Steeler
Footballguy
fred_1_15301 said:
Are you trying to make friends in this thread? Sometimes it doesn't seem so
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.
Otis fad diet thread — yoga, fasting, and kevzilla walking on🚶♂️ (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
Steeler
Footballguy
I was over target calories by 319 yesterday, but it was my daughter's birthday and she got to pick breakfast and dinner: Einstein Bagels for breakfast and Moe's for dinner followed by a Dairy Queen ice cream pie (hey, we supported businesses in our area!). Given the food choices +319 doesn't seem too bad.
+301 cumulative calories for the challenge on day 2.
+301 cumulative calories for the challenge on day 2.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
Ha - the most I've ever weighed in my life was 165 (I'm about 5'8). My average over the past however long I can remember has been around 150-155 (which is probably where I want to be). If my scale is correct, I'm under that right now (which is not where I want to be BTW). Before these April/May challenges, I had already been working out a lot more. I had started training for a 10 mile run earlier this year and since isolation, I've forced myself to exercise more for my own psyche. I want to put on about 5 pounds but I want to do it in a healthier way (i.e. not by eating kit kats and ice cream bars to make up calories). I'll take any advice here.Are you trying to make friends in this thread? Sometimes it doesn't seem so
I have no clue how my wife has been losing weight but she looks great (her size 4 jeans were loose on her for the first time in a long time). She exercises a decent bit but she also grazes more than I do. She doesn't drink much though (unlike me).
I'm going to duck now to dodge all of the rocks that are being thrown at me........
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I will repeat I will not be weighing myself daily however...this morning for S&Gs...Ministry of Pain said:
5/4-200.0
5/5-199.2
5/6-198.2
I would also like to add that combined with what the Mrs has lost this week, we're over 5 lbs already and she has her settings on MFP on the lowest activity/no activity. She got started on May 1st/2nd, but not much of a head start. I would really like to stay off that scale until May 15th, let's see if I can chill out and just focus on one meal at a time.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Einstein has bagel thins. It's like when one side of the bagel gets cut extra thick and the other side thin except you get both thin sides. 190 calories.
Junior homewrecker at moe's is about 500 calories with chicken and low rice. Depends what else you put. Dq is going to run you about 4-500 depending what you got exactly. That's very doable imo.
More lifting weights, more protein (and calories overall), less cardio...I think that will get you there.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Protein. Core workouts especially low abs plus quads/hamstrings and calves for running. Lots of water. Pushups and curls for the girls. Eat more calories than your daily goal but clean protein.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
Stick with the big heavy movements such as squats, deadlifts, bench press, chin ups. Add rows, lat pull downs, ham curls, and military press to round things out. Upper vs lower body split done twice per week should work. After 6-8 weeks, change your routine.
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
Just did an awesome hike. 6.5 miles in the heat of the day. With some seriously steep climbs. Average heart rate, over 2 hours, was 128. Max 169. One app gave me 1261 calories burned, another 721. I’ll call it 1000. Currently sitting at 812 calories consumed. Looking good.
The Flying Turtle
Footballguy
5/6 - 6th day under WW points with a 3 mile run. There were a few times today when I wanted to cheat, but got by with fruit and yogurt.
Shout out to BF for reminding me to make sure to eat enough calories since I only had about 1500 yesterday. Today I finished at about 1800.
Shout out to BF for reminding me to make sure to eat enough calories since I only had about 1500 yesterday. Today I finished at about 1800.
cheeseypoof
Footballguy
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
body was starving after todays endeavors. added in a protein shake, with a banana. don't forget to eat people. especially, if you're challenging your body physically.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Day 36-Good Updates tonight.
-Started off around 11 this morning, just wanted to get the Mrs outside for a little 6 mile ride around the neighborhood and then I went one more time around the track while she gathered up drinks and towels since the POOL is OPEN now and we had a blast catching up with some of our neighbors and while we won't log any exercise because I was just floating and not swimming but it felt good to be able to hang out there again. Also quite refreshing in 89 degree heat.
-Went out again tonight for a longer ride and we saw deer again for about the 10th time in the last 2-3 weeks, lots of our neighbors say they've never seen one...we see some amazing creatures, saw a leatherback turtle trying to climb a fence.
We did more bilateral self propulsion tonight for 75 minutes and this is the first day I can remember where I didn't walk at least once during the day...however my ankles have been really sore, that's what you get for 3,400 minutes in April.
120 minutes for Me, 105 for Mrs
755 for Me
680 for Mrs
We both had over 1,000 calorie deficits today, Mrs really digging the amount of calories you burn cycling vs walking in the MF App.
-Started off around 11 this morning, just wanted to get the Mrs outside for a little 6 mile ride around the neighborhood and then I went one more time around the track while she gathered up drinks and towels since the POOL is OPEN now and we had a blast catching up with some of our neighbors and while we won't log any exercise because I was just floating and not swimming but it felt good to be able to hang out there again. Also quite refreshing in 89 degree heat.
-Went out again tonight for a longer ride and we saw deer again for about the 10th time in the last 2-3 weeks, lots of our neighbors say they've never seen one...we see some amazing creatures, saw a leatherback turtle trying to climb a fence.
We did more bilateral self propulsion tonight for 75 minutes and this is the first day I can remember where I didn't walk at least once during the day...however my ankles have been really sore, that's what you get for 3,400 minutes in April.
120 minutes for Me, 105 for Mrs
755 for Me
680 for Mrs
We both had over 1,000 calorie deficits today, Mrs really digging the amount of calories you burn cycling vs walking in the MF App.
Last edited by a moderator:
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
Not much in terms of exercise today as I was purposely taking a rest day. Did a very short dance workout with the family and about 15 minutes of chest. Diet pretty good:
Breakfast - 2 scrambled eggs, mini bagel with light spread of margarine
Lunch - 3 fairly small slices of frozen pizza (440 calories), 2 mozzarella sticks (200 calories) and a bowl of salad without any dressing (the old me would have eaten at least one additional slice and one additional mozzarella sticks)
Snack - 1 tablespoon of Bleu Cheese with Carrots and half a pretzel stick
Dinner - Indian food - Chole Shak with Rice (2 servings) and half a piece of pita bread
Overall 350 under on the day but about to have a drink so I'll be under by a little less.
Breakfast - 2 scrambled eggs, mini bagel with light spread of margarine
Lunch - 3 fairly small slices of frozen pizza (440 calories), 2 mozzarella sticks (200 calories) and a bowl of salad without any dressing (the old me would have eaten at least one additional slice and one additional mozzarella sticks)
Snack - 1 tablespoon of Bleu Cheese with Carrots and half a pretzel stick
Dinner - Indian food - Chole Shak with Rice (2 servings) and half a piece of pita bread
Overall 350 under on the day but about to have a drink so I'll be under by a little less.
Last edited by a moderator:
Otis
Footballguy
Calorie counting lasted one day for me. I just can’t do it. Good luck all. I need to figure out something else here. Because sitting on my rear all day and then eating and drinking crap is bad.
I’m at least exercising. Two days ago I rowed and bikes. Today walked for an hour. Tomorrow I’ll row again. If I could just pair that up with doing things right on the diet side, I’d be money.
I’m at least exercising. Two days ago I rowed and bikes. Today walked for an hour. Tomorrow I’ll row again. If I could just pair that up with doing things right on the diet side, I’d be money.
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
i've warmed to it, somewhat. and i was seriously against it. give it a shot. it's a PITA to enter stuff. but it gets easier. i'm at 1700 calories for today. had a glass of wine, a cookie, ate well. you can do it.
krista4
Footballguy
krista4
Footballguy
Good and meh for me today. The meh is that I was right on target on my WW points, not banking any for later. I blame Mr krista for cooking up some amazing steaks, which go way too well with a nice big red wine. In the partial win column, I did put down the wine and give the remainder of my second glass to Mr krista so that I could stay within my points. As it was one of the best reds I've had in a while, this was particularly notable.
Did get a ton of activity today, so there's that. Gardening, lots of house-cleaning, walking/jogging for an hour, and 41 minutes of yoga. Finished the 30-day yoga program! Took me 32 days since I skipped a couple of days, but I consider this a good win.
Overall a positive day; just wish I'd banked a few points for my weekend.
Did get a ton of activity today, so there's that. Gardening, lots of house-cleaning, walking/jogging for an hour, and 41 minutes of yoga. Finished the 30-day yoga program! Took me 32 days since I skipped a couple of days, but I consider this a good win.
Overall a positive day; just wish I'd banked a few points for my weekend.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tecumseh
Footballguy
I've had to quash my 100 days. This shingles bull#### has sucked every bit of energy that I have, and I'm struggling. I worked Tuesday night, and went to sleep about 0830. I woke up at 1230 for a conference call, and stayed up until about 1430. Went to take a nap with the intention of waking up at 1545. I just woke up at 0300. Slept for a total of 16-17 hours, and I'm about to go back to bed. So, my plan is to let my body get the rest it needs to fight this crap, and hopefully restart on Monday. The conference call that I woke up for was actually the kick-off of a corporate sponsored training program for a sprint triathalon that takes place in August. Monday is the first training day, so that's when I'm targeting a reboot. I'm not going to restart the 100 days, because the tri training will require rest days, but I am going to continue working on my diet.
Otis
Footballguy
I just have to jettison my DGAF that settles in every day after 7pm quarantine time.
Actually thinking the path for me is to go back to what worked for me at the start of this year. Just no junk food, limit carbs, and limit booze. If I do those things I’ll never ever go off the rails calories-wise.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Try just getting a grip on one meal a day. I found that getting my breakfast down to within a couple of choices, for me it's either good old fashioned oatmeal or I enjoy certain yogurts and an apple or a banana. Usually you land somewhere in the 200-400 calorie range.
You can piece mail the lunch and have plenty of calories left over for dinner plus you probably rack up a bunch of exercise minutes and points every time you pull a Frank Underwood.
If you can't do that, at least take a stab thru WW and aim for a ZERO point meal once a day which is actually just a lean piece of chicken or fish and a hot plate of veggies and some fruit for dessert, you can do that.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
You got shingles? That F Bomb stinks.
-I'll keep plugging away daily for both of us. I didn't think I would be able to do it but I am now at Day 36/37 and it's starting to become normal to go out every day.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Sure but if you don't exercise and burn off an extra 400-500 calories a day, the chances of you sticking with it long term at the rate of about 1 lb per week...not likely.
You know you're going to eat some junk food at some point, we all do. Better to have an exercise plan that at least covers you for some of it. You have kids, correct? I don't know what ages but I imagine at this point they are not in diapers any more.
How about a family bike ride at 7 PM nightly since that's when you want to eat? Or how about Dad gets a few minutes to himself to just ride a bike around...can you stop at the Quickie Mart and get a beer to make it fun for yourself? Get creative, break out of that rigid lawyer's box or whatever spot you're stuck in.
-So many people out of work right now, couldn't you hire a chef to make your meals or cook for the whole family for a month? Just a treat for everyone in the family having to put up with you during quarantine?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
This morning Mr and Mrs MOP are treating themselves to something they have always wanted to have and just never get it ordered.
We were sitting on our lanai looking out and we saw a delivery truck for Mountain Valley Spring Water in those 2.5 and 5 gallon GLASS containers or jugs. The 5 lb one weighs almost 60lbs! I like bottled or filtered water and it's a PIA trying to get it and lug it around from the grocery store. Also we get a lot of scary storms and when supplies run out at the grocery store, one of the main things that gets bought up is in fact bottled water.
It's not cheap but they had a terrific deal to start delivery service. The 2.5 gallon glass jugs are $16+ a piece and the 5 gallon are just $21 so I went with those. They are giving us a couple cases of the glass bottles you see in Whole Foods and other spots. They have all the sizes and the flavored sparkling which are delicious out of the glass. We don't have to order every week, maybe once a month and there was obviously a route thru our neighborhood so they were happy to add us to the route.
-It's something I always wanted and it has ZERO calories and I usually lose more weight when I am chugging water. We haven't discussed some of the things I want to get into but there will be plenty of time throughout the month. Just to zone in on water, if you drink between 8-12 glasses of water or close to 100 oz a day you will feel full quite a lot more often. I cannot say enough good things about it so in whatever form you need to buy it in order to get yourself drinking more of it, I would encourage you.
We were sitting on our lanai looking out and we saw a delivery truck for Mountain Valley Spring Water in those 2.5 and 5 gallon GLASS containers or jugs. The 5 lb one weighs almost 60lbs! I like bottled or filtered water and it's a PIA trying to get it and lug it around from the grocery store. Also we get a lot of scary storms and when supplies run out at the grocery store, one of the main things that gets bought up is in fact bottled water.
It's not cheap but they had a terrific deal to start delivery service. The 2.5 gallon glass jugs are $16+ a piece and the 5 gallon are just $21 so I went with those. They are giving us a couple cases of the glass bottles you see in Whole Foods and other spots. They have all the sizes and the flavored sparkling which are delicious out of the glass. We don't have to order every week, maybe once a month and there was obviously a route thru our neighborhood so they were happy to add us to the route.
-It's something I always wanted and it has ZERO calories and I usually lose more weight when I am chugging water. We haven't discussed some of the things I want to get into but there will be plenty of time throughout the month. Just to zone in on water, if you drink between 8-12 glasses of water or close to 100 oz a day you will feel full quite a lot more often. I cannot say enough good things about it so in whatever form you need to buy it in order to get yourself drinking more of it, I would encourage you.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
This is a lot easier said than done. If you actually track the calories, it basically forces you to stay on a planned eating/drinking schedule. If you know you want to drink that night, just plan in advance and set your meals accordingly. Eat a bowl of oatmeal instead of a bagel with cream cheese. With your pasta dinner, eat a healthy salad instead of breadsticks to go along with it. etc
With the MFP app, it's actually not even a lot of work to track. Last night I was about 350 calories under my goal (and that was with minimal exercise), so I rewarded myself with a rum and coke. Did I want a second one? Of course I did. But i avoided it because what I wanted more was to stay under my calorie limit (actually I probably could have poured another one and been ok).
eaganwildcats
Footballguy
Starting more stringent IF again over here - that’s what’s worked for me. ‘Today’s eating window has closed’ has been the best thing to stop me from post bedtime bingeing.
MAC_32
Footballguy
@cashman88 you will not burn as many calories running 3x10 mins at the same rate of speed instead of 30 continuous minutes. How much is the difference? It depends. The very short version - calories burned is correlated to your HR. If you're doing 3x10 mins then you're spending more time getting your HR warmed up - since you're doing it 3 different times. That said, if the choice on a particular day is 3x10 mins or not at all then do the 3x10. Something > nothing. But try to etch out 30 min windows as frequently as possible.
Is one app including BMR and the other app not? That's a big discrepancy.DA RAIDERS said:
I think the correlation between heart rate and calories burned is approximate. The more direct correlation with calories burned is the amount of work done, which would be the same for three ten-minute runs and one thirty-minute run at the same speed.
MAC_32
Footballguy
It is. That's why I was very careful with my phrasing. 3x10 minutes with rest periods at the same rate of speed is not going to yield the same results as 30 continuous minutes. Minutes 1-3 of interval two are not going to be done with the same intensity than if it were minutes 11-13. Now if the intensity of the 3x10 minutes is greater then that's a completely different story.
As an anecdotal example, I rarely run for less than 45-60 minutes. I ended up with less time than that yesterday, so I did hill repeats with the 30 minutes I had to work with. Less time ---> greater intensity. Not apples-to-apples what we're talking about, but thought process is similar.
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way, I experienced a real-life example of this just five minutes ago. My fitbit mistakenly gave me credit for "zone minutes" (elevated heart rate during exercise) while I was taking a hot shower. Apparently heat exposure increases heart rate. But the evidence from saunas is that any extra caloric expenditure is completely negligible.
Last edited by a moderator:
For a given individual using a given gait (i.e., jogging rather than walking), intensity just means speed (holding elevation constant). So for any given amount of time, it means distance covered. If he's covering the same distance in three ten-minute runs as he would in one thirty-minute run, the calories burned should be the same.
Last edited by a moderator:
E-Z Glider
Footballguy
Nice work to everyone counting (whatever)! I don't think its something you need to do for life, but I do think its something you need to do for at least a couple weeks if your goal is to lose weight. Its really the only way to figure out what you should and shouldn't be eating.
I've still been weighing in on Thursdays. I stalled at the same weight for the past 3 weeks. Figured it was a combo of bottoming out and eating a bit more liberally. Now this week, I'm down another 3lbs.
I finally caved and bought all new pants and shorts. Nothing I had was even close to fitting me anymore. My new goal is to be able to fit into them next summer too. 
Agree with the directions you are all heading. Figure out some low (whatever) meals that satisfy you. Build your days around them. Surround yourself with low (whatever) snacks so that when you NEED something extra, you grab something good. Eating pre-packaged, processed foods goes against everything I believe in, but when it comes to losing weight, it really makes it easier.
If you dont already have these snacks in your arsenal, you should. They're prefect (1 point / 70 cal) to squash a bad craving...
I've still been weighing in on Thursdays. I stalled at the same weight for the past 3 weeks. Figured it was a combo of bottoming out and eating a bit more liberally. Now this week, I'm down another 3lbs.
I finally caved and bought all new pants and shorts. Nothing I had was even close to fitting me anymore. My new goal is to be able to fit into them next summer too. Agree with the directions you are all heading. Figure out some low (whatever) meals that satisfy you. Build your days around them. Surround yourself with low (whatever) snacks so that when you NEED something extra, you grab something good. Eating pre-packaged, processed foods goes against everything I believe in, but when it comes to losing weight, it really makes it easier.
If you dont already have these snacks in your arsenal, you should. They're prefect (1 point / 70 cal) to squash a bad craving...
- Mini Turkey pepperoni sticks - weight watchers, applegate, and Vermont smoke and cure all make them (they may all be the same?). They're a half point (35 calories) each so you can eat two for a snack. Even has a little grease. Expensive, but very satisfying.
- Fiber One 70-Cal Bars - chocolate/pb, lemon, brownie. Pick what you like. Again, perfect to squash a bad craving. Sometimes I need one right after lunch or dinner just as a little dessert. Eat one and then stop. 10 minutes later, you'll be fine.
The Flying Turtle
Footballguy
The amount of work performed would be the same since Work = Force * Distance for either scenario. But I agree with MAC that the calories burned is also dependent upon your heartrate. Assuming it takes 3 minutes to get the heartrate up the 2 examples about would equate to 27 minutes (in the 30 minute case) at high heartrate vs. 21 minutes in the (3x10 minute case)
heartrate vs calories
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I've read that a good rule of thumb for burning calories is to focus on distance (elevation and other factors constant). If you walk a mile at 15:00 pace you'll burn about as many calories as if you'd run a mile at 10:00 pace or even 6:00 pace. It's not exact but for general purposes it's probably close enough.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Just to clarify, it's not dependent on the HR; it's dependent on exercise intensity. There is a correlation between HR levels and intensity of exercise and your 27 vs. 21 mins conclusion in the most simplistic terms is correct. Just thought that needed clarified.
To expand, a 30 min run at a steady rate could be more intense than 3x10. The body fatigues, you're working harder at the same speed, the HR (may) go up, and more calories are burned. Not just during exercise, but after too. It all depends on the speed and the subject's fitness. This could also cause them to consume more calories to refuel than the 3x10 method, which opens up another can of worms.
Lot of it-then trees, which is why I opted for as KISS response as possible initially. From my experience, too many if-then trees when it comes to fitness ---> frustration and confusion. I don't know @cashman88's fitness and I don't know how fast he's running. If he's extremely fit, is capable of running 5 miles in 30 minutes, but is only running 3 miles over that 30 minute time period than the difference between 30 continuous minutes and 3x10 is negligible. At no point during any of those runs is the intensity increased. But if his current fitness is 3 miles over 30 minutes and that's what he is doing then he will accomplish more than doing one mile at a 10/min mile pace three different times. His body will be working harder to maintain that speed during minutes 11-30 than any time during the 3x10. And it's no more complicated than that.
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
honestly, i don't know. one is the free, map my run. the other is from my gym, LIFETIME, which is mostly based on heart rate. i think.
i have never taken a very scientific approach with calculating calories burned. much like counting them. the map my run app, was the lower number. i have tweaked the LIFETIME app, with the assistance of the trainers at the gym, but haven't taken their fancy test, which pinpoints my anerobic threshold. mostly, because they want $300 bucks to do it. i currently have it set at 155bpmdo you know of a good way to track calories burned?
thx man!
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
For a man 6 feet and 200 lbs, it's about 300 calories they burn an hour at 3.0mph...I know you do it a little differently and I'm not trying to have you divulge weight, you are very forthcoming that you are not an athlete but you do seem to be able to mount a furious distance in/on your walks...and I guess I'm asking why not do a simple 30-45 Morn, another 30-45 Evening, have someone cook your meals for a while or find a diet that will work for you?
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
PS - MOP - you dont need to drink Miller Lite. There are some decent light IPA's out there. Dogfish Head and Founders both make one. It wont make you forget your favortie juicy IPA, but its better than a ML. Also, if you really want to cut it back occasionally, try a Lagunitas Hoppy Refresher rather than grabbing a beer. Its a non-alcoholic drink made with sparkling water and hops. Hard to explain, but its good. Refreshing. Like a seltzer for men. Sometimes Ill have a few of these and take a few tokes rather than drinking beers. A nice zero point buzz.
I honestly had no idea. I have a little pizza n craft draft spot near my house and I had been drinking a lot of Stouts in the 10-15% range some of them...so heavy but delicious when the temperature is just right. I will definitely check these out, drive thru craft spot close by, they fill up growlers as well.
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
I only have 3 months of data, but my garmin watch seems to yield realistic daily estimates. This is how garmin does their calculation. Like you, I don't track calories consumed. I have before and know about where I am on particular days - 2500 cals on low volume exercise days, 3000-3500 on high volume exercise days (or special occasions like birthdays when cake & ice cream are added), and > 4000 when I drink. I've been estimating my weight weekly since I got this thing based on what garmin tells me and the type of days that happened over the prior week and I've been within 1 lb every week. Not sure if that's meaningful or not, but it leads me to believe there is at least some reliability in its tracking mechanism.
I think jogging burns more calories per mile than walking because you're bouncing up and down more. But sticking to one of those gaits or the other, calories burned should be nearly exactly proportional to distance traveled regardless of speed.
Caloric expenditure will be intensity multiplied by time. But going twice as fast over the same distance will double intensity while halving time, so you get the same answer.
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way, when I say that jogging three miles in 30 minutes once results in the same caloric expenditure as jogging one mile in ten minutes three times, I'm not saying that they're identical in every way. They may well cause different physiological adaptations.
Just as not all calories in are the same, not all calories out are the same.
A regular brownie will not have all the same exact effects as a pot brownie even if they have the exact same number of calories. They'll be equally fattening, but noticeably different in other respects.
Similarly, dividing a run into parts rather than doing the whole thing at once may have different cardiovascular effects, etc. But they should burn the same number of calories.
Just as not all calories in are the same, not all calories out are the same.
A regular brownie will not have all the same exact effects as a pot brownie even if they have the exact same number of calories. They'll be equally fattening, but noticeably different in other respects.
Similarly, dividing a run into parts rather than doing the whole thing at once may have different cardiovascular effects, etc. But they should burn the same number of calories.
Last edited by a moderator:
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
Forerunner 35 - others in the 10K thread could tell you a lot more about the different types of watches than I could. I asked my wife for a relatively basic one that fulfilled a few key criteria and this is what she got. I have no idea if it is basic or not. I just know it does the stuff I wanted it to do. When the 10K guys talk watches I scroll past it. I don't care. It leads me to avoidable problems later, like not knowing how to customize settings, but they politely steer me in the right direction when those occasions arise.
Thanks for the responses about my 30 min vs 3 x 10 min calorie burn. I usually don't stop during a 30 min run, but there's some days where I'm not feeling it and want to quit after 20 min. On those days, I guess it can't hurt to post another 10-15 min run later in the day anyway (to be sure I make up for any difference in calorie expenditure).
Since this is calorie-counting month, can we talk about how that's a little weird?
Calories are a measure of energy. But when we say that we want to lose ten pounds, we're talking about mass, not energy. (Technically force, but same difference within a given gravitational field.) Nobody says, "I could stand to lose a few kilowatt-hours." So why do we talk about energy in versus energy out instead of mass in versus mass out? Mass seems easier to grasp intuitively, while energy seems needlessly abstract.
It also seems to cause some basic confusion.
If you approach somebody who lost ten pounds last month and ask them where all that weight went, they are likely to guess that it was converted into energy. After all, E=mc2, right? As a matter of physics, this guess is wildly wrong. To see how wrong it is, consider Hiroshima.
When we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, we converted a bit of mass into enough energy to blow up a city. How much mass did that take? About 0.0015 pounds. That ten pounds our friend lost last month, if converted into energy, could have blown up nearly 7,000 cities. That's not how he was powering his Tabata workouts.
In fact, metabolism does not convert mass into energy whatsoever. Mass, like energy, is completely conserved. Mass in equals mass out precisely down to the atom.
So what happened to the fat that was lost? If it was not converted into energy, where did it go? Roughly speaking, it was converted into carbon dioxide and was exhaled. (True story.)
More specifically, fat plus oxygen is converted into water plus carbon dioxide. (It's true that energy is released from the totality of this process. But it is converted from chemical potential energy into other forms of energy -- it is not converted from mass to energy.)
A typical triglyceride is C55H104O6. When you combine that with a bit of oxygen, the metabolization of fat looks like this: C55H104O6 + 78 O2 -> 55 CO2 + 52 H2O. You can count the atoms. They're all there. None of them were converted into energy.
For fat-loss purposes, the water doesn't much matter. It is easily replenished. The real action is in the carbon atoms. We breath in oxygen and we breath out carbon dioxide. Our exhales weigh more than our inhales because of the carbon atoms. Those carbon atoms account for the weight we lose by burning fat.
The oxygen-for-carbon-dioxide exchange happens in your lungs, but the conversion happens in the mitochondria throughout your body's cells.
(We lose weight by burning carbohydrates the same way. Carbohydrates, like fats, are also made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. And while the exact chemical reaction differs a little, the overall process is the same: we're converting carbohydrate plus oxygen into carbon dioxide plus water, and it's the carbon atoms that account for our non-water weight loss. Protein is the same story but a little more complicated because there are some nitrogen atoms in there as well, which end up in urea. Also a little phosphorus.)
So instead of thinking in terms of calories in versus calories out, we could just as well think in terms of mass in versus mass out -- specifically oxygen in versus carbon dioxide out, i.e., the excretion of carbon atoms. Calories need not be considered at all.
As it happens, the net energy released from metabolizing fat, carbohydrate, and protein is exactly proportional to the relevant carbon atoms involved. So thinking in terms of calories will produce the correct answers, and they are conveniently printed on food labels, which is nice. But thinking in terms of energy still seems weirdly abstract, IMO, when what people are mainly interested in is weight, given that there is no actual conversion between the two.
The upshot: you can tell that you're burning calories at an elevated rate when some activity causes you to breath heavily.
Calories are a measure of energy. But when we say that we want to lose ten pounds, we're talking about mass, not energy. (Technically force, but same difference within a given gravitational field.) Nobody says, "I could stand to lose a few kilowatt-hours." So why do we talk about energy in versus energy out instead of mass in versus mass out? Mass seems easier to grasp intuitively, while energy seems needlessly abstract.
It also seems to cause some basic confusion.
If you approach somebody who lost ten pounds last month and ask them where all that weight went, they are likely to guess that it was converted into energy. After all, E=mc2, right? As a matter of physics, this guess is wildly wrong. To see how wrong it is, consider Hiroshima.
When we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, we converted a bit of mass into enough energy to blow up a city. How much mass did that take? About 0.0015 pounds. That ten pounds our friend lost last month, if converted into energy, could have blown up nearly 7,000 cities. That's not how he was powering his Tabata workouts.
In fact, metabolism does not convert mass into energy whatsoever. Mass, like energy, is completely conserved. Mass in equals mass out precisely down to the atom.
So what happened to the fat that was lost? If it was not converted into energy, where did it go? Roughly speaking, it was converted into carbon dioxide and was exhaled. (True story.)
More specifically, fat plus oxygen is converted into water plus carbon dioxide. (It's true that energy is released from the totality of this process. But it is converted from chemical potential energy into other forms of energy -- it is not converted from mass to energy.)
A typical triglyceride is C55H104O6. When you combine that with a bit of oxygen, the metabolization of fat looks like this: C55H104O6 + 78 O2 -> 55 CO2 + 52 H2O. You can count the atoms. They're all there. None of them were converted into energy.
For fat-loss purposes, the water doesn't much matter. It is easily replenished. The real action is in the carbon atoms. We breath in oxygen and we breath out carbon dioxide. Our exhales weigh more than our inhales because of the carbon atoms. Those carbon atoms account for the weight we lose by burning fat.
The oxygen-for-carbon-dioxide exchange happens in your lungs, but the conversion happens in the mitochondria throughout your body's cells.
(We lose weight by burning carbohydrates the same way. Carbohydrates, like fats, are also made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. And while the exact chemical reaction differs a little, the overall process is the same: we're converting carbohydrate plus oxygen into carbon dioxide plus water, and it's the carbon atoms that account for our non-water weight loss. Protein is the same story but a little more complicated because there are some nitrogen atoms in there as well, which end up in urea. Also a little phosphorus.)
So instead of thinking in terms of calories in versus calories out, we could just as well think in terms of mass in versus mass out -- specifically oxygen in versus carbon dioxide out, i.e., the excretion of carbon atoms. Calories need not be considered at all.
As it happens, the net energy released from metabolizing fat, carbohydrate, and protein is exactly proportional to the relevant carbon atoms involved. So thinking in terms of calories will produce the correct answers, and they are conveniently printed on food labels, which is nice. But thinking in terms of energy still seems weirdly abstract, IMO, when what people are mainly interested in is weight, given that there is no actual conversion between the two.
The upshot: you can tell that you're burning calories at an elevated rate when some activity causes you to breath heavily.
Last edited by a moderator:
DA RAIDERS
Footballguy
@Maurile Tremblay 
that was awesome. it hurt, but i actually read it all.
and, it validated my thoughts on working out! mine's way more scientific though, "if you ain't breathing hard, you're not working out hard enough."
that was awesome. it hurt, but i actually read it all. and, it validated my thoughts on working out! mine's way more scientific though, "if you ain't breathing hard, you're not working out hard enough."
madshot31
Footballguy
I have been using the Lose It App lately, previously have had used MFP. The main difference to me has been that Lose It allows me to not count exercise calories burned towards an additional daily allotment. Do you guys and gals feel it works better to count those in your days or not? On heavy workout days I eat some extra food but then it can be disheartening to see the numbers go red, but on light days I don't want to add anything extra.
