Straightforward Weight Loss

[BobbyTheDon]

It's not that complicated. Don't do any of that calculations bullshit. YOu just wasted 10 minutes of your time.

Just follow these words

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Make life easier for yourself. Eat less then what you can burn.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

"...there are more issues than just eating less for overweight people. For people who aren't depressed (or have medical reasons for overweight), we don't judge our caloric intake well. In general, normal weight people instinctively know when to quit. The rest of us don't. That's the problem."

Many overweight people know when they SHOULD quit, they just don't.

[Rudey]

You are greekchat's cougarjim. You should know that.

-Rudey

Originally Posted by BobbyTheDon

It's not that complicated. Don't do any of that calculations bullshit. YOu just wasted 10 minutes of your time.

Just follow these words








































Make life easier for yourself. Eat less then what you can burn.

[m0nkeys]

I agree with what's been said. But I also think that strictly drinking water elicits amazing results as well.

Counting calories doesn't necessarily work because you can end up eating empty calories -- a few bags of chips with soda, for example -- and still stay within your caloric threshold.

Stick to those good ol' fruits, veggies and whole grains which are nutrient-dense and fill you up

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Many overweight people know when they SHOULD quit, they just don't.

Hey GP, you'll get no resistance from me on this point. However, I've been referring to people who DO make an effort, like me for example. I can't just say eat less. I have to make it a point to think about what I'm doing because the hunger shut-off in my brain isn't as it should be.

That waiting 12 or 20 minutes or whatever it is after eating does absolutely nothing anymore. I never feel satiated (not full, just satiated) unless I'm stuffed to the gills. I do run into times during which my hormones or my mood make me less hungry and, of course, there are foods that work better than others. I feel less hungry on a cup of broccoli than a cup of popcorn, so I'd take the broccoli. You know what I'm saying?

[f8nacn]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "exercise more, eat less" theory. It depends on what you are eating and what exercise regimen you are following. I don't believe in "counting calories" either but I do watch what I eat and observe the fat content in each item. I would have to agree that most of the time when we are "counting calories" we ultimately mess up because we are counting empty calories as someone mentioned earlier.

[ADqtPiMel]

I'll say it again: THE ONLY way to lose weight is less input, more output. No one can argue against this.

[_Lisa_]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

I'll say it again: THE ONLY way to lose weight is less input, more output. No one can argue against this.

You're right, but everyone knows that. Obviously a little more direction is required.

[f8nacn]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

I'll say it again: THE ONLY way to lose weight is less input, more output. No one can argue against this.

Are you a certified nutritionist or fitness trainer???

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by f8nacn

Are you a certified nutritionist or fitness trainer???

Does that have anything to do with the accuracy of her statement?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by f8nacn

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "exercise more, eat less" theory. It depends on what you are eating and what exercise regimen you are following. I don't believe in "counting calories" either but I do watch what I eat and observe the fat content in each item. I would have to agree that most of the time when we are "counting calories" we ultimately mess up because we are counting empty calories as someone mentioned earlier.

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you can live on chips and ice cream and not be hungry, you'll lose weight (granted, you won't be healthy).

[AlphaFrog]

2000 Calories eaten - 2500 Calories burned = -500 Calories gained = weight loss

2500 Calories eaten - 1500 Calories burned = 1000 Calories gained = weight gain

It's not hard math.


ETA:

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you can live on chips and ice cream and not be hungry, you'll lose weight (granted, you won't be healthy).

Nothing like being thin and dying of scurvy anyway.

[f8nacn]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Does that have anything to do with the accuracy of her statement?

It was a simple question which required a simple answer, one that you, who really doesn't have the answer, shouldn't have entertained.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by f8nacn

It was a simple question which required a simple answer, one that you, who really doesn't have the answer, shouldn't have entertained.

Are you a judicial officer????

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by f8nacn

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "exercise more, eat less" theory. It depends on what you are eating and what exercise regimen you are following. I don't believe in "counting calories" either but I do watch what I eat and observe the fat content in each item. I would have to agree that most of the time when we are "counting calories" we ultimately mess up because we are counting empty calories as someone mentioned earlier.

Wow this is so hilariously wrong.

Take a science class.

Also - the reason why the 'drink only water' method works well for some people (and others are rail-thin while pounding diet coke like it's blow) has more to do with the effects of carbonation and the moderately high salt content on water balance, etc than anything related to 'empty calories' (which is possibly the worst phrase you could use in this kind of conversation).

It's kind of like when you flush a toilet - you have to wait for the water level to 'refill' before it can flush again, and that's what drinking a ton of water will do for you. Slight metabolic gains may also be possible (but are also possibly offset by the gains you get from caffeine in diet soda, which has been positively correlated with metabolic gains and serves to enhance the thermogenic capabilities of other materials as well). No I will not argue the point of thermogenesis, it's really a sketchy area, I agree.