I'm very organised, I always know where my weight is. And as for pounds, here we have Australian dollars. So no problems so far.
1. Thanks, just thought I'd check. I wasn't sure if you were implying immediate release of fat stores.Jarsh82 said:1 I wasn't implying that we use our fat stores before glycogen stores. Both FFA and blood sugar is lowered during exercise increasing glycogen and triglyceride catabolism after exercise.StBishop said:Just a quick note, you can feel free to use physiology terms, I'm pretty familiar with exercise physiology.
I think your science might be a little off, but that could be you simplifying things a great deal to make it easier to understand.
I'd like to clarify a couple of points if you don't mind.
1. Are you implying that our body will use fat stores before using glycogen stores?
2. When you say regularly, are you talking about HIIT or are you referring to simply exercising multiple times a week?
3. You're slightly off on the energy felt from exercising, that's almost entirely to do with your endocrine system, not your body being "Kick started" as many bro-scientists would suggest. A cold shower will have the same effect, just to a lesser degree.
4. Do you have any references for your blood triglyceride concentration increasing with regular physical activity. I am pretty sure that high blood triglyceride is an indicator of poor cardiovascular health/cardiovascular disease risk.
5. It's nit-picky, but you completely misused the word bolus.
We're going to have to disagree there.Jarsh82 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3iUN1-2PHI
Excelent example of a high intensity workout.
2 I haven't used that term but I suppose that is closer to what I'm talking about.
3 Well it's all endocrine system. I never used the term kick start. FFA levels in the blood increase approximately 40% for 13 to 16 hours after exercise according to astudy by Washington University School of Medicine Devision of Nutitional Science. The study was titled Free fatty acid kinetics in the late phase os post exercise recovery.
4The study of have mentioned is from 2009. There are others that are older so not worth mentioning. I was refering to post exercise not general and constant levels.
5 my use of the word bolus was correcect. Beyond a bolus of food or medication dossage it has a broader meaning of having a high concentration to achieve an immediate effect. This word is commonly used in radiation dossage which is my background so I added it in without much thought.
I've always had a fairly fast metabolism, I went from 5th grade till 26 year old at 115 lbs, doing nothing but playing video games and eating junk food.Jarsh82 said:Like a lot of people in their late twenties, I put on more than a little weight. Over the past year I lost fifty pounds by running and cross fit. What do you do to keep the pounds off?
Bearmode achieved.uzo said:I'm 175cm; in the high 80kgs (close to 200lbs).
If a doc looks just at my BMI without actually seeing me, they gasp and imagine someone on death's door. They expect a waist well over 100cm, double/triple chins, and barely the energy to get up a flight of stairs.
Then they meet me - I'm not skinny, or even slim, by any stretch of the imagination, but I work in a paradoxical kind of job. I'm administration and IT support at a large freight depot. That means half the day I'm sitting (I have a 20kilo dumbbell under my desk for free moments); and the other half of the day I'm literally *running* around on the dock, manhandling freight, climbing up and down stairs and ladders in the warehouse.
It means that, in my daily work, I cover around 10-15km in an 8hr shift, alot of that either at brisk walk or slow jogging pace, and often carrying 10-20 kilos of extra weight whilst I do it. Hey presto, pretty big muscles on arms and core, strong legs, stocky body, and a resting heart rate of 60. But my waist is not and never will be less than around 85cm.
Hell, my father is 68 and still does triathlons - in one of his last competitions in Cronulla (near Sydney) he beat everyone in every age group down to the 40-45 age group. But, like father like son, he's not all washboard abs and 5% body fat. More like marshmallow abs and 20-25% body fat.
I like to think of myself as having a survivor's body - famine, disease? pah! - and considering I'm a closet nutjob survivalist that's a good thing.
So, although I'm jealous of washboard abs and <10% body fat, I know it's not something I could achieve without *TOTAL* dedication. And frankly, I enjoy beer and carbohydrates too much for that. And I'm not a body image fanatic.
Thanks I appreciate it.Jarsh82 said:@ StBishop:
I can get you the authors if you give me time. Probably not tonight though. It seems like work and I just got done with work. FFA is decreased during exercise. Is that what you're thinking of or perhaps you're thinking of resting FFA? Relating to your post that started this. I didn't intend to argue that diet isn't the most important factor in weight loss just that the physiological value comes during recovery and shouldn't be judged soley on caloric expenditure during the exercise. I also can't imagine someone who is predisposed to obesity have long term success without finding a form of exercise they truly enjoy. That's why I do crossfit because its fun as hell and I love going.
Never said I was healthy, I'll be the first to admit I'm unhealthy.Boudica said:If you eat "mostly junk food," odds are you're very unhealthy.White_Lama said:Nothing at all
Been the same weight now for about 6-7 years, good metabolism, I eat mostly junkfood aswell![]()
*snippy bit*
Wow. Replace martial arts with sports and Asian with Indian(who are technically Asian I guess) and you have me.MegaManOfNumbers said:I forget to eat.
No, seriously. I stopped martial arts a year ago to focus on University (which BTW is absolute BULLSHIT). I get my exercise from walking long distances all over the unnecessarily large campus and outright forgetting to eat. I still eat; just not as much as I used to.
I'm unhealthy, Asian, a hermit, anti-social and a gamer! Stereotypes AHOY!
Pretty much. I'm a fruitoholic, I can eat like 10 apples a day without even thinking about it, making my grocery shopping a bit painful when I have to carry pretty much a garbage bag full of apple to last me a week.Boudica said:Whatever works best for you, right? I'm the same. I'm vegan and quite unhealthy lol. I eat tons of vegetables and fruits, but I also eat snacks. Constantly >_> Quite thin, too.White_Lama said:Never said I was healthy, I'll be the first to admit I'm unhealthy.Boudica said:If you eat "mostly junk food," odds are you're very unhealthy.White_Lama said:Nothing at all
Been the same weight now for about 6-7 years, good metabolism, I eat mostly junkfood aswell![]()
*snippy bit*
But, I won't live forever, might aswell enjoy it while I'm still here![]()
No, dietary changes are pretty much the most effective way to lose weight. Fat storage and loss isn't a simple matter of calories in minus calories out and different foods affect the body in different ways. Avoiding sugars and grains is the most effective way because spikes in blood sugar drive fat storage. Stop spiking it and you stop storing fat like it's going out of style and can start burning it. But the main thing to remember is that if you don't make at the very least these changes to avoid most of the foods which spike blood sugar and you're someone who gains weight very easily and has a hard time losing it, you could exercise until you pass out everyday and you probably won't lose much weight, if any.Tumedus said:While diet is important, especially things like avoiding soda and virtually everything you can with high fructose corn syrup, altering it is a poor way to lose wait.
True your metabolism changes in response to different foods, but even simple changes like reducing sugar intake are not only effective, but effective long term. Your body isn't going to magically slow it's metabolism if you are eating sufficient amounts of the right foods.Your body is designed to alter its metabolism for changes in diet, thus any dietary changes that aren't part of a complete lifestyle change will not be effective long term, even if it has short term benefits.
Nobody should be eating with the aim to reduce calories. They should be eating better types of food until they're full, not eating less. That way they see weight loss, and don't send their body into starvation mode. Simply eating less is the worst way to try and lose weight.Also, virtually any diet "system" includes potential dangers to your system as the weight loss from less/different food enacts starvation mechanisms far more than straight fat burning.
This is completely unnecessary. If you improve the composition of what you eat then you will far more sated after each meal. There are days where I have a reasonably sized breakfast at around 6:30am, then don't eat lunch until 1:30-2:00 because that's when my body starts telling me that I'm hungry. People need to listen to their bodies, eat until they're sated, and eat again when they're hungry. But if you haven't tackled the composition of your diet first, then the blood sugar spikes are going to send you a lot of mixed messages and result in you being hungry sooner than you should be (like 2-3 hours after you eat, almost regardless of quantity). If you've already tackled the composition of your diet and still find you're hungry 3 hours after your last meal, then you probably just don't eat a lot with each meal and you can feel free to roll with it. Most people who are eating the right foods though just won't get hungry that soon and eating many smaller meals is just useless advice for them.Eat smaller meals more frequently, even if the total calories stay the same. Having small meals throughout the day helps keep that metabolism running.
Actually, for most people who feel the need to try and lose weight, it's not just about being active. Like I said before, diet plays the biggest role and if you don't get that together, exercise isn't going to do much for most people because your body spends most of the day in fat storage mode.But, ultimately, its about being active. Even for people that don't like to exercise, or simply can't commit to it, just changing your everday activities to include a little more "work" can make a huge difference. Little things like walking up the stairs rather than taking the elevator. Walking/riding to work or just parking further towards the back. Go to a pub that has standing counters rather than seated tables. Rather than meandering slowly at the grocery store, try to keep a brisk pace. These may seem like small things but they can make a huge difference.
I fully agree with you on this. How committed someone is definitely plays a role, but I'd rather see people do the thing that will work to keep that motivation going, rather than do little things that don't really do much and have them feel like it isn't happening fast enough or that they're failing so they can keep that motivation going. Even if they have to gradually ease into it, like cutting out drinking pop, or giving up chips, or starting to swim 3 days a week, and continue to ramp up to other changes gradually as the weight comes off then that's fine. But if someone expects to just give up pop and take the stairs at work and lose a hundred pounds, they might get a little discouraged when it doesn't happen. Small changes should always be steps on the path leading to a larger lifestyle change.Edit: this isn't trying to say that eating carrots over potato chips isn't an improvement or that you won't get serious benefit from swimming for hours a day, only that most people aren't able to maintain things like that.