Quick question ......

21stone

im allowed 3500 kcals a day

now just so i know ok , on a mars bar 62.5g ( xmas selection box )
contains apparently 284 kcals so am i allowed 12 of them a day and still lose weight ?????????

now you know im not gonna eat 12 who would , just want to know as long as i have under 3500 kcals a day i'll lose weight ???

obviously i'll try get kcals from the best source possible , i just want to know does it work like that

sorry if its a stupid question , but i dont want to do anything stupid in my weight loss , ie goodfellas pizza is 2000 kcals for whole one , so if i eat 1 and a half id be ok .........

metaforically speaking

Hanley

A calorie is not a calorie. Someone will explain it far more scientifically than me but basically total kcals is only a guideline.

875g of suagr = 3,50kcals

350g protein, 250g carbs, 120g fat = 3,500kcal

See the diference there?

21stone

yeah thats what gets me finding whats best

Cadrach

I'll confess that I don't know all the science behind it, but I know that what works best is to use common sense. 98% of the time you know the answer to your question: mars bar or chicken fillet? Pizza or salad?

When you start wondering about Chinese sweet & sour chicken balls vs Singapore fried noodles then it might time to re-evaluate your approach. There are only two types of food: good and cheat

Pj!

Eating 12 Mars bars a day will provide you with your daily calories but will be little or no nutritional value.
One example is you will have a deficiancy of protein for muscle growth and development.

And anyway, how sick would you get of mars bars??? At lease add in a few pringles, maybe a wispa here and there.

Cadrach

Forky wrote: »

maybe a wispa here and there.

Was looking for some over Christmas but couldn't find any. When I'm not allowed one they spring up everywhere.

g'em

I remember years ago hearing about a woman who lost some hyoooge amount of weight on a self-created "After Eight Diet", eating nothing but plates of minty squares In this case, even though the food she was eating was sh!te, overall her calorie intake was lower than it had previously been and when energy in < energy out, you lose weight.

A calorie is simply a measurement of energy. That energy (in food) can be in fat, protein or carbohydrate form. One gram of protein liberates 4 calories, one gram of carbs liberates 4 calories, one gram of alcohol = 7 calories and one gram of fat liberates 9 calories.

i.e. 100g protein = 400 cals, 100g carbs = 400 cals, 100g fat = 900 cals.

But the the constituents of your diet (and the calories you consume) determine your health. If you got your 3400 cals a day from Mars bars, you would be constantly subjecting your self to insulin spikes and run an incredibly high risk of developing diabetes, your growth hormone expression would constantly be suppressed making putting on muscle very hard, you would carry a higher than normal ratio of fat: lean tissue, your immune system will be in complete dissaray as all those sugars play havoc with your body's absorption of vitamin C, you'll suffer moods swings, probably develop hypertension and aggravate asthma (if you have it).

Eating wholesome foods packed with vitamins, minerals and all the essential nutrition your body needs and craves will help you keep and increase your lean mass, keep your heart happy and healthy, improve the condition of your skin and hair, will help you sleep longer and more deeply, gives you more energy, keeps your immune system strong and able so you're less likely to be run down or sick, you recover from injuries better, you greatly lower your risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain dietary related cancers and osteporosis. In fact you could fill pages upon pages of reasons to eat well, but that gives you a good idea why a calorie really isn't just a calorie

Cadrach

g'em wrote: »

But the the constituents of your diet (and the calories you consume) determine your health. If you got your 3400 cals a day from Mars bars, you would be constantly subjecting your self to insulin spikes and run an incredibly high risk of developing diabetes

As I understand it, insulin spikes promote fat storage too, as opposed to just a diabetes risk, right? My estimate is that if the average person got 3400 calories per day from Mars bars, then they would gain a lot of fat. Can you really keep using the strict calories in minus calories out formula when you're ****ing with your hormones in a diet like that?

Cheeky_gal

21stone wrote: »

im allowed 3500 kcals a day

now just so i know ok , on a mars bar 62.5g ( xmas selection box )
contains apparently 284 kcals so am i allowed 12 of them a day and still lose weight ?????????

now you know im not gonna eat 12 who would , just want to know as long as i have under 3500 kcals a day i'll lose weight ???

obviously i'll try get kcals from the best source possible , i just want to know does it work like that

sorry if its a stupid question , but i dont want to do anything stupid in my weight loss , ie goodfellas pizza is 2000 kcals for whole one , so if i eat 1 and a half id be ok .........

metaforically speaking

A mars bar contains roughly 230 kcals and 12g of fat.

So, If you're taking allowed 3500kcals a day then you're roughly allowed 15 bars. Thats ok. 3500 = 3500

But moving onto fat if you're on a 3500 calorie diet then you'd need to be consuming about 100g of fat a day. Multiply 12g (mars bar) by 12 (quantity of them) and you've got 144g of fat! 44g above what you should be taking in! Confusing calories with fat is a common misconsception. So no, you won't lose weight, you'll gain...big time!

Hanley

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

A mars bar contains roughly 230 kcals and 12g of fat.

So, If you're taking allowed 3500kcals a day then you're roughly allowed 15 bars. Thats ok. 3500 = 3500

But moving onto fat if you're on a 3500 calorie diet then you'd need to be consuming about 100g of fat a day. Multiply 12g (mars bar) by 12 (quantity of them) and you've got 144g of fat! 44g above what you should be taking in! Confusing calories with fat is a common misconsception. So no, you won't lose weight, you'll gain...big time!

Another big misconception is that eating fat makes you fat....

Cheeky_gal

Hanley wrote: »

Another big misconception is that eating fat makes you fat....

I know theres good fats and theres bad fats, essential fatty acids and so on but a mars bar *obviously* does not contain good fats...

Hanley

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

I know theres good fats and theres bad fats, essential fatty acids and so on but a mars bar *obviously* does not contain good fats...

Clearly, but what about the massive amount of sugar it contains?

Coke and other fizzy drinks don't have any fat, but they make you fat.

Sugar (unless it's PWO) is the real problem when it comes to weight gain.

Cheeky_gal

Hanley wrote: »

Clearly, but what about the massive amount of sugar it contains?

Coke and other fizzy drinks don't have any fat, but they make you fat.

Sugar (unless it's PWO) is the real problem when it comes to weight gain.

Exactly, I would have mentioned sugar also and the excess glycogen turning to fat and all that but didn't want to ramble on...:)

So, I think you would agree with me that to the OP that it's not ok and he will put on weight. Yes?! No?!

celestial

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Exactly, I would have mentioned sugar also and the excess glycogen turning to fat and all that but didn't want to ramble on...:)

So, I think you would agree with me that to the OP that it's not ok and he will put on weight. Yes?! No?!

Yes! He would put on weight. A calorie is not just a calorie when sugar levels enter the equation. Mars bar = massive quantities of sugar = insulin levels increase = fat storage and prevention of the metabolism of fat. The opposite scenario, i.e. restriction of processed sugars has the opposite effect - i.e. fat burning.

Hanley

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Exactly, I would have mentioned sugar also and the excess glycogen turning to fat and all that but didn't want to ramble on...:)

So, I think you would agree with me that to the OP that it's not ok and he will put on weight. Yes?! No?!

Yes. As I said in my first post in this thread. In case you missed it.

Cheeky_gal

Hanley wrote: »

Yes. As I said in my first post in this thread. In case you missed it.

Jz seems lyk i'm not the only cheeky one around here! I think we should call you mister_cheeky! ha! Yeeesh...i missed that one there hanley..jst went straight to the "reply", no patience.

celestial

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Jz seems lyk i'm not the only cheeky one around here! I think we should call you mister_cheeky! ha! Yeeesh...i missed that one there hanley..jst went straight to the "reply", no patience.

Check again Hanley, you didn't actually..just to stick up for cheeky girl there, heheh

Hanley

Hanley wrote: »

A calorie is not a calorie. Someone will explain it far more scientifically than me but basically total kcals is only a guideline.

875g of suagr = 3,50kcals

350g protein, 250g carbs, 120g fat = 3,500kcal

See the diference there?

celestial wrote: »

Check again Hanley, you didn't actually..just to stick up for cheeky girl there, heheh

At the VERY least, it was inferred.

Cheeky_gal

celestial wrote: »

Check again Hanley, you didn't actually..just to stick up for cheeky girl there, heheh

Cheers celestial! MO MAN!

Hanley wrote: »

At the VERY least, it was inferred.

Ah it was inferred at the very least indeed. I'll let you away with it this time ya cheeky bugger!

tallaght01

How can you possibly put on weight/fail to lose weight if you take in less calories than you expend?

Cheeky_gal

tallaght01 wrote: »

How can you possibly put on weight/fail to lose weight if you take in less calories than you expend?

eeeeh easily. By increasing your fat/sugar intake...

tallaght01

diesn't matter....if u burn all your fat and you're still expending energy then where do you get the extra energy from?. If you only have 3500kcals of fat and you expend 4000kcals then you have to loose weight surely?

Hanley

tallaght01 wrote: »

diesn't matter....if u burn all your fat and you're still expending energy then where do you get the extra energy from?. If you only have 3500kcals of fat and you expend 4000kcals then you have to loose weight surely?

How many couch potatoes that you see eating chocolate and drinking coke expend more calories than they consume?

tallaght01

Hanley wrote: »

How many couch potatoes that you see eating chocolate and drinking coke expend more calories than they consume?

its not the point.

a calorie is a calorie, regardless of it's form.

The difference lies in how it's stored. Also in how it's burned.

But it's basic physics...if you put less energy into a system than is required, then the energy has to come from somewhere, no?

Cheeky_gal

tallaght01 wrote: »

But it's basic physics...if you put less energy into a system than is required, then the energy has to come from somewhere, no?

Yes. It comes from the excess fat and sugar intake. Whats YOUR point?

tallaght01

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Yes. It comes from the excess fat and sugar intake. Whats YOUR point?

my point is that if u burn, say, 3500 kcals per day, but u take in 3,000 kcals per day, then you'll loose weight.

Whether those 3500kcals come from bars or lettuce.

A calorie is just the unit of energy that your food gives you. Once it's burned it's burned.

Cheeky_gal

tallaght01 wrote: »

my point is that if u burn, say, 3500 kcals per day, but u take in 3,000 kcals per day, then you'll loose weight.

Whether those 3500kcals come from bars or lettuce.

A calorie is just the unit of energy that your food gives you. Once it's burned it's burned.

aaaaaaaaaaaah yes!!!!! But you've also taken in more fat and sugar to compensate for the 500 kcals not taken in!!!! so you'll PUT ON weight!

burn 3500
consume 3000
= LOSE WEIGHT

burn 3500
consume 3000 but excess fat and sugar
= GAIN WEIGHT

Are you taking the piss??

tallaght01

the fat and the sugar have given you the 3000 kcals. they are the predominant source of calories in a mars bar.

So when your body, at the end of the day, has used up 3500 kcals it's used up the 3000kcals of sugar and fat. Then it needs to get 500 kcals from somewhere.

So, it will get that from glycogen or adipose or wherever, so you loose weight.

Hanley

tallaght01 wrote: »

its not the point.

a calorie is a calorie, regardless of it's form.

The difference lies in how it's stored. Also in how it's burned.

But it's basic physics...if you put less energy into a system than is required, then the energy has to come from somewhere, no?

Obviously.

But in the case of this thread there's a 21 stone person who presumably has a very high bodyfat percentage asking if getting 3,500 kcals from mars bars would still allow them to lose weight.

The fact that they're "allowed" 3,500 kcals is probably a point of contention anyway. I know all the formulas say 12kcals per lb of bodyweight, but when it's in the case of a person with a very high bf% I think it's flawed.

Comparing a 21 stone guy with a high % of muscle, to one with a high % of bofyfat, by the formula both are "allowed" the same kcals to lose weight on. The heavily muscle guy is clearly more metabolically active even at rest because of his high muscle mass. So he probably does burn a chunk load of kcals thru the day and aslo need a large amount of kcals to prevent muscle wasteage.

Where as the guy with the high bf% wouldn't have as high a BMR and thus wouldn't be burning as high a number of kcals at rest.

Anyway this is getting away from the original topic. You say a kcal is a kcal regardless and the only difference is how it's stored and utilised.

Sooo.... are you saying that someone who hypotheically needs to consume no more than 3,500kcals per day will lose the same amount of weight (and around here that is taken to mean fat, since muscle wastage is not desirable) eating nothing other than mars bars, as opposed to a diet spilt 40/30/30% in the form of protein/carbs/fat, assuming all other variable are kept the same?

tallaght01

Hanley wrote: »

Obviously.

But in the case of this thread there's a 21 stone person who presumably has a very high bodyfat percentage asking if getting 3,500 kcals from mars bars would still allow them to lose weight.

The fact that they're "allowed" 3,500 kcals is probably a point of contention anyway. I know all the formulas say 12kcals per lb of bodyweight, but when it's in the case of a person with a very high bf% I think it's flawed.

Comparing a 21 stone guy with a high % of muscle, to one with a high % of bofyfat, by the formula both are "allowed" the same kcals to lose weight on. The heavily muscle guy is clearly more metabolically active even at rest because of his high muscle mass. So he probably does burn a chunk load of kcals thru the day and aslo need a large amount of kcals to prevent muscle wasteage.

Where as the guy with the high bf% wouldn't have as high a BMR and thus wouldn't be burning as high a number of kcals at rest.

Anyway this is getting away from the original topic. You say a kcal is a kcal regardless and the only difference is how it's stored and utilised.

Sooo.... are you saying that someone who hypotheically needs to consume no more than 3,500kcals per day will lose the same amount of weight (and around here that is taken to mean fat, since muscle wastage is not desirable) eating nothing other than mars bars, as opposed to a diet spilt 40/30/30% in the form of protein/carbs/fat, assuming all other variable are kept the same?

a calorie is a calorie.

How we arrive at his "allowed" calorie intake is neither here nor there.

The AMOUNT of weight loss is also irrelevant to the argument, becuase that will vary wildly with all kinds of factors.

BUT, the point is that if you take in less calories than you require, regardless of their source, you will loose weight.

That is physics, and I stand by that.

Cheeky_gal

I think we're both on different wave lenghts here. As Hanley said I'm only referring to the OP's case. Eating mars bars all day to add up to 3500 will not keep him weight balanced. But I see where you're coming from. Different point altogether though, you seem to have just thrown in common knowledge!lol!

eclectichoney

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

aaaaaaaaaaaah yes!!!!! But you've also taken in more fat and sugar to compensate for the 500 kcals not taken in!!!! so you'll PUT ON weight!

burn 3500
consume 3000
= LOSE WEIGHT

burn 3500
consume 3000 but excess fat and sugar
= GAIN WEIGHT

Are you taking the piss??

But surely the 'excess fat and sugar' is accounted for in the 3000 calories??

I do understand the additional effects of a high sugar intake on the rate at which calories are burned and whether fat is burned or not. Obviously it's a lot more complex than looking at the total number of calories in - the composition is crucial. But if you burn 3,500 and only consume 3,000 how can you gain weight??? (providing that you do actually burn 3,500 calories)

I'm confused!

Hanley

tallaght01 wrote: »

BUT, the point is that if you take in less calories than you require, regardless of their source, you will loose weight.

That is physics, and I stand by that.

As Cheeky_Gal said, we're arguing parallel points.

tallaght01

Hanley wrote: »

As Cheeky_Gal said, we're arguing parallel points.

yea, you're totally right, Hanley.

Except..... both you and cheeky gal argued that the OP will put on weight by taking in less calories than he expends

But I'm glad we can leave it at that

Cheeky_gal

eclectichoney wrote: »

But surely the 'excess fat and sugar' is accounted for in the 3000 calories??

I do understand the additional effects of a high sugar intake on the rate at which calories are burned and whether fat is burned or not. Obviously it's a lot more complex than looking at the total number of calories in - the composition is crucial. But if you burn 3,500 and only consume 3,000 how can you gain weight??? (providing that you do actually burn 3,500 calories)

I'm confused!

I think we're all confused.

Listen, forgetting about the OP's case, an average woman consuming 2000cals a day and burning 2000 cals a day will not automatically remain the same weight. It all depends on the foods which she ate.

For instance, she could have eaten 7 mars bars (approx 2000 kcals).
But the fat content in those mars bars would add up to 84g. And the recommended fat intake for a woman on a 2000 cal diet is 70g. SO, shes had an excess of 14g of fat for the day.

Excess sugar will also be left over. So the excess sugar and fat will need to be burned off even though the mars bars equalled the 2000 cals!

With all this talk I'm going to become confused! But thats it pretty much.

The whole point is, people on diets need to look at ALL the nutritional info on the back of foods including the amount of fat, sugar etc. not just the amount of calories in the food...

tallaght01

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

I think we're all confused.

Listen, forgetting about the OP's case, an average woman consuming 2000cals a day and burning 2000 cals a day will not automatically remain the same weight. It all depends on the foods which she ate.

For instance, she could have eaten 7 mars bars (approx 2000 kcals).
But the fat content in those mars bars would add up to 84g. And the recommended fat intake for a woman on a 2000 cal diet is 70g. SO, shes had an excess of 14g of fat for the day.

Excess sugar will also be left over. So the excess sugar and fat will need to be burned off even though the mars bars equalled the 2000 cals!

With all this talk I'm going to become confused! But thats it pretty much.

yea you're misunderstanding a lot of the relationships between the units of energy and units of weight.

But let's all walk away before I get too nerdy :P

Cheeky_gal

tallaght01 wrote: »

But let's all walk away before I get too nerdy :P

I suppose yea, you are from Tallaght after all...:D

tallaght01

hahahah but I do own a white tracksuit to counter the physics books

Hanley

tallaght01 wrote: »

yea, you're totally right, Hanley.

Except..... both you and cheeky gal argued that the OP will put on weight by taking in less calories than he expends

But I'm glad we can leave it at that

I don't think I said that anywhere...??

ali.c

tallaght01 wrote: »

a calorie is a calorie.

.......

That is physics, and I stand by that.

A calorie in terms of energy is a calorie in physics, the problem is the biochemistry of how the calorie is treated in the body. A diet high in sugar generates excess insulin which does promote fat storage. Now i am not the best up on chemistry and biology, but when dealing with diet and metabolism tbh i think it makes more sense to think in terms of biochemistry rather than physcis. In as much as you cant argue with the physics, you also really cant argue with the biochemistry. John Berardi wrote an article on exactly why a calorie is not just a calorie http://www.f-heit.com/index.jsp?jumpTo=533439

tallaght01

ali.c wrote: »

A calorie in terms of energy is a calorie in physics, the problem is the biochemistry of how the calorie is treated in the body. A diet high in sugar generates excess insulin which does promote fat storage. Now i am not the best up on chemistry and biology, but when dealing with diet and metabolism tbh i think it makes more sense to think in terms of biochemistry rather than physcis. In as much as you cant argue with the physics, you also really cant argue with the biochemistry. John Berardi wrote an article on exactly why a calorie is not just a calorie http://www.f-heit.com/index.jsp?jumpTo=533439

yea a calorie isn't just a calorie when it comes to how you store it.

But in terms of energy expenditure Vs energy intake it is.

If you go to any proper diet clinic in a hospital, they'll tell you that the basics of loosing weight is simply to expend more calories than you take in.

Talking about being "healthy" and nutritionally balenced is a different kettle of fish.

But, I'm afraid that the physics still stands that if you use more calories than you take in, then you loose weight.

The biochemistry is based on the laws of thermodynamics, which are physics laws.

When you get inot the whole area of insulin and the production of glycogen/adipose etc then it all gets very complicated.

But the basics physics laws are the same in biochemistry.

Hanley, you said in one of your posts that you agreed with cheeky_gal the the OP wold put on weight.

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

I'm supposed to be on hols. All this geek talk is turning it into a busman's holiday :P

ali.c

tallaght01 wrote: »

The biochemistry is based on the laws of thermodynamics, which are physics laws.

tallaght01 wrote: »

But, I'm afraid that the physics still stands that if you use more calories than you take in, then you loose weight.

True, but you dont state what type of weight you lose, and its not always fat. As the body is striving for effeciency in relation to resources available, really low calorie diet will cause muscle loss and a lower metabolic requirements. tbh i think you are over simplifying the matter in the rest of your post. Sure technically a calorie is a calorie, but some calories require more energy to break down than others so overall the net calorie intake on a high sugar diet (energy that is easily accessible) is higher than say for example a high protein diet. So in physics terms simple carbohydrates are a more efficient source of energy that say protein. So the total net energy gained =energy released-work done

tallaght01 wrote: »

When you get inot the whole area of insulin and the production of glycogen/adipose etc then it all gets very complicated.

Again i would agree with you on that one alright!

@cheeky_gal, just on what you were saying about the RDA of fats etc, i think its more a guideline than anything else and its not set in stone, AFAIK it is based on the quality of the sources along with the quanity.

This is all very OT tbh, OP if you are interested in this then i think the article i linked earlier is a decent sort of information but IMHO both quality and quanity are important.

smellslikeshoes

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

I think we're all confused.

Listen, forgetting about the OP's case, an average woman consuming 2000cals a day and burning 2000 cals a day will not automatically remain the same weight. It all depends on the foods which she ate.

For instance, she could have eaten 7 mars bars (approx 2000 kcals).
But the fat content in those mars bars would add up to 84g. And the recommended fat intake for a woman on a 2000 cal diet is 70g. SO, shes had an excess of 14g of fat for the day.

Excess sugar will also be left over. So the excess sugar and fat will need to be burned off even though the mars bars equalled the 2000 cals!

With all this talk I'm going to become confused! But thats it pretty much.

The whole point is, people on diets need to look at ALL the nutritional info on the back of foods including the amount of fat, sugar etc. not just the amount of calories in the food...

I'm sorry but you're not making any sense. If effects on personal health/muscle is not in the equation, Calories are Calories. As long as we are not getting into the slippery slope of energy expenditure needed to make use of calories in food.

For instance, she could have eaten 7 mars bars (approx 2000 kcals).
But the fat content in those mars bars would add up to 84g. And the recommended fat intake for a woman on a 2000 cal diet is 70g. SO, shes had an excess of 14g of fat for the day.

Excess sugar will also be left over. So the excess sugar and fat will need to be burned off even though the mars bars equalled the 2000 cals!

It doesn't work like that, in this situation RDA has no relevance. The fat and sugar is included in the total calories regardless of if it over the RDA or not.

celestial

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

I'm sorry but you're not making any sense. If effects on personal health/muscle is not in the equation, Calories are Calories. As long as we are not getting into the slippery slope of energy expenditure needed to make use of calories in food.


It doesn't work like that, in this situation RDA has no relevance. The fat and sugar is included in the total calories regardless of if it over the RDA or not.

Yes. We've established that consuming 3500 and burning say 4000 calories = net loss of 500 calories - but only as per the laws of physics/thermodynamics. In reality it is much more complex - basal metabolic rate, lean muscle mass, type of food consumed (e.g. a high protein meal will actually require more net calories to burn off than a high carb meal) - so outside the physics textbooks it is just an isolated equation.

smellslikeshoes

celestial wrote: »

Yes. We've established that consuming 3500 and burning say 4000 calories = net loss of 500 calories - but only as per the laws of physics/thermodynamics. In reality it is much more complex - basal metabolic rate, lean muscle mass, type of food consumed (e.g. a high protein meal will actually require more net calories to burn off than a high carb meal) - so outside the physics textbooks it is just an isolated equation.

Some people have coped it others haven't. On the topic calories needed to make use of calories in food, Its a very slippery slope

Cheeky_gal

celestial wrote: »

Yes. We've established that consuming 3500 and burning say 4000 calories = net loss of 500 calories - but only as per the laws of physics/thermodynamics. In reality it is much more complex - basal metabolic rate, lean muscle mass, type of food consumed (e.g. a high protein meal will actually require more net calories to burn off than a high carb meal) - so outside the physics textbooks it is just an isolated equation.

+ 1

Hanley

celestial wrote: »

Yes. We've established that consuming 3500 and burning say 4000 calories = net loss of 500 calories - but only as per the laws of physics/thermodynamics. In reality it is much more complex - basal metabolic rate, lean muscle mass, type of food consumed (e.g. a high protein meal will actually require more net calories to burn off than a high carb meal) - so outside the physics textbooks it is just an isolated equation.

Hallelujah!!

Someone gets it!!

This thread is hilarious. I can't believe we're arguing about whether or not 3,500kcals of Mars Bars per day is good for weight loss.

tallaght01

All that stuff that celestial mentions is fine when it comes to how you store extra energy.

But, if you require an extra 500kcals of energy per day, then your body has to get it from somewhere.

it will get it from glycogen, then from adipose and other protein sources.

You can't just manufacture kcals from nowhere to burn.

Not a popular thing to say on a fitness forum, but it's true.

It wouldn't be healthy for you, but it would make you loose weight.

Ali C, I had a look at some of the papers that John berardi bloke quotes. He seems to have misinterpreted the data quite a few times.

it's nothing to me, but I guess you need to be careful what you read on the net.

I guess smellslikeshoes has summed it up best. Some people just can't cope with the concept. That's fair enough, I guess. Physics is difficult. Energy metabloism was one of the most complicated things I've ever learned about.

But, despite what celestial says, the biochemistry of energy metabolism IS based on the principles of physics.

Cheeky_gal

For God's sakes Hanley put some clothes back on ya will ye! :rolleyes:

Supercell

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

For God's sakes Hanley put some clothes back on ya will ye! :rolleyes:

Lol CG, feck it..he worked bloody hard to look like that

One of my new years resolutions is to show everyone here my sexy six pack when that happens and...and...
That might not happen ..but if it did i'd be damn proud of myself and rightly so.

Hanley

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

For God's sakes Hanley put some clothes back on ya will ye! :rolleyes:

Am I missing something...?