The secret for losing weight - finally solved

A place to discuss health and fitness, healthy diets. A fit body makes for a fit mind.
Pinetree
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:25 am

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by Pinetree » Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:58 pm

First, this topic isn't about monks diet.

Second, generally Buddha's teachings are not about the health of the body. Also, there aren't many details about household life, it doesn't teach carpentry, agriculture, masonry, etc.

Finally, the diet of those times was composed mostly of cereals, vegetables and herbs, fruits, and some meat. By the way, all that was organic.

Not sure in those times, but today there are quite a few fat monks out there.
so it seems to me kind of ridiculous to say added sugar will make you fat but eating 5 times your weight in fruit would not.
We are not saying that

But if you are implying that your first hand information tells you that sugar is equally healthy as fruits, my first hand information will disagree :)
I'm not interested in studies either because conflicting information is far too prevelant and I will trust my first hand experience much sooner.
Studies are much less conflicting than first hand information. Peer reviewed studies grow around nuclei of consensus.

But if you ask random people about their personal first hand information you'll find much more conflicts than in studies.

That being said, first hand information is valuable and personally, I am using it alot. But it's very important to train oneself to be unbiased (as much as possible).

But to trust first hand impression above everything else seems risky. Some people get it right, but I know few people who got it wrong.
From personal trials the "healthiness" of a food probably doesn't even determine how quick one would be to get sick but rather the amount of food one puts into his body.
It would be interesting to know what you have tried in more detail and over what period of time.

User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 827
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by ihrjordan » Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:44 pm

Pinetree wrote:Finally, the diet of those times was composed mostly of cereals, vegetables and herbs, fruits, and some meat. By the way, all that was organic.

Not sure in those times, but today there are quite a few fat monks out there.
Suagar was certainly in circulation back then and it's believed that added sugar is what has led to the obesity epidemic in the united states...can you show me one or two fat monks rather than making a generalisation and hoping that I accept it. What are the chances that they had a prior developmental issue such as a slow metabolism? What are the chances that these obese monks you speak of eat more than 1 meal a day despite them eating at the proper time? It's an 8 hour window and I wouldn't be surprised if a greedy monk fit the same amout of calories from an average person's day.
Pinetree wrote:But to trust first hand impression above everything else seems risky. Some people get it right, but I know few people who got it wrong.
Well according to the Buddha, one's unbiased first hand experience is the measure of what is true and false and not double blind trials and peer reviews.
“I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.”...Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.”-AN 4.45 https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.45" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
I have found that eating sugar does not in and of itself lead to unwholesome mindstates, therefor it does not lead to sickness nor gaining weight which by implication is brought about only through greed, anger or delusion. Our bodies are self regulating systems and when given the proper amount of fuel neither too much nor too little they repair themselves and can function effieciently, obesity is a sickness and the virtuous do not get sick because of their virtue.

With the Buddha's ocean of wisdom one would think he'd have made a pronouncement against eating more than 1,500 calories or more than 40 grams of added fructose or avoiding aflotoxins in peanutbutter, or transfat...but when my first hand expeirence shows me that it is of no harm to one already healthy and that he may be blameless upon eating his sugary meal and with a complete lack of dietary recommendations from the far gone one I will sooner heed the advice of my spiritual father instead of what a scientist from Zurich tells me I should and shouldn't be eating.

As Socrates so elegantly said in Plato's Crito:
I must not regard what the many say of me; but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, would say , and what the truth will say.- Socrates
All science will ever be is at best a watered down version of the Dhamma or perhaps a referent to teach westerners so entrenched in the scientific mindstate. But one thing is for sure, it will always be playing catch up to the Dhamma. Everytime science and the Dhamma are talked about together it's usually to state that science has confirmed a buddhist teaching, never to say that the Dhamma has confirmed an opposed scientific view... The community of scientists that tell me to avoid any and all sugar are the same ones that allow so much sugar to be placed in food in the first place. The same scientists that are fighting against climate change and global warning are the same ones that design C02 emitting death traps. The same scientists who work to find cures for diseases are the same ones that allow chronic disease to run rampant via limitless side effects of pharmaceutiques. This is why I said I'm not interested in your scientific studies...
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana.

Pinetree
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:25 am

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by Pinetree » Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:25 pm

Suagar was certainly in circulation back then
Actually, it wasn't. Sugar was incredibly rare, as recent as few hundred years ago on most of the planet.
Well according to the Buddha, one's unbiased first hand experience is the measure of what is true and false and not double blind trials and peer reviews.
Again, the Buddha wasn't mainly teaching or making claims about the health of the body. If you have a mathematics teacher, they teach mathematics. If they happen to mention that mathematics can be used in economics, it doesn't mean they also teach economics.

If you are making the argument that anything not taught by the Buddha is irrelevant, that is another topic.

But I don't disagree in principle: eventually everybody will get it right. After few million lives.

Scientific research gets some results more quickly.
I have found that eating sugar does not in and of itself ... not lead to sickness nor gaining weight which
If you are keeping it that vague, the statement is technically true.

However, it's imprecise to an extent that some people reading it might draw unhealthy conclusions.

An important point about sugar is empty calories. There is little reason for a dietary choice which doesn't bring you other nutrients that the body needs. Nothing in the body runs purely on calories.
With the Buddha's ocean of wisdom one would think he'd have made a pronouncement
Maybe he did ... there is no guarantee that the full 100% of his teachings have been preserved.

User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 827
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by ihrjordan » Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:58 pm

Pinetree wrote:Actually, it wasn't. Sugar was incredibly rare, as recent as few hundred years ago on most of the planet.
How do you come to this conclusion? Is that why molasses ( a by product of boiling sugar) is cited as a medicinal tonic? Or why the Buddha allowed his followers to put sugar into their water and didn't state a limit as to how much? If it was "incredibly rare" in the fertile land of ancient india why even bring it up?
Pinetree wrote:Again, the Buddha wasn't mainly teaching or making claims about the health of the body.
You're right, but at the same time he did want his followers to maintain a standard of health conducive to the development of wholesome mindstates. If eating sugary (yes vague, since most people don't tally their sugar count from day to day, nevermind monks) meals as one's only meal would cause one to develop a life threateneing or chronic illness which hindered progress surely he'd have said something.
Pinetree wrote:Scientific research gets some results more quickly.
Such as? What has science brought to the dhamma practitioner from which without he'd have been at a loss?
Pinetree wrote:If you are keeping it that vague, the statement is technically true.

However, it's imprecise to an extent that some people reading it might draw unhealthy conclusions.
Well if they read the OP they would see our discussion in context. But just in case I was imprecise for any future readers. I'm stating that sugar, carbs, cholestoral, fats, aflotoxins, anti-nutrients, etc etc don't play a role in determining whether one gains weight or develops an illness.
Pinetree wrote:An important point about sugar is empty calories. There is little reason to eat something which doesn't bring you other nutrients which the body needs. Nothing in the body runs purely on calories.
Yes but try telling this to a monk who is completley dependant upon food support from the lay people of which without he couldn't function. Or a poor dharma practitioner (yes not everyone who practices dharma is middle to upper class and can afford to eat the "best of the best" foods). Are we to say to such people that they will likely have a lesser quality practice and less oppurtunity for happiness because they couldn't affford grass fed meats and organic ruffage? Nobody eats solely sugar and so I'd classify this as a strawman. If it's added into something which one percieves to be sustinence,who cares?
Pinetree wrote:Maybe he did ... there is no guarantee that the full 100% of his teachings have been preserved.


Yeh and maybe he taught that female is the creative energy and male is the anylytical or perhaps he taught that vibrations run through our bodies which are capable of signaling extraterrestrials. The one thing allthese have in common is that they are all reaching.

dxm_dxm
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:32 am
Location: Romania, Bucharest
Contact:

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by dxm_dxm » Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:11 am

Hey guys :D a little more carefull throwing those F-words please :D

All this discussion about sugar only means +1 for potato chips :popcorn: I'm eating potato chips right now
But to trust first hand impression above everything else seems risky. Some people get it right, but I know few people who got it wrong.
I know a guy who always gets it right :D

Pinetree
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:25 am

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by Pinetree » Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:31 am

How do you come to this conclusion? Is that why molasses ( a by product of boiling sugar) is cited as a medicinal tonic?
Well, it is a medicinal tonic, but also a rarity. It's extremely labor intensive.

I'm looking back at the discussion, and like I said above, I think it is boiling down to this:
If you are making the argument that anything not taught by the Buddha is irrelevant, that is another topic.
And it really is another topic.
All this discussion about sugar only means +1 for potato chips :popcorn: I'm eating potato chips right now
If you're talking chips, I'd be more worried about the salt content. Try popcorn, plain :P

And yes, the Buddha didn't talk about sodium intake, even if the stuff can kill you.

User avatar
Pumo
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:54 am
Location: Puebla, Mexico
Contact:

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by Pumo » Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:31 am

If you are making the argument that anything not taught by the Buddha is irrelevant, that is another topic.
And also is a bit radical and fanatic, in my humble opinion (and remember that the Buddha taught us not to be dogmatic).

:focus:
But back to the original topic!

I will talk about my experience, as I was a guy with some overweight, and manage to loose 25KG~ in 6 months, after following a strict diet with specific times to eat and specific portion measures, as well as a bit of matutine excercise.

My nutriologists made the dietary plan, and I followed it precisely, step by step and with discipline, and I think it delivered a great result (I'm currently 58KG, from being 80KG, and having a height of 162cm~).

I eated 3 main meals a day, with 4 'snack' hours and lots of water (about 14 glasses of water per day! :o ).
I started the day with a small snack of just 1 portion of fruit (1 apple, a cup of watermelon, etc), then for breakfast I used to eat 2 portions of whole bread, 2 portions of animal source food (be it either eggs, cheese, fish, meat, ham) or legumes, as much vegetables as I would like, and 1/2 glass of milk.

Then it followed a snack of a vegetable (NOT fruit), but just a single portion at mid day, to eat at the afternoon with more or less the same portions as the breakfast, but instead of the glass of milk I could eat a small plate of soup.

The another vegetable snack at the evening, with the dinner following at night.
For dinner it would be just 1 portion of bread, 1 portion of animal source food/legumes, vegetables and 1/2 glass of milk again, to end the day with a last snack of another single portion of vegetables before going to bed.

And I added a glass of water before each of the meals and snacks, and one after them (that's why it sums 14 glasses).

And voilá, I lost all of my overweightness!

However, this was a very specific plan for my life-style, the ammount of physical activity I made and my stature, so it's different for everyone.
That's how I realized that the most important thing to loose weight, is to activate our metabolism! It's better to eat several times a day with little portions, that just a few times with too few or too much food.

So for really loosing weight, I would highly recommend to consult a nutriologist.
'may all beings be happy at heart.' - Karaniya Metta Sutta :buddha1:

Pinetree
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:25 am

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by Pinetree » Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:57 am

I will talk about my experience, as I was a guy with some overweight, and manage to loose 25KG~ in 6 months
When did that happen ? Some people say that one should really count the kilograms lost 1 year after the diet has ended.

Also ... how did your food plan change after after the diet ? Are you still eating 7 meals per day ?

---------

How would you cook the food ? I mean, normally, cooked food may contain a mixture of vegetables, meat, fat/oil added during cooking, etc. Like you have a soup or stew or casserole dish.

Did you have any restriction about the use of spices ?

Also, did I read correctly, or there were no cereals whatsoever, except for the bread ? (so no pasta, no rice, etc)

What is understood by "vegetables" ? I make a difference between leaves (less calories) and roots (more calories).

User avatar
Pumo
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:54 am
Location: Puebla, Mexico
Contact:

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by Pumo » Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:58 pm

Pinetree wrote:When did that happen ? Some people say that one should really count the kilograms lost 1 year after the diet has ended.

Also ... how did your food plan change after after the diet ? Are you still eating 7 meals per day ?
I ended my dietary plan back on May of past year. It's not still a full year, but I preserved my new weight up to today.

Now I'm eating 3 meals a day (like normal) but limiting excess sugar and fat (not that I'm not consuming them, just limiting them to not gain weight again).
How would you cook the food ? I mean, normally, cooked food may contain a mixture of vegetables, meat, fat/oil added during cooking, etc. Like you have a soup or stew or casserole dish.
I usually consume food cooked with 1 tablesppon of margarine or oil, and as you said with a mixture of vegetables and meat, just trying to not consume too much portions of meat (unless it's very lean).
And no fat/oil at all at dinner!
Also, did I read correctly, or there were no cereals whatsoever, except for the bread ? (so no pasta, no rice, etc)
Although the base was whole bread, I could exchange it with equivalent portions of other cereals (like Corn Flakes on breakfast, oats, some rice, etc).
Pasta was mostly out of the scheme.
What is understood by "vegetables" ? I make a difference between leaves (less calories) and roots (more calories).
The vegetables I ate the most were Lettuce, Spinach and Cucumber. I could eat some roots like Carrots, but just a half of a portion due to its sugar content.

Also where I live, there's a common root known as Jicama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachyrhizus_erosus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), and it has very low calories, so I consumed full portions of it, usually.

As for now I'm a bit more liberal about what I eat, but still I'm checking to not gain too much weight every now and then, that's why I usually don't weight more than 58kg up to now.
'may all beings be happy at heart.' - Karaniya Metta Sutta :buddha1:

User avatar
DC2R
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:54 pm
Location: Des Moines

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by DC2R » Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:53 am

There might be more to it than amount of food consumed. No matter how little or how much I eat, I tend to stay around the same weight (skinny). Genetics that influence metabolism also play a role.
"May the blessings of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha always be firmly established in your hearts." ―Ajahn Chah

Quick resources: http://txti.es/theravada

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by samseva » Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:56 am

It's actually the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. If you want to lose weight without eating minute amounts of high-caloric foods (such as potato chips):

1. Calculate your BMR.
2. Eat slightly to moderately less than the required amount of calories you need for your daily activities—the healthier the source of food, the better.
3. Add a decent amount of vegetables to your recipes—not potatoes though. The vegetables (not potatoes) are very low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals. By doing this, you eat less calories, but you don't eat less in quantity, so you aren't always hungry.

If you're up for it, you can also skip meals—intermittent fasting being considered quite healthy by many scientific circles.

denise
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:56 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by denise » Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:11 pm

see "somatotypes" at Wikipedia...i am mostly ectomorph ...a person can also be a combination of types.... some types are suited for particular sports... :smile:

Pinetree
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:25 am

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by Pinetree » Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:43 pm

Pumo wrote: I eated 3 main meals a day, with 4 'snack' hours and lots of water (about 14 glasses of water per day! :o )
Thanks for your explanations, I've read your post again, and am wondering about few other points.
  • What is the schedule / time you used for your meals/water ? So for example, you would eat at 8:00 / 10:00 / 12:00 / 14:00 / 16:00 / 18:00 / 20:00 and sleep at 22:00, or there was no need to worry about the precise timing ?
  • Also, about drinking, was that with the meal or 20-30 minutes before/after ?
  • What is the size of a glass ? Using the standard cup (237 ml), it all ads up to 3.3 liters of water, which is more than a lot !
  • Your 3 vegetable snacks, were they raw/boiled/baked or it didn't matter ?
  • You didn't mention nuts and seeds (sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, walnuts, almonds, cashew, etc). Were these allowed ?

User avatar
Pumo
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:54 am
Location: Puebla, Mexico
Contact:

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by Pumo » Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:11 am

I had a precise timed schedule indeed. It was like this (as far as I can remember):
9:00 (snack) / 11:00 (meal) / 13:30 (snack) / 16:00 (meal) / 19:00 (snack) / 21:30 (meal) / 23:00 (snack), to get to sleep from 00:00 to 01:00.
I used multiple programmed clock alarms (on my tablet) to remind me to eat at the right time. As I work from home it was not much of an issue, although it could get a bit stressful.

I drank the water 5 minutes before and after eating.
I don't recall the exact size of the glasses, but I tried to not use the big ones. If I recall correctly, I used to drink about 3 liters per day, so It's more or less as you said.

The snacks were always raw.

Nuts were barely allowed and just as a small dressing on salads (i.e. sesame) but in general, it was recommended to not use them or at any case, to exchange them with the oil/margarine portion. Avocado was also restricted to very small portions.
'may all beings be happy at heart.' - Karaniya Metta Sutta :buddha1:

lostitude
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:02 am

Re: The secret for losing weight - finally solved

Post by lostitude » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:10 am

I think the OP has a point. People, and even health authorities, tend to mix 'healthy eating' and 'weight loss', even though there is absolutely no reason to link them. Healthy, balanced diets are for people who want to stay healthy, not for people who want to lose weight.
Now you will probably want both, but a balanced diet will only cover the first part (staying healthy), NOT the second (losing weight).

And since diets to maintain good health are based on so many rules and restrictive behaviors, with lists of 'pure' cosher foods and 'impure satanic foods', the latter unevitably being the most attractive, they are probably the worst tool to lose weight and keep it at bay in the long term, because with control comes the risk of getting out of control, inhibition will always be followed by un-inhibition, sooner or later.

It really is a matter of priority. Besides, someone who is obese will reduce their risks of cardiovascular diseases a lot more if they lose a few pounds on an 'unbalanced' but calorie-deficient diet than if they eat 'healthy'.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests