Weight loss is 90% food, 10% exercise?

leaninsc wrote: »

Well a few jars of Crazy Richard Peanut Butter could put me at 7000 calories eating clean. And the only ingredients in it is peanuts! Eating clean doesn't necessarily mean you are eating low calorie.

This was a decent article I had seen -

http://nypost.com/2016/05/03/heres-what-to-eat-if-you-want-to-get-skinny-or-if-you-want-to-get-healthy/

And I guess you can lose weight by eating cupcakes as long as it is under your calorie goal. But the problem with foods like that is that they are just pure sugar - they don't keep you full. They spike your sugar levels, send you crashing even worse, and then you are hungry again. Many people end up going over their calories because it's not enough real food or substance, or drinking it away in calories without getting full, and then they need to eat more.

It all depends on what you mean by "eating clean" or "clean food" because peanut butter has often been considered to be in the junk food category depending who you ask. This is why many don't like the term "clean" because it really isn't a well defined term.

Also, the cupcake may not spike your blood sugar much if it has a lot of fat in it since that slows digestion. A lot of baked good can really vary on GI due to fat and protein content. Most junk foods that people really crave tend to be high in fat as well as sugar so can keep you full longer than you might think. As for drinking calories, that's a good way to get a lot with little satiety since liquids do not have the same satiety effect as solid foods.

leaninsc wrote: »

When I plan my meals, I basically consider peanut butter a fat source, not a protein source. I would have a tablespoon or so, but I can't stick to that with peanut butter, so I just don't buy it very often. I'm much less likely to go destroy a bottle of olive oil. You are right that it's hard to define "clean" eating.

PB certainly is a better source of fat IMO than protein so I would definitely agree with that for those who want more fat and maybe a tad bit of extra protein.

makingmark wrote: »

Weight loss really is 100% food, but are any of us really here for just weight loss? I know I want to be able to do more, have better blood test numbers, be more healthy in my old age and look better. In short be healthier. Exercise is a huge aid in all of this goals as well. For my weight loss I have to focus on my food, for my health I have to ramp up my exercise. There is the added benefit that exercise gives me a modest amount of calories extra to eat and still lose weight, but I wouldn't equate a candy bar as worth an hour or two of exercise. That hour or two is worth it though to eventually be able to play tennis well again.

I completely agree with this. I like to be active for my health, but for actual weightloss I simply have to cut down a bit on the calories.

There are tons of peanut butters that are just peanuts (often do have salt, though). The only trick is you have to stir them. So I'm sure there are some in the UK.

It's also easy to make it yourself in a food processor.

themetz3838 wrote: »

@leaninsc I searched that PB and it does look awesome, no wonder you can destroy it lol! Not sure it's available in the UK tho???

Look out for Meridian Peanutbutter, it's delicious! Holland & Barrett have it but mroe and more supermarkets now stock it as well

Spliner1969 wrote: »

Just my humble opinion, but anyone who decides to do 0% exercise and lose their weight based on simple calorie reduction (food) is destined to gain the weight back later. For me it's 50/50. If I exercise as much as I can handle long term, then I can eat more of what I like and still keep my calories under control. This is something I can maintain going forward permanently so I don't expect to gain the weight back. So I exercise, burn calories so that I can eat more AND I adjusted to a healthier diet but don't deny myself the good things all the time.

No, you don't have to exercise to lose weight, but do you really want to gain it back again after the diet is over? Sure, you can learn new habits, but without exercise it means eating differently the rest of your life and counting calories. For me, that's no good.

Losing weight without exercise does not mean the person will not decide to add exercise at a later date.

For some, it's easier to lose without exercising because whatever exercise they choose makes them hungrier and more likely to overeat. Others prefer to just concentrate on one thing at a time. And still others just don't think exercise is all that important or desirable while they're dieting, but happen to change their minds some time after they get to goal weight.

stealthq wrote: »

Spliner1969 wrote: »

Just my humble opinion, but anyone who decides to do 0% exercise and lose their weight based on simple calorie reduction (food) is destined to gain the weight back later. For me it's 50/50. If I exercise as much as I can handle long term, then I can eat more of what I like and still keep my calories under control. This is something I can maintain going forward permanently so I don't expect to gain the weight back. So I exercise, burn calories so that I can eat more AND I adjusted to a healthier diet but don't deny myself the good things all the time.

No, you don't have to exercise to lose weight, but do you really want to gain it back again after the diet is over? Sure, you can learn new habits, but without exercise it means eating differently the rest of your life and counting calories. For me, that's no good.

Losing weight without exercise does not mean the person will not decide to add exercise at a later date.

For some, it's easier to lose without exercising because whatever exercise they choose makes them hungrier and more likely to overeat. Others prefer to just concentrate on one thing at a time. And still others just don't think exercise is all that important or desirable while they're dieting, but happen to change their minds some time after they get to goal weight.

We can only hope that they do.

I typically eat about four times a day, every 3.5-4 hours. Just when I start getting hungry again, it's usually time for my next meal. Breakfast, lunch, late afternoon snack, dinner. I think oats kind of keep me full the most because they are so slow digesting. If I have to bring a meal with me, I like ezekiel pita bread or ezekiel english muffins. They are good with salsa or hummus.

It has worked for me to kind of plan out my four meals of the day and portion them, instead of grazing/snacking all day long. It also helped me get a pretty good idea of serving sizes. And if I go off track for a meal, eat out, or have a social event, it's mentally easier for me to just jump right back into my routine for the next meal.

themetz3838 wrote: »

Eating 4 times a day could well be the answer, if I can shuffle things round at work and push dinner slightly to the right I could manage a similar routine. 4 hours is my natural hunger cycle, if not slightly quicker.

I haven't tried Ezekiel bread or pita before but I'm willing to try anything if it keeps me fuller for longer, thanks.

@Derpy_Hooves next time I'm in H&B I'll grab some and give it a try, thx

i'm not going to lie... ezekial bread kind of tastes like chewing on a boot. That along with rugbrød, my god. I guess my point in saying this is.... you should give it a try to see if it helps with your hunger levels. But i would purchase one product at a time before going all in.

I think the ezekiel cinnamon raisin english muffins are delicious.

I would say ezekiel pita is my favorite - better than the breads. I find the pita bread at whole foods. I do think Alvarado Street sprouted bread tastes better than ezekiel. But give them a try, see what you think!

Also, I don't think there is one right way to do this, in terms of meal timing, or what to eat, or anything really. Whatever works for you is the best way to do it! Planning out meals helps me stay on track. That doesn't mean I never go off it or don't make exceptions. I do. I have a social life and don't live out of tupperware. Just that having some structure with some go-to meal ideas helped me get a good routine going. It helps me plan my day out as well. I have a plan, but I'm also flexible as needed. But when I started doing consistently, it turned into positive habits instead of things I spend energy thinking about or having to get motivated, if that makes any sense.

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

zamphir66 wrote: »

I look at this way: I can run a 5K in 30 minutes and burn perhaps 300 calories. I can then buy a large KitKat at the corner store and cancel out that entire run in about 30 seconds. So, the "effect size" of food is much more pronounced than exercise. And my understanding (CMIIW) is that as you get trimmer and more fit, the effect size of food will increase even more, while it decreases for activity.

It decreases slightly but not that much. The difference for 50lbs running for 5K is about 50 calories and the difference in BMR is also only about 250 - 300 calories per day depending on sex. However, one interesting thing is that when you have a low BF% you have a higher propensity to add muscle than fat and this is reversed at a high BF%. As well, those with a lower BF% burn more calories per pound of body weight due to having a higher fat free mass index. So nothing is really that simple.

The difference in BMR (only about 250 calories per day) can mean 2 lbs a month weight gain, or 12 lbs a year, without changing diet ... this may be why aging related muscle loss can translate into weight gain creep over a decade.