My son(33yrs) and he has a very high metabolism. He drinks been every night and aquires fat food everyday and he still looks to thin. He used to gain weight but the last 5 yrs he's seems to lose more weight every year. He does no hard work and sleep half of the day or more. This is very confusing.
Only crap man, I 58 Kgs and am 8 years younger, not to mention shorter. I wouldn't recommend eating vast amounts of Junk food as just about everyone is suggesting. You can Google what Heavy Weight boxers eat, they have to stay in pretty good shape but Weight as much as possible. As others have suggested, you need more calories than your body is burning. But instead of eating Mc Ds or Burger King, eat less lethal calories such as: Milk, Bread, Beef, Cheese etc... Remember, Google is there for a reason.
So you want a healthy body and you want to be heavier. Alright...This is what you need to do. You need to increase your calorie intake considerably. Put on some poundage and you'll see a definite increase. You weigh 54KG which is about 110 pounds. You're going to want to put on another forty pounds, but I don't know that much yet about weight per height, so we'll say forty pounds. Now...Once you've put on this weight, you're going to want to turn it into muscle. Fat weighs less than muscle. Once you have muscle, you can continue to eat a lot and stay the weight you are at.
Eat more good HEALTHY foods, protein shakes are not a way to gain weight BTW. Weight gainers for the most part are filled with crap calories. Protein shakes are used by most to get more protein in their diet as it's hard to get 1-2 grams per pound of body weight, plus it's great for right after your workout. Best advice, slowly eat more good quality food. Do less aerobic type activities if you do any at the moment. Lift heavy weights with low reps, start out slow maybe 3 days a week and go from there. I've got the exact opposite problem, I have no problem gaining weight!
Be careful with the "myths" floating around here. Myth 1: Junk food makes you fat. TRUTH: It's the total amount of calories that makes you fat, not what type of food the calories are coming from. Scientific studies have shown this. So for someone that has a super high metabolism - he needs a LOT of calories. It's hard to get a lot of calories just eating chicken breasts, eggs, and veggies. Yes, that should be a big part of his diet, but some extra fat from some "unhealthy" sources is not going to hurt, as long as he keeps the saturated fats in moderation. BUT - I do recommend "protein shakes + milk" approach rather than the burgers/fries approach! Myth 2: "Once you put on this weight, you can turn it into muscle" TRUTH: You can't CONVERT fat into muscle. You can only lose the fat and replace it with muscle. So you don't want to get fat, because that will not improve your physique. The main thing you want to do is make sure your extra calories are preferentially stored in the muscles (as protein/amino acids) rather than fat. This is called Nutrient Partitioning. How do you do this. Make sure you are doing weight training on a regular basis. This will help to ensure the extra calories go to the right places. Here are some articles for those interested: Big Bulking Tips <-- a fun read, given this thread. Nutrient Partitioning <--kind of technical, but very educational
Fireproof I totally disagree, Yes a calorie is a calorie to an extent. Certain calories however are more likely to turn into fat over others, it has been proven time and time again.. 200 calories from white bread compared to 200 calories from wheat bread for example, the carb make up does make a difference...
For those that are on the "must eat clean foods only" bandwagon, give this a read. From a weight loss (or weight gain) standpoint, given EQUAL CALORIC INTAKE - there is no difference. The thing you have to watch out for is cholesterol levels. Bray GA et. al. Hormonal Responses to a Fast-Food Meal Compared with Nutritionally Comparable Meals of Different Composition. Ann Nutr Metab. 2007 May 29;51(2):163-171 [Epub ahead of print] Background: Fast food is consumed in large quantities each day. Whether there are differences in the acute metabolic response to these meals as compared to 'healthy' meals with similar composition is unknown. Design: Three-way crossover. Methods: Six overweight men were given a standard breakfast at 8:00 a.m. on each of 3 occasions, followed by 1 of 3 lunches at noon. The 3 lunches included: (1) a fast-food meal consisting of a burger, French fries and root beer sweetened with high fructose corn syrup; (2) an organic beef meal prepared with organic foods and a root beer containing sucrose, and (3) a turkey meal consisting of a turkey sandwich and granola made with organic foods and an organic orange juice. Glucose, insulin, free fatty acids, ghrelin, leptin, triglycerides, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol were measured at 30-min intervals over 6 h. Salivary cortisol was measured after lunch. Results: Total fat, protein and energy content were similar in the 3 meals, but the fatty acid content differed. The fast-food meal had more myristic (C14:0), palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0) and trans fatty acids (C18:1) than the other 2 meals. The pattern of nutrient and hormonal response was similar for a given subject to each of the 3 meals. The only statistically significant acute difference observed was a decrease in the AUC of LDL cholesterol after the organic beef meal relative to that for the other two meals. Other metabolic responses were not different. Conclusion: LDL-cholesterol decreased more with the organic beef meal which had lesser amounts of saturated and trans fatty acids than in the fast-food beef meal. Lyle McDonald (renowned nutrition guru) comments: For a couple of decades, there has been an ongoing argument regarding the issue of 'is a calorie a calorie' in terms of changes on body composition and other parameters. I've addressed this in articles on my website and the newsletter and have made the basic argument that, given identical macronutrient intakes (in terms of protein, carbs, and fats) that there is going to be little difference in terms of bodily response to a given meal. And that, along with that, the major differences in body weight or composition seen has more to do with the fact that people tend to eat more under certain conditions than others. That is, someone eating a 2000 calorie fast food meal will obviously get a different response than someone eating a 500 or even 1000 calorie clean meal. But at this point, folks end up confounding differences in caloric intake with the quality of the food itself. In contrast, groups that are obsessed (and I use that word somewhat lightly) with 'eating clean' often make arguments that, somehow, a fast food meal containing an identical amount of protein, carbs and fats as a clean meal containing an identical amount will generate massively different responses (usually in terms of blood glucose and insulin response). Unfortunately, very little research has examined this in much of a controlled way. Until the paper above came out two weeks ago. The study's explicit goal was to see if the metabolic response to a fast-food meal would differ to a 'healthy' meal of similar macronutrient and caloric value. Towards this end six overweight men and two women were recruited to take part in the study although the data in the women was excluded due to the low number and possible gender effects. Each subject got all three meals on different days with one week in between trials. A standard breakfast was provided at 8am and the test meal was given at exactly 12pm and blood samples were taken every 30 minutes for the first 4 hours and every 60 minutes for the next two hours. Blood glucose, blood lipids, insulin, leptin, ghrelin and free fatty acids were measured. the test meals consisted of the following (I pasted the list from the PDF but took out the source of each of the ingredients). Fast food meal: A Big Mac, french fries and root beer sweetened with high fructose corn syrup purchased at the restaurant. Organic beef meal: this meal used certified organic rangefed ground beef; cheddar cheese; hamburger bun made with unbleached all purpose naturally white flour, non-iodized salt, non-fat powdered milk, natural yeast, canola oil, and granulated sugar; sauce made from canola mayonnaise and organic ketchup; organic lettuce, onion and dill pickles; French fries made from organic potatoes and fried in pure pressed canola oil; and root beer made with cane sugar. Turkey meal: this consisted of a turkey sandwich made from sliced, roasted free-range turkey breast with no antibiotics or artificial growth stimulants; cheddar cheese; 60% whole wheat bread made with whole wheat and unbleached all-purpose naturally white flours, non-iodized salt, non-fat powdered milk, yeast, vital wheat gluten, canola oil, and granulated sugar; pure pressed canola oil and canola mayonnaise, stone ground mustard; organic lettuce; accompanied by a granola made with Blue Diamond whole natural almonds, Nature's path organic multigrain oatbrain flakes, wholesome sweeteners evaporated cane juice, Spectrum Naturals pure pressed canola oil, clover honey, Sonoma organically grown raisins and dried apples. The beverage was an organic orange juice. The composition of each meal was as follows Fast food: 1044 calories, 28.2 grams protein, 53 grams fat, 151 grams carbs Beef meal: 1154 calories, 28 grams protein, 60.2 grams fat, 163 grams carbs Turkey meal: 1260 calories, 34 grams protein, 49 grams fat, 170 grams carbs Note: the meals were similar but not completely identical in composition and I think this is one limitation of the study. It would have been better if they'd made the meals identical in both calorie and macro composition. The biggest difference between meals had to do with the fatty acid composition: the fast food meal contained twice as much saturated and nearly 8 times as much trans-fatty acids with half of the oleic acid compared to the organic beef meal (which is no surprise). Interestingly, the fast food meal actually contained more linoleic acid than the organic beef meal. The turkey meal had less saturated fat but similar amounts of linoleic and linolenic acid to the fast food meal, with the lowest amount of trans fats. So what happened. In terms of the blood glucose and insulin response, no difference was seen between any of the meals and this is true whether the data was presented in terms of percentage or absolute change from baseline. The same held true for the ratio of insulin/glucose, no change was seen between any of the meals. Fatty acids showed slight differences, dropping rapidly and then returning to baseline by 5 hours in the beef meals but 6 hours in the turkey meal. Blood triglyceride levels reached a slightly higher peak in the organic beef and turkey meals compared to the fast food meal but this wasn't significant. Changes in leptin were not significant between groups; ghrelin was suppressed equally after all three meals but rose above baseline 5 hours after the fast-food lunch but returned only to baseline in the other two meals. The only significant difference found in the study was that LDL cholesterol decreased more after both of the organic meals compared to the fast food meal, HDL and total cholesterol showed no change after any of the meals. This was thought to be due to differences in the fatty acid content of the meals (saturated fat typically having a greater negative impact on blood lipid levels than other types of fat). However, beyond that, there were no differences seen in the response of blood glucose, insulin, blood fatty acids or anything else measured.
Sorry my friend - that is incorrect. If it has been proven "time and time again" - then show me. Read the above study.
There are many studies, if you have read articles which I'm sure you have you know there is a study out there to prove every single angle of it There are studies that also 'disprove' almost every aspect of body building one way or another. Nuts for example lets say are 200 calories, a burger is 200 calories. Well those 200 calories should be the same correct? The truth from all my reading is that is incorrect, nuts being hard your body does not appear to absorb all the calories making you in reality absorb less than 200 calories. All calories are not equal, I don't care what one study says I've read multiple that prove other wise.
I agree 100%, Lol GRIM I knew that you gonna post in this thread, well it seems that now you agree with what i was saying the last time, (5-6 max reps / heavy weights / MAX 3-4 times per week ). but i think the guy also need a "hard gainer" product like "serious mass". cheers.
You can't have an intelligent "debate" by saying "I don't care what one study says..." when you won't even back up what you are saying. What are you basing your belief on? Don't you want to get at the TRUTH rather than just repeat what you read on bodybuilding.com or other boards? I've read all angles, yes. And I know how to dissect the studies. The fact is, most "gym rats" don't know how to interpret the results. Please prove me wrong - I'm after the truth, not just standing up for my opinion. But you have shown me nothing yet other than "you've read multiple studies that pove otherwise". Well, please show me. Your example is just not what I'm talking about. everyone knows that the fatrotein ratio in nuts is not equivalent to that of ground beef. I'm talking - EQUAL MACRONUTRIENTS AND CALORIES will have the same impact, barring cholesterol effects of sat fat intake. You say that 200 calories of wheat bread is going to be processed differently than 200 calories of white bread? That is a VERY COMMON MYTH that lower GI carbs helps with weightloss versus higher GI carbs. Not true. It's more about the fact that higher GI carbs cause people to have cravings and end up eating more calories than if they stuck with lower GI. But given equal calories - no change in weightloss. Read these: Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women. Raatz SK, Torkelson CJ, Redmon JB, Reck KP, Kwong CA, Swanson JE, Liu C, Thomas W, Bantle JP. General Clinical Research Center, Department of Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets. Obese subjects (n = 29) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 diets providing 3138 kJ less than estimated energy needs: high glycemic index (HGI), low glycemic index (LGI), or high fat (HF). For the first 12 wk, all food was provided to subjects (feeding phase). Subjects (n = 22) were instructed to follow the assigned diet for 24 additional weeks (free-living phase). Total body weight was obtained and body composition was assessed by skinfold measurements. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the homeostasis model (HOMA). At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (-9.3 +/- 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, -9.9 +/- 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and -8.4 +/- 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity. Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition. In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects. No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet. Sloth B, Krog-Mikkelsen I, Flint A, Tetens I, Bjorck I, Vinoy S, Elmstahl H, Astrup A, Lang V, Raben A. Department of Human Nutrition, Centre for Advanced Food Studies, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, 30 Rolighedsvej, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark. BACKGROUND: The role of glycemic index (GI) in appetite and body-weight regulation is still not clear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to investigate the long-term effects of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet with either low glycemic index (LGI) or high glycemic index (HGI) on ad libitum energy intake, body weight, and composition, as well as on risk factors for type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease in overweight healthy subjects. DESIGN: The study was a 10-wk parallel, randomized, intervention trial with 2 matched groups. The LGI or HGI test foods, given as replacements for the subjects' usual carbohydrate-rich foods, were equal in total energy, energy density, dietary fiber, and macronutrient composition. Subjects were 45 (LGI diet: n = 23; HGI diet: n = 22) healthy overweight [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 27.6 +/- 0.2] women aged 20-40 y. RESULTS: Energy intake, mean (+/- SEM) body weight (LGI diet: -1.9 +/- 0.5 kg; HGI diet: -1.3 +/- 0.3 kg), and fat mass (LGI diet: -1.0 +/- 0.4 kg; HGI diet: -0.4 +/- 0.3 kg) decreased over time, but the differences between groups were not significant. No significant differences were observed between groups in fasting serum insulin, homeostasis model assessment for relative insulin resistance, homeostasis model assessment for beta cell function, triacylglycerol, nonesterified fatty acids, or HDL cholesterol. However, a 10% decrease in LDL cholesterol (P < 0.05) and a tendency to a larger decrease in total cholesterol (P = 0.06) were observed with consumption of the LGI diet as compared with the HGI diet. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the contention that low-fat LGI diets are more beneficial than HGI diets with regard to appetite or body-weight regulation as evaluated over 10 wk. However, it confirms previous findings of a beneficial effect of LGI diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease.
Hey do a google search, I just did and 1/2 says one way 1/2 says the other. Copy paste also is not 'debate' BTW Equal nutrient values from a good solid meal compared to that of fast food, when will they ever be even close to be equal? That alone makes me laugh I don't need to copy paste, nor debate it. Anyone can do a 5 minute search on google and copy and paste until their heart is content to get 1 side or the other. Alot of the studies you are posting for example are 'obese men and woman' well how about those that are healthy weight? No chance that those obese people simply dont' have a responce difference?... No real debate to be had to be honest, there are studies on both ends of the sprectrum, unless you or me are going to do a study there is nothing to 'debate' as we will believe one side. I believe the side that does state a calorie is not a calorie BTW I do believe you are reading me partly incorrectly. I am stating more a calorie is not a calorie as certain calories/foods do offer better energy, certain are great for protein and or building/maintaining muscle, etc
This is a problem because I'm assuming you have hi motabolism. You just have to eat more. When eating out and the waiter asks you if you'd like appetizers say YES. Then if she asks for Dessert say YES! easy as pie!
If you smoke quit because that helps lose weight. All you need to do to gain weight is Drink beer, Eat the greasiest food as possible and eventually you will get fat once your fat try working out to build up muscle.
Hey man, no offense meant from my posts of course. And I'm not just copy/pasting from a quick google search. I've thoroughly researched the subject and those are just a small sample from my archives. In certain cases, assuming certain things, a calorie is a calorie. I think we are likely miscommunicating around the 'assumptions'. I do agree with you that certain macros and ratios in a diet are more optimal than others in achieving certain goals, whether it be muscle gain or weight loss that is desired. I wouldn't have reached competition shape without optimizing my diet, of course. No worries. Have a good one. Oh - and here's another good article on Glycemic Index if you are interested.
You don't want to gain the wrong weight! If you eat mcdonalds, you will get all the harmful effects...and the "bad" cholesterol that will effect your health! I would seriously recommend going to a gym and getting a membership. Drink protein shakes and lift weights on different machines for a month- you will see a difference trust me. Don't go the lazy way out and leave it to consumption- you will regret it.