Now, we're not talking third world starvation... but a mild starvation mode (eating, but not enough for basic body function) that causes the body to hold onto fat.
Seriously, you need to do some research. This is pretty well accepted by the medical field.
Sure, lifestyle choices probably play a large part but there exist a plethora of examples such as myself who live predominantly healthy lifestyles and just don't lose weight. But what you also need to realize is that in the US at least, there have been huge changes in diet in the last 30 years.
Yes.. more processed food, fried food, etc. I think your statement backs me up more than anything else. The American diet has gone to shit.
As far as your weight loss goes, find a certified personal trainer.
Just think of all the things we consume that weren't in common use 50 years ago. Dextrins, high fructose corn syrup, calcium propionate, glycerides, modified food starch, genetically modified plants and hormone injected cows which in turn dramatically increases our intake of antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticide residues, MSG.
Face it. The average diet today doesn't look much like it did 50 years ago. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that our diet changes also have caused large changes in our bacterial ecosystems.
SO... how is this refusing my claim that lifestyle (which includes diet, BTW), is the biggest influence? People are looking to blame everyone but themselves... but I changed my diet and exercise, and lost 80lbs (working with a trainer). I still take in some of that junk too. Its more a matter of calories than additives... I gained weight eating "clean" (on purpose, trying to build muscle). So I don't think that laundry list means as much as you make it out to... because plenty of people eat them still and are still fit.
I don't have time to read and respond to your entire post, but I see you're low on carbs.
That's a huge mistake. Your body NEEDS carbs to run. Using protein for energy is dangerous; the byproduct of converting protien to glucose is ammonia. Complex carbs should make up around 50% of your caloric intake. I don't think I know any trainer that would recommend an only protien or protien + fat diet.. is he / she certified by an accredited entity?
As far as my high horse goes, I really do know what I'm talking about. Yes, everyone is different... but not to the degree you're claiming. You may need more exercise and less total calories.. but overall the forumla is the same for success.
I've also been through what you have. Being overweight is how I got into bodybuilding.
Well... thats true of everyone, so I'm not sure why I'd bother googling anything. Your metabolism slows slightly as you get older.. and when you're younger you're doing ALOT of growth, which requires a lot of energy.
Too few calories causes the body to hold onto fat. If you're doing only cardio, it will also go after muscle (leading to fewer calories burned later). But I think your base assertion is right... people lie to themselves... I guess it's easier to blame everyone else instead of yourself. Sadly, that won't help you shed pounds.
Well, sorry, but its true. You can change your metabolism, and differences aren't enough to account between thin people and those 100 lbs overweight. You say you worry about your foods; are you avoiding all simple carbs (except immediately after a workout)? Are you measuring out everything you eat? Keeping your fat to 20% of your caloric intake?
There have been studies that show that people are eating more than they think they are. You claim to have friends that exercise the same and eat 3-4 times as much... those studies tend to break those myths all the time.
17% body fat is considered in the healthy range. I wouldn't think that's overweight, let alone obese. Something is out of wack here.. are you really short or something?
The harsh truth is that it is lifestyle choices that are causing obesity. Unless your argument is that Americans all had a sudden genetic change that affected over 50% of the population... because the number of overweight in the 50s was significantly lower.
Obesity for the most part is because of learned eatting behaviors. That's why hanging around fat people makes thin people fatter...
By raising energy requirements yes, but contrary to what most people would believe it won't turn you into a fat burning machine, if you do 600 kcal of cardio per day and eat 600 kcal more it will probably not make much of a difference on your body composition. It may raise your insuline sensitivity / amount of GLUT4 receptors somewhat.
Your first statement is kinda right. Your metabolism stays higher though after a workout, it doesn't plummet back down to pre-workout levels immediately. And yes, your body will adapt and use glucose more efficently as your body learns to burn glycogen and restock it.
Numbers of feedings is supposed to not make much of a difference, I guess eating more after workout may help somewhat though due to less need for insuline which in itself will inhibit fat burning.
This is wrong. It won't compensate for a huge calorie in vs. tiny out, but it does play a significant difference... which is why any good trainer will have you eating around five times (but smaller portions) a day for weight loss. Oh yes, I actually have done this by the way, and I was able to lose 80lbs.
Everyones bodies store energy from everything, if it don't need it atm, anything else would be stupid.
This is where timing comes in. Muscles and your liver get first dibs at glucose in the blood, but they take it up slowly. Excess glucose not taken up by either ends up being stored in fat cells.. which take it up quickly. That's where smaller, more frequent meals come into play. Less glucose at each sitting means there's less excess for fat to take up.
Old claim but AFAIK not true (to an extent which matters at least.)
Search for things like "periodic fasting" for contradictions and ideas in the opposite direction.
I suggest you research smaller, more frequent meals, because there's a ton of research backing this up.
I doubt it, though you may have individual differences (which don't change anything, if he ate even more he would gain weight) and also he may claim to eat more / you believe he eat more than he says, or move around more than you do.
Here I agree. They did a study in Britain. Two friends believed they ate the same amount of calories per day, but one was fat and one thin. So they had them take something that allowed them to track calories. The heavier one did in fact consume more calories than the thinner one. The heavier one (as is typical) was in deinal though.
The GI is important, but you're missing the piece on how glucose is stored. I already explained it... but your large quote shows why it's important to 1) limit the size of your meal and 2) avoid simple carbs.
I accept being wrong, IF I AM, but claiming that basic things like "eating more makes you fat, eating less gets rid o the fat" is wrong is just stupid. For most people that basic fact will help more than doing more cardio (since they may just start to eat more to) and especially following weird diets or trying to eat healthy.
Ya, its true... eating too little can cause massive weight gain as well. However, back to my original post, the problem here in America is people eating way too many calories while they sit on their ass. That's the major cause of obesity.. everything else plays a factor... but the end result is too many calories in and not enough out.
Eating healthy and doing cardio is good for you, but it's no guarantee for not staying obese.
Depends on what you mean by eating healthy; if it means using everything you take in, then yes cardio (and weight training) will do that for you. (Cardio alone will have your body eating muscle instead of fat for energy.. because no use = expendable, and it'd rather save fat as a last resort... unless you train it to know it will get so many calories every so often).
Your post is rich. Yes, your body is so unique that it does the opposite of what everyone else does. And of course your body is much more efficient. I love the excuses as to why you're overweight.
Let me hit you with a clue stick; yes, certain things such as timing does matter. However, at the end of the day, if your intake greatly outstripes your expendature, you WILL gain weight. You can space your meals all you want (and really should be), but it won't make up for the intake problem.
Here's my take on your post. Either you are eating 1500 calories a day, which means your lean body weight should be about 136 (really small for the average male), or, as I suspect... your lean body weight is higher, and you're putting your body into starvation mode. So it stores as much as possible. The other alternative is you really have no idea how much you're eating, and are consuming much much more. So... do you know your % of body fat, and are you actually measuring out your food (and being honest?) Right now, I'm leaning toward the latter... why? Well, lets move on..
The likely reason your BPM goes up after eating is that you're eating crap. Lots of simple carbs; white pasta, white bread, white potatoes, some kind of caffinated drink. The simple sugars give you a rush... but also a crash later (unless you follow up with more junk).
As for exercising goes... yes, eating before you exercise puts energy into your blood. That's why when I body build I get complex carbs and protein at least 30 minutes before a workout. That is the point of eating, after all, is to get energy to keep living. It'd be suprising if you ate and got more and more run down. I wouldn't advise eating less than 30 minutes before though.. your heart rate nonsense aside, if you are digesting your blood vessels around your gut dialate to pick up nutrients and remove waste (and provide energy for digestion), which means blood vessels around your muscles must constrict. So you're not going to get as much from your workout.
In all seriousness though... you're not unique, and I bet if you talked to a personal trainer and HONESTLY measured and tracked what you're eating, you'd be able to change (if that's what you want).
Stress releases cortisol, which promotes weight gain. So stress can have an impact. Improper diet plays a larger role, but cortisol isn't insignficant either.
When you're stressed at work and eating less, you're putting your body into starvation mode. It then refuses to burn FAT for energy, instead turning to muscle. That's why eating too little will cause you to gain weight. Little calories in causes this, stress causes this. The two together are very powerful to put on weight.
FWIW, cortisol does play a role.. it's released when you are stressed, and exercising stresses your body as well, and a good diet and exercise together promote weight loss. So you can combat it's effects fairly easily.
Oh wait.... you could perhaps just read the SUMMARY to find out that it may be 1% with that medical condition PLUS X PERCENT WITH A MICROBIOLOGICAL CONDITION.
That was the research result that whole news was about!
No, the research ONLY shows that the obese person had a different type of bacteria. It also showed that AS YOU LOST WEIGHT THE TYPE CHANGED. Huh... isn't that EXACTLY what I fucking said? Read the second link in the summary: "And as the 12 people lost weight over a year, their gut populations changed, becoming more and more like those in skinny mice."
I'd argue that your "gut population" is a RESULT of your lifestyle, not the CAUSE.
Well if changing your diet will cause you to lose weight and change the type of bacteria, I'd say your diet, not the bacteria, are the deciding factor.
It's really amazing... everyone (that doesn't suffer some medical condition, which is about 1% of people) that cleans up their diet and exercises loses weight. Amazing.
Yes, 1% of the population has a medtial condition that causes them to be overweight. For everyone else though, yes, it is that they are eating too much. And just because you're not eating too much meat doen't mean you can't get fat. How the hell you equate "vegetarian" with "healthy" is beyond me. Sit there eating peanut butter, potato chips and soda all day and you'll be fat, no meat required.
You're thin because you're eating smaller quantities than your fat friends. End of story. It's all about calories in vs. calories out.
Oh ok. I'll just trust some random internet poster. Either way, your comment isn't valid, as it's a blanket statement that certainly doesn't apply to a significant number of the girls.
So I take it that you just think women in that job are not worthy of respect.
Perhaps the crux of the issue is that he doesn't want to send more money to the predatory monopolists in Redmond? The image of greedy cigarette companies are used to wean youth off from smoking, why can't the same thing apply for software?
You really are comparing an OS to a dangerous product? Oh and by the way, I see nothing inherently wrong with tabacco companies. Everyone knows cigs are dangerous, and you should be free to smoke them if you want. Not near me... but go nuts at home or a cigar shop or other private places.
And there's nothing wrong with MS' products or using them, and they are complying with the terms of the DOJ settlement.
BTW, the time you spend fiddling with Linux is certainly not wasted if you are working/plan to work in IT business. It helps you get hired and generally improves your skillset in many areas.
There's more Windows jobs out there than Linux. I'm a software engineer, and yes it was a waste of time trying get linux to something that just works in Windows. Fixing other people's broken software isn't teaching me anything I don't already know, nor does it help me balance my checkbook and pay my bills.
The owner of the physical network is. Just like they are at my house. They are responsible right up to the point the wires enter my house.. including the wires over my lawn.
So the bacteria in the twins is different... why is it worded in such a way as to imply the different bacteria is the reason that one is obese and the other isn't, instead of the type of bacteria changed because being obese (and the eating that goes along with it) favor one type over the other.
No, it's not. I know someone specifically turned down to be a cop because they scored too high. The reasoning was that anyone with more than a 6th grade education will quickly become "bored" at the job and leave. That's the requirement for my local city cops.
Slashdot Mirror
No. You're not involved... unless you happen to share the same ISP as Amazon.
You can. Notice the third or so bullet down: http://weightloss.suite101.com/article.cfm/unexplained_weight_gain
Now, we're not talking third world starvation... but a mild starvation mode (eating, but not enough for basic body function) that causes the body to hold onto fat.
Seriously, you need to do some research. This is pretty well accepted by the medical field.
No... 17% is considered fit: http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm
Sure, lifestyle choices probably play a large part but there exist a plethora of examples such as myself who live predominantly healthy lifestyles and just don't lose weight. But what you also need to realize is that in the US at least, there have been huge changes in diet in the last 30 years.
Yes.. more processed food, fried food, etc. I think your statement backs me up more than anything else. The American diet has gone to shit.
As far as your weight loss goes, find a certified personal trainer.
Just think of all the things we consume that weren't in common use 50 years ago. Dextrins, high fructose corn syrup, calcium propionate, glycerides, modified food starch, genetically modified plants and hormone injected cows which in turn dramatically increases our intake of antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticide residues, MSG.
Face it. The average diet today doesn't look much like it did 50 years ago. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that our diet changes also have caused large changes in our bacterial ecosystems.
SO... how is this refusing my claim that lifestyle (which includes diet, BTW), is the biggest influence? People are looking to blame everyone but themselves... but I changed my diet and exercise, and lost 80lbs (working with a trainer). I still take in some of that junk too. Its more a matter of calories than additives... I gained weight eating "clean" (on purpose, trying to build muscle). So I don't think that laundry list means as much as you make it out to... because plenty of people eat them still and are still fit.
I don't have time to read and respond to your entire post, but I see you're low on carbs.
That's a huge mistake. Your body NEEDS carbs to run. Using protein for energy is dangerous; the byproduct of converting protien to glucose is ammonia. Complex carbs should make up around 50% of your caloric intake. I don't think I know any trainer that would recommend an only protien or protien + fat diet.. is he / she certified by an accredited entity?
As far as my high horse goes, I really do know what I'm talking about. Yes, everyone is different... but not to the degree you're claiming. You may need more exercise and less total calories.. but overall the forumla is the same for success.
I've also been through what you have. Being overweight is how I got into bodybuilding.
Well... thats true of everyone, so I'm not sure why I'd bother googling anything. Your metabolism slows slightly as you get older.. and when you're younger you're doing ALOT of growth, which requires a lot of energy.
Too few calories causes the body to hold onto fat. If you're doing only cardio, it will also go after muscle (leading to fewer calories burned later). But I think your base assertion is right... people lie to themselves... I guess it's easier to blame everyone else instead of yourself. Sadly, that won't help you shed pounds.
Well, sorry, but its true. You can change your metabolism, and differences aren't enough to account between thin people and those 100 lbs overweight. You say you worry about your foods; are you avoiding all simple carbs (except immediately after a workout)? Are you measuring out everything you eat? Keeping your fat to 20% of your caloric intake?
There have been studies that show that people are eating more than they think they are. You claim to have friends that exercise the same and eat 3-4 times as much... those studies tend to break those myths all the time.
17% body fat is considered in the healthy range. I wouldn't think that's overweight, let alone obese. Something is out of wack here.. are you really short or something?
The harsh truth is that it is lifestyle choices that are causing obesity. Unless your argument is that Americans all had a sudden genetic change that affected over 50% of the population... because the number of overweight in the 50s was significantly lower.
Obesity for the most part is because of learned eatting behaviors. That's why hanging around fat people makes thin people fatter...
I didn't say they didn't play any role, I merely said someone isn't fat because they had the misfortune of getting the "fat" type of bacteria.
By raising energy requirements yes, but contrary to what most people would believe it won't turn you into a fat burning machine, if you do 600 kcal of cardio per day and eat 600 kcal more it will probably not make much of a difference on your body composition. It may raise your insuline sensitivity / amount of GLUT4 receptors somewhat.
Your first statement is kinda right. Your metabolism stays higher though after a workout, it doesn't plummet back down to pre-workout levels immediately. And yes, your body will adapt and use glucose more efficently as your body learns to burn glycogen and restock it.
Numbers of feedings is supposed to not make much of a difference, I guess eating more after workout may help somewhat though due to less need for insuline which in itself will inhibit fat burning.
This is wrong. It won't compensate for a huge calorie in vs. tiny out, but it does play a significant difference... which is why any good trainer will have you eating around five times (but smaller portions) a day for weight loss. Oh yes, I actually have done this by the way, and I was able to lose 80lbs.
Everyones bodies store energy from everything, if it don't need it atm, anything else would be stupid.
This is where timing comes in. Muscles and your liver get first dibs at glucose in the blood, but they take it up slowly. Excess glucose not taken up by either ends up being stored in fat cells.. which take it up quickly. That's where smaller, more frequent meals come into play. Less glucose at each sitting means there's less excess for fat to take up.
Old claim but AFAIK not true (to an extent which matters at least.)
Search for things like "periodic fasting" for contradictions and ideas in the opposite direction.
I suggest you research smaller, more frequent meals, because there's a ton of research backing this up.
I doubt it, though you may have individual differences (which don't change anything, if he ate even more he would gain weight) and also he may claim to eat more / you believe he eat more than he says, or move around more than you do.
Here I agree. They did a study in Britain. Two friends believed they ate the same amount of calories per day, but one was fat and one thin. So they had them take something that allowed them to track calories. The heavier one did in fact consume more calories than the thinner one. The heavier one (as is typical) was in deinal though.
The GI is important, but you're missing the piece on how glucose is stored. I already explained it... but your large quote shows why it's important to 1) limit the size of your meal and 2) avoid simple carbs.
I accept being wrong, IF I AM, but claiming that basic things like "eating more makes you fat, eating less gets rid o the fat" is wrong is just stupid. For most people that basic fact will help more than doing more cardio (since they may just start to eat more to) and especially following weird diets or trying to eat healthy.
Ya, its true... eating too little can cause massive weight gain as well. However, back to my original post, the problem here in America is people eating way too many calories while they sit on their ass. That's the major cause of obesity.. everything else plays a factor... but the end result is too many calories in and not enough out.
Eating healthy and doing cardio is good for you, but it's no guarantee for not staying obese.
Depends on what you mean by eating healthy; if it means using everything you take in, then yes cardio (and weight training) will do that for you. (Cardio alone will have your body eating muscle instead of fat for energy.. because no use = expendable, and it'd rather save fat as a last resort... unless you train it to know it will get so many calories every so often).
Your post is rich. Yes, your body is so unique that it does the opposite of what everyone else does. And of course your body is much more efficient. I love the excuses as to why you're overweight.
Let me hit you with a clue stick; yes, certain things such as timing does matter. However, at the end of the day, if your intake greatly outstripes your expendature, you WILL gain weight. You can space your meals all you want (and really should be), but it won't make up for the intake problem.
Here's my take on your post. Either you are eating 1500 calories a day, which means your lean body weight should be about 136 (really small for the average male), or, as I suspect... your lean body weight is higher, and you're putting your body into starvation mode. So it stores as much as possible. The other alternative is you really have no idea how much you're eating, and are consuming much much more. So... do you know your % of body fat, and are you actually measuring out your food (and being honest?) Right now, I'm leaning toward the latter... why? Well, lets move on..
The likely reason your BPM goes up after eating is that you're eating crap. Lots of simple carbs; white pasta, white bread, white potatoes, some kind of caffinated drink. The simple sugars give you a rush... but also a crash later (unless you follow up with more junk).
As for exercising goes... yes, eating before you exercise puts energy into your blood. That's why when I body build I get complex carbs and protein at least 30 minutes before a workout. That is the point of eating, after all, is to get energy to keep living. It'd be suprising if you ate and got more and more run down. I wouldn't advise eating less than 30 minutes before though.. your heart rate nonsense aside, if you are digesting your blood vessels around your gut dialate to pick up nutrients and remove waste (and provide energy for digestion), which means blood vessels around your muscles must constrict. So you're not going to get as much from your workout.
In all seriousness though... you're not unique, and I bet if you talked to a personal trainer and HONESTLY measured and tracked what you're eating, you'd be able to change (if that's what you want).
Stress releases cortisol, which promotes weight gain. So stress can have an impact. Improper diet plays a larger role, but cortisol isn't insignficant either.
You're totally wrong.
When you're stressed at work and eating less, you're putting your body into starvation mode. It then refuses to burn FAT for energy, instead turning to muscle. That's why eating too little will cause you to gain weight. Little calories in causes this, stress causes this. The two together are very powerful to put on weight.
FWIW, cortisol does play a role.. it's released when you are stressed, and exercising stresses your body as well, and a good diet and exercise together promote weight loss. So you can combat it's effects fairly easily.
Yes, I said that... the very last sentence of my post.
Of course I'm talking about the average person here... so what Phelps does is largely irrelevent, since he's not even overweight.
To clarify, it's 1% of men that may have thyriod problems, 8% of women. Still, that doesn't account for the early 60% of overweight people.
http://www.thyroid.ca/Articles/weight.html
http://www.americansportsdata.com/obesitystats.asp
Oh wait.... you could perhaps just read the SUMMARY to find out that it may be 1% with that medical condition PLUS X PERCENT WITH A MICROBIOLOGICAL CONDITION.
That was the research result that whole news was about!
No, the research ONLY shows that the obese person had a different type of bacteria. It also showed that AS YOU LOST WEIGHT THE TYPE CHANGED. Huh... isn't that EXACTLY what I fucking said? Read the second link in the summary: "And as the 12 people lost weight over a year, their gut populations changed, becoming more and more like those in skinny mice."
I'd argue that your "gut population" is a RESULT of your lifestyle, not the CAUSE.
Well if changing your diet will cause you to lose weight and change the type of bacteria, I'd say your diet, not the bacteria, are the deciding factor.
It's really amazing... everyone (that doesn't suffer some medical condition, which is about 1% of people) that cleans up their diet and exercises loses weight. Amazing.
Yes, 1% of the population has a medtial condition that causes them to be overweight. For everyone else though, yes, it is that they are eating too much. And just because you're not eating too much meat doen't mean you can't get fat. How the hell you equate "vegetarian" with "healthy" is beyond me. Sit there eating peanut butter, potato chips and soda all day and you'll be fat, no meat required.
You're thin because you're eating smaller quantities than your fat friends. End of story. It's all about calories in vs. calories out.
Oh ok. I'll just trust some random internet poster. Either way, your comment isn't valid, as it's a blanket statement that certainly doesn't apply to a significant number of the girls.
So I take it that you just think women in that job are not worthy of respect.
Perhaps the crux of the issue is that he doesn't want to send more money to the predatory monopolists in Redmond? The image of greedy cigarette companies are used to wean youth off from smoking, why can't the same thing apply for software?
You really are comparing an OS to a dangerous product? Oh and by the way, I see nothing inherently wrong with tabacco companies. Everyone knows cigs are dangerous, and you should be free to smoke them if you want. Not near me... but go nuts at home or a cigar shop or other private places.
And there's nothing wrong with MS' products or using them, and they are complying with the terms of the DOJ settlement.
BTW, the time you spend fiddling with Linux is certainly not wasted if you are working/plan to work in IT business. It helps you get hired and generally improves your skillset in many areas.
There's more Windows jobs out there than Linux. I'm a software engineer, and yes it was a waste of time trying get linux to something that just works in Windows. Fixing other people's broken software isn't teaching me anything I don't already know, nor does it help me balance my checkbook and pay my bills.
The owner of the physical network is. Just like they are at my house. They are responsible right up to the point the wires enter my house.. including the wires over my lawn.
True, but that's changing: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41581/113/
Oh well. The price you pay for keeping underpowered hardware is that you can't expect the newest stuff to work.
It's open source; if you don't like it, make your own fork and do it yourself.
So the bacteria in the twins is different... why is it worded in such a way as to imply the different bacteria is the reason that one is obese and the other isn't, instead of the type of bacteria changed because being obese (and the eating that goes along with it) favor one type over the other.
No, it's not. I know someone specifically turned down to be a cop because they scored too high. The reasoning was that anyone with more than a 6th grade education will quickly become "bored" at the job and leave. That's the requirement for my local city cops.