If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello Again Gooserider!
Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream or brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs, weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat much" but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000 cals/day just to maintain. Sorry to tell you this, but you are wrong on this note also. Maintenance level caloric intake can only be calculated by LBM (ie. (Total Weight - Fat Weight) = Lean Body Mass ) numbers. Think about it this way.. How much energy does fat need to sustain itself??? Basically little to none as it is just chains of molecules anyway... Also, the human organs are also exceptionally efficient so they take very little energy! Your skeletal muscles absorb most of the bodies glucose. This is the reason high weight strength exercising is so effective!! Jim Carver "Gooserider" wrote in message om... "Doug Lerner" wrote in message ... On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article er, "Eva Whitley" wrote: The morons at PETA have rolled out Veg Eye for the Fat Guy (he http://goveg.com/feat/vegeye2/ ) targeting Ruben Studdard, Luciano Pavarotti, Michael Moore, John Goodman, and John Madden. Earth to PETA: it is possible to be fat and vegetarian. Don't they know any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some... I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal. I *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - especially a lacto-vegetarian diet. Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream or brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs, weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat much" but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000 cals/day just to maintain. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"FOB" wrote in message . .. I have decreased intake but not increased expenditure and I have lost 49.5 pounds. While I agree that exercise is a good thing, it is not a necessary thing. My mom lost a lot of weight without much exercise by cutting calories and she's over 50. Still, she's not getting other benefits that would come with exercise, such as better cardiovascular health, more energy, etc. For most people though I think it takes both diet and exercise. -Rubystars |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message link.net... Rubystars wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... Rubystars wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote in message arthlink.net... They could have metabolic problems that cause them to gain even if they eat like a normal person. Some people have a genetic disposition toward being fat that's hard to get past. Sorry. This is simply not true. I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. I don't doubt that two people can have very different *resting* metabolisms. That isn't what we're talking about, or at least shouldn't be. It can be the resting metabolism that makes all the difference, when the vast majority of Americans don't do regular exercise. IF an obese person wants to lose weight, the person MUST figure out what the caloric count of various possible meals is, and figure out what the caloric expenditure of various forms and durations of exercise is. It's that simple. I believe I have a fairly high resting metabolism. I have always eaten rather large meal portions, have gotten less exercise as I've gotten older (but still VASTLY more than the typical American), and I don't gain weight. Without even NEEDING to investigate portion size, however, my portions have gone down. I had an easily intuitive sense that they needed to go down as my level of exercise declined somewhat, and I find I feel physically full on far less food than before. I read no diet books, received no special medical advice, was not the subject of any harangues in order to do this. It just happened. You're extremely lucky to be able to know when to stop eating without having to force yourself, you're extremely lucky to never have had to deal with the physical pain and exhaustion and emotional issues of being overweight. Not everyone is so lucky, many people have to learn these things, as they don't come naturally to them. This can be seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), even though they were all trying very hard. It could have been a gland problem that ran in the family, etc. It's conceivable that some ONE person might have a hormonal issue. That can't possibly explain the terrible incidence of severe, morbid obesity in the U.S. versus, say, continental Europe. The Germans are pretty stout people, but you simply don't see those extremely obese people there that you see in the American "heartland". Yeah, I think most people are big for lifestyle reasons, and nothing else, but my point originally was that it's not necessarily a lie when someone says that they're eating a small amount and still gaining or maintaining a large weight. It isn't necessarily a lie, Which was my point. When I see someone who is massive, like say, 500 lbs. or more, I don't automatically assume that they're sitting at home stuffing their face all day. More likely than not, they're desperately trying to lose weight and have been for a long time. There are some people who do get to those weights just by lifestyle choices, but I've met several huge people like that, that I know for a fact are really trying hard but not having much luck without a doctor's assistance. but it's MOST LIKELY untrue. Considering the odds, you're right, but I would rather give someone the benefit of the doubt when they say they have a health issue. It might be untrue because they're lying, or it might be untrue because (as you've suggested) they don't really know what a "small amount" is. Exactly. MY point is that very few morbidly obese people have some medical abnormality that causes the obesity. Snip There is nothing contradictory in the notion that adding 20-30 minutes of vigorous physical exercise to your daily routine, and cutting your caloric intake by 15-20%, will make you lose weight. That's very specific information. How much BS did you have to sift through to find it? ZERO. It's common sense. Common sense to you. Common sense to me. But you have to remember that common sense isn't so common, and those infomercials are very appealing. They say you can eat what you want, not exercise, and look like a supermodel. Who wouldn't give that one a try for $19.95 - $70.00 if they really thought it might work? They see those testimonials on tv, the dramatic "before and after" photos, and they want that too. They want to do good for themselves, it's just confusing so much of the time. Now you've got all these people on Atkins, destroying their health, over a similar fad. Not that some of the low carb stuff isn't helpful, some of the "Reduced carb" items in the store, are also lower in calories now, just as some of the "low fat" stuff in the 90s was lower in calories. If I had total control of a morbidly obese person's life for one month, that person would lose 5-8 pounds with ease, possibly more with a little bona fide sweat. But you can't control other people. They have to seek help and some have had bad experiences with doctors, so they dont necessarily trust doctors anymore. There are doctors that treat fat patients as if they shouldn't even bother going to the doctor and/or find ways to cut them down rather than offering advice. Most doctors I'm sure aren't like that, but there are bad apples out there, and one bad experience can scare people away from conventional medicine for good, and so they end up turning to quacks and wackjobs like reflexologists. There's a diet plan being advertized on tv right now that's called the "Body Makeover" or something similar, where people take photos of themselves, mark on them with markers to indicate where they want to change, and then do a miniscule amount of exercise every day (much less than 20-30 minutes). The more reliable information I've come across indicates that the claims of that infomercial are bogus, you can't spot-reduce fat, you can only tone muscle groups in certain areas. The infomercial decleares "Eat more!" (as if that's really something an overeater needs to do anyway!) and "Exercise less!" (that's really a bad message to send, especially for long term health). How is someone supposed to know that commercial is bogus though? Most people aren't exactly biology majors. You can say 20-30 minutes and cut calories, but then someone else is telling them something completely opposite to that. Who?! Who is saying that reducing your food intake somewhat, and increasing your exercise by 20-30 minutes a day, WON'T result in weight loss? I mean, who other than some moronic "fat acceptance" wackos? All the infomercials tell them they can eat more and exercise less, or, alternatively, eat as much as they want, and not exercise at all. Fat acceptance doesn't help either, it puts out bogus information trying to claim that fat isn't really unhealthy (even though it's a killer). So how is the average person supposed to distinguish who is lying and who's telling the truth, especially when the lie is so much more appealing? Look, life is FULL of little instances of proving "if it sounds too good to be true, it undoubtedly isn't" to be true. I'm sure a lot of morbidly obese people can think of quite a lot of instances where they've said it themselves, to someone else over a different issue. Yes, but people still fall for scams, and for someone who hasn't developed a skeptical nature, they can be easy marks or victims of the diet industry. It also is absurd to suggest that morbidly obese people aren't aware of the issue. EVERYONE is aware of it, and of the basic commonsense that must be internalized: reduce caloric intake, increase caloric expenditure, lose weight. It really is that simple. Morbid obesity is SOLELY a function of behavior, not family tendencies. I think that in some people it is family genetics alone, Virtually never. or both in combination. In the vast majority of overweight people though (most, not all) you're right. snip They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until they get really big, Come on, now. They know they have SOME kind of problem when their clothes stop fitting them and their friends begin needling them about packing on a lot of weight. They know they have a *weight* problem, they may not necessarily know they have a portion control problem. It's no big mystery. Weight gain is directly and obviously tied to food intake. What determines food intake? Number of meals times size of portions: M x P Now, they KNOW they aren't increasing M to, say, 8 meals per day. Therefore, it's mostly an increase in P (although the old bugaboo "between-meal snacks" must be considered.) Yup. They may think that eating a huge portion of potatoes will help them lose weight instead of eating a huge portion of steak, because potatoes are lower in fat. Thinking in terms of huge portions is a mistake right off the line. Yes I know. They may think eating a box of sugary Snack Wells cookies will help them lose weight instead of eating a package of chips a hoy. Some of these changes might help a little, but they don't address the issue of portion control. and then they're bombarded with different people trying to take their money away to fix the overweight problem, without fixing the issue that caused it. They may never learn what a regular sized portion is unless they take the time to find out that specific information. That information is readily available. One must WANT to find it and learn from it. And search for it until they find it, and then sift through BS. In this age of the internet, and frequent news stories about an obesity "epidemic", one need search neither long nor hard. It's right there under their noses, or at least it would be if a quarter-pounder-with-cheese weren't already there. So is all the other crap information. When you have infomercials constantly telling people "Eat all you want! and lose 10 lbs. in 5 days!" it can be confusing for people. I automatically assume that all infomercials for health care or health-related products - baldness cures, flatulence, impotence - are bull****. I assume that too, but the commercials wouldn't keep running if there weren't a large (pun intended) gullible public out to buy the products. It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. It sure is. I just read something about the documentary "Super Size Me" (http://www.supersizeme.com/) The guy ate nothing but McDonald's food for a month in order to make the film, and his rule was that if the counterperson ever asked him did he want to "supersize" something, he had to do it. He gained 25 pounds in ONE MONTH! It took him six months of supervised weight loss to lose 20 pounds, and another NINE MONTHS to lose the final five pounds. Yeah, it's frustrating. The asymmetry between the ease of weight gain and the difficulty of weight loss is NOT a legitimate excuse, however, although lots of seriously obese people try to use it as one. Also, the asymmetry is not some craftily concealed fact that someone "doesn't want you to know". It's very well known. I'm not saying it's a legit excuse (it's not), But lots of obese people USE it as one. I'll bet Dawn Taylor does. It's not a legit excuse though. just saying it's a lot easier to talk about losing weight than to actually do it. It's a lot easier for me to talk about training to hike up Mt. Whitney in August than actually to get outside and DO some training, too, but realizing that all the blather in the world in May won't help me a g.d. bit in August, I went out and did a monster, "beastly" hike last Saturday: http://www.localhikes.com/Hikes/Bade...Islip_4472.asp. It was damned hard even to get out there, too, because the night before a friend in a lousy marriage wanted to get together for a couple of drinks and I had a bit too much to drink and only about 4 hours of sleep, and felt hung-over as hell Saturday morning, but I *did* the hike. No one was going to do it for me. Congrats! That's one reason I think people are so big in the U.S. People are so big in the U.S. because our culture grotesquely values quantity over quality. That doesn't mean people must accept the prevailing cultural message. I rejected it in adult life, after growing up believing that more and bigger was almost always better. Good for you! Not only are we constantly bombarded with food ads (heck, I can't watch the news without commercials telling me about the wonders of Domino's Pizza, Taco Bell, Golden Corral, Hartz Chicken Buffet, etc.) that can trigger cravings, but there's a double whammy with all the distorted, wrong, and dangerous diet information being pushed in people's faces. There's a dangerous passivity in your writing, bordering on sounding as if you see yourself as a witless dupe: "are constantly bombarded", for example. Turn the goddamned television OFF! I dont' have a problem with these things most of the time anymore, but I know other people do. That's why I may sound passive about a lot of this. Sit down and watch tv for an hour during prime time and count all the fast food commercials you see. It's crazy. It can trigger eating if people haven't conditioned themselves not to let that happen. Better, get RID of the thing, or at least get a small one that doesn't make parking yourself on the sofa in front of it seem like such a great thing; a little 14" TV will do just fine to have a look at the news/sports/weather, which is about all that's worth looking at on TV anyway, and not even much of that. lol snip Not much effort required. *I* know it, and I don't even have a weight problem. That's another way of saying there's no good reason FOR me to know it, yet I do. For those who DO have ample reason to know it, there's no excuse NOT to know it. The blame is on their shoulders. Ignorance is not an excuse. With that said though, it's not always so easy to sift the good information from the bad. Even otherwise legit doctors will sometimes refer a patient to a chiropractor, for example. snip No. The weight for "morbid obesity" is going to vary by height and other physical characteristics, but let's say we're talking about a 6' tall American male who ought to weigh about 185 lb. and in fact weighs 260 lb. It is absurdly easy to lose 3 pounds a month, if one wants to do so; one could probably safely lose 5 with a bit more effort, but we'll go with 3. It would take the person just slightly more than 2 years at that rate to get down to his target weight. Cool. It's hard to make a change significant enough to see the results within a reasonable time. Two years of modest but steady weight loss seems pretty reasonable. That doesn't even allow for the fact that one could increase the loss for a couple of scattered months, say to 5-7 pounds. Yeah. In order to do that you have to know how much you can eat, how many calories you can eat and still lose, what are good types of exercise (walking, for example). All of that information is readily available. So is a lot of BS. The good stuff is readily available, and should leap out at anyone who goes into it knowing there are no silver bullets. That's something that's hard to sacrifice for a lot of people. God knows we all wish we could just pop a pill every morning and not have to worry about any of this hard work stuff. I know that's never going to be reality though. snip Easy to say, you know what you're talking about. The "Food pyramid" tells people to get 2 servings of dairy, so some people think cheese like that is part of a balanced diet. I don't have a weight problem, yet *I* know that the recommendation for dairy means non- or low-fat milk products. NOT cheese, not ice cream. When they taught us about nutrition in school, they told us that cheese and ice cream were in the dairy group. Too bad they didn't explain the low fat part. snip I agree that everyone ESPECIALLY those with an obesity problem... Yes. should *make time* for exercise. It's probably the most important thing out of any of this. The caloric intake and the caloric expenditure are highly variable, and people who cut their caloric intake but don't lose weight NECESSARILY are still consuming more in calories than they burn. Yes that's true! It's just that it takes effort and research Very, very little. If a person can't find that out in half an hour or less, s/he just doesn't want to know. That's not really fair. They're given a large amount of information, most of it untrue. I'm not buying that. What you're doing is providing excuses for people not to act. No excuses here, just explanations as to why so many people haven't acted yet. People are responsible for their own outcomes, and for doign their own research. They don't have anyone to blame but themselves, in most cases. With that said there are many people who want to make a buck off of un-skeptical people by selling them a miracle drug or diet that just ends up making people fatter. I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer "reflexology" for weight loss. That idiot Irish whore Lesley ("pearl") for one... Why do you call her a whore? In 2-3 hours of research, you should have enough information to last a LIFETIME. Since we're talking about something that has virtually an incalculable effect on quality of life AND duration of life, that seems like a pittance of time. You're assuming 2-3 hours of productive research. No, total. That's more than enough for someone to sort out the good stuff from the crap. If they know how to think critically. You're not counting the time spent looking at hypnotist sites, trying various diets from tv, etc. "Trying diets" doesn't count as research. After a couple fo them it helped me learn they don't work. -Rubystars |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"polar bear" wrote in message ... Rubystars wrote: Sorry. This is simply not true. I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. This can be seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), the difference being ... ? The difference between 200 lbs and close to 400 lbs. even though they were all trying very hard. Yes we all believe that. I'm sure they were stuffing their faces very hard with cheeseburgers. Nope, they all ate healthy stuff every night. Vegetables, chicken breast, etc. It could have been a gland problem that ran in the family, etc. They said the doctor had said they had thyroid issues. Foods have known caloric values. Various forms of exercise and activity burn up fairly well known amounts of calories. Yes, if people take the effort and time to learn all that (often contradictory) information, to sift the truth out, then they can make an eating/exercise plan that will work for them. What is contradictory about the caloric values of differents foods and the caloric needs of various forms of exercise ? You are making excuses again. It's not really complicated: you need to get off your ass and go exercise. Not making excuses for people. I'm already losing weight by "getting off my ass" and exercising. I've lost 13 lbs. I was talking about other people who are getting a lot of contradictory information thrown their way that isn't necessarily a snap to recognize what is truthful and what is not. Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical NECESSITY. That's true. People can increase their metabolism, or decrease it, but I think some people have a higher natural metabolism than other people, and so there is a different range available for different people. You missed the point entirely. Energy does not come out of nowhere. What some of you fat people don't realize, is that the only thing to understand about diets is the need to establish a negative caloric balance. I think that's the most important aspect of a successful diet, yes. They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until they get really big, and then they're bombarded with different people trying to take their money away to fix the overweight problem, without fixing the issue that caused it. They may never learn what a regular sized portion is unless they take the time to find out that specific information. It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. It takes no effort at all to gain, it can take monumental effort to lose. So they spend their money and time on a bunch of fad diets and just get bigger and bigger and in the mean time they never really learn how much they should eat, etc. Please explain your logic: going on a diet makes you fat. I've seen this kind of fat logic everywhere on this newsgroup, and also on the big fat blog. I am puzzled by it everytime. Going on a diet makes you fat if it's not a permanent lifestyle change, but instead is a temporary starvation program to get people down to a goal and then to go off the diet. When people rebound, they tend to get fatter than they were before. Some people have yo yoed like that several times. Thankfully, I only got down to my goal weight once. I'm going slow this time, making it a lifestyle change, which is much healthier and much more likely to succeed long term. Yes, burning more calories than you consume sounds pretty easy, doesn't it? It's not. In order to do that you have to know how much you can eat, how many calories you can eat and still lose, what are good types of exercise (walking, for example). Any exercise is good enough for you, although at 130kgs, you might want to prefer walking to running. I'm not sure how many lbs. 130 kgs is, so I'm not sure if you guessed close or not. I'm walking right now and that helps a lot (and it's fun too). Some people cut their food intake, but not enough, or are eating smaller portions of high calorie foods, and they are frustrated because they're unsatisified with the portions they eat but still gain weight. Of course diets are frustrating, nobody ever said the contrary. Fat people seem to think that if a diet is frustrating, then it won't work/ isn't working. You know, some people with more willpower than you are able to follow the diet and succesfully lose weight with it. I was able to successfully lose weight on diets, the problem is keeping it off. That's why it's much better to make a lifestyle change (for life) than to go on a temporary "diet." I mean, let's say someone ate 2 patio burritos for lunch every day, heated up in the microwave with melted cheese over it. They cut it down to one burrito. They still might not lose weight or stop gaining because it may not be enough of a drop in calories/fat intake to help them. Here, fat logic at work again: going on a diet won't make me shed 50kgs in a week, so I might as well stay fat, because the effort isn't worth it. That's not what I said at all. I was giving an example of when someone tries to control portions but doesn't know what a normal meal should be in terms of calories they may not enough calories to lose weight, to create a "calorie deficit." I have news for you: diets are a long term effort. Actually, they are lifetime efforts. To lose weight and keep it off, you have to change your eating habits permanently. Yes that's exactly right! The caloric intake and the caloric expenditure are highly variable, and people who cut their caloric intake but don't lose weight NECESSARILY are still consuming more in calories than they burn. Yes that's true! It's just that it takes effort and research to find out how many calories you can consume, what kinds of foods are more bulky but lower in fat and calories, etc. It takes no effort at all to buy what tastes good and eat as much as you want to feel full. So people who don't have the knowledge base to work from are at a disadvantage. The internet can make it a lot easier, but in some ways it may make it more difficult, as there are also a lot of diet scams being promoted over the internet. Don't fall trap to the diet scams, but don't fall trap to fat logic too. You only need to remember one thing, and that's "calorie deficit". You're right. -Rubystars |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jim Carver" wrote in message om... Hello Rubystars! Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to figure it all out. I agree. It has been my experience that even 60% of doctors have a very low understanding of how the body uses various foods. I think I am qualified to say this as I have two brothers that are both surgeons. (ie. I decided to go a nutrition route instead!!) Interestinly enought, most of the quality knowledge on dieting and nutrition was developed by nutrtionists and body builders over the last 30 years and not by doctors. Let me know if you are interested in learn more about how the body actually uses the different types of foods you eat, and I will answer any questions you have! No distortion and no diet crap biasing... Just straight nutrition facts... Please do not think it is that difficult. It really is not that hard to understand once you learn a few concepts about body process mechanisms. Jim Carver Thanks. I've done a lot of my own research over the past several years (with a very skeptical approach) and it's helped me to learn a lot, but I'm always willing to learn more. One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? -Rubystars |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Rubystars wrote:
Now you've got all these people on Atkins, destroying their health, over a similar fad. [ Note for SSFA readers, this post, while making reference to Atkins, is not about weight loss or promoting weight loss - It just hopefully clears up ignorant misconceptions about Atkins] That used to be my belief about Atkins until I read the book and read the actual outline of the process (It's a process with various phases, not a "diet" with a menu). I used to think of it as the "bacon and eggs diet", too. With the slant the media seems to love to put on it ("Eat all the luxurious cream, bacon, grease you can handle and lose the weight") sure, I was thoroughly convinced everyone was "destroying their health", too. I fail to see how one could destroy their health by eating healthy proteins, (I don't eat bacon, to me it's gross) increase their intake of leafy greens like spinach and broccoli, more vegetables like green peppers, pumpkin, kale, brussel sprouts, asparagus, and some fruits like blueberries, strawberries (yes, you can eat fruit on a diet like Atkins!), healthier unrefined fats like extra virgin olive oil, while *breaking* *addictions* to unhealthy foods like potato chips, cookies, sugar and refined grains, donuts, etc.... If carbohydrate addiction isn't a problem for you, then Atkins probably would not work as a helper. This is not even a weight loss issue, I know people who have started low-carbohydrate diets to control blood sugar, and to weed out food allergies. Atkins attacks specific problems, and certainly it is not for everyone. In a way I do wish it were not a current "fad", because it's trendy to put down "fads" even if they turn out to be the needle in the haystack. It seems to be marketed as a "for everyone" diet much like Low-Fat was, when it really is a specialty way of eating designed for something very specific. -- The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion and experience. Please interpret accordingly. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello Rubystars!
One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise your metabolic rate". The word metabolic rate is really an overused phase as very few people really understand what it actually means. This includes a fair amount of doctors, eventhough they should know better... Let me explain exactly what a metabolic rate is: What is a metabolic rate? When trying to understand what a metabolic rate actually is, you have to understand a critical nervous system process in your body called the autonomic nervous system. (NOTE: Please do not think that this is some complex "medical term", because the word "autonomic" just means "auto", or that you cannot mentally control its function) In simplest terms, your body is always trying to balance between either digesting food, or providing energy output for physical/mental performance. To manage these two processes, your body has created two different nervous system networks called the "sympathetic" and "parasympathetic" nervous systems. Basically, whenever you eat something, the body realizes that it needs to focus on food digestion, so the parasympathetic nervous system (ie. Digestion kicks in) takes over and suppresses the sympathetic nervous system (ie. decreased thinking/performance). This is what is known as suppressing your metabolic rate. Whenever you need enhanced physical or mental performance, such as while you are working out or are doing some complex mental task, the sympathetic nervous system takes over and suppresses the parasympathetic nervous system. This is what is known as increasing your metabolic rate. I promise that that is it with the boring technical jargon!! What is my point here?? During a time of food digestion, because your sympathetic system is suppressed (ie. suppressed metabolic rate), your body will reduce your heart rate, lower brain functions, and try to just focus on digestion. On the other hand, though, when you workout in the gym, the body realizes that it needs enhanced physical and mental performance, so it suppresses your parasympathetic system, and basically stops any digestion of food. This increased output is known as increasing your metabolic rate. In an increased metabolic rate, you certainly will burn my calories, but it comes at the cost of slowing food digestion... See, not hard to understand after all is it?? :-) For additional reading if you are interested in knowing more techical "stuff"... THE SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM http://home.swipnet.se/sympatiska/nervous.htm OK. Then why does all of these "products" on the market say that they "raise your metabolic rate"?? To understand this, you have understand the concept what a stimulant is (ie. Coffee/Ephedra/Green Leaf Tea). Stimulants are any substance that forces your body to keep a raised sympathetic nervous system. Have you ever found yourself wondering why when you drink your first cup of coffee in the morning, you get that pumped up feeling and can think that much better? This is due to you forcing an increased sympathetic system response. (NOTE: Caffine is actually a very weak stimulant. Some of the powerful stimulants in the "anphedamine class" can keep you awake for 3/5 days at a time) Sounds great doesnt it?? Well, the downside of this, though, is that any food that you eat at this point will not digest very much until caffeine levels start to come down. That kind of sucks, because your body really needs to get some glucose at the very least so that your blood sugar levels do not fall too low, and it starts having to use energy reserves that are stored in the liver... Not good as you are about to go into what is called a "catabolic state" where the body starts to break down your muscles for nutrients. (NOTE: You should keep in mind, though, that not all stimulants use the same type of mechanisms to raise metabolic rate. Some ways are more effective than others, which is why some stimulants work better than others) Next question I suspect you are wondering is: Why was ephedra banned, as it was a powerful stimulant for raising metabolic rate?? Well, now that know how the sympathetic nervous system works you can certainly get an idea of the problems that these types of substances can cause on the body. In ephedra's case, what would happen is that people would take large amounts of ephedra and then workout in the sun during the hottest part of the day. Because their bodies were not able to suppress their metabolic rate, once they started to overheat, their body could do nothing to stop it. So, basically, you can say they died of heat stroke..... Helpful? Got any addition questions on this subject or something else? Jim Carver "Rubystars" wrote in message om... "Jim Carver" wrote in message om... Hello Rubystars! Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to figure it all out. I agree. It has been my experience that even 60% of doctors have a very low understanding of how the body uses various foods. I think I am qualified to say this as I have two brothers that are both surgeons. (ie. I decided to go a nutrition route instead!!) Interestinly enought, most of the quality knowledge on dieting and nutrition was developed by nutrtionists and body builders over the last 30 years and not by doctors. Let me know if you are interested in learn more about how the body actually uses the different types of foods you eat, and I will answer any questions you have! No distortion and no diet crap biasing... Just straight nutrition facts... Please do not think it is that difficult. It really is not that hard to understand once you learn a few concepts about body process mechanisms. Jim Carver Thanks. I've done a lot of my own research over the past several years (with a very skeptical approach) and it's helped me to learn a lot, but I'm always willing to learn more. One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? -Rubystars |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise your metabolic rate". .... Energy Balance: Interpretation of Data from Rural China T. Colin Campbell, PhD Division of Nutritional Sciences Cornell University ... Data pertinent to the issue of energy balance and body weight control obtained in a comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and disease mortality in 65 counties (130 villages, 6500 adults) of rural China (Chen et al. 1990) were used for the analysis. After adjusting the food intake data to represent a reference male adult involved in the least physical activity and representing the same body weight, total calorie intake (40.6 kcal/kg BW) was about 30% higher in China when compared with an average adult American male (30.6% kcal/kg BW), yet the body mass index for the Chinese male was about 25% lower (20.5 vs. 25.8 kg BW/m2). Diets in rural China were low in fat (14.5% of energy), relatively low in protein (65.8 g/day), and high in fiber (33 g/day), representing a diet unusually rich in plant based foods (e.g., including about 90% of the total protein). It is believed that the excess energy intake among the Chinese is mostly attributed to their greater physical activity, although some unknown but significant and probably difficult to measure amount could be due to increased energy expenditure associated with non-post prandial basal metabolism. ......' http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html .... J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3. Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians. Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T. Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores (60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower. The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a higher caloric intake is of considerable interest. PMID: 3760524 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jim Carver" wrote in message snip explanation Helpful? Yes, thanks. Got any addition questions on this subject or something else? So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the caffeine part was helping. -Rubystars |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
secret EXHIBITION PICs Big Brother 2985 | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | April 27th, 2004 10:36 PM |
Ham~n~Cheese Omelet Roll | Beemie | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | December 23rd, 2003 02:31 PM |
Decent hamburger roll | Lee B | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | November 25th, 2003 03:01 PM |
Huge Radio Roll Out...for CORTISLIM -- any experience with it ? | Morehits4u | General Discussion | 3 | November 23rd, 2003 06:35 PM |
Dry and red eyes -- suggestions? | Kramer | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | October 18th, 2003 01:14 PM |