either way you can live entirely on sugar and if your burning more than you're eating you will lose weight... equally you can eat 3000kcals of veg and beans and if you're only using 600 of them kcals a day, you'll put on weight.
Second part sounds a reasonable assumption: 3000cal in, 600 out leading to weight gain.
First part sound's pretty unbelievable.
The only studies I've seen where a sugar diet has been tested resulted in people putting on weight even when calorie intake was severely restricted to just 1200 calories per day. Their weight increased.
I'd be interested in any results you've seen where people have been able to lose weight on a sugar diet ( even a loose "sugar diet" of choccy bars and fizzy pop), whatever the calories out and in.
[i]but that's not what the threads about[/i]
[i][b]What do you think about weight loss,
is it driven by diet (for the pedants lets say 90%)
or exercise (90%)
or both (50/50)
[/b][/i]
i can't show you studies as releasing patient data would be against confidentiality, but most recently i looked after a chap of lived on chocolate and sugary drinks, totalling about 700-1000kcals a day, he was anorexic and controlled his eating incredibly strictly, with a sugary diet like that it meant his BMR was higher than he was consuming and even with relatively little activity he either maintained being underweight or lost weight. it was only once we imporoved his diet and included a wider range of foods, despite still sticking rigidly to his self-imposed kcal limit he put on weight.
EDIT - for more examples of such people you could indeed try and find some episodes of supersize vs superskinny online 😛
I'd say weight loss is driven by attitude.
If desire for weight loss is greater than desire for cake, weight loss is achieved, and vice versa.
As a side note, everyone I've ever met who had a "gland problem" that made them fat also spent an abnormally high percentage of their time stuffing their mouths with cake.
how is that wrong?
Well it depends what you mean by "use" doesn't it?
A certain amount of calories go into your mouth. Some of it is not processed by your gut. Your body will put some of it into your muscles and liver as glycogen, and put some of it as fat stores. Some of that fat and glycogen goes on keeping your cells alive, some of it goes on the exercise you do. Which type of fuel depends on what exercise you do. Now if you run down your glycogen stores it affects your body and your brain, which affects the actions you take. Those actions affect the state of your body, which then affects the exercise you do and how you feel.
So there's a shitload of variables and they are all controlled by a dozen or more hormones. Each of us has different sensitivity to those hormones based on genetics, lifestyle and maybe even upbringing.
So it's complicated.
If you want evidence of how 'wrong' or at least severely incomplete your statement is, look for a thin person who eats loads. There are plenty around.
If you want evidence of how 'wrong' or at least severely incomplete your statement is, look for a thin person who eats loads. There are plenty around.
there sure are, but considering your detailed post explaining in brief the various ways the body deals with what goes in, something i didn't neglect to mention, but chose not to elaborate on.... you've forgotten i clearly mentioned BMR the thing that causes thin people who eat lots to stay thin. i used the word 'individual' several times as to encompass such variables specifically as i knew you'd bring up the point that everyone's different.
Well clearly, but the original assertion was the simple calories in vs calories out thing.
The question is, calories in and out are massive variables only loosely linked to what you eat and the exercise you do.
The question is, calories in and out are massive variables only loosely linked to what you eat and the exercise you do.
that's not a question, tis a statement. something i haven't argued with. i merely stated that although it's as simple as:
the original assertion was the simple calories in vs calories out thing.
there are lots of variables based on the individual that will influence this, but when it comes down to it you can't hide from the calories our vs calories in factor as for the general population, apart from those with illnesses that effect BMR or the way in which the body processes nutrients... it holds true.
we're saying the same thing molly, but it appears that you've decided to jump on what i've said and accuse me of being wrong. cheers!
Q;
[i]What do you think about weight loss,
is it driven by diet (for the pedants lets say 90%)
or exercise (90%)
or both (50/50)[/i]
Yes.
so back to the OP.... change of diet (not short term/fad diet) for long term weight loss, exercise to influence weight loss and/or muscle size and definition. poor diet will limit the effects of exercise but poor exercise wont be detrimental to the effects of a healthy diet.
Well this morning I bust through my intermediate target of 95 kilos. I'm aiming overall at 90. But via mid targets of 95 & 92.5 to allow that feeling of accomplishment, and to re-assess if 90 still seems a sensible target. At the start I was at the lowest point of a pretty constant sin wave between three belt notches going back about 13/14 yrs, and weighed 100kg, so I knew that getting rid of the stuff I'd had for around half my life was really going to take a while.
My stratergy has been based around experience and finding what works for me. No spud etc in the evening - fill up on veg, make a big batch of soup from chicken stock with carrots, leaks bits of chicken and a healthy quota of country soup mix, lentals/pulses grain etc. Its these which make the soup stodgy and stop me being hungry afterward (usually). Also soup can be heated pretty quickly after getting in, so less impotus to snack while waiting for main meal (i'm terrible for this, especially when doing a roast as I pick the fatty bits off while doing the gravy).
Porridge for breakfast, and a cheese sandwich for lunch with lots of salad. So I'm not cutting out nice things cheese/ whole milk etc. But I'm also not having pizza curry, not drinking much etc, and NOT SNACKING. But this would work until I seem to hit a barrier that I just don't break through 98kg was on, as was 96.5. I might dip down to it, but would then just hover regardless of diet.
A few intensive rides (14 mile of road and track busting a gut, or less bust a gut but well paced constant ride 30 milers both with a fair few climbs) can help me punch through that barrier, and then even if my body corrects and I go back up for a couple of days, a few more days of sensible eating will see me drop back down and keep going to the next one.
Best rule: don't hoover
this is my problem, I am the family food hoover. Have been since I was a child. Always hungry. Always have been. Always will be. And people will always goad me into just finishing things that are left to save them having to shove it in the fridge/bin it. And I hate waste...
we're saying the same thing molly, but it appears that you've decided to jump on what i've said and accuse me of being wrong. cheers!
Alright then, how about "unhelpfully over-simplistic for exercising people"..?
either way you can live entirely on sugar and if your [s]burning more than you're eating you will lose weight ... [/s] even massively restricting the calorie intake to between 700 and 1000 a day you can still maintain weight.
It might be simple Molly, but it's true. Same as not doing a lot of exersize and eating sweeties and cake, right? 😆
Well there's true, and there's useful.
The answer to world hunger, as any fool knows, is to create lots of food and distribute it to those who need it. Poor? Just earn more and spend less. Easy. Wan't to end war? Just get people to stop fighting.
This stuff is just sooo simple, isn't it?
unhelpfully over-simplistic for exercising people
i believe the OP was asking a simplistic question.
so despite you accusing me of being wrong, then changing that to being unhelpful and too simplistic, despite not going into much greater detail yourself, or going into that detail at all to begin with when saying it's wrong.... it's somehow me that's being the bad guy here?
cheers again molly!
people will always goad me into just finishing things that are left to save them having to shove it in the fridge/bin it.
this happens to me all the time, especially when at the inlaws, which is pretty frequent. as the youngest male (apart from the kids) round the table I always get double helpings even when I say no thanks. this combined with my immense displeasure of leaving any food on the plate really annoys me.
double helpings even when I say no thanks.
Yup. "Oh, yes, Unklehomer will want all this crackling as well there we go, and You can fit another sausage in can't you. We've got some cream left just finish that off " and its on your plate befote you can say anything.
*not all from the same course obviously, that would be weird.
sounds delicious! i had 8 sausages with my dinner yesterday! nomnomnom
ok, a quick count and some assumptions about what your answers really mean...... shows only really one person claiming the 90% exercise option,
from a forum of people who actually do some exercise.
i know if i ask around my office, (15pers, 13 overweight/inactive) the answer will be reversed and that 13 people will assure me that its exercise (or lack of) and not diet.
I think this is worth repeating tho.
take a bow Jamie1991
in anyones eyes, and by whatever means that is good going.I've gone from 139kg to 87kg in the last 20 months
I missed that one, Bloody well done Jamie. That must have taken real discipline and continued commitment.
13 people will assure me that its exercise (or lack of) and not diet.
Will they perchance be partaking of some form of snack while the tell you this. Will bits of that snack fly past your head as they do? 🙂
it's somehow me that's being the bad guy here?
Not at all, I hope you didn't think that by disagreeing with you I am calling you a bad guy...?
My first post answered the OP's question.. then I took issue with the calories in/out thing.
I quite strongly believe that saying 'it's that simple' harms people's chances of successful weight loss. There's much more going on, and people need to understand that. I don't want to baffle anyone with science but I do think there are more helpful ways of dealing with it. For the general public.
And for the record I am not talking about the morbidly obese, that's a whole different issue imo.
This morning I put some double cream on my museli - made it taste yummy!
Prob best not to make a habit of that!
DrP
Exercise plays a big part [I'm including walking around and generally moving] but the part it plays diminishes with age IME
Diet. Basal metabolic rate accounts for far more calories than most people's exercise. You can't cheat the laws of thermodynamics, I'm afraid. The sad thing is the variability in calories needed to maintain BMR. For some, like me it's a lot of calories, for others it is far less. Variability in food intake is much lower than BMR, so some people will have a propensity to gain weight. Exercise is a weak covariate of body weight.
That and eat a big breakfast.
You can't cheat the laws of thermodynamics
Clearly, but just as obviously we're not simple heat engines.
diet more so than exercise. It's easier not to eat the pie & ice cream than it is to burn off the excess calories that it contains.
most people eat far too much carbohydrate and sugar than their bodies require and the excess energy consumed is stored as fat - simple as that.
Not entirely, but food intake changes on a timescale of hours, and weight on a timescale of days to weeks. Therefore, over the longer term, everyone eats sufficient calories to weigh what they do. Want to weigh less? Eat the right number of calories for YOUR body to weigh that weight. Indefinitely. The cruel fact is that this calories are very person-specific, and satiety may no be reached, Hence some people are heavier, despite the same calorie input.
But.. eating sugars makes your pancreas produce insulin, and this forces your body to lay down fat, irrespective of how much exercise you do later in the day.
If you have sugary stuff at lunch then your blood sugar will be low at hometime and you won't be able to work as hard on the commute home.
It's been shown that if you eat the same amount of calories with high carb or high fat, you will lose more weight if you eat the high fat.
Where does that leave the simple calories in/out equation?
If you have sugary stuff at lunch then your blood sugar will be low at hometime and you won't be able to work as hard on the commute home.
Steak sandwich today for me but .......... I normally sleep on my way home, will I be able to sleep as hard?
I eat a lot, and generally a lot of the wrong stuff. High sugar, high starch content. Plenty of chocolate and white things, sweets, soft drinks.
I'm skinny though because I ride a lot and I ride very hard. Every commute is a time trial, every recreational ride is a hilly death march. (or another time trial). I should be the fastest man on earth but genetics clearly dealt me a painful blow in that respect. (that's my excuse)
Anyway, 100% exercise for me. I bet if I dieted a little bit as well I'd be very lean.
edit: exercise is easy for me because I deserve to be punished all the time through pain, dieting is hard because I'm weak.
It's been shown that if you eat the same amount of calories with high carb or high fat, you will lose more weight if you eat the high fat.Where does that leave the simple calories in/out equation?
but you're still losing weight, just different amounts.... so the thermo law still applies no? 😕
Oh yeah.. forgot about timing of eating.
Insulin stimulates your cells to burn more glycogen and less fat. So if you eat sugary things before a ride (3 hours or so) then [b]chances are [/b] you won't burn as much fat as you ride. You'll burn more glycogen during the ride, your blood sugar will end up lower which will make you want to eat sugary things, and feel like crap if you don't.
I've been eating plenty of junk this week but only after exercise, of which I've done a fair amount. As I sit here my belt is on a tighter hole than it was on Monday.
but you're still losing weight, just different amounts.... so the thermo law still applies no?
No, not really. A calorie is a measure of energy, so the same amount of energy in and out should result in the SAME amount of weight loss if the simple formula was sufficient - but studies show that it doesn't. Your body handles calories from fat and carbs differently both at the time you eat them and when you are exercising.
I'm skinny though
Have you ever been fat? Would you be actually properly fat if you just sat around?
As a side note, everyone I've ever met who had a "gland problem" that made them fat also spent an abnormally high percentage of their time stuffing their mouths with cake.
Well, you obviously haven't met me! And I'm not getting drawn into an argument about how ****ing useless the GPs I've encountered are concerning a thyroid disorder. But, please, don't automatically assume that a fat person eats rubbish all day.
A calorie is a measure of energy
indeed, you dont need to tell me that dude....
so the same amount of energy in and out should result in the SAME amount of weight loss if the simple formula was sufficient - but studies show that it doesn't. Your body handles calories from fat and carbs differently both at the time you eat them and when you are exercising.
we've already mentioned the body handling the types of nutrients differently, nobody denying that! So are you saying that the law of thermodynamics is wrong? if studies have shown its wrong then it's wrong and we can stop going on about it....
concerning a thyroid disorder. But, please, don't automatically assume that a fat person eats rubbish all day.
i hope that nobody on here is silly enough to assume that ALL overweight people are only overweight because of an addiction to mr kipling's treats....
however, diet can go a long way to managing the weight loss/gain cased by the changing BMR of people suffering from thyroid disorders, its difficult when the meds aren't at the right level for the individual, but once they're stabilised, adjusting diet can be used to manage weight gain.... more effectively that weight loss in my experience.
Being in these here dusty climbs, I've had to change my training. I was cardio, cardio, cardio i.e. shed loads of riding (200+ miles a week)back in the UK. Now I am doing more weights and my cardio is 5k on a concept 2 a few times a week with some cross trainer stuff thrown in. I have noticed a change in my body shape i.e more muscles my weight has gone up but my body fat has decreased (I'm not as squidgy at the waist). I've been taking 2x slow release protein shakes a day (bulk powders choc chip one is yummy) and my hunger pangs have been muchos decreased.
however, diet can go a long way to managing the weight loss/gain cased by the changing BMR of people suffering from thyroid disorders, its difficult when the meds aren't at the right level for the individual, but once they're stabilised, adjusting diet can be used to manage weight gain.... more effectively that weight loss in my experience.
Sorry Phil but that is not true. It's a complicated condition and the medical profession do not look at the whole picture.
ive been playing with sugar and hunger over the last couple of weeks.
i eat a small portion of porridge, made with water, at about half seven in the morning. Then i either ride or drive to work, regardless of which, I am "starving" at half past ten, when i have a handful of nuts (ok, two handfulls, one walnuts, one almonds)
I have been doing this for months to get the routine nailled and ensure that i think i am hungry at that exact time.
The last two weeks, i have followed the porridge with a small glass of grapefruit juice.
I now get the same hunger 30mins earlier.
Well i was interested [/geek]
depends on the medical professionals.... i've known people get amazing support for dealing with their thyroid disorders... i dont really appreciate people calling my experiences not true its getting a bit irritating now as i'm sitting less than 20feet away from a gentleman who suffers from hypothyroidism and he's successfully lost the 3 stone he put on when his thyroid started messing around through adjusting his diet.
my mum didn't exactly receive a poor level of care with her thyroid cancer and the follow up treatments of constant adjustments to her meds now half her necks been removed.
one persons bad experience does not mean it applies to everyone.
thyroid levels are relatively easy to check and i've worked with many, many patients, more women than men, who have been diagnosed with hypothyroidism and have recieved excellent treatment, despite the condition being complicated my multiple other problems.
So are you saying that the law of thermodynamics is wrong?
Obviously not. But as I said before, the body is not a simple heat engine. I've typed all this out before. Not all calories are the same. You might as well ask why diesel engines are more efficient than petrol ones. Because they work differently and diesel is not petrol. Carbohydrate is not fat, and the body handle them differently.
i dont really appreciate people calling my experiences not true
That is clearly not what I am trying to say. I am saying that calories in vs calories out is not the whole picture, and is not very useful for exercising people trying to lose a bit more.
Remember I am talking about people who exercise. This adds another set of variables to the equation, or at least strongly increases the significance of the same variables. You seem to be saying (correct me if I am wrong)
Weight change = calories from food - BMR - exercise
Yes?
I'm saying this:
Weight change = f1(calories from fat) + f2(calories from carbs) - f3(calories out from bmr) - f4(glycogen burned during exercise) - f5(fat burned during exercise)
where
f1 and f2 are functions of the metabolism of the individial (which is genetic and historical I reckon)
f3 is partly genetic and historical (not to mention environmental...)
f4 and f5 are a function of the type of exercise done and the individual's metabolism.. and the psychological disposition when exercising of course...
f1 and f2 are also linked circularly to f4 and f5 modified by a f6 which is a willpower function dependent on a load of things...
TSH and T4 are pretty easy to test for and diagnosis is relatively straight forward with hypothyroidism, thyroxine a pretty effective drug.... CG, how much thyroxine have they put you on and have you seen any reduction in symptoms?
EDIt - molly the experiences thing is where CG said what i said isn't true, despite me stating it was my experience, not a universal fact.
Imo its easy to diet and lose weight but its the weight and where it comes from thats matters . Ok dropping your calories will result in weight loss theow in cardio and its even quicker but rest assured as i learnt its not just fat you are losing. Your body needs to find the energy from somewhere if the calories are not there then say goodbye to mucle...
Slow and steady is the key to make sure you lose the fat while preserving as much mass as possible. As i foud out.... The hard way 🙁
You might as well ask why diesel engines are more efficient than petrol ones
Because diesel is more energy dense than petrol, of course! It's still comes down to calorific balance.
Phil - the TSH test is treated as gospel by the medical profession BUT it doesn't give the whole picture. Unfortunately the NHS refuse to accept that thyroxine doesn't work for everyone and, furthermore, will not carry out testing for other levels. Or if they do agree then the lab will not do them, with the lab citing they have a budget regardless of the GP having requested them!
I have taken thyroxine and was considerably worse despite dosage being increased. My (roadie) GP fobbed me off, far easier to treat me as a moaning menopausal women rather than someone who has exercised regularly for 20 years including running a marathon and coaching youngsters.
I've had to do a lot of reading on this subject and, believe me, it's not easy with perpetual brain fog which is one of the many symptoms.
GPs that I've consulted with actually know very little about the thyroid and I'm afraid to say they're more interested in covering their backsides. At no time was it suggested I be referred to an endocronologist.
What the medics fail/won't acknowledge is that there can be a conversion problem with the active hormone. This is my problem and no matter how much thyroxine I would be given, it would not make any difference. It is estimated, not by the Royal College of Physicians et all obviously, is that around 15% of sufferers do not respond to thyroxine.
I've had to go outside of the NHS, spent huge amounts of money having private blood tests done and, lo and behold, the results clearly indicate that my body is not working properly with some levels off the scale!
Now I have to import pharmaceuticals from abroad and, whilst it's early days, there is an improvement in my health after 3 years.
I'm sorry if I offended you, you know me and you know that's not my way of doing things. 🙂
Because diesel is more energy dense than petrol, of course! It's still comes down to calorific balance.
That's not the only reason.
Diesel engines have greater thermodynamic efficiency due to the compression ratio, and also no pumping losses at the throttle body.
The fuel is different, and it's used in a different way - that's the point I'm trying to make. Likewise fat and carbohydrate, different muscle fibre types, and different kinds of exercise.
PS I'm also concerned about Mrs Grips' thyroid despite her function being tested as ok a couple of years ago.
