UKC

How does one go about loosing ONE stone of weight? I have turned to a fat bloke, and cant seem to get rid of my belly Have you successfully shed this amount of weight? How difficult is it to loose the fat has been gained?

In reply to Blizzard:

Google "Dukan". I lost 3 stone in about 4 months and have kept it off for nearly a year now without too much pain.

In reply to Blizzard:

Jump up and down, wobble about a bit - that might make it looser.

E

In reply to Blizzard:

When I need to loose weight I just slacken off my belt a notch. Useful after lunch or pint number 5...

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

I would add that I combined this diet with regular exercise.

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

How much pain did you go through to loose it? How? cycling/swimming running and what distances or durations were you doing?

In reply to Blizzard: diet and exercise all the way. Pack in (or cut down) on the ale as well.

In reply to Blizzard:

A combination of reduced intake and increased exercise should do it. Cut the crap from your diet - even if you can't give things up completely, reduce junk like crisps and chocolate and fizzy drinks. Try to eat proper home-cooked meals where you control what's in the food, and cut down the amount of processed foods.

Increase exercise - that all depends on how much you're doing at the moment, but increase it. Walk further and faster, cycle instead of driving or taking the bus, spend weekends going on long walks, preferably up hills.

I lost about 20pounds doing all the above. It takes a while, but that's no bad thing.

Oh, and it's 'losing', not 'loosing'.

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

Don't do some crazy diet or low fat obsession thing, it's got to be lifestyle changes that you can live with for the rest of your life or your will just put it back on.

Cut out soft drinks, juices (even smoothies unless home made), most alcohol and junk food.

eat plenty of vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, salads, and add sources of protein like meat, fish, beans and a little bit of rice, bread, grains and dairy.

And then do some exercise.

It's easy, and the weight will fall off you.

In reply to Blizzard:

Gym or pool 4 times a week:

In the gym 5K rowing at about 2.05 average for 500 metres, followed by 20 mins on a cross trainer at about medium (12) level).

Pool 50 - 70 lengths of front crawl, never timed myself but I'm normally huffing and puffing when I'm finished.

I would point out that this regime is why I lost weight so rapidly but this diet works equally well with only a bit of regular walking (20-30 mins a day). It worked for me and about half a dozen or so other people that I know have tried it.

In reply to JayPee630:

You have just pretty much described the Dukan diet, albeit that it is a little more structured and devised to give an early boost by using low fat prteins to kick start the weight loss. I think this is more a psychological thing to encourage people to stick with it though.

In reply to Blizzard: Plenty of prunes, and a handful of Sennakot will let loose a few pounds.

In reply to Blizzard:

even tho i exercise and eat fanaticly, i have a fair few overweight friends.

one of them got the bug and did essentially whats suggested above and lost a lot plus got ripped.

his big secret was 'stop doing fat person stuff'.

eleqant he is not, but speaks volumes.

In reply to Blizzard:

I lost a stone and a half over three months by reducing my alcohol consumption and running 40 miles a week. Could have lost it quicker if I had reduced my calorie intake more, but I did not want to crash the weight too quickly.

Reducing calorie intake to under your body's own requirements does not work, unhealthy and never going to last.

Eat your full recommended allowance of food, but balanced. - Not I said balanced - not "healthy" which is a bit of a abused word these days. All food if balanced can be healthy.

It is more important to talk about a healthy exercise plan I think.

Eat a balanced diet (say 2500 cals a day as a target), and then exercise to create a calorie deficit of say 500 calories a day then you will see the weight start to shift. I advise against cutting out completely the good things as it makes it all too easy to fall off the wagon but rather reduce to occasional treats. I enjoy a cake or biscuit or two during the day and a beer with my dinner but I restrain and dont eat a full packet or drink a full 6 pack. Everyone I know who cut things out completely end up yo yoing up and down all the time in a vicious circle.

In reply to Blizzard:

Run

In reply to Blizzard: I've lost 1/2 a stone in just over a month. Nice and slowly does it, lifestyle changes and that way it will stay off.

I do one long run a week - 8miles at the moment. And I do one short and fast run - 3miles. I also do one day of intervals where I do 200m sprints, as many sets of 4 as I can manage (doing short intense exercise of any sort is supposed to burn lots of calories as it boosts metabolism for a good while after the exercise)

I also *try* not to eat ANY crap at all, ie crisps, cake, chocolate, biscuits and I don't drink alcohol but sometimes have just a little treat.

However, being a woman, at certain times of the month I simply can't resist eating rubbish like the above and end up putting weight back on again.

For me it is 2 steps forwards and 1 step back but I'm happy with that.

Diet is very healthy and I always cook from scratch and I don't like to eat bread (though again I might treat myself to the odd bit now and again)

Food portions - stop eating as soon as you feel full.

Don't eat after 9pm in the evening.

In reply to Sonya Mc:

Cutting out snacking, could be difficult. I like eating nuts, and can snack after 9pm. Shocker. I do enjoy the occasional can of pop too. Running, not sure I can be bothered to run 40 miles a week. Sod that! LOL

As for hill walking, I don't want to go walking on my own at weekends, I prefer good company. Any fat people out there who want to join me for a weekend ramble? LOL

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Disagree, exercise is generally a very inefficient way to lose weight. It's far more about diet.

In reply to Blizzard: Why are you snacking though? Is it because you are hungry or it through enjoyment of eating (why I used to snack, because I like the taste of things like nuts and chocolate etc, not because I was actually hungry)

Running isn't for everyone. What about interval type stuff? Like maybe do a sprint for 30 secs, followed by a minute of push ups, followed by a minute of battering the feck out of a punch bag, followed by a minute of pull ups, a minute of a few other types of exercises, sit ups etc. Take a 5min break then repeat, doing several sets. Sounds easy, but this sort of exercise is quite intense. Or do some fast walking instead of running.

Can't help on the hillwalking front, what about joining some sort of mountaineering club?

In reply to Blizzard:

have a look at mypyrexs 'supersize ambulance' thread for some inspiration.

In reply to Milesy:

Isn't that contradictary?(sp) A deficit is a deficit whether it's from reducing input or increasing output surely?

In reply to Blizzard: Once you actually have a decent understanding of how to lose weight it's really more a matter of time than effort. It is not at all difficult, in that it's not something that may or may not happen, it will definately happen. Remember that there is a time (and still is in many parts of the world) where people could only wish they had enough to eat that they could have weight to lose. Going back to the time thing, losing 1-2 pounds a week for example would be a good sustainable rate of weight loss, it's just something that takes time. If you give up because you havn't lost a stone in a month then yeah you will probably give up every time.

In reply to Blizzard: PS, in reply. Having the odd beer is fine and the odd snack just not EVERY night if you want to lose weight and keep it off. I just don't drink because I don't feel the need for it (though I might have the occasional glass of wine) and I don't really like it that much anymore (was on very strong painkillers for a long time so couldn't drink, then just lost the taste for it after that and it makes me too sleepy and woozy.) I've got far too much to do with my time to be feeling woozy (like family stuff and studying for my Degree and working) and I can ejoy myself without being drunk or drinking alcohol.

But everybody is different. Some people seem to find dieting works, some don't. Some seem to find that exercise works, some people believe that it doesn't (see above, and some poster called Shani is forever harping on about eating lots of fat, doing no exercise and being fit and healthy)

I think you need to experiment as to what works for you but I'm a firm believer in calories in must not be more that calories out as it is what works for me.

In reply to _MJC_: Also excercise alone isn't that great for weight loss. You burn 70% of callories consumed when at rest so clearly by far the most effective thing to be doing is manipulating that 70%.

In reply to JayPee630:

Try both. Once you start running you get a healthier appetite.

I've lost a stone+ in a year: feel better, climbing better, running better.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Agree both is best, but keeping with your shit diet and trying to lose weight through exercise won't work, and you just quoted 'run' as a solution.

Change the diet, and you should be exercising for health anyway, not weight loss.

In reply to Blizzard:

Losing weight is fairly hard as your body will be telling you to carry living and eating as you always have been. However, with some will power you can gradually lose the weight.

Gaining weight is a simple matter of energy in being more than energy expended. It might only be by 50 to 100 calories a day (one or two biscuits), or less, but over months and years can add up to a lot of fat (one kilo of fat = 9000 calories). To lose weight, you must reverse this so that you expend more energy than you take in (by reducing food and/ or increasing exercise). This will mean that you feel hungry some of the time, and that's where the will power comes in. If you feel hungry all of the time, you're doing it wrong. It could take a long time to lose the weight because the chances are it took a long time to put on. Stick with it and good luck.

In reply to JayPee630:

Diet?

Haven't really changed mine, although it was probably good in the first place.

Fell races and training runs have sorted me out. I did excercise before but upped the anti about a year ago. It still hurts but its worth the pain as the highs are great and the weight loss a big bonus.

Energy levels are up too: hardly ever get that tired.

Had a great day climbing the other Sunday: 7a onsight, 2 x 7a redpoints, 6c+ redpoint and a 6c+ onsight. Which is vast improvement to last year when I was huffing and puffing up 6a's.

I agree though: if your diet is bad... too much sugar and fat....first step is to sort that.

M

In reply to Blizzard:
Over the weekend I drank from a burn on the east bank of Loch Shiel, and am now lying around in bed losing weight rapidly and occasionally soiling myself or vomiting on my floor. It's messy but a lot less work than some alternatives.

In reply to Sonya Mc:

I enjoy what I am eating(snacking), I only eat two meals a day, and don't think I exceed 2000 cals, eat a baguette at lunch and one meal a day, then snack in the eves, peanuts and some chocolate. My intake is quite healthy apart from the snacking and ale drinking ( maybe 5 pints a week)

I have basically I have put on weight over the last 18 months. I am not a fit as I used to be, I'm actually pretty fit, but no where near at the level of fitness I had 2 years ago. I will never need a super size ambulance, no fears about that. I couldn't watch that program, it made me feel ill.

Probably the biggest factor affecting me recently is that I have stopped cycling. Some bastard stole my bike and I cant afford to replace the loss.

In reply to Blizzard:

The thing about increasing exercise is that it also simply increases your appitite. I cycle quite a lot, and just eat LOADS! I think you simply have to cut out the junk and let yourself get a little bit hungrier in between meals. Don't be too scared of not always feeling completely full. But having said that - exercise is good for your health and also leaves you more toned and happier!

Make sure the stuff you do eat is packed full of goodness, not just empty calories.

Don't try to lose weight too quickly - a pound a week is fine - it will only take 7 weeks to lose 1/2 stone and the slower you lose it, the more likely it is to stay off....

In reply to Sonya Mc:

At the risk of 'harping'(!), if you want to lose weight and get down to around 10% BF (men) and 15% BF (women) then I recommend the following:

1) Clean up your diet - so NO highly processed carbohydrate foods, nothing in packets/boxes. Emphasise meat/eggs/fish (including the fat that comes with the cut), and seasonal veg (preferably green leafy veg).

2) Moderate starchy carbohydrate (about a quarter of your plate), but no pasta, grains, cereals or bread.

3) Avoid industrial seed oils - use olive oil instead.

4) Have some fruit and nuts, and some dairy (butter and cream).

5) No calorie counting and eat until full!

6) Engage in high intensity exercise a couple of times a week for about 45 minutes.

Harping over.

In reply to Blizzard:

I’ve been trying to lose weight for a long time and find it very hard and a bit depressing to the point I gave up trying two months ago. I think for me I was losing inches off the belly but the scales remained at about my starting weight. So it seamed I wasn’t getting anywhere.

So I changed tack and throw out the scales and started just to enjoy being outside climbing in the nicer weather again.

I think it’s wrong to think "I must lose X kgs" and you should more think " I will lose X inches off the belly"

Do you want to be lighter or just thinner?

Over the last two months I have lost about 2 1/2 inches of belly fat (Measured by the fact I have a tail on my belt now) by making the following changes
1. Cut down on crap (for me cakes)
2. Stop eating late at night
3. Upped my indoor climbing from two to three times a week. Outdoor at weekends.
4. Added pull ups, leg raises and dead hangs to the end of each session.
5. I go for a quick cycle whenever I have time after work or weekends. Sometimes 30mins others 2-3 hours.

My only other advice is, its hard to identify where peoples diet are going wrong so I suggest filling in a calorie counter website for one week and this should highlight any issues. I found I was drinking 800 cals in fruit juice not a bad thing but in excess it is.

Good luck its not easy.

SDB

In reply to Shani:

It takes about 1/2 hour after I have eaten for me to feel full. I never feel full when I am actually eating, unless I overeat by quite a bit! Mind you - I can shovel it down!

In reply to tlm:

I am not convinced by the argument that exercise massively increases your appitite. I run most nights anything between 40 minutes and two hours. Even though I can burn up to 2000 calaries on a longer run my food consumption has not increased much.

Just pick say 10 things to change in your lifestyle so you can control it without going for major changes which you may fail with. If after a few weeks you want to step it up, keep the changes and add one or two more difficult ones as a challenge. At worst most people will lose a couple of pounds a week so after a month you could easily lose the stone.

I've never been overweight but when trying to hit a certain weight i did that and could lose half a stone in a week or so but then i am one of those annoying people who eat chocolate 3 times a day and stay more or less the same weight, my list included:

always keeping fruit around, snacking is good for metabolic rate so a piece of fruit between meals keeps it up whilst filling you up so you dont snack on chocolate/biscuits.

shop everyday, it means you can get fresh fruit and veg for healthy meals so you dont rely on microwave stuff or pizza etc. also if you walk to the shop and back its a good bit of exercise as a bonus to your normal routine.

no calories through drinks, remove sugar from tea/coffee, swap coke for coke zero, ditch the juices (they are a killer), say goodbye to beer.

experiment with cooking, healthy cooking doesnt mean tasteless food.

eat slowly, having dinner with company away from a tv means you eat slower because you talk so you eat less, so you can shink your portions down.

drink lots of water or squash, it'll stop you getting as hungry.

set goals for your exercise routine, i cant stand running or cardio but going for a bike ride with an end point in mind is much easier than running/biking at the gym. If you do like the gym time your exercise around a tv schedule if you worry about boredom, so you can say you will bike for the first half of a game etc.

cycle/run/walk to work if possible.

be active in your non exercising free time, sort the garden, diy, clean up the attic/garage.

when you hit your target you need to keep at least some of the changes in place to keep at your goal.

In reply to Blizzard:

i think (be careful when i start with that) you gotta take control.

having your bike nicked sucks - so adapt. its making you fat as you say over 18 months. this is not an overnight binge but a drawn out problem.

'pretty fit' is a bit lame. a stone over ideal weight doesnt count as pretty fit. 20kms across the fells is 'pretty fit'.

have a look into that quote about the 2000kcals - it doesnt take much. in fact its the minimum reccomended daily intake.
if you werent getting it you wouldnt be a stone over.
'quite healthy apart from the snacks and ale' is a weird statement.

please dont think im having a go - im keen to see you get where you want to be and always encourage folks to get it together.

BUT i think youve got to re-route some of your thought processes to get there.
as spartan as it sounds, good eating and exercise is the only way. talking yourself out of it isnt.

In reply to Blizzard:

I am currently festively plump. I know that for me, it's mostly about not exercising enough at the moment. That, and my boyfriend's penchant for pudding/cake/pie. He's a feeder, it seems (take note, for your 'online dating' thread).

I intend to lose a stone by the end of the year, at the latest.

In reply to Blizzard:

I've lost a stone sinse the start of last November and am climbing better for it. For me cut out 'crap' snacks, slightly smaller portion size at meal time with an increased proportion of the meal being veg', only snack on carb's if exercising, eat more protein than before. Start now, (I find it much easier to eat less in the Summer, warm and light,) than I do in the winter. the other thing I do is weigh myself daily as I get up, if I weight a few pounds more than the day before I do something about it that day.

In reply to JayPee630:

I agree to an extent, you need to run about 90 miles to lose 1 kg at my weight, and for me with pretty knackered knees thats quite a lot of slowish runs. Very different if you are a decent runner. You can do the same fast walking, but it would take me twice as long which is more impractical.

I have lost 6 kgs since Christmas without too much calorie restriction and do feel better, about another 6 to go, but as there is no Alpine trip this year due to work commitments (a great way to lose half a stone) it will be a slow process.

The other thing not mentioned in general is the large motorway latté. Some are about 500kCals. I stopped those some time ago.

In reply to Tall Clare:

That is know colloquially as a 'happy belly'.

In reply to Blizzard: I had this problem. I found that getting cancer in the neck, having it ripped open and fussed with followed by six months feeding through a stomach tube really did the trick!

In reply to Shani: My apologies, for some reason I seemed to think that you didn't believe in exercise for losing weight (maybe I'm muddling you with someone else) Your diet sounds quite good (apart from the grains bit, couldn't do without cous cous (in small amounts) or pasta (though I do like wholewheat pasta)

You do have a tendency to harp on though ;oD

In reply to JayPee630:

Depends on your age. In the army, we had shocking diets but kept it off through fizz alone. And the student climbers I know live on shite but mostly have nothing to lose.

At 42, I would agree, a balanced approach is pretty essential.

In reply to antdav:


I agree with many of your points but the one above is wrong IMO. If you are trying to lose weight you should 'snack' on your body fat!

In reply to Sonya Mc:

I DO harp on and I don't think that exercise is particularly good for losing weight...well not directly anyway. Exercise is good for upregulating insulin sensitivity...which leads to losing weight. We are all familiar with the notion of 'working up an appetite'.

BF set points are keenly defended by the body. Latest research suggests inflammation (including inflammation of the hypothalamus - IIRC), gut flora, insuling and leptin sensitivity all play an important role which kind of mocks the simplistic notion of reducing calories in, and increasing calories out.

In reply to Blizzard:just have smaller portions and drink less alcohol and try to avoid foods with refined sugar in cake biscuits etc

In reply to Blizzard:
Develop gall stones and therefore end up having to eat a ultra low fat diet to prevent extreme pain...

Weight just drops off ya then!

In reply to Blizzard:
Eat whatever you like, drink as much as you want and then go for a swim in the Trent after heavy rain. You'll certainly be loose afterwards and probably 2 stone lighter.

In reply to Blizzard: A way to do it if you're quite lazy could be;

- Don't drink through the week
- Alternate between eating carbs one day, and not the next (so meat and veg the day you aren't eating carbs)
- Make sure you're active at the weekend (so you burn off that alcohol)
- I know it sounds trivial but even a 20 min walk per night

Doing this, you should see a big difference - and its not THAT hard to do.

Once you get over this, start incorporating more strenuous exercises - and keep it interesting by mixing it up...

- stuff like flipping a tractor tyre in a field (if you can find one!)
- Using a punch bag
- Circuit training
- Spinning

etc etc.

oh - and drink plenty of water - sometimes your hunger is actually thirst.

You don’t have to listen to Shani – just keep repeating the mindless mantra- calories in minus calories burnt –simples.
Your 25 you’re inherently fit and lean.
Trouble is …
Every year you gain half a kilo thickening out so by my age you have gained 30 kg and have diabetes maybe. By that time a majority of the population will be obese.
Doctors know jack sh** about how to prevent it.
You have to take responsibility for your own health.
Forget ‘exercise’ just be very active. Bust your lungs twice a week.
Eat as much as you desire – if you start ‘dieting’ your brain will think it is starving and force you to eat, you will be hungry all the time, your metabolism will slow down causing you to feel cold and lethargic and your body will utilise any food more efficiently all of which will confound your planned weight loss eventually.
Food processors have added wood to their ingredients ( look for cellulose) to pad out cheapo sugar, flour and oil.. Eat wood peasants. As much as you can, don’t eat anything that has seen the inside of a factory.
Lesson 1 over.Back to you Shami and thanks.

In reply to Blizzard:

Yes, furthermore I wasn't a fat bastard either, neither do I have the advantage of being as young as you.

At aged 49 I found I was over 11st (I'm 5'6"). About 6 months later I'm just over 10st.

Nothing drastic, bit more out, bit less in. Find an exercise that fits you. I tried the gym, didn't work for me, I hate running, I got a road bike, it works for me. I wouldn't suggest a bike to you, I'm just saying find something that you can do.

I cut down portion sizes a bit and I cut out a lot of the crap I ate(chocolates, confectionary, cakes, biscuits, coke), not all, just cut down.

I never drank much beer or wine, but that's a useful source to cut down if you do.

Quick answer, no, I didn't find it difficult reeli, just need to be careful and serious about it. Certainly you could do it a lot faster than I did if you put your mind to it.

In reply to hafner: "calories in minus calories burnt –simples"

No, it's not simples, the above is far from all there is to it. Do some reading before you say things that are wrong with absolute confidence.

In reply to JayPee630:

well, in the final analysis, its right- its the first law of thermodynamics

of course there are all sorts of things the body does to reduce the calories burnt bit of the equation, and all sorts of psychological factors at play too, but underneath it all its a matter of energy balance

In reply to JayPee630:
sorry - I should have spelled it out in simpler terms for you.
Energy in minus energy out does NOT tell the whole story for the ferociously complex human metabolic system. one example- once you have wrecked your leptin satiation signalling through eating crap you HAVE to eat way more than you need. Nothing to do with being greedy and lazy. Even if your brain didn't think it was starving and make you lethargic, running for one hour to lose 200 Kcals ain't going to help.
Neither will simple mantras like Energy in minus energy out

In reply to Blizzard: Their are hundreds of diets about and they are all just gimmicks to make somebody money. At the end of the day it is simple maths. If your base metabolic rate is 2000 calories a day, and you don't move then consume 1500 calories. If you burn 500 calories through exorcise eat 2000 calories. You will lose weight if you burn more than you out in. That is all their is to it. It is Physiologically impossible to not lose weight if you burn more calories than you put in. The only hard bit is having the will power to eat healthy. And that can be REALLY hard. A lot of people I know who couldn't lose weight were still drinking starbucks coffee's and the like, not realising the amount of calories in them. Anyway good luck mate

In reply to Shani:

but if you dont snack your body goes into panic mode so drops metabolism to stop what it thinks is wasted energy and then stores energy during meal times. Some people feel this effect more than others but if you are generally cold your body isnt allowing energy to be used switching your eating habits can make a difference. also eating the same amount over 5 meals instead of 3 can have a massive effect on you.

This is where the energy in - energy out equation falls over as its very hard to judge just how much energy you are using through metabolism and by changing eating habits, which some people end up under eating, you can actually put on weight even if calorie intake drops.

In reply to Shani:

So what's the deal with carbohydrates? I used to hear that they should form the majority of your diet but many people now advise to eat fewer carbohydrates. I can understand this for the simple sugars but can't get my head around why decent pasta and bread (I mean good bread not the crap they sell in the shops) is bad.

For what it's worth, my diet is mostly pasta, rice, potatoes, bread and cereal, I managed to lose half a stone over the last few months by not having an eccles cake, cherry slice (mmm) or similar after lunch every day.

In reply to antdav:

The body does not go in to panic mode with a few hours between meals. In fact starvation mode take around three days. What you have to remember is what the evolutionary reason for fat is; to keep you going between meals. There is a myth that we should eat several times a day. And it is just that; a myth:

"...studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

"We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985


Correct, you can put on weight when calories drop. The body has several mechanism to upregulate or down regulate metabolic activity. That is why counting calories is rather crude as not only can the body seek to 'burn less' to reduce calories out, it can actually 'eat itself' (autophagy) to supplement 'calories in'.

In reply to Jimbo C:

Lectins and gluten. If grains are fermented properly then they may be tolerable but you should try a wheat-free diet and see what impact it has. You might find it quite favourable on body composition.


Avoid sugar!

In reply to Shani:

However you are not taking blood sugar regulation into consideration. I know from fact of personal experience that breaking my meals down into smaller meals keeps the peaks and troughs of my blood sugar more stable which means less hunger and less likely to eat junk food.

In reply to Jimbo C:

Many of the people I know who are overweight are overweight because they are carb junkies especially refined carbs. So many people think if they eat pasta and garlic bread every night then they are being healthy and they will be fine but have no concept of portion control.

For what it is worth I eat mostly a high fat, high protein, moderate carb diet now and perform both low and high intensity exercise and have minimal body fat.

In reply to Blizzard:

You don't have to do anything drastic but you have to stick at it. Just cut down fat and beer input and eat properlay and exercise plenty. The weight Watchers meal guidelines are pretty good as its based on sensible (normal) meals rather than anything off beat so you can stick with it.

In reply to Milesy:

Well if you think about fat storage and the whole relationship between insulin and leptin, that is the crux of the issue. This is the evolutionary strategy to deal with blood sugar levels, NOT endogenous control.

If you need to eat frequently I would question your insulin sensitivity - particularly if you get hunger shakes if you haven't eaten for a few hours.

But it sounds like you have everything dialled in and are lean and healthy so whatever you are doing, if it is working and is sustainable, then there is little to worry about.

In reply to Shani:

I think the same can be applied to lots of other people and to control and understand the effects on the body can help in diet. Every day around me I can see other people have massive big lunches or dinners and then not long after going for more food, especially the biscuits or sweets as the insulin spikes leading to more calories to be consumed.

If you are aware of this spike as it happens then you can learn to "wait out" the spikes with more control (as I learned to do) and my calorie intake reduced.

In reply to Blizzard:

I lost about 4 stone in weight over the past few years. Initially I was just able to cut out the real crap from my diet, i.e. less take aways and chocolate and along with a little bit of exercise I lost the first stone or so fairly easily. That was just done with a bit of walking and mtbing along with a fairly regular amount of running. Since getting down to about 13 stone it's been much harder to get the weight off. I've really had to diet properly and up the amount of exercise. It's been hard work, but very worth it. However I find it's very easy for me to put on 1/2 a stone or so, literally in a month.

However in the long run, it's been very simple, eat well and exercise more. It's definitely a case of easier said than done. Least that's what's worked for me. Things might be different for you.

In reply to Blizzard: p90x change ur life, if u have been fit and have will power and really want it , this is fantastic, addictive, hardwork but results and nrw life style totally amazing.

In reply to Blizzard:

Good on you for trying ; As a Climber , Keeping weight down is key to achieving targets I otherwise would miss ; As a GP I have seen ( and tried ! ) all sorts of faddy diets in the past : Then I noticed folk using Weight watchers didnt get too hung up on gaining a few pounds - they had learned Food Management techniques and could switch them on easily ; Ten years after doing the course I have kept off the 10 Kilos and a further 2 kilos when I am motivated . I have no commercial link with Weight watchers but feel they can help - the most effective way is to attend the Group sessions and hear how others have escaped the Fat too - its not a book or online learning thing ; Good luck Bro and may you climb your dream Climb without the baggage !

In reply to Blizzard:

I find the best way that works for me is to cut out all processed foods, sugar etc completely and replace carbs like bread, potatoes with beans like kidney beans, pinto beans etc.

One day a week have what you like. Also dont get obsessed lots of people get obsessed then will give up on the change of diet after having a cheeky marsbar or some thing, because they think they failed and they munch on a couple more bars.

Also use the scales once a week to start until you get the weight you want, then move to monthly and keep a record so you know if your going up or down. You can then modify your diet when its needed.

It should go without saying exercise 3 - 4 times a week on top of this and you should drop the wight in no time.

In reply to Blizzard: Lots of good ideas above. One finds that if one stops eating for a week or so, one loses weight.It all depends how quickly you need to shed your weight. Also, if you want to keep it off then change the way you eat as well as what you eat, sit at a different place at the dinner table, etc...use your imagination. And yes, one has shed that amount in about a month. Also, how many overweight vegetarians do you know? Most importantly, if you really want to, you can do it. Good luck.

In reply to Blizzard:

Lots of mixed info on this thread which just shows there's probably different ways of losing weight for different people. In two months I've gone from 68.5kgs to 63.5kgs, 17% - 11% body fat. I'm 175cms and this change in body composition has pushed my bouldering grade from getting up most 7as to getting up most 7bs.

I haven't done any extra exercise as I have a pretty active lifestyle anyway. All the changes for me were in my diet. The biggest two were snacking on fruit not cr@p and switching all my carbs to the whole variety. I'm not very good at being hungry and really found that brown rice/pasta/bread was so much more filling for longer than it's processed sibling.

I really recommend, - Racing Weight by Matt Fitzgerald. I've been watching this thread for a while and unless I've missed it no-one seems to have mentioned this book. Dave Mac links to it on his blog and the info it provides really helped me drop the additional weight without the horror of being hungry and weak all the time!

Good luck!

In reply to stonemaster:

The problem with advice such as "One finds that if one stops eating for a week or so, one loses weight.", is that it doesn't really address the issue of body composition. Such an extreme measure will lead to muscle loss as well as fat loss and severe caloric restriction will eventually lead to lethargy and a lack of motivation. Probably not what the OP is after.

As for fat vegetarians, Forrest Whitaker is a good example (http://tinyurl.com/3tztrkg)

Remember, a beer belly has its roots in vegetarianism!

In reply to Shani: One sits corrected regarding body composition. Apologies. 'beer belly has its roots in vegetarianism' only if you call beer a root vegetable...err maybe that's not quite what I meant to say..

In reply to Blizzard:

Could you go for a three hour cycle once a week if you don't want to go hill walking by yourself at the weekends?

I've read that over time that lengh of cycle at a medium pace encourages the body to tap into fat reserves for energy while exercising.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Blizzard:

Perhaps you could get an exercise bike, and do star jumps and skipping and running on the spot?

Tim

In reply to hafner:

Running for an hour will burn a lot more than 200 Kcals, probably more like 800. If you do that several times a week it will make a difference.


Works for me.

To the OP. You should write down everything you eat for week and then have a good look at it. Try and figure out what you think you can cut out or substitute and then how many calories that will save you. If you cut down to about 2500 calories and exercise you'll lose weight and get fitter. It's a virtuous circle. Unless you really want to do it I wouldn't go for a weird diet that has you eating sawdust or brown rice (is there a difference?) four times a week. You want to change what you eat permanently so there's no point in coming up with a diet that makes you feel miserable as you'll just go back to pies and crisps eventually.

A few of simple rules.

a) Don't eat unless you're hungry.
b) Don't eat between meals; you'll lose track of how many calories you're eating.
c) A cup of tea or coffee (not including 3 sugars obviously) can settle a rumbling stomach long enough for you to get to your next meal.

In reply to Blizzard:

Possibly the thought of exercising at home isn't very interesting, probably an important thing is to find something which you find enjoyable, or makes you feel enthusiasm about exercising.

In reply to Shani:


is most beer vegetarian? i guess if you eat fish then dried fish bladders would be acceptable?

In reply to Blizzard: how about going on a high altitude expedition somewhere? very few fail to lose weight 5000m+

In reply to Blizzard:
Skipping, swimming, brown rice, green tea. repeat for ever.
Are you sure you want to do this?!

In reply to Blizzard:

Two Day walk across 30 Mile of uninterupted moorland with Wild Camp in between.


mh

I think most people miss the wood for the trees.

Yes, insulin this and doing it like that probably will get more weight off and faster but at the end of the day it's all about being honest with yourself isn't it!

EVERYTHING IN MODERATION AND YOU WILL SLOWLY LOSE WEIGHT AND KEEP IT OFF FOR LIFE.

If you eat sensibly most of the time you can still have that curry or a few pints when you want it. This means just because you want it twice in one week doesn't make it sensible, does it? But you have to be honest and admit that to yourself don't you! And have a little will power.

If you exercise regularly, whatever exercise that form takes, you will help keep the weight down. If your tired one week and only do a couple of sessions it doesn't matter. You probably need the rest. If you start regularly only doing it once or twice a week you might start gaining weight so you have to give yourself a kick up the motivational a*se.

So yes, your fave diet or eating this with that specialist don't eat those types of whatever may or may not speed things up, simple less cals in v cals out may not work for all on their own according to some but think about this;

During the second world war people in this country unwittingly went on what was effectively a global population experiment by default.

Food was short, work generally manual, cycling / walking as little fuel (ie excercise), bread was a big staple filler. It is fact the population as a whole was the fittest weight as an overall example than it ever has been.

You can argue all the nuances about that you think fit but the general all round answer was the vast majority of people ate unrefined, low sugar, medium portions of food (including lots of unfashionable bread) and exercised as a way of daily life and were therefore around a good slim healthy body shape.

No Tesco cream cake isle in sight then!

In reply to Peterpumpkineater:

I like the bit about the Second World War where '...the population as a whole was the fittest weight as an overall example than it ever has been.'

This might well be true, but there was no 'low fat' diet, consumption of saturated fat was much higher, foods such as bananas and pasta where much less common, sodas and soft drinks were exotic and less prolific, we didn't eat HFCS, and smoking of manufactured cigarettes in the UK peaked around this time:

http://www.laia.ac.uk/factsheets/982.pdf

So yep, we should ignore all these confounders, and DO EVERYTHING IN MODERATION, including moderate smoking, for weight loss.

In reply to Shani:

you missed my point Shani, ie the wood for the trees.

You can tweak and refine the ideal weight loss to your hearts content.

The simple fact I am making is if someone without a dire metabolism or without glandular problems simply is sensible with diet and exercise they will keep to a reasonably healthy body shape and weight.

Nothing wrong with a moderate bowl of pasta after moderate exercise is there? A banana during a 4 hours morning walk in the Dales will work well, if you fancy a full fat Coke on a sunny afternoon then have one, not 2 pints of it etc etc.

Of course if you were to advise them they would probably do it better, faster and more of, but most people simply want to lose some weight and keep it off in a simple way. Everybody who joins the forces loses weight. Because basic training is probably the most exercise they have ever done in that timescale.

The basics are not rocket science. however the latest fads often are.

In reply to Peterpumpkineater:

>Everybody who joins the forces loses weight. Because basic training is probably the most exercise they have ever done in that timescale.

Times have changed. I put on nearly a stone, but that was in 1956 and I was riding 14 miles a day for work and either riding 70-100 miles at weekends or walking miles on the moors with a YHA group or mates.

In reply to Blizzard:

I'm sitting in a cafe in Bolivia reading this thread. As much as i'd like to lose weight, I just don't have the willpower! About to tuck into my second Cappuchino and a slab of chocolate cake that's bigger than my head.

Though i'd let you know....

Nomnomnom

In reply to Shani:

Back in the industrial days meals were consumed differently. My granny used the saying breakfast like a king, lunch like a queen and dinner like a pauper. People worked more physical jobs in Britain and big breakfasts and lunches were needed to get through the day. We have now switched to a large workforce which is mostly idle and eating habits have changed were people now eat meagre breakfasts and lunches and then go home and have absolutely massive dinners which is not putting the calories consumed during the day to their best use.

In reply to Milesy:

And yet there was a famous study (I cna't lay my hands on a reference just now, but if you google it you'll find references to it), in which it was found that the caloric intake of a lumberjack averaged 5,000 calories per day. By comparison the caloric intake of tailors was, on average, half that at about 2,500 calories per day.

It is almost as if doing highly intense activity increases your appetite and undertaking sedentary activity leads to a reduced appetite....who'd have thunk it? Maybe this whole thing is a bit more complex than calories in/calories out?

In reply to Shani: Surely your Lumberjack/tailor example backs up calories in/calories out?

There seem to be plenty of people sat behind desks with out reduced appetites...

In reply to Shani:


I tried this recently and was amazed at the difference it made. I suffer from psoriasis (mildly but persistently) and it was suggested that avoiding wheat and dairy could have a positive effect on my skin. I went a fortnight without either and not only did I lose about 5-6lbs I also felt amazing, lighter and full of energy. I went back to eating both of them (after suffering massive willpower failure in a restaurant) and spent the next week feeling bloated, gassy and with really rough guts.

In reply to Arms Cliff:

On a thermodynamics level it is immuteable. But we are not dealing with a closed system and there are many metabolic pathways your food can take. Not only that, but there are various factors affecting the digestibility of foodstuff.

So on the one hand the lumberjack example shows that increasing exercise will make you eat more. And doing less work gives a corresponding fall in demand.

But remember, these guys were not trying to count their calories nor restrict intake. Thus if you exercise to try to get thin, it is likely you will eat more (particularly if you have a healthy metabolism). If you don't respond to your junger then the body has other ways of adapting, by lowering metabolic activity and inducing lethargy.

So you have to ask, why can some people trust their appetite and others seem unable to scale appetite to activity?

As I have put elsewhere, it is even more complex than this. There is evidence that gut flora plays a role in obesity. So again we should be asking questions around what foods create the conditions for favourable gut flora - or does some other factor adversely affect the profile of gut flora and so lead to obesity?

There is also research linking chronic inflammation and obesity...and this is all before we get to issues around food reward....

Saying people get fat because they eat lots and have 'idle' jobs is at best a limited explanation for the level of obesity in society.

In reply to climbingpixie:

That is a similar story to me!

As I understand it (!), after a period away from grains you should be able to reintroduce dairy to your diet. (Start slowly). The grains cause chronic low grade inflamamtion in the gut and this allows dairy proteins to get in to places they shouldn't (sorry for not being too technical) - prompting your immune system in to action. This is why you have to initially avoid dairy AND grains.

As for the weight loss, that is a common experience with eating this way. The initial loss is as much water as body fat. But what happens is that, often after a period of 'low-carb flu', you bounce back with enhanced metabolic flexibility which means you can easily switch from glycolysis to lipolysis (carb/sugar burning to fat burning).

Once you are comfy with a grainless diet, stuff like intermittent fasting is easy and your intake generally aligns much more closely with your appetite.

(Don't be scared of saturated fat in your diet).

In reply to Shani:


So if people ate less and had active jobs they would still be fat? I think you are trying to throw too much science at a somewhat simple situation.

In reply to Arms Cliff:

A simple situation? In children at least it seems that fatness can CAUSE physical inactivity, rather than the simple interpretation you favour:

"Physical inactivity appears to be the result of fatness rather than its cause. This reverse causality may explain why attempts to tackle childhood obesity by promoting PA have been largely unsuccessful."

http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2010/06/23/adc.2009.175927.abstract

In reply to Shani: People who are overweight are less likely to do physical activity; any more bombshells to drop?

In reply to Arms Cliff:

You have not understood the research nor its implication. It is not lack of physical activity that is making them fat.

In reply to Shani: Agreed, it's the shite they shove into their overeager mouths that does it.

In reply to Shani:

Yes, it's the fact they are overweight that's making them not want to exercise, this is obvious. If they did more physical activity or ate less, they would be less overweight; care to dispute this?

In reply to Arms Cliff: I see a lot of over sized people jogging near me and I have noticed them getting their thing on in the local swimming pool.

In reply to Shani:

Arrived late, but I see the idiots are out.

It's simple if you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. It's not biology, it's not chemistry, its basic basic physics that we all (should) learn when we're about 12 years old.

If you exercise more (e.g. you're a lumberjack) you burn more calories in a single day, therefore you naturally a hell of a lot more to avoid turning into a rake. Your body is more clever than you think it is (although, obviously not clever enough)

I've recently started commuting a total of 20 miles. Of course my appetite has increased, I now have second breakfast and a second lunch, but even so I have lost half a stone in a month.

That's not to say that diets don't work. Of course they do. Almost by definition, you're eating less. My personal take on it is that diets (whether backed by commercial companies or not) are for people who are unwilling or unable to exercise. That's fine, not everybody has the time, inclination, or physical ability to do exercise.

Personally, however, I love the fact that the side-effect of me riding 20 miles a day is that I can, practically guilt free, eat and drink whatever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want. Chocolate, ice-cream, cake, delicious cheese, vats of pasta, slabs of juicy steak, beer, wine, whisky etc. etc. And I still stay a lovely trim 11ish stone. Better than any bloody diet.

In reply to Shani:

..and "Design A non-intervention prospective cohort study examining children annually from 7 to 10 years. Baseline versus change to follow-up associations were used to examine the direction of causality."

So how do we know when they turned into bloaters? Do we know how many calories per week the fatties ate compared to the normal children?

Physically lazy people are more likely to get fat. People who like their food are likely to get fat. Lazy people who like their food definitely get fat.

Also, bear in mind that children use calories to grow so the results are not necessarily applicable to adults.

In reply to Alun:

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

You obviously didn't read a word of what I said. Congratulations, by our mutual definitions, we've both added to the idiot count of this thread

And you know what ? It's perfectly possible to eat plenty of fruit, vegetables, pulses etc. (of which I eat plenty - my wife is Heidi Swanson's number one fan) while STILL eating less-healthy-but-very-yummy stuff. But you obviously are incapable of understanding that, so keep flaming if it makes you feel better. I'm off to eat ice-cream.

In reply to Blizzard:

This would explain why you're the same guy who was letching after single white females via a UKC forum the other day....

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Funny that, but I find the Mountaineering diet good for loosing half a stone over about a month (i.e. eat as much pizza and drink as much beer as you want, but climb lots of big hills).

In reply to siwid: I think you are spot on.

I got Quick Start, the sequel to Racing Weight, also by Matt Fitzgerald. I have only rarely read a book like it. Everything you will ever need to know about nutrition in 20 paperback pages, for the cost of three pork pies.

Appropriate body fat % is the question. Diet quality, variety, balance, timing, hunger management (in particular how NOT to let yourself become hungry) and appropriate exercise are the main components of the answer.

If you are involved in sports and want to improve the composition of you body these ideas are for you, endurance athlete or not. Educate yourself thoroughly before wading in, it will pay dividends later. You should treat with extreme caution anything that deals with weight loss in given period of time or advocates going hungry as this has very little to do with the problem or the solution, and usually makes things worse. "Calories in versus calories out", while correct on some level, frames the problem in what I feel is a very unhelpful way.

As an aside I am surprised that you have been able to improve your bouldering by a full letter grade by losing 5 kgs of fat, although for you I suppose it is close to 10% of overall weight. I think Dave Macleod claimed to have increased his redpoint grade from 8c to 9a by losing 4.5kgs, but don't recall any improvement claimed in bouldering? I have lost about 6 kgs (from 90kgs) of fat and my best bouldering has gone up from around 6B+ to 6C (or V4 to easy V5) and routes from 6c o/s to 7a.

Anyway, hope to see you SiWid in Font climbing Rubis sur l'Ongle (I will be continuing the siege of Travaux Forces next door)

In reply to Alun:

Over simplistic. By moving this off the topic of biology you've totally failed to account for the fact that the body can adapt to energy intake and expenditure by autophagy, lethargy and a whole host of hormonal cascades.

In reply to Arms Cliff:

Yes you are right. And if alcoholics 'just stopped drinking' they'd stop being alcoholics. And if addicts like smokers 'just stopped smoking' then they'd no longer be addicts. Care to dispute this?

I am reluctant to chime in again on this but will do so to support Shani’s heroism.
It is so easy (and so unattractive) to condemn the overweight 30% of our population as idle and greedy.
I am a pretty unempathetic and uncaring person but surely the canary in the coal mine is the number of obese kids made fat by sugar water fruit juices and pops. They do not choose to be lethargic and hungry.
Insulin distributes serum glucose as needed.
Once the poor souls’ livers become insulin resistant all excess glucose stored in their fat cells cannot be accessed to fuel activity.(because the high level of insulin block the relaease of that stored fuel)
They are enervated and because their muscles etc are not receiving energy due to lack of glucogon until they reach their new ‘Fatty’ set point, they are also bloody starving all the time.
As I say, as people go I am no saint but to condemn these unhappy people ain’t right.
The human metabolism is not as simple as a bomb calorimeter.
Hey Shani don’t get upset by the comments of simple minded fools I commend you for your stamina

In reply to Blizzard: This is quite interesting:-
http://guernseypersonaltrainer.com/2010/12/10-fitness-mistakes-most-women-m...
reducing calories whilst doing the same level of excersise will mean you lose weight.....but if you're weedy now you'll still be weedy. As the link above states, weight made of muscle burns calories, weight made of fat doesn't - that's why sedentary fat people complain that they can't lose weight even though they don't eat much. Convert your fat to muscle and you'll be fine.
Avoid stodge foods like bananas and white bread - the longer it takes for food to transit your body the more calories can be extracted. A mate of mine with ME couldn't put on weight until he switched from brown to white bread.
You may not be able to do the 20 minute runs or cycles suggested by others due to family/time constraints, but there's plenty you can do - taking stairs instead of the lift, walking home from a night out instead of getting a taxi, walking to the shop for a paper instead of driving.
PS. for those quoting 'you're fat because calories in > calories out' - I prefer the alternative of 'you're fat because your cake hole is bigger than your poo hole'

Do a long distance path: pennine way, west highland way. Bivvy out and camp, reckon you could lose the whole lot on the pennine way.

If you dont have time for that, try eating 3-4 wheatabix with honey yoghurt and milk fills me up till lunch. Drinking cold black tea during the day also suppresses the appetite. Instead of a big dinner eat a light tea at about 5 or 6 pm (poached eggs/ beans on toast), then go and get some exercise, then eat a bit of supper when you are back some fruit and nuts bit of cheese, glass of vino. Try not to snack and try not to drink too much a) it slows your metabolism b) you will get the munchies

In reply to Blizzard: Amazingly (for me anyway) I've managed to lose a stone in 4 weeks. Wasn't being that hardcore about it to be honest, I went running twice a week for 30mins (interval training), climbing at the wall once a week, cycle or walk at weekend.

Diet wise, cereal for breakfast with a fruit smoothie, sandwich or soup for lunch and various main meals just following lower fat recipes, had a curry (tikka), satay chicken, pasta (tortelloni) with sauce, and couple of other meals.

Outside of that I tried to stick to my meals and have light snacks in between, and drunk plenty of water and diet drinks (coke zero etc)

In reply to Blizzard:

Eat properly. Some call it a diet, but IMO it's pointless. Just eat fresh and natural food, nothing form plastic wraps, no Chinese take-ways (this is usually a not fresh calorie bomb in nutshell), no empty calories.

Generate calorie deficit:
Running.
Gym.
Swim. (There are theories swimming can make you gain some weight, scan the Web and read).
For weight loss, it is better to exercise in the morning than evening.

Read learn and adapt:
http://www.davemacleod.com/shop/racingweightquickstartguide.html
Runner's World

In reply to ChrisHolloway1:

I grafted for 6 hours landscape gardening today. I was starving at the end of it. Do people really expect me on top of that to go running every night?? NO WAY. I would not have any energy to work! Others cant really expect me to live on salads.

In reply to Shani:

Of course the body can adapt, it's clever. But it doesn't deny the fact that to lose weight, you must create a calorific deficit. It never fails to cease to amaze me how some people can't accept that 1-2 = -1.

Now that, you're quite right to say the body creates all sorts of excuses like lethargy and the other issues you mention (which are quite real, I don't deny that). Which is why silly crash diets, and nonsense bullshit like the Atkins crap or whatever else is in fashion at the moment, are not very good for you.

Exercise and eat healthily and in moderation, and you very rarely need worry about your weight. It really isn't more complex than that.

In reply to Blizzard:
This article about Sugar, Fructose, High Fructose Corn Syrup may help a little (if you believe what you read on the internet...)
http://gizmodo.com/5809444/what-sugar-actually-does-to-your-brain-and-body
"Going for a 20-minute run is about equal to two thin mint cookies (unless you're really fast, in which case you might get a third cookie). Burning off a fast food meal would require exercising for most of your day. It's just not feasible for anyone. Physical activity helps because it reduces stress (which reduces appetite) and improves the way your metabolism functions (so less fat is produced when processed by your body). These things are much more important than calorie burn."

Personally started to cut our crisps, biscuits and processed foods. Soups for lunch and lots of running, weights etc.

In reply to Stuart Wildman:

Not sure what a thin mint cookie is, but I burn 350-400 calories during a 20 minute run, but I usually run for much longer than that. Most of these studies that say that exercise doesn't work base it on very small amounts of exercise. I realise that what you have quoted does not quite say that, but exercise can have a huge impact on calorie differential.

In reply to Alun: >


Try taking a different route to avoid the drive-thru fast food outlets

In reply to Toerag:

Numerous studies have shown that fat people have a higher metabolic rate than thin people...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/your_weight/medical_m...

In reply to Blizzard:

No one expects you to do anything. It's your choice. You said that you didn't like being lardy, but I see that actualy, you would rather choose porkiness rather than take any responsibility...

In reply to Stuart Wildman:

Is that a fact, 20 min run = 2 mint cookies??? That aint much loss.( if you get my point)

Lardy? I have a middle aged tum. I wish I had a six pack! ( don't we all) . I would not say that I am as focused as those who train hard e.g. Stevie Haston regime. it borders on the obsessive.

I'd say I was a balanced individual, even if I I don't have the drive I had a decade ago when I was leading E1, cycling and capable of hiking 15 miles a day.

NB.Thanks for the link. re fructose etc

Hmmm.... anyone want to join me in the Alps this summer? I'm sure 2-3 weeks out there would get rid of my tum, thats all I am trying to loose.

In reply to Shani:

I always follow your nutrition posts with interest, mostly they sum up my take on the subject pretty well, and the above regime you describe certainly seems to work well for me.

Regarding your point 5: it's also important to eat slowly and chew your food well before swallowing rather than bolting it down (which is what I'm pre-programmed to do so eating slowly is a deliberate thing for me). Aside from giving your digestive system an easier time, you also avoid overtaking the 'full' signals from your brain, thus eating a bit less anyway. (A key tactic in gluttony contests is to eat as fast as possible in order to feed way beyond the 'full' signals).

In reply to Blizzard:

Leaping in late and going with the original question. I lost 6kg in 7 weeks - I went from running on average 20km a week to running 50km a week while training for a half-marathon. I ate whatever I wanted whenever I wanted the whole way through, no diet for me in terms of calorie restriction.

In reply to Blizzard:

You don't need to be hungry at all when you're leaning up. After your hours of labouring if you're really hungry then of course you need to eat until you're full. You have the choice of

1. Filling up on energy dense unhealthy foods - sweets, fried food, fatty meat, full fat dairy etc.

2. Filling up on less energy dense healthy foods - whole grains, lean meat, low fat dairy, fruit and veg etc.

The difference is that if you fill yourself up with the healthy stuff you will have consumed far fewer calories and will feel full for longer.

In reply to Blizzard: Wear the clothes that you wore before you put the weight on. You will be reminded every day that you are arger than you should be.

When I start putting on weight, I never buy new clothes at a larger size, stick with the clothes of the size you want to be.

In reply to Blizzard:

What exactly do you eat through the day and evening if you graft for 6 hours a day, are starving at the end of it and still have a stone of flab you want to lose? Are you pigging out on take-aways in the evening every day or snacking on unhealthy non-nutritious shite all through the day or something?

(Enter pedantic Jim)
Are people really still adding an extra 'o' to the word lose?

In reply to Alun:

NOBODY is denying that body mass will fall if your calorie input is less than your calroie output. It is basic physics. What we are questioning is the precision of control you have over energy input and output, and why your body seeks to defend a set point.

The set point is obivous in that a 20st fatty might lose weight (often slowly) and then after reaching a target weight, gorge again. What is interesting is the weight re-gain is often VERY quick and it normally goes back to the previous level (20st), 'plus a bit'. So why is this? Why does BF seem to head back to a particular value in many cases. We all know people that have experienced this. The evidence for a BF set point that is 'defended' is quite strong (but not completely understood).

Understanding that the body defends a set point is key to the latest strategies to tackle obesity. Modern research is looking at what sets the set point - not at counting calories in and out..


I don't know enough about Atkins to comment. By crash diet, if you mean any form of calorie restriction then I am in agreement.


This is a vacuous statement. What do you mean by eat healthily? To me it means to eat a lot of animal, a lot of saturated fat and some greens. To you it might mean something different. Eating in modertaion is complete bollocks. You should eat when you are hungry and eat until you are full - that is what I do.

In reply to Removed User:

Cheers.

In reply to Shani:

One thing I seem to recall from reading Racing Weight (my copy is a couple of thousand miles away from me at the mo so can't check) is that exercise is rather a large factor in attacking the set point. eg take sets of identical twins with so-called 'obesity genes', make one of each pair exercise, after a period of time it was found that the fat genes in the twin that exercised were around 60% less active. So this is one reason that weight loss by increasing exercise is more likely to work than by calorie restriction, never mind that calorie restriction slows the metabolism so when the diet ends, the weight piles back on faster than before.

So in a way Alan is right, but it's not linear - if someone putting on weight is 1 (calorie intake) - 0.8 (calories burnt) = +0.2 (gaining weight), then with increased exercise 1 - 1.2 = -0.2 (losing weight) but with calorie restriction and the same exercise 0.6 - 0.8 = -0.1 due to metabolism changes and after the diet ends 1 - 0.8 = +0.3

if you see what I mean...

In reply to Shani:

So, I can think of potatoes and sweet potatoes.... is there anything else? Do pulses count?

In reply to tlm:

Pulses and peanuts are legumes (IIRC) and are a no-no. If you have a healthy metabolism you should be able to eat spuds and the like without a problem - but not at the expense of quality protein and fat.

If you want to lose fat then reducing carbohydrate is a handy strategy. But if you are doing a lot of intense exercise then a lot of carbohydrate at some point PWO is important to replenish glycogen.

In reply to chris j:

I will have to read Racing Weight, it sounds intersting. Exercise does a few things - not least it upregulates insulin sensitivity. The point being that you are engaging with bodyweight control at a hormonal level, not at a 'calories counting' level. This is where it seems Alun and I profoundly disagree (along with his sat fat phobia). Alun also avoids consideration of the role of gut flora and so forth.

In reply to Shani:

You say 'spuds and the like' - what is 'the like'? What starchy carbohydrates do you eat besides potatoes?

In reply to tlm:

My basic meal is to fill half my plate with meat and half with (mostly leafy green) veg. I will opt for seasonal veg as well. In addition I will have a side order of starchy carbohydrate which will usually be potatoes, but I also go for soups (made with stock from roasting meat) and chuck in parsnips, pumpkin, yams, squash and sweet potatoes. Occasionally I eat bananas.

I have one or two high carb meals a week.

In reply to Shani:



are you familiar with the principle of parsimony?

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

In terms of a specific biological process? No.

In reply to Shani:


I was referring more to one of the principles by which scientists select one explanatory theory over another. Popularly known as Occam's Razor. ie. the simplest theory that explains all the facts is the one we should accept.

In reply to chris j:

Pigging out? What me? I may have a stomach to loose but I am not a slob

Nope, I eat 2 meals a day, they are reasonably healthy, and I outlined my actual diet on the diet thread I started.

In reply to plexiglass_nick: plexiglass_nick:> I was referring more to one of the principles by which scientists select one explanatory theory over another. Popularly known as Occam's Razor. ie. the simplest theory that explains all the facts is the one we should accept.


I think you will find are over-simplifying Occam's razor !

In reply to Shani:

That's generally what fat people do...

In reply to Removed User:

Yep. They are responding to their hunger just as I am. And yet I am lean.

In reply to Shani:

Well, we agree on pretty much everything then.

Apart from the 'NOBODY', comment - I have personally met several people who can't grasp this concept, and moan consistently about how they find it impossible to lose weight.

My point is, for all the talk of diets and discussion and exercise etc., losing weight requires making some form of effort, whether changing diet, or doing more exercise, or both.

In reply to Shani:


That sounds quite restrictive, aren't you always eating the same thing then? What about fruit, fish, etc? Some nice things like chocolate or ice cream (on occasion...?)
Not getting at you, but I know that if I would eat only this sort of stuff, I would eventually crack up... I need to have some other food groups in there otherwise I'd be thinking I'd miss out...

In reply to shark:

I can't remember the last time I ate fast food. What's your point?

Although I should point out that in my original post I didn't mention that my commute was on mountain bike, and that, strangely, people on the other end of an internet forum are incapable of reading my mind. That was silly.

In reply to Heike:

By 'meat' I include fish. I do eat fruit and a lot of varieties of veg so it is quite varied.

Look at it the other way, I avoid grains (so no pasta, bread nor cereal) - which isn't that hard is it?

I do have the odd beer (but prefer wine), and on occasion do hit the chocolate and ice cream.

In reply to Shani:

So if you're a fat person just eating until you're full won't make you a thin person even though it makes you thin.

That suggests two things to me:

a) That fat people won't get thin by not restricting their diet.
b) That people have different appetites and people with large appetites are more likely to get fat than people with small appetites.

In reply to Alun:

But you seem to be reducing down to effort and will power. My point is that there are hormonal factors and issues of chronic inflammation, entrainment, gut flora etc... which make your body defend a particular set point.

Imagine there are two pubs next door to one another and one is very busy and the other quiet. Imagine you then asked expensive consultants why one pub was busy and the other empty.

If they replied it was because "the busy pub has more people going in to it than coming out and quiet pub as less people going in to it" you'd be rightly disappointed with their explanation.

And that is the thing here. Simply saying the fat eat too much and exercise too little does not tell us WHY we see this behaviour. Have you tried 'overeating' it is actually quite hard to do (depending on what you choose to eat). Similarly if you are (chronically) undernourished and are forced to exercise you'll find it desperately difficult and unsustainable.

In reply to Shani:

So you're most likely restricting your carbohydrate intake a la Atkins. Atkins works because people on that diet consume fewer calories than people who consume a "normal" proportion of carbohydrates.

In reply to Removed User:

Maybe, but how many less? I eat lots of saturated fat and fat has more calories per gram than carbohydrate.

In reply to Shani:


Right, now that sounds alright to me then!!

In reply to Shani:

Beer is grain. Also pasta bread and cereals are not evil, moderation is the key rather than black or white blanket bans. Also saturated fat, well I'd be wary of over eating this, fads change, don't be suprised if its considered *evil again in a few years.

Lets face it the best diet is one where you are not eating too many calories per day compared with your needs and where you are eating a ballanced diet of many food types with as little processed food as possible. I lost 20kg several years ago by following this mantra.

I personally find exercise is the key. If I do no exercise loosing weight is very difficult and in the long run I tend to stay the same weight or put some on.

My main problem is self punishment if I'm going through a bad patch I'll eat shit and drink too much and do feck all exercise. I think we all know what will be the result of this behaviour.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

'Moderation' and 'balanced' are two of the most vacuous words in nutrition. My diet IS balanced and it IS moderate (as I maintain a healthy BF despite eating until full), yet you would not neccessarily agree with what I eat.

I do agree that processed foods as a general rule should be avoided - but pasta, bread and cereals ARE highly processed and grains contain toxic anti-nutrients, lectins (which bind to the human intestinal lining and to insulin receptors), gluten (which in celiacs can lead to low calcium and vitamin D3 levels and hyperthyroidism - and in one study they found Anti-gliadin IgA in stools of non-celiacs. This an antibody produced by the gut), and phytates which reduce the bioavailabilty of minerals.

More here: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/gluten-sensitivity-celiac-dis...

In reply to Shani:


What on earth has coeliac disease got to do with this debate about weight loss? Those poor people have aberrant immune responses leading to marked changes in their bowels.

On a broader point, it is indeed likely that more people have coeliac disease than are recognised, but forming IgA to a major gluten protein does NOT equal disease, if you were to use that type of argument more than 50% of people would have one of the diseases of the allergic triad (asthma, eczema, rhinitis). IgA is meant to be in stool, we would all be pretty sick without it.

In reply to SouthernSteve:

Nothing, and no one has claimed it does. I bourght that stuff up in response to the comment about 'pasta bread and cereals are not evil'.


You might be right. This bit comes from the article I linked to by biochemist, neurobiologist and obesity researcher Stefan Guyenet.

In reply to Shani:


OK, I've been just about going along with some of this but now my Gillian McKeith alarm has gone off. I agree that many processed foods are bad for you; generally they have all the fermentable carbohydrate/fibre removed and are stuffed full of sugar, salt and MSG. But processing isn't some evil magic spell that makes food bad for you. Unless you have a wheat intolerance, what's your evidence that pasta is bad for you? And do you really think that traces of dietry lectins (usually already complexed to target carbohydrates in the gut) activate insulin receptors in real life (I'm sure you can cross-link glycosylated insulin receptors with Con A or something in vitro and show some activation, but that's a long way from a physiolgical effect in vivo. I bet some of the thinnest people on earth have a diet (what there is of it) stuffed full of lectins.


>...gluten (which in celiacs can lead to low calcium and vitamin D3 levels and hyperthyroidism

How is gluten linked to hyperthyroidism? Other than the rather obvious possibility that individuals genetically predisposed to coeliac disease are also predisposed to other autoimmune conditions. I bet you could show an increased prevalence of autoimmune hypothyroidism in ceoliacs too.

>and in one study they found Anti-gliadin IgA in stools of non-celiacs. This an antibody produced by the gut), and phytates which reduce the bioavailabilty of minerals.

No idea what all this is about. There's secretory IgA against all sorts of things in the gut, and a good thing too.

In reply to Shani: Omg anti nutrients god knows what will happen when they meet normal nutrients. Can I ask have you ever been fat or are you just full of scientific mumbo jumbo and a naturally skinny body ? As I said what worked for me was AVOIDING lots of fat lowering my calories in my main meals with plenty of healthy home cooking especially low fat high protein ( with fairly standard but not excessive carbs) and exercise. Incidentally i found i could almost eat as much fresh raw fruit and veg as I like with zero weight gain.

Personally I don't believe everything read.

In reply to lmarenzi:

Second the recommendation of racing weight - a very interesting read and has made me think a whole lot about the issue. Food buying has targeted higher quality foods since and the scales are showing some slow progress. Am hoping to step up the CV exercise soon to go with it and am hoping to see faster progress then.

In reply to Shani:

Very hard, and completely pointless (as well as needless self-denial of good things) for most folk!

In reply to Shani:

But they're not per se, and your blanket denunciation of them does more to undermine your credibility than further your cause!

In reply to Dave Garnett:


This post explains the link beteen gluten and thyroid.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/omega-6-linoleic-acid-suppres...


The previous link (13:01 Fri) goes in to further detail on this point.

In reply to petestack:

As far as I can tell, wheat is a specific 'bad guy'. As I understand it, grains can be made more tolerable using traditional preparation techniques, but modern processing avoids this due to expediency.

I have limited technical knowledge in this whole area so no one should be taking my advice - they need to do their own investigation. The science is complicated and there is a lot of bad science out there.

I don't really care if you think I have undermined my credibility. Like most of you out there, I am not professionally qualified to offer advice.

You can't simply change conventional wisdom - 'when the student is ready, the teacher arrives'. I have taken a lot of heat on UKC over the past 5 years, but have received maybe 10 or so personal emails from UKC members in that time thanking my for my posts; having been prompted by them to undertake their own investigations in to nutrition and ultimately, fat loss and a general improvement in health by following a 'paleo' diet.

In reply to Shani: ]
have you actually lost weight using your system or have you always been slim?

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I went from vegetarian to 'paleo' (I hate that term), and put weight on - but it is muscle. By fat levels before and after are about the same I guess - I can see my abs which indicates 10% BF. But my body composition is MUCH better.

The main difference is that as a veg*n I had to keep snacking throughout the day to keep my hunger at bay. Sometimes when cooking the evening meal I'd be ravenous and get hunger shakes - so I would have to eat nuts, toast and fruit as I was cooking. I never get that now which suggests my blood sugar is under control in a way it never was as a veg*n following the approved diet of 5-a-day with lots of complex carbohydrate and whole grains.

Now I seldom eat breakfast because I am not hungry in the mornings and comfortably eat one or two (high fat), meals a day. I am NEVER ravenous and NEVER get hunger shakes.

As for 'always being slim', yep I have since the age of about 7, but in that time my physique has gone from lean to skinny fat and back again a few times. Holding on to muscle mass was a problem. It is easier now.