Very unfit, where do I start?

The_Honeybadger

MrsYelnekoff wrote: »

Hi everyone just an update. I'm 17lbs down since I started eating healthier and exercising more. I'm not prefect and I eat around 1800cals somedays but I exercise everyday. Finding the step counter very motivational but it's also a bloody wake up call to how little cals we actually burn when walking. 1hr equal 200cals wouldn't even cover a mars bar. The logging in myfitnesspal is also keeping me accountable I think. I got a bit bored the last two weeks or so and started eatng processed food but staying within cals. I felt rotten even tho I still lost. It wasn't worth it as this isn't only about losing weight for me. It's about being fitter and healthier.

I really want to go to some exercise classes at my local gym but can't bring myself to go in! I feel really unfit still and just self conscience. Would it be better if I waited till I was another stone down? I am still really sweaty when I do my brisk walking although I do feel that walking further is getting easier and I do a little bit of running during my walk. Very little tho and then I stop and walk and then run again. That sort of thing.

Sounds like you are absolutely flying well done. Don't worry about the odd slip with the food we are all prone to that. Once you are good most of the time you will progress.

With the gym you should just do it, get an instructor to show you around and how to use everything. This should put you at ease. Most offer a free session when you join anyway.

_Kaiser_

I'd be a bit like the OP except older (40) and male, but with the same bad diet..

Example of a typical workday which normally runs from about 7am when I get up till 8pm when I get home:

- Usually no breakfast at all
- Mid-morning might be a Latte or a coke/club orange with or without a bar of chocolate
- Lunch is usually a toasted ham and cheese, coke
- Usually nothing then except maybe another latte till I get home around 7/8pm. Dinner might be something like fish and chips in the airfryer or nothing at all/some snacks

I spend most of the day in front of a laptop or on calls/at meetings (IT manager) with an hour's commute each way in the car so by the time I get home I just want to do nothing.. the notion of cooking a meal for an hour that'll take me 15 minutes to eat (I tend to eat quickly) really wouldn't appeal. My mother was the chef in my younger days, but when she got sick we got into a routine of TV dinner type stuff.

Despite all that though I amazingly haven't ballooned. If I think the weight is starting to add on I generally just eat less for a few weeks. I've read some of the stuff in this thread about eating bananas and nuts etc (both of which I like) but the other issue is I'd have no notion of portion sizes which doesn't help when doing the weekly shop. The notion of calorie counting and so on wouldn't appeal either - I've too much else to do in a day.

I do need to do something though as I have a 4 year old that seems to have endless energy and Daddy finds it hard to keep up

Alf Veedersane

You'd make a big difference by just dropping the coke or switching to Coke Zero and switching latte to Americano.

JJayoo

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Example of a typical workday which normally runs from about 7am when I get up till 8pm when I get home:

- Usually no breakfast at all
- Mid-morning might be a Latte or a coke/club orange with or without a bar of chocolate
- Lunch is usually a toasted ham and cheese, coke
- Usually nothing then except maybe another latte till I get home around 7/8pm. Dinner might be something like fish and chips in the airfryer or nothing at all/some snacks

Simple changes first, add fruit to your diet. If you feel like you don't have time for breakfast in the morning then just eat a handful of berries a banana/pear and a handful of walnuts. You dont have to prepare or sitdown to eat this you can even eat this on route to work. Just shove it in your gob

Zillah

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

the notion of cooking a meal for an hour that'll take me 15 minutes to eat (I tend to eat quickly) really wouldn't appeal.

You can do a stirfry in about six minutes.

The_Honeybadger

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

. the notion of cooking a meal for an hour that'll take me 15 minutes to eat (I tend to eat quickly) really wouldn't appeal:(

If it's taking you an hour to cook meals you're doing it wrong. You can make really tasty dinners in 15-20 mins and if you are cooking for one you can make enough for 2-3 meals and put the rest into Tupperware and chill / freeze to be eaten another time. There is absolutely no reason to be spending hours on end in the kitchen to eat healthy.

Zillah

Sometimes I do a giant dinner that takes about 40 minutes and it's lunch and dinner for the next three days. Granted you'd want it to be pretty damn good to not get sick of it, or you could use it for dinners and eat something else for lunch.

Alf Veedersane

Also, bags of frozen veg.

First Up

ella23 wrote:

I am on the journey to make myself a little healthier as well, so let me tell you how I am going so far, maybe it will encourage you a little.

MrsYelnekoff wrote:

Hi Finding the step counter very motivational but it's also a bloody wake up call to how little cals we actually burn when walking. 1hr equal 200cals wouldn't even cover a mars bar.

That doesn't sound right. You burn roughly 100 calories per kilometer - doesn't matter if walking, jogging or sprinting. An hour's walk at moderate pace would be 300; a brisk walk 400 or a power walk or jog around 500-600.

Alf Veedersane

First Up wrote: »

That doesn't sound right. You burn roughly 100 calories per kilometer .

Very unlikely you'd burn 100 kcals in 1km.

Besides, you're better off underestimating the calories burned from exercise.

First Up

Alf Veedersane wrote:

Very unlikely you'd burn 100 kcals in 1km.

No it isn't. It varies depending on your weight (and the gradient) but the usual range is 90-110.

caviardreams

First Up wrote: »

No it isn't. It varies depending on your weight (and the gradient) but the usual range is 90-110.

I normally estimate 1km walking at about 50 calories. I'd do 6km in an hour, so that would be 300 cals in an hour.

Alf Veedersane

First Up wrote: »

No it isn't. It varies depending on your weight (and the gradient) but the usual range is 90-110.

What's the source for that?

First Up

Alf Veedersane wrote:

What's the source for that?

There's loads of calculators online. Try mapmywalk.com.

Cavey

OK there is some decent advice in this thread. I'm a qualified gym instructor, lifeguard and Personal Trainer. My career is in IT though, the fitness was more just to see what I could learn myself that I didn't already know.

Early on in this thread, people made recommendations to do a couch to 5k and a lot of people want you walking more. I would advise against this. Not that cardiovascular training isn't beneficial to your heart & lungs but you will not lose the weight you want to lose. Cardio training simply can't tone your body and make you look better. If you are overweight (I don't know your BMI but I'm assuming you are overweight), excessive walking or running is extremely bad on your joints, the knees in particular.

At some point, you will need to join a gym. You may be embaressed at first but you need to get over this and understand the gym is not a place where people judge you. Everyone has to start somewhere. When I see a new person in my gym, I'm really happy for them. I always try and make them feel welcome. I know they are there because they are trying. Also, people who are bigger in size are often *A LOT* stronger than the skinny people (a lot of which are skinny-fat).

Yes you do need to correct your diet but what you really need is exercise, specifically, resistance training. If you are too shy to go to the gym, do a bodyweight routine at home. Give bodyweight routine a google and find something you can do. Watch youtube videos on the corrent form for an exercise. I am training consistently in the gym for years and I still watch youtube videos on form and technique. It is also a good idea to video yourself (I use my phone) and then check the footage after to assess what your form is like compared to a video demonstration. You can also perform the exercises beside and mirror and keep an eye on yourself as you do them.

You see now the benefit of a gym is that you will have gym instructors and personal trainers there. Most gyms will offer you a free analysis and basic programme to get you up and started. Most of these programmes are complete s***e. Not all, but most. These programmes will also be done out by gym instructors. They will not have as much knowledge (generally speaking) as a personal trainer. So my advice is, get a personal trainer.

How do you get a good personal trainer? For starters, take a look at them. Do they look physically fit? Ask them about their training, see if they are passionate about it. A good personal trainer will love training themselves and are usually very outgoing personality which makes them easy to talk to and ask questions. You will find the best personal trainers are connected with the best gyms. So even though if you have a gym 2 minutes away from your house, it might be very small and not have any passionate trainers there to help you. Whereas if you were to go to RAW gym in Dublin, you will find a very welcoming and positive environment with more equipment than you will *probably* ever need. Yes, it can be daunting at first and the sight of everyone being so fit can make you feel self conscious but remember, nobody is judging you. Experienced gym goers go the gym to workout, they are busy with their workout and not concerned with you at all. (You are not a special and unique snowflake - we are all part of the same compost heap).

Even if your diet were to stay the same as it is now, I *guarantee* you with a good resistance programme (that applied progressive overload over time), the weight would fly off you. You will get toned, look so much better and feel so much better.

An absolutely excellent book on diet & training is The Lean Muscle Diet by Alan Aragon.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lean-Muscle-Diet-Lou-Schuler/dp/1623364183/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463257777&sr=8-1&keywords=lean+muscle+diet Alan has over 20 years experience with training and his primary area is nutrition. Alan also has some great talks on youtube and are worth checking out.

TL;DR: find a good gym, find a good personal trainer. Do resistance training. Eat more protein and veg. Eat less carbs. Eat moderate fats. Limit processed sugar consumption - just eat fruit! Its delicious and guilt free!

Good Luck !

Alf Veedersane

First Up wrote: »

There's loads of calculators online. Try mapmywalk.com.

I've looked at plenty and the most generous gives 75 kcal for a km.

Either way, it's still a better policy to underestimate than overestimate calories burned from exercise of you're trying to lose weight.

First Up

Alf Veedersane wrote:

I've looked at plenty and the most generous gives 75 kcal for a km.

There's loads of calculations out there and you can pick the one to suit your argument. But none I've seen estimate an hour's walking at as anything as low as 200 calories.

Alf Veedersane

First Up wrote: »

There's loads of calculations out there and you can pick the one to suit your argument. But none I've seen estimate an hour's walking at as anything as low as 200 calories.

Cool. Well none of them showed up on my Google search and the point still stands that it's better to underestimate calories burned.

First Up

Cavey wrote:

Cardio training simply can't tone your body and make you look better. If you are overweight (I don't know your BMI but I'm assuming you are overweight), excessive walking or running is extremely bad on your joints, the knees in particular.

What do you consider to be "excessive"?

Dtp1979

First Up wrote: »

That doesn't sound right. You burn roughly 100 calories per kilometer - doesn't matter if walking, jogging or sprinting. An hour's walk at moderate pace would be 300; a brisk walk 400 or a power walk or jog around 500-600.

Dosent make sense to me that you'd burn the same calories walking 5k as opposed to a fast run for 5k

Cavey

First Up wrote: »

What do you consider to be "excessive"?

If the individual is new to exercise, overweight and has been living a sedentary lifestyle with bad diet, I would class any cardio (specifically walking/running/skipping) beyond what is necessary for day to day living as excessive.

That does not mean I am against cardio & of course it is essential for healthy heart & lungs.

For losing weight, specifically fat, you simply can't beat resistance training. Would I still incorporate some light cardio to a resistance training programme? Of course I would. Although I would recommend something more low impact for an overweight, untrained individual. Swimming, rowing, cycling would all be fine.

If your primary goal is to burn fat and look more aesthetically pleasing, focus on resistance training. Three 20 minute sessions of cardio per week (at about 65% of your max Heart rate) is all you need to supplement a good resistance programme.

First Up

Dtp1979 wrote:

Dosent make sense to me that you'd burn the same calories walking 5k as opposed to a fast run for 5k

Its true though. The difference in calories burned is very small. A fast run for 5k means you are exercising for much less time than if walking or jogging.

First Up

Cavey wrote:

If the individual is new to exercise, overweight and has been living a sedentary lifestyle with bad diet, I would class any cardio (specifically walking/running/skipping) beyond what is necessary for day to day living as excessive.

There are low impact options (swimming, cross trainer) that have huge benefits and will get you to a high heart rate without the risk of overdoing weights.

A gym session of cardio and some moderate resistance is more balanced - and enjoyable.

Very few people are so overweight as to be endangered by walking.

uck51js9zml2yt

I can t see how walking burns the same calories are running.
I'm back in the gym after heart surgery and doing cardio and light weights.

Walking at 5.5 on the treadmill for 15 minutes burns about 70 kcals. In that 15 minutes I ran 10 at 7.5 and walked 5 which burned 120 kcals according to the onboard computer.
Running burnt more cals.

Alf Veedersane

MrsYelnekoff wrote: »

I really want to go to some exercise classes at my local gym but can't bring myself to go in! I feel really unfit still and just self conscience. Would it be better if I waited till I was another stone down? I am still really sweaty when I do my brisk walking although I do feel that walking further is getting easier and I do a little bit of running during my walk. Very little tho and then I stop and walk and then run again. That sort of thing.

Just to get back to OP: there is no need to wait before doing some classes. I totally get the self confidence holding you back but if you take the plunge you won't regret it. Just find a class you'll enjoy.

The switching between running and walking is progress. It's the way the Couch to 5K program is built on switching between walking and running and building up the running

First Up

Collin Tender Blackberry wrote:

Walking at 5.5 on the treadmill for 15 minutes burns about 70 kcals. In that 15 minutes I ran 10 at 7.5 and walked 5 which burned 120 kcals according to the onboard computer. Running burnt more cals.

More calories because you covered a longer distance.

Cavey

First Up wrote: »

There are low impact options (swimming, cross trainer) that have huge benefits and will get you to a high heart rate without the risk of overdoing weights.

A gym session of cardio and some moderate resistance is more balanced - and enjoyable.

Very few people are so overweight as to be endangered by walking.

The only benefit for cardio is improving your the health of your heart & lungs. It makes your heart a more efficient pump for bloodflow. Weight loss from cardio is minimal, the focus needs to be on resistance work.

There is no risk of overdoing weights if you start with a good bodyweight routine. Your heart rate will be elevated during your working sets of resistance work also (cardio). People always put too much emphashis on cardio training and not enough on weights.

Seriously though, how many gyms do you see with most people on treadmills, walkers, rowers etc while very few do any resistance work.

Also, you're not going to be "overdoing weights" with a good personal trainer at your side. They will know perfectly well what their client is and isn't capable of.

If you are overweight and untrained, you're putting excess pressure on your joints every step you take, period. Do you know how common knee replacement surgery is in america? Before you reply "hurr well we're not fat americams here", Ireland has one of the highest rates of obesity among men & women in Europe.

Whether you enjoy more cardio at the gym and less resistance training is your preference. If you want the results the OP was asking for, they should focus on resistance training.

Wesser

First Up wrote: »

That doesn't sound right. You burn roughly 100 calories per kilometer - doesn't matter if walking, jogging or sprinting. An hour's walk at moderate pace would be 300; a brisk walk 400 or a power walk or jog around 500-600.

Maybe you are thinking of 100 calories burnt per mile?

Wesser

If you are very unfit and afraid of doing classes, then I would recommend that you do beginners Pilates class. Very enjoyable and very straightforward. Can't be seen by anyone as you spend slit if it lying downðŸ˜. Strengthening and flrxibity but not aerobic. As time goes you will gain confidence to go to
Other classes. You will also be stronger. Outside of this I would recommend walking. After a while you could break in to a jog for even 30 seconds at a time.

Tell me how

Dtp1979 wrote:

Dosent make sense to me that you'd burn the same calories walking 5k as opposed to a fast run for 5k

You don't.
Calories are energy.
The energy of motion such as walking is translational Kinetic Energy.
K = 0.5 x m x v(squared)
Where m is mass and v is speed. So the faster you move, the more energy you burn.

MrsYelnekoff

MrsYelnekoff wrote: »

just looked it up. I really can't imagine myself ever running?!

If you're really, really unfit, replace the running bits of the couch to 5K with just faster walking. Choose walking routes that are not hilly. Try to walk earlier rather than later in the day, as you'll have trouble sleeping from the buzz!
Can you swim? Replace one days training with a gentle swim and build up to a more strenuous one as you get fitter.
I was you a few years ago and I know the different speeds of walking worked for me. I did it every Monday, Wed and Friday. I didn't worry too much about dieting at that time, but once I was fitter, I did the 5:2 diet and am now on the 6:1 - ie eat normal 5 or 6 days and only have 500 calories the other day(s).
Good Luck whatever you try.

ThinkProgress

Cavey wrote: »

If the individual is new to exercise, overweight and has been living a sedentary lifestyle with bad diet, I would class any cardio (specifically walking/running/skipping) beyond what is necessary for day to day living as excessive.

That does not mean I am against cardio & of course it is essential for healthy heart & lungs.

For losing weight, specifically fat, you simply can't beat resistance training. Would I still incorporate some light cardio to a resistance training programme? Of course I would. Although I would recommend something more low impact for an overweight, untrained individual. Swimming, rowing, cycling would all be fine.

If your primary goal is to burn fat and look more aesthetically pleasing, focus on resistance training. Three 20 minute sessions of cardio per week (at about 65% of your max Heart rate) is all you need to supplement a good resistance programme.

Firstly, cardio IS resistance training. All exercise requires you to fight (or resist) the forces of gravity... hence why it's all resistance training!

Secondly, you are very misinformed about cardio. Cardio comes in a massive variety of different forms and it absolutely DOES have an impact on you aesthetically!

It's usually just the meat heads in the gym that hate cardio and only like lifting heavy sh*t up and putting it back down again, that hold this kind of foolish opinion. :rolleyes:

Cavey wrote: »

The only benefit for cardio is improving your the health of your heart & lungs. It makes your heart a more efficient pump for bloodflow. Weight loss from cardio is minimal, the focus needs to be on resistance work.

There is no risk of overdoing weights if you start with a good bodyweight routine. Your heart rate will be elevated during your working sets of resistance work also (cardio). People always put too much emphashis on cardio training and not enough on weights.

Seriously though, how many gyms do you see with most people on treadmills, walkers, rowers etc while very few do any resistance work.

Also, you're not going to be "overdoing weights" with a good personal trainer at your side. They will know perfectly well what their client is and isn't capable of.

If you are overweight and untrained, you're putting excess pressure on your joints every step you take, period. Do you know how common knee replacement surgery is in america? Before you reply "hurr well we're not fat americams here", Ireland has one of the highest rates of obesity among men & women in Europe.

Whether you enjoy more cardio at the gym and less resistance training is your preference. If you want the results the OP was asking for, they should focus on resistance training.

Again completely wrong here.

Do some hills sprints for a few weeks and see if your physique changes. (warning: it's harder than lifting weights - and if your muscles are too big, it will be even more difficult)

Actually these days I think many people are putting far too much emphasis on weight training at expense of quality cardio work. Probably because some people (who likely hate cardio) are brainwashing them into thinking it's useless or bad for them!

Btw, I see many guys with knee problems from doing mostly just weights/strength work in the gym. You're just as likely to f*ck up your knees doing too many squats as you are from doing too much running!

KenjiOdo

MrsYelnekoff wrote: »

I need help. I'm very unfit. I want to get fitter and lose weight. I think now I'm ready. It's lighter evenings etc.

What do I start with? I have asthma and just unfi in general. I noticed (have a pulse monitor and oxegen monitor) That my heartbeat goes up to maybe 140 whilst just walking. There is no way I can run and I am too shy to join a gym.

Is there anything I can do that effective but won't leave me in bits?

My diet would be very bad and I do know the right things to eat.

Example of what I ate today.

Breakfast- two twix bar, cup of tea.

Lunch- lidl fudge (640cals) and two packet of small crisps.

Didn't eat then till late in the evening.

Dinner Poppy Seed bagel, with cream cheese and a whole avocado.

Snack small latte and an orange.

Drank water, tea and a small bottle coke zero.

I feel like my diet is really crap.

Your diet is terrible... You'd be way better off eating a much bigger dinner & cutting out snacks... Coke Zero is just as bad for you in other ways as full sugar coke don't be deceived.

Breakfast: Porridge/Wholeweat cereals (weetabix/shredded wheat) Add fruit if you want. Even bowl of Granola & yoghurt would be healthier than Two twix bars. Leave out red tea - go green or drink fruit juices.

Lunch: Eat big -- Salad here won't get you through the day. Tuna Salad (Sweetcorn, Lettuce & Tomato?) Brown Sub with cheese (not processed) - no sweets. Cup of Tea.

Dinner: Keep it lean but sizeable amount of food. Marinaded Grilled Chicken breast, 2 hard-boiled eggs mashed & add paprika & mayo with some salad (potato).

I'm sure others with disagree with what I've written but you're only starting off, if you go too hardcore early its a hard start. You'll feel like you'll have more energy with the above diet, which is low on sugar, which will be difficult change at first, sugar has similar chemical reacts in the brain as cocaine. It also plays havoc on the endocrine system.

http://allergyfreemenuplanners.com/2013/02/14/how-sugar-throws-off-your-digestive-and-hormonal-balance/

I'd leave the gym until you feel like toning up & are already "fit" go to soon you'll be depressed by all the health freaks.

You'd be much better off changing diet & going for brisk walks, odd jog & light running until you feel confident.

ThinkProgress

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If you do squats properly you will strengthen the muscles, ligaments and tendons around your knee. The opposite of causing knee problems.

But I agree that running won't necessarily cause knee issues just because it's running.

But this isn't on topic.

I never said anything about doing them with bad form.

Even with perfect form, if you do too many or do them too often... you can get injured.

There are many people with years of experience doing squats... who understand what perfect form is, and yet they can still get injured - and frequently do!

Alf Veedersane

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I never said anything about doing them with bad form.

Even with perfect form, if you do too many or do them too often... you can get injured.

There are many people with years of experience doing squats... who understand what perfect form is, and yet they can still get injured - and frequently do!

Yeah, you'll do well to find a consensus of evidence to back that up.

Cavey

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Firstly, cardio IS resistance training. All exercise requires you to fight (or resist) the forces of gravity... hence why it's all resistance training!

BUT CARDIO IS STILL WEIGHT TRAINING LOL !!

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Secondly, you are very misinformed about cardio. Cardio comes in a massive variety of different forms and it absolutely DOES have an impact on you aesthetically

The resistance you face from cardio is minimal, in particular walking. Yes, OP could jump on a bike and ramp up the resistance but if you read the original post, it states their heart rate goes to 140 from walking alone. I can't calculate what % of their max heart that is without knowing their age but it sounds high regardless. What do you think is gonna happen if you throw somebody with an already high heart rate into a cardio dominant programme? Firstly, they're going to hate it. Second, its dangerous as their heart rate will be too high. Third and final, it won't give them the results they want.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It's usually just the meat heads in the gym that hate cardio and only like lifting heavy sh*t up and putting it back down again, that hold this kind of foolish opinion. :rolleyes:

HURR DURRR you lift weights so you must be a meat head! LOL! I do 4 cardio sessions per week atm, usually two 20 min sessions on a bike, rower or stepper and 1 or 2 HIIT sessions, like prowler or circuit training. This is on top of a 4 day resistance programme. I also swim once a week which I don't count as its just for fun.

Bodybuilders are MASTERS of their diet and body. Roll your eyes all you like, you're only kidding yourself (and misinforming others) if you think predominately training your cardiovasular system will get you quality results, the kind of quality results the OP wants.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Again completely wrong here.

Do some hills sprints for a few weeks and see if your physique changes. (warning: it's harder than lifting weights - and if your muscles are too big, it will be even more difficult)

Completely wrong how. You saying that without backing it up with anything doesn't make it true.

Hill sprints are good, but again, not something I would advise for an untrained, overweight beginner. It would make them hate fitness and increase the chances of them quitting. It also isn't going to give them results as fast as well planned out resistance programme. It would also put them at a higher risk of picking up an injury, it just isnt something a good personal trainer would incorporate to a beginner programme.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Actually these days I think many people are putting far too much emphasis on weight training at expense of quality cardio work. Probably because some people (who likely hate cardio) are brainwashing them into thinking it's useless or bad for them!

If you are seeing more people put their efforts into resistance training, I am glad to hear it. Most gyms I go to or trainers I speak with tell me there are still so many people that will come in and do 20mins on a treadmill, 20 mins on a bike and 20 mins on an elliptical. Waste of time? No. Waste of time if they primary goal is burning fat and looking better? Yes. Also, please direct me to where I stated that I hated cardio. Is it my favourite thing to do? No. But I do it anyway because I know its important. I've actually come to enjoy it more recently as its so much easier & less taxing than weight training. Its also a good time for me to catch up on podcasts.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Btw, I see many guys with knee problems from doing mostly just weights/strength work in the gym.

If you are seeing a lot of people damaging their knees from squats, then these people are not using correct form. That is the fault of the gym trainers really as if I worked at a gym and saw somebody squatting with bad form, I would stop them and help them. Maybe you can help demonstrate correct technique to all these guys at your gym messing up their knees. And while you're at it, spread the good word of cardio.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

You're just as likely to f*ck up your knees doing too many squats as you are from doing too much running!

Ever heard of a little thing called *drum roll* runner's knee? Why don't you give that a google and do some reading up on it.

Squatting with proper form and technique is not only very safe to perform but extremely beneficial to your knees. It helps cartilage get into the joints and will strengthen your core, leg and gluteal muscles and also increase your bone density.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Pair of good quality running shoes is definitely the best regarding cost/benefit ratio.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Tell me how

First Up wrote:

Nobody is saying otherwise. The variable that affects calorie consumption is distance covered.

It does affect it but speed has a "greater" effect on calorie consumption.

First Up

Wesser wrote:

Maybe you are thinking of 100 calories burnt per mile?

90-100 cals per kilometer; 150-160 per mile.

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

All pieces of equipment come down to whether you use them or not. That's partly why I recommended the shoes. If someone is unlikely to put them to reasonable regular use then it is very likely to be the same story with the hardware and so it's best to have a hundred Euro pair of shoes sitting unused in the garage/spare room than a 500 Euro gym piece.

I would recommend trying to create the habit of regular exercise throughout the summer and if successful at maintaining this then considering a piece of kit heading in to the winter and shorter days. Just my thoughts.

If you really want to buy hardware now, an exercise bike would be my suggestion. Simple, lowish cost, compact and relatively stress free on joints to use as opposed to treadmill.

First Up

Tell me how wrote:

You don't. Calories are energy. The energy of motion such as walking is translational Kinetic Energy. K = 0.5 x m x v(squared) Where m is mass and v is speed. So the faster you move, the more energy you burn.

Nobody is disputing that faster movement means faster burn but the other variable is time spent doing it. 10k running at 5 minutes per k takes 50 minutes of exercise. 10k walking at 8 minutes per k takes 80 minutes of exercise.

The longer time balances the slower speed so the net calorie burn is about the same.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

First Up

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Cross trainer works the upper body as well, so it delivers more than the bike.

endacl

MrsYelnekoff wrote: »

Definately a sugar addict so need to address that.

If it hasn't been mentioned, a chromium supplement may help with sugar cravings and help to normalise levels.

First Up

Cavey wrote:

The only benefit for cardio is improving your the health of your heart & lungs. It makes your heart a more efficient pump for bloodflow. Weight loss from cardio is minimal, the focus needs to be on resistance work.

Do you know many fat marathon runners?

JJayoo

Patww79 wrote: »

What's single best bit of equipment to buy as an all round piece? I already have a cross trainer which I've been doing a bit on, but could fit in something else for other types.

A set of adjustable dumbbells, even one adjustable dumbbell is enough.

single arm floor press
Single.arm OH press
Curls
Standing skullcrushers
Side.raises
Front raises
Dumbbell rows
Rear delt raises
OH reverse lunges
OH forward lunges
Goblet squats
One arm farmers walks
Turkish getups
DB push press
Single a floor fly's
Single.arm shrugs
DB cleans

Only thing your really missing is a vertical pulling movement such as a chin/pull up or lat pull down.

JJayoo

First Up wrote: »

Do you know many fat marathon runners?

Interesting logic......

OP I have the solution, all you have to do is make your way into an North Korean prision camp and the weight will fall off.

You never see any fat people in prison camps #winning #blessed

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.