Best way to lose a beer belly... (1 Viewer)

[nooleen]

tsk
you and your opinions

 

[izzywizzy]

the best thing is to make sure you eat some kind of protein with every meal which makes you feel full. if you're veggie this means hummous, beans, pulses and nuts.

the evil things are white carbs which make you bloat i.e. white bread pasta and rice. they're not natural are they? i also cut out all bread if i'm dieting though, you can loose weight really quickly doing this.

to compensate for white carbs you can eat as much fruit and veg as you want in a meal but the protein bit is really important.

caffeine is also shite because the toxins 'lock' the fat in the body making it harder to flush. drinking lots of water not only makes you flush toxins quicker but also makes you feel fuller. supposedly if you drink with a meal it washes away digestive enzymes, making the food harder to digest, so its best to drink half an hour before or after.

its harder if you drink a lot but i once lost four stone in about as many months doing the above but i only excercised normally i.e. walking everywhere and i know i was still drinking throughout. gin and low cal tonic is allegedly the lowest calorie drink there is. most lager makes me too drowsy anyway. yeast is not good for loosing weight and is found in bread and beer - it's like being turned into a human sponge.

 

[therealjohnny]

no coffee? ah hell

in other news , there is hope

you'll live longer but you probably wont get laid

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090624/thl-life-us-weight-b2e59e8.html

 

[Moods For Mallards]

If I didn't eat bread, pasta and rice I'd be miserable, and as a result I'd lose the will to activity and I'd develop bed sores.
Anyone who pays too much attention to nutritionists, fitness gurus or televisions is bargaining their happiness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Reets]

no coffee? ah hell

in other news , there is hope

you'll live longer but you probably wont get laid

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090624/thl-life-us-weight-b2e59e8.html

Sounds like a fair deal.
There's also the added benefit or being warmer in winter (according to Brainiac) and always having a nice cushy seat.

 

[rettucs]

So, if you bike to work for an hour in the morning, and bike back, you're essentially burning most the calories in the food you might eat that day? (Assuming a 2000-2500 intake)
It's hardly inconsequential.

on top of the calories you would have burned that day anyway

I find that regardless of how many calories I burn, once I'm active I can eat what the hell I want and I'll just burn it off. I could cycle the same this week as next, eat shitloads more this week than I did last, and still be the same weight.

But I don't lose weight anymore. I'm at my fighting weight (roughly 177lbs). Any less would require me to be ill. Anymore and I consider myself a fat fucker.

But one thing is true. Its different from person to person.

And I agree with flashback about exercise. It doesn't make a difference for most people. I go to the gym once or twice a week to supplement the other exercise I do. Most people up there, its their only exercise I'd guess. I'd also guess a lot of them think they've done more than they actually have in terms of what they've burned. They'll be drinking a smoothie or a lucozade sport on the way out the door - basically, around 40% of what they've burned gone straight back on.

Its amazing the amount of people I see up there on a regular basis that haven't shed a pound since the first day I saw them.

flashy is right - its more about diet and lifestyle than flurries of exercise here and there.

 

[shower another shower]

Get a girdle.

 

[therealjohnny]

 

[flashback]

jesus. This thread got CRAZY.

Here, ok, I am specifically not saying do not exercise.
I am saying exercise all the fuck you want.

What I am saying is the following:

if you want to lose weight, far and away the easiest way to do it is reduce your calorific intake.

That's it.

I am also saying that if you want to lose weight through exercise its just about possible, but extremely hard. It, for almost all people, is going to have a very small impact in any real weight loss.

This is not me playing with numbers.

Let me explain;
An average person uses 80cal / mile running.
Say you run 4 miles, since marathons were scary, that equates to 320 calories.

320 calories is basically half a potato with a nob of butter melted onto it. Food is an extremely dense form of energy.

Its WAY easier to not eat an extra spud, or a can of coke, than run 4 miles.

And actually, its worse than that, say you didn't run 4 miles, say you sat on your hole watching tv for the hour, you will have burnt 150 calories anyway. Just sitting on your hole for an hour.

Yes, your body refuels muscles with glycogen after exercise. But this increase in overhead is small.

Why I am banging on about this is, and I think its sort of important because there is a huge misconception about this sort of thing, people try to lose weight via exercise and this is very very tough. Then people give up, get injured, and pile on pounds, and they don't get it. They think they are just fat.
Its often not true.


Exercise is fine. Obviously. Work away. I ride the bike every day pretty much, and do various other things.
BUT, if you want to lose weight, and this is what this thread is about, the EASIEST way to do it is to eat smaller meals.

 

[broken arm]

the best thing to do is stop being vain.

 

[flashback]

that song actually was about me though.
I asked.

 

[I Bleed Black]

Exercise is fine. Obviously. Work away. I ride the bike every day pretty much, and do various other things.
BUT, if you want to lose weight, and this is what this thread is about, the EASIEST way to do it is to eat smaller meals.

I don't want to keep banging on about this but I just don't agree with what you are saying at all. In terms of diet it makes sense to cut out all the crap like chocolate, crisps, take aways etc. but if it comes to down to halfing the size of my dinners or running a couple of miles a few times a week I'd choose the running every time. I think it's a well known fact that the majority of people find dieting extremly difficult. You're also much more likely to keep weight off in the long term if you lose it through regular exercise and sensible diet as opposed to cutting the size of your meals in half which isn't sustainable in the long run or very healthy either.

Also your amount of calories burned per miles run isn't quite as straight forward as you make out. If you look at the table linked belowI would burn somewhere between 130-150 calories per mile. Also I'm not fully sure about this but I'd say the number of calories increases for every mile run.

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=259

 

[flashback]

Wow.


Alright, lets say you weigh 200lbs, and you can run ~5 minute miles. The most extreme category in the table. I dont know anyone that can get anywhere near that, at any weight, but let's imagine you can. Lets imagine you;re basically Jonah Lomu lite.

Say you bang out this amazing mile run 5 days a week, this totals to 1360 calories, for the entire week.

This is, by almost anyone's standards, a huge effort, but lets say you did it, like clockwork.


1360 calories is one and a half slices of pizza. Over the course of the week.

You go out, and have a single slice of pizza, and a beer, and basically you are square one again. This is the most extreme case I can think of.


Most people are not going to be able to exercise at a level than can come close to making a difference to their weight.
Most people might go out for a run twice a week, and will do a few miles, and weigh about 150 pounds.

They can get the same effect in terms of weight loss from leaving a single plain slice of bread off the top of a single sandwich every day.
Or drinking two less pints of beer a week.
Or eating two less easy singles a week.

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

i really dont understand what any of your examples have to do with anything. 25 minutes of exercise a week / diets of pizza? it all just seems like a big red herring. i mean you get specific about the most absurd examples but then get completely vague about your "most people" examples. why not give best case examples?

your whole arguement is based around the idea of 'ease', which apparently means doing nothing, while the entire rest of the world would recommend a more active approach to the problem of 'losing a beer belly', i.e. - diet and exercise

anyway, you seem like the kind of person who will argue that black is white

 

[Lepra]

Wow.


Alright, lets say you weigh 200lbs, and you can run ~5 minute miles. The most extreme category in the table. I dont know anyone that can get anywhere near that, at any weight, but let's imagine you can. Lets imagine you;re basically Jonah Lomu lite.

Say you bang out this amazing mile run 5 days a week, this totals to 1360 calories, for the entire week.

This is, by almost anyone's standards, a huge effort, but lets say you did it, like clockwork.


1360 calories is one and a half slices of pizza. Over the course of the week.

You go out, and have a single slice of pizza, and a beer, and basically you are square one again. This is the most extreme case I can think of.


Most people are not going to be able to exercise at a level than can come close to making a difference to their weight.
Most people might go out for a run twice a week, and will do a few miles, and weigh about 150 pounds.

They can get the same effect in terms of weight loss from leaving a single plain slice of bread off the top of a single sandwich every day.
Or drinking two less pints of beer a week.
Or eating two less easy singles a week.

give it a rest

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Wow.


Alright, lets say you weigh 200lbs, and you can run ~5 minute miles. The most extreme category in the table. I dont know anyone that can get anywhere near that, at any weight, but let's imagine you can. Lets imagine you;re basically Jonah Lomu lite.

Say you bang out this amazing mile run 5 days a week, this totals to 1360 calories, for the entire week.

This is, by almost anyone's standards, a huge effort, but lets say you did it, like clockwork.


1360 calories is one and a half slices of pizza. Over the course of the week.

You go out, and have a single slice of pizza, and a beer, and basically you are square one again. This is the most extreme case I can think of.


Most people are not going to be able to exercise at a level than can come close to making a difference to their weight.
Most people might go out for a run twice a week, and will do a few miles, and weigh about 150 pounds.

They can get the same effect in terms of weight loss from leaving a single plain slice of bread off the top of a single sandwich every day.
Or drinking two less pints of beer a week.
Or eating two less easy singles a week.

Wow yourself.

Taken from the middle of the chart. Weighing 160, doing 8 minute miles running for 40 minutes a day, is 760.
People trying to lose a beer belly (remember?) ain't eating pizza or singles, they're eating sensibly - say 2,000 calories a day and they're exercising regularly.
So, that's almost half their intake gone in just those 40 minutes.

The balance is clear.
Healthy Diet + Regular Exercise = Diminished Beer Belly

Your example is more an explanation of why people get a beer belly in the first place. Fucking pizza.
Your theories sound interesting but they're not holding up to peer review.

 

[rettucs]

I don't want to keep banging on about this but I just don't agree with what you are saying at all. In terms of diet it makes sense to cut out all the crap like chocolate, crisps, take aways etc. but if it comes to down to halfing the size of my dinners or running a couple of miles a few times a week I'd choose the running every time. I think it's a well known fact that the majority of people find dieting extremly difficult. You're also much more likely to keep weight off in the long term if you lose it through regular exercise and sensible diet as opposed to cutting the size of your meals in half which isn't sustainable in the long run or very healthy either.

Also your amount of calories burned per miles run isn't quite as straight forward as you make out. If you look at the table linked belowI would burn somewhere between 130-150 calories per mile. Also I'm not fully sure about this but I'd say the number of calories increases for every mile run.

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=259

calories burned relates to your height, age, weight and then heart rate. Heart rate monitors calculate it this way. They generalise somewhat, but ballpark they have it right.

The other thing about exercising regularly is that it increases your appetite hugely. Depending on the level of exercise you do you could end up in a reverse trend (putting on weight). Also, the fitter you get, the less calories you will burn with pure exercise (because your heart rate regulates). I reckon the remainder is probably offset by the increase in metabolism however.

The point being, its not that simple to exercise to make sure you don't have to reduce what you eat. I'm sure it can be done but if you give in to your body's cravings for additional fuel, which for me basically means gorging on biscuits and chocolate, you could end up gaining weight.

Oh, and weight is not a good measure of anything. Gaining muscle mass can mean an overall reduction in body mass but an increase in weight (which is a common cause for people's despair when they don't see weight coming off after spending a while in the gym or whatever).

The best way to maintain a healthy weight is by lifestyle choice. Do active shit. Walk/cycle to work. Take the stairs, not the lift. Exercise moderately. Eat sensibly, but don't necessarily cut out every nice thing thats bad for you.


Edit: And weights are great. Simply having muscle mass burns shitloads of extra calories in itself. Working specifically on the gut area (by sit-ups, or those overhead pull-downs that center on that area) can help loads.

 

[nooleen]

simply replace your daily cake binge with a small handful of dried fruit, and watch the pounds melt away!
and go easy on the dinners

 

[MARYJANE]

jesus. This thread got CRAZY.

Here, ok, I am specifically not saying do not exercise.
I am saying exercise all the fuck you want.

What I am saying is the following:

if you want to lose weight, far and away the easiest way to do it is reduce your calorific intake.

That's it.

I am also saying that if you want to lose weight through exercise its just about possible, but extremely hard. It, for almost all people, is going to have a very small impact in any real weight loss.

This is not me playing with numbers.

Let me explain;
An average person uses 80cal / mile running.
Say you run 4 miles, since marathons were scary, that equates to 320 calories.

320 calories is basically half a potato with a nob of butter melted onto it. Food is an extremely dense form of energy.

Its WAY easier to not eat an extra spud, or a can of coke, than run 4 miles.

And actually, its worse than that, say you didn't run 4 miles, say you sat on your hole watching tv for the hour, you will have burnt 150 calories anyway. Just sitting on your hole for an hour.

Yes, your body refuels muscles with glycogen after exercise. But this increase in overhead is small.

Why I am banging on about this is, and I think its sort of important because there is a huge misconception about this sort of thing, people try to lose weight via exercise and this is very very tough. Then people give up, get injured, and pile on pounds, and they don't get it. They think they are just fat.
Its often not true.


Exercise is fine. Obviously. Work away. I ride the bike every day pretty much, and do various other things.
BUT, if you want to lose weight, and this is what this thread is about, the EASIEST way to do it is to eat smaller meals.

i saw this on tv3 the other night

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

its pt 6 of 10 of a bbc documentary about weight loss. previous to that part the guy had spent 90mins on a treadmill sweating buckets and the guy told him he'd only burned 180 calories during the session or something. but turns out that you keep burning fat at a higher rate for 24 hours after exercise. the rest of it was interesting too & makes more sense than what flashback is saying/the way he's saying it.

not that i care or anything, just don't like to see peoples healthy buzz get killed by misinformation....

 

[Froog]

flashback, what kind of pizzas do you eat? 1360 calories a slice???

even a "meat piled high pizza" has only 350 cals a slice.

http://www.dietbites.com/Calories-In-Pizza.html