PDA

View Full Version : FAT



Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 02:25 PM
To make a long story short: I was/am hungry.

Go look at the food locker add a lazy factor and realize that I was about to "cook" myself 2 ramens.

Reading the informations of it (not how to cook it, but what is in it) I realized that:

more than 600 calories was in those 2 little bags.

More than 100% of my need of salt was in those 2 bags.

Still, I lost 30 pounds these last 2 months and i am SOOOOOOOO close to have my 6 packs abdominal.

Conclusion: Ramens are so crappy, next time I'll go buy myself some burgers at Harvey's or BK's

AnticorRifling
10-08-2004, 02:26 PM
NTFS is so much better.

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 02:29 PM
I don't know 99.9% of your acronyms.

It means?

CrystalTears
10-08-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by AnticorRifling
NTFS is so much better.

:lol2: I hate that I get it.

Meos
10-08-2004, 03:27 PM
I've lost 15 pounds in the last 2 months... My goal is to drop about 30 more pounds and hit the weights hard. Only thing I've been doing is eating breakfast and dinner as normal, skippin lunch and runnin about 10 miles a week.

10-08-2004, 03:40 PM
The whole neighborhood could feed off of me.

Drew2
10-08-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Meos
I've lost 15 pounds in the last 2 months... My goal is to drop about 30 more pounds and hit the weights hard. Only thing I've been doing is eating breakfast and dinner as normal, skippin lunch and runnin about 10 miles a week.

You're not doing your body any good by skipping lunch. It causes your metabolism to slow, and thereby not lose weight.

At least eat a healthy snack or two between breakfast and dinner.

Latrinsorm
10-08-2004, 03:48 PM
I heard eating two big meals was worse than a bunch of snacks because your body doesn't absorb the nutrients well. Doesn't that mean that eating two big meals will result in less storage of fat? I agree it isn't good for the body, but I know it's good for weight loss.

Drew2
10-08-2004, 03:50 PM
You mean more storage of fat.

And that's exactly what I just said.

In fact, the healthiest lifestyle is about 5-8 small, healthy meals a day.

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 03:51 PM
I lost 20 pounds in 10 days by not eating for 4 days at all. Then just eating cereals and drinking vegetable juice. The 10 other pounds went off alone. Now back to normal eating and with some extras (pizza, burgers, shit like that).

I am 10 times more in shape than I was before (and more when I was in the middle of that).

I gained 0 pounds back, too.

Jenisi
10-08-2004, 03:51 PM
Eat yo' vitamin's and make smart food choices daily. Don't skip meals, that's just silly. Grilled chicken... pasta's... lots and lots of veggies (I love my brocolli) an skip snackin, an make sure ya eat breakfast!

Latrinsorm
10-08-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Tayre
You mean more storage of fat.Uh, I don't think I do. Fat is a nutrient, isn't it?

For the sake of the children, I'd also like to publically recommend that nobody ever try the Xcalibur diet.

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 03:55 PM
That's true, because it needs hell of a lot of willpower.

Water was my savior back then:spaz:

Miss X
10-08-2004, 04:06 PM
When I was having my physio the other day I got chatting to a doctor about general stuff and I was asking him about diets (I'm always trying new ones) and it turned out he had been doing a lot of research into the best way to lose weight as his sister was very over weight.

He told me a lot of over weight people put their body into starvation mode, like long distance runners, and their bodies retain the fat, I kind of think that happens to me when I diet because I don't eat. He told me the best way to lose weight is to make sure you eat a big healthy breakfast to open up the gut, eat a big lunch full of carbs then for dinner eat something small full of protein but no carbs. That way your body re adjusts itself and stops storing fat, he said it takes around 3 months to train your body that way but its the best way to lose and keep weight off.

He told me running and stuff is great too, as long as its for more than 30 mins, to burn more fat. He seemed to really know what he was talking about so I'm trying to follow his advice. :)

Meos
10-08-2004, 04:19 PM
Thats some good info Vix.

I was on the, I need to lose some weight so I'll just quit eatting so much and run thing... It's been workin, but hmm, I never really cared about this diet shit before. It's still a work in progress, but I'm pretty commitited now so... I guess thanks for givin me some things to think about.

Bobmuhthol
10-08-2004, 04:26 PM
<<He told me running and stuff is great too>>

I, of all people, managed to lose 6 pounds from running. It's very good.

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 04:30 PM
If you work up and are on diet, you'll most like won't see a big difference as muscles weigh 3 times what fat weigh.

So even if you will be less fatty, you'll be around the same weight.

I think the best diet was the one I did, since you totaly force your body to go into his reserve and you get back, slowly, to feed it as if it was FEEDING and not getting reserve.

Also cutting the salt is a MAJOR plus

Xcalibur that is proving, once more, that willpower is the key to everything:tumble:

Drew2
10-08-2004, 04:39 PM
No, your way is probably the worst way.

It's right next to anorexia, dumbass.


sry bob

[Edited on 10-8-2004 by Tayre]

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 04:41 PM
Since anerexia is a mental disease, I think you're out of the question.

It's called teaching your body to go into his reserves.

And it's also most boxer's way to reach their quota:)

p.s. Water is your friend.

Xcalibur that is proving, once more, that willpower is the key to everything and that some doesn't have an onze of it:smug:

e=i

[Edited on 8-10-04 by Xcalibur]

Brattt8525
10-08-2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Xcalibur
Since anerexia is a mental disease, I think you're out of the question.

It's called teaching your body to go into his reserves.

And it's also most boxer's way to reach their quota:)

p.s. Water is your friend.

Xcalibur that is proving, once more, that willpower is the key to everything and that some doesn't have an onze of it:smug:

e=i

[Edited on 8-10-04 by Xcalibur]

The only thing it is teaching your body, is to store the fat, as Miss X said. Your body will go into self preservation mode and your screwed.

Water is your best friend, on that point your correct. Drinking water, is the best way to clean your system up and make sure your body gets the water it needs to function properly.

Drew2
10-08-2004, 04:49 PM
I didn't say you HAD ANOREXIA.

Please read before responding.

Starving your body to lose weight is not healthy. Period.

In fact, it does more damage than good and can lead to some pretty bad complications (Malnutrition, for example).

Please stfu now.

OH WAIT I FORGOT YOU DON'T KNOW 99.99% OF ACRONYMS.

THAT MEANS SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Edited on 10-8-2004 by Tayre]

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 04:59 PM
My doctor, which is not a specialist on the domain told me that what I did was good if I drank a LOT of water.

Sure, it worked.

Sure it's not easy and it's even harder if you have a food problem.

Still, not eating for some days is NOT dangerous, as we can survive without food for a long time, contrary to water.

I knew about STFU, thanks for the clarification, still:D

[Edited on 8-10-04 by Xcalibur]

Drew2
10-08-2004, 05:03 PM
Why do you always change what people say and try to sound like you're making a point?

I didn't say it was dangerous. I'm aware it is physically possible to go a few days without food.

I said it is unhealthy. <--- READ THOSE WORDS. TWICE.

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 05:09 PM
It is healthy.

10-08-2004, 05:14 PM
It is nice to come back and see everyone the same as they were when I left. <directed at X>
:socool:

Gotta go with Tayre on this one though X, Starving yourself will do more harm than good. It is because it will lower your bodies metabolism and you will just gain the weight you lost back right away do to the fact that your body is not used to prossessing the foods anymore

Latrinsorm
10-08-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Xcalibur
It is healthy. Starvation is not healthy.

Having a lower reading on a scale is not equivalent to losing fat or (more importantly) being healthy.

Jenisi
10-08-2004, 05:17 PM
Starving yourself for any amount of time is unhealthy, whether you keep it up or not. Your body constantly needs nutrition. You eat to live, not live to eat.

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 05:21 PM
When you have "fat" you have reserve.

While not eating for some days and continuing to have water, your body is forced to go in his reserve to "feed" himself.

How can that be wrong, when after you intelligently go back to eating and trick your body into thinking it is THE way it should be, and not the one it was before?

And it IS healthy, when done correctly.

:D

[Edited on 8-10-04 by Xcalibur]

Drew2
10-08-2004, 05:37 PM
Well, I guess we're beat.

There's no arguing with pure, clean, straight up stupidity.

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 05:39 PM
You seems to know about it

:)

Of course I'm sure it's unhealthy, I'm not THAT stupid.

But in some cases....:argue:

Jenisi
10-08-2004, 05:41 PM
Your body will eat away at muscle as well, just so ya'know.

Xcalibur
10-08-2004, 05:42 PM
Only if your fat isn't able to suffy your body.

And your bones get the baddy too, booh, huh?

4a6c1
10-08-2004, 06:52 PM
Your muscles go first when you starve yourself Mr. Uberstoopids.

:chair:

Jenisi
10-08-2004, 07:51 PM
Triva time!!! It is healthy to stop eating because...

A.) your metabolism slows down
B.) you are burning muscle before you burn fat in anything you do
C.) you end up storing any food you do eat directly as fat

Xcalibur
10-09-2004, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Your muscles go first when you starve yourself Mr. Uberstoopids.

:chair:

If you sit on your ass during that "starvation", I can only agree.

I wasn't talking into being a lazy starver, but an intelligent one.

:yawn:

Drew2
10-09-2004, 12:16 AM
Look what happens if you starve yourself then eat again.

JUST LOOK.

At least she's happy, I guess.

10-09-2004, 12:17 AM
Hmm. Interesting pic, thanks for sharing.

Drew2
10-09-2004, 12:19 AM
:heart:

I do what I can.

Brattt8525
10-09-2004, 12:19 AM
Good Lord, I could have gone the rest of my life without ever seeing that.

Xcalibur
10-09-2004, 12:21 AM
That pic is fake!:2beers:

Drew2
10-09-2004, 12:21 AM
If by fake you mean hot, then yes.

Xcalibur
10-09-2004, 12:22 AM
Fake as in fake.:down::noob:

Jazuela
10-09-2004, 12:31 AM
A short-term fasting once or twice a year, such as what X did, is actually GOOD for you. It cleans out the colon and intestines, it stabilizes the digestive system, envigorates the blood and circulatory system, and brings your body back to a balance that might have shifted during usual eating patterns.

People all over the world do short-term fasting, and most doctors of both eastern and western medicine will often recommend it as a temporary therapy. It is especially useful when trying to determine food allergies. Eat nothing for a couple of days to clear out your digestive and waste system - then slowly add back specific things - like fruit juices, then add vegetables raw, then cooked, then certain grains, then certain other grains - then proteins and finally meats and sugars.

It would likely cause you to lose a few pounds, and would last no more than 20 days from start to finish.

And yes, it is very healthy, and no, it doesn't indicate, imply, or mean it's even remotely related in any way shape or form to anorexia or "starvation diets."

Once or twice a year = good thing to do.

More than that = on advice from a doctor, and usually ONLY when you develop food allergies that you didn't have before and need to find out what you're allergic to.

Use specifically to lose weight = bad thing to do, because you -will- gain most of the weight back within a few months after dropping the fast and returning to normal eating habits.

Xcalibur
10-09-2004, 12:35 AM
:worship:

Exactly what I did, and why I lost 30 pounds and gained muscles while most normal diets failed.

Xcalibur, the cleaned-guy

4a6c1
10-09-2004, 12:43 AM
:O

Shit Tayre, the people in my house think I'm a sick bitch and looking at BigPeople porn. Thanks.

Disturbing.

Drew2
10-09-2004, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
Shit Tayre, the people in my house think I'm a sick bitch and looking at BigPeople porn.

Stop going to Klaive.net

Jenisi
10-09-2004, 12:46 PM
The only "pounds" you will lose is mostly water...

Hulkein
10-09-2004, 12:54 PM
She's got a pretty face.

Miss X
10-09-2004, 01:12 PM
wow, the tops of her arms are like 2x the size of my thighs....

Artha
10-09-2004, 01:15 PM
I bet she's got a wonderful personality.

Hulkein
10-09-2004, 01:46 PM
If you cover her face and just look at her body it looks astoundingly like a manatee.

Xcalibur
10-09-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Jenisi
The only "pounds" you will lose is mostly water...

You're wrong.

In a way, you'Re right still, as we are what, 75% made of water?

CrystalTears
10-09-2004, 01:55 PM
Just because a method worked for you doesn't automatically make it THE best way to do something. Starvation is still something that is not recommended to lose weight and potentially dangerous to the body. It's usually a quick fix and doesn't have a long term advantage.

People tend to forget that it takes a while to gain weight, it will take equal or more time to lose it again. If you do things carefully and SAFELY the first time, you will have a greater chance at long term success.

Xcalibur
10-09-2004, 02:04 PM
The method I used is used by boxers and people that must control their weight in competition.

It worked just fined, I lost 2 sides of belt and so on, I was unable to get into a normal diet because I had always the feeling to be hungry.

So, I took the best of both world, cutting completely food, at least, I was hungry for a reason.

But, by drinking like 3 liters of water per day, your body IS not starving, as it feeds himself with your fat and is hydrated enough that he isn't in any danger.

The contradiction with what jenesi saids is the fact that in 4 days, i drunk like 3 gallons of water, just that. I couldn't lose water since I was drinking WAY too much.

After that, your body is just asking to be feed and if you go and eat as normal, sure, you'll get your pounds back.

But if you're intelligent and do it carefully, it's a win-win situation, as you trick your body into thinking it is normal to eat as you eat AFTER that.

And it's not starvation in the way you are thinking it is.

Most starvers don't drink well, and will throw themselves back into chips and chocolates.

And you'Re right, not because it worked for me means it's the best. I am just defending that method as it's not as dangerous as others seem to say, and as Jazuela said, it has TONS of good sides and it IS recommended by doctors IF you are able to do it carefully.

And it's a good way to set back your eating habits if you were losing control with it.

Conclusion: It rocks!:socool:

Arshwikk
10-09-2004, 04:49 PM
I have lost 20 lbs in two months myself with the new fangled "high stress" diet...It basicly consists of virtually no sleep, less food, and high stress to increase your heart rate, thereby burning more calories.

An alternative diet that I am currently working on that also seems to work is the "club scene" diet. You subsitute cigarettes for food, get all your nutrients from beer, and do cardiovascular by dancing until the clubs close.

I am still working on the side effects of both diets and have yet to find a doctor that recommends either...but they do work!

Xcalibur
10-09-2004, 04:54 PM
Talk about it, again, at 35 years old:duh:

Arshwikk
10-09-2004, 05:03 PM
Damn it, there is a side effect to my high stress diet...accelerated hair loss.

CrystalTears
10-09-2004, 06:05 PM
Damn, I should have seen it all along. X is le french version of Jazuela. Makes sense. Both have an opinion on everything, both think that they are always right, and both are usually wrong at least half of the time.

I'd trust either of your advice as far as I can spit. Your method of losing weight is to lose vanity pounds. People who need to lose and keep off serious weight cannot afford to get unhealthy in the process by eliminating nutrients and meals. Any normal doctor who knows about healthy weight loss would never encourage dropping off meals. In fact they emphasize how much you should have all meals and small healthy snacks in between, making sure to have as little to no carbs in the evening. Any doctor that tells you that you should starve yourself to lose weight is a quack and needs to have their license revoked.

Straight-up
10-10-2004, 01:26 AM
Measuring how much better shape you are in in almost anyway by how much weight you lost is not a very good idea.

For example. Two people start trying to improve themselves. After 2 months one has lost 20 pounds yet the other has only lost 5. Who is doing "better"?


Answer: You can't tell from the information. Several things could be going on there. The one who lost the weight could have lost muscle as well as fat, or even just water weight. The second could have lost 20 pounds of fat and gained 15 of muscle etc etc etc...

The best way to keep track of your progress is by body fat percentage, the next best way is a simple tape measure and some photos.


Straight

Ravenstorm
10-10-2004, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Damn, I should have seen it all along. X is le french version of Jazuela.

That is one of those blindingly obvious statements that is, in fact, so obvious that no one ever realized it before in words.

Now one guess who their love child is. :smilegrin:

Raven

Xcalibur
10-10-2004, 11:15 AM
Hey, just because you DISAGREE with a method means it's the worse...

Just like because it works for me doesn't mean it's the best.

Until you tried it and talked about it to a few specialists, you won't know.

Until you realize that most boxers do it as a method to control their weight, you won't know.

And until you realize that the human body is a machine that needs regulation, from time to time, but needs its share of water, you won't know.

Point is, I'll play my strayrogue roll, in a country that more than 50% are fat, I am sure EVERY methods was tried.

And the old: "Be carefull with what you eat" is sure not working, as there wouldn't be that much of fatty down there.

CrystalTears
10-10-2004, 05:24 PM
Get a clue. The problem is that people aren't careful with what they eat. Duh! It works when it is actually done.

I HAVE spoken to specialists about it because I AM overweight and have tried SO many ways to remove the weight. I've been told, the LAST thing you ever want to do is skip meals or deprive yourself of food.

Do whatever you want with your body and say it works, but don't sit here and say it's the best and healthiest way to do it because it's not. That was my point. It's not the way to tell someone to lose weight, just one of my many options, just not the smartest. This will be my last post on the subject since you will never admit that you could be somewhat wrong on a subject.

Jazuela
10-10-2004, 11:06 PM
This is amusing. No, really.

I stressed in my post that a twice-yearly fasting for up to 20 days is healthy for you, as long as you're NOT doing it specifically to lose weight...

And X claims that I'm backing up his diet, and everyone else claims I'm his clone for agreeing with him.

I get the feeling you all have the same disability. Maybe it's called "I read only what I want to read, or make shit up if I can't find what I'm looking for."

Maybe some day you'll find a cure for it. I believe it's called a clue.

Brattt8525
10-10-2004, 11:13 PM
where is the drama smiley face....damnit

Xcalibur
10-11-2004, 01:54 AM
Eh, I didn't used it to mostly lose weight.

I did it to regular myself and start a very hard physical program too.

And it worked, damn well in fact. 2 inches on the biceps in like 2 days, I'm not speaking of the rest!

It is healthy, like it or not:D