What Do You Eat for Weight Loss?

[Lemur]

So it is. With a background in physics, I try to explain that the law of conversation of energy is not a useful way to look at organisms eating organic food, but to little avail. Well, I believed the calorie in - calorie out = fat gain story for many years, and don't think I would be able to convince my younger self

Been stable for 2 years now, after 20 years of bouncing back after various diets.

That's an interesting way to view it. I think what you call "recovery" I think of as "cleaning up". This cleaning up is only done when I give my body 16 hours without eating, and that's what intermittent fasting is. It looks like we mean the same thing with eat/recover and eat/clean.

@delay

I gave myself some time to write a response on this one as I get the feeling we were stuck in a loop and I was getting frustrated.

So I do agree with this statement. Not so much the "story" part because I can be too literal at times (and in my mind CICO is a solid model and a hard-science) but the overall suggestion that the law of conservation of energy is not terribly useful to most people when it comes to adhering to a diet.

To be clear, as I may have been misunderstood in earlier posts, and admittedly have come across as callous and strong-languaged (to which I apologize) all I suggest is that creating a caloric deficit is a solid science to losing weight and the research is there to support it. Energy deficits are required for bodily tissue loss. And the registry mentioned previously gives us general ideas and themes on what works for most people in the general population.

Now how one gets there to create that caloric deficit, or what tools and systems they use, such as intermittent fasting, OMAD, carnivore, vegan, low-carb, low-fat, timing and tracking, pareto optimization, etc. is totally determined by individual variation...aka what gives that person dietary adherence in the long-run. What can they stick to. They all work by creating a energy deficit and forcing the body to utilize stored adipose tissue for energy. Some systems work for others really well and some don't. I understand that the method of tracking food intake by the number and formulas and what/not happens to work really well for me but doesn't apply to all. If no systems work at all, we have to consider a wider range of possibilities or adjustments. Perhaps there might be emotional reasons to take into consideration, underlying medical conditions, etc. And lastly, sometimes a system that works for you one year may not work for you in the future. Strategy has to change as life changes.

And FWIW, I'm glad you found a system that works well for you. I've a lot of people in my family that are morbidly obese (+300 lbs) and getting them to stick to diets has been a challenge for various reasons. My Mother has gotten success using GLP-1 agonists prescribed by a Doctor. My Sister has finally starting losing weight, for the first time ever, through a combination of low-carb and tracking.

[SimplyLiving]

Happy to share this Food as Medicine handout https://lifestylemedicine.org/wp-conten ... 8.5x11.pdf for anyone curious about more whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) options, which others have brought up. I aim for this 50% veg/fruit, 25% protein, and 25% whole-grain starch. Realistically I do eat more bread, though have upped my bean intake doing multiple batches a week in the pressure cooker. Pages 20 and 29 have great charts for building smoothies and bowls. For smoothies, slowly up the veg content until you don't mind throwing whatever produce from the fridge. I practice in adult primary care and have seen some jaw-dropping weight loss and health improvement with this, noting culturally they keep some lean meats in their diet.

Great to read the diversity of stories here, indeed different strokes for different folks to drop lbs! I think many here also protect their body (and planet) as an invaluable asset. I'm no expert or hard-liner (who tend to be good contortionists making any data fit their point), though from my research WFPB or Mediterranean have stronger evidence for reducing common diseases like cardiovascular disease and cancer. This aligns with longevity patterns observed in Blue Zones and China Study.

Throughout my 20s I struggled with calorie counting and restriction, which were emotionally stressful and counterproductive for me. Now I make healthy alternatives more availabe and 'crowd out' the rest. I wish I understood earlier that 'all calories are not created equal', as they influence hormone signaling (like the now famous GLP-1), brain pathways, taste buds, microbiome, etc. Choose wisely, and still enjoy : )

[Hristo Botev]

Interesting thread; I'm just getting caught up.

I've been struggling trying to drop about 25lbs as a married 47-year-old family man, having already locked in things like dropping alcohol entirely, averaging 12K+ steps/day, and regular barbell training. It's annoying me that I'm stuck at ~185, but I'm also fully aware that the reason I've hit a wall is snacking, especially post-dinner snacking.

In any case, much can be learned from those who actually lost a lot of weight (lost 30+ lbs) and kept it off in the long-run (maintained new weight for more than 1 year).

I dropped 50 pounds right after college over the course of a 6 month period--from 225 to 175--and I've managed to stay under 200 (I'm 5'8") since then (~25 years), fluctuating between 175 and the high 190s, and more like 185-195 since I started weight training a few years back.

Right after college, the weight loss plan was straightforward and easy to implement as a single man in my mid-20s who had a very vanilla 9-5 government data entry job with no stress or take-home work: (1) no alcohol; (2) regular jogging*; and (3) I ate the same thing every day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.**

*I suspect the jogging wasn't really necessary, but American Beauty had just come out and I was inspired by Kevin Spacey's character's weight loss in that film.

**FWIW: breakfast was Fiber One cereal with skim milk and berries; lunch was a turkey sandwich, a yoplait yogurt, a banana or apple, and a bag of mini pretzels; and dinner was a can of black beans with salsa and shredded cheese. It's exactly the kind of meal you'd expect a 22-year-old recovering frat boy would think was healthy in the early 2000s. It was also extremely inexpensive; which was necessary, as data entry didn't exactly pay a lot.

The weight just fell off effortlessly.

What worked for me as a 22-year-old, however, just isn't going to work for me now. For one, as much as I'd love to just eat the same thing (or things) every day, I just can't--family meals, leftovers, travel for kids' sports, meals with friends, etc.

I've tried tracking calories, but I hate doing it, and even when I'm doing it I know I seriously undercount snacking, so that tracking calories just makes me think that I can't lose weight, even though I know I can and I'm just not doing it right.

So, all that is to say, I'm going to give intermittent fasting a try. I'm not a breakfast person anyway, and it's a meal I can easily give up, whereas dinner is not something I can easily give up and it is also a meal I have very little control over. So, I'll see what happens over the next couple of weeks with keeping a 12-8 eating schedule, fasting the rest of the time, and I'll break fast at 12 more often than not with a large helping of Greek yogurt with berries and granola, followed by Fairlife chocolate milk with a scoop of whey. Snacks during the day will be fresh fruit, and then we'll see if I'm able to avoid the after-dinner snacking. Thankfully I already drink my coffee black, so that won't be an issue.

Also regarding the CICO debate ...trying not to beat a deadhorse but its definitely been more than a decade
https://youtu.be/9fxji5xkXOA?si=VAVXGkvg2PpSsBxq

This video was FANTASTIC, and it strikes me as also being entirely accurate (despite being sponsored by the dairy industry). I sent it to DW, a clinical dietitian, and she said she's going to just start sending it to family/friends when they ask her for nutritional advice, and especially when they ask her things like: "As a dietitian, what do you think about the [Keto, Warrior, Whole30, Paleo, etc. etc.] diet?"

[Lemur]

@Hristo Botev

I think you will find success with this. One advantage I like about IF is that it takes relying on willpower out of the equation once you adapt to that pattern of eating. I don't do a strict IF because I don't like thinking about food all day, so I adapted IF to suit my needs which I will describe below...

What worked for me as a 22-year-old, however, just isn't going to work for me now. For one, as much as I'd love to just eat the same thing (or things) every day, I just can't--family meals, leftovers, travel for kids' sports, meals with friends, etc.

And this is precisely why I don't do a strict IF because I need the flexibility for social eating. So I solve this problem through "Macro Fasting." That is a a newish term making the rounds on the internet but it basically combines tracking / intermittent fasting. I've posted much about CICO and how I track by the calories, but what I actually do in practice is a combination of both.

I am dieting on 1800-2000 calories a day. What I do is 500 calories in the morning (or sometimes even closer to afternoon) so I can maintain some satiation throughout the day (a protein shake usually with 50 grams of protein if I am on my own or if Mrs. Lemur wants to have breakfast together then that is easy enough as well to manage) and 300-400ish calories for a late-lunch (something quick I can make with protein and get back to work, usually around 20-30 grams here. So a bowl of greek yogurt with berries works or a lean chicken salad or a can of beans with some salsa/veggies).

So by dinner which is usually around 6pm for me, I already have half of my protein requirement met and this makes it easy to hit the rest of the requirement with a nice meal at the end of the day. Also good to prevent night hunger pangs. This calorie meal split method leaves me with 1000-1200 calories at the end of the day. Social eating (which culturally occurs for most of us in the evening) therefore becomes nonissue even if I end up in a takeout / restaurant situation as I'm good enough at this point to eyeball things if need-be. Lots of meat and veggies, maybe some fruit, good complex carbs, skip any obvious junks like deserts/fries, etc.

I've built a habit of not snacking which is important but I do have a plan for that. So what I do here if I am unbearably hungry during the day is either a big apple or chewing on some carrots/celery if I am desperate enough. Do not let perfect be the enemy of good.

Built-in flexibility is key. So my method is ...rigid like a system but also flexible at the end of the day to take decision fatigue into account. Works for M-F job schedule and also weekends. Nothing sucks more than running out of calories by 3pm or 4pm and then having to restrain yourself the rest of the day. That usually fails.

[Hristo Botev]

Built-in flexibility is key. So my method is ...rigid like a system but also flexible at the end of the day to take decision fatigue into account. Works for M-F job schedule and also weekends. Nothing sucks more than running out of calories by 3pm or 4pm and then having to restrain yourself the rest of the day. That usually fails.

Makes sense. I THINK a relatively strict 12:8 IF will be fine for me. For one, I'm in bed not too far after 8 anyway, on a good day. We recently passed the parenting milestone of NOT expecting our kids to go to bed when we do--which means DW and I no longer have any qualms about tapping out not too long after dinner, even though our kids won't go to bed until closer to 10. And breakfast really is an easy meal for me to skip; the problem will be waiting until 12 to eat lunch, as I've always been one who eats lunch pretty early (like sometimes before 11). I'm sure it's not ideal to be loading up most of my daily calories relatively close to bedtime, but I don't have any problems sleeping since I quit drinking alcohol, but we'll see. I'll drop IF like a hot potato if I notice it affecting my sleep in any way.

[Hristo Botev]

DW and her dietitian friends were complaining about the fact that their trade association, the fancily-named Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, just picked Andy Cohen (of Real Housewives fame) to be the keynote speaker at their annual meeting, which would seem an odd choice unless you viewed the choice in the context of what a mess the Academy specifically and nutrition education generally are in the US.

Anyway, I enjoyed that video @Lemur posted so much that I said it's a shame that the Harvard professor of nutrition quoted at the beginning of that video is likely dead, cuz he'd be great.

Then I looked at his wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrick_ ... y%20eating.

In 1942, Stare founded the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, which he led as a professor of nutrition until his retirement in 1976.[1][2] He was a firm believer in the essential goodness of the typical American diet, holding that "prudence and moderation" was the key to healthy eating. As an adviser to the US government, Stare rejected the idea that 'the American diet' was harmful; stating for example that Coca-Cola was "a healthy between-meals snack"[1] and that eating even great amounts of sugar would not cause health problems.[3][4] He was also a leading campaigner for fluoridation, which his critics suggested was part and parcel of his endorsement of sugar.[5]

. . .

In his autobiography, Adventures in Nutrition, Stare states that in 1960 he obtained a grant of $1,026,000 from General Foods for the "expansion of the School’s Nutrition Research Laboratories" and that in the 44-year period as a nutritionist he raised a total of $29,630,347.[8] For instance, Kellogg's funded $2 million to set up the Nutrition Foundation at Harvard. The foundation was independent of the university and published a journal Nutrition Reviews that Stare edited for 25 years.[4]

Stare also co-founded and served as chairman of the Board of Directors for the American Council on Science and Health. In 1980, during his tenure as Chairman, he sought funding from US tobacco giant Philip Morris USA for ACSH's activities.[9][4]

Sigh, the rot is deep. DW quit the Academy a few years back largely due to how much influence companies like Nestle and many others have within the Academy.

[delay]

So I do agree with this statement. Not so much the "story" part because I can be too literal at times (and in my mind CICO is a solid model and a hard-science) but the overall suggestion that the law of conservation of energy is not terribly useful to most people when it comes to adhering to a diet.

Well, the food you eat is organic compounds, essentially other life. Your body processes these foods with organic reactions.

The calories displayed on food are estimates of the energy your body will extract from that food. They are not the same as the calories used in thermodynamics.

As far as thermodynamics is concerned, you could gain weight by sitting in the sun and absorbing the sun's energy.

Energy deficits are required for bodily tissue loss.

So, let's assume my body decides to break down a kilogram of fat and secrete it through my bladder. Why would it need an "energy deficit" to do so?

In my experience, my body does so when it anticipates an abundance of good food, like during Spring. Dieting invites the opposite response, with my body trying to hang on to fat, and extracting as much as it can from what I eat, before forcing my mind into submission.

To be clear, as I may have been misunderstood in earlier posts, and admittedly have come across as callous and strong-languaged (to which I apologize) all I suggest is that creating a caloric deficit is a solid science to losing weight and the research is there to support it.

Apologies accepted, as far as I'm concerned, not required! I doubted the moon landing before I doubted CICO. So I know from personal experience it is a belief that is hard to depart from.

[white belt]

Makes sense. I THINK a relatively strict 12:8 IF will be fine for me. For one, I'm in bed not too far after 8 anyway, on a good day. We recently passed the parenting milestone of NOT expecting our kids to go to bed when we do--which means DW and I no longer have any qualms about tapping out not too long after dinner, even though our kids won't go to bed until closer to 10. And breakfast really is an easy meal for me to skip; the problem will be waiting until 12 to eat lunch, as I've always been one who eats lunch pretty early (like sometimes before 11). I'm sure it's not ideal to be loading up most of my daily calories relatively close to bedtime, but I don't have any problems sleeping since I quit drinking alcohol, but we'll see. I'll drop IF like a hot potato if I notice it affecting my sleep in any way.

If you are actually in a caloric deficit, your sleep will eventually get worse. A largish meal before bed (probably safest if it's at least 2 hours prior) is a common way to try to mitigate this as much as possible. For many people it is easier to wake up and go about your day hungry (for most of human existence this was probably the default), compared to going to bed hungry (sends all kinds of signals to the body that you need to get up to find food). The detrimental sleep effects are cumulative, which is why doing long diets in a large deficit (pick one but never both) are not recommended. Your plan sounds good and should curb your post-dinner snacking (provided that it is hunger driven and not boredom/anxiety/comfort driven).