I know the sure fire Diet to lose weight. . .

[Lihu]

My new lunch is two shrimp and pork spring rolls with fish sauce instead of peanut sauce.

You can eat them Vietnamese style by wrapping them in Romaine lettuce, Asian Basil, Jalapeno peppers and other fresh veggies as well.

[Dave2512]

You can eat them Vietnamese style by wrapping them in Romaine lettuce, Asian Basil, Jalapeno peppers and other fresh veggies as well.

That's how I order my combo rice plate. I skip the rice and just eat the protein and order all the veggies and condiments they'd usually give with eggrolls. It's that or pack a lunch. Where I work in Brighton CO it's a restaurant wasteland of crappy Americanized Mex food and calorie slinging chains like Applebee's. It was a huge reason I moved, still work here though. Fortunately we have three pho' joints. To get more serious than that have to drive to Denver. When I lived in the city we ate nothing but ethnic food. It's not SF but Denver has a pretty decent Asian food scene.

[AbsoluteTruths]

In order to lower and keep your weight down you have to make a lifestyle change in your eating habits. Not a diet.

My current plan that is working for me is Eat real food and less of it.

Darn those chocolate bars and brownies they foul me up all the time.

[Lihu]

In order to lower and keep your weight down you have to make a lifestyle change in your eating habits. Not a diet. My current plan that is working for me is Eat real food and less of it. Darn those chocolate bars and brownies they foul me up all the time.

There's a "dehydrated" brownie at Costco, and my mother in law bought us some and it tastes really good. 100-120 calories per serving and it's very rich in chocolate flavor without the fat. Brownie Brittle. http://browniebrittle.com

[AbsoluteTruths]

There's a "dehydrated" brownie at Costco, and my mother in law bought us some and it tastes really good. 100-120 calories per serving and it's very rich in chocolate flavor without the fat.

Brownie Brittle. http://browniebrittle.com

Thanks, but fat is not the problem we have all be lead to believe. It is the carbs and sugar that is making us fat.

[Golfingdad]

Thanks, but fat is not the problem we have all be lead to believe. It is the carbs and sugar that is making us fat.

I don't think it's even quite that complicated. Just burn more calories than you take in.

[billchao]

I don't think it's even quite that complicated. Just burn more calories than you take in.

Yea that's pretty much it. There's no such thing as good or bad calories. There is a difference in nutrient density in different foods that affects your health, but if you're talking strictly about weight loss it's just a numbers game.

[Golfingdad]

Yea that's pretty much it. There's no such thing as good or bad calories. There is a difference in nutrient density in different foods that affects your health, but if you're talking strictly about weight loss it's just a numbers game.

Secondarily, I find that I'm eating less carbs simply because they tend to be too caloric versus how filling they are. But there is no active "diet" other than doing what needs to be done to keep the calories down.

[AbsoluteTruths]

Vegetables are carbs. But there is so much bulk and water to them that you cannot eat too much. So they could be considered good carbs.

But don't let that make you think I am a vegetarian. I like a steak with my broccoli.

[Lihu]

The issue with carbohydrates is that they cause peaks and valleys in your energy levels. You need some, but not nearly as much as we generally consume.

[Mac62]

Purely in terms of weight loss, calories in < calories out is all that matters.  When you take general health and body composition into the picture, macro/micronutrients matter considerably.  Adequate protein intake (along with strength training) helps preserve muscle mass, carbs provide energy for training/activity and fats play a role in many hormonal functions of the body.  I don't think in terms of "good" and "bad" when it comes to food - I eat what I want and try to hit my calorie and macro targets every day (around 1g protein per lb. of lean body mass, 0.45g fat per pound of body weight, fill the rest in with carbs and/or more protein/fat).

A professor of human nutrition did a 10-week diet in which he ate Twinkies, Little Debbie snack cakes, powdered donuts, Doritos, Oreos  and various other junk foods (along with a multivitamin, one protein shake and a few veggies).  His diet was about 80% "junk food".  He stuck to 1800 calories per day, and lost 27 pounds in the 10-week period.  His blood work improved (LDL dropped, HDL increased, triglycerides down) and his bodyfat dropped about 8%. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

His premise was to prove or disprove "calories in < calories out" vs. people who insist you have to "eat clean" (whatever that vague phrase actually means), maintain certain macronutrient profiles, etc.  Obviously he doesn't recommend his "Twinkie Diet", but the results were interesting.  No doubt the improved health markers were due to the weight loss rather than the diet itself (and probably wouldn't stay great if you took the diet long-term), but it proved that you can lose weight eating whatever you want as long as you're taking in less than you're expending.

[Duff McGee]

Purely in terms of weight loss, calories in < calories out is all that matters.  When you take general health and body composition into the picture, macro/micronutrients matter considerably.  Adequate protein intake (along with strength training) helps preserve muscle mass, carbs provide energy for training/activity and fats play a role in many hormonal functions of the body.  I don't think in terms of "good" and "bad" when it comes to food - I eat what I want and try to hit my calorie and macro targets every day (around 1g protein per lb. of lean body mass, 0.45g fat per pound of body weight, fill the rest in with carbs and/or more protein/fat). A professor of human nutrition did a 10-week diet in which he ate Twinkies, Little Debbie snack cakes, powdered donuts, Doritos, Oreos  and various other junk foods (along with a multivitamin, one protein shake and a few veggies).  His diet was about 80% "junk food".  He stuck to 1800 calories per day, and lost 27 pounds in the 10-week period.  His blood work improved (LDL dropped, HDL increased, triglycerides down) and his bodyfat dropped about 8%.  [URL=http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/]http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/[/URL] His premise was to prove or disprove "calories in < calories out" vs. people who insist you have to "eat clean" (whatever that vague phrase actually means), maintain certain macronutrient profiles, etc.  Obviously he doesn't recommend his "Twinkie Diet", but the results were interesting.  No doubt the improved health markers were due to the weight loss rather than the diet itself (and probably wouldn't stay great if you took the diet long-term), but it proved that you can lose weight eating whatever you want as long as you're taking in less than you're expending.

This is what I've been telling everyone for probably the last decade and cite this specific Twinkie diet study but it goes in one ear and out the other. The only thing I will say about macro nutrients is that I am much more successful when I eat low carb because carbs have a way of making me more hungry and craving more. But the science is calories in vs. calories out and no food makes you fatter than any other. Anyone telling you differently has bought into some kind of unnecessary system that is not based on science but instead nutritional pseudo science.

[Lihu]

[quote name="Mac62" url="/t/83894/i-know-the-sure-fire-diet-to-lose-weight#post_1196170"]Purely in terms of weight loss, calories in < calories out is all that matters.  When you take general health and body composition into the picture, macro/micronutrients matter considerably.  Adequate protein intake (along with strength training) helps preserve muscle mass, carbs provide energy for training/activity and fats play a role in many hormonal functions of the body.  I don't think in terms of "good" and "bad" when it comes to food - I eat what I want and try to hit my calorie and macro targets every day (around 1g protein per lb. of lean body mass, 0.45g fat per pound of body weight, fill the rest in with carbs and/or more protein/fat). A professor of human nutrition did a 10-week diet in which he ate Twinkies, Little Debbie snack cakes, powdered donuts, Doritos, Oreos  and various other junk foods (along with a multivitamin, one protein shake and a few veggies).  His diet was about 80% "junk food".  He stuck to 1800 calories per day, and lost 27 pounds in the 10-week period.  His blood work improved (LDL dropped, HDL increased, triglycerides down) and his bodyfat dropped about 8%.  [URL=http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/]http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/[/URL] His premise was to prove or disprove "calories in < calories out" vs. people who insist you have to "eat clean" (whatever that vague phrase actually means), maintain certain macronutrient profiles, etc.  Obviously he doesn't recommend his "Twinkie Diet", but the results were interesting.  No doubt the improved health markers were due to the weight loss rather than the diet itself (and probably wouldn't stay great if you took the diet long-term), but it proved that you can lose weight eating whatever you want as long as you're taking in less than you're expending.

This is what I've been telling everyone for probably the last decade and cite this specific Twinkie diet study but it goes in one ear and out the other. The only thing I will say about macro nutrients is that I am much more successful when I eat low carb because carbs have a way of making me more hungry and craving more. But the science is calories in vs. calories out and no food makes you fatter than any other. Anyone telling you differently has bought into some kind of unnecessary system that is not based on science but instead nutritional pseudo science.[/quote] You are probably listening to your body better than most. Carbohydrates are overdone. That Twinkie diet is interesting. 1800 calories minus the proteins shakes, multivitamins and veggies leaves 1400 calories. That's probably like one Twinkie! :-D Kidding, but it's not that many and that's probably why he could get away with it. . .135 calories, hostess cherry pies are 480 a pie, etc.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duff McGee

This is what I've been telling everyone for probably the last decade and cite this specific Twinkie diet study but it goes in one ear and out the other.

The only thing I will say about macro nutrients is that I am much more successful when I eat low carb because carbs have a way of making me more hungry and craving more.

But the science is calories in vs. calories out and no food makes you fatter than any other. Anyone telling you differently has bought into some kind of unnecessary system that is not based on science but instead nutritional pseudo science.

You are probably listening to your body better than most. Carbohydrates are overdone.

That Twinkie diet is interesting. 1800 calories minus the proteins shakes, multivitamins and veggies leaves 1400 calories. That's probably like one Twinkie!

Kidding, but it's not that many and that's probably why he could get away with it. . .135 calories, hostess cherry pies are 480 a pie, etc.

Can you imagine the satiety factor (or lack thereof), though?  I'd be pissed-off hungry about 23 hours a day eating a diet like that!

[Duff McGee]

Can you imagine the satiety factor (or lack thereof), though?  I'd be pissed-off hungry about 23 hours a day eating a diet like that!

I couldn't do it, even for an experiment.

[Mr. Desmond]

I go to the range in 97 degree heat and high humidity for 2 hrs -- 5 easy lbs off the frame -- mostly water, but I actually drink a quart on the range. I'm losing something.

Yes, carbs, cutdown...

[billchao]

The only thing I will say about macro nutrients is that I am much more successful when I eat low carb because carbs have a way of making me more hungry and craving more.

I agree with what you said, but I just wanted to point this out: you're probably eating the wrong foods ("bad" carbs). Low glycemic foods can be loaded with carbohydrates and leave you full and satisfied for long periods of time.

I go to the range in 97 degree heat and high humidity for 2 hrs -- 5 easy lbs off the frame -- mostly water, but I actually drink a quart on the range. I'm losing something.

Yes, carbs, cutdown...

Yea, losing water weight is not a good or sustainable way to lose weight. That's why I don't really like using weight as an index of fitness to begin with, and I used to get into arguments with women all the time about it. Starving yourself, for example, will make you lose weight, but it's not exactly healthy.

I've since learned not to argue with women

[Duff McGee]

I agree with what you said, but I just wanted to point this out: you're probably eating the wrong foods ("bad" carbs). Low glycemic foods can be loaded with carbohydrates and leave you full and satisfied for long periods of time. Yea, losing water weight is not a good or sustainable way to lose weight. That's why I don't really like using weight as an index of fitness to begin with, and I used to get into arguments with women all the time about it. Starving yourself, for example, will make you lose weight, but it's not exactly healthy. I've since learned not to argue with women ;-)

The problem though is that they are finding out that all carbs are basically created equal. Lower glycemic carbs are supposed to make you feel full for longer but the blood sugar still goes up more than if you ate fat and protein with a tiny amount of carbs. That caused hunger for us glutton types.