Weight Loss Thread

Khane · May 28, 2015

Eidal_sl said:
Never played golf in my life, but does walking 18 holes sound equal to running 8 miles at 7.5min/mile pace (1375 calories)?

edit: looks like you walk about 6 miles in 18 holes.

Don't forget your carrying a somewhat heavy bag, putting it down, swinging a club a few times, picking it back up and essentially hiking with it because golf course terrain is rarely flat (well, at shitty public courses it is, but that's for plebs)

Walking a golf course is a very good way to get some exercise.

Rezz · May 28, 2015

Yeah that number is completely wrong, hah. I've played in amateur leagues occasionally throughout the years, and unless you are sprinting from hole to hole you aren't burning anywhere near that number. Maybe 500 calories at absolute most, though even that seems incredibly high for the amount of actual physical activity involved in golf.

Going to calorie estimation sites will get you all kinds of numbers for what they assume you are burning for your weight/age/height/etc, and weight lifting has some of the strangest numbers. Cycling/Running are pretty consistent in that if you keep a steady pace, you are probably burning 500ish calories an hour for most people. With lifting weights or any other intermittent exercise, you are -not- burning the calories those calculators say you are during that time frame. Assume 2/3 at best and half on average.

There's really no way someone golfing 18 holes is burning the same as biking hard for two hours, period. Your heart rate is never elevated to the point where you are using extra energy, aside from stress related swing movements which might bump it up from 500 to maybe 600 at most. That 1375 number is absurd, and the previous ones are absolutely bonkers.

Khane · May 28, 2015

Rezz_sl said:
Yeah that number is completely wrong, hah. I've played in amateur leagues occasionally throughout the years, and unless you are sprinting from hole to hole you aren't burning anywhere near that number. Maybe 500 calories at absolute most, though even that seems incredibly high for the amount of actual physical activity involved in golf.

Going to calorie estimation sites will get you all kinds of numbers for what they assume you are burning for your weight/age/height/etc, and weight lifting has some of the strangest numbers. Cycling/Running are pretty consistent in that if you keep a steady pace, you are probably burning 500ish calories an hour for most people. With lifting weights or any other intermittent exercise, you are -not- burning the calories those calculators say you are during that time frame. Assume 2/3 at best and half on average.

There's really no way someone golfing 18 holes is burning the same as biking hard for two hours, period. Your heart rate is never elevated to the point where you are using extra energy, aside from stress related swing movements which might bump it up from 500 to maybe 600 at most. That 1375 number is absurd, and the previous ones are absolutely bonkers.

I don't think it's very far off. How much would hiking for 4-5 hours with a decently heavy pack on burn? 500 is definitely too low. Though maybe I just burn more calories than you because I'm not a rank amateur who needs standard flex graphite shafts. I need X-Flex steel rifle shafts because I swing like a goddamn man. My bag is heavy. Bro DYEG?

My home course also has a lot of elevation change. It's decently hilly.

Rezz · May 28, 2015

You aren't walking around with the bag for 4-5 hours. You spend quite a bit of that timeframe in one spot(s). My 30lb bag might weigh 2-3lbs less than yours, but in either case neither of us are moving it anywhere near as often as someone actually hiking.

Don't know what course you play on, but golf courses in general aren't nearly as hilly as actually climbing hilly terrain. They are designed with fairways and straights and shit. Maybe 700 calories for your specific instance? But definitely not 1300 or anywhere near it.

DickTrickle · May 28, 2015

Weight can have a substantial effect on calories burned. I thought I remember saying Khane had some weight to work off, but maybe that was someone else.

One thing that I think is unclear is that I don't think some of these calories burned estimates take into account the calories you burn from just existing, which can easily work out to something like 80-90 calories an hour for a guy with some extra weight. So, that's a 300-400 calorie swing for a 4-5 hour time period depending on if that was factored into the calorie calculation or not. The calories burned from the golf activity will be less that number.

Khane · May 28, 2015

Well I'll say 1375 seems high, but 500 seems way, way too low. I think 900 is a good estimate for a "normal" sized frame. I meant more of a nature stroll with a pack on and not mountain type hiking. I actually don't take practice swings but many people do and by hole 14-15 I'm usually pretty fatigued and drenched in sweat.

The better you are the less calories you'll burn but between taking 100-200 swings (if you take practice swings), finding "lost" balls, helping other people in your foursome find their ball, carrying your bag from shot to shot, walking around, crouching to read putts, etc etc I think 900 seems like a fair estimate. Swinging, especially on a hot day, can take it's toll.

And Trickle, I think calories burned estimates for any activity always are total because I don't know how you'd calculate it any other way. So when someone says biking for 2 hours would burn 1375 calories they mean total, just like saying walking 18 holes of golf would burn 1200 means total.

Khane · May 28, 2015

So my curiosity has gotten the better of me and using the formula found here:

Formula for Calories Burned | FitNow Group Fitness

With my body weight (185 lbs) at an average heart rate of 135 bpm and a 3 hour round of golf (this assumes nobody else on course, never need to sit and weight) it comes out to ~852 calories burned at my age (32).

135 bpm heart rate is the upper end of medium intensity for someone my age and when I'm flying around the course because I'm out there alone I go probably closer to an average of 150. But I'm an animal and walk really fast too.

DickTrickle · May 28, 2015

Khane_sl said:
And Trickle, I think calories burned estimates for any activity always are total because I don't know how you'd calculate it any other way. So when someone says biking for 2 hours would burn 1375 calories they mean total, just like saying walking 18 holes of golf would burn 1200 means total.

That's always how I treat it, but I think that leads to a lot of people misleading themselves. Image doing 1000 calories of calculated exercise per day for a week (just for example), but in actuality you're only burning 800 calories more than if you had just sat around and done nothing. Your burn each day is really BMR + 800, not BMR + 1000, but most people do the latter calculation from what I've seen on boards like MyFitnessPal. For a week, that's 1400 calories that maybe you thought you burned but didn't and could lead, over time, to slower results than anticipated, which might be demotivating.

I think that 852 calorie estimate is probably pretty reasonable when you don't have to wait on people and you're not loafing around.

mkopec · May 29, 2015

I dont let my fitness pal track my exercise at all. Its strictly used for calorie counting.

taebin · May 29, 2015

Rezz_sl said:
Cycling/Running are pretty consistent in that if you keep a steady pace, you are probably burning 500ish calories an hour for most people. With lifting weights or any other intermittent exercise, you are -not- burning the calories those calculators say you are during that time frame. Assume 2/3 at best and half on average.

I feel like we've had this conversation before, but if you are only burning 500 calories in an hour worth of jogging/running, you are doing it wrong. Like 2.5 mph wrong.

Khane · May 29, 2015

I don't know about that. A light jog would probably put you at a heart rate of about 140-150 bpm (if you weren't completely out of shape) and that would probably only burn around 500 calories an hour.

The example I used was at a heart rate of 135 bpm and that only nets around ~300 calories an hour.

People definitely severely overestimate how much they are burning off while exercising.

taebin · May 29, 2015

What weight are we talking about here? I think treadmills/stationary bikes/ellipticals default to 150 lbs, in which case I could see it being 500 calories if you are doing like 5.0 mph. But anything above 7.0 mph (8:30 mile) should be 1000+ calories / hour.

Khane · May 29, 2015

taebin_sl said:
What weight are we talking about here? I think treadmills/stationary bikes/ellipticals default to 150 lbs, in which case I could see it being 500 calories if you are doing like 5.0 mph. But anything above 7.0 mph (8:30 mile) should be 1000+ calories / hour.

It's all about heart rate and body composition. Everyone is different. 7 mph for an hour is more than most people are capable of and that will probably keep even healthy people up in the 170 bpm range. So yea, you'll burn a lot more running at that rate. It's probably still only 700 or so though. I have that formula but I'm just feeling lazy right now and don't want to plug in numbers.

iannis · May 29, 2015

Khane_sl said:
I don't know about that. A light jog would probably put you at a heart rate of about 140-150 bpm (if you weren't completely out of shape) and that would probably only burn around 500 calories an hour.

The example I used was at a heart rate of 135 bpm and that only nets around ~300 calories an hour.

People definitely severely overestimate how much they are burning off while exercising.

30 minutes of sweat is basically 1 candy bar. It's depressing.

And a fairly good reason to not eat candy bars.

Khane · May 29, 2015

Which is why how you eat really is 95% of staying in shape.

Blazin · May 31, 2015

Wearing a good HR monitor goes a long way towards getting better calorie burn numbers. The intensity of the workout is big variable as people compare activities. I'm sure it's quite common, more so amongst the generally unfit, for people to think they are in a good range when in reality they are hovering just below the cardio zone and not burning nearly as many calories as they think.

Ossoi · May 31, 2015

Submitted my pics for the Reddit Body Transformation Challenge

This was a 90 day competition and I was entered in the Cutting category. I started my cut in January after a 4 month bulk. Was 83kg and roughly 15-17% body fat on Jan 1st. I also had a hip injury so couldn't squat. I started doing HIIT for the first time in January and just did 4 sessions a week until March. From March I kept HIIT but also combined it with weights, still couldn't squat due to the hip injury. By the time the competition started I was 77.8kg and roughly 12-13% body fat. Today I'm 72.8kg and 7-8% body fat.

The rules say that all pics have to be relaxed and untensed but I've seen a lot of completion pics where the subjects are definitely flexing their abs. I got a warning from the mods for calling people out lol. I literally picked the worst spot to take the pictures, my room is really bright and oversaturated with natural light which makes it hard for the definition to show up. So in order to stand a chance against the flexers and with the poor lighting in my room I attempted a "peak week"....I started drinking 1.5+ gallons water daily from Wednesday and was zero carb Wednesday-Thursday. Friday and Saturday I carb loaded with 1.25kg of sweet potato a day, protein was 150g sliced turkey breast on these days with no fat sources. I got a spray tan yesterday and I stopped drinking water at 6pm Saturday evening and before I went to bed I ordered a medium dominos meateor pizza, didn't eat any though.

I woke up at 7am today and took some pics, then I ate 4 slices of pizza. At 10am I drove to McDonalds and got 2 sausage & bacon muffins and ate those. Then I took some more pics. After waiting for the muffins to digest I got some weights out my garage and did some shoulder presses, press ups and dumbbell curls, I also had some haribo candy on hand...then I took some more pics.

The idea is that after 2 days of no carbs my muscles will be hungry for carbs and will soak up more glycogen on the days that I carb load - making the muscles look bigger. Drinking excessive amounts of water gets my body into a water flushing mode and this continues even after I cut water at 6pm on saturday, flushing water out the body makes the skin tighter and the muscles look bigger again. Then the high fat/carb/salt junk food should accelerate the process of driving fluid into the muscle cells.

I just about had enough time before the submission deadline to sort the best photos and get them uploaded. I honestly don't know if I will win, if I picked a better photo location then I think I'd blitz it. Regardless, I'm in the best shape of my life. 73kg is usually the point where I'd start bulking, the last two attempts just saw me eat lesser quality food more often than not. I'm more motivated than ever now and I also enjoy HIIT which was not something I'd done previously. Hopefully I can start adding some muscle without getting too much fat. I think I'm gonna cut to 70kg just for lolz then start bulking...some fat gain is inevitable, but if I can start from 5-6% body fat and bulk till 10-12% then cut again, I will always stay in pretty good shape

Gavinmad · May 31, 2015

Realize I'm a bit late to the rice discussion, but couldn't you use a muffin pan to portion it out into little rice balls before you freeze it?

cypis · Jun 4, 2015

Ossoi_sl said:
Submitted my pics for the Reddit Body Transformation Challenge

This was a 90 day competition and I was entered in the Cutting category. I started my cut in January after a 4 month bulk. Was 83kg and roughly 15-17% body fat on Jan 1st. I also had a hip injury so couldn't squat. I started doing HIIT for the first time in January and just did 4 sessions a week until March. From March I kept HIIT but also combined it with weights, still couldn't squat due to the hip injury. By the time the competition started I was 77.8kg and roughly 12-13% body fat. Today I'm 72.8kg and 7-8% body fat.

The rules say that all pics have to be relaxed and untensed but I've seen a lot of completion pics where the subjects are definitely flexing their abs. I got a warning from the mods for calling people out lol. I literally picked the worst spot to take the pictures, my room is really bright and oversaturated with natural light which makes it hard for the definition to show up. So in order to stand a chance against the flexers and with the poor lighting in my room I attempted a "peak week"....I started drinking 1.5+ gallons water daily from Wednesday and was zero carb Wednesday-Thursday. Friday and Saturday I carb loaded with 1.25kg of sweet potato a day, protein was 150g sliced turkey breast on these days with no fat sources. I got a spray tan yesterday and I stopped drinking water at 6pm Saturday evening and before I went to bed I ordered a medium dominos meateor pizza, didn't eat any though.

I woke up at 7am today and took some pics, then I ate 4 slices of pizza. At 10am I drove to McDonalds and got 2 sausage & bacon muffins and ate those. Then I took some more pics. After waiting for the muffins to digest I got some weights out my garage and did some shoulder presses, press ups and dumbbell curls, I also had some haribo candy on hand...then I took some more pics.

The idea is that after 2 days of no carbs my muscles will be hungry for carbs and will soak up more glycogen on the days that I carb load - making the muscles look bigger. Drinking excessive amounts of water gets my body into a water flushing mode and this continues even after I cut water at 6pm on saturday, flushing water out the body makes the skin tighter and the muscles look bigger again. Then the high fat/carb/salt junk food should accelerate the process of driving fluid into the muscle cells.

I just about had enough time before the submission deadline to sort the best photos and get them uploaded. I honestly don't know if I will win, if I picked a better photo location then I think I'd blitz it. Regardless, I'm in the best shape of my life. 73kg is usually the point where I'd start bulking, the last two attempts just saw me eat lesser quality food more often than not. I'm more motivated than ever now and I also enjoy HIIT which was not something I'd done previously. Hopefully I can start adding some muscle without getting too much fat. I think I'm gonna cut to 70kg just for lolz then start bulking...some fat gain is inevitable, but if I can start from 5-6% body fat and bulk till 10-12% then cut again, I will always stay in pretty good shape

Wow, it's actually mind-boggling how delusional some people are. You're not '7-8% bf', more like 15%. You lost some weight, got a tan and worked on your posture. Good for you, but to think that this is impressive for 90 days and that you'd 'blitz the competition' is hilarious.

Ossoi · Jun 4, 2015

cypis_sl said:
Wow, it's actually mind-boggling how delusional some people are. You're not '7-8% bf', more like 15%. You lost some weight, got a tan and worked on your posture. Good for you, but to think that this is impressive for 90 days and that you'd 'blitz the competition' is hilarious.

ROFL ok moron.

How much do you want to wager on me being closer to 15% vs closer to 10%? I'll book a dexa scan as soon as you confirm how much you're willing to stake

Weight Loss Thread

Got something right about marriage

Mr. Poopybutthole

Got something right about marriage

Mr. Poopybutthole

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

Got something right about marriage

Got something right about marriage

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

Same trailer, different park

Got something right about marriage

Same trailer, different park

Got something right about marriage

Musty Nester

Got something right about marriage

Creative Title

Potato del Grande

Mr. Poopybutthole

Lord Nagafen Raider

Potato del Grande