belly fat

[SFC JeffJ]

Another thing to consider is that you really shouldn't be worried to much about weight. I've seen a lot of people not really lose any weight but become trimmer 'cause muscle is much denser than fat. Concentrate on waist size instead.

Jeff

 

[exile]

Another thing to consider is that you really shouldn't be worried to much about weight. I've seen a lot of people not really lose any weight but become trimmer 'cause muscle is much denser than fat. Concentrate on waist size instead.

Jeff

Yeah, excellent point, Jeff—the way I once heard it put, the way your clothes fit you is a much better guage of your body composition than what the scale tells you. People who go on starvation or other crazy diets often lose weight, but not very much fat—instead, they lose muscle tissue—the worst thing you can do! The flip side is the cases you're talking about—people gain muscle mass, actually gain weight, but they're much leaner (and leaner-looking) because even though they gained weight, they lost body fat—the weight gain was muscle tissue, which always makes people look (and function) better, male or female.

One problem is, I think, that people on diet/exercise programs check their progress too frequently. They weigh themselves or run a tape measure around their waists every day. Progress is too gradual to show up on a daily basis, so they get discouraged and think they aren't getting anywhere. If they only weighed themselves twice a month, they'd see dramatic progress (as long as they stuck to their programs), and would be really encouraged. Best thing is probably to work on it, but not think about it too much—just check in occasionally and be very pleasantly surprised by how much progress you've made since last time you checked...

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Yeah, excellent point, Jeff—the way I once heard it put, the way your clothes fit you is a much better guage of your body composition than what the scale tells you. People who go on starvation or other crazy diets often lose weight, but not very much fat—instead, they lose muscle tissue—the worst thing you can do! The flip side is the cases you're talking about—people gain muscle mass, actually gain weight, but they're much leaner (and leaner-looking) because even though they gained weight, they lost body fat—the weight gain was muscle tissue, which always makes people look (and function) better, male or female.

One problem is, I think, that people on diet/exercise programs check their progress too frequently. They weigh themselves or run a tape measure around their waists every day. Progress is too gradual to show up on a daily basis, so they get discouraged and think they aren't getting anywhere. If they only weighed themselves twice a month, they'd see dramatic progress (as long as they stuck to their programs), and would be really encouraged. Best thing is probably to work on it, but not think about it too much—just check in occasionally and be very pleasantly surprised by how much progress you've made since last time you checked...

Excellent point! When I couldn't exercise for a while because of injuries and surgery this past summer, I put on quite a bit of weight. At first I checked my weight and waist almost every day when I could exercise again. That is very demoralizing, Every two weeks at the most. I ended up going with checking myself monthly. It made a huge difference.

Jeff

 

[exile]

When I couldn't exercise for a while because of injuries and surgery this past summer, I put on quite a bit of weight. At first I checked my weight and waist almost every day when I could exercise again. That is very demoralizing, Every two weeks at the most. I ended up going with checking myself monthly. It made a huge difference.

Jeff

Once a month is really ideal—but most people can't seem to accept checking that infrequently! If you can, though, the reward is, as you say, huge...

 

[Freestyler777]

The question to the original post is, well, yes. There's no such thing as spot reducing. When you lose fat, it comes off evenly over your whole body, just like it was put on. Doing sit-ups will not reduce the amount of fat on your midsection, it will only strengthen the rectus abdominus muscle, which will still be obscured by fat. The way to lose fat is to either A) build lean muscle mass, primarily by lifting weights, which increases your basal metabolic rate (the amount of calories your body burns while you are not exercising) or B) increase cardio activity, or C) decrease excess carbohydrate consumption, which tends to lend itself well to weight gain. I am a Licensed Acupuncturist, so I have some knowledge about health. I hope I helped in some way.

Lior Avni, L.Ac

 

[shesulsa]

One perpetuated myth is that cardiovascular training will burn fat. It will burn some fat, but cardio is targeted to train your heart and lungs for endurance.

You don't have to raise your heart rate very much to burn fat. So what you *really* need is to eliminate white/firm fats in your diet, introduce healthier fats in lower amounts, and engage in fat-burning activity for longer periods every day.

Brisk walking - NOT POWERWALKING - is one good way to burn fat - you can walk a little faster than a stroll for 45 minutes and burn fat.

Consider ditching butter and oleomargarine and try to opt for extra-virgin olive oil for cold oil applications (like salad dressing and bread spreads) and Grape seed oil for heated oil applications (cooking). There is a wonderful product on the market called Take Control which will not only help you burn the fat you have but will reduce your bad cholesterol and raise your good cholesterol.

TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY OF THESE CHANGES - I'M TYPING WHAT WORKED FOR ME WHEN I WAS TRAINING HARD. *gotta start again*

 

[Dave Leverich]

Great stuff, thanks Shesulsa!

 

[Freestyler777]

I have one comment: Ever see a fat marathon runner?

 

[Freestyler777]

I'm just saying, cardio is part of the fat-loss scheme. I'm not trying to offend.

 

[shesulsa]

I'm just saying, cardio is part of the fat-loss scheme. I'm not trying to offend.

Like I said ... cardio training will burn some fat. And I'm willing to bet you marathon runners are in such great cardiovascular shape that they have a lower heart rate at a jog than most have at a slow run. But you just don't have to run like a marathoner to burn a lot of fat.

 

[Freestyler777]

I agree that you do not need a lot of running to lose bodyfat.

By the way, shesulsa, what do you think of a rice-based diet? I think it helps people stay slim. Over 50% of the world eats a rice-based diet.

And people in America eat way to many junk carbohydrates (soda, juice, candy, white bread, pasta, doughnuts, iced tea, etc...) But I do think that a grain based diet, especially if rice is your staple, is very healthy. What is your opinion?

Lior

 

[shesulsa]

I agree that you do not need a lot of running to lose bodyfat.

By the way, shesulsa, what do you think of a rice-based diet? I think it helps people stay slim. Over 50% of the world eats a rice-based diet.

And people in America eat way to many junk carbohydrates (soda, juice, candy, white bread, pasta, doughnuts, iced tea, etc...) But I do think that a grain based diet, especially if rice is your staple, is very healthy. What is your opinion?

Lior

I think a lot depends on a person's genetic make-up. As it applies to those of white European descent, it appears that clean carbs (brown rice, wild rice, supergrains) when not combined with a meat source seem to serve us well, as does combining animal source food with vegetables and refraining from combining animal source food with starch of any kind. That's another thing I did when I was training hard that helped me build muscle well, build endurance and lose fat.

Don Roley made a post on another thread about the problem of the poor in America being fat - which is mostly because of a diet with a lot of simple carbohydrate foods, mainly because they're cheap.

But you asked about rice specifically, so I assume you're comparing rice to other American staples of wheat and corn and yes, I agree that rice is a good alternative to these. I don't often hear of rice allergies, though I hear about gluten intolerance (celiac disease) and corn allergy/intolerance all the time.

 

[Freestyler777]

Disclaimer: The following opinion may be offensive to some

Rice is the ideal staple, in my opinion. But I do not believe in trophology as much as you do. I try to base my nutritional knowledge on observation of large groups of people rather than scientific theory.

Most people worldwide eat a rice-based diet, and eat meat and grain at the same meal. Most people throughout recorded history had no knowledge of combining or separating foods, nutritional values, or the latest scientific evidence. People ate what was seasonal, such as eating fruits and vegetables during the summer because that is what grows during the summer, and meat and grain during the winter. Obiously, as man moved to colder climates, the need for meat and stored grain increased. Why? Grain is either amylose or amylopectin, and breaks down into glucose, the fuel of the human body. One can grow a huge crop of grain in the summer, harvest it, and store it in graineries indefinately. Meat is an obvious choice during the winter too because there is very little plant matter growing during the winter, and meat increases the body temperature as well as makes use of all the condensed, stored nutrition in the muscle tissue of the prey species, such as sheep or cattle or whatever.

My point is, the traditional way of eating is best, because it is what man has grown up on since the beginning. Man has lived on the aforementioned diet for thousands of years, while Coca-Cola and Wonder Bread are relatively recent inventions.

I think that is a valid opinion. Please reply, if you will.

 

[shesulsa]

Disclaimer: The following opinion may be offensive to some

Rice is the ideal staple, in my opinion. But I do not believe in trophology as much as you do. I try to base my nutritional knowledge on observation of large groups of people rather than scientific theory.

I think that's an interesting response, since my reply was based on the observation of a large group of people, white European Americans. So I'll take my point further in response. Your observation of rice-based diets must be applicable to those whom have been doing this for centuries if not millenia. Africans have eaten African grains, some rice. Middle easterners have eaten some rice but more of other grains and beans and are mostly vegan. The grain staple of Native Americans has mostly been corn, though according to our local museum, some rice and oats have been noted in the diet, though not nearly as much rice as oat and corn. Then there's our southern neighbors, Mexican natives relied much on corn. These were combined with whatever could be had, of course, according to the season before refrigeration was a common reality.

Most people worldwide eat a rice-based diet, and eat meat and grain at the same meal. Most people throughout recorded history had no knowledge of combining or separating foods, nutritional values, or the latest scientific evidence. People ate what was seasonal, such as eating fruits and vegetables during the summer because that is what grows during the summer, and meat and grain during the winter. Obiously, as man moved to colder climates, the need for meat and stored grain increased. Why? Grain is either amylose or amylopectin, and breaks down into glucose, the fuel of the human body. One can grow a huge crop of grain in the summer, harvest it, and store it in graineries indefinately. Meat is an obvious choice during the winter too because there is very little plant matter growing during the winter, and meat increases the body temperature as well as makes use of all the condensed, stored nutrition in the muscle tissue of the prey species, such as sheep or cattle or whatever.

Indeed. However, you are ignoring the use of perserving in some cultures - drying vegetables and fruits, canning (glass jars), etcetera, though I do acknowledge that the main staples in the winter were indeed grains and meat. But then one must also enterain that life expectancies were nearly half of what they are now and one must wonder if this was because of disease, accident, or starvation. And then, we must ask 'what kind of disease?' I wonder how much we really understood about diabetes and other blood-sugar related diseases 100 years ago, though there is little question and much documentation as to diahrrea and tuberculosis. *I* wonder how many of these cases were mis-diagnosed according to medical limitations.

My point is, the traditional way of eating is best, because it is what man has grown up on since the beginning. Man has lived on the aforementioned diet for thousands of years, while Coca-Cola and Wonder Bread are relatively recent inventions.

I think that is a valid opinion. Please reply, if you will.

Of course your opinion is valid as is mine and we can never really know because, again, of the limited medical testing technology of the times. Who's to say people didn't die of celiac disease or irritable bowel? They were likely more slender because people actually got off their butts and WORKED all day - the simple axiom of burning more calories than you consume will burn calories no matter what you eat, though it is clearly still very important to fuel our bodies correctly.

Then we must also take other things into account, such as the bioengineering of our food supply, the alteration of our genetic structure through vaccination and medication, the seemingly undiagnosed epidemic of gut peptide imbalances and gut flora inadequacies (demonstrated by the inundating need by so many of antacids, acid blockers, etcetera).

I think it's misguided and romantic to assume that a return to ancient eating habits is a panacea for belly fat accumulation and good health. Too much has happened to us as a species and our food supply and distribution in the last 100 years, hell the last 10 years, so make this assumption accurately.

 

[Freestyler777]

I thank you for responding.

First of all, I am conversing with you, not necessarily on belly fat, but on general health, and in order to get your opinion.

Also, I simply use rice as an example because it is currently the majority of the world's staple. I realize that there are many grains out there, and that practically everyone, including Europeans and Americans eat a grain based diet, even if it is white bread or pasta or rye bread or whatever.

I realize there were ways of preserving fruits and vegetables for consumption during the cold season, but what I am trying to say is it doesn't take hundreds or thousands of years to form epidiological evidence, it takes merely a few generations to establish which population groups are healthier and slimmer than others. I realize the past was not a Golden Era, but neither is the present day, when men live to 75 years on average (80 in Okinawa and Japan). But men of prior ages were much stronger and more robust, even if they died of infectious disease in what is now relatively youth. To address one point you made, I sincerely doubt that diabetes was of concern to the majority of people in the past few thousand years, since obesity was also unheard of. All of the chronic, degenerative conditions that plagues modern man has come about in the modern era, or the past two hundred years or so, with things getting worse all the time. Diabetes used to be called, 'the rich man's disease', because few could afford to be overweight until the past fifty years. (Like you said earlier, the poor are fat because they eat cheap, refined carbohydrate foods instead of nutritious basic foods, such as rice and seasonal vegetables.) It seems we have exchanged a hard, short life that ends by infectious disease, for a long, slowly degnerating life that allows us to become decrepit and die of cancer (Cancer used to affect 1 in a 1000, now it is 1 in 4). Maybe it is wishful thinking, to dream of the past and tradition, but it is almost certain that men of antiquity were slimmer and stronger than us, and I believe life is not measured in years but in happiness.

I respect your knowledge and opinion.

 

[rutherford]

Not only that, but according to a show I watched the other day 'Eating 33,000 Calories a Day' (or whatever it was called) as you gain fat, you add fat cells. That's would seem obvious, right? Well, those fat cells then also enlarge as you pack on the pounds. Well, when you start losing the fat, you don't every lose those gained fat cells, the fat cells just get smaller.

At least that is the way I understood what they were saying.

There were some absolutely huge people on that show.

That would be correct!

No, that would be a theory, and one I expect to see fading.

http://www.health.drjez.com/Dietary Strategies/Fat Cell Numbers.htm

 

[Bigshadow]

My point is, the traditional way of eating is best, because it is what man has grown up on since the beginning. Man has lived on the aforementioned diet for thousands of years, while Coca-Cola and Wonder Bread are relatively recent inventions.

Even what you consider traditional is even dated. For instance grains were not necessarily the staple food of early man. Grains weren't really part of the diet as I understand things until man started farming (coming from hunter/gatherers to farmers). Most grains take processing to make them palatable. Where the most basic foods don't require any processing at all. Oats, wheat, rice, etc require some form off processing and cooking. I believe the earliest diets didn't include grains for the most parts. I think they were vegatables, meats, and seeds (those that could be eaten without much prep).

 

[shesulsa]

I thank you for responding.

First of all, I am conversing with you, not necessarily on belly fat, but on general health, and in order to get your opinion.

I'll respond to your general health discussion shortly, but the emphasis of this thread is on belly fat and we should continue the discussion on belly fat, as we don't like to let threads wander too far from topic here - it's a general posting rule.

I realize there were ways of preserving fruits and vegetables for consumption during the cold season, but what I am trying to say is it doesn't take hundreds or thousands of years to form epidiological evidence, it takes merely a few generations to establish which population groups are healthier and slimmer than others. I realize the past was not a Golden Era, but neither is the present day, when men live to 75 years on average (80 in Okinawa and Japan).

You might also take into consideration another major diet difference there, which would be fish - MUCH more fish in the diet than the white European and WEDA (white european descent american) which group has relied heavily on porcine and bovine food sources as well as eggs as the main protein sources. It is not hard to find research on the effects of consuming wild-caught fish on lipids and lipid balances in humans versus the effects of consuming the former.

But men of prior ages were much stronger and more robust, even if they died of infectious disease in what is now relatively youth. To address one point you made, I sincerely doubt that diabetes was of concern to the majority of people in the past few thousand years, since obesity was also unheard of.

<snip>

Diabetes used to be called, 'the rich man's disease', because few could afford to be overweight until the past fifty years. (Like you said earlier, the poor are fat because they eat cheap, refined carbohydrate foods instead of nutritious basic foods, such as rice and seasonal vegetables.)

And there is another VERY common misconception about diabetes - that it is caused by obesity. One does not need to be overweight to be diabetic and not all obese people are diabetic. Type I diabetes is life-long diabetes - essentially (in my words) a birth defect of the pancreas; the pancreas cannot produce insulin, hence the need for supplementation. Type I diabetics are often rail-thin (Mary Tyler Moore is a Type I diabetic). Type II diabetes can be arrived at by poor diet plus exercise or a diet with excessive protein plus overtraining. Obesity itself is not the sole cause for Type II diabetes. In fact, I believe I read in a medical trade journal (boy I'll have a heck of a time finding that source since most are not published on the internet) that there has been some consideration of splitting Type II diabetes into two sub-types because of this problem. I've met a couple handfuls of bodybuilders and athletes who have developed Type II diabetes from ill-informed dietary advice from personal trainers; advice they followed to gain muscle mass and lose weight (usually belly fat) quickly, yet whom had never been overweight and did not have Type I Diabetes.

It seems we have exchanged a hard, short life that ends by infectious disease, for a long, slowly degnerating life that allows us to become decrepit and die of cancer (Cancer used to affect 1 in a 1000, now it is 1 in 4).

Again, even the most respected medical researchers today will caveat that it is impossible to know how many people died of cancer 70 and + years ago because of inadequate testing and barely standardized allopathic medicine.

Maybe it is wishful thinking, to dream of the past and tradition, but it is almost certain that men of antiquity were slimmer and stronger than us, and I believe life is not measured in years but in happiness.

Actually, I think it wise to look at what worked and what didn't. We know that a diet which is exclusive of vegetables and fruits regularly can lead us into cancer territory. That's not to say that we should stop eating meat, though we should examine the quality of our animal food sources and their industrialization.

The best way to do this, I think, is to take notice of each person's individual needs and this is best done by keeping a meticulous dietary journal and by the elimination diet.

There are clearly people who do quite well on mixing meat and rice, however it is unquestionable that others do not. We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater when we're looking at our dietary intake and individual health.

So back to belly fat ... it has been postulated that in *some people* the different peptides which are required to digest starches and proteins sometimes don't mix well within the stomach of *some people* and the theory is that because of this, digestion is limited. The first things to come out in the digestive process are simple carbohydrates and fats. So if digestion is halted mid-process, it stands to reason that the majority of the calories absorbed with this food combination in *some people* will be sugar and fat, taxing the pancreas and the gallbladder which will ultimately tax the spleen additionally. Then we have the issue of undigested food passing through the intestines which, in my son's case, can cause a whole host of other problems. So we have attempted and possibly incomplete digestion of fats and sugars which goes into where? Fat stores, usually the first place that goes is where? The belly.

It's a theory and the experience of many I've spoken with and it is my course for dietary recovery.

 

[Bigshadow]

To address one point you made, I sincerely doubt that diabetes was of concern to the majority of people in the past few thousand years, since obesity was also unheard of.

Obesity and diabetes are not explicitly related. Obesity can affect diabetes but one does not have to be obese to have diabetes. Part of it is genetic and the other is likely diet. Of course the United States is the largest consumer of refined sugar on this planet. I think there is a direct correlation between refined sugar and the rates of diabetes. It is in far more than candies and soda-pop. You would be surprised where you will find sugar listed in the first 3 ingredients.

All of the chronic, degenerative conditions that plagues modern man has come about in the modern era, or the past two hundred years or so, with things getting worse all the time.

That is a little presumptuous. There are many things they didn't know 200 or 300 years ago that we know today and so the causes of death we know of the past is probably a little vague at this point. Some causes of death were simply false. A prime example is someone who died of an an overdose of morphine or some other (at that time legal) drug. Often it was reported as they died of pneumonia or some other ailment.

It seems we have exchanged a hard, short life that ends by infectious disease, for a long, slowly degnerating life that allows us to become decrepit and die of cancer (Cancer used to affect 1 in a 1000, now it is 1 in 4).

It is all about the money. No amount of health knowledge is going to help when one has longer weeks than paychecks and mouths to feed. It boils down to economics. The bad stuff is cheaper to produce and cheaper to buy and it fills the tummies of hungry kids. It is sad but true!

I believe life is not measured in years but in happiness.

That is true! Who would want to live for years and not be happy.

 

[Bigshadow]

No, that would be a theory, and one I expect to see fading.

http://www.health.drjez.com/Dietary Strategies/Fat Cell Numbers.htm

If that is true, it is a good thing! There are alot of theories out there.