Author Topic: Anyone eat pasta (or bread, rice, etc.) semi regularly and still lose weight?  (Read 4910 times)

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6651
Weight loss is almost always CICO (calories in, calories out), regardless of what you are consuming.
"Almost always" is an overstatement based on the science.

It's not, it (CICO) is the definition of how *weight loss* works. Basically a tautology, in the same sense that savings = spending less than your earn. Weight loss = take in less calories than your TDEE.

All the other stuff has an impact on the margin, sure, but absolutely does not dominate a caloric deficit.

Important note: Weight loss != *health*.
Quote
You could lose weight eating McDonald's so long as you are in a caloric deficit
, but that would not lead to the same health outcomes as a proper diet.
Bolded is not actually true, because there's a point where your body will stop losing weight, if you cut calories too much.  Also, the type of calories matter and affect how your calories are burned.  (Simple carbs, insulin, hormones affect calorie burn, plus water weight, etc.)

It's a pretty fascinating issue and the information that we have is in its infancy.

The largest effect, of course, is calories - simply because the vast majority of Americans eat too much.  But when you get into the nitty gritty of individuals, that's where it gets tricky.

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Yes. I've lost 8 lbs over the last two months (10 more to go) and eat a serving of grain or potato with most meals. I do careful calorie counting, though, and am careful with portions. For example, brunch included a half-cup of dry oats (cooked before eating), and dinner includes a half-cup of cooked brown rice. Afternoon snack included a measured single serving of potato chips left over from a camping trip. I usually skip sweets other than fruit. I have celiac disease and dislike most gluten-free pasta options, so I usually eat zoodles or spaghetti squash if I want a noodle-like dish.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 07:53:12 PM by OtherJen »

EconDiva

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Yes, I lost 20% of my body weight over 4-5 months and ate bread (white wheat) for one meal per day on average. Oatmeal, peas, rice, etc for the other two meals. The key was cutting my calorie intake by about half relative to before I started trying to lose weight. I was eating mostly healthy food (raw vegetables, fruit, no junk food, no sugar) but an unhealthy quantity before that.

I eat oatmeal without any concerns...I feel like it's some of miracle worker when it comes to curbing my appetite.  I truly am at my best on the days I start off with a bowl of oatmeal. 

EconDiva

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
From what I'm reading sounds like I might be ok incorporating some things like brown rice here and there (although I don't really eat that - just not my thing), perhaps even white potatoes here or there and some other grains.  But to stay away from the pasta which is the main thing I've been eating for dinner the past like week and a half.  =/

Guess I'll try to just stay away from as much as I can and read more about what carbs might be healthier ones I can still have semi frequently (i.e., some of the ones mentioned above) because I do need to start coming up with some new recipes that, as I mentioned earlier, are cheaper.  I already have oatmeal for breakfast like 50% of the time.  I have no issues losing weight while eating that *and* it fits into my budget.  When it's not oats for breakfast it's eggs which I'm fine with as well.  I am a big kidney beans person so maybe I can learn how to make something else with beans besides chili...that recipe turns out to be pretty cheap per meal but man am I getting tired of making/eating that.  Many of the other meals are salmon or they're chicken based so a bit expensive.

I may try to find some more things to make with spaghetti squash too.  I tried that pesto recipe I'd been having the pasta with on spaghetti squash instead the other day but it just didn't taste too good to me.  =/  I had made a "shrimp scampi" version on spaghetti squash before which is good but the pesto/tomato recipe for some reason didn't work on it for me.

koshtra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
  • Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
    • Mole
I've been maintaining my seventy-pound weight loss for a couple months while eating three or four potatoes nightly. Not sure what that is by weight, but I go through a ten pound bag in a week or two... if potatoes were going to send my appetite amok and wreck my discipline I think they'd have done it by now. And I throw rice into the soups that I usually eat for lunch.

Bread I just find is not very filling for the amount of calories it packs, and it soaks up fats and condiments with a will. If you love it, eat it -- some of it -- but pay attention to how many calories you're loading in with it. I ate lots of bread, toast and hamburger buns, during the early months of my big weight loss project, but as I had to cut calories, to keep losing, I found that keeping it in my diet was just too "expensive." To keep eating it I would have had to jettison practically everything else.


mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6651

Bolded is not actually true, because there's a point where your body will stop losing weight, if you cut calories too much. 

Absolutely, 100%, patently, and completely untrue.

Yes, if you drop your calories too low, then your body will lower your output and slow down your caloric expenditure to become very close to your basal metabolic rate, ie: the amount of calories you need to spend to exist. Most of the calories you need in a day are required to keep your brain working and your body warm.
If your extremely little, you will become exhausted and barely move if your starve long enough and get thin enough, and you will sleep most of the day and grow a layer of fuzzy body hair to insulate your organs, but you won't stop losing weight if you eat below this level. If too low intake ceased weight loss, anorexia wouldn't be so deadly.

If you drop your calories low, then yeah, you may stop losing as your daily expenditure lowers to match that intake, but it can only drop by a certain amount. Dropping it further won't stall your weight loss further, it will restart it and guarantee it.

CICO doesn't mean consuming any diet of the same caloric value will produce the same weightloss outcome regardless of the nutrient value.

It really is CICO, but yes, diet can affect the amount of calories out, since being malnourished can negatively affect the calories out by lowering your energy and organ function. People who say it's not CICO are really trying to say that the calculation isn't as simple as it seems, but to say that it's not CICO is misleading.

It is legitimate to say: different diets affect the "calories out" part of the equation in unpredictable and difficult to define ways, which means that 1500 calories of KitKats daily will produce a different result than 1500 calories of veggies and lean protein. But at the end of the day, weight loss is absolutely, 100% determine by a difference between how many calories you consume vs how many your body uses. No exception. It's physics.
Ah well, I'm just reporting what actually happened to me when I was losing weight, but okay.  I guess you are the expert on absolutely everyone?

I lost weight.  Hit a my goal weight, which was good because I stopped losing weight anyway.  Added in more calories for maintenance.  Started losing weight again, and fairly quickly.  Added in even more calories to stabilize my weight.  I'm guessing at the point when I stopped losing, my body said "eff you".

If you care, but you probably don't with your "absolutely false" statement, the point at which I stopped losing weight was approximately 1200 calories, and in order to maintain my weight I needed to be at 2000.

In short "It's physics!" is pretty meaningless when you are discussing calories in and calories out, when you really only know one half of the equation.  You know what you are taking in, but you don't necessarily know what is going "out", as that changes.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 06:57:38 PM by mm1970 »

Moustachienne

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 317
This post explains really well my current attitude to white bread etc.  Using moderation, variety, and flexibility I've lost 20 lbs and am comfortably maintaining. Honestly, everything about the 10 Principles is great.
https://www.the10principles.com/i-lost-weight-by-eating-white-bread/

As you can tell, I'm a huge fan of the eating approach set out on her website and HIGHLY recommend it but I mostly hope than you find an approach that feels good to you and does what you want.

Good luck!

marble_faun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
Have you tried chickpea pasta (like the brand Banza)?  I'm losing weight, and it has worked well for me as a substitute! 

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
This has been intentional as in the past, the change in diet that has the most impact on me being able to lose weight "seems" to be dropping the so called "bad carbs".   
It's total calories. 1 cup of cooked pasta is about 220kcal, to get 220kcal of broccoli would be 1.5lbs of the stuff. It's a lot easier to eat a cup of pasta than a pound and a half of broccoli.

So by reducing the energy-dense foods like jam doughnuts, pasta and so on, you tend to consume less calories over all. What happens when your income drops a little below your spending? You draw on your savings. For the body, that's body fat.

There's nothing "bad" about any food. It's just that some foods are calorie-rich and nutrient poor (like McDs) and others are calorie-poor and nutrient rich (like most fruit and vegies). When people come to my gym, I am usually less concerned with their calories than their nutrition - because they eat so much energy-rich but nutrient-poor food, they're overweight or obese but always tired and often sick, and have either diaorrhea (high fat diets from KFC etc) or constipation (high-starch diets from white bread etc) every day. If we can get them eating more fruit and vegies, well they might still be getting more energy than they need, but at least they're getting lots of nutrients and fibre - so they start feeling better, more energetic, not sick so often, and their digestive system offends them less.

Most financial approaches work - not just MMM - because it's the first time in their lives they're actually conscious of their spending. Likewise, most diets work because it's the first time in the person's life they're actually conscious of what they eat.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 11:13:42 PM by Kyle Schuant »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13746
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Bolded is not actually true, because there's a point where your body will stop losing weight, if you cut calories too much. 

Absolutely, 100%, patently, and completely untrue.

Yes, if you drop your calories too low, then your body will lower your output and slow down your caloric expenditure to become very close to your basal metabolic rate, ie: the amount of calories you need to spend to exist. Most of the calories you need in a day are required to keep your brain working and your body warm.
If your extremely little, you will become exhausted and barely move if your starve long enough and get thin enough, and you will sleep most of the day and grow a layer of fuzzy body hair to insulate your organs, but you won't stop losing weight if you eat below this level. If too low intake ceased weight loss, anorexia wouldn't be so deadly.

If you drop your calories low, then yeah, you may stop losing as your daily expenditure lowers to match that intake, but it can only drop by a certain amount. Dropping it further won't stall your weight loss further, it will restart it and guarantee it.

CICO doesn't mean consuming any diet of the same caloric value will produce the same weightloss outcome regardless of the nutrient value.

It really is CICO, but yes, diet can affect the amount of calories out, since being malnourished can negatively affect the calories out by lowering your energy and organ function. People who say it's not CICO are really trying to say that the calculation isn't as simple as it seems, but to say that it's not CICO is misleading.

It is legitimate to say: different diets affect the "calories out" part of the equation in unpredictable and difficult to define ways, which means that 1500 calories of KitKats daily will produce a different result than 1500 calories of veggies and lean protein. But at the end of the day, weight loss is absolutely, 100% determine by a difference between how many calories you consume vs how many your body uses. No exception. It's physics.
Ah well, I'm just reporting what actually happened to me when I was losing weight, but okay.  I guess you are the expert on absolutely everyone?

I lost weight.  Hit a my goal weight, which was good because I stopped losing weight anyway.  Added in more calories for maintenance.  Started losing weight again, and fairly quickly.  Added in even more calories to stabilize my weight.  I'm guessing at the point when I stopped losing, my body said "eff you".

If you care, but you probably don't with your "absolutely false" statement, the point at which I stopped losing weight was approximately 1200 calories, and in order to maintain my weight I needed to be at 2000.

In short "It's physics!" is pretty meaningless when you are discussing calories in and calories out, when you really only know one half of the equation.  You know what you are taking in, but you don't necessarily know what is going "out", as that changes.

When you carry more muscle mass, you burn more calories even when you're not exercising.  Most people who lose weight through dieting lose a fair amount of muscle mass as well as fat, either because they fail to do resistance training along with their dieting or because they cut calories too much and their bodies catabolize their muscle for energy.  Once you've lost this muscle mass, you have to keep eating less calories because your body requires fewer calories each day.  You have effectively reduced your 'calories out' part of the equation.

By increasing the amount that you eat (particularly if you're doing regular exercise and eating a higher protein diet) your body will be able to rebuild some muscle, and your base metabolic rate will increase again.  Increasing calories can also have the effect of increasing energy during the day . . . so you might go up a flight of stairs faster, walk around more in your office, or do something else that increases your calories spent.

Noodle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
At one point I lost 60 pounds and I was simultaneously teaching myself to bake bread! (Actually, I found bread-baking to be less hazardous than other kinds of baking because there was less temptation to taste during the cooking process. Raw bread dough doesn't taste that great!) 

I was also told by my doctor to get the triglycerides down a few years ago due a family tendency to Type II diabetes and some warning signs. I looked at the low-carb diets like South Beach and freaked out, because I knew I would be miserable eating that way. Guess what--cutting back refined carbs (fewer carby snacks like pretzels, smaller relative portions of carbs (ie, make a pasta salad with TONS of veggies, a good amount of protein, and a modest amount of pasta), trying to have one refined-carb free meal per day, making things like bagels, sandwiches on big rolls, and big bowls of pasta treat foods instead of at-home foods) did the trick.