Need to lose some Weight...BUT...

[Razzy]

There is a catch. I can't do any physical activity besides walking due to certain circumstances. How do I go about losing 5-10 pounds?

I'm 145-150lbs and I'm 5'6".

HELP ME!!!

[Rick]

Drink at least 12 glasses of water a day, stay away from soda, juice, and alcohol. Watch your fat/calorie intake, eat foods low in fat and high in protein... such as turkey, non-fat cottage cheese, beans, egg whites, etc.. Keep your carbohydrate intake low so take it easy on breads, pastas, potatoes, etc.. if your situation allows you to.. then start stretching for at least 30 minutes a day. All of the above should help shed at least 10 lbs. over the course of a month or so, just be strict about it.

edit: almost forgot... try to eat 5 small meals instead of the conventional 3 (breakfast, lunch, and dinner). Snack on fruit.

[Notion-Za]

Other than improving your diet think about how many calories you burn a day. Try do something small. Try take a slow walk for about 30mins in the morning or afternoon. This isnt really hectic exercise but it will help you burn a few calories.

Also while sitting in front of the tv or what ever why dont you get yourself a small 2kg dumb bell and just do small exercises such as hammer curls or shoulder extentions. This wont put your body at any physical exertion but will keep you active.

Or hey, maybe even try a nintendo wii. Will help you burn a few more calories.

[PBmadness]

http://www.zonediet.com/

[radix]

It sounds like you've suffered some sort of injury... in that case talk to a physical therapist, but exercising in water might help. Even walking in a swimming pool makes for good exercise, swimming might be OK as well.

[Razzy]

long story short, im not parapalegic or quadrapalegic or anything of the sort. Due to inner ear problems and constant operations on them in order to reconstruct my inner ear example. my hearing bones, ear drum. What happened was i suffered from Cholesteatoma(check it out) in both my ears. As a result ever since my physical activity such as weight lifting, contact sports, as a matter of fact any hardcore physical activity has become next to impossible. Some of you might say well WTF does excercise have to do with ears? With excersice comes tremendous pressure on your ears. You get the point.

Also, i got that treated due to surgery and no im not deaf or have hearing aids. I am completetly normal except some minor hearing loss and not being able to do hardcore physical activity.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Rick

Drink at least 12 glasses of water a day, stay away from soda, juice, and alcohol. Watch your fat/calorie intake, eat foods low in fat and high in protein... such as turkey, non-fat cottage cheese, beans, egg whites, etc.. Keep your carbohydrate intake low so take it easy on breads, pastas, potatoes, etc.. if your situation allows you to.. then start stretching for at least 30 minutes a day. All of the above should help shed at least 10 lbs. over the course of a month or so, just be strict about it.

edit: almost forgot... try to eat 5 small meals instead of the conventional 3 (breakfast, lunch, and dinner). Snack on fruit.

the nonsensical idea that fat is bad went out the window in the 80s. fat is essential for life. fat is good for you. eat it.

also, what is the reason for 5 small meals over 3 larger ones?

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

1) There's good fat and bad fat. Not all fats are equal.

durrrrr. really? Rick recommended eating low fat period, not eating more good fat and less bad fat.

Originally Posted by markoni

2) It keeps your metabolism going. Imagine it with money. If you had a job where you only got paid once in a while, you would only spend the bare minimum and save the rest, since you don't know when your next paycheck will be. If, however, you had a steady job with a paycheck coming in every Friday, rain or shine, you'd be burning that money up like nothing, since you know there's always more coming. Now replace money with fat and you get the point. Smaller meals keep your metabolism going. Your body knows it can burn everything you eat up because there's more coming soon. If you eat fewer meals your body starts storing fat because it doesn't know when the next meal will be and it needs to protect itself.

1. no it doesnt.

2. the money example is in no way relevant, just like the majority of your posts. making stupid analogies is a bro-logic way to make outdated, dogmatic ideas sound good.

****

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum

The pattern of food intake can affect the regulation of body weight and lipogenesis. We studied the effect of meal frequency on human energy expenditure (EE) and its components. During 1 week ten male adults (age 25-61 years, body mass index 20.7-30.4 kg/m2) were fed to energy balance at two meals/d (gorging pattern) and during another week at seven meals/d (nibbling pattern). For the first 6 d of each week the food was provided at home, followed by a 36 h stay in a respiration chamber. O2 consumption and CO2 production (and hence EE) were calculated over 24 h. EE in free-living conditions was measured over the 2 weeks with doubly-labelled water (average daily metabolic rate, ADMR). The three major components of ADMR are basal metabolic rate (BMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and EE for physical activity (ACT). There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE or ADMR. Furthermore, BMR and ACT did not differ between the two patterns. DIT was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern, but this effect was neutralized by correction for the relevant time interval. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum

Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum

To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum

Eight young adult males were fed isoenergetic diets of similar composition either in two meals or in six meals per day at defined times. While on each dietary regimen for two weeks the subjects occupied a whole body calorimeter for two 31-h periods, during which they followed a prescribed activity pattern. For each individual the 24-h energy expenditure in the calorimeter was highly reproducible and no discernible effect of meal frequency was observed under these controlled conditions. The total expenditure in the calorimeter on both regimens was substantially less than the energy intake and a progressive small weight gain was observed throughout the 2-week period on the two-meal-a-day system. If feeding frequency alters metabolic efficiency then it does so by mechanisms not readily discernible in a whole body calorimeter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...998&query_hl=1

A study was conducted to investigate whether there is a diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization in man and how this is affected by meal frequency to explain possible consequences of meal frequency for body weight regulation. When the daily energy intake is consumed in a small number of large meals, there is an increased chance to become overweight, possibly by an elevated lipogenesis (fat synthesis and accumulation) or storage of energy after the meal. Thirteen subjects, two males and eleven females, were fed to energy balance in two meals per day (gorging pattern) and seven meals per day (nibbling pattern) over 2-day intervals. On the second day on each feeding regimen, the diurnal pattern of nutrient utilization was calculated from simultaneous measurements of oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and urinary nitrogen excretion over 3 h intervals in a respiration chamber. A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns (5.57 +/- 0.16 kJ/min for the gorging pattern; 5.44 +/- 0.18 kJ/min for the nibbling pattern). Concerning the periodicity of nutrient utilization, protein oxidation during the day did not change between the two feeding patterns. In the gorging pattern, carbohydrate oxidation was significantly elevated during the interval following the first meal (ie from 1200 h to 1500 h, P less than 0.01) and the second meal (ie from 1800 h to 2100 h, P less than 0.05). The decreased rate of carbohydrate oxidation observed during the fasting period (from rising in the morning until the first meal at 1200 h), was compensated by an increased fat oxidation from 0900 to 1200 h to cover energy needs. In the nibbling pattern, carbohydrate and fat oxidation remained relatively constant during the active hours of the day.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

no difference in rats either

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...693&query_hl=1

The effects of differences in meal frequency on body weight, body composition, and energy expenditure were studied in mildly food-restricted male rats. Two groups were fed approximately 80% of usual food intake (as periodically determined in a group of ad libitum fed controls) for 131 days. One group received all of its food in 2 meals/day and the other received all of its food in 10-12 meals/day. The two groups did not differ in food intake, body weight, body composition, food efficiency (carcass energy gain per amount of food eaten), or energy expenditure at any time during the study. Both food-restricted groups had a lower food intake, body weight gain, and energy expenditure than a group of ad libitum-fed controls. In conclusion, these results suggest that amount of food eaten, but not the pattern with which it is ingested, has a major influence on energy balance during mild food restriction.

Theres also a study that found that dropping meal frequency, and most importantly - keeping cals the same - resulted in better body composition; increases in LBM and lowered fat mass, but i dont have it saved anywhere and cant be bothered to look for it.

Inevitably, none of these studies will be read, because Markoni does not subscribe to science.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

^ Haha. Why don't you tell us your height, weight, and bodyfat %. Someone with access to such groundbreaking scientific studies as yourself must be an Adonis. I'm sure you're not some scrawny pre-med student with a scientific stick up his ass.

BTW, you ever seen the people who go to med school? If you did, you wouldn't have much faith in science. They're not exactly the sharpest scalpels in the operating tray. I guess you can't see the forest through the trees, though.

sure thing, bro.