10 Simple things you can do to facilitate weight loss
Replies
-
I agree with everything but 3&4. I lost all my weight eating two meals and one small snack a day. It comes down to what works best for your schedule and level of hunger
0 -
are you lifting to failure?
MFP is amazing for counting calories with foods, but for exercising I've found it to be lacking. Try using Nike+ and see what that gives you for a simple run.
That's absolutely true
I linked the source in that last post if you missed itI think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.
Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/
From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting
I would like to hear more about this. According to MFP, I only burn about 3 calories a minute when I lift, but my cardio burns range from 8 to 11.
I have a BodyMedia which was generally step-in-step with MFP on cardio burns. I've recently started using my iPod Nano which has a fitness app (I think it's Nike+) and it's usually within 2-3 calories of what MFP and the BMF say. If I jog at 5 mph for half an hour, I will get credited with roughly 240 calories burned. Half an hour of weight training seems considerably less. I usually lift for an hour and MFP gives me 179 calories burned for that, so about 90 for a half hour...?0 -
read both articles
That's absolutely true
I linked the source in that last post if you missed itI think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.
Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/
From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting
Proof?
I did. Neither supports what you are saying.0 -
read both articles
That's absolutely true
I linked the source in that last post if you missed itI think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.
Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/
From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting
Proof?
Articles are not proof.
The first one sited a couple of studies but they didn't address your statement. People lost more fat with cardio AND weight training. It never said that 30 minutes of cardio burned less than 30 minutes of weight lifting.
The second didn't site any studies and also didn't support your claim.
Please cite where you got your information that made it so you could make that claim. Your teachers would not accept those articles as research, or at least they shouldn't if they're doing their jobs properly.0 -
it's been proven lifting heavy weights several times a week burns more calories than cardio due to the body expending energy rebuilding the muscle
I would like to see that study. Honestly, I would. Do you have a link to it?
This is coming from someone who is an avid supporter of weight lifting while attempting to lose weight...I've just never heard that before.
Don't know if this is what you mean but, I have the book "The New Rules of Lifting for Women' and it talks about an article published in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 2003 about a study done by the University of Colorado. They took a group of men and women and split them up and had half burn 400 calories doing cardio and the other half burn 400 calories doing weight lifting. What they discovered was that 15 hours after the weight workout, the men and women were burning 22 percent more fat then those that did the cardio training. It has to do with Fat oxidation and how our body uses oxygen to turn fat into energy.
Unfortunately I can't find the article on line, maybe because it is to old.
The important data you're leaving out is how much time was spent burning those 400 calories respectively. He's saying that equal time spent doing cardio vs weight lifting (30 minutes in the OPs example) will yield more calories burned via weight lifting.0 -
How many times do I have to report this guy on his previous post before someone stops him. Good grief.
Has he violated a forum guideline?0 -
I think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.
Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Dude sounds like he is having some success, is excited by that and wants to share...don't need to crap on that really.
I agree.0 -
Articles are not proof.
The first one sited a couple of studies but they didn't address your statement. People lost more fat with cardio AND weight training. It never said that 30 minutes of cardio burned less than 30 minutes of weight lifting.
The second didn't site any studies and also didn't support your claim.
Please site where you got your information that made it so you could make that claim. Your teachers would not accept those articles as research, or at least they shouldn't if they're doing their jobs properly.
Small tangent (you have valid points). The word you want is cite, as in citation.0 -
are you lifting to failure?
MFP is amazing for counting calories with foods, but for exercising I've found it to be lacking. Try using Nike+ and see what that gives you for a simple run.
That's absolutely true
I linked the source in that last post if you missed itI think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.
Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/
From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting
I would like to hear more about this. According to MFP, I only burn about 3 calories a minute when I lift, but my cardio burns range from 8 to 11.
I have a BodyMedia which was generally step-in-step with MFP on cardio burns. I've recently started using my iPod Nano which has a fitness app (I think it's Nike+) and it's usually within 2-3 calories of what MFP and the BMF say. If I jog at 5 mph for half an hour, I will get credited with roughly 240 calories burned. Half an hour of weight training seems considerably less. I usually lift for an hour and MFP gives me 179 calories burned for that, so about 90 for a half hour...?
Not every time, but I don't play around either. I did reach failure last night on my last set of shoulder presses. I had two to go and my arms just went "nope! We're done."0 -
Make time and plan accordingly1. Get an idea of what free time you'll have and plan what you'll do with that time accordingly
Weight solids, measure liquids2. Measure everything
Eh not necessary3. Eat smaller meals
4. Eat more meals
5. Eat more fiber
Not needed but a good idea for some people if you need reminding...I don't need that and it wouldn't facilitate my weight loss, might help others...6. Have a friend or family member willing to help you out remind you every so often
Good idea for health but not necessary for weight loss...7. Lift heavy weights 3-4 times a week
Yes this helps unless you have ADHD then eh.8. Be realistic with your expectations
9. Develop routines. If you have OCD, use that to your advantage
good for health and to keep water retention at bay...10. Drink more water, your body confuses hunger and thirst sometimes0 -
Articles are not proof.
The first one sited a couple of studies but they didn't address your statement. People lost more fat with cardio AND weight training. It never said that 30 minutes of cardio burned less than 30 minutes of weight lifting.
The second didn't site any studies and also didn't support your claim.
Please site where you got your information that made it so you could make that claim. Your teachers would not accept those articles as research, or at least they shouldn't if they're doing their jobs properly.
Small tangent (you have valid points). The word you want is cite, as in citation.
Typeos man, typos.
I do that sort of thing all the time. Quite maddening when I'm trying to come off as knowledgeable and stuff.0 -
2 simple things:
#1 log everything as accurately as possible honestly.
#2 exercise, lots however you find the most fun.
For me #2 is cycling.....2402 miles so far this year.
I don't have time for free time.0 -
MFP is amazing for counting calories with foods, but for exercising I've found it to be lacking. Try using Nike+ and see what that gives you for a simple run.
That's absolutely true
I linked the source in that last post if you missed itI think the advice OP gave in general is fairly good even if he is suffering from the standard "If it worked for me it will work for everyone so let me share my insights with the world" syndrome.
Personally I just tacked on "I found that for me personally...." onto each one of his statements and gave him the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/02/01/what-burns-more-calories-cardio-intervals-or-weight-training/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/421082-weights-vs-cardio-your-guide-to-the-perfect-body/
From the nerd fitness article:
"If time isn’t a factor for you, and you don’t mind spending more time in the gym on a daily basis, you can burn way more calories doing steady cardio than with just 30 minutes of weight training three days a week."
But 30 minutes of cardio will burn less calories than 30 minutes of weight lifting
I would like to hear more about this. According to MFP, I only burn about 3 calories a minute when I lift, but my cardio burns range from 8 to 11.
For the most accurate calculation of calories burned the best method is via HRM.
HRMs are only accurate for exercises that put you in an aerobic range and keep you there. They are total garbage for tracking burn from things like weight lifting where you go from extreme high intensity to rest.0 -
Okay...quick rant about proper citation because this is a pet peeve of mine. I think the lack of proper citation that runs absolutely rampant in our culture and media has completely destroyed the reliability of information and has made things exceedingly difficult where they should of been easy simply because people do not follow this simple rule.
If you read and understand a scientific study about something (primary source) then you can talk directly about that study and say things like "When study X was conducted they determined that blah and concluded bleh which is in support of what I am saying".
If, however, you read an article somewhere say on the internet and that article says that "study X was conducted they determined blah and concluded bleh" then you should NOT just refer to the study saying that. Why? Because you never read the study and because people don't bother to cite things properly chances are the person who wrote that article didn't read the study either, they just read some other article that talked about the study.
This is how misinformation gets propagated.
So how do you become intellectually honest with your referenced to things? Easy. Think of the primary literature (studies, research, etc) as what you should read if you want to cite what they say and think of everything else as Uncle Bob.
Then when you are trying to back up your argument be honest about it. If you actually read and understood a study say "Well I read a study conducted by blah that demonstrated bleh by showing that blah-de-blah and that supports my point". If instead you read and article that mentioned the study say this. "Well Uncle Bob told me there was a study that was done that supports my point.
See how much less convincing that sounds? Yeah, thats because now you are being honest and honestly all you know is that you read someone elses opinion. If you read about a study on an internet blog but didn't actually read the study itself you should be skeptical and not be convinced. Chances are the author of that article is just talking about what Uncle Bob told them.0 -
+1Okay...quick rant about proper citation because this is a pet peeve of mine. I think the lack of proper citation that runs absolutely rampant in our culture and media has completely destroyed the reliability of information and has made things exceedingly difficult where they should of been easy simply because people do not follow this simple rule.
If you read and understand a scientific study about something (primary source) then you can talk directly about that study and say things like "When study X was conducted they determined that blah and concluded bleh which is in support of what I am saying".
If, however, you read an article somewhere say on the internet and that article says that "study X was conducted they determined blah and concluded bleh" then you should NOT just refer to the study saying that. Why? Because you never read the study and because people don't bother to cite things properly chances are the person who wrote that article didn't read the study either, they just read some other article that talked about the study.
This is how misinformation gets propagated.
So how do you become intellectually honest with your referenced to things? Easy. Think of the primary literature (studies, research, etc) as what you should read if you want to cite what they say and think of everything else as Uncle Bob.
Then when you are trying to back up your argument be honest about it. If you actually read and understood a study say "Well I read a study conducted by blah that demonstrated bleh by showing that blah-de-blah and that supports my point". If instead you read and article that mentioned the study say this. "Well Uncle Bob told me there was a study that was done that supports my point.
See how much less convincing that sounds? Yeah, thats because now you are being honest and honestly all you know is that you read someone elses opinion. If you read about a study on an internet blog but didn't actually read the study itself you should be skeptical and not be convinced. Chances are the author of that article is just talking about what Uncle Bob told them.
And here is my list of things one can do to facilitate weight loss:
1) Caloric deficit
2) Caloric deficit
3) Caloric deficit
4) Caloric deficit
5) Caloric deficit
6) Caloric deficit
7) Caloric deficit
8) Caloric deficit
9) Caloric deficit
10) Caloric deficit 0 -
1. Get an idea of what free time you'll have and plan what you'll do with that time accordingly
2. Measure everything
3. Eat smaller meals
4. Eat more meals
5. Eat more fiber
6. Have a friend or family member willing to help you out remind you every so often
7. Lift heavy weights 3-4 times a week
8. Be realistic with your expectations
9. Develop routines. If you have OCD, use that to your advantage
10. Drink more water, your body confuses hunger and thirst sometimes
Can't stop, can you ? Stirring the pot that is. Some of your point are spot on......the other half is wrong, or at least they should not be carved-in-stone type of general advise, because they are personal references.
For example, I eat two large meals a day....because that's what I like and that's what keeps me from eating more......and I lose.0 -
Okay...quick rant about proper citation because this is a pet peeve of mine. I think the lack of proper citation that runs absolutely rampant in our culture and media has completely destroyed the reliability of information and has made things exceedingly difficult where they should of been easy simply because people do not follow this simple rule.
If you read and understand a scientific study about something (primary source) then you can talk directly about that study and say things like "When study X was conducted they determined that blah and concluded bleh which is in support of what I am saying".
If, however, you read an article somewhere say on the internet and that article says that "study X was conducted they determined blah and concluded bleh" then you should NOT just refer to the study saying that. Why? Because you never read the study and because people don't bother to cite things properly chances are the person who wrote that article didn't read the study either, they just read some other article that talked about the study.
This is how misinformation gets propagated.
So how do you become intellectually honest with your referenced to things? Easy. Think of the primary literature (studies, research, etc) as what you should read if you want to cite what they say and think of everything else as Uncle Bob.
Then when you are trying to back up your argument be honest about it. If you actually read and understood a study say "Well I read a study conducted by blah that demonstrated bleh by showing that blah-de-blah and that supports my point". If instead you read and article that mentioned the study say this. "Well Uncle Bob told me there was a study that was done that supports my point.
See how much less convincing that sounds? Yeah, thats because now you are being honest and honestly all you know is that you read someone elses opinion. If you read about a study on an internet blog but didn't actually read the study itself you should be skeptical and not be convinced. Chances are the author of that article is just talking about what Uncle Bob told them.
I completely agree with this rant with one small addendum. Studies/reports that are reviewing a body of research on a subject and coming up with a conclusion can count, assuming they are independent and are honestly reviewing the whole field of credible research projects to find trends and are upfront that this is a review, not new research. Also articles/books written by scientists to explain a concept to the lay person will count for me if the person is a credible scientist in that field of research and isn't trying to push an agenda but give you a broad view of a field of study. This can't be someone who is also hawking a product line or is a lobby group's favorite pet. A well written title will be very clear about what is accepted by the consensus, what is promising, and what is new areas yet to be explored (and will reference like crazy). I've read some great titles explaining where we are on shark research, pre-natal and post-natal neurological and sensory development, evolution, green energy/energy conservation technologies, astrophysics, and deciphering the human brain.
The Uncle Bob comment is spot on since a majority of "science articles" are written by journalists with no background in science. This has been a frequent complaint I've heard from scientists who do write.0 -
While appreciate your post, and I think you mean well, I also think you are forgetting about personal preference on several of your "things" above. For example, I, as a person who eats smaller meals throughout the day, will have no more successful weight loss than a person who eats the same amount of calories in two big meals (or one big meal, or three medium size meals). A calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss. Eat less than you burn and you will lose weight.1. Get an idea of what free time you'll have and plan what you'll do with that time accordingly
2. Measure everything
3. Eat smaller meals
4. Eat more meals
5. Eat more fiber
6. Have a friend or family member willing to help you out remind you every so often
7. Lift heavy weights 3-4 times a week
8. Be realistic with your expectations
9. Develop routines. If you have OCD, use that to your advantage
10. Drink more water, your body confuses hunger and thirst sometimes
Secondly, you don't measure food, you weigh it. Measurements are quite different than weights.
Eat more fiber is just a preference.
Personally, I don't need to have family and friends to remind me of anything. I am in charge of my weight and I have no business asking anybody to help me with this.
I LOVE lifting weights, so this "thing" resonated with me. Do it three times a week, and run the other two to three days. I live to exercise each morning because I love it so much. But, some people don't want to weight lift and that's okay. In fact, some people hate exercise and don't do it, and that's okay too.
The time management issues are just preference. Some of us have got that down.
Finally, yes, water is important for everyone and we need it and it helps quench our thirst, but just to be clear drinking more water does not mean we will lose weight. It just means we are hydrating our body well.0 -
Very good, excellent, in fact. Thanks for posting.0
-
Below is an article that supports you burn more calories doing body weight exercises than steady cardio. Draw your own conclusions when you add a heavy barbell to your routine.
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/01/do-we-systematically-underestimate.html
For Mr. Average Joe with a body weight of 80kg, this would mean that his 30 minutes body weight workout doesn't consume 288kcal, but 576kcal and thus way more than 30min of jogging, which should cost him ~400kcal.
Bottom line: I guess I don't have to tell you that these results are very important. Not for you, obviously, because you as a SuppVersity reader know about the fallacy of working out to burn energy, but for all those Average Joes and specifically Janes out there who still believe that you'd lose weight by simply burning all the junk you eat off in the gym.
Cardio "addicts" would yet not be the only ones for whom these results - if they turn out to be substantial - would have huge consequences. The average "expert" on the panels we owe the wise dietary and exercise guidelines to, would probably also have to revise his opinion on the primary of "cardio" exercise for its "superior ability to help shed weight"... unfortunately, my gut tells me that I am the only one who even noticed the (future) publication of this paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions