[Closed] losing weight-does it make you ill?

Why would your body store toxins? - Detox has no real evidence to support it. 4/5 stone is a lot to lose, I'd be looking for professional advice regarding how you are feeling now.

Yeah I don't believe in "detox" but there is a phenomena known as [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation ]Bioaccumulation[/url], and I have read that eating processed food can increase the toxins found in body fat.

This [url= http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/12 ]article[/url] is interesting.

Man up, you will get over it

Being overweight will make you ill. Losing weight in a sensible way to a sensible level won't.

losing weight-does it make you ill?

Don't you mean:

Exercise-does it make you ill?

well yeah, I am making the assumption that my last bit of exercise made me ill and I lost a bit of weight, both could be wrong...
But - Every time I have a good workout I feel pain the next day, I do not mean DOMS. I used to be a bit of a gym bunny and have been very fit in the distant past so i kind of know my way round DOMS and post exercise feelings, bu this is different. I am trying to get fit/lose weight now and I keep failing because of this wierd effect of feeling rotten the next day.
Last night I did 10k off road, (slowly) when we finished I could have done another 10k but it was getting dark. So I don't think it was excessive.

I accept the eponymous mantastics advice, and I have been manning up - 6 rides and 4 gym session in the last 3 weeks despite feeling bad.
This week its going to be at least 3 rides maybe 4.

I get the sniffles a lot after a cold - takes a while to clear completely.

Sounds like it's an issue specific to you or overweight folk.

Your body is getting stressed by exercise, more so because you're overweight. This not necessarily a bad thing as you should recover stronger, if it's really bad, wind back the level of exercise a bit. Sneezing/ runny nose - I have no idea, maybe take some anti-histamines, as being outside will expose you to more pollen / pollution.

It's staggering how few calories exercise burns, when I was fat it was the change in diet that really helped me drop it. Good luck.

The use of the word "toxins" in this sort of context is something of a red flag for me. It generally has the same level of scientific backup as talking about chakras, or Mercury rising in your adjacent house affecting your love life.

I was in your position; I've lost about 4 stone with another stone to go, to get down to 'racing weight'. No problems with feeling ill through exercise, or diet change. Taken me years rather than months, mind.

nope, i'm about the same, 4 stone overweight(I was 5).

exercising makes me feel brilliant the next day. (well unless you get muscle aches, but they go away after a week or 2, you are just using muscles you haven't used in a long while, so they will ache.)

Make sure you are eating and hydrating enough, that'd be my instinct. Leaving your dieting days for when you aren't exercising. (and make sure you eat after exercising.)

The use of the word "toxins" in this sort of context is something of a red flag for me. It generally has the same level of scientific backup as talking about chakras, or Mercury rising in your adjacent house affecting your love life.

Yes indeed, I think one has to be cautious, the detox industry is bunk. But there is significant medical evicence that toxins are stored in adipose tissue, its just a case of do they really come out during exercise/weight loss and if they do, would I notice it/is that whats making me feel shit..

Yes indeed, I think one has to be cautious, the detox industry is bunk. But there is significant medical evicence that toxins are stored in adipose tissue, its just a case of do they really come out during exercise/weight loss and if they do, would I notice it/is that whats making me feel shit..

Why would you be so far in the minority ?

I am trying to get fit/lose weight now

one thing at a time. maintain fitness and lose weight (diet), or increase fitness and disregard weight (no harm in keeping an eye on what you eat, but dont consciously cut calories, certainly not below a reasonable maintenance level)

The metabolic process produces free radicals at many different stages, and the body needs antioxidants, differnent ones for different free radicals, to neutralise them and avoid destructive effects on cells and tissue.

If you're missing the right antioxidants from your diet to deal with certain free radicals, the body and get them out of circulation by stuffing them away in calcium deposits in joints and adhesions in connective tissues (and possibly, don't actually know about this one, in fats too.)

The use of the word "toxins" in this sort of context is something of a red flag for me. It generally has the same level of scientific backup as talking about chakras, or Mercury rising in your adjacent house affecting your love life.

Do some reading then! Biochemistry (that's a type of science) awaits!

Edit: I agree in part though. "Detoxing" - just drinking lemon juice for 4 days is not going to do very much to help you along. Eating plenty of fresh fruit and veg, avoiding processed food, fags, booze and chemicals, and getting out of the city for a while, will.

Why would you be so far in the minority ?

one thing at a time. maintain fitness and lose weight (diet), or increase fitness and disregard weight (no harm in keeping an eye on what you eat, but dont consciously cut calories, certainly not below a reasonable maintenance level)

I am exercising and cutting down on carbs, but not calorie counting/restricting my diet in terms of going hungry..

Well, if so many people exercise and don't have these issues, why are you ?

Because I am a bad person? I dunno WTF are you driving at?

toys19 - Member
Because I am a bad person? I dunno WTF are you driving at?

toys19 - Member

Because I am a bad person? I dunno WTF are you driving at?

I can't make it any clearer fella. There's millions upon millions of people in the same situation, however, unless we've all missed something, none are experiencing the same issues as you.

So, maybe it's something else ?

You should go and see the Doctor.

Cutting down on carbs whilst exercising hard CAN be very difficult for people who are used to living and exercising off carb stores. I suspect that this includes those people with a higher proportion of type II muscle tissue.

However, it's unclear to me if we are better off putting up with the crap feeling and reduced performance to try and learn to deal with it; or to introduce more (good) carbs to the diet so we can work harder and lose more weight that way.

I always seem to get a cold if I lose weight. It really annoys me!

I am 6kg off my racing weight and is really hard to shift without getting ill, even though I eat loads of vegetables and not much processed food. Everyone is different, you need to find what works - fluids would be a start.

Also, as those are the kind of reaction you get from immune system dealing with something, check what you eat and drink in and around exercising, if it's something different from every day you just might be be intolerant of it. Different washing powder for sports kit??

I've experienced something similar to that - I think it's just more of a stress on the body thing than any gubbins about toxins. After a big break towards the end of last year, this year I've made a point of starting off at a much more gentle pace and I've not had an issue - having said that, got a cold off the missis last week, had a big ride at the weekend (long planned) and man did I ever feel rough after. I still sound like Barry White but I don't feel too bad now. Just go steady, eat healthy and crack on. 🙂

"this year I've made a point of starting off at a much more gentle pace and I've not had an issue"

im almost positive if you follow this advice you will not get ill the next day.

trying to go out from nothing to a 4 hour mtb ride in the hills will almost certainly make your body go - woah **** this and wave the white flag to any little illness thats been attacking your body.

However, it's unclear to me if we are better off putting up with the crap feeling and reduced performance to try and learn to deal with it; or to introduce more (good) carbs to the diet so we can work harder and lose more weight that way.

Diet to change weight, exercise to change fitness. Actually I would say diet is important for fitness also as you will have more energy and feel like being more active with a more healthy diet.

IMO/IME endurance exercise is a poor method for losing body fat simply because the more you exercise the more you need to eat if you are going to sustain the exercise day after day, week after week. If you feel crap and are performing crap (assuming you are not ill) then to me that is a pretty clear signal from your body that you are not eating properly!

For exercise resulting in fat loss I would say weight training would be far more successful (but still with diet being the more important factor).

trail rat I agree, hence my comment that last night was a reasonably gentle pootle, I worked on the climbs but had plenty in the tank at the end and could have done more (I can't see m doing 4 hrs any time soon).
Yes perhaps there is something else wrong..

"endurance exercise is a poor method for losing body fat simply because the more you exercise the more you need to eat if you are going to sustain the exercise day after day, week after week"

i fail to see the issue here .... so long as your net calorie intake is less than your outgoing then its grand.

weight lifting is good for weight loss due to the fact it exercises large groups of muscles all at once increasing your bodys requirements for energy just to sit at the desk and feed the muscle + recovery.

how ever if you have a sustained deficit for either of much more than 500 cals you will likely get ill.

Weight lost quickly is weight gained quickly. there is no way to lose weight "quickly"

just be clear, I am not doing anything quickly.. Just trying to make a lifestyle change.

i fail to see the issue here .... so long as your net calorie intake is less than your outgoing then its grand.

Diet to change weight, exercise to change fitness

Hmm, maybe, but I think the two things need to work in tandem. Diet to match the exercise you do.

i fail to see the issue here .... so long as your net calorie intake is less than your outgoing then its grand.

We've done this before - some of the calories you put in your mouth end up maintaining your fat stores, but how much fat is the result of a complex set of systems and is only loosely related to how much exercise you do.

To the OP - is there any common factor in the exercise you are doing? Do you choose say woodland routes for your biking and running? Could be something like tree pollen maybe.. that kind of thing.

The use of the word "toxins" in this sort of context is something of a red flag for me. It generally has the same level of scientific backup as talking about chakras, or Mercury rising in your adjacent house affecting your love life.

Do some reading then! Biochemistry (that's a type of science) awaits!

Edit to add a 😉

To the OP - is there any common factor in the exercise you are doing? Do you choose say woodland routes for your biking and running? Could be something like tree pollen maybe.. that kind of thing.

Yeah maybe, TBh I only noticed it after cycling in Aberdeen, kirkhill and countesswells. hmmm Might take a piriton and see what happens.

patronising twuntery backatcha.

😀

Read carefully then. Of course there is plenty of proper science in this area, but the word "toxins" is frequently thrown about in a pseudo-scientific Gillian McKeith style. BTW I have a higher degree in biochemistry - patronising twuntery backatcha.
Edit to add a

I thought the 'antioxidant' thing had been discredited as a marketing term more than anything too. But I know f*** all about bio chemistry 😀

Afaik we do need antioxidants, but it's unclear if eating loads of them actually makes any difference to the availability of these things in our blood. So yes, unfounded pseudoscientific supposition based on real science, like many things.

Likewise toxins - again afaik the body can deposit actual toxins like metals etc in fatty tissue (like fish do, which is why eating lots of oily fish can be bad) - I did read somewhere that crash yoyo dieters were at risk because they went through their fat stores quickly so had high levels of these toxins to dispose of - then build them back up again and repeat regularly.

[i]I'm about 4/5 stone overweight.[/i]
I'd suggest losing most of that via a change in your diet/lifestyle (restrict carb intake) and while doing so exercise at a moderate intensity, if you feel the need to move about a bit.

IIRC, Ton lost over 5 stone mostly via diet, but is now slowly ramping up his exercise. Last time I saw, I think he was aiming for 500 miles a month 😯

Change of [i]Diet to [s]change[/s] reduce your weight, exercise to [s]change[/s] maintain or increase your fitness[/i]
Definately.

[i]i fail to see the issue here .... so long as your net calorie intake is less than your outgoing then its grand.[/i]
This has been proved not to be the case. The body's endocrine system will adjust to try to compensate for cals lost. It will either try to regain cals via increased hunger or by feeling lethargic. The Endocrine system is a crafty old sod. Furthremore, upsetting it with lots of carbs will just send things in the [i]wrong[/i] direction.

I'm coming to the end of 'The Diet Delusion'. Its been a very enlightening read. Its staggering to see how obtuse some members of the medical community have been in the past and in more recent times.

come out with us of a wednesday night, drink 3 pints of Sports Beer (TM) after, and have a reason to feel vaguely crappy the following day. sorted.
next!
😉

[i]come out with us of a wednesday night, drink 3 pints of Sports Beer[/i]

Thanks, but I've injured my back and so I'm off the bike for a few days.

is that code for sucumbing to temptation ?

[i]is that code for sucumbing to temptation ? [/i]

?

I went out on Sunday morning to enact my hommage to the tour of flanders, by riding against the wind along wet, muddy back roads. But I'm an old get now and I suspect I've torn a muscle in my lower back.

But don't worry, I used my 'winter bike', a 2013 cinelli experience fitted with my old mavic wheelset and a mixture of 105, ultegra 6800 and dura ace 9000.

naw your previous post.

[i]naw your previous post[/i]

Oh, well its probably another thread along the lines of conspiracy theories, etc. But for dyed in the wool academics to make statements and give direction off the back of other people's work, cos they're too busy. Is risky stuff at best and down right misleading at worst and its also amazing to read that these people, who would have us think they're really clever. Refuse to consider alternative hypotheses that do not conform to the paradigm that calories are all equal. Which has been proved not to be the case.

(was that better ?)

i fail to see the issue here .... so long as your net calorie intake is less than your outgoing then its grand.
This has been proved not to be the case. The body's endocrine system will adjust to try to compensate for cals lost. It will either try to regain cals via increased hunger or by feeling lethargic. The Endocrine system is a crafty old sod. Furthremore, upsetting it with lots of carbs will just send things in the wrong direction.

You know criticism like this always raises alarm bells in my head, mostly because it appear to contradict the laws of thermodynmaics. As crafy as the endocrine system might be (I have no idea as it is way outside my area of expertise) it can't break the laws of thermodynamics.

"Refuse to consider alternative hypotheses that do not conform to the paradigm that calories are all equal"

a bottle of coke is not worth a steak and some broccoli ... thats stuff that my parents taught me when i was a kid.

probably my fault to assume that folks know the difference between clean calories and junk calories.

gonefishin, I understand what you mean but by your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics a car should run on croissants. there is plenty of energy in a croissant, why is'nt this car moving?

There are plenty of caloris in croissants, but unfortunaly for the laws of thermodynmics the body does not always treat croissant calories as fuel. It can take peoples croissant calories and turn them into fat, (look up insulin resistance), and them make that fat very difficult to burn as fuel.

There are quite a lot of calories in diesel, if I drank that would it contribute to my calorie balance (by your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics)

gonefishin, I understand what you mean but by your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics a car should run on croissants. there is plenty of energy in a croissant, why is'nt this car moving?

Don't be ridiculous I said no such thing and that's little more than a straw man argument. Different engines use different types of fuel yes, they are still bound the laws of thermodynamics.

There are plenty of caloris in croissants, but unfortunaly for the laws of thermodynmics the body does not always treat croissant calories as fuel. It can take peoples croissant calories and turn them into fat, (look up insulin resistance), and them make that fat very difficult to burn as fuel.

That would be what is referred to as an "unsteady state energy balance" which is incidently the same situation that TR described only in reverse. It doesn't matter whether or not someone is insulin resitant their body (or engine) is still subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

trail_rat if you ask me DD had it last week on the fattist thread when he asked which would make you fatter, 2000calories of cruciferous veg or 2000 calories of ice cream.

Different engines use different types of fuel yes, they are still bound the laws of thermodynamics.

It is not a straw man, my point is that the calories in food only count as fuel if the body recognises them as fuel.
Insulin restance makes the body refuse to treat carbs as fuel. People eat them carbs, but the body does not turn them into glycogen, so it is not available for them to burn. Soon after eating carbs the body starts asking for more fuel, because the glycogen stores have not been replenished. It is similar to putting croissants in your fuel tank, whilst they do have a high calorific value, the car cannot recognise croissants as fuel so cannot use them.

Of course it subject to the laws of thermodynamics, but understanding what energy the body can burn or not will drive the thermodynamics. Simplistic statements such as calories in=calories out are frankly bollocks.

"Insulin restance makes the body refuse to treat carbs as fuel. People eat them carbs, but the body does not turn them into glycogen, so it is not available for them to burn. Soon after eating carbs the body starts asking for more fuel, because the glycogen stores have not been replenished. It is similar to putting croissants in your fuel tank, whilst they do have a high calorific value, the car cannot recognise croissants as fuel so cannot use them."

someone should tell team sky chef this.

[i]You know criticism like this always raises alarm bells in my head, mostly because it appear to contradict the laws of thermodynmaics. As crafy as the endocrine system might be (I have no idea as it is way outside my area of expertise) it can't break the laws of thermodynamics.[/i]
I understand what you mean and it can bake your noodle. But there are a few observations in this field which are counter intuative and so take some concentrated reconsideration. Some folk are open minded enough to compare the results of calorie restricted diets against carbohydrate restricted diets.
Others just cling to a flawed belief of a direct link between fat accumulation and exercise, etc, which does not explain how the body works.
For example, it would seem obvious that excess weight is the result of a lack of exercise. But usually, people sit around on the sofa because their body is directing a disproportionately high percentage of the energy they consume, to fat storage and leaving very little energy for exercise. So they don't feel like getting up and going running/cycling.
People will be sedentary because they are growing sideways (energy is being diverted to storage). They are not growing sideways, becasue they are sedentary.
As for thermodynamics. The body has choices with what to do with energy, subject to how the endocrine system operates and what you eat. While the model for the first law is isothermal.

So, where the FLoTD can only allow energy to be used or stored. This has nothing to do with obesity, which is the result of a disrruption of the fat accumulation processes of the body.

So, firstly, your body should stop you eating more than you need, when everything is working correctly and you have a good diet. But even if you [i]went for it[/i] as perhaps you might on a special occassion, etc. Then if its a one off, slowly, over time, your body will deal with the caloric excess and you will return to your usual weight (hunger will be temporarily suppressed until leptin levels return to normal, for example). Alternatively, if you've eaten more than you need, then sometime afterwards, you may experience the need to get up and run about. So by just these two examples, you can see that the body has options as to what to do with amount of food you can consume and what you actually need.

The problems begin with the consumption of refined carbs. The endocrine system reacts poorly. Its just the way we work.

[i]a bottle of coke is not worth a steak and some broccoli [/i]
Thats a great way to explain it !

[i]trail_rat if you ask me DD had it last week on the fattist thread [/i]
Hes a clever lad, I liked his [i]eat better, move about a bit[/i] quote.

Try Berocca mate,
It's you, but on a good day.
Have you had an MOT at the quacks to highlight any issues?
Fair play to you though, I really got to start the weightloss regime myself !

I reckon it's far simpler than think.

If you are 4-5 stone overweight then you are going to feel crap after exercise, the same way I'd feel crap(er) if I was having to cart around an extra 4-5 stone while doing the same exercise.

Just make sure you exercise constantly, ie climb stairs, don't use lifts - park at the far end of the car park, get the coffee's in at work. Go for a 15 minute walk, rather than drive 5 minutes.

Oh, and stop Goggle-ing.

someone should tell team sky chef this.

Why? Do the Sky cyclists suffer from insulin resistance? I don't think so.

As I said - diet has to match exercise to get the result you want.

probably my fault to assume that folks know the difference between clean calories and junk calories.

Do you?

gonefishin - don't keep going on about thermodynamics. People are not simple heat engines, so that doesn't really apply to us. There are so many exceptions to this that it's obviously rubbish. There are lots of people who eat loads, don't exercise, and don't get fat.

There are lots of people who eat loads, don't exercise, and don't get fat.

In over half a century on this planet I've yet to meet one. Every person I've lived close enough to to judge fits the simple model "you are what you eat".

In over half a century on this planet I've yet to meet one.

I know loads. Half my family is like this. Including my Dad. He never ate much sugary stuff though, to be fair, but plenty of starch.

Then there's my colleague who plays football once a week, and is more or less constantly eating at work - he brings a packed lunch (that includes cakes), eats it before lunchtime and then goes out and buys food. Also cakes mid morning. He is 1" taller than me, similar build, and 4kg lighter.

Then there's my other colleague who cycles a similar amount to me, eats a moderate amount of cakes and so on and has about 6% bodyfat.

What job did he do? I doubt he was sat in front of a computer, before and after sitting in a car before watching TV.

What, my Dad? He used to sit in front of a class mostly, and sometimes stand. And then sit in a car and infront of a TV.

[i]People are not simple heat engines,[/i]

this is true

[i] so that doesn't really apply to us.[/i]

This is not true.

Teachers spend most of the day on their feet IME.

Sigh.

The thing that pisses me off about you, Edukator, is that you're always absolutley totally convinced that you know everything and that you're always right. You NEVER say anything like 'oh, that's interesting, perhaps I'll look into it'. No - you know everything, you don't need to do any more reading ever.

The scientific community is constantly learning new things and discovering more about how our bodies work. You should probably try the same thing.

I just did a quick google about why some people never get fat. It produced tons of stories and articles about it from all sorts of sources. I expect you're going to tell me that every one of them is wrong, and you know best - go on, I dare you.

You're forgetting that I've been a part of that peer-reviewed scientific community and have yet to see anything better than "eating more than you need makes you fat". Some people need to eat more than others but if nobody ate more than they need to maintain a healthy weight then nobody would be fat. Weight Watchers strategy works, try it.

someone should tell team sky chef this.

Trai_ rat, molgrips said it, but I wanted to reiterate, I expect none of team sky have insulin resistance issues, therefore no issue, but obese people tend to have it.

There is only one way to break insulin resistance, ****ing hard intense exercise.

Id hope so given my whole philosophy when i was racing revolved around fueling the engine right , everything has its place in your diet but at different points and in different amounts.

Protein from white meat and fish was my staple bulked out with lots of green veg.

Coke was my ultra last ditch need a boost , im dying here effort

Id say both worked.

Obviously I'm not accusing Team Sky in specific of anything but there is still no validated test for [url= http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/March/08030701.asp ]insulin[/url] which is widely used by both power and endurance athletes in their doping protocols. Treat anything related to professional cycling with extreme caution as history tells us their weird and wonderful eating regimes are either necessary to complement the doping or simply part of the smoke screen.

re laws of thermodynamics, i saw a piece recently that suggested that calories in vs calories out theory doesn't apply to people because we aren't closed systems. They also pointed out that the body is more efficient at turning calories from carbohydrates into glycogen than turning fats and proteins into glycogen - therefore the form of your calories is very important to consider.

I'll try and find the source.

edit: here it is:

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/energy-in-does-not-equal-energy-out/
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/eating-less-will-not-make-us-weigh-less/

What you're saying is that we don't digest everything in our food, some digest better than others and that some foods are easier to digest than others. So if you chew well and eat easily digested foods, have an efficient digestive system and slow metabolism you don't need to eat as much - so don't eat as much. Eat according to what you need based on all your personal factors but stick to eating no more than you need to maintain you weight. If you wish to lose weight then eat a little less than that.

Edukator - Troll
What you're saying is that we don't digest everything in our food, some digest better than others and that some foods are easier to digest than others. So if you chew well and eat easily digested foods, have an efficient digestive system and slow metabolism you don't need to eat as much - so don't eat as much. Eat according to what you need based on all your personal factors but stick to eating no more than you need to maintain you weight. If you wish to lose weight then eat a little less than that.

I'm not saying anything, just pointing out something i read. Read the links and it explains it far better than i can. I think the point is tt isn't about digestion, but the energy required to turn energy in food into energy available for the body to use.

The energy used up in making carbohydrate, for example, available to the body as energy vs. the energy used up converting protein to usable energy is substantially different. 100 calories of carbohydrate eaten may make 93 available to the body; 100 calories of protein eaten may make only 70 available (Ref 1). That’s a significant advantage for dieters and helps to explain the effectiveness of low carbohydrate diets.

It doesn't matter how many calories are are in your food, in each food type and how many you digest from each type of food so long as the total that end up in your body meet your needs and no more.

You're forgetting that I've been a part of that peer-reviewed scientific community and have yet to see anything better than "eating more than you need makes you fat".

How hard did you look? Weren't you a geologist?

It doesn't matter how many calories are are in your food, in each food type and how many you digest from each type of food so long as the total that end up in your body meet your needs and no more.

Why?

The stuff under your skin clearly isn't chewed up cakes and sweets, so it is being processed somehow. What makes you think this process is equally efficient in all situations?

It doesn't matter what the process is or how efficient is so long as you don't put more fuel in than you need.

The stuff under my skin isn't cakes or sweets because I rarely eat the former and never the latter.

Breakfast: müesli (no milk) and fruit.
Lunch: ham sandwich and fruit.
After walk snack: dark chocolate in bread and orange juice.
Evening: chicken livers and potatoes.

Now you, Molgrips.

So you're saying energy into your body, not energy into your mouth?

Food gets into your body through your mouth, some of it gets converted into energy, don't consume more than you need.

If you just eat sugar and drink glucose-fructose sodas then you won't need to consume much and will probably feel hungry all the time. If you only eat celery then you will find it impossible to eat enough to stay alive. There is middle ground. Find foodstuffs that you enjoy eating, provide you with all the protein, carbs, fat, vitamins, minerals and fibre you need, and enough energy but no more than enough.

The stuff under my skin isn't cakes or sweets because I rarely eat the former and never the latter

I eat cakes and sweets. The stuff under my skin is still not cake or sweets. Massive point missing.

I eat cakes and sweets.

So you eat "empty" calories that leave you feeling hungry and have trouble controlling your weight.

I eat what is loosely a Mediterranean diet and can gain or lose weight at will by varying quantity and composition. Coming back to the original topic I don't find losing weight makes me ill, but if I maintain my Summer weight through the Winter I'm more likely to feel cold and catch colds.

[i]Sigh.
The thing that pisses me off about you, Edukator, is that you're always absolutley totally convinced that you know everything and that you're always right. You NEVER say anything like 'oh, that's interesting, perhaps I'll look into it'. No - you know everything, you don't need to do any more reading ever.[b]Damn right ![/b]
The scientific community is constantly learning new things and discovering more about how our bodies work. You should probably try the same thing.
I just did a quick google about why some people never get fat. It produced tons of stories and articles about it from all sorts of sources. I expect you're going to tell me that every one of them is wrong, and you know best - go on, I dare you.[/i]

Sometimes, just sometimes, you Gotta luv, Grips.
🙂

[i]You're forgetting that I've been a part of that peer-reviewed scientific community[/i]
Nope, we all recall that you have claimed to have worked for [b]Lindt[/b]
#conflictofinterest

[i]re laws of thermodynamics, i saw a piece recently that suggested that calories in vs calories out theory doesn't apply to people because we aren't closed systems. They also pointed out that the body is more efficient at turning calories from carbohydrates into glycogen than turning fats and proteins into glycogen - therefore the form of your calories is very important to consider.[/i]
Good to know that others are doing their own research, an example to those who assume that they might Edukate us, whilst refusing to update their own reading and knowledge, in order to be "up to date" [b]in 2014......[/b]

[i]It doesn't matter how many calories are are in your food, in each food type and how many you digest from each type of food so long as the total that end up in your body meet your needs and no more.[/i]
Complete rubbish ! really, you are trying to tell us that a calorie of carbs is processed in an identical way to a calorie of fat.
You may think so, but your body, its enzymes and all its hormones, do not agree.
[b]Goodness[/b] you really are out of date.

So much so, that it's difficult to wonder why you persist in demonstrating to the rest of us, just how obtuse you are. Ironic then that you call yourself "[i]Edukator[/i]

[i]Edukator - Troll [/i]
Oh yeah !

So, what does history tell us ?, it tells us that calorie restricted diets fail, long term. Calorie restriction is semi starvation and humans do not voluntarily live their entire lives in semi starvation in order to remain lean. Also, 150 years, plus, of carbohydrate restricted diets have been proved to be effective.

So, Those who think no further than the theory that a calorie is a calorie, is a calorie. Are out of date, as Grips says, science has moved on. So should we.

I think eating healthily to meet your needs is about as up to date as you'll get, Solo. Almost all of the things you claim I have said apart from the direct quotes I have not, and the thermodynamics quote isn't from me.

What did you eat yesterday? Can you fault what I ate? Do you disagree with the Etude de Lyon Mediterranean diet as a starting point for healthy eating?

Jeez, where has the original question gone.

I too am around 4 stone overweight and although I sometimes feel a bit ropey for a few hours after a ride, the next day is generally ok.

The OP seems to know a fair bit about the human body and food / exercise, so if his problem can't be rationalised then maybe it is time for the docs not a forum of bike nuts !

Jeez talk about go off subject.
Fat holds hormones mainly estrogen, when you loose weight you loose fat and have hormonal changes combine that with the stress on your body that it thinks it's starving and the sudden rise in testosterone levels and you get ill. If you inject testosterone, the first few injections will give you what's called test flu because of this.
A colorie is a calorie but the end composition of you body will be different depending on what you eat. If you eat high carbs and low fat or low carbs and high fat you get different results. That's why boy builders eat low carbs but high fats so they can hold onto lots of.muscle while the fat I'd lost. Athletes will do the opposite as they need the glycogen stores, the high carbs will trigger an insulin response and store all fats consumed so they must remain low.