- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PuttaDaForkDown
Posted on 5/29/11 at 11:49 pm to Carolinacajun
Posted on 5/29/11 at 11:49 pm to Carolinacajun
quote:
Carolinacajun
you just opened a hornet's nest.
thats essentially a paradox(is the the term?) where continous long cardio sessions really are not effective as a tool for weightloss.
this is because its very hard to sustain a long efforts over time (as in the year or 2 you might need to lose all the weight you want to lose) and fatigue, disinterest and the fact your body is drained from these efforts tend to result in people OVEREATING and you end up at the same weight or possibly even GAINING after a month of working your arse off.
we've had this debate on here..i'm not saying not to get in cardio or strength training (if you're able to) its just that long cardio isn't the answer to helping you lose the weight.
**10-20 minutes of working out a day is all you need to boost your metabolism** beyond that you're just making needless work for yourself.
perfect example is this weekend. i weighed 189.0 on the high-tech fat/scale/mri/radiation thingie at the sports science center at MTSU on friday night..this after a week where i did virtually *ZERO* exercise as i was saving energy for the bike races i had this weekend...and i lost 4lbs between monday and friday.
so i pushed myself to the limit this weekend doing a ridiculous amount of cardio..i mean..heartrate pegged to 190 (and i'm 45!) for almost an hour during the state time trial race and not much lower during the criterium today.
then i came home today and mowed not only my front and back yard (with a $120 sears special mower) but also my neighbor's front and back yards (he's out of town so i thought i'd surprise him)..about 3-4 hours of mowing total.
i just weighed in earlier..and i'm up around 194. why is that? well of course for one thing its waterbloat..but second, your RPE (rate of percieved effort) lies to you and makes you think you've burned more calories than you truly have..so you eat more to compensate. i didn't think i ate that much this weekend..but clearly i've more than offset any gain i had made from working out and then some.
compare that to how i lost 4lbs in the last week by simply watching what was going in my mouth and being EXTREMELY LAZY ALL WEEK.
the point? its much much MUCH easier to lose weight by watching your food intake than any amount of percieved "work" you do in the gym or on a treadmill.
This post was edited on 5/29/11 at 11:55 pm
3
Posted on 5/29/11 at 11:58 pm to CAD703X
This post was edited on 5/29/11 at 11:58 pm
Posted on 5/30/11 at 2:26 am to TigerMyth36
This post was edited on 5/30/11 at 2:29 am
Posted on 5/30/11 at 6:00 am to Carolinacajun
Good to see you in here, CC. 
Now get your arse to bed -- no wonder you want to sleep till noon! 
I see you just had to go and open the exercise debate again.
Whatever you do, DO NOT ASK ABOUT EATING POTATOES!
Now get your arse to bed -- no wonder you want to sleep till noon! I see you just had to go and open the exercise debate again.
Whatever you do, DO NOT ASK ABOUT EATING POTATOES! Posted on 5/30/11 at 6:17 am to ChenierauTigre
quote:
I see you just had to go and open the exercise debate again.
Chenierau and TigerMyth, as long as a poster keeps that as a freaking sigline in his posts, you can be well assured the debate will get brought up over and over and over again. I pass this round. OK maybe not
This post was edited on 5/30/11 at 6:55 am
Posted on 5/30/11 at 6:20 am to ChenierauTigre
he asked..i had to answer.
Posted on 5/30/11 at 6:54 am to CAD703X
Math audit.
4 pound weight loss over 5 days which if solely due to excess caloric burn over caloric consumption would mean a caloric deficit a day of 2800 calories. Again, for the sake of the point of the example, I am assuming this is true weightloss with no water reduction/retention angles.
Friday to Sunday - gain 5 pounds or 17500 calories or a 5833 excess calorie a day intake over burn.
So our baseline during the week was -2800. Again assuming no water weight change (we will do that below), you went from -2800 to +5833, or in other words you consume 8633 more calories on Fri (post weigh) Sat Sun them Mon-Fri on a Daily basis. 8633 more a day. (Note in this example I am keeping burn rate the same... thus giving ZERO value to the calories burned on the bike or any increase in metabolism related).
Now you mentioned water weight obviously played a role on the weekend. Below are adjustments based on this. The number to the right would be the increase calorie load apparently triggered by the exercise. Again, this is giving no credit to any extra calorie burn from the cardio (ie cardio neutral).
5 pound gain - 8633 more calories a day over Mon-Fri.
4 pound gain - 7450 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
3 pound gain - 6300 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
2 pound gain - 5150 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
1 pound gain - 4000 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
0 pound gain - 2800 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
So what does this 'perfect' example show us. Either, the dominant factors in the weight change probably was non-caloric. If it was caloric, then we have neutral ground I believe. If you do long term cardio, I suggest you do not increase your calorie intake by 8600 calories a day!
The above of course is to a degree tongue in cheek. And where CAD and I will completely agree is if you go walk 4 miles and increase your caloric intake accordingly, then from a diet point of view you are wasting your time. And where CAD really nails it in my point of view is most people have a completely distorted view of RPE. Most really do overstate it and that is very dangerous. But if you are educated about that, and balance accordingly you should be fine. Some diet programs (ie weight watchers factor that in to their exercise = bonus points). I personally ignore them (dont take them), but if you crack the math, they split it down the middle with you (ie. if you burn 200 calories, they give you about 100 calories worth of extra points). I ignore as I dont think it is worth the bang for the buck if I buy down like that (again in agreement with CAD).
As CAD points out, diet is so very much more important then exercise and if anything comprimises diet then it is probably not worth it. Where he and I differ is the presumption that an hour of cardio automatically means diet compromise and thus is worthless. That is a big assumption which anectdotally can be refuted by similar examples as to his anectdotal example dissected above.
I do atleast an hour of cardio a day on average. I have 2 kids (4 and 2), have an executive level job and work out of town 15-20 weeks a year so yes it is challenging but what is more important (besides family) then ones health? I find it hard to believe in the 16 hours I am awake, that they are just so jammed pack that my health and fitness cant catch a break. If folks like CAD can find time, while working as much as he does, to put in the monster training he does to be a performance athlete, then I can get my fatass to walk for an hour. As long as I dont compensate with increased food (if I started to I would stop), then my 500-800
calorie-ish burns a day add up to 50 to 80 pounds of loss a year (before taking into affect any metabolic benefit).
4 pound weight loss over 5 days which if solely due to excess caloric burn over caloric consumption would mean a caloric deficit a day of 2800 calories. Again, for the sake of the point of the example, I am assuming this is true weightloss with no water reduction/retention angles.
Friday to Sunday - gain 5 pounds or 17500 calories or a 5833 excess calorie a day intake over burn.
So our baseline during the week was -2800. Again assuming no water weight change (we will do that below), you went from -2800 to +5833, or in other words you consume 8633 more calories on Fri (post weigh) Sat Sun them Mon-Fri on a Daily basis. 8633 more a day. (Note in this example I am keeping burn rate the same... thus giving ZERO value to the calories burned on the bike or any increase in metabolism related).
Now you mentioned water weight obviously played a role on the weekend. Below are adjustments based on this. The number to the right would be the increase calorie load apparently triggered by the exercise. Again, this is giving no credit to any extra calorie burn from the cardio (ie cardio neutral).
5 pound gain - 8633 more calories a day over Mon-Fri.
4 pound gain - 7450 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
3 pound gain - 6300 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
2 pound gain - 5150 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
1 pound gain - 4000 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
0 pound gain - 2800 more calories a day over Mon-Fri
So what does this 'perfect' example show us. Either, the dominant factors in the weight change probably was non-caloric. If it was caloric, then we have neutral ground I believe. If you do long term cardio, I suggest you do not increase your calorie intake by 8600 calories a day!
The above of course is to a degree tongue in cheek. And where CAD and I will completely agree is if you go walk 4 miles and increase your caloric intake accordingly, then from a diet point of view you are wasting your time. And where CAD really nails it in my point of view is most people have a completely distorted view of RPE. Most really do overstate it and that is very dangerous. But if you are educated about that, and balance accordingly you should be fine. Some diet programs (ie weight watchers factor that in to their exercise = bonus points). I personally ignore them (dont take them), but if you crack the math, they split it down the middle with you (ie. if you burn 200 calories, they give you about 100 calories worth of extra points). I ignore as I dont think it is worth the bang for the buck if I buy down like that (again in agreement with CAD).
As CAD points out, diet is so very much more important then exercise and if anything comprimises diet then it is probably not worth it. Where he and I differ is the presumption that an hour of cardio automatically means diet compromise and thus is worthless. That is a big assumption which anectdotally can be refuted by similar examples as to his anectdotal example dissected above.
I do atleast an hour of cardio a day on average. I have 2 kids (4 and 2), have an executive level job and work out of town 15-20 weeks a year so yes it is challenging but what is more important (besides family) then ones health? I find it hard to believe in the 16 hours I am awake, that they are just so jammed pack that my health and fitness cant catch a break. If folks like CAD can find time, while working as much as he does, to put in the monster training he does to be a performance athlete, then I can get my fatass to walk for an hour. As long as I dont compensate with increased food (if I started to I would stop), then my 500-800
calorie-ish burns a day add up to 50 to 80 pounds of loss a year (before taking into affect any metabolic benefit).
Posted on 5/30/11 at 7:33 am to igoringa
I was told there wouldn't be any math.
170/153/147
new target to stay ahead of Myth.
170/153/147
new target to stay ahead of Myth.
Posted on 5/30/11 at 7:37 am to Benchwarmer
quote:
I was told there wouldn't be any math.
Two trains leave Chicago and Los Angeles simultaneously with one moving at 95 MPH and ...
Who invited the CPA to the party!
Posted on 5/30/11 at 8:21 am to igoringa
Here we go again
One thing I'll say: Losing weight is about more than caloric burn through exercise. Have to think about the metabolism burning extra too.
Eta: that was a great post igor
I'm sick of this nonfreakingplateau.
363/325/250
I should have broken the 320 mark by now
Why did I deviate from what was working? I just haaad to go back to induction.
This post was edited on 5/30/11 at 8:26 am
Posted on 5/30/11 at 8:29 am to Benchwarmer
I have always hated math. Now my head has exploded. 
Carolina Cajun is a cool dude. Y'all will like him a lot.
Carolina Cajun is a cool dude. Y'all will like him a lot.
Posted on 5/30/11 at 8:41 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
One thing I'll say: Losing weight is about more than caloric burn through exercise. Have to think about the metabolism burning extra too.
Oh I completely agree. My math doesnt factor in: A) burning while exercising or B)increased metabolic activity. If those were included, the increased caloric take delta would be even larger.
All that being said, one of the key points that CAD raises, which is so incredibly important, is to just make sure exercise doesnt compromise your diet which is 80-90% of the game IMO. Because if you do compromise diet to do cardio, then yes, in terms of diet, long cardio would be completely ineffective (assuming the comprimise of increased caloric intake exceeds calories burned and any increase in metabolic affect... but as CAD points out, people always overestimate their caloric burn)
This post was edited on 5/30/11 at 8:47 am
Posted on 5/30/11 at 8:45 am to ChenierauTigre
quote:Me too. I totally fail at math.
I have always hated math. Now my head has exploded.
Posted on 5/30/11 at 8:49 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
Me too. I totally fail at math.
bah! From you posts, you are clearly fine with real life mathematics (regardless of how you do with book math or hypothetical applied math). Those are two different things with the latter being not that important (I am just a number nerd; thats all)
Posted on 5/30/11 at 8:55 am to igoringa
239/215/214.6
after abusing my body for 4 day in Fla, the net result was 1 lb of weight loss....
I did exercise, mostly walking, for an hour a day though......
after abusing my body for 4 day in Fla, the net result was 1 lb of weight loss....
I did exercise, mostly walking, for an hour a day though......
Posted on 5/30/11 at 1:28 pm to Guzzlingil
Been nibbling too damn much this weekend.
323/181.6/173
Need to get a long ride in today but damn it is going to be hot out there.
323/181.6/173
Need to get a long ride in today but damn it is going to be hot out there.
Posted on 5/30/11 at 1:42 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:
Why did I deviate from what was working? I just haaad to go back to induction
Maybe time to analyze your calories a bit tosee if you need to make a few changes or up the exercise a bit. BUT.....be careful with exercise. It is hotter than hell out there now so be damn careful.
Posted on 5/30/11 at 5:54 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
323/181.6/173
what are these numbers you all been posting?
Posted on 5/30/11 at 6:28 pm to jcole4lsu
Starting weight/Current weight/Goal weight
Posted on 5/30/11 at 6:33 pm to CAD703X
Well my question may have opened a hornets nest, but the sting had lots of good points. get it....sorry.
Very good info,thanks. And thanks to CT for the kind intro.but I still sending no money.
Proud of myself. This morning I cooked beignets for a group of about 75, at a Navy Seal workout in honor of Medal of Honor recepient,Michael Murphey,killed Afganistan. I test tasted one, but laid off and enjoyed watching all the real athletes choww down after what they all agreed was the most demanding thing they had ever done. Fun stuff,watching people puke as they finished,then 15 minutes later making yummy sounds on my beignets.
get it....sorry. Very good info,thanks. And thanks to CT for the kind intro.but I still sending no money.
Proud of myself. This morning I cooked beignets for a group of about 75, at a Navy Seal workout in honor of Medal of Honor recepient,Michael Murphey,killed Afganistan. I test tasted one, but laid off and enjoyed watching all the real athletes choww down after what they all agreed was the most demanding thing they had ever done. Fun stuff,watching people puke as they finished,then 15 minutes later making yummy sounds on my beignets.
Page 205 of 934
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News