LOSING BODYFAT

[Guest guest]

Losing bodyfat is certainly one of the most discussed topics in fitness and

health. And just about everybody has their own concept as to what's best.

Some of these people have gone as far as making a million dollar industry out

of their concept. All with the promise that their idea is best, quickest, and

that weightloss is a guarantee.

Personally, I am absolutely baffled by all of this hype and the apparent

complexity attached to an issue as simple as fat loss, e.g. fat, protein,

carb percentage manipulations. To me, this must be one of the most easily

achieved goals imaginable. All one needs is a little bit of motivation,

that's all. And how can one go about losing fat? Easy. Eat less. That's all.

Eat whatever it is you usually eat, just eat less of it. If you throw

exercise into the equation, then the process is just a bit quicker. Never

mind complex macronutient manipulations. It's about total calories and less

total calories means less fat accumulation.

As a competitive powerlifter I would routinely lose between 15 and 23 pounds

in an attempt to make my weightclass. I wouldn't diet at all, unless you'd

call eating less dieting. So instead of a large pizza, I'd eat a medium one.

Instead of a 16oz steak I'd eat an 8oz steak. Instead of full milk I'd drink

1%. Instead of a six-pack I'd go for a three-pack. Sure, I'd end up training

more intensely as time passed since I was getting ready for a meet, but as

most of you probably know, pumping iron isn't exactly the most energy

demanding activity so the work completed isn't a huge part of the equation.

And still, the weight would come off. It's easy. And to top it off, I'd end

up with a bigger savings account since I spent less on food. Now THAT'S my

kind of diet! Now, some might argue: " Dan, you just have a fast metabolism. "

Well, no, that's not the case since I would typically only lose between 1-2

pounds/week. Besides, the fatter you are the higher your metabolism. So that

argument often cited by obese people doesn't hold any water. Eat less, save

money, lose fat. There you have it.

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

Would you mind elaborating on the comment that fatter people

have higher metabolisms? I essentially agree with all of your

comments when it comes to losing fat but I just never heard the

one about higher metabolism.

On 8 Aug 00, at 11:42, Namgawd@... wrote:

> Losing bodyfat is certainly one of the most discussed topics in

> fitness and health. And just about everybody has their own concept as

> to what's best. Some of these people have gone as far as making a

> million dollar industry out of their concept. All with the promise

> that their idea is best, quickest, and that weightloss is a guarantee.

>

>

> Personally, I am absolutely baffled by all of this hype and the

> apparent complexity attached to an issue as simple as fat loss, e.g.

> fat, protein, carb percentage manipulations. To me, this must be one

> of the most easily achieved goals imaginable. All one needs is a

> little bit of motivation, that's all. And how can one go about losing

> fat? Easy. Eat less. That's all. Eat whatever it is you usually eat,

> just eat less of it. If you throw exercise into the equation, then the

> process is just a bit quicker. Never mind complex macronutient

> manipulations. It's about total calories and less total calories means

> less fat accumulation.

>

> As a competitive powerlifter I would routinely lose between 15 and 23

> pounds in an attempt to make my weightclass. I wouldn't diet at all,

> unless you'd call eating less dieting. So instead of a large pizza,

> I'd eat a medium one. Instead of a 16oz steak I'd eat an 8oz steak.

> Instead of full milk I'd drink 1%. Instead of a six-pack I'd go for a

> three-pack. Sure, I'd end up training more intensely as time passed

> since I was getting ready for a meet, but as most of you probably

> know, pumping iron isn't exactly the most energy demanding activity so

> the work completed isn't a huge part of the equation. And still, the

> weight would come off. It's easy. And to top it off, I'd end up with a

> bigger savings account since I spent less on food. Now THAT'S my kind

> of diet! Now, some might argue: " Dan, you just have a fast

> metabolism. " Well, no, that's not the case since I would typically

> only lose between 1-2 pounds/week. Besides, the fatter you are the

> higher your metabolism. So that argument often cited by obese people

> doesn't hold any water. Eat less, save money, lose fat. There you have

> it.

>

> Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

>

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------<e

> |- Never lose a file again. Protect yourself from accidental deletes,

> overwrites, and viruses with @Backup. Try @Backup it's easy, it's

> safe, and it's FREE! Click here to receive 300 MyPoints just for

> trying @Backup. 1/6349/11/_/_/_/965754668/

> --------------------------------------------------------------------|e

> >-

>

>

[Guest guest]

also, i would like to say that just eating less does not always work. i'm

sure we have all heard of people that ate1200 calories a day for a month and

didnt lose a pound. my wife is a prime example of this. when she tries a low

calorie diet her body locks down and she cant lose an ounce.

draven hawk

Re: LOSING BODYFAT

> Would you mind elaborating on the comment that fatter people

> have higher metabolisms? I essentially agree with all of your

> comments when it comes to losing fat but I just never heard the

> one about higher metabolism.

>

> On 8 Aug 00, at 11:42, Namgawd@... wrote:

>

> > Losing bodyfat is certainly one of the most discussed topics in

> > fitness and health. And just about everybody has their own concept as

> > to what's best. Some of these people have gone as far as making a

> > million dollar industry out of their concept. All with the promise

> > that their idea is best, quickest, and that weightloss is a guarantee.

> >

> >

> > Personally, I am absolutely baffled by all of this hype and the

> > apparent complexity attached to an issue as simple as fat loss, e.g.

> > fat, protein, carb percentage manipulations. To me, this must be one

> > of the most easily achieved goals imaginable. All one needs is a

> > little bit of motivation, that's all. And how can one go about losing

> > fat? Easy. Eat less. That's all. Eat whatever it is you usually eat,

> > just eat less of it. If you throw exercise into the equation, then the

> > process is just a bit quicker. Never mind complex macronutient

> > manipulations. It's about total calories and less total calories means

> > less fat accumulation.

> >

> > As a competitive powerlifter I would routinely lose between 15 and 23

> > pounds in an attempt to make my weightclass. I wouldn't diet at all,

> > unless you'd call eating less dieting. So instead of a large pizza,

> > I'd eat a medium one. Instead of a 16oz steak I'd eat an 8oz steak.

> > Instead of full milk I'd drink 1%. Instead of a six-pack I'd go for a

> > three-pack. Sure, I'd end up training more intensely as time passed

> > since I was getting ready for a meet, but as most of you probably

> > know, pumping iron isn't exactly the most energy demanding activity so

> > the work completed isn't a huge part of the equation. And still, the

> > weight would come off. It's easy. And to top it off, I'd end up with a

> > bigger savings account since I spent less on food. Now THAT'S my kind

> > of diet! Now, some might argue: " Dan, you just have a fast

> > metabolism. " Well, no, that's not the case since I would typically

> > only lose between 1-2 pounds/week. Besides, the fatter you are the

> > higher your metabolism. So that argument often cited by obese people

> > doesn't hold any water. Eat less, save money, lose fat. There you have

> > it.

> >

> > Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

> >

> >

> >

> > --------------------------------------------------------------------<e

> > |- Never lose a file again. Protect yourself from accidental deletes,

> > overwrites, and viruses with @Backup. Try @Backup it's easy, it's

> > safe, and it's FREE! Click here to receive 300 MyPoints just for

> > trying @Backup. 1/6349/11/_/_/_/965754668/

> > --------------------------------------------------------------------|e

> > >-

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/00 8:24:09 PM, dravenhawk@... writes:

<< also, i would like to say that just eating less does not always work. i'm

sure we have all heard of people that ate1200 calories a day for a month and

didnt lose a pound. my wife is a prime example of this. when she tries a low

calorie diet her body locks down and she cant lose an ounce. >>

Though it is true that the body will want to conserve energy/nutrients when

less is put in the system, if the daily caloric demands exceed the daily

caloric input, the body has no option but to lose weight. True, this effect

will occur faster in some than others, but nevertheless weight will be shed

eventually. I might add that the bodies' conservation response occurs more

dramatically as the amount of calorie reduction is increased. At 1200

calories/day your wife's energy requirements are barely met, hence the bodies

assumption that " something's wrong " and the conservation effect. Typically,

reducing normal caloric intake by only 500 calories is sufficient to lose

weight/fat.

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/00 7:44:24 PM, mmurphy@... writes:

<< Would you mind elaborating on the comment that fatter people

have higher metabolisms? I essentially agree with all of your

comments when it comes to losing fat but I just never heard the

one about higher metabolism. >>

A research clinic in Great Britain (the name escapes me) that focuses

entirely on obesity determined that an obese individual has a higher

metabolism than a person of normal weight (though I don't profess to know

what normal means). The bottom line is that a larger body requires greater

energy demands to stay alive and to go through tasks of daily living, hence

the higher metabolism. Seems quite sensible, wouldn't you say?

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

Mike wrote:

Would you mind elaborating on the comment that fatter people

have higher metabolisms? I essentially agree with all of your

comments when it comes to losing fat but I just never heard the

one about higher metabolism.

Indeed this is true Mike. Obese people generally have higher metabolic

rates than slimmer individuals. It comes down to a question of lean body

mass. An individual who is carrying 50-60kg of fat (essentially a dead

weight)will need to develop the underlying support structures in terms of

muscle, bone, connective tissue, in order to support this weight. While

these people are not considered muscular in an aesthetically pleasing sense,

they do still have a proportionately high muscle mass, and hence a high

metabolic rate.

I feel as a nutritionist working to counsell these individuals, I must take

issue with Namgawd@... and his rather over simplified views on weight

loss. While weight loss per se may be a simple case of cutting energy

intake (although the best approach I have found is to lift energy

expenditure), one cannot ignore the psychosocial aspect of obesity.

To just cut back on food can be quite difficult...much the same as just

stopping smoking. And you should also be careful when drawing parallels

between an athlete losing a few kg to make a weight class, and someone who

is clinically obese and cannot move, yet must lose 50, 60, 70kg.

The reason you would find this so easy, is that as a powerlifter, you too

would have a proportionately high muscle mass, and thus a high BMR.

Finally, simple cutting calories can lead to dangerous yo-yo diets. Obesity

is a disease of the inactive rather than simply one of the glutenous. Give

a person enough energy to get through the day, and keep them feeling

satisfied, and get them moving again. This approach has worked well in my

practice.

(BSc, BPhEd, PGDip SportMed Student)

Exercise & Nutrition Consultant

Pro-fitness Gym

PO Box 22 507

Christchurch, New Zealand

ph. 03 366 2221

cell. 021 6543 42

email. jamie_scott@...

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

I like the suggestion of dropping 500 kCal/day. It's a highly

sensible rate, and sustainable by many people. Better than that, at

least half, and perhaps more, of the deficit, may be made up by

increasing activity, which may be to whatever level the individual

who

wishes to lose, can maintain.

We need, however, to emphasize to our clients, that the 500 kCal drop

is one _below_ calculated BMR. That is, if the individual is

weight-stable, such a drop will cause weight loss, but if they're on

a

gain cycle, it may merely serve to stabilize, or perhaps not even

that. The psychological consequences there, can be dire. Be sure,

before you begin any program to cause weight loss in a client, that

that client is weight-stable.

What a nice group!

Bill Whedon, Certified Personal Trainer, WFO

http://www.worldfitness.org/

>

> In a message dated 8/8/00 8:24:09 PM, dravenhawk@p... writes:

>

> << also, i would like to say that just eating less does not always

work. i'm

> sure we have all heard of people that ate1200 calories a day for a

month and

> didnt lose a pound. my wife is a prime example of this. when she

tries a low

> calorie diet her body locks down and she cant lose an ounce. >>

>

> Though it is true that the body will want to conserve

energy/nutrients when

> less is put in the system, if the daily caloric demands exceed the

daily

> caloric input, the body has no option but to lose weight. True,

this

effect

> will occur faster in some than others, but nevertheless weight will

be shed

> eventually. I might add that the bodies' conservation response

occurs more

> dramatically as the amount of calorie reduction is increased. At

1200

> calories/day your wife's energy requirements are barely met, hence

the bodies

> assumption that " something's wrong " and the conservation effect.

Typically,

> reducing normal caloric intake by only 500 calories is sufficient

to

lose

> weight/fat.

>

> Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

> Dan Wagman<Namgawd@...> wrote:

> At 1200 calories/day your wife's energy requirements are barely met, hence the

bodies

> assumption that " something's wrong " and the conservation effect.

Typically,

> reducing normal caloric intake by only 500 calories is sufficient to lose

> weight/fat.

draven hawk replied:

I agree. we have however, in times of a plateau, tried calorie restriction

for short (10-14 days)periods of time. she continued to maintain her lifting

and aerobic activities. she saw zero weight loss on both occasions. we also

did BF%, as well as measurements with no significant changes. she has

however made fantastic progress overall.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well, ...it doesn't get much more complex than in versus out. How the

body knows what to burn is irrelevant...it burns it based on the activity,

frequency, duration and intensity of the activity being performed, as well

as the " history " of activity (if you believe in the Atkinson train of

thought). By history, I mean that if the body learns to burn predominantly

fats, it will continue to do so until it receives new " training. " I know

this is in controversy, but there is some evidence that this is true and,

more importantly, it makes sense...which all good science should do.

What I can't believe is that we're still throwing the term WEIGHT loss

around when we mean FAT loss. HUGE difference to the population and most

people jumping on the weigh scale are not measuring their body fat.

Mike Poling, M.Sc., P.F.L.C., C.K.

>From: " Driscoll " <driscoll_david@...>

>Reply-supertrainingegroups

>supertrainingegroups

>Subject: LOSING BODYFAT

>Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:18:19 GMT

>

> >A research clinic in Great Britain (the name escapes me) that focuses

>entirely on obesity determined that an obese individual has a higher

>metabolism than a person of normal weight (though I don't profess to know

>what normal means). The bottom line is that a larger body requires greater

>energy demands to stay alive and to go through tasks of daily living, hence

>the higher metabolism. Seems quite sensible, wouldn't you say?

>

>

>Does anyone know the reference for this? How were the people matched (if at

>all)? It seems obvious that a 100kg person would have a higher metabolic

>rate than a 50kg person, but what about matching them for weight or LBM (a

>better option imo) and then comparing? This would give us the answer to the

>question we are really asking €  ’¶ all things being equal (LBM or weight +

>activity etc) does an obese person burn up less calories than a naturally

>lean person? Similalrly , do they (obese persons) have a predisposition for

>increasing adipose tissue (considering issues such as insulin resistance I

>would believe this to be the case).

>

>With regards to the simplistic weight loss = energy out higher than energy

>in, I really can€  ’²t believe people are still peddling this simple formula.

>every time I here this at uni or a seminar I ask, how then does the body

>distinguish (when in a hypocaloric environment) whether or not it will

>€  ’±burn

>up€  ’² muscle tissue, glycogen stores or adipose. Similarly for weight gain

€  ’¶

>what determines whether excess calories will be stored as bodyfat or build

>muscle tissue. People rarely consider muscle tissue when sprouting these

>ideas, you simply either lose fat (yeah like on those very low calorie

>diets) or gain fat. I€  ’²ve yet to hear a satisfactory answer regarding this

>oversimplified view. Obviously there is an endocrine factor involved, not

>simply excess/ deficient energy. The relative predisposition and energy

>cost

>of turning different types of macronutrients into adipose tissue, this is

>also rarely addressed.

>

>I believe that Fred Hatfield goes one better in his ISSA course (and

>lectures) by following the zig-zag diet, you eat a few hundred calories

>less

>than your requirement to burn fat for a few days, and then you eat a few

>hundred more calories than required to build muscle.

>

>so therefore are we to assume that an excessive 500 calories of protein,

>carbohydrates or fats (saturated vs unsaturated also) all have the same

>fate

>ie be turned into adipose tissue? or the same potential to be used as

>energy?

>

> Driscoll

>B Sc, M Sc (in progress) and RFL

>Sydney, Australia

>

>

>________________________________________________________________________

>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

:

Our bodies work in a relatively orderly manner. As it relates to energy use,

the body will seek to provide energy from glycogen first, then fat, and

finally muscle. Realize, however, that there is overlap and that this doesn't

occur in absolute terms but rather constitutes a system of priorities. Hence,

when your body has sufficient glycogen to provide energy, some fatty acids

are still metabolized, as are certain amino acids. In simple terms, the basic

reason for this is that muscle is recognized by the body as a primary system

needed for survival and as such breaking down this system to provide energy

is essentially the last thing that'll occur when insufficient macronutrients

are provided, i.e., less than sufficient amounts of calories.

Similarly, when an athlete trains and breaks down muscle tissue, the body

recognizes that this tissue must be repaired and that repair constitutes a

priority. Hence, whatever macronutrients are available will go to muscle

tissue repair. If more than the required amount of macronutrients are

provided, the body will try to hold on to it in the form of fat, basically

storing it as energy reserves for a better day.

What we tend to see in the fitness industry is a misinterpretation and

overgeneralization of research. Clearly, the body is a complex system and

we've learned a great deal about energy metabolism and the effect of certain

macronutrient and micronutrient manipulations upon amino acid and fatty acid

profiles. But I'd like to point out that there's a difference, sometimes a

huge difference, between statistical significance and what is meaningful.

Just because a given macronutrient combination results in significantly less

blood lipids than another combination doesn't mean that the former will give

you a six pack and the latter will have you remain looking and being fat. At

the same token, if the former does indeed result in one pound less fat per

month, and this is statistically significant, is it really meaningful?

Basically what has happened is that a certain group of people are trying to

sell their " system " as the end-all-be-all in weightloss and losely cite

research to support their plan. What is actually occurring is weightloss in

the wallet department. Let's not get confused by the hucksters out there and

forget the very basics of human energy metabolism.

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

[Guest guest]

> Message: 18

> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:18:19 GMT

> From: " Driscoll " <driscoll_david@...>

> Subject: LOSING BODYFAT

>

> With regards to the simplistic weight loss = energy out higher than energy

> in, I really can?t believe people are still peddling this simple formula.

> every time I here this at uni or a seminar I ask, how then does the body

> distinguish (when in a hypocaloric environment) whether or not it will ?burn

> up? muscle tissue, glycogen stores or adipose. Similarly for weight gain -

> what determines whether excess calories will be stored as bodyfat or build

> muscle tissue. People rarely consider muscle tissue when sprouting these

> ideas, you simply either lose fat (yeah like on those very low calorie

> diets) or gain fat. I?ve yet to hear a satisfactory answer regarding this

> oversimplified view. Obviously there is an endocrine factor involved, not

> simply excess/ deficient energy. The relative predisposition and energy cost

> of turning different types of macronutrients into adipose tissue, this is

> also rarely addressed.

Unless I have really " brain dumped " my anat & phis...

In order for weight loss, be it fat or lean tissue, the body HAS to

expend/require more calories than it takes in. No two ways around

that.

The body will always burn glycogen stores, adipose tissue then muscle

tissue for energy in that order in general. I am looking at this from

an overall viewpoint. Not from a specific exercise example (ie after a

10-15 minute period the body switches from carbs as a primary fuel

source to fat during aerobic work) I am assuming that you are referring

to being in a near starvation state as the body would otherwise not burn

muscle tissue for energy purposes, but it can cannabalize muscle tissue

to utilize the stored protein to repair damaged tissue elsewhere.

Muscle tissue itself is not a " storage receptacle " for excess calories.

The body will convert excess calories to glycogen for storage in the

liver and muscles (excess calories alone will not increase muscle

size). Once the liver and the muscles are saturted, then storage as

adipose tissue begins.

Mike Ambrose

Millis, MA

--

|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|

| Mike Ambrose - Cambridge Ops Lead mambrose@... |

| sonian Astrophysical Observatory Tel: 617-496-7336 |

| 60 Garden Street/MS-33 Fax: 617-496-7055 |

| Cambridge, MA 02138 Cell: 617-592-5856 |

|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|

[Guest guest]

>***One thing that is intriguing about a possible link between obesity and

>genes is that, in the USA, obesity is estimated to afflict more than 50

>percent of the adult population of all racial groups and between 15-25

>percent of children. These statistics raise several intriguing issues:

>

>1. Does this imply that a very large percentage of Americans possess a

>gene that predisposes them to obesity? This would then reflect probably the

>most widespread genetic disorder in any country on earth.

>

>2. Why, in genetic terms, is the incidence of obesity so high among all

>racial groups in the USA? If it were largely genetic in origin, then we

>would expect it to be much more noticeable in one or other racial group,

>such as with Tay Sachs disorder (Jews) and lactose intolerance (Africans).

>

>3. Why is the incidence of obesity in communities with similar racial mixes

>to the USA not as prevalent as in the USA?

>

>4. Does the discrepancy between adult and childhood figures mean that

>obesity has not yet manifested itself clearly or does it mean that the

>larger adult figures are due to non-genetic factors such as overeating and a

>less active lifestyle?

>

>Dr Mel C Siff

>Denver, USA

we must also ask, have we always had this gene? (obviously yes, i'm not

aware of creation of new genes or such widespread mutations occuring in one

or two generations - even with the new virus theory - although i'm far from

being a genetics expert)

we must also ask, why has this gene all of a sudden become so influential in

these generations? Could it be due to poorer diets and enormous decreases in

activity?

Driscoll

BEFITting Image Training and Nutrition Service

B Sc - Ex. Sci. & Nut.

M Sc - Exercise Rehab. and Nut./Diet. (in progress)

RFL

Sydney, Australia.

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com