Way OT: Concord Fit Body Bootcamp

[timwat]

Meeting my fiancé 2.5 years ago made me happy. So happy, in fact, that I gained 38 lbs. in the 2.5 years. Cue the music for multiple high blood pressure meds and cholesterol pills. None of my good suits and clothes fit.

 

Getting engaged @ Christmas made me put my foot down. Enjoyed Xmas dinner and the holidays, and now it's time to get serious.

 

Joined the local Fit Body Bootcamp. It's essentially a franchise of gyms that offer professional trainer-run group workouts. Workouts are 40-60 minutes in length, all fitness levels, only 5 seconds breaks (at most) between interval exercises. Why? Because I need professional guidance, accountability and motivation to lose 38 lbs. That's just me.

 

Trainer says I can lose a pound a week if I maintain ~1700 calorie daily intake. Soylent should help me on that.

 

Did my first 2 workouts - Friday and Saturday. Workouts pushed me hard enough that I forgot my name and saw dead relatives. I'm sore in places I don't even scrub in the shower. This is going to stretch me, but I'm committed to getting back in shape for my fiancé and a longer life together.

 

38 lbs. in 38 weeks? I figure it's sort of like having a baby - in reverse.

[slowtraveler]

Congratulations on your engagement, Tim!

 

One pound per week is very doable as an average. You'll probably experience some up and downs from week to week, but healthy living is very worth it in the long run. Best of luck with the new regime!

[MathOfInsects]

Congrats, Tim. On all of it.

 

My only general bit of advice is never undertake a workout program you will dread going to. As long as the dead relatives are a happy sight, keep with it. If they start making the skin peel off your face at inopportune times, don't be afraid to modulate with other types of exercise.

 

You can safely lose up to about 2 pounds a week. One tip is to cram some aerobic work in before you eat in the morning. This draws most of your energy from stored fat, instead of from the food your body is breaking down. And the opposite is true for muscle-work: you'll develop better lean muscle with protein from recent food, than from what your body can find in its stored fat. So: aerobic before food in the morning for weight loss, muscle work after a meal or two.

 

Congrats on the engagement(s).

[Joe Muscara]

Congrats, Tim!

 

I've lost weight since about a year+ ago, more than I thought I would. I did it mostly by watching what and how much I eat (not overfilling myself, cutting back on snacks), and meeting a daily calorie burn goal, some of which is now due to me running (see that thread if you wish. I'm near the end).

 

I must say, I'm pleased with how much better I look. My doctor noticed, too.

 

Go get 'em!

[Iconoclast]

Careful on the diet part! If you're working out, I wouldn't recommend things like soylent.

 

I'm a 6 year crossfitter/paleo guy but I realize that's not the only way to go.

 

BUT, diet is actually simple.

 

Cut out sugar as much as possible. No calorie intake from fluids (coffee, tea, water, all OK).

 

Minimize carbs and try to get them from healthy sources (veggies!) Starches should only be around workouts (pre or recovery).

 

I recommend avoiding wheat as much as possible...hard to do these days as they put it in everything.

 

I NEVER counted calories and lost a lot of weight fast. If you are serious about working out, you'll need the calories! Anyone who tells you that it's simple math (calories burned vs calories intake) is lying to you (simple proof? Poop will burn when dry, your body is not a closed system).

 

Eat meat and fresh veggies to your hearts content, cut out 90% of your wheat, and 100% of processed sugar. Keep a consistent workout pattern and YOU WILL lose weight. It's really that simple, eat natural and keep moving.

 

PS: don't obsess on the scale. It's very common to actually gain weight when getting healthy..at least for a while. You have to build muscle or your body has no engine burn fat. Muscle is heavier than fat. Your metric should be how your clothes fit and how you feel, not the number on the scale.

 

Good luck!

[MathOfInsects]

Anyone who tells you that it's simple math (calories burned vs calories intake) is lying to you.

 

Can you explain what you mean by this?

[ProfD]

Congrats brotha Tim. You can do it.

 

Last April during my physical exam, the good ole doctor suggested I lose 70 pounds. Well, I haven't been that light on my feet since I was teenager.

 

I explained to the doctor that I needed to maintain a certain amount of weight in order to keep the power in my jab and left hook.

 

So, the doc agreed to split the difference and that I would lose 35 pounds. So, I've got 20 pounds to lose over the next three months.

 

We have to do whatever it takes to avoid the nasty stuff i.e. heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.

 

Besides, being healthier makes an individual feel better about themselves across the board (no pun intended).

[Iconoclast]

If you intake less calories than you burn, you will lose weight. But you are literally starving yourself.

 

BUT, you can take in more calories than you burn and not gain weight. Your body passes calories in many different ways. Remember! Poop burns!

 

What you need to avoid are the glycemic triggers that tell your body to make fat and store it.

 

That's a big reason why I always avoid "smoothies" especially with fruit. Your body evolved to have fruit chewed, preserving the fiber and slowing the uptake of the sugars. When you "process" your fruit with a blender, you shred a lot of the fiber and you cram a bunch of fruit into your system in a very short period of time (Takes a long time to eat an orange but only about 5 seconds to drink one).

 

A smoothie may have no fat and no more calories than the equivalent fruit, but it's way healthier to just eat the fruit with your mouth and your teeth doing the work than your blender. Plus you may find that you don't actually want to eat that much fruit and you may self regulate your intake.

[MathOfInsects]

Got it. To be fair, that's using a couple different definitions of "take in." Sure, the body sends stuff it can't use overboard, and that stuff might technically ALSO contain calories. But that's not really what people mean when they talk about caloric intake, agreed? People generally mean, the food their body ingests and processes.

 

Completely agreed about smoothies, though I still make them. There is an enzymatic reaction that occurs the instant your teeth puncture the internal fibers in fruit, that is lost when those fibers are punctured in other ways. (The rule of thumb is, "eat your fruits, drink your veggies.")

 

However, the raw fact remains: the only way to lose weight is to use up more calories than you leave behind. (At a rate of about 3,500 per pound lost/gained.) Period, double-barline, fine, full-stop. There is no other mechanism behind the loss of weight, than the surplus usage of calories over consumption.

 

 

[Iconoclast]

Got it. To be fair, that's using a couple different definitions of "take in." Sure, the body sends stuff it can't use overboard, and that stuff might technically ALSO contain calories. But that's not really what people mean when they talk about caloric intake, agreed? People generally mean, the food their body ingests and processes.

 

Completely agreed about smoothies, though I still make them. There is an enzymatic reaction that occurs the instant your teeth puncture the internal fibers in fruit, that is lost when those fibers are punctured in other ways. (The rule of thumb is, "eat your fruits, drink your veggies.")

 

However, the raw fact remains: the only way to lose weight is to use up more calories than you leave behind. (At a rate of about 3,500 per pound lost/gained.) Period, double-barline, fine, full-stop. There is no other mechanism behind the loss of weight, than the surplus usage of calories over consumption.

Sorry but we're not going to agree on some things. A calorie is a calorie and the definition is undisputed by anyone:the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C (now usually defined as 4.1868 joules). Calorie count included on foods is actually kilocalories, but it's the same measure.

 

Your body is not 100% perfect at extracting energy from it's food, it's crazy to think that it would be.

 

To follow your reasoning would be to say that your body intakes calories and their only destination is in expended energy or fat somewhere inside your body (law of conservation of energy). This is clearly false as your body is not a closed system.

 

Why is this important? Because too many diets focus on calories. Conversely, the only time in my life that I successfully lost a lot of weight, I didnt' count a single calorie and ate whenever i was hungry. I have worked with and counselled many to do the same with great results. Calorie counting is frustrating and contributes to failure to adhere to the diet and insufficient energy for staying active.

[Iconoclast]

Excerpt from a Business Insider Science Article about how calories in food products are determined:

 

Not all calories are created equal

 

The problem with the Atwater system is that not all the energy in foods is completely digested or absorbed. The Atwater system corrects for losses in energy in the form of urine or feces (the energy that isn't excreted is known as metabolizable energy), but it does not account for how absorption varies based on the type of food or the individual who is consuming it.

 

A single factor is used for each energy-containing component protein, fat, and carbohydrate regardless of the food.

 

What does this mean for us? Even if two foods contain the same number of calories on the label, the number of calories that is actually absorbed by the body can vary with each person and the type of food.

 

One example: nuts. In a study published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2008, U.S. Department of Agriculture researcher David Baer concluded that "nuts are a food group for which substantial evidence suggests that the Atwater factors may be poorly predictive."

 

Bear found that whole almonds have about 20% less calories than the value calculated using Atwater factors. In a separate study, he found that pistachios had 5% less calories than originally thought.

 

This has to do with how nuts especially whole nuts are absorbed by the body. With whole nuts, compared to peanut butter or peanut oil, more fat ends up in the poop. People who eat more nuts also lose more fat in the stool.

 

The way people chew their food also makes a difference. The more people chew their food, the more calories are absorbed.

 

In nuts, a lot of the fat is stored inside the cells walls. So if the cells are not broken during chewing they may pass right through the gastrointestinal tract without releasing the oil they contain, Baer found.

[timwat]

All of this is great info for me. And in my particular case, the patient's solution may be a little less nuanced and far more simple.

 

I got fat from not being disciplined about exercise, while simultaneously eating a trashy diet...and way too much of it.

 

So I figure imposing a regular schedule of challenging exercise (we're talking puddle of sweat stuff for me here), eating cleaner (lots more vegetables, but NOT fried in bacon, avoid the sugar and fatty crap, more water) and portion control (which is where subbing some but not all meals with Soylent comes in) will together make a dent for me.

 

I don't really know squat about nutrition other than what I read in the popular media, so the calories in / calories out and not all calories are the same thing are interesting thoughts.

 

At the moment, I just need to build a base of stamina and fitness, and clean up my horribly sweet, rich, fatty diet. First world problems.

[MathOfInsects]

Excerpt from a Business Insider Science Article about how calories in food products are determined:

 

Not all calories are created equal

 

The problem with the Atwater system is that not all the energy in foods is completely digested or absorbed. The Atwater system corrects for losses in energy in the form of urine or feces (the energy that isn't excreted is known as metabolizable energy), but it does not account for how absorption varies based on the type of food or the individual who is consuming it.

 

A single factor is used for each energy-containing component protein, fat, and carbohydrate regardless of the food.

 

What does this mean for us? Even if two foods contain the same number of calories on the label, the number of calories that is actually absorbed by the body can vary with each person and the type of food.

 

One example: nuts. In a study published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2008, U.S. Department of Agriculture researcher David Baer concluded that "nuts are a food group for which substantial evidence suggests that the Atwater factors may be poorly predictive."

 

Bear found that whole almonds have about 20% less calories than the value calculated using Atwater factors. In a separate study, he found that pistachios had 5% less calories than originally thought.

 

This has to do with how nuts especially whole nuts are absorbed by the body. With whole nuts, compared to peanut butter or peanut oil, more fat ends up in the poop. People who eat more nuts also lose more fat in the stool.

 

The way people chew their food also makes a difference. The more people chew their food, the more calories are absorbed.

 

In nuts, a lot of the fat is stored inside the cells walls. So if the cells are not broken during chewing they may pass right through the gastrointestinal tract without releasing the oil they contain, Baer found.

 

We're agreeing: Calories in vs Calories out. How they get out, is semantics; we're on board with the underlying concept.

 

I don't want to hijack Tim's thread any longer.

[Iconoclast]

The biggest problem with a clean diet is the time and planning involved. You have to keep your mind ahead of your meals. If you get busy, you fall back on "what's available". That's usually some pre-packaged processed crap.

 

As a 50+ yr old crossfitter, I would tell you don't be afraid to "scale" your workouts to your capability. The most important thing is to stay consistent on your workout schedule. Make sure you stay within your capabilities because nothing ruins a workout plan like an injury.

 

I say this because I currently have a bum shoulder and haven't lifted in 8 weeks.

[Mark Schmieder]

Some good advice in here, but one thing to remember when reading "studies" is that they usually don't define their terms very well and thus assume "average American", leading to disastrous false conclusions that have had sweeping effects on Americans' eating habits these past 15 years or so.

 

For instance, I have lived a holistic whole food lifestyle since graduate school, which is now 35 years ago. It was well known at the time that having a proper fiber/carb/vitamin/etc. balance is key and that PROCESSED FOODS are generally bad for you.

 

What we keep seeing is one report after another, funded by an interest group, that sequentially targets one Processed Food item after another until it is relieved of "blame". No wonder people are confused. The foods that are listed as "bad" are almost always the processed versions, but the reports don't bother to mention that because "everybody eats prepared, processed foods" 9sorry, not true, but unfortunately dominant).

 

Just keep that in mind whenever you see things singled out as bad for you, or even good for you. And also remember that if you see an ingredient that you don't quite understand what it is (even if you've seen it on gazillions of processed pre-packaged foods), chances are high (since the early 1980's onwards) that it is derived in some fashion from livestock feed corn (not the GOOD corn that is grown in most of South America and even still in parts of Mexico and Central America). High fructose = bad.