Walking for weight loss
- Thread starter RE8ELD0G
- Start date
Still chubby though.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
But look at me now! LOL same height but nearly 35 pounds heavier. Definitely chubby:
On a BMI chart yes. On the NHS chart yes.
Uniform hides a multitude of sins. What would your waist and chest have been?
I last played rugby at about 16 Stone (224 lbs). I am your height. I could bench press you bodily and I've never been able to wear skinny arsed 501's but I can squat the entire stack of weights.
Unless you you have that kind of frame then yes you are overweight.
Even at that I was playing Prop Forward. Yes I was overweight too. For me probably a stone.
Found this on a body building forum.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=135631071
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Uniform hides a multitude of sins. What would your waist and chest have been?
I last played rugby at about 16 Stone (224 lbs). I am your height. I could bench press you bodily and I've never been able to wear skinny arsed 501's but I can squat the entire stack of weights.
Unless you you have that kind of frame then yes you are overweight.
Even at that I was playing Prop Forward. Yes I was overweight too. For me probably a stone.
Found this on a body building forum.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=135631071
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
In the land of the All-You-Care-To-Eat-Buffet for $5? Yep. I agree. And yep, I eat a LOT! Well over that 3000 calories a day you recommended. Probably by at least double.
Never said I WAS healthy; more a matter of, "Do as I say, not as I do."
I lived on Long Island for a while. I come from a family where it's considered a sin not to clear your plate. I barely made it through my starter in the States!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Back then" At age 19 and 220 pounds? My waist was 32" and my chest was 38." My neck was 15.5" A size medium shirt or coat. As you said though, there's more to the story than raw weight and height. I had/have short legs for my height (29") so most of my height is in my torso.
Wasting food (as in not finishing your plate) is generally still considered a no-no except at said buffets.
Yeah, they can. Or they can expose a multitude as well. In this case the photo was from Basic Training and they usually throw the uniforms at you without much regard for fit (fortunately you have 6 months to return them for a proper issue) Mine was a size too big in reality. But the key in that photo is to look at the face and neck; I show a lot of my fat there now that I am fat.
Last edited:
Try cutting out Bread, cake, biscuits and pasta. Bet you drop that 35lbs
38" would be a solid large here. You also need to bare in mind your US sized cloths are routinely a size larger than stated. 38" is a 40" and 32" is 34" on the measure.
I wear a lot of Orvis. I might make a medium in that in a month or so.
You don't seem to have changed heaps round the neck but you are a classic pear shape. You carry most of your weight round your middle. This is also the most dangerous shape to be from a health perspective.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
38" would be a solid large here. You also need to bare in mind your US sized cloths are routinely a size larger than stated. 38" is a 40" and 32" is 34" on the measure.
I wear a lot of Orvis. I might make a medium in that in a month or so.
You don't seem to have changed heaps round the neck but you are a classic pear shape. You carry most of your weight round your middle. This is also the most dangerous shape to be from a health perspective.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
When you get properly fitted here, they still take a tailors tape and actually measure your chest, neck, waist, and arms. So the clothing sizes will accurately reflect those measurements. But yes, I agree that generally shirts and coats here are a size larger than the same size (in name) shirts/coats there. And perhaps two sizes larger than Asian clothing.
That's easier said than done, as I'm sure you know. Especially as our "biscuits" arereally a quick bread and all my family is addicted to them. My Diabetic Nurse Counselor has recommended a low carb pasta but as my daughter can't eat it, due to Celiacs, we're back to the higher carb, Gluten Free pastas. Giving up cake isn't so hard, but the other sweets (pies, cobblers, ice cream, banana pudding, etc) are.
I have had my best success when I was weightlifting. It doesn't burn as many calories (during the exercise) as the more aerobic stuff, but it continues to burn them while you sleep as the body repairs itself.
The problem is to incorporate the weightlifting regimen in such a way that it becomes a "lifestyle" rather than an "artificial exercise" as you stated earlier.
Yeah I hear you. I wish the FDA did make the recommendations for men and women separately here. But they don't so I have to assume that their "average" is slightly higher for men and slightly lower for women. Or as in the case of your separate recommendations, combine them so the comparison can be fairly made.
However many minutes you spend on Internet forums, spend at least twice as long doing quality exercise! Simples!
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
There isn't enough hours in the day
Guess I'll have to get one of those desks with walking machine attached!
BMI is a good tool for statistical analysis of populations, it is not particularly useful for individuals. Mr C. once managed to get well into the "overweight" category with his body fat in single figures by weight training, just for the heck of it, and ran several Ironman triathlons at that weight. (He got smaller when he did the double Ironman because it really makes a difference to the joints when you're running 2 marathons back to back).
The interesting thing is that if you read the scientific papers rather than the official recommendations, the biggest factor in health is not weight or fat but being active. The deaths from all causes tables also show that the obsession with being thin is not actually supported by the science, the risk of ill health doesn't start to rise dramatically until well up into what is usually listed as obese and the lower end of the normally recommended weight ranges is actually at the point where overall health risks are starting to rise, albeit only slightly. Given reasonable levels of activity the range of weights and sizes that are basically healthy is much broader than is sometimes suggested although clearly there is a point at which being very fat really is a serious problem. Bear in mind too that the usual propaganda only looks at heart disease and diabetes and ignores a wide range of other problems and in some cases being overweight leads to longer survival and that includes some counter-intuitive situations. (Read the paper linked below for some interesting details).
My suspicion with respect to the official guidelines is that they are looking at it from a purely financial point of view in terms of cost to the NHS, rather than numbers of deaths. Diabetics and people with heart disease who live for several decades with their problems cost the nation money. There is therefore incentive for them to make recommendations that will reduce the cost, not necessarily early deaths. Cynical? Yes. And I've had far too much to do with the finance industry and political affairs to dismiss that out of hand.
Although being overweight is frequently touted as being the cause of diabetes, heart disease etc, the causality is still not clear and there is some evidence to suggest that in the case of diabetes in particular, early stage type 2 diabetes is the cause of fat retention rather than the other way around.
Daily intake recommendations are also effectively meaningless given the huge variation between individuals. In my 20s when I was an international level dinghy sailor I was doing huge amounts of exercise, both strength and aerobic yet my caloric intake to maintain my weight at a steady level was well under 2000 calories per day. Now that I am old and less active that has dropped to around 1400 per day and yes I really have kept detailed food diaries.
Having said that the recommendation to stop eating sweet baked goods and junk food is good simply because they give huge amounts of calories in a form that tempts you to eat, and eat, and eat. (You don't need to guess how I know). If I want to lose weight the least painful method is to go low carbohydrate and after the first 3 or 4 days of mad cravings for sugar it settles to a relatively tolerable level of hunger.
As far as general dietary advice is concerned I like Michael Pollan's recommendation to "Eat food, not too much, mostly vegetables."
An interesting link.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200731
The interesting thing is that if you read the scientific papers rather than the official recommendations, the biggest factor in health is not weight or fat but being active. The deaths from all causes tables also show that the obsession with being thin is not actually supported by the science, the risk of ill health doesn't start to rise dramatically until well up into what is usually listed as obese and the lower end of the normally recommended weight ranges is actually at the point where overall health risks are starting to rise, albeit only slightly. Given reasonable levels of activity the range of weights and sizes that are basically healthy is much broader than is sometimes suggested although clearly there is a point at which being very fat really is a serious problem. Bear in mind too that the usual propaganda only looks at heart disease and diabetes and ignores a wide range of other problems and in some cases being overweight leads to longer survival and that includes some counter-intuitive situations. (Read the paper linked below for some interesting details).
My suspicion with respect to the official guidelines is that they are looking at it from a purely financial point of view in terms of cost to the NHS, rather than numbers of deaths. Diabetics and people with heart disease who live for several decades with their problems cost the nation money. There is therefore incentive for them to make recommendations that will reduce the cost, not necessarily early deaths. Cynical? Yes. And I've had far too much to do with the finance industry and political affairs to dismiss that out of hand.
Although being overweight is frequently touted as being the cause of diabetes, heart disease etc, the causality is still not clear and there is some evidence to suggest that in the case of diabetes in particular, early stage type 2 diabetes is the cause of fat retention rather than the other way around.
Daily intake recommendations are also effectively meaningless given the huge variation between individuals. In my 20s when I was an international level dinghy sailor I was doing huge amounts of exercise, both strength and aerobic yet my caloric intake to maintain my weight at a steady level was well under 2000 calories per day. Now that I am old and less active that has dropped to around 1400 per day and yes I really have kept detailed food diaries.
Having said that the recommendation to stop eating sweet baked goods and junk food is good simply because they give huge amounts of calories in a form that tempts you to eat, and eat, and eat. (You don't need to guess how I know). If I want to lose weight the least painful method is to go low carbohydrate and after the first 3 or 4 days of mad cravings for sugar it settles to a relatively tolerable level of hunger.
As far as general dietary advice is concerned I like Michael Pollan's recommendation to "Eat food, not too much, mostly vegetables."
An interesting link.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200731
