Weight loss pills and scams

[minidancer]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/diet-fitness/dr-oz-effect-senators-scold-mehmet-oz-diet-scams-n133226

Dr. Oz is the subject of some nasty criticisms these days, and in my humble opinion, for good reason. I hate to see someone prey on people's emotions. What do you think? Have you ever used a diet supplement that *worked?*

I try my best not to overthink calorie intake. I have too many friends who have struggled/are struggling with eating disorders to get caught up in this. I try to eat very healthy and move as much as I can. However, I can't pass up a good looking cupcake or cookie....

 

[Indylady]

Alli does work, but the reason why is more that the adverse effects are enough reason to keep one from eating fat. Basically, Alli means that a certain percent of fat you ingest passes through--so if you continue to eat fat, it passes through your body and you will have very oily stools or possibly accidents. Somewhere, though, I read that the actual loss based purely on the fat that is not ingested is quite minimal--you will not get very much change if you do not actually change your diet in addition to taking it. Besides that, though, I don't know of any prescribed weight loss medications that work.

 

[kenny]

Eat fewer calories.
Burn more.

There.
Now please mail me a check for $10,000.

 

[minidancer]

Eat fewer calories.
Burn more.

There.
Now please mail me a check for $10,000.

only way to do it! Now if I could only put down the cupcakes and martinis...

 

[jaysonsmom]

After college, I wanted to shed about 40 extra lbs, so I swam 50 laps a day, ate really well (homemade chicken and veggie stirfry, with brown rice) and took some diet pills containing ephedrine (I can't remember the name). The combination of the three made me lose 40 lb in 2 months! Amazing results, not sure which of those did it, but several times I felt like I was going to die from how fast my heart was racing after taking this pills...they banned ephedrine shortly after! I would say it was very effective, but not something one should do long term, without doing major damage to the body.

 

[missy]

It boggles my mind how the diet industry is a multibillion dollar one when it comes down to the simple principle calories in vs calories out. And no fad will work for very long or is very healthy. One must incorporate the way they eat and exercise into a way of life that is easy to maintain vs a "diet" that no one can realistically maintain for long periods of time without doing harm to themselves.

And shame on Dr Oz. So many look to him for smart medical information and consider him to be a respectable and intelligent doctor who has the public's best interest at heart. That's how he has represented himself that is. He is just an entertainer and a media ho IMO taking advantage of people who trust him and don't know any better.

 

[stracci2000]

I agree with Missy.
It's all about "calories in-calories out". So basic.
I like Dr. Oz, and I do watch the show, but I also hate when he touts supplements.
Some overweight woman will be on there saying "I want a flat belly, what can I do?" Instead of telling her she needs to lose 30 lbs., he talks about some supplement that is supposed to burn belly fat. How can you target the belly fat only? Doen't make sense to me.

 

[SB621]

After college, I wanted to shed about 40 extra lbs, so I swam 50 laps a day, ate really well (homemade chicken and veggie stirfry, with brown rice) and took some diet pills containing ephedrine (I can't remember the name). The combination of the three made me lose 40 lb in 2 months! Amazing results, not sure which of those did it, but several times I felt like I was going to die from how fast my heart was racing after taking this pills...they banned ephedrine shortly after! I would say it was very effective, but not something one should do long term, without doing major damage to the body.

yup same here. I shed about 30 lbs in 6 weeks taking fenfen. On occasion when i'm really stressed I do take a diet pill as I'm a stress eater.

 

[Indylady]

After college, I wanted to shed about 40 extra lbs, so I swam 50 laps a day, ate really well (homemade chicken and veggie stirfry, with brown rice) and took some diet pills containing ephedrine (I can't remember the name). The combination of the three made me lose 40 lb in 2 months! Amazing results, not sure which of those did it, but several times I felt like I was going to die from how fast my heart was racing after taking this pills...they banned ephedrine shortly after! I would say it was very effective, but not something one should do long term, without doing major damage to the body.

yup same here. I shed about 30 lbs in 6 weeks taking fenfen. On occasion when i'm really stressed I do take a diet pill as I'm a stress eater.

Wow!

 

[MissStepcut]

As someone who lost 90 lbs and maintained most of that loss most of my adult life through calorie restriction, sorry, I don't agree that's it's merely a question of calories in and out.

Let me use the analogy that my (aerospace engineer by training) husband came up with:

If you designed a cockpit with controls that technically did what they were supposed to do, but in practice 95% of pilots crashed using it, that design is a failure.

For some reason, even though almost NO ONE maintains their weight loss, we keep turning to this simplistic answer. That advice is a proven failure, time to think about it differently.

While I do monitor my calories, I also concentrate on: getting a large volume of food at meals from vegetables, avoiding most carbs, getting lots of protein, being aware of emotional "triggers" for snacking, keeping only foods in my house that I am unlikely to overeat (girl scout cookies have no business in my cupboard). This is what has worked for me. I don't rely on cardio to keep me in calorie range because, for me, that has been an ineffective tool.

Initially I tried "everything in moderation" and pure calorie counting, but I just was not able to stay in my calorie window every day without reforming more than just the raw number.

 

[Indylady]

As someone who lost 90 lbs and maintained most of that loss most of my adult life through calorie restriction, sorry, I don't agree that's it's merely a question of calories in and out.

Let me use the analogy that my (aerospace engineer by training) husband came up with:

If you designed a cockpit with controls that technically did what they were supposed to do, but in practice 95% of pilots crashed using it, that design is a failure.

For some reason, even though almost NO ONE maintains their weight loss, we keep turning to this simplistic answer. That advice is a proven failure, time to think about it differently.

While I do monitor my calories, I also concentrate on: getting a large volume of food at meals from vegetables, avoiding most carbs, getting lots of protein, being aware of emotional "triggers" for snacking, keeping only foods in my house that I am unlikely to overeat (girl scout cookies have no business in my cupboard). This is what has worked for me. I don't rely on cardio to keep me in calorie range because, for me, that has been an ineffective tool.

Initially I tried "everything in moderation" and pure calorie counting, but I just was not able to stay in my calorie window every day without reforming more than just the raw number.

+1, more or less. I think the basic idea is right, but I disagree with the kind of condescending tone that I often get from people giving "eat less, move more" as weight loss advice to someone whose weight has really been a problem.

 

[missy]

As someone who lost 90 lbs and maintained most of that loss most of my adult life through calorie restriction, sorry, I don't agree that's it's merely a question of calories in and out.

Let me use the analogy that my (aerospace engineer by training) husband came up with:

If you designed a cockpit with controls that technically did what they were supposed to do, but in practice 95% of pilots crashed using it, that design is a failure.

For some reason, even though almost NO ONE maintains their weight loss, we keep turning to this simplistic answer. That advice is a proven failure, time to think about it differently.

While I do monitor my calories, I also concentrate on: getting a large volume of food at meals from vegetables, avoiding most carbs, getting lots of protein, being aware of emotional "triggers" for snacking, keeping only foods in my house that I am unlikely to overeat (girl scout cookies have no business in my cupboard). This is what has worked for me. I don't rely on cardio to keep me in calorie range because, for me, that has been an ineffective tool.

Initially I tried "everything in moderation" and pure calorie counting, but I just was not able to stay in my calorie window every day without reforming more than just the raw number.

Yes different methods work for different people but in the end it comes down to how many calories you take in and how many you burn off. It really is that simple.

And whatever way of eating allows you to maintain your caloric intake (be it lots of veggies/lots of exercise/low carbs/high protein etc) over your lifetime is the way to go. And that "diet" (I don't use the term as diet per se but to reflect one's way of eating) is the one that works for you and allows you to maintain your weight.

Of course different people have different metabolisms and different caloric requirements to maintain their weight so that number is not the same for everyone. Your height/body frame/way you carry your weight/muscle mass etc all come into play to determine what weight is healthiest/best for you.

It all comes down to what works for you but if you take in 3500 calories over what you burn you will gain a lb. If you want to lose a lb you have to have a deficit of 3500 calories i.e. you need to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in to lose that lb.

+1, more or less. I think the basic idea is right, but I disagree with the kind of condescending tone that I often get from people giving "eat less, move more" as weight loss advice to someone whose weight has really been a problem.

Indy, people are complicated and the problem is people use food as an emotional blanket sometimes and so yeah it's not easy to lose and maintain for many people. Not trying to make it seem that keeping weight off is easy but the principle behind it is. Sometimes though you need to work on your emotional stuff before you can keep the unwanted weight off.

 

[MissStepcut]

The math is simple. The application is not. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many fat, smart people. E.g. http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/06/19/323326424/a-fresh-cry-of-pain-fat-shaming-in-science?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140619

 

[missy]

I am not talking about fat discrimination. That is another topic.
Being smart and funny and personable does not mean one cannot be fat too. One has nothing to do with the other. I was talking about the math behind losing the weight.

The reason many people are fat has to do with emotional reasons as I stated in my prior post. That needs to be worked on if one desires to lose weight they have been trying to lose and regaining over the years.

I am 100% not saying everyone should be thin or at what the public perceives to be an "ideal" weight. Far from it. I feel everyone should be the weight that works for them and what makes them feel good.

And if one cannot lose the weight they want to lose that doesn't mean they should hate themselves or think less of themselves. I don't judge people by their weight or any other superficial characteristic but I do judge those who judge people for those exact reasons.

People who want to lose weight have to want to lose the weight for themselves and not some societal norm. And sometimes they need help to do it and keep it off. And f*** those who judge others based on weight and any other ridiculous reason. Haters will always find a reason to hate and life is too precious to waste on people like them.

 

[MissStepcut]

I will say that, for me personally, emotional stuff is a very, very tiny part of the equation. I was never really the "eat my feelings" type. It's mostly not particularly feeling full if I don't eat the right way. Which took a lot of trial and error to correct once I got to the maintenance stage.

 

[missy]

I will say that, for me personally, emotional stuff is a very, very tiny part of the equation. I was never really the "eat my feelings" type. It's mostly not particularly feeling full if I don't eat the right way. Which took a lot of trial and error to correct once I got to the maintenance stage.

Yes, I get that as I am the same way. If I eat too many carbs I am not satiated and keep craving more. I need the right balance to feel content. And it still boils down to calories in vs calories out no matter what method of eating/exercise works for you.

 

[JewelFreak]

Missy -- 100% with everything you wrote, sister! You are smart and wise too.

--- Laurie

 

[MissStepcut]

I will say that, for me personally, emotional stuff is a very, very tiny part of the equation. I was never really the "eat my feelings" type. It's mostly not particularly feeling full if I don't eat the right way. Which took a lot of trial and error to correct once I got to the maintenance stage.

Yes, I get that as I am the same way. If I eat too many carbs I am not satiated and keep craving more. I need the right balance to feel content. And it still boils down to calories in vs calories out no matter what method of eating/exercise works for you.

Yeah. I am not disputing that it's ultimately all about calories, on the math side. It's just... a lot more than that, when it comes to implementation. If it were actually simple, it wouldn't be so uncommon for people to maintain big weight losses. I mean, these people have shown themselves to be disciplined, and to "get it," and to be able to find a balance of food and exercise that enables them to take it off, but they fail at maintenance (no matter how they lost it).

 

[missy]

MissStepcut, they fail at maintenance because they cannot maintain the calories in vs calories out balance. Basically they start eating more calories then they are burning for whatever reason. They lapse. Period.

If one is an alcoholic and doesn't want to be anymore (well rather a recovering alcoholic) they just stop drinking right? No problem. Umm no, it's not that easy. There are many complicating factors at play. But the fact remains if they don't drink alcohol they are in recovery. The way to keep that recovery is through an intense and important program for most and to keep at it every day one day at a time.

Extrapolating to this example if one wants to maintain their weight loss keep the calories in vs out at the level they need it to be to do so. It might not be easy to do for many reasons that we just barely touched upon here but it remains a fact that if they do that (barring any medical conditions such as thyroid as just one example) they will maintain their weight loss. No one said it is easy to do but that's the way to do it. One day at a time doing it whatever way works for them and getting the help they might need to do so.

 

[missy]

Missy -- 100% with everything you wrote, sister! You are smart and wise too.

--- Laurie

Right back at ya my smart and wise sister.

 

[minidancer]

MissStepcut, they fail at maintenance because they cannot maintain the calories in vs calories out balance. Basically they start eating more calories then they are burning for whatever reason. They lapse. Period.

If one is an alcoholic and doesn't want to be anymore (well rather a recovering alcoholic) they just stop drinking right? No problem. Umm no, it's not that easy. There are many complicating factors at play. But the fact remains if they don't drink alcohol they are in recovery. The way to keep that recovery is through an intense and important program for most and to keep at it every day one day at a time.

Extrapolating to this example if one wants to maintain their weight loss keep the calories in vs out at the level they need it to be to do so. It might not be easy to do for many reasons that we just barely touched upon here but it remains a fact that if they do that (barring any medical conditions such as thyroid as just one example) they will maintain their weight loss. No one said it is easy to do but that's the way to do it. One day at a time doing it whatever way works for them and getting the help they might need to do so.

Missy, I find your alcohol/weight loss comparison interesting. In large part because, in supporting a close friend with an eating disorder, I have sat in on EDA (Eating Disorder Anonymous) meetings. EDA pretty much replicates the AA program to a T, which, in my opinion, just doesn't work for many people with an ED. While I don't think it is an apples to oranges comparison, I certainly don't think it is an apt comparison either. While one can completely cut out alcohol, one cannot completely cut out food. That alone makes the challenge a different one.

While I agree that the basic premise (cal in-cal out) is the key, I think being a healthy weight is much more than that. While one can lose weight by taking in less kcal than they expend, this formula alone, is not enough to be healthy.

 

[MissStepcut]

MissStepcut, they fail at maintenance because they cannot maintain the calories in vs calories out balance. Basically they start eating more calories then they are burning for whatever reason. They lapse. Period.

If one is an alcoholic and doesn't want to be anymore (well rather a recovering alcoholic) they just stop drinking right? No problem. Umm no, it's not that easy. There are many complicating factors at play. But the fact remains if they don't drink alcohol they are in recovery. The way to keep that recovery is through an intense and important program for most and to keep at it every day one day at a time.

Extrapolating to this example if one wants to maintain their weight loss keep the calories in vs out at the level they need it to be to do so. It might not be easy to do for many reasons that we just barely touched upon here but it remains a fact that if they do that (barring any medical conditions such as thyroid as just one example) they will maintain their weight loss. No one said it is easy to do but that's the way to do it. One day at a time doing it whatever way works for them and getting the help they might need to do so.

Missy, I find your alcohol/weight loss comparison interesting. In large part because, in supporting a close friend with an eating disorder, I have sat in on EDA (Eating Disorder Anonymous) meetings. EDA pretty much replicates the AA program to a T, which, in my opinion, just doesn't work for many people with an ED. While I don't think it is an apples to oranges comparison, I certainly don't think it is an apt comparison either. While one can completely cut out alcohol, one cannot completely cut out food. That alone makes the challenge a different one.

While I agree that the basic premise (cal in-cal out) is the key, I think being a healthy weight is much more than that. While one can lose weight by taking in less kcal than they expend, this formula alone, is not enough to be healthy.

Yup.

Eating a slice of cake, for a formerly-obese person, is not necessarily a "relapse." It's just participating in a birthday party.

You have to eat no matter what. And you don't have to over-eat by THAT much to regain lost weight. You don't have to sit in the parking lot of McDonald's with a bag of burgers in your lap. You can merely over-serve yourself a little at every meal, sneak in a couple extra snacks. Hell, you can even be eating very well generally, with fruits and veggies. Doesn't take much food to tack on an extra 500 calories every day, which would push you from maintaining a healthy weight to being pushing morbid obesity at 5'4"

 

[packrat]

I will say that, for me personally, emotional stuff is a very, very tiny part of the equation. I was never really the "eat my feelings" type. It's mostly not particularly feeling full if I don't eat the right way. Which took a lot of trial and error to correct once I got to the maintenance stage.

Yes, I get that as I am the same way. If I eat too many carbs I am not satiated and keep craving more. I need the right balance to feel content. And it still boils down to calories in vs calories out no matter what method of eating/exercise works for you.

Yeah. I am not disputing that it's ultimately all about calories, on the math side. It's just... a lot more than that, when it comes to implementation. If it were actually simple, it wouldn't be so uncommon for people to maintain big weight losses. I mean, these people have shown themselves to be disciplined, and to "get it," and to be able to find a balance of food and exercise that enables them to take it off, but they fail at maintenance (no matter how they lost it).

I'm on a women's fitness board for professionals and non professionals-bodybuilders, physique, bikini etc, and I don't know that any of them ever put it down as a flat calories in/calories out. 1500 calories a day of McDonalds V 1500 calories a day of fruits/veggies/protein? There is a difference. My brother is a body builder, and he eats like it's his job-goes to the gym 5-6 days a week, that's it. He's never watched his calories but he pays attention to *what* he eats, and has been doing this about 20 years. If it were that simple we'd all be rockin some smokin bods.

 

[msop04]

I will say that, for me personally, emotional stuff is a very, very tiny part of the equation. I was never really the "eat my feelings" type. It's mostly not particularly feeling full if I don't eat the right way. Which took a lot of trial and error to correct once I got to the maintenance stage.

Yes, I get that as I am the same way. If I eat too many carbs I am not satiated and keep craving more. I need the right balance to feel content. And it still boils down to calories in vs calories out no matter what method of eating/exercise works for you.

Yeah. I am not disputing that it's ultimately all about calories, on the math side. It's just... a lot more than that, when it comes to implementation. If it were actually simple, it wouldn't be so uncommon for people to maintain big weight losses. I mean, these people have shown themselves to be disciplined, and to "get it," and to be able to find a balance of food and exercise that enables them to take it off, but they fail at maintenance (no matter how they lost it).

I'm on a women's fitness board for professionals and non professionals-bodybuilders, physique, bikini etc, and I don't know that any of them ever put it down as a flat calories in/calories out. 1500 calories a day of McDonalds V 1500 calories a day of fruits/veggies/protein? There is a difference. My brother is a body builder, and he eats like it's his job-goes to the gym 5-6 days a week, that's it. He's never watched his calories but he pays attention to *what* he eats, and has been doing this about 20 years. If it were that simple we'd all be rockin some smokin bods.

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said regarding "calories in vs. out", however...

The body cannot differentiate between 1500 calories of "clean eating" and 1500 of cake where simple metabolic function is concerned. They are both 1500 kcal/energy. Is 1500 calories of cake a great idea health wise? Probably not, and you'd most likely feel like crap from too much sugar. (Dang! LOL) But seriously, there is no such thing as a "good", "bad", or "empty" calorie.

Balanced, healthy eating is always preferred for overall health, but as far as straight up weight loss, it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you consume less than your body will burn.

Going back to the original topic... This is pretty much how I feel when a patient mentions the good doc's snake oil remedies at my counter:

 

[msop04]

...you don't have to over-eat by THAT much to regain lost weight.

You can merely over-serve yourself a little at every meal, sneak in a couple extra snacks. Hell, you can even be eating very well generally, with fruits and veggies. Doesn't take much food to tack on an extra 500 calories every day...

This is so true... and the main reason maintenance is much more difficult than loss.

 

[minidancer]

I will say that, for me personally, emotional stuff is a very, very tiny part of the equation. I was never really the "eat my feelings" type. It's mostly not particularly feeling full if I don't eat the right way. Which took a lot of trial and error to correct once I got to the maintenance stage.

Yes, I get that as I am the same way. If I eat too many carbs I am not satiated and keep craving more. I need the right balance to feel content. And it still boils down to calories in vs calories out no matter what method of eating/exercise works for you.

Yeah. I am not disputing that it's ultimately all about calories, on the math side. It's just... a lot more than that, when it comes to implementation. If it were actually simple, it wouldn't be so uncommon for people to maintain big weight losses. I mean, these people have shown themselves to be disciplined, and to "get it," and to be able to find a balance of food and exercise that enables them to take it off, but they fail at maintenance (no matter how they lost it).

I'm on a women's fitness board for professionals and non professionals-bodybuilders, physique, bikini etc, and I don't know that any of them ever put it down as a flat calories in/calories out. 1500 calories a day of McDonalds V 1500 calories a day of fruits/veggies/protein? There is a difference. My brother is a body builder, and he eats like it's his job-goes to the gym 5-6 days a week, that's it. He's never watched his calories but he pays attention to *what* he eats, and has been doing this about 20 years. If it were that simple we'd all be rockin some smokin bods.

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said regarding "calories in vs. out", however...

The body cannot differentiate between 1500 calories of "clean eating" and 1500 of cake where simple metabolic function is concerned. They are both 1500 kcal/energy. Is 1500 calories of cake a great idea health wise? Probably not, and you'd most likely feel like crap from too much sugar. (Dang! LOL) But seriously, there is no such thing as a "good", "bad", or "empty" calorie.

Balanced, healthy eating is always preferred for overall health, but as far as straight up weight loss, it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you consume less than your body will burn.

Going back to the original topic... This is pretty much how I feel when a patient mentions the good doc's snake oil remedies at my counter:

Lol (and ew) re:snake oil... I'm afraid to ask.


While I agree that your body may not be able to differentiate between 1500 "good" calories versus "bad" calories for just weight loss, certain foods will make you feel full with less calories. It's extremely difficult to lose weight without eating foods that make you feel full for less calories. What you eat matters for long-term weight loss and health.

 

[missy]

I totally agree with eating nutrient dense foods to feel full and content with getting the maximum nutrition and the least empty calories. And while I think that each person has to find the healthy way of eating that works for their lifestyle so they can continue it for life and not feel deprived eating nutrient dense foods (that are less calorie dense) with large water and fiber (i.e. veggies for example) volume is a principle that works. I wish I could remember the name of a book I read over 20 years ago discussing just that. I want to say it was eat this not that but when I google it I cannot find the book I am thinking of. But here is the general principle I think we can all agree works if applied.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/weight-loss/art-20044318?pg=1


Also, I had not touched upon in my previous post the very real fit and fat vs thin and unhealthy but since some of you posted about this I thought I might also add a comment about this topic. I think the thin vs fat is an outdated way of thinking anyway and the focus should be on and always should be on being healthy vs unhealthy. No question about it IMO. It is of course demeaning to women (and people in general) to be focusing on how they look but more importantly it is misleading. The emphasis should be on maintaining good health and not trying to achieve some goal weight IMO.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/05/can-you-be-fat-and-fit-or-thin-and-unhealthy/

I also think counting calories is not the way to go personally but the reason I was discussing that concept was because the subject here went to the question of how to lose weight and I was simply giving a method to do so.

I was not saying how to get healthy and maintain that health because if I were I would have given the method that works for me which has nothing to do with calorie counting. I eat a Mediterranean diet emphasis on being mainly vegan and I exercise every day. Cardio and on alternate days I add free weights to my exercise routine. This is what works for me and I am by no means saying it is the only way to go.

Now just to touch upon the alcoholic vs overeating question. I did say they are not perfect analogies by any means but I was just giving an example of another struggle where one must work hard to maintain their healthy habits every single day and getting extra help is a good way to go for many in that regard.

Whether it be (over)eating poor food choices or drinking alcohol. Of course we are around food all the time and that makes it more difficult but you can see I hope the point I was trying to make- in that you never get "cured" per se and have to make healthy choices every day and it can always be a struggle though hopefully it gets to be less of one over time. As long as whatever issues one might have get resolved and one finds peace with the inner struggle occurring that might have caused issues in the first place. IMO you have to work on the inside to get truly healthy and feel well and good and not just "fix" the superficial problem.

And that is assuming one has a problem with their weight. Meaning you can be overweight (and fit) and happy with your weight and IMO then there is no problem and no issue. Just to make sure I make that point very clear because I am against the idea that there is some ideal goal weight we must all achieve to be happy and healthy. Far from it and I hate discrimination against fat people and I also hate discrimination against thin people.

There have been threads on PS that have been disappointing in that regard but they usually come to a good resolution. I mean, in this day and age it amazes me (in a bad way) how people can still be so small minded and prejudiced against any group of people different than themselves. Different isn't bad it's just different. There really is no right/wrong here it is up to the individual to find what works for them and how to get to that point and maintain it and yes that can take a ton (no pun intended haha) of work and that work is never over yanno? Things worth achieving are often hard but worth it if you feel it is.
It's about being healthy on the inside before you get healthy on the outside if you kwim.

Bottom line: There are no quick solutions to health or weight-loss.

Sorry for the long winded post and I apologize if it's a bit garbled. It's early here and I just woke up and getting ready to go away for the weekend so just packing a few last minute things and getting the fur babies ready for the trip. So I didn't have time to reread and edit. Hopefully my main thoughts came through clearly enough. Back later.

 

[JewelFreak]

Maybe I can add to Missy's comparison. I'm a recovering alcoholic, sober for 22 years. I also love to eat sweets when I'm bored, when I'm happy, tired, sad, lonely -- food for emotional reasons. I was overweight & miserable about 2 yrs ago until I got busy & lost 35 lbs. I'll never be Twiggy but I look fine & feel good. I don't care that I'll never be on the cover of Vogue.

As Missy wrote, I put in fewer calories than I expended. A day at a time.

You do have to eat. But just as I know if I take one drink, I'm off to destructive races again, I also know when I open that box of cookies, exactly what it will do to me. Ingesting an addictive drug is a choice: do it or do not. What you eat is the same. You choose. A pint of ice cream or some fruit. Everyone certainly understands when they pick up the spoon that the ice cream isn't going to help the waistline.

The word "obese" is waaaay over-used today, even by doctors, in our obsession with weight. Many people who would be "plump" in a less-obsessed time are now "obese." It's inaccurate and unfair. Plump is not unhealthy, and not unattractive. My grandmother was plump all 102 years of her life & just adorably good-looking as well as healthier & stronger than anyone today. Obese people are looking at trouble -- because "obese" should mean rolls of fat, inability to walk far, cardiac insufficiency, etc. Depending on bone structure, height, whatever, lots of people look & feel better with more pounds than others -- that's okay. People vary, to coin a phrase.

This discussion is about losing weight -- the fact is simple. Fewer calories in, more expended = weight loss. There's no magic bullet; weight-loss drugs are scary. Sit with the computer, in a car, on the couch, and no one gets thinner. Eat when you're not hungry, indulge in calories you are not using up, ditto. It's hard, no doubt about it. Facts often are. As for the emotional part, doing the next right thing & seeing its results boosts mood & self-esteem MUCH better than a bag of chips.

--- Laurie

 

[justginger]

I will say that, for me personally, emotional stuff is a very, very tiny part of the equation. I was never really the "eat my feelings" type. It's mostly not particularly feeling full if I don't eat the right way. Which took a lot of trial and error to correct once I got to the maintenance stage.

Yes, I get that as I am the same way. If I eat too many carbs I am not satiated and keep craving more. I need the right balance to feel content. And it still boils down to calories in vs calories out no matter what method of eating/exercise works for you.

Yeah. I am not disputing that it's ultimately all about calories, on the math side. It's just... a lot more than that, when it comes to implementation. If it were actually simple, it wouldn't be so uncommon for people to maintain big weight losses. I mean, these people have shown themselves to be disciplined, and to "get it," and to be able to find a balance of food and exercise that enables them to take it off, but they fail at maintenance (no matter how they lost it).

I'm on a women's fitness board for professionals and non professionals-bodybuilders, physique, bikini etc, and I don't know that any of them ever put it down as a flat calories in/calories out. 1500 calories a day of McDonalds V 1500 calories a day of fruits/veggies/protein? There is a difference. My brother is a body builder, and he eats like it's his job-goes to the gym 5-6 days a week, that's it. He's never watched his calories but he pays attention to *what* he eats, and has been doing this about 20 years. If it were that simple we'd all be rockin some smokin bods.

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said regarding "calories in vs. out", however...

The body cannot differentiate between 1500 calories of "clean eating" and 1500 of cake where simple metabolic function is concerned. They are both 1500 kcal/energy. Is 1500 calories of cake a great idea health wise? Probably not, and you'd most likely feel like crap from too much sugar. (Dang! LOL) But seriously, there is no such thing as a "good", "bad", or "empty" calorie.

Balanced, healthy eating is always preferred for overall health, but as far as straight up weight loss, it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you consume less than your body will burn.

Going back to the original topic... This is pretty much how I feel when a patient mentions the good doc's snake oil remedies at my counter:

One of my coworkers always harps on about Dr Oz and gets her panties in a bunch when I roll my eyes. No, eating white mulberries will not make you live to 110; I don't care what he said on TV...

 

[ImperfectGirl]

I will say that, for me personally, emotional stuff is a very, very tiny part of the equation. I was never really the "eat my feelings" type. It's mostly not particularly feeling full if I don't eat the right way. Which took a lot of trial and error to correct once I got to the maintenance stage.

Yes, I get that as I am the same way. If I eat too many carbs I am not satiated and keep craving more. I need the right balance to feel content. And it still boils down to calories in vs calories out no matter what method of eating/exercise works for you.

Yeah. I am not disputing that it's ultimately all about calories, on the math side. It's just... a lot more than that, when it comes to implementation. If it were actually simple, it wouldn't be so uncommon for people to maintain big weight losses. I mean, these people have shown themselves to be disciplined, and to "get it," and to be able to find a balance of food and exercise that enables them to take it off, but they fail at maintenance (no matter how they lost it).

I'm on a women's fitness board for professionals and non professionals-bodybuilders, physique, bikini etc, and I don't know that any of them ever put it down as a flat calories in/calories out. 1500 calories a day of McDonalds V 1500 calories a day of fruits/veggies/protein? There is a difference. My brother is a body builder, and he eats like it's his job-goes to the gym 5-6 days a week, that's it. He's never watched his calories but he pays attention to *what* he eats, and has been doing this about 20 years. If it were that simple we'd all be rockin some smokin bods.

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said regarding "calories in vs. out", however...

The body cannot differentiate between 1500 calories of "clean eating" and 1500 of cake where simple metabolic function is concerned. They are both 1500 kcal/energy. Is 1500 calories of cake a great idea health wise? Probably not, and you'd most likely feel like crap from too much sugar. (Dang! LOL) But seriously, there is no such thing as a "good", "bad", or "empty" calorie.

Balanced, healthy eating is always preferred for overall health, but as far as straight up weight loss, it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you consume less than your body will burn.

This. There is no such thing as good or bad food, your body does not know the difference. All your body registers is carbohydrates, protein and fats. If you ask 10 people the definition of clean eating, you'll likely get 10 different answers. For me, flexible dieting has been a godsend. It has helped me lose 20lbs while still enjoying 'bad' foods in moderation. It is the only long term, sustainable 'diet' I've tried...and I've tried them all!