Ask me anything! [FROM FAT to FIT]

T0FatToB3S1ck

I have a question. You say here that your advice is free and your online coaching is free. I followed your Facebook link and looked around your page and your July 28th post talks about prices.

So...Free or not free?

ritchiedrama

I have a question. You say here that your advice is free and your online coaching is free. I followed your Facebook link and looked around your page and your July 28th post talks about prices.

So...Free or not free?

My advice is free, my online coaching is not free. I can answer any question under the sun for you, I can work out your needs for you all free.

My coaching is a 12 week service and I don't advertise that here, because I'm here to help people who have questions.

I hope I didn't give out the wrong impression as I've not advertised my 12 week coaching service here as far as I am aware?

ritch

EDollah

Cardio is useless (my opinion) for anything other than health. For fat loss it is a poor investment in time.

I'm surprised no one has countered this yet, it's just abjectly wrong.

Since starting my exercise/diet regimen in April, I've averaged 3.5 pounds lost per week, 1.5 pounds are due to cardio. Before you say "but you're losing muscle", no, I'm not, verified via multiple body fat measurements. I lift weights to maintain muscle, cardio to lose fat.

I'm scheduled to hit my target in early January. If I were to cut out cardio, I would weight 20 pounds more (of fat) at that same date and not hit target until late April/early May.

I hate to dump on your thread, but "don't do cardio" is bad advise as a blanket statement. If you want to say "don't do cardio if..." fine, I'm sure that may be relevant for some people, but that is not true for all cases. Certainly not true in my case.

I am sorry but you are extremely wrong. I can link you to several articles and I will, at the end but I'll tell you why you're wrong, first.

Ok, first things first, I say it is a poor investment in time, because an hour on a treadmill, is not many calories burned, when you could eat 200 calories less and achieve the same effect.

Mathematics shows cardio is a poor investment in time for fat loss.

Obviously you're going to lose fat, at your weight because you're heavy - but it isn't the cardio thats doing it, its the fact you're in a caloric deficit. Science.

And here makes for some good reading: http://rippedbody.jp/so-you-really-think-running-will-get-you-those-abs/




Edit: Not to mention, there is no one 100% accurate way to test bodyfat, the same as there is no way to prove you lost 1.5 lbs of weight due to cardio, sorry everything you've said is flawed and I'll take science over your post.

LOL, everything I posted is based on science. I'll take my actual science over your broscience.

Note that I said I took MULTIPLE body fat readings. They were all consistent. Maybe they're all wrong based on your brand of "science". I'm not trying to prove that precisely 1.5 pounds/week were due to cardio. What I KNOW is that I target a 1000 calories deficit per day, which is... 2 pounds per week. I'll leave the grade school math to you to see what the remaining weight is.

In one hour, I can burn ~800 to 1000 calories. This is not just from results from the exercise equipment, but from the weight forecasting spreadsheet I created. Should I eat 800 to 1000 calories less to "get the same effect"? That would put me at consuming 800 to 1000 calories per day. No thanks.

I have empirical evidence, not conjecture, but data, that cardio has significantly aided my fat loss effort. You simply saying "you are extremely wrong" will not change the facts.

ritchiedrama

Cardio is useless (my opinion) for anything other than health. For fat loss it is a poor investment in time.

I'm surprised no one has countered this yet, it's just abjectly wrong.

Since starting my exercise/diet regimen in April, I've averaged 3.5 pounds lost per week, 1.5 pounds are due to cardio. Before you say "but you're losing muscle", no, I'm not, verified via multiple body fat measurements. I lift weights to maintain muscle, cardio to lose fat.

I'm scheduled to hit my target in early January. If I were to cut out cardio, I would weight 20 pounds more (of fat) at that same date and not hit target until late April/early May.

I hate to dump on your thread, but "don't do cardio" is bad advise as a blanket statement. If you want to say "don't do cardio if..." fine, I'm sure that may be relevant for some people, but that is not true for all cases. Certainly not true in my case.

I am sorry but you are extremely wrong. I can link you to several articles and I will, at the end but I'll tell you why you're wrong, first.

Ok, first things first, I say it is a poor investment in time, because an hour on a treadmill, is not many calories burned, when you could eat 200 calories less and achieve the same effect.

Mathematics shows cardio is a poor investment in time for fat loss.

Obviously you're going to lose fat, at your weight because you're heavy - but it isn't the cardio thats doing it, its the fact you're in a caloric deficit. Science.

And here makes for some good reading: http://rippedbody.jp/so-you-really-think-running-will-get-you-those-abs/




Edit: Not to mention, there is no one 100% accurate way to test bodyfat, the same as there is no way to prove you lost 1.5 lbs of weight due to cardio, sorry everything you've said is flawed and I'll take science over your post.

LOL, everything I posted is based on science. I'll take my actual science over your broscience.

Note that I said I took MULTIPLE body fat readings. They were all consistent. Maybe they're all wrong based on your brand of "science". I'm not trying to prove that precisely 1.5 pounds/week were due to cardio. What I KNOW is that I target a 1000 calories deficit per day, which is... 2 pounds per week. I'll leave the grade school math to you to see what the remaining weight is.

In one hour, I can burn ~800 to 1000 calories. This is not just from results from the exercise equipment, but from the weight forecasting spreadsheet I created. Should I eat 800 to 1000 calories less to "get the same effect"? That would put me at consuming 800 to 1000 calories per day. No thanks.

I have empirical evidence, not conjecture, but data, that cardio has significantly aided my fat loss effort. You simply saying "you are extremely wrong" will not change the facts.

Bro science? I am so against "bro science" its unbelievable so you can take that one back.

You are not burning 800-1000 calories in an hour with cardio.

Good day.

EDollah

Cardio is useless (my opinion) for anything other than health. For fat loss it is a poor investment in time.

I'm surprised no one has countered this yet, it's just abjectly wrong.

Since starting my exercise/diet regimen in April, I've averaged 3.5 pounds lost per week, 1.5 pounds are due to cardio. Before you say "but you're losing muscle", no, I'm not, verified via multiple body fat measurements. I lift weights to maintain muscle, cardio to lose fat.

I'm scheduled to hit my target in early January. If I were to cut out cardio, I would weight 20 pounds more (of fat) at that same date and not hit target until late April/early May.

I hate to dump on your thread, but "don't do cardio" is bad advise as a blanket statement. If you want to say "don't do cardio if..." fine, I'm sure that may be relevant for some people, but that is not true for all cases. Certainly not true in my case.

I am sorry but you are extremely wrong. I can link you to several articles and I will, at the end but I'll tell you why you're wrong, first.

Ok, first things first, I say it is a poor investment in time, because an hour on a treadmill, is not many calories burned, when you could eat 200 calories less and achieve the same effect.

Mathematics shows cardio is a poor investment in time for fat loss.

Obviously you're going to lose fat, at your weight because you're heavy - but it isn't the cardio thats doing it, its the fact you're in a caloric deficit. Science.

And here makes for some good reading: http://rippedbody.jp/so-you-really-think-running-will-get-you-those-abs/




Edit: Not to mention, there is no one 100% accurate way to test bodyfat, the same as there is no way to prove you lost 1.5 lbs of weight due to cardio, sorry everything you've said is flawed and I'll take science over your post.

LOL, everything I posted is based on science. I'll take my actual science over your broscience.

Note that I said I took MULTIPLE body fat readings. They were all consistent. Maybe they're all wrong based on your brand of "science". I'm not trying to prove that precisely 1.5 pounds/week were due to cardio. What I KNOW is that I target a 1000 calories deficit per day, which is... 2 pounds per week. I'll leave the grade school math to you to see what the remaining weight is.

In one hour, I can burn ~800 to 1000 calories. This is not just from results from the exercise equipment, but from the weight forecasting spreadsheet I created. Should I eat 800 to 1000 calories less to "get the same effect"? That would put me at consuming 800 to 1000 calories per day. No thanks.

I have empirical evidence, not conjecture, but data, that cardio has significantly aided my fat loss effort. You simply saying "you are extremely wrong" will not change the facts.

Bro science? I am so against "bro science" its unbelievable so you can take that one back.

You are not burning 800-1000 calories in an hour with cardio.

Good day.

I have proof that I do. You do not have proof that I don't.

Good day indeed.

ritchiedrama

I don't even really want to argue with you, because it's pointless - neither of us will win.

But, really, you are not burning 800-1000 calories in 1 hour. On top of that, there is no accurate way to prove that, unless you're having medical/scientific calculations done under you in extreme conditions.

You are being really silly right now and I'm sure if you were capable of burning 1000 calories an hour you would never have let yourself get to the weight you are at,, and no, that is not an "insult" that is just plain fact.

EDollah

I don't even really want to argue with you, because it's pointless - neither of us will win.

But, really, you are not burning 800-1000 calories in 1 hour. On top of that, there is no accurate way to prove that, unless you're having medical/scientific calculations done under you in extreme conditions.

You are being really silly right now and I'm sure if you were capable of burning 1000 calories an hour you would never have let yourself get to the weight you are at,, and no, that is not an "insult" that is just plain fact.

We are in 100% agreement of how pointless this is. I know what's working for me and how. You think you know something otherwise, somehow.

My ONLY point in posting at all on this thread is that I hope someone takes a skeptical view at the notion that cardio is a "bad investment of time" and does research for themselves to see if this statement is true for them before blindly following such advice.

ritchiedrama

I don't even really want to argue with you, because it's pointless - neither of us will win.

But, really, you are not burning 800-1000 calories in 1 hour. On top of that, there is no accurate way to prove that, unless you're having medical/scientific calculations done under you in extreme conditions.

You are being really silly right now and I'm sure if you were capable of burning 1000 calories an hour you would never have let yourself get to the weight you are at,, and no, that is not an "insult" that is just plain fact.

We are in 100% agreement of how pointless this is. I know what's working for me and how. You think you know something otherwise, somehow.

My ONLY point in posting at all on this thread is that I hope someone takes a skeptical view at the notion that cardio is a "bad investment of time" and does research for themselves to see if this statement is true for them before blindly following such advice.

Did you read the link I provided to you? That proves in itself that it is a bad investment in time. Maths.

EDollah

I don't even really want to argue with you, because it's pointless - neither of us will win.

But, really, you are not burning 800-1000 calories in 1 hour. On top of that, there is no accurate way to prove that, unless you're having medical/scientific calculations done under you in extreme conditions.

You are being really silly right now and I'm sure if you were capable of burning 1000 calories an hour you would never have let yourself get to the weight you are at,, and no, that is not an "insult" that is just plain fact.

We are in 100% agreement of how pointless this is. I know what's working for me and how. You think you know something otherwise, somehow.

My ONLY point in posting at all on this thread is that I hope someone takes a skeptical view at the notion that cardio is a "bad investment of time" and does research for themselves to see if this statement is true for them before blindly following such advice.

Did you read the link I provided to you? That proves in itself that it is a bad investment in time. Maths.

If you're aspiring to be some sort of fitness coach you should try to understand that not all cases are identical. The two use cases in that article are of people starting from an entirely different point than I did. My "case" would be nothing like those in the article and would provide an entirely different perspective and results. I'm not going to present my case though, I'm officially done. The last word is all yours.

ritchiedrama

I don't even really want to argue with you, because it's pointless - neither of us will win.

But, really, you are not burning 800-1000 calories in 1 hour. On top of that, there is no accurate way to prove that, unless you're having medical/scientific calculations done under you in extreme conditions.

You are being really silly right now and I'm sure if you were capable of burning 1000 calories an hour you would never have let yourself get to the weight you are at,, and no, that is not an "insult" that is just plain fact.

We are in 100% agreement of how pointless this is. I know what's working for me and how. You think you know something otherwise, somehow.

My ONLY point in posting at all on this thread is that I hope someone takes a skeptical view at the notion that cardio is a "bad investment of time" and does research for themselves to see if this statement is true for them before blindly following such advice.

Did you read the link I provided to you? That proves in itself that it is a bad investment in time. Maths.

If you're aspiring to be some sort of fitness coach you should try to understand that not all cases are identical. The two use cases in that article are of people starting from an entirely different point than I did. My "case" would be nothing like those in the article and would provide an entirely different perspective and results. I'm not going to present my case though, I'm officially done. The last word is all yours.

I am already a fitness coach. In terms of fat loss, it is and CAN all be created through a caloric deficit and people just need to learn to put the fork down, no-one is a special flower. Whether you have a medical issue or not, it doesn't matter, if you sort your caloric intake, you lose weight. And as you don't want to present your case, then I can't say anymore about it, but I'm sure my opinion would not change.

t1nk6

im on a 1200 cal diet.. every time i lose 6lb + in a week people tell me to up my calories, i check with the diet im on and its set at 1200 still.. i check with mfp and its set to 1200.... im confused a little.. and not losing much now at all ive put 3lb on the past few weeks

Hey, well, what is your current weight if you don't mind me asking?

Losing 6 lbs in a week is not possible (of pure fat) - if you lose that much consistently it is fat, water and muscle. But it sounds like you're losing water weight from changing foods in your diet, or something like that.

When you limit carbohydrates you are holding less water in your body, making you lighter.

Also if you drink more water, the more you use the bathroom, the lighter you are..

I can tell you more when you let me know your height, weight and age.

hmm yes sounds about right its not consistant i lost 9lb my first week then nothing or 1-3 other week, then out of nowhere 7lb then gaining it back 1-2llbs .. i seem to be stuck around 220 - 223

i cant excercise much ive been just walking when i can due to medical probs with my back

im 38, 223lbs , 5.9

ritchiedrama

im on a 1200 cal diet.. every time i lose 6lb + in a week people tell me to up my calories, i check with the diet im on and its set at 1200 still.. i check with mfp and its set to 1200.... im confused a little.. and not losing much now at all ive put 3lb on the past few weeks

Hey, well, what is your current weight if you don't mind me asking?

Losing 6 lbs in a week is not possible (of pure fat) - if you lose that much consistently it is fat, water and muscle. But it sounds like you're losing water weight from changing foods in your diet, or something like that.

When you limit carbohydrates you are holding less water in your body, making you lighter.

Also if you drink more water, the more you use the bathroom, the lighter you are..

I can tell you more when you let me know your height, weight and age.

hmm yes sounds about right its not consistant i lost 9lb my first week then nothing or 1-3 other week, then out of nowhere 7lb then gaining it back 1-2llbs .. i seem to be stuck around 220 - 223

i cant excercise much ive been just walking when i can due to medical probs with my back

im 38, 223lbs , 5.9

Well you don't NEED exercise to lose fat - weight training improves body composition, though.

working out your calories with a decent calculator..

you should be losing weight with..

1780 calories
66g carbs
178 protein(could lower that number and add more calories elsewhere)
90g fat

So to me it sounds like you're miscounting your calories, you won't like to hear it but I can't see any other option - you would 100% be losing weight every week on the scale at 1200 calories a day.

ArroganceInStep

Dyel

ritchiedrama

Dyel

No, can you teach me?!

dianefisher47

bump

ColleenRoss50

Looks like lots of sensible information. Bumping to read the rest later.

Kindone

Bump

snowbab

bump

t1nk6

im on a 1200 cal diet.. every time i lose 6lb + in a week people tell me to up my calories, i check with the diet im on and its set at 1200 still.. i check with mfp and its set to 1200.... im confused a little.. and not losing much now at all ive put 3lb on the past few weeks

Hey, well, what is your current weight if you don't mind me asking?

Losing 6 lbs in a week is not possible (of pure fat) - if you lose that much consistently it is fat, water and muscle. But it sounds like you're losing water weight from changing foods in your diet, or something like that.

When you limit carbohydrates you are holding less water in your body, making you lighter.

Also if you drink more water, the more you use the bathroom, the lighter you are..

I can tell you more when you let me know your height, weight and age.

hmm yes sounds about right its not consistant i lost 9lb my first week then nothing or 1-3 other week, then out of nowhere 7lb then gaining it back 1-2llbs .. i seem to be stuck around 220 - 223

i cant excercise much ive been just walking when i can due to medical probs with my back

im 38, 223lbs , 5.9

Well you don't NEED exercise to lose fat - weight training improves body composition, though.

working out your calories with a decent calculator..

you should be losing weight with..

1780 calories
66g carbs
178 protein(could lower that number and add more calories elsewhere)
90g fat

So to me it sounds like you're miscounting your calories, you won't like to hear it but I can't see any other option - you would 100% be losing weight every week on the scale at 1200 calories a day.

ok thanks ill look into it

Ely82010

BUMP A LOT