Jenna
New Member
Posts: 33 
|
Post by Jenna on May 17, 2020 8:05:54 GMT -5
Ohh. With Zendancer's diet, we can be WEIGHTLESS if followed to the T me thinks. 0 grams.
Dear Zendancer - Extremely difficult (almost impossible) to stick to but I have been trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 17, 2020 12:09:16 GMT -5
There are 3,500 calories stored in one pound of fat. This is pure physics, this is the same for everyone. So if a man burns on average 2,400 calories a day, you can see how difficult it is to lose weight by burning fat. On a "diet" one can expect to lose no more than one to two pounds a week. I heard this expressed as "You can't exercise your way out of a bad diet" Very true. I'd say what you eat is 10 times more important than exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 17, 2020 19:37:20 GMT -5
I heard this expressed as "You can't exercise your way out of a bad diet" Very true. I'd say what you eat is 10 times more important than exercise. Weight is strictly determined by the difference calories-in less calories-out, as it was mentioned 3,500 calories being equivalent with 1 lb of fat. When the difference is positive you gain weight, when negative you lose weight. I used this formula to lose and maintain weight for almost 20 years (unintentionally, I used it to gain weight too ...). The number of calories per day to maintain weight depends on your metabolism. Besides some individual variability, men's metabolism is higher, younger people's too, in a range of a few hundreds calories. Exercise is essential for health and stamina, but is generally inefficient for weight loss. Aerobic exercise is the least efficient for that, but necessary for your cardiovascular system. You don't need to go to the gym, nor spend lots of time and sweat exercising, but you have to do enough to hit each group of muscles with resistance exercises, do some stretching, and cardiovascular exercise. High intensity interval training is very efficient time wise, but, in my opinion, it can't completely replace the other forms of working out. Now, if we actually act upon a physical body, in a space-time framework, or it is a projection of our beliefs, it is irrelevant for this discussion ...  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 17, 2020 23:21:39 GMT -5
Very true. I'd say what you eat is 10 times more important than exercise. (unintentionally, I used it to gain weight too ...). The number of calories per day to maintain weight depends on your metabolism. Besides some individual variability, men's metabolism is higher, younger people's too, in a range of a few hundreds calories. Exercise is essential for health and stamina, but is generally inefficient for weight loss. Aerobic exercise is the least efficient for that, but necessary for your cardiovascular system. You don't need to go to the gym, nor spend lots of time and sweat exercising, but you have to do enough to hit each group of muscles with resistance exercises, do some stretching, and cardiovascular exercise. High intensity interval training is very efficient time wise, but, in my opinion, it can't completely replace the other forms of working out. Now, if we actually act upon a physical body, in a space-time framework, or it is a projection of our beliefs, it is irrelevant for this discussion ... I used to believe this, many years, used to argue with my sister about it, told her it's just a physics problem. She finally convinced me it's not accurate, she convinced me to do the research. There are several different factors. One is nutrition versus empty calories. But a main factor is burning calories before they are stored as fat. Refined carbs turn almost immediately to sugar. The manufacturer has done part of the job the body should be doing. For example, if you eat white rice, the body turns it quickly to sugar, more than the body can use immediately, so it gets stored as fat. But if you eat whole grain brown rice, the body processes it slower, more of the calories are used as fuel, less, or none, are stored as fat. Same with white bread (processed) versus whole wheat or whole grain bread. Hormones control everything in the body. If you want to know about fat, study leptin. Leptin controls cravings we have. It controls appetite, metabolic rate, overeating, food cravings. So when you eat and what you eat has everything to do with burning calories and weight control, not just calories in and calories burned. Basically, the body evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. We lived and ate according to these needs until about 100-150 years ago. The body is concerned with survival. We became less active and began eating more refined foods. Leptin for most people began to get out of balance. Leptin is made by fat cells. Leptin is what tells the brain we are full so we can stop eating. One reason calories in versus calories burned does not work is because when we eat less calories, the metabolism of the body slows down (you can put the body in starvation mode, this makes things worse). This screws up the exchange of information between the body and the brain, causes leptin resistance. This is how overweight people can eat very little yet still not lose weight, the leptin gage is basically broken. The body thinks it's starving when it's not. This is a leptin resistance problem. This is where the body's weight set point comes into play. Everybody that has tried to lose weight knows about coming to a plateau, a weight one cannot get below. The set point is a weight the body wants to maintain, and the metabolism adjusts to maintain this weight. So this is where the calories in versus calories burned formula ceases to work. Basically, leptin controls the use and creation of energy in the body. Every cell of your body makes energy, ATP. Leptin is the hormone that controls this whole process. There are five rules that if one obeys can get leptin back properly regulating energy in the body. Rule #1: Never eat after dinner. (This is the never eat after 7:00 PM we've already discussed). Rule #2: Eat 3 meals a day. This means no eating between meals, no snacks. (The purpose of not eating between meals has to do with fat metabolism discussed in the longer post earlier, you want to regularly access fat stores in the liver). This info comes from The Leptin Diet by Byron J Richards, 2006. He says it's OK to skip breakfast "as long as energetic function is properly maintained and there are adequate calories in the diet". (Adequate calories so the body will not go into starvation mode). Richards says if you follow this, during sleep the body goes into fat-burning mode, the prime fat-burning time where 60% of fat is burned. Rule #3: Do not eat large meals. Rule #4: Eat a breakfast containing protein. Rule #5: Reduce the number of carbohydrates you eat. (Reasons already gone into). This book is one of the most important books I've read on proper eating. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 18, 2020 14:44:00 GMT -5
Surely, you believe whatever you see fit.  The 3,500 calories = 1 lb formula is physics. The rest is literature. Weight is simply dependent of the calorie differential intake vs. spending. Health, appetite, etc. are a different discussion. From weight point of view, a calorie is a calorie, neither empty, nor full, ... To loose weight you weigh yourself every day, keep track of the calories you take in, and the calories you spend (e.g. exercise). After a few days, you'll be able to set a baseline, and design the trend you want. You'll learn about all kind of details, like salt makes you retain water, but those are "empty" pounds, from weight point of view. They aren't empty from health point of view. I don't argue this. I just state what I've been doing on myself for almost 20 years, every single day. People don't lose weight because of all the mumbo jumbo peddled by the diet industry, and by people who "love their bodies as they are". As I wrote, beliefs are an important factor in your results (reality), but the root assumption of that formula stands. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 18, 2020 20:28:49 GMT -5
3,500 calories = one pound Yep. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2020 20:33:07 GMT -5
3,500 calories = one pound Yep. Thanks. No problem, we already discussed it, knew it was a typo. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2020 20:34:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 18, 2020 21:03:08 GMT -5
I don't intend to convince you, or anybody else. It is just, sometimes, I make the mistake of trying to share with others things I believe will help them. I know that in most cases this doesn't work. To me all the arguments against the formula in discussion, made by you and by the authors you referenced, miss the point: the weight is strictly determined only by the difference calories-in vs. calories-out. All the other arguments relate to health, to metabolism rate change (this is part of the calorie-out), but don't invalidate that simple formula. I truly can't understand how can't you and others see it. Complicating things make people not follow the simple truth, and end up nowhere. When I discovered that this formula works on myself, I enthusiastically shared with whoever asked what I did to lose weight. To my disappointment, mostly everybody continued trying gimmicks, kept complaining, and got nowhere. This is truly disappointing, again. Calories-in vs. calories-out is really the whole story for your weight! It works for absolutely everybody, including those with hormonal problems. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 18, 2020 21:10:58 GMT -5
That states: Don't these support exactly what I wrote? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 19, 2020 9:55:52 GMT -5
That states: Don't these support exactly what I wrote? Calories burned is the key. Discussed below, plus additional info, how and why your metabolism can slow down, as you eat the same amount of calories. I was probably in my 20's when I learned about one pound = 3,500 calories. I like to eat, so have always carried a few extra pounds, but I had never had a problem losing weight when I wanted to or needed to, until basically I retired. I was an electrician, so was very active, burned probably more calories than the average person. Probably about ten years ago my boss asked me how much I weighed. Now, I knew I had been gaining some weight, so hadn't weighed lately, so I gave him my last weight, plus a couple of pounds, I said 220. He said, You haven't see 220 in a long! time! So, knowing I did need to lose weight, didn't weigh, but I started bearing down. In about a month I finally weighed, 217. I kept it down pretty good. About a year later I had a physical (which I didn't regularly yearly get). My blood pressure was up a little. My doctor asked me, can you lose 20 pounds in one month? I said yes. So we set up an appointment in a month. At that time I weighed 210, I remember because I remember he wanted me to get to 190 pounds. I beared down very hard, lost 15 pounds in one month. My blood pressure was still up a little, so my doctor wanted me to do a 24 hour monitor, wear a blood pressure cuff 24 hours. It checked my blood pressure about every five minutes and collected the data. Over 24 hours my doctor was happy with my blood pressure. But my weight started creeping up a little again. Now, my mother and my sister were always overweight and I had this running argument with my sister for a couple of years. I always maintained losing weight was just a physics problem, calories in versus burned. She tried to tell me different but I just would not listen to her (basically because what she was trying to teach me hadn't worked for her). For years I had planned to retire from electrical at 62, because I had enough of it. My last four months we did an apartment building, which we had never done before, two in fact, three stories, 33 units each. Previously we had done custom homes. So I was up and down stairs all day. I was in the best shape I had been in for years, at the end of that weighed about 210. I planned to visit my oldest daughter in Washington state when I retired, for a month. I ate pretty correctly, was basically on my own for breakfast and lunch, then daughter or son-in-law cooked supper/dinner. Always an excellent meal (nutritionally and calorie-wise). I walked every day, usually 3-5 miles, sometimes more. I lost weight, had to take up a belt hole and by the last week had to make an extra hole in my belt. When I got home weighed 200. But then when I got back home everything went to s**t, over three years. I ate once a week at the Golden Corral, a buffet, and once a week at Cici's pizza (buffet), 12-16 pieces of pizza. (But I did keep walking regularly, 2-3 miles a day) Over 3 years went up 30 pounds, tried to slow down, but kept gaining, about six more pounds. I stopped pigging out, but still couldn't lose. I assumed like always how you ate calories didn't matter, all that mattered was calories in versus calories burned. Cake, cookies, ice cream, candy didn't matter, it all just depended on whether you burned those calories or not. But unlike previously when I could lose weight when I wanted to, I couldn't lose. So I started listening to my sister and started doing my own research. My mother and father had been diabetic for years, and now my sister was diabetic (all type 2). My mother made me check my blood sugar about once a year. It had always been OK, but checking it about this time, about 4 years ago, it was high after eight hours fasting. So I started studying how to get my blood sugar under control. That's when I started learning the info I have been sharing. What I discovered was I had overloaded my pancreas for years, and got my insulin out of balance, had become insulin resistant. Insulin is supposed to open individual cells to let glucose in. When you get insulin resistance your cells do not open properly to take in glucose properly. So glucose (sugar) stays in the blood, this is why you have high blood sugar. So, where like you I had lived successfully for over 30 years calories in versus calories burned, this no longer worked for me, for the reasons given. This is why I prefaced my remarks that I was sure that calories in versus calories burned worked for you. This had worked for me for over 30 years. Now, you might eat healthy, not too many sweets, not too many processed carbs, as discussed. Calories in versus calories burned might work for you the rest of your life, but I'm saying this does not work for everyone. Yes, you necessarily must eat less calories than you burn to lose weight, I agree with that. However, I reached a point where my body did not burn calories efficiently as it had done all my life. I had to learn about one's set point, and why the body wants to stay at a certain weight, and why it can be very hard to lose to get below one's set point, that you can even cut your calories in half and still will not lose weight. This is because your metabolism slows down to match the calories you take in. Some people can eat 500 calories a day and still not lose weight. So all this is the reason I have given the information I have. I know for a fact that calories in versus calories burned does not work for everyone. It does not work for people who have damaged their body through eating abuse, like I did. Now, additionally, I have learned measures and taken measures to lower my blood pressure and my blood sugar so I haven't had to go on medication. Because, as already said, most doctors don't know s**t about how to heal the body, they prescribe medication to mask symptoms. The first thing most doctors do for high blood pressure, besides saying to lose weight, exercise, is prescribe a fluid pill. This merely reduces the amount of fluid in the blood. Yes, it reduces blood pressure, but it doesn't cure the underlying problem. For high blood sugar, if changing your diet isn't enough, doctors will give an insulin increasing drug. This is stupid as usually in most cases this is the wrong to do. This may work for a while, but it doesn't solve the problem. The problem is not, not enough insulin, but insulin resistance. Giving more insulin or giving drugs to make more insulin just exacerbates the problem. Insulin resistance is a self-perpetuating cycle. To break the cycle one has to lower the amount of sugar/glucose in the blood, basically first. OK, if you got through all that, I'm impressed. But it's not particularly for you now. I would guess you have never been 30 pounds overweight and are under 55. It's for your possible future you, in case some day calories in versus calories burned stops working for you (meaning, with the same activity and same food, you start to gain weight, or adjusting like you normally do, can't lose weight). And it's info for anyone else who might happen to be reading. If you (anyone) have type 2 diabetes or are pre-diabetic, or have high blood pressure, I would advise to do research. You can get off meds. Meds always come with side effects and complications. I take no meds and hope I will never have to. My dad's heart doctor basically killed him, by prescribing a new drug when he was doing fine on the heart med he was on. The new med started kidney failure which started a domino effect of other problems and 3 months later he was dead. But basically it was diabetes. Diabetes is a very nasty disease. Very nasty. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 19, 2020 10:29:48 GMT -5
I don't intend to convince you, or anybody else. It is just, sometimes, I make the mistake of trying to share with others things I believe will help them. I know that in most cases this doesn't work. To me all the arguments against the formula in discussion, made by you and by the authors you referenced, miss the point: the weight is strictly determined only by the difference calories-in vs. calories-out. All the other arguments relate to health, to metabolism rate change (this is part of the calorie-out), but don't invalidate that simple formula. I truly can't understand how can't you and others see it. Complicating things make people not follow the simple truth, and end up nowhere. When I discovered that this formula works on myself, I enthusiastically shared with whoever asked what I did to lose weight. To my disappointment, mostly everybody continued trying gimmicks, kept complaining, and got nowhere. This is truly disappointing, again. Calories-in vs. calories-out is really the whole story for your weight! It works for absolutely everybody, including those with hormonal problems. Gone into further, post above. Yes, technically correct, but one's metabolism can slow down to such an extent that this formula does not work as it did previously. The body does not always function in the same manner it has previously. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2020 13:55:14 GMT -5
Can you explain me about this? I keep hearing this. What happens if one eats after 7??? Well firstly and most seriously you'll turn into a gremlin, but the theory is that it's your liver that breaks down carbohydrates & fat into glucose that your cells actually use. So if you've eaten a big bowl of pasta for your evening meal, then your liver is going to be working its way through that and storing the excess as fat. Whereas if you don't eat a lot of carbohydrates before sleeping, then your liver will instead start breaking down existing fat to keep you alive...while you sleep and therefore not needing much in the way of energy. See www.diabetesforecast.org/2012/feb/the-liver-s-role-how-it-processes-fats-and-carbs.htmlGot it Peter thank you. But I have a different idea as to how to eat. I strongly believe after having the food, we should not eat anything else other than drinking water whenever we are thirsty before next food. And next food should be taken after we perfectly sense the hunger and I observed that my body perfectly goes to the hunger mode after 5 hours. I believe if one follows this, he will never fell ill. He doesn't need to do any yoga. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 19, 2020 15:49:17 GMT -5
Well firstly and most seriously you'll turn into a gremlin, but the theory is that it's your liver that breaks down carbohydrates & fat into glucose that your cells actually use. So if you've eaten a big bowl of pasta for your evening meal, then your liver is going to be working its way through that and storing the excess as fat. Whereas if you don't eat a lot of carbohydrates before sleeping, then your liver will instead start breaking down existing fat to keep you alive...while you sleep and therefore not needing much in the way of energy. See www.diabetesforecast.org/2012/feb/the-liver-s-role-how-it-processes-fats-and-carbs.htmlGot it Peter thank you. But I have a different idea as to how to eat. I strongly believe after having the food, we should not eat anything else other than drinking water whenever we are thirsty before next food. And next food should be taken after we perfectly sense the hunger and I observed that my body perfectly goes to the hunger mode after 5 hours. I believe if one follows this, he will never fell ill. He doesn't need to do any yoga. I eat every time I feel I'd eat something. This means sometimes as often as 1.5 to 2 hours. Usually, I eat 6-8 times a day, 50 to 250 calories each time, excepting a little larger meal of 400-500 calories for social participation. The reasons are that I don't over-stress my system with large meals, and don't get hungry to be tempted to overeat. I did it for the last 20 years, and never seen the doctor since. When I changed my diet, and lifestyle (including exercising) I was extremely overweight (+130 lb), high blood pressure, high cholesterol. In 6 month I went off high blood pressure and cholesterol medicines, and in 13 months I reached my normal healthy weight, which I maintain. I regularly take some vitamins and supplements, but no medicines. I follow some moderate eating habits, like avoiding fruits and vegetables after solid foods, not much meat, not much salt (mostly because I prefer to taste the food's own taste), don't abuse sugar containing foods (no artificial sugar replacements) including fruits, rarely alcohol. On average I eat what I consider to be reasonably healthy, occasional exceptions don't matter. I do daily about 10 minutes of dumbbells or body-weight exercise, 3 minutes warm-up, 6 minutes stretching, 4 minutes high-intensity-interval-training. Most days I take a brisk 20-30 minutes walk. No gym, no running (I believe it isn't good for my body). I sleep 7.5 to 8.5 hours a night, going to bed late, after midnight. I eat up to about 10 pm, as I feel like. No meditation. I use self-hypnosis for inner knowledge. No guru, no dogma. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 19, 2020 17:57:35 GMT -5
Well firstly and most seriously you'll turn into a gremlin, but the theory is that it's your liver that breaks down carbohydrates & fat into glucose that your cells actually use. So if you've eaten a big bowl of pasta for your evening meal, then your liver is going to be working its way through that and storing the excess as fat. Whereas if you don't eat a lot of carbohydrates before sleeping, then your liver will instead start breaking down existing fat to keep you alive...while you sleep and therefore not needing much in the way of energy. See www.diabetesforecast.org/2012/feb/the-liver-s-role-how-it-processes-fats-and-carbs.htmlGot it Peter thank you. But I have a different idea as to how to eat. I strongly believe after having the food, we should not eat anything else other than drinking water whenever we are thirsty before next food. And next food should be taken after we perfectly sense the hunger and I observed that my body perfectly goes to the hunger mode after 5 hours. I believe if one follows this, he will never fell ill. He doesn't need to do any yoga. Very good. I did this for a while years ago. I ate only when hungry and ate only enough to stop hunger. It worked very well. |
|
