6*200 versus WW : what's best?

If you want to get rid of overweight
MarciavD
Posts: 117
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Wed 07 Oct 2015 13:22
Location: NL

Re: 6*200 versus WW : what's best?

Post by MarciavD »

You seem like a perfectly healthy person to me.
That's great !! :D
Thanks RRM for your very chrystal clear answer!!!
I feel like a healthy person too, so I stop worrying right away and start enjoying my health to the max. :)
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: 6*200 versus WW : what's best?

Post by RRM »

That alone is already one of the best things that you could possibly do for your body
Mthrash
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed 30 Aug 2017 00:09

Re: 6*200 versus WW : what's best?

Post by Mthrash »

I would love your comments on this. I think it supports what you write but difficult for me to interpret. Also, considering their findings, what are your recommendations to maximize fat-store mobilization and turnover?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... dee3eb9d40#
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: 6*200 versus WW : what's best?

Post by RRM »

Naturally, animals gain and lose weight, through famine and excess. Our fat depots are spare energy, but also spare fatty acids in the broader sense; various fatty acids have various functions. When fat gets stored and burned, your body has control over what is stored and what gets burned. But if vast amounts of fat never get metabolized, its impossible for the body to keep track of what fatty acids are 'still in stock', and which ones are rare. This means there is no feedback; to accurately couple burning and storage of fatty acids. That is because 'the reset button' is missing; normally, once you become extremely skinny, your body is running low on virtually all fatty acids; all stocks are approaching zero. That 'reset button' kind of 'reminds' the body which fatty acids need to be stored. Without that reset button, the body's fat depots will eventually get out of control, and imbalanced.

To maximize fat-store mobilization, you don't need to burn extra fat; an obese person can burn a lot of fat daily, and still retain loads of fat indefinitely.
Instead, you need to become very thin occasionally, which functions as a reset button.
Mthrash
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed 30 Aug 2017 00:09

Re: 6*200 versus WW : what's best?

Post by Mthrash »

Thanks! I really appreciate it RRM!
MarciavD
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed 07 Oct 2015 13:22
Location: NL

Re: 6*200 versus WW : what's best?

Post by MarciavD »

So actually, it's even healthy to be skinny? :)

I was thinking about the things you said about estrogen and calcium.
Yes, estrogen levels are often depressed in female marothon athletes, and yes, estrogen protects you against osteoporosis, but only in the sense that it is protective against an overload of calcium; meaning that if you don't take dairy products nor supplementary calcium, you don't need high estrogen levels to protect you.
Why do doctors prescribe calcium to women with amenorrhea? (or women with early menopause) That would be worsening their situation instead of helping them, or did I just misunderstood?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: 6*200 versus WW : what's best?

Post by RRM »

MarciavD wrote: Tue 06 Nov 2018 16:53 Why do doctors prescribe calcium to women with amenorrhea? (or women with early menopause)
The reason that they do so is because it is standard medical procedure regarding osteoporosis in general.
In standard practise, all osteoporosis is the same. But it's not.
Strictly speaking, low-bone mineral density (BMD) caused by amenorrhea is not osteoporosis (a non-reversible disease), in as much that low BMD caused by a lack of gravity (in astronauts) or malnutrition (eg starvation) is not osteoporosis. They are just low BMD that is readily reversed by sufficient recovery time (amenorrhea), restoring gravity (astronauts), or adequate nutrition (starvation).
True osteoporosis is a whole different ball game, characterized by a lack of osteoblast replicative capacity, caused by exhaustion of osteoblasts (accelerated ageing, excess calcium), or their annihilation by specific drugs (eg prednison).
In true osteoporosis, there is not a lack of calcium, but a lack of osteoblasts.
So, the calcium is there, but it cannot be stored, due to a lack of cells (osteoblasts) that need to create the web upon which calcium may precipitate. without that web (matrix), calcium cannot be retained.
That would be worsening their situation instead of helping them, or did I just misunderstood?
Yes and no. Yes, extra calcium accelerates ageing of osteoblasts. But in amenorrhea, osteoblasts generally are not exhausted, but rather overwhelmed, and one just needs more recovery time (rest) to increase BMD. In early menopausal women, however, osteoblasts are similarly overwhelmed, but additionally tend towards exhaustion, so that extra calcium may temporarily (still) increase BMD, but aggravate their condition in the long run (total exhaustion of osteoblasts).
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: 6*200 versus WW : what's best?

Post by RRM »

MarciavD wrote: Tue 06 Nov 2018 16:53 So actually, it's even healthy to be skinny?
That depends on whether its natural for you, or not.
If you feel well, its probably natural for you.
Common causes of underweight are heavy alcohol or drug use, smoking and mental illness, and all of these are detrimental, skewing statistics.
Post Reply