I've seen a lot of nutritionists, as i'm sure you can imagine with having doctors accuse me of various eating disorders over the years, and i've discovered not only a lot of info but a lot of widely varying info.

It is hugely complicated and if the medical profession and industry know it all then they certainly aint sharing it.. Obviously a low energy diet equals low exercise, there are genetic factors, even happiness has an effect - the variables are immeasurable.

The only thing i can take for fact is what i've seen with friends and family. I've seen what's worked and what hasn't. And carb intake is typically synonymous with weight on the face of it - i've successfully helped a small number of people loose notable bodyfat, and look healthier, on my above advice so i stand by it strongly.

The only time i've seen this encouraged medically though is in the case of gestational diabetes; when a pregnant mother has to stop eating energy release foods (carbs and sugars) to restrict baby's growth. The mother, unsurprisingly, also slims..

It works in most cases. It's just not promoted.

With me, my body can't deal with most complex carbs - alas the inevitable then. My wife is a carb junkie, hooked on it's energy. Needless to say, she big. If you wanna loose weight, loose the carbs. If you wanna take advice against that, good luck with the weight loss

I've seen a lot of nutritionists, as i'm sure you can imagine with having doctors accuse me of various eating disorders over the years, and i've discovered not only a lot of info but a lot of widely varying info.

It is hugely complicated and if the medical profession and industry know it all then they certainly aint sharing it.. Obviously a low energy diet equals low exercise, there are genetic factors, even happiness has an effect - the variables are immeasurable.

The only thing i can take for fact is what i've seen with friends and family. I've seen what's worked and what hasn't. And carb intake is typically synonymous with weight on the face of it - i've successfully helped a small number of people loose notable bodyfat, and look healthier, on my above advice so i stand by it strongly.

The only time i've seen this encouraged medically though is in the case of gestational diabetes; when a pregnant mother has to stop eating energy release foods (carbs and sugars) to restrict baby's growth. The mother, unsurprisingly, also slims..

It works in most cases. It's just not promoted.

With me, my body can't deal with most complex carbs - alas the inevitable then. My wife is a carb junkie, hooked on it's energy. Needless to say, she big. If you wanna loose weight, loose the carbs. If you wanna take advice against that, good luck with the weight loss

you love carbs

mikey no like bwaaap

If you want to lose weight, reduce calories taken in, or increase calories bunt. It just so happens that the majority of people obtain roughly 70% of their calories from carbs, some of them hidden (you'll find sugar in all sorts of foods you'd never think of) as well as carb loaded fatty foods (cakes, biscuits, processed foods).

What your advising is aeesentially the Atkins Diet - where all carbs are ommited. The principles of this are not magic, but rather there's only so much protein and fat you can eat (thats not wrapped in carbs!) therefore your overall calorie intake goes down as your not taking in carbs.

As for the advice of being unable to lose weight and eat carbs, I lost almost 3 stone in roughly 18 months whilst maintaining a healthy intake of carbs (and even student levels of drinking!). Conversley I've tried an Atkins-esque diet (as well as a vegetarian can) whilst in training and not lost a pound. Its all in the calories I'm afraid

I'm interested in using a plastic fuel tank. It's one thing breakers yards and a tape measure can rarely help with. Not that there's a lot to save from a steel tank next to a plastic one, but the steel one has other issues too (mine's dented, they rust..).

So if anyone knows where i can find info on fuel tanks, placement and capacity are better than nothing, i'll look into it with the hope of finding one suitable for '74-'94 Polos.

daisy chain jerrycans

mikey just lose a few pounds. god.

If you want to lose weight, reduce calories taken in, or increase calories bunt. It just so happens that the majority of people obtain roughly 70% of their calories from carbs, some of them hidden (you'll find sugar in all sorts of foods you'd never think of) as well as carb loaded fatty foods (cakes, biscuits, processed foods).

What your advising is aeesentially the Atkins Diet - where all carbs are ommited. The principles of this are not magic, but rather there's only so much protein and fat you can eat (thats not wrapped in carbs!) therefore your overall calorie intake goes down as your not taking in carbs.

As for the advice of being unable to lose weight and eat carbs, I lost almost 3 stone in roughly 18 months whilst maintaining a healthy intake of carbs (and even student levels of drinking!). Conversley I've tried an Atkins-esque diet (as well as a vegetarian can) whilst in training and not lost a pound. Its all in the calories I'm afraid

You're spot on with your first point - which then contradicts your claim about me promoting Atkins.. Unlike Atkins, cutting out 'wheat' carbs does not stop you getting plenty of energy. It does not put you on the Atkins at all, it just cuts out the majority of the slow-release energy which counts for more of the energy people don't get around to burning. As i said initially.

Anyone who thinks they can eat themselves slim by eating five sirloins a day is grossly misled. The Atkins diet is obviously flawed in it's insustainability. But again, nothing i've said has suggested such behaviour. Just that if you eat energy you can't burn, you're gonna store it - and slow release energy (measured in calories) is hardest to burn, and therefore avoiding it makes healthy slimming easier.

Edit - ironic wrong word fail.

Edited 11 April, 201214 yr by MikeyMK

mikey just lose a few pounds. god.

I'm pretty light, i'll have to start removing bones to get lighter. But leather jacket's are a bit weighty, so i got a fleece now.

Also, the battery. No need. There's a lot of weight there, better to just park on hills instead.

haha standard! just get your left leg amputated and dont use the clutch

no battery sounds fun haha! wouldnt be the first time lol :)

I can't remember how old i am, think i'm 38, point is that despite being 5'11 last year was the first year i ever hit ten stone.

It's not that i didn't eat all the pies, but i'm celiac, so the more pies and cakes i eat, and more beer i drink, the thinner i get. :)

Sounds like me - 8.5stone ftw

No rear interior, CF boot panel, fibreglass bucket seats and as little junk as possible plus a possible 170bhp ish........ :)

If you want to lose weight, reduce calories taken in, or increase calories bunt. It just so happens that the majority of people obtain roughly 70% of their calories from carbs, some of them hidden (you'll find sugar in all sorts of foods you'd never think of) as well as carb loaded fatty foods (cakes, biscuits, processed foods).

What your advising is aeesentially the Atkins Diet - where all carbs are ommited. The principles of this are not magic, but rather there's only so much protein and fat you can eat (thats not wrapped in carbs!) therefore your overall calorie intake goes down as your not taking in carbs.

As for the advice of being unable to lose weight and eat carbs, I lost almost 3 stone in roughly 18 months whilst maintaining a healthy intake of carbs (and even student levels of drinking!). Conversley I've tried an Atkins-esque diet (as well as a vegetarian can) whilst in training and not lost a pound. Its all in the calories I'm afraid

You're spot on with your first point - which then contradicts your claim about me promoting Atkins.. Unlike Atkins, cutting out 'wheat' carbs does not stop you getting plenty of energy. It does not put you on the Atkins at all, it just cuts out the majority of the slow-release energy which counts for more of the energy people don't get around to burning. As i said initially.

Anyone who thinks they can eat themselves slim by eating five sirloins a day is grossly misled. The Atkins diet is obviously flawed in it's insustainability. But again, nothing i've said has suggested such behaviour. Just that if you eat energy you can't burn, you're gonna store it - and slow release energy (measured in calories) is hardest to burn, and therefore avoiding it makes healthy slimming easier.

Edit - ironic wrong word fail.

Sorry, I haven't been clear. What I meant was your choice of carbs is restricted, which is likely to reduce calorific intake, thus acting like the Atkins diet. I didn't mean to imply that you were on the Atkins, merely that it resembles it by its lack of starchy foods.

As for slow release energy causing weight gain, in fact the consumption of these actually can aid weight loss precisely due to the fact they release their energy slowly, therefore reducing blood sugar spikes and resulting hunger. Eating simple carbs has the oposite effects, causing sugar and insulin spikes, clearance of sugar from the blood into the liver and muscles. Once capacity is reached here, it is then stored as fat. Hunger can also follow, increasing overall calorie intake if this hunger is satiated. Refined starch (in white bread, wheat, pasta, mashed potato, white foods really) is not strictly a complex carbohydrate as the cell walls of the plant matter making up the wheat etc is essentially pre-digested for you during the refining process, reducing the time it takes to get into the blood (sugar spikes again). Whole grains still contain much of the fibre/cell walls which slow down digestion. leveling out blood sugar and reducing hunger.

Its fashionable to bash carbs these days, but they're not the bad guys. Again, fibre, found almost exclusively in unrefined carbohydrates, has many other healty benefits including reduced blood cholestrol, reduced heart disease and chance of bowel cancer. Steering clear of these for the sake of losing a few pounds could be counter productive in terms of long term health. The ONLY way to lose weight is to use more than you eat. End of

^^ Last line is a fact which i've supported all along. And preached for years that our bodies need to consume and burn calories. These days the trend is to eat more, as our foods become more efficient and yet affordable, and burn less as modern life promotes us to become as conveniently lazy as possible.

One thing interfering is your point regarding choices, caused mainly by hunger. I can't really comment on hunger because it's a new thing for me, i never really felt hunger until recently.

If people cant regulate themselves sensibly and subsequently throw their sugar levels about in hits they can't manage, then that may be another matter. But cutting out bread/biscuits/pastries alone shouldn't normally cause such upset, can and does help in practice in the evidence that i've seen.

Back to burning it though - stop sitting at an office desk all day every day, even if it means getting another job instead, and you might have a chance at burning what you eat. Use stairs, not escalators. Quit taking ages trying to find a parking space by the entrance when a stroll across the car park really isn't gonna kill you.. Etc etc..

Whilst i insist that giving up the pies and toast does work, lazyness is another factor i forgot in this talk of lightening cars that don't have power steering or electric windows. And in addition, there's no miracle cure for people who can't be arsed to use their body in the way it needs to be used in order to be healthy.

We'll be adding the weight of going for a dump before too long!

Stock front seats are bloody heavy, especially the driver's one in MK2/F's, but i'm too tight to buy Cobra buckets let alone Magnums (or ally tanks, which sounds like something the Icelandic military would use).

I've got cobra buckets, there not paticularly light as there so tall!

Hahahaaa, what you need is a sub and leathers and a larger than standard battery, works wonders in my mk4 anyway, 995kg with a full tank

I've got cobra buckets, there not paticularly light as there so tall!

Yours are a luxury bucket seat not a race seat Its like the titanic compared to a paddle boat... although given the way the titanic currently is i suppose i'd rather be in a paddle boat.

Oh Jesus... The titanic has spread to club polo, I really think I've heard enough of it!

Trust Belfast to make shitloads of money out of 1,517 deaths and the loss of a brand new olympic class cruiseliner.

There bloody comfy though! And hug you well :)

So were the seats on the Titanic, didn't do that any good.

Zzzzzzzz titanic