Metabolism
-
I do OK RL, the last time I followed this "source" I lost 10kgs in four weeks.<br />
<br />
So you only think the exercise hard bit is good information in that post? So you reccommend taking pills to speed up your metabolism? Don't subscribe to a healthy, balanced diet? Don't think having breakfast is a good idea? Maybe you should read a little closer.<br />
<br />
And it was so obvious a point to eat the right foods often, I didn't think I had to mention it. -
[quote name='Kirwan']<br />
I do OK RL, the last time I followed this "source" I lost 10kgs in four weeks.<br />
So you only think the exercise hard bit is good information in that post? So you reccommend taking pills to speed up your metabolism? Don't subscribe to a healthy, balanced diet? Don't think having breakfast is a good idea? Maybe you should read a little closer.<br />
And it was so obvious a point to eat the right foods often, I didn't think I had to mention it.<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
No, the point we are debating,which was never intended to be a debate,was your "little and often" as the best way for everyone to lose weight just because it works for you.I am not the one recommending anything to anyone,if anything I suggested that ferners ignore all of that and stick to good old exercise to increase metabolism as a basic and a surefire way of losing weight.The food debate is up to them. It's almost funny that you highlighted a point in that document to support your view, because if anythign it reinforces mine about effective digestion's relation to weight loss.See in bold.<br />
[quote]How Often We Eat<br />
[b]Our metabolic rate increases during digestion of food[/b], a process known as the Thermal Effect of food. In simple terms, if we go too long without food (5 hours for men; 3 hours for women), our body thinks there is a food shortage and our metabolism tends to slow down.<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
You take for granted that its is "obvious" that people know what types of food work well together in digestion thus making little and often eating seem like the miracle weightloss cure for all.However,the basic fact is that people don't know,and therefore it won't work for everyone as you think it will.[b]Our metabolic rate increases during digestion of food[/b] If the food isn't getting digested properly,as i strongly do not believe is possible to digest effectively in little and often dieting,it's not converting food into energy meaning little increase in metabolism..you know the rest. -
Oh, and Kirwan,you know very well that I've got the same stamina as you for debating so this could go on all night.I'm happy and confident in my opinion as it's reasoning is sound enough considering my own wealth of experience of dieting and working in MDTs including dieticians,I've stated basic "science" if you like,you can play around with it as much as you want.I'd just advice ferners to be a bit more broad minded about diet and nutrition.
-
[quote]* How Often We Eat<br />
   Our metabolic rate increases during digestion of food, a process known as the Thermal Effect of food. In simple terms, if we go too long without food (5 hours for men; 3 hours for women), our body thinks there is a food shortage and our metabolism tends to slow down.[/quote]<br />
<br />
Cretinous pseudo-scientific babble.... Yes it does increase when we eat, but the explicit corollary in this statement (that it slows down if we don't), is unproven in realistic daily terms (I accept it's true if you don't eat for, say, 2 weeks). The only logical deduction is that your metabolic rate rises whenever you eat - at 2 minute or 2 hour intervals. This is true- but it's not about weight loss, it's about the increased energy demands of digesting as opposed to lying there doing nothing. The effect of the time interval is irrelevant compared to the metabolic effect of 'exercise' - shock horror. Your body will take far more notice of an hour on the treadmill than it will the difference between having eaten half an hour or 3 hours ago... <br />
<br />
Basic principle remains - whatever your body wants to do, if you shovel less energy in than it's burning, weight will come off. -
Losing weight is easy. Eat less, exercise more - you will lose weight guaranteed. It's the exercising more and eating less that's the hard part. For about a decade I seem to have got confused and eaten more, exercised less.<br />
<br />
The one interesting thing about metabolic rates for me personally is my history. I used to eat shit all day, hit the piss every night and could not put on weight if I tried. Then I got a severe bout of glandular fever. Don't know if its medically possible for this to change yr metabolic rate, but I do know that is when I pounded on the weight despite exercising more and eating better. Still drank every night though. -
[quote name='Death']<br />
[quote]* How Often We Eat<br />
   Our metabolic rate increases during digestion of food, a process known as the Thermal Effect of food. In simple terms, if we go too long without food (5 hours for men; 3 hours for women), our body thinks there is a food shortage and our metabolism tends to slow down.[/quote]<br />
<br />
Cretinous pseudo-scientific babble.... Yes it does increase when we eat, but the explicit corollary in this statement (that it slows down if we don't), is unproven in realistic daily terms (I accept it's true if you don't eat for, say, 2 weeks). The only logical deduction is that your metabolic rate rises whenever you eat - at 2 minute or 2 hour intervals. This is true- but it's not about weight loss, it's about the increased energy demands of digesting as opposed to lying there doing nothing. The effect of the time interval is irrelevant compared to the metabolic effect of 'exercise' - shock horror. Your body will take far more notice of an hour on the treadmill than it will the difference between having eaten half an hour or 3 hours ago... <br />
<br />
Basic principle remains - whatever your body wants to do, if you shovel less energy in than it's burning, weight will come off.<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
A lot of bodybuilders disagree with you, and it's hard to argue with their results. -
Their results are due to phenomenal effort: at that level, whatever dietary regime they follow will be subordinate to the calorific, training, and mental effects of their dedication. Any athlete has 'lucky rabbit's feet', whether magic diets, visualisation, special clothes, or a great trainer... I don't deny the value of healthy diet, but for the average ferner trying to lose some weight, agonising over '3 squares' or '15 mini-snacks' is farkin irrelevant. Just get yer arse outside, get yer heart rate up, and eat/drink less calories. Within a month, you'll lose flab, regain muscle and feel better... Conversely, expecting a change to a magical '15 snacks a day routine' without other lifestyle changes to transform you into adonis is bollocky poo poo... But hey, whatever motivates! When I was at my most insanely fit, I was stuffing anything I could find down my neck, because I was burning over 8000 calories a day - we all felt more or less constantly nauseous, because of the distended gut. I'm just saying, focus on the big issues - energy in, energy out, and a bearable, enjoyable, long term exercise regime. All else is tweaking the edges..
-
-
[quote]And it's only six meals, three normal and three snacks in between - not the end of the world.[/quote]<br />
I've got to admit, that sounds like my sort of weight loss program!! <img src='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/invision/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />Â Double my intake... <img src='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/invision/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> -
If I don't exercise I tend to lose weight. Over one 8-month period where I became a lazy bugger, never ate the healhiest and just bummed around (I tried to play rugby but received a knee injury in my 1st game for Waverley!), I went from 89kg and was 80kg when I arrived back in NZ.<br />
<br />
Hi I'm spanner, how's your works? -
[quote name='Bones']<br />
If I don't exercise I tend to lose weight. Over one 8-month period where I became a lazy bugger, never ate the healhiest and just bummed around (I tried to play rugby but received a knee injury in my 1st game for Waverley!), I went from 89kg and was 80kg when I arrived back in NZ.<br />
<br />
Hi I'm spanner, how's your works?<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
Muscle weighs more than fat, you lost your muscle and became flabby - so weighed less. -
[quote name='Kirwan']<br />
[quote name='Bones']<br />
If I don't exercise I tend to lose weight. Over one 8-month period where I became a lazy bugger, never ate the healhiest and just bummed around (I tried to play rugby but received a knee injury in my 1st game for Waverley!), I went from 89kg and was 80kg when I arrived back in NZ.<br />
<br />
Hi I'm spanner, how's your works?<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
Muscle weighs more than fat, you lost your muscle and became flabby - so weighed less.<br />
[/quote]Actually, more likely lost both, seems odd, but nah, wasn't flabby. -
Kirwan's correct in principle though: if you lost weight over time, it's because you were either losing muscle mass, and/or eating less calories than you were burning. Unless, of course, you are a genetically modified superhuman who can deny the laws of physics... <img src='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/invision/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />