Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Weight loss

Tips, tricks, workouts, injury advice.
 

Re: Weight loss

Postby Ben Beckerich » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:31 pm

Reading through this thread in one go, I think it's a perfect shining example of how futile a debate this topic really is. Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post, and there are as many arguments as posters...

For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.
where am i going... and why am i in this handbasket?
User Avatar
Ben Beckerich

 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:24 am
Location: saint helens, Oregon, OR, United States
Thanked: 61 times in 46 posts

The following user would like to thank Ben Beckerich for this post
RickF

Re: Weight loss

Postby WyomingSummits » Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:19 pm

Ben Beckerich wrote:Reading through this thread in one go, I think it's a perfect shining example of how futile a debate this topic really is. Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post, and there are as many arguments as posters...

For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.

------------------------
Yeah, what most fail to realize is that there are a myriad of differences from one person to the next. Med conditions, natural metabolism, genetics, exercise history over the period of one's life....they all add up. If it were as simple as calories in vs calories out, every fricken person in 3rd world countries would be a sack of bones. However, there are dozens of impoverished countries with people on extreme low calorie diets and are working manual labor jobs, yet they have a 30-40% obesity rate. The calorie vs output argument has a honeycomb's worth full of holes. The problem is that it's easier to prove what doesn't work than what does work! :)
User Avatar
WyomingSummits

 
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:03 am
Location: Wyoming, United States
Thanked: 70 times in 51 posts

Re: Weight loss

Postby southerntele » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:19 am

I think examples from the developing world are a little bit of a red herring. From the perspective of a resident of Mumbai who works on a major construction project, I would like to make a couple of observations.

For people who move out of poverty, carrying excess body fat is seen as a sign of success and you need to separate the growing middle class, many of whom are overweight, from those who survive on day laborer wages of about U.S $1.25 per day. You don't see overweight people working as day laborers in India, they are generally very small from a lifetime of insufficient protein and are very underweight.

If you did a time in motion study for day laborers you would also find that they are not particularly productive. The solution for a lack of productivity is to hire more undernourished day laborers.
southerntele

 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 8:24 am
Thanked: 2 times in 1 post

Re: Weight loss

Postby Catamount » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:59 am

^^^^^^^^

Ben Beckerich wrote:Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post


:D
User Avatar
Catamount

 
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:13 am
Location: Tech Valley, New York, United States
Thanked: 789 times in 509 posts

Re: Weight loss

Postby Ze » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:49 am

Ben Beckerich wrote:Reading through this thread in one go, I think it's a perfect shining example of how futile a debate this topic really is. Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post, and there are as many arguments as posters...

For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.


The debate is indeed futile as long as differing opinions aren't weighted based on the fundamental scientific research / review that goes into them.

I suspect many of the opinions shared are based on reading websites or specific books from hack authors like Taubes. Sadly, you have to really know that your source is unbiased & well-versed on the literature, or read published research yourself.

WyomingSummits wrote: Yeah, what most fail to realize is that there are a myriad of differences from one person to the next. Med conditions, natural metabolism, genetics, exercise history over the period of one's life....they all add up. If it were as simple as calories in vs calories out, every fricken person in 3rd world countries would be a sack of bones. However, there are dozens of impoverished countries with people on extreme low calorie diets and are working manual labor jobs, yet they have a 30-40% obesity rate. The calorie vs output argument has a honeycomb's worth full of holes. The problem is that it's easier to prove what doesn't work than what does work! :)


You're wrong on the extremely low calorie diet claim, sorry. That's based on self-reporting data that is known to be flawed methodology.

The calorie in vs out model almost always applies. Metabolic ward studies verify this. However, there are certainly many more factors that affect that equation, like hormonal changes.

The equation is really more like

Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores

RMR = resting metabolic reate
TEF = thermal effect of food
TEA = thermal effect of activity
NEAT = nervous energy expenditure

NEAT,TEA, RMR can easily change depending on how much you are dieting. In addition, obviously hunger is affected by both caloric deficit and bodyfat levels. For instance, the anti-starvation hormone (leptin) tanks at low bodyfat levels, which makes it harder to restrict "Energy In". People who are chronically overweight may end up with leptin resistance, which can affect their long-term "set-point" so that the body puts up a fight in terms of hunger and metabolism at higher bodyfats than when the person used to be skinny (another reason why adosclescent obesity is particularly troubling). And so on...

All the scientists are aware of these things. Fundamentally, weight loss is still about a caloric deficit, which basically means you are going to have to feel hungry (w/o drugs). Protein is important in that it has the most satiating effect, and also prevents lean body mass loss as you diet down. Otherwise, the battle is about how best to deal with hunger. Some people prefer more frequent meals, other are better on less frequent. Intermittent fasting actually bumps up metabolic rate for a day or so, contrary to popular belief. Macro composition is also highly variable. Do whatever works best, but you are going to have to have a caloric deficit.

Maintenance of weight loss is harder than losing weight. There are various tricks and drugs that may be needed depending on the individual.
User Avatar
Ze

 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:50 am
Location: Bay Area, California, United States
Thanked: 60 times in 32 posts

The following user would like to thank Ze for this post
Catamount

Re: Weight loss

Postby Chris Simpson » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:13 pm

Is the original method for weight loss to promote doing nothing physical at all?? Since climbing / hiking / mountaineering is a physical activity, calories, good fats and carbs are your best friend. Sugars = your glycogen = your muscle fuel. 2 : 1 carbs to protein ration is best for what most well seasoned athletes should take in. Eliminating sugars, rice and fats + DINNER!!!???? = a low performing body while doing anything other than thinking!
User Avatar
Chris Simpson

 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:33 pm
Thanked: 2 times in 1 post

Re: Weight loss

Postby Ben Beckerich » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:54 am

Chris Simpson wrote:Is the original method for weight loss to promote doing nothing physical at all?? Since climbing / hiking / mountaineering is a physical activity, calories, good fats and carbs are your best friend. Sugars = your glycogen = your muscle fuel. 2 : 1 carbs to protein ration is best for what most well seasoned athletes should take in. Eliminating sugars, rice and fats + DINNER!!!???? = a low performing body while doing anything other than thinking!


Remember the context - Weight loss
where am i going... and why am i in this handbasket?
User Avatar
Ben Beckerich

 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:24 am
Location: saint helens, Oregon, OR, United States
Thanked: 61 times in 46 posts

Re: Weight loss

Postby Chris Simpson » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:11 pm

Weight loss - Use the original method for the maximum amount of time your body is out of commission. Great way to ruin the metabolism and lose muscle.
User Avatar
Chris Simpson

 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:33 pm
Thanked: 2 times in 1 post

Re: Weight loss

Postby WyomingSummits » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:06 am

My experience is that most nutritionists that I've met are fatter than me......go figure.
User Avatar
WyomingSummits

 
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:03 am
Location: Wyoming, United States
Thanked: 70 times in 51 posts

Re: Weight loss

Postby RickF » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:00 pm

Ben Beckerich wrote:For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.


p.s. The OP suggests eating fruit to lose weight. FYI If someone is really trying to lose weight, fruits are mostly natural sugars, simple carbs that the body will convert to and store as fat if there's no current calorie defecit. Yes, fresh fruit typically comes as a source of fiber and is better than candy, cookies or potato chips but are still simple carbs.
User Avatar
RickF

 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:45 pm
Location: Temecula, California, United States
Thanked: 30 times in 25 posts

Re: Weight loss

Postby Ze » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:36 pm

Sweet jesus. All of you just stop posting. You are just spouting misinformation.
User Avatar
Ze

 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:50 am
Location: Bay Area, California, United States
Thanked: 60 times in 32 posts

Re: Weight loss

Postby WyomingSummits » Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:50 am

RickF wrote:
Ben Beckerich wrote:For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.


p.s. The OP suggests eating fruit to lose weight. FYI If someone is really trying to lose weight, fruits are mostly natural sugars, simple carbs that the body will convert to and store as fat if there's no current calorie defecit. Yes, fresh fruit typically comes as a source of fiber and is better than candy, cookies or potato chips but are still simple carbs.


This isn't correct. Fruit has a much lower glycemic index than most simple carbs. In fact, most endurance athletes simply can't get enough glycogen stores from fruit alone so they substitute with brown rice, sweet potatoes, and other healthier complex carbs. At least this is what I've read from people with sports nutrition degrees. Of course there are those on here who will disagree. Even "experts" can't agree. So who do you believe? YOUR BODY.....period.
User Avatar
WyomingSummits

 
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:03 am
Location: Wyoming, United States
Thanked: 70 times in 51 posts

Re: Weight loss

Postby bird » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:13 pm

Ze wrote:Sweet jesus. All of you just stop posting. You are just spouting misinformation.


All hail Ze! All hail Ze! Knower of all-things nutrition and performance. All hail Ze!
User Avatar
bird

 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:41 pm
Location: Southampton, New York, United States
Thanked: 22 times in 20 posts

The following user would like to thank bird for this post
Ze

Re: Weight loss

Postby RickF » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:35 pm

WyomingSummits wrote:
RickF wrote:
Ben Beckerich wrote:For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.


p.s. The OP suggests eating fruit to lose weight. FYI If someone is really trying to lose weight, fruits are mostly natural sugars, simple carbs that the body will convert to and store as fat if there's no current calorie defecit. Yes, fresh fruit typically comes as a source of fiber and is better than candy, cookies or potato chips but are still simple carbs.


This isn't correct. Fruit has a much lower glycemic index than most simple carbs. In fact, most endurance athletes simply can't get enough glycogen stores from fruit alone so they substitute with brown rice, sweet potatoes, and other healthier complex carbs. At least this is what I've read from people with sports nutrition degrees. Of course there are those on here who will disagree. Even "experts" can't agree. So who do you believe? YOUR BODY.....period.


Wyoming, good point about the glycemic index. I did concede that fruit is nutritionally better than candy, etc. The reason I pointed out that most fruits have high carb contents is becuase the thread started out with the topic of "losing weight" and the OP suggested eating fruit as a means to lose weight. The reference to endurance athletes may not be all that relavant becuase endurance athletes, especially the ones concerned about glycogen stores, probably aren't trying to lose weight. I'm not bashing fruit. Depending on who/what you believe, some fruit is generally believed to be part of a "balanced" diet. But I've known overweight people who think that if they just eat lots of fruit they'll lose weight. If someone eats lots of high-calorie fruit like apples, bananas and peaches, without exercising enough to use the calories consumed, they're not gonna lose weight.

Fact, opinion, or personal experience, keep posting, some of us are losing weight by following this thread and being more conscious of what we eat today. :D
Last edited by RickF on Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User Avatar
RickF

 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:45 pm
Location: Temecula, California, United States
Thanked: 30 times in 25 posts

Re: Weight loss

Postby Catamount » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:49 am

So at this point I've transitioned from weight loss to maintenance of weight loss and am doing pretty well so far. I bottomed out at about 178 a few weeks ago and am about 181 now (the same as in my profile photo from June 2). Altogether that is about a 30 pound total loss since November and is as slim as I want to be. Have had to buy some new clothes but am just wearing the rest a little baggy until I need to replace them.

No longer working overnights and therefore really can't skip meals like I had been. So I have cut way back on portion size and am limiting anything with corn syrup. No longer the "clean up crew" when my kids don't finish their meals either. Hope to get back in the groove of regular cardio in a couple of weeks when I finish the family vacation cycle I am on right now.
User Avatar
Catamount

 
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:13 am
Location: Tech Valley, New York, United States
Thanked: 789 times in 509 posts

PreviousNext

Return to Technique and Training

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.