Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

About This Club

Track your weight loss and encourage others!

  1. What's new in this club
  2. The ratio I use is as close to 50/50 as possible. (I really just wing it and drop it in the coffee.) But the more I think about it, it's closer to 1, maybe 1.5 teaspoons of each. And the garlic and onion is for heart/GI health. I'm pretty ridiculous with what I consume since those 275 days. I figured I'd share this tidbit because it worked wonders for me. If it helps one person, that would be awesome. Convinced a good number of friends/acquaintances to give it a shot and all had various levels of "success" depending on dietary changes. Even the one's that didn't change their diet lost a MODEST amount of weight.
  3. Things went south for me this winter.About 3 days after my last post I came down with pink eye, followed by a stomach bug, followed by Bronchitus, followed by sinus infection. Im now doinf a herbal system cleanse. As soon as that is done I will continue with my celery munching and keep you updated. Before all of that it was going great!
  4. 2 teaspoons a day seems like a lot of ACV, but simple enough to be worth trying...any idea what the ACV/lemon juice ratio is? I don't think I could handle garlic and onions in the am, except maybe a small amount in a Western omelette or something
  5. I really don't measure it, but I would guesstimate that it's about 2 teaspoons of the ACV and the lemon juice. I actually put it in coffee because I'm weird like that. As an aside, I also eat garlic and onions in the morning, but I don't think that factors into the weight loss.(Lots of mouthwash) All of this can cause stomach issues, especially at first, so I eat ginger to alleviate any GI issues. Not a fan of OTC meds to treat minor issues. The real constant is the ACV/Lemon Juice. If I consume that daily, my metabolism is NOTICEABLY better, so that's ultimately what it came down to for me, other than the obvious stuff. If you can handle the disgusting taste, I can pretty much guarantee your metabolism will increase.
  6. Studied ~27 people in 3 groups: 1) had lost average of 57 lb and maintained for average of 9 years 2) always normal control group - people who were never overweight and had similar average weight to group 1) 3) overweight/obese control group - people who averaged around the initial weight of group 1) They used some clever science involving deuterium-labeled water to directly measure energy intake (how much being eaten) and energy expenditure, backed up by some other techniques (counting steps with accelerometer attached to thigh). So they weren't just relying on what people said they were eating or doing. What they found is that group 1), the lost-weight-and-kept-it-off gang, were actually still eating about as many calories per day as group 3) the overweight control group, and significantly more than group 2) the always-normal weight control group. The difference was about 300 kcal/day. But they were more physically active to compensate - maybe about 10% more, maybe as much as 35% more. They did not find a decrease in metabolism (resting energy expenditure). Careful work, and in some ways more encouraging results than some other studies relying on what people say they're doing/eating https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.22373
  7. Interesting. How much of what exactly are you consuming? Ratio? Quantity? I'm sorry about the loss of your bro and congrats about losing the weight. How's the celery-munching going on?
  8. Just a quick tip to anyone perusing this topic. I ballooned from 170 to 270 after the loss of my younger brother. Other than all the obvious stuff(less carbs, exercise, etc), I found that a combination of apple cider vinegar and lemon juice do WONDERS for your metabolism. I probably lost the weight too quickly, but meh. Went from 270 back to 170 in roughly 8 months. The apple cider vinegar/lemon juice is disgusting, but it's 5 seconds of your day. Just wanted to offer up this tip in case it may help someone. As I've reached my goal and ideal weight, I continue with the ACV/Lemon Juice and find that I can eat more junk(in moderation) without gaining any back.
  9. So I'm happy to report that since 1/31/2019 I have met my initial goal of losing the weight I gained last spring after being involved in an automobile accident and suffering a head injury. Just in time for St Paddy's Day I have lost 17 lbs to date in about 5 1/2 weeks. Just gave away 2 pairs of jeans and am back in the pants I was wearing last year. I kept it up through a planned surgery for my elderly mom and through her emergency surgery 4 days later. The hospital cafeteria actually made it easy with placards posting nutrition information by every dish. This past weekend also concludes a month of "(minimal) added sugar" for me, the exception being a couple servings of homemade crustless pumpkin pie and a small quantity of sugar added to homemade viniagrette dressings. Other than that just fruit in moderation. While we've cut way down on restaurant meals, we have eaten at restaurants 3x and twice at a friend's house and was able to do pretty well there too. Anyone got any questions, ask.
  10. Some good points here that defining "successful diet" as "lost 5% of original body weight for a year" would not "cut the mustard" for other health issues - imagine a paper about successful smoking cessation program "our smokers reduced their cigarette consumption by 10% for a year, this shows the promise of this technique if we can only improve it", erm, No. And yet, people do lose weight, and maintain the loss for years. Maybe this makes me a "confirmation bias" seeker, but I do find these "weight loss is impossible" articles equally and oppositely depressing to the "you too can lose weight if you only had willpower and self-control" crowd. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-40989-001.pdf
  11. Traci Mann is a professor of psychology at U of Minn. From her blurb: "She is a widely cited expert, but she does not run a diet clinic or test diets, and she has never taken a penny from commercial diet companies, sat on their boards of directors, or endorsed one of their products. Because of this, her livelihood, research funding, and reputation are not dependent on her reporting that diets work or that obesity is unhealthy. This sets her apart from nearly all diet and obesity researchers and allows her to speak the truth about these topics, which she does with abandon." Her book, "Secrets from the Eating Lab", is an eclectic mix of the fascinating and the mundane. Her lab specializes in conducting research around what influences eating behavior and how. Example: put out food items (a bag of chips vs an apple) for people registering for a conference, and looked at how many registrants took the apple when it was labeled "healthy" vs when it had a healthy heart symbol vs when it was just labeled about its origin (this delicious apple was developed at the University of Minnesota's experimental farm). Conclusion: don't label an apple "healthy" if you want people to eat it, but attractive symbols may work. TL;DR: she summarizes a buttload of evidence that conventional calorie-reduction-and-exercise diets simply don't work to produce lasting weight loss and in fact create psychological and physiological changes that make subsequent weight control more challenging; that exercise by itself produces many of the positive health effects attributed to weight loss whether or not someone loses weight (lower blood pressure, improved glucose control, etc); and that the best health strategy may be to change behaviors to exercise regularly, minimize temptations and maximize intake of healthy food to live on the "low end" of one's intrinsic set point weight. Some of her behavior change strategies are novel to me and I'll try 'em. Example of the fascinating: an experiment where they asked volunteers to come into the lab 2x and allow an IV to be placed to draw blood samples during a tests (of course the order of the tests was randomized and all that good experimental stuff). For one test, they were given a milkshake described as "decadent, indulgent, 640 calories". For another, the shake was described as "nonfat, guilt-free, 140 calories". Levels of the hormone ghrelin (which signals hunger) were measured before, during, and after the shake consumption. The level of ghrelin declined sharply after participants consumed their indulgent shake but remained the same after the guilt-free shake consumption. Here's the thing: unbeknownst to the participants, they were given the exact same milkshake each time. Only the description changed. I've never seen a clearer demonstration of the power of our thoughts over our biology with regard to food consumption. Ultimately, though, Mann's book leaves my scientific ghrelin levels unchanged. She references a biological "set point" constituting a range of (say) 20-30 lbs beyond which it is difficult to either gain or lose weight and she summarizes some evidence supporting this concept (studies of identical twins separated at birth show weight correlates to each other and to birth parents, but not to the families that raised them). However, her book does not discuss at all: if a "set point" exists - what is the evidence of what sets it or changes it beyond genetics? Because clearly, some people do manage to lose weight beyond that limited 20-30 lb range and maintain that weight loss for years; while other people who have been stable at a reasonable weight for years will,at some point, gain weight beyond that 20-30 lb range for one or another reason and then struggle to lose it. So if set points exist, there seems to be significant evidence that they are influenced by factors beyond genetics, and can be changed, raising the question is "what are those factors? how are they triggered?" She doesn't go into that at all, leaving me hungry for answers. A subsidiary question: Mann delineates the hormonal and psychological changes caused by dieting (increased cortisol or "stress hormone"; changed responses to availability of tasty food). She cites the famed Keyes "Minnesota Starvation Experiment" of WWII in which 36 CO volunteers spent 6 months on a "starvation" diet of 1500 calories a day and lost 25% of their body weight so that different "refeeding strategies" applicable to WWII refugees could be tested. In that experiment, the volunteers were fed horrible meals of potatoes, bread, rutabagas, turnips, and cabbage and suffered debilitating psychological effects - lethargy, fixation on food, loss of interest in regular activities or studies. But given the results of the "Milkshake Experiment" showing a physiological effect of perceived food quality - one can't help asking, if the same experiment had been performed but using food perceived and described as "gourmet" and "luscious" (and also varied, and including more 'normal' foods) vs "starvation" - would the mental effects of the diet have differed? Would it have been less mentally and socially debilitating?
  12.  
×
×
  • Create New...