The dreaded belly

Hey all adds to the flavour.

Seriously though you can't get to excited by this stuff or you won't eat anything.

 

During my casual considerations an lame efforts trying to lose a stone and a half a buddy has tried and succeeded with a simple and seemingly very effective strategy....

Press-ups.


He started three months ago as a 38 year old with a bit of a gut, a smoker, a drinker and someone who lived on a pretty unhealthy diet, medium build at just under 15 stone (5' 10").

Initially he could only do around 6 press-ups.

So he started doing them every day - literally as many reps as he could manage X as many sets as he could manage.

Before too long he was doing 200 per day in sets of 15 - 20.

Not long after he'd reaced 300 in sets of 20 - 30.

He peaked at around 550 and generally does around 400 every day (Monday to Friday).

Note: he does a variety - wide handed, close handed, slow, quick

After 3 months the results:
1. he's lost 12 lbs - presuming he's gained a few pounds in muscle that's a stone of fat gone.
2. He's dropped from a 38" waist to a 33"
3. His belly is flat and he's developed his shoulders, arms and chest quite surprisingly
4. His wife is very impressed (etc. )

Apart from the press-ups, he does a few sets of sit-ups and has generally cut down a bit on alcohol, reduced the carbs (only a bit), increased fruit and veg and tends to eat wholegrain instead of white rice/bread/etc.

The reason I think this has worked IMO:
1. press-ups are a compound exercise so he is working a range of muscles simultaneously including abs and back in order to keep the body straight - hence the drop in waistline
2. press-ups are completely convenient so he doesnt skip sessions
3. he's built muscle which has increased his metabolism so he's buring more calories at rest
4. he's stuck at it

I have to say the results are as good if not better than any three month program I've witnessed before.

 

Do you have any data/links relating to this? I eat a fair bit of tuna...

 

The issue with Mercury is connected to how old fish are when caught. Older fish have longer to absorb more Mercury.

Whilst I appreciate tinned Tuna is amongst the most convenient ways to add protein to your diet, you'd be amazed how many protein rich alternatives there are, particularly nuts, beans and pulses.

Here are a few worrying links:
Mercury in Fish: your questions answered

Canned Tuna Riskier than Previously Suspected

FDA Urged to Crack Down on Tuna Mercury Levels

As far as I can tell the advice is just don't eat too much. I reckon two tins per week would be ok

 

I eat nuts too, but they're not so good if you're trying to lose weight due to the high fat (and thus energy) content. I assume they're an incomplete protein too?

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

I eat about 9 per week at the moment. Along with maybe 5 of sardines.

 

I'd personally choose fish every time (despite any mercury it may contain) over saturated fat laden red meat..

 

Tend to agree although I like the occasional steak.

We tend to go vegi most of the week, just because we do as apposed to any reason.

 

I'm no expert but IME the key is to combine pulses, beans and nuts over the course of the day or in the same meal. Added together they form a complete source of essential amino acids.

Nuts are typically high in fat, though these are often good fats (nut dependent) which you actually require for a balanced diet. All in moderation of course.

If training in any way worth considering whey/casein/egg protein supplements. My fave source is www.myprotein.co.uk. I personally tend to buy EU sourced vegetarian whey powder and a separate casein powder. The former is very quickly digested so available to the body v quickly (ideal after a session) but not long lasting in the gut the latter is slow to digest ideal for bedtime. Can seem expensive, but if you buy in bulk it's pretty cost effective. I buy their stuff as it doesnt have any sweeteners, etc. so you can sweeten with honey (or just have it plain) and mix it with water.

 

Hi Martin,

Although not clear by looking at that day, I always usually make sure to have at least a glass of milk too - normally at breakfast time and often have some cereal, also with milk.

Also, I do tend to eat lots of meat also. To be honest, that was one of my most meat free days in a fair while.

I take your point though... but subjectively I seem to have gained muscle if anything, as i do eat plenty meat and do lots of lifting and carrying at work.

 

Thats very interesting. I've thought about doing something like this, as walking, good though it is, doesnt really burn much calories. To be honest, I'd dismissed push ups in the same way, however, looking at what you're saying, it looks worth a try to say the least.... especially since i've been toying with the idea of a gym, but dont fancy the expensive memberships or fees.

 

Paul, I think you would be suprised about the walking.

Fat burning exercise for a 25 year old is commonly considered to occur between 108 and 128 BPM (heart beats per minute).

A brisk walk should get you in that zone.

Exceed 128 BPM and you are in cardio vascular exercise rather than fat burning.

There is a top to this of course too, which is the limit of aerobic exercise.

 

That's interesting chris... so does exercise over 128bpm not burn much in the way of fat (only glycogen presumably?)? Also, how does that scale with RHR and body weight? My RHR is 48 and weight is 61kg (13 more than I was two and a half years ago), so would that be higher or lower for me? I often ride up over 160bpm when climbing (no HRM so can't tell you precisely, but counting beats says it's close to or beyond 3 per second which is obviously 180)

 

Resistance is useful.

This from last weeks Guardian caught my eye

This looks like a change in thinking to me, can someone more qualified than I comment as this looks almost too good to be true. This looks like the advice offered by Bottleneck and the story from Greg as something that even I can fit into my life. As I'm no stranger to walking I reckon this is something that I will be able to stick at without too much trouble.

 

What is important to remember is there is no easy solution. Eat less than the energy you expend.

There was an interesting thing on radio 4 today about 'nutritionists'

Just remember the above equation. We all know that sat in front of the TV with a pizza and a pint is not making up for the energy we expended reading the web and sitting on our arse!

 

This is more or less right... more accurately, as one's heart rate increases the ratio of fat calories burned to carbohydrate calories burned decreases. However this is offset by the fact that the rate at which we burn calories increases at higher heart rates. Eg at 128 BPM the 25 year old would say burn 10 calories/min of which 6 may be from fat (60%). At 140 BPM he is likely to burn 12 calories 6 (50%) of which may be from fat.

This is fairly accurate in the early stages for inactive people taking up an exercise regime...

 

Ive been reading up a lot this week, after taking some advice from a tri-athlete.

Isaac - the speed of your heart rate will be a good indication of the type of training you are giving your body.

People measure heart rates because it's easier than measuring how much oxygen your body is using.

Your age will be a determining factor in setting the parameters. For example, being about 10 years older (I think) than you, I will find my aerobic training zone about 10BPM below yours.

This chart looks like not a bad indication

http://www.ginmiller.com/gmf06/articles/target_heart_rate/heart_rate_chart.html

If you want aerobic exercise (rather than anaerobic) I would suggest a lower gear to get your BPM around 150 BPM.

 

I should get an hrm sometime... asked for one for christmas but didn't get it. Now I want a Garmin Edge 305 gps/cycle computer/HRM unit

 

Auric, as for the first part, the exercises mentioned are compound exercises which are good at raising the pulse and promoting muscle growth which in turn increases metabolism. Remember an increase in metabolism means a person burns calories at a higher rate even when not exercising (ie sitting at a desk at work). So bit of a happy double whammy. I think one of the posts above touches on this.

The second part, is again very sound. Quite often used by body builders in the run up to contests. By doing resistance exercises first one tends to use up most of the carbohydrate reserves. Doing CV afterwards taps into fat reserves more efficiently. It is good to see common sense creeping into mainstream fitness.

 

This thread is turning very interesting to me.

Chris - I saw an article once that suggested walking was good for fat burning, but on paper, walking appears to not be too great because it burns less calories for the time spent than other exercise, BUT, what you are saying seems to suggest its not quite that simple?

 

Let me tell you try doing a four mile walk with a 12 week old baby strapped to your chest, I was knackered tonight!