Your fat removal services...

Zeldman said:
This is what I started doing after the heart attack and have knocked off 25 pounds. Plus a big change in eating habits.

My cardiologist keeps telling me I have arteries of a 20 year old, yet I still have that ''beer belly''.
Click to expand...

That is awesome... stick with it..
 
Sac Arrow said:
He's been seeing ads on the telly for services like Sono Bello (some sort of laser removal process), and Cool Sculpting (freezing the fat away somehow) and then are your standard cut and slurp.

So, does anyone have any... friends... that have used any of these services? Feedback? Recommendations? Downsides?
Click to expand...

As I understand things - Sono Bello is to Lipo what Bosley is to hair transplants.

It’s an assembly line clinic - you don’t know who you’re getting as a surgeon.

For these kind of things you should really shop for a specific physician, rather than an institute.
 
Sac Arrow said:
There is that. I -think- Cool Sculpting however is non-surgical.
Click to expand...
It is. But couldn't you just carry a cold six-pack against your six-pack? Much cheaper. The cooling kills fat cells, apparently.
 
This is wonderfully simple. Calories out > calories in, you gain weight. Calories out < calories in, you loose weight. Calories out = calories in, your weight stay stable. Personally I think the OP's friend eats too much fast food. Damn mutants.
 
steingar said:
This is wonderfully simple. Calories out > calories in, you gain weight. Calories out < calories in, you loose weight. Calories out = calories in, your weight stay stable. Personally I think the OP's friend eats too much fast food. Damn mutants.
Click to expand...
True, but not quite that simple.

E=MC**2 sounds simple too. But it's not. Even if you only take it one step further where the equation is actually E2-E1 = (M2 - M1) * C**2. Then that opens a whole new realm of theory and calculations.

Calories in? Some calories are better than others. Some provide energy, some turn to fat. Some are easily digested, some aren't. Economics; some people can't afford the higher quality foods and don't have the knowledge to eat well but cheaply. But that is the simple side of the equation.

Calories out? That's harder. Genetics, metabolism, environment, mental state (depression) and many other factors enter in. Exercise is the primary ingredient you have control over, but that is not as important to weight as some people think it is. It's not quite as clear as the "noose" on your face. Only people pre-disposed to be skinny think it is easy to "loose" weight.
 
Your body puts its adipose tissue where it wants it to go, and that's an individual thing. As we age, muscle mass tends to decline and fat tends to increase, until we become very aged, where both start to decrease. While your friend could have a surgical procedure to remove the unwanted fat, he may need another procedure to remove the loose skin. This will resolve the problem in the short run, but the body will eventually put the fat back in the same locations.

It sounds like he's getting plenty of exercise. If he's not eating much in the way of refined carbohydrates, then he's probably doing the right things to optimize his health and body shape. As we age, nature makes us look older so that younger people can tell that we're not as good of a potential partner as a younger person, reproduction wise. it's better to do what you can to maintain good health and fitness, and not worry about the rest, lest he turn into a male version of Joan Rivers.

Is you friend a Kardashian by any chance? :confused:
 
steingar said:
This is wonderfully simple. Calories out > calories in, you gain weight. Calories out < calories in, you loose weight. Calories out = calories in, your weight stay stable. Personally I think the OP's friend eats too much fast food. Damn mutants.
Click to expand...

you got your operands backwards.

Calories out < calories in, gain weight.
Calories out > calories in, lose weight.

And while it may be more complex than that I think it largely effective - ever see pics of Bataan participants or Nazi prisoners? Never saw a skinny one that still had love handles, just sayin’
 
JOhnH said:
True, but not quite that simple.

E=MC**2 sounds simple too. But it's not. Even if you only take it one step further where the equation is actually E2-E1 = (M2 - M1) * C**2. Then that opens a whole new realm of theory and calculations.

Calories in? Some calories are better than others. Some provide energy, some turn to fat. Some are easily digested, some aren't. Economics; some people can't afford the higher quality foods and don't have the knowledge to eat well but cheaply. But that is the simple side of the equation.

Calories out? That's harder. Genetics, metabolism, environment, mental state (depression) and many other factors enter in. Exercise is the primary ingredient you have control over, but that is not as important to weight as some people think it is. It's not quite as clear as the "noose" on your face. Only people pre-disposed to be skinny think it is easy to "loose" weight.
Click to expand...

'zactly.

I uh... dude that is, is technically not overweight as a whole, and is only overweight by the amount of non-reducible fat cells present.
 
Has your dude friend ever had his %fat of BW measured?
Would bet there is still some room to work there if his muffin tops persist.
 
People have different ‚problem‘ areas. It would be nice if everything works the same for everyone. My problem area is the booty and regardless of my weight and sports, it was the area where the fat accumulated... :( I also know some pretty thin people who still have muffin tops.

In the end you will either have to find a sport or way to address the core muscles or just live with it. Or find an institution like the ones mentioned above (Sono Bello) that takes care of it... :)
 
steingar said:
This is wonderfully simple. Calories out > calories in, you gain weight. Calories out < calories in, you loose weight. Calories out = calories in, your weight stay stable. Personally I think the OP's friend eats too much fast food. Damn mutants.
Click to expand...

It sounds simple but it’s not. Calories in is not simply what the label says; it’s a function of how well you digest and absorb the food. Calories out is even less identifiable; it’s a function of your hormones, genes, muscle mass, ambient temperature, activity level and a bunch of other things. Different types of foods affect these functions differently.

I agree with you about too much fast food though. Our whole culture is mired in horrible, horrible food choices. Too much food, too cheap, and too empty of nutrients.
 
Sorry about the operands. The nerve of some people. And yes, it really is that simple.
Rushie said:
It sounds simple but it’s not.
Click to expand...
It most certainly is. Whatever you're eating, you eat less. Once you start loosing weight you know you aren't eating enough, and eat a bit more until your weight stabilizes. What's not simple is dealing with hunger, which you should experience if your calories in and out are equal. Few of us engage in sufficient constant strenuous activity to burn off everything we'd eat if we were never hungry.
 
CharlieD3 said:
Your friend wanna lose some fast?

No refined sugars. Real maple syrup okay, real honey (watch for corn syrup in it)okay. Moderation, of course.

Empty the cupboards of anything with any -tose or -ose in it sucr-ose fruc-tose etc.

Buy greens and veg from produce area not canned or froze.

Eat red meat, chicken, fish. All okay.

The first time I did this.. I lost 30# just quitting sugar in coffee. 1month.

Then I did the cupboards... Then I got to 175# from 235. No exercise, BTW.

Then, I started doing a physical job that got me from behind a desk... And stayed 175-185 + ate more. And stayed the weight. Got lean and strong.
Click to expand...

Sugar is killing everyone! Sure when we are breastfed babies the sugar was fine, but we are growing at an incredible rate and that sugar was gold. Now as adults sugars should be eliminated IMHO, sadly just about any damn processed food has hidden sugar in it.

Just look at how a bowl of cheerios and milk spikes blood sugar, top it off with a big glass of OJ and some toast..

I can eat two eggs fried with bacon at breakfast and not eat again till 6 pm, and not feel hungry all day. If I eat a pile of carbs at 6pm I'm starving at breakfast time...
 
I don't eat a damn thing before 11:00 in the morning, and I don't eat a damn thing after 7:00 at night.

Steingar, the guy who weighed the same as he did 30 years ago up until the @#%^$#!! holidays, but still can't fit into the pants of yesteryear.
 
Calories consumed < calories burned = weight loss.

The hard part is not polishing off the entire can of cheese Pringles in one sitting. :eek:
 
@steingar is correct in that if calories consumed < calories burned, you will lose weight.

But that is easier for some people than others. Naturally skinny people just don't understand that. They think they are skinny because they are such stalwarts of personal discipline. That's like saying that anyone can be a genetic expert as long as they read and study enough. Some people are genetically incapable of being genetic experts.
 
bnt83 said:
Sugar is killing everyone! Sure when we are breastfed babies the sugar was fine, but we are growing at an incredible rate and that sugar was gold. Now as adults sugars should be eliminated IMHO, sadly just about any damn processed food has hidden sugar in it.

Just look at how a bowl of cheerios and milk spikes blood sugar, top it off with a big glass of OJ and some toast..

I can eat two eggs fried with bacon at breakfast and not eat again till 6 pm, and not feel hungry all day. If I eat a pile of carbs at 6pm I'm starving at breakfast time...
Click to expand...

This. 700 calories of sweets and carbs will have me craving another helping in an hour. 700 calories of fat and protein will kill my hunger for hours. So simply counting calories is an over simplification. Humans aren’t designed to tolerate hunger.
 
Rushie said:
This. 700 calories of sweets and carbs will have me craving another helping in an hour. 700 calories of fat and protein will kill my hunger for hours. So simply counting calories is an over simplification. Humans aren’t designed to tolerate hunger.
Click to expand...

Well, and the other thing is that everything you eat has to be reduced down to glucose (glycogen) before it can be used for either energy, or fat storage. Sugars and starches are almost there. Proteins and fats have to be broken down in to intermediary products, and aminos are stripped away for cellular regrowth, and then in to starches, and sugars, plus the process is inefficient. So it takes a lot more fat and protein calories than it does carbohydrate calories to put on the same amount of stored fat.
 
steingar said:
What's not simple is dealing with hunger, which you should experience if your calories in and out are equal.
Click to expand...
Uh, honestly, I think this gave me a Eureka! moment. Many, many moons ago I tried my own diet theory to lose a few pounds: I'd eat something between 100 and 200 calories every two hours while I was awake. No meals, per se. I would start the process in the morning after I had hunger pains. The weight peeled off real fast. Other than that one time each day, I was never hungry. What you say seems to correlate.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Uh, honestly, I think this gave me a Eureka! moment. Many, many moons ago I tried my own diet theory to lose a few pounds: I'd eat something between 100 and 200 calories every two hours while I was awake. No meals, per se. I would start the process in the morning after I had hunger pains. The weight peeled off real fast. Other than that one time each day, I was never hungry. What you say seems to correlate.
Click to expand...

If you have the discipline to monitor your calorie intake the entire day that works, but it does not work for a lot of people and it certainly does not work for me. I eat two meals a day, I can regulate that. If I snack throughout the day, I get fat.
 
Sac Arrow said:
If you have the discipline to monitor your calorie intake the entire day that works, but it does not work for a lot of people and it certainly does not work for me. I eat two meals a day, I can regulate that. If I snack throughout the day, I get fat.
Click to expand...
I'd take a bag with me in the morning, a one cup envelope of soup mix, a couple slices of bread, an apple, a small pack of raisins. Maybe an orange too. Count two hours and eat one. Count two more, repeat. Some tuna or chicken salad to end the day. Not a life style change, just a crash course for a month.
 
JOhnH said:
@steingar is correct in that if calories consumed < calories burned, you will lose weight.

But that is easier for some people than others. Naturally skinny people just don't understand that. They think they are skinny because they are such stalwarts of personal discipline. That's like saying that anyone can be a genetic expert as long as they read and study enough. Some people are genetically incapable of being genetic experts.
Click to expand...
"Naturally skinny people" is a construct for those without the wherewithal to shed pounds. Anyone will get fat if calories in is greater than calories out. Anyone. Anyone can loos weight if calories in is less than calories out. Anyone.

Steingar, who may not are an expert in Genetics, but does have a PhD in the stuff.
 
steingar said:
"Naturally skinny people" is a construct for those without the wherewithal to shed pounds. Anyone will get fat if calories in is greater than calories out. Anyone. Anyone can loos weight if calories in is less than calories out. Anyone.

Steingar, who may not are an expert in Genetics, but does have a PhD in the stuff.
Click to expand...

But some people's bodies burn a lot more calories even at rest than others do. You can take two people of the same age and weight and one can put away 3000 calories a day be pretty sedentary and not gain any weight. You can give another person that same exact 3000 calories, and they will be 5 pounds heavier in 2 weeks. When I was younger I could out consume all of my friends, and never gained any weight, and we were all at the same activity level. They ate less calories to maintain weight than I did. So yeah, there are "naturally skinny people." It's a whole lot easier for someone who's resting metabolism to maintain when they burn 2000 calories a day vs someone who only burns 1200 calories at rest.

Or are you saying that every single person on the planet has the same exact resting metabolism?
 
steingar said:
"Naturally skinny people" is a construct for those without the wherewithal to shed pounds. Anyone will get fat if calories in is greater than calories out. Anyone. Anyone can loos weight if calories in is less than calories out. Anyone.

Steingar, who may not are an expert in Genetics, but does have a PhD in the stuff.
Click to expand...

When I graduated from high school, I weighed 135 pounds, and at just short of 6 feet, was painfully skinny. My first year of college, I decided to do something about it. I continued to eat like every other teenaged boy, but added two pounds of Bob Hoffman's Quick Weight Gain to my daily intake, each pound washed down with a quart of milk. After two weeks, I'd gained a total of three pounds. After four weeks, I'd gained not one ounce more. After six weeks, I was still at 138 pounds. I could not gain weight, end of story, full stop. I could eat myself sick and I wasn't going to break 140 pounds unless I started swallowing ball bearings. My body just said no, I'm not going to put on weight at this time. Now at age 62, I weigh 167 pounds and eat much less than I did as a teenager. I need larger shirts than I did back them because my chest and shoulders are larger than they used to be.

The body is not an industrial oven, it has a complex set of hormones regulating its behavior, that we don't entirely understand, and it has a number of ways to compensate for changes in food intake and activity levels.
 
steingar said:
"Naturally skinny people" is a construct for those without the wherewithal to shed pounds. Anyone will get fat if calories in is greater than calories out. Anyone. Anyone can loos weight if calories in is less than calories out. Anyone.

Steingar, who may not are an expert in Genetics, but does have a PhD in the stuff.
Click to expand...

There are people out there than can eat a somewhat balanced diet of 40% protein/30% carbs/30% fat with calories consumed that are the same or less than calories burned - and they don’t get hungry. These are what I call “naturally skinny” people.

When I try and eat like that, I’m screamingly hungry 24 hours a day and won’t be able to sleep, think or work. I have to eat less than 5% carbs to maintain weight without getting hungry.

Not everybody is the same - there are definitely people that won the genetic lottery. Or who knows maybe its not genetic and some of us just f’d up our metabolism along the way. But either way, it is what it is.
 
Here's something to consider...

A small-ish bag of chips... Retail 1.95.

78¢ an ounce. 160 calories per ounce.

$12.48 per pound.

I recently saw some sirloin on sale for maybe $8.99 a pound.

I'd rather have steak than chips any day.
 
CharlieD3 said:
Here's something to consider...

A small-ish bag of chips... Retail 1.95.

78¢ an ounce. 160 calories per ounce.

$12.48 per pound.

I recently saw some sirloin on sale for maybe $8.99 a pound.

I'd rather have steak than chips any day.
Click to expand...

9oz bag of chips on sale for $2.50

Enjoy your $4.44/lb rawhide.
 
EdFred said:
9oz bag of chips on sale for $2.50

Enjoy your $4.44/lb rawhide.
Click to expand...
I don't often choose sirloin...
But, properly done it's certainly not rawhide...

Enjoy your 1440 calories... Only 560 left for the day...

I will have had 621 Cal. With 1340 left in my day..
 
Last edited:
deonb said:
There are people out there than can eat a somewhat balanced diet of 40% protein/30% carbs/30% fat with calories consumed that are the same or less than calories burned - and they don’t get hungry. These are what I call “naturally skinny” people.

When I try and eat like that, I’m screamingly hungry 24 hours a day and won’t be able to sleep, think or work. I have to eat less than 5% carbs to maintain weight without getting hungry.

Not everybody is the same - there are definitely people that won the genetic lottery. Or who knows maybe its not genetic and some of us just f’d up our metabolism along the way. But either way, it is what it is.
Click to expand...
The reason they don't get hungry is because they eat the same amounts all the time and their body adjusts to it. I am one of the biggest losers of the genetic lottery you can imagine. I can even point you to some of the relevant alleles. When I decrease my intake to loose weight I get very hungry, and I stay that way for a few days. Then it wears off, and whatever I'm consuming becomes the new normal. You can sleep hungry, and you sleep really really well. If you get absorbed into your work you can do it angry, in pain, hot, cold or anything else. If not there'll always be something that'll keep you from working.

And if you loose sleep from hunger, I promise you won't do it for long. You can sleep through anything if you've been sufficiently deprived.
 
EdFred said:
But some people's bodies burn a lot more calories even at rest than others do. You can take two people of the same age and weight and one can put away 3000 calories a day be pretty sedentary and not gain any weight. You can give another person that same exact 3000 calories, and they will be 5 pounds heavier in 2 weeks. When I was younger I could out consume all of my friends, and never gained any weight, and we were all at the same activity level. They ate less calories to maintain weight than I did. So yeah, there are "naturally skinny people." It's a whole lot easier for someone who's resting metabolism to maintain when they burn 2000 calories a day vs someone who only burns 1200 calories at rest.

Or are you saying that every single person on the planet has the same exact resting metabolism?
Click to expand...
Again, this is simple enough that even you can understand it. If you consumer more calories than you burn you gain weight. Period. If you consume less you loose weight. The actual quantity of that caloric amount will vary from person to person. Less in smaller individuals, less in women. I can't imagine a way to determine it other than empirically. Then again, determining it is actually quite simple. You decrease calories in until you start loosing weight. Once you do you are below the floor of your needed calories. You boost you caloric intake until your weight stabilizes. At that point calories in equals calories out.

You have to eat less of highly caloric foods, more of low caloric foods. A good example, I'm without my lunch vegetables this holiday season. Just haven't had the time and opportunity line up to get them for the last week. I've been taking serving of pretzels. Boy am I hungry, and I should be. I can't eat as much mass in pretzels as I can in carrots, since pretzels are more densely caloric. So I get hungry.

In a way I have an advantage that can be used by few. I walk to work, so I don't need to carry a wallet. If I've no cash I can't buy food, all I can eat is what I brought. Of course, I have to be very disciplined when I get home (hard to do with lots of yummy holiday stuff around, which would explain my holiday weight gain. It'll come off...).
 
I lost 15 pounds and almost three inches off my waist in preparation for fitting into my best suit for my daughter's wedding.

The fat on my sides is mostly gone, but there is still a bunch of skin that will take a while to go back to "normal."

Getting old makes it all more difficult. Note I didn't say "harder." ;)
 
steingar said:
Again, this is simple enough that even you can understand it. If you consumer more calories than you burn you gain weight. Period. If you consume less you loose weight. The actual quantity of that caloric amount will vary from person to person. Less in smaller individuals, less in women. I can't imagine a way to determine it other than empirically. Then again, determining it is actually quite simple. You decrease calories in until you start loosing weight. Once you do you are below the floor of your needed calories. You boost you caloric intake until your weight stabilizes. At that point calories in equals calories out.

You have to eat less of highly caloric foods, more of low caloric foods. A good example, I'm without my lunch vegetables this holiday season. Just haven't had the time and opportunity line up to get them for the last week. I've been taking serving of pretzels. Boy am I hungry, and I should be. I can't eat as much mass in pretzels as I can in carrots, since pretzels are more densely caloric. So I get hungry.

In a way I have an advantage that can be used by few. I walk to work, so I don't need to carry a wallet. If I've no cash I can't buy food, all I can eat is what I brought. Of course, I have to be very disciplined when I get home (hard to do with lots of yummy holiday stuff around, which would explain my holiday weight gain. It'll come off...).
Click to expand...

And you completely missed the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top