weight loss . . . dr's advice

[RoughCollie]

Wildiris, I knew you were making a general comment. :grouphug: The original post is not about me -- the OP's sister had a heart attack last week, too.

 

I just didn't want anyone reading the thread to think that all of the great advice given pertains to people with heart disease, because some of it did not.

 

I worry about women who have heart or cardiovascular disease and who don't know it, especially those who have not entered menopause, as I had not when my cardiovascular disease began. Those women are the most likely to have their symptoms chalked up to being anxiety or stress. It scares me because many times I was not listened to by doctors because I did not fit the profile. I know how many EKG's I "passed" and how many different types of stress tests I "passed", when I knew something was terribly wrong and I knew what it was.

 

IMO, the best a person can do is to live a healthy lifestyle in order to minimize the risk as it pertains to lifestyle choices. These lifestyle choices, however, do not prevent heart disease in many people. I think there are a lot more contributors to disease than lifestyle choices, and we have to be careful not become complacent in thinking that just because we have done X, Y, and Z, we will not have one of these diseases.

[Peela]

I can find the pyramid and type it out here if you want it, but mostly it is a base of fruits and veggies...11-13 servings a day. Low in protein ( which doens't really work for me, I eat more than he recommends), fat at the topl, and carbs in teh middle.

 

That sounds like the diet I am on. I would actually like to see that pyramid, if you don't mind, because I might find it useful to show people too. I do believe that is the healthiest diet out there, not just for most individuals but also for the planet. A plant based, vegetable based diet. Not necessarily high in carbs- instead, high in vegetables. Some people do better on higher fat, a little higher protein- but protein is rough on the kidneys.

 

Every time someone says a diet is backed by science, I just want to say "but so is the complete opposite diet". You have to have an open mind and read really widely to get the bigger picture.

 

This paleolithic thing irks me. I do not think it is based on science- it is based on a theory that our hunter and gatherer ancestors, before they settled down, ate a diet high in meat because they didn't have grains. We have this image of these super healthy people tracking through the jungle killing game, while the women gathered a few berries to supplement. I was very surprised (at first, until I thought about it) to hear an Australian aboriginal lecturer say recently that white people have the wrong impression altogether about that. He said that the women supplied 90-95% of the diet through foraging and collecting. The men only occasionally killed something and meat only supplied a small % of the diet. He said hunting game was not easy (you ever tried hitting a kangaroo with a spear or boomerang?) and he was in great praise of women and a little self depreciating about the men- in a humorous way.

That made me completely rethink the whole paleo diet approach- high protein, low carb. It may not be based on fact at all, but theory.

 

I also think many diets will work- but can you live on them for the rest of your life?

[KatieJ]

I just typed it out, it's not exactly as he printed it, but it covers the basics.

 

You are correct. Most diets work to a point, but can you live on them. For me, this works. Since I am not eating dairy or eggs or most grains, I eat more protein. That makes sense to me and my Dr. I add protein powder to fruit shakes for breakfast to help stave off the hunger pains.

 

Hope this helps someone!

 

Vegetable – 7 servings a day – one fist is a serving ( this does not include potatoes or corn)

Beans (Legumes) 1-3 servings a day

Fruits – 3 servings a day

Whole Grains -1-3 servings a day

Milk related – 3 servings a day – liquid/8oz is a serving Solid ( cheese) 3 oz is a serving

Eggs or meat – 1 serving a day

Nuts – 1/3 serving a day

Very top is healthy oils, vinegar, spices and salt

[Lawana]

The equation is simple:

 

Calories in < Calories out.

 

Restricting the number of calories I ate did not work, in fact I gained weight by restricting calories.

 

So how do you reconcile these two statements? If you are saying that you were only able to lose weight by *exercising*, and, in fact, couldn't lose weigh by resticting calorie intake, then the first statement doesn't hold, because a calorie taken in (or not taken in in your case) by eating would equal a calorie expended by exercise. In general, as most dieters would agree, it is much easier to affect the *calories in vs calories out balance* by restricting the intake.

 

IMHO, in general, activity level has a tremendous effect on the body's metabolism. While most may be able to maintain a desirable weight given enough physical exertion, we have seen enough posts from enough different persons to conclude this formula is not as *simple* as it may at first seem.

 

Just because something is plausible doesn't make it true.

[jld]

It doesn't matter what diet you do, just do it.

 

Heart disease with obesity kills.

 

My X husband had heart disease and was severely overweight. He didn't take the doctors advice to lose weight. He died 3 days after his 40th birthday.

 

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/medical/heartdisease/story/2011/02/Obesity-alone-raises-risk-of-fatal-heart-attack-study-finds/43812248/1

[Joanne]

Thank you for continuing to encourage people to read Taubes' research and rethink their paradigm for weight loss, jplain. I think those with 10-15 lbs of vanity weight to lose perhaps can't really understand what it means to have 50, 75, or 100+ lbs to lose and honestly not have success with "eating less, moving more". And how their bodies work against them to eat less and move more by slowing down metabolisms or draining them of energy. It's so much more complex than the calorie going in being efficiently burned through exercise. I've finally had success with my own lifelong weight struggles, losing more than 50 lbs so far over the past 9 months and gaining the energy to exercise intensely. And it has been through learning to control my insulin and blood sugar by eating a low carb diet.

 

 

Thank you. The amount of food I eat does *not* explain the weight I am. For me, it's a combination of what I believe to be thyroid issues (I've been losing hair at an alarming rate for 2 years, my mom had thyroid issues, I am nearly a clone of her). Yes, I tried to have the Dr. check it out, but he didn't *listen* and he simply did a routine screening.

 

I have not had insurance in a long time so I have not been able to pursue more accurate testing.

 

The other part is that with my life being what it has been, I have not been able to plan, change and sustain a change to a low carb protocol. This is the ONLY thing that will work healthfully for me, and even the last time I tried, the weight loss was so slow.

[lula]

I also found Gary Taubes book Good Calories, Bad Calories enlightening in the extreme. His new book Why We Get Fat is an exceptionally quick read and super informative on how the types of food we eat and our bodies reaction is a bigger deal than how much food we are eating. I really think his point about how obese people can be suffering from malnutrition is amazing.

 

I think exercise is important for general health but losing weight is not always fixed by exercise. (IME and IMO and according to several studies I was shocked by.)

[Joanne]

I worry about women who have heart or cardiovascular disease and who don't know it, especially those who have not entered menopause, as I had not when my cardiovascular disease began. Those women are the most likely to have their symptoms chalked up to being anxiety or stress. It scares me because many times I was not listened to by doctors because I did not fit the profile. I know how many EKG's I "passed" and how many different types of stress tests I "passed", when I knew something was terribly wrong and I knew what it was.

 

.

 

This is a very serious issue. Women's heart attacks (and cardiac issues in general) manifest differently in terms of symptoms. In addition to that, women are much, much more likely to be responded to in a patronizing way by EMT/emergency staff.

 

I had a friend last year who had what felt like severe indigestion. She KNEW it was a heart attack. The EMTs who responded to the call nearly didn't take her to the ER and told her to "go to bed and it will pass".

 

She would have been dead. I wish this were an uncommon story.

[StephanieZ]

http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm

 

If you check out the above link, you will find that 90% of people who maintained significant weight loss for the long term exercise frequently, an AVERAGE of ONE HOUR A DAY SIX DAYS A WEEK.

 

There are other important data points, but it is a simple fact that the vast majority of people who keep weight off long term exercise. A lot.

 

I have lost 25 pounds in 24 weeks by running. BMI went from 27 to 23. Still losing an average of a pound a week.

 

I went from couch potatoe to running 10 miles. . . averaging 20-25 miles a week now. Looking forward to my first half marathon in March, and a marathon in the fall.

 

I still eat all kinds of bad stuff, but I find, like many/most people, that vigorous exercise actually inhibits appetite. It also motivates me to eat healthier.

 

One trick is to schedule vigorous exercise over your lunch hour. You have to eat lightly for breakfast in order to feel good for the run (or whatever), then you are busy running during lunch. You get in from your run and have an inhibited appetite due to the exercise, so you eat something healthy & light to fuel your body/heal your muscles. By dinner, you are ready for a proper meal.

 

I feel better than I ever have. Exercise is energizing; it does not reduce your energy. It may take you some time to get used to the change in your body. . . but it is worth it. I have never felt more energized or stronger than I have the past few months since I began running.

 

I don't know any athletes who are low energy. I don't know any regular runners/bikers/etc who are low energy. It just doesn't work that way IME. Exercise makes you fit. Being fit gives you energy.

 

As a 153 lb woman, I burn 500-1400 calories every time I run, depending on the length of the run. (About 100-120 cal/mile depending on the hills, etc.) That's a mighty lot of calories. It might take a few months to build up your exercise duration/intensity to that level, but not as long as you would fear. It is worth it.

 

HTH someone.

[Laura Corin]

And yet it does work, more easily for some than others. It took a friend 8 months to lose 100lbs and me 2 years to lose 10lbs but it worked. Not everybody reaches their dream or goal but it works.

 

For the bold part...why not (barring illness)? We have a physically leisure culture with little physical labor and we glamorize food.

 

 

I can confirm that in China in 1985 I only met one mildly overweight person. He was a privileged political cadre and had unusual access to food and alcohol, as well as a car.

 

FWIW: the national diet at the time was high refined carbohydrate (white rice, steamed buns or noodles), high vegetable, medium vegetable oils, some vegetable protein (soy-based) and very low animal protein or fat. Everyone had to exercise as part of their normal lives: walking long distances for errands and returning with heavy parcels, or riding bicycles. There were almost no convenience foods.

 

Laura

Edited February 18, 2011 by Laura Corin

[ZooRho]

I didn't include the link to Sparkpeople.com

 

http://www.sparkpeople.com/

 

I haven't used it for weight loss, but it seems like a great program. Lots of great things that are extra on it and very userfriendly

[jplain]

If you check out the above link, you will find that 90% of people who maintained significant weight loss for the long term exercise frequently, an AVERAGE of ONE HOUR A DAY SIX DAYS A WEEK.

And yet a very small percentage of people maintain significant weight loss. Is it reasonable to generalize from such a small population to the general population? A scientist would urge you to make sure you've got the whole picture.

 

Also, I hope you understand that the study you've cited shows correlation, not causation. It takes a big leap to get from correlation to causation, but the media doesn't explain this very well to non-scientists.

 

Example: You see everyone walking around with folded up umbrellas, and later in the day it rains. Do you conclude that carrying a folded umbrella causes it to rain? No, of course not. However, you can say that carrying a folded umbrella is correlated with an increased chance that it'll rain soon. Distinguishing causation from correlation can be very difficult, especially when a correlation seems to make logical sense as causation.

 

The ongoing study you've cited will never be able to demonstrate causation, because it is observational rather than experimental. The researchers aren't doing anything to their subjects. They're just observing them. Actually, they aren't even doing that, as the data is all self-reported. To show causation, they'd need to perform an experiment in which they force some people to exercise and others to stay sedentary, without regard for their preferences. Obviously that would be very, very difficult to do, unless you lock your subjects up and use physical coersion to make some exercise and others stay still. Somehow I doubt any institutional review board (the committees that evaluate the ethics of human studies) will allow that. ;)

 

There is another possible explanation for the correlation of exercise and weight loss maintenance. It may sound completely backwards, like the idea that carrying folded umbrellas causes it to rain. But unlike umbrellas causing rain, there is actual evidence to support this hypothesis.

 

Yes, those who are overweight are less physically active than those who are maintaining weight loss. But it is not because the overweight individuals are constitutionally lazy. It is because their bodies are not making energy available for use. Their bodies believe, wrongly, that food is scarce. Their bodies believe storing energy in the form of fat is necessary for long term survival. Instead of making glucose and free fatty acids available for physical activity, their bodies are busy maintaining fat stores. Energy, in the form of fat, is literally locked up in fat tissue.

 

Once this problem is fixed, and fat is being burned faster than it is being stored, energy is plentiful. In other words, lean people are not lean because they are active. They are active because they are lean, or more specifically, because their bodies freely release energy for use, rather than storing it as fat.

 

Your tendency to shift the balance toward or away from fat storage is controlled by hormones. Fortunately, there are things you can do to influence this hormonal control. Weight lifting has some effect, especially for men and those who are diabetic or pre-diabetic. However, dietary changes are likely to be even more effective.

 

I'm sure I sound like a broken record, but Taubes explains all of this much more thoroughly and much better than I have, in Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It.

 

I understand that there's skepticism whenever anyone says they have the answer. I don't know if it helps to hear that scientists and science-minded physicians, who tend to roll their eyes at the idea of nutritional science, are sitting up and paying attention to this author. That's very unusual.

 

What he has to say is worth hearing.

Edited February 18, 2011 by jplain

[lovinmyboys]

Here is a review of Taubes book (for anyone interested):

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9841#more-9841

 

 

I haven't read through all the replies, but I think that "science" has not answered the nutrition question yet. So, the dr is correct. If someone claims to have "THE ANSWER," they are lying. Lots of people have different theories and one of them may turn out to be correct, but none have gone through the scientific process and yet. Thats why if you go to the library and check out 10 weight loss books they will all say something different.

[PiCO]

For me, I've finally gotten some help from an MD I can trust though he started treating me and is now overseas again so email is our only communication. But, I have discovered that I do not tolerate grains. It's not a gluten thing. It's a grain thing. I've eliminated grains from my diet and sugar is an only rare treat but I do allow myself honey. My digestive track feels soooooo much better, I don't feel bloated anymore, my iron count is coming up so I must not have been digesting the grains properly and this interferred with iron absorption, and I've lost six lbs. in three weeks. I hope this continues. I do feel better and that counts for a lot in my book.

 

Faith- I would really like more information on this. I am also always fighting anemia, and I do better on low-carb- but I have trouble sticking with low-carb on a long term basis. Is there a book on eating in a manner that's healthy for your gut?

[jplain]

Not Faith, but these 3 diets tend to come up in discussion of correcting absorption and other GI tract problems.

 

Specific Carbohydrate Diet - There are books as well as a website.

 

GAPS diet

 

Nourishing Traditions (Weston A. Price)

 

I think there are pearls of useful information in all three approaches. The NT approach does contain grains, but they're fermented or soaked to help improve digestibility. That might work best for someone who really cannot tolerate a low carb diet.

 

I have to say that I personally believe all 3 approaches are a little weak on the scientific support side, with too much cherry-picking and questionable interpretation of others' work. At the same time, I do believe these approaches work for many people with GI issues.

[Jami]

And that hour of exercise 6 days a week *maintains* the weight loss, it's not enough to continue weight loss necessarily. I think if you're able to workout hard enough to create the deficit necessary to lose 1-2 lbs a week (so a deficit of 7000 calories based on calories in/calories out). You have to already be a certain level of fitness to workout at that intensity. If you're talking to someone more than 50 lbs overweight whose insulin is fighting them to let them *burn fat* for energy it's just a different situation. That's what jplain is saying. There is no energy for exercise.

[elfgivas]

i'm thinking that being intentional is one of the pieces we're not giving enough weight to (pun intended).

 

each of us does not need a general answer, we need an answer specifically for us, and because most of us feed our families, for our families, too.

 

so being intentional about noticing the effects different foods have on each of us is a start.

 

if being healthy is part of the desire, then doing some exercise will help with our health, whether or not it helps with the weight loss. (fwiw, purely anecdotal, over 50 some odd years of being intentional, i've discovered that when i exercise, and what exercise i do, matters. swimming helps with fitness for me, but not weight loss..... except the four years i swam 6-8 hours a day, when i could eat anything, and had to, just in order to not lose too much weight. walking with getting the heart rate into a helpful zone works well, walking at 4pm before dinner works best.... the endorphins simply make me less hungry when food is in front of me. while not eating after 7 helps, having a short diabetic snack (3 crackers and peanut butter) works way better than not having anything at all. (i am not diabetic, or prediabetic, but this works for me).

 

what has worked best for my family has been not eating or drinking anything (except wine) that we haven't made ourselves, and joining an organic coop. every week we get a giant box of fruits and veggies that are in season, and we plan meals around them. it shifts the focus of the main element of a meal. we also eat things in portion sizes. having extra veggies helps with that transition.... now we are working on eliminating white rice and pasta, and replacing it with whole grain pasta and rice. this is reducing the amount of it we eat, as it fills us up faster and doesn't give us the same "rush", so just isn't as attractive. we've started mashing potatoes with parsnips or turnips, and no one notices re flavour or colour, but we feel way better afterwards.

 

i guess its a long way of saying that we made being healthy the priority, and the weight loss followed.... slowly, very slowly, but sustainably. now we only gain weight when we travel.... it involved being observant and being intentional.... all the time....

 

its a journey....

ann

[Rose in BC]

i'm thinking that being intentional is one of the pieces we're not giving enough weight to (pun intended).

 

each of us does not need a general answer, we need an answer specifically for us, and because most of us feed our families, for our families, too.

 

so being intentional about noticing the effects different foods have on each of us is a start.

 

its a journey....

ann

 

I had this conversation yesterday with someone I work with. I agree that being intentional is half the problem. My diet is good but if I don't think about portions I definitely over eat. If I don't plan out my exercise I might not do it . . . . hmm maybe I need to be more intentional with my stress control too :).

[Britomart]

Here is a review of Taubes book (for anyone interested):

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9841#more-9841

 

 

I haven't read through all the replies, but I think that "science" has not answered the nutrition question yet. So, the dr is correct. If someone claims to have "THE ANSWER," they are lying. Lots of people have different theories and one of them may turn out to be correct, but none have gone through the scientific process and yet. Thats why if you go to the library and check out 10 weight loss books they will all say something different.

 

Thanks for that link; it's a great analysis.

 

I think that calories-in-calories-out is true in the majority of cases (barring things like thyroid disorders), though it also seems clear that metabolisms vary from person to person. That variance means that one 140 lb. woman can eat 1800 calories/day and maintain her weight, whereas another one will have to stay at 1400. But it also means that everyone (again, barring a disorder, which certainly exist) should be able experiment with varying calorie levels and find her sweet spot.

 

I think (again, barring disorder) that it often comes down to psychological factors. One person pointed out that lots of the long-term weight loss studies are observational and therefore invalid: well, yes and no. They have done experimental ones decades ago that pretty well proved calorie-in-calorie-out, but those aren't considered ethical anymore (and another PP's anecdote about life in China is pretty telling too), but I think the observational studies still have good things to tell us, precisely because they ARE self-selecting.

 

What they can tell is is what sort of person you have to be to succeed at it. Is it hard to parse how much of that success is physiological and how much is psychological? Yes, of course. But I think that looking at the psychological traits of successful weight-losers (if that's a word!) could be very helpful. In my own life, I haven't been able to lose weight until I wanted to lose weight more than I didn't want the discomfort of doing it. I couldn't do it when I was depressed or hideously busy; it had to be when I had the emotional resources to deal with the trouble and pain of it. So (anecdotely, again), I think there's a huge psychological component. And it's that component I think the observational studies can speak to.

 

(I hope it's clear that I'm not dismissing any physiological components that make weight loss much more difficult for some than for others (or even impossible, in rare cases); I'm just saying that I think that - in most cases - there's a lot more to it than the physiological side.)

[Britomart]

Ooh, here's another cool link on the Taubes book: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2011/01/book-review-gary-taubes-why-we-get-fat.html

 

I liked this part: "Ultimately he embraces the notion that carbs make you fat regardless of the calories in/out hypothesis, rather than discuss such possibilities as carbs making you fat by having a lesser impact on satiety."

 

But the whole thing is nice, long and detailed. (And, fwiw, I have the Taubes book on request at the library, so I can read the other side too.)

[LisaKinVA]

I would also ask people to read through the comments that follow these blogs...

 

Ultimately, what I believe, is that obesity (or weight management, even), is much more complex than any one "thing." And, that individual eating needs will vary from person to person... even within a nuclear family.

 

There are some over-all principles that I believe we can agree upon, and there is never a quick fix.

[Jean in Wisc]

Sparkpeople is another good place for tracking food and other stuff,

 

I need to lose some weight but I joined it because my youngest was on a fat restricted diet, He can have 40 grams a day. BUt I like their set up.

 

and I'm hoping to start using it for myself soon.

 

:iagree:

 

Sparkpeople.com

 

I record what I'm eating, how much exercise I get, and drink plenty of water and get enough sleep and I lose weight. Last week I decided I could wing it...I've been on this diet and I don't need to measure my pasta and weigh my food, right?

 

Wrong. Didn't lose.

 

Ugh. The waste of a good week.

 

:glare:

 

Sparkpeople has a recipe generator and long listings of foods. It's not too tough to use it once you've figured it out. And, to top it off, my sister, a dietitian, recommends it. It gives you a well-balanced and healthy diet....and it's free.

 

Jean

[Negin]

Exercise has never been shown to be effective for long term weight loss. And this shouldn't be surprising. It increases appetite. There are all sorts of good reasons to exercise, but weight loss isn't one of them.

:iagree:

 

This very thoroughly researched book explains it all in much greater detail, but is accessible to a non-scientist:

Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It by Gary Taubes

I really want this book, but am just tired of buying books all the time. We don't have a decent library here. I've heard great things about him. :)

 

There are many ways to lose weight but the point is, will it stay off?

Fabulous point.

 

I like the No S Diet for its simplicity, its freedom, and the fact that its all about your habits, not what you eat. Its something you can stay on for the rest of your life, and no one else would even need to know. You don't have to eat weird food or make radical changes. And its free.

I think that I'll focus on this once again, after my hcg plan is over. I have to say that the NoS has not helped me before. But hopefully it will help me over the long-term.

 

The absolute worst advice regarding weight loss I have ever had came from an MD.

This is what she said, "Oh, you just need to take it off fast and get it over with. Don't eat for 25 days. Just fast and drink water and coffee. It's brutal but you'll lose a lot of weight." No joke...that's what the skinny, ignoramous said!

Wow, don't know where she went to med school or who her professor of nutrition was but I'm thinking she must have failed the course or slept through the lectures.

I can probably count on one hand, if that, the number of doctors that I have actually liked and that were helpful. This one, takes the cake. She should have been a customs officer or something. :glare:

 

I just want to mention that doctors generally have no/minimal education with regards to nutrition. A doctor who says he doesn't have the answers is at least being honest. A lot of doctors will just say "eat less" or "cut calories". Or some other wackadoodle advice. They really are just talking out of their butt because most of the time they really do not know much about it.

It really is a matter you have to take into your own hands. Educate yourself. Read various "philosophies" and decide which one you can live with. It is pointless if it involves foods you hate or rituals you cannot stick to.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

Doctors really, really cover the bare-bones of nutrition. I've been around plenty of med students over the years. Most of us here know more about nutrition and health than the average med student or physician. One physician I knew, who'd been practicing for more than 20 years, had her doubts about the efficacy of fiber. Doctors are very good at two things ... writing prescriptions and ordering tests.

 

I just wanted to chime in and say every time I've needed to lose weight (after each pregnancy), I've lost it through mostly exercise alone - walking and running - with little change to my diet. Exercise does make you hungrier, but you don't HAVE to eat more.

This approach worked for me until my mid-30s. After that, my body changed. I was totally and completely shocked. All the 4-Mile daily runs, etc. were doing zero, zip, squat in the weight-loss department. Talk about a wake-up call. :confused: And no, I wasn't eating more. Maybe slightly more. But definitely not significantly more.

 

Off to read all the other replies. Weight is a complete and total pain :confused:. I love food. I also love to exercise, but more for health reasons now. Weight is the bane of my existence.

[Cabertmom]

Over the years, I've joked that I gained 10 pounds with each of my 5 children that I never really lost. It's not funny anymore. I have tried a variety of things over the years but rarely stuck to anything very long.

 

I lost about 10 pounds by just coming up with my own low-calorie diet, but it was taking so very long that I wanted something that was faster, so I went on the Atkins diet (again). I stuck with it for about a year, and I lost about 18 more pounds, but I felt sort of headachy a lot of the time. On any day when I "cheated" by having some ice cream or a hamburger and friea, I would regain 3 to 4 pounds. Water weight I guess. Eventually, I just got really sick of low-carb eating and the fact that it was so slow-going with that too. I mean, what is 18 pounds over a year? It sure beats gaining weight, but that's only about 1/3rd of a pound per week.

 

I have come to the conclusion, like many others, that the first 5 to 10 pounds on Atkins or other low-carb diets is losing water weight. I wonder how much of that is decreased sodium. If you're not eating chips or potatoes or corn, there's just not much to put salt on. Also, it's just harder to overeat when you are limited to meat, fish, and veggies, so I think I was eating fewer calories overall. Now, I'm not absolutely positive, but I think that Atkins (and presumably Taubes) works because you feel fuller on fewer calories, but I'm not convinced that it's a healthful way to eat overall. However, if it does work for someone, that's great, because being seriously overweight is certainly not healthful either, so it may be worth the trade off at least for a while.

 

Unfortunately, as soon as I faded off Atkins and went back to "normal" eating, I regained pretty much everything I had lost over just a couple months.

 

A move and lots of fast food while moving later, I started using Diet Power, which is a program where you enter everything you eat, how much exercise you get, set a goal, and it slowly adjusts daily net calories (food - exercise) according to how much you lose or gain based on what you're eating and exercise. Well, it was a real wake-up call for me. I thought I was eating about 1500 calories a day. In actuality, I was sometimes hitting 3000 calories a day. The program has helped me gain a much more realistic sense of how much food = how many calories. Apparently, that's a pretty common problem.

 

I read a study wherein they took a group of obese individuals who claimed to be eating 1000 or 1200 calories per day, had them continue to eat as they normally did, and measured their caloric intake. On average, they were underestimating their calories by 1000 calories per day! Another study took people who thought they had a hormonal problem impeding their weight loss. They put them on a supervised low-calorie diet, and they all lost weight. I'm not saying that thyroid problems and adrenal problems and insulin sensitivity can't be part of the problem, but I sort of doubt they are the entire thing (and I do have thyroid problems).

 

Anyway, since Christmas, I've lost 10 pounds. I know I should be exercising, but finding the time (and motivation) is difficult. I am, however, finding it easier to decide not to stick something yummy in my mouth because it just isn't worth it in the long run. I'm also finding it helpful to set mini goals, because my goal of losing 50 pounds in a year sometimes seems just way too far away.

 

I guess all in all, I have come to believe that it is mostly just the calories, but I also think it's important to nourish our bodies with good food--just not too much of it. :001_smile:

[Jean in Wisc]

I have come to the conclusion, like many others, that the first 5 to 10 pounds on Atkins or other low-carb diets is losing water weight. I wonder how much of that is decreased sodium.

 

I just had a discussion with my sister who is a dietitian. I asked why people loose water weight on Atkins. She told me that when the body has more carbs than the blood stream needs, the body will store them in the liver until the blood sugar drops--if you've not eaten for a while or if you go for a jog or whatever...when the blood needs a dose, the liver produces it. For each gram of carb that the liver stores it also takes on 2 grams of water--it is just how the body works. So whenever you have carbs in your body, you also have water in your liver. This is normal and healthy!

 

Thus, if you go on Atkins and remove your carbs, that extra water is no longer there, and you lose water weight--until you start eating carbs again. My sister really does not like the low carb diet. I've read that it is the carbs that keeps your brain functioning--it makes me think I should go on a high carb diet to see if my senior moments would decrease...

 

I told my sis that when I loose weight, I am always tired. She said it was possible that I had eliminated too many carbs, and when the blood sugar dropped, there was not enough in the liver to perk me up. So I changed my calories (I use Sparkpeople) to be sure I got more than just the minimum of carbs they recommend, and :D, no more being unusually tired.

 

The body can make carbs out of protein, but she says this is a complex process, and she does not recommend it. I did not ask for more details.

 

So...maybe that will answer some of your questions!

 

:)Jean

[justamouse]

your hormones have to be balanced, your vitamin levels have to be right for it all to work, otherwise it all could literally be an exercise in futility. :grouphug::grouphug:

[Cabertmom]

That's very interesting, Jeanne. I'd like to hear more about it. Glad to hear that increasing your carbs helped avoid feeling tired while dieting. I've been just focusing on calories with moderate success, but I do feel pretty tired and fuzzy brained. I'm dealing with some other health issues though, so it's hard to say what the cause is.

[Denisemomof4]

This is a very serious issue. Women's heart attacks (and cardiac issues in general) manifest differently in terms of symptoms. In addition to that, women are much, much more likely to be responded to in a patronizing way by EMT/emergency staff.

 

I had a friend last year who had what felt like severe indigestion. She KNEW it was a heart attack. The EMTs who responded to the call nearly didn't take her to the ER and told her to "go to bed and it will pass".

 

She would have been dead. I wish this were an uncommon story.

 

I have been to NUMEROUS doctors in the past few decades for chest pains. My dad was 27 when he had his first heart attack and his sister died at age 40 of congestive heart failure. NO doctors give any concern at all, one told me to get a job and stop staying at home dreaming up illnesses I didn't have (I was 33 when that *ss told me that, and I was SKINNY and put on high bp meds.....guess I dreamed up the high bp!) and a cardiologist said in a demeaning way, "Oh, you're a stay at home mom?" I never went back.

 

Roughcollies post worries me, and your post confirms that this treatment of women takes place All The Time.

[jld]

I don't get the draw to low-carb, either.

[Denisemomof4]

I don't get the draw to low-carb, either.

 

I'm not drawn to it, but I most definitely feel MUCH better eating low carb, and all my bloating is gone. Carbs just made me feel tired, left me in a brain fog and really did me no good. My blood sugars are totally stabilized now, too. No more shakes and emergency stops to get the blood sugar up. (not diabetic but hypoglycemic)

 

I'm curious to see how my diet change has affected my blood chemistry. I'm due for an annual work-up. I'm especially curious to see how my cholesterol and bp are affected by the changes in my body, including dropping 20 pounds with little effort.

[Nestof3]

I just wanted to say that I am enjoying this thread. So much information and so much to look into!

 

I do want to add that I think lots of raw veggies and nuts are very important. A standard salad for us now is: romaine, red cabbage (lots of big chunks), red pepper, cucumber, carrots, and pecans or almonds. We sometimes add cheese, and we use Italian or a vinaigrette.

 

I scramble egg whites a lot for lunch -- they are so filling, low in calories, but high in protein.

 

I also try to eat more veggies and chicken on my pasta and use less pasta.

[justamouse]

BUT, you have a lot less control over calories out than health professionals are willing to admit. If you eat less, and the hormones that control fat metabolism aren't on board, your body can make any number of small adjustments in calorie consumption that will completely negate your calorie restriction.

 

This very thoroughly researched book explains it all in much greater detail, but is accessible to a non-scientist:

Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It by Gary Taubes

 

I don't disbelieve this-but I think there is good fats and bad fats (I have not read the book).

 

If you've ever watched those stories in TLC about the morbidly obese people, the BBC ones, where they take their daily food and pile it on a table? And you don't see one vegetable and everything is fried?

 

I mean, how can your body balance it's hormones when they've got it on a whirligig? I think it has to do with the fake foods we eat and the plastics we use altering our estrogen levels (which is proven-how we take in these plastic estrogens). So with that, I can see why the Chinese eat real food, high carb, walk everywhere and aren't fat. Because their food is real.

Edited March 3, 2011 by justamouse

[kitten18]

I don't disbelieve this-but I think there is good fats and bad fats (I have not read the book).

Right. The good fats are saturated fats, butter, coconut oil, animal fat, etc.

The bad fats are trans fats, corn oil, canola oil, etc.

[kitten18]

I don't get the draw to low-carb, either.

 

lots of delicious food

no hunger

eating until you're satisfied

no cravings

no blood sugar spikes and drops

no afternoon slump

lots of energy

[Linda1951]

Eat only when you are actually hungry. that will make it either 3 times a day, does not matter what time of day. or 6 small meals a day because you have eatten less and will get hungry sooner.

I have gotten rid of snacks , veggies, grain, water.

it takes some getting used to but it works.

[Nestof3]

I have gotten rid of snacks , veggies, grain, water.

 

 

Care to explain? :confused:

[Wheres Toto]

This is all so confusing. High carb/low carb/high grain/no grain/whole foods/raw foods - they all contradict each other.

 

I do find the ideas behind the high protein/paleo diet unlikely. A grain/carb heavy diet is not a recent invention - the Japanese and Chinese have been eating it for milennia. The Japanese are the healthiest, longest-living people on the planet.

 

I like the No S diet. It seems to allow each person to chose those things that work best for them. Do you feel best eating high carbs? That's fine. High protein? That's fine too. The things that it recommends cutting out seems logical - no sweets (most diets recommend this and it seems pretty obvious), no seconds and no snacks - cutting down on your calories in.

 

I lost over 40 pounds when I had a job that involved regular physical exercise every day. Not sustained aerobic-type but mostly lifting, standing, walking around. I also ate less because I worked lousy hours and didn't feel hungry (3am to 11am). I gained it back with two pregnancies in two years and have been trying to lose since.

[Mama_Rana]

I've read some of what Taubes has written, and it is compelling on its own. Out of curiosity to hear the other side, I read Carbaphobia by Dr. Michael Greger, and he has just as many references that show that Atkins was wrong. Greger also has a website: http://www.atkinsexposed.org but I don't find it very user-friendly. But the book was an easy read, and a significant portion was just the list of references he used to write it.

[kitten18]

I do find the ideas behind the high protein/paleo diet unlikely. A grain/carb heavy diet is not a recent invention - the Japanese and Chinese have been eating it for milennia. The Japanese are the healthiest, longest-living people on the planet.

 

In terms of human history, it's pretty recent. Humans have been around for 50,000 - 300,000 years, we've only been eating an agricultural diet for about 3,000 years.

[Wheres Toto]

In terms of human history, it's pretty recent. Humans have been around for 50,000 - 300,000 years, we've only been eating an agricultural diet for about 3,000 years.

 

An agricultural diet - maybe but they still ate wild grains, roots, plants, seeds etc. They weren't carnivores before agriculture. I've found a few sites (although I admit they were vegetarian sites) that say humans ate plants for a long time before they tried eating meat and other sites (medical) that say human digestive systems are built more for vegetable products.

 

As far as the link between a heavy grain diet and obesity, 3,000 years of a culture eating primarily grains is probably enough to see if there's a strong link. Most of what I'm seeing has it at 8 to 10,000 years ago.

Edited March 3, 2011 by dottieanna29

[jld]

I've read some of what Taubes has written, and it is compelling on its own. Out of curiosity to hear the other side, I read Carbaphobia by Dr. Michael Greger, and he has just as many references that show that Atkins was wrong. Greger also has a website: www.atkinsexposed.org but I don't find it very user-friendly. But the book was an easy read, and a significant portion was just the list of references he used to write it.

 

Both sides have their studies, and their apologists, although the credibility of some may be in question. I don't know what makes people choose one side or the other. Some of the reasons people have listed for eating a low-carb diet, like better blood sugar or blood cholesterol numbers, or unlimited food, are certainly true of an oil-free, whole plant foods diet as well (unlimited whole grains, potatoes, vegetables, fruit and legumes), without any constipation, gout, or kidney stones. I know one side is cheaper, and better for the environment. One side is certainly more profitable and widely advertised.

 

I think this is where I am with the whole debate: I try to make people aware of the benefits of a whole foods plant diet, so they can have some chance of making an informed decision. After that, I'm done. People are obviously free to eat whatever they want, and to live with the consequences.

[Jeanne in MN]

I won't claim to know much, but I'd like to share my experience so far in case it may help someone. I feel dieting isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.

 

I was diagnosed with diabetes about 5 years ago and did exceptionally well just keeping track of how many carbs I had in a day. By keeping the cabs in normal limits and eating good carbs instead of bad ones kept me from being hungry and eating more. I would also go for walks after supper to get me away from the table and get the body working. I was losing 3 pounds a week. I soon got tired of shrimp and cheese sticks and yogurt and other foods and started slipping back into old eating habits.

 

I have found, too, that the more carbs I eat, the hungrier I get and the more I just want to shovel it in. It's so bad sometimes that I just feel like another person is living inside me going crazy with her eating habits.

 

I just starting reading The Carbohydrate Addict's Diet and am seeing myself so clearly in what I'm reading. The carbs trigger hunger and so I eat more carbs which triggers hunger more and real quickly I'm out of control. It can be intense how badly I want to just eat or have some kind of sweets. If I can focus on keeping the carbs low and making them good carbs, I will have much better success with my weight.

 

Haven't even read the whole book yet, but from my experience and from what I've read so far, I really feel my body reacts strongly to bad carbs (well fruit and juices are trigger carbs too even though they aren't "bad") and turns my eating into a downward spiral.

[LBS]

Dieted all my life. Sort of gave up at over 200 lbs, 5'8". Knees hurting all the time, one surgery so far. THEN, high blood sugar. Pre-diabetes doc says, but prob my numbers indicate diabetes. I am hopeful I can control with diet and exercise.

 

Doc said to eat no bread, sugar, rice, pasta. I started studying and realized this is a simplified low-carb. I bought books, studied up, and am totally on board....it just makes sense. For the first time, I have lost weight...amazing! I'm not able to manage some interesting exercise program, even doing it via DVDs, etc., so I just walk every day....couple miles to five....or bike, depending on the weather and what the kiddo wants to do.

 

I gotta say, if another person says (sorry if another poster did say this, I didn't read them all) its simple: "eat less/exercise more", I'll scream out loud. Its so much more.

 

I don't mean to sound trite, but I really struggle to change my relationship with food, and not use it as a reward. Those of you who stuggle too, will understand how much is actually behind these words.

 

Power, strength, support to you all who struggle,

LBS

[Negin]

I gotta say, if another person says (sorry if another poster did say this, I didn't read them all) its simple: "eat less/exercise more", I'll scream out loud. Its so much more.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

[Miss Sherry]

I've been walking 1 hour a day, 7 days a week, and eating no more than 1200 calories a day. Using www.livestrong.com to track my calorie intake and fitness burning activities, I've lost 30 lb in 4 months, and have another 30 to go. It is PAINFULLY SLOW, but I'm losing about 2 pounds a week, which is the way doctors like to see us do it...

 

I had a hysterectomy 10 years ago, and not having my ovaries anymore to help burn 500 calories a day really stinks! :lol:

Congratulations to you. I think losing 30 lbs in 4 months is great. :001_smile: