I unhappily report that I am right about obesity and diet (Very long)

Except, it’s not. Given that there’s no source for your cite’s claims, while this is a meta-study of 28 different publications, I’d say the “myth” is true.

Stoid, I would second the recommendation to go read Good Calories, Bad Calories. One thing he totally destroys is the idea that fat makes you fat. Another is that meat is bad for you. In fact, eating sufficient fat and protein not only helps with appetite control, it regulates fat storage better. A high-carb, low-fat diet makes you want to eat more, and it makes your body hold on to more fat.

Another good book is Cordain’s Paleo Diet where he talks about a diet with modern foods modeled on what we know about paleolithic and modern hunter-gatherer eating patterns; i.e. our ancestral diet. There’s a lot of information in his FAQs section if you find yourself dubious about the premise, has numerous peer reviewed articles cited in the book and on the website.

As Weedy said, you probably need to eat more for two reasons: a dietary intake that low is not sustainable in the long term; it’s just setting yourself up for eventual failure. Anyone would binge after a few weeks or more at that level. Second, since you obviously have some metabolic derangement from being overweight for a significant amount of time along with previous weight losses and gains, your body has become quite good at hoarding whatever you give it. That 1400–1500 calories you’re currently taking in has probably convinced your body that you’re starving, which means it’s going to hold on to your fat stores tooth and claw.

Also, what you’re eating is mostly carbohydrates, which is not optimal. Check out either of those books or google “insulin resistance” for why.

Yes, if you really want to get into the complexities, weight loss can get really confusing. The problems are that there’s too much information out there, and most lay publications are ineffective at screening for useful information. Added to those problems is a selection bias toward dietary advice that has proven to be complete crap while ignoring the contradictory results coming out of work influenced by evolutionary biology.

It actually is simple, though not necessarily easy, to lose weight and keep it off:

  1. Eat whole foods.

Meal-replacement shakes, artificial sweeteners, fat substitutes, low-fat or fat-free versions of food, and processed food? All of it is crap. Many “food products” are designed to let you pretend to be eating unhealthy “decadent” foods while supposedly not being fattening. Problem is, artificial crap is still crap.

Compared to real whole foods, not even fortified processed food products have a favorable nutrient profile. The fortification is necessary because in processing all foods lose some nutrients.

Processed stuff includes bread and pasta. If you have to parch it, grind it, winnow it, bleach it, mix it with other stuff, and reconstitute it to make it palatable, it’s processed all to hell and gone and not very good for you anymore. For example, compare a sweet potato or yam to an equal caloric value of bread or pasta, and the nutritional density is ridiculously in favor of the tubers despite the fact that both types of food are mostly carbohydrates.

  1. Eat sufficient protein.

Yes, this means eating animals. There are virtually no protein sources that are available in an unprocessed, unmodified form other than animals. Lean meats and seafood should be your primary sources of protein. Protein helps with satiety signaling, and it is particularly important to maintain protein intake when you’re attempting to lose fat so that your body doesn’t turn to cannibalizing muscle.

Avoid soy products because the supposed health benefits have been shown to be bullshit and there are several problematic anti-nutrients that should be of some concern, especially those that impact thyroid function (PDF).

  1. Eat healthy fats.

Fat helps with hunger signaling too. Even saturated fat isn’t necessarily bad for you. It actually imposes a low oxidative load, and isn’t problematic when insulin levels are steady and low. Coconut oil in particular has a great omega 3 to 6 ratio. Modern industrial farm meats are grain-fed, though, so the fatty acid balance isn’t as good as wild-caught meat, which means that you should choose lean cuts of meat.

You can add olive oil, avocado, and some nuts to round out the fat profile, and fatty fishes like salmon, herring, mackerel, anchovies are high in omega 3.

  1. Eat lots of vegetables, particularly green leafy veggies.

Avoid legumes and grains. Both have high lectin contents and effects on gut health. Grains in particular can’t be made edible without extensive processing. Beans need to be soaked and cooked properly in part to reduce the toxin load. If you need to process something so extensively in order to eat it, a strong argument can be made that you shouldn’t be eating it.

  1. Exercise.

You should not be concerned about how many calories you’re burning because for one thing, that’s a nominal value that varies greatly between individuals. For another, the effects of any kind of exercise are more far-ranging than a simple calorie count. And third, there is not a direct accounting possible between the calories you consume and the calories you use in exercise. It’s much more complex than that. How complex? You don’t need to worry about it unless you’re a high-end athlete. For normal people, just the fact that you’re exercising is enough.

The best exercise is whatever you’re not doing. In other words, do lots of stuff. Do weight training, some sprinting or high intensity work, some longer cardio efforts from time to time. Walk, play sports, hike, rollerblade, whatever. It really doesn’t matter what you do, just be active, and do as many different types of exercise as possible. As someone pointed out earlier, a fat person who exercises is probably going to be healthier than a skinny person who doesn’t, and your quality of life will absolutely be better.

If you deliberately ignore most of the contradictory details, this brief overview is what you’re left with. The hard part about it? Doing it. Maintaining it. Information paralysis, habit, initial unpleasantness, social pressures, lack of time, natural laziness, etc. all conspire against you.

You have to change your life. It’s not enough to temporarily diet.

Stoid, are you sure 806 calories is ok for you? I am not an expert on weight loss, and have not read up on the cites or journals, but isn’t anything less than 1,000 - 1,200 calories dangerous? I am not debating you, just expressing concern.

It took me at least three months to see any definite change. Maybe you should take it easier and eat more, around the recommend 1,300 to 1,400 calories change?

Stoid, I can tell you what I did in your circumstances, now eight months ago. I got weight loss surgery. Here’s how I looked, and here’s how I look now. The difference is 80 pounds. My blood values are all much healthier now. There is a very, very good chance I will never have to diet again. It took me no willpower at all, except the willpower to look into this option. Here’s how you can find out if it is something for you, and how you can get started. .

  1. Buy and read : Weight loss surgery for dummies". It tells you if your insurance covers it. with your BMI I think you will be covered, even though it may take some persistance with your insurance company.
  2. The best surgeon/programme is Dr Rutledge in Las Vegas. If you would have to pay it yourself, he has a same day in and out self-pay programme for 9000 USD.
    If you have any questions, e-mail me.

I don’t know if this meta study really confirms what I was saying specifically. What I had been told was that crash dieting is bad for muscle retention which then lowers metabolism. And then if the weight is regained, it’s less muscle mass than before.

This meta study seems to be about exercising while dieting preserving muscle mass, right?

I don’t think medical science understands obesity very well. If it did we’d have solutions that worked well. But since we are such a fatphobic nature people are desperate to believe bodyweight can be voluntarily controlled.

An idea and concept that I found extremely interesting was the idea in the shangri-la diet and the pdf paper ‘what makes food fattening’

http://www.sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf

The author makes the claim that there is an interplay between the intensity of flavor of the foods you eat, diversity of flavor, how quickly calories are absorbed and your bodyweight set point (obviously genetics plays a role too, otherwise we’d all be the same size). Foods with more flavor and more diverse flavor tell the body food is healthy and plentiful, so set point goes up. Foods with bland flavor tell the body food is scarce so set point goes down. His argument is that in evolutionary history environments with large quantities of diverse, healthy foods resulted in foods with lots of diverse flavors, so the energy and risk in obtaining food is low. Famine environments result in foods with bland flavors, and the energy and risk needed to obtain food is high. So the body takes that info as a cue to lower or raise the set point, which lowers or raises bodyweight/bodyfat levels. Raise it during good times when food is easy to get, lower it during bad times when food is hard to get. He compares it to any other commodity you can buy on the free market. When it is abundant and easy to get you stock up and stop selling it, when it is rare you stop buying and start selling.

But he claims if you eat a small number of calories that are very dense, quickly absorbed but have no flavor (sugar water, cooking oil) that this will tell your body food isn’t plentiful, and your appetite will go down since your set point will drop.

I post that because that was one of the more interesting ideas I’ve heard. Did it work on me? Yes and no. I weigh alot and am fairly active, so I need 4000-4500 calories a day. When I ate 90 calories of sugar water in the morning I only needed 2000-2500 calories a day. Nothing I’ve ever tried (drugs, other diets) has resulted in such a massive caloric deficit w/o me feeling hungry.

But doing so gave me severe nocturnal panic attacks. I’d rather sleep well than lose weight, so I stopped. No idea why that happened.

His idea was one of the more interesting ones I’ve read on the biology of obesity. It isn’t the whole story, and it didn’t work on me due to side effects. But it was an interesting idea nonetheless and one of the more insightful attempts to explain bodyweight I’ve seen.

Steel, those soy links look a tad questionable. I agree that isoflavones might be overblown but it’s still decent protein. The second link that gives a list of “anti-nutrients” fails to note that those compounds are found in many perfectly healthy vegetables (oxalates in spinach, black pepper, beets, chard, etc.; goitrogens in every Brassica family veggie, strawberries, peanuts, etc., and so on), and its link to soy products in the FDA Poisonous Plants database is broken. Searching it myself, I see it only turns up articles that ever use the term “soy” whether or not harm is found, and it’s really not. In fact, type in any plant-based food name there and you’ll get probably a hundred articles; I tried with a few yummy healthy veggies and sure enough! That doesn’t mean they’re bad for you. Soybeans/tofu have been eaten for centuries and the overall health benefits of various traditional Asian diets are generally acknowledged.

Beans - soaking isn’t needed. Really. You don’t get a cooking or health benefit. Meanwhile, few beans contain any toxins; red/kidney are the primary kinds.

Meanwhile, we learned to “process” meat by cooking it, making it much easier to chew tougher muscle meats and get more energy benefit from them due to the changes in the muscle fiber caused by cooking! :smiley: Plus we make chicken safe by cooking it since salmonella contaminates at least a quarter of the US supply, and trichinosis is epidemic in US deer; maybe that means we shouldn’t be eating chicken or venison by the “cooking food to make it safe is unnatural” argument?

Gotta go with Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Eating - eat stuff that your or someone else’s great-grandma would recognize as food, and try not to eat anything with more than 5 ingredients in the list, if you’re buying something premade. Simple bread: ok, steak: ok, tofu: ok, yogurt: ok. Processed tofu burger with a zillion ingredients: not ok, portable Gogurt in a tube: not ok. Premade hamburger patty with stabilizers and flavorings: not ok.

Just my personal experience - when I eat insufficient protein and too many carbs, I become a sluggish couch potato. When I get the balance right, I get what I call a “hummingbird” feeling - I have so much energy, I fidget, I get more accomplished, and I’m sure burn far more calories.

For me I think the ratio of 3:4 protein:carb grams seems to be the magic number.

I also feel sluggish after eating too much carbohydrate in one sitting, but in my case it is almost certainly related to my blood sugar problems. (I’m either type 2 diabetic or prediabetic, depending which diagnostic criteria you use, but what is not in question is the fact that if I eat a meal high in carbohydrates without much protein, my blood sugar shoots up like a rocket and I feel sluggish, tired, and cranky for a while. And, ironically, find myself craving more carbs.)

It’s a publication of the NIDDK, and the support for its claims is listed at the bottom of the page.

Also jsgoddess, I had not seen your post before but I also agree that sleel’s article does not relate to weight cycling , but the effects of exercise on changing the fat/muscle ratio of weight loss.

I don’t think I agree with this. First, I’d like to see the studies which you are looking at. Secondly, how exercise affects your appetite is going to be influenced by a lot of of factors. For instance, depression has been shown to cause weight gain, and exercise helps alleviate depression (and helps with sleep issues, which also contribute to weight issues). Depression increases cortisol levels and cortisol has been seen to increase appetite and cravings for sugar. (And if you have ADD and are overweight, you do have depression)

I acknowledge that you are already planning on exercising and I’m not posting this to nag you (!) just to point out that exercise and weight is just as complicated an issue as calories and weight.

The problem with research in this particular field is: since it IS incompletely understood, if you look hard enough, you will find SOMETHING that fits your preconceived notions. It’s best to keep things simple, then stop looking around, otherwise, you’ll be wearing copper wristbands, and eating nothing but cabbage. :slight_smile:

Simple is good if it works. The problem with this issue is that when simple doesn’t work, people tend to go “You must be doing it wrong” rather than “Let’s try to understand the issue better” This ends up being very much “If it works, I get the credit, if it fails, you get the blame”

And I think most dopers are at least smart enough to understand that copper wristbands aren’t going to work, and cabbage is a very boring diet. :stuck_out_tongue:

You should join us!

Can you put a lap top on your treadmill?

Simple is: The world has a really whacked out view of the perfect body image. The odds of me reaching that, based on my genetics, are slim. How bout I get HEALTHY, so that my body doesn’t hurt, and the rest is just gravy?

Because honestly, I’ve known some big-boned german women that can out squat me and leave me for dead in a spinning class. They will never wear a size zero, and shouldn’t ever attempt to.

This is exactly my experience (and that of countless other people I might add) and I tend towards low and steady blood sugar values - about as far away from diabetic as I can be, and yet I have persistant problems with too much dietary carbohydrate.

I have an odd relationship with starchy foods such as bread, rice and pasta. If I have bread or muffins in the morning, I eat too much all day - I have very little self-control. If I eat lots of protein in the morning, I have much more control. But, I absolutely have to have some bread, rice or pasta throughout the day or I get horrible headaches and have significant mood swings. I lose weight fairly quickly, but the fast weight loss just isn’t worth the pain.

It took me a really long time to figure out how my body worked and how best to lose weight or get to a healthy weight and maintain it. I’m still learning. The sucky thing is that it changes all the time depending on my age, my circumstances, my schedule and my motivation. I got to age 30 and it was suddenly excruciatingly hard to lose weight. Had a kid and it was easier to lose weight (probably because there was more of it, so it came off faster, and I had to be more organized, so it was easier to plan meals). Had another kid and it suddenly became harder thanks to a more chaotic life and less excessive weight gain. Things are slowly becoming more organized and coalescing into a reasonably predictable schedule, so it has once more become slightly easier to lose weight or at least get toned. But then we recently had a loss, so it was more difficult to care for a time. Weight loss is simple for most, but hardly easy. It sucks.

overlyverbose, I don’t think this is ‘odd’ at all. It seems to be the near-universal human experience of sweet, starchy, easily accessible foods.

ETA: Now I don’t have issues with uncontrollable craving, or binging, but too much carbohydrate messes with my appetite and energ levels in a huge way. And technically, I’m very healthy at a metabolic level.

I’m glad it worked for you, truly. But it will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be my solution. Never. No. Not. Ever. NEVER.

There is absolutely nothing about it that appeals to me on any level of any kind. Nothing.

When I had my gall bladder removed (I weighed 320 or so) 8 years ago the surgeon was absolutely sure I’d be back asking for bypass surgery. It was kind of strange how confident he was about it. But he was wrong. I have never been the slightest bit tempted.

What a strange conclusion. How do you arrive at it?

No. Absolutely not, this is bad advice. Refer to The China Study.

See Eat to Live by Joel Fuhrman and others for reasons why this statement is incorrect. There are plenty of plant sources for protein.

Because a food does not hold up to marketing hype does not mean the food itself is bad. There are numerous other views, including the fact that soy consumption in high in Japan and Okinawa, both of which enjoy among the highest levels of longevity in the world.

Avoid legumes and grains. Both have high lectin contents and effects on gut health. Grains in particular can’t be made edible without extensive processing. Beans need to be soaked and cooked properly in part to reduce the toxin load. If you need to process something so extensively in order to eat it, a strong argument can be made that you shouldn’t be eating it.
[/QUOTE]
If soaking or properly cooking a food makes it bad, then cross off chicken or pork and many sea foods. A food does not need to be raw in order for it to be wholesome.