Weight Loss Thread

So shock them into it with a liquid diet? You're a drill sergeant!

Cad_sl said:

Whats this even mean? If you're hitting your calories for the day and macros, what does a meal "have to" supply?

Click to expand...

Well that's exactly what I meant =p If you are cutting shit out and just taking a protein shake, the shake has to supplement whatever it was that you cut out macrowise as well as whatever calorie content you cut out. Not everyone wants to drink a half gallon of thick ass shake instead of eating a normal meal. But honestly, shakes wouldn't be my suggestion for weight loss at all. If you are a health nut and you do all the math for every meal to determine your fats and %s, you are most likely not morbidly obese in the first place and in dire need of weight loss. And all drinking a shake will do (as it would be much easier to digest than solid food) is make the person feel hungry earlier in the day, making it more difficult to avoid eating. A fruit smoothy or something as a healthier snack, sure. But full on protein shake? That's for people with much more on their mind than weight loss.

I was doing walking to help lose weight and get a bit more healthy, of course this was after a heart attack, a failed Stent operation, and an Ejection fraction of 15, for almost 3 months till the second successful operation and now I am doing okay at easy cardio and only 1/3rd of my heart ruined. Trying to get back into some light DDP yoga and 10 and 20 pound barbell stuff as well and a old recumbent Planet Fitness cycle.

Christmas ruined my food intake though, but I'll either get back to it, or friggen die.

Don't knock walking though, yeah to the efficient, fit, folks it is worthless, but for the couch potatoes it is a start.

Srathor_sl said:

Don't knock walking though, yeah to the efficient, fit, folks it is worthless, but for the couch potatoes it is a start.

Click to expand...

The problem with most internet fitness forums and threads I've found is people tend to have this idealistic perspective on both their own and other's fitness. Where they are already in the top 3% of fitness and trying to maximize results to move from 3% to 1%. More realistically even "fit" internet people are probably more like top 10% and even making some minor changes could see a benefit. Like just above. Someone posted their core routine. Fantastic. Great. You want to know the best core routine? Have 6-8% body fat. Thats when you'll see your abs. Almost everything you do in your day-to-day works out your abdominal region. If you have a layer of fat you still won't see them and core routines are generally pretty shit workouts if you're spending time doing it.

I don't think that anyone is actually knocking walking, so much as just supplying information about how inefficient it is. Like, if all you can do is walking? That's a definite medical condition that prohibits other activity, and that means walking is absolutely outstanding. But unless you have a specific medical condition that prohibits you from doing other activities, there's many, many, -many- better ways of losing weight than walking. And they require far less time too, which is often one of the problems with early weight loss - time in vs. weight out. Results not happening quickly derail a lot of weight-losing folk, and it skews numbers due to that initial period. You'll lose a shitload of water weight doing, well, anything other than consuming calories. So walking looks like a great activity for early weight-watching folk. What is several magnitudes greater is the importance of the diet. If you are walking for weight loss? Walking means nothing. Your diet means everything at that point. Your diet means almost everything even when you are in pretty good shape, but early on it is incredibly key. It is easy to attribute walking to how "healthy" you are, but the reality is that it isn't the case unless whenever you aren't walking you are consuming calories or something.

It's fun to target forum meatheads (I'm actually not one. I wouldn't touch a steroid with your mom's hands, and I'm honestly mostly against any sort of supplement aside from a heavily modified protein shake. No creatine; no insulin shots; nada. That's ridiculous territory) but the walking thing is pretty basic health/fitness starting point. If doing anything else is detrimental to your health? Please walk, and walk as much as you can handle to keep your weight down. But if you can do -literally- anything else that is moderately athletic? It's going to be superior in both effect and time to walking, period.

This isn't some weird stance. The science directly backs cardio activity being primarily in the "moderate/high" bpm range, and walking does not get you there unless you have a serious medical issue. Walking -is- better than nothing. But not enough better that it is worth considering as a valid weight loss tool outside of people who cannot do anything else. You can walk for 8 hours, up and down hills, and a guy running 2 miles a week is going to shit on your weight loss, in 20 minutes or less. That's the definition of inefficient.

If you enjoy walking then that's good for you, it's better to do what you enjoy. I'd recommend the c25k app of you want to amp it up. I was running 5ks by the time I was done, it was awesome.

Noodlemod_sl said:

If you don't want to buy Cad's lawyer level rice cooker, this one is $30 and has 5000 reviews

Amazon.com: Aroma 8-Cup (Cooked) (4-Cup UNCOOKED) Digital Rice Cooker / Food Steamer, Stainless Steel Exterior (ARC-914SBD): Kitchen Dining

Click to expand...

I'm a baller on a budget, bitch.

But seriously, thanks. Ordered.

Rezz_sl said:

You can walk for 8 hours, up and down hills, and a guy running 2 miles a week is going to shit on your weight loss, in 20 minutes or less. That's the definition of inefficient.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post, but this is blatantly false.

Also strongly agree with Tenks regarding core workouts. Anecdotal, but still... it's always the scrawny goober guys at the gym doing stupid core workouts -- the guys whose physique I envy are doing heavy compounds.

Tenks_sl said:

You want to know the best core routine? Have 6-8% body fat. Thats when you'll see your abs.

Click to expand...

Yeah...when I posted my core routine, it was not for the sake of vanity of abs. It was about strengthening the core. I frankly don't even understand the relevancy of this. Not to mention, "almost everything you do in your day to day works out your abdominal region" is like saying because you walk around the house, you get plenty of leg workouts.

edit: Also, those "home-gym" pullup bars are great except that they leave serious marks or worse in the doorframe. Otherwise, they be perfect.

What's especially fun about the "everything you do works out your core" statement is it's coming from a software developer with a desk job. I can't imagine what he's doing at his desk that he's getting a good core workout.

Core is one of the most important things and while doing crunches is not very efficient doing things that strengthen your core with every move, like yoga, are necessary if you want a really solid, strong midsection.

Eidal_sl said:

I agree with most of your post, but this is blatantly false.

Also strongly agree with Tenks regarding core workouts. Anecdotal, but still... it's always the scrawny goober guys at the gym doing stupid core workouts -- the guys whose physique I envy are doing heavy compounds.

Click to expand...

Yeah, read that line again and went "too many rum and cokes!" The difference between running for an hour and walking for an hour is huge, but not that huge. Especially hilly terrain, which is going to be much closer on the incline to a light run, and substantially less on the downhill. However, if you spend 2 hours a week (broken up into 20 minute increments to make it closer to the 8 hour deal) and ran at a moderate speed (2 miles in 20 minutes) you'd definitely burn more calories than walking for 8, and probably on par with 8 hours of hiking (can't just include the uphill portions, though~) Still, running is substantially less time consuming to achieve similar results to walking, which is where I was going, regardless of the shit math.

I think there is a problem with determining caloric out from walking because what consists walking and what consists running?

edit: I mean in terms of speed, lol.

If you're having weight problems, I feel bad for you son.

I got 99 problems, being fat ain't one.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-.../dp/1400033462

Oh for fucks sake, are we going on one of those horrible tangents again?

Generally "running" starts at 5mph, or 12 minutes per mile. It's going to vary because it sort of depends on the physical makeup of the person. If your heart rate gets into the moderate/high range at lower speeds, then that would effectively be running for you when it comes to calories heading out. Again though, if your heartrate gets into the moderate/high range from walking, then that's a medical condition because you shouldn't be panting from a walk on relatively even terrain, especially not over the course of an hour. It also goes the other way (though these people generally don't need to worry about calories anything) where you might have to get closer to 6 or 7mph in order to hit the effective burning speed where your heartrate is high enough. So it's totally subjective, but regardless, if walking winds you there's some medical stuff going on. Getting winded going up hills? Different story! But flat terrain would be sub 5mph, with getting closer to 5mph means you are speed walking or jogging, whereas 5mph is a light run, on average.

I'm not actually 100% positive where the exact "generic" speed difference is, but there's definitely a mechanical difference between a run and a walk, regardless of speed. You'll know if you are running vs. walking, just from gait changes, and it's easily observable in others. Different muscles are triggered and it uses a lot more energy to maintain those muscle groups than the otherwise sedentary walking gait. Exact speed though is going to vary from individual to individual. I'm sure some super long legged speed walkers are hitting 5mph or possibly even faster, but that would be way into outlier territory.

Bottom line, I guess the generic caloric ins/outs are basing it on some generic person who happens to run at 5mph whereas they would be walking at 3-4mph (which would honestly be closer to a jog). And then trying to extrapolate from there depending on body makeup.

Generally blah blah blah. The reason everyone who is laughing at walking as a form of exercise is doing so is because it burns about 20 calories an hour. Who the fuck cares? "Hey I walked today! I can eat an extra cup of lettuce!".

It's fruitless exercise that people think is beneficial but really isn't. The problem isn't walking. The problem is the idea that walking burned enough calories for you to eat a sleeve of oreos when it didn't even burn enough for you to eat one.

if by horriblr tangents do yuo mean offering other people fuck nm happ new year

Himeo was on a crusade against sugar or something iirc. Also he drank dipping have sauces

Noodlemod_sl said:

Himeo was on a crusade against sugar or something iirc. Also he drank dipping have sauces

Click to expand...

Papa Johns garlic dipping oil I think. But it was societies fault for not telling him it wasn't healthy.