Printable View
You are looking at that the wrong way. Switching soda for water isn't a diet cheat, it's the easiest, best possible lifestyle change Druff can make. Like, its a permanent change that can make him lose and keep off weight, not something he has to keep track of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrigan
I'm seeing ALOT of shitty advice coming from people in this thread... I can't really give you advice about how to be "healthier" but I will give you advice on losing weight. I am no 408mike, but did weigh at my heaviest (last Jan) 305lb. Vegas gave me some great advice that took me sometime to follow, but eventually I did and now I weigh an okay 215lb almost a year later (will be a year on the 25th), will be back to my normal weight of 200lb by march.
- Go online and find out what your maintenance calorie intake should be (100s of calculators, I suggest you use 2-3 and take the average)
- Now knowing that you need to cut, 3500 in cal to lose 1 full lb, do the simple math. If your number is 2400 and you subtract 500 a day this will be 1lb a week you will lose (this includes working out, or just straight cutting calories). Most grown adult males should NOT go below 1400 cals a day (ladies 1200).
- Go walk around with your son, any extra calories burned will help your end goal.
- Calories are calories, so if you want to use up your whole 2400 (or whatever your number is) on ice cream, go for it! However, this will counter your "healthy" side, and also you will lose muscle so much faster. The goal is to keep as much lean muscle and losing fat. High protein and carbs are good for you, so is a little fat. To much fat and you're fucked. Not enough muscle, and you won't lose fat lbs fast enough.
- I know you said you won't give up the soda thing, but soda even diet, promotes your mind into wanting sugar, which is usually high calorie count snack etc. Just cut that shit dude, if anything drink Gatorade, but do a mix of 12 oz of Gatorade and 8-10oz of cold (ICE COLD if you can borrow marty's AC) water. It taste better, will curb your sugar need, and will take up less cals.
- If you don't feel "full" that's just your body adjusting to calorie intake. If you must eat something VEGGIES. steamed, grilled, cold... whatever, just eat veggies. Force yourself till you are "full". (Also take note, calorie count. However, 1oz of broc is only 9cals so a pound will only dock you 144cals, and the health benefits are amazing. Also, if you are still hungry after a meal and a 1lb of broc, you prob have some issues where you should seek medical help)
This is not 408 approved, if you want to ask him he'll just tell you to take some steroids and test. Goodluck sir!
Agreed, cutting out sugar based drinks is the easiest. I drink soda water and squeeze a lime in it, zero calories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe DiddlyYou are looking at that the wrong way. Switching soda for water isn't a diet cheat, it's the easiest, best possible lifestyle change Druff can make. Like, its a permanent change that can make him lose and keep off weight, not something he has to keep track of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrigan
It's all about common sense. For instance, I went to a Mexican restaurant. I got a large portion of fajitas. I stayed away from the chips / salsa and the beans and rice. I was perfectly full when I left, whereas others were basically commenting on how bloated they were. They ate 2X the amount of calories I ate.
You want a 1/4 pounder from McDonalds? Fine. Stay away from the Coke and fries you are at 500 calories versus 1,100. You'll be just as full.
You want a steak, fine, keep it to 8 ounces and get a side of asparagus and small potato with a tad of butter. Versus a 12 ounce steak with a loaded baked potato and a wedge of bread and a salad with 400 calories worth of Ranch dressing. You are at 800 calories versus 2000.
The problem is not the foods we eat. It's the fact we gorge, especially at dinner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_PHAAgreed, cutting out sugar based drinks is the easiest. I drink soda water and squeeze a lime in it, zero calories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
It's all about common sense. For instance, I went to a Mexican restaurant. I got a large portion of fajitas. I stayed away from the chips / salsa and the beans and rice. I was perfectly full when I left, whereas others were basically commenting on how bloated they were. They ate 2X the amount of calories I ate.
You want a 1/4 pounder from McDonalds? Fine. Stay away from the Coke and fries you are at 500 calories versus 1,100. You'll be just as full.
You want a steak, fine, keep it to 8 ounces and get a side of asparagus and small potato with a tad of butter. Versus a 12 ounce steak with a loaded baked potato and a wedge of bread and a salad with 400 calories worth of Ranch dressing. You are at 800 calories versus 2000.
The problem is not the foods we eat. It's the fact we gorge, especially at dinner.
The best part about this is that your stomach will 'resize' in a coupe of days so after eating that smalller meal, at the end, you will feel just as full as the previous one.
Oh and in case you are looking for a great snack or something a little extra after the meal try this:
140 cal and 1.5g fat per sandwich and they taste great!
Isn't that resizing stomach thing bullshit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe DiddlyYou are looking at that the wrong way. Switching soda for water isn't a diet cheat, it's the easiest, best possible lifestyle change Druff can make. Like, its a permanent change that can make him lose and keep off weight, not something he has to keep track of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrigan
Yeah that is one way to look at it. But if he wants to diet/lose weight and still have a few sodas a week tracking works for that. I can see it both ways. For me, tracking worked well, because then no foods were off limits as long as I hit my daily calories - I was guaranteed to lose weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by handicapme
yeah this is what I did. Eating a lot of veggies, etc. helps with your body feeling full. The thing is your body will fight you on this - it does not want to lose weight, but a small deficit (500-1000 cals/day) combined with foods that are satiating (veggies, protein rich foods) helps deal with that
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorriganQuote:
Originally Posted by handicapme
yeah this is what I did. Eating a lot of veggies, etc. helps with your body feeling full. The thing is your body will fight you on this - it does not want to lose weight, but a small deficit (500-1000 cals/day) combined with foods that are satiating (veggies, protein rich foods) helps deal with that
It's really that simple. No fad diets, or anything in that regard. Just watch your calorie count (intake), attempt to eat healthy, and be active (remember any extra calorie burn will help with your cal deficit). If this doesn't work for you, than you should be seeking medical attention as your weight gain or lack there of could be for another reason.
Uhh...no.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ_Chaps
You are just a treasure trove of useful mis-information.Quote:
Still, studies have shown that significantly reducing caloric intake does produce measurable reductions in a person’s stomach capacity.
In one study, for example, scientists recruited a small group of obese men and women and split them into two groups: one that ate freely, and another that was put on a highly restricted diet that included small meals totaling less than 1,000 calories a day. The scientists used latex balloons to measure stomach capacity at the start of the study, and then four weeks later.
Among the dieters, gastric capacity was reduced 27 percent to 36 percent, on average, depending on how it was measured. There was no significant change in the control group.
This effect goes both ways: repeated intake of large meals, and bingeing in particular, increases stomach capacity. In some studies, including one in 2001, scientists found that normal-weight binge eaters tended to develop greater stomach capacities than obese subjects of comparable age and sex. And when groups of obese subjects are split into binge eaters and others, the binge groups show larger stomach capacities as well.
Twice in my life I've lost huge amounts of weight in a few months.
First time: healthy eating (vegetarian, wholefoods, no junk), some running, weights 80 pounds lost in 7 months
Second time: healthy eating (high quality protein, wholefoods, no junk), walking, 100 pounds lost in 8 months
No crank stuff, no extreme exercising. Never counted calories.
If only I could keep to that lifestyle longterm but that's another story.
Basic equation is as pointed out by others, to sustain a regular calorie deficit, but if you eat clean and increase your activity a little then that should becomes relatively easy and natural.
Fuck, have nearly inspired myself.
I use direct labs https://www.directlabs.com/Home/CWP/...S/Default.aspxQuote:
Originally Posted by BCR
Cheaper and much easier to navigate I couldnt even find a complete wellness check. I typed it in search and nothing. Every month they have a few tests as specials so I got there Comprehensive wellness test thats $97 for like $59 or $69.
You dont think he knows this already? Do you think telling him to stop drinking calories is some revelation or something. Your insulting druffs intelligence by telling him this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe DiddlyUm, the most popular opinion so far has been to drop the sugary drinks entirely for water. That's not bullshit, and the effect that cutting it out makes happens so fast that nobody needs to be brainwashed into saying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadyJ
You can always you good natural sweetners if you need to.
Heres 3 that are sweeter then sugar and your body doesnt matabloize them.
Stevia
Arithatol
Xilatol
Stevis is the easiest to find its in every grocery store. Sometimes they will just have Truvia which use Stevia but they wont say exactly everything thats in it, so I stay away from it.
Yesterday made these deliscous peanut butter cups
Pure cocoa powder, chocolate whey protein powder, Stevia, water, and healthy Peanut Butter. If your like me and crave chocolate mixing some pure cocoa powder with stevia will help with cravings. When you eat chocolate your brain releases dopamine and serotonin which is why you crave it. The Cocoa will give you the release without all the calories. 5-HTP is also good for cravings but havent tried it so I cant confirm that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOyEKvlp7c
Theres high carb diets, low carb diets, high fat diets, low fat diets. The one diet I've never heard of is a high calorie diet. In the end its all the really matters for losing weight. You just have to eat foods with a low caloric value. Its that easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadyJI use direct labs https://www.directlabs.com/Home/CWP/...S/Default.aspxQuote:
Originally Posted by BCR
Cheaper and much easier to navigate I couldnt even find a complete wellness check. I typed it in search and nothing. Every month they have a few tests as specials so I got there Comprehensive wellness test thats $97 for like $59 or $69.
I have used directlabs before also. I actually linked them first, but couldn't remember why I stopped using them so I used the privatemd link, which usually has a coupon somewhere online which brings them down to that $60-$70 range. Maybe anonymity, maybe a certain test wasn't available, maybe location of labs? I can't recall the exact reason. I am kind of a self-monitoring freak, so I have used a lot of them.
My larger point is a bit off topic and I probably should have made it a different thread, but since we are talking about general health and a few mentioned results of tests, I don't trust a lot of what is going on with this hybrid health care system at the moment. I know for a fact that information is being consolidated on the state level regarding individuals' health histories in a big way. Very big brotherish, and I'm not a government alarmist/conspiracy theorist in the slightest. This is logical, and will provide efficiency and cost savings in the future, but is also something to think about. If we were a single payer system, it wouldn't matter, but this hybrid system is going to create some future dilemmas. There will be a time in the next 5 years when someone will be visiting Las Vegas on vacation, get strep and see a doctor, and he'll know about a case of pneumonia you had in 1981 in Enid, Oklahoma. It's getting that consolidated. This is good in many ways, but not in all ways. It prevents drug interactions, multiple tests for the same condition, doctor shopping, etc. The caveat is anything negative will also stay with you forever.
When I was 16, you simply signed up for auto insurance and got a rate dependent on male or female. Your age or gender made it a little more expensive than a 35 year old, but that was logical. Pure actuary science. Now, when you go to sign up for auto insurance, a full credit check is ran and your rate is dependent on that, along with driving history. Bad credit score, they don't care about driving history, they don't want you. I'm talking top line companies. The high risk will take your money.
When I was 18, if you wanted a shitty job working at like a McDonald's, there was an application which wanted to know if you graduated hs, had a felony conviction, and wanted 3 names and phone numbers to make sure you weren't a serial killer. Rarely did they even call the references.
Now, the most menial of jobs have a full background check. I had a friend with a 7 year old drug paraphernalia misdemeanor get hired, but then rejected from a Dollar General a few months ago.
If they are going to these lengths to prevent a bad auto accident, or an employee with a hand in the till who likes to smoke weed, what lengths are they willing to go in health insurance where decisions are worth millions on one person? You can cite Hippa laws and whatever, but the problem is people sign those rights away. You want any job at this point, you sign a consent for them to background check you. You want auto insurance from a good company, you consent to a credit check. You don't think you'll consent in the future to get health insurance? To a degree you always have, but now they have all the information. No shading grey areas. You can't answer no when they ask if you smoke and leave out that you did for 10 years back in your 20's. They'll have that file from the time.
Having had cancer first over a decade ago, and having been perfectly healthy for 6 years now, with multiple doctors saying I have no higher chance of recurrence than an average person, I still pay around $25k extra a year for good health insurance, and I'm in great fucking shape otherwise. Doesn't matter, I'm essentially tiered into a high risk group.
This site is getting a bit older, but most have probably not had major issues as of yet. Think of it this way. If you rear end someone, and it comes to $400, most know that it's easier to pay out of pocket than make a claim even with a low deductible. Why have it haunt your record, it's $400? You should view self-testing and health care with the same mindset, except add a lot of zeros and a lifelong trail rather than the past 4 that your auto insurance cares about. Don't show up 75lbs overweight with a 300 cholesterol reading to your family doctor. It may well come back to bite you in the ass 10 years from now regardless if you have rectified the issue and are presently healthy. They will take note of your present condition, but they'll also take note of what you once were, and that will cost you.
The problem with keeping the weight off is the fact that you have to eat 20% less calories at that weight then you would have if you never gained the weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiganer
ex: 170 pound man eats 2k calories a day to maintain that weight forever.
Now that man gained 30 pounds realized it dieted and got back to 170 lbs.
So now he can eat 2k calories again to stay that weight right?
Unfortunately not you must eat 20% fewer calories to keep the same weight you could eat 2k calories at.
Thats why we gain it back. It has to do with the amount of Leptin levels in our bodies.
So if you were never fat its much easier to stay not fat, but if you gained weight then lost it its much easier to put it back on.
That is some scary shit! We really are living in Orwell's 1984.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRQuote:
Originally Posted by ShadyJ
I have used directlabs before also. I actually linked them first, but couldn't remember why I stopped using them so I used the privatemd link, which usually has a coupon somewhere online which brings them down to that $60-$70 range. Maybe anonymity, maybe a certain test wasn't available, maybe location of labs? I can't recall the exact reason. I am kind of a self-monitoring freak, so I have used a lot of them.
My larger point is a bit off topic and I probably should have made it a different thread, but since we are talking about general health and a few mentioned results of tests, I don't trust a lot of what is going on with this hybrid health care system at the moment. I know for a fact that information is being consolidated on the state level regarding individuals' health histories in a big way. Very big brotherish, and I'm not a government alarmist/conspiracy theorist in the slightest. This is logical, and will provide efficiency and cost savings in the future, but is also something to think about. If we were a single payer system, it wouldn't matter, but this hybrid system is going to create some future dilemmas. There will be a time in the next 5 years when someone will be visiting Las Vegas on vacation, get strep and see a doctor, and he'll know about a case of pneumonia you had in 1981 in Enid, Oklahoma. It's getting that consolidated. This is good in many ways, but not in all ways. It prevents drug interactions, multiple tests for the same condition, doctor shopping, etc. The caveat is anything negative will also stay with you forever.
When I was 16, you simply signed up for auto insurance and got a rate dependent on male or female. Your age or gender made it a little more expensive than a 35 year old, but that was logical. Pure actuary science. Now, when you go to sign up for auto insurance, a full credit check is ran and your rate is dependent on that, along with driving history. Bad credit score, they don't care about driving history, they don't want you. I'm talking top line companies. The high risk will take your money.
When I was 18, if you wanted a shitty job working at like a McDonald's, there was an application which wanted to know if you graduated hs, had a felony conviction, and wanted 3 names and phone numbers to make sure you weren't a serial killer. Rarely did they even call the references.
Now, the most menial of jobs have a full background check. I had a friend with a 7 year old drug paraphernalia misdemeanor get hired, but then rejected from a Dollar General a few months ago.
If they are going to these lengths to prevent a bad auto accident, or an employee with a hand in the till who likes to smoke weed, what lengths are they willing to go in health insurance where decisions are worth millions on one person? You can cite Hippa laws and whatever, but the problem is people sign those rights away. You want any job at this point, you sign a consent for them to background check you. You want auto insurance from a good company, you consent to a credit check. You don't think you'll consent in the future to get health insurance? To a degree you always have, but now they have all the information. No shading grey areas. You can't answer no when they ask if you smoke and leave out that you did for 10 years back in your 20's. They'll have that file from the time.
Having had cancer first over a decade ago, and having been perfectly healthy for 6 years now, with multiple doctors saying I have no higher chance of recurrence than an average person, I still pay around $25k extra a year for good health insurance, and I'm in great fucking shape otherwise. Doesn't matter, I'm essentially tiered into a high risk group.
This site is getting a bit older, but most have probably not had major issues as of yet. Think of it this way. If you rear end someone, and it comes to $400, most know that it's easier to pay out of pocket than make a claim even with a low deductible. Why have it haunt your record, it's $400? You should view self-testing and health care with the same mindset, except add a lot of zeros and a lifelong trail rather than the past 4 that your auto insurance cares about. Don't show up 75lbs overweight with a 300 cholesterol reading to your family doctor. It may well come back to bite you in the ass 10 years from now regardless if you have rectified the issue and are presently healthy. They will take note of your present condition, but they'll also take note of what you once were, and that will cost you.
Thats a whole other subject, but the credit checks with getting a job is fucked up. Your better off being a felon with good credit then being a non felon with bad credit. The worse thing you can ever do in your life is fuck your credit up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCRQuote:
Originally Posted by ShadyJ
I have used directlabs before also. I actually linked them first, but couldn't remember why I stopped using them so I used the privatemd link, which usually has a coupon somewhere online which brings them down to that $60-$70 range. Maybe anonymity, maybe a certain test wasn't available, maybe location of labs? I can't recall the exact reason. I am kind of a self-monitoring freak, so I have used a lot of them.
My larger point is a bit off topic and I probably should have made it a different thread, but since we are talking about general health and a few mentioned results of tests, I don't trust a lot of what is going on with this hybrid health care system at the moment. I know for a fact that information is being consolidated on the state level regarding individuals' health histories in a big way. Very big brotherish, and I'm not a government alarmist/conspiracy theorist in the slightest. This is logical, and will provide efficiency and cost savings in the future, but is also something to think about. If we were a single payer system, it wouldn't matter, but this hybrid system is going to create some future dilemmas. There will be a time in the next 5 years when someone will be visiting Las Vegas on vacation, get strep and see a doctor, and he'll know about a case of pneumonia you had in 1981 in Enid, Oklahoma. It's getting that consolidated. This is good in many ways, but not in all ways. It prevents drug interactions, multiple tests for the same condition, doctor shopping, etc. The caveat is anything negative will also stay with you forever.
When I was 16, you simply signed up for auto insurance and got a rate dependent on male or female. Your age or gender made it a little more expensive than a 35 year old, but that was logical. Pure actuary science. Now, when you go to sign up for auto insurance, a full credit check is ran and your rate is dependent on that, along with driving history. Bad credit score, they don't care about driving history, they don't want you. I'm talking top line companies. The high risk will take your money.
When I was 18, if you wanted a shitty job working at like a McDonald's, there was an application which wanted to know if you graduated hs, had a felony conviction, and wanted 3 names and phone numbers to make sure you weren't a serial killer. Rarely did they even call the references.
Now, the most menial of jobs have a full background check. I had a friend with a 7 year old drug paraphernalia misdemeanor get hired, but then rejected from a Dollar General a few months ago.
If they are going to these lengths to prevent a bad auto accident, or an employee with a hand in the till who likes to smoke weed, what lengths are they willing to go in health insurance where decisions are worth millions on one person? You can cite Hippa laws and whatever, but the problem is people sign those rights away. You want any job at this point, you sign a consent for them to background check you. You want auto insurance from a good company, you consent to a credit check. You don't think you'll consent in the future to get health insurance? To a degree you always have, but now they have all the information. No shading grey areas. You can't answer no when they ask if you smoke and leave out that you did for 10 years back in your 20's. They'll have that file from the time.
Having had cancer first over a decade ago, and having been perfectly healthy for 6 years now, with multiple doctors saying I have no higher chance of recurrence than an average person, I still pay around $25k extra a year for good health insurance, and I'm in great fucking shape otherwise. Doesn't matter, I'm essentially tiered into a high risk group.
This site is getting a bit older, but most have probably not had major issues as of yet. Think of it this way. If you rear end someone, and it comes to $400, most know that it's easier to pay out of pocket than make a claim even with a low deductible. Why have it haunt your record, it's $400? You should view self-testing and health care with the same mindset, except add a lot of zeros and a lifelong trail rather than the past 4 that your auto insurance cares about. Don't show up 75lbs overweight with a 300 cholesterol reading to your family doctor. It may well come back to bite you in the ass 10 years from now regardless if you have rectified the issue and are presently healthy. They will take note of your present condition, but they'll also take note of what you once were, and that will cost you.
P90X works!