Welcome to TheFitnessForum.net!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log in/Register/PasswordLog in/Register/Password

Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days???

 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
   Fitness Forums (Home) -> Weight Training & Fat Loss RSS
Related Topics:
Weighing scales & body fat monitors. - Hi, I've googled and seen a couple of on this, but the go way back to mid '06. Last week, I bought a Tanita TBF 602 {for 65 Euro} and have been having some fun with it. This models allows for 2 people to use it (not..

Losing Body Fat, But Not Gaining Muscle Mass - Advice? - Hi, Since January I have managed to lose nearly 2 stone in weight, dropping from about 14st 8lbs (36" waist) down to 12st 12lbs (now a 34" waist). Just as I started my exercise regime I brought some fancy scales, that are meant to be able to

Lose 12 lbs in under two weeks! - EVERY single applicant has lost over 12 lbs in under two weeks! Read here for more:

what do you think of this new way to lose weight? - Hi all Does anyone hear of calorie shifting? I found it in first. I search it in google and found many about it. Did anyone try it before? I am anxious to lose weight. I will date a girl in next month. Can anyone give me some..

Lose weight and boy building - for visiting, pls write some good tips and workouts for me and readers to lose weight and feed the muscle
Next:  Weight Training & Fat Loss: Tanita Body Fat Scale; A bit concerned...  
Author Message
Proctologically Violated©

External


Since: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 136



(Msg. 31) Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>support>diet, others (more info?)

Oh, inneresting that Cr pretty non-toxic, unlike Selenium, iron, even
copper, zinc. In fact, if I read correctly, no toxicity had ever been
reported at the time I read about it.
It doesn't have a "real" RDA (or didn't), which means they aren't quite sure
what it does, but pretty sure it does sumpn. Smile
Probably shouldn't go too far beyond the RDA's "estimated max" of 200 mcg,
over the long term.
Elemental Cr, or Cr+6 (vs dietary Cr, which is Cr+3) is *highly* toxic,
devastating to lung tissue. Chrome-plated lungs??
Go figger.

More important than GTF et al in terms of glucose management, I think, is
weight management, low-glycemic index foods, overall intelligent diet/habits
(eg, small meals), BOUCOU exercise, esp. light exercise (eg, walking) after
meals.
Also just trying to cure ourselves of the American Sweet Tooth is a good
bet. Kids' cereals/soft drinks are the absolute worst. Frosted Flakes in
Kool-Aid??? It happens!

Also, I don't think high fructose is a wise alternative sucrose (even tho
sucrose itself is 50% fructose) because fructose has an anomalous metabolism
in the liver. Very high fructose intakes have been shown to cause liver
abnormalities.
Artificial sweeteners are a big health gamble, imo.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Proctologically Violated©®" <physical.TakeThisOut@erols.com> wrote in message
news:odGdnaPqw7i1AZHeRVn-sg@rcn.net...
> No. GTF Cr is as DZ stated. Not sure of it's merits, but if it don't cost
> too much, I take it.
> Cr Nicotinate is how Cr is supplied in nature, mostly.
> CrCl3 is cheaper, less absorbed "inorganic" Cr, but still OK.
> Cr Picolinate is bullshit.
> ----------------------------
> Mr. P.V.'d
> formerly Droll Troll
> "Pat" <spam.me.not.pdavis.TakeThisOut@fidnet.com> wrote in message
> news:PLidnR8be_31DJHeRVn-gA@fidnet.com...
>>
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <physical.TakeThisOut@erols.com> wrote in message
>> news:S62dnU53MYQmFZHeRVn-og@rcn.net...
>>> I take it. No doubt you pay a premium for the "GTF" label.
>>> Cr Nicotinate is absorbed better than Cr Chloride. Anything is better
>> than
>>> nothing. I have Cr Chloride that I take when nothing else is around.
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that GTF chromium = Cr chloride?
>>
>>
>>> "Pat" <spam.me.not.pdavis.TakeThisOut@fidnet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:HKKdnTNBY5OhepbeRVn-1w@fidnet.com...
>>> >
>>> > "DZ" <29818.TakeThisOut@1928613515.156571131.19745.16683.10520> wrote in message
>>> > news:21157@1437015652.296710784.24259.4022.30420...
>>> >> Proctologically Violated©® <physical.TakeThisOut@erols.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Chromium picolinate is garbage, because picolinate is bogus, and
>>> >> > likely toxic. Cr Nicotinate is the preferred form. Picolinate is
>>> >> > an
>>> >> > unmetabolizable isomer of nicotinate, unrecognized by the intended
>>> >> > enzymes.
>>> >>
>>> >> It looks like picolinate might induce chromosomal damage while
>>> >> nicotinate does not. (PMID: 8529845) http://tinyurl.com/7ssml
>>> >>
>>> >> Unfortunately, Cr that have been shown to substantially extend life
>>> >> span in rodents was only studied longevity-wise in the form of
>>> >> picolinate.
>>> >
>>> > I've been taking something called GTF (according to ads it means
>>> > Glucose
>>> > Tolerance Factor) chromium. Is that OK?
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 >> Stay informed about: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Pat

External


Since: Aug 23, 2005
Posts: 5



(Msg. 32) Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Proctologically Violated©®" <physical.TakeThisOut@erols.com> wrote in message
news:7Ladnd0oe867OZHeRVn-3w@rcn.net...
> Oh, inneresting that Cr pretty non-toxic, unlike Selenium, iron, even
> copper, zinc. In fact, if I read correctly, no toxicity had ever been
> reported at the time I read about it.
> It doesn't have a "real" RDA (or didn't), which means they aren't quite
sure
> what it does, but pretty sure it does sumpn. Smile
> Probably shouldn't go too far beyond the RDA's "estimated max" of 200 mcg,
> over the long term.
> Elemental Cr, or Cr+6 (vs dietary Cr, which is Cr+3) is *highly* toxic,
> devastating to lung tissue. Chrome-plated lungs??
> Go figger.
>
> More important than GTF et al in terms of glucose management, I think, is
> weight management, low-glycemic index foods, overall intelligent
diet/habits
> (eg, small meals), BOUCOU exercise, esp. light exercise (eg, walking)
after
> meals.
> Also just trying to cure ourselves of the American Sweet Tooth is a good
> bet. Kids' cereals/soft drinks are the absolute worst. Frosted Flakes in
> Kool-Aid??? It happens!
>
> Also, I don't think high fructose is a wise alternative sucrose (even tho
> sucrose itself is 50% fructose) because fructose has an anomalous
metabolism
> in the liver. Very high fructose intakes have been shown to cause liver
> abnormalities.
> Artificial sweeteners are a big health gamble, imo.

I thank TPTB I was born without a sweet tooth. Nevertheless, i have managed
to gain an unwanted 30 lbs. in the last 6 years.

 >> Stay informed about: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Peter Allen

External


Since: Jan 09, 2005
Posts: 229



(Msg. 33) Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Pat wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote
>
>> There's a reason that not everyone is 7% bodyfat. It's because
>> getting that lean is *hard*. It's not something that any 14% BF
>> fatass can accomplish with a week or two of crash dieting.
>
> My ex-husband had - I kid you not - 0% body fat. He had it tested. I
> was present at the test. Mine (back then) was 21%.

In that case, he was dead, being as you need some body fat for axon sheaths
et cetera (IIRC).

Possibly you mean 3 or so percent, which is really low and means basically
no fat under the skin anywhere.

Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dr. Dickie

External


Since: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 63



(Msg. 34) Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Peter Allen" <peteronusenet RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:deho50$cpl$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Pat wrote:
> > "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote
> >
> >> There's a reason that not everyone is 7% bodyfat. It's because
> >> getting that lean is *hard*. It's not something that any 14% BF
> >> fatass can accomplish with a week or two of crash dieting.
> >
> > My ex-husband had - I kid you not - 0% body fat. He had it tested. I
> > was present at the test. Mine (back then) was 21%.
>
> In that case, he was dead, being as you need some body fat for axon
sheaths
> et cetera (IIRC).
>
> Possibly you mean 3 or so percent, which is really low and means basically
> no fat under the skin anywhere.
>
> Peter
>
>

Yeah, especially since the brain is about 50% fat (tissue wise--that is, if
you neglect the water). 0% is kinda tough to get to, although Usenet shows
us that it is possible (by quite a few people in fact).
 >> Stay informed about: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? 
Back to top
Login to vote
DZ

External


Since: Aug 24, 2005
Posts: 1



(Msg. 35) Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Back to top
Login to vote
Seth Breidbart

External


Since: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 302



(Msg. 36) Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:37 am
Post subject: Re: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In article <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-52BAC4.10164324082005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <xqednZ2dnZ10XkLgnZ2dnZZ7lt6dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0.DeleteThis@fidnet.com>,
> "Pat" <spam.me.not.pdavis.DeleteThis@fidnet.com> wrote:

>> My ex-husband had - I kid you not - 0% body fat. He had it tested.
>
>Which of course is not possible. Error in testing plus margin of error
>or something. Only testing method that would come up with such a silly
>result would be BIA.

Any other method probably could, since they all have errors (with one
exception).

Underwater weighing could, if his tissues (especially bones) were
denser than estimated.

Measurement-based methods might, depending on the formula. (There was
one circumferential formula used at a gym that I realized implied that
if I trained my arms larger and had no other changes, it would claim
my bodyfat went up.)

Seth
 >> Stay informed about: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Proctologically Violated©

External


Since: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 136



(Msg. 37) Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:37 am
Post subject: Re: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Actually, extensive biopsy or total liposuction is the only sure way.
The problem then, is how to put it all back. Smile
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb.DeleteThis@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dejhuf$n6e$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article
> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-52BAC4.10164324082005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>>In article <xqednZ2dnZ10XkLgnZ2dnZZ7lt6dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0.DeleteThis@fidnet.com>,
>> "Pat" <spam.me.not.pdavis.DeleteThis@fidnet.com> wrote:
>
>>> My ex-husband had - I kid you not - 0% body fat. He had it tested.
>>
>>Which of course is not possible. Error in testing plus margin of error
>>or something. Only testing method that would come up with such a silly
>>result would be BIA.
>
> Any other method probably could, since they all have errors (with one
> exception).
>
> Underwater weighing could, if his tissues (especially bones) were
> denser than estimated.
>
> Measurement-based methods might, depending on the formula. (There was
> one circumferential formula used at a gym that I realized implied that
> if I trained my arms larger and had no other changes, it would claim
> my bodyfat went up.)
>
> Seth
 >> Stay informed about: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? 
Back to top
Login to vote
WillBrink

External


Since: Aug 22, 2005
Posts: 560



(Msg. 38) Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In article <dejhuf$n6e$1@reader2.panix.com>,
sethb.TakeThisOut@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:

> In article <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-52BAC4.10164324082005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> WillBrink <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
> >In article <xqednZ2dnZ10XkLgnZ2dnZZ7lt6dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0.TakeThisOut@fidnet.com>,
> > "Pat" <spam.me.not.pdavis.TakeThisOut@fidnet.com> wrote:
>
> >> My ex-husband had - I kid you not - 0% body fat. He had it tested.
> >
> >Which of course is not possible. Error in testing plus margin of error
> >or something. Only testing method that would come up with such a silly
> >result would be BIA.
>
> Any other method probably could, since they all have errors (with one
> exception).
>
> Underwater weighing could, if his tissues (especially bones) were
> denser than estimated.
>
> Measurement-based methods might, depending on the formula. (There was
> one circumferential formula used at a gym that I realized implied that
> if I trained my arms larger and had no other changes, it would claim
> my bodyfat went up.)

I picked BIA because in my experience it¹s the method that most
consistently under estimates people¹s BF. Margin or error and or testing
mistakes are of course possible with the other methods, but they don¹t
seem to consistently under estimate BF to the extent BIA. When ever I
hear wild claims of ultra low BF (first time I have hear a claim of zero
%!) it 99 out of 100 times it was BIA. That¹s my experience anyway.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Lose 7% Body Fat in less than 40 days??? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Fitness Forums (Home) -> Weight Training & Fat Loss All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]