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 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.

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 lose weight 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 more 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.

I see your point! However, because I know so few fit/healthy people I now pretty much disregard everybody else around me in this sense. “Go on, have a bit, it won’t kill you!” “Perhaps not, but you’re a fat biffer, so I won’t be taking any dietary advice from you, thanks!” So I’m not content with just being healthier than those around me because, frankly, that isn’t hard.

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 Good calories 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.
🙂

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

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…

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

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 exercise is absolutely vital.

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

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..

I’m not really thinking about ‘exercise’.

I’m thinking much more about ‘lifestyle’.

I’m thinking about walking instead of driving, about stairs instead of lifts/escalators, about generally moving about instaed of sitting. My feeling is that concentrating on what goes in while ignoring what comes out in the form of activity is only looking at half the problem.

It’s like talking about mpg by discussing what petrol and ignoring driving style, engine size, load and so on.

You are quite right, but the lifestyle stuff is pretty straightforward, and there are fewer misconceptions about that 🙂 And the science is well understood of course.

However you have to do quite a bit to make a difference. Remember when you were a student and you would walk 20 mins to uni, 20 mins to a friend’s house, another 20 to the pub for a couple of different pubs, 15 back to their house, and 20 back to yours? I used to cycle those trips, once I borrowed a bike computer and clocked up 10 miles in a normal evening alone.

When you’re an adult, you work 20 miles away, there’s no bus route, it becomes a lot more difficult to get that kind of casual exercise in.

When you’re an adult, you work 20 miles away, there’s no bus route, it becomes a lot more difficult to get that kind of casual exercise in.

In my case there is a bus route, and it convieniently adds a 5 and then a 10 minute walk, which seems to provoke much hilarity among my colleagues, and I’m considered a second class citizen. These same people are all on the latest fad diet involving fasting or there abouts for two days a week, yet they criticise when I skip an evening meal because I eat at home.

I think I’m trying to say that the problem is not so much about what we eat; it’s much more about how much we eat compared to how much we do. Watching the procession of visitors to the hospital who wait at the front door to be picked up when the car park is 100 yards away only adds to this.

Weight loss/food/exercise is a complex societal issue, and discussing the type of intake is only a small part of the problem.

I’m not arguing with most of that. However I don’t think diet is a small part of the problem.

The wrong diet compared to your exercise levels is the problem. Of course it’s preferable to exercise for other reasons, but for weight and health diet is most critical imo. Even if you do no exercise at all beyond the minimum, you can still control your weight with appropriate diet.

Welcome back crikey. 🙂

I’ve moved house and was being a grumpy knobber, so I had a self imposed exile for a while… 🙂

I’m going to disagree molgrips, I think exercise, or rather just physical activity is at least as important as diet.

Yeah? I know quite a few people who eat quite sensibly and are still overweight.

I used to believe that ‘those’ people ate quite sensibly too but invariably they snack or quite simply pig-out when no-one is looking and are in self denial about what they actually eat. Anyone/everyone who is overweight has a tendency to do this and make excuses eg. I have a slow metabolism etc. but the fact is that most overweight people either eat too much/eat the wrong things/sit on their arse all day, or a combination of all three. Very few people have a genuine medical reason for being overweight.

I think exercise, or rather just physical activity is at least as important as diet.

Agreed but I would say it’s more important as the benefits of exercise, even if the person is overweight, can compensate for a poor diet. Depends on how poor the diet is and what the bad stuff consists of, of course!

I’m going to disagree molgrips, I think exercise, or rather just physical activity is at least as important as diet.

Yeap, exercise has been blamed for improving HDL levels for one and there are a raft of other benefits from moving about a bit. Its what we’ve evolved to do.
Caveat: Obviously, if someone is massively overweight, or even just out of condition. Then easing themselves into exercise is the sensible thing to do and shouldn’t be exclusive to sorting out their diet.

Agreed but I would say it’s more important as the benefits of exercise, even if the person is overweight, can compensate for a poor diet. Depends on how poor the diet is and what the bad stuff consists of, of course!

Not in my opinion. What I have seen are cardio addicts who cram what I consider to be poor food choices into their mouths, yet appear to be healthy, cos they are slim / lean. Which is of course, nonsense.

A poor diet is a poor diet. That a person may exercise sooooo much as to mitigate the weight gain effects of a poor diet, but this doesn’t absolve them from the effects a poor diet may be having on their bodies. Effects that can’t be seen with a tape measure or a set of weighing scales.

Another way of looking at this, perhaps, is to look at the wider range of life on the planet. Most species evolve to align themselves with certain foods, the availability of those foods and even when those foods are available, ie, seasonality.
Humming birds have evolved to rely on plant nectar, squirrels eat seeds and nuts, Lions feed on other animals, etc, etc. But in each case, it can be argued that a particular species has evolved to thrive on certain, available foods. And so it is the same for Humans. We evolved to do very well thank you, on plants and animals and perhaps not so well on Transform A snacks.
😉

Perhaps I’m nit-picking, but I think it’s more accurate to suggest that evolution is driven by the food available, rather than us evolving to thrive on certain foods.

One of the advantages that humans seem to have evolved is our ability to overcome seasonal, geographical, climate related obstacles in order to exploit the ecological environment.

Unfortunately, that same adaptability makes us prone to over exploitation of food sources and so we get fat, or ill or both.

I still think an over concentration on intake is not as helpful as looking at getting people to expend more calories in their day to day lives, although I admit that if we can’t stop eating too much, the chances of us doing enough are even more remote.

Oh dear solo.

But in each case, it can be argued that a particular species has evolved to thrive on certain, available foods. And so it is the same for Humans.

No. Some species evolve as specialists, some as generalists. Foxes, crows, raccoons, bears etc. Arguably it’s our lack of specialism that has made us so successful.

I used to believe that ‘those’ people ate quite sensibly too but invariably they snack or quite simply pig-out when no-one is looking and are in self denial about what they actually eat.

Invariably? You know that for a fact? Or are you just making assumptions based on nothing?

We all sit on a spectrum with regards response to food. There are plenty of people who eat whatever they like and don’t get fat – half my family for a start. There are people in the middle, like me, and there are people who tend to put on weight very easily despite eating carefully.

Assuming anyone fat is a lazy slob in denial is a pretty unkind way of being wrong.

Very few people have a genuine medical reason for being overweight.

Actual pathology might not be common, but I am talking about response to food. It’s the same for response to exercise too.

No. Some species evolve as specialists, some as generalists. Foxes, crows, raccoons, bears etc. Arguably it’s our lack of specialism that has made us so successful.

Molgrips.
You’re very amusing, I particularly like your confrontational, opening statement of just “No.“.
It implies that you know and that you alone are correct. So I should listen to you regarding archaeological anthropology and not anyone who is a professor in that field ?.
😆
I like also, how you take a stance which is contrarian with very well educated people, people who have done the real research, Doctors, professors. But its OK, you know better. Oh, but hang on, you’re still, by your own admission, carrying more B/F than you’d prefer.
😆

So……

Some species evolve as specialists

Exactly my point with the plankton feeding whale, but evolution still had to play its part and the result is a creature who’s general well being only requires that the creature consumes the foods it has evolved to eat.

some as generalists

They’ll be omnivorous then (give me strength), but those creatures still have limits, there are still foods which their digestive systems aren’t best evolved to exact optimal nutrition from. However, there is a wide range of food from which they will obtain enough sustenance to survive upon.

Arguably it’s our lack of specialism that has made us so successful.
I wonder if there are more things in the world that we can’t survive on, than there are that we can survive on. However, it is proposed that optimal nutrition for a Human, if the rule of evolution applies as it does to other creatures. Will come from foods that Humans have evolved to thrive upon. These do not include cheese cake, Transform A snacks or Pepsi.

Now whos being obtuse ?.

But heres a starter for you.
Biology may make little sense to some folk, until it is placed under the light of evolution.
Go figure.

but I think it’s more accurate to suggest that evolution is driven by the food available, rather than us evolving to thrive on certain foods.

That doesn’t make sense, you seem to have said the same thing, from two different directions ?.

evolution is driven by the food available

Agreed, that is what I was saying, water filtering whales have evolved mouth parts for filtering water to harvest plankton.

rather than us evolving to thrive on certain foods.

No, that’s exactly what the whale has done (that particular species of whale), it has evolved to thrive on that certain food, plankton.

However, because I know so few fit/healthy people I now pretty much disregard everybody else around me in this sense.

Yeah I know what you mean. I’ve had several (obese) people tell me that I’ve “lost enough weight”, that I’m starting to “look too skinny” and it is time to start “eating normal food again” (despite my lunch described earlier!).

I got most of these comments while my BMI was still in the Overweight range.

I think some folk are getting so used to people being obese that even someone with a high-end-of-normal BMI like me looks unhealthily skinny to them. 😯

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 think that has just been the focus of this discussion. The whole simplified equation of “Calories In < Calories Out” means just that. Increasing Calories Out allows for greater Calories In without weight gain.

And again that is what MFP supports. I’m commuting on the bike today. 11 miles each way grants me an extra 800 or so calories.

So my breakfast roll this morning is Sausage and Egg instead of just Sausage and I might have an afternoon flapjack before I head home.

We evolved to do very well thank you, on plants and animals and perhaps not so well on Transform A snacks.

Hey, they are made from corn. Corn is a plant.
They count as one of my five a day 😉

Foxes, crows, raccoons, bears etc.

What ?, those creatures who now scavenge Man made, processed food from refuse bins and hence since have been found to be suffering with T2D ?.

Pandas?

An animal that can (and does occasionally) eat anything that any other bear can eat, but chooses instead to eat pretty rubbish nutritionally speaking, bamboo.

Hey, they are made from corn. Corn is a plant.
They count as one of my five a day
😆

Fair play to you Graham. You’ve found an approach that works for you and is giving the results you want.
🙂

instead to eat pretty rubbish nutritionally speaking, bamboo

Well now you post that. But if the Panda’s digestive system has evolved to extract what its needs and we get a Panda. Then theres your biology and evolution working out just fine.

Look at us, we evolved to be able to synthesize Carbs from protein, for example. Pretty cool.
😉

It’s diet is nutritionally low, and its behaviour reflects that, lives alone, stuffs its face, avoid exersize, sleeps most of the day….

Fair play to you Graham. You’ve found an approach that works for you and is giving the results you want.

Cheers. I think the main thing is that psychologically I didn’t want to feel like I was “on a diet” or eating “special foods” – that just wouldn’t motivate me – hence why why I’m still eating crisps instead of flax seeds.

I do know that I could get more health benefit if I made more radical diet changes and cut out more of the processed stuff – but I worry that I’d find that much more difficult to sustain and fall off the wagon. Whereas doing what I am now has worked well for a year and doesn’t feel overly restrictive.

Also, I like sausages. 😀

It’s diet is nutritionally low, and its behaviour reflects that, lives alone, stuffs its face, avoid exersize, sleeps most of the day….

They’ll fit right in on here then.
😉

Also, I like sausages

Its positively a requirement !. You carry on.
😀

Then theres your biology and evolution working out just fine.

No, it’s not working fine, they are dying out. Yes they are dying out because of humans (partly) but we’re just another environmental stressor.

They specialised in one poor food source, as soon as that gets threatened they are toast. The successful animals are the ones that can eat anything.

those creatures who now scavenge Man made, processed food from refuse bins

What’s your point? They are all very successful animals, largely due to their flexibility. Take away the man made processed food, they will have plenty of other food to eat. Take away a panda’s bamboo or a wildebeest’s grassland and they’re in trouble.

This thread is getting a bit OT now.

The successful animals are the ones that can eat anything.

Finally I’m a success! 😀

No, it’s not working fine, they are dying out.

Yes, Trolgrips, its working out as it should, THINK about that…
😉

What’s your point? They are all very successful animals, largely due to their flexibility. Take away the man made processed food, they will have plenty of other food to eat.

Super Trolling. Is that a new phrase ?.

You know exactly what my point is Trolgrips.

Take away man made food

Ummm, yes, thats what we’ve been saying, that processed food is not good.

Heck, I bet that if we removed the cheese cake and pepsi from your mitts, even you might lose some B/F.
😉

Man Made food is the problem, you know this, you are trolling.

I’d still like to know on what basis your opinion on evolution in relation to diet is superior to the recognized experts in the field of evolution in relation to Human diet.

EDIT:
Take away a panda’s bamboo or a wildebeest’s grassland and they’re in trouble.

LMFAO.
You’re not seriously comparing outright starvation by removing an animal’s food source, to having a choice of food and choosing what food is correct, wrt to evolution ?.
😯

I’ve honestly got no idea what you are talking about.

I was making a point about evolutionary biology. That is, animals with flexible eating habits are well suited to cope with change.

Man made food is often bad for you, yes, that’s not under debate here. I’m not trolling, I’m just very confused about what you are trying to say.

You are saying that humans have a predefined diet that they are best suited to evolutionaryily speaking. I am saying that rather than evolving to a set diet (like pandas or bison or whatever) we’ve evolved to be flexible.

So whilst a paeleo diet is certainly healthy, it’s not necessarily the only criterium for choosing a good diet.

On a related but slightly more down to earth note, how far do I have to walk to burn off a pint of beer? I’ve done 3 miles, and need some refreshment…