Discussion
Anonymous-poster said:
gregs656 said:
Anonymous-poster said:
At least there’s no hyperbole there with the numbers, if you fed a very active person 500 calories a day extra and he was cycling the transcontinental race do you think he would gain or lose weight?
If I cycle for just over 1 hr per day either on a trainer or outside I can burn 1000 calories and walking briskly can burn maybe 250-300 ph so burning calories can be done but if you want to lose weight then you must watch how many calories you stuff into your face as as the saying goes “you can’t out train a bad diet” but you can burn off 1000 calories if you are committed but wasting your time if as you say you are eating 5000 extra per day!
This isn’t really looking at top flight athletes who we know consume and burn a vast quantity of calories. It is about baseline activity and requirements. It would be interesting to do a study like this on a range of athletes but I don’t think it’s been done. If I cycle for just over 1 hr per day either on a trainer or outside I can burn 1000 calories and walking briskly can burn maybe 250-300 ph so burning calories can be done but if you want to lose weight then you must watch how many calories you stuff into your face as as the saying goes “you can’t out train a bad diet” but you can burn off 1000 calories if you are committed but wasting your time if as you say you are eating 5000 extra per day!
Your cycling example would fall into the boundaries of these studies. It is unlikely over a week those calories would not balance out. It’s not enough. The tribe discussed in this particular study (there are others) were walking about 8 hours a day and didn’t need any more calories than a sedentary Brit sitting on their couch all day eating pizza.
If you want to lose weight it is far easier not consume an excess of calories than to consume them and try and burn them off. Surely that is uncontroversial?
RUNAMOK said:
I would say I'm a very active person and I've done rides like that (day after day riding for 10+ hours at full chat, 100-150 miles a day, every day). And the riding is the easy bit. Eating enough food is the hard bit. I eat anything I can get my hands on, and the more calorie-dense the better. Shovelling pastries, pies, bananas, flapjack, etc etc as much as possible. Jersey stuffed with pies. Massive evening double meals. And I always lose weight because I am expending so much energy. It is possible to 'outrun a bad diet' if exercising for every waking moment!
272BHP said:
My point is that you can indeed go on a diet and go from say 200 pounds to 170 pounds but unless you also embark on a properly constructed strength and conditioning regime then you are not going to get the results you expect.
I have seen it a hundred times "I lost 30 pounds!" of course I congratulate them and smile wanly but what I am really thinking is, so what? you still look like crap, just a little bit smaller.
Weight loss as a goal in itself is nonsense. Train for performance and the physique and health benefits will come along with it.
There are health benefits that come from not being fat. I have seen it a hundred times "I lost 30 pounds!" of course I congratulate them and smile wanly but what I am really thinking is, so what? you still look like crap, just a little bit smaller.
Weight loss as a goal in itself is nonsense. Train for performance and the physique and health benefits will come along with it.
I would commend anyone for getting to a healthy weight, exercising, or both.
hyphen said:
RMDB9 said:
First of all, I want to be less fat. The is fat and fat - the fat inside is particularly damaging.
Then I want to work on my endurance, stamina and posture.
Looking "ripped" comes last, or never.
You have fat outside the skin? Then I want to work on my endurance, stamina and posture.
Looking "ripped" comes last, or never.
Should see a doctor.
you know what i am talking about
Benefits of carrying less fat, of increased muscularity, of increased cardiovascular fitness, of increased functional fitness and flexibility, of improved mental health, of increased bone density, etc - lots of reasons people seek to modify their bodies in this way. Someone in his 50's thinking about avoiding diabetes is likely to have different motivations to someone in his twenties thinking about trying steroids. Someone who wants to be good at a sport might have different priorities to someone who wants to look good on the beach.
That's down to you to moderate device usage with movement. 50 minutes of work, 10 minutes of break. It's not only good for your body but good for your head, especially if you have to get work done. The change in what you're doing even for a few minutes will help to improve your focus when you sit back down at the laptop.
I have a colleague who goes sugar free for weeks at a time but naturally ends up binging big time at the end of it to the point that he probably eats more sugar over a shorter period of time. Don’t see the point myself, I find it easier to just cut it down overall whilst still allowing myself the odd treat. Obviously YMMV
giblet said:
I have a colleague who goes sugar free for weeks at a time but naturally ends up binging big time at the end of it to the point that he probably eats more sugar over a shorter period of time. Don’t see the point myself, I find it easier to just cut it down overall whilst still allowing myself the odd treat. Obviously YMMV
Agreed. Complete prohibition often seems counter-productive.Cutting back a lot on obvious, added, sugar isn't a bad thing, though.
I don't "cut out" - I'm hardly doing the booze, on average 1 unit a day. I had a whisky last night (while watching a whisky programme on Prime) with a plan to have some port later but forgot and had a cup of green tea instead. 
If you're finding you're going OTT with certain things, it might be worthwhile investigating why you do this.
If you're finding you're going OTT with certain things, it might be worthwhile investigating why you do this.
If removing certain things, or entire food groups, from your diet to lose weight, then you should have a close look at your relationship with food. It’s not the foods making you fat, it’s the consumption.
Yes, cutting things out can make things easier, but it’s not required. And more often than not, it’s not sustainable. Balance and lifestyle changes are needed for longevity.
Yes, cutting things out can make things easier, but it’s not required. And more often than not, it’s not sustainable. Balance and lifestyle changes are needed for longevity.
I developed a bit of a middle age belly. I'm tall and thin so it was noticable. I went no carb and was losing 0.5kg a week. So no spuds, no bread, no rice, no pasta, no carby fruit/veg. Only one beer a day. The weight fell off me. 8kg less.
I did no more excercise. Just a dog walk every day.
Did that for 3 months.
Now I have adopted a permenant regime.
I've just got a rowing machine to add a bit more excercise and to allow me a few more beers now and again!
Getting close to 10kg less now.
I have carby food twice a week as a treat! (curry, fish and chips, roast dinner at the weekend). 5 days of the week, very low carbs. I don't worry too much about fat or meat.
My blood pressure dropped loads too. (it was edging towards risky)
I did no more excercise. Just a dog walk every day.
Did that for 3 months.
Now I have adopted a permenant regime.
I've just got a rowing machine to add a bit more excercise and to allow me a few more beers now and again!
Getting close to 10kg less now.
I have carby food twice a week as a treat! (curry, fish and chips, roast dinner at the weekend). 5 days of the week, very low carbs. I don't worry too much about fat or meat.
My blood pressure dropped loads too. (it was edging towards risky)
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff