I've stopped eating meat and lost weight

[Tin Pot]

Calories are calories.

Calories are not all the same. Calories are a pointless measure born of idiocy (edit: ignorance) Thinking that setting fire to food to heat water is relavent to how the body metabolises food is nearly 200 years out of date.

You could *easily* be burning 5,000+ calories on a 100 mile hilly bike ride.

Accy would have to be working extremely hard to burn 5,000 calories. Extremely.

 

[srw]

Calories are not all the same. Calories are a pointless measure born of idiocy. Thinking that setting fire to food to heat water is relavent to how the body metabolises food is nearly 200 years out of date.

I look forward to your Nobel-prize-winning paper that overturns the law of the conservation of energy.

If the body needs energy it gets it from somewhere - either by metabolising food or by metabolising energy already stored in the body. Yes, the routes to metabolisation can be complex, and the psychology of food consuption is even more complex, but the physics is simple. If you're losing weight, then the body is metabolising stored energy. If you don't want to lose weight, then you need to provide more fuel.

 

[Tin Pot]

I look forward to your Nobel-prize-winning paper that overturns the law of the conservation of energy.

If the body needs energy it gets it from somewhere - either by metabolising food or by metabolising energy already stored in the body. Yes, the routes to metabolisation can be complex, and the psychology of food consuption is even more complex, but the physics is simple. If you're losing weight, then the body is metabolising stored energy. If you don't want to lose weight, then you need to provide more fuel.

I look forward to you understanding my post.

And "the physics".

 

[srw]

I look forward to you understanding my post.

And "the physics".

You could start by understanding my post....

The OP is obsessing about kinds of food. That's irrelevant. He's eating less stuff than he needs to maintain his weight. If it were me I'd be delighted, but he's not. He needs to eat more stuff. Which means more calories. Calories are an imperfect measure of the amount of energy stored in food, but it's the one we've got. If you're the OP, obsessing about whether you need to eat meat, or more protein, or more skyblue pink micronutrients - the answer is no. You need to eat more food.

 

[Accy cyclist]

Protein is protein. You could try lots of beer to put weight on. Works for me !

I have around 4 pints of beer a night,

Calories are calories. If you're losing more weight than you want (I should be so lucky) you'll need to eat more stuff, in a balanced way - but it doesn't matter much what, as long as your overall diet is reasonably balanced and you're getting enough micro-nutrients. Since you're knocking out 100-milers you are. Just eat a bit more - oils and nuts are pretty calorie-dense and easy to eat.

I must have a 100g packet of nuts a night. I also have a small glass of extra virgin olive oil nearly every day. I've been taking olive oil now for around 10 years.

 

[Haitch]

As an aside, I was at a talk earlier this week given by a professor of chemistry and a nutritionist, both of Wageningen University (highly renowned for its food scientists). They both agreed that the source of calories was very important to weight gain/loss, metabolism, etc., although neither knew why. Perhaps there really is a Nobel prize waiting.

 

[Elybazza61]

Any sudden weight loss with no obvious cause should mean an appointment with your doctor.

Wouldn't have thought a stone in 6 months is sudden weight loss.

Might be an idea to have acheck up with your GP,should give a better idea what's going on.I have one evry year now(my GP reccomended i did it when i got over 50) and since I've been cycling all my levels for diabetes,prostate etc have all come down;she did say that my weight should'nt go down any more though(I'm around 11 stone at 5'11",was over 12 two years ago).

I would deffo cut down the alcohol too.

 

[Fab Foodie]

As an aside, I was at a talk earlier this week given by a professor of chemistry and a nutritionist, both of Wageningen University (highly renowned for its food scientists). They both agreed that the source of calories was very important to weight gain/loss, metabolism, etc., although neither knew why. Perhaps there really is a Nobel prize waiting.

As said upstream, Calories (as measured by a Bomb Calorimeter) are a bit of a crude measurement of energy input into the system. What we don't always fully understand is how that food and its Calories are assimilated by the body. A simple example would be a high fibre food. The undigestable fibre will score as Calories in the Bomb Calorimiter but will not be taken up by the gut, but expelled in faeces. It's also true that not all fat ingested is absorbed into the body either and much can leave via the faeces too.
My understanding (and my friendly Nutritionist does not always keep me fully informed), is that we're only just beginning to fully understand calorific uptake from the gut under different dietary regimes. However, I currently believe that once the Calories are in the body (not the hollow tube that runs through it) then the Physics is likely to kick in as an absolute.

 

[ColinJ]

Calories are not all the same. Calories are a pointless measure born of idiocy (edit: ignorance) Thinking that setting fire to food to heat water is relavent to how the body metabolises food is nearly 200 years out of date.

Accy would have to be working extremely hard to burn 5,000 calories. Extremely.

It is extremely hilly round here. Extremely!

Accy would need 2,000+ calories a day to maintain his weight even if he was just sitting round in an armchair. It would not be surprising for a 100 mile hilly bike ride to burn a further 3,000-odd calories.

Anyway, relating it to my own experience ... I lose about a pound of weight for every 100 miles cycled. That is a pound of body tissue. At the end of the ride it would often be 4 or 5 pounds due to fluid losses but once I have completely rehydrated that pound loss remains. I have observed this on over 50 rides. 1 pound for 100 miles, 1.25 pounds for a '200' (km - 125 miles).

As for the loose skin - losing nearly 3 stone in weight is going to leave its mark. Very young skin might be elastic enough to shrink back after that loss but ageing skin generally isn't. I have stretch marks and loose skin all over from my similar weight loss.

 

[ColinJ]

At the rate he is going he is potentially going to cycle 7,500-10,000 hilly northern miles this year. Without stuffing his face of course he is going to lose weight!

 

[ColinJ]

Actually ... @Accy cyclist - it would probably be helpful if you listed everything that you eat and drink in a typical day on top of your nuts, olive oil and beer!

 

[swee'pea99]

i think the best vegetarian source of protein is beans (which also have a good amount of fibre and iron so triple whammy). I try to eat at least one serving a day, usually two. That can be beans on toast for breakfast (1/2 can beans has more protein than an egg), hummus or falafel in my sandwich for lunch or beans in my evening meal (kidney beans in bolognaise, kidney/black beans in Mexican dishes, chickpeas in curries, bean salad etc.)

You're careful around naked flames, I hope...