|
On October 10 2013 18:19 virpi wrote:But it's wet and I hate water. I prefer running through the woods.
But swimming is the best! Plus if you are doing a real swimming workout you are going to be burning a lot more calories.
There is absolutely no way that treading water burns more calories than fast freestyle or breastroke laps! Whoever did this test must have been going like 1 mph.
Lift for a half hour and then get in the pool and swim for another half hour. Start slow, do some sprints, then warm down for a good 10+ minutes. Good cardio, will help build muscle if you eat right, and won't kill your knees or hips. Breaststroke is best for arms / pectorals, butterfly is good for abs, and frestyle/crawl is great for legs.
|
Fitting username, but I agree.
|
there is no way running is burning more than swimming.
unless you cant swim ofc.
|
The problem with this chart is that it's only taking into account calories burned during the exercise (frankly I wonder how they even do this), but it doesn't account for the rest of the day. Weightlifting and HIIT (i.e. running around really fast) has an effect on your metabolism but most of these exercises, especially running, basically stop once you stop.
On October 10 2013 17:32 Xahhk wrote:
Don't do long cardio sessions. Do high intensity cardio (sprinting, jumping) for set amounts of time without stopping, then taking a short break. Slowly increase activity to rest ratios as you get stronger.
This is crazy talk. :p
|
so what activities continue burning calories after stopping?
|
On October 11 2013 16:52 29 fps wrote:
so what activities continue burning calories after stopping?
Every somewhat prolonged activity basically. Your metabolism doesn't immediately go into saving mode when you stop.
I actually expected rock climbing to be on top. Boxing is also very tiring, especially since coordinating your breath is hard while having to react, and you have to accept hits on the abdomen to not lose cover for your face.
The highest consumption from running can't be achieved that easily. Running like that for a while requires a lot of training.
|
Guys, any activity is good. Usually higher intensity will burn more calories during said activity, and boost EPOC(burns calories at rest).
A mixture of strength training and cardiovascular exercise is probably best, because you get the best of both worlds.
|
On October 10 2013 11:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
If you're fat, there's no way you're running a 5.5 minute mile o.O
Follow your dreams
|
i like swimming.
Doesnt kill knees, 4 different styles, complicated techniques and it teaches willpower because if you get lazy and reduce force on you at the wrong times, you get inefficient and things get much worse than actually going through.
Plus of course, if you are a club swimmer and swim sometimes at hours open to public, you look like a total boss 
|
If only the scale would be higher, that'd be beneficial.
Also, sucks that many of the activities are running. I am 6'6" and about 300 lbs, and my fysiotherapist has told me I am not allowed to go running as that's going to absolutely destroy my knees (which are f-ed up already)
|
On October 11 2013 02:40 LaNague wrote:
there is no way running is burning more than swimming.
unless you cant swim ofc.
Why would you think that. There is more power/faster going into your biggest muscle groups in running for starters, IE; more calories.
On October 11 2013 03:37 Jerubaal wrote:
The problem with this chart is that it's only taking into account calories burned during the exercise (frankly I wonder how they even do this), but it doesn't account for the rest of the day. Weightlifting and HIIT (i.e. running around really fast) has an effect on your metabolism but most of these exercises, especially running, basically stop once you stop.
Well obviously there is no fireman climbing an hour high ladder.
I assume they hook up one of those things to each person's face that regulates and counts how much oxygen is used up, from that you can deduce (like I said earlier in the thread) a ratio of something like each liter of air is worth X amount of calories. And then probably have them do the activity for a short time 10-15 minutes and then multiply it x4 for the hour thing. Like I said, it's probably not perfectly accurate but it gives you a general idea of what's going on.
On October 12 2013 09:24 Aelonius wrote:
If only the scale would be higher, that'd be beneficial.
Also, sucks that many of the activities are running. I am 6'6" and about 300 lbs, and my physiotherapist has told me I am not allowed to go running as that's going to absolutely destroy my knees (which are f-ed up already)
fixed.
If you look at the individual charts you can see, generally, the calories burned goes up by about 50 for each 10 or 20 lbs. So you just need to do some quick math to figure it out. My friend and I actually were talking about he goes hiking all terrain for like 6 hours a day with a (he's 200 lbs) 50 lb load on his back. I Think we figured its like 4300 calories burned.
Yea, there are lots of options on there within the top 10 that are pretty good that don't involve the impacts. Cycling at very high pace, skindiving (which is basically like scuba diving without a tank), and some other stuff. Look at all the orange things.
If you are trying to lose weight, the most important thing to remember is just the diet part. It's much much easier to just not put the calories in than to try and burn them out. Our bodies are really good at keeping energy stored. It might help to just sort of make yourself more aware of how many calories something might be just by being able to eyeball it and keep a mental note in your head on how much you are eating. I make a game of it, I try and guess how much I think something might be before I check the label. I'm pretty accurate now.
http://twentytwowords.com/2013/02/18/various-foods-in-portions-of-200-calories-45-pictures/
Like I can eat a half of a bagel in 10 seconds and put in 100 calories, which is about the same as I burn when I run a mile in 11 minutes. You tell me what is easier.
Also, It is important to note that your size is really big, so your weight is going to be naturally higher at a regular level. So your caloric intake will be more closer to 2500 a day (just guessing here). I would bet if you dropped your intake to like the standard 2000 or 2200 a day you would start seeing weight slowly fall off every week. As a general protip, If you're not hungry all the time, you aren't burning calories (especially if you feel like you need 2nd helpings after each meal).
|
On October 12 2013 09:24 Aelonius wrote:
If only the scale would be higher, that'd be beneficial.
Also, sucks that many of the activities are running. I am 6'6" and about 300 lbs, and my fysiotherapist has told me I am not allowed to go running as that's going to absolutely destroy my knees (which are f-ed up already)
try out elliptical (stationary bike). super low impact so it's really easy on the joints.
|
I might be a little bit off the mark here, but I figured this may be a good place to get it straight.
When we look at calories, it is a set number. Does the type of food that generates those calories matter?
As example I take our local cantina at university. We've got 'fat' food (Dutch snacks that are indeed deep fried etc) with a certain calorie intake, yet when I take a baguette with tomato, cheese, lettuce and egg, it has more calories.
In my view, the number is relatively 'irrelevant' untill you actually have two 'healthy' things that are similar in terms of food-type. Am I wrong here or how do you see it? 
(PS: I am Dutch and our food has a lot of potatoes. That's nice and all, but I did notice I lost about 10lbs ever since I started cooking rice-based dishes 1-2x per week, and more importantly, change 95% of the soda intake to pure water. Yaaay)
|
On October 12 2013 20:23 Aelonius wrote:I might be a little bit off the mark here, but I figured this may be a good place to get it straight. When we look at calories, it is a set number. Does the type of food that generates those calories matter? As example I take our local cantina at university. We've got 'fat' food (Dutch snacks that are indeed deep fried etc) with a certain calorie intake, yet when I take a baguette with tomato, cheese, lettuce and egg, it has more calories. In my view, the number is relatively 'irrelevant' untill you actually have two 'healthy' things that are similar in terms of food-type. Am I wrong here or how do you see it? (PS: I am Dutch and our food has a lot of potatoes. That's nice and all, but I did notice I lost about 10lbs ever since I started cooking rice-based dishes 1-2x per week, and more importantly, change 95% of the soda intake to pure water. Yaaay)
I think that calories are a set value, so from a pure calorie standpoint, the baguette is worse. However, there's obviously more to healthy food that low calorie intake, what kind of fat it is, what vitamins it contains and all that good stuff.
I feel your PS though. I've been overight (grossly so) for several years since I lived in Japan (because I ate a ton and partied all the damn time with zero exercise) and my main key to start losing weight was to minimize carb intake. Instead of having 30% of my plate made up of potatoes, pasta and such, I went down to 5-10%, filling it up with sallad instead. It seems to make a really huge difference.
|
Aye!
I lived in China before for about 6 months, and lost like 5-10kg (10-20lbs~) while there due to the rice diet. I by no means paid attention to my food intake there and I still lost weight. So then I get back home in the Netherlands, with the typical food we eat here at home, and boom... in 6 months I went up with about 30lbs :/
I need to cook more for myself, but you know that feeling when you leave home at 07:00 AM and come back at 07:30 PM...
|
To get rid of fatty tissues, you need to get rid of the majority of sugar in your diet.
To lose weight, you need to take in fewer calories than you burn up. Rice/potatoes/pasta are examples of bad calorie foods because you will ingest a lot of calories to get the same amount of nutrition as other foods, and you still have to add other foods and flavours on top of the rice/potatoes/pasta. The rice diet that the Chinese generally eat just pushes you towards something like one or one and a half bowls of rice with lots of side dishes instead of a heaping of pasta alongside a heaping of sides or similar, which is a lot fewer calories.
If you do any significant amount of exercise though (some of the 1K cal activities Murphy listed), you generally have a lot more leeway in terms of eating, and after a long time of continuing those exercises, cutting the sugar intake is more significant than cutting your caloric intake, as long as you're being reasonable with the calories. If you want drastic differences, going with the low calorie, no sugar diet and a medium-high calorie activity will get you places the fastest. Otherwise, you can just do one of these activities, eat slightly better and achieve similar results after a year or something long.
|
On October 12 2013 20:23 Aelonius wrote:I might be a little bit off the mark here, but I figured this may be a good place to get it straight. When we look at calories, it is a set number. Does the type of food that generates those calories matter? As example I take our local cantina at university. We've got 'fat' food (Dutch snacks that are indeed deep fried etc) with a certain calorie intake, yet when I take a baguette with tomato, cheese, lettuce and egg, it has more calories. In my view, the number is relatively 'irrelevant' untill you actually have two 'healthy' things that are similar in terms of food-type. Am I wrong here or how do you see it? (PS: I am Dutch and our food has a lot of potatoes. That's nice and all, but I did notice I lost about 10lbs ever since I started cooking rice-based dishes 1-2x per week, and more importantly, change 95% of the soda intake to pure water. Yaaay)
I think your question is asking if it matters if all calories are the same? Or are some calories better than others? The short answer is calories are calories, and it doesn't matter if they're from a can of soda pop, a piece of fiber bread, a rack of ribs, or a bowl of vegetables or fruit.
Afaik, there is still somewhat debatable as research is done on this kind of thing a lot currently.
The reason why most diets seem to work, or why it seems that you lose weight eating different foods has to do with a couple things. 1, your fullness (the fiber content etc) and 2, how it is eaten (speed you eat, how much air is taken, how much chewing), and 3, size/portion in relation to calories it contains.
I'm going to assume a 1 oz bowl of rice contains far less calories than a 1oz bowl of potatoes (feel free to google it), therefor you could eat a lot more rice and gain less weight. To be honest though, both of those foods aren't very healthy. Potatoes have more nutrition in the skin.
Carbs are important, it's important to get them or else your body starts to cannibalize the muscle to preserve the fat.
Each nutrient has a purpose, and are required. The reason why all these fad diets work, are simply because a person begins to take in less calories (they usually aren't sustainable diets though). By all means, if you can sustain it though, do whatever works for you.
The most important thing to remember is that everything has calories, some foods have negative calories (even though they provide energy, it takes more for the body to process them), some have much bigger portions related to the calories, and some foods also come with great nutrients, vitamins, or minerals along with those calories.
So an example of a 12 oz can of soda, is obviously just water and a bunch of glucose calories. People often refer to this as 'empty calories' or 'empty carbs' which is sort of a misnomer. It contains almost no nutritional value.
On the other hand, a 12oz glass of 100% real orange juice w/ pulp also is essentially water and glucose, and contains a similar value of calories is also not really that good for you as far as weight loss etc. The only difference is that the OJ has fiber, and a bunch of vitamins and minerals that your body also needs so it is more valuable.
Soda an OJ are essentially just as bad for you. You're better off taking a glass of water and a vitamin. But if you are counting calories and carbs, then obviously go with the OJ instead of the soda.
PS- Fiber makes you feel full, start looking into foods high in fiber. They are good for you digestion system as well, especially since it helps slow down the process for all males who will eventually get some form of ass cancer (assuming you live long enough).
PPS- It's also important to remember that everyone is dealt a genetic hand. Some people have pocket aces on the metabolism, and some people have seven duce offsuit. These people just have to be more diligent and work harder to be healthy and may not even ever look as good as the people with the aces. That's just life, everyone is different sometimes.
My hand is probably like 89s, and I work enough to be about JTs. If I worked harder and I might have like KJs or KQo tops imho.
|
On October 16 2013 10:19 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 20:23 Aelonius wrote:I might be a little bit off the mark here, but I figured this may be a good place to get it straight. When we look at calories, it is a set number. Does the type of food that generates those calories matter? As example I take our local cantina at university. We've got 'fat' food (Dutch snacks that are indeed deep fried etc) with a certain calorie intake, yet when I take a baguette with tomato, cheese, lettuce and egg, it has more calories. In my view, the number is relatively 'irrelevant' untill you actually have two 'healthy' things that are similar in terms of food-type. Am I wrong here or how do you see it? (PS: I am Dutch and our food has a lot of potatoes. That's nice and all, but I did notice I lost about 10lbs ever since I started cooking rice-based dishes 1-2x per week, and more importantly, change 95% of the soda intake to pure water. Yaaay) Carbs are important, it's important to get them or else your body starts to cannibalize the muscle to preserve the fat. Each nutrient has a purpose, and are required. The reason why all these fad diets work, are simply because a person begins to take in less calories (they usually aren't sustainable diets though). By all means, if you can sustain it though, do whatever works for you.
That is a wrong.
'Normally, the carbohydrates contained in food are converted into glucose, which is then transported around the body and is particularly important in fuelling brain function. However, if there is very little carbohydrate in the diet, the liver converts fat into fatty acids and ketone bodies. The ketone bodies pass into the brain and replace glucose as an energy source.
The original therapeutic diet for paediatric epilepsy provides just enough protein for body growth and repair, and sufficient calories to maintain the correct weight for age and height. This classic ketogenic diet contains a 4:1 ratio by weight of fat to combined protein and carbohydrate. This is achieved by excluding high-carbohydrate foods such as starchy fruits and vegetables, bread, pasta, grains and sugar, while increasing the consumption of foods high in fat such as cream and butter'
Ketogenic diet. Its a very good form of dieting and very effective. People often times make the mistake to think 'fat' is bad, but in reality its too much carbohydrates that make people struggle (ofcourse in combination with too much fat). But saying carbohydrates are needed is wrong.
|
I find playing a round of golf in the middle of the day, while walking the course and carrying your own clubs is both a nice burn and also enjoyable at the same time.
But I don't think anything tops swimming.
|
On October 16 2013 17:15 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 10:19 MarlieChurphy wrote:On October 12 2013 20:23 Aelonius wrote:I might be a little bit off the mark here, but I figured this may be a good place to get it straight. When we look at calories, it is a set number. Does the type of food that generates those calories matter? As example I take our local cantina at university. We've got 'fat' food (Dutch snacks that are indeed deep fried etc) with a certain calorie intake, yet when I take a baguette with tomato, cheese, lettuce and egg, it has more calories. In my view, the number is relatively 'irrelevant' untill you actually have two 'healthy' things that are similar in terms of food-type. Am I wrong here or how do you see it? (PS: I am Dutch and our food has a lot of potatoes. That's nice and all, but I did notice I lost about 10lbs ever since I started cooking rice-based dishes 1-2x per week, and more importantly, change 95% of the soda intake to pure water. Yaaay) Carbs are important, it's important to get them or else your body starts to cannibalize the muscle to preserve the fat. Each nutrient has a purpose, and are required. The reason why all these fad diets work, are simply because a person begins to take in less calories (they usually aren't sustainable diets though). By all means, if you can sustain it though, do whatever works for you. That is a wrong. 'Normally, the carbohydrates contained in food are converted into glucose, which is then transported around the body and is particularly important in fuelling brain function. However, if there is very little carbohydrate in the diet, the liver converts fat into fatty acids and ketone bodies. The ketone bodies pass into the brain and replace glucose as an energy source. The original therapeutic diet for paediatric epilepsy provides just enough protein for body growth and repair, and sufficient calories to maintain the correct weight for age and height. This classic ketogenic diet contains a 4:1 ratio by weight of fat to combined protein and carbohydrate. This is achieved by excluding high-carbohydrate foods such as starchy fruits and vegetables, bread, pasta, grains and sugar, while increasing the consumption of foods high in fat such as cream and butter' Ketogenic diet. Its a very good form of dieting and very effective. People often times make the mistake to think 'fat' is bad, but in reality its too much carbohydrates that make people struggle (ofcourse in combination with too much fat). But saying carbohydrates are needed is wrong.
I don't see how what I said is wrong or contradictory to what you are suggesting.
There is an order to the way the body utilizes resources. Especially when the resources stop coming in. It knows to protect the vital organs and it will do this by first using the extraneous muscle proteins, when it is not getting enough from them, is when it starts to dig into the fat reserves. This is why people often recommend cutting carbs for 3-4 days so the body starts to dig into the fat and then re-upping on them to get the glycogen levels back up in the muscles.They keep doing this over and over and lifting weights so you are not losing too much muscle.
I don't know anything about paediatric epilepsy, do you have personal experience with that or something?
I agree with the sentiment about fats, but I think it's also important to note that cutting carbs or whatever nutrient out of your diet isn't the way you lose weight. It's simply the calories. People mistake the weight loss in these diets as carbs, or fats, or whatever, because they all the sudden cut out 1/3 of the shit they eat every day, which might be up to 1000 calories, so they lose weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
