Losing weight in 5 weeks.

ford2600 · 21-05-2014 9:48am

Blacktie. wrote: »

Because you unconciously gauge food intake up and down depending on energy expenditure without tracking it. People all over the world do this. And then there's the largely obese people who don't and just over eat. Not very complicated.

Why do people all over the world, me included, manage to do and yet the west gets more and more obese?

They just over eat? or over eat the wrong foods which messes up a system which has worked remarkably well throughout evolution.

Animals manage it to somehow

2000 calorie omelette? What was in it 2 dozen eggs and a tonne of oil? You never gained weight, never tracked calories and are trying to use the one time you "estimated" the calorie content of one meal to be justification for it not working? OK!

I'm not using it as a justification for anything, I did it out of curiosity, once. From memory, 100g plus of pure fat(butter, cocunut and olive oil), 5 large eggs, a lot of cheese, a lot of meat, enormous amounts of veg,

Or it all balances for the days you eat 10 calories less...

People like to think the body is some magical system with processes to burn off these extra calories if they come from good sources and retain them if they come from bad ones. This isn't true. Can the body become more efficient? Sure. But not to the point of eating anything you want once it's a "clean" source.

I will say eating clean makes the whole process much easier though.

Using thermodynamic laws, not understanding them, and applying them to a very complicated "engine". is the real issue.

AltAccount · 21-05-2014 9:55am

Bruno26 wrote: »

Are you eating too many nuts?

You don't need to monitor intake, but you can eat too much of something? I'm confused...

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 21-05-2014 9:59am

Jaysus what have I started!

Well you'll all be glad to know that alot of what you are arguing is kind of irrelevant to my particular situation here. Because Bruno26 I am on a mostly Paleo diet and I do eat when I am hungry, but I am also calorie counting though maybe not counting as much as I am logging it but I actually havent gone over my allocated calories yet in the three days i've been trying this.

I think a mixture of calorie counting, eating healthy and a good exercise regime will get me the results I am looking for. I have found myfitnesspal to be pretty good to keep a track of how I'm doing thus far though. I suppose I really wont know until i see the results at the end of the week.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 10:13am

AltAccount wrote: »

You don't need to monitor intake, but you can eat too much of something? I'm confused...

Eat the right nuts- macadamia - stop when you satisfied/ satiated

conzy · 21-05-2014 10:19am

I calorie count because I like to eat new meals a lot of the time because I get bored. If your the kind of person that eats the same things for lunch / dinner most days then you only have to count calories for a fortnight until you know how much your average intake is. But I think this only works for people who have been training a long time and already know how their body reacts.

If you are not counting calories you are seriously hampering your training IMO. Its as bad as not progressively overloading in the gym or not following a balanced program.

Did you add weight at the last session? "nah i just lifted until I felt I had lifted enough" This is essentially what you are doing with your diet..

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 10:21am

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Jaysus what have I started!

Well you'll all be glad to know that alot of what you are arguing is kind of irrelevant to my particular situation here. Because Bruno26 I am on a mostly Paleo diet and I do eat when I am hungry, but I am also calorie counting though maybe not counting as much as I am logging it but I actually havent gone over my allocated calories yet in the three days i've been trying this.

I think a mixture of calorie counting, eating healthy and a good exercise regime will get me the results I am looking for. I have found myfitnesspal to be pretty good to keep a track of how I'm doing thus far though. I suppose I really wont know until i see the results at the end of the week.

I was also paleo for a while- found it a bit restictive- then reintroduced some dairy ( butter, cream & cheese). Reading Tim Noakes (Banting) has convinced me of the importance of good (saturated fats)

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 10:29am

conzy wrote: »

I calorie count because I like to eat new meals a lot of the time because I get bored. If your the kind of person that eats the same things for lunch / dinner most days then you only have to count calories for a fortnight until you know how much your average intake is. But I think this only works for people who have been training a long time and already know how their body reacts.

If you are not counting calories you are seriously hampering your training IMO. Its as bad as not progressively overloading in the gym or not following a balanced program.

Did you add weight at the last session? "nah i just lifted until I felt I had lifted enough" This is essentially what you are doing with your diet..

Two completely different things that makes no sense to compare.

I regularly eat different meals but don't see why that would make someone count- if you are using the correct foods no need to count.

I'm talking about the average person who wants to do something that is sustainable for life.

papu · 21-05-2014 10:34am

Bruno26 wrote: »

Two completely different things that makes no sense to compare.

I regularly eat different meals but don't see why that would make someone count- if you are using the correct foods no need to count.

I'm talking about the average person who wants to do something that is sustainable for life.

If you are using the correct petrol in your car , why ever look at the fuel gauge.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 10:36am

papu wrote: »

If you are using the correct petrol in your car , why ever look at the fuel gauge.

Comparing food intake to petrol consumption - that makes sense!

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 10:43am

Calorie counting, processed food, increase in sugar and grain consumption all happened in the 20th century. Are we getting healthier and leaner?

AltAccount · 21-05-2014 10:51am

Bruno26 wrote: »

Calorie counting, processed food, increase in sugar and grain consumption all happened in the 20th century. Are we getting healthier and leaner?

I'm absolutely amazed that you're being so zealous about the OP's diet and have quizzed posters on whether they've read particular books, yet there's no comment on the OP's exercise!

Chronic cardio, lifting heavy things, sprinting, recovery time etc.

What are your thoughts there?

TimeToShine · 21-05-2014 10:51am

There are some really pedantic posts in this thread.

Bruno is right to some extent. If someone wants to lose weight and follows his guidelines he/she is likely to be successful. The underlying message is clear - eat clean and you will lose weight. This is true for 80% of people who just want to lose the beer gut or improve overall fitness.

However, in case this fails, which it certainly will - calorie counting is a must. The case in point would be formerly obese people or serious binge eaters who could actually put on weight by eating clean because the concept of food that they have is completely flawed in itself. In this case, a more strict monitoring of calorie intake is called for.

I count calories when I cut, and it works. This doesn't make it the only way. It can be daunting for beginners to be told that the only way to lose weight is to measure to the gram exactly how much you eat, especially when in many cases they could just cut out junk food. With regards to getting people to diet in the first place, this approach is bound to be more successful than forcing people to calorie count. For more precise aims such as single digit bodyfat etc. then calorie counting becomes close to essential for maximum efficiency.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 21-05-2014 10:52am

Bruno26 wrote: »

Calorie counting, processed food, increase in sugar and grain consumption all happened in the 20th century. Are we getting healthier and leaner?

Processed food, sugar and grain consumption fair enough they are the main reasons behind the obesity increases in the world but its hard to throw calorie counting in there and try to convince me its bad.

I hear what your saying eat healthy and you dont have to Calorie count. But surely if I am eating healthy anyway there is no harm in calorie counting as well just to see what I am taking in etc.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 11:02am

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Processed food, sugar and grain consumption fair enough they are the main reasons behind the obesity increases in the world but its hard to throw calorie counting in there and try to convince me its bad.

I hear what your saying eat healthy and you dont have to Calorie count. But surely if I am eating healthy anyway there is no harm in calorie counting as well just to see what I am taking in etc.

I know- probably a bit extreme to stick them all together. There is no harm in it. I just believe greater results are achieved and easier through the methods I choose to follow.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 11:09am

AltAccount wrote: »

I'm absolutely amazed that you're being so zealous about the OP's diet and have quizzed posters on whether they've read particular books, yet there's no comment on the OP's exercise!

Chronic cardio, lifting heavy things, sprinting, recovery time etc.

What are your thoughts there?

Chronic cardio is a waste of time. Why are some triathletes and some marathon runnersstill overweight? You can't out exercise poor nutrition choices.

Lifting heavy things is a must- couple of times a week

Sprinting is a must - couple of time a week.

Training properly for 1-2 hours a week at very high intensity is more than enough

80% nutrition 20% exercise. If you spend 1 hour a week exercising - you should be spending 4 hours a week in the kitchen preparing real food.

cletus van damme · 21-05-2014 11:37am

Bruno26 wrote: »

Sprinting is a must - couple of time a week.

it's great but it's not a must , no exercise is a must.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Training properly for 1-2 hours a week at very high intensity is more than enough

I argue that is not enough.
I know people tell you this but the really fit people or the people with excellent body comp don't train like that.

Bruno26 wrote: »

80% nutrition 20% exercise. If you spend 1 hour a week exercising - you should be spending 4 hours a week in the kitchen preparing real food.

a nice point but utter maddness in practial terms.
It has no basis in reality if you think about it.
whether I train or not probably doesn't change my kichen time very much - non training people still eat and some of them eating really healthy too.
I train about 6 hours a week. I'm not spending 24hours of my week on food prep.

Alf Veedersane · 21-05-2014 11:42am

cletus van damme wrote: »

I'm not spending 24hours of my week on food prep.

You're gonna end up playing for Accrington Stanley!

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 12:06pm

cletus van damme wrote: »

it's great but it's not a must , no exercise is a must.

I argue that is not enough.
I know people tell you this but the really fit people or the people with excellent body comp don't train like that. I agree- again I am talking about 90% of the population - not the elite.

a nice point but utter maddness in practial terms.
It has no basis in reality if you think about it.
whether I train or not probably doesn't change my kichen time very much - non training people still eat and some of them eating really healthy too.
I train about 6 hours a week. I'm not spending 24hours of my week on food prep.

I knew someone would think I meant that- probably could be phrased better.

What I mean is someone who is exercising loads particularly cardio and who spends little time on food prep will see little improvement. Basically the average person would be better served if time is limited in spending more on food prep and less on exercise as the results will be far greater.

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 1:30pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Calorie counting, processed food, increase in sugar and grain consumption all happened in the 20th century. Are we getting healthier and leaner?

The macarena happened in the 20th century too. We've been eatign grains for about 30000 years.

People get fat because they eat too much, but they do love to blame food groups to A) avoid blaming themselves or

sell books.

ford2600 · 21-05-2014 1:47pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

The macarena happened in the 20th century too. We've been eatign grains for about 30000 years.

People get fat because they eat too much, but they do love to blame food groups to A) avoid blaming themselves or sell books.

Serious question, is that your complete explanation for obesity epidemic?
A whole civilization started eating too much?

Late 70's obesity wasn't even being measured in some states in USA.

A lot of books are sold on every side of argument

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 2:07pm

ford2600 wrote: »

Serious question, is that your complete explanation for obesity epidemic?
A whole civilization started eating too much?

Late 70's obesity wasn't even being measured in some states in USA.

A lot of books are sold on every side of argument

Yes, thats what it boils down to. You don't get fat eating too little. Eating grains or sugar is not something that happened recently.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 21-05-2014 2:07pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

The macarena happened in the 20th century too. We've been eatign grains for about 30000 years.

People get fat because they eat too much, but they do love to blame food groups to A) avoid blaming themselves or sell books.

Processed food, sugar , these are to blame for most of obesity. There are a percentage who would be fat no matter what but the vast majority is diet related. Too many mcdonalds, crisps, cola, snickers bars

ford2600 · 21-05-2014 2:14pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, thats what it boils down to. You don't get fat eating too little. Eating grains or sugar is not something that happened recently.

So for millions of years through famine and times of plenty humans, for most part managed to stay lean, but sometime in late 70's a large proportion of population just started to eat more?

Nothing to do with the demonising of fat, which at same time became part of official government policy in USA first and then Europe.

Any idea what triggered millions of people to "just start eating too much"?

Alf Veedersane · 21-05-2014 2:20pm

ford2600 wrote: »

So for millions of years through famine and times of plenty humans, for most part managed to stay lean, but sometime in late 70's a large proportion of population just started to eat more?

Nothing to do with the demonising of fat, which at same time became part of official government policy in USA first and then Europe.

Any idea what triggered millions of people to "just start eating too much"?

So you don't think the increase in processed, calorie-dense food has nothing to do with it?

It's not necessarily that people started to eat a greater quantity of food but consuming more than their body was burning.

But I'm not sure what started to emerge in the 70s is all that relevant to the OP.

ford2600 · 21-05-2014 2:32pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So you don't think the increase in processed, calorie-dense food has nothing to do with it?

It's not necessarily that people started to eat a greater quantity of food but consuming more than their body was burning.

But I'm not sure what started to emerge in the 70s is all that relevant to the OP.

I'm asking questions, I'm not stating I have answers.

The answer that a whole population just started eating too much doesn't quite work for me.

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 2:33pm

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

Processed food, sugar , these are to blame for most of obesity. There are a percentage who would be fat no matter what but the vast majority is diet related. Too many mcdonalds, crisps, cola, snickers bars

ford2600 wrote: »

So for millions of years through famine and times of plenty humans, for most part managed to stay lean, but sometime in late 70's a large proportion of population just started to eat more?

Nothing to do with the demonising of fat, which at same time became part of official government policy in USA first and then Europe.

Any idea what triggered millions of people to "just start eating too much"?

People have overeaten throughout history, its not just a recent thing. If you think people were all lean you were mistaken, wealthy people were often overweight. In times of depression and war though you'll see the opposite, for obvious reasons. If people can afford it they will overeat. Even now with the massive availability of good foods, relative wealth and easily available information people are overeating.

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 2:35pm

ford2600 wrote: »

I'm asking questions, I'm not stating I have answers.

The answer that a whole population just started eating too much doesn't quite work for me.

Its not because of grains or sugar, those things have been eaten for centuries. People have used honey and sweetmeats as treats for donkeys years. Overconsumption makes you fat, not wheat or sugar etc.

Alf Veedersane · 21-05-2014 2:38pm

That's a good point.

Henry VIII was a bloater and he spent all day riding numerous wives to try get a son.

The French have a motto or some such that's saying "Let them eat cake"! It was actually brioche but that got lost in translation but it's a moot point.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 3:07pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

The macarena happened in the 20th century too. We've been eatign grains for about 30000 years.

People get fat because they eat too much, but they do love to blame food groups to A) avoid blaming themselves or sell books.

We've been eating grains for about 12,000 years. Egyptians were the first who farmed grain and also the first to show signs of modern health problems due to grain consumption .

20th century wheat is very different to wheat prior to that- much worse effects on blood sugar levels.

Sugar consumption was minuscule before 20th century.

See William Banting !

Everything changed when a man named ancel keys castigated saturated fat and then in the 1977 the modern food pyramid was created by the US.

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 3:25pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

We've been eating grains for about 12,000 years. Egyptians were the first who farmed grain and also the first to show signs of modern health problems due to grain consumption .

20th century wheat is very different to wheat prior to that- much worse effects on blood sugar levels.

Sugar consumption was minuscule before 20th century.

See William Banting !

Everything changed when a man named ancel keys castigated saturated fat and then in the 1977 the modern food pyramid was created by the US.

This is wrong.

There is evidence of grain consumption 100000 years ago with bread commonly eaten from 30k onwards.

Sugar consumption was anything but minuscule. Sugarcane was known about and eaten from before the 8th century and honey was widely eaten as a delicacy.

Willian Banting died over 120 years ago. The anecdotal evidence of an undertaker shows nothing.

LOL to stating that people only got fat after 1977. :pac::pac::pac:

ford2600 · 21-05-2014 3:35pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

People have overeaten throughout history, its not just a recent thing. If you think people were all lean you were mistaken, wealthy people were often overweight. In times of depression and war though you'll see the opposite, for obvious reasons. If people can afford it they will overeat. Even now with the massive availability of good foods, relative wealth and easily available information people are overeating.

Can you name a population prior to 1970 where 50% plus are overweight or obese?
Of course there has always been fat people, but at epidemic levels? What has changed to make a civilization almost self destruct?

Sugar has never been eaten in same quantities as it is now, to say anything else is daft; some people can do quite well on lots of sugar others not so. Some people can tolerate it quite well until they get older and then problems arise later in life.

Beet production was first made popular under Napoleon in France, prior to then it was very much a luxury.

You don't see any connection with the deomonising of fat and the increased use of sugar in processed foods?

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 3:38pm

ford2600 wrote: »

Can you name a population prior to 1970 where 50% plus are overweight or obese?
Of course there has always been fat people, but at epidemic levels? What has changed to make a civilization almost self destruct?

Sugar has never been eaten in same quantities as it is now, to say anything else is daft; some people can do quite well on lots of sugar others not so. Some people can tolerate it quite well until they get older and then problems arise later in life.

Beet production was first made popular under Napoleon in France, prior to then it was very much a luxury.

You don't see any connection with the deomonising of fat and the increased use of sugar in processed foods?

No. The connection is wealth.

ford2600 · 21-05-2014 4:06pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

No. The connection is wealth.

Ok we will never agree.

I love the certain answer.:D

I'll leave ye with yere dogma

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 4:16pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

This is wrong.

There is evidence of grain consumption 100000 years ago with bread commonly eaten from 30k onwards.

Sugar consumption was anything but minuscule. Sugarcane was known about and eaten from before the 8th century and honey was widely eaten as a delicacy.

Willian Banting died over 120 years ago. The anecdotal evidence of an undertaker shows nothing.

LOL to stating that people only got fat after 1977. :pac::pac::pac:

Please please point out where I said people got fat after 1977.

Of course people got fat from eating grains and whatever sugar was consumed.

It was miniscule. There was hardly any processed foods/ low fat options .

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman · 21-05-2014 4:28pm

There is a happy medium here somewhere but on a personal point of view Ii'll be steering clear of the grain and sugar and processed foods. Will keep an update going here maybe every week and see how it goes!

desultory · 21-05-2014 5:03pm

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »

There is a happy medium here somewhere but on a personal point of view Ii'll be steering clear of the grain and sugar and processed foods. Will keep an update going here maybe every week and see how it goes!

You will lose weight if you stick to that but mostly because you won't have the appetite to be eating over your daily calorie output with those kind of foods.

Best of luck anyway!

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 6:00pm

desultory wrote: »

You will lose weight if you stick to that but mostly because you won't have the appetite to be eating over your daily calorie output with those kind of foods.

Best of luck anyway!

Weight will be lost due to elimination of sugar & grains and therefore most carbs also. Eat over daily calorie amount and you will still lose fat

Alf Veedersane · 21-05-2014 6:12pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Eat over daily calorie amount and you will still lose fat

Adding that is unnecessary and needs too many qualifiers.

Not least the one about you miscalculating your TDEE.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 6:15pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Adding that is unnecessary and needs too many qualifiers.

Not least the one about you miscalculating your TDEE.

That's your theory on miscalculation- everything I submitted on app was correct.

It's not unnecessary - it's pointing out to majority of people that is not necessary to count calories when eating the right foods.

Alf Veedersane · 21-05-2014 6:25pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

That's your theory on miscalculation- everything I submitted on app was correct.

It's not unnecessary - it's pointing out to majority of people that is not necessary to count calories when eating the right foods.

The consensus is that it's poor at calculating your allowance.

You didn't point out that it's not necessary to count calories. You stated you could overeat and lose weight. If so.one has their TDEE correctly calculated then what you said was misleading.

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 6:33pm

ford2600 wrote: »

Ok we will never agree.

I love the certain answer.:D

I'll leave ye with yere dogma

You cant agree that eating too much makes you fat? You won't enjoy your time here so.

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 6:35pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Please please point out where I said people got fat after 1977.

Of course people got fat from eating grains and whatever sugar was consumed.

It was miniscule. There was hardly any processed foods/ low fat options .

People got fat from eating too much. Not some idiotic belief that grains create calories from nowhere or that in 1977 everyone suddenly switched to low fat and got fat.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 6:36pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The consensus is that it's poor at calculating your allowance.

You didn't point out that it's not necessary to count calories. You stated you could overeat and lose weight. If so.one has their TDEE correctly calculated then what you said was misleading.

My reasoning is down to my own nutrition- always struggled with weight- did the counting calories - around 2,500 - 3000 daily-eating all foods but never much junk but plenty of grains- exercised a lot- competitive sport, running , weights . Still struggled with weight

When I discovered the previous listed books- I went 80% paleo- good results- have since cut out all grains and barely any sugar- some berries. My results have been better, easier and quicker than anything in previous 16 years. It works for me but one size doesn't fit all I suppose. And Ive hardly ever exercised in this time apart from walking and some golf.

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 6:37pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Weight will be lost due to elimination of sugar & grains and therefore most carbs also. Eat over daily calorie amount and you will still lose fat

There is nothing correct in this statement.

runawaybishop · 21-05-2014 6:38pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

My reasoning is down to my own nutrition- always struggled with weight- did the counting calories - around 2,500 - 3000 daily-eating all foods but never much junk but plenty of grains- exercised a lot- competitive sport, running , weights . Still struggled with weight

You were eating too much.

Bruno26 wrote: »

When I discovered the previous listed books- I went 80% paleo- good results- have since cut out all grains and barely any sugar- some berries. My results have been better, easier and quicker than anything in previous 16 years. It works for me but one size doesn't fit all I suppose. And Ive hardly ever exercised in this time apart from walking and some golf.

You are eating less.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 6:48pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

There is nothing correct in this statement.

It's all true. Point out how it is false. Macros are key- too many carbs make you fat.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 6:52pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

You were eating too much.

So when I ate 2,500-3000 cals I ate too much?

You are eating less.

Now I eat average 4000 cals a day and I'm eating less according to you?

I'm now eating way more calories - but I've had way more success. Figure that one out!

Alf Veedersane · 21-05-2014 7:04pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

My reasoning is down to my own nutrition

It works for me but one size doesn't fit all I suppose. And Ive hardly ever exercised in this time apart from walking and some golf.

The problem is you're pitching it as a one-size-fits all approach.

I've no problem with you saying what you did and qualifying it as just that rather than making blanket statements like "do x and y and you can eat over your calorie allowance and still lose weight".

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 7:12pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

People got fat from eating too much. Not some idiotic belief that grains create calories from nowhere or that in 1977 everyone suddenly switched to low fat and got fat.

People got fat from eating too many grains and in 20th century too much sugar. You cannot get fat from eating too much meat, fish, butter, cream veg, some fruit, some nuts

Low fat usually means higher sugar content to add flavour robbed from making it low fat so this has a part to play too.

Bruno26 · 21-05-2014 7:13pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The problem is you're pitching it as a one-size-fits all approach.

I've no problem with you saying what you did and qualifying it as just that rather than making blanket statements like "do x and y and you can eat over your calorie allowance and still lose weight".

I just said one size doesn't fit all- it works for me. However if you were to follow Tim Noakes, Vinnie Tortorich you would see it works for almost everyone.

Losing weight in 5 weeks.

Comments