Does anyone know if this actually works?

Options
kaylerrz
kaylerrz Posts: 77 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=24mzwi0&s=8

You do 100 crunches, 90 jumping jacks, 80 lunges, 70 squats, 60 seconds running in place, 50 second plank, 40 jumping jacks, 30 squats, 20 high knees and 10 pushups .. and your supposed to lose 10 lbs in 2 weeks. Anybody tried it?

Replies

  • AwesomeGuy37
    AwesomeGuy37 Posts: 436 Member
    Options
    Without trying to sound ad nauseum...

    Weight loss depends on burning more calories than consumed.

    I failed.
  • Sherbog
    Sherbog Posts: 1,072 Member
    Options
    Well who knows since it is not mention the math of calorie intake minus calories burned?
  • Shropshire1959
    Shropshire1959 Posts: 982 Member
    Options
    EXERCISE is the LEAST important factor in losing weight ..... WEIGHT IS MADE IN THE KITCHEN
  • kaylerrz
    kaylerrz Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    i was just wondering if anyone had tried it and if it worked for them
  • dion_phaneuf3
    dion_phaneuf3 Posts: 2
    Options
    Best to go on slight deficit in calories (carbs primarily), do weight training 3 times a week, do some kind of circuit training (like 6-7 excercises, 20 sec each, 2-3 rounds) or HIIT. Dont eat anything at least 45-60 mins after your training, than you can eat/drink some protein. When you hit a fat loss plateau, go on a cut another calories (do this slowly, you dont want to go really low) and eventually start carb cycling. After your diet search for reverse dieting (on YT), so you will avoid gaining all that fat back.
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Options
    i was just wondering if anyone had tried it and if it worked for them

    If it causes you to burn more calories than you consumed...then yes, it will work.
  • JesterMFP
    JesterMFP Posts: 3,596 Member
    Options
    10 lbs in 2 weeks is not really a healthy or realistic goal either. If it "works" (and others are right - it comes down to overall energy balance, which is far more easily controlled through diet) then those 10 lbs will not be 10 lbs of pure fat. There would be a good chunk of water weight in there.

    That said, I doubt you would burn a great many calories doing that, so to drop 10 lbs you would also have to be eating minimal calories at the same time. Not a good idea.

    Personally, it would not "work" for me, because I would find that routine too boring to sustain. Find a way of eating you can stick to, and exercise that you love (or at least can tolerate) and go from there.
  • JesterMFP
    JesterMFP Posts: 3,596 Member
    Options
    i was just wondering if anyone had tried it and if it worked for them
    Thing is, there's nothing special about that routine. It's just exercise. Someone's listed some exercise moves and slapped a random "you can lose x lbs doing this" on it. It's just fitspo gimmickery. Sorry. :flowerforyou:
  • kaylerrz
    kaylerrz Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    i was just wondering was going to add it to my normal exercise of jogging and walking. Thanks for the advice :)
  • Cherylllyn
    Cherylllyn Posts: 114 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • Chris_Pierce
    Chris_Pierce Posts: 267 Member
    Options
    No. You'll need to burn 3000 calories more than you eat everyday for two weeks to lose 10 pounds. 10 pounds is 35,000 calories give or take a few.
  • KhatLady
    KhatLady Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    i was just wondering was going to add it to my normal exercise of jogging and walking. Thanks for the advice :)

    Some of that seems a little absurd if it's being geared at quick-fixers, which it certainly seems to be. I don't think I could do 90 jumping jacks in a row and then manage 80 lunges and 70 squats. Not without seriously injuring myself.

    If your normal workout is jogging and walking, try a strength workout like the beginner's bodyweight on Nerd Fitness. It's not nearly as demanding but it's a far better place to start than that gladiator-style routine.

Categories