5 ms·

I think the mental blockage is the main issue with dieting (what else should it be, really?). I've seen so many diets that try to be super smart and as a result

by nothis 9y ago

I think the mental blockage is the main issue with dieting (what else should it be, really?). I've seen so many diets that try to be super smart and as a result complex. They are these "lifestyle" changes, comparable to becoming a vegan or something and I always figured that this is what dieting _is_ and, as a result, that I couldn't do it. Turns out, simply cutting your calorie intake (while generally eating whatever type of food you like) works out fine and has minimal drawbacks. In fact, I felt less "bloated" (I know, that's a health food buzzword but it's kinda real), which more than counter-weighted the lack of comfort food. You also have to get used to the idea that "hunger" is a normal, everyday feeling and not an alarm signal (first world problems, right?). Usually, you can actually still _eat_ whenever you're hungry, anyway, and it even tastes better! 25-50% off is easy. You can eat a full meal, generally, and still be below your 50% daily calorie intake, there's still room for a snack. All supermarket foods have calorie labels now and the rest you can look up online and quickly get a hang for. We all know the worst offenders (chocolate, soft drinks, fried stuff,...) but once you look it up it forces you to face the reality of it. I never wrote down any lists, just a rough, rounded number in the back of my head. Generally, it was way harder to start than to keep going. After a week or two, it's easy. Lost 10+ kilos that way over the course of a few months (like 4 or 5?), which put me within my personal weight goal.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
In short, cut out the crap and you're most of the way there (to the reduction total). But if you think of sugar, etc. as necessary and natural then you're more or less doomed, as you deserve to be.
- E6300 9y ago
  > Glucose is a ubiquitous fuel in biology. It is used as an energy source in most > organisms, from bacteria to humans, through either aerobic respiration, > anaerobic respiration, or fermentation. Glucose is the human body's key source > of energy, through aerobic respiration, providing about 3.75 kilocalories (16 > kilojoules) of food energy per gram. Breakdown of carbohydrates (e.g. starch) > yields mono- and disaccharides, most of which is glucose. Through glycolysis and > later in the reactions of the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation, > glucose is oxidized to eventually form CO2 and water, yielding energy mostly in > the form of ATP. The insulin reaction, and other mechanisms, regulate the > concentration of glucose in the blood.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point of your comment. Mine was, in short, reducing isn't so hard if you simply remove the unnecessary. That's it. Speaking for myself, as fit as I might be, I do know I consume unnecessaries.
    - civilitty 9y ago
      No, you went on to say: > But if you think of sugar, etc. as necessary and natural then you're more or less doomed, as you deserve to be. Which, apart from being wildly unnecessary color commentary, is the equivalent of saying the earth is flat. Sugar is literally one of the core building blocks of aerobic life, which is over 99.9999999% of multicellular organisms.
  - CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
    Sugar breaks down to equal parts glucose and fructose though. And fructose is treated very differently from glucose in our bodies.
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      Do you care to elaborate on how they're differently treated?
      - midnitewarrior 9y ago
        Glucose is used as fuel, whereas fructose doesn't have a direct pathway to be used as fuel, it must first be stored as fat. You then have to have an absence of glucose in your body before you may metabolize your body fat. This doesn't happen often for most people, hence, the obesity epidemic from overconsumption of sugar. That's the short version. The long, detailed version is available from YouTube, search for Dr. Robert Lustig's videos.
allsunny 9y ago
That's one of Dr. Fung's arguments, there are a lot of creative diets that become reasonably complex etc and are hard to follow over the long run. He also points out the difficulty of portion control in the midst of a meal. Fasting is pretty simple as far as all of that goes. You don't eat.
meowface 9y ago
Subjectively, I find it much easier to cut total calories by intermittent fasting than by willing myself to eat less once I've started a meal. And it also makes meals more rewarding and enjoyable for me, personally. I don't know if it's the healthiest or most ideal way of going about it, but it's what works best for me.

by nothis 9y ago

chiefalchemist 9y ago

In short, cut out the crap and you're most of the way there (to the reduction total). But if you think of sugar, etc. as necessary and natural then you're more or less doomed, as you deserve to be.

E6300 9y ago
> Glucose is a ubiquitous fuel in biology. It is used as an energy source in most > organisms, from bacteria to humans, through either aerobic respiration, > anaerobic respiration, or fermentation. Glucose is the human body's key source > of energy, through aerobic respiration, providing about 3.75 kilocalories (16 > kilojoules) of food energy per gram. Breakdown of carbohydrates (e.g. starch) > yields mono- and disaccharides, most of which is glucose. Through glycolysis and > later in the reactions of the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation, > glucose is oxidized to eventually form CO2 and water, yielding energy mostly in > the form of ATP. The insulin reaction, and other mechanisms, regulate the > concentration of glucose in the blood.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point of your comment. Mine was, in short, reducing isn't so hard if you simply remove the unnecessary. That's it. Speaking for myself, as fit as I might be, I do know I consume unnecessaries.
  - civilitty 9y ago
    No, you went on to say: > But if you think of sugar, etc. as necessary and natural then you're more or less doomed, as you deserve to be. Which, apart from being wildly unnecessary color commentary, is the equivalent of saying the earth is flat. Sugar is literally one of the core building blocks of aerobic life, which is over 99.9999999% of multicellular organisms.
- CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
  Sugar breaks down to equal parts glucose and fructose though. And fructose is treated very differently from glucose in our bodies.
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    Do you care to elaborate on how they're differently treated?
    - midnitewarrior 9y ago
      Glucose is used as fuel, whereas fructose doesn't have a direct pathway to be used as fuel, it must first be stored as fat. You then have to have an absence of glucose in your body before you may metabolize your body fat. This doesn't happen often for most people, hence, the obesity epidemic from overconsumption of sugar. That's the short version. The long, detailed version is available from YouTube, search for Dr. Robert Lustig's videos.

allsunny 9y ago

That's one of Dr. Fung's arguments, there are a lot of creative diets that become reasonably complex etc and are hard to follow over the long run. He also points out the difficulty of portion control in the midst of a meal. Fasting is pretty simple as far as all of that goes. You don't eat.

meowface 9y ago

Subjectively, I find it much easier to cut total calories by intermittent fasting than by willing myself to eat less once I've started a meal. And it also makes meals more rewarding and enjoyable for me, personally. I don't know if it's the healthiest or most ideal way of going about it, but it's what works best for me.