View Full Version : Zone Diet and other ways to lose weight
Damn, Fred. Nice work.
209.8. That is just 6 ounces in the last 5 days. Very annoying. Still working out and eating right. Just not losing the pounds. It was only two years ago, if I worked out and ate like this I would lose mad amounts of weight. Now, it is a bear just to get off a few pounds. I would love to know what physiological mechanism stopped working to make that happen. I've been blaming it on aging but Fred is blowing that excuse right out of the water.
Still on it, just stuck.
take-a-knee
02-04-2010, 11:48
Damn, Fred. Nice work.
209.8. That is just 6 ounces in the last 5 days. Very annoying. Still working out and eating right. Just not losing the pounds. It was only two years ago, if I worked out and ate like this I would lose mad amounts of weight. Now, it is a bear just to get off a few pounds. I would love to know what physiological mechanism stopped working to make that happen. I've been blaming it on aging but Fred is blowing that excuse right out of the water.
Still on it, just stuck.
You may be eating too many carbs, unless you are in the 25% or so of people that have a muted/reduced insulin response to refined carbohydrate. Unless you are part of this group, if you are still eating pasta, chips, bread (especially white bread) and other crap humans did not evolve to eat, then you can cut your calories down to 1000/day and you still may not lose any more weight.
Google Zone diet and Paleo diet, the healthiest diet of all combines the two. The Zone addresses portions/quantity/ carb-protein-fat ratios, and the Paleo addresses food quality an nutrient density.
People who eat nuts, vegetables and lean meats (and stay the hell away from sugar) in appropriate portions do not have a weight problem...period.
For your perusal:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#
Can't say I am eating all that many carbs. Basically, I am trying to eat high fiber, high protein. My basic meals are Kashi cereal, chicken with beans and salsa, turkey sandwich with avacado, spaghetti, low fat cheeseburgers, bananas and oranges. I atkinsed last year with almost the same results of not losing weight. Atkins worked great for me before, but not recently. I only drink coffee with splenda and water. No beer, no diet sodas, no grape juice, no 12 year old single malt. The amount of carbs I get from the small amount wheat bread I eat cannot explain my lack of weight loss. I get low-carb diets and agree with the science, but still, calories in/calories out is still the way to go. Reducing unnecessary sugars (which I have done) is the best way to make sure CI/CO works.
Since I am doing interval sprints as my main form of cardio exercise, I can't just give up carbs.
Anyway, I have lost 16 pounds since the new year, just frustrated by my recent plateau. I look miles better than I did, just not showing up on the scale.
take-a-knee
02-04-2010, 14:23
Can't say I am eating all that many carbs. Basically, I am trying to eat high fiber, high protein. My basic meals are Kashi cereal, chicken with beans and salsa, turkey sandwich with avacado, spaghetti, low fat cheeseburgers, bananas and oranges. I atkinsed last year with almost the same results of not losing weight. Atkins worked great for me before, but not recently. I only drink coffee with splenda and water. No beer, no diet sodas, no grape juice, no 12 year old single malt. The amount of carbs I get from the small amount wheat bread I eat cannot explain my lack of weight loss. I get low-carb diets and agree with the science, but still, calories in/calories out is still the way to go. Reducing unnecessary sugars (which I have done) is the best way to make sure CI/CO works.
Since I am doing interval sprints as my main form of cardio exercise, I can't just give up carbs.
Anyway, I have lost 16 pounds since the new year, just frustrated by my recent plateau. I look miles better than I did, just not showing up on the scale.
You rattled off LOTS of carbs, many of the worst (refined) kind:
Kashi cereal, I use this on the trail for a breakfast, it takes a BIG scoop of protein powder to make it "Zone". Half of a WW english muffin with about an ounce of turkey and a poached egg (I do mine in the microwave) would be a lot healthier breakfast.
Beans, nutritious but high carb, portions must be small and balanced with protein to Zone parameters (30/30/40)
Sandwiches, MIGHT be okay if you eat nothing else with it. A high-fiber wrap/tortilla like those made by Smart & Delicious would be a much wiser choice. Do I have to say you need to avoid french fries? For life!
Spaghetti- you need to take every bit of pasta in your house and give it to someone who's skinny and don't bring any more into your home. If you are predisposed to gain weight (IE, an elevated insulin response to refined carbohydrate) the purest definition of which is pasta, then you need to stay the hell away from it.
Bananas and oranges- TONS of sugar, probably okay if you eat them with low/no fat cottage cheese POST WORKOUT( 30min or less) only.
I wholeheartedly reccomend Crossfit type workouts, there are several Crossfit gyms in the Philadelphia area, King of Prussia comes to mind.
Best of luck to you. Chance favors the prepared mind.
Mags, yeah the clothes are fitting so much better and I look so much better. I am doing a pushup regimen everyday and light weight workouts every other, so surely I am replacing some fat with muscle. But at some point the muscle should be burning more calories than the fat so the extra weight of muscle should be offset by the extra calorie burning going on while at rest.
Take-a-knee, I am not on a low-carb diet, nor do I want to be on one. I am doing a ton of running and need carbs to do so effectively. Beans, a little pasta, oranges are not evil. And I am convinced that they are not the reason I am not losing weight. I am simply not eating enough carbs to make all that much of a difference. I am glad the Zone diet is working for you, just as I am happy for those for whom the Atkins or South Beach diet work, however, I am not just dieting. I am in full exercise mode and I need the panoply of nature's goodness to get me by.
take-a-knee
02-04-2010, 16:40
Mags, yeah the clothes are fitting so much better and I look so much better. I am doing a pushup regimen everyday and light weight workouts every other, so surely I am replacing some fat with muscle. But at some point the muscle should be burning more calories than the fat so the extra weight of muscle should be offset by the extra calorie burning going on while at rest.
Take-a-knee, I am not on a low-carb diet, nor do I want to be on one. I am doing a ton of running and need carbs to do so effectively. Beans, a little pasta, oranges are not evil. And I am convinced that they are not the reason I am not losing weight. I am simply not eating enough carbs to make all that much of a difference. I am glad the Zone diet is working for you, just as I am happy for those for whom the Atkins or South Beach diet work, however, I am not just dieting. I am in full exercise mode and I need the panoply of nature's goodness to get me by.
The Zone Diet is NOT a low carb diet, it is a 30% fat, 30% protein, and FORTY PERCENT CARBOHYDRATE diet. Note from which category the majority of your calories comes from. The sad fact is that is a lot lower than the average American's diet, and I suspect, a lot lower than yours, based on your listed food selections. Refined carbs are about as addictive for some people as cigarettes are for others, I suspect they are for you also. If you are eating ANY pasta you are sabotaging your chances of losing weight. Can skinny people eat pasta and stay skinny? Yes, some can, because they have a muted insulin response to it. If you have a weight problem at your age that obviously doesn't include you. You are simply misinformed if you think you need to eat pasta to be able to run. "The panoply of nature's goodness" is fruits and vegetables, grass-fed beef and free-range chicken/turkey, not some processed crap in a box. You wanta be healthy? Stay out of the center of the supermarket (where the pasta is) and eat the stuff you find on the outer walls, IE lean meats, fruits (in moderation with protein) and veggies,and a little low fat dairy. Beans and oranges are not evil, but they are certainly a dense/concentrated form of carbs. If you eat them regularly without eating an equal amount of protein (in calories) you will jack up your insulin production which causes you to retain/gain fat. That is a biochemical fact whether you choose to believe it or not.
take-a-knee
02-04-2010, 16:40
Mags, yeah the clothes are fitting so much better and I look so much better. I am doing a pushup regimen everyday and light weight workouts every other, so surely I am replacing some fat with muscle. But at some point the muscle should be burning more calories than the fat so the extra weight of muscle should be offset by the extra calorie burning going on while at rest.
Take-a-knee, I am not on a low-carb diet, nor do I want to be on one. I am doing a ton of running and need carbs to do so effectively. Beans, a little pasta, oranges are not evil. And I am convinced that they are not the reason I am not losing weight. I am simply not eating enough carbs to make all that much of a difference. I am glad the Zone diet is working for you, just as I am happy for those for whom the Atkins or South Beach diet work, however, I am not just dieting. I am in full exercise mode and I need the panoply of nature's goodness to get me by.
The Zone Diet is NOT a low carb diet, it is a 30% fat, 30% protein, and FORTY PERCENT CARBOHYDRATE diet. Note from which category the majority of your calories comes from. The sad fact is that is a lot lower than the average American's diet, and I suspect, a lot lower than yours, based on your listed food selections. Refined carbs are about as addictive for some people as cigarettes are for others, I suspect they are for you also. If you are eating ANY pasta you are sabotaging your chances of losing weight. Can skinny people eat pasta and stay skinny? Yes, some can, because they have a muted insulin response to it. If you have a weight problem at your age that obviously doesn't include you. You are simply misinformed if you think you need to eat pasta to be able to run. "The panoply of nature's goodness" is fruits and vegetables, grass-fed beef and free-range chicken/turkey, not some processed crap in a box. You wanta be healthy? Stay out of the center of the supermarket (where the pasta is) and eat the stuff you find on the outer walls, IE lean meats, fruits (in moderation with protein) and veggies,and a little low fat dairy. Beans and oranges are not evil, but they are certainly a dense/concentrated form of carbs. If you eat them regularly without eating an equal amount of protein (in calories) you will jack up your insulin production which causes you to retain/gain fat. That is a biochemical fact whether you choose to believe it or not.
Well, take-a-knee, maybe I'm just turned off by your religious zeal. Pasta is not evil. And to state otherwise belies the notion that you know what you are talking about. You read a book, I get it. I have had spaghetti twice since the new year. If you truly believe that eating pasta twice in a 35 day span is unhealthy, you have been taken in. And exactly what other refined carbs did I list? A couple of slices of whole wheat bread... oh, no, I'm gonna die, I ate bread.
Seriously, no french fries for the rest of my life? You must be joking. I have french fries in my freezer. Ingredients are potatoes, vegetable oil, salt and a preservative. Not gonna kill me. Not gonna stop me from losing weight as long as I don't eat the whole bag in one sitting.
As for carbs and running, I am not misinformed as I can tell the difference between when I eat a carb-rich meal before I run and when I eat a protein-rich meal beforehand. And the difference is large.
Clearly, this Zone diet has worked for you. Great. But don't come here to sell your version of the acai berry. Different strokes for different folks.
Unless you are part of this group, if you are still eating pasta, chips, bread (especially white bread) and other crap humans did not evolve to eat, then you can cut your calories down to 1000/day and you still may not lose any more weight.
I share your appreciation of the Zone diet TAK but I disagree with the above statement.
Weight loss is calories in vs calories out. If a person consumes 1000 calories a day and burns 1500 that's going to result in a 1 lb weight loss over a 7 day period. Doesn't matter if that 1000 calories comes from fried chicken, donuts or a healthy diet such as The Zone.
(I'm really hesitant to even post in this thread because weight loss and fitness are such controversial subjects. My mantra is eat healthy and get regular exercise. If you want to lose weight, create a calorie deficit. This easy to understand forumula will work for anyone.)
take-a-knee
02-04-2010, 18:20
I share your appreciation of the Zone diet TAK but I disagree with the above statement.
Weight loss is calories in vs calories out. If a person consumes 1000 calories a day and burns 1500 that's going to result in a 1 lb weight loss over a 7 day period. Doesn't matter if that 1000 calories comes from fried chicken, donuts or a healthy diet such as The Zone.
(I'm really hesitant to even post in this thread because weight loss and fitness are such controversial subjects. My mantra is eat healthy and get regular exercise. If you want to lose weight, create a calorie deficit. This easy to understand forumula will work for anyone.)
You are wrong. Yes, if you exercise hard enough. long enough, you will lose the weight, right up until you get sick and stop exercising, then what do you think happens? This phenomenon is so well documented you'd have to be in complete denial to ignore it. Exercising today is a matter of willpower, exercising next week is a matter of recovering from previous exercise. If you eat like shiite you will sabotage your recovery. So no, you really do not have the control over how many calories you burn that you think, at least many do not. Creating a calorie deficit to lose weight is a given, but it is nowhere near as simple as you make out. Spend an hour watching this lecture, or better yet read the book:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#
if you exercise hard enough. long enough, you will lose the weight, right up until you get sick and stop exercising,Moderation works. That's why I try not to get into any program that I don't think I can continue for the rest of my life. I may choose not to continue, of course, for a variety of reasons, but it is foolish to embark on something you KNOW you can't continue. Where the break-off point is is different for everyone, I would think, again for a variety of reasons, including personality.
Creating a calorie deficit to lose weight is a givenAgain, agree. All other parameters being equal, the more you eat, the more weight you gain (or the less you lose). And conversely...
take-a-knee
02-04-2010, 18:47
Moderation works. That's why I try not to get into any program that I don't think I can continue for the rest of my life. I may choose not to continue, of course, for a variety of reasons, but it is foolish to embark on something you KNOW you can't continue. Where the break-off point is is different for everyone, I would think, again for a variety of reasons, including personality.
Again, agree. All other parameters being equal, the more you eat, the more weight you gain (or the less you lose). And conversely...
I agree, the Zone Diet is something you do for the rest of your life, it is also highly modifiable to suit different foods, tastes, etc. Except for sugar lovers, they are screwed, but there are alternatives like stevia that don't have a downside like artificial sweetners, which should be avoided for the most part. Exercise HAS to be a given, of some sort, you are fooling yourself to say otherwise. It doesn't have to be Crossfit type interval stuff, but that is the most effective (and unpleasant) and most time efficient, and lack of time is the reason most give for failing to exercise.
TAK, that link you provided is a speech by a man with no formal education in nutrition or medicine. I watched a bit. A neat little history of what we have come to believe is healthy but hardly a trusted source for nutritional info. For someone who is very clear about who is right and who is wrong, for you to link to someone with no formal education in nutrition or medicine is a goddamed laugh riot.
See you helped me lose weight, right there. Stress inhibits weight loss, laughter relieves stress, bingo-bango, I'm on my way. Thanks buddy!
You are wrong. Yes, if you exercise hard enough. long enough, you will lose the weight, right up until you get sick and stop exercising, then what do you think happens? This phenomenon is so well documented you'd have to be in complete denial to ignore it. Exercising today is a matter of willpower, exercising next week is a matter of recovering from previous exercise. If you eat like shiite you will sabotage your recovery. So no, you really do not have the control over how many calories you burn that you think, at least many do not. Creating a calorie deficit to lose weight is a given, but it is nowhere near as simple as you make out. Spend an hour watching this lecture, or better yet read the book:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#
I hear what you're saying. Basically, for weight loss to be successful (sucessful defined as losing weight and keeping it off long term) a person has to change their relationship to food. It is a difficult shift to make and that is why so many people try and fail to lose weight long term. Anybody can lose 20 lbs. The person who can lose 20 lbs and keep it off for a year is another matter.
FWIW, I lost 60 lbs 10 years ago and have kept every bit of it off - my weight fluctuates between 165-175 year round, depending on what I'm doing. I did it by creating a calorie deficit from a combination of diet and exercise which continues to this day. What helped me a lot was the saying, "Eat to live, don't live to eat."
I did not, however, become an expert in diet and nutrition because the formula for losing weight is simple: Burn more calories than you consume. It's simple science.
Exercise HAS to be a given, of some sort, you are fooling yourself to say otherwise.well, again, one size doesn't fit all. I have known women who have not exercised and maintained a very low weight. Nothing that would interest me in doing, but there are few absolutes in the world, and needing to exercise to lose weight isn't one of them. But if you mean exercise as well as diet is needed for the majority of us, then I agree 100%
BTW, I also knew guys who ran a lot, and I mean A LOT, who remained rail thin in spite of diets that were horrible by any measure.
10-K has the best idea, in my opinion. A combo of reasonable diet and exercise. That he kept off 60 pounds for 10 years shows that he found what works for him, or course, but I believe it is the best plan overall.
And long distance hiking is the perfect way to incorporate diet and exercise. :D
take-a-knee
02-04-2010, 21:21
well, again, one size doesn't fit all. I have known women who have not exercised and maintained a very low weight. Nothing that would interest me in doing, but there are few absolutes in the world, and needing to exercise to lose weight isn't one of them. But if you mean exercise as well as diet is needed for the majority of us, then I agree 100%
BTW, I also knew guys who ran a lot, and I mean A LOT, who remained rail thin in spite of diets that were horrible by any measure.
10-K has the best idea, in my opinion. A combo of reasonable diet and exercise. That he kept off 60 pounds for 10 years shows that he found what works for him, or course, but I believe it is the best plan overall.
And long distance hiking is the perfect way to incorporate diet and exercise. :D
You are right, you don't have to exercise to have a normal weight, nursing homes are full ot thin, frail little old ladies. They are in poor health though for the most part. What I should have said was you have to exercise to be healthy. That is beyond rational argument.
take-a-knee
02-04-2010, 21:32
I hear what you're saying. Basically, for weight loss to be successful (sucessful defined as losing weight and keeping it off long term) a person has to change their relationship to food. It is a difficult shift to make and that is why so many people try and fail to lose weight long term. Anybody can lose 20 lbs. The person who can lose 20 lbs and keep it off for a year is another matter.
FWIW, I lost 60 lbs 10 years ago and have kept every bit of it off - my weight fluctuates between 165-175 year round, depending on what I'm doing. I did it by creating a calorie deficit from a combination of diet and exercise which continues to this day. What helped me a lot was the saying, "Eat to live, don't live to eat."
I did not, however, become an expert in diet and nutrition because the formula for losing weight is simple: Burn more calories than you consume. It's simple science.
I'm delighted your diet/exercise program has worked for you. The fact still remains there are millions of Americans who do not overeat by any reasonable standard and are morbidly obese. It is not just calories in, calories out. WHAT you eat, to a great deal, determine what your basal metabolism will be. For the insulin resistant person who eats refined carbs and continues to do so, they can cut their consumption of calories below that required to maintain their immune function and many still will not lose weight. The FED/GOV and megafood business don't want you to know a lot of this, the most profitable portion of US agribusiness isn't the lettuce/tomato lobby, it is companies like Archer Daniels that manufacture processed "food" for the ignorant.
TAK, that link you provided is a speech by a man with no formal education in nutrition or medicine.
I was going to try and stay out of this part of the thread--but TAK is right on the money in the latest research in weight loss and exercise. That 'calories in/out' mindset if from the 1950s--we learned it in Jr. High health class, taught by someone who learned it 20 years earlier. Much of the nutritional research is just wrong. It doesn't evaluate what it is supposed to test. This is where Taubes comes in. He's no slouch, from Wiki--(or any other Taubes bio site)
Gary Taubes (born April 30, 1956) is an American science writer. He is the author of Nobel Dreams (1987), Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science:_The_Short_Life_and_Weird_Times_of_Col d_Fusion) (1993), and Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007), which is titled The Diet Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diet_Delusion) in the UK [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes#cite_note-0). He has won the Science in Society Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_Society_Journalism_Awards) of the National Association of Science Writers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Science_Writers) three times and was awarded an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellowship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Science_Journalism_Fellowships) for 1996-97. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes#cite_note-knight-1)
His role was to study 150 years of 'research' to find out what was done correctly. Much of it was not. The linked video is what is current. When you hear 'sugar/fructose' think of any carbohydrate/starch/sugar as they all work the same in your system.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/26/Sugar-May-Be-Bad-But-This-Sweetener-Is-Far-More-Deadly-Part-2.aspx
As to how to eat? I'm not a fan of the Zone diet, it allows too much crap in the way of soy and vegetable oils. The human body never needs sugars/carbs to function properly. The calories in/out misses completely that the human body is driven by hormones; that we're not a furnace burning fuel like an engine. It's more like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE
TWS
So are you saying it is possible to lose weight without creating a calorie deficit?
I was going to try and stay out of this part of the thread--but TAK is right on the money in the latest research in weight loss and exercise. That 'calories in/out' mindset if from the 1950s--we learned it in Jr. High health class, taught by someone who learned it 20 years earlier. Much of the nutritional research is just wrong. It doesn't evaluate what it is supposed to test. This is where Taubes comes in. He's no slouch, from Wiki--(or any other Taubes bio site)
His role was to study 150 years of 'research' to find out what was done correctly. Much of it was not. The linked video is what is current. When you hear 'sugar/fructose' think of any carbohydrate/starch/sugar as they all work the same in your system.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/26/Sugar-May-Be-Bad-But-This-Sweetener-Is-Far-More-Deadly-Part-2.aspx
As to how to eat? I'm not a fan of the Zone diet, it allows too much crap in the way of soy and vegetable oils. The human body never needs sugars/carbs to function properly. The calories in/out misses completely that the human body is driven by hormones; that we're not a furnace burning fuel like an engine. It's more like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE
TWS
take-a-knee
02-04-2010, 23:09
So are you saying it is possible to lose weight without creating a calorie deficit?
No, what we are saying is that you will never achieve a calorie deficit unless you also get your hormones under control. It's like getting a teenaged boy drunk, stoned, and giving him a hit of ecstasy and dropping him off at the playboy mansion on Friday night. He's most likely gonna get some. Also, like I've said a few times earlier, an unhealthy diet of refined carbs will drive your metabolic rate so low if you try to reduce calories to 500 cal/day below that level it will be incompatible with life itself. You probably never had this problem, not everyone does, but untold millions do.
So are you saying it is possible to lose weight without creating a calorie deficit?
Yes. I am.
If you eat 2K cal of sugars you will store any energy not immediately needed and insulin will keep it in your cells. When your brain will tell you that you need energy it's locked away, so you need to eat more or be hungry. Insulin resistance cells won't make the nutrients available.
In the late 1940s starvation studies were done on 1,600cal diets. That was the limit of starvation at that time, trying to feed post war Europe. The human body hasn't changed in 60 years. Low cal diets don't work--LONG TERM. If you starve (or work out to excess) you will lose some initially, then plateau with symptoms of hunger, low body temps, fatigue, food obsessions. We've all been there and your body will hold on to fat, preparing for starvation, while wasting away muscle for 'fuel'. Again, we've all seen those newly thin, gaunt people without any definition--looking like death warmed over? Your fat cells are now like dry sponges, waiting for food to fill back up and then some.
If you eat 2K of fat/protein you don't have high insulin to store the excess in your cells. The fatty acids are free to flow in/out of the cells. The body does not sense impending starvation so cells give up fatty acids as energy is needed. What one finds, getting back to your question, is that as you lose weight, eating low carb, your need for calories diminishes some. You are using your own stored calories for fuel in an efficient manner. You eat when hungry, stop when full and don't eat crap. Every diet is a high-fat diet in that you want to use your own, stored saturated fats for fuel and get rid of them. A low carb diet does this.
There isn't much easier.
I also think 'daily calories' is meaningless, just like LDL, it's a useless number. It doesn't tell us anything, has no bearing on our health. Some days I eat several meals, other days only a single meal. I don't have timed meals but when I get hungry, I eat. If I'm not, I don't.
Avoid sugars, vegetable oils and easily digested carbs and you'll be better. From there eliminate anything boxed, with more than 5 ingredients, has unpronounceable ingredients, or has a bar code*. Finally, get rid of fruits and starchy vegetables. What's left should be rather healthy.
Also, rather than watching the full hour of Taubes on video (if you have the interest, it's well worth it) here is a one-page version of his research:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/print-article.aspx?id=139058
TWS
*Pollan's rules
There is alot to what TAK is saying. At rest, light activity, and even up to hiking and easy running, our bodies should be burning more fatty acids than carbohydrates. However, if we feed them more carbohydrates than fatty acids we will pump out insulin in order to take fatty acids out of the blood stream and into our adipose tissue and signal all the cells of our body to burn more sugar and less fat in order to bring the blood sugar back down. Even most athletes have the wrong idea on carbohydrates, prefering them over fatty acids even though, most of the time, our muscles do not.
Still, a few things are not clear about diets that are lower in carbohydrates.
1. How much protien do our bodies really need? Isn't excess protien also harmful?
2. If our bodies are burning body fat, when we are losing weight, doesn't it make sense to reduce our fat intake, while keeping our protien and carb intake at the same level they would be if we are maintaining our weight?
I am currently on the following diet, and it seems to be working well...
Burning 3000-4000 kcal per day, due to 1000-2000 kcal of exercise per day.
Most of my exercise is walking or easy running or easy cross-country skiing.
For 2000 kcal/day days without exercise, I consume 1000 kcal/day.
For 3000 kcal/day days without exercise, I consume 1500 kcal/day.
For 4000 kcal/day days without exercise, I consume 2000 kcal/day.
I estimate my requirements as 10% Protien, 30% Carbohydrates, 60% fat, as percentage of calories burned. I aim to get half these calories from my body fat, which changes the ratio of food consumed to 20% Protien, 60% Carbohydrates, 20% Fat.
On a 1000 kcal day without exercise: 50g Protien, 150g Carbs, 22g Fats
On a 1500 kcal day of average exercise: 75g Protien, 225g Carbs, 33g Fats
On a 2000 kcal day with double exercise: 100g Protien, 300g Carbs, 44g Fats
In theory, I should be losing about 0.4 pounds per day on average, and I am getting there. In practice, I cheat on some days. When I cheat I make sure I am not cheating by overconsuming carbohydrates. That is key. When I cheat, I make sure the food is higher in fat. Otherwise, I am overconsuming carbohydrates and training my body not to be as good at burning fatty acids. I can go a long time between meals, because I am using up my carbohydrates slower. It takes a week or two to get used to it. I am not going around with low blood sugar levels. I am just not overfilling the carbohydrate tank all the time, as most people do. If I cheat, it is usually because I am bored, or something like that, not because I am actually hungry. If I go for a run I figure out how much carbs I have burned, but usually wait until my next meal to top up. Even on a long run or 2 hours, I am running slow, so might only use 800 kcal of carbs at the most. I usally have a meal as soon as I get back from one of those, but I don't bother fueling as I go.
fredmugs
02-25-2010, 14:35
Allow me to voice some opinions that everyone can rip apart.
First: Packaged diets are for suckers. If there is a book being sold about it don't do it.
Second: Cut the carbs and you will burn belly fat. For years I did not want to own up to this. I would eat low fat and not care about carbs. Potatoes, wheat bread, etc. I could still lose weight but would still have noticebale belly fat.
Third: Do what works for you. Sounds simple but most people won't do it. If Atkins doesn't work don't try the Zone diet (whatever that is).
Fourth: Here is what works for me. I saw a website somewhere that I am inclined to believe that (based on my age, height, weight) I burn 1944 calories a day just being alive. Since most nutrition plans are based on a 2000 calorie a day diet that makes sense. If you look at nutrition labels you will see that the 2000 calorie a day diet also has a 65g limit for fat and a 300g limit for carbs.
If I cut the fat and carbs in half I will burn belly fat. If I do not I will not. When I ride an exercise bike at work I burn 850 calories in an hour. When I do not combine this with carb management I do not lose any weight and there is noticeable belly fat. My workouts are fairly common throughout the year but as I prepare for hiking in the spring and summer I focus on dieting and around October I do not. Every winter I gain the same 15 - 20 pounds.
Competitive body builders eat a lot of chicken breasts and I have made this the core of my diet. Lower carb vegetables like asparagus work well.
In the last 6 weeks I have lost 30 pounds and I am at my mid summer in shape weight of 195 pounds (I'm 6' 3"). I am trying to limit my carbs to 100g a day. My current eating regimen is to have lots of coffee with Splenda in the morning, a Healthy Choice or Lean Cuisine meal for lunch at work, hardcore workout followed by a MetRx Big 100 meal replacement bar, chicken and veggies at home.
Number of days I have felt hungry in the last 6 weeks? Zero.
You can cry and whine all you want about the processed foods yahda, yahda, yahda but what I'm doing works for me. I see these fat slobs at work who believe that on Atkins you can eat all the fatty red meat you want. Something in your brain should tell you that's not right.
I believe that if you eat adequate calories and fat you can burn belly fat which will result in weight loss by cutting back on the carbs. I just wished I would have gotten that into my thick head before I turned 45.
Like they say on TV: Your results may vary.
I've told this story before...but, in brief, I put on 10 lbs while working a swing shift . Post-trail, I tend to have a stocky/muscular frame partially due to genetics, partially being active (Most of my family looks like central castings idea of longshoremen..complete with authentic Northeast accents!) I've always been in very good shape, but again, being more on the stocky/muscular side. Emphasis more on endurance and strength more-so than say an athletic build.
Well, 10 lbs to a stocky/muscular frame means more stocky and less muscular! :o
I went on a 2wk backpack and lost the 10 lbs and became a little less stocky and a little more muscular again.
In May, my buddy Tim came for a visit. At 37 yo, he weighed what he weighed in bootcamp, but with a lot of lean upper-body muscle. He was 'cut'. Here's a guy who works full time, has two kids, is up at 4:30 am every morning to be into work and was in better shape than someone 20 yrs younger than him. He watched his diet and worked out hard 6 days a week.
Long story short, I was inspired to do the same. By this past Fall, I had lost 20 lbs while putting on muscle.
I now weigh less than after I finished the PCT, but with more upper body definition and less body fat. Long story short, I'm about 9-10% body fat and in the best shape I've been in.
My 'secret': Whole grains, lots of veggies, lean meat. An indulgence meal every now and then. Regular exercise of not only cardio, but weights. Upper, lower and core workouts. And my usual high mileage hiking, backpacking and skiing when I can. (Backcountry skiing works every major muscle group along with cardio/endurance. I suggest it if you can..plus its FUN!).
A bit old school: Healthy diet and regular exercise.
Getting in good health is simple....it just ain't easy. ;)
Snowleopard
02-25-2010, 15:51
Some time ago my doctor put me on an anti-reflux diet: low fat, relatively high protein, no tea (NO TEA!!!), a few other items prohibited. It's very easy for doctors to tell if a patient has kept to the diet because they always lose weight.
I went a bit further and mostly followed the Ornish diet for heart disease: very low fat, no animal fat, lots of fresh fruit and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, mostly vegetarian. There is no restriction on the amounts eaten, except for fat. http://www.answers.com/topic/ornish-diet I've since added tea and chocolate back into my diet, and I cheat more than I used to.
In both of these diets, weight loss is not the goal but occurs anyway because fat is replaced by carbs and proteins, and in the Ornish diet, fiber. These all have fewer calories per gram than fat does. Most fruits and vegetables have much more bulk/calorie than fats (or grains or proteins).
I lost significant weight on this diet though that was not the goal. My cholesterol and blood pressure also dropped significantly, even though these were normal to start with. So, weight loss is a side effect of this diet with other quantifiable health benefits.
My motivation: I've never had heart disease, high cholesterol or high blood pressure, but I do have asthma and a family history of heart disease. I often have chest pain from asthma and can't run to the emergency room every time I have chest pain. So my aim was to reduce the chances for a heart attack as far as I can. Weight loss was a side benefit.
So, I'd say that if these diets are healthy can you quantify the benefits beyond weight loss. Has your blood pressure and cholesterol gone to healthy levels and stayed there for the long term?
Since I am doing interval sprints as my main form of cardio exercise, I can't just give up carbs.
Anyway, I have lost 16 pounds since the new year, just frustrated by my recent plateau. I look miles better than I did, just not showing up on the scale.
16 lbs in less than 8 weeks is very good!
I'm not a nutritionist and I'm not up on the latest in exercise physiology but one thing you might want to consider is adding some longer runs at a pace that you can maintain comfortably for an hour or so and work up from there. In running circles this is called LSD or long, slow distance. Here's a snippet from wikipedia:
Physiological adaptations to LSD training include improved cardiovascular (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/Cardiovascular) function, improved thermoregulatory (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/Thermoregulation) function, improved mitochondrial energy production, increased oxidative capacity of skeletal muscle, and increased utilization as fat for fuel.
Also, I don't know what you're doing for weight training but muscle is denser and metabolically more active that fat. A lb of muscle burns 6 calories a day, a pound of fat only 2 calories. If you're building muscle the scales may not only quit going down, your weight may actually go up - perhaps this is the reason your scale seems to be stuck? How do your clothes fit?
(one of my favorite lines is "Muscle weights more than fat." That's absolutely not true - a pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh 16 ozs. :) )
So, I'd say that if these diets are healthy can you quantify the benefits beyond weight loss. Has your blood pressure and cholesterol gone to healthy levels and stayed there for the long term?
If by 'cholesterol' you mean the ratio of triglycerides to HDL then I can agree with that. Total cholesterol means almost nothing by itself, other than an indicator if the TG/HDL is high. If you have high TGs, low HDL and low total cholesterol, you are still at risk for CHD as your cholesterol pattern is small and dense.
With low TGs, high HDL your total cholesterol isn't that important as the pattern is the large, buoyant type that does not indicate CHD.
To get high triglycerides and low HDL, eat refined carbs; sugar, white flour, ect. To get high HDL and low TGs, eliminate those easily digested carbs.
An explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-3yPrmmsrs&feature=related
TWS
Ps. Congratulations on the weight loss/diet plan discussed in those posts above!