# Explaining nutritional intake and effect on the body



## Estoril-5

Need a bit of explanation guys, imagine I'm a 5 year old 

If I eat 500 calories of carbs/sugar, any excess calories that I don't need go through a process and eventually gets stored as fat (if my understanding is correct).

If I eat 500 calories of protein and fats what happens to the excess calories that I don't need, do they get stored as fats aswell?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr_T

if you eat sugar, your body will use it over fat as an energy source (its easier). Excess sugar is stored as something called glycogen. When the body is full of glycogen the excess sugar is converted into fat by the liver. 

If you eat excess protein, it is excreted in your poo and you can get constipation, excess fat is stored in the body.

however, if you only eat 500 calories a day you'll lose weight.


----------



## Estoril-5

Dr_T said:


> if you eat sugar, your body will use it over fat as an energy source (its easier). Excess sugar is stored as something called glycogen. When the body is full of glycogen the excess sugar is converted into fat by the liver.
> 
> If you eat excess protein, it is excreted in your poo and you can get constipation, excess fat is stored in the body.
> 
> however, if you only eat 500 calories a day you'll lose weight.


What I meant was 500 calories at any one time, just giving an example.

So, if you cut your daily calorie limit by 500 Cal's per day and you ate a balanced diet, you would lose weight of which it would be mostly fat.

If you did the same, cut Cals by 500 per day but ate, McDonald's, KFC, full fat coke and chocolates, you would lose weight but not from fat? Is that understanding correct? If so could you even gain fat even whilst reducing weight?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr_T

if you use more calories that you eat you will loose weight, if you don't eat sugar you will loose weight faster as you are using your fat reserves to balance the books. 

if you want to loose weight you eat less that you need, stop eating sweets & cakes etc and exercise.


----------



## CarChem

sounds a little like how does ketosis work kind of question?


----------



## Mcpx

A calorie is a measurement of energy, so 1 calorie of carbohydrate provide the same energy as 1 calorie of protein, the actual physical quantities may differ and how the body processes them may be different but in essence they are the same. Your question is like asking which is heavier, 500kg of lead or 500kg of feathers.

If you consume an excess of any calories it will be stored as fat up to a certain point, if the excess is such that it cannot be efficiently converted by the body then it will be expelled as waste. 

If you eat less calories per day than you need to maintain your current weight, then you will lose weight, even if you eat junk. However, the weight you lose may not be in the form of stored fat. Your body is an incredibly complex but extremely well adapted system that adapts relatively quickly to stimulus, basically we become what we consistently do. So if you eat a healthy balanced diet with excess calories and take regular exercise you may not lose weight but you will lose body fat. If you eat a poor diet high in processed foods and sugar but containing less overall calories combined with no exercise, you could still lose weight while adding body fat. Overall, total body weight (or BMI) is not a good indication of health, or progress towards it.


----------



## Estoril-5

Mcpx said:


> A calorie is a measurement of energy, so 1 calorie of carbohydrate provide the same energy as 1 calorie of protein, the actual physical quantities may differ and how the body processes them may be different but in essence they are the same. Your question is like asking which is heavier, 500kg of lead or 500kg of feathers.
> 
> If you consume an excess of any calories it will be stored as fat up to a certain point, if the excess is such that it cannot be efficiently converted by the body then it will be expelled as waste.
> 
> If you eat less calories per day than you need to maintain your current weight, then you will lose weight, even if you eat junk. However, the weight you lose may not be in the form of stored fat. Your body is an incredibly complex but extremely well adapted system that adapts relatively quickly to stimulus, basically we become what we consistently do. So if you eat a healthy balanced diet with excess calories and take regular exercise you may not lose weight but you will lose body fat. If you eat a poor diet high in processed foods and sugar but containing less overall calories combined with no exercise, you could still lose weight while adding body fat. Overall, total body weight (or BMI) is not a good indication of health, or progress towards it.


So the last part is what I was trying to clarify, but here's the question, if you eat junk but under your daily calorie limit, if you're not losing fat (or putting it on as the case may be) but you are losing weight - what are you losing if it's not fat????

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

Estoril-5 said:


> So the last part is what I was trying to clarify, but here's the question, if you eat junk but under your daily calorie limit, if you're not losing fat (or putting it on as the case may be) but you are losing weight - what are you losing if it's not fat????
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Why do you think it is not fat that is being lost? What time frame are you measuring over? Very short term, it could just be water weight being lost (particularly if you go low carb) or even just getting rid of waste (going to the loo). But, over the period of several days/weeks then body fat will be lost.

In a calorie deficit, your body will draw upon its fat reserves to make up the remainder. I believe there is a limit however to how much can be extracted from your fat reserves on a day basis. Make the deficit too large and your body will draw from lean mass as well. Hence most diet/weight loss programs recommending making any deficit in the range of 500-1000 calories/day.


----------



## Estoril-5

BareFacedGeek said:


> Why do you think it is not fat that is being lost? What time frame are you measuring over? Very short term, it could just be water weight being lost or even just getting rid of waste (going to the loo). But, over the period of several days/weeks then body fat will be lost.
> 
> .


I'm just trying to understand how it all works, not measuring time or relating to my personal situation.

I'm 32% body fat so well over what I'd like to be, and just wanted to know if weight loss was not wholly attributes to fat loss - what else was being lost to bring weight down

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

Dr_T said:


> if you don't eat sugar you will loose weight faster


I'm not completely convinced by this. I think in the initial stages, low carb will cause faster weight loss (compared to other dieting methods) due to shedding some extra water weight. However, longer term different dieting strategies even out in their losses and end up all pretty much the same, as long as you maintain similar calorific deficits.


----------



## Estoril-5

BareFacedGeek said:


> I'm not completely convinced by this. I think in the initial stages, low carb will cause faster weight loss (compared to other dieting methods) due to shedding some extra water weight. However, longer term different dieting strategies even out in their losses and end up all pretty much the same, as long as you maintain similar calorific deficits.


If you replace 'weight' with 'body fat' Dr Ts statement makes sense in my mind

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

Estoril-5 said:


> If you replace 'weight' with 'body fat' Dr Ts statement makes sense in my mind
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


As Dr T has said, excess proteins are not really stored by the body and are excreted (in urine IIRC), excess fat is stored in fat cells (adipose tissue) all over the body and excess carbs are stored as glycogen in the liver and muscles.

Reducing carb intake, not specifically sugar, will *potentially* cause the body to draw upon it glycogen reserves to make up the deficit. I say potentially, because you have to reduce your carb intake below what your body needs otherwise you'll still be in excess. As you store excess glucose, you also store water (hence the term carbo*hydrate*). IIRC, for every gram of glucose stored, 3 grams of water are stored. Thus, when cutting carbs significantly, drawing on your glycogen reserves also cause this excess water to be extracted too, thus giving the impression of faster weight loss on a low-carb diet.

All carbs from simple sugars (glucose, fructose and lactose) to complex carbs are converted by the body to glycogen and either used or stored.

However, high sugar foods also tend to be high calorie foods. These are good candidates to removing or significantly reducing from your diet.


----------



## Mcpx

Estoril-5 said:


> So the last part is what I was trying to clarify, but here's the question, if you eat junk but under your daily calorie limit, if you're not losing fat (or putting it on as the case may be) but you are losing weight - what are you losing if it's not fat????
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


If you eat junk food but eat less calories overall you will lose weight. What exactly will that weight be? Well, if the calorie deficit is large enough then yes, some of it will be stored fat, but it will also be muscle tissue and water. If you are not exercising then your body will sacrifice it muscle tissue to make up the energy deficit, simply because muscle is harder to maintain and it has no reason to keep it.

It sounds very much like you want to know if you can continue eating junk food but lose weight by reducing the quantity. If so then the answer is yes, however, such a strategy will only work in the very short term because A) your body will adapt to the new regime and alter its composition (ratio of fat/muscle/water etc) to use the new calorie intake level as efficiently as possible and B) 99% of people will not stick to this type of strategy anywhere near long enough to see any benefit from it.

You can try all the diets and strategies in the world, but at the end of the day if you want to reduce your body fat level then there is no need to complicate something that should be perfectly simple, the only solution that consistently works every time is simply to eat less and do more. Where people fail is that they do not maintain their diets or exercise programs for long enough, they start out all enthusiastic and early success spurs them on, but after a few weeks it becomes a chore and progress slows or stops and that's the end of it. Well that's just how the body works, to see any real benefit from this type of lifestyle change you have to talk in terms of months, not weeks, at the very least, and certainly initially, you should be looking at a 3-6 month plan.


----------



## DrEskimo

Concentrating on calories is also missing the bigger more complex picture of eating healthy. Variety, ample fruit and veg and an assortment of meats and oily fish are all integral for getting the range of vitamins and minerals you need.


----------



## Mcpx

DrEskimo said:


> Concentrating on calories is also missing the bigger more complex picture of eating healthy. Variety, ample fruit and veg and an assortment of meats and oily fish are all integral for getting the range of vitamins and minerals you need.


Absolutely agree except to add that eating to lose weight and eating healthily are not necessarily the same thing, in fact, they are often very different.


----------



## ollienoclue

It is worth noting that carbohydrates, sugars, fats, proteins, all can be utilised by your metabolism as an energy source, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie if you like, the biggest difference is in how many grams of each you can consume before you feel 'full' and how long after that you will feel hungry again.

If you want to lose fat you have to force your body to burn it basically by entering a minor starvation state- energy intake being less than energy expended. Anything high fat and high carb has to be ruled out of your diet completely, and you need to undertake at least moderate aerobic exercise. 

A former girl-friend of mine used to be 14 stone in her teens, despite being tall she hated it and had a big problem with herself. Then she took up running and managed to drop 4 stone in a year. She showed me pictures of her in her previous life and you would never know it was the same woman.

Once you have lost the weight you will have to maintain your diet and activity routine to keep it off.

Unfortunately I am rubbish at practising what I preach as I have the reverse problem- a member of the male insect race who just don't carry any mass ever regardless of our diet.


----------



## Mcpx

High fat and high carb food don't have to be ruled out as long as they are accounted for in your daily caloric intake. There is this perpetual belief that eating dietary fat makes you fat when it simply is not true. Dietary fat is processed by the body just like carbs and proteins. Dietary fats are usually calorie dense however, so do contain more calories than carbohydrates pound for pound, and over eating them will make you fat, but so will eating 5000 calories of salad a day. Just out of interest a gram of protein contains 4 calories, which is exactly the same as a gram of fat!


----------



## Estoril-5

If I'm not mistaken a gran of carbs or protein is 4 cals, a gram of fat is 9 cals.

In response to a previous post I'm not trying to eat junk and lose weight I'm actually trying to understand how the body processes different types of food and its effects.

I'll throw my own stats into the mix which may help with the responses.

36 years old, overweight at 106kg (highest recorded weight was ~ 124kg about 2 years ago).

Whilst at work I generally consume 2 boiled eggs and a tin of Heinz soup or 1 wholemeal toast w/ spread and tin of Heinz soup.

Drink black coffee and Robinson no added sugar squash through out the day.

In the evening at home, I usually have a lettuce onion cucumber salad with feta and salad cream, followed by an evening meal of chicken or freezer breaded cod, salad, and maybe a brown pita bread or jacket potato.

I'll have some Pepsi Max (tried to give it up).

I'll also have a cup of tea and a small chocolate, treat size snickers or equivalent.

That sees me around 1500 cals as recommended by myfitnesspal.

However that being said I am human and do have my down days, sometimes it's the chipshop and sometimes it's the crisps and chocolates.

Anyhow, my post was to understand how it all impacts my body and by understanding that what I can change to make things work better for me.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Leebo310

Estoril-5 said:


> If I'm not mistaken a gran of carbs or protein is 4 cals, a gram of fat is 9 cals.
> 
> In response to a previous post I'm not trying to eat junk and lose weight I'm actually trying to understand how the body processes different types of food and its effects.
> 
> I'll throw my own stats into the mix which may help with the responses.
> 
> 36 years old, overweight at 106kg (highest recorded weight was ~ 124kg about 2 years ago).
> 
> Whilst at work I generally consume 2 boiled eggs and a tin of Heinz soup or 1 wholemeal toast w/ spread and tin of Heinz soup.
> 
> Drink black coffee and Robinson no added sugar squash through out the day.
> 
> In the evening at home, I usually have a lettuce onion cucumber salad with feta and salad cream, followed by an evening meal of chicken or freezer breaded cod, salad, and maybe a brown pita bread or jacket potato.
> 
> I'll have some Pepsi Max (tried to give it up).
> 
> I'll also have a cup of tea and a small chocolate, treat size snickers or equivalent.
> 
> That sees me around 1500 cals as recommended by myfitnesspal.
> 
> However that being said I am human and do have my down days, sometimes it's the chipshop and sometimes it's the crisps and chocolates.
> 
> Anyhow, my post was to understand how it all impacts my body and by understanding that what I can change to make things work better for me.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Do you do any sort of exercise mate? Also how long have you been on that calorie intake and what was your weight prior to the start (as in have you lost any weight following the above?)
Also how tall are you and what ideal "weight" do you want to get to?
Am I reading that correct that you don't actually drink any water on it's own either?


----------



## Estoril-5

Leebo310 said:


> Do you do any sort of exercise mate? Also how long have you been on that calorie intake and what was your weight prior to the start (as in have you lost any weight following the above?)
> Also how tall are you and what ideal "weight" do you want to get to?
> Am I reading that correct that you don't actually drink any water on it's own either?


Very rarely do any excercise. That calorie in take since December last year. Lost about a stone in that time till now.

I'm 5ft 10 and my goal is to reach 99kg. Once I've reached that I'll set my next target.

I generally don't drink water on its own although the Robinsons is water with a splash of cordial, but generally no water on its own.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr_T

Your body will use glucose first, then fat then as a last resort protein. You need to eat all 3 really to be healthy. If want to combine exercise with diet then doing low intensity exercise will use more fat that medium to high intensity (muscles use glucose in high intensity).

If you are trying to loose weight then cut out all excess sugar so cakes, biscuits, sweeties etc etc You can get all the sugars you need from other sources, remember every cell has fat, protein and sugar in it (re meat). Try and avoid fruit with high fructose content. Also limit your excess fat intake (re cakes, fry ups etc). To loose weight the basic thing is to take in less calories than you use obviously.


----------



## Leebo310

Dr_T said:


> If want to combine exercise with diet then doing low intensity exercise will use more fat that medium to high intensity (muscles use glucose in high intensity).


I agree with the rest of your posts mate but is the above bit really true? Surely the more intense the exercise, the more calories you'll burn and therefore it'll be easier to get to the required calorific deficit? Anyone in broadly "good shape" with a low bf % and bmi will be doing high intensity exercise along with a relatively strict diet, they won't have got to that shape by just light walking.
And also what do you determine to be low and high intensity? Surely muscles are used and require glucose in any movement, regardless of the intensity. You're suggesting that low intensity exercise you can bypass using glucose and just use fat? If that is true surely there is never any point at all doing anything above low intensity to lose weight?

If Estoril did 30 mins of weights followed by 30 mins of boxing 5 days a week, compared to doing 60 mins of light walking 5 days a week he is 100% going to lose more weight and get in better shape by doing the weights & boxing.


----------



## JoeyJoeJo

1500 is quite low for a day, MFP is very arbitrary in it's targets so needs a bit more consideration.

There are two numbers that are important - 
BMR (basal metabolic rate) which is the number of calories your body and it's organs need to function, if you were in a coma, this is the amount you would need to get to ensure everything inside you has the energy it needs. 
There are loads of calculators around and you'll be surprised what the value will be, it's probably higher than you think, it varies with weight, height, gender and age.

TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is the number that you will be expected to use when you factor in your activity levels. If you are a couch potato, it might be 500 over your BMR, if you're a gym bunny, it might be 3000 over your BMR.

This does both:
https://tdeecalculator.net/

If you consume less than your TDEE, you will lose weight (if you go 500 under, that's 3500 a week, which is around a pound).
However, the key is never to consume less than your BMR, this is really important or your body starts to make metabolic changes which can affect what weight your losing and from where. Your body doesn't care what shape you are, it only cares about survival and it will do what it takes to survive. In this mode, it will take it's calories from the easiest source and that might be muscle.

My BMR is 2224 but I'm very active so my TDEE is 3781 so my target intake is 2800 to 3200, I don't worry too much about how that is made up (I try to keep fat less than 30g, sat fat 10g, sugar 75g and salt less than 4g) and I typically lose between 1-2kg a month. I never eat less than BMR and recalculate every couple of months.

I've been using this technique (as advised by and under the supervision of doctors) and have dropped more than 50kg in 4 years so it's very sustainable and not restricting.

And as others have said, variety is key, don't be scared of any particular food but don't focus on just one type either. Performance athletes can get into specific macros but for Joe Public, mixed and balanced is good.


----------



## Mcpx

Looking at what you eat and your goals I see plenty of good intention being derailed by poor understanding. Your problem is sugar, loads of it, tinned soup - sugar, no added sugar juice-still got loads of sugar in it they just don't add any more, salad cream-sugar. A 15g (tiny!) serving of Heinz salad cream has half a teaspoon of sugar in it, a 400g tin of Heinz cream of tomato soup has 4 whole teaspoons in it. For reference, the World Health Organisation recommends a daily intake of no more than 5 teaspoons of sugar in total.

It's not just the physical calories in sugar that cause the problems, it's how our body reacts to it chemically. Basically, if you feel hungry, tired, lethargic etc your body will crave something sweet to give you quick access to some easily convertible energy, i.e. Sugar. When you eat the sugary food your body releases insulin which controls what your system does with it, either burns it immediately for energy or puts it into storage for use later (as fat). Now because the sugar is converted and burnt so easily you can get through it quite quickly, which is where the sugar rush and subsequent crash comes from. The real problem however comes when you repeatedly overload your system with these simple carbs to the point where your insulin response becomes ineffective, so your system does not know what it is supposed to do with its intake and defaults to putting it into storage, so you get fatter, compound the problem and end up with full on diabetes.


----------



## Estoril-5

Mcpx said:


> Looking at what you eat and your goals I see plenty of good intention being derailed by poor understanding. Your problem is sugar, loads of it, tinned soup - sugar, no added sugar juice-still got loads of sugar in it they just don't add any more, salad cream-sugar. A 15g (tiny!) serving of Heinz salad cream has half a teaspoon of sugar in it, a 400g tin of Heinz cream of tomato soup has 4 whole teaspoons in it. For reference, the World Health Organisation recommends a daily intake of no more than 5 teaspoons of sugar in total.
> 
> It's not just the physical calories in sugar that cause the problems, it's how our body reacts to it chemically. Basically, if you feel hungry, tired, lethargic etc your body will crave something sweet to give you quick access to some easily convertible energy, i.e. Sugar. When you eat the sugary food your body releases insulin which controls what your system does with it, either burns it immediately for energy or puts it into storage for use later (as fat). Now because the sugar is converted and burnt so easily you can get through it quite quickly, which is where the sugar rush and subsequent crash comes from. The real problem however comes when you repeatedly overload your system with these simple carbs to the point where your insulin response becomes ineffective, so your system does not know what it is supposed to do with its intake and defaults to putting it into storage, so you get fatter, compound the problem and end up with full on diabetes.


With that in mind should I be looking to focus on a keto style diet?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Mcpx

Estoril-5 said:


> With that in mind should I be looking to focus on a keto style diet?
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


I recommend a healthy balanced diet for overall health, avoiding all processed foods and as much sugar as possible, focusing on plenty of veggies and healthy proteins. I do not think that any diet that excludes particular foods, such as a keto diet, is a good idea in the long term. It might work in the short term but once you achieve your goal and return to your normal eating routine, you will just revert back to where you started. What you have to do is change your eating habits permanently, or you will always be 'dieting'.

Exercise is the other side of the coin and not only will it expedite your fat burning goals it will also benefit your overall health in general. Don't shy away from exercise, it doesn't have to be hours of sweat drenched gasping for breath cardio every day, you just have to do more than you currently do. Walking for example is wonderful exercise, very low impact but it burns calories and is great for the cardio vascular system. Like the adverts say, it doesn't matter how fast you go, you'll still be lapping everyone sat on the couch. The important thing is that you get up and do something over and above what you are currently doing, the more you do, the more calories you will burn, the more body fat you will lose. Then once you get on that road, you have to make it progressive, do a little more each time, to keep that momentum going. And always remember that your success or failure is directly proportional to the amount of effort you put in.


----------



## Guest

Be wary of fad diets which enforce dysfunctional eating. Low carb (and even Keto) style diets are still quite popular atm. They have caused an unreasoned fear of insulin production based on poor science. Unless you have issues with Type II diabetes, you probably don't need to worry too much about when your body releases insulin into the blood stream.


----------



## Bulkhead

Just to elaborate on what's been mentioned previously, if you have a high intake of protein, any not used is first deaminated (amine group removed and used to create ammonia, then urea etc. The remaining carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are used to create triglycerides (fat molecules) and stored. There are many diet recommendations and to a certain extent, it depends on the individual and what they are trying to achieve. However, from a scientific point of view the best long-term one I know is the CSIRO diet - https://www.totalwellbeingdiet.com/. It's based on a good protein source, lots of veg, adequate fruit and reduced carbohydrate, especially simple sources. Eliminating carbs is OK in the short term but ketosis has it's own risks and you will smell to high heaven! Anything that promises more than a kilo weight loss per week should generally be avoided. The best advice is to speak to a *qualified* dietician. Ask to see their qualifications as this field is absolutely saturated with unqualified idiots spouting pseudoscientific rubbish. If they advocate avoiding whole food groups, walk away. If they mention homeopathy, walk away. If they swear it worked for their Aunt Betty so it must be good, walk away. If it's in a trashy magazine, burn it and walk away!


----------



## Dr_T

Leebo310 said:


> I agree with the rest of your posts mate but is the above bit really true? Surely the more intense the exercise, the more calories you'll burn


no its to do with what the body uses as an energy source not the calorific difference. Although if you do 10mins of high intensity exercise you will burn more actual calories than if you do 10 mins of low intensity exercise.


----------



## Estoril-5

Dr_T said:


> no its to do with what the body uses as an energy source not the calorific difference. Although if you do 10mins of high intensity exercise you will burn more actual calories than if you do 10 mins of low intensity exercise.


But surely higher intensity excercise will deplete your energy stores quicker and then move onto the fat faster.

Rather than bypass the energy stores and straight onto the fat.

The bonus being more calories burnt due to higher intensity excercise

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Leebo310

Sorry mate, I'm confused as to what you are trying to say as you seem to be contradicting yourself.


Dr_T said:


> To loose weight the basic thing is to take in less calories than you use obviously.


then 


Dr_T said:


> no its to do with what the body uses as an energy source not the calorific difference.


then this seems to back up your original point


Dr_T said:


> Although if you do 10mins of high intensity exercise you will burn more actual calories than if you do 10 mins of low intensity exercise.





Dr_T said:


> Your body will use glucose first, then fat then as a last resort protein. You need to eat all 3 really to be healthy. If want to combine exercise with diet then doing low intensity exercise will use more fat that medium to high intensity (muscles use glucose in high intensity).


Like I said, you're implying that the body uses fat immediately as an energy source in low intensity exercise which I cannot see is true. If this was true, everyone could get in better shape by simply walking to the gym, rather than actually setting foot in one.


----------



## Mcpx

Estoril-5 said:


> But surely higher intensity excercise will deplete your energy stores quicker and then move onto the fat faster.
> 
> Rather than bypass the energy stores and straight onto the fat.
> 
> The bonus being more calories burnt due to higher intensity excercise
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Yes and no. High intensity exercise does deplete energy quicker but will rarely move on to fat as a direct energy source because a, you cannot maintain that level of intensity for long enough to cause the shift, and b, the process of conversion is not fast enough to maintain the level of intensity.

Where high intensity scores over low intensity exercise is in what is called the afterburn effect, basically it means that your body will continue to burn calories long after you stop exercising in order to both recover and to prepare for another potential short burst of intensity. So the overall caloric burn is greater, but only if the intensity is high enough. Once again I say that your success or failure is directly proportional to the effort you put in.

I follow a programme called Freeletics which is big in Europe, very high intensity routines individually tailored to you based on your feedback. Some of the stuff is really tough, but as well as being very effective physically it also fosters a real change and development in your mental attitude concerning what you are capable of. I have done various exercise over the years but this is something else altogether. Check it out on YouTube


----------



## Dr_T

Leebo310 said:


> Like I said, you're implying that the body uses fat immediately as an energy source in low intensity exercise which I cannot see is true. If this was true, everyone could get in better shape by simply walking to the gym, rather than actually setting foot in one.


yes, the body uses fat as an energy source in low intensity exercise. As you increase the intensity of the exercise the body switches to using sugar (glycogen stores). My point wasn't about calories but that if you do more low intensity exercise you will burn more fat.

Now, obviously 10 mins of low intensity exercise won't burn as many calories as 10 mins of high intensity exercise but that's not the point I was making.


----------



## Leebo310

Dr_T said:


> yes, the body uses fat as an energy source in low intensity exercise. As you increase the intensity of the exercise the body switches to using sugar (glycogen stores). My point wasn't about calories but that if you do more low intensity exercise you will burn more fat.
> 
> Now, obviously 10 mins of low intensity exercise won't burn as many calories as 10 mins of high intensity exercise but that's not the point I was making.


What do you classify as low intensity and high intensity exercise?


----------



## Mcpx

Dr_T said:


> yes, the body uses fat as an energy source in low intensity exercise. As you increase the intensity of the exercise the body switches to using sugar (glycogen stores). My point wasn't about calories but that if you do more low intensity exercise you will burn more fat.
> 
> Now, obviously 10 mins of low intensity exercise won't burn as many calories as 10 mins of high intensity exercise but that's not the point I was making.


I am sorry but you are wrong, the body never uses fat as a direct energy source because it has to be converted to glycogen first. In any exercise the glycogen stored in the muscles is used first, that is then replenished from the blood stream and finally from converted fat stores via the blood stream.

High intensity exercise wipes out stored glycogen very quickly, forcing the body to dip into it's reserves (fat stores) to prepare for the next demand, and in the process, overcompensating by continuing to convert more fat to fuel long after the demand has ceased. In lower intensity exercise the whole process is much slower and it takes much longer to get to the point where you have to dip into that back up tank, plus when you stop, the process stops.


----------



## stealthwolf

Mcpx said:


> I am sorry but you are wrong, the body never uses fat as a direct energy source because it has to be converted to glycogen first.


What does the body use when you're asleep?

My own story:

5'7" and at one point weighed 110kg (242lb) despite being only 30.
BMR was calculated to be around 1800kcals
TDEE was calculated to be about 2000kcals (off the top of my head)
Tried myfitnesspal to drop calories. I was already eating around 2000-2200kcals/day. I started dropping by 100kcals/day every two weeks.

Realistically, I had to drop down to 1700kcals before seeing any change in weight. Eating less than this (1500-1600kcals/day) seemed to help lose weight. I got down to about 100kg like this but then got stuck.

Next I tried 5:2 diet. 600kcals a day on Mondays and Thursdays. I then aimed for 1200kcals for the other days of the week. Managed to get my weight down to 80kg and I was able to stay at this point for a year. During this time, I did three sessions a week at the gym - 30 mins on the treadmill (I tried doing the couch to 5k program but I could never run for more than about 10 mins continuously so it ended up being HIIT), and then 45 mins weight training.

Then I got married and my weight's back up to 90kg.


----------



## Mcpx

stealthwolf said:


> What does the body use when you're asleep?


The same as it does when you are awake. The demand for fuel is lower when you are at rest so the process slows but it does not change.

Congratulations on your transformation, you lost weight because you ate less and did more which is to coin an unfortunate phrase, the proof of the pudding!


----------



## Dr_T

Mcpx said:


> I am sorry but you are wrong, the body never uses fat as a direct energy source because it has to be converted to glycogen first..


fatty acids are converted to acetyl CoA through a process called B-oxidation, the acetyl CoA then goes through the krebs citric acid cycle and ATP is made.










This is basic biochemistry, in fact you probably learn this **** at school now.


----------



## jbguitarking

It really is as simple as calories in versus calories out, start at a deficit of 500 cals of your BMR or TDEE and then either add in more cardio or take away calories as you start to stall.

Ive gone from 115kgs right down to 80kgs, back up to 95kgs and now back to around 84kgs.

Starting to stall at 2400 calories but will adjust them after 10 days of being stagnant.

As for this whole Fat or Carb/glycogyen/glucose rubbish, don't over complicate what is essentially so simple.


----------



## cargainz

Interesting discussion and all the science related to losing weight. I have lost weight unintentionally due to a lack of appetite but fat around mid section etc still there.

Its quite easy to lose weight, but hard to lose body fat.


----------



## chunkytfg

I always find these types of Threads so interesting as everyone has an opinion on the best way to lose weight. 

Some people baffle you with technical terms and try and explain everything down to the tiniest of details and others just say 'eat less'.

But whats right?

What really works?

At the end of the day you can't ignore the basic laws of physics that simply state if you consume less calories than your body needs to sustain itself it will create those 'calories' from the other sources such as fat and muscle. This will then work out as a loss of weight.

Whats a calorie? Its just a unit of energy basically. 500cal in a doughnut is the same as 500cal of healthy salad much like 500kg of lead weighs the same as 500kg of feathers.

If your body needs 2000cals per day to sustain itself and you ate 1500cals of doughnuts everyday and nothing else your body would use other sources of energy to make up the missing 500 cals. and you'd lose weight.

if your body needs 2000cals per day and you ate 2500 cals of salad every day it would store those extra 500 cals each day somewhere which would end up causing you to gain weight.

There is no great science behind weight loss. There is no trick to it. you just need to eat less and move more so you end up with an overall calorie deficit. How you do that is irrelevant. 

Where I find most people suffer and struggle with this is that there are so many products out there designed to help you lose weight and they all claim to be the best but if you look at them all what do they actually make you do? They make you eat at a calories deficit! 

Also the very fact that many people struggle with food and there weight is that they have an unhealthy relationship with there food. I for one have struggled all my life and even now after losing around 60kg I still find myself coming out of tescos with a 5000 calorie 'dinner'(seriously! thats not a typo!!) when I went in with the best of intentions to only grab a sandwich and diet pepsi!

Myfitnesspal and a set of digital kitchen scales have been a lifesaver for me. Now it doesn't matter if I want that Doughnut or bit of cake. I can as long as MFP says I have the required number of calories left for the day.

Seriously don't over complicate what is very simple! Learn to weigh and log everything and don't worry about falling off the wagon! The only people who claim to not fall off it are called 'Liars' !!!


----------



## Spyke

chunkytfg said:


> If your body needs 2000cals per day to sustain itself and you ate 1500cals of doughnuts everyday and nothing else your body would use other sources of energy to make up the missing 500 cals. and you'd lose weight.


Im afraid it is not that simple, you are completely ignoring the themogenic benefits of certain foods.

Most people could eat 2000 calories of certain, "healthy" whole foods and lose weight, whereas they'd probably put weight on when consuming 2000 calories of doughnuts. Personally, if I stick to my diet I can eat in excess of 3000 calories and lose fat. If I constantly cheat I need to bring that down to 2000-2500.

The food we eat has a direct effect on our metabolism, that's just a fact.

To keep it simple;

Keep sugar as low as possible
Time your Carbs before and after workouts and first thing in the morning
Fats are friendly and not your enemy. If you're older and putting on weight, there's a high chance its because testosterone levels naturally drop as you age. Healthy fats will help improve test levels!
Red Meat and saturated fat wont kill you
Aim for around 1.-1.5g protein /lb bodyweight
Overall aim is to be able to eat as much as possible while losing weight.


----------



## Sharpy296

I'll chip in here as well....

My Story...
6ft tall
currently 35
Got up to 111kgs at my heaviest, im quite heavily built.
I am now 83kgs and looking to get a bit more off ahead of the next season of cycling 
This has taken me 4years to lose the weight initially and its now pretty static, although I am pushing to get my BFP down to around 10% currently its 19%.

I did the initial loss by doing the "special k diet", cereal in the morning dinner at 1200 and then cereal in the evening, it was a hard slog, I also cut down sugar and alcohol intake.

After a while I got into exercise and looked at setting a target so i decided to do a duathlon, then a triathlon... before realising I hate running... so decided to focus on cycling. 

What I find is that losses seem to happen in stages, its not linear, i lose quite a bit quite quickly, then it levels out then it drops again and so on and so forth, the plateaus can be quite demoralising but you need to stick with it.

The general rule of thumb of eat less and move more does apply, although addressing bad elements of a diet will help, for example now I eat more healthy and have cut out cordial (even no added sugar cordial has quite a lot of sugar in it!) and generally eat more interms of calories than I used to, however I see a weight loss, i exercise a lot 15hrs+ a week but I feel better for the change in diet than when I eat junk.

It is a complex issue to fully understand and I dont pretend to, but everyone I know who has succeeded in weight loss has reduced what they put in and moved a bit more.

Also be careful with apps like MFP, some of the stuff is not showing at the full serving so a kitkat might only be 100 calories, when in relality thats for 1 finger, and I mean who really ever just eats 1 finger!!! I think sometimes people want to kid themselves that they are eat less than they are.


----------



## Mcpx

Spyke said:


> Im afraid it is not that simple, you are completely ignoring the themogenic benefits of certain foods.
> 
> Most people could eat 2000 calories of certain, "healthy" whole foods and lose weight, whereas they'd probably put weight on when consuming 2000 calories of doughnuts. Personally, if I stick to my diet I can eat in excess of 3000 calories and lose fat. If I constantly cheat I need to bring that down to 2000-2500.
> 
> The food we eat has a direct effect on our metabolism, that's just a fact.
> 
> To keep it simple;
> 
> Keep sugar as low as possible
> Time your Carbs before and after workouts and first thing in the morning
> Fats are friendly and not your enemy. If you're older and putting on weight, there's a high chance its because testosterone levels naturally drop as you age. Healthy fats will help improve test levels!
> Red Meat and saturated fat wont kill you
> Aim for around 1.-1.5g protein /lb bodyweight
> Overall aim is to be able to eat as much as possible while losing weight.


Agree with this but wanted to add

You could, in theory, eat a caloric deficit in doughnuts and still lose weight, however, back in the real world, the problem with things like sweets and cakes is that being high in sugar not only are they are calorie dense, but the calories are burnt so quickly by the body that we need more fuel (ie more calories) pretty soon after eating them. So, you munch through your 2000 calories (about 8 generic sugar doughnuts according to mfp, which is not a lot to last all day) but then you are soon hungry again and end up eating more and more food, ergo more calories.

I have tried keto and have been very low carb and while it is great for taking weight off quickly, albeit a good portion of that being water weight, I found it very difficult to maintain in the long term. That being said I did find my energy levels were both higher and more consistent when I was running my body on healthy fats. Now apart from my veggies and salads the only carbs I try to eat are rice now and then, couple of times a week maybe. Carbs are definitely not the enemy, but you do have to pick the right ones and use moderation. Same goes for protein, 1.5g per lb of bodyweight is ok if you are a pro bodybuilder who takes ahem 'other stuff' but for everyone else it should be well under 1g per lb, probably about 0.8. Too much protein will actually cancel out it's own benefits and stop you from building muscle and therefore burning more fat.

My biggest and most consistent success comes from intermittent fasting, I only eat within a 6-8 hour window and the rest of the time I only drink water, a zero calorie bcaa drink or black coffee. My training, currently alternating between 5x5 weight sessions and 4-5k runs, falls right in the middle of my fasting period.

So for anyone stuck with weight loss, definitely look into intermittent fasting, greater fat burning, lower insulin levels and a massive boost in adrenal performance, so more testosterone and growth hormone. Plenty of great info on YouTube, look out for Dr Berg and a guy called Thomas DeLauer.


----------



## possul

Bit of a bump 
I've lost half a stone recently, with no real science on how.
Weight training four times a week (1hr 10mins - 1.5 hours) With cardio for ten minutes before a workout
No calorie tracking as such but at least one meal a day is chicken/fish with whole grain rice and veg, normal cereal, same snacks etc
I take a protein shake supplement after the gym.
Now although it's not a very accurate measurement I use scales at work which measure body fat.
Ive gone from 23% to 19% as of two weeks ago. I do it on an empty stomach with any fluids.
It really shows and the girlfriends tell me my love handles are going and I haven't got any skinier in terms of muscle (I took measure measurements)


----------



## chunkytfg

Spyke said:


> Im afraid it is not that simple, you are completely ignoring the themogenic benefits of certain foods.
> 
> Most people could eat 2000 calories of certain, "healthy" whole foods and lose weight, whereas they'd probably put weight on when consuming 2000 calories of doughnuts. Personally, if I stick to my diet I can eat in excess of 3000 calories and lose fat. If I constantly cheat I need to bring that down to 2000-2500.
> 
> The food we eat has a direct effect on our metabolism, that's just a fact.
> 
> To keep it simple;
> 
> Keep sugar as low as possible
> Time your Carbs before and after workouts and first thing in the morning
> Fats are friendly and not your enemy. If you're older and putting on weight, there's a high chance its because testosterone levels naturally drop as you age. Healthy fats will help improve test levels!
> Red Meat and saturated fat wont kill you
> Aim for around 1.-1.5g protein /lb bodyweight
> Overall aim is to be able to eat as much as possible while losing weight.


So what you've basically just said is that i'm right?

I refer you to my point about people over complicating things with 'technical terms' like Thermogenesis.

What you basically have just said is that certain food affect your metabolic rate(just so everyone gets what you're on about)

Maybe i'm over simplifying things with my comments about doughnuts but no one in there right mind would try and put weight on with just salad or try and lose weight while eating nothing but doughnuts! The simple truth is that I didn't actually say anything un true. Yes your body will react badly at the two extremes I suggested but the simple calories in vs calories out equation still holds true. I'm not denying that if you eat foods that boost your metabolism it will either allow you to lose weight quicker or eat more for the same deficit but the basic calorie in vs calorie out rules will applies. I would much rather eat some 'bad foods' and not feel restricted on my 'diet' to allow me to stick with it for longer than be bored to death by all the healthy food which I don't like all because it helps my metabolism only for me to ditch the diet a little while later as I resent it

60kg down I still eat cake, chocolate, pizza etc. I don't actively monitor what food types I eat during the day when, I don't calculate my protein intake, I log my food, I exercise to give myself a buffer if I know I'm going out for dinner or just want more food


----------

