Do the calories used for sex depend on who is on top? 
giggle … toxemia, stillborn infant at 7 months and a light bout of kidney failure - good for dropping from 135 lbs down to 92 lbs in 3 weeks … once the kidneys started up and the edema flushed out.
But a bit hard on the overall body and I really wouldnt recommend it.
Its not so much that weight loss is easy as theres no ‘magic secret’ that will make it easy, yet anyhow.
As such whenever you get told to eat late, eat in snacks, eat once a day, etc etc etc, be dubious. Most of it really comes down to eat less energy dense food and do more.
Otara
I would certainly imagine so. Different positions definitely require different amounts of exertion.
Yes, I think that’s it.
Btw… about exercise. It has one big flaw… the more calories you burn, the better the appetite you work up.
And about being hungry all the time… true for a while, but eventually your appetite does readjust.
Can you point me to some of this “growing evidence”? I’m sorry but I don’t buy the theory that certain peoples’ bodies would “target” themselves toward a weight which is ultimately unhealthy and harmful to the system.
Nice combo there! feds on your door yet?
Cecil says that the average ejaculation contains 2 calories. So, ladies, refuse to swallow! Men, even if you are just laying there, you can lose weight by having sex all day long!
“Btw… about exercise. It has one big flaw… the more calories you burn, the better the appetite you work up.”
Which will be true of anything you do that puts you in a situation where you’re using more calories per day than you’re eating.
A survey of 5 year plus significant weight loss people (which are a rare group) showed one of the common factors was 1 hour or more of physical activity a day.
Otara
Firstly, it’s just the nature of natural selection that no-one has ideal genes for everything. So actually, yes, there are a number of conditions that result in unhealthy weights. One condition, for example, is where a person’s body manufactures an incorrect form of the hormone leptin. This results in a constant sensation of hunger and usually massive obesity.
It can be corrected by the patient taking a synthetic leptin.
There are probably conditions like this, though subtler, that we have yet to identify.
Secondly, what is an unhealthy weight? Certainly being morbidly obese probably is, but being overweight* would probably have been advantageous to our ancestors, and only a hinderance since the 20th century.
Appetite-wise clearly most of us have genes that aren’t optimal for our modern environment else we’d all prefer fruits to chocolate.
But in answer to your question, I don’t have any cites. The stuff I saw was anecdotal, and my google-fu seems to be weak today (googling bodyfat and such just brings up spam). The most recent thing I saw was a documentary on the BBC which summarised some recent studies on body weight. Two stuck out for me:
In the first study, a group of very thin volunteers were asked to eat triple their recommended calorie intake to try to gain bodyfat. Most struggled to gain bodyfat. Their metabolisms increased, some even gained muscle mass (without doing exercise) but their bodies seemed really reluctant to add fat.
When they reverted to their previous diets they lost any gained bodyweight very fast.
In the second study, a group of overweight individuals were put on a diet and brought down to a “healthy” weight. Then they were put on a diet that would sustain them at this weight. What they found was that these people’s appetites, metabolisms and hormone levels suggested that their bodies were now in a “starvation mode” and were trying to return to their normal body weight.
- Yep, obviously “overweight” implies “too much” weight by definition. But I obviously mean a BMI in the overweight band.
I just feel the need to point out that especially the “belly” part of the question is ridiculous. As if the times of the dinner could guide where the fat goes on the body.
It’d be great if these studies were carried over a long period of time, to see how the bodies’ momentum to maintain their old weight is overcome. I wonder how long it would take, and which of the observable factors would adjust first, etc.
A problem with ending eating by 4pm is that to keep blood sugar levels steady, you should eat every 4 hours. For me, someone with insulin resistance, if I ate dinner at 4, by 8pm I would be desperately needing a snack. If I eat at 6:30, I’m good for the night, because I’m asleep usually by 10.
Oops, my bad. I didn’t look closely enough and see that it continued on other pages. I just looked at the numbers and picked the 3 highest.
Anecdotal, but I knew a guy who never ate after 2:00pm. He was rail-thin and looked 35 tops-- even though he was 52.
I don’t think you can really compare the human body to a car.
“No, of course it doesn’t matter if you take a whole packet of medicine at once; think about it, do you have to leave 4 hours between doses when you fill up your car’s fuel tank?! Of course not”
Sure, pick any 8-10 non-sleep hours and never eat during that time, and you’ll also lose weight.
Not necessarily.
It depends how much you consume during the time you are awake.
I can eat a large pizza and drink a fifth of booze with high calorie soda in a couple hours.
That blitzes my calorie content beyond belief, and not only for the day, but for the week!
I don’t often do it, but unfortunately do close to that often enough that it takes me quite a while to lose weight…
Drinking a fifth of booze in a few hours leads to problems beyond just weight gain.
This article mentions that when measured it’s less than working out at the gym. http://www.slate.com/id/2177551/pagenum/all/ The author wore a bodybugg, which measures various metrics to measure calorie burning. A few of the results were surprising. I’d love to play with one myself, but they are a bit too expensive.