More Exercise = More Food?

[Muppet]

I have a fairly fast metabolism and have never been overweight. I used to eat fast food about 3 times a day, and never exercise. Recently though, I've become more health conscious and have started an exercise regime and rarely eat fast foods anymore. However, I find that I am craving sugary sweets, especially late at night. I never used to eat lollies, but now I get irritable if I don't have some chocolate. It is frustrating because I feel like I have replaced one 'bad' food habit with another, and my time spent at the gym is spent getting rid of fat I wouldn't have put on if I wasn't exercising in the first place! I don't get it. If I was really overweight I'd just be more disciplined about what I put into my mouth. As it is I find it impossible to stop eating this crap! What's the go?

[HokeyReligions]

You need to see a doctor and get a good physical and some blood work.

 

A change in diet can trigger a lot of things in your body to go out of wack.

 

So can aging.

[jessicakicksbut]

I am into fitness and nutrition, so maybe I can give you some pointers here. First off, I think that cutting fast food out of your diet is excellent. I cut fast food out of my diet over 2 years ago, and do not regret it (with the exception of pizza once in a while). Even though you are not overweight, the contents of fat food can cause you to have the same health problems in the long run than a person who is overweight. It mainly has to do with the fat content in fast food. Did you know that a Big Mac and a Whopper have approximately 30 grams of fat? A person does not even need that amount of fat in two days. Not only does high fat cause concern when speking of fast food, but high sodium, preserves, and phosphates as well. Fast food has absolutely no redeeming qualities. Also, the more you stay away from that nasty fast food, the more it will disgust you even thinking about it!

 

Secondly, now that you cut the fast food out of you system, let's talk about your cravings. I too have sweet cravings from time to time. I do not think there is anything really wrong with having certain food cravings, just the fact that you are miserable if you do not get a certain type of food shows signs of addiction. I'm a coffee/green tea drinker, so I can totally understand. The best thing to do is wean yourself off of sweets that really have no health benefits, such as lolipops. If sweet food is the issue, try eating cantalope, watermelon, or kiwi fruit. If Chocolate is the issue, allow yourself to eat a few small pieces of sugar-free chocolates as a reward for yourself after your workouts. Another suggestion is try making lite, low-fat desserts. One of my favorites to make is strawberry shortcake, using homemade strawberry sauce (to ensure low sugar), light whipped cream, and angel food cake, which in my opinion if you are going to eat cake, is probably the lesser of many evils.

 

Finally, keep up your exercise regime, it will pay off in the long run. Exercise is therapuetic, helps the respiratory system, circulatory system, digestive system, helps people perform better sexually, and last but definately not least, prolongs life. Although you may think your work out at the gym may not be helping, it will over time. Hope this helps...

[yes]

Also, make sure you drink lots! No sugar added drinks and water are best.

 

-yes

[Ryan]

I've become more health conscious and have started an exercise regime and rarely eat fast foods anymore. However, I find that I am craving sugary sweets, especially late at night. I never used to eat lollies, but now I get irritable if I don't have some chocolate. It is frustrating because I feel like I have replaced one 'bad' food habit with another, and my time spent at the gym is spent getting rid of fat I wouldn't have put on if I wasn't exercising in the first place!

 

Well....if your diet is fairly good aside from some chocolate at night...you're doing fine. If your food choices are typically fresh and varied sources, don't worry about it. A good diet is not a PERFECT diet. People do not need to make eating a labor.

 

I might also add that gym time is very ineffective for eliminating bodyfat. That is not the main value of exercise.

 

 

It mainly has to do with the fat content in fast food. Did you know that a Big Mac and a Whopper have approximately 30 grams of fat? A person does not even need that amount of fat in two days. Not only does high fat cause concern when speking of fast food, but high sodium, preserves, and phosphates as well.

 

I am definitely not a supporter of fast food. I RARELY eat it, and those instances are typically a lack of choice (airport, road trip, etc). It tends to be poorer in quality and preserved/prepared far too much.

 

However, it must be made clear that the problem with these food choices is not that they contain dietary fat. The notion that 30 grams of fat is sufficient for two days is entirely invalid. Fat intake has been targeted as a culprit for a myriad of health problems, but the research just isn't there to support it. Obesity is caused by excessive CALORIC intake, not excessive FAT intake. General fat intake, saturated fat intake, and dietary cholesterol have NEVER been shown to be health risks.

 

Nonetheless....do avoid the drive-thrus. Dietary adjustment is about willpower initially as you shift away from the crap.

[Kylie]

You have repeated in many of your posts, Ryan, that the gym is an ineffective way of losing weight, and that dietary manipulation is the best way of removing excess body fat. I was just wondering if you could please explain the rationale behind this?

 

I personally have no changed my diet at all. But after beginning an exercise regime about 3 months ago I have lost 4kg. I have no doubt that you know what you are talking about, but I don't think I am sufficiently understand. I mean, apparently I burn calories while on the treadmill - and as you just said caloric intake is what causes obesity?

 

I would really like to understand how and why exercise is not a good way - by itself - of losing weight. Thanks!

[jessicakicksbut]

I do agree that caloric intake is important, but avoiding saturated fats is really important for weight loss because it is so closely tied in with calorie intake. Your body can easily store excess calories from fat as body fat. Plus, saturated fats from animal products, such as meats and dairy foods, can clog your arteries and contribute to heart disease. Also, Health authorities recommend that Americans consume 30 percent or less of their total daily calories from fat, with 10 percent or less of those calories from saturated fat. Therefore, the daily saturated fat requirements are anywhere between 4-12 grams for a woman depending on how active a woman is, and for a man is between 5 and 13 grams depending on how active he is.

 

Also it is a great myth that the fewer calories you eat, the more weight you lose. If you restrict your calories too much for an extended period of time, you can actually trigger what is known as the ‘starvation adaptation response. This simply means that your metabolism slows down to accommodate your lower caloric intake, and your body conserves fat rather than burning it for energy. Even a person who works out regularly can hold onto body fat and end up at a weight-loss plateau if not enough calories are being consumed. Low-calorie diets are also a disaster for anyone wanting to maintain or build muscle. Such diets cause your body to store fat, as well as burn healthy muscle.

[Ryan]

You have repeated in many of your posts, Ryan, that the gym is an ineffective way of losing weight, and that dietary manipulation is the best way of removing excess body fat. I was just wondering if you could please explain the rationale behind this?

 

I personally have no changed my diet at all. But after beginning an exercise regime about 3 months ago I have lost 4kg. I have no doubt that you know what you are talking about, but I don't think I am sufficiently understand. I mean, apparently I burn calories while on the treadmill - and as you just said caloric intake is what causes obesity?

 

 

My assertion is that activity is a poor way to eliminate bodyfat. The support for this is that activity burns a relatively small amount of calories compared to what bodyfat contains. For example, the typical 150lb (about 70kg) person will expend approximately 100 calories per mile of foot travel, regardless of the speed. A single pound of bodyfat is good for some 3500 calories. To expend 5 pounds of bodyfat would only take you 175 miles...that's pretty ineffective. This also does not consider that those 100 calories do not consider your basal metabolic demands if you did NOTHING in that period of time. It also assumes all of your caloric output comes from bodyfat, which will never be the case.

 

Measuring progress strictly by bodyweight decrease does not take into account losses in stored water, muscle tissue, etc., that often occur in any reduced calorie situation. That which is exercise serves to maintain or increase metabolic levels by maintaining or increasing muscle mass. In a caloric deficit, it is paramount to maintain muscle mass. The human body tries to seek homeostasis when provided with fewer calories than it burns. Muscle tissue is very metabolically demanding (approximately 50 calories per day per pound just for existing), but very little of it is required for most activity. So, what do you think gets selected off?

 

 

 

I do agree that caloric intake is important, but avoiding saturated fats is really important for weight loss because it is so closely tied in with calorie intake.

 

No more so than unsaturated fats....or large amounts of sugar...or anything for that matter. Per mass, fat IS more calorically dense. This I will agree to, but dietary fat does not specifically correlate to bodyfat. A state of surplus intake is necessary before it matters.

 

 

 

Plus, saturated fats from animal products, such as meats and dairy foods, can clog your arteries and contribute to heart disease.

 

That's the story that they've been trying to sell for some time. But it's just not supported in the research. There are quite a few studies that show humans high fat/cholesterol diets with low incidence of heart disease and low fat/cholesterol diets with high incidence of heart disease. These studies conveniently never make news. Many of the studies that claim correlation between fat intake and heart disease are not analyzed properly either. There's a lot of politics involved, really. You'd be amazed at how much money there is behind some of these "authorities."

 

 

 

If you restrict your calories too much for an extended period of time, you can actually trigger what is known as the ‘starvation adaptation response.

 

This actually happens with any caloric deficit.

 

 

Low-calorie diets are also a disaster for anyone wanting to maintain or build muscle. Such diets cause your body to store fat, as well as burn healthy muscle.

 

EVERYONE needs to at least maintain muscle mass, and most people would be better off with 5lbs more. I do not advocate drastic caloric reduction, only moderate reduction, which is typically 200-500 calories per day.

[jessicakicksbut]

That's the story that they've been trying to sell for some time. But it's just not supported in the research. There are quite a few studies that show humans high fat/cholesterol diets with low incidence of heart disease and low fat/cholesterol diets with high incidence of heart disease. These studies conveniently never make news. Many of the studies that claim correlation between fat intake and heart disease are not analyzed properly either. There's a lot of politics involved, really. You'd be amazed at how much money there is behind some of these "authorities."

 

Well, as a Scientist, I am all in favor of discovering new research...BUT, as a person who works for one of the "authorities", I would have to say if it doesn't make news, there is a GOOD reason for it. Unless you were a scientist, you wouldn't understand. There is specific criteria required to consider something valid research, and too many people make supposed "discoveries" everyday.

 

P.S. the high fat/cholesterol diet with low incidence of heart attack that you speak of...is that the ATKIN'S DIET?

[Ryan]

There is specific criteria required to consider something valid research, and too many people make supposed "discoveries" everyday.

 

I do not speak from anything that would be new information. We've known these things for decades.....but there have been many influences guiding what things get publicized and what things do not. This has been going on for nearly 50 years since the (infamous) Kritchevsky study.

 

 

P.S. the high fat/cholesterol diet with low incidence of heart attack that you speak of...is that the ATKIN'S DIET?

 

 

Absolutely not. Vilification of carbohydrates is no more rational or supported than that of dietary fat. I'm not in the business of fads.

[jessicakicksbut]

I'd be interested in finding out more about these studys. If you are able to, would you be able to direct me to more information about these studies that were put on the backburner, even though they were not publicized. Maybe some information via the internet, or some scientific publications?

[Ryan]

I think you'll find this informative:

 

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/oiling.html

 

It's a piece by Dr. Mary Enig. It's a bit lengthy and technical, but it has plenty of references and is well written.

[jessicakicksbut]

Thank you Ryan, I will read this piece in hopes to learn new information. Us scientists have very inquiring minds!

[Ryan]

Thank you Ryan, I will read this piece in hopes to learn new information. Us scientists have very inquiring minds!

 

I understand entirely. I've always been about asking more questions.