Learn me - Weight loss

RossD wrote:

nderwater wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: I went to the doc yesterday and he said I have a fatty liver. Need to lose weight (no surprise) and cut out the fried foods, butter and dairy. I don't think cereal with water isn't going to be too good.

Frankly, this is ignorant advice disguised as good advice. Eating a diet high in fats (by %) does not make you fat, nor make your liver fat. It's excess sugars in your body that get converted to and stored as fat. Cutting down on oils/fats may be good for your overall health, but it's cutting down on carbs that will have the most direct effect on your waistline and your liver. I.E.- You're better off sticking with the milk and giving up the cereal instead.

I think you're still being ignorant to some extent, to be honest and with no disrespect, but it's not your fault. The Sugar Association has known the issues with excessive sugar in our diet and has been blaming (blaming: funding contrary studies, burying 'sugar is bad' studies, discrediting professionals...etc) other things for decades just to keep up sugar sales. Remember when low fat showed up in the supermarket? Blame the Sugar Association. Same thing with blaming carbohydrates, because there are healthy carbs just like there are health fats. /remove tinfoil hat Portion control, limited added sugars or naturally occurring sugars without fiber, portion control and exercise are the major items. Juice is soda pop without the fizz, and unnatural sweeteners are just that, unnatural. But I'm not a nutritional scientist or dietitian. So these are my opinions and what I'm personally doing to try to keep from gaining weight.

I must confess...I drink the hell out of sweet tea and heavily sugared coffee. I know where to start.

I see you are in Austin.

May I recommend some on the great trails in and around town as part of your exercise routine. There are a lot of great trails especially off of 360 that get you closer to nature and are really nice to walk or in my case run. My personal favorites are Wild Basin, Riverplace, and of course the barton creek greenbelt and violet crown trail. City Park also has a nice walking trail as well when the water is down.

There are also some great farmers markets at Lakeline Mall on Saturday or Republic park downtown which have great fresh veggies and meats.

Central Market has a really good selection and variety of fruits and fresher meats and seafood. The prices are not horrible. Surprisingly I find the HEB's here are really good as well.

Holler if you need any exercise ideas locally. I'm out and about all over town running and biking. I've got a race up pikes peak here in 3 weeks that has me out exercising after work everyday.

American Heart Association: Sugar 101

It doesn't say in the article but I believe one teaspoon of sugar is equal to 4 grams of sugar. An adult male can have 9 teaspoons in a day. 9 tsp x 4 grams = 36 grams of added sugar.

Now there's a reason they don't put the daily percentage of sugar, and it's because the Sugar Association doesn't want you to know that the one can of Coke you had, has 108% of your added sugar for the day.

That 'healthy' yogurt? 26 grams. Now some of that is the lactose but for just 8.3% of your daily caloric intake (170/2000), you get 72% of your daily sugar intake. I can't imagine that's good for you since the sugar should be digest with fiber.

The tricky part is the added sugars vs natural sugars. And all the natural sugars aren't all the great for you either, like 100% juice.

thedanimal wrote: In reply to MrJoshua: That's the best part of my new job, fully stocked kitchen with loads of fresh fruit. Grapes and apples are a lifesaver.

Baby carrots are always in the lunches I pack for myself. I buy the big bag at the store, then fill a sandwich bag every day.

Another reason to think of maintaining your health as a lifetime pursuit is that you will realize you don't have to hate yourself when you have a lazy day, or when you have an unscheduled donut. As long as it's not too frequent, of course.

Good luck, danimal! You can do it!

My biggest problem is stress eating. When I am stressed, I almost never feel full. I don't know how to fix this.

My biggest problem is that I am constantly surrounded by fast food and junk food, and it all tastes so good. Making good food choices is a daily battle.

As more countries around the world become industrialized, so does their food supply. Foods produced at the industrial scale are engineered to reduce cost (introducing GMOs, hormones, antibiotics, etc), to be shelf-stable (preservatives), and to be as appealing as possible (added salt, sugar, fat, artificial flavor, color and texture enhancers).

Companies make what sells and the supermarket shelf is a constant survival-of-the-fittest sales battle. The result is Coke, Snickers, and Doritos, and all the other junk food that my body craves. Each new generation is more hooked on this stuff than the one before it. It's an epidemic health crisis, but all the financial incentives for restaurants and grocery stores and food manufacturers incentivize them to keep doing what they're doing.

The result? Diabetes is epidemic, nearly 1/3 of the world's population is obese or overweight, and obesity is increasing in EVERY country in the world where it is being tracked: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-global-obesity/

This thread got me curious today, so I got on the scale again. Last Friday night, I went with some friends to basically meat eaters heaven, and I decided to weigh myself before and after to see just how bad it was for me. I was 296 before going to the meat palace, 303.2 when I got home. This morning, all of 1 week later, 290. Shoes, cargo shorts empty pockets, no shirt every time. Not like clothing makes a big difference, but I like to be consistent in how I measure.

I'd bet a good bit of the gain was from the pitcher of water I drank while we were there, but I'm still happy to see I'm under the starting point.

No big diet or activity changes this week to warrant extra loss, but it's been 90ish with 200% humidity, so the constant sweating can't be hurting anything.

I try not to get on the scale any more than once every month or so, realistically I only get on when my clothes feel to tight or to loose. I have a bad habit where if I see I lost 5 pounds, I'll go to a buffet or gorge at Taco Bell or something as congratulations and wind up screwing myself over.

What worries me is the possibility I might quit smoking soon, as the state is jacking up the tax another dollar a pack. I know how much more I do eat when I don't have nicotine available, and it's never anything healthy.

Count miles not calories. Eat and drink what you want to but 5 times a week (early morning or late at night is what I do) run as much as you can for 45 minutes. If you have to stop for a bit then take a 20 second breather and keep going. Listen to music, put on a short album and listen to it straight through. Air guitar, air drums, head bang.....whatever just keep moving. I put on Pandora radio (Tool, Nine Inch Nails, Green Jelly, Anthrax....)and I run during the songs and walk briskly for the commercials.

Here's what you'll find:

When you are more active you'll be thinking about food less. Drink more water. Pack your own lunch. And as hard as it is to get out there and do it, afterwards you'll feel great.

Aerobic exercise is the key for losing weight. Anaerobic is great but it just doesn't get your heart rate up enough or for as long as you need to really lose weight.

5 times a week sounds like a lot and it is but weigh yourself after 2 weeks and I guarantee you , you've lost weight. Once you get down to the ball park of your target weight, drop to 3 days a week. You'll find that sweet spot of what you need to do to maintain yourself.

Weight will vary day to day, even hour to hour. Hydration has a lot to do with it. I'll lose 3-5lbs over a LeMons race weekend from sweating, even though I make a point to hydrate. As I said before, it's less about the number on the scale than it is about body fat %, though they do have some correlation.

I agree there are junk and fast food temptations everywhere. But I'm not one to blame the restaurants or food makers, or grocery stores. Sure, it's in the sugar industry's best interest to sell their product. No doubt about it. However, it's also up to the consumer to know what they're putting in their mouth. Food labels are so much better than they were just a few years ago. Even McDonalds posts calorie info on all their food, and the rest of the macro info is readily available. So to me, it's supply and demand. It wouldn't a good business model for to sell food nobody wants. So people are buying it. Have you heard some of the crazy crap fast food places and baseball stadiums are offering? An 18" long hot dog with bacon, chili, extra cheese and whatever else on top. Holy E36 M3! That's crazy. Lots of places offer healthy food choices now. When I was a kid, McDonalds would sell you anything you wanted...as long as it was a cheeseburger and fries. Now they sell grilled chicken salads.

Also, I would disagree with the idea of using just running or traditional cardio/aerobic exercise as the primary way to lose weight. Yes, the number on the scale will go down, but you could wind up being "skinny fat". That means you look skinny and don't weigh much because you become nothing but bone, skin and fat. It's not hard at all to make your body start burning muscle as it's food source when doing cardio. So you burn the muscle and the body holds onto the fat, leaving you looking skinny but with no muscle. Muscle burns way more calories than fat. Limit cardio, build muscle.

Klayfish wrote: Also, I would disagree with the idea of using just running or traditional cardio/aerobic exercise as the primary way to lose weight. Yes, the number on the scale will go down, but you could wind up being "skinny fat". That means you look skinny and don't weigh much because you become nothing but bone, skin and fat. It's not hard at all to make your body start burning muscle as it's food source when doing cardio. So you burn the muscle and the body holds onto the fat, leaving you looking skinny but with no muscle. Muscle burns way more calories than fat. Limit cardio, build muscle.

Aerobic gets noticeable results fast. Fast noticeable results usually inspire confidence and make people sitck to something. Running making somebody "skinny fat"? I guess but if I were fat, I'd rather have that problem than be fat, lift weights and get stronger but not noticeably slimmer and then get discouraged that it's not working well enough.

If you lose weight without weight bearing exercise you tend to lose as much or more from muscle as fat. A very very basic whole body routine (1 set of 9-12 exercises covering the whole body done to exhaustion) done 2-3x a week can make all of it come from fat. Plus every pound of muscle you gain burns 50'ish calories a day just sitting there. Most people new to weight training can gain 5 lbs of muscle very quickly. That's 250 extra calories a day burned while resting. That's like getting the calorie burning effect of 30 minutes of running for free-every day.

crankwalk wrote:

Klayfish wrote: Also, I would disagree with the idea of using just running or traditional cardio/aerobic exercise as the primary way to lose weight. Yes, the number on the scale will go down, but you could wind up being "skinny fat". That means you look skinny and don't weigh much because you become nothing but bone, skin and fat. It's not hard at all to make your body start burning muscle as it's food source when doing cardio. So you burn the muscle and the body holds onto the fat, leaving you looking skinny but with no muscle. Muscle burns way more calories than fat. Limit cardio, build muscle.

Aerobic gets noticeable results fast. Fast noticeable results usually inspire confidence and make people sitck to something. Running making somebody "skinny fat"? I guess but if I were fat, I'd rather have that problem than be fat, lift weights and get stronger but not noticeably slimmer and then get discouraged that it's not working well enough.

I hear what you're saying, and a lot of people do this for that reason. But in reality, it's not really a good way. Weight training...and again I'm not saying everyone needs to try to turn into 1980's Arnold...with a sprinkle of cardio thrown in will get the quickest and best results. As said, muscle burns calories (and fat), so it gets a snowball effect. You start to build muscle, which means your burning more and more calories all the time. It builds on itself. Doing nothing but cardio can have the opposite effect. You'll get your heart rate up while doing the cardio, but when resting you'll burn less calories due to burning muscle off. That's why I always try to encourage lifting. The results start to show quickly, which inspires confidence. That part I completely agree with you on. Seeing progress inspires people to keep going.

Yes, if you do nothing but run you can quickly become "skinny fat". Doesn't mean you WILL, but if you do a ton of heavy running, you need a very different nutrition plan than most. Olympic runners and sprinters are far from "skinny fat", but their training routines are vastly different than what most people do. I'm referring to the typical "cardio bunny" at the local gym.

I lost 40 pounds in four months running and eating about 1500 calories a day. Lost a lot of muscle. Started lifting weights and have put back on about ten pounds, but I look and feel better, and my blood pressure is still good which is what started all this. I weigh myself every morning, and have since i started to get in shape. Everyone always tells me that weighing myself everyday is not going to help me but it has, for four years now. I like to know right away what a change in my routine does for me. You wouldn't make a change to your racecar and then only time every tenth lap, right?

Also, my fitness pal helped me to realize my peanut butter and jam sandwich was over 900 calories. So I had to swear off peanut butter.

Joey

I have asked a lot of people who are over 60 and thin how they keep that way. Most have some sort of way of gauging their weight. Some use a belt size, others a dress size, many the scale, but across the board they all had some way of monitoring their physique and correcting quickly when they strayed from their ideal. Despite this seemingly obsessive behavior, they were not the ones you see constantly talking about diets or making everything about their quest for fitness. Being in control of themselves was not an issue. If things strayed a bit, they knew they could fix it. I admire them and strive to eventually emulate that behavior.

I'll start with the statement that this may not be for everyone, but it worked for me. I've always been fat... at least chubby. The "husky" boys at Sears still is a trigger for me. So I'm in my 50s, 6'-0", currently about 190lbs. Two and a half years ago I was about 250. My wife got us started a few years ago by cutting out carbs and sugars as much as possible. I've always had blood sugar challenges throughout a typical day. So now we get lots of veggies, fat and protein. I almost see the weight loss as a side effect of just feeling better. My cholesterol and blood pressure have gone down to normal levels too. And honestly, now I really like how I'm eating. I've cut out beer... except for an occasional low carb "beer" (I know, I know) but still have my scotch. When I travel, I get a burger with out the bun and no fries. Clearly, no soda or juice. There are days I miss great French bread, or rice. I'll have a bite or two. But overall, I look at the carbohydrates of food. And yeah... what I would give to take 60lbs out of my Mazda for autocrossing? Bonus.

Klayfish wrote:

crankwalk wrote:

Klayfish wrote: Also, I would disagree with the idea of using just running or traditional cardio/aerobic exercise as the primary way to lose weight. Yes, the number on the scale will go down, but you could wind up being "skinny fat". That means you look skinny and don't weigh much because you become nothing but bone, skin and fat. It's not hard at all to make your body start burning muscle as it's food source when doing cardio. So you burn the muscle and the body holds onto the fat, leaving you looking skinny but with no muscle. Muscle burns way more calories than fat. Limit cardio, build muscle.

Aerobic gets noticeable results fast. Fast noticeable results usually inspire confidence and make people sitck to something. Running making somebody "skinny fat"? I guess but if I were fat, I'd rather have that problem than be fat, lift weights and get stronger but not noticeably slimmer and then get discouraged that it's not working well enough.

I hear what you're saying, and a lot of people do this for that reason. But in reality, it's not really a good way. Weight training...and again I'm not saying everyone needs to try to turn into 1980's Arnold...with a sprinkle of cardio thrown in will get the quickest and best results. As said, muscle burns calories (and fat), so it gets a snowball effect. You start to build muscle, which means your burning more and more calories all the time. It builds on itself. Doing nothing but cardio can have the opposite effect. You'll get your heart rate up while doing the cardio, but when resting you'll burn less calories due to burning muscle off. That's why I always try to encourage lifting. The results start to show quickly, which inspires confidence. That part I completely agree with you on. Seeing progress inspires people to keep going. Yes, if you do nothing but run you can quickly become "skinny fat". Doesn't mean you WILL, but if you do a ton of heavy running, you need a very different nutrition plan than most. Olympic runners and sprinters are far from "skinny fat", but their training routines are vastly different than what most people do. I'm referring to the typical "cardio bunny" at the local gym.

Yes, muscle burns calories. But they have to actually work to do that.

My best of the best weight was when I was running, and training to race- which meant that it was mixed with weight work- as being properly strong makes you faster in many ways- not just being able to propel you faster, but also being more efficient doing it.

Given that one builds muscle when doing aerobics, and that it's able to burn more calories in a given time, my experience chooses that route over strength training all day long. Worked for me.

The real key to aerobic work of any kind is doing it efficiently. Which means you stay in an aerobic zone for your work where your body is capable of burning the calories that you generate processing fat. Not above that, where you just take what and where you can take it. That's what all good running training plans do- at the same time, you work on increasing the amount of time that you can stay at an aerobic zone AND increase your aerobic capability. And all of that culminates on race day.

BTW, what you call "skinny fat," I would take all day over just fat. I've seen so many distance runners who look great- I'd so much rather be that shape than one who is stacked with muscle. And the reason is that as you age, keeping your shape is easier. Distance runners look better at 60 or 70 than football players.

If running is what keeps you thin-than by all means run. Whatever works is what you should do. For the best overall fitness and postural health everyone should do a very basic strength routine. It is a tool to improve you. It does not have to be your passion or even close to the main focus of your routine, but you are much better off strength training than not.

alfadriver wrote: Yes, muscle burns calories. But they have to actually work to do that. Given that one builds muscle when doing aerobics,

For the most part, both of those statements are incorrect. Take 2 people at 180lbs each. One with 28% body fat, one with 15%, guess who's gonna burn more muscle at rest? Right, and that's because the 15% person has more muscle on their body. And no, you really don't build muscle doing aerobics. For the most part, at best you'll maintain what you have, and very often you'll actually burn muscle.

As I said before, true distance runners have a very different training and nutrition regiment than most people. I don't know, because I don't do distance running, but I'm very willing to bet that there is some component of weight lifting in it.

I also agree that skinny fat is better than just plain obese. But being 160lbs with a high body fat % isn't ideal.

I'm not arguing against cardio, it has it's place. I do some. But way, way too many people think that straight cardio is the best and fastest way to lose weight/get healthy. It's not.

Way back when I started school at UF I read a newsletter with an update on their legacy study-they were following recreational athletes over their entire lifetime. The thing that stuck with me was that long term long distance runners (over 20 years of running and more than 50 years old) had average muscle mass in their legs and 5lbs less upper body muscle than the average untrained person. That was back in the early 90's when very few people over 50 exercised. 5lbs less than that is pushing functional impairment.

In reply to Klayfish:

Neither is straight muscle work.

But I think we have a different definition of healthy.

MrJoshua wrote: Way back when I started school at UF I read a newsletter with an update on their legacy study-they were following recreational athletes over their entire lifetime. The thing that stuck with me was that long term long distance runners (over 20 years of running and more than 50 years old) had average muscle mass in their legs and 5lbs less upper body muscle than the average untrained person. That was back in the early 90's when very few people over 50 exercised. 5lbs less than that is pushing functional impairment.

What about percent fat? If a runner has less fat and less weight to carry around, you need less muscle to do that. Lots of overweight people are quite strong- as they have to be just to move their own mass around.

That has a major impact on how much muscle mass is "enough".

Klayfish wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Yes, muscle burns calories. But they have to actually work to do that. Given that one builds muscle when doing aerobics,

For the most part, both of those statements are incorrect. Take 2 people at 180lbs each. One with 28% body fat, one with 15%, guess who's gonna burn more muscle at rest? Right, and that's because the 15% person has more muscle on their body. And no, you really don't build muscle doing aerobics.

Wait, how can it be incorrect??? When your muscle is resting, it's not burning much. When you are doing cardio, it is working and burning energy. How is that wrong?? You burn way more when working than letting your muscles rest- even if you are muscles are building up.

BTW, running builds muscle. So does aerobics. Unless you are doing it wrong. BTDT.

Anyway, I'm done here. Provided some input- take it or leave it. Works for me- I'm still (after 16 years) 50 lb lighter than I was before. And the lightest of the light was when I was marathon training... Take it as you will.

Running builds more muscle than sitting on the couch, but very little. You gain a small amount right at the beginning but you very quickly outgrow any effectiveness it has as a muscle building exercise. You can increase the muscle building stimulus by increasing the load-hills, weight, sprints, parachutes, etc, but those are rarely included in the recreational runners arsenal. The same applies to aerobics. The closer you get to strength training time and intensity of load the more effective the movement becomes at building muscle. Muscle is incredibly active even outside of an exercise routine. On a non exercise day your metabolism is roughly 50 calories higher for every added pound of muscle. That is a significant amount.

Another worry about long bouts of repetitive movements is your bodies response to joint mobility. Our range of motion around a joint is set by our bodies response to needed range. When you do thousands of repetitions in a very narrow portion of a joints motion the body starts to set that range as normal. Your motion limits gradually narrow until your total usable range around the hips/knees/and ankles is barely more than used while running. Most runners stretch which helps prevent the issues in the legs but they rarely stretch the shoulders or train upper back strength so they get the slouched posture.
None of those issues are nearly as bad as the damage obesity does to us as we age, and all of them have fairly simple solutions. I prefer solving them by adding a simple weight training routine a few days a week.

That said, I believe the need to run jump and play is ingrained in us. Running is fun and phenomenal for mental health. The fact that most adults lose that ability by eating too much is sad.

Alfa-I'm impressed you lost weight and kept it off. That is something many people strive for, but very few accomplish.

MrJoshua has it exactly right. Muscle burns more calories, at rest or during activity. Plain and simple. Again, I can assure you if you take a muscular 180lb person and a "skinny fat" 180lb person, the muscular person burns more calories at rest.

For a total newbie, running may start to build a little muscle. But that drops off very quickly, and then you will actually burn muscle. And when you burn muscle, your weight really will drop, because muscle is denser (heavier) than fat. So you'll have that skinny look and the scale will show a smaller number, but you're going to have a higher body fat % and less muscle. Aerobics is not a muscle builder. People who are ripped don't get that way by running on a treadmill or using an elliptical. My wife and I laugh every time we see those commercials for treadmills or the magic 20 minute workout crosstraining elliptical. They have some shredded guy or girl on it and try to imply that thing will make you shredded. Uh...no. My wife is seriously shredded, muscles bulging everywhere, and I can tell you 80% of her workout is weight training. I'm somewhat shredded too (gotta keep up with her) and my workout is also 80% weights.

Alfa, like Joshua said, I think it's awesome you've lost weight. It's something so many people don't. I also agree that everyone's definition of healthy is different. Given the amount of obesity in our country, it'd be awesome if people did start running and doing any kind of exercise, aerobic or otherwise. But from a scientific standpoint, all I'm saying is aerobics don't build muscle and aren't the quickest or healthiest (based on body fat %) way to do it.

Exercise in the morning. It will raise your metabolic rate for a while afterward. Drink more water. Don't eat after 5 in the evening.