How to lose weight... really?

[houseman]

I'd actually take that challenge.

At 270lbs (currently) I can still run for a good hour without problems.

But back to the point I agree with you on different results different methods. 3 meals/day, however is not a method. It's starvation. And, tell me, say someone has to lose 40lbs and not 30 and is eating 3 times a day, eventually they stall out and stop losing weight (very common as I think would people will agree it happens to them) which means they have to do one or both of the following:

Cut calories; or
Increase their energy expenditure through more exercise

Now, cutting calories will be difficult given they are only eating 3 meals a day and likely not eating enough calories as it is. They're starving themselves. So it's hard to substract any further.

The next option is to work harder to increase the energy output thus burning more calories. This is fine and dandy but people already find it difficult to committ an hour a day to exercise. With a low calorie/low frequency meal diet they'll have no choice but to increase their exercise time as the body will begin to adjust to it's caloric requirements and exercise patterns.

The idea is to not work harder, it's to work smarter. Make the body a energy burning machine. More meals = increased metabolism = more calories burned. It takes energy to digest and process food through the body.

By starting out with frequent, small meals/day you have room to play and tweak to keep the body continually burning fat over an extended period of time through either calories reducation of a few hundred kcal/day on a weekly basis or through an additional 5-10 mins cardio/night or both. You have options.

There's a reason why 90% of people who lose weight put it back on within 2 years. They haven't bothered to follow proper and basic nutrition. Most people don't eat enough TO lose weight in the first place. As I said earlier, they will initially lose weight and then stall out.

If the process you described above worked for you? Great. keep doing it. I sure as hell wouldn't suggest this as a "standard" approach for ANYONE - male or female - runner or bodybuilder.

That's all

The difference is I'm not working on muscle but stamina. My goal isn't to have 90 kilos of muscle but 70 kilos of muscle... see, different goals, different methods!

I'll take you on a race any day of the week and 4 times on Sunday. I work hard for my stamina. I like to keep every bit I can. The women love it

 

[EJFan]

quick question, house...

is it just me or are there a SHITLOAD of hot chicks in canada? i was just talking with a couple of friends about this the other day.

 

[muddpuppy]

Theres a shitload of hot chicks here in Georgia too

 

[EJFan]

Theres a shitload of hot chicks here in Georgia too

at least one, right mudd?

where'd i get the idea you were in massachusetts?

 

[SummerMorning]

I'd actually take that challenge.

At 270lbs (currently) I can still run for a good hour without problems.

But back to the point I agree with you on different results different methods. 3 meals/day, however is not a method. It's starvation. And, tell me, say someone has to lose 40lbs and not 30 and is eating 3 times a day, eventually they stall out and stop losing weight (very common as I think would people will agree it happens to them) which means they have to do one or both of the following:

Weeell. I've got 160lbs (currently), so I'd love to try that challenge. We could add a few hills along the way for good measure.

But back to your contestation that 3 meals a day is starvation - it's not. If you need about 1900 calories per day (about what I need), then it's really no problem whatsoever to get that from 3 meals. Start your day with a bowl of cereal, a banana and some wholegrain bread with steak tatar. For lunch have a nice pasta with sauce and salad. For supper have a fruit salad or something along those lines. Trust me - I'm on no starvation diet - I just need a bit less food than you... by a simple mass analysis, I actually need 40% fewer calories than you.

As to losing weight by not eating - that's ridiculous, I agree. The only way is to eat in moderation (and yes, 3 meals a day *is* moderation) and exercise. I think we agree on that.

 

[EJFan]

But back to your contestation that 3 meals a day is starvation - it's not. If you need about 1900 calories per day (about what I need), then it's really no problem whatsoever to get that from 3 meals. Start your day with a bowl of cereal, a banana and some wholegrain bread with steak tatar. For lunch have a nice pasta with sauce and salad. For supper have a fruit salad or something along those lines. Trust me - I'm on no starvation diet - I just need a bit less food than you... by a simple mass analysis, I actually need 40% fewer calories than you.

i can't speak for houseman but i think his point was that the thermic effect of food accounts for a lot of the body's ability to burn calories. the simple logic is that the furnace burns at a constant rate rather than peaking and slumping throughout the day.

the other thing is that when you put 1/3 of your daily intake of cals in your body all at once, there's often some side effects that aren't so positive for some people... but that depends on what your lifestyle's like too.

 

[SummerMorning]

i can't speak for houseman but i think his point was that the thermic effect of food accounts for a lot of the body's ability to burn calories. the simple logic is that the furnace burns at a constant rate rather than peaking and slumping throughout the day.

the other thing is that when you put 1/3 of your daily intake of cals in your body all at once, there's often some side effects that aren't so positive for some people... but that depends on what your lifestyle's like too.

Of course - metabolism is a highly individual thing, just as there is no one single true and righteous diet. There is no *one* right diet, there is no *one* right way to exercise - everybody is more or less unique. There are simply too many variables involved...

What is pretty much a given is that you will be unhealthy (either overweight or underweight, suffering from hyper- or hypo-vitaminosis, have bad teeth, get gout, have weak bones, bust your knees, tear your muscles, ruin your liver, clot your blod - what have you) if you do not follow a diet *suited to you* and an exercise regimen *suited to you*.

I personally believe that eating three times a day is normal and healthy, in between I drink orange or apple juice with water, sometimes tea, sometimes coffee. For me it works just fine most of the time, and I only have to brush my teeth thrice daily - but when I have a lot of work to do I need some chocolate every now and then, and I eat it, no biggy. For other people this could be simply too little (ex. houseman) or they might need smaller meals spaced out through the day or they might need different kinds of meals.

There are of course a few givens, like "eat too much sugar and you get fat," eat "too much fat and your arteries clog up", "eat too little meat and protein and your brain won't develop / you will become depressive", "eat too little calcium and your bones will thin out / eat too much and you'll get kidney stones" - but the givens don't help much because what TOO MUCH or TOO LITTLE actually means always depends on the person. Same with exercise.

In the end, it's a matter of discipline and of knowing how to listen to your body.

 

[houseman]

Of course - metabolism is a highly individual thing, just as there is no one single true and righteous diet. There is no *one* right diet, there is no *one* right way to exercise - everybody is more or less unique. There are simply too many variables involved...

What is pretty much a given is that you will be unhealthy (either overweight or underweight, suffering from hyper- or hypo-vitaminosis, have bad teeth, get gout, have weak bones, bust your knees, tear your muscles, ruin your liver, clot your blod - what have you) if you do not follow a diet *suited to you* and an exercise regimen *suited to you*.

I personally believe that eating three times a day is normal and healthy, in between I drink orange or apple juice with water, sometimes tea, sometimes coffee. For me it works just fine most of the time, and I only have to brush my teeth thrice daily - but when I have a lot of work to do I need some chocolate every now and then, and I eat it, no biggy. For other people this could be simply too little (ex. houseman) or they might need smaller meals spaced out through the day or they might need different kinds of meals.

There are of course a few givens, like "eat too much sugar and you get fat," eat "too much fat and your arteries clog up", "eat too little meat and protein and your brain won't develop / you will become depressive", "eat too little calcium and your bones will thin out / eat too much and you'll get kidney stones" - but the givens don't help much because what TOO MUCH or TOO LITTLE actually means always depends on the person. Same with exercise.

In the end, it's a matter of discipline and of knowing how to listen to your body.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you've been fed a line of bullshit.

yes, we're all unique but we're not all THAT much different.

I can take a person using a standard diet and training program that I follow for myself and achieve good results for them. I can get them to a certain point in other words. To get them beyond that point is then where I tweak based on how the individual has responded up til that point.

Very few people are THAT genetically different from each other that one method of dieting and training won't work for the majority of people. It's getting people "beyond" their body's natural limitations that requires tweaking.

And in case some of you are wondering, I am not trying to be a prick but there's so much bullshit that's been written out there that is based on scare tactics and falicies to make us think we need to do this or that.

To illustrate this, I can take two to people. One following a 40/40/20 (protein/carb/fat) diet and another following a 70/10/20 (high protein, low carb, moderate fat) diet. Take both these people at the same height and weight and same training style. I can get both to 10% Bodyfat with relative ease. Why? Because they aren't so different. Now getting them sub 10% will be more difficult and require tweaking based on the individual. That's where the "uniqueness" of each person come into play.

 

[houseman]

i can't speak for houseman but i think his point was that the thermic effect of food accounts for a lot of the body's ability to burn calories. the simple logic is that the furnace burns at a constant rate rather than peaking and slumping throughout the day.

the other thing is that when you put 1/3 of your daily intake of cals in your body all at once, there's often some side effects that aren't so positive for some people... but that depends on what your lifestyle's like too.

Yes, you are right.

What's better?

If consuming 1900 cals/day:

3 meals consisting of 633 calories; or
6 meals consisting of 316 calories

More meals = more fuel for the fire.

People need to think of it like a fireplace.

If you don't continually throw wood onto the fire the fire will burn out. And if you throw the biggest pieces of wood onto the fire, it takes a long, long time for it to burn. Throw a continuous supply of wood onto the fire it will keep burning. Throw small pieces of wood onto the fire and those pieces will burn that much quicker.

The body functions much like a fire and food functions much like wood in a fire.

It's about as simple as you can get it.

 

[SummerMorning]

Yes, you are right.

What's better?

If consuming 1900 cals/day:

3 meals consisting of 633 calories; or
6 meals consisting of 316 calories

More meals = more fuel for the fire.

People need to think of it like a fireplace.

If you don't continually throw wood onto the fire the fire will burn out. And if you throw the biggest pieces of wood onto the fire, it takes a long, long time for it to burn. Throw a continuous supply of wood onto the fire it will keep burning. Throw small pieces of wood onto the fire and those pieces will burn that much quicker.

The body functions much like a fire and food functions much like wood in a fire.

It's about as simple as you can get it.

Funny how difficult agreeing can be, eh?

Look, I agree with you. Ok. It's just that what works for me, works for me - same for you.

When I talk about exercise, well, lets take an example: say you have a weak knee, you're not going to be doing running for your aerobic workout, simple as that.

I'm just saying you can do *different things* and get similar results. Personally, I don't really buy into the whole fire burning thing - it's a little bit more complicated with blood sugar levels, insulin and all that other crap coming into play.

Basically - it comes down to hunger. If people actually ate when hungry and ate *just enough* to not be hungry - they probably wouldn't have any trouble. They don't. *shrug*

 

[SummerMorning]

P. S. - on the fireplace: smaller pieces of wood actually burn much faster so you need more of them to keep a fire burning as long, it's to do with the volume to surface area ratio. You actually need MORE firewood if you use small sticks - one big log weighing 100 lbs will burn longer than 10 small logs weighing 10 lbs each.

 

[houseman]

P. S. - on the fireplace: smaller pieces of wood actually burn much faster so you need more of them to keep a fire burning as long, it's to do with the volume to surface area ratio. You actually need MORE firewood if you use small sticks - one big log weighing 100 lbs will burn longer than 10 small logs weighing 10 lbs each.

It'll burn longer but much , much slower.

The idea is to keep the fire constantly burning and fbeing fueled. If smaller pieces of wood are being constantly being thrown onto the fire because they are quickyl being burnt means the fire is becoming more and more efficient.

Apply that to the body... it's good that the body will burn smaller meals 10 times as fast as it will compared to 3 big meals. Means the body's metabolism is a finely tuned engine burning on all cylindars. Which is precisely what you want when trying to reduce bodyfat

 

[EJFan]

houseman... what do you think about this article on PWO nutrition? personally, i've not progressed so far as to really concern myself with this kind of detail but i found it logical and interesting. how about you?

i also thought you might get a chuckle outta the sentence about canadian men being hung like moose.

 

[houseman]

houseman... what do you think about this article on PWO nutrition? personally, i've not progressed so far as to really concern myself with this kind of detail but i found it logical and interesting. how about you?

Ugh. I don't have time to go through and point out all the flaws in their article.

I typically find T-mag articles, while interesting from a training stand point, do not provide correct or quality nutrition related information. Most of their articles seem to streer people in the direction of their products as opposed to providing an unbiased, unslanted opinion.

I'll PM you some studies (not articles) that talk about glycogen replenishment and low GI CHO source.

i also thought you might get a chuckle outta the sentence about canadian men being hung like moose.

 

[EJFan]

I typically find T-mag articles, while interesting from a training stand point, do not provide correct or quality nutrition related information. Most of their articles seem to streer people in the direction of their products as opposed to providing an unbiased, unslanted opinion

i never came across their website before so i didn't know what kind of credence to grant it.

one thing i thought made a lot of sense was that there's no magical anabolic window. it's just interesting to me that a lot of the old ways of doing things have fallen away but people are still reluctant to embrace new things... so i always avoid judging things as a matter of course.

i appreciate the offer to ship me info... i enjoy reading all this stuff. as i said, nutrition and weightloss are things i'm well versed in... LIFTING, on the other hand, is fairly new to me... so the particulars and minutia don't really weigh so heavily. i have to admit though, i'm quite addicted to working out. i almost wish i could do it more frequently. i look forward to it that much ('cept for lunges of course).

 

[Ricwilly]

The experts are always being contradicted by newer experts and a person can get confused. I'm for finding whatever works for me and suits my needs and lifestyle and sticking with it. I ran on the eliptical after work last night, I love that thing. lol

 

[SummerMorning]

I'm for finding whatever works for me and suits my needs and lifestyle and sticking with it.

*Amen*

It'll burn longer but much , much slower.

The idea is to keep the fire constantly burning and fbeing fueled. If smaller pieces of wood are being constantly being thrown onto the fire because they are quickyl being burnt means the fire is becoming more and more efficient.

Apply that to the body... it's good that the body will burn smaller meals 10 times as fast as it will compared to 3 big meals. Means the body's metabolism is a finely tuned engine burning on all cylindars. Which is precisely what you want when trying to reduce bodyfat

You know - I agree with you. *when trying to reduce bodyfat*

 

[EJFan]

i was recently reminded of this article elsewhere and thought i'd share.

it's dr. john berardi's 7 habits article for fat loss.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[EJFan]

don't give up, scalywag. not everyone... actually, very few people... respond instantly. you may not see a significant change for quite some time. not only that, be sure to pay attention to WHAT cholesterol is going up... the HDL is good to have.

just stick with it and be patient. it'll come 'round.

 

[houseman]

Alright, I'm fucking pissed now. Been drinking 1% milk, eating nonfat yogurt and bananas for lunch, sandwiches made from whole wheat wraps (taste like cardboard), not eating any chocolate, and my cholesterol goes UP!! FUCK IT!

Ditch the bananas and yogurt. Replace the 1% milk with skim milk.

What cholesterol went up? The good or bad?

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[midwestyankee]

oh yeah, if forgot the best part.

Apparently my doctor thinks 1 pot of coffee a day (minus the cup my wife drinks) is too much. Wants me to cut down to 2 cups, or cut the coffee with decaf. Cut it with decaf? Who does he think he is?

Scalywag, I have had a similar history with respect to the weight, the cholesterol, and the Red Sox!

About 3-1/2 years ago I got a checkup and my HDL/LDL score came in just under 300. The doc gave me three months to make some progress and return for a recheck. I went on the mother of all fat-elimination campaigns, cutting my daily intake of total fat to 10 grams. Yep, you read that right. I also started exercising six days per week (up from none). In three months I had lost nearly 30 pounds and brought the total cholesterol down to just over 200 (both numbers improved proportionally) so I maintained the same regimen for another three months. At that point the numbers started to climb again slightly so I very reluctantly started taking a statin-type medication.

Now, I admit that it was a real downer to fail to control the cholesterol with diet and exercise -- and I was certainly doing as much of both as was humanly possible. What my doc told me was that the blood tests we take for cholesterol measure the cholesterol that our body produces, not the cholesterol that builds up from our food intake. Some of us just produce more of the stuff than our bodies are designed to handle and so we need to cut the production with medicaton. I still diet (though not quite so extremely) and get plenty of exercise but the cholesterol still fluctuates a bit above the ideal numbers. In my case, I know it's hereditary and there's just not much I can do.

One of the reasons that I came to fully accept the use of statins is the possibility that they may have a beneficial effect to prevent the onset of Alzheimer's Disease, which is also present in my family history. Better safe than sorry, and if one pill can address two potential killers then I'm happy to open that little bottle every night.

As for the coffee, I went from 20 or 30 cups of regular per day down to maybe a dozen cups of decaf. It reduced the risk of heart disease a little and also improved my sleep. Now, in the event that you want to obey your doctor, consider this little fact: a Venti serving of Starbucks decaf (which you can purchase for home brewing) contains as much caffeine as a standard cup of Folgers. Guess what I drink now?