Cuyuna

88Tempo

IME you can out exercise a bad diet though not many people want to follow these exercise plans. Two examples come to mind for me.

1. I dropped from 195+- to 170 something in just over 2 weeks eating 4 times a day. Thing is I was working an extremely physically demanding job for 12 hours.

2. I went to one of the more physically demanding courses in the military and in 3 weeks dropped 15 pounds. Of course We were only getting 4 hours sleep a night and I think we walked somewhere around 300 km carrying a 45+ pound ruck pretty much the whole time.

On a more serious note I think genetics does play a role. My dad has always had trouble gaining and maintaining size. For me it comes easy.

Rajflyboy

Trentc

I've seen that quoted as well, but it is so general as to be useless. Calorie burn is entirely related to power output. As such, all the variables such as type of bike, type of tires, wind, incline, body weight, effort level, etc., etc., etc,, affect how many calories one burns per mile. I think many of us fall into that trap of feeling like we can eat more when the miles go up. The long and the short of it is, if you are not dropping weight while riding 100 or more miles a week, you are eating way too much.

OBoile

If you truly understood what you posted here, you'd realize that none of it contradicts calories in vs calories out.
But then, that shouldn't be surprising, since it is impossible.

OBoile

Agreed. People tend to overestimate what they think they burn while exercising. On a bike, the only real way to get a decent estimate (and even this isn't super accurate) is to use a power meter.

livedarklions

All respect, but you're missing the point. Metabolic changes affect the calculation of calories out such that the idea one can "simply" balance the two is absurd. As you lose weight, the body becomes more efficient at using the calories you take on board, thus if you keep your activity and intake constant, you will stop losing weight and maybe even put some of it back on. Given that there is also a tendency to lower metabolism as we age, this balance is a constantly moving target.

Basically, even at the individual level, our data concerning calories in and the data on calories out are so subject to so many variables, that they are at best very rough estimates.

None of this stuff is simple, otherwise it would have been solved long ago.

OBoile

Not really.
I never claimed the "calories out" level was static. Of course it changes. My argument, if you're willing to go back over a month are read the actual posts is against someone who is saying energy balance is irrelevant and that changes in metabolism can make weight loss impossible. This is, of course, false. The fact that you may not know the exact number of calories consumed, or burned, doesn't change the fact that energy balance is what is driving changes in weight.
But it is simple... or at least the physical part of it is. There is no mystery to how weight loss occurs. If you need to lose weight, eat less move more. Calories in < calories out. You don't need to know the exact value of either of those because, as you say, the best you'll get is an estimate. If you're not losing weight, consume a bit less and/or move a bit more until you are. If you stop making progress, adjust further.

The psychological aspect of achieving this, particularly over the long term, is another matter and, I agree, not simple at all.

pdlamb

Weight-wise, this is true, especially for younger folks. However, for more experienced folk, you can't really out-exercise all the negative effects of a bad diet, such as inflammation, atherosclerosis, etc. (I tried; it didn't work.)

livedarklions

I'm not even sure at this point whether or not we're disagreeing, but I do suspect that the line between physical and psychological in this area is a lot blurrier than that and that's one of why this isn't easily achieved--people's brains may be reacting to hunger and activity differently.

For me, massive weight loss involved constantly having to adjust my diet as I hit new plateaus, and really had to be obsessive about monitoring my weight and what I ate. After a while, further loss became unsustainable and I turned to working out to lose another 50 pounds. For many people, that level of intensity may be functionally impossible.

OBoile

I don't think we are disagreeing. My argument, for this particular branch of this particular thread, was with people who essentially said "calories don't matter". It doesn't sound to me like you're saying that.

People have lost significant weight eating nothing but twinkies, or beer, or McDonald's. It's quite clear that, from a purely physical perspective (and yes, the line between physical and psychological is blurry at best), weight loss can be achieved without having to follow <insert popular diet strategy here>. No one that is staved stays the same weight. Everyone on "The Biggest Loser" loses weight (not that I'm endorsing their methods). Calories matter.

But, in the real world, as you say, the psychology also plays a huge role. I'm sure, again as you say, different people's brains react differently. I have two friends who have lost massive amounts of weight as you have, and it's very clear their relationship with food is quite different than mine is. The fact that north of 90% of people fail to keep the weight off shows there is a lot at stake mentally, and much of that we don't understand as of yet. People trying to lose weight don't get to be put up in a ranch away from society in order to focus on their task. They still have to go grocery shopping and pass by the candy isle. They still get stressed out by their job/spouse/kids/life. But, I suspect you know all of this better than I do.

livedarklions

At this point, I tend to write off the opinions of almost anyone who says "______ doesn't matter" as if it were a fact, unless they fill in the blank with "Astrological sign" or "Sunspot cycle"

Food is intertwined with so many aspects of what we do and who we are that it is never a simple issue in almost any context. Just think how much of an argument you can set off by asserting "X is the way real Italians make_____". Substitute any ethnic group/race/whatever for X.

I have a pet theory that every ethnic group has a food they all find disgusting but insist on eating and pretending to enjoy because it distinguishes them from outsiders. I'm Jewish, and I call this the Gefilte Fish Theory.

88Tempo

I agree for a large chunk of my life I didn't eat super healthy, but I exercised so much I was able to do that and maintain weight. Today being a little older and considerably more gimped up from those youthful activities I have to be a lot more selective in my exercise activities.

radroad

I still go for a few walks per week in my neighborhood, but it's very depressing. Lots of homeless, sketchy people, drug addicts. The people you see on bikes are usually homeless also. Pretty much no one walks unless they have to. There's a multi use trail more or less within walking distance but there are so many homeless encampments near the trail it too feels super sketchy. Quite a bit of gang graffiti on the buildings adjacent to the trails. Just lovely.

I suppose driving allows one to ignore just how far down the toilet the entire county has gone. Walking isn't therapeutic at all, it's just depressing.

Machka 

We go for walks around our neighbourhood too.

radroad

I've lost another 5 lbs, so I'm down 10 pounds compared to the same time last year.

The main difference is that I'm more mindful of portion size. I'm realizing that no, I can't eat as much as I want AND lose weight at the same time.

I've got quite a ways to go: maybe 15 to 18 more pounds. At this rate, it might take a year to a year or so.

However, this is not simply about weight loss. It's about lean mass gain as well. I've lost a significant amount of lean mass since my college days. I'm going to take things gradually, nothing sudden, just a gradual weekly improvement in strength training.

JoeKahno

First a little background. I'm 61. I hovered near 175 lbs. most of my life until I quit smoking in July of '96. From that point, I put on roughly a pound a month until I leveled off around 210 -215. Before my first trip to the Philippines in 2007 I did a few months of Atkins and free weights so they wouldn't have to get the fat passenger extractor to remove me from the econo-seat on arrival. I got down to 195 but it was a yo-yo dip. Over the last five years I started gaining again mostly due to mobility issues, until I topped out at 240 last October. The combination of aging and obesity resulted in a laundry list of health problems. (High blood pressure, early type 2 diabetes, yada yada) I was car free at the time but didn't ride unless I needed to get somewhere.

After way too much research I found a doctor who knew what he was talking about. By the time I moved to the Philippines in March I had dropped over 20 lbs. I didn't start riding again until I hit 200, a few months ago. I'm currently under 195 with a tentative target range of 185-190. I'm starting to feel like a kid again and ride now for the same reasons I rode then, basic transportation and the simple joy of being in motion.

What I've learned so far;
Most of what you know about dieting is false, useless, or both.
Most doctors spend more time in medical school learning how to choose a receptionist than studying normal metabolism.
What you eat, how much you eat, and how much you exercise is almost totally irrelevant.

Dr Jason Fung has a six part series on YouTube called "The Aetiology of Obesity" that lays it all out in detail.

If you want the Cliff Notes version try this.

Gorrister

Sorry to butt in late here, but advising people to cease participating in small pleasures and begin participate in things that they hate as a way of improving their life is philosophically the dumbest advice I’ve ever heard. It’s ok to enjoy food, the key is moderation.

Metieval

Eat to live, don't live to eat.

btw Charlie Sheen appreciates your "moderation" argument.

Gorrister

There are a bunch of people here telling you that your methods are dangerous. But you’re not gonna change them right? Cause it makes you happy to have incredibly strict control of your diet. For some people, having a snack or guilty pleasure food item in moderation won’t affect their weight or health but will boost their happiness; that makes it worth it. ALL of your happiness should not be derived from your physical appearance or BMI or whatever, that’s ED territory and also just a sad way to live. I’d hate not being able to go out for a meal with friends because of calorie restrictions. To me a few extra calories on a Friday night meted by a harder workout on Saturday is worth it. Much better than being home alone weighing chicken breast on a postal scale. Telling someone who’s been successful with weight loss and training that her method is flawed because she enjoys the occasional snack is ridiculous.

Charlie sheen might abuse the moderation method, just like people with eating disorders abuse your method. Although I do know people who have been able to smoke crack in moderation, eventually you have to stop or it will get worse.

Metieval

food boost happiness

successful weight loss

argues for tasty snacks

^ pretty sure that isn't me, those are the arguments of someone that is addicted to food.

but if someone lost weight once, they can do it again? and again? and again? until type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance catches up. but then it will be just getting old, or some other excuse.

Metieval

too many snacks in the last 5 years? something tells me it wasn't ocassional



no seriously I think I know enough to not trust what you say , and I think i now understand that my aim is true.

JoeKahno

About eighty years ago the Germans piled up several million corpses testing the "eat less, move more" weight loss model. They discovered you can make it work with a well fed armed guard on the chow line. They also discovered that any food intake at all caused the body to adjust it's metabolic rate downwards in an attempt to survive on the lower calorie level. I'm sure with the German fetish for record keeping you can look up exactly how many calories it takes to wring the last watt of useful work out of somebody before he's so beaten down he'd rather take a bullet.

Why on earth anybody is still recommending this as a viable dieting strategy at this late date is beyond me. {Repressed sadistic tendencies perhaps?)

Gorrister

Its not a philosophical debate, believing that any derision of pleasure from food is “wrong” is a sign of an eating disorder, I’m not the first person to say it. There are plenty of pro cyclers who eat a small cup of ice cream or other such thing to satiate the physiological urge for that food based derision of pleasure. Deriving pleasure from food is normal and essential to our survival. It’s important to learn how to manage that in a time when our access to unhealthy and empty calorie foods isn’t in line with our evolution, but to pretend that you don’t experience a physiological change in your brain when you eat, and deride others for enjoying food is why you lose credibility. Good food can be a great part of life. I’m actually really not trying to bash your lifestyle, but telling other people that their fitness routines are not sound because they enjoy food is not rational.

guachi

I found this video shockingly unconvincing and disingenuous.