Forum menu
I cut out all sugar and carbs (where possible) and massively increased my exercise levels. You feel tired for the 1st while but it goes - lost loads of weight (about 40kg)
Feel much better and have loads more energy. There isn't much secret to loosing weight - what you eat has to be less than you burn. And keeping 1000 calories a day deficit should see a 1.2 kg a week loss (well it did with me). Consistency is the key and there is no such thing as a cheat day.
I now eat what I need as to be honest 1000 cal a day deficiency sucks even if it's only for 6months
There isn't much secret to loosing weight - what you eat has to be less than you burn
There isn't much secret to being rich. Just earn more than you spend.
There isn't much secret to loosing weight - what you eat has to be less than you burn
There isn't much secret to being rich. Just earn more than you spend.
Absolutely true - the difference is, that it is a lot easier to eat less than it is to earn more. After losing huge amounts of weight whilst I appreciate that the calorie deficit sucks it is within everyone's power to do it. The key in my opinion, is consistency. There are too many people who I speak to, who claim that they just can't lose weight. When you actually look into what they eat on a day-to-day basis you quickly see the extra calories going in. And my last top tip, you will never do the calorie deficit unless you also incorporate exercise. When I first started I was aiming to run about 5K three times a week. Now I run 10 to 12 kilometers a day plus some longer runs. It took me about 18 months to ramp up to running every day and to be able to do some serious distance. And as this is a cycling forum, yes my cycling improved dramatically especially my hill climbing.. at one point I was doing four watts per kilo although as I've been using cycling as a recovery method from running Garmin now seems to believe I'm back down to 3.2 watts per kilo
I cut out all sugar and carbs (where possible) and massively increased my exercise levels. You feel tired for the 1st while but it goes - lost loads of weight (about 40kg)
Feel much better and have loads more energy. There isn't much secret to loosing weight - what you eat has to be less than you burn. And keeping 1000 calories a day deficit should see a 1.2 kg a week loss (well it did with me). Consistency is the key and there is no such thing as a cheat day.
I now eat what I need as to be honest 1000 cal a day deficiency sucks even if it's only for 6months
I know everyone is different but interested to know how long it was before you actually felt better (or at least less tired!). This week I've just started increasing my exercise levels again and I'm knackered! and almost reaching for the **** it button and stopping again (not helped by poor sleep at the moment).
PS as already said great post @molgrips
it is a lot easier to eat less than it is to earn more.
It isn't necessarily, that's what I've been trying to say this whole time. Just because YOU find it easy, doesn't mean everyone does and I outlined just some of the reasons for that earlier. I earn quite a bit, but I don't really work hard for it; however I don't go around telling people how easy it is or how rubbish they are for not earning much. It's pure luck on my part - and I'm grateful for it.
I've been trying for 20 years or more to lose weight. I've succeeded at times, but then failed again. I find it very hard - but the question is, why do I find it hard? Why did you succeed and I failed? The lazy answer is to just assume that you're better than me. But what would that even mean?
it is a lot easier to eat less than it is to earn more.
It isn't necessarily, that's what I've been trying to say this whole time. Just because YOU find it easy, doesn't mean everyone does and I outlined just some of the reasons for that earlier. I earn quite a bit, but I don't really work hard for it; however I don't go around telling people how easy it is or how rubbish they are for not earning much. It's pure luck on my part - and I'm grateful for it.
I've been trying for 20 years or more to lose weight. I've succeeded at times, but then failed again. I find it very hard - but the question is, why do I find it hard? Why did you succeed and I failed? The lazy answer is to just assume that you're better than me. But what would that even mean?
I have never denigrated anyone for over eating - but it's a lot easier to go to bed hungry etc than magically earn more.
I cut out all sugar and carbs (where possible) and massively increased my exercise levels. You feel tired for the 1st while but it goes - lost loads of weight (about 40kg)
Feel much better and have loads more energy. There isn't much secret to loosing weight - what you eat has to be less than you burn. And keeping 1000 calories a day deficit should see a 1.2 kg a week loss (well it did with me). Consistency is the key and there is no such thing as a cheat day.
I now eat what I need as to be honest 1000 cal a day deficiency sucks even if it's only for 6months
I know everyone is different but interested to know how long it was before you actually felt better (or at least less tired!). This week I've just started increasing my exercise levels again and I'm knackered! and almost reaching for the **** it button and stopping again (not helped by poor sleep at the moment).
PS as already said great post @molgrips
It was a few months. I think it took me 3 months to be able to run five kilometers without stopping. I used to have a little mantra that I couldn't eat until I've exercised.
There are no biscuits in our house (poor visitors), due to us devouring a packet once opened. Yes I do make my own cakes, biscuits and puddings, but we only have a piece, slab, serving each and send the rest to the family with four children across the road. Sometimes I freeze certain baked goods.
I prefer Gelato it ice cream.
This is absolutely key - no snacks in the house. No temptation (helps if family are also supporting - I told them to hide anything from me)
If more energy goes out than goes in you will loose weight it's physics..I do concede that the urge to eat is strong and it takes real effort and is mentally torturous but it's worth it. You have to make a dramatic change to who you are and what you do to make it work long term though
why do I find it hard?
Are you still using large quantities of maltodextrin and sugar?
One interesting thing I have seen is the increasing emphasis on fructose as the real enemy of thinness and its astonishing how much fructose / high fructose corn syrup is in stuff. maltodextrin is made from high fructose corn syrup
I am around a stone overweight. I find it hard to shift because I so dislike feeling hungry and use sweet stuff to satisfy - I am effectively addicted to sugar. ON my big bike ride despite attempting to eat 4000 calories a day I lost a stone and a half and came home lighter than I have been since my 20s. a bit extreme tho 🙂
Food and exercise are only part of the equation, emotions, psychology, hormones, circumstance and even gut biome are all also big parts and frankly massively outweigh "food and exercise"
For me I know it is the psychological and emotional part that are the big barriers and the ones I don't know how to crack.
How moreish is it though? I suspect butter helps with the satisfyingness of cake?
My flapjacks were mostly butter/sugar, I think there was way too much. I could probably use double the oats next time.
I used to make flap jacks a lot, but that's a lot of sugar and golden syrup and I did tend to hoover them up quicker than I'd like.
I make a peanut butter variant now
2 cups of oats
3/4 cup of peanut butter (i use crunchy)
1/3 cup of honey
Dark chocolate chips
Mix the honey and peanut butter together, then add the oats an mix. Spread into a flat flat dish and put it in the fridge for a couple of hours. Remove and cut up into squares, Done.
Back onto the original topic if you want low carb low sugar cookies these are delicious
100g almond flour
130g peanut butter smooth, MUST be soft and runny
1 egg large
50g granulated sweetener (Stevia in the green bag from Sainsbury's is perfect)
1 teaspoon baking powder
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 teaspoon of almond extract
Top with unsalted peanuts and a sprinkle of Stevia
Multiply to make larger mixes – I normally make 3 egg mixes and just put all wet ingredients into the mixer, mix and then dump the almond flour in and mix again)
Roll into a sausage and cut into cookie shapes
Bake for 8-10 minutes at 180 ( watch them like a hawk at 8 mins)
If more energy goes out than goes in you will loose weight it's physics
No! It's biology, which is a lot more complicated. I'm sure everyone knows someone who eats what they like, doesn't exercise and is thin. I certainly do. It's blatantly not just physics.
its astonishing how much fructose / high fructose corn syrup is in stuff.
In America, yes. Because they grow a lot of corn. It's pretty rare in UK foods, at least as far as I know. I have looked for it and not found it.
Re the cookies - thanks for the recipe but I remain unsure if it's worth making facsimiles of sweet things that still taste sweet, or training myself to enjoy things that are inherently low sugar like nuts or meaty snacks etc or cheese. When I successfully did the iDiet I actually went off sweet things.
Interesting re that diet - it worked really well for me once, but not subsequently. Some sort of adaptation? Or I just didn't have the mental energy a second time? Hard to know. It did take me years to put the weight back on.
If more energy goes out than goes in you will loose weight it's physics
No! It's biology, which is a lot more complicated. I'm sure everyone knows someone who eats what they like, doesn't exercise and is thin. I certainly do. It's blatantly not just physics.
And I bet when you actually measure what that that thin person eats when you aren't with them it's a lot less than you think. Conversely when you speak to people who struggle to loose weight they often don't see the snacking as counting when in reality everything that you swallow counts
I appreciate (from reading the thread) that you are struggling and I really agree loosing weight is tough. Going to sleep hungry is horrible, constantly feeling hungry is torture. But.... Perhaps read this thread more positively? You seem to be taking negative consultations from posts where I don't think that there are any.
Loose lose
Or it ends up in the disproportionately cross thread.
research shows that most people who diet and exercise to lose weight end up putting it back on. Why? Because they are morally inferior and degenerate?
Because most people desire simple answers to complex questions (see also: religion). People see a diet as something to complete, then they go back to their old ways. This is why crash/fad diets don't work, people yo-yo and the net result is little more than an increased appetite. If you want to lose weight or 'get in shape' then that requires a lifestyle change, not a quick fix of attending Slimming World weigh-ins for three months on your way to the pub.
Comparing food with alcohol is kinda bogus in so far as problem drinking can lead to a physical dependency. Suddenly deciding "enough is enough" as an alcoholic can literally kill you. As far as I'm aware, no-one ever died from abruptly quitting fags or cake despite what "Death By Chocolate" might have us believe.
It's pretty rare in UK foods, at least as far as I know. I have looked for it and not found it.
Its actually pretty common. found all over the place and in unlikely places
And I bet when you actually measure what that that thin person eats when you aren't with them it's a lot less than you think.
Based on what evidence? Your unshakeable believe in simple physical models applied inappropriately to very complex systems?
Its actually pretty common. found all over the place and in unlikely places
Example?
Comparing food with alcohol is kinda bogus in so far as problem drinking can lead to a physical dependency.
It can, but you get there by being unable to stop drinking too much anyway. Just talk to an alcoholic. Or a smoker. And there's plenty of arguments saying that sugar is also addictive. People can be addicted to gambling for goodness' sake and you don't even eat or drink that. Also eating too much sugar can give you type 2 diabetes which is treated differently but it's not that different in principle.
You seem to be taking negative consultations from posts where I don't think that there are any.
Or to put it another way, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across negatively". Point is that saying 'eat less move more' is totally useless as we've all heard it a million times. It's not in the least bit useful. And when people argue that it is, that's dismissing the struggle we face. If we fail to do something hard, that's understandable. If we fail to do something easy, the implication is that we're shit. And that is a negative sentiment.
People see a diet as something to complete, then they go back to their old ways.
No, I don't think so - the 'crash diet' thing is not common these days. People 'sort their lives out' and 'do better' and 'make lifestyle changes' sometimes for long periods of time, but it usually comes back eventually. Because guess what - we know. We're told how to do it endlessly, and yet somehow it's still difficult for many - no, MOST - people. So don't tell me to eat less move more. I'm trying to work out what my problem is and how to actually solve it, and I'm learning about myself all the time. So please don't tell me again what I have been hearing since I was a kid.
I was never a fat kid by the way - I did loads of exercise all through my growing years and I have not really stopped for more than about 6 months a few times. I've been cycling for nearly 40 years. I was told 'eat less move more' and I thought I moved enough. And yet, somehow, the weight slowly went on. Because I didn't realise that WHAT I ate was really important, because it's NOT just a case of calories in vs calories out. What those calories are is important.
No! It's biology, which is a lot more complicated. I'm sure everyone knows someone who eats what they like, doesn't exercise and is thin. I certainly do. It's blatantly not just physics.
Biology is complicated but the principle of losing weight is very, very simple and well attested to by thousands of years of evidence - don't eat as much food as your body needs and you will lose weight. You can see the evidence of this on the news tonight, from Gaza. From historical evidence, in famines, hunger strikes and concentration camps. As mentioned above, from athletes restricting their diets. This happens to every single person or animal on the planet - there are no exceptions.
What you seem to be talking about is maintaining a lower weight and that's a completely different thing. It's probably best if you didn't confuse the two things and then you wouldn't have to argue your point so often.
I vaguely remember someone saying something about correlation and causation ...
True, but when there's direct science showing how the correlation can be causative it's worth considering.
When you eat food, it gets broken down into component parts by gut bacteria and acid, and there are many species of these bacteria and they produce all sorts of metabolic products of their own. Your guts are also full of brain cells, which interact with those chemicals.
Sorry, what?
No! It's biology, which is a lot more complicated. I'm sure everyone knows someone who eats what they like, doesn't exercise and is thin. I certainly do. It's blatantly not just physics.
It is just physics in the link between energy in and energy out. The differences are what happens in between. The factors involved in that in between are so numerous to be impossible to measure but at the end of the day energy goes in and energy goes out. No doubt some are more efficient at burning the energy, some more efficient at storing it as fat and all those factors will lead to a normal distribution of those who find it easy to lose weight/hard to gain weight at one end and those who find it hard to lose/ easy to gain at the other. But simply eating less/more of the right things and exercising more will shift the curve for people.
You cannot deny that people who exercise more tend to be less overweight.
And cars that aren't moving are also more likely to have broken down, correlation/causation.
There's anecdotes that work either way.
Some former pro cyclists stay skinny, some are Eddy Merkx.
Eddie Hall (former Strongman) trains less (and eats less) than in his half ton deadlifting prime and is now leaner than ever.
As much as I can't stand James Smith (the PT guy that writes self help books) he makes a good point around this. Something like 10% of the population either exercise enough, or would like to exercise enough (the criteria was having a gym membership IIRC). That leaves 90% of the population who, however much you prescribe them exercise, probably won't do it. For the proportion of those that are unhealthy it's far better to separate out the advice on moving more from the advice on heating healthy because both are good for you regardless of whether you do either or both.
Analogous to the helmet debate, cycling is good, wearing a helmet is good, both is better, but either will still make you live longer than neither.
TINAS : ridden ~5000km so far this year and swimming 3x per week, still 15st because I enjoy moving as much as I enjoy a good crumble and custard.
Just rabbiting correlation doesn't mean causation as evidence that a correlation isn't causative just shows how little you know
True, but when there's direct science showing how the correlation can be causative it's worth considering.
Worth considering also that people who are overweight will choose not to exercise as much as those who are skinny.
There's all sorts of things worth considering but it doesn't mean exercise more and eat less isn't a very valid starting point
There's all sorts of things worth considering but it doesn't mean exercise more and eat less isn't a very valid starting point
I think we all know this, which is why it's immensely boring to trot it out in response to molgrips' amusing and honest account of his experiments with diet.
I think your idea of trying to mainly eat homemade stuff sounds interesting. Making small changes can make a difference.
After the working at home times and a couple of years of long covid tiredness, boredom and biscuit eating I put on a few kg (this is a lot for me as I have been naturally slimish most of my life).
I've lost most of that over about 2 years by the tiny change of swapping some of my regular lunchtime sandwiches for salad and trying to eat overnight oats with fruit rather than museli for breakfast (was doing so half the time but have regressed this summer). Museli is about 25% sugar due to all the dried fruit!
Definitely worth trying your experiment as sticking a small change long term is great and homemade food is usually more satisfying.
I've also read that sourdough bread is more filling and less morish. I think this is true but availability for us depends on getting to the bakers which isn't always possible.
Enjoy the cooking and eating.
Worth considering also that people who are overweight will choose not to exercise as much as those who are skinny.
Also, for those already overweight it's harder to exercise.
I've always been skinny, I struggle to put weight on. Even so, a few years of a sedentary WFH lifestyle - back in the office I'd hit 10,000 steps by lunchtime, today it's closer to 10 - has left me a bit soft around the middle. I could do to lose a couple of pounds (really, I could probably do just to tone up a bit) but that shouldn't be a big ask.
For some though, it's gone beyond "just..." It's quite easy to glibly go "exercise more" but if you're 20 stone with both knees shot then you're not about to be running a marathon tomorrow. Whilst it might be poor life choices which got them to this point in the first place, it's not necessarily a "choice" not to exercise now.
There's all sorts of things worth considering but it doesn't mean exercise more and eat less isn't a very valid starting point
Here's the thing though:
WE KNOW. Everyone knows this by now. So the real question is, why are we still fat? Or at least fatter than we want to be. Seriously - tell me.
Most people eat too much.
me included.
Most people eat too much.
me included.
Indeed - I suspect it's also the snacking between meals. And if you think about some of the calorie values of some of the food that we eat. Perfect if you're working a manual job and you need to be eating 3000 plus calories per day. Less so if you're working in office and struggling to even get to 5,000 steps a day
WE KNOW. Everyone knows this by now. So the real question is, why are we still fat? Or at least fatter than we want to be. Seriously - tell me
Because they eat too much or don't exercise enough or are at the extremes of the distribution
We also live in an environment in which poor choices are the easiest.
An interesting long post up there Molgrips. A couple of I hope helpful points.
You're right about carbs after exercise helping recovery. You replace the glycogen very well if you eat the carbs immediately after exercise but leave it too long and you don't.So eat enough to replace the glycogen then resume normal eating as if you hadn't exercised.
Your mates stats are similar to mine when I was racing but I had no 5 hr limit. Train for it and your body gets very good at burning fat and absorbing food to sustain quite high levls of activity for ironman, 24 rdes, multiday aventure races.
We had arguments about fruit on the i-Dave threads, as you've clearly given up that that diet try apples. They're nice to eat, contain vitamins and fibre and are very satisfying. We always have bags of them lying aroud as horse and Edukator treats. If I feel hungry I grab an apple and munch it core and all. Apples are 50-100 calories each - I'll snack 2 or 3 a day, have one in my jersey pocket - compare that with the nutritional value and calories of a portion of ice cream.
Because they eat too much or don't exercise enough
Right , but why do they do that? When they're trying not to?
Agree on the avoiding UPFs and pure sugars diet - a cancer diagnosis earlier this year kinda forced the issue for me. Theoretically should have been looking at keto, but because we didn’t’ t want to remove whole grains as it has a detrimental effect on your micro-biome, plus the horrible side-effects of keto/ overuse of artificial sweeteners.
Nett effect is that I’ve gone from 70kg to 63kg in 4 months and my fitness has improved massively, plus my blood PSA is going down, probably assisted by some supplements.
Admittedly has been a challenge given the rubbish food selection we get from our local CoOp - periodic trips to the mainland to stock-up. Best thing is avoiding the snacking - lots of slow-burn protein really fills you up.
This takes me back to the iDave fad diet rip off saga.
I think the key similarity is simply having to make stuff yourself - that wasn't explicit in the iDiet plan but the allowable food stuff basically ruled out pre-prepared food. People argued endlessly about the science of that diet but in essence it had criteria that simply aren't met by ready meals, take aways, corner shops and all but one or two isles of the supermarket. Ruling out fruit/fruit juices etc wasn't about any good or bad nutritional aspects of those food stuffs they simply ruled out calories that aren't part of a planned meal. I think viewed through the lens of that diet it was really interesting to see how much supermarket space is dedicated to stuff that is calorific but wouldn't actually be put on a plate as part of a meal.
What that thread revealed is a lot of people didn't know how to cook. They thought they did, but they were realising that their 'cooking' was really combining and warming a selection of ready made elements.
Best thing is avoiding the snacking - lots of slow-burn protein really fills you up.
I think theres something more important to address which is we treat the sensation of 'not being full' as a problem that needs to be solved. The whole commercial diet industry seems to revolve around marketing the notion of 'feeling a bit hungry' at some point between one meal and another being a crisis that needs to be averted, rather than just 'normal'
I have found that high protein meals with a bit of simple carbs are far more effective for me at keeping me full than protein and veg alone, which doesn't really touch the sides any more.
Re the iDiet, when it worked for me I was working at an office with a canteen and every day they had a really nice cooked veg side or two along with meat. The veg was seasoned, or with sauce - i.e. an actual dish not just veg. That's quite a lot of work to cook for yourself, but it really made a difference.
Anyway, so far I have eaten zero shop-bought snacks or biscuits. I've had a pretty small amount of treats but they were home-made. So yeah seems to be having the desired effect so far. I haven't done a lot of exercise so I'm not losing weight as such but this is more about training habits currently than calories.
im happy to offer toxic judgement and diet advice - however i will focus in on the flapjack
many years ago, i got a great flapjack recipe, from here, its brilliant, oats fruit seeds nuts and chocolate topped.
I stopped making it for two reasons, the first was that it was delicious and incredibly moreish, really incredibly... the second was watching the whole block of butter, getting drowned in a mound of sugar before being flooded with golden syrup
i calculated the calories and in rough handfuls, one tray of flapjack, which i would aim to cut into 24 pieces, held nearly enough calories for a week. c.14-15000. I could inhale 5 or 6 pieces without skipping meals.
home cooking can be really good for understanding the calories in side of the most quoted and hated equation on this subject.
I'm not losing weight as such
If you're not putting any on that's still a small victory.
Cut sugar/carbs as these cause the release of insulin which is a fat storing hormone. If you consume carbs little and often then your body will be continually adding to your fat stores. If you eat low carb only, once or twice a day you will not gain weight and will eventually reach equilibrium.
Exercise is great for your mental health and muscular skeletal robustness however it has little effect on weight loss.
Insulin is a glycogen (digested carbs) storing hormone, it literally unlocks the muscles and shepherds the glycogen in. However muscles can only store so much glycogen and when they're full any excess glycogen will be converted to fat and stored around the body in the fat cells.
That's the simplistic version, the body is actually quite complicated, but insulin is not a fat storing hormone.