Beer Belly

[divrguy]

Never ever sacrifice a beer for the sake of less calories. Make great beer, don't drink too much and exercise! Everyday, not once or twice a week! Every day! Just my 2 cents...

 

[nukebrewer]

This isn't true as someone else pointed out. Your body will burn more calories breaking down protein than it will Twinkies.

+1

On a related note, after a certain amount at one time, your body can't process any additional protein, so it just gets rid of it. That's why on diets like the Ducan diet, you really have to pay attention to hydration and fiber intake to keep you regular. Unlike carbs, protein doesn't get converted to fat when more than the body needs is consumed. It just goes away in the #1 and #2 streams. You're also at increased risk of kidney stones on that diet for the same reason.

 

[3sheetsEMJ]

Next year at the week long event I may attempt to disprove a theory that medieval people did not drink water and only drink small beer for the duration. But I do make ales and meads that are period but I would REALLY like to make a stien beer with period equipment. One day when my pocket contains more than lint I may attempt it...

Ive heard of mead but what is stien beer? And how would you make it with period equipment? That sounds interesting...

 

[Zamial]

Ive heard of mead but what is stien beer? And how would you make it with period equipment? That sounds interesting...

Stein beer is made from super heating granite rocks and lowering them into the wort to make it boil. Period stuff would be a mostly wooden brewery... barrels are expensive and heavy...

 

[chalmer9]

This isn't true as someone else pointed out. Your body will burn more calories breaking down protein than it will Twinkies.

The difference is incredibly minimal, but believe what you want, I don't care.

 

[KeyWestBrewing]

Stein beer is made from super heating granite rocks and lowering them into the wort to make it boil.

That's pretty badass!!!

 

[TheSlash]

Anyone in here who thinks that certain calories make you more fat than others are 100% wrong.

Healthwise is a different story, but you will gain just as much weight eating 6000 calories a day of chicken breasts as you would Snickers bars.

Thanks. I was going to say something, blah I still will since there are MANY misinformed people in this thread. =)

Calories are calories when it comes to weight loss. Where they matter is in health and composition.

Protein surely does get converted into fat. If you eat over maintenance.

Funny enough, one of the things the body cannot convert to fat and store is alcohol. However it prioritizes alcohol detoxing and stores everything else you ate as fat. However beer has more than just alcohol, unlike pure spirits. So if you want to get smashed, have a small protein only lunch, then binge at night on straight liquor. Impossible to store any fat.

Also, your body can use as much protein as you throw at it. We are finding out large amounts of protein are still being digested up to a day later. Whey protein has an absorption rate of 10g per hour, where most animal proteins are 5g per hour. So that 100g protein steak you ate will take 20 hours to fully digest. These are the reasons the warrior diet (one large 2000 calorie ish meal a day) work so well.

Personally, I use intermittent fasting to keep weight in check. I fast 16 hours a day and eat in an 8 hour window. I'll eat a 600 calorie lunch, then a 1400 calorie dinner, normally including a beer or 2. I maintain sub 10% body fat eating what I want this way.

Another mind blower.... 6-8 small meals a day is BS. I mean it CAN work, but the dedication and margin for error make is not work for 99% of the people. People just eat too much food.

leangains dot com is a great resource to start reading about a way to eat that will change your life. I've got 5 friends and a fiance all dropping weight like mad on this. We can all still drink! yay.

Sorry if this sounds like a piss post, I get into this stuff and love showing people a way they can manage their weight easily for life.

Eg. I wake up at 8, drink black coffee, eat 600 calories at 1pm. Get home at 7pm and eat about 1400+ calories between 7 and 9pm. Then I don't put another calorie in my mouth until 1pm the next day.

 

[TheSlash]

This isn't true as someone else pointed out. Your body will burn more calories breaking down protein than it will Twinkies.

but but but, the thermogenic percentage based off the difference in structure of a kcal is so miniscule it would never matter. You could literally drop some crumbs from your mouth and even it out.

 

[earwig]

I won't waste my time posting links you won't click. If you really belive all calories are the same just search Bing/Google and you'll quickly find 100s of articles that explain why they are not.

 

[TheSlash]

I won't waste my time posting links you won't click. If you really belive all calories are the same just search Bing/Google and you'll quickly find 100s of articles that explain why they are not.

Never said they were all the same =) Fat has a low thermogenic effect, protein has a high one. But the effect is so miniscule you'd be better off waving at someone for 30 seconds. Would probably burn more calories than the difference. Just saying, people worry about the wrong stuff. The big picture is what makes the difference.

Better to watch total calories than the type of calories or base any decision around a thermogenic effect. People use that to justify eating 6+ times a day. Or to argue you won't lose weight eating snickers bars only.

Not realizing it is based off total food processed and not by how often you eat. A larger meal has a larger thermogenic effect, more small meals have more small thermogenic spikes. Averages out.

There are articles for everything. I can find you 1000's saying to eat 6+ times a day, yet I can show you a whole new wave of people eating 1-2 meals a day and getting leaner and better blood profiles in 1/2 the time. 6+ small meals with tons of supps is an industry gimmick to keep most people fat and sell product!
But its ok, not like I do this for a living or anything.

Did you read the link for leangains I posted?

 

[el_horno]

Beer belly is a myth? What say you?

 

[sonofgrok]

The classic calorie is a calorie is a calorie argument is so played out. I swear most people get their nutritional advice from fat chicks on the view or something. This argument is like saying H2O is H2O is H2O. Try giving a plant nothing but pure H20... it will die. Bodies, like plants, also need nutrients and different foods have very different nutrient profiles. When you eat food, you are not only eating calories, you are also eating other things that your body needs and in many cases, other things that your body doesn't need. Feed someone the same number of calories of Twinkies and 100 calorie oreo snack packs for a year as someone getting them from vegetables and grass fed meats and you will end up with two very different health states at the end of that year.

Are calories an important aspect of health? Yes. Eat too many calories and it doesn't matter where they came from, you will probably gain weight.
Are calories the end all of nutritional health? Heck no.

Nutrition and health is a complex beast and that picture keeps becoming more complex. In the last 2 months I have read two different scientific papers related to this. One on a protein in modern GMO wheat that actually acts as an opiate making people eat more and another on cell absorption of foreign mRNA from the foods you eat (i.e. your cells may be expressing genes from plant and animal food that you eat). Each could have profound implications on nutrition and these are only two small recent discoveries that could play into the nutritional health picture.

 

[kroach01]

All calories are not the same!

Simple carbohydrates can be directly entered into the glycolytic pathway, and thus can be mobilized with minimal energy expenditure. Proteins need to be digested and deaminated so require more energy to mobilize. Similarly, complex sugars are less metabolically available then fats.
Thus, if you ate a diet of 80% proteins and 20% fat you add less calories than a diet of say 100% carbs.
Also, diets biased towards a particular type of energy source have their own metabolic implications as well.

Also, it's not technically true that your body uses all the protein you eat. There is a maximum your body will uptake, and this varies from person to person. It also depends on how digestible the proteins are. If you pound a monster steak, it will take a long while to digest so you could feasibly absorb most of the protein. But if you pound 100 grams of a protein shake in 5 minutes, the excess proteins will turn into fat.

 

[el_horno]

Speaking of calories, I thought this was an interesting study that was completed on monkeys over the past 25 years.

 

[TheSlash]

Everything excess except alcohol, fiber, and crap like splenda turns to fat, but that means your body still processes it. No one said calories are the same. The only thing that is the same is how much energy is in a kcal. See it is a unit of measure. If your body burned 3000 kcals of energy any given day and you eat 2999 usable kcals of energy, guess what, you lost weight. If you ate 3001 kcals you just gained weight. Not talking about health! That should be obvious that a mealplan of twinkies will lead to health problems.

 

[TyTanium]

Here's a fantastic article explaining why all calories are NOT the same for weight loss. Different foods have different metabolic effects on our bodies. A diet of 2,000 calories of fat/protein will be very different than 2,000 calories of carbs in terms of weight management.

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

 

[kroach01]

Everything excess except alcohol, fiber, and crap like splenda turns to fat, but that means your body still processes it. No one said calories are the same. The only thing that is the same is how much energy is in a kcal. See it is a unit of measure. If your body burned 3000 kcals of energy any given day and you eat 2999 usable kcals of energy, guess what, you lost weight. If you ate 3001 kcals you just gained weight. Not talking about health! That should be obvious that a mealplan of twinkies will lead to health problems.

Ok, so the number 3000=3000. I get that.

But with respect to the source of calories and how they affect the body's metabolism, saying 3000cal = 3000 cal is really not true at all if the sources are different. There were plenty of posts here saying all calories are the same. I guess in an absolute sense, irrespective of the human body and its metabolic pathways, that's true. 3 does mathematically equal 3.

If I sit down every day and eat one meal that contains my daily caloric content, I will not have the same metabolism as someone who eats five and gets the same caloric content.
If I ate the one meal that was 100% skittles and all of my caloric need, my metabolism would be different than having five meals that were broccoli but fulfilled the same caloric need.
In any scenario my caloric intake is the same. In all scenarios, the metabolic picture and my weight are going to be different.
It's all about the glycemic index.

Also, while alcohol can't directly be converted into fats it can inhibit lipolysis and cause fat to build up.

 

[sonofgrok]

That should be obvious that a mealplan of twinkies will lead to health problems.

I wish it was. There seem to be more than enough people that it isn't obvious to as evidenced by our growing obesity and diabetic problems. And if it is obvious it is only due to the brand name "Twinkie". A large number of the starbucks drinks people stuff their face with every morning are just as bad or worse.

 

[sonofgrok]

 

[Safa]

Eat less and workout....That's what I do, so I can drink this beer...

I don't exercise so I can end up looking better. I do it so I can eat whatever I want whenever I want and drink ungodly amounts of beer.

Its not that I like exercise. I hate it. I just love eating and drinking so much, its worth it.

OP: you're drinking beer, its got alcohol in it, its going to make you fat no matter how many calories it has.

 

[kroach01]

I don't exercise so I can end up looking better. I do it so I can eat whatever I want whenever I want and drink ungodly amounts of beer.

Its not that I like exercise. I hate it. I just love eating and drinking so much, its worth it.

OP: you're drinking beer, its got alcohol in it, its going to make you fat no matter how many calories it has.

Actually alcohol inhibits lipolysis (fat breakdown), so it can allow fat to build up. But yeah, alcohol won't directly be converted to fat.

 

[Yooper]

I hate to get dragged into nutritional debates, but I will just tell you my experiences.

I am a big believer in "wheat belly", and not "beer belly". My husband is very slim, but had a tiny little pot belly. Two and a half years ago, he did a ton of research on nutrition (he's a biologist) and decided that wheat is not meant for human consumption.

We both quite eating wheat, and most other carbs, and both changed our bodies.

He has to add carbs every few days, or he drops below 149 pounds (he's 5'11") and he eats about 4000 calories per day.

I eat less calories than he does but still LOTS for my size, and I eat far less carbs than he does. My body can have a piece of bread, and change its metabolism. But I can eat tons of protein and vegetables and stay at 135 pounds.

I do drink plenty of beer, but do not eat any wheat or sugar at all. I eat almost no corn, rice, and few potatoes. I eat vegetables and meat (or chicken or fish), very rarely fruit but never fruit juice, and am slim.

We don't do "paleo" diets, but more of a primal type eating plan. There is a TON of research out there showing why high carb/low fat diets are causing the biggest obesity epidemic in history, including in children. The current nutritional teaching, even in diabetic education plans, is wrong. And it's killing Americans. Just look up "metabolic syndrome" to see why this is so important.

 

[KeyWestBrewing]

Someone fill me in if I'm wrong here but.... Isn't the idea of eating more, smaller, healthy meals in a day vs 2 or 3 healthy big ones supposed to be that by eating more frequent smaller meals it helps increase your metabolism? I know a guy that some years back went from being very over weight to very fit preaching that this and exercise was better for ones metabolism. Thoughts?

 

[earwig]

Someone fill me in if I'm wrong here but.... Isn't the idea of eating more, smaller, healthy meals in a day vs 2 or 3 healthy big ones supposed to be that by eating more frequent smaller meals it helps increase your metabolism? I know a guy that some years back went from being very over weight to very fit preaching that this and exercise was better for ones metabolism. Thoughts?

Yea that's the idea but most people can't stick with eating such a small amount that it will add up to their caloric needs for the day. Most people just end up eating more and getting fatter. Try it...

 

[TyTanium]

100% agree Yoop.

 

[sonofgrok]

Someone fill me in if I'm wrong here but.... Isn't the idea of eating more, smaller, healthy meals in a day vs 2 or 3 healthy big ones supposed to be that by eating more frequent smaller meals it helps increase your metabolism? I know a guy that some years back went from being very over weight to very fit preaching that this and exercise was better for ones metabolism. Thoughts?

Fasting and going long periods of time without eating also has metabolic benefits. I find I get a lot less hungry fasting and only eating 1-2 meals a day than I do eating a ton of small ones. I think it is just whatever method gets you to eat the right amount of the right food. I have seen both methods work for people although the intermittent fasting route is the one that I will vouch for.

 

[Safa]

Actually alcohol inhibits lipolysis (fat breakdown), so it can allow fat to build up. But yeah, alcohol won't directly be converted to fat.

Which is exactly what I meant.

 

[TheSlash]

wow lots of good posts recently. Yes alcohol can't make you fat. But it does take priority so that cheeseburger is going into fat storage while your body is processing the alcohol.
Yes small meals can work. But it is much harder to do than 1-2 larger meals a day. However fasting increases growth hormone, fat burn, lowers cortisol etc.. so there are other benefits other than just easier to stick to. Intermittent fasting makes it easier to get leaner. Once you get under 12ish percent bodyfat, 6+ small meals a day is a nightmare to try to drop weight. Your body is always in a "fed" state so it doesn't touch it's fat stores until you run out of calories. Which get this.... Is when you FAST while you're sleeping!

Also Yooper, a lot of people are wheat/gluten/carb sensitive to some degree yes. If you drop too low on the carbs you enter a ketosis state much like the atkins style of eating. Most people lose weight pretty quick in ketosis because your brain is now running on ketones from fat instead of glucose from carbs. Some people can be in ketosis on 100g of carbs a day. However carbs are not the devil they are made out to be. I eat 200g of protein each day, and carb cycle the other days. 400g carbs on lift days, 250g carb and higher fat on rest days. The carbs replenish muscle glycogen and feed my brain so I can continue working out. Low carb is not only hard to follow, its detrimental if you lift weights. Either go no carb, or high carb imho.

I think the trouble is most people eat food so dense in carbs the calories snowball. Like that cinnamon bun with 200g carbs taking 1/2 your daily calories and still leaving you hungry.

 

[TheSlash]

Fasting and going long periods of time without eating also has metabolic benefits. I find I get a lot less hungry fasting and only eating 1-2 meals a day than I do eating a ton of small ones. I think it is just whatever method gets you to eat the right amount of the right food. I have seen both methods work for people although the intermittent fasting route is the one that I will vouch for.

Completely agree. Less hungry. Satisfaction of eating larger meals, and working out fasted is soooo much better. So much more drive and energy fasted. Small meals I never felt full. On intermittent fasting I have trouble eating enough.

Plus a real kicker most people don't know is that waking up is the most stressful thing on your body. Your cortisol is through the roof right when you go from a dead sleep to wide awake. This is the last time in the world you want any calories in your system as cortisol is the fat storage enzyme. Plus most people eat very carb heavy foods first thing in the morning.

You set yourself up first thing for fat storage!

So literally "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is correct, but it is the most important meal to SKIP. Kellogg's pushed this slogan... makes sense right.

If links work, here is a great one for the top 10 myths

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Some of the biggest loads of BS are:

Starvation mode
Importance of Breakfast
Muscle Catabolism
6 small meals
and THE GLYCEMIC INDEX - yep, if you worry about these above things you're most likely overweight.

 

[kroach01]

Cortisol is lipolytic, not lipogenic. It mobilizes energy stores, not builds them.
Why is the glycemic index BS? It just describes energy density relative to insulin spike.

Edit: It's extremely useful for adjusting carb intake to insulin levels. It has especially important implications for diabetics -- prolonged consumption of high glycemic index foods are the reason for metabolic syndrome and diabetes, essentially.

 

[TheSlash]

Ok, so the number 3000=3000. I get that.

I think that is the point most argue. It's strictly numbers, strictly for weight loss numbers.

I hope everyone knows there are differences in food types and how they are handled by the body for things like health and composition and well being.

At its most basic, if we eat exactly the number of calories that we burn and if we're only talking about weight, the answer is no.

If we look at the nutritional label on the back of a packet of maple-and-brown-sugar oatmeal, it has 160 calories. This means that if we were to pour this oatmeal into a dish, set the oatmeal on fire and get it to burn completely, the reaction would produce 160 kilocalories -- enough energy to raise the temperature of 160 kilograms of water 1 degree Celsius. If we look closer at the nutritional label, we see that our oatmeal has 2 grams of fat, 4 grams of protein and 32 grams of carbohydrates, producing a total of 162 calories (apparently, food manufacturers like to round down). Of these 162 calories, 18 come from fat (9 cal x 2 g), 16 come from protein (4 cal x 4 g) and 128 come from carbohydrates (4 cal x 32 g).

 

[kroach01]

I think that is the point most argue. It's strictly numbers, strictly for weight loss numbers.

I hope everyone knows there are differences in food types and how they are handled by the body for things like health and composition and well being.

At its most basic, if we eat exactly the number of calories that we burn and if we're only talking about weight, the answer is no.

If we look at the nutritional label on the back of a packet of maple-and-brown-sugar oatmeal, it has 160 calories. This means that if we were to pour this oatmeal into a dish, set the oatmeal on fire and get it to burn completely, the reaction would produce 160 kilocalories -- enough energy to raise the temperature of 160 kilograms of water 1 degree Celsius. If we look closer at the nutritional label, we see that our oatmeal has 2 grams of fat, 4 grams of protein and 32 grams of carbohydrates, producing a total of 162 calories (apparently, food manufacturers like to round down). Of these 162 calories, 18 come from fat (9 cal x 2 g), 16 come from protein (4 cal x 4 g) and 128 come from carbohydrates (4 cal x 32 g).

This former method is using a bomb calorimeter and is almost completely phased out because it doesn't consider how the energy must be metabolized to be used in the body. The latter Atwater method is what is used now and is a separate method.
I see what you're saying though that an excess of calories is an excess nonetheless. I think I misunderstood the point you were making.

 

[TheSlash]

Cortisol is lipolytic, not lipogenic. It mobilizes energy stores, not builds them.
Why is the glycemic index BS?

Cortisol is lipogenic, meaning it directs the body to store body fat. And importantly, as cortisol levels rise, levels of growth hormone and testosterone levels drop, and vice-a-versa.

Glycemic index is if the food is eaten on its own for one, when you mix foods you cannot get a picture of the GI. What matters is calories.

In one of the most recent studies of the glycemic index, researchers from the University of Minnesota tested whether lowering the GI of a diet already low in calories would have any further effect on weight loss.

The researchers compared the effects of three low-calorie diets, each with a different glycemic load, on 29 obese adults. All of the diets — high GI, low GI or high fat — provided the same number of calories.

For the first 12 weeks, all food was provided to the subjects (the feeding phase). Then, 22 subjects were told to follow the assigned diet for an additional 24 weeks (the free-living phase).

After 12 weeks, all three groups lost weight. However, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the groups. Subjects on the low GI diet lost, on average, 21.8 pounds (9.9 kilograms), while those on the high GI diet lost 20.5 pounds (9.3 kilograms).

"In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects," conclude the researchers.

Eating a diet with a low glycemic load can help with weight loss. But, that's largely because many foods with a low glycemic index (with the exception of high-fat foods like nuts and avocados) also have a lower energy density.

Most fruits and vegetables, for example, have a low glycemic load. So, when you eat fewer foods with a high glycemic load (e.g. cookies, cakes, or sweets) and more foods with a low glycemic load (e.g. fruits and vegetables), you end up eating fewer calories. The result is that you lose weight.

 

[TheSlash]

This former method is using a bomb calorimeter and is almost completely phased out because it doesn't consider how the energy must be metabolized to be used in the body. The latter Atwater method is what is used now and is a separate method.
I see what you're saying though that an excess of calories is an excess nonetheless. I think I misunderstood the point you were making.

Yea I'm agreeing with you here =)

 

[TheSlash]

Worrying about GI adds an unnecessary layer of complication to what is a relatively simple (though not always easy) process.

 

[kroach01]

Cortisol is lipogenic, meaning it directs the body to store body fat. And importantly, as cortisol levels rise, levels of growth hormone and testosterone levels drop, and vice-a-versa.

Glycemic index is if the food is eaten on its own for one, when you mix foods you cannot get a picture of the GI. What matters is calories.

In one of the most recent studies of the glycemic index, researchers from the University of Minnesota tested whether lowering the GI of a diet already low in calories would have any further effect on weight loss.

The researchers compared the effects of three low-calorie diets, each with a different glycemic load, on 29 obese adults. All of the diets — high GI, low GI or high fat — provided the same number of calories.

For the first 12 weeks, all food was provided to the subjects (the feeding phase). Then, 22 subjects were told to follow the assigned diet for an additional 24 weeks (the free-living phase).

After 12 weeks, all three groups lost weight. However, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the groups. Subjects on the low GI diet lost, on average, 21.8 pounds (9.9 kilograms), while those on the high GI diet lost 20.5 pounds (9.3 kilograms).

"In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects," conclude the researchers.

Eating a diet with a low glycemic load can help with weight loss. But, that's largely because many foods with a low glycemic index (with the exception of high-fat foods like nuts and avocados) also have a lower energy density.

Most fruits and vegetables, for example, have a low glycemic load. So, when you eat fewer foods with a high glycemic load (e.g. cookies, cakes, or sweets) and more foods with a low glycemic load (e.g. fruits and vegetables), you end up eating fewer calories. The result is that you lose weight.

Cortisol is a stress hormone, like epinephrine. Cortisol raises blood sugar and breaks down fat to prepare the body for the stressor. It is without a doubt lipolytic. You would want to be in an energy mobilization state when stressed, not the opposite. I can cite many sources, perhaps you were thinking one thing and typing another.

Glycemic index tells us how carb dense food is. Mixed or not, it can be determined for any food. It's not sooo important for weight loss per se, like you said, but low glycemic index foods almost always are healthier because they don't cause such a large spike in insulin and thus post-prandial hypoglycemia and insulin resistance that is so key to type 2 diabetes.

You're right that it adds a complication and may not be as important, but the concept of energy density is important.

Cheers

 

[TheSlash]

Cortisol is a stress hormone, like epinephrine. Cortisol raises blood sugar and breaks down fat to prepare the body for the stressor. It is without a doubt lipolytic. You would want to be in an energy mobilization state when stressed, not the opposite.

Well now we are talking about 2 different things here. I'm talking the cortisol jump caused by waking up which is completely stress based, where there is no energy expenditure. You are talking about cardio.

Cortisol isn't a bad thing. There are just good and bad times for it to be elevated. During exercise of course it is good, during breakfast, no way.

It sounds like we agree on most things here, just looking at it differently.

 

[jerrodm]

I just want to say, shame on those of you who took a perfectly good opportunity to tease someone about drinking light beer, and turned it into a serious discussion about paleo diets, cortisol, glycemic indices and other topics in which I have no interest.

I'm still waiting for someone to suggest an all-PBR drinking regimen to the OP...it may not have fewer calories per beer but I would get tired of drinking it and give up before too long...like trying to eat an entire meal of plain wonder bread.

 

[TyTanium]

...I'm still waiting for someone to suggest an all-PBR drinking regimen to the OP...

I mean, it is a GABF Gold Medal winner.

 

[matt2778]

I don't exercise so I can end up looking better. I do it so I can eat whatever I want whenever I want and drink ungodly amounts of beer.

Its not that I like exercise. I hate it. I just love eating and drinking so much, its worth it.

OP: you're drinking beer, its got alcohol in it, its going to make you fat no matter how many calories it has.

This is my life philosophy as well. I refuse to give up pizza and beer but I also refuse to wear a t shirt at the beach. Exercise is really the only option short of a methamphetamine addiction. I might also add that as much as exercise sucks it sure feels great when you've finished your workout.