What’s the best diet for weight loss ?

Macy0161

markmoto wrote: »

For you, fit and healthy would be hard to understand. Changing lifestyle for obese people absolutely different game. What works for you and people who got a little overweight wont work for people who grow up being fat.

Overweight from childhood, always "big boned" (school boy prop forward), peaked at 140kg-ish. Have held at around 70kg for over 3 years, after starting to change my diet in my 30's. I never cut carbs, and indeed fuelled cycling and triathlon workouts and events with maltodextrin/ fructose pure sugar (and continue to do so).

Notwithstanding you or I have no clue of the histories of individuals on here, pretty big assumption that everyone on here has been fit/ active/ healthy weight their entire life.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

For you, fit and healthy would be hard to understand. Changing lifestyle for obese people absolutely different game. What works for you and people who got a little overweight wont work for people who grow up being fat.

So tell me how you make something sustainable in the long term?

That's the main reason 'diets' don't work in the long term. People lose weight in 6/8/10/12 weeks but then revert to their normal and put weight back on again.

For a change in lifestyle to work, you need adherence. For adherence, you need it to be sustainable. Otherwise you're píssing in the wind.

If keto isn't sustainable for an individual in the long term, tell me how you get to continued adherence.


As an aside, how could I be fit and healthy when I eat carbs?

markmoto

Macy0161 wrote: »

Overweight from childhood, always "big boned" (school boy prop forward), peaked at 140kg-ish. Have held at around 70kg for over 3 years, after starting to change my diet in my 30's. I never cut carbs, and indeed fuelled cycling and triathlon workouts and events with maltodextrin/ fructose pure sugar (and continue to do so).

Notwithstanding you or I have no clue of the histories of individuals on here, pretty big assumption that everyone on here has been fit/ active/ healthy weight their entire life.

Congrats, really happy for you, unfortunately this approach doesn't work for majority of obese people. Hence we see obesity epidemic year after year.

Look I am not against if it works happy days but what I see majority obese people go back to square one when trying to lose weight, reason? perhaps not addressing root cause.

Macy0161

I tell you what doesn't work, having been that soldier, is unsustainable "diets". Me, and most obese people, don't need drastic changes in their diet. It starts with portion control. For me, that was with the kitchen scales and my fitness pal. For others that portion/ consumption control comes with IF. For some it's low carb.

I tried and failed for years on "diets" until I accepted it was the start of a change in diet. For the vast majority of people, giving up carbs is not sustainable. There's an entire industry selling quick fixes, not sustainable changes, unfortunately including some medical practioners.

markmoto

Macy0161 wrote: »

I tell you what doesn't work, having been that soldier, is unsustainable "diets". Me, and most obese people, don't need drastic changes in their diet. It starts with portion control. For me, that was with the kitchen scales and my fitness pal. For others that portion/ consumption control comes with IF. For some it's low carb.

I tried and failed for years on "diets" until I accepted it was the start of a change in diet. For the vast majority of people, giving up carbs is not sustainable. There's an entire industry selling quick fixes, not sustainable changes, unfortunately including some medical practioners.

Perhaps you can tell why obesity in Ireland jumped up to the sky?
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/obesity-in-irish-men-increasing-at-alarming-rate-1.3610457

markmoto

OmegaGene wrote: »

Because people have become lazy glutinous c77ts for the most part
Drive everywhere and do as little as possible in sedentary jobs, we don’t even have to leave the house to get fast food now with Uber eats etc

So you recon overeating is the problem?

Macy0161

markmoto wrote: »

So you recon overeating is the problem?

Yes, as does the article you just linked too.

Of course my diet also had a lot to do with the huge weight gain as I was eating a lot of takeaway food as well as crisps, chocolate and fizzy drinks

Overeating and/or eating too much calorie dense foods. Which are readily available in a way they weren't to previous generations. More sedentary lifestyles and less manual jobs.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

So you recon overeating is the problem?

The medical director of Safefood quoted in the article said the first thing people should address is portion size.

bladespin

markmoto wrote: »

So you recon overeating is the problem?

In a nutshell it is, for the vast majority, caloric demand has reduced while intake has risen, it’s not so much what you eat as it is how much, the ready availability of cheap, nasty but tasty food hasn’t helped either.

Once you’ve achieved a reasonably healthy weight then is the time to be more specific about ‘what’ you eat.

markmoto

Macy0161 wrote: »

Yes, as does the article you just linked too.


Overeating and/or eating too much calorie dense foods. Which are readily available in a way they weren't to previous generations. More sedentary lifestyles and less manual jobs.

Are you referring to hedonic hunger?

Mellor

markmoto wrote: »

Perhaps you can tell why obesity in Ireland jumped up to the sky?
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/obesity-in-irish-men-increasing-at-alarming-rate-1.3610457

Hold on, are you trying to say that the spike in obesity in Ireland is carb related?
Because Irish people famously only found carbs in the late 1990s.


What were obesity rates like in 1840? What % of intake was carbohydrate?

Macy0161

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The medical director of Safefood quoted in the article said the first thing people should address is portion size.

And there is a problem, in my opinion, in the packaging labelling in this regard. A 12 inch frozen pizza is serves 2, all the nutritional information is based upon that. The microwave sachet's of rice (and other grains) are serves 2. Pasta nutritional info given on cooked weight, so even if you want to weigh out a portion dry before you cook it, it's a pain in the arse.

But that doesn't change the bottom line that portion control is a massive problem. I've said many times on here, the first month at least of me changing my diet actually wasn't a change in my diet, just modifying portions.

markmoto wrote: »

Are you referring to hedonic hunger?

No, just readily available tasty foods. I think all of us eat foods just for the pleasure of eating them at some point, but in overall population terms it's just people taking the easy, tasty option.

Are you really suggesting a nice indian, or chinese, or pizza isn't tasty as f*ck? Which is grand in moderation, but too many people are eating this stuff multiple times a week.

Dtp1979

Macy0161 wrote: »

And there is a problem, in my opinion, in the packaging labelling in this regard. A 12 inch frozen pizza is serves 2.

That will entirely depend on my mood.

Macy0161

Dtp1979 wrote: »

That will entirely depend on my mood.

Me too, 100%. But these are being dished out multiple times a week in some households.

Alf Veedersane

Macy0161 wrote: »

And there is a problem, in my opinion, in the packaging labelling in this regard. A 12 inch frozen pizza is serves 2, all the nutritional information is based upon that. The microwave sachet's of rice (and other grains) are serves 2. Pasta nutritional info given on cooked weight, so even if you want to weigh out a portion dry before you cook it, it's a pain in the arse.

But that doesn't change the bottom line that portion control is a massive problem. I've said many times on here, the first month at least of me changing my diet actually wasn't a change in my diet, just modifying portions.

Agree on labelling. There are times I would have to identify as a family to justify a portion on my plate. Which brings education/awareness into the equation.

And as well, people eat with their eyes, it's only a half dinner if the plate is only half full.

Minime2.5

markmoto wrote: »

Perhaps you can tell why obesity in Ireland jumped up to the sky?
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/obesity-in-irish-men-increasing-at-alarming-rate-1.3610457

Because the amount of calories eaten went up and the activity levels went down

Are you saying that ireland was a lo carb nation before the 80s ?

bladespin

Minime2.5 wrote: »

Because the amount of calories eaten went up and the activity levels went down

Are you saying that ireland was a lo carb nation before the 80s ?

Two words: Batch bread!

bb1234567

Just on the topic of keto, found this very interesting.

Bangladeshi people eat a diet focused mostly on processed carbs. They eat over 440 grams of white rice daily, on average. Which is almost 600 calories daily from white rice alone. Milk and meat are consumed very rarely.

Bangladesh has the SECOND lowest obesity rate on the entire planet, just after Vietnam, who coincidentally also eat massive amounts of processed carbs daily.

And funnily enough, Americans eat the most animal products per capita of any country on earth..12th highest obesity rate in the world.

So..what was that about calories in vs out being nonsense :rolleyes:

markmoto

bb1234567 wrote: »

Just on the topic of keto, found this very interesting.

Bangladeshi people eat a diet focused mostly on processed carbs.

2015 Bangladesh over 7.1 million people had diabetes, 3.7 million cases were undiagnosed and about 129 000 deaths were attributed to the disease. 10 The prevalence of diabetes in Bangladesh, based on published studies, ranges from 2.21% to 35%.

markmoto

Mellor wrote: »

Hold on, are you trying to say that the spike in obesity in Ireland is carb related?
Because Irish people famously only found carbs in the late 1990s.


What were obesity rates like in 1840? What % of intake was carbohydrate?

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Even though that's the US and not Ireland, as asked, what's happening post 2000?

bb1234567

markmoto wrote: »

Bit of an own goal there no? If Carb intake is as important for weight loss as you claim then Americans should have at the very least seen a fall off in growth in obesity rates since the proportion of carbs in the diet dropped so much from 2000 onward

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Even though that's the US and not Ireland, as asked, what's happening post 2000?

Google. It's even worst at this stage

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Google. It's even worst at this stage

Well, no, I'd like your take on why obesity continues to grow in the US even though its decoupled from carb intake.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Well, no, I'd like your take on why obesity continues to grow in the US even though its decoupled from carb intake.

Google it and you will find the answer. Gym time now.

markmoto

According to scientific and religions data.

Nonprocessed carbs diet fine as longer as you do periodic fasting and that's what missing I guess.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

According to scientific and religions data.

Nonprocessed carbs diet fine as longer as you do periodic fasting and that's what missing I guess.

Religions data?

bladespin

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Well, no, I'd like your take on why obesity continues to grow in the US even though its decoupled from carb intake.

If you've ever been there then it's easy to understand, bad food is cheap, pretty much every food court has an 'all you can eat', it's painful to watch the mobility carts going from one to the other all day!
In many fast food outlets it's often actually cheaper to go for the 'large' portion than regular (already as big as a large here), there's competition in the food industry to provide the 'best value' deal, yes they eat a lot of carby food but that's why.

bb1234567

bladespin wrote: »

If you've ever been there then it's easy to understand, bad food is cheap, pretty much every food court has an 'all you can eat', it's painful to watch the mobility carts going from one to the other all day!
In many fast food outlets it's often actually cheaper to go for the 'large' portion than regular (already as big as a large here), there's competition in the food industry to provide the 'best value' deal, yes they eat a lot of carby food but that's why.

Americans don't particularly eat a lot of carbs as a proportion of their diet, American diet includes very high amounts of protein and the most animal products eaten of any diet globally. But yes it is the quantity which is the issue, which brings us back to what many people have been saying forever on here, that the calories are of far more importance to weight loss than the carbs

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Religions data?

Oh yes. Have you read any religious books and what they say about fasting?

El_Duderino 09

I have found keto good for me - I don't say it's the o ly way to do it. And I'd think there are loads of factors in why Americans are so overweight. I'd be interested to see how their diet breaks down overall l, not just carbs. I wonder where things like unprocessed veg are in the equation. And the ratio of sugary things and refined carbs.

I don't eat porridge or chickpeas at the moment, but I don't think they have the same impact as refined carbs and sugary drinks.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Oh yes. Have you read any religious books and what they say about fasting?

Obviously the Bible is the first port of call for any scientific data.

Alf Veedersane

bladespin wrote: »

If you've ever been there then it's easy to understand, bad food is cheap, pretty much every food court has an 'all you can eat', it's painful to watch the mobility carts going from one to the other all day!
In many fast food outlets it's often actually cheaper to go for the 'large' portion than regular (already as big as a large here), there's competition in the food industry to provide the 'best value' deal, yes they eat a lot of carby food but that's why.

Yep. But I was asking markmoto for an explanation to the part of the graph where carb intake dropped but obesity continued to grow. Because what could the issue possibly be if carb intake was reduced?

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Yep. But I was asking markmoto for an explanation to the part of the graph where carb intake dropped but obesity continued to grow. Because what could the issue possibly be if carb intake was reduced?

What is you thought on obesity ?
Let me guess calories control ?

Mellor

markmoto wrote: »

That doesn’t remotely seem related to obesity in Ireland in 1800s. Which was the question you were asked. I think we all know the reason for dodging it.

And that graph doesn’t back up your point at all. If anything it shows the opposite. Obesity levels rising despite carb intake falling.
I’d be interested to see if the source of that data also compares obesity/fat and obesity/energy.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

What is you thought on obesity ?
Let me guess calories control ?

It's a multifactorial problem.

Not one caused by carb intake, as your graph showed.

Patsy167

National Weight Control Registry

The National Weight Control Registry is a research study that includes people (18 years or older) who have lost at least 13.6 kg (30 lbs) of weight and kept it off for at least one year. There are currently over 10,000 members enrolled in the study, making it perhaps the largest study of weight loss ever conducted. Members complete annual questionnaires about their current weight, diet and exercise habits, and behavioral strategies for weight loss maintenance.

The research has shown that members lost weight by a wide variety of methods. However, 98% of people modified their food intake and 94% of participants increased their exercise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weight_Control_Registry

Lucy8080

Patsy167 wrote: »

National Weight Control Registry

The research has shown that members lost weight by a wide variety of methods. However, 98% of people modified their food intake and 94% of participants increased their exercise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weight_Control_Registry

Seems kind of obvious, I reckon.

Which brings us all back to the question of "what is a calorie" and how it's measure in a Laboratory compares to how energy from food translates in a body"?


As above, 98 % modify food intake and 94% increase exercise.

Dtp1979

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Which brings us all back to the question of "what is a calorie" .

No, you are the only one bringing us back there!!!

Lucy8080

Dtp1979 wrote: »

No, you are the only one bringing us back there!!!

The scientific answer to the question " what is a calorie?" is what brings us back!

Blame scientific enquiry ,not me.

Alf Veedersane

If your point is that the determination of the calorie content of food is different to how its processed by the body and so the CICO model is redundant then it's a fallacious argument.

It is impossible to be exact on calories in or calories out.

But it's linked with observation. If you're monitoring intake and weight and add in context of activity, you know if you need to adjust.

Food quantity and food quality are also not independent of each other.

Improve food quality, manage food quantity and you'll do alright, regardless of whether or not what you have recorded 100 cals of food is exactly 100 cals of food

Lucy8080

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If your point is that the determination of the calorie content of food is different to how its processed by the body and so the CICO model is redundant then it's a fallacious argument.

It is impossible to be exact on calories in or calories out.

But it's linked with observation. If you're monitoring intake and weight and add in context of activity, you know if you need to adjust.

Food quantity and food quality are also not independent of each other.

Improve food quality, manage food quantity and you'll do alright, regardless of whether or not what you have recorded 100 cals of food is exactly 100 cals of food

You say "it is impossible to be exact on calories in/out"! Then you say "it is linked with observation!"

You also said " manage food quantity and you'll do alright..."

"Calorie" ,Eh? Hypnotic word!

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

You say "it is impossible to be exact on calories in/out"! Then you say "it is linked with observation!"

You also said " manage food quantity and you'll do alright..."

"Calorie" ,Eh? Hypnotic word!

There's only one person here obsessed with the word.

bladespin

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Seems kind of obvious, I reckon.

Which brings us all back to the question of "what is a calorie" and how it's measure in a Laboratory compares to how energy from food translates in a body"?


As above, 98 % modify food intake and 94% increase exercise.

Brings us back to eat less and do more really.

Alf Veedersane

Lucy8080 wrote: »

You say "it is impossible to be exact on calories in/out"! Then you say "it is linked with observation!"

You also said " manage food quantity and you'll do alright..."

"Calorie" ,Eh? Hypnotic word!

I'm aware what I said.

What bit confuses you exactly and why?

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If your point is that the determination of the calorie content of food is different to how its processed by the body and so the CICO model is redundant then it's a fallacious argument.

It is impossible to be exact on calories in or calories out.

But it's linked with observation. If you're monitoring intake and weight and add in context of activity, you know if you need to adjust.

Food quantity and food quality are also not independent of each other.

Improve food quality, manage food quantity and you'll do alright, regardless of whether or not what you have recorded 100 cals of food is exactly 100 cals of food

What about people with craving? They can only last few days on your advice and once willpower run out of fuel they are rolling backward.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

What about people with craving? They can only last few days on your advice and once willpower run out of fuel they are rolling backward.

What advice is this then?

Do you actually read what other people say?

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

What advice is this then?

Well I asked you, do you have any solution for those who have carbs cravings due to serotonin/dopamine withdrawal?
In many cases stronger than opioid drugs.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Well I asked you, do you have any solution for those who have carbs cravings due to serotonin/dopamine withdrawal?
In many cases stronger than opioid drugs.

You haven't answered - what advice did I give in the response you quoted?

Also, last time you brought up the sugar addiction thing, what you included to support that was some website commentary and sugar tax. No studies. So if you're going to make claims about "carb cravings die to serotonin/dopamine withdrawal" (noting you have extended it out to all carbs and not just sugar now), you should have something to support that. Studies. Not websites or blogs or sugar tax. Studies.

bladespin

markmoto wrote: »

What about people with craving? They can only last few days on your advice and once willpower run out of fuel they are rolling backward.

Suck it up OR feed the craving but don’t over feed it, moderation and self control are the keys to any sustained weight loss.