blonde poker forum

I have added a few extra pounds somehow over the last 5 months and thought I was doing ok by just eating small amounts of normal food and about 1400 of those rice disc things. It has been pointed out to me that I need to exercise also. At the moment, betting and raising in live poker contributes substantially to my daily exercise regime (no kidding). So what do I do to clear the slowly accumulating midrift? Does it have to be sweat and shortness of breath? Do I need to do a ton of sit ups?
Any advice gratefully received.
ps I'm really lazy.

is there any exercise you actually enjoy doing?  You could go out dancing (but lay off the beers). Swimming's a good one too (especially if there's a hot tub and steam room to relax in as well :D)

calories used > calories in = weight loss

The more you move the more calories you burn. So you could spend a couple of hours walking at normal speed each day and that would do the job fine.

Of course, the more intensive the exercise the more calories you burn. So figure out how much time you want to spend vs how intense (or how lazy) you want the exercise to be.

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/3024337/c_1/1%7Ccategory_root%7CSports+and+fitness%7C9555568/c_2/2%7Ccat_9555568%7CHome+gym+equipment%7C9555649.htm

takes all the effort out of doing sit ups in no time at all you'll be doing 500..

not that simple, it depends.

Matt was talking about something like this the other night - surely if it takes all the effort out you're not getting as much benefit?

if it's just your tummy you want to sort out I'd recommend 3 sets of 12 sit ups (with shoulders straight - not all the bending over double stuff) and 3 sets of ten leg lifts (each leg, with other leg slightly raised off the ground if you can manage it) daily.  I'm clearly not a great advert for stomach exercises so should point out I haven't done them in years, but when I did my stomach looked much more toned within weeks and I lost a couple of inches round there too.

I'd like to see when it depends. 

If you burn up calories via exercise, your metabolism, or by whatever other mean - you are expending energy.  If your body is taking in fewer calories than it's using, the extra energy has to come from somewhere.  If it's not through food - it has to be from reserves.  These reserves are not infinite, and as they're used the fat and carbo reserves are depleted.

There are different ways to effect weight-loss, and some are better than others (i.e. quicker, more 'permanent', etc.) - but ultimately if your body uses more calories than it consumes, then you will lose weight.

so you're saying that if we take two people who both burn 3500 calories a day and both consume 3000 calories a day and have same age, weight and current metabolism they will both lose weight at the same rate?

person A eats 6 meals a day, 5 meals are lean meat and vegetables, 1 meal in the morning after he lifts heavy weights has some carbs.

person B eats one meal a day straight before he goes to bed all processed carbs, starch and sugar. he jogs slowly every morning for his exercise.

you are ignoring the thermal effects of different macronutrients, nutrient timing, the different effects different exercises have on your metabolism etc etc etc

this video trys to debunk the calories in calories out theory, the obese mothers with starving children bit is interesting no?

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216 (http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216)

to simplifiy his work he is saying that insulin shunts fat into fat cells, no insulin = no fat production.

Berardi is well respected and has written a ton of articles about "a calorie is not a calorie" as well
for example

http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/leaneating_1.htm (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/leaneating_1.htm)


http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/new_view.htm (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/new_view.htm)

I don't pretend to understand all this, even the experts don't pretend to know everything and most of them argue with each other and come to opposite conclusions from the same data. The calorie in calorie out lose weight thing is v simplistic tho imo otherwise why is everyone so fat? just eat a bit less or do a bit more exercise.....

Haven't you heard - fat people have big bones.

Nope. Never said that at all.

People will burn energy at different rates.  But it's a fundamental law that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  If a body uses 2000 calories, and only 1500 calories are absorbed in the same period, where does the other 500 calories of energy come from?

;iagree;

It's that simple.  Take in fewer calories, use more up.  Of course, a healthy body demands more than that, and also different people will absorb energy (in its different forms) at different speeds, and others will burn it up at different speeds.

When I was in training for the marathon, I had to eat twice as much every day.  Otherwise I felt weak.  I simply had to eat enough calories to cater for the amount I was burning up in my training.  

i dunno wtf speed has got to do with it if they both burn up the same calories per day? anyway your theory has pretty much been debunked now, believe what you will

Eh?

Exactly whose theory has been debunked?

Eh?  Debunked where, by whom?

I was saying if two people absorb 2000 calories in a day, and someone burns up 1500, and someone else burns up 2500 in the same period then one has a an excess of 500 and the other a deficit.  That's what I meant by speed.



(edit: I see Swordfish asked the same question before I did)

you have watched the video?

All two hours of it?  Do have a written version that I can scan and read the pertinent details.

If it's talking about the body being able to burn different fuels at different rates, then I agree.  Just to clarify - I didn't say how many calories you 'eat' that's the factor.  It's how many calories you 'absorb' in relation to how many you burn. 

Some foods that have a high calorific content are easier for the body to turn into useful energy, i.e. fuel. 

The calories in/calories out diet might not work for people because they can't stick to it long-term - but basic physics shows that if you add more fuel than you burn, some will have to be stored.

taubes wrote this article and then went away for 4 or 5 years researching his book about it. this is only one small part of a hugely complicated subject. debunk was the wrong word. oversimplified is what i mean.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63&sec=health (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63&sec=health)


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-Calories-Bad-Challenging-Conventional/dp/1400040787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215027101&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-Calories-Bad-Challenging-Conventional/dp/1400040787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215027101&sr=1-1)

This is an article on the effects of eating fat and challenges 'old concepts' such as " if you eat a lot of fat you'll get fat.

Wayyyy off topic imo.

I don't dispute that there are 'good' and 'bad' calories.

If someone is overweight and are attempting to lose weight (in a shorter period than they put it on), they can do far more than just monitor the calories in and calories out.  Avoiding saturated fats, 'empty' calories, etc.

Eating the right diet can help speed up the metabolism, etc.  But fundamentally, over a long period of time, if you absorb fewer calories than you burn - you will lose weight.


Of course a balanced diet is much more than that.  I don't need to watch my weight, but I do watch what I eat.  I avoid saturated fats on the whole, and try to eat a healthy diet.  This is because my dad suffered from heart disease and needed a quadruple bypass to save his life.  He was slim, tea-total and gave up smoking ages ago.  Genetically, I'm at risk from heart disease and so it doesn't matter if I'm fat or not.

There's more than one way to absorb too many calories (i.e. more than you burn).  It's easier to do it with fatty food, eaten in a combination of simple and complex carbs.  But you can also do it on just carbs or just fats. 

Fair enough.

mr swordpoker sir, can you mess with people's minds so that they lose weight?

True. My arse bone is a hell of a size.




















© Billy Connolly 1999

Yep, I assist on Paul McKenna's weight loss seminars from time to time.

cool. and what's the idea? to program people to eat less? or eat better? or something else?

Look into my eyes, the eyes, the eyes, not around the eyes, don't look around the eyes, look into my eyes. <click> You're under!

Now, what are your bank account details?


(Similar to the gatso/boldie/bolt operation, but much more sophisticated and classy)

Yes to all 3. The main concept is pretty simple. Take 'naturally' thin people and find out all their unconscious strategies (which they usually aren't aware of) and install these strategies into people who want to be thin.

For example, a 'naturally' thin person may only eat when they have a feeling of hunger whereas a particular overweight might eat to fulfill a need for comfort. We find ways for them to get comfort other than eating and install some conditioning so that they only eat when they are hungry.

Because there is no dieting involved, it's completely effortless.

Now I used a hypnotherapist for smoking....total success
For sea sickness 90% success
For weight loss........totally not succesful. It would appear thaat those things which caused me to behave abnormally as regards food are very strong. Hence the lighter life and concious awareness of when I need comforting.....this one works for me though I am a firm believer in hypnotherapy if practiced well