Column: Fitness comes First
Pictured is Jamie Broughton of Fitness Bootcamp. Picture: Tony Saxton L0915TS
Effectively if you were eating say 2000 calories of junk and replaced that with 1500 calories of the exact same junk then fair enough you would lose weight.
Effectively if you were eating say 2000 calories of junk and replaced that with 1500 calories of the exact same junk then fair enough you would lose weight.
However if you were eating 1500 calories of absolute junk but then upped your intake to 2000 of total goodness then which do you think would yield the best result?
Many people would think the less calorie option as it has been drilled into the nation over the years that in order to lose weight you have to eat less calories to produce a calorie deficit (calories in is less than calories out).
This is very similar to the over-training principle as you would naturally assume that the more exercise you do, the better and quicker the result will be right?
These theories have gradually condescended over the years to the point where it seems like this theory has turned into a truth.
The calorie composition of foods is determined by burning them in a calorimeter and measuring the amount of heat produced. One calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of water by 1 degree Celsius.
So we’re taking foods, burning them off and seeing how they affect the temperature of water and THEN saying that these foods will have the same effect on a human?
Seems crazy to me so the message is: don’t count calories and concentrate on promoting health.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Goole
Monday 20 May 2013
Today
Cloudy
Temperature: 10 C to 19 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: North
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 7 C to 14 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: North
