How To Exercise & Lose Weight / Slim Down & Get Rid Of Love Handle Aka Spare Tyre? (Compiled)

[Guest Guest]

Discipline.... Discipline... is the key word. No McDonald, No KFC, No Burger King, No Laksa, No Nasi Lemak, No Char Shew Meat... No chicken rice and many more...

Breakfast eat cereal, milk and eggs.

Lunch vege rice, salad and fruits.

Dinner fat less rice dish and fruits.

Go gym everyday after work.

Drink sugarless soya to get protein.

Most important... NO SUPPER and Sleep before 10pm.

Not easy, but achievable.

 

dun drink so much soya....it can increase ur level of estrogen

[bluerunner]

How come no one mentioned, Mary juices (supplements, pills, or whatever you call it). Popping lots of it until face looks like vampire?!

[flexhunk]

I will usually turn on my tv and watch porns while doing workout at home. It motivates me alot seeing those muscular porn stars.

[xydboy]

How come no one mentioned, Mary juices (supplements, pills, or whatever you call it). Popping lots of it until face looks like vampire?!

Poor diet supplemented is still a poor diet.

[ash12]

I will usually turn on my tv and watch porns while doing workout at home. It motivates me alot seeing those muscular porn stars.

Hahaha! Increase testosterone level at the same time huh?

[yexben]

Anyone tried the ABS Wheel before? 

[SeannyShortcake]

Anyone tried the ABS Wheel before? 

 

Sure have!

 

Great tool for core stability. Try the roll outs while standing.

[TheVisitors]

To achieve weight science, its understanding your internal body, thus sport and nutrition science is very important

 

Its about mental power concentration, determination, and the will to change yourself for the better. Coupled with this change. 80% is about your diet

 

As long as your watch what you eat, and when you eat, cut down your fat, carbo, sodium, processed food, white sugar and mineral water intake, you will be on the right track

 

High tech gym and gadgets are of no use if you do not understand many many fundamentals of the human anatomy

 

 

Weight loss, muscle building, is determined by 3 important factors

 

Your natural testosterone production, inactive/over active thyroid and, stress correlating to  cortisol production( which is indirectly linked to your thyriod's health)

 

Watch this from Dr Oz.

In a nutshell, it makes a lot of sense about weight management and weight loss

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL210_mo0fI

[xydboy]

To achieve weight science, its understanding your internal body, thus sport and nutrition science is very important

 

Its about mental power concentration, determination, and the will to change yourself for the better. Coupled with this change. 80% is about your diet

 

As long as your watch what you eat, and when you eat, cut down your fat, carbo, sodium, processed food, white sugar and mineral water intake, you will be on the right track

 

High tech gym and gadgets are of no use if you do not understand many many fundamentals of the human anatomy

 

 

Weight loss, muscle building, is determined by 3 important factors

 

Your natural testosterone production, inactive/over active thyroid and, stress correlating to  cortisol production( which is indirectly linked to your thyriod's health)

 

Watch this from Dr Oz.

In a nutshell, it makes a lot of sense about weight management and weight loss

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL210_mo0fI

It becomes a egg first or chicken first issue, does all these metabolic factors decides how active you become, or does how active you become affect these hormonal/metabolic factors. I would say that everything is important, from diet to the type of activities play a role, which one come first or have more impact to the body is hard to tell. 

[Steve5380]

It becomes a egg first or chicken first issue, does all these metabolic factors decides how active you become, or does how active you become affect these hormonal/metabolic factors. I would say that everything is important, from diet to the type of activities play a role, which one come first or have more impact to the body is hard to tell.

Diet and exercise are less related than chicken and egg. What the video correctly states is that our size depends more of our nutrition than of our exercise. People who work out a lot can still get or remain fat if they don't eat correctly. But people can lose weight by changing their eating habits even if they don't exercise.

[btmslut]

Count calories consumed and burnt. Get a calorie deficit each day. 2 pieces of kfc thighs (the tastiest part!) Would give you about 700+ calories. Running for 45 mins at 10 kmh would burn about 500 calories for a 70kg guy, so that gives you an indication of how much extra effort you have to put to burn off the meal.

[TheVisitors]

Diet and exercise are less related than chicken and egg. What the video correctly states is that our size depends more of our nutrition than of our exercise. People who work out a lot can still get or remain fat if they don't eat correctly. But people can lose weight by changing their eating habits even if they don't exercise.

You hit the nail.

I am one of those people will label as fit looking person one look from my physique, given that I do run  6km, swim and gym 4 x a week. And i thought I knew a lot in  this aspect

Until recently one week ago, by chance I met a very fit good looking fitness instructor from Thailand, who gave me his secret to weight loss via the right diet

 

So I tried, and it worked because in one week, I lost (very miraculously) 10kg of water and waste which I did not know i was carrying. Its also 2 inches off the waist

My pants went loose suddenly

 

The results are quite visible because I have people who commented that I look " smalller but more tone"

 

You are right. No matter how much exercise you do, without a proper diet, and knowing what to eat at certain timing, nothing is going to change

 

Thus I am going to stick to his programme and diet he prescribed me, which is totally organic

 

Many thanks !

[SurpriseMEinHere]

Hi TheVisitor,

 

Would you be able to share the basic components of this program and diet?  Thank you.

[TheVisitors]

Hi TheVisitor,

 

Would you be able to share the basic components of this program and diet?  Thank you.

It basically reigniting your thyroid glands, pituary glands in your brains, rid your liver fat plus your digestive system which increases your metabolism

 

Sorry, its a formula he gave me which is confidential.

 

Its only for close friends or people I know personally

[SurpriseMEinHere]

Ah ok ...  Gotcha.  I understand.  Thanks for responding so quickly ...    : )

[iamziz]

[fab]

Did he lose too much weight too sudden?

[iamziz]

Did he lose too much weight too sudden?

 

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/10/loose-skin-after-weight-loss-video_n_6131398.html

 

Losing a lot of weight can sometimes result in unwanted excess skin, but one inspirational man wants to help others feel positive about their new look.

 

John David Glaude was 25 stone 10 pounds. There was no fad diet - through exercise and a healthy diet he lost 11 stone 6 pounds in just seven months.

 

"Being overweight, you're obviously very self-conscious about how you look," he says in the above video.

 

"Losing the weight, I'm not as self conscious when I have a layer over my skin. I'm comfortable clothed, but I'm not that comfortable unclothed."

 

Glaude undresses in front of the camera, revealing the excess skin he has gained since losing weight.

 

He created the video to tackle his insecurity head-on, and wants others to do the same.

 

"You should never let loose skin stop you from going for your dream," he says. "Loose skin and all, I am happy with where I have come from and where I'm at now.

 

"This is who I am and I'm proud of it."

[bodybuildMLY]

 

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/10/loose-skin-after-weight-loss-video_n_6131398.html

 

Losing a lot of weight can sometimes result in unwanted excess skin, but one inspirational man wants to help others feel positive about their new look.

 

John David Glaude was 25 stone 10 pounds. There was no fad diet - through exercise and a healthy diet he lost 11 stone 6 pounds in just seven months.

 

"Being overweight, you're obviously very self-conscious about how you look," he says in the above video.

 

"Losing the weight, I'm not as self conscious when I have a layer over my skin. I'm comfortable clothed, but I'm not that comfortable unclothed."

 

Glaude undresses in front of the camera, revealing the excess skin he has gained since losing weight.

 

He created the video to tackle his insecurity head-on, and wants others to do the same.

 

"You should never let loose skin stop you from going for your dream," he says. "Loose skin and all, I am happy with where I have come from and where I'm at now.

 

"This is who I am and I'm proud of it."

 

 

Very inspiring indeed! Just to add a cent worth of thought, to avoid those saggy skin, try to lose around 0.5 to 1 kg maximum per week because your skin is the largest living organ and it needs time for it to compensate with the loss of body fat. Drastic fat loss causes the skin to unable to cope with the charge too quickly, hence it causes loose skin.

 

Nonetheless, I applaud the guy's effort....its all muscles getting visible under the skin!!!

[xydboy]

Diet and exercise are less related than chicken and egg. What the video correctly states is that our size depends more of our nutrition than of our exercise. People who work out a lot can still get or remain fat if they don't eat correctly. But people can lose weight by changing their eating habits even if they don't exercise.

I think that you might have overlooked on this. When you exercise and build mass, your metabolism increases also. Which would then contribute to daily energy expenditure. Therefore, it is valid to say that exercise would also contribute to size. Its the overload principle, you exercise, you add load to the body, therefore it increases in size. Size increment can comes from fat, which like you mentioned, poor diet, therefore increment of fat mass which results in weight gain and changes in body size. What exercise does is that even if that same diet that you eat, you would still put on muscle mass among the fat tissues, and that will also result in the weight gain and changes in body size as well.

 

 Yes people can lose weight by changing their eating habits, but you do not get the same benefits on health through exercise. Then again, that's for the other debate. Oh and one more thing, don't buy what Dr Oz says wholesale, have a look at other avenues of research and science because the views might be a little skewed. His validity of his comments was questioned in the recent months or so in the news.

[xydboy]

Very inspiring indeed! Just to add a cent worth of thought, to avoid those saggy skin, try to lose around 0.5 to 1 kg maximum per week because your skin is the largest living organ and it needs time for it to compensate with the loss of body fat. Drastic fat loss causes the skin to unable to cope with the charge too quickly, hence it causes loose skin.

 

Nonetheless, I applaud the guy's effort....its all muscles getting visible under the skin!!!

Actually that's the recommended healthy weight loss range if i don't recall wrongly.

[Steve5380]

I think that you might have overlooked on this. When you exercise and build mass, your metabolism increases also. Which would then contribute to daily energy expenditure. Therefore, it is valid to say that exercise would also contribute to size. Its the overload principle, you exercise, you add load to the body, therefore it increases in size. Size increment can comes from fat, which like you mentioned, poor diet, therefore increment of fat mass which results in weight gain and changes in body size. What exercise does is that even if that same diet that you eat, you would still put on muscle mass among the fat tissues, and that will also result in the weight gain and changes in body size as well.

 

 Yes people can lose weight by changing their eating habits, but you do not get the same benefits on health through exercise. Then again, that's for the other debate. Oh and one more thing, don't buy what Dr Oz says wholesale, have a look at other avenues of research and science because the views might be a little skewed. His validity of his comments was questioned in the recent months or so in the news.

 

You are right that there is much more to the issue than what fits in a few phrases.  In broad terms, Dr Oz is right in his recommendation to the general public (not expert bodybuilders):  losing weight is primarily a matter of nutrition (maybe the kind of food more important than the calories).  We know that except for obese people the main objective is not just losing weight but to achieve an optimum Body Mass Index.  And here is where exercise comes into play.  A periodic healthy increase in weight to help the buildup of muscle, followed by a decrease in food intake to become more lean while keeping up the exercise.  And the exercise itself needs also a periodicity.

[bodybuildMLY]

Actually that's the recommended healthy weight loss range if i don't recall wrongly.

 

Yes, usually that is recommended. Based on experience, it is not too drastic for the body to cope with the change due to weight loss, plus focusing on fat loss too.

[xydboy]

You are right that there is much more to the issue than what fits in a few phrases.  In broad terms, Dr Oz is right in his recommendation to the general public (not expert bodybuilders):  losing weight is primarily a matter of nutrition (maybe the kind of food more important than the calories).  We know that except for obese people the main objective is not just losing weight but to achieve an optimum Body Mass Index.  And here is where exercise comes into play.  A periodic healthy increase in weight to help the buildup of muscle, followed by a decrease in food intake to become more lean while keeping up the exercise.  And the exercise itself needs also a periodicity.

You are right, but i'm just saying that losing weight is not primarily a matter of nutrition, its a matter of energy in and energy out. The points on this will be elaborated below. Firstly, the key thing that he spoke about in the video at the start was to point out the importance of waist size and the impact on health. Given that waist size or circumference reflects the about of viseral adipose tissue, which are predictors of health risks. That was why he later on came up with some recommendation which includes moving 30 mins/day, high fibre diet,etc. Just to quote a scientific study conducted, it tracked 1064 caucasian women over a duration of 5 to 7 years and have compared physical activity, diet, and 2 other variables which are not so important in this discussion. It was found that "Change in PAL influenced weight change explaining 4.4% (P=0.001) of the variation. Alterations in dietary energy intake also had a small but significant effect (0.6% P=0.013)." (reference:http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v27/n6/full/0802283a.html)

 

So if you were to relook at what Dr oz presented, essentially those visceral adipose tissues which you saw, are stored because there is a lack of physical activity. Your body works on the basis of energy, so if you were to eat lets say 50kcal of items, and you burn 20kcal without doing anything, what's left is the 30kcal. It just keeps storing until it reaches what you see in the video. But if you were to exercise and lets say burn 30kcal of it, then you would not have any weight gain. this are just arbitrary figures but you get the point. Bodybuilders, obese people, average joes, office men,etc, all work on the same basis. And to put one step forward, when you exercise more and build more muscles, your body's daily energy expenditure increases. it's like you have got more "babies" to feed, that's why it's not necessary that you need to decrease the food intake or calorie intake. Yes it's a myriad linking of activities occurring in the human body, and it is complex. And this is also why I said sometimes take Dr Oz words with a pinch of salt-there are truths within, but not everything.

[Steve5380]

----

So if you were to relook at what Dr oz presented, essentially those visceral adipose tissues which you saw, are stored because there is a lack of physical activity. Your body works on the basis of energy, so if you were to eat lets say 50kcal of items, and you burn 20kcal without doing anything, what's left is the 30kcal. It just keeps storing until it reaches what you see in the video. But if you were to exercise and lets say burn 30kcal of it, then you would not have any weight gain. this are just arbitrary figures but you get the point. Bodybuilders, obese people, average joes, office men,etc, all work on the same basis. And to put one step forward, when you exercise more and build more muscles, your body's daily energy expenditure increases. it's like you have got more "babies" to feed, that's why it's not necessary that you need to decrease the food intake or calorie intake. Yes it's a myriad linking of activities occurring in the human body, and it is complex. And this is also why I said sometimes take Dr Oz words with a pinch of salt-there are truths within, but not everything.

 

xydboy,  making a balance between input, output (consumed) and stored works good for the gasoline in our cars. We can be sure that what remains in the tank is what we loaded at the gas station minus what we consumed on the road.  But our bodies are not that simple.  Maybe this complexity is good because if not,  if calories stored = calories eaten - calories burned,  we would be terribly unstable. I am one of those who have difficulty putting on weight,  and I know that if I eat twice as much I will NOT increase in weight as desired.

 

It seems that we have a regulating mechanism inside that controls our size quite well, unless we push it too hard by either eating too much or too little.  The above equation is wrong because it misses a term:  the calories not absorbed from the food.  Our digestive system is very complex and foods are absorbed in different ways under different conditions.  If parts of our stomach, small intestine are bypassed like in some bariatric surgeries,  then much of the food is not absorbed and is wasted.

 

I don't know much details of this regulating mechanism and how food absorption may function, but I never count calories yet my weight remains practically constant.  It seems that if we are healthy and eat a good diet  the body takes care of just taking the nutrients it needs from the food we eat.  So to do a lot of aerobics to "burn calories" may not be a good idea.  Better is to exercise for other reasons like build/maintain muscle, improve cardiovascular function, keep bones and connective tissue strong, etc.

[lonely84]

Any weight losing diet to recommend for busy professionals that do not have much time to prepare/cook own meals? Like foods we can get from food courts, malls, etc...

[Steve5380]

Any weight losing diet to recommend for busy professionals that do not have much time to prepare/cook own meals? Like foods we can get from food courts, malls, etc...

 

Breakfast:  you should be able to eat it at home, at least hard-boiling two eggs and cooking some good cereal like oat bran, oat meal with water or milk in the microwave.  Takes less time than having breakfast elsewhere.

 

Lunch:  if possible bring your own lunch,  like again two hard-boiled eggs, a good sandwich (avoid deli meats), fruits.

 

Dinner:  you should be able to eat it at home too.  It's very quick to prepare chicken breasts in the microwave, steam vegetables, cook on the stove lentil beans, etc.

 

Snack:  bring NUTS to work to eat as snack.  They are delicious! :  raw almonds (not roasted nor salted), cashews (maybe roasted but not salted)

 

It should not be looked down at work when professionals, managers bring their launches or other food from home. Usually there are refrigerators at work.  Eating out should be left for social reasons.

[bluerunner]

Most of these "healthy food" is not really delicious. Thus, it really takes a lot of discipline and self-control to eat it religiously for a long period of time to get that lean ripped body.

Most ppl started well but could not endure and hang on till the end.

[Steve5380]

Most of these "healthy food" is not really delicious. Thus, it really takes a lot of discipline and self-control to eat it religiously for a long period of time to get that lean ripped body.

Most ppl started well but could not endure and hang on till the end.

Not really. It takes a long time to get that lean rippled body. It takes much less time to abandon bad eating habits and get used to more healthy ones. For example, addiction to salt and spices can be lost in a couple of months of abandoning them, and then when trying the old food everything will be salty and over-spicy. Same with other tastes: abandon the ketchup and the steak sauces and the natural flavor of food will come out. Meanwhile, the body is far from being ripped, lean. This takes years.l

But the years pass anyway. Making the effort, one gets there in some? years. Not making it, the time is wasted. We get older one way or another.

[bluerunner]

As we get older, more effort is needed. Tough.

[lonely84]

Breakfast:  you should be able to eat it at home, at least hard-boiling two eggs and cooking some good cereal like oat bran, oat meal with water or milk in the microwave.  Takes less time than having breakfast elsewhere.

 

Lunch:  if possible bring your own lunch,  like again two hard-boiled eggs, a good sandwich (avoid deli meats), fruits.

 

Dinner:  you should be able to eat it at home too.  It's very quick to prepare chicken breasts in the microwave, steam vegetables, cook on the stove lentil beans, etc.

 

Snack:  bring NUTS to work to eat as snack.  They are delicious! :  raw almonds (not roasted nor salted), cashews (maybe roasted but not salted)

 

It should not be looked down at work when professionals, managers bring their launches or other food from home. Usually there are refrigerators at work.  Eating out should be left for social reasons.

Thanks Steve. Just curious, would it be an overkill to consume 4 eggs a day? as in whole egg or without egg yolk?

Breakfast: Cereals should be ok for me.

Lunch: is tuna or egg mayo sandwich good enough?

Dinner: I'm thinking to take whole meal bread or buns instead, not sure will this work for me?

Snack: I love cashews, but it will trigger pimple breakouts. how about raisins or dried fruits?

 

Most of these "healthy food" is not really delicious. Thus, it really takes a lot of discipline and self-control to eat it religiously for a long period of time to get that lean ripped body.

Most ppl started well but could not endure and hang on till the end.

Agree with you, I find healthy food tastes bland and its been very tough for me not to take spicy food in most of my meals...

[Steve5380]

Thanks Steve. Just curious, would it be an overkill to consume 4 eggs a day? as in whole egg or without egg yolk?

Breakfast: Cereals should be ok for me.

Lunch: is tuna or egg mayo sandwich good enough?

Dinner: I'm thinking to take whole meal bread or buns instead, not sure will this work for me?

Snack: I love cashews, but it will trigger pimple breakouts. how about raisins or dried fruits?

 

Agree with you, I find healthy food tastes bland and its been very tough for me not to take spicy food in most of my meals...

 

An overkill to eat 4 eggs a day?  Too much of a good thing?  Because eggs are very good nutritional value.  Here the "nutritional science" is shifting again,  like 'hannibalism' well noted, and dietary cholesterol is not demonized as much anymore.  Unless the bad cholesterol is quite high, 4 egg yolks a day should not cause damage.  Since routine exams are the norm today, one can keep an eye on cholesterol in the lab test results.

 

Tuna, egg mayo sandwich sounds good.  (no need to worry about mercury in tuna affecting pregnancy)

 

Whole wheat bread is definitely better than white bread and buns. But, is it hard to find other carbohydrates than bread for dinner? How about cooking something on the stove, or electric cooker, microwave?

 

Dried fruits for snack is a good choice:  raisins, dried plums, apricots (hmmm, my favorite)

 

It must be extremely hard to put up with healthy food that has a natural taste. Giving up spices, salt, sugar, must be a suffering comparable to being fat and sick!  Or not? 

[lonely84]

An overkill to eat 4 eggs a day?  Too much of a good thing?  Because eggs are very good nutritional value.  Here the "nutritional science" is shifting again,  like 'hannibalism' well noted, and dietary cholesterol is not demonized as much anymore.  Unless the bad cholesterol is quite high, 4 egg yolks a day should not cause damage.  Since routine exams are the norm today, one can keep an eye on cholesterol in the lab test results.

 

Tuna, egg mayo sandwich sounds good.  (no need to worry about mercury in tuna affecting pregnancy)

 

Whole wheat bread is definitely better than white bread and buns. But, is it hard to find other carbohydrates than bread for dinner? How about cooking something on the stove, or electric cooker, microwave?

 

Dried fruits for snack is a good choice:  raisins, dried plums, apricots (hmmm, my favorite)

 

It must be extremely hard to put up with healthy food that has a natural taste. Giving up spices, salt, sugar, must be a suffering comparable to being fat and sick!  Or not? 

Once again, thanks for your suggestions.

 

Regarding consuming 4 eggs a day, I'll give it a try. Eggs are a good source of food to keep me full for longer time too. Just that I was kind of reserved about having more than 2 eggs a day due to old believes I have.

 

As for preparing own meal, it will be a challenge for me as I am staying at rented place. Hence I am looking for alternatives that we could buy from stalls/food courts/malls that can be consumed immediately.

 

And yes, I will need to have a very strong determination to change to healthy food diet. The first step I'll need to do is find an alternative to rice that could keep me full for at least half a day.

 

Anyway points noted

[SeannyShortcake]

Not gonna go into too scientific a detail because I want the layman to be able to understand this.

 

I don't think any one ever said you had to give up salt and spices to stay healthy/eat clean.

In actual fact many spices such as turmeric,thyme,rosemary,cinnamon,e.t.c. have many healing properties and can be very hard to overeat without noticing.

 

You don't need carbs if you're trying to lose weight.

Changing to whole wheat bread and brown rice does nothing for you as your overall carb intake is still high and only an absence of it can your body switch to using your own body fat to start.

Dried fruits is also a horrible choice as the sugar levels are high and the fibre and water soluble vitamins are greatly reduced.

 

Mayo is a no go. By far the commercial tuna and egg mayo contains trans fatty acids which can lead to your arteries being clogged in the long run. Plus carbs (bread) and fat (eggs/mayo/any type of oil) does not go well together as it leads to your body storing the fat into your fat cells and digesting the carbs for energy first.

 

Therefore separate your fat from your carbs in your meals. Protein generally goes well with either.

[TheVisitors]

Since my posting on 9th Nov, I lost another 3.5 kg, my waist is now 31.

 

If you do not understand how your body works, you can never lose weight

 

Its not really about the food you eat ( that's important because its 70 80% of the contribution) its about understanding your internal structure at different stages of your life

[Steve5380]

Not gonna go into too scientific a detail because I want the layman to be able to understand this.

 

I don't think any one ever said you had to give up salt and spices to stay healthy/eat clean.

In actual fact many spices such as turmeric,thyme,rosemary,cinnamon,e.t.c. have many healing properties and can be very hard to overeat without noticing.

 

You don't need carbs if you're trying to lose weight.

Changing to whole wheat bread and brown rice does nothing for you as your overall carb intake is still high and only an absence of it can your body switch to using your own body fat to start.

Dried fruits is also a horrible choice as the sugar levels are high and the fibre and water soluble vitamins are greatly reduced.

 

Mayo is a no go. By far the commercial tuna and egg mayo contains trans fatty acids which can lead to your arteries being clogged in the long run. Plus carbs (bread) and fat (eggs/mayo/any type of oil) does not go well together as it leads to your body storing the fat into your fat cells and digesting the carbs for energy first.

 

Therefore separate your fat from your carbs in your meals. Protein generally goes well with either.

 

Sometimes we alternate between being layman and expert when it comes to nutrition. 

 

There is solid evidence of the harm of excessive salt in our diet.  Salt is added to processed foods to improve flavor.  The same as sugar is added, especially to low or no fat products, to improve flavor.  This is why it is wise to not crave for spicy, flavored food.  It is wise to have no salt, no sugar in the house.  This does not rule out the use of healthy species, as you well mention.

 

It is better to lose weight by eating the right foods instead of starving in a crush diet. What is the rush?  It is always positive to eat complex carbohydrates together with protein.  Whole wheat bread and brown rice are much better than their white counterparts. But, as you say, they are not the best. A better choice are the leguminous, for example.  Lentils and beans.

 

Dried fruits can be horrible for people who don't tolerate the sulfites added to them as preservatives. High sugar can be a problem when it is intentionally added to the dried fruits.  But the natural sugar in them,  also concentrated by the drying, should not be harmful.  And then, there is a lot of good to be said about them:

 

"Just as dried apricots are dehydrated fresh apricots, prunes are the result of drying fresh plums. These two fruits belong to the rose family and are botanically related to almonds, peaches, nectarines and other stone fruits. Fresh apricots and prunes are excellent sources of several important nutrients, including fiber, potassium and antioxidant carotenoids. Although the drying process degrades a fruit’s content of water-soluble and heat-sensitive vitamins such as vitamin C, other nutrients become more concentrated. Consequently, dried apricots and prunes provide higher levels of most nutrients, ounce for ounce, than their fresh counterparts.  Prunes and dried apricots are excellent sources of dietary fiber. They’re especially rich in soluble fiber, the type that dissolves into a gel-like substance and binds to fatty acids to encourage their excretion in waste. "

 

You must be right about commercial tuna and egg mayo.  I have never tried this stuff.  I put tuna (from a can) on a slice of bread, and egg, which I always eat whole, could be added as slices.  But tuna, egg and bread should go well together: protein with carbs.   Maybe the "mayo" should be left in the store

Edited November 19, 2014 by Steve5380

[Steve5380]

----

And yes, I will need to have a very strong determination to change to healthy food diet. The first step I'll need to do is find an alternative to rice that could keep me full for at least half a day.

 

Anyway points noted

 

May I suggest as alternative to rice my favorite carb:  lentils.  Thrown (carefully) in boiling water they are ready to eat in 10 - 15 minutes. Then, anything can be added to them, which in my case is green vegetables steamed separately.

 

You mentioned that you stay at a rented place, so I assume that you don't have a stove, refrigerator.  I am often in the same situation when I travel and stay in hotel rooms.   My solution is to carry a little electric immersion heater. This and a container allow me to hard-boil eggs.  In a small rented place without oven I would buy an electric rice cooker/steamer to cook my lentils while steaming any kind of vegetables.

[Steve5380]

Since my posting on 9th Nov, I lost another 3.5 kg, my waist is now 31.

 

If you do not understand how your body works, you can never lose weight

 

Its not really about the food you eat ( that's important because its 70 80% of the contribution) its about understanding your internal structure at different stages of your life

 

3.5 kg in 10 days?  Stop, stop... you don't want to disappear if your weight goes to zero.

[xydboy]

xydboy,  making a balance between input, output (consumed) and stored works good for the gasoline in our cars. We can be sure that what remains in the tank is what we loaded at the gas station minus what we consumed on the road.  But our bodies are not that simple.  Maybe this complexity is good because if not,  if calories stored = calories eaten - calories burned,  we would be terribly unstable. I am one of those who have difficulty putting on weight,  and I know that if I eat twice as much I will NOT increase in weight as desired.

 

It seems that we have a regulating mechanism inside that controls our size quite well, unless we push it too hard by either eating too much or too little.  The above equation is wrong because it misses a term:  the calories not absorbed from the food.  Our digestive system is very complex and foods are absorbed in different ways under different conditions.  If parts of our stomach, small intestine are bypassed like in some bariatric surgeries,  then much of the food is not absorbed and is wasted.

 

I don't know much details of this regulating mechanism and how food absorption may function, but I never count calories yet my weight remains practically constant.  It seems that if we are healthy and eat a good diet  the body takes care of just taking the nutrients it needs from the food we eat.  So to do a lot of aerobics to "burn calories" may not be a good idea.  Better is to exercise for other reasons like build/maintain muscle, improve cardiovascular function, keep bones and connective tissue strong, etc.

Laws of thermodynamics no? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, can only be converted to one form or another. If calories stored is not = calories eaten - calories used, then you must be brilliant enough to come up with something to refute this law of thermodynamics. Throughout my academic studies in a degree in sports science from a local university, I have came across many texts in exercise physiology and they sing the same song on this law. I think you mistaken the concept of calories. Calories are not nutrients, its the amount of energy required to raise the temp of 1 degrees celcius at atmospheric pressure. What people in the past do is they feed someone a food, they made the person exercise and they measure the energy expenditure, that's one method called direct calorimetry. The one you talk about food not absorbed and wasted, that's nutrients. Nutrients are macro/micro molecules that are building blocks of the body or provide some means of support to the body's function. Your body don't absorbed calories, it expands it, what it absorb is nutrients. Have a look at studies that involves gut or intestinal absorption, and they will tell you the fraction of nutrients absorbed, not the amount of calories, because unless you utilise some form of calorimetry, direct or indirect, there is hardly anyway in which you can measure calories.

 

You never count calories and you weight the same is due to many reasons. One of it is that your body is very good at maintaining homeostasis, and any disturbance to the "internal environment", the body will try to do something about it. That's why in many situations, you take a big buffet yesterday, you won't get that significant changes, when you weigh yourself again, there wouldn't be any changes. But if you were to have buffet everyday for a month, that amount of stimuli will overcome the homeostasis capability of the body, resulting in a net gain in weight. of course, the increase of calories would also result in more fat mass or lean muscle mass stored in the body.

[uncannyxmen]

when it is holiday what im doing is i eat a bit of everything, i just avoid lot of carbs as much as possible and sweets. usually i eat small portions of meat and vegee whenever i feel like eating. it worked that way and didnt gain any weight

[Steve5380]

Laws of thermodynamics no? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, can only be converted to one form or another. If calories stored is not = calories eaten - calories used, then you must be brilliant enough to come up with something to refute this law of thermodynamics. Throughout my academic studies in a degree in sports science from a local university, I have came across many texts in exercise physiology and they sing the same song on this law. I think you mistaken the concept of calories. Calories are not nutrients, its the amount of energy required to raise the temp of 1 degrees celcius at atmospheric pressure. What people in the past do is they feed someone a food, they made the person exercise and they measure the energy expenditure, that's one method called direct calorimetry. The one you talk about food not absorbed and wasted, that's nutrients. Nutrients are macro/micro molecules that are building blocks of the body or provide some means of support to the body's function. Your body don't absorbed calories, it expands it, what it absorb is nutrients. Have a look at studies that involves gut or intestinal absorption, and they will tell you the fraction of nutrients absorbed, not the amount of calories, because unless you utilise some form of calorimetry, direct or indirect, there is hardly anyway in which you can measure calories.

 

You never count calories and you weight the same is due to many reasons. One of it is that your body is very good at maintaining homeostasis, and any disturbance to the "internal environment", the body will try to do something about it. That's why in many situations, you take a big buffet yesterday, you won't get that significant changes, when you weigh yourself again, there wouldn't be any changes. But if you were to have buffet everyday for a month, that amount of stimuli will overcome the homeostasis capability of the body, resulting in a net gain in weight. of course, the increase of calories would also result in more fat mass or lean muscle mass stored in the body.

 

We seem to have a different background.  I know little of sports science,  I only studied engineering and we take thermodynamics quite seriously.  As you say,  a calorie is a unit of energy,  the heat (energy) that raises 1 gram of water by 1 deg C.  But the problem I see with 'calories' is that you assign this number to a quantity of food.  Let's say, you eat 1000 'calories' of food.  This says nothing of how your body will absorb such calories.  If you have a better digestive system than mine,  better stomach, better intestines, you chew better, your intestinal flora is more active, etc. etc.  you may absorb twice as many calories from this food as I do.

 

Another unknown is in the physical expenditure of energy.  We both exercise on a stationary bicycle until it reads 1000 calories. You may have a better style and do the work with ease, and I may be very clumsy and need twice the effort as you do.  Our bodies are not perfect mechanical machines, and they don't run a perfect thermodynamic cycle.  So our "efficiency", transforming energy into mechanical work, can vary all over the place.

 

And finally, the nice calorimetric equations of sport science seem to ignore a fourth term:  the 'calories' that slide out every time we poo.  These must be even harder to measure,  and with less pleasure to do so

[xydboy]

We seem to have a different background.  I know little of sports science,  I only studied engineering and we take thermodynamics quite seriously.  As you say,  a calorie is a unit of energy,  the heat (energy) that raises 1 gram of water by 1 deg C.  But the problem I see with 'calories' is that you assign this number to a quantity of food.  Let's say, you eat 1000 'calories' of food.  This says nothing of how your body will absorb such calories.  If you have a better digestive system than mine,  better stomach, better intestines, you chew better, your intestinal flora is more active, etc. etc.  you may absorb twice as many calories from this food as I do.

 

Another unknown is in the physical expenditure of energy.  We both exercise on a stationary bicycle until it reads 1000 calories. You may have a better style and do the work with ease, and I may be very clumsy and need twice the effort as you do.  Our bodies are not perfect mechanical machines, and they don't run a perfect thermodynamic cycle.  So our "efficiency", transforming energy into mechanical work, can vary all over the place.

 

And finally, the nice calorimetric equations of sport science seem to ignore a fourth term:  the 'calories' that slide out every time we poo.  These must be even harder to measure,  and with less pleasure to do so

Yes definitely we are from a different background. But from the first paragraph, you raised the idea of absorbing. Like i've mentioned, there is no way of absorbing calories, it flout the basic definition of calories in the first place. How can your body absorb calories? it absorbs nutrients, that's why there are nutrient labels for food that we eat. From the scientific literature I've came across, there is no article that mentioned about how calories can be absorbed. To prove my point, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/1/58.short and to quote this article, "observed associations between gut microbes and nutrient absorption indicates...." So you can see that people frequently coupled nutrient absorption with gut, and not calories. I think the basic understanding of a difference in nutrients and calories should be established. As for the second paragraph, I agree with your stand that mechanical workload can vary across people to people, that's why even though 2 people run on the same protocol for the same duration of time, the readings from a metabolic cart can differ vastly.

 

And time and time again, you have to revisit the molecular structure of food. Food comes in carbs,fats,proteins,etc and these are nutrients that are absorbed into the body due to the enzymes that we have. the presence of enzymes and whatever is in our gut will help play a role to mediate the absoprtion of nutrients into the body. If you said calories are absorbed, I would want to see what enzymes are in play to break down the calories into smaller structures to be absorbed into the body.

 

As for the last paragraph, in fact the same research paper which I've quoted examined and it's approximately 5% of calories lost through stools and urine. This equation is ultimately an estimate, because in practice, we would need to utilise machines. Like you mentioned and I agree, the body is not like the machines where we can obtain mechanical efficiency, there will be some lost some where and it would be hard to calculate, nevertheless it still is a good gauge in the usage of that equation and it has been widely in many organisations, from institutions that teaches nutrition and dietetics courses to national bodies such as http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/ Feel free to have a look at these references. Unless you are saying that what the nutritionist or dietitians are learning are rubbish...  

Edited November 22, 2014 by xydboy

[Steve5380]

Yes definitely we are from a different background. But from the first paragraph, you raised the idea of absorbing. Like i've mentioned, there is no way of absorbing calories, it flout the basic definition of calories in the first place. How can your body absorb calories? it absorbs nutrients, that's why there are nutrient labels for food that we eat. From the scientific literature I've came across, there is no article that mentioned about how calories can be absorbed. To prove my point, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/1/58.short and to quote this article, "observed associations between gut microbes and nutrient absorption indicates...." So you can see that people frequently coupled nutrient absorption with gut, and not calories. I think the basic understanding of a difference in nutrients and calories should be established. As for the second paragraph, I agree with your stand that mechanical workload can vary across people to people, that's why even though 2 people run on the same protocol for the same duration of time, the readings from a metabolic cart can differ vastly.

 

And time and time again, you have to revisit the molecular structure of food. Food comes in carbs,fats,proteins,etc and these are nutrients that are absorbed into the body due to the enzymes that we have. the presence of enzymes and whatever is in our gut will help play a role to mediate the absoprtion of nutrients into the body. If you said calories are absorbed, I would want to see what enzymes are in play to break down the calories into smaller structures to be absorbed into the body.

 

As for the last paragraph, in fact the same research paper which I've quoted examined and it's approximately 5% of calories lost through stools and urine. This equation is ultimately an estimate, because in practice, we would need to utilise machines. Like you mentioned and I agree, the body is not like the machines where we can obtain mechanical efficiency, there will be some lost some where and it would be hard to calculate, nevertheless it still is a good gauge in the usage of that equation and it has been widely in many organisations, from institutions that teaches nutrition and dietetics courses to national bodies such as http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/ Feel free to have a look at these references. Unless you are saying that what the nutritionist or dietitians are learning are rubbish...  

 

No, I'm not saying that the nutritionists or dietitians are learning rubbish.  At this point I am merely thinking it (out of courtesy and trying to be nice).

 

Right up front you are bashing my post with some absurdities.  It is you who associates quantities of food with calories.  I quote the formula you wrote earlier:

 

 calories stored = calories eaten - calories used

 

So you are fine with "calories eaten",  but you object to my "calories absorbed"?   I have used 'calories' to follow your choice of equating 'calories' with 'quantity of some food'.  And another absurdity of your objection:  if calories are not absorbed, like you claim, how can the body receive calories?  Don't you see that,  according to your own lingo,  when the body absorbs an amount of fat, it absorbs "the calories from such amount of fat"? 

 

Secondly, the first reference you provided, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/1/58.short "Energy-balance studies reveal associations between gut microbes, caloric load, and nutrient absorption in humans",  supports PRECISELY my indication that nutritional balance is much more complex than simply counting calories.  It seems that bacteria in our gut also play a role!

 

Third, the second reference you provided, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/,  is an oversimplification. You read there:

 

"in balance." You are eating roughly the same number of calories that your body is using. Your weight will remain stable."

 

This is pure rubbish! (no... to say it nicely, an oversimplification).  We know that digestion is not 100% efficient, that 'calories' are also pooped out, etc. So we have to always EAT MORE 'calories' than what our body is using to account for its inefficiency.  Or, putting it in another form, our bodies will always USE LESS 'calories' than what we eat.  Like your car does not convert 100% of the caloric content of the gasoline into mechanical motion.

 

All these problems come from the misuse of the simplifying trend of using 'calories'  for "nutritional value of food".  Nutrition is A VERY INEXACT SCIENCE. 

 

Maybe you want to give a look to this article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/ "The hidden truths about calories",  one of the many that deal with this subject.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Steve5380

[xydboy]

No, I'm not saying that the nutritionists or dietitians are learning rubbish.  At this point I am merely thinking it (out of courtesy and trying to be nice).

 

Right up front you are bashing my post with some absurdities.  It is you who associates quantities of food with calories.  I quote the formula you wrote earlier:

 

 calories stored = calories eaten - calories used

 

So you are fine with "calories eaten",  but you object to my "calories absorbed"?   I have used 'calories' to follow your choice of equating 'calories' with 'quantity of some food'.  And another absurdity of your objection:  if calories are not absorbed, like you claim, how can the body receive calories?  Don't you see that,  according to your own lingo,  when the body absorbs an amount of fat, it absorbs "the calories from such amount of fat"? 

 

Secondly, the first reference you provided, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/1/58.short "Energy-balance studies reveal associations between gut microbes, caloric load, and nutrient absorption in humans",  supports PRECISELY my indication that nutritional balance is much more complex than simply counting calories.  It seems that bacteria in our gut also play a role!

 

Third, the second reference you provided, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/calories/,  is an oversimplification. You read there:

 

"in balance." You are eating roughly the same number of calories that your body is using. Your weight will remain stable."

 

This is pure rubbish! (no... to say it nicely, an oversimplification).  We know that digestion is not 100% efficient, that 'calories' are also pooped out, etc. So we have to always EAT MORE 'calories' than what our body is using to account for its inefficiency.  Or, putting it in another form, our bodies will always USE LESS 'calories' than what we eat.  Like your car does not convert 100% of the caloric content of the gasoline into mechanical motion.

 

All these problems come from the misuse of the simplifying trend of using 'calories'  for "nutritional value of food".  Nutrition is A VERY INEXACT SCIENCE. 

 

Maybe you want to give a look to this article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/ "The hidden truths about calories",  one of the many that deal with this subject.

I'm just following the fundamental definition of calories versus lets say a macronutrient: fat. Calories and fat by definition is different. Would it then be wrong to argue my point over the basic definition? If the definition is wrong to begin with, then wouldn't the entire debate be wrong, no? By definition, people absorb nutrients not calories. You eat macdonalds, they give you the calories yes, but your body absorbed the nutrients from the burger after it's broken down, it doesn't take it the calories. Simple logic as to you eat the whole food, but your body only absorbs the smaller nutrients. Yes you get the calories from the nutrients absorbed, but your fundamental idea of "absorbing calories" is wrong. Do you know what does it mean to use the word absorption? By dictionary.com definition,"uptake of substances by a tissue, as of nutrients through the wall of the intestine." Recap the digestion process of the person. You take in the food, break it down into smaller chunks by the enzymes/mechanical digestion, and its these smaller particles that provides the building blocks for life namely: carbs, fats, proteins and nucleic acid.

 

Second point, i didn't say that it refute your point, i did say that just to clarify on the last point which you wrote about measurement of energy from poo/urine. Third, seems like you got an issue with the numerous PhD holders (refer to http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/aboutus/index.html) at the centre who "came up with the over-simplification equation"? Unless you got a PhD credential behind your name, would be justifiable to provide evidence based research to substantiate your point. I like the article that you wrote, but sadly it's not peer-reviewed, and not much weightage can be used in it. In science we talk about evidence, if there is not peer-reviewed evidence, there's no concrete statement as to what can or cannot be used on the human body. On top of which, there are some points in the article that is quite flawed in terms of logic, but nevertheless, I recommend that you could refer to public accessed peer reviewed journals such as the Journal of nutrition or even the ISSN journals, they have very good written scientific literature in terms of nutrition, much better than Dr Oz videos and this article. My opinion is not that nutrition is in inexact science, but rather people having their own beliefs and when there's scientific evidence conveniently provided, they just dismiss it and say that it's not true.

Edited November 23, 2014 by xydboy

[Steve5380]

I'm just following the fundamental definition of calories versus lets say a macronutrient: fat. Calories and fat by definition is different. Would it then be wrong to argue my point over the basic definition? If the definition is wrong to begin with, then wouldn't the entire debate be wrong, no? By definition, people absorb nutrients not calories. You eat macdonalds, they give you the calories yes, but your body absorbed the nutrients from the burger after it's broken down, it doesn't take it the calories. Simple logic as to you eat the whole food, but your body only absorbs the smaller nutrients. Yes you get the calories from the nutrients absorbed, but your fundamental idea of "absorbing calories" is wrong. Do you know what does it mean to use the word absorption? By dictionary.com definition,"uptake of substances by a tissue, as of nutrients through the wall of the intestine." Recap the digestion process of the person. You take in the food, break it down into smaller chunks by the enzymes/mechanical digestion, and its these smaller particles that provides the building blocks for life namely: carbs, fats, proteins and nucleic acid.

 

Second point, i didn't say that it refute your point, i did say that just to clarify on the last point which you wrote about measurement of energy from poo/urine. Third, seems like you got an issue with the numerous PhD holders (refer to http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/aboutus/index.html) at the centre who "came up with the over-simplification equation"? Unless you got a PhD credential behind your name, would be justifiable to provide evidence based research to substantiate your point. I like the article that you wrote, but sadly it's not peer-reviewed, and not much weightage can be used in it. In science we talk about evidence, if there is not peer-reviewed evidence, there's no concrete statement as to what can or cannot be used on the human body. On top of which, there are some points in the article that is quite flawed in terms of logic, but nevertheless, I recommend that you could refer to public accessed peer reviewed journals such as the Journal of nutrition or even the ISSN journals, they have very good written scientific literature in terms of nutrition, much better than Dr Oz videos and this article. My opinion is not that nutrition is in inexact science, but rather people having their own beliefs and when there's scientific evidence conveniently provided, they just dismiss it and say that it's not true.

 

I think we are arguing over trivialities.  In this issue we deal with, to talk about food or about calories is equivalent, because the food industry has chosen to associate 'calories' with food:  A certain amount of a certain food has such-and-such calories.  So "to eat the food" is equivalent to "to eat the calories" of such food.  When I write "calories absorbed" this is equivalent to "food absorbed", but with the added information that it is the calories what counts.  If you don't believe me,  please google "absorption of calories" and you will get tons of pages about it.   For example, the article http://www.livestrong.com/article/308481-what-part-of-the-body-absorbs-calories/  and (why not) this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2398393/Counting-calories-virtually-meaningless-digest-food-differently.html  telling that counting calories is worthless.  Now, these are not "articles peer-reviewed by PhDs". 

 

I don't see the necessity of that.  We are having a casual conversation and I don't have to prove anything to you.  You can believe what I say or not, it is your choice. By the way, I do have a PhD in engineering,  and I have a good understanding of thermodynamics, energy conversion, efficiency.  So I can see the problems with associating 'calories' with food, although this number is convenient  because it can be assigned independent of the type of food.

 

I think we have reached an agreement that we cannot measure the "calories used by the body" by reading a number on an exercise machine.  So to use an aerobic machine until it indicates the "burning" of 1000 calories and then thinking that our body 'lost' 1000 calories is wrong.

 

But the biggest mistake in calorie counting is to see on the box of the cookies we just ate the writing  "1000 calories", and think that our body just 'gained'  1000 calories.  The absorption of calories, or of food if you like, varies all over the place.

 

So if a person who just run the aerobic machine up to "1000 calories" and then ate "1000 calories" of cookies thinks that "I made up for the cookies",  "I evened it out",  is thinking pure nonsense.  Fortunately...  the gain of the exercise will usually more than make up for the cookies,  even if he ate 2000 calories worth of cookies.   We may not be very efficient!

 

I encourage you to read more about this subject, and realize the complexities of our digestive system and our body's metabolism.  You may find that 'calories' is something useful for a rough evaluation of foods, to get an idea which to eat and which not,  but it fails in any attempt to make quantitative evaluations.  

 

The best is still to choose wisely the food we eat (and here 'calories' can be one of several more important factors) and simply pursue our goals of losing or gaining weight by decreasing or increasing food consumption relative to what we currently do.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Steve5380

[Steve5380]

.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Steve5380

[SeannyShortcake]

Calorie counting is quite last century lol.

 

The quality of the food and timing of intake matters more.

[bodybuildMLY]

Calorie counting is quite last century lol.

 

The quality of the food and timing of intake matters more.

 

It does matter actually, especially for those who are pre-disposed to obesity. Hence the two have to complement one another. 

[xydboy]

I think we are arguing over trivialities.  In this issue we deal with, to talk about food or about calories is equivalent, because the food industry has chosen to associate 'calories' with food:  A certain amount of a certain food has such-and-such calories.  So "to eat the food" is equivalent to "to eat the calories" of such food.  When I write "calories absorbed" this is equivalent to "food absorbed", but with the added information that it is the calories what counts.  If you don't believe me,  please google "absorption of calories" and you will get tons of pages about it.   For example, the article http://www.livestrong.com/article/308481-what-part-of-the-body-absorbs-calories/  and (why not) this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2398393/Counting-calories-virtually-meaningless-digest-food-differently.html  telling that counting calories is worthless.  Now, these are not "articles peer-reviewed by PhDs". 

 

I don't see the necessity of that.  We are having a casual conversation and I don't have to prove anything to you.  You can believe what I say or not, it is your choice. By the way, I do have a PhD in engineering,  and I have a good understanding of thermodynamics, energy conversion, efficiency.  So I can see the problems with associating 'calories' with food, although this number is convenient  because it can be assigned independent of the type of food.

 

I think we have reached an agreement that we cannot measure the "calories used by the body" by reading a number on an exercise machine.  So to use an aerobic machine until it indicates the "burning" of 1000 calories and then thinking that our body 'lost' 1000 calories is wrong.

 

But the biggest mistake in calorie counting is to see on the box of the cookies we just ate the writing  "1000 calories", and think that our body just 'gained'  1000 calories.  The absorption of calories, or of food if you like, varies all over the place.

 

So if a person who just run the aerobic machine up to "1000 calories" and then ate "1000 calories" of cookies thinks that "I made up for the cookies",  "I evened it out",  is thinking pure nonsense.  Fortunately...  the gain of the exercise will usually more than make up for the cookies,  even if he ate 2000 calories worth of cookies.   We may not be very efficient!

 

I encourage you to read more about this subject, and realize the complexities of our digestive system and our body's metabolism.  You may find that 'calories' is something useful for a rough evaluation of foods, to get an idea which to eat and which not,  but it fails in any attempt to make quantitative evaluations.  

 

The best is still to choose wisely the food we eat (and here 'calories' can be one of several more important factors) and simply pursue our goals of losing or gaining weight by decreasing or increasing food consumption relative to what we currently do.

With regards to the matter on using machines such as the metabolic cart to examine the amount of calories, it has been well established and used in many protocols, such as the bruce protocol, where measurements of VO2 and O2 are measured. There are studies that have conducted which accounts of eucaloric state, where the amount of energy expenditure is fed to the person to evaluate the outcomes of the interventions, these studies are also present in current literature and have been used widely, namely in aerobic energy expenditure studies.

 

I respect the field of study of yours and the amount of knowledge you have in thermodynamics as well as the other realm of physical sciences with regards to engineering, but at the same time it would also good to also think about what others have in mind, especially when formalised training has been involved. I'm never really fond of using non-peer reviewed evidence because in this age, anyone can say anything even without any formal background in these field of study. I'm not sure about engineering but in my field of study, we don't quote websites unless we really have to do so in the thesis.

Edited November 23, 2014 by xydboy

[Steve5380]

With regards to the matter on using machines such as the metabolic cart to examine the amount of calories, it has been well established and used in many protocols, such as the bruce protocol, where measurements of VO2 and O2 are measured. There are studies that have conducted which accounts of eucaloric state, where the amount of energy expenditure is fed to the person to evaluate the outcomes of the interventions, these studies are also present in current literature and have been used widely, namely in aerobic energy expenditure studies.

 

I respect the field of study of yours and the amount of knowledge you have in thermodynamics as well as the other realm of physical sciences with regards to engineering, but at the same time it would also good to also think about what others have in mind, especially when formalised training has been involved. I'm never really fond of using non-peer reviewed evidence because in this age, anyone can say anything even without any formal background in these field of study. I'm not sure about engineering but in my field of study, we don't quote websites unless we really have to do so in the thesis.

 

We are in agreement that too much unreliable information circulates on the internet, especially in your field of nutrition. Even what we write here people are in their right to take as questionable blabbering.   But hopefully it makes people think and reach their own conclusions.  I think that we are both convinced that our nutrition, its kind, amount, timing,  is one of the most important decisions about ourselves that we can make.  Having learned that, we are motivated to pass the knowledge on to others.