I have never been fat but as a sports guy I have read a lot about the subject and I'm pretty sure the best first step (as opposed to running, not as opposed to controlling your calories) is to start lifting weights if you are a guy. The more muscle you have, the more calories you will burn passively (at rest). And once you are done losing weight you will be ripped. It's like what people do in a bulk + cut cycle, but skipping the bulk phase.
Coming from Lyle McDonald, one of the most respected trainers in the industry..
"Some of this also comes from the still gross misconception that ‘muscle burns a ton of calories’ (a myth I took apart in Dissecting the Energy Needs of the Body – Research Review). That is, they hope to jack up metabolic rate by increasing muscle mass. Which is a futile activity because the effect is minimal (on top of the fact that the obese are already carrying extra muscle mass). A pound of muscle burns about 6 calories at rest, you have to add a ton to impact on metabolic rate (see also the next issue I discuss, low metabolic rate isn’t a problem). And that takes a lot of time, time better spent focusing on active fat loss."
> on top of the fact that the obese are already carrying extra muscle mass
Huh...I follow Lyle, but I've read the exact opposite in Body by Science: in cross-sectional views of obese people (CT scans), their muscles are small, weak, and atrophied.
IIRC, Body by Science makes the assertion that their muscles are essentially starved, because the metabolic system/insulin insensitivity/etc. are shunting energy primarily into fat cells.
And, with strength training, you can turn the metabolic tide back into energy getting into/being used by the muscles.
Disclaimer: It's been awhile since I read the book, and I might mistakenly being integrating ideas I'd read elsewhere.
Hrm, no pictures (which IIRC are convincing), but here's an article:
My understanding from regularly reading fitness forums is that the actual calorie loss you get from having muscle instead of fat is pretty negligible (maybe 100 calories/day depending on how much muscle you have). However, perhaps it could still help if it gives you esteem about your body (causing you to show more discipline with respect to diet).
I think a really good first step is to 1) drop soda, sweets, or other things that are relatively effortless changes and then 2) just track everything you eat (you don't even need to look up calorie information initially) so you have the data in case you want to start making other dietary changes. I have also found that restricting your diet to a small set of foods where you deeply know the nutritional data, etc. and can build a routine out of it and moving from carbs to proteins are also really helpful.
100 calories a day is almost a pound a month - that's actually pretty significant when you get to the "almost in shape" phase and losses drop to the 3-4 lb a month range.
But it probably takes a lot of work to get there (not sure how many pounds of muscle that is offhand.) Also, to actually build the muscle (rather than improve your CNS) you will need to bulk for awhile.
I personally (when I lost as much as 60 pounds and started lifting for the first time in almost a decade) found lifting to be very helpful from a motivational standpoint, but it was controlling my diet and running that caused most of the weight to come off.
You're totally right, and even over some long period of time your losses from extra muscle will be dwarfed your losses due to lifestyle changes.
My philosophy is that if you don't enjoy your health regime, whether its a diet, running, lifting, crossfit (I know, booooo) or some combination -- you're going to give it up as soon as possible. Lifting is something that I think a lot of people find enjoyable because it really doesn't have that misery factor of other workouts (I personally love that, I'm a rower which is basically a sport predicated on collectively loving misery more than the other team). People tend to stick with lifting longer, if not forever. That extra 200 calories 3 or 4 times a week, plus the boost in metabolism over the lifetime of a person is more valuable in my opinion than only dieting/running for a year and then being relieved when you cross the finish line and stop.
When people ask me how to lose weight (I cut pretty hard every year and it's dramatic), I point them towards lifting -- maybe they would lose more weight short term by controlling their diet and running, but people never stick to that stuff. A lot of my friends, mostly girls, have been doing some lifting program now for a couple of years (5-3-1 is my favorite) and they have stuck with it because its enjoyable. They eventually get dragged in and discover protein and macros and by then they're already invested in lifting and enjoying it -- it's part of their lifestyle now.
Lots of people just hate crossfit for various reasons -- most of it stems from the fact that they combine speed and strength, and a lot of athletes will sacrifice form for speed which can cause injuries.
The other reason is that crossfit is the Harvard of workouts -- you'll know someone is doing it because they'll tell you, constantly. My girlfriend hates it because people talk about it constantly on facebook.
I personally like to add some work-cap style workouts occasionally. I like their test workouts and a lot of their workouts are fun to adjust and add to my normal cycles. As with a lot of things, if you don't focus on doing it correctly and police yourself - you're opening yourself up to injury.
We have a crossfit gym near work I've been meaning to try out - I don't really have any problems with the program, the haters are just very passionate and vocal on the internet about their feelings towards the program.
> The other reason is that crossfit is the Harvard of workouts -- you'll know someone is doing it because they'll tell you, constantly. My girlfriend hates it because people talk about it constantly on Facebook.
I have also found people who practice crossfit talk about it endlessly. Anyone know why?
I lifted weights for four years and I have not gained even ten pounds of muscle, so less than a 40 calorie a day change. Less than four pounds a year difference.
I have to assume that gaining mass/muscle/strength wasn't the intention of your weight lifting then. I can't imagine you're much stronger than you were 3 years ago which if that's what you're going for is just fine.
It was my intention, but I wasn't very successful. I even tried bulking pretty hard, but the gains were mostly in fat with very small gains in strength/muscle.
I have gained about 15 pounds of muscle in 3 years from lifting. To put on muscle you need to have the protein intake and carbohydrate and protein intake timing is also important.
One good thing about muscle is that it can burn fat quite happily. Unlike the brain.
Your metabolic rate increases during a workout and remains elevated for some time after you stop. The baseline increase from additional muscle mass is indeed almost negligible. But a daily 15-minute strength training workout intended to build and maintain that muscle may actually translate to 3 or 4 hours per day of additional calorie expenditure that might not be obvious to you.
Here's the hypothesis. The post-workout effect on metabolic rate burns more calories than the exercise itself.
Here's the experiment.
Begin with hydration. Drink excess water until urine has little color. Every day thereafter, after your first urination of the day, measure and record your body weight. Make no attempt to control food intake, but if you wish, record what you eat and attempt to subjectively rate your appetite before and after meals. Continue to drink excess water for the duration of the experiment.
First elimination. Do not exercise for one week. Do not repeat this phase if you choose to do additional iterations.
Control. Perform 60 consecutive minutes of cardiovascular exercise on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, for two weeks.
Elimination. Do not exercise for one week.
Experiment. Exercise enough to elevate your heart rate for 5 minutes at a time, at 4-hour intervals, 5 times a day. Do this for 2 weeks.
Elimination. Do not exercise for one week.
Repeat this cycle several times. Compare weight measurements for the 3-week control intervals with the 3-week experimental intervals. If they are significantly different, you have evidence for a post-exercise effect. This may help you devise a weight-loss plan compatible with your lifestyle.
I don't think lifting weights to lose weight or fat is the answer. Weight is 80% mouth 20% gym. You'll have to wait a very long time to see reduced fat; much of initial strength gains are simply cns training; it's difficult to add muscle mass while cutting.
I'm not a native speaker. Is it a vulgar word? Didn't seem like that to me. And I didn't know people looking to lose weight wanted to do so specifically without gaining any muscle. My advice wasn't to become a body builder, just a healthy person.
I'm guessing the negative comment was due to a jocks vs. nerds cultural thing, combined with the fact that your advice was well.. bad.
I'd argue "the best first step" is not to start pumping iron, but to develop and execute a strategy that helps you to reduce your number of daily fork lifts.
