Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › for f... sake, its not rocket science
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

for f... sake, its not rocket science - Page 5

post #61 of 74
3/10/10 at 2:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cross22 View Post
Rather, take in less calories than you expend, big difference.

well the body is smart and if you just take in less... it will adjust and slow down metabolism. you can lose weight but its going to be slow.

so if you force it to expend through exercise its twofold: calorie deficit + increased metabolism.

its hard of course, because if you do exercise hard (especially lifting) the body will just scream for more food. its not rocket science indeed, its more of a mental challenge/ will power type of thing.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 74
3/10/10 at 3:06pm
These are in-fact complicated issues, and a lot of early beliefs are being challenged by new scientific findings: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...o-weight-loss/ Edit: From the article “"The message of our work is really simple,” although not agreeable to hear, Melanson said."
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 74
3/10/10 at 3:08pm
It is easy if you are talking about just getting skinny, which most guys don't want to do. If you are talking about bulking up with muscules and lossing fat it is pretty hard.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 74
3/10/10 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cross22 View Post
These are in-fact complicated issues, and a lot of early beliefs are being challenged by new scientific findings: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...o-weight-loss/
I had always thought that the "weight loss zone" they put on cardio machines was a myth, and that you're always better off doing the highest intensity you can manage to burn more cals overall. This says otherwise.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 74
3/10/10 at 3:16pm
eliminate sugar
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 74
3/10/10 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD_May View Post
I had always thought that the "weight loss zone" they put on cardio machines was a myth, and that you're always better off doing the highest intensity you can manage to burn more cals overall. This says otherwise.

That article is trash in so many ways. The study itself is interesting but by no means novel.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 74
3/10/10 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by otter View Post
sounds like you are either consuming too many calories, not eating clean enough or testosterone has dropped...or a combination of all 3

you can get your test levels checked out and if its below the the average for you age you can get some test patches prescribed

if you were my client i would perform a complete audit on your diet,as it doesnt make sense as to why you are putting on weight (fat) while maintaining a rigorous fitness regime


i stay lean through a weights program and clean eating. I dont rely on cardio, but have it as backup if i want to lose some weight

i have an honest question then, what does your typical weight training regimen look like? what are you doing personally that you have found to be successful in your training? i ask this because everybody always says the same thing "eat clean and lift weights". i have trained for years, played division-1 footballat U of I, been anywhere from 295lbs to 185lbs (which I am currently at now). I've had a lot of success with many different styles of training and it was a little more than just "eating clean and lifting weights". So, what have you found successfull...
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 74
3/10/10 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
That article is trash in so many ways. The study itself is interesting but by no means novel.
So my prior understanding was correct? Because I do some pretty high intensity cardio, my heart rate is more like 160-170.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 74
3/10/10 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD_May View Post
So my prior understanding was correct? Because I do some pretty high intensity cardio, my heart rate is more like 160-170.

Correct in what way?
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 74
3/10/10 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD_May View Post
I had always thought that the "weight loss zone" they put on cardio machines was a myth, and that you're always better off doing the highest intensity you can manage to burn more cals overall. This says otherwise.
^^intense being more effective
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 74
3/10/10 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD_May View Post
I had always thought that the "weight loss zone" they put on cardio machines was a myth, and that you're always better off doing the highest intensity you can manage to burn more cals overall. This says otherwise.

it's more efficient, but absolute value wise you burn less fat at low intensity than you would at high intensity

its more time efficient to do a high intensity work out to achieve the same amount of fat burn than in a low intensity work out
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 74
3/10/10 at 6:32pm
also from what I understand

calorie spent > calorie consumed = fat loss

is not always true

as not all calories are created equal.

http://www.naturalchampion.net/artic...0291/51175.htm
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa16.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15886898
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 74
3/12/10 at 3:11am
i like you otter.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 74
3/12/10 at 5:26am
eat ltos of eggs.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › for f... sake, its not rocket science