General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

I'm confused

Started by Rusty · · Last activity · 16 posts · 750 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
16 September 2004
Last activity
17 September 2004
Original author
Rusty
Posts
16
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
750
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–16 of 16
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. My body requires X amount of calories (per lean body weight) to carry on
    daily functions. If I add exercise, this creates a calorie deficiency.
    As long as the calorie deficiency isn't so severe that it shocks my
    body, the end result should be a loss of weight over time.

    If this is true, what of the theory that if my exercise burns 100
    calories, 10% being from fat, and I replace the 90% with carbohydrates
    there is no calorie deficiency yet I still lose weight.

    There are just too many different diet and exercise plans. It's all very
    confusing.

  2. Rusty wrote:
    || My body requires X amount of calories (per lean body weight) to
    || carry on daily functions. If I add exercise, this creates a calorie
    || deficiency. As long as the calorie deficiency isn't so severe that
    || it shocks my body, the end result should be a loss of weight over
    || time.
    ||
    || If this is true, what of the theory that if my exercise burns 100
    || calories, 10% being from fat, and I replace the 90% with
    || carbohydrates there is no calorie deficiency yet I still lose weight.

    What?

    ||
    || There are just too many different diet and exercise plans. It's all
    || very confusing.

    Sounds like it.

  3. Roger Zoul said:

    Rusty wrote:
    || My body requires X amount of calories (per lean body weight) to
    || carry on daily functions. If I add exercise, this creates a calorie
    || deficiency. As long as the calorie deficiency isn't so severe that
    || it shocks my body, the end result should be a loss of weight over
    || time.
    ||
    || If this is true, what of the theory that if my exercise burns 100
    || calories, 10% being from fat, and I replace the 90% with
    || carbohydrates there is no calorie deficiency yet I still lose weight.

    What?

    ||
    || There are just too many different diet and exercise plans. It's all
    || very confusing.

    Sounds like it.


    Calories in/calories out, you never heard of it?

  4. Rusty wrote:
    || Roger Zoul wrote:
    ||
    ||| Rusty wrote:
    ||||| My body requires X amount of calories (per lean body weight) to
    ||||| carry on daily functions. If I add exercise, this creates a
    ||||| calorie deficiency. As long as the calorie deficiency isn't so
    ||||| severe that it shocks my body, the end result should be a loss of
    ||||| weight over time.
    |||||
    ||||| If this is true, what of the theory that if my exercise burns 100
    ||||| calories, 10% being from fat, and I replace the 90% with
    ||||| carbohydrates there is no calorie deficiency yet I still lose
    ||||| weight.
    |||
    ||| What?
    |||
    |||||
    ||||| There are just too many different diet and exercise plans. It's
    ||||| all very confusing.
    |||
    ||| Sounds like it.
    |||
    |||
    || Calories in/calories out, you never heard of it?

    Yeah....However, I've not heard of that theory.....

  5. Rusty said:

    Calories in/calories out, you never heard of it?

    Sure, but we don't know what you're trying to describe to us. Are you
    trying to say, if you burn 100 calories, 10 from stored fat, and eat
    90g of carbs, why do you still lose weight? Because you have a net
    loss of 10 calories.

    "Calories out" is very difficult to measure, and measuring wrong is
    the usual cause for suspecting you've discovered some miracle diet.

  6. Rusty said:

    There are just too many different diet and exercise plans. It's all very
    confusing.

    only if you try to overthink it.

    eat less. exercise more. repeat forever.

  7. While exercise and muscle tone may burn some calories, shouldn't evolution
    have provided for an increase in the calorie consumption thermostat in
    response to regular exercise?

    "Rusty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    My body requires X amount of calories (per lean body weight) to carry on
    daily functions. If I add exercise, this creates a calorie deficiency.
    As long as the calorie deficiency isn't so severe that it shocks my
    body, the end result should be a loss of weight over time.

    If this is true, what of the theory that if my exercise burns 100
    calories, 10% being from fat, and I replace the 90% with carbohydrates
    there is no calorie deficiency yet I still lose weight.

    There are just too many different diet and exercise plans. It's all very
    confusing.

  8. Cubit wrote:
    || While exercise and muscle tone may burn some calories, shouldn't
    || evolution have provided for an increase in the calorie consumption
    || thermostat in response to regular exercise?

    What?

  9. The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
    || Rusty <[email hidden]> wrote:
    ||
    ||| There are just too many different diet and exercise plans. It's all
    ||| very confusing.
    ||
    || only if you try to overthink it.
    ||
    || eat less. exercise more. repeat forever.

    It really is that simple....

  10. Roger Zoul wrote:
    | Cubit wrote:
    ||| While exercise and muscle tone may burn some calories, shouldn't
    ||| evolution have provided for an increase in the calorie consumption
    ||| thermostat in response to regular exercise?
    |
    | What?

    Is there a full moon tonight?
    --
    Peter
    Before/Current Pix:
    http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

  11. "Rusty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    My body requires X amount of calories (per lean body weight) to carry on
    daily functions. If I add exercise, this creates a calorie deficiency.
    As long as the calorie deficiency isn't so severe that it shocks my
    body, the end result should be a loss of weight over time.

    If this is true, what of the theory that if my exercise burns 100
    calories, 10% being from fat, and I replace the 90% with carbohydrates
    there is no calorie deficiency yet I still lose weight.

    There are just too many different diet and exercise plans. It's all very
    confusing.

    The human body is complex and confusing.

    Let's look at it this way.

    Excess carbs are stored in the body as fat, for future fuel. If you eat
    fewer carbs than your body requires, you will lose weight.

    The energy provided by carbs, or fat and protein, translate into calories.

    If you go on a low-carb diet, a lot of things will happen with your body.
    You will lose interest in high-carb foods and likely lose interest in foods
    that supply your body with a lot of calories and a lot of food.

    Go where you want to go. Those of us on the low-carb way of living know
    what it will do for us.

  12. Jim Bard said:

    Excess carbs are stored in the body as fat, for future fuel.

    And glycogen and protein too.

    Quoted message said:

    If you eat fewer carbs than your body requires, you will lose
    weight.

    No. If you eat fewer CALORIES than your body USES, you will lose
    weight. You can still gain weight on low carb.

    Quoted message said:

    The energy provided by carbs, or fat and protein, translate into
    calories.

    No, it's *measured* in calories. Calories isn't a "thing" you can
    translate something into.

    Quoted message said:

    You will lose interest in high-carb foods

    Maybe, maybe not. Not for me.

    Quoted message said:

    and likely lose interest in foods that supply your body with a lot
    of calories and a lot of food.

    Not always. Certainly not for me.

  13. "DJ Delorie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Jim Bard said:

    Excess carbs are stored in the body as fat, for future fuel.

    And glycogen and protein too.

    The glycogen thing seems to be documented. Eating protein, well, that's
    protein.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    If you eat fewer carbs than your body requires, you will lose
    weight.

    No. If you eat fewer CALORIES than your body USES, you will lose
    weight. You can still gain weight on low carb.

    No argument there!

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    The energy provided by carbs, or fat and protein, translate into
    calories.

    No, it's *measured* in calories. Calories isn't a "thing" you can
    translate something into.

    Are you mincing words with me? Food intake, regardless of the form, has
    calories. A calorie is a measure of heat, actually. The human body takes in
    food and handles it in the most efficient way it is designed.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    You will lose interest in high-carb foods

    Maybe, maybe not. Not for me.

    You would benefit from staying away from the higher carb foods. Most people
    do lose interest in them if they follow a low-carb diet properly.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    and likely lose interest in foods that supply your body with a lot
    of calories and a lot of food.

    Not always. Certainly not for me.

    I guess each person's experience is different. I'm sorry it doesn't work
    for you the way it does for most of us.

    I am slow at losing weight, but I love the lifestyle. I briefly quit, and
    gained a few pounds. It's a matter of sticking with it.

  14. Rusty said:

    My body requires X amount of calories (per lean body weight) to carry on
    daily functions.

    Simplified for confused people...

    Your body has a basic minimum calorific need (your basal metabolic rate
    or BMR). This is the rate that your metabolism functions at when at
    rest. Any exertion above that resting state increases calorific need.
    Heavier exertion, i.e., exercise in any form, requires more calories to
    maintain the status quo. If you exercise and don't increase calories,
    your body will burn stored calories. Fat is the storage tank that most
    people are concerned with, but the body is basically lazy and will look
    for easier options first. If you remove or reduce those options, i.e.,
    remove non-essential carbs from your diet, then the body only has fat
    left to meet demands.

    So, in a way you are right. If you don't reduce calories in your diet,
    you can get a similar effect by burning them. The hidden advantage of
    burning calories through exercise is that you will build muscle and
    raise your basal rate, thus burning even more calories on a permanent,
    twenty-four hour basis. If you reduce calories in your diet, as well as
    do regular exercise, you will do both and reduce weight faster. Doing it
    this way gives you two advantages over simple calorie restriction
    dieting. Your increased metabolic rate will allow you to eat a much
    higher number of calories before you begin re-gaining weight, you can
    enjoy eating food and satisfy your appetite, and you will also be much
    healthier because of your increased fitness.

    Losing weight is easy, anyone can do it. Keeping weight off is harder,
    most recent reports claim that only around ten percent of people can
    manage to remain at their new weight. If you exercise, regularly, you
    will find it much easier to be among that ten percent.

    It is like a huge, overloaded V8 car that has slowed through lack of
    maintenance until it is only struggling along on three or four
    cylinders. The fuel tank doesn't need filling as often, in fact it is
    easy to overfill it, but it is struggling to function, even small hills
    almost stop it. It is not making efficient use of the small amount of
    fuel that it is allowed. Exercise and you have a big, thirsty V8
    churning up fuel again, it will use every drop it can get, none is left
    over. The hell with OPEC and the Arabs, this is my story ... <g>

    If I add exercise, this creates a calorie deficiency.

    Quoted message said:

    As long as the calorie deficiency isn't so severe that it shocks my
    body, the end result should be a loss of weight over time.

    If this is true, what of the theory that if my exercise burns 100
    calories, 10% being from fat, and I replace the 90% with carbohydrates
    there is no calorie deficiency yet I still lose weight.

    I have no idea what you are saying/asking here. You can't replace ten
    percent with ninety percent. It won't fit, not even if you use a very
    big hammer.

    You are confused. Have you heard about osmosis? Perhaps you should keep
    your distance around blondes. <g>

    Quoted message said:


    There are just too many different diet and exercise plans. It's all very
    confusing.

    Regards

    David

    --

    To reply, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

    All other mail is automatically deleted.

  15. Jim Bard said:

    "DJ Delorie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Jim Bard said:

    Excess carbs are stored in the body as fat, for future fuel.

    And glycogen and protein too.

    The glycogen thing seems to be documented. Eating protein, well, that's
    protein.

    Um, no. Adding muscle is storing protein. Replacing cells is storing
    it as protein.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you eat fewer carbs than your body requires, you will lose
    weight.

    No. If you eat fewer CALORIES than your body USES, you will lose
    weight. You can still gain weight on low carb.

    No argument there!

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The energy provided by carbs, or fat and protein, translate into
    calories.

    No, it's *measured* in calories. Calories isn't a "thing" you can
    translate something into.

    Are you mincing words with me? Food intake, regardless of the form, has
    calories. A calorie is a measure of heat, actually. The human body takes in
    food and handles it in the most efficient way it is designed.

    Too vague. Energy=calories. No translation necessary. The human body
    uses the caloric content of food as it does. Efficiency is variable
    and subjective.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You will lose interest in high-carb foods

    Maybe, maybe not. Not for me.

    You would benefit from staying away from the higher carb foods. Most people
    do lose interest in them if they follow a low-carb diet properly.

    Nah. Most people can't be spoken for here. This is one forum and
    hardly representative of the universe of folks trying it. My
    experience isn't like this. I miss breads and pasta and pastries.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and likely lose interest in foods that supply your body with a lot
    of calories and a lot of food.

    Not always. Certainly not for me.

    I guess each person's experience is different. I'm sorry it doesn't work
    for you the way it does for most of us.

    Please don't try to speak for a crowd. We've read too many stories
    here that don't bear this viewpoint out.

    Quoted message said:

    I am slow at losing weight, but I love the lifestyle. I briefly quit, and
    gained a few pounds. It's a matter of sticking with it.

    Like all programs that work while we use them.

    Pastorio

  16. Jim Bard said:

    Eating protein, well, that's protein.

    A sample human[1] stores about 13 lbs of muscle protein, representing
    about 24,000 kcal of available fuel[2][3].

    [1] 150 lb male 22%bf

    [2] "The Ketogenic Diet," Lyle McDonald, p19.

    [3] "Textbook of Biochemistry with Clinical Correlations 4th Ed",
    Ed. Thomas M. Devlin, Wiley-Liss, 1997.

    There, now that's documented too.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.