Online Now 501

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

Online now 1187
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

RE; Weight loss and health.. one "chemical/additive" to avoid

  • BigDaddyRos said... (original post)

    In theory weightlifting is king. Good luck doing anything but slowing lean body mass loss in a calorie deficit though.

    I'm not advocating for using weight training to drop a ton of weight, rather to drop fat. I've always hated the "weight" goals. A 5'9 dude can be ripped at 180 or flabby at 180.

    From an appearance perspective, you want a low body fat %. Just running won't accomplish that. You'll drop weight, and your legs will see strength gains, but overall you won't look as good as a guy who does both strength training and cardio.

    Several female friends of mine (all Vietnamese) and I have gotten into it about the benefits of weight training. The common complaint is that they don't want to touch a weight for fear of looking like some female body builder; they just want to do cardio and lose weight. I always counter that because muscle weighs more than fat, but takes up less space, you could stay at your current weight and actually look better doing weight training than ya would dropping 5-10 pounds via cardio alone (varies on heights, obviously).

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

  • BigDaddyRos said... (original post)

    Running burns more calories over the same distance because there is a vertical component to your movement during running.

    you're right. when i walk, it's more of a gliding motion.

    are you making this up to be obtuse or do you actually believe it? fact-type substances disagree with you. running definitely burns more calories over the same time, but there's very little change over distance between running and walking.

    Does Running Burn More Calories than Walking

    Does running burn more calories than walking? It all depends on the math you use and how far you walk or run.

    http://walking.about.com/od/calorie1/a/calorieswalkrun.htm

    [blackapple]

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Yea, I prefer running at an incline because I don't have a ton of time. Sure, same calories burned/mile, but it takes less time that way. Plus, for whatever reason, running outside gives me shin splints, but doing it on a treadmill doesn't.

    that's probably a form issue. the treadmill definitely has much more give than pavement, which means that if you're landing on your heel with every stride, the give of the treadmill reduces the stress on your joints. with proper form, your arch, achilles tendon, and leg muscles provide all the give you need to run low-stress. basically, with poor form you need some stress relief from your running surface, because you're running in the highest impact way possible.

    i run outside, exclusively, year round. i find the treadmill to be very uncomfortable and counter intuitive. since i converted to proper form, i haven't had any running injuries (soccer injuries, on the other hand...). it's taken me two years of solid effort to transform my running form, so it's not easy, but i plan to run deep into old age. i need a sustainable way of running. and i have found that being at a good weight and running with good form is way better for my joints than being fat. when i was pushing three bills, i used to have some knee issues. no longer, and i run a minimum of 12-15 miles per week (up to 30 when training for races).

    [blackapple]

  • BigDaddyRos said... (original post)

    You have to be in it for the long haul with weight loss. Running has a significant risk for injury that is not present in walking. I lost 115 pounds in 4 1/2 months walking and controlling intake. If I would have gotten hurt I could have lost a month of exercise.

    I lost 60 lbs about 10 years ago when I took up running and I still run today. I think I would have grown board of walking long before 4 1/2 months is up. People are different.

  • FeMan said... (original post)

    I lost 60 lbs about 10 years ago when I took up running and I still run today. I think I would have grown board of walking long before 4 1/2 months is up. People are different.

    I don't grow board but I get wood!

  • Beardy

    SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    I'm not advocating for using weight training to drop a ton of weight, rather to drop fat. I've always hated the "weight" goals. A 5'9 dude can be ripped at 180 or flabby at 180.

    From an appearance perspective, you want a low body fat %. Just running won't accomplish that. You'll drop weight, and your legs will see strength gains, but overall you won't look as good as a guy who does both strength training and cardio.

    Several female friends of mine (all Vietnamese) and I have gotten into it about the benefits of weight training. The common complaint is that they don't want to touch a weight for fear of looking like some female body builder; they just want to do cardio and lose weight. I always counter that because muscle weighs more than fat, but takes up less space, you could stay at your current weight and actually look better doing weight training than ya would dropping 5-10 pounds via cardio alone (varies on heights, obviously).

    Link them to this post:

    http://nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

    To sum up:

    Staci weighed 170lbs at 5'4". She lost weight down to 117lbs, but still felt like shit. She changed her diet to good things so she could eat more calories (up to 1,500/day, but not counting calories), and started lifting and went up to 131lbs by adding good weight. Then she decided to get strong, increased her calories to ~3,000 per day, lifted like mad (her deadlift increased from 135lbs to 315lbs), and now she weighs 142 lbs.

    Pics:
    Staci at 170lbs, Staci from 117lbs to 131lbs. Staci from 131lbs to 142lbs.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Beardy 3 years ago

  • GoGreenMSU

    MSG. It's a chemical put into foods. Makes your brain crave foods more than the rec. portions. It's in a lot of things--almost everything. To control your craving (thus the battle over MSG) is a must.

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    I'm not advocating for using weight training to drop a ton of weight, rather to drop fat. I've always hated the "weight" goals. A 5'9 dude can be ripped at 180 or flabby at 180.

    From an appearance perspective, you want a low body fat %. Just running won't accomplish that. You'll drop weight, and your legs will see strength gains, but overall you won't look as good as a guy who does both strength training and cardio.

    Several female friends of mine (all Vietnamese) and I have gotten into it about the benefits of weight training. The common complaint is that they don't want to touch a weight for fear of looking like some female body builder; they just want to do cardio and lose weight. I always counter that because muscle weighs more than fat, but takes up less space, you could stay at your current weight and actually look better doing weight training than ya would dropping 5-10 pounds via cardio alone (varies on heights, obviously).

    your female friends are woefully uneducated on fitness...beardys link is great and gives all the right info but unless they are willing to learn its going to fall on def ears.

    Extreme muscle bulk is a genetic thing, not a workout thing, and unless the women you are talking to have abnormal testosterone levels, or are taking testosterone they have zero chance of becoming body builder big.

    Your average UofM fan and I have something in common, neither of us went to UofM. Though we do share One major difference, I got Accepted.

  • thephoneman said... (original post)

    Diet sodas are not healthy for you, but it is not one of the worst things you can put in your body. That is hyperbole and over exaggeration at its worst. You are using a straw man to make a point...you distort the original point and then argue against it.

    Getting back to the original point, people can continue to use diet sodas as a crutch if it helps them stick to the plan of staying on a program. Thus, no harm is added because the people are already consuming these beverages. Later, when the person is ready to ween themselves off diet sodas, they should do so. For many people, eating disorders are the cause for obesity. If a person needs to use a zero calorie drink to help sustain the objective of accomplishing the goal of habit change, then they should use this as part of an incremental plan.

    The idea of going cold turkey in any program is idealist. On paper, that idea is the best solution, but in reality, cold turkey plans typically have the lowest success rates when it comes to habit changing and goal achievement.

    Any person that advocates a cold turkey solution to any type of habit change lacks credibility. Unfortunately, in this case, this means you.

    I'll tell you what. We'll do what you aren't allowed to do on the internet: We will agree to disagree. I will continue to believe that no healthy eating plan should ever include diet soda and will stay far away from that poison. You continue to drink them, and enjoy your diabetes and other afflictions that diet sodas have been connected with (far too many to link to) in the future.

    Always Smooth.

  • Beardy

    GoGreenMSU said... (original post)

    MSG. It's a chemical put into foods. Makes your brain crave foods more than the rec. portions. It's in a lot of things--almost everything. To control your craving (thus the battle over MSG) is a must.

    MSG also occurs naturally in any anaerobically fermented food... fish sauce, soy sauce, ect.

    As my friend who is a microbiology grad student at MSU put it: Organic matter + salt = MSG.

  • MSUDancinBear said... (original post)

    Extreme muscle bulk is a genetic thing, not a workout thing, and unless the women you are talking to have abnormal testosterone levels, or are taking testosterone they have zero chance of becoming body builder big.

    This is exactly what I try to tell so many girls I know who refuse to weight train. Unless you're ordering your food / supplements from Marion Jones, a woman isn't going pack on mass amounts of muscle. I try to explain that not only do the actual workouts burn a ton of calories, but you will continue to burn calories while your body repairs those muscles. The calories burned will mostly be from fat. Instead they chose to jack around on the elliptical machine for 45 min

  • Beardy

    Wade Garrett said... (original post)

    This is exactly what I try to tell so many girls I know who refuse to weight train. Unless you're ordering your food / supplements from Marion Jones, a woman isn't going pack on mass amounts of muscle. I try to explain that not only do the actual workouts burn a ton of calories, but you will continue to burn calories while your body repairs those muscles. The calories burned will mostly be from fat. Instead they chose to jack around on the elliptical machine for 45 min

    Even with the supplements to add muscle like female body builders they would have to eat 5,000+ calories per day.

    For a woman to build muscle even approaching the way an average man puts on muscle she needs:

    1) Either PEDs or naturally high testosterone (like shaves her mustache every day high testosterone).
    2) A very large amount of calories.

    If a woman powerlifts and eats a balance of calories or small surplus, she is going to look like 142lbs Staci (in my link), not Chyna.

    This post was edited by Beardy 3 years ago

  • Gomer

    Beardy said... (original post)

    Link them to this post:

    http://nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

    To sum up:

    Staci weighed 170lbs at 5'4". She lost weight down to 117lbs, but still felt like shit. She changed her diet to good things so she could eat more calories (up to 1,500/day, but not counting calories), and started lifting and went up to 131lbs by adding good weight. Then she decided to get strong, increased her calories to ~3,000 per day, lifted like mad (her deadlift increased from 135lbs to 315lbs), and now she weighs 142 lbs.

    Pics: Staci at 170lbs, Staci from 117lbs to 131lbs. Staci from 131lbs to 142lbs.

    "He informed me I was doing it all wrong (but didn’t tell me what to do right, just said “youre doing it wrong)"
    roflmao