- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is it so hard for most people to lose weight?
Posted on 7/23/18 at 9:45 am to theunknownknight
Posted on 7/23/18 at 9:45 am to theunknownknight
Sugar is addicting and makes you more hungry.
People just dont want to do it. I broke it off with this girl. Nice girl, but she would start a diet and not make it a week before giving up. I just couldnt be with her knowing she would just keep getting bigger because she had no self-control.
People just dont want to do it. I broke it off with this girl. Nice girl, but she would start a diet and not make it a week before giving up. I just couldnt be with her knowing she would just keep getting bigger because she had no self-control.
This post was edited on 7/23/18 at 9:47 am
Posted on 7/23/18 at 9:51 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
Yes. I’ve been trying to lose 20 pounds for 15 years
You can easily lose that in water weight alone.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 9:52 am to dgnx6
20 pounds of water weight? How long would that take?
Posted on 7/23/18 at 9:54 am to Paul Allen
quote:
20 pounds of water weight? How long would that take?
3 days if you do it right.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:05 am to fallguy_1978
quote:
No shite. My water bill is $150-$180 a month and my Kentwood bill is $50 a month
you checked for leaks bro?
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:05 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
There's 7 days in a week. Let's say you eat as you described 3 days a week. That's nearly 50% of the time that you eat like shite, but you don't lose weight because your body is different? That's a bullshite excuse you've rationalized because you want to eat pizza and drink beer.
I eat like that maybe once or twice out of 2 weeks. But you know, don't listen to me at all because clearly you know everything.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:10 am to QJenk
quote:
I eat like that maybe once or twice out of 2 weeks
You said you eat pizza once a week so just by that your statement can't be true.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:10 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
olgoi khorkhoi
You’re saying exactly what you think you’re not. You’re saying it’s nearly impossible to overeat “good foods”. Guess what that means? EATING AT A CALORIE DEFICIT
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:11 am to Mingo Was His NameO
Everybody's body is different. I don't know why that is so hard for some people to accept. The path to losing weight does not look the same for everyone, and that is ok.
I do something which works for me. As I said, if I was willing to stick to one of those very strict diets, I could possibly lose more. The issue is those aren't sustainable for me.
I do something which works for me. As I said, if I was willing to stick to one of those very strict diets, I could possibly lose more. The issue is those aren't sustainable for me.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:12 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
You said you eat pizza once a week so just by that your statement can't be true.
I clearly said once every other week.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:16 am to QJenk
quote:
Everybody's body is different. I don't know why that is so hard for some people to accept. The path to losing weight does not look the same for everyone, and that is ok.
Eat less than you burn. That number for everyone is different but it's just a different way to skin a cat.
quote:
I do something which works for me. As I said, if I was willing to stick to one of those very strict diets, I could possibly lose more. The issue is those aren't sustainable for me.
So it's mental not physical.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:17 am to theunknownknight
Refusal to modify diet sensibly seems to me to be the biggest factor. It really doesn’t require difficult sacrifice, in my opinion.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:32 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
So it's mental not physical.
It is absolutely mental. But we are fooling ourselves if we don't think physical doesn't play a part at all.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:34 am to QJenk
quote:
It is absolutely mental. But we are fooling ourselves if we don't think physical doesn't play a part at all.
IMO the brain controls the muscles. If the brain doesn't want, the muscles do exactly go into FU mode and work outside the box.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:39 am to 50_Tiger
Eating became a social activity and/or something people do for enjoyment rather than necessity, hence people gravitate towards foods that taste good rather than simply eating to stay alive.
Our diet is vastly out of sync with what we should be eating because we are absolutely inundated with stuff that's bad for us whereas you actually have to put in some effort to maintain a healthy diet.
That said, I wouldn't necessarily say skinny people are always eating a healthy diet and heavier people are always pigging out. Genetics has a lot to do with it.
Our diet is vastly out of sync with what we should be eating because we are absolutely inundated with stuff that's bad for us whereas you actually have to put in some effort to maintain a healthy diet.
That said, I wouldn't necessarily say skinny people are always eating a healthy diet and heavier people are always pigging out. Genetics has a lot to do with it.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:40 am to LouisianaLady
quote:
You’re saying exactly what you think you’re not. You’re saying it’s nearly impossible to overeat “good foods”. Guess what that means? EATING AT A CALORIE DEFICIT
That’s a gross over-simplification of what I’m saying. I’m taking issue with the “just count calories” aproach or the statement weight loss is as simple as taking in less calories than you burn”. This is a far too simple “physics” approach that completely ignores the complexities of biology.
It assumes that every calorie that you put into your mouth is absorbed by the body and that your body will react the same to different calories. Neither is true. It completely ignores the health and respective roles of the digestive or endocrine system. In short, you can count calories, completely frick up your body, adding fat or worse, and still not run a deficit.
You do have to run a deficit, to “lose weight” but again, weight is irrelevant. People want to lose fat, not necessarily weight. I’m saying the body can manage that on it on it’s own when you are eating the right things, even if you are taking food into your mouth at a caloric surplus. Some of that is excreted and not absorbed. When the diet and hormone levels are correct, the body burns fat and maintains or adds muscle. If you lose more weight in fat than you gain in muscle, you have “lost weight”, if you gain more muscle than fat lost, you have gained weight, but gaining muscle naturally will make you look and feel better, so who cares?
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:42 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
even if you are taking food into your mouth at a caloric surplus
So if you are eating more calories than you burn you will not gain fat is what you are saying?
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:48 am to Mingo Was His NameO
You don't understand his post at all...
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:48 am to VOR
I'll go against the grain, a large part of the problem is knowledge.
The first law of thermodynamics always applies, burn more calories than you take in. However, it's most sustainable if you're able to feel full while operating at a caloric deficit - that part is mostly knowledge.
The first major kink in this knowledge is systemic - the promotion of 'low fat' diets to lose weight, this narrative was pushed by many organizations and is not being retracted even as we know better and more studies show we've just spent the last 30 years with our collective heads up our collective arses.
This just makes losing weight harder, especially if you start dumping fats for fruits and starches with a lot of sugar (and the entire time thinking you're being healthy).
An example of this is yogurt. To be fit they introduced low fat yogurt. Of course, this didn't sell because the fat was the tasty part of yogurt. So, they introduced the "fruit on the bottom" yogurts with both the sugars from the fruits and added sugar. All to replace the taste that was lost when the fat was pulled. T
Unfortunately, I have that disease that prescribes me a handy meter to know within a few hours if I'm taking in too much sugar (or quickly converting starches to sugar - which is a little more tricky). It also means I usually know, to an annoying level, what the macronutrient balance is for just about any meal I'm taking in. It's amazing the difference in satiation that different meals can provide; while all being similar in caloric intake, cost, and effort.
The first law of thermodynamics always applies, burn more calories than you take in. However, it's most sustainable if you're able to feel full while operating at a caloric deficit - that part is mostly knowledge.
The first major kink in this knowledge is systemic - the promotion of 'low fat' diets to lose weight, this narrative was pushed by many organizations and is not being retracted even as we know better and more studies show we've just spent the last 30 years with our collective heads up our collective arses.
This just makes losing weight harder, especially if you start dumping fats for fruits and starches with a lot of sugar (and the entire time thinking you're being healthy).
An example of this is yogurt. To be fit they introduced low fat yogurt. Of course, this didn't sell because the fat was the tasty part of yogurt. So, they introduced the "fruit on the bottom" yogurts with both the sugars from the fruits and added sugar. All to replace the taste that was lost when the fat was pulled. T
Unfortunately, I have that disease that prescribes me a handy meter to know within a few hours if I'm taking in too much sugar (or quickly converting starches to sugar - which is a little more tricky). It also means I usually know, to an annoying level, what the macronutrient balance is for just about any meal I'm taking in. It's amazing the difference in satiation that different meals can provide; while all being similar in caloric intake, cost, and effort.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:52 am to Displaced
quote:
You don't understand his post at all...
I understand his big on hormones and he's talking more about health than strictly fat loss, but I don't understand completely what he's saying. If I lay in bed all day and eat boneless skinless chicken breast I can absolutely be a fatass.
Popular
Back to top


0









