Weight loss - some honest data to consider

[ktgrok]

This is true and correct for you. What worries me, though, is that I think for many, it is as simple as "eat less," and "choose differently." For many, if not most, this realization could come, could be repaired, before the situation has progressed to the damage you endured. Wouldn't you want that for most people?

 

 

Now...hoping all my tags worked...ETA: nope. Repairs.

 

Oh, aboslutely! I have said a few times, maybe in another thread and not here, that I think there is a big difference between someone who has say, 15lbs to lose, and someone who has 100lbs to lose. I absolutely think that changes can be made before that. I still think it's less about restricting calories and more about changing whatever is making the person want to eat too many calories (probably food choices at that point...usually something very addictive in nature like chips or low fat crackes or juice). But I totally do understand that for someone mildly overweight who has recently gained weight, there are things that can and should be done and that the situation is much simpler than for the morbidly obese. Where we disagree is that it is a matter of just eat less. I think its much more about eat better, eliminate things that make you crave more, etc. Like you have done, get rid of the truffles! Don't eat fewer truffles, get rid of them. I can absolutely look at a time in my life, around age 12, when I started eating more processed carbs and was a bit more sedentary (still rode my bike a few miles a day, but less free play as I got older) and the weight gradually crept on. Add in that my mother was ridiculously slender all her life (at 5'7" she was 130lbs 9 months pregnant, normally she was 100lbs, sometimes less) who was terrified I was getting fat and put me on "diets" starting in my mid teens, and yeah, things got messed up. 

 

So yes, cut the junk and soda and juice and constant snacking in kids. Increase exercise, sure. But not just because of CICO, but because those things mess up your metabolism. Or at least, they do in some people.

[Guest]

Oh, aboslutely! I have said a few times, maybe in another thread and not here, that I think there is a big difference between someone who has say, 15lbs to lose, and someone who has 100lbs to lose. I absolutely think that changes can be made before that. I still think it's less about restricting calories and more about changing whatever is making the person want to eat too many calories (probably food choices at that point...usually something very addictive in nature like chips or low fat crackes or juice). But I totally do understand that for someone mildly overweight who has recently gained weight, there are things that can and should be done and that the situation is much simpler than for the morbidly obese. Where we disagree is that it is a matter of just eat less. I think its much more about eat better, eliminate things that make you crave more, etc. Like you have done, get rid of the truffles! Don't eat fewer truffles, get rid of them. I can absolutely look at a time in my life, around age 12, when I started eating more processed carbs and was a bit more sedentary (still rode my bike a few miles a day, but less free play as I got older) and the weight gradually crept on. Add in that my mother was ridiculously slender all her life (at 5'7" she was 130lbs 9 months pregnant, normally she was 100lbs, sometimes less) who was terrified I was getting fat and put me on "diets" starting in my mid teens, and yeah, things got messed up.

 

So yes, cut the junk and soda and juice and constant snacking in kids. Increase exercise, sure. But not just because of CICO, but because those things mess up your metabolism. Or at least, they do in some people.

Well, not to nitpick, but I don't so much disagree with that. There is a complex interplay of types of food, quantity of food, quality of food, types of exercise, etc. yet, sometimes people falsely believe that they can eat six Clementines a day because - It's fruit! Vitamin C and all! This is also why grave mistakes like Snackwells were able to gain such traction - " Whoopie! fat Free! Eat all you want!"

 

I was fortunate to read the Harvey Diamond books when I was still a teenager. Although there was much in there that I would now call bunk, I made an, I believe, good decision to eat close to nature most of the time. So, an apple, not a glass of Welches Apple Juice. Homemade food, not processed food.

[regentrude]

Well, not to nitpick, but I don't so much disagree with that. There is a complex interplay of types of food, quantity of food, quality of food, types of exercise, etc. yet, sometimes people falsely believe that they can eat six Clementines a day because - It's fruit! Vitamin C and all!

 

I'm confused: why can't they eat six clementines a day?  6 cutie clementines = 240 calories. Why shouldn't people indulge?

[ktgrok]

Well, not to nitpick, but I don't so much disagree with that. There is a complex interplay of types of food, quantity of food, quality of food, types of exercise, etc. yet, sometimes people falsely believe that they can eat six Clementines a day because - It's fruit! Vitamin C and all! This is also why grave mistakes like Snackwells were able to gain such traction - " Whoopie! fat Free! Eat all you want!"

 

I was fortunate to read the Harvey Diamond books when I was still a teenager. Although there was much in there that I would now call bunk, I made an, I believe, good decision to eat close to nature most of the time. So, an apple, not a glass of Welches Apple Juice. Homemade food, not processed food.

 

Right. Dear lord I ate a lot of those snackwells in college. And lets not talk about the fat free enteman's cookies. 

 

But when people hear CICO they think oh, fine, I can eat junk as long as I stay in my calorie zone. Because you know, CICO. But that is a slippery slope that can lead to slowed metabolism on top of increased cravings. Eating better, knowing about blood sugar and insulin issues, etc yes, I support that and think in the early stages it might work. I don'tknow for sure, but it is worth trying. But to me, that is not CICO. 

[LibraryLover]

Ack. I responded to the clementine question in the other weight loss thread. I can't cut and paste easily on my device. Read my mind. Lol

[LibraryLover]

.

[Ausmumof3]

I don't know the answer but I do think when 60per cent of the population are considered overweight the problem can't be reduced to one of simply self control. I don't believe that 60 per cent of the population have a major character flaw.

[Ausmumof3]

Also people like to talk about France. Yes they're better than other countries but stats show 40 percent of the population is overweight and that rate is increasing. Also that there is correlation between education level and weight. (More educated = less obesity).

[Joanne]

So much of this.

 

I think some posters on this thread would be SHOCKED to see how little food this overweight person, ME, eats each day! No crazy snacking. No chips, no ice cream, etc. I eat half (or less) what my "normal skinny" friends eat.

And no juice! or soda! just straight up water in my cup and still the scale doesn't move.

There is more going on biologically/hormonally than CICO could ever explain.

 

 

Know that I understand. I don't overeat. I undereat. I get it.

 

 

[Joanne]

Ack. I responded to the clementine question in the other weight loss thread. I can't cut and paste easily on my device. Read my mind. Lol

 

They will be in season in a few months! :)

[Joanne]

I'm confused: why can't they eat six clementines a day?  6 cutie clementines = 240 calories. Why shouldn't people indulge?

 

I can tell you that for me and my body, that would be too much sugar and not enough satiating protein and fat. It would literally block any weight loss that might occur.

[LibraryLover]

I can tell you that for me and my body, that would be too much sugar and not enough satiating protein and fat. It would literally block any weight loss that might occur.

I think this is true for many folks.

 

Even if I make a conservative guesstimate about carbs, 6 small clementines would be at least 45- 70+ grams of carbs, plus at least 40 grams of sugar. (They are grown/bred for maximum sweetness.) That's a heap for the carb sensitive or diabetic. Some people will be fine, others not so much. The American Heart Association recommends only 25 grams of sugar per day for women. If you add even a cup of plain yogurt, or some 1/2 & 1/2 in your coffee, you're way over AHA recommendation for grams of sugar. The AHA talks about added sugar, so whatever else is in that bagel, pasta & sauce, muffin, yopliat, chocolate, small soda, waffle, potato, salad dressing, small cookie, smoothie, deli cold cuts, pastry etc is counting towards that total.

[creekland]

This advice was in my inbox this morning - sent to me from a church friend.  Perhaps it will help someone?   :coolgleamA:

 

Shampoo Warning!

I don't know WHY I didn't figure this out sooner!  I always use shampoo in the shower!  When I'm washing my hair, the shampoo runs down my whole body, and it is printed very clearly on the shampoo label this warning; 'FOR EXTRA BODY AND VOLUME.'

No wonder I have been gaining weight!

Well, I threw that shampoo into the trash and I am going to start showering with Dawn Dishwashing Soap. Its label reads, 'DISSOLVES FAT THAT IS OTHERWISE DIFFICULT TO REMOVE.'

Problem solved!  If I don't answer the phone, I'll be in the shower!

 

[Pawz4me]

I'm confused: why can't they eat six clementines a day?  6 cutie clementines = 240 calories. Why shouldn't people indulge?

 

I couldn't eat six clementines.  The calories would easily fit into my daily goal.  But that much sugar in a day would send my appetite through the roof and I'd want to eat everything in sight for the rest of that day and probably the next day, too.  And that's why I say CICO isn't the same thing as all calories are created equally.

[Guest]

I couldn't eat six clementines. The calories would easily fit into my daily goal. But that much sugar in a day would send my appetite through the roof and I'd want to eat everything in sight for the rest of that day and probably the next day, too. And that's why I say CICO isn't the same thing as all calories are created equally.

Yes, this. Six clementines is a lot of sugar, a lot of carbs. I'm not saying no person should ever eat a clementine. I'm saying sugars are not without their harms just because they are wrapped in a fruit.

[December]

If you add even a cup of plain yogurt, or some 1/2 & 1/2 in your coffee, you're way over AHA recommendation for grams of sugar. The AHA talks about added sugar, so whatever else is in that bagel, pasta & sauce, muffin, yopliat, chocolate, small soda, waffle, potato, salad dressing, small cookie, smoothie, deli cold cuts, pastry etc is counting towards that total.

 

 

The 25 grams is only for added sugar, right?  So am I correct in thinking you don't count the naturally occurring sugars in plain yogurt, half and half or even fruit?

[Joanne]

The 25 grams is only for added sugar, right? So am I correct in thinking you don't count the naturally occurring sugars in plain yogurt, half and half or even fruit?

Naturally occurring sugar functions the same for me as added sugar.

 

It stalls weight loss, and it creates cravings.

[December]

Naturally occurring sugar functions the same for me as added sugar.

 

It stalls weight loss, and it creates cravings.

 

Not arguing with that.  I just meant as far as the AHA recommendation goes.

[Greta]

The 25 grams is only for added sugar, right? So am I correct in thinking you don't count the naturally occurring sugars in plain yogurt, half and half or even fruit?

One of the many ways in which I think the guidelines get it wrong. Whether the sugars are naturally occurring or added, they still raise blood sugar.

 

ETA - sorry. I didn't see the subsequent posts when I made mine.

[Greta]

I don't know the answer but I do think when 60per cent of the population are considered overweight the problem can't be reduced to one of simply self control. I don't believe that 60 per cent of the population have a major character flaw.

Well said!

[LisaKinVA]

Sugar...is sugar...is sugar (for the most part, I avoid HFCS because its' processed by the liver -- and a strong contender for one of the major reasons for the increase in fatty liver disease).  Yes sugar from whole fruits is better than juice, which is better than bleached, granulated sugar -- but it can still have a negative health effect.

 

I do limit fruit intake in my house because of this.  My kids can eat more fruits than I do, but not unlimited access.  OJ isn't a staple product.  I use it in recipes, but we don't usually drink it.  We love Mandarins...I can't wait for them to be back in season again (stalking the produce aisles...because the season approaches quickly!).  I do best limiting myself to a handful of berries or a small apple, eaten with nut-butter or a mandarin...but I usually can't eat all of that fruit in one day, unless I'm on a maintenance plan.  All sugars count towards my maximum, including "naturally occurring" ones.

 

The only time I don't really limit my kids' fruit intake is at a swim meet.  mainly, because they need access to some easily digested light foods during the meet.  

 

 

[Bluegoat]

Right. Dear lord I ate a lot of those snackwells in college. And lets not talk about the fat free enteman's cookies. 

 

But when people hear CICO they think oh, fine, I can eat junk as long as I stay in my calorie zone. Because you know, CICO. But that is a slippery slope that can lead to slowed metabolism on top of increased cravings. Eating better, knowing about blood sugar and insulin issues, etc yes, I support that and think in the early stages it might work. I don'tknow for sure, but it is worth trying. But to me, that is not CICO. 

 

THis is a real issue.  I have a cousin who is 19, and over the last year or so has started to really gain wight - all of her moms family are heavy, but she is starting even younger.

 

She was trying to diet recently and came to my house with a box of fat free crackers, and ate the whole box.  I was somewhat stunned, she clearly has no idea how to eat.  It is all processed carbs and sugar.

 

I don't even think for her she is as sophisticated as CICO - if it says fat free or diet on the box, it must be good for losing weight.

[creekland]

So... fruit is a daily part of our diet... esp things like grapes & apples (year round) - tomatoes too if we're getting picky about definitions, and in season cherries, pears, pomegranates, or oranges.

 

We eat them both at lunch and supper - almost always.  When I don't quite want to skip a meal, I'll grab fruit of some sort.

 

Y'all are saying these are bad?  

[kiana]

So... fruit is a daily part of our diet... esp things like grapes & apples (year round) - tomatoes too if we're getting picky about definitions, and in season cherries, pears, pomegranates, or oranges.

 

We eat them both at lunch and supper - almost always.  When I don't quite want to skip a meal, I'll grab fruit of some sort.

 

Y'all are saying these are bad?  

 

Only if they cause you issues (like making you hungry again soon after you eat them). Different people have different tolerances.

[Greta]

So... fruit is a daily part of our diet... esp things like grapes & apples (year round) - tomatoes too if we're getting picky about definitions, and in season cherries, pears, pomegranates, or oranges.

 

We eat them both at lunch and supper - almost always. When I don't quite want to skip a meal, I'll grab fruit of some sort.

 

Y'all are saying these are bad?

Not necessarily. If your body handles them well, then I see no problem. Mine doesn't. I think that if you have any degree of insulin resistance or are trying to lose weight, it's something you'd need to be mindful of. I limit myself to berries and citrus, because I feel like I get a lot better sugar:nutrition ratio with those than with bananas or apples. Or maybe it's really just because I like them better than bananas and apples. :)

[EmseB]

So... fruit is a daily part of our diet... esp things like grapes & apples (year round) - tomatoes too if we're getting picky about definitions, and in season cherries, pears, pomegranates, or oranges.

 

We eat them both at lunch and supper - almost always.  When I don't quite want to skip a meal, I'll grab fruit of some sort.

 

Y'all are saying these are bad?  

 

It's just a lot of sugar.  Fiber is good, the vitamins are good, but the sugar is not so good.

[LibraryLover]

In the end, the body handles sugar as sugar, no matter the package. Fruit offers fiber, some more, some some much less. A diabetic counts sugar grams in fruit, and some people without diabetes need to as well. If you are trying to lose weight, or have any insulin sensitives, the sugar is sugar is sugar. Your body doesn't know the difference. if one is frustrated at the scale, look at your sugar intake in all forms, because the recommended 25 gram limit by the AHA is easy to meet/surpass. There are hidden sugars in bread, sauces, yogurts etc. Dr Lustig, pedatric endocrinologist at University of California SF, calls grapes ' little bags of sugar'. Id also go a little on a limb and say that clementines contain 'added' sugar. They were bred to taste like candy. There is a lot of sugar and less fiber in that tiny package, and unlike the apple or pear, one doesn't eat the peel. The amount of sugar may contribute to additional sugar cravings, or insulin/metabolic trouble. A small potato doesn't have many calories, but if one is sensitive to those carbs being turned into sugar by the body, those grams may matter greatly

[Guest]

Right. Dear lord I ate a lot of those snackwells in college. And lets not talk about the fat free enteman's cookies.

 

But when people hear CICO they think oh, fine, I can eat junk as long as I stay in my calorie zone. Because you know, CICO. But that is a slippery slope that can lead to slowed metabolism on top of increased cravings. Eating better, knowing about blood sugar and insulin issues, etc yes, I support that and think in the early stages it might work. I don'tknow for sure, but it is worth trying. But to me, that is not CICO.

But, do people do this? This is the part where I do see calories as an important aspect of the equation. Let's say "Jane" is going to use a tracker like Spark People or something (not wven sure what the latest app or thing is), and she has determined that she wants to aim for a daily caloric intake of 1600-1800, with 1800 being at the tippety-top daily allowance. If she thinks, "not giving up my morning donut and caramel coolatta at Dunkins," she is clearly going to bust her caloric goals before she ever reaches dinner, regardless of the other negative body chemistry effects from eating the simple carbs. If you munch an entire package of Snackwells, you would bust calorie goals for weight loss no matter whether it also incites more eating or not.

 

So, I don't even understand how a person could eat in a consistently junky fashion if they were committed to a CICO goal. I agree that it is very helpful to understand the rolls of protein and fat in satiety; it was a huge revelation to me when I did learn this. BUT, I do think the CICO concept still "works" in the sense that starving people are never fat. If a person's food is entirely controlled by an outside group or person (in the most negative, a POW; in the more positive, say, a marine at boot camp), they will get thinner.

 

So while I don't think every caloric source is equal, I do still see over consumption and under expenditure of calories as an important part of the equation.

[LibraryLover]

Blue goat, do you think she might watch Fed Up? There is a scary/fantastic bit where they total sugar grams consumed by families who think they are limiting calories/sugar. It's frankly heartbreaking. One morbidly obese child is shown eating unlimited amounts of boxed breakfast cereal as a way to control weight because his mother assumes it's ok because it is 'low in fat', not understanding the carb/insulin connection. It isn't working of course. And the dear little competitive swimmer who is working out in the pool and 'dieting', but is daily dipping cookie sticks in Nutella as a snack, and also eating the junky carb school pizzas etc. It makes me want to cry.

[ktgrok]

So... fruit is a daily part of our diet... esp things like grapes & apples (year round) - tomatoes too if we're getting picky about definitions, and in season cherries, pears, pomegranates, or oranges.

 

We eat them both at lunch and supper - almost always.  When I don't quite want to skip a meal, I'll grab fruit of some sort.

 

Y'all are saying these are bad?  

 

Not for everyone. Fruit in it's whole form has fiber to help slow the release of the sugar and prevent the blood sugar rush that causes problems. For SOME people, who have a messed up metabolism, that isn't enough and it stil causes issues. 

 

That said, fruit juice is no different than drinking straight sugar water. Bad news. 

[LibraryLover]

Lustig has said again and again the body does not treat the sugar in a glass of OJ any differently than it treats the sugar in a Coke, You may be getting nutrition from OJ, maybe a small amount of fiber in the pulp, but from a metabolic standpoint, there is little to no difference in the processing. This is true whether you have a messed up system or not. Now, the more messed up your system gets, the more insulin issues you will have.

 

The current AAP recommendation for young children is no juice. Many schools no longer serve it. I know some folks here in CA working to ditch the chocolate milk as well. Frozen waffle, graham crackers, goldfish, yogurt tube....the sugar and carb to sugar grams add up quickly. I know we've had these frustrating convos before.

[creekland]

Not for everyone. Fruit in it's whole form has fiber to help slow the release of the sugar and prevent the blood sugar rush that causes problems. For SOME people, who have a messed up metabolism, that isn't enough and it stil causes issues. 

 

That said, fruit juice is no different than drinking straight sugar water. Bad news. 

 

We rarely do fruit juice - occasionally pomegranate (100%) as a treat, but no others (except when traveling and with others).

 

I guess I'm seeing no need to ditch the fruit for us otherwise.  We like it and it doesn't seem to be hurting anything.  I will, however, keep an eye on sugar numbers next week with fruit in mind if they aren't the greatest, but my first thought if the numbers are off would be that it might have more to do with the sodas and other treats we eat when traveling.  We tend to travel once per month.  I thought we might miss Oct, but my mom is treating us to another Niagara Falls long weekend with middle son for his fall break.  That means poutine, Tim Horton's, oodles of meals to satisfy my mom's hunger, and soda for the caffeine for me to be able to stay awake more hours than normal.

 

I really do need to learn to like cold tea.  Someday - perhaps soon if the sugar numbers are high next week.

 

I'm thinking this up again, down again, scale deal is going to be the new normal due to our travels.  At least it's not just up, up, and away like it used to be.  And the overall total continues to decline, so there's that.  It makes the plus column!

 

This next trip will have walking in it too.  Not being able to exercise at all at my in-laws adds a whole 'nother dimension - not in the plus column!

[ktgrok]

I should say, as much as I'm claiming about metabolism, I'm not paleo or atkins or keto or whatever. I'm pro what works. If anything, I'm a "if it fits your macros" girl. 

[LibraryLover]

I should say, as much as I'm claiming about metabolism, I'm not paleo or atkins or keto or whatever. I'm pro what works. If anything, I'm a "if it fits your macros" girl.

I agree. It totally depends on the person. I'm not paleo or Atkins etc but with experimentation, my scale, and energy level/mood/temperament , I have a good sense of what works for me. I don't eat bananas ( I don't like them, gaggy texture), but I do eat berries. I don't eat eat grapes, but I'm fine with a bit of tomato etc

[LisaKinVA]

But, do people do this? This is the part where I do see calories as an important aspect of the equation. Let's say "Jane" is going to use a tracker like Spark People or something (not wven sure what the latest app or thing is), and she has determined that she wants to aim for a daily caloric intake of 1600-1800, with 1800 being at the tippety-top daily allowance. If she thinks, "not giving up my morning donut and caramel coolatta at Dunkins," she is clearly going to bust her caloric goals before she ever reaches dinner, regardless of the other negative body chemistry effects from eating the simple carbs. If you munch an entire package of Snackwells, you would bust calorie goals for weight loss no matter whether it also incites more eating or not.

 

So, I don't even understand how a person could eat in a consistently junky fashion if they were committed to a CICO goal. I agree that it is very helpful to understand the rolls of protein and fat in satiety; it was a huge revelation to me when I did learn this. BUT, I do think the CICO concept still "works" in the sense that starving people are never fat. If a person's food is entirely controlled by an outside group or person (in the most negative, a POW; in the more positive, say, a marine at boot camp), they will get thinner.

 

So while I don't think every caloric source is equal, I do still see over consumption and under expenditure of calories as an important part of the equation.

In my younger days, absolutely. All I was told was NON-Fat foods. Snackwells, fat free cookies, candy were all on my "diet". I didn't drink soda (except for diet soda), but the message I received loud and clear was count your calories and eat as close to a zero fat diet as you can.

 

I ate bread and potatoes without butter, I ate fake cheese, fake eggs, and fake salad dressing.

 

Granted, I lost weight, but it was a miserable existence. Moreover, my blood work was abysmal. I credit that time in my life for probably wrecking my metabolism, and setting me up for the bigger problems in my 30s. I know my system isn't as bad as some here, but it is definitely messed up.

 

That is probably why I dislike the CICO message, because it drowns out everything else.

 

It's not that calories don't matter, but it's just one part of the equation, and the actual equation varies from person to person.

 

I have one child who cannot physically eat normal sizes meals. She fills up too quickly. However, insisting she doesn't snack also means she doesn't get enough food to grow properly. Which is worse? Teaching her to ignore feeling full, and forcing her to stuff herself, making her sick in the process? Or working with her particular body, and ensuring she gets proper nutrition spaced out in 6-8 small meals? She still eats the same food as the rest of the family, just throughout the day. Me? I only require 2 meals, and not necessarily large ones. It's more important that I teach my children to recognize and listen to their bodies hunger/full signals, than keep them to absolute minimum/maximum food intake -- while teaching them to balance their food varieties.

 

Which reminds me... I need to boil some eggs for snacks.

[creekland]

Supper tonight for me will consist of watermelon and grapes (from our vine).  This is because lunch was hot dogs (2), so no need for anything more (for me).  Hubby will probably get something to go with his fruit, but I've no idea what at the moment - perhaps almonds or other snack type things.  Oh, he'll also finish up some cole slaw and probably eat some applesauce.  I won't have those. 

 

In general we're still working on finishing up left overs from the in-laws (hot dogs, watermelon, cole slaw, applesauce, etc).  One thing I can't bring myself to do is waste food.  Granted, we have chickens it could go to, but they get enough from regular kitchen waste.

 

I rarely eat bananas, but grapes or in season berries, cherries, etc, are staples - plus we have our own apple and pear trees (2 of each).  I can't fathom going without fruit TBH.

[Joanne]

 

This is true and correct for you. What worries me, though, is that I think for many, it is as simple as "eat less," and "choose differently." For many, if not most, this realization could come, could be repaired, before the situation has progressed to the damage you endured. Wouldn't you want that for most people?

 

 

 

I disagree that many or most can lose weight as simply as "eat less", and "choose differently."

 

I think we've been sold a load of - bologna. I think it was delivered to us through political and profit motives and those, in turn, suppressed research.

 

I think that "choose differently" can increase health, though.

[creekland]

I disagree that many or most can lose weight as simply as "eat less", and "choose differently."

 

Really?  It's worked for almost everyone I know who's tried it IRL - that combined with more exercise anyway.  Our school has a "Drop 10 in Ten" program that many (staff) sign up for - and a "Biggest Loser" imitation.  Several teachers participate successfully.  I've never been among them, but I listen in at the lunch table when participants discuss it and there are frequent e-mails, etc. 

 

NOT having that work through some method or another I've only learned about on here.  I figured it was pretty rare.  In hindsight I know there were two teachers who opted for surgery instead, so I now assume traditional methods didn't work for them, but that's two out of oodles, so a pretty low percentage rate.

[Laura Corin]

 

I rarely eat bananas, but grapes or in season berries, cherries, etc, are staples - plus we have our own apple and pear trees (2 of each).  I can't fathom going without fruit TBH.

 

I eat a lot of fruit too.  My ideal day would include two or three apples.  And I'm currently working my way through about 1/4 1/2 a pound of grapes after a late-night walk with the dog.

 

(Edited to express full wolfing of grapes)

[ktgrok]

Really?  It's worked for almost everyone I know who's tried it IRL - that combined with more exercise anyway.  Our school has a "Drop 10 in Ten" program that many (staff) sign up for - and a "Biggest Loser" imitation.  Several teachers participate successfully.  I've never been among them, but I listen in at the lunch table when participants discuss it and there are frequent e-mails, etc. 

 

NOT having that work through some method or another I've only learned about on here.  I figured it was pretty rare.  In hindsight I know there were two teachers who opted for surgery instead, so I now assume traditional methods didn't work for them, but that's two out of oodles, so a pretty low percentage rate.

 

Short term it does sometimes work, before the body starts fighting back. How many of those teachers still have that weight off a year later? Or kept losing weight? 

[Guest]

I disagree that many or most can lose weight as simply as "eat less", and "choose differently."

 

I think we've been sold a load of - bologna. I think it was delivered to us through political and profit motives and those, in turn, suppressed research.

 

I think that "choose differently" can increase health, though.

I know you disagree on this point, Joanne, but I disagree with you. Why would you think almost all people would have "been sold bologna" in that eating less and choosing differently makes one thinner? For one thing, that would be a pretty magnificently large-scale duping. Additionally, Observation tells me otherwise. I have observed it in my own physiology. I have observed it in friends and acquaintances.

 

Moreover, it is evidently true in extreme cases, as I mentioned. When people drastically reduce caloric consumption and/or expend large amounts of calories, they get thinner. People who starved to death are never fat. People who were POWs were not fat. People who engage in extreme sports are never fat. If your sport burns ten thousand calories a day, you probably couldn't be fat if you tried. People who undergo intensive military training, like Army Rangers, are not fat. And so on. Don't misunderstand: I am not recommending starvation or "admiring" being a POW. I am demonstrating that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence throughout humanity indicates that food is how we get energy to carry out all normal functions and much of modern food and eating provides far more energy than is needed by, say, a mail carrier or a lawyer. Consistently eating within a usable range of energy will almost always result in a normal body shape and size.

[creekland]

Short term it does sometimes work, before the body starts fighting back. How many of those teachers still have that weight off a year later? Or kept losing weight? 

 

At least most and all I come into contact with regularly in a more inner circle.  Their losing weight is another factor that had me realizing I was headed in the wrong direction.

 

And for those who started, it wasn't really a diet or exercise for a short period of time.  They made lifestyle changes.  At lunch we're often talking about what we're eating.  Fruit is common - part of why I was surprised to see it not a good thing here.  Veggies are common too, of course.

 

Not everyone is on board.  We have some who regularly head to McD's or Subway for lunch (two fast food places close enough to run out to).  But of those who have joined and lost, I don't see anyone regaining.  Some have lost a handful of pounds (and one wonders why they needed that).  Others are in the double digits - some significantly so.  I don't believe we've had any in the triple digits (or wanting that amount), so as mentioned by others, that could be a completely different situation.

[regentrude]

I disagree that many or most can lose weight as simply as "eat less", and "choose differently."

 

I know lots of people for whom that worked - in the long term. They lost solely from eating less and moving more, and never regained.

 

As we discussed earlier: no, that does not work for everybody. Some people have metabolic conditions that make this impossible. But for many people who are not yet severely obese, eating less and moving more has caused weight loss and worked just fine. Myself included.

 

[ktgrok]

 When people drastically reduce caloric consumption and/or expend large amounts of calories, they get thinner. People who starved to death are never fat. People who were POWs were not fat. People who engage in extreme sports are never fat.

 

For the record, I know a few fat marathoners. 

 

And again, that works at an extreme when starving. But I'm willing to say that there is selection bias when it comes to exercise, military, etc. You had to be within a certain weight to get into the military, so you already probably have a pretty well working metabolism. If you are morbidly obese you probably aren't taking up extreme ultra marathons or iron man triathalons. So not sure we can say that the exercise will make obese people slender. 

 

And without going into starvation, yes, many obese people can't lose weight because their metabolism fights them, unless they utilize other strategies. They just get more and more efficient if they stay in "normal" weight loss calorie guidelines. 

[ktgrok]

I know lots of people for whom that worked - in the long term. They lost solely from eating less and moving more, and never regained.

 

As we discussed earlier: no, that does not work for everybody. Some people have metabolic conditions that make this impossible. But for many people who are not yet severely obese, eating less and moving more has caused weight loss and worked just fine. Myself included.

 

Okay, see, here is where the confusion or disagreement is coming. I'm talkinga bout people who are obese. I believe Joann is too. 

[Pawz4me]

Okay, see, here is where the confusion or disagreement is coming. I'm talkinga bout people who are obese. I believe Joann is too. 

 

I was obese.  I just looked up what my BMI would have been at my highest weight (before I lost it years ago) -- 34.3.

 

Other than 10 pounds, I've kept it off for 27 years.

[Guest]

Okay, see, here is where the confusion or disagreement is coming. I'm talkinga bout people who are obese. I believe Joann is too.

Joanne disagreed with my use of "many or most" people and said that she believes it is the opposite: many or most people will not get thinner by eatting less and choosing differently.

[Bluegoat]

Blue goat, do you think she might watch Fed Up? There is a scary/fantastic bit where they total sugar grams consumed by families who think they are limiting calories/sugar. It's frankly heartbreaking. One morbidly obese child is shown eating unlimited amounts of boxed breakfast cereal as a way to control weight because his mother assumes it's ok because it is 'low in fat', not understanding the carb/insulin connection. It isn't working of course. And the dear little competitive swimmer who is working out in the pool and 'dieting', but is daily dipping cookie sticks in Nutella as a snack, and also eating the junky carb school pizzas etc. It makes me want to cry.

 

You know, something like that might work to get her thinking at least.  I don't feel comfortable being too forward with her about it.  It's a bit of a sad situation all round, her mom is a nice lady but a bit at a loss to give guidance, yk - she doesn't eat well, she doesn't know how to approach school, she has a real problem with wearing appropriate clothes, and her mom seems unable to help at all.  I've tried to figure out how to introduce topics without taking on a roll that I'm not entitled to.

 

But - she is attached to Facebook at the hip, and I might be able to do something along the lines of introducing information that way.

[creekland]

I was obese.  I just looked up what my BMI would have been at my highest weight (before I lost it years ago) -- 34.3.

 

Other than 10 pounds, I've kept it off for 27 years.

 

I just looked up my highest via the NIH site.  It was 33.1.  I'm currently at 28.5.

 

I want to get below 25 and have more or less set a target that will put me at 23.2.

 

Time will tell if it stays off or not.  It's still a work in progress.  Heck, I'm still learning a bit about it all after not caring for my first 4.5 decades.

[Bluegoat]

Joanne disagreed with my use of "many or most" people and said that she believes it is the opposite: many or most people will not get thinner by eatting less and choosing differently.

 

I think for people who have not already established a serious food issue, it will almost always make a difference if they begin to eat less, and choose better foods.

 

The problem comes when they have already damaged their body.  At that point, what is possible may be limited and require extreme measures.

 

The best answer then in the long term seems like it would be - make better choices, eat appropriate amounts, before you have a serious problem.