What is your secret?

RonSwanson66

Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand.

First of all, the human body wasn't designed. It evolved.
And it evolved to eat a variety of foods.
Just because it wasn't convenient for early man to eat 60% carbs, this doesn't mean that it is somehow detrimental to modern man (who, despite what you may think) have evolved quite a bit since then. You keep confusing "available" with "optimal".

My apologies. You are right, I have crossed the line. We have evolved such that the current western diet is optimal for human health.

You are truly hopeless.

MrDude_1

Intermittent fasting.

This plus eating high-fat, low-carb.

exactly.
never hungry.... and was just laughing at a thread where someone was worried about eating a burger that they craved... while eating homemade chili... thats basically a bowl of hamburger and beans.. lol.

MummyOfSeven

No secret. Healthy (ish) eating and hard work

channa007

Eat pizza. Drink wine. Work hard.

LOL I second this.. just keep a defecit either with exercise or not.

infamousmk

Why are we still doing this?

lynheff

AHH. We all want the "secret". That is why the weight loss industry is a multi-billion dollar a year business. Sorry. I lost 149 pounds by religiously tracking my food intake so I didn't eat more than 1400 calories a day, exercising an hour 5 days a week and staying away from sweets. But if anyone does have a secret that doesn't involve diet and exercise PLEASE share.

MaximalLife

Get pregnant

Have baby

Run after said baby. Wash bottles. wash toys. Hoover the house everyday. Clean, cook, run run run run.

Oh, and then exercise every morning

Breastfeed

This is bull!
I tried that breastfeed thing with my dog, and he just bit me on the boob.....

witheredorchid

No food after midnight, no exposure to bright light and no getting wet.......oh wait, that's so I don't turn into a gremlin.

tigersword

Stop talking about things you clearly don't understand.

First of all, the human body wasn't designed. It evolved.
And it evolved to eat a variety of foods.
Just because it wasn't convenient for early man to eat 60% carbs, this doesn't mean that it is somehow detrimental to modern man (who, despite what you may think) have evolved quite a bit since then. You keep confusing "available" with "optimal".

My apologies. You are right, I have crossed the line. We have evolved such that the current western diet is optimal for human health.

You do realize that the "Western Diet" that you are insulting actually contains far more protein and fats than other diets around the world, right? Not way more carbs? Without grains and these oh so evil carbs, billions of people on the planet would starve to death.

Yes, I'll grant carbs cause problems to people with insulin resistance, but here's the thing, carbs don't cause insulin resistance, having too much body fat does. When you have too much body fat, it can't fit in your fat cells, and you have free floating fat roaming through the blood stream. That's what causes insulin resistance. It's a fact that people in the US are eating less carbs percentage wise than they were 40 years ago, yet all these metabolic issues that are being blamed on carbs are getting worse, not better. Carbs aren't the devil, eating way too much in general is the problem, as the average American is eating 600 calories a day more than an average American ate in 1970, all while being more sedentary.

duharvalgt

I have a painting of myself locked in my basement that ages and puts on fat instead of me

grinch031

You do realize that the "Western Diet" that you are insulting actually contains far more protein and fats than other diets around the world, right? Not way more carbs? Without grains and these oh so evil carbs, billions of people on the planet would starve to death.

What you say about grains is true and is a tragedy.

Yes, I'll grant carbs cause problems to people with insulin resistance, but here's the thing, carbs don't cause insulin resistance, having too much body fat does. When you have too much body fat, it can't fit in your fat cells, and you have free floating fat roaming through the blood stream. That's what causes insulin resistance. It's a fact that people in the US are eating less carbs percentage wise than they were 40 years ago, yet all these metabolic issues that are being blamed on carbs are getting worse, not better. Carbs aren't the devil, eating way too much in general is the problem, as the average American is eating 600 calories a day more than an average American ate in 1970, all while being more sedentary.

Not going to dispute the science because I don't know the full story on that, but it is news to me that carb intake has actually decreased in the past 40 years.

Gioooo

I eat what i want in portion sizes!!

ram210

Burn more cal's then you take in oh and USP LABS oxyelite is awesome luck to everybody

xcrushx28

I avoid taking information from strangers on forums, rather from people that base their opinions on peer reviewed and strong anecdotal evidence.

tigersword

You do realize that the "Western Diet" that you are insulting actually contains far more protein and fats than other diets around the world, right? Not way more carbs? Without grains and these oh so evil carbs, billions of people on the planet would starve to death.

What you say about grains is true and is a tragedy.

Yes, I'll grant carbs cause problems to people with insulin resistance, but here's the thing, carbs don't cause insulin resistance, having too much body fat does. When you have too much body fat, it can't fit in your fat cells, and you have free floating fat roaming through the blood stream. That's what causes insulin resistance. It's a fact that people in the US are eating less carbs percentage wise than they were 40 years ago, yet all these metabolic issues that are being blamed on carbs are getting worse, not better. Carbs aren't the devil, eating way too much in general is the problem, as the average American is eating 600 calories a day more than an average American ate in 1970, all while being more sedentary.

Not going to dispute the science because I don't know the full story on that, but it is news to me that carb intake has actually decreased in the past 40 years.

I just reworked the numbers and I'll correct myself. It hasn't decreased, it hasn't changed at all. In 1970 grains, fruits, vegetables, and added sugars made up 48% of the American daily caloric intake. As of 2009 (the most recent numbers I found) grains, fruits, vegetables, and added sugars made up 48% of the American daily caloric intake. An interesting thing to note is that the added sugars category actually decreased by 2% in that timespan. Meat and eggs have decreased from 21% to 18%, while added fats have increased from 19% to 23%, mostly due to a huge increase in the amount of cooking oils being used nowadays. There really is no one number to nail down as to why Americans are obese as far as any particular food type, the issue is that Americans have increased their overall caloric consumption by 25% over the last 40 years, from an average of 2164, to a current average of 2594.

twilightsm

Really watch your sodium intake!! Lower sodium levels = less water weight

grinch031

You do realize that the "Western Diet" that you are insulting actually contains far more protein and fats than other diets around the world, right? Not way more carbs? Without grains and these oh so evil carbs, billions of people on the planet would starve to death.

What you say about grains is true and is a tragedy.

Yes, I'll grant carbs cause problems to people with insulin resistance, but here's the thing, carbs don't cause insulin resistance, having too much body fat does. When you have too much body fat, it can't fit in your fat cells, and you have free floating fat roaming through the blood stream. That's what causes insulin resistance. It's a fact that people in the US are eating less carbs percentage wise than they were 40 years ago, yet all these metabolic issues that are being blamed on carbs are getting worse, not better. Carbs aren't the devil, eating way too much in general is the problem, as the average American is eating 600 calories a day more than an average American ate in 1970, all while being more sedentary.

Not going to dispute the science because I don't know the full story on that, but it is news to me that carb intake has actually decreased in the past 40 years.

I just reworked the numbers and I'll correct myself. It hasn't decreased, it hasn't changed at all. In 1970 grains, fruits, vegetables, and added sugars made up 48% of the American daily caloric intake. As of 2009 (the most recent numbers I found) grains, fruits, vegetables, and added sugars made up 48% of the American daily caloric intake. An interesting thing to note is that the added sugars category actually decreased by 2% in that timespan. Meat and eggs have decreased from 21% to 18%, while added fats have increased from 19% to 23%, mostly due to a huge increase in the amount of cooking oils being used nowadays. There really is no one number to nail down as to why Americans are obese as far as any particular food type, the issue is that Americans have increased their overall caloric consumption by 25% over the last 40 years, from an average of 2164, to a current average of 2594.

Seems to disagree with the report that I found, which only goes up to 2000.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

During 1971--2000, a statistically significant increase in average energy intake occurred (Table). For men, average energy intake increased from 2,450 kcals to 2,618 kcals (p<0.01), and for women, from 1,542 kcals to 1,877 kcals (p<0.01). For men, the percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased between 1971--1974 and 1999--2000, from 42.4% to 49.0% (p<0.01), and for women, from 45.4% to 51.6% (p<0.01) (Table). The percentage of kcals from total fat decreased from 36.9% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for men and from 36.1% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for women. In addition, the percentage of kcals from saturated fat decreased from 13.5% to 10.9% (p<0.01) for men and from 13.0% to 11.0% (p<0.01) for women. A slight decrease was observed in the percentage of kcals from protein, from 16.5% to 15.5% (p<0.01) for men and from 16.9% to 15.1% (p<0.01) for women.

So here I see carb percentages increased and fat percentages decreased.

tigersword

Here's a link to the spreadsheet I'm using, direct from the USDA.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/foodloss/Calories.xls#Percents!a1

grinch031

Here's a link to the spreadsheet I'm using, direct from the USDA.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/foodloss/Calories.xls#Percents!a1

So this doesn't tell me a whole lot. CDC chose to present their data differently than you did from the raw USDA data. I'd say its inconclusive at best. Just like most studies once you start comparing them.

Jonesie1984

The only tip worth noting is to eat at a calorie deficit and exercise. And that's no secret at all. Yet so many ignore it and keep seeking more complicated and misguided approaches.

So why do over 90% of people who attempt to follow this tip fail?

This remark frustrated me so much that I came back to reply a second time.

I think it's not an exaggeration to say that 90% of the people on MFP fail at permanent weight loss, and the reason they fail is because they try everything under the sun OTHER than what they should be doing. (again, just to make it painfully clear - that is eating a deficit and exercising).

That is like graduating from kindergarten. That's the SIMPLE part. It's so ridiculously simple that, as I said before, the more we talk about it, the more the simplicity of it gets lost.

Most of you need to get the hell out of kindergarten and move on to first grade, where you can worry about bigger and better things like... entering races, improving cardio endurance, improving running speed, efficiently gaining strength, etc... or even just deciding what new clothes to put on that sexy *kitten* new body of yours.

WORD.

GThorp

exactly.
never hungry.... and was just laughing at a thread where someone was worried about eating a burger that they craved... while eating homemade chili... thats basically a bowl of hamburger and beans.. lol.

The only things I worry about when eating a burger are these:

A) Quality of Meat: If I can get grass-fed instead conventional grain-fed meat, I'm a happy guy. Sure it tastes a little different than what most people are used to, but it also is a much better choice than a burger from say McDonalds. It has more balanced Omega 3:Omega 6 ratio, the animals are treated much more humanely, and the overall quality of meat is just better.

Oil: For fatty ground beef, you really don't need any oil. But personally, I'll either just throw in some grass-fed butter or coconut oil to up the fat content and make the burger taste even better. If someone is eating a burger cooked in vegetable oil, canola oil, etc. then there is something to be concerned about.

C) Bun: Just forget the bun. I used to be a big bread lover, but these days a big piece of lettuce does the job just as well. I ate at a restaurant with my girlfriend and her family a few weeks back, and asked the waitress to forgo the bun for a few big slices of lettuce. She ended up just bringing me shredded lettuce with the burger, so I resorted to sprinkling the lettuce on top and eating the burger with my fork. Probably looked like a weirdo, but you can't eat high-fat, low-carb without getting a few looks from the masses.

Now, I'm not always able to get a grass fed burger cooked in coconut oil and served up on two big slices of lettuce (see example above), but when eating a burger I try and stick to this as much as possible. If faced with the option of a less-than-great choice for a burger, I either chalk it up to 80/20 or fast.

RonSwanson66

Here's a link to the spreadsheet I'm using, direct from the USDA.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/foodloss/Calories.xls#Percents!a1

So this doesn't tell me a whole lot. CDC chose to present their data differently than you did from the raw USDA data. I'd say its inconclusive at best. Just like most studies once you start comparing them.

Ugh.

Tiger's data is current (2009), Your data is from 2000.

Just like a good little Taubsian you're attempting to use outdated data to support your premise while more current data exists.

Think about it for a second. In 2000, we were coming off of the "low-fat" 80's and 90's. OF COURSE carbs were up and fat was down.

Since then, carb intake has dropped (percentage-wise) yet people continue to get fatter.

jknops2

Here's a link to the spreadsheet I'm using, direct from the USDA.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/foodloss/Calories.xls#Percents!a1

Interesting. Basically, and not too surprising, we just eat why more calories now, and that's why many of us are overweight.

I wonder how the home cooked, versus prepared home heated, versus restaurant, percentages have changed over this time period.

grinch031

Here's a link to the spreadsheet I'm using, direct from the USDA.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/foodloss/Calories.xls#Percents!a1

So this doesn't tell me a whole lot. CDC chose to present their data differently than you did from the raw USDA data. I'd say its inconclusive at best. Just like most studies once you start comparing them.

Ugh.

Tiger's data is current (2009), Your data is from 2000.

Just like a good little Taubsian you're attempting to use outdated data to support your premise while more current data exists.

Think about it for a second. In 2000, we were coming off of the "low-fat" 80's and 90's. OF COURSE carbs were up and fat was down.

Since then, carb intake has dropped (percentage-wise) yet people continue to get fatter.

Tiger also neglected to include carbs from nuts and dairy products. The point is, there are many different ways to interpret the data.

sugarbone

Lift heavy weights, eat high protein, no processed or direct sugar.

That said, I do eat the sugar in milk, fruits etc, but as little as possible. I also allow myself a sugary treat on Fridays, today it was a mocha frappuccino :-) I also eat low carb in general.

I've never found weight loss hard, you just need to eat less. You don't even need to work out. I like the results and achievement of weight lifting though.

japruzze

Close my mouth!

kbean33

bump

dbutorac

When you feel the urge to eat, & it is not the right time. i. e. evening or mid-afternoon. Try brushing your teeth Or gargling with Listerine. Everyone likes a fresh mouth & it makes you not want to ruin it with food.

tigersword

Here's a link to the spreadsheet I'm using, direct from the USDA.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/foodloss/Calories.xls#Percents!a1

So this doesn't tell me a whole lot. CDC chose to present their data differently than you did from the raw USDA data. I'd say its inconclusive at best. Just like most studies once you start comparing them.

Ugh.

Tiger's data is current (2009), Your data is from 2000.

Just like a good little Taubsian you're attempting to use outdated data to support your premise while more current data exists.

Think about it for a second. In 2000, we were coming off of the "low-fat" 80's and 90's. OF COURSE carbs were up and fat was down.

Since then, carb intake has dropped (percentage-wise) yet people continue to get fatter.

Tiger also neglected to include carbs from nuts and dairy products. The point is, there are many different ways to interpret the data.

And in the interest of parity, I also left out the protein and fat content in the nuts and dairy. Since Dairy consumption decreased, and nuts increased by roughly 20 calories, I didn't see either as being necessary to include.

Suziq2you

When you feel the urge to eat, & it is not the right time. i. e. evening or mid-afternoon. Try brushing your teeth Or gargling with Listerine. Everyone likes a fresh mouth & it makes you not want to ruin it with food.

There's a right time to eat? I did not know this. :ohwell: