trouble loosing weight (Page 2)

Don't disagree, diet is always a factor.....

Just sharing what has worked for me, as I have similar background.....I was nicknamed butterball as kid, by my parents no less... since my teens I have always been active in sport/hiking/running. At 28 I had a body comp of 165 with 11-13% body fat. Added weight lifting along with my other activity. Weight stayed at 165 and body fat dropped to 6-8%. I feel better and my performance has improved. I always try to watch what I eat but don't believe in 'dieting'.

Times. Two. 

x100

Start a food log and track everything you put in your mouth.  Most people are surprised by how much they really eat.  I know I was.  Doing this, and keeping a regular workout schedule, has helped me shed 10lbs since December.

If you have a smartphone, check this app out to help... http://www.loseit.com/

Maybe you should get a little more *scientific*.  Creating a caloric deficit is pretty much the only (natural) way to lose weight.  Eating a healthy, balanced diet (many debates about exactly what that might be for an individual) may help in that it can impact the calories you burn in 'steady state'.  And certain foods can impact your feelings of hunger to the positive or negative, as well. 

But at the end, it still comes down to calories in < calories out = weight loss.  It doesn't get more, or less, efficient than that.  You don't have to count calories to do it, but it can help some people get more 'in-tune' with what their 'calories in' are on a daily/weekly basis.

x2.  ALL diets that work do so by achieving the same end:  caloric deficit.  Low carb, low fat, counting calories, counting points (such as Weight Watchers), and any other effective system are just different means to accomplish a caloric deficit.  Whether you count calories directly, or limit carbs, the end result is the same:  fewer calories consumed than burned.

BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-02-22 10:06 AM

JollyRoger - 2012-02-22 9:06 AM

BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-02-21 7:29 PM  On a different note, a bottle of red wine is about 625 calories, or a 10k

Ouch!   That one hurts!   Red wine is my nemesis.  I've just sworn off alcohol for lent (actually a few days in already) to try and get down to this season's race weight - so far so good, we'll see how it goes before I go off the deep end!  

Actually I was trying to make that sound positive. A healthy dinner and splitting a bottle of wine is a good thing. That 312.5 calories is hardly even a short run. I find it more enjoyable to have the wine than say two good beers. Problem with beer is the first one goes down too quickly.

Safety note: This does not scale. I am not suggesting if you do a 18-mile marathon training run you should consume 3 bottles of wine as fluid/carb replacement.

Does the fact that that is written in the special red font mean that your only kidding and that you should in fact follow up an 18-mile marathon training run with three bottles of wine as fluid/carb replacement?  Because that's the way I took it, did 24 miles just to be safe and had trouble getting through that 4th bottle, but I did!  Didn't wake up for 3 days and it was in a snow bank in Canada... I don't even have my passport, how did I get to Canada?  And how do I get back?

I think this was bad advice.

It doesn't sound like you want to lose the last few pounds. If drinking is that important to you, then you may just need to live with the weight.

I'm 6'4" 170lbs because I WANT to be. Losing the alcohol is not a sacrifice if its for something you truly want.

Also count your calories like everyone else mentioned. You'll be surprised.

Oh and I didn't see it here but - how are you measuring your body fat? I suggest it may not be accurate so you could be fighting a non-existent battle. Then again you're at least 6 inches shorter than me and much heavier so you may even have more to lose than you think, body types etc etc count for something though.

Good luck with the weight loss, and congrats on some respectable finishing times.

But isn't it more than just calories in vs calories out?  Isn't it about the type of foods we eat or drink?  A meal of a chicken breast, small sweet potato, and a cup of broccoli will promote better weight loss than a meal of a burger, fries, and soda, correct?  I had a metabolic test and a nutrition program laid out for me.  Isn't it about foods that will keep your blood sugar levels steady and metabolism burning?

Eating "healthy" will tend to do be better for you (not 'spiking' blood sugar levels, possibly helping your metabolism, getting needed nutrients, etc.).  What that may change is your 'calories out' (you burn more) and allow you to take more 'calories in' while still creating that deficit.  Most people would prefer to eat more and lose weight. 

But, if you wanted, you could find the right amount of burgers, fries & soda that would still result in calories in < calories out and lose weight (there might be other negative side effects, of course).

Basically, when it comes to weight loss, it is as simple as calories in < calories out.  There are very good reasons to eat more vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, healthy fats, etc. in your diet.  Of course, if you eat enough of those, you can still gain weight.  But it is tougher to overeat broccoli than ice cream. 

Calories in vs out is the dominant factor in weight loss (or gain). Other factors may contribute some, but this is the most important one.

Overall healthiness includes where those calories come from.

True that!

1 pint of Ben and Jerry's chocolate fudge brownie  -> 1040 calories

1040 calories of broccoli -> 20 cups chopped and cooked. Or a gallon and a quart.

I don't see your point.  I sit down in front of the TV with a giant basin of broccoli and before the show is even over, what do you know, its empty.  Over a thousand calories of broccoli and I don't even know where it went!

Wait... No that's ice-cream... your right.  Never mind!

I totally agree about the broccoli vs ice cream.  I am always trying to learn as much about nutrition as I possibly can.  I have a trainer who I often go to (who does the metabolism testing, body fat measuring and nutrition), and while he says it is calories in/calories out, he also stresses that it is the type of food we eat as well.  I had to keep a food diary for a week.  He looked over it, and one of my meals was meat loaf and mac and cheese (homemade of course).  He told me that those are the types of meals that would not support weight loss if eaten too often.  Luckily, I don't eat those kinds of meals too often!

X3, A 4 oz Mimosa is just a tease!

I'm pretty sure if you ate 1000 calories of broccoli, you would soon be able to tell where it went.

We used to have a dog with irritable bowel (he could clear a room out on a good day; and was known to send himself out of the room after some of his gaseous emissions). I made the mistake ONCE of giving him a piece of broccoli. Yeah, learned my lesson quickly.

Calories in vs. calories out or what you eat?  It's both.

Study after study has confirmed that weight loss is taking in less calories than you burn.  From that standpoint, any diet which restricts calories will do.  BUT, some diets are harder to stay on than others. 

If you follow Johnny's cheeseburger and fries diet, it will work as long as you follow the diet, but you will either eat your full day's allotment of calories by lunchtime and then have to starve yourself the rest of the day, or you can only eat a micro burger and 2 fries at each meal, and you will likely be hungry again way before it is time your your next meal.  I doubt that there are many who could stick with this plan for long.

This is where what you eat matters.  Recent studies concluded that eating more protein promotes a feeling a fullness and makes it easier to stick with the plan.  I am not aware of studies that also confirm that eating a moderate amount of good fats, eating clean, and eating numerous small meals a day work, but the anacdotal evidence is strong that they do.  I bet that future studies will confirm what many of us already find to work.

I just now have come up with a brilliant idea for a new diet!!!

Only buy food enough for one meal.  Bring it home, cook it and eat it, doesn't matter what it is or how much you eat.  Only buy your food at a store that is at least 2 hours away from your house by whatever means of transportation you will use.  Never go get more food unless your hungry and can find the 4+ hours to go get it.  The hungrier you get the more motivated you will be to take the time and go get a meal, but you will probably not be motivated enough to find the time to eat more than once a day at most or maybe once every second or third day.

All beverages that are not water are included in the term "food".

Bet it would work!

I should write a book!

Sounds like you need happier hunting grounds and methods and better prey, my friend.