|
On November 25 2017 07:40 Jerubaal wrote:
OK, we've had a lot of these discussions, so I'll try to summarize the consensus ideas.
-Calories in/Calories Out is more or less bullshit. One side knows that sugar and carbs are the enemy. The other side pig headedly persists in their dogma before ultimately, finally, grudgingly admitting that carb intake is, for all intents and purposes, the lever to control fat loss.
-I won't inject my personal prejudice against cardio here, but most will agree that you can't run yourself skinny. I personally don't think you should do impact cardio if you are significantly overweight.
-If you want to lose weight, the fastest way is to go Keto, but that will make you pretty tired, at least for a while and will make any sort of exercise pretty difficult.
The exact formula for lifting while losing weight seems to be up for debate. First you need to make sure you're cutting out all excess sugar and and crap like that.
My question is, if you're going to eat carbs for only one meal, should it be at lunch or supper?
Consensus?
Calories in/Calories Out is obviously the correct formula for weight loss. This is just physics.
Avoiding sugar helps with managing appetite. Eating a more fat heavy diet possible results in less blood sugar spikes and all that good stuff. But this is an eating strategy and has nothing to do with calories in/out. It is just easier to consume less that way - if you can ignore all that ice cream and chocolate, which. And that stuff is delicious, no matter how much we love our steaks and bacon.
The much more interesting question to me is how many calories the body burns under which circumstances. Sure there is things like base metabolism and stuff, but it is well established that the body can regulate energy needs quite heavily.
So manipulating your body in a way that it burns more calories (even if that is just 100-200 a day) is a much more interesting question to me.
Dietary recommendations have become such a religious topic.
|
On November 27 2017 11:50 Jerubaal wrote:
I think I'm the most vociferous proponent of the Insulin Hypothesis for fat gain. In a nutshell: Carbs/sugar makes you fat, fat doesn't. Where they would differ is that the CICO would say that 2k kcal of fat is equivalent to 2k kcal of carbs,while the Insulin Hypothesis would say that the carbs is more adipogenic. I find the debate amusing because almost everyone acts as if the Insulin Hypothesis is correct but argue against it for semantics. For us relatively young fatties, it almost always boils down to cutting the crap, though.
i think I agree with your Lunch answer. I'm caught between that and probably doesn't matter. I just can't do Keto for very long, especially while trying to lift, so I'm just trying to eat enough carbs to keep up my energy.
It doesn't matter when you eat the carbs. I prefer dinner actually because of the serotonin implications with sleep at dinner. Carbs lead to glycogen synthesis assuming you've depleted your glycogen, and once you synthesize it, it will sit there until you use it.
|
On November 27 2017 12:23 Malinor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 07:40 Jerubaal wrote:
OK, we've had a lot of these discussions, so I'll try to summarize the consensus ideas.
-Calories in/Calories Out is more or less bullshit. One side knows that sugar and carbs are the enemy. The other side pig headedly persists in their dogma before ultimately, finally, grudgingly admitting that carb intake is, for all intents and purposes, the lever to control fat loss.
-I won't inject my personal prejudice against cardio here, but most will agree that you can't run yourself skinny. I personally don't think you should do impact cardio if you are significantly overweight.
-If you want to lose weight, the fastest way is to go Keto, but that will make you pretty tired, at least for a while and will make any sort of exercise pretty difficult.
The exact formula for lifting while losing weight seems to be up for debate. First you need to make sure you're cutting out all excess sugar and and crap like that.
My question is, if you're going to eat carbs for only one meal, should it be at lunch or supper? Consensus? Calories in/Calories Out is obviously the correct formula for weight loss. This is just physics. Avoiding sugar helps with managing appetite. Eating a more fat heavy diet possible results in less blood sugar spikes and all that good stuff. But this is an eating strategy and has nothing to do with calories in/out. It is just easier to consume less that way - if you can ignore all that ice cream and chocolate, which. And that stuff is delicious, no matter how much we love our steaks and bacon. The much more interesting question to me is how many calories the body burns under which circumstances. Sure there is things like base metabolism and stuff, but it is well established that the body can regulate energy needs quite heavily. So manipulating your body in a way that it burns more calories (even if that is just 100-200 a day) is a much more interesting question to me. Dietary recommendations have become such a religious topic.
You can talk about Calories in/Calories out being "physics" and that's fine, I don't dispute that in any ontological sense, but when it comes to calculation, people think diet mathematics is way more precise and accurate than it is.
Sugar is a poison and is the number one issue, bar none, when it comes to weight loss. It fucks with your psychology and your physiology so it's a double whammy.
|
I am getting so fat to the point where I could probably nut to a picture of my breasts if I didn't know they were attached to me. I don't even know how it got to this point.
|
For me, my suggestion for working out your torso with one exercise is leg kicks, lol. You torque your entire body into it with your hip (hard) and your side, You do left and right leg kicks, lol. 
|
On November 25 2017 07:40 Jerubaal wrote:
My question is, if you're going to eat carbs for only one meal, should it be at lunch or supper?
Pre and Post workout. Doesn't matter what time of the day it is, but your muscles need to replenish their glycogen stores.
|
On November 27 2017 14:04 SCC-Faust wrote: I don't even know how it got to this point.
Poor diet and lack of exercise for a sustained period of time. The cure is the opposite. Get to it.
|
On November 25 2017 00:46 FFGenerations wrote:
its just a balance between input and output.
cardio works, and also gives you a more powerful and long lasting cardiovascular system.
lifting weights works, and also makes u strong, and muscular.
eating less calories every day works too. i advise lookin for healthy snack alternatives, like diet-only fizzy drinks
'cleaning the fat' happens over a 6++ month process, your mileage will vary depending on how willing you are to struggle for it
Yeah, you are right. I was looking for something quicker tho :D I guess it won't happened like that, I have to work harder
|
^ 30 mins a night isn't that big a commitment, is it? (deleted my sentence saying it's a big commitment)
|
It can be to start, but once you equalize it really isn't. The problem I had when I started was that I thought it was a big commitment, in reality it meant just not sitting at my PC for that time, not a big deal.
It is best to set a schedule you can stick to until you form a habit or routine.
I do 3 days on 1 day off (mostly), but when I started, it was more like every other day because I could keep that going. The key is to take a reasonable challenge you can do and work from there.
|
On November 27 2017 13:40 IgnE wrote:
You can talk about Calories in/Calories out being "physics" and that's fine, I don't dispute that in any ontological sense, but when it comes to calculation, people think diet mathematics is way more precise and accurate than it is.
Sugar is a poison and is the number one issue, bar none, when it comes to weight loss. It fucks with your psychology and your physiology so it's a double whammy.
On November 27 2017 13:40 Jerubaal wrote:
Where they would differ is that the CICO would say that 2k kcal of fat is equivalent to 2k kcal of carbs,while the Insulin Hypothesis would say that the carbs is more adipogenic. I find the debate amusing because almost everyone acts as if the Insulin Hypothesis is correct but argue against it for semantics. For us relatively young fatties, it almost always boils down to cutting the crap, though.
Can we get some further dialogue going on this? Interesting topic and I'm not too familiar with these ideas at all.
I definitely agree with the idea that sugar is a poison and can heavily fuck with psychology/physiology.
The part I'm not sure on is the precision of dietary mathematics, and what Jerubaal called the insulin hypothesis. It seems to me if you eat 2k cals, whether fat or carbs, you're going to gain basically half a kilo. If what you're saying is that 2k kcal of carbs and 2k kcal of fat will be partitioned differently, such that you store a greater percentage of the carb calories as fat, then I'd have no problems, but if the claim is that 2k kcal of carb will result in greater weight gain than 2k kcal of fat...that I'd need some explanation for.
In my experience, diet mathematics has always been pretty accurate if I weight out all my food. Knock off 1000kcal/day and that weight comes off, averaged out over time, at a pretty steady 2lbs/wk. If there are complicating or new ideas out there that I haven't seen I'm quite interested to hear.
|
On November 27 2017 14:04 SCC-Faust wrote:
I am getting so fat to the point where I could probably nut to a picture of my breasts if I didn't know they were attached to me. I don't even know how it got to this point.
Pretty much what decaf wrote. Probably minimal exercise combined with a crappy to mediocre diet with too much food in general. Get a little activity going, couple times to the gym a week or even a few 30-45 min walks and clean up the diet and the weight will start to come off.
You can always start more vigorously too, but the big challenge for people new to weight loss is basically retention/commitment. It's really easy to be hyped for a week or two, and then once life gets a little busy or motivation wanes totally stop. Pick changes and commitments that are reasonable and small to start with so you don't lose focus. It's easy to not want to go smash a 2 hour gym session after a hard day at work. Committing to a 15-30 min walk on the other hand isn't so bad.
|
In other news, ate a ton over the weekend and the scale hasn't budged. Shirt and pants feel a little tighter so maybe there's still some progress being made. Should've done measurements now that I think about it.
|
On November 27 2017 12:23 Malinor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 07:40 Jerubaal wrote:
OK, we've had a lot of these discussions, so I'll try to summarize the consensus ideas.
-Calories in/Calories Out is more or less bullshit. One side knows that sugar and carbs are the enemy. The other side pig headedly persists in their dogma before ultimately, finally, grudgingly admitting that carb intake is, for all intents and purposes, the lever to control fat loss.
-I won't inject my personal prejudice against cardio here, but most will agree that you can't run yourself skinny. I personally don't think you should do impact cardio if you are significantly overweight.
-If you want to lose weight, the fastest way is to go Keto, but that will make you pretty tired, at least for a while and will make any sort of exercise pretty difficult.
The exact formula for lifting while losing weight seems to be up for debate. First you need to make sure you're cutting out all excess sugar and and crap like that.
My question is, if you're going to eat carbs for only one meal, should it be at lunch or supper? Consensus? Calories in/Calories Out is obviously the correct formula for weight loss. This is just physics. Avoiding sugar helps with managing appetite. Eating a more fat heavy diet possible results in less blood sugar spikes and all that good stuff. But this is an eating strategy and has nothing to do with calories in/out. It is just easier to consume less that way - if you can ignore all that ice cream and chocolate, which. And that stuff is delicious, no matter how much we love our steaks and bacon. The much more interesting question to me is how many calories the body burns under which circumstances. Sure there is things like base metabolism and stuff, but it is well established that the body can regulate energy needs quite heavily. So manipulating your body in a way that it burns more calories (even if that is just 100-200 a day) is a much more interesting question to me. Dietary recommendations have become such a religious topic.
CICO isn't wrong...it's just useless. It's like saying the reason there are a lot of people in a room is because more people are going in than coming out. It is not accounting for why or how the calories are absorbed, stored, used, excreted, etc.
In the long term, yes, sugar management will help manage hunger. In the short term, however, carbs are the only thing that will satisfy your hunger. If you are used to a carb rich diet, you can eat a steak and salad and go to bed hungry. Insulin makes you hungry and the only way to get rid of it is carbs. As IgnE (I think), glibly said, coca cola is a great appetite suppressant...because it obliterates your blood insulin level.
If only we could discover a hormone that caused the body to store fat and to release fat in its absence.
On November 28 2017 01:24 pink_disaster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 00:46 FFGenerations wrote:
its just a balance between input and output.
cardio works, and also gives you a more powerful and long lasting cardiovascular system.
lifting weights works, and also makes u strong, and muscular.
eating less calories every day works too. i advise lookin for healthy snack alternatives, like diet-only fizzy drinks
'cleaning the fat' happens over a 6++ month process, your mileage will vary depending on how willing you are to struggle for it Yeah, you are right. I was looking for something quicker tho :D I guess it won't happened like that, I have to work harder
Lest you think this is a semantic argument for me, this poor sod should not be walking away thinking that he needs to "eat less and exercise more". All that's going to do is cause him a lot of unnecessary pain and discomfort and turn him into a tired, hungry, starving wreck. He doesn't need to eat less, he needs to eat the right things. Exercise is great, but it's not a magic lever for weight loss, especially not steady state cardio, the darling of CICO fans.
|
On November 28 2017 05:54 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +
Yeah, you are right. I was looking for something quicker tho :D I guess it won't happened like that, I have to work harder
Lest you think this is a semantic argument for me, this poor sod should not be walking away thinking that he needs to "eat less and exercise more". All that's going to do is cause him a lot of unnecessary pain and discomfort and turn him into a tired, hungry, starving wreck. He doesn't need to eat less, he needs to eat the right things. Exercise is great, but it's not a magic lever for weight loss, especially not steady state cardio, the darling of CICO fans.
Exercise is great more for general health, and building muscle has clear advantages for partitioning calories and body composition. The other reason I like exercise, up to a point, whether that be steady state cardio, sprints, weights, circuits, etc. is that it flat out allows you to eat more. For someone that likes to eat, being able to rip through 1000-1200 kcal/hr on the bike is pretty nice. I don't feel like I have to eat these tiny, baby portions.
When it comes to exercise less and eat more, I think I agree with you up to a point. Where I certainly agree is that if your diet sucks, and you keep it just as shitty but eat less, then it is an exercise in futility. If you're eating 2000 kcal/day of crap, and try to cut that down to 1,500 or less, combined with a little exercise....yea you aren't going to feel good at all.
At the same time, if he makes his diet a clean 2,000 kcal/day of beautiful, healthy food...he still isn't going to drop much weight if his maintenance is around 2,000 and he adds in 30 mins a day of walking. He will feel better, and have better energy levels, but the scale and body composition aren't going to move a whole lot.
|
On November 28 2017 05:54 Jerubaal wrote:
CICO isn't wrong...it's just useless. It's like saying the reason there are a lot of people in a room is because more people are going in than coming out. It is not accounting for why or how the calories are absorbed, stored, used, excreted, etc.
Define useless.
The first time I was fat was in HS, I was close to 200 with no real muscle or anything...i.e. I was a pretty close to what we would call a fat slob. I played some golf each day but outside of that was almost completely sedentary.
Hit college and realized I was fat and didn't like it. Didn't know much about fitness, eating, health, any of it. All I knew was the standard "exercise and eat less". My diet was shit. Got minimum of half my calories from utter garbage like cookies, soda, cake, crackers, etc. Was easily eating 1000-2000 kcal/day of that stuff. I knew not to eat only that, so I usually got in some vegetables and fruit in there, but my protein intake was low. Best case maybe I got 50g a day.
Ignorant me followed the classic line and just started eating less, I was now eating 2,000 kcal/day or so, but still with the same 50g a day of protein + token vegatable + fruit, with the remaining 1000-1500 calories being filled from the most processed shit you could eat. My diet was really fuckin bad.
I also went from doing nothing to gradually working up to 50mpw of running. I stuck to my guns eating about 2,000kcal/day while running, and over the next nine months my weight went from 200 down to 150. From a weight loss standpoint, what I did absolutely worked. Admittedly, it sucked. With that kind of diet I would always battle hunger between meals, especially midday, but it got the job done.
I do realize that's a giant personal anecdote with a sample size of one, but I'm mainly illustrating that because I'm not sure 100% what you're trying to say by "useless". Am I some crazy outlier, or do you mean something different?
+ Show Spoiler +Just to be clear, I'm in NO way saying what I did was a smart/effective way to lose weight. It probably didn't make me a whole lot healthier, and it certainly was made massively harder than it would have had I knocked out the sugar, added a few more vegatables, and gotten adequate protein.
|
^ was totally expecting then & now photos tbh, disappoint, will not eat less
|
I've heard that there are some extreme diets like the one by Dr. Dukan. He states that eating protein for several days will help you lose a lot of weight. He recommends doing 5-10 protein days and then based on the kilos you'd lost (you multiply the lost kilograms by 10), you mix protein with veggies and eat it for the calculated amount of days. What do you think about that? There are some people that say it really helped them and they didn't gain weight afterward, but is it healthy eating fruits mainly rich in protein?
|
coz protein has fuck all calories, you might as well be drinking carrot juice or whatever million other thing your coworker will tell you works because they were brought up to be dumb af probably because of religion. one day i'm gonna print a book, i tell you, itll say 'eat natural food only, in reasonably sized portions, and you'll lose weight and live 10 yrs longer' and i swear no1 will fuckin buy it
|
It pretty much is that simple, if it isn't meat and comes out of a vacuum sealed package, it probably won't help you lose weight and there is probably a health trade off (probably higher in salt typically).
I'm trying to think of cases where that isn't true. I know if you have a proper butcher obviously obviously then it doesn't even apply to meat, but maybe nuts and pre packaged trail mix in certain cases, dried fruits too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
