-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Weight Loss Before/After Thread! (with pics)
- Thread starter lsslave
- Start date
RubxQub
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎÎ³Î»Î¿Ï Ïον καί ÏÎµÏ Î´Î¿Î»Ïγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
General fitness improvements with HIIT would lead to a more metabolic individual over the long run (the better shape you're in, the easier it is to burn calories exercising and handling fluctuations in calorie intake).
For the short term, I wouldn't expect a difference. Calories are calories in this respect. You could just as easily NOT eat 300 calories for the same effect.
If you're a big guy trying to lose weight, I'd say go with the HIIT.
If you're an in shape guy trying to cut, I'd say walk off the excess so you don't start eating up muscles doing cardio (30 minutes of HIIT isn't bad, but it's right on the line).
In either scenario, just not eating the calories works...but I'd sooner recommend eating the calories and walking/working them off for the overall health benefits.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Where did the whole thing of calories directly translating into adipose tissue on humans begin, anyway?
Wafflecakes
Member
IMO it doesn't really matter. HIIT would definitely contribute more to general fitness but no everyone wants to do it and low intensity exercise like walking works just as well for weight loss. Its what I do and I have a hard time imagining losing weight any faster than i have been doing.
80's I think?
Either way I am fine with it because there really are no valid and scientific theories out there that have proved more true overall.......Calories in = Calories out is both right and wrong at the same time.
How much weight have you lost in X weeks or months from walking?
Wafflecakes
Member
Well walked since I started. Not sure how much to attribute to walking.
Started 330 on May first so three months ago. Lost 60 lbs so far as of last weigh in a few days ago. So in 13 weeks or 4.6 lbs per week.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
It really doesn't make sense to me at all, and without hard science to back it up, I find it puzzling how it became so easily accepted by everyone.
Our bodies aren't internal combustion engines. The food put into our bodies isn't caught on fire and used to raise our body temperature, and yet that is how (initially at least) the caloric content of food items was determined.
Our bodies are simply not closed systems, and different macro nutrients are used in different ways. This is a big part of why using "calories" to judge anything about the human body comes off as nonsense to me.
This is getting obnoxious.
I'm looking to cut down on unnecessary food, only eat when hungry etc etc.
And my mom drives up to pick me up and gives me an ice cream cone. While I enjoyed the shit out of that ice cream, I can't wait until I'm not at the mercy of the families meals. September come faster.
I'm looking to cut down on unnecessary food, only eat when hungry etc etc.
And my mom drives up to pick me up and gives me an ice cream cone. While I enjoyed the shit out of that ice cream, I can't wait until I'm not at the mercy of the families meals. September come faster.
Wafflecakes
Member
I don't think many people actually buy that the body treats calories all the same anymore but at the same time until they come up with a better system what alternative do we have?
Saw your post a few pages back. So you just walk and do a low carb diet? I'm at like 250 and I just kind of want to walk around town instead of burning all my energy with p90x or the gym or something.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
What we used before the 80s or whenever the whole calorie theory came into play? Identify foods that are good. Identify those that are bad. Eliminate, or keep to a minimum, the bad foods. Eat until full. Done.
I don't see the merit in using a system that isn't reliable and doesn't work accurately.
Wafflecakes
Member
Pretty much. I generally walk at least an hour (I do it at night when its cool) sometimes closer to two. I do walk at a fair pace though.
Ummm we didn't use anything. Hence the issue.
There has never been another system.why don't you simple say no? People at work act this way to me too. I just say no thanks when they offer me candy, if they insist I grab them so they can shut the fuck up, put it in my pocket and give it to the first person I see when I enter my house.
You need to commit to not put crap in your mouth, it's simple
It was an ice cream cone. In a car. And it was melting fast. Candy is one thing but when someone makes you something you feel like a douche saying you don't want it...
on a second string of bad news, I was suppose to play Ultimate but it seems like everyone pussied out of the humidity.
half a moon
Banned
So this iPhone app says I need to go on a 1189 Kcal diet for 138 days to lose 70 pounds at a healthy pace based on couch potato activity. A calc online says I'd burn 400 calories walking 3 miles. So I'd need to have 1589 cals a day . So I could eat 3 big macs a day at 550 cal each and basically reach the goal? lol. Not that I'm going to, but is the math that simple?
bigboss370
Member
hey! me and you should compete, i'm exactly the same as you, only differences would be i don't have p90x, bench press, or pull up bar. i do have a treadmill and dumbells though. and my family tends to cook alot with oil and herbs/spices, so i'll prob have to cook for myself.
No, because as you lose weight those numbers will change. When you lose weight, if you aren't adding muscle, your body will burn less calories, so you'll need to adjust things downward.
I'm rolling with baked sweet patato, roasted Brussels sprouts, and
cheddar and bacon stuffed meatloaf.
half a moon
Banned
But If I punch in that I already lost 50 and want to lose 20 more it drops from 1189 to 1132. 2587 to maintain 220. That's just a little bit more walking for the 3 big macs. We're talking 270 pounds 5'10" here.
Yes, but it still adjusts the numbers. Just making you aware.
half a moon
Banned
I'm a noob so thanks. I even left out the diminising returns on the amount burned by walking in that post.
half a moon
Banned
I'm game. What's your goal weight and date? My calc says 200 by late dec would be possible and healthy by just a diet.hey! me and you should compete, i'm exactly the same as you, only differences would be i don't have p90x, bench press, or pull up bar. i do have a treadmill and dumbells though. and my family tends to cook alot with oil and herbs/spices, so i'll prob have to cook for myself.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Had a pretty bad week last week due to traveling for work in Texas. Put on 4 pounds or so. PAX is 3 weeks away. I'm thinking of doing a strict-er diet until then to get back on track.
Finished Insanity though, so now I need to figure out what workouts to do and how often.
Finished Insanity though, so now I need to figure out what workouts to do and how often.
I'm assuming you didn't consume 14000 cals above your maintenance so this weight is mostly water and restored glycogen. At most you probably gained a pound, a pound and a half. I was in the same boat as you last week after missing a week on travel as well. After 5 days at the gym I'm backs where I was. You'll see.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
That's not that much lol.
I ate fairly bad (BBQ, Sushi, Mexican) basically eating out every night and didn't work out at all. Plus drinks, etc.
I'm surprised I didn't gain more.
Possibly I guess. My last weigh in was 202, and I weighed myself when I got back and was 206 actually. So 3 to 4 lbs more.
We're throwing you a P90X party when you break 200 good sir.
Domino Theory
Crystal Dynamics
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Sorry if this is upsetting anyone, but it's been getting on my nerves a lot lately. I've been searching all over for some kind of evidence to support the calorie theory in regards to fat accumulation in humans.
I've failed to find anything. Why did this theory come into play? What was the logic behind it? What is the logic behind equations that determine how much a person "burns" by any given exercise? How have these theories and equations been tested? Have there been any controlled experiments?
I'm searching all over the web, but it seems like this stuff is just taken for granted so much that there's nothing out there. Does anyone know of any good information sources about this?
I've failed to find anything. Why did this theory come into play? What was the logic behind it? What is the logic behind equations that determine how much a person "burns" by any given exercise? How have these theories and equations been tested? Have there been any controlled experiments?
I'm searching all over the web, but it seems like this stuff is just taken for granted so much that there's nothing out there. Does anyone know of any good information sources about this?
Wafflecakes
Member
Which theories are you referring too. The Calories in = Calories out thing? Pretty sure they can determine how many calories a person is burning through activity with a fair bit of accuracy. I am not sure how though. Its also pretty well determined that all calories are not created equal and some cause weight gain more than others.
My question is. Why does it matter? If calories were done away with all together how would the system be improved. They are obviously imperfect but unless you have a better system to replace it with why waste the time arguing over it?
Does any of you have experience using Yohimbine + Caffeine to get rid of stubborn fat? I'm not fat actually, but I'm not lean and would do anything to get rid of these lovehandles once and for all. My lower abdomen and love handles are the places I carry most of my fat, I hate it.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Because it has completely taken over almost all studies about human weight. The conventional wisdom these days is to view being overweight as a problem caused by an energy imbalance. If that premise is flat out wrong, then any solutions based off of it will be inherently flawed.
I'll admit, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine to see people in here with their calorie calculators talking about how they are going to precisely control their intake/outtake of calories and that will provide them with X amount of reduce weight in Y days. It's an absurdly simple approach that ignores all sorts of factors, and it boggles my mind that anyone takes it for granted without any doubt. I mean, first and foremost, calories aren't even a real thing. We don't consume calories. We don't use calories. They don't exist as a "thing." It bothers me that so much of the field of nutrition revolves around something that isn't even real in relation to our bodies.
mercenar1e
Member
after so many attempts to get below 240, this morning my scale read 239..
was 256 when i started (July)
only complaint is that in my eyes my stomach still looks the same
was 256 when i started (July)
only complaint is that in my eyes my stomach still looks the same
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
You should really take pictures to track your progress and use it as motivation. It can be hard to notice your own body changes when you see yourself every day.
With that said, the fat can drop from different places depending on the person. Abdominal fat does seem to be the last to go for a lot of people, though.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
How do they not exist as a "thing"?
Calories are just a unit of measure for energy. The foods we eat certainly provide the body with energy, and everything our bodies do also requires energy to be spent. They might not be measured completely accurately, but what's more important is that the relative accuracy of the measurements is sound.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
They don't exist as a thing in that they are a unit of measurement for something that has nothing to do with the human body. When caught on fire, this item can raise X kilograms of water by 1 degree. X is the amount of calories.
Now where is the link that this has anything to do with how humans digest, process, and use food? This is what I'm looking for. I've been searching for a couple of days now and haven't been able to find anything besides this article about some dudes in the 1800s who made a bunch of wild assumptions to come up with a variety of mathematical formulae.
There's all this stuff about 3,500 calories translating into a pound of body fat (with the implication being that if you ate an amount of food that could be converted to 3,500 calories, and you didn't use that energy, you would gain exactly a pound of fat). There doesn't seem to be any actual tests, experimentation, controlled studies, or otherwise to prove any of this though. That's what I'm looking for.
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
You're focusing on the literal definition of a calorie. Just because it's measured that way (heating up water), doesn't mean it's the only thing that energy measured in calories is good for. Do you dispute the notion that the nutrients in our food provide fuel for our bodily functions, fuel that comes in the form of energy?
If we replaced the word "calorie" with "joule", would some of your doubts go away?
1 pound of fat provides ~3500 calories of energy. This can be (and has been) measured in a lab.
That doesn't mean that using 3500 calories will melt exactly one pound of fat off of your body, because that energy is not all going to come from the 1 pound of fat. It's going to come from sources all over your body. That's the kind of thing that can't be precisely controlled.
edit: and also, looking at it the other way, just because you eat food with 3500 extra calories of energy that you don't spend, that's not necessarily all going to turn into a 1 pound blob of fat.
Don't know how this works exactly, but I'm 250lb currently and 6'0. I was 185 about a year and a half ago and as you can tell from the difference in weight I let myself go big time. That's what happens when you eat 2-3 medium pizzas 2-3 times a week with bouts of McDonalds inbetween. Want to start eating healthy again and get down to around 175-185b.
There's no particular way that any of this works, but I'll tell you have you the first step down which is wanting to lose the weight. The second step is committing to lose the weight, and when you've got a lot to lose the best thing you can do is fix your diet which you already have figured out... so try to figure out what healthier options you can live with, and bit by bit improve your diet until you get something you can sustain. I was once in a similar place where I ate pizza and fast food pretty much everyday for months and months and really let myself go, and all I can say for sure is simply wanting the weight loss and committing to it is the most important thing... the rest you'll figure out and work on as you go.
Good luck!
Lol 200 too heavy for his frame? I'm 6 ft and if I was under 200 I'd be in the hospital. At my football playing weight of 235 I was ripped. You cannot base your frame, height and weight on someone else's build.
bigboss370
Member
short term goal is 240 or less by Sep 21st.
Jamesways
Member
No kidding. The hospital I work at has a health finder type website, suggesting that my ideal weight would be 165-180 at 6'0. 165?! I'd be a damn skeleton!
I have a bigger frame and at 207 I'm the thinnest I've been in about 8-10 years (thanks much in part to this thread).
I'll go a bit lower, but I don't want to lose too much muscle mass.
Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
Anyone checked out this book? Saw it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008C20TDG/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008C20TDG/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Ya, not to mention its been a huge drain on resources for me. I'd say about a good 70% of the money I had for the year was spent on eating fast food and pizza. Pretty much I don't even have an excuse to be eating out as I'm a student that's commuting from my parents place. If I just stick to the food that's at home I would have no problem losing the weight. The tricky part is sticking to food at home. The worst is when I'm at school as I almost never pack a lunch with me and with me having classes that usually go until the night time I tend to buy cookies and other useless junk from the vending machines or convenience store.
I'll try posting my weight here every week for motivation.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I do not dispute that the body oxidizes macro nutrients to use as energy for all of the bodily functions. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but it seems reasonable. Measuring that energy expenditure in joules or calories is probably fine, although I'd really like to learn how in the world such a process is measured. There are so many factors that could influence any given bodily function or action that there's no way you could ever get a consistent result to be able to say that, for example, 10 forward punch motions by a 43 year old male who weighs 200 lbs demands X calories/joules of energy. Even if you did find that out, how exactly do you measure the precise amount of macronutrients that are being oxidized specifically to fuel that motion?
There's no way there is 100% efficiency. So even if the calories measured in a piece of food could be directly translated over to the fuel for bodily functions, there's no way that 300 calories from food equates 300 calories of kinetic energy, for example. Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole thing seems absolutely ridiculous and based on way too many assumptions to be taken seriously.
None. Which do you recommend?
entremet
Member
Anyone checked out this book? Saw it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008C20TDG/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Yep. Just finished it. Great book. It's basically follows the paleo framework.