losing weight

[hrodbert696]

Why does the OP need to see his doctor? What will a doctor possibly say other than the numerous weight-loss tips offered (for free!)? There is some silly BS that has been put forward, but for the most part, if the OP follows the advice of some of the posts on here, he will lose weight. I guarantee it.

The doctor is not a nutritionist, and out of fear of being sued in the event he (she) is wrong, will fail to give any real, solid advice. Sure, they will test for blood pressure & any abnormalities, but for crying out loud - he's an overweight male teen. He isn't a geriatric, morbidly obese person who can barely walk.

Hit the exercise hard, recover well (adequate sleep), eat clean with sufficient macronutrient ratios for your goals, and limit excess consumption. Following exactly this program will result in fat loss. I am so confident I'd bet a year's salary on it.

I'll grant that if he has no health insurance and would have to pay $200 or something out of pocket, it's probably not worth it. But assuming he (or his family) does, a $10 copay to set realistic goals and pace with a health professional who has his history is not a stupid idea. Not to mention a referral to a nutritionist which would absolutely be a good idea to steer him away from all the contradictory crazy diet advice he's getting for free.

As you say, if he follows "some of" the advice he's getting here for free he'll do fine. But I have teenagers and I wouldn't assume that a teenager can easily sort out which is the good advice and which is the bad.

 

[Chebass88]

I'll grant that if he has no health insurance and would have to pay $200 or something out of pocket, it's probably not worth it. But assuming he (or his family) does, a $10 copay to set realistic goals and pace with a health professional who has his history is not a stupid idea. Not to mention a referral to a nutritionist which would absolutely be a good idea to steer him away from all the contradictory crazy diet advice he's getting for free.

As you say, if he follows "some of" the advice he's getting here for free he'll do fine. But I have teenagers and I wouldn't assume that a teenager can easily sort out which is the good advice and which is the bad.

I see your point. The biggest problem with free internet advice is the shear amount of ridiculousness that gets posted. The higher the post count, the more that poster is correct, no? The key is consistency with a program, any program. If that is a caloric deficit / calorie counting effort like Weight Watchers - great. If it is a low carb "paleo"-type diet, great. If the programs are changed every couple of days, it is difficult to quantify changes.

Then again, this IS the internet, and the onus is on the reader to filter the information appropriately.

 

[spade2you]

Yes, relatively.

Do the same exercise and eating plan for a month.

You know your weight at the beginning and end of the month. You know your caloric intake. You can estimate your exercise output using standard measure.

From those factors you can easily calculate an average daily caloric burn.

If there are dramatic swings in your caloric burn rate happening - there is something wrong.

No, relatively.

As I noted before, there's a lot to the right workout. Paying attention to the % of fat burn to overall caloric burn can allow you to lose much more weight per calorie burned.

It's appealing to burn about 800 calories per hour, but those high intensity workouts rarely burn much fat. End of story.

 

[aborgman]

No, relatively.

As I noted before, there's a lot to the right workout. Paying attention to the % of fat burn to overall caloric burn can allow you to lose much more weight per calorie burned.

It's appealing to burn about 800 calories per hour, but those high intensity workouts rarely burn much fat. End of story.

Correct - there is a lot to the most efficient workout.

...but that changes not a whit the fact that it's easy to calculate your bodies average daily caloric burn. All that takes is consistency.

If you do workout A burning Y estimated calories three times a week, and you eat X number of calories a day - consistently - and you know staring and beginning weights... you'll be very close to a reasonable number.

Close enough to be useful.

Close enough to lose weight at the absolute optimal speed, while losing the most fat and the least lean muscle mass? No.

It ain't optimal, it's good enough.

 

[spade2you]

Correct - there is a lot to the most efficient workout.

...but that changes not a whit the fact that it's easy to calculate your bodies average daily caloric burn. All that takes is consistency.

If you do workout A burning Y estimated calories three times a week, and you eat X number of calories a day - consistently - and you know staring and beginning weights... you'll be very close to a reasonable number.

Close enough to be useful.

Close enough to lose weight at the absolute optimal speed, while losing the most fat and the least lean muscle mass? No.

It ain't optimal, it's good enough.

I realize you will continue to contradict me to win teh interw3b, but you should probably start reading up on training before you say any more.

 

[bassplayer1494]

i will talk to my doctor whenever i get a chance to get my usual check up.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

At 16, unless you have any other medical conditions, it isn't something you should really worry about doing.

IMO.

 

[bassplayer1494]

what? the losing weight part or talking to my doctor about the losing weight part?

 

[aborgman]

I realize you will continue to contradict me to win teh interw3b, but you should probably start reading up on training before you say any more.

No, I just understand "good enough".

Eat 2000 calories a day, exercise 200 calories a day, for thirty days.

How much has your weight changed?

Total Caloric Burn = (30*2000)-(30*200)-3500*(end_weight - beginning_weight)

Average daily caloric burn = Total Caloric Burn/30.

Now maybe my exercise estimation is off by 50 calories, and thus my daily average burn is equally off in the other direction... but it's close enough.

 

[ZachOrem]

Look at post #45, that's pretty much what I said.

Yep. You're a smart man.

 

[spade2you]

No, I just understand "good enough".

Eat 2000 calories a day, exercise 200 calories a day, for thirty days.

How much has your weight changed?

Total Caloric Burn = (30*2000)-(30*200)-3500*(end_weight - beginning_weight)

Average daily caloric burn = Total Caloric Burn/30.

Now maybe my exercise estimation is off by 50 calories, and thus my daily average burn is equally off in the other direction... but it's close enough.

Ok, please stop "educating" me.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

what? the losing weight part or talking to my doctor about the losing weight part?

Talking to the doctor. Unless you have some past or current medical conditions, the doctor will probably just go "Ok"

 

[spade2you]

Talking to the doctor. Unless you have some past or current medical conditions, the doctor will probably just go "Ok"

I'm not bashing most MDs, but they treat illness these days, rarely wellness.

 

[aborgman]

Ok, please stop "educating" me.

Oh, I'm pretty sure you know all this... and just want to show off your nutrition knowledge by playing up that there are more efficient methods of achieving your goal.

Yep, there are.

...and there are more efficient ways of getting home from work than a 1975 Lincoln Continental, but that doesn't change the fact that the Lincoln still gets you home.

 

[spade2you]

Oh, I'm pretty sure you know all this... and just want to show off your nutrition knowledge by playing up that there are more efficient methods of achieving your goal.

Yep, there are.

...and there are more efficient ways of getting home from work than a 1975 Lincoln Continental, but that doesn't change the fact that the Lincoln still gets you home.

If barely scratching the surface is "efficient", then you've set the bar incredibly low. Like I've said, read a book.

I'm hardly showing off, but the concept of weight loss is horribly misunderstood. The key is very long and lower intensity. Ever wonder why cross country runners tend to be really skinny? No, it's not because they did 2000 minus the square root of this that or the other thing.

 

[L-A]

aborgman, you do understand the distinct impacts of aerobic versus anaerobic exercise? It makes a huge difference on the way your metabolism adapts to effort.

 

[aborgman]

If barely scratching the surface is "efficient", then you've set the bar incredibly low.

If you're losing weight at a reasonable rate, you have all the detail you need. If you aren't - increase calorie burn and/or decreasing caloric intake until you are.

It really is that simple.

The key is very long and lower intensity.

No, the key is less calories in than calories out.

You can lose weight faster and more efficiently if you exercise. You improve on that through long term low intensity workouts (because they burn fat better) - that is absolutely true.

...but as long as you're losing weight, you're losing weight.

Ever wonder why cross country runners tend to be really skinny?

No, as a former cross country runner I don't wonder that at all. It's a combination of body type, exercise type, and keeping calories in vs. calories out balanced.

 

[aborgman]

aborgman, you do understand the distinct impacts of aerobic versus anaerobic exercise? It makes a huge difference on the way your metabolism adapts to effort.

Absolutely.

...and not just aerobic vs. anaerobic.

There are lots of other minor details that have an effect - things like caloric burn efficiency. You don't get every calorie listed on a product label, and different folks get slightly different amounts from even the same foods.

Processed sugars vs. unrefined sugars are a good example - your body will "get" a lot more calories out the processed sugar than the unrefined even though they contain the same number of calories.

That is all a matter of efficiency though. If you're calories out are greater than calories in - you'll lose weight.

 

[spade2you]

You're extemely dense. You win teh interw3b. I'll change my training plan to be more effecient like you. While we're at it, tell me how to get faster. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[spade2you]

Absolutely.

...and not just aerobic vs. anaerobic.

There are lots of other minor details that have an effect - things like caloric burn efficiency. You don't get every calorie listed on a product label, and different folks get slightly different amounts from even the same foods.

Processed sugars vs. unrefined sugars are a good example - your body will "get" a lot more calories out the processed sugar than the unrefined even though they contain the same number of calories.

That is all a matter of efficiency though. If you're calories out are greater than calories in - you'll lose weight.

Wow. So much misinformation right there, kiddo.