The Hacker's Diet(fourmilab.ch)
fourmilab.ch
The Hacker's Diet
https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/
16 comments
Is there some sort of unwritten rule of dietary advice that one should never cite one's sources?
[deleted](1)
My weight is good, so I haven't read much on the actual diet, but I am trying the ladder. Being a developer, I sit most of the day and for me I have developed a lower back pain so I figure I need more exercise. Hopefully this will work out.
I have the same problem. What I've found really useful is this simple exercise: hang from the pull up bar (like you do when preparing for pull-ups), lift both of your legs until they make 90 degree angle with your back, then slowly lower them down; repeat as many times as you can, but 10-20 repetitions daily after work are usually enough for me. Another simple exercise is a little less effective, but doesn't require any equipment: stand upright your back, shoulders and heels touching the wall, extend your hands forward then do normal squats.
The ladder works pretty well, it starts out so easy that it's almost boring but gets quite some bite when you progress.
I do the 5BX myself though (where the ladder is based on), as I mentioned in an earlier comment :)
I do the 5BX myself though (where the ladder is based on), as I mentioned in an earlier comment :)
Yeah, I'm having a problem with the boring part, so really hoping I don't lose focus. :)
Just keep it up for a few weeks and it becomes a habit. It's now the first thing I do every morning.
Protip: Make (or find and print) a calendar and hang it in a visible spot. Put an X every day you do the exercises, and then it's just a matter of not breaking the chain :)
Protip: Make (or find and print) a calendar and hang it in a visible spot. Put an X every day you do the exercises, and then it's just a matter of not breaking the chain :)
I will try that! Thanks.
After cross-reading this, my impression is that this was written with the nutritional knowledge that was prevalent 20 years ago and mostly focuses on counting calories, not about the nutrients present in the food.
From what I understand about modern nutritional science, this is not all that useful without having a look at e.g. the amount of carbohydrates and the glycemic index of the food you eat.
It seems that most studies agree that losing wait is most successful with a low carb + high protein diet. Most other approaches going with higher carb content usually just lead to insulin spikes and make you feel hungry at unnecessary times. Unless you like suffering, have impressive self control and don't mind what bloodsugar does to your body, that's probably not a good idea.
If you really want to eat carbohydrates, at least make sure you get a good amount of fiber with them, so it slows down their intake and reduces the amount of insulin your body fires off in response.
I would say the behavioural part (tracking weight etc) is probably a good idea. The actual diet part of this should probably be discarded.
From what I understand about modern nutritional science, this is not all that useful without having a look at e.g. the amount of carbohydrates and the glycemic index of the food you eat.
It seems that most studies agree that losing wait is most successful with a low carb + high protein diet. Most other approaches going with higher carb content usually just lead to insulin spikes and make you feel hungry at unnecessary times. Unless you like suffering, have impressive self control and don't mind what bloodsugar does to your body, that's probably not a good idea.
If you really want to eat carbohydrates, at least make sure you get a good amount of fiber with them, so it slows down their intake and reduces the amount of insulin your body fires off in response.
I would say the behavioural part (tracking weight etc) is probably a good idea. The actual diet part of this should probably be discarded.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/
> CONCLUSIONS
>
> Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful
> weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they
> emphasize.
> The principal finding is that the diets were equally successful in promoting
> clinically meaningful weight loss and the maintenance of weight loss over the
> course of 2 years. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance
> at group sessions were similar for all diets.I didn't say that counting calories won't work, I just said that it's not an optimal solution.
There are ranges of protein, fat, carbs that is possible to lose weight on. Some of them are just more effective than others.
There are ranges of protein, fat, carbs that is possible to lose weight on. Some of them are just more effective than others.
The linked study didn't find any significant difference in weight loss between diets with a radically different macronutrient composition:
> By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a
> diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0
> and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and
> those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in
> those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a
> diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all
> comparisons)
[...]
> The principal finding is that the diets were equally successful in promoting
> clinically meaningful weight loss and the maintenance of weight loss over the
> course of 2 years. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance
> at group sessions were similar for all diets.There are people who respond well to high carbohydrate diets, and people who respond well to low carbohydrate diets. Any study that just separates the participants into two different groups is just going to see that individual variability in response as "noise" in the final analysis. The only studies you can trust on macronutrient response include a crossover period.
Carbs being bad is very much outdated. As are unsustainable eating methods for short term benefits. Eating 6 times a day is also seeing some push back as to whether it is really any healthier. Calorie counting not being important was a fad (if its possible to have a negative fad). How can you have an ideal macro split for a diet when each of those macros has a calorie value without also taking into account your overall calorie needs?
It may become more prevalent that the notion of eating consistently will change too. You cannot eat at a deficit for any period of time without getting pretty severe diminishing returns as your body adapts to its in vs out. 5:2 is a very simple model of calorie cycling, just an unsustainable on.
Protein and calories have the same calorie content per gram, so if you hit your protein macros then there is no downside to eating carbs, and actually for active people your gains and recovery will suffer dramatically from lack of carbs. Overloading on protein has the same downsides as overloading on carbs in simple calories in vs out terms.
I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking, but it's not a bad strategy for a lot of situations.
It may become more prevalent that the notion of eating consistently will change too. You cannot eat at a deficit for any period of time without getting pretty severe diminishing returns as your body adapts to its in vs out. 5:2 is a very simple model of calorie cycling, just an unsustainable on.
Protein and calories have the same calorie content per gram, so if you hit your protein macros then there is no downside to eating carbs, and actually for active people your gains and recovery will suffer dramatically from lack of carbs. Overloading on protein has the same downsides as overloading on carbs in simple calories in vs out terms.
I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking, but it's not a bad strategy for a lot of situations.
Actually, while frequent eating is beneficial in terms of maximizing the gene expression response to protein feeding, it is actually detrimental in terms of insulin sensitivity. At least one study has shown that people practicing an intermittent fasting pattern of food intake improved insulin sensitivity relative to people consuming a calorie matched diet consumed using traditional meal timing.
Monounsaturated fat is a much better choice as it is nearly as effective as saturated fat at promoting hormone biosynthesis. The problem with saturated fat is that it triggers expression of genes for fat storage, and the effect is particularly pronounced in visceral tissue (which is the least healthy place to store it!).
"If it fits your macros" is bullshit, because there is a definite difference between sugar and other carbs, and a definite difference between saturated fat and other fats. Try going on a diet where all your carbs come from sugar, and almost all your fat comes from saturated fat and see how you look and feel.
Monounsaturated fat is a much better choice as it is nearly as effective as saturated fat at promoting hormone biosynthesis. The problem with saturated fat is that it triggers expression of genes for fat storage, and the effect is particularly pronounced in visceral tissue (which is the least healthy place to store it!).
"If it fits your macros" is bullshit, because there is a definite difference between sugar and other carbs, and a definite difference between saturated fat and other fats. Try going on a diet where all your carbs come from sugar, and almost all your fat comes from saturated fat and see how you look and feel.
I agree mostly. My main point of concern was the "just count calories, you'll be fine" completely ignores anything we know about a healthy died in terms of nutrients.
The fat one I find interesting:
> I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
While these things mostly go over my head, I could get my better half (PhD in nutritional epidemiology) to make a comment. Her answer:
"Saturated fats are not accepted to be healthy by the scientific community. Unsaturated fats are healthy, reduce cardiovascular risk, and promote satiety, so eating some is good, even if they have a higher calorie count per gram"
That being said, this comment mostly targets a healthy diet to prohibit e.g. cardiovascular diseases. While those usually correlate to reducing weight to a normal level, they might not be the same :)
The fat one I find interesting:
> I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
While these things mostly go over my head, I could get my better half (PhD in nutritional epidemiology) to make a comment. Her answer:
"Saturated fats are not accepted to be healthy by the scientific community. Unsaturated fats are healthy, reduce cardiovascular risk, and promote satiety, so eating some is good, even if they have a higher calorie count per gram"
That being said, this comment mostly targets a healthy diet to prohibit e.g. cardiovascular diseases. While those usually correlate to reducing weight to a normal level, they might not be the same :)
"Saturated fats are not accepted to be healthy by the scientific community..."
Why? Because this is plain wrong.
Here some links that are worth checking out on this subject:
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009...
Article backed with research: http://authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-satu...
A personal story: http://grassfedcrossfit.com/what-a-diet-of-70-saturated-fat-...
Some more info: https://www.bulletproofexec.com/podcast-16-everything-you-ne...
Why? Because this is plain wrong.
Here some links that are worth checking out on this subject:
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009...
Article backed with research: http://authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-satu...
A personal story: http://grassfedcrossfit.com/what-a-diet-of-70-saturated-fat-...
Some more info: https://www.bulletproofexec.com/podcast-16-everything-you-ne...
I am not an expert in this field (nutritional epi + cardiovascular disease).
Luckily, my significant other is (which is there the quote came from).
Her answer: "The first article shows no association of saturated fats with cardiovascular disease. No association does not mean healthy." and "Substituting polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats has been shown to lower ldl and is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease. This comes from both robust randomized controlled trial evidence, and data from prospective cohort studies"
I think the whole idea is that people agree that unsaturated fats do have health benefits. There is no clear evidence that saturated fats do. They might not actively cause harm, but they also don't have comparable benefits to health.
Luckily, my significant other is (which is there the quote came from).
Her answer: "The first article shows no association of saturated fats with cardiovascular disease. No association does not mean healthy." and "Substituting polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats has been shown to lower ldl and is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease. This comes from both robust randomized controlled trial evidence, and data from prospective cohort studies"
I think the whole idea is that people agree that unsaturated fats do have health benefits. There is no clear evidence that saturated fats do. They might not actively cause harm, but they also don't have comparable benefits to health.
>"I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking,"
IIFYM is a misleading acronym, it was born out of frustration with people asking "can I eat x? can I eat y?", it it meant to mean "If it fits your protein, carbs, fat, fiber and micronutrients".
IIFYM is a misleading acronym, it was born out of frustration with people asking "can I eat x? can I eat y?", it it meant to mean "If it fits your protein, carbs, fat, fiber and micronutrients".
One important aspect of weight loss is appetite control. Eating less carbs helps you to limit your calorie intake.
Nutrition and weight loss are 2 very complex subjects to say the least. However, calorie counting and weight measurement pretty much fit into all programs, mainly for the sake of raising awareness.
Counting calories is like keeping tracking of your spending. It won't solve your problems, but it will highlight areas of concern. If you're caloric intake goal is 1800, and you're consistently eating 2000, calorie counting will help you figure out where you can drop those 200 calories.
Similar to weight measurements, if you're losing weight at a consistent rate (~1-2 lbs/week), you can stay the course. If you flat line or start going up, it's good time to start reviewing what you're doing.
Of course, the situation is nuanced. For example, you could eat 1800 calories worth of cookies, or your weight gain could be caused due to the growth of muscle (which does happen).
At the outset, however, those 2 practices will get the machine going.
Counting calories is like keeping tracking of your spending. It won't solve your problems, but it will highlight areas of concern. If you're caloric intake goal is 1800, and you're consistently eating 2000, calorie counting will help you figure out where you can drop those 200 calories.
Similar to weight measurements, if you're losing weight at a consistent rate (~1-2 lbs/week), you can stay the course. If you flat line or start going up, it's good time to start reviewing what you're doing.
Of course, the situation is nuanced. For example, you could eat 1800 calories worth of cookies, or your weight gain could be caused due to the growth of muscle (which does happen).
At the outset, however, those 2 practices will get the machine going.
>It seems that most studies agree that losing wait is most successful with a low carb + high protein diet.
We've also seen studies that say that this is actually gives you an increased risk of regaining weight, once you lost it.
It really seems that the old recommendations: Everything in moderation, exercise and balanced diet are the best. Every "shortcut" modern diets present seems to fail in one way or another.
I think the issue is that we've created a culture where a people who loss weight, what ever the method, sets out to write a book or blog, detailing their new found wisdom. It's all anecdotal, proof is retrofitted to fit the result and claims are never properly verified or tested on a broad cross section of people. These weight loss anecdotes sells because we want them to work. Have you ever seen someone ask another person: "How did you loss all that weight?" and then their disappointment when the answer is "I eat less and workout". That's not what people want to hear, they want you to say that you just eat a lemon and half a pound of bacon every Tuesday.
Eat less that you burn, and try to get your basic nutrient requirement meet - That every single healthy diet summed up.
We've also seen studies that say that this is actually gives you an increased risk of regaining weight, once you lost it.
It really seems that the old recommendations: Everything in moderation, exercise and balanced diet are the best. Every "shortcut" modern diets present seems to fail in one way or another.
I think the issue is that we've created a culture where a people who loss weight, what ever the method, sets out to write a book or blog, detailing their new found wisdom. It's all anecdotal, proof is retrofitted to fit the result and claims are never properly verified or tested on a broad cross section of people. These weight loss anecdotes sells because we want them to work. Have you ever seen someone ask another person: "How did you loss all that weight?" and then their disappointment when the answer is "I eat less and workout". That's not what people want to hear, they want you to say that you just eat a lemon and half a pound of bacon every Tuesday.
Eat less that you burn, and try to get your basic nutrient requirement meet - That every single healthy diet summed up.
Nutritional knowledge in the last 20 years hasn't resulted in much difference in outcomes. Folks are still too fat. There's been no breakthrough.
People can lose weight and achieve goals using a wide variety of dietary programs (or none at all, if you throw in exercise).
If the hacker diet works for somebody, that's great. If not, they're plenty of other stuff to try.
People can lose weight and achieve goals using a wide variety of dietary programs (or none at all, if you throw in exercise).
If the hacker diet works for somebody, that's great. If not, they're plenty of other stuff to try.
This is not an intelligent approach in my opinion.
Every diet which involves a caloric deficit over a prolonged period of time will result in weight loss.
At least these days the updated food pyramids doesn't suggest stuffing yourself with grains but balance it a bit more.
That being said, people still will.
That being said, people still will.
If you have a big calories surplus it will take a looooot of exercise to lose weight.
But it WILL work, and in most cases, it doesn't take much exercise to see results. The point is there's a lot of ways to lose weight and there's no "best way" that works for everyone.
>"The point is there's a lot of ways to lose weight and there's no "best way" that works for everyone."
Incorrect. Eating at a consistent caloric deficit over a significant period of time will result in weight loss [1]. Any diet which incorporates that will 'work', different strategies of adhering to the deficit will allow different people to be consistent, which is the key to prolonged weight loss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics and it in practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/
Incorrect. Eating at a consistent caloric deficit over a significant period of time will result in weight loss [1]. Any diet which incorporates that will 'work', different strategies of adhering to the deficit will allow different people to be consistent, which is the key to prolonged weight loss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics and it in practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/
Let's not get pedantic here, mr spock. Of course you need a caloric deficit, and yes, if you do start walking/exercising for an hour a day and follow that up with a few big macs and chocolate shake you'll gain weight. In reality, if people introduce exercise and keep their diets roughly constant, THEY LOOSE WEIGHT.
The fundamental basics of weight loss are most certainly not 'pedantic'.
I've personally guided ~25 or so individuals and I can tell you from anecdotal experience that their diets are most certainly not constant. I'd find it odd if they ate the exact same amount of calories every day, on accident.
[deleted]
Yeah, it's only calorie counting, but it will work anyway.
It's a very basic approach but if you stick to the math... you will lose weight.
It's a very basic approach but if you stick to the math... you will lose weight.
Running a marathon every day would also work, but both of them are pretty tedious and sub optimal ;)
A focus on nutrient dense foods will make you feel fuller and will be better for your nutritional status and disease risk.
A focus on nutrient dense foods will make you feel fuller and will be better for your nutritional status and disease risk.
>"Running a marathon every day would also work, but both of them are pretty tedious and sub optimal ;)"
Nop, you can still eat enough calories to gain weight while running a marathon every day.
Eating at a caloric deficit isn't independent of eating micronutrient dense food.
Nop, you can still eat enough calories to gain weight while running a marathon every day.
Eating at a caloric deficit isn't independent of eating micronutrient dense food.
Impossible. Anyone who introduces regular exercise to their previously sedentary routine will almost invariably lose weight. I am sure that someone could do a contrived lab rat experiment where this is not the case, but the point is that regular exercise WILL lower weight.
>"Impossible. Anyone who introduces regular exercise to their previously sedentary routine will almost invariably lose weight."
False. Say you're eating 3000 calories a day and you exercise for an hour per day and burn 500 calories, but your caloric maintenance is 2300 calories. So you're at 2500 calories but you need to eat less than 2300 to lose weight. [1]
If you do not know how many calories you are eating, and your maintenance level you will not be able to ascertain the correct level to lose weight. You can exercise all you want, but if you're eating more than you're burning you will not lose weight.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics and it in practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/
False. Say you're eating 3000 calories a day and you exercise for an hour per day and burn 500 calories, but your caloric maintenance is 2300 calories. So you're at 2500 calories but you need to eat less than 2300 to lose weight. [1]
If you do not know how many calories you are eating, and your maintenance level you will not be able to ascertain the correct level to lose weight. You can exercise all you want, but if you're eating more than you're burning you will not lose weight.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics and it in practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/
No need to cite the 3rd law. Your 3000 calorie example is a bit ridiculous-- that would be someone who is gaining weight steadily to the tune of 1+ pound a week, and if that's the norm for years, they'd be 100's of pounds overweight. That's an edge case. A bit of regular exercise will work for all but the most silly examples.
I would not call this a 'silly' example as I have witnessed this anecdotally with a number (<10) of people who I have helped.
>A bit of regular exercise will work for all but the most silly examples.
I do not think it's wise to make such a large and unsubstantiated blanket statement, as I have mentioned prior it comes down to how much you are consuming and burning each day, over a prolonged period of time. It is also not helpful to say 'a bit of regular', that statement is hazy and it's impossible to know what you actually mean.
>A bit of regular exercise will work for all but the most silly examples.
I do not think it's wise to make such a large and unsubstantiated blanket statement, as I have mentioned prior it comes down to how much you are consuming and burning each day, over a prolonged period of time. It is also not helpful to say 'a bit of regular', that statement is hazy and it's impossible to know what you actually mean.
Yes, if you were gaining weight every week before, then adding exercise may not reverse that trend.
Yeah, it's straight up calorie counting, which works for some people and doesn't work for others. But I think the other half of it is to use a rolling average for weight tracking, and it's surprising how few weight loss apps do that.
>"From what I understand about modern nutritional science, this is not all that useful without having a look at e.g. the amount of carbohydrates and the glycemic index of the food you eat."
GI becomes irrelevant once you eat more than once every 24 hours, which for most people is the norm. [1]
[1] http://alanaragon.com/glycemic-index
GI becomes irrelevant once you eat more than once every 24 hours, which for most people is the norm. [1]
[1] http://alanaragon.com/glycemic-index
I would respectfully disagree. There are a great many foods which can have substantial short-term effects on blood sugar well outside the range that the body has the capability to process effectively.
This is a classic example of an underdamped control system leading to oscillations. It happens because the bandwidth of the control system isn't sufficient for the bandwidth of the input. As an engineer if I faced this problem I typically would try and increase the bandwidth of the control system to solve the problem. But that's not really an option in the human body (yet) so the only real solution is to try and control the bandwidth of the input.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_system#/media/File:Seco...
The more you control the input bandwidth (excess sugars) the less you're going to end up with oscillations and I suspect that those oscillations are what help people really put on weight. Eat too much sugar, it gets stored into fat and a sugar crash. That sugar crash presents as "false" hunger, so you eat again. Probably you eat too much sugar again, and so the cycle repeats.
There's probably a lot of variation from human to human on the insulin control system bandwidth, and there's a lot of variation in the diet different people choose to eat. So if one person has high bandwidth and generally good diet, perhaps it only makes a difference like you've suggested. Someone with low bandwidth and a terrible diet might see substantial improvements by doing nothing more than cutting large quantities of high GI food from their diet.
This is a classic example of an underdamped control system leading to oscillations. It happens because the bandwidth of the control system isn't sufficient for the bandwidth of the input. As an engineer if I faced this problem I typically would try and increase the bandwidth of the control system to solve the problem. But that's not really an option in the human body (yet) so the only real solution is to try and control the bandwidth of the input.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_system#/media/File:Seco...
The more you control the input bandwidth (excess sugars) the less you're going to end up with oscillations and I suspect that those oscillations are what help people really put on weight. Eat too much sugar, it gets stored into fat and a sugar crash. That sugar crash presents as "false" hunger, so you eat again. Probably you eat too much sugar again, and so the cycle repeats.
There's probably a lot of variation from human to human on the insulin control system bandwidth, and there's a lot of variation in the diet different people choose to eat. So if one person has high bandwidth and generally good diet, perhaps it only makes a difference like you've suggested. Someone with low bandwidth and a terrible diet might see substantial improvements by doing nothing more than cutting large quantities of high GI food from their diet.
Added the source, it addresses your concerns.
[deleted]
That's less true for people with any of many conditions impacting to carbohydrate metabolism, pretty much all of which are overrepresented among the overweight.
I've added the source, he talks about that.
I have no idea where you got that information from, but from what I know this is simply not true?
[deleted]
Added the source.
Yes, lower carb and higher protein are more efficient, but without running a calorie deficit you can never loose weight.
But yeah nobody should follow this book to the letter, in 2015...
But yeah nobody should follow this book to the letter, in 2015...
Seeing this again takes me back. After reading this a number of years ago (2002 or 2003 or so?) I actually gave my first effort to trying to lose some weight and get in better shape, which caused me to learn / figure out a bunch more, and actually start taking an interest in my physical abilities.
While I'm no serious athlete I now enjoy -- and recognize that I enjoy -- getting out and doing things, pushing myself when hiking or biking, and this has given me the ability to spend good deals of time outdoors enjoying the world. It's a great change of pace from the almost-completely-computer-focused stuff I'd done previously.
While I'm no serious athlete I now enjoy -- and recognize that I enjoy -- getting out and doing things, pushing myself when hiking or biking, and this has given me the ability to spend good deals of time outdoors enjoying the world. It's a great change of pace from the almost-completely-computer-focused stuff I'd done previously.
The Peter Jackson weight loss method consisted of replacing editing room trays of food full of junk with veggies he grazed on instead. There's also the Prof Might method http://matt.might.net/articles/least-resistance-weight-loss/
The exercises in this book are a slimmed-down version of the 5BX plan by the RCAF. I started doing these about 3 months ago and can really recommend this. It only costs about 11 minutes of your daily time.
The full version of these exercises have some more variety, as every 12 steps the exercises get a bit more challenging.
Link: http://fit450.com/HTML/5BX_Intro.html
The full version of these exercises have some more variety, as every 12 steps the exercises get a bit more challenging.
Link: http://fit450.com/HTML/5BX_Intro.html
Low carb high fat diet.
Count your macros, stay in ketosis
Like Keto/Paleo/Bulletproof?
This definitely works! I used to drink coffee with grass-fed butter every morning when I woke up and also took a few other things of Bulletproof diet to heart and lost over 30 kilo's in two years time.
Friends of mine are very positive about this and Keto seems to very successful as well, as seen here: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto
This definitely works! I used to drink coffee with grass-fed butter every morning when I woke up and also took a few other things of Bulletproof diet to heart and lost over 30 kilo's in two years time.
Friends of mine are very positive about this and Keto seems to very successful as well, as seen here: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto
Don't diet, but eat a healthy diet. By this point I'll get burned at the stake for this, but there is something to the Paleo diet. Our current diet is a nightmare in terms of not just weight, but health in general, more specifically, the rise in auto-immune disease. Research shows that a leaky gut is a _prerequisite_ (but not only factor) for developing auto-immune disease. One thing that causes leaky gut is gluten. Grains and seeds contain stuff that hurts your gut, why? Because grains and seeds have developed a defence for digestion because they need to come out the other side. I'm not a fad-following hipster, I just read literature on this, and I've seen first hand what gluten does to someone who's not even gluten intolerant. My wife has Grave's disease which is auto-immune. Her options were taking meds that devastate the thyroid and liver, or operate her thyroid and in the process likely develop the opposite of Grave's: hypothyroidism. She tried every other option, including different kinds of diets, until we read about the Autoimmune Protocol (AIP), which is a strict version of the Paleo diet. Her symptoms (constant 100-120 bbm heartbeat) went away within days. We've pinned it down to gluten as the main factor.
Counting calories is an extremely simplistic world view, and while it's very comforting to have a simple rule to follow, I believe it's a very bad idea to not care what you put in your body, as opposed to just how much of it.
Counting calories is an extremely simplistic world view, and while it's very comforting to have a simple rule to follow, I believe it's a very bad idea to not care what you put in your body, as opposed to just how much of it.
The main reason the paleo people get flack comes from trying to claim historical accuracy when science has consistently shown that claims about e.g. how long humans have been eating grain or dairy products are off by thousands of years.
See e.g. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-hal... or dozens of subsequent pieces.
The better way to phrase this is to avoid trying to claim unique merit: “This diet works for me. Maybe it will work for you.” That keeps the truthful part but drops the magical claims about why everyone else's choices aren't as valid.
See e.g. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-hal... or dozens of subsequent pieces.
The better way to phrase this is to avoid trying to claim unique merit: “This diet works for me. Maybe it will work for you.” That keeps the truthful part but drops the magical claims about why everyone else's choices aren't as valid.
Paleo works well for people who have low grade gluten/casein allergies. For those that don't, it is needlessly restrictive. Additionally, the emphasis on high fat consumption can actually exacerbate leaky gut, as high fat diets promote the growth of bacteria that release lipopolysaccharide. High lipid content also directly modulates intestinal permeability.
If you are going to make categorical statements like Research shows that a leaky gut is a _prerequisite_ (but not only factor) for developing auto-immune disease, please provide a reference.
For instance, this article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1856434/
which I found linked from a nutritionist promoting AIP, only goes as far as
However, in several autoimmune conditions it appears that increased permeability is a constant and early feature of the disease process. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly apparent that in some conditions increased permeability is critical to the development of disease as if it is abrogated the disease does not develop.
Note all the equivocation in the science there.
Edit: Actually linking one might be difficult, but for such a categorical statement, you should be able to cite a recent textbook, not just a few articles.
For instance, this article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1856434/
which I found linked from a nutritionist promoting AIP, only goes as far as
However, in several autoimmune conditions it appears that increased permeability is a constant and early feature of the disease process. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly apparent that in some conditions increased permeability is critical to the development of disease as if it is abrogated the disease does not develop.
Note all the equivocation in the science there.
Edit: Actually linking one might be difficult, but for such a categorical statement, you should be able to cite a recent textbook, not just a few articles.
Yup, paleo people are known for their great health. We are really lucky they left all these recipes books so we know exactly what they ate.
For those interested in tracking your weight online there is http://myhackerdiet.com It connects to withings too if you have a wifi scale.
How to lose weight the short(ish) version;
1) You need to be in a calorie deficit. (consuming less calories than you use)
2) Use a calorie calculator to find out roughly what your maintenance daily calorie allowance is. (eg http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm)
3) Eating less calories than this will result in you being in a calorie deficit and losing weight.
4) Every ~3500 calories under maintenance will result in 1 lb weight loss (so eating 500 less calories than maintenance per day will result in 1 lb/week)
4a) Likewise when bulking 500 calories per day above maintenance will mean you put on 1 lb/week (approx).
4b) 250 calories under maintenance per day, 1750 per week and you'll lose 0.5 lbs in that week. (You get the idea..)
5) A slightly higher protein diet will help hold on to muscle mass while cutting this weight.
6) Muscle mass helps loss weight because the more of it you have the more calories your body consumes.
7) Some general recommendations on macros (protein = 4 calories/gram, carbs = 4 cals/gram, fat = 9 cals/gram)
- protein: 0.6g-0.8g/lb of body weight - fat: 0.4g-0.6g/lb of body weight - carbs: fill in the rest of your calorie allowance
Example for 200 lb male trying to eat 2200 calories;
protein: 200 x 0.8 = 160 gram | 160 x 4 cals = 640 cals
fat: 200 x 0.5 = 100 grams | 100 x 9 cals = 900 cals
carbs: 900 cals + 640 cals = 1540 | 2200 - 1540 = 660 | 660 / 4 cals = 165 grams
Therefore the 200lb male will consume 2200 calories by eating 160g of protein, 100g of fat and 165g of carbs.
When and how these calories are consumed doesn't really matter unless your really care about athletic performance.(1-2% to be gained maybe in meal timing and nutrient partitioning) So eat how and whatever you prefer. If that means 1 huge meal or 5 small ones no problem.
I'd recommend a balanced diet consisting of fresh natural foods. Also 1 hour of exercise per day (some days cardio, other days weights(focus on compounds; squat, deadlift, bench press, shoulder press, pullups, rows)).
1) You need to be in a calorie deficit. (consuming less calories than you use)
2) Use a calorie calculator to find out roughly what your maintenance daily calorie allowance is. (eg http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm)
3) Eating less calories than this will result in you being in a calorie deficit and losing weight.
4) Every ~3500 calories under maintenance will result in 1 lb weight loss (so eating 500 less calories than maintenance per day will result in 1 lb/week)
4a) Likewise when bulking 500 calories per day above maintenance will mean you put on 1 lb/week (approx).
4b) 250 calories under maintenance per day, 1750 per week and you'll lose 0.5 lbs in that week. (You get the idea..)
5) A slightly higher protein diet will help hold on to muscle mass while cutting this weight.
6) Muscle mass helps loss weight because the more of it you have the more calories your body consumes.
7) Some general recommendations on macros (protein = 4 calories/gram, carbs = 4 cals/gram, fat = 9 cals/gram)
- protein: 0.6g-0.8g/lb of body weight - fat: 0.4g-0.6g/lb of body weight - carbs: fill in the rest of your calorie allowance
Example for 200 lb male trying to eat 2200 calories;
protein: 200 x 0.8 = 160 gram | 160 x 4 cals = 640 cals
fat: 200 x 0.5 = 100 grams | 100 x 9 cals = 900 cals
carbs: 900 cals + 640 cals = 1540 | 2200 - 1540 = 660 | 660 / 4 cals = 165 grams
Therefore the 200lb male will consume 2200 calories by eating 160g of protein, 100g of fat and 165g of carbs.
When and how these calories are consumed doesn't really matter unless your really care about athletic performance.(1-2% to be gained maybe in meal timing and nutrient partitioning) So eat how and whatever you prefer. If that means 1 huge meal or 5 small ones no problem.
I'd recommend a balanced diet consisting of fresh natural foods. Also 1 hour of exercise per day (some days cardio, other days weights(focus on compounds; squat, deadlift, bench press, shoulder press, pullups, rows)).
> focus on compounds; squat, deadlift, bench press, shoulder press, pullups, rows
This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but recommending pull-ups to someone out of shape who needs to loose weight is just bizarre.
If someone was a beginner on the bench press, would you start them at 250lbs and yell at them to push harder? No. That would be stupid and dangerous.
Yet somehow fat people are supposed to will themselves to do a pull up, which is basically the equivalent.
This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but recommending pull-ups to someone out of shape who needs to loose weight is just bizarre.
If someone was a beginner on the bench press, would you start them at 250lbs and yell at them to push harder? No. That would be stupid and dangerous.
Yet somehow fat people are supposed to will themselves to do a pull up, which is basically the equivalent.
Note that the OP also mentions rows in the segment you quoted. Rows are available to all skill levels, and are an effective way to build strength to eventually do pull-ups.
I was able to start doing pull-ups after a few months of doing bent over rows with a $25 set of resistance bands.
It is very difficult to figure all of the details out, because there is so much money to be made by convincing people to buy into gimmicks. The OP has the right general ideas, though.
I was able to start doing pull-ups after a few months of doing bent over rows with a $25 set of resistance bands.
It is very difficult to figure all of the details out, because there is so much money to be made by convincing people to buy into gimmicks. The OP has the right general ideas, though.
If I may interject ...
Yes, a pull-up is a tall order for someone who is overweight or for most females - and even if you can do one or two pullups, that's not a good basis for working out that part of your body. You should be shooting for 10-12 reps, etc.
However, a "pull-up" can really be though of as any compound exercise that requires you to use your lats and biceps to pull yourself up OR pull something down to you.
So look for the "lat pulldown" machine and adjust the weight accordingly. It's the same thing.
Yes, a pull-up is a tall order for someone who is overweight or for most females - and even if you can do one or two pullups, that's not a good basis for working out that part of your body. You should be shooting for 10-12 reps, etc.
However, a "pull-up" can really be though of as any compound exercise that requires you to use your lats and biceps to pull yourself up OR pull something down to you.
So look for the "lat pulldown" machine and adjust the weight accordingly. It's the same thing.
If you "kip up" (jump assist or chair assist) and do a reverse (slowly lower yourself down) it's easier to do and you can build your way up to doing a full pull up. I've done this and I've been as much as 65lbs overweight; I'm not sure how feasible it is for, say, twice that, but at least it's doable at some point of overweight.
I kept the training protocol very vague intentionally.
Some trainees would be better off simply stretching for a month before doing any resistance training.
These details need to be assessed on a case by case basis. This is just an overview.
Negative pull-ups or lat pull-down could be used until the required strength is there.
Some trainees would be better off simply stretching for a month before doing any resistance training.
These details need to be assessed on a case by case basis. This is just an overview.
Negative pull-ups or lat pull-down could be used until the required strength is there.
This is the reddit party line, and it's just as much an oversimplification here as it is there. In actuality, people have wildly different metabolic responses to over/underfeeding, and those responses also vary depending on macronutrient composition.
What you described is a reasonable way to get a starting point, but the math almost never works out the way you described. Instead, you must track your body's response over a week or two to a very repetitive diet, then change one or two variables at a time and repeat the tracking process until you get the desired result.
What you described is a reasonable way to get a starting point, but the math almost never works out the way you described. Instead, you must track your body's response over a week or two to a very repetitive diet, then change one or two variables at a time and repeat the tracking process until you get the desired result.
"but the math almost never works out the way you described."
It's not the math that does or does not work. It's the psychological and mental effects of the above advice.
If person A feels physically sick and completely unable to function while in a 500 calorie daily deficit that's a very different outcome than person B who barely notices that exact same deficit.
That's what leads to this silly argument over whether the "math works" or not.
I think the rational calorie deficit/surplus calculation needs to always be accompanied with a large amount of sympathy and understanding that the psychological and mental effects of these "simple steps" can vary dramatically.
It's not the math that does or does not work. It's the psychological and mental effects of the above advice.
If person A feels physically sick and completely unable to function while in a 500 calorie daily deficit that's a very different outcome than person B who barely notices that exact same deficit.
That's what leads to this silly argument over whether the "math works" or not.
I think the rational calorie deficit/surplus calculation needs to always be accompanied with a large amount of sympathy and understanding that the psychological and mental effects of these "simple steps" can vary dramatically.
> It's the psychological and mental effects of the above advice.
Actually, the physiological effects outside of weight loss/gain are also different.
> If person A feels physically sick and completely unable to function while in a 500 calorie daily deficit that's a very different outcome than person B who barely notices that exact same deficit.
And its probably a sign of a very different physiological response, not merely a "psychological and mental" one.
Actually, the physiological effects outside of weight loss/gain are also different.
> If person A feels physically sick and completely unable to function while in a 500 calorie daily deficit that's a very different outcome than person B who barely notices that exact same deficit.
And its probably a sign of a very different physiological response, not merely a "psychological and mental" one.
The basal metabolic rate between individuals is far less variable than most people think. Whenever people start spouting that they have a 'slow metabolism', the effects are actually minimal.
The research data I've seen suggests that a standard deviation from the mean BMR is about 7.5%. That means that people with the slowest metabolisms burn only about 73% of what people with the fastest metabolisms burn at rest.
Additionally, the metabolic response to overfeeding varies greatly between individuals; some people respond to excess calories with a significant rise in body temperature and heightened energy, while others show no change in body temperature and actually get tired after eating.
I'm not saying that "slow metabolism" is a legitimate reason someone can't get fit. Only that it isn't fair to assume everyone is the same; some people DO have a much harder time losing fat and staying lean.
Additionally, the metabolic response to overfeeding varies greatly between individuals; some people respond to excess calories with a significant rise in body temperature and heightened energy, while others show no change in body temperature and actually get tired after eating.
I'm not saying that "slow metabolism" is a legitimate reason someone can't get fit. Only that it isn't fair to assume everyone is the same; some people DO have a much harder time losing fat and staying lean.
The advice is universal. You're picking and choosing points you don't like to excuse yourself from the commitment.
The best thing you can do right now is sit down and make a meal plan, then go shopping for it, today, right now. Here: chicken , frozen vegetables, water. Cook it all, then eat as much of that to feeling totally full, with your choice of sauce, and you will lose weight. Guaranteed. No exercise required, no limits on how much you can eat.
The best thing you can do right now is sit down and make a meal plan, then go shopping for it, today, right now. Here: chicken , frozen vegetables, water. Cook it all, then eat as much of that to feeling totally full, with your choice of sauce, and you will lose weight. Guaranteed. No exercise required, no limits on how much you can eat.
> Every ~3500 calories under maintenance will result in 1 lb weight loss
If you are managing to lose pure fat, this is true; in reality, it probably won't be. Its more like 600 calorie deficit per pound of muscle, and, ceteris paribus, the greater the calorie deficit, the greater the proportion of weight loss that will be from muscle. (OTOH, the more overweight you are, ceteris paribus, the greater the percentage of the weight loss that will be from fat, so if you are very overweight, then a very aggressive calorie deficit is more tolerable than when you are less overweight.)
Losing muscle is more rapid weight loss than losing fat, but its generally not what people seeking to "lose weight" really want, so its important to not overdo the calorie deficit (what "overdo" means depends on how high your body fat is currently, various things that vary from individual to individual, and to a certain extent what the exercise pattern and particular diet pattern is that you are doing, since that affects maintenance of muscle mass.)
If you are managing to lose pure fat, this is true; in reality, it probably won't be. Its more like 600 calorie deficit per pound of muscle, and, ceteris paribus, the greater the calorie deficit, the greater the proportion of weight loss that will be from muscle. (OTOH, the more overweight you are, ceteris paribus, the greater the percentage of the weight loss that will be from fat, so if you are very overweight, then a very aggressive calorie deficit is more tolerable than when you are less overweight.)
Losing muscle is more rapid weight loss than losing fat, but its generally not what people seeking to "lose weight" really want, so its important to not overdo the calorie deficit (what "overdo" means depends on how high your body fat is currently, various things that vary from individual to individual, and to a certain extent what the exercise pattern and particular diet pattern is that you are doing, since that affects maintenance of muscle mass.)
The 500 calorie number is a little sketchy. For it to hold true, here are some questions:
1. How accurately do we know how many calories are needed for maintenance? I would imagine this is highly variable, unless there is evidence to show it is not. People's activity can be quite different day to day. Also is there evidence that metabolism occurs at a consistent rate? If all these add up to an error that is an order of magnitude less than 500, only then can we reliably use the number 500.
2. There is some new research [1] that shows that we may have to rethink the calorie-labels based on how foods are digested. For example cooked food are sometimes digested more completely than raw food, leading to a net intake of more calories.
[1] http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/02/have-we-been-mi...
1. How accurately do we know how many calories are needed for maintenance? I would imagine this is highly variable, unless there is evidence to show it is not. People's activity can be quite different day to day. Also is there evidence that metabolism occurs at a consistent rate? If all these add up to an error that is an order of magnitude less than 500, only then can we reliably use the number 500.
2. There is some new research [1] that shows that we may have to rethink the calorie-labels based on how foods are digested. For example cooked food are sometimes digested more completely than raw food, leading to a net intake of more calories.
[1] http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/02/have-we-been-mi...
nice comment explaining simple math. now a bit trickier part - how to follow it. And to put it simply - to be able to follow it you have to incorporate it into your daily routine. Also, you have to like things you do and eat (that's why restricting all carbs from diet if you love chocolate should not be done.) If you don't like jogging, do several 7 minutes exercises per day, or do some active sport (soccer?.) If you don't like weights - this one is tricky, as I don't know what can really replace it. But you have to find what you like, otherwise it will be too hard to follow.
May I recommend walking ?
Nothing else. Just walking outside.
It's extremely enjoyable and relaxing - as well as mentally stimulating and interesting. In the city, in the country - even in a terrible suburb. 3-4 miles takes about an hour.
Pro tip: people who don't walk much at all will experience knee/shin/back pain as a result of walking 2-4 miles per day. The solution is simple: keep walking. Your body was built to walk and the walking will fix those problems for you. You'll be surprised that it only takes 2-3 weeks for this to happen.
Nothing else. Just walking outside.
It's extremely enjoyable and relaxing - as well as mentally stimulating and interesting. In the city, in the country - even in a terrible suburb. 3-4 miles takes about an hour.
Pro tip: people who don't walk much at all will experience knee/shin/back pain as a result of walking 2-4 miles per day. The solution is simple: keep walking. Your body was built to walk and the walking will fix those problems for you. You'll be surprised that it only takes 2-3 weeks for this to happen.
Better tip than "just walking" is find a trainer or training group that prepares people for fitness walking (lots of times, local fitness shops will do this for 5K walk/runs, and will have a subgroup focused on walkers.) As with most exercise, proper technique makes a big difference, and even if the human body is built to walk, lots of people (not all, for sure, but a significant fraction of those that would be starting to ramp up from an inactive lifestyle) have developed bad habits and doing it more but still badly won't magically fix them, it will just reinforce them and compound the pain they produce.
it is enjoyable and relaxing for you and may be many out there, but not all. that was a point about finding what your mind and body will not fight. i personally hate walking, but i love to play outdoors with drones and getting better with my training kite. same end result (moving) but much easier to incorporate, since I already want to do it.
For me the main takeaway from this was the "moving average" method to calculate weight, which smooths daily spikes into a trend curve. An excellent app for this on iOS is True Weight. Saves you from making calculations.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/true-weight/id287941226?mt=8
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/true-weight/id287941226?mt=8
Many people don't seem to like the approach of the Hackers Diet, as it only focuses on how much and not what you eat.
I actually really like this approach. Everybody has different ideas about what is good to eat or what isn't, but in the end, you only lose weight if you eat less than you burn. The Hackers Diet gives you the freedom to choose what you think is best to eat, while giving you feedback about what kind of effect it has on your weight.
Also one very important realization: your fat cells will only release fat when your blood sugar level is low, and when that happens, your brain will receive messages you should eat. So if it's strong or not, if you want to burn fat, you will be hungry. Exercise suppresses this feeling a bit though, but unless you can do that everyday, it won't be very effective.
I actually really like this approach. Everybody has different ideas about what is good to eat or what isn't, but in the end, you only lose weight if you eat less than you burn. The Hackers Diet gives you the freedom to choose what you think is best to eat, while giving you feedback about what kind of effect it has on your weight.
Also one very important realization: your fat cells will only release fat when your blood sugar level is low, and when that happens, your brain will receive messages you should eat. So if it's strong or not, if you want to burn fat, you will be hungry. Exercise suppresses this feeling a bit though, but unless you can do that everyday, it won't be very effective.
> your fat cells will only release fat when your blood sugar level is low
Nope, it's low insulin that unlocks fat cells, not low blood sugar.
Nope, it's low insulin that unlocks fat cells, not low blood sugar.
Ehm, I think you have it the wrong way around. Insulin has the opposite effect, it will stimulate glucose going to muscles and fat cells.
You're correct. Insulin is the storage hormone, cortisol is the teardown hormone (putting it all very simply).
I survived some lean years on what I called the Yin-Yang diet: black coffee and white rice. Regular exercise also played an obvious role.
Well, I lost about 100 pounds. I'm pretty sure I looked at this website at some point while I was doing this. What I can say anecdotally is that there are two main issues at play for those who are obese:
1. Food is too damn good. We've developed food to be tastier and tastier, setting off more and more pleasure sensations, almost to the point where it loops back around and becomes disgusting.
2. Some people under stress do not eat. Other people under stress eat more. People who eat more when stressed will gain weight, and become more stressed about their weight gain.
I'm talking about the morbidly obese here, not just people about twenty pounds overweight.
What I did for myself was to make a few adjustments:
1. Eat healthier versions of food that I actually like. I mean, sure, a fried chicken sandwich or a hamburger can be delicious. But so is a turkey sandwich, or grilled chicken. When I lost weight, I chose the lower calorie options that I still enjoyed.
2. Avoid pointless food. French fries are great, but they're just filler. Soda is tasty (though I actually dislike it now that I've had distance from it), but it's not substantively adding to my enjoyment of a meal. Stop focusing on sides and enjoy the main course on its own.
3. Exercise reasonably and consistently. It's not sustainable to go from sedentary obesity to daily hill sprints. Start with walking more, move on to exercise twice a week. Progressively build up from there. Find something you can enjoy doing (for me, I enjoy lifting weights).
There's a lot more I could talk about (e.g. better sleep, realistic expectations, tolerating hunger) as well. I can't say I'm perfectly healthy now, but I've hopefully saved myself from the long-term health effects of obesity.
1. Food is too damn good. We've developed food to be tastier and tastier, setting off more and more pleasure sensations, almost to the point where it loops back around and becomes disgusting.
2. Some people under stress do not eat. Other people under stress eat more. People who eat more when stressed will gain weight, and become more stressed about their weight gain.
I'm talking about the morbidly obese here, not just people about twenty pounds overweight.
What I did for myself was to make a few adjustments:
1. Eat healthier versions of food that I actually like. I mean, sure, a fried chicken sandwich or a hamburger can be delicious. But so is a turkey sandwich, or grilled chicken. When I lost weight, I chose the lower calorie options that I still enjoyed.
2. Avoid pointless food. French fries are great, but they're just filler. Soda is tasty (though I actually dislike it now that I've had distance from it), but it's not substantively adding to my enjoyment of a meal. Stop focusing on sides and enjoy the main course on its own.
3. Exercise reasonably and consistently. It's not sustainable to go from sedentary obesity to daily hill sprints. Start with walking more, move on to exercise twice a week. Progressively build up from there. Find something you can enjoy doing (for me, I enjoy lifting weights).
There's a lot more I could talk about (e.g. better sleep, realistic expectations, tolerating hunger) as well. I can't say I'm perfectly healthy now, but I've hopefully saved myself from the long-term health effects of obesity.
I lost about 30 pounds 10 years ago. It was a time when I was fairly active, but I'm convinced that the main part of the weight loss came from one thing: I stopped eating French Fries. Replacing french fries with a different (or no) side had a small effect. But it also altered where I ate. You're not going to go to McDonald's if you can't order fries.
I used to use this site, long ago and I did lose weight in my 20’s. Now in my 40’s I find it emphasizes a way of thinking that I think is missing the point.
I don’t necessarily disagree with calorie counting, but forcing yourself to not eat when you are hungry is the key to failure. I think this is at the root of the low-carb approach in which the foods that you eat don’t stimulate your body’s fat-making hormones.
If your body is being asked to make fat (through raised insulin levels), it doesn’t matter how many calories you eat, they are mostly being stored and you will continue to be hungry.
Low-carb helps you eat fewer calories because more of the calories you eat are available for energy and your body will signal that you are satiated.
If you want to go really low-carb, you can go into ketosis, where your body realizes it can also start eating its own fat for energy and promptly does so. Then you are satiated on even fewer calories because your body can get what it needs from itself.
I’ve found ketosis to be very reliable and even better, I find I concentrate much better because I’m not so distracted by how I’m going to get my next snack to much while I code. That concept is no longer a part of my consciousness. You don’t realize how noisy your brain is around food until it’s quiet.
I don’t necessarily disagree with calorie counting, but forcing yourself to not eat when you are hungry is the key to failure. I think this is at the root of the low-carb approach in which the foods that you eat don’t stimulate your body’s fat-making hormones.
If your body is being asked to make fat (through raised insulin levels), it doesn’t matter how many calories you eat, they are mostly being stored and you will continue to be hungry.
Low-carb helps you eat fewer calories because more of the calories you eat are available for energy and your body will signal that you are satiated.
If you want to go really low-carb, you can go into ketosis, where your body realizes it can also start eating its own fat for energy and promptly does so. Then you are satiated on even fewer calories because your body can get what it needs from itself.
I’ve found ketosis to be very reliable and even better, I find I concentrate much better because I’m not so distracted by how I’m going to get my next snack to much while I code. That concept is no longer a part of my consciousness. You don’t realize how noisy your brain is around food until it’s quiet.