Progress

[robblok]

I wonder when you guys are satisfied. I have been reasonably satisfied the last week or two. Finally the fat around the waist was lower as it even has been in my teens. Also the muscles on my shoulder are looking better as ever. I am still not at my goal but im at a point where i am quite happy better as ever before.

The fun part of this is that i am reaching these goals at an age that i did not think it was possible to beat what i did before. I am really happy to see the great improvements that an 8 month stint of really watching my food and not drinking any alcohol at all plus working out hard has brought.

Of course i worked out before and the muscle was there already but the fat loss has been great.

This is for everyone who is older and thinks its impossible to get in shape.. its possible.. you can even get better as you ever were. That is as long as you are willing to sacrifice some things. You can't have it all.

[BKKBobby]

I can feel good about my progress and feel that Ive gotten fitter, but never 100% satisfied. Though I can like my body 100%, but still I also like progress, the journey. I see it as personal development.

Edited August 28, 2012 by BKKBobby

[tropo]

To be honest, at 38 you're not at the stage where you need to consider age as a negative. I really think you're ageing yourself prematurely with this mind set. If you're starting to feel old at 38, then I'm well and truly done at age 53. That's depressing.

Most professional bodybuilders (including Mr Olympia winners) don't reach their peak until their mid 30's. It's takes that long these days to compete with the best and to develop muscle maturity.

Let's take some of the best as examples. The best of the best....

Jay Cutler: He was 33 when he won his first Mr Olympia and 38 in his last Olympia competition last year. He's not finished yet.

Ronnie Coleman: Won his first Mr Olympia at age 34, won his last Mr Olympia at age 41 and competed twice more at 42 and 43 years of age, coming in 2nd and 4th those years.

Phil Heath: Won the Olympia last year a few months off 32. He'll be at it for many years to come.

Dorian Yates: Won first Olympia at age 30 and his last at age 36.

Dexter Jackson: Won Olympia title in 2008 a few months off age 39.

The Mr Olympia contest is in a month. Let's look at the lineup and see what their ages are:

Kai Greene: 37

Jay Cutler: 39

Phil Heath: 33

Dexter Jackson: 43

Johnnie Jackson: 41

Branch Warren: 37

Ronnie Rockel: 40

Victor Martinez: 39

Dennis Wolf: 29

Bill Wilmore: 41

That's not all of them, but the top contenders are in this list. As you can see, they're no spring chickens, and these are the best of the best.

In the 70's and 80's the top guys were a bit younger and we had winners in their 20's. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lee Haney are notable examples... but bear in mind that the competition was not as strong when these guys were at the top.

Edited August 28, 2012 by tropo

[robblok]

@tropo,

I never figured it like that. I like my progress now but i realize im not there. But because i am now at a point i'm happy with i wont go for weight loss over all. Now i just want to get leaner but slow is good and building a bit of muscle during the trip is good too.

My workouts go great rowing is a bit less but will pick up again later too. Just figuring some things out right now about sleeping and working.

[Tolley]

I never had any problems at all at 38 as far as fat levels go. I was very lean.

Where it gets difficult for men is when they get to 'male menopause' age anywhere between mid forties and early fifties.

Testosterone levels decline and then you are really fighting nature to retain good physical condtion and a lean body. It takes a lot of discipline in your fifties to mainain good health and fitness as nature is conspiring against you.

[robblok]

I never had any problems at all at 38 as far as fat levels go. I was very lean.

Where it gets difficult for men is when they get to 'male menopause' age anywhere between mid forties and early fifties.

Testosterone levels decline and then you are really fighting nature to retain good physical condtion and a lean body. It takes a lot of discipline in your fifties to mainain good health and fitness as nature is conspiring against you.

I think you guys are right, just thought everything over 30 was end of life. Anyway things are going well. Just think now i don't need fast progress in weight loss anymore. I think i will go on with what im doing and it will slowly improve. The closer you get to certain goals the harder it is to get fat off. I still got to loose enough to get a good 6 pack.

[tropo]

I think you guys are right, just thought everything over 30 was end of life.

Yes, you are far too young for those "you look good for your age" type of comments. You don't want to start hearing them until circa 2025.

[TommoPhysicist]

I was doing loads of exercise, trekking in the mountains, 20-30km a week, lost no weight, in fact put it on.

Then I had a stomach problem, forcing me to change my eating habits.

No fatty foods, no sugar (or sugary drinks), no alcohol, no sticky rice, no pork, no biscuits or crisps, no fried foods, no dairy products.

Fruit, steamed rice, fish, curry, chicken OK, no limits on the amounts.

I've lost loads of weight in the last month with no exercise at all (due to rainy season)

So as far as I can see diet is everything.

(I was slim until 35 (no exercise) ...... fat from 37-50 (no exercise), slim from 50-53 (heavy exercise), then started putting on weight 54+ no matter what)

Edited September 2, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[tropo]

If you eat more than you burn you're going to put weight on no matter how much exercise you do, but at the end of the day you'll be healthier with a bit more weight and doing lots of exercise than losing lots and being inactive.

We should throw away this term everyone is using, "weight". It's irrelevant. You need to know your bodyfat percentage. If you diet your fat away without exercise you'll end up with soft flab in place of toned muscle. If you diet your fat away without exercising you're also going to lose quite a bit of muscle (if you had much to start with, that is) - and you'll be all set to get even fatter when you start eating too much again... which is inevitable because you're doing it the hard way by relying on self control... something you lacked in the first place (that's why you're fat).

Restrictive diets just don't work in the end. You need to change your lifestyle, eat healthy and get active... starting with the "get active"... the rest will follow.

[Tolley]

Diet is almost everything.

I have been in thailand for the last six weeks and I have put on three kilos despite working out four times a week and doing heaps of walking. I have put on a bit of muscle but I have also put on more fat.

The only thing i have changed is my diet.

I have been eating more and not as careful as I was previously as I am in holiday mode

[Tolley]

If you eat more than you burn you're going to put weight on no matter how much exercise you do, but at the end of the day you'll be healthier with a bit more weight and doing lots of exercise than losing lots and being inactive.

We should throw away this term everyone is using, "weight". It's irrelevant. You need to know your bodyfat percentage. If you diet your fat away without exercise you'll end up with soft flab in place of toned muscle. If you diet your fat away without exercising you're also going to lose quite a bit of muscle (if you had much to start with, that is) - and you'll be all set to get even fatter when you start eating too much again... which is inevitable because you're doing it the hard way by relying on self control... something you lacked in the first place (that's why you're fat).

Restrictive diets just don't work in the end. You need to change your lifestyle, eat healthy and get active... starting with the "get active"... the rest will follow.

Yeah but he is not really on a restrictive diet as he can eat as much as he likes but it is what he has cut out that has enabled him to lose weight.

Agree on the other points thou.

Sure we should look at body fat and not concentrate on weight per se as body fat is more important.

And you are better off doing some activity and being a bit overweight than doing nothing and being thinner.

[robblok]

If you eat more than you burn you're going to put weight on no matter how much exercise you do, but at the end of the day you'll be healthier with a bit more weight and doing lots of exercise than losing lots and being inactive.

We should throw away this term everyone is using, "weight". It's irrelevant. You need to know your bodyfat percentage. If you diet your fat away without exercise you'll end up with soft flab in place of toned muscle. If you diet your fat away without exercising you're also going to lose quite a bit of muscle (if you had much to start with, that is) - and you'll be all set to get even fatter when you start eating too much again... which is inevitable because you're doing it the hard way by relying on self control... something you lacked in the first place (that's why you're fat).

Restrictive diets just don't work in the end. You need to change your lifestyle, eat healthy and get active... starting with the "get active"... the rest will follow.

Yeah but he is not really on a restrictive diet as he can eat as much as he likes but it is what he has cut out that has enabled him to lose weight.

Agree on the other points thou.

Sure we should look at body fat and not concentrate on weight per se as body fat is more important.

And you are better off doing some activity and being a bit overweight than doing nothing and being thinner.

I also agree on all points, diet is important and without a good diet / food program you won't loose weight / fat.

I am trying to loose fat and now i don't care much anymore about the scales (ok still a lil bit). I am looking leaner and more muscular so it's going well. It's all about fat not weight as such.

[robblok]

I was doing loads of exercise, trekking in the mountains, 20-30km a week, lost no weight, in fact put it on.

Then I had a stomach problem, forcing me to change my eating habits.

No fatty foods, no sugar (or sugary drinks), no alcohol, no sticky rice, no pork, no biscuits or crisps, no fried foods, no dairy products.

Fruit, steamed rice, fish, curry, chicken OK, no limits on the amounts.

I've lost loads of weight in the last month with no exercise at all (due to rainy season)

So as far as I can see diet is everything.

(I was slim until 35 (no exercise) ...... fat from 37-50 (no exercise), slim from 50-53 (heavy exercise), then started putting on weight 54+ no matter what)

Diet is king, if you eat more then you burn you will always put on weight. But making healthy choices like no sugary drinks and such really helps a lot. They are really calorie rich and can really mess you up just by the spikes in your blood sugar.

Anyway i always advise exercise as its not only about weight or being slim but just keeping your muscles in shape will help you. (not talking bodybuilder stuff here). My dad who bikes a lot is a lot healthier then my mom who does no exercise. Still dad is quite fat but i can't beat him biking that is for sure.

[tropo]

I like the idea of being able to eat more as a result of doing more exercise. It's win-win. You get fitter, stronger and you can eat more without putting on fat. An increased metabolic rate helps too, so it's not only a calorie equation. You have to consider that a more muscular, fit person can burn more calories while doing nothing at all.

[laislica]

Getting fat may not be your fault!

Sorry this is a hugely long post, but then it’s a huge problem. (No pun intended)

In the 70’s an American scientist did a study of studies, without the aid of computers. He found a correlation between heart disease and the amount of fat in the diet. Unfortunately, he was unable to do regression testing (no access to computers). If he had, he would have seen that this was not the correct result. On the basis of this report the Food Triangle was developed to increase carbohydrates and reduce fat. Agriculture changed to favour massive production of corn. However, not only have heart problems increased, so has obesity and all that follows it.

Why - because food without fat tastes like cardboard, so food companies added high fructose corn syrup to sweeten and give texture.

Fat calories were simply swapped for carb calories.

Now we know that beer drinkers get a beer belly, this is because the alcohol molecule can only be processed by the liver, we know that drunks get cirrhosis etc due to the overload on the liver.

Frightening enough, HFCS is also only processed by the liver and we are now seeing cirrhosis cases in people who have never consumed alcohol in their lives. Further more, sugars are as addictive as heroin, working on the brain to produce the “feel good” chemical dopamine. So we consume more and more to get the same feel good factor because as your body get’s used to it, it turns down it’s sensitivity, thus needing more. Your pancreas produces more insulin in an attempt to control blood sugar and finally fails through continual overload and you have diabetes!

So they invented Aspartame, artificial sweetener. It makes you hungry becayse your body “knows” that sweet things have energy with them (honey for instance) and your body prepares to use the calories – it doesn’t find them so you get the urge to eat.

SOLUTION.

Cut out all grains, all HFCS, all sugars, all artificial sweeteners.

Eat good fats like avocado, coconut oil etc.

Eat eggs, chicken, fish, butter and everything organic and free range if possible.

Loads of vegetables and a little fruit.

Add Ground Cinnamon to your diet. It's great in coffee, on toast etc.

You only need half a teaspoon - tastes great and is a blood sugar regulator, helps you get the "I'm full feeling", AND - helps you burn fat!!

EXERCISE: High Intensity Training. Start with 20 minutes every other day. As you get more used to it, shifting heavier weights etc. One day on to two days rest. Until finally only one day a week.

Watch children at play, they run like crazy for only a few minutes and then rest, then repeat….

Where did I learn about this? Many places, over many years. I am 70 and have always fought againat my weight. I have been 100Kg and am currently 72Kg. I have bought diet schemes, exercise schemes, juicers etc. What worked was giving up the grains, oh, and that was harder than I thought it would be. It was as bad as giving up cigs.

For a great free source of info like this have a look at www.mercola.com

I subscribe to the site and get a daily news letter that helps my motivation.

Good luck Guys.

PS I'm off the BP meds and that is important to libido!

Edited September 2, 2012 by laislica

[robblok]

I believe that sugar is bad for you, but the grains stuff is bullshit in my opinion. At least if we are talking about normal amounts of grains. Too much of anything is bad.

Food i believe in fats and proteins, but also carbs but in moderation and anything you get that is not processed will beat processed food of course. Fat is important but you need to take the right stuff not trans fats ect.

I don't agree with the 1 day a week rest, then your not training hard enough. Your body needs more time to recover.

[brit1984]

My brother lost loads of weight/fat just by shifting his lunch earlier by 1/2 hours and his dinner earlier by 3/4 hours, so by the time he went to bed he hadn't eaten for 7/8 hours. I have become fat recently and I suspect it might be due to eating my meals later in the day. Is there much scientific evidence/discussion on the importance of the timing of meals?

[robblok]

My brother lost loads of weight/fat just by shifting his lunch earlier by 1/2 hours and his dinner earlier by 3/4 hours, so by the time he went to bed he hadn't eaten for 7/8 hours. I have become fat recently and I suspect it might be due to eating my meals later in the day. Is there much scientific evidence/discussion on the importance of the timing of meals?

Some people swear by intermittend fasting.. myself i havent tried it and i don't time my meals. I still believe in what quality of food you eat and how much.

Though if you eat a lot of carbs in one sitting (rice ect) you could get an insuline spike and that could make you fat even if you don't eat that much. So in that case its better to spread the carbs out.

[tropo]

Getting fat may not be your fault!

Sorry this is a hugely long post, but then it’s a huge problem. (No pun intended)

In the 70’s an American scientist did a study of studies, without the aid of computers. He found a correlation between heart disease and the amount of fat in the diet. Unfortunately, he was unable to do regression testing (no access to computers). If he had, he would have seen that this was not the correct result. On the basis of this report the Food Triangle was developed to increase carbohydrates and reduce fat. Agriculture changed to favour massive production of corn. However, not only have heart problems increased, so has obesity and all that follows it.

Why - because food without fat tastes like cardboard, so food companies added high fructose corn syrup to sweeten and give texture.

Fat calories were simply swapped for carb calories.

Now we know that beer drinkers get a beer belly, this is because the alcohol molecule can only be processed by the liver, we know that drunks get cirrhosis etc due to the overload on the liver.

Frightening enough, HFCS is also only processed by the liver and we are now seeing cirrhosis cases in people who have never consumed alcohol in their lives. Further more, sugars are as addictive as heroin, working on the brain to produce the “feel good” chemical dopamine. So we consume more and more to get the same feel good factor because as your body get’s used to it, it turns down it’s sensitivity, thus needing more. Your pancreas produces more insulin in an attempt to control blood sugar and finally fails through continual overload and you have diabetes!

So they invented Aspartame, artificial sweetener. It makes you hungry becayse your body “knows” that sweet things have energy with them (honey for instance) and your body prepares to use the calories – it doesn’t find them so you get the urge to eat.

SOLUTION.

Cut out all grains, all HFCS, all sugars, all artificial sweeteners.

Eat good fats like avocado, coconut oil etc.

Eat eggs, chicken, fish, butter and everything organic and free range if possible.

Loads of vegetables and a little fruit.

Add Ground Cinnamon to your diet. It's great in coffee, on toast etc.

You only need half a teaspoon - tastes great and is a blood sugar regulator, helps you get the "I'm full feeling", AND - helps you burn fat!!

EXERCISE: High Intensity Training. Start with 20 minutes every other day. As you get more used to it, shifting heavier weights etc. One day on to two days rest. Until finally only one day a week.

Watch children at play, they run like crazy for only a few minutes and then rest, then repeat….

Where did I learn about this? Many places, over many years. I am 70 and have always fought againat my weight. I have been 100Kg and am currently 72Kg. I have bought diet schemes, exercise schemes, juicers etc. What worked was giving up the grains, oh, and that was harder than I thought it would be. It was as bad as giving up cigs.

For a great free source of info like this have a look at www.mercola.com

I subscribe to the site and get a daily news letter that helps my motivation.

Good luck Guys.

PS I'm off the BP meds and that is important to libido!

Quoted nearly word for word from Mercola.com.

[tropo]

My brother lost loads of weight/fat just by shifting his lunch earlier by 1/2 hours and his dinner earlier by 3/4 hours, so by the time he went to bed he hadn't eaten for 7/8 hours. I have become fat recently and I suspect it might be due to eating my meals later in the day. Is there much scientific evidence/discussion on the importance of the timing of meals?

I always have a meal fairly close to sleeping. I make sure that meal provides at least 50 grams of protein.

If your brother doesn't eat 7/8 hours before bed and he sleeps 6 - 8 hours + wake up time before eating breakfast, that's a long fast everyday. He's better off eating lighter and more often to spread the nutrients.

It's ironic that we spend so much time observing fat people who lose weight (especially ones who do it without exercise). Mostly their fat loss is just temporary as their bodies are like sponges ready to soak up every stray calorie. We should be observing lean people to find the answers.

[robblok]

My brother lost loads of weight/fat just by shifting his lunch earlier by 1/2 hours and his dinner earlier by 3/4 hours, so by the time he went to bed he hadn't eaten for 7/8 hours. I have become fat recently and I suspect it might be due to eating my meals later in the day. Is there much scientific evidence/discussion on the importance of the timing of meals?

I always have a meal fairly close to sleeping. I make sure that meal provides at least 50 grams of protein.

If your brother doesn't eat 7/8 hours before bed and he sleeps 6 - 8 hours + wake up time before eating breakfast, that's a long fast everyday. He's better off eating lighter and more often to spread the nutrients.

It's ironic that we spend so much time observing fat people who lose weight (especially ones who do it without exercise). Mostly their fat loss is just temporary as their bodies are like sponges ready to soak up every stray calorie. We should be observing lean people to find the answers.

I agree partly with you Tropo.. but i think its not only eating habits i think genetics play a large part. You know people who can eat what they want and still stay slim. Others like me need to put in some extra effort.

Tropo, what his brother does is intermittent fasting some people get good results from it. I have never tried it and think its not for me. But that does not mean people cant get good results on it. But sounds like it also means a reduction of calories unless they still eat the same and eat more.

[tropo]

Tropo, what his brother does is intermittent fasting some people get good results from it. I have never tried it and think its not for me. But that does not mean people cant get good results on it. But sounds like it also means a reduction of calories unless they still eat the same and eat more.

If people do that everyday, it's not intermittent fasting, it's regular, daily fasting. It was touted on here by another member who offered a 10,000 post thread on Bodybuilding.com to read which had been started by a guy who was trying to sell his book. I'd want to see a lot more evidence than that.

[robblok]

Tropo, what his brother does is intermittent fasting some people get good results from it. I have never tried it and think its not for me. But that does not mean people cant get good results on it. But sounds like it also means a reduction of calories unless they still eat the same and eat more.

If people do that everyday, it's not intermittent fasting, it's regular, daily fasting. It was touted on here by another member who offered a 10,000 post thread on Bodybuilding.com to read which had been started by a guy who was trying to sell his book. I'd want to see a lot more evidence than that.

You could try and see how it works for you, i don't think its something for me. I might try it if i get stuck again. But right now i see no reasons to change my diet and workout regime as it seems to start to pay off.

[tropo]

Tropo, what his brother does is intermittent fasting some people get good results from it. I have never tried it and think its not for me. But that does not mean people cant get good results on it. But sounds like it also means a reduction of calories unless they still eat the same and eat more.

If people do that everyday, it's not intermittent fasting, it's regular, daily fasting. It was touted on here by another member who offered a 10,000 post thread on Bodybuilding.com to read which had been started by a guy who was trying to sell his book. I'd want to see a lot more evidence than that.

You could try and see how it works for you, i don't think its something for me. I might try it if i get stuck again. But right now i see no reasons to change my diet and workout regime as it seems to start to pay off.

I wouldn't try it for a number of reasons.

First of all I wouldn't enjoy life much because I enjoy eating regularly - one of my pleasures.

Secondly, it's counter- intuitive. I think the idea goes back to the old Paleo-diet theory that men used to feast then fast whenever they came across food. We have a constant supply. Mercola loves to push this diet theory.

Lastly, regular smaller sized meals leave one with more energy. The carbohydrate load is also easier to keep in check with smaller feedings and it's easier to keep the blood sugar constant and avoid insulin spikes. These days I'm trying to keep my post postprandial readings under 100 and at the very most 110mg/d.

I'll leave that diet for the cavemen.

(I must get on the rower)

Edited September 3, 2012 by tropo

[laislica]

I believe that sugar is bad for you, but the grains stuff is bullshit in my opinion. At least if we are talking about normal amounts of grains. Too much of anything is bad.

Food i believe in fats and proteins, but also carbs but in moderation and anything you get that is not processed will beat processed food of course. Fat is important but you need to take the right stuff not trans fats ect.

I don't agree with the 1 day a week rest, then your not training hard enough. Your body needs more time to recover.

I obviously wrote that in a confusing way by trying to keep it as short as possible.

When your HIT fitness is correct you will only do the work for 1 day with 6 days off.

I totally agree that the rest period is as important as the work.

More is not better.

Intermittent fasting does work and you may call it regular fasting if you wish.

The point is to eat in such a way that that you get the "I'm full feeling" back again.

The current western diet over the last 30-40 years has turned our sensitivity to food down, we are driven to eat by dopamine.

One of my problems was being bored and constant snacking in the evening and late at night.

Maybe it's the cinnamon in my coffee, but I don´t feel hungry any more and I can easily skip breakfast and I am on a reduced calorie diet too. Just not hungry and it's great.

Tropo, you mention cave men. I agree, if we ate like them and exercised like them. No fridge, just buy fresh food when we need it - we would all be in better shape.

What I wrote was not quoted directly from Mercola, not a cut and past in there

It's what I've learned over the years, and paid good money to do so.

Then I found Mercola, I wish I'd found him a lot sooner.

If you search his website, you can see many studies about fitness and weight loss as well as many other important topics.

I hope you find it as useful as I do.

[tropo]

I believe that sugar is bad for you, but the grains stuff is bullshit in my opinion. At least if we are talking about normal amounts of grains. Too much of anything is bad.

Food i believe in fats and proteins, but also carbs but in moderation and anything you get that is not processed will beat processed food of course. Fat is important but you need to take the right stuff not trans fats ect.

I don't agree with the 1 day a week rest, then your not training hard enough. Your body needs more time to recover.

I obviously wrote that in a confusing way by trying to keep it as short as possible.

When your HIT fitness is correct you will only do the work for 1 day with 6 days off.

I totally agree that the rest period is as important as the work.

More is not better.

Intermittent fasting does work and you may call it regular fasting if you wish.

The point is to eat in such a way that that you get the "I'm full feeling" back again.

The current western diet over the last 30-40 years has turned our sensitivity to food down, we are driven to eat by dopamine.

One of my problems was being bored and constant snacking in the evening and late at night.

Maybe it's the cinnamon in my coffee, but I don´t feel hungry any more and I can easily skip breakfast and I am on a reduced calorie diet too. Just not hungry and it's great.

Tropo, you mention cave men. I agree, if we ate like them and exercised like them. No fridge, just buy fresh food when we need it - we would all be in better shape.

What I wrote was not quoted directly from Mercola, not a cut and past in there

It's what I've learned over the years, and paid good money to do so.

Then I found Mercola, I wish I'd found him a lot sooner.

If you search his website, you can see many studies about fitness and weight loss as well as many other important topics.

I hope you find it as useful as I do.

I get Mercola's regular email feed - have done for years. You have to remember he's a marketing guy and ultimately he makes his money selling his overpriced supplements.

What you may not know about him is that he doesn't entertain negative discussion (arguing against) about his theories. He quickly bans anyone from his Facebook site if they do.

More is better if you're not doing enough, and once a week is not enough exercise. You'll end up with the metabolic rate of a snail if you do that. HIIT is not suitable for the older generation - in fact it is downright dangerous.

More people get into fine condition eating "normally" than fasting. I manage good condition eating frequently. Losing weight is easy, getting a lean, muscular and fit body takes a lot more - there is no easy way. You're certainly not going to get much of a physique from daily fasting and exercise once per week. At best you'll end up skinny fat.

[Tolley]

Tropo, what his brother does is intermittent fasting some people get good results from it. I have never tried it and think its not for me. But that does not mean people cant get good results on it. But sounds like it also means a reduction of calories unless they still eat the same and eat more.

If people do that everyday, it's not intermittent fasting, it's regular, daily fasting. It was touted on here by another member who offered a 10,000 post thread on Bodybuilding.com to read which had been started by a guy who was trying to sell his book. I'd want to see a lot more evidence than that.

You could try and see how it works for you, i don't think its something for me. I might try it if i get stuck again. But right now i see no reasons to change my diet and workout regime as it seems to start to pay off.

I wouldn't try it for a number of reasons.

First of all I wouldn't enjoy life much because I enjoy eating regularly - one of my pleasures.

Secondly, it's counter- intuitive. I think the idea goes back to the old Paleo-diet theory that men used to feast then fast whenever they came across food. We have a constant supply. Mercola loves to push this diet theory.

Lastly, regular smaller sized meals leave one with more energy. The carbohydrate load is also easier to keep in check with smaller feedings and it's easier to keep the blood sugar constant and avoid insulin spikes. These days I'm trying to keep my post postprandial readings under 100 and at the very most 110mg/d.

I'll leave that diet for the cavemen.

(I must get on the rower)

Correct. Smaller regular meals are the way to go. Four or five meals a day. This whole fasting thing is dangerous for blood sugar levels....hypoglacemic and diabetic....Many many people like myself have blood sugar levels on the low side and not eating for more than four or five hours makes me tired and irritable. Fasting is very dangerous for people with low blood sugar levels.

As for the cavemen diet that is really a joke theory as cavemen had such a short life expectancy that we cant really garner anything much from their diet over the long run.

[robblok]

You could try and see how it works for you, i don't think its something for me. I might try it if i get stuck again. But right now i see no reasons to change my diet and workout regime as it seems to start to pay off.

I wouldn't try it for a number of reasons.

First of all I wouldn't enjoy life much because I enjoy eating regularly - one of my pleasures.

Secondly, it's counter- intuitive. I think the idea goes back to the old Paleo-diet theory that men used to feast then fast whenever they came across food. We have a constant supply. Mercola loves to push this diet theory.

Lastly, regular smaller sized meals leave one with more energy. The carbohydrate load is also easier to keep in check with smaller feedings and it's easier to keep the blood sugar constant and avoid insulin spikes. These days I'm trying to keep my post postprandial readings under 100 and at the very most 110mg/d.

I'll leave that diet for the cavemen.

(I must get on the rower)

Correct. Smaller regular meals are the way to go. Four or five meals a day. This whole fasting thing is dangerous for blood sugar levels....hypoglacemic and diabetic....Many many people like myself have blood sugar levels on the low side and not eating for more than four or five hours makes me tired and irritable. Fasting is very dangerous for people with low blood sugar levels.

As for the cavemen diet that is really a joke theory as cavemen had such a short life expectancy that we cant really garner anything much from their diet over the long run.

Not to mention that what was available was not necessarily the best for their bodies. Now we can have a more varied food intake, take fish oil ect.

I do believe everyone has to check for themselves what they use diet wise and only by trial and error can you find out what suits you best. I am not going to discredit everything without trying it. There are however some things that are bad and you don't even need to try.

[Kalbo]

I like the idea of being able to eat more as a result of doing more exercise. It's win-win. You get fitter, stronger and you can eat more without putting on fat. An increased metabolic rate helps too, so it's not only a calorie equation. You have to consider that a more muscular, fit person can burn more calories while doing nothing at all.

You've hit the nail on the head here. I am (until 3 weeks ago) an active person, combining lots of weight training with cardio, and while I'm not 'ripped' I am certainly not fat. Anyways, 3 weeks ago I broke my foot while running and went from a very active level to zero overnight. I was worried that this would cause me to put on a lot of fat but this hasn't been the case at all. My weight has changed slightly (got about 2 kgs lighter, for some reason) but there's no been no noticeable increase in fat. Is this because of my high base metabolic rate (due to lots of lifting etc) ?

[robblok]

I like the idea of being able to eat more as a result of doing more exercise. It's win-win. You get fitter, stronger and you can eat more without putting on fat. An increased metabolic rate helps too, so it's not only a calorie equation. You have to consider that a more muscular, fit person can burn more calories while doing nothing at all.

You've hit the nail on the head here. I am (until 3 weeks ago) an active person, combining lots of weight training with cardio, and while I'm not 'ripped' I am certainly not fat. Anyways, 3 weeks ago I broke my foot while running and went from a very active level to zero overnight. I was worried that this would cause me to put on a lot of fat but this hasn't been the case at all. My weight has changed slightly (got about 2 kgs lighter, for some reason) but there's no been no noticeable increase in fat. Is this because of my high base metabolic rate (due to lots of lifting etc) ?

Probably its because of your higher metabolic rate but still you burn less now then what you did when you were active. So in the long run you have to eat a bit less.

The drop in weight might be some water or other stuff, usually muscles hold on more water and energy if your active. But your muscles certainly help your metabolic rate.