Met a guy at a party last week and we were swapping diet tips (OK, so that’s the kinda party I GO to).
He was telling me all this complicated fat-vs.-protein stuff which went right over my pretty little head. But I do remember he said, “for a snack at midday, eat three slices of ham or turkey or chicken, so your body will get the protein it needs to keep you from getting hungry, and it will also burn off the fat instead of the muscle.” Does this make sense?
By the way, I have found that starving yourself to death is not NEARLY as easy as “People” magazine will have you believe . . .
Sounds like a tip from the low-carb high protein diet club. You won’t get a definate answer on this. Some people swear it works, some people swear it doesn’t.
I would recommend eating a snack when you are hungry. I tend to go for the more healthy lower fat snacks. No-fat yogert and some fruit or low-fat peanut butter on wheat bread. You will get more energy and more nutitional value from snacks like these then you will from a couple of slices of ham.
For some people (like me) yes. I have lost a lot of weight (around 60 lbs) by restricting carbohydrates and have been maintaining the weight loss for almost a year. But it’s not for everyone.
Ditto, porcupine. I’ve lost 30 pounds doing the same. And it’s not for everyone. I know many other people who were totally unsuccessful w/ Low-carb, just as I know many people who were unsuccessful w/ low-fat.
The idea is this: avoid snacks that will spike your blood sugar (things high in carbohydrates–starchy or sugary foods), since, when your insulin repsonse kicks in to lower the blood glucose, it will likely drop it TOO low, causing that familiar post-lunch fatigue and also increasing your hunger (causing you to eat more…).
Low-carb foods won’t alter your blood sugar as dramatically, and fatty foods additionally tend to curb the appetite. The upshot–you’re less likely to seek more snacks.
As you alluded to, the whole “fat v protein” thing is pretty complex (enough that people write books about it and make it their jobs), but you could actually look at the diet tip in a different, simpler light.
Your body takes longer digesting most proteins than an equivalent amount of carbs, so you could eat straight lunch meat instead of, say, a bagel (given equal size of calories for each) and last somewhat longer on the meat before you get hungry again. Some meats, such as beef, also lead to a chemical reaction that makes you feel fuller or more “satisfied” afterwards. If you’re not actively trying to maintain added muscle (i.e., from lifting weights), you probably don’t need more than 90g of protein to maintain your lean muscle mass, which is pretty easily met with dairy, eggs, or lunch meat.
For a larger treatment of the low-carb, “fat & protein” (ketogenic) diet, see Lyle McDonald’s book on the subject (http://cyberpump.com/lyle/). This kind of diet is a significant change from typical eating and requires dedication to be successful (of course, most diets do). Make sure you read up on it before considering it, as there are side-effects that can be problematic depending on the individual. For a more generalized, less radical version of the diet, see “Dr. Atkin’s New Diet Revolution” at pretty much any bookstore.
Just a note that Lyle McDonald’s book “The Ketogenic Diet” is very technical and reads like a textbook. Lots of good info, but not easy to get through. Atkins’ book, OTOH, reads like an infomercial.
Reputable studies have not found any difference in weight loss between high protein and balanced diets (e.g., food-pyramid types) when calories were controlled. The Zone, Sugar-Busters, Atkins-type diets work because they restrict calories to about 1300 a day. Nothing complicated about that.
That said, a lot of people do find it easier to control cravings and snacking if they eat protein with all meals and snacks. It does take longer to digest, and you feel full sooner.
The only reason the meat suggestion works, though, is because it has fewer calories than, say, a handful of cookies or a bag of chips. There’s nothing unhealty about it, but you’ll get tired of it pretty fast, I bet.
In my experience with these various programs, the only thing that works is counting calories. If you start forbidding yourself certain whole classes of food, you’ll find that they become unnaturally tempting. (You are the one who wants to be unnaturally tempting, not your food.)
Thanks, all! I only want to lose about ten pounds (which is NOT EASY with a bowlful of Hallowe’en candy right downstairs!). So I eat as lightly as I can without actually passing out (though I find a dizzy spell makes for a nice midday break), walk about 2 miles a day, and go to the gym three times a week.
Sadly, Mr. Metabolism skidded to a halt about seven years ago, damn him . . .
Not to turn this into a GD, but, again, that’s why any one diet is not for everyone. While some people become consumed with “forbidden” foods, others don’t. I, for instance, have pretty much lost all interest in bread, rice, pasta, candy, cakes, etc. If you go without something for three months, you might find you don’t “need” to eat it, after all.
And while some people will be doomed by trying to eliminate whole classes of foods (and not enjoying them in moderation, etc.), others, like me, find it’s the only way to avoid getting into trouble by overdoing it. Just like an alcoholic can’t enjoy an occasional drink, I can’t start down that slippery carb slope without trouble.
I was one of those insatiable sweet tooth types, I started doing the low carb thing a few months ago and it’s working very well for me. After a few days the sweet tooth goes away. I swear. I’ve been snacking on light salami (gallo makes a good one) and deli sliced lunch meats, which come in various flavors, and nuts. There are also plenty of sugar free sweet things to snack on if you get a little creative. I am currently perfecting a recipe for low carb chocolate that I have been told is pretty darned good.
One off the wall suggestion. Sometimes dieters feel weak and tired due to water loss lowering their potassium levels. Try supplementing it for a few days. I take 2-3 99 mg capsules a day and haven’t had a problem.
Well, YMMV, but I have lost 14 pounds in two months, without even feeling like I’ve been trying. I eat until I’m full at every meal, and eat good food.
The downside is - I’m getting tired of meat. But I have 20 more pounds to go, so I have to stick with it a while longer.
Some people poo-poo the diet, but it’s the only one that ever worked for me. It is hard to stay on, but much less painful in some ways than a typical diet.
Sorry, I beg to differ. I lost weight consuming a lot more than 1300 calories per day. However, I will agree with you that I am much more satiated on X calories of meat, veggies, and fat than I am on X calories of carbohydrates, and therefore it was much easier for me to stick and I didn’t have any desire to “cheat.”
In addition, I’ll back up what others have said. I don’t crave starchy stuff like bread unless I eat starchy stuff like bread - once I got used to not eating bread, I didn’t want to eat bread (or rice or pasta or whatever). Sure, I’ll indulge occasionally, but in general I’m very happy eating low carb. I’ve been doing it for two years. So this idea that you’ll automatically get bored with low carb eating is not necessarily true.
A nice, big Delicious apple will stave off hunger for some time. Complex carbos, such as salads, are also hunger-stavers.
That said, it’s a simple formula for losing weight: Calories in minus calories out equals weight gain. If the resultant is negative, you lose weight. 3500 calories to one pound. (We say “calories,” but they’re actually kilocalories.)
However, if you do not exercise, you will lose not only fat, but protein. You need a certain amount of calories each day for basic metabolism, about 2,000. If you don’t ingest that much, your body will break down both fat and protein for its needs. To prevent muscle loss when you diet, you must exercise.
And if you do exercise, a high protein diet is a no-no. Unless you’re into body building, you will get enough protein for your daily needs with one hamburger. If you don’t take in enough carbos for your exercise regimen, and ingest mostly proteins (as in some of the diet fads) ketones will be produced (which is not beneficial) and you can get into ketoacidosis.
When I reread my post it looks like I meant that low-carb eating only works if you restrict yourself to 1300 calories. What I meant was that in the books, the 2-week starter diet they give you as an example is always much more restricted than the rest of the book suggests. For example, I recently read the SugarBusters book, which is still popular. The sample daily diets were all very spartan, but the book also provided recipes involving pounds of steak, blue cheese and butter. One of the authors claimed to be losing weight on a 3,000 calorie a day diet with no exercise. I just don’t buy it.
I just meant that controlled studies show that there isn’t any magic food mixing or elimination strategy that produces more weight loss. It’s all about calories in versus calories out. You can certainly lose weight on much more than 1300 calories–as long as your activity level has you burning off more than you take in.
However, as many of the people in this thread have mentioned, the point is to do whatever works best to help you keep your own calories at the proper level. I find that a modified version of the low carb diet works best for me. I stay away from white flour and sugar, and limit white rice and pasta (which I don’t care for much, anyway), but I don’t worry about things like potatoes or whole-wheat bread.