| Any experience with this. How much weight did you lose? Was it difficult to follow? |
| Once you get past the beginning, it isn't bad. WW was better for long-term though. |
|
Don't do any fad diets and name-brand diets. You will just gain the weight back. Did you see the cover article of the New York Times magazine yesterday? The best thing to do is just cut back your calireis a little, not enough to throw your body into starvation mode where it lowers your metabolism and makes you mentally food-obsessed to make you gain weight.
I know this because I was a 120-pounder who for years tried to be a 110-pounder by dieting. I yo-yo'ed between near-110-pounds and well upwards of that, up to 140 pounds at one point, as my body fought back against what it perceived as starvation. For the last three years I have stayed at 120 pounds, my body's natural weight, by eating when hungry and stopping when slightly full. I get to enjoy a lot more food than I ever thought possible. It used to be that I would be starving and gaining the weight back at 1500 calories a day, but now I can eat 2000 calories a day and my body stays the same weight. It is astonishing to me that this can be true, but that's the beauty of the human body. |
|
Dh and I did it together. He Lost 15 lbs in less than a month and I lost only around 5 but it was a bigger change for Dh than it was for
E. I found phase 1 hard but the rest easy. I think it does generally establish healthy eating habits if you stick to it. Dh is. Ack to his old habits and has put on 10 of the 15 lbs however but I have kept eating relatively well and feel healthy. |
| Curious, 6:19, whether you got from 140 back to 120 by eating 2000 calories a day. I am a classic yo-yo dieter, and a nutritionist urged me to aim for 2000 a day (I usually aim for 1200 and then end up bingeing on sweets). After a lifetime of dieting (successfully until the last few years) I can't bring myself to plan on eating that much and hope to lose weight. Also, how old were you when you lost the weight? Oh, and as for South Beach -- I tried it (have tried them all), and as I recall there is no fruit the first two weeks. That was a nonstarter for me, and I don't think I made it through Phase 1. |
|
6:19. Yes, I got down to 120 by eating 2000 calories a day AFTER my body had gradually recovered from the starvation moide induced by dieting. Before my body had recovered, I was gaining weight while eating very little. 140 was my all-time high, when I was 17, but my most recent high point was 132 at the age of 37. Gradually I have come down to 120 and have stayed at 120 for the last three years with NO DIETING, and I am now 47.
I wish no one would embark on a lifetime of (fruitless) dieting. Read the NYT magazine article from yesterday. It explains what happens to the body when you diet. |
I appreciate your advice but someone who has been dieting to go from 120 to 110 doesnt really know anything about struggling with weight loss. Even at 140, you were never really overweight - unless you are 4'8". |
Same principles apply, whether you are trying to lose 10 or 100 pounds. The science that the human body cannot escape is that dieting causes physiological changes that lead to rebound weight-gain. Ask yourself: how many times have I gone on a diet, and why am I still dieting when it has not worked for me? |
This is actually not true - did you see the recent NYTimes article about how obesity changes your brain? |
The article to which you refer does not refute anything in the just-published article that I cite. No simplisitc reading will do. |
| Is also very different trying to lose 10 lbs or 100 lbs - ever notice how the last 10 are the hardest to lose? When you are close to your goal weight, it is more difficult to identify the changes necessary to lose the weight - going from 2% to skim milk isnt going to do it. |
|
what I took from the NYT article is that losing a significant amount of weight and doing it in a relatively austere manner may permanently change your metabolism, causing it to be thrifty. Of course, this also depends on genetics. I guess the moral of the story is don't' get fat in the first place. THe second moral is that if you're already fat, losing weight might be easy, but keeping it off will be harder as your body fights to return to a higher set point. Nevertheless, people do manage to do it, but I would suspect a gradual and sustainable approach--a real lifestyle change and not a crash diet--is better in the long run.
I would advocate the basic principles of South Beath, phase II, as the introduction to a real lifestyle change, along with exercise. Moderate protein, healthy foods, lot so f fiber filled fruits and vegetables, stay away from fake fats and fake sugars, and move every single day. I would not advocate serious caloric restriction, however, since it seems like that basically backfires. |
| I hated this diet, I lost 25 pounds in 6 months (I hated phase 1) but I gained them all back. |
| I think the trick is to find something that you can live with forever. I think the phase 1/phase 2 etc. approach is misguided. I agree with pp that that the phase 2 principles are sound and if they work for you then go ahead and adopt it permanently as a lifestyle. If not, keep looking for something that does. |
Depends a lot on your height. I'm only 5' 1", so I can only eat about 1600 calories to maintain my weight. If I ate 2000 every day I'd gain. |