|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Why do you only get an obesity crisis in countries where manual labour is rare and food is in abundance?
Lots of sugar, the low price of protein (and fat) and no excercise.
Compared to a diet of rice, beans and hard labour. Never understood why people pay for fitness 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I got up to 189 lbs and saw my dad ( who at one time must have hit 250+) coming in the mirror, so I went low carb. Yippy down to 160. It just melted off. When you starve you body of carbs I has no choice but to convert that fat into energy.
I found out that is was carbs I really liked all along. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. It works. Plain as that.
|
|
|
|
|
After reading a lot of the comments I figured I should throw my two cents in here as well. Forgive me, this might run a little long.
Calories in == Calories out is a myth. It's way more complicated than that. It also helps to know a bit of bioligical chemistry since our bodies are just big chemical machines.
- Genetics plays a large role on how your body handles fat
- Calorie type is important.
- How calories are consumed is important
For the role of genetics, you have to think about where your ancestors lived. Over generations, our ancestors bodies adapted to maximize survival chances in different ways. Tribes in areas where food is abundant in summer and scarce during winter, such as the Scandinavian countries, have adapted to put on fat quickly and to lose it slowly due to a slower metabolism (I know several people of Swedish decent like this). It can be quite the opposite for folks descending from tribes in areas with a lot more stable food supplies where fat can come and go quite easily. Genetics can make it really difficult for some people to lose weight in a safe way. For some, loosing weight is an uphill battle.
There are lots of things your body needs to maintain itself.
Micro-nutrients: these are the vitamins and minerals needed to keep you alive
Macro-nutrients: these are your sources of energy (i.e. things that can be readily converted to glucose)
Basic Macro-Nutrients
Protein: needed for cell building and maintenance. Also provides energy in the absence of glucose.
Carbohydrates-Monosacchrides: long chain sugar molecules. These get broken down into glucose. Examples are fats, starches, and fructose.
Carbohydrates-Disaccharides: simple sugars that can be easily converted to glucose such as sucrose and lactose.
Right here I could drone on about how all of these are used in the body but that would be the size of a post-grad's thesis so I will cut to the chase: how these are consumed makes a great bit of difference.
If you consume any of these in their natural state, your body first has to digest them. This does two things: it consumes energy and it slows down absorption in the intestines. Slowing down digestion of sugars is imperative for weight control. I will use the obesity problem here in America as an example. The one thing that I would argue that has attributed the most to our little obesity problem is High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Since the U.S. decided to put a tariff on Brazilian sugar, a lot of companies stopped putting cane sugar in foods and beverages and switched to HFCS because it is slightly cheaper.
Consuming fructose is natural but how it's ingested is the kicker. Putting a bit of HFCS in a pre-packaged meal is not that bad because you still have to digest it with the rest of the food. However, if you put fructose in a drink the effect is much worse. Fructose is readily absorbed by the small intestine and is metabolized exclusively by your liver. When you drink your fructose your blood sugar level spikes really high really fast. Your liver then sees all that sugar, realizes it's too much for it to handle, and calls for help. This cry for help is to your pancreas which releases insulin. The insulin signals your fat cells to start absorbing all the extra sugar. This little process can be seen when you drink a sugary drink, feel the energy from it, then experience the crash at the end. Metabolism in action. To sum up, avoid drinking your sugar.
You should also try to be consistently active. Walking a bit every hour is better than trying to squeeze all that activity into a work-out.
Do some strength training every week. Muscle burns more calories than fat which raises your basal metabolic rate. You don't have to be buff just good muscle tone.
Long story short: eat your calories, never drink them and be active. Also, be sure to vary your sources of calories to balance them out. A bit of protein, carbs, and sugar in each meal is good. Sugars for quick energy, carbs to feed you mid-range, and proteins to maintain energy later. Don't skip meals. Eating regularly will help you make your metabolism more predictable.
It also helps to do a mini-fast once a week (like on your day off), which is basically skipping breakfast and having a late lunch. This will cause your body to burn the fat stored in the liver. Once the fat in the liver is used up, it starts working on the fat stored in your body.
Of course this is my own personal opinion here but, in my defense, I eat three big meals a day, with an afternoon snack, plus drink 2 to 3 quarts of beer a night all while maintaining between 170-180 lbs and I have done this for almost a decade.
And one last little caveat, you also need to drink lots of plain old water. It helps a lot more than you think.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I see lots of ads for the latest fad diet and it never fails to amaze me how many people throw their money at them. It's a lot of wasted money when the right way to loose or maintain weigh is simple: know your own personal biology at take advantage of it.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
My brother is skinny, always was. Me, I am very carb sensitive. I can really pile on the fat, easily. I guess it is my viking genes coming through.
|
|
|
|
|
Foothill wrote: It's way more complicated than that. It also helps to know a bit of bioligical chemistry
If it's complicated and requires knowledge of biological chemistry then why is there no obesity in developing nations where people have no real education, can barely read or write never mind do chemistry, but do daily manual labour and don't have an overabundance of food? I mean the whole calories in vs out thing is a myth after all....
|
|
|
|
|
I was trying to make the point that not all calories are equal because the body handles them differently.
As for obesity in developing nations: take a look at world obesity rates[^]. Obesity exists the world over but the occurrence is much lower in conflict counties. There are several notable outliers near the bottom of the obesity ranking, such as India, Japan, and South Korea. A lot of the countries near the bottom share traits. Some are equatorial, providing year-round food sources, and others are in areas of extreme geography, which are places without stable food sources. It's also notable that a lot of the counties at the bottom also are near the bottom of the GDP per capita ranking. Meaning that their populations have less money to by excess food unlike their counterparts in richer countries.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Foothill wrote: I was trying to make the point that not all calories are equal because the body handles them differently.
A calorie is the amount of energy needed to heat a gram of water but 1C, or about 4.2 joules of energy if we're talking SI units. Saying the body handles calories differently is like saying water heated to 100C scolds your skin differently depending on if it was heated by a microwave or a kettle.
So let's say I do no exercise and eat 5,000 calories of burgers a day, will I gain more weight than if I drank 5,000 calories of booze instead? Where does the 5,000 calories have to come from in order for me to not gain weight? Or will I gain weight regardless because the "calories in vs calories out" theory is not a myth after all?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, since you want to be specific, yes, a calorie is indeed the amount of energy required to heat water. When it comes to nutrition, little distinction is made to differentiate which molecules will be hydrolyzed to create that energy. Do you dispute that? Additionally, the way our bodies handle the intake of those chemicals also varies dependent on the molecule. Do you dispute that?
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
We're not talking about nutrition though, we're talking about calories\energy. I notice you didn't answer any of the questions I asked though, predictably preferring staw-man arguments to backing up the actual claims you actually made.
|
|
|
|
|
*** Roles up sleeves ***
Okay, lets put this in another way. To the question you asked:
F-ES Sitecore wrote: So let's say I do no exercise and eat 5,000 calories of burgers a day, will I gain more weight than if I drank 5,000 calories of booze instead? Where does the 5,000 calories have to come from in order for me to not gain weight? Or will I gain weight regardless because the "calories in vs calories out" theory is not a myth after all?
Heck yes you/re going to gain weight if you consume 5000 calories without burning it off.
However....
The point I was originally trying to make is that one needs to think about how they consume those calories as they are absorbed at different rates. To many people a calorie is a calorie no matter how they are eaten and that is a mistake. If you eat your calories, they have to be digested which slows their rate absorption giving your body time to process them. Calories delivered by fluid are not digested and absorbed very quickly in comparison. This, in turn, causes the body to start storing those calories into fat to clear the bloodstream of all the extra sugars. The effect that you feel is that quick rush of energy followed by a crash. In reality you get hungry and tired even though your body just got done storing a bunch of excess sugar as fat.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: We're not talking about nutrition though, we're talking about calories\energy. I notice you didn't answer any of the questions I asked though, predictably preferring staw-man arguments to backing up the actual claims you actually made.
You asked questions that, scientifically speaking, only have one answer. This is seen as confrontational and argumentative. If you want to get into an argument over minutia, there are plenty of others around here willing to give you the time.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Foothill wrote: Heck yes you/re going to gain weight if you consume 5000 calories without burning it off.
So calories in vs calories out isn't a myth as you originally claimed?
Foothill wrote: The point I was originally trying to make is that one needs to think about how they consume those calories as they are absorbed at different rates.
But ultimately they're still absorbed, and if there is a surplus they will end up as fat regardless of how quick they were absorbed or what their source was.
Foothill wrote: ou asked questions that, scientifically speaking, only have one answer
Yes, the right answer. I'm just trying to get you to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We all know that the Earth is perfectly flat. For some reason they keep telling me that I will not get to see it here, but how can that be?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
Come on it's obvious, you are in the wrong corner. 
|
|
|
|
|
That's because the eclipse isn't actually happening, it's just a conspiracy to fool people.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: That's because the eclipse isn't actually happening, it's just a conspiracy to fool people.
I didn't see the eclipse which is evidence to support your statement.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Cant be bothered as don't have a flower, we hear, and short of energy (13)
|
|
|
|
|
lackadaisical
lack
a daisy
cal
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - well done 
|
|
|
|
|
Is that a real word?
Ought to look it up, but I really can't be bothered... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onllokers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
