Author Topic: Weight Loss Discussion Thread  (Read 1252300 times)

itsbruce

  • Lavender Bike Menace
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1350 on: 17 January, 2011, 06:02:08 pm »
(lots of stuff)

Okay, I get it now. Given you starting weight, it's also not so astounding - i.e. as a percentage. If I lost that much that quickly, I would be worried, given I am still not 10 stone, even being a stone more than I'd like.

Slightly confused by that.  Do you mean you are under or over 10 stone?  If under, which direction are you trying to move in?
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked: Allen Ginsberg
The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads: Jeff Hammerbacher

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1351 on: 17 January, 2011, 06:05:18 pm »
The bonk can be nasty, but I wonder if it even comes close to a proper diabetic hypo?
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1352 on: 17 January, 2011, 06:23:18 pm »
The bonk can be nasty, but I wonder if it even comes close to a proper diabetic hypo?

IME as Audax control helper, rider and ER physician, bonk can cause confusion, lack of power and aggression but is never immediately life-threatening.

A severe diabetic hypo can cause unconsciousness and DETH. The human brain is an obligate user of sugar (in 'normal' circumstances) and severe acute sugar deprivation can damage the brain like oxygen lack can.

The physiological compensatory measures in someone who is not given external insulin are almost always sufficient to prevent permanent damage. (A(n over)dose of insulin can kill anyone dead.)

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1353 on: 17 January, 2011, 06:32:03 pm »

The problem I've found is that because I habitually do a lot of physical activity, I habitually eat like a pig. During December/ early January, I barely rode and managed to gain 4kg! OK, a big part of that was festive drinking + friend staying for 2 weeks and buying lots of beer. Still, I have been surprise at how quickly I can put the weight back on.


This is a hidden gotcha in being fit and eating responsibly; the more you do of that, the more you train your body to process food efficiently.  This means that you will gain more weight from a tub of ice cream or a cheeseburger than somebody who is overweight and unfit.  You also need to expend more effort to lose the weight, although your fitness level should mean you don't find it nearly so much of a chore.

If you think about it, a given cheeseburger has X amount of calories in it (you can even find out how much by combusting it and measuring the heat given off). Fat also contains a predefined amount of energy, ~3500 kcal per lb. From this we can see that it's really not possible for anyone to put on a different amount of weight from anyone else if they both eat an identical burger (over and above their notional "maintenance intake").

Similarly, both Lance and Joe Sofa need to burn an extra 3500kcal to lose a pound of weight. Lance will actually find it much easier to accomplish because for the same perceived effort, he can produce a lot more watts, i.e. burn more calories. At a cruisy 5/10 effort Lance is probably tearing through more than a thousand calories an hour, compared with Joe Sofa who manages to walk for an hour (if that), burning a hundred calories...

I'd suggest this phenomenon is more likely to be explained by the fact that an active person habitually maintains a dietary surplus (albiet one that is consumed by their daily activity), so when they "let their hair down" on the diet/exercise front, they could already be 500 kcal or more up on their maintenance requirements. Not so Joe Sofa, who doesn't exercise anyway and therefore can't slack in the same way.

I used to have a 175 mile week, commuting. I ate like a horse and my weight stayed stable. When I moved to a job 15 minutes down the road, I'd have been gaining more than 2lbs a week if I hadn't cut down on the cake too!

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1354 on: 17 January, 2011, 06:46:27 pm »
Thanks for that, Helen!  Yes, although when the diabetic nurses spoke about this on the DAFNE course, they reckoned almost all non-alcohol-involved hypos, even severe ones requiring intervention, would probably be non-life threatening, and that they were to be avoided mostly because of the unconsciousness and loss of control.  ISTR they brought up one murder case where a nurse injected her husband with 10ml of insulin (i.e. 1000 units) to kill him.  A standard pizza requires around 8 units for the average person, by comparison.

I dunno though, I'm not an expert.  I know I don't like hypos though.  :D
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1355 on: 17 January, 2011, 06:51:19 pm »
There is another hormone called glucagon that does the opposite to insulin in the body. This I believe would prevent a full on hypoglycaemic coma in a non-diabetic person (unless, as Helly said, they are given a large overdose of insulin).

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1356 on: 17 January, 2011, 07:34:16 pm »
Thanks for that, Helen!  Yes, although when the diabetic nurses spoke about this on the DAFNE course, they reckoned almost all non-alcohol-involved hypos, even severe ones requiring intervention, would probably be non-life threatening, and that they were to be avoided mostly because of the unconsciousness and loss of control.  ISTR they brought up one murder case where a nurse injected her husband with 10ml of insulin (i.e. 1000 units) to kill him.  A standard pizza requires around 8 units for the average person, by comparison.

I dunno though, I'm not an expert.  I know I don't like hypos though.  :D

Partner's diabetic widowed father lives alone and has fallen down stairs as a result of a hypo. Not good...

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1357 on: 17 January, 2011, 07:40:57 pm »
There is another hormone called glucagon that does the opposite to insulin in the body. This I believe would prevent a full on hypoglycaemic coma in a non-diabetic person (unless, as Helly said, they are given a large overdose of insulin).

Glucagon is/was used by ambulance crews to treat diabetic hypos.

IV syrup 50% Glucose can damage veins and any other tissue if the IV gets displaced. Works wonders though.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1358 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:00:22 pm »
I'd suggest this phenomenon is more likely to be explained by the fact that an active person habitually maintains a dietary surplus (albiet one that is consumed by their daily activity), so when they "let their hair down" on the diet/exercise front, they could already be 500 kcal or more up on their maintenance requirements. Not so Joe Sofa, who doesn't exercise anyway and therefore can't slack in the same way.


I agree. The thought that someone can make more out of the same calories than someone else seems like perpetual motion. Or maybe the person that puts on less weight than the other one is just pooing more pieces of sweet corn?
It is simpler than it looks.

itsbruce

  • Lavender Bike Menace
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1359 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:12:47 pm »


I agree. The thought that someone can make more out of the same calories than someone else seems like perpetual motion.

Why?  Is the fact that one car can go faster or farther than another on on a litre of petrol perpetual motion?  If nothing else, there are specific medical conditions which inhibit the ability to process food efficiently.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked: Allen Ginsberg
The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads: Jeff Hammerbacher

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1360 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:38:48 pm »
Labradors can do lots of miles to the gallon. This is a cruel reality given that they are also born with the world's largest appetites!

CrinklyLion

  • The one with devious, cake-pushing ways....
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1361 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:41:18 pm »
Back in the days when I was a regular at the gym, the majority of the CV machines would tell you (its best guess at) your calories burned, if told truthfully what one weighed.  It entertained me no end that when I started out I pretty much only had to look at the cross trainer for it to tell me I'd burned off 6 cream cakes and a mars bar just by getting my heffalumpiness up the blinking stairs to the gym and getting on the machine.  A year in, and a good 3 stone lighter, I had to properly work hard to burn the same.  Always found that mildly annoying.

Lugging around an extra stone or six is hard work.  

itsbruce

  • Lavender Bike Menace
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1362 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:42:13 pm »
If you think about it, a given cheeseburger has X amount of calories in it (you can even find out how much by combusting it and measuring the heat given off). Fat also contains a predefined amount of energy, ~3500 kcal per lb. From this we can see that it's really not possible for anyone to put on a different amount of weight from anyone else if they both eat an identical burger (over and above their notional "maintenance intake").


Now, this is just fascinating.  I'm not disagreeing with you about the subjective experience of effort, weight gain and loss but both you and Jaded seem to be presenting calorie conversion and weight gain as a process governed entirely by some universal constant, no more able to vary than the speed of light in a vacuum.  You seem to be saying that if a food contains a certain calorific value, all people will extract that maximum and - assuming they have already consumed their minimum requirement for sustenance - do exactly the same thing with it.  I do find that quite remarkable.

I can see an urgent need for some careful experiments here, to see how much weight people in different inertial frames of reference put on after eating the same food.  The potential is amazing.

I won't even bring up the question of context, where the obese person may well have already eaten 2 hamburgers before venturing on the one under examination.  That's not classical gastronomic physics and would only cloud the issue.

:P
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked: Allen Ginsberg
The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads: Jeff Hammerbacher

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1363 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:45:04 pm »
If they don't extract the calorific value, where does it go to?
It is simpler than it looks.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1364 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:45:25 pm »
If they don't extract the calorific vale, where does it go to?

It goes to shit  ;D

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1365 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:46:03 pm »
That's what I said.  ;D
It is simpler than it looks.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1366 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:52:22 pm »
Most people who are given 3,500 kcal more than they need, will gain a pound of fat. sad but true.
Some people who are given too much food may generate more heat but most get more lardy.

Those with a large mass of muscle will burn more energy just sitting still and lugging extra lard everywhere will increase energy requirements but the simple (though oft unpalatable) truth is that energy in excess to requirements is stored as fat and body fat is burnt off if energy intake is insufficient for output.

Burn rates do vary between individuals, but not very much in reality.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1367 on: 17 January, 2011, 08:54:38 pm »
If they don't extract the calorific vale, where does it go to?

It goes to shit  ;D

People with healthy guts will extract most of the calories from their food.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1368 on: 17 January, 2011, 09:09:07 pm »
I used to preach a simplistic equation to my clients with obese pets: if you eat x and burn off y then you gain x-y in weight.

However over the years my experiences of dealing with this issue and working with so many different people and their pets (some in denial, some absolutely transparent weighing and recording everything) that I have come to realise that is really isn't that simple. I suppose there may be more genetic variation between my patients than there is between humans, but they definitely have different metabolic rates and different ways of dealing with whatever nutrition they are fed.

I am a bit of a piglet and always have been. I have always scoffed whole tins of Roses chocolates and things like this over Christmas, and most of the time put on no weight at all until pretty recent times. As a student when I was broke and hungry I used to do the Cadbury's Creme egg bet; get someone to bet me I couldnt eat 10 creme eggs in one go without vomiting and if I did they got to buy the Creme eggs. I could also do 5 king sized Mars bars. I knew I could easily eat them and more  :smug: Despite all this gluttony I remained a size 8 no matter what I ate. I am notoriously bad at sitting still though, and have always been told I'm burning it all off with 'nervous energy'.

I really believe that genetics and luck play a huuuuuuge part in what we can get away with. If it didn't then I would be 15 stone and some of my friends would be very skinny.

Metabolism is an incredibly complex thing to understand. There are literally hundreds of chemicals and hormones that affect the way nutrients are absorbed, broken down, stored and used. I know it isn't an excuse for being obese and failing to lose weight though, whatever hand you are dealt you can still lose weight by reducing what you eat and exercising more. But we are not all alike and it is for some much harder than others.

itsbruce

  • Lavender Bike Menace
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1369 on: 17 January, 2011, 10:55:14 pm »
s a student when I was broke and hungry I used to do the Cadbury's Creme egg bet; get someone to bet me I couldnt eat 10 creme eggs in one go without vomiting and if I did they got to buy the Creme eggs. I could also do 5 king sized Mars bars. I knew I could easily eat them and more  :smug: Despite all this gluttony I remained a size 8 no matter what I ate.

You do have to be careful, though, with this kind of anecdote.  For one thing, while this represented gluttony to you, to other people it's a level of consumption they barely notice they're doing.  Maybe they don't wolf 10 creme eggs in one go, but they may well consume the equivalent in 30 or 40 minutes, through constant snacking.  One place I worked, I remember watching, appalled, as a women I was talking to ate an entire huge pack of kettle chips while talking to me.  It took her less than five minutes and I doubt it registered as more than a snack.  Human being's personal norms are very adaptable.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked: Allen Ginsberg
The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads: Jeff Hammerbacher

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1370 on: 18 January, 2011, 10:05:17 am »
I used to preach a simplistic equation to my clients with obese pets: if you eat x and burn off y then you gain x-y in weight.

However over the years my experiences of dealing with this issue and working with so many different people and their pets (some in denial, some absolutely transparent weighing and recording everything) that I have come to realise that is really isn't that simple. I suppose there may be more genetic variation between my patients than there is between humans, but they definitely have different metabolic rates and different ways of dealing with whatever nutrition they are fed.

Exactly (and since you go on to mention metabolism), if you change the equation to:-

Eat: x
Burn off: y
Basal Metabolic Rate: z

diff = x - y - z

But you can't measure BMR easily, especially not in an animal. And, as you say, BMR is affected by lots of things.

I had a friend who was one of the 'eat anything, always skinny, lots of energy, didn't need much sleep, never felt the cold'. Classic hyperthyroid symptoms; unchecked it could have led to lots of problems in later life, luckily it was diagnosed and he was put on TSH suppressants.

Hypothyroidism (the opposite symptoms, plus a whole lot more) is surprisingly common and undiagnosed in huge numbers of the population (10% of women according to some estimates).
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1371 on: 18 January, 2011, 07:36:10 pm »
I used to preach a simplistic equation to my clients with obese pets: if you eat x and burn off y then you gain x-y in weight.

However over the years my experiences of dealing with this issue and working with so many different people and their pets (some in denial, some absolutely transparent weighing and recording everything) that I have come to realise that is really isn't that simple. I suppose there may be more genetic variation between my patients than there is between humans, but they definitely have different metabolic rates and different ways of dealing with whatever nutrition they are fed.

Exactly (and since you go on to mention metabolism), if you change the equation to:-

Eat: x
Burn off: y
Basal Metabolic Rate: z

diff = x - y - z

But you can't measure BMR easily, especially not in an animal. And, as you say, BMR is affected by lots of things.

I had a friend who was one of the 'eat anything, always skinny, lots of energy, didn't need much sleep, never felt the cold'. Classic hyperthyroid symptoms; unchecked it could have led to lots of problems in later life, luckily it was diagnosed and he was put on TSH suppressants.

Hypothyroidism (the opposite symptoms, plus a whole lot more) is surprisingly common and undiagnosed in huge numbers of the population (10% of women according to some estimates).

Yeah, when I stick obese pets on a diet, if they have lost nothing at the first check after 3 weeks I run bloods on them and check particularly their thyroid function. Maybe about 1 in 25 of them might come back as being hypothyroid. It's actually great when they do since it's generally much easier to give your dog 2 tablets a day rather than adhere to a strict diet.

Andrij

  • Андрій
  • Ερασιτεχνικός μισάνθρωπος
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1372 on: 19 January, 2011, 09:45:30 am »
Missed last week's weigh-in, but did it today.  I've lost 3kg in two weeks.  :smug:  I have rewarded myself with an egg & bacon sandwich this morning and will top off the reward with a pint tonight.

I've decided that I will buy my own scales rather than using the ones in the gym.  In the gym the scales reside at the edge of the exercise area, not in the locker room.  I want to weight me, not me and my clothing (only using the gym for shower and locker ATM).  Also, they seem to have new scales every few months - I'd like some consistency of measurement.
 
;D  Andrij.  I pronounce you Complete and Utter GIT   :thumbsup:

LindaG

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1373 on: 19 January, 2011, 11:45:00 am »
I have put weight on.  This may be due to having friends round for three courses, wine, beer, and whisky, and nibbles, last night.

Back on the regime today.

Gus

  • Loosing weight stone by stone
    • We will return
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #1374 on: 19 January, 2011, 12:57:50 pm »

1,5 kg down since last week.
I have started to run for the first time in 20  or so years  :o never thought that would happen.
But I hope to keep the slow and steady weightloss and increase the amount of trainig, now that all the
ice and snow are gone. :D