ipukespiders
Member
Because I like to eat.Ettie said:?:
if the body prioritizes fat before muscle/organs for energy use when fasting, why not just do progressively longer water fasts?
Because I like to eat.Ettie said:?:
if the body prioritizes fat before muscle/organs for energy use when fasting, why not just do progressively longer water fasts?
Ettie said:?:
if the body prioritizes fat before muscle/organs for energy use when fasting, why not just do progressively longer water fasts?
rodrigoviola said:So it's normal, that's good to hear.
So do you guys listen to your bodies and skip a meal if you're not hungry? Or just eat a snack instead?
Will do.nickcv said:to keep in track my metabolism i prefer to never skip a meal.
try to have a normal dinner anyway, but not if that's going to make you feel bloated.
nickcv said:to keep in track my metabolism i prefer to never skip a meal.
try to have a normal dinner anyway, but not if that's going to make you feel bloated.
Could you give some detail on your experience please?EschatonDX said:There are lots of different fasting protocols for this reason- there's no real consensus on what the 'ideal' length of a fast should be. I currently do 16fast/8feeding and feel pretty ideal on that- I've gone for longer and shorter intervals but i keep going back to that setup.
Zoe said:There's no real consensus that you have to eat at a consistent rate throughout the day to keep your metabolism up though.
nickcv said:i know that but for me works that way
anyhow i think that while there's no consensus that skipping a meal is bad for you there sure is consensus that no skipping a meal is not bad for you.
why take the risk?
Zoe said:I'd say that if being forced to stick to a schedule makes you prone to overeat, then it's bad for you.
I've tried eat stop eat before. It's okay. I much much prefer leangains. It's very easy to manage.Ettie said:Could you give some detail on your experience please?
Kingbrave said:I've wanted to post this before, but was always chicken and kind of embarrassed. I used to weigh 360 pounds, this pic is 8 years old a few weeks after my son was born...
This is me 4 years ago, with my son obviously....
And this is me, sorry for crappy 3ds pic but I don't have a camera...
I'm down to about 180...
So the moral of the story is, don't get diabetes (but yay for not being fat!!)!
rodrigoviola said:Will do.
Bealost, I'm not counting calories, but if I have to guess I would say I eat about 1200 calories a day
?:
if the body prioritizes fat before muscle/organs for energy use when fasting, why not just do progressively longer water fasts?
Kingbrave said:I've wanted to post this before, but was always chicken and kind of embarrassed. I used to weigh 360 pounds, this pic is 8 years old a few weeks after my son was born...
This is me 4 years ago, with my son obviously....
And this is me, sorry for crappy 3ds pic but I don't have a camera...
I'm down to about 180...
So the moral of the story is, don't get diabetes (but yay for not being fat!!)!
Its fantastic when starting, I believe, to count calories. It may open your eyes. Once you get in the groove, yeah, it's kinda pointless.Zefah said:I'll never understand people who focus on or even pay attention to calories.
Zefah said:I'll never understand people who focus on or even pay attention to calories.
EschatonDX said:I've tried eat stop eat before. It's okay. I much much prefer leangains. It's very easy to manage.
dralla said:I have a gift from the gods for my healthy bros, Nugo Slim bars. These are brand new and fantastic for people who want a good tasting, filling snack with no artificial ingredients. There are currently 3 flavors - Brownie, Peanut Butter and Raspberry, here's the website - http://store.nugonutrition.com/category/nugo-slim.html
Basically what makes them so good is,
Taste - They are damn good, it's hard to eat just one [I've only had the Brownie]
All Natural - No artificial sweeteners or sugar alcohols, they are covered in real Dark Chocolate
15 grams of Protein
9-10 grams of Fiber
only 2 grams of sugar from the Dark Chocolate and they only have a small effect on blood alcohol levels
The only down side is that they are expensive. I'm hoping Amazon will add them to subscribe and save. They're also too small for a meal replacement bar, 45gs and 180 Calories. But you can take a tablespoon of peanut butter and spread it on top to make it even more amazing.
Bealost said:Zefah, I understand your position of as long as you eat healthful/non-processed foods you can eat as much as you want and not be fat. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Can we just agree to disagree on the calorie counting front? I'm with you on the you shouldn't eat processed garbage front including bread. But I also believe that you should be keeping track of the amount of energy you put into your body. No matter what food you eat your body WILL store excess energy from your diet.
Just about every article I have read online says that a caloric deficit leads to weight loss. There are many ways to get to that deficit. (eliminating carbs from your diet is the new, and possibly best one.) I would bet you money that I could get fat eating nothing but boneless skinless chicken, but this is the internet and even if I did it you wouldn't believe me. (I've lost over 60 lbs so far, and am getting near my goal, I REALLY don't WANT to do it).
I have repeatedly posted sources saying that caloric restrictions lead to weight loss. As of yet, you haven't posted a single source saying that eating any amount of whole foods you want leads to weight loss.
Until I'm given some evidence of your position, I see no reason to change mine.
Now a caveat- Counting calories isn't a necessary part of losing weight. You can eat at a deficit while not counting calories. Counting calories (which isn't that hard once you know whats in most of the food you eat) is a GREAT way to keep track of how much food you eat. And knowing how much you consume is a big step in controlling your diet.
bengraven said:Holy shit.
Holy SHIT. You're me, but the me is the first picture and the bottom is what I want to be
it's not misleading at all, it's not claiming to be a no-carb bar. not everyone follows that type of diet.Bealost said:Your only 2 grams of sugar line is misleading.
Amount per Serving % D/V
Calories 180
Calories from fat 55
Total Fat 6g 9%
Saturated Fat 2.5g 13%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg 0%
Sodium 135mg 6%
Total Carbohydrate 21g 7%
Dietary Fiber 9g 36%
Sugar 2g
Protein 15g
One bar still has 12 net carbs. and 15g of protein for 180 calories isn't awesome.
I also don't see any claims of them being sugar alcohol free or all natrual on the site.
ipukespiders said:The reason counting calories is silly is that we can't figure out our daily calorie needs accurately, so how do we get that 500 cal deficit?
Maybe he's saying that it's not exact?Zoe said:You can at least figure out your BMR.
Zoe said:You can at least figure out your BMR.
You can't calculate your daily needs accurately, but you can figure it out if you count calories for awhile. Count calories for three weeks and keep track of your weight. Weigh yourself every day, throw it into a spreadsheet put a linear regression on it, look at the coefficient of x, and BAM an average amount of wieght change daily. If you don't feel three weeks is enough than do a month, or two months, whatever makes you feel better.ipukespiders said:The reason counting calories is silly is that we can't figure out our daily calorie needs accurately, so how do we get that 500 cal deficit?
Bealost said:You can't calculate your daily needs accurately, but you can figure it out if you count calories for awhile. Count calories for three weeks and keep track of your weight. Weigh yourself every day, throw it into a spreadsheet put a linear regression on it, look at the coefficient of x, and BAM an average amount of wieght change daily. If you don't feel three weeks is enough than do a month, or two months, whatever makes you feel better.
Once you know how much your weight has changed and the average number of calories you ate each day is simple arithmetic figuring out how much of a deficit/surplus you had.
EDIT::
What makes you think the human body is so mysterious that we can't figure it out? Short of the brain the human body is largely understood. I'm not saying we know everything about every process or that there are no opposing opinions in the area, but the basics on things like nutrition have been experimented with for a long time among people like athletes and bodybuilders. People making their living by making their body the best it can be in some specific area. And science and their experience is generally in agreement when it comes to caloric intake.
Bealost said:You can't calculate your daily needs accurately, but you can figure it out if you count calories for awhile. Count calories for three weeks and keep track of your weight. Weigh yourself every day, throw it into a spreadsheet put a linear regression on it, look at the coefficient of x, and BAM an average amount of wieght change daily. If you don't feel three weeks is enough than do a month, or two months, whatever makes you feel better.
Once you know how much your weight has changed and the average number of calories you ate each day is simple arithmetic figuring out how much of a deficit/surplus you had.
EDIT::
What makes you think the human body is so mysterious that we can't figure it out? Short of the brain the human body is largely understood. I'm not saying we know everything about every process or that there are no opposing opinions in the area, but the basics on things like nutrition have been experimented with for a long time among people like athletes and bodybuilders. People making their living by making their body the best it can be in some specific area. And science and their experience is generally in agreement when it comes to caloric intake.
bengraven said:Holy shit.
Holy SHIT. You're me, but the me is the first picture and the bottom is what I want to be
ipukespiders said:Oh really? Then what is yours?
teh_pwn said:This is a total wishy washy argument. No the science isn't clear that calories are calories when it comes to a causal impact of body composition. The human metabolism is complex as is the regulation of body fat by the brain. We know that the brain regulates fat mass with leptin by inversely controlling hunger in relation to the amount of body fat present. We also know that the hunger inhibition effects of leptin in the prefrontal cortex can be overcome with a greater dopamine stimulus. We know that sleep deprived people have elevated ghrelin, and will lose primarily lean tissue on a caloric restriction diet.
So no it isn't generally known to be effective on it's own. You've got to eat the right foods in the right amounts, sleep, exercise, and listen to your body. You cannot get consistent results by simply restricting calories without changing food for every person. If the brain is adament about hitting 20% body fat, it will stress the body to get there by elevating hunger, reducing free energy and by disproportionately using lean tissue as a fuel source. Eventually body fat will be used, but let's not ignore efficiency and total health.
The science is also nothing close to final. It's poorly funded thanks to the dogma of "eat less and move more", which is like telling kids "don't use condoms, just don't have sex" in response to a teenage pregnancy crisis.
And really, the only calories that are pure calories are carbohydrates. Lipids and amino acids are building blocks to tissue, not just fuel.
ch0mp said:Have you actually read the science? Restriction/starvation is short term, and usually ends in a severe rebound.
Bealost said:I'm not saying you should go on a twinkie only diet, that would just be stupid.
I love this. I think I'm like him on week 4 or a bit less but I haven't progressed in months. I'd love to go the extra mile like that. Unfortunately I can't see it happening though. Too many variables involved.cyberheater said:Vincent Regan lost 40 lb in 8 weeks to get ready for filming The 300. Impressive. He is my inspiration.
Full article here:-
http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge/article/36/
He was basically on around 1700 calories a day. Apparently a cottage cheese and grape diet and a ton of exercise.
Zefah said:Except, ultimately, you are implying that it is okay to go on an all twinkie diet when you put an emphasis or focus on calories.
Zoe said:My thyroid levels have been normal every year, and I'm not a body builder. I have no reason to believe that I'm some fringe minority for whom the average doesn't apply.
So, 1600.
ipukespiders said:Well you might as well throw that number out the window. Hell, even drinking a glass of cold water burns calories.
You start restricting calories, body functions may start to shut down, bringing that 1600 down.
edit: teh_pwn said it better than I could.
bengraven said:Holy shit.
Holy SHIT. You're me, but the me is the first picture and the bottom is what I want to be
Once again, my point is that if calories are being strictly controlled, the source doesnt appear to make a humongous difference in terms of body composition changes. As well, once you get protein intake to proper levels, fooling around with carbohydate and fat ratios (within the context of identical caloric intakes) dont seem to make a huge amount of difference either. The bottom line still comes down to calories in versus calories out; its simply that it may be easier to affect calories in (food intake) or calories out (through activity) with different macronutrient breakdowns.
As well, the source of calories can affect other aspects of physiology beyond body composition. Health, energy levels, hunger/appetite and all the rest interact here. So while a calorie controlled diet of jelly beans, butter and protein powder might very well work to lose weight/fat, it probably wouldnt be as healthy compared to a diet of low GI carbohydrates, healthier oils and lean protein sources.
Understand me here? Issues such as hunger control, long-term adherence, individual variance, athletic performance, and a few others all go into the determination of what food might or might not be a better choice under a given set of circumstances. So while a calorie might be more or less a calorie under somewhat artificial conditions (where calories are or can be strictly controlled), its a little more complex than that in the real world. Other issues interact. The next few chapters will adress those other issues.
Ripclawe said:Calorie counting if nothing else gives you a target/goal to lose weight. not calorie counting and eating healthy is fine but there needs to be in your mind an end goal with the means to get to it.