I'm actually advocating losing weight slowly. That's why I'm talking about a small deficit. 500 Kcal a day is already a lot in my book. That's a reduction of close to 25%! A small deficit seems key to avoid overshoot and other unwanted side effects. Meta research indicates that reducing calorie intake actually reduces cravings. I've posted a link below.
I agree, reducing calorie intake can also result in a reduction in cravings. This is especially true if carbohydrate intake is cut, hence why low carb diets have been quite popular. This can also be a bad, as well as a good thing. It can make it easier to lose too much weight, too quickly. By the time cravings do start to emerge, it's too late, the damage is done! I've also experienced this too.
Consistency is the key. I've talked about changing habits before and this is part of that.
And what do you consider to be good habits? In my opinion bad ones include: calorie counting, restricting, as well as just picking up the nearest high energy snack, such as a chocolate bar, are equally bad. In the past, they've made me fatter, rather than leaner.
Without a deficit losing weight isn't possible. Whether that deficit is caused by reducing intake or increasing energy burn isn't entirely relevant, although I've explained in some detail why reducing intake is much more effecitive and likely to succeed. In both cases the improvement is the result of the deficit.
But it's very relevant. Increasing activity levels is vital for long term, healthy weight loss. It's the sedentary lifestyle which is the real problem. Focusing on food alone, is not the way to tackle the problem. We need to do both!
I understand you have some personal experiences that lead to you say "it just isn't healthy" to reduce energy intake, but that isn't really in line with what research shows us. Overdoing it or getting completely hung up on calorie counting can be harmful indeed, but it doesn't need explaining that extreme behaviours aren't what you'd want. For the same reason the Minnesota Starvation Experiment doesn't seem entirely relevant to the current discussion. The fact that "starvation" is in the name is proabably a clue that it's not a healthy dietary adjustment.
Technically the calling it the Minisota starvation experiment was incorrect. None of the subjects stopped eating altogether and no one completely starved. It is very relevant to the discussion, because the striking thing about it was the energy deficit was similar to what's often recommended to those who need to lose weight, which is crazy, considering it resulted in rebound weight gain, above the starting weight.
The question is what are healthy behaviours and what aren't? What's taking it to the extreme? It's a slippery slope. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I've also not said that it's unhealthy to reduce energy intake, fullstop, just that restricting fat, calories, carbohydrates is. If someone is eating a too energy dense diet, then reducing the energy density of the food is healthy. What I see is unhealthy is the idea that one should actively seek to deprive themselves of food, especially when they're hungry: it doesn't end well!
I agree it's a good idea to be aware of energy intake, expenditure and the energy density of different foods. This is all good stuff, but eating numbers, rather than food is unhealthy.
I've I'd know all of this when I was younger I would have saved myself a lot of health problems. If I'd known that all I needed to do was get on my bike, I would have done it!
Another thing to note is that just focusing on weight loss alone is silly. If someone is obese so they decide to run 5 miles a day, but hardly lose any weight, after two months, then they haven't failed! They've become more healthy. They would have have achieved fat loss, even if the number on the scale didn't change and it's very important not to overlook this. They should keep it up. Maybe they'll start to lose weight a year later? Perhaps not, but they shouldn't give up!
You say you weren't losing weight when you are eating according to your appetite signal. People's appetites aren't very reliable and can be way off. Regardless, even a perfectly balanced appetite isn't going to lose you weight, as it'll keep you exactly where you are. Calorie counting is an aid to eliminate the least trustworthy factor, the human and his estimates.
The appetite signal has served the human race and other animals very well for millennia, so I'd dispute that. Something else is messing with the appetite signal, which is what needs to be fixed, rather than teaching people to ignore it altogether, which is not healthy, in the long term.
There are other more important questions, which need to be asked, to solve the problem. Calorie counting and restriction have been recommended as treatments for obesity for a long time, yet why have obesity rates since sawed? Why do some people need weight loss surgery? I don't believe in the slogan "If all fails, blame the patient!"
Why do the hunter gathers referenced in the video, you posted earlier, not overeat, like the average American?
Why did the average American not overeat 100 years ago, but they do now?
Why do I no longer overeat, now I'm physically active, yet I did before? And in both cases, I listened to my appetite signal.
Could it be because, over the long term, an active lifestyle and not too much energy dense food, makes overeating less likely?
Both fat and lean people, who aren't on some diet, will be following their appetite signals, yet why are some of them fat and the others lean? Perhaps genetics play a role?
I'm trying to lose weight the same way now with help of voedingscentrum.nl (Dutch site), which has a food dairy that is easy to keep track of food energy and nutrients. I've also had to give up peanut butter and chocolate on bread, and eat 2 slices of bread less per day (8 to 6). Replaced it with chicken fillet and cheese spread (only 20+ variants) instead. That way I decreased kcal from bread intake by about 400 kcal per day.
I've tried an intake of 1800kcal per day for a few weeks; important is to spread meals (+breakfast), eat food with plenty of fibers, keep hydrated. But realistically, any lower amount is pure torture and IMO will likely fail. Actually, this figure is better than it sounds, as I'm pretty sure my average is somewhere around 2 - 2.1Mcal when you also account for a few beers, cheat meals or crisps that one might have every now and then.
Lost about 5kg in the first 2months, now it's going down slowly at 0.5 - 1kg per month. I think I've been slacking off lately a bit.
I've achieved similar figures to that in the past, through restriction alone. The problem is maintaining it. Good luck.
Actually these posts make me somewhat sad as well. In the last half year I've been exercising with a physiotherapist to improve stability in my knees, muscle strength in my upper legs, and eventually reduce medial knee pain. I liked the physical exercise, as it is nice to clear you head after a long day or stressful times, but unfortunately physically there were only adverse effects for me. That is not to say it came as a big surprise, given my history with orthopedic surgeons.
Unfortunately it does mean that I'm quite limited in my exercise options. For example, last few months I picked up basic cycling again, and it had a significant negative effect. I'm actually looking for alternative sports/workouts that don't put stress or repetitive movements on the knees. People have been recommending swimming to me, but my physiotherapist has recommended against it due to the instability (AFAIK applies to the breaststroke in particular). But maybe I should try it out if there are no alternatives..
How about cycling? Or if that's too hard on the knees, then you could try rowing/
Also, talk about about swimming, without using your legs (you can put a float between them to start with, before your arms a strong enough to go alone) with your physiotherapist.
I don't work out.
Changed my habit of eating chocolate mice on bread as breakfast over 20 years ago and switched to uneatable muesli consisting of 50 grams of quinoa, rye and buckwheat with soy milk.
To make it eatable i fill it with fresh season fruit, in the winter that is only apple, pear and grapes, but in the summer strawberries, peach and whatever i can get my hands on.
I discipline myself to eat this so I get at least one healthy meal to the book.
What boggles my mind is that in the weekend if I get out of bed at 10am and eat this breakfast and do my hobbies I only get hungry around 3pm so 5 hours later.
When during weekdays I eat this at 7am go to work I start to crave around 10am so Only three hours later.
This leads me to conclude that ( for me personally) the hunger signals are psychologically influenced by the situation. I do not really really like my job it is not bad but not great so the food will give me comfort. While when I am doing something I really like, the hunger signal is only given when the body starts to get a problem (low bloodsugar).
Another possibility is you're burning more energy, when you go to work, than when you're at home.
The other observation I would like to share is that even when I am green on the BMI (24) I am still overweighth since I am very tall but have thin bones. The proper way to determine if you are not overweighth is to take a rope with the length of half your height and fit it around the thickest part of your belly. This should fit, if you run out of rope (a gap) you have too much fat on your belly.
Yes, BMI is just a rough indicator. My BMI is just over the 24 mark, but that rope would have 8cm of slack. Actually the ratio between waist and height is also quite rough, better than BMI, but still not perfect. The waist to hip ratio is a better measurement. Mine is a healthy 0.85. I used to be over 1, before I started cycling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio#Indicator_of_health
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
