Hot water or cold water for fat loss

Ok TW doctors, settle something.

I've always heard that cold water is conducive to weight loss because your body has to increase calorie usage to raise the temp of the water when you drink it.

But just lately , im hearing people and seeing online where it says hot water is best for fat loss as hot water helps break down fat tissue.

I mean i guess both could be true, but does one work better than the other?

i like to alternate quickly between drinking 16 oz of scalding hot water and 16 oz of almost ice cold water, just to get those throat and stomach pores to open up and get that metabolism working. i do about 3 of those quick alternating drinks a day.

What an absolute crock of shit. There are no calories or nutrients in water. How many calories you think you burn raising the temperature of a glass of cold water to body temperature? And hot water is no longer hot by the time it hits your digestive system because duh.

FFS stop trying to find the magic beans and go lift some heavy shit.

your body normalizes the temperature of the water within seconds of consuming it.
even for you this is awkwardly stupid.

Paladin-5 said:

your body normalizes the temperature of the water within seconds of consuming it.
even for you this is awkwardly stupid.

Click to expand...

Paladin-5 said:

your body normalizes the temperature of the water within seconds of consuming it.
even for you this is awkwardly stupid.

Click to expand...

Pretty much what I said, worded differently.

Energy required to heat a pint of water from just above freezing to body temperature is 21 calories.

So yeah do that 30 or 40 times a day and it will contribute as much to your weight loss as a decent 90 minute workout.

GG Juggs post pics when you get to a ripped 180 drinking fucking water until your bladder explodes

Eat less calories than you expend.

75% fresh fruit and vegetables.

That's everything you need to know to lose weight

I couldn't gain weight if I wanted to

T-Dawg said:

75% fresh fruit and vegetables.

That's everything you need to know to lose weight

I couldn't gain weight if I wanted to

Click to expand...

Fuck me do you know anything about anything or are you just trolling? First poker and now this

Vanster said:

Eat less calories than you expend.

Click to expand...

Isn't that a huge oversimplification though, in the sense that individual digestive systems work at different levels of efficiency, and therefore from a notional 100 calories of food, different people would absorb and convert into energy varying proportions of that?

And similarly 2 guys weighing 200lbs running at the same speed for the same length of time would burn different amounts of calories depending on factors like age, fitness level, body composition etc.?

I mean for the average Joe, working out your BMR in an online calculator, reading food labels and whatever calories the treadmill says you have burned is as close an approximation as you can get, but in practice it's far more complex than that and you need to drill much deeper into macro- and micro-nutrients, right?

That or it's all about the cold water

It's not oversimplification.

it does take into account differences in metabolism. If your metabolism is slower you spend less calories and it just means you need to eat less than someone else.

Calculate from Harris-Benedict formula (for basal metabolic rate), factor in your activity and work from there. If you're in the majority eating little less than what harris-benedict gives (the 1984 revision is the standard used in scientific studies), usually works for weight loss. If you're all the time fatigued and not recovering from workouts and losing weight too fast, eat a little more... and if the opposite is true, eat a little less. But it's a good baseline to start from.

And mitch the BMR calculators take into account age, fitness level (activity), height etc.
Micronutrients are not shown to affect weight loss or gain in current literature, calories in and calories out are still the best way to control weight gain or loss.

I know you know your science / nutrition, but for the sake of being a tiny bit pedantic, thread title is specifically about fat loss rather than general weight loss. By "oversimplification" what I'm saying is 2 people could have the same BMR, same bodyweight, and same calories in/out. However if their activity levels (and specifically type of activity strength v. cardio) and their macros were balanced very differently for the same calories, then their outcomes in terms of body composition would also be vastly different.

To illustrate, Dood 1 burns 600 calories in the gym by walking on the treadmill for 2 hours. Dood 2 burns 600 calories in an hour or less doing strength and HIIT. Dood 1 has 10% protein, 40% fat, 50% carbs. Dood 2 has 40% protein, 10% fat, 60% carbs. Same total calories.

Very different outcomes, right, regardless of how much hot and cold water Juggs drinks?

yes, I didn't state that macronutrients didn't matter (micros have not been shown to matter, lot's of interest in this though so might be the opinion changes at some point).

Maintaining muscle mass whilst losing weight in athletes is different than general population trying to lose weight. (in the former situation protein intake should be around 2 - 2.5g per bodyweight in kilograms a day and some evidence of benefits of fat intake around 1g per bodyweight in kilograms instead of not eating fats at all --> rest coming from carbohydrates). And obviously if trying to maintain muscle mass strength training is given.

Activities do matter some, but not as much as generally believed. There's no "fat burning zone" in low intensity cardio ---> basically beating up your body in multitudes of ways results in increased energy consumption following days (to repair caused damage, slow gradient of EPOC (excessive post exercise oxygen consumption) and for adaptation processes like increased protein synthesis etc.)

This is known and all of this affects the "how much calories you spend" and to lose weight you should eat less than you spend. Which is why I stated Vanster didn't over simplify, but was actually quite precise.

From your example, the two people would lose similar amount of weight in the first month or so. After which the BMR would differ (the other not losing as much of muscle mass or even gaining some, would actually increase his basal metabolic rate as muscle mass uses energy where as fat mass doesn't). so if they didn't adapt in the long run the other would stagnate (he/her would need to keep on decreasing the calories he eats when his mass goes down, where as the others energy consumption would remain high for much longer). The biggest difference being the other would lose alot of muscle mass along with fat mass whilst the other maintained muscle mass much better and only lose fat mass. They both could reach very low levels of fat mass though, other would be overall healthier and perform better in sports (the one with muscle mass), but the other would still get general health benefits of having low fat percentage in comparison to obesity etc.

And yea BMR calculators are approximations, which don't take into account body composition very well. so if you have alot of muscle mass, your BMR is most likely higher than what the calculators give. And if you got none, then the calculators are likely overestimating your consumption.

And for clarity about micronutrients. they don't seem to matter as long as you're not deficient in some of them. If you cause defiency, then they do seem to matter.

But yea lot's of research going into this currently. So far stuff like vitamin D shows some promise but can't say it's proven science yet.

im fat and only drink ice cold water, send this to your friends

Denver said:

Maintaining muscle mass whilst losing weight in athletes is different than general population trying to lose weight. (in the former situation protein intake should be around 2 - 2.5g per bodyweight in kilograms a day and some evidence of benefits of fat intake around 1g per bodyweight in kilograms instead of not eating fats at all --> rest coming from carbohydrates). And obviously if trying to maintain muscle mass strength training is given.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Everything in this paragraph agrees with what my PT/coach is doing with me, this is pretty much exactly where I am on macros right now.

You probably mentioned this before, but what's your background, did you study nutrition, do you work in this field?

Here is a demonstration of how insignificant water is:
Calorie = heat needed to raise 1 kilogram of water by 1° C
35.27 ounces in one kilogram

37° C = 98.6° F (body temperature)
12° C = 53.6 °F (target temperature - lowered by 25°C)

So, drinking about 2.2 pounds (35.27 ounces) of water chilled to 25°C (45°F) cooler than body temperature will cause your body to compensate for heat lost by burning exactly 25 calories.

It takes burning 3500 calories to lose one pound.
3500/25 = 140
You would therefore need to drink 140 Kilograms or 4938.35 ounces of water @ 53.6°F to lose one pound