286863 Mon Jan 15 15:40:41 -0800 2001 34 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1539944 This is continued from the "calorie counting help" thread from the LA board. First I'll quote back Emily's reply: *********************** *********************** this is terrible advice. don't avoid carbs; just eat high fiber carbs, whole grains, and don't go overboard. the only reason cutting carbs works is that it restricts calories and sends you into mild ketosis. you lose water weight. the high-protein/low-carb diet is the quick and easy path to weight loss. it's the dark side of the force. don't be seduced by it. you'll have to eat that way for the rest of your life and you'll get heart disease and smell bad. people persist in pushing these diets because they have such quick and dramatic results but the laws of thermodynamics can never be escaped. there's always a price to pay. you might as well just bite the bullet and do what everybody knows you have to do to be healthy: eat fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes and sometimes meat, drink only water, and go running for pete's sake. *********************** *********************** Moderation and exercise are indeed timeless--if unsexy--solutions. As is the idea that slow, steady loss is probably healthier and more persistent than sudden dramatic loss. I should state for those reading along: obviously, any information you see here or elsewhere on the internet should be checked out by a doctor or licensed nutritionist. Important medical and diet decisions should never be made solely on the basis of Internet hearsay...even the relatively smart Internet hearsay you'll find on this site. Mon Jan 15 15:40:41 -0800 2001 0 Jim Leff 1 1539955 I am a runner who has tried both diets and in fact have lost over 70 lbs in the last several years. The winner by far is the carb diet with low fat and exercise. 95% of my intake was complex carbs with high fiber and grains. Fat intake was limited to olive oil and veg. derived fats. The key is to excercise to boost the metabolism and burn excess carbs. With the low carb diet I could not sustain an adaquate energy level to run and after a month I felt aweful. I have a friend who is a kidney specialist, who attribute a drastic increase in kidney stone cases to high fat low carb diets Tue Jan 16 10:55:06 -0800 2001 1539944 0 Shoeman 2 1539998 i'm neither a runner nor an athlete, but i wanted to back up what you're saying, shoeman, and extending it to us regular folk. i tried a low carb diet per my dr's orders. (i have a metabolic disorder that manifests itself w/ a variety of symptoms, one of which is excess weight. though i'm not as heavy as many women w/ the disorder -- it is a woman's disease -- my dr suggested i try it b/c many patients lost weight and experienced improvement w/ other symptoms.) i lost a couple (not many) lbs right away, but, like you, i felt awful. i was sick the whole time, b/c it made me hypoglycemic. again, i'm not an athlete, just a regular person...but a regular person who regularly exercises. about 2hrs 3-4 times a week. lack of carbs just couldn't sustain my workouts. i was almost passing out, at the gym...on the street if i didn't eat...it was awful, awful. by observing others who've had success, i think low carb helps you drop weight...if you don't have a significant exercise regimen. i'll take a more strenuous weight loss strategy (ie, less 'rich' food + exercise) over the low carb thing any day. not only am i no longer fainting and feeling miserable, but as compared to the overweight folks who've dropped weight w/o exercise, i am stronger and have more energy b/c of increased cardio + muscle conditioning from exercise. no one i know who does low carb exercises seriously. it'd be interesting to hear from someone who does. for the most part, my reaction to people who tout it is, exercise for an hour a day every day (for a couple of months), then let's talk again...you may not see rapid weight loss, but i'd bet anything you'll look and feel better, you'll be stronger and healthier. low carb may be an easy way out, but, in the long run, i think, less healthy. Wed Jan 17 10:33:44 -0800 2001 1539955 0 cj 3 1540075 My only creds are being a personal trainer and having a wife who studies the diet industry religously. I would say that exercise does very little to combat the effects of overconsumption when compared to calorie reduction can do. For calorie monitoring, nothing beats a good digital food scale(available at BB&B for thirty bucks), a copy of Corrine Netzer's food counts book, and going to the OnHealth.com site where they will track your calories consumed and manage you to your weight loss goal that you've chosen(Give a fake name if inclined to be concerned about public access to personal data). Why would anyone try and eat high fat for anything but taste reasons. IT's obviously not a long-term healthy way to diet(Just ask yourself how you feel after eating like that). I personally eat a zone type diet 80%of the time and then a more balanced version of whatever I want the rest of the time. The key is the balance. High Carb or Fat it's all bad in my opinon. Enjoy, Frank Thu Jan 18 15:04:04 -0800 2001 1539998 0 Iron Frank 4 1540094 Exercise is absolutely a key ingredient to weight loss and can offset, control and lower weight even during times of over consumption. The math is simple. Expend more calories then you consume and you will loss weight. Peroid. (baring any other medical conditions) When I lost my 70 lbs I focused on three things. 1. Keep total calorie consumption the same. (As before the diet. I like to eat and I like to finish a meal satisfied) 2. I lowered fat intake but raised carbs (significantly and to have the energy to run) 3. I ran 40 to 60 miles a week. (that equates to about 4000 to 6000 calories burned) Based on this formula you can even increase intake by 2000 calories a week and still burn excess calories and guess what loss weight. If you like to eat and don't want to punish yourself, walk around the block every day and you will be thinner next year. If you want to be really thin join a local running club Fri Jan 19 11:45:18 -0800 2001 1540075 0 Shoeman 5 1540095 You're right, but running 7-10 miles a day, 6 days a week every week is a lot exercising. The average person has to reduce calorie intake as well as increase exercise levels. I've found that moderate amounts of exercise alone are not enough to make a significant difference. Fri Jan 19 12:01:15 -0800 2001 1540094 0 rjka 6 1540097 Even very moderate amounts of exercise can work but you need to keep the intake level the same. The margin of error is much smaller the less you exercise. So a half hour walk six days a week would burn 1500 to 1800 calories or about 1 to 1 1/2 lbs in two weeks. Sounds great, but it only takes two extra cookies a day to offset the gain. The problem with the moderate exercisers I know is that they don't manage the intake side. The increased activity boosts the appetite and intake creeps up. Fri Jan 19 12:29:09 -0800 2001 1540095 0 Shoeman 7 1540102 If you expend more calories than you take in, you lose weight. If you take in more calories than you expend, you gain weight. So, if you are currently at a stable weight, and add 500 calories a day of exercise and keep your intake the same, you will lose about a pound a week. OTOH, if you keep exercise the same and cut 500 calories, you will also lose about a pound a week. Of course, exercise is good for you in other ways. Aerobics is good for heart and lungs. And, if you do some strength training, you can weigh more and look just as good (or better), and probably be healthier as well. Fri Jan 19 13:33:01 -0800 2001 1540097 0 Peter 6 1540098 My s.o. is in medicine and attended a seminar where weight-loss specialists (physicians) said that the studies have concluded just that: For the great majority, excercise will not translate to weight loss without also cutting calories, and that cutting calories and not exercising actually will usually lead to greater weight loss than increased exercise without calorie cutting. Of course, they were not disputing the many health benefits of regular exercise or suggesting that people should not do it. Fri Jan 19 12:30:57 -0800 2001 1540095 0 Caitlin 7 1540099 I'm living proof. I work out HARD 3-4 times per week but can't lose the 15 pounds I need to. On the other hand, I'm not currently working on any books or articles, so I'm on relatively low chowhounding idle, and so my calorie count isn't all that high, either (it's probably a metabolism thing, esp. since I tend to forget to eat all day and then go eat at night...which I understand can somewhat "shut down" one's metabolism) ciao Fri Jan 19 12:37:42 -0800 2001 1540098 0 Jim Leff 8 1540107 Excercising puts muscle on your body, which weighs significantly more than fat. So people who exercise a lot often find that they are not losing any weight but *are* losing fat/inches. Fri Jan 19 16:57:23 -0800 2001 1540099 0 Kendra 9 1540108 People used to make this point to me when I complained about not losing weight when exercising, but I was not losing inches either. I'm also not sure that weight loss is as simple as the arithmetic relationship between taking in x calories by eating and burning y calories exercisng as some people have said here. When you eat less, the body adjusts its metabolism to some extent to compensate of the lower calorie intake. This is why yo-yo dieters often end up gaining weight in the long run. Similarly, I believe there is a positive metabolic carryover effect from exercise beyond just the calories burned. Fri Jan 19 17:05:42 -0800 2001 1540107 0 rjka 10 1540111 In the short run (12 to 18 mons), weight loss is an x is less then y senerio. Metabolism doesn't play a significant role until much later. I'm disappointed that you did not loss weight thru exercise. Are you comfident that you monitored your intake level. (the same or less as before diet)? Fri Jan 19 19:28:28 -0800 2001 1540108 0 Shoeman 11 1540114 i recently lost some weight without dieting. i'm a web designer who sits in front of the net all day long. 9 months ago i took up vinyasa yoga. and i've lost a dress size or two. several years ago i did step aerobics and it did nothing for me except make me hungry. i'd leave that class and be really starving. so maybe try adding some active hatha yoga into your routine??? worked for me.... but one's weight is complex, involving diet and lifestyle but also genetics and metabolism stuff...for example my boss lost 60 pounds in 5 months. we thought it was an incredible diet, but actually it was a minor thyroid disorder. only a little something askew in these kinds of body chemicals...i know another woman at my job who gained 20 pounds just from taking prozac. it's all very difficult to understand on a case by case basis without a good physical and blood work from your doctor. Fri Jan 19 22:27:35 -0800 2001 1540111 0 fortune 12 1540371 As a physician who used to run a metabolic exercise lab (but was never involved in diet/ weight loss programs), and who has done metabolic studies in critically ill patients, I would point out the following: 1. Unless the 1st law of thermodynamics is incorrect, your weight really is the result of a balance between intake and burning. Starving people who rest all day lose just as much weight as well-fed aerobic exercisers. 2. Your body has the ability to burn or store fat, and to convert protein to carbohydate, vice versa, and carbohydrate to fat; almost no mater what you eat, you can make whatever you need from it (including complex fats like cholesterol). What determines what you end up with is the catabolic/anabolic balance of the metabolism; exercise favors conversion of fat and carbohydrate to protein and bedrest causes conversion of carbohydrate and protein to fat. 3. Exercise increases long-term basal metabolic rates (and calorie burning), even when asleep 4. Fat has a caloric density of 9 Kcal/gram while carbohydrate and protein are 4 (it takes a lot less fat to make you fat than carbohydrate or protein). Ethanol ("alcohol") is 7, almost the same as fat. 5. Nutrition remains the "gray science" of medicine. No one knows much about anything, other than total calorie intake, and specific deficiency states (nitrogen, certain minerals and a few vitamins and fatty acids) in the causation or treatment of disease - or obesity. Wed Jan 31 23:53:45 -0800 2001 1540114 0 Griller141 13 1540916 I hear what all of you have been saying,but,I have tried so many diets and gained back everything. I've reached a state of desperation bordering on resignation. Jenny Craig has worked the best for me with regular exercise,but it's expensive. Then I tried Atkins and did lose 10 pounds with exercise, but gradually gained it back. Lately I tried Atkins again, but it so restrictive its difficult with a family. I do have to reply that when I did Atkins the first time I combined it with a Candida diet's restrictions as well because I have a problem with it and if It is not in control I will have a more difficult time losing weight. I also did calesthenics and walked regularly. I am also hypoglycemic. The combined problems i have all point to a high protein diet low in carbs. I am just afraid of hurting my liver or kidneys if I do it . It's hard enough to stick with a diet let alone have to worry that it will hurt you too. As you can tell I'm really at a loss. Does anyone have any suggestions? Tue Mar 06 16:41:10 -0800 2001 1540371 0 KatieB 1 1539974 I've got to say that this Emily character seems very imaginative and totally misinformed about human biology. Low carb, high fat diets are really the most effective way to lose fat. If you overconsume carbohydrates, and that includes fruits which are full of fructose, your body will continue to store fat and you will not burn any fat at all. But if carbohydrates are limited, your body is forced to burn fat as fuel, because of low blood glucose and eventually decreased glycogen stores in your liver and muscle. It's just not possible when insulin levels are high to lose fat. Lose weight, yes, but not fat instead you'll be losing muscle tissue. Now, I don't recommend staying on a high fat, low carb diet all year long, but it is definately the most effective way to strip unwanted fat, and it is still possible to enjoy yourself when you dine out since you can still enjoy rich foods. You just have to lay off the bread, starch and dessert but you can still indulge in your prime rib, pork, etc... And as far as the other poster goes, your a long distance runner so obviously a low carb diet is not for you, but we're talking effective diets for fat loss here and not low carb diets for sports purposes. When all is said and done, high carb, low fat diets are ineffective for fat loss due to their stimulating effects on insulin. Tue Jan 16 18:00:39 -0800 2001 1539944 0 Jenny O. 2 1539976 I'm struck by similarities in tone and content of this post and SexLoveRockSushi's original response to Emily (that was deleted). Deb H. Tue Jan 16 18:30:37 -0800 2001 1539974 0 Deb H. 3 1539982 Yeah, but it doesn't quite descend to personal attack, I don't think, as SLRS's posting did. This one's a tough call, but that first one was clearly over-the-top (I think SLRS's anger just got away from her...happens...). ciao Tue Jan 16 21:30:53 -0800 2001 1539976 0 Jim Leff 2 1539984 I don't want to get into this fight--I don't have all the facts--but here's a link that supports what Emily said. Personally, the whole insulin-level argument seems like bad science to me (and, given the vehemence of replies here, cult-like bad science). This "Tufts University" character seems fairly reputable. Link: http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02solutions/10tufts/tuftsqa/atkins.htm Tue Jan 16 22:20:41 -0800 2001 1539974 0 Steven Stern 3 1539987 I agree with you Steven -- I could not pick a side from my own expertise -- but I will just note that the AMA came down hard on the side AGAINST Atkins last week, after a 3-year (or some such thing) study. So while SexLove may be a brilliant nutritionalist, one must balance that against some 3 million doctors on the other side. On the other hand, I have to question all these discussions of losing "fat" vs. losing "water". I, as a gelatinous blob, want to lose WEIGHT. I care not whether it comes from my nonexistent muscle, or comes from my hoard of flab. For some of us (boxers, pilots, models) a paycheck/qualification is determined by being under/over a specific WEIGHT. I have never undergone a body-fat check during one of these weigh-ins. There may be benefits to one method or the other in terms of HEALTH, but that is all very abstract. I suspect the vast majority of dieting Americans -- like myself -- are concerned with that NUMBER. Believe it or not, I even donate blood and cut my hair before a match. Wed Jan 17 01:20:23 -0800 2001 1539984 0 Roy Thompson 4 1540010 as i understand it, fat loss is preferable to water loss mostly because it lasts longer. when you lose water weight you can gain it all back in a matter of days. also, water weight is not a cardiovascular liability, whereas excess fat is. "the AMA came down hard on the side AGAINST Atkins last week, after a 3-year (or some such thing) study. So while SexLove may be a brilliant nutritionalist, one must balance that against some 3 million doctors on the other side." still, somehow jennifer aniston seems to hold more sway than 3 million doctors. she does have a compelling argument: jennifer aniston stops eating carbs; jennifer aniston achieves lanky physique; jennifer aniston marries brad pitt. the apparent causal chain is too much for many of us to resist. Wed Jan 17 14:00:31 -0800 2001 1539987 0 emily 5 1540015 ...except that Jennifer Aniston is a chubby cow!! A cute one, perhaps, but a chubby one nonetheless. I hardly see that HER physique could be a compelling argument for one diet or another. AGAINST, perhaps. What's CALISTA eating? Wed Jan 17 14:47:38 -0800 2001 1540010 0 Roy Thompson 6 1540018 Jennifer Aniston a chubby cow? You must be joking? Wed Jan 17 15:20:56 -0800 2001 1540015 0 rjka 7 1540033 re: water loss, I used to know this chubby guy who regularly drank several pitchers of iced water a day (a pretty healthy habit). A few days before a "big date", he'd cut out the water and drop a visible several pounds. Post-date, it would all come right back... but it was an alluring, if deceptive, stop-gap measure P.S. In Roy, we've finally found that elusive man willing to stand up and tell the truth about preferring women who look like Calista Flockhart. After years of hearing men say that they prefer women who are "built like women", i.e., curves, hips, butt, breasts, etc., I've often wondered who it was we were all starving ourselves for. Now I know - it was Roy! Thanks, Roy, for letting us know that all those years of self-hatred and deprivation were worth it - at least in one man's eyes. Wed Jan 17 19:24:54 -0800 2001 1540018 0 Elaine 6 1540027 You obviously only watch the reruns late at night when Jennifer Aniston was heavier. In the last 2 seasons or so she was 30 lbs lighter, articles were written about it blah, blah. To me she was cuter and curvier when heavier, now her arms and legs are very straight like she lost muscle, too. I was sorry to lose a normal looking curvy role model-type but hey, she's gotta earn a living (apparently, her agent pushed her to lose weight after she had to do an audition in a cat suit--like a one-peice spandex outfit--and she didn't get the part). Wed Jan 17 17:11:06 -0800 2001 1540015 0 Jessica Shatan 7 1540048 Not sure whether I'm seeing the "old" one or the "new" one (not a fan of the show), but the one that married Brad Pitt is a moose! God only knows what he sees in her (especially when there are babes like Kudrow on the set). Must be the hair.... Back to Calista, anyone know her eating habits? Wed Jan 17 23:23:24 -0800 2001 1540027 0 Roy Thompson 8 1540057 Can we please just end the discussion of Jennifer Aniston's (and other celebrities') bodies and eating habits, now? And go bavk to talking about what *we* like to eat? Thu Jan 18 06:22:18 -0800 2001 1540048 0 Caitlin 6 1540028 By what standards does Jennifer Aniston measure up as a "chubby cow?" Are you sure you're thinking of the right person? Wed Jan 17 17:11:55 -0800 2001 1540015 0 Dena 1 1539983 Okay, I can't refrain any longer. We studied the Atkins diet to death last year in medical school and there are several misconceptions that need to be cleared up. Low carb high fat diets are NOT a panacea. Calories are calories. Regardless of what form they come in--fat or sugar. One can't eat as much fat as one wants on those diets. If your caloric intake exceeds caloric usage for your body (about 2000 calories for the average american man), the rest is going to be stored as fat. Regardless. True, a low carb diet does force the body to tap into the body's fat stores, but at a cost: renal failure, ketoacidosis, and altered mental function. The brain needs time to switch from using glucose to using ketone bodies. That's why one feels tired, lethargic, etc. In addition, we have no idea what prolonged ketone bodies in our system does to the brain or to other systems in the body. Ketones are organic solvents which means that they can dissolve lipids. Your brain is mostly lipids and your nerves are myelinated with lipids. Not to mention that every cell in your body is surrounded by a lipid bilayer. If you still want to go on the Atkins diet (aka. low carbs, high fat diet) drink a lot of water so you don't screw up your kidneys. Which brings up another point. Most of that "weight loss" is water weight. Ketone bodies are excreted in urine which serve as an osmolite which makes your body excrete more water. Again, the safest (not quickest) method for losing weight is excercise. Here's another little thing to consider. Most americans have the beginnings of atherosclerosis by the age of 20. That high fat/high cholesterol diet will only speed up plaque buildup. Don't do that to yourself. Cardiac disease is already the number 1 killer in the US. Tue Jan 16 22:03:45 -0800 2001 1539944 0 Fred 2 1540124 I can't speak to the science of the Atkins approach, but I can tell you of my personal experience. I've been doing the low carb thing for three months. I started 40 lbs. overweight. I eat as much veg and protein as I want, but only infrequent and small amounts of starch and sugars. I have a glass of wine most every day. My energy level is up, especially after a meal, and my appetite is down. I have less gas. Protein seems to be more satiating then large amounts of carbs in the form of pasta, rice, bread, etc. The weight loss has been gradual. Whether it's water or fat-though I believe the loss is fat-I don't really care. I feel and look better. This approach is by far the least painful and easiest way of losing weight I have ever tried. The blood pressure and cholesterol of a friend of mine has actually gone down while on Atkins. Sat Jan 20 14:55:30 -0800 2001 1539983 0 Anonymous 3 1540125 ***************************************************** The blood pressure and cholesterol of a friend of mine has actually gone down while on Atkins. ***************************************************** Well, blood pressure should theoretically go down for all people on the Atkins diet. Again, that's because you're dehydrating your body and you're now hypovolemic. I would congratulate you on your success on the diet, but again, advise that you drink lots of water. This might impede your weight loss, but it will help prevent renal failure. I'm not saying all people on the diet go into renal failure, but those who are more susceptible (you won't know until it hits you), can have terrible consequences. Also, to clear things up, if you're consuming fewer calories than you burn, then there's no doubt that you're losing fat. It's not ALL water weight (especially if this is your third month). Your body is metabolizing fat stores for fuel, but again, at a cost. Finally, to balance out your success story (so everyone doesn't run off to try it), I'll tell you how I keep in shape. I'm 5'11, weigh 165lbs, and have 2-3% body fat. My method? Eat a balanced meal (while giving in to something like Payard's grey tea tart with tangerines every so often) and work out 5 hours/week. Simple. Sat Jan 20 16:04:25 -0800 2001 1540124 0 Fred 4 1540148 I did a low carb diet for a year and lost 30 lbs. I did drink plenty of water (and some wine). I felt great all the time. I was travelling 5 days per week, so eating carefully (in European restaurants) was not very possible, but I could avoid carbs. I ate lots of fat but still lost weight, so I'm not sure I agree that total calories = weight. (Or even approximates weight.) Even if you don't believe that lowering your insulin response lowers the ability of your body to store fat, studies show other things can (also) inhibit the body from retaining fat. For example, having more calcium has been shown to lessen the body's intake/storage of fat. People were given the exact same diet, changing only the amount of calcium intake. Those with more calcium retained less fat. Calcium in dairy products worked better than calcium supplements. (Reported a year or two ago in Science News.) So it is not always true that eating more calories means gaining more weight. It is also true that people eating no fat but plenty of carbs can store plenty of fat on their bodies. Insulin helps the body convert the carbs into cholesterol. My mother eats almost no fat (<10% by calorie -- green beans contain more than that). Yet her cholesterol still hovers above 300! Mine, eating piles of meat and fat, was around 200 and it was mostly high density lipids (the good stuff). Go figure. Sun Jan 21 22:31:50 -0800 2001 1540125 0 fat freddie 5 1540153 Here's the cite for the article on calcium inhibiting fat retention. I characterized the article a bit wrong (it's been a couple years since I read it), but I wasn't too far off. The main study reported on was done on mice, but one researcher said that he went back and analyzed 6 months data from other human studies, finding significant trends that had been missed before indicating that calcium will also inhibit fat retention in humans. PS Do you know why scientists are starting to use lawyers instead of white rats for their experiments? ;o) Link: http://www.sciencenews.org/20000429/fob2.asp Mon Jan 22 08:46:19 -0800 2001 1540148 0 fat freddie 6 1540154 yes there are some things even rats wont do Mon Jan 22 10:23:48 -0800 2001 1540153 0 gene