The real key to losing weight is Metabolism!!

jaabee11

thanks, bump

Anomalia

The differences these things make are very small the keys are simiple.

- Diet, get you daily carbs below 100g (which is easy and still allows you to eat bread etc)
- Aim for net calories of 1,500 which with exercise is easy to do, especially if can burn 600 each workout as means you can have 1900 a day of food

The weight will then just fly off, and in the end you will be happy as larry, as your diet will be better you will feel healthier and the exercise will give you the metabolism boost anyway.

Rationale for recommending everyone eat below 100g of cho and 1500 net cals?

I thought maybe this pear was concerned about the fact that if you burn 600 calories per workout and you are trying to net 1500 that you can have an intake of 1100 calories...not 1900...

Math is a magical thing, learn it, it will take you far in life.

sveltelady

I have had experience working with all of the tools you have suggested and it worked successfully for me. Then I got sick and the last two years have been a constant battle with MS and nasty medications and LOTS of steriods, it is amazing how fast we forget what works and the knowledge we gained to help us to adapt to new circumstances.

I am here again and I am working on adjusting, adapting all with the results to get back to my old clothes!!

What if I was to fall down in a public forum without anyone around, it would be difficult for the majority to pick up my 280 lb body. I HAVE to get this done. There will be plenty of times in my future with MS that I will have to work within the confines of my health, my medications, and my exacerbations.

I like what you read today, I printed to remind me of the combinations of food and what are the best times to eat.

I also must say that WATER IS SOOO IMPORTANT in that it flushes out the unabsorbed vitamins that you took for the day, and as women it helps tremedously in keeping UTI and yeast infections at bay.

Thank you for you post:happy:

natika33

Having read the entire thread, (Whew!)

I appreciate the detailed information everyone provided. Contrary to a number of posters, I found very little negativity, just posts hoping to better inform the OP (and the rest of us) with information they do understand. I've heard many of the myths thrown around the fitness and weight loss arena, and I'll admit it takes time to figure out which are "polkadot dresses" and "grass clippings".

I for one truly appreciate the work, detail and attitude of Sidesteal. Thanks for taking the time and sharing the details you have.

In the end, I'm convinced that the statement - "The real key to losing weight is Metabolism" - and some of the details in the original post - are flawed. No offence intended to the OP, I believe his approach has worked for him - In fact, from the websites I've looked at it appears this may be a business for him, and I suspect his advice - along with hard workouts, logging of food intake, etc. have been successful for many clients.

But, I think that today I found a way I can keep a few grass clippings out of my laundry as a result of reading this post.

I'm new here, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn from the dialogue. I've seen many many internet forums with far less polite conversation - Thanks Moderator - great job keeping the thread on topic. (I know, it's a thankless job sometimes.)

I'm a fan of the support forums here and I see a great number of people here who are positively inspirational, and are open to being friends and helping others - a nice place in the internet world (from my looking around so far) - but I do think critical dialogue and critical thinking are important - I want to have as much knowledge as I can, but I want that knowledge to be founded in facts and reality, not myth.

Thanks again for the discussion - always love when I can look back and see that I learned something today.

THIS^^

I don't think pointing out an error is necessarily negative. On top of that, having multiple view points to consider is better than having only one. The OP may have spent a lot of time writing the original post, but those who disagreed also spent a lot of time explaining where he went wrong. We should appreciate the fact that they cared enough to do that too.

As the poster I quoted said too, I'm grateful I learned something today. (^_^)

xginanax

bump

misskimlilac

Bump

Jaw_g

bump

tigersword

The differences these things make are very small the keys are simiple.

- Diet, get you daily carbs below 100g (which is easy and still allows you to eat bread etc)
- Aim for net calories of 1,500 which with exercise is easy to do, especially if can burn 600 each workout as means you can have 1900 a day of food

The weight will then just fly off, and in the end you will be happy as larry, as your diet will be better you will feel healthier and the exercise will give you the metabolism boost anyway.

Rationale for recommending everyone eat below 100g of cho and 1500 net cals?

I thought maybe this pear was concerned about the fact that if you burn 600 calories per workout and you are trying to net 1500 that you can have an intake of 1100 calories...not 1900...

Math is a magical thing, learn it, it will take you far in life.

Actually, netting 1500 calories and 600 exercise calories would be 2100 calories eaten. 2100-600=1500.

skinnyjeanzbound

Bumping so I can finish reading later.

Rayman79

Must...derail...thread

Broscience is slowly killing my braincells. Don't eat after 6, carbs... evil, skipped breakfast so will die soon... metabolism. shutting. down. as. we... speak.

aargh.:sick:

Lozze

You lost weight based on calorie deficit. Personally for you eating numerous meals makes is easier for you, but on a physiological standpoint total calories at the end of the day is what counts whether you do it in several meals or a couple of meals.

I agree with this. I wish people would read what I was responding to, the assertion that if you eat lots of small meals a day you WON'T lose weight as your insulin is spiked all day.

I know there's no scientific evidence for eating 5-6 small meals will make you lose weight. There is none to show you will lose weight if you have three meals only a day.

Calories in vs calories out is what determines if you lose. Not how you eat it.

kelly_a

bump

kazzamcamille

Bump!

itsjustdawn

I like this post. But ultimately everyone needs to do what works for them. I personally follow most of what the OP posted and I'm happy. No need for people to be so rude about disagreeing.

kar74

Excellent post!

Bumping for future reference...

tigersword

No, you said you are diabetic. Your rules are different, as Diabetes is a metabolic syndrome that alters the way normal metabolism functions. I'm not talking about exceptions, I'm talking about how a normal, healthy metabolism functions.

Also, calorie burn is NOT linear, and your example is way too simplistic to be realistic. Caloric burn is actually not even based on a 24 hour clock, it's based more on a weekly or monthly average. You do not consistently burn the same number of calories an hour every hour, it's a constant flux up and down based on average activity.

Well, I still contend that there are probably many more people with metabolic syndromes in this country than we realize as it is vastly undiagnosed. I know many people who do not believe they have any kind of metabolic issues that exhibit many signs of hypoglycemia, for example. It is unknown how many might be insulin resistant due to the fact that insulin levels are rarely tested for in normal blood work done by physicians at annual physicals. I doubt I'm as much of an exception as you claim.

Also, I know my example was too simple to be realistic. But the whole electricity/plugged into the main power example was rather simplistic and ridiculous, too. I simply answered the ridiculous with the ridiculous. Don't like it? Don't use silly examples.

I'm totally agree that our body is not on a 24-hour clock and that calorie burn isn't constant due to different schedules with different daily activities, different exercise work-outs on different days, yada yada. That's why I zig-zag my calories throughout the week and shoot for a weekly target rather than a daily one.

Diabetes affects roughly 4% of the world's population. Yes, you are an exception.

It's not broscience, it's Biology 101. Food equals fuel, and as long as you have food in your system being digested, you are not burning fat. Period. Eating constant small meals, and keeping your body in a fed state all day every day can create havoc on a hormonal level, as insulin stays high all the time (yes, eating constantly keeps insulin from spiking and crashing, as it stays continuously spiked

How do you explain my 63lbs lost then? I eat every couple of hours and have lost very consistently since I started this. I'm not diabetic, I don't even have IR anymore (confirmed by blood tests in Nov) I'm lifting weights and am a somewhat decent number for a beginner. Surely I have lost some fat in there?

I did a program a couple of years ago called SureSlim. They are advocates of three meals a day. I was to not eat for five hours at a time. I couldn't keep that up and fell off the wagon and gained.

There's no science to prove that constant eating works. There's none to prove it doesn't either. Like the endless debate over exercising in the morning or evening, it's whatever works best for the person doing it.

If you had read the rest of the post instead of just the part you quoted you would've gotten to the part where I said you burn fat at night, while fasting. I was just explaining how hormones are affected by meal timing. I never once said that you couldn't lose weight or fat by grazing throughout the day.

grinch031

No, you said you are diabetic. Your rules are different, as Diabetes is a metabolic syndrome that alters the way normal metabolism functions. I'm not talking about exceptions, I'm talking about how a normal, healthy metabolism functions.

Also, calorie burn is NOT linear, and your example is way too simplistic to be realistic. Caloric burn is actually not even based on a 24 hour clock, it's based more on a weekly or monthly average. You do not consistently burn the same number of calories an hour every hour, it's a constant flux up and down based on average activity.

Well, I still contend that there are probably many more people with metabolic syndromes in this country than we realize as it is vastly undiagnosed. I know many people who do not believe they have any kind of metabolic issues that exhibit many signs of hypoglycemia, for example. It is unknown how many might be insulin resistant due to the fact that insulin levels are rarely tested for in normal blood work done by physicians at annual physicals. I doubt I'm as much of an exception as you claim.

Also, I know my example was too simple to be realistic. But the whole electricity/plugged into the main power example was rather simplistic and ridiculous, too. I simply answered the ridiculous with the ridiculous. Don't like it? Don't use silly examples.

I'm totally agree that our body is not on a 24-hour clock and that calorie burn isn't constant due to different schedules with different daily activities, different exercise work-outs on different days, yada yada. That's why I zig-zag my calories throughout the week and shoot for a weekly target rather than a daily one.

Diabetes affects roughly 4% of the world's population. Yes, you are an exception.

Even though 100 million Americans have either diabetes or prediabetes, its just the exception.

tigersword

Stop making up insanely false information.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

25 million is a lot less than 100 million, and that 25 million includes everyone that's suspected but undiagnosed. 8% of the population is still a rare exception.

Prediabetes ISN'T diabetes.

Jazzyjules71

Bump....

lauragoat

Bump