[Closed] So what am I doing wrong, then? (weight loss content)

As has been mentioned before, waistline dims, scale weights are basic, possibly even crude markers of good overall physical health. imo

Yeah, but I'll have abs and then all the girls will think I'm fit. That's the point, right?? 😛

This is why calorie restriction is hard, because you get really hungry.

Maybe if you restrict far too much, which isn't really sustainable in the long term anyway and will just lead to yoyo-ing.

I'm on a 500kcal deficit (the sensible recommended amount from MFP) and I can't say that I find myself really hungry.

(188cm/86kg. MFP Target:1850kcals. 2 stone lost since I started it)

have the [b]willpower [/b]to not overeat.

Yay - the magic word!

[i]It's easy to follow if you track exactly how much you eat and know what the calorific value is AND have the willpower to not overeat.[/i]

Very good. I almost envy folk who can put it into such a short sentence.
🙂
But to my mind, there are a few significant and negative caveats there though.

I'm not likely to carry a set of scales with me, wherever I go, to the pub, to the restaurant in order to track exactly with I'm eating.
Nor am I likely to memorize the calorie stats for many different foods and as for will power.
Its been clinically demonstrated that hormonal responses to caloric deficit can influence a subjects decision making process. Thus exposing them to exceeding their caloric allocation.

[i]Yeah, but I'll have abs and then all the girls will think I'm fit. That's the point, right??[/i]

Could well be.
😀

[i]188cm/86kg. MFP Target:1850kcals. 2 stone lost since I started it)[/i]

You seem happy about that and I can't comment on those stats.

But how healthy are you on the inside ?, systemic inflamation, blood stats, etc.

I'm not likely to carry a set of scales with me, wherever I go, to the pub, to the restaurant in order to track exactly with I'm eating.

That's an issue with [i]any[/i] system though: when you eat out you have a less clear idea about what and how much you are eating. (Also social groups tend to encourage over-eating)

Nor am I likely to memorize the calorie stats for many different foods

Which is why apps like MFP are good because they give you those calorie stats instantly.

I'm on a 500kcal deficit (the sensible recommended amount from MFP) and I can't say that I find myself really hungry.

Well good for you. However that's not everyone's experience. It's easy to bleat on about willpower, but given our hormone profiles are all different, in some people the drive to eat is far greater than others. Just look at my two kids, both under 4 and had nothing but normal healthy diet all their lives. One eats loads, the other just doesn't care and has to be really encouraged to eat enough nutrition.

If your drive to eat is less, then you need less willpower to succeed. What affects your drive to eat? Well psychology is a factor, as is brain and blood chemistry. Those things are influenced by what you've been eating for years, genetics, the type of exercise you do, and probably lots of other things.

That's an issue with any system though: when you eat out you have a less clear idea about what and how much you are eating.

Not any system. The point about idiet and similar is that you can eat as much as you want, within reason. So all you have to do when you go out is have vegetables instead of potatoes/chips, and you're fine. Or dahl instead of rice with your curry etc etc. It's really quite easy, and I eat out a lot when I'm away for work. Ok so the variety of dishes is reduced, but not by that much.

[i]That's an issue with any system though: when you eat out you have a less clear idea about what and how much you are eating[/i]

I'd respectfully differ with you there. I avoid certain food types which I know will stimulate a larger insulin response. I dined in an Indian restaurant last night.
I did not have rice, I did not have a naan bread. I had lots of very tasty veg and meat. A great meal, over which I didn't fret about cals.
Obviously, I do not eat like this each night, but then as a consequence (doh !) of my infrequent attendance at my local curry house, I needn't fret over cals when I do go there and I can leave my phone at home.

[i]Which is why apps like MFP are good because they give you those calorie stats instantly.[/i]

May be, but perhaps I don't want to be staring into my phone while, say for example, I'm attending that social event you describe ^^.
Looking up cal stats when I should be relaxing and chatting, etc.

As I posted, if it gives the result someone wants, then good for them.
🙂

You seem happy about that and I can't comment on those stats.

I am - but I'm just supplying them cos someone said it would be a useful thing to see on the diet threads. Separates the talkers from the walkers.

But how healthy are you on the inside ?, systemic inflamation, blood stats, etc.

I have absolutely no idea. All I can say is I feel considerably better than I did when I was obese.

Oh and not everyone is obese for the same reason!

[i]I have absolutely no idea. All I can say is I feel considerably better than I did when I was obese.[/i]

[i]As I posted, if it gives the result someone wants, then good for them.[/i]

Also, for the record ([i]talkers and walkers[/i]).
I've obtained and maintain good results for being leaner and stronger now than before I found all this stuff being discussed on here, a few years ago now.
😀

EDIT:
[i]I have absolutely no idea.[/i]

Then again, without wanting to cause an argument.
I'd question your opinion on food provenance, whether you consider it a significant factor for someone [i]cleaning[/i] up their diet or whether it really is just cal counting ?.

I don't want to be staring into my phone while, say for example, I'm attending that social event you describe ^^.
Looking up cal sats when I should be relaxing and chatting, etc.

Neither do I - but I need [i]something[/i] to guide me.

You said you don't want to memorise calorie stats, but then reeled off foods you avoided because you knew, from memory, that these caused a larger insulin response.

Likewise if I'm out then I'll pick something that I [i]think[/i] will fit my calorie goal, rather than sit tapping at my phone.

Then I'll enter it later. Sometimes I'll get a shock and learn something for next time.

[i]Oh and not everyone is obese for the same reason![/i]

What ?, that they haven't accumulated too much body fat ?.

Why have they accumulated too much body fat? You're being deliberately obtuse here.

but then reeled off foods you avoided because you knew, from memory, that these caused a larger insulin response

Yeah the list is really small though, and very easy to remember.

[i]You said you don't want to memorise calorie stats, but then reeled off foods you avoided because you knew, from memory, that these caused a larger insulin response.[/i]

Hhmm, you've missed the point. Its easier to know that I will not usually eat bread (naan) (its a rule of thumb to be applied at my discretion) than to know the cal stats for anything on the menu.

Actually. Did I hear recently that there was discussion around restaurants listing the Cals for each meal, in their menu ?.

Oh and not everyone is obese for the same reason!

Whilst this is certainly true - my missus sees a lot of obese people in diabetic care, and fundamentally 99% are obese simply because they eat too much.

Sure there are mitigating factors: they may have very strong appetites as you described; they may have very slow metabolisms; they may have some imbalance that makes them feel hungry or means they never feel satiated; there may be psychological issues at play etc etc

But none of those things actually [i]make[/i] you fat. The food does that.

My missus is diabetic herself, and has reduced satiety feedback, so she has to carefully watch what she eats and stop when she can [i]see[/i] she has eaten enough even if she still [i]feels[/i] hungry, because if she relied on her body telling her she was full then she'd be 20 stone.

I'd question your opinion on food provenance, whether you consider it a significant factor for someone cleaning up their diet or whether it really is just cal counting ?.

Again - no idea.

My unresearched [i]opinion[/i] is that "eating clean" is really just the same thing as "eating a proper nutritious balanced diet". But with some dandelion root tea.

But I really don't know enough about it to comment.

Yeah the list is really small though, and very easy to remember.

Can you point me at one I'm intrigued? (Missus does all the insulin response stuff for obvious reasons and does control her carbs a bit)

Did I hear recently that there was discussion around restaurants listing the Cals for each meal, in their menu ?.

It's the law in America now I believe BUT apparently no one actually checks that the cals they print are accurate, so many of them are complete bollocks as demonstrated here:

[i]It's the law in America now I believe BUT apparently no one actually checks that the cals they print are accurate, so many of them are complete bollocks as demonstrated here:[/i]

So is that another issue with the strategy of only counting cals ?.

Also, people's view on food provenance would be if interest to me.
🙂

So is that another issue with the strategy of only counting cals ?.

More a local issue of toothless legislation in the States I'd say.

What do you mean by "food provenance" Solo?

Do you mean knowing where your food came from and what's been done to it along the way? Then presumably applying that knowledge somehow to alter your diet?

[i]More a local issue of toothless legislation in the States I'd say.[/i]

Well I guess I'll just have to agree to differ with you. Calorie counting comes with significant draw backs. That it works for some on a very basic level, is as much about the guess work than anything else.
An approach which seems to reply on the model that the human body is nothing more than a simplistic, metabolic, oven. Which clearly, it is not.
🙂

Well I guess I'll just have to agree to differ with you.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm far from expert and I'm interested in what you have to say. I agree it is just a simplistic model. But in my experience it works well enough for my simplistic brain.

(Just had lunch: white roll with peppered cheese and salad, bag of cheese and onion Transform-A-Snacks, an Aldi Diggers chocolate bar and two bottles of Mountain Mist. As you can see not exactly clean living. Especially on top of the roll and sausage for breakfast and several pints of coffee!)

[i]What do you mean by "food provenance" Solo?[/i]

I'm referring to calorie sources. Its my belief that certain calorie sources, available to us today, are not a wise choice with respect to enjoying [i]optimal[/i] nutrition.

[i]Well no, I don't think so. The problem with low calorie diets is that you can get really hungry. [/i]

'Most' people are over weight because they indulge in calorie heavy food in large quantities, that's normally things like too much food on your plate, too much pudding, finishing off other people's food, too much alcohol, and too much snacking.

I understand your point about everyone being different and so forth, and I really have tried to read some of the articles that go on about insulin and hormones and whatever, but after about a paragraph I sort of lose the will to live.

Most people understand that cutting down on their portions of food, the types of food that they are eating will loose the kilos

[i]Oh and not everyone is obese for the same reason![/i]

True, but the VAST majority of overweight people are. ( overweight for the same reason, science has found the cause, and its located on your face, centrally between your nose and your chin)

[i]I'm not arguing with you. I'm far from expert and I'm interested in what you have to say. I agree it is just a simplistic model. But in my experience it works well enough for my simplistic brain.[/i]

Agreed, not looking for a flame-off, just [i]chewing the fat[/i].
🙂

[i]it is just a simplistic model. But in my experience it works well enough for my simplistic brain.[/i]
We've established this too and I'd go along with, what works for you, is good enough. I'd hesitate to say that only you can judge whats working for you. But then there are some folk who don't give a shit and will let the NHS clear up the mess they've made of themselves, after 20, 30 years of poor diet and lack of exercise.

[i](Just had lunch: white roll with peppered cheese and salad, bag of cheese and onion Transform-A-Snacks, an Aldi Diggers chocolate bar and two bottles of Mountain Mist. As you can see not exactly clean living. Especially on top of the roll and sausage for breakfast and several pints of coffee!)[/i]

Interesting, I'm assuming you are though, still within your caloric allocation for today ?.
But your lunch kind of highlights how we differ in our approach to sourcing our cals. Tuna, olive oil, black pepper and some pistachio nuts.

What are the '[i]Transform A snacks[/i]'

ts my belief that certain calorie sources, available to us today, are not a wise choice with respect to enjoying optimal nutrition.

So say someone eats "bad" calorie food, but their diet has a suitable balance of carb/fat/protein macros and contains the recommended levels of fibre, vitamins, minerals etc

Are you saying they'll still be worse off than someone who achieved the same basic nutrition eating "good" calorie food?

Or are you saying it is just easier to reach that goal by eating "good" calories?

(I enjoyed the nutrition from my crisps by the way 🙂 )

True, but the VAST majority of overweight people are. ( overweight for the same reason, science has found the cause, and its located on your face, centrally between your nose and your chin)

Yeah? I know quite a few people who eat quite sensibly and are still overweight. I'd like to see the statistical breakdown of this please, email in profile.

Or if you have no stats, then maybe you're just assuming about the VAST majority of people...?

Interesting, I'm assuming you are though, still within your caloric allocation for today ?.

Yep should be. Not totted it up yet but I usually allow around 6-700 kcals for lunch.

What are the 'Transform A snacks'

Not healthy. 😀

[img] [/img]

But actually only 123kcal for a bag so not as bad as you might expect for crisps.

[i]but after about a paragraph I sort of lose the will to live.[/i]

Well, the highway code isn't exactly a riveting read. But you know you've got to get through it if you want a license.

[i]Most people understand that cutting down on their portions of food, the types of food that they are eating will loose the kilos[/i]

Yes, people, possibly everyone, may [i]know[/i] this. But you wait until your endocrine system has had its way with you. Its either going to keep on making you feel hungry. Or its going to lower your BMR and store more of your cals as fat. Things can get really out of whack. As Jean Mayer demonstrated with some of his experiments.

[i]True, but the VAST majority of overweight people are. ( overweight for the same reason, science has found the cause, and its located on your face, centrally between your nose and your chin)[/i]

I'm not sure thats entirely accurate.
😉

[i]So say someone eats "bad" calorie food, but their diet has a suitable balance of carb/fat/protein macros and contains the recommended levels of fibre, vitamins, minerals etc

Are you saying they'll still be worse off than someone who achieved the same basic nutrition eating "good" calorie food?[/i]

Yes, because as you point out, theres more to food than just the cals.
A basic example might be to ask about the omega 3 content of a diet which contains a lot of grain based product or is otherwise processed.
IME, its widely proposed that a stereotypically western diet is significantly low in omega 3, which has opened a marketing opportunity for people to sell plastic tubs of fish oil capsules.
Does counting cals alone, address such concerns ?.

Yes, because as you point out, theres more to food than just the cals.

That sounds like option 2 though - i.e. it is easier to get all the right things if you eat "good" calories (I'm assuming good calories are fresh fruit, nuts, unprocessed stuff etc)

Does counting cals alone, address such concerns ?.

Nope but does significantly low Omega 3 make people fat?

Solo, you're right, it's not '[i]entirely[/i]' accurate

[i]That sounds like option 2 though[/i]

Well then you have your answer. To use your term of "[i]good calorie food[/i]".
Surely it makes the most sense, but requires additional attention beyond simply counting your calories. You're saying we should be looking to and counting [i]good calories[/i].

[i]Nope but does significantly low Omega 3 make people fat?[/i]

As we've discussed though, its not just about being fat. People can be slim and unwell.
Systemic inflammation is a critical contributor to conditions such as atherosclerosis. Omega 3 is an anti inflammatory EFA. Slim people can and do suffer from atherosclerosis. For example.

EDIT:

A lot of the time, the clue is in the title.

[i][b]Essential[/b] fatty acid[/i] ?.

Theres probably not too much EFA or Essential Amino Acids in the Transform A snack.
But I accept that isn't why you chose to eat them.
🙂

As we've discussed though, its not just about being fat. People can be slim and unwell.

Yeah completely agree. In fact I believe the mortality rates for underweight people are actually worse than for fatties.

So I should probably qualify my earlier statement and say that I think "Calories In < Calories Out" is a simplistic model but one that works [b][i]for the purposes of losing weight[/i][/b] (which was the OP).

If you want it to be healthy (beyond the health benefits of no longer being obese) then yeah, fair enough, you'll have to eat better foods to hit those other targets.

That sound like a fair summary of both our positions?

(Personally I couldn't be faffed. I get about as far as keeping a lazy eye on my macros and salt intake and trying to eat enough fruit and veg to keep me regular)

(Just had lunch: white roll with peppered cheese and salad, bag of cheese and onion Transform-A-Snacks, an Aldi Diggers chocolate bar and two bottles of Mountain Mist. As you can see not exactly clean living. Especially on top of the roll and sausage for breakfast and several pints of coffee!)

if the stw-dieticians were to refuse one single mouthful of food per post they make on diet threads, none of them would be bulging their way into the obese zone of bmi.

good luck op, its a long slow process, try not to weigh yourself more than once a week and accept that you will have a couple/few of pounds natural variation. recording your stats will hopefully show a trend line in the right direction. Just because your weight doesnt change, doesnt necessarily mean what you are doing is not working.

eat clean, train hard, fight easy.

[i]That sound like a fair summary of both our positions?[/i]

Well:

[i]So I should probably qualify my earlier statement and say that I think "Calories In < Calories Out" is a simplistic model but one that works for the purposes of losing weight (which was the OP).[/i]

I'd prefer to include your new phrase "[i]Good Calorie foods[/i]" as this could also lower the glycemic load of said diet.
🙂

So, perhaps:
[i]So I should probably qualify my earlier statement and say that I think "Calories [b]from good calorie foods[/b] In < Calories Out" is a simplistic model but one that works for the purposes of losing weight (which was the OP).[/i]

Just my 2 penneth worth.

Soobalias.

How does posting here make me a chubbster ?.

Could people who have achieved decent body recomposition resulting in lower B/F, as well as increased muscle mass. Just want to contribute, based on their experience and reading ?.

So I should probably qualify my earlier statement and say that I think "Calories In < Calories Out" is a simplistic model but one that works for the purposes of losing weight (which was the OP).

Really - no. You might reduce your calories and not lose any weight. And there's tons of evidence to suggest there are much easier and more sustainable ways of losing weight than simply cutting calories - for many people.

It works for a lot of people, maybe most, but it's unsustainable for a lot of people.

Diet not going as well as you'd hoped, still then? 😉

Assuming you're not joking/trolling, you can't honestly believe that lunch is healthy, regardless of how much weight you're losing? Is that typical?

Not joking and yeah it is a very typical workday lunch for me. Contents of the roll vary day to day, but otherwise that's it.

It is healthy? No.

Is it [i]healthier[/i] than the lunches I see most folk eat round this way (e.g. energy drink + Greggs / chips and curry sauce / pie + a Mars bar)? Yeah.

There is more to overall health than the readout on the scales.

Yep. And my overall health has never been better. 😀

I'd prefer to include your new phrase "Good Calorie foods" as this could also lower the glycemic load of said diet.

Well I think that is complicating the model beyond what it fundamentally needs to work. (i.e. I think you'll [i]lose weight[/i] even if the calories you do eat are "bad" as my own eating habits show, but being healthy is a different matter).

So when you say "glycemic load" are you talking about watching the GI of the foods you eat, or do you use some other measure? (I asked because earlier you said you avoided rice, but that is a Medium GI. Do you only eat Low GI?)

And are you saying a diet with the same number of calories but a lower glycemic load would cause [i]more[/i] weight loss?

You might reduce your calories and not lose any weight.

See I just don't see how that can possibly be, from a non-dietary Physics point of view.

How can you put less energy into the system and still do the same amount of work? Sure other metabolic systems may kick in to adapt in the short term, but ultimately it all needs energy and calories are just a measure of energy.

If your TDEE is 3000kcals and you put in 2500 then where does the other 500 come from if not from your own reserves?

Is it healthier than the lunches I see most folk eat round this way (e.g. energy drink + Greggs / chips and curry sauce / pie + a Mars bar)? Yeah.

And are you saying a diet with the same number of calories but a lower glycemic load would cause more weight loss?

Yep.

Watching GI is easy, by the way. No foods that are mostly starch. Which really means the starch portion of your meal - potatoes, rice, pasta or bread. And no sweet sugary foods obviously.

That's actually a simplified rule, there are exceptions, but it'll work and it's very simple.

Watching GI is easy, by the way. No foods that are mostly starch. Which really means the starch portion of your meal - potatoes, rice, pasta or bread. And no sweet sugary foods obviously.

If you're using GI instead of calories then why no sweet/sugary foods? Or are you using GI as an additional criteria in addition to choosing lower calories?

Incidentally the NHS say:

Some low GI foods, such as wholegrain foods, fruit, vegetables, beans and lentils, are foods we should eat as part of a healthy balanced diet.

However, using the GI to decide whether foods or combinations of foods are healthy can be misleading. Foods with a high GI are not necessarily unhealthy and not all foods with a low GI are healthy. For example, watermelon, bread, rice and potatoes are high GI foods, while chocolate pudding has a low GI value.

Also, foods that contain or are cooked with fat and protein slow down the absorption of carbohydrate, lowering the GI. For example, crisps have a lower GI than potatoes cooked without fat.

If you only eat foods with a low GI, your diet may be unbalanced and high in fat.

-- http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1862.aspx?categoryid=51

Whoa, loads there.

In short, I've tried to walk a neutral path on this thread today.
If someone rocks up and declares a caloric deficit has worked for them. regardless of where those calories have come from.
Then who am I to argue.

I've tried to feed in the notion that a concept of [i]Good calories[/i] is one possibly worth trying to get your head around, but I'm not going to twist anyone's arm up their back.
🙂

I'd suggest that trying to address the glycemic load of your diet is going to bode well for your insulin response, which has positive knock-on effects.

As you may know, I would have suggested that the OP look at the glycemic load of their diet, before counting cals, because of some of the issues with counting cals, that I outlined earlier.
But I admit I will be biased as a result of what I've experienced and the results I've achieved.

Over a decade ago, calorie counting didn't work for me and clinical evidence suggests its more than just counting calories.
Yet we have people here who claim that its working for them.

If that isn't going to confuse the new and uninitiated, looknig for advice, then I'm not sure what would.

But, if you're heavier than you ought to be, if calorie counting leaves you hungry. Then just bare in mind, theres alternatives to counting calories.
🙂

[i]See I just don't see how that can possibly be, from a non-dietary Physics point of view.[/i]

Well, cals in either get used or they get stored.

However, how many calories do I eat ?. No idea for I eat rich, fatty foods which bring about an adequate degree of satiation so that I do not need more food.

Which again brings me to my point, that choosing where your cals come from, can have significant effect on how many cals you consume and other health issues, not as easily appreciated as a smaller waistline or lower scale weight.
🙂

If you're using GI instead of calories then why no sweet/sugary foods?

Sweet and sugary foods are often high GI (I said it was an oversimplified rule with exceptions) however I've found personally that the sugar in say a piece of brown bread with lots of butter and nutella (a low GI snack) sets off the sugar craving centres in my brain and I then crave more high GI stuff. In addition to its effect on insulin, sugar affects the brain much like alcohol, nicotine or heroin I suppose. If I imagine sugar to be like booze and I'm like an alcoholic, then it becomes easier to find the willpower.

However, using the GI to decide whether foods or combinations of foods are healthy can be misleading. Foods with a high GI are not necessarily unhealthy and not all foods with a low GI are healthy.

True but 'healthy' is a bit of a vague term, and is not necessarily the same as 'useful in weight loss'. My personal aim here is to lose weight and remain healthy, hence the focus on low GI. If I weren't worried about weight I'd eat some foods that I currently do not.

Btw this is one reason why people get so confused. They complain about conflicting reports about what's 'good for you'. Well some things have positives and negatives, and it depends what your issue is.

Are you not all guilty of ignoring exactly half of the issue?

You seem to have concentrated to a very specific and very STW degree on calories in, while spending much less energy (seewhatIdidthere) on the whole calories out side of things.

Although an extreme example, the diet of pro cyclists is interesting...

Calorie expenditure is at least as important as calorie intake, yet seems to be glossed over.

See I just don't see how that can possibly be, from a non-dietary Physics point of view.

It's because your body is not a simple heat engine. It draws on energy from different sources that have different effects. Your drive to refuel varies in different situations too. It's like having two fuel tanks in your car with different fuels. Which one are you going to fill up with when you get to the filling station?

Plus your idle speed and workload are different, and on top of that if you exercise you use up different fuels depending on what you do, AND what you can achieve in training depends on how much of each kind of fuel you have available. Not to mention how efficient your car is and what the fuel map is like.. and how bright the fuel light is, whether or not you also need a paper and some screen wash etc etc...

Calorie expenditure is at least as important as calorie intake, yet seems to be glossed over.

Not by me, but this is a diet thread not a training thread...

[i]Are you not all guilty of ignoring exactly half of the issue?[/i]

Not me, in one of my drafts I mentioned exercised, but it must have been cut by me, accidentally.

Almost goes without saying though that [b]exercise is absolutely vital[/b].

[i]Not by me, but this is a diet thread not a training thread...[/i]

But calories in vs calories out is important, and concentrating only on calories in is simplifying the issue to a strange and almost daft degree.

I'm not talking about training, I'm talking about simple lifestyle stuff. If you're not using up the calories consumed, you are going to deposit them...

Yes.. but that side of the equation is just as complicated. Long/slow/cardio vs HIIT vs gym vs cycling etc etc etc.. and how what you eat enables you to burn more or fewer calories.. etc..

I'm not really thinking about 'exercise'.

I'm thinking much more about 'lifestyle'.

I'm thinking about walking instead of driving, about stairs instead of lifts/escalators, about generally moving about instaed of sitting. My feeling is that concentrating on what goes in while ignoring what comes out in the form of activity is only looking at half the problem.

It's like talking about mpg by discussing what petrol and ignoring driving style, engine size, load and so on.

You are quite right, but the lifestyle stuff is pretty straightforward, and there are fewer misconceptions about that 🙂 And the science is well understood of course.

However you have to do quite a bit to make a difference. Remember when you were a student and you would walk 20 mins to uni, 20 mins to a friend's house, another 20 to the pub for a couple of different pubs, 15 back to their house, and 20 back to yours? I used to cycle those trips, once I borrowed a bike computer and clocked up 10 miles in a normal evening alone.

When you're an adult, you work 20 miles away, there's no bus route, it becomes a lot more difficult to get that kind of casual exercise in.

[i]When you're an adult, you work 20 miles away, there's no bus route, it becomes a lot more difficult to get that kind of casual exercise in.[/i]

In my case there is a bus route, and it convieniently adds a 5 and then a 10 minute walk, which seems to provoke much hilarity among my colleagues, and I'm considered a second class citizen. These same people are all on the latest fad diet involving fasting or there abouts for two days a week, yet they criticise when I skip an evening meal because I eat at home.

I think I'm trying to say that the problem is not so much about what we eat; it's much more about how much we eat compared to how much we do. Watching the procession of visitors to the hospital who wait at the front door to be picked up when the car park is 100 yards away only adds to this.

Weight loss/food/exercise is a complex societal issue, and discussing the type of intake is only a small part of the problem.

I'm not arguing with most of that. However I don't think diet is a small part of the problem.

The wrong diet compared to your exercise levels is the problem. Of course it's preferable to exercise for other reasons, but for weight and health diet is most critical imo. Even if you do no exercise at all beyond the minimum, you can still control your weight with appropriate diet.

Welcome back crikey. 🙂

I've moved house and was being a grumpy knobber, so I had a self imposed exile for a while... 🙂

I'm going to disagree molgrips, I think exercise, or rather just physical activity is at least as important as diet.

Yeah? I know quite a few people who eat quite sensibly and are still overweight.

I think exercise, or rather just physical activity is at least as important as diet.

[i]I'm going to disagree molgrips, I think exercise, or rather just physical activity is at least as important as diet.[/i]

Yeap, exercise has been blamed for improving HDL levels for one and there are a raft of other benefits from moving about a bit. Its what we've evolved to do.
Caveat: Obviously, if someone is massively overweight, or even just out of condition. Then easing themselves into exercise is the sensible thing to do and shouldn't be exclusive to sorting out their diet.

[i]Agreed but I would say it's more important as the benefits of exercise, even if the person is overweight, can compensate for a poor diet. Depends on how poor the diet is and what the bad stuff consists of, of course![/i]

Not in my opinion. What I have seen are cardio addicts who cram what I consider to be poor food choices into their mouths, yet [i]appear[/i] to be healthy, cos they are slim / lean. Which is of course, nonsense.

A poor diet is a poor diet. That a person may exercise sooooo much as to mitigate the weight gain effects of a poor diet, but this doesn't absolve them from the effects a poor diet may be having on their bodies. Effects that can't be seen with a tape measure or a set of weighing scales.

Another way of looking at this, perhaps, is to look at the wider range of life on the planet. Most species evolve to align themselves with certain foods, the availability of those foods and even when those foods are available, ie, seasonality.
Humming birds have evolved to rely on plant nectar, squirrels eat seeds and nuts, Lions feed on other animals, etc, etc. But in each case, it can be argued that a particular species has evolved to thrive on certain, available foods. And so it is the same for Humans. We evolved to do very well thank you, on plants and animals and perhaps not so well on Transform A snacks.
😉

Perhaps I'm nit-picking, but I think it's more accurate to suggest that evolution is driven by the food available, rather than us evolving to thrive on certain foods.

One of the advantages that humans seem to have evolved is our ability to overcome seasonal, geographical, climate related obstacles in order to exploit the ecological environment.

Unfortunately, that same adaptability makes us prone to over exploitation of food sources and so we get fat, or ill or both.

I still think an over concentration on intake is not as helpful as looking at getting people to expend more calories in their day to day lives, although I admit that if we can't stop eating too much, the chances of us doing enough are even more remote.

Oh dear solo.

But in each case, it can be argued that a particular species has evolved to thrive on certain, available foods. And so it is the same for Humans.

No. Some species evolve as specialists, some as generalists. Foxes, crows, raccoons, bears etc. Arguably it's our lack of specialism that has made us so successful.

I used to believe that 'those' people ate quite sensibly too but invariably they snack or quite simply pig-out when no-one is looking and are in self denial about what they actually eat.

Invariably? You know that for a fact? Or are you just making assumptions based on nothing?

We all sit on a spectrum with regards response to food. There are plenty of people who eat whatever they like and don't get fat - half my family for a start. There are people in the middle, like me, and there are people who tend to put on weight very easily despite eating carefully.

Assuming anyone fat is a lazy slob in denial is a pretty unkind way of being wrong.

Very few people have a genuine medical reason for being overweight.

Actual pathology might not be common, but I am talking about response to food. It's the same for response to exercise too.

[i]No. Some species evolve as specialists, some as generalists. Foxes, crows, raccoons, bears etc. Arguably it's our lack of specialism that has made us so successful.[/i]

Molgrips.
You're very amusing, I particularly like your confrontational, opening statement of just "[i][b]No.[/b][/i]".
It implies that [b]you know and that you alone are correct[/b]. So I should listen to you regarding archaeological anthropology and not anyone who is a professor in that field ?.
😆
I like also, how you take a stance which is contrarian with very well educated people, people who have done the real research, Doctors, professors. But its OK, you know better. Oh, but hang on, you're still, by your own admission, carrying more B/F than you'd prefer.
😆

So......

[i]Some species evolve as specialists[/i]

Exactly my point with the plankton feeding whale, but evolution still had to play its part and the result is a creature who's general well being only requires that the creature consumes the foods it has evolved to eat.

[i]some as generalists[/i]

They'll be omnivorous then (give me strength), but those creatures still have limits, there are still foods which their digestive systems aren't best evolved to exact optimal nutrition from. However, there is a wide range of food from which they will obtain enough sustenance to survive upon.

[i]Arguably it's our lack of specialism that has made us so successful.[/i]
I wonder if there are more things in the world that we can't survive on, than there are that we can survive on. However, it is proposed that optimal nutrition for a Human, if the rule of evolution applies as it does to other creatures. Will come from foods that Humans have evolved to thrive upon. These do not include cheese cake, Transform A snacks or Pepsi.

Now whos being [i]obtuse[/i] ?.

But heres a starter for you.
[i]Biology may make little sense to some folk, until it is placed under the light of evolution.[/i]
Go figure.

[i]but I think it's more accurate to suggest that evolution is driven by the food available, rather than us evolving to thrive on certain foods.[/i]

That doesn't make sense, you seem to have said the same thing, from two different directions ?.

[i]evolution is driven by the food available[/i]

Agreed, that is what I was saying, water filtering whales have evolved mouth parts for filtering water to harvest plankton.

[i]rather than us evolving to thrive on certain foods.[/i]

No, that's exactly what the whale has done (that particular species of whale), it has evolved to thrive on that certain food, plankton.

However, because I know so few fit/healthy people I now pretty much disregard everybody else around me in this sense.

Yeah I know what you mean. I've had several (obese) people tell me that I've "lost enough weight", that I'm starting to "look too skinny" and it is time to start "eating normal food again" (despite my lunch described earlier!).

I got most of these comments while my BMI was still in the Overweight range.

I think some folk are getting so used to people being obese that even someone with a high-end-of-normal BMI like me looks unhealthily skinny to them. 😯

But calories in vs calories out is important, and concentrating only on calories in is simplifying the issue to a strange and almost daft degree.

I think that has just been the focus of this discussion. The whole simplified equation of "Calories In < Calories Out" means just that. Increasing Calories Out allows for greater Calories In without weight gain.

And again that is what MFP supports. I'm commuting on the bike today. 11 miles each way grants me an extra 800 or so calories.

So my breakfast roll this morning is Sausage and Egg instead of just Sausage and I might have an afternoon flapjack before I head home.

We evolved to do very well thank you, on plants and animals and perhaps not so well on Transform A snacks.

Hey, they are made from corn. Corn is a plant.
They count as one of my five a day 😉

[i] Foxes, crows, raccoons, bears etc. [/i]

What ?, those creatures who now scavenge [b]Man made, processed food[/b] from refuse bins and hence since have been found to be suffering with T2D ?.

Pandas?

An animal that can (and does occasionally) eat anything that any other bear can eat, but chooses instead to eat pretty rubbish nutritionally speaking, bamboo.

[i]Hey, they are made from corn. Corn is a plant.
They count as one of my five a day[/i]
😆

Fair play to you Graham. You've found an approach that works for you and is giving the results you want.
🙂

[i]instead to eat pretty rubbish nutritionally speaking, bamboo[/i]

Well now you post that. But if the Panda's digestive system has evolved to extract what its needs and we get a Panda. Then theres your biology and evolution working out just fine.

Look at us, we evolved to be able to synthesize Carbs from protein, for example. Pretty cool.
😉

It's diet is nutritionally low, and its behaviour reflects that, lives alone, stuffs its face, avoid exersize, sleeps most of the day....

Fair play to you Graham. You've found an approach that works for you and is giving the results you want.

Cheers. I think the main thing is that psychologically I didn't want to feel like I was "on a diet" or eating "special foods" - that just wouldn't motivate me - hence why why I'm still eating crisps instead of flax seeds.

I do [i]know[/i] that I could get more health benefit if I made more radical diet changes and cut out more of the processed stuff - but I worry that I'd find that much more difficult to sustain and fall off the wagon. Whereas doing what I am now has worked well for a year and doesn't feel overly restrictive.

Also, I like sausages. 😀

[i]It's diet is nutritionally low, and its behaviour reflects that, lives alone, stuffs its face, avoid exersize, sleeps most of the day....[/i]

They'll fit right in on here then.
😉

[i]Also, I like sausages[/i]

Its positively a requirement !. You carry on.
😀

Then theres your biology and evolution working out just fine.

No, it's not working fine, they are dying out. Yes they are dying out because of humans (partly) but we're just another environmental stressor.

They specialised in one poor food source, as soon as that gets threatened they are toast. The successful animals are the ones that can eat anything.

those creatures who now scavenge Man made, processed food from refuse bins

What's your point? They are all very successful animals, largely due to their flexibility. Take away the man made processed food, they will have plenty of other food to eat. Take away a panda's bamboo or a wildebeest's grassland and they're in trouble.

This thread is getting a bit OT now.

The successful animals are the ones that can eat anything.

Finally I'm a success! 😀

[i]No, it's not working fine, they are dying out.[/i]

Yes, Trolgrips, its working out as it should, THINK about that...
😉

[i]What's your point? They are all very successful animals, largely due to their flexibility. Take away the man made processed food, they will have plenty of other food to eat.[/i]

Super Trolling. Is that a new phrase ?.

You know exactly what my point is Trolgrips.

[i]Take away man made food[/i]

Ummm, yes, thats what we've been saying, that processed food is not good.

Heck, I bet that if we removed the cheese cake and pepsi from your mitts, even you might lose some B/F.
😉

Man Made food is the problem, you know this, you are trolling.

I'd still like to know on what basis your opinion on evolution in relation to diet is superior to the recognized experts in the field of evolution in relation to Human diet.

EDIT:
[i]Take away a panda's bamboo or a wildebeest's grassland and they're in trouble.[/i]

LMFAO.
You're not seriously comparing outright starvation by removing an animal's food source, to having a choice of food and choosing what food is correct, wrt to evolution ?.
😯

I've honestly got no idea what you are talking about.

I was making a point about evolutionary biology. That is, [b]animals with flexible eating habits are well suited to cope with change[/b].

Man made food is often bad for you, yes, that's not under debate here. I'm not trolling, I'm just very confused about what you are trying to say.

You are saying that humans have a predefined diet that they are best suited to evolutionaryily speaking. I am saying that rather than evolving to a set diet (like pandas or bison or whatever) we've evolved to be flexible.

So whilst a paeleo diet is certainly healthy, it's not necessarily the only criterium for choosing a good diet.

On a related but slightly more down to earth note, how far do I have to walk to burn off a pint of beer? I've done 3 miles, and need some refreshment...