41 replies to this topic

[BoySam]

Hi just seeing if anyone is on roughly around

60% Carbs
20% Protien
20% Fats

roughly caliore intake of around 2500-3000
as i think i need to add more carbs to my diet, but struggling to find on on the net anywhere, basically looking for some foods ideas.
any help would be great

[Davekyn]

Potatoes are not considered good for you in large quantities so be careful with "too many" of those.
Lots of Green Veggies such as Broccoli will give you good carbs...I also eat some Prunes for carbs.

Basically I'm just being careful to eat good wholesome foods with emphasis on Good Carbs as per your list of percentages, but not exact as most people seem to rely on packaged food when counting calories and packaged food is basically poison sold of as healthy for you...now lets see the lazy ones cry over that one  

I like the Pie idea with laying out those quantities on your plate.

eg...to keep it simple...I'll pile on some broccoli, sweet potato, spinach & cabbage as well, with a little bit of skinless chicken...for my fats I' use avacado, nuts and so forth.

And as you know....I love my Almond milk and Oats  

Edited by Davekyn, 02 February 2011 - 02:06 PM.

[BoySam]

thanks for that

[chops]

What's almond milk like? Is it better tasting than soy or rice milk?

[Caterpillar]

BoySam, on 01 February 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

Hi just seeing if anyone is on roughly around

60% Carbs
20% Protien
20% Fats

roughly caliore intake of around 2500-3000
as i think i need to add more carbs to my diet, but struggling to find on on the net anywhere, basically looking for some foods ideas.
any help would be great

I'm trying something similar, with the goal to attain at least 60% of my caloric intake from carbs, and no more than 20% from protein and ditto for fats, averaging 2500-2700 calories per day, including plenty of fibre to maintain a slow release of energy through the day. Am finding it much harder to cap the protein intake at 20%, compared to the fat content. For carbs, in addition to the morning cereal, I try various fruits, vegetables, bread, baked beans, rice, potatoes.

[russell2pi]

Just curious as to why you would care about the breakdown. As long as protein and fats are above a certain minimum, aren't our bodies able to make use of whatever fuel you wish to give them?

[walker1st]

to me the system based on % between 3 food groups, are just plain silly and very misleading

to me the biggest hoax is the 80-10-10 ideology

[Colin]

What about the 100- 0 - 0 diet? 100% beer only.

Seriously there was a guy in queensland that was interviewed on ABC radio about 10 yrs ago that could only 'stomach' beer, and that's all he had. Said that's the only thing that stayed down. Must be gone by now if he kept that up.
When searching for that, I found a guy in Iowa drank only beer and water for lent (4 beers/day) and still went to work etc.

This is not advice and no responsibility taken.

[Leaf]

I never have trouble eating enough carbs, it's protein that I find hard. Meat doesn't excite me much (I still eat it about 5 times per week), I'm constantly looking for different protein sources. Carbs are easy! And delicious...

[Mile27]

Davekyn, on 02 February 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

Potatoes are not considered good for you in large quantities so be careful with "too many" of those.
Lots of Green Veggies such as Broccoli will give you good carbs...I also eat some Prunes for carbs.

Basically I'm just being careful to eat good wholesome foods with emphasis on Good Carbs as per your list of percentages, but not exact as most people seem to rely on packaged food when counting calories and packaged food is basically poison sold of as healthy for you...now lets see the lazy ones cry over that one   

I like the Pie idea with laying out those quantities on your plate.

eg...to keep it simple...I'll pile on some broccoli, sweet potato, spinach & cabbage as well, with a little bit of skinless chicken...for my fats I' use avacado, nuts and so forth.

And as you know....I love my Almond milk and Oats  

All good advice. As someone who helps people lose weight for a living, thought I would add my 2 cents worth.

Counting calories is not the best way to go about creating a healthy diet. If you eat the right foods your body will tell you when you are full. Here is a simple comparison to understand why

100grams of bread rice pasta etc has approx 70-80g of carbs or approx 300 calories
100 grams of fruit is about 10-20 grams of carb or approx 60 calories
100 grams of vegetables is approx 5 grams of carbs or 20 calories.

Counting calories is only necessary for people eating high calorie foods, if your diet consists of fruit ,veg meat,fish, nuts, seeds, and very little packaged foods then counting calories is not necessary at all.

Some people find counting calories helps them learn about what founds are good or bad and how much they can have but if you are having a palm sized pieced of protein served with vegetables then it will be impossible to overeat. 

Before anybody says how boring a diet this must be , all it takes is a bit of research to come up with some tasty recipes. 90% of the meals I have are cooked from scratch in less than 30 minutes and taste and smell fantastic - as per the comments from people at work the next day when having last nights left overs for lunch.!

To stick to a diet long term it needs to be easy, I have helped hundreds of people lose weight and unless the diet is simple to follow people don't stick with it.

Learn to listen to your body , it will tell you when you need more of something. Despite running 100km plus per week and having a very active job I hardly ever have pasta, rice potatoes or bread. The only exception is after a long / hard run I'll consume a high carb snack to replenish glycogen stores and after that it's back to a normal healthy diet.

I still allow myself a nice baguette for sat lunch and a few wines or beers on the weekend. Fruit loaf or hot cross buns are my biggest weakness but I reserve them for a post run snack if the run is 3 hours or more long.

It does take a bit of effort to eat healthy but the benefits more than outweigh the effort. Apart from having a body fat of less than 8% for the last 20 years , I haven't had a day off work since 1997. 

I often get the excuse that people haven't got time to cook a healthy meal in the evenings. If you are prepared there is no excuse at all. You can cook a healthy meal from scratch in less than 10 minutes if you have the ingredients in your fridge. 

As to what make up is best 80,10,10 or 40,30,30 or something in between. Listen to your body and it will tell you. We are all different and what works fortune won't work for another.

Some simple rules to follow are if you are tired or hungry three hours after a meal then that meal wasn't the best for you. A good meal will give you consistent energy levels and won't have your stomach crying out for more.


For some tips on diet have a read  here http://www.mile27.co...a-healthy-diet/

[grunner]

[quote name='Mile27' timestamp='1328337610' post='709037']
All good advice. As someone who helps people lose weight for a living, thought I would add my 2 cents worth.

Counting calories is not the best way to go about creating a healthy diet. If you eat the right foods your body will tell you when you are full.

Mile 27,

Awesome advice. Being in the same industry as you I get what you say, and my wife and I both lead busy lifes, train, yet always find time to cook fresh.

There is one thing I would like to know. When did eating CLEAN food become a diet. Clean food to me is what I grew up on.
Meat,Chicken, Seafood, Veges and Salads. No Pasta or bread in my life 95% of the time.

It does frustrate me when people respond to me, "Oh your diet is hard". This is not a diet,this is how we eat,or should eat.
I struggle to understand when all of this changed in Australia.

Diet is a swear word and should be banned.

[russell2pi]

Mile27, on 04 February 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

If you eat the right foods your body will tell you when you are full.

References? Most research indicates that calorie content is a very strong predictor of satiety. There is some evidence that protein may satisfy more than other foods per calorie, hence the CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet.

Quote

100grams of bread rice pasta etc has approx 70-80g of carbs or approx 300 calories
100 grams of fruit is about 10-20 grams of carb or approx 60 calories
100 grams of vegetables is approx 5 grams of carbs or 20 calories.

Right, and if I was hungry, 100 grams of the first line would satisfy me for a couple of hours, 100 grams of the second line would satisfy me for about half an hour, and 100 grams of the third line would not satisfy me at all. Pretty strong correlation with calorie content, wouldn't you say?

Quote

Counting calories is only necessary for people eating high calorie foods, if your diet consists of fruit ,veg meat,fish, nuts, seeds, and very little packaged foods then counting calories is not necessary at all.

meat, fish, nuts and seeds ARE high calorie foods and you can easily overeat on them, although I do tend to think carbs are easier to eat too much of.

Quote

Some people find counting calories helps them learn about what founds are good or bad and how much they can have but if you are having a palm sized pieced of protein served with vegetables then it will be impossible to overeat. 

Well, of course--you are counting calories in units of palms of meat, and serving it with some watery vitamins (vegies).

Quote

Despite running 100km plus per week and having a very active job I hardly ever have pasta, rice potatoes or bread.

Then surely you must eat more than a palm sized piece of meat, or a shipload of nuts. You are burning more than 800 calories per day more than a person who does no intense exercise, which equates to close to 500 g of meat or 130 g of nuts, or about 3 kg of vegies. Sounds like hard work... surely you eat some carbs, and not just a snack or the odd treat.

[walker1st]

human body is not steam engine, does not run on heat calories and does not get energy from sugars

human body is electromagmetic system and the nutrition should reflect that

[russell2pi]

walker1st, on 04 February 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

human body is not steam engine, does not run on heat calories and does not get energy from sugars

human body is electromagmetic system and the nutrition should reflect that

LOL, great, I might just go sleep under the power lines for extra energy.

[Rico]

grunner, on 04 February 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

No Pasta or bread in my life 95% of the time.

It does frustrate me when people respond to me, "Oh your diet is hard". This is not a diet,this is how we eat,or should eat.
I struggle to understand when all of this changed in Australia.

I thought for those of us with european ancestry, bread made up the bulk of our diets and our ancestors diets for many thousands of years?

It's mostly just in the last 10 years that people have started claiming that there is any issue with living on a bread based diet.

[grunner]

Rico, on 04 February 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

I thought for those of us with european ancestry, bread made up the bulk of our diets and our ancestors diets for many thousands of years?

It's mostly just in the last 10 years that people have started claiming that there is any issue with living on a bread based diet.

Ahh, yes you are right.However, bread 1000, 500, 300, 100 years ago was completely different to today. Bread is completely processed and has very little nutritional value. This is a fact. Throw in any wheat based product in western countys.

18 months ago, I went to Nepal and lived off rice, fresh vegetables and the odd goat or chicken. Helped mill millet and dry grains on the ground. The way western country's use to live. Any top nutritionist will tell you, wheat based products are a filler. Western culture has lost its way with what is real food.

[grunner]

Then surely you must eat more than a palm sized piece of meat, or a shipload of nuts. You are burning more than 800 calories per day more than a person who does no intense exercise, which equates to close to 500 g of meat or 130 g of nuts, or about 3 kg of vegies. Sounds like hard work... surely you eat some carbs, and not just a snack or the odd treat.
[/quote]

As mentioned above I fall in the same cat. as Mile 27. Below is my typical day in eating

5am - Muesli & Milk and mixed berries

8am
Scrambled Eggs, 2 rash's Bacon or  150gms savory mince, Tomato, Half Avocado

11am
berries

1pm
2 - 3 sushi rolls or  150gms savory mince


4pm
nuts

7pm
50gms polenta
100gms baked veges
100gms salad with beans, quinoa and fruits
50 - 100gms seafood

2 coffees

done 2600 - 3000 cals. day in day out.

To much focus is placed in wheat based products. What about bean casseroles & quinoa.

Everyone has there things that work for them. I just believe we forget that fresh is best, and package will damage.

[Mile27]

russell2pi, on 04 February 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

References? Most research indicates that calorie content is a very strong predictor of satiety. There is some evidence that protein may satisfy more than other foods per calorie, hence the CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet.



Right, and if I was hungry, 100 grams of the first line would satisfy me for a couple of hours, 100 grams of the second line would satisfy me for about half an hour, and 100 grams of the third line would not satisfy me at all. Pretty strong correlation with calorie content, wouldn't you say?



meat, fish, nuts and seeds ARE high calorie foods and you can easily overeat on them, although I do tend to think carbs are easier to eat too much of.



Well, of course--you are counting calories in units of palms of meat, and serving it with some watery vitamins (vegies).



Then surely you must eat more than a palm sized piece of meat, or a shipload of nuts. You are burning more than 800 calories per day more than a person who does no intense exercise, which equates to close to 500 g of meat or 130 g of nuts, or about 3 kg of vegies. Sounds like hard work... surely you eat some carbs, and not just a snack or the odd treat.

My diet is very similar to gunners . 130grams of nuts is very easy to consume , I'd have more than that on most days.

My point about 100 grams wasn't to say that you should eat 100g of food. But merely to indicate how calorie dense those food are. If you ate a meal  with protein , vegetables and fat in it most people will feel energetic and not hungry a few hours after, if you have a carb heavy meal most people will feel tired and lethargic 3 hours afterwards. Not all as everyone is different, the eskimos live on a diet that is very high in protein and fat whilst Africans live on a grain based diet .

Disagree totally that calorie content is a good indicator of satiety , depends a lot on where the those calories come from.

Whilst we would love to be able to quote research that backs up every claim ,the reality is that there's research to back up any dietary claim you want to make. I base my advice on what works for my clients. Every client is different and I teach my clients how they can work out what is best for them.



The western diet is full of stuff that is so far removed from its origin that it has has very little nutritional benefit, just look at most of the breakfast cereals available .


I do eat carbs - muesli for breakfast ,  nuts seeds and fruit for snacks, vegetables for lunch and dinner and a high carb snack post run.

Whilst carbs per se aren't bad for you the processed crap that fills a western diet is.

[russell2pi]

grunner, on 04 February 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

As mentioned above I fall in the same cat. as Mile 27. Below is my typical day in eating

Not really, a lot more carbs including things he swears off such as rice. (I eat similarly to you btw but do eat wheat products.)

Quote

Muesli ... 2 - 3 sushi rolls ... 50gms polenta .. beans, quinoa

[russell2pi]

Mile27, on 04 February 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

I do eat carbs - muesli for breakfast ,  nuts seeds and fruit for snacks, vegetables for lunch and dinner and a high carb snack post run.

I'd only count muesli out of that lot. Nuts average 10/10/80 carbo/protein/fat and seeds 15/15/70. Vegies are mostly water, vitamins and minerals and other micronutrients. Fruit's carbs are simple sugars and unlikely to satisfy for long. Each to his own I guess but personally I can't imagine that diet being something many of your clients could sustain in the longer term if they are doing regular intense exercise.

[walker1st]

russell2pi, on 04 February 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

LOL, great, I might just go sleep under the power lines for extra energy.

hm thats how you loose the enrgy

sleeping on magnets is the way to go

and body electronics is dependant on mineral content of the food, that is the reason why demineralized sugars or demineralized gluten based food is actually not food at all

[walker1st]

Rico, on 04 February 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

I thought for those of us with european ancestry, bread made up the bulk of our diets and our ancestors diets for many thousands of years?

It's mostly just in the last 10 years that people have started claiming that there is any issue with living on a bread based diet.

theory is 1 thing, but the facts are clear

look at world marathon times listing, and look where the european are on that list, you would have to scroll down few screens before you get to the first ones, and those are russians, different bread if any

european runners are so clogged from gluten, if they try to raise their training volume or intensity wise, they flip to sick, fatigued injured state

[Mile27]

russell2pi, on 05 February 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

I'd only count muesli out of that lot. Nuts average 10/10/80 carbo/protein/fat and seeds 15/15/70. Vegies are mostly water, vitamins and minerals and other micronutrients. Fruit's carbs are simple sugars and unlikely to satisfy for long. Each to his own I guess but personally I can't imagine that diet being something many of your clients could sustain in the longer term if they are doing regular intense exercise.

Some vegetables contain significantly higher carbs - sweet potato for example, nuts also contain more carbs than that, I do have some dried fruit with the seeds and nuts as well.

You just don't need to eat pasta , rice , bread and potatoes in large quantitites to be a good endurance athlete.


I do have rice maybe once a fortnight , pasta once a month , potatoes once a month .

Legumes such as lentils , chick peas I also have regularly and are another source of carbs.

My clients are doing far less intense exercise than I am so have no problems sustaining the diet.

Like some one else mentioned I also don't like using the term diet as it implies a short term approach,


As you said each to their own but I believe most people would benefit from cutting down processed carbs in their diet and increasing their fruit  and vegetables intake.

[Colin]

russell2pi, on 04 February 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Right, and if I was hungry, 100 grams of the first line would satisfy me for a couple of hours, 100 grams of the second line would satisfy me for about half an hour, and 100 grams of the third line would not satisfy me at all. Pretty strong correlation with calorie content, wouldn't you say?

And these unscientific analyses are why people are fat. You get hungrier much quicker after a couple of slices of pizza than being filled with vegies, despite eating 4 times as much calories.

If I eat a sugary cereal for breakfast I am nibbling at stuff with my cup of tea within 30min and continue to nibble the whole day never 'feeling full'

Edited by Colin, 05 February 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[walker1st]

Colin, on 05 February 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

If I eat a sugary cereal for breakfast I am nibbling at stuff with my cup of tea within 30min and continue to nibble the whole day never 'feeling full'

the breakfast cereals is a hoax, and the sugary types should be too obvious to everybody

Have seen some psychology research on the behavior of the school kids after sugary cereals, vs normal real food, pretty easy to understand to parents and teachers
even to Ministry of Food by Jammie

[russell2pi]

Not unscientific - I will have to dig the studies up.

I for one am generally starving after eating vegies, unless you are talking about starchy vegetables or legumes.

I will have to dig up the other study I found the other day on people on raw food diets. It was found that either they fill up on fats (nuts and avocado) or they actually get most of their calories from lapses from the diet. Vegies you can eat raw-- which is pretty much everything except starchy root vegetables and grains -- are mostly nearly devoid of calories. That leaves fruit and nuts for calories.

And for those appealing to history and prehistory -- name me some cultures that do not have a staple starch food. I can think of the Inuit and to a lesser degree aborigines... just about everywhere else has relied for thousands of years on starchy foods. The anti-wheat crusade is on shaky historical grounds, too - at least 10,000 years of cultivation, around about the same as rice.

Edited by russell2pi, 05 February 2012 - 02:01 PM.

[walker1st]

russell2pi, on 05 February 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

And for those appealing to history and prehistory -- name me some cultures that do not have a staple starch food. I can think of the Inuit and to a lesser degree aborigines... just about everywhere else has relied for thousands of years on starchy foods. The anti-wheat crusade is on shaky historical grounds, too - at least 10,000 years of cultivation, around about the same as rice.

you are probably confusing the term starchy, with the term gluten/gluten free.

while potatoes, sweet potatoes, pumpkin, and also corn, buckwheat, millet, quinoa etc are starchy in your term, they are gluten free.

and there is lots of cultures, with nutrition based on some of these foods.


and to your raw food study, why do you reed study, why dont you join the raw food movement, talk to people with years of experience, read their diaries, and try various types of taw food nutrition for yourself

[walker1st]

on topic, future of corn as a human food is in doubt, as the wide spread plan to poison and starve people well under way, the latest :

Dow Chemical is requesting USDA approval for a genetically engineered (GE) corn that is to a major component of the highly toxic Agent Orange. Their only purpose in doing so would be to sell the corn and pesticides based on this Agent Orange component to US and world farmers for you and I to eat!
Agent Orange was the used by the U.S. in Vietnam to kill trees, bushes and plants so the enemy would have nowhere to hide. It caused lasting damage to the environment and, even worse, many serious medical conditions including birth defects in children of exposed parents who were Vietnam veterans or Vietnamese.
Exposure to this component of Agent Orange has been linked to cancer, lowered sperm counts, liver disease and Parkinson’s disease. Recent laboratory studies show it causes hormone imbalance, reproductive problems, mental effects and suppression of the immune system.
Chemical industry tests have shown it is contaminated with a group of highly toxic chemicals (dioxins) that accumulate in living things over time. So, even a very small amount in tiny plants and animals can accumulate as it goes up the food chain, causing dangerous levels of exposure.
According to EPA, this component of Agent Orange is the seventh largest source of these toxic chemicals (dioxins) in the U.S.
Learn more and send an email protesting the USDA's approval at The Center for Food Safety.

[Caterpillar]

I guess it's a case of one man's meat is another man's poison. I have been sticking to the 60/20/20 diet (or better) for a few months now in the midst of marathon training. Have lost weight, (BMI now down to just under 21) am not running out glycogen during runs, and am doing my best running in over 20 years.

[richardegg]

meh, I eat wheat because when I am out and about in these parts I am fortunate if I can get a wrap or sandwich made on wheat bread. Better than a meat pie or maccas! Everytime I have gluten free bread/biscuit substitutes (eg. almond meal), I get bloating, cramps etc. not happy. Quinoa, bean casseroles very hard to come by at your local sandwich bar!

On my good non-bingeing days I have 25/25/50 mix of fat/protein/carbs. I hardly eat nuts or dried fruit and my veggies are always cooked. I never trust veganism, is simply way too hard to fit into my lifestyle (I eat out at least ~5-7 meals a week), and am not entirely sold on the efficacy of its compassionate side.

Edited by richardegg, 29 March 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Lukefrazz]

I'm fortunate in that I have no major food allergies or intolerances, so my diet is less restrictive than some others here. I generally average a 20/30/50 mix of fat/protein/carbs throughout the week, apart from increasing the carb proportion on the day before a long run. Just sticking to the standard guidelines of eating plenty of fresh fruit and veg, lean meats and unsaturated fats seems to work for me both in terms of running performance and recovery. I've found that after cutting back on highly processed, salty and sugary foods that I don't crave them anymore, which has reduced my carb and fat intake somewhat.

Only issue has been that I've unintentionally lost a kilo or two of weight recently, but I'm just putting that down to increased mileage.

[russell2pi]

richardegg, on 29 March 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

am not entirely sold on the efficacy of its compassionate side.

Mike Archer has a cute little argument on that front. He does the sums in his book Going Native. It turns out, more mice die to make a tonne of wheat protein than cows die to make a tonne of beef protein. This is because of mouse plagues.  (Even if we didn't poison them, they will die from starvation eventually anyway, and would not have come into existence in the first place if not for wheat farming).

[Rico]

I'm impressed that so many people have the time and energy to record everything they eat and look up the macronutrients associated with each ingredient.

[russell2pi]

Rico, it's not quite as hard with something like calorieking.com.au . I have done it before taking up running.... can't be bothered now!

[Quill]

The best thing about not only eating, but actively preferring a 'clean' diet is you can eat all you like of everything you like and never have to count a calorie or calculate a carb, ever. The point is to go for nutrient-dense, calorie-poor foods rather than calorie-dense, nutrient-poor examples. Think salad, not Subway. Happily, logic (and my shopping bill) dictate this means not only can you eat gigantic amounts of goodness, you probably should and the only side-effect is more nutrients. My gut feeling is a diet guided by these principles will naturally settle into a healthy ratio with zero need for sums on the back of beer coasters.

The whole certain ratios from certain food groups for perceived performance or health benefits thing... meh. It sounds like hair-splitting at best, and folk science at worst. Elite athletes or Badwater masochists, sure. For the rest of us, this whole populist anti-carb thing leaves me totally mystified and the recent distain for gluten goes in the same basket. Eat well, eat lots of it and if you must 'count' anything, go for protein (that last one is only my opinion - the first two you can put in the bank).

I ate like a garbage truck with a death wish for some decades and had all the health concerns that go with it. Now I couldn't be healthier and I can probably come up with a list of things I care less about than ratios of carbs and fats, but it'd be a short one. Your effort is far better spent completely avoiding fast food, cutting right back on salt (most natural food has precisely none, which is why kids won't eat it after having their palates ruined by years of potato chips), and developing a taste for clean protein and good salad. Helped me drop 20+kg in the past year, and I haven't dieted for a second of it, or even counted a calorie.

Edited by Quill, 01 April 2012 - 04:43 AM.

[danish]

Just read through this head and my god its a battle of the high horses in here isn't it?

Above all else, calories in vs calories out is the surest way to lose weight. Get your calories from wherever you are happy to, just be sure to burn some off each day as well and you'll be fine.

I lost 25kg in 12 months just from eating a little less and moving more. I very strictly counted calories during that time, both to ensure that I was keeping up a proper calorie deficit to achieve my goals and also as a means of seeing just how much calories various foods I ate actually gave me. This led to me naturally modifying my eating habits to eat more sensible portions (portion control is by and large the prime factor in people gaining weight IMO) and also changing my snack foods (used to snack on chips and chocolate, now I snack on carrots and fruit.... and occasionally chips and chocolate ). These days I can identify roughly how many calories are in various foods and control my portions without the need to count calories and have maintained my weight loss for 3 months so far without issue.

People have been complicating the simple practice of eating for decades now as though its some mystical secret science that you need to pay someone money to tell you how to do properly, when in reality all you need to do is eat sensibly and get 30-60 mins exercise a day and forget about it.

Edited by danish, 13 April 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[Mile27]

danish, on 13 April 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Just read through this head and my god its a battle of the high horses in here isn't it?

Above all else, calories in vs calories out is the surest way to lose weight. Get your calories from wherever you are happy to, just be sure to burn some off each day as well and you'll be fine.

I lost 25kg in 12 months just from eating a little less and moving more. I very strictly counted calories during that time, both to ensure that I was keeping up a proper calorie deficit to achieve my goals and also as a means of seeing just how much calories various foods I ate actually gave me. This led to me naturally modifying my eating habits to eat more sensible portions (portion control is by and large the prime factor in people gaining weight IMO) and also changing my snack foods (used to snack on chips and chocolate, now I snack on carrots and fruit.... and occasionally chips and chocolate ). These days I can identify roughly how many calories are in various foods and control my portions without the need to count calories and have maintained my weight loss for 3 months so far without issue.

People have been complicating the simple practice of eating for decades now as though its some mystical secret science that you need to pay someone money to tell you how to do properly, when in reality all you need to do is eat sensibly and get 30-60 mins exercise a day and forget about it.

Unfortunately it isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. The theory doesn't stack up to what actually happens in the body. It may work for some but people have been known to put on weight whilst eating less calories than their body supposedly needs. For more info have a look here

http://www.mile27.co...ly-that-simple/

What is sensible eating for one person would be a strict diet for another and gluttony for another , everyone has different ideas as to what eating sensibly is - as can be seen by the posts above.

30-60 minutes exercise per day also isn't that simple either, some people will lose weight simply walking for 30 minutes a day others will have to work a lot harder.

Weight loss may be simple for some but for others it is a very complex issue.

Getting your calories from wherever you like makes no sense at all, you can't consume 1500 calories of fat and sugar and expect to lose weight unless you are  burning a LOT more than 2000 calories a day.

It also ignores the effect on your health, setting yourself up  for adult onset diabetes by eating all your calories from sugar or refined carbs.

It also ignores where that weight loss is coming from, the types of macronutrients you eat will effect the  amount of hormones in your body which govern things like muscle growth , fat deposition and fat usage. These will affect wether you lose or gain muscle and wether you lose or gain fat .



Danish - you are one of the lucky ones that can eat whatever you like as long as your calorie count is low , most aren't as fortunate and need to put a bit more effort into discovering the right foods, quantities and exercise that works for them.

[danish]

I hear that a lot... that I am "lucky" or "blessed" or some other word that means that I couldn't possibly have just worked harder than those that aren't losing weight.

I understand that there are some scientific reasons why certain people will find it a harder to shift weight than others, but really we are all just humans and for the most part are pretty much the same. I'll happily bet that the vast majority of people who are failing to control their weight are simply eating too much and not exercising enough rather than it being some sort of genetic defect, incorrect protein-fat-carb split or choosing to eat processed grain instead of lentils.

In my eyes there is no single "correct" diet for humans in order to have a long and healthy life, and it is foolish to waste time arguing what which of our healthy eating plan is better than another. Just look at the average life expectancy of various countries and you'll see that. Mediterraneans, Japanese and Inuit people couldn't have more varied diets from each other but all are well known for longevity.

To me all contributors to this thread are following the same basic diet plan anyway. Reading through its clear that all posters are using portion control (be that counting calories or eating things the size of a palm), incorporating a few veg, limited fats, ingesting a good dose of carbs and topping it off with plenty of exercise. The only difference is the ingredients being chosen for each meal.

[Mile27]

Agree with you that there is no single correct diet that suits everybody , the vast differences of diets around the world confirm this.

Whilst I agree the percentage of people who can't lose weight that have a medical condition ( eg thyroid problem) is small there is a significant percentage that are following what seems a healthy diet and exercising regularly and are not losing weight .

These people aren't lying about what they eat or how much exercise they do.

I have been helping people lose  weight for over 15 years and you would be amazed at how supposedly healthy someone's diet can be and how much exercise they can do and still not lose weight.

Yes there are also many people who all they need to do is cut the crap out from their diets and do any form of regular exercise and the fat will drop but as we age the percentage of people who this applies to drops .

Fat loss is not a simple thing, learning what you as an individual needs to eat and do to lose and maintain weight loss can be a long painful process for some.

Regarding portion sizes , I believe it depends on what you eat. For a meal that is high in vegetables and or salad you can eat till you are full and you won't have eaten too much. For a meal high in carbs or fat you will need to exercise portion control.

Saying you are lucky was in no way meant to detract from your weight loss, 25kg in a year is a great result and just reward for your food and exercise choices, all I am trying to say is that some people can put in the same work and eat the same and not lose a thing.

The key to weight loss is working out what foods your body responds to best, for some people that will be a low carb diet , others high carb , and others somewhere in between.

It is obviously also important to work out which form of exercise their  body responds to best, walking, running - long distance, short distance, weights etc .

To many people look for a solution from a book, trainer, magazine article, forum etc when if they are taught a few basics about nutrition and learn how to interpret the messages their body is giving them they can figure it out themselves.

[danish]

That all sounds reasonable to me. I don't pretend to be as qualified on the matter as you obviously are, I just believe that when it comes to nutrition and food, people can really over-think themselves out of actually finding a simple plan and sticking to it. You need to crawl before you can walk and IMO people would be wise to first just try and get some basic eating habits established (portion control, eating plenty of veg etc) before worrying too much about making drastic changes to the food they eat.

I understand that there are people who find it tougher than I to shift weight. Luckily I only had the weight on for about 5 years to begin with so was able to get rid of it quicker. No doubt some whose been carrying it for a decade or more is going to find the kilos harder to shift.

I would still add though that I believe for a lot of those people the problem is a mental one as much as it is physical. Trying to convince yourself that you can actually make the change is in my view the hardest step to take. I look at it like quitting smoking. If you aren't ready to do it, you will struggle regardless of how much help you get. If you are ready, you can quit cold turkey and make it stick (although obviously you would still be wise to get help to make sure of it!)

As an aside, I know you weren't trying to belittle my weight loss, just pointing out that I do hear similar comments quite often, and usually they are coming from someone who doesn't want to put the work in themselves (obviously you don't fall into this category). Its the same as the comments we've all undoubtedly heard when discussing our running with non-runners who will always bring out a line about "sore knees" or being "too tall" or something as to why they'd like to run but dont.

[walker1st]

danish, on 13 April 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

To me all contributors to this thread are following the same basic diet plan anyway. Reading through its clear that all posters are using portion control (be that counting calories or eating things the size of a palm), incorporating a few veg, limited fats, ingesting a good dose of carbs and topping it off with plenty of exercise. The only difference is the ingredients being chosen for each meal.

? and I was sure I had also contributed to this thread, but for sure do not fit the generalized label.

[Ponytail]

I love these nutrition debates - talk about courses for horses!  I used to be an avid calorie counter until it occurred to me that I could subsist on 1200 calories of Mars Bars a day and still lose weight, although be very nutrient deficient.  I, personally, don't subscribe to crazy arse percentage diets or diets that say you should only eat this or never eat that.  I read alot about super foods and try to incorporate them into my diet as much as I can but I make my own rules - I don't read some book and live by it.  I am very suspicious of people that sprout full-on diet regimes like they are part of a cult!  Life is for living and I think you should enjoy it as best as you can without spiralling into gluttony...I think they call it a balanced diet...