d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Fat People Acceptance Movements
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Jul 31 2012 11:38pm
Quote (BardOfXiix @ Jul 31 2012 11:14pm)
I know, it's so much more fun because you can get huge numbers counting calories, and you get itsy bitsy numbers counting fat burning (usually).  But the bottom line is that you'll probably burn all the calories you take in (unless it's a grossly excess amount); you should be more concerned with minimizing your fat intake and exercising.


I have a friend working at a weight loss camp, and their method is to simply eliminate fat intake and have an exercise regimen. She said that they lose about 8 pounds their first week.
Member
Posts: 17,271
Joined: Apr 26 2006
Gold: 0.00
Jul 31 2012 11:48pm
Quote (BardOfXiix @ Aug 1 2012 05:08am)
Calories aren't the problem, it's trans and saturated fats.  You can burn calories sleeping.  Trans and saturated fats are the ones that stick with you and develop into long-term energy storage (read:  weight gain) rather than calories, which are meant for short-term energy storage.  As such, calories burn much more easily because they're required to maintain bodily functions; fat burns harder because it's primarily burned when calories alone aren't providing the necessary energy.  That's why people work out:  to burn the trans and saturated fats, not calories.  Common misconception regarding weight-loss and exercise metrics.


Very interesting.

What if I eat a bunch of fast food and chips and soda pop that amounts to 1800 calories. But in the same day, I burn 2000 calories.

Would I still not lose weight?
Member
Posts: 15,114
Joined: Nov 18 2005
Gold: 89,176.00
Aug 1 2012 12:11am
Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Aug 1 2012 12:13am)
If you limit your daily calorie intake, the more fat you will burn when you combine a calorie conscious diet with an exercise routine.

That's why people calorie count. And that's why you have to both diet and exercise to lose weight.

Bard is right though. I though that was an excellent post.


No, you don't. I've personally lost 50 pounds just by eating less... didn't exercise at all (exercise a lot now though... still good for your health... just not mandatory for losing weight).

Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 1 2012 12:38am)
I have a friend working at a weight loss camp, and their method is to simply eliminate fat intake and have an exercise regimen.  She said that they lose about 8 pounds their first week.


That's the worst possible way to measure weight loss performance. The vast majority of weight loss in the first week is water weight and less food bulk in the system (among other things)... only a small percentage would be actual fat burning. The first week (and sometimes second) always have a huge spike because of that, with later weeks leveling off (though still fluctuating +/- 2 pounds due to various factors unrelated to fat loss/gains), so the only accurate way to measure weight loss is over at least a month period, and starting after a couple weeks on the program.

Quote (tric-isHUGE @ Aug 1 2012 12:48am)
Very interesting. 

What if I eat a bunch of fast food and chips and soda pop that amounts to 1800 calories.  But in the same day, I burn 2000 calories. 

Would I still not lose weight?


You would still lose weight. What bard is saying has some truth, but not entirely.
You can gain weight a lot faster overeating on foods high in saturated fat than on other foods because that fat can just be stored directly without ever being digested, which is much more "efficient"... whereas a lot of the energy is loss when digesting food into energy and then converting it into fat.
But the calorie-counting metric still works just fine when losing weight, if you consume fewer calories than you burn you'll lose weight proportionally... it just often underestimates the weight gains that are made when consuming lots of saturated fats (while also consuming a total calorie surplus).
Member
Posts: 17,271
Joined: Apr 26 2006
Gold: 0.00
Aug 1 2012 12:19am
Quote (taekvideo @ Aug 1 2012 06:11am)
You would still lose weight.  What bard is saying has some truth, but not entirely.
You can gain weight a lot faster overeating on foods high in saturated fat than on other foods because that fat can just be stored directly without ever being digested, which is much more "efficient"... whereas a lot of the energy is loss when digesting food into energy and then converting it into fat.
But the calorie-counting metric still works just fine when losing weight, if you consume fewer calories than you burn you'll lose weight proportionally... it just often underestimates the weight gains that are made when consuming lots of saturated fats (while also consuming a total calorie surplus).


Good Answer.

I also know that Trans fats are so bad because the molecules have a little "kink" in their structure that makes them much more difficult to break down and use as energy.
Member
Posts: 15,114
Joined: Nov 18 2005
Gold: 89,176.00
Aug 1 2012 01:01am
Quote (tric-isHUGE @ Aug 1 2012 01:19am)
Good Answer. 

I also know that Trans fats are so bad because the molecules have a little "kink" in their structure that makes them much more difficult to break down and use as energy.


Ingesting 50-100 calories worth of an artificial by-product chemical every day (as an average American does) has negative health effects... go figure.
Member
Posts: 61,687
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
Aug 1 2012 01:05am
Uhm, the fat chick gives health advice? Seriously?

And her advice is shit like "if your body tells you to eat another box of Oreos you should listen to it because your body knows what it needs"

Gah!

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Aug 1 2012 01:06am
Member
Posts: 17,271
Joined: Apr 26 2006
Gold: 0.00
Aug 1 2012 02:17am
Quote (taekvideo @ Aug 1 2012 07:01am)
Ingesting 50-100 calories worth of an artificial by-product chemical every day (as an average American does) has negative health effects... go figure.


In what way does "unhealthy" inhibit the calorie In > calorie Out = weight gain?

If I eat 100 calories of "junk" transfats, but still run a 100 caloric deficit, there should be no effect in terms of weight gain. The negative health effects are duly noted.
Member
Posts: 10,780
Joined: Jul 22 2011
Gold: 655.00
Aug 1 2012 02:21am
Quote (Matao @ Jul 31 2012 07:10am)
oh , you are forced to take these classes ?
because thats what we are talking about here


if you want to graduate, just as any student would be "forced" to do their school work or not graduate.

No one in the world is forced to do anything, they can choose to face consequences.



This post was edited by Ylem122 on Aug 1 2012 02:25am
Member
Posts: 15,114
Joined: Nov 18 2005
Gold: 89,176.00
Aug 1 2012 11:08am
Quote (tric-isHUGE @ Aug 1 2012 03:17am)
In what way does "unhealthy" inhibit the calorie In > calorie Out = weight gain? 

If I eat 100 calories of "junk" transfats, but still run a 100 caloric deficit, there should be no effect in terms of weight gain.  The negative health effects are duly noted.


Wasn't talking about weight gain in that post m8.
Just the other innumerable health consequences of ingesting so many trans fats.
Member
Posts: 8,445
Joined: Jun 13 2008
Gold: 420.00
Aug 1 2012 11:19am
Quote (tric-isHUGE @ Aug 1 2012 01:19am)
Good Answer. 

I also know that Trans fats are so bad because the molecules have a little "kink" in their structure that makes them much more difficult to break down and use as energy.


pretty much. trans fats have a c=c (carbon-carbon double bond) that is tough for the body to metabolize.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev123456Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll