The problem here seems that discussions about this are sooo littered with personal biases. "Bro science" is just one aspect of this, far more common is expecting that one's personal achievement is universally reproducible. Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time and swimming laps like there's no tomorrow. But as a general rule to combat obesity, that's probably not the way to go (we often get the same personal non-exceptionalism in economic debates).
So I hope we'll have less "But it worked for me!" in this thread and more thought about something a bit more universal and averaged out.
> Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time
One major problem with the standard BMI definitions is that any athlete in a sport that vaguely requires muscles will be classed as 'overweight' or 'obese'.
Although there may be some justification for this categorisation, these are people we normally consider at the peak of fitness.
One of the best things you can do for long-term health outcomes is to follow a strength training programme. For an average person, that may result in weight gain via muscle. This is not a bad thing.
>
So I hope we'll have less "But it worked for me!" in this thread and more thought about something a bit more universal and averaged out.
HN fucking sucks at these discussions. There's a strong resistance to the evidence base (exercise doesn't help with weight lose and may make things worse; lifestyle changes of eating different does work; still recommend exercise because of other important health benefits).
There is too much mysticism around nutrition and health; people think it's about the method when it's rather about finding a method that works for you the way you apply it.
People seem to find it very hard to reason about dosages as well; so-and-so is "good for you" and so-and-so is "bad for you", again with the mysticism. Nothing is bad for you and everything is bad for you, all depending on the dose. And vice versa, foods that are supposedly good for you don't do shit if you don't dose it appropriately, and become bad for you if you overdose it.
> Yes, person A may eat all the burgers and twinkies, because he's going to the gym all the time and swimming laps like there's no tomorrow.
But as you learned just from reading this headline, that counts as "exercising more" and he'd hardly lose weight! I'll take swimming, though, that really is effective calorie burning if you do it for long enough.
This is one of the main themes of the documentary Fed Up - the food & beverage industry have sold us a lie about the US obesity crisis (people are obese because they don't exercise enough) - while downplaying their involvement (hiding\obfuscating sugar in the nutrition information of "healthy" options, lobbying to have Pizza classified as a "vegetable" portion in school meals, etc). It's worth checking out: http://fedupmovie.com/
There really isn't that much science to it. On paper its really really simple.
To loose weight, you must expend more energy than you absorb.
However, conversely to get fit, you will need to eat a balanced diet, with enough calories to replace damaged muscles.
However on the weight loss front here are the golden rules:
Some people exercise (exercise expends energy)
Some people reduce energy consumption (eat less, or eat less calorific food)
Some people combine both.
There are no other options.
Seriously, if you are on a diet and you are not loosing weight, its not because you are unlucky, its because you are still absorbing more energy than you are expending. Exercise more, or eat less.
There is some evidence that efficiency can be altered by eating patterns, however that's not enough to over come eating an extra 300calories a day.
Everything else, is literally junk science. The 4:2 only works if on arrogate you consume less calories. Atkins only works if you can't absorb the extra energy you have in fat and protein. Etc, etc, etc.
This part is the easy part. Weight in 90% of cases is a symptom of one's environment. Changing environment is devilishly difficult.
Assuming that by "4:2" you are talking about intermittent fasting, does anyone believe otherwise? Alternate-day fasting can help people lose weight not because there's any magical effect, but because a faster is unlikely to double their calorie intake the day after fasting - having fast days is just a simple/easy way to reduce overall calorie intake.
Besides, the main benefits of alternate-day fasting are meant to be health related, not explicitly weight-loss. Is it a main-stream weight-loss method?
As someone who recently lost 40 lbs, I should say that it is generally true. A hard ergometer exercise can have a net effect of 240 kcal for one hour and gross effect of 320 assuming 80 kcal per hour body burn. 240 kcal is not much at all, provided that my body generally burns 2800 kcal a day. Not even 10%
However limiting food intake reduces not only the calories, but vitamins and micronutrients plus minerals.
Also not exercising at all means muscle loss and not so much fat loss, which can have severe effects in 3-6 months.
So regular exercises are must, swimming for example 3 times a week plus some brisk walk in the park twice a week will do miracles.
Not to forget proper feeding is it is as much important as reducing calories intake and creating calories deficiency. If one can't balance his food to have proper vitamins and minerals, one should resort to food supplements at least for calcium, potassium, magnesium, vitamins C, B6, B12 and E if you want to keep you heart and liver healthy during the process. Know what you eat and do the numbers.
I started with 39% body fat and 33% muscle.. Now I am 30% body fat and 35% muscle with a lot of cardio.
A close friend of mine reduced his food intake and albeit he achieved serious weigh loss, that was on the expense of muscle and tissue, rather then fat loss..
Personally I achieved my loss with the help of numbers and constant measures - get a proper scale that can report body fat/muscle/tissue, cross check with calipers, get a fitness tracker to track daily steps and calories, track you food, exercise, calories and progress.. There are so many sites and applications to do so..
And really important - do a blood work each 3 months for you heart and liver. A few drops of blood can give you so much intel
Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue.
When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind.
That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."
Eating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building.
Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.
Be amazed all you want, but you're conflating two different issues, as does everyone who discusses it the way you do. Your attitude on this is actually a public health risk, because you're implying eating "better" is necessary to lose weight, and eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. "Yes, you can lose weight, you just need to spend $60 more a week on things I consider better at the grocery store."
Better is a relative term. Your better is not my better. How do you quantify better? Can you explain that to me?
Eat fewer calories than you need. Lose weight. Not rocket science. Sweat the other stuff later, and treat it like a separate issue, because it is.
Wouldn't disagree so strongly with you if you said "this is good. In addition to just figuring calories out, people should also eat better." Then I'd agree with you, but you're indignant and "amazed" like nobody understands the nuances of one value minus another, and if you're not making a salad, why even try. My entire life I've been overweight, and everybody has told me I need to eat "better," and I just started eating less of exactly what I ate before and it works. It's mysterious.
> considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue
I'm sure this will get a bunch of "but calories in calories out" replies - nobody is doubting the laws of thermodynamics, but there is an world of difference being, say, 400kcal under your TDEE eating "better" foods versus junk, both in terms of your mental outlook, how your body will look at the end, and whether you will stick to the diet and therefore succeed at your weight loss goals.
Yeah, this looks like one of the (many) downsides of the quantifiable self.
Nutrition professionals almost always advocate for diversity, but the Internet-wisdom thing is this approach. I guess it's just easier to do the simple math of in minus out (instead of actually trying to understand the nutrition of a complex organism).
> That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."
I found that as I was looking for ways to reduce what I ate, I ended up eating better.
Once I had lost the weight, someone asked me how I could still stay the same weight even though I was eating jelly babies. My response was that I am more conscious now of how much of something I eat and will adjust for it.
Everybody in the fitness circles (see Reddit Fitness) knows this. It's just that normally doctors, TV & company misadvice you, telling something like "walk more, be more active" when the task at hand is to lose weight. Actually the exercise suggestion should be: do some strength training while seriously dieting in order to retain muscles. A 30 minutes run will burn ~400 calories. The same amount of calories can be eaten in 10 seconds. Do your math.
"Far too many people, though, can manage to find an hour or more in their day to drive to the gym, exercise and then clean up afterward — but complain that there’s just no time to cook or prepare a healthful, home-cooked meal. If they would spend just half the time they do exercising trying to make a difference in the kitchen, they’d most likely see much better results."
This. From my anecdotal evidence, weight loss is largely a commitment issue. So when you spend as much time going to the gym and back as you spend exercising there, motivation to continue the effort can disappear despite the reward. So it's just best to find your own right balance between (what kind of/how much) effort and reward.
Yes, but it's a "commitment issue" in the same class as "stopping drinking", "stopping smoking", and "getting out of debt" for a lot of people; there's a very large mental/compulsive/dependency component.
It's tough to lose weight. I've had success lowering my calorie intake.
I find that only implementing one change at a time conserves my willpower so that I'm more likely to succeed. I'll either up my exercise a couple weeks before I start cutting the calories or cut calories then wait a few weeks before introducing exercise.
Controlling what I eat, for me at least, is easier than upping my exercise levels.
After years in the practice of obesity medicine, helping people lose excess weight, I'd say the thrust of the article is correct. The main key to successful (that is, sustained) weight loss is modifying food intake. Not for nothing do we call this "lifestyle modification", we should never underestimate the effort and courage it takes to adhere to the better plan.
Thing is one can never exercise enough to "burn off" the tremendous calorie intake most people are subject to. After all around 75-80% of energy expenditure occurs in the resting state, only 20-25% is ordinarily attributable to physical activity.
However I fully agree with the article that exercise is far from useless, certainly can contribute to well-being and has many indirect benefits that assist in long-term maintenance of decreased body fat content.
Of course none of this is really new, it's been established wisdom in obesity treatment circles for a long time. "Getting in shape" is hardly a trivial project as it requires commitment, determination, knowledge and support. Maintaining the benefit of hard won weight loss is not free, the price is eternal vigilance.
Abs particularly because abs don't get very big no matter what you do, and so for most people abs won't really be very visible unless you dip below 10% body fat. No amount of crunches etc. will work around that.
For larger muscle groups the body fat percentage matters much less.
I found it ridiculously easy to lose weight by eliminating refined sugar and alcohol from my diet. 'Don't drink calories' is a great rule of thumb, sugared beverages are a plague on society. Keep your sweet tooth happy by eating fresh fruit--I don't think it's even possible to get or stay fat if your main sugar source is fruit.
I think focussing on "weight loss" is the incorrect metric. They would be better off using "body fat %".
It is possible to gain weight, and yet become more healthy. In addition, the metric most often used to work out whether are people are overweight, the BMI, is hopelessly inaccurate.
I'm absolutely floored to see comments here still nit-picking at FOOD QUALITY vs FOOD QUANTITY vs WHAT DEFINES EXERCISE vs ETC.
Whilst I fully enjoy reading some of the opinions on SOD, the myriad of needless front-end frameworks, etc. - this really is not subjective at all. Calories in, calories out. You eat 5000cal of the most nutritious, well balanced meal & run 10km - you will still put on weight (given you're not a giant).
I'm not sure how this is so open to interpretation, it's rudimentary science at best.
Percent body fat is a better metric to reduce than weight alone. Most men would even want to gain weight if it is muscle mass. If you want lean bodymass it's best to control your blood sugar (low glycemic diet) and exercise.
Calories in/out does control weight but there more to it if you don't want to end up skinnyfat. If you think calories is all that matters, try a diet solely of dextrose (glucose) and see how you end up.
Most people know what they should be eating: why aren't they eating it? Why do some people find it so hard to avoid excess calories?
Or, is 2,000 calories of chocolate as satiating as 2,000 of carrot and potato?
Or how relevant is gut flora? (Some people have gut flora that helps them stay slim; other people have gut flora that help them stay fat); how easy is it for someone to change their gut flora?
I always see it presented this way, but calories is a measure of energy, not mass. Clearly a weight loss program is designed reduce the mass of your body.
Can anyone explain if there is a simple proportional link between "mass in/mass out" and "energy in/energy out" ?
At time of writing, this is RIGHT NEXT to a comment saying "Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue."
Is it really so simple? Doesn't that ignore all other bodily responses to food and assume that food has only one characteristic, to be used for energy? Isn't it possible that some food creates hormonal conditions that result in a body with a higher/lower metabolic rate? Isn't it also possible that some calories are lost through waste? I think it's naive to simplify such a complex process.
Losing weight is easy. Most people can do it by eating less without exercise.
The biggest problem in weight loss (beside the fact that you shouldn't do any dieting as this should be a lifestyle change), is how to maintain the weight once you reach the healthy goal.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how to keep the healthy weight and the best way for me is to exercise in addition to a strict cal limit. Exercise will increase your burning rate, and you have to figure how to balance it with your eating habits because you won't know how your body is burning while at rest for a while. This is the main issue, it is harder to maintain this fight than to lose weight on a simple low-cal limit.
I met a lot of folks who successfully lost weight but gained it back and lost it again, it took them 3-4 times in a row to figure out how to maintain their healthy weight. I'm already in my second battle against this. I found the best method is 16/8 fasting method, eat 8 hours and 16 hours fasting and I already am losing far more weight than anything else. This is so much easy to maintain even when I'm reaching my goal.
It's kind of like people winning the lottery and most of them just bankrupt themselves in a year. There's no real good educational program in US that teaches both kids and adult how to focus on what you eat and how to maintain the weight.
So true. I've found that Intermittent fasting + a 500cal deficit (below TDEE) is the easiest/most-effective way because it fits into my life-style as a programmer. I eat my last meal at 8PM and go to bed at 1-2AM. So not eating anything until 1PM the next day is a breeze (with a couple of cups of coffee in the morning). I've lost 20 pounds over the last 3 months with zero exercise.
I like intermittent fasting, but I am already skinny, and I struggle to keep my weight up, despite having chocolate and crap beside me at work on my non fast days.
Just watching documentation on people in none-1st-world-countries or even on wildlife animals clearly shows that we are eating wayyyyyyyyyyyy to much for the energy we are losing - that's one reason why I got into intermittent fasting (8/16). This hunger feeling we sense at times has nothing to do what so ever with actual hunger or nutrional depletion.
[+] [-] mhd|10 years ago|reply
So I hope we'll have less "But it worked for me!" in this thread and more thought about something a bit more universal and averaged out.
[+] [-] learnstats2|10 years ago|reply
One major problem with the standard BMI definitions is that any athlete in a sport that vaguely requires muscles will be classed as 'overweight' or 'obese'.
Although there may be some justification for this categorisation, these are people we normally consider at the peak of fitness.
One of the best things you can do for long-term health outcomes is to follow a strength training programme. For an average person, that may result in weight gain via muscle. This is not a bad thing.
[+] [-] DanBC|10 years ago|reply
HN fucking sucks at these discussions. There's a strong resistance to the evidence base (exercise doesn't help with weight lose and may make things worse; lifestyle changes of eating different does work; still recommend exercise because of other important health benefits).
[+] [-] tjogin|10 years ago|reply
People seem to find it very hard to reason about dosages as well; so-and-so is "good for you" and so-and-so is "bad for you", again with the mysticism. Nothing is bad for you and everything is bad for you, all depending on the dose. And vice versa, foods that are supposedly good for you don't do shit if you don't dose it appropriately, and become bad for you if you overdose it.
[+] [-] astrange|10 years ago|reply
But as you learned just from reading this headline, that counts as "exercising more" and he'd hardly lose weight! I'll take swimming, though, that really is effective calorie burning if you do it for long enough.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] richardboegli|10 years ago|reply
Just eat less and you will lose weight. I hope this is the universal answer you were seeking. "But it worked for me!" ;)
[+] [-] smcl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KaiserPro|10 years ago|reply
To loose weight, you must expend more energy than you absorb.
However, conversely to get fit, you will need to eat a balanced diet, with enough calories to replace damaged muscles.
However on the weight loss front here are the golden rules:
Some people exercise (exercise expends energy)
Some people reduce energy consumption (eat less, or eat less calorific food)
Some people combine both.
There are no other options.
Seriously, if you are on a diet and you are not loosing weight, its not because you are unlucky, its because you are still absorbing more energy than you are expending. Exercise more, or eat less.
There is some evidence that efficiency can be altered by eating patterns, however that's not enough to over come eating an extra 300calories a day.
Everything else, is literally junk science. The 4:2 only works if on arrogate you consume less calories. Atkins only works if you can't absorb the extra energy you have in fat and protein. Etc, etc, etc.
This part is the easy part. Weight in 90% of cases is a symptom of one's environment. Changing environment is devilishly difficult.
[+] [-] NLips|10 years ago|reply
Besides, the main benefits of alternate-day fasting are meant to be health related, not explicitly weight-loss. Is it a main-stream weight-loss method?
[+] [-] glenra|10 years ago|reply
There is at least one other way besides exercise to expend energy: cold exposure.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/does-glo...
[+] [-] richardboegli|10 years ago|reply
> 2) Some people reduce energy consumption (eat less, or eat less calorific food)
> 3) Some people combine both.
> There are no other options.
Exactly, I picked option 2 as I had been unsuccessful with both option 1 and 3.
[+] [-] nikiiv|10 years ago|reply
However limiting food intake reduces not only the calories, but vitamins and micronutrients plus minerals. Also not exercising at all means muscle loss and not so much fat loss, which can have severe effects in 3-6 months. So regular exercises are must, swimming for example 3 times a week plus some brisk walk in the park twice a week will do miracles. Not to forget proper feeding is it is as much important as reducing calories intake and creating calories deficiency. If one can't balance his food to have proper vitamins and minerals, one should resort to food supplements at least for calcium, potassium, magnesium, vitamins C, B6, B12 and E if you want to keep you heart and liver healthy during the process. Know what you eat and do the numbers. I started with 39% body fat and 33% muscle.. Now I am 30% body fat and 35% muscle with a lot of cardio. A close friend of mine reduced his food intake and albeit he achieved serious weigh loss, that was on the expense of muscle and tissue, rather then fat loss..
Personally I achieved my loss with the help of numbers and constant measures - get a proper scale that can report body fat/muscle/tissue, cross check with calipers, get a fitness tracker to track daily steps and calories, track you food, exercise, calories and progress.. There are so many sites and applications to do so.. And really important - do a blood work each 3 months for you heart and liver. A few drops of blood can give you so much intel
Hope that helps
[+] [-] joelrunyon|10 years ago|reply
When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind.
That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."
[+] [-] snez|10 years ago|reply
Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.
[+] [-] jsmthrowaway|10 years ago|reply
Better is a relative term. Your better is not my better. How do you quantify better? Can you explain that to me?
Eat fewer calories than you need. Lose weight. Not rocket science. Sweat the other stuff later, and treat it like a separate issue, because it is.
Wouldn't disagree so strongly with you if you said "this is good. In addition to just figuring calories out, people should also eat better." Then I'd agree with you, but you're indignant and "amazed" like nobody understands the nuances of one value minus another, and if you're not making a salad, why even try. My entire life I've been overweight, and everybody has told me I need to eat "better," and I just started eating less of exactly what I ate before and it works. It's mysterious.
[+] [-] lamby|10 years ago|reply
I'm sure this will get a bunch of "but calories in calories out" replies - nobody is doubting the laws of thermodynamics, but there is an world of difference being, say, 400kcal under your TDEE eating "better" foods versus junk, both in terms of your mental outlook, how your body will look at the end, and whether you will stick to the diet and therefore succeed at your weight loss goals.
[+] [-] paulojreis|10 years ago|reply
Nutrition professionals almost always advocate for diversity, but the Internet-wisdom thing is this approach. I guess it's just easier to do the simple math of in minus out (instead of actually trying to understand the nutrition of a complex organism).
[+] [-] richardboegli|10 years ago|reply
I found that as I was looking for ways to reduce what I ate, I ended up eating better.
Once I had lost the weight, someone asked me how I could still stay the same weight even though I was eating jelly babies. My response was that I am more conscious now of how much of something I eat and will adjust for it.
[+] [-] dylanjermiah|10 years ago|reply
Quality of food is important, but an excess amount of quality macronutrients or micronutrients will result in excess adipose tissue.
Focus on eating at a deficit, with nutrient dense food.
[+] [-] emirozer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huehue|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antirez|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richardboegli|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glandium|10 years ago|reply
This. From my anecdotal evidence, weight loss is largely a commitment issue. So when you spend as much time going to the gym and back as you spend exercising there, motivation to continue the effort can disappear despite the reward. So it's just best to find your own right balance between (what kind of/how much) effort and reward.
[+] [-] peteretep|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brohoolio|10 years ago|reply
I find that only implementing one change at a time conserves my willpower so that I'm more likely to succeed. I'll either up my exercise a couple weeks before I start cutting the calories or cut calories then wait a few weeks before introducing exercise.
Controlling what I eat, for me at least, is easier than upping my exercise levels.
[+] [-] jrapdx3|10 years ago|reply
Thing is one can never exercise enough to "burn off" the tremendous calorie intake most people are subject to. After all around 75-80% of energy expenditure occurs in the resting state, only 20-25% is ordinarily attributable to physical activity.
However I fully agree with the article that exercise is far from useless, certainly can contribute to well-being and has many indirect benefits that assist in long-term maintenance of decreased body fat content.
Of course none of this is really new, it's been established wisdom in obesity treatment circles for a long time. "Getting in shape" is hardly a trivial project as it requires commitment, determination, knowledge and support. Maintaining the benefit of hard won weight loss is not free, the price is eternal vigilance.
[+] [-] dylanjermiah|10 years ago|reply
Curious, what does that entail?
[+] [-] sdrothrock|10 years ago|reply
Edit: Or the variation: "Abs are made in the gym, revealed in the kitchen," which I always thought sounded kind of gruesome if you take it literally.
[+] [-] vidarh|10 years ago|reply
For larger muscle groups the body fat percentage matters much less.
[+] [-] rockdoe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteretep|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mullingitover|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gadders|10 years ago|reply
It is possible to gain weight, and yet become more healthy. In addition, the metric most often used to work out whether are people are overweight, the BMI, is hopelessly inaccurate.
[+] [-] haydenhall|10 years ago|reply
If you want to lose weight and be healthy - eat little and eat healthy.
If you want to lose weight and don't care too much for your health - eat little.
If you want to be healthy - eat healthy.
If you just don't care - eat whatever you like.
[+] [-] agentPrefect|10 years ago|reply
Whilst I fully enjoy reading some of the opinions on SOD, the myriad of needless front-end frameworks, etc. - this really is not subjective at all. Calories in, calories out. You eat 5000cal of the most nutritious, well balanced meal & run 10km - you will still put on weight (given you're not a giant).
I'm not sure how this is so open to interpretation, it's rudimentary science at best.
[+] [-] paulsutter|10 years ago|reply
Calories in/out does control weight but there more to it if you don't want to end up skinnyfat. If you think calories is all that matters, try a diet solely of dextrose (glucose) and see how you end up.
[+] [-] DanBC|10 years ago|reply
Most people know what they should be eating: why aren't they eating it? Why do some people find it so hard to avoid excess calories?
Or, is 2,000 calories of chocolate as satiating as 2,000 of carrot and potato?
Or how relevant is gut flora? (Some people have gut flora that helps them stay slim; other people have gut flora that help them stay fat); how easy is it for someone to change their gut flora?
[+] [-] bloat|10 years ago|reply
Can anyone explain if there is a simple proportional link between "mass in/mass out" and "energy in/energy out" ?
[+] [-] peteretep|10 years ago|reply
Knowing that eating less will make you lose weight is not the same thing as overcoming feelings of hunger to actually eat less in practice.
[+] [-] pjc50|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nomomatta|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikhailt|10 years ago|reply
The biggest problem in weight loss (beside the fact that you shouldn't do any dieting as this should be a lifestyle change), is how to maintain the weight once you reach the healthy goal.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how to keep the healthy weight and the best way for me is to exercise in addition to a strict cal limit. Exercise will increase your burning rate, and you have to figure how to balance it with your eating habits because you won't know how your body is burning while at rest for a while. This is the main issue, it is harder to maintain this fight than to lose weight on a simple low-cal limit.
I met a lot of folks who successfully lost weight but gained it back and lost it again, it took them 3-4 times in a row to figure out how to maintain their healthy weight. I'm already in my second battle against this. I found the best method is 16/8 fasting method, eat 8 hours and 16 hours fasting and I already am losing far more weight than anything else. This is so much easy to maintain even when I'm reaching my goal.
It's kind of like people winning the lottery and most of them just bankrupt themselves in a year. There's no real good educational program in US that teaches both kids and adult how to focus on what you eat and how to maintain the weight.
[+] [-] atemerev|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curiousDog|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] collyw|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venomsnake|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] spacko|10 years ago|reply