Your One Thing?

[iain]

That's a bit harsh James. While I agree that eating less than you burn is the only way to lose weight, the trick is how to make eating less than you currently do with the least discomfort. That is where reducing the sugars and eating more protein comes in so you feel less hungry. That said, given the time I used to find erging used more calories than I could consistently eat. 100km a week had me burning nearly 4000 Kcal per day, while the 7-8 hours rowing plus a similar amount before getting prepared to row was my mini IF routine!

[jamesg]

I'm afraid trying not to kid myself can seem harsh, on me in particular being usually ready to believe almost anything. Almost; not UFOs except as such. There are so many around. But the longer I live the less I believe. At school we were told of the Pied Piper, perhaps not on the syllabus nowadays, which is a very bad sign.

This year I've not seen the usual post Xmas 5-7kg increase, only 1 or 2, thanks to plenty of fruit and veg and not much else. Aka minestrone where I live, filling but not much energy content.

Erg average 3k/day 110W (rest days included), not enough to have much effect.

[hjs]

Everyone has different approaches and beliefs around how to stay lean and/or lose weight. The list can get really long. Which one thing has worked for you?

Old-fashioned portion control? Low carbs? Intermittent fasting? No sweets? No alcohol? Few processed foods? Better/more sleep? Fewer restaurant meals? Increased time on the erg or increased working out in general?

What works for you? I am asking because I gained 10 lbs in the last year (Covid-lockdown lifestyle?) and was interested in going back to my pre-lockdown weight. I am not officially overweight, but 10lbs gained in one year is the kind of thing a person feels when one is running & racing (especially on the hills).

My weight does not fluctuate much, its maybe a few kg s.

If I want to lean up, have done that a few times the last 2 decades, what does work for me is simply doing it. Low carb is the most easy. But any sort of diet can work. Doing it means, making a plan and following it. Ignore what people might say, being fat is the norm.

[Blindside]

Don't think many people would argue about the connection between calorie intake and weight. There may be some debate about the different way those calories are then processed by the body as to where and what the body has to do to do to accommodate them (insulin production etc). Eating less than you burn, is the only way to lose weight, but the body processes categories of food differently, causing the energy stored in those foods to go through a different process, the processes themselves need fueling and are not equal. So it's not as simple as it may appear. Also as pointed out what you eat affects your desire to eat and the more your desire to eat the more calories you usually ingest.

[OregonERG]

Don't think many people would argue about the connection between calorie intake and weight. There may be some debate about the different way those calories are then processed by the body as to where and what the body has to do to do to accommodate them (insulin production etc). Eating less than you burn, is the only way to lose weight, but the body processes categories of food differently, causing the energy stored in those foods to go through a different process, the processes themselves need fueling and are not equal. So it's not as simple as it may appear. Also as pointed out what you eat affects your desire to eat and the more your desire to eat the more calories you usually ingest.

Yes! That is is exactly. But I think it even goes beyond the "eating more" and "feeling hungry" aspect of a sugary/carb-based diet.

The argument is that if you ate 1800 calories of fiber, protein and fat (but no sugars/carbs), your digestive system, liver, and kidneys would have to work harder to process it. You might even be unhealthy in the long-run due to such a diet. Whereas if you at 1800 calories of mostly breads, rice, potatoes, noodles, bagels, toast, etc... you would ride the ups and downs of the glycemic roller-coaster and slowly add weight in all those moments when your body had those sugar highs.

It is why Shackleton's men could eat 2500 calories a day of seal meat and blubber but were still dropping weight. They lost weight because the "calories in" --- despite being enough --- came in the form of a truly 100% keto diet. Super unhealthy (and miserable for them) but the "calories" were not the issue. Keto fans (and they will tell you) know it works.

[skkipper]

What works for you? I am asking because I gained 10 lbs in the last year (Covid-lockdown lifestyle?) and was interested in going back to my pre-lockdown weight. I am not officially overweight, but 10lbs gained in one year is the kind of thing a person feels when one is running & racing (especially on the hills).

As someone who let myself get pretty overweight slowly over years and then spent a lot of time in 2019 on prednisone and under stress and ballooned up even further, I had to address the insulin resistance part of gaining weight and the easiest way for me to do that was eat keto (clean keto - seems like sweeteners and other things will also spike my insulin and I think veggies + meat + fats is the healthiest way to eat). I have continued to lose weight while keto and added in intermittent fasting all the time and the occasional extended fast to break through a plateau. Guessing the intermittent fasting will be key to maintaining weight and hoping I can stay mostly keto but be a little less strict about it.

If you are only 10 lbs overweight though, it’s probably more just about volume of food you are consuming rather than insulin resistance and guessing the easiest thing would be just intermittent fasting to reduce that.

[Blindside]

Don't think many people would argue about the connection between calorie intake and weight. There may be some debate about the different way those calories are then processed by the body as to where and what the body has to do to do to accommodate them (insulin production etc). Eating less than you burn, is the only way to lose weight, but the body processes categories of food differently, causing the energy stored in those foods to go through a different process, the processes themselves need fueling and are not equal. So it's not as simple as it may appear. Also as pointed out what you eat affects your desire to eat and the more your desire to eat the more calories you usually ingest.

Yes! That is is exactly. But I think it even goes beyond the "eating more" and "feeling hungry" aspect of a sugary/carb-based diet.

The argument is that if you ate 1800 calories of fiber, protein and fat (but no sugars/carbs), your digestive system, liver, and kidneys would have to work harder to process it. You might even be unhealthy in the long-run due to such a diet. Whereas if you at 1800 calories of mostly breads, rice, potatoes, noodles, bagels, toast, etc... you would ride the ups and downs of the glycemic roller-coaster and slowly add weight in all those moments when your body had those sugar highs.

It is why Shackleton's men could eat 2500 calories a day of seal meat and blubber but were still dropping weight. They lost weight because the "calories in" --- despite being enough --- came in the form of a truly 100% keto diet. Super unhealthy (and miserable for them) but the "calories" were not the issue. Keto fans (and they will tell you) know it works.

Those against keto often point to perceived problems with the liver and kidneys but there's not much evidence of this. Indeed Non-Alcholic Liver Disease is often caused by type 2 diabetes and obesity and the ketogenetic diet has been proven to reverse both. Similarly for kidney function avoiding high blood pressure and diabetes is the best way to avoid kidney disease/failure. The way I look at it, im first to play, all in with a pair of 10s before the flop, better than being "blinded out".

[OregonERG]

If you are only 10 lbs overweight though, it’s probably more just about volume of food you are consuming rather than insulin resistance and guessing the easiest thing would be just intermittent fasting to reduce that.

Yes, I think that is correct. I am going to have to bite the bullet and just lay off the home-baked breads, cookies, snacks. The problem with having a wife who is a great baker/cook is that I have more things I need to say "no thank you" to. It is rough when that stuff comes out of the oven.

[OregonERG]

It is why Shackleton's men could eat 2500 calories a day of seal meat and blubber but were still dropping weight. They lost weight because the "calories in" --- despite being enough --- came in the form of a truly 100% keto diet. Super unhealthy (and miserable for them) but the "calories" were not the issue. Keto fans (and they will tell you) know it works.

Those against keto often point to perceived problems with the liver and kidneys but there's not much evidence of this. Indeed Non-Alcholic Liver Disease is often caused by type 2 diabetes and obesity and the ketogenetic diet has been proven to reverse both. Similarly for kidney function avoiding high blood pressure and diabetes is the best way to avoid kidney disease/failure. The way I look at it, im first to play, all in with a pair of 10s before the flop, better than being "blinded out".

I agree that most people who are talking about "keto" aren't doing it like Shackelton was! And thus aren't likely to shut down other metabolic processes. I think the notion of "clean eating" does get you about 75% to the goal.

My problem, as stated in other posts, is that an all-organic, whole-grain, fresh baked scone or sourdough loaf is still 892% carbs! Even if they are the cleanest carbs in town, I still have to contend with the calories and the glycemic rush to deal with if I succumb.

[gouldilocks]

The one change I made was to replace my daily lunchtime starch-fest with a 1 hour walk- I believe this has been a large contributing factor to a 26kg weight loss over the last 9 months.

Paul G

[OregonERG]

... what goes in stays in or comes out.

That is true. But what the "calories in vs. calories out" people don't remember is that weight isn't gained by eating a calorie. It is gained by metabolizing a calorie. So obviously what you eat matters, not just how much.

2500 calories per day of seal meat and blubber would be very hard to process. So though Shackleton's men ate enough calories, they were losing weight (and were super lean by the time they were rescued). The put the calories in their mouths but their G.I. system could not process those calories.

Whereas I am knocking back only 2300 calories a day (fewer calories than they were!), but since it is all fresh-baked bagels, sauced-up pasta, and organic strawberry smoothies, I am gaining weight. Even though I am eating "less" than Shackleton's men were.

I see this with my keto-loving buddies. They eat MORE than I do but they lose weight. Go figure... Where we agree is that if I were in true caloric deficit, then I would lose weight. But when I do that, I can't really train, run, or row at my full potential because I feel hungry all the time. I need to walk the fine line between being constantly hungry vs. over-eating. Certain foods make this easier (or harder).

[Ombrax]

Whereas I am knocking back only 2300 calories a day (fewer calories than they were!), but since it is all fresh-baked bagels, sauced-up pasta, and organic strawberry smoothies, I am gaining weight. Even though I am eating "less" than Shackleton's men were.

Sign up! (They left out the "guaranteed to lose weight" part.)



(Unfortunately, there's no evidence that Shackleton really did post this.)

[gouldilocks]

What you also have to take into account with Shackleton's men is that a tremendous amount of calories are burned off just trying to stay warm - I seem to remember reading that Sir Ranulph Fiennes said he lost a third of his bodyweight on his unsupported trek across Antarctica, despite consuming 6000 + calories a day.

Paul G

[Blindside]

What you also have to take into account with Shackleton's men is that a tremendous amount of calories are burned off just trying to stay warm - I seem to remember reading that Sir Ranulph Fiennes said he lost a third of his bodyweight on his unsupported trek across Antarctica, despite consuming 6000 + calories a day.

Paul G

Yes exactly, which points to the fact that its not particularly important to think about the calories we burn off, however, for most people the body has to deal with the calories we don't, if there's a surplus our mechanisms are stretched and inflamed particularly by the release of processed food that quickly releases sugar into the blood. I would imagine there are guys on here who would be healthy on a crap diet because they can incinerate all their empty calories on their Erg on a daily basis.

[OregonERG]

Whereas I am knocking back only 2300 calories a day (fewer calories than they were!), but since it is all fresh-baked bagels, sauced-up pasta, and organic strawberry smoothies, I am gaining weight. Even though I am eating "less" than Shackleton's men were.

Sign up! (They left out the "guaranteed to lose weight" part.)



(Unfortunately, there's no evidence that Shackleton really did post this.)

Hilarious! And so true...

I think that we all agree there is really only one factor, which is calories absorbed into the system vs. the metabolic need. But the confusion arises because calories eaten is not the same as what you absorb (into the GI tract/gut) and what you eat also influences the metabolic need itself due to the insulin effect. So 3000 calories a day of bread, cake, and sugar will lead to obesity a lot sooner than 3000 calories of roughage, fiber, and seal meat. Same calories in your mouth, different outcomes in the gut.