The LIVESTRONG.COM article is interesting and has some useful information but it is confused and is best described as what I would call "Infotainment". It is also heavily sponsored by advertisements. I think the article is well-intentioned but it comes across somewhat confused as the disparate snipits of information are not fully integrated to serve a coherent purpose. It is also blatantly wrong when it says "...Whether you burn glycogen or fat doesn't matter too much from a fat-loss standpoint, writes Berardi in "The Metabolism Advantage. The main consideration is to burn calories..". I am sure those of us with unwanted abdominal fat (yours truly included) would much prefer to lose fat instead of the small amounts of glycogen in our muscles and liver. My point is that you do have to exercise to burn fat in order to reduce fat and if you keep feeding yourself lots of simple sugars you will burn lots of glycogen, but not reduce your fat.The POLIQUIN GROUP article doesn't name a particular author but it feature a clear statement of purpose. It uses a concise point-form format. The Poliquin Group is in the business of "...selling unique weight training fitness programs and ...on line training software for coaches, trainers and gym chains and a cutting-edge, proprietary blend line of supplements". It has an agenda to promote weigh training.I find the information a bit mixed. A lot of it is consistent with what I know but the rest is either surprising, perhaps useful and some of it appears wrong and lacking in thoroughness. For instance, in point 2, it claims that because weight lifting burns more total calories it still burns more fat even though fat-burning provides a lower percentage of the calories used for weight training than for walking. It conveniently avoids comparing weight training to running, cycling or any other forms of exercise. Why? In point 3, it claims "After a strength training workout, there is a profound increase in the rate of fat burning in the post-workout period" but fails to say what "profound increase" means exactly and does not explain why this phenomenon occurs. There is no scientific reference to back up this claim. In point 4, it claims "...a recent study found that after a high-intensity (HIT) strength workout that that took 32 minutes, trainees experienced a 24 percent increase in calorie burn equaling 452 calories in the 22 hours after the workout...". There is reference provided to look up the study and no explanation on how they managed to detect and measure the 452 extra calories burned in the 22 hours AFTER the workout. For argument's sake, when I ride my trainer, I burn about 1000 calories an hour riding at an endurance pace. If I were to go faster, I would likely hit 600 calories over 30 minutes instead of 500, both of which are significantly higher than the Poliquin Group high-intensity weight training workout. Point 5 contradicts the LIVESTRONG.COM article. It says "Intermittent high-intensity exercise modes are favorable for fat loss because they build muscle mass." while the LIVESTRONG.COM article says "...At low intensities your body will turn to fat for energy, but as you start to train harder, it will switch to burning more glycogen, notes Dr. Edward Coyle of the Gatorade Sports Science Institute...". There are other inconsistencies and I don't want to go into too many points. Essentially, the Poliquin Group article is sprinkled with truths and unsubstantiated claims as well as apparently biased claims that promote weight training at the expense of ignoring other forms of weight loss exercise.The SSE (Sport Science Exchange) #59 article is presented in a proper scientific research paper format. The author is a PhD presumably in sports medicine from U. Texas, Austin. The purpose of this research paper is to analyze the effect of fatty acid metabolism on intense exercise during sport competition. As is the common practice with reviewing scientific papers I read the abstract, the introduction and then the summary. If I find curious conclusions or if I am in that field of research I then proceed to examine the methodology and the results and analysis. Since I am only interested in the conclusions I have not bothered to check the actual research details. Here are the summary conclusions reproduced verbatim along with my comments:SUMMARY People store large amounts of body fat in the form of triglyceride within adipose tissue as well as within muscle fibers. These stores must be mobilized into FFA and transported to muscle mitochondria for oxidation during exercise. Fatty acids from adipose tissue are mobilized into plasma and carried by albumin to muscle for oxidation. As exercise intensity increases from low (25% VO2max) to moderate (65% VO2max) to high (85% VO2max), plasma FFA mobilization declines..."COMMENT: this is true. Fatty acid mobilization slows as exercise intensity increases... because glycogen is more efficient, more quickly metabolized and is preferred over fatty acid metabolism. This is also what LIVESTRONG.COM article says and what the Poloquin Group article curiously contradicts. Glycogen is like high octane fuel compared to fatty acids which is like diesel fuel. However, my weight-loss advice was to exercise in the aerobic range (not above 65%) and included a glycogen depletion regimen so your body will not be reducing fatty acid metabolism during your workout. "...However, total fat oxidation increases when intensity increases from 25% to 65% VO2max, due to oxidation of intramuscular triglycerides, which provide about one-half of the fat for oxidation. Endurance training characteristically increases fat oxidation during moderate intensity exercise by accelerating the oxidation of intramuscular triglyceride without increasing the mobilization or oxidation of plasma FFA..."COMMENT: fat oxidation is the process of energy release from fat. It increases when you exercise at maximum aerobic levels. BTW, aerobic level means a pace where you are not short of breath or experience lactic acid build-up. Put in a simple way, it is a pace that you can sustain until you run out of energy, not because you cramp up. "...Similarly, during low-intensity exercise with little intramuscular triglyceride oxidation, the increased fat oxidation of trained people does not appear to be caused by increased mobilization of FFA into plasma, but rather by a greater rate of oxidation of the FFA removed from the blood during exercise..."COMMENT: trained athletes have more efficient circulation, higher levels of mitochondrial enzymes and are thus able to burn fat faster than persons who have not been training. "...Therefore, it seems that untrained people have greater abilities to mobilize FFA than they do to oxidize it when they exercise in the fasted state..."COMMENT: it means untrained people release fatty acids from fat cells more readily than they are able to metabolize the fatty acids to produce energy. Untrained people do not have the higher levels of hormones, mitochondrial enzymes and more efficient circulation that athletes have. When pressed to perform, untrained people depend on glycogen for energy more readily than trained athletes. "...Carbohydrate ingestion during the hours before exercise, even in relatively small amounts, reduces fat oxidation during exercise largely through the action of insulin. Fat supplementation and special diets have limited ability to increase fat oxidation in people, especially during sport competitions..."COMMENT: as I said, lower your sugar intake 24 hours before exercise and do not eat before exercising after you wake up. Eating fat does not significantly improve fat metabolism. "...Therefore, fat from body stores and/or dietary supplementation cannot adequately replace muscle glycogen and blood glucose as fuels for intense exercise."COMMENT: glycogen is preferred by your body during exercise. To make sure you burn fat instead, you need to deplete your glycogen stores by exercising aerobically long enough to cause your body to realize there isn't enough glycogen to support the exercise effort and to switch to burning fat. You then keep up the exercise long enough to actually burn off some fat.Good article! Finally, I didn't touch upon this earlier but if you eat high protein, low-glycemic meals (like steak with veggies but no potatoes) it will help reduce fat. It is the same reason why the person who suggested protein shakes lost weight. Eating protein satiates and reduces hunger and you eat less... as well as eat no sugar. Don't say I never do anything for Fchatters or just kid around and talk about nothing at all.
I dropped 20# in 2 months relying heavily on water & protein shakes. I put fruit & Truvia in the shake so it actually tastes good.
You are probably reducing calorie intake with the added protein because high protein diets depress ghrelin, the hormone which stimulates appetite. As you eat less and less, your body may start to burn more calories than it takes in, so you eventually lose fat. Your water intake probably helps fill your stomach and further reduces your appetite. One of my favourite diets was soup and sandwich. The soup takes up so much stomach space you can't eat another bite and then lunch is over or dinner is over and then it's too late to eat before bed... so you avoided calories. Curiously, a high protein diet will work even when mixed with high glycemic index foods. So people who have terrible sugar habits and big weight problems do much better if they increase intake of protein like high quality steaks. There's a lot of information on such diets but the key to making proper use of them is always understanding the precise context of the scientific claims. For instance, weight-loss is different from fat-loss. Weight loss may also include muscle loss, which may or may not be desirable for you. And then fat-loss may actually involve weight gain if you really don't have a lot of fat to lose but your fat-loss program causes you to gain muscle (and water), essentially bulk up. Body builders do that, they are lean but heavy. Unfortunately, if you are an athlete, not a body builder, extra bulk may not be good news. I mention this because the POLIQUIN GROUP article I reviewed above has a tendency to do that. It also recommends intake of carnitine or L-carnitine (D-carnitine is toxic) for promoting fatty acid metabolism. If your thyroid function is low, and many people today have clinical and subclinical hypothyroid conditions, L-carinitine will suppress your thyroid even more. L-carnitine is actually used to treat HYPERthyroid conditions. You can worsen your hypothyroid problem and you will also gain weight, not lose it. If you have a subclinical thyroid condition (meaning you have it but doctors can't easily detect it), taking L-carnitine can easily tip you over. Telling someone to take L-carnitine without proper medical advice is potentially dangerous. This is another reason why you need to be very careful about the advice given in the POLIQUIN GROUP article. As you lose fat and weight, you may need to adjust your fat/weight loss diet to maintain weight instead of continuing to lose even more weight once you arrive at a desirable condition. Truvia is a branded-name for "stevia" an excellent zero calorie sugar substitute extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana plant. It tastes very good. Folks have been using stevia for many years before the US health industry decided to promote it heavily. Japan has been using stevia since the 1970s. Stevia was quite expensive in the old days but thanks to all the new interest, it's become decidedly cheap. There have not been any health issues with stevia. IMO, it's unfortunate the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry do not like foods or drugs that are cheap and have no money-making patent potential. I think they like to impede cheap non-proprietary "FDA items". This has likely kept stevia from North American consumption for decades. I have tested Truvia against the store brand I buy here and packet-for-packet, the store brand is actually more potent, by about 10-15% and the store brand contained more packets for the same price. So don't hesitate to try the store (no-name) brand; keep an eye on exactly how much they put in the packaging. Stevia is stevia. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Don't treat your body like a garbage can. Avoid junk food. We all known what they are but we ignore them and instead we keep eating them. I used to weight 197 lbs and my waist was 33'-34' I lost all my belly fat by exersising regularly and eating right. besides my regular routine that consists of arms, chest, shoulders, back and legs, I do around 300 reps on abdominal exercises and every other day around 1000 reps. I only eat carbs in the morning from whole wheat bread. No pasta, no rice, no bread, no potatoes and of course no sweets for the rest of the day. I do high protein diet that also consists of a large amount of vegetables. Not only my waist line went down to 30" but I also have a six pack and I'm turning 40 in a few months. If you can think of it you can do it!
Down 30lbs as of today. Started in November, doesn't seem like that long ago. Had pizza last week for the first time in three months. Still eat pasta once a week (whole wheat), some bread in my turkey subs a few times a week, and white rice a few times a week. I'm not going to torture myself losing weight.
Nice job mix! I'm working my way back to eating cleaner. Finishing the junk in the house and not buying anymore snacks. Just whole foods for the most part once everythings gone. No timeline goal, just like to reach 150 if not lower. So, around 10lbs.
It's a lot of not eating sweets and pizza but I still cheat. How's this for 61? It's not a 6 pack but it's flat. I am just too hairy for the definition to show as well plus I have the big scar from the colostomy bag 10 years ago. I do 25 reps x 3 with the crunch machine on the 80lb setting every workout. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Thanks! I don't drink alcohol and I only eat in a three hour window in the evening from around 6-9pm. That is partly due to my messed up colon and keeping it stable but it also gets me into ketosis for part of the day.
The alcohol will definitely add the weight of you if you're not careful lol. So you are basically doing intermittent fasting? How many calories are you eating? I can go a good half a day without eating some days, but I get to a point where I need something. There's definitely a lot of people out there that do what you do.
Well I don't know because I don't count but I do eat until I am not hungry. I think its usually around 2000-2400 per day and I play tennis three or four times a week and workout three days a week so I burn a lot of calories. I am doing weight training which keeps my muscles strong/toned and I do Yoga to stay flexible. The tennis is fun but since I play doubles in USTA it's not as much a workout. I do play singles on Tuesday's for 90 minutes with a friend and that is a good workout along with a couple of clinics. I find that not eating desert and cutting back on the cheesy stuff will cause me to lose weight though. I normally weigh about 188-190 but can weigh as low as 182 if I don't keep up with the calorie intake. I probably was weighing about 186 in the picture I posted from December. Right now I am the same but I just played tennis so I am water deficient.
Hydroxycut from GNC will help you lose weight. I believe the ingredients are caffeine and ephederine. But they have toned it down a bit since there have been a number of deaths. The amino acid L-Phenylalanine will also help you lose weight. This can be found in pill form, and also in diet soda. Some believe that long term intake can cause nerve damage. I think that this is true, and have quit drinking any diet soda. Another option would be to just take straight caffeine pills, like NoDoz, or Vivarin. This is probably safer. Belly fat is the first place you gain, and the last place you will lose. The most effective way to lose weight is to quit eating. Your body can easily survive for a week without food. If I run for 2 hours, I might only lose 1 lb. But if I don't eat for 1 day, I lose 5 lbs. The worst thing to do is eat a really big meal, because it stretches your stomach, and then you will be hungry all the time. I've also found that skipping breakfast is the easiest way to stay thin. Try to get in the habit of eating small meals. Taking vitamins and minerals helps to keep up your energy level.
As my doctor told me years ago: calories in vs calories out. My typical caloric burn is between 2,800 and 3,100 per day depending. I'm eating around 1,600 to 2,000. That's not enough of a deficit to see rapid weight loss, but it adds up and I am not unhappy and starving day-in, day-out. I'm not freaking out about carbs, either. Keep track of your calories. The scale said 240 around November 5th of 2016. Today it says 198.6.
The worst thing you can do is not eat! If, as WRS is doing, is consuming only one meal a day, and it's all of his calories it's not stretching his stomach anymore than consuming the same number of calories throughout the day. The main reason it's suggested to eat several small meals throughout the day is so that you don't feel hungry. And let's be honest, there is no magic pill and I would never suggest a supplement for long term weight loss. As long as you eat right and get exercise to burn calories you'll lose weight.
JMO but I would avoid this stuff. Drink coffee or tea for the caffeine and take two Walfed in the morning the 24 hour versions. Pseudo-ephedrine can still be purchased at the pharmacy from behind the counter but ephedrine in raw form is banned by the FDA so I am not sure there is any in Hydroxycut. In order to be able to do the one meal per day regimen I started out using the Walfed but I no longer need it. In extended use it might not be good for our heart.
Exactly! If you don't eat you lose strength because your body will consume muscle tissue instead of fat. Ask me how I know? I had cancer 10 years ago and went all the way down to 165 as a result. My uncle who was around 80 at the time and a retired orthopedic surgeon told me to eat back at the cancer because it was eating at me, i.e. don't stop eating or the cancer will surely kill you. The bad thing is that it takes away your appetite and the damn cancer consumes most of your calories. It builds it's own blood vessels and has it's own cells of it's type. It's a cell rebellion in your body. Last night, based on the chain food thread I went to Jersey Mikes near my house (never been there) and got the giant Philly Cheese steak. I ate the whole thing followed by two Chips Ahoy with Reeses peanut butter cups. That is all I ate for the day, no clue how many calories that is. I just finished a 75 minute weight workout at the gym and I had plenty of strength all the way through. You have to eat to keep your strength up otherwise you lose muscle. At least this is my understanding on the subject.
Congrats on beating cancer!!! My uncle is about to begin his second round of treatment. My uncle said apart from not having an appetite, he had cravings but since food had no taste it made it harder to eat. Which he wasn't doing enough of because of getting sick every time. I'll take partial credit for you going to Jersey Mikes.
