[Suits]

(06-28-2017 01:52 AM)etwsake Wrote:  

Thank you TLOZ.

And thanks to everyone that posted in this thread or sent me PMs. Thank you for reading my words and having empathy for a stranger's struggle.

I haven't made the progress I want to. When I do, and I have something to report, I will make an update here.

Post your current weight once every week to keep yourself accountable, regardless of your success each week.

[rainy]

(06-22-2017 04:57 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Not to come down too hard on anybody in this thread, but a lot of this advice is worthless.

So much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin, nor do I have the patience to pick the whole thing apart.

(06-22-2017 04:57 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

"Commit to a new, healthy and active lifestyle" is worthless pablum that you can find in any diet book, and that's plastered over the walls of every doctor's office in the country.
Same with advice like "You have to want to lose weight!" and "No one can do it for you!"

It's a worthless platitude if you don't have a clue what you're talking about. OP didn't ask for a diet plan, a workout plan, some HIIT programs he can do. But by and large, anyone who goes from 300 lbs and can barely get off the couch to being fit and healthy absolutely adopts a different lifestyle, a healthy lifestyle.

(06-22-2017 04:57 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

If you phrase it as "You have to make permanent lifestyle changes, and ensure that your diet is something you can maintain long term rather than thinking this is something you do short-term and then stop" then yes, it's useful, but it's ONLY useful to someone who's already dieting currently. To a guy who's breaking 300 pounds and has no idea where to begin it's useless.

Nope. The idea adopting a healthy lifestyle which you can undertake long term only works for someone who's currently dieting is a bunch of nonsense. OP doesn't even need to diet, just make healthy changes and switch to lower calorie and healthier foods which are more filling.

Samuel will have you believe eating 1lb of fresh salmon with a large green salad and greek yogurt mixed with chocolate protein powder for desert will produce the same "lack of feeling full" feeling that pigging out on McDonald's will. It's bullshit.

(06-22-2017 04:57 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I despise the "You just need more willpower! Stop embracing your laziness!" school of thought in regards to dieting more than about any other modern ideology, except perhaps fat acceptance. People who've been trying to lose weight have been hearing this throughout my entire lifetime, and the number of people who successfully lose weight and keep it off is essentially negligible. Every year people hear "Diet harder!" and every year the obesity rate goes up. It has a worse track record than global warming. IT DOESN'T WORK. It very clearly didn't work for you, because you had to do it several times despite being a personal trainer.

Hate it all you want but you're pure emotion at this point. You've been triggered. And it sure as hell does work, eating healthier and adopting a healthier lifestyle. Worked for me, worked for my clients, worked for numerous others despite your hysterics.

(06-22-2017 04:57 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Morbidly obese people like OP have incredibly fucked up hunger hormones, and trying to fight these hormones is basically impossible. FAT PEOPLE DON'T GET FULL.

OP, do yourself a favor and disregard this type of nonsense. "Fat people" will get plenty full if eating the right types of food. Eat crap, eat processed food chalk full of chemicals, chemicals which make you hungrier while also releasing opiate like effects on your brain will prevent you from feeling full. Hence why you need to change the types of foods you eat.

(06-22-2017 04:57 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

If you're morbidly obese and you're reading this, here's my advice:

GET YOUR SLEEP CHECKED.

Yes OP, dismiss exercise, dismiss trying to increase your activity levels, dismiss eating healthier, natural, preferably organic foods which are lower in calories, keep you feeling more satiated, are digested far easier and improve your overall health and instead, just get your sleep checked.

That's sarcasm obviously and I'm sure the OP can see that.

[Suits]

(06-28-2017 11:51 PM)rainy Wrote:  

Eat crap, eat processed food chalk full of chemicals, chemicals which make you hungrier while also releasing opiate like effects on your brain will prevent you from feeling full. Hence why you need to change the types of foods you eat.

Isn't everything in the world composed of chemicals, the definition of which is any combination of elements?

[rainy]

(06-28-2017 11:58 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(06-28-2017 11:51 PM)rainy Wrote:  

Eat crap, eat processed food chalk full of chemicals, chemicals which make you hungrier while also releasing opiate like effects on your brain will prevent you from feeling full. Hence why you need to change the types of foods you eat.

Isn't everything in the world composed of chemicals, the definition of which is any combination of elements?

Not exactly. There's a difference between what occurs naturally in nature(like the sugar in dates) and pumping processed foods full of salt, MSG, mountains of refined sugar, acrylamide, various coloring and additives, high fructose corn syrup, most flour/gluten, etc.

Just about every major food company, the non-organic ones at least, have scientists and chemists on their payrolls to design chemical reactions which make you crave more and feel less full. That's why people actually start feeling hungry when driving by a fast food burger joint, the smell and release of the chemicals fuck with your brain.

Ever wonder why you can eat a full container of something like Pringles and be hungry 30 mins later but a three egg omelette keeps you full for a few hours?

[SamuelBRoberts]

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself poorly or if some members are just extremely dense.
I don't really care if potato-boy or rainy gets it, but I'm concerned that if they're having trouble following my argument, I'm concerned other people might be as well. So I'll lay it out once more, as simply as I can, using numbered bullet points and short sentences.

1.) The ratio of successful dieters is terrible! One study I read shows that only 7% of people who diet succeed!
2.) The common wisdom is that 93% of people just aren't trying hard enough. They aren't "Committing to a new, healthy and active lifestyle!" If only they would understand that "No one can do it for you!", the obesity problem that plagues the entire west would disappear overnight.
3.) The common wisdom is a horrific failure. Every year people are told the same platitudes. Every year they start diets with the best of intentions. Every year they fail.
4.) One major reason diets fail is that their hormone system is fucked up. This makes dieting nigh-impossible, because your own body is fighting you every step of the way.
5.) The body's hormonal system is complex, and not well-understood. But there are three things we know that affect hunger: sleep apnea (poor sleep in general), stress, and thyroid problems.
6.) But all of these things have fixes and treatments! With a couple doctor's visits and some tests, you can get many of your hormonal problems resolved, and once you realize that stress is a problem, you can start to avoid it.
7.) Once you've fixed these problems, your diet will become much more likely to succeed. You'll have more energy and fewer cravings.

Is this hard? I don't think this is hard, but people keep acting like this is something hard.

[Suits]

(06-29-2017 12:25 AM)rainy Wrote:  

(06-28-2017 11:58 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(06-28-2017 11:51 PM)rainy Wrote:  

Eat crap, eat processed food chalk full of chemicals, chemicals which make you hungrier while also releasing opiate like effects on your brain will prevent you from feeling full. Hence why you need to change the types of foods you eat.

Isn't everything in the world composed of chemicals, the definition of which is any combination of elements?

Not exactly. There's a difference between what occurs naturally in nature(like the sugar in dates) and pumping processed foods full of salt, MSG, mountains of refined sugar, acrylamide, various coloring and additives, high fructose corn syrup, most flour/gluten, etc.

But as far as the actual definition of what a chemical is, are eggs not composed of chemicals just as everything else is, including chemical additives?

[samsamsam]

(06-28-2017 05:43 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(06-28-2017 01:52 AM)etwsake Wrote:  

Thank you TLOZ.

And thanks to everyone that posted in this thread or sent me PMs. Thank you for reading my words and having empathy for a stranger's struggle.

I haven't made the progress I want to. When I do, and I have something to report, I will make an update here.

Post your current weight once every week to keep yourself accountable, regardless of your success each week.

I agree.

I heard an expression one time. What gets measured gets improved.

[SamuelBRoberts]

(06-28-2017 11:51 PM)rainy Wrote:  

OP, do yourself a favor and disregard this type of nonsense. "Fat people" will get plenty full if eating the right types of food. Eat crap, eat processed food chalk full of chemicals, chemicals which make you hungrier while also releasing opiate like effects on your brain will prevent you from feeling full. Hence why you need to change the types of foods you eat.

I should probably drop this, but the amount of bullshit going around on the subject of weight loss really bothers me.
OP tried your "eat the right type of food" suggestion earlier in the thread. He was eating salads and chicken with lemon, which is about as healthy as you can get.
It didn't take. OP is still miserable.

It's infuriating how people don't understand that what works for a guy who maybe needs to lose 10, 20, or even 30 lbs (Eat less processed crap, maybe go on a short term fad diet like ALL POTATOES ALL DAY) doesn't work for a guy who needs to lose 115. And yes, he knows, I know, and you know, and my dog knows, that junk food is bad for you and if you want to be healthy you should eat more real food. This is not news.

[Gmac]

^

People can argue all day over semantics, or which foods you should or should not be eating and often miss the point. I work with dieticians on a near day-to-day basis and although I'm not one myself I can tell you the minutia gets hashed and re-hashed all the time.

Losing weight is a math problem of caloric intake versus calories burned. Regardless of what you're eating, if your intake exceeds a certain point depending on your current weight and activity level, you won't lose weight and may in fact make gains instead (when that's your intent it obviously works). What you are eating is important in terms of overall health, nutritional content, dietary needs, etc. but it's not as important as the math problem itself if your goal is weight loss (long-term health, while very closely related, is a completely different subject).

From http://www.livestrong.com/article/360894...pound-man/

Quote:

A quick way to estimate calorie needs for a man is to multiply weight in pounds by a number between 14 and 18, depending on his activity level. Using this estimate, a sedentary 300-pound man would need about 4,200 calories per day to maintain his weight. To lose each pound of fat, you need burn 3,500 calories more than you eat. Eating 500 fewer calories each day can also help you lose about 1 pound per week, or 1,000 fewer calories per day will result in about 2 pounds of weight loss per week. This would generally mean eating between 3,200 and 3,700 calories per day.

While this won't result in extremely fast weight loss, it is a healthy rate of weight loss, and it can be easier to stick with a diet that doesn't require drastic cuts in calories. Faster weight loss than this may also mean you lose a greater percentage of muscle, which can slow your metabolism and make it more likely you'll gain the weight back. Don't eat fewer than 1,800 calories per day, as this could cause your metabolism to slow down.

You may lose weight more quickly at first, but at some point in your weight-loss journey, losing 2 pounds each week might become too aggressive. As you get closer to your goal weight, smaller weight loss will become the norm. Also, keep in mind that as you lose weight, your calorie needs go down, so at some point you may need to recalculate your caloric needs to keep losing weight.

Once you've committed yourself mentally to losing the weight, whether you "count" or not, calories consumed vs. burned is going to largely determine if and how quickly the weight comes off. Using a caloric tool can be useful for planning and gauging whether you are eating enough or not. Our bodies are already burning a couple thousand calories a day going through our normal routines, without exercise. That is why when you're both decreasing intake and increasing activity, weight loss increases too. I'm not saying you "have" to track your caloric intake/usage, but if you focus on improving the two and avoid the extremes and you will see results.

Still at the end of the day, if you aren't committed to the goal and derail from the plan you'll be back to square one. This is why the mental game is about self-discipline and "checking" yourself when you step out of line. If you actually want to lose the weight, figure out the math problem and stop deviating from it. 9 times out of 10, it's the secret snacking and constant cheat meals done in private. Caloric intake skyrockets, you gain weight. It's not rocket science. You know you're doing it but you feel you can't stop. Well, you can... so stop!

[Phoenix]

I guess I just find it fascinating that Tokyo Joe can just launch himself into this thread calling other people's advice "spectacularly shitty". I then make a post in the larger context of everyone dropping their differing diet advice. He then takes that personally, makes it about him, and erupts, going after me personally and accusing me of being a sperg.

And as he does he gets a stream of likes below his posts.

So I'm interested, fellas. Tell me, in what universe is that a reasonable course of events? Do I need to buy you all a round of drinks, so I too can come in swinging into threads and still receive that kind of support?

(06-27-2017 04:22 AM)Suits Wrote:  

Ironically, Phoenix has never been vetted by anyone.

Not that he is obligated to be. There are many reasons why it would be smart for members in certain situations to carefully protect their anonymity.

But he's not really in the position to be tell others what the definition of qualified is.

Ironically in what way, Suits? What particular claims would I need to be vetted for?

I think this thread has illustrated one good reason why I stay anonymous: I enjoy the ability to speak disconnected from my personal ego and popularity. I can appeal to reason over popularity or personality, and speak freely, because I don't have a real life reputation to defend or to use to my advantage. After all, if I could freely say a quarter of the things I've said here in real life, would I even be here in the first place?


Anyway, this unreasonable and unobjective ruckus seems to have at least helped bring etwsake back to the thread, but he should still follow the advice of posting reports unconditionally

[Suits]

(06-29-2017 07:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 04:22 AM)Suits Wrote:  

Ironically, Phoenix has never been vetted by anyone.

Not that he is obligated to be. There are many reasons why it would be smart for members in certain situations to carefully protect their anonymity.

But he's not really in the position to be tell others what the definition of qualified is.

Ironically in what way, Suits? What particular claims would I need to be vetted for?

Ironic, because you are the one advocating a method of vetting that would require forum members to submit their medical school graduation diploma before they are permitted to give certain types of advice.

We have a vetting system already. It's called 'meeting each other.'

I've met a ton of forum guys and the guys I know have met a ton of other forum members. If a forum member posts something that I think is a little off, I can find out pretty quick as to whether they are legit or just another Internet tough guy.

There's forum members who have posted stuff that I wouldn't have trusted at face value, but after asking around and learning that the forum member is question was a dude who really walked the talk, I would then give his post further consideration.

There's been other cases where members posted some weird stuff and after checking in with some other members, I learned that the individual in question had attended some meet-ups and his real life reality did not match is tough guy persona on the forum in the least. I then knew I would be best steering clear of his advice.

(06-29-2017 07:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I think this thread has illustrated one good reason why I stay anonymous: I enjoy the ability to speak disconnected from my personal ego and popularity.

It isn't about ego or popularity. It's easy for most people to talk tough when no one sees their real world reality. Meeting people forces most forum members to be more honest in what they post, because if something doesn't fit with who they actually are, word is going to get around that they and their posts aren't to be trusted.

(06-29-2017 07:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I can appeal to reason over popularity or personality, and speak freely, because I don't have a real life reputation to defend or to use to my advantage. After all, if I could freely say a quarter of the things I've said here in real life, would I even be here in the first place?

You could say those things if you were hanging with fellow forum members. But you'd only be able to say things that correlated with your real life reality. That's obviously not everyone's cup of tea.

Nevertheless, you post some valuable material here on the forum. I always give your posts special attention.

[Phoenix]

Nope, if I say "I date supermodels, here's my game advice", there is reason to be skeptical and want to vet me. If I say "Alcohol makes you drunk so don't drive after", do you need to vet that I drink alcohol before you believe it?

Since I wasn't relying on claims (e.g. "believe me because I get results"), but instead sticking to facts (e.g. "correlation doesn't imply causation"), no vetting is required, only to understand and then agree or disagree. Irony needs some incongruity (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irony?s=t), and I'm making no claims that would require vetting, so no incongruity and no irony.

I also don't get your attitude about tough talk, like I can only use that language if I have scars and gold teeth. Mollycoddling doesn't work. If they can't even stomach having that mirror held up to them, such a useful tool, they never really wanted help, they just wanted hugs.

If you're questioning my incentive, I guess I enjoy it. I forgot that Swedish kid's name, rekodig or something, who showed up here a while ago. We opened up on that guy, and it frigging worked. There's something about seeing a loser turn around that makes me feel good, perhaps it's something to do with "renewing my faith in the human spirit" or whatever. The attitude that tough talk be frowned upon is wrong. Tough talk from peers is a powerful tool, a gift even.

And that veiled indirect courtier-style language at the end, if hanging out in real life makes me start doing that, no thanks. It's also bullshit you can talk the same, that people would have no-holds-barred conversations like Travel Museum's whore thread. I really couldn't care less what kind of person people think I am here, I'm engaging here to the extent I find the discourse interesting and like-minded, and any positive feedback I get is a welcome side-effect. Otherwise I'd start posting stories about my Heists (most people don't talk about this) or my Test Pilot career.

The anonymous online forum allows people to share private things, open themselves up to hard criticism, talk politics/race/religion etc, far beyond what they're comfortable doing in real life. It's a powerful tool.

Now etwsake put this thread back on the rails by posting your reports

[Repo]

@Phoenix

You did say "Look the fact is none of us are qualified to give dietary advice."

Can't say something like that and expect not to be challenged. Plenty of people are qualified to give dietary advice.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Phoenix, can you explain what bad things you think might happened if OP shifted away from a diet of those awful, awful pizzas he's eating and other junk into something that more closely approximated something a human can eat?

I mean, I understand why you wouldn't want to give exercise advice to somebody in his condition.
But what harm do you think will come of Tokyo Joe's suggestion, or anybody's suggestion that isn't something retarded like a potato starvation diet?

[Suits]

(06-29-2017 07:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I can appeal to reason over popularity or personality, and speak freely, because I don't have a real life reputation to defend or to use to my advantage.

(06-26-2017 05:44 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

You're not qualified, as some poster on the internet, unless you're willing to post your redacted record sheets of your clients progresses, including those who failed against your advice, or your evidence of formal study.

[GlobalMan]

Nevermind.

[wi30]

(06-29-2017 12:00 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

And that veiled indirect courtier-style language at the end, if hanging out in real life makes me start doing that, no thanks. It's also bullshit you can talk the same, that people would have no-holds-barred conversations like Travel Museum's whore thread. I really couldn't care less what kind of person people think I am here, I'm engaging here to the extent I find the discourse interesting and like-minded, and any positive feedback I get is a welcome side-effect. Otherwise I'd start posting stories about my Heists (most people don't talk about this) or my Test Pilot career.

Anything I've written on the forum I've said to at least a dozen people in real life.

[Hannibal]

@Samuel Roberts

The potato diet is legit, I've been running it off and on for a few months now. I modified it so that I basically replace all my carbs with potatoes and eat lean meats (because zero protein is retarded and chicken won't make you fat) and the weight loss does happen. Obviously I don't load it up with tons of butter and cheese. Spices are your friend.

The potatoes are filling, they're mostly water and the skins have fiber that keep you full. Average weight loss is a pound or two a week and I only do it maybe three days per week. The results would be much faster if I did it every day. When I started back in March I was around 200 lbs and I've leisurely whittled my way down to 185 without feeling like I'm missing much at all, and I don't even do it that often.

From what I can tell, even when I'm eating "a lot", I'm only getting maybe 1500 calories during the potato days. That looks like three square meals a day, each with a decent sized piece of chicken, beef or fish and three medium sized potatoes on your plate.

Each medium sized spud is about 100 calories and a fatass would have to smash 12 pounds of them a day to gain even maintain his current weight (good luck, lol).

There is no planning, you make your meal and eat potatoes until you're full. I just nuke them in the microwave but the "purists" recommend eating them cold with no spices. I think that's counterproductive at best. If you want to lose weight with your intake, you're better off drinking a gallon of ice cold water than eating your food cold.

So while I would never advocate the potato only diet, a diet where you replace all carbs with potatoes would work and in the OP's case it's way, way better than what's he's doing now, which is nothing. Throw in a salad (no dressing) here and there and it's a fine formula for long term success.

[Phoenix]

(06-29-2017 11:47 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

But what harm do you think will come of Tokyo Joe's suggestion, or anybody's suggestion that isn't something retarded like a potato starvation diet?

His advice was still grounded in science though:


(Holt, 1995)

My point was a general appeal to objectivity, be it through referencing scientific research, or showing evidence of results, or using logical statements to link up known facts, or whatever. Otherwise we're all just yelling at each other, rather than pursuing best outcomes.

(06-30-2017 12:12 AM)Suits Wrote:  

You really do see those two statements as being at odds with each other, don't you? You can't see how the second statement speaks of moving the advice further from the adviser's personal opinion or reputation, and closer to presentation of objective evidence or a statement of commonly accepted facts learned from professionals (who've in turn had to study prior objective evidence), so snark GIF it is...

That response says more about you than it does about me, so I'm happy to leave it at that. And as I consider your continued snark and weasel-wording to reduce the quality of dialogue on this forum, I'll be removing it with my block list.

Besides, if I wanted to have "dialogue" with liberals I'd be on Facebook, not RVF. Sionara.

[ElFlaco]

(07-01-2017 03:52 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

His advice was still grounded in science though:

While we're grounding things in science, note that potatoes have an extremely high glycemic index, higher than table sugar. Will spike your insulin.

Source: Harvard Health / Harvard Medical School. Glycemic Index (Glucose =100).

[RIslander]

Can you guys start a potato diet thread? It's detracting from this one.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Actually I am going to start this one - a prolonged fast.

There are studies linked in the vid.

It explain why I was weaker during my extreme caloric restriction that I did a few months ago. I still took in some 200 calories mostly in protein and some fats.

It is both psychologically as well as physically easier to shift to complete fasts as the body enters ketosis and releases more hormones after the first 2-3 days.

Strangely enough it is easier to fast fully for 10-30 days than to eat a severely restricted caloric diet. There are other factors associated with full fasting that improve the mental capacity.

I will do that and will just add some of my basic supplements.

According to the data I should be able to even workout fully and build some muscle so long as I have some bodyfat left and I am too far away from my target 8% bodyfat.


----------------

I don't want to post here too much on the potato story, but the funny part is that there is a small Japanese area where they eat mostly special potatoes: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...ive-to-100

Though part of the reason why it is so effective is due to the nutrient rich earth and potatoes they have there.

Also there is something else going on with the people who eat a tremendous amount of carbohydrates - after 6 to 18 months the body starts to metabolize those natural carbohydrates differently and those individuals can eat even 4000+ calories in vegetables or fruit - and they are thin as can be. Personally I do not advocate that diet, but their nutrient intake is tremendous. Still - there is a lot about the human body and diet that mainstream medicine is not talking about and is not even researching much:

Part of the reason why I don't recommend that diet too much is because you need tremendously pure and organic vegetables for that kind of dietary habit - you are otherwise poisoning yourself with pesticides since fruits and some vegetables have high doses of it and you eat much more of all that when on that diet.

Another reason why this diet is not easy is because you are quite restricted in what you eat and if you add for example some meat, fish or the occasional fried food, then your body reacts wildly to it. An 80-10-10 organic diet (necessary to be organic) may cost you up to 10.000$ in the winter in the West - for one person! And it takes your body 6 to 18 months to transition!

This kind of massive burning of carbohydrates is frankly also not something I love to have, since the volumes of food those people eat are massive - and yes that food can be mountains of potatoes.

[TheMost]

I did a 30 day water fast. I lost 15 pounds, it screwed up my metabolism, and it all came back within 2 weeks.

I did a 30 day potato hack. I was never hungry, weak, tired or cold. I dropped 20 pounds and my belt is now 5 notches tighter. 3 months later, the weight is still off, eating whatever I feel like. Might have gained 5 pounds back. Once the belt notches started closing, I didn't need to weigh myself; when you lose fat that fast, it is your belt that is the best measurement. At the end of the day, most of us care about the six pack stomach and looking good more than weight. Weight is a poor proxy, but it is easier to measure than waist size, especially if you are losing 1 pound a week.

[Australia Sucks]

I tried a 7 day water fast this year. I lost almost no weight (I lost maybe 1 or 2 kilograms but it came back in less than a week) but I felt better after the fast (meant to be good for detoxing) and my palate and food cravings changed. Since the fast I really have not had any strong food cravings for particular foods like I sometimes did before and also my palate is more sensitive, with certain overly processed foods tasting too sweet or too salty now compared to before.

I think a water fast anywhere from 7-14 days is good to detox your body and help you kick start a change in eating habits. Perhaps your palate and food cravings will alter for the better and also psychologically when you know that you have the willpower to go without eating at all for a week then you feel like you easily have the willpower to say no the bag of chips or the ice-cream, etc.

p.s. I drank natural high magnesium spring water when on the fast (you don't want your minerals to be too depleted).

[Australia Sucks]

Here is an interesting youtube video by a vegan who argues that a ketogenic diet is unhealthy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzHLAqyO7PQ

I am not sure what to make of the video.