3 ms·

Why don't you read Taubes' book? Let me count up my "low-calorie" eating from yesterday. 1 whole chicken, baked: about 2000 calories. 1/2 pound of 83% lean gr

by thras 17y ago

Why don't you read Taubes' book? Let me count up my "low-calorie" eating from yesterday. 1 whole chicken, baked: about 2000 calories. 1/2 pound of 83% lean ground beef, grilled, with 3oz cheese: about 800 calories Chocolate Mousse (made from 100% cacao chocolate + heavy cream + splenda): 500 or so calories, mostly from 1/2 cup of heavy cream 3 hard boiled eggs: 200 calories Total: 3500 calories Oh yeah, I'm living the "low-calorie" life. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Retric 17y ago
3500 calories is not all that much for a large active person. I have known people on 8k/day "diet" that where losing weight; not that most people are 6'6" and exercizing 10 hours a day, but it happens. Using your body fat%, activity level, weight ect you can create a fairly accurate estimate on you're caloric needs and it's often higher than you might think. PS: I can burn 1k calories exercizing for one hour.
- unexpected 17y ago
  I agree with your points, except that last one: It's very hard to burn 1000 calories in 1 hour. No matter what the elliptical machine says when you're on it for 30 minutes, you generally burn 100 calories a mile. 1000 calories would be 10 miles at a 6 minute clip for an hour, which would be ridiculously impressive.
  - Retric 17y ago
    The secret to burning a lot of calories is resistance. Try arobic weightlifing for a while. You can get a resonable caculation of work by mesuring the the energy it takes to move the weights * the inificency of the human body. PS: I don't know if this is a good idea, but I used to peg my heart rait at 190-200BPM for 45min to an hour a day.
    - unexpected 17y ago
      you still will not burn as many calories as running. W = Force * Distance. When you lift weights, you're moving them 6 inches for things like the bench press, and maybe 3 feet for squats. That simply does not compare to running for sheer calorie burn. You're running miles = 5280 feet. Running is the best form of calorie burn, bar none. That's why it's recommended for excessively fat people, rather than weight-lifting. When you get down to the lower body fat %'s, people suggest you switch to weightlifting only, simply because you don't need as big as a caloric deficit, and generating that big deficit when you don't have that much fat puts you in danger of losing muscle. Also, having a heart rate of 200 BPM for an hour a day would kill you. That's the equivalent of a full, dead out sprint, for 45 minutes straight.
      - Retric 17y ago
        First off I was using one of those chest mounted hart rate monitors to mesure this and I am not dead. Second work = F * D ignores the increase in efficency's that your tendons provide. I can swing 2,000 lb 10 feet at the end of a long cable and not use much energy. However, lifting 600lb .5 secound pause, drop it 18 inches, .5 second pause, lift it is much harder because your tendons can't store as much energy for the next push. But, in running each stride you only need to add enough force to compensate for the inificency of the stride which is far less than the energy needed to lift your body that same distance verticaly. Still, when you reach the limts on how fast you can move the body you can still aproach the same numbers, a 100kg person running at 10Mph for 60 min can still burn around 1020 calories. But, again your force is not your weight. However, running involves a lot of inpact strain on the body and tends to lead to long term problems.
- thras 17y ago
  I've done low-calorie dieting many times before. I know exactly what my basal rate is and know about what I burn in calories through exercise. This isn't low-calorie dieting. And I'm not hungry. Trust me. Look into the insulin hypothesis. The "calorie is a calorie" thinking is naive pseudo-thermodynamics. Feedback systems are a lot more complicated than that. Read the Taubes book.

by thras 17y ago

Retric 17y ago

3500 calories is not all that much for a large active person. I have known people on 8k/day "diet" that where losing weight; not that most people are 6'6" and exercizing 10 hours a day, but it happens. Using your body fat%, activity level, weight ect you can create a fairly accurate estimate on you're caloric needs and it's often higher than you might think. PS: I can burn 1k calories exercizing for one hour.

unexpected 17y ago
I agree with your points, except that last one: It's very hard to burn 1000 calories in 1 hour. No matter what the elliptical machine says when you're on it for 30 minutes, you generally burn 100 calories a mile. 1000 calories would be 10 miles at a 6 minute clip for an hour, which would be ridiculously impressive.
- Retric 17y ago
  The secret to burning a lot of calories is resistance. Try arobic weightlifing for a while. You can get a resonable caculation of work by mesuring the the energy it takes to move the weights * the inificency of the human body. PS: I don't know if this is a good idea, but I used to peg my heart rait at 190-200BPM for 45min to an hour a day.
  - unexpected 17y ago
    you still will not burn as many calories as running. W = Force * Distance. When you lift weights, you're moving them 6 inches for things like the bench press, and maybe 3 feet for squats. That simply does not compare to running for sheer calorie burn. You're running miles = 5280 feet. Running is the best form of calorie burn, bar none. That's why it's recommended for excessively fat people, rather than weight-lifting. When you get down to the lower body fat %'s, people suggest you switch to weightlifting only, simply because you don't need as big as a caloric deficit, and generating that big deficit when you don't have that much fat puts you in danger of losing muscle. Also, having a heart rate of 200 BPM for an hour a day would kill you. That's the equivalent of a full, dead out sprint, for 45 minutes straight.
    - Retric 17y ago
      First off I was using one of those chest mounted hart rate monitors to mesure this and I am not dead. Second work = F * D ignores the increase in efficency's that your tendons provide. I can swing 2,000 lb 10 feet at the end of a long cable and not use much energy. However, lifting 600lb .5 secound pause, drop it 18 inches, .5 second pause, lift it is much harder because your tendons can't store as much energy for the next push. But, in running each stride you only need to add enough force to compensate for the inificency of the stride which is far less than the energy needed to lift your body that same distance verticaly. Still, when you reach the limts on how fast you can move the body you can still aproach the same numbers, a 100kg person running at 10Mph for 60 min can still burn around 1020 calories. But, again your force is not your weight. However, running involves a lot of inpact strain on the body and tends to lead to long term problems.
thras 17y ago
I've done low-calorie dieting many times before. I know exactly what my basal rate is and know about what I burn in calories through exercise. This isn't low-calorie dieting. And I'm not hungry. Trust me. Look into the insulin hypothesis. The "calorie is a calorie" thinking is naive pseudo-thermodynamics. Feedback systems are a lot more complicated than that. Read the Taubes book.