how to burn fat

[rob]

next you're gonna tell us that juice fasting "alkalizes" the body

[Kimmo]

I thought juice fasting was your area of expertise?

[JayB]

Kimmo, which of Tvash's prescriptions do you disagree with? Look pretty much spot-on to me.

 

Going running now ...

 

 

Astrov, oh my, i'm getting a little done with this thread, but i'll try to answer your question.

 

 

 

so...

 

-3 oz meat rule: silly, not necessary, and probably impossible for most to adhere to. lean meat is, well, lean, with a pretty low calorie count (especially grass fed), so i'm damn well gonna enjoy my steak when i decide to have one. am i gonna eat this every day? no, but there are paleo folks out there who are very lean, seemingly healthy, and eat a lot of meat, every day.

 

-no cheese as main course: another one of those vague generalizations without any context. should people be gorging on cheese? it'd be pretty damn tough to stay within one's energy in/energy out equation if this was a regular habit. but damn, some decent fondue sounds pretty good right about now.

 

-eat at home: huh? not sure what this is about. i'm pretty sure some friends of mine who eat almost every meal out are healthier and thinner than homeslice here.

 

-portion sizes. i'd go crazy if i tried to limit my portion sizes all the time. hey, it's one way to go, and if it's working for him, great, but certainly NOT necessary for weight loss.

 

-buy good food. what's that? kale's pretty good, and so is a pint of ben and jerry's dulce de leche. made with non-rbgh milk too. hey, how about a pint?

 

-dietary supplements. not sure what these might have to do with losing weight, per se. maybe for general health and athletic performance? depending on what one's goals are, i think creatine and beta-alanine have some compelling research showing performance improvements. so, my problem is with his wording, "dietary supplements are a scam" (except for the ones he lists), since it seems other supplements have research supporting their value.

 

 

and the most glaring omission is the old energy in/energy out part of the "losing weight" formula. i think his prescriptions allude to the fact that one needs to limit what they eat, but do so in a vague way without spelling it out. because, really, in the end, that is THE aspect of diet that HAS to be addressed, much much more so than what supplements one is taking, or how much cheese is one eating at a particular meal, or whether or not one exceeded 3 oz's of meat in a sitting .

 

 

it's not entirely germane to the discussion at hand, but it would also be interesting to know how well his diet prescriptions are working for him. i mean, is he lean??

 

Great post.

 

"Burn as many calories as you consume" if you want to avoid gaining weight is the dieting equivalent to the dictum that you should "Spend less than you earn" if you want to avoid going broke.

 

Easy rules to understand, hard rule to live by - which is why so many people spend such a staggering amount of time and energy trying to figure out ways to evade them, and hucksters have made so many fortunes promising magical solutions that will allow them to do so.

 

By the way - if me agreeing with you on this particular issue makes you consider disavowing everything you just said, feel free to pretend that I angrily chimed in and posted in all caps saying "ITS THE HFCS!" over and over again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jordansahls]

Instead of trying to interpret your definition of a stressor, maybe you could clarify for me?

 

I would argue that both exercise and caloric restriction are physiological stressors. All animal physiology is basically a series of finely tuned feedback mechanisms. You have a sensor that monitors something in a range. Once that 'something' is outside of the range the body activates an effector to bring things back into homeostasis. In the simplest form a stressor, in my mind, is anything that significantly moves the body outside of homeostasis for a prolonged period of time such that chronic adaptations occur.

 

 

 

[genepires]

Instead of trying to interpret your definition of a stressor, maybe you could clarify for me?

 

I would argue that both exercise and caloric restriction are physiological stressors. All animal physiology is basically a series of finely tuned feedback mechanisms. You have a sensor that monitors something in a range. Once that 'something' is outside of the range the body activates an effector to bring things back into homeostasis. In the simplest form a stressor, in my mind, is anything that significantly moves the body outside of homeostasis for a prolonged period of time such that chronic adaptations occur.

 

 

you could further add to your definition by adding good and bad stressors. good stressors are those that the body can adapt to in a positive manner. bad stressors are excessive so that the body can not adapt enough to keep up with. drug abuse is an extreme example of a bad stressor. exercise within recovery limits is a good stress. exercise beyond the ability to recover is a bad stress.

 

[Kimmo]

Instead of trying to interpret your definition of a stressor, maybe you could clarify for me?

 

I would argue that both exercise and caloric restriction are physiological stressors. All animal physiology is basically a series of finely tuned feedback mechanisms. You have a sensor that monitors something in a range. Once that 'something' is outside of the range the body activates an effector to bring things back into homeostasis. In the simplest form a stressor, in my mind, is anything that significantly moves the body outside of homeostasis for a prolonged period of time such that chronic adaptations occur.

 

In the original context of my use of the word "stressor", I meant something that negatively impacts an organism's overall health or survival.

 

Since it's been pretty conclusively shown in now a variety of organisms that even severe caloric restrictions can improve overall lifespan, sometimes dramatically, then obviously, using my original meaning, caloric restriction would not be a "stressor".

 

Your definition obviously works, within its context. But it doesn't identify healthy stress vs unhealthy stress, which seems to be somewhat the point of the discussion. After all, everything that is happening anywhere in what we call a universe is "stress" (because there are no closed systems, as far as I can tell).

 

 

[jordansahls]

I left out the terms 'good' and 'bad' because I don't believe that stress is inherently one or the other. It's the specifics of the stress that determine if it will have a good or bad effect.

 

I know that somewhat extreme levels of caloric restriction have been shown to prolong the life of rats and monkeys (not sure about the human studies). But, it's no great secret that caloric restriction to the point of starvation leads to organ catabolism and eventual death. In this case, I see it as being very harmful and by your definition it becomes a "stressor".

 

Perhaps this is all a bit stupid on my part since I think, for the most part, we are in agreement. I think I'm just being a bit less flexible with my definition.

 

 

 

 

[rob]

 

I know that somewhat extreme levels of caloric restriction have been shown to prolong the life of rats and monkeys (not sure about the human studies).

 

I don't think there have been clinical studies on humans. And even studies on primates are conflicting -- one recent study on monkeys showed some health benefits, but not an increase in median longevity

 

But, they probably did not try juice fasting, so there's that....

[rob]

if you thought outside the box a little, you might get yourself out of cat 5 someday.

 

I got your cat 5 right here

 

[Off_White]

Rob, if you're trolling for Kimmo, he hasn't been back since I spanked the both of you for spraying in the Fitness Forum (in this very thread) with a 3 day ban. It's a pity, since the only thing wrong with the spray was the location and the both of ya'lls failure to stop when asked, and I've always enjoyed reading his posts.

[E-rock]

they want... juice fasting and fast cures that don't involve hardwork...

 

you're funny. try going on a juice fast some time and see how easy it is.

 

and then check on some things pro cyclists do, like wiggins, since i think i saw you mention you race. if you thought outside the box a little, you might get yourself out of cat 5 someday.

 

Oh Wiggo's on the "juice" alright.

 

[olyclimber]

if you thought outside the box a little, you might get yourself out of cat 5 someday.

 

I got your cat 5 right here

 

 

are you drinking a juice?

[G-spotter]

climbing in a bikini on a cold day probably works

[E-rock]

Lookee here: so timely.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/08/23/214440426/obesity-and-the-toxic-sugar-wars?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130823

[David Sharad]

Exercise and proper diet are very important to lose weight and improve fitness. Avoid all fatty foods like meats, nuts, grains, cheese, fast foods, fried and dairy products. Go for walking, running and cycling.It burns fat,make strong bones and muscles, boost energy, improve heart functions and improve fitness.

[RuMR]

The lower your blood glucose and glycogen stores dip, the more you burn protein, not fat.

 

 

it seems this idea is a bit misguided, based on both my readings, personal experience with fasting and caloric restriction, and common sense.

 

from my readings:

 

the body enters ketosis after the depletion of glycogen stores, i think after two or three days under normal circumstances (link in previous post above regarding ketosis). almost all tissues can utilize ketones for energy needs. the brain is a bit different: although most areas can utilize ketones, there are small areas needing glucose (can't remember which areas; tiny cells). this glucose need can be supplied through gluconeogenesis, which requires all of 20 grams of protein (please verify!). this would be a net protein loss of 20 g per day during a complete fast, which would equate to what, a pound of protein loss every 20 days? seems a touch low, but.... another consideration in lean tissue sparing during fasting/low cal is the increase in growth hormone during fasting: here's one study link. another study, i'm sure you can google it, showed a 2,100% spike in GH after a 48 hr fast, if i recall correctly.

 

point being, the body protects lean tissue. duh.

 

 

personal experience:

 

i've done a 7 day water fast, and an 8 day broth and juice fast, and multiple shorter fasts. during these times, guess what disappeared? that's right, fat off my body. did i lose strength ie. muscles? i won a climbing comp on the 7th day of my juice fast (~200-300 cals a day).

 

 

common sense:

 

is it reasonable to think that humans, along with every other animal, aren't biologically equipped to handle periods of caloric deprivation? nonsense! and, is it reasonable to think that during these periods of caloric deprivation, the body would utilize its lean tissues for its caloric needs, the very lean tissues it needs in order to locomote and find more calories? that's silly! of course it won't. it'll utilize fat reserves, damaged tissues, other wastes, anything and everything except the tissues necessary for the survival of the organism. if the body didn't do this, we wouldn't be around as a species. it's not like this physiological aspect has changed during the last 10,000 years of humanoid domestication....

 

anyways, that's my two cents on this subject. from both personal experience and a hell of a lot of reading.

 

and to reiterate: the fastest way to lose fat is to stop eating, period. any other claim is just silly nonsense.

 

Couldn't agree more...

 

[astrov]

I'm still fat.