I used to live next to a rehab center here in Norway. They used to take in a lot of traffic accident victims, but had recently started taking in obese people.
Their focus was on making permanent changes to their day to day routine. Reintroduce the home cooked meal with plenty of vegetables and little fat. Getting away from the processed foods and especially sugar contents. I remember on an open presentation I attended that they explained how a packet of cookies contained as much energy as an entire dinner, and if you ate it quick enough almost all of it would simply go to fat storage because you couldn't possibly use all that energy fast enough unless you were running the entire time.
They said the key to weight loss is not to focus on the weight loss but rather on permanent changes to your diet and lifestyle. Make vegetables, salads and fiber the norm, not the exception. But this usually requires managing the rest of your life better. All it takes is a tough week at work for you to go back to frozen pizza and soda, and never turn back.
Summary: the kind of food matters. Avoid processed foods and too many carbs.
My family switched to a Pescetarian diet (vegetarian, but with some seafood). Even totally enjoying my food, I started to lose more weight than I wanted to so I added a fourth meal most days and my weight stabilized where I want it (I am 6'4" tall, and my preferred weight is 200 pounds).
Also, I personally love carbs: I eat lots of cauliflower, carrots, some pasta and whole wheat bread. It is a matter of seeing what diet works for you as an individual.
I don’t eat much of any refined foods anymore, few if any carbs (bread, pasta, cake, bagels, etc), and lots of good quality meat, seafood, and vegetables.
This is the what I did as well, dropped 25 pounds from 200 to 175 over a few months. And gained 5 back when I started eating more breads again.
I'm not sure what new topics are going to be covered as the evils of refined foods and bad carbohydrates have been rehashed since The Zone almost 20 years ago, but I'm glad to see Jeremy reiterating the success he had for others to follow. I'd be curious if there will be a section on stamina - I still crave my evil carbos at the holidays.
One possible topic, which I may be reading in since it's on my mind, is the well-known "problem" with sticking with lower carb diets. I've been ruminating a post on the topic myself, but the core is that it comes down to two basic problems: One, willpower, since we're surrounded by terrible, yet yummy food, all the time, and two, flavor. It is occasionally mumbled, instead of yelled loudly as it should be, that if you want to eat healthy on the long term it isn't just a matter of cutting out something, you need to be happy with the food. And in particular, "The Standard American Diet - carbohydrates" isn't a very pleasing diet. It's very easy for it to become monotonous and feel restrictive.
But I'd submit that's an indictment against the standard diet, not the "- carbs". It's taken me a while to work out how to deal with the correct diet longterm, but it has involved using a lot more oils (sesame, olive, etc), more butter, more oriental ingredients, and learning a lot more about French cooking. And you have to erase the last vestiges of the false idea that fat is bad, and realize that low-fat is bad and is the fad diet, and it should be entirely stomped out of your dietary plans. Now I don't have problems eating properly for years without backsliding; as tempting as the carbs can be, they just aren't as good as what I'm making myself. They're a hollow pleasure.
It makes me sad to read all of these posts because, without any exaggeration, I find bread to be one of the best pleasures in life, and living off sandwiches means it constitutes a fair amount of my diet.
If only living healthily didn't involve so much work, like actually learning how to take care of yourself, i.e. cooking, exercising regularly, etc.
If only, if only! Well good news for you, 99% of the work has been done by others, by decades of validating or falsifying theories and suspicions, measuring anything from calories to hormonal changes, all the combinations of various exercise levels and diet etc. and so on and so forth.
Now all you have to do is decide whether the quality-of-life for your next few decades is worth the trouble of doing a bit of reading, such as half an hour a day for a few weeks or so... and trying the game challenge of seeing if and how much you can affect change in your home-grown lifestyle habits, you know, just for kicks.
I found this talk by Dr Lustig very interesting. It's about the biochemistry of why refined foods and sugars make us so unhealthy and overweight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
I've never had a weight problem, though in 2002 I started eating more healthfully (inspired by "whole foods", paleo, etc to try to get more energy and be healthier) and I actually dropped 30+ pounds. I was not even trying to lose weight and basically ate whatever I wanted that fit into a "whole foods" diet. I've remained a thundering, intimidating 150 lbs for years. :)
I completely adore breads, (more than any other food) so for me giving them up isn't an acceptable option. The question becomes, what breads are best? (Or least bad, depending on your outlook)
Somewhat tempering my approach is the fact that I don't really believe they can be 100% evil. Like alcohol, we've been consuming bread for thousands of years. Like alcohol, I bet you can consume a certain amount of the right types without a significant penalty.
I went nutritarian after checking out "Eat to Live". Starting at the same time as Jeremy and odly enough weighing the same as him but now weigh 159. After a while you lose the need or taste to eat refined flour, dairy, and lots of meat.
It's not a diet, but a life style change. I recommend it to anyone willing to try it.
A great book for getting into the science behind not eating flour/sugar/rice is "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" by Gary Taubes. After reading it I completely changed my diet and only wish I could have known earlier.
I've trained and assisted 100s of people with fitness and nutrition. This is flat out wrong. I have yet to see any recent credible research that says all calories are equal. It is a fact that hormonal response varies widely based on where that calorie is coming from.
Out of curiousity I clicked on one of the articles you linked to: "...during a 6-wk period of hospitalization. Consequently, 43 adult, obese persons were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.2 MJ/d (1000 kcal/d) composed of either 32% protein, 15% carbohydrate, and 53% fat, or 29% protein, 45% carbohydrate, and 26% fat."
A 6-week period with only 43 participants? ...how does this get published?
Did you peruse the summary only or actually look at the study? http://www.ajcn.org/content/63/2/174.full.pdf 6 weeks in a hospitalized environment with a consistent daily diet as measured/provided by the researchers, with a 14-hr fast before and after the 6 weeks. There are statistically significant correlations for some variables and insignificant for others. If the half of 43 participants was all over the map, then I'm sure it wouldn't have passed muster.
I'm not saying this study is the answer, nor does the study attempt to claim that. But to declare it as unworthy of publishing seems extreme.
Good points. It was harsh and not entirely relevant. I'm just passionate about the topic because of my experience. I could find outdated "scholarly papers" that say the world is flat. I didn't have enough time to dig up counter research. Will do now. Thanks for keeping me honest!
I focused on the first one I clicked. It took a lot of digging (like searching google and clicking the first link), but I found some counter studies: http://thepaleodiet.com/published-research
Either way, to each their own. My research and experience has led me in a certain direction, and the results in my personal health and those around me have been fantastic. In all actuality only time will tell. Obviously the state of current knowledge in the area is widely inconclusive. Best of luck to you.
Please explain how countless cultures who are severely malnutritioned and live off of less than 600 calories a day are obese? There are no credible studies that are currently being done that can answer those questions with calories in / calories out. Because it is simply wrong.
I don't have time to watch a 90 minute talk. Could you tell me which cultures become obese on 600 cals/day, and perhaps give a non-Gary Taubes source for it?
I've certainly never encountered it. In my experience, people who consume insufficient amounts of carb heavy food tend to be quite thin (Maharashtra, for example - all carbs, and not very many of them).
This is great. Last year I broke my shoulder and could not run or swim for 4 months. I got fat for the first time in my life. I was eating loads and doing nothing. After months of physical therapy on my shoulder I was ready to start getting back into shape. My regime was simple:
- Kitesurf lots (really fun and uses a lot of energy)
- Swim lots (if there was no wind)
- Never eat processed foods.
- Drink a pint of milk before and after exercise sessions.
Done.
Going to the gym demoralised me. Kitesurfing is addictive. I think finding a form of exercise you love is akin to finding a job you love. When you love something you want to do more of it.
If you have to force yourself to go to the gym you will fail. I want to go swim because I have nearly drowned kitesurfing big waves in Ireland and never want to experience that again. These external pulls and internal pushes are what keep me fit. Not a New Year's Resolution.
Just as a caution though, if anyone is reading this and is on the fence about taking up exercise and starting going to the gym, please give it a shot and don't assume you'll be demoralized. You never know until you try.
For me, going to the gym turned out to be quite moralizing, as it put me in that "exercise mode" (surrounded by exercisey stuff). I also associated it with getting better/fitter, so going to the gym == improvement == positive feelings.
Some of my friends hate running and love biking. I love running. If you told me 3 years ago that I'd be saying that last thing, I would be laughing in your face in disbelief. But you never know till you try.
Agreed. I should have elaborated more. The reason I found the gym demoralising is because I was overweight and was surrounded by these greek gods. Now that I am fit again I really enjoy going into the gym with the goal of improving my fitness for kitesurfing. I go to the gym with my physical performance instead of my physical appearance in mind.
but what is the idea behind drinking milk before and after exercise?
If you look at the recommended macro percentages (carbs/fat/protein) for pre/post workout drinks milk matches it almost exactly and is typically cheaper than protein shakes.
Wouldn't you be more likely to regurgitate your stomach's contents by drinking milk before exercise?
Believe or not, your body can learn to deal with it. Look at ultra-marathoners who can eat pizza while on the run.
At the end of 2009 I dropped form 240lb to 180lb by a combination weight training and switching to a low-carb high protein diet for 6 days a week with the 7th day being a pigout (to trick your metabolism out of starvation mode).
I managed to maintain my weight around 185lb throughout 2010. With a big drop in the summer (cycling a total of 70km every day to work and back works wonders).
The problem is that the diet is really hard to stick to, so in 2011 I gradually switched back to a mixed diet. Which meant that sweet stuff was back on the agenda.
Fast forward to 2012 and I'm back at 230lb (although more muscular). I'm switching back to a health diet but I'm not cutting the carbs as much.
This time I'll eat more low GI carbs and less protein. Going for something similar to what Jeremy is doing (eating better, but nice food).
Good article - The thing that motivated me to get into fitness & health years ago was somebody telling me that you wouldn't believe how much more exciting and fun almost every activity in your life is when you are healthy & in shape.
(Shameless Plug Warning!) Relating to a healthy & fit lifestyle, I have been working on a side project to help people stay fit, happy, and healthy at their desk during the workday and was created out of my own need & desire to not have a lifetime of working at a desk affect my body & mind too much. The 'nutrition' portion of the app is forthcoming, but it's 80% complete and I encourage everybody to do your body a favor and check it out! (http://www.fitbolt.com/)
These health posts never turn out good. It always ends up with hackers/geeks arguing how to eat, lose weight, be healthy, etc and so forth. No one agrees. There is too much arguing about what is right, wrong, can't be done, you have to eat this... as if nothing is safe to eat now.
Anyway, I don't want to argue or comment that certain foods are evil, carbs are bad and should be avoided, or about anything what Gary Taubes said or published. Everyone is different and different things work for different people. That said, I would like to link a very good post on Reddit with a list of studies that I think people should peruse and possibly reference for the future.
"The results of this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient composition, that determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets over a short time period."
Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition.
"Even with extreme changes in the fat-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of percentage fat intake."
Fat loss depends on energy deficit only, independently of the method for weight loss.
Debunking Lustig and the fear of fructose. Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data. No relevant data accounting for a direct link of moderate fructose and health risk markers.
There are large problems with isolating foods cased on the glycemic index/load. First, food is rarely eaten in an isolated way. Fat, protein, fiber count, etc. will all slow down digestion. Second, there is evidence to support that it doesn't even make a difference in weight or blood markers.
Vegetarians have a reduced skeletal muscle carnitine transport capacity. Vegetarians have reduced muscle carnitine transport capacity . Carnitine helps fat burning and build bone.
I do agree with your general premise. Most health advice is too complex, and it can all be boiled down to: eat whole foods, mostly veggies. If you must eat processed, the less ingredients the better.
A lot of the confusion also has to do with people treating their diet as religion. Also, there's a lot of misinformation from the government (the normal Food Pyramid is the worst thing to follow if you need to lose weight), and as a result lots of conflict with popular wisdom. As such, when someone gives advice that is different from the norm, people immediately shoot it down as just a fad.
Good point, I didn't mean that at all. I was looking over all the comments and remembered what these types of posts turn into. I had no intention to hi-jack anything. Noted for future postings as something to consider.
I am so sick and tired of all of these misinformed blog articles and comments about clean food versus unhealthy food. Good calories versus bad calories. Do these writers even know what a calorie is? It isn't intrinsically good or bad.
If you're eating 6,500 calories per day in lean meats, fish, nuts, vegetables and fruit, I absolutely guarantee you will become fat without rigorous physical activity.
Calories in/calories out is what matters when it comes to weight. If your concern is cholesterol or blood sugar, on the other hand, your diet and genetics play a huge role in that.
Let's not forget about the teacher who ate nothing but Twinkies and cupcakes for several weeks and lost a tremendous amount of weight and lowered his cholesterol.
Now, I'm not suggesting that anyone go on a Twinkie diet, but the biggest takeaway from what that professor did is that the amount of calories you consume is important when it comes to weight loss, and subsequently lowering cholesterol.
Actually you are most likely wrong. There is really good evidence that the number of calories don't matter and that the type of calories are everything. People associate the number of calories as mattering because they change other things at the same time. Please watch videos from Gary Taubes who wrote "Good Calories Bad Calories" and "Why we get fat".
On a personal note, I lost 40 lbs and I eat far more calories now than I did before. Open you mind for a bit and really watch that video, you might be convinced that what you think about calories are all wrong. I certainly changed what I thought was true as fact.
I take it you're kidding, so I'll treat it as such. Taubes, and only Taubes, has blamed refined carbohydrates as the single and absolutely positive source for all our dietary-related maladies. Clearly, you chose to ignore the example of the professor who went on the Twinkie diet.
For 10 weeks, the professor had a "steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too." His body mass index dropped to healthy weight, his bad cholesterol went down 20% and good cholesterol went up 20%, and his triglycerides were cut by 39% -- these are not inconsiderable numbers.
Again, I'm not preaching that diet--I'd never do it myself. However, it is direct, physical proof that Gary Taubes is wrong.
Also, consider that the regions on the planet with the most centenarians (people who live to be 100 or more) are the same regions where bread, pasta and rice intake are high.
If you watch for only 10 minutes you hear no less than 5 or 6 sources that he gives. If you are too lazy to watch a video, than no number of sources are going to help you.
Calories definitely do play a role, but when you gradually shift to a diet with mostly whole foods, and less processed foods, you start to feel the need to eat less. Most processed foods aren't filling and leave you wanting more. Also, they don't give you the nutrients you need. So it definitely does matter what type of calories you consume.
Was he really counting the calories as he was gaining weight? Counting calories is a tough job, especially for an engineer like me (and I like counting calories), just because I don't cook consistently, I eat out where I don't know how much I'm consuming. Get a burrito for lunch? That can vary 100-200 calories depending on how it's made day to day.
Losing 45 lbs is a lot of work. After all that, how can you gain 35 lbs and not notice or try not to counteract it? I weigh myself a couple of times a week and it's easy to keep a running average of that. 5 lb variation is noise, but when you're starting to hit 10+, you should be taking notice.
I am assuming the OP exercises (as that's KEY to keeping weight off). You need to treat it like a feedback cycle: are you starting to gain a little? Ok, then be a little more cognizant of what you eat (cut down amounts, leave that last bite on the plate, really make sure you don't eat candy or soda) and crank up the energy expenditure and exercise (try to walk an extra couple of miles extra couple of days a week, make sure you take the stairs every time, etc).
Calorie counting is a great tool, but is inadequate because your metabolism changes as you attempt to lose weight. Your body resists change. It's also difficult to truly estimate your caloric expenditure in a given day. Your daily pattern of activity may have changed slightly in a way that you now burn 100-200 fewer calories--that can add up.
Carbs are not the root of all evil and many factors affect your hunger and metabolism. Here's a great science-sourced article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/fitness/exercise/... -- e.g. "the results showed the best predictor of weight loss was how closely the subjects had managed to stick with their prescribed diet"
Although many people recommend eating many small meals, it doesn't let your insulin levels return to baseline levels. As a result, you're training your body to not get its energy from body fat.
Basically, we need to gradually give up snacking if we want to lose weight, then just stick to 3 meals a day, and if you're ambitious do intermittent fasting.
Intermittent fasting is the greatest thing ever. In fact, I do eat 5-7 meals a day. But they're all squeezed in a 4-6 hour window. The remaining 18-20 hours I "almost fast". Almost meaning: water-teas-coffees (no milk/sugar in either) all allowed, a-very-few-fresh-veggies-or-fruits too, but fresh is the key here and it's not for the energy -- just for loading a few enzymes/vitamins/minerals.
Basically you can feast on as much food as desired and even any kinds of carbs etc. and never get too fat / always stay skinny! Quite amazing. Now calories-in-vs-out still holds but no-one on intermittent fasting will consistently eat 3000-5000 calories day in, day out -- plus the body is tuned and trained to burn body fat for energy on a daily -- daily -- basis.
How many days in a row do you tend to fast for or is it something you just do now? I have started doing it and have found it not to be as difficult as I thought it would be.
For me, trying to eat 5-7 small meals a day is like asking an alcoholic to go to a bar 5-7 times a day but only order Pepsi. Also, people were always telling me that I should eat a good breakfast and lunch so that I wouldn't be as hungry at dinner time but that's not how it turned out for me. I ate the same amount at night regardless of what I ate before.
From a compliance stand point it has worked well; even though I don't eat during the day, I don't eat any more than usual at night. I do get some hunger pangs around 11 but they go away after a little while. It also feels good to be able to exert some control over a part of my life that I have struggled with.
"How many days in a row do you tend to fast for or is it something you just do now?" -- have been doing this on a daily basis since 2nd October 2011 (so exactly 3 months now), never broke the fasting pattern I described above so far. I went from 5-7-meals-a-day frequent-feeding to intermittent fasting "cold-turkey" -- although the only real change is how your meals are timed. Do you spread them over the course of 16 hours ("normal" eating) or 4-6 hours (intermittent fasting) per day.
Note this is not a health hazard as long as daily nutrient and caloric needs are met every day.
Working out daily in a fasted state, starting the feasting-phase as soon as possible after the work-outs.
Interestingly, this article and these comments mirror much of what's in "The 4 Hour Body" by Tim Ferris. Very interesting read (he goes so far as to have an insulin probe implanted to measure real-time glycemic index).
I've often thought with today's sensors and wireless tech that there should be an accessory and mobile app that constantly measures your blood sugar, good for diabetics and optimal-nutrition folks alike.
Frequent meals isn't gospel, though. Art de Vany, originator of Paleo, counters that if you're on a diet that satisfies your appetite, like Paleo, it's better to eat larger portions less frequently, to maximize the amount of time your metabolism can focus on processing the insulin and then fat already in your body. Constantly eating all day instead focuses your metabolism on digestion.
Of course, if your diet doesn't satisfy you and keeps you hungry between meals, then frequent healthy meals and snacks might be a better option to, as you say, reduce temptation to eat bad stuff. Try both, figure out what works.
This post is really just a teaser for possibly interesting posts to come. In that vein... Dear everyone who has a blog: make sure there's an easy-to-find link to your RSS feed. (There's one here in the comments, which proves my point.)
and a little advice, try to eat low glycemic indexed foods all the time, they will make you feel full all the time and they are generally quality food that everyone needs to have. Plus, you will not have to take in-between meals 'cause you won't be hungry ; )
I was diagnosed w/ crohns when I was 16. I struggled with it my whole life; in and out of hospitals and on/off different meds. At 19 I learned about the Macrobiotic Diet and my life was never the same. It was hard to stay on the diet and make it stick so I created a tool that helps me track and balance my diet. Because I like building things I also added 450 or so other diets and it has become by permanent side project. Right now only me and a few friends are using it (web version) and the app will be in the app store in a few weeks then I am thinking about opening it up to the public to see if its something that anyone else would want to use. All of the diets I have seen mentioned on this thread are supported so if anyone would like access let me know email/city and I will try and get things up and running for you.
I used to live next to a rehab center here in Norway. They used to take in a lot of traffic accident victims, but had recently started taking in obese people.
Their focus was on making permanent changes to their day to day routine. Reintroduce the home cooked meal with plenty of vegetables and little fat. Getting away from the processed foods and especially sugar contents. I remember on an open presentation I attended that they explained how a packet of cookies contained as much energy as an entire dinner, and if you ate it quick enough almost all of it would simply go to fat storage because you couldn't possibly use all that energy fast enough unless you were running the entire time.
They said the key to weight loss is not to focus on the weight loss but rather on permanent changes to your diet and lifestyle. Make vegetables, salads and fiber the norm, not the exception. But this usually requires managing the rest of your life better. All it takes is a tough week at work for you to go back to frozen pizza and soda, and never turn back.