Permanent Weight Loss
crockford.com
crockford.com
1) It is really tempting to try to understand ourselves based on the assumed lives of our evolutionary ancestors, but the fact is we know almost nothing about their lives, and conclusions we draw from what we can guess are unlikely to be accurate.
2) There is not one citation in this entire article. This is all opinion, no matter how true it sounds.
3) He offers medical advice based solely on his personal experience. Sleep apnea may not be the same to all people.
Nutritional science is friggin' hard. Extrapolating from biological reactions has to take a huge load of variables into account and empirical studies have to monitor a huge bunch of people over a long period of time -- and all of them are lying.
> Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
Why should I eat "mostly plants"? He hands out a bunch of advice and never bothers to lay out a basis for his opinions.
Also, it has pictures, some of which are attractive females. I'm sold!
Last month, we exhibited at our largest trade show of the year–at the MGM in Vegas. I ate like a pig for a week. The Grand Buffet. Kobe ribeye at Craftsteak. Sushi. Beer. In N Out Burgers. You name it.
When I came home, I had lost 6 pounds.
We also walked a ton that week, stood in our booth for 8 hours a day, and hauled a lot of stuff during the setup/teardown.
I think people misunderstand what it means to "exercise" (at least in terms of losing weight). You don't have to go to a gym ... just get on your feet and move.
I have friends who mock this, and talk about how much more important it is to get into their peak-heart-rate on their at-home treadmill. That they've actually used maybe a couple dozen times.
I don't have a choice - have to walk to work. And Back. 3 1/4 miles a day. Every day.
That's almost a marathon a week. :-)
PS. Sorry I'm just in a bad mood and feel the need to be anal.
And, it's unclear that it necessarily works the same way in all people.
My opinion is that decomposition is the only permanent weight loss. Before then, there's maintenance, both successful and not which varies by both individual and circumstance.
I think all of the studies show that most people don't keep weight off, and that the slower you lose the weight the more likely you are going to keep it off. Also, running is good for the brain as well as the body.
While this abstract is slightly funny, I suddenly realized that I have no idea about why humans evolved big brains. Why most of the other species do not select for bigger brains, while human evolution seems to suggest that a bigger brain is a much better survival tool compared to sharp claws or protective colour? Certainly, other species would have offspring which have slightly larger/smarter brains. Why is that only a few species (humans, dolphins ...) evolved relatively large brains?
Yes, but isn't that just restating the theory of evolution and natural selection?
Others state that unless you're carefully balancing your calories vs. your workout level, you can push your metabolism into "starvation mode" - for example: lets say you require 2300 calories to maintain your weight, but you want to slim down so you decide to consume 2000 instead. If you throw exercise into the mix you're burning off an extra 300-500 calories (a net of 1500-1700 calories) which may put your body's metabolism into starvation mode. Because different people's bodies response to exercise differently, actually tracking your net caloric intake is challenging and not fully understood.
And of course there's the studies that show exercising alone with no diet plans seems to have a negligible impact on weight loss.
I hope I didn't misrepresent their arguments, but that's the gist of them.
It's helping you in a number of other different ways perhaps, I was certainly not saying someone should not exercise. It's just not an effective weight loss technique.
Also when you add up the calories burned, even vigorous exercise just isn't that much. It's FAR easier to cut calories out of your diet than to exercise them away even if you assumed exercise did not make you hungrier or affect you in any other way adverse to weight loss.
To build that muscle, you have to feed it, so consuming more to burn more isn't necessarily out in left field as far as nutritional science goes.
There should be studies about this in the literature.
I know it happens to me - after I work really hard, I'm very very hungry after, and I end up eating too much.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010...
It's pretty simple - burn more fat, eat less crap.
I think it's just about determination, and wether you actually care enough about achieving the goal.
It's pretty simple - playing the piano causes limb regrowth.
If you're thin is it impossible to eat?
I'm talking about fat - able to exercise if you try. Not talking about morbidly obese.
If fat people took up jogging and became thin, you would see fat joggers.
Which was my point.
Then he'd learn about the difference.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. But I'm lazy.
People who cut out calories and exercise lose the same as people who cut out calories and don't. People who exercise without changing eating habits don't lose weight, just like those who do nothing at all.