Fitness and weight loss milestone passed yesterday....

[MiniNinjaRob]

@ Rob , you probably lost a a fair amount of liquid , your 26lb loss is not 100% fat unless you have been followed by a doctor who carried out tests before and after you are gong to reach a plateau in your weight loss and will have to be more specific in your training and diet if you want to carry on .

Yeah right, all that stuff in my double chin was liquid, and the 4 inches I've lost off my waist. I also drink water like a fish, maybe I've got a leak somewhere..... :roll:

Calorie controlled low fat diet, plus plenty of (any) exercise = lose weight. It isn't any more complicated than that.

 

[cchris2lou]

only saying you havent lost 100% fat .

26lb is a massive achievement whatever it is you lost

 

[Neil]

maybe you should go out a bit more Neil and spend less time on your keyboard . lets all be on a Ketogenic diet and die of a heart attack at the age of 50 .

That's just ill-informed, ignorant scare-mongering.

There's nothing inherent about ketogenic diets that makes people susceptible to heart attacks - that's all about presumption and inference that people on such diets will significantly consume more saturated fat.

And seventeenthly, you miss my point - I wasin't advocating ketogenic diets - I was questioning why, if burning fat whilst exercising is seen by some (wrongly, as it happens - but all the same) as so advantageous - then why not all the time by means of diet?

I note you ducked the question, and instead when for a weak riposte based on an assumption that correlation==causation.

for most people , the 45 minutes has no relevance , but when training it does matter .

Why.

Go on - why is it so significant?

I'll help you out - it isn't.

But feel free, all the same.

@ Rob , you probably lost a a fair amount of liquid , your 26lb loss is not 100% fat unless you have been followed by a doctor who carried out tests before and after you are gong to reach a plateau in your weight loss and will have to be more specific in your training and diet if you want to carry on .

That may, or may not be true, but is awfully presumptuous - and will have no bearing on fat burning zones or ANY 45 minute claims (history has shown us that they're most debatable...).

You should really lose the dogma and bro-science with all this fat-burning and 45 minute claims.

For weight and fat loss, sustained calorific deficit matters. Encouraging fat to be a most significant proportion of the loss is more about what you encourage to stay, than how you fuel exercise.

Still, if you're stuck in the 80s, carry on with this "fat burning zone" nonsense.

 

[Russell]

Calorie controlled low fat diet, plus plenty of (any) exercise = lose weight. It isn't any more complicated than that.

Apparently it is!

I've never really understood why at a base level, people trying to lose weight need any more advice than 'move more, eat less'.

(typing this having demolished a bottle of wine and more than my fair share of crisps this evening.)

 

[apache]

Eat less, move more. Simples.

We are, generally speaking, a car driven society. Been there. I sold my 4x4 18 months ago. I dont own a car now. I work 4 miles from home, and that is my only regular journey so whats the point?

Not owning a car forces me to walk or cycle to work, shop locally etc. All very 'green' and supportive of the local economy.

I have access to a car, my wifes Fiat 500, but only use it when visiting my folks 120 miles away really. I've noticed massive benefits in my general health, particularly stamina and climbing ability, and my wallet! I notice I spend more time on my feet at work, by choice, and feel generally fresher and more alert.

Interestingly enough, I haven't lost much weight (I've gone from 15'6lbs high 14's, but my shape has changed. I don't think I'm ever gonna be much less than this cos I'm naturally a big chap, I live for my real ale, but my aim was never to lose lotsa weight, at 46 years old, it was just to be able to ride hard enough to be able to embarrass some lycra clad £5k bike owners. Now and again, I succeed

<edit> posted at the same time as Russell! Spooky! I too have drunk half a bottle of red with the missus over dinner, and before that sunk a few beers at the pub watching the rugby. Hey ho!

 

[cchris2lou]

last time I had to cook a ketogenic diet for a child to combat epilepsy it involved a lot of double cream .

are you bascically saying we should eat with no fat at all ?

 

[ere-tis]

Congrats Rob.

Much respect for deciding you needed to change and for sticking with it.

 

[Neil]

only saying you havent lost 100% fat .

Quite probably true, but have you done any research into current dieting and exercise approaches for those that actually just want to lose bodyfat?

If you'd stop spouting rubbish about 45 minute claims and "fat burning zones" then what you're saying wouldn't seem quite on shaky ground.

It's complete and utter rubbish to imply that to get leaner, exercising in the fat burning zone is either important or significant. It's only important or significant if it suits individual preferences in terms of levels of exertion or exercise duration.

 

[Neil]

last time I had to cook a ketogenic diet for a child to combat epilepsy it involved a lot of double cream .

are you bascically saying we should eat with no fat at all ?

'cos there's no way of following a ketogenic diet without lots of saturated fat, right...

Don't fall into the trap of conflating correlation with causation.

There's no requirement on higher degrees of dietary saturated fat because of reduced (none or very low amounts) of dietary carbohydrate - 'cept for the lazy thinkers, or those just looking to load up on high sat fat foods.

 

[Neil]

I've never really understood why at a base level, people trying to lose weight need any more advice than 'move more, eat less'

Simply because it's not the easy answer most are looking for.