[Closed] So what am I doing wrong, then? (weight loss content)

Oh and not everyone is obese for the same reason!

[i]I have absolutely no idea. All I can say is I feel considerably better than I did when I was obese.[/i]

[i]As I posted, if it gives the result someone wants, then good for them.[/i]

Also, for the record ([i]talkers and walkers[/i]).
I've obtained and maintain good results for being leaner and stronger now than before I found all this stuff being discussed on here, a few years ago now.
😀

EDIT:
[i]I have absolutely no idea.[/i]

Then again, without wanting to cause an argument.
I'd question your opinion on food provenance, whether you consider it a significant factor for someone [i]cleaning[/i] up their diet or whether it really is just cal counting ?.

I don't want to be staring into my phone while, say for example, I'm attending that social event you describe ^^.
Looking up cal sats when I should be relaxing and chatting, etc.

Neither do I - but I need [i]something[/i] to guide me.

You said you don't want to memorise calorie stats, but then reeled off foods you avoided because you knew, from memory, that these caused a larger insulin response.

Likewise if I'm out then I'll pick something that I [i]think[/i] will fit my calorie goal, rather than sit tapping at my phone.

Then I'll enter it later. Sometimes I'll get a shock and learn something for next time.

[i]Oh and not everyone is obese for the same reason![/i]

What ?, that they haven't accumulated too much body fat ?.

Why have they accumulated too much body fat? You're being deliberately obtuse here.

but then reeled off foods you avoided because you knew, from memory, that these caused a larger insulin response

Yeah the list is really small though, and very easy to remember.

[i]You said you don't want to memorise calorie stats, but then reeled off foods you avoided because you knew, from memory, that these caused a larger insulin response.[/i]

Hhmm, you've missed the point. Its easier to know that I will not usually eat bread (naan) (its a rule of thumb to be applied at my discretion) than to know the cal stats for anything on the menu.

Actually. Did I hear recently that there was discussion around restaurants listing the Cals for each meal, in their menu ?.

Oh and not everyone is obese for the same reason!

Whilst this is certainly true - my missus sees a lot of obese people in diabetic care, and fundamentally 99% are obese simply because they eat too much.

Sure there are mitigating factors: they may have very strong appetites as you described; they may have very slow metabolisms; they may have some imbalance that makes them feel hungry or means they never feel satiated; there may be psychological issues at play etc etc

But none of those things actually [i]make[/i] you fat. The food does that.

My missus is diabetic herself, and has reduced satiety feedback, so she has to carefully watch what she eats and stop when she can [i]see[/i] she has eaten enough even if she still [i]feels[/i] hungry, because if she relied on her body telling her she was full then she'd be 20 stone.

I'd question your opinion on food provenance, whether you consider it a significant factor for someone cleaning up their diet or whether it really is just cal counting ?.

Again - no idea.

My unresearched [i]opinion[/i] is that "eating clean" is really just the same thing as "eating a proper nutritious balanced diet". But with some dandelion root tea.

But I really don't know enough about it to comment.

Yeah the list is really small though, and very easy to remember.

Can you point me at one I'm intrigued? (Missus does all the insulin response stuff for obvious reasons and does control her carbs a bit)

Did I hear recently that there was discussion around restaurants listing the Cals for each meal, in their menu ?.

It's the law in America now I believe BUT apparently no one actually checks that the cals they print are accurate, so many of them are complete bollocks as demonstrated here:

[i]It's the law in America now I believe BUT apparently no one actually checks that the cals they print are accurate, so many of them are complete bollocks as demonstrated here:[/i]

So is that another issue with the strategy of only counting cals ?.

Also, people's view on food provenance would be if interest to me.
🙂

So is that another issue with the strategy of only counting cals ?.

More a local issue of toothless legislation in the States I'd say.

What do you mean by "food provenance" Solo?

Do you mean knowing where your food came from and what's been done to it along the way? Then presumably applying that knowledge somehow to alter your diet?

[i]More a local issue of toothless legislation in the States I'd say.[/i]

Well I guess I'll just have to agree to differ with you. Calorie counting comes with significant draw backs. That it works for some on a very basic level, is as much about the guess work than anything else.
An approach which seems to reply on the model that the human body is nothing more than a simplistic, metabolic, oven. Which clearly, it is not.
🙂

Well I guess I'll just have to agree to differ with you.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm far from expert and I'm interested in what you have to say. I agree it is just a simplistic model. But in my experience it works well enough for my simplistic brain.

(Just had lunch: white roll with peppered cheese and salad, bag of cheese and onion Transform-A-Snacks, an Aldi Diggers chocolate bar and two bottles of Mountain Mist. As you can see not exactly clean living. Especially on top of the roll and sausage for breakfast and several pints of coffee!)

[i]What do you mean by "food provenance" Solo?[/i]

I'm referring to calorie sources. Its my belief that certain calorie sources, available to us today, are not a wise choice with respect to enjoying [i]optimal[/i] nutrition.

[i]Well no, I don't think so. The problem with low calorie diets is that you can get really hungry. [/i]

'Most' people are over weight because they indulge in calorie heavy food in large quantities, that's normally things like too much food on your plate, too much pudding, finishing off other people's food, too much alcohol, and too much snacking.

I understand your point about everyone being different and so forth, and I really have tried to read some of the articles that go on about insulin and hormones and whatever, but after about a paragraph I sort of lose the will to live.

Most people understand that cutting down on their portions of food, the types of food that they are eating will loose the kilos

[i]Oh and not everyone is obese for the same reason![/i]

True, but the VAST majority of overweight people are. ( overweight for the same reason, science has found the cause, and its located on your face, centrally between your nose and your chin)

[i]I'm not arguing with you. I'm far from expert and I'm interested in what you have to say. I agree it is just a simplistic model. But in my experience it works well enough for my simplistic brain.[/i]

Agreed, not looking for a flame-off, just [i]chewing the fat[/i].
🙂

[i]it is just a simplistic model. But in my experience it works well enough for my simplistic brain.[/i]
We've established this too and I'd go along with, what works for you, is good enough. I'd hesitate to say that only you can judge whats working for you. But then there are some folk who don't give a shit and will let the NHS clear up the mess they've made of themselves, after 20, 30 years of poor diet and lack of exercise.

[i](Just had lunch: white roll with peppered cheese and salad, bag of cheese and onion Transform-A-Snacks, an Aldi Diggers chocolate bar and two bottles of Mountain Mist. As you can see not exactly clean living. Especially on top of the roll and sausage for breakfast and several pints of coffee!)[/i]

Interesting, I'm assuming you are though, still within your caloric allocation for today ?.
But your lunch kind of highlights how we differ in our approach to sourcing our cals. Tuna, olive oil, black pepper and some pistachio nuts.

What are the '[i]Transform A snacks[/i]'

ts my belief that certain calorie sources, available to us today, are not a wise choice with respect to enjoying optimal nutrition.

So say someone eats "bad" calorie food, but their diet has a suitable balance of carb/fat/protein macros and contains the recommended levels of fibre, vitamins, minerals etc

Are you saying they'll still be worse off than someone who achieved the same basic nutrition eating "good" calorie food?

Or are you saying it is just easier to reach that goal by eating "good" calories?

(I enjoyed the nutrition from my crisps by the way 🙂 )

True, but the VAST majority of overweight people are. ( overweight for the same reason, science has found the cause, and its located on your face, centrally between your nose and your chin)

Yeah? I know quite a few people who eat quite sensibly and are still overweight. I'd like to see the statistical breakdown of this please, email in profile.

Or if you have no stats, then maybe you're just assuming about the VAST majority of people...?

Interesting, I'm assuming you are though, still within your caloric allocation for today ?.

Yep should be. Not totted it up yet but I usually allow around 6-700 kcals for lunch.

What are the 'Transform A snacks'

Not healthy. 😀

[img] [/img]

But actually only 123kcal for a bag so not as bad as you might expect for crisps.

[i]but after about a paragraph I sort of lose the will to live.[/i]

Well, the highway code isn't exactly a riveting read. But you know you've got to get through it if you want a license.

[i]Most people understand that cutting down on their portions of food, the types of food that they are eating will loose the kilos[/i]

Yes, people, possibly everyone, may [i]know[/i] this. But you wait until your endocrine system has had its way with you. Its either going to keep on making you feel hungry. Or its going to lower your BMR and store more of your cals as fat. Things can get really out of whack. As Jean Mayer demonstrated with some of his experiments.

[i]True, but the VAST majority of overweight people are. ( overweight for the same reason, science has found the cause, and its located on your face, centrally between your nose and your chin)[/i]

I'm not sure thats entirely accurate.
😉

[i]So say someone eats "bad" calorie food, but their diet has a suitable balance of carb/fat/protein macros and contains the recommended levels of fibre, vitamins, minerals etc

Are you saying they'll still be worse off than someone who achieved the same basic nutrition eating "good" calorie food?[/i]

Yes, because as you point out, theres more to food than just the cals.
A basic example might be to ask about the omega 3 content of a diet which contains a lot of grain based product or is otherwise processed.
IME, its widely proposed that a stereotypically western diet is significantly low in omega 3, which has opened a marketing opportunity for people to sell plastic tubs of fish oil capsules.
Does counting cals alone, address such concerns ?.

Yes, because as you point out, theres more to food than just the cals.

That sounds like option 2 though - i.e. it is easier to get all the right things if you eat "good" calories (I'm assuming good calories are fresh fruit, nuts, unprocessed stuff etc)

Does counting cals alone, address such concerns ?.

Nope but does significantly low Omega 3 make people fat?

Solo, you're right, it's not '[i]entirely[/i]' accurate

[i]That sounds like option 2 though[/i]

Well then you have your answer. To use your term of "[i]good calorie food[/i]".
Surely it makes the most sense, but requires additional attention beyond simply counting your calories. You're saying we should be looking to and counting [i]good calories[/i].

[i]Nope but does significantly low Omega 3 make people fat?[/i]

As we've discussed though, its not just about being fat. People can be slim and unwell.
Systemic inflammation is a critical contributor to conditions such as atherosclerosis. Omega 3 is an anti inflammatory EFA. Slim people can and do suffer from atherosclerosis. For example.

EDIT:

A lot of the time, the clue is in the title.

[i][b]Essential[/b] fatty acid[/i] ?.

Theres probably not too much EFA or Essential Amino Acids in the Transform A snack.
But I accept that isn't why you chose to eat them.
🙂

As we've discussed though, its not just about being fat. People can be slim and unwell.

Yeah completely agree. In fact I believe the mortality rates for underweight people are actually worse than for fatties.

So I should probably qualify my earlier statement and say that I think "Calories In < Calories Out" is a simplistic model but one that works [b][i]for the purposes of losing weight[/i][/b] (which was the OP).

If you want it to be healthy (beyond the health benefits of no longer being obese) then yeah, fair enough, you'll have to eat better foods to hit those other targets.

That sound like a fair summary of both our positions?

(Personally I couldn't be faffed. I get about as far as keeping a lazy eye on my macros and salt intake and trying to eat enough fruit and veg to keep me regular)

(Just had lunch: white roll with peppered cheese and salad, bag of cheese and onion Transform-A-Snacks, an Aldi Diggers chocolate bar and two bottles of Mountain Mist. As you can see not exactly clean living. Especially on top of the roll and sausage for breakfast and several pints of coffee!)

if the stw-dieticians were to refuse one single mouthful of food per post they make on diet threads, none of them would be bulging their way into the obese zone of bmi.

good luck op, its a long slow process, try not to weigh yourself more than once a week and accept that you will have a couple/few of pounds natural variation. recording your stats will hopefully show a trend line in the right direction. Just because your weight doesnt change, doesnt necessarily mean what you are doing is not working.

eat clean, train hard, fight easy.

[i]That sound like a fair summary of both our positions?[/i]

Well:

[i]So I should probably qualify my earlier statement and say that I think "Calories In < Calories Out" is a simplistic model but one that works for the purposes of losing weight (which was the OP).[/i]

I'd prefer to include your new phrase "[i]Good Calorie foods[/i]" as this could also lower the glycemic load of said diet.
🙂

So, perhaps:
[i]So I should probably qualify my earlier statement and say that I think "Calories [b]from good calorie foods[/b] In < Calories Out" is a simplistic model but one that works for the purposes of losing weight (which was the OP).[/i]

Just my 2 penneth worth.

Soobalias.

How does posting here make me a chubbster ?.

Could people who have achieved decent body recomposition resulting in lower B/F, as well as increased muscle mass. Just want to contribute, based on their experience and reading ?.

So I should probably qualify my earlier statement and say that I think "Calories In < Calories Out" is a simplistic model but one that works for the purposes of losing weight (which was the OP).

Really - no. You might reduce your calories and not lose any weight. And there's tons of evidence to suggest there are much easier and more sustainable ways of losing weight than simply cutting calories - for many people.

It works for a lot of people, maybe most, but it's unsustainable for a lot of people.

Diet not going as well as you'd hoped, still then? 😉

Assuming you're not joking/trolling, you can't honestly believe that lunch is healthy, regardless of how much weight you're losing? Is that typical?

Not joking and yeah it is a very typical workday lunch for me. Contents of the roll vary day to day, but otherwise that's it.

It is healthy? No.

Is it [i]healthier[/i] than the lunches I see most folk eat round this way (e.g. energy drink + Greggs / chips and curry sauce / pie + a Mars bar)? Yeah.

There is more to overall health than the readout on the scales.

Yep. And my overall health has never been better. 😀

I'd prefer to include your new phrase "Good Calorie foods" as this could also lower the glycemic load of said diet.

Well I think that is complicating the model beyond what it fundamentally needs to work. (i.e. I think you'll [i]lose weight[/i] even if the calories you do eat are "bad" as my own eating habits show, but being healthy is a different matter).

So when you say "glycemic load" are you talking about watching the GI of the foods you eat, or do you use some other measure? (I asked because earlier you said you avoided rice, but that is a Medium GI. Do you only eat Low GI?)

And are you saying a diet with the same number of calories but a lower glycemic load would cause [i]more[/i] weight loss?

You might reduce your calories and not lose any weight.

See I just don't see how that can possibly be, from a non-dietary Physics point of view.

How can you put less energy into the system and still do the same amount of work? Sure other metabolic systems may kick in to adapt in the short term, but ultimately it all needs energy and calories are just a measure of energy.

If your TDEE is 3000kcals and you put in 2500 then where does the other 500 come from if not from your own reserves?

Is it healthier than the lunches I see most folk eat round this way (e.g. energy drink + Greggs / chips and curry sauce / pie + a Mars bar)? Yeah.

And are you saying a diet with the same number of calories but a lower glycemic load would cause more weight loss?

Yep.

Watching GI is easy, by the way. No foods that are mostly starch. Which really means the starch portion of your meal - potatoes, rice, pasta or bread. And no sweet sugary foods obviously.

That's actually a simplified rule, there are exceptions, but it'll work and it's very simple.

Watching GI is easy, by the way. No foods that are mostly starch. Which really means the starch portion of your meal - potatoes, rice, pasta or bread. And no sweet sugary foods obviously.

If you're using GI instead of calories then why no sweet/sugary foods? Or are you using GI as an additional criteria in addition to choosing lower calories?

Incidentally the NHS say:

Some low GI foods, such as wholegrain foods, fruit, vegetables, beans and lentils, are foods we should eat as part of a healthy balanced diet.

However, using the GI to decide whether foods or combinations of foods are healthy can be misleading. Foods with a high GI are not necessarily unhealthy and not all foods with a low GI are healthy. For example, watermelon, bread, rice and potatoes are high GI foods, while chocolate pudding has a low GI value.

Also, foods that contain or are cooked with fat and protein slow down the absorption of carbohydrate, lowering the GI. For example, crisps have a lower GI than potatoes cooked without fat.

If you only eat foods with a low GI, your diet may be unbalanced and high in fat.

-- http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1862.aspx?categoryid=51

Whoa, loads there.

In short, I've tried to walk a neutral path on this thread today.
If someone rocks up and declares a caloric deficit has worked for them. regardless of where those calories have come from.
Then who am I to argue.

I've tried to feed in the notion that a concept of [i]Good calories[/i] is one possibly worth trying to get your head around, but I'm not going to twist anyone's arm up their back.
🙂

I'd suggest that trying to address the glycemic load of your diet is going to bode well for your insulin response, which has positive knock-on effects.

As you may know, I would have suggested that the OP look at the glycemic load of their diet, before counting cals, because of some of the issues with counting cals, that I outlined earlier.
But I admit I will be biased as a result of what I've experienced and the results I've achieved.

Over a decade ago, calorie counting didn't work for me and clinical evidence suggests its more than just counting calories.
Yet we have people here who claim that its working for them.

If that isn't going to confuse the new and uninitiated, looknig for advice, then I'm not sure what would.

But, if you're heavier than you ought to be, if calorie counting leaves you hungry. Then just bare in mind, theres alternatives to counting calories.
🙂

[i]See I just don't see how that can possibly be, from a non-dietary Physics point of view.[/i]

Well, cals in either get used or they get stored.

However, how many calories do I eat ?. No idea for I eat rich, fatty foods which bring about an adequate degree of satiation so that I do not need more food.

Which again brings me to my point, that choosing where your cals come from, can have significant effect on how many cals you consume and other health issues, not as easily appreciated as a smaller waistline or lower scale weight.
🙂

If you're using GI instead of calories then why no sweet/sugary foods?

Sweet and sugary foods are often high GI (I said it was an oversimplified rule with exceptions) however I've found personally that the sugar in say a piece of brown bread with lots of butter and nutella (a low GI snack) sets off the sugar craving centres in my brain and I then crave more high GI stuff. In addition to its effect on insulin, sugar affects the brain much like alcohol, nicotine or heroin I suppose. If I imagine sugar to be like booze and I'm like an alcoholic, then it becomes easier to find the willpower.

However, using the GI to decide whether foods or combinations of foods are healthy can be misleading. Foods with a high GI are not necessarily unhealthy and not all foods with a low GI are healthy.

True but 'healthy' is a bit of a vague term, and is not necessarily the same as 'useful in weight loss'. My personal aim here is to lose weight and remain healthy, hence the focus on low GI. If I weren't worried about weight I'd eat some foods that I currently do not.

Btw this is one reason why people get so confused. They complain about conflicting reports about what's 'good for you'. Well some things have positives and negatives, and it depends what your issue is.

Are you not all guilty of ignoring exactly half of the issue?

You seem to have concentrated to a very specific and very STW degree on calories in, while spending much less energy (seewhatIdidthere) on the whole calories out side of things.

Although an extreme example, the diet of pro cyclists is interesting...

Calorie expenditure is at least as important as calorie intake, yet seems to be glossed over.

See I just don't see how that can possibly be, from a non-dietary Physics point of view.

It's because your body is not a simple heat engine. It draws on energy from different sources that have different effects. Your drive to refuel varies in different situations too. It's like having two fuel tanks in your car with different fuels. Which one are you going to fill up with when you get to the filling station?

Plus your idle speed and workload are different, and on top of that if you exercise you use up different fuels depending on what you do, AND what you can achieve in training depends on how much of each kind of fuel you have available. Not to mention how efficient your car is and what the fuel map is like.. and how bright the fuel light is, whether or not you also need a paper and some screen wash etc etc...

Calorie expenditure is at least as important as calorie intake, yet seems to be glossed over.

Not by me, but this is a diet thread not a training thread...

[i]Are you not all guilty of ignoring exactly half of the issue?[/i]

Not me, in one of my drafts I mentioned exercised, but it must have been cut by me, accidentally.

Almost goes without saying though that [b]exercise is absolutely vital[/b].

[i]Not by me, but this is a diet thread not a training thread...[/i]

But calories in vs calories out is important, and concentrating only on calories in is simplifying the issue to a strange and almost daft degree.

I'm not talking about training, I'm talking about simple lifestyle stuff. If you're not using up the calories consumed, you are going to deposit them...

Yes.. but that side of the equation is just as complicated. Long/slow/cardio vs HIIT vs gym vs cycling etc etc etc.. and how what you eat enables you to burn more or fewer calories.. etc..