Weight loss options

[Black Dahlia]

Hi ladie & gents,

I too have been thinking it’s time to lose some weight. I don’t consume a lot of carbs, at least not the bad ones (mostly just in the form of fruit, and montignac integral bread (as an aside, this is the BEST bread in the world)). I haven’t consumed white breads, pastas or white refined sugars in many, many years – they do not agree with me.

I eat fairly well as it is, and incorporate a variety of foods. I also try to always consume foods that aid in digestion, ‘raw’ foods and bitters. I’m addicted to Kimchi and the like.

Anyhow…I’m just wondering what I should do. I’ve been at the same weight, give or take three pounds for about eight years now. I’m a great maintainer..but I want to LOSE. I guess cutting back on portions is my best option, and more exercise (back to belly dancing early Sept. very excited).

Just wanted to check in and see what everyone else is doing. And, I love the 80/20 rule, it works!

xoxox
BD

 

[Black Dahlia]

Today I had:

breakfast
a whole wheat mini tortilla with a can of sardines
(341 calories)

lunch
greek yogurt (unsweetened)
natural honey
(200 calories)

snack
1 apple
(80 calories)

No dinner yet, but I'm so confused: does the apple count as a carb? Did I basically high-carb all day, with a bread product, honey, and sugary fruit, or is this clean, healthy moderate eating? I hear so much conflicting advice.

My husband would say that's super healthy, no junk food at all, maybe TOO strict - I've got friends saying with that much sugar I can't expect to lose weight?

Holy cow..Viola I would be careful if I were you. You're aren't consuming enough food..probably only enough to barely function and you're certainly not getting what your body needs. You would see weight loss at first doing this...but after a bit, you'll either plateau completely or start gaining, as your body will store fat thinking you are starving. Not trying to preach, I just know this as I did similar as a teen...the weight comes back and often way more than previously.

This is a very basic guide to calorie in take and losing weight..though every source will have something a bit different, best to do your research:

Women (Non-Active)
Sedentary women typically need about 1100-1300 calories per day to lose weight

Women (Active)
Active women typically need about 1400-1600 calories per day to lose weight

I would try one of the online calorie calculators to see what you should be aiming for, so you are on track and not way under:
http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm


X
BD

PS I can't and will not do the counting calorie bit...drives a person MAD!

 

[Paisley]

Today I had:

breakfast
a whole wheat mini tortilla with a can of sardines
(341 calories)

lunch
greek yogurt (unsweetened)
natural honey
(200 calories)

snack
1 apple
(80 calories)

No dinner yet, but I'm so confused: does the apple count as a carb? Did I basically high-carb all day, with a bread product, honey, and sugary fruit, or is this clean, healthy moderate eating? I hear so much conflicting advice.

My husband would say that's super healthy, no junk food at all, maybe TOO strict - I've got friends saying with that much sugar I can't expect to lose weight?

Viola, here's how a low-carb eater might look at it:

small whole wheat, low-carb tortilla: 4g net carb (total carbs minus fiber), 0 fat, 3g protein
sardines: 0 carb, 23g protein, 11g fat

Greek yogurt (brands vary): 6g carb (all sugar), 0 fat, 15g protein
1 tablespoon honey 17g carb (all sugar), 0 fat, 0 protein
1 medium apple: 21g net carb (all sugar), 0 fat, 0 protein

This is 48g net carb, 41g protein, 11g fat. On one hand, 48g net carb isn't a lot, but on the other, this meal plan is half carb. It's also low-fat by any measure, which isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Low-carbers don't tend to count calories. I believe your body will tell you when to eat and when to stop.

I don't make a distinction between various carbs, except for the fiber count. (Fiber is carb that is undigestible by humans--it just passes through.) I noted that some products were all sugar point out that sugar isn't just the white stuff on the table. *All* carbohydrate is made of sugar molecules. Complex carbs like starch are a bunch of sugar molecules holding hands.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/carbohydrates.html

 

[Paisley]

Exercise is good, but I think it's overrated for weight loss.

Low-carb protein bars, like Kind bars, nuts (in moderation), deviled eggs, leftovers, cheese, low-carb ice cream, homemade low-carb cookies, and a lunch meat and cheese sandwich with lettuce in place of bread are my favorite snacks. If you know you tend to snack at a certain time, plan ahead!

 

[Mav]

Exercise is good, but I think it's overrated for weight loss.

It's also somewhat dangerous if you're in the early stages of low- carb weight loss. Way too many ketones floating around, and the resulting muscle cramping is horrible. It's a legit excuse for skipping workouts.

Viola, already been said by many here, but your menu doesn't have anywhere near enough calories or protein, and that lunch is far too sugared- up. Yogurt (full fat) is a good cooking ingredient, but not the bulk of a meal. The easiest thing to do is make sure you make the major part of every meal high in protein and sufficient in fats. The sardines at breakfast were a good choice, and did you really need the tortilla? If the budget is an issue, use cheese. It doesn't take much to fill you up, and and don't use the lowfat variety.

deviled eggs, leftovers, cheese, low-carb ice cream, homemade low-carb cookies, and a lunch meat and cheese sandwich with lettuce in place of bread are my favorite snacks. If you know you tend to snack at a certain time, plan ahead!

Yup. Deviled eggs are an especially good choice- you can make them ahead, they'll stay good in the refrigerator for a week or so, are convenient, and transport pretty well. I'd also suggest keeping a chub of salami around.

I'm glad a couple of guys have weighed in, I don't feel so out of place now. Weight control is really a non- gender- specific issue, and we have a huge problem with it, as well.

 

[Paisley]

WWII Starvation Study

For about two weeks after I started low-carb, I didn't have the energy to work out. But all the day to day stuff was easier. [huh]

A few FLers have commented on calories. I'm not a calorie counter myself, but I'm reminded of a study that Ancel Keyes began in 1944 to help understand starvation. From the blog of Dr. Michael Eades:

On day one of the starvation portion of the study, February 12, 1945, the rations were cut substantially.

The group shifted overnight from the three relatively generous meals of the control period to only two Spartan meals per day, a breakfast at 8:30 AM and supper at 5:00 PM.

The meals were designed to approximate the food available in European famine areas, with a heavy emphasis on potatoes, cabbage, and whole wheat bread. Meat was provided in quantities so small that most men would swear in later years that none was included at all.

One of the three dinners included the following:

SUPPER #2

• 185 grams of bean-and pea soup (made with 5 grams dried peas, 16 grams of dried beans, and 15 grams fresh ham)
  
• 255 grams macaroni and cheese (made with 130 grams wet macaroni, 12 grams lard, 108 grams skim milk, 2 grams flour, and 35 grams American cheese)
  
• 40 grams rutabagas
  
• 100 grams steamed potatoes
  
• 100 grams lettuce salad (80 grams lettuce, 10 grams vinegar, 10 grams sugar)

The relatively bulky 255 grams of macaroni made that particular meal an anticipated favorite among the volunteers. The wet macaroni served was roughly the amount required to fill a coffee mug about three-quarters full.

Over the twenty-four week starvation part of the study, the subjects not only lost a considerable percentage of their body weights, but suffered a number of problems as well. As the time wore on the men thought ceaselessly about food, they became lethargic, they were cold all the time, they became depressed, they developed bleeding disorders, their ankles became edematous, and some developed more serious psychological disorders.

...The men in this study consumed macronutrients in the following amounts daily: protein 100 gm, fat 30 gm, and carbohydrate 225 gm. If you express these intakes as percentages, you come up with 25.5% protein, 17.2% fat and 57.3% carbohydrate.

Average energy intake of the subjects in the experiment: 1570 calories per day.


​

Read the whole thing here.

 

[Lusti Weather]

Looks like I'm going to be the lone voice of low-carb dissent around here, but I just wanted to put in a few words. I think we can all agree that refined flour and sugar are definitely not health foods, but to me, avoiding all carbs is like throwing the baby out because its diaper stinks. I'd recommend those in search of weight loss options to check out the Harvard School of Public Health's Nutrition Source. They have a good page about the whole carb issue here.

I work in research and development for a food manufacturer, and as a result, learning about food and nutrition is sort of a passion (maybe I'm just weird though!). From everything I've read and researched, the problem with low-carb diets is that while they help you lose weight in the short term, they can result in health issues down the road (there's a good summary of this at Quackwatch).

Oh, and here's some of my favorite snacks, in case anyone's interested : veggies + hummus, apple + peanut butter, nuts (preferably not roasted or salted), Larabars, unsweetened soy yogurt + fresh fruit...okay, now I'm starting to get hungry! Guess I better start making dinner...

 

[Mav]

Looks like I'm going to be the lone voice of low-carb dissent around here, but I just wanted to put in a few words. I think we can all agree that refined flour and sugar are definitely not health foods, but to me, avoiding all carbs is like throwing the baby out because its diaper stinks.

True enough, but the trick is "low", not "no." And, there's more to it than meets the eye. Yes, one of the problems with losing weight on a low carb diet is the tendency to gain weight back quicker, but that's not because of a change in metabolism, or some organic change making you gain weight faster. The tendency is to go back to the same stuff you were eating before, over time. It's referred to as "carb creep," it's almost entirely psychological, and you have to really be careful. Part of losing weight on low carb should be an education in nutrition, and what you can and can't go back to.
I still endorse the Atkins, for weight loss, and go back to it if I get about 5 lbs out of line, which doesn't happen that much anymore. Eventually (and I'm talking over a year or so after you've lost weight), you've got to slowly get back into raising certain (complex) carb levels, and extremely low amounts of simple carbs, preferably not refined stuff. It's a huge balancing act, requires some control and planning. It took me about 10 years to get it dialed in just right. Carbs are, among other things, addictive. It's something like quitting smoking, then going back to smoking occasionally. Lousy analogy, but you get my drift.

Also, when doing the low carb thing, it's not, technically, about weight loss. That's a side benefit- it's really about controlling blood sugar. You're manipulating the process/ mechanism that regulates the release of glucose, insulin levels and the storage of fat.

Oh.... I like hummus, as well. The spicier the better.

 

[Mav]

Duplicate post. Sorry.

 

[Paisley]

Looks like I'm going to be the lone voice of low-carb dissent around here, but I just wanted to put in a few words. I think we can all agree that refined flour and sugar are definitely not health foods, but to me, avoiding all carbs is like throwing the baby out because its diaper stinks. I'd recommend those in search of weight loss options to check out the Harvard School of Public Health's Nutrition Source. They have a good page about the whole carb issue here.

I work in research and development for a food manufacturer, and as a result, learning about food and nutrition is sort of a passion (maybe I'm just weird though!). From everything I've read and researched, the problem with low-carb diets is that while they help you lose weight in the short term, they can result in health issues down the road (there's a good summary of this at Quackwatch).

I've read the criticisms in the links. Respectfully, LW, I don't find them convincing mostly because they contradict my own experience and observations and that of some physicians I've come to respect. Science writers like Gary Taubes and Connie Leas have, to my mind, presented convincing evidence against high-carb diets. And a low-carb diet makes sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint. There's too much there to address, but I'll take on this one Quackwatch quotes from the American Heart Association:

In response to publicity about the study, the American Heart Association cautioned:

A high intake of saturated fats over time raises great concern about increased cardiovascular risk. The study did not follow participants long enough to evaluate this.
The study did not actually compare the Atkins diet with the current AHA dietary recommendations [14]. (emphasis mine)​

It sounds like they need to go back to the drawing board.

Some of the warnings either don't make sense or don't bear out in real life. Until recently, the AHA peddled its heart-healthy badge to Cocoa Puffs, so it's hard for me to take them seriously, but I'll bite:

The nutrition committee of the American Heart Association has issued a science advisory warning that high-protein diets have not been proven effective and pose health risks. The report covered the Atkins, Zone, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, and Stillman diets. The committee stated:

Such diets may produce short-term weight loss through dehydration.
Weight loss may also occur through caloric restriction resulting from the fact that the diets are relatively unpalatable.
The high fat content may be harmful to the cardiovascular system in the long run.
Any improvement in blood cholesterol levels and insulin management would be due to weight loss, not the change in composition.
A very high-protein diet is especially risky for patients with diabetes because it can speed the progression of diabetic kidney disease [10].​

My responses:
Some people are bloated and they lose water weight. They can drink some more water, can't they?

The fact that fat is more filling than carb and doesn't cause blood sugar spikes probably has something to do with caloric restriction. Personally, I find those low-carb chicken clubs from Carl's Jr. pretty tasty.

Re: cardiovascular disease, the Quackwatch warnings note that reducing carbs lowers triglycerides and raises HDL (do they not know these are good things?), and has a lot of weasel words about LDL, which is typically calculated with the Friedewald equation, not measured, and not analyzed for small v. large. George V. Mann, M.D. says, "For fifty years the public has been told by officials of the American Heart Association and the National Heart Institute that this epidemic disease is caused by dietary saturated fatty acids and cholesterol. That advice is quite wrong. It is the greatest biomedical error of the twentieth century. The advice lingers, for selfish personal reasons and commercial avarice."* Dr. Mann was director of the Framingham Heart Program. This practicing cardiologist advises a low-carb diet for his patients (link is to effects he's seen in his patients).

Improved insulin management due to weight loss doesn't tell the whole story. Thin people can have diabetes II, and most fat people don't have diabetes. I know from observing my mother, who has diabetes and has gotten on the low-carb train, that her blood sugar has improved without her losing much weight. Her own records showed blood sugar excursions into the 300s when she ate a starchy diet; now her fasting blood sugar is usually below 150. When she eats a few spoonfuls of "healthy whole grain" oatmeal or fruit or bread, her blood sugar goes over 200. (Normal fasting blood sugar is below 100; one-hour normal post-meal blood sugar is <140.)

The AHA doesn't define "very high protein." The statement also assumes that all diabetics have kidney disease, which isn't the case.

The links refer to a lot of studies. Without knowing the details of the studies, how to read studies, and taking the time to slog through them, it's hard to tell whether the conclusions are valid. For example, in a recent study of low-carb diets v. low-fat diets, the low-carb group was allowed to add more and more carb, while the low-fat group was told to stay on the straight and narrow, and researchers estimated what the weights of the dropouts would have been. Basically, they're comparing apples to bananas.

Another study touting the benefits of a plant-based diet eliminated some significant findings that didn't fit the researcher's agenda.

Then there are studies involving rabbits and rats. Yes, rabbits drop like flies if you feed them a high-cholesterol diet (a friend of mine raised some of the rabbits, and that's how she put it). But rabbits aren't furry little people. They're natural vegetarians.

As Binkie mentioned, a high-carb diet isn't our native diet. We and our early ancestors have eaten mostly meat, leaves, roots and seasonal fruit for some two million years. We started farming and eating grains and beans 10,000 years ago--that's less than 1% of our existence. From an evolutionary standpoint, a low-carb diet makes sense to me. There are people who do well on a high-carb diet, but my family and I aren't among them.

Since you say you have not read anything (scientific) that supports a low-carb diet, may I recommend Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, Protein Power by Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades, and Fat by Connie Leas. If you Google some of these authors, you may find more of their work available online.

*Source: Fat: It's Not What you Think by Connie Leas

 

[Harp]

English rose

mm I think I did mildy better today...
xx

For the rose is the eye of the flowers...the lightning of beauty.

Sappho, Song of the Rose

... just remember you are quite exquisite.

 

[Deleted member 12480]

Exquisite..... me?

xxx

 

[James71]

For the rose is the eye of the flowers...the lightning of beauty.

Sappho, Song of the Rose

... just remember you are quite exquisite.

Seconded.

 

[Deleted member 12480]

*blush* hardly!

 

[Lusti Weather]

Hi Paisley! Thanks for your detailed response. While I'm happy that a low-carb approach works for you, I question this method as ideal for everyone. (If we're using personal experiences as evidence, I knew someone who followed a low-carb approach and suffered from numerous maladies. Everyone will have a different experience).

I have my own issues with the AHA; I don't think they go far enough in the low-fat direction! I still think they're on the right track regarding high-protein diets though.

I would be interested to see more in the way of clinical studies and long-term results from Dr. Mann. Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, M.D.? He recommends an extreme low-fat diet to reverse heart disease, and has conducted a landmark 20 year study that proves his point. You can see some of his work on his website.

Regarding the recent study that you cited, there are issues with it from the low-fat side as well. Basically, what the study called a low-fat diet (about 30 percent of calories from fat) actually bears little resemblance to the plans advocated by doctors such as Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, M.D. or Dr Neal Barnard, M.D (about 10 percent of calories from fat). The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine issued a good summary of the study here.

I saw Denise Minger's interpretation of Dr. T. Colin Campbell's work a while ago; with all due respect to her writing skills, she herself admits that she has little in the way of a scientific background. Dr. Campbell is a professor of Nutritional Biochemistry who has been studying nutrition for over 50 years. He has also written a response to her allegations.

Even without the animal studies (which I have reservations about myself), the work of the doctors I mentioned above, as well as Dr. John McDougall, M.D. and Dr. Joel Fuhrman, M.D. lead me to conclude that diets high in cholesterol and saturated animal fats are not ideal.

The evolutionary/ancestoral argument doesn't hold much water with me, regardless of what diet it's supposed to promote. Not only did my early ancestors have lifestyles and dietary needs that were most likely different from mine in the present, there is also the issue of paleolithic people having a shorter life span than we currently enjoy. There's no way to definitively know what impact nutrition had on their long-term health, positive or negative, short of speculation.

I am familiar with Gary Taubes; this piece sums up some of the concerns I would have with using him as a credible source.

Phew! Having said all that, I think at the end of the day, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. Food and nutrition are areas that people clearly have strong feelings about, and if low-carb is what you feel is best for yourself and your family, then go for it! I was just concerned that the conversation here was becoming rather one-sided, and thought I'd offer another viewpoint. Hope you have enjoy the rest of your day!

 

[kamikat]

Hi Paisley! Thanks for your detailed response. While I'm happy that a low-carb approach works for you, I question this method as ideal for everyone. (If we're using personal experiences as evidence, I knew someone who followed a low-carb approach and suffered from numerous maladies. Everyone will have a different experience).
I was just concerned that the conversation here was becoming rather one-sided, and thought I'd offer another viewpoint. Hope you have enjoy the rest of your day!

I agree that this convo was becoming one sided! As someone who has a medical condition that excludes the low carb diet as an option (I can not digest animal fats), my doctor recommended Dr. McDougall's program. The key to both low carb AND low fat is that when done right, they are both low sugar and no pre-packaged foods. I find that the McDougall program works just as well and just as fast as Atkins if you follow it strictly.

 

[Lusti Weather]

The key to both low carb AND low fat is that when done right, they are both low sugar and no pre-packaged foods. I find that the McDougall program works just as well and just as fast as Atkins if you follow it strictly.

Exactly! I think this is an important point that we can all agree on. I'm glad to hear you're doing well on the McDougall program!

 

[Paisley]

I would be interested to see more in the way of clinical studies and long-term results from Dr. Mann.

Dr. George Mann was a director of the Framingham Heart Program, a large, long-term study of diet and heart disease. Dr. Michael Eades has a copy of a report with some data that were never incorporated into the definitive report by the original investigators. Click here. (Here's the short version: they didn't find a link between fat or protein intake and heart disease, and they looked really, really hard.)

Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, M.D.? He recommends an extreme low-fat diet to reverse heart disease, and has conducted a landmark 20 year study that proves his point. You can see some of his work on his website.

Regarding the recent study that you cited, there are issues with it from the low-fat side as well. Basically, what the study called a low-fat diet (about 30 percent of calories from fat) actually bears little resemblance to the plans advocated by doctors such as Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, M.D. or Dr Neal Barnard, M.D (about 10 percent of calories from fat). The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine issued a good summary of the study here.

I've only heard of Dr. Ornish. Dr. William Davis wrote about his experience with the Ornish diet here. In a nutshell, he gained 31 pounds and became diabetic, even while exercisin. It makes sense to me because if you're not eating much fat, you're probably eating a lot of carb. If you're susceptible to weight gain and diabetes, a high carb diet can put you well on your way to both.

I saw Denise Minger's interpretation of Dr. T. Colin Campbell's work a while ago; with all due respect to her writing skills, she herself admits that she has little in the way of a scientific background. Dr. Campbell is a professor of Nutritional Biochemistry who has been studying nutrition for over 50 years. He has also written a response to her allegations.

I read Dr. Campbell's response and found it to be a curious swipe at Minger and not her analysis. I'm afraid his ad hominem comments set my teeth on edge. Personally, I don't care whether Minger learned statistics in a classroom or out of a library book, but if authority appeals to you, Eades, who is an MD, has treated patients, and has an engineering degree, has his own take on it here. I haven't read the China Study, but Dr. Campbell seems to have done some gymnastics to lead readers where he wanted them to go.

Even without the animal studies (which I have reservations about myself), the work of the doctors I mentioned above, as well as Dr. John McDougall, M.D. and Dr. Joel Fuhrman, M.D. lead me to conclude that diets high in cholesterol and saturated animal fats are not ideal.

I've made a study of one animal: me. For the past six months, I've been on a low-carb fat fest. My HDL went up 15 points and my triglycerides stayed the same (they were already low). LDL was calculated, not measured, so I ignored it. (YMMV.) See also the Framingham Study.

The evolutionary/ancestoral argument doesn't hold much water with me, regardless of what diet it's supposed to promote. Not only did my early ancestors have lifestyles and dietary needs that were most likely different from mine in the present, there is also the issue of paleolithic people having a shorter life span than we currently enjoy. There's no way to definitively know what impact nutrition had on their long-term health, positive or negative, short of speculation.

Paleoanthropologists say early humans were taller and had less tooth decay, among other things, than they did after they started farming. Trauma and infection likely had something to do with their shorter lifespans. Their lifestyle was certainly different from modern man's, but I don't know of any reason we'd need to eat non-paleo foods to be healthy. I myself have diet sodas and dairy because I enjoy them and like the variety.

I am familiar with Gary Taubes; this piece sums up some of the concerns I would have with using him as a credible source.

I slogged through about one-third of this with the Taubes article open. To me, the experts sounded miffed that Taubes didn't agree with them. They say he ignored evidence; how do they know whether he ignored it or found it unconvincing? Some said they were quoted out of context (maybe they were--I can't tell without taking a lot more time to judge), but from their own words in the atkinsexposed article, I couldn't see that they really had a clear position on how to eat. I didn't read where anybody said they were misquoted, and one sounded put out that he didn't quote her.

Phew! Having said all that, I think at the end of the day, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. Food and nutrition are areas that people clearly have strong feelings about, and if low-carb is what you feel is best for yourself and your family, then go for it! I was just concerned that the conversation here was becoming rather one-sided, and thought I'd offer another viewpoint. Hope you have enjoy the rest of your day!

I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I wish you all the best.

 

[Black Dahlia]

I hear you on that..I'm in the same boat. Guess that's why we're all on this thread! *lol*

XXX

PS your hair looks fabulous! Did you permanently colour it?

 

[Mav]

Let's see if some male input helps. You ladies have a really strange modern standard of female beauty to contend with. Personally, I've never really dug the anorexic look, and I'm guessing that most of you who think you need to lose some weight probably don't. Just sayin'.
Oh...and not that there was anything wrong with your old avatar pic, but the new one is knocked-out purty.