carbs are my enemy
Options
Replies
-
It matters in my case since it's making it more difficult for me to add on the pounds. If my metabolism was average, I think I would have probably gained at least an extra 10-16 ounces of weight by now. Ok, I realize that's a minor amount, but you get the idea.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Probably because (based on what I've posted in this thread about calorie needs per pound of bodyweight) I'm living proof that some people do have fast metabolisms, despite those who say it doesn't exist.ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point.
But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
Why do you harp so much on these insignificant ideas and details. All you really should be focusing on is eat, lifting, sleeping, repeating. And not giving out advice in the gaining weight forum because that's out of your league.
Eat, lift, sleep...............repeat!!!!
ETA: I did not flag your post.
What are you talking about fast metabolims??? What does it matter? Go eat and lift.
0 -
I'm trying, but it's a little hard with the types of foods I'm already eating, dietary restrictions, and appetite. Also, once school starts back up for me in a few weeks, that's also probably going to make it harder for my body to build muscle due to stress.ForecasterJason wrote: »
It matters in my case since it's making it more difficult for me to add on the pounds. If my metabolism was average, I think I would have probably gained at least an extra 10-16 ounces of weight by now. Ok, I realize that's a minor amount, but you get the idea.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Probably because (based on what I've posted in this thread about calorie needs per pound of bodyweight) I'm living proof that some people do have fast metabolisms, despite those who say it doesn't exist.ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
Why do you harp so much on these insignificant ideas and details. All you really should be focusing on is eat, lifting, sleeping, repeating. And not giving out advice in the gaining weight forum because that's out of your league.
Eat, lift, sleep...............repeat!!!!
ETA: I did not flag your post.
What are you talking about fast metabolims??? What does it matter? Go eat and lift.
So eat more food. How many more times are you going to need to be told that.
0 -
1. Some people go to discussion boards to discuss, not to debate. It is unfortunate that you debaters have people like me, trying to discuss. It is unfortunate that we discussers have to deal with people trying to bait us into debates. I completely gave up when I said that BMR wasn't really the calories you use in a coma, that wasn't the test...and was called "an idiot" for my trouble. By you? By someone else? I don't remember. I didn't learn that online, so I wouldn't have had a peer-reviewed journal declaring it to post, even if I were inclined, which I'm not. I'm not trying to "win." I don't care about winning. At all. I'm just discussing.
1. Why not? I learn things from reading other people's opinions. So I post mine, too. When I need reliable, accurate medical or nutritional advice, I ask people who are experts. I hope everyone is able to do that. If not, they can receive both opinions and sourced posts from people like you, who like to source their posts. Then they can do the best they can with that.
I don't expect anyone to give anything they read here any serious weight. I would hope they don't. Message boards aren't the place to find reliable answers.
They really don't need more than some ding-dong's blog. They can have their opinion and post it. They're not required to source their posts and if someone else doesn't find it "acceptable", that person is going to have to find a way to live with the fact that people posting to discussion boards will sometimes post things they don't agree with and/or things that are wrong.
It's a discussion board, not a research paper. If someone wants to post something that they find interesting, that's acceptable.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
t]blktngldhrt wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”
While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.
The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.
The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.
Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.
In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.
Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.
Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.
Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.
junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html
Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.
That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
Message board posts do require a Works Cited page. You are not the first college student to try to tell everyone how to post, what is acceptable, etc.
What you deem acceptable and what people feel like doing may be two different things.
It's a discussion board topic involving the scientific field of nutrition, not a who-wore-it-best side-by-side celebrity outfit comparison. So yes, people can post their opinions and post sources they find interesting, but if they are going to make declarative statements about the science behind diet and nutrition, they need to have a more reliable source than "some guy's blog."
Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion should be given the same weight as the opinion of another poster who can actually discuss the science behind weight loss. Which is how we ended with one poster telling us that diet can change genetic diseases, then backtracking and admitting that he hasn't taken biology in 20 years and doesn't understand the science behind gene mutation (which he just argued diet could change) when he was confronted by people who actually work in scientific fields.
I'm not sure why people get so upset when the discussion is elevated to examining the existing research and looking at things from an objective viewpoint. Critical thinking is not the enemy.
If they cannot find a way to live with that, the Internet will drive them bonkers.
No, nobody has to give it any weight.
Anyone who has a serious interest will take a more scholarly pursuit than a message board...or they'll pay someone who has for their advice.
If people want to ask for sources, fine by me. I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of knowledge.
On the flip side, it's just not that big a deal if someone is wrong online.
That's my (unsourced, subjective) opinion.
I will not be receiving any more private messages from our new Board Policeperson (who has a "DEGREE", dontchaknow) as I blocked her after the first one, but I also will not be falling in line and sourcing my posts.
I may just have opinions and not cite them. I'm a wild and crazy girl.
I'm sorry that you have had an issue with someone sending you PMs, but the rest of us are not involved in those exchanges, so I'm not sure what purpose telling us about them serves other than trying to stir up drama. You said you blocked them, so if there are other issues between you and this individual, the next step is to contact the mods.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine, but don't expect people to give what you have to say any weight or to consider you a reliable, knowledgable poster on the subject. Therein lies the rub for most of the posters offering unsupported claims on the forum.
If you needed reliable info, I'd be the first person to tell you to find it elsewhere and not listen to me or anyone else! I'm not a dietitian and don't pretend to be one. Totally NOT and expert and don't even wish to be confused with one in any way.
No rub there! I invite everyone to either study it themselves or pay someone who has.
So if you think the message board isn't a place for reliable answers and you hope no one believes anything anyone says on MFP then he why do you insist on giving advice in the forum? Why bother?
2. I never messaged a moderator about you. If someone did, it wasn't me. I've reported some of your posts, but not always. You have done the "J'ACCUSE!" thing about me reporting them when I haven't, but you haven't blamed me on some occasions when I did. Never typed up and sent a message, though God knows if anyone on this forum had reason to do it, it would be me. You rarely let a post of mine go by without insulting me, personally. But it wasn't me who typed something up and sent it off. If you heard differently, you heard wrong. That's all truth. I have no reason to lie.
3. I never address anything you say, as I know you will only come back with more personal insults and I generally got bored with that. However, it is Christmas, so I've replied to you in this thread and giving you the opportunity to rip me to shreds.
To quote a well-loved Christmas movie, "It's Christmas, Theo! It's a time of miracles! So be of good cheer..." and go ahead and insult me.
My gift. I won't even hit the report button.
1. So then when people are looking for actual scientific answers why provide an opinion? Just because you can? Science and opinions aren't the same.
2. When exactly did I say you messaged a moderator about me? I never said that you not sure where you pulled that out of.
3. You don't reply to me because you can't hang in a real debate. Feel free to hit flag of you want. You clearly didn't read the post from Rachel on what abuse is. But either way, hit it, if it makes you happy. Makes no difference to me
Perhaps it would be better if I let the debaters do their debating and they let me do my discussing.
2. I'm glad you didn't think that. I wasn't sure.
3. As I already said...maybe should've saved it for here, I went in order...I have no interest in debating. If I did, I wouldn't be doing it with people who throw around personal insults and call that "debating." I'd do it with people who want to exchange ideas and can go back and forth, but I guess that's more discussing. I have zero interest in saying, "I'm smarter and right and you're dumber and wrong." None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
That will have to be all for this year. I don't know your birthday, so you will have to settle for quoting all my posts, insulting me personally and getting no response for another year.
Merry Christmas.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm trying, but it's a little hard with the types of foods I'm already eating, dietary restrictions, and appetite. Also, once school starts back up for me in a few weeks, that's also probably going to make it harder for my body to build muscle due to stress.ForecasterJason wrote: »
It matters in my case since it's making it more difficult for me to add on the pounds. If my metabolism was average, I think I would have probably gained at least an extra 10-16 ounces of weight by now. Ok, I realize that's a minor amount, but you get the idea.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Probably because (based on what I've posted in this thread about calorie needs per pound of bodyweight) I'm living proof that some people do have fast metabolisms, despite those who say it doesn't exist.ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
Why do you harp so much on these insignificant ideas and details. All you really should be focusing on is eat, lifting, sleeping, repeating. And not giving out advice in the gaining weight forum because that's out of your league.
Eat, lift, sleep...............repeat!!!!
ETA: I did not flag your post.
What are you talking about fast metabolims??? What does it matter? Go eat and lift.
So eat more food. How many more times are you going to need to be told that.
What are your dietary restrictions?0 -
Your two 5Ks are very impressive to me. I am still working on one. A friend who is doing it with me sent a picture of a t-shirt saying that said, "I run. I'm slower than a heard of turtles stampeding through peanut butter, but I run!" That would be the saying for me!
I don't expect anyone to give anything they read here any serious weight. I would hope they don't. Message boards aren't the place to find reliable answers.
They really don't need more than some ding-dong's blog. They can have their opinion and post it. They're not required to source their posts and if someone else doesn't find it "acceptable", that person is going to have to find a way to live with the fact that people posting to discussion boards will sometimes post things they don't agree with and/or things that are wrong.
It's a discussion board, not a research paper. If someone wants to post something that they find interesting, that's acceptable.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”
While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.
The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.
The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.
Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.
In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.
Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.
Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.
Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.
junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html
Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.
That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
Oh I know! Just telling him that that is not a peer-reviewed site However, dozens of people have told him that since he started appearing in the forums and he still hasn't grasped the concept of what 'peer-reviewed' means!
Gale, the following are acceptable sources of information:
Message board posts do require a Works Cited page. You are not the first college student to try to tell everyone how to post, what is acceptable, etc.
What you deem acceptable and what people feel like doing may be two different things.
It's a discussion board topic involving the scientific field of nutrition, not a who-wore-it-best side-by-side celebrity outfit comparison. So yes, people can post their opinions and post sources they find interesting, but if they are going to make declarative statements about the science behind diet and nutrition, they need to have a more reliable source than "some guy's blog."
Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion should be given the same weight as the opinion of another poster who can actually discuss the science behind weight loss. Which is how we ended with one poster telling us that diet can change genetic diseases, then backtracking and admitting that he hasn't taken biology in 20 years and doesn't understand the science behind gene mutation (which he just argued diet could change) when he was confronted by people who actually work in scientific fields.
I'm not sure why people get so upset when the discussion is elevated to examining the existing research and looking at things from an objective viewpoint. Critical thinking is not the enemy.
If they cannot find a way to live with that, the Internet will drive them bonkers.
No, nobody has to give it any weight.
Anyone who has a serious interest will take a more scholarly pursuit than a message board...or they'll pay someone who has for their advice.
If people want to ask for sources, fine by me. I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of knowledge.
On the flip side, it's just not that big a deal if someone is wrong online.
That's my (unsourced, subjective) opinion.
I will not be receiving any more private messages from our new Board Policeperson (who has a "DEGREE", dontchaknow) as I blocked her after the first one, but I also will not be falling in line and sourcing my posts.
I may just have opinions and not cite them. I'm a wild and crazy girl.
I'm sorry that you have had an issue with someone sending you PMs, but the rest of us are not involved in those exchanges, so I'm not sure what purpose telling us about them serves other than trying to stir up drama. You said you blocked them, so if there are other issues between you and this individual, the next step is to contact the mods.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine, but don't expect people to give what you have to say any weight or to consider you a reliable, knowledgable poster on the subject. Therein lies the rub for most of the posters offering unsupported claims on the forum.
If you needed reliable info, I'd be the first person to tell you to find it elsewhere and not listen to me or anyone else! I'm not a dietitian and don't pretend to be one. Totally NOT and expert and don't even wish to be confused with one in any way.
No rub there! I invite everyone to either study it themselves or pay someone who has.
I think it depends on the discussion. There are really good discussions here on the forums which I would consider to have reliable information. Particularly the discussions where the posters involved have not only discussed the topic but have cited various sources that pertain to the topic. There's lots of good information to be had and new sources of information to discover in those threads. Steve Troutman has done some excellent threads, and there have been several weight training threads (I know, not everyone's thing) that have had some great information, even though they've gotten into specifics that are not relevant to where I am. I've also picked up a lot of tips and information from the running threads, even though I'm far from elite with my whopping two 5k races worth of experience.
I don't think the issues lies with people not being experts, but rather the general reaction that they tend to have when someone questions the veracity of their statements. Instead of simply sharing how they arrived at their conclusion and admitting that their conclusion isn't supported by the data, we end up with people being offended that anyone dare question them because they went to college/lost a certain amount of weight/know how to google/ran a race under a certain time/can do more pull-ups than any other woman in the gym and possibly the world (now with youtube video!). Then what could be a good discussion with information sharing and education turns into a dumpster fire. But at least we get gifs.
I very much don't want people basing real decisions on ANYTHING that I say and always try to remember to add that they should ask someone smarter than me, like a doctor who specializes in it or a dietitian. What if I said something and they used that and it ended up harming them? No, I don't want that on my conscience. No way, no how.
Plus, the things I learned (and I just said this to MrM), I didn't google them. I don't have links, even if I wanted to prove I was right, which I don't. I also don't want to be badgered by these college students who come in here demanding sources that they find acceptable. I went to college. I wrote my papers. I'm done with that and have no desire to go back.
I agree with you about the devolving discussions. Maybe my New Years Resolutions should include ignoring all of it. (Which would be easier if the Ignore feature came back!)
0 -
I can't eat much in the way of eggs (except for products like breads, cookies that have a small amount). I eat yogurt and cheese regularly, but I can't really drink much milk due to the lactose. This would probably include most protein shakes/powder made from whey. I realize there are lactose free versions of these products, but I'm doubtful that I'd actually like them. I already eat plenty of fruit, and my digestive tract is very regular, so I don't want to add in fruit juice. Likewise, I'm already eating some calorie dense foods such as dried fruit and nuts. While I do make a large portion of my diet nutrient dense, I already eat some other foods that can be high in calories but not filling (like chips, cakes, cookies). In fact, if I didn't eat some of these low nutrient foods regularly, I'd probably be in a calorie deficit most of the time.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm trying, but it's a little hard with the types of foods I'm already eating, dietary restrictions, and appetite. Also, once school starts back up for me in a few weeks, that's also probably going to make it harder for my body to build muscle due to stress.ForecasterJason wrote: »
It matters in my case since it's making it more difficult for me to add on the pounds. If my metabolism was average, I think I would have probably gained at least an extra 10-16 ounces of weight by now. Ok, I realize that's a minor amount, but you get the idea.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Probably because (based on what I've posted in this thread about calorie needs per pound of bodyweight) I'm living proof that some people do have fast metabolisms, despite those who say it doesn't exist.ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
Why do you harp so much on these insignificant ideas and details. All you really should be focusing on is eat, lifting, sleeping, repeating. And not giving out advice in the gaining weight forum because that's out of your league.
Eat, lift, sleep...............repeat!!!!
ETA: I did not flag your post.
What are you talking about fast metabolims??? What does it matter? Go eat and lift.
So eat more food. How many more times are you going to need to be told that.
What are your dietary restrictions?
I know some people bulk up differently, but I'm certainly not willing to feel very full all the time. I don't know how some people do it, but that would make me want to quit.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I can't eat much in the way of eggs (except for products like breads, cookies that have a small amount). I eat yogurt and cheese regularly, but I can't really drink much milk due to the lactose. This would probably include most protein shakes/powder made from whey. I realize there are lactose free versions of these products, but I'm doubtful that I'd actually like them. I already eat plenty of fruit, and my digestive tract is very regular, so I don't want to add in fruit juice. Likewise, I'm already eating some calorie dense foods such as dried fruit and nuts. While I do make a large portion of my diet nutrient dense, I already eat some other foods that can be high in calories but not filling (like chips, cakes, cookies). In fact, if I didn't eat some of these low nutrient foods regularly, I'd probably be in a calorie deficit most of the time.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm trying, but it's a little hard with the types of foods I'm already eating, dietary restrictions, and appetite. Also, once school starts back up for me in a few weeks, that's also probably going to make it harder for my body to build muscle due to stress.ForecasterJason wrote: »
It matters in my case since it's making it more difficult for me to add on the pounds. If my metabolism was average, I think I would have probably gained at least an extra 10-16 ounces of weight by now. Ok, I realize that's a minor amount, but you get the idea.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Probably because (based on what I've posted in this thread about calorie needs per pound of bodyweight) I'm living proof that some people do have fast metabolisms, despite those who say it doesn't exist.ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
Why do you harp so much on these insignificant ideas and details. All you really should be focusing on is eat, lifting, sleeping, repeating. And not giving out advice in the gaining weight forum because that's out of your league.
Eat, lift, sleep...............repeat!!!!
ETA: I did not flag your post.
What are you talking about fast metabolims??? What does it matter? Go eat and lift.
So eat more food. How many more times are you going to need to be told that.
What are your dietary restrictions?
I know some people bulk up differently, but I'm certainly not willing to feel very full all the time. I don't know how some people do it, but that would make me want to quit.
I don't see any protein in there. Steak, salmon, shrimp, chicken, turkey, tilapia, ground beef, ground turkey, beef jerky.
You can use almond or coconut milk to make protein shakes. Or even soy milk. You won't know whether you like it or not until you try it. If whey bothers you, buy a soy or casein based protein powder. Or hemp protein powder.
Add avocado, olive oil, coconut oil. Beans and legumes are fairly high calorie.
If you aren't willing to/don't want to eat more food, then you aren't going to gain weight. Period.0 -
I had not listed all the foods I'm eating. Most of the other foods I eat include plenty of whole grain bread, chicken, potatoes, some fish/beef, and occasionally beans. Also, some of the chicken I eat is sauteed in olive oil. Likewise, most of the potatoes I eat have added fat.
Also, my diet is around 45-50% carbs, 30-35% fat, and 15% protein. So adding more fat is probably not going to do me any good (leave me fuller plus give me digestive issues), and likewise more protein would fill me up further.0 -
I don't get much protein, either. It's not by choice, I just don't like high-protein foods except cottage cheese and enough is enough. Can't gorge on fat-free cottage cheese, lol.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I can't eat much in the way of eggs (except for products like breads, cookies that have a small amount). I eat yogurt and cheese regularly, but I can't really drink much milk due to the lactose. This would probably include most protein shakes/powder made from whey. I realize there are lactose free versions of these products, but I'm doubtful that I'd actually like them. I already eat plenty of fruit, and my digestive tract is very regular, so I don't want to add in fruit juice. Likewise, I'm already eating some calorie dense foods such as dried fruit and nuts. While I do make a large portion of my diet nutrient dense, I already eat some other foods that can be high in calories but not filling (like chips, cakes, cookies). In fact, if I didn't eat some of these low nutrient foods regularly, I'd probably be in a calorie deficit most of the time.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm trying, but it's a little hard with the types of foods I'm already eating, dietary restrictions, and appetite. Also, once school starts back up for me in a few weeks, that's also probably going to make it harder for my body to build muscle due to stress.ForecasterJason wrote: »
It matters in my case since it's making it more difficult for me to add on the pounds. If my metabolism was average, I think I would have probably gained at least an extra 10-16 ounces of weight by now. Ok, I realize that's a minor amount, but you get the idea.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Probably because (based on what I've posted in this thread about calorie needs per pound of bodyweight) I'm living proof that some people do have fast metabolisms, despite those who say it doesn't exist.ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
Why do you harp so much on these insignificant ideas and details. All you really should be focusing on is eat, lifting, sleeping, repeating. And not giving out advice in the gaining weight forum because that's out of your league.
Eat, lift, sleep...............repeat!!!!
ETA: I did not flag your post.
What are you talking about fast metabolims??? What does it matter? Go eat and lift.
So eat more food. How many more times are you going to need to be told that.
What are your dietary restrictions?
I know some people bulk up differently, but I'm certainly not willing to feel very full all the time. I don't know how some people do it, but that would make me want to quit.
I don't do the protein powders. I don't trust the companies that make them to actually include all that protein and I don't trust them to keep stuff out that needs to kept out. If some big name company sold one, I might try that. I'm also convinced that they'd suck, as even my beloved Nature Valley makes a protein cereal that sucks. Those protein-infused things never taste good!
I'm thinking about smoothies, which I read here. Happy to hear any plans of yours.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I had not listed all the foods I'm eating. Most of the other foods I eat include plenty of whole grain bread, chicken, potatoes, some fish/beef, and occasionally beans. Also, some of the chicken I eat is sauteed in olive oil. Likewise, most of the potatoes I eat have added fat.
Also, my diet is around 45-50% carbs, 30-35% fat, and 15% protein. So adding more fat is probably not going to do me any good (leave me fuller plus give me digestive issues), and likewise more protein would fill me up further.
Oats, PB, Banana, Whey + Blender = Easy 800+ cal shake.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I had not listed all the foods I'm eating. Most of the other foods I eat include plenty of whole grain bread, chicken, potatoes, some fish/beef, and occasionally beans. Also, some of the chicken I eat is sauteed in olive oil. Likewise, most of the potatoes I eat have added fat.
Also, my diet is around 45-50% carbs, 30-35% fat, and 15% protein. So adding more fat is probably not going to do me any good (leave me fuller plus give me digestive issues), and likewise more protein would fill me up further.
I was just making sure you were eating foods other than what you listed.
Along the lines of what LolBroScience said, there are protein powders available that are easily 1,000 cals a serving.
0 -
Thanks, but I realize that I'd left out something. I eat a little bit of oats, but that's something else that can give me issues if I consume that in larger quantities. Also, whey probably wouldn't work due to the lactose.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I had not listed all the foods I'm eating. Most of the other foods I eat include plenty of whole grain bread, chicken, potatoes, some fish/beef, and occasionally beans. Also, some of the chicken I eat is sauteed in olive oil. Likewise, most of the potatoes I eat have added fat.
Also, my diet is around 45-50% carbs, 30-35% fat, and 15% protein. So adding more fat is probably not going to do me any good (leave me fuller plus give me digestive issues), and likewise more protein would fill me up further.
Oats, PB, Banana, Whey + Blender = Easy 800+ cal shake.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Thanks, but I realize that I'd left out something. I eat a little bit of oats, but that's something else that can give me issues if I consume that in larger quantities. Also, whey probably wouldn't work due to the lactose.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I had not listed all the foods I'm eating. Most of the other foods I eat include plenty of whole grain bread, chicken, potatoes, some fish/beef, and occasionally beans. Also, some of the chicken I eat is sauteed in olive oil. Likewise, most of the potatoes I eat have added fat.
Also, my diet is around 45-50% carbs, 30-35% fat, and 15% protein. So adding more fat is probably not going to do me any good (leave me fuller plus give me digestive issues), and likewise more protein would fill me up further.
Oats, PB, Banana, Whey + Blender = Easy 800+ cal shake.
Do you have any specific gastrointestinal diseases?0 -
I think it's IBS, but on a normal day-to-day basis I'd say things are under control. I think what helps is the probiotics I get in from the yogurt I eat and also from a probiotic supplement I take 2-3 times a week.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Thanks, but I realize that I'd left out something. I eat a little bit of oats, but that's something else that can give me issues if I consume that in larger quantities. Also, whey probably wouldn't work due to the lactose.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I had not listed all the foods I'm eating. Most of the other foods I eat include plenty of whole grain bread, chicken, potatoes, some fish/beef, and occasionally beans. Also, some of the chicken I eat is sauteed in olive oil. Likewise, most of the potatoes I eat have added fat.
Also, my diet is around 45-50% carbs, 30-35% fat, and 15% protein. So adding more fat is probably not going to do me any good (leave me fuller plus give me digestive issues), and likewise more protein would fill me up further.
Oats, PB, Banana, Whey + Blender = Easy 800+ cal shake.
Do you have any specific gastrointestinal diseases?
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Thanks, but I realize that I'd left out something. I eat a little bit of oats, but that's something else that can give me issues if I consume that in larger quantities. Also, whey probably wouldn't work due to the lactose.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I had not listed all the foods I'm eating. Most of the other foods I eat include plenty of whole grain bread, chicken, potatoes, some fish/beef, and occasionally beans. Also, some of the chicken I eat is sauteed in olive oil. Likewise, most of the potatoes I eat have added fat.
Also, my diet is around 45-50% carbs, 30-35% fat, and 15% protein. So adding more fat is probably not going to do me any good (leave me fuller plus give me digestive issues), and likewise more protein would fill me up further.
Oats, PB, Banana, Whey + Blender = Easy 800+ cal shake.
Grilled PB & Banana Sandwiches (add bacon)0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think it's IBS, but on a normal day-to-day basis I'd say things are under control. I think what helps is the probiotics I get in from the yogurt I eat and also from a probiotic supplement I take 2-3 times a week.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Thanks, but I realize that I'd left out something. I eat a little bit of oats, but that's something else that can give me issues if I consume that in larger quantities. Also, whey probably wouldn't work due to the lactose.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I had not listed all the foods I'm eating. Most of the other foods I eat include plenty of whole grain bread, chicken, potatoes, some fish/beef, and occasionally beans. Also, some of the chicken I eat is sauteed in olive oil. Likewise, most of the potatoes I eat have added fat.
Also, my diet is around 45-50% carbs, 30-35% fat, and 15% protein. So adding more fat is probably not going to do me any good (leave me fuller plus give me digestive issues), and likewise more protein would fill me up further.
Oats, PB, Banana, Whey + Blender = Easy 800+ cal shake.
Do you have any specific gastrointestinal diseases?
Have you seen a gastroenterologist? If not, I suggest seeing one. Based on your low weight and difficulty gaining weight, I am thinking it might be more serious than IBS. My first thoughts are possibly Celiac or Crohn's. I have Crohn's disease myself. Just something to think about.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions