Yes, that will be so effective.winstonw wrote:....then reduce Calorie intaketwizzle wrote:Re - reduce calorie intake... don't. Read "The smarter science of slim" first.
Back on the "foe" list for you, so I don't have to read your posts.
Postby twizzle » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:49 am
Yes, that will be so effective.winstonw wrote:....then reduce Calorie intaketwizzle wrote:Re - reduce calorie intake... don't. Read "The smarter science of slim" first.
Postby Mulger bill » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:58 am
Carp, pasta limittwizzle wrote:Something to think about : A calorie of protein ends up with about 50% - 55% being available as fuel or fat storage, for a calorie of starch it's around 70%. So what value is there in calorie counting unless you do it by type?fionahills wrote:any hints welcomed - alternatively really good excuses also welcome
Postby fionahills » Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:15 pm
Postby twizzle » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:08 pm
Postby ILMB » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:51 pm
+1twizzle wrote:Low calorie intake = lower basal metabolism, muscle loss, fat sparing. According to the research anyway. Eat less, exercise more has been proven to be counterproductive to long term weight loss. Seems you have more chance of quitting smoking than reducing weight by dieting.
Sent from my iThingy...
Postby ZepinAtor » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:36 am
+2ILMB wrote:+1twizzle wrote:Low calorie intake = lower basal metabolism, muscle loss, fat sparing. According to the research anyway. Eat less, exercise more has been proven to be counterproductive to long term weight loss. Seems you have more chance of quitting smoking than reducing weight by dieting.
Sent from my iThingy...
As someone who used to diet obsessively during my twenties, (almost to the point of anorexia), and has read extensively, I agree. Yo-yo weight loss/gain is extremely demoralising; and it will happen. Far better to eat a healthy, balanced diet, and to not drop the calories too dramatically. Science is starting to concur that fit and fat may actually be healthier than unfit and skinny.
So stay on the bike, keep the activity up, and let your body find it's own weight equilibrium.
Postby winstonw » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:05 am
It's what the 5 AIS sports dietitians I consult with regularly recommend. And I'll bet my last dollar they know more about diet for weight loss and athletic performance than you've gained from google Twizz.twizzle wrote:Yes, that will be so effective.winstonw wrote:....then reduce Calorie intaketwizzle wrote:Re - reduce calorie intake... don't. Read "The smarter science of slim" first.
Postby Puffy » Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:20 pm
Postby winstonw » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:32 pm
Puffy if you think a lower Calorie intake and "eating less" are the same thing, I question what you actually learned on your WW journey.Puffy wrote:Some five or so years ago I reached my goal weight with Weight Watchers.
They would agree that eating less is not the answer. Things like "you should not feel hungry" and "make sure you eat your entire allowance" are repeated. To put their system down into a single sentance it would be "Eat more food, but make sure it is healthy, low GI and low energy dense". They want you to increase your metabolism buy eating a greater volume of food over 5 or 6 meals a day but at a respectable (not low, or high) calory count. Worked for me.
Postby foo on patrol » Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:30 pm
Postby foo on patrol » Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:31 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.