Beer Belly

[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.

 

[nukebrewer]

I might also add that as much as exercise sucks it sure feels great when you've finished your workout.

+1 I enjoy exercising, but that euphoric feeling upon completion, runners call it runners high, is so much better than the workout itself.

 

[TheSlash]

Wow I really wish I hadn't done that workout. -No one ever

 

[KeyWestBrewing]

Surprisingly I don't think I've seen anyone mention proper hydration or late night snacking. Drinking enough water daily helps your body recycle the water in your system instead of trying to hold onto what it has.... which helps you lose water weight which can be like 8-10 lbs. As well, making sure you eat dinner by 7-8 and not eating (drinking isnt included) after that really makes a huge difference. These two things plus at least 10 push-ups or pull-ups a day helped me lose about 25 lbs. It's almost sad that its that easy.

 

[TheSlash]

hydration should be pretty well known by now. You realize by stopping eating at 7, and not eating again until breakfast at what 8? is a 13 hour fast. If you pushed that to a 16 hour fast you would have 3 more hours of crazy fat burn! That's all Intermittent fasting is. If you ate Dinner at 6pm, and woke up at 10am to eat breakfast, you just fasted 16 hours. Easy as that. An easy way to cut out the snacking since if you do, you aren't fasting.

 

[Whattawort]

If your intake is less than or equal to your daily output, you're good to go. Adjust accordingly. If you go out to lunch with coworkers and there's no avoiding that lovely bacon burger, skip on the snacks/soda for the rest of the day and try to eat less than you normally would at dinner. Also, knocking down portion sizes is a good way to go. I lost a lot of weight over the past 3yrs (64lbs) by not eating everything on my plate and balancing out my intake/output. Also, the only time I'll allow myself more than 1 beer a night is on a football saturday or a dedicated brew day. Coffee is a really good appetite suppressant. Drink all of it you want if you take it without sugar/cream.

 

[divrguy]

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.

Yooper, this is very interesting to me. The one part that really sticks out for me is no sugar or wheat. So I take it you mean no added sugar and no grains/bread/pasta made of wheat.. But do you drink wheat beer or have fruit in beer or are you disciplined enough to cut that out as well? Just curious.

 

[earwig]

I eat lots of bread and candy... I'm fit and in good shape. Exercises is the key.

 

[FuzzeWuzze]

hydration should be pretty well known by now. You realize by stopping eating at 7, and not eating again until breakfast at what 8? is a 13 hour fast. If you pushed that to a 16 hour fast you would have 3 more hours of crazy fat burn! That's all Intermittent fasting is. If you ate Dinner at 6pm, and woke up at 10am to eat breakfast, you just fasted 16 hours. Easy as that. An easy way to cut out the snacking since if you do, you aren't fasting.

This only works if your actually watching your calories though. If fasting makes you eat 2x as much at breakfast it defeats the point.

Honestly its not the diets that are killing people, its the fact that if you asked 10 random people how many calories were in a meal on a plate probably 9 would be off by more than 300 calories. Americans especially have no real grasp of nutrition or how many calories are in the food they eat, probably the biggest failure in schools today, along with money management skills.

You can eat what you want if you are cognizant of your intake and aim for a balance of carbs/protein and healthy fats.

I eat what i want, but i also workout 5 days a week lifting and cardio and have never been in better shape in my life @ 5'6 150lbs. 3 years ago i used to be a 'skinny fat' as they call it in the fitness world at 125lbs. Skinny, but with zero muscle mass and a belly. Most 'skinny' dudes fall into this category, especially once you get past 30 years old...

 

[Yooper]

Yooper, this is very interesting to me. The one part that really sticks out for me is no sugar or wheat. So I take it you mean no added sugar and no grains/bread/pasta made of wheat.. But do you drink wheat beer or have fruit in beer or are you disciplined enough to cut that out as well? Just curious.

I hate wheat beer (and fruit beer), so I really mean no wheat at all. I don't really eat carbs, except for those in some of my veggies (like carrots). I will eat a few berries when they are are ripe (and freeze berries as well), or an apple once in a while, but otherwise I eat very little fruit. I eat no sugar, or anything with added sugar. I also stay away from things like honey, ketchup, BBQ sauce, etc, which are either sugar or loaded with high fructose corn syrup.

It's very hard to buy things at the grocery store that aren't loaded with that stuff, but since I eat meat and vegetables, it's not really an issue. I do eat a few eggs from a friend's farm (although I'm not wild about them), a little cheese (although, again, not wild about it), and use a ton of spices.

I can't give up my beer, though- so I do get plenty of barley. :cross: If it wasn't for beer, I'd probably have no grain products at all.

 

[el_horno]

I hate wheat beer (and fruit beer), so I really mean no wheat at all. I don't really eat carbs, except for those in some of my veggies (like carrots). I will eat a few berries when they are are ripe (and freeze berries as well), or an apple once in a while, but otherwise I eat very little fruit. I eat no sugar, or anything with added sugar. I also stay away from things like honey, ketchup, BBQ sauce, etc, which are either sugar or loaded with high fructose corn syrup.

It's very hard to buy things at the grocery store that aren't loaded with that stuff, but since I eat meat and vegetables, it's not really an issue. I do eat a few eggs from a friend's farm (although I'm not wild about them), a little cheese (although, again, not wild about it), and use a ton of spices.

I can't give up my beer, though- so I do get plenty of barley. :cross: If it wasn't for beer, I'd probably have no grain products at all.

That sounds not fun at all... Ill stick to eating in moderation and working out a few times a week, seems to be working for me!

Though I do agree with fruity beers, lightly fruited like purple haze is ok by me however.