10 Simple things you can do to facilitate weight loss

I think people put too much science in all that. I grew up in Germany and when I was a kid I never got fat. And neither were my parents. Obesity was basically unknown. I was active a lot. Not by doing doing sports on a regular basis or going to a gym. I never even joined any sports team. I just did a lot of walking or riding my bike. We had no fast food place in the area and the first burger chain restaurant opened in the early 80s and was about 8 miles away. Most of the food was home cooked. And I mean cooked. Not fried. And some of the veggies even home grown.

Yes our society has changed and so have we. I became a couch potato as well and gained lots of weight. Too much work, too much stress, not enough time here and there... In addition the move to the USA with the convenience where almost everything and sometimes only can be done by car and where food is available 24h a day and restaurant portions for 1 easily feed 2-3 did not help it either.
With a lot of common sense and a more healthy life style it is very easy to loose weight. Yes this sometimes requires more time.
- Spend some time to cook a healthy meal instead of take-out or a trip to the restaurant. It is fun too.
- Don't use the car for everything but get the bike out when you need to run to the store
- And when you use the car don't circle the parking lot to find the closest spot to the door. Park in the last row and WALK,
- Dump the heavy fried food for some more healthy stuff. E.g. a salad vs fries for a side.
- Don't finish the plate just because they loaded it. Take part of it as to go and use it for lunch or dinner the next day
- Get away from the TV and take stroll through the neighborhood.
- Replace the unhealthy snacks with fruits, dump the white bread for multigrain, ....
- and and and....

I personally don't believe in rigorous diets but rather change my life style which can maintain with joy. I use MFP to get a rough track on what I eat. I am not a bean counter and don't count every calorie. Plus/Minus 200 calories I really don't care.
But I have changed my life style over the past 2 months and with a more watchful eye on what and how much I eat I easily lost over 20lb in 2 months now.
And as a a side note: I am a homebrewer and still have my daily dosage of homebrew... ;-)

4 5 and 6 are more for controlling hunger and preventing binge eating
As for weight lifting, it's been proven lifting heavy weights several times a week burns more calories than cardio due to the body expending energy rebuilding the muscle

Take my advice however you choose to

I think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.

Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I linked the source in that last post if you missed it
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/

From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."

That's absolutely true
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting

I would like to hear more about this. According to MFP, I only burn about 3 calories a minute when I lift, but my cardio burns range from 8 to 11.

MFP is amazing for counting calories with foods, but for exercising I've found it to be lacking. Try using Nike+ and see what that gives you for a simple run.

For the most accurate calculation of calories burned the best method is via HRM.

I think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.

Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I linked the source in that last post if you missed it
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/

From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."

That's absolutely true
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting

I would like to hear more about this. According to MFP, I only burn about 3 calories a minute when I lift, but my cardio burns range from 8 to 11.

MFP is amazing for counting calories with foods, but for exercising I've found it to be lacking. Try using Nike+ and see what that gives you for a simple run.

I have a BodyMedia which was generally step-in-step with MFP on cardio burns. I've recently started using my iPod Nano which has a fitness app (I think it's Nike+) and it's usually within 2-3 calories of what MFP and the BMF say. If I jog at 5 mph for half an hour, I will get credited with roughly 240 calories burned. Half an hour of weight training seems considerably less. I usually lift for an hour and MFP gives me 179 calories burned for that, so about 90 for a half hour...?

I agree with everything but 3&4. I lost all my weight eating two meals and one small snack a day. It comes down to what works best for your schedule and level of hunger

I think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.

Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I linked the source in that last post if you missed it
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/

From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."

That's absolutely true
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting

Proof?

read both articles

I did. Neither supports what you are saying.

it's been proven lifting heavy weights several times a week burns more calories than cardio due to the body expending energy rebuilding the muscle

I would like to see that study. Honestly, I would. Do you have a link to it?

This is coming from someone who is an avid supporter of weight lifting while attempting to lose weight...I've just never heard that before.

Don't know if this is what you mean but, I have the book "The New Rules of Lifting for Women' and it talks about an article published in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 2003 about a study done by the University of Colorado. They took a group of men and women and split them up and had half burn 400 calories doing cardio and the other half burn 400 calories doing weight lifting. What they discovered was that 15 hours after the weight workout, the men and women were burning 22 percent more fat then those that did the cardio training. It has to do with Fat oxidation and how our body uses oxygen to turn fat into energy.

Unfortunately I can't find the article on line, maybe because it is to old.

The important data you're leaving out is how much time was spent burning those 400 calories respectively. He's saying that equal time spent doing cardio vs weight lifting (30 minutes in the OPs example) will yield more calories burned via weight lifting.

I think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.

Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Dude sounds like he is having some success, is excited by that and wants to share...don't need to crap on that really.

I agree.

I think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.

Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I linked the source in that last post if you missed it
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/

From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."

That's absolutely true
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting

I would like to hear more about this. According to MFP, I only burn about 3 calories a minute when I lift, but my cardio burns range from 8 to 11.

MFP is amazing for counting calories with foods, but for exercising I've found it to be lacking. Try using Nike+ and see what that gives you for a simple run.

I have a BodyMedia which was generally step-in-step with MFP on cardio burns. I've recently started using my iPod Nano which has a fitness app (I think it's Nike+) and it's usually within 2-3 calories of what MFP and the BMF say. If I jog at 5 mph for half an hour, I will get credited with roughly 240 calories burned. Half an hour of weight training seems considerably less. I usually lift for an hour and MFP gives me 179 calories burned for that, so about 90 for a half hour...?

are you lifting to failure?

Not every time, but I don't play around either. I did reach failure last night on my last set of shoulder presses. I had two to go and my arms just went "nope! We're done."

Articles are not proof.

The first one sited a couple of studies but they didn't address your statement. People lost more fat with cardio AND weight training. It never said that 30 minutes of cardio burned less than 30 minutes of weight lifting.

The second didn't site any studies and also didn't support your claim.

Please site where you got your information that made it so you could make that claim. Your teachers would not accept those articles as research, or at least they shouldn't if they're doing their jobs properly.

Small tangent (you have valid points). The word you want is cite, as in citation.

Typeos man, typos.

I do that sort of thing all the time. Quite maddening when I'm trying to come off as knowledgeable and stuff.

I think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.

Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I linked the source in that last post if you missed it
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/

From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."

That's absolutely true
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting

I would like to hear more about this. According to MFP, I only burn about 3 calories a minute when I lift, but my cardio burns range from 8 to 11.

MFP is amazing for counting calories with foods, but for exercising I've found it to be lacking. Try using Nike+ and see what that gives you for a simple run.

For the most accurate calculation of calories burned the best method is via HRM.

HRMs are only accurate for exercises that put you in an aerobic range and keep you there. They are total garbage for tracking burn from things like weight lifting where you go from extreme high intensity to rest.

Okay...quick rant about proper citation because this is a pet peeve of mine. I think the lack of proper citation that runs absolutely rampant in our culture and media has completely destroyed the reliability of information and has made things exceedingly difficult where they should of been easy simply because people do not follow this simple rule.

If you read and understand a scientific study about something (primary source) then you can talk directly about that study and say things like "When study X was conducted they determined that blah and concluded bleh which is in support of what I am saying".

If, however, you read an article somewhere say on the internet and that article says that "study X was conducted they determined blah and concluded bleh" then you should NOT just refer to the study saying that. Why? Because you never read the study and because people don't bother to cite things properly chances are the person who wrote that article didn't read the study either, they just read some other article that talked about the study.

This is how misinformation gets propagated.

So how do you become intellectually honest with your referenced to things? Easy. Think of the primary literature (studies, research, etc) as what you should read if you want to cite what they say and think of everything else as Uncle Bob.

Then when you are trying to back up your argument be honest about it. If you actually read and understood a study say "Well I read a study conducted by blah that demonstrated bleh by showing that blah-de-blah and that supports my point". If instead you read and article that mentioned the study say this. "Well Uncle Bob told me there was a study that was done that supports my point.

See how much less convincing that sounds? Yeah, thats because now you are being honest and honestly all you know is that you read someone elses opinion. If you read about a study on an internet blog but didn't actually read the study itself you should be skeptical and not be convinced. Chances are the author of that article is just talking about what Uncle Bob told them.

+1

And here is my list of things one can do to facilitate weight loss:

1) Caloric deficit
2) Caloric deficit
3) Caloric deficit
4) Caloric deficit
5) Caloric deficit
6) Caloric deficit
7) Caloric deficit
8) Caloric deficit
9) Caloric deficit
10) Caloric deficit

Okay...quick rant about proper citation because this is a pet peeve of mine. I think the lack of proper citation that runs absolutely rampant in our culture and media has completely destroyed the reliability of information and has made things exceedingly difficult where they should of been easy simply because people do not follow this simple rule.

If you read and understand a scientific study about something (primary source) then you can talk directly about that study and say things like "When study X was conducted they determined that blah and concluded bleh which is in support of what I am saying".

If, however, you read an article somewhere say on the internet and that article says that "study X was conducted they determined blah and concluded bleh" then you should NOT just refer to the study saying that. Why? Because you never read the study and because people don't bother to cite things properly chances are the person who wrote that article didn't read the study either, they just read some other article that talked about the study.

This is how misinformation gets propagated.

So how do you become intellectually honest with your referenced to things? Easy. Think of the primary literature (studies, research, etc) as what you should read if you want to cite what they say and think of everything else as Uncle Bob.

Then when you are trying to back up your argument be honest about it. If you actually read and understood a study say "Well I read a study conducted by blah that demonstrated bleh by showing that blah-de-blah and that supports my point". If instead you read and article that mentioned the study say this. "Well Uncle Bob told me there was a study that was done that supports my point.

See how much less convincing that sounds? Yeah, thats because now you are being honest and honestly all you know is that you read someone elses opinion. If you read about a study on an internet blog but didn't actually read the study itself you should be skeptical and not be convinced. Chances are the author of that article is just talking about what Uncle Bob told them.

I completely agree with this rant with one small addendum. Studies/reports that are reviewing a body of research on a subject and coming up with a conclusion can count, assuming they are independent and are honestly reviewing the whole field of credible research projects to find trends and are upfront that this is a review, not new research. Also articles/books written by scientists to explain a concept to the lay person will count for me if the person is a credible scientist in that field of research and isn't trying to push an agenda but give you a broad view of a field of study. This can't be someone who is also hawking a product line or is a lobby group's favorite pet. A well written title will be very clear about what is accepted by the consensus, what is promising, and what is new areas yet to be explored (and will reference like crazy). I've read some great titles explaining where we are on shark research, pre-natal and post-natal neurological and sensory development, evolution, green energy/energy conservation technologies, astrophysics, and deciphering the human brain.

The Uncle Bob comment is spot on since a majority of "science articles" are written by journalists with no background in science. This has been a frequent complaint I've heard from scientists who do write.

Very good, excellent, in fact. Thanks for posting.