Quote:I have pretty good self control (as long as I'm going completely cold turkey), so it wasn't too difficult. For the first week or so you definitely feel a constant desire for some twizzlers, or Edy's Mint Chocolate Chip, but as long as you eat a proper diet free of processed foods you'll do fine. Make sure you use healthy foods to keep yourself full, cuz when you're hungry at odd hours you'll be more likely to relapse.

I think one important thing to remember is that it shouldn't be about losing weight, but rather an investment in your overall health. When you remember that you have a responsibility to your body and to the happiness of people who care about you, it'll make everything easier.

Quote:How did you after the craving subsided?

Quote:no problems whatsoever. There's a (supposedly) great ice cream place near my apartment, which I've walked past many times and not once have I had the desire to go in. I just really don't care about eating that stuff anymore. If it makes me sound like a douche, so be it. But I'm proud of what I'm doing and I always like helping anyone who wants to help themselves eat better.

I recently went with a friend to Miami, and we were in the hotel pool with some people and I remarked to him that I was surprised he wasn't thinner considering he does a ton of running. Rather than being pissed at me, he took the comment seriously and for the last month (in which he's lost 12 lbs) he's been peppering me with questions about what to eat, and if a certain food is healthy enough, etc. Long story short, he's trying to get with this smokin hot girl and I think he has a much better shot now. If being blunt means being douchey, I'm happy to be so

Quote:I guess what I am trying to get at is:

Did you notice any drastic improvements in your overall health?

Can you be specific?

I am trying to see how much sugar consumption impacts the way we feel and how our health suffers from consuming it.

I really can't say for sure that i noticed any positive improvements in my health. This is mostly due to the fact that my whole life changed and my stress levels dropped big time. I also ate a healthier diet (aside from just the exclusion of sugar) and added more walking. So my life wasn't simply getting rid of sugar and immediately noticing an improvement. I'd like to say my skin improved, but I've always been blessed with good skin, so there wasn't an improvement there.

That being said, I did notice that it became far easier to be disciplined in my overall food consumption. When you eat sugar on a daily basis your cravings for other pleasure-inducing foods increase, so that you're less pleased by consuming a normal, more wholesome diet. When I was younger I'd eat ice cream, cookies, bagels, drink Ocean Spray cranberry juice, etc. When it came time for dinner I'd be more interested in getting through it quickly so that I could get to dessert. Now it's the opposite; I can't wait for a dinner of something like salmon, kale (with a ton of garlic) and a baked potato.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help

(08-02-2014 03:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  We are biologically hardwired to do two things: eat and screw. All about propagation of the species.

You can blame all the chemicals in food and all the sexy advertising you want, but at the bottom line there's this:

Evolution has has wired us to eat and store, eat and store, eat and store. Never in some caveman's wildest dreams could he have imagined a Little Caesar's. He was eating what he could catch and kill, so that his calories in had to match his calories out as a matter of survival.

Our problem now is (at least a big part of it, anyway) is that more food than we could possibly eat is accessed with one helluva lot less effort.

In short, our calories in/calories out relationship is critically out of whack.

I have a problem with most of this. The calories in/calories out theory has been debunked over and over again. The key to losing weight has very little to do with simply decreasing your calorie intake, and many studies are now showing that increased exercise has little to do with weight loss.

We also now know that our cavemen ancestors didn't really expel more energy than us on a daily basis, as they had long periods of simply sitting around. That isn't to say you shouldn't be active, but that's more for muscle creation than anything else.

The overall difference is in the quality of the calories we consume. I can easily lose weight while consuming 3500 calories (i weigh around 155) per day and not exercising. But that's due to the quality of the food I eat, not the number of calories. I was perusing Facebook earlier and their was an ad from Wal-Mart, advertising Hot Pockets and Apple Juice. One of them filled with gluten, preservatives and sugar, and the other just concentrated sugar. Someone (I believe bitcruncher) mentioned how people don't move around today as much as they did 50-60 years ago, and that's true. but what that person didn't mention was how the calories they consumed back then were far different than what people eat today. Dinners were home cooked and people rarely went out to eat. People ate plenty of eggs (before they were demonized by George McGovern) and when they did eat unhealthy food it was in far smaller portions. In this case I'm not demonizing calories, just saying that a small coke is a lot less bad for you than one that's been supersized

(08-01-2014 08:52 AM)BucFyre Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 05:45 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 01:09 PM)BucFyre Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 12:42 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 10:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  She's fat?

well, as her arms look like they could feed a family of 4 for a year, I'd say yes.

That's tacky, imo. She's not exactly a huge girl. And even if she was no one is obligated to try to date her.

I have very little patience for fat people. I haven't had candy or dessert in over a year and I constantly make sure i watch what I eat. And then I see people stuffing their faces with all manner of processed food and it pisses me off. And don't go thinking I'm sexist, believing that this only applies to women, because I feel the same way about fat males. I have an uncle who's a disgusting pig. He no longer sleeps in his bedroom because he can't make it up the stairs.

And please don't say she shouldn't be ashamed of the body god gave her. Because that isn't the body god gave her, it's the body high fructose corn syrup gave her.

To give you a better insight into my line of thought: I believe that parents letting their kids drink soda is borderline child abuse.

Well congratulations on being healthier than the rest of us. I'm sure you're proud. That doesn't make you any less douchey.

My weight has been up and down my whole life. Sometimes I eat my feelings. It happens. I've been thin, I've been fat, I've been in between. Right now, I'm in between and I'm working on it. I exercise several times a week and as you can see in a previous thread I run 5ks every month. I'm even doing one this weekend.

As for this girl, you know nothing about her other than your opinion is that she's fat. Maybe she just recently lost a lot of weight and she's still working on it. Someone as healthy and fit as you surely could see the good in that.

Not to seem rude, but does this really affect your weight that much? I mean how often can you possibly feel sad enough to eat your feelings? If it's one day every month then there's no need to even bring it up, as there's no way it's doing much of anything to your weight.

(08-02-2014 04:32 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 03:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  We are biologically hardwired to do two things: eat and screw. All about propagation of the species.

You can blame all the chemicals in food and all the sexy advertising you want, but at the bottom line there's this:

Evolution has has wired us to eat and store, eat and store, eat and store. Never in some caveman's wildest dreams could he have imagined a Little Caesar's. He was eating what he could catch and kill, so that his calories in had to match his calories out as a matter of survival.

Our problem now is (at least a big part of it, anyway) is that more food than we could possibly eat is accessed with one helluva lot less effort.

In short, our calories in/calories out relationship is critically out of whack.

I have a problem with most of this. The calories in/calories out theory has been debunked over and over again. The key to losing weight has very little to do with simply decreasing your calorie intake, and many studies are now showing that increased exercise has little to do with weight loss.

We also now know that our cavemen ancestors didn't really expel more energy than us on a daily basis, as they had long periods of simply sitting around. That isn't to say you shouldn't be active, but that's more for muscle creation than anything else.

The overall difference is in the quality of the calories we consume. I can easily lose weight while consuming 3500 calories (i weigh around 155) per day and not exercising. But that's due to the quality of the food I eat, not the number of calories. I was perusing Facebook earlier and their was an ad from Wal-Mart, advertising Hot Pockets and Apple Juice. One of them filled with gluten, preservatives and sugar, and the other just concentrated sugar. Someone (I believe bitcruncher) mentioned how people don't move around today as much as they did 50-60 years ago, and that's true. but what that person didn't mention was how the calories they consumed back then were far different than what people eat today. Dinners were home cooked and people rarely went out to eat. People ate plenty of eggs (before they were demonized by George McGovern) and when they did eat unhealthy food it was in far smaller portions. In this case I'm not demonizing calories, just saying that a small coke is a lot less bad for you than one that's been supersized

That's fine, but I've got both the scale and the blood work to back up my assertions.

The more exercise you get, the more latitude you get for the food you eat.

(08-02-2014 04:22 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Once all the water if polluted with all the chemicals, the caloric issue will be a problem no longer.

Water is a chemical compound

(08-02-2014 05:20 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:22 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Once all the water if polluted with all the chemicals, the caloric issue will be a problem no longer.

Water is a chemical compound

And a cool, refreshing one.

(08-02-2014 05:20 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:22 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Once all the water if polluted with all the chemicals, the caloric issue will be a problem no longer.

Water is a chemical compound

Actually, water is a naturally occurring molecule. A chemical compound is man made.

(08-02-2014 04:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:32 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 03:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  We are biologically hardwired to do two things: eat and screw. All about propagation of the species.

You can blame all the chemicals in food and all the sexy advertising you want, but at the bottom line there's this:

Evolution has has wired us to eat and store, eat and store, eat and store. Never in some caveman's wildest dreams could he have imagined a Little Caesar's. He was eating what he could catch and kill, so that his calories in had to match his calories out as a matter of survival.

Our problem now is (at least a big part of it, anyway) is that more food than we could possibly eat is accessed with one helluva lot less effort.

In short, our calories in/calories out relationship is critically out of whack.

I have a problem with most of this. The calories in/calories out theory has been debunked over and over again. The key to losing weight has very little to do with simply decreasing your calorie intake, and many studies are now showing that increased exercise has little to do with weight loss.

We also now know that our cavemen ancestors didn't really expel more energy than us on a daily basis, as they had long periods of simply sitting around. That isn't to say you shouldn't be active, but that's more for muscle creation than anything else.

The overall difference is in the quality of the calories we consume. I can easily lose weight while consuming 3500 calories (i weigh around 155) per day and not exercising. But that's due to the quality of the food I eat, not the number of calories. I was perusing Facebook earlier and their was an ad from Wal-Mart, advertising Hot Pockets and Apple Juice. One of them filled with gluten, preservatives and sugar, and the other just concentrated sugar. Someone (I believe bitcruncher) mentioned how people don't move around today as much as they did 50-60 years ago, and that's true. but what that person didn't mention was how the calories they consumed back then were far different than what people eat today. Dinners were home cooked and people rarely went out to eat. People ate plenty of eggs (before they were demonized by George McGovern) and when they did eat unhealthy food it was in far smaller portions. In this case I'm not demonizing calories, just saying that a small coke is a lot less bad for you than one that's been supersized

The more exercise you get, the more latitude you get for the food you eat.

simply not true. A person who exercises everyday cannot just go and have cereal and orange juice for breakfast, with a sub and chips for lunch and Lasagna for dinner with dessert, and expect to be a healthy individual. Oh sure you'll keep your water weight down and won't be fat, but you're far worse off than if you'd eat well, and just do some walking everyday.

FWIW, I don't necessarily subscribe to the whole, exercise doesn't contribute to weight loss, theory. That being said, I believe diet is far more important.

Suit yourself. What I do works for me. I'm healthy and happy.

My last checkup, my doctor told me, (his words), "I don't know what you're doing, but keep doing it."

If I drop dead any time soon, you can say "neener neener" all you want.

(08-02-2014 06:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Suit yourself. What I do works for me. I'm healthy and happy.

My last checkup, my doctor told me, (his words), "I don't know what you're doing, but keep doing it."

If I drop dead any time soon, you can say "neener neener" all you want.

I definitely do not want this to happen. I'm happy for you (well, as happy as i can be for someone i've never met), and if what you're doing is working, you should keep doing it.

I'll just leave you with this quote from Dr. Michael Eades: "Exercise because it’s good for you: it builds muscle mass, it makes you stronger, it improves bone density, etc. But eat fewer carbs to lose weight."

I'm currently about 8 lbs above my target weight, but that is New York and Gulf Shores weight. I"ve already got 6 of it worked off.

(08-02-2014 06:16 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Suit yourself. What I do works for me. I'm healthy and happy.

My last checkup, my doctor told me, (his words), "I don't know what you're doing, but keep doing it."

If I drop dead any time soon, you can say "neener neener" all you want.

I definitely do not want this to happen. I'm happy for you (well, as happy as i can be for someone i've never met), and if what you're doing is working, you should keep doing it.

I'll just leave you with this quote from Dr. Michael Eades: "Exercise because it’s good for you: it builds muscle mass, it makes you stronger, it improves bone density, etc. But eat fewer carbs to lose weight."

can you go back and address my sugar question?

(08-02-2014 07:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:16 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Suit yourself. What I do works for me. I'm healthy and happy.

My last checkup, my doctor told me, (his words), "I don't know what you're doing, but keep doing it."

If I drop dead any time soon, you can say "neener neener" all you want.

I definitely do not want this to happen. I'm happy for you (well, as happy as i can be for someone i've never met), and if what you're doing is working, you should keep doing it.

I'll just leave you with this quote from Dr. Michael Eades: "Exercise because it’s good for you: it builds muscle mass, it makes you stronger, it improves bone density, etc. But eat fewer carbs to lose weight."

can you go back and address my sugar question?

i did, top of page 5. like i said, sorry if that isn't the answer of which you were hoping

(08-02-2014 07:21 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm currently about 8 lbs above my target weight, but that is New York and Gulf Shores weight. I"ve already got 6 of it worked off.

I'm always interested in people's diets. would you mind if i asked what you normally eat?

(08-02-2014 09:51 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 07:21 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm currently about 8 lbs above my target weight, but that is New York and Gulf Shores weight. I"ve already got 6 of it worked off.

I'm always interested in people's diets. would you mind if i asked what you normally eat?

Decent, but not great.

A lot of chicken. PB&Js, grapes, raisins, dry roasted peanuts bananas, watermelon, spinach salads, sweet potatoes.

But I also get my share of Cheetos and cookies. I've learned moderation in the last three years.

I run 4 miles every other day, and increasing my distance on weekends gearing up for my first half-marathon. I ran 9 miles this morning. My pre-run snack of choice is a Snickers bar.

Also, I drink water almost exclusively. I'll have a rare glass of sweet tea, and an even more rare soft drink, but generally just water. I'm a bit of a hydration nazi.

I'm in my mid 40s have a BMI of about 23, and have the resting heart rate of a teenage athlete. When I sit real still I can get it into the 40s.

(08-02-2014 10:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:51 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 07:21 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm currently about 8 lbs above my target weight, but that is New York and Gulf Shores weight. I"ve already got 6 of it worked off.

I'm always interested in people's diets. would you mind if i asked what you normally eat?

Decent, but not great.

A lot of chicken. PB&Js, grapes, raisins, dry roasted peanuts bananas, watermelon, spinach salads, sweet potatoes.

But I also get my share of Cheetos and cookies. I've learned moderation in the last three years.

I run 4 miles every other day, and increasing my distance on weekends gearing up for my first half-marathon. I ran 9 miles this morning. My pre-run snack of choice is a Snickers bar.

Also, I drink water almost exclusively. I'll have a rare glass of sweet tea, and an even more rare soft drink, but generally just water. I'm a bit of a hydration nazi.

I'm in my mid 40s have a BMI of about 23, and have the resting heart rate of a teenage athlete. When I sit real still I can get it into the 40s.

I feel you on that one

Don't even know what this means, BMI is BS. Typical meaningless government statistic.

Yeah, BMI is mostly crap. Another 3 pounds and I go from normal to overweight.

(08-02-2014 10:46 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Yeah, BMI is mostly crap. Another 3 pounds and I go from normal to overweight.

and we all know 3 lbs is pretty meaningless

What sucks is how little i knew a decade ago. All those years spent eating cereal for breakfast and a bagel for lunch. I could be so much healthier now, but I guess you live and learn

(08-02-2014 09:37 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 07:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:16 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Suit yourself. What I do works for me. I'm healthy and happy.

My last checkup, my doctor told me, (his words), "I don't know what you're doing, but keep doing it."

If I drop dead any time soon, you can say "neener neener" all you want.

I definitely do not want this to happen. I'm happy for you (well, as happy as i can be for someone i've never met), and if what you're doing is working, you should keep doing it.

I'll just leave you with this quote from Dr. Michael Eades: "Exercise because it’s good for you: it builds muscle mass, it makes you stronger, it improves bone density, etc. But eat fewer carbs to lose weight."

can you go back and address my sugar question?

i did, top of page 5. like i said, sorry if that isn't the answer of which you were hoping

Pal, I skipped over that response by accident. Ease of the throttle a bit.

Thanks for the info. That is what I was looking for.

(08-03-2014 08:01 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:37 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 07:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:16 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Suit yourself. What I do works for me. I'm healthy and happy.

My last checkup, my doctor told me, (his words), "I don't know what you're doing, but keep doing it."

If I drop dead any time soon, you can say "neener neener" all you want.

I definitely do not want this to happen. I'm happy for you (well, as happy as i can be for someone i've never met), and if what you're doing is working, you should keep doing it.

I'll just leave you with this quote from Dr. Michael Eades: "Exercise because it’s good for you: it builds muscle mass, it makes you stronger, it improves bone density, etc. But eat fewer carbs to lose weight."

can you go back and address my sugar question?

i did, top of page 5. like i said, sorry if that isn't the answer of which you were hoping

Pal, I skipped over that response by accident. Ease of the throttle a bit.

Thanks for the info. That is what I was looking for.

Huh? I wasn't trying to seem belligerent. Just saying sorry if I couldn't give you the answer you were looking for. The tone was certainly not meant to offend