Strangely I've been sitting in my room during the depressingly cold and wet Zhejiang winter but I've actually been losing weight. I think a big clue could be that they've turned the soda machine off to save on electricity.
I do also cook around 90% of my own food. That definitely makes a difference.
Check out this article that explains why I'm losing more weight now in the cold in Taiwan than in hot weather. It makes sense. I now wake up with an almost flat stomach every morning now. Wow. Losing weight is so much easier in the cold, and exercise has little to do with it. Here's why:
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2017/1 ... e-calories
Later on the article explains why NOT exercising in the cold will burn more calories, which is ironic, and goes against what we all assume. Lol. It also explains why exercise in general only burns a small percentage of calories so is not effective for losing weight as u might think. See below.It is true that a cold body uses more energy to keep itself warm than a warm body. But alas, exercising in the cold isn’t the fabulous calorie burner we may think it is. Before we get to why, let’s look at the reason this idea seems so intuitive and appealing.
The body does use more energy to stay warm when it’s cold out
First, a word about a process called thermogenesis. Your body creates heat when it’s cold (usually below 32 degrees Fahrenheit but in a person wearing light clothes, it can start at temperatures as high as 70).
One way is by shivering — where the muscles involuntary contract to generate warmth, and defend your body temperature (98.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Or you may begin to activate “brown fat,” the kind of fat tissue whose main function is heat production. Unlike white fat, which stores heat to keep you warm, brown fat burns calories to generate heat.
“The analogy might be a oil tanker that drives on the highway compared to a sports car,” explained Aaron Cypess, a metabolism and brown fat researcher at the National Institutes of Health. “They both have fuel, or fat, but the oil tanker stores it for use later, and that’s the white fat. The sports car stores fuel to burn it, and that’s the brown fat.” The process of breaking down these lipids to release heat, and warm you up is called “non-shivering thermogenesis.”
Both shivering and brown fat activity increase your energy expenditure, causing you to burn more calories in cold temperatures.
“You don’t even know its happening,” Herman Pontzer, an associate professor at Hunter College who studies energetics, told Vox in 2017 (when we first published this piece). “It’s below the radar of your conscious thought, but it’s there ticking away.”
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2017/1 ... e-calories
So you see guys. It makes a lot of sense. And explains why I'm losing weight easily now in Taiwan, a lot easier than in the hot Philippines weather, by just sitting around and letting my body generate heat to stay warm. Lol. I never knew it could be so easy in cold weather to lose weight. No wonder why i was thinner in Russia and also in Bellingham, WA as well. Lol. I knew hot humid weather was bad for my health. I been saying so for years. Now u guys understand why. Read the article above if you don't believe me. LolExercise can produce a lot of heat on its own
Now here’s the rub: These processes only kick in to keep you warm when you’re truly cold. But once you start exercising — running or cross-country skiing, for instance — outside, you’re going to start generating heat from the physical activity. And the exercise alone may give you enough heat that your body wouldn’t burn any extra calories through shivering and brown fat.
That’s why you can go running in very cold temperatures wearing a light sweater and pants, but if you were just sitting around outside in the same cold climate, you’d need to bundle up in a heavy jacket and hat, or you’d start to shiver, to stay warm, Pontzer explained.
“The best way to use the cold to burn more calories would be to not exercise while you're outdoors,” Pontzer added. “You'd get your brown fat cooking and making heat, and might even start shivering, all of which burns calories.”
Now, it is possible to get those energy-burning heating processes going while exercising. Cypess imagined a scenario where a person is exercising in subzero temperatures, and wearing light enough clothes, that the exercise alone isn’t keeping him warm, and thermogenesis kicks in.
But even in that case, you’d only burn a few additional calories at best, Cypess said. In studies where he’s put participants in cold rooms for entire days, they burned off an additional 150 to 200 calories. Again, that’s a full day of cold — not an hour’s worth of outdoor activity.
All physical activity only accounts for a small portion of energy burn
Of course, the most important thing to remember if you’re trying to make up for heavy meals is that physical activity makes up a surprisingly small portion of your total energy burn.
There are three major components to how many calories you burn off in a day: 1) your basal metabolic rate, or the energy used for basic functioning when the body is at rest; 2) the energy used to break down food; and 3) the energy used in physical activity. For most people, the basal metabolic rate accounts for 60 to 80 percent of total energy expenditure. Digesting food accounts for about 10 percent. That leaves only 10 to 30 percent for physical activity, of which exercise is only a subset. Thermogenesis is an even more minor player, Cypess said, usually accounting for less than five or 10 percent of your total energy expenditure (depending on how much time you’ve spent in the cold).
Here's another good article about it.
https://www.aarp.org/health/fitness/inf ... ther_.html
https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/20/exe ... es-burned/Although the weather isn’t a confirmed factor in weight management, you’re more likely to burn extra calories when it’s cold out, explains Bixby, because your body works to keep its temperature constant. “Your body fights harder to stay warm than it does to cool off,” he says. So exercising outdoors on a cold day may burn incrementally more calories than the same activity on a hot one.
Exercising in the cold burns more calories than exercising in warmer temperatures, making it easier to lose weight. Specifically, people who hiked in temperatures ranging from 15 to 23 degrees burned 34 percent more calories than people who hiked in temperatures in the mid-50s, according to a recent study of 53 men and women who took part in a vigorous National Outdoor Leadership School program in Wyoming.
Tell me more:
“Cold is much more metabolically expensive,” said Cara Ocobock, of the University at Albany, who did the Wyoming study. “You have to burn more calories” through what’s called thermogenesis just to keep the body warm. (Hint to dieters: bundle up less; you’ll burn more calories than if you’re engulfed in goose down and wool.)
The men in the outdoor school burned an average of 3,822 calories per day while hiking in the mountains during the spring and 4,787 calories per day in winter; for women it was 3,081 in spring and 3,880 in winter, Ocobock found. This was the first study to measure how calorie expenditures varied by ambient temperature in the real world rather than an exercise lab.
Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Exercise is a great tool to rapidly lose weight - the calories burned running is not that much by itself - say you do a two mile run and you burn 300 calories - that is 300 calories on top of the 2700 that you already have to play with - then you are going to lose more weight if you have a decent healthy diet.
Weight training is another great tool for weight loss because the more muscle you have on your body, the more calories it burns to maintain it - the first thing to go is muscle when you are deprived of food - after a workout - scientists found that calories burned carries on for a good 24 hours - so you aren't just burning calories on the point of exercise but hours after it.
I am wasting my time writing all this shit down because Winston isn't going to do anything about this - he doesn't like getting 'sweaty' and he thinks he will lose weight by being cold all the time it might help someone else though.
No!!! Your body resists losing muscle during fasting by spiking HCG (human growth hormone) after several days, which is about how long it takes to deplete glycogen stores. US military tested water fasting healthy soldiers for 30 days and they lost little muscle. By the end of the fast, they were depressed, grumpy, lethargic, constantly feeling cold, devoid of sex drive, still able to accomplish feats of mental and bodily exertion if forced to do so, but immediately lay down to rest afterwards. As soon as they resumed eating, they were able to perform at the same or higher level as before fasting (plus sex drive skyrocketed during the refeed).
Glucose to run the brain during fasting is taken from the glycerin backbone of fat stores as they are depleted plus gluconeogenesis (breaking dien protein to produce glucose) using damaged protein. Gluconeogenesis using healthy muscle is minimized until non-essential fat stores is completely depleted. For a typical moderately lean but muscular male 180cm tall weighing 75kg with 15% of body weight being fat, about 10% of body weight or 7.5kg is non-essential fat. 7.5kg fat = 67500 kcal. Prolonged fasting metabolism of male described about 2200 kcal/day. 2200 * 30 = 66000 kcal. So 7.5kg fat enough to fuel body 30 days at low fasting metabolism, with no need to touch healthy muscle.
I would like to read this experiement where these soldiers did a 30 day water fast and lost little muscle, do you have a link?
Sorry, I read it long ago and don't have a link. The same conclusions have been reached many times in similar experiments. Google the topic.
The body fights hard to preserve muscle during water fasting, which makes sense. Fasting in nature is normal, and the whole point of having body fat is to have something burn during a fast, while still remaining active and looking for more food. True in both humans and other animals.
You actually lose muscle much easier if you are eating, but not eating enough or not exercising enough, than if you are eating nothing and not exercising at all. That HCG spike during prolonged fasting is the explanation.
I have googled it, Frank, the ongoing science states you lose muscle mass on water only fasts - long term (anything over three or four days and up to a month...) you lose a lot of muscle (gradually... the longer you do these water only fasts the more muscle you lose...)
OK - any research of anyone partaking in a water only fast for a month and losing little muscle mass... my wager is it won't exist.
However, there are several circumstances where you will lose significant muscle while water fasting. For example, if you have some illness which is consuming protein, such as parasitic worms. Another situation would be if you are engaging in very strenuous activity such that your muscles cannot burn fat but rather require glucose, so that muscles have to be cannibalized for gluconeogenesis.
In particular, hiking uphill at high elevations carrying a backpack while water fasting will cause muscles to be cannibalized rapidly. I had personal experience of this when I got sick in the High Sierras and couldn't digest, so I had to walk a week in the mountains at high elevations eating nothing, with massive ascents and descents each day. My performance was superb, never before or since did I zoom uphill like I was doing then, but it was a miserable experience and my muscles were aching the whole time. When I finally reached the store, I went on a protein binge to regain lost muscle. By contrast, when I simply lay around doing nothing while fasting for a week, there was no need for a protein binge afterwards because no muscle cannibalization.
30 day water fasts are fairly common, including among lean people. None of them report losing much muscle if they just lay around, as almost all do. Ray Jardine has a 40 day fasting reports at http://www.rayjardine.com/adventures/20 ... /index.htm. 40 days is long, so he probably did lose significant muscle. Note the body strongly demands laying down after a week or so, depending on how lean you were to start, so you definitely don't have to think about that.
BTW the record for fasting is 382 days. I do have that link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/ It wasn't a pure water fast and he did lose muscle, but apparently muscle loss was in proportion to fat lost, because no health problems from this long fast. That is, fat people often have very muscular legs under the fat, simply in order to carry their enormous weight around, and both excess muscle and excess fat can be cannibalized at the same time.
I have to prove your bullshit claim to be a load of bollix, f**k off
Here's an overview of military studies on the subject: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232468/ Maybe somewhere in there they reference the study I mentioned above. I skimmed the chapter and most of the studies appear to be undereating while still engaging in heavy activity, which is more relevant to the military than pure sedentary water fasting. Activity while undereating, versus pure water fasting with its HCG spike, will definitely cause muscle loss.
There are many areas of dispute about pure sedentary water fasting, but not regarding the claim that almost all weight lost is fat (plus the initial glycogen and water loss, which is immediately regained when the fast ends), which is why it's trouble to find references. Human physiology is well understood regarding this point. What is still open to research and dispute is autophagy (when it starts, how effective), rebound health effects after fasting (rebuilt immune system), etc. Most google results about pure sedentary water fasting concern these topics.
I did nothing of the sort, I asked for the reference of the study of the soldiers who didn't lose significant muscle mass AFTER water fasting for thirty days AND doing strenuous exercise - which you claimed was possible or was achieved in this experiment - which obviously didn't exist, you just didn't expect anyone to call you out on it if you made it scientific sounding enough. I then claimed ANY experiment where studies showed a retention or near retention of muscle mass after water fasting for a month and doing similar tasks to the soldiers you claimed kept most of their muscle mass despite doing strenuous tasks - course, you can't find anything and nor can I because no such experiment exists.
Your claims go against the science of retaining muscle mass. Muscle is based around protein intake and constant protein intake which is why bodybuilders eat lots of protein - none of this is complicated.
I never made the bolded part of the above claim, only the first part. I did mention strenuous exercise, but it should have been clear these were brief tests during and after fasting, not strenuous exercise throughout the fast. Other studies, in that link I gave, tested ability to perform continuous strenuous exercise while undereating (but not fasting). These latter studies do show muscle loss, but not much. The body always burns fat reserves first and preserves muscle as much as possible.
Ok yick, now you're becoming stupid (confusing building versus preserving muscle) and since stupidity is contagious, I'm going to move on. You can have the last word.
No!!! Your body resists losing muscle during fasting by spiking HCG (human growth hormone) after several days, which is about how long it takes to deplete glycogen stores. US military tested water fasting healthy soldiers for 30 days and they lost little muscle. By the end of the fast, they were depressed, grumpy, lethargic, constantly feeling cold, devoid of sex drive, still able to accomplish feats of mental and bodily exertion if forced to do so, but immediately lay down to rest afterwards.
They were still able to accomplish 'feats' of mental and bodily exertion - that would be like route marches, assault course, drill and strenuous exercise - that is what a 'feat' is... dictionary please..
an achievement that requires great courage, skill, or strength.
OK, you could have explained it a bit better - no problems - still can't find this experiment anywhere though. If you come across it yourself then post it up on here so I can read it.I did mention strenuous exercise, but it should have been clear these were brief tests during and after fasting, not strenuous exercise throughout the fast.
Not a 30 day water fast, the body needs food for long periods of time, can you survive 'undereating' will you maintain optimum muscle mass - no.Other studies, in that link I gave, tested ability to perform continuous strenuous exercise while undereating (but not fasting). These latter studies do show muscle loss, but not much. The body always burns fat reserves first and preserves muscle as much as possible.
Thanks Frank.Ok yick, now you're becoming stupid (confusing building versus preserving muscle) and since stupidity is contagious, I'm going to move on. You can have the last word.
I'm being stupid? I am not the one making up experiments that never existed. No-one is able to do a 30 day water fast and preserve a lot of muscle because that is what a bodybuilder would do pre-contest.
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 2 Replies
- 1678 Views
Last post by Jester
- 5 Replies
- 3746 Views
Last post by Taco
- 5 Replies
- 2968 Views
Last post by ladislav
- 5 Replies
- 4238 Views
Last post by xiongmao
- 40 Replies
- 8905 Views
Last post by E Irizarry R&B Singer
Where should Forerunner go ? Suggestions Needed :)
- 3 Replies
- 1696 Views
Last post by Forerunner
- 1 Replies
- 2378 Views
Last post by Winston
- 21 Replies
- 2880 Views
Last post by snede