl of 'Great Grains Banana nut crunch' with milk later.

 

I think today is going to be a net weight loss day.

No nutrition in a meal like that.  Just a bunch of empty carbs (except for the splooge of processed cheese food, which might have something in it that is redeeming, certainly wasn't real cheese though.  And processed nitrated ham.)

[MissAndry]

3 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

No nutrition in a meal like that.  Just a bunch of empty carbs (except for the splooge of processed cheese food, which might have something in it that is redeeming, certainly wasn't real cheese though.  And processed nitrated ham.)

Great Grains is described as a nutritional health food!

http://postfoods.com/our-brands/great-grains

 

2 Bananas and 1/2 cup of milk in the smoothie must have some nutritional value too.

Edited September 5, 2016 by MissAndry

[ClutchClark]

5 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

I find it a great discussion.  If the science is too much for you and a healthy debate is not to your liking you don't have to join in with your poopy talk!

 

I have found the best way to get fit and lose weight is to DO things. 

 

These arguments remind me of the cyclists who are 10 pounds overweight and insist on buying very expensive titanium fasteners to shed a few ounces off the bike. 

 

if someone wants to lose weight then exercise and cut calories. It is not nearly as difficult as all the formulas bandied about here. Limit calories and make certsin those calories are quality. (No disrespectto MissAndry but her meals today were not healthy). 

 

But your point is well taken--I will take my poopy attitude and go for an evening walk at Lumpini. 

 

Cheers

 

 

[ClutchClark]

6 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

Great Grains is described as a nutritional health food!

http://postfoods.com/our-brands/great-grains

 

2 Bananas and 1/2 cup of milk in the smoothie must have some nutritional value too.

 

Dear MissAndry, 

 

thanks for the link to your cereal product. It lokks to have alot of granola style rolled oats. Sadly they are not that nutritious. Have you much time available for meals? If so, a steel cut oatmeal with various toppings of nuts/walnuts and fresh cut fruit would be healthier. 

 

I used to love breakfast cereals but have found over the years they are not all that good compared to other options. Although your choice is certsinly better than some sugar-laden varieties.

[MissAndry]

4 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Dear MissAndry, 

 

thanks for the link to your cereal product. It lokks to have alot of granola style rolled oats. Sadly they are not that nutritious. Have you much time available for meals? If so, a steel cut oatmeal with various toppings of nuts/walnuts and fresh cut fruit would be healthier. 

 

I used to love breakfast cereals but have found over the years they are not all that good compared to other options. Although your choice is certsinly better than some sugar-laden varieties.

 

There isn't much I can eat with a broken upper jaw (Maxilla) and a mouthful of splinted teeth at the moment. Basically mush and stuff I can suck through a straw. I had to cut the toasted sandwich into tiny pieces with scissors and push them in the back of my mouth..

Edited September 5, 2016 by MissAndry

[ClutchClark]

5 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

 

There isn't much I can eat with a broken upper jaw (Maxilla) and a mouthful of splinted teeth at the moment. Basically mush and stuff I can suck through a straw. I had to cut the toasted sandwich into tiny pieces with scissors and push them in the back of my mouth..

 

I am terribly sorry. I did not realize your current circumstances. 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, MissAndry said:

Great Grains is described as a nutritional health food!

http://postfoods.com/our-brands/great-grains

 

2 Bananas and 1/2 cup of milk in the smoothie must have some nutritional value too.

 

Provided the milk was full cream milk. 

Bananas are an excellent food. They contain plenty of potassium, which tends to redress the balance of too much sodium chloride which most processed foods contain.

[dontoearth]

3 hours ago, MissAndry said:

Today I have cycled 25Km (including a very steep hill), 10 push ups and 20 sit ups.

I have eaten 1 7-11 grilled ham and cheese sandwich and 1 banana and chocolate smoothie.

I might have a bowl of 'Great Grains Banana nut crunch' with milk later.

 

I think today is going to be a net weight loss day.

Congrats on the bicycle ride!  I doubt more than a handful of TVF members could do the ride and the pushups and situps.  

[wump]

Haven't read all the post but wanted to contribute my story: I watched "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead" on Netflix and decided to go on a juice only diet (not fruit juice... home-made vegetable juice). 

 

It is DEAD EASY... after 2 days or so your body goes into ketosis and you won't feel hungry at all. I lost some 15 kilos in under a month and have only put back on 2 kilos after 1 year.

 

I encourage everyone to watch the movie. It's the easiest way to lose weight and I am really not a friend of excising so this was very convenient to me. As a side effect you'll also detox your body.

[Pungdo]

Calories in, calories out is a load of BS, I struggled for years to maintain a reasonable body weight, that is until I stumbled across the LCHF (Low Carb High Fat) eating habit 18 months ago, I lost 3kg in the first week and 18kg over the next 12 months.

I put a friend of mine who was HUGE to put it mildly and since last Xmas he has lost over 50kg and counting and has never fealt better.

The trick is to forget all of the rubbish you have been told over your lifetime about how eating Fat will clog your arteries and kill you, it's a lie and a load of garbage perpetrated by one man, a certain Ancel Keys and sold to the world health authorities without them ever checking on his so called research.

Fasting is a part of weight loss, but that doesn't mean going for days on end without eating, it just means eating only during a narrow window each day, the recommended ratio is 16-8. 16 hours of fasting and an 8 hour window you eat in, I quite often manage 18-6, to do that I don't eat until lunch time and I have dinner by 6pm.
 

I couldn't be bothered going into all of the details, so I suggest if you are interested in losing weight, Google LCHF and investigate it yourself.

Before anyone starts waffling on about Cholesterol, I no longer take any of the meds I was on before starting this eating habit, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol lowering poisons, I just don't need them any more.

To put it simply, cut out the Carbs, ie: Junk Food, Soft Drinks, Root Vegetables, Grains and Bread and increase the Fat, but it must be what is considered "Good Natural Fats" predominately Omega 3, Ditch the low fat milk and Margarine and use Butter instead.

[rbmcn]

On September 1, 2016 at 1:49 PM, KNJ said:

Whilst the basic equation energy in energy out equal then no weight gain seems reasonable, a better explanation would be:

IN = 6+2+7

out = 15x1

therefore in=out no problem, however the in could be 6 pints, 2 bags of crisp and 7 whiskeys 

What we need to consider is not just the total amount in but the quality of what we are putting in, we need a mix of veg, carbs, ( a pint of beer )  meat, fish pulses etc

I never understand these fad diets, watermelon only, avoid carbs, vegan, vegetarian........ useless

We have incisor teeth designed to eat meet

We have a Gaul bladder to take care of fat

we have insulin system to deal with sugar

But man those 6 pints are very tempting to form a apart of the makeup

You've got a lotta gall suggesting we have Gaul bladders!?. It's that pesky autocorrect.