Thanks, Lawler. I'll find out this Friday.
Thanks, Lawler. I'll find out this Friday.
I don't think it works like that (also glycogen is just the stored form of ingested carbs). The first order effect is from lower calorie intake - by taking a lot of carbs out of your daily diet you've probably lowered your daily calorie intake into a slight deficit, hence the weight loss. The second order effect is from changing the daily carbs-fat-protein intake distribution. So certainly having both effects work together delivers results. But there is no long-term vs. short-term transaction concept attached to type of macronutrient (carbs; fats protein). Moreover, the whole system is a continuous dynamic process where both burning and storing occurs simultaneously. When you eliminate a lot of carb intake, you lower their availability in the blood and eventually the availability of stored carbs (glycogen), so the dynamic process shifts a bit to mobilizing and burning more bodyfat than otherwise for energy - especially if you do not ingest a lot of fat in terms of food intake.Andrew Fryer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:49 amA possible conclusion I could draw is that a diet will be useless until you've eliminated the short-term transactions between sugars and glycogens? Once those have been eliminated, the long-term slower transaction can take place of metabolising body fat into energy?
Right. But just to be clear, carbs here means all carbohydrate, not just simple or added sugar. Almost every food except cheeses and meat have carbs, some lots of it (fruits and of course manufactured sweets), but even most vegetables, yoghurt, eggs, etc have some. So eliminating all carbs by that definition of carbs is indeed unnecessary - and is very hard to do anyway. However, eliminating all carbs meaning simple sugars is not a bad idea for calorie intake and macronutrient-shifting reasons.
This is true. All my doctors have ever said was that I needed to lose weight, but they never said how except for the usual starvation diet.
Thank you, Lawler. It was a great feeling to see that.
Thank you.guitarrista wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:31 pm
I'm sure you don't mean to put people off exercise here. Of course you can't compare somebody with a desk job to an elite athlete, but you don't need to. If you are in shape and weigh say 80 kg (180 lbs) you can easily burn 800 calories in a 1.5 hour workout. It is only the equivalent of running 10k in 1.5 hours, which is a slow jog. Anyone can get in that kind of shape. The bike is a terrible choice if you want to burn calories, and running is not much better - you will get through a lot more if you opt for the cross trainer or rower.Andrew Pohlman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:26 pmAnother common misconception is that you can exercise away excess calories. Not really, no. Not for people with desk jobs like me! For example, the professional cyclists in the Tour de France burn approximately 5000 Kcals per day. They eat like crazy during such events and never gain an ounce due to many hours of high intensity physical output. But normal people? We burn less than 2000 Kcals/day. To burn just one 300 Kcal doughnut takes an hour of moderate cycling. So fine - eat that doughnut, and compensate by an hour of cycling. But then what? If you want to have a net loss of fat, you have to manage calories as outlined above.
I don't believe it matters what order the body burns calories in, only whether it burns fat at some point. If you have more calories going out than coming in, it has to burn fat at some point. It doesn't matter when.First off, nobody really wants to lose "weight". People really want to lose fat. Limiting total calories, particularly carbs, is essential to triggering the burning of fat. The body prefers to burn carbs (glucose), then protein, then fats, in that order. The carbs come from two sources: the digestive system, and conversion of stored glycogen to glucose. So the game is to set up physiological conditions so your body burns fat despite its normal propensity.
Well, I am not sure how much difference it really makes. If someone is overweight it's usually because they eat for reasons that have nothing to do with being hungry - out of boredom, say, or as a way of cheering themselves up. Time and time again people make huge efforts to lose weight only to rebound. I think this is because their basic attitude to food does not change, and no amount of nutritional information is going to help there. On the other hand, when people who had been put off exercise for whatever reason rediscover what a pleasure it is, it can become an integral part of their lifestyle. I think that's the way to sustainable weight loss.There are whole books written on this stuff. It's very hard to give a concise synopsis here. It gets very complicated and to my chagrin, most healthcare professionals in the US don't know even basic nutrition, so they are of no help for people in need of weight management.
Users browsing this forum: ChristianSchwengeler, CommonCrawl [Bot], JohnW400, Tubbers and 21 guests