Lose ѕtουt whіlе building muscle.
Duration : 0:1:18
[youtube pSPzOXJ1hIM]
Improve Your Workout Schedule
Products
Articles
Categories
- ab work out (227)
- abs work out (248)
- biceps workout (289)
- lower ab exercises (212)
- lower ab workout (194)
- P90x Workout Schedule. (1)
- tricep workout (236)
- triceps workout (192)
- weight lifting workouts (373)
- work out routines (292)
- Workout Routines (367)
- Workout Schedule (322)
Site Information
Advert
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Comment removed by …
Comment removed by Arthur
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Comment removed by …
Comment removed by author
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
NO not all muscle …
NO not all muscle Noddy,…just a part of it muscle.The thought behind consequence loss/stout 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 in this area 15 lbs of it. Most of your loss was FAT. Some was water consequence. It’s possible…and I’ve seen this and veteran this, where half or over half of the weightloss is muscle. Lots of negative effects with that.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
If it is muscle …
If it is muscle then I wouldn’t be able to lift a of a lot more consequence than I used too during consequence 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.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Whoop, made a …
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 honest. 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 excellent deal of it. It should have taken you no less the a year to shed 70 lbs.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
NODDY, you burn …
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 consequence. 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.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
But, I have to …
But, I have to argue your calculations. If they were right I would never have gone down from 250 to 178! It would take years but mine only took 6 months…so someone is off!
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Your forgetting one …
Your forgetting one business: 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!! But, if I sat on my backside all day the consequence would slowly creep back up!
240×365= 87600
87600 /35000 = 25
At in this area 25 pounds a year….so walking does something in the long run! A small exercise every day is better than a lot on just a few days in a row.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
If you ran on a …
If you ran on a treadmill for 45 minutes to an hour….and yes,..based on your consequence and the intensity of the run, you would burn in this area 400 calories+, as running burns somewhat more calories then walking…..but suprisingly not THAT much more as you might reckon. Running but is a better at developing overall cardiovascular strength then walking.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Walking is a fantastic …
Walking is a fantastic AID in losing consequence as it burns calories without tiring your muscles out very much or burning lots of glycogen. It’s a low impact endeavor that’s simple on your joints and really excellent for muscle repair and helps with the functions of your digestive strip. It’s excellent 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.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
At 178 lbs you burn …
At 178 lbs you burn in this area 240 calories for the 55 small walk. In this area 80 for habitual 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 stout PER month THEN. NOW it’s 6,400 calories divided by 3,500 which = 1.6 lbs. of stout per month from the walking alone. If your diet is too high in calories then you can still be heavy or not lose much consequence.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
At 250 lbs you were …
At 250 lbs you were burning 300 calories in a 55 small 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 habitual 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 consequence continued to drop. The new numbers are as follows:…
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
BTW, if I am …
BTW, if I am burning in this area 400 calories per hour – which is in this area 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 stout used, extra per year!
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
That’s amusing …
That’s amusing 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!
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
An frankly,..I …
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 quicker, but burns less calories per mile…..probably 60 calories per mile.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
An average 185 lb …
An average 185 lb man will walk in this area 3 miles per hour and burn 250+ calories. In this area 85 of those calories he burns just though habitual 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.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
The average …
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 quick it can be done. Any person will burn calories walking. They’ll lose consequence if the additional calories burned walking make a series of on-going caloric deficits.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Typically you are …
Typically you are directing your argument at average consequence individuals…obese people aren’t average consequence so they do burn more. And they don’t necessarily walk slow either.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Really the …
Really the average overweight person will walk in this area 3 to 4 miles per hour. And if women who are 150 pounds are wishing to lose consequence, 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 know why you or Steve use this example when you are directing it at the obese and morbidly obese individuals. And most, even the women, consequence well over 200 pounds.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Lots of 175 lbs. …
Lots of 175 lbs. men and women that need to lose consequence. There are 150 lb. women in particular that are starting consequence loss programs to get down to 125 lb. or so. Walking is fantastic for them and YES….at that point they’re burning in this area 250 calories per hour. Really 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 honestly right, but how you get to those number and your closing conclusions are inaccurate.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
The amount of …
The amount of calories someone burns also depends on their consequence! 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 consequence in the first place!
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
dxvanedf3 be converted into a …
dxvanedf3 be converted into a person with a new comment !!
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
just joined gym …
just joined gym yesterday, and it was my largest inquiry. and it’s answered.
Thank you Sir.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Steve,
be converted into a …
Steve,
be converted into a beachbody coach!!
June 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Roids…
Watch my …
Roids…
Watch my video for proof of Steve Turano admitting his on roids!