• I'm happy to introduce the Styleforum Happy Hour, our brand new podcast featuring lively discussion about menswear and the fashion industry. In the inaugural edition, a discussion of what's going on in retail today. Please check it out on the Journal. All episodes will be also be available soon on your favorite podcast platform.

  • Styleforum Gives - Holiday Charity Auction 7: Castangia from SARTORIALE

    We are very proud to present this year's edition of the Styleforum Holiday Charity Auctions, this year in support of the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Spokane (www.rmhcspokane.org). Each Auction lasts 24 hours. Please follow and bid on all the auctions.

    The 6th auction is for a Castangia Suit or Sportcoat from SARTORIALE Please bid often and generously here

    Fok and the Styleforum Team.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

Dieting Advice

Arbucks

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Back in late June I was about 6'1, 275lbs, since then I've got down to 215 basically by diet. I've plateaued over the last month and am trying to break through it.

I'm trying to go low-carb, and high protein but the problem is that I can never seem to intake enough calories. I was recommended that I eat around 3500 but trying to eat well I often struggle to break 2000 in a day and I know this isn't healthy. I'm looking for foods that I can eat with higher caloric values while still being relatively low in (saturated) fat, low in carbs, and high in protein.

I usually eat chicken breasts, fish, chicken souvlaki, vegetables, and take a whey powder. What else can I add to my diet to make sure I consume enough?
 

why

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,735
Reaction score
406
Why are you trying to lose weight by eating more? Kelly Ripa isn't her size because she eats two standing rib roasts every day.
 

lance konami

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
1,376
Reaction score
6
Originally Posted by why
Why are you trying to lose weight by eating more? Kelly Ripa isn't her size because she eats two standing rib roasts every day.

I still battle with this question, especially after having success with it. Is it possible that increased meal frequency "tells" the body to digest the food faster and store less fat, because it "learns" that another meal is just another 2 or 3 hours away? It seems like the body does adapt to meal frequency somehow, whether it's 6 meals per day or 1 or 2.

After getting acquainted with IF I'm all on board with it, but I just can't figure out how I was able to loose about 20 pounds in a few months eating more calories than I was previously.
 

Arbucks

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by why
Why are you trying to lose weight by eating more? Kelly Ripa isn't her size because she eats two standing rib roasts every day.


It IS possible to eat too few calories in a day, and at that point your body burns muscle for energy. I fear I am bordering that, and I'm trying to get away from that, and eat a healthy amount (Read: Maybe closes to a 500 calorie a day deficit as opposed to 1500+). Also with doing weights and cardio 6 days a week, with hockey on top of that, I assume I burn way more than 3500 in some days. I'm just looking for high protein meal ideas that I can use to switch up my normal diet consisting mostly of chicken breasts.
 

thekunk07

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
18,440
Reaction score
2,957
yes it is.

the only way to lose weight is to employ a caloric deficit whether by eating less or by burning more. it's simple.

look at john berardi's get shredded diet.
 

why

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,735
Reaction score
406
Originally Posted by lance konami
After getting acquainted with IF I'm all on board with it, but I just can't figure out how I was able to loose about 20 pounds in a few months eating more calories than I was previously.
Inaccurate calories counts, macros all messed up, concurrent exercise program startup, whatever. I'm throwing out possibilities because I don't have any real information on your situation.
Originally Posted by Arbucks
It IS possible to eat too few calories in a day, and at that point your body burns muscle for energy. I fear I am bordering that, and I'm trying to get away from that, and eat a healthy amount (Read: Maybe closes to a 500 calorie a day deficit as opposed to 1500+). Also with doing weights and cardio 6 days a week, with hockey on top of that, I assume I burn way more than 3500 in some days. I'm just looking for high protein meal ideas that I can use to switch up my normal diet consisting mostly of chicken breasts.
Bro logic is pretty pervasive. You need to realize that the body always uses some amount of protein as energy. Don't worry, your bicepzz won't atrophiezz and you'll be fine. Caloric balance will factor in less than total protein amount. I doubt you burn 3500+/day unless you're doing 40+ miles per week or work construction or something. If you want higher protein meals just eat more animals. I like meatloaf because I can eat 3+ different animals at the same time. As for muscle loss (well this is strength but whatever): I know a guy who deadlifts 450+ and sometimes eats maybe 800 calories per day when he diets. You'll be fine.
 

Arbucks

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Alright, thanks. I was just trying to prevent any potential harm I could do to my body. I'll just eat the same and go work more.
 

blackjack

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
437
Reaction score
1
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11FREAK.html

September 11, 2005
Does the Truth Lie Within?
By STEPHEN J. DUBNER and STEVEN D. LEVITT

The Accidental Diet


Seth Roberts is a 52-year-old psychology professor at the University of California at Berkeley. If you knew Roberts 25 years ago, you might remember him as a man with problems. He had acne, and most days he woke up too early, which left him exhausted. He wasn't depressed, but he wasn't always in the best of moods. Most troubling to Roberts, he was overweight: at 5-foot-11, he weighed 200 pounds.

When you encounter Seth Roberts today, he is a clear-skinned, well-rested, entirely affable man who weighs about 160 pounds and looks 10 years younger than his age. How did this happen?

It began when Roberts was a graduate student. First he had the clever idea of turning his personal problems into research subjects. Then he decided that he would use his own body as a laboratory. Thus did Roberts embark on one of the longest bouts of scientific self-experimentation known to man - not only poking, prodding and measuring himself more than might be wise but also rigorously recording every data point along the way.

Self-experimentation, though hardly a new idea in the sciences, remains rare. Many modern scientists dismiss it as being not nearly scientific enough: there is no obvious control group, and you can hardly run a double-blind experiment when the researcher and subject are the same person. But might the not-quite-scientific nature of self-experimentation also be a good thing? A great many laboratory-based scientific experiments, especially those in the medical field, are later revealed to have been marred by poor methodology or blatant self-interest. In the case of Roberts, his self-interest is extreme, but at least it is obvious. His methodology is so simple - trying a million solutions until he finds one that works - that it creates the utmost transparency.

In some ways, self-experimentation has more in common with economics than with the hard sciences. Without the ability to run randomized experiments, economists are often left to exploit whatever data they can get hold of. Let's say you're an economist trying to measure the effect of imprisonment on crime rates. What you would ideally like to do is have a few randomly chosen states suddenly release 10,000 prisoners, while another few random states lock up an extra 10,000 people. In the absence of such a perfect experiment, you are forced to rely on creative proxies - like lawsuits that charge various states with prison overcrowding, which down the road lead to essentially random releases of large numbers of prisoners. (And yes, crime in those states does rise sharply after the prisoners are released.)

What could be a more opportunistic means of generating data than exploiting your own body? Roberts started small, with his acne, then moved on to his early waking. It took him more than 10 years of experimenting, but he found that his morning insomnia could be cured if, on the previous day, he got lots of morning light, skipped breakfast and spent at least eight hours standing.

Stranger yet was the fix he discovered for lifting his mood: at least one hour each morning of TV viewing, specifically life-size talking heads - but never such TV at night. Once he stumbled upon this solution, Roberts, like many scientists, looked back to the Stone Age for explication. Anthropological research suggests that early humans had lots of face-to-face contact every morning but precious little after dark, a pattern that Roberts's TV viewing now mimicked.

It was also the Stone Age that informed his system of weight control. Over the years, he had tried a sushi diet, a tubular-pasta diet, a five-liters-of-water-a-day diet and various others. They all proved ineffective or too hard or too boring to sustain. He had by now come to embrace the theory that our bodies are regulated by a "set point," a sort of Stone Age thermostat that sets an optimal weight for each person. This thermostat, however, works the opposite of the one in your home. When your home gets cold, the thermostat turns on the furnace. But according to Roberts's interpretation of the set-point theory, when food is scarcer, you become less hungry; and you get hungrier when there's a lot of food around.

This may sound backward, like telling your home's furnace to run only in the summer. But there is a key difference between home heat and calories: while there is no good way to store the warm air in your home for the next winter, there is a way to store today's calories for future use. It's called fat. In this regard, fat is like money: you can earn it today, put it in the bank and withdraw it later when needed.

During an era of scarcity - an era when the next meal depended on a successful hunt, not a successful phone call to Hunan Garden - this set-point system was vital. It allowed you to spend down your fat savings when food was scarce and make deposits when food was plentiful. Roberts was convinced that this system was accompanied by a powerful signaling mechanism: whenever you ate a food that was flavorful (which correlated with a time of abundance) and familiar (which indicated that you had eaten this food before and benefited from it), your body demanded that you bank as many of those calories as possible.

Roberts understood that these signals were learned associations - as dependable as Pavlov's bell - that once upon a time served humankind well. Today, however, at least in places with constant opportunities to eat, these signals can lead to a big, fat problem: rampant overeating.

So Roberts tried to game this Stone Age system. What if he could keep his thermostat low by sending fewer flavor signals? One obvious solution was a bland diet, but that didn't interest Roberts. (He is, in fact, a serious foodie.) After a great deal of experimenting, he discovered two agents capable of tricking the set-point system. A few tablespoons of unflavored oil (he used canola or extra light olive oil), swallowed a few times a day between mealtimes, gave his body some calories but didn't trip the signal to stock up on more. Several ounces of sugar water (he used granulated fructose, which has a lower glycemic index than table sugar) produced the same effect. (Sweetness does not seem to act as a "flavor" in the body's caloric-signaling system.)

The results were astounding. Roberts lost 40 pounds and never gained it back. He could eat pretty much whenever and whatever he wanted, but he was far less hungry than he had ever been. Friends and colleagues tried his diet, usually with similar results. His regimen seems to satisfy a set of requirements that many commercial diets do not: it was easy, built on a scientific theory and, most important, it did not leave Roberts hungry.

In the academic community, Roberts's self-experimentation has found critics but also serious admirers. Among the latter are the esteemed psychologist Robert Rosenthal, who has praised Roberts for "approaching data in an exploratory spirit more than, or at least in addition to, a confirmatory spirit" and for seeing data analysis "as the opportunity to confront a surprise." Rosenthal went so far as to envision "a time in the future when 'self-experimenter' became a new part-time (or full-time) profession."

But will Seth Roberts's strange weight-control solution - he calls it the Shangri-La Diet - really work for the millions of people who need it? We may soon find out. With the Atkins diet company filing for bankruptcy, America is eager for its next diet craze. And a few spoonfuls of sugar may be just the kind of sacrifice that Americans can handle.

Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt are the authors of "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything." More information on the academic research behind this column is at www.freakonomics.com.
More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shangri-La_Diet
http://www.sethroberts.net/
 

why

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,735
Reaction score
406
If he can eat whenever and whatever he wants let's see him on a 10 Big Macs/day diet.

He lowered his calories and became less bored. There's so many factors involved that saying watching talking heads for an hour every morning lifts the spirits is pretty spurious. Attributing it to some Stone Age evolutionary trait is a needless jump that tries to bring credibility to his claims by slapping a little more scientific feel into them.
 

lance konami

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
1,376
Reaction score
6
That is fucking wild. I might experiment with that. It seems to match up with my experiences with fast food, the more I eat fast food - the more fast food I want to eat and end up eating. The stuff about a set point is intriguing.
 

why

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,735
Reaction score
406
Originally Posted by lance konami
That is fucking wild. I might experiment with that. It seems to match up with my experiences with fast food, the more I eat fast food - the more fast food I want to eat and end up eating. The stuff about a set point is intriguing.

It's called habit and it's really not all that crazy.


The set point stuff has a basis in science but it's hormonal moreso than 'your body izzzz smartzzz'.
 

sho'nuff

grrrrrrrr!!
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
22,224
Reaction score
25
Originally Posted by Arbucks
It IS possible to eat too few calories in a day, and at that point your body burns muscle for energy. I fear I am bordering that, and I'm trying to get away from that, and eat a healthy amount

You dont burn muscle over fat just that easily. You have to be heavily health-compromised somehow, like stranded on an island for a couple of weeks without food or a person suffering from anorexia.
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

How many pairs of shoes do you own?

  • 1 - 4

    Votes: 29 3.6%
  • 5 - 10

    Votes: 141 17.4%
  • 11 - 20

    Votes: 265 32.7%
  • 21 - 30

    Votes: 129 15.9%
  • 31 - 40

    Votes: 70 8.6%
  • 41 - 50

    Votes: 48 5.9%
  • 51 - 60

    Votes: 24 3.0%
  • 61 - 70

    Votes: 22 2.7%
  • 71 - 80

    Votes: 17 2.1%
  • 81 - 90

    Votes: 7 0.9%
  • 91 - 100

    Votes: 8 1.0%
  • 100+

    Votes: 51 6.3%

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
428,984
Messages
9,226,656
Members
193,673
Latest member
javery088
Top