How fit can you get from just walking?(gq.com)
gq.com
How fit can you get from just walking?
https://www.gq.com/story/get-fit-from-just-walking
279 comments
Reminds me of something Terry Crews said it in a Reddit AMA a while ago. This is inexact, but somebody asked how a person who is new to exercise should start going to the gym. Terry Crews' response was that this person should start by spending a week going to the gym, reading magazines for 45 minutes, and then going back home.
The idea was that this helps you develop the habit of going to the gym, having a pleasant time, and not seeing it as a scary and foreign place where everybody's better than you (you're probably not gonna get insecure about somebody else reading more magazines than you are). Once you have that habit and familiarity, you can start actually exercising without those mental obstacles.
Funny advice, but it's an interesting way of thinking about building new habits.
It also reminds me of people on various fitness subreddits who will expend a bunch of effort trying to craft an optimal workout routine when their baseline is barely working out at all. Just pick something you like and do it at a moderate intensity for a few months! It's way better than nothing, and you'll accumulate random knowledge along the way that will help you come up with something better later.
The idea was that this helps you develop the habit of going to the gym, having a pleasant time, and not seeing it as a scary and foreign place where everybody's better than you (you're probably not gonna get insecure about somebody else reading more magazines than you are). Once you have that habit and familiarity, you can start actually exercising without those mental obstacles.
Funny advice, but it's an interesting way of thinking about building new habits.
It also reminds me of people on various fitness subreddits who will expend a bunch of effort trying to craft an optimal workout routine when their baseline is barely working out at all. Just pick something you like and do it at a moderate intensity for a few months! It's way better than nothing, and you'll accumulate random knowledge along the way that will help you come up with something better later.
Perfect is the enemy of good
Temporarily embarassed movie stars
Ah, The cousins of the Temporarily embarrassed Billionaires/Entrepreneurs.
Is that some kind of meme that I missed the inception of? I've seen that "temporarily embarrassed ..." a couple of times in the last week.
Refers to a John Steinbeck quote, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
Steinbeck never actually said this. The closest he came (“temporarily embarrassed capitalists”) is actually in a description of the socialist movement itself, not its opponents: https://hellyesjohnsteinbeck.tumblr.com/post/23486952183/com...
> is actually in a description of the socialist movement itself,
While, overall, Steinbeck said something different, your description of the intent is incorrect. "I guess the trouble was that we didn’t have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist." - This can only make sense when attributed to capitalists (believers in it) regardless of what systems they are currently participating in. This is a subtle description of human nature at large, which is why it's so memorable.
While, overall, Steinbeck said something different, your description of the intent is incorrect. "I guess the trouble was that we didn’t have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist." - This can only make sense when attributed to capitalists (believers in it) regardless of what systems they are currently participating in. This is a subtle description of human nature at large, which is why it's so memorable.
No, this is wrong. The context for “we” is “most of the so-called Communists I met.” He is describing the people in the movement as temporarily embarrassed capitalists. It is the opposite of the apocryphal quote, which has Steinbeck positing that the reason the movement is unsuccessful as it being opposed by the temporarily embarrassed millionaires who should have embraced it.
> No, this is wrong.
My interpretation is not.
> most of the so-called Communists I met
> Steinbeck positing that the reason the movement is unsuccessful as it being opposed by the temporarily embarrassed millionaires
> This can only make sense when attributed to capitalists (believers in it) regardless of what systems they are currently participating in <--- ie Communist support or however you want to constrain it
The same phrasing you repeated, reiterates my point. Good luck with whatever.
My interpretation is not.
> most of the so-called Communists I met
> Steinbeck positing that the reason the movement is unsuccessful as it being opposed by the temporarily embarrassed millionaires
> This can only make sense when attributed to capitalists (believers in it) regardless of what systems they are currently participating in <--- ie Communist support or however you want to constrain it
The same phrasing you repeated, reiterates my point. Good luck with whatever.
No reason one can't be both at the same time.
This article covers the “super hero” plan well and the pluses and minuses: https://www.gq.com/story/fitness-how-to-get-chris-pratt-fit
What's going on here?
https://media.gq.com/photos/55a3daafdab0df6312e2710b/master/...
I'm not a fan of the mixed grip for someone who isn't doing this competitively, but that's personal preference. He's set up like he's going to squat it up which can be ok, but he's gripping it like a traditional deadlift, and the bar is way to far forward. If the bar were closer, he squatted a little more, and had a wide grip, he could be set up for a snatch.
https://media.gq.com/photos/55a3daafdab0df6312e2710b/master/...
I'm not a fan of the mixed grip for someone who isn't doing this competitively, but that's personal preference. He's set up like he's going to squat it up which can be ok, but he's gripping it like a traditional deadlift, and the bar is way to far forward. If the bar were closer, he squatted a little more, and had a wide grip, he could be set up for a snatch.
I'm a massive fan of walking for mental, psychological, and physical benefits and have been walking at least 25k steps a day for the last two years. The only (somewhat major) downside is that it takes quite a bit of time, some days, particularly weekends when I don't have work to do, I look at the clock and it's approaching dinner time and I feel like the day just disappeared without being able to sit down and relax at all.
25k is excessive in that regard and I wouldn't recommend that much, but 10k is incredibly achievable and I would highly recommend anyone make a habit of walking every day.
25k is excessive in that regard and I wouldn't recommend that much, but 10k is incredibly achievable and I would highly recommend anyone make a habit of walking every day.
I hate gym culture and I hate running too because the exercise is the 'core' of what you're doing in that time. Walking works for me because I can listen to new music and podcasts or sometimes just go through my mental monologue backlog without any stress. Living in an extremely walkable European capital is also a plus.
Human legs are heavily optimized for walking. Running is a hunting/fleeing mechanism and it just feels wrong for me to artificially simulate that stress environment.
Human legs are heavily optimized for walking. Running is a hunting/fleeing mechanism and it just feels wrong for me to artificially simulate that stress environment.
> I can listen to new music and podcasts
That's exactly what I started doing last year when covid hit. Before then, I used to do decent running / stepper cardio in the gym. When covid hit, I cancelled my bus pass membership and have been walking everywhere since then. I do all my groceries, buying pet food etc walking. It takes about 40 minutes and I get to listen to podcasts during then. I have even started to "plan" my groceries - so I only buy around 2-3 days worth of meat and that ends up forcing me to leave the house at least every couple days. I sometimes plan things like buying larger items like toilet paper on separate days so I can walk with all my items without having to do uber or something else.
That's exactly what I started doing last year when covid hit. Before then, I used to do decent running / stepper cardio in the gym. When covid hit, I cancelled my bus pass membership and have been walking everywhere since then. I do all my groceries, buying pet food etc walking. It takes about 40 minutes and I get to listen to podcasts during then. I have even started to "plan" my groceries - so I only buy around 2-3 days worth of meat and that ends up forcing me to leave the house at least every couple days. I sometimes plan things like buying larger items like toilet paper on separate days so I can walk with all my items without having to do uber or something else.
Yes haha, I've also been 'cheating' myself to walk more. Grocery planning as you mentioned, also picking up food from far away restaurants that I miss due to the lockdown.
> Walking works for me because I can listen to new music and podcasts or sometimes just go through my mental monologue backlog without any stress.
That's why I like running.
That's why I like running.
Any sort of intense exercise makes it impossible for me to actually think or concentrate on listening. It's a heightened state in many ways biochemically and is very different from the calm that walking gives.
Running would just make what I'm listening to background noise, but that's not the correct level of engagement I want. I want 'exercise' to be the side effect and not the main activity I'm engaging in. Running is the other way around.
Running would just make what I'm listening to background noise, but that's not the correct level of engagement I want. I want 'exercise' to be the side effect and not the main activity I'm engaging in. Running is the other way around.
My dad is a competitive runner and ultramarathoner (now well into his 60s). One of his favorite sayings is ‘how do you know if you’re a runner? If you don’t think about running while doing it.’ I finally got into it too, and for me/us it’s much more like meditation. Or taking a hot shower. I let my mind wander, come up with most of my best ideas, and generally don’t think much about running while out there.
If you can’t do this you’re probably running too fast for your fitness level. I was for a long time.
If you can’t do this you’re probably running too fast for your fitness level. I was for a long time.
That's interesting. I don't usually think about running while running. And I do find the state somewhat meditative, especially since I find I usually observe my breathing and the sound of my feet on the ground.
But this feels more like a "trance" to me, in that I seem to not actively think about anything at all, I just "observe".
But this feels more like a "trance" to me, in that I seem to not actively think about anything at all, I just "observe".
I agree, and also find it meditative. I also feel like your thoughts engage differently when running. Some of the most incredible conversations I've ever had have been on long runs (marathon training, so multi-hour runs) with a friend - at some point you just start sharing and releasing vulnerability, and discuss things you would never talk to each other about otherwise (for clarity, not because it might be an embarrassing topic, but rather just very internal).
I generally can't think coherently if I'm doing a 9mph interval for a short time (this is 170-180bpm heart rate territory for me) but I actually prefer that mental state. I wish I could get that same mindset at my lower speed (5-6mph) because the time melts away. It feels like a flow state in a good way but with no focus.
I think you are running too fast. For years I detested running because of what you mentioned as well as it just draining me mentally. My mistake was trying to kill myself on every run. Now I run significantly slower- by the end of most of my runs I am not even breathing heavily. This is actually recommended, as well
You could try running significantly slower (jogging, ~10 min/mi pace). Worked well for me.
Yes this is actually an important factor that is often overlooked.
For the longest time i ran really fast to the point of exhaustion, ,sometimes with small pauses interval style.
Then i tried running slower, which was actually hard for me for some reason, but could go much longer, and with less tax on my sympathetic nervous system and joints.
I've also seen people do the "powerwalking" thing so that's also an option.
For the longest time i ran really fast to the point of exhaustion, ,sometimes with small pauses interval style.
Then i tried running slower, which was actually hard for me for some reason, but could go much longer, and with less tax on my sympathetic nervous system and joints.
I've also seen people do the "powerwalking" thing so that's also an option.
> I want 'exercise' to be the side effect and not the main activity I'm engaging in. Running is the other way around.
What I meant is for me running is the background and it's mostly automatic. I can listen or think about things and they are my primary focus.
I'd say it takes a few months to get to this level but for most people it's doable.
What I meant is for me running is the background and it's mostly automatic. I can listen or think about things and they are my primary focus.
I'd say it takes a few months to get to this level but for most people it's doable.
A neighbor's son runs cross country for his high school. She quoted him last fall or winter as saying that he didn't miss the classroom, he missed the conversations on long training runs. It has been a long time (maybe 35 years) since I did much running with anyone, but I do remember conversations.
When reading about improving sleep, it seems the evidence points toward rhythmic exercise being important. The repetition of running and swimming seems to help (vs say interval training).
You should try running slower at a conversational pace. It's much more aerobic at that pace, and is more meditative and more stress-relieving than stressful.
Have you tried running on CBD?
Explain?
Running high
Use CBD (from cannabis) tincture in the mouth, or loose leaf vaporized, before and after running, can reduce recovery time and inflammation.
> Running is a hunting/fleeing mechanism and it just feels wrong for me to artificially simulate that stress environment.
"Artificially simulate that stress environment?" Is that a joke? Exercise is [physical] stress. What about that seems "wrong" to you?
"Artificially simulate that stress environment?" Is that a joke? Exercise is [physical] stress. What about that seems "wrong" to you?
No, no humour was intended by a purely subjective statement that intense exercise is more or less a deeply unpleasant experience for my body and my brain. The fact that it is beneficial to long term vitality is orthogonal to how it makes me feel and why I am almost never motivated to do it.
Just to be clear: if running is "intense exercise" that means you're doing it wrong, and you will have a much better time of it if you slow down to easy conversational pace. (People usually use the run-walk method to develop such a pace in the beginning.) The thing about exercise and human biology is that there is some room for subjective statements, but not that much room. I, for one, find it quite pleasant about exercise that it doesn't matter how it makes me feel temporarily, that it works so long as I do the right thing.
There's an argument that stress is bad, because it forces the body to prioritise immediate survival at the expense of long term health.
However, simulating a hunt should be good for the health since it informs the body that it is in a prey rich environment. The same goes for other stressful but evolutionary fitness promoting activities such as sex.
However, simulating a hunt should be good for the health since it informs the body that it is in a prey rich environment. The same goes for other stressful but evolutionary fitness promoting activities such as sex.
Any stress-related problems from running (not a point I'm conceding as I've never seen evidence of any) certainly outweighs the long-term problems from being overweight and out of shape with the lower respiratory capacity to boot.
I understand what you're saying and in my experience, while lifting weights or running, I don't really think about anything but the current action.
However, I find that taking this time "off" from my usual activities, especially during the work day, is like a breath of fresh air (pun not initially intended).
Yes, I also find that walking allows me to either listen to podcasts, music, or just think about random things. I will even start walking around my apartment or my parents' garden when I need to think over a difficult problem.
But I find, more and more, that being "on" all the time and trying to optimise every last minute of the day isn't all that... optimal.
Taking, say, an hour off work every day [0], during which I absolutely do not think about work at all, and only focus on the feeling of my muscles working or my breathing during a run has enormous consequences on my thinking about work when I actually get back. I find that this helps be much, much more focused than had I staid at my desk browsing random things on the internet or even walking and having my thoughts drift back to whatever it was I was working on. Bonus points for this removing my back and other random pains while sitting.
To me, those are different "tools", each with its own purpose.
---
[0] I don't run for long periods of time and am not looking to run a marathon. My goal is usually to run around 30 minutes, just enough to give my cardiovascular system a bit of a workout. So all in all, it takes me around 1h, counting the cool-down period (when the thinking random thoughts process comes back), washing my clothes and showering.
However, I find that taking this time "off" from my usual activities, especially during the work day, is like a breath of fresh air (pun not initially intended).
Yes, I also find that walking allows me to either listen to podcasts, music, or just think about random things. I will even start walking around my apartment or my parents' garden when I need to think over a difficult problem.
But I find, more and more, that being "on" all the time and trying to optimise every last minute of the day isn't all that... optimal.
Taking, say, an hour off work every day [0], during which I absolutely do not think about work at all, and only focus on the feeling of my muscles working or my breathing during a run has enormous consequences on my thinking about work when I actually get back. I find that this helps be much, much more focused than had I staid at my desk browsing random things on the internet or even walking and having my thoughts drift back to whatever it was I was working on. Bonus points for this removing my back and other random pains while sitting.
To me, those are different "tools", each with its own purpose.
---
[0] I don't run for long periods of time and am not looking to run a marathon. My goal is usually to run around 30 minutes, just enough to give my cardiovascular system a bit of a workout. So all in all, it takes me around 1h, counting the cool-down period (when the thinking random thoughts process comes back), washing my clothes and showering.
Me too! I call it "hamster wheel exercise" (not sure where I heard that term). Bike commuting to work feels very different than simply biking in a circle after work.
Pandemic has not been kind to the bathroom scale. I lost my regular exercise but my diet got worse from stress eating.
Pandemic has not been kind to the bathroom scale. I lost my regular exercise but my diet got worse from stress eating.
10-15k steps is (relatively) easily achievable simply by not driving. Walking to the office, walking to the shop, walking over to a friend's house for dinner, etc. It takes a little more time than driving, but not as much as one might fear (I'm guessing, I've never owned a car). It keeps you fit(ish). It helps you sober up after getting drunk in a bar. It helps you unwind from a shitty day at the office. Throw in the occasional random walk and you'll reach 10k+ easily.
I basically do everything on foot that is within a 5k step radius. I make allowances for when I'm carrying heavy stuff (once made the mistake of walking 7km with a 10liter bucket of paint). It's not something I would recommend to everyone, but I would recommend it to almost everyone.
I basically do everything on foot that is within a 5k step radius. I make allowances for when I'm carrying heavy stuff (once made the mistake of walking 7km with a 10liter bucket of paint). It's not something I would recommend to everyone, but I would recommend it to almost everyone.
That really only works in urban areas, the suburbs are just too spread out. It would take me over that many steps to get to a bus stop that would get me to work. If I wanted to walk the whole way, I'd be walking along roads without sidewalks most of way. Google maps has it as over 4 hours to get to my closest friends place on foot, a 25 minute drive.
Maybe shift a bit to running? You should be able to jog without breaking much of a sweat now, and it's more time-efficient than walking for getting steps in.
For me, I really like getting out for a walk but don't care for running at all. It's not a matter of sweating--if there were walking/hiking available that involved some climbing convenient I'd do that. But just don't enjoy running and it falls into the category of maybe tomorrow.
Agreed, sweating and needing to take a shower afterward is annoying, and I also tend to push myself to near limit when running so I'm just completely out of breath the entire time and miserable. And my knees get pretty annoyed with me if I do it too often or for too much at a time.
Weighted or incline walking is a great compromise to increase effort, but I do enough strenuous activity with weight training that I would rather take it easy and enjoy the walk instead most of the time.
Weighted or incline walking is a great compromise to increase effort, but I do enough strenuous activity with weight training that I would rather take it easy and enjoy the walk instead most of the time.
I do also run occasionally when the weather is nice. My cardio of choice is bicycling, which I do twice a week either for 1.5 hours on a trainer or 40 miles (~2.5 hours) outdoors.
I used to run a lot more, but I never actually enjoyed it. I just forced myself to do it to burn calories. Walking I enjoy much more, so I do that more now instead.
I used to run a lot more, but I never actually enjoyed it. I just forced myself to do it to burn calories. Walking I enjoy much more, so I do that more now instead.
I had a mentally rough start to my work life. I graduated as an engineer in 2009 and for several years I couldn't really make much choices for myself, but after 7 years I quit having a boos. I now work for myself and all is good.
Anyway. One of the important steps (pun somewhat intended) of getting back in mental shape was to walk part of the way back from work. If I would have walked all the way that would probably have been something like 80 k steps and I could get off the train at several places on that way. And since I could also get on it again I could both choose the length of my walks and the vary where they took place.
My record during that period was a day where I in tota walked almost 40 k steps. There is something that happens after about 3-4 hours of walking like that. At least I can achieve something similar to a runners high. Also, I had some problems around let's say my more sensitive parts, which also got completely fixed by that treatment.
If you've just walked for 1-1.5 hours, that's still good and everything. But if you have the time and have some mental/physical problems, and like walking, try 3-4 hours several times a week. There's some magic in that. I recommend having a start and a goal but taking different paths and exploring. Listen to some pods sure, but also explore and think. Most important though, put in those 25 k + steps, and do it in a pace you like!
Anyway. One of the important steps (pun somewhat intended) of getting back in mental shape was to walk part of the way back from work. If I would have walked all the way that would probably have been something like 80 k steps and I could get off the train at several places on that way. And since I could also get on it again I could both choose the length of my walks and the vary where they took place.
My record during that period was a day where I in tota walked almost 40 k steps. There is something that happens after about 3-4 hours of walking like that. At least I can achieve something similar to a runners high. Also, I had some problems around let's say my more sensitive parts, which also got completely fixed by that treatment.
If you've just walked for 1-1.5 hours, that's still good and everything. But if you have the time and have some mental/physical problems, and like walking, try 3-4 hours several times a week. There's some magic in that. I recommend having a start and a goal but taking different paths and exploring. Listen to some pods sure, but also explore and think. Most important though, put in those 25 k + steps, and do it in a pace you like!
I do these walks on weekends. Doing 25k steps usually takes me a little over 3 hours (3 and ~20 mins). I walk the exact same route each time. When I work in the office, on such day I usually do about 10k step. I wish I had the time to walk more, for me it's almost as good as sleeping (brain wise).
Wow, 25k is a LOT! I try to average 7-8k a day, and post-Covid I hope to bring that average to 10k a day. It's the perfect base to stay healthy for me, with all other more intense cardiovascular exercise (e.g. strength training or HIIT) being extra 2 or 3 times a week.
25k would really take a huge chunk out of my day, I think at least 3 - 3.5 hours or so. But it really depends, working from home means I'm sedentary all day. In other jobs you wouldn't have to squeeze everything into the few evening hours so much.
The biggest issue I have with walking is that the city becomes a bit boring. I love walking and exploring, but I've also lived in the capital city of my country for decades. Every day is new and brings new little experiences, yet also many similar ones. Especially because I'm always leaving and returning from and to the same place, there's a limit to my routes. I've walked the same streets thousands of times by now. On holidays in Europe or Asia I easily hit >40k steps daily because it's just so much fun, every corner brings something new, architecture, a river, a forest, a square or park, or lots of little shops or eateries or public art pieces.
25k would really take a huge chunk out of my day, I think at least 3 - 3.5 hours or so. But it really depends, working from home means I'm sedentary all day. In other jobs you wouldn't have to squeeze everything into the few evening hours so much.
The biggest issue I have with walking is that the city becomes a bit boring. I love walking and exploring, but I've also lived in the capital city of my country for decades. Every day is new and brings new little experiences, yet also many similar ones. Especially because I'm always leaving and returning from and to the same place, there's a limit to my routes. I've walked the same streets thousands of times by now. On holidays in Europe or Asia I easily hit >40k steps daily because it's just so much fun, every corner brings something new, architecture, a river, a forest, a square or park, or lots of little shops or eateries or public art pieces.
Agreed, it is much more pleasant when exploring. These days I also end up often seeing mostly the same things in my few staple routes, but also usually something new as well.
I usually listen to audiobooks or bring a book to read when taking a path I've taken before, which usually alleviates the boredom problem. But it's not always necessary, sometimes if I'm in an energy surplus from delicious bread and sweets walking just feels so good on its own.
I usually listen to audiobooks or bring a book to read when taking a path I've taken before, which usually alleviates the boredom problem. But it's not always necessary, sometimes if I'm in an energy surplus from delicious bread and sweets walking just feels so good on its own.
> The biggest issue I have with walking is that the city becomes a bit boring.
Check out StreetComplete -- I find it a great way to give walks a little more purpose.
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete
Check out StreetComplete -- I find it a great way to give walks a little more purpose.
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete
> 25k steps
14 mi, 22 km, 3.5+ hr?
14 mi, 22 km, 3.5+ hr?
Crawling may be even better. Not even hands and knees but on your belly. I've been working in the crawl space under my house for the last couple of weeks and it is kicking my ass. It's very much a whole body workout. Maybe babies are smarter than they look.
Roll. It's the fastest way to move under a house (I'm a plumber/electrician).
You missed the part where it isn't supposed to feel hard (author's words, not mine)
Crawling definitely helps, it's a common parkour exercise.
Monkeys too
> long walks have been a hidden weapon of superhero body transformations for ages.
Really? And here I thought the hidden weapon of celebrity body transformation was steroids.
When so many other athletics endeavours have widespread doping, despite testing? And somehow Hugh Jackman at age 50 is more ripped than Lance Armstrong was at age 30? And the secret weapon is walking? Sure.
Really? And here I thought the hidden weapon of celebrity body transformation was steroids.
When so many other athletics endeavours have widespread doping, despite testing? And somehow Hugh Jackman at age 50 is more ripped than Lance Armstrong was at age 30? And the secret weapon is walking? Sure.
> And here I thought the hidden weapon of celebrity body transformation was steroids.
The hidden (not so much, plenty are open about it) weapon of celebrity body transformation is (1) having plenty of resources for dietitians, trainers, equipment, etc., and (2) having it be central to your livelihood so that you can literally spend as great a proportion of your waking hours on it as necessary.
The hidden (not so much, plenty are open about it) weapon of celebrity body transformation is (1) having plenty of resources for dietitians, trainers, equipment, etc., and (2) having it be central to your livelihood so that you can literally spend as great a proportion of your waking hours on it as necessary.
I used to this this. Now I think it's mostly the steroids.
I mean, yes, obviously having trainers helps, but really the basics of a good exercise plan are pretty readily available. As for equipment, really most gyms have enough equipment to get 95% of what most actors achieve.
And yes, it's part of their livelihood, but they can't actually spend every waking hour on training. Both because it's actually detrimental to gaining more muscle, but also because actors actually do have other things to do, like acting in other things, learning lines, appearances, etc.
This is not to take away from their hard work and sacrifices w.r.t. diet. Obviously they have to work very hard at it. But the actual reason most people won't end up "looking like a super-hero", even if they can devote lots of time to training and dieting, is because of the steroids.
(Lots of people do take steroids, btw.)
I mean, yes, obviously having trainers helps, but really the basics of a good exercise plan are pretty readily available. As for equipment, really most gyms have enough equipment to get 95% of what most actors achieve.
And yes, it's part of their livelihood, but they can't actually spend every waking hour on training. Both because it's actually detrimental to gaining more muscle, but also because actors actually do have other things to do, like acting in other things, learning lines, appearances, etc.
This is not to take away from their hard work and sacrifices w.r.t. diet. Obviously they have to work very hard at it. But the actual reason most people won't end up "looking like a super-hero", even if they can devote lots of time to training and dieting, is because of the steroids.
(Lots of people do take steroids, btw.)
> I mean, yes, obviously having trainers helps, but really the basics of a good exercise plan are pretty readily available. As for equipment, really most gyms have enough equipment to get 95% of what most actors achieve.
No it's 100%. What do actors have that can't be done with a gym?
> Obviously they have to work very hard at it.
How hard do they really have to work if they are taking powerful steroids? The roids will have large effects even with minimal training.
No it's 100%. What do actors have that can't be done with a gym?
> Obviously they have to work very hard at it.
How hard do they really have to work if they are taking powerful steroids? The roids will have large effects even with minimal training.
> No it's 100%. What do actors have that can't be done with a gym?
I mean, sometimes there are fancy machines. E.g. in a video on Kumail Nanjiani (whom I love, btw), they talk about using that machine which runs electricity through the muscles to aid in contraction. Or something, I really don't know. Most people won't have access to that.
But neither did the bodybuilders of the 70s, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he still managed to get a pretty impressive physique :)
> How hard do they really have to work if they are taking powerful steroids? The roids will have large effects even with minimal training.
Honestly, I really don't know, there's a raging debate on just how much the steroids help assuming no training, and since I have no hands-on experience and am not planning to get some, I'm not sure how big an effect it really is (again, assuming no training).
I mean, sometimes there are fancy machines. E.g. in a video on Kumail Nanjiani (whom I love, btw), they talk about using that machine which runs electricity through the muscles to aid in contraction. Or something, I really don't know. Most people won't have access to that.
But neither did the bodybuilders of the 70s, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he still managed to get a pretty impressive physique :)
> How hard do they really have to work if they are taking powerful steroids? The roids will have large effects even with minimal training.
Honestly, I really don't know, there's a raging debate on just how much the steroids help assuming no training, and since I have no hands-on experience and am not planning to get some, I'm not sure how big an effect it really is (again, assuming no training).
I can't tell if this post is sarcastic. It doesn't take an expert to figure out what to do to lose weight and gain mass (strength training), and strength training doesn't take long.
(but also steroids and growth hormone)
Read the linked to article, where the author went through a transformation: https://www.gq.com/story/fitness-how-to-get-chris-pratt-fit
It was mostly about getting skinny and more defined, not bulking up.
Agree that to put on 10 pounds of muscle would take years.
It was mostly about getting skinny and more defined, not bulking up.
Agree that to put on 10 pounds of muscle would take years.
Or hired dieticians controlling what you eat and 3-4 hours of workouts a day under the supervision of a personal trainer or 3. Chris Pratt said something similar about his role in a few movies
The only way to do 3-4 hours workouts daily is to take performance enhancing drugs. Those hired dieticians are controlling diet, workout and drug regime.
The first statement is false. I do 3-4 hour workouts 5x a week and have never taken PEDs
Some facts. - I am a professional stuntman, so my livelihood and time are dedicated to this pursuit. Making the time is a requirement. - the time is made up of stretching, skill work, cardio, and strength training. It’s not 3 hours of 1 rep maxes. It is still intense. - lots of people use PEDs and HGH to acquire a temporary physique. However you would be shocked what small changes can do to affect your health, physique, and overall happiness. Adding squats will help you move move better. Yoga will help you feel better, and sprints will shed fat. - consistentcy beats all. Take all the drugs, do all the weekend bootcamps, and try all the crash diets you want. Simply doing anything over a long enough period of time will always yield better results.
Some facts. - I am a professional stuntman, so my livelihood and time are dedicated to this pursuit. Making the time is a requirement. - the time is made up of stretching, skill work, cardio, and strength training. It’s not 3 hours of 1 rep maxes. It is still intense. - lots of people use PEDs and HGH to acquire a temporary physique. However you would be shocked what small changes can do to affect your health, physique, and overall happiness. Adding squats will help you move move better. Yoga will help you feel better, and sprints will shed fat. - consistentcy beats all. Take all the drugs, do all the weekend bootcamps, and try all the crash diets you want. Simply doing anything over a long enough period of time will always yield better results.
Skill work is clearly a different beast than weight lifting. Skill work has minimal bearing on physique so should be left out. Cardio also does very little for action hero physique so unless you're trying to say that you can get better results on 4 hours a day of weight lifting than one hour, I don't think you've invalidated gp's statement.
Adding 30 minutes of yoga to my daily routine has been life-changing. I have more energy, move better, feel more comfortable in my body, and feel more confidence in doing other workouts. It's been 6 months and I wish I would have know about this in my teens.
Some facts. - I am a professional stuntman
This place never ceases to surprise me.
This place never ceases to surprise me.
3-4 hours workout is a lot.
What are your characters stats (I don't know how to put it): muscles, bench press, endurance, etc. ?
What are your characters stats (I don't know how to put it): muscles, bench press, endurance, etc. ?
Depends how intense those 3-4 hour workouts are. I think a lot of the difference in peoples estimate of how much they can exercise without steroids is down to differences in how people train.
E.g. you're not going to manage 3-4 hours of heavy compound lifts a day done in quick succession, sure. At least not without lowering the weights so much it becomes more cardio than resistance training.
Even 1 hour a day is overdoing it for powerlifting type training. At my strongest I was doing 45m every other day. I could probably have done more, but I got my best gains when I eased up and let my body recover properly.
But if you're doing bodybuilding, and a lot of that time are not the big lifts but adding in lots of isolated lifts of various small muscle groups, and sufficiently low intensity cardio takes up a good chunk of the time as well, sure you can easily spend 3-4 hours a day without drugs.
That said, a lot of people clearly claim to be natural while they're not.
E.g. you're not going to manage 3-4 hours of heavy compound lifts a day done in quick succession, sure. At least not without lowering the weights so much it becomes more cardio than resistance training.
Even 1 hour a day is overdoing it for powerlifting type training. At my strongest I was doing 45m every other day. I could probably have done more, but I got my best gains when I eased up and let my body recover properly.
But if you're doing bodybuilding, and a lot of that time are not the big lifts but adding in lots of isolated lifts of various small muscle groups, and sufficiently low intensity cardio takes up a good chunk of the time as well, sure you can easily spend 3-4 hours a day without drugs.
That said, a lot of people clearly claim to be natural while they're not.
People keep bringing up dieticians as if there's some kind magic, secret food they have access to that normal people don't. It's complete nonsense. Bodybuilders and actors and athletes eat the same chicken breast, rice, and broccoli that you can buy at the store.
Money and (loss of) fame are great motivators.
Also, for this having made it, money-wise, being able to afford a great cook, having a personal trainer who reminds you of your goals, being tempted less because you never visit a supermarket, etc. all help.
Also, for this having made it, money-wise, being able to afford a great cook, having a personal trainer who reminds you of your goals, being tempted less because you never visit a supermarket, etc. all help.
Having someone to do the tracking and handle the decisions sounds like a huge help to me. Both of those things cause stress which is hard to sustain.
Maybe it was once, but things like Myfitnesspal make diet tracking pretty easy for everyone nowadays. As for timing and macronutrient composition of foods, that's something the dieticians can probably help, but it's also something you can learn in a few hours by watching Youtube.
Having trainers, dieticians, etc. professionals around you to help with everything probably makes it easier in the sense that you probably save one or two hours of planning and organizing your life per week, and probably your programming is a bit more optimized, but it's hardly a game changer. If you are somewhat devoted to the topic, you can learn and do all the same stuff yourself.
Having trainers, dieticians, etc. professionals around you to help with everything probably makes it easier in the sense that you probably save one or two hours of planning and organizing your life per week, and probably your programming is a bit more optimized, but it's hardly a game changer. If you are somewhat devoted to the topic, you can learn and do all the same stuff yourself.
Yeah, it's literally paying someone to follow you around all day and control what you put in your mouth. There's no guy in spandex telling me not to buy those Reese's Pieces at 7/11 when I'm bored on a Sunday.
It's not a "or", it's "and". Steroid use is very common among celebrities, especially male action stars. Celebrities have physiques in time frames and at ages that just aren't possible otherwise.
No hate to them for doing it. But it's important that we're at least honest about it because of the effect it has on people's (especially men's) own body images and ideas about transformations. Losing 60 pounds while packing on muscle in 6 months at 38 years old is not possible without gear.
No hate to them for doing it. But it's important that we're at least honest about it because of the effect it has on people's (especially men's) own body images and ideas about transformations. Losing 60 pounds while packing on muscle in 6 months at 38 years old is not possible without gear.
Actually there is justified hate for them doing it. They're promoting unrealistic bodies which is causing a huge amount of problems.
Safely taking steroids to achieve a movie star look is just about as realistic as driving a new Mercedes.
Sure, you need to spend some money on medical supervision. Beyond that all it takes is ~6 hours a week at the gym.
Sure, you need to spend some money on medical supervision. Beyond that all it takes is ~6 hours a week at the gym.
>But it's important that we're at least honest about it because of the effect it has on people's (especially men's) own body images and ideas about transformations.
Steroids are mostly there to aid recovery from the otherwise unmanageable amount of work one puts in. Most people are limited by their willingness to put in the work and never reach the point where steroids would be required (or even make a significant difference).
Steroids are mostly there to aid recovery from the otherwise unmanageable amount of work one puts in. Most people are limited by their willingness to put in the work and never reach the point where steroids would be required (or even make a significant difference).
This is not true. Steroids have huge effects other than recovery, they'll provoke far greater response for the same amount of work.
You can get somewhat faster results using steroids (provided you are a decent responder and don't experience strong sides), sure. However, the overwhelming majority of people complaining about (often hypothetical) drug users are not putting in even minimal effort and haven't taken the time to learn how to train properly. I'm unconvinced that this is anything but a way to protect their ego and simultaneously feel cheated of the god-like bodies they would most assuredly have if it wasn't for their superior morals and judgement. It comes as no surprise that those very people don't get anywhere once they hop on gear, which is something I've witnessed firsthand a few times.
It's not just somewhat faster, the difference is often huge. You shouldn't let your personal experiences and anecdotes get in the way of the science here, what you wrote earlier about steroids only aiding recovery for people who put in large amounts of work was ridiculous.
I don't see how it is ridiculous. Can you get a great body with hard work and intelligent programming without anabolic steroids? Yes. Can you get it without hard work and with anabolic steroids? No [cue that one study where they gave test to people for ten weeks and they gained a few kilos of water and glycogen weight]. Can you become a mass monster without either? No. Now what I personally find ridiculous is how people complaining about "unrealistic bodies" prefer to promote unrealistic expectations of what AAS do instead like they're some sort of black magic.
No, you are absolutely right. It is extremely naive to think actors/celebrities (whose million dollar movie contracts, photo endorsements and ad placements, and other visual body marketing media, depend on their physical appearance being top 1%) are doing this without drugs.
Your observation about Hugh Jackman is on point. If you need more evidence, look at the difference between The Rock (a pro wrestler and admitted user) between 1993-2003 vs. now. In 2021, he’s at least 20 years older, and yet his latest action movie appearances have him at a lower body fat, and higher muscle mass % per height than when he was 20 years younger? Come on, that’s not how biology works.
If you go to any serious website or forum where actual steroid users converse, none of this is shocking news. Drugs make for fast body transformations, and the results revert back to natural limits once you stop the drugs (useful for an actor preparing for a movie/show/appearance, who then does not care about that look once it’s finished).
Your observation about Hugh Jackman is on point. If you need more evidence, look at the difference between The Rock (a pro wrestler and admitted user) between 1993-2003 vs. now. In 2021, he’s at least 20 years older, and yet his latest action movie appearances have him at a lower body fat, and higher muscle mass % per height than when he was 20 years younger? Come on, that’s not how biology works.
If you go to any serious website or forum where actual steroid users converse, none of this is shocking news. Drugs make for fast body transformations, and the results revert back to natural limits once you stop the drugs (useful for an actor preparing for a movie/show/appearance, who then does not care about that look once it’s finished).
Well, taking steroids is a necessary but not sufficient condition for those kinds of body transformations. You still need a good diet and exercise regime (to a normal person who isn’t into fitness at all, even that is very hard), and because of the enhanced recovery you are probably exercising much more than without steroids.
You can get quite fit from hill walking. Flat dunno.
It can make a significant impact.
My healthiest was when I lived in a small town of 30k people.
Everything was walkable. So I walked 30 minutes to work and back every day.
Went to the town centre for shopping and carried it back.
Put on a podcast or audiobook. Time will fly
My healthiest was when I lived in a small town of 30k people.
Everything was walkable. So I walked 30 minutes to work and back every day.
Went to the town centre for shopping and carried it back.
Put on a podcast or audiobook. Time will fly
Truth. I've seen many get fit when they move to walkable vancouver.
Living in a walkable city, it's remarkable when I go back to my hometown. There, everything is spread out so people don't really walk. The difference in people's body sizes is noticeable immediately.
There's got to be a relationship between North America's obesity crisis and the design of its cities.
In so many places in NA you are forced to get into your car to go anywhere. You're in your car to commute to work (where of course you sit all day), in the car to get groceries then back at home where you sloth on your couch, or desperately sweat on the peloton to try to make up for the fact that you sat in your car or at the office all day.
It's an incredibly stationary lifestyle that is forced by making it impossible to walk or use active transportation to do anything.
In so many places in NA you are forced to get into your car to go anywhere. You're in your car to commute to work (where of course you sit all day), in the car to get groceries then back at home where you sloth on your couch, or desperately sweat on the peloton to try to make up for the fact that you sat in your car or at the office all day.
It's an incredibly stationary lifestyle that is forced by making it impossible to walk or use active transportation to do anything.
Even if you wanted to use another mode of transport it's often impossible if you live in the suburbs / exurbs.
Sidewalks can be patchy at best and bike lanes are an afterthought; often they include the steepest part of the road grade to shed water off to the side and include pinch-flat-happy sunken sewer / drain grates. Roads are often laughably designed in a car-centric manner, i.e. higher than an European highway with no lane markings or stop signs, turning it into a veritable drag strip.
Whenever someone in the boomer generation says "why don't kids go outside to play these days?", I always retort "look at the Outside that y'all designed for them" :|
Sidewalks can be patchy at best and bike lanes are an afterthought; often they include the steepest part of the road grade to shed water off to the side and include pinch-flat-happy sunken sewer / drain grates. Roads are often laughably designed in a car-centric manner, i.e. higher than an European highway with no lane markings or stop signs, turning it into a veritable drag strip.
Whenever someone in the boomer generation says "why don't kids go outside to play these days?", I always retort "look at the Outside that y'all designed for them" :|
> Even if you wanted to use another mode of transport it's often impossible if you live in the suburbs / exurbs.
I grew up in the US suburbs (in an area with some of the hottest and most humid weather in the country) and it has all the problems you mentioned. However, I have made it to age 40 without ever driving a car. How? By not ever driving a car.
Many people love the idea of biking/walking but they seem to love making excuses for not biking and not walking even more. Yes, it’s a risk. Many things are but people do them anyway. Yes, it’s inconvenient but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
I grew up in the US suburbs (in an area with some of the hottest and most humid weather in the country) and it has all the problems you mentioned. However, I have made it to age 40 without ever driving a car. How? By not ever driving a car.
Many people love the idea of biking/walking but they seem to love making excuses for not biking and not walking even more. Yes, it’s a risk. Many things are but people do them anyway. Yes, it’s inconvenient but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Does anyone here have trouble focusing after a tough workout? Sometimes even a few days after? I used to do sprint training as part of my workout routine and also some weight lifting/machine. However, especially after especially tough sessions, it'd give me brain fog for the rest of the day and sometimes days after as well. Also sometimes I'd just be too sore to really concentrate. I'm currently doing a post grad degree which requires quite a lot of deep focused thinking and I've kind of stopped my exercise regiment as a result. Anyone else experienced this before and how did they deal with it?
It could just be that you need a nap. I used to do a basic powerlifting routine in the morning, and my brain would get progressively slower and slower until noon when I took a nap.
It was like hitting the reset button and I was fine for the rest of the day.
It was like hitting the reset button and I was fine for the rest of the day.
Maybe a mineral deficiency after a lot of sweating? You could try with some good magnesium supplements (NOT magnesium oxide) or a spinach smoothie (dark green vegetables are rich in magnesium).
Would you take this before or after? I guess after, then how long after?
Any time after
I Have a this too and it can feel like I'm broken for that, as it's the exact opposite of people who feel energized from exercise. I'm not in bad shape at all but even a 1hr walk takes some time to be back to where I can focus on work most of the time. No solution yet sadly, apart from doing it in the evening when you don't need to do anything afterwards.
Same here. No solution yet, other than lighter workouts or moving them in the evening. I rarely get the multiday effect too, but it takes multiday effort to get tbere and I vary rarely train hard enough.
Not sure if same, but I experienced similar to this when was not paying attention to heart rate and running hills. I thought the harder/faster the better but I was nearly maxing my heart rate for my age, and was exhausting me. I've felt much better now that I keep my heart rate in the 75-85% range during runs.
Same happened to me, but I was at a point in my life where I didn't need to do a lot of deep thinking so I continued anyway, and after a few months my body had grown accustomed to it.
I can now push myself to my limit and will feel fine after 15 minutes.
I can now push myself to my limit and will feel fine after 15 minutes.
I get something like I have a cold for a day after, headache, tiredness, sneezing, runny nose.
I get brain fog the same day too. I've not heard or read of this occuring normally. It's not bad enough to stop me driving but it is enough to stop all work.
I think it's fatigue basically and I've found that gradually increasing my fitness allows me to do more before this starts. But it's not listed as what fatigue is, especially the brain fog bit.
I get brain fog the same day too. I've not heard or read of this occuring normally. It's not bad enough to stop me driving but it is enough to stop all work.
I think it's fatigue basically and I've found that gradually increasing my fitness allows me to do more before this starts. But it's not listed as what fatigue is, especially the brain fog bit.
The man in this story lost weight because he restricted his calorie intake to 2000 per day, not through “just walking.”
My cuurent mindset is that the first 15 minutes of (light) exercise in one's day are for health, not for fitness.
Skip it for a few days/months and you'll be less healthy and more letargic.
Skip it for a few days/months and you'll be less healthy and more letargic.
As someone who had to walk 10km daily in the past for years, if you live somewhere with a hot weather be careful sweaty clothes are the perfect environment for fungus to grow on your skin.
It's also important to modify your whole lifestyle. For example, taking stairs, it's so beneficial, using a bicyle or walking to get some food/shopping, see someone, or do any commuting - making exercise actually useful
Stairs are radically underappreciated. Great for leg strength and general fitness. Walking up stairs (say in at a train station) is almost always faster than using an escalator, even if you're not particularly fit. Walking up an escalator is even faster, of course, but there's a always a couple of muppets getting in the way. Stairwells, unlike lifts, haven't been implicated in coronavirus transmissions either, so that's an extra bonus. And if you're a gym person, the stairmaster seems like the least popular piece of equipment, so it's almost always available for use.
This article was great. It is known that counting calories on itself helps with getting thinner, and walking it's known to have many benefits as well. Now I'd love to see how much of the improvements were based on walking itself, vs calorie counting, vs calorie restriction.
One thing I’ve found very recently is that walking outside early in the mornings does wonders for your sleep.
I’ve been a light, disrupted sleeper for as long as I can remember, but a walk outside and getting daylight on retina has the effect of shutting down melatonin levels, properly starting your day in biological terms. Now I hit 11:30pm and feel genuinely sleepy, which is novel in and of itself and get nearly double the deep sleep I was getting before.
Doing the exact same walk at midday does not have the same effect.
The impact of feeling genuinely rested and refreshed is life-changing.
I’ve been a light, disrupted sleeper for as long as I can remember, but a walk outside and getting daylight on retina has the effect of shutting down melatonin levels, properly starting your day in biological terms. Now I hit 11:30pm and feel genuinely sleepy, which is novel in and of itself and get nearly double the deep sleep I was getting before.
Doing the exact same walk at midday does not have the same effect.
The impact of feeling genuinely rested and refreshed is life-changing.
Walking a lot was the default norm for humans across the world before cars, etc, made it impossible to do what we need to do with just walking. Urban planners used to incorporate fitness into their designs and that seems to mostly be a thing of the past.
You can blame our couch potato physiques on modern life to a large degree. We don't have to quietly accept this. We can decide to redesign the world such that walking to run errands is much more the default norm again and then fitness can be incorporated into daily activities of living instead of being an extra burden on top of them.
You can blame our couch potato physiques on modern life to a large degree. We don't have to quietly accept this. We can decide to redesign the world such that walking to run errands is much more the default norm again and then fitness can be incorporated into daily activities of living instead of being an extra burden on top of them.
> Urban planners used to incorporate fitness into their designs and that seems to mostly be a thing of the past.
Do you have a source for that? I've never heard of such thing before.
Do you have a source for that? I've never heard of such thing before.
Urban planning has long been closely intertwined with public health, though disease prevention gets the lion's share of the press.
Before life got in the way, I wanted to be an urban planner. So I've heard this a lot over the years.
Here are a few excerpts from a piece by the CDC:
Urban planning and public health have been intertwined for most of their histories.
During the middle of the 20th century, the disciplines drifted apart, to a certain extent because of their success in limiting health and safety risks caused by inappropriate mixing of land uses.
The disciplines recently have begun to reintegrate. During the last 20 years, shared concerns have included transportation planning to improve air quality, encourage physical activity, prevent injuries, and promote wellness.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su5502a12.htm#:~:t....
Before life got in the way, I wanted to be an urban planner. So I've heard this a lot over the years.
Here are a few excerpts from a piece by the CDC:
Urban planning and public health have been intertwined for most of their histories.
During the middle of the 20th century, the disciplines drifted apart, to a certain extent because of their success in limiting health and safety risks caused by inappropriate mixing of land uses.
The disciplines recently have begun to reintegrate. During the last 20 years, shared concerns have included transportation planning to improve air quality, encourage physical activity, prevent injuries, and promote wellness.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su5502a12.htm#:~:t....
I started walking three years ago at the age of 55 for ~2000 km per year since. There was Hypertension and a suspected heart problem at this time, so I was cautious about running. I also have a nice area of wood very close to my home.
It turned out quite well. I am officially heart-healthy today, blood pressure went down about 20-25 mm Hg, weight 10-15kg.
Regarding running - I do it the same way I do something for my upper body. Sometimes the body is longing for it, and than I do it. In the case of running: Long walks often give a certain stiffness, especially in the legs. When this happens, I simply include a few (1-3) kilometers during the walk.
I also learned, that it is far easier to sustain such a regime instead the more common forms of exercise. I think its more natural for all but a few people in the long run. Someone wrote here about running as hunting/fleeing which by origin is necessarily associated with stress. I think there is much truth in this.
The only part that becomes sometimes difficult, is the time demand. Doing the math: My 180 km / month are 12km (two hours) every other day. I had to aquire some additional discipline to make it happen.
It turned out quite well. I am officially heart-healthy today, blood pressure went down about 20-25 mm Hg, weight 10-15kg.
Regarding running - I do it the same way I do something for my upper body. Sometimes the body is longing for it, and than I do it. In the case of running: Long walks often give a certain stiffness, especially in the legs. When this happens, I simply include a few (1-3) kilometers during the walk.
I also learned, that it is far easier to sustain such a regime instead the more common forms of exercise. I think its more natural for all but a few people in the long run. Someone wrote here about running as hunting/fleeing which by origin is necessarily associated with stress. I think there is much truth in this.
The only part that becomes sometimes difficult, is the time demand. Doing the math: My 180 km / month are 12km (two hours) every other day. I had to aquire some additional discipline to make it happen.
Personally I found walking to improve my fitness/activity levels to such a degree that I will often naturally transition back into a regular jogging habit just to get rid of all the extra energy from the walks.
Most of this person’s weight loss seems to have been from eating fewer calories, not walking. I posted this reply to a prior submission of the same article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26744434):
43 pounds in 16 weeks is 2.7 pounds per week. A pound is 3,500 calories, so 2.7 is 9,450 calories per week, or a deficit of 1,350 calories per day.
Even if he was walking a very low 3,000 steps per day previously, an extra 7,000 steps/day - about 3-4 miles - is walking for perhaps 60-80 minutes. For someone who weighs about 260 pounds, 1 hour of moderate walking would burn about 450 calories. So, assuming he didn’t do other exercise that the article omitted, the remaining ~900 calorie/day deficit came from eating less than his metabolic rate (BMR).
Walking sped up the process, but he would have lost the weight just by eating fewer calories - and food changes account for about 2/3rds of the loss.
(I’m assuming he neither added nor lost much muscle mass, which seems likely from the description.)
43 pounds in 16 weeks is 2.7 pounds per week. A pound is 3,500 calories, so 2.7 is 9,450 calories per week, or a deficit of 1,350 calories per day.
Even if he was walking a very low 3,000 steps per day previously, an extra 7,000 steps/day - about 3-4 miles - is walking for perhaps 60-80 minutes. For someone who weighs about 260 pounds, 1 hour of moderate walking would burn about 450 calories. So, assuming he didn’t do other exercise that the article omitted, the remaining ~900 calorie/day deficit came from eating less than his metabolic rate (BMR).
Walking sped up the process, but he would have lost the weight just by eating fewer calories - and food changes account for about 2/3rds of the loss.
(I’m assuming he neither added nor lost much muscle mass, which seems likely from the description.)
Its a combination and a psychological shift to ensure reinforcement of success. I went from 270 down to 200 over 8 months. It slowed down, but went lower over several more months. I started with walking and adjusting my diet. Had I not started seeing success quickly I may not have continued the diet.
When I started, walking up a moderate hill after a mile was tough. It got easier each day and overall health improved. I was eventually able to add some running and other exercises.
Also, at the very start, I am certain it was more than 450 calories per hour after weighing that much in my case. It certainly came down as the body got used to it and did build muscle mass in legs. Same with food, the body will get used to the calorie restriction over time and calorie restriction alone won’t take you the distance.
Also, at the very start, I am certain it was more than 450 calories per hour after weighing that much in my case. It certainly came down as the body got used to it and did build muscle mass in legs. Same with food, the body will get used to the calorie restriction over time and calorie restriction alone won’t take you the distance.
> Most of this person’s weight loss seems to have been from eating fewer calories, not walking.
This is likely true for everyone losing weight. Exercise gets you fit(-ter than you were before), though, and there are a lot more health benefits from being fit than thin. I'm pretty sure being thin just helps you with your sugar.
This is likely true for everyone losing weight. Exercise gets you fit(-ter than you were before), though, and there are a lot more health benefits from being fit than thin. I'm pretty sure being thin just helps you with your sugar.
I think there are two components to this (they might be related, though, I don't know).
On the side, exercise does make you fitter, and consume some calories, etc.
But then, I find that it also has a non-negligible effect on the food I crave. I find it much, much easier to not eat tons of "junk food" when I exercise. And by that, I mean I practically don't feel like eating any, at all. I actually crave vegetables and meat. And those have a tendency to be "filling" and not have you want to eat again 2 hours later.
So it's much easier for me to actually lower my calorie intake when exercising.
On the side, exercise does make you fitter, and consume some calories, etc.
But then, I find that it also has a non-negligible effect on the food I crave. I find it much, much easier to not eat tons of "junk food" when I exercise. And by that, I mean I practically don't feel like eating any, at all. I actually crave vegetables and meat. And those have a tendency to be "filling" and not have you want to eat again 2 hours later.
So it's much easier for me to actually lower my calorie intake when exercising.
Yeah I noticed the same. Once I got into doing regular longer bike trips, when I got home I almost never wanted junk food for dinner afterwards.
For me, cycling to and from work helped me eat less, in the sense that I wasn't hungry while cycling and for at least half an hour afterwards.
So I could skip breakfast, jump on the bike, and then have a late-breakfast/early lunch at work. At the end of the work day I'd start to get hungry, but then I'd jump on the bike and when I got home I still had time to make and eat dinner before the raging hunger kicked in.
This helped me skip an entire meal per day, which made things a lot easier for me.
Maybe I'm just weird that way though.
So I could skip breakfast, jump on the bike, and then have a late-breakfast/early lunch at work. At the end of the work day I'd start to get hungry, but then I'd jump on the bike and when I got home I still had time to make and eat dinner before the raging hunger kicked in.
This helped me skip an entire meal per day, which made things a lot easier for me.
Maybe I'm just weird that way though.
Nah that's typical I think. If I'm biking a longer way I have to force myself to eat some around like 35 to 40 miles, and then every 15 or 20 after. I don't feel hungry but I start getting noticably weaker.
In fact, when building up for distance cycling, I felt like learning when to eat and making my saddle and handlebars more comfortable was equally as important as building strength. Extra strength makes you finish your trip faster, but you'll probably still complete it even slowly, but if your saddle isn't right for you, the pain can be insurmountable.
In fact, when building up for distance cycling, I felt like learning when to eat and making my saddle and handlebars more comfortable was equally as important as building strength. Extra strength makes you finish your trip faster, but you'll probably still complete it even slowly, but if your saddle isn't right for you, the pain can be insurmountable.
Ah interesting. I noticed getting a lot weaker around 50-60 km, which is roughly the same. Though I was just hitting a performance cliff.
Guess I'll have to pack some food next time!
Guess I'll have to pack some food next time!
When I'm going on a trip I pack like a light lunch (cheese sandwich and chips or fruit) and stop, but if I'll be back home that day I go for the type of stuff you get at a bike shop, cliff bar or those weird but kinda good energy gummis with electrolytes sugar and a little caffeine and just snack as I ride.
> I’m pretty sure being thing helps you with your sugar.
Yes, adipose tissue contributes to insulin resistance and impaired glucose metabolism. Why? Not exactly sure. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmet.2019.12.014
Yes, adipose tissue contributes to insulin resistance and impaired glucose metabolism. Why? Not exactly sure. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmet.2019.12.014
Worth noting that the longer someone is in a caloric deficit, the more their non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) drops. NEAT is the caloric burn from this like random movements and fidgeting, walking around the house, etc. Maintaining a baseline step count creates a NEAT floor, so you're more able to stay in a deficit towards the end of the diet.
translating this into basic english: burning calories through exercise causes you to move around less otherwise (because you have less energy?), but tracking your steps ensures that you keep moving around as much as before (compensating the lower non-exercise movement with more deliberate exercise movement) and therefore ensuring that you keep burning the same amount of calories.
is that correct?
is that correct?
That’s not quite correct.
I think of non-exercise activity thermogenesis as being like the idle rate of an internal combustion engine car. If you increase the idle engine rate, it doesn’t affect the fuel consumption at higher activity speeds, but at times when the car is slow or stationary, it would burn more fuel than necessary. In a car, that’s a bad thing. The claim is that doing exercise increases your “idling speed” (NEAT) , or rather stops your body’s idling speed from dropping the way it would normally do during calorie restriction. If you are trying to lose weight, burning “more calories than necessary” would be a good thing
I think of non-exercise activity thermogenesis as being like the idle rate of an internal combustion engine car. If you increase the idle engine rate, it doesn’t affect the fuel consumption at higher activity speeds, but at times when the car is slow or stationary, it would burn more fuel than necessary. In a car, that’s a bad thing. The claim is that doing exercise increases your “idling speed” (NEAT) , or rather stops your body’s idling speed from dropping the way it would normally do during calorie restriction. If you are trying to lose weight, burning “more calories than necessary” would be a good thing
so that actually means that more exercising has the additional side-effect of also burning more calories even when the body is not moving.
but eating less causes the body to reduce burning calories because less calories are coming in.
so eating less while exercising more maximizes the effect of weight loss because the body is forced to use up more of the stored fat reserves to compensate for less incoming calories while also needing to burn more due to the exercises.
but eating less causes the body to reduce burning calories because less calories are coming in.
so eating less while exercising more maximizes the effect of weight loss because the body is forced to use up more of the stored fat reserves to compensate for less incoming calories while also needing to burn more due to the exercises.
that’s correct!
no - if you are exercising but eating enough to stay at a maintenance or surplus caloric intake, you will not see any suppression of NEAT
While dieting contributes the most to weight loss, I believe some simple exercises + calorie counting goes a long way. When you understand how much physical effort is needed to burn off that snickers bar you're thinking about snacking on, it becomes much easier to put it off.
I believe the giant misconception in 'cardio calories burned' is the fact that exercise affects your resting metabolism quite a lot and people that exercise burn calories throughout the day.
While diet is a 'major factor' - for people who are sedentary, then walking 2 miles a day can be a huge step up.
While diet is a 'major factor' - for people who are sedentary, then walking 2 miles a day can be a huge step up.
Walking us also incredibly stress-relieving, so I would imagine if you're a stress or boredom eater, walking probably creates a second effect where you're less likely to eat.
Absolutely, and walking - and getting any exercise at all - is great. Unfortunately, this article doesn’t cover it that way, and their explanation won’t help readers.
Actually your numbers are wrong
Elevation gain during walks matter hugely. Walk up a few pretty decent hills and your 400 number becomes a 600 number
Elevation gain during walks matter hugely. Walk up a few pretty decent hills and your 400 number becomes a 600 number
I don’t think the article gives enough detail to make that case. We could torture the scenario any number of ways to arrive at whatever conclusion we’re after but the comment about weight loss being more attributable to a caloric deficits from eating less generally stands. For most people, it’s much easier to eat calories than exercise it off.
Saying someone is "wrong" then jumping into a pedantic point isn't very constructive.
Ultimately using your own figures (400 Vs. 600) it doesn't alter the person above's overarching point: That most of the weight loss was from diet changes (as is typically the case).
Ultimately using your own figures (400 Vs. 600) it doesn't alter the person above's overarching point: That most of the weight loss was from diet changes (as is typically the case).
Physical activity helps the body regulate appetite though.
If it's just walking the Appalachian Trail or another extra-long trail, then the answer is quite: https://imgur.com/9ipvLUm and https://thetrek.co/thru-hike-transformation-before-after/
Your upper body, however loses fitness. I was climbing regularly in 2009 before I thru-hiked in 2010 and was a pretty solid 5.10 climber making inroads into 5.11 at the Red River Gorge (translation: nothing special, but usually able to find something I could get on at most crags there).
Getting back into climbing was pretty brutal, to put it mildly.
Also, if we're being totally honest, the diet of the average thru-hiker is pretty abhorrent. Lots of tunamac or equivalently unhealthy meals for dinner. Thru-hiking might get you fit, but I wouldn't recommend it to anybody as a way to get healthy.
Getting back into climbing was pretty brutal, to put it mildly.
Also, if we're being totally honest, the diet of the average thru-hiker is pretty abhorrent. Lots of tunamac or equivalently unhealthy meals for dinner. Thru-hiking might get you fit, but I wouldn't recommend it to anybody as a way to get healthy.
The caloric needs of the physical activity probably completely counteract and then some the negatives of the diet quality.
If you take before and after snapshots of bloodwork and other physical health markers, it's probably an unambiguous improvement for anyone fit enough to undertake the ordeal.
For example: https://www.outsideonline.com/2125031/what-happens-your-body...
If you take before and after snapshots of bloodwork and other physical health markers, it's probably an unambiguous improvement for anyone fit enough to undertake the ordeal.
For example: https://www.outsideonline.com/2125031/what-happens-your-body...
agreed re: diet, but nit: an unambiguous improvement for people who don't already exercise a lot
Diet also plays a factor with long hikes. You can't just grab a burger, fries and soda whenever you want.
Weight lost through long distance hiking is among the hardest to keep off. On the trail you have much more limited access to food, and the motivation to do 15 to 20 miles a day or possibly much more.
You get home and there is food everywhere, and maybe, maybe if you are lucky, the time and motivation to do fivish miles a day or a similar amount of exercise.
You get home and there is food everywhere, and maybe, maybe if you are lucky, the time and motivation to do fivish miles a day or a similar amount of exercise.
For those who hate running but want to burn more calories and get fit, may I suggest hiking in the mountains.
This is a great suggestion for the 2% of people who live close enough to a mountain to make it part of their daily routine. Cut that in half to about 1% to account for the amount of time said mountain is likely covered in snow/ice.
For those who need an even greater challenge, modify your hike with rucking weights.
I went on a guided climb of the Grand Teton several years ago. At some point above treeline the guide pointed to a bunch of large-ish (1-2 nalgene bottles in volume) smooth stones, and asked "why do you think river stones are in a place that's never had any rivers?"
Lots of guesses from the group about tectonics and whatnot.
Finally the answer, "Alex Lowe used to carry them up in his pack when training. He didn't want to hurt his knees on the descent with the extra weight, and this was his turn-around point".
Mountaineers are beasts.
Lots of guesses from the group about tectonics and whatnot.
Finally the answer, "Alex Lowe used to carry them up in his pack when training. He didn't want to hurt his knees on the descent with the extra weight, and this was his turn-around point".
Mountaineers are beasts.
Brings back memories of carrying 20kg of caving gear and ropes up the mountain. Still, I find ascending the rope with a jumar and croll to be the most exhausting exercise I've ever done.
I'm not trying to shit on walking for walking's sake, but if your goal is performance, health, or changing your body composition, I see no reason to prefer walking over running. You cover more distance. You get a better cardiovascular workout. Your lung capacity will increase more. Same for cycling if you have some injury or disability that prevents running.
The huge difference is that walking isn’t excercising, it’s transport. Slotting 10k or 12k steps into your day likely requires changing some of your transport to walking even if you also go for “excercise walks”.
Running normally requires deliberately going for a run: alllocating time, changing clothes and so on. It’s not as easy to change a lot of would-be drives to walking. It’s not as convenient to fit a run into a lunch break as it is to fit a walk.
I see them as not mutually exclusive though. But for me the difference is that the walk actually gets done but the run doesn’t. The comparison is then: “is walking better than not running?” and answering that is much easier than comparing the two!
Running normally requires deliberately going for a run: alllocating time, changing clothes and so on. It’s not as easy to change a lot of would-be drives to walking. It’s not as convenient to fit a run into a lunch break as it is to fit a walk.
I see them as not mutually exclusive though. But for me the difference is that the walk actually gets done but the run doesn’t. The comparison is then: “is walking better than not running?” and answering that is much easier than comparing the two!
This is sort of the system versus goal issue applied to exercise. If you have to go out of your way (to a gym, to a trail) to get the exercise in then it's harder to maintain (for most people, and even for people who find it "easy" the habit can be broken by one bad week). Whereas if you convert a portion of your transportation to walking/cycling, you can create a more sustainable system around the activity.
Even doing little things like parking at the back of the parking lot and taking the stairs to the third or fourth floor office can add a decent chunk of walking to the day without creating a major hurdle (unless you're chronically late, the extra 5 minutes of walking to and from the parked car won't be bothersome).
Even doing little things like parking at the back of the parking lot and taking the stairs to the third or fourth floor office can add a decent chunk of walking to the day without creating a major hurdle (unless you're chronically late, the extra 5 minutes of walking to and from the parked car won't be bothersome).
As a long-distance cyclist, I've gotta say, it sounds like you walk slow. I'm a fast walker, and I can get excellent cardio on pretty much anything but a downhill route (which, I'll admit, my natural pace turns into a light jog down steeper hills). But, personal bias, I've never lived anywhere that hills could be avoided.
Walking and running are both good for cardio and long term health, but running has higher wear and tear on the body. Cycling is also great, but comes with its own risks of accidental (or malicious) injury or death
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/walking-vs-running...
Walking and running are both good for cardio and long term health, but running has higher wear and tear on the body. Cycling is also great, but comes with its own risks of accidental (or malicious) injury or death
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/walking-vs-running...
Uh, it's much lower impact, much more enjoyable, and has a way lower recovery cost. I lift 5-6x a week; I'm not gonna go for a hard run when I need my legs to recover for my next squat session.
Running is hard on the joints and causes a lot of RSIs so walking is likely more sustainable for many people.
I love cycling but there are many, many places in this country (USA) and times (Summer in AZ, winter in Michigan) where I would not touch a bike.
I love cycling but there are many, many places in this country (USA) and times (Summer in AZ, winter in Michigan) where I would not touch a bike.
Running is arguably one of the worst things you can do to your body, despite it's efficacy in improving your cardio performance. It's bad on your joints, your bones etc. Swimming and cycling are much much better.
That is decidedly untrue. The big problem with cycling and swimming is that they are low impact and don't stress your bones an joints enough. Your joints and bones are just like any other tissue in your body. They respond to stress by getting stronger and when they are not stressed they get weaker. As in all things you can of course over do it, but the amount of running the average person would do (15-20 mpw or less) is very beneficial to bone an joint health.
Looks like you're correct!
That is incorrect. Running with proper form won't damage your joints and bones.
https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/does-running...
https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/does-running...
based on the new runners I've observed on sidewalks in the last 12 months I have to say proper form seems very difficult (/expensive, given need to hire a coach) to achieve.
Most people will instinctively run with decent form as long as they're not obese or already injured. Coaching can be helpful but usually isn't essential.
I'm as wrong as possible with this. I still believe that swimming and cycling are better for you, but the injuries I was concerned about (and personally experienced) are more typically associated with overworking your joints/bones/tendons and ligaments.
Walking allows you to go from point A to point B without profuse sweat, eg. to run an errand or go to work. (When possible, which is rare in suburbia)
Walking also allows you to better appreciate the environment, fauna, flora and scenery, eg. on a hike. Sure you can take some of that in as an ultra-cross-trail-marathon runner but it's less contemplative.
Walking also allows you to better appreciate the environment, fauna, flora and scenery, eg. on a hike. Sure you can take some of that in as an ultra-cross-trail-marathon runner but it's less contemplative.
I agree with all of these 100% which is why I specified the fitness aspect.
In my view, it's all about what you can persuade yourself to do on a regular basis. I hate running, but enjoy cycling and walking. My spouse loves running, including marathons and ultras. Often she will sign up for a marathon, and I will ride my bike to the location of the race and cheer her on. Chasing a marathon on a bike is actually a workout if the race is on a closed course and you're looking for alternative routes.
Walking and cycling let me mix exercise and utility, e.g., commuting to work or walking to nearby shops. It's also just a pleasant lifestyle to go for days if not weeks without needing to drive. Truth be told, my love of mechanics and tinkering is one of my motivators for cycling.
It probably behooves everybody to at least give a few different exercise modalities a try, to see which one you can tolerate, with enough intensity to be beneficial. If you find one that's addictive, so much the better.
I've gotten myself some little dumbbells that I keep by my "work" computer, and I lift weights during online meetings because I know that my main modes of exercise don't do much for my upper body.
Walking and cycling let me mix exercise and utility, e.g., commuting to work or walking to nearby shops. It's also just a pleasant lifestyle to go for days if not weeks without needing to drive. Truth be told, my love of mechanics and tinkering is one of my motivators for cycling.
It probably behooves everybody to at least give a few different exercise modalities a try, to see which one you can tolerate, with enough intensity to be beneficial. If you find one that's addictive, so much the better.
I've gotten myself some little dumbbells that I keep by my "work" computer, and I lift weights during online meetings because I know that my main modes of exercise don't do much for my upper body.
I'm a runner who never goes on an "exercise walk", but there are plenty of (non-injury) reasons someone might prefer walking:
- less strenuous
- much less fitness required to walk for an hour than to run for 30 minutes
- easier to avoid sweating while walking, which can be useful for some commutes
- easier to talk on the phone while walking
- easier to find someone to walk with you than it is to find someone who will run with you
The article was about making fitness easy and not about making fitness efficient. I 100% agree that running is more efficient, but I'd recommend walking to anyone who thinks "bleh/eww" at the thought of exertion.
- less strenuous
- much less fitness required to walk for an hour than to run for 30 minutes
- easier to avoid sweating while walking, which can be useful for some commutes
- easier to talk on the phone while walking
- easier to find someone to walk with you than it is to find someone who will run with you
The article was about making fitness easy and not about making fitness efficient. I 100% agree that running is more efficient, but I'd recommend walking to anyone who thinks "bleh/eww" at the thought of exertion.
Plus it's great for either recovery days or a supplemental activity to get blood flowing to promote healing. For example running in the morning and walking in the evening.
Running is very hard on your body. I say this as a runner. I’ve been doing it consistently since high school and I have the bones and tendons and form, yet still I hurt myself sometimes. Even though I feel great after running I never recommend other people do it. It’s kind of a crazy-person thing to do if you think about it!
If you think about it from an evolutionary standpoint, humans likely have the ability to run to either escape from or to hunt prey. Long-distance running would not have held much use in day-to-day life.
So our bodies are efficient at running, but maybe not meant to be running all the time.
So our bodies are efficient at running, but maybe not meant to be running all the time.
There is a hypothesis that humans evolved as distance runners for persistence hunting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis
oft repeated, usually by runners, but it seems pretty dang inefficient. You're burning zillions of calories to get your food; how is that a good deal as compared to setting a trap or tossing a spear?
It's pretty tough to set an effective trap for catching herd animals on the African plains. Persistence hunts did frequently end by throwing spears. But spears are very short ranged. Hunters had to chase the animals and get really close in order to ensure a kill. And it doesn't take zillions of calories, just a few thousand.
Many people aren't in good enough shape to run. A bunch of extra body weight + poor technique is a recipe for an injury that leaves many people in a position where they now can't even walk without pain.
Walking and some mobility work are great for the the average person. Once they've got a decent baseline and have cleaned up their diet they can start adding more intense work.
Walking and some mobility work are great for the the average person. Once they've got a decent baseline and have cleaned up their diet they can start adding more intense work.
Walking is pretty safe compared to running or cycling, though. The article points out that no, you won't change body composition by walking, but it's a good starting point for people whose current activity level is walking between the car, couch, fridge, and bed.
For general health benefits, it's simple: walking is easier to do consistently than running is. I walk to work and to get groceries, and each of those is ~20 minutes each way, so I'm getting in almost an hour and a half of walking most days on top of whatever else a given day has (I live in a Nordic city, so lots of stuff is walkable).
However, in my current state, I don't think I would be able to comfortably run the same distance every day. If I got into the habit, though, I expect I'd see more changes to body composition, though, yes.
However, in my current state, I don't think I would be able to comfortably run the same distance every day. If I got into the habit, though, I expect I'd see more changes to body composition, though, yes.
Others here have already brought up the wear and tear running can have on the human body, but there's a psychological factor as well.
For many, walking is more enjoyable than most other exercise. Some people can do strenuous, repetitive exercise and not get bored or feel miserable, which is why a certain number of people can manage to go to the gym regularly and stare at a wall for an hour as they run on a treadmill and lift dumbbells. Others give up more easily in reaction to stimuli that isn't highly dopamine driven for them. For those people, if they can instead keep up walking on a regular basis, it makes more sense they stick with that rather than effectively punish themselves by running.
For many, walking is more enjoyable than most other exercise. Some people can do strenuous, repetitive exercise and not get bored or feel miserable, which is why a certain number of people can manage to go to the gym regularly and stare at a wall for an hour as they run on a treadmill and lift dumbbells. Others give up more easily in reaction to stimuli that isn't highly dopamine driven for them. For those people, if they can instead keep up walking on a regular basis, it makes more sense they stick with that rather than effectively punish themselves by running.
[deleted]
During the pandemic I have started taking all early emails and communication while walking and dictating. Great way to start the day, and I feel way more fit after a year of this.
Guess I'll share my own story: close to seven years ago now I was nudging up against 270 pounds and had a 44 inch waist. I decided to make some changes and started walking 2 miles a night. This is less than half the distance spoken of in the OP, but in compensation the route involved several decent hills and I walked it briskly. I also did a couple of other things that I think were important: I stopped adding sugar to coffee and I stopped drinking soda and having desert every night after dinner. Over a period of around a year I dropped from 265-ish to 215-ish and shrank my waist to 36 inches. I'm still walking the two miles every night, seven nights a week. Coming out of the covid-19 year of sloth I've put about 15 pounds back on, so I am considering adding another mile or two to the routine and perhaps doing a few other exercises, but just walking those two miles a night worked wonders for me.
I have a similar story. Many friends asked me how I lost weight. Did I join a gym? Start running? Keto? The answer is boring but I cut out sugar.
I stopped adding it to drinks. I stopped drinking soda and fruit juices and smoothies (fruit juices/smoothies are as bad as soda imho as they all try and pretend they are healthy). Stopped having dessert (unless out for a meal for a special occasion), no biscuits, chocolate, crisps and snacks.
Plus I started viewing my calorie intake over a 7 day period rather than daily. This way I didn't 'feel bad' if I went out for a meal or had a movie and pizza night with the family. I found that 'feed bad' mindset made me quit many times as I felt I had 'failed'. So by removing it and viewing intake over a whole week I could easily reduce a bit over 3 or 4 days and still break even. A simple change of perspective really worked for me.
It took a while but now I don't like how sweet many things are. Like a mars bar is disgusting to me now. Two bites and I feel kind of sick from how much sugar is in it. It shocks me how desensitised I was to sugar as it is added to literally everything.
Also an added bonus to the weight loss was that I also saved a lot as my appetite changed and I was naturally less hungry than I used to be. Smaller meals and less processed crap meant my shopping bill was much lower than before.
I stopped adding it to drinks. I stopped drinking soda and fruit juices and smoothies (fruit juices/smoothies are as bad as soda imho as they all try and pretend they are healthy). Stopped having dessert (unless out for a meal for a special occasion), no biscuits, chocolate, crisps and snacks.
Plus I started viewing my calorie intake over a 7 day period rather than daily. This way I didn't 'feel bad' if I went out for a meal or had a movie and pizza night with the family. I found that 'feed bad' mindset made me quit many times as I felt I had 'failed'. So by removing it and viewing intake over a whole week I could easily reduce a bit over 3 or 4 days and still break even. A simple change of perspective really worked for me.
It took a while but now I don't like how sweet many things are. Like a mars bar is disgusting to me now. Two bites and I feel kind of sick from how much sugar is in it. It shocks me how desensitised I was to sugar as it is added to literally everything.
Also an added bonus to the weight loss was that I also saved a lot as my appetite changed and I was naturally less hungry than I used to be. Smaller meals and less processed crap meant my shopping bill was much lower than before.
To be fair, I eat sugary foods regularly and I too find Mars bar disgustingly sweet. Same with Snickers bar. They're just too sweet, regardless of who is eating them.
Shows just how desensitised to sugar I was as I could easily eat two or three(!) full size Mars bars before I cut out sugar.
If I was running late in the morning I would have a Mars bar and a 330ml bottle of Coke or Pepsi for breakfast!
Looking back I am embarrassed at how shit my diet was. I would eat sweets and sofa for breakfast and a grab a takeaway on the way home (often Chinese as it was near my house). The only "normal" meal I would eat would be lunch at my work restaurant. However it was subsidised which would also lead me to over eating as it was so cheap and I was always hungry from having junk for breakfast.
By my late twenties/early thirties I was around 112KG (~247lbs) on a 184cm (6 foot) body. Shocking.
If I was running late in the morning I would have a Mars bar and a 330ml bottle of Coke or Pepsi for breakfast!
Looking back I am embarrassed at how shit my diet was. I would eat sweets and sofa for breakfast and a grab a takeaway on the way home (often Chinese as it was near my house). The only "normal" meal I would eat would be lunch at my work restaurant. However it was subsidised which would also lead me to over eating as it was so cheap and I was always hungry from having junk for breakfast.
By my late twenties/early thirties I was around 112KG (~247lbs) on a 184cm (6 foot) body. Shocking.
Your story sounds a lot like mine. I didn't get to 270, but I was getting around 230 before I decided to change things. Fortunately, I didn't have a job at that point, so I got to shed about 1/3 of that weight in ~6 months by doing lots of walking, hiking, and improving my macros (i.e. cutting out sugar and high carbs). Today I'm at 150.
In my opinion, it really doesn't help to tell people what kind of exercise they should be doing. Just sweat. Do whatever it is that you can do consistently. No matter what, you are almost certainly burning more calories than you did sitting around. Combine that with better macronutrients, and you'll almost certainly lose weight.
Once you get slimmer, this can get more difficult because people with more body weight have a greater basal metabolic rate. What I do now when I need to shed some weight (sometimes I get up to 160) is do those things you did before but also eat less. I calculate my BMR, divide it by half, and only eat that many calories. This is a short term strategy, not a long term one.
In my opinion, it really doesn't help to tell people what kind of exercise they should be doing. Just sweat. Do whatever it is that you can do consistently. No matter what, you are almost certainly burning more calories than you did sitting around. Combine that with better macronutrients, and you'll almost certainly lose weight.
Once you get slimmer, this can get more difficult because people with more body weight have a greater basal metabolic rate. What I do now when I need to shed some weight (sometimes I get up to 160) is do those things you did before but also eat less. I calculate my BMR, divide it by half, and only eat that many calories. This is a short term strategy, not a long term one.
People argue endlessly about which exercise is "best" but the fact is that the difference between forms of exercise is a rounding error compared to the difference between ANY exercise and being completely sedentary. The most important thing is just to find something that you personally enjoy and don't get inured doing. The constraint for the vast majority of people is just motivation.
As a brief counterpoint, for the last few years, I walk at least 5 miles a day (just writing this on the way home from a 15 mile hike), 12 mile cycle commute in normal times, don't drink any sugar, eat one meal a day, caffeine/alcohol free and vegan, resting heart rate is 45-50 bpm.
I'm 270lbs/5'11" with a bunch of weight related health issues. I do have an appetite, for sure. But careful calorie tracking says I should be at a 1000kcal/day deficit, but my weight is stable. Go figure.
I'm 270lbs/5'11" with a bunch of weight related health issues. I do have an appetite, for sure. But careful calorie tracking says I should be at a 1000kcal/day deficit, but my weight is stable. Go figure.
I don't know your personal situation but most people underestimate their caloric intake. They don't weigh portions, or forget to count snacks and beverages.
It's also possible that your insulin response is messed up. This Peter Atria Drive podcast has an excellent explanation of the biochemistry which prevents some people from losing fat, and treatments which usually work.
https://peterattiamd.com/ama22/
It's also possible that your insulin response is messed up. This Peter Atria Drive podcast has an excellent explanation of the biochemistry which prevents some people from losing fat, and treatments which usually work.
https://peterattiamd.com/ama22/
I don't snack or drink calories. However yeah there may be some systemic issue affecting how I'm measuring calories, it's just hard to figure out what that might be.
As far as blood tests show, my insulin/glucose/hb1ac/etc. is all essentially optimal. Indeed, better than one might expect for a man of my rotundity. Thyroid is lower than average, but not outside of normal range.
I'll check out the podcast, thanks.
As far as blood tests show, my insulin/glucose/hb1ac/etc. is all essentially optimal. Indeed, better than one might expect for a man of my rotundity. Thyroid is lower than average, but not outside of normal range.
I'll check out the podcast, thanks.
Yes, we know next to nothing about nutrition/metabolism, except that people are different. But...
Have you tried varying your eating regime?
1000 Cal is a very large deficit. AIUI large Calorie deficits will cause your basal metabolic rate to slow down, and so will long intervals between meals. Your low resting heart rate may be related to a slow basal metabolic rate - one normally only sees 45 bpm in dedicated athletes. Low BMR might mean your deficit is not actually a deficit. (But this is a very weakly reasearched area.)
If I were you and wanting to lose weight, I'd try for a daily deficit no greater than 200 Cal (averaged over a week), and eating your daily allotted Calories in four or five small meals spaced a few hours apart. (But, of course, this regime might not work for you either.)
I haven't deliberately tried this regime, but I have seen it repeatedly recommended on bodybuilding fora. (And thinking about it, it's approximately what I am doing.)
Getting a job in which I stand for nine hours per day (with mild upper body exercise) and am more or less forced to follow that eating regime has resulted in me losing about 7.5% of my body mass over three months. Fat loss will be higher since I have put on some muscle mass in that time.
I now consume a little more sugar (in diluted electrolyte drinks) than I did before I started.
I'd also note that cycling seems to be ~ 20x lower energy cost per mile than walking. You'd be better off driving to work and adding a mile to your daily walk in the time saved.
Edit to add: a hikers' rule of thumb (based on US Army research) is that an extra pound on your feet increases energy expenditure by 5%. Wear heavy boots when walking.
Have you tried varying your eating regime?
1000 Cal is a very large deficit. AIUI large Calorie deficits will cause your basal metabolic rate to slow down, and so will long intervals between meals. Your low resting heart rate may be related to a slow basal metabolic rate - one normally only sees 45 bpm in dedicated athletes. Low BMR might mean your deficit is not actually a deficit. (But this is a very weakly reasearched area.)
If I were you and wanting to lose weight, I'd try for a daily deficit no greater than 200 Cal (averaged over a week), and eating your daily allotted Calories in four or five small meals spaced a few hours apart. (But, of course, this regime might not work for you either.)
I haven't deliberately tried this regime, but I have seen it repeatedly recommended on bodybuilding fora. (And thinking about it, it's approximately what I am doing.)
Getting a job in which I stand for nine hours per day (with mild upper body exercise) and am more or less forced to follow that eating regime has resulted in me losing about 7.5% of my body mass over three months. Fat loss will be higher since I have put on some muscle mass in that time.
I now consume a little more sugar (in diluted electrolyte drinks) than I did before I started.
I'd also note that cycling seems to be ~ 20x lower energy cost per mile than walking. You'd be better off driving to work and adding a mile to your daily walk in the time saved.
Edit to add: a hikers' rule of thumb (based on US Army research) is that an extra pound on your feet increases energy expenditure by 5%. Wear heavy boots when walking.
"Your low resting heart rate may be related to a slow basal metabolic rate - one normally only sees 45 bpm in dedicated athletes"
I did consider this. However if I stop exercising, my RHR increases up to about 60 within a month or so. Indeed my exercise HRmax is around 230, which is, as I understand, on the high side. I'm guessing it is still related in some way though because clearly I'm not an athlete. Additionally I have a low respiration rate and sleep a fair amount. My doctor has done a few blood tests and such - and as far as he's concerned, I'm metabolically completely normal with no diabetes or hormonal issues - but on the low side. For example, my thyroid hormone levels are quite low, but still just within the normal range.
The doctor suggested that some people's weight issues don't respond all that well to exercise in his experience. He said research in the area was weak, but said it may be due to higher levels of fitness combined with favourable body mechanics in some meaning total energy consumption from exercise didn't amount to much. I come from an extremely athletic family, so it's possible that might have some truth. So for me, perhaps, the adage that you can't outrun a bad diet is even more truthful.
"daily deficit no greater than 200 Cal"
To do this (on paper), I'd have to eat a lot more than I'm able to, or cut down exercise. What I might do is try and get booked in for one of those metabolic studies after Covid, to actually accurately calculate my cycling/walking/resting energy consumption. That way I should be able to accurately calculate what exactly a 200kcal deficit really is for me. Thermodynamically, I must not be at a calorie deficit or else I'd lose weight. I'm just not exactly sure where my calculations could be so wrong.
> Getting a job in which I stand for nine hours per day (with mild upper body exercise)
I would love this. On holidays and such, I spend at least 10hrs a day active, and I feel a ton better. Back pain disappears, etc. Unfortunately not too easy with programming. I tried a standing desk and found it didn't really work for me. Might try a treadmill desk, but I can totally see myself getting a head injury from that!
" I'd also note that cycling seems to be ~ 20x lower energy cost per mile than walking. You'd be better off driving to work and adding a mile to your daily walk in the time saved."
Definitely true per mile, but per hour, cycling should be more energy intensive than walking (but less than running). Certainly I spend longer with my heart rate above 180 when cycling, and feel more exhausted after. Metabolic study is the only way to confirm it for me though.
It's sort of irrelevant anyway because bicycle is the quickest way to get to work for me and I don't own a car.
I did consider this. However if I stop exercising, my RHR increases up to about 60 within a month or so. Indeed my exercise HRmax is around 230, which is, as I understand, on the high side. I'm guessing it is still related in some way though because clearly I'm not an athlete. Additionally I have a low respiration rate and sleep a fair amount. My doctor has done a few blood tests and such - and as far as he's concerned, I'm metabolically completely normal with no diabetes or hormonal issues - but on the low side. For example, my thyroid hormone levels are quite low, but still just within the normal range.
The doctor suggested that some people's weight issues don't respond all that well to exercise in his experience. He said research in the area was weak, but said it may be due to higher levels of fitness combined with favourable body mechanics in some meaning total energy consumption from exercise didn't amount to much. I come from an extremely athletic family, so it's possible that might have some truth. So for me, perhaps, the adage that you can't outrun a bad diet is even more truthful.
"daily deficit no greater than 200 Cal"
To do this (on paper), I'd have to eat a lot more than I'm able to, or cut down exercise. What I might do is try and get booked in for one of those metabolic studies after Covid, to actually accurately calculate my cycling/walking/resting energy consumption. That way I should be able to accurately calculate what exactly a 200kcal deficit really is for me. Thermodynamically, I must not be at a calorie deficit or else I'd lose weight. I'm just not exactly sure where my calculations could be so wrong.
> Getting a job in which I stand for nine hours per day (with mild upper body exercise)
I would love this. On holidays and such, I spend at least 10hrs a day active, and I feel a ton better. Back pain disappears, etc. Unfortunately not too easy with programming. I tried a standing desk and found it didn't really work for me. Might try a treadmill desk, but I can totally see myself getting a head injury from that!
" I'd also note that cycling seems to be ~ 20x lower energy cost per mile than walking. You'd be better off driving to work and adding a mile to your daily walk in the time saved."
Definitely true per mile, but per hour, cycling should be more energy intensive than walking (but less than running). Certainly I spend longer with my heart rate above 180 when cycling, and feel more exhausted after. Metabolic study is the only way to confirm it for me though.
It's sort of irrelevant anyway because bicycle is the quickest way to get to work for me and I don't own a car.
I gained a ton of weight after I stopped smoking. To take it off and keep it off, I made several similar changes.
I stopped drinking sweetened drinks, cut out refined carbs, and took up learning to cook everything from scratch as my new hobby. (It's hard to really get the sugar in your diet under control unless you cook everything from scratch.)
I didn't change my level of physical activity.
This has worked to keep the weight off for more than a decade.
I stopped drinking sweetened drinks, cut out refined carbs, and took up learning to cook everything from scratch as my new hobby. (It's hard to really get the sugar in your diet under control unless you cook everything from scratch.)
I didn't change my level of physical activity.
This has worked to keep the weight off for more than a decade.
Great job on your progress. I have a question for people who drink a lot of soda: is this something that started in your household growing up and was carried into adulthood?
I drank very little soda as a kid. Once I got to college, though, I felt like I needed to be a cool hacker dude, and that included lots and lots of Mountain Dew. I'm on to Coke Zero these days, and cutting that out too, but I've got no one to blame but myself for my soda habit.
I drank a lot of soda as a child/adolescent but somewhere in my early twenties I mostly just stopped. Not for any particular health reason either. I just stopped liking it. And now I actually find it pretty disgusting and don't quite understand how anyone actually enjoys it.
I lost my weight by eating less and better. I experimented with a literal "no exercise" regime to see if exercise matters in losing weight.
My findings is that food intake is 100% of weight loss based purely as ratio to movement/use of food intake. (you can run all day, and if you eat too much, you stay overweight)
My findings is that food intake is 100% of weight loss based purely as ratio to movement/use of food intake. (you can run all day, and if you eat too much, you stay overweight)
Worth remembering that almost all processed foods have added sugar, salt or fat these days - apart from other additives like preservatives, stabilizers, emulsifiers, and the list of -ers goes on.
Read product labels closely, and/or don't buy ones without labels. For unprocessed products, to know their natural composition, use Wikipedia and sites like USDA nutrition data site.
Read product labels closely, and/or don't buy ones without labels. For unprocessed products, to know their natural composition, use Wikipedia and sites like USDA nutrition data site.
Cutting the sugar might have been the bulk of the effect, it's very difficult to burn calories over the base metabolic rate, but it's very easy to consume an extra 200 calories a day in sugar.
> it's very difficult to burn calories over the base metabolic rate
You can run _flat out_ for an hour, or you can just skip the french fries with lunch. I found the latter to be orders of magnitude easier to accomplish on a day-to-day basis.
You can run _flat out_ for an hour, or you can just skip the french fries with lunch. I found the latter to be orders of magnitude easier to accomplish on a day-to-day basis.
Absolutely true.
At the same time I've noticed I'm much hungrier if I don't exercise. And exercise displaces time I could be eating. So, at least for me, it seems to have an indirect impact on weight loss.
At the same time I've noticed I'm much hungrier if I don't exercise. And exercise displaces time I could be eating. So, at least for me, it seems to have an indirect impact on weight loss.
I can't the exact details but IIRC there is a canonical study which tracked physical activity, calorie intake and obesity in large cohort. There was a high correlation between calorie intake and level of activity in the sample and likewise only a weak correlation between level of activity and obesity (or lack thereof). Basically, people were good at calibrating their calorie intake to their level of physical activity. EXCEPT for the sedentary people, who tended to consume calories way outside of their needs based on little or no physical activity and (not surprisingly) tended to be obese at high rates.
Our bodies seem to be good at calibrating hunger and calorie intake to maintain balance between calories in and calories out, but there is something about being completely sedentary which causes that mechanism to malfunction.
Our bodies seem to be good at calibrating hunger and calorie intake to maintain balance between calories in and calories out, but there is something about being completely sedentary which causes that mechanism to malfunction.
It depends whether your goal is health or aesthetics. If you are after health, moderate about of sport is working intervention. It actually works to make you healthier.
If you go only diet route, you may or may not become healthier.
If you go only diet route, you may or may not become healthier.
Calories in, calories out (CICO) will certainly work for weight gain or loss.
But cardiovascular exercise, muscle strengthening, etc do confer other whole-body benefits that going for the french fries won't convey.
But cardiovascular exercise, muscle strengthening, etc do confer other whole-body benefits that going for the french fries won't convey.
Reducing calories on the plate was way easier for me too.
It was both important to control portion size as well as content though.
So for me, the key point was adjusting my meals to make me feel fuller, so I could reduce portion sizes without feeling hungry.
I primarily did this by increasing the relative amount of protein and fiber, and trying to reduce fat or carbs.
For my saturday steak I swapped french fries with peas, and cut the butter for the bearnaise in half.
For my "tacos" I limited the number of tortillas, increasing the amount of salad and also swapping out regular iceberg lettuce with romaine (more fiber). I also stopped using additional oil or fat for cooking the mince meat.
For breakfast I swapped butter for mustard or similar, and tricks like using more mature cheeses so I could use less cheese while still enjoying a lot of flavor.
I think the important thing is being honest with yourself about your goals and limitations, and use that to find something you can live with.
I just had to have that saturday steak, but I identified what about it that was important and as such managed to tweak the dish. I knew I couldn't cut chocolate entirely so instead I found ways to get the chocolate I needed while having far less of it in total.
It was both important to control portion size as well as content though.
So for me, the key point was adjusting my meals to make me feel fuller, so I could reduce portion sizes without feeling hungry.
I primarily did this by increasing the relative amount of protein and fiber, and trying to reduce fat or carbs.
For my saturday steak I swapped french fries with peas, and cut the butter for the bearnaise in half.
For my "tacos" I limited the number of tortillas, increasing the amount of salad and also swapping out regular iceberg lettuce with romaine (more fiber). I also stopped using additional oil or fat for cooking the mince meat.
For breakfast I swapped butter for mustard or similar, and tricks like using more mature cheeses so I could use less cheese while still enjoying a lot of flavor.
I think the important thing is being honest with yourself about your goals and limitations, and use that to find something you can live with.
I just had to have that saturday steak, but I identified what about it that was important and as such managed to tweak the dish. I knew I couldn't cut chocolate entirely so instead I found ways to get the chocolate I needed while having far less of it in total.
I think there's an age factor there too. In my 20's as long as I was exercising regularly I could easily burn off that extra 200 calories, but in my 30's I've had to (try to) avoid the calories in the first place.
I have a similar story I’ve posted about before. Cut sugar, made myself do 30 minutes of brisk activity each day, lost about 70 pounds.
Mind you, it got harder to do brisk activity as it went. What started as walking for 2 miles ended up being running for 5 miles. (5 miles became the target after a while so I stopped with 30 minutes. It would take 38-40 minutes at my best.)
Also got hit with COVID gain, so I’m back at it. Bought me a treadmill and am doing at least a 5k every day, training back up to at least 4 miles.
I found a lot of it was consistency. It felt like weight loss had an inertia to it. Took a while to really start losing, but once it started it was easy to keep dropping a pound per week. Even after stopping running for a bit, the weight stayed off for quite a while.
Anyway, good on you (us!) for regular exercise! It really can make all the difference.
Mind you, it got harder to do brisk activity as it went. What started as walking for 2 miles ended up being running for 5 miles. (5 miles became the target after a while so I stopped with 30 minutes. It would take 38-40 minutes at my best.)
Also got hit with COVID gain, so I’m back at it. Bought me a treadmill and am doing at least a 5k every day, training back up to at least 4 miles.
I found a lot of it was consistency. It felt like weight loss had an inertia to it. Took a while to really start losing, but once it started it was easy to keep dropping a pound per week. Even after stopping running for a bit, the weight stayed off for quite a while.
Anyway, good on you (us!) for regular exercise! It really can make all the difference.
> Cut sugar
This is a much bigger factor than most people realize. I've kept track of my weight for almost ten years and found that the thing it correlates most with is my sugar intake. More sugar, more weight. The time matters too. Late-night sugar packs on the pounds more than mid-day sugar.
What makes it really insidious is that there's a latency of a week or more. The problem is not so much that sugar itself causes you to gain weight. The problem is that over time sugar actually changes your metabolism so that your body stores more fat. And even that does not happen directly. What sugar intake does is make you feel hungrier, so you eat more in general. It also lowers your baseline metabolism so you feel more tired in between sugar rushes. The net effect of all this is weight gain over a long period of time, and it takes a long time to undo the damage. Quitting sugar really is a lot like quitting smoking.
Another thing many people don't realize is that alcohol has much the same effect as sugar.
This is a much bigger factor than most people realize. I've kept track of my weight for almost ten years and found that the thing it correlates most with is my sugar intake. More sugar, more weight. The time matters too. Late-night sugar packs on the pounds more than mid-day sugar.
What makes it really insidious is that there's a latency of a week or more. The problem is not so much that sugar itself causes you to gain weight. The problem is that over time sugar actually changes your metabolism so that your body stores more fat. And even that does not happen directly. What sugar intake does is make you feel hungrier, so you eat more in general. It also lowers your baseline metabolism so you feel more tired in between sugar rushes. The net effect of all this is weight gain over a long period of time, and it takes a long time to undo the damage. Quitting sugar really is a lot like quitting smoking.
Another thing many people don't realize is that alcohol has much the same effect as sugar.
Another thing many people don't realize is that alcohol has much the same effect as sugar.
A bit of an oversimplification, but for the purposes of diet, alcohol effectively is liquid sugar. The top ten list of caloric density starts with fat and alcohol pulls up second place.
A bit of an oversimplification, but for the purposes of diet, alcohol effectively is liquid sugar. The top ten list of caloric density starts with fat and alcohol pulls up second place.
Yes, that's true, but it misses the point. Caloric density is not what matters. What matters is how hungry you feel. Fat provides (vastly!) more filled-up-feeling per calorie than sugar. So eating fat will help you lose weight despite the fact that fat has more than twice as many calories per gram. You'll feel fuller faster, so you'll eat less.
Sugar actually has the perverse effect of making you feel more hungry after you've eaten it. This is one of the things that makes junk food so addictive.
Sugar actually has the perverse effect of making you feel more hungry after you've eaten it. This is one of the things that makes junk food so addictive.
Is this context, wouldn’t lean protein be the smarter choice over carbs or fat? It has lower caloric density than fat but doesn’t increase ghrelin like carbs
All of this is subject to Ron's First Law: all extreme positions are wrong. Eating too much sugar is bad. So is eating too much far or too much protein. Carbs are generally bad, but simple carbs (and alcohol) are worse than complex carbs. Fiber and vitamins matter too. Just about the only hard-and-fast rule is that sugar and alcohol are bad for you and the less you eat of them the better, at least in terms of your physical health. Personally, I choose to trade off some physical health risks in exchange for some boosts to my mental health because I do love me a margarita now and again. All things in moderation, including moderation :-)
Is this a real law? can't find anything online about either the law or its actual text
Do you mean Ron's First Law? I don't what you mean by "real law" in this context. It's obviously not a "real law" in the sense of being a law of physics or anything like that. It's a real aphorism, like Murphy's law, but obviously nowhere near as well know.
BTW, I'm Ron, the coiner of Ron's First Law, if that helps you put it in context :-)
BTW, I'm Ron, the coiner of Ron's First Law, if that helps you put it in context :-)
>BTW, I'm Ron, the coiner of Ron's First Law, if that helps you put it in context :-)
I somehow guessed it, the moment I read it, though I didn't know your full name earlier, despite having read your comments on HN before.
Maybe because I've mulled making up such laws myself :)
Un bella domani, fratello!
(One fine day, brother. - From a Morris West novel. I think it is The Shoes of The Fisherman. Great read.)
I somehow guessed it, the moment I read it, though I didn't know your full name earlier, despite having read your comments on HN before.
Maybe because I've mulled making up such laws myself :)
Un bella domani, fratello!
(One fine day, brother. - From a Morris West novel. I think it is The Shoes of The Fisherman. Great read.)
You’re absolutely right, but I think the moderation extends to sugar as well. Sugar can be used prudently and beneficially. E.g., eating sugar (or other fast digesting carbs) immediately after a hard workout will actually enhance recovery.
The key is that soda and juice both contain way more sugar than you should be consuming regularly. 1 can of Coke contains roughly 140 calories of sugar which is roughly 100% of your daily recommended sugar according to the American Heart Association. (a can of orange juice is 160, though some weird regulation means they don't have to count it as sugar). As such it is pretty much impossible to have a healthy diet that involves regular consumption of soft drinks. Once a week or so is OK, but more than that is probably bad. (unless you are exercising for more than 3 hours a day)
If we’re constraining it the average semi-sedentary lifestyle, I agree. My point was more to the “only hard-and-fast rule is that sugar and alcohol are bad for you and the less you eat of them the better, at least in terms of your physical health” bit.
To the original point, I don’t agree that hard absolute statements are really good guidelines as they tend to oversimplify. For example, I believe the best recovery was found with 3:1 carb:protein post workout consumption. The typical protein supplement is around 25g, meaning it would be combined with more sugar than is in a can of soda (usually dextrose because it has a higher glycemic response). Some athletes consume sugar regularly (notably, Floyd Mayweather). Point being, I don’t believe it’s a good hard rule to say you should limit sugar as much as possible, but rather the appropriate (and less satisfying answer) is “it depends on your goal”
To the original point, I don’t agree that hard absolute statements are really good guidelines as they tend to oversimplify. For example, I believe the best recovery was found with 3:1 carb:protein post workout consumption. The typical protein supplement is around 25g, meaning it would be combined with more sugar than is in a can of soda (usually dextrose because it has a higher glycemic response). Some athletes consume sugar regularly (notably, Floyd Mayweather). Point being, I don’t believe it’s a good hard rule to say you should limit sugar as much as possible, but rather the appropriate (and less satisfying answer) is “it depends on your goal”
What you need to look at to figure out what makes you feel full longer vs shorter is GI index of food.
Lower is better, makes you feel fuller for longer.
It's a measure of how fast glucose is released in your bloodstream. It can be one big hike (like from deserts), or evenly spread out over a longer period of time (Natural Muesli).
Lower is better, makes you feel fuller for longer.
It's a measure of how fast glucose is released in your bloodstream. It can be one big hike (like from deserts), or evenly spread out over a longer period of time (Natural Muesli).
Isn’t Glycemic Load more important than Glycemic Index since it takes into account serving size? No one eats 100g of table sugar the same as 100g of Apples.
That's just not true. Ethanol is ketone and is fine for diets like keto. It does not spike insulin.
The problem is that most alcohol isn't regulated the same way food is, and there is often a ton of sugar in it that is not required to be labelled. Beer, for example, has tons of carbs, and Captain Morgan is fulla sugar.
The problem is that most alcohol isn't regulated the same way food is, and there is often a ton of sugar in it that is not required to be labelled. Beer, for example, has tons of carbs, and Captain Morgan is fulla sugar.
Is the implication that the real issue is calories or that alcohol and sugar have similar metabolic mechanisms? E.g., similar effects on insulin, blood glucose etc.?
I drink a soft drink every afternoon at work, and when I fill the recycling bin after 3 months I think about how many calories are in that bin, actually inside me. 12 240-260 calorie drinks is nearly a pound of body weight.
Walking is one of the more efficient ways to lose fat. But you need to walk correctly, keep your speed very low and your walk time very long. When you walk your body doesn't need to access glycogen stores in the muscle, liver or glucose in the blood. It wants to naturally save those for Fight or Flight, so since your activity level is very low it can use your fat as fuel because it has enough time to covert it to energy. If you start speeding up it can't convert the fat fast enough and starts to use the Glucose/Glycogen in your body.
I've lost 100lbs Fasting/Keto/Walking (approx 280lbs/127Kg ===> 180lbs/82Kg) over a period of 2 years. I've experimented what is best for me and it was rolling 72 hour fasts/walking for a couple to a few weeks and then switching things up to keep my body guessing (Longer fasts/OMAD). I feel like being in Ketosis during those fasts and eating extremely clean was the most helpful. Cole from the SnakeDiet Youtube Channel was basically the guy I followed, he is natural and doesn't use PED, just diet and exercise.
Snakewalking
https://imgur.com/WYGItHs
I've lost 100lbs Fasting/Keto/Walking (approx 280lbs/127Kg ===> 180lbs/82Kg) over a period of 2 years. I've experimented what is best for me and it was rolling 72 hour fasts/walking for a couple to a few weeks and then switching things up to keep my body guessing (Longer fasts/OMAD). I feel like being in Ketosis during those fasts and eating extremely clean was the most helpful. Cole from the SnakeDiet Youtube Channel was basically the guy I followed, he is natural and doesn't use PED, just diet and exercise.
Snakewalking
https://imgur.com/WYGItHs
That "before" photo: the fellow is pushing his belly out and holding his chin in to make himself look fatter than he actually is. Why would he do that, do you suppose?
There is some intentional bloating, etc in that first picture but he still naturally dropped some serious weight to get ripped. The guy practices what he preaches and has great advice.
> Four months ago my friend John Sharkman stepped on the scale and realized he was the heaviest he'd ever been. Sharkman—a former college football quarterback—was weighing in at 263 pounds, fifty pounds heavier than his time as an elite athlete...It's not like walking is some secret. 10,000 steps is the default recommendation of some of the most popular fitness trackers on the market, and long walks have been a hidden weapon of superhero body transformations for ages. But until witnessing Sharkman undergo his transformation I didn't realize just how powerful just walking could be...So in our group chat, Sharkman and a few other friends made a commitment to walking 10,000 steps a day and tracking our food. We aimed for about 2,000 calories. Sharkman dubbed the initiative Health Zone. After four months following those guidelines, my friend dropped 43 pounds. Collectively the group chat was down 105.
So in other words, a single individual, who already had a history of being fit and the ability to pursue athletics at a high level, reverted to his mean, and made up almost half of the entire gains across 4+ ('a few other') people, by using bog-standard recommendations, of the sort that have completely failed to solve the obesity crisis and fail for most people that try it.
What can I say to a writeup like this, which is so self-refuting? "Nothing in psychology makes sense except in the light of individual differences." How can fitness journalists and 'nutrition coach and personal trainer' experts be so blind to the reality of individual differences? Just look at exercise studies's summary statistics, and look at how different the results are for individuals doing the same thing!
So in other words, a single individual, who already had a history of being fit and the ability to pursue athletics at a high level, reverted to his mean, and made up almost half of the entire gains across 4+ ('a few other') people, by using bog-standard recommendations, of the sort that have completely failed to solve the obesity crisis and fail for most people that try it.
What can I say to a writeup like this, which is so self-refuting? "Nothing in psychology makes sense except in the light of individual differences." How can fitness journalists and 'nutrition coach and personal trainer' experts be so blind to the reality of individual differences? Just look at exercise studies's summary statistics, and look at how different the results are for individuals doing the same thing!
> Just look at exercise studies's summary statistics, and look at how different the results are for individuals doing the same thing!
People might be interested to know that this is not just some fringe theory or freak result. It's well-known in the field that there's a massive pile of studies that show large inter-individual variability and a comparatively tiny pile of studies that are actually designed to examine inter-individual variability. [1].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818669/
People might be interested to know that this is not just some fringe theory or freak result. It's well-known in the field that there's a massive pile of studies that show large inter-individual variability and a comparatively tiny pile of studies that are actually designed to examine inter-individual variability. [1].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818669/
He went down to a strict 2000 kcal/day. Strictly and honestly counting calories always works for weight loss.
I am actually trying this right now.
I'm skeptical that it will work because I only ever seem to lose weight when really trying
By definition this will take at least several weeks to see if it is working
I'll follow up next time someone re/posts this article or similar
I'm skeptical that it will work because I only ever seem to lose weight when really trying
By definition this will take at least several weeks to see if it is working
I'll follow up next time someone re/posts this article or similar
Just my recommendation because this mindset has worked well for me over the years:
Don't think too much about losing weight when picking up a new fitness/exercise habit. Think about other fitness and health goals more specifically, the weight will usually follow. If you focus on weight, the initial lag or a change in your body composition (I was exercising regularly for nearly 2 months before I lost more than 5 lbs, and then I lost another 25 in the next few months) can be sufficiently demotivating to cause you to quit even though you are getting something beneficial from the activity.
What's worked for me and for my friends I've worked with is a focus on what kind of activity you can do, for how long, and to what level of exertion. If it's walking, on a non-exercise day try going for a much longer than normal walk or a much faster than normal walk, it's a kind of test. Is that 5 mile hiking trail now easier for you than at the start? If so, then does it matter that your weight has plateaued or is the fact that you can do something you couldn't before more important? Focusing on the improved capability and then trying to focus on sustaining that has helped me a lot more than thinking of weight itself as a goal or primary goal. (That said, it was a goal for me, just a secondary or tertiary goal.)
Don't think too much about losing weight when picking up a new fitness/exercise habit. Think about other fitness and health goals more specifically, the weight will usually follow. If you focus on weight, the initial lag or a change in your body composition (I was exercising regularly for nearly 2 months before I lost more than 5 lbs, and then I lost another 25 in the next few months) can be sufficiently demotivating to cause you to quit even though you are getting something beneficial from the activity.
What's worked for me and for my friends I've worked with is a focus on what kind of activity you can do, for how long, and to what level of exertion. If it's walking, on a non-exercise day try going for a much longer than normal walk or a much faster than normal walk, it's a kind of test. Is that 5 mile hiking trail now easier for you than at the start? If so, then does it matter that your weight has plateaued or is the fact that you can do something you couldn't before more important? Focusing on the improved capability and then trying to focus on sustaining that has helped me a lot more than thinking of weight itself as a goal or primary goal. (That said, it was a goal for me, just a secondary or tertiary goal.)
The article talks about coupling it with sticking to 2k calories a day, which will be important to the transformation.
> 10,000 steps is the default recommendation of some of the most popular fitness trackers on the market
It's worth keeping in mind that much like "8 glasses of water per day", this recommendation does not have any particular pedigree (outside of trivia about the early marketing of pedometers in Japan). It's not clear that it was based on any evidence, and it isn't especially supported by the studies that do exist (which suggest that the benefits on mortality and morbidity for most people taper off somewhere in the range of 6,000-8,000 steps per day). It's a reasonable enough goal as far as it goes, but all signs point to it being chosen to be a "round" number and not because it's an actual estimate of anything materially meaningful.
It's worth keeping in mind that much like "8 glasses of water per day", this recommendation does not have any particular pedigree (outside of trivia about the early marketing of pedometers in Japan). It's not clear that it was based on any evidence, and it isn't especially supported by the studies that do exist (which suggest that the benefits on mortality and morbidity for most people taper off somewhere in the range of 6,000-8,000 steps per day). It's a reasonable enough goal as far as it goes, but all signs point to it being chosen to be a "round" number and not because it's an actual estimate of anything materially meaningful.
In my case 8000 steps (around 5.5 km) is something I am able to pull every day. Having a dog makes it more fun.
I've tried also 10000 steps for a while but it was non-practical, just couldn't fit that extra mile.
During the 6-week streak of 8000+ step days, it felt as if a switch 'flipped' and I went from a plateau of 90kg to 85kg (what I saw as a target) and surprisingly am able to maintain it at that level for a few years now, without almost any changes in dietary or activity habits, even throughout the 2020 lockdown.
I'm a typical developer/couch potato, I do not avoid occasional junk food, beer, extra slice of cake etc. I try not to eat late, except for nuts and seeds. I wholeheartedly recommend Turkish? (white, large sort) unsalted sunflower seeds, which have nutritious benefits according to Dr.Google, plus it definitely helps the next morning.
I've tried also 10000 steps for a while but it was non-practical, just couldn't fit that extra mile.
During the 6-week streak of 8000+ step days, it felt as if a switch 'flipped' and I went from a plateau of 90kg to 85kg (what I saw as a target) and surprisingly am able to maintain it at that level for a few years now, without almost any changes in dietary or activity habits, even throughout the 2020 lockdown.
I'm a typical developer/couch potato, I do not avoid occasional junk food, beer, extra slice of cake etc. I try not to eat late, except for nuts and seeds. I wholeheartedly recommend Turkish? (white, large sort) unsalted sunflower seeds, which have nutritious benefits according to Dr.Google, plus it definitely helps the next morning.
> But until witnessing Sharkman undergo his transformation I didn't realize just how powerful just walking could be.
My compliments to the author for this genre-ambiguous sentence.
My compliments to the author for this genre-ambiguous sentence.
I long to be able to go out and walk but my SI joint pain flares up within 2 days.
The only exercise I have found that doesn't aggravate my problem is swimming. But thanks to the lockdowns in effect because of Covid that's off too.
The only exercise I have found that doesn't aggravate my problem is swimming. But thanks to the lockdowns in effect because of Covid that's off too.
Can you go wild swimming?
Am afraid where am at, there isn't much of an 'outdoors' scene. Lakes/ponds if available, are too dangerously polluted to swim in. (Third world woes).
Lost a lot of weight (near 300->180, now 200) and diet really matters a lot more than exercise. Fasting, eliminating sugar (and fake sugar), and eliminating processed/high glycemic carbs - especially late at night. Exercise has a lot of other benefits and can start to feel good and give you something else to look forward to than food but it can also be a bit counterproductive in that you are hungrier. Understanding what drives cravings and hunger is key, i.e a nice steak (usually split w/ partner) + a large salad or roasted veg for me is the perfect meal - delicious, incredibly filling and I'm full for the night and even until midday the next day.
Walking will help your heart and is a good way to improve base fitness, but generally speaking not a way to lose weight. Fundamentally, walking burns very few calories. To lose 50 pounds walking, you need to walk hours per day which isn't very practical.
That said, it can still work because ritualizing fitness also brings more awareness to other aspects of your life. When you are regularly working out (walking or otherwise), it can make you conscious of mealtime choices. You also are fundamentally not eating when you are out walking.
If you want to lose weight, you either need much more intense exercise or to figure out how to stop eating. Walking or other activity is still important, but it's not a "Weight loss" solution.
That said, it can still work because ritualizing fitness also brings more awareness to other aspects of your life. When you are regularly working out (walking or otherwise), it can make you conscious of mealtime choices. You also are fundamentally not eating when you are out walking.
If you want to lose weight, you either need much more intense exercise or to figure out how to stop eating. Walking or other activity is still important, but it's not a "Weight loss" solution.
why is walking 90 minutes a day for a year impractical?
You sleep for 8 hours.
Another 2 hours is spent showering, prepping for sleep and waking up and using the bathroom during the day.
So you have 14 hours left. If you work, you only have 6 hours left. Commute to work? 4-5 hours.
Dishes, mowing the lawn, prepping and eating meals, studying for your next job advancement, housekeeping, laundry, etc etc... by the time you are done there isn’t a ton of free time in the day.
Spending half of that free time on such a mundane and boring way to pass the time sounds truly impractical to me.
Another 2 hours is spent showering, prepping for sleep and waking up and using the bathroom during the day.
So you have 14 hours left. If you work, you only have 6 hours left. Commute to work? 4-5 hours.
Dishes, mowing the lawn, prepping and eating meals, studying for your next job advancement, housekeeping, laundry, etc etc... by the time you are done there isn’t a ton of free time in the day.
Spending half of that free time on such a mundane and boring way to pass the time sounds truly impractical to me.
One thing that fit people (e.g. a trainer or coach) usually forget is that the 1-4 hours they spend every day on training, prepping their bags, showering after the training, having a chat with the other training participants, is that the unfit people don't spend this time sitting around doing nothing.
Therefore, a major step in getting a healthier lifestyle is to carve out the time for dedicated sports activities, e.g. not joining the world of warcraft boss run with Leroy Jenkins, not reading that book on your desk, and/or not playing chess with your grandpa, as you used to in that time slot.
In one of my first attempts to improve my lifestyle that was a major hurdle. But walking is easy. It doesn't need much prep, it doesn't take a strain on your resilience as "harder" exercises would, and even people who don't believe in your health goals will believe that you are capable of taking a walk once in a while. So the burden of carving out that time is much lower when starting with walking. 10k steps for a beginner also means 2hs of walking every day. When you get faster, you can replace parts of it with other training. And then the next time when your overreading goals fail, you can fall back to walking instead of couch potatoing.
"Remember: Slow is smooth, smooth is fast." - Shooter, 2007
Therefore, a major step in getting a healthier lifestyle is to carve out the time for dedicated sports activities, e.g. not joining the world of warcraft boss run with Leroy Jenkins, not reading that book on your desk, and/or not playing chess with your grandpa, as you used to in that time slot.
In one of my first attempts to improve my lifestyle that was a major hurdle. But walking is easy. It doesn't need much prep, it doesn't take a strain on your resilience as "harder" exercises would, and even people who don't believe in your health goals will believe that you are capable of taking a walk once in a while. So the burden of carving out that time is much lower when starting with walking. 10k steps for a beginner also means 2hs of walking every day. When you get faster, you can replace parts of it with other training. And then the next time when your overreading goals fail, you can fall back to walking instead of couch potatoing.
"Remember: Slow is smooth, smooth is fast." - Shooter, 2007
I'm surprised noone mentioned under-desk treadmills, you can walk and work at the same time, not to mention use meetings for something productive.
I think there's some confusion over whether the term fit means just attaining an ideal body weight or also having a lean and muscular appearance. The latter isn't so easy to achieve through just walking and diet, but many people are only interested in the former.
Whatever your goals, it's hard to go wrong with a mix of weight training, cardio/walking and eating right.
Whatever your goals, it's hard to go wrong with a mix of weight training, cardio/walking and eating right.
A LOT! Measuring calories burned with a calculator or with my Whoop walking a few miles doesn't burn that much less than a hard jog. And personally I can't do an hour of intervals or all out fast.
IMO if you have the discipline to walk regularly, which is a slow and efficient activity that won’t burn too many calories quickly, then you probably have the discipline to do better workouts that will give you much faster results for the same amount of time spent walking. I don’t understand why anyone would rely on walking for fitness, it’s the worst. Humans are made to walk.
I disagree that being fit is just about not being fat, I think we should have strength / skills based tests.
For becoming fit and for losing weight faster, I think walking is not enough.
Also, what people want is a completely different game.
The problem is that societal expectations for males are not just of being lean, it's to have some muscle.
Women generally have it easier and just need to lose weight (skinny, not muscular women often rate even better than muscular women) albeit in the last years having a big booty became trendy, increasing the popularity of lower body focused weight training for women.
Losing fat is not easy but building muscle is 10x harder.
Your sleep, caloric intake, protein intake, progressive overload exercise routine need to be in place. Screw up one of this factors and you'll just be a skinny dude.
For becoming fit and for losing weight faster, I think walking is not enough.
Also, what people want is a completely different game.
The problem is that societal expectations for males are not just of being lean, it's to have some muscle.
Women generally have it easier and just need to lose weight (skinny, not muscular women often rate even better than muscular women) albeit in the last years having a big booty became trendy, increasing the popularity of lower body focused weight training for women.
Losing fat is not easy but building muscle is 10x harder.
Your sleep, caloric intake, protein intake, progressive overload exercise routine need to be in place. Screw up one of this factors and you'll just be a skinny dude.
I agree about the walking part. Walking 10k steps a day is the bare minimum to be considered a healthy habit, and it might be great if you're 70, injured or very out of shape, but we shouldn't be aiming at that. Sport is an area where I don't think there are diminishing returns. Walking 15k steps will make you feel better than walking 10k, and running them will make you feel even better.
Coincidentally today I walked more than 20k steps (10k carrying a baby), and it's a great way to have a "non zero" day while listening to music/podcasts. But it feels very, very far from a workout.
> Losing fat is not easy but building muscle is 10x harder.
> Your sleep, caloric intake, protein intake, progressive overload exercise routine need to be in place. Screw up one of this factors and you'll just be a skinny dude.
As someone who went from "quite skinny" to almost "magazine cover body" in 18 months, having a nice looking body is hard, but much easier than many people expect. Consistency is key, and I'd say eating enough is the hardest part (I think that's also true for people trying to lose weight), but it's perfectly doable. In 2 years you can achieve it. And I'm talking all natural.
Coincidentally today I walked more than 20k steps (10k carrying a baby), and it's a great way to have a "non zero" day while listening to music/podcasts. But it feels very, very far from a workout.
> Losing fat is not easy but building muscle is 10x harder.
> Your sleep, caloric intake, protein intake, progressive overload exercise routine need to be in place. Screw up one of this factors and you'll just be a skinny dude.
As someone who went from "quite skinny" to almost "magazine cover body" in 18 months, having a nice looking body is hard, but much easier than many people expect. Consistency is key, and I'd say eating enough is the hardest part (I think that's also true for people trying to lose weight), but it's perfectly doable. In 2 years you can achieve it. And I'm talking all natural.
I think the aesthetic for men is to have muscle definition rather than muscle mass per se. And that is more about being lean than having big muscles. And if you are lean it doesn't take much in the way of weight training to get enough definition to appear muscular.
What are you talking about? Building muscle is much easier than losing weight. You just have to lift heavy things on a regular basis, and eat something more nutritious than ramen. If you work out, the sleep takes care of itself. Losing weight, on the other hand, requires self control.
Yeah, no. Not by a million miles. Not eating is easy, you just ignore the hunger pain. Gaining weight is extremely hard for some people. I bet you don't know the feeling of forcing your 2nd dinner down your throat and trying not to vomit at 1am before going to bed because you're still 500kcals away from your daily caloric goal. Or setting an alarm every 90 minutes to eat yet another meal.
Some people have that problem, but look at America. Most have the opposite problem.
Millions of people having problem A doesn't make problem A harder to solve than problem B. I bet most overweight Americans don't want to lose weight. Of course they want to be at that ideal body type, but they don't want to put in the effort and changes to diet and lifestyle it takes to get there.
But we were talking about people actively trying to lose/gain weight, and willing to do the sacrifices, which is a different set of people.
But we were talking about people actively trying to lose/gain weight, and willing to do the sacrifices, which is a different set of people.
We’re just talking about some basic muscle.
my personal story: more than 3 months ago, inspired by Jack Dorsey’s diet, I walked to my office (about 5-6km per day), and started one meal a day intermittent fasting. I didn’t lose too much weight (about 2-2.5kg max) but I gained lots of stamina and endurance. Now I’m a daily runner (~5km daily, 7-15km on the weekend) and nothing could prepare my body better than walking.
Wasn’t there one particular climber that got fit to climb a difficult mountain just by brisk walking?
> So if you're chasing high-level performance, single-digit body fat, or a bodybuilder physique, then relying solely a ton of walking isn't the right move. But the reality is that most average people are pretty far from those goals, and focusing on the routines of really high performers my be doing more harm than good. In other words, expecting that you'll accomplish the training required for a movie star body when starting out a fitness routine is setting yourself up for disappointment. Walking a bunch, on the other hand, is something that is relatively simple to fit into your everyday life. The best fitness routine is always going to be the routine that you follow consistently. And I can vouch for the—unscientific, absolutely not peer reviewed—results.