Here to help

Here's the thing.

Food intake is the key to losing weight. Bottom line. You can exercise until you fall over, but if you eat more than you burn, you're not going to lose.

However, adding exercise to the equation changes the balance in many ways. Mathematically speaking, the additional calorie burn *when combined with controlled eating* can speed weight loss. The increase in metabolism from being regularly active help burn additional calories. Exercise shifts the direction of weight loss to be more towards fat loss and less towards muscle loss. The more muscle you maintain, the better off you are in the long run, since muscle is metabolically active - so you're again increasing your burn rate. Ideally you'd combine strength/resistance exercise with cardio, instead of doing one or the other.

And, of course, there are other health benefits to exercise overall that are above and beyond calorie burn.

You can lose weight by not exercising and controlling your food. But at some point you'll hit the "skinny fat" stage where you might be skinny, but you're also flabby and have less muscle and less strength.

Most people want that fit look - what the magazines refer to as "toned" - and THAT look is one you can't get w/out adding in exercise as well.

If you want to do some research on the matter, start with Lyle McDonald's site on building strength, fat loss, etc. His articles are all well researched and put things in simple and readable terms for the layperson.
 
It is working for me (down 12 lbs and this is day 16) but it is not for everybody.
Click to expand...
A good bit of that loss will be water weight lost due to extreme carb restriction. Unless you plan to eat this way for the rest of your life, some of that weight will come right back on when you add in more grains and carbs - complex or otherwise.

Also when you lose weight that fast, it's a good bet that you're losing a muscle mass as well.

IMO, it's not about the speed of the WEIGHT you lose - it's about losing FAT. I don't care if the scale says I've dumped 16 lbs in 2 weeks. If the majority of that loss isn't fat, then I'm not doing myself any favors.
 
Randall said:
I was at the coffee shop this morning and did a bit of literature searching (sorry, the bookmarks are on my laptop not this PC I am typing on). I have to say I was finding quite a few controlled scientific studies supporting the claim that weight loss can be just as successful doing calorie restriction without exercising as doing calorie restriction accompanied with exercise. That is good news for those wanting to lose weight but unable or unwilling or without the time to exercise. But I do believe exercise has other benefits, and the studies to point to exercise as important for long term weight loss (likely through building muscle mass which burns calories at rest, whereas fat tissue does much less of that). I exercise a bit daily myself, but based on the studies I am not going to worry so much about getting to the gym and working my arse off as necessary to lose weight. :)

I will post links tomorrow from my laptop at the coffee shop, to those scientific studies.
Click to expand...

I think you're totally right -- I definitely think that you can lose weight just fine without exercising. All you need is a caloric deficit. There are lots of extremely obese people who need to start out this way -- cutting calories because they are simply unable to accomplish much of anything through exercise (these are the people who can't even get out of bed, etc.) Exercise gives you great health benefits and makes your weight-loss more efficient, but that is not to say that you cannot lose weight just by adjusting your diet. There are plenty of people on this forum who started off simply by changing their diets, and for a lot of obese people (and people in general) that is an excellent first step toward a healthy lifestyle.

If you're 250lbs. and your daily caloric intake for maintenance is like 2,700 calories, there are quite a few ways to lose weight. You can eat 2,700 calories a day and exercise, or you can eat 2,400 calories a day and not exercise, and you'd essentially be accomplishing the same thing in terms of weight-loss. Or, you can eat 2,400 calories and exercise and build muscle and make your weight loss even more efficient (muscle burns fat, more muscle burns more fat) and get the added benefits of regular cardiovascular activity and strength training. This is all based on my current observations, here, so if I have some incorrect information ... someone please correct me, lol :)

I guess in the end, personally, I could lose 150lbs. tomorrow and still not be happy -- because what I really want is for my body to be a machine capable of doing anything (within reason) that I set my mind to. I don't care if I never make my goal weight so long as my body can do all the things I want it to ... including running a marathon before I'm 30 :)
 
Harold, here is a link to a Mayo Clinic full whitepaper discussing the Paleo diet as it relates to cardiovascular disease, and comparing it to other diets (Mediterranean, Atkins, low fat diets, etc).

Enjoy :)
 
I am actually enjoying the foods, super healthy and tasty and satiating, although I guarantee you I will want some pizza and a DQ blizzard down the road like any dieting and weight loss program, so I will have to learn to budget in such sinful foods when that time comes. But the quasi Paleo diet I am on seems natural, tasty, something I can live with-- eggs, steak, fish, shrimp, crab, all the veggies I want, feta cheese spinach omelettes, sandwiches made with hummas and sprouts and tomatoes and mushrooms, Greek salads, soup, berries, fruit of all types, fruit smoothies, oatmeal or cooked cereal a couple times a week for breakfast, grapefruit, strawberries, yogurt, swiss cheese with brushetta broiled on toast-- I mean seriously what is not to like about eating that kind of food? It is not Atkins, I tried that once and was craving salads and veggies and fruit on day 3 and gave up, LOL.

I thought the weight loss was a bit much, but this morning found scientific controlled medical studies showing the rapid weight loss from high protein diets with exercise (HPEx) compared to other diets with exercise-- massive weight loss because the high (perhaps higher would be a better word) protein diets create thermogenic effects, almost like free calories (it takes 27 calories from your fat stores to digest 100 calories of protein, but only maybe 7 cals to digest carbs and 1 cal to digest fats-- so eating protein really boosts your body's metabolism, literally turns one into a fat burning machine), and protein has a very high satiety factor, meaning you don't go hungry. I am running a -1000 to -1500 calorie deficit each day and honestly when 9pm rolls around I am satiated, not hungry, have a cup of chamomille tea and sleep great, waking a bit hungry to start it all over again. Exercising 200-400 cals a day with indoor exercycle and tossing a medicine ball over me while watching TV, some dumbell flies. Oh well, use or lose that info, just sharing.
~Randall


Jericho said:
12 pounds in 16 days? I just have to ask, you think you are going to keep that off? It isn't the type of diet you will be eating 5 years from now. Isn't it more likely that once you get off the 'diet' that you will regain it? I guess I am of the mind that if you balance your diet and keep in moderation that you will lose weight.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I was looking at that link of the mayo report and read one section in particular..

Eat whole, natural, fresh foods; avoid highly processed and
high-glycemic-load foods

Consume a diet high in fruits, vegetables, nuts, and berries and low in
refined grains and sugars. Nutrient-dense, low-glycemic-load fruits and
vegetables such as berries, plums, citrus, apples, cantaloupe, spinach,
tomatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, and avocados are best

Increase consumption of omega-3 fatty acids from fish, fish oil, and plant
sources

Avoid trans-fats entirely, and limit intake of saturated fats. This means
eliminating fried foods, hard margarine, commercial baked goods, and
most packaged and processed snack foods. Substitute monounsaturated
and polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats

Increase consumption of lean protein, such as skinless poultry, fish, and
game meats and lean cuts of red meat. Cuts with the words round or loin
in the name usually are lean. Avoid high-fat dairy and fatty, salty
processed meats such as bacon, sausage, and deli meats

Incorporate olive oil and/or non–trans-fatty acid canola oil into the diet

Drink water

Participate in daily exercise from various activities (incorporating aerobic
and strength training and stretching exercises). Outdoor activities are
ideal

This isn't specificly a fad diet..if done properly (moderation) then yeah..this is actually good. It's overall lifestyle logic. Where the danger enters is when someone narrows it so tight that they lose the important part.

Calorie in < calorie out = weight loss.
 
But I am eating tons of carbs-- fruit, berries, veggies. I am not sure one could call that carb restriction. I am doing some exercise including strength training each day so hopefully that will maintain muscle mass; but I get your point.

What do you think of this medical study which shows that exercise with a high protein diet showed the most weight loss, waist size decrease, blood biochemistry changes, etc. compared to other diets with exercise, and the study seems to indicate that nitrogen balance was maintained (meaning minimal to no muscle mass loss). High protein dieting with exercise had 1.75 times the weight loss of the other dieters doing exercise (typical low fat high carb dieters):
"A high-protein diet was superior to a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet either alone or when combined with an aerobic/resistance-training program in promoting weight loss and nitrogen balance, while similarly improving body composition and risk factors..."​
REF:


KaraCooks said:
A good bit of that loss will be water weight lost due to extreme carb restriction. Unless you plan to eat this way for the rest of your life, some of that weight will come right back on when you add in more grains and carbs - complex or otherwise. Also when you lose weight that fast, it's a good bet that you're losing a muscle mass as well.
...
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for at least acknowledging that. I think it really can be an extremely healthy way of eating that one can live with for life. But I know too there are paleo dieters who take it like the gospel and avoid at all costs all grain, all bread, all dairy, etc etc and to me that would be like trying Atkins and I would freak out and could not live my life with such a way of eating. But what I call my quasi Paleo diet (cheating to the die hard paleo dieters), that incorporates yogurt, some grain, some dairy), seems very livable for life, and all the medical studies I am seeing are indicating it is the healthiest diet in terms of chronic disease, preventing obesity and diabetes, preventing and reversing cardiovascular disease, keeping glycemic loads and hyperinsulinemia in check (at the root of CV disease).

Jericho said:
...This isn't specificly a fad diet..if done properly (moderation) then yeah..this is actually good. It's overall lifestyle logic. Where the danger enters is when someone narrows it so tight that they lose the important part.

Calorie in < calorie out = weight loss.
Click to expand...
 
Oh I think there is obvious proven benefit to a high protein diet - protein is muscle sparing and that's been proven.

I *personally* believe the Paleo diet takes that to an extreme. I'd start here:
 
Agreed (about extreme paleo dieting). Which is why I do a quasi Paleo diet, incorporating small amounts of grain (very low calorie bread for my sprout hummus sandwiches, occasional oatmeal for breakfast), a piece of bread with a swirl of honey with dinner sometimes-- I mean, hey, I was raised on Captain Crunch like a good american boy, so what I am I to do, completely give up grains? No way LOL. The die hard cave people on Paleo diet forum were lashing me for eating hummus; hummus? come on, it has a glycemic index of zero, gimme a break!

But objectively speaking, there is no way to get around the relatively higher glycemic loads of grains, cereals, etc compared to meat/fish and veggies; holy moly look at Malt O Meal sometime, it is like eating a bowl of sugar! And we now know that it is the glycemic load over time that creates vasculitis and heart disease, and likely other chronic diseases; so lessening cereal and grain in the diet can only help reduce such disease. The problem is, planet earth can not support its current and future population without grain fed people, and grain fed livestock; it is efficient, in abundance, to feed the masses, but I suppose that is a topic better meant for another thread, or forum, or website.

Wikipedia: Nutritional_factors_and_health_effects of the Paleo way of eating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo_diet#Nutritional_factors_and_health_effects

To me, since grains and cereals bump up glycemic loads in the blood moreso than meat/fish/veggies, and are contributory to vascular and heart disease et al, it sort of becomes logical to me that human genetics is such that we have not yet adapted (evolved) to handle cereals/grains (at least not Captain Cruch, LOL), even if grains came into play for food by humans 100,000 years ago instead of 10,000 years ago (when most people say agriculture began). In contrast, meat / seafood / veggies / fruit / berries / nuts have been available and part of the diet during human evolution for several million years (which greatly trumps 10,000 to 100,000). It is tough for evolution to work on the genes for this sort of thing (i.e. takes a long time compared to other human traits rapidly being changed by evolution), because evolution, natural selection for genes, operates on genes related to reproduction-- and we are talking about chronic diseases that affect people long after they are able to reproduce and pass along genes.

Off to grab a handful of blueberries!
:)randall


KaraCooks said:
...I *personally* believe the Paleo diet takes that to an extreme. I'd start here:
Static Stretching and Refined Grain Intake by Paleo Man - Research Review | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If you look through a majority of these diets out there that have any following and appear to work, even as a short term, they (almost) all have a few things in common:

Restriction of refined sugars.
Restriction of processed foods.

If you look at the patterns, the prevailing theme is "White ain't right", and it's true. I believe it was historically, people on average consumed ~0.5lbs of refined sugar per year, whereas now, its ~56-60lbs annually. Somewhat the same with white rice and flour, *in the absence of natural fiber*, which we get increasingly less of as time goes on it seems. The bran part that makes those two things usually brown? that's whats stripped off and making those foods now unhealthy, among other things, like the processing chemicals.
 
That is just sick that we (society) eat so much sugar. And salt too. I look around at the grocery store and it seems 99% (at least) of what is in the grocery store is utter junk-- processed food, sugary, high fructose corn syrup and salt and sugar in it, etc. Trash food.

Big D said:
...I believe it was historically, people on average consumed ~0.5lbs of refined sugar per year, whereas now, its ~56-60lbs annually....
Click to expand...
 
You're right about that, Randall. If the supermarket only carried food that was fit to eat, it would be the size of the old time corner grocery store.
 
Yes, Randall, a permanent change is definitely necessary, and I generally don't recommend any diet that you can't follow comfortably for the rest of your life. A meal plan should include all of the foods you love, in healthier versions.
 
I wonder if there would be a market (entrepreneural opportunity) for someone to open a corner grocery store again, sell only the good stuff-- I don't mean organic, we have that with whole foods coops, too high priced for me usually-- but I mean the equivalent, even smaller, just sell the good stuff, not the 99% trash food in supermarkets?

Harold14370 said:
You're right about that, Randall. If the supermarket only carried food that was fit to eat, it would be the size of the old time corner grocery store.
Click to expand...
 
I think one of the main reasons people quit their diets is because their "inner wisdom" tells them it's unhealthy. Common sense takes over and they quit the unhealthy eating habits. Unfortunately, people also usually feel like they failed at their diet. On the contrary- the diet failed you!
 
people quit their diets b/c they know its unhealthy??? So they go back to their old habits of over eating fat and calories just to end up gaining more weight? If your comman sence theory was correct, how did people become overweight to begin with then??

i have to disagree w/ your "diet failed you' idea too. If i'm eating a diet based on the food pyramid, and then I binge on junk food...thats hardly 'the diets' fault. its mine. I think thats the problem with people...lack of personal responsibilty.
 
Korrie, you're right that people need to take responsibility for their actions. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What does bother me is when people are pressured into unhealthy diets by "experts" who are just trying to make money. Then when their instincts tell them that this diet is a bad idea, they feel guilty for quitting it. This is sad.

On the other hand, if you are following a healthy meal plan that is good for your body and you quit- that's your own mistake.

I also just wanted to mention that I am very impressed with some of the comments on this thread. You people know what you're talking about.
 
I see somewhat where Korrie is coming from although I definitely disagree. A diet can definitely fail a person. No doubt about it, but mostly because it was the wrong diet for that person. some diets are just wrong by design, others are just too ambitious for the person and yet others just aren't workable for that person. The biggest point of failure I see with some eating plans (yeah, I hate the D word)... lack of bulk. Psychologically, some people can go well with scant portions, in their mind, I'd imagine they see it as 'Dieting" (big ol' honkin' D), and almost want that never ending feeling of hunger, almost as a penance or something. But like anything, context is key and not everyone has so called diamond hard will power like some. For them, more watery vegetables and something that will give them a full feeling and short circuit that self preservation "I'm hungry, so eat" instinct.

That's where I see it as how an eating plan can fail a person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top