This is so wrong. You can still eat things that taste good, but in very reduced portions which you have measured and plated up before you sit down to eat. Figure out how many calories you want to consume per day in order to lose weight (there are websites with calulators where you plug in your height and weight, and it gives you a rough estimate of calorie counts per day for varying degrees of weight loss). Then plan accordingly. You can still eat sauces, but in small amounts, or substitute lower-cal alternatives if you want to consume more. Meat is fine to eat, and there are plenty of good sliced deli meats that are very low-cal (like sliced turkey) with calorie info on the package. You can survive fine without bread or pasta or sugar for a finite period of time. Calorie counting may not be the most metabolically effective way to lose weight, but I find that it’s the best and simplest method (for me) because I can achieve a concrete goal each day, rather than just guessing that I’ve made better choices. It’s also easier to stick with during plateau periods as there is no guesswork.
And anyone who says they can’t lose weight because they don’t have time to exercise is fooling themselves. I don’t exercise (although I need to and plan to) at all (I know I have to get going on this). Weight loss can be achieved by diet alone.
SticksandString, that might have been true in the past, but it’s not anymore. Here’s a website with hundreds and hundreds of delicious, healthy recipes.
carlb, thanks for your excellent advice. Reading this thread has made me realize I’ve been approaching this the wrong way. I have a tendency to go absolutely nuts when I’m trying to lose weight, and I inevitably I hurt myself or burn myself out in some way. So I’m going to take this super slow. It will be No Sweets in the House for three, maybe six months, and I’ll throw some walks in there. I’d rather take three years to lose 20 pounds permanently than three months to lose and regain.
As for having time to exercise, I believe both George W. Bush and Barack Obama exercise on a regular basis. If the President of the fuckin’ United States can find the time, so can I.
For me, it is as hard to keep it off as it was to lose it. When I was heavier I used to think, “Why didn’t I do something when I was ten pounds overweight instead of letting it get to forty?”
So now I religiously weigh myself. Once I am three pounds over what I want I get serious until it’s gone, and then I resume normal life. I eat ice cream, I eat cake, and almost everything I want. The difference is - portion size. Where before I would scoff at the chip bags or cookie recipes and their suggested serving size, now it is my serving size. With desserts I don’t need it all. After the first couple bites I will put my fork down, and after a couple minutes realize I’ve gotten 99% of the enjoyment out of it, so I stop. I stop eating before I feel full even if the food looks good. When I was heavier I used to say I didn’t have that kind of willpower, but after I lost the weight I found I did. I know for me at least, I need to be ever vigilant. I remember reading a quote (I forget by whom) that said something like nothing tastes as good as being thin feels, and for me that is true.
As I said above, if you cook for yourself, it’s really easy to cook up something that is delicious and appropriate for a slimming diet. Stir fries are great for this. If you’re eliminating foods you like and feel like all you’re eating is something that doesn’t taste good, you’ll never be able to sustain your diet. You should be eating food, in my opinion, that you want to eat, that you’d eat even if you weren’t on a reducing diet.
For example, a typical stir-fry I do is Thai basil chicken. A whole half-pound (two servings, technically) of skinless chicken breast has about 300 calories. Add 1/2-1 cup of green beans or squash (20-40 calories), a tablespoon of oil (120 calories), 1 cup cooked white rice (200 calories), fish sauce, garlic, hot chili peppers, basil (all negligible calorically.) You’re still at under 700 calories, you get to have a large serving of protein, you get to eat just regular ol’ white rice (if you don’t like whole grains), and you get a reasonable serving of vegetables. And you know what. It tastes great! This was my favorite Thai dish before I even went on my diet. Restaurant versions tend to be even heavier on the oil (and my 1 tablespoon is a generous amount–you can pull it off with just a teaspoon if you really want to, but I don’t believe in cutting fat from your diet.) You want to bulk it up more? Add a bunch of mushrooms. A half pound of mushrooms will only add about 50 calories.
Pasta was also common for me, but I just reduced how much I ate of it, and made it a side dish along with a generous portion of lean protein (fish, shrimp, chicken breast, pork loin, etc.) Of course you can eat pasta and lose weight.
There’s all sorts of recipes like this, that taste great and are not calorie dense. The idea that you have to eat food that tastes like crap to lose weight is ridiculous. Note that I said when I lost my weight 4 years ago, I was eating McDoubles for lunch quite frequently. I was just sure to cap my calories for lunch at that. No fries, no dessert, no non-diet soda. You can’t reasonably be expected to stick to a long-term diet if you don’t like the food you’re eating, and if you put any food on your “never eat again” list.
You just flat QUIT smoking? Maybe we fatties should just flat quit eating. We’ll have lost all the weight we’re ever going to lose in about four weeks. :rolleyes:
Simply cutting down doesn’t work for a lot of people because they cannot maintain the lower intake, be it food, cigarettes, or alcohol. Or they believe they can’t, which is about the same thing. Booze and cigarettes are easier because you can survive without them. Not so with food.
One thing my wife does to “stretch” pasta is to add lots of small chunks of vegetables. The dish not only seems richer and fuller but also more luxurious. Which it is, considering the added effort put in it, but chopping a zucchini and a red pepper isn’t all that time consuming. Unless it’s being done by my daughter, but that’s another rant.
I don’t know. Sometimes, you can just make up your mind, and that’s that. Other times, we waste a lot of time sabotaging ourselves. Some people are faster at getting to the making up their mind part. I think it’s also easier when you aren’t the one responsible for cooking for the whole family - that adds another layer of difficulty.
It’s kinda funny how you can start off on such a reasonable note and then take it in such a stupid direction.
Yes, the obesity epidemic is a public health issue. But no, from that perspective saying “diet and exercise don’t work” does not make sense. What makes sense from that perspective is attempting to understand what about the current environment that we have set up for ourselves is triggering off obesity in those predisposed to it. What makes sense is to create system solutions that across the board, and especially in childhood, modify the environment we have created away from an obesiogenic one and back to one that fosters better nutritional habits and a less sedentary lifestyle. Why especially in childhood? Because once again, once an adult is obese for a moderate length of time the body will defend against lasting change. Prevention is manifold less difficult that reversal. And there has been moderate success in halting the rise in pediatric obesity and in some subgroups reversing it.
As a “personal issue” defining what is meant by “works” is important. There is no question that implemented intelligent nutrition plans and an active lifestyles work … to improve health and lose a modest amount of weight. But despite the willful ignorance shown by some in this thread the body will, in very real and physiologic ways, fight hard against losing much more. Losing much more cannot usually be achieved by just a reasonable diet plan and moderate exercise. Losing much more, and more so keeping it off long term, requires much more discipline than the average human, thin or fat, possesses. And a lot of support. Can be done and some do, but only a few can pull it off for very good reasons. On a personal level though even if weight loss has been modest “diet and exercise” HAS WORKED, so long as the intelligent nutrition and exercise plan persists.
You know what cracks me up? MOST of the people lecturing to the overweight and obese in this thread are likely not “normal” weight themselves. Oh sure there are some who are, but given that less than 25% of adult Americans are not overweight, obese, or extremely obese, it seems quite unlikely that all of the self-righteous here are in that 1 out of 4. Oh sure they’ll offer their excuses - “I’m muscular”, or “BMIs don’t mean anything” … but the hypocrisy is evident.
I’m very confident that it’s very unusual for people to quit smoking on the first try.
So when people make statements like this:
it’s pretty much an oversimplification. Beyond the physical act of ceasing to light cigarettes; put them to one’s mouth; and inhale, there is a complex psychological process at work.
Also, I think that a lot of people who quit smoking (or who lose weight) have a tendency to exaggerate how easy it was for them. They don’t want to admit to themselves or others just how much sway the emotional part of their brain has over their conduct.
I don’t have a study to back this up, it’s just based on my observations and knowledge of human nature. If somebody claims that he was a regular smoker; that one day he decided to quit; that he just stopped smoking; and that was that, I am extremely skeptical.
I agree with you pretty much. It takes a real determined resolve to stick with it. Maybe your wife can “stretch” the pasta a little more each time, and make other subtle alterations in your meals. That’s not a hard thing to do. Little successes help breed more.
I suspect that a lot of the difficulty in losing weight is simply being around so many other overweight people all the time. When more people were of normal weight, the individuals’ attitudes about their own weight was much less forgiving.
For me, and I assume other successful quitters, it actually is “easier” to quit smoking once, and stay quit. I had resolved that when I quit, I would only do it once, and not have to suffer through the agony of doing over and over and over and over again. The harder process is quitting, giving in, quitting again, giving in, etc. I don’t think other smokers are exaggerating. Once you get that resolve to just do it, it happens. I agree that for most of us, changing lifelong eating habits is a more all-encompassing change than quitting smoking.
Well I can offer my parents as proof.
My dad was 3 packs a day of unfiltered Camels. My mom smoked two packs a day of Salem or Kools.
In 1956 the state of California added a penny more tax per pack. Both of my parents independently of each other decided that smoking had gotten too expensive and they both quit cold turkey and neither of them ever smoked again.
I never heard them talk of trying to quit before that so I’m guessing this was their first attempt.
So it does happen. Maybe not common but it happens.
Same with my mom and dad. Dad quit when I was quite young, maybe 7. Mom
didn’t decide to quit until much later–I must have been 17 or 18. Both quit cold turkey. I’ve never even seen them have a cig socially since they quit. Most of the successful former smokers I’ve met quit like this. I don’t think it’s that unusual. That’s how I quit my two pack a day habit, too, but I do occasionally indulge in a cigarette, and go months in between without one. I think genetics and personality have a lot to do how well this approach works.