Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What’s the best diet for weight loss ?

Options
1…1112141617

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    Mellor wrote: »
    That's great going. Are you at target weight or still tracking towards it?

    Surpassed my initial target weight...so sticking with keto and just waiting for my vaccine and I'm hoping to get back into the gym and do a bit body recomp and get a bit of muscle packed on


  • Options
    #393
    Minime2.5
    Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Minime2.5


    markmoto wrote: »
    I do not ignore genuine query but haven't got time to entertain trolls
    google it, everything in public domain

    I think youve just proven that your the troll. Got caught out on something you thought would support your argument yet it back fired and now your too proud to admit it. Your going on the ignore list . I suggest every one else give this troll a wide berth too


  • Options
    #394
    markmoto
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭markmoto


    Dtp1979 wrote: »
    Sounds kinda like a steroid, this keto craic. WADA should investigate.
    If it was so good why didn’t you stick to it?

    :)

    Good point, I wanted to get experience being on ketogenic diet, 0 carbs except from green vegetables, and afterwards to see what is like to switch back to carbs. Not a wise decision switching back tbh but very good experiment.


  • Options
    #395
    Greyfox
    Registered Users Posts: 3,743 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    People eat too many of a lot of things but we don't say they're addictive. Just that they're highly palatable. There's a difference.

    Actually every person I know in real life agrees that junk food can be addictive. Food like chips, crisps, chocolate, cakes etc can give people a dopamine hit. The words highly palatable is not used that ofren.


  • Options
    #396
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Greyfox wrote: »
    Actually every person I know in real life agrees that junk food can be addictive. Food like chips, crisps, chocolate, cakes etc can give people a dopamine hit. The words highly palatable is not used that ofren.

    How about the words tasty or delicious, or any other number of terms to say that something tastes good? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,574 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Greyfox wrote: »
    Actually every person I know in real life agrees that junk food can be addictive. Food like chips, crisps, chocolate, cakes etc can give people a dopamine hit. The words highly palatable is not used that ofren.

    That doesn't mean they're correct.

    Petting a dog can also release dopamine and serotonin. Most people aren't addicted to petting dogs.

    Anyway, I linked the study. It's not about my opinion.


  • Options
    #398
    markmoto
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭markmoto


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    That doesn't mean they're correct.

    Petting a dog can also release dopamine and serotonin. Most people aren't addicted to petting dogs.

    Anyway, I linked the study. It's not about my opinion.

    palatable? :)
    Stay out of carbs for a week and see if you can make it.

    Tobacco had studies that says is ok to smoke and 40 years later we all know causes variety of health problems.


  • Options
    #399
    markmoto
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭markmoto


    OmegaGene wrote: »
    Alf that’s a good one, I’ve tears in my eyes

    Are you teenager or your lacrimal glands not fully developed yet? :)


  • Options
    #400
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,338 ✭✭✭bladespin


    This thread's hilarious, we're saying carbs are worse than cigs and alcohol now, what's next???? Heroin???


  • Options
    #401
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,574 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    markmoto wrote: »
    Tobacco had studies that says is ok to smoke and 40 years later we all know causes variety of health problems.

    Jesus wept.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    Dtp1979
    Registered Users Posts: 12,751 ✭✭✭✭Dtp1979


    There’s like 3-4 threads at the moment that all kind of seem like they could be the one. It’s confusing going from one to the other


  • Options
    #403
    markmoto
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭markmoto


    OmegaGene wrote: »
    It’s the sugar that’s worse than heroin, so addictive

    Heroin more destructive but all have similar mechanism.


  • Options
    #404
    LittleBrick
    Registered Users Posts: 145 ✭✭LittleBrick


    The best weight loss diet is one that puts you in a calorie defect and one you can stick to long term. For me this was nearly all carb, low fat, low enough protein tbh. For others it'd be high fat, high protein, low carb. Just find one you can stick to, and don't jump from fad to fad.


  • Options
    #405
    Greyfox
    Registered Users Posts: 3,743 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    Petting a dog can also release dopamine and serotonin. Most people aren't addicted to petting dogs.

    Someone not getting to pet a dog and someone craving junk food all day are quite different. Reading the arguments in favor of food addiction in the below link indicates that addiction to certain foods could well be real

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-018-0203-9

    Three of the most important clinical features of substance use disorders are feelings of deprivation when the substance is withheld, a propensity to relapse during periods of abstinence, and consumption that persists despite awareness of negative consequences.... Hence, overweight individuals who are unable to exert control over their consummatory behavior, despite awareness of the negative consequences, demonstrate the same core failure to control consumption as those suffering from substance use disorders.

    ...There is now a preponderance of human functional imaging data showing that energy-dense palatable food can stimulate changes in the activity of many of the same brain structures and circuits known to be impacted by drugs of abuse. For example, palatable food stimulates reward-relevant activity in the striatum [29,30,31]. Moreover, weight gain is associated with altered striatal responses to palatable food or cues that predict the availability of such food [32,33,34], and allelic variation that influences vulnerability to weight gain and obesity can alter reward-relevant activity in the striatum [32, 35]. In addition to the striatum, the activity of other brain areas thought to play an important role in drug addiction, such as prefrontal cortical regions and the amygdala, is similarly altered by consumption of palatable food and development of obesity [36,37,38,39,40,41].


  • Options
    #406
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,574 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    "Hence, overweight individuals who are unable to exert control over their consummatory behavior, despite awareness of the negative consequences, demonstrate the same core failure to control consumption as those suffering from substance use disorders."

    An interesting read but the key word there is 'behaviour'. I don't agree that it's the same as a physiological dependance on the substance.

    The difference is an addiction to the substance (drugs, alcohol) and an addiction to the behaviour.

    That's not really saying anything new to the study I linked. It says it in the title. There's a nuance between a physiological addiction to the substance and the act of consuming the substance.

    Monitoring brain activity doesn't necessarily give an accurate picture in the same way that EMG doesn't create a full picture for what happens during a particular exercise.

    I don't think that article changes anything. It poses interesting questions but gives no answers, per so. But it is interesting.

    Aside from that, sugar isn't the issue in and of itself, to circle back. Is it part of the problem? Absolutely. But it isn't just want makes foods highly palatable on it's own

    ETA: I actually wasn't trying to be smart-arsey about the dog/dopamine. It was just to illustrate a point.


  • Options
    #407
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    Mellor wrote: »
    It was obvious to everyone else all all along. Those stats rubbish your claims.

    Not sure now it brings us back to what is a calories. Your errors were already pointed out, you disappeared for a while.
    Back now to accept that you were wrong now? Not clear.


    By what unit was "food intake" measured? I'd be fairly confident that it was measure in calories or similar unit of energy.

    Kinda pisses in the face of your notions that calories intake has no bearing on weight loss. In that is completely proved it wrong.

    The 2% of people that didn't reduce intake, certainly were among the 94% who increased activity. And vice versa.

    How many reduced calories in vrs calories out? Again, I'm confident that it's 100% (allowing for a margin of error)

    A calorie is 4.18 kilojoules.
    That is not a question that "science is unsure about.

    Okay!

    Bit angry that post, don't you think?

    " A calorie is 4.18 kilojoules", you say!

    I say , " 4.18 kilojoules is a calorie"!

    How does either of those measurements reflect on how a body transfers food in a body?


  • Options
    #408
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    OmegaGene wrote: »
    To get the thread back in topic here’s a story about someone dropping a stone in 37 days by counting calories and making a few simple changes like going to bed at a reasonable time

    https://www.thesun.ie/tvandshowbiz/7179101/mrs-browns-boys-danny-ocarroll-lost-stone-37-days/

    The topic of thread is " What's the best diet for weight loss"?.

    Going to bed early is a method/change of lifestyle. Why introduce the word "Calorie"?


  • Options
    #409
    bodking
    Registered Users Posts: 275 ✭✭bodking


    sunshine2018 wrote: »
    Is it simply counting calories ? A lot of diets seem based around this in one form or another
    Are some diets better for those who need to lose significant amount of weight - 4 stone plus
    So many different diets out there - fast800 - calorie counting- low carb - replacement meals
    Look to the past . Most people ate when they were hungry and most of there food came from the land be that vegetables or meat . Most people were active unlike today . What I'm saying is eat healthy and be active . Simple .


  • Options
    #410
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    OmegaGene wrote: »
    The same reason we use grams when weighing food
    Calorie is a simple way to measure the energy value in food and counting these helps people realise how much they are actually eating
    If you don’t like the word don’t use it but it helps people learn



    Friend of mine was on a fad diet that including sins and they were told pasta was unlimited, he showed me his double helping of pasta and we weighed it and it turned out he was eating shy of 1000 calories and that’s before the Bolognaise, I showed him my fitness pal and he’s dropped 3 stone in the last few months

    Grams /Calories should not be compared. Two completely different methods of a measure.

    If any one here has found a method that suits their goals, I would say stick to any beliefs/methods that have gotten you there.

    Calorie/Kilojoule....well they are scientific terms.

    I stand by the question that asks how " The relation of these measures (in a Lab.)" co-relate in a body"?


  • Options
    #411
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    OmegaGene wrote: »
    Maybe start a thread to find the answer to that question

    We already know the answer. You quoted "The Sun/Showbiz page" as evidence of " Calorie" counting!

    That is quite a low bar, by any persons standards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    OmegaGene wrote: »

    Friend of mine was on a fad diet that including sins and they were told pasta was unlimited, he showed me his double helping of pasta and we weighed it and it turned out he was eating shy of 1000 calories and that’s before the Bolognaise, I showed him my fitness pal and he’s dropped 3 stone in the last few months

    Slimming World? I dunno if I'd call that a fad diet. It very much is a lifestyle change, and a lot of people stick to it. It wouldn't be for me, but I have had several PT clients that have had amazing results on it, and kept it off.

    Just like any diet, it's finding what works for you.


  • Options
    #413
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    Grams /Calories should not be compared. Two completely different methods of a measure.

    If any one here has found a method that suits their goals, I would say stick to any beliefs/methods that have gotten you there.

    Calorie/Kilojoule....well they are scientific terms.

    I stand by the question that asks how " The relation of these measures (in a Lab.)" co-relate in a body"?

    So how should food be adjusted if someone isn't losing weight and they have already cut out all their carbs? By eating less weight in grams?


  • Options
    #414
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    OmegaGene wrote: »
    I thought the story might help someone that wanted to lose weight and watch the interview on catch up tv, but I bow down to your superior knowledge and I apologise

    Well done! ( I mean that,genuinely).

    The knowledge is not "mine" or "yours".

    I have not questioned here what works for folks or how they got there.


  • Options
    #415
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    Basil3 wrote: »
    So how should food be adjusted if someone isn't losing weight and they have already cut out all their carbs? By eating less weight in grams?

    "Calories" and whether it is a useful measure of aught, is the only question I have asked here.

    I am not here to give health advice. By default , it may be a helpful understanding for some.


  • Options
    #416
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,138 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    Going to bed early is a method/change of lifestyle. Why introduce the word "Calorie"?

    What is is your idea of the best diet for weight loss?
    Specifically, what some somebody eat in a day to lose weight?

    Also, what should they eat each day if they want to gain weight?
    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    Grams /Calories should not be compared. Two completely different methods of a measure.

    They are units, not methods. And they are in fact completely comparable; both being metric units that are related to each other.
    Calorie/Kilojoule....well they are scientific terms.
    Do you think grams are not a scientific unit?
    I stand by the question that asks how " The relation of these measures (in a Lab.)" co-relate in a body"?

    That question has been answered.
    (Although originally, you were claiming something different)


  • Options
    #417
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    Mellor wrote: »
    What is is your idea of the best diet for weight loss?
    Specifically, what some somebody eat in a day to lose weight?

    Also, what should they eat each day if they want to gain weight?



    They are units, not methods. And they are in fact completely comparable; both being metric units that are related to each other.


    Do you think grams are not a scientific unit?



    That question has been answered.
    (Although originally, you were claiming something different)

    Please read your own post and the questions you imagine that you are catching me out on!


  • Options
    #418
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,321 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Use of calories, and calorie measurement for food is well proven at this stage. Yes, there may be small differences in how calories are processed (small enough they make little difference over a day/ week), and different people have different TDEE (for a wide variety of reasons), but that doesn't actually change anything. Because, Science!

    Avoiding foods high in sugar/ fat/ salt is hard because they are tasty as f*ck in general. Nothing else has been proven. When we were in the office, it was hard to turn down the weekly donut run* not because I am addicted to sugar, but because they taste absolutely lovely.

    *easily enough to blow a daily deficit on it's own, 6 inch tasty topping own. But a prime example of the real issues with the western diet. Nothing to do with sugar addiction, hormones, "what actually is a calorie". Readily available, massive portioned, tasty AF calorie dense foods.


  • Options
    #419
    markmoto
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭markmoto


    Calculating calories from processed food with all the additives wouldn't be accurate.


  • Options
    #420
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,321 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Yes it would. Because, Science.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    markmoto wrote: »
    Calculating calories from processed food with all the additives wouldn't be accurate.

    What do you suggest you do for these foods?


Advertisement