Paleo.
Replies
-
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
I'll throw my paleo bulk of 2012 into this argument.0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
I'll throw my paleo bulk of 2012 into this argument.
ahhh yes, the infamous paleo bulk of 2012 …:)
0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not is OCD ….
You want to restate that in English, please?0 -
It may work well for others.. but I couldn't restrict myself that much. I'm also not very educated about it so couldn't really comment further.0
-
Thoughts?
When it comes to diet I am also " pro choice ". I don't care how and what other people eat as long as they don't interfere with my diet. I would never eat a diet that has a name, because for me a name implies that there are restrictions in one way or another. With some I probably could live, with others I would not want to.
I make my own food choices, based on what I like, on what does me good or not and based on what I am used to within the culture come from and live in. This means that in my case I eat a diet based on whole and/or natural foods and have all my life. I eat lots of vegetables, enough, but not too much protein, lots of legumes, pulses and grains, no milk, but natural cheese and home made yogurt. I occasionally drink, but avoid added sugar partially because I have an inflammation driven auto immune disease and am happy with my " no name, no label " diet.
I have not eaten fast food in about 30 years and never in my 66 years ordered a pizza, not because I am totally against it, but because my life circumstances did not include living and working close to fast food. Even now here in Mexico for example McD's is anywhere from 5.- to 8.- dollars a hamburger ( a pizza is about 15 bucks ) with fries and I can get better and equally fast local food for less money.
I think everyone should listen to their body and eat what does them good as far health is concerned and what they like in moderation, even if it is not so healthy.0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
How would anyone gain that much weight, even if it were just 25 pounds in three years without noticing it ? I maintained my 110 pounds ( for someone under 5 feet within the high normal range ) all my adult life by sometimes eating normal, sometimes eating a bit more ( on special occasions ) and then making up for it by eating less, or eating lighter. Losing and gaining within a 5-10 pound parameter is pretty much normal for all normal weight people and is not considered yo-yo-ing....it's just the normal way things balance out.
I wish I had stopped and eaten 100 calories less and I had not gained 80 pounds over the last eleven years ( not counting the last year when I lost 50 of them )...but personal reasons kept me from doing so. And btw: yes, I noticed that I gained weight....I just did not care at the time.0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
i have gone from 220 pounds a d 25+% body fat ..to 170ish punds and 12% body fat over the past seven years and have had none of the issues that you mention ….0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
i have gone from 220 pounds a d 25+% body fat ..to 170ish punds and 12% body fat over the past seven years and have had none of the issues that you mention ….
You are obviously a young, muscular man--you might as well be in a different universe than an obese, menopausal women (and there are a LOT of them here). What works for you, WILL NOT work long term for many people who show up here in the forums and it is somewhat cruel to encourage that delusion in them. I have met MANY female yo-yo dieters here. I'm offering them advice on what will help them avoid the yo-yo syndrome and, in addition, to get off the leptin resistance-->insulin resistance-->Type II diabetes conveyor belt, I was once where they are and now I am not because of proper food choices.0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
i have gone from 220 pounds a d 25+% body fat ..to 170ish punds and 12% body fat over the past seven years and have had none of the issues that you mention ….
You are obviously a young, muscular man--you might as well be in a different universe than an obese, menopausal women (and there are a LOT of them here). What works for you, WILL NOT work long term for many people who show up here in the forums and it is somewhat cruel to encourage that delusion in them. I have met MANY female yo-yo dieters here. I'm offering them advice on what will help them avoid the yo-yo syndrome and, in addition, to get off the leptin resistance-->insulin resistance-->Type II diabetes conveyor belt, I was once where they are and now I am not because of proper food choices.
what works for me is calorie deficit, adherence to macros, and working out/moving more….you are saying these three won't work for everyone?
even diabetics need a calorie deficit to lose weight ..at the end of the day it boils down to negative energy balance...0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
i have gone from 220 pounds a d 25+% body fat ..to 170ish punds and 12% body fat over the past seven years and have had none of the issues that you mention ….
You are obviously a young, muscular man--you might as well be in a different universe than an obese, menopausal women (and there are a LOT of them here). What works for you, WILL NOT work long term for many people who show up here in the forums and it is somewhat cruel to encourage that delusion in them. I have met MANY female yo-yo dieters here. I'm offering them advice on what will help them avoid the yo-yo syndrome and, in addition, to get off the leptin resistance-->insulin resistance-->Type II diabetes conveyor belt, I was once where they are and now I am not because of proper food choices.
what works for me is calorie deficit, adherence to macros, and working out/moving more….you are saying these three won't work for everyone?
even diabetics need a calorie deficit to lose weight ..at the end of the day it boils down to negative energy balance...
I took a peek at your food diary. Sorry, but if you don't want that, you should make it private.
My analysis: While you were a bit heavy on the protein, I'm assuming that you are trying to bulk. But you still were very light on vegetables and I saw no fruit at all. Vegetables and fruits are an important source of many beneficial substances and I would fear for your long term health. In addition, you start from a much higher calorie allowance than most females. Mine is set at 1,450---I have very little room for error. I must cut out the empty calories of added sugar and starch or I will not even come close to adequately nourishing myself for my longer term health goals. Just sayin.'0 -
I took a peek at your food diary. Sorry, but if you don't want that, you should make it private.
My analysis: While you were a bit heavy on the protein, I'm assuming that you are trying to bulk. But you still were very light on vegetables and I saw no fruit at all. Vegetables and fruits are an important source of many beneficial substances and I would fear for your long term health. In addition, you start from a much higher calorie allowance than most females. Mine is set at 1,450---I have very little room for error. I must cut out the empty calories of added sugar and starch or I will not even come close to adequately nourishing myself for my longer term health goals. Just sayin.'
I am 45 years old, don't know exactly where I am on the menopause spectrum, and although my diary is public, I just came back from vacation, so my logging is poor right now.
I am just under 27% body fat. I'm planning on getting down to 24% in the next few months.
Like ndj1979, my body obeys the laws of thermodynamics.
If you wanted to, you could set your calorie goal higher and simply move more.
I can't say enough about the benefits of lifting weights.
Ndj is younger & male, but he has an awesome physique because he chooses to, not because of his age or gender.
ETA: I have plenty of room in my diet for less nutrient dense foods, while still hitting my nutrition goals.0 -
This is just awesome.
I know, right?
Conspiracy theories, big government, Nazis, foreign governments...oh, and paleo.
:drinker:
I bet you never knew dieting was so interesting.:laugh:
is this thread still going?????
yes although the topic now is fluorinated water and how that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the obesity epidemic in the USA
Where's YOUR research to back up that claim? We have an epidemic of thyroid disease in this country--they have no such epidemic in Europe. We fluoridate our water supplies, they do not. We are basically from the same genetic lines as Europeans. Something is clearly causing the deterioration of thyroid health here and fluoride is known to affect the thyroid gland (among other undesirable effects). I draw the conclusion that the risk versus benefit equation requires that we eliminate fluordiation as repeated studies have shown that there is no dental benefit. The National Academy of Sciences has recommended that the "safe" level of 4pm be reduced. By the way, there is no such thing as "fluorinated water".
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
[/quot
Italy does not fluoridate it's water and thyroid problems are rampant. Where do you get your information?0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
i have gone from 220 pounds a d 25+% body fat ..to 170ish punds and 12% body fat over the past seven years and have had none of the issues that you mention ….
You are obviously a young, muscular man--you might as well be in a different universe than an obese, menopausal women (and there are a LOT of them here). What works for you, WILL NOT work long term for many people who show up here in the forums and it is somewhat cruel to encourage that delusion in them. I have met MANY female yo-yo dieters here. I'm offering them advice on what will help them avoid the yo-yo syndrome and, in addition, to get off the leptin resistance-->insulin resistance-->Type II diabetes conveyor belt, I was once where they are and now I am not because of proper food choices.
what works for me is calorie deficit, adherence to macros, and working out/moving more….you are saying these three won't work for everyone?
even diabetics need a calorie deficit to lose weight ..at the end of the day it boils down to negative energy balance...
I took a peek at your food diary. Sorry, but if you don't want that, you should make it private.
My analysis: While you were a bit heavy on the protein, I'm assuming that you are trying to bulk. But you still were very light on vegetables and I saw no fruit at all. Vegetables and fruits are an important source of many beneficial substances and I would fear for your long term health. In addition, you start from a much higher calorie allowance than most females. Mine is set at 1,450---I have very little room for error. I must cut out the empty calories of added sugar and starch or I will not even come close to adequately nourishing myself for my longer term health goals. Just sayin.'
I am not bulking, I am actually cutting…
thanks fro your concern but according to my most recent physical I am in excellent healthy and all my blood work came back almost "perfect" in all areas tested….
what exactly is "empty" about ice cream? and I would be curious what you feel I am eating that is "empty"….
Finally, my diary, or yours, does not negate the fact that calories in vs calories out si what works for everyone for weight loss…
oh and final note, I find it amusing that your diary is private yet you are the one arguing for "quality of calories"….what are you trying to hide?0 -
Amazing how two woirds can cause endless pages on here.... With my luck it would end with my own post...0
-
Amazing how two woirds can cause endless pages on here.... With my luck it would end with my own post...
Had to sorry!0 -
I took a peek at your food diary. Sorry, but if you don't want that, you should make it private.
My analysis: While you were a bit heavy on the protein, I'm assuming that you are trying to bulk. But you still were very light on vegetables and I saw no fruit at all. Vegetables and fruits are an important source of many beneficial substances and I would fear for your long term health. In addition, you start from a much higher calorie allowance than most females. Mine is set at 1,450---I have very little room for error. I must cut out the empty calories of added sugar and starch or I will not even come close to adequately nourishing myself for my longer term health goals. Just sayin.'
I am 45 years old, don't know exactly where I am on the menopause spectrum, and although my diary is public, I just came back from vacation, so my logging is poor right now.
I am just under 27% body fat. I'm planning on getting down to 24% in the next few months.
Like ndj1979, my body obeys the laws of thermodynamics.
If you wanted to, you could set your calorie goal higher and simply move more.
I can't say enough about the benefits of lifting weights.
Ndj is younger & male, but he has an awesome physique because he chooses to, not because of his age or gender.
ETA: I have plenty of room in my diet for less nutrient dense foods, while still hitting my nutrition goals.
Thanks for the snotty response. I would love to move more except that I have arthritis--like so many people my age. I do what I can--I go to the pool twice a week and when I feel up to it, I walk. I already lift weights. Years of high carbohydrate, calorie restricted diets have done a lot to destroy my health but I am currently healthier than I have been in a long time. But thanks for being concerned. :flowerforyou:0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
How would anyone gain that much weight, even if it were just 25 pounds in three years without noticing it ? I maintained my 110 pounds ( for someone under 5 feet within the high normal range ) all my adult life by sometimes eating normal, sometimes eating a bit more ( on special occasions ) and then making up for it by eating less, or eating lighter. Losing and gaining within a 5-10 pound parameter is pretty much normal for all normal weight people and is not considered yo-yo-ing....it's just the normal way things balance out.
I wish I had stopped and eaten 100 calories less and I had not gained 80 pounds over the last eleven years ( not counting the last year when I lost 50 of them )...but personal reasons kept me from doing so. And btw: yes, I noticed that I gained weight....I just did not care at the time.
They WOULD notice and then many of them would get on the yo-yo dieting treadmill. I've been there and done it all. Now I maintain my weight effortlessly (in fact, I will probably lose another 5-7 pounds this year)--all without "dieting". I count calories only to ensure that I eat enough calories. When one eats nutrient-dense food, one is satisfied with many fewer calories.0 -
Thoughts?
Have fun blowing your *kitten* out in the bathroom on a low carb / high protein diet.
Paleo is a joke.0 -
This is just awesome.
I know, right?
Conspiracy theories, big government, Nazis, foreign governments...oh, and paleo.
:drinker:
I bet you never knew dieting was so interesting.:laugh:
is this thread still going?????
yes although the topic now is fluorinated water and how that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the obesity epidemic in the USA
Where's YOUR research to back up that claim? We have an epidemic of thyroid disease in this country--they have no such epidemic in Europe. We fluoridate our water supplies, they do not. We are basically from the same genetic lines as Europeans. Something is clearly causing the deterioration of thyroid health here and fluoride is known to affect the thyroid gland (among other undesirable effects). I draw the conclusion that the risk versus benefit equation requires that we eliminate fluordiation as repeated studies have shown that there is no dental benefit. The National Academy of Sciences has recommended that the "safe" level of 4pm be reduced. By the way, there is no such thing as "fluorinated water".
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
[/quot
Italy does not fluoridate it's water and thyroid problems are rampant. Where do you get your information?
References? If Italy does have thyroid problems, it may be due to their wheat habit. Wheat consumption is also implicated in thyroid problems. http://thyroid.about.com/cs/latestresearch/a/celiac.htm#ref http://tanmedicine.blogspot.ca/2012/09/should-patients-with-hypothyroidism-not.html Sorry that they are secondary sources--but I didn't have time to look up the research. I can't always access it.
I already mentioned that obesity likely has a constellation of causes and thyroid disease probably does too. One thing is clear--fluoridated water (and all the food products made with it) cannot be helping the situation.0 -
Thoughts?
Have fun blowing your *kitten* out in the bathroom on a low carb / high protein diet.
Paleo is a joke.
Why does everyone think paleo is necessarily low carb?
If I wanted to blow out a bathroom, I'd switch to raw 80/10/10. Too much fruit is...liberating (but not in a good way).0 -
Thoughts?
Have fun blowing your *kitten* out in the bathroom on a low carb / high protein diet.
Paleo is a joke.
Blowing your *kitten* out - how do you reckon that? Surly you're confusing paleo with SAD or anything high non soluble fibre!
Something makes me think it's not Paleo that's the joke!0 -
oh and final note, I find it amusing that your diary is private yet you are the one arguing for "quality of calories"….what are you trying to hide?
Testify.
It's a recurring theme for those who like to preach the "right" foods for everyone else.0 -
Thoughts?
Have fun blowing your *kitten* out in the bathroom on a low carb / high protein diet.
Paleo is a joke.
Why does everyone think paleo is necessarily low carb?
If I wanted to blow out a bathroom, I'd switch to raw 80/10/10. Too much fruit is...liberating (but not in a good way).
90% of online Paleo programs are low carb. Unless you make your own, but the majority of people are too stupid to do so, I'm going with the general consensus assumption.0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
i have gone from 220 pounds a d 25+% body fat ..to 170ish punds and 12% body fat over the past seven years and have had none of the issues that you mention ….
You are obviously a young, muscular man--you might as well be in a different universe than an obese, menopausal women (and there are a LOT of them here). What works for you, WILL NOT work long term for many people who show up here in the forums and it is somewhat cruel to encourage that delusion in them. I have met MANY female yo-yo dieters here. I'm offering them advice on what will help them avoid the yo-yo syndrome and, in addition, to get off the leptin resistance-->insulin resistance-->Type II diabetes conveyor belt, I was once where they are and now I am not because of proper food choices.
what works for me is calorie deficit, adherence to macros, and working out/moving more….you are saying these three won't work for everyone?
even diabetics need a calorie deficit to lose weight ..at the end of the day it boils down to negative energy balance...
I took a peek at your food diary. Sorry, but if you don't want that, you should make it private.
My analysis: While you were a bit heavy on the protein, I'm assuming that you are trying to bulk. But you still were very light on vegetables and I saw no fruit at all. Vegetables and fruits are an important source of many beneficial substances and I would fear for your long term health. In addition, you start from a much higher calorie allowance than most females. Mine is set at 1,450---I have very little room for error. I must cut out the empty calories of added sugar and starch or I will not even come close to adequately nourishing myself for my longer term health goals. Just sayin.'
I am not bulking, I am actually cutting…
thanks fro your concern but according to my most recent physical I am in excellent healthy and all my blood work came back almost "perfect" in all areas tested….
what exactly is "empty" about ice cream? and I would be curious what you feel I am eating that is "empty"….
Finally, my diary, or yours, does not negate the fact that calories in vs calories out si what works for everyone for weight loss…
oh and final note, I find it amusing that your diary is private yet you are the one arguing for "quality of calories"….what are you trying to hide?
The fact that you are "cutting" makes my argument even more potent. You cut body fat at a calorie level that would cause me to gain. I repeat, you have the luxury of including lots of nutrient poor foods--I do not and neither do many, many women in my age grouping. I didn't mention ice cream at all if you will check what I said. In any case, I didn't mention anything that I saw in your diet as being empty calories. I just mentioned the lack of vegetables and fruits (even the government is bright enough to suggest 7-9 servings of fruit and vegetables per day). Excessive protein is also a problem long term. But our bodies do tell us when we've had enough. Some people who are "bulking" say that they get to the point of wanting to gag at the sight of yet another chicken breast. My diary is not private--it is open to my friends who would tell you that it is "pristine clean". If you want to send me a friend request, I will consider it. But I have to tell you that I don't generally get along with those who are dogmatic about "calories in-calories out". I have found what is (for me) a better way.0 -
Protein certainly isn't a "problem" long term. There's no science supporting that, barring a pre-existing kidney disease.0
-
Thoughts?
Have fun blowing your *kitten* out in the bathroom on a low carb / high protein diet.
Paleo is a joke.
Why does everyone think paleo is necessarily low carb?
If I wanted to blow out a bathroom, I'd switch to raw 80/10/10. Too much fruit is...liberating (but not in a good way).
90% of online Paleo programs are low carb. Unless you make your own, but the majority of people are too stupid to do so, I'm going with the general consensus assumption.
Maybe you need to educate yourself more on the paleo diet! Plus as most people eating paleo aren't building unnecessary larger muscles why do they need to eat large volumes of carbs anyway.0 -
Protein certainly isn't a "problem" long term. There's no science supporting that, barring a pre-existing kidney disease.
This seems like I[m doing something from the twilight zone - but - this^^^^^^^^^^^0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions