It's not the normal situation. I just wanted to see if I could do it. I bought a couple of pounds of pork for the slow cooker, cheese, vegetables in bulk, corn tortillas, and plain yogurt. All in all, I was able to make pretty healthy meals out of that for a five-day period. Normally, however, I want more variety than that and I'll spend more so that I have a wide range of my favorite foods to choose from. But the idea was to show that you actually could do it on much less and have viable meals. My daughter just started college and is doing a lot of the ramen and cheap foods many of us did in those days, and I was trying to show how she could make better meals for herself (though she'd still have to be willing to put the time in, which is why I think ramen will win out many nights).
[MENTION=53984]Garball[/MENTION]: In one of my previous comments, I explained a bit how, evolutionarily, 'sparing' metabolisms are favoured in times of famine because they can survive on much less food. However, once famine is no longer a problem (ie. currently in the developed world) those people will tend to be overweight or even obese. However, if famine comes, people who are slim in times of plenty would struggle to survive on extremely scarce resources. This is from an evolutionary point of view, ie. survival prerogative. So in times of famine, rounded figures are considered beautiful because they signal genetic advantage in those times, whilst in times of plenty, slimmer physiques are favoured, because they are better adapted to handle higher calorie diet. There is no right or wrong here, different people are more or less adept to live in certain times and certain environments, and most people fall somewhere in between, so it all evens out. Anyways, I am a bit bored with this topic, it's beginning to feel like work I thought to put my 2 cents worth and get out.
In times of famine, wouldn't the slimmer people with higher metabolism be better adept at eating the obese people?
Because some people can't achieve what a majority deems preferable, we should lessen the qualifications for those standards? Olympic athletes are praised because they are the upper echelon, geniuses respected because they are more intelligent, professional musicians are awed because of their musical prowess. It is not true that you can accomplish being the best if you really want to. There are physical and mental setbacks that prevent the vast majority from being able to accomplish what the "Greats" have done. Doesn't mean you can't be good or better than most. Nobody is going to be celebrated (in a popular light) for being the fattest or sloppiest. Thank whatever universe driving force you want that not everybody uses the same metric to determine physical attractiveness, but don't define that as equality
There is an interesting article based on a study of a million British adults, in the Guardian today, on the lack of physical activity ("shockingly low" apparently).
[MENTION=16328]ChickenFreak[/MENTION] : good points! Here's some thoughts. Yeah, it's a must in our current situation, and also the biggest money-eater in our household (gas is more expensive here than in the US in general). We were super-lucky with our car though; it's a 1998 model, fixed up by a friend, who's also our mechanic and way cheaper than actual shops. If we owned a newer car, we wouldn't be able to afford it because of the loan and taxes. It's also necessary when it comes to shopping cheap, because when you buy all the foods and necessities for the week at one go, you actually end up spending less money on groceries, but dragging 30kg worth of groceries on a bus is a nightmare. I've been wondering about this, because when I think of a developed, Western country, I think of all kinds of commodities being readily available for consumers, but I know that it can't be so. On the other hand, quality fruit and veggies are sometimes hard to come by over here too (hell, we can't even grow our own fruit, and summers are so short almost everything has to be imported), so frozen veggies are a viable option. This leads back to what you said about people not knowing about certain goods -- many people don't know that veggies can be bought frozen! This is what I meant when I mentioned earlier how difficult it can be to lead a healthy lifestyle with kids, mortgage, long distances, etc. Sometimes the way one's life has been built just doesn't support the lifestyle that'd be healthier for them and their kids. I think that's also one of the reasons why people say that changing the diet is not enough, but one has to actually change their way of living too. And a lot comes down to choice. We don't have a TV or XBox or iPad or iPhone, we don't drink or smoke, or buy fancy clothes, bags, shoes -- those can thin your wallet pretty good. But some people like those things, and it's their right to choose e.g. a night at the bar with friends + a taxi home over a jog and an evening at home. We only live once, so no use in wasting it in something unpleasant. For instance, there's no use in exercising like crazy to get super-thin if one hates every second of it, imo. [MENTION=35652]123456789[/MENTION]: thanks for taking the time to clarify what you meant. Yeah, organic milk is about the same price here. I never buy it though, the normal milk is good enough, and it's not even necessary as long as calcium is derived from somewhere. As for steak, that's so expensive, it's really not a cheap shopper's choice anyway. Protein can be taken from e.g. beans, soy and eggs (though organic eggs are pretty expensive). Besides, many people have gotten used to eating far too big portions. The more you consume, the more you have to buy, eh? Same here. I often have to go to at least two to get just the stuff I want (sometimes 3; yoghurt from A, milk from B, nuts from C). I think it helps if the supermarkets are close enough, but if you have to drive long distances, not much sense in that because what you win with the prices, you lose with the gas. Btw, I work full-time during summers which means I have more time to shop than during winters (at one point I had 2 teaching jobs + 1 office job and my studies, it was crazy), and doing the groceries once a week is usually the best option. I grew up in a pretty low-income, single-parent household (e.g. pretty much everything we had was second-hand -- I have to admit though, growing up like this has developed mean budgeting skills!) but found ways to do all kinds of sporty stuff for free, e.g. when I did chores at the stables, I got to ride horses for free -- and yes, even in Finland horseback-riding is considered a hobby for rich people. I believe a lot comes down to going out there and doing it, but it's easy to just get cooped up at home, especially for city kids, especially if their parents don't have the energy to "push" the kids to go out. On the other hand, I wouldn't have to be as cheap as I am if I asked money from Dad, but as long as I can get by on my own, I will, so that's another thing that comes down to choice. A lot does. Yeah, I agree. It's also becoming more and more visible over here that people from low-income families tend to be heavier than those with a higher income. Anyway, my point was to show you that things aren't that much easier or different over here, like you implied. Finland has changed a lot during the past 10 years, become somewhat "Americanized." While we have certain things better (welfare, healthcare, education -- all are declining though) that help families economically, we also share similar problems; growing obesity, urbanization, the gap widening between the rich and the poor, etc.
I've never worked for Abercrombie & Fitch, but every summer I wind up with an ab or two because of the insane amount of swimming I do. Way I see it if someone's offended by me going out of the house shirtless or in shorts, that's neither my fault nor my problem. I've been on the heavier side of the line myself and all I saw when I looked at someone in shape was motivation. That's how I eventually got in shape. Without them I'd never have seen a reason. Not really, but Kobe Bryant has a much lower body fat percentage that most non-athletes can aspire to. He's pretty much all muscle. Normal people with the same stats usually aren't (though if you are, 6'5 guy, my mistake ).
Indeed, as I mentioned initially, I'm a relative fatty with my 17% body fat percentage. I imagine Kobe is probably between 6-8% during a season.
17% body fat is average. Bang on average. I was at 15% in my profile picture, I'd hardly call that 'chubby.' While we're on the topic, can I just say, guys: it's insane how much better-looking you become when you drop down to a lower body fat percentage. Not 'lose weight,' but lose body fat specifically. So much difference.
Absolutely. It happens a lot with both sexes, but at least here in Finland it's more common for a girl to be skinny yet soft and wobbly while a greater percentage of guys do sports and eat enough protein when dieting to cut more weight from fat instead of muscle. Quite a few skinny girls who suffer of eating disorders are just like that, toothpick-thin but still have a surprisingly high bodyfat percentage. One reason is that although we're moving in the right direction, way too many girls/women still fear that if they eat a bit of protein and lift weights heavier than a pencil, they'll turn into Jay Cutler overnight despite the fact that athletes toil incredibly hard to build muscle on purpose. Anyway, I've tried looking, but still haven't found that many illnesses that cause a person to gain weight even when consuming less calories than they expend. Some illnesses that cause weight gain (especially gathering of fluids) are hypothyroidism, Cushing's Syndrome, certain liver / kidney problems, and some medications. What I didn't find out was whether these ailments cause weight gain in the form of a rising bodyfat percentage even if the patient eats less calories than they spend. Does anyone know if this is even possible? There may be exceptions, but still quite a few of the overweight people I've discussed with have claimed they consume less calories than they expend (although they haven't been diagnosed with any illnesses that would cause this) and they choose to ignore the fact that unless they are an exception (i.e. suffer of some such ailment), if they truly spend more calories than they consume, they would lose weight, sooner or later, because the simple physiological fact (holds true in the majority of cases) is that if your body is on minus calories, you lose weight (sometimes very slowly, but slow weight loss is still weight loss, not weight gain). The macros of your diet as well as your lifestyle (type and amount of exercise in relation to the type and amount of nutrition) contribute quite a bit on whether you lose a lot of muscle alongside fat, or if you lose mostly fat and retain most of your muscle mass. I know from experience just how hard lowering your bf% can be, but in my case the lack of weight loss is pretty much always a matter of laziness and excuses. I have a couple of pretty serious, chronic health problems (diagnosed), but even they don't truly prevent me from slimming down / maintaining a good level of fitness and a low (under 10) bf%. That's the reason why I'm usually quite sceptical when someone claims they simply can't slim down despite exercise and minus calories. That being said, if there are any exceptions here / anyone knows of such exceptions, I'd be interested to know which things cause weight gain or the lack of weight loss even on minus calories.
I can't find my source, but I have a mental model in my head that came from reading something-or-other, that may or may not be accurate. The idea was: You eat something. Your body decides that X percent is going to be stored as fat and Y percent is going to be available as blood sugar. Normally, your body should give you all the blood sugar you need, but if that allotment is broken somehow, it can decide to give almost everything to fat, and starve you of blood sugar, so that you're simultaneously getting fatter, and starving in terms of having no fuel to keep you awake and moving. So to get enough fuel for blood sugar, you have to eat far, far too much food, because most of it is going to be erroneously stored as fat whether you need it or not. You don't eat fewer calories than you spend, but the calories that you eat are not _available_ to spend; they're immediately snatched up as fat. Is this something that really happens? I don't know; again, I can't remember where I read this so I can't check whether I understood it correctly. Me? I eat too much. I'm not one of these exceptions.
I can't be arsed to check it now 'cause I'm on a break at work and have to use Internet Explorer which effing sucks, but I remember talking with my brother (who's got a master's degree in what I'd translate as biomechanics, physiology of athletics, and coaching though at least the latter is probably something else in the US) about exercise and the reserves human body uses. Basically it'd burn the carbs first (glucose reserves?) and only after that fat reserves. New research has shown that high intensity interval training would work even better when "burning" fat than say, an hour-long jog at 10km/h pace. So while there're individual differences when it comes to the amount and intensity of fat burn, the basic physiology is the same, and it's possible to get rid of fat if one exercises right. However, nutrition seems to play even a bigger role than exercise in weight loss (individual differences again, but in general), and in most of success stories I've read (a local newspaper tends to write about them weekly), the diet has been high-protein, very low-carb. This seems to be the simplest recipe to weight loss/weight maintenance to most people, so it certainly isn't rocket science. I've always felt it's our sedate, over-excessive or highly stressful lifestyles that get in the way and keep people from making the change they want (and not everyone wants, and that's fine). Surprisingly enough though, for example people with medical conditions feel healthier when they exercise and follow a wholesome diet than just staying put and indulging in sugary and fatty goods even though our brains love it. But I still think that people have to actually want to do it and enjoy it, 'cause wasting your life in something you absolutely hate just feels pointless to me.
That's why it's not really about losing weight, or toning, or building bulk (unless you're a bodybuilder). It's about lifestyle. Standing, walking, doing activities you like. Hiking, surfing, baseball, swinging on a tree. Not being lethargic. Not eating junk. Same thing goes for the mind. Ka Tria, you're in school, surely you know the robots who do exactly as they're told, spend all night shoving down the info they've been taught so they can regurgitate it the next day, vs the people who actually are interested, generate their own questions, come up with their own ideas, explore. Passion is always better than forced routine. When you get to the top tier, of course, that changes, but we're not talking about that. It's the difference between pairing you up with a husband/wife you hate, and say, "make this work", versus, finding someone you can be truly happy with.
Irritating vanity, obsession with the self-image is revolting. Pumping like a rat. These people should be dragged from gyms and shot, completely wasting our time - that's what I read, I couldn't agree of course. You see that's going to be one oif the big problems of the future. All the interesting people will be dead and we'll have to be pay for all these bores to vegetate in the care homes till they're 110. Just get to 70 then fack off.
I'm not sure how to read this. People who exercise at the gym = vain? People who work out should be shot? As long as it doesn't hurt anybody to be "obsessed with one's self-image", what's the harm in that?
Unfortunately, a lot of meds and chronic illnesses don't allow people to be on calorie restricted diets, because the side-effect of taking eg. steroids is stomach ulceration, so you have to eat regularly, and have to eat carbs and fat, high protein doesn't seem to do the trick. Also, steroids, cortisol, can mess with insulin levels, can even cause iatrogenic diabetes with hypos, so you have to eat carbs. Primary illness is called Cushing's syndrome, it arises from dysfunctional adrenal glands which raises levels of cortisol (incidentally, this is also the mechanism by which prolonged stress and sleep deprivation both lead to weight gain). On the other hand, steroid medication (most commonly Prednisolone), which can be given for a variety of conditions, causes 'cushingoid appearance'. Both are characterised by 'moon facies' 'buffalo hump', central abdominal obesity, proximal muscle weakness (thighs and upper arms) thinning of the skin, stretchmarks, and even alopecia (hair loss). Usually, these wear off once corticosteroid levels normalise, but it takes a very long time to lose the weight because patients report gaining upward of 80 pounds after a single extended course (months to a year). Infections are also a risk. Steroids work in immune-related conditions such as asthma, allergy, rheumatism, by decreasing immune response, which has a side-effect of reducing immunity. People with infections will have higher calorie requirement due to catabolic reaction, and also need to eat regularly in decent amounts in order to cope with antibiotics. Hypothyroidism slows down metabolism so much that body accumulates weight even on reasonably low calorie diet. Due to lack of energy and movement, muscles atrophy and most of accumulated weight is fat, evenly distributed, also water retention especially in the legs, which can give rise to bilateral oedema. But most importantly, all these conditions prevent a person from even moving around as much as a well person, let alone practice any serious exercise. So it's a vicious cycle, that can only be broken by getting better and off medication. In case of hypothyroidism, though, thyroid hormone replacement will normalise the metabolism, leading to spontaneous weight loss, which is really a godsent for many sufferers.
Found this thread and found it quite interesting, but unfortunately due to time constraints I haven't had time to read it all so my apologies if what I am about to say/ask has already been covered. Basically, I have struggled in the last few years to maintain a balance with my weight. I have always been big although short, 5'6" and 220lb currently. Now why I am frustrated is that I carry a lot of muscle, my legs are huge with little to no fat, my arms are fairly big for my height (~17.5 inches are the bicep/tricep measurement) and I have a large chest (~50 inches) with a large neck (18.5 inches), now all of this has little to no fat, but I carry a spare tyre, so love handles and a pudgy belly which personally I detest as before I was diabetic I carried that coveted six pack. Doctors have told me not to worry too much, that my medication is the cause for the weight/fat gain and that I am still as fit as normal. However, I do not like it myself but recently I have found it a struggle to lose the fat and have received some comments that even though I don't try to let it bother me, hurt sometimes. Now, doctors have told me the usual eat less, exercise more, but I already limit myself to approximately 1300 - 1500 calories a day. I exercise everyday (routine of push ups, sit ups, squats, jacks etc with a short jog) I also train 4 times a week in a variety of martial arts as well as teach, so forgive me if I struggle to fit more exercise in. I am fairly fit with a resting heart rate of ~55 bpm. Therefore, my question would be that although people recognise that I am much more muscle than fat, how can I shift this excess fat as it prevents me from relaxing in public. For example I always try and cover my stomach when I sit as I am embarrassed by it, although I have be assured that it doesn't actually stick out. Sorry for the rant, just seemed the right place to put this and hopefully someone maybe able to offer me up some advice.
That sounds all too familiar, that and sucking in the gut. Anyway, my advice: you probably got it right the first time, but I still highly recommend you double, even triple check your calories. A lot of people, myself included, have made the mistake of thinking they're on minus calories while all the while they've been on the plus side, even if only slightly. Another thing to consider is the macros of your nutrition: how many grams of protein, fat, and carbs do you get per meal? Are the carbs fast or slow? What kinds of fats do you eat? As for exercise, I highly recommend HIIT. I know, lots of folks are raving about it and many artists tend to shy away from what's popular, but I found the most basic HIIT runs to be extremely effective: 10min running (fairly fast pace) to warm up, then 30 seconds sprinting, as fast as you can go, 30 seconds jogging (lighter but not sluggish), sprint, jog, sprint, jog, as many rounds as you can do. The first week or so I often felt ready to keel over and die after 5-6 rounds, but after a month or two, 10 rounds (10 minutes of alternating 30 sec sprints / jogs) wasn't a problem. I did that every day when I was cutting weight. Add to those a separate evening workout (either weight lifting, muay thai, or swimming as many laps as I could as quickly as I could without sacrificing technique) 6-7 days a week and I started seeing results after 1-2 months. I know it sounds like a lot, it is, but I have a body that really likes to hold on to its fat, so I need to put it through hell once / twice a day if I want to actually lose weight without eating only dust. Then again, when I reach an ideal weight, I can drop the second workout and only train 6-7 times a week (it can be just the HIIT or just the swimming or any other such exercise, but done with a high level of intensity, now and then all the way to failure although that increases the risk of injury, so don't do it all the way to failure too often). Btw, after a couple of weeks, nutrition starts playing a big role in avoiding unpleasantries (like restless legs, cramps etc). I found a lot of use for magnesium citrate (helped with both of the abovementioned annoyances), beta alanine (definitely helped with the higher intensity stuff), and although I can't vouch for it, I've heard some say that creatine is a good supplement during harsher diets because it gathers a bit of fluid in your body and while I don't know if this is fact or myth, I've read that that may help prevent some injuries / ailments. I also took lots of omega 3s, daily multivitamins, and fiber capsules because I kept my calories so low (around 1300kcal/day), i.e. the amount of nutrients you get from what little food you eat isn't quite enough when you train hard 10+ times a week. Oh, and because I have a tendency for anemia, my doctor told me to start taking iron too as long as I kept training that much / eating that little. I'm not that fit anymore, but once my health improves a bit, I plan to start the same hellish routine again. Back then my resting heart rate was 39bpm at its lowest and I'd never felt better except after 3 months or so, I started noticing the first, mild signs of over-training, but that was when I simply cut the day's second workout, so no biggie there. Oh, and some people need to stretch a lot. I don't: I almost never tear / sprain anything, and for some reason swimming and muay thai / BJJ usually help me with tension / stiffness, but you just gotta try and find out what works best for you since we're all so different. One last thing: I love exercising, but I hate stuff like walking to work, cleaning etc. You know, mundane activities that help spend more calories. I guess e.g. biking to school / work would come in handy if you're pressed for time, so that way you could get your cardio out of the way without dedicating an extra workout for it, but it's not for everybody. I've always been lazy outside of actually doing sports. Btw, this is just one way to drop your bf%, not the way by any means.
Thanks for all the advice, it is appreciated. As for calories, I am very strict with my diet (diabetic unfortunately) so I tend to eat high protein, low fat, low carb, low gi food, it's important to me for health reasons so my calorie intake a day is probably accurate +/- 20 calories. Think I will give the HIIT a go that was mentioned, I have completed Insantiy twice and believe that is a similar thing so will probably enjoy that. And wow 39 bpm heart rate! That's impressive. As for the coffee, no chance, never liked tea or coffee and I already drink 2 litres of water a day and don't really like bread that much, but thanks anyway
[MENTION=52804]Mauthos[/MENTION] I'm not at all a medical professional, but I might suggest going down to 1200 calories a day for the first few weeks, and then gradually raising it back up. You want to "shock" your metabolism to begin with. This worked for several of my friends that dieted, lost a bunch of weight, and kept it off. No clue about the particular drugs you were taking or how your medical conditions affect the result, though. Definitely consult with someone smarter than me about that. Insanity is pretty horrible on a variety of levels...
Will give it a go, thanks. Yeah insanity is tough, but strangely I find it great fun. Thinking of trying the insanity asylum version (40 minute workout crammed into 20 minutes) but it looks crazy.
It's not that it's tough. Rather, it's that there is a high chance of injury, while providing less benefit than a more boring, conventional set of exercises. That's actually a general criticism that can be applied to a lot of popular fad workouts, although I can discuss specifics of certain exercises if you wish. And yes, this is coming from a skinny fatass, but one who has been weight-lifting and training in various martial arts since he was a kid.
