65 yrs young working to get my fit body back. What foods do you find are best to fight belly fat?

65 yrs young working to get my fit body back. What foods do you find are best to fight belly fat?

Answers

  • trixsterjl31
    trixsterjl31 Posts: 140 Member
    edited October 25
    Opinion. No food is better for fat in any given body location. Your body will lose fat from where it want to lose fat in the order it choses. Normally it is across your entire body at once and you notice it first in places like face/hands and feet where less fat collect.
    Good foods that a nutrient rich are best. So basically what @AnnPT77 said. Good luck.
  • AdahPotatah2024
    AdahPotatah2024 Posts: 2,225 Member
    I made a cabbage salad this week, and feel really good..borderline too much cabbage for one person, but it is filling and it reduced my appetite for fatty foods at dinner...could just be me, though!
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,206 Member
    Yes, ads that tout foods that fight belly fat are comical.

    Belly fat is just fat like anywhere else on the body. You get rid of it by consistently taking in fewer calories than you burn. Start with eliminating ultra processed foods as much as possible. Things like cookies, chips, all junk food and alcohol as much as possible. That alone will put you on the right track then you may want to get into counting calories.

    Start exercising. While diet is the majority factor for weightloss, an exercise program, especially one that includes strength training complements a new healthier lifestyle.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    edited October 25
    It took me a couple of years and finally went with a low (er) carb diet. It satiated me better than any other diet so it took my mind off thinking about food or how much it weighed or how many calories it has or what a label might dictate to me whether that food was good or bad, and so on and so on, that's just not sustainable to the grave and why most diets that have some kind of protocol that must be followed fails almost every time. Anyway I've eaten this way for over a decade and my body maintenance at 72 it now more focusing on my sport activities, resistance training, and other activity which has manifested into the best shape I've been in since my early 40's, so I can't complain too much with those results, except I'm not as fast as I once was, but i can live with that and with minimal maintenance for nutrition except the curiosity I have for the science and study of it. Sarcopenia or excess body fat which includes my stomach area is something of a non issue and expect that to continue as long as I continue to do these simple things.
  • shlyman
    shlyman Posts: 2 Member
    Clean eating and a hot water with lemon and a TBS of Apple cider vinegar (from the mother root) is known to help too…but needs to be daily. I have a hard time with consistency. 😢
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,206 Member
    shlyman wrote: »
    Clean eating and a hot water with lemon and a TBS of Apple cider vinegar (from the mother root) is known to help too…but needs to be daily. I have a hard time with consistency. 😢
    The only way to lose fat is to consistently consume fewer calories than you burn. No food or drinks will accelerate that.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,162 Member
    shlyman wrote: »
    Clean eating and a hot water with lemon and a TBS of Apple cider vinegar (from the mother root) is known to help too…but needs to be daily. I have a hard time with consistency. 😢

    I drank the raw ACV (with the mother) consistently for weeks at a time while losing weight, and didn't drink it at all for other weeks at a time, in the same eating/activity context.

    It made zero difference in my weight loss rate, belly fat or anything of that nature.

    I was drinking it for other reasons (not weight loss), and I stopped out of concern that it might be worsening a health condition I was experiencing during that time period. After that condition resolved, I resumed drinking it again for a period of time. It has some potential minor health benefits (according to some actual research), but it's way overplayed IMO by the alt-health community. I wouldn't put big money on it, but I suspect it could maybe, possibly help with some causes of so-called "bloating" because it is probiotic. Belly fat, not so much. There's some limited evidence there may be a tiny impact on fat loss in general - tiny. Belly specifically? I've seen zero.

    By the way, for other readers, I want to clarify that it isn't literally "mother root". It has nothing to do with roots. The "mother" is a fermentation culture, loosely analogous to the fermentation culture that develops in sourdough starter, kombucha SCOBY, etc. It's made up of cellulose, yeast, and bacteria - probiotically active.
  • springlering62
    springlering62 Posts: 8,390 Member
    I drank ACV and water for GERD.

    Not only did it not help that at all, but I still managed to gain weight quite handily during that period.

    And that was in the pre-internet days. 😉

    I cringe every time I hear “belly fat” here. Boy, that was the most effective, insidious ad campaign ever created.
  • paul65k1
    paul65k1 Posts: 7 Member
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,162 Member
    Low carb isn't universally necessary, nor is sugar a deal-breaker for weight loss, especially when kept to a reasonable level. I ate 150g+ of carbs daily all through weight loss, and exceeded MFP's default sugar goal pretty much every day (mostly inherent sugars in fruit, veggies, no-sugar-added dairy).

    If carbs or sugar spike an individual's appetite, then low carb eating may make weight loss subjectively easier, which is great. Sure, if someone's eating includes a lot of added sugar - soda/pop, candy, sweet baked goods, etc., then it would make sense to cut way back on that. Those things tend not to be filling, and often don't delivery much nutrition.

    It's the calorie content that directly matters for fat loss, including belly fat loss.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,206 Member
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

  • paul65k1
    paul65k1 Posts: 7 Member
    edited October 29
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

    OK, if you say so......... all I know is that it has worked for me for more than 10 years...... but if you have scientific evidence, I'd sure like to hear it, and I'll certainly share it with my body, so it doesn't lose weight anymore🤣
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,206 Member
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

    OK, if you say so......... all I know is that it has worked for me for more than 10 years...... but if you have scientific evidence, I'd sure like to hear it, and I'll certainly share it with my body, so it doesn't lose weight anymore🤣
    Cutting out sugar and carbs just cuts out calories which is the reason you had success. Over drinking water burns calories because you’re running to the bathroom every 30 minutes.
  • paul65k1
    paul65k1 Posts: 7 Member
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

    OK, if you say so......... all I know is that it has worked for me for more than 10 years...... but if you have scientific evidence, I'd sure like to hear it, and I'll certainly share it with my body, so it doesn't lose weight anymore🤣
    Cutting out sugar and carbs just cuts out calories which is the reason you had success. Over drinking water burns calories because you’re running to the bathroom every 30 minutes.

    OK.... thanks, still looking for the scientific evidence as all you've done is post as just another keyboard warrior.... but then the world is full of you guys 😎👏👏
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,206 Member
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

    OK, if you say so......... all I know is that it has worked for me for more than 10 years...... but if you have scientific evidence, I'd sure like to hear it, and I'll certainly share it with my body, so it doesn't lose weight anymore🤣
    Cutting out sugar and carbs just cuts out calories which is the reason you had success. Over drinking water burns calories because you’re running to the bathroom every 30 minutes.

    OK.... thanks, still looking for the scientific evidence as all you've done is post as just another keyboard warrior.... but then the world is full of you guys 😎👏👏
    lol

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,162 Member
    edited October 29
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

    OK, if you say so......... all I know is that it has worked for me for more than 10 years...... but if you have scientific evidence, I'd sure like to hear it, and I'll certainly share it with my body, so it doesn't lose weight anymore🤣
    Cutting out sugar and carbs just cuts out calories which is the reason you had success. Over drinking water burns calories because you’re running to the bathroom every 30 minutes.

    OK.... thanks, still looking for the scientific evidence as all you've done is post as just another keyboard warrior.... but then the world is full of you guys 😎👏👏

    So, how does the Journal of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome sound as a scientific source? Here's a review of weight loss strategies from them, Optimal Diet Strategies for Weight Loss and Weight Loss Maintenance:

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8017325/

    Quoting the first two sentences in the conclusion:

    "There is no single best strategy for weight management, although some evidence-based methods have been suggested (Table 1). Reducing daily calorie intake is the most important factor for weight loss."

    The IF section includes this: "Recent reviews on intermittent fasting have suggested that, as a weight-loss strategy, it could benefit patients with obesity and has effects comparable to daily calorie restriction."

    Or maybe this article, Calorie Restriction with or without Time-Restricted Eating in Weight Loss, from The New England Journal of Medicine:

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114833

    Conclusion: "Among patients with obesity, a regimen of time-restricted eating was not more beneficial with regard to reduction in body weight, body fat, or metabolic risk factors than daily calorie restriction."

    Time restricted eating helps some people, and in certain cases may have health benefits. But it's not universally required for weight loss, and won't necessarily result in weight loss (depending on . . . calorie intake).

    If IF/TRE has worked for you for 10 years, that's great, sincerely. (It definitely helps some people). I'm assuming it's worked for you for both loss and maintenance, since I'm hoping you're not advocating a strategy that hasn't gotten to goal in that amount of time. I admit, I've only been calorie counting (no eating time restrictions/fasting) for 9 years, only 8 of them maintenance. So far, so good though.

    Best wishes!
  • paul65k1
    paul65k1 Posts: 7 Member
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

    OK, if you say so......... all I know is that it has worked for me for more than 10 years...... but if you have scientific evidence, I'd sure like to hear it, and I'll certainly share it with my body, so it doesn't lose weight anymore🤣

    It works because it restricts calories. It's simply one of many methods to reduce calories. Calories aren't "interesting", they're the whole point.

    Basically, you're saying "maps are interesting, but the way to drive to London is by taking taking the M4 through Chiswick." which ignores the fact there are any number of ways to get to London, through Chiswick is only one of many options, and what really matters is that you take a road going in the right direction.

    No one's saying you didn't get to London. They're just pointing out that you got there because you followed a road to London (calorie control), not because you specifically drove through Chiswick (carbs and sugar control).

    As a rule, I eat 1800 - 2200 calories per day..... certainly not calorie-restricted.

    Actually, under the regimen that I use, my body goes into ketosis and is burning the pent-up energy (fat) that is being stored for the time when there is not enough energy going in vs what's being burned.

    By the way, what the heck does intermittent fasting have to do with this discussion? The second part of your lengthy post was nothing but timed eating 🤔

    I can gain weight on 1300 calories with too many carbs and sugar and lose weight on 1800-2200 with reduced carbs and sugar...... your argument, while cool with studies that aren't relevant, still don't go to the fact that if your body is burning fat, you will lose weight and inches and eating enough protein at the same time will keep you from burning muscle.

    I'll do what I do, and you will do what you do, but I will no longer engage in this pointless debate.

    I'm sure you will need the last word; you seem like the type; this will be my last post on this thread!
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,206 Member
    edited October 30
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

    OK, if you say so......... all I know is that it has worked for me for more than 10 years...... but if you have scientific evidence, I'd sure like to hear it, and I'll certainly share it with my body, so it doesn't lose weight anymore🤣

    It works because it restricts calories. It's simply one of many methods to reduce calories. Calories aren't "interesting", they're the whole point.

    Basically, you're saying "maps are interesting, but the way to drive to London is by taking taking the M4 through Chiswick." which ignores the fact there are any number of ways to get to London, through Chiswick is only one of many options, and what really matters is that you take a road going in the right direction.

    No one's saying you didn't get to London. They're just pointing out that you got there because you followed a road to London (calorie control), not because you specifically drove through Chiswick (carbs and sugar control).

    As a rule, I eat 1800 - 2200 calories per day..... certainly not calorie-restricted.

    Actually, under the regimen that I use, my body goes into ketosis and is burning the pent-up energy (fat) that is being stored for the time when there is not enough energy going in vs what's being burned.

    By the way, what the heck does intermittent fasting have to do with this discussion? The second part of your lengthy post was nothing but timed eating 🤔

    I can gain weight on 1300 calories with too many carbs and sugar and lose weight on 1800-2200 with reduced carbs and sugar...... your argument, while cool with studies that aren't relevant, still don't go to the fact that if your body is burning fat, you will lose weight and inches and eating enough protein at the same time will keep you from burning muscle.

    I'll do what I do, and you will do what you do, but I will no longer engage in this pointless debate.

    I'm sure you will need the last word; you seem like the type; this will be my last post on this thread!
    bye.

    Next!

  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,206 Member
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

    OK, if you say so......... all I know is that it has worked for me for more than 10 years...... but if you have scientific evidence, I'd sure like to hear it, and I'll certainly share it with my body, so it doesn't lose weight anymore🤣

    It works because it restricts calories. It's simply one of many methods to reduce calories. Calories aren't "interesting", they're the whole point.

    Basically, you're saying "maps are interesting, but the way to drive to London is by taking taking the M4 through Chiswick." which ignores the fact there are any number of ways to get to London, through Chiswick is only one of many options, and what really matters is that you take a road going in the right direction.

    No one's saying you didn't get to London. They're just pointing out that you got there because you followed a road to London (calorie control), not because you specifically drove through Chiswick (carbs and sugar control).

    As a rule, I eat 1800 - 2200 calories per day..... certainly not calorie-restricted.

    Actually, under the regimen that I use, my body goes into ketosis and is burning the pent-up energy (fat) that is being stored for the time when there is not enough energy going in vs what's being burned.

    By the way, what the heck does intermittent fasting have to do with this discussion? The second part of your lengthy post was nothing but timed eating 🤔

    I can gain weight on 1300 calories with too many carbs and sugar and lose weight on 1800-2200 with reduced carbs and sugar...... your argument, while cool with studies that aren't relevant, still don't go to the fact that if your body is burning fat, you will lose weight and inches and eating enough protein at the same time will keep you from burning muscle.

    I'll do what I do, and you will do what you do, but I will no longer engage in this pointless debate.

    I'm sure you will need the last word; you seem like the type; this will be my last post on this thread!
    bye.

  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,206 Member
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    65 here, too..... like everyone else, that is no magic "Belly Fat" diet; I have found that a getting-rid-of-fat diet will get you there.

    I started years ago with the "Belly Fat Diet" by Jose Cruz, and it worked. You simply find the number of grams of carbs and sugar you target each day; for me 6'3, 230lbs that's under 10G of sugar and under 80 carbs..... for you, but may be higher or lower, but those are pretty good numbers to keep in mind.

    Calories are interesting but Sugar and carbs will drive the fat loss you are looking for along with drinking at least 80Az of liquids each day.

    Good luck!
    Totally false info.

    OK, if you say so......... all I know is that it has worked for me for more than 10 years...... but if you have scientific evidence, I'd sure like to hear it, and I'll certainly share it with my body, so it doesn't lose weight anymore🤣

    It works because it restricts calories. It's simply one of many methods to reduce calories. Calories aren't "interesting", they're the whole point.

    Basically, you're saying "maps are interesting, but the way to drive to London is by taking taking the M4 through Chiswick." which ignores the fact there are any number of ways to get to London, through Chiswick is only one of many options, and what really matters is that you take a road going in the right direction.

    No one's saying you didn't get to London. They're just pointing out that you got there because you followed a road to London (calorie control), not because you specifically drove through Chiswick (carbs and sugar control).

    As a rule, I eat 1800 - 2200 calories per day..... certainly not calorie-restricted.

    Actually, under the regimen that I use, my body goes into ketosis and is burning the pent-up energy (fat) that is being stored for the time when there is not enough energy going in vs what's being burned.

    By the way, what the heck does intermittent fasting have to do with this discussion? The second part of your lengthy post was nothing but timed eating 🤔

    I can gain weight on 1300 calories with too many carbs and sugar and lose weight on 1800-2200 with reduced carbs and sugar...... your argument, while cool with studies that aren't relevant, still don't go to the fact that if your body is burning fat, you will lose weight and inches and eating enough protein at the same time will keep you from burning muscle.

    I'll do what I do, and you will do what you do, but I will no longer engage in this pointless debate.

    I'm sure you will need the last word; you seem like the type; this will be my last post on this thread!

    Cool story bro, but you quoted the wrong person. The London analogy was my first and only response to you.

    But good to know you're a marvel to modern science. You should volunteer for a study.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,409 Member
    edited October 30
    paul65k1 wrote: »
    <snip>
    can gain weight on 1300 calories with too many carbs and sugar and lose weight on 1800-2200 with reduced carbs and sugar...
    <snip>

    No.

    No one will gain on 1300 with too many carbs and sugar and lose on 1800-2200 with low carb.

    Sure, gain and/or lose a couple or a few pounds when going back and forth from keto to normal eating of more carbs, but the sugar and carbs in and of themselves are not the reason, it's a temporary glycogen storage issue. Fat loss is still 100% about calories. Is it easier for some to stay within calories when eating lower carb? Absolutely. I'm one of those who lost weight and by necessity it was low-ER carbs, but not LOW carb. Just a cutback in the amounts. I lost 80 pounds while eating anywhere from 125g carbs a day to 400g carbs a day. Not low carb.

    Any time there is a calorie deficit the body will burn its stored fat regardless of the macros involved.

    Trust me, we've debunked this theory a thousand times and you just are not understanding how the body works.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,206 Member
    There are countless “Burn the Belly Fat articles and they all lead you to buy a book and they are attractive to people that dont want to lower calories and want to believe that they just have to lower carbs and belly fat, which I guess is some “special” type of fat, will magically disappear.
  • springlering62
    springlering62 Posts: 8,390 Member
    …But only with that magic fat burning supplement, amiright?