Fatter than God

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Well, nothing beats the thrill of surgery, but if you want an alternative to having staples in your pyloric valve or whatever:

The absolute number one worst way to lose weight is to cut back on calories and not exercise. The body's metabolism thinks you're still a small furry mammal living through bad times back when that big old meteor hit and changed the earth's climate and got rid of all those nasty dinosaurs. Your metabolism will slow down and go into survival mode, and you'll remain plump on one slice of bread per day.

This statement is not entirely correct; your metabolism will slow down if you make a dramatic cut to your average caloric intake, but in order for this to happen, you need to reduce it to well below what you burn every day (an average person would burn around 1700 calories a day with no exercise). To slow your metabolism down a significant amount, you’d probably have to cut your caloric intake to ~1200 calories. If you cut it to 600, you can really slow it down, but it’s hard to get any reasonable nutrition at that level.

Originally Posted by marichiko

If you drink, stop. There are SO many empty calories in a single glass of wine or a shot of Jack!

Wine has far fewer calories that most other beverages. It is far better to drink wine than beer or soda (or even juices, if you are concentrating only on calories).

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s02yv.html

Originally Posted by marichiko

Avoid dairy products as much as possible - they all come from the milk of a cow. Do you know what cow's milk is supposed to produce? An eight hundred pound animal, minimum.

Whole milk is fairly high in calories, but reduced fat (and skim, for that matter) milk really isn’t. A cup of 1% milkfat milk has about 100 calories. Dairy products are in general fairly high in fat (which is a better reason to avoid them than for caloric levels).

Originally Posted by marichiko

The human metabolism has evolved to support a diet of lean meat, whole grains and fruit and plenty of time spent on the move searching for food and avoiding predators. This means avoid McDonalds, avoid processed foods, and refined sugars, and start spending more time at the gym or even just walking.

Humans have likely not evolved their metabolisms at all over recorded history. People can subsist on rather bland and homogeneous diets quite well; the only survival advantage to eating high on the food chain is that you can get more caloric density. Humans do not need to eat meat, whole grains, or fruit to survive.

Originally Posted by marichiko

You need to jump start your metabolism again. Walk every day, if its physical do it. Take up gardening, sign up for a line dancing class, park your car at the farthest spot rather than the nearest.

In order to lose weight, you have to eat fewer calories than you expend. Exercising and burning an extra 200 calories per day does you no good if you eat an extra 200 calories per day. It is harder than most people think to burn calories by exercising. I spend around 30 minutes a day on my spinner bike running my heart rate at around 190 and I’ll burn only around 350 calories each session (it takes about 3500 calories to make a pound). Most people can’t run their heart rates that high for nearly that long and will burn calories much slower. You will never be able to lose weight until you get your diet under control.

[Tonchi]

Strange how nobody has pointed out that a good round of athletic sex burns a great number of calories, and tones a lot more muscles than a spinner bike

But as far as diets, I've had great success with Slimfast as a maintenance tool. I didn't have to drop a huge amount of weight, but I was becoming very "fluffy" from all the donuts and fast food in the office environment. Slimfast worked perfectly, because that way I got plenty of energy with no headache or tiredness while typing at a computer. Then when you leave the office you do your exercising and can eat a "normal" meal and skip desert. After 3 days on Slimfast, you actually do not WANT to eat anything more than a normal meal. That 3-day window seems to be key, I noticed the same thing when I did the Atkins Diet back in the early 70's when it first came out. So if you can hold to the discipline for 3 days, many of the cravings will go away. But of course, if you are morbidly obese, none of this will help you because your metabolism no longer recognizes the signals which govern normal hunger and satiation and has run away with your body. Having your stomach stapled is to essentially remove most of that organ which processes alimentation, and that seems as extreme as using abortion as your sole means of birth control. It should be the absolute last resort and only if a doctor with no vested interest in selling this surgery has said you have no other choice.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

Strange how nobody has pointed out that a good round of athletic sex burns a great number of calories, and tones a lot more muscles than a spinner bike

Very true, but many of us single people don't have that option.

[Perry Winkle]

The Hydroxycut stuff worked for me but I was just trying to cut up a bit with less of a drop in caloric intake. It won't help much for significant weight loss.

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

This statement is not entirely correct; your metabolism will slow down if you make a dramatic cut to your average caloric intake, but in order for this to happen, you need to reduce it to well below what you burn every day (an average person would burn around 1700 calories a day with no exercise). To slow your metabolism down a significant amount, you’d probably have to cut your caloric intake to ~1200 calories. If you cut it to 600, you can really slow it down, but it’s hard to get any reasonable nutrition at that level.

Folks will go on crash diets out of desperation and not worry about nutrition. This is very counter-productive. You yourself admit that low caloric intake will slow down the metabolism. That was my point, also.

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

Wine has far fewer calories that most other beverages. It is far better to drink wine than beer or soda (or even juices, if you are concentrating only on calories).

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s02yv.html

The body will burn the acetates which are a product of alcohol consumption in preference to burning stored fat. Thus the calories in a glass of wine or shot of vodka are far more lethal than the calories in a can of soda pop.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/...ch/alcohol.htm

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

Whole milk is fairly high in calories, but reduced fat (and skim, for that matter) milk really isn’t. A cup of 1% milkfat milk has about 100 calories. Dairy products are in general fairly high in fat (which is a better reason to avoid them than for caloric levels).

I didn't say avoid dairy products merely because of calories. I stated that cow's milk - from which dairy products are all derived - is a substance dedicated to the production of an animal which will one day weigh 800 pounds or more. Why eat dairy products if you want to be a slim 120 pounds?

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

Humans have likely not evolved their metabolisms at all over recorded history. People can subsist on rather bland and homogeneous diets quite well; the only survival advantage to eating high on the food chain is that you can get more caloric density. Humans do not need to eat meat, whole grains, or fruit to survive.

I did not state that humans have evolved their metabolisms over recorded history. Human history is a mere blink of the eye to Old Mother Evolution. Our metabolisms remain the same as they were when we were wandering around in the plains of Africa. Whole grains, fruit, and lean meat are not high on the food chain - OK, meat is, but fruit and grains are NOT. And, no, we don't need to eat these things to survive, but you were worried about nutrition in the first paragraph of your response, why are you forgetting it here?

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Folks will go on crash diets out of desperation and not worry about nutrition. This is very counter-productive. You yourself admit that low caloric intake will slow down the metabolism. That was my point, also.

True. My point was that you need to make a rather drastic change in your caloric intake to have a significant impact on your metabolism. Most people would not be able to cut their intake long enough (even on a “crash” diet) to alter their metabolism. Your original statement was:

Originally Posted by marichiko

The absolute number one worst way to lose weight is to cut back on calories and not exercise.

I was merely trying to clarify. You must cut back on calories to lose weight; otherwise, you to increase your activity level enough so that your intake = expenditure. This is way easier to do with diet than with exercise. If you do cut your caloric intake enough for your metabolism to change, you cannot counter this effect by exercising more. For most people who want to lose weight, it is far better to get one's diet under control before beginning any exercise program.

Originally Posted by marichiko

The body will burn the acetates which are a product of alcohol consumption in preference to burning stored fat. Thus the calories in a glass of wine or shot of vodka are far more lethal than the calories in a can of soda pop.

When it comes to weight loss, calories are calories. Period.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie5.htm

Originally Posted by marichiko

I didn't say avoid dairy products merely because of calories. I stated that cow's milk - from which dairy products are all derived - is a substance dedicated to the production of an animal which will one day weigh 800 pounds or more. Why eat dairy products if you want to be a slim 120 pounds?

This makes no sense. All mammals produce milk, which is very similar in composition. Humans, as an accident of history, happen to drink cow’s milk more often than other mammals. Using your logic, I would assume drinking rat’s milk would be less harmful than drinking cow’s milk since adult rats weigh only a few pounds.

Originally Posted by marichiko

And, no, we don't need to eat these things to survive, but you were worried about nutrition in the first paragraph of your response, why are you forgetting it here?

Weight loss has nothing to do with nutrition. I was just making a point, not proselytizing.

Your statement was:

Originally Posted by marichiko

The human metabolism has evolved to support a diet of lean meat, whole grains and fruit and plenty of time spent on the move searching for food and avoiding predators.

I interpreted this (probably incorrectly) as a statement that humans who eat a “balanced” diet have a survival advantage over those that do not. This is the point I was refuting. I probably should have said "human" history, rather than "recorded" history. That's what I meant, in any case.

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

Weight loss has nothing to do with nutrition. I was just making a point, not proselytizing.

I think we have mostly been arguing semantics here, but I do take exception to a few of your statements, including the one above. A good weight loss program should also be one based on balanced nutrition. Otherwise, while you may lose weight, you may also pay a price for it in your over all health that you don't want to pay.

The milk of mammals is produced to quickly grow baby animals. I imagine a diet based on rat's milk would not be condusive to weight loss, either. I agree.

As far as a lowered metabolism rate, you would be amazed at how many folks out there have lowered their caloric intake to the point that this occurs. I, myself, am one of them. This was not a deliberate action on my part. Due to stress, I have very little appetite these days and my over all caloric intake is pathetic. My metabolism has gone into famine mode and I am attempting to counter this by getting more exercise. It is very difficult to change your metabolic set point once this happens, as I can attest from personal experience.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

This makes no sense. All mammals produce milk, which is very similar in composition. Humans, as an accident of history, happen to drink cow’s milk more often than other mammals. Using your logic, I would assume drinking rat’s milk would be less harmful than drinking cow’s milk since adult rats weigh only a few pounds.

Actually, rat milk (Malk) is much higher in fat and protein than cow or human milk. However it does not contain the same growth hormones (rBST or the naturally occurring ones - like IGF-1 (which is identical in humans and cows and "causes cancer").

Scroll down to compare milk composition by species.

[xoxoxoBruce]

like IGF-1 (which is identical in humans and cows and "causes cancer".

The linked article doesn't say that. It says cells with the IGF-1 receptor, removed or blocked, can/will not become cancerous.
But it does not say that being exposed (or not) to IRS-1 protein has any bearing on turning cancerous, only body size. It also says other things dock with the IGF-1 receptor so I think your jumping to an unwarranted conclusion in blaming IRS-1.

[xoxoxoBruce]

"Damn it, I'm hungry but I don't want to stop and eat...I wish there was a little food pill that I could just pop so I wouldn't have to stop and eat and chew and swallow and all that BS, it just takes too long"

That's where "fast foods" sneak into your plans to be healthy. Eating right usually takes planning and preparation.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The linked article doesn't say that.

Oh I know, I linked to the article because I thought it was interesting. You can do a google search on IGF-1 and cancer and draw your own conclusion from the tons of articles returned. That's why I put "causes cancer" in quotes.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by jinx

Actually, rat milk (Malk) is much higher in fat and protein than cow or human milk.

That's what I get for not checking my analogy. Thanks for the clarification, jinx.