McDonald’s all day breakfast is coming. This is NOT a drill

[crazy canuck]

There was no tradition of teaching "self-control in eating" in the past. On the contrary, my parents' parents were basically made to eat as much as possible. My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!

Don't have to go back as far as your Grandmother.  It was the same when I was growing up.

Again, I don't envision self control so much as "making sure you finish what's on your plate" as limiting snacking after meals or consumption of desserts or junk foods.

Had nothing to do with self control.  We were very active.  I needed every calorie I took in and then some.  Most days I ate 6 large meals and snacked in between.  Malthus made the point best when he said that not only has the type of food we eat changed but our over all level of activity has also dramatically changed.

[Malthus]

Yeah, my rule of thumb is "your body remembers what you do most of the time."

Besides which, there are surely healthier options on the menus of most restaurants.

Yes if we go out to eat we will make sure it is on plan. You should not be cheating on your diet just a month or so in, especially since we intend for this to be a permanent change.

My diet plan allows for one meal a week off the plan (not to go hog-wild, but to eat an ordinary restaurant-type meal, with wine). This is factored in.

If the plan is too rigid, it may be too difficult to keep at long-term; it is dangerous to think of dieting as an activity seperate from ordinary life, rather than a permanent change in one's relationship to eating.

[DGuller]

Not sure why this should be controversial.

It's controversial because it assumes that your body is a dumb container of calories.  It's entirely up to your willpower to control all the inputs and all the outputs.  That's a highly simplistic model of how your body works, and it's counter-productive.  Thankfully, nutritional science is moving away from this claptrap.

If you respect your body and don't put shit food in it, and don't ignore your appetite or lack of it, your body will take care of itself (assuming, of course, that you don't have thyroid disorders and the like).  Most of the time, it really is that simple.  Personally, of all the people I know well enough to know their eating habits, I've never seen a gross exception to this rule.

[Malthus]

Not sure why this should be controversial.

It's controversial because it assumes that your body is a dumb container of calories.  It's entirely up to your willpower to control all the inputs and all the outputs.  That's a highly simplistic model of how your body works, and it's counter-productive.  Thankfully, nutritional science is moving away from this claptrap.

Huh? This "claptrap" actually, you know, works. As anyone can demonstrate for themselves by simply keeping track of their activity and what they eat. 

If you respect your body and don't put shit food in it, and don't ignore your appetite or lack of it, your body will take care of itself (assuming, of course, that you don't have thyroid disorders and the like).  Most of the time, it really is that simple.  Personally, of all the people I know well enough to know their eating habits, I've never seen a gross exception to this rule.

'Listen to your body'. 

Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.

[crazy canuck]

your body will take care of itself

If only that were true.

[Valmy]

If the plan is too rigid, it may be too difficult to keep at long-term; it is dangerous to think of dieting as an activity seperate from ordinary life, rather than a permanent change in one's relationship to eating.

True but our plan is far from rigid. But it does require paying some attention. But even that minimal level of attention is a pretty big shift for us

[Valmy]

Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.

Yep. This is certainly untrue for my experience living here. Sadly.

[DGuller]

Huh? This "claptrap" actually, you know, works. As anyone can demonstrate for themselves by simply keeping track of their activity and what they eat. 

From a systemic point of view, no, it doesn't work.  It works for some people, but the requirements on willpower are both unrealistic and misguided.

Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.

Okay, if you say so.

[Valmy]

From a systemic point of view, no, it doesn't work.  It works for some people, but the requirements on willpower are both unrealistic and misguided.

So long as I am one of those people, I couldn't care less.

[Siege]

That's why it's good to run on a treadmill that tells you how many calories you've burned (even though I concede those probably aren't that accurate).  It's kind of eye opening to feel like you've busted your ass for a bit only to look at the display and see you've only burned 200 calories.

Modern treadmills are accurate within 5%. You have to make sure you enter the correct amount for your body weight.
And I burn 1000 calories in under and hour. About 1100 in an hour to be exact.

The problem is that some people think that 4 MPH is running. That just the standard foot march speed in the infantry.
The minimum speed I recomend to catch your breath is 6 MPH, and only for about a quarter mile, because longer than that might affect negatively your knees and anckles. And 6 MPH breath catching should only be after you are done with your first two miles at combat speed.

And with the elyptical, I see people at the gym going really fast, but their resistance setting is like, under 5, so they will never burn 850 calories in one hour. They do one hour and got less than 200 calories burnt, because low resistance is just like walking.

[Malthus]

Huh? This "claptrap" actually, you know, works. As anyone can demonstrate for themselves by simply keeping track of their activity and what they eat. 

From a systemic point of view, no, it doesn't work.  It works for some people, but the requirements on willpower are both unrealistic and misguided.

Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.

Okay, if you say so.

Okay, so what - besides eating slightly less than required by your metabolism and activity level - is actually "realistic" and is "well-guided" from a "systemic point of view" for reducing weight to normal if one happens to be overweight?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[crazy canuck]

Huh? This "claptrap" actually, you know, works. As anyone can demonstrate for themselves by simply keeping track of their activity and what they eat. 

From a systemic point of view, no, it doesn't work.  It works for some people, but the requirements on willpower are both unrealistic and misguided.

Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.

Okay, if you say so.

Okay, so what - besides eating slightly less than required by your metabolism and activity level - is actually "realistic" and is "well-guided" from a "systemic point of view" for reducing weight to normal if one happens to be overweight?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Don't worry about it.  Your body knows what it is doing.

At least that is what I understood DGuller to be saying.

[DGuller]

Okay, so what - besides eating slightly less than required by your metabolism and activity level - is actually "realistic" and is "well-guided" from a "systemic point of view" for reducing weight to normal if one happens to be overweight?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Cut sugar consumption drastically.  Just stay away from it.  That's the one substance that your hunger mechanism is completely ill-suited to regulate, and worse still, sugar consumption stimulates further appetite.

[alfred russel]

That's why it's good to run on a treadmill that tells you how many calories you've burned (even though I concede those probably aren't that accurate).  It's kind of eye opening to feel like you've busted your ass for a bit only to look at the display and see you've only burned 200 calories.

The classic story is the guy spending 25 minutes on an elliptical, burning 250 calories, drinking a recovery shake with 400 calories, and wondering why he isn't losing weight.

A few months ago I did a hot chocolate run that had both 5k and 15k. After the race you got a cup of hot chocolate, with chocolate covered pretzels and a banana that could be dipped in a cup of chocolate and marshmellows. Someone who ran the 5k almost certain ended up on the wrong end of the calorie burned/calories consumed divide. Even before drinking any sports drinks they had at all the water stations, which are loaded with calories.

[Barrister]

My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!

That's the way I grew up.  The punishment was generally "you'll sit there until you finish that food!" so it wasn't like I was beaten or anything.

I had to "clean my plate" when I was a kid.  I try to make sure my kids eat everything on their plates, but that's mainly because I don't want them bugging me two hours later that they're hungry.

We have to be sure to keep their unfinished plates of food off to the side because invariably they come up to us an hour later saying they're hungry (after barely even picking at their supper).