PDA

View Full Version : Have you ever been on a diet?



Harrison
22nd June 2007, 14:13
Just wondering if any here has tried going on a diet, and if so did it work?

Stephen Coates
23rd June 2007, 11:36
I have never been on a diet. Not needed to.

*feels like eating some chips*

Harrison
23rd June 2007, 12:13
Do any of you believe the theory that some people are more susceptible to weight gain than others? That different people have different pre-set metabolisms?

I'm personally not so sure about that. I think it is more directly related to daily exertion and exercise. Many people claim they are very active and always on the go, but cannot understand why they don't lose weight, or even worse keep putting it on. The truth is that in most such cases they are not actually exerting themselves enough to force their body to burn more energy. Unless the bodies heart rate is increased dramatically and the person starts to perspire they are not going to burn much extra energy than if they were just walking between the living room and kitchen all day.

In contrast I think that diets can work if done correctly. I don't believe in silly diets where you can only eat certain food types or combinations, believing that they react together to force the body to shed fat. Instead I believe that a diet that controls and restricts the balance of calories and Saturated fat intake can work very well if the person on the diet monitors these levels of intake correctly and sticks to the daily limits set. This is how Weight Watchers works, and when I've tried this method in the past, combined with exercise, it has worked very well, allowing me to lose a stone in weight in under 2 months. And in maintaining a more relaxed monitoring of the same calorie and fat intake after this keeping the weight off.

Teho
24th June 2007, 22:41
I said, "No, I never needed to". But I almost went for "No, But I should do really". I've never been really overweight, but ever since I quit smoking three and a half years ago now, I've been gaining weight little by little. Still not a problem, but I do have a belly now that wasn't there before.

And it's not because I'm eating more now either (most popular reason why quitters start gaining). I ate a lot before I quit and never gained, and I eat just the same now. So I do think people can have different metabolisms, and that they can change. Because I'm pretty certain mine has, and I'll probably have to do something about it eventually.

TiredOfLife
24th June 2007, 23:11
There is no need to diet if you are getting enough exercise.
Problem is, that isn't as easy as it sounds.
Time and money are certainly factors.
What you do for a living also has an impact.
Not a fan of diets because the are only a temporary solution.
To get your weight down and keep it down, you need a life style change.
That could be always being carefull with what you eat or having more exercise or a mixture of the two.

Harrison
25th June 2007, 12:45
That is very true. Using a diet to initially lose the weight is all well and good, but not if you then go back to as you were before the diet. The weight will just go back on. A lifestyle change is definitely needed, looking at why you were gaining weight in the first place and changing that aspect of your life to stop it reoccurring.

I think the problem is the many people do work in quite inactive jobs, sitting at a desk and not doing much physical movement during the day, then when they get home they are too tired to do some exercise to make up for the inactivity in the daytime. In such circumstances you just have to force yourself to.

Giving up smoking is definitely one of the biggest triggers for weight gain, and I think I remember reading that smoking does effect your metabolism. I expect with the public smoking ban coming into effect in England at the beginning of July we will see a lot of people gaining weight as they give up smoking due to it no longer being a part of their social life.

Demon Cleaner
25th June 2007, 14:20
The same as Teho here, but I never smoked, so that isn't the problem. The problem just lies in getting older, going to my 36 now, and I always had 95kg with 2.00m, but since beginning of the last year I took some kilos, and am now at 110kg which isn't that much considering I measure 2.00m. Not that I'm fat now, but I have a 10kg belly which wasn't there before, and is quite impossible to get rid of.

Harrison
25th June 2007, 14:21
That is pretty tall! I'm only about 1.80m or something like that. 5' 11" in feet.

Could this weight gain be beer? ;)

Demon Cleaner
25th June 2007, 14:26
Beer?Quite funny that everybody is saying the same thing. But it's just the opposite. I'll explain:

I used to drink a lot, then I only drank during holidays and weekends. But I drank a lot during weekends, which made me sick and I didn't eat for 2-3 days. Then it was already Tuesday or Wednesday, and almost Friday again. So that was a vicious circle.

Now, since almost 2 years, I only go out on Friday evening, and don't drink so much anymore. Then Saturday and Sunday afternoon I go to a restaurant, I eat normally on Mondays and Tuesdays. And I began eating a lot of sweets, think that is some kind of compensation for the alcohol.

I once made a pause at the beginning of last year, and didn't drink alcohol for about 4-5 months, and at that time, I gained 10 kilos, which don't go away anymore. Have to do some sport.

TiredOfLife
25th June 2007, 20:22
Defo the beer for me.
Pot belly all right.

Submeg
30th June 2007, 04:06
Me....not as much exercise as before, more junkfood. Used to do: lots of walking (before I could drive) and breakdancing, sport, etc. Have started doing weights again and I have dance factory on my PS2 so using that too. Will have to indulge in some more "extra curricular" sports too. Thats always a good energy burner :cool:

Sharingan
2nd July 2007, 10:03
Started a diet once (10 years ago), lost 18 kg, have kept the weight off ever since.

As far as I'm concerned, there's two kinds of diets: the fad diets ("drink only carrot juice for a week", "avoid all carbs") that don't work or only work initially, and the kind of diet that requires you to make a lifelong change - that is, use common sense in the kind and amount of food you take. An apple instead of a Mars bar is common sense. A double size pizza instead of lean grilled chicken is not.

Also, going on a diet without regularly exercising is pretty much a lost cause as well. The nice thing about regular exercise is that it also boosts metabolism, to the point that eating junkfood every once in a while isn't going to hurt at all.

Harrison
2nd July 2007, 13:55
That is very true. Also I found that regular exercise also stops you feeling tired as much and you generally feel like you have more energy.

Stephen Coates
2nd July 2007, 16:17
Exercise is good.

I always feel better after I have been out for a walk, even if it is just for 20 minutes or so.

I had a couple of long walks this week. Although that was neccesary as there isn;t a bus which goes straight from my house to ASDA. I got the bus into town, thinking that the road which goes from town to ASDA isn;t very long, but it seems much longer walking than it does going in the car. I walked back home a different way.

J T
2nd July 2007, 17:51
nah, never needed to, I'm underweight, and can eat whatever shit I like. I just don't have a massive appetite so don't tend to stuff, I stop when I'm full.

It's not all good though, as I'm pretty unfit right now :(

Zetr0
12th February 2008, 11:50
Synopsis
Diets are indeed an interesting topic... which works and how can make a lot of money in the right book.... :D

there are good points and bad points to diets... but the REAL truth is different diets will interact differently with the host.

By far the best and most effective weight loss is a good calorie controlled diet with mild exercise, it really will work efficiently in atleast 90% of those that try it... (and stick to it for more than 4 weeks!!!)

Physical History
I have a quite a stocky build of 6.0", lol i have stumpy legs and long torso... i blame my parents... freaks they are! on my fathers side there all under waif like 5.8 and on my mothers side the males are all stocky built over 6.2".... soo.... i was doomed even before conception LOL.. and yes... my arms are longer than my legs... LOL

The above really does change the way weight looks and is gained on a person, my closest mate Yorkie is 5.6 so when he gains 14 lbs he looks the worse for it, however 14lbs would hardly be noticed on my frame lol... lucky for me not... it allows ones weight to really creep up!.... yes... beer / kebabs / curry and fearsome appitite combine to make a serious problem or two...

A Key Ingredient
I think one of the key mysteries in losing weight is infact you need to drink lots of water.... a lot of calorie and other based diets wont do as well as expected because you body simply cannot expel and retains water.. thus you don't loose as much weight, so you have to force yourself to drink atleast 2 liters a day.... its not easy... i don't succeed on this half the time.

I have tried and used the following diets

Restrictive Calorie controlled diet,

12 weeks + Heavy Exercise...
Weight loss from 16.5 stone to 12.5 stone / 56lbs

Overview
The above although works is not healthy, it will leave you persistently tired and cranky, the exercise was mild manual labour at work, and Kung Fu for 2 hours a weekend and Territorial Army every Tuesdays and 5 aside footy on sunday.


Atkins Diet

This is strangely effective in the short term 6-8 weeks, but it has some strange side effects.

no real exercise, just the protein / fat diet.
Weight Loss from 17.2 stone to 15.2 stone / 28lbs

Overview
Firstly there is some serious dietary side effect with this one... like really bad breath, often your spent more time in the toilet than not... and i found stomach ache from time to time also other things not mentioned in polite forum society...


Weight Watchers:- Points based system

12 weeks + mild exercise (swimming for 1 hour every other day)

Weight loss = 2.5 stone / 35lbs

Overview
This diet is a "life style" change, there is a lot of factors that play in this type of diet, with foods being graded on carbohydrates and saturated fat content, infact its was that complicated to fathom out how this calculation was done, your stuck on the website to figure out what you can have...

This diet was too easy to convince yourself you were not cheating, although your alloted 30 points one could easily eat that in two medium meals if not careful..

this type of diet is more of a way to keep weight off rather than losing it.


Slim Fast

8 weeks - no exercise

Weight Loss 2.2stone / 31lbs

Overview
Now this is an interesting diet, as you know theres a shake for breakfast, one for dinner and a main meal. you are alloted 1,400 calories (form this 250cal per shake so its arround 900 cal a day), most vegetables don't count, this diet really makes you thirsty so getting you water in is very VERY important... in fact i remember because i wasnt drinking enough water a simple smile and I split my lip... damn hurt..


Final Thoughts

The above is how certain diets have effected my body type, I am sure there will be some parallels, but I am also certain that will be many differences. but in my humble opinion, a good calorie controlled diet that consists of a good range of proteins / fats and carbohydrates combine with a mild exercise will work miracles within 12 weeks...

I think that if the above has taught me anything, for a diet to really make an effect look at a 12 week / 3 month minimum, If you are looking at just shaving a few pounds then consider a lesser calorie intake, it doesn't have to be as drastic as some of the larger diets around aim for around 1,800 / 2,000 calories and drink lots of liquids this will seriously help.

On another note, if you are considering a diet, get prepared not all diets will replace or provide a lot of necessary vitamins so grab a couple of one a day a-z's from the chemist, this will help in a lot of areas...

I also think a lot of fad diets are, indeed just that... FAD - F*cking Amazingly Dumb! your body needs fats / carbs and proteins to do its job, cutting one of them out it cannot do it effectively... so for the most part i think its pretty much common sense.

anyway... another incredibly LONG post

Tiago
12th February 2008, 13:29
diet... don't even know what that is...

Different pre-set metabolisms? I think,... yes

I never got more then 67kg, i quit smoke (dont gain even 1g), i drink what eevr i want and i eat like an animal, and i am always ok. And i only do 1 hour a week of exercice, (soccer).

I think i am a lucky guy...

StuKeith
12th February 2008, 13:52
Im on the LitghterLife Diet as we speek!

I am in my 5th week and have lost almost 2 stone so far! I am to loose at least 3stone in 8 weeks but possibly more If I can.

It would be nice to get back down to around 12-13stone

Demon Cleaner
12th February 2008, 13:53
What's stone?

Buleste
12th February 2008, 13:55
I'm on the idon'tgivea****whichiswhyi'msingle diet. As for exercise i get out of breath making a post.

Stephen Coates
12th February 2008, 14:04
What's stone?

Unit for measuring weight.

:lol:

Speaking of diets, there is a poster outside the canteen at college saying 'There is no healthy or unhealthy food - It's all about getting the balance right'. I quite agree with that. Have a good balanced diet and then chips will not make you fat.

Demon Cleaner
12th February 2008, 14:08
What's stone?

Unit for measuring weight.

:lol:

Speaking of diets, there is a poster outside the canteen at college saying 'There is no healthy or unhealthy food - It's all about getting the balance right'. I quite agree with that. Have a good balanced diet and then chips will not make you fat.I know that it is a unit, but I never heard of that one? So what's the proportion between kilo and stone?

Buleste
12th February 2008, 14:14
What's stone?

Unit for measuring weight.

:lol:

Speaking of diets, there is a poster outside the canteen at college saying 'There is no healthy or unhealthy food - It's all about getting the balance right'. I quite agree with that. Have a good balanced diet and then chips will not make you fat.I know that it is a unit, but I never heard of that one? So what's the proportion between kilo and stone?

1 stone is 6.35029 kg or 97999.863 grains.

Harrison
12th February 2008, 17:42
A Stone is an imperial measurement so doesn't have an exact unit into it for KG. To explain what it is exactly, one Stone equals 14 pounds. Hope that makes more sense now. UK imperial measurements are always confusing, be it weight, length or money! Nothing ever goes into any other measurement in any logical amount. Quite mad!

Zetr0
12th February 2008, 18:19
Hey guys

Atleast i didnt use Roman Numerals LMAO!!!

anyway for simple conversion its like this

1 stone = 14 lbs

2.2lbs = 1 kgs

so a 10 stone man would wieght 140lbs in imperial and 63KG

needless to say, i weigh a hell of a lot more than that lol...


interestingly its 12 ounces to 1 pound in weight, UNLESS you are weighing gold where its 13 ounces per pound. later refered to TROY ounces...

theres more silly ones like that, but i would have to google it LOL... ... i will save that for a slow day...

Buleste
12th February 2008, 21:21
I refer back to my earlier post which is 1 stone is equal to 6.35029 kg.

I'll forgive Dial up boy for not reading my post this time.:p

Harrison
13th February 2008, 13:45
No, I read your post. But I stated it "doesn't have an exact unit into it for KG", as they are completely different measurement systems. ;)

Zetr0
13th February 2008, 14:49
how many stone to a ton ? and how many ton to a tonne ?

love the metric and imperial names on this one....

Harrison
13th February 2008, 14:59
The imperial system is completely mad and as illogical as anything I've ever encountered. Why of why didn't people come up with the metric system before they did? Surely it makes sense to divide everything equally by 10? Mad! :blink:

Buleste
13th February 2008, 15:12
Because the metric system is designed for the simpleton johnny foreigners. As we British a vastly superior in intelect we need a more complicated system of measurement to proove our superiority. We ruled most of the planet you know. (note for Americans:- This is sarcasm. We know you rule most of the planet now although of course you have no imperial tendancies. Honest. (This of course is more sarcasm))

Zetr0
13th February 2008, 15:13
Ahhh metric V's Imperial

well the metric system is decimal and used in scientific measurements, and them god folk feared the power of arming its sheep with knowledge (science), after all how will they keep their populace subjugated if the populace know, so by keeping the metric system at bay enforced many of thier reasonings...

interestingly the metric system is based on water at room temperature, 1 mm cubic of water = 1 gram and vice versa, so the metric system is great but initially it was very hard to adopt as not everywhere is the same room temperature.

Harrison
13th February 2008, 15:28
Yeah I did know that about metric being based on water. I did all that in A-Level Physics. :) Didn't pursue Physics beyond that point though as it was getting too equation heavy and not much fun to study.

J T
13th February 2008, 17:20
Also having everything to the base of ten (or multiples of 10) for units makes way more sense because it follows the numbering system. Imperial is mega awkward for converting. 13ths of this, 12th of that, 6ths there :blink:

However, when talking about height and weight and guesstimating short distances I always use feet,inches and stones. Just a habit.

Harrison
13th February 2008, 17:21
Same here. If I'm measuring anything to cut something etc I use metric. But when it comes to a persons height and weights, as well as room sizes, I have to using imperial measurements. I just can't picture things like that in metric.

Stephen Coates
13th February 2008, 17:37
I always use metric if it needs to be accurate. I understand metric best, probably due to me being taught it at school, but I have always measuered height/weight of people etc in imperial, and sometimes measure non accurate things in inches/feet e.g. I know that I am sat about 2 feet away from the monitor but not sure how many metres.

Another use of imperial is of course miles. I don't hear many people saying 'I live x kilometres away from you', and we certainly don't drive cars at 40km/h.

Submeg
24th February 2008, 01:46
I always use metric if it needs to be accurate. I understand metric best, probably due to me being taught it at school, but I have always measuered height/weight of people etc in imperial, and sometimes measure non accurate things in inches/feet e.g. I know that I am sat about 2 feet away from the monitor but not sure how many metres.

Another use of imperial is of course miles. I don't hear many people saying 'I live x kilometres away from you', and we certainly don't drive cars at 40km/h.

Bah, I can't stand imperial....it just doesn't make sense! No logic. You don't drive at 40 km/h? There are roads here where that is the speed limit...

Stephen Coates
24th February 2008, 10:49
No, we don't do 40km/h.

We do do 30mph and 40mph though. And in my case probably 20mph if I ever attempt to use a car. I certainly wouldn't know how to go at 30kmph, due me not know how fast that actually is, and with the kmph scale on the speedometer being alot smaller than the mph one.

Buleste
24th February 2008, 11:52
I prefer to read my speed in KPH because i've got a car with a small engine and a top speed of 120KPH sounds better than it's MPH equivelent. But in reality i think Abe Simpson had it right when he said "The metric system is the tool of the devil. My car gets fourty rods to the hogs head and that's the way I likes it"

Submeg
24th February 2008, 12:04
Bah you're all INSANE! :lol:

Harrison
25th February 2008, 08:08
I've got a car with a small engine and a top speed of 120KPH sounds better than it's MPH equivelent.

75MPH??? :blink: Are you sure it actually has an engine???

That's about the slowest speed I drive my car at! :lol: I don't think I could cope with a small engined car. I borrowed one of my dad's cars last year while mine was having some work done to it, and it was horrible to drive. A 1.4L engine that was so slow accelerating that I got bored waiting for it to reach 70MPH.

Stephen Coates
25th February 2008, 10:14
I hope you were only driving at 70MPH on motorways and not on small roads.

Harrison
25th February 2008, 12:04
Obviously! It would be a bit stupid to be driving at 70MPH in a 30MPH street. I always stick to speed limits unless it's a dual carriage way or motorway, and even then only if I know the road. If I'm on an unknown, or little driven road, I stick to the limits because you just don't know where all the bends or speed cameras might be.

Buleste
25th February 2008, 13:24
It's got a 899 litre engine so it's not designed to be the fastest. However i did manager to get 90 MPH out of her, downhill, with a strong breeze and blew the exhaust. Since then she hasn't has chance to get up to speed as around my area theres more traffic calming measures than there is cars. Did i mention my car was free even though it was only two years old? So i don't mind the size of the engine. Besides i'd rather kill myself with fatty foods than speed.

Harrison
25th February 2008, 13:43
Fair enough if the car was free and you only ever drive around a city centre. But for me I drive a couple hundred miles a week up and down the whole of the M27 motorway and some dual carriage ways, so a car with an engine that small would be a nightmare for me.

Buleste
25th February 2008, 15:30
You didn't spot my mistake 899 litre engine? Thats huge it should have been 899 cc engine. Where i live in a 3 mile stretch of main road there are 7 speed cameras, 5 changes in speed limit (lowest 30, highest 50), about 6 rumble strips and many pointless islands to deter overtaking, also there is usually at least one set of temporary traffic lights, the main road is in the countryside so there is always the threat of tractors, HGV's use the road regularly as well so all in all there is no need whatsoever in having a car that can go faster than a milk float. I think i should have revived the rant thread for that last part.

Harrison
25th February 2008, 15:36
:lol: I hadn't noticed that. Imagine an engine that size... and the fuel consumption... and bill at the petrol station! :o

Buleste
25th February 2008, 15:59
I thought 27.00 for a full tank was bad. Imagine the size of the size of the fuel tank. It'd be like driving a petrol tanker with the performance of an F1 car!!!!! Imagine the size of the explosion when you don't take a corner at speed!!! Now that would be one helluva way to go:lol:

Harrison
25th February 2008, 17:29
27 for a full tank! :( My car takes about 60 to fill right up from empty! Maybe more since fuel prices have gone up even more.

Buleste
25th February 2008, 17:52
Small car, small fuel tank but good MPG. It'll 250 to 300 miles to the tank if i fill up when the warning light starts to stay on all the time.

Harrison
25th February 2008, 18:31
Hmm... that's about what I get from mine with 60 of petrol! :lol: More if I drive conservatively, but then what's the point of a big engine if you are going to do that! ;)

Buleste
25th February 2008, 18:47
Well you'd have more money to spend on the upcoming nuptuals if you did;). Mind you traditionally it's the brides parents that fork out for the wedding so you'd have more to spend on the after stag party Alka Seltza.

Buleste
26th February 2008, 11:06
I saw ABC World News Tonight last night and the Americans are whinging at paying nearly $4.00 a U.S. Gallon which works out about 50p a litre. And they say the British are a nation of complainers. Gas guzzling, planet destroying, bastards.;)

Harrison
26th February 2008, 12:24
That program about Texas, "The Fatest state of America", was on again last night and I just caught the end of it. One guy was saying that the reason they were all so fat, never walked anywhere, and stayed in their cars all the time, was due to the oil boom in the 50s. So the state geared up for driving and no longer even has sidewalks in many areas, and now it is also because the heat most of the year is too much, so they stay in their air conditioned cars when going anywhere.

All I could think was. It's going to be funny when they run out of oil! They will actually have to use their legs, and realise that exercise keeps your weight down!

Buleste
26th February 2008, 12:30
Americans will slowly evolve into mountain dwelling creatures with no legs when the oil runs out. All they will do is as they get older slowly roll a bit more down the mountain to the food supply and then eventually change into sushi eating aquatic lifeforms and eventually die due to weight loss so they can't float and drown due to no legs.

v85rawdeal
26th June 2008, 19:01
I was going to post something here, but I got ambushed by the 'agreement' screen... and now I have forgotten what I was going to say!

Hmmmmmm.

khaxzan
17th August 2008, 21:36
A diet?

I weigh 100 pounds.

I think a diet would be the end of me. :eyebrow:

Harrison
17th August 2008, 22:04
That's only just over 7 Stone. That is light! Maybe you need to do the reverse and take up eating as a hobby? ;)

Demon Cleaner
18th August 2008, 10:40
A diet?

I weigh 100 pounds.

I think a diet would be the end of me. :eyebrow:I weigh the double, but I'm 2m tall.