Weight Loss Help. Please?

The Food Forum's Evil Twin. Trying to lose weight or get in shape? Tips, encouragement, status reports, and so forth go here.
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, we are not health professionals. Take advice with salt.

Moderators: Mighty Jalapeno, Moderators General, Prelates

joemare
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:46 pm UTC

Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby joemare » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:10 pm UTC

Hello! I am currently 17 years old, high school Senior, and I am overweight. Although, not obese. My stomach doesn't hang or anything like that, but my body fat is higher than it should be and it shows. My "chest" (I'm a guy) is larger than it need be, and is squishy, which for a 17 year old is embarrassing. I'm about 5'7", as of 4 months ago. I weigh 180 lbs, and my doctor has told me that I should be at 150 or so.

I can say that I am not that big of an eater, my usual diet is:
- Cereal with low-fat milk for breakfast. Sometimes oatmeal. Also, I'm a little addicted to bananas.
- Granola Bar for early lunch during school, never hungry around noon. :/
-When I get home around 4PM, some fruit, sandwich some days, if I'm hungry.
- Dinner is usually large: Rice, pork, beans, pasta, lentils, that sort of stuff. And then a yogurt for dessert. If none are left, an apple.

I've never been into junk food at all. Subway isn't half bad, but everything else comes off as garbage to me, and my stomach just cannot take it. Comes right back out as fast as it came in. I guess I was just never raised on those types of food. I know plenty of people that can shove cheeseburgers down like the LHC was started in their stomach.

Now, as far as fitness, I've been attempting to train myself for about a month now, but with no luck. My exercises are usually along the lines of: 1.5-2.5 mile runs (about 25-30 minutes), pushups, crunches, 1:30 planks (2 or 3), and football catches outside. I do this 3 days out of the week. The problem is, I still make no progress. I don't gain weight (I never did, even before the exercise), but I don't lose pounds either. So, I suppose I'm posting here on these forums with the question:

"What can I do to lose weight?"

I'm thinking of getting myself a trainer, which might help. I'm not impatient or anything, it's just deep down I know that I'm not as fit and strong as I could be, and that there is a better, healthier life for me, and it nags at me on the inside. I don't need to lose wight to be some ripped supermodel, I just want to look at myself in the mirror and not think, "I could be better than this."

Can the fine folk at these forums help me out? I'll give any information about myself, habits, routine, etc. as necessary.

Thank you very much for your time,

-joemare.

User avatar
TheNorm05
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:36 pm UTC
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby TheNorm05 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:50 am UTC

Diet and exercise are key here(as you would find in any other weight loss thread) unless there is some underlying physical condition.
I noticed you say you have a large dinner. You may want to reconsider eating too much at night before sleeping, and replace this habit with distributing your food intake relatively steadily through out the day. Our bodies naturally try to feast and fast, so when we eat a lot and then not eat for an extended period, we make our body want to retain as much energy as possible, which would be good if we were starving, but not great for weight loss.
Exercises should start fairly slowly if you're not in a strong condition already. Stretching is important, especially when your first start because it's easy to hurt yourself and then give up. I'd suggest going for a week or two of light to moderate jogging with some standard jumping exercise and general push-ups/sit ups. More than anything it's going to get your body used to moving again. once you can do this relatively comfortably, you want to start doing exercises that use more energy in shorter amounts of time. Anything that requires lifting heavy weight, or accelerating quickly is pretty good at this(I enjoy sprints and they only take about 20 minutes if you push yourself well). The idea is that you want to maximize not only total energy used, but the rate that it is used as well. I forget the exact explanation, but burning the same amount of energy in a shorter period of time helps your burn more calories through out the day even when you're not working out.

Motivation is the most important thing though. The road to losing considerable weight will take a while. When I was 15 I was around your weight and build, and sprinting really helped cut the weight. It took me around a month of sprinting every day to drop 30 pounds(maybe that's fast? Not too sure) and within 3 months I had lost roughly 40 total. Just keep your eye on the prize and don't let yourself quit.

EpicFailz
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:01 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby EpicFailz » Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:24 am UTC

I hope I don't sound like an idiot full of crap, but here's some stuff (which you may or may not already know) which I believe is worth mentioning:
(I have spent lots of time reading and trying things related to nutrition, and hopefully what I have to say helps)

The most important thing to lose weight is to eat less calories than your body is using.
Imagine that the fat cells in your body are like balloons. Eating too many calories (before your body can utilize them as energy) will fill up and expand (and possibly multiply) the balloons. When you are eating less calories than your body needs for energy, your body starts using the fat in those balloons (and possibly muscle mass), causing them to shrink.

What this implies is that over the course of your lifetime, there have been a number of times where you ate too much and the fat builds up. (It takes at least weeks/months/years to notice changes, unless you start drastically increasing/decreasing your caloric intake).

The quickest way to lose weight is to stop eating calories entirely until the amount of fat loss desired is reached, but most people aren't willing to do that.

What you can do instead is eat less, but not little enough to drive you crazy.


Two things that you can do for your body composition:

1. To lose weight (fat and possibly muscle):
- Stop eating (When you stop eating, your body will just use your fat and muscle, as needed, for energy)
- As a bonus, exercise to lose even more fat and muscle (but unless you spend a lot of time and effort for athletic activities, the amount of calories lost through exercise pales in comparison to how much we can eat, especially in the same amounts of time)

2. To gain muscle and minimize muscle loss:
- Work out (To stress your muscles into getting/staying stronger and bigger, causing your body to burn more fat for energy instead of muscle)
- Eat enough protein to preserve lean mass and to recover damaged muscles from working out ( **There is a lot of debate over how much we actually need, ranging from 0.6g/lb of lean body mass to 2g/lb of lean body mass, you may have to do some research to your own conclusion from this, but I personally try to get an average of 0.6g/lb of lean body mass each day. You and I are of the same height, so that would be around 80 grams a day since our lean mass should be around 140-150) (***lean body mass=your entire weight with fat removed)

So, choose what to do based on your goals. If you want to lose fat while minimizing muscle loss, do both of those things. This will ensure that the weight you lose is mostly fat and not muscle.


Some tips for health in general:
- Avoid eating unless you are hungry (There's no point in eating a snack if you don't feel like it, scheduled eating times are bs)
- Eat lots of vegetables (for vitamins and minerals) - most vegetables have shockingly little calories.
- Limit yourself to 2-3 fruits daily (might be hard... I know about banana addictions all too well lol)
- Make sure you get plenty of protein to preserve muscle mass (There are so many debates regarding how much you need, ranging from 0.6g/lb of lean mass to 2g/lb of lean mass, you might want to do more research on this)
- My stance on grains... I believe that they are a substitute for real food. They are like filler food: they have lots of calories but so little nutritional value compared to vegetables and protein-heavy foods. If you can handle cutting back on grain foods, I recommend doing so. There is no need to eliminate them from your diet
- I have much experience with fasting and intermittent fasting, and you may want to do some research if you really want to lose weight fast, or just ask me if you're willing to hear what I have to say about it.

Ideally, you should (not) eat enough to lose at least 1-2lbs a week. It might take a while, but if you lose 2lbs a week, you should be able to get to 150 within 15 weeks, which is only about 4 months.

Most importantly, eat in a way that you enjoy. There are an infinite amount of ways to go about eating, and you should customize your diet to your own liking.

I've tried my best to not say anything dogmatic in this post.
If you want more specific information on something, like metabolism or how much calories to eat each day, feel free to ask.
I hope this helps.

User avatar
Solt
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:08 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby Solt » Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:17 am UTC

1.5-2.5 mile runs (about 25-30 minutes)


Can you be more specific? 1.5 miles in 25 minutes is terrible, it's basically walking. 2 miles in 20 minutes is respectable for a fit beginner. 3 miles in 30 minutes is harder but should be doable for someone who has been training for a month. Try decreasing your time for 1 and 2 miles first, to get your body used to running, then ease into 3 miles. And you're wasting your time if you don't keep detailed track of your running times/distances.


joemare wrote:- Cereal with low-fat milk for breakfast. Sometimes oatmeal. Also, I'm a little addicted to bananas.
- Granola Bar for early lunch during school, never hungry around noon. :/
-When I get home around 4PM, some fruit, sandwich some days, if I'm hungry.
- Dinner is usually large: Rice, pork, beans, pasta, lentils, that sort of stuff. And then a yogurt for dessert. If none are left, an apple.


If a skinny guy came to me with that diet complaining that he can't gain weight, I'd believe him. I think what is happening is that you don't have the energy to really get into your exercises and that's because you aren't eating enough. As a consequence you aren't working hard enough to burn any calories. That, and it's only been a month. I'd give it another month at least. If you don't start losing .5 pound a week on this diet plus exercise, then start fiddling with the diet. You need time to improve your running time quite a bit, which, if you haven't run for a long time, will take a while. The pain in your feet alone should be terrible about now. Give it time, and as much rest between runs as possible. But at the same time, push yourself because losing weight off running alone is probably the hardest way to do it. You must run further and faster every time you go out, no exceptions. Every run should be the fastest you have run in your life up to that point.

Unless your breakfast and lunch portions are big, this is a bad diet. Too much fruit and grain, not enough protein and probably barely enough fat. And since all your carbs are right before dinner, it's guaranteed to be turned into fat for storage. I would add another serving of protein (make sure you eat that sandwich every day, and make sure it's piled with meat! or make it a piece of bread with a can of tuna). I would also eat more carbohydrates (breads, cereals) for breakfast. As much as you can. Lunch should be what your dinner is but that's probably not possible. Running should be after breakfast or lunch, and before dinner which should be a small meal, or moderate if your lunch wasn't that great. Dinner should also concentrate on protein, fruits, and veggies while the earlier meals should be carbs to give you energy for your workouts.
"Welding was faster, cheaper and, in theory,
produced a more reliable product. But sailors do
not float on theory, and the welded tankers had a
most annoying habit of splitting in two."
-J.W. Morris

User avatar
roflwaffle
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:25 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby roflwaffle » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:31 pm UTC

I think you should sort out what you want to do first. You can try to become fit, which you would need a lot more exercise and probably more calories for IMO, as was mentioned, or you can lose weight by burning more calories than you eat. Exercise is probably the better bet because you'll be healthier, but if you can't exercise enough calorie restriction works too. Trying to do both is possible but incredibly hard. Someone doing that will feel exhausted to the point where slip-ups are almost a guarantee, which is ultimately counter-productive considering their goal.

PaulNefets
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:29 pm UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby PaulNefets » Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:42 pm UTC

I can personally say that a ketogenic diet is best for weight loss.

The idea is that 50% or more of your diet comes from fat. It is not bad for you. People with epilepsy go on this diet for other reasons. Eating tons of fat along with lots of sugar is horrible for you (triglycerides come from carbohydrate conversion in the liver), but high fat with moderate protien is excellent.

<> It will keep your blood sugar stable (avoids binge eating)
<> Easier to find descent food choices when going out (just eat lots of meat)
<> You can easily eat TONS of vegetables and still be "ketogenic"...If you can stay under 60 to 80 grams of carbs in a day, that is good.
<> Ketogenic actually refers to ketosis: your body will run on ketones rather than sugar...ie pure fat burn.

I lost about 40 pounds doing this diet. combine this with some weight lifting and jogging = success

Ben Seclawney
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:30 pm UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby Ben Seclawney » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:39 pm UTC

After many years of trial and error in hopes of finally reaching my weight loss goals.

I've come to the conclusion that diet comes first, then exercise. Most people here assume that by signing up at a gym or beginning an exercise regimen will help in cutting off excess fat, and it will......but only if you eat healthy...by healthy I mean real healthy....as in fruits and veggies everyday with chicken or fish, high fiber foods such as oatmeal, apples, beans, lentils. No sugar, processed food, fat, grease.

Keep in mind.....You can exercise everyday and still gain weight; however you cannot gain weight by eating healthy.

It's all a big mind game....the key to losing weight has and always will be DIET.

caje
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:01 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby caje » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:56 am UTC

If you don't have to worry about performance (not a competitive athlete) then I would highly suggest a low carb diet. Plain and simple it works and it works well. Just make sure you are actually eating fat and not just protein. Eat stuff like eggs, steak, burgers(no bun), rotisserie chicken as many veges as you want (corn and potatoes are NOT veges) Also swap out the long runs with some high intensity stuff like sprint intervals. After losing some weight for a bit I would suggest you also start doing some strength training. (google starting strength)

It will be tough to get off carbs at the beginning, but you will get used to it.

bosco54
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:19 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby bosco54 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:41 am UTC

These questions always make me uneasy, and they always bring out the worst fad dieting trends. A ketogenic/low carb diet is a short term solution and non-ideal. The vast majority of these short term dieters will regain any weight lost within 5 years. A diet low in carbs and high in fats is undeniably high in saturated fats. While atherosclerosis is traditionally thought of as an old man's disease, the truth is that our typical high-fat north American diet results in atherosclerotic precursors being found in children as young as 12 years old. I would highly discourage this type of short term solution. Corn and potatoes are most definitely vegetables, that sounded deliberately provocative. Preparation is crucial obviously, as french fries are too high in saturated fats to be considered a truly healthy choice. Boiled corn and/or potatoes with a little salt and butter are fine as long as it's not exaggerated and dripping with it. Unsaturated margarine is another option, but I'd rather a little butter than a lot of margarine (personal taste).

Most exercise is dependent on carbohydrate-based fuels (glycogen and glucose). After 30 - 45 minutes depending on intensity, the contribution of fatty acids becomes significant. Does this mean that if you run for 20 minutes, you won't lose any fat? NO!!! This is a popular exercise myth (e.g. the "Fat Burning" setting on cardio equipment). The energy released from fats is higher than from carbohydrates, but also much more gradual. However, at your basal metabolic rate, fats are perfectly suitable to replenish lost muscle glycogen/blood glucose. So you may directly use glucose in exercising and indirectly replace it with fats, later while resting. It's partly for this reason (something often misunderstood by very reputable exercise trainers and low-carb diet pundits as well) that I see no basis in a low carb diet for healthy individuals whatsoever.
Just for fun, you can try recording every thing you eat over the span of 3 days. You can calculate a quick estimate of what you're missing and what you're getting too much of. The majority of your calories should be from complex carbohydrates, and minimal fats. Fats aren't necessarily bad, but higher degrees of unsaturation are always better. Don't obsess over it though; if you feel good, don't change anything.

Now, you do seem to be following a very reasonable diet. With the amount of physical activity you participate in, you are definitely above the mean. I would suggest upping your cardio a little bit and possibly adding some moderate resistance training. Some gyms have very reasonable rates for students, or you could pick up a dumbbell set from a garage sale. Even better, look around for some little-or-no-equipment-needed exercises to do at home. The plank is good, crunches are fine, pushups are a classic. You can do some back extensions and good-mornings, or triceps dips. While running, you can use the "talk test," or the rating of perceived exertion (RPE).These tests are simple and surprisingly precise (we use them in testing in the exercise physiology clinic routinely). I'd suggest doing some further reading, but basically they allow you to exercise at roughly 70% your maximal heart rate. The talk test involves being able to exercise at the highest intensity while still being able to speak (about 1 average length sentence per breath). The RPE is a scale that ranges from 6 to 20 and you want to exercise around 13 (http://ahsmail.uwaterloo.ca/kin356/rpe/rpe/Borg%20RPE%20Scale.html). Personally, I find our participants are more comfortable with the talk test, but I find the RPE somewhat more quantitative.

I don't think you need to eat less, but rather exercise more. Keep in mind that it is a gradual process, and 1 month of training doesn't necessarily count as a whole lot. The amount of fuel used while exercising is surprisingly small in comparison to the amount in food. For example, a 30 minute run would require an expenditure of roughly 400kcal (this varies greatly, but let's just take this for now). One gram of fat provides around 9kcal, and carbohydrates about 4kcal/g (proteins also yield about 4kcal/g, but their role in energy supply is minimal). Let's be generous and say it all comes from fat. That means you used 44g of fat per run, which is very slight indeed. one pound is 455g, so if you ran 5 times a week it would take 2 weeks to lose one whole pound of adipose tissue. This is actually an overestimate, so in the real world you would need a little more than just this. You could also try running for longer durations instead of more frequently.

Are you sleeping enough? When you're sleeping, your BMR rises somewhat and you actually consume more fatty acids (though again, I doubt this would be of any significance), not to mention you'll be in better shape to run at full capacity. Is it possible that you're leaving something out of your eating habits? My intention is not to be rude, but speaking from experience, I tend to snack the most at night time (a handful of cookies and milk, ice cream, chocolate, etc.). So, hit the hay early to make sure you're not late night snacking, and at the same time you'll be refreshed and ready to go the next day.

Unfortunately, some people are simply more metabolically efficient, and as a result tend to retain more adipose tissue than other individuals. That doesn't mean it's impossible to lose weight, but it will be more difficult. A trainer would be a good idea if you can afford it, but do be careful. The qualifications for becoming a trainer are not (as far as I know) standardized, and unfortunately they are often too eager to sell you a new membership or supplement. Get to know them quite well, and be wary of any potential snake oil they may or may not be pushing. There are NO miracle weight loss pills, and most supplements that supposedly build mass are under-tested, and unproven.

The most important thing is to stay active and healthy. You're actually hitting the recommended amount of physical activity, and your diet sounds reasonable, so kudos. In the worst case scenario, you may consider speaking with your doctor. Explain your situation completely and leave out no detail. It's rare, but you might have a hormonal imbalance or metabolic disorder.

Good luck, keep us posted.

User avatar
Solt
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:08 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby Solt » Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:54 am UTC

Regarding low-carb diets, what do you think of the justification that high protein meals tend to be more filling, allowing you to eat fewer calories but still feel full?
"Welding was faster, cheaper and, in theory,

produced a more reliable product. But sailors do

not float on theory, and the welded tankers had a

most annoying habit of splitting in two."

-J.W. Morris

bosco54
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:19 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby bosco54 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:07 pm UTC

I would reiterate that it is a short-term solution and the long-term results are unimpressive. Also, it is somewhat difficult to consume enough lean protein to feel sated and yet consume less than the ideal amount of saturated fats. I would argue that complex carbohydrates (fiber and not simple sugars) also provide a prolonged feeling of satiety and are a more sensible alternative, with some even offering a modest low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or "bad" cholesterol) reduction. In fact, some plant sterols even have the potential to slightly increase circulating high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or "good" cholesterol) levels, which aids in mopping up excess LDL. I'm unaware of any similar benefits from increased protein consumption.

I'm not saying that a low-carb diet won't result in weight loss, but rather that it's an inappropriate means to an end. One ought to ask themselves whether the prospect of losing 5 pounds (which will likely be regained in the relatively near future) is worth more than the risks associated with increased consumption of saturated and trans fats, and cholesterol (of which there are many). It's definitely not the most dangerous diet out there (e.g. think of those 48 hour celebrity "cleansing" liquid diets.), but I maintain that it is not ideal to maintain the body in a healthy weight.

P.S.
I'm not a vegetarian in any sense of the word, so I really have no problem if someone wants to obtain their protein from animal sources. I do. I also believe moderation is key, however.

Victoria Maddison
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby Victoria Maddison » Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:05 am UTC

bosco54 wrote:These questions always make me uneasy, and they always bring out the worst fad dieting trends.

Ironically, as your post demonstrates, with all that anti-saturated fat rhetoric. Saturated fat does not cause heart disease.

bosco54 wrote:fats are perfectly suitable to replenish lost muscle glycogen/blood glucose.

Fats cannot be converted to glucose nor replenish muscle glycogen.

bosco54 wrote:higher degrees of unsaturation are always better.

The naivete of this statement is astounding and underscores your ignorance of lipid biochemistry.

bosco54
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:19 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby bosco54 » Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:05 am UTC

I'm interested in learning where you found that saturated fat is not linked to heart disease, because an overwhelmingly large portion the evidence that I've read suggests that it does. A quick scan of some scholarly reviewed articles yields an abundance of studies that illustrate this. Also on that note, I don't believe I mentioned heart disease being caused by high saturated fat intake (I believe I mentioned atherosclerosis).

Aside from considering the traditional trans-fat an unsaturated fat, I can't think of a situation where a polyunsaturated fat is not better than a saturated one. I'm not a biochemist by any means, and I'm aware my knowledge of the subject is less than complete. Maybe I would have been better off saying "usually" instead of "always" I simply wanted to illustrate a point being that in daily consumption of lipids, a polyunsaturated fat is more desirable than a saturated one. If there is a situation where this is untrue, please let me know. I would rather not make the mistake again if that's the case.

Finally, about my claim that fats replenish glycogen/blood glucose. I have to admit that I was wrong on this one. I was up too late and spent not enough time thinking it through, so I have to apologize for that. Would you agree that after metabolizing glucose and glycogen during exercise, triglycerides can be used in the recovery period while the glucose and glycogen stores are replenished by foodstuffs? I think that's a more appropriate explanation.

Victoria Maddison
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby Victoria Maddison » Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:15 am UTC

bosco54 wrote:I'm interested in learning where you found that saturated fat is not linked to heart disease, because an overwhelmingly large portion the evidence that I've read suggests that it does. A quick scan of some scholarly reviewed articles yields an abundance of studies that illustrate this.

The flawed logic is that saturated fat intake raises cholesterol, high cholesterol causes atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis leads to coronary heart disease. However there is no correlation between cholesterol and atherosclerosis or heart disease. This was disproven as early as 1936 by Landy and Sperry, but people like to cherry pick their data to manufacture a correlation where one doesn't exist, e.g. Ancel Keys.

bosco54 wrote:Also on that note, I don't believe I mentioned heart disease being caused by high saturated fat intake (I believe I mentioned atherosclerosis).

Atherosclerosis of the coronary artery is coronary heart disease. And speaking of atherosclerosis, are you aware that the composition of aortic plaque is primarily polyunsaturated fat, not saturated fat?

bosco54 wrote:Aside from considering the traditional trans-fat an unsaturated fat

Ignore trans-fats. FYI structurally they're similar to saturated fats and are built into cell walls as such but at the site of the missing hydrogen atoms there's a dead spot where chemical reactions can't take place which is one of the reasons why they're a problem.

bosco54 wrote:I can't think of a situation where a polyunsaturated fat is not better than a saturated one.

Probably because your knowledge of lipids is superficial and distorted. The subject is more complex than you're aware.

bosco54 wrote:I simply wanted to [say] that in daily consumption of lipids, a polyunsaturated fat is more desirable than a saturated one. If there is a situation where this is untrue, please let me know. I would rather not make the mistake again if that's the case.

How about an evolutionary example, breast milk is 40-50% saturated fat and the ideal form of nutrition for an infant.

bosco54 wrote:Would you agree that after metabolizing glucose and glycogen during exercise, triglycerides can be used in the recovery period while the glucose and glycogen stores are replenished by foodstuffs? I think that's a more appropriate explanation.

Fat is the primary fuel of the body during periods of minimal physical activity regardless of whether the individual exercises prior, or has depleted glycogen stores.

caje
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:01 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby caje » Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:09 am UTC

bosco54 wrote:These questions always make me uneasy, and they always bring out the worst fad dieting trends. A ketogenic/low carb diet is a short term solution and non-ideal. The vast majority of these short term dieters will regain any weight lost within 5 years. A diet low in carbs and high in fats is undeniably high in saturated fats. While atherosclerosis is traditionally thought of as an old man's disease, the truth is that our typical high-fat north American diet results in atherosclerotic precursors being found in children as young as 12 years old. I would highly discourage this type of short term solution. Corn and potatoes are most definitely vegetables, that sounded deliberately provocative. Preparation is crucial obviously, as french fries are too high in saturated fats to be considered a truly healthy choice. Boiled corn and/or potatoes with a little salt and butter are fine as long as it's not exaggerated and dripping with it. Unsaturated margarine is another option, but I'd rather a little butter than a lot of margarine (personal taste).

. Fats aren't necessarily bad, but higher degrees of unsaturation are always better. Don't obsess over it though; if you feel good, don't change anything.


ketogenic diets are short term, then when you have gotten down to the weight you like you start adding in carbs to maintain weight.

I highly suggest you look deeper into the supposed causal link of saturated fat with heart disease... especially while in the absence of large amounts of carbs.

When I said corn and potatoes are not vegetables I meant they don't fit the standard "vegetable" profile in calorie and nutrition density and can't be eaten free-willingly on a low-carb diet. It isn't provocative they reflect much more like grains then as vegetables (yes while grains are technically vegetables they are not considered vegetables in the cooking sense)

Also unsaturated (especially poly-unsaturated) are definitely not always better then saturated especially when it comes to cooking. Polyunsaturated will also cause more oxidative damage in your body then saturated. Also eating large amounts of poly-unsaturated will most likely lead to a heavy in-balance of Omega 6 to 3's since most food most people consume (especially vegetable oils) has large amounts of Omega 6 but very little 3 when it comes to polyunsaturated

caje
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:01 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby caje » Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:15 am UTC

bosco54 wrote:I would reiterate that it is a short-term solution and the long-term results are unimpressive. Also, it is somewhat difficult to consume enough lean protein to feel sated and yet consume less than the ideal amount of saturated fats. I would argue that complex carbohydrates (fiber and not simple sugars) also provide a prolonged feeling of satiety and are a more sensible alternative, with some even offering a modest low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or "bad" cholesterol) reduction. In fact, some plant sterols even have the potential to slightly increase circulating high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or "good" cholesterol) levels, which aids in mopping up excess LDL. I'm unaware of any similar benefits from increased protein consumption.

I'm not saying that a low-carb diet won't result in weight loss, but rather that it's an inappropriate means to an end. One ought to ask themselves whether the prospect of losing 5 pounds (which will likely be regained in the relatively near future) is worth more than the risks associated with increased consumption of saturated and trans fats, and cholesterol (of which there are many). It's definitely not the most dangerous diet out there (e.g. think of those 48 hour celebrity "cleansing" liquid diets.), but I maintain that it is not ideal to maintain the body in a healthy weight.


Frankly I find it to be the exact opposite. I can eat pounds and pounds of salad and never feel full for more then 15 min or so. Why would low carb increase your trans-fat consumption? Avoiding trans-fat is very simple.
Last edited by caje on Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:18 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

caje
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:01 am UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby caje » Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:18 am UTC

Solt wrote:Regarding low-carb diets, what do you think of the justification that high protein meals tend to be more filling, allowing you to eat fewer calories but still feel full?


That is one of the reasons it tends to work (low-carb diets tend to be much more self regulating). It also works by controlling insulin levels. (which is one of the reasons hunger is affected)

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Weight Loss Help. Please?

Postby Nath » Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:08 am UTC

caje wrote:Frankly I find it to be the exact opposite. I can eat pounds and pounds of salad and never feel full for more then 15 min or so. Why would low carb increase your trans-fat consumption? Avoiding trans-fat is very simple.

Low carb diets usually mean more meat. Before someone got the bright idea of hydrogenating perfectly good vegetable oil, meat and milk are where we got most of our trans fats from. However, the trans fats in meat and milk appear to be less harmful than the ones created by partial hydrogenation, and even appear to have anti-carcinogenic properties. Annoyingly, nutritional information labels don't fully distinguish between the two kinds of trans fats, so many people avoid perfectly good meat because they see that it contains a bit of trans fat. (Though apparently the FDA doesn't include conjugated linoleic acids in the trans fat listings.)


Return to “Fit Club”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests