The Simplicity of Weight Loss

[VincentRJ]

18 hours ago, dontoearth said:

  We are not talking about starvation!  We are talking about severely limited food portions.  Big difference!  

 

No. You're confused. Severely limiting food portions results in starvation. That's what the Japanese did in the prisoner of war camps. They didn't totally eliminate all food supplies. But they did severely limit food supplies.

If you want to lose weight, then limit your food supplies. That's all that is required. Fasting for 30 days would be a very severe limit to food supplies, but an obese person's body could probably manage that.

 

However, the mind of an obese person probably couldn't mamage it. In an environment where the opportunity to snack is constantly present, the average obese person probably wouldn't be able to resist tucking into all sorts of delicious foods on offer.

 

For such people, the equivalent of a Japanese prisoner of war camp might be the only solution.

[VincentRJ]

18 hours ago, dontoearth said:

    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.

 

Well, that in itself should raise alarms. 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.

[partington]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Well, that in itself should raise alarms. 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.

Except of course when considering things like life after death, consciousness with no brain to produce it and so on where

 

"there's a tendency for each generation to express pride in the extent of its knowledge, but often what we thought was absolute truth, or the 'Laws' of physics, later turns out to be false."

 

A cognitive dissonance I was trying ineffectively to satirise in a previous post. I don't think you can advance ideas you like  by doubting the laws of physics one day, and scorn ones you don't by making the laws of physics unimpeachable the next.  

Edited September 3, 2016 by partington

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, partington said:

Except of course when considering things like life after death, consciousness with no brain to produce it and so on where

 

"there's a tendency for each generation to express pride in the extent of its knowledge, but often what we thought was absolute truth, or the 'Laws' of physics, later turns out to be false."

 

A cognitive dissonance I was trying ineffectively to satirise in a previous post. I don't think you can advance ideas you like  by doubting the laws of physics one day, and scorn ones you don't by making the laws of physics unimpeachable the next.  

 

Well, you are a 'smart alec' aren't you!

 

If something is in disagreement with the laws of physics, then the issue is on hold until the matter is resolved. Neither position can be verified. Asserting that something is true when one doesn't have supporting evidence that it is true, is the cause of much confusion.

 

In the case of life after death, there is no firm evidence either for or against, so the issue is open.

 

In the case of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the issue is unresolved and recognised as such.

 

In the case of fasting and/or food deprivation, there is no evidence that I've come across that anyone can fast without losing weight, whatever their condition.

 

If you can find such evidence (real evidence, not just anecdotes) then bring it to my attention. It could be revolutionary.

[Jingthing]

I agree people will lose weight while fasting,

Losing weight isn't really the issue.

MAINTAINING weight loss is.

You can't fast forever or you will die of starvation.

The facts are clear ... crash diets almost always BACKFIRE ... the weight is regained and usually more. The person suffers health damage for the bother.

It's well known that people who have done YOYOs multiple times damage their health. 

Fasting is not the answer. 

As has already been mentioned here, for those who are overweight/obese especially long term the BODY strongly sees that as NORMAL. Even more so if obese from childhood, which is why PREVENTION of obesity in childhood is the most important thing societies can try to do to fight this epidemic. 

So the BODY (nothing to do with "will power" or "morality") will fight and fight HARD to return to it's "normal" because the BODY sees the new normal of temporary weight loss as a threat to it's SURVIVAL. 

As far as the BODY is concerned there is no higher "morality" than the "will power" to SURVIVE. 

So people with chronic overweight/obesity conditions are in the OPPOSITE of a simple situation. 

You can have the "will power" to stop BREATHING for a fairly long time (relative to how often you should normally breathe) but your body (happily in that case) will have other ideas about it (except in the case of severe underlying disease preventing breathing). 

 

Edited September 3, 2016 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I agree people will lose weight while fasting,

Losing weight isn't really the issue.

MAINTAINING weight loss is.

You can't fast forever or you will die of starvation.

The facts are clear ... crash diets almost always BACKFIRE ... the weight is regained and usually more. The person suffers health damage for the bother.

It's well known that people who have done YOYOs multiple times damage their health. 

Fasting is not the answer. 

As has already been mentioned here, for those who are overweight/obese especially long term the BODY strongly sees that as NORMAL. Even more so if obese from childhood, which is why PREVENTION of obesity in childhood is the most important thing societies can try to do to fight this epidemic. 

So the BODY (nothing to do with "will power" or "morality") will fight and fight HARD to return to it's "normal" because the BODY sees the new normal of temporary weight loss as a threat to it's SURVIVAL. 

As far as the BODY is concerned there is no higher "morality" than the "will power" to SURVIVE. 

So people with chronic overweight/obesity conditions are in the OPPOSITE of a simple situation. 

You can have the "will power" to stop BREATHING for a fairly long time (relative to how often you should normally breathe) but your body (happily in that case) will have other ideas about it (except in the case of severe underlying disease preventing breathing). 

 

 

Jing,

 

Thanks for bringing the topic back to this current reality.

[dontoearth]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I agree people will lose weight while fasting,

Losing weight isn't really the issue.

MAINTAINING weight loss is.

You can't fast forever or you will die of starvation.

The facts are clear ... crash diets almost always BACKFIRE ... the weight is regained and usually more. The person suffers health damage for the bother.

It's well known that people who have done YOYOs multiple times damage their health. 

Fasting is not the answer. 

As has already been mentioned here, for those who are overweight/obese especially long term the BODY strongly sees that as NORMAL. Even more so if obese from childhood, which is why PREVENTION of obesity in childhood is the most important thing societies can try to do to fight this epidemic. 

So the BODY (nothing to do with "will power" or "morality") will fight and fight HARD to return to it's "normal" because the BODY sees the new normal of temporary weight loss as a threat to it's SURVIVAL. 

As far as the BODY is concerned there is no higher "morality" than the "will power" to SURVIVE. 

So people with chronic overweight/obesity conditions are in the OPPOSITE of a simple situation. 

You can have the "will power" to stop BREATHING for a fairly long time (relative to how often you should normally breathe) but your body (happily in that case) will have other ideas about it (except in the case of severe underlying disease preventing breathing). 

 

   Please, please look at the work of Dr. Jason Fung.  Fasting is quite different than what we have been told.  It is all recently medically proven with blood and urine test in a hospital setting that fasting doesn't slow metabolism.  They don't know why!  But they know it is so....  This makes it better than any diet which causes a metabolic slow down and health damage.

     However, I don't know if that means anything.  The set point might not be from metabolism. No one is sure what it is exactly.  They have been pointing the finger at metabolism, but if fasting doesn't slow metabolism and fasting patients have the same problems later with weight gain (we don't know this yet the research is not very old)  than set point is something else.

      Anyway, I think you would be very impressed and shocked by Dr. Jason Fung and the research is he is doing.  There are references and links all over this part of the message board so I will leave it to you to find one to explore.

 

    

[dontoearth]

20 hours ago, tominbkk said:

 

Look into a ketogenic diet (75% fat, 20% protein, 5% carbs in the form of green veggies mainly).  After a couple weeks of keto you become adapted to burning your body's fat and it is much easier to IF or go for a day or two without eating with very little craving.  If you are eating carbs and have any kind of insulin resistance, it is torture to fast.  

     Thanks Tom.  I will check it out.   The cream cheese pancakes look incredible!  And a few others mentioned going from Keto to fasting was easier.  I put some cream cheese in the frig and will go for it shortly.  

[VincentRJ]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I agree people will lose weight while fasting,

Losing weight isn't really the issue.

MAINTAINING weight loss is.

You can't fast forever or you will die of starvation.

 

 

This comment reminds me of a response I got from a woman some time ago when I suggested that fasting has remarkable health benefits. "You've got to eat or you will die", she shouted.

 

Of course! That's obvious. But everyone fasts every day without exception, hence the term Breakfast. You don't eat while you sleep do you?

 

The problem is, overweight people do not fast long enough. They only fast when they sleep.

I'm recommending fasting for, say, 23 hours every day instead of just 8 or 10 hours. You won't die through eating just one meal a day, but you will lose weight and you will maintain your weight loss provided you stick to that regime of one meal a day.

[jvs]

Very ,very interesting topic and responses.It seems very clear to me that people stick to their believes and defend them,no problems there.

What is a diet?Different things to different people,i see a diet not as the quantity you eat but what your food consists of.

To most people a permanent weight loss will be the result of a change in lifestyle.

Look at videos made during the concert in Woodstock,by far slim young people!

Compare that to a concert these days.Of course the question is why the big difference?

For the US it would be the availability of fast food,there is a lot and it is every where!IAnd yes i am a firm believer that sugar is the killer and not fat!

Change of lifestyle would have to include not eating foods that you know are bad for Your body.

Not every one reacts the same to food,you will have to find out what works for you!!

It does not help people much if you tell them how superior your training schedule is or how eating less is helping you to lose weight.

There are not a lot of doctors who really have a clue how food ,exercise and diets work and certainly in relation to each other.

What people need is to understand how their body works and why they are overweight,most people really do not have a clue!

I used to spend many hours with people who( mostly ) wanted to lose weight,and yes some wanted to gain weight!

I asked every one to write down everything they would eat and drink for the next seven days and after that we would analize

the results.People were not really aware of how much they were really eating.

Well what can i eat?A written down menu has helped a lot of people to lose weight.

Of course it is not as simple as that,it is very important to set very small goals so it is easy to stay motivated.

One lump of sugar in coffee or tea instead of two,it does not sound much but it does help.

Twenty five years ago there was not near the amount of information available as there is now and i am still learning every day because i am fascinated by the way we are all the same and yet not two of us are alike.

 

[ClutchClark]

Has there been any discussion about stimulants such as caffeine to boost metabolism?

 

Also, has anyone found massage beneficial to shed fat?

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

Has there been any discussion about stimulants such as caffeine to boost metabolism?

 

Also, has anyone found massage beneficial to shed fat?

There are quite a few stimulants that help boost metabolism. Quite a few bad and harsh ones too and I tried many in the past. Cafeine helps but its not that much. But I love it at times just before an extra hard workout.

 

 

[MissAndry]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

There are quite a few stimulants that help boost metabolism. Quite a few bad and harsh ones too and I tried many in the past. Cafeine helps but its not that much. But I love it at times just before an extra hard workout.

 

 

You can't beat YaBa for weight loss.

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

You can't beat YaBa for weight loss.

 

 

Yea not being hungry all day tends to help for loosing weight   and if the cops catch you.. you will lose even more weight in jail 

[tominbkk]

On 9/3/2016 at 7:09 AM, VincentRJ said:

 

I haven't read the book, but that statement sounds like total nonsense to me. Perhaps it is taken out of context.

 

I can understand that during the process of becoming fat by eating too much, the hormones might get mixed up and the natural signals regarding hunger and sataiety might not perform as they should. The consequences of that are that it then becomes difficult for the fat individual to assess whether or not he or she is eating too much. However, the fundamental principle that eating too much is the cause of being overweight, still stands.

 

Because the hormonal signals regarding satiety get mixed up, people can then get into the ridiculous situation of counting calories and paying money to so-called dietary experts who design expensive, special recipes which are probably not particularly healthy if they exclude all saturated fats.

 

The processed food industry which encourages people to overeat, is huge. The dietary and weight-loss industry that exists as a consequence is huge, and the medical industry which expensively attempts to fix health problems that result as a consequence of over eating, is also huge. There's a symbiotic relationship between the three industries.

I think we are saying the same thing.  I still stand by what I said, that we eat too much because we are fat.  On a high carb diet I am constantly hungry and craving more carbs, insulin release as well as other hormonal imbalances are begging for more quick and easy calories.  On keto, once you are adapted, you just don't have cravings.  You can be hungry, but once you fulfill energy needs the hunger goes away and there are no cravings.  Hunger is also easier to manage.  I can be hungry, but know that I will be having dinner in two hours and it's not a big deal, just have some water or coffee and wait.  Much more difficult to withstand when you are doing the empty carb thing.

[tominbkk]

On 9/3/2016 at 11:59 AM, dontoearth said:

    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.

I think it is, the CICO theory is treating the body like a simple machine, when in fact it is a body that is so much more complex than that.

[tominbkk]

23 hours ago, 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)

There is a big question on whether exercise is effective at helping people lose weight.  Studies don't really show it.  Probably the best thing to do is HIIT, as it helps increase mitochondria (http://lifestyleandstrength.com/the-mighty-mitochondria/).  But mostly it is up to dietary choices.  

 

And I'm not saying that exercise isn't important, I need to exercise every day, to keep strong, calm, flexible, etc.  But for losing weight, not really sure about that one.

[tominbkk]

15 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

Has there been any discussion about stimulants such as caffeine to boost metabolism?

 

Also, has anyone found massage beneficial to shed fat?

Personally I use 2-3 cups of black coffee a day to stimulate...with my current diet it seems to go really well with that, as well as helping my level of alertness.  

 

I'm not sure if massage helps me to lose weight, but it makes me more flexible and relaxes me, which for sure lowers cortisol levels which leads to less inflammation.

[tominbkk]

15 hours ago, MissAndry said:

You can't beat YaBa for weight loss.

I wish this forum was like Reddit where you can downvote people.  Gets rid of a lot of the poopy heads like you.

Edited September 4, 2016 by tominbkk

[ClutchClark]

15 hours ago, robblok said:

There are quite a few stimulants that help boost metabolism. Quite a few bad and harsh ones too and I tried many in the past. Cafeine helps but its not that much. But I love it at times just before an extra hard workout.

 

 

 

I find a couple shots espresso before exercise helps me get a better workout or swim or run.

Plus caffeine increases metabolism which burns more calories.

 

I use massage as part of my diet routine. 

 

Maybe it helps loosen up those fat cells ! Just kidding bu who knows, massage helps me lose weight.)

[robblok]

34 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

There is a big question on whether exercise is effective at helping people lose weight.  Studies don't really show it.  Probably the best thing to do is HIIT, as it helps increase mitochondria (http://lifestyleandstrength.com/the-mighty-mitochondria/).  But mostly it is up to dietary choices.  

 

And I'm not saying that exercise isn't important, I need to exercise every day, to keep strong, calm, flexible, etc.  But for losing weight, not really sure about that one.

 

Exercise does help for weight loss but not for the average individual. I am doing workouts of 2 hours that cost close to 800-1000 calories. But my workouts are extreme. Plus I eat measured amounts of food so I wont fall into the trap of overeating after a workout. However I only workout 4 times a week like that. so overall its not that much and its easier to clean your diet up and lose some calories there (and I do). Many studies have shown that exercise COMBINED with caloric restrictions give more results then only caloric restrictions. Exercise alone has often shown no weight reduction. (problem is also they measure weight reduction not fat reduction)

Don't forget exercise helps against insulin problems and many other stuff that helps weightloss. Also studies have shown that people who did exercise and diet keep the weight off more then those who just went the diet alone route.

 

Who knows it might help with set points too. 

 

 

But I 100% agree that in general diet is the main contributor to weightloss

 

*i have to be honest about my workouts.. they were not always like this, only recently did I ad the cardio after my weightlifting I use a concept 2 rower and have neglected it for a while. During my first 25 kg that i lost 5-6 years ago i used the rower extensively, i got lazy and kept lifting weights but demoted the rower. I have now accepted that is a mistake and added it again the results are good so far*

Edited September 4, 2016 by robblok

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I find a couple shots espresso before exercise helps me get a better workout or swim or run.

Plus caffeine increases metabolism which burns more calories.

 

I use massage as part of my diet routine. 

 

Maybe it helps loosen up those fat cells ! Just kidding bu who knows, massage helps me lose weight.)

 

I now use a pre workout (did not do that before) and bought some powders like beta alanine and taurine and have my own cafeine tablets . In the end I will just use a few of those powders and drop the pre workout drink. Personally for lifting I have had good results with creatine. 

[MissAndry]

33 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

I wish this forum was like Reddit where you can downvote people.  Gets rid of a lot of the poopy heads like you.

 

You're mistaken, I would be at the top of the tree.

Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean you're in the majority.

And the funny thing is, those who disagree with me on one topic, often agree with me totally, on another topic.

Same for me, one moment I hate another poster, then a day later we are best buddies. 

[JSixpack]

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Well, that in itself should raise alarms. 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.

 

Actually that's not what Fung was saying, who for some reason you're carefully ignoring. What he said specifically was this:

 

Why The First Law of Thermodynamics is Utterly Irrelevant

 

A point on which another Harvard and Stanford-educated physicist agrees, Gary Taubes. That training brings a fresh perspective and new insight (or an affirmation that older insights worked better) to the simplistic, hackneyed, and mostly real-world useless points you made in your first post. As Taubes said,

 

. . . some of my friends in the physics community suggested to me that, if I was interested in bad science – something they called ‘pathological science’, which is the science of things that aren’t – I should look into public health.

 

And what he learned was

 

The hypothesis favored by Bray and a half century of authorities on human obesity is that fat accumulation is fundamentally caused by positive energy balance." Taubes responds, "The alternative hypothesis begins with the fundamental observation that obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation and then asks the obvious question, what regulates fat accumulation. This was elucidated by 1965 and has never been controversial. 'Insulin is the principal regulator of fat metabolism'...

 

So this has been all to the good, physicists explaining to our non-physicist wannabe nutritionists that their pompous citation of a law of physics says nothing useful for the weight-loss endeavor. And their insight has indeed been helpful. I'm not going to argue their points here (again) so if you want to argue, first pay your dues, read what they and others of like mind have written, read the testimonials, and then if you still want to argue, argue with them directly. Here, the majority will simply parrot CICO or offer quack remedies--which doesn't advance your understanding. I had to smile when one of our adamant CICO experts came a year or so later to report being significantly overweight and asking for support.

 

 

 

[MissAndry]

11 minutes ago, JSixpack said:

 

So this has been all to the good, physicists explaining to our non-physicist wannabe nutritionists that their pompous citation of a law of physics says nothing useful for the weight-loss endeavor

 

Dark Matter and MoND supporters can't both be right, but I can find reputable physicists that will support each of the opposing theories. Just because you've found a guy that supports your theory, doesn't mean he's right.

 

Anyway, I would prefer a Chemist (my area of expertise)  or Biologist to pronounce on weight loss rather than physicists. We all know weight loss is ultimately due to us breathing out our excess weight as Carbon Dioxide (similar to trees and plants gaining mass by breathing in carbon dioxide).

Edited September 4, 2016 by MissAndry

[JSixpack]

5 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

 

Dark Matter and MoND supporters can't both be right, but I can find reputable physicists that will support each of the opposing theories. Just because you've found a guy that supports your theory, doesn't mean he's right.

 

OK, find them. And show us how the two and others are wrong so that we all know that you know exactly what you're talking about, not just blowing smoke. Not gettin' any substance out of you.

Edited September 4, 2016 by JSixpack

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, JSixpack said:

 

Actually that's not what Fung was saying, who for some reason you're carefully ignoring. What he said specifically was this:

 

Why The First Law of Thermodynamics is Utterly Irrelevant

 

A point on which another Harvard and Stanford-educated physicist agrees, Gary Taubes. That training brings a fresh perspective and new insight (or an affirmation that older insights worked better) to the simplistic, hackneyed, and mostly real-world useless points you made in your first post. As Taubes said,

 

. . . some of my friends in the physics community suggested to me that, if I was interested in bad science – something they called ‘pathological science’, which is the science of things that aren’t – I should look into public health.

 

And what he learned was

 

The hypothesis favored by Bray and a half century of authorities on human obesity is that fat accumulation is fundamentally caused by positive energy balance." Taubes responds, "The alternative hypothesis begins with the fundamental observation that obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation and then asks the obvious question, what regulates fat accumulation. This was elucidated by 1965 and has never been controversial. 'Insulin is the principal regulator of fat metabolism'...

 

So this has been all to the good, physicists explaining to our non-physicist wannabe nutritionists that their pompous citation of a law of physics says nothing useful for the weight-loss endeavor. And their insight has indeed been helpful. I'm not going to argue their points here (again) so if you want to argue, first pay your dues, read what they and others of like mind have written, read the testimonials, and then if you still want to argue, argue with them directly. Here, the majority will simply parrot CICO or offer quack remedies--which doesn't advance your understanding. I had to smile when one of our adamant CICO experts came a year or so later to report being significantly overweight and asking for support.

 

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with first law of Thermodynamics at all.. just a problem quantifying what the out part is.

 

What your suggesting is that they are in a caloric deficit and storing fat.. that is just crazy.

 

I am suggesting and most people who have studied the matter is that the out part is just hard to estimate because the body will change how much is burned based on signals it gets. 

Also don't forget that Taubes Fong and so on only test the worst of the worst but not the average JOE there are always those who are on the other side of the spectrum just like that an olympic athlete is not a good representative of the entire populace. 

[MissAndry]

7 minutes ago, JSixpack said:

 

OK, find them. And show us how the two and others are wrong so that we all know that you know exactly what you're talking about, not just blowing smoke. Not gettin' any substance out of you.

 

It would be pointless as you clearly don't have any science background, and wouldn't understand the discussion. (As you already clearly don't know that Dark matter and MoND are two opposing scientific theories). It would be like trying to convert a Creationist to Darwinism. Not possible as it involves 'belief'.

Edited September 4, 2016 by MissAndry

[JSixpack]

19 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

 

It would be pointless as you clearly don't have any science background, and wouldn't understand the discussion. (As you already clearly don't know that Dark matter and MoND are two opposing scientific theories). It would be like trying to convert a Creationist to Darwinism. Not possible as it involves 'belief'.

 

"It would be pointless" as you don't have anything. Nobody's fooled. The start is just to find one physicist writing about nutrition who disagrees, in accordance with your claim. Nor do you know anything about my background. Next.

Edited September 4, 2016 by JSixpack

[JSixpack]

21 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Nothing wrong with first law of Thermodynamics at all.. just a problem quantifying what the out part is.

 

What your suggesting is that they are in a caloric deficit and storing fat.. that is just crazy.

 

I am suggesting and most people who have studied the matter is that the out part is just hard to estimate because the body will change how much is burned based on signals it gets. 

Also don't forget that Taubes Fong and so on only test the worst of the worst but not the average JOE there are always those who are on the other side of the spectrum just like that an olympic athlete is not a good representative of the entire populace. 

 

No, the average Joe is the one getting obese throughout the world and has quite a lot to benefit as the same theories as to weight gain and weight loss of course apply to him as well.

 

There's no implication anywhere that (cough!) something is wrong with the first law! Gimme a break. Such ridiculous responses make it not worth posting here and I did have second thoughts.

 

Actually you agree with me but just like to argue.

Edited September 4, 2016 by JSixpack