What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

From Fat to Fit 2024 - Back in the Saddle (2 Viewers)

Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
 
Im ready to get healthy again. I have seriously let myself go in the last 4 years as I stopped going to the gym (due to covid shutting down my office in 2020) although I do walk about 3 miles a day, stopped counting calories, and started eating late night snacks (due to the munchies). I refuse to get on scale but last year I was 260 and Im probably closer to 270 now (6'1"). I carry it well but I look fat in pictures and clothes that used to fit dont fit anymore. Its also embarrassing how out of shape I am.

The biggest reason I want to do this though is I am 46 and if I keep going down this path I will get Diabetes and/or have heart problems. Last year I had a physical and all my #s were good except cholesterol was a little high (doc just said lose some weight). Id like to have another physical sometime in the spring. Id like to lose 40 lbs by July (going on a cruise and would like to take my shirt off without being embarrassed).

I have successfully lost weight in the past doing calorie counting but I am not doing that now. My plan right now isnt really a diet but lifestyle changes as follows:

  • Join gym (I have already joined the office gym but I am only in the office twice a week so I may also join a gym at home and start going with my teenaged son).
  • Eat healthy (duh). What does this mean?
    • Limit breakfast to high protein, low sugar option such as eggs, protein shakes, etc. Only have my favorite bagel once a week. Coffee back to black.
    • Lunch will be high protein, low fat (chickens, salads, etc). No more taco Tuesdays at work lol,
    • Dinner will be my normal dinners but will limit to one serving (no seconds).
    • My biggest weakness is my sweet tooth so I am going to go cold turkey on cookies, cakes, desserts, etc. I dont drink soda so this isnt an issue.
    • No late night snacking (this will be hard if I continue to smoke weed so I will cut back on this dramatically). Might try and limit to weekends only and only right before bed so I am not tempted to snack. My stop completely. Not sure yet.
    • I dont really drink alcohol that often but I will limit this to special occasions.
    • No cheat days but will treat myself to a cheat day once a month.
Is the above plan a good one or am I fooling myself and need to do more?
It's really hard to overcome a bad diet with exercise, so the weight loss really needs to come primarily from diet. The exercise will help, but the major benefit will be with your overall fitness versus strictly weight loss.

When I've lost the most weight it's been with a primarily plant-based diet. Consequently I also had near my highest power output, but by far my best power-to-weight ratio. Your diet seems okay from what you describe, but I would try to incorporate as many vegetables as possible. I find them to be really filling and satisfying for the caloric intake. If you're working out regularly I wouldn't cut out carbs either. Processed sugar is the carb you will want to cut out, but foods like legumes and whole grains are very filling and nutritious.
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
Ok. You do realize my initial comment pertained to not losing muscle while dieting / losing weight.
 
Alrighty. I aim to lose a pound a week between now and my 54th birthday in mid-March. If I can manage that, I'll make the next goal.

I walk every morning between 45-70 minutes and get to ~12k steps per day on average. My vice is sugar from cookies/cakes/chocolate.

Despite the daily walks, I am only maintaining at around 235 lb. If I can cut out the sugar and extra portions, I'm hoping to get that 1 lb/week that I am looking for.
Hey! This is a very achievable goal! Find out what your daily caloric intake is, and then try to trim 500 calories a day off of that. That will help you get to around a pound a week weight loss.

Everyone's body is different. That calorie goal will work for some but not others, but it is a good rule of thumb. Good luck!
 
I'm 44, 6'5" tall, and weigh 275. I've been going to the gym 2-3 week or jogging 2 miles when my knee lets me. Haven't lost a damn pound.

I know my biggest issue is late night snacking. I can't seem to get around it.

Goal is to get to 250. But that's what I said last year and only lost 5 lbs.
 
I'm 44, 6'5" tall, and weigh 275. I've been going to the gym 2-3 week or jogging 2 miles when my knee lets me. Haven't lost a damn pound.

I know my biggest issue is late night snacking. I can't seem to get around it.

Goal is to get to 250. But that's what I said last year and only lost 5 lbs.
My major vice as well. There's just something comforting about good food at like 9:00 PM when I shut my brain off after working a 12-14 hr. day.

That said, I'm proud to say I resisted last night and am currently typing this from a hotel room where I've permitted myself one small bag of beef jerky after a successful second day of eating healthy, low-carb meals (including a 3x1 In N Out protein style with no spread). My carb withdrawals are currently pretty rough right now but I like that I'm in a hotel (will be tomorrow night, too) where my options are limited and I can't just wander over to my home's pantry where all of my kids' snacks and treats are at my full disposal.

Let's do this!
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
It’s from a recent meta analysis of strength training studies, pooled from 7 high quality trials with 260K participants. Their takeaway:
J-shaped associations with the maximum risk reduction (approximately 10–20%) at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities were found for all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer
Here is a link. Figure 4 shows the dose-response curve for exercise duration and mortality

The author is a Momma though. Perhaps your Momma knows better?
 
Im ready to get healthy again. I have seriously let myself go in the last 4 years as I stopped going to the gym (due to covid shutting down my office in 2020) although I do walk about 3 miles a day, stopped counting calories, and started eating late night snacks (due to the munchies). I refuse to get on scale but last year I was 260 and Im probably closer to 270 now (6'1"). I carry it well but I look fat in pictures and clothes that used to fit dont fit anymore. Its also embarrassing how out of shape I am.

The biggest reason I want to do this though is I am 46 and if I keep going down this path I will get Diabetes and/or have heart problems. Last year I had a physical and all my #s were good except cholesterol was a little high (doc just said lose some weight). Id like to have another physical sometime in the spring. Id like to lose 40 lbs by July (going on a cruise and would like to take my shirt off without being embarrassed).

I have successfully lost weight in the past doing calorie counting but I am not doing that now. My plan right now isnt really a diet but lifestyle changes as follows:

  • Join gym (I have already joined the office gym but I am only in the office twice a week so I may also join a gym at home and start going with my teenaged son).
  • Eat healthy (duh). What does this mean?
    • Limit breakfast to high protein, low sugar option such as eggs, protein shakes, etc. Only have my favorite bagel once a week. Coffee back to black.
    • Lunch will be high protein, low fat (chickens, salads, etc). No more taco Tuesdays at work lol,
    • Dinner will be my normal dinners but will limit to one serving (no seconds).
    • My biggest weakness is my sweet tooth so I am going to go cold turkey on cookies, cakes, desserts, etc. I dont drink soda so this isnt an issue.
    • No late night snacking (this will be hard if I continue to smoke weed so I will cut back on this dramatically). Might try and limit to weekends only and only right before bed so I am not tempted to snack. My stop completely. Not sure yet.
    • I dont really drink alcohol that often but I will limit this to special occasions.
    • No cheat days but will treat myself to a cheat day once a month.
Is the above plan a good one or am I fooling myself and need to do more?
I’d cut the bagel unless that’s the one thing you can’t do without. And normal dinners - what does that typically consist of?
 
Day 2. 2 30-40 minute walks with the dog, 30 minute tough peloton class, stretching, 50
Push-ups.

Scrambled eggs and Turkey sausage for breakfast. One piece of rotisserie chicken for lunch. Poke/salad bowl for dinner. Healthy choice fudge bar for dessert. Lots of water. One day/one choice at a time.

Not focused on the scale. I’ll check every once in awhile but I know if I cut out carbs, added sugar and wine I lose pretty quickly.
 
Last edited:
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
It’s from a recent meta analysis of strength training studies, pooled from 7 high quality trials with 260K participants. Their takeaway:
J-shaped associations with the maximum risk reduction (approximately 10–20%) at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities were found for all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer
Here is a link. Figure 4 shows the dose-response curve for exercise duration and mortality

The author is a Momma though. Perhaps your Momma knows better?
Well we're doing Momma jokes now, ok. Obv. not gonna read a 50 page study but your point is refuted in the conclusion. Also like many studies uses "limited data." (And anyone can come up w/ a study to try and support a point)

Engaging in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and major NCDs such as CVD, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer. However, the influence of a higher volume of muscle-strengthening activities on all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer is unclear, considering the observed J-shaped associations. In addition, the combination of muscle-strengthening and aerobic activities may provide a greater benefit for reducing all-cause, CVD and total cancer mortality. Given that the available data are limited, further studies—such as studies focusing on a more diverse population—are needed to increase the certainty of the evidence.
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
It’s from a recent meta analysis of strength training studies, pooled from 7 high quality trials with 260K participants. Their takeaway:
J-shaped associations with the maximum risk reduction (approximately 10–20%) at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities were found for all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer
Here is a link. Figure 4 shows the dose-response curve for exercise duration and mortality

The author is a Momma though. Perhaps your Momma knows better?
Well we're doing Momma jokes now, ok. Obv. not gonna read a 50 page study but your point is refuted in the conclusion. Also like many studies uses "limited data." (And anyone can come up w/ a study to try and support a point)

Engaging in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and major NCDs such as CVD, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer. However, the influence of a higher volume of muscle-strengthening activities on all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer is unclear, considering the observed J-shaped associations. In addition, the combination of muscle-strengthening and aerobic activities may provide a greater benefit for reducing all-cause, CVD and total cancer mortality. Given that the available data are limited, further studies—such as studies focusing on a more diverse population—are needed to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Hold up, you’re the guy who made the unsolicited “snowflake” comment, so forgive me if I was a little snarky in return.

And it’s OK if you’re not comfortable interpreting scientific papers (which often include disclaimers/verbiage like you’ve bolded), but unwillingness to read doesn’t constitute a valid counter argument. That study is about as good as you’ll get in the exercise literature - you won’t find a comparable study (large scale, meta analysis of high quality trials) supporting whatever point you’re trying to make. By the way, what exactly is your point?

I agree it‘s surprising high volume strengthening activities aren’t critical for optimal health - that’s exactly why I engaged @-OZ- in the first place. That doesn‘t mean some resistance training isn’t beneficial, though if health is your goal, most of us would be wise to spend the lion’s share of our time focusing on moderate intensity aerobic exercise.
 
Okay, folks. Went to the endocrinologist yesterday and she prescribed me Ozempic and another medication I start taking Wednesday. I know diet and and exercise are crucial to losing weight in addition to the Ozempic, so I'll be monitoring my physical activity and food.

This place has often been very supportive to those of us attempting to better our lives by losing weight. I hope to be checking in here soon with good news. At the very least, I'm holding myself accountable for my weight. I'm starting off at about 230 lbs. fully clothed and with shoes on at six feet tall.

Wish me luck!
 
Alrighty. I aim to lose a pound a week between now and my 54th birthday in mid-March. If I can manage that, I'll make the next goal.

I walk every morning between 45-70 minutes and get to ~12k steps per day on average. My vice is sugar from cookies/cakes/chocolate.

Despite the daily walks, I am only maintaining at around 235 lb. If I can cut out the sugar and extra portions, I'm hoping to get that 1 lb/week that I am looking for.
~500 cals a day deficit will get you your pound a week. Consistently cutting out the extras and snacks will do the trick.
 
20 years from now we’ll be getting class action lawsuits:

“Did you get an extra butthole on your elbow from taking ozempic? Call this number!”
 
20 years from now we’ll be getting class action lawsuits:

“Did you get an extra butthole on your elbow from taking ozempic? Call this number!”

Actually, I need to see the dermatologist about my elbow. I have a huge growth/callous on the end of it from resting it against a flat glass desk. Coincidence?

:oldunsure:
 
Im ready to get healthy again. I have seriously let myself go in the last 4 years as I stopped going to the gym (due to covid shutting down my office in 2020) although I do walk about 3 miles a day, stopped counting calories, and started eating late night snacks (due to the munchies). I refuse to get on scale but last year I was 260 and Im probably closer to 270 now (6'1"). I carry it well but I look fat in pictures and clothes that used to fit dont fit anymore. Its also embarrassing how out of shape I am.

The biggest reason I want to do this though is I am 46 and if I keep going down this path I will get Diabetes and/or have heart problems. Last year I had a physical and all my #s were good except cholesterol was a little high (doc just said lose some weight). Id like to have another physical sometime in the spring. Id like to lose 40 lbs by July (going on a cruise and would like to take my shirt off without being embarrassed).

I have successfully lost weight in the past doing calorie counting but I am not doing that now. My plan right now isnt really a diet but lifestyle changes as follows:

  • Join gym (I have already joined the office gym but I am only in the office twice a week so I may also join a gym at home and start going with my teenaged son).
  • Eat healthy (duh). What does this mean?
    • Limit breakfast to high protein, low sugar option such as eggs, protein shakes, etc. Only have my favorite bagel once a week. Coffee back to black.
    • Lunch will be high protein, low fat (chickens, salads, etc). No more taco Tuesdays at work lol,
    • Dinner will be my normal dinners but will limit to one serving (no seconds).
    • My biggest weakness is my sweet tooth so I am going to go cold turkey on cookies, cakes, desserts, etc. I dont drink soda so this isnt an issue.
    • No late night snacking (this will be hard if I continue to smoke weed so I will cut back on this dramatically). Might try and limit to weekends only and only right before bed so I am not tempted to snack. My stop completely. Not sure yet.
    • I dont really drink alcohol that often but I will limit this to special occasions.
    • No cheat days but will treat myself to a cheat day once a month.
Is the above plan a good one or am I fooling myself and need to do more?
I’d cut the bagel unless that’s the one thing you can’t do without. And normal dinners - what does that typically consist of?
Once a week is too much?
 
Im ready to get healthy again. I have seriously let myself go in the last 4 years as I stopped going to the gym (due to covid shutting down my office in 2020) although I do walk about 3 miles a day, stopped counting calories, and started eating late night snacks (due to the munchies). I refuse to get on scale but last year I was 260 and Im probably closer to 270 now (6'1"). I carry it well but I look fat in pictures and clothes that used to fit dont fit anymore. Its also embarrassing how out of shape I am.

The biggest reason I want to do this though is I am 46 and if I keep going down this path I will get Diabetes and/or have heart problems. Last year I had a physical and all my #s were good except cholesterol was a little high (doc just said lose some weight). Id like to have another physical sometime in the spring. Id like to lose 40 lbs by July (going on a cruise and would like to take my shirt off without being embarrassed).

I have successfully lost weight in the past doing calorie counting but I am not doing that now. My plan right now isnt really a diet but lifestyle changes as follows:

  • Join gym (I have already joined the office gym but I am only in the office twice a week so I may also join a gym at home and start going with my teenaged son).
  • Eat healthy (duh). What does this mean?
    • Limit breakfast to high protein, low sugar option such as eggs, protein shakes, etc. Only have my favorite bagel once a week. Coffee back to black.
    • Lunch will be high protein, low fat (chickens, salads, etc). No more taco Tuesdays at work lol,
    • Dinner will be my normal dinners but will limit to one serving (no seconds).
    • My biggest weakness is my sweet tooth so I am going to go cold turkey on cookies, cakes, desserts, etc. I dont drink soda so this isnt an issue.
    • No late night snacking (this will be hard if I continue to smoke weed so I will cut back on this dramatically). Might try and limit to weekends only and only right before bed so I am not tempted to snack. My stop completely. Not sure yet.
    • I dont really drink alcohol that often but I will limit this to special occasions.
    • No cheat days but will treat myself to a cheat day once a month.
Is the above plan a good one or am I fooling myself and need to do more?
I’d cut the bagel unless that’s the one thing you can’t do without. And normal dinners - what does that typically consist of?
Once a week is too much?
Nah. But, I think when you build in little cheats to your plan it’s easy to get off track.
 
Okay, folks. Went to the endocrinologist yesterday and she prescribed me Ozempic and another medication I start taking Wednesday. I know diet and and exercise are crucial to losing weight in addition to the Ozempic, so I'll be monitoring my physical activity and food.

This place has often been very supportive to those of us attempting to better our lives by losing weight. I hope to be checking in here soon with good news. At the very least, I'm holding myself accountable for my weight. I'm starting off at about 230 lbs. fully clothed and with shoes on at six feet tall.

Wish me luck!
I have been on compounded semaglutide since March. I'm sure they're starting you at a low dose, but even so I would suggest being very mindful about drinking plenty of water. And even more importantly, NEVER eat anything and lie down too quickly. That's true for most people anyway to avoid heartburn, but if you lie down or go to bed soon after eating while on semaglutide the results can be awful.
 
I have been on compounded semaglutide since March. I'm sure they're starting you at a low dose, but even so I would suggest being very mindful about drinking plenty of water. And even more importantly, NEVER eat anything and lie down too quickly. That's true for most people anyway to avoid heartburn, but if you lie down or go to bed soon after eating while on semaglutide the results can be awful.

Thanks for the advice. I was instructed to drink a lot of water for my other medication, so I'll be mindful of that. I wasn't told about lying down after eating food, but given that semaglutide affects your digestive process, I can see how complications would arise.
 
For all those habitual snackers and those who get cravings at night, I'll just look at that donut or whatever I'm considering eating and figure out how much cardio I'd have to do to burn said snack. Is one donut really worth an hour on the stair master? Nope. Those empty calories will kill your progress. Tread carefully fellas.
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
It’s from a recent meta analysis of strength training studies, pooled from 7 high quality trials with 260K participants. Their takeaway:
J-shaped associations with the maximum risk reduction (approximately 10–20%) at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities were found for all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer
Here is a link. Figure 4 shows the dose-response curve for exercise duration and mortality

The author is a Momma though. Perhaps your Momma knows better?
Well we're doing Momma jokes now, ok. Obv. not gonna read a 50 page study but your point is refuted in the conclusion. Also like many studies uses "limited data." (And anyone can come up w/ a study to try and support a point)

Engaging in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and major NCDs such as CVD, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer. However, the influence of a higher volume of muscle-strengthening activities on all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer is unclear, considering the observed J-shaped associations. In addition, the combination of muscle-strengthening and aerobic activities may provide a greater benefit for reducing all-cause, CVD and total cancer mortality. Given that the available data are limited, further studies—such as studies focusing on a more diverse population—are needed to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Hold up, you’re the guy who made the unsolicited “snowflake” comment, so forgive me if I was a little snarky in return.

And it’s OK if you’re not comfortable interpreting scientific papers (which often include disclaimers/verbiage like you’ve bolded), but unwillingness to read doesn’t constitute a valid counter argument. That study is about as good as you’ll get in the exercise literature - you won’t find a comparable study (large scale, meta analysis of high quality trials) supporting whatever point you’re trying to make. By the way, what exactly is your point?

I agree it‘s surprising high volume strengthening activities aren’t critical for optimal health - that’s exactly why I engaged @-OZ- in the first place. That doesn‘t mean some resistance training isn’t beneficial, though if health is your goal, most of us would be wise to spend the lion’s share of our time focusing on moderate intensity aerobic exercise.
Live your life like a weakling if you want because of some random study that doesn't prove what you think it does.
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
It’s from a recent meta analysis of strength training studies, pooled from 7 high quality trials with 260K participants. Their takeaway:
J-shaped associations with the maximum risk reduction (approximately 10–20%) at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities were found for all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer
Here is a link. Figure 4 shows the dose-response curve for exercise duration and mortality

The author is a Momma though. Perhaps your Momma knows better?
Well we're doing Momma jokes now, ok. Obv. not gonna read a 50 page study but your point is refuted in the conclusion. Also like many studies uses "limited data." (And anyone can come up w/ a study to try and support a point)

Engaging in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and major NCDs such as CVD, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer. However, the influence of a higher volume of muscle-strengthening activities on all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer is unclear, considering the observed J-shaped associations. In addition, the combination of muscle-strengthening and aerobic activities may provide a greater benefit for reducing all-cause, CVD and total cancer mortality. Given that the available data are limited, further studies—such as studies focusing on a more diverse population—are needed to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Hold up, you’re the guy who made the unsolicited “snowflake” comment, so forgive me if I was a little snarky in return.

And it’s OK if you’re not comfortable interpreting scientific papers (which often include disclaimers/verbiage like you’ve bolded), but unwillingness to read doesn’t constitute a valid counter argument. That study is about as good as you’ll get in the exercise literature - you won’t find a comparable study (large scale, meta analysis of high quality trials) supporting whatever point you’re trying to make. By the way, what exactly is your point?

I agree it‘s surprising high volume strengthening activities aren’t critical for optimal health - that’s exactly why I engaged @-OZ- in the first place. That doesn‘t mean some resistance training isn’t beneficial, though if health is your goal, most of us would be wise to spend the lion’s share of our time focusing on moderate intensity aerobic exercise.
Live your life like a weakling if you want because of some random study that doesn't prove what you think it does.
Hard to know what it proves, if you never bother reading it :shrug:

If I understand correctly, are you suggesting 40 minutes of resistance training weekly isn’t enough to maintain adequate strength as we age? How much is necessary to achieve strongman status, and what value does that hold anyhow?

FTR, I lifted regularly for over 20 years. Was never musclebound, but hardly a weakling then, or now.

It took a lot of wasted hours in the gym, but educating myself on exercise science finally helped me to realize there a better ways to invest my time, to optimize health, not vanity.
 
Three days down and I've stayed good (low carb).

Cravings and withdrawals were really bad yesterday but almost non-existent today (no headache) and my mood was overall improved. Went to my favorite restaurant in one of the cities I often travel for work and resisted all urges and got a really good/healthy soup and a salad with grilled shrimp as the main dish. Not gonna lie, the other daily specials looked amazing but were loaded with carbs and I tried to avoid looking at what others were eating. But, I nonetheless enjoyed what I got and even made myself stop eating with food left when I was full. This is a big deal for me.

I also walked the entirety of a 1.5 hour work call to follow @Major 's advice.
 
For all those habitual snackers and those who get cravings at night, I'll just look at that donut or whatever I'm considering eating and figure out how much cardio I'd have to do to burn said snack. Is one donut really worth an hour on the stair master? Nope. Those empty calories will kill your progress. Tread carefully fellas.
Had some baked cheese crisps last night. Got me through the munchies after a winddown edible.
 
Im ready to get healthy again. I have seriously let myself go in the last 4 years as I stopped going to the gym (due to covid shutting down my office in 2020) although I do walk about 3 miles a day, stopped counting calories, and started eating late night snacks (due to the munchies). I refuse to get on scale but last year I was 260 and Im probably closer to 270 now (6'1"). I carry it well but I look fat in pictures and clothes that used to fit dont fit anymore. Its also embarrassing how out of shape I am.

The biggest reason I want to do this though is I am 46 and if I keep going down this path I will get Diabetes and/or have heart problems. Last year I had a physical and all my #s were good except cholesterol was a little high (doc just said lose some weight). Id like to have another physical sometime in the spring. Id like to lose 40 lbs by July (going on a cruise and would like to take my shirt off without being embarrassed).

I have successfully lost weight in the past doing calorie counting but I am not doing that now. My plan right now isnt really a diet but lifestyle changes as follows:

  • Join gym (I have already joined the office gym but I am only in the office twice a week so I may also join a gym at home and start going with my teenaged son).
  • Eat healthy (duh). What does this mean?
    • Limit breakfast to high protein, low sugar option such as eggs, protein shakes, etc. Only have my favorite bagel once a week. Coffee back to black.
    • Lunch will be high protein, low fat (chickens, salads, etc). No more taco Tuesdays at work lol,
    • Dinner will be my normal dinners but will limit to one serving (no seconds).
    • My biggest weakness is my sweet tooth so I am going to go cold turkey on cookies, cakes, desserts, etc. I dont drink soda so this isnt an issue.
    • No late night snacking (this will be hard if I continue to smoke weed so I will cut back on this dramatically). Might try and limit to weekends only and only right before bed so I am not tempted to snack. My stop completely. Not sure yet.
    • I dont really drink alcohol that often but I will limit this to special occasions.
    • No cheat days but will treat myself to a cheat day once a month.
Is the above plan a good one or am I fooling myself and need to do more?
I’d cut the bagel unless that’s the one thing you can’t do without. And normal dinners - what does that typically consist of?
Once a week is too much?
Nah. But, I think when you build in little cheats to your plan it’s easy to get off track.
Definitely agree with this. My mind is not the Dutch boy plugging the dyke. If I let a small crack go, the floodgates open.
 
I would say this: every person is unique, and we all have bodies where some things work for us and other things don't. I'd like for people to share ideas of what has worked for them and avoid criticizing what has worked for others (unless it is absolutely clearly health detrimental). It should be noted that none of us are doctors, and you should always follow your doctor's advice as they are more informed and have more data about your health than any of us.

Good progress being made! Keep your focus on your goals, and don't let a one day (or stretch) of bad decisions totally derail you. Make the next right health decision. I know the first 2 or 3 days when I cut my calories, I have the hunger pains, but I know I'm not going to starve. After that my stomach shrinks a little, or I just get used to it, and it becomes much easier. Stick with it!
 
I need some help with fish oil supplements.

What is the best dosage and type? It’s overwhelming, there are so many choices.

Right now I am taking cold water fish oil soft gel once a day.
 
My focus in lifestyle change is getting healthier - losing weight would be a benefit but is not my top priority.

Doing a 16-8 intermittent fast every day, cut out all soft drinks, and any ultra processed food.

My liver numbers have been bad over the years, doctor said I have fatty liver (I rarely if ever, drink alcohol, just terrible diet).

Looking forward to following everyone’s journey.
 
I need some help with fish oil supplements.

What is the best dosage and type? It’s overwhelming, there are so many choices.

Right now I am taking cold water fish oil soft gel once a day.
I switched to Krill oil awhile back. Not suggesting it's better, but I frankly got confused and frustrated with trying to balance the right amounts of Omega 3 and Omega 6.
 
I need some help with fish oil supplements.

What is the best dosage and type? It’s overwhelming, there are so many choices.

Right now I am taking cold water fish oil soft gel once a day.

Yeah, there is a lot of low quality junk out there that won't do much for you. You want the Norwegian fish oil iirc. Nordic Naturals is probably the best but can get expensive (like 5-10x the cheap stuff). Found one called Oximega that I've been using lately that is about half the price of Nordic: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003DKVR1U?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
It’s from a recent meta analysis of strength training studies, pooled from 7 high quality trials with 260K participants. Their takeaway:
J-shaped associations with the maximum risk reduction (approximately 10–20%) at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities were found for all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer
Here is a link. Figure 4 shows the dose-response curve for exercise duration and mortality

The author is a Momma though. Perhaps your Momma knows better?
Well we're doing Momma jokes now, ok. Obv. not gonna read a 50 page study but your point is refuted in the conclusion. Also like many studies uses "limited data." (And anyone can come up w/ a study to try and support a point)

Engaging in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and major NCDs such as CVD, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer. However, the influence of a higher volume of muscle-strengthening activities on all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer is unclear, considering the observed J-shaped associations. In addition, the combination of muscle-strengthening and aerobic activities may provide a greater benefit for reducing all-cause, CVD and total cancer mortality. Given that the available data are limited, further studies—such as studies focusing on a more diverse population—are needed to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Hold up, you’re the guy who made the unsolicited “snowflake” comment, so forgive me if I was a little snarky in return.

And it’s OK if you’re not comfortable interpreting scientific papers (which often include disclaimers/verbiage like you’ve bolded), but unwillingness to read doesn’t constitute a valid counter argument. That study is about as good as you’ll get in the exercise literature - you won’t find a comparable study (large scale, meta analysis of high quality trials) supporting whatever point you’re trying to make. By the way, what exactly is your point?

I agree it‘s surprising high volume strengthening activities aren’t critical for optimal health - that’s exactly why I engaged @-OZ- in the first place. That doesn‘t mean some resistance training isn’t beneficial, though if health is your goal, most of us would be wise to spend the lion’s share of our time focusing on moderate intensity aerobic exercise.
Live your life like a weakling if you want because of some random study that doesn't prove what you think it does.
Hard to know what it proves, if you never bother reading it :shrug:

If I understand correctly, are you suggesting 40 minutes of resistance training weekly isn’t enough to maintain adequate strength as we age? How much is necessary to achieve strongman status, and what value does that hold anyhow?

FTR, I lifted regularly for over 20 years. Was never musclebound, but hardly a weakling then, or now.

It took a lot of wasted hours in the gym, but educating myself on exercise science finally helped me to realize there a better ways to invest my time, to optimize health, not vanity.

I like going to the gym. It's the most relaxing part of my day. Do an hour of cardio in the morning and an hour of lifting in the evening.
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
It’s from a recent meta analysis of strength training studies, pooled from 7 high quality trials with 260K participants. Their takeaway:
J-shaped associations with the maximum risk reduction (approximately 10–20%) at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities were found for all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer
Here is a link. Figure 4 shows the dose-response curve for exercise duration and mortality

The author is a Momma though. Perhaps your Momma knows better?
Well we're doing Momma jokes now, ok. Obv. not gonna read a 50 page study but your point is refuted in the conclusion. Also like many studies uses "limited data." (And anyone can come up w/ a study to try and support a point)

Engaging in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and major NCDs such as CVD, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer. However, the influence of a higher volume of muscle-strengthening activities on all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer is unclear, considering the observed J-shaped associations. In addition, the combination of muscle-strengthening and aerobic activities may provide a greater benefit for reducing all-cause, CVD and total cancer mortality. Given that the available data are limited, further studies—such as studies focusing on a more diverse population—are needed to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Hold up, you’re the guy who made the unsolicited “snowflake” comment, so forgive me if I was a little snarky in return.

And it’s OK if you’re not comfortable interpreting scientific papers (which often include disclaimers/verbiage like you’ve bolded), but unwillingness to read doesn’t constitute a valid counter argument. That study is about as good as you’ll get in the exercise literature - you won’t find a comparable study (large scale, meta analysis of high quality trials) supporting whatever point you’re trying to make. By the way, what exactly is your point?

I agree it‘s surprising high volume strengthening activities aren’t critical for optimal health - that’s exactly why I engaged @-OZ- in the first place. That doesn‘t mean some resistance training isn’t beneficial, though if health is your goal, most of us would be wise to spend the lion’s share of our time focusing on moderate intensity aerobic exercise.
Live your life like a weakling if you want because of some random study that doesn't prove what you think it does.
Hard to know what it proves, if you never bother reading it :shrug:

If I understand correctly, are you suggesting 40 minutes of resistance training weekly isn’t enough to maintain adequate strength as we age? How much is necessary to achieve strongman status, and what value does that hold anyhow?

FTR, I lifted regularly for over 20 years. Was never musclebound, but hardly a weakling then, or now.

It took a lot of wasted hours in the gym, but educating myself on exercise science finally helped me to realize there a better ways to invest my time, to optimize health, not vanity.

I like going to the gym. It's the most relaxing part of my day. Do an hour of cardio in the morning and an hour of lifting in the evening.

That's my ideal workout split but the morning cardio is always a struggle.

If I don't lift weights for at least 45 minutes/4x week I don't feel satisfied. To each his own but I believe Arnold would consider that 40 minutes a week, weight lifting regime a "girlie man" routine ;)
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
It’s from a recent meta analysis of strength training studies, pooled from 7 high quality trials with 260K participants. Their takeaway:
J-shaped associations with the maximum risk reduction (approximately 10–20%) at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities were found for all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer
Here is a link. Figure 4 shows the dose-response curve for exercise duration and mortality

The author is a Momma though. Perhaps your Momma knows better?
Well we're doing Momma jokes now, ok. Obv. not gonna read a 50 page study but your point is refuted in the conclusion. Also like many studies uses "limited data." (And anyone can come up w/ a study to try and support a point)

Engaging in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and major NCDs such as CVD, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer. However, the influence of a higher volume of muscle-strengthening activities on all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer is unclear, considering the observed J-shaped associations. In addition, the combination of muscle-strengthening and aerobic activities may provide a greater benefit for reducing all-cause, CVD and total cancer mortality. Given that the available data are limited, further studies—such as studies focusing on a more diverse population—are needed to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Hold up, you’re the guy who made the unsolicited “snowflake” comment, so forgive me if I was a little snarky in return.

And it’s OK if you’re not comfortable interpreting scientific papers (which often include disclaimers/verbiage like you’ve bolded), but unwillingness to read doesn’t constitute a valid counter argument. That study is about as good as you’ll get in the exercise literature - you won’t find a comparable study (large scale, meta analysis of high quality trials) supporting whatever point you’re trying to make. By the way, what exactly is your point?

I agree it‘s surprising high volume strengthening activities aren’t critical for optimal health - that’s exactly why I engaged @-OZ- in the first place. That doesn‘t mean some resistance training isn’t beneficial, though if health is your goal, most of us would be wise to spend the lion’s share of our time focusing on moderate intensity aerobic exercise.
Live your life like a weakling if you want because of some random study that doesn't prove what you think it does.
Hard to know what it proves, if you never bother reading it :shrug:

If I understand correctly, are you suggesting 40 minutes of resistance training weekly isn’t enough to maintain adequate strength as we age? How much is necessary to achieve strongman status, and what value does that hold anyhow?

FTR, I lifted regularly for over 20 years. Was never musclebound, but hardly a weakling then, or now.

It took a lot of wasted hours in the gym, but educating myself on exercise science finally helped me to realize there a better ways to invest my time, to optimize health, not vanity.

I like going to the gym. It's the most relaxing part of my day. Do an hour of cardio in the morning and an hour of lifting in the evening.

That's my ideal workout split but the morning cardio is always a struggle.

If I don't lift weights for at least 45 minutes/4x week I don't feel satisfied. To each his own but I believe Arnold would consider that 40 minutes a week, weight lifting regime a "girlie man" routine ;)

It's part of my routine now. When I do my hour walk on the treadmill, I'll watch an episode of a series. So far I've gotten through The Last Kingdom, Breaking Bad and I'm on season 4 of Better Call Saul. Makes the cardio go by really quick.
 
Commit to weighing yourself regularly and reporting back here
I’d advocate again for a body measurement scale if you can get access to one. There’s a huge difference between losing 5 lbs in a month when it’s mostly fat vs losing muscle. Losing muscle in our middle age isn’t recommended for most of us.
Losing muscle probably isn’t a good idea for anyone, though it’s always been interesting to me that all the really old people I’ve met are quite thin, and always were. I don’t expect 100 year old powerlifters, but it doesn’t seem like extra muscle is associated with longevity.

Part of it may be related to intake of our current “halo” macronutrient: protein. While we certainly need enough to maintain muscle mass, there’s data suggesting high animal protein intake (over 20% daily calories) in middle age leads to excess mortality.

Conversely, low protein intake in people over age 65 increases the risk of death. Then again, none of the longevity hotspots (aka Blue Zones) consume more than 10-15% calories as protein; their diets are carbohydrate rich, without exception.
I’m not talking about beefy power lifters, but if that’s the average FBG, ok. Somehow i don’t think we’re surrounded by Mr or Mrs Olympia clones.
There are plenty of studies showing how strength training and muscular strength enhances health span. Anecdotally, seeing my parents age prematurely because they didn’t work to maintain strength is enough for me to keep working to maintain.
I‘m not debating whether strength training is helpful - clearly it is. But I think the goal should be maintaining (vs. building) muscle, for most people. Unlike aerobic exercise, there is a U-shaped mortality curve for strength training, with maximal benefit around ~40 min/week, and harm over 140. That’s not a lot, when you consider benefit up to 600min/week for aerobic exercise, and no clear ceiling, or harmful amount.

I only say this as many guys are eager to go to the gym as their sole exercise, while society has simultaneously decided maximizing protein intake is a wise dietary choice. If either of those were valid strategies, wouldn’t you expect a smattering of ex-Olympians amongst the ranks of centarians?

FTR, I do body weight exercise 3-4 days a week, but I quit lifting over a decade ago.
40 minutes/week is the max benefit? what kind of snowflake are you getting this information from?
It’s from a recent meta analysis of strength training studies, pooled from 7 high quality trials with 260K participants. Their takeaway:
J-shaped associations with the maximum risk reduction (approximately 10–20%) at approximately 30–60 min/week of muscle-strengthening activities were found for all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer
Here is a link. Figure 4 shows the dose-response curve for exercise duration and mortality

The author is a Momma though. Perhaps your Momma knows better?
Well we're doing Momma jokes now, ok. Obv. not gonna read a 50 page study but your point is refuted in the conclusion. Also like many studies uses "limited data." (And anyone can come up w/ a study to try and support a point)

Engaging in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and major NCDs such as CVD, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer. However, the influence of a higher volume of muscle-strengthening activities on all-cause mortality, CVD and total cancer is unclear, considering the observed J-shaped associations. In addition, the combination of muscle-strengthening and aerobic activities may provide a greater benefit for reducing all-cause, CVD and total cancer mortality. Given that the available data are limited, further studies—such as studies focusing on a more diverse population—are needed to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Hold up, you’re the guy who made the unsolicited “snowflake” comment, so forgive me if I was a little snarky in return.

And it’s OK if you’re not comfortable interpreting scientific papers (which often include disclaimers/verbiage like you’ve bolded), but unwillingness to read doesn’t constitute a valid counter argument. That study is about as good as you’ll get in the exercise literature - you won’t find a comparable study (large scale, meta analysis of high quality trials) supporting whatever point you’re trying to make. By the way, what exactly is your point?

I agree it‘s surprising high volume strengthening activities aren’t critical for optimal health - that’s exactly why I engaged @-OZ- in the first place. That doesn‘t mean some resistance training isn’t beneficial, though if health is your goal, most of us would be wise to spend the lion’s share of our time focusing on moderate intensity aerobic exercise.
Live your life like a weakling if you want because of some random study that doesn't prove what you think it does.
Hard to know what it proves, if you never bother reading it :shrug:

If I understand correctly, are you suggesting 40 minutes of resistance training weekly isn’t enough to maintain adequate strength as we age? How much is necessary to achieve strongman status, and what value does that hold anyhow?

FTR, I lifted regularly for over 20 years. Was never musclebound, but hardly a weakling then, or now.

It took a lot of wasted hours in the gym, but educating myself on exercise science finally helped me to realize there a better ways to invest my time, to optimize health, not vanity.

I like going to the gym. It's the most relaxing part of my day. Do an hour of cardio in the morning and an hour of lifting in the evening.

That's my ideal workout split but the morning cardio is always a struggle.

If I don't lift weights for at least 45 minutes/4x week I don't feel satisfied. To each his own but I believe Arnold would consider that 40 minutes a week, weight lifting regime a "girlie man" routine ;)

It's part of my routine now. When I do my hour walk on the treadmill, I'll watch an episode of a series. So far I've gotten through The Last Kingdom, Breaking Bad and I'm on season 4 of Better Call Saul. Makes the cardio go by really quick.

A few years back I did that routinely but I had a gym in my building so it made it easier/no excuses type thing. Definitely miss the convenience.
 

I like going to the gym. It's the most relaxing part of my day. Do an hour of cardio in the morning and an hour of lifting in the evening.

That's my ideal workout split but the morning cardio is always a struggle.

If I don't lift weights for at least 45 minutes/4x week I don't feel satisfied. To each his own but I believe Arnold would consider that 40 minutes a week, weight lifting regime a "girlie man" routine ;)
I’m not trying to rain on people’s lifting parade, rather, to set the record straight what is/isn’t known about exercise and health. Males in particular tend to overemphasize resistance training, often at the expense of cardiovascular exercise, when trying to get “fit”. For those who don’t love the weight room, the good news is, a little goes a long way.

A side effect of overzealous muscle building is excess (animal) protein consumption, which also isn’t healthy. Rather than striving to increase fruit, veggie, legume and grain intake, it seems like every other post mentions upping protein consumption. Much like lifting, a little protein goes a long way, and the typical American diet already provides in excess of what’s needed.

Arnold may believe all this behavior results in “girlie men”, but he‘s not exactly a model of health, with three open heart surgeries by age 73. To be fair, those were for faulty valves, which may or may not have been attributable to his lifestyle choices.
 
I’m not trying to rain on people’s lifting parade, rather, to set the record straight what is/isn’t known about exercise and health. Males in particular tend to overemphasize resistance training, often at the expense of cardiovascular exercise, when trying to get “fit”. For those who don’t love the weight room, the good news is, a little goes a long way.

A side effect of overzealous muscle building is excess (animal) protein consumption, which also isn’t healthy. Rather than striving to increase fruit, veggie, legume and grain intake, it seems like every other post mentions upping protein consumption. Much like lifting, a little protein goes a long way, and the typical American diet already provides in excess of what’s needed.

Arnold may believe all this behavior results in “girlie men”, but he‘s not exactly a model of health, with three open heart surgeries by age 73. To be fair, those were for faulty valves, which may or may not have been attributable to his lifestyle choices.

I was just joking around with the Arnold quote. He ingested so many steroids back in the day that I'm surprised he's still alive. I'm a true believer in that workouts are meant to be tailored to the individual and different things work for different people.

As for the study, I'll have to look into all the variables involved but I'm a big believer in resistance training and building muscle while you're still young. My Uncle is 81 and still lifts weights daily. He stopped running a few years back because of the wear and tear it causes your knees/joints so I'm mindful of not running myself into the ground. I'm still a big cardio advocate but think it should be balanced with a solid weight lifting routine.
 
If I don't lift weights for at least 45 minutes/4x week I don't feel satisfied. To each his own but I believe Arnold would consider that 40 minutes a week, weight lifting regime a "girlie man" routine ;)

😆 I’m okay being a girlie man. Just 2-3x weekly, 20-30 minutes of strength.
But then I was over 400 hours of cardio last year, not including daily 45-60 minute walks with the dog (and sometimes a kid or wife).
 
I would say this: every person is unique, and we all have bodies where some things work for us and other things don't. I'd like for people to share ideas of what has worked for them and avoid criticizing what has worked for others (unless it is absolutely clearly health detrimental). It should be noted that none of us are doctors, and you should always follow your doctor's advice as they are more informed and have more data about your health than any of us.

Good progress being made! Keep your focus on your goals, and don't let a one day (or stretch) of bad decisions totally derail you. Make the next right health decision. I know the first 2 or 3 days when I cut my calories, I have the hunger pains, but I know I'm not going to starve. After that my stomach shrinks a little, or I just get used to it, and it becomes much easier. Stick with it!
Good stuff. And really glad & appreciative that you continue to post in here!

I’m heading home from vacation tomorrow, so my next health push begins on Sunday. Going back to what has worked for me before, along with a couple new things:

- using MyFitnessPal app to track calories
- getting in about 8 miles per day of steps via walking, jogging and/or running
- not eating after 8pm
- the 100 Push Up Plan (have been back at it for 2 weeks or so)

New things I’m trying:
- exercise first thing each weekday
- having ample supply of fresh fruit and veggies in the fridge ready to go
- no ice cream or cookies in the house for the first 8 weeks (this is my vice)
- yoga 2x per week. I’m only half joking about going 1x per week to a class with hot younger women as motivation. 1x per week (minimum) I will go with my wife!

The holidays are always rough for me. It’s way too easy to slip back into my sugar addiction, and I definitely did that this year. My first weigh-in will be Sunday, and I fully expect to be very close to my weight back when this thread began. While that is a bit depressing and feels like a big hill to climb, the reality is that I can do this. I’ve done it before. It is very simple — I just have to want the outcome enough to make a change. That’s been my barrier.

My reasons to want to change:
- I’ve had recurring knee pain for about 12 months now. PT has helped a lot, but I know that losing 15 pounds would make a dramatic difference.
- my cholesterol still isn’t great, and I’m on meds to help with it. I hate taking meds. My diet needs to change, for both cholesterol and for long-term health. My dad had a heart attack in his early 60s. I’d rather avoid that.
- I don’t want to keep losing weight, gaining it back, lather/rinse/repeat. I want to be a good example for my kids.
- would like to improve my core strength and flexibility


Good luck to anyone else committing to a goal or considering it. Just do it! Take the action now!
 
If I don't lift weights for at least 45 minutes/4x week I don't feel satisfied. To each his own but I believe Arnold would consider that 40 minutes a week, weight lifting regime a "girlie man" routine ;)

😆 I’m okay being a girlie man. Just 2-3x weekly, 20-30 minutes of strength.
But then I was over 400 hours of cardio last year, not including daily 45-60 minute walks with the dog (and sometimes a kid or wife).
I think your approach is much closer to “ideal”.

While individual differences certainly exist, well-designed population studies don’t lie: 300-600 minutes of moderate intensity cardiovascular work outs + 40 minute strength training weekly optimize risk reduction for all-cause mortality.
 
I have always been a fairly fit, fairly skinny dude. A knee surgery, an ankle in a walking boot, and way too many beers over the past year had done a number on my belly and overall fitness. Still drink too many beers, but the single best thing I have found is to find a sport that you enjoy, and play it - a lot. For me, that used to be basketball and cycling, but over the past 6 months to a year, it has turned into tennis and climbing. Tennis gives me a crazy cardio workout while climbing gives me a full body strength workout. I climb with my kids, which helps with timing and such, and I play tennis a couple nights a week (sometimes as late as 9 - 11 PM). This combo has really worked for me. I have joined gyms, bought a peloton, tried all sorts of other workout classes - but for me, the adrenaline of competition really drives me.

I have also seen great improvements in my tennis game and climbing abilities. Won my first ever singles tennis tournament in the spring and have recently climbed a V6 boulder (look it up if curious - not great in the world of climbing but great for a 49 year old who really just started climbing a couple months ago).
 
If I don't lift weights for at least 45 minutes/4x week I don't feel satisfied. To each his own but I believe Arnold would consider that 40 minutes a week, weight lifting regime a "girlie man" routine ;)

😆 I’m okay being a girlie man. Just 2-3x weekly, 20-30 minutes of strength.
But then I was over 400 hours of cardio last year, not including daily 45-60 minute walks with the dog (and sometimes a kid or wife).
I think your approach is much closer to “ideal”.

While individual differences certainly exist, well-designed population studies don’t lie: 300-600 minutes of moderate intensity cardiovascular work outs + 40 minute strength training weekly optimize risk reduction for all-cause mortality.
population studies lie all the time and many are not worth the paper they're written on. now i haven't gone through this one in detail so am speaking generally.
 
I have always been a fairly fit, fairly skinny dude. A knee surgery, an ankle in a walking boot, and way too many beers over the past year had done a number on my belly and overall fitness. Still drink too many beers, but the single best thing I have found is to find a sport that you enjoy, and play it - a lot. For me, that used to be basketball and cycling, but over the past 6 months to a year, it has turned into tennis and climbing. Tennis gives me a crazy cardio workout while climbing gives me a full body strength workout. I climb with my kids, which helps with timing and such, and I play tennis a couple nights a week (sometimes as late as 9 - 11 PM). This combo has really worked for me. I have joined gyms, bought a peloton, tried all sorts of other workout classes - but for me, the adrenaline of competition really drives me.

I have also seen great improvements in my tennis game and climbing abilities. Won my first ever singles tennis tournament in the spring and have recently climbed a V6 boulder (look it up if curious - not great in the world of climbing but great for a 49 year old who really just started climbing a couple months ago).
V6 in a couple months is phenomenal, independent of age!
 
If I don't lift weights for at least 45 minutes/4x week I don't feel satisfied. To each his own but I believe Arnold would consider that 40 minutes a week, weight lifting regime a "girlie man" routine ;)

😆 I’m okay being a girlie man. Just 2-3x weekly, 20-30 minutes of strength.
But then I was over 400 hours of cardio last year, not including daily 45-60 minute walks with the dog (and sometimes a kid or wife).
I think your approach is much closer to “ideal”.

While individual differences certainly exist, well-designed population studies don’t lie: 300-600 minutes of moderate intensity cardiovascular work outs + 40 minute strength training weekly optimize risk reduction for all-cause mortality.
population studies lie all the time and many are not worth the paper they're written on. now i haven't gone through this one in detail so am speaking generally.
Certainly the methodology can be flawed, and statistics cherry-picked, or manipulated. But all that is much less likely with meta analyses of high quality studieS - the article I linked included.

You’re free to believe otherwise, but realize your opinion isn’t validated by the available scientific evidence. Gut feelings don’t count.

Oddly enough, aren’t “snowflakes” accused of acting solely based on feelings, and being overly sensitive to opposing viewpoints?
 
Last edited:
Bragging time. It’s Friday night and I’m having a whisky but I avoided the chicken Alfredo pasta dish my wife made and the popcorn my kids had for our family movie night.

This is huge for me bc I worked like a 70 hr week and normally at this time there is zero willpower but I kept it together.

Drinking a very fine glass of whisky to reward myself.
 
Bragging time. It’s Friday night and I’m having a whisky but I avoided the chicken Alfredo pasta dish my wife made and the popcorn my kids had for our family movie night.

This is huge for me bc I worked like a 70 hr week and normally at this time there is zero willpower but I kept it together.

Drinking a very fine glass of whisky to reward myself.
Popcorn is actually a decent late night snack. High in fiber and low in calories. Nice work on avoiding the alfredo though :hifive:
 
Bragging time. It’s Friday night and I’m having a whisky but I avoided the chicken Alfredo pasta dish my wife made and the popcorn my kids had for our family movie night.

This is huge for me bc I worked like a 70 hr week and normally at this time there is zero willpower but I kept it together.

Drinking a very fine glass of whisky to reward myself.
Popcorn is actually a decent late night snack. High in fiber and low in calories. Nice work on avoiding the alfredo though :hifive:
Air popped popcorn without butter or salt is a perfect snack.
:clap: to the rest
 
Bragging time. It’s Friday night and I’m having a whisky but I avoided the chicken Alfredo pasta dish my wife made and the popcorn my kids had for our family movie night.

This is huge for me bc I worked like a 70 hr week and normally at this time there is zero willpower but I kept it together.

Drinking a very fine glass of whisky to reward myself.
Popcorn is actually a decent late night snack. High in fiber and low in calories. Nice work on avoiding the alfredo though :hifive:
Agreed, but I historically love popcorn in way too much of a portion size and I prefer like the Pop Secret Butter Lovers or whatever. I need to get a more healthy air popper.

Honestly, I mainly wanted to avoid the popcorn to both prove to myself I could do it and to use it as a way to continue to help me break my prior poor later night snacking routine.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top