Losing Weight vs Being Healthy

[mount187]

I see a lot of people read tons of books, magazines, online articles, etc. in order to try to figure out how to lose weight, and it's all nonsense. You may be able to use those mediums to help you find a lifestyle that suits you better, so that you can be more successful, but in the end losing weight is a result of burning more calories during the day then what you eat. No matter what method you use, there is no way of getting around that. It's the easiest concept to understand, yet people continue to ignore it for some reason.

People also have a misconception that exercising is a good way to lose weight. It's really not. Follow me here, before deciding that I'm an idiot (you can make that determination for various other reasons). Let's say you eat a couple of doughnuts in the morning, and decide that you didn't want to eat that many calories, so you're going to go for a jog to burn off the extra 250 calories you didn't want. If you're a 200 lb male, age 30, and roughly 6' tall, you'll have to "jog" for roughly half an hour to burn that off. HALF AN HOUR! To burn a full pound of fat, you have to burn off 3500 more calories than you have ingested. So in order to burn off a full pound running, you'd need to jog for seven hours. So if you need to lose 20 pounds, you're going to have to ingest only what you burn during the day AND jog for 140 hours to lose the weight. At that pace, you'd have to jog about half an hour every day for a year to lose the weight, keeping in mind we're assuming you're ONLY taking in calories equivalent to what you burn outside of the jogging (roughly 2,200 to 2,400).

So, how much easier is it to cut out 500 calories a day, rather than trying to burn that much off exercising? A soft drink has roughly 110 calories in it for every 8 oz. So when you get that 32 oz jug of liquid sugar from McDonalds, you're consuming ~450 calories. YOU'RE DRINKING ALMOST AN HOUR OF RUNNING. How simple is it to ask for a diet drink instead of running for an hour? I realize that it doesn't taste the same, but trust me, once you make the switch, regular drinks will end up tasting like sugar more than a drink (your best option is water, which is better for you anyways, but whatever). Another option? The difference between a large and small fry at a fast food place is roughly 250 calories. So switching to a more reasonable portion on a food you still like will save you half an hour of jogging. Going to Chipotle for a more healthy option? Skip the burrito and get it in a bowl; it will save you 600 calories, or an hour of jogging.

So, to my point above, does it make sense now that exercising to lose weight is fruitless when you compare it to making changes in your diet? I'm not talking about eating healthier, I'm just saying eat slightly less of the foods you already like. Most of the people here are analytical in nature, thus the desire to handicap games, so I would encourage you all to look at your calories intake analytically. Start comparing what you eat to what it would take to burn it back off, and you'll be amazed at how often your brain will decide, "That's not worth eating."

The reason I titled this "Losing Weight vs Being Healthy", is that I wanted to make a distinction that you can eat in an unhealthy way and still lose weight. Most people hate dieting, because they feel like they can't eat foods they like. That's not the case. You just need to consume less of what you like.

I'm a strong advocate for eating "healthy" food as well (and exercising, and drinking water, etc.), but I think for most people, it's more important to cut the weight, and have a more positive self image, before they worry about being "healthy". It's also a bigger health risk to be over weight, than to not exercise enough. Obese Americans are HUGE drain on the health care system.

After you get your mojo (and health) back from dropping the extra lbs, you can worry about an exercise routine that will not only keep you more healthy, but will also aid in getting more sleep, having a better attitude, better brain function, and many other benefits.

[KepowOb]

Well said.

I think one of the problems with peoples diets, is they are either eating "normally" or "dieting". If you want to lose weight and keep it off, it's a full time change of diet that's required, not one where you cut out a shit-ton of stuff, then start eating it again once you've hit your desired weight. Sure, maybe you'll cut back a lot, then allow certain things back in, but if you go back to eating how you used to... well yeah.

My cousin goes on stupid diets regularly, drops a ton of weight and looks great, then goes back to normal and balloons. If you go on extreem diets (my wife once saw a "dietician" who recommended she consume 900 calories a day to lose weight), your body can go into a starvation mode, so when you do start eating more of your regular diet, it will store fat at an increased rate as a precaution for the next time you run out of food.

And by extreme diets, if you're consuming 3000 calories a day, I don't think it's extreme to cut your consumption by 1/3 and goto 2000... It's more when you start getting to the point where you're starving yourself with half of what you really need.

[mount187]

(01-06-2012 12:22 AM)hotathami Wrote:  well, i know most of the articles have nonsense. but how can people know what to do without reading these articles?? any idea?

[Edit] I just noticed that your signature is a link to "clear liquid diet food", whatever that is. I hope your question was sincere, but I suspect it was not. Either way, I hope the information is helpful to someone.

Here comes a novel, hold on tight ...

You don't need any new ideas. The oldest idea of all time is all you need: eat less calories than what your body is burning in a day. It really is that simple for losing weight. One pound of fat is roughly 3,500 calories. In order for you to burn off that one pound, you have to create a deficit in calories, over any span of time, that is greater than 3,500. No new magazine article, or fast fix diet is going to change those parameters. It's the same science that's been around since the beginning of space and time, and it's not going to change, ever.

A 30 year old man, of average height and weight, is basically net 0 calories if they have a desk job and do no exercise, while consuming 2,250 calories a day. A woman in the same age group, average height and weight, only needs about 1,600 calories a day to gain or lose nothing.

The next thing you need to know is how many calories you are consuming (we'll ignore exercise for now). All food sold in fast food restaurants, and any food they sell in a grocery has nutritional information with it. The nutrition info will tell you the calories per portion size. Once you have that information, all you have to do is keep track of what portion of the food you're consuming, and add up the calories from it to find your intake. After that, make sure that total daily intake is less than what you're burning in a day. It may be a pain to track that information, but if you really want the answer to "How do I lose weight?", that's part of it. Eventually, you'll get to the point where you know what portion sizes of what foods go into a meal that's going to be within your calories range, but until you get to that point, doing the math on what you're eating is the only way.

You now have the two key pieces of information for weight loss: "How much am I burning?", and "How much am I consuming?". Figuring out how much / how quickly you're going to lose the weight is simple after that. If you don't believe it's easy to figure out, here's a quick example: if a woman is going to burn 1,600 calories in a day doing nothing, then to lose weight, she'd have to consume 1,599 calories or less per day. The higher the deficit, the quicker the weight will come off (Contrary to what magazines and TV will tell you, it's that simple. Eating the right types of food, and at what time, and in how many small meals is more about being healthy than losing weight). If that woman were to consume 1,400 calories a day, the 200 calorie deficit would equate to roughly two pounds a month (3,500 / 200 = 17.5, so two pounds every 35 days). If you try that, and say, "1,400 calories isn't realistic. The best I can do is 1,550.", you're still OK! Even at that pace you'd still lose weight; 3,500 calories would be consumed by that 50 calorie deficit once every 70 days. That seems like a long time, and it is, but that's still over five pounds a year, and you're giving up the equivalent of a hand full of french fries every day to achieve it. If you want to speed up the process, add in exercise, but just realize that (as I pointed out above) it's much easier to avoid consuming the calories than to burn them back off. Your goal should be to get as close as you can to your target calorie intake with your food consumption, and then speed up the process with exercise. If you try to just keep consuming and burn the excess with exercise, you're going to fail. Just trust me on that one.

None of the information I have provided above comes from anything other than going to Google and asking questions. As I stated before, the science has been around for all of eternity, so it's not like I had to delve into the depths of Google's knowledge to find it. The questions I asked, and answers I found, were in the top five Google search results every time. The information is very easy to obtain. As a matter of fact, if you were to ask your family doctor, they should have that information handy. Hell, if you were to call any health insurance company, they'd be more than happy to give you that information (people losing weight would make them a fortune). The reason it's so readily available, is because the information has never changed. There is no new study or grand idea that's going to change the only real truth of weight loss: you have to burn more calories than you consume.

[Beyond the Bets]

Weight loss is the easiest thing in the world. Legitimately, the easiest thing in the world. Assuming, of course, that you are able-bodied and don't have any crazy medical conditions.

Burn more calories than you take in.

Again, not that hard. I suggest running. Or swimming. Or biking. Or playing a pick-up basketball game; or racquetball; or jump rope. Whatever.

All of the above activities (save for swimming) are things that I actually enjoy doing on my own time.

[ChiefZilla]

I once lost 20 lbs in two months simply by cutting out chips/fries and not drinking pop. (while running 2-3 times per week).

Seriously, it's not overly complicated, like you guys have said.

Good thread.

[mount187]

The main thing that has helped me to consume less is just knowing what it takes to burn off certain things. If I know a scoop of ice cream is going to cost me 20 minutes on the rower to burn off, guess who's not eating ice cream? I'm more lazy than I am hungry, you can trust me on that one. Just think of how easy it would be to not eat something if you were forced to burn it off. "Hey buddy, you eat that hand full of Cheez-Its, and it's five minutes of crunches or five years in prison." "Yeah, I don't really like Cheez-Its anymore ..."

I think we, as Americans, also forget that food is sustenance. It's not supposed to be consumed just because it's available, it's supposed to be fuel for your body. Getting bored watching TV is not a reason to go grab some chips. That's a bad way to fill your time.

[itg_sports]

It is easy for eating to become an "event" rather than just something you need to survive.

For instance my wife and I are going out tonight and I don't even know where we are going to go eat but I am already excited and I know I am absolutely going to crush whatever is put in front of me.

[oddsok]

So, I have a question then.

What if you skip meals?

I'm not usually hungry in the morning and hence skip breakfast. Is this helping or hindering me if I wanted to lose weight?

I'm not terribly overweight per se, but I could stand to drop a few kegs.

[mount187]

(01-12-2012 08:56 PM)oddsok Wrote:  So, I have a question then.

What if you skip meals?

I'm not usually hungry in the morning and hence skip breakfast. Is this helping or hindering me if I wanted to lose weight?

I'm not terribly overweight per se, but I could stand to drop a few kegs.

There is actually a lot of research being done now on the positive effects of fasting. They're finding that when people arrange their eating schedule to have long periods of not eating (say 7 PM to 10 AM), that there are numerous health benefits. If you want more info on it, do a Google-search for "benefits of intermittent fasting" and see where it goes.

[mattrud]

Intermittent fasting is awesome, and you get used to it much easier than you'd think. Just try to schedule it so that awkward social situations are avoided.

[KepowOb]

(01-12-2012 08:56 PM)oddsok Wrote:  So, I have a question then.

What if you skip meals?

I'm not usually hungry in the morning and hence skip breakfast. Is this helping or hindering me if I wanted to lose weight?

I'm not terribly overweight per se, but I could stand to drop a few kegs.

I'll have to look more into that fasting stuff (not that I could see myself doing it...)

As for skipping meals, and maybe this is old-school with this fasting research coming out, but I was under the impression that breakfast was important to start your metabolism going. I've read that we should actually be eating rather large breakfasts, though anything in the morning is better than nothing at all. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going to eat it either way because I get vicious stomach cramps if I'm on an empty stomach in the morning.

[mount187]

(01-13-2012 01:38 PM)KepowOb Wrote:  As for skipping meals, and maybe this is old-school with this fasting research coming out, but I was under the impression that breakfast was important to start your metabolism going. I've read that we should actually be eating rather large breakfasts, though anything in the morning is better than nothing at all. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going to eat it either way because I get vicious stomach cramps if I'm on an empty stomach in the morning.

Fasting doesn't necessarily mean you're skipping breakfast. You can start / stop eating whenever you want. It's kind of hard to believe personally, but I've never done any research on eating / not eating breakfast. I've always heard, what you said, that's it's "the most important meal of the day," but I've never actually looked into it. I'd be interested to know what the science behind it is.

I read some more on fasting last night, and early indications from IF ("intermittent fasting") seem to show a reduction in markers they look for in detecting cancer. I'm sure they'll be doing more research on it in the future, but that would be a significant find if it holds true. Of course, if we're just now buying into the fact that we could afford to take in less calories (as Americans) to be more healthy, then we get what we deserve.

:)

[mattrud]

Basically, recent research has refuted the whole "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" deal.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating breakfast, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with skipping breakfast. Some people need that psychological kickstart to their day and some don't. It's just personal preference.

And like mount said, you don't have to skip breakfast if you're doing IF. I personally like to, because I'd rather eat late with friends/family than breakfast by myself.

I also would advise you to try skipping breakfast and doing IF for a couple of weeks and see how you feel. I used to be as big of a breakfast guy as anyone, and I thought IF was ridiculous at first. I also used to be the pickiest eater alive and ate fast food twice a day.

But now, I eat incredibly healthy and rarely eat breakfast. You'll be shocked at how quickly your body adapts to changes in your diet, provided that you stick to them.

Also, don't be afraid to challenge the old health rules, like the idea that you shouldn't eat the yolk of an egg (which has been proven wrong multiple times). Many of these ideas are just plain wrong.

For a scientific perspective on this stuff, check out LeanGains and Mark's Daily Apple. I will warn you, though, the Primal Eating craze (Mark's Daily Apple) is cult-ish and definitely too intense for me to fully adopt. But the principles and science behind it is very interesting and valuable.

I'm pretty knowledgable on this type of stuff, so feel free to ask me questions, haha. Also fitness/lifting type of stuff.

[ChiefZilla]

Thought this article was applicable to this thread:

Quote:Warning: You need to run two miles to burn off that bottle of Coke. Tempted to switch to water yet?

People are less likely to indulge in unhealthy beverages when caloric contents are translated into physical activity equivalents, a new American Journal of Public Health study found. In the study, teens were less likely to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage—soda and fruit drinks—if its physical activity equivalent was displayed than if it’s calories or percentage daily values were posted.

“Americans don’t have a good sense of how many calories they need in a day, so translating calories into easy-to-understand physical activity equivalents may be more meaningful to consumers than calorie counts,” said study author Sara Bleich, Ph.D., an assistant professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

[mount187]

Nice find ChiefZilla; that's a better way of making the point I was trying to make (with research!).

[louiemdj]

The problem with eating is there is always some excuse to stray off course. Whether it's a Super Bowl party or just a bunch of people getting together to watch some games, there is always food involved somehow, most of which isn't healthy.

And drinking beer is by far my biggest weakness. There is always a reason to drink, like it's Monday, or bowling league night, or there is a big game on, etc, etc.

I have cut out almost all fast food, and I don't drink soda except on very rare occasions (maybe 1 a month). That at least helps some. I did work out 2 times last week too. I just hate running. I used to be a swimmer over a decade ago, but that isn't really a readily available option at home until the new YMCA is built in about a year. I could also play some raquetball, but that is the same situation as the pool for now.