I've never been overweight, so feel free to ignore my opinion.
I've been doing some form of carb restriction for the last 10 or 15 years. Not strict by any means. Mainly I just try to limit sugar and grains (also seed oils). I lift weights 2-3 times/week.
Quite interesting question, because I didn't eat anyting on Monday and Tuesday. I did so because I was interested in the experience. Additionally, I had a weight loss of about 1kg.
In general, I would advice intermittent fasting. I do it "naturally" (because I very often skip breakfast) and have never had any problems eating what I want. Since I walk most of my distances, physical activity may also count.
This is an interesting question because as I remember reading somewhere, Epicurus experimented with how much he needed to maintain his happiness and pleasurable living from time to time. Sorry, can't think of the citation off the top of my head.
This is an interesting question because as I remember reading somewhere, Epicurus experimented with how much he needed to maintain his happiness and pleasurable living from time to time. Sorry, can't think of the citation off the top of my head.
I remember this, too. I also remember Epicurus comparing himself to Metrodoros, who wasn't able to eat as cheap as Epicurus. 
Diogenes Laertius 10.7:
he spent a whole mina daily on his table, as he himself says in his letter to Leontion and in that to the philosophers at Mitylene.
[ U158 ]
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 18.9: The great hedonist teacher Epicurus used to observe certain periods during which he would be niggardly in satisfying his hunger, with the object of seeing to what extent, if at all, one thereby fell short of attaining full and complete pleasure, and whether it was worth going to much trouble to make the deficit good. At least so he says in the letter he wrote to Polyaenus in the archonship of Charinus {308 - 307 B.C.}. He boasts in it indeed that he is managing to feed himself for less than a half-penny, whereas Metrodorus, not yet having made such good progress, needs a whole half-penny!
And I'm going to have to find out from the Latin what those "pennies" actually translate.
[9] Certos habebat dies ille magister voluptatis Epicurus quibus maligne famem exstingueret, visurus an aliquid deesset ex plena et consummata voluptate, vel quantum deesset, et an dignum quod quis magno labore pensaret. Hoc certe in iis epistulis ait quas scripsit Charino magistratu ad Polyaenum; et quidem gloriatur non toto asse <se> pasci, Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto.
PS: According to some websites I found:
(1st Century A.D.)
1 one pound loaf of bread = 2 asses
1 sextarius wine (~0.5 liter) = 1 - 5 asses
Remember that it is Seneca using the as as the coin in question, and he lived 4 BC – 65 AD. So, technically according to Seneca's quotation of a letter by Epicurus, Epicurus didn't need a whole "as" to live on for per day. However, Epicurus wouldn't have used the "as" coin since that was a Roman currency. Without the original text, there is NO way of knowing how much money Epicurus was referring to. However, even if we take Seneca's anachronistic currency, if Epicurus were "experimenting" with eating bread and drinking water, he could have bought a 1 pound loaf of bread for 2 asses and it would have lasted him two days. A pound of bread is a pretty good-sized loaf.
In his Coinage and History of the Roman Empire (vol. 2, p. 21), Vagi reports that "around the time of its destruction in A.D. 79 the average pay of a laborer in Pompeii was about 8 asses (half a denarius) per day, though actual salaries ranged from 5 to 16 asses per day. Skilled miners in rural Dacia earned wages of 6 to 10 asses, which were supplemented by free room and board values at 2 to 3 asses per day, bringing their true salaries more in line with the workers at the resort town of Pompeii."
"Carbohydrate Restriction (Adkins or Keto)" may produce stunning weight loss but both Adkins and Keto are controversial because they are unhealthy for most people.
"Carbohydrate Restriction by cutting down sugar and starch and increasing complex carbohydrates with fibers but not animal fats" is a healthy version of carbohydrate restriction. It would incur reduction of total calory intake, too.
I think this thread was supposed to be about personal experience, but I want to say some more about it. Feel free to move this to another thread if that would be more appropriate.
Let's start with some facts.
Weight loss requires a caloric deficit (aside from surgery). All the rest is just about ways of making a caloric deficit easier to sustain.
All carbohydrates are converted into glucose.*
The human body prefers to use glucose for energy rather than fat. This is because...
Too much glucose in the bloodstream is harmful.**
I believe those are all generally accepted facts. Now, I will speculate a bit...
The body's fat burning mechanisms are not just sitting around waiting to be used whenever they are needed. Like muscle tissue, they have to be maintained, and maintaining them requires resources. The body doesn't like to waste resources. Like muscle tissue, when the fat-burning mechanisms are not utilized, the body will not devote resources to maintaining them.
If that is true...
Naive calorie restriction is difficult because when carbohydrates are consumed every few hours, the fat-burning mechanisms are not utilized to a sufficient degree to signal the body to develop them. When glucose runs out, even though there may be stored body fat available, the fat-burning mechanisms aren't capable of meeting the body's demands, and the body demands more glucose, like an addict.
The various forms of carbohydrate restriction make glucose unavailable for sufficiently long periods of time for the body to engage the fat-burning mechanisms. This burns fat, obviously, but it also signals to the body that these processes are going to be used, and that resources should be devoted to building and maintaining them.
To evaluate the poll options in light of the above:
Definitely effective, but difficult to practice:***
General Calorie Restriction
Likely to be effective:
Carbohydrate Restriction
Intermittent Fasting (temporary carb-restriction)
Carnivore Diet
Multi-day Fasting
Likely to be ineffective unless combined with an effective method:
Mediterranean Diet
Primarily Exercise
Vegetarianism
Out of scope:
Weight loss medication or supplement
Weight loss surgery
Finally, to be clear, all of the above is looking at this strictly from a weight loss perspective. I am not commenting on other health effects, positive or negative.
=====
*This is not quite accurate (there are non-digestible carbohydrates), but it's close enough for this discussion.
**This is why diabetes is bad. It is also why the body will burn alcohol for energy in preference to both glucose and fat: because alcohol in the bloodstream is even worse than glucose.
***I think of this like a natural but unnecessary desire. If you find yourself in a situation where calorie restriction is easy, like famine, shipwreck, imprisonment...go for it. Otherwise, there are probably less painful approaches to weight loss.
Lots of good thought there Todd. As to this one:
Weight loss requires a caloric deficit (aside from surgery). All the rest is just about ways of making a caloric deficit easier to sustain.
Many of the low-carb people (like Gary Taubes) seem to me to argue that weight gain or loss is driven significantly by "type" of food consumed - their argument is that the primary problem is that carbs drive insulin and insulin drives fat storage, and that even the amount of food consumed is often driven by hormonal issues caused by the type of food consumed.
One way of summarizing their argument seems to be that the type of food ingested ends up affecting "hormonal" balances (insulin being hormonal) and that pure calories in / calories out does not describe the big picture -- given for example that babies do not grow up purely due to calories in / calories out but due to hormonal or genetic directives that control where and how much fat is deposited in the body.
I know things are much more complicated than that, but what is your viewpoint as to that line of argument, and that it is almost as important "what you eat" as it is "how much you eat?"
both Adkins and Keto are controversial
Some people actually gain weight on Keto/Adkins because they are still consuming more calories than they burn. And people who lose weight gain the weight right back again after coming off the diet. Eventually you have to return eating some carbs -- life isn't worth living without some carbs -- but you need to learn to enjoy complex carbs like brown rice and other healthy carbs.
I think that the problem happens when people want to lose weight in one month. So they are impatient and want it to happen immediately.
If you ate the Mediteranean diet for 6 months with a very mild calorie deficit, and then after 6 months you continue eating the Mediteranean diet because it is healthy. So you take on a permanent healthy lifestyle.
I know things are much more complicated than that, but what is your viewpoint as to that line of argument, and that it is almost as important "what you eat" as it is "how much you eat?"
I've not read Taubes specifically, but I've heard other people make this argument. So assuming they all mean the same thing...
I would say I agree, but I think you are somewhat mischaracterizing their argument.
You have to look at what they're saying in the context of arguing against the conventional advice to simply "eat less and/or exercise more".
I don't think they are saying that is factually wrong; they're saying it is not actually very helpful advice.
