How to lose weight...

daniwilford wrote: »

Kimegatron wrote: »

I was just wondering what kind of difference walking on a treadmill vs walking outdoors is? Treadmills kill my feet and my knees, and is way less gratifying than walking outdoors. I feel like treadmills propel me, and seems like I have to go farther on the machine than I do outside. Is that a thing, or am I just making this up in my head... lol

I too prefer walking outside. The varied terrain in walking outside works muscles in ways that a treadmill can only imitate. I only do the treadmill when the weather makes it uncomfortable to walk outside. I don't mind a gentle rain, but I draw the line at ice or hot/humid. In my climate that equates to about two month each in summer and winter.

Do you feel a difference in your walking, when on a treadmill? Meaning, is it less effective than outside terrain? I'm asking because I'm in Michigan, and there's no way the dog and I can go out in the winter for the length that we're used to. We have a gym here at work that I don't utilize because I uh... I just don't like gyms, lol

shell1005 wrote: »

Kimegatron wrote: »

daniwilford wrote: »

Kimegatron wrote: »

I was just wondering what kind of difference walking on a treadmill vs walking outdoors is? Treadmills kill my feet and my knees, and is way less gratifying than walking outdoors. I feel like treadmills propel me, and seems like I have to go farther on the machine than I do outside. Is that a thing, or am I just making this up in my head... lol

I too prefer walking outside. The varied terrain in walking outside works muscles in ways that a treadmill can only imitate. I only do the treadmill when the weather makes it uncomfortable to walk outside. I don't mind a gentle rain, but I draw the line at ice or hot/humid. In my climate that equates to about two month each in summer and winter.

Do you feel a difference in your walking, when on a treadmill? Meaning, is it less effective than outside terrain? I'm asking because I'm in Michigan, and there's no way the dog and I can go out in the winter for the length that we're used to. We have a gym here at work that I don't utilize because I uh... I just don't like gyms, lol

I honestly think it is just personal preference. I hate treadmills. I nickname them deadmills. Every inch feels like a mile, etc. When I am running outside....I can get caught up in looking at things on the streets and it just seems more like an actual experience. I've tried covering the time lapse and watching tv, etc....but I just feel like I am being punished when I am on a treadmill. Me no likey.

I hate them because they're so boring, and really hard on my feet/knees for some reason. I get bad foot cramps for some reason, too.

mantium999 wrote: »

Kimegatron wrote: »

I was just wondering what kind of difference walking on a treadmill vs walking outdoors is? Treadmills kill my feet and my knees, and is way less gratifying than walking outdoors. I feel like treadmills propel me, and seems like I have to go farther on the machine than I do outside. Is that a thing, or am I just making this up in my head... lol

I don't do treadmill, but wonder about this myself. On a treadmill you are moving your legs to account for a moving platform, while when walking your legs are required to propel yourself forward. I would think that the 2 are distictly different as far as muscular interaction are concerned, and thus would think a mile on the treadmill is not the same as a mile of real walking. But I have no data to describe this.

Maybe I will let you know during the Winter, HA!

Eat in a caloric deficit and you'll lose. It's unnecessary to give up anything.

rwhyte12 wrote: »

I have found that it's not calories in, calories out. I have found it is the composition of what I'm eating. So after some experimentation, I ended up at 100 grams of carbs or less, 80 to 100 grams of protein or more, 50-60 grams of good fat (olive oil mostly) fat and then low sugar. Sugar is usually only from fruits and vegetables. So that's what I'd suggest. You sound like you do a lot of exercise so when you just don't get to your goals, it feels bad. 100 grams of carbs gets you at least two slices of bread a day. It could be worth trying.

I agree that calories in versus calories out is not always reliable.

I've used MFP for a few years. The first time I dropped from about 235 to 182. The calories in / calories out plan worked fine for me.

Over the last couple years (not using the app), my weight inched back up to 200 pounds. I decided to start tracking again. I do at least an hour of cardiovascular a day and over the past 2 months have added in TRX at least twice a week. I'm confident that I'm getting my portion sizes mostly right and my calorie burn.

MFP said I should be losing 2 pounds a week. However, I'd lost just 3 pounds in 4 months. So I started doing research and learned that sugars, regardless of their source, cause insulin spikes that affect what gets stored as fat.

I eat a healthy diet with very little processed food, but was surprised that I was averaging about 78 grams of sugar a day. A lot was coming from fresh berries and bananas and also my yogurt and granola. I made a conscious effort to reduce sugars and lost 2 pounds in the last week. My total calorie intake/burn have stayed pretty much the same. Maybe a coincidence, but I don't think so.

I hope my experience is helpful to others.

Kimegatron wrote: »

Do you feel a difference in your walking, when on a treadmill? Meaning, is it less effective than outside terrain? I'm asking because I'm in Michigan, and there's no way the dog and I can go out in the winter for the length that we're used to. We have a gym here at work that I don't utilize because I uh... I just don't like gyms, lol

In calories burned it made no difference. I muscles worked it did make a difference and not in a good way. It tends to overwork some, while under working others.

Kimegatron wrote: »

I was just wondering what kind of difference walking on a treadmill vs walking outdoors is? Treadmills kill my feet and my knees, and is way less gratifying than walking outdoors. I feel like treadmills propel me, and seems like I have to go farther on the machine than I do outside. Is that a thing, or am I just making this up in my head... lol

Are you walking on the treadmill properly? Are you swinging your arms or holding on for dear life? If you are holding on, this will actually hurt you. Do NOT hold on! Swing your arms for a natural gait. I saw a guy who was nearly leaning backwards while having his incline set to 15, ouch! I reported it to the Y who send their fitness people after him.

bakerkate221 wrote: »

rwhyte12 wrote: »

I have found that it's not calories in, calories out. I have found it is the composition of what I'm eating. So after some experimentation, I ended up at 100 grams of carbs or less, 80 to 100 grams of protein or more, 50-60 grams of good fat (olive oil mostly) fat and then low sugar.

Well... From what I understand, carbohydrates and protein contain 4 calories per gram and fat is 9 calories per gram. So 100 grams each of carbs and protein plus 60 grams of fat would come out to 1340 calories, which, unless one is very small and inactive, would be a caloric deficit.

Based on my research and experience, CICO is the only thing that matters for weight loss: Eat at a deficit, and I'll lose weight. However, paying attention to macros can definitely make it easier to eat at a deficit. If I eat plenty of protein, I can stick to 1200 calories per day and not feel hungry.

Correct...whether you simply track macros or count calories, since macros have calories, what you are really doing is counting calories in a different way. It's still calorie counting. Some people may prefer to count macros instead, which can be helpful in terms of satiation.

NoIdea101NoIdea wrote: »

Wiley285 wrote: »

rwhyte12 wrote: »

I have found that it's not calories in, calories out. I have found it is the composition of what I'm eating. So after some experimentation, I ended up at 100 grams of carbs or less, 80 to 100 grams of protein or more, 50-60 grams of good fat (olive oil mostly) fat and then low sugar. Sugar is usually only from fruits and vegetables. So that's what I'd suggest. You sound like you do a lot of exercise so when you just don't get to your goals, it feels bad. 100 grams of carbs gets you at least two slices of bread a day. It could be worth trying.

I agree that calories in versus calories out is not always reliable.

I've used MFP for a few years. The first time I dropped from about 235 to 182. The calories in / calories out plan worked fine for me.

Over the last couple years (not using the app), my weight inched back up to 200 pounds. I decided to start tracking again. I do at least an hour of cardiovascular a day and over the past 2 months have added in TRX at least twice a week. I'm confident that I'm getting my portion sizes mostly right and my calorie burn.

MFP said I should be losing 2 pounds a week. However, I'd lost just 3 pounds in 4 months. So I started doing research and learned that sugars, regardless of their source, cause insulin spikes that affect what gets stored as fat.

I eat a healthy diet with very little processed food, but was surprised that I was averaging about 78 grams of sugar a day. A lot was coming from fresh berries and bananas and also my yogurt and granola. I made a conscious effort to reduce sugars and lost 2 pounds in the last week. My total calorie intake/burn have stayed pretty much the same. Maybe a coincidence, but I don't think so.

I hope my experience is helpful to others.

How is calories in versus calories out not always reliable? IT'S SCIENCE.

Yes, macro's and nutrition are important, for but for weight loss it IS calories in versus calories out, simple.

*Edited to say i understand that is your experience, and you are sharing it with the OP as an example, but statements such as 'calories in vs calories out being unreliable' are just wrong, and more likely to confuse the OP who already seems confused. And i know you're not the one who originally said that it doesn't matter, so apologies, but OP yes-it IS calories in vs calories out. Get yourself a food scale that measures in grams or some similar measurement, start weighing and logging everything for a couple of weeks and see what happens.

Wiley285 wrote: »

I'm not saying CI/CO doesn't work. Of course it works. What I'm trying to say is that there are other factors that come into play that can speed your weight loss. What SCIENCE says is that the body processes what you eat in different ways. Some cause insulin spikes, which causes a rush to store fats.

And yes, I have and use a food scale. Not only was I accurately tracking every single thing I ate, but I also was using an average heart beat calculator to compute exercise calories. I'm now down 7 pounds in less than 2 weeks after 4 months of dropping just 3 pounds. Total calories in and out stayed the same. Difference is that I changed what I ate. Far less sugar. Fewer refined foods. Cut way back on rice, potatoes and bread. I actually ate more, had to keep the calories in the same.

So definitely count calories in and out. It works. But do some reading about what you eat. You might find, as I have, that a few small changes can speed up your weight loss.

Sugars/carbs do make our fat stores hold onto more water weight, so when you cut them out thats why you got a nice whoosh on the scales (always lovely to see that )....what happens if you introduce them back into your diet? the glycogen stores will fill up again....In losing 7 pounds in 2 weeks most of that was water weight (the old it takes eating 3500 calories less to lose 1 pound etc thing...)
I agree with cutting the amount of refined foods, but in moderation they're fine. Personally I refuse to cut out food groups as there really is no need.