Burn Fat Fast Forever

Burn fat fast and lose weight healthily

now

No hunger, no gym, no drugs, completely free forever

Hi, GI Chow is a resource to inspire and help those looking to lose weight for health or aesthetic reasons. It is based on my own experience of losing over 26kg (4 stone) in 7 months in 2012.

Transformation picture of author: 30th May 2012 (profile)

Transformation picture of author: 30th May 2012 (profile)

Transformation picture of author: 15th October 2012 (profile)

Transformation picture of author: 15th October 2012 (profile)

Transformation picture of author: 25th October 2015 (profile) ..3 years on and a healthy, happy 72kg!

Transformation picture of author: 25th October 2015 (profile)
..3 years on and a healthy, happy 72kg!

 

My motivation was to reduce my risk of developing diabetes and to feel physically healthier and more attractive. I wanted to find a reliable, consistent and cheap way to do this without having to endure hunger, take on unsustainable diet or exercise regimes or take unnatural drugs.

Through research and experiment on myself I was amazed to find a very simple and well understood biochemical principle (the insulin response) which when applied to diet (specifically the glycaemic index and glycaemic load of what we eat) has a profound effect on how fat we are and stay. Part of what I found so incredible is that despite the wealth of information in the media and huge array of nominally healthy foods we find in supermarkets this simple piece of information and its overwhelming significance over and above all the other healthy eating messages out there had not gotten through. In fact there are quite contradictory messages and virtually all the convenience food choices (even the ostensibly healthy ones) available to us keep us fat.

Several family members, friends and acquaintances noticed my weight loss and asked how I’d achieved this so I set up this site as
(i) somewhere to refer them to – so they had somewhere to go after they’d forgotten what I told them!
(ii) a record of my findings in the hope that it might benefit the wider community
(iii) an experimental business to educate people on a few basic facts about nutrition and biochemistry whose application to one’s diet alone can have a profound impact on obesity – possibly the most significant epidemic in the ‘developed’ world.

I went from over 92.9kg (205 pounds, 34.7% i.e. 32.2kg fat) to under 66.6kg (147 pounds, 18% i.e. 12kg fat) in 7 months i.e. of the 26.3kg I lost most (20kg) of the weight loss was fat. My muscle reduced a little from 30.1% (28kg) to 39.1% (26kg) however that is a healthy level of loss given I no longer have to haul so much superfluous weight around (which was also putting damaging levels of strain on my joints and tendons and causing other health/quality of life problems).

Of course I should probably include the usual disclaimer that I’m not medically qualified or a nutritionist and that you should see your doctor if you have any concerns that you may have a medical condition affecting your weight or diet before starting to lose weight.

The fact is though that you can forget about worrying that you have a fat gene or low metabolism or are too lazy to spend hours each week exercising. Your body’s designed to gain and lose weight easily to deal with periods of excess and paucity in nature’s bounty of available food and, with a little understanding of how your body works, the very same natural drives you instinctively followed to get to your current weight will get you to any weight you choose to be. In fact you’ll lose weight scarily fast and have to consciously decide not to drop below the weight that’s healthy for you.

Good luck – though you really don’t need it if you read and then follow the handful of tips we have. There’s a shedload of stuff on losing weight – on the net, TV, books and magazines – and a host of companies who’ll claim to help you but I’ve tried to distil the information that helped me into a handful of tips you can read in a few minutes so just start in that section!

All the best,

Nik

© GI Chow and N Ilukkumbure, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of content without express and written permission from the author is prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to GI Chow with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All trademarks are the property of their owners and no endorsement should be presumed unless otherwise stated.

Recent Posts

Shure SRH840 v Shure SRH440 headphones

Shure SRH840 (left) and Shure SRH440

If you’re wondering how these compare read on. Right now the 840 is available for £110 and the 440 for £60 in the UK. Is the former worth almost twice the price of the latter?

The 440 is brighter sounding than the 840 so picks out and abnormally highlights guitar strings and cymbals. As a consequence of this vocals can sound slightly less present and realistic/natural than they should. The 440 also has less extended bass so bass drum and double bass sound less natural however what bass it does have is more punchy i.e. has a faster attack and decay making it toe-tapping. It has a creaky plastic physical design against the 840’s more solid but also heavier (372g v 311g) design.

The difference in sound is not night and day and on first comparing them the 440 comes across as more lively and appealing because of its brighter frequency response. Overall however, over more extended listening, the 840 is the more emotionally involving and better headphone with more natural vocals (almost Sennheiser HD600 quality) and a more even frequency response. That said, the 840 is noticeably heavier and more uncomfortable on the top of one’s head. The 840 is like a more sensitive (requires a lower volume level setting to achieve the same loudness) but less comfortable HD600 with punchier and deeper bass but slightly less realistic vocals. Overall across genres the 840 sounds better than the HD600 but is much less comfortable (in fact it’s painful). These observations were made with the headphones ‘burnt in’ having had over 50 hours playing time.

I listen to music across a range of genres and my preference is for 

  • a deep and punchy (a HD600 and HiFiMAN RE0 problem) but not boomy/flabby/loose/resonant (Creative Aurvana Live CAL problem) or exaggerated (Sony MH1C problem) or bleeding-into-mids (Koss Porta Pro problem) bass
  • energetic detailed not rolled-off (Porta Pro, MH1C and CAL problem) and not too bright (Superlux 668b problem) or sibilant treble
  • clear transparent natural sounding midrange vocals that are not recessed  (Beyerdynamic DT990 Pro problem) or abnormally coloured in timbre (a problem with the metallic-sounding Fiio EX1 / Dunu Titan 1 when fitted with incorrect tips). 

All this in a comfortable design (Shure SRH840 and Jays v-JAYS problem) that is loud enough straight out of a phone (HD600 problem) and one can go to sleep wearing (SRH840 and HD600 problem).

Left-to-right my headphones in audio quality order from Sony MDR V150 to Sennheiser HD600

In a nutshell I look for sufficient tight punchy bass, uncoloured natural-sounding vocals, and sufficient unsibilant highs i.e. an extended flat frequency response with impact and low level detail without colouration or resonance.

In summary, I find both to be some of the most accurate and enjoyable headphones I’ve listened to. Ignoring the comfort issue the SRH840 is overall better sounding than the 440 across musical genres (especially for genres with deep bass such as electronic) however the 440 is say 90% there for almost half the price. Indeed for some tracks where the strings are subdued in the mix (perhaps the mixing itself was done on upper mid-forward monitors / headphones like the 440 itself) or where you simply prefer to hear more of those string sounds the 440 sounds better. Also at a very low listening volume vocals on the 440 can sound clearer since there is less bass. The 840 is highly rated by Z Reviews and Head-Fi also has mainly very favourable reviews.

Taking comfort into the equation if I had to choose between these two headphones the 440 wins because I couldn’t wear the 840 for more than half an hour. Additionally, since the cups on the 440 are a little slimmer it’s possible to wear them while going to sleep.

Though very good headphones I continue to listen mainly to my

  • £8 KZ ATE Sport earphones when going to sleep, whose plastic body makes them more comfortable to sleep in than my more accurate but tip-sensitive and sometimes ear-canal irritating Fiio EX1
  • £4 Samsung EHS64 earphones with inline microphone and volume control out and about
  • £30 Superlux HD562 (Sennheiser HD25 clones) with velour pads when I want to rock out with deep punchy bass without losing too much detail from the rest of the spectrum
  • £120 (used) Sennheiser HD600 headphones or £50 Fiio EX1 earphones when I’m after a very revealing ‘audiophile’ experience.

Hope this helps! and if you want some free advice on how to lose weight healthily check out gichow.com

  1. What are the best cheap earphones? Samsung EHS64 – an audiophile’s bargain Leave a reply
  2. How do you save documents in Word Online? Leave a reply
  3. How to collaborate on documents for free without your collaborators needing anything other than internet access? Leave a reply
  4. Green tea 1 Reply
  5. Yogurt with reduced fat cocoa 1 Reply
  6. Yogurt with raspberries 1 Reply
  7. Yogurt with pear walnut prunes and raspberries Leave a reply
  8. Yogurt with pear walnut and prunes 1 Reply
  9. Walnuts 1 Reply