The fat burning zone is a myth based on a a basic misunderstanding of the physiology.
You can consider I have run away if you like – I really can't be bothered anymore with this.

I never said anything about a fat burning zone!

I said that the more intensely you exercise the more carbs you burn proportionally.

LHS

I completed a course in human physiology that is virtually identical to that which doctors do, I have a diploma and a degree in nursing which includes basic human physiology to around 2nd year university level.

I would claim a decent understanding of the basics altho my knowledge is rusty.

So then:

I said that the more intensely you exercise the more carbs you burn proportionally.

Is true, is it not?

huge response to the offer of some emailed guidelines – sorry couldn't go into lots of details in my replies.

there should be a lot of skinny people appearing on trails over the next 4-6 weeks

would be nice to get feedback on results – but only if you actually follow it. none of this 'i only lost 2 pounds but i ate pasta 5 times a week' bollocks.

Well, teeth or no, some people think they'd like to weigh a little less

I think I'd rather be tubby but with teeth than toothless but skinny 🙁

Cheers iDave. Just got your email mate…salad (apart from tomato) is OK?

Just had to google Matt Hart cos I didn't know who is was.

Is it the same one who owns TORQ?

Ignore iDave

Mars bar has 280 calories in, eat one every 2-3 hours and only drink water, you'll lose loads of weight 😀

Please don't really.

I think I'd rather be tubby but with teeth than toothless but skinny

Well, good luck to you, whatever makes you happy mate 😉

Fat, thin, whatever, just be happy with yourself 🙂

I haven't eaten fruit for ages now, and the teeth are still with me
***in the jar by the bed***

😆

iDave, thanks for your posts and advice.
😉

S.

I have emailed you iDave, can you put me on your list of recipients.

iDave – Member

would be nice to get feedback on results – but only if you actually follow it. none of this 'i only lost 2 pounds but i ate pasta 5 times a week' bollocks.

In the interests of avoiding the bollocks feedback, it would be nice if feedback contained a summary of estimated calorie-intake/expenditure. Losing half a stone in 3 weeks wouldn't prove much if you're a chunky lumberjack eating 1500 cal of lentils per day.

fair point shirly, but steak, chorizo and eggs aren't exactly low calorie

the last thing i want is to lose weight.

im gonna do the iDave in reverse and see if i can be beefcake for my holidays.

And surely the point of these diets is that you DON'T have to count calories. That's a great attraction. But if you did count the calories, I'm pretty sure in those people who loose most weight would have the biggest calorie deficit. An American study showed that even the Atkins diet worked because people overall ate less calories – there's only so much cheese and bacon a man can stomach.

not looking to argue the point – but a lean steak and scrambled eggs wouldn't bust my diet in terms of calories.

I'd like to see this work, but I'd really like to see the calorie totals to be convinced. Looking at your guidelines, I'm fairly convinced that I'd lose weight if I could stick to them, but I'm also pretty sure that you've already ruled out most of the calorie-dense foods that do the damage round my way. butter, cheese, cream, biscuits, chocolate, bread, potatoes, rice.

I'll be needing that wine then

I'd like to see this work, but I'd really like to see the calorie totals to be convinced.

I haven't seen iDave's recommendations but based on what I have read (and what seems to be working for me) calories appear to have very little significance. It is the type of food, combination and timing of eating rather than calorific value which is the key.

calories appear to have very little significance. It is the type of food, combination and timing of eating rather than calorific value which is the key.

I said it was the pixies!

I thought it was fairy dust SFB?

I tried that but it did funny things to me……..or was that angel dust? 😐

I might be a bit late to this one but,
to lose weight : "eat less move more" seems to work
nutrition : "don't eat crap food" 😀

I thought it was fairy dust SFB?

well, some creature not constrained by conservation of energy or other rules of physics…

I can't be bothered reading all that, can somebody do a summary?

Big johns post – the second on the thread is probably a decent summary

Ta 🙂

I haven't seen iDave's recommendations but based on what I have read (and what seems to be working for me) calories appear to have very little significance.

What have you read Woody?
Nearly all descriptions of diets (at least every one I've come across that has a name associated with it) have 4 elements
a) solid proven science
b) some good theoretical scientific ideas which are not (yet) proven
c) quasi evangalism
d) utter mumbo jumbo
I try to ignore c) and d) if I can.

Colin

Gowrie – haven't the time or inclination to list everything I've read on dieting/physiology.

Here is PREVIOUS LINK . Ignore the marketing guff – the book/DVD's explain it in greater detail. All seems to be based around sound principals/theories from well qualified people with a good track record.

Anyone who starts: "Dear friend" has already lost me 🙁

Well, – just looking at the first page of the link – there's a lot of evangelism there.
The reality of the science is that there is only one major way to loose weight – consume fewer calories. I accept some diets are better at appetite control than other – hence my enthusiasm for high protein diets – and that some systems are easier to stick to over the long term (and its the long term that counts – we don't get 3 stone heavier in a year, but we expect to EASILY LOOSE 3 stone in that time) but I don't know of any proven science that says significant weight loss is anything other than consuming fewer calories (or expending more).

Colin

Dear friends, I did warn you to ignore 'the guff'/marketing bullshit/sales patter, or whatever you want to call it!

I read the book before actually seeing/hearing the guy. You have made a judgement and jumped to a conclusion without having the facts and 'science' behind the idea.

It is NOT just about calorie input/output, that is the point and why it appears to work. As for proving it, there are a large number of people who will confirm it works who have lost a significant amount of weight and kept it off, which is good enough for me.

Well explain the science. Even just describe it briefly. Let's see if he knows something the rest of the medical community doesn't.
I'm not denying the diet works. It may very well do so. I remain to be convinced it works by anything other than consuming less calories.

Colin

This explains it all perfectly…

What if you want to maintain your current weight but tone up? Or even maintain current weight and tone up and then add a half a stone to a stone of lean muscle?

Maintaining weight but toning up (by default adding some muscle mass and losing some fat) is not easy but is doable.

Gaining muscle bulk is a little easier:- intensive weight training and maintaining a positive calorie balance. Unfortunately this leads to some gains in fat which will need to be lost after you've added the muscle by creating a negative calorie balance.

Unfortunately this will lead to some loss of the muscle bulk you've worked hard to achieve.

ie. gain 3 stone in weight of which 14lbs is muscle, lose the 2st of fat but also lose 4lbs of muscle – net result a 10lb gain in muscle bulk with identical fat levels.

Bodybuilders are the extreme end of the continuum, there are lots of websites claiming that it is possible to add muscle and lose fat but the percieved wisdom (and path) that most bodybuilders follow is to gain the fat then lose it in cycles, adding muscle each time. They also tend to diet by eating lots of protein and reduce refined carbs a la iDave's method but much more extreme.

Oh, and steroids help a lot.

Here's my argument again, at which I'll leave it.

The reality of the science is that there is only one major way to loose weight – consume fewer calories

This is true, but how you actually manage to eat fewer calories whilst managing the exercise you want to do can be more complex. There are many ways to approach it, and you need to understand the issues at the heart of it.

There is no one quick-fix diet, so don't bother looking for one.

and you need to understand the issues at the heart of it.

you may like to but I don't think it's a need, guessing or relying on instinct might work just as well (or better)

particularly if protracted study leads you to believe that maltodextrin isn't a glucose polymer…

molgrips, do you need to understand engineering to sit on a chair and know it won't collapse?

The reality of the science is that there is only one major way to loose weight – consume fewer calories

so there are 'minor' ways to lose weight then? that aren't related to calorie counting….

all calories are not created equal are they? or fat would be fine for energy drinks? in fact they'd be better… 9kcal per gram as opposed to 4 for carbs….

your info seems to come from marketing copy

molgrips, do you need to understand engineering to sit on a chair and know it won't collapse?

No, but you do to build a chair.

I dunno what you are getting at here. I said that it IS true that the way to lose weight is consume fewer calories. But my point is this can be extremely difficult to manage, so there are many ways of managing it successfully depending on your lifestyle and physiology.

all calories are not created equal are they?

That is what I am saying.

EDIT: I think you misunderstood my post – that sentence about calories was a quote from someone else, that I was addressing, and qualifying.

But please trust me I do not reading marketing copy.

particularly if protracted study leads you to believe that maltodextrin isn't a glucose polymer…

FFS Barnes, I said it wasn't a sugar, I didn't say it wasn't a glucose polymer! Learn to read!

so you are convinced that you lose weight by consuming less calories,

then you pour calories down your neck everytime your body requests more water…..

and you wonder why you spend so much time thinking about 'nutrition'

then you pour calories down your neck everytime your body requests more water…

Where d'you get that idea from?

The amount of calories I take with me is calculated based on how much I think I'm gonna need during the exercise I'm about to do, without getting my stores too low.

I know the difference between being thirsty and having low carb stores.