Any comments on this?

[Bruce Simpson]

About two years ago I realized that my weight had gotten out of control and that I needed to do something about it.

Now I know the basics "eat less, exercise more" but I'm also the kind of person who likes to research a subject and come up with my own answers to problems.

So that's what I did with the challenge of weight loss and I found that there are a number of ways that made the whole job a lot easier (for me).

Because the steps I took were so successful for me, I decided to share what I'd discovered and have put up a few webpages with my findings.

I was astonished to discover that (at least in my own case), some of the things I'd been told about weight loss were a waste of time (ie: exercise more) and that it's often not what you eat but how and when you eat it that matters.

This isn't a pitch to sell anything -- in fact it's an attempt to keep people from wasting their money on scam-diets, fancy potions and useless machines that only lighten your wallets.

I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has made similar observations to my own or who may have more to add.

If anyone's interested, my experiences can be found at:

LINK DELETED

As I said -- it's not a sales pitch or anything, just something I wrote in the hope I can help others to lose weight without spending money or drastically altering their diets.

 

[allyphoe]

Since you're soliciting comments, IMHO:
- Some of it is useful, some of it is ridiculous nonsense
- Despite the fact that you're not selling anything tangible, you do have advertising (and a "click to contribute" button), and I think that technically makes your link spam

 

[Bruce Simpson]

Since you're soliciting comments, IMHO:
- Some of it is useful, some of it is ridiculous nonsense

As I said, it's what works for *me* and may or may not work for others.

- Despite the fact that you're not selling anything tangible, you do have advertising (and a "click to contribute" button), and I think that technically makes your link spam

Nobody is required to click on any ads or anything -- in fact let's face it, Google-ads are so ubiquitous that the chances of anyone clicking on those ads (which we've probably *all* seen before) are so low as to be immeasurable. The only reason they're there is because they're part of the page template used for the whole site.

Thanks for the feedback though -- bouquets and brickbats are gladly accepted.

 

[Hope2]

I think like you said some of what you said is common sence, and the other is what you've learned. I'm glad this has worked for you. I have found oatmeal to allso be a great new thing in my diet and I have it everyday now. I'm forcing my pallet to change, and I allso do not add any sweetner, just a fresh chopped up apple, or banana mixed in.

The site owners will probably consider your site spam, just so you know. And will probably make you take your link off of your post. If your really hear because you want to help us here, then you should stick around after they tell you to remove the link (which I'm sure they will).

How much did you loose, I don't remember reading that.

 

[Bruce Simpson]

How much did you loose, I don't remember reading that.

I lost about 30lbs which was a little more than I had planned -- my wife complained that I was too skinny so I am now about 5lbs heavier than my lowest level.

It was not my intention to spam (I'm one of this country's leading anti-spam crusaders) so if my posting is considered to be spam then I'll gladly remove all references to my website.

I just hoped that my experiences may be of use to some others. If I wanted to make money out of this I'd probably give it a catchy name and write a diet book (I'm already a published author, albeit in far more technical fields) -- but as I said on my site, I really don't hold with exploiting other people's unhappiness for personal gain. If what I've written helps someone else then I'll be happy.

 

[maleficent]

Because the link you posted has ads in it -it's been removed.. you can put itin your profile and only in your profile... Board policy..

but reading thru some of the pages - you're seriously a technical writer?

Some of it is common sense advice

Here's another golden rule for weight loss: If you're really serious about losing weight, don't eat anything after 4pm in the afternoon.

that advice is complete and utter bollocks... you might see a change in the scale the next day - but you will not be losing fat unless you're in caloric deficit for the entire day... Doesn't matter when those calories are consumed. (says the person who's lost 195lbs from having a bedtime snack every single night... )

 

[Bigguy]

I personally would like to see legitimate research that shows eating a certain way or after a certain hour means anything. The calories do not increase if you eat faster or slower nor do they if you eat after a certain time. I am tired of hearing things like this- it simply makes no difference.
I also do not see how exercising less makes sense as blanket advise. If you exercise 7 days a week, yes less is needed. If you only walk to McDonald's to get a big mac then you need to do more. To give a blanket statement like that with no qualifying remarks is dangerous.

 

[maleficent]

there has been much research published on eating slower does contribute to weight loss because you tend to eat less, because the stomach and the mind get in sync that it's had enough to eat...

 

[Bigguy]

What I was saying was food for food, meal for meal. If both plates had the exact same content on it, speed makes no difference.

The problem I have is noone ever puts the qualifiers on the statement like you just did. They just say eating fast is bad!

 

[maleficent]

But the difference is (and I know i've said this here before)- if you slow down when you're eating... and put your fork down between bites, or take a sip of water, you will get that satiated feeling faster and might not finish all that is on your plate... or you won't want to eat more after you're done...

 

[Bigguy]

we need to stop arguing in circles.
You agree with what I am saying, I agree with what you are saying.

We are just saying different things and proving different points.

 

[Bruce Simpson]

that advice is complete and utter bollocks... you might see a change in the scale the next day - but you will not be losing fat unless you're in caloric deficit for the entire day... Doesn't matter when those calories are consumed. (says the person who's lost 195lbs from having a bedtime snack every single night... )

As I said -- this is stuff that works for *me* and may not work for others.

Why does it work for me?

Perhaps because I was more prone to snacking in the evenings so a "nothing after 4pm" rule nixed that activity.

Perhaps it's because evening meals are more likely to be hi-fat/carb than those eaten during the day?

Or maybe it has something to do with when your body starts digesting the food. All I know is that it worked incredibly well for me and perhaps it'll work for others too.

 

[Bruce Simpson]

I personally would like to see legitimate research that shows eating a certain way or after a certain hour means anything. The calories do not increase if you eat faster or slower nor do they if you eat after a certain time.

My suggestion that people eat just half the meal and wait for 20 minutes is based on sound science and is associated with the latency involved in the signaling between stomach and brain.

And you're right -- the calorific value of the food you eat is in no way changed by when you eat it -- but there does appear to be some difference in the way the body handles those calories based on when you eat. *My* body's circadian rhythm appears definitely tends to be more inclined to simply convert those calories to fat if I eat close to bedtime.

I am tired of hearing things like this- it simply makes no difference.

I think you have to appreciate that we're all different and our bodies sometimes respond to food, exercise, and other aspects of our diet in strangely different ways. I've tried to make it very clear that what works for one may not work for another and v/v.

The thing is that there's nothing (but weight) to lose by trying things.

I also do not see how exercising less makes sense as blanket advise. If you exercise 7 days a week, yes less is needed. If you only walk to McDonald's to get a big mac then you need to do more. To give a blanket statement like that with no qualifying remarks is dangerous.

My emphasis was to avoid excessive aerobic exercise as this has the potential to make your body more efficient, resulting in a lower rate of calorie burn.

A few minutes of resistance training can have the same effect as a lot of aerobic training by significantly lifting your resting rate of energy-burn. That's also a scientific fact.

I kind of hoped that people would be a little more open-minded as to options for weight-loss. Just look at how many of yesterday's "facts" are now debunked and how much of what was shouted down a few years back has become accepted as useful practice.

 

[Bruce Simpson]

Hi Bruce,
It's hard to believe, that something natural can be so effective, but we put it to the test.
<snip>

Now if I got nailed for spamming, that's *got* to be spam!

Besides which, I have lost all the weight I wanted and now use aspects of my own experiments to control my weight without any problem. I don't need any pills, potions, herbs, pastes, creams or diet books.

 

[Steve]

You have to love the Interwebz.

 

[Bigguy]

Internets are serious business.

Look Bruce. You titled a thread asking for comments and then proceeded to attempt to rip apart comments and then had the balls to become indignant that people's opinion differed from yours. You asked for the comments.

I will never agree that the speed or time in which you eat makes a difference as long as calorie for calorie the consumption is the same. Unless a disclaimer is given saying that I will always argue that type of statement.

I have issues with then exercise portion also but do not have the book or practical knowledge to back it up so i shall remain quiet.