StephieSweety84

Ok guys. Honestly, would you date a big girl?

66 posts in this topic

OK that's interesting, thanks. So the concept of making the body enter the ketosis state makes sense to me. When one doesn't have carbs for fuel, fat is used instead like what Wikipedia is saying: 

 

 Wikipedia

In glycolysis higher levels of insulin promote storage of body fat and block release of fat from adipose tissues [body fat], while in ketosis fat reserves are readily released and consumed. For this reason ketosis is sometimes referred to as the body's "fat burning" mode.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis

 

My other thought is, how do I know how much fat I can eat and when to stop? Do I need to count grams of fat to match my activity level? For example, you mentioned eating 2500-7500 calories daily because of your activity level. I'm less muscular than a weightlifter, I'm more of a runner/cyclist (think flash instead of hulk) who works on computers instead of a physical job. How do I know if I eat too much fat? Do I eat until I'm full, and I'll naturally be OK?

 

Sometimes after several months in a job contract I'll gain a few pounds and want to lose them.

 

I'm also asking because a lot of people especially in America have compulsive eating--where they don't know when to stop. My belief about compulsive eating has been that if people throw down the gauntlet and commit to some life changes, that will often help them eat less. It may mean finding a sport or physical activity they love, finding a job they're more suited for, learning new ways to productively deal with stress, improving personal relationships, starting to eat new, nutritious foods, especially greens, etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK that's interesting, thanks. So the concept of making the body enter the ketosis state makes sense to me. When one doesn't have carbs for fuel, fat is used instead like what Wikipedia is saying: 

 

 

My other thought is, how do I know how much fat I can eat and when to stop? Do I need to count grams of fat to match my activity level? For example, you mentioned eating 2500-7500 calories daily because of your activity level. I'm less muscular than a weightlifter, I'm more of a runner/cyclist (think flash instead of hulk) who works on computers instead of a physical job. How do I know if I eat too much fat? Do I eat until I'm full, and I'll naturally be OK?

 

Sometimes after several months in a job contract I'll gain a few pounds and want to lose them.

 

I'm also asking because a lot of people especially in America have compulsive eating--where they don't know when to stop. My belief about compulsive eating has been that if people throw down the gauntlet and commit to some life changes, that will often help them eat less. It may mean finding a sport or physical activity they love, finding a job they're more suited for, learning new ways to productively deal with stress, improving personal relationships, starting to eat new, nutritious foods, especially greens, etc.

 

Firstly you should read this before you start with ketosis and please investigate further:

 

http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

 

 

You should count the calories per gram of fat. For example, you can eat a salad with mayonaise, whom the calories are worth 500 (like 70 grams I guess?). Olive oil is also an option and is much better suited calorie-wise.

 

You should divide your meal to 5 portions in one day. Each one 300 or 400 calories on average.

 

You can also eat 3 slices of cheese (approx 120 grams). 1 slice nearly has 10 grams of protein, so 1 slice x 3 = 30g protein and has like 450 - 500 calories.

 

You should experiment how many calories you should consume, I recommend to at least eat 1500 - 2000 a day but since you are a sporter, I shouldn't get down 1800. Get your 20g carbs from nuts or fruits and drink much water (2 - 2.5 liter) with plenty green tea and you'll shed off all the fat.

 

This diet is also super healthy: it raised your good cholesterol and lowers the bad one. It also lowers triglyceride, which is much more important. Read this:

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/cholesterol/what-does-it-mean-if-i-have-high-triglycerides.htm

 

This article implies you should lower your carb intake. So you are safe, my friend :)

 

In the following 3 or 10 days, you'll become dizzy, thirsty, weak and have have a growling stomach. (transition to ketosis)

 

After that, you'll burn all the fat off. Don't forget to eat enough proteins though!

 

I still am on ketosis right now and I have so much energy that I work 10 hours a day + workout 2 hours a day and I'm gaining muscle at a fast rate while losing fat xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like the focus on sustained ketosis maximizes the body's ability to burn fat. That would make sense as to why in the experiments people lost more on low-carb than low-fat, low-calorie.

 

Although doesn't the keto diet still require a small calorie deficit as opposed to the large deficit of the low-fat low-calorie diet? This Keto diet calculator ends up with a small caloric deficit as one of the parameters, or a 0% deficit for maintenance:

http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/

 

But I see how the emphasis isn't on calorie counting. It makes sense to me when I think of it as combining a sustained state of ketosis with a small calorie deficit. The person's average calorie intake may go up, but they'll lose as long as there's a small deficit. And avoiding a huge calorie deficit might help sustain metabolism.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honour, is it possible to explain something about ketosis diets? Is it correct that according to what you are saying, for example, if a person normally eats 2,000 calories a day, and maintains a constant weight, they could lose weight if they eat 3,000 calories a day with protein and healthy fats, and low or no carbs for several months? I am just wondering in such a case, what happens to the 3,000 calories they eat daily. Do they burn 3,000 or more calories a day? Do some of the calories leave their system without being burnt? I am just wondering how the higher than normal calories are accounted for and what becomes of them.

 

Bingo!

 

Although doesn't the keto diet still require a small calorie deficit as opposed to the large deficit of the low-fat low-calorie diet? This Keto diet calculator ends up with a small caloric deficit as one of the parameters, or a 0% deficit for maintenance:

http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/

 

Here's an article google came up with. It's very short but pithy AND it cites the related scientific literature to substantiate the claims they have made - http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss. (direct link doesn't seem to work so click on - What should I eat for weight loss)

 

Now, if somebody wants to believe in all the mumbo-jumbo & magic fat-loss tricks then so be it but in reality, all one needs to know about fat-loss is the first law of thermodynamics, which is very clear that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.......so if one sticks to a reasonable calorie-deficit & has a balanced diet then they are likely to see results sooner or later without compromising their health.

 

I'm at about 10% bodyfat & almost "ripped", hoping to go down until 8% so I'm not bothered by what someone else thinks about fat-loss. The purpose of posting some of the things I have in this thread was to give people struggling with weight-issues a bit of a headstart, so if somebody gleans something out of it & makes a positive change in their life then good for them, if somebody thinks they know better then good for them too.

 

In ketosis, calories don't count, but it doesn't mean you can eat whatever you want, eat too much and u'll gain fat (naturally).

 

ROFL  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like the focus on sustained ketosis maximizes the body's ability to burn fat. That would make sense as to why in the experiments people lost more on low-carb than low-fat, low-calorie.

 

Although doesn't the keto diet still require a small calorie deficit as opposed to the large deficit of the low-fat low-calorie diet? This Keto diet calculator ends up with a small caloric deficit as one of the parameters, or a 0% deficit for maintenance:

http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/

 

But I see how the emphasis isn't on calorie counting. It makes sense to me when I think of it as combining a sustained state of ketosis with a small calorie deficit. The person's average calorie intake may go up, but they'll lose as long as there's a small deficit. And avoiding a huge calorie deficit might help sustain metabolism.

 

You can eat less calories than you do (the same amount that keeps your weight stable).

 

Don't decrease it too much. Calorie is just a measure for carbs, proteins and fat. Some people think that the body acts like this: OH CALORIES, let's use it as fuel, but sadly, it's not like that. But these people also fail to understand that for this very reason massgainers consist of carbs.

 

Oh but wait, IT'S NOT BOUT THE CARBS ITS ABOUT THE CALORIES!!! Cuz the 20% fat and the other remaining calories from the massgainer help you to recover your muscles and to become shredded trololo xD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if somebody wants to believe in all the mumbo-jumbo & magic fat-loss tricks then so be it but in reality, all one needs to know about fat-loss is the first law of thermodynamics, which is very clear that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.......

 

My experience has been that there is more to weight loss than simply counting calories. At times I've tried just reducing caloric intake, but it seemed to throw my body into starvation mode and slow down my metabolism. The act of reducing calories I ate reduced the amount of calories I'd burn, so it was like chasing my tail. I also may have been preventing my body from staying in ketosis by eating carbs throughout the day. I could have bad carb cravings as well. I lost some, but it's seemed very difficult and slow to lose weight in problem areas.

 

Looking at the site you linked, "Are there health benefits of a low carb diet?"

 

"With that in mind, relative to a high-carb diet, a low-carb diet has been shown to improve fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels, cholesterol levels, blood triglycerides, preserve muscle mass during weight loss, and other health markers." 

 

http://examine.com/faq/are-there-health-benefits-of-a-low-carb-diet.html

 

The page reinforces the idea that a low-carb diet has benefits in weight loss. Preserving muscle mass is important to those who lose weight through strength training. If one doesn't preserve muscle mass, that means some of the weight they lose is muscle. I read through some of the citations and they don't seem strong in supporting the idea that a ketosis diet wouldn't accelerate weight loss.

 

People who undergo transformations like Jon Calvo often do pay close attention to macronutrients and restrict carbs, and/or increase protein for workouts. He also used other techniques that get results.

 

 

People can lose weight by just reducing calories, but evidence supports that other techniques improve results. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like the low calorie diet won't help, it's just not good enough and effective as a low carb diet.

 

And bodybuilders don't burn fat because of the diet, they burn fat because of their HGH and testosterone intake. They already have very low body fat so why should they go in ketosis? They don't want to take the risk to fail their preparations for competition by going out of ketosis by accident.

 

Low calorie, like you said, puts your body in starvation mode which slows your metabolism and activates catabolism.

You just live longer and healthier with ketosis, literally.

 

Zyzz, also was on ketosis whole the time, specifically, cyclical ketosis. Is it better? Well, choose which one gives the best results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience has been that there is more to weight loss than simply counting calories. At times I've tried just reducing caloric intake, but it seemed to throw my body into starvation mode and slow down my metabolism. The act of reducing calories I ate reduced the amount of calories I'd burn, so it was like chasing my tail.I also may have been preventing my body from staying in ketosis by eating carbs throughout the day. I could have bad carb cravings as well. I lost some, but it's seemed very difficult and slow to lose weight in problem areas.

 

Obviously, if you try to create too much of a calorie-deficit then it could lead to starvation & slow down metabolism but that's why I've repeatedly talked about having patience. Losing fat IS a slow process for most people so having patience is essential, most people don't have it & then they fall for gimmicks.

 

Many people, including myself, don't mind a "cheat day" or whatever, once or twice a week, where one aims to increase the calorie-intake up to or slightly above the maintenance-intake for the day, in order to keep the metabolism firing. You can try that & see it gives you better results.

 

You do realize that calorie-deficit is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to fat-loss, right? You can try low-carb diet or whatever else you want but if you eat above your maintenance, the excess will be stored as fat, & you'll gain fat, you do realize this, right?

 

I've read that low-carb diet helps some people with carb-cravings so you can try it if you want but again, you're not going to lose fat without a calorie-deficit..........while some people, especially those engaging in an active lifestyle, MAY experience symptoms such as lethargy, depression, etc. because carbs render energy faster than fat & that's why professional athletes & such that engage in intense physical activity usually have to rely on carbs.......so if you benefit from a low-carb diet without running into issues then by all means, go for it.

 

Looking at the site you linked, "Are there health benefits of a low carb diet?"

 

"With that in mind, relative to a high-carb diet, a low-carb diet has been shown to improve fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels, cholesterol levels, blood triglycerides, preserve muscle mass during weight loss, and other health markers." 

 

http://examine.com/faq/are-there-health-benefits-of-a-low-carb-diet.html

 

I've never argued that low-carb diets mayn't offer health benefits to some individuals, my contention has all along been that there HAS TO BE a calorie-deficit in order for fat-loss to occur. And let's look at the statement right above the one you've quoted - http://examine.com/faq/are-there-health-benefits-of-a-low-carb-diet.html

"To clarify, when it comes to weight loss, the only thing that matters are calories in vs calories out. Macro composition does not matter."

 

THAT has been my argument all along. You can check my earlier posts, & I've said that many DO benefit from low-carb diets, be it fat-loss or insulin levels BUT the fat-loss occurs BECAUSE OF the calorie-deficit as that's the only way it can! The thing is, fat & protein are generally more filling than carbs, especially simple carbs, which means those on low-carb diets may naturally feel less hungrier in general & thereby end up consuming fewer calories than they otherwise would, sometimes without them even realizing it.

 Preserving muscle mass is important to those who lose weight through strength training. If one doesn't preserve muscle mass, that means some of the weight they lose is muscle.

 

Of course, preserving muscle-mass should be the goal for everyone while losing fat but that has to do with optimal protein-intake & necessary micronutrients rather than carb-intake.

 

People can lose weight by just reducing calories, but evidence supports that other techniques improve results. 

 

Which of these techniques actually involves losing weight WITHOUT a calorie-deficit? I'd really like to know 'cuz that would violate one of the most fundamental scientific laws that we know of, the law of conservation of energy! It could be a major scientific discovery!

 

To summarize the whole thing again, have I argued against low-carb diet? No, that's not my position, you can check my previous posts, in fact, I've stated that it does benefit some people while not so much with other people. You can go for it & see if it works for you. My argument has always been that irrespective of your carb-intake, if you don't have a calorie-deficit, you won't lose weight period.

 

I hope this post is sufficient enough an explanation to clarify my exact position & argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low carb diets do burn fat because it is using body fat as a fuel: FACT.

 

I am the living proof and so are many other people like Zyzz and every scientist on earth.

 

You cannot change a fact with an assumption or a mere opinion. Voila.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sometimes like exploring ideas without strict semantic rules, because if I confine words to my own semantic interpretation, I often miss out on seeing things from a new perspective.

 

Personally, to me the rule of conservation of energy, that energy can't be created or destroyed, is a valuable one, and has applications to weight loss. But that rule alone, hasn't been quite enough to make me believe losing weight requires a calorie deficit.

 

Couldn't a person eat 2,100 calories, burn 2,000 calories, including burning 100 calories of body fat, then store the 200 calorie surplus from food as muscle tissue, losing fat weight without a calorie deficit, and staying within conservation of energy rules?

 

When people talk about losing weight they often mean losing fat tissue, and that definition helped spur my interest in ketosis. In the stricter sense of losing weight, a person could lose water weight without a calorie deficit, which some people do, for shows such as 'The Biggest Loser'. But that's not very useful to me personally. So I don't always take the idea of losing weight to mean losing scale weight.

 

I myself think it's a matter of human biology if something like that can happen. So I find it interesting to study things such as ketosis which focus closely on human biology. Maybe some diets are better at utilizing biology than others, to cause a sort of shifting of body tissue without calorie deficits playing a big part. That could really help me.

 

When I try to lose weight, I normally do have some calorie deficit. But maybe I overestimated the importance of it.

 

The main thermodynamic laws I believe in are, love God and love my neighbor, haha, but that's more metaphysics

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more thorough explanation of calorie deficits and weight loss, besides conservation of energy, would need to include human physiology, something like the calorie to mass ratio of adipose and other tissues.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
When people talk about losing weight they often mean losing fat tissue, and that definition helped spur my interest in ketosis. In the stricter sense of losing weight, a person could lose water weight without a calorie deficit, which some people do, for shows such as 'The Biggest Loser'. But that's not very useful to me personally. So I don't always take the idea of losing weight to mean losing scale weight.

 

Well, you're exactly right about that! That's why I consistently try to use the word "fat-loss" as much as possible as opposed to "weight-loss" because pure "weight-loss" can be water-loss, muscle-loss & fat-loss, or all of them to varying degrees combined. So as I've said before, a person's health isn't purely about his/her weight, it's about how they feel, how they look & if their bodyfat % is on the lower side, enough for it to not be a health issue.

 

Couldn't a person eat 2,100 calories, burn 2,000 calories, including burning 100 calories of body fat, then store the 200 calorie surplus from food as muscle tissue, losing fat weight without a calorie deficit, and staying within conservation of energy rules?

 

What you're basically asking is if there could be a gradual shift in a person's fat & LBM (Lean Body Mass) ratio on a minor surplus. Well, yes, it seems possible but I'm not sure about the exact numbers because it could differ from person to person, depending on the rate at which they put on muscle. But let's think about it, most people put on may be a few grams of muscle a day on average so assuming an extremely tiny surplus calorie-intake, one MAY lose a few grams of fat per day (not to mention, if the surplus is higher than the muscle that has been put on then that will make the person fatter). So, if one thinks that losing a pound of fat per week is slow then just imagine how EXCRUCIATINGLY slow it would be to be losing a few grams of fat per day!

So even though what you're suggesting may be theoretically possible (not with your exact numbers though) but it doesn't seem optimal for regular people, especially those whose primary goal is to lose fat as quickly as possible.

 

 

Maybe some diets are better at utilizing biology than others, to cause a sort of shifting of body tissue without calorie deficits playing a big part.

 

I'd agree in part that it's certainly possible that some diets may work better for some people with certain biology, & that's why I don't think there's anything wrong if someone wants to try low-carb, paleo, intermittent fasting or whatever is out there; if it helps them reduce their calorie-intake then they should probably stick to that so long as there are no negative consequences BUT in my opinion, considering the law of conservation of energy, calorie-deficits will always play a massive role in the amount of FAT (not "weight") a person loses.......if one wishes to lose more than a few grams of fat per day that is......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's just about learning bud. The facts of our universe are in front of our eyes, in our reach.

 

It just takes heart and courage to be willing to learn the truth and to dedicate yourself on a path that seems impossible, to you or to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many guys here are putting stuff about their diets and working out... Screw both. It's about eating what you like, and being able to do what you like. If you can do a chin up, you're good.

To answer the question however... Not a chance. Sz 1, or maybe 3 if she's like 5'9" and going to get back down would be the largest I'd consider. However, I'd say they can't work out much. I prefer the type that appears as though they've never done a day's work in their lives.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, like it or not, most guys would prefer a girl who made an effort to watch her weight. However, there is also the realistic expectation that as a woman ages, she will inevitably gain weight. Such is especially true if she has several children.

All I think that is fair to ask, is that both parties in a relationship make an effort to remain attractive and presentable to their counterparts.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now