That's because the food industry is also linked to the stretchy pants industry.

Posted by Kevin on March 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM MST #

I vote along with ThinGuy, with a few notes below.

Basically, toss the can of soup, it is not worth it.

(oh boy, here we go about the holy war of diets. this should be fun ;-)

My wife is a personal trainer. One of the biggest problems she has getting folks to eat enough during the day.

Here is the general outline of what she likes folks to do:

1) Eat 5-6x a day

2) Eat about the same amount each time

3) Watch the ratios: 40/40/20 carb/prot/fat cal's should be a good starting point.

4) How much to eat is based on your BMR or base metabolic rate. Lets say your body burns 2000cal/day. Then each mean should average out to 400 cal (400 x5 =2000). Subtract from this a _resonable_ deficit (say 20% ) and you get 320 cal/meal. Unless you have a lot of fat to loose, larger deficits are not better (see below). You can find a few BMR calculators on the web that will more or less get you close to your true BMR.

Basically, the theory is that if you restrict the calories for most of the day, the body shuts down because it is starving, then stores everything it can during the feast because it knows it will be starving soon. It also destroys muscle since that is not required for survival, but it is required for increasing your BMR. So, you actually lower your metabolism and gain weight after a week or two on a restricted calorie diet.

(As an aside, this is why cardio only programs fail. You loose the fat, but also loose the muscle that increases your burn rate. End the diet and watch the weight go right back on. It also does not help that the more cardo you do, the more efficient your body gets at doing cardio, so the more you have to do to burn the same number of calories as before... Ugh, it gets ugly fast)

I know a lot of folks who basically have a cup of coffee for breakfast, a cracker or two for lunch (even worse: slim fast) and then pig out at dinner. Then they wonder why they dont loose any weight. Oh yeah, they also underestimate how much they eat in a sitting (that plate of pasta is a 3 day carb supply...)

Note that one should also be adding in some sort of resistance based training (using real weights) and a touch of interval cardio. (Based on your previous postings, you have that covered )

Loosing weight is really not rocket science. You simply have to burn more than you consume. What folks tend to ignore is the fact that both numbers are variables :-) The good news is that you can controll both of them by altering when you eat as well as what you do. If you want, you can blame genetics, but I discovered that it didnt help me loose anything.

Using the numbers above, you will have a deficit of 400 cal per day or 2800 per week. This puts you on track to loose about 1lb if you can also do enough weight lifting to add in another 800 cal /week of workouts. It does not qualify as a 'miracle weight loss diet', but it is steady and manageable.

As for me? I run at about 10% body fat (I used to be 2x that). I eat 6x a day (or more) and do about 8 hours of cardio a week on top of 3 regular resistance based workouts. Then again, I'm training for a handfull of trail races this summer, hence the cardio has a purpose. I dont recommend my particular routine unless you need to be able to run for 4+ hours straight for some reason :-)

good luck

--john

Posted by John on March 10, 2008 at 01:47 PM MST #

Precisely why I continue to be chubby:

"I know a lot of folks who basically have a cup of coffee for breakfast, a cracker or two for lunch (even worse: slim fast) and then pig out at dinner. Then they wonder why they dont loose any weight. Oh yeah, they also underestimate how much they eat in a sitting (that plate of pasta is a 3 day carb supply...)" ~ By John, the mysterious wise man

Posted by Skrocki on March 10, 2008 at 04:02 PM MST #