Fat loss - how to lose the bulge and gain the ripples

[SociallyChallenged]

Sticky has lost its sticky. Any mod wanna toss it back up for everyone?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Sticky is manual sticky atm. Help me keep this on the front page if you would. Thanks.

 

[Kaido]

Manual sticky POWA!!

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: damage424
Sorry if this is a dumb question (it is), but if I eat a lot of shrimp would that fall into the mercury category? And salmon too. Thanks

You have just as good of an idea as I do. However, it's usually larger fish that have higher mercury contents since they are predatory and concentrate the mercury of their prey. Shrimp should be fine, but you should research salmon. I don't think there's much in salmon, but you're gonna have to look it up.

The latest data I've seen showed shrimp had a non-detectable amount of mercury in it. Fresh salmon isn't anything to worry about either as it's only about 0.01 parts per million per 3oz serving. Things to watch out for are things like Marlin, Orange Roughy, Halibut, and tuna depending on specifics (fresh vs light vs albacore etc.).

I have the paper laying around somewhere with recommended limits as well.

Nice, thanks, man.

Here's the abstract for the paper.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16572601

I have the full paper pdf, shoot me a PM with your email if you want it.

 

[conorvansmack]

Manually stickied

 

[BassBomb]

i like sticky

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Sticky sticky sticky. Thanks, guys.

 

[spamsk8r]

Go team, up to the top!

 

[Titan]

Bump with a question, one I think SC can answer:

I've heard that for every 1g of fat that is burned, your body loses 3g of water. First, is this true? We all know 1 pound of fat is 3500 calories, does that pound incude water?

For very obese people, I would think they have a lot of water weight to lose in addition to fat, so would that a bad thing necessarily?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Bump with a question, one I think SC can answer:

I've heard that for every 1g of fat that is burned, your body loses 3g of water. First, is this true? We all know 1 pound of fat is 3500 calories, does that pound incude water?

For very obese people, I would think they have a lot of water weight to lose in addition to fat, so would that a bad thing necessarily?

First of all, do you mean 1g of fat lost or 1g of fat burned? If you literally mean fat burned - the products of fat breakdown (via beta-oxidation, the TCA cycle, and ultimately oxidative phosphorylation) actually yield significant amounts of water as a product. For each O2 that actually accepts electrons in the last step of the electron transport chain, two molecules of H2O are produced. I forget the value, but the body actually CREATES a very large amount of water through this. Water concentration actually increases in this case.

If you're referring to adipose tissue being full of water - I don't know. I don't know the % water in fat tissue at all. The calculated 3500 calories per pound of fat is just based on straight conversion of calories per gram of fat multiplied by the amount of grams in a pound. I don't think it's as complicated as it may seem.

Did that help?

 

[KoolDrew]

I've heard that for every 1g of fat that is burned, your body loses 3g of water. First, is this true? We all know 1 pound of fat is 3500 calories, does that pound incude water?

Are you sure you aren't confusing this for glycogen storage? IIRC, for every 1g of stored glycogen it takes 3g of water.

 

[MotF Bane]

Bump.

 

[Special K]

I had a question about the carbs listed in the OP:

Complex Carbs (nothing enriched, bleached or processed if possible)

Oatmeal (Old fashioned, Quick oats, Irish steal cut)
Sweet Potatoes, Yams
Beans (Black eyed, Pinto, Red, Kidney, Black)
Oat Bran Cereal, Grape nuts, Rye cereal, Multi grain hot cereal
Farin (Cream of wheat)
Whole Wheat frozen Bagels, Pitas
Whole wheat or Spinach Pasta, Whey Pasta
Rice (Brown, white, jasmin, basmiti, arborio, wild)
Potatoes (red, white, baking)

It says quick oats and rice are good choices, but it also says "nothing enriched, bleached, or processed if possible"

I eat quick oats as a part of at least 2 of my meals on any given day. Originally I thought they were quite healthy since they contain 4g of fiber per 0.5 cup, which seems pretty good. However I later found out they have a GI of 65 and a GL of 17, which are both quite high:

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

Should I switch these to something else? I usually eat them with a whey/water shake, which would lower the overall effect on blood sugar somewhat because of the protein.

Another item on that list I consume on a regular basis is instant rice. I usually eat it with chicken breast as the first whole food meal after my workout. The first "meal" after my workout is a whey and dextrose shake). My thinking for the chicken and rice is that you still want something that can be digested relatively quickly (i.e. protein + quick digesting carb, no fats) after a workout. On the other hand, instant rice probably isn't that good for you, right? Should I substitute it for something else?

Hopefully people still read this stickied thread. If not, I'll post it as a separate topic.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Hey Special K. Let me first ask - are you an endurance athlete? Secondly, I think you're over-thinking things. I speak in generalities in this thread a lot. The problem with that is that active people can be a bit more lenient with their diet.

The glycemic index has its flaws. I wouldn't eat white rice all the time, but having a bit of it every other day won't hurt you.

To be perfectly honest, the whey/dextrose shake will replenish your glycogen stores and such. The white rice is a bit over the top in that situation since you're providing dextrose (pure glucose chain) and then eating more fast-digesting white rice (starch, breaks down into glucose). I'd eat something a little slower digesting personally. I like to eat something like a sweet potato and chicken as my first meal after a workout.

What you're doing is fine, but I'd just cut the rice back a little bit. I'd only eat it at one meal... that is, unless you're an endurance athlete. In that case, you can eat many more refined carbs and still be fine. Actually, you'll be BETTER because of it.

 

[Special K]

Hey Special K. Let me first ask - are you an endurance athlete?

No, I'm not. I run 3x/week but I don't go more than about 3 miles. I prefer to run 3 miles or less, but at a fast/challenging pace.

To be perfectly honest, the whey/dextrose shake will replenish your glycogen stores and such. The white rice is a bit over the top in that situation since you're providing dextrose (pure glucose chain) and then eating more fast-digesting white rice (starch, breaks down into glucose). I'd eat something a little slower digesting personally. I like to eat something like a sweet potato and chicken as my first meal after a workout.

OK, this was my concern. I wasn't sure if the white rice was really necessary after already having dextrose in my PWO shake. I originally obtained my information from AST (the supplement company), and they suggested whey + dextrose for the first meal after a workout, and then another fast digesting carb such as rice or a white potato for the next meal after the PWO shake. Maybe that's overkill?

What you're doing is fine, but I'd just cut the rice back a little bit. I'd only eat it at one meal... that is, unless you're an endurance athlete. In that case, you can eat many more refined carbs and still be fine. Actually, you'll be BETTER because of it.

I'm only eating the white rice at one meal per day as it is - the meal after my PWO shake. In any case, it sounds like I don't need to be eating white rice after a workout if I've already had a whey/dextrose shake?

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Great thread. I need to do more reading in the thread, but I printed the OP, and I will be marking off stuff that I can't eat (Celiac's Disease).

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Great thread. I need to do more reading in the thread, but I printed the OP, and I will be marking off stuff that I can't eat (Celiac's Disease).

I'm glad I could help. Celiac disease is no fun. Many people think grains are responsible for a lot of bad things though so perhaps your inability to eat them is a blessing in disguise. I imagine it'sa pain in the ass, but at least you know how to work with it. Best of luck to ya.

 

[norsy]

How exactly does one know that they're on a caloric excess? Is a big belly and flabby waist enough of an indication of it?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

How exactly does one know that they're on a caloric excess? Is a big belly and flabby waist enough of an indication of it?

Being in a caloric surplus means that you are storing calories as mass. For an athlete who lifts a lot and is in a caloric surplus, he will add the mass as dominantly muscle (depending on how big the surplus is). For someone who does no exercise, he will add the mass as fat. Increased adipose tissue (aka big belly/flabby waist) is an indication of having an average net caloric surplus. To truly determine if a person is in a caloric surplus, tracking his or her diet is key. That will help determine how much of a caloric surplus the person is in.

 

[senseamp]

Anybody all of the sudden able to go longer and feel fuller on less food? I am generally a compulsive eater, but lately I've been eating less, but still exercising, etc. Yesterday I had apple and banana in the morning, went on a 4 hour mountain bike ride with probably 2000-3000ft climbing in the mud, I would guess that was easily 2000 calories. I thought I'd bonk half way, so I brought a banana with me, but felt great and didn't eat it, then had a small kebob wrap at 7pm with a glass of wine and was full. Day before was similar, no breakfast, walked around all day in the city, felt fine, had small dinner at 7pm too. Day before I road biked 3 hours, also just a pastry in the morning, and a small dinner. I am lifting and exercising a lot and feeling fine, but something changed. I am sort of compulsive eater generally, I keep my fridge completely empty because as soon as I buy something, I eat it. But not lately. Now it feels like I am in complete control of what and when I eat. Kind of enjoying it since I could stand to lose a few lbs, but not sure if it's completely healthy.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Binge eating is actually an eating disorder, falling under psychological pathologies. The first course of action for most psychological disorders is exercise. You may have leveled some chemicals out or changed your perception of things as a result of exercise. I know that if I exercise, I'm much less likely to eat things that I truly don't want to eat. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

By the way, make sure that you're eating SOMETHING before, during and after very long exercises like that. Your body utilizes all of its glycogen and continues to utilize fat, but still needs glucose (which comes from your muscle stores through gluconeogenesis). I would guess that you had an undoubted net loss of muscle mass because you went on that bike ride, but ate no food (especially no protein source). Be careful what you do, man. You may just end up stressing your body more than it can handle and you'll set yourself back a bit.

 

[senseamp]

Somebody on a bike ride was telling me that losing some muscle is not necessarily a bad thing, because the remaining muscle would have higher blood vessel density and be more efficient from cardio point of view. Basically you build up bulk, then blood vessels grow to supply it with blood, then you lose bulk, but blood vessels remain, so you are back to square one in terms of muscle mass, but you have an improvement in terms of blood circulation. If you are a biker, you don't necessarily want bulk to carry around, what you want is the most efficient muscle you can get per weigh. Sort of like a high revving low displacement engine. Does this make any sense?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Somebody on a bike ride was telling me that losing some muscle is not necessarily a bad thing, because the remaining muscle would have higher blood vessel density and be more efficient from cardio point of view. Basically you build up bulk, then blood vessels grow to supply it with blood, then you lose bulk, but blood vessels remain, so you are back to square one in terms of muscle mass, but you have an improvement in terms of blood circulation. If you are a biker, you don't necessarily want bulk to carry around, what you want is the most efficient muscle you can get per weigh. Sort of like a high revving low displacement engine. Does this make any sense?

The person who told you that has no idea what they're talking about. I'm an exercise biology/physiology student in my last year for my B.S. If you train endurance events for the long term (over a year), your body adapts by branching out more capillaries throughout the muscle. Also, there are capillaries in the body nearly every 1 micron. The cells of your body are already damn well covered with vascularity. Also, your body will make cellular adaptations to improve oxygen utilization. That alone is responsible for the greatest improvement in endurance events.

I just took my exercise physiology class last quarter and got an A- in it. If you're mountain biking, the increased muscle mass would actually probably do you more good. More muscle = increased power production (as a result of increased cross-sectional area). It's not a linear relationship between performance and muscle mass, but in power-requiring events, increased muscle mass can often be beneficial.

 

[brikis98]

Somebody on a bike ride was telling me that losing some muscle is not necessarily a bad thing, because the remaining muscle would have higher blood vessel density and be more efficient from cardio point of view. Basically you build up bulk, then blood vessels grow to supply it with blood, then you lose bulk, but blood vessels remain, so you are back to square one in terms of muscle mass, but you have an improvement in terms of blood circulation. If you are a biker, you don't necessarily want bulk to carry around, what you want is the most efficient muscle you can get per weigh. Sort of like a high revving low displacement engine. Does this make any sense?

The explanation sounds like a bunch of BS. First of all, unless you are competing in some kind of bike events, your should probably be more interested in overall health and fitness. For that, you want plenty of muscle mass distributed evenly all over your body and any diet that causes you to lose some is typically going to be for the worse. However, if you do compete, being lighter is typically an advantage for cycling, although it should not be at the cost of muscle mass in your legs. A skinny/light upper body, sure, but not the legs. Check out the legs on these guys: most have absolutely massive quads, hamstrings and calves (with lots of gross looking veins), but tiny upper bodies.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Some food for thought: a fellow student presented a research study that showed the effects of high fat, high carb, and high protein snacks postponed hunger. Surprisingly, the high fat group (for the same amount of calories) got hungriest the fastest. Then the high carb group got hungry (30 something minutes after the high fat group). Finally, the high protein group got hungry (I think ~60ish minutes after the high fat group). This is counterintuitive to me, even if you take volume of consumption into mind. So I may further stress protein for controlling satiation and hunger urges. Anyone care to comment?