3 ms·

People are frustrated since home gym equipment is hard to find. And that's a valid frustration. However, bodyweight exercises and outdoor cardio can go a long

People are frustrated since home gym equipment is hard to find. And that's a valid frustration. However, bodyweight exercises and outdoor cardio can go a long way. Even just walking. The single most critical aspect you can control is diet. And that requires no equipment, just the right choices. WFH has thrown a big wrench into the eating habits for many. I run a nutrition application[1], and we've seen a big uptick in sign ups and usage. Curiously, later into the pandemic. No surprise, based on articles like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/nyregion/coronavirus-tailors-cleaners-weight-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/nyregion/coronavirus-tail... [1] https://www.joyapp.com https://www.joyapp.com

sumtechguy 6y ago
I used to use isometrics pretty heavily. That style pretty much means you do not use much equipment at all. For me it was an old sturdy chair and a heavy couch to pin my feet under. Diet for weight, exercise for strength. I used good portions of the Charles Atlas program. I skipped his diet as I was not looking for body building. Just kept myself under my 1100 caloric number (varies on height and age). Just wanted some strength and not be fat.
- fredophile 6y ago
  I'm not a nutritionist but 1100 calories a day is very, very low for most adults. As a comparison, the Minnesota starvation study fed participants a little over 1500 calories a day.
  - sumtechguy 6y ago
    Depends on what you are trying to do. Someone I know who is losing weight they are on 900-1000 a day set by a nutritionist. Lots of vitamins to pick up the slack on other things. It also depends on what you eat. That number also varies between people. 1500 I would maintain my weight or gain slightly.
  - silviogutierrez 6y ago
    Temporarily, sub 1100 can work very well for losing weight. You want resistance training and very high protein to avoid muscle loss. This is better known as the Protein-Sparing Modified Fast (PSMF). Still an intense diet — after all it's an intelligent way to crash diet. Long-term... not such a good idea unless you are obese.

sumtechguy 6y ago

I used to use isometrics pretty heavily. That style pretty much means you do not use much equipment at all. For me it was an old sturdy chair and a heavy couch to pin my feet under. Diet for weight, exercise for strength. I used good portions of the Charles Atlas program. I skipped his diet as I was not looking for body building. Just kept myself under my 1100 caloric number (varies on height and age). Just wanted some strength and not be fat.

fredophile 6y ago
I'm not a nutritionist but 1100 calories a day is very, very low for most adults. As a comparison, the Minnesota starvation study fed participants a little over 1500 calories a day.
- sumtechguy 6y ago
  Depends on what you are trying to do. Someone I know who is losing weight they are on 900-1000 a day set by a nutritionist. Lots of vitamins to pick up the slack on other things. It also depends on what you eat. That number also varies between people. 1500 I would maintain my weight or gain slightly.
- silviogutierrez 6y ago
  Temporarily, sub 1100 can work very well for losing weight. You want resistance training and very high protein to avoid muscle loss. This is better known as the Protein-Sparing Modified Fast (PSMF). Still an intense diet — after all it's an intelligent way to crash diet. Long-term... not such a good idea unless you are obese.