Simple Science - How To Lose Weight/Fat

Archived Thread
Our site is currently being changed over to the new version. Everything you see is currently in read-only mode. Additionally, the layout and UI will not be complete until all sections have been re-enabled, so please ignore any layout issues (or bland-ness) at this time.
#1 Nirv on 1 year ago

#2 Nirv on 1 year ago

#3 EXEC_HYMME_MACARON on 1 year ago

Great information, however the activity levels confuse me a bit.

For instance, I don't do any sports or exercise classes, however I walk every single day usually 3+ miles. This includes several sets of stairs.

I've been told that walking is light activity by other people.. but since I'm doing it every day do I count it as moderate?

#4 Dictamnus Albus on 1 year ago

Nirv, where you list womens BMR formula, is 655.1 a typo? should it be 65.51?

EXEC, id measure exercise by heart rate, or generaly if you "feel it"
if your walks and stairs are a breeze, then its less exercise than if you get a little winded or feel like you actualy worked
the body tries to optimize effort, or as we say "we get used to it" and when you hit that point it takes less energy (calories burned)
to do that activity,
so if you do this a few times a day, no prob, its sedentary or light (dependeng on other instances of exercise)
if you feel it, light to moderate

Nirv, i know you dont claim to be a dietrition, but, does eating throught the day really do any differant than 1 meal per day?
(normal hours for me is 11am-3am) so i just eat dinner and call it good, if i do eat another meal i still eat the same size dinner

#5 Nirv on 1 year ago

@EXEC_HYMME_MACARON - I'm glad you've brought this up and it is something I am going to come back and edit later on in regards to walking/steps/activity levels. Taking steps/walking in my opinion is one of the BEST activities for your health and its actually my main focus of the day way before working out in the gym. If you know roughly how far in miles you walk a day that's a great start. I am going to copy and paste a basic translation of how active your steps are.

Sedentary Lifestyle Index: Under 5000 steps per day is an indicator of being inactive and sitting too much, which raises health risks.

Low Active: 5,000 to 7,499 steps per day is typical of daily activity excluding sports and exercise and might be considered low active. The average American walks 5,900 to 6,900 steps per day, putting the majority in the low active category.

Somewhat Active: 7,500 to 9,999 steps per day likely includes some exercise or walking (and/or a job that requires more walking) and might be considered somewhat active.

Active: 10,000 steps per day indicates the point that should be used to classify individuals as active. This makes it a good daily goal for healthy people who want a quick indicator they are getting in their daily exercise.

Highly Active: Individuals who take more than 12,500 steps/day are likely to be classified as highly active.

You should be able to translate this to the Activity formula to get a [U]rough[/U] estimate of your TDEE. Just so you know, a mile is just a little over 2000 steps. Step counters/pedometers/fitbits are fantastic for tracking your general activity, but using websites such as mapometer can plan certain routines that tell you how far you have walked. Take in to account that if you were to elevate your heart rate by saying power walking or running to get those steps in, then you'll burn more calories than just by simply walking. I hope this helps, Please feel free to ask any other questions or give feedback. I'll come back and edit some of this information into the original post!

@Dictamnus Albus - No typo I'm afraid, women tend to need less calories than men (Depending on weight/height and TDEE of course). In regards to heart rate that's a whole different ball game and something I would need to do another thread on as there are various mathematical calculations to finding out your heart rate zones for resting, aerobic, fat burning and performance improvements. This is actually one of my favourite subjects and something I like to think I specialise in! The easiest thing to track this however would be a heart rate monitor/watch.

I'm not a nutritionist (I hope to get qualified for this at a later date) however I am qualified to give the basics and its something I study a lot of so I'm glad you've asked me this because one of my biggest pet peeves is people claiming you should eat a certain amount of meals a day. There is actually a sticky in this forum where someone claims you should be eating 6 meals a day because it boosts your metabolism which enrages me. Pure outdated broscience with a Lack of scientific evidence. The simple answer is this:

You do whats best for you.

If you're eating around 2,500 calories a day it doesn't matter if you split it into 2, 3, 4, 5 or 12 meals. As long as you are taking in your Maintenance/Weight Loss/Weight gain calories then that's the result you will get. It doesn't matter what time of the day you eat them either. Another bro-science myth that sends me into a fury is you should not eat before bed, especially carbs. In fact, you could eat all your calories in just one meal a day which is called Intermittent fasting. Without over complicating things and going off topic, this is something I practice. Depending on my TDEE I eat anywhere between 2000/3500 calories a day and I actually split it into two meals. For various reasons I only eat between 1pm - 8pm (Yep, I skip breakfast.) but honestly? It doesn't matter what time you eat.

It can be a bit tricky splitting the cals over a two day period (for example you said your feeding window tends to be between 11am-3am) so monitoring calorie intake might be a bit awkward. In this case I would pay close attention to the weekly deficit/maintenance/bulk numbers rather than just tracking 24hours. Make sense?

I hope this helps. If at any point It sounds like I'm speaking in riddles let me know and I'll try and simplify it and provide examples.

#6 gypsy_girl on 1 year ago

Thanks for the information about walking and active lifestyle. I'm injured right now and my doctor says that I can only do light activity like walking. Good to know roughly how much I should be walking.

#7 Nirv on 1 year ago

@gypsy_girl - You are very much welcome! Take it easy with your recovery and don't rush your rehabilitation. Walking will keep you fit, healthy and active if you do enough of it. I Hope you have a speedy recovery!

#8 calssara on 1 year ago

Thanks for the information

#9 Bobbi on 1 year ago

#10 Nirv on 1 year ago

Oh dear.

I've got some bad news for you Bobbi. Your understanding of science backed nutrition and biology is quite simply wrong. I will dissect your reply momentarily and explain [i]why[/i] you are wrong and hopefully educate you on the subject, however for now its important that I say this.

I have no issues with a Ketogenic diet. It has its benefits, however it also has its side effects which I will go into last, because its more important at the moment for me to correct you on key matters. I'm not going to do this chronologically, I will be bringing up the major red flags first.

“Carbs: Starchy carbs coming from breads, pastas, grains, potatoes, etc are converted into glucose. Your liver can only hold about 70g of glucose and a little more elsewhere. If there is too much glucose in your system, your body will store it as fat. So be careful with it.* “

This is the first major red flag and anyone that has the relevant qualifications (That would be me by the way) in basic nutrition or anatomy would have simply not bothered reading the rest of your post. Luckily for others, due to my profession I see it as a duty of care to combat misinformation like this.

The Liver only needs to hold a small amount of Glycogen, because the rest is stored in skeletal muscle (a hell of a lot more dramatic than “A little elsewhere”). This is one of the reasons that carbohydrate's are a quick release energy system, especially for athletes. This is basic, bread and butter science.

As for glucose being stored as fat, that's simply to do with overeating compared to your total daily energy expenditure. Something that won't happen if you're on the correct calorie controlled diet primed for weight loss.

“FYI: Your arteries aren't clogged by eating too much cholesterol. Your body produces about 2000mg of cholesterol a day. If you are are consuming more in your diet, your body will produce less. When it comes to arteries and heart issues, glucose causes inflamation in the artery walls. Your body will send Cholesterol there to repair it and it will build up.

Now this is a colossal red flag right here. It actually had me considering contacting a moderator to delete this just in case some unlucky reader took this information on board. I can't believe I'm having to explain that too much cholesterol [I]will[/i] kill you. Notice I said [i]too much[/i]. Cholesterol in the correct doses is good for you but too much (specificly LDL & saturated fats) will lead to:

[b]Atherosclerosis [/b]

This is when a diet containing too much LDL cholesterol causes plaque to build up on the arterial walls, clogging them/causing inflammation and restricting blood flow which leads to heart attack. Just in case anyone was wondering, heart attacks are bad. If you are looking for a source on this, go ask your local doctor. Just to make a bullet point on this, within the next month I am taking a higher education course to gain a referrals qualification. This means Doctors would be able to send clients to me for personal training and dietary advice for lowering such things as...you guessed it, high cholesterol.

As for glucose causing inflammation, its [i]obesity[/i] that causes inflammation whether its from carbs or fats. The reason why sugar is demonised as the main culprit for health problems is because the majority of the public don't realise how easy it is to over consume calories that involve sugars. Here is a credible source on sugar/carbs and its relation to fat loss. By the way, Dr Layne Norton is THE man when it come to nutrition and busting myths. Anyone looking for science backed nutritional education should follow his work. He is also kind enough to explain the sugar equals inflammation myth.

[url]https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/the-science-of-sugar-and-fat-loss.html[/url]

#11 Nirv on 1 year ago

I had to split this into three posts I'm afraid due to the character limit.



“Not to mention that glucose as well as sugars (fructose) spike insulin causing blood sugar crashes. Ever get a weak feeling after not eating for awhile, like you really need to eat? This is caused from that. Do this too much and you become insulin resistant, and fat quickly builds up.”

Red flag number 3.

Ah, this old chestnut. Insulin resistance isn't cause by sugar alone, its caused by Metabolic Syndrome. Is it bad to have too much sugar? Of course it is, just like its bad to have too much of anything including fats. Dr Layne Norton explains insulin sensitivity and its relation to fat burning.

[url]https://www.biolayne.com/media/videos/video-log/glycemic-index-insulin-fat-loss/[/url]

[url]https://www.muscleforlife.com/how-insulin-works/[/url] Is another useful link, especially in regards to the "insulin stops you burning/makes you fat!" Nonsense.

“If everyone was eating low fat, we wouldn't have as many issues with obesity and heart disease as we do. But here we are, 2017 and it's only gotten worse (to the day) that carbs were made out to be the baseline of our diets. Carb and sugar laden cereals labeled as "fat free!" and "heart healthy!", a bag of gummy bears "fat free food!!!" So that means it's healthy right? u_u;; “”

There is an obesity/cardiovascular epidemic because the majority population eat more but move less. Blaming it on a single macronutrient is plain ignorant. If you eat 500 more calories worth of fat a day compared to your energy expenditure you [i]will[/i] gain weight. If you eat 500 more calories worth of carbohydrates (whether its simple or complex carbs) a day compared to your energy expenditure you [i]will[/i] gain weight. Once again this is simple science. Why anyone still argues against the calories in/calories out equation in this day and age makes me fear for the future of our species.

“Protein:*Protein is good, but unless you are doing some serious training, excess protein consumed will be converted into glucose. This is also one reason why if you go on a low calorie restrictive diet, you might experience muscle loss. If your body is running strictly on glucose, it will start turning to your muscle tissue for that energy. However, when you are fueled by fat, your body goes after the fat in your diet followed by the fat on your body once what bit of glycogen your liver may have stored from the veggies you've eaten. “

This doesn't even physiologically make sense...I'm assuming we are still talking about losing weight right? Well once you've burned though your fat you are [i]still[/i] going to burn into muscle. Burning into muscle comes with the territory of losing weight and is pretty much unavoidable. It can however be minimised (If you are active/training) by taking certain supplements or increasing your protein intake. Once again it will only be converted to glucose and stored as fat if you are in a calorie surplus . I'm getting bored of saying this, but once again this is entry level science.

If you are in a calorie deficit, then you have already pre planned to burn through your Carbs, fats and then reserve fat. That's whether you're on either a high-carb low-fat or low-carb high-fat diet...either way it doesn't matter, if you've planned correctly then those energy sources will soon be burned through before getting to the adipose tissue (the fat we want to lose).

I think you need to look up the laws of thermodynamics. Its the science and relation between energy expenditure and the micronutrients involved.

“Sleep:*Benefits from working out occur when you are asleep. If you are not getting at least 8 hours of sleep and getting some good REM time, all that working out will go to waste. Your body produces a growth hormone and the greatest fat loss happens while sleeping when your body is repairing itself. Work out and get some good rest. “

Although there is a greater improvement of biological repair, claiming that “all that working out will go to waste” is just silly. Body function and repair does not simply stop because we are awake.

“Keep in mind that a low calorie diet WILL mess up your metabolism. Your body has a natural reset point after weight loss, and it's easy to go back to it even if you are generally being mindful about your consumption. “

Wrong, just simply wrong. This is actually a popular bro science myth that infuriates me.

Your body/brain [i]may[/i] eventually regulate the way it uses up energy sources which could cause a plateau, but its no way near as bad as the way you have sensationalised it and can easily be fixed by a few change to activity and nutrition. Here is an article on Metabolic Damage from a credible source.

[url]http://www.precisionnutrition.com/metabolic-damage[/url]

“Keep in mind that human beings did not consume grains only until around 12,000 years ago. Before that, humans lived in hunter-gatherer tribes where we ate primarily meats and whatever else the land around us provided. Our diets were pretty high in protein and fat, but early humans might've had to go a long time without any meals if there were droughts, herd shortages, or no good results from hunts. 12,000 years in the scale of human evolution is maybe an hour, and the guidelines in the 1970's pushing for the baseline of our diets being carbohydrates probably 1 minute. And since that study (which was severely flawed, btw.) obesity shot up as soon as "low fat" began being marketed as a way to promote heart health. “

I don't understand this argument. Tribes men who lacked a breakthrough in agriculture and technology only ate meat so we should do the same now? Back then we didn't have planes, cars, or penicillin so for some irrelevant reason we had better stop using those too. We are a species that adapted just enough to realise we could fuel ourselves on a plentiful (and sustainable) diet known as carbs, so what.

As for the “flawed” study, publish the link please. If you mean the “Food plate” or dietary advice that was recommended in the 70's then this is irrelevant as it has since changed. One again the problem is not fats, carbs or proteins, its simple over eating that has caused the health epidemic.

#12 Nirv on 1 year ago

#13 Keebablue on 1 year ago

Nirv im really glad you kinda helped previous poster with the facts. The comment about it making the blood sugar better actully worried me. I myself am unfortunate enough to be in the *pre* diabetic category ( normal weight- and i exercise, just a shitty genetic flaw), and the whole thing with ketones is/ can be *very* bad for pre/diabetics, and i would really hate for someone to seek that, and think to try it.

As far as the carbs/protien and blood sugar, as you've talked about those Bobbi; I can tell you that Protien is actually *very* important in helping to keep blood sugar levels stable. A good bit of protien paired with the carbs in your meal ( fruit or from breads, pasta, potatoes, corn etc) is a good thing. Carbs and sugar are not the enemy when you eat properly. If you were to cut out all carbs/sugar, youd pretty much be eating *nothing* but greens. Veggies have *no* significant sugar content. Because fruit? Fruit is sugar and carbs- a single cup of cherries alone contains around 18 g carbs- all from the natural sugars. Vegetables are *not* a good source of carbs, period. The amount youd have to consume to hit anywhere near your body's carb needs is insanely high, and youd never accomplish it. This is why diabetics are encouraged to eat as much veggies as they like (excluding a few like potatoes, corn, peas for example), beaucse they contain no carbs (sugar) and will not raise the blood sugar. (The same also applies to fat/protien, i.e. Neither raises blood sugar)
You also mention your allergies cleared up? My suspicion there is that you were consuming a food that was from an outside source your allergic to- though it isnt common. For example, I am *extremely* allergic to all types of grasses. When all wheat was cut from my diet, my *symptoms* vastly improved and i was able to go off all but 1 allergy medicine. Its not because my allergy went away, or was cured, but that my histamine load was much lower and I wasn't *symptomatic*. My allergy still exists. This can be the same for fruits and vegetables as well. A food allergy can manifest with itchy eyes, post nasal drip, stuffy nose and sneezing just like from pollen or dander- though as I understand currently, it is not super common.

Anyway... rant done. XD I personally get a large portion of my carbs from fruit rather than things like bread/pasta because of my wheat allergy. Finding wheat free bread, crackers and other junk is like twice the price- though that usually ends up with me over my daily sugar allowance. (My body seems to process the fruits better than the bread/pasta anyway). I begrudgingly eat vegitation because im supposed to, but i dont like it. ;P I eat a lot of fat and protien as well. And though I do on average consume fewer calories than i burn; i do fluctuate the amount based on what activity ive done that day. I.e, if ive spent a few hours skating, i tend to up my calories a little bit (so i *dont* end up in a heavy ketosis state.)

In the end, the best thing to do if you can, is speak to a nutritionist. They can best advise you based on your own personal health how to best eat to loose weight and be more *healthy*

Sorry if i went off topic >.<

#14 LordTyger on 1 year ago

Speak to a -good- nutritionist. That part's important. I talked to mine and got the basic rundown you can find anywhere, including 'advice' that simply isn't feasible. I was less than impressed. -.-

#15 Nirv on 1 year ago

@keebablue - thank you for commenting, it's beneficial and educational to hear from someone that actually has (or alteast pre) diabetes and their experience with it.. Sorry if I'm making you out as a lab rat, definitely not my intent! I wish the best of luck for your health :)

@LordTyger - although I understand what you mean, what makes a "good" nutritionist and how would we know we are speaking to one without prior knowledge of what should make one "good"? Perhaps a friend recommends a "good" nutrionist simply because that nutrionist has told them they are good, but then goes on to tell them protein will destroy their liver, or only lemon peel will save them from cancer etc etc.

Most of the time the reason why advice or information can be found anywhere, is because it's common science or basic unarguable nutritional (however the public may still be unaware of this information, or mislead). If you ask a mathematician what 2 + 2 is and he tells you 4, then naturally you will find the same answer "anywhere".

Also take in to account that like most regulated industries, nutrionists learn from the same curriculum therefore they are likely to promote the same guidelines and advice. To me, a good nutrionist would be someone who is unbiased and keeps up to date with the latest science and peer reviewed studies. A bad one would be someone who becomes emotionally attached to their beliefs and unwilling to further educate themselves.

Edit - I want to point out that being from the UK I'm unaware of how strict/regulated nutrionist professionals are in the US. In my country in order to teach fitness or give nutritional advice you have to be qualified.