1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sugar Tax, Yes or No?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Orionaut, Oct 26, 2015.

  1. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 27,763

    how long did you do this for and was it 7 days a week / 365 days a year?

    it's funny how people who go on hunger strikes lose weight rapidly. some people do have bodies which help them store weight much more easier than others. however eating 350 calories a day for even a month should help you lose 2-3 stone.
     
  2. asim18

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 5, 2006

    Posts: 15,410

    Anyone tried Capri Sun Blackcurrant lately? Tastes absolutely horrible.

    I really hope this crap really does cause fatties to magically become lean and healthy. /sarcasm
     
  3. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,971

    Stopped reading here. IF you you running at the fastest pace you can for 20 minutes, you be burning much closer to 400 calories , more if you are heavier and can run reasonably.

    The saying you can never out run a bad diet is not based on calories, but micro nutrients or the effects of processed foods. Energy wise, it is easy to outrun a high calorie diet. Anyone who runs seriously has to take a lot of care to consume enough calories a day. I eat 2700+ calories a day to stay at about 63kg. It is easy to burn 1000 calories in a run of you actually do training. However, if you diet is high in calories but is void of vegetables and fruit or is very high in protein or fat then you will still have elevated risks of heart disease and cancer, but you wont put on any weight.


    Eating less is not the easiest way to loose weight for many people, myself included. In part, it is fun to eat food and feeling hungry constantly is no fun. Exercise not only burns calories while exercising but increases metabolic rate for hours afterwards so even when you are sat at your desk you continue to get benefits.



    The inverse is also true, you can't out-eat an inactive lifestyle. No matter how healthy you eat, you will still have a lower life expectancy and increased mortality risk form heart disease, stroke and cancer if you don;t exercise regularly.


    At the end of the day, you need to combine a healthy balanced diet with a reasonable amount of exercise.
     
  4. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 7,056

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    This x100000% its really all people should say to themselves. Everyone is different, you should find your real likes from raw foods, plus experiment.
    Last night we made a soup, runner bean, sweetcorn and tomato, plus a large cayenne chilli and herbs. First mouthfull was hmmmm, second onwards was yum.

    I need to get back into running, stopped when we moved as was soo busy, just not got back into it. I find when I am running I lean to eating less, yet the more dormant I am, the more I can just pick at food.

    The body is damn wierd.

    Eating some bad things is itself not bad either, just in moderation, I feel that people who try to eliminate these things struggle more than those that say allow them at weekends.

    I do have a thing with celebrity chefs though, most don't have an effin clue about good nutrition. The number of them you see cooking with olive oil ffs.
     
  5. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 27,763

    that's the issue if you are heavier you will be running at a slower speed. therefore there is an equilibrium.

    as in slimmer fitter person will run further inside 20 minutes. fatter unhealthy person will run less but burn the same due to the additional weight being carried.

    it's a rough calculation it won't be exact it's what i recall to be roughly correct. 100 calories per 10 minutes of running. your body may burn calories faster.
     
  6. ttaskmaster

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 7,438

    Location: Reading, UK

    It was 7/365 and about 2 months, before people got seriously hacked off with me being in a perpetual bad mood. I also broke a few expensive things, which wasn't good.

    Did that once as well. I did lose that way, but no food at all was just getting stupid and it started to show in my driving.

    I'm probably just weird. The actual weight never changes, just the bulky bit around the middle. Same for when I was doing lots of exercise - No weight change, just bulkier muscles.

    My old diet used to be quite like this and I never put on weight, despite taking as much as 4,000 (according to the given values) calories at times.
    How does this happen?
     
  7. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 27,763

    i'd be genuinely amazed if that was correct. any chance of hidden calories anywhere? it goes against the laws of physics. energy in = energy out.

    as in if your body weight isn't changing then what are you using to run your body on? air? 350 calories per day for 2 months with no change in weight. unless you were taking steroids and that 350 calories was all from shakes and multivits. so the fat (weight) you lost to energy was then being put on as muscle (additional weight).

    that would be the only way it would be physically possible.
     
  8. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 7,056

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    350 calories a day is virtually nothing, its around 25% of the bare minimum you need, anyone attempting to function on this past a few days would be useless.
    Look how you feel if you are genuinely ill for a few days, how weak and wobbly you feel. Thats calorie deficiency kicking in. Not only would you be physically suffering you would also be mentally impaired.

    There is of course also the factor of how usable the calories coming in are, its why heavily processed foods tend to be worse as they are easy to break down and hence get a really high conversion rate, as opposed to some good unprocessed ones that the body has to work harder to break down.
    Which is why also you can take in vast quantites of calories occasionally and it seems to have no effect, as you are pushing them through your body they don't all get absorbed. Spread those same calories across a day in small regular amounts and they will be highly converted.
     
  9. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,625

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    Nope; the war on fat is what has landed us in the mess we're in. Nothing wrong with fat at all, if consumed sensibly as part of a varied diet and if you do exercise.

    The bigger issue, of course, being our sedentary lifestyles.
     
  10. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,971


    When you are heavier you also burn far more calories per mile and per minute.

    100 calories per 10 minutes is at an easy pace, 200 calories in 10 minutes at race pace. You were talking about hard running.



    Moreover, you were making it sound like 20 minutes is a long time to run, at the easy pace you are describing that is barely a warm up. You can easily and safely run 1-2.5 hours a day after a little training burning 700-2000 calories, plus additional calories burned afterwards due to increased MBR
     
  11. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,971


    350 calories a day for any sustained period leads to death, and before that severe muscle wasting and cognitive impairment, with permanent damage to kidneys, other organs and the brain. People that claim to be on such low calorie diets tend to either be lying or are extremely bad at calculating quantities/portions, and snack a lot and excuse those calories.
     
  12. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 27,763

    your obviously a runner who has been doing it for many many years. i'm talking beginner levels here for people who are fat, unhealthy. can't even run 40 yards without gasping for breath for 5 minutes.

    no normal person runs for more than an hour a day at the gym. also it's really bad for your knees. as in there comes a point where your doing more damage than good.

    i'd say running for up to 2 hours now and again is okay. however regularly 1 hour is probably a good limit to have. you can easily compliment this or exchange it with other forms of cardio which are lower impact. like swimming, rowing, cycling, etc.

    also this - When running at 10.78 km per hour, a 125-lb. person can expect to burn 660 calories after 10 km, according to statistics from Harvard Medical School.

    i usually ran 10k in 55-60 minutes and i was burning around 700-900 calories. but i used to round it down to 600 to be conservative. that's the problem with most people. they round down calories eaten and round up exercise. so i used to do the opposite. round up calorie intake and round down calories burned.

    so i would say 125-150 calories per 10 minutes is probably correct. 200 calories sound like double what the Harvard Medical School is saying. So you would need to be going at around 16-18 km/h constant and weigh around 80-90kg for that sort of calorie burn.

    so it's best to tell people it's 100 calories per 10 minutes of decent constant paced running. otherwise it's highly likely they will be overestimating their calorie burn. there is no way i could burn 200 calories per 10 minutes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2018
  13. ttaskmaster

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 7,438

    Location: Reading, UK

    Nope - Just the M&S pasta thing and some coffee with 2 sugars.

    Nope, no steroids, supplements, vitamins, shakes or anything like that. Just one of these pasta things and coffee (no milk).

    I read what it said on the packet. No calculating needed.
     
  14. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 7,056

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    You need to put yourself forward for medical science to experiment on then, you are literally going against everything we understand about the human body. Your not even eating enough to sustain brain activity at 350 per day.
    Are you brain dead? j/k

    Be interesting to see what you are calculated as needed on the Mifflin-St. Jeor equation (included in link below)
    or to save you clicking if you don't want to :
    Men: 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) – 5 x age (y) + 5

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245588.php

    That will give you a basic idea of your needed calories per day
     
  15. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 7,056

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Oh sorry forgot to say that then needs to be multiplied by a factor based on activity level, its not the end answer, again the link contains what you need to know
     
  16. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 3,628

    350 calories a day was the Allen diet. It was used before insulin therapy to keep diabetics alive for another month or so before they died.
     
  17. ttaskmaster

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 7,438

    Location: Reading, UK

    Well, sorry to go against and upset proven, irrefutable medical science and everything, but that's just how it goes... Perhaps I should take up smoking again.

    It says 1626. There's also a link to a calculator, which confirms my calculations.

    That multiplier puts it at 1951.
    Even these days, I doubt I'm taking on that much - One meal in the evening, plus... (calculates coffee calories)... about 128 calories in coffee - No way does that add up to over 2000 calories! Even if I ate at McDonalds every night, that'd only be 1400!
     
  18. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 7,056

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Have you ever discussed this with a doctor? Its basically impossible what you are saying with what we understand about the human body, I think this is why the few of us commenting back are doing so.

    So that says you need 1951 cals to sustain your schedule and you claim to be able to sustain on 350.
    Honestly if thats the case I am sure (not joking here) medical science would like to know. You could make a fortune on making yourself available for scientific studies
    Coke would probably love you "I drink 10 litres of coke a day a dont gain weight", that sort of thing ;)
     
  19. Somnambulist

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 17, 2010

    Posts: 9,274

    Location: London

    Studies always reveal people grossly underestimate their calorie intake even under the supervision of an RD. It can often be up to 50% higher than reported. Doesn't make you a terrible human being, just that statistically very few people can accurately track their intake (and I'd wager those that do are OCD members of the fitness community by and large).

     
  20. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 7,056

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    yeah I know, its very easy to do. Plenty of things the pack size is multiple portions, they know you will eat/drink the whole thing, but its to be able to fill in the front of the pack.
    Things like them small bottles of fruit juice "contains 2 servings", or even worse container is 250ml, then you see "based on a typical serving of 100ml" when you look closely

    But if hes only really eating a 350 cal meal plus a few coffees there isn't much opportunity to miscount