[alpha1]

Originally Posted by sukhoi

some exercises which could be taken up to strengthen the leg muscles (preferably without involving a visit to the gym). This and some good warm up routines are things I am looking out for.

any help is much appreciated.

Cheers,
S

Adding to where Diesel Fan leaves out ...
Bodyweight Squat can be done without going to gym.
See if you can build yourself up to 100 reps.

Jump squats are preferably done without weights, see if you can jump high starting from squat position. (this one may "kill" you if you are not used to generating short bursts of intense power)

So the squats will take care of your front (quadriceps) as well as the behind (hamstrings, butts). What about calves then? Walking. Is the best answer.

What exactly are you expectations from a "warm up" routine?
In general while lifting weights you warm up by performing the same motion but very light weights.

And contrary to what some blokes may advise - please refrain from stretching as warm-ups. It amazes me that some gym instructors actually ask their folks to stretch the first thing upon entering the gym!

[nareshov]

Originally Posted by sukhoi

Sorry for a very noob question but could you or other members point towards some exercises which could be taken up to strengthen the leg muscles (preferably without involving a visit to the gym). This and some good warm up routines are things I am looking out for.

any help is much appreciated.

Cheers,
S

I'd recommend Convict Conditioning's progressions for Squats: http://www.4hourlife.com/2012/08/26/...ioning-squats/ (it's a blog post on the topic, like a ready-reckoner)

For warm-up: try dynamic stretches such as cat-camel bends, full-body circles, front and side leg swings.

[phamilyman]

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...2815%2901577-8

People in less socioeconomically developed populations, including subsistence farmers and traditional hunter-gatherers, have total energy expenditures similar to those in more developed populations [6, 7] despite substantial differences in physical activity. Mammals living in the wild, including non-human primate species, have total energy expenditures similar to captive populations. Total energy expenditure is an evolved, species-specific trait that is homeostatically buffered against variation in habitual physical activity.

Completely fits those who say six packs are made in the kitchen not in the gym. alternatively you can't overeat just because you're exercising. Its another issue that often its way easier to over-consume calories but way tougher to burn excess calories.

[bblost]

A very interesting study:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gPiS2xsF-E

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by bblost

A very interesting study:
https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=9gPiS2xsF-E

An article related to this was doing the rounds on Facebook too. It amazes me how so many people don't get it.

What happened is these people lost weight the wrong way. Or in other words, they "lost weight" instead of "losing fat". A lot of cardio and dieting burns not only your fat, but also your muscle along with it. How much muscle you have is the biggest influencer of how many calories you consume - not how much you "weigh". A 200-pound guy at 10% bodyfat will have a way higher calorie consumption level than a 200-pound guy at 40% bodyfat. So there is no "normal" number of calories that a 200-pound guy consumes. There is no such number.

The good way to lose fat (not "lose weight") is to maintain a moderate calorie deficit (key word being "moderate" here), lift hard three times a week with compound lifts, and eat a lot of protein and fat while keeping carbs in check. This way, your muscle builds or rebuilds as you lose fat. So the amount of calories you consume doesn't go down (even goes up, with newbie gains). So at the end of the fat loss, you have lost fat but gained muscle (or at least retained muscle), so your body is burning the same number of calories as before - or even more.

In my case:
- On a deficit, I lost 60 pounds in eight months last year. Went from 200 to 140 pounds
- Over winter, I (knowingly) ate junk food at excess, stopped going to the gym and went up to 145 pounds
- Between Jan to March, I knowingly ate at excess but not junk food, more like protein and fat while working out. Went up to 154 pounds.
- Between March and May, on a controlled deficit I lost 11 pounds and am down to 143 again.

The guys over at bodybuilding.com forums have this science down to a point. I have been following this for one and a half years now and it works accurately. The body isn't to blame - eating more than your body needs is to blame.

Now having said that, I can see how that can be a problem. In my own case, my total calorie expenditure per day is between 1650 to 1700. That's pretty low. It is easy to exceed that when I "eat normal" because a lot of "normal" foods are pretty high calorie.

Now my body is not to blame for that, neither is genetics, neither the fact that I lost a lot of fat. There is only one reason for it, and that is my lack of muscle. If I build muscle, my body will use more energy per day. If I lose whatever muscle I have, my body will burn even less. That's what I have to be cognizant of, and work towards either building my muscle (while gaining some fat) or focus on losing a lot of fat (inevitably losing some muscle) in the process. These are known as "bulk" and "cut" cycles. Some people also do what is known as a "recomp" cycle (eating at maintenance, staying the same weight while lifting hard, with macros on point - to burn fat and build muscle at the same time. This has been criticized as being extremely slow and slower than doing a bulk and a cut).

By the way, "clean eating" has nothing to do with these. It is all about your calories and macros (carbs, fat, protein). Clean eating has a lot of health benefits, but weight loss or even fat loss isn't driven by how "clean" you eat. It has a lot more to do with how much you eat, and what your macros add up to.

In the entire video (and the article about this I read some time back), they don't mention "muscle" even once. The guy who talks about exercise refers to a lot of cycling. If you do a lot of cardio and/or diet hard without lifting and getting protein, you WILL lose lean mass. Even if you lift hard and get protein, if you are in too much of a deficit, you WILL lose lean mass and your body now needs even fewer calories than it did before. The fact that they don't refer to muscle at all, and the fact that they refer to a "normal number of calories" for a certain bodyweight, leads me to think they are absolutely clueless and are blaming it on their bodies. They lost lean mass, their body needs less food, they ate more than they needed and are fat again. It is that simple.

Its really simple, and it amazes me how many people don't get it - I don't mean on here, but generally in the fitness community and people trying to lose weight.

I strongly urge everyone following this thread, to head over to bodybuilding.com, the "Losing Fat" section and read the stickies. Now those guys really know what they are talking about. You will learn the science of fat loss, stop spinning your wheels, do it the right way. There will be a lot of myths ("don't eat carbs at night" etc) - and some egos - shattered as part of the process, but that's all for good.

[Samurai]

http://halls.md/definition-overweight-bmi/

As they say in the above article, the BMI categorization is like war on drugs. It is highly profitable. It makes healthy adults feel bad about themselves and push them into various weight loss plans and gyms, sustaining a multi-billion dollar industry.

Fortunately, I was told by some martial arts guys 20+ years ago to ignore BMI. They didn't know the gender/age/diet aspect, but they had realised it didn't make sense. I did that and didn't spend any money to fix the non-existing problem.

Use Smart BMI calculator instead: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/

[DieselFan]

Originally Posted by Samurai

http://halls.md/definition-overweight-bmi/

As they say in the above article, the BMI categorization is like war on drugs. It is highly profitable. It makes healthy adults feel bad about themselves and push them into various weight loss plans and gyms, sustaining a multi-billion dollar industry.

Fortunately, I was told by some martial arts guys 20+ years ago to ignore BMI. They didn't know the gender/age/diet aspect, but they had realised it didn't make sense. I did that and didn't spend any money to fix the non-existing problem.

Use Smart BMI calculator instead: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/

One of the most effective ways to measure your health and fitness is your waistline and the fat deposits around it. Especially for men. Waistline/Abs is the last area to loose fat in the body for men and Thighs/Buttocks for women. So if one can measure the waistline and see improvements in the waistline I think one has achieved his goals. Typically, a middle aged person (Between 40 and 50 years of age - I fall under that category) targets getting to 32 inches waist. If we achieve this target, I believe we have achieved the goal of weight loss. For youngsters (20s and early 30s folks) getting waist down to 30 inch should be the target. You do not need anything else to measure success of weight loss. No weighing machine, no BMI calculators or other electronic Gizmos are necessary. Total waste of money in my opinion.

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by DieselFan

One of the most effective ways to measure your health and fitness is your waistline and the fat deposits around it. Especially for men. Waistline/Abs is the last area to loose fat in the body for men and Thighs/Buttocks for women. So if one can measure the waistline and see improvements in the waistline I think one has achieved his goals. Typically, a middle aged person (Between 40 and 50 years of age - I fall under that category) targets getting to 32 inches waist. If we achieve this target, I believe we have achieved the goal of weight loss. For youngsters (20s and early 30s folks) getting waist down to 30 inch should be the target. You do not need anything else to measure success of weight loss. No weighing machine, no BMI calculators or other electronic Gizmos are necessary. Total waste of money in my opinion.

Totally agree. I don't believe in Bmi. I prefer to go by waistline and body fat %.

Talking about waistline- from 45 to 32 took nine months, but after that 32 to 31.5 took six months! I have a feeling hitting 30 is going to take years! Wish there were some magical (or technological) way to un-drink all that beer lol!

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by DieselFan

So if one can measure the waistline and see improvements in the waistline I think one has achieved his goals. Typically, a middle aged person (Between 40 and 50 years of age - I fall under that category) targets getting to 32 inches waist. If we achieve this target, I believe we have achieved the goal of weight loss. For youngsters (20s and early 30s folks) getting waist down to 30 inch should be the target.

You are picking a number that is applicable to certain body type or certain genes. Your definition holds good for an Ectomorph.

If you apply this standard to Endomorphs, those poor chaps would be eternally struggling to reach this impossible target. I am a combination of mesomorph/endomorph, so I know how impossible 32 inch is for me.

[DieselFan]

Originally Posted by Samurai

You are picking a number that is applicable to certain body type or certain genes. Your definition holds good for an Ectomorph.

If you apply this standard to Endomorphs, those poor chaps would be eternally struggling to reach this impossible target. I am a combination of mesomorph/endomorph, so I know how impossible 32 inch is for me.

Agree it is a number but a good one. Any target has to have a number and I have given one. Again the point I am trying to put across is the best measure of weight loss for men is their waistline. The number can be 30,31,32,33 based on what you feel comfortable. Don't bother with any other gizmos just have a measuring tape at home.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

The body isn't to blame - eating more than your body needs is to blame.

Now having said that, I can see how that can be a problem. In my own case, my total calorie expenditure per day is between 1650 to 1700. That's pretty low. It is easy to exceed that when I "eat normal" because a lot of "normal" foods are pretty high calorie.

Now my body is not to blame for that, neither is genetics, neither the fact that I lost a lot of fat. There is only one reason for it, and that is my lack of muscle. If I build muscle, my body will use more energy per day.

Well I do agree with most of what you have written except the above points. You may ask the folks at bb.com and check their responses also:
1. Body is certainly to be blamed. Thyroid is a hormone that controls metabolism. The measure of T3/T4 that is considered "normal" has a big range. If you are on the lower end of the "normal" you will have tough time being in "shape". If you are on the higher end of the "normal", you can eat what your mind desires and still remain in shape.
Check our the "normal" numbers: http://www.globalrph.com/labs_t.htm
By the way check out the variation in Testosterone that is tolerated as "normal"! (This causes some people to have naturally higher musculature etc than others)

2. While you are absolutely right in saying that eating more than what your body "needs" is to be blamed - the bigger question and problem is: how is it that some people's body tells their brains more assertively that it has had enough, while other people's body is unable to tell their brains that enough is enough. This is in genes.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0229111236.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin
http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hboo.../fatgenes.html

3. Muscles. So how much does a kilo of muscle actually burn? Well 1 kg of muscle has about 13 kcal of energy expenditure. Even if I wear 10 kg of extra muscles (not possible unless on steroids or grossly over fed like sumo wrestler), I will increase my BMR by only 130 kcal per day!! (equivalent of perhaps 1 small roti). A nice read if you get time: https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Articl...ntroversy.html

Originally Posted by Samurai

I did that and didn't spend any money to fix the non-existing problem.

OF course! BMI is just a measurement.
Just like height and weight.
There is another one called Sagittal abdominal diameter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagitt...minal_diameter
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2992209/

Unfortunately things are quite murky when someone has to correlate health with some measurement.

Simple example: does smoking cause lung cancer?
If it is, then why don't all smokers suffer lung cancer?
Oh, so this is dosage related ... hmmm ... then at what dosage does it start becoming lethal?
And at what duration of that dosage (was the exposure only for 1 month, or was it for 20 years?) does it start becoming "effective"?

Well ... then ... but I have Mr XYZ who has smoked 10-20 cigs per day right from the age of 10 but he is strong and agile as a horse and can run 20 km in 2 hours. Oh but I also have Mr ABC who smoked just 2-3 cigs per day but developed cancer in 5 years.

It is quite difficult to draw a cause and effect correlation in living organisms. Unfortunately.
But broad correlations do appear to work for a majority of the population.

But doesn't really answer every individual's question about body fat ... and why reduce.

[DieselFan]

Originally Posted by alpha1

But doesn't really answer every individual's question about body fat ... and why reduce.

Well, there has been innumerable studies/research on how excessive body fat is bad for health. Definition of excessive can vary, but there is a definite correlation between high body fat and health. What is excessive can be dependent on each and every individual. Hence the normal range is kept wide and defined as 14% to 24% as fit and normal. 10% variation amounts to as much as 7 to 8 kgs. 14% fat is in a highly fit person and he may be an athlete or a sportsperson while people with >24% fat fall under high fat content category.

Also a certain amount of minimum fat is necessary for the body else the body immune systems will go for a toss and people fall sick. That limit is set between 5% to 8% based on persons immune systems and body frame.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

Talking about waistline- from 45 to 32 took nine months, but after that 32 to 31.5 took six months! I have a feeling hitting 30 is going to take years! Wish there were some magical (or technological) way to un-drink all that beer lol!

Was the 45 inch waist when you had bf of 37%?
It has taken me 9 months just to go from 36 to 33 and bf from 22 to 17.5%
Have you hit plateaus? How did you overcome them?

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by amitoj

Was the 45 inch waist when you had bf of 37%?
It has taken me 9 months just to go from 36 to 33 and bf from 22 to 17.5%
Have you hit plateaus? How did you overcome them?

Yes it was then .

No, I haven't actually hit any plateau yet. Last year after losing 60 pounds, in the beginning of December before taking a vacation I was at 140 pounds, and then a lot of food over one and a half months (mom's cooking!) and i was at 146 pounds in Jan. I had also not worked out for those one and a half months so I was very weak. I started off in a (deliberate, carefully controlled) calorie excess till my lifts went up a little bit till (mid-March). My weight went up to 154. Waist went up to 34.

Then after that I did a calorie deficit with high protein for 2 months (mid-March to mid-May) and my weight dropped down to 142.

Then around mid May I fell sick (caught a throat infection from someone at work) and was out of commission for a week, I have been just eating at maintenance (well slightly over maintenance but still tracking) since then. For one and a half months. I am at 143 right now, and waist this morning was 31.5.

So.. no. When I have been careful in my calculations, careful in measuring and logging food and consistent in workouts, my body responds accordingly. My understanding is "plateaus" happen because either you are not enough of a deficit, or your TDEE actually comes down from being in a continuous deficit (this takes years though - many people mistake hunger cravings for metabolic breakdown) or from incorrect logging. Or incorrect calculations. (for example: A colleague of mine measures and logs every single peanut carefully, he asked me why he is not seeing any progress, when I looked into it he had calculated his TDEE to be close to 3000! Turned out his TDEE was actually 2200. So no matter how meticulous he is in his logging and workouts, his initial calculation was way off).

This stuff is fun! It is an art and a science, and it is exciting to see your body responding to carefully controlled efforts. You feel like a Ninja when you manage to fit in your favorite foods (I can still do donuts!) into a 1400-calorie, 110-carb day.

I'm going to take a break though. Coming Thursday I will do one more workout, and then take two weeks off. My body doesn't need a break, but I want it more for keeping myself sane. I haven't had alcohol in a long time. I plan to unwind, stop tracking, no workout for 2 weeks, refresh myself and hit it hard again from mid-July hopefully till November. And then break again over December .

Originally Posted by DieselFan

Well, there has been innumerable studies/research on how excessive body fat is bad for health. Definition of excessive can vary, but there is a definite correlation between high body fat and health. What is excessive can be dependent on each and every individual. Hence the normal range is kept wide and defined as 14% to 24% as fit and normal. 10% variation amounts to as much as 7 to 8 kgs. 14% fat is in a highly fit person and he may be an athlete or a sportsperson while people with >24% fat fall under high fat content category.

Also a certain amount of minimum fat is necessary for the body else the body immune systems will go for a toss and people fall sick. That limit is set between 5% to 8% based on persons immune systems and body frame.

I agree. I have also read so many articles about high body fat being bad for you (you can find them easily), and also from an aesthetic perspective I feel a lot better about myself after getting below 25%. It is quite easy up until that point, I would suggest anyone over 25% (well, depending on age) make an effort to get below that. Even aesthetics apart, I feel way more energetic and actually lighter when I walk. I have never felt like that all my life so far.

Originally Posted by alpha1

Well I do agree with most of what you have written except the above points. You may ask the folks at bb.com and check their responses also:
1. Body is certainly to be blamed. Thyroid is a hormone that controls metabolism. The measure of T3/T4 that is considered "normal" has a big range. If you are on the lower end of the "normal" you will have tough time being in "shape". If you are on the higher end of the "normal", you can eat what your mind desires and still remain in shape.
Check our the "normal" numbers: http://www.globalrph.com/labs_t.htm
By the way check out the variation in Testosterone that is tolerated as "normal"! (This causes some people to have naturally higher musculature etc than others)

2. While you are absolutely right in saying that eating more than what your body "needs" is to be blamed - the bigger question and problem is: how is it that some people's body tells their brains more assertively that it has had enough, while other people's body is unable to tell their brains that enough is enough. This is in genes.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0229111236.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin
http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hboo.../fatgenes.html

3. Muscles. So how much does a kilo of muscle actually burn? Well 1 kg of muscle has about 13 kcal of energy expenditure. Even if I wear 10 kg of extra muscles (not possible unless on steroids or grossly over fed like sumo wrestler), I will increase my BMR by only 130 kcal per day!! (equivalent of perhaps 1 small roti). A nice read if you get time: https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Articl...ntroversy.html

alpha1, we can throw links around and I don't want to get into that, but I suggest don't get into the mindset of blaming genetics and hormones. (I don't know what your age and experience with fitness are, so sorry if I am overstepping my bounds here, but I am speaking generally).

I agree that genetics and hormones do play a part, the body is incredibly complex and can't be reduced to an equation of calories and macros, BUT... I have observed a lot of us Indians are quick to blame genetics and predisposition when in fact it is a lot more in our control than we think.

In my own example - all the males in my family, from my grandfathers, all my uncles, my father and from my pic my ancestors too have been extremely obese. Growing up, I was always told that obesity is common in our family, that it is not related to fitness, it is genetic etc. But then guess what, most of my elderly relatives have diabetes and all sorts of other illnesses. My father died at the age of 52. Until the age of 30 I grew up with no idea what calories and macros are (who pays attention in school anyway? They shouldn't have that in 4th standard syllabus, they should have it in 12th standard syllabus with a chapter titled "how to be physically attractive")

So anyway, there is a saying "obesity doesn't run in your family, its because no one runs in your family". I felt something similar to that when I just tried logging a "normal" day. Guess what, I was eating close to 4000 calories a day! Sometimes more. Most of them carbs, the rest fat. Almost no protein, and whatever veggies I was taking in would be buried in over-cooked oily curry. Those vegetables are dead on arrival. And I was blaming genetics for being fat.

Now I agree maybe if I had say Punjabi genetics instead of South Indian vegetarian (just random examples, I am not sure if any genetics are superior to others) my TDEE may naturally be 1900 instead of 1800. But in any case, eating at 4000 will make me fat, regardless. We should focus more on the 90% that we can control, not the 10% that we can't. That 90% can have a MUCH bigger impact than many of us think.

Sure thyroid has a big impact on the metabolism, genetics play a role but as long as you don't have a hypo or hyper thyroid condition, you will be ok for the most part. Play the hand you are dealt and play it well, that's what I learnt.

I am aware I will never be Arnold, I will never be Hritik Roshan. I don't need to be. But for the first time I realized I CAN walk around with a flat belly and decent arms - IF I put in the time and effort into it. To be honest that's all I really want, to feel good in a TShirt and shorts. Most of us can achieve that, thanks to the art and science of controlled weight loss that the bodybuilders have perfected. At the end of it I could still get diabetes, but it doesn't hurt to do my bit to minimize the chances.

Yes, building a huge amount of muscle to increase TDEE is difficult but losing muscle mass is easy! I mentioned the importance of muscle w.r.t TDEE because I see too many people doing just diets and cardio to lose weight. Sure they lose weight, but they lose a ton of muscle in the process, and their TDEE drops. So when their "diet" is over and they are back to "normal", they are eating way over TDEE and getting fat! Instead of that, don't do a "diet" - be aware of macros and fit your favorite foods into that. Workout with weights and a TDEE increase of even 130 is huge (what I would give for that increase!). That's the point I have been trying to share on here.

If I could get just one point across to people who want to lose fat - stop thinking "diet and cardio", think "muscle and macros" instead. That mindset change will go a long way.

[alpha1]

alpha1, we can throw links around and I don't want to get into that, but I suggest don't get into the mindset of blaming genetics and hormones. (I don't know what your age and experience with fitness are, so sorry if I am overstepping my bounds here, but I am speaking generally).

But I do want to check on stuff that matters so don't hesitate to link to other people's experience, studies, research etc. which substatiates what you wrote. It's all in the name of science.
We'll come to the point about genetics ...

Originally Posted by rajushank84

When I have been careful in my calculations, careful in measuring and logging food and consistent in workouts, my body responds accordingly.

This stuff is fun! It is an art and a science, and it is exciting to see your body responding to carefully controlled efforts. You feel like a Ninja when you manage to fit in your favorite foods (I can still do donuts!) into a 1400-calorie, 110-carb day.

I'm going to take a break though. Coming Thursday I will do one more workout, and then take two weeks off. My body doesn't need a break, but I want it more for keeping myself sane. I haven't had alcohol in a long time. I plan to unwind, stop tracking, no workout for 2 weeks, refresh myself and hit it hard again from mid-July hopefully till November. And then break again over December .

I think you have still not understood my intent of giving due importance to genetics and hormones.
I am not belittling your efforts, or demeanding your goals. Let me elaborate:

If I go by the paragraph above, can I say that you need to be military strict in monitoring and controlling your food and beverage intake in order to reach your goal?

Guess what, I was eating close to 4000 calories a day! Sometimes more. Most of them carbs, the rest fat. Almost no protein, and whatever veggies I was taking in would be buried in over-cooked oily curry. Those vegetables are dead on arrival. And I was blaming genetics for being fat.

Continuing from above, your "natural self" has tendency to consume 4000 kcal a day.
You need to exercise discipline (1400 kcal/day) to achieve your personal goal.
If you lost the discipline you will regress to the old self.

This implies that one has to make a lifestyle change for the entire duration of life.
How many people venturing into "fat loss" are prepared for this?
How many people want a temporary quick fix solution but results lasting entire life?

Why do most people actually take up diet control for a month or two? Because they think they can lose 5 kg and maintain that for entire life.
Why do most people actually sign up of gym? Because they think that they can gain 2-3 kg of muscle and maintain that for entire life.
Why do most people train for strength? Because they think they can gain permanent strength over their weak original self.

What they forget or perhaps ignore is that by nature they were not meant to be what they are trying to be. That means the effort will last the entire lifetime. I am not by no means suggesting someone to stop making the effort. NOT AT ALL. All I am saying is (genetics angle):

1) ackowledge what you are and what you are signing up for
2) don't compare yourself and your results to others critically
3) enjoy life, most of our goals are not really our goal's but society's goals

Originally Posted by DieselFan

but there is a definite correlation between high body fat and health. What is excessive can be dependent on each and every individual.

Exactly what I said, for most of the public there is a correlation between excess bodyfat and deteriorated health.
But on individual cases, "the excess" definition will can change, so Samurai can have all his health marker very good in spite of having higher body fat than me. So then why should Samurai aim to have a lower body fat than me?
Just to score with some chicas? (Or any other goal under Point number 3 above)