|
jt512
Sep 9, 2006, 3:16 AM
Post #376 of 417
(81626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: my wife and i have replaced the "after climb beer" with an "after climb red bull"-- we treat the red bull like it was a beer-- keep it in the car, on ice, until we get back. actually, this is part of a bigger picture of cutting out beer and wine altogether.... we feel much better each day, and we're climbing stronger than ever. don't get me wrong, we miss the beer! but the alcohol just seems to do more harm than good to our bodies. victor red bull? damn that's a lot of sugar. i don't know which is worse. anyone have an opinion on this?
Diet Red Bull.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dave27
Sep 9, 2006, 3:48 AM
Post #377 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2005
Posts: 11
|
In support of upping one's protein intake to lose weight:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905225848.htm
http://www.cellmetabolism.org/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS1550413106002713
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Sep 9, 2006, 4:20 AM
Post #378 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
Beck's Premium Light beer is only 67 calories per bottle.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Sep 9, 2006, 9:41 PM
Post #379 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: . . . 1.) I am only 17 years old, is there anything I should know because of the fact that I am (I assume) still growing? 2.) I have been basing my diet off of a 2000 calorie diet for myself, . . . Any help would be appreciated, but again, if you don't want to both then don't. Thanks for the informative thread.
Start by calculating what you caloric intake should be:
http://nat.crgq.com/energy/daily.html
|
|
|
|
|
boulder_junky
Sep 28, 2006, 10:29 PM
Post #380 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2006
Posts: 51
|
In reply to: boulder_junky wrote: . . . 1.) I am only 17 years old, is there anything I should know because of the fact that I am (I assume) still growing? 2.) I have been basing my diet off of a 2000 calorie diet for myself, . . . Any help would be appreciated, but again, if you don't want to both then don't. Thanks for the informative thread. Start by calculating what you caloric intake should be: http://nat.crgq.com/energy/daily.html
I calculated my caloric intake and it said that I should be consuming 3337 kcal. Is it possible that my base metabolism is that slow?
|
|
|
|
|
coolmn
Oct 12, 2006, 7:48 PM
Post #381 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 31, 2004
Posts: 41
|
2 things, a healthy, nutrient rich diet and running, those are the healthiest things to do to lose weight for climbing
|
|
|
|
|
kurre
Oct 13, 2006, 10:39 PM
Post #382 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2006
Posts: 23
|
i dont know if i can, or want to spend the time and the effort in counting calories...
but overall to loose weigh, i just train ~6 times a week, lower my fat intake, and increase my protein intake?
and also, will taking 1-3 hour walks with maybe a heavy backpack reduce my weigh? i heard lowintesinve training will burn fat...
|
|
|
|
|
kurre
Oct 13, 2006, 10:40 PM
Post #383 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2006
Posts: 23
|
i dont think i want to count calories all day..
but overall, to loose weigh, i just train about 6 times a week, lower my fat intake and increase my protein intake?
and also, will taking 1-3 hour walks with maybe a heavy backpack reduce my weigh? i heard lowintesinve training will burn fat...
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Oct 14, 2006, 12:08 AM
Post #384 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: In reply to: boulder_junky wrote: . . . 1.) I am only 17 years old, is there anything I should know because of the fact that I am (I assume) still growing? 2.) I have been basing my diet off of a 2000 calorie diet for myself, . . . Any help would be appreciated, but again, if you don't want to both then don't. Thanks for the informative thread. Start by calculating what you caloric intake should be: http://nat.crgq.com/energy/daily.html I calculated my caloric intake and it said that I should be consuming 3337 kcal. Is it possible that my base metabolism is that slow?
You're backwards - that means that you have a high metabolism, that you should be able to burn that many calories a day.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 14, 2006, 4:48 AM
Post #385 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: and also, will taking 1-3 hour walks with maybe a heavy backpack reduce my weigh? i heard lowintesinve training will burn fat...
The idea that low-intensity aerobic exercise is better than high-intensity aerobic exercise for losing body fat is a myth. Exercising at the upper end of your aerobic range is actually more efficient for fat loss than exercising at the lower end of your aerobic range.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
Oct 14, 2006, 5:54 AM
Post #386 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
In reply to: In reply to: and also, will taking 1-3 hour walks with maybe a heavy backpack reduce my weigh? i heard lowintesinve training will burn fat... The idea that low-intensity aerobic exercise is better than high-intensity aerobic exercise for losing body fat is a myth. Exercising at the upper end of your aerobic range is actually more efficient for fat loss than exercising at the lower end of your aerobic range.
Kurre didn't write low intensity aerobic training - just low intensity training. Weight training increases muscle mass, which increases body's fat-burning. Maybe this is what kurre was referring to having heard something about. (?)
|
|
|
|
|
kurre
Oct 14, 2006, 8:09 AM
Post #387 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2006
Posts: 23
|
what i have heard is that lowintensive, like walking, burns fat and that high intensive training (maybe running at 60-75% of max, just above where you can hold a conversation) will burn...protein? heard it from my nutrition teacher so i guess its not completely a myth :p
also ola skinnarmo mentions that his skiing to the south and north pole only burned fat
and, can someone define "aerobic"? im not sure i know -exactly- what it is...
edit: another thing my teacher said was that chilifruits will increase the bodys fatburning...anyone tried that?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 14, 2006, 4:41 PM
Post #388 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: and also, will taking 1-3 hour walks with maybe a heavy backpack reduce my weigh? i heard lowintesinve training will burn fat... The idea that low-intensity aerobic exercise is better than high-intensity aerobic exercise for losing body fat is a myth. Exercising at the upper end of your aerobic range is actually more efficient for fat loss than exercising at the lower end of your aerobic range. Kurre didn't write low intensity aerobic training - just low intensity training. Weight training increases muscle mass, which increases body's fat-burning. Maybe this is what kurre was referring to having heard something about. (?)
Kurre was referring to walking, which is low-intensity aerobic activity:
In reply to: will taking 1-3 hour walks with maybe a heavy backpack reduce my weigh? i heard lowintesinve training will burn fat.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 14, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #389 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: what i have heard is that lowintensive, like walking, burns fat and that high intensive training (maybe running at 60-75% of max, just above where you can hold a conversation) will burn...protein? heard it from my nutrition teacher so i guess its not completely a myth :p
It is a myth, and your nutrition teacher has fallen for it. The amount of body fat you will lose by exercise is almost strictly a function of how many calories you burn during exercise. High intensity aerobic exercise burns more calories per unit time than low intensity, and therefore, for the same amount of time spent exercising, will cause more body fat loss. It is true that during high-intensity exercise, a greater proportion of energy expenditure is from buring carbohydrate (not protein), but it doesn't matter. The body has to restrore the carbohydrate burned, which results in increased fat burning after exercise.
In reply to: and, can someone define "aerobic"? im not sure i know -exactly- what it is...
Aerobic exercise is relatively low-intenisity exercise that you can maintain for long durations, such as bicycling, jogging, and swimming. Higher intensity exercise that you can't maintain for long durations, like sprinting or lifting heavy weights is known as anaerobic exercise. The terms "aerobic" and "anaerobic" refer to the energy systems your body uses to fuel the exercise.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
kurre
Oct 14, 2006, 6:08 PM
Post #390 of 417
(81781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2006
Posts: 23
|
In reply to: The body has to restrore the carbohydrate burned, which results in increased fat burning after exercise.
please correct me if im wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 14, 2006, 6:39 PM
Post #391 of 417
(81784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: The body has to restrore the carbohydrate burned, which results in increased fat burning after exercise. yes, but what i heard is that to restore the burned carbohydrate the body wont take from the fat. Thats why you have to eat after, for example a fruit, because otherwise the body will take energy from the muscles to recover. (and muscles is made of protein, so thats why i thought the body burns protein?) please correct me if im wrong...
The body will use carbohydrate consumed post-exercise to replenish carbohydrate stores burned during exercise, and will burn primarily stored fat to make up the resulting energy deficit. Protein from unexercised muscle can be burned, too (check out the upper bodies of some long-distance runners), so it is important to exercise muscles that you don't want to lose, and to consume sufficient protein in your diet. See my first post in this thread.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
tomma
Nov 6, 2006, 5:52 PM
Post #392 of 417
(81783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2004
Posts: 84
|
The question what training intensity works best for burning fat comes over and over again. The theory seems clear on that, Jay put it right above, but the issue is a bit more complicated.
The body uses fat, muscle protein and glycogen as energy sources in different proportions, depending on the training intensity. If you stand (or sit or lie), or walk or exercise at a low intensity (e.g. jog) it is body fat that is mainly used up. As your activity gets more intense, the proportion changes, and finally (at around 85% of your hrmax) you rely almost exclusively on glycogen. Although the proportion of body fat burnt at a high intensity is low, the total amount of energy used is high, so you still burn a lot of fat (compare it to ~100% fat burnt during walking), and you deplete the glycogen stores which need to be refilled after the workout. Some studies also suggest that after an intense workout the body uses more energy than usual (after-burn), among others to repair damaged muscle tissues.
So if you go running for e.g. an hour, and want to burn fat, you should run faster.
But if could choose between an 1h20min run at a low intensity (70%-75% hrmax) and a 45min run at a high intensity (85%-90% hrmax) which one should you choose?
The energy expenditure and amount of fat burnt are comparable. The intense workout is shorter - you will save time, and you may get the benefit of the after-burn. That's basically what lots of recent articles on the subject (e.g. on runnersworld.com) suggest.
But there is a catch (even two):
1) for an untrained runner (let's assume the activity is running, but it applies equally well to cycling or swimming) it is much easier to run at a lower intensity for 1h20min than at a high intensity for 40min, also after 40min at 85-90% hrmax (try it!) you need at least a couple of days rest, and so you can fit max 3 workouts in a week, on the other hand you can run for 90 minutes at 70%-75% almost every day, and in the end burn much more calories this way..
2) after an intense run I (and lots of other people I talked to) usually get very hungry, and then it is easy to overeat. After a long, slow run (>1:30) I hardly feel like eating, in fact I have to force myself to get some carbohydrates or protein. The feeling of tiredness is much different (it's more like after a long yoga session) and a proper diet is much easier to control then.
These two down-to-earth factors make me believe that, slow and long running is a better option if your goal is to burn the body fat.
|
|
|
|
|
fricckinfracck
Nov 8, 2006, 1:44 AM
Post #393 of 417
(81784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2006
Posts: 25
|
The easiest way to do it is to not worry about all of the complex stuff because when you start over thinking your training, it loses much of the appeal. For most people anyways. Keep things simple.
The goal is to keep your heart rate up for a minimum of 30 minutes. The harder you work yourself, the more calories you will burn due to the fact that your body will require more energy. However, it will not do too much for you to run really fast for 5 minutes and quit. So find a pace that you can do for 30 minutes, and as you get into better shape, you will find that you can pick up the pace.
Simple is always good.
|
|
|
|
|
kurre
Nov 21, 2006, 7:00 PM
Post #394 of 417
(8974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2006
Posts: 23
|
okey i got three questions i would love to get an answer to :
1. i heard that chilifruits increases the burning of fat....is this true? have anyone tried it?
2.i got an idea that if i use very thin and few clothes so i freeze all the time, the body need more energy to keep the temperature. would that work?
3. why isnt this thread sticky anymore?
(This post was edited by kurre on Nov 21, 2006, 7:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Nov 21, 2006, 7:06 PM
Post #395 of 417
(8968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Just going to toss this out, I found that Rold Gold Cheddar Flavored Twists make you full, taste good and are low fat.
I try to eat as little fast as possible.
Also, check out this site:
http://www.thedailyplate.com/
It gives you a good "Calorie" counter and breaks stuff into Protein/Fat/Carbs
Enjoy,
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Nov 21, 2006, 7:08 PM
Post #396 of 417
(8966 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
When I was running to lose weight (seriously I went from 175 to 158), I was running slow, but long.
Though you get bored, I found that running slow does the least amount of damage to the body; I could run, and then go climbing.
The first week of running always hurts/sucks, but after that, the slow running is a great way to lose weight.
I suggest listening to music and running in a nice setting. Forget the street, drive your car 10 minutes to the nearest park/rails to trails, flip on some tunes and space out! (Also, you don't want to get hit by a car!)
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
styleboy
Nov 23, 2006, 9:11 AM
Post #397 of 417
(8909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 107
|
Basically, doing anything but sitting on your couch is going to help burn calories. Loosing weight is as simple as burning more calories than calories consumed. With that said, the way to burn the most calories is to do HIIT(high intensity interval training). It goes like this:
start up with a warm up jog.. Then pick a distance such as 100 ft, 100 yards, a city block, etc. Sprint as hard as you can for that distance and then slow jog/fast walk an equal distance. Repeat this sprinting/walking pattern about 15-20 times. This is an extremely intense way to burn calories, and is best mixed with slow/distance running throughout your week to 'keep your body on its toes'.
Note you can also do this riding a bike, or treadmill or whatever you choose. There are many different ways to do HIIT, so pick and choose your own.
|
|
|
|
|
johnr9q
Nov 24, 2006, 8:34 PM
Post #398 of 417
(8858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 120
|
Thanks Jay for all your efforts. After reading this entire thread I have one concern: I eat a lot of soy. Soy milk, Soy powder, Edamame (Raw soy beans) Soy nuts, and soy made into burgers etc. Probably half of my protein is soy based. Are there nutritional concerns regarding this much soy. (10 years ago soy was presented as the perfect protein but more recently I hear more negative things about it)
|
|
|
|
|
styleboy
Nov 24, 2006, 9:30 PM
Post #399 of 417
(8848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 107
|
Well for one, Soy protein has less amino acids than Whey protein. It is also thought that soy protein can mess with your thyroid gland causing hypothyroidism... more commonly thought to happen in children though. There have been studies that have shown this to be true(in adults). It can also hinder protein digestion.
It is a large debate and if you research it you will get a lot about the benefits as well as the evils of soy. My recommendation is to balance your diet with both soy and whey... Oh yeah, don't forget casein! It's the perfect protein before bedtime because it is a slow digesting protein. That way your body has a source all night while you sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
johnr9q
Nov 24, 2006, 11:12 PM
Post #400 of 417
(8831 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 120
|
I have used flaxseed powder but quit because of a couple of reliable sources that linked it to prostate cancer. Followoing is one that I remember: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/flaxseed/NS_patient-flaxseed
(This post was edited by johnr9q on Nov 25, 2006, 3:36 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
