10 Easy Ways to Lose Weight Without Starving

10 Easy Ways to Lose Weight Without Starving
You can stage a coup on calories without ruining your life or eating a single rice cake: Just follow this simple advice.

The no-diet, no-workout plan that is better than running 5 miles a day! Check out The Lean Belly Prescription.
Way #1
Always Eat a Man’s Breakfast
No more Lucky Charms—you want some protein and fat. Scrambled eggs and a few sausage links will keep you fuller longer than an airy doughnut will.
Way #2
Eat More!
We’re talking three good snacks and three healthful meals. But what do you serve during the bowl game if you can’t have chips and dip? Mixed nuts—especially almonds—will satisfy your craving for something crunchy while helping to build muscle.
Way #3
Just Say No to Starches
Foods like pasta, white bread, and potatoes make you fat. If you must have pasta, make yours whole-wheat. Same goes for bread, and swap white potatoes for sweet potatoes. Just don’t eat too much!

A perfect example of a great swap are these crispy sweet potato fries. You’ll never go back to regular potatoes.
Way #4
Lift Weights
Yes, you have to hit the gym, and no, lifting beer cans during happy hour doesn’t count. The muscles you build will not only improve your performance, they’ll stoke your metabolism so you burn calories long after your workout is over.

Way #5
Think Before You Eat
Don’t just stuff your face with the stale cookies left over from the holidays, eat what tastes good and what’s good for you. Take your time eating; you’ll stay fuller longer.

Here are 7 ways to harness your hunger from a grumbling stomach.
Way #6
But Have Fun Once in a While—or Once a Week
Stifle those cravings for too long, and you’ll be miserable and might fall off your new plan forever. Just splurge reasonably—two slices of pizza, not the whole thing.

Way #7
Go Low-Carb
It’s the easiest way to drop weight fast. The cravings are hard at first, but it gets easier—especially when you see the results.

Way #8
Run Intervals
It’s easier to alternate between hard and easy running instead of going for a long run—especially if you don’t like running. Plus, you’ll be done faster and burn more fat.

Break your speed limits by boosting your speed with intervals. You’ll not only get faster, but your gut with flatten in no-time.
Way #9
Never, Ever Drink Sweetened Soda
But go ahead, have a glass of wine now and then. Low-carb beer is fine, too, in moderation.

Way #10
Don’t Fear Fat
It makes you feel full, helps control your appetite, and your body needs it.

Of course, some fat is good while others are bad. See How Fat Attacks, and how you can make it work for you.

Wikio

12 Tasty Substitutions When Cutting Carbs

“The best way to cut carbs from your diet is to make creative substitutions,” says Arthur Agatston, M.D., author of The South Beach Diet. “That way you can still eat the foods you love, without busting your diet.”

Dr. Agatston told us how to make cauliflower taste like mashed potatoes. Other nutrition experts gave us tricks for cutting white flour, pasta, and potatoes and replacing them with lower-carb alternatives that taste nearly identical. We then had some loyal carbo-cravers taste-test these dishes. Turns out some of them are so good, you’ll wonder why you weren’t eating them in the first place.

And for more great ways to and lose weight and stay slim for good, pick up a copy of The Men’s Health Diet today! It combines the latest findings in exercise and nutrition with practical how-to-advice that will transform your body into a fat-burning machine.
Hash Browns
Substitute: Squash for potatoes

Summer squash (the football-shaped yellow kind) tastes similar to potatoes when cooked—but has just a fraction of the carbs. Grate the squash, mix in an egg as binder, make patties, and fry them in olive oil, says Mary Dan Eades, M.D., coauthor of The Low-Carb Comfort Food Cookbook.

Carbs Eliminated: About 15 grams (g) per hash-brown patty

The Taste: “Not as firm and crispy as regular hash browns, but the potato flavor is there.”

Mash Potatoes
Substitute: Cauliflower for potatoes

One of Dr. Agatston’s favorites: Steam some fresh or frozen cauliflower in the microwave. Then spray the cauliflower with butter substitute, add a little nonfat half-and-half substitute, and puree in a food processor or blender. “Salt and pepper to taste and you’ve got something that quite honestly can compete with the real thing any day,” says Dr. Agatston. To make it even better, try adding roasted garlic, cheese, or sour cream to the mixture.

Carbs Eliminated: 30 g per cup

The Taste: “After a couple of bites, you forget it’s not potatoes.”

Lasagna
Substitute: Zucchini slices for noodles

Slice four to five medium-size zukes lengthwise into three-quarter-inch-thick strips, instructs Lise Battaglia, a New Jersey chef whose past clients include Jon Bon Jovi. Sprinkle Italian seasoning on the strips, place them in a single layer on a nonstick cookie sheet, and bake at 425 degrees F for 20 minutes. You want them firm, not crisp. “Then simply make the lasagna as you normally would, replacing lasagna noodles with the baked zucchini,” she says.

Carbs Eliminated: 36 g per serving

The Taste: “Delicious. The zucchini provides texture that you don’t get from noodles alone.”
Spaghetti
Substitute: Spaghetti squash for spaghetti

A cooked spaghetti squash is like Mother Nature’s automatic spaghetti maker—the flesh becomes noodlelike strands. “All you have to do is cut the squash in half and remove the seeds. Then place each half—cut side down—on a plate with a quarter cup of water,” says Elizabeth Perreault, a chef at Colorado’s Culinary School of the Rockies. Nuke the squash for 10 minutes or until it’s soft to the touch. Let it cool, then scrape out the “spaghetti” strands and top with pasta sauce and cheese.

Carbs Eliminated: 30 g per cup

The Taste: “Great. Spaghetti squash has exactly the same consistency as real pasta.”

Pancakes
Substitute: Oatmeal and cottage cheese for pancake mix

Here’s a can’t-fail recipe from The South Beach Diet. Mix together half a cup of old-fashioned oatmeal, a quarter cup of low-fat cottage cheese, two eggs, and a dash each of vanilla extract, cinnamon, and nutmeg. Process in a blender until smooth. Cook the mixture like a regular pancake.

Carbs Eliminated: 45 g per pancake

The Taste: “With syrup, you could never tell the difference.”

Scalloped Potatoes
Substitute: Tempeh for potatoes

You may think you don’t like soy-based foods, but that could be because you don’t cook them right, says Beckette Williams, R.D., a San Diego-based personal chef. “Tempeh can be really bland, but if you jazz it up with herbs and spices, it’s a great substitute for potatoes.” Her recommendation: Saute a couple of cups of thinly diced tempeh with garlic and onions. Then pour a cheese sauce (sharper is better) over the tempeh cubes and bake for half an hour.

Carbs Eliminated: 11 g per cup

The Taste: “Just like a slightly nutty baked potato.”

Macaroni and Cheese
Substitute: Diced vegetables for macaroni

Even instant mac and cheese can go lower-carb; use only half the pasta in the box and bulk it up with a couple of cups of frozen mixed vegetables, says Sandra Woodruff, R.D., coauthor of The Good Carb Cookbook.

Carbs Eliminated: 13 g per cup

The Taste: “I hate broccoli, but I wouldn’t mind eating this.”

Pasta Salad
Substitute: Mixed vegetables or black beans for half the pasta

Same idea as the mac and cheese, but try black beans, diced tomatoes, and chunks of ham, tuna, chicken, or hard-boiled eggs, suggests Richard Ruben, an instructor at the Institute of Culinary Education in New York City. “These kinds of salads are a blank slate, so you can top them with anything from a creamy blue-cheese dressing to vinaigrette, or even lime juice and slices of avocado,” Ruben says.

Carbs Eliminated: 10 g per cup

The Taste: “Awesome. I don’t miss the extra pasta at all.”

Cheese-Flavored Chips
Substitute: Low-fat string cheese for chips

Just crazy enough to work: Cut sticks of string cheese into quarter-inch-thick slices and scatter the rounds on a cookie sheet coated with nonstick spray, leaving them an inch or two apart. Bake at 375 F for 4 to 5 minutes or until the cheese melts and turns golden brown. Let them cool, then peel the chips off the tray.

Carbs Eliminated: Up to 90 g per serving

The Taste: “Like the cheese you pull off the top of a pizza.”

Pizza
Substitute: Portobello mushrooms for pizza crust

Cut the gills out of the inside of the mushroom, says Ruben, “then place the mushroom on an oiled cookie sheet and bake for 5 to 10 minutes so it dries out slightly.” Add tomato sauce, mozzarella, and pepperoni or other toppings and broil until the cheese begins to melt.

Carbs Eliminated: About 20 g per slice

The Taste: “Like pizza, but moister. Give me a fork!”

Beef-a-Roni
Substitute: Eggplant for pasta

Mixing diced eggplant with ground beef is healthier and more highbrow than this old skillet special—call it moussaka American style. You have to soften the eggplant first, says Williams. Cut it in half, brush it with olive oil, and then broil for 10 to 20 minutes. “Let it cool, dice it up, and mix with hamburger, tomato sauce, and spices,” she says.

Carbs Eliminated: 26 g per cup

The Taste: “Exactly like Hamburger Helper, in a good way.”

Sandwiches
Substitute: Napa or Chinese cabbage for bread

Slap your turkey and Swiss onto a leaf of cabbage and roll it up. “I’ve made some great-tasting BLTs using cabbage instead of bread,” Battaglia says. Dip the roll in low-fat mayonnaise or mustard.

Carbs Eliminated: 29 g per sandwich

The Taste: “Better than eating plain cold cuts.”

Wikio

Wikio

Study links diet to longevity, but with confusing findings

By Jennifer LaRue Huget

(File photo)

What you eat might well determine how long you live.

But it’s not exactly clear what the optimal diet should be.

In a study published in the January 2011 edition of theJournal of the American Dietetic Association, researchers found that among 2,500 adults ages 70 to 79, those who maintained a diet consisting largely of foods deemed “healthy” were less likely to die and more likely to remain healthy than those whose diets included more of less-healthful foods during the 10-year period examined.

Researchers divvied the study subjects into six groups according to their predominant food choices among 108 food items tallied. Here’s how the clusters fell out:

• “Healthy foods” (374 participants)
• “High-fat dairy products” (332)
• “Meat, fried foods, and alcohol” (693)
• “Breakfast cereal” (386)
• “Refined grains” (458)
• “Sweets and desserts” (339)

That “healthy foods” category was defined by relatively higher consumption of low-fat dairy, fruit, whole grains, poultry, fish and vegetables and lower intake of meat, fried foods, sweets, high-calorie beverages and added fat.

After all kinds of controls were applied to rule out the effects of gender, age, physical activity, smoking, race, total calorie intake and other variables, the numbers showed that the “high-fat dairy products” group had a 40 percent higher risk of mortality than the “health foods” group and that the “sweets and desserts” group had a 37 percent higher risk than the “healthy foods” group.

The study concludes:

A dietary pattern consistent with current guidelines to consume relatively high amounts of vegetables, fruit, whole grains, poultry, fish and low-fat dairy products may be associated with superior nutritional status, quality of life and survival in older adults.

But what to make of that “meat, fried foods and alcohol” group — the one that you might notice is nearly twice the size of the “healthy foods” group? That group’s not even mentioned in the news release (the study is not yet posted online) — despite the fact that, when the numbers were crunched, that group’s mortality risk was about the same as that of the healthy-eating group.

The study notes:

Unexpectedly, in this and several other studies, a pattern higher in red meat was not significantly associated with increased risk of mortality when controlled for relevant confounding factors. One suggested explanation is that plant-based diets may lower health risk because plant foods are protective, whereas diets high in animal foods may be more likely to increase risk only if the animal foods displace protective plant foods in the diet.

The study’s lead author, Amy Anderson of the University of Maryland department of nutrition and food science, was good enough to make herself available to talk on the phone over the holiday weekend and tried to help me sort things out. I couldn’t understand why the meat/fried food/alcohol group’s relative good health wasn’t singled out as helping keep folks alive longer, leaving all the credit to the “healthy foods” group.

Anderson followed up with an e-mail reviewing what she’d told me on the phone:

As mentioned on the phone, while we can’t give definite reasons for our results, Table 1 in the paper [which shows percentage of total energy intake from selected food groups each cluster’s diet] may provide some ideas for why the “meat, fried foods and alcohol” group didn’t have a statistically significantly higher risk of mortality than the “healthy foods” group after controlling for many variables including education, physical activity, and smoking — in other words, these other variables being equal. As Table 1 shows, the name of the “meat, fried foods and alcohol” group may be a bit misleading, because this group had a more similar diet to the “healthy foods” group than some of the others. We named the groups according to foods that people ate relatively more of in comparison to the other groups. The “meat, fried foods and alcohol” group ate on average about 4 percent of calories from meat, while the “healthy foods” group ate on average about 2.8 percent of calories from meat. The differences in fried food and alcohol intake between the “meat, fried foods and alcohol” group and the “healthy foods” group were also about 1 to 3 percent. In contrast, the “sweets and desserts” group ate on average about 25.8 percent of calories from sweets, while the “healthy foods” group ate on average about 6 percent of calories from sweets — a difference of almost 20 percent in this food group. The “high-fat dairy products” group ate about 17.1 percent of calories from high fat dairy products, while the “healthy foods” group ate about 3.4 percent of calories from high fat dairy products — a difference of almost 14 percent in this food group. In other words, it is not as though the “meat, fried foods and alcohol” group within this study population of 70-79 year-olds ate enormous quantities of these foods, just slightly more on average than the other groups. The “sweets and desserts” and “high-fat dairy products” groups, on the other hand, showed some more stark differences from the “healthy foods” group in their diets.

I appreciate Anderson’s taking pains to help me with this. But the cynic in me has to wonder whether the finding that people who eat a bit more meat, fried food and alcohol manage to do all right, mortality-wise, may have been too out of whack with current dietary recommendations for comfort. Especially as the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, which are likely to promote consumption of whole grains and other plant-based foods, are about to be issued, I hope researchers will keep at it and tease this confusing situation out further.

Because if it really is okay to eat meat and fried food and enjoy alcohol after all, people should know about it.

Comments

The Longevity diet: The missing link is blood sugar. Blood sugar is the cause of aging,Diabetes,Obesity,Alzheimers..etc
(you do not have to be a diabetic to have this problem)

A popular diabetes diet in Europe was shown to reverse aging markers as the diabetes drug caused faster ageing and heart trouble. See herehttp://spirithappy.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-first-drug-they-give-you-to-heal-type-2-diabetes-hurts-your-cells/

Unfortunately billions of dollars are invested into diabetes and obesity drug makers so the public will never get this information

Posted by: healing1 | December 28, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

It sounds to me as if the “cynic” in this article’s author is looking for someone to give her the green light to consume as much meat, fried food and alcohol as she wants. I thought the study’s lead author explained the findings quite well. It’s basically “moderation in all things.” Many studies show moderate consumption of alcohol can be a good thing. Same goes for meat, especially moderate consumption of lean meat and fish, and fried foods, as long as they are fried in good oils. I’m not aware of any scientist who claims consuming REAL servings of any of these things, while making whole grains, vegetables and fruit the bulk of your diet ever hurt anyone. The problems start when people super-size such foods to the exclusion of whole grains, fruit and veggies.

Posted by: lolly312 | December 28, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I’m going to use this study the next time I teach an advanced statistics course, as an example of 1) how to do things right, and 2) when you do things right, people who are not statistically literate (such as the writer here) will have a hard time, even when it is clearly explained (as it was — to someone who knew statistics).

The basic methodology of the study was a clustering algorithm. That’s a procedure which produces groupings based on minimizing differences within each group, and maximizing differences between groups. Clustering does not produce evenly spaced groups, because the world isn’t evenly spaced; if you pulled a sample from Manhattan, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Tokyo, and grouped by physical location, two of the groups would be very close together, and a third one would not be far away from the two close ones. If you then tried to study weather with respect to physical location, you would discover that the close-together groupings didn’t show much difference. That is what happened here. The meat/fried/alcohol group generally ate a healthy diet; they happened to indulge in some probably-not-healthy other stuff, but not very much of it. Differences were in the range of 1-3% (as differences between the location of Manhattan and Brooklyn are quite small plotted on the scale of the continent). Unsurprisingly, results in longevity were somewhere within the margin of error. (Just as the number of days it snows in Manhattan but not in Brooklyn are few and insignificant).

What the study says in terms of action is: eat a mostly healthy diet. There’s not much difference between mostly healthy and perfectly healthy.

The writer was pushing for “so these other foods are okay.” The study shows only that they don’t seem to make a statistical difference in result, if the difference isn’t very great in consumption. Apparently steak-and-eggs-with-a-beer consumers don’t have that very often, and mostly eat like the healthy people, so it’s not surprising they differ very little. Just as apparently, people who live on milkshakes really live on milkshakes, and pay the arterial consequences.

“Study shows two patterns of healthy eating and two patterns of unhealthy eating are common in general population” isn’t much of a headline, but it’s what this study shows. Period. Have a pork chop with your salad, and a glass of wine, now and then, if you like. This doesn’t mean you can live on pork chops and wine.

And never talk to a reporter who has not, at least at one point in life, derived the Gaussian distribution from the limit of the binomial distribution.

Posted by: PasserThru | December 28, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Kind of hard to draw any conclusions from the study if the ‘groupings’ were not significantly different in their diets. To her credit, the scientist did explain that.

Unfortunately, these types of poorly constructed studies are often used by people and companies to push positions that the preponderance of science finds false. Confusion is the enemy of good advice, the friend of those who seek to deceive (or be deceived)

Posted by: mgferrebee | December 28, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The study author’s explanation for the lack of a deleterious effect of eating meat is clearly and convincingly stated. It is very interesting that the meat group got only four percent of their calories from meat. I have contended for a long time that even meat eaters eat far more vegetables than even they realize. Now if they could just cut it all out . . .

Posted by: aspenhallinn | December 28, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Doesn’t anyone ask about the quantities eaten? Not calories–quantity.

Posted by: joan10 | December 28, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps it’s the writer’s interpretation of this finding’…people who eat a bit more meat, fried food and alcohol manage to do all right, mortality-wise…’
that needs enlightenment.
A healthy lifestyle, with or without red meat, et al, means that you don’t abuse any one food group.
If balance is the key to good living, surely a good steak, few glasses of wine and yummy desert every now and then won’t hurt one’s health as long as one has his/her health in sight at all times.
So have that juicy steak and enjoy
your workout the next day, too!

Posted by: writersMAMA | December 28, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Let me assure all readers, there is no confusion in this study!
My credits: Discoverer of the cause of obesity, the disease which leaves a trail of others in its wake. I condemned the pyramid food guide after one glance in 1992. Not a studied reaction but an instinctive,immediate revulsion predicting the epidemic obesity future.
I had survived 7 years, 1939-1946 (WWII)deprived of food, starvation, but escaped with a food regimen which has left me—I will be 86 on Jan. 7th— in superior health.
I will not divulge the obesity code, I am waiting to sign a large organization to handle the recovery campaign.
That said—I will leave a hint; you are a misguided lot, greens and grains have promoted obesity ( I call it carbohydritis),you will be requested to abandon food guides and diets! You will become reacquainted with your inner ego, the gut. Needless to say, I have promoted red meat and saturated fat for ages. Why? It allows me to be well fed in small portions!
Send a BD card the address in hartsmartliving.com
Why am I so well? I have an attitude! Does it show?

————Hart———

Posted by: hart0007 | December 28, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The main problem I see is that the researchers went into the study with a deeply ingrained hypothesis on what “healthy” eating meant. They even named of one of the categories they were supposedly studying “healthy foods”! Then, when they found another category that showed similar results in health and longevity, they did not adjust their reporting accordingly.

The fact that one of their categories was named qualitatively (e.g. healthy) rather than descriptively (e.g. high-fat dairy) shows their pre-experimental bias, and they continued to report their findings within these preconceived expectations. They highlighted that the “healthy foods” consumers lived longer, but chose not to highlight that the “meat, fried foods, and alchohol” group ALSO lived longer, This displays the pre-analysis bias they began the study with and could not fully shake when publishing their findings.

Kudos to Jennifer LaRue Huget for calling them on this. Science is all about re-evaluating preconceived ideas when experimental data does not match the hypothesis. Without this, there would be no advance in scientific understanding. 

Posted by: kcastro22 | December 28, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

And what about people who just plain don’t tell the truth about what they “REALLY” eat anyway?? If some so called dietetic groupie stopped me and asked what I ate, I would be tempted to tell her only the healthy things eaten, and not mention the See’s Truffles I just consumed……….just like when men are asked how often they do stuff, lol. And so it goes, nothing really is new, is it?? Yet reams are written to support a group’s existance to get research grants.

Posted by: kuchen | December 28, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Wikio

Wikio

Low-Carb Diets: More Veggies Means Longer Life

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1
Wikio

Wikio