| Forum | Topic | Date | Replies |
 |
|
|
|
| Weight Loss | Breakfast is useless - stop eating it. | May 08 2008 01:52 (UTC) |
61 |
| Jenn, While I agree breakfast is important, throwing out numbers that come from nowhere doesent help anyone... If your metabolism slowed down 35-65%, you'd probably be dead. a 10% decrease in metabolism means your temperature has dropped by over a degree, if you were to somehow manage a 65% decrease, you'd be in a serious state of needing medical attention. Even the most powerful weightloss agents such as DNP can only increase Metabolism by around 30% (And don't even think of using it, because its not uncommon to be rushed to the hospital with the Dr ordering ice water shot into your colon because they can't cool you down). Let alone, fasting actually increases the bodys metabolism for a short period of time, but not eating breakfast is likely going to start metabolising things you don't want it to. |
|||
| Health & Support | how much fiber is TOO much? | May 08 2008 01:39 (UTC) |
3 |
| Out of curisoity, what did you eat to get to 1200 with 50g of fiber? | |||
| Weight Loss | What food reduces bloat? | Apr 29 2008 05:47 (UTC) |
5 |
| Lots of water, cut back on carbs and sodium. Glycogen and sodium both can cause water rentention. | |||
| Weight Loss | so did today screw it all up??? | Apr 27 2008 15:56 (UTC) |
9 |
| wait, 500 a day? You said your recovering from an ED, 500 isn't a healthy ammount of calories, you should be atleast 1200 like your blog says, probably more as your a teen. See miss_trouble's post. |
|||
| Weight Loss | so did today screw it all up??? | Apr 27 2008 02:19 (UTC) |
12 |
|
You'll probably gain less than a lb, just clean the diet up tommorow, go for a walk/jog/run tonight/tommorow. Try to burn a bit of it off.. We all fall off the wagon now and again, but you gota just get back on and keep going.. The onlyway you'll screw it all up is if you let this stop you in anyway, just learn from it, try to not go 'so' overboard next time, allow yourself to 'indulge', but try to indulge less... NOTE: try to burn a bit off does not mean go do a 3000 calorie burn. Just get something in if you can. |
|||
| Weight Loss | Weight loss...muscle build...carbs...protein....AAARGH! | Apr 26 2008 19:27 (UTC) |
7 |
| If your goal is to lose, your diet is gonna be key. Try for a 50/30/20 or a 40/40/20 split (protein/carbs/fat). You should be getting atleast 200g of protein a day for 215 if you have any muscle mass or desire to put it on (Any idea what your BF is? IE to be 10% would you be 160lbs or 140, or 180lbs? huge differences)... |
|||
| Weight Loss | I don't feel severely overweight | Apr 26 2008 17:23 (UTC) |
1 |
| Just ahead of warning 63 situps in 2 minutes is a better way to throw your back out then it to do anything ab related. A good situp you hold for 5-10 seconds at the most painful ab spot, it'll burn, and get hard to hold yourself... If your whipping up/down, you use your back/neck to 'throw' your bodyweight up... So when it comes to ab workouts, quantity isn't quality... You want to kill your abs, do a pullup, then while your upper body is supsended at the top of the pullup, take your ab muscles and 'pull' your lower body up, so you form an L. keep your legs stiff, and uper body stiffy, no swinging...You will feel these the next day, trust me :) |
|||
| Motivation | Okay, here are the new *half-nekkid* before/after pics | Apr 24 2008 19:59 (UTC) |
25 |
| Good job udokier, now time to bulk up a bit there :) put on 20lbs of muscle. | |||
| Weight Loss | I really weird question about fat.... seriously | Apr 23 2008 15:39 (UTC) |
16 |
| Fat cells are sort of like little paperbags, as you start to lose some fat, they sort of 'fill with water' until your body is kinda sure they won't quickly be replensihed, then you'll eventually shrink them down. But you will never loose the fatcell, it will simply shrink. Its pretty common to look 'worse' as you start to lose weight, more dimply/softer, don't worry tho, it sounds like your going down the right path. |
|||
| Weight Loss | I don't feel severely overweight | Apr 22 2008 14:39 (UTC) |
4 |
| Keynan, how vascular are your arms? At about 15% on guys the bicep veins usually start to show. 8% and you'll have a six pack (if your muscular), 12 and you should def have atleast the upper two if not a 4-pack. 18% you probably will have forearm veins (Which I see one in the pic). All those are 'rule of thumbs' tho, but you def don't look severly overweight, maybe slightly chubby, but very muscular. |
|||
| Weight Loss | I don't feel severely overweight | Apr 21 2008 21:31 (UTC) |
9 |
| For your reference... Jaime Eason (Well known fitness model with a unique ability to stay very low BF%) at 14% (5'2, 111lbs, 95.5lbs lean, 16lbs fat) http://forum.bodybuilding.com/photo/data/500/ homepageimage21.jpg http://forum.bodybuilding.com/photo/data/500/ medium/IMG_5904.jpg |
|||
| Weight Loss | I don't feel severely overweight | Apr 21 2008 21:20 (UTC) |
10 |
| cell: BTW, I didn't mean anything negative about my last post, I read your profile, congrats on a great transform.. I'd suggest a different method of BF analysis though, and your goals you said you want to lose 15lbs, if you honestly where 10% at 168, that means 16.8lbs of you is 'fat', and if you lost 15, then you'd be < 1% fat, which a male can't even survive at for more then a few hours (Some extreme nutcases do it for competitions but severly dehydrate themselves to achieve it, and almost immediatly bounce back to 3-4% and thats male, female figure competitors bounce into the 8% range but generaly go back above 10% very quickly). Are you using a BIA scale? Those things are notoriously off sometimes. Both positive and negative. When I was close to 10% it was giving me readings of 25-40%, and when I was closer to 28% I got 18%-19%... They are beter used for 'tracking progress' than anything, the number should be going down, not up. DEXA and Hydrostatic testing are the most reliable, but expensive and not available at most places (If you have a Univ thats big into healthcare you may be able to get dunked for a hydro test). DEXA I've no clue... But your gym will probably have a pair of calipers and someone thats decently skilled at using them (hopefully). |
|||
| Weight Loss | I don't feel severely overweight | Apr 21 2008 21:00 (UTC) |
11 |
| cellphane: There is no WAY your 10%, at 10% you'd be seriously under fat for a woman, most likely quite vascular, thin as a rail, no soft spots on you at all, no flab visible... Looking at your pictures you're probably closer to 25-27% (hard to tell without seeing you in a suit), the BARE minimum a woman should ever get is 12% (less and you'll likely not have your mesntral period anymore as your body will stop that). At 15% women have pretty good sixpacks usually, 18% and its a completely flat stomach with the hipbones sticking out. (Mostly, they are not hard fast rules) |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 21 2008 14:53 (UTC) |
1 |
|
Used to measure, no but its part of where the energy of the calorie actually comes from. This is absolutely childish, go ahead and flame me again for 'pseudoscience', but I'm done. You go eat all your cookies and be happy, I'll stay balanced. |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 20 2008 19:00 (UTC) |
3 |
| I didn't say a calorie has different values, but the system does require a set of balance or the metabolic pathway does change its effectiveness and how one 'stores' or metabolises the energy, which is what anyone trying to lose fat, build/retain muscle cares about, hence this site.. Its funny because in my Theromdynamics class the ATP cycle was one of the first things we studied. Odd they have nothing to do with each other. I see what your trying to argue, and i'm not saying that 4.184 joules != 4.184 joules. |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 19 2008 23:31 (UTC) |
5 |
| Its funny that all the leading Scientists/Dr/Nutrionalists on both sides of this arguement invoke the First and Second laws. And you say they both don't apply. Yet even those who 'try' to, invoke the first... You go a step further and say it takes neither... But the patheways require a fullset of nutrients, you cannot get a properly functioning body off pure carbs. They cannot be metabolised into protein, yet, protein can be metabolised into glucose. That is far from pseudoscience, please go see any metabolic patheway chart, or go ask fellow a Biology PHD. Please give me a scientific journal explaining this. Or hell go disprove the second law and you'll be a billionare (literally, you will). |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 19 2008 14:05 (UTC) |
8 |
| Its not psuedoscience, its not cheating the system. Its called being healthy. You talk about leptin levels in another post. You acknowledge that these exist. I'm not advocating atkins, i'm adovcating its NOT OK TO BE the antichrist of the atkins diet, IE (Lets eat cookies all day long). Please give me the chemical pathway for Glucose to be metabolised into protein. Regardless The body has an upper limit of around 2000kcal of glycogen (See your chart), after that it begins to store or excrete excess. And most of those tests where actually done on incrediably atheletic people that i'm aware of, so it may be less in your obese or unhealthy male/female. |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 19 2008 00:57 (UTC) |
12 |
| http://www.doctorndtv.com/faq/detailfaq.asp?i d=7637 Here, go read that, simple 'english' explanation for everyone of how the body breaks down everything, actually quite easy / nice to read. |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 19 2008 00:54 (UTC) |
13 |
| I was hoping to kill this thread in terms of 'agreeing to disagree', but comparing SweetHeart414's relation of Heat (Calorie) to Thermodynamics (The study of heat) and saying they are unrelated and that comparing them, is like comparing Distance to Frequency (Color) is absolutely unfathomably stupid. Excuse my run-on sentence, but I'm dumbfounded that you somehow are unable to see that Heat and the study of Heat are related and somehow compare my comparison of a Calorie (Heat) and the process which gave a Calorie its value (Thermodynamics) is like comparing Distance to Color, although I guess if you want to play on semantics Frequency is a 'distance' between cycles... You do realize that Caloric Theory was the basis of what we now call Thermodynamics? P.S. I never said 'eating a cookie' would cause your body to fast its muscle. The OP's statement was "if I eat my calorie range in cookies vs healthier food", i'm allowed to deduce she isn't talking about healthy cookies. I can also answer her question 'Her caloric range in cookies' (IE simple carbs)... The glucose metabolic pathway is as short as it can get. The protein pathway is much more complicated. Please go study the second law of thermodynamics, you CANNOT ignore it, protein metabolic breakdown _DOES_ occur, otherwise you could ingest all the protein you wanted and it'd never get stored as fat, cause well, its not... So you by saying 'a calorie is a calorie' admit the metabolic pathway exists, and unless our body is a perpetual motion machine, I'm pretty sure the transference of one chemical to another isn't free. |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 18 2008 19:43 (UTC) |
23 |
| Strikez, Since your obviously somewhat educated. Maybe in school still, I highly suggest you take a class on Thermodynamics, and Metabolism (some schools actually offer course relating to this exact subject). Richard Feinman and Eugene J. Fine have done a lot of research on this subject in the Nuclear Medicine and Biochemsitry field. They talk about the relations and question how/why. This is obviously going nowhere though. So best of luck, and we'll have to just agree to disagree. |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 18 2008 19:33 (UTC) |
24 |
| Strikez, its the first law of thermodynamics that states your argumenet. Its the second law of thermodynamics that complicates the living crap out of the issue. The zeroth and third law of thermodynamics do not apply and are not relevant... |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 18 2008 19:30 (UTC) |
25 |
| Monarch, I'd agree, yesterday I was in a really bad mood and the first comment was unneeded. But I wasent saying she was retarded, I was saying that ignoring it is 'retarded'.. There is a difference. |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 18 2008 18:22 (UTC) |
28 |
| I'm not an idiot, I understand the relation of carbs/sodium to water retention... Btw Kekwick wasent an idiot, there was a followup study done 10 years ago or so that actually showed water levels higher post diet on the same concepts of Kekwicks study, so its not due simply to 'loss of fluid levels'. This isn't a secret, its a missunderstanding of thermodynamics... Are you also going to argue that high-test vs low-test gasoline is the same? They are calorically equivalents, but they don't produce the same reaction. Yes I realize thats a car, but again its a 'mechanism', a far simpler one then the biological machine we are trapped in (our body). Yet there is a massive ineffeciency with low-test gasoline in a high-compression engine... |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 18 2008 17:33 (UTC) |
31 |
| Wow, holy crap... Please go back to school. Or your library ... checkout this Kekwick and Gaston Pawan ("Calorie Intake in Relation to Body Weight Changes in the Obese," Lancet, July 28, 1956, 155-161). They did a diet of 90% fat, 90% carbs, 90% protein.... guess what happend to the 90% carb group? They gained, guess what happend to the 90% protein group? they lost, guess what happend to the 90% fat group, hey... they too lost... You keep violating the second law of thermodynamics, completely ignore the complexity of the human metabolism, and well, whatever. I'll live in my "childish fantasy land" of thermodynamic laws, metabolic pathways and science.. |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 17 2008 17:26 (UTC) |
35 |
| If you eat 1500 calories of sugar in the morning, you'll have metabolised and stored it by the time the afternoon roles around. Your body will be significantly deprived and you'll start burning muscle mass off... http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails. pl http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails. pl?2 Have charts of the metabolic pathways... Trying to simplify that as you are is absolutely retarded. It will only work to a certain degree, and the less fat your body has the more likely its going to be to store, and burn your muscle off unless you get your nutrients right, and TIMED correctly. I've yet to see the "Cookie To Six Pack Diet" and unless my cookies are nutrient dense and timed correctly, I doubt I ever will. Except for a few freaks of nature that can get away with it. This site is 'calorie-counting', but the context is in weight-loss/being healthy. I'm not going to tell someone they can lose weight while 'eating cookies', as much as I'll say 'just don't eat anything'.. Both work, but shouldnt the goal here be to get people to be healthy/change habbits/lose weight and keep it off? If you lost weight by eating a significant intake cookies, if you ever get to 8% bf by doing it (I doubt it), you'll have pretty much fasted all the muscle off your body (who cares?). I'm not going to suggest to anyone that they _EVER_ shed muscle off their body unless they are going from Mr. Olympia to Lance Armstrong, in which case biking 400miles with 18" biceps probably won't win you any gold medals. |
|||
| Fitness | ?? Spin Bike Help?? | Apr 17 2008 15:47 (UTC) |
2 |
| Get a HR monitor, like the Polar F6, and use it to track your HR, which will give you a decent 'calories burned' estimate. I assume your more concerned with calories burned then 'miles' right? The Polar F6 is about $110 retail, very nice investment, it'll record your burn everday for you, show you max/min HR, calories, fat %... etc etc :) | |||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 17 2008 15:30 (UTC) |
38 |
| A calorie is a calorie when speaking scientificily, but when it comes to weight loss or muscle gain, its not that simple. | |||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 17 2008 15:08 (UTC) |
41 |
| strikez, Interesting, a gram of insoluable fiber is 1g of carbs, which is 4 calories. But your body cannot digest it... 4g of whey protein takes about 30 minutes to digest, and then turns to glucose, which if not used in about another 30 minutes will be stored as fat. But 4g of casein takes 4-6 hours to digest. Yes, a calorie is a calorie. Gravity is 9.81m/s^2 across the entire universe. And god is my one true creator who wrote a book about a rain that fell at aprox 2 inches of water a minute across the entire earth while a man in a boat road out the weather in his comfy 460 degree superheated atmosphere (Atleast he had a polarbear and a koala to keep him company). |
|||
| Weight Loss | does it really matter what you eat? | Apr 15 2008 17:13 (UTC) |
50 |
| If your obesse you can probably get away with eating just about anything and loosing weight. The lower your BF gets the harder that will be. And if your shooting for fitness model body fat levels, then no way in hell unless your blessed with some awesome genes. Macro's are important to be healthy tho, your not getting your macro's or micros from eating cookies. You need protein and fiber and fat. Carbs aren't required, but most of us do need them. The body will survive, just not well. Try to get your macro's inline, I personally shoot for 40/40/20 (carbs/protein/fat), and try to make the fat's healthy as possible, unsatured's, healthy saturated, fish/olive oil/flax. Make sure your taking your multi-vitamins to help keep your micro nutrients inline. A lot of people on these boards say a 'calorie is a calorie', which works to an extent. But its not the 100% truth, nutrient timing is important. Body builders who constantly cut/bulk are aware of how to get their body to shed and gain quickly, and all of them differ slightly on their diets. But i've yet to come across anyone in atheletic condition that honestly believes a 'calorie is a calorie' and you can eat whatever/whenever as long as your 'calories' are at the end of the day/week, under your BMR for optimal fat loss (that is FAT loss, not weight, if you wanna burn all the muscle off your body, go eat all the cookies you want). |
|||
| Weight Loss | What has been the best thing you have invested in to help your weight loss? | Apr 14 2008 20:55 (UTC) |
67 |
| Gym membership. | |||
Join Calorie Count - it's easy and free!
Advertisement
Advertisement
Your Personal Nutritionist
Featured question:
Will I lose weight if I eat the same food over and over?
You can lose weight despite eating the same food day-after-day as long as you eat fewer calories than you burn. In fact, eating the... Read more
Will I lose weight if I eat the same food over and over?
You can lose weight despite eating the same food day-after-day as long as you eat fewer calories than you burn. In fact, eating the... Read more