Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Weight Watchers and The Atkins Diet

By adamba in Culture
Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 03:18:24 PM EST
Tags: Focus On... (all tags)
Focus On...

The debate over how to lose weight has intensified recently. The official position of the US government for the last 30 years has been that a low calorie diet, heavy in carbohydrates and low in fat, is the healthiest diet. However, during that time many people have lost weight with the opposite diet, low in carbohydrates and high in fat.

A July cover story in the New York Times Magazine, titled "What If It's All Been a Big Lie?," followed by a September cover story in Time, titled "What Really Makes You Fat?", both discussed the fact that the low calorie diets don't have any more scientific evidence going for them than the low carbohydrate ones, and that low carbohydrate diets may be reasonable and safe for many people.

We'll compare one low calorie diet, Weight Watchers, with one low carbohydrate diet, the Atkins Diet.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
1.

There is no real mystery to losing weight. The body needs energy, which it obtains from the calories in food. The caloric parts of food consist of three types: fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. Fat is a more efficient energy store than the other two: it has 9 calories per gram, while carbohydrates and proteins have 4 calories per gram. Most energy that the body uses comes from adipose tissue. A pound (454 grams) of adipose tissue, which is approximately 85% fat, has 3500 calories. Thus, if you eat 3500 calories less than your body needs, it will get the energy by burning off a pound of adipose tissue, and you will weigh one pound less.

That's the theory, and it's more or less correct, although 3500 calories is not a precise amount for everyone at all times. The key point is that to lose weight, you need to use more calories than you eat. It doesn't really matter where the calories come from: the body converts unused protein and carbohydrate calories to fat for storage, so eating no fat won't stop your body from producing extra fat. It also doesn't matter how you go about using more calories: you can consume fewer calories, or expend more calories, or a combination of both.

An average woman burns 11 calories per pound of body weight per day; the average man burns 12 calories per day. Thus a 167-pound man will burn approximately 2000 calories per day. Those are averages that can vary widely for different people, based on their metabolic rate. This is where exercise can help. Besides burning extra calories while actually exercising, it can increase your metabolic rate while at rest, and also may build muscle, which consumes more calories at rest than adipose tissue does.

2.

The Weight Watchers plan is simple: all foods are assigned a "point" value. To compute points, start with the calorie count; add a bit for every gram of fat, and subtract a bit for every gram of fiber, to get what I will call "adjusted calories". Fifty adjusted calories equals one point. (The point calculation is not presented as such, but rather as a mystical black box which takes three inputs--calories, fat grams, and fiber grams--and then runs them through a slide-rule-like gizmo, or a Weight Watchers calculator, to produce the point value.) Weight Watchers publishes books listing the point values for many common foods, as well as for common dishes at well-known restaurants. (Weight Watchers used to use a more complicated formula in which foods were classified in a manner similar to the American Diabetes Association's Dietary Exchange Lists. This system was more precise, but also harder to follow; the result was more like being on the Zone Diet, which advocates a 40-30-30 percent balance between carbohydrates, protein, and fat.)

Following the Weight Watchers plan involves determining the proper number of points that you should consume each day (actually a range of values, based on your current weight), and then tracking all the food you consume to ensure that you keep to that number. The exact number of calories you are allowed to consume will depend on how much fat and fiber you include in your diet, but it will very likely be less than you burn simply keeping your body running (the 167-pound man who burns 2000 calories at rest will likely eat fewer than 1500 calories on Weight Watchers).

To encourage exercise, Weight Watchers plan gives you credit, in the form of extra points that are earned based on the duration and intensity of the exercise. This lets you eat a bit more, while avoiding the problem of overcompensating ("I ran for 15 minutes, so here goes a banana cream pie").

By contrast, the Atkins Diet does not worry about all calories, but instead only about carbohydrates. It's simpler to calculate, since carbohydrate information is generally known, and there is no need to do any conversion to points.

Initially, participants are restricted to 20 grams of carbohydrates a day. That is a very low amount: 1/4 cup of flour, or a single slice of typical bread. Eventually, this amount can be raised to 40 to 60 grams a day, depending on how much an individual can eat and still lose weight. Since many carbohydrate-rich foods (especially starchy vegetables) have important vitamins, participants in the Atkins Diet also take a multivitamin every day.

3.

The theory behind the low carbohydrate diets is that excessive carbohydrate intake causes a rapid rise in the glucose levels in the blood (also known as blood sugar level), which causes large amounts of insulin to be released by the pancreas. This is followed by a sudden drop in blood glucose levels, which quickly makes you hungry again. Limiting carbohydrate intake prevents this effect.

The low carbohydrate diet literature diverges a bit on why this helps you lose weight. Some claim that too much insulin speeds the conversion of carbohydrates to stored fat; some state that the absence of carbohydrates cause the body to enter a (possibly dangerous, although this is disputed) state called ketosis, in which the body excretes fat; others explain that fats just fill you up more, or that the spike-and-crash cycle makes you eat more because you feel hungry again sooner. Whether the claims are made with scientific or empirical evidence, the conclusion is the same: eat fewer carbohydrates, lose weight.

Weight Watchers and the Atkins Diet have one important thing in common, the most important thing there is for losing weight and keeping it off: they make you pay attention to what you eat. You have to read the Nutrition Facts label on foods you buy, and if there isn't one, such as with produce or restaurant food, you need to be aware of what you are eating. Shoppers on either diet will spend a lot of time scanning the labels, although what they are looking for is different.

In fact neither wants to be thought of strictly as a diet. They are ways of watching how much you eat; how much you want to eat depends on your goals. With Weight Watchers, you first set your daily points total low enough to lose weight, then you move it higher until you find a level that lets you maintain your weight. The same is true with Atkins and carbohydrates: first find out a daily amount that lets you lose weight, then raise it to a maintenance level.

4.

The United States Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Information Center publishes the Food Guide Pyramid, which advocates a carbohydrate-rich diet with few fats. (For those who are interested, the USDA web site has a document showing how US dietary recommendations have changed over the years, and another comparing government food guidelines around the world. The USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion also has some good documents and links.) The Food Guide Pyramid matches up with the Recommended Dietary Allowances that are shown on the Nutrition Facts label. The RDA for a 2000-calorie diet is 300 grams of carbohydrates and 65 grams of fat. That is 1200 calories from carbohydrates and almost 600 calories from fat, leaving room for only 200 calories from protein.

That seems like a lot of carbohydrates to many people, although carbohydrates should not all be lumped together. Carbohydrates can be grouped into sugars, starches, and fiber. Sugars are what are known as "simple carbohydrates", and starches and fiber are "complex carbohydrates". Fiber, which is mostly indigestible to humans, is more-or-less acknowledged by everyone to be a good thing. For a while it was thought that simple carbohydrates caused blood glucose levels to rise and complex carbohydrates did not, but now that has been shown to be too simplistic. Instead, a new term has arisen, glycemic index, which directly measures the effect of food on blood glucose levels. Glycemic index is not obvious: different beans, grains, and rices can have wildly varying glycemic indices. It can even depend on how the food is prepared. The few carbohydrates consumed on the Atkins diet should be ones with a low glycemic index, although this is often generalized to simply avoid white flour, white rice, potatoes, and sugar.

Avoiding sugar isn't new. In fact there are diets, such as Sugar Busters, built around avoiding sugar. I once offered one of the thinnest women I knew a single Jelly Belly jelly bean, which has one gram of sugar (that's basically all it is: one gram of sugar, four calories). "No Sugar!" she exclaimed in horror, her eyes wide, backing away from me as if I were proffering a vial of bubonic plague. My parents claimed that as a child I got too agitated if I had too much sugar. Next to fat, sugar is probably the most vilified food out there, and the realization that many fat free and low fat foods have simply replaced fat with sugar is causing some people to return to the full fat products.

5.

The Weight Watchers point system provides an easy way to figure out tradeoffs between different foods. Should you eat a large apple or 3 ounces of tuna fish? An egg or an Oreo cookie? A can of corn or 8 ounces of milk? (Answer: they are all the same in the eyes of Weight Watchers). To help you stick with the program, Weight Watchers also encourages you to attend weekly meetings (although you can do it online without those), at which you weigh in and get encouragement and advice from other participants. If you meet your weight-loss goal, you can come to the meetings for free as long as you maintain your weight--which ideally is for the rest of your life.

When you start Weight Watchers, you spend time counting up all your points, and searching for the elusive "zero-point snack," a little pick-me-up that doesn't count any points at all. After a period of eating such delicacies as spinach 'n' salsa and hearts of palm in mustard, you will probably get a feel for what constitutes a proper-sized serving of various kinds of foods, and what appropriate snacks are, without actually counting all your points. You contemplate a piece of Chocolate Motherlode Cake at Claim Jumper and you cannot bring yourself to eat it. Is it that you physically feel full? Or that you mentally don't want to have to eat less for so long to make up for it? Or do you fear the opprobrium of your fellow meeting attendees if you 'fess up? Who knows, but likely you go home and have a Skinny Cow ice-cream sandwich instead.

Weight Watchers, unlike the low carbohydrate diets, does not limit what type of food you can eat; anything is fine as long as it is within the points allowed (and you can balance out points over a week, if you splurge on one meal). Sugar and protein are viewed as equal: you may be told, anecdotally, that protein makes you less likely to feel hungry sooner, but this is presented as accumulated wisdom, not something based in science.

6.

The big draw of the Atkins diet is what you can eat: protein/fat combinations like steak, butter, eggs, cheese, and nuts. Those are the poster children for low carbohydrate diets and they may conjure up the impression of gorging yourself on whatever you want, but this is misleading. The true treats in our modern diet are the carbohydrate/fat combinations like muffins, cookies, candy bars, ice cream, and French fries. With the Atkins diet, you have to permanently excise these items. I personally love bread; contemplating a life without butter on toast, it's not clear that I miss the butter more than the toast.

On the positive side, being able to eat as much steak and eggs as you want can make it easier to stick with a diet, which is one of the main claims that the Atkins diet makes. And eating out is easier with Atkins. With Weight Watchers, ordering in a restaurant is difficult because the fats that foods are often cooked in--butter, oil, cream--are extremely high in points. Was the food cooked in one tablespoon of olive oil, or three? The difference between those is equivalent to half a cup of Haagen-Dazs ice cream, or a McDonald's hamburger. Meanwhile, it is much harder for you to eat carbohydrates without being aware of it: the odd gram of sugar might sneak through, but fundamentally a food either has flour, rice, or potatoes in it, or it doesn't. Since the daily carbohydrate limits are so low, you might as well just skip any food that has carbohydrates in it. You have to be careful with vegetables, which can vary in how starchy they are, but at least you will usually know what vegetables appear in a dish in quantities significant enough to be an issue. The Atkins restaurant game plan is easy: avoid all non-fiber carbohydrates. With Weight Watchers you can't avoid all foods that have non-zero point values, so you are left trying figure out the number of points in a meal whose ingredients, let alone amounts, you are unaware of.

It's also possible to combine the diets in some ways. Simply knocking most of the carbohydrates off the USDA Recommended Dietary Allowance would give you a diet that would make both Weight Watchers and Atkins happy, as long as the carbohydrates you did eat had a low glycemic index (those tend to have a bit more fiber, although often not enough to actually lower the all-important Weight Watchers point count for a single serving). On the other hand, you could eat nothing but Atkins contraband like bread and Kool-Aid and still keep within your Weight Watchers limit, while dousing all your food in butter and oil would annihilate your points limit, but elicit nary a peep from Atkins.

7.

Can Atkins really work with all that fat? Consider those pre-cooked beef sausages you can get from places like Swiss Colony. Some of these have a gram or so of sugar per serving, but some don't - they are pure protein and fat, especially fat. A 10 ounce one would blow past your entire daily allowance for Weight Watchers, and would make a low-fat diet advocate faint. Yet with the Atkins diet, you could eat those all day. But would you? Sure they taste good, but they are kind of filling. Would I want to eat for a while after putting one of those babies away? Atkins is saying that the old saw, about how after eating a rice-heavy Asian meal you feel hungry an hour later, may have some truth to it.

When I first heard about low carbohydrate diets, I figured that nutritionists, in response to pressure from fat-starved dieters, had finally come up with a way to separate two previously linked concepts: eating healthy and losing weight. But now it appears that having that fat in your diet does not automatically make it an unhealthy diet. And furthermore, the benefits of losing weight, however it is done, may be more than the negative effects of eating fat (although there are limits to this: tobacco is an appetite suppressant, but no serious nutritionist would recommend taking up smoking to lose weight).

There are indications that the food industry is waking up to people's desire for low carbohydrate foods. You can now find low carbohydrate content emphasized on the labels of tortillas and bread (one bread, from Food for Life, has only 4 grams of carbohydrates per slice). At In-N-Out Burger you can order your burgers "protein style", wrapped in lettuce instead of a bun.

A redesign of the Nutrition Facts label redesign is further away. The label is slow to change, so it sometimes reflects the food concerns of a previous decade. The current one shows cholesterol, from back when it was thought that cholesterol intake was the main factor in blood cholesterol levels (it isn't for most people), and also sodium, from when salt was a big bugaboo (it is now considered benign for most people without high blood pressure, as long as you drink enough water - and both Weight Watchers and Atkins want you to drink a lot of water, even though there may not be any benefit to doing so). In the future the label may include such details as splitting fat into saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated; counting trans-fats (which are bad for your cholesterol level); splitting fiber into soluble and insoluble (both are considered beneficial, although they have different effects); and possibly even listing the glycemic index. Then there is caffeine. Although it is generally acknowledged that caffeine is not a great thing to eat, and consumers are worried enough about it that drinks like ginger ale are now prominently labeled "caffeine free," diets usually allow it within reason (Atkins says that it stimulates insulin production, but allows it as long as you are not "addicted," dependent on it for energy). This is either because it does have zero calories, or out of fear that any diet that outlawed caffeine would not gain many adherents in a coffee-addicted society. Still, we may see caffeine on nutritional labels someday.

Public opinion might come around also, but it will be slower. The US government still officially supports the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet that is laid out in the Food Guide Pyramid, although that is due for a redesign next year. It is almost obligatory, when writing about a greasy Atkins-compliant meal, to include a phrase like "I could feel my arteries clogging." In the future, will writers addressing themselves to a loaf of sourdough bread state, "I could feel my blood sugar rising"? It remains to be seen.

8.

So what is the best way to lose weight? The short answer is, whatever works for you. For someone who has had trouble staying on a diet, I would recommend starting with the Atkins Diet. It should give you some quick results, allow you to eat some comfort foods without feeling guilty, while still getting you in the habit of keeping track of what you eat. However, I would suggest switching over to Weight Watchers within a few months, while sticking to foods that have a lower glycemic index where possible (such as whole wheat flour instead of white flour). There are concerns about possibly long-term health issues with low carbohydrate diets, and I think that if you are contemplating keeping track of your food for the rest of your life (which you should be), it is easier to imagine simply eating less of all foods than it is permanently giving up some foods. In addition, with Weight Watchers, the occasional high-calorie slip-up is just a physical thing: you've consumed extra points, you'll eventually work them off, and all will be well. With a low carbohydrate diet, going overboard with carbohydrates is more like emotional cheating: you may have messed up your body's chemistry for a while, and who knows how long those sugar-induced hunger pangs will continue.

In a way, diets are like disciplining a small child. Different parents have different areas they focus on: some want respect, others want clean rooms, others want good behavior at meals. But the main thing is to be consistent, in order to get the children used to listening to you and suppressing their desire to misbehave, in at least some aspect of their life. A diet is like disciplining your unruly appetite. You may want to limit calories, or you may care about carbohydrates, but the main thing is to be consistent, and get your body used to listening to your brain and suppressing its desire to overeat.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o What If It's All Been a Big Lie?
o Weight Watchers
o Atkins Diet
o adipose tissue
o 3500 calories
o American Diabetes Association's Dietary Exchange Lists
o Zone Diet
o ketosis
o excretes fat
o Nutrition Facts
o United States Department of Agriculture
o Food and Nutrition Information Center
o Food Guide Pyramid
o how US dietary recommendations have changed over the years
o comparing government food guidelines around the world
o Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
o glycemic index
o Sugar Busters
o Chocolate Motherlode Cake
o Claim Jumper
o Skinny Cow
o Swiss Colony
o Food for Life
o In-N-Out Burger
o protein style
o there may not be any benefit to doing so
o concerns about possibly long-term health issues
o Also by adamba


Display: Sort:
Weight Watchers and The Atkins Diet | 182 comments (175 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Atkins (3.66 / 3) (#3)
by PullNoPunches on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 02:00:21 AM EST

I've toyed with it a bit, and I've noticed that all the immediate physical effects predicted by the theory seem to be correct. Fatigue in particular seems to be directly related to my carb intake. Without them, I am more chipper then I've ever been in my life. Immediately afterward, I get very fatigued. The craving for carbs is stronger than I could have imagined, which is why I have not yet gone full bore with Atkins.

I've noticed that my craving for fat and for food in general goes down when I limit carbs. One danger, however, is letting the carbs slip and continuing as if the fat doesn't matter. The two together are far more deadly than an excess of either by themselves.

I suspect that which method, Atkins or low-fat, works for you depends on your type of metabolism. I think it is very clear that I have a metabolism that doesn't handle carbs well, but others probably are more susceptible to fat.

I am so sick of people calling Atkins a high-fat diet. As soon as I hear that, I know that whoever is saying it has no clue and won't say anything useful. High fat is not part of the diet, it only says that you don't need to watch the fat. There's an argument that you'll make up the caalories you miss from carbs with calories from extra fat. This argument is suspicious if only because if you are fat, you are taking in too many calories - the carb metabolism is just an additional problem. You shouldn't have to make up the calories you lose from the carbs.

Eating out is very hard with Atkins. Carbs are in everything. And the low-carb versions of things like bread (made from egg whites) that are out there really taste like shit. It's not an easy diet, regardless of the claims that you can pig out on eggs and cheese. Those things end up terribly unsatisfying without bread or pasta.

------------------------

Although generally safe, turmeric in large doses may cause gastrointestinal problems or even ulcers. -- Reader's Digest (UK)

Something I missed (4.00 / 1) (#4)
by PullNoPunches on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 02:11:51 AM EST

You mention caffeine as being OK, but Atkins says caffeine will kill a low-carb diet. I'm not sure of the exact reason, but it has something to do with caffeine changing the way your body metabolizes carbs. I think it accelerates it, which is where the energy boost comes from.

Alcohol is a big no-no too, since it turns to sugar.

------------------------

Although generally safe, turmeric in large doses may cause gastrointestinal problems or even ulcers. -- Reader's Digest (UK)

A couple of Google links (1.60 / 5) (#8)
by sticky on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 03:14:27 AM EST

Compare Atkins+diet+danger with Weight+watchers+diet+danger.
Interesting, no?


Don't eat the shrimp.---God
Eat less, exercise more. (3.58 / 12) (#10)
by Noam Chompsky on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 04:12:25 AM EST

If only theorizing about weight loss burned calories, eh fatties?

--
Faster, liberalists, kill kill kill!

Diets dont work! (2.33 / 6) (#11)
by StephenThompson on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 05:08:53 AM EST

What is the point in discussing the vagaries of different dieting techniques when none of them work? DIETS DONT WORK! Is it not commonly known that no self imposed diet has even passed the test of scientific rigor? That it to say not diet takes the wieght off and keeps it off on a significant portion of the population?

-1 tos nyt (nt) (1.10 / 10) (#14)
by dreancha on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 07:17:00 AM EST



You can't be serious... (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by notcarlos on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 09:34:18 AM EST

The RDA for a 2000-calorie diet is 300 grams of carbohydrates and 65 grams of fat. That is 1200 calories from carbohydrates and almost 600 calories from fat, leaving room for only 200 calories from protein.

Now, I know fat is quick energy, and I know it's partly what got us the big brains we have today, but it seriously can't be higher up on the scale than protein, which -- as I understand it -- is, along with sugar/carbohydrate, one of the basic requirements for cells? Which is more important, the continued existance of your cells, or having a big brain? Oooh, philosophic moment coming on, getting all fa-khlempt! Discuss!

He will destroy you like an academic ninja.
-- Rating on Rate My Professors.com
-1, not vegan (1.44 / 9) (#20)
by greenrd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 10:20:23 AM EST

I think the point someone made that large amounts of carbs (esp. processed carbs) sap your energy is valid, from personal experience, but as a vegan I can't endorse this diet (no way, man!). I'd have to recommend a more raw-food diet as an alternative, which is meant to give you more energy, although I haven't personally tried it. Watch out for the kooks though if you read up on that.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes

Why is that? (4.37 / 8) (#22)
by mami on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 11:09:08 AM EST

Everytime I visit Germany for more than two weeks I loose weight immediately. Why? Same is true for all my family members and friends who  leave US and go overseas. Of course it's true vice versa as well. All gain weight when they come to the US for the first time for more than two weeks.

Answer:

1. I CAN walk by foot almost everywhere and use public transportation, which forces me at least to walk to and from public transportation to home/work/shops. I have to carry the food I buy.

2. Food less sugary, less salty, less fat and differently processed with less finely refined flour and less chemicals that prevent food from perishing. Meals in restaurants are smaller.

3. I am happy and not depressed. I don't watch the news and read more. My mother chases me around to pull the weeds out her garden, cut the lawn and iron my clothes AND the bed linen (can you believe that?)...

4. Bottom line I gain weight in the US, because I can't walk, I don't iron the bed linen, and I get depressed when watching the news and reading K5 ...

Solution:

Stop reading K5 and watching the news and you will loose at least 5 pounds for every week you do that. Then visit your mother and do what she says ...

Ok, I am planning a trip home soon and can't wait... I already loose weight just thinking about it :-)

So... (none / 0) (#24)
by xriso on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 12:05:25 PM EST

Is this about "get-less-fat" diets, or "be healthy" diets?
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
Important facutal error in intro (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Salted on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 12:11:26 PM EST

...both discussed the fact that the low calorie diets don't have any more scientific evidence going for them than the low carbohydrate ones, and that low carbohydrate diets may be reasonable and safe for many people.

You need to replace "low calorie" with "low fat".  The only way to lose weight is to take in less calories than you burn, and both schools of thought recognize this.  Where they differ is in the types of calories that they advocate - lots of carbohydrates, or lots of protein and fat.  

Yo - Yo people (2.80 / 5) (#26)
by rayab on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 12:13:23 PM EST

The true idea of feeling healthier and looking better is not some crazy ass diet but developing a healthy way of life. Americans tend to look at things only in the near future without thinking far ahead. The Atkins diet might work for a few months but you cant keep it up for the rest of your life.
If I told you that by removing the gas tank out of the car your car would run better would you believe me?
In fact the car will not run at all. You cannot remove a vital part of your system and expect it to function normally. What the Atkins diet doesnt tell you is that your body is put into shock called ketosis.
In fact last week I asked my trainer what he thinks about the Atkins diet and he was the one to bring up the car analogy. He also said that he's had patient who've tried the diet but as soon as they got off of it they gained it all back.

Instead of following the next trend I have been educating myself to eat healthy. I try to get my nutrients from fruits and vegetables (basically following the food pyramid), and exercise regularly. The idea being is that I will train myself to the point where being healthy is natural and I do it even without thinking. This way I have changed my future and not just the near few months.

Y popa bila sobaka on yeyo lyubil, ona syela kusok myasa on yeyo ubil, v zemlyu zakopal, i na mogile napisal...
Here's an idea! (2.36 / 11) (#28)
by ShadeS on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 12:30:49 PM EST

"The debate over how to lose weight has intensified recently" DEBATE!? There is no debate! Stop flooding your fucking face with McDonalds and other fast foods. Bitching about being fat while sitting down is the only 'exercise' these people get. Nobody is holding a gun to their head to eat unnutritious food. If they want to loose weight put down the fucking cheeseburger, get off their ass, and stop bitching about being a fat fuck! "Oh, I don't have time to exercise!" If they have enough time to fucking sit on your ass watch tv and stuff yourself with garbage you have enough time to exercize. The only thing worse than these people is those people that pass their car in front of you just to slow down!

-- ShadeS

The problem with weight loss... (4.57 / 7) (#31)
by Korimyr the Rat on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 01:01:57 PM EST

... is that the most sensible way to reduce fat is combining diet with exercise.

 People who look at this in terms of their body weight will be disappointed to find that quite often, depending on the type of exercise, they will either lose weight slowly or gain weight, and they will stop. A friend of mine was recently complaining that, while taking Tae Kwon Do and controlling her diet, she was gaining weight faster than she had been before starting.

 I told her to take a tape measure and wrap it around her waist.

 Exercise builds muscle. Muscle, by volume, weighs more than fat. All this exercise you're doing to burn fat can very well cause you to gain weight and this is a good thing.

 If you're trying to get healthy, buy yourself a pair of calipers and measure your body fat index every time you weight yourself. It's a much more reliable measure of fitness, and you'll find out that you're probably making better progress than your bathroom scale would lead you to think.

--
"Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Founding Member of 'Retarded Monkeys Against the Restriction of Weapons Privileges'

Pure gibberish (2.14 / 7) (#41)
by Quick Star on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 04:16:03 PM EST

How much did Weight Watchers pay you to write this FUD?

FACT:  Atkin's does NOT make you give up carbs forever.  In fact, even in the first two weeks of the diet plan, you are allowed 20G or less of carbs a day, increasing that thereafter.

FACT:  High levels of sugar in the blood are STORED AS FAT.  FAT, on the other hand, is either metabolized, or passes right on out the colon.

Please actually READ Dr. Atkin's book before you go off talking out of the side of your neck like this.

"absolutely no one can sex a lobster without cutting it open" -- rusty

good conclusion (4.40 / 5) (#42)
by millman on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 04:37:04 PM EST

Whatever works for you is exactly right. Human bodies vary. Duh.

I lost about 50 lbs by eating less, and exercising more. I went from 200 to 165 (I estimate I've picked up 15 lbs of muscle in that time...I used to be a pasty computer geek so it wasn't that hard). I cut back my fat intake and protein a bit. Nowdays the breakdown is probably 50% carbs, 30% protein, 20% fat (and sometimes less on the fat). That's what allowed me to shed weight. What works for others is often different. Oh yeah, and the extra muscle might have had something to do with it.

I've debated this topic before, and it's amazing how, umm, religious people get about it. It's like endless discussions on how to save money: it all boils down to spending less than you earn. It's the same with dieting: burn more calories than you consume day to day. There are two ways to do it: increase your metabolism, or decrease the amount of food you eat. There is your book on dieting :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In a world full of thieves, the only crime is getting caught.

Fact: (3.62 / 8) (#45)
by psicE on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 05:02:29 PM EST

They're all bullshit.

The body needs carbohydrates. Especially fiber, which is a health necessity, but also complex carbohydrates are the body's best source of energy.

The body needs fat. Omega 3 polyunsaturated fats are necessary; many people, including myself, share the view that omega-3 oils obtained from eating fish, among other things, are what made humans capable of abstract thought. And monounsaturated fats are quite good too.

The body needs calories. Without them you'd die, period. If you eat below a certain amount of calories, going essentially on a starvation diet, you'll bloat - accomplishing the exact opposite of why most people go on a diet.

Some things, however, are objectively bad. Saturated fat is bad for you, and trans-fats (partially hydrogenated veg. oil) are even worse. Cholesterol is also bad, as 99% of people's bodies produce all the cholesterol they need to live; and while removing cholesterol from your diet won't directly affect your weight, it will make you healthier, which might indirectly help you lose weight. Simple carbohydrates, aka sugars, are good for short-term energy boosts but not much else - keeping them out of your diet as much as possible can never hurt. And though polyunsaturated fats aren't bad for you, they're not the healthiest food either - eating a bit less of them can't hurt, either.

The Atkins and Weight Watchers diets work on different people. Everybody's body is different, but another reason behind this phenomenon should be obvious: everyone's diet is different to begin with. Someone who eats a lot of high-calorie, high-saturated-fat foods is going to notice a big improvement when they go on the WW diet; someone who eats a lot of simple carbs is going to lose weight with the Atkins diet. Someone who already eats predominately unsaturated fats isn't going to notice much difference going on the WW diet, and someone who already eats predominately complex carbs isn't going to benefit from the Atkins diet.

A proper diet would combine these two. Lay off the fast food, a major source of trans fats; replace meat with fish a few nights per week; have a whole-wheat instead of a plain bagel; and have plain fruit instead of pie for dessert. And most importantly, practise moderation. If you eat excessive amounts of the healthiest foods, you'll gain weight; control the scale of your eating, exercise, avoid a few completely-bad foods, and you can eat most anything else.

Protein Power Diet and the Zone diet (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by blixco on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 05:58:33 PM EST

Noticed you mentioned the Zone diet, which is more geared toward atheletes (that was the intent, anyhow), and is all about finding your particular balance, but is protein heavy.

In the "middle" of the lowered carbohydrate diet spectrum is the Protein Power diet, which, despite the silly name, is a pretty good plan for those considering a low carb diet.

The diet itself was put together by a couple of doctors, and has solid science behind it. The books are very thorough in explaining the thinking behind the diet. The diet allows for fiber, which is not counted in the carb total. Certain vegetables and fruits are encouraged, and the diet proposes something called an Effective Carbohydrate Content, which is essentially carbohydrates minus fiber, but depends on glycemic index as well.

For the first 6 weeks, you're limited to 30g of carbs a day. With the ECC formula, this ends up being quite a lot. Spinach, broccoli, asparagus, lettuce, cabbage, etc. are all encouraged.

After 6 weeks, you start phase 2, which allows 55g of carbs a day until you hit your target bodyfat ratio. Then, you start maintenance, which is 88g of carbs, and you can "borrow" against the next day's allowances. They encourage exercise (weight lifting, specifically), and encourage varience in diet, with a concentration on low saturated fat protein sources (fish, chicken breast, tofu, etc). All in all, they seem to be a lot less self-aggrandizing than Atkins, and the results are pretty stunning: I've lost as much as 2 percent body fat in a week(!!!) while gaining muscle. My wife has lost 7 pounds in a week. We still exercise, but unlike our previous (vegetarian, fully balanced) diet, this one seems to be giving us more energy, better "frame of mind" (we're happier), and we're putting on a lot of muscle.

Like everyone's saying, you have to find what works for you. For me, it's been shocking: all I had learned about my diet and fat content has proven to be false.

And for those who say that all you need to do use use more energy than you take in: I've found that when I took in less calories and increased my activity, my metabolism stopped working properly, and chose to store fat quickly. It's not just about "eat less, exercise more," it's "eat what you need, exercise." I eat five times a day, which works quite well to keep me from being hungry and keeps my energy up.

If your diet is frustyrating, try "breaking the rules" for a while with a low-carb approach. You'll be surprised.
-------------------------------------------
The root of the problem has been isolated.

The Verminator's Two Step Weight Loss Regime (2.00 / 1) (#55)
by Verminator on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:24:49 PM EST

Step 1) Cultivate a methamphetamine habit.

Step 2) Watch the pounds disappear.


Fear leads to anger, anger leads to misery, misery links to Satanosphere.

easier ways to lose weight! (1.50 / 4) (#57)
by ebatsky on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:57:55 PM EST

1. Don't eat or drink anything for 2-3 weeks other than pure water. Weight goes away.

2. If you don't have enough willpower to stop eating for 2 weeks, get a liposuction.

After that start weighing yourself and if you notice you're gaining weight start eating less. Once its balanced, that should be your normal diet.

Gotta remember the fundamental concept: keep it simple stupid.

My wife is on Atkins (2.75 / 4) (#65)
by xtremex on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 08:12:03 PM EST

She was on anti-depressants for a while and blew up like a balloon...from her svelt 125 to 180 pounds.
She went on the atkins and lost all that wait in 2 months...Atkins is how she eats now..she doesnt even have to think about it. I feel healthier too since she is the one who cooks :). I never believed that low-fat diets worked....I didnt know what DID work, but I knew low-fat wasnt it...it became more of a money-making thing if you ask me. People always ask why the US is the "fat nation"...because americans are obsessed with low-fat food.

Fat vs. Sugar (1.00 / 1) (#70)
by der on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 09:22:49 PM EST

At least as far as my personal experience goes, fat doesn't make you fat, sugar does.

Even when I'm in a cutting phase (bodybuilding lingo for 'trying to lose fat'), I don't worry about fat at all, and it doesn't affect my results (I've tried other strategies of course).

Now, if I start getting lazy and eating candy and sugar, the fat starts coming.

Keep in mind I'm an active weight lifting young male, so maybe that has alot to do with it. Eating fat is certainly more anabolic than eating sugar.

Perhaps it's not the same for more sedentary people, but as far as I'm concerned, fat is fair game (in moderation, like everything else of course).



One (or Three) Thing(s) (3.00 / 2) (#71)
by thelizman on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 09:23:04 PM EST

I'm sorry I did'nt get to see this in the edit queue, but this looks to be the best and most timely treatment of the Atkins diet I have seen. However, I think you glossed over one aspect of the Atkins diet - and diets in general, and it relates to the myth of calories being relevant. For starters, you have to know that processing the food takes energy. The energy value of a food is only as good as the amount of energy left over after digestion. Sugars readily break down, and hardly require digestion. Fats on the other hand, take lots of chemical effort.

The calorie as unit is entirely unrelated to how the body's metabolism operates. It is about as relevant as the color of a car to its speed.

The reason diets like Atkins and Weight Watchers point system work so well is that you are forced to eat healthy whole foods. What you fail to point out is that the "Atkins Diet" isn't just about losing weight, and the meat & fat only diet is merely one part of the overall Atkins plan. It is called induction, and it could last as little as two weeks. After that, you are supposed to introduce carbs back into your diet in the form of vegetables. Ultimately, with Atkins and Weight Watcher, you wind up eating the same stuff. However, Atkins works to correct metabolic disorders caused by our bodies becoming accustomed to junk foods, while Weight Watchers simply expect the metabolism to fall in line (and worse, teases it with some of the same culprits).
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
Diets. Pheh. (3.85 / 7) (#73)
by aonifer on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 09:33:32 PM EST

Eat less.  Fuck more.  That is the path to weight loss.

Eat the foods you were meant to! (3.50 / 2) (#77)
by torokun on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 10:27:42 PM EST

Here's my take: Your body was built by evolution to eat things that are naturally available around you. What are those? Meat, vegetables, fruit, and nuts. I think that the problem comes mostly from eating high-carb and refined foods such as pasta, rice, potatos, and breads. These things just have way too many carbs for us to easily handle without getting fat... My wife follows a pretty strictly low-carb diet, and it's the only one that's ever allowed her to keep weight off easily. She was always just up and down before (never "fat" though...) But I just try to stay away from bread and high-carb foods, eating mostly meat, vegetables, and some fruits or fruit juices... Yeah, I get carbs from the fruit, and a few from the vegetables, but it's a far cry from french fries or chips. ;)

Vegetarian... (none / 0) (#78)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 11:31:10 PM EST

Now this is just my personal experience and maybe it won't work for you.

For many years I have been mostly vegetarian, not because I care about eating animals but because generally I dislike the taste of meat, and have for as long as I can remember. So I just don't eat meat.

Instead I eat all sorts of other shit. Tons of pizza, pasta, butter, chips, fries, disgustingly huge amounts of fat. And to top it off I hardly ever exercise besides some necessary walking (usually about a mile, sometimes 3 or 4) most days.

Yet somehow I have a healthy body weight for my height. I have a little bit of a gut, but not enough to be really noticeable, and it goes away during the summertime when I become more active...

Is it because I don't eat meat, or is it because I'm just one of those people with a great metabolism who can eat anything? I don't know...

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."

Simple thing, really... (3.00 / 4) (#95)
by ponos on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 04:41:06 AM EST

It is a fundamental fact that you only lose
weight if you eat LESS than what you burn.

The main sources of energy in the human
metabolism are circulating glucose and
ketones (from fat).

The important thing to understand is that
a) the organism always burns glucose first
b) the glucose level MUST be above 50 mg/dl
c) glucose -> fat is easy, glucose -> glycogen
   (storage form of glucose) is easier and
   fat -> glucose NEVER HAPPENS IN THE HUMAN BODY

Therefore, if you totally restrict carbohydrates
you'll start burning glycogen (it won't last long)
and then start generating glucose from amino
acids which propably means loss of protein from
tissue (muscle mass, mostly). This is not very
good. Also amino-acid metabolism
generates a lot of side-products such as urea
because of the nitrogen that it contains.

At the same time, ketosis (production of ketones
from fatty acids) is a "second" choice for
the organism because many tissues cannot
metabolize ketones as well. Ketosis also
produces a mild
acidosis but should not otherwise cause major
problem for a normal organism.

My personal experience in losing weight (I'm
180 cm, 76 Kgr) suggests that the easiest diet
to follow and propably the healthier is to eat
what a normal person >should< eat, only in
smaller quantities. I do not mean 60% of normal,
but something like 90% of the required calories
for your height/weight/activity level over
a long term (loss of 1 pound or less per week).

The composition of the diet should contain
approximately 40% fat, 40% carbohydrates, 20%
protein (of 100% calories, not grams) and,
most importantly:
a) fat should not be saturated (eggs and bacon!)
b) carbohydrates should be starch+fiber (black
   bread, black rice etc) for a lower glycemic
   index
c) foods should not be heavily processed
   (avoid heavy cooking, eat only what you cook)
d) lot of fruit/vegetables

All the above is not hard to maintain but it does
require a change in eating behaviour that should
last a lifetime.

In my opinion, all diets that cut on glucose/
carbohydrate/fat/whatever suck royally. They
won't kill you (propably) but they are not
healthy. Attempting to blame a single nutrient
is mostly a marketing trick to convince you
that it is different.

The fact is that losing weight is simple and
everyone knows how to do it (stop eating
a lot) BUT it is hard to do. You do not need the
atkins diet or any diet, but you do need
character.

P.
-- Sum of Intelligence constant. Population increasing.

Weight Watchers isn't really a diet (4.00 / 1) (#98)
by rcade on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 08:10:18 AM EST

I've been a Weight Watchers member for around four months, losing around 35 pounds. This article is a good summary. It isn't really a diet; it's a gimmick to get you to do three things:

1) Pay attention to what you eat, no matter what it is.

2) Show up weekly to meetings where you weigh in and hear food and lifestyle advice.

3) Make money for Weight Watchers. You have to pay around $8 to $11 per week just to stay in it; every time you miss a meeting, you must pay for that meeting at the next one you attend.

I think that anyone who wrote down the calorie, fat, and fiber intake of their diet at every single meal would lose weight, because they would be thinking about what they eat all the time. That's really the whole Weight Watchers shtick -- pay attention to the stuff you're shoveling in your mouth. It's harder to snarf down a Big Mac and a bunch of soft drinks all day when you have to think about it.

The meetings are pretty girly -- I'm one of a handful of guys who attend in my area -- and the cost is somewhat expensive. However, I'm starting to enjoy healthy food a lot more now that I'm not gorging myself on high-fat junk all the time.


http://workbench.cadenhead.info

I am on a moderately low fat diet... (none / 0) (#99)
by l3nz on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 08:52:56 AM EST

...that I have come up with after quite a lot of unsuccessful tries. I have lost 48lbs in 5 months, and I don't feel like I am on a diet. I have written a K5 diary entry on it, so maybe it can be interesting for you....

Popk ToDo lists - yet another web-based ToDo list manager. 100% AJAX free :-)

Fat Loss (3.00 / 1) (#106)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 12:29:39 PM EST

I'm kind of shocked by the comments made here by folks that have never lost any substantial amount of weight and kept it off for any period of time.

Personally, I'm extremely dubious of low calorie regimins like Weight watchers/Jenny Craig/Diet Center. The reason is that these organizations/diets have zip evidence to support claims for long term fat loss.

The basic problem with low calorie diets is that they tend to cause loss of muscle along with fat. Weight loss isn't the big trick here: the trick is loosing fat without loosing muscle.

I have personal experience with Atkins, the Zone diet and the Diet Center low-calorie diet. I had the worse experience with the Diet Center diet-I lost weight-but it came back with a vengence. I was able to loose weight on the Zone diet only if I combined that diet with very substantial exercise. The Atkins diet worked at first-I lost 10 lbs rather effortlessly-and it really did stay off--but after that the diet quick working. Just FYI I am overweight, but I have lost over 40 lbs from my peak--most of which has been off for over two years--which means I've substantially beaten the odds here.

The best book I've seen that explains my experience is Natural Hormonal Enhancement by Rob Faigin. Faigin advocates a diet similar to atkins but puts more emphasis on meal frequency, has a specific exercise regimin he suggests and prescibes regular "carb loading"(something atkins talks about but hasn't formalized).



A link (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by nevertheless on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 03:19:22 PM EST

One of the most useful web resources I've found:
USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference

--
This whole "being at work" thing just isn't doing it for me. -- Phil the Canuck


Healthy food (1.00 / 1) (#115)
by AWhiteStar on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 06:12:16 PM EST

I'm really quite astonished about the load of postings dealing with strange diets and their advantages and disadvantages. I can't understand that the two main points are quite obvious, but rarely explicitly stated: - You lose weight when you are physically active. - You lose weight when you eat healthy, e. g. non-refined food. 90% per cent of the people in America would lose a lot of weight if they would go at least for a walk three times a week and stopped eating McDonalds and pre-cooked food and drinking Coke. If you look at the statistics, you will find that a lot more Americans than Europeans are overweight. And I am pretty sure that's directly related to the amount of unhealthy food which is eaten in the USA.

Catch-22 of Diets (4.50 / 2) (#120)
by Stickerboy on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 01:18:03 AM EST

From common sense and what everyone else has posted, diets work (for a select number of individuals), but the key ingredients for them to work is motivation and determination to stick with the diet on the dieters part.

The Catch-22: if a person has the motivation and determination to stay in shape that is required by a diet, said person is probably eating less calories and exercising enough, which means they don't need a diet in the first place.

I mean, how hard is it, really, to take 45 minutes a day when you're normally sitting on your butt and use it for some medium to high intensity exercise, and eating smaller meal portions (just enough so you're not hungry as opposed to being full)?  As opposed to, say, strictly adhering to some arcane diet of not eating non-fiber carbohydrates or converting all your food mentally into points to be added up beforehand?

Stickerboy's Diet (patent pending):

EAT LESS. EXERCISE MORE.

Stop super-sizing! Stop ordering double-meat, double-everything! Stop drinking 32 ounces (approximately 1 L) of sugar water and get a glass of pure H2O!

I've followed this high-tech, incredibly complex diet for years, and along with running and calisthenics (2 to 3 times a week), I've been 5'9" and 150 pounds for about the last 15 years.

oh (2.00 / 1) (#123)
by auraslip on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 01:56:42 AM EST

I stopped eating meat and lost quite a bit of weight. I don't think it was the not eating meat part but rather the actaully thinking of what I eat that made me do that.

The ultimate diet (1.25 / 4) (#124)
by florin on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 02:38:53 AM EST

Eat less, dammit!
All these diets are a piece of crap. Ultimately, they are a way for greedy fat people to allow themselves excuses to continue to eat a lot while dreaming of getting thinner. This is bullshit.
You get fatter because you eat too much, period. You get thinner when you eat less, period again. It's that simple.
And BTW, i question seriously the Atkins diet; eating a lot of proteins and very few carbohydrates does not sound too healthy to me.

Whatever happened to the good old "eat less" method?

Some bits of anecdotal evidence (3.00 / 1) (#126)
by Tezcatlipoca on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 03:28:28 AM EST

Two groups of people that rely heavily in high carbohydrate diets: European Mediterranean (loads of pasta and bread) and East Asia (China, Japan, loads of noodles and rice, little fat). These groups of people have a lower incidence of people overweight (I know of others like Mexicans relying on corn as well as South Africans...).

In Europe, the people with more heart disease are the Scottish. They fry absolutely everything they eat (loads of fat).

Reach your own conclussions about which lifestyle (not diet, all diets are bunk) is better in the long term. Anecdotal evidence seems to point out that the "food pyramid" is in general correct.

0wr F4th3R, wh0 0wnz h34\/3n, j00 r0x0rs!
M4y 4|| 0wr b4s3 s0m3d4y Bl0ng t0 j00!
M4y j00 0wn 34rth juss |1|3 j00 0wn h34\/3n.
G1v3 us th1s

novice questions about health issues (none / 0) (#127)
by pavlidis on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 03:54:42 AM EST

I don't know about the success and I cannot comment about the results of any kind of diet. But in my knowledge (if it is correct because I am not a MD), excessive fat in diet can produce high levels of cholesterol in blood, which in time can cause problems in arteries (arteriosclerosis) and several heart diseases. Plus, do not forget that a diet rich in fats is the main reason for cancer in the rectum (according to physicians).

These facts are known to me by personal facts as we had relatives with these illnesses described aboved and their diet (very rich in fat, low on carbs and fiber) was accused as the main cause for their problems.

One of the better diet related sites on the web.. (none / 0) (#128)
by ajduk on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 05:03:06 AM EST

http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml

Or 'How diet evolved with the human body'.

Montignac (4.00 / 1) (#129)
by levsen on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 05:26:35 AM EST

Although I don't feel like going all over it again because this discussion has just been on Slashdot, here in France a guy named Montignac is pretty popular. His book and his diet are based on the same principles as Atkins, but it is a lot more detailed and allows for more carbs.

I.e. he explains how the absorption of fructose into the blood differs if you eat fruit with a meal and outside meals, and that fruit are therefore perfectly admissible when eaten i.e. 20 min before breakfast. Alcohol on the other hand, has a lower effect when drunken WITH a meal.

There are lots of examples like this, he also gives a long list of the how good or bad various carbs are, i.e. sugar is by far not the worst carb, the maltose that is in beer is the worst, i.e. it causes your blood sugar to rise more than actual sugar (saccharose).

I am just starting out on this, so I wonder if anyone has had any actual experience. Especially considering diets are for life, I'd welcome every bit of carb that is on the 'permissible' list.


This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.

One more thing ... (4.33 / 3) (#130)
by levsen on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 06:01:28 AM EST

... those anecdotal evidences a la "I am doing this and that and stayed thin all my life" are not worth much. Although it's great if you managed to avoid obesity, we'll never know if you would have gotten fat if you stopped jogging or whatever your secret is. There are people (lots!) that can watch TV and eat crap all their life and stay perfectly thin. What's interesting from a scientific point of view only is if you've tried different life styles and had different results. I.e. you got fat first doing this and eating that and then you got thin doing that and eating this.


This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.

Diet: eat as much as you can (3.66 / 3) (#131)
by Rainy on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 07:45:10 AM EST

Here's my theory (untested, since I'm skinny and always has been):

Let's say you're fat and you want to lose weight. You go on a diet and stomack it for a few weeks and then your will power/disgust with mirror's take on you run out and you go back to whatever crap you like to eat.

Solution: don't diet. Throw all the unnatural foods out of your fridge and into your garbage bin and go and buy shit like green leafy vegies, mueslix, kashas, rice, etc. and when you're even the least bit hungry, eat some of that stuff. Oh fruits too, don't forget.

The idea is that hunger kills your will power. If your plan is to hunger yourself into shape, you'll lose.

Okay, nm, this is all bullshit, but the next paragraph will be the essence of my idea.

Foods that make you fat are the most available. They are what you grab when you're hungry. It can be a twinky or a pizza, or hamburger. Diets that work through hunger will only work until you have will power left, which means that at some point they just stop working. BUT if you eat *ALOT*, you go and make some healthy food that takes some time and effort to prepare, and you prepare it *before* you're even hungry, so as not to be lured by easier and fattier foods.

That's why tons of people try and fail, and spend tons of money and effort - they're working in the exact opposite direction. They starve, give in, get fat, get upset, starve, and so forth, the cycle goes. Exercise is another thing in the cycle.. it makes things worse when you're hungry. It makes you even hungrier and therefore makes it harder to resist eating fat foods.

Nice theory eh?
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day

One word for y'all (1.00 / 4) (#136)
by krek on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 11:13:40 AM EST

Metabolism!!

The Revolutionary Beer Diet (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by icastel on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 02:03:02 PM EST

During the Christmas celebrations of last year, I gained many pounds (I don't know exactly because I don't weigh myself regularly). Normally, shedding the extra pounds didn't require an effort on my part. The fact that I'm getting older is probably not helping; metabolism slowing down, food consumption speed going up, or something.

In any event, I carefully examined my eating habits to see if I could spot any areas to improve. I noticed the following pattern in a regular day:

  • No breakfast (hadn't eaten breakfast in many, many years)
  • Big lunch
  • Bigger dinner

Doing away with dinner, I thought, would reduce my food intake by about 55% - 60%. Not bad. But giving up dinner was too difficult. I had to reward myself with something else. The answer came to me in the form of a dark amber bottle of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale (one of my favorites).

After one sip, I was sold. I switched from solid to liquid dinner, just like that. I've been having a bowl of cereal in the morning (usually oatmeal and milk w/ no sugar) and 1, 2, or 3 beers at night (depending on how hungry I am).

It sounds harsh, but it's working. I've gone down two sizes. I'm planning on going down one more size and then stop. The first month I lost about 10 pounds. The last two months, I've lost about a pound a week. Oh, yes, I've resumed my excercise regime, too (jogging about two miles twice a week and mild weight lifting once or twice a week for 20 - 30 minutes).




-- I like my land flat --
Coke (none / 0) (#143)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 04:20:50 PM EST

is my biggest problem. I don't really eat that much these days, and I do take walks, but I'm still overweight. But it's not that easy to cut out the Coke. At home, I can do it, but when I'm sitting at my computer at work, I badly need a drink!
Information wants to be beer.
My plan (5.00 / 2) (#145)
by finkployd on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 05:21:11 PM EST

I'm doing pretty well losing weight (I started 5'8" 200lbs and am now around 170).

I have not changed my eating habits AT ALL. I still eat junk food occationally (candy bars rock). My diet generally consists of pizza, subs, cereal, bagles, fast food, etc. When I'm hungry at work I have some chips, or crackers, or whatever else.

How am I losing wieght then? It's called excercise, and I have found it is easier to keep with a program of jogging every day for an hour or so than going hungry all the time. See if you can figure out which takes less will power. Plus, even though excercising hurts (if done properly) and leaves you exausted and sore, I find I sleep better at night, have more energy, and generally just feel better all the time.

If you are capable of intense excercise (running, tie bo, swimming, etc), and I understand that many people are not (injury, too out of shape, etc) and you are looking at some kind of food deprevation plan to lose wieght while sitting on your ass all day, there is an easier way.

And yes, I am aware of how much more weight I could be losing if I was excercising AND on a diet, but then it wouldn't be fun or easy to stick with and like so many others, I would likely end up quitting both. I'd rather take it slow and enjoy myself than lost a ton of weight quickly, only to find I am leading a lifestyle I cannot maintain and end up gaining all the weight back.

Finkployd
Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
Insecurity sells. (4.00 / 1) (#154)
by IHCOYC on Tue Sep 24, 2002 at 10:16:17 AM EST

Why can't we learn to like ourselves just as we are? Why is weight loss even an issue? It seems to me because the media harp endlessly on this theme.

Back in the 1970's, we used to laugh at the "disease of the week" that the TV brought us. I was in a situation recently where I ended up watching the U.S. network broadcast news each evening for a week straight, and there was a medical story every night! Americans are literally awash in medical talk. You may think I exaggerate; I suggest a test. Watch one of the American big 3 broadcast network evening news shows for a typical news week, and see if there isn't a medical story every single day.

Most of these, moreover, were premised on selling personal insecurity. At least a couple of them were focused on those universal panaceas, diet and exercise. Others urged various sorts of hypochondria under the guise of "awareness," making people wonder if they had various illnesses or not, urging them to self-examinations or tests.

As I've said before, I am really, really, really, really, REALLY tired of hearing this. I am convinced, moreover, that Americans are led by the media to worry about their weight and the state of their physical health far more than they ought to be. They are led this way by the national mass media. They are led this way because the endless harping on these topics really helps to move the product. It serves the interests of those who buy the advertising at the cost of your peace of mind.

Turn the TV off. Throw away the damn scales. Let out your belt a couple notches. Don't you feel better already?

GraySkull is home to the anima, the all-knowing woman who gives power to the otherwise ineffectual man. -- Jeff Coleman

it may not be profitable but (3.00 / 1) (#157)
by animal on Tue Sep 24, 2002 at 12:59:17 PM EST

the only way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you consume. simple isn't it.
 so get out and exercise more. You will feel a lot better and the weight you lose will be fat so you will look better. it takes hard work so most people don't want to do it, they would rather pay some company for the latest diet then complain when it doesn't work.
 When you starve yourself ( ie go on a diet) you body reacts by stopping the metabolisum of fat, to protect the fat layers for winter the traditional time of low food consumtion, and instead you end up losing weight from muscle tissue.

Bread and Milk = Addictive Opiates (2.50 / 2) (#166)
by benzapp on Wed Sep 25, 2002 at 08:19:26 PM EST

For those who truly want to live a healthier lifestyle, lose weight, and be free of many bothersome chronic diseases, I highly suggest reading www.waisays.com Many diet sites are faddish in nature and are rather pointless, but this one is well documented, with virtually every statement referenced to a reputable journal available from the National Institute of Health. Most people are overweight because food today contains much higher levels of addictive foods than in the past. I won't waste your time here, but pretty much anything added to junk food is psychoactive in nature. The biggest culprit is wheat. Wheat contains gluten, of which many people are familiar. Gluten is metabolized into glutomorphine molecules that function just like morphine from the opium poppy. Not only do they cause respiratory suppression, constipation, drowsiness, and withdrawal like morphine does some are 100x as powerful gram for gram. Casein in milk has a similar effect, its purpose is to calm to infant and create an addictive bond. The government wants you to eat lots of bread and milk because it makes you apathetic and easier to control. The roman emperors were not stupid when the only free food they gave out was bread. More than any other tool of the system, narcotics are the most potent because they rob humans of our desire to live and fight, especially those who rule over us. There is much, much more. The site is mostly about acne. Heat damaged protein is the culprit with acne. Since I gave up any cooked proteinious foods, my skin is smoother than you could believe. Acne is essentially an inflammatory autoimmune disorder, your body thinks the cooked meat you ate is an invading organism. It is secreted through your sweat glands, just like when you smell after eating onions. If you suffer from arthritis, acne, constipation, depression.. I highly suggest you read this website. You will be amazed at the information it contains, what I have said here is but a tiny bit with no citations.

Don't Rule Out Thyroid Problems... (none / 0) (#167)
by modgoddess on Wed Sep 25, 2002 at 10:54:29 PM EST

Keep in mind that some people who can't lose weight despite dieting and exercise may have a thyroid problem (Hyperthyroidism). There are many uncomfortable symptoms with this disease but it can be diagnosed with a simple blood test (called a TSH Test) and regulated with daily medicine. People who suffer from this often have slow-extremely slow metabolisms, lack energy, and may be frequently hungry.

Atkins (3.00 / 1) (#168)
by enterfornone on Thu Sep 26, 2002 at 10:00:39 AM EST

Unless you eat nothing but meat, Atkins is so unlike anything you would normally be used to eating. That makes it very difficult to stick to.

Here is some interesting info on high protien diets (written by an avocate of very low fat diets, so perhaps a little biased).

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.

count calories (4.00 / 1) (#175)
by tuj on Thu Oct 24, 2002 at 07:33:49 PM EST

I know this is comment 174+, but that doesn't stop me from relating my own anecdotal evidence.

I was 6'2", 215 lbs in July this year. By September 1st I was 185 lbs. Not extraordinary, but still a signifigant change.

I did 2 things:
-the 5Bx each morning, 5 days a week.

-ate the number of calories recommened by the Hackers Diet.

I should mention both of those came from info I read on k5. Its simple: adjust what you eat to fit the number of calories per day. Eat whatever you want. Exercise at least 5 days a week for 11 minutes (no longer, keep the speed up) each day.


damn you people (none / 0) (#176)
by aschafer on Fri Nov 15, 2002 at 05:11:21 PM EST

all of you people on diets are messing up evolution. i bet if everyone hogged down on sugarlard all day evolution would figure out a way to burn more calories. why worry about it now when it will all be fixed in a couple million years? of course that doesn't solve any problems for you stupid fat creationists. damn creationists.

Weight Watchers and The Atkins Diet | 182 comments (175 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!