0
 
Author: Sorting Last Post on Top ↓ Message:
GRACEFULIFE's Photo GRACEFULIFE Posts: 1,705
9/20/12 11:42 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
1. Interested to see if you keep losing. A low carb diet always results in fast initial weight loss as the glycogen is depleted. After that it tends to go slower.

2. If what you are doing works for you, we are happy for you, keep doing it.

3. Even if it works for you, your story is an anecdote like all others. From an academic and aggregate viewpoint, anecdotes are useless. From a more philosophical stance, it's another point of data.

4. If you measure larger nuts with measuring spoons, good luck getting a really accurate caloric value.

" I am eating 30 gms of protein every 3 hours and I am eating 10 -12 1 cup servings of vegetables a day. I also eat 4 three tsp servings of nuts and I eat 4 servings of citrus fruit and berries as he recommends. In addition, as little as possible added fat, no sugar, and no starch. That is a lot of food and a lot of calories and I have lost 11 lbs in 2.5 weeks so far."

That is not a lot of calories (to me, it takes about 3000+ to be "a lot of calories"). It _is_ quite a lot of food. But... OMG you're eating a reasonable amount of calories, higher protein than before, no junk food, and getting occasional exercise. And you're losing weight??? Say it ain't so.

Also, I could never, ever eat like that in perpetuity. Not a chance.

Edited by: GRACEFULIFE at: 9/20/2012 (11:45)
BEARLIHERE SparkPoints: (18)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 4
9/2/12 4:32 P

Send Private Message
Reply
I counted the calories I typically eat in a day and it comes to 2100+ calories.

BEARLIHERE SparkPoints: (18)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 4
9/2/12 4:06 P

Send Private Message
Reply
Oh and did I mention that I cut a ribbon to the size of my waist on the day that I started. It is now 3 inches smaller. Only 2.5 weeks later. I will report on my weight on the 3rd week. I will let you know where I am then. I do exercise only once a week but for more than the 20 minutes he recommends. I haven't gotten to the point of trusting that yet but I will try it. It seems like everything else he is saying seems to be accurate and right on point.


BEARLIHERE SparkPoints: (18)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 4
9/2/12 4:02 P

Send Private Message
Reply
Oh and I don't really have to count anything. I do not look at the calories in things I eat. I don't really have to measure. I do count the gms of protein I eat and make sure that the things that I buy do not include any sugar or sugar references such as organic sugar, cane juice, corn syrup, sugar, etc. I do have stevia. I bought those green pans. I do make sure that I eat every three hours and I have 2 to 3 cups of vegetables and 30 gms of protein, but I do not look at the calorie count. And by the way it is at least 12 cups of vegetables a day but you can eat as many as you want and I often do. The idea is to put so much of this good food in your body that you do not crave the sugar and the starch.


BEARLIHERE SparkPoints: (18)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 4
9/2/12 3:58 P

Send Private Message
Reply
Well, I am in the first three weeks using Bailor's science. I am eating 30 gms of protein every 3 hours and I am eating 10 -12 1 cup servings of vegetables a day. I also eat 4 three tsp servings of nuts and I eat 4 servings of citrus fruit and berries as he recommends. In addition, as little as possible added fat, no sugar, and no starch. That is a lot of food and a lot of calories and I have lost 11 lbs in 2.5 weeks so far. There is something to this. I believe he has done his homework.

GRACEFULIFE's Photo GRACEFULIFE Posts: 1,705
3/27/12 11:09 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Set point theory and "calories in - calories out" works are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact set point theory probably helps explain variation in the calories out side of things, which I suspect has a much larger variation in some people than in the "metabolically normal".

LENEWF's Photo LENEWF SparkPoints: (3,257)
Fitness Minutes: (2,294)
Posts: 124
2/19/12 8:56 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Wow,

I joined this group, but have yet to be active on it. This book sounds like it is full of anecdotal conclusions. I agree with SHAMRICK. The human body is designed to be highly efficient. I find that my body adapts to exercise extremely quickly (in a few weeks). So I am constantly mixing it up.

Initially I was doing RPM (a loosely HIIT based spin class) 5 days a week and seeing great results with a bit of upper body weights. Heavy weight, but only a couple exercises per muscle group. I dropped 10 lbs rather quickly then plateaued.

I injured my elbow and my plateau fixed itself. I could only do strength training for legs. Did legs 2/week dropped RPM down to 3x and added some lower intensity cardio (powerwalking/zumba) and a plio class once a week. Again the weight began falling off.

That being said BREWMASTERBILL, I had been exercising extensively for years, but only when I cleaned up my diet did the scale start to progress in the right direction.

I live north of the border, and the American portion distortion is starting to work its way north. I live in the most obese province in the country, and the situation is getting worse not better. As i get leaner I begin to notice this more and more.

You can't exercise your way out of a poor diet!

Shamrockin' Cupid Vixens Challenge: 19lbs DONE!

Frolicking Summer Goddess Challenge

HW (1.01) ~ 177
SW (4.01) ~ 158
Earth (4.22) ~ 156
TBIO (5.16) ~ 151
Solstice (6.20) ~ 148
July 4th (7.4) ~ 147


 current weight: 170.0 
 
177
169.5
162
154.5
147
SCHAMRICK's Photo SCHAMRICK Posts: 954
2/16/12 12:32 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
This was a great thread! Just to add my opinion... BMB's statement of, "I think the way to go about is highly individualized," sums up my whole weight loss journey.

After years of reading/listening to what "experts" said, nowadays, I disregard books, TV shows, web articles that offer some "turnkey" solution because one size doesn't fit all... in fact, one size fits one person. The human body is highly nonlinear (you can't crank this knob up 2 notches and expect 2 notches of equivalent response). Also everyone's bodies are highly adaptive.

Early on, I could just eat "Atkins-like" with no exercise and lose weight. Atkins quit working, then I plateaued.

Then I started working out untrained muscles and ate like a horse. My body adapted into an athlete's body. High protein and same ol reps/weights quit working, and I plateaued.

I started cutting calories (the wrong thing to do) and plateaued for the longest time til I started calorie-tracking on SP and listened to my body. "How do I feel after a workout?" I started loading up carbs, especially in the AM, and lost that dreaded "last 10 pounds." And by the way, the calories that work for me ARE NOT the calories that the formulas on SP provides. My body told me so.

I don't think any diet plan or workout scheme will work ad infinitum, except these highly individualized steps:
1) Track calories (your level, not some formula's level)
2) Do progressive resistance training with some amount of cardio each week
3) Listen to how your body responds. Repeat 1 & 2.

BREWMASTERBILL's Photo BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
2/10/12 7:05 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Thanks for chiming in.

"Nowadays, Americans exercise more than anyone else in the world and are the sixth heaviest population in the world. How could doing too little of something that we did even less of before the problem existed cause the problem?'"

You honed in on it. We eat like hogs and the vast majority of us don't have a clue how much and probably an even larger majority think you can just "burn it off". I was under that delusion. I was fat and getting 0 exercise (I'm a desk jockey). I changed nothing about my diet but started walking a mile a day expecting miracles.

It seems like Americans (the world?) are looking for any other answer than to 'eat less'. Why is it so hard you ask? There are a lot of theories (like set points, which we talked about earlier in this thread, I think), but lets say we knew why without a doubt, you still gotta do it. So I guess I don't care why. It's difficult, it sucks, but it's worth it.

Simple, Effective Strength Training for Beginners www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_public_jo
urnal_individual.asp?blog_id=5425006


Current Program bb531.wordpress.com/about/

"In god we trust, all others bring data."

"You can't make people smarter. You can expose them to information, but your responsibility stops there." - Rip


 current weight: 11.0  over
 
15
7.5
0
-7.5
-15
DONEGIRL's Photo DONEGIRL Posts: 57
2/10/12 5:35 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
This is an interesting discussion. I am skeptical of the claims he makes about calories in-calories out. Although hormones can affect our metabolism no diet can change the energy requirement for all biochemical reactions in the body -this value is a constant. In relation to a discussion on the calorie is a calorie argument he quotes
'Then there is all the misinformation along the lines of Calories Are All That Matter. What about the millions of Type 1 Diabetics—people who cannot effectively get energy into their cells because they are missing the hormone insulin? Why are these unfortunate people injecting themselves with the hormone insulin if calories are all that matter? Because calories are not all that matter. Hormones—not how much we eat or exercise—determine if we are burning or storing body fat.'
This is a complete non sequiter: What does this have to do with energy expenditure and calories? No one said that for Type 1 diabetics calories are all that matters. Type 1 diabetics are missing insulin and that is why they are injecting it. Type 2 diabetics are different.

He dismisses the idea of lowering food intake and increasing exercise being the simplest route to weight loss and quotes the following to support his thesis that contrary to popular belief people exercise more than they did before:
“In the 1930’s and 40’s…high volume endurance training was thought to be bad for the heart. Through the ‘50’s and even ‘60’s, exercise was not thought to be useful…and endurance exercise was thought to be harmful to women.” During that same period the percent of obese Americans was dramatically lower than today. Nowadays, Americans exercise more than anyone else in the world and are the sixth heaviest population in the world. How could doing too little of something that we did even less of before the problem existed cause the problem?'

Look at this quote again; it's high volume endurance training that was thought to be bad for the heart- not a brisk 3 mile walk 5 times a week as is recommended. The same applies to 'endurance exercise was thought to be harmful to women' not the brisk walk etc.
I believe some people exercise more but most people exercise less -they don't walk to the shops etc

He says that the advice we have been given in relation to diet and exercise over the years is wrong and has in fact contributed to obesity but he does not provide evidence for this. He cites the increase in obesity as evidence but we do not know that those who are obese were following the guidelines. My guess is that they were not.
Anyone, especially non-Americans can see why Americans are so fat- they eat more- it's that simple. American portions are enormous compared to others! There was a book out a few years ago 'Why French women don't get fat' It didn't need a whole book about it -the answer is simple THEY EAT LESS. Did you ever order a ham sandwich in France- dry bread and a slice of ham- no mayo, no side of chips or coleslaw- but ( here's where I agree with Bailor about quality not quantity) the quality of the ingredients is so good you don't need the mayo. Julia Child knew this many years ago when she adjusted her recipes for an American audience she increased the portion size!


Now I do realise that the application of the eat less exercise more is the difficult part and I wonder why that is so. I suffer from it myself -I know I eat more than my slim friends but cannot figure out why I do so when my greatest wish is to be slim.
I do hope that I will get there with the help of Spark People which is a fantastic resource.
Thanks for all the information and research you have done.



Edited by: DONEGIRL at: 2/10/2012 (09:23)
 Pounds lost: 7.0 
 
0
13.5
27
40.5
54
CTUPTON's Photo CTUPTON SparkPoints: (115,687)
Fitness Minutes: (35,982)
Posts: 11,371
2/5/12 9:36 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Thanks for all this info! Chris

It feels like I am not moving, but I guess I am. Even turtles eventually move from place to place.

CAREGIVER HELP SEE THE LINK PLEASE www.agingcare.com/

30 lbs. gone. Now to work on the next 10 lbs.


 current weight: 246.0 
 
246
243.25
240.5
237.75
235
MEDDYPEDDY's Photo MEDDYPEDDY Posts: 7,796
1/29/12 6:21 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
He provokes me when he writes:

"For example, starting in the 1970’s we were told to eat less and exercise more. Today, nearly half of women and a third of men are dieting, and studies from the University of Southern Denmark show we have significantly increased the amount of exercise we get. In other words, we have taken the “eat less, exercise more” theory to heart. Here is what that has done to our hearts (and waistlines):
(Diagram that shows hoe weight has gone up in USA during the last decades)
Judging by these results, attempting to eat less and exercise more is not effective. The approach is either wrong, impractical, or both."

To me that is using statistics to prove something that the statistic has no bearing on - I can do the same with swedish statistics that shows that during world war two, swedes became much healthier with blood pressure, weight and diabetes (none of those things were big problems then, but the researcher did find an improvement during 40-45.

So I can draw the conclusion that war is good for the health? At least for neutral countries?
Of course not - the explanation is that we got very little gas from oil producing countries - people could not drive as much, but had to walk or bike. Meat was restricted and expensive on the black market - people ate a lot more of vegetables and the "cheap meat" (that you boil instead of fry...lifestyle explanations...

I don´t know if I am scientific enough here or too broscience...remember that english is not my native tongue so I might be unaware of some weird language I use...

Anyway - swedish statistics shows that six out of ten farmers are overweight, compared to four out of ten among academics and a professor comments(my translation)
"It has been the opposite from 1600th century until after second world war" He claims that what has happened is that farm work has been automated, but the farmers has kept their eating habits...

My grandmother (1906-2007) had one size larger winter clothes than summer - during winter her work was milking the cows (three) and indoors, during summer season a lot of outdoor as well - she did not use scales but differed in five-ten kilos according to indoor or outdoor season.

To me calories in versus calories out is a solid fact - I have not seen any study that says that if you eat less calories than you consume you will gain weight over time.

Back to the smarter science of slim - if his theories about "set points" were right farmers would as a group have a different "set point" than academics - and this would miraculously has changed after second world war...hmm?

His example with the woman who eats 100 cal less a day is also deceptive, as he claims that it must be wrong since it is impossible that she after ten years of doing this would have lost 104 pounds. It would surely be fun to see a research like this - keeping a human in the exact same surrounding with the exact same exercise level and saving the exact same amount of calories for ten years - not taking the lesser need for calories that comes with lower weight in account...

This strategy of using facts to prove something makes me suspicious. I am sure that there are a lot of things we do not know or do not consider concerning weight, metabolism, difference between people according to age, gender, occupation etc. etc. But his way of promoting his book makes me doubt him.

And I hope I ´m not "broscience" when I ask for the logic in an argumentation that says that the "Obesity explosion" the western world has experienced during the last 80 years has more to do with misunderstanding the calorie in/out concept than the changed lifestyles?

Edited by: MEDDYPEDDY at: 1/29/2012 (06:22)
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
"Trust God and buy broccoli."

Author Unknown



 August Minutes: 0
 
0
500
1000
1500
2000
TAMPATINK67's Photo TAMPATINK67 Posts: 3,800
1/16/12 1:06 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Since quite literally 1/3 of the book is references... I'll pass on any interesting or unique findings - or any places I feel the author took liberty w the interpretation!

Tink - Charlotte NC


 Pounds lost: 2.0 
 
0
26.5
53
79.5
106
BREWMASTERBILL's Photo BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
1/16/12 11:57 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
If you could pass along the pubmed research that is referenced it would be most appreciated.

Simple, Effective Strength Training for Beginners www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_public_jo
urnal_individual.asp?blog_id=5425006


Current Program bb531.wordpress.com/about/

"In god we trust, all others bring data."

"You can't make people smarter. You can expose them to information, but your responsibility stops there." - Rip


 current weight: 11.0  over
 
15
7.5
0
-7.5
-15
TAMPATINK67's Photo TAMPATINK67 Posts: 3,800
1/16/12 11:38 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Book review:

Smarter Science of Slim provides the science (with references) and takes a more analytic audience down basically the same road as Mark Sisson's Primal Blueprint - with Mark instead using a caveman character and storytelling to tell this complicated story in a way that was more easily accessible to the general public. Which is "better"? Depends on the audience!

Both recommend very similar diets, very similar exercise routines and durations. SSOS research then focuses a little more on the research supporting long term weight loss success and the set-point for weight homeostasis to support these eating and exercise recommendations not only for weight loss but for long term weight loss success as well.

While going a little conspiracy theory - he also makes a few good points about where the general public is getting most of their diet and exercise recommendations from, and why we should think hard about these sources of guidance...

As a true analyst (in God we trust - everyone else bring me the data)... and a Paleo dieter (full disclosure of my potential biases):

I appreciated having a chance to review more of the science behind what is going on in my body and reading "research highlights" that indicate why I too may have had some past long term weight loss failures, as well as reviewing some lab and/or clinical research findings that indicate the current lifestyle I've adopted may afford me a higher chance of long term success at keeping the weight off. And here is where he does indeed challenge "calories in - calories out" as a successful strategy for long term weight loss in obese people due to the bodies natural weight set-point and how the body will use various hormones ensure or continue driving back to homeostasis.

So for those seeking to understand the research behind the caveman story - this book offers you the full list of references to go to PubMed and pull to your hearts content!

Of final note - I felt the author did take a few quotes from other well known industry types and played a little loose with using their words out of context. Soooo, now that I'm off the planes for a few days, I'm going to invest a few evenings doing just that - pulling a few of the more intriguing articles to see if I agree with the authors interpretation of the research results he is referencing...





Tink - Charlotte NC


 Pounds lost: 2.0 
 
0
26.5
53
79.5
106
TAMPATINK67's Photo TAMPATINK67 Posts: 3,800
1/10/12 11:43 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Thanks Honeyday for bringing this book to our attention - I'm traveling this week and trying to review it while on flights.

He's does a decent job of summarizing a lot of recent scientific results and them simplifies (over?) as to what the take away should be for the general public. Lots of rat data.....

I haven't read any specific 'diet plan' or 'exercise plan' recommendations yet - which I like - but diet guidelines sound kinda Paleo-ish.....- but I've got more to go.

If I really like any of the research he quotes, I'll post links too.


Tink - Charlotte NC


 Pounds lost: 2.0 
 
0
26.5
53
79.5
106
BREWMASTERBILL's Photo BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
1/10/12 7:25 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Well done. Thanks for doing some of the legwork here and citing RESEARCH! I have some comments.

"Basically, this guy is saying that if you eat healthy food, you can eat a lot more of it than you may have thought, and probably should. And if you eat unhealthy food you may end up eating less of it and still being fat. (Actually I have an obese freind who is in this situation now.)"

Well, ya. I'm beginning to think there is a fundamental difference in understanding calories in/out. You can overeat on fruits and vegetables. Folks think that going vegetarian automatically means weight control. While that can be a byproduct due to low caloric density, it does not defy the laws of thermodynamics (no diet does!). There is also a question of satiety, which seems to be individualized. In theory, "naturally thin people" (notice the quotes) can and do eat junk food in what appears to be high quantities. When they've had enough calories, the body shuts off. I know, I live with a junk food junkie that is thin. She will eat a meal of garbage and it's effectively her only meal of the day and she feels quite comfortable. This is anecdotal, I know, but I'm just pointing out that it does exist. But my point is, someone like 4A cannot eat copious quantities of fruit without triggering a binge. I, on the other hand, can eat an apple and have it knock my hunger away for an hour or two. There is no book or study that can help a person discover this. This is why I have such an issue with books that claim to have a one size fits all "solution" or some other magic.

I'm still doing my homework on set points, but there does seem to be something to it, at least something worth exploring. But lets assume that it is true. It doesn't change anything when it comes to weight control. You still have to pay attention, you still have to use the tools in your arsenal to keep the weight creep at bay. I guess I never understood why people hit goal and go away. Losing weight sucks in so many ways, I don't want to have to do this again.

Simple, Effective Strength Training for Beginners www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_public_jo
urnal_individual.asp?blog_id=5425006


Current Program bb531.wordpress.com/about/

"In god we trust, all others bring data."

"You can't make people smarter. You can expose them to information, but your responsibility stops there." - Rip


 current weight: 11.0  over
 
15
7.5
0
-7.5
-15
HONEYDAY Posts: 98
1/9/12 6:35 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
All right, I've been spurred to unpack Bailor's suggestions with a little more thoroughness and I think he's not saying anything that shockingly revolutionary. He's saying that different types of food are metabolized differently and that an excess of low quality foods can lead to hormonal imbalances (insulin or leptin resistance being the most obvious) that upset our bodies' abilities to maintain a healthy weight. He calls it a "clogged" system. he suggests that a high protein, low starch, high vegetable, moderate fat diet helps to "unclog" your metabolism.
So if you go on the croissant diet (4 croissants a day and black coffee - like I did on my sophomore year abroad) you'll lose weight but your
body will do everything it can - between signallying hunger and slowing your metabolism - to
get you to gain back the weight to "pre-intervention" levels once you go off the croissant diet.

He is a believer in the set point. He cites some sources that suggest the set point has been empirically established. But I found an interesting article on pubmed that says the 'set point' theory often doesn't take environmental and emotional triggers into enough consideration, which I think is true. I have the link below.
Basically, this guy is saying that if you eat healthy food, you can eat a lot more of it than you may have thought, and probably should. And if you eat unhealthy food you may end up eating less of it and still being fat. (Actually I have an obese freind who is in this situation now.)
That's nice, but I do think that calories in-calories out is still important to use as an apparatus, because as soon as you're eating something that isn't on the Bailor "good foods" list (non-starchy vegetables, fruits minus bananas, lean protein, beans, greek yogurt and cottage cheese) you're off the freeway and you've got to have some idea of what's going on inside a chocolate chip cookie if you want to be accountable to what you've eaten.

As for me and maintanance, I started getting neurotic about writing down my food, and then I just got tired of it. I wanted to believe that I had gotten some good idea of how much was appropriate to eat. I did for a while, and in fact I pushed the calories for a while and homeostasis did seem to be in effect, because I didn't gain weight.
I think that a lot of my weight gain had to do with Lupron, which is a drug that specifically targets hormones, and is supposed to cause weight gain. Among other charming reactions.
Thank goodness it's out of my system. I completely agree with you, Brewmaster, that weight loss and maintenance is a personal journey. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to figure some of this stuff out - good forum.
Here are a couple of interesting links -

“set points, settling points and some alternative theories”
Very interesting article on supports and limitations of set point theory
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17307205

"interactions of the cognitive and metabolic brain in the control of food intake"
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20395146

 current weight: 166.0 
 
173
166.25
159.5
152.75
146
BREWMASTERBILL's Photo BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
1/9/12 8:18 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Oh, I completely missed that "Smarter Science of Slim" was a book. So a brief gander at his "sample" of the book says that calories in/out is a myth. So what would he say to 16 studies that say it isn't a myth?

examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-fo
r-
weight-loss.html


Also, I think we've gone over this article before (but I cannot find the link to the discussion). I recall confusion. The title says "Counting Calories? Your Weight-Loss Plan May Be Outdated" and then proceeds to tell you that calories matter. Although it does seem to promote prevention and vigilance BEFORE you get fat, but nowhere in the article does it really dispute that counting calories doesn't work or is ineffective.

Here is the rub though, weight loss and subsequent maintenance is a personal journey with a lot of personal discovery along the way. While it is calories in/out, you need to figure out WHICH calories make sense for maintenance. Maybe you're fortunate enough to be able to eat Twinkies so long as you stay within range and you'll feel good and sated. But probably not. It's probably a combination of things and identifying triggers (which is why food tracking is so damn important).

Simple, Effective Strength Training for Beginners www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_public_jo
urnal_individual.asp?blog_id=5425006


Current Program bb531.wordpress.com/about/

"In god we trust, all others bring data."

"You can't make people smarter. You can expose them to information, but your responsibility stops there." - Rip


 current weight: 11.0  over
 
15
7.5
0
-7.5
-15
BREWMASTERBILL's Photo BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
1/9/12 7:39 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
UNIDENT,

I can only find 1 reference at the moment. I know I've seen at least 2.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/10
40
7.php


Let me be clear about a "set point". I'm not disputing calories in / out or that said "set point" would violate any laws of thermodynamics but when gone unchecked, it does seem like the body has a propensity to reclaim weight lost and that ghrelin may be responsible for this. So I think it might go a little beyond lifestyle. I'm not excusing it either.

Simple, Effective Strength Training for Beginners www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_public_jo
urnal_individual.asp?blog_id=5425006


Current Program bb531.wordpress.com/about/

"In god we trust, all others bring data."

"You can't make people smarter. You can expose them to information, but your responsibility stops there." - Rip


 current weight: 11.0  over
 
15
7.5
0
-7.5
-15
HONEYDAY Posts: 98
1/9/12 1:26 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
PS definitely spent time on the maintenance prages - I really like this site for the generousity and openness of it.
It has taken some humility to come back after having gained back some weight, but I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who's ever lost weight on Spark People and gained back some of it, or all of it. It's just what happens sometimes. I didn't have a ton of weight to lose, but 25 pounds is 25 pounds. Now at least I'm 5 pounds ahead. And I'm back in the groove.
Whew.


 current weight: 166.0 
 
173
166.25
159.5
152.75
146
HONEYDAY Posts: 98
1/9/12 1:21 A

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I tend not to actually order the abstracts or studies as they are oten beyond my lay grasp, but read the NY TImes or another farily reliable source, and pay attention to the control groups, who is doing the study etc. Obviously anyone can tack on a study to their fad ("Studies have shown...sure they have!) but this guy has the endorsement of lots of Harvard Med School, ohns Hopkins and U.C.L.A. people, and the whole point of it seems to be hardcore scientific evidence. science behind it.
Here's a NY Times article from July 2011:
www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19
br
ody.html?pagewanted=all

Here's the link to the site: thesmarterscienceofslim.com/
I guess what I'm driving at is: waddaya think? Do you buy it? Is he giving enough credit to emotional eating, etc? I guess just check it out hen you guys get a chance and see what you think. I haven't received the workbook yet, but I am curious as to how much leeway there is for enjoying different kinds of foods. Or whether it is somewhere about "calories in-calories out."
I think it's somewhere in between. And he's being a little bit sensational. But there is some truth to what he's saying.
Well, we shall see.

 current weight: 166.0 
 
173
166.25
159.5
152.75
146
UNIDENT's Photo UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
1/8/12 11:00 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Have you more info on 'set point' Bill? I've never really believed in that, unless it's just a reflection of other things going on.

For example your lifestyle supports a certain weight partially because your individual metabolism is xxx calories per day. It might be likely that as you age, your metabolism changes, so that while you continue to eat and exercise to your usual lifestyle habits, your metabolism is shrinking and this lifestyle now causes weight gain. It's not that your body "wants" to be that weight, so much as that your lifestyle supports that weight because of your reduced metabolism.

I guess the end result is probably indistinguishable from a theoretical "set point", I just don't buy the idea that someone's body "wants" to be at any certain weight. Their weight is a direct result of their lifestyle choices, given their personal metabolism, and it's that metabolism which creates the variance where one person can seem to eat a lot and never gain and another struggles to maintain their weight on much less.

Deb, in New Zealand
BREWMASTERBILL's Photo BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,080)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,110
1/8/12 8:23 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I'm not totally sure that I understand what you're driving at, but I'll take a stab and let me know if I'm way off the mark. My first recommendation is getting more information from studies instead of authors and TV shows. Authors and TV shows are notorious for either misunderstanding what they've read or just plain twisting the "facts" to their agenda. Gary Taubes is notorious for this. Best thing to do is to read the studies yourself and come to your own conclusions. Even research is filled with flaws and holes, it's not perfect.

We already have a discussion going about Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead and it's pretty clear it's calorie restriction, no magic there. I know I'd be pretty miserable on a juice diet.

So a couple of points you've raised. First, "set points" or whatever you want to call them, seem to exist. There is evidence that your body attempts to defend a particular weight and that weight tends to go up as we age. Just another variable working against you. All the more reason to never leave SP. Maintenance is all about paying attention. I think the way to go about is highly individualized. For me, personally, I tend to go months without tracking or even weighing in but I've adopted some healthy habits. Even with those healthy habits, my weight drifts up and I have to take corrective action. At this point, I'm trying to drop a few pounds to get back into my comfort zone. However, I've never gone as hard core (with calorie restriction) as I did when I was focused on dropping 50-60 pounds. So what's wrong with some wedding cake one day and brown rice and kale the next? I guess for some it's hard to switch from junk to good and back again without slipping into some downward spiral.

When you get to the point of maintenance again, you should drop by the "At Goal and Maintaining" group. Here is the link.

www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/groups_i
nd
ividual.asp?gid=1111


So I guess I'm not sure if I addressed anything you were looking at. I'm not sure what science you're looking for. Until there are drugs that alter either metabolism or appetite, I'm afraid we're stuck with monitoring this ourselves until science can make us smarter.

Simple, Effective Strength Training for Beginners www.sparkpeople.com/mypage_public_jo
urnal_individual.asp?blog_id=5425006


Current Program bb531.wordpress.com/about/

"In god we trust, all others bring data."

"You can't make people smarter. You can expose them to information, but your responsibility stops there." - Rip


 current weight: 11.0  over
 
15
7.5
0
-7.5
-15
HEALTHYHABITGAL's Photo HEALTHYHABITGAL Posts: 616
1/8/12 8:08 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
interesting... keep us posted ... never heard of that book you mention ...

HONEYDAY Posts: 98
1/8/12 7:18 P

My SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
OK, you people seem smart. I lost weight 3 years ago through calorie counting on Sparkpeople (25lbs) but recently gained a good deal of it back via Lupron (a hormone shutdown drug I was given before fibroid surgery), and other stressors (read:heartbreak.)
I'm now back on track, in other words I'm not eating like Craig Claiborne before the health problems. (I like food. I like cooking, and baking. I like sugar. I like making wedding cakes.)

I was seduced for a millisecond by Furhmann's PBS spiel on micronutrients, but ultimately I just don't buy it at all, especially not long-term. I admit to enjoying watching the trucker make juices for his trucker friends on Fat Sick and Nearly Dead, and I'm sure some people are perfectly at peace a year into a raw vegan diet, but it sure seems like it dominates one's life and possibly creates some sort of need to evangelize endlessly.

So - I picked up John Bailor's Smarter Science of Slim. His schtick is scientifically corroborated message, supported by hard evidence from very reputable sources that I trust, that calories in/calories out is a myth, that exercise for fat loss is a matter of short-burst infrequent cardio and resistance training, and that calorie restriction doesn't result in long term weight loss because the body's "set point" is metabolically guiding the individual toward a certain weight, and the point is to lower the set point through eating the right kinds of foods.
I sorta do buy this. I'm going to try it out. But I still believe, in fact i KNOW, that calorie counting works. As for the holy grail of "long term weight loss," well, it does always amount to sticking to something. If you don't stick to Jonathan Bailor's plan, you'll gain the weight back as well.
So I'm trying to find a happy medium between the Bailor thesis and calorie counting. This is mainly because I know that as a person who enjoys food, I will want to have a croissant,
a cookie or a nice glass of Sauvignon Blanc every so often, and I don't want to set myself an unrealistic goal. I mean sure, you'll lose weight if all you eat is salmon, brown rice and kale. Most likely even 2500 kcal a day of salmon, brown rice and kale. But I don't want to do that.
Well, any thoughts on the smarter science of slim? Any thoughts on modifying it? I think he's just launched his big website so maybe it's in development.
(Also, a quick thought on juicing - I DO use juicing every so often, just to get food out of the way of my mind. But for three days, no longer, and I use pulp and puree the veggies so they are in the juice. So it has worked for me. but it's a personal thing. It's a good way of starting a new habit. Everyone has their way.)




 current weight: 166.0 
 
173
166.25
159.5
152.75
146
Page: 1 of (1)  

Report Innappropriate Post

Other SparkPeople High Intensity Thinkers General Team Discussion Forum Posts

Topics: Last Post:
Vitamin C anyone? 5/30/2013 8:13:47 AM
Eating schedules, exercise, and endurance 7/31/2013 11:03:01 AM
Being thoughtful about health 5/23/2013 2:59:12 PM
Full of crap 5/23/2013 1:59:40 PM
6 meals vs. 3 meals per day 5/29/2013 9:37:41 AM

Thread URL: http://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/team_messageboard_thread.asp?board=0x42470x45908631

Review our Community Guidelines