How do people stay thin?
- Thread starter DarklordKyo
- Start date
And people who quote some tidbits they heard from a science class really love to tell people what they "don't understand." But it's okay, I'll play along:Vivi22 said:
1. Obviously there is waste. That doesn't change the basic idea. If you were going to eat a Twinkie, and you did not eat the Twinkie, then nothing about that Twinkie can add weight to your body -- regardless of how much waste results from the digestion of that Twinkie.
2. "Cal in - Cal out = Weight loss" is a simplification of the process. That's obvious and intentional. Simplifications don't make things incorrect. "Sunlight + Water + Carbon Dioxide = Sugar + Oxygen" is an intense over-simplification of photosynthesis... but does that mean it has no value for teaching the basic concept to beginners? You try talking to a group of sixth graders about adenosine triphosphate and see how far you get.
If you subtract 10-15% of your daily caloric intake, and maintain your current activity level, you're going to see weight loss. Not instantly, of course. And not without a price -- you're going to feel hungry, because your body has built certain habits and expectations.
If you cut too much, as nearly everyone warns you, your body goes into an "emergency" mode and will burn things other than fat (like muscle, which burns calories itself) and shut down a few "non-essential processes." Of course, when this happens, you're actually seeing a net decrease in your caloric demand, so even then the basic principle holds up.
But the science clearly states that mass and energy can't come from nowhere. Refute that, and maybe you'll show me what I'm "not understanding."
I like to use my sisters as an example. My sisters always complained to my doctor dad,"How come he can eat so much but never get fat while we have to watch what we eat cause we put on weight so easily?" and my dad goes,"Cause he got my genes and you got your mom's".
Metabolism, metabolism, metabolism.
Yes, this is the truth.
All you really have to do to increase it is walk every day. Walk between meals. Jog a bit. A mile (roughly 2 km, for the sake of Metrics) every day helps you get in shape. Or, do an entire hour. 30-mins every other day of Cardio exercises help your blood flow, which burns fat, which builds lean muscles. Wanna sculpt? Strength exercises. Push-ups, weight training, resistance bands, you name it.
Diet: No soda period, drink water or juice instead, limit sugars (remember, you need some sugar in your diet), low carbohydrates, low sodium, eat leafy, and dark green veggies, NO RED MEAT (Beef or pork), and, finally, NO SNACKING. Unless you're eating fruits, you should be drinking water. Drink a good 2-3 liters of water per day. You won't feel hungry, and you'll flush out your system, and you'll feel that much better.
Yes, this is the truth.
All you really have to do to increase it is walk every day. Walk between meals. Jog a bit. A mile (roughly 2 km, for the sake of Metrics) every day helps you get in shape. Or, do an entire hour. 30-mins every other day of Cardio exercises help your blood flow, which burns fat, which builds lean muscles. Wanna sculpt? Strength exercises. Push-ups, weight training, resistance bands, you name it.
Diet: No soda period, drink water or juice instead, limit sugars (remember, you need some sugar in your diet), low carbohydrates, low sodium, eat leafy, and dark green veggies, NO RED MEAT (Beef or pork), and, finally, NO SNACKING. Unless you're eating fruits, you should be drinking water. Drink a good 2-3 liters of water per day. You won't feel hungry, and you'll flush out your system, and you'll feel that much better.
Metabolism, cardiovascular exercise, diet, genes; most important, dedication.
With eight pages worth of posts, I'm sure some of the amateur "I heard it from a friend" or "I learned it in my human physiology class", or "I looked it up on google" kids have already put on their toy Personal Trainer certificates on their walls and cheerfully responded with all the advice that hasn't worked for them.
But the best thing to do if you want to lose weight is to see a licensed nutritionist and visit your local gym and get some personal training advice from a qualified professional. Reading forum posts and all may make you feel knowledgeable, but it certainly ain't gonna make you feel thin or fit. Visit the gym, talk to someone. If you don't like the way they talk, you don't have to go back. If you're serious and have the self-determination to do what you want to do, you'll find that half the gyms aren't mean or offensive to people--they're just irritated with people who aren't committed.
If you show you're committed, you'll be treated alright. Half the scrawny or super overweight guys I see come into my gym I never see again after a month or two. You have to remember, a gym isn't just a fitness service, it's a business--and business needs costumers. If you can stick it through, you'll be a valued customer. If you fall out after a free week's trial period, of course you're not going to be treated as politely as you want. It's something you have to earn--a reward. It's not something you're simply given on a silver platter.
Coincidentally, it's the same with a lean physique.
With eight pages worth of posts, I'm sure some of the amateur "I heard it from a friend" or "I learned it in my human physiology class", or "I looked it up on google" kids have already put on their toy Personal Trainer certificates on their walls and cheerfully responded with all the advice that hasn't worked for them.
But the best thing to do if you want to lose weight is to see a licensed nutritionist and visit your local gym and get some personal training advice from a qualified professional. Reading forum posts and all may make you feel knowledgeable, but it certainly ain't gonna make you feel thin or fit. Visit the gym, talk to someone. If you don't like the way they talk, you don't have to go back. If you're serious and have the self-determination to do what you want to do, you'll find that half the gyms aren't mean or offensive to people--they're just irritated with people who aren't committed.
If you show you're committed, you'll be treated alright. Half the scrawny or super overweight guys I see come into my gym I never see again after a month or two. You have to remember, a gym isn't just a fitness service, it's a business--and business needs costumers. If you can stick it through, you'll be a valued customer. If you fall out after a free week's trial period, of course you're not going to be treated as politely as you want. It's something you have to earn--a reward. It's not something you're simply given on a silver platter.
Coincidentally, it's the same with a lean physique.
We don't actually eat a lot. We do eat when there are others with us, though. I've been living fine off two normal sized (small by USA standards- not stereotyping, I've been there) a day for weeks now because I'm too lazy to cook but I have standards over what I eat. I'm male, 18, 5'10"/11" and ~55kgs (~121 lbs).Kytseo said:
Basically, I don't mind being a little hungry every now and again. I don't starve myself, by I do skip meals if I'm doing something else at the time I'd normally be eating them, or I just can't be bothered to cook whatever's left in the fridge (like when my only option is to cook a whole damn fancy dinner rather than some rice with stuff in it).
It also helps that I've never really stretched my stomach, and I eat rather slowly, so a small amount of food can fill me up. The more you eat and the faster you eat it, the more you eat. It's a vicious circle that's hard to break, but it's also hard to start.
My house is rarely heated, and I walk almost everywhere because I don't like buses and can't afford a car. My bedroom is up five flights of stairs from the living room kitchen and dining room, so I probably run up a flight of 15-or-so stairs ten times a day. I walk the dog every day for about 3 miles, up a steep hill at the end. Every now and again I go to martial arts. I don't *try* to be skinny, it just kinda happens.
I have a friend that is just like that, eats like a pig and stays thin as a pencil, but then he walks around everywhere, I don't have that great metabolism, in fact I have 50% of my genes working against me (everyone on my dad's side of the family is MASSIVE) plus I can't walk (although I do regularly wheel my wheelchair to town and back for a round trip of about 5 miles at least once a week,)Kytseo said:
as for diets some people are just lucky b*stards I myself am on a diet that works quite well for me, I'm averaging at a loss of 1 stone (14 ibs) a month, I lost 10 ibs in a week it slows down, but I can finally say an XL size shirt is too big, which is refreshing, still a bit to go but I'll get there,
in answer to your question on how to stay thin, assuming you don't have the gift of metabolism, just eat properly, DO NOT starve yourself, if you're hungry you're doing something wrong and the weight will stay on longer, basically just eat the right things, and for the most part avoid processed food, butter, white bread, y'know that kinda stuff, eggs are great if you don't have a cholesterol problem and lean meat too (chicken's great for diets as long as it's not processed) and make sure to cut any fat off meat, y'know just that kinda stuff
again I'm averaging at a loss of 14 ibs a month, and I still order a pizza every weekend lol
A treadmill in front of a TV. I'm dead serious. Running (or simply walking briskly) is boring. Doing it in front of a TV is... still boring, but bearable.
Sure, I *could* cut down on the sweets, but in terms of overall quality of life, I feel I'm better off feeding my chocolate addiction and working it off on the treadmill.
Sure, I *could* cut down on the sweets, but in terms of overall quality of life, I feel I'm better off feeding my chocolate addiction and working it off on the treadmill.
It's been said many times by now, but metabolisms.
Still, because you have a slow one, doesn't mean you -have- to be large. Do some research into various diets, not to go on one, but to see what they ultimatly try to teach. Generally it's more vegitables, less fats and sugars. Eating less doesn't hurt iether, but I've found that changing -what- you eat can often be enough.
Example: your body absorbs less from 100 calories of proteine than it does from 100 calories of sugar because it's so hyper-efficient that it shies away from the effort needed to break the complex proteine structures down into useable energy.
Then you have to take into account which types of meat are good or bad for cholesterol etc etc. It can take some effort, but the results are usually well worth it
Still, because you have a slow one, doesn't mean you -have- to be large. Do some research into various diets, not to go on one, but to see what they ultimatly try to teach. Generally it's more vegitables, less fats and sugars. Eating less doesn't hurt iether, but I've found that changing -what- you eat can often be enough.
Example: your body absorbs less from 100 calories of proteine than it does from 100 calories of sugar because it's so hyper-efficient that it shies away from the effort needed to break the complex proteine structures down into useable energy.
Then you have to take into account which types of meat are good or bad for cholesterol etc etc. It can take some effort, but the results are usually well worth it
Do you have anything to base your claim that he's a shady author on other than the fact that he wrote a book? Because writing a book does not make an argument invalid, nor the research that went into it. If you want to discredit something you have to do a little better than simply saying someone is shady. Actually looking at the research the author did and finding issues with it directly would be a good start, but from your posts I'm not sure you have any interest in looking into actual research done in the field of nutrition. It seems you'd rather just regurgitate things you've been told without ever having to think critically about them. That's fine if you want to live your life that way, but it's not the way to approach a serious discussion about any topic.Blablahb said:
They didn't actually. Most grains can't be eaten raw as is without processing them. Modern grains don't even grow without utilizing agricultural techniques because they have been so extensively modified from even what we were eating 50 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago. Where's your evidence that hunter gatherers were eating grains? Because without the ability to process many of them into foods such as various forms of bread you literally can't eat them.Blablahb said:
Except we haven't adapted to process wheat very well. As evidenced by the fact that consuming it in large quantities will make the population fat, as well as sick. The incidence of celiac disease alone is much higher now than it was even 50 years ago. And the government is recommending people eat more grains than ever. And sure, 10,000 years represents 5% of the time period in which modern humans have existed.Blablahb said:
But let's stop and think about what you're suggesting for a second. Anatomically modern humans have existed for 200,000 years or so. Meaning there has been little change in our physiology in 200,000 years. But we apparently adapted to eating foods we had never consumed in out entire history in only 10,000 years. Despite spending the 190,000 years before that eating diets that were much higher in protein and fat. Not to even get into what our ancestors were eating for a million plus years prior to that. More over, you're suggesting that we would evolve to adapt to a diet high in grains when there's no evolutionary pressure to do so in an agrarian society. Obesity and diseases like type 2 diabetes and heart disease aren't likely to outright kill you before you have the chance to reproduce, so where's the evolutionary pressure that's killing off those who can't process grains before they pass on their genes? Oh that's right, there really isn't, and hasn't been any.
This shows you literally know nothing about how the body stores fat. I'd strongly recommend actually looking into research rather than simply buying into everything the government tells you. But if you aren't going to actually do that then there's little point in continuing any sort of discussion of nutrition with you.Blablahb said:
For starters, you can easily test out whether eating grains spikes blood glucose on your own. Get a blood glucose meter, eat some grains and test your blood sugar before this and then again an hour later. Hell, ask any diabetic. Carbohydrates make blood glucose spike. Grain based foods are much higher in carbs than comparable amounts of vegetables or even fruit, so I'm not sure what sources you're finding that are saying grains won't increase blood glucose, because even suggesting that is laughable.Blablahb said:
As to studies which back up limiting carbs to control blood glucose, we can start here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26058/26058-h/26058-h.htm
It was a paper written as a treatment guide for treating and managing diabetes way back in 1915. Before insulin shots existed, when the only way to control blood glucose was through diet and if diabetics didn't do it they would die. For a specific example from this paper, Case 8 was a woman who once they had her blood sugar under control had her carbs increased to include 2 slices of bread. This raised her blood sugar levels too much however, so it was dialed back. And this was on a diet that was calculated to be no more than 63 grams of carbs. The USDA recommends over 300 grams a day. Tell me that's not going to consistently raise blood sugar throughout the day.
But now I'm going to put the same question to you. Show me a clinical trial that has ever demonstrated that simply following the formula of calories in minus calories out led to the predicted weight loss that comes with that hypothesis. I've never seen any study that proved that relationship, or even came close to the predicted weight loss, where calories is all that they controlled, so I expect I'll be waiting a while.
But the trouble is that it's not just an oversimplification, but it doesn't even remotely resemble the mechanisms by which the body stores fat. The assumption going into that equation is that a surplus calorie intake results in fat storage, but it's a surplus of blood glucose which results in fat storage, not calories. Carbohydrates increased blood glucose far more than protein or fat. More importantly, it's also possible, based on other metabolic factors going on inside the body for people to gain or lose body fat based on how their resistance or sensitivity to insulin changes without ever changing the calories coming in or going out. Calories in less calories out is a relationship which has literally never panned out in any clinical study, which is why telling people to cut back on foods high in carbohydrates such as sugars and grains is far more useful advice for fat loss than telling them to count calories.Dastardly said:
Nobody is saying that they come from nowhere. But relating a change in mass to a change in energy through a simple arithmetic equation is not only wrong, it's misleading.Dastardly said:
3 balanced meals a day, no snacks. I don't drink fizzy juice (that was really on orders from my dentist but helps with diet too). I run 4 miles, 3 times a week and do a circuit workout 4 times a week.
To be honest, it's hard, I am a HUGE eater and naturaly lazy but it does REALLY pay off. It all about breaking the cycle and then ingraining it so hard that it becomes routine.
To be honest, it's hard, I am a HUGE eater and naturaly lazy but it does REALLY pay off. It all about breaking the cycle and then ingraining it so hard that it becomes routine.
Why does everyone answer metabolism? If that is a major factor in their weight, it doesn't matter anyways because it's obviously not helping *you*.
Losing weight is just a matter of less intake, more output. Eat smaller portions and become more active. It's pretty simple, honestly.
So my answer (without knowing anything about said people except that they have eaten fast food) is that they probably bike/walk/run more than you, or spend less time sitting around.
Losing weight is just a matter of less intake, more output. Eat smaller portions and become more active. It's pretty simple, honestly.
So my answer (without knowing anything about said people except that they have eaten fast food) is that they probably bike/walk/run more than you, or spend less time sitting around.
There is no magic to it, your body is a function of the stresses it regularly endures. If your intake is greater than what you burn off, your metabolism slows, your body is less efficient and you gain weight more easily. The reverse is also true. People who somehow seem to "eat so much, never exercise and stay thin" will not do so forever. As they continue to do so, their metabolism slows and they WILL gain weight and be in the same boat you are now.
I'm just naturally awesome. Although I can't put on muscle either, so it has its downsides.Kytseo said:
Their secret is that they don't "try" exercise and a healthy diet. They DO exercise and maintain a healthy diet. Get it? This shit takes time, and if you don't stick with it it'll never work. People think they can expect results because even just going a week seems really hard to them, but that's not good enough. Weight loss can take months, serious weight loss can take years. The secret isn't a secret at all. It's the one thing everyone has been telling you that you need to do to get good at anything your whole life. Perseverance.
