poll: What's the best way to lose weight and keep it off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gary Taubes critical reviews:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/05/16/thin-body-of-evidence-why-i-have-doubts-about-gary-taubess-why-we-get-fat/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-we-get-fat/

http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake

So that author disagrees because he thinks Taubes' diet is "gross" and he weighs less than him? Not very scientific.

If I understand you correctly, you're right --- the Scientific American blog is pretty weak.

However, the Science Based Medicine article quotes Taubes central idea and directly refutes it by linking to a systematic literature review in JAMA. To wit:

Taubes: "[restricting carbohydrates]… leads to weight loss and particularly fat loss, independent of the calories we consume from dietary fat and protein."

In other words, it's not "calories in / calories out."

However, the conclusion of JAMA's systematic review of published studies says: "There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content."

So, it's as simple as calories in / calories out. It's not easy, but it's simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have done #1 and #2. Number 1 worked, but wasn't sustainably. Number 2 worked, too, and changed my life. I don't think about the calories I consume, but I don't gain anymore and I'm still losing........with strength training!

16:19 and 16:23 have it right.

Of course, you can cut calories and lose weight. It works. But is it sustainable? Not really. The reason: because its a PITA.

By cutting processed carbs (which your body processes as sugar), you change the way your body and how your processes food. Plus, you have to re-train your taste buds. By simply cutting calories, your body still processes the crap, just a little less of it. And your taste buds still get all the same crap, which is why not to many truly healthy foods taste all that great. When your used to McDonalds.... even a low calorie meal from McDonalds, your body and your taste buds are getting all the same crap. Over. And. Over.

Try looking into Paleo. Even if you don't want to do it 100%, do a modified version. No processed foods, no dairy, a little fruit, lots of veggies, good meat, maybe some oatmeal once a week, maybe some brown rice once a week.... see how it goes. Combine your food properly (protein, good carb, healthy fat), do this for 30, and watch your body transform. And you can eat all you want. Eat when your hungry and don't be bothered with calorie counting. I bet you'll lose at least 10 pounds in 30 days. More if you don't do the oatmeal and brown rice.

Good luck, OP!

[Anonymous]

I'm not going to look for the studies that prove what I am about to say unless someone makes me but I've read summaries of them and I think we all know this to be true:

Dropping caloric intake by 1000 calories a day leads to less weight loss than a 1000 calorie deficit would predict if it were just calories in/calories out.

Increasing calorie intake by 1000 calories a day leads to less gain in the same way.

[Anonymous]

I am eight days into a very low carb eating pattern. I've dropped about five lbs. I doubt it is all fat, but some is. I estimate I had about 18 percent body fat at the start. I'd like to be just under ten, which means losing about 15 lbs of fat. I am hopeful that I can so it by end of year. I exercise only moderately, in part bc it is tough to do a lot on low carb and also bc of time limitations. So far I find that I eat less, am not very hungry, and don't crave a lot (fruit juice and wine I miss).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to look for the studies that prove what I am about to say unless someone makes me but I've read summaries of them and I think we all know this to be true:

Dropping caloric intake by 1000 calories a day leads to less weight loss than a 1000 calorie deficit would predict if it were just calories in/calories out.

Increasing calorie intake by 1000 calories a day leads to less gain in the same way.

Not exactly sure what you mean. What I take this to mean is "deciding run a 1000/calories per day caloric deficit as a plan for losing weight usually leads to less weight loss than one would expect by extrapolating from the weight loss of, for example, a 400 calorie per day deficit." I think this is true because when people try to run huge deficits, they don't work out as effectively, they move less and they cheat. That's human nature. So, I don't think huge deficits work, and the closer you get to your goal, the less deficit you can effectively run.

However, lab studies have demonstrated that your body will lose fat and eventually muscle at a predictable rate in a lab setting where calories are strictly controlled. Yes, there are hormone responses and you will modify your behavior to try to protect your body mass, but the physics and chemistry are pretty much unavoidable. If you're not into reading research, watch an episode of a TV show like "naked and afraid" where people eat almost nothing for 21 days while having to be active in seeking shelter and some basic food. People typically lose 20-35 pounds in 21 days because they are effectively starving. They don't gain weight, nor do they lose more slowly than you would expect.

[Anonymous]

1 and 2. If you do 2 (low carb/no white carbs) it's hard to load up on empty calories. So you feel full and don't cheat. If you have 1200 calories to work with in a day are you better off using them on a piece of pizza and a small piece of cake, or proteins, vegs, etc. I lost 30 lbs last year on a low carb diet, have largely stuck with it, and kept the weight off.

[Anonymous]

Eat less and exercise