low fat diet burns more calories than low carbs **SURVEY**

[RogerThat]

An interesting set of results (albeit over a relatively short study period) suggesting that very low fat diets can burn off up to 70% more calories (with a corresponding better weight loss) than normal calorie controlled or low carb regimes:


http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31763205

[Mick F]

I'm happy in my skin.
I eat when I'm hungry, and I ride my bike/do the gardening/walk to the pub when I want, and I'm never a couch potato.

Do something.
Eat.

[Lucyhan]

Non of the above. I want to lose weight and exercise but exercise especially cycling makes you hungry.

There is no way I can only eat 600 (500 for women) calories a day. I am grumpy in the best of times

[Audax67]

I reckon to cycle at 500 kcal/hour, and keep my intake while cycling slightly under that. At home I've reduced fast carb intake - sugars, rice & spuds - and I'm not taking a lot of slow carbs (pasta) unless I have a big ride projected, and I've cut out desserts in favour of fruit. In fact, my "dessert" after lunch is now two cups of espresso, which tastes a lot better for not having just eaten something sweet.

[Vorpal]

I'm okay with my current weight.

However, only one of the poll choices above has an exercise regime associated. Most weight loss programs will not be successful without including exercise.

I wouldn't do fasting if I could help it. I don't feel well if I go too long without food. I need at least a couple of meals a day. However, I can halve my calorie intake for one day every couple of weekes, as long as I'm not riding my bike 50 miles or something on that day, and that kind of thing can help me lose weight.

When I have lost weight in the past, I have done so mainly by increasing the amount of exercise and cutting high calorie luxuries such as chocolate.

[RogerThat]

Non of the above. I want to lose weight and exercise but exercise especially cycling makes you hungry.

There is no way I can only eat 600 (500 for women) calories a day. I am grumpy in the best of times

You'd be surprised just how quickly you get used to it. I tried a few times to lose weight previously to no avail. On the standard 5+2 fast diet, every day I fasted I was approximately 400gr (1 pound lighter) the day after, combined with exercise on my non fast days (the other 5 days if the week) I was able to lose 2-3lbs a week quite comfortably. About twice as much weight per week you could expect to lose on a regular caloric reduction diet. Realistically I couldn't commit to a diet for 3-4 months calorie counting every single day, so the 5+2 over 6 weeks suited me very well indeed.

[mjr]

I'm okay with my current weight.

However, only one of the poll choices above has an exercise regime associated. Most weight loss programs will not be successful without including exercise.

Never mind weight loss (hell, I struggle to gain enough weight since cycling more) but exercise has many and varied other health benefits IME.

[661-Pete]

None of the voting options fits my preference exactly. I would go for option 1 on the whole, but with a modest exercise regime factored in, e.g. flat cycle rides of up to 20 miles.

[RogerThat]

It's just a survey for my own benefit. I treat people on a daily basis with health problems due to obesity and a sedentary lifestyle, perhaps 45% of my patients fall under this umbrella. The problem most have is that they're not able to commit to lengthy diet regimes either because they simply crave food too much or work/pre existing health issues.

There's definitely a need for shorter, less onerous diet programmes. The majority of my patients can't exercise because they are morbidly obese. Even losing a stone and a half, over a short period would transform most of them to the extent regular exercise becomes something that is actually a possibility. Blood pressure, very high blood pressure is also a huge barrier to exercise, which can be reduced greatly by shedding a few stones.

So, many people are trapped, quite literally within their own bodies, destined to an early grave.

Traditional caloric reduction diets are very hard to stick to, and often impossible for the above reasons for people to endure.
The time has definitely come for some blue sky thinking on weight management and effective exercise regimes.

If you could fill in the survey in respect of whichever choice is closest to your preference, much appreciated. Surveys by nature are never 'exact' Science!!

[661-Pete]

Far too much nonsense gets spouted out by some folks!

[edit 3/4] removed part of post

[Vorpal]

The majority of my patients can't exercise because they are morbidly obese. Even losing a stone and a half, over a short period would transform most of them to the extent regular exercise becomes something that is actually a possibility. Blood pressure, very high blood pressure is also a huge barrier to exercise, which can be reduced greatly by shedding a few stones.

So, many people are trapped, quite literally within their own bodies, destined to an early grave.

I have a hard time believing that people who are obese, even morbidly obese simply cannot exercise.

I know someone who was morbidly obese. When she started exercising, that meant walking 50 metres to the bus stop, having a rest on the bench, and walking back home. She did that twice per day, then 4 times per day. Then, she could make it to the shops (perhaps 150 metres from home). A year later, she was walking almost a kilometer each way twice a day to take her granddaughter to and from school, taking gentle bike rides of a couple of miles out of the village, and taking the bus into town for shopping and doctor appointments. She lost 3 stone, and had goals to lose another 3 stone, at least (she said she would see how she felt when she got there), ride her bike to and from the next village, and be able to join the Ramblers. I haven't seen her in a couple of years (we moved away), but I have no doubt that she will achieve her goals, if she hasn't already.

I also had a work colleague who was (in his words) too fat to walk. He could walk from the car park, around the shops and things like that, but he tired quickly. I have no idea how much he weighed; I only knew him after he had lost weight. He said he started on the rowing machines in the gym. I heard that he kept breaking them; I suppose he was probably well over the weight they were designed for, but it was probably easier than some other forms of exercise for him.

Even morbidly obese people can exercise, unless they also have other medical problems that prevent them from exercising. They may need to think about it in a differnet way than a reasonably fit person.

[661-Pete]

I have a hard time believing that people who are obese, even morbidly obese simply cannot exercise.

Well, I remember a fellow-forummer (not this forum) who by his own admission was morbidly obese, and looked it: he could run rings around me on the bike and amongst his exploits was a solo tour halfway across Australia. Haven't heard from him for a long time, hope he's OK.

But at the other extreme, there's a guy at my workplace whose body is virtually spherical, have no idea what he weighs, indeed I wouldn't dare to broach the topic of health in conversation with him, let alone boast about my own efforts! And I have no idea whether he takes any exercise at all. He also smokes, surreptiously sneaking out to the car park for a fag, like most smokers at the workplace these days. Oh well, at least he can walk as far as the car park, several times a day. He's quite a young chap, I'd like to think he'll reach the day when he can blow out forty candles on a (low-cal!) cake, but I fear he won't get there....

So would a gastric band be literally the only answer for this guy?! (sorry, this ought to be asked on the other thread) I feel charitable enough to assert, the NHS ought to be doing its utmost to 'rescue' him. Or should it? Ethical dilemma.....