To lose weight, do the math

[steven johnson]

Counting calories works.

To lose weight, do the math
Fri 22 May 2009
Los Angeles Times
By Jeannine Stein
Multiple Page View
To lose weight, calculate the calories you need to consume based onyour age and gender -- then factor in how many you actually burn.

It isn't difficult, requiring little more than a calculator. Theequations produce numbers that fit the population average, so considerthem a starting point.

The simplest way to calculate calorie needs is to multiply currentweight by 11 through 15, which gives a range of calories needed tomaintain that weight.

So a 150-pound woman who wants to stay at that weight would need toeat 1,650 to 2,250 calories. Why the difference? If her activity levelis high (exercising vigorously every day), she can eat more becauseshe's burning more. If she wants to lose weight, she's going to haveto cut calories.

Because a pound of fat equals about 3,500 calories, cutting 500calories a day will mean one pound lost in a week, a reasonableamount. But eating less isn't the only way to slim down. To cut 500calories a day, you also can cut calories by 250 and do a workout thatburns 250 calories.


http://mobile.newsday.com/inf/infomo;JSESSIONID=D26729955EADBCE78F8E.2417?view=health+item&feed:a=newsday_10min&feed:c=health&feed:i=47081363&nopaging=1

[Tobin S.]

1. There are other factors

I agree that cutting calories will make you lose weight, but you also will need to change the way you eat, not just eat less of the same kind of food. I know that from experience. I used to eat a diet high in sugar and fat. I lost 50 pounds just by cutting the amount of food I ate, but I was eating the same kind of diet- high in sugar and fat. I found that I could not get below 237 pounds on that diet. I was eating what seemed like a a very small amount of food, but I was consuming more calories than I thought. They were just empty calories that didn't do anything for me aside from giving me a quick boost. Then they would let me down and I'd be hungry again a short time after I ate. I spent a lot of time being hungry on that diet even though I couldn't lose any more weight.

If you cut the sugar and fat and eat whole grain foods, low fat protein, and veggies, as well as cutting calories, you will do a lot better. But it's got to be something that you can stick with forever. You have to permanently change the way you eat.

[AllieB]

2. It's not as simple as calories-in, calories-out and exercise.

Insulin is linked to obesity and a variety of diseases of civilization like diabetes. The whole low fat/low cal trend began from flawed research believing that high cholesterol and fat consumption was the cause of heart disease:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

If fat consumption caused heart disease, then the French, who eat more saturated fat than any other country, should be dropping like flies from heart attacks. They have th elowest levels of heart disease in the world.

Carbohydrates drive insulin, which drives fat accumulation and henceforth obesity.

Doing the right kind of exercise is key, and it isn't an hour of cardio a day:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio/

I was a competitive runner, and gained weight because I wasn't eating a proper diet (enough protein and fat). HIIT helps build muscle, along with a weight lifting regimen, and allows you to burn fat more effectively. It boosts your metabolism. Here's an argument against exercise. While I agree with most of his diet research (as outlined in 'Good Calories Bad Calories'), I do think exercise has benefit:

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

[steven johnson]

3. The World Health Organization says it's just that simple

I collected 2 years of data on myself testing various hypotheses on weight gain and loss. Calories counted. Fat intake, exercise and water intake were inconsequential.

World class researchers agree.

A study of the US obesity “epidemic” — a precursor of world dietary trends — suggests that there has not been any significant reduction in levels of exercise in the past 30 years. It concludes that the surge in obesity is a result of excessive calories.

Health professionals and campaigners welcomed the latest findings, presented at the European Congress on Obesity in Amsterdam, as evidence of the need to focus on diet and the availability and overpromotion of highly calorific foods.

Professor Boyd Swinburn, chairman of population health at Deakin University, said that the findings would be similar for other developed countries in showing that changes in exercise played a minimal role. “This is a call to focus public health attention more on the energy intake side,” he said. “There is no evidence that a marked reduction in physical activity has been a contributor to this epidemic.”

He said that US children had grown on average 9lb heavier and adults were 17lb more. For the US population to return to leaner 1970s levels children would have to cut their intake by about 350 calories a day — equal to a can of fizzy drink and a small portion of fries, and adults by about 500 calories — about the same as a Big Mac burger. Alternatively children would have to walk an extra 2½ hours a day, and adults nearly two hours. “Getting everybody to walk an extra two hours a day is not really a feasible option for countering the epidemic.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6250968.ece

[AllieB]

4. In a way this article is consistent with Taubes' findings that diet not exercise

is the key to weight loss. I also don't give much credence to world bodies that make pronouncements about what causes obesity, since they got us in this mess to begin with (see Ancel Keys video above).

The difference between the 1970s and now is the quality of food and the increase of sugar and carbohydrate consumption, in addition to HFCS. The examples noted in your article: Fizzy drinks (sugar), french fries (high carb/glycemic) and a Big Mac (poor quality beef, white bread, fried in polyunsaturated oils) are examples of an insulin high ball. All those low fat/low cal foods that became the rage in the 1980s and are still the mainstays of the diet industry here in the US are loaded with sugar and refined carbs. There's no wonder that diabetes and obesity has increased tenfold since the push

I have also collected data on weight loss and muscle gain on myself, and others. Everyone's different, so what works for you or me may not work for others.

My diet involves eating nothing that comes in a package or has to be altered from its natural state for human consumption so it can be digested/isn't poisonous(grains). I eat the way my grandparents did, and they lived into their 90s (my grandpa was almost 100). When my nana would try to lose her excess 5 lbs, she'd 'cut the starch and sweets'. That was common knowledge in the older generations, and there were very few obese people in those generations.

Here's another research article from Purdue University:

Findings Show Insulin - Not Genes - Linked To Obesity

"Researchers have uncovered new evidence suggesting factors other than genes could cause obesity, finding that genetically identical cells store widely differing amounts of fat depending on subtle variations in how cells process insulin.

Learning the precise mechanism responsible for fat storage in cells could lead to methods for controlling obesity."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/146140.php