Achievable weight loss

Emoco":2noykjds said:
I should have been more clear about the metabolism slowing from skipping breakfast alone.

The OP skips breakfast anyway.


and is overweight.
 
Emoco":lrq2t6xw said:
I should have been more clear about the metabolism slowing from skipping breakfast alone.

The OP skips breakfast anyway.

I knew what you meant fella. . . :cool:
 
IDB1":2vnfftx3 said:
paininthe":2vnfftx3 said:
Get a good calorie counter and stick to 3000cals a day . Slow / fast metabolism, exercise, big meals, little meals is all tosh. Your final calorie intake is what counts.
I'm not convinced that metabolic speed is tosh.. unless somebody can prove otherwise.. in fact, it seems to be quite real and very relevant..
It is, and you're quite correct to be discerning about that.

That is one of the big problems about diet and nutrition - a lot of nonsense is written about it.

Practically all the big ideas or dogmatic concepts people hold about it, have been studied, under controlled scientific conditions - yet many will swear blind that their long-held beliefs are absolute.
 
kaiser":1d9cenl6 said:
Emoco":1d9cenl6 said:
I should have been more clear about the metabolism slowing from skipping breakfast alone.

The OP skips breakfast anyway.


and is overweight.

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Up to now I haven't been skipping breakfast.. been having it every day for months... and am overweight.. but not by that much, I don't even want to lose 10% of my current scale-busting meat suit...
 
kaiser":fkpgsr2s said:
Emoco":fkpgsr2s said:
I should have been more clear about the metabolism slowing from skipping breakfast alone.

The OP skips breakfast anyway.
and is overweight.
Which may well be coincidental.

Let's not conflate causation with correlation.
 
Neil":st8qnmqu said:
Big meals / little meals, may be all tosh, but metabolic rate isn't, nor is exercise - just look at what you wrote "calorie intake is what counts" - well how, then, can how many calories the body expends, be tosh?

Unless you are a committed trainer or working in high exercise jobs you will never burn excessive calories by exercise.

For instance a 20mile bike ride at a reasonable pace and HR in the 140s does 800 calories. Pie and chips? it is a lot easier not to eat them in the first place.

3000cals, yes off on that the body consumes about 1500 just to keep it running - all the rest is extras
 
paininthe":1wm0pi0e said:
Neil":1wm0pi0e said:
Big meals / little meals, may be all tosh, but metabolic rate isn't, nor is exercise - just look at what you wrote "calorie intake is what counts" - well how, then, can how many calories the body expends, be tosh?
Unless you are a committed trainer or working in high exercise jobs you will never burn excessive calories by exercise.
A daily deficit of somewhere around 2-500 calories is probably an ideal, sustainable deficit.

All I'm saying is that for several reasons - all advantageous, that's best achieved by activity as opposed to calorific reduction.
paininthe":1wm0pi0e said:
For instance a 20mile bike ride at a reasonable pace and HR in the 140s does 800 calories. Pie and chips? it is a lot easier not to eat them in the first place.
Thing is, though, it tends not to be an either / or.

As in all of these things, a gentle reduction in calories, and a gentle increase in activity is probably optimum - but then there's more advantages to be had in being more active, over relatively small reductions in calories.
paininthe":1wm0pi0e said:
3000cals, yes off on that the body consumes about 1500 just to keep it running - all the rest is extras
Make no mistake, apart from people who are very active, 3k calories is a lot. It's pretty damn high for somebody who's trying to lose weight - unless they are currently very active (or, I suppose, very big).
 
wow im awfully confused
if eating lots of meals doesnt increase your metabolism then i dont know what to believe
so many things :shock: :LOL:

to reduce calorie intake (if thats whats needed :? )
try using a smaller plate for smaller portions


or get a colonic irrigation
 
Overall.. the formula (as Neil said) is CICO . . eat less, work more.. basically ;)
That's about as far into the science of the thing as I need to go..

My biggest 'sin' is sugar... up until today, I would guess at having up to the equivalent of about 40 tea spoons a day... usually more like 20-30 - roughly
A dozen cups of tea with 2 (sometimes 3) in each... just for starters..

Snacking on sugar on toast or sugar sarnies... not every day but a couple of times a week

2 (rounded) dessert spoons of the stuff on my brekkie (which I am no longer partaking in)

And eat a (level tea) spoonful of the stuff sometimes while making the tea...

And that's before choccie bars (couple a week), what's already in cereal, desserts. . . and on and on...

I have to say, though, once I passed 40 (in years!!) I found it easier to shed weight than in the preceding 15 years... hence my lax attitude to empty calories :?
 
Back
Top