The people pushing the energy balance thing are missing one point. ( I was a firm believer in this until recently ).
You can get fat only eating half the calories you are supposed to, if they are simple carbs. Eat the carbs and the body releases insulin to remove blood sugar from blood.
Instantly depositing the calories into fat cells. Now the rest of your body doesn't have the energy it needs so it makes you lazy and raises your hunger.
Avoiding the release of insulin if the best way to loose weight and maintain a healthy body.
According to lead researcher, Guenther Boden, M.D., "When carbohydrates were restricted, study subjects spontaneously reduced their caloric intake to a level appropriate for their height, did not compensate by eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that excessive overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."
In addition to the calorie reduction and weight loss, subjects experienced markedly improved glucose levels and insulin sensitivity, as well as lower triglycerides and cholesterol.
Treatment for diabetes centers on closely monitoring sugar levels, diet and medication. Weight loss can often reduce or eliminate the need for medication, including insulin.
And tea or coffee without sugar!
IMO, getting hungry is the worst thing when dieting. I think the body goes into starvation mode and slows the metabolism.
I have found it best to eat something - maybe a small piece of cheese, an apple, etc. High protein foods often help to quell hunger. It is easier to hang in for the long haul.
Also, Burst or Interval training helps to increase the metabolism with only a small amount of time required, although this should be in addition to a healthy exercise regime and not replace it - more info on this technique can be found on the internet. I have run this past a couple of physios and they agree it is a good way to help speed up weight loss.
The above is no more than my
A 'study' with five participants????
It is entirely possible that some fat people eat a lot less calories then you do.I honesty believe fat, or overweight people, must be obsessed with food, or eat the wrong type of food, or too much food, or picture themselves being fatties
Two seemingly benign nutritional maxims are at the root of all dietary evil: A calorie is a calorie, and You are what you eat.Both ideas are now so entrenched in public consciousness that they have become virtually unassailable.
As a result, the food industry, aided and abetted by ostensibly well-meaning scientists and politicians, has afflicted humankind with the plague of chronic metabolic disease, which threatens to bankrupt health care worldwide.
These two nutritional maxims give credence to the food industry’s self-serving corollaries: If a calorie is a calorie, then any food can be part of a balanced diet; and, if we are what we eat, then everyone chooses what they eat. Again, both are misleading.
Two seemingly benign nutritional maxims are at the root of all dietary evil: A calorie is a calorie, and You are what you eat
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-diet-debacle
Motorway
Maybe consider the fact that they were simply starving. It was hardly a case of selective eating.all I can say is, you did not see one prisoner of war, walk out of the prisons, with an ounce of fat on them....
I've heard a lot about this lately, we are apparantly meant to eat like what we are, carnivors, meat and fat, a few vegeatable , forget the grains, bread and carbs
Try eating steak and eggs twice a day you soon get sick of it but it works, or so they say.
Because most don't get it and need a crutch:I don't understand why such a simple process is not understood, if you eat more calories than you burn you will accumulate fat. You can talk about how various foods metabolise in your body and how insulin sends starchy foods to fat cells but it's irrelevant; the only thing that matters is calories in v calories out. If you are eating fewer calories than you are burning eventually your body will start burning those fat cells.
Back at uni I used to cycle a lot, we're talking 500-600km/week. I also used to eat about 3500-4500 calories/day (including a pack of Tim Tams/night) and I had no fat. Now, I don't do as much exercise so I eat far fewer calories although probably more than I should and as a result I'm about 15kg heavier than I was then. If I want to lose weight I cut down on calories or increase the burn rate. It's so simple but people try and make it complex. Most people don't realise how many calories they are eating that's why they don't lose weight.
Everything else is just a fad.
You won't die of obesity but I'll bet bowel cancer would be a real issue. Atkins had fat liver disorder when he died. There's no need for bizarre eating regimes, a normal balanced diet is all you need. It's no surprise that the cheaper the calories are, the fatter the population.
I don't understand why such a simple process is not understood, if you eat more calories than you burn you will accumulate fat. You can talk about how various foods metabolise in your body and how insulin sends starchy foods to fat cells but it's irrelevant; the only thing that matters is calories in v calories out. If you are eating fewer calories than you are burning eventually your body will start burning those fat cells.
Back at uni I used to cycle a lot, we're talking 500-600km/week. I also used to eat about 3500-4500 calories/day (including a pack of Tim Tams/night) and I had no fat. Now, I don't do as much exercise so I eat far fewer calories although probably more than I should and as a result I'm about 15kg heavier than I was then. If I want to lose weight I cut down on calories or increase the burn rate. It's so simple but people try and make it complex. Most people don't realise how many calories they are eating that's why they don't lose weight.
Everything else is just a fad.
Two weeks of dietary intervention (≈4.3% weight loss) reduced hepatic triglycerides by ≈42% in subjects with NAFLD; however, reductions were significantly greater with dietary carbohydrate restriction than with calorie restriction.
Less out than in. Easiest way to do it is to exercise. Problem is that too many people expect easy answers. They want to sit on the couch and watch the kilos fall off.
Doesn't need to be complicated, although a whole industry depends on it being that way.
Whilst the is a high percentage of people in our society that have metabolic syndrome , not everybody does.
So some of the answers provided in this thread are appropriate for them and some of the other answers in the thread are appropriate for the others.
Err...isn't being sedentry and overweight a risk factor to developing metabolic syndrome? I don't doubt there are those with genuine medical conditions, but for far too many it is nothing more than a low locus of control which makes it easier to blame something or someone other than themselves.
It's funny how people who stay active and eat reasonably well aren't the ones developing all these diseases and syndromes. You don't need to be a doctor to connect the dots.
If one’s weight really is a matter of personal responsibility, how can we explain toddler obesity? Indeed, the US has an obesity epidemic in six-month-olds. They don’t diet or exercise. Conversely, up to 40% of normal-weight people have chronic metabolic disease. Something else is going on.
40% of normal-weight people have chronic metabolic disease. Something else is going on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?