14
Mar
Popular Articles
- Samples of the World's Strongest Energy Shot
- Elite Fitness
- Bodystrengthen
- Kalyx Bulk Herbs & Foods
- Cage Fighter Gray Maynard Fight Night 20 Walk-In Tee
Advertisements
Search Blog
Steroid Log
A normal guys journey into the world of anabolic steroids.
March 14th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
NO not all muscle Noddy,…just a portion of it muscle.The idea behind weight loss/fat loss is to NOT lose ANY muscle or even ADD muscle as you lose; and yes that’s possible. Losing that much muscle does not help things….and when I mean THAT much muscle,…I’m guessing you lost about 15 lbs of it. Most of your loss was FAT. Some was water weight. It’s possible…and I’ve seen this and experienced this, where half or over half of the weightloss is muscle. Lots of negative effects with that.
March 14th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
If it is muscle then I wouldn’t be able to lift a hell of a lot more weight than I used too during weight lifting. And if it is part muscle then I doubt that I needed it that much. I can’t see it being all muscle…sorry.
March 14th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Whoop, made a mistake with one of the numbers.You lost 70 lbs in 26 weeks, not 80 lbs in 26 weeks. So you lost on average 2.7 lbs per week for 26 weeks straight. Some weeks I’m sure you lost more then 2.7,..some weeks less. Either way, losing close to 3 lbs. a week for 6 months also lost you a certain amount of muscle. Maybe 15 lbs of muscle if you lifted hard,….maybe 25 lbs. of muscle? But you lost muscle…and a good deal of it. It should have taken you no less the a year to shed 70 lbs.
March 14th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
NODDY, you burn calories with everything you do..everything. And yes, even sitting on your backside burns calories. It’s the TOTAL equation of how many calories you took in VS. how many you burn. If you lost 72 lbs. in 6 months, the equation would be very close to what follows: Lets say that 2 lbs. was water weight. It could be a bit more depending on your dietary changes and the amount of sweating you’re doing now as opposed to before….but let’s say conservatively you lost 2 lb. of water.
March 14th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
However, I have to argue your calculations. If they were true I would never have gone down from 250 to 178! It would take years but mine only took 6 months…so someone is off!
March 14th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Your forgetting one thing: even if I was burning calories walking four miles I would still burn a considerable amount during the year…don’t forget I would also walk back home!! However, if I sat on my backside all day the weight would slowly creep back up!
240×365= 87600
87600 /35000 = 25
At about 25 pounds a year….so walking does something in the long run! A little exercise every day is better than a lot on just a few days in a row.
March 14th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
If you ran on a treadmill for 45 minutes to an hour….and yes,..based on your weight and the intensity of the run, you would burn about 400 calories+, as running burns somewhat more calories then walking…..but suprisingly not THAT much more as you might think. Running however is a better at developing overall cardiovascular strength then walking.
March 14th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Walking is a great AID in losing weight as it burns calories without tiring your muscles out very much or burning lots of glycogen. It’s a low impact activity that’s easy on your joints and actually good for muscle repair and helps with the functions of your digestive tract. It’s good for blood circulation AND getting your bodies natural appetite mechanism working well and gets your blood glucose levels under control. ALL THAT will help with weightloss besides just the extra calories it burns.
March 14th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
At 178 lbs you burn about 240 calories for the 55 minute walk. About 80 for normal body functions and 160 extra calories for the walk. 160 calories X 2 walks = 320 calories per day X 20 days = 6,400 calories per month NOW..as opposed to 8,000 then. 8000 divided by 3,500 = 2.29 lbs. of fat PER month THEN. NOW it’s 6,400 calories divided by 3,500 which = 1.6 lbs. of fat per month from the walking alone. If your diet is too high in calories then you can still be heavy or not lose much weight.
March 14th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
At 250 lbs you were burning 300 calories in a 55 minute walk. At 178 you now burn 240 calories for the same walk.80 calories for natural body functions…and 160 calories from the actual walk. At 250 lbs, you were burning 100 calories per hour for normal body fuctions…and an additional 200 calories for the walk. 200 X 2 walks = 400 calories per day X 20 days = 8000 calories extra per month. That number decreased steadily as your weight continued to drop. The new numbers are as follows:…
March 14th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
BTW, if I am burning about 400 calories per hour – which is about right because I walk easily above the average pace, then this really build up in a year if am using up 400 calories there and 400 calories back per year….
800 x 20 = 16000 per month because I wouldn’t walk every day.
16000 x 12 = 192 000 calories per year!
192 000 / 3500 = 549 (3 s.f) pounds of fat used, extra per year!
March 14th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
That’s funny because am not athletic and I can easily walk 3 miles per hour..but I grant you that I am 6 foot 2.
I’m 178 pounds now and 6′2 but 4 years ago I was 250 pounds and I could still walk over 3 miles per hour. I know this because I used to walk to Manchester, which is over 4 miles from where I live and I would do it in around 55 minutes. And I hardly felt it! I also would walk back!
Most overweight tall people can easily walk 3 miles per hour, even if they are like 280 pounds!
March 14th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
An frankly,..I don’t even believe that an extremely obese person is going to do even 3 miles per hour. My youngest brother weighed 176 lbs. at 4 feet 10 inches tall..(Downs Syndrome),..and by all categories..he was obese. When we started out, he would walk close to or just under 2 miles in one hour. He burned more calories per hour because he was 176 lbs. Now he’s a lean 121 lbs. He walks faster, but burns less calories per mile…..probably 60 calories per mile.
March 14th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
An average 185 lb man will walk about 3 miles per hour and burn 250+ calories. About 85 of those calories he burns just though normal body functioning if he just sat there. The sum total of extra calories burned because of the 3 mile walk would be 165+ from the walk itself. YES heavier people burn more caloires per hour, but you need to average that out against the number of calories burned per mile that DROPS as they get lighter. If they lose 100 lbs, they’ll burn significantly less per mile.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:10 am
The average athletic person walks 3 miles per hour. A 4 mile per hour walk is a VERY brisk walk…if not a walk/jog. The average jog is 6 miles per hour. An obese and VERY obese person is NOT going to walk 4 miles per hour, in many cases not even 3 miles. I’ve been walking 6-10 hours per week for 12 years now. I know exactly how fast it can be done. Any person will burn calories walking. They’ll lose weight if the additional calories burned walking create a series of on-going caloric deficits.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:14 am
Typically you are directing your argument at average weight individuals…obese people aren’t average weight so they do burn more. And they don’t necessarily walk slow either.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:20 am
Actually the average overweight person will walk about 3 to 4 miles per hour. And if women who are 150 pounds are wishing to lose weight, by including walking for an hour, then that is going to add up in the long term anyway! But very few people are obese at 150 pounds, so I don’t understand why you or Steve use this example when you are directing it at the obese and morbidly obese individuals. And most, even the women, weight well over 200 pounds.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:43 am
Lots of 175 lbs. men and women that need to lose weight. There are 150 lb. women in particular that are starting weight loss programs to get down to 125 lb. or so. Walking is great for them and YES….at that point they’re burning about 250 calories per hour. Actually it’s based on the PER MILE walked and it’s estimated that people walk 2.5-3.0 miles per hour. You’re numbers are fairly correct, but how you get to those number and your final conclusions are incorrect.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:57 am
The amount of calories someone burns also depends on their weight! So you estimations are far beyond usual. The average fatty would burn over 350 calories an hour by walking even at a slow pace! And if they are burning 250 calories an hour by walking brisk then I doubt they would need to lose weight in the first place!
March 15th, 2010 at 1:00 am
dxvanedf3 become a person with a new comment !!
March 15th, 2010 at 1:42 am
just joined gym yesterday, and it was my biggest question. and it’s answered.
Thank you Sir.
March 15th, 2010 at 2:12 am
Steve,
become a beachbody coach!!
March 15th, 2010 at 2:39 am
Roids…
Watch my video for proof of Steve Turano admitting his on roids!
March 15th, 2010 at 3:38 am
yes anything wich makes you tired will burn fat unmistakenly.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:14 am
if i weight train and hour a day, but walk 5 hours a day (b/c i have the time, but not the lung capacity)..will that work…or do i have to have vigorous activity?