This jives perfectly with my own experience over the years. I struggled with weight my entire life, diets, gym, etc... nothing worked or sticked.

A year ago I hit my peak weight of 335lbs, since then I've lost 70lbs, ALL due to diet. I go on walks and get little to moderate exercise occasionally but the weight loss has been 100% due to diet.

The secret? Counting calories, just reduce it to simple numbers, all the different and often contradictory shit people say about diet and weight loss I just threw out the window and focused on my daily caloric intake.

The best part about this "diet" is that I basically still get to eat whatever I want, as long as I stay within my daily calories, I still loose weight.

My personal journey these past couple of years is one that certainly reflects the points made in both of his videos on the this topic.

I started with modifying my calorie heavy diet in concert with a sustainable fitness level. Diet was straight forward reduce meat, eat more veggies, eat less or no processed foods. I started with walking 5 miles a day and have moved on to jogging that distance every other day.

My optimum weight based on my height and build puts me between 170-180 pounds, the last time I was at the weight was 25 years ago. During those intervening years I had managed to put on as much as 65 pounds of extra weight. With making the changes I outlined above I was able to get back down to 180 pounds in a little less than a year and I have been steady at that weight since. Also... I was able to do all that while hitting my 50th birthday.

Making your goals sustainable in both diet and exercise is the key.

Eating beef is the nutritional equivalent of driving a super-stretch Hummer H2 in Friday L.A. gridlock traffic compared to other sources of calories.

http://www.culinaryschools.org/yum/vegetables/

You even burn calories while you sleep too!

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

The taste is subjective, but the sweeteners are in no way "far worse than sugar".

Coke Zero uses aspartame, and in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with aspartame. There are a bunch of bullshit conspiracy theories around it, but none of them have any solid science behind them.

That said, I don't drink any kind of soft drink anymore. If I'm thirsty, I drink water.

Soft drinks are just empty calories and frankly, if I want a tasty drink, I'll have beer, whiskey or wine. More enjoyable and at least that way I know what I'm drinking is bad for me

I would have given them a little less. Dairy may be bad but it's more about the calorie intake. Most animals are lactose intolerant, but in that there are still many individuals of each species that handle milk fine. After that it's about the calorie intake. Our cats love milk, so occasionally I take a shot glass and fill it 1/4 of the way and let them paw the milk out. Never noticed any Diarrhea and I know the calories are around 8-10. Which is fine for them.

Yes, monarchies are inherently oppressive. They're an archaic throwback and an embarrassment to any country that still clings to them.

For the record I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and a permanent resident of New Zealand. I'm a member of the NZ Republic movement. I am not a subject of the crown, and the requirement to swear allegiance to the Queen is the one thing that is stopping me getting my NZ citizenship (which I have long since qualified for).

This is a point of principle and I would support any movement in any country to remove the monarch as head of state, even if they are only a figure head.

Now, all that said, what does that have to do with my approval for Norway's oil industry, NZs gun laws or socialised healthcare in pretty much the entire developed world?

You do realise that one can approve of one aspect of something while simultaneously disliking another aspect of the same thing? I think fast cars are cool, but I don't like their environment impact. I love beer, but I know that it's full of calories, and so on.

Anyway how would secession work in this case? There's no single geographical region to secede. Unless by secession you mean that the citizens of a country should have the right to determine how their country is run, in which case I wholeheartedly agree.

My gf had terrible headaches, constant nausea, and terrible drowsiness whenever she was hungry for her entire life... until I met her. I suggested she might be hypoglycaemic and should carry around a sugary treat or drink wherever she goes. She started doing that and quickly her hunger sickness symptoms could be basically controlled. But they were still there. One thing I always found strange about her eating habits was her insistence on having lots of bread. She never felt satisfied or full without bread.

After a year of doing that my mom suggested she might be gluten intolerant. My gf had never heard of the concept, had zero friends on any kind of gluten free fad diets. She decided to give it a shot, no gluten for 4 weeks. Boom all symptoms gone. More tests led her to trying out gluten after a week, and what do you know it was back. She waited two weeks, back again. Eventually she figured out a system in which she could have a gluten meal/snack/treat every four weeks without symptoms appear.
Also, she started to feel satisfied and full without an urge to eat bread, almost like the bread caused a weird drug like addicting withdrawal cycle which seemed to be why she always craved it. The gluten seems to build up in her system, or at least the allergic reaction and her body goes through a withdrawal after she has had too much, or too much too frequently, and doesn't get more in her system soon enough.

I eat gluten just fine. Together we eat vegetables, meat, fruit, and occasional pieces of the best gluten free bread (most of its sucks). I tend not to eat tasty gluten stuff around her unless it is a treat day for her Gluten products also make people fat, so it really isn't a problem to not eat them. No one on the planet requires gluten to live a healthy lifestyle. Bread, white bread in particular just gets converted into sugars and fat inside the body. It is empty calories.

Because restricting your diet unnecessarily is silly, and can make eating healthy a more difficult proposition. For most people without food allergies or sensitivities, it does not make sense to restrict something like gluten for no reason. Rather it is better to choose what you eat based off of what is healthy, provides the nutrients you need, and doesn't have an excessive amount of calories.

WTF?!? 30 min of sex "might burn off 85-150 calories!?! Not the way I do it, buddy! Try moving a little.
Peaking sexually is about how much sex you WANT, not how much you might get.
The study said men think about sex every 7 seconds ON AVERAGE, dumbass, that's different from 'every seven seconds'! That means if they think about sex 100 times in one minute, they're good for the next 12. A 'thought' doesn't take long for most of us. If you consider many teenagers spend months or even years thinking about sex, it gives them a lot of time later in life to think about other things and yet still 'think about sex every seven seconds on average'.
Can a newt get a *fail (I'm not talking to you, Sifty)

"It's full of calories!" - Dr. David Bowman, 2001

@Trancecoach

I think Jigga's making the argument on the collective level. Yes, we can all use self control to limit portion sizes.

But collectively, where the multimillion dollar funding of fast food marketing departments is geared towards incentivising larger portions as a method of eking out more profit from their saturated (excuse the pun) market size, it's quite likely that average calorie consumption goes up on the whole.

That doesn't excuse taking responsibility for your actions, and certainly you could tackle it with education campaigns rather than regulation or bans, but there's certainly a relationship here between incentives and national health.

I think his point was to try to surprise people by riding on the wake of Super Size Me and using a attention-grabbing headline like "Eat Only McDonald's and Lose Weight!"

My point had nothing to do with whether it was better for your diet etc. etc. My only point was: Yes, of course it's possible to lose weight and eat [only] at McDonald's. That's not surprising at all.

If your body uses more calories than it takes in, regardless of what kind of calories they are, you will lose weight. You could eat only candy or maple syrup + cayenne pepper + lemon juice or pumpkin pie every day and still lose weight, but those results shouldn't "surprise" anyone.

He intentionally mislead people by making them think he ate a "normal" adult's food choices at McDonald's and lost weight, but he severely restricted his diet (and added extra exercise) to forcibly yield his intended results [and grasp at straws for his 15 minutes of fame].