General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Small Change, Big Weight-Loss Payoff

Started by Odell Carmichael · · Last activity · 10 posts · 369 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
12 August 2004
Last activity
13 August 2004
Original author
Odell Carmichael
Posts
10
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
369
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–10 of 10
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Small Change, Big Weight-Loss Payoff
    By Karen Berney

    We are a fat nation obsessed with losing weight.

    According to a 1999 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study, 35 percent of
    America's adults (75 million) are slightly or moderately overweight, and 26
    percent (56 million) are obese or grossly overweight. Anyone up to 30
    pounds above the target weight for their body size is overweight, says the
    CDC, and another 30 pounds over target weight is considered obese.

    The CDC notes that half of us are trying to lose weight, not only through
    diet and exercise but by using commercial weight-loss products and services
    worth $33—$50 billion a year.

    There may be a better way: eating 100 less calories a day. We put on 1.8 to
    2.0 pounds each year, calculated professor James Hill of the University of
    Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, in an article published in
    Science (February 7, 2003).

    How can we prevent this weight gain? Since each pound is equivalent to
    3,500 calories, creating a deficit of about 100 calories daily — the
    equivalent of 10 potato chips — should allow us to stop gaining at least 1
    pound each year, contends Hill.

    Take in Less Than You Need
    But losing weight is different from not gaining weight, points out
    Katherine Tallmadge, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the
    American Dietetic Association in Washington, D.C. Assuming your body needs
    2,000 calories a day to meet its energy requirements — the average for most
    women — and you consume 300 fewer calories than 2,000 daily, you could shed
    30 pounds a year. That's because your body will take the extra 300 calories
    it needs for energy from stores of fat.

    Now, that may sound extreme, but, Tallmadge, like Hill, believes "small
    changes can make a big difference." Consider this: By halving that 200- to
    300-calorie nightly snack, you could drop 15 pounds a year. Step up your
    level of activity by walking around the office instead of shooting out
    emails nonstop and you could strip away another 100 calories daily, or 10
    pounds a year.

    How to Knock Out Calories
    Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
    do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
    day? The often-repeated formula is to combine eating less calories with
    regular cardiovascular exercise (see Get Fit in As Little As Two Hours a
    Week and weight training (see The Three Exercises You Must Do for a Tighter
    You). Do all three, and you're guaranteed to melt away fat. But be
    forewarned: Your body can only metabolize a certain amount of fat — 1 to
    1.5 pound(s) a week — on a low-calorie diet, says Tallmadge. At some point,
    the fat will turn to muscle, which is why you want to build muscle when
    losing weight.

    "You don't have to feel like you are on a diet or depriving yourself when
    eating fewer calories to lose weight," says Tallmadge, author of Diet
    Simple. She has rarely met a woman who cannot lose weight and keep it off
    on 1,800 calories a day, she says, especially if she eats a good breakfast.

    It's All About Planning
    Tallmadge's No. 1 weight-loss tip is to plan. You have to grocery shop with
    a list in hand so you can prepare the tasty breakfast above, or bring your
    600-calorie lunch to work. Otherwise, you're going to grab Chinese takeout
    or a burger and mistakenly plough through a 1,000-calorie dinner and 1,800
    calories a day.

    Save food preparation time by buying frozen fruits and vegetables. Not only
    is frozen more convenient, but the food can actually be more nutritious
    than fresh produce, Tallmadge says. Frozen foods are picked when ripe and
    frozen immediately, whereas fresh produce is often picked early, so it can
    sit longer on grocers' shelves.

    Storing prepared meals in one-serving-size plastic containers also aids in
    controlling portion size in the land that prizes super-sized, biggie
    everything!

    Stick With It
    A surefire way to stick with fewer calories each day, says New York City
    dietitian Julie Walsh, is to maintain a written record of what you eat and
    when you eat it. Nothing piles up the calories faster than "mindless
    eating," which is when you consume food — not because you are hungry, but
    because your body is fatigued or your mind is bored. Simply becoming
    conscious about your eating habits can jolt new eating behavior, says
    Walsh.

    To reinforce new eating habits, Walsh suggests that you weigh yourself
    about once a week. Since so many women live in mortal fear of stepping on
    the scale, the knowledge that the dreaded event is approaching can help
    keep your eating in check.

    Finally, stay happily engaged and busy with work, hobbies, friends and
    family, advise both Walsh and Tallmadge. The truth is, when you have a
    fairly wonderful life, you're not as interested in overeating.

  2. "Odell Carmichael" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    There may be a better way: eating 100 less calories a day. We put on 1.8


    to

    Quoted message said:

    2.0 pounds each year, calculated professor James Hill of the University of
    Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, in an article published in
    Science (February 7, 2003).

    Which actually shows that the human body in its natural regulated state is
    able to manage its inputs at a very high level of accuracy, since it's able
    to maintain a totally constant body weight over decades...
    On the other hand, it shows how hopeless calorie counting is. The margin of
    error between calorie tables (using average food while you use real food),
    your own metabolism (that you can only approximate), your varying level of
    activity, your periods and so on, far far exceed these 100 calories a day.

    Quoted message said:

    Now, that may sound extreme, but, Tallmadge, like Hill, believes "small
    changes can make a big difference." Consider this: By halving that 200- to
    300-calorie nightly snack, you could drop 15 pounds a year.

    What nightly snack? Many obeses do not have nightly snack. I'm not going to
    ruin brushing my teeth by having a nightly snack...

    Quoted message said:

    But be
    forewarned: Your body can only metabolize a certain amount of fat - 1 to
    1.5 pound(s) a week - on a low-calorie diet, says Tallmadge.

    Your body can metabolize whatever it needs to fuel you. It's only that to
    lose more than that, you have to starve yourself and you will face a deficit
    in micro-nutriments.

    Quoted message said:

    At some point,
    the fat will turn to muscle, which is why you want to build muscle when
    losing weight.

    No, there is *no* metabolic pathway to build proteins from fats or carbs.
    You can only break proteins into other stuff (carbs), but not the other way
    around. If people did turn the fat to muscle, we would have muscles in all
    the wrong places. :p
    You can lose fat *and* build muscles at the same time, but that's two
    completely separate events. You can slim yourself without building any
    muscle, and you can build a bunch of muscle without losing a single pound of
    fat.

    Quoted message said:

    "You don't have to feel like you are on a diet or depriving yourself when
    eating fewer calories to lose weight," says Tallmadge, author of Diet
    Simple. She has rarely met a woman who cannot lose weight and keep it off
    on 1,800 calories a day, she says, especially if she eats a good


    breakfast.

    The problem is counting these 1800 calories a day, there is no way to have
    enough precision to handle such a small deficit.
    It's better to let the body handle the calculations. Except in genetic or
    metabolic obesity (a minority), the body regulating systems are already
    geared towards losing weight and will push on their own in that direction,
    at their own pace. Since these regulation systems are in command of the
    hunger sensation, you can't feel hunger while following its downward slope.
    The not-so-easy trick is of course to stop listening to all the diet
    [censored] and tune on your own body instead...

    Quoted message said:

    It's All About Planning
    Tallmadge's No. 1 weight-loss tip is to plan. You have to grocery shop


    with

    Quoted message said:

    a list in hand so you can prepare the tasty breakfast above, or bring your
    600-calorie lunch to work.

    Ahhh, I know there would be a catch... So, it's not a diet, but you have to
    buy Good Stuff from a list, so that you avoid eating all the Bad Stuff...
    Right...
    If you need a 200 calories deficit, who cares where it comes from? Who cares
    if you hit the limit through a single meal a day or continuous snacking
    throughout the whole day? Who cares if you get your 1800 calories eating
    from the list or from McDonald?
    It's always amazing how they start with the right idea (small deficit,
    calories are calories, following a slow slope) and then have to introduce
    some moral issues in the deal (Chinese take-away, bad! Fruits and
    vegetables, good!)...

    Quoted message said:

    Save food preparation time by buying frozen fruits and vegetables. Not


    only

    Quoted message said:

    is frozen more convenient, but the food can actually be more nutritious
    than fresh produce, Tallmadge says. Frozen foods are picked when ripe and
    frozen immediately, whereas fresh produce is often picked early, so it can
    sit longer on grocers' shelves.

    Yeah, it's interresting if the goal is to stay healthy, but has nothing to
    do with losing weight. Old wisdom is to only tackle a single task at a
    time... Either you're losing weight or you're trying to eat healthy food.

    Quoted message said:

    Storing prepared meals in one-serving-size plastic containers also aids in
    controlling portion size in the land that prizes super-sized, biggie
    everything!

    Following your hunger does that job marvelously. You don't even need to buy
    new plastic containers that will add to existing pollution...

    Quoted message said:

    Nothing piles up the calories faster than "mindless
    eating," which is when you consume food - not because you are hungry, but
    because your body is fatigued or your mind is bored.

    Well, she seems to know hunger is a good regulation system. But somehow she
    doesn't trust what she knows.
    All these words might have been put to better use if they had given tools to
    handle being bored or fatigued without eating.

    Quoted message said:

    To reinforce new eating habits, Walsh suggests that you weigh yourself
    about once a week. Since so many women live in mortal fear of stepping on
    the scale, the knowledge that the dreaded event is approaching can help
    keep your eating in check.

    Good advice.

    Overall, rather better than most dieting advices... All the little pieces
    are there, not too much [censored]... But somehow they don't push their reasonning
    far enough.

  3. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 12 Aug 2004 12:35:08 -0000, Odell Carmichael
    <[email hidden]> wrote:
    SSFA is not interested in this drek. Please peddle your information
    elsewhere.

    LV

    Lady Veteran
    - -----------------------------------
    "I rode a tank and held a general's rank
    when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
    - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
    - ------------------------------------------------
    People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
    ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
    motive but malice.
    - ---------------------------------------------
    For every person with a spark of genius, there
    are a hundred more with ignition trouble.
    - -Unknown
    - -------------------------------

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

    iQA/AwUBQRuBcsjazA1WMM1JEQJ5mwCgnOQxqr7Bal3Z31JqZuvQ6a8vHwoAn2Yi
    vsG2uon7uVIvW9QrihHnrgSp
    =p+Iy
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  4. Quoted message said:

    Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
    do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
    day? The often-repeated formula is to combine eating less calories with
    regular cardiovascular exercise (see Get Fit in As Little As Two Hours a
    Week and weight training (see The Three Exercises You Must Do for a


    Tighter

    Quoted message said:

    You).

    So what are the three exercises? Got a link to that article?

  5. Nikko said:
    Quoted message said:

    Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
    do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
    day? The often-repeated formula is to combine eating less calories with
    regular cardiovascular exercise (see Get Fit in As Little As Two Hours a
    Week and weight training (see The Three Exercises You Must Do for a


    Tighter

    Quoted message said:

    You).

    So what are the three exercises? Got a link to that article?

    http://health.discovery.com/centers/womens/weight_loss/fat_nation.html

  6. "Nikko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
    do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
    day? The often-repeated formula is to combine eating less calories with
    regular cardiovascular exercise (see Get Fit in As Little As Two Hours a
    Week and weight training (see The Three Exercises You Must Do for a


    Tighter

    Quoted message said:

    You).

    So what are the three exercises? Got a link to that article?

    I haven't seen the article, but I'd guess:
    Bench Press (chest, triceps, shoulders)
    [censored] (legs, lower back, forearms, traps, abs)
    Barbell row (upper back, biceps, forearms)

  7. "Lictor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Now, that may sound extreme, but, Tallmadge, like Hill, believes "small
    changes can make a big difference." Consider this: By halving that 200- to
    300-calorie nightly snack, you could drop 15 pounds a year.

    What nightly snack? Many obeses do not have nightly snack. I'm not going to
    ruin brushing my teeth by having a nightly snack...

    Since when did 'obese' become a noun? Also it's just an example. It
    might be a handful of chips with your tea, or a can of coke, or
    something insignificant that adds up over time.

    Quoted message said:

    You can lose fat *and* build muscles at the same time, but that's two
    completely separate events.

    That is possible to very difficult other than during newbie-gains, and
    under complex CKDs.

    Quoted message said:

    You can slim yourself without building any
    muscle, and you can build a bunch of muscle without losing a single pound of
    fat.

    In fact you're more likely to gain fat whilst building muscle.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "You don't have to feel like you are on a diet or depriving yourself when
    eating fewer calories to lose weight," says Tallmadge, author of Diet
    Simple. She has rarely met a woman who cannot lose weight and keep it off
    on 1,800 calories a day, she says, especially if she eats a good


    breakfast.

    The problem is counting these 1800 calories a day, there is no way to have
    enough precision to handle such a small deficit.

    Not really. Count up to 1800, and if you're not losing at the desired
    weight then adjust the number accordingly. This works for anyone who
    honestly tries it.

    Quoted message said:

    It's always amazing how they start with the right idea (small deficit,
    calories are calories, following a slow slope) and then have to introduce
    some moral issues in the deal (Chinese take-away, bad! Fruits and
    vegetables, good!)...

    Yes that annoys me too, although they sometimes have a point. What
    bothers me is when they give a list of facts and discretely mix in
    some of their preferences.

    Quoted message said:

    Yeah, it's interresting if the goal is to stay healthy, but has nothing to
    do with losing weight. Old wisdom is to only tackle a single task at a
    time... Either you're losing weight or you're trying to eat healthy food.

    It's very simple to do both. Healthy foods are often very compatible
    with losing AND gaining weight. Although I must admit I have lost
    weight eating far from a healthy diet (2000 calories of pizza in a day
    is still enough to lose weight for me).

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Storing prepared meals in one-serving-size plastic containers also aids in
    controlling portion size in the land that prizes super-sized, biggie
    everything!

    Following your hunger does that job marvelously. You don't even need to buy
    new plastic containers that will add to existing pollution...

    Not necessarily, it's very easy to eat only when hungry and still
    over-eat. People don't generally have good self-portion-control. Also
    similar meals with slight differences can have vast differences in the
    number of calories in them.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    To reinforce new eating habits, Walsh suggests that you weigh yourself
    about once a week. Since so many women live in mortal fear of stepping on
    the scale, the knowledge that the dreaded event is approaching can help
    keep your eating in check.

    Good advice.

    I weight myself every day straight after getting up in the morning
    then follow the moving average, it seems to be pretty reliable at it
    smooths out the natural variations.

  8. "Nikko" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:


    So what are the three exercises? Got a link to that article?


    Yeah, those are good. I think I'll start adding these in more often. As it
    is I do them only occasionally when they come up in a video, and I do videos
    only when I can't exercise outdoors during daylight hours or the weather is
    bad (like today).

    1. cycle-type ab crunches. I've never heard them called that, more like
    alternating elbow to knee, with opposite leg extended. That is a good one.

    2. Squats, although I prefer the "ass to grass" method I learned on this
    newsgroup. It actually seems to stress my knees less than just going part
    way down, but I suppose it could be different for others.

    3. Pushups. These are tough for me, but they do seem to be quite effective.

    HG

  9. Odell Carmichael <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Small Change, Big Weight-Loss Payoff
    By Karen Berney

    We are a fat nation obsessed with losing weight.

    According to a 1999 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study, 35 percent of
    America's adults (75 million) are slightly or moderately overweight, and 26
    percent (56 million) are obese or grossly overweight. Anyone up to 30
    pounds above the target weight for their body size is overweight, says the
    CDC, and another 30 pounds over target weight is considered obese.

    <snip>

    Quoted message said:


    Take in Less Than You Need
    But losing weight is different from not gaining weight, points out
    Katherine Tallmadge, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the
    American Dietetic Association in Washington, D.C. Assuming your body needs
    2,000 calories a day to meet its energy requirements ? the average for most
    women ? and you consume 300 fewer calories than 2,000 daily, you could shed
    30 pounds a year. That's because your body will take the extra 300 calories
    it needs for energy from stores of fat.

    Now, that may sound extreme, but, Tallmadge, like Hill, believes "small
    changes can make a big difference." Consider this: By halving that 200- to
    300-calorie nightly snack, you could drop 15 pounds a year. Step up your
    level of activity by walking around the office instead of shooting out
    emails nonstop and you could strip away another 100 calories daily, or 10
    pounds a year.

    How to Knock Out Calories
    Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
    do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
    day? The often-repeated formula is to combine eating less calories with
    regular cardiovascular exercise (see Get Fit in As Little As Two Hours a
    Week and weight training (see The Three Exercises You Must Do for a Tighter
    You). Do all three, and you're guaranteed to melt away fat. But be
    forewarned: Your body can only metabolize a certain amount of fat ? 1 to
    1.5 pound(s) a week ? on a low-calorie diet, says Tallmadge. At some point,
    the fat will turn to muscle, which is why you want to build muscle when
    losing weight.

    "You don't have to feel like you are on a diet or depriving yourself when
    eating fewer calories to lose weight," says Tallmadge, author of Diet
    Simple. She has rarely met a woman who cannot lose weight and keep it off
    on 1,800 calories a day, she says, especially if she eats a good breakfast.

    <snip>

    A bit of info about the american dietetic association:

    http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/american_dietetic_association.html

    AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION

    A public policy workshop held in March 2001 was sponsored by American
    Soy Products, California Dried Plum Board, Egg Nutrition Center, Food
    Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Kashi, National
    Soft Drink Association, Sodexho, and Marriott Services. (ADA Courier,
    5/01)

    Published a "Biotechnology Resource Kit," which was funded by the
    Council for Biotechnology Information." (ADA "Dear Member" letter;
    2000)

    [See entry for Council for Biotechnology Information]

    ADA and DuPont have an agreement that enables ADA to place nutrition
    information on the web site http://www.webmd.com/. Dupont is an
    investor in WebMD. (ADA Press Release, 10/16/00)

    In fiscal year 2000, the following companies contributed $10,000 or
    more: BASF Corp., Bristol Myers/Squibb, California Avocado Company,
    The Catfish Institute, ConAgra Foods, DMI Management, EcoLab, Galaxy
    Nutritional Foods, Gerber Products Company, Kellogg, Knoll
    Pharmaceuticals, Lipton, Mars, Inc., Mead Johnson Nutritionals, McNeil
    Consumer Products Company, Monsanto, National Cattlemen's Beef
    Association, National Dairy Council, National Fisheries Institute,
    National Pasta Association, The Peanut Institute, Potato Board,
    Procter & Gamble, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Ross Products Division,
    Abbott Laboratories, Viactiv, Worthington Foods. (ADA/ADAF 2000 Annual
    Report, http://www.eat right.org/; November 11, 2000)

    ADA and American Pharmaceutical Association (pharmacists) announced a
    joint consumer-education program on supplements; it is funded by
    Monsanto Life Sciences Company (press release, 11/8/99).

    The ADA co-produced, with funding from the ConAgra Foundation, a
    packet of information on food safety titled "Home Food Safety: It's in
    Your Hands." (Funding disclosed on packet on file at CSPI, Nov. 1999)

    The American Dietetic Association has announced that it will be
    seeking to endorse food products (Nov.-Dec. 1997 ADA Courier).

    The American Dietetic Association has received funding from numerous
    companies and receives underwriting for "fact sheets" on topics
    related to the companies' products. Major ($100,000+) donors include:
    Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Weight Watchers International, Campbell Soup,
    National Dairy Council, Nestlé USA, Ross Products Division of Abbott
    Labs., Sandoz, Coca-Cola, Florida Department of Citrus, General Mills,
    Monsanto, Nabisco, Procter & Gamble, Uncle Ben's, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.
    (Nov-Dec 1996 ADA Courier)

    The following companies and organizations sponsored information
    sessions at the ADA's 2002 Food and Nutrition Conference, held in
    Philadelphia, PA:

    Almond Board of California
    American Egg Board/Egg Nutrition Center
    Aramark
    ADM Kao LLC
    Balance Bar Company
    ConAgra Foods
    DuPont Protein Technologies
    General Mills
    Gatorade Company
    Gerber Products Company
    H.J. Heinz
    Hormel
    Internationl Food Information Council
    International Life Sciences Institute
    Mars, Inc.
    McNeil Nutritionals
    MET-Rx
    National Cattlemen's Beef Association
    National Dairy Council
    Pharmavite
    Procter and Gamble
    Quaker Oats
    Ross Product Division
    Sodexho Health Care Services
    Sysco Corporation
    United Soybean Board
    United States Potato Board
    Wheat Foods Council
    (http://www.eatright.org/fnce/sponsors02.html; accessed 2/24/03)

    In 2002, the ADA entered into a partnership with Gerber Products
    Company to form the Start Healthy Nutrition Advisory Panel. The panel
    includes both experts from Gerber and ADA.
    (http://www.eatright.com/pr/2002/102102.html; accessed 2/24/03)

    ******

    These people are not interested in your health or weight problem.
    These non-profits are owned by for-profits.

    TC

  10. [email hidden] (The Voice of Reason) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    "Nikko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Of course, if it were that easy, you wouldn't be reading this now. So how
    do you hunker down and continuously knock out those 200 to 300 calories a
    day? The often-repeated formula is to combine eating less calories with
    regular cardiovascular exercise (see Get Fit in As Little As Two Hours a
    Week and weight training (see The Three Exercises You Must Do for a


    Tighter

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You).

    So what are the three exercises? Got a link to that article?

    I haven't seen the article, but I'd guess:
    Bench Press (chest, triceps, shoulders)
    [censored] (legs, lower back, forearms, traps, abs)
    Barbell row (upper back, biceps, forearms)

    The workout regimen was recently posted in the fitness section of
    'Mens Health' (http://www.menshealth.com).

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.