Tips to cut out Beer Belly before it starts

Arpa

Hey, this is my first time posting in this forum because I've never really thought about fitness. Since I was young I have always managed to eat what I want and never gain weight. I am about 10.5 - 11 stone last time I checked (I don't have a scales which goes to show how carefree about weight I am) am 180cm, generally well proportioned except for a little pot belly that is starting.

For the first time in my life I had to go up a jeans size and I thought it was time to get a handle on things before I end up like my father who is vewry overweight and has blood pressure issues now.

So please...can someone break down a very basic routine whereby I can lose the fat around my waist and belly. I don't like the idea of gyms or weights, I can't swim but I enjoy walking. Running not so much because of smoking unfortunately.

My diet is crap too. I just eat what's in the press, lot's of pasta and bread. I have cut out the beer cus I'm sure it's the main culprit.

So please people, for a newbie who doesn't really go for the whole healthy lifestyle or want to be a bodybuilder - just something basic to help me lose the waist and belly - a basic few tips?

Cheers guys

jive

lunch: porridge / eggs on toast

breakfast: pasta with lean meat/fish

dinner: salad with lean meat/fish, bit of fruit perhaps

don't eat shít or drink for a few weeks if you have any interest in losing weight, if you can't cut that out then just accept being a chubby mess and don't bother posting again; sozzles but it's the truth.

walk 5km or more per day a minimum of 5 times per week. If you're not losing ~2lbs per week, up the kms and/or reduce the food intake (I have no idea about your activity levels).

That's as simple as it gets, others may try to complicate this 'routine' or encourage you to do weights & run & kick the fags but you don't seem too interested in any of that so just walk and eat healthy brother. You're welcome.

ALSO: I know you said you're not interested in a healthy lifestyle but do that diet or something similar to it for a month and eradicate all the junk and drink. A month isn't a lifestyle and at least you will see results. If you can't motivate yourself for a month then... well.. tough.

Arpa

jive wrote: »

lunch: porridge / eggs on toast

breakfast: pasta with lean meat/fish

dinner: salad with lean meat/fish, bit of fruit perhaps

don't eat shít or drink for a few weeks if you have any interest in losing weight, if you can't cut that out then just accept being a chubby mess and don't bother posting again; sozzles but it's the truth.

walk 5km or more per day a minimum of 5 times per week. If you're not losing ~2lbs per week, up the kms and/or reduce the food intake (I have no idea about your activity levels).

That's as simple as it gets, others may try to complicate this 'routine' or encourage you to do weights & run & kick the fags but you don't seem too interested in any of that so just walk and eat healthy brother. You're welcome.

ALSO: I know you said you're not interested in a healthy lifestyle but do that diet or something similar to it for a month and eradicate all the junk and drink. A month isn't a lifestyle and at least you will see results. If you can't motivate yourself for a month then... well.. tough.

Absolutely exactly what I was looking for. I will definitely do what you suggest mate. I don't want anything too complicated as I have never really had much interest in my health, but now I want to get a handle on it but not become a health freak or anything like that. The fags will be kicked at some stage but for now I just needed some basic advice on losing the belly.

And by the way, appreciate the direct line. No time for niceties considering what I asked for.

Thanks and I'll check back in a month.

mdwexford

Eat less, move more.

You sound like someone looking for a quick fix who isnt going to listen or stick to anything anyway, know that sounds harsh but thats the impression your post gives.

Clemenza

If you can cut out ALL bread and beer for one month, you won't know yourself

myfriendtom

Yeah smoking a terrible for you etc etc... But you can still take yourself for a run as a smoker, or engage in some sort of real cardio. I smoke, I run, you'll get used to it!

rubadub

Arpa wrote: »

I have cut out the beer cus I'm sure it's the main culprit.

jive wrote: »

don't eat shít or drink for a few weeks

Clemenza wrote: »

If you can cut out ALL bread and beer for one month, you won't know yourself

I lost weight while still drinking like a fish. I know several very heavy drinkers who are thin. The direct effects of beer/alcohol on weight is greatly overestimated IMO, the indirect effects are very real though -i.e. visiting chippers & takeaways after the pub, or wolfing down loads of crap when you get home. I said before the term beer belly should be "chipper belly", another poster here, Transform, calls it a "wheat belly"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_weight

I just eat what's in the press, lot's of pasta and bread

That did a lot for me.

jive

rubadub wrote: »

I lost weight while still drinking like a fish. I know several very heavy drinkers who are thin. The direct effects of beer/alcohol on weight is greatly overestimated IMO, the indirect effects are very real though -i.e. visiting chippers & takeaways after the pub, or wolfing down loads of crap when you get home. I said before the term beer belly should be "chipper belly", another poster here, Transform, calls it a "wheat belly".

The direct effects are very real too. I don't know how many calories are in a pint, around 200 at a guess? If you have 5 pints then you've had 1000 calories in drink which won't stop you feel you hungry and if anything makes you feel hungrier.

You can be a heavy drinker and still be thin, it's all about calories in and calories out. Regardless of the extent the effect that drink would have on weight loss, it obviously isn't recommended as part of any form of diet for weight loss.

rubadub

jive wrote: »

I don't know how many calories are in a pint, around 200 at a guess?

Yes about 200. The human body does not utilise calories equally, studies show this, so does my experience. They put 2 groups of people and had one intake 500kcal extra per day as alcohol, the other 500kcal as sugary drinks, the sugar guys put on more fat.

Calories are calculated in labs burning stuff, not with people on treadmills. The food calories we use were developed in the late 1800's

jive wrote: »

it's all about calories in and calories out.

Its all about energy in and energy out. Calories are far from a perfect measurement of the energy humans get from food.

Some will say 3500kcal will equate to 1lb of fat being put on, some think this is a scientific fact, like its a law of thermodynamics, but really its only an estimate.

Petrol is very high in calories, if you drink 3500kcal you will not put on 1lb of fat, it is great for fueling cars or burning lamps, just like alcohol is. If you eat 3500kcal of uncooked rice you will put on less than if you ate 3500kcal of well cooked rice.

3500kcal is 17.5 pints, if I put on 1lb for every 17.5pints I drink I would not fit out my front door.

it obviously isn't recommended as part of any form of diet for weight loss.

The danger will be that "calorie counters" might give themselves a treat of a 700kcal takeaway since they did not have 1000kcal of pints, and think they are doing ok with a 300kcal deficit, though it might be making them fatter.

jive

rubadub wrote: »

Yes about 200. The human body does not utilise calories equally, studies show this, so does my experience. They put 2 groups of people and had one intake 500kcal extra per day as alcohol, the other 500kcal as sugary drinks, the sugar guys put on more fat.

I don't know what study your on about but even without reading it it is obvious that there are inherent flaws to such studies so unless the results were statistically significant then I wouldn't read too much into such a study.

Calories are calculated in labs burning stuff, not with people on treadmills. The food calories we use were developed in the late 1800's

Its all about energy in and energy out. Calories are far from a perfect measurement of the energy humans get from food.

A calorie is a measure of energy so you've basically just repeated what I said. I'm not sure why you're telling me about when they were developed? Not really relevant at all. Any measurement of energy in humans is going to have its limitations because we are living organisms with a number of factors which contribute to no 2 being the same, ever.

Some will say 3500kcal will equate to 1lb of fat being put on, some think this is a scientific fact, like its a law of thermodynamics, but really its only an estimate.

Ok? I know what point you're trying to make but the difference between drinking beer and soft drinks, 1000 calories of each, is going to be negligible to any normal human being. Worrying about it is so unwarranted, it's like worrying about a graze on your little finger when you have a massive malignant tumour in your brain. If you want to debate the theory then I understand that but for practical purposes it's so pointless.

Petrol is very high in calories, if you drink 3500kcal you will not put on 1lb of fat, it is great for fueling cars or burning lamps, just like alcohol is.

What are you even on about? At no point did I say anything along these lines. I'd be more worried about the toxicity of petrol rather than the calories I ingest, crazy example.

If you eat 3500kcal of uncooked rice you will put on less than if you ate 3500kcal of well cooked rice.

Care to elaborate?

3500kcal is 17.5 pints, if I put on 1lb for every 17.5pints I drink I would not fit out my front door.

Strong logic. If you danced a 200 calorie jig for each pint then you'd be alright I'd say.

The danger will be that "calorie counters" might give themselves a treat of a 700kcal takeaway since they did not have 1000kcal of pints, and think they are doing ok with a 300kcal deficit, though it might be making them fatter.

Well if they are in a calorie deficit then they won't be getting fatter. There are a whole host of things from bioavailability to gut microflora to metabolism which may effect how one responds to certain foods or how much they get in the form of energy. None of which are even worth discussing for OP and I can't imagine he gives a toss.

rubadub

jive wrote: »

I don't know what study your on about but even without reading it it is obvious that there are inherent flaws to such studies so unless the results were statistically significant

The results were significant, I wouldn't have brought it up if they weren't. I can't find a link to it now.

I mentioned this study in another thread and somebody said something like "but sugar will create an insulin response leading to fat gain", which just further showed that substances can have different effects on the body, the calorie is just a measure of energy outputted when a substance is burned (food calories are a bit different but they are similar enough).

jive wrote: »

A calorie is a measure of energy so you've basically just repeated what I said.

My very point was to point out that it is simple a unit of measurement, the energy in/out is extremely difficult to determine. Calories are only an estimate, to many people believe its an exact science for humans. Calories are an exact science in some cases, like calculating power usage to heat water.

People say the average man should have 2500kcal worth of food per day. They could just as easily have estimated the intake of energy in terms of weight or volume.

I could say the average man should eat 1kg or 1.5litres of food per day. If everybody talked in volume of food people would be saying "how much volume of food do I burn off after walking for an hour", and people might say "200ml of food". But this is of course an estimate. So then the often quoted "calories in = calories out" would be "volume/weight of food in = volume/weight of food out". People often talk of car energy usage as "miles per gallon", it could as easily be "miles per calorie" or "miles per kilo" of petrol (those are all directly related though).

Calories are certainly a better estimation system than food or weight.

jive wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're telling me about when they were developed? Not really relevant at all.

It is very relevant, since so many people think they are by definition an exact science based on humans. You thinking my statement of "energy in = energy out" being the same is exactly why I am pointing it out.

jive wrote: »

Ok? I know what point you're trying to make but the difference between drinking beer and soft drinks, 1000 calories of each, is going to be negligible to any normal human being.

I certainly do not believe its negligible. If I substituted all my alcohol calories as sugar I am certain I would be significantly fatter.

jive wrote: »

I'd be more worried about the toxicity of petrol rather than the calories I ingest, crazy example.

I am explaining how alcohol is high in calories, it is a great fuel for cars. Humans and diesel engines do not run very well on petrol. Humans do not make good use of alcohol either. It was intentionally a crazy example to get you thinking of it as a toxic fuel, rather than simply being a foodstuff along with apples & chicken.

Ethanol/alcohol Material Safety Data Sheet

Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. May cause systemic toxicity with
acidosis. May cause central nervous system depression, characterized by excitement, followed by headache, dizziness,
drowsiness, and nausea. Advanced stages may cause collapse, unconsciousness, coma and possible death due to
respiratory failure.

Petrol Material Safety Data Sheet

Ingestion
If swallowed, abdominal discomfort, nausea and diarrhoea may occur. Although gasoline is of low to
moderate toxicity to adults, ingestion of even small quantities may prove dangerous or fatal to children.
Aspiration may occur during swallowing or vomiting, resulting in lung damage which may prove fatal.

jive wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

The uncooked rice will pass through partially undigested. Even though both rices would give off the same energy in a lab if combusted, a human will not utilise the same energy from them.

jive wrote: »

Strong logic. If you danced a 200 calorie jig for each pint then you'd be alright I'd say.

I, and several guys I know, would have had an intake of 1600kcal per day from alcohol for many months at a time. When I, and they, drastically dropped I did not see a drastic drop in weight. It would have only taken 900kcal of food to be at the 2500kcal recommended intake. We were all eating far more than that, you yourself said "if anything it makes you hungrier"

jive

rubadub wrote: »

The results were significant, I wouldn't have brought it up if they weren't. I can't find a link to it now.

I mentioned this study in another thread and somebody said something like "but sugar will create an insulin response leading to fat gain", which just further showed that substances can have different effects on the body, the calorie is just a measure of energy outputted when a substance is burned (food calories are a bit different but they are similar enough).

Alright well as you can't link to the study then I can't comment.

My very point was to point out that it is simple a unit of measurement, the energy in/out is extremely difficult to determine. Calories are only an estimate, to many people believe its an exact science for humans. Calories are an exact science in some cases, like calculating power usage to heat water.

I don't know who thinks calories are an exact science in humans or any living organism for that matter so I can't comment.

I could say the average man should eat 1kg or 1.5litres of food per day. If everybody talked in volume of food people would be saying "how much volume of food do I burn off after walking for an hour", and people might say "200ml of food". But this is of course an estimate. So then the often quoted "calories in = calories out" would be "volume/weight of food in = volume/weight of food out". People often talk of car energy usage as "miles per gallon", it could as easily be "miles per calorie" or "miles per kilo" of petrol (those are all directly related though).

Calories are certainly a better estimation system than food or weight.

Doesn't make any sense because miles per gallon is a reference to miles per gallon of the fuel, humans don't consume one fuel.

Calories is the estimate used because not all food has the same amount of calories per weight but obviously you know this.

It is very relevant, since so many people think they are by definition an exact science based on humans. You thinking my statement of "energy in = energy out" being the same is exactly why I am pointing it out.

So because 'people' think that it is an exact science then when the system was developed is relevant? Right.

I certainly do not believe its negligible. If I substituted all my alcohol calories as sugar I am certain I would be significantly fatter.

Based on?

I am explaining how alcohol is high in calories, it is a great fuel for cars. Humans and diesel engines do not run very well on petrol. Humans do not make good use of alcohol either. It was intentionally a crazy example to get you thinking of it as a toxic fuel, rather than simply being a foodstuff along with apples & chicken.

Ethanol/alcohol Material Safety Data Sheet

Petrol....

So what? Toxicity is dose-dependent. Water can be a toxin.

The uncooked rice will pass through partially undigested. Even though both rices would give off the same energy in a lab if combusted, a human will not utilise the same energy from them.

That doesn't make any sense. You said 3500kcal of rice, so that's the amount of calories you have ingested by eating whatever quantity of rice. They are both equal. If you measured by weight then yeah maybe, I don't know the ins and outs of the bioavailability of cooked and uncooked rice.

I, and several guys I know, would have had an intake of 1600kcal per day from alcohol for many months at a time. When I, and they, drastically dropped I did not see a drastic drop in weight. It would have only taken 900kcal of food to be at the 2500kcal recommended intake. We were all eating far more than that, you yourself said "if anything it makes you hungrier"

Anecdotal evidence, can't really comment on it. If you were consuming that many calories from alcohol then I'd suggest not advising anyone with regards to alcohol consumption to be fair.

rubadub

jive wrote: »

I don't know who thinks calories are an exact science in humans or any living organism for that matter so I can't comment.

I suspected you might have thought it was an exact measure of how much energy a human can utilise from a given amount of food, especially after you said this.

jive wrote: »

A calorie is a measure of energy so you've basically just repeated what I said.

jive wrote: »

Calories is the estimate used because not all food has the same amount of calories per weight but obviously you know this.

Calories are used because they just caught on, other people talk in Weightwatcher points as means of estimating the energy they need,. Weightwatchers have updated their formulas over the years, partly to eliminate flaws.

Heres the food calories forumlas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system#Derivation_of_the_Atwater_System

Heres some weight watcher ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_Watchers#Formulas

jive wrote: »

So because 'people' think that it is an exact science then when the system was developed is relevant? Right.

When it was developed is relevant since science has moved on a lot. They system is so old many people think it is set in stone and flawless and irrefutable scientific fact. If it was developed today I am 100% sure it would be different, you can easily look up its flaws.

jive wrote: »

So what? Toxicity is dose-dependent. Water can be a toxin.

So petrol will not kill you, just like alcohol its of low-moderate toxicity. So do you think 500kcal of petrol will give a human the same weight gain effect as 500kcal of sugar?

jive wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense. You said 3500kcal of rice, so that's the amount of calories you have ingested by eating whatever quantity of rice. They are both equal. If you measured by weight then yeah maybe, I don't know the ins and outs of the bioavailability of cooked and uncooked rice.

They are both equal in calroies, thats teh point I am making all along. Even though they are the exact same calories they will have different on how much weight/fat you put on, or how much usable energy you get from them. Just like alcohol & sugar.

jive wrote: »

If you were consuming that many calories from alcohol then I'd suggest not advising anyone with regards to alcohol consumption to be fair.

so you don't listen to people with lots of experience on subjects? who would you listen to then? pioneers with absolutely no experience of how much alcohol could effect weight?

Here is one page/study

Experimental data in combination with epidemiologic findings suggest that alcohol energy counts more in moderate nondaily alcohol consumers than in some moderate daily and all heavy consumers. Accordingly the question is not “Whether alcohol calories do count” but “How much do alcohol calories count?”. There seems to be a large individual variability according to the absolute amount of alcohol consumed, the drinking frequency as well as genetic factors. Presently it can be said that alcohol calories count more in moderate nondaily consumers than in daily (heavy) consumers. Further, they count more in combination with a high-fat diet and in overweight and obese subjects.


Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408360590913542

That suggests why myself and other heavy drinkers I know had little effect. It also shows how all food calories do not have the same effect, i.e. they are not saying heavy drinkers put on less fat from other substances per calorie.

jive

rubadub wrote: »

I suspected you might have thought it was an exact measure of how much energy a human can utilise from a given amount of food, especially after you said this.

You suspected I thought it was an exact measure after I said it was an estimate....?

Calories are used because they just caught on, other people talk in Weightwatcher points as means of estimating the energy they need,. Weightwatchers have updated their formulas over the years, partly to eliminate flaws.

No calories are used because they give an estimate of how much energy you are consuming not because 'they just caught on'. You keep referencing 'people' and not much else, what you're saying is backed up by nothing.

When it was developed is relevant since science has moved on a lot. They system is so old many people think it is set in stone and flawless and irrefutable scientific fact. If it was developed today I am 100% sure it would be different, you can easily look up its flaws.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt they use a bomb calorimeter originally? Today labs blend and chemically analyse the food. So yeah, you're right it is 100% different because it has been adapted to become more accurate inline with advances in scientific methods.

So petrol will not kill you, just like alcohol its of low-moderate toxicity. So do you think 500kcal of petrol will give a human the same weight gain effect as 500kcal of sugar?

Yes. Any difference would likely be negligible.

so you don't listen to people with lots of experience on subjects? who would you listen to then? pioneers with absolutely no experience of how much alcohol could effect weight?

LOL. I listen to people who have carried out research in the area or whose opinion I believe holds weight due to their experience and credentials. I don't listen to people who say 'Me and my mates drank loads of alcohol per day and we didn't lose weight when we stopped'.

Here is one page/study

That suggests why myself and other heavy drinkers I know had little effect. It also shows how all food calories do not have the same effect, i.e. they are not saying heavy drinkers put on less fat from other substances per calorie.

Have you even read that paper?

"Accordingly, very few long-term intervention studies address the
effect of alcohol on body weight regulation as the primary aim. The results
are not conclusive because some studies reported no effect, others a positive effect as well as a negative effect. The controversy can be explained to a great degree by methodological issues
....
The question “Do alcohol calories count” can be answered more precisely: “Yes they count""


For the record, I'm not saying all food calories have the same effect and like I mentioned previously they will never have the same effect in different individuals due to a whole host of reasons. As I said, I don't believe that substituting 1000 calories of one substance with 1000 calories of another will have a major effect on weight. I know you've provided me with anecdotal evidence of you and your heavy drinking mates but unless you can provide me with any kind of meaningful data which isn't completely meaningless due to severe study limitations then I'm not arsed discussing it further.