Forget Diet and Exercise - Blame our Hormones!

[Alwyn]

I figured as much that it was not just the hormone difference but also going from real active to almost nothing (understandable if you have radiation treatment).

If your testosterone has to be limited then HRT would not be an option as that is injecting the stuff in your body that you are now trying to eliminate. But if the disease is gone.. then it might be an option. I know that most people who do HRT check first for prostate cancer as adding testosterone to that is a bad mix.

Yeah, you're spot on Robblok, prostate cancer differs as it's testosterone and not sugars (for example) that feeds it hence the testosterone annihilation I'm currently enjoying. Does anybody have any ideas on this? Once my radiation treatment is over mid-feb I'm going to hit the gym for light weights to rebuild my lean muscle mass and hopefully keep osteoporosis at bay. I have whey powder and cassein ready to go which means cutting yet more calories from my regular diet. Anybody have any thoughts on this or what more I can add please?

To be honest Whey and cassein (i do use them for ease of use) are only supplements. If you are already so low on calories, i would go for only solid foods like chicken to also keep you full when you eat them. You can use them to get your protein needs.

If you are done.. does that mean its gone and HRT is an option or getting your natural testosterone back is an option ?

Thanks for the input! The reason I went with whey & cassein (for the night) was for muscle repair when I start the weights, nothing more. My hormone therapy has another 2 and a half years to run. My understanding is that prostate cancer will return (even if the prostate is removed, which mine isn't as it's 100% cancerous and it's spread outside of my prostate to local lymph nodes and seminal vesicles - whatever they are) so I really don't know the answer to that question Rob. It's on my list for the oncologist on Tuesday but I'm thinking probably not. I'll find out soon hopefully!

[mommysboy]

JT writes, "On the food choices vs. exercise balance, the overall consensus of scientific thought these days is that food intake is the MUCH more important factor relative to exercise. "

Is it?

My understanding broadly based on UK radio and media is simple - calories in calories out! Obviously calories in is to do with the type of food and quantity consumed, and calories out to do with level of activity. If you have a surplus you are liable to get fat, whereas if you have a deficit you can lose weight. Clearly both sides of the scale are important.

There may be individual differences in the way people digest food, but by and large it really is that simple imho.

Since people are far less active than they ever were, obesity levels have risen.

Likewise food is everywhere, as humans we are programmed to consume, because for many thousands of years food was scarce. It is very difficult to over ride such impulses.

Filling foods high in fibre, and increased activity is likely the only practicable remedy.

Alcohol is one of those unspoken issues and beer contributes greatly to the problem.

[Jingthing]

Just as a practical matter it is more efficient to cut calories than burn them. Look at any chart of time to burn on common foods.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[robertthebruce]

I did a mixture of ''Gym'' ''Swimming''' and eating ''Steamed Food'', no Sugar or Salt.. and within a few weeks, i started to loose weight, i did feel so much better for it...

[mommysboy]

I did a mixture of ''Gym'' ''Swimming''' and eating ''Steamed Food'', no Sugar or Salt.. and within a few weeks, i started to loose weight, i did feel so much better for it...

Proof if ever was needed.

You attended to both aspects.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Just as a practical matter it is more efficient to cut calories than burn them. Look at any chart of time to burn on common foods.

Cutting calories never did anything for me (weak willed)

Cycling 40Km every morning with a couple of hikes to Doi Pui every month lost me 15Kg in two years.

And I enjoy pepsi, KFC, french fries and chocolate every day (not all every day).

How much weight have you lost cutting calories in the last two years?

(I'm guessing none.)

Edited January 18, 2015 by AnotherOneAmerican

[h90]

Just as a practical matter it is more efficient to cut calories than burn them. Look at any chart of time to burn on common foods.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

yes it is amazing how far you can jogging with one piece of cake.....Unless you have a lot time and determination you won't make a big change with only exercise.

When you have already a good diet you can earn yourself a bottle of beer with some exercise......And it refresh you to pump the blood a bit around + while you exercise you don't have time to eating.... But the burned energy is usually relative low.

Additionally many of the electronic devices that show you the burned kcal are made to make the customer happy and show way too much.

[mommysboy]

Just as a practical matter it is more efficient to cut calories than burn them. Look at any chart of time to burn on common foods.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes, I suppose it stands to reason if you don't each much, then you will lose weight, the famine ridden countries and prison camps are a testimony to that.

Surely, doing both is better; dieting a bit and increasing activity. Best of both worlds. And I sincerely doubt food lovers could ever muster the will power to succeed through diet alone. Why suffer!

I listened to a very good podcast on BBC Inside Science last night. Very informative and comprehensive report on dieting and exercise.

[sirineou]

There are always excuses why people are fat.. guess what you can almost always alter it yourself. It just take action but people prefer to blame some outside reason why it wont happen.

Though there are things like difference in metabolic rate / differences in appetite and many others. Thing is nobody said it would be easy, if it was easy to be lean then everyone would be lean and muscular.

It is certainly easy to be"lean and Muscular", I have being lean and muscular all my life with no serious effort of my own

There are many reasons why people are fat or thin,

Genetic, social, medical, political etc

and most of them are beyond a persons Reasonable ability to control.

Sure a person can take extraordinary measures , but at what cost

So when I see new research or theories, I dont see then as excuses I see them as explanations, or attempts at explanations.

Edited January 18, 2015 by sirineou

[Jingthing]

Doing both is better sure. You do need to move some for health reasons alone. Bang for the buck for most people the food part time is more important. Not gonna argue. It's a known thing and not even controversial.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

Just as a practical matter it is more efficient to cut calories than burn them. Look at any chart of time to burn on common foods.

Cutting calories never did anything for me (weak willed)

Cycling 40Km every morning with a couple of hikes to Doi Pui every month lost me 15Kg in two years.

And I enjoy pepsi, KFC, french fries and chocolate every day (not all every day).

How much weight have you lost cutting calories in the last two years?

(I'm guessing none.)

Stupid guess.

About 50 pounds. I exercise as well pretty much the same as before but the big change I made was all food.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited January 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[mommysboy]

Just as a practical matter it is more efficient to cut calories than burn them. Look at any chart of time to burn on common foods.

Cutting calories never did anything for me (weak willed)

Cycling 40Km every morning with a couple of hikes to Doi Pui every month lost me 15Kg in two years.

And I enjoy pepsi, KFC, french fries and chocolate every day (not all every day).

How much weight have you lost cutting calories in the last two years?

(I'm guessing none.)

Stupid guess.

About 50 pounds. I exercise as well pretty much the same as before but the big change I made was all food.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That's admirable, given that you were exercising already then you really were overeating . Yes if you we have such a big calorie intake it would be very difficult to offset this with exercise and a diet is the only option: there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to exercise. So from that point of view I see the strategy.

I think I get where you are coming from but the general argument is really one of preference though. It seems to me you might prefer abstinence over exertion as a weight loss method. I'm not sure of this 'efficiency' theory at all. I mean yes I understand it takes 20 minutes of fast walking to burn off a can of coke, and I understand the logic that you might think it better not to have it all and sit on the sofa or answer the emails. But that is a lifestyle choice. either way it is still calories in,calories out !

For me I'll take the cake, the exercise which I enjoy, and glow in the knowledge that I'm stronger and fitter for doing the walk. No brainer for me, but that also is just my preference too. It's what I like.

And in effect I get up eat a banana, go the gym for an hour and do a light to moderate workout, and chat with my training partner. Then I skip off to Mister Donut for donuts and coffee, and talk some more.

For me that is ideal. Added bonus rippling muscles for a 53 year old, ideal weight and normal bp, mind you I look older than my years I must admit but I'm hoping that is just a cosmetic issue.

[Jingthing]

Oh, geez.

It's not about where I'm coming from.

This is mainstream scientific thinking:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/expert-answers/weight-loss/faq-20058292

Cutting calories through dietary changes seems to promote weight loss more effectively than does exercise and physical activity. But physical activity also is important in weight control.

The key to weight loss is to consume fewer calories than you burn. For most people, it's possible to lower their calorie intake to a greater degree than it is to burn more calories through increased exercise. That's why cutting calories through dieting is generally more effective for weight loss. But doing both — cutting calories and exercising — can help give you the weight-loss edge. Exercise can help burn even more calories than just dieting.

Exercise also is important because it can help you maintain your weight loss. Studies show that people who lose weight and keep it off over the long term get regular physical activity.

If you lose weight by crash dieting or by drastically restricting yourself to 400 to 800 calories a day, you're more likely to regain weight quickly, often within six months after you stop dieting. Getting regular exercise also can help prevent excess weight gain in the first place.

Again, it's not even controversial.

You can find the same conclusion in pretty much all CREDIBLE scientific sources

Edited January 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[mommysboy]

Why the Jeez!!!!

This seems to be saying what has been known for years. Yes of course if you want to lose weight don't eat so much as that caused it in the first place. Of course.

It is one mainstream opinion, does not claim to be definitive, and also emphasise the importance of exercise, in fact you used both. I doubt you would have lost nearly as much had you not been exercising

The headline is silly though, it is not about either or, but both. The article itself talks about the importance of both in tandem.

Can you not see that?

You also clearly stated that it was MUCH more effective, that is not the same as generally more effective.

[Jingthing]

Believe what you like. You're splitting hairs now.

[mommysboy]

Believe what you like. You're splitting hairs now.

Well I took issue with the statement "Much more effective". As it stands it says "seems to be more effective". That is a big hair to split.

Perhaps just a simple misunderstanding. And as I say I do see the argument is sound in quantitative terms. An obese person would have to live on the treadmil, simply not a sole strategy that can work. Dieting is the only way.

Is it possible that the reason why exercise alone did not bear fruit was because you simply went home and ate even more? And once you realised this and really got to grips with calories in/calories out dynamic you went from strength to strength.

Only surmising as it is exactly the sort of thing I would do.

[robblok]

Just as a practical matter it is more efficient to cut calories than burn them. Look at any chart of time to burn on common foods.

Cutting calories never did anything for me (weak willed)

Cycling 40Km every morning with a couple of hikes to Doi Pui every month lost me 15Kg in two years.

And I enjoy pepsi, KFC, french fries and chocolate every day (not all every day).

How much weight have you lost cutting calories in the last two years?

(I'm guessing none.)

Stupid guess.

About 50 pounds. I exercise as well pretty much the same as before but the big change I made was all food.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And there I was thinking you did not loose much.. WOW 50 pounds that is a whole lot. Well done you can be happy with that for sure. Then your way worked for you.

[robblok]

Believe what you like. You're splitting hairs now.

Well I took issue with the statement "Much more effective". As it stands it says "seems to be more effective". That is a big hair to split.

Perhaps just a simple misunderstanding. And as I say I do see the argument is sound in quantitative terms. An obese person would have to live on the treadmil, simply not a sole strategy that can work. Dieting is the only way.

Is it possible that the reason why exercise alone did not bear fruit was because you simply went home and ate even more? And once you realised this and really got to grips with calories in/calories out dynamic you went from strength to strength.

Only surmising as it is exactly the sort of thing I would do.

Not often do I come to JT his defense but I too believe eating less is far more effective as exercising more. I do of course workout quite hard in my gym but to burn 500 cals one needs to really do a lot. Most of us can't do that every day (I could not with the kind of exercise I do as my body needs to recover). Even if you could 500 cals is over an our of intense exercise.

Its easier to eat 500 cals less, however combine exercise and a better diet and your there.

Before I lost my 25 kg I had a crap diet but did workout hard in my gym (always have) but I could not outrain a bad diet.

[robblok]

There are always excuses why people are fat.. guess what you can almost always alter it yourself. It just take action but people prefer to blame some outside reason why it wont happen.

Though there are things like difference in metabolic rate / differences in appetite and many others. Thing is nobody said it would be easy, if it was easy to be lean then everyone would be lean and muscular.

It is certainly easy to be"lean and Muscular", I have being lean and muscular all my life with no serious effort of my own

There are many reasons why people are fat or thin,

Genetic, social, medical, political etc

and most of them are beyond a persons Reasonable ability to control.

Sure a person can take extraordinary measures , but at what cost

So when I see new research or theories, I dont see then as excuses I see them as explanations, or attempts at explanations.

It kinda depends how you use the theories, i read them all I keep up with the latest research to see if I can improve things. I buy books from people like Alan Aragon, and read on sites like those of lyle Mc Donald. Those are guys that use science to explain things. I have even read more strange books like mastering leptin ect. I read good calories bad calories. I like to keep an open mind.

However once you start using those theories to NOT take action and see it as an reason why you are fat and leave it like this. Or use them to your advantage.

You are probably a genetic freak.. (no offence id switch with you in a heartbeat though I am not sure your more muscular as me right now but if it took no effort then some time in the gym would remedy that). Arnold was one of those freaks and there are more but most reasons do have to do with what people eat. But if your a genetic freak you can get away with much more then us mere mortals at the wrong end of the scale.

I wish my genetics would help me to get my lower abs into better shape however i doubt i can do it. And yes pictures do lie this one has been taken from a good angle.. straight front would be less nice.

Edited January 19, 2015 by robblok

[h90]

Believe what you like. You're splitting hairs now.

Well I took issue with the statement "Much more effective". As it stands it says "seems to be more effective". That is a big hair to split.

Perhaps just a simple misunderstanding. And as I say I do see the argument is sound in quantitative terms. An obese person would have to live on the treadmil, simply not a sole strategy that can work. Dieting is the only way.

Is it possible that the reason why exercise alone did not bear fruit was because you simply went home and ate even more? And once you realised this and really got to grips with calories in/calories out dynamic you went from strength to strength.

Only surmising as it is exactly the sort of thing I would do.

Not often do I come to JT his defense but I too believe eating less is far more effective as exercising more. I do of course workout quite hard in my gym but to burn 500 cals one needs to really do a lot. Most of us can't do that every day (I could not with the kind of exercise I do as my body needs to recover). Even if you could 500 cals is over an our of intense exercise.

Its easier to eat 500 cals less, however combine exercise and a better diet and your there.

Before I lost my 25 kg I had a crap diet but did workout hard in my gym (always have) but I could not outrain a bad diet.

beside recovery time: who has the time to sit 4-8 hours per day on the bicycle? On the bike you can out-train a bad diet, but you won't do anything else in your life). (Most probably in less than that time, because the time you sit on the bike you don't eat).

Theoretical possible, but not for us working class people.

[robblok]

Believe what you like. You're splitting hairs now.

Well I took issue with the statement "Much more effective". As it stands it says "seems to be more effective". That is a big hair to split.

Perhaps just a simple misunderstanding. And as I say I do see the argument is sound in quantitative terms. An obese person would have to live on the treadmil, simply not a sole strategy that can work. Dieting is the only way.

Is it possible that the reason why exercise alone did not bear fruit was because you simply went home and ate even more? And once you realised this and really got to grips with calories in/calories out dynamic you went from strength to strength.

Only surmising as it is exactly the sort of thing I would do.

Not often do I come to JT his defense but I too believe eating less is far more effective as exercising more. I do of course workout quite hard in my gym but to burn 500 cals one needs to really do a lot. Most of us can't do that every day (I could not with the kind of exercise I do as my body needs to recover). Even if you could 500 cals is over an our of intense exercise.

Its easier to eat 500 cals less, however combine exercise and a better diet and your there.

Before I lost my 25 kg I had a crap diet but did workout hard in my gym (always have) but I could not outrain a bad diet.

beside recovery time: who has the time to sit 4-8 hours per day on the bicycle? On the bike you can out-train a bad diet, but you won't do anything else in your life). (Most probably in less than that time, because the time you sit on the bike you don't eat).

Theoretical possible, but not for us working class people.

My old dad 67 bikes 40-80 km a day and if it is up to weather everyday (he refuses going out in storms and rains so that limits it a bit in the Netherlands). He is still overweight but his weight is slowly dropping. In a few months he might be below my weight. (less muscle). Unfortunately for my younger brother who was skinny all his life he started gaining weight and now dad has passed him. He is not happy.

[h90]

There are always excuses why people are fat.. guess what you can almost always alter it yourself. It just take action but people prefer to blame some outside reason why it wont happen.

Though there are things like difference in metabolic rate / differences in appetite and many others. Thing is nobody said it would be easy, if it was easy to be lean then everyone would be lean and muscular.

It is certainly easy to be"lean and Muscular", I have being lean and muscular all my life with no serious effort of my own

There are many reasons why people are fat or thin,

Genetic, social, medical, political etc

and most of them are beyond a persons Reasonable ability to control.

Sure a person can take extraordinary measures , but at what cost

So when I see new research or theories, I dont see then as excuses I see them as explanations, or attempts at explanations.

It kinda depends how you use the theories, i read them all I keep up with the latest research to see if I can improve things. I buy books from people like Alan Aragon, and read on sites like those of lyle Mc Donald. Those are guys that use science to explain things. I have even read more strange books like mastering leptin ect. I read good calories bad calories. I like to keep an open mind.

However once you start using those theories to NOT take action and see it as an reason why you are fat and leave it like this. Or use them to your advantage.

You are probably a genetic freak.. (no offence id switch with you in a heartbeat though I am not sure your more muscular as me right now but if it took no effort then some time in the gym would remedy that). Arnold was one of those freaks and there are more but most reasons do have to do with what people eat. But if your a genetic freak you can get away with much more then us mere mortals at the wrong end of the scale.

I wish my genetics would help me to get my lower abs into better shape however i doubt i can do it. And yes pictures do lie this one has been taken from a good angle.. straight front would be less nice.

Two points: Look at 30 years ago....no fast food, there were fat people, but fat meant 10-15 kg too much, not 50 kg too much. So just cutting out all the crap will put you in a weight area that isn't dangerous for you health. And they didn't eat super healthy.

Most things don't need scientific theories, just some common sense or asking your grandma what she cooked will do the trick.

People discuss theories, just to entertain themself, but don't want to change what they eat.

It is said Arnold was a genetic freak on what his liver can stand.....

You don't see the sun, often?

[robblok]

There are always excuses why people are fat.. guess what you can almost always alter it yourself. It just take action but people prefer to blame some outside reason why it wont happen.

Though there are things like difference in metabolic rate / differences in appetite and many others. Thing is nobody said it would be easy, if it was easy to be lean then everyone would be lean and muscular.

It is certainly easy to be"lean and Muscular", I have being lean and muscular all my life with no serious effort of my own

There are many reasons why people are fat or thin,

Genetic, social, medical, political etc

and most of them are beyond a persons Reasonable ability to control.

Sure a person can take extraordinary measures , but at what cost

So when I see new research or theories, I dont see then as excuses I see them as explanations, or attempts at explanations.

It kinda depends how you use the theories, i read them all I keep up with the latest research to see if I can improve things. I buy books from people like Alan Aragon, and read on sites like those of lyle Mc Donald. Those are guys that use science to explain things. I have even read more strange books like mastering leptin ect. I read good calories bad calories. I like to keep an open mind.

However once you start using those theories to NOT take action and see it as an reason why you are fat and leave it like this. Or use them to your advantage.

You are probably a genetic freak.. (no offence id switch with you in a heartbeat though I am not sure your more muscular as me right now but if it took no effort then some time in the gym would remedy that). Arnold was one of those freaks and there are more but most reasons do have to do with what people eat. But if your a genetic freak you can get away with much more then us mere mortals at the wrong end of the scale.

I wish my genetics would help me to get my lower abs into better shape however i doubt i can do it. And yes pictures do lie this one has been taken from a good angle.. straight front would be less nice.

Two points: Look at 30 years ago....no fast food, there were fat people, but fat meant 10-15 kg too much, not 50 kg too much. So just cutting out all the crap will put you in a weight area that isn't dangerous for you health. And they didn't eat super healthy.

Most things don't need scientific theories, just some common sense or asking your grandma what she cooked will do the trick.

People discuss theories, just to entertain themself, but don't want to change what they eat.

It is said Arnold was a genetic freak on what his liver can stand.....

You don't see the sun, often?

You are right with your point about 30 years ago and now. Your point about Arnold.. not sure.. I hear the current bodybuilders use far more. However I am no expert on what they use or how much they use. Its just something I heard and read on the fitness boards.

You are right I don't see the sun as much as I should, after my holidays I am usually quite dark. However during normal times I am indoors working a lot and even when I am outdoors I wont go without a T shirt. I might when I am fishing but then people think I am showing off or something like that so its rare for me to go without a t shirt. So my belly wont get much color.. pitty as it would all look better then.

[cdmtdm]

arnie did have good genetics but he was also a steroid abuser .... frank zane was the cleanest of all and is still very very healthy even today .... well done on your conditioning ..how old are you now may i ask ?

[canman]

It's all BS

Eat less + Exercise more = weigh less

If you are too lazy to exercise more and too weak willed to eat less, you have no hope of losing weight.

Calories in < Calories out = weight loss.

Simple

[cdmtdm]

real calories from real food is the most important point .....if its got a label question why you are eating it ....

[robblok]

arnie did have good genetics but he was also a steroid abuser .... frank zane was the cleanest of all and is still very very healthy even today .... well done on your conditioning ..how old are you now may i ask ?

40 years old, soon to be 41.

Most bodybuilders (in the top) are steroid abusers. But I wonder how much it has all damaged them as most seem to be still alive. Sure some have some problems but take any group of people and you will find problems. Not that I would even consider using what they use. HRT different story.

[cdmtdm]

well done a credit to you !!! yes arnie had heart surgery a decade or so back due to his roids ,,,, http://www.frankzane.com/ have a look as in my opinion Frank is a legend

[robblok]

well done a credit to you !!! yes arnie had heart surgery a decade or so back due to his roids ,,,, http://www.frankzane.com/ have a look as in my opinion Frank is a legend

Could be related the heart surgery or not.. i don't know if its proven. My point is there are many bodybuilders and many abusers and they are not all dropping dead.

Just don't like propaganda like reefer madness (take one joint and your hooked and go crazy). Same applies to steroids they are often totally demonized. Not that i condone abuse, but feel that there should be honest info.. not scaring someone based on non facts. By doing that you make yourself hard to believe.

Frank zane looks good, I am not really that crazy about the looks of current bodybuilders. The size of Frank Zane would be already the biggest I like.

[cdmtdm]

yes and he is super healthy still today ... very ethical guy ...i guess the overall health of these guys as they grow older is the key ... i would rather be healthy and lean that sick and fat as i age ...