waldo56 Member

The strength training entry is hilariously low for anyone doing more than a relaxing workout with pink dumbbells. The high effort calisthenics is a better approximation (still low for many) for the calorie burn of strength training. About 2/3 of what you can burn in a similar time doing steady state cardio.

I personally use net cals, however I generally use gross cals when talking/writing about it since gross cals are more universal. Using gross cals lets you get around the issue that most people dramatically underestimate strength training calories. People that use net cals have to understand this otherwise gaining is going…

The ticker would work fine if they would just allow for negative numbers.

One thing missing from the best- A good old fashioned stopwatch. They are cheap (nice ones will set you back $10), durable, and very useful. Good ones will allow you track splits while running. You can time sprints easy. They are also good for tracking workout times and watching time between sets. Lots of fancier things…

The resistance band you step into would be the better option.

I highly doubt 2300 cal is a surplus for someone your size. The strength gains are stalling because you are in a calorie deficit.

There is a picture of someone doing a overhead barbell loaded pistol squat on a kettlebell on the top of page 3. Why on earth Crossfitters seem to be in to doing pistols on top of kettlebells I'll never know. Edit - This is a shot I took about a year ago doing a plyometric pistol:

BW exercise does not necessarily mean endurance training. A pure strength program is plenty possible with BW.

OR the more difficult form variations of pistols and shrimps (or my personal variation, tuck squats). Or natural hamstring curls. (or even natural leg extensions, which are almost more of a theoretical exercise than real due to difficulty) Basic pistol squats are FAR from the most difficult BW squat or BW leg exercise. Add…

There is not nearly enough ice cream in this thread. Ice cream is without peer as a good source of mass calories. Its like the old Miller Lite commercials: tastes great and less filling.

I'm sorry but I highly doubt you just accidentally got anorexic level underweight. As anyone that is lean can attest to, your body has very powerful hormonal defenses against starvation that become absolutely brutal and unbearable the leaner you get.

I do this. Well, not quite that extreme, but daily deficits well in excess of 1K cals despite being lean. But then again, I also have the conditions: - I'm coming off a bulk, meaning been eating a surplus daily for 2+ months. - I do it for 2 weeks (at most), before ramping right back up to bulking. The reason has to do…

Milk, the only food so nutritionally complete that you can survive on it and it alone for months on end, makes your not nutritionally dense list...

One thing that a lot of people that promote low carb diets don't understand is how the body changes with body fat levels. While most fat people will do well on a low carb diet, especially though that have insulin resistance to some degree (the morbid obese will almost universally do better on a low carb diet). As you get…

I use the typical nomenclature that intensity = load. So a strength workout with high intensity is low set volume, lots of rest between sets, and doing sets that reach failure in under 5 reps. Volume workouts, those are the ones that really crush you physically.

A bargain too. I get them at BJ's for less than $1 a bar. I love their chocolate-peanut butter.

Met-Rx Protein Plus Creamy Cookie Crisp are by far my favorite. Those things are awesome. They are like a big chocolate dipped oreo bar that just so happens to have 30g protein.

Yep, totally normal. Especially if you weren't eating a higher carb diet when you were losing. I wouldn't be so sure about that 2 lbs. Your first bulk, after a lot of weight loss, you might actually gain at a rate higher than that for a month or two.

Pretty much every long term study of the health differences between people regularly taking multivitamins and those that don't shows no benefit to doing so.

Physique You aren't naturally going to get big muscles without being hella strong, so getting strong is just a part of the overall picture. But I have zero drive to get stronger for getting strongers sake, I'm way beyond the point of diminishing returns on usefulness.

When you first start strength training, virtually all your surplus goes to fat if you are in a calorie surplus. That strength gain slowdown point is very important. Set to set recovery times increase a great deal as do workout to workout recovery times. At that point you are generating about as much tension as your muscles…

Did he just start strength training? If so, a calorie surplus is not appropriate, it will lead to fat gain more than anything. Ideally you should spend 4-6 months strength training first, get as strong as you can with your existing muscle mass, before attempting to gain more. You'll know you reached the point when you are…

6'1", 198 lbs, 32" waist

It was the same with smoking. People knew it was bad for you for a long time; slowly but surely the ball started rolling and it just became flat out uncool to smoke. It took a couple generations, but people eventually figured out how to deal with that particular negative in society. We are only a generation or two removed…

I just want to comment on your top picture. A lack of core strength and lack of shoulder mobility is causing your ribcage to flare forward to compensate for a lack of shoulder mobility with your arms over your head. Most people can see this in action very easy. Stand straight back against a wall, feet a couple inches in…

Give it time, I'd wager good $$ that a few demographic groups will have the trend reversed in a few years (in a more statistically significant manner), for a number of reasons, but one of the being technology (another one being the strong decline in rate of smoking among the same demographic groups). Very few gyms are that…

Interestingly, there is one demographic group that is seeing the rate of obesity decline. 18-29 year olds They've always been low, but are tracking even lower. According to gallup (obesity rate among 18-29 yr olds): 2008 - 17.4 2009 - 18.3 2010 - 18.1 2011 - 17.3 2012 - 17.2 2013 - 17.2 Interestingly, this would also be…

A couple points. If one is regularly exercising, just following the basic gov't guidelines, then there is plenty of evidence that a protein intake above the RDA is beneficial (up to about 0.8g/lb LBM). There is also plenty of evidence of a minimum fat intake. The basic flexible "rules" are pretty much based on current…

Fast food and eating out in general too much. Beer. Waaaaaaay too much beer. Always having a tube of cookie dough in the fridge and/or massive case of oreos in the cupboards. And attacking them thoroughly regularly. The only thing I really gave up though is the fast food; mostly became not lazy with cooking (fast food is…

Thus implying that grains are junk food, a pretty radical stance that big time cuts against common sense and the scientific community. Oatmeal = junk food.