Reducing Calories VS Exercise

[limrix]

I've been trying to get my weight down for a while, since I had my baby. I'm starting to see some cycles that I thought I'd shed some light on and get some feedback about.


I tried reducing calories but it seems to be more important that you eat healthy than it does to eat less. Eating less frequently leads me to binge and feel hungry and crave junk. In comparison, eating under my calories needs, but eating sugars and processed grains (occasionally) kept my weight equal or increased. I understand now that processed grains create a sort of glue that blocks up the digestive system. It takes less energy to break down and acts a lot like a simple sugar. Refined sugars spike your insulin levels which tells the body to store fat, making these the primary dietary culprits.


Am I wrong in this conclusion? It seems to me that eating at my calorie need but eliminating refined sugars and processed foods results in a loss of water retention and fat.




Exercise and muscle amounts also confuse me. The body seems to store fats in locations with poor muscle definition. I have a lot of tummy fat but not a lot of strength, but my thighs and legs (which I use frequently with biking and work) have low fat amounts. It also makes sense to me that to feed a hard working muscle, the body would take energy from fat in local locations.


I also understand that exercise warms the fat and brings in more blood and oxygen to the area. The "melted" fat is then able to be cleansed out by the lymphatic system. With the lymphatic system being locally stimulated, why can't you reduce fat in target areas?


I have seen people that seem to eat less but don't exercise and they have no energy and appear to have the same fat amounts, despite being "thinner". Would it be ridiculous to conclude that the main method of effective weightloss has more to do with vigorous exercise and less to do with food amounts (with the exception of eating processed foods)

 

[Jericho]

It makes a glue that blocks digestion? That's a new one.


you can't spot reduce simply cause the body doesn't work like that. It is first on, last off..a genetic thing. It's not an aspect of where muscle is the least, it is actually in your DNA.


If you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight because the body needs the energy from somewhere. If you maintained or gained as you said when eating processed sugar then you didn't eat less.


you are incorrect with your conclusion that the main method is vigorous exercise. You will almost never be able to match the effect of cutting 500-1000 calories a day from your diet with vigorous exercise. This is not to say a combination of the two is the best.

 

[limrix]

Yeah I'm little confused after searching through information, but the processed grains forming a glue or plaque along the wall of the colon is something I learned while in college for clinical nutrition. The wall of the digestive system is made of of folds of tissue in order to absorb maximum amounts of water and nutrients, but the processed grains (white flour) don't go through very well and get caught in the folds.


You may want to elaborate on the genetic thing and spot reduction. I'm trying mostly to understand why some people build fat in certain locations and not others. I see people all the time who are more or less skinny, but then have a really fat butt or belly. What causes the fat to store in these areas primarily?


I also am not convinced that the best route to steady, solid weight loss is a reduction of 500-1000 calories. I see people who are trying to lose weight fast aiming for these higher numbers. If you eat within your calorie need range, and do exercise daily, even if it's only burning 200 calories, would it not make more sense to build up muscle which speeds up the metabolism? As where a food reduction leads a lot of people to binges and an unhealthy attitude about food

 

[Jericho]

Well on the exercise/diet changes, part of it is personal preference. What is 'best' really is based on you. The 500-1000 reduction is based off their current weight, activity levels, etc. It's not really amounts that lead to 'fast' weight loss. Again, depends on the person. The exercise does help, no one disputes that. My point was favoring it heavily over dietary changes.


The genetic thing is just that. It's family history. Not really more I can give you on that. It's just the reason you can't spot reduce. It's why some families (Kardashians come to mind) have a certain body shape.


And on the first part, What you suggested on the folds in the colon, I couldn't find that idea that processed grains blocks up in anything outside detox hype. It helps to eat fiber for digestion but that actually has nothing to do with weight loss, that's personal health. I would suggest eating less processed grains for the calories and fiber alone..but not for the detox scamming.


Eating processed grains will only cause weight gain if you eat too many calories.



But then, you make your own choices.

 

[PLB]

Limrix, yes you are basically correct in terms of the fact that those who eat a lot of processed foods are at risk of having some of that food stay behind in the digestive tract, getting caught up in the intestinal folds and blocking the function of microvilli. This is a big part of the reason why fiber is important. As fiber passes through the intestines, it essentially 'scrapes' away some of the partially digested food, keeping the intestines "clean." Also, people who eat adequate amounts of fiber often tend to eat less processed carbohydrates, so that there is less food getting 'stuck' in the digestive tract in the first place. It has nothing to do with detoxing, just proper bodily maintenance. A clear example of this is that those who eat more fiber tend have more frequent bowel movements and those who don't eat enough fiber tend to go less regularly.


As to why people store fat in certain places, Jericho has already said it... it's genetics. Everybody is built differently and everyone stores excess fat slightly differently, which is all dependent on genetics. There are some theories and studies out there looking into whether or not different hormones like cortisol cause fat to be stored around the abdomen. They are trying (although this could be well established by now) to link high levels of stress (increased blood cortisol and other hormones) with fat accumulation around the mid section, which IS already linked with increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers, etc.


You can't spot reduce because most of your lipids (fat) that are used by muscles during exercise and daily activities are not stored in muscle, but in adipose (fat) cells. When there are not enough free fatty acids in the muscle to keep up with demand, free fatty acids are released from fat cells into the BLOODSTREAM, not directly into nearby muscles. The free fatty acids circulate in the bloodstream and then are taken into muscle cells as needed. The areas that contain the most fat cells take the longest to get rid of simply because there is MORE fat there, so it takes longer.


A 500-1000 calorie deficit per day is an arbitrary figure. People like to use the example of a 500 calorie per day deficit because, ideally, you would lose one pound per week this way - one pound of fat is supposedly 3500 calories, so assuming you lose all of that from fat, that would equal about a one pound per week weight loss. What some people forget is that this deficit must be below maintenance, not necessarily below what you currently eat - if you reduce a 3500 calorie per day diet to 3000 calories per day, you will still likely gain weight, just at a slower rate.


As for adding muscle to 'speed' up metabolism, well, I don't know if I would use the term 'speed up,' but it gets the idea across. Yes, building up muscle will help aid in FAT loss because muscle tissue needs to consume calories to be maintained, so the more muscle mass you have on your body, the higher your resting metabolic rate will be Ideally, anyone who is trying to lose weight should be focusing on losing fat while preserving and/or gaining muscle.


Hope that helps?

 

[james13]

an average man needs 2500 calories per day and the average woman needs 2000 calories per day.

if you reduce your calorie intake by 500 calories per day you will have a deficit of 3500 calories in a week. 3500 calories = 1 pound of fat.

increasing your exercise during the week will also increase the amount of calories you burn. So you will lose more than 1 pound in a week.

now depending on what type of exercise you do depends on how many calories you will burn not only during the exercise but afterwards as well.This is called the afterburn effect. which means how long your metabolism will be increased for and how many extra calories it will burn.

if you do cardio exercises you will increase your metabolism for up to 24 hours after exercise depending on the intensity of the workout (higher intensity = longer afterburn effect).

If you do weight bearing exercises like weight training or using your body weight and you do 3 to 4 sets of 8 to 12 repetitions to failure (meaning you cannot finish the last set)

you will increase your metabolism for up to 48 hours again depending on intensity of the workout.

if you do weight training exercises you will increase your overall calorie burn and you will also increase your overall muscle mass on your body.

more muscle also will also increase your metabolism whilst you are at rest.

so for maximum weight loss a combination of strength training and a slight reduction in calories. always eat wholegrain foods and cut out the junk food and you should find that you lose weight quite easy.

i have been following this and i am currently losing 1 kilogram per week.