What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Health, Fitness, Food, Insurance, Longevity, Diets,...
FBeyer
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:25 am

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by FBeyer »

I've never seen anyone go on a diet to lose weight successfully. I've seen people change their diet lose weight.
Besides that I think we're being pedantic about what you should eat to lose weight.
Your choice of comfort food probably dictates your weight a whole lot more than you realize.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by BRUTE »

FBeyer wrote:I've never seen anyone go on a diet to lose weight successfully. I've seen people change their diet lose weight.
probably semantics. way of eating, way of life, lifestyle.. brute doesn't care much what to call it.

where he would agree is that it's usually impossible to just "push through" any specific, unpleasant diet, lose a ton of fat, and then resume previous behavior without gaining all the fat back.

if effects are supposed to be permanent, very likely, behavior needs to change permanently. clearly brute is not suggesting to fast for eternity - but just like the warrior diet makes daily 16-23h fasts into a "lifestyle" or whatever, there are diets/fasting regimens that prescribe 2 days of fasting a week, 5 days a week, 1 week every 2 months, 1 week every month, 1 month every year..

FBeyer
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:25 am

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by FBeyer »

BRUTE wrote:
FBeyer wrote:I've never seen anyone go on a diet to lose weight successfully. I've seen people change their diet lose weight.
where he would agree is that it's usually impossible to just "push through" any specific, unpleasant diet, lose a ton of fat, and then resume previous behavior without gaining all the fat back.

if effects are supposed to be permanent, very likely, behavior needs to change permanently...
My point exactly. Your permanent behaviour IS your lifestyle, is it not?
I'm harping on this because I personally think there is a very important psychological difference between the idea of going on a diet to lose weight, and changing ones diet and behaviour to asymptotically approach one's ideal weight.

The first notion has a transient nature to it, that undermines what you're trying to do in the long run, the second permanently fixes the issue until other external sources screws with your lifestyle once again. As opposed to Brute I think, that what you think about something radically changes the way you approach something.

vexed87
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by vexed87 »

To bear clear, I didn't mean short periods of fast. I was talking about the suggested extended periods of fasting, so longer than several days. All that time your body will not be getting the nutrients you require. When, fasting for 16-23 hours a day, clearly the body can still get the nutrients it needs regularly enough. If you switch from weeks of famine to weeks of feast, it's clearly not a healthy lifestyle! Sure you can cope without some nutrients for a few days, but certain types cannot be stored in the body for long periods. You'll start by getting more frequent coughs, colds and other viruses, then more serious diseases will get a foot hold. A sustainable, healthy diet is key to good long term health.

Supplements are not a substitute to nutrients lost to fasting, and overconsumption of some nutrients is more toxic than not consuming them at all. There's lots of evidence for instance to suggest the multi-vitamins do more harm than good.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

This might just be semantics, or my own personal peeve, but "lifestyle" seems more like something that can be packaged, marketed, politicized and only superficially realized, whereas "practice" to be defined as "what I actually do or don't do on some sort of consistent basis" is more relevant.

One thing I have wondered about weight loss or dietary practice is whether practice in the moment matters more or less than practice in the past, and to what extent? For instance, imagine two 60 year old identical twins separated at birth, one of whom is currently borderline obese but is currently 3 months into a new diet and exercise practice highly likely to improve condition, and the other is currently borderline healthy weight but is currently 3 months into a new diet and exercise practice which is highly likely to deteriorate condition, which one is more likely to have a heart attack tomorrow? We often form analogies where we imagine health as something that can be stored up like gold, but this is obviously only partially valid. It might be interesting to consider charts that might show depreciation (? right word?) schedules for capital assets that are more squishy such kidney function, friendship, or competence in topological data analysis.

My father suffered a minor heart attack and blamed me, because I was at the time living in a rural town where the diner served a dish known as "Hillbilly Pancakes" of which he partook just days earlier. He did not think the habit formed in his urban youth, and abandoned in mid-life, of listening to cool jazz while smoking Kool cigarettes remained relevant.

vezkor
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:51 am

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by vezkor »

less. Then stick to it.

Teach yourself to value the feeling of hunger and mentally correlate it with progress, success and goal-achievement. Losing weight is 95% perseverance.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by BRUTE »

vexed87 wrote:If you switch from weeks of famine to weeks of feast, it's clearly not a healthy lifestyle!
arguments requested, since clarity has not ensued.

vexed87
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by vexed87 »

@brute, surely it would be self-evident that long term fasting will result in malnutrition in some form, and eventual progression to disease?

Long term fasting compromises the immune system, muscles are cannibalised for protein, including your heart, magnesium and potassium, are depleted quickly and are essential for healthy heart function. Also, body fat actually stores fat soluble toxins from various sources, including pesticides, preservatives, food additives, heavy metals, pollutants, plastics and other environmental chemicals, so if fat is depleted rapidly, your going to have a harder time detoxing, leading to accumulative and permanent kidney and liver damage. I'm sure there's more, but my time is precious! :roll:

I'll repeat myself, in case my point wasn't clear enough.

Don't focus on weight-loss, unless that is the sole goal. I do not dispute that fasting is the fastest means of weight-loss. However, if the goal is good health, i.e. not being overweight and at risk of attributed lifestyle diseases whilst obtaining adequate nutrition, fasting is simply not a real solution, its like treating a symptom and not the disease. Fasting would simply be the means to the wrong end (weight loss), without a shift in paradigm, the weight will undoubtedly return and OP would be stuck in a cycle of feast/famine. Eat less, or crash diets are the conventional advice, they are the "save 10% of income" of the diet world. The ERE grade advice would be to eat the right foods in the first place, not less. Weight loss does not need to be rapid, unless there is some vanity complex, i.e. must look good on the beach in 6 weeks. It should be part of a wider adaptation to a healthier lifestyle. Eat less relies on extreme vigilance and discipline, and eating right relies on crafting new habits. Both take some measure of will power, but one tends to stick, while the other doesn't.

My personal experience is that eating right is more important that will power, as I do not have the mental energy to police my portion sizes and count every calorie I consume.
Last edited by vexed87 on Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

slowtraveler
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:06 pm

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by slowtraveler »

Honestly, I feel a long term fast will take too much energy to apply right now. Possibly once I have some momentum but intermittent fasting (24-36hrs x1-2 times per week) is a habit I definitely want to integrate.

I absolutely agree that this is a long term habit to build. 2016 was a year I decided to dedicate to health. Early on, I had 2 health issues arise that I never expected so it was a bit ironic for me. I implemented daily meditation, daily walks, daily vegetable soup (each over about a month), and realized mental health was as important as physical health so I began letting go of some vices, 1 at a time. Letting go of pot took 4-6 months alone. I foresee my diet habit taking around a similar time to build and integrate into a daily practice. So 2017 will be focused towards my physical health: 4-6 months for diet, 2-3 for exercise, 1-2 for sleep, 1-2 for meditating more.

Some changes I've made progress on: checking in with my hunger before eating, eating slightly less meat/cheese, cutting sugar, and cutting bread. I've had bread once or twice since the last post, it used to be with almost each meal. Sugar is less but still not near 0. I've replaced bread and sugar with legumes, oatmeal, fruit. Family seems quite on board with these changes.

I've stopped increasing in weight. I'm around 209 now. I think this is because checking in has made overeating less likely.

My main focus with diet at this point will be to focus towards continually checking in, striving to eat less and less over time (get comfortable with feeling light) while experimenting with more vegetables, legumes, fruits, unprocessed (outside of possibly cooking/personally preparing) foods to find out what foods I feel good with.

PS-Really enjoying all the debate and different perspective here. I still haven't seen anyone argue against eating more vegetables or eating less kcal, which confirms my suspicions that these are the key levers here.

vexed87
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by vexed87 »

@Felipe, major calorie restriction isn't a solution, not to be confused with calories deficit, we need a slight deficit to burn fat, in my experience, skipping meals, or small plates eventually leads to lethargy and urges to binge. Opinion is divided where your calories need to come from, but plenty of starch, as per my most recent experience makes weight loss possible without hunger pangs, and for obvious reasons is sustainable! :D

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/shop ... -solution/

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I am not necessarily a huge advocate of "What would primitive man do?" method of ideal human diet planning, but one interesting thing I learned recently is that 2700 kcal/day was the normal requirements for a man living during times when manual labor was needfully employed. So, for instance, if I was a woman running a boarding house in a mining town in 1842, my boarders likely would be losing weight and complaining if I didn't provide them with something like cornbread or pie for breakfast. My ex-husband and my DS28 are both tall and ectomorphic, so there was no way I could afford to feed them without something like pasta or rice at every meal, and fights for the last piece of chicken. They both lost too much weight right after I kicked them to the curb, but have balanced out at right around lowest possible healthy weight eating what would be a terrible weight-maintenance diet for most people (including myself and my DD25.)

So, the first suggestion I might make is that in addition to more vegetables, and less kcal, some sort of exercise that approximates a good deal of manual labor, or even actual manual labor might be helpful. IOW, instead of focusing first on lowering kcals to level in accordance with modern desk job (2200 kcal ?) and then taking the number down even further for weight loss (1700 kcal ?), first focus on raising activity to a level that would actually burn 2700 kcals/day if you were at a healthy weight/shape/fitness for you. Based mostly on my reading of young adult novels in which the hero or heroine emerges tougher and leaner, I would suggest that doing actual work with tangible results will prove most psychologically efficacious. For instance, make plan to transform 20 lbs. of body fat into X feet of stone wall construction. Walking or biking for transportation purposes will also serve.

My second suggestion would be to develop the practice of converting or processing some vegetables and fruit one step up the chain each morning. Rinse, chop, put in a bowl on the table, pack in your lunch box, throw into crock-pot with some broth, drop in pickle jar etc. etc. etc. I must admit I have only been intermittently good with this habit, but it makes a very large difference in what I end up eating throughout the day as my level of sloth and apathy increases.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by BRUTE »

Felipe wrote:I still haven't seen anyone argue against eating more vegetables or eating less kcal, which confirms my suspicions that these are the key levers here.
challenge accepted. brute wasn't going to say anything, but all that fiber is going to fuck up Felipe's intestines and give him bloating and gas. insoluble fiber is like eating grass and leaves - it's not immediately going to kill Felipe, but there's no reason for it and it'll damage intestinal lining over time, as well as hinder the digestive process.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by BRUTE »

vexed87 wrote:in my experience, skipping meals, or small plates eventually leads to lethargy and urges to binge .. plenty of starch
sure does. a high-carb diet that doesn't control insulin doesn't get rid of the hunger issue. let brute assure vexed87 that there is no hunger on a ketogenic diet, and no physiological hunger (though psychological desire to eat is still there) after multi-day fasts.

on a ketogenic diet, there just isn't any hunger. doesn't matter how big the deficit, as long as it can be made up via body fat.
vexed87 wrote:Long term fasting compromises the immune system, muscles are cannibalised for protein, including your heart, magnesium and potassium, are depleted quickly and are essential for healthy heart function. Also, body fat actually stores fat soluble toxins from various sources, including pesticides, preservatives, food additives, heavy metals, pollutants, plastics and other environmental chemicals, so if fat is depleted rapidly, your going to have a harder time detoxing, leading to accumulative and permanent kidney and liver damage. I'm sure there's more, but my time is precious!
might depend on the definition of "long term" - once again, brute isn't advocating to do this beyond the point where no more body fat is available. but until then, there is very little muscle being used for protein, magnesium and potassium levels haven't been shown to decrease significantly, and brute has yet to hear of anyone getting liver damage.

alas, the answer is simply "no". vexed87 is wrong.
Last edited by BRUTE on Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by BRUTE »

7Wannabe5 wrote:2700 kcal/day was the normal requirements for a man living during times when manual labor was needfully employed .. My ex-husband and my DS28 are both tall and ectomorphic, so there was no way I could afford to feed them without something like pasta or rice at every meal
2700/9 is 300g of fat per day. really not that expensive.

vezkor
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:51 am

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by vezkor »

I do not want you to think I'm picking on you vexed87, but I do want to highlight the change in mindset when the topic is "body fat" and not "debt" when the two are extremely similar in how they impact many people... I picked this post because it echoes a lot of "common sense" thinking that might be missing the mark, especially since this is ERE (Early Retirement Extreme) and not ARA (Average Retirement, Adequate) Imagine the following:
vexed87 wrote:@Felipe, major calorie restriction isn't a solution, not to be confused with calories deficit, we need a slight deficit to burn fat, in my experience, skipping meals, or small plates eventually leads to lethargy and urges to binge. Opinion is divided where your calories need to come from, but plenty of starch, as per my most recent experience makes weight loss possible without hunger pangs, and for obvious reasons is sustainable! :D

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/shop ... -solution/
metaphor wrote:@Felipe, major savings rate isn't a solution, not to be confused with regular payments, we need a slight payment to pay down principal, in my experience, making extra payments, or reducing your expenses eventually leads to not being able to buy starbucks and urges to go to the mall and buy gadgets. Opinion is divided where your income needs to come from, but plenty of working a job, as per my most recent experience makes paying debt possible without giving up starbucks, and for obvious reasons is sustainable! :D

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/shop ... -solution/
Again, I'm 100% not picking on vexed87. My goal is to illustrate that weight loss is a VERY EMOTIONAL TOPIC and, typically, people substitute the subjective for the objective. What is possible gets confused for what is comfortable. Think Dave Ramsey's emotional "pay the small debts first" method... even though it's mathematically not the best way, it does tend to work, just slower than the mathematically best way. Well, for weight loss (as I mentioned previously) it seems to be 95% perseverance, but that doesn't mean there isn't a BEST WAY. Everybody intrinsically knows HOW to lose weight, just like everybody intrinsically knows HOW to pay debt. It's how you think about it and your level of determination that usually matters, not the fine details.

vexed87
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by vexed87 »

BRUTE wrote:brute isn't advocating to do this beyond the point where no more body fat is available. but until then, there is very little muscle being used for protein, magnesium and potassium levels haven't been shown to decrease significantly, and brute has yet to hear of anyone getting liver damage.

alas, the answer is simply "no". vexed87 is wrong.
That depends how long you call long, A prolonged fast from 20-25% (typical overweight male) to 8% (athlete) body fat would jeopardise health for many reasons.

ehem... :roll: protein can be consumed for energy, or stored as fat, but it's required primarily for the amino acids required for the construction of the innumerable biomolecules the body needs to function. Fat however cannot revert to amino acids, therefore any long term fast will quickly result in cannibalisation of any and all muscles for their amino acids. Fasting will result in cumulative destruction of existing muscle, cycling from feast and famine is a terrible idea, you're putting your health at risk, seriously, don't do it, any underlying health issues could land you in hospital, or worse, dead.

Also, no one was proposing uncontrolled insulin, if you read the book it explains which kind of carbs need to be avoided for this reason. OP would do well to read up on this himself and come to his own conclusions rather than take brutes word for it!

@vekzor, totally agree with you! However, there is a difference between good and bad, and what's plain dangerous! Again, fasting in moderation, probably not a bad thing, just dont go crazy with it! Avoid the cumulative damage. No one died from a week long fast (except the guy with 2% body fat!)

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by daylen »

@vexed87 You very well could be right, but the way you are presenting your argument is not very convincing (which I assume you trying to be). Especially on this forum, you will not get very far just by saying that something is true.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by steveo73 »

vexed87 wrote:Don't focus on weight-loss, unless that is the sole goal. I do not dispute that fasting is the fastest means of weight-loss. However, if the goal is good health, i.e. not being overweight and at risk of attributed lifestyle diseases whilst obtaining adequate nutrition, fasting is simply not a real solution, its like treating a symptom and not the disease. Fasting would simply be the means to the wrong end (weight loss), without a shift in paradigm, the weight will undoubtedly return and OP would be stuck in a cycle of feast/famine. Eat less, or crash diets are the conventional advice, they are the "save 10% of income" of the diet world. The ERE grade advice would be to eat the right foods in the first place, not less. Weight loss does not need to be rapid, unless there is some vanity complex, i.e. must look good on the beach in 6 weeks. It should be part of a wider adaptation to a healthier lifestyle. Eat less relies on extreme vigilance and discipline, and eating right relies on crafting new habits. Both take some measure of will power, but one tends to stick, while the other doesn't.

My personal experience is that eating right is more important that will power, as I do not have the mental energy to police my portion sizes and count every calorie I consume.
I completely agree with this in relation to diet but also to lots of things. To put it more generally just start doing the right things and let the results happen when they happen. I think that this is relevant to most aspects of life.

Also you can lose weight but what is the point. To me the point is to focus on health. Losing weight is good but focussing on health does lead to weight loss as well assuming that you are overweight.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by steveo73 »

Ego wrote:A short video of a wide variety of actual real live experts talking about it.... as opposed to a bunch of writers with degrees in journalism and few chemists or nutritionists who saddle up to the the Atkins/Dairy / Cattleman's trough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sGE5n-i1Q
I am still amazed at the lack of education of the general population on diet. This is not a subject with subjective evidence behind it or maybe better put the evidence is pretty clear cut. It requires to me such a low level of logical reasoning to determine what is proven to be the correct way to eat.

So many people though appear to be completely ignorant. I do not understand this at all. I just don't get it.

I should add that I definitely don't believe that you have to be vegan or maybe better put eat perfectly all the time. I also don't believe that any respected nutritionist (in your words real live experts) believe this as well. It's simply a matter of eating healthy food a lot more than unhealthy food. Placing food into the correct categories is actually easy.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

Post by BRUTE »

steveo73 wrote:This is not a subject with subjective evidence behind it or maybe better put the evidence is pretty clear cut. .. It's simply a matter of eating healthy food a lot more than unhealthy food. Placing food into the correct categories is actually easy.
so if a human ate a diet almost exclusively consisting of red meat, butter, heavy cream, bacon, MCT/coconut oil, coffee, and some vegetables for taste (soaked in butter), would that human move towards being more healthy or less healthy? and which health markers exactly should be expected to move in which directions?

Post Reply