Lower BF, I am on my way.

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yeah I've done it. It's a proven method, and it works. Count your calories. You weigh 145 IIRC, so I'd aim calories at 1800 or so and see how it works.

I'd like to just modify my eat habits, and leave it at that. I need to change the way I eat, but I feel once I start counting calories it becomes a diet. And I don't want a diet. This needs to stay.
I eat like crap. Cake and cookies and just whatever.
I am attempting to change that, but not stay within a certain boundary. Just eating healthy, cutting out all the junk, should be a major improvement.

Whatever you find works for you. Personally I've been counting calories for years. It's the only thing that keeps me on track.

How do you go about doing something like that? Just have a pencil and paper, and write it all down?
Or have you done it so long you can add it up in your head?

In my head. Granted I don't do it every day, and a couple days/week I just eat a lot for te heck of it, but the days I'm putting in the proper effort I can, from beginning of the day to the end, recount everything I've eaten and the calorie amount in it. In cases where I don't know for sure I can very well estimate. It may sound obsessive, but it's really not difficult and doesn't take much effort at all. My stomach is too big for my own good, so if I eat until I'm content I will invariably become overweight, unless I do tons of exercise.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: jewno

I'm 5'8" and 170 pounds. BMI says I'm overweight but my body is well-built with some body fat. I'm hoping to stay in shape.

BMI is absolutely worthless if you're athletic.

They say that a man should be about 15% bodyfat and that man my height (5'10) should be in the 150's. That is puny as hell, and fat, too.

 

[Juno]

I'm an athletic. I played varsity basketball and golf in high school.

BMI=loser.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: jewno
I'm an athletic. I played varsity basketball and golf in high school.

BMI=loser.

Basketball, ok. But golf?

 

[Juno]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: jewno
I'm an athletic. I played varsity basketball and golf in high school.

BMI=loser.

Basketball, ok. But golf?

Come on. These were the sports I played in high school. I was too serious about academics that's why I gave up my career in soccer. I would have been a three-sport athlete in high school.

But since growing up, I've played variety of sports. Right now I'm in college and I play intramural sports in basketball and volleyball. I do go out golfing sometimes.

 

[FoBoT]

my donut diet isn't working out so good

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

lift more weights, it seems like the best way to affect metabolism i've seen

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Wonderful, my office is having a pizza party. Must....overcome...

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Wonderful, my office is having a pizza party. Must....overcome...

Temptation is everywhere :evil:

 

[ThaPerculator]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Timing of meals is irrelevant if the total caloric intake is not modified.

This is untrue, and I know this from experience. When I switched from eating twice a day to 5x or 6x a day, my calorie intake increased while I still began losing weight. The reason for this is that it speeds up your metabolism and you burn more calories just going about your average day. I was pretty tired before and now I'm full of energy all day.

Find me ONE peer-reviewed study that shows you can eat the same caloric intake/composition in a controlled environment, but based on meal frequency have ANY effect on body composition.

Have fun finding one.

 

[jEct2]

diets are strange, then again my metabolism will slow down when i get older....so no more eating everything i want..

 

[V00DOO]

It's easy to go with a diet plan for a week or so, but it's hard to stay with it for a long period of time.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Timing of meals is irrelevant if the total caloric intake is not modified.

This is untrue, and I know this from experience. When I switched from eating twice a day to 5x or 6x a day, my calorie intake increased while I still began losing weight. The reason for this is that it speeds up your metabolism and you burn more calories just going about your average day. I was pretty tired before and now I'm full of energy all day.

Find me ONE peer-reviewed study that shows you can eat the same caloric intake/composition in a controlled environment, but based on meal frequency have ANY effect on body composition.

Have fun finding one.

I would like to see one too, but the 5-6 advice is something prescribed not just by fad trainers who know nothing, but by pretty much every sports nutritionist around. It makes inherent sense when one considers the short term effects of sugar on blood sugar levels and the inability of the body to store protein in an accessible (besides muscle) form once it's been digested. Keeping things on an even course ensures better consistency of blood sugar and protein accessibility (I think I just said that, so you can ignore this sentence).

 

[ThaPerculator]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Timing of meals is irrelevant if the total caloric intake is not modified.

This is untrue, and I know this from experience. When I switched from eating twice a day to 5x or 6x a day, my calorie intake increased while I still began losing weight. The reason for this is that it speeds up your metabolism and you burn more calories just going about your average day. I was pretty tired before and now I'm full of energy all day.

Find me ONE peer-reviewed study that shows you can eat the same caloric intake/composition in a controlled environment, but based on meal frequency have ANY effect on body composition.

Have fun finding one.

I would like to see one too, but the 5-6 advice is something prescribed not just by fad trainers who know nothing, but by pretty much every sports nutritionist around. It makes inherent sense when one considers the short term effects of sugar on blood sugar levels and the inability of the body to store protein in an accessible (besides muscle) form once it's been digested. Keeping things on an even course ensures better consistency of blood sugar and protein accessibility (I think I just said that, so you can ignore this sentence).

Pretty much all of the studies involved (at least everything I've seen on medline) in the research told people to simply "spread out your meals and eat normally". These people, who are forced to basically "pay attention" to what they are eating through simply changing their eating habits slightly, tend to not eat the same diet at all thus throwing off the entire study.

The logic is this. Eat more frequently, and you are "noticeably hungry" less often, meaning less "binge eating". This simple adjustment might have some merit to people who don't really give a crap and/or pay attention to their diet/exercise plan, but to those who actually have a "plan" and stick to it, meal timing is irrelevant.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Timing of meals is irrelevant if the total caloric intake is not modified.

This is untrue, and I know this from experience. When I switched from eating twice a day to 5x or 6x a day, my calorie intake increased while I still began losing weight. The reason for this is that it speeds up your metabolism and you burn more calories just going about your average day. I was pretty tired before and now I'm full of energy all day.

Find me ONE peer-reviewed study that shows you can eat the same caloric intake/composition in a controlled environment, but based on meal frequency have ANY effect on body composition.

Have fun finding one.

I would like to see one too, but the 5-6 advice is something prescribed not just by fad trainers who know nothing, but by pretty much every sports nutritionist around. It makes inherent sense when one considers the short term effects of sugar on blood sugar levels and the inability of the body to store protein in an accessible (besides muscle) form once it's been digested. Keeping things on an even course ensures better consistency of blood sugar and protein accessibility (I think I just said that, so you can ignore this sentence).

Pretty much all of the studies involved (at least everything I've seen on medline) in the research told people to simply "spread out your meals and eat normally". These people, who are forced to basically "pay attention" to what they are eating through simply changing their eating habits slightly, tend to not eat the same diet at all thus throwing off the entire study.

The logic is this. Eat more frequently, and you are "noticeably hungry" less often, meaning less "binge eating". This simple adjustment might have some merit to people who don't really give a crap and/or pay attention to their diet/exercise plan, but to those who actually have a "plan" and stick to it, meal timing is irrelevant.

Well, either way, I have still been noticeably hungry. I try to eat every 3 hours or so, but even then, I get pretty hungry. So basically, I eat breakfast when I get up, have a snack at 9, eat lunch at 12, have a snack at 3, eat dinner at 6, and may'be have a low carb snack sometime after my workout. May'be I am not eating enough. Or may'be my body is just adapting to a new way of eating.