4 ms·

It just doesn't seem to be worth the cost to me. I don't have a problem with restricting foods or calories as I can cook up something tasty with almost anything

It just doesn't seem to be worth the cost to me. I don't have a problem with restricting foods or calories as I can cook up something tasty with almost anything, but as shown in the example at the end of the article, lifestyle seems to suffer. The "typical" calorie restricting individual presented at the end of the article is woman who is 5'6" tall and weighs 110lbs. She mentions that she gave up running so she didn't lose too much weight. That's not a lifestyle I find fulfilling nor does it seem healthy. She had to cut out physical activity to keep from wasting away. I want to run around with my kids, go to the gym (I enjoy my time there), jog and play soccer (twice a week). I like being active and my life would be much poorer if I had to give it up just to stay at a "healthy" weight. Edit: I'd also like to add that I get the same exact benefits of "improved mood, sleep, mental clarity and memory" by choosing the foods I eat carefully, but I do not control the calorie intake. I eat when I'm hungry until I'm full.

executive 16y ago
exactly. do you want to live an extra 10 years as a pathetic 130lb loser or be a jacked 200lb hero.
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  I think a happy medium between those two is probably your best bet ;) Seriously though, nothing improves health more than cutting out processed foods, eating farm-fresh meats and veggies, and getting a decent amount of exercise.
- jules 16y ago
  That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of. The average 130lb person is healthier than the average 200lb person.
  - FlorinAndrei 16y ago
    "That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of." Well, he did say "jacked", so it's safe to assume it's not 200 lb of fat. BTW, I went pretty close to that, while staying at a relatively low 12% BFP (body fat percentage). It's pretty awesome, but I can definitely see why some people would rather not go through the trouble - it's not something easy to accomplish, not if you're a cubicle slave like almost everybody these days.
    - jules 16y ago
      Oh, I didn't know that jacked means muscular (I thought it has something to do with drugs). How many hours did you spend exercising per day? I think that indeed it's probably not worth it for most people.
      - scott_s 16y ago
        If you see exercise as a chore, then no, it wouldn't be worth it. I don't see exercise as a chore, and I am a fit 200 pounds. I train four days a week in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and MMA. In order to get up to a fit 200 pounds, I've done a lot of strength training over the years, but I enjoy strength training.
        jules 16y ago
        Even if someone wouldn't see it as a chore, and I don't know if I would because I don't do it, I have a hard time believing most people would enjoy doing it 2 hours a day. As 6 foot long less than 125 pound (but still definitely above average fit ;) male I could certainly use some weight. How much strength training do you roughly need to do to add x lbs of muscle per year, assuming you haven't done any strength training? And how much do you need to do to maintain 200 pounds? (in hours per day)
        scott_s 16y ago
        It's not the time spent that matters, it's the quality of the time spent. Intensity matters. A 30 minute intense workout is better than a leisurely 2 hour workout. There's no real formula. When I started strength training, I knew nothing. I was lean and weighed about 155 pounds. That was about 9 years ago. In about two years I put on 20 pounds so that I was about 175. Over the course of two or so years, I put on about another 10 pounds so that I was usually around 185. Around then I switched my focus to compound lifts like deadlifts and clean & press. I shot up to 195 pounds. Last summer I lifted four days a week and shot up to 205 pounds. Now I walk around closer to 200 because I don't do much strength training. It's mostly grappling and conditioning - things that keep me in shape but they don't add any muscle mass. A good goal when you start is to do strength training three days a week. That's enough to make progress, but you won't feel like you're always doing it. I agree completely with the author of this article: focus on compound lifts like squat, deadlift, cleans, overhead press, clean and press. You'll need to invest time to learn how to do these lifts. Doing them properly (that is, in such a way that avoids injury and allows you to add weight) is a skill, and like any skill, you need practice to get good at it. Also keep in mind that getting stronger and adding muscle mass is an adaptation. You're putting your body under some stress, and your body adapts to the stress by getting stronger. If you keep using the same stress, your body doesn't need to adapt anymore. You need to continually change what you do (more weight, or more reps, different exercises, less rest, etc.) to continue to see improvements.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Well gee whiz, I'd rather be a hero than a pathetic loser, but I'm not sure that gaining 70 pounds is, in itself, especially heroic.
jules 16y ago
I agree with you but this is not logical: > I want to run around with my kids, go to the gym (I enjoy my time there), jog and play soccer (twice a week). I like being active and my life would be much poorer if I had to give it up just to stay at a "healthy" weight. Running around with your kids and playing soccer doesn't increase your weight, it decreases your weight (unless you have zero muscles and zero fat). That woman was probably not trying to decrease her weight, she was trying to decrease the amount of calories she had to consume. And do you think that 110lbs at 5'6'' is extraordinarily low? Seems pretty normal to me.
- scott_s 16y ago
  What he said is logical. In order to not lose weight while doing those activities, he needs to eat more calories than if he was not doing those activities. In other words, people who are active eat more. If you want to eat less, you need to be less active.
  - jules 16y ago
    Yes, I see, you're right. I wrongly assumed that he meant not becoming heavier with maintaining weight, but he meant not becoming too thin.

executive 16y ago

exactly. do you want to live an extra 10 years as a pathetic 130lb loser or be a jacked 200lb hero.

maukdaddy 16y ago
I think a happy medium between those two is probably your best bet ;) Seriously though, nothing improves health more than cutting out processed foods, eating farm-fresh meats and veggies, and getting a decent amount of exercise.
jules 16y ago
That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of. The average 130lb person is healthier than the average 200lb person.
- FlorinAndrei 16y ago
  "That highly depends on what the 200lb is made of." Well, he did say "jacked", so it's safe to assume it's not 200 lb of fat. BTW, I went pretty close to that, while staying at a relatively low 12% BFP (body fat percentage). It's pretty awesome, but I can definitely see why some people would rather not go through the trouble - it's not something easy to accomplish, not if you're a cubicle slave like almost everybody these days.
  - jules 16y ago
    Oh, I didn't know that jacked means muscular (I thought it has something to do with drugs). How many hours did you spend exercising per day? I think that indeed it's probably not worth it for most people.
    - scott_s 16y ago
      If you see exercise as a chore, then no, it wouldn't be worth it. I don't see exercise as a chore, and I am a fit 200 pounds. I train four days a week in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and MMA. In order to get up to a fit 200 pounds, I've done a lot of strength training over the years, but I enjoy strength training.
      - jules 16y ago
        Even if someone wouldn't see it as a chore, and I don't know if I would because I don't do it, I have a hard time believing most people would enjoy doing it 2 hours a day. As 6 foot long less than 125 pound (but still definitely above average fit ;) male I could certainly use some weight. How much strength training do you roughly need to do to add x lbs of muscle per year, assuming you haven't done any strength training? And how much do you need to do to maintain 200 pounds? (in hours per day)
        scott_s 16y ago
        It's not the time spent that matters, it's the quality of the time spent. Intensity matters. A 30 minute intense workout is better than a leisurely 2 hour workout. There's no real formula. When I started strength training, I knew nothing. I was lean and weighed about 155 pounds. That was about 9 years ago. In about two years I put on 20 pounds so that I was about 175. Over the course of two or so years, I put on about another 10 pounds so that I was usually around 185. Around then I switched my focus to compound lifts like deadlifts and clean & press. I shot up to 195 pounds. Last summer I lifted four days a week and shot up to 205 pounds. Now I walk around closer to 200 because I don't do much strength training. It's mostly grappling and conditioning - things that keep me in shape but they don't add any muscle mass. A good goal when you start is to do strength training three days a week. That's enough to make progress, but you won't feel like you're always doing it. I agree completely with the author of this article: focus on compound lifts like squat, deadlift, cleans, overhead press, clean and press. You'll need to invest time to learn how to do these lifts. Doing them properly (that is, in such a way that avoids injury and allows you to add weight) is a skill, and like any skill, you need practice to get good at it. Also keep in mind that getting stronger and adding muscle mass is an adaptation. You're putting your body under some stress, and your body adapts to the stress by getting stronger. If you keep using the same stress, your body doesn't need to adapt anymore. You need to continually change what you do (more weight, or more reps, different exercises, less rest, etc.) to continue to see improvements.
hugh3 16y ago
Well gee whiz, I'd rather be a hero than a pathetic loser, but I'm not sure that gaining 70 pounds is, in itself, especially heroic.

jules 16y ago

I agree with you but this is not logical: > I want to run around with my kids, go to the gym (I enjoy my time there), jog and play soccer (twice a week). I like being active and my life would be much poorer if I had to give it up just to stay at a "healthy" weight. Running around with your kids and playing soccer doesn't increase your weight, it decreases your weight (unless you have zero muscles and zero fat). That woman was probably not trying to decrease her weight, she was trying to decrease the amount of calories she had to consume. And do you think that 110lbs at 5'6'' is extraordinarily low? Seems pretty normal to me.

scott_s 16y ago
What he said is logical. In order to not lose weight while doing those activities, he needs to eat more calories than if he was not doing those activities. In other words, people who are active eat more. If you want to eat less, you need to be less active.
- jules 16y ago
  Yes, I see, you're right. I wrongly assumed that he meant not becoming heavier with maintaining weight, but he meant not becoming too thin.