Book Review: Fitness For Geeks 201
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the read-all-about-it dept.
from the read-all-about-it dept.
jsuda writes "You would think that geeks would be as interested in fitness as dogs are of TV. After all, geeks already put in hours of finger dancing on keyboards, assembling hefty code fragments, and juggling PHP programming functions. Although intended, in part, as a guide to real physical fitness the book, Fitness for Geeks, entices geeks with what they are really interested in–the science of fitness, nutrition, and exercise. In 11 chapters over 311 pages (including notes and an index) author, Bruce W Perry, describes in great detail the science of fitness and all of its components–food selections, timings, and fastings; exercising of all types; sleep, rest, and meditation; the benefits of hormesis (shocking the body with stresses); and the benefits of natural sunlight." Read on for the rest of jsuda's review.
One of the major themes is respect for ancestral behaviors relating to fitness, as he sees the human body as having built-in "software" (biological and physiological "pathways") regulating its needs for certain foods and nutrients, its affinities for sprinting and intermittent fasting, and a preference for sunlight. These behaviors were evolutionary-based adaptations to their environment which in some ways was much more physically stressful than ours is now.| Fitness For Geeks: Real Science, Great Nutrition, and Good Health | |
| author | Bruce W Perry |
| pages | 336 |
| publisher | O'Reilly Media |
| rating | 6/10 |
| reviewer | jsuda |
| ISBN | 1449399894 |
| summary | shows the hacker and maker communities how to bring science and software into their nutrition and fitness routines. |
He argues that modern humans have gotten way too far away from their ancestral roots at the expense of their health and fitness. They would be better served by committing to behaviors which are modeled after those of our distant predecessors. That means large doses of natural sunlight, exercise programs emphasizing high demand tasks like sprinting, food selections high in quality fats and proteins and low in processed foods and sugars, and intermittent fastings. In other words, channel your inner caveman.
He supports his thesis with reference to hundreds of scientific studies. However, he doesn't sufficiently explain why modern human lifespans are so much longer than that of the ancients despite diets high in Twinkies, exercise defined as walking down the hall to the Coke machine, and light exposure limited to LCD illumination.
While the major interest of the book for geeks is in the science, Mr. Perry is also advocating real improvement in personal health and fitness. The author is a software engineer and computer-topic writer and also a serious runner, biker, and outdoor enthusiast. He seems to be a very intense proponent of maximum personal fitness both as an instructor and personally where he tracks and measures nearly every physical thing he does during the day. He monitors and measures macro nutritional ratios (carbohydrates, fats, proteins); micro nutritional consumption levels (vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals); exercise metrics like energy use (Metabolic Equivalents of Tasks--MET's); the times, rhythms, and patterns of exercise program elements; and more.
Like a serious geek, he uses all the latest and greatest hardware and software tools to monitor and measure including GPS devices, motion detectors, smart phone apps of all kinds, and web-based trackers and analyzers. He describes many of the features of apps like FitBit, Endomondo, Fitocracy, and Garmin Connect, including screenshots of configurations, data charts, result pages, and comparison charts. He highlights use of web-based databases especially the nutritional information available at the USDA National Nutrient Database.
Mr. Perry also throws in a bit of food and food marketing politics as he emphasizes buying from local food suppliers, or even better, growing your own food and hunting your evening's meal. He shuns supermarket products, for the most part, even providing strategies on how best to navigate the typical mega markets to avoid being psychologically and emotionally manipulated by marketing techniques which attempt to get the consumer to buy more than they need, pricier items, and the latest junk foods they happen to be promoting that week. Mr. Perry is one serious guy!
I don't think that he is a typical health-concerned person or even a typical geek, although he is an independent spirit with great curiosity about things he's interested in. He seems to be serious about fitness to an idiosyncratic degree. In addition to all of the monitoring and measuring, he experiments with up to four different fasting strategies, goes for cold water swims, and does a variety of push-ups while waiting for boarding at the airport.
His book, I think, would appeal primarily to serious health freaks or competitive athletes who have the time and need to micromanage their eating, sleeping, and physical activities, and later analyzing all of the accumulated data.
The author writes knowledgeably and comprehensively about his topics and provides a lot of detail, especially on the tracking and measuring apps. He includes a handful of sidebar interviews with nutritional and fitness experts, some photos and graphics, and tosses in a few code references like anti-patterns and the random function, among others. What isn't in the book is referenced to websites containing more specific information, data, and videos.
Although he sprinkles some personal anecdotes and humor into the writing, overall, the book, while well organized, is a slow, often mind jumbling read. There is almost too much information, too many options to try out for some activities, and not enough focus. It will not win any literary awards. To some readers, it may be sort of like reading lab reports.
A lot of geeks like reading lab reports and there is a sufficient number of competitive athletes and health fanatics who'll find this book quite valuable and interesting.
You can purchase Fitness For Geeks: Real Science, Great Nutrition, and Good Health from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Not for this type of geek (Score:5, Informative)
His book, I think, would appeal primarily to serious health freaks or competitive athletes who have the time and need to micromanage their eating, sleeping, and physical activities, and later analyzing all of the accumulated data.
Indeed. This is more for “fitness geeks” or geeks with an interest in the science of fitness than for the stereotypical geek with no interest what-so-ever.
In general, I think for most people (not just geeks) fitness stuff comes down to a matter of time and practicality more than knowledge anyway. Most advertised approaches to healthy living require far more time/energy/money than the average working guy has to invest (and if they had the time, would rather spend it doing something else) or require behavior which is incompatible with current lifestyle (eating 14 small meals a day might be great for your health.. but complicates the work day).
The approach that ultimately worked for me was:
- Learning how to read the nutritional info. You’d think this is simple... but I found this complicated at first. Just knowing what numbers you should be looking for makes things a lot easier. There really needs to be a “non-health nut” guide to this.
- Get into some physical activity that you _enjoy_. This was huge for me. I can’t stand doing a workout for the sake of it. I have little free time and I don’t want to spend it doing something monotonous. Got into a little “for fun” floor hockey thing and loved it. It turned into something I actually looked forward to. From their got into some other stuff.
- Cut out the insanely unhealthy stuff. I accepted that I wasn’t going to be able to go full on health nut with my diet. I like food too much to live off tofu and carrots. I still eat lots of junk but I’ve cut down on or eliminated some of the really bad stuff (soda was a big one.. ).
- Bring in the healthy stuff. A lot of it tastes like crap.. but occasionally you find something that is either acceptable or in some cases better than the unhealthy stuff. It’s a lot of trial an error (mainly error) but every time you go to the grocery run down the health nut section and try something that looks not-terrible. Once in a while you get surprised. Also a lot of that stuff tastes bad on its own, but in a tomato sauce or something it’s indistinguishable.
Pacing was important too I think. I accepted I wasn’t going to go from unhealthy sloth lifestyle to “reasonably in shape” lifestyle (which was my ultimate goal) overnight. I didn’t do anything dramatic. I didn’t vow to live off salad for the rest of my life. I just made a general effort to gradually move in a healthier direction. I didn’t weigh myself every day or obsess in the mirror, I was more concerned with internal health than appearance. Over time all the little stuff adds up.
Also sorry for the novel of a post. I just kinda got on a roll.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:5, Informative)
Bring in the healthy stuff. A lot of it tastes like crap.. but occasionally you find something that is either acceptable or in some cases better than the unhealthy stuff.
"healthy substitute" for junk food like a "healthy cookie-like substitute" or a "healthy ice cream-like substitute" or a "tofu-turkey" is always going to taste unbelievably awful.
Food that is more or less evolutionarily similar to what our ancient ancestors ate, like maybe a grilled steak with a side salad, or a nice stir fry, or perhaps a fresh orange, apple, grape and berry salad tastes mind numbingly delicious.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:3)
Eat an apple, clean your colon.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:5, Funny)
Apples help you poop.
Eat an apple, clean your colon.
Yeah, the hard part is having to wait in line at the iStore for 24 hours to buy one. Be sure to set the phone ring to "vibrate" for extra fun.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:5, Funny)
Eat half a bag of apples, spend the next 6 hours with explosive diarrhea.
It was a rough night.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
Oatmeal's better. I start a crockpot of steel cut oats Sunday evening (one-and-a-half cups oats, lightly toasted in a toaster oven or pan, four cups water, three cups milk, a couple of handfulls of dried fruit, add cinnamon and salt in the morning for extra flavor) and that gives me breakfast all week. Cheap, easy to make in large batches, and good for you.
If only I could figure out an exercise program that was as easy to follow...
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:3)
Here ya go:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/ [fourmilab.ch] Written by the founder of autodesk. It's a bit dated, but still works wonders. He has an exercise routine in there that is nicely laddered and realistic. Coupled with the tracking spreadsheets and stuff, you can see all sorts of trends that allow you to tune in on where you need more work (whether diet or exercise).
-nB
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
I'm a fan of the steel cut oats. Haven't tried toasting them.
I don't think I could groove on the texture of oatmeal over a few hours old though.
Haven't found cheap steel cut oats either. Walmart has a quart size can of them for about $4.00.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
Haven't found cheap steel cut oats either. Walmart has a quart size can of them for about $4.00.
I had to look up "steel cut oats", I think I'd call them wholegrain oats, or unprocessed oats, or Scottish/Irish oats, the kind to make porridge from. They're £1.20 / kg for a mid-range brand here, or 75p/kg for cheap (Asda) ones, which are probably a bit dusty.
Measuring a dry product by volume is completely alien to me, but I looked up the density (300kg/m^3, so 0.3kg/L ~= 0.3kg/quart, so your "quart sized can" (litre) is about $13 / kg, £8/kg! Mad!
Why are such basic foods so expensive in America?
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2, Funny)
We have anti-competitive subsidies for crap food here. What, do you hate freedom?!
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
I'm thinking it has something to do with scarcity of the old equipment that "cut" oats rather than the proliferation of oat rollers that supply 99% of the U.S.s oats.
Over processed foods are pure madness. I can buy twice the rolled oats at less than half the price of steel cut. Here crap is cheap and real food is really expensive.
It helps explain the obesity rate here too.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
Totally this.
Personally I avoid most stuff that tries to be something else because yeah, it really doesn't. I focus on adding healthy stuff that stands on it's own. I'll have a smaller steak but with some veggies, sliced up tomato, salad, etc. End up just as satisfied, but significantly healthier.
I will say though that indeed some of the "substitutes" are ok when mixed in with other stuff. I make a good sausage and pepper penne in tomato sauce with fake vegi based sausage that I'd challange anyone to a pepsi challange with (if I had the ambition to make a meal twice just to win a bet that is..).
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
I like food too much to live off tofu and carrots.
The kneejerk-reflex "good for you" diet which is low in fat and high in carbohydrates is not only not good for you, it will make you accumulate MORE fat and give you less energy.
What you want is a fatty steak with a tab of butter on it and a green salad with anchovies and a high fat salad dressing without added sugar (Newman's Own Caesar is pretty good). No white food.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:3)
It all depends. We are not factory stamped all at the same Foxconn plant. Different people have different requirements depending on body type and ethnicity. You can thrive on things that will be entirely inappropriate for other people.
This is a manifestation of American political correctness run amok.
We are not all equal. We are equal as a matter of law.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
My wife is of Native American ancestry (Blackfoot)* and a largely diet controlled diabetic. If you give her rice or white bread her blood sugar will go off the charts to the point where she likens it to being little different from having a couple glasses of wine, or a shot of crown.
If you give her other sources of carbs (legumes, lentils, etc.) no effect at all on her blood sugar.
Conversely she has low serum cholesterol even though we eat red meat all the time, while I (a cheese eating surrender monkey) need to be a little more choosey in how much fatty foods I eat.
Yeah, we are not all compatible with each others dietary needs. Some people can pound carbs all day long and nothing bad happens, others, looking at a sugar packet will kill them.
The folks I feel sorry for are the diabetics with heart disease. Diabetes and cardiac diets are not exactly compatible.
-nB
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
forgot the * part: :)
incidentally the Blackfoot tribe never signed the American / Indian treaty. I told my wife recently when our state government was busy being asshats that she should go to the capitol and take them all as prisoners of war until they started acting like grownups.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
No, it won't. If you maintain the same exercise level, replacing fat with an equal mass of carbs will make you lose weight -- weight loss is pretty strictly associated with calorie deficit, and carbs have fewer calories per unit mass.
Beyond a certain point, that's not good for reasons besides weight loss, but that's tangential.
Not really. You do want protein, and you do want some fat (though, for health, the fat on a fatty steak or in butter isn't what you want -- you want more heart-healthy fats), but a fairly small amount in total, and you want some carbs -- more than you want fat -- and you want as much non-starchy vegetables as you can eat.
And you want to get off your butt and exercise.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
One of the key arguments against a high carb diet is that carbs make you hungry, especially high glycemic index carbs. It is difficult for most people to replace, gram for gram, carbs for fat because fat makes you full and is more satiating than carbs. This is especially true a few hours after a meal when a high carb diet will result in a blood sugar crash which makes you hungry again.
Endurance athletes and high performing athletes are a different story, they generally benefit from lots of fat and even more carbs. Most people don't fall into that category though.
Everyone's body and genetics are different and they react to food in different ways. That being said, I have almost never seen success from other people who go the high carb and low fat route. If they do lose weight, they end up putting it right back on. I have seen tons of people, including myself, see huge benefits from going with a higher fat, lower carb approach. I'm typically in the 20-40% carbs range which is low compared to the SAD but I would hesitate to even call that a lower carb diet. If I wanted to lose more weight I would cut down on the carbs even more but I'm fine where I'm at.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
Well, here is one. Lost 48 kg in 30 months by going lower fat (50% carb, 30% protein, 20% fat). Fat doesn't satiate me, so replacing fat with carbohydrates or protein gram for gram does help in my case.
Also hitting the wall while pedalling uphill for two hours isn't fun.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
There's lots of knee-jerk all around when it comes to this topic, I've found. I think there are definitely different "nutritional types" of people, who flourish with different ratios of protein/fat/carbs. However, it still seems obvious from what has happened to our society the past few decades that low-fat, high-sugar, high-carb processed food is the bomb (in your gut). The more refined and processed, the worse.
I think a somewhat balanced approach to this is Dr. Mercola's nutritional typing [mercola.com] concept.
I found that I am definitely someone who benefits from removing grains and starches from my diet. It didn't matter if it was the most healthy of whole-grain diets--it just didn't work for me. Cholesterol bad, gut fat increasing. Getting rid of 90% of the grains, 95% of the sugar, and increasing my fat intake, as well as my fresh vegetable intake actually resulted in much better cholesterol and almost 40lbs of weight loss.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:3)
- Get into some physical activity that you _enjoy_. This was huge for me. I can’t stand doing a workout for the sake of it. I have little free time and I don’t want to spend it doing something monotonous. Got into a little “for fun” floor hockey thing and loved it. It turned into something I actually looked forward to. From their got into some other stuff.
I recommend shovelglove for this. It's cheap, suitably geeky and really works.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:3)
In general, I think for most people (not just geeks) fitness stuff comes down to a matter of time and practicality more than knowledge anyway.
I strongly disagree...I have friends who ask me fitness advice and time after time I see people who just have no idea how things work...the biggest problem are people who think "low fat" means healthy, even if it's a big bowl of sugary cereal. Or don't understand the importance of meat & vegetables. Or follow some strange fad diet. This doesn't come down to time, just having a basic understanding.
Of course exercise is going to take time, and some people aren't going to have it. But if the goal is general fitness, there's diminishing returns. 15 minutes a day won't get anybody into the Olympics, but would be of huge benefit to anybody who's out of shape.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:3)
- Cut out the insanely unhealthy stuff. I accepted that I wasnâ(TM)t going to be able to go full on health nut with my diet. I like food too much to live off tofu and carrots. I still eat lots of junk but Iâ(TM)ve cut down on or eliminated some of the really bad stuff (soda was a big one.. ).
Or learn how to cook so that tofu and carrots are actually appetizing. Avoid the "health nut crap" and stick to the basics. Actual fruit and vegetables, grains, and lean cuts of meat. Learn to use spices instead of loading everything up with fat for flavor.
Hundred Push-Ups and other tools (Score:5, Informative)
A geeky friend of mine recently pointed me at the One Hundred Push-Ups program [hundredpushups.com]. It appeals to me because it's a webpage, it doesn't require anything complicated in the way of equipment or anything like that, it presents a simple and easy to understand plan with lots of numbers, and it takes place over a specific time period. You follow the plan, and the numbers keep going up till you reach your goal. (Assuming you manage to stick through to the end.) It might take more than six weeks if you have to take some do-overs, but it's definitely a finite period of time at the end of which you should see some definite improvement, something that really appeals to me. (I'm just starting week four myself right now.)
Another site i've used in the past is Calories Per Hour [caloriesperhour.com], particularly the BMR and RMR calculator. [caloriesperhour.com] You can use it in conjunction with an exercise program, or just for setting up a diet plan. There's lots of numbers and math, which appeal to me as a geek, but at the end you have a nice simple number or two which tell you how much you can eat every day if you don't want to gain weight, and how much you can eat every day if you want to lose weight in a methodical and long term manner.
Of course on that note there's also The Hacker's Diet [fourmilab.ch], which similarly takes the fairly straightforward approach that losing weight = consuming less calories than you burn.
You can argue a long time about paleo diet vs atkins diet vs south beach(?) or whatever other fad diet you've heard of, but in the end weight is just a matter of calories in vs calories out. If you want to lose weight you can reduce the calories going in or increase the calories going out. Certainly adjusting the kind of food you eat can make you healthier in other ways, but controlling the number of calories you eat is the first step. And if you start paying attention to the number of calories you eat you'll quickly discover that the healthier you eat the more you get to eat. Even just making the same food at home that you would have gotten at a fast food restaurant will save you a lot of calories than you can then spend on a snack or something. So instead of feeling like you _have_ to eat healthy to fit some particular diet you've decided to subject yourself to, you feel like you're getting rewarded for eating healthy.
Re:Hundred Push-Ups and other tools (Score:2)
It's not ENTIRELY this, though this is a big part of it. The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a study in which participants were fed an extra 1000 calories a day during an approximately 3 month period. One subgroup received 25 percent of daily calories as protein, one received 15 percent protein, and one group received five percent protein.
The kicker? All groups gained the same amount of fat. However: the normal and high protein groups actually increased lean body mass and increased resting energy expenditure. The low protein group did not gain any lean body mass nor increase their resting energy rate. Here's the link to the JAMA study (it's the highlights - there are many articles on the web discussing the study) [ama-assn.org]
Re:Hundred Push-Ups and other tools (Score:3)
I am on-board with calories in/calories out. If one maintains a calorie deficit such that after several days, the deficit adds up to 3500 calories, he will have lost a pound. I don't question this.
HOWEVER - the study noted that composition of food intake had an effect on the body. Namely, that body mass increased and daily caloric burn increased with higher protein, within the context of taking in excess calories than the body burns. An effect that was not seen with a low protein intake.
Now, here is my speculation, based on the report results: That the increased body mass and daily caloric burn effect might also be seen in the context of taking in fewer calories than the daily caloric burn level. So, as weight loss involves maintaining a calorie deficit, if the body is burning more calories, it will be easier to maintain a deficit with more food taken in. Which leads to the conclusion that eating predominantly Twinkies is going to lead to a more difficult weight loss than eating predominantly higher protein foods. I admit, this is my speculation, but the study provides some intriguing hints.
Re:Hundred Push-Ups and other tools (Score:2)
I used the formulas and such from the Hacker diet and as an experiment did not do any exercise. Dropped over 30 pounds anyway. Now that I weigh less I am in Karate and while when I started the diet I had trouble on ladder rung 1 of the Hacker program, now I just went and tried it out and I'm on rung 15, go figure.
(over the span of a year for all this).
-nB
Re:Hundred Push-Ups and other tools (Score:3)
I used to think it was purely calories-in/calories-out, but I have changed my mind after thinking through the implications of the glycemic index,and testing it out myself. It is mathematical, but it's not just averaged quantities that matter. The *rate* and fluctuations of caloric processing seems to play a major role. Even though proteins and fats are higher in calories/weight than starches and grains, the body doesn't process the calories nearly as fast. In other words, meat and fat puts your body on a slow-drip supply of calories, whereas a couple pieces of toast with jam will throw all those calories at your pancreas within 30-40 minutes, and whatever you don't use gets turned to fat.
I know there are logical arguments on all sides, but try an empirical test: go for two weeks eating lots of meat, vegetables (especially leafy greens or broccoli), cheese, yogurt, etc... (none of that lowfat stuff, either), and see if that doesn't kick your body into fat-loss mode. I was shocked at how quickly I lost 40 lbs, and how much I could eat. The other benefit of going off grains especially was--no more heartburn, and mo more post-nasal drip or heavy mucous buildup in my throat. I am starting to suspect that modern factory-produced bread is one of the worst things to ever happen to the human race.
Now, I suppose you could argue that since it is the caloric rate that matters, one could snack all day on very small amounts of high-carb food and still not cause insulin spikes. Go ahead, but that sounds like a particularly unsatisfying way to eat.
Re:Hundred Push-Ups and other tools (Score:3)
Of course the complication is that everyone has a different metabolism, and any change to your diet is going to alter your metabolism. And that change will be different for every person, maybe in a small way and maybe in a big way.
On the other hand if you keep your diet the same but reduce the total amount of calories by a large enough amount (subtracting equally from all the kinds of food you eat) then you will lose weight... eventually. Probably not in the fastest possible manner, but it will happen. Likewise if you keep your diet exactly the same but increase your activity level by a large enough amount then you will lose weight... eventually.
Now ideally if you could figure out exactly what your own metabolism is like you could design the perfect diet that would produce the maximum reduction in fat and the maximum increase in muscle over the shortest period of time with the smallest decrease in calories. However that would require a huge amount of medical knowledge (some of which probably doesn't even exist yet) and accumulating an assload of biometric data about yourself. In other words, it would only be possible for the kind of "serious health freaks or competitive athletes who have the time and need to micromanage their eating, sleeping, and physical activities, and later analyzing all of the accumulated data" that most of us seem to agree aren't very common.
So overall a reasonable plan of decreasing the total calories you consume by a moderate amount and increasing your activity level by a moderate amount seems like perfectly sound plan from a thermodynamic standpoint.
(Oh, and you're right, constantly snacking on small amount of high carb foods all day doesn't sound very appealing, but neither does giving up all grains. Especially since i don't suffer from the problems with heartburn and excessive mucus that seem to bother you.)
Re:Hundred Push-Ups and other tools (Score:2)
I still think there is a geek-fixation to get stuck in the idea of numerical equivalence of food/calories. An over-simplification. It's a temptation to try to reduce everything to a conceptually-manageable equation, when the body is far more complex than that. Why would one have to assume that there is an absolute rule regarding overall number of calories and how much of that goes towards fat? I'm saying that I find this mindset very suspect, given what I have seen. Calories are just a concept. Your body is not a computer that crunches calories the way a laptop crunches bits. Your body has various ways to handle nourishment depending on what type and how fast it arrives, and fat storage is only one of them. I find that when I eat "slow" caloric foods like meat and fats (say cheese, eggs, coconut oil), I maintain a consistently higher energy state for hours, or even into the next day. One study found that people fed a consistently higher amount of protein developed more lean body mass and a higher overall metabolic burn.
Like you, I was very loath to give up grains, having built up a lifelong habit, fairly resembling an addiction. In fact, I think that's really what it amounts to, at least for processed grains. The glycemic effect on the body is very similar to what sugar does: there is immediate gratification, and then your body soon dips into an even lower energy state than before, so you are tempted to gorge on yet another grainy snack+coffee and maybe a little sugar to stay awake, which lasts only so long, etc...You will probably find that this reaction only gets worse as you age. I broke free last year at the age of 45 (but feeling 55) and it's like having a whole new youth handed to me.
And really, I didn't give up grains completely. I just restricted my intake. From two bowls of cereal a day to two a week, etc... I approach grains the way I deal with sweets: an occasional treat rather than the main course.
Re:Hundred Push-Ups and other tools (Score:3)
First of all, i never said anything about what percentage of calories go towards fat, i said it doesn't matter if the calories spend some time as fat before getting burned (speaking purely from a weight loss perspective.)
As for an absolute rule regarding overall number of calories, well there is one. It's called the law of conservation of energy. The sum of all the inputs has to equal the sum of all the outputs. If you're using more energy that you're getting it generally doesn't matter if some of the incoming calories get turned to fat, in the grand scheme of things they're not going to stay that way for long. Believing that everything has to stay balanced is only an over-simplification if you also believe that you blindly trust the numbers written on nutrition labels and exercise websites instead of taking them as general guidelines.
Again of course the difficulty is in measuring all the inputs and outputs. I suspect that the inputs are _probably_ pretty constant for everyone. At least except in for weird genetic cases i'm reasonably certain that if person A and person B both eat 100 Calories of food X then they're both going to gain 100 Calories. The big difference is in the output. Depending on your metabolism you're going to do different things with those calories at different levels of efficiency. So maybe person A can do 100 push-ups with those calories while person B can do 200 push-ups. That's great for person B in times of famine, not so great if they're trying to lose weight.
A wise geek will know that their weight is balanced by the laws of thermodynamics but they will also know that they don't know the exact efficiency at which their own body runs. (At least not without a lot more analysis and testing than most of us want to deal with.) What you're suggesting is varying the kinds of inputs to try and reduce the efficiency of the body, but it's equally valid to accept whatever efficiency your body is currently at and try to balance the incoming and outgoing calories.
Of course none of those changes take place in a vacuum. As you said reducing the efficiency of your system by changing your diet resulted in you consuming more calories, likewise someone who just reduces the number of calories they eat without changing the contents of their diet and increases their exercise level will probably also change their efficiency. (Downwards if they're building more muscle mass and making their metabolism more active, upwards if they're not consuming enough calories and their metabolism goes into starvation mode.) So with both methods it's important to pay attention to the changes in your body and adapt accordingly.
In short your body isn't a computer crunching calorie bits, it's a car burning calorie fuel. Depending on genetics and current diet you may be a super efficient compact or a gas-guzzling muscle car, but there are still rules about how much gas going in results in how much work going out. (Wow, for once a car analogy is actually perfectly appropriate!)
Re:Hundred Push-Ups and other tools (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
Good one, congratulations.
My approach was similar, with noticable differences.
Read nutritional info, numbers not nearly as important as ingredients. Avoid machine oil(canola) completely, your digestive tract will get happier.Cut out corn syrup entirely and avoid as much corn as possible unless it is whole grain.Regular ol nacho chips are a far superior choice to many so called healthy chips full of artificial
synthetics and sawdust. All in all the less preservatives, less processing, less filler garbage, the better. Punishing yourself with more than a glance at the numbers to
see if it's actually got food as an ingredient and in what % is not a bad idea. Added vitamins are a false feature that aren't readily absorbed as well as actual food delivered vitamins, but will make your urinal flow more yellow and pungent than the guy next to you.( in case you want to mark territory)
Get out and move. Start by walking a block if you have to. Go two the next day. I found myself a 300 lb wad of shit in an easy chair in front of a neverending maintenance of an early Gentoo box with my oven cranking out load after load of frozen crap I washed down with sugarwater. I was pre-diabetic with high blood pressure. Well bullshit! I got out and moved. Fuck the computer. Biking and weights for me ! Now I'm buff and my linux runs stableish, let's hear it for tech taking care of itself.
Eat what you like, don't punish yourself with crappy f**king expensive cardboard food .It's only beneficial to the profit margin of the company that produced it and does a not too bad job of population control. Just get used to the idea of what a serving is. It's on the back of prepared food packages too. A can of pop is for two people. once a day at most. A piece of steak bigger around and thicker than the slab of your hand minus fingers is too big, share with fido.( the extra steak , not your fingers). Go to your favorite buffet. Look around at the regulars...egg shaped, aren't they. Get your favorite stuff without feeling the need to get bang for your buck.One plate, is fine, hold the elastic waist pants.
Pace is important, don't make it unattractive to continue but don't ever stop. If you don't have time to do your health right the first time, you won't be able to go back and do it over. So any bullshit about not having time cause you work, you take care of your mother, you have to unwind, you'll miss your show.you don't spend enough time with the kids, your dog is just so much loser bullshit.
I'm down a hundred pounds, blood sugar and bp stay in healthy ranges and I don't havta take any fucking pills! Whoopeeeee! Seem to get a lot more sex too.
Not sorry for being a complete right bastard. Notice I am right.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
A bit of exercise, and serious portion control goes a long way.
For example, instead of eating a small bag of chips every night, eat a big bag of chips (but not party-sized) once a week. Instead of eating all of the meat on a plate served to you at a restaurant, eat half of it and bag the other half for lunch the next day. Have a glass of juice or water instead of a soft drink.
For exercising, going out for a walk every day for about 30 minutes is more than sufficient for most people. A sport is great, but rarely absolutely necessary. A competitive sport can do more harm than good.
There's no need to jump through hoops or eat bad-tasting stuff. Even small changes make a big difference. Now, some people need the heavy exercise and the restrictive diet. But those are rarer than you'd think. Also, stay far, far away from the corn-derived products. That includes everything from corn oil to corn starch to ketchup and mustard to soft drinks.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:3)
- Learning how to read the nutritional info. You’d think this is simple...
Or better: aim for most of what you eat not to have a nutritional label (or any packaging at all). Then the few bits that do probably don't matter.
Or: try and get your country to mandate clearer labelling. Here, the nutritional label is often coloured red or orange if a nutrient is particularly high (just in case you didn't know fizzy drinks had loads of sugar and cheap pizzas were full of salt).
- Get into some physical activity that you _enjoy_.
Or at least has purpose. I cycle to work, which is more exercise each day than many people get in a week. It's only 20 minutes each way.
- Cut out the insanely unhealthy stuff. I accepted that I wasn’t going to be able to go full on health nut with my diet.
every time you go to the grocery run down the health nut section and try something that looks not-terrible.
I'm not sure what "health nut" really means. I occasionally eat tofu, probably once a month. I eat turkey about as often.
I don't think I've ever been to a health-nut section, unless you're referring to the fruit and vegetables ;-)
So, if you don't know how to cook "healthy stuff": buy a recipe book. I don't know what's available in the US, but I have a few I like (from the UK). I got them mostly for ideas rather than method (I know how to cook, so I tend to forget I'm supposed to be following the method after about 10 minutes). One has quick meals to cook in a single pot, another is a vegan book (I've had lots of ideas from this, I often use them as side-dishes or add non-vegan ingredients).
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:3)
In general, I think for most people (not just geeks) fitness stuff comes down to a matter of time and practicality more than knowledge anyway. Most advertised approaches to healthy living require far more time/energy/money than the average working guy has to invest (and if they had the time, would rather spend it doing something else) or require behavior which is incompatible with current lifestyle (eating 14 small meals a day might be great for your health.. but complicates the work day).
Nonsense! It comes down to motivation and nothing else. Granted, people with more free time need less motivation, but unless you're working 36-hour shifts at a factory in China you can take three hours out of your week to exercise, which--when combined with not eating at McDonald's regularly--is plenty to keep fit. I find that more often than not, people think that they have to look like Daniel Craig or Tom Hardy to be "fit," which is an impossibly high bar unless you have the genetics for it and get paid to walk around without your shirt on. But you can pack a little spare tire and still be in great cardiovascular shape. If you can walk three flights of stairs while carrying on a conversation, then you are in better shape than most people and have cut your risk of heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, certain types of cancer, etc. significantly. My anecdote; I suffer from high diastolic blood pressure. It's genetic and will shorten my lifespan if untreated. I had two options, either take pills for the rest of my life, or try to control it through exercise. I bike a whopping 4 km to and from work and lift weights for 45 minutes, three days a week. And guess what--my blood pressure has held steady for seven years despite my love handles and daily beer consumption. And in the last city I lived in, I couldn't even bike in Winter due to snow.
Long commute to work? Park a few miles from work and bike between your car and the office. Not into biking? Take 20-30 minutes a few days a week to run 5K--during sunrise/set if you live in a picturesque city. Not into running? Get up early three days a week and go lift weights at one of the zillion gyms in your area--you might have to sacrifice a TV show or two. Not into weights? Try swimming. Not into exercising solo? Play squash, soccer, baseball, racquetball, basketball, tennis, hockey--there are pickup games, clubs, and amateur leagues in your city, guaranteed. Kids eating up your schedule? Strap them to a stroller or your back and go for a walk, when they get older go biking/swimming/hiking/lifting/running with them--it will form good habits... The only excuse for not exercising is being physically disabled.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
Hear hear. Biking is surprisingly fun easy to pick up. Went from 1 km daily to 45 km three times per week (on a heavy MTB no less) in just three months. Never been in a so good shape as now.
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
Re:Not for this type of geek (Score:2)
Just try to raise your distance gradually and don't forget adequate rest (as you probably do with weights already) and you can do it. I mean, I am still 30 kg overweight and I manage that on a heavy bike.
Start with 5 km three times a week, then 8 km, then 12 and so on. If you feel that you are too tired, stop, catch your breath, drink some juice and continue. Just don't stop too long or else you'll cool down. Well, it is actually really like weight training, only except raising weights you raise the distance.
Also helps if you have to bike uphill a lot, that does wonders to your condition.
Coffee (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Coffee (Score:5, Insightful)
About 6 months ago I stepped on a scale, and found to my horror I weighed over 220Lbs.
Something had to change. I gave up the fastfood lunches, started taking the stairs whenever possible, and lots of walking. I hit the scale this morning at 192Lbs. I still have a way to go, but the effort has really been worth it. I feel better, and just the other day I found myself jogging up the stairs.
Re:Coffee (Score:2)
I had a similar experience (though with higher numbers). I was shocked. I'd already cut soda about 6 months before that (from 2-3 12-packs/wk to 1 can/month at most). Pretty much totally abandoned fast food (good riddance) and even most "frozen junkfood" type meals (TV dinners, frozen pizza, etc...). My activity level was pretty much the same.
Six months later, I'm constantly fatigued and I find out that I PUT ON about 23 lbs.
I would have been better off keeping the shitty diet.
Re:Coffee (Score:2)
Wuss.
My coffee cup is 35 oz.
So basically... (Score:5, Informative)
2) Exercise more
3) Go outside
4) Sleep more
All we need is to add 'but on the internet!' to that list and we have the book summed up.
Re:So basically... (Score:2)
Yup. Maybe if you want to be an athlete or bodybuilder this stuff matters.. but for the average guy who just wants to make it up the stairs without running out of breath.. I think that's all it really takes.
Fun thing is that 1 and 2 are somewhat in balance. Put a little more time in at the gym and then enjoy your 12oz steak and potato. Skip the gym and eat salad. Obviously it only works that absolutely in my head.. but I think over time their is some truth to that general idea. At the very least it works fine for me!
Re:So basically... (Score:2)
Yup. Maybe if you want to be an athlete or bodybuilder this stuff matters.. but for the average guy who just wants to make it up the stairs without running out of breath.. I think that's all it really takes.
Fun thing is that 1 and 2 are somewhat in balance. Put a little more time in at the gym and then enjoy your 12oz steak and potato. Skip the gym and eat salad. Obviously it only works that absolutely in my head.. but I think over time their is some truth to that general idea. At the very least it works fine for me!
While somewhat true, there is a minimum level of exercise that is necessary even for grass-eaters. Getting that minimum isn't easy, especially for the busy geek with a long commute and lots of overtime to do.
Re:So basically... (Score:2)
there are exercises you can do in a cube. Incline pushups, crunches, static leg and arm lifts, squats.
Eyes bugging you, tired of looking at the same problem from hell for the last hour? Take a micro break and pop out 1/3/5/10 pushups.
it'll help more than just your health, it'll help your mental focus too.
-nB
It's about time (Score:3)
While we love to live in our virtual worlds, we are bound by the constraints of the physical world. Our bodies were not designed to be sedentary. I am a full fledged coder + gamer, but the thing I love most is doing things in meatspace.
Sure, we love to reminisce about week-long coding frenzies fueled by Mountain Dew and pizza, but it has consequences.
I may download this book for my newly acquired Kindle Fire.
My dog watches TV all the time (Score:2)
For "serious health freaks/competitive athletes"? (Score:2, Insightful)
>> His book, I think, would appeal primarily to serious health freaks or competitive athletes who have the time and need to micromanage their eating, sleeping, and physical activities...
Then why is it posted here?
Hell, how many geeks still *buy* books anymore?
Re:For "serious health freaks/competitive athletes (Score:2)
I bought a book today. A real book, it is made of paper.
Re:For "serious health freaks/competitive athletes (Score:2)
I'm thinking the 6/10 gives the impression that this book doesn't really fit here, but it's marketed to this demographic which is why it got reviewed in the first place.
Re:For "serious health freaks/competitive athletes (Score:2)
Open Source advocate Dr. Richard Stallman for one. I was listening to an interview he did with Alex Jones, and I was surprised to hear he boycotts the Kindle and other e-readers, and prefers physical books. Read more here:
http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf [stallman.org]
Reminds me of when I had a Debian partition. (Score:5, Funny)
I was using this package [debian.org] to track absolutely everything I ate. Its advice was always to eat absurd amounts of fish flakes because fish flakes had something that it thought I was low in. Iron, maybe? So whenever I would be winding down my day and I would ask it what to eat, it would always be something like a pound of dried herring flakes.
I wonder if that's this book's conclusion. The last page just goes something like this:
"tl;dr: eat pounds of fish flakes"
Re:Reminds me of when I had a Debian partition. (Score:2)
fish flakes - it's what's for breakfast!
Re:Reminds me of when I had a Debian partition. (Score:2)
Sounds like the advice on some bodybuilding forums. No matter what someone asks there are always a few people who suggest squats as the go-to exercise. It's even gotten to the point of becoming a meme ("Squats and oats!").
Of course, there's a lot of "broscience" involved in this case, squats are considered "hardcore" so everyone keeps telling each other to do lots of squats.
Not all geeks are fat (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the perception of translucent/Mountain Dew drinking/Pizza&Cheetoes eating geeks is a little old and incorrect.
Re:Not all geeks are fat (Score:2)
Yes, you're spoiled. Colorado is on average the fittest state in the nation. Lucky skiers, and all those lovely mountains to cycle up! (not joking about that, I'm a hillclimber and central KY just doesn't offer too much)
Re:Not all geeks are fat (Score:2)
I think you're confusing geeks & nerds (Score:2)
Yeah, about that "caveman" thing ... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm deeply skeptical of attempts to reproduce the "natural" diet, exercise plan, etc. of our ancestors, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, you can't recreate the environment in which humans evolved. You just can't. That world is gone. You could, I suppose, move to central Africa and try to live a life as much as possible like the way you think people lived a quarter of a million years ago, but the environment has changed considerably in that time and in any case, most people in the industrialized world (such as, you know, pretty much everyone who's likely to read the book) aren't going to change their lives to that degree just to get into shape.
Second, who's to say that our remote ancestors even had the ideal environment for their bodies? We're a young species; a lot of our anatomy is obviously best suited to an arboreal lifestyle, and the transition from semi-quadrupedal tree-dwellers to bipedal ground-dwellers isn't really complete -- many of the knee and back problems which even very healthy people tend to develop in old age can be traced to this, as can the not-so-trivial problem that childbirth is more difficult and dangerous for humans than for practically any other mammalian species. It's reasonable to suspect that our physiology, too, is the result of many quick-fix compromises over the last few million years, more so than most animals'.
So the best thing, it seems to me, is not to try to live like our ancestors did in a world that no longer exists, but to come up with diet and exercise plans that work well for us, as we are, in the world in which we live. Weightlifting is an example. No non-human animal does anything even remotely like it, and it's a safe bet that early humans didn't either -- but there's a fair body of evidence that there's no other single type of exercise that carries the same level of whole-body ftiness benefit that repetitively moving heavy weights in carefully planned and controlled motions does. Running is probably the second-best form of exercise in terms of overall benefit, but running with shoes on a concrete or asphalt track is very different from running barefoot (with feet conditioned to it by a lifetime of never even having heard of shoes) through long grass. Bicycling? Again, completely alien to our ancestors.
I'm all for looking at our biology for ways to improve our health, and studying our evolution is certainly one way to do that. But assuming that we're going to come up with any kind of "natural, and therefore healthy" lifestyle based on dim of ideas of how long-ago proto-humans lived in a vanished world is just silly.
Re:Yeah, about that "caveman" thing ... (Score:2)
'the benefits or light?' (Score:3)
it hurtssss ussss
Exercise sucks (Score:2)
I'd rather lose weight by not eating, such as skipping supper, then waste time on a treadmill or bike. Besides diet restriction has been shown (in mice/monkeys) to create a longer-lasting body.
Re:Exercise sucks (Score:2)
Yep. You're not going to burn more than 500 calories in an hour of treadmill or biking (the "calories burnt" number on the device is basically just marketing). Pushing away 500 calories of food is a hell of a lot easier.
Of course some cardio exercise is good for one's health. It's just a shitty way to lose weight.
Re:Exercise sucks (Score:2)
this is not accurate
i burn 120 calories per mile run and run 8 miles in an hour, thats over 960 calories.
i do this 5 days a week with a 16 mile run on saturday
it is a great way to lose weight
To truly lose weight you have to balance food eaten and exercise
Re:Exercise sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's what's not accurate: you don't burn 960 calories in an hour. Burning 15 calories/minute for an hour is something a high-level athlete does, not some guy on Slashdot who runs 7:30 miles.
You burn calories, maybe you enjoy it. Just, probably somewhere around 500.
Re:Exercise sucks (Score:2)
One has to be careful with calorie restriction and be sure to get all the necessary nutrients. A longer term deficit of something important can come back to bite you. Hard. Be sure to get enough:
1) Potassium
2) Fat
3) Protein
4) The vitamins and minerals found in a good multivitamin/mineral (like Centrum or One A Day maximum).
Before going on a calorie-restricted regimen, I would strongly urge people to spend some time figuring out what nutrients the body needs, and from where they plan to get these nutrients.
Err...yikes? (Score:3)
1. Don't skip meals. If you skip tea, you won't sleep as well. Bad for your health. If you skip breakfast or lunch, you'll have insufficient energy to do your daily tasks. It's not good for you. Eat smaller meals. And exercise - it'll burn more calories.
2. If you are overweight, then you really should exercise. Extra weight will put more stress on your joints. Losing weight helps, but you also need to strengthen your muscles.Skipping meals won't do that. Exercise will. You'll be really glad you took this advice when you're 45 or 50.
3. Also will help your blood pressure and cholesterol. You'll be really glad you took this advice when you're 40 and go to the doctor for a check-up.
I have a great metabolism, never been overweight, always looked in good shape, even though I didn't exercise. Felt fine. Went to a doctor when I turned 40 because that's what you're supposed to do when you turn 40. I felt fantastic going in, spring in my step, nothing wrong with me. My blood pressure was through the roof and I ended up in hospital. It took two years to get my b.p. under control with medicine to the point where it was even safe for me to work out, and then I started exercising. Three months later they cut my b.p. medication in half, and congratulated me on how dramatically my cholesterol had dropped.
You don't have to go rabid - you only need a relatively minor amount of exercise to keep your body healthy. It's not just about losing weight, it's about your muscular fitness, mitigating joint and bone degeneration that happen with age, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
Find something you like. Go swimming. Get a friend to go on a bike ride with you. 30 minutes, three times a week. Make yourself do it. Otherwise you might die before you turn 50. I'm not kidding. Please don't do that to your family.
Gym With a Friend (Score:3)
The Hackers Diet (Score:2)
Define geek (Score:3)
What, all geeks are programmers/developers? I see this all the time, the stereotypical geek is a developer. Us lowly system and network administrators get no love!
I'll add, the gym probably isn't for everyone.. it works for me but if it really isn't your thing then at least try to find some other way to get a little exercise. I see a trend in the PC crowd that tends to divorce what is "you" from your body, and I have to highly disagree. Your emotions and intellect are actually very tied into your physical condition. And we all know how various chemicals, alkaloids, and substances can affect thinking and perception via the brain.
The hardest thing about a fitness regimen is beginning it. Especially if you're out of shape to start. Lifting heavy weights with flabby or scrawny arms kinda makes you go, "Damn this is heavy, I really don't wanna do this!", or if running, "My sides hurt and I'm tired, F this, time to fire up Skyrim!"... the real payoff doesn't happen until you're a ways down the road.. like maybe even a couple of years down the road. I admit it sucks to bust your ass week after week and not really see the big changes you wish you would at first, as it just doesn't happen overnight. However, once you get to a certain state of fitness, it's like your body thrives on it. I noticed a kind of accelerated effect in lifting, the more muscle you have to work with, the easier it is to build more muscle (up until you get to the point of diminishing returns and genetic limits of course), perhaps not unlike the way it "takes money to make money", it takes muscle to make muscle (and a shit-ton of protein). I still think the Arnold is nuts for saying the pump is better than sex, but it ain't too shabby either. It's a like ultra-proprioception.
Losing fat is harder than gaining muscle, for some. For me, not eating isn't actually "doing something", and I always feel like I need to actively do something, so it drives me nuts. (and I love my mead!) Besides, no diet, in and of itself, is likely to work long term. You need to expend more calories than you intake, and exercise is a good way to practically guarantee that. But I will end in saying, having started 3 years ago, I'm in some of the best shape in my life, considering my age (50 in 6 weeks) and it really changes your outlook and mood for the better. Last but not least, I would expect it would extend your life expectancy.
Get a dog (Score:5, Interesting)
But a dog
Re:Get a dog (Score:2)
So I'm watching less tv, DVDs, and haven't got the high score on the latest game.
You've touched on a very important change: Turning off the TV. You'd be surprised how much you can get done - work or fun - when you aren't channel surfing non-stop for a few hours daily.
Heck - just moving around sometimes is better than nothing because some recent studies have suggested that sitting still shortens your lifespan quite a bit [mashable.com] (with purty pictures)...
Re:Get a dog (Score:3)
Everything in this book may be wrong. (Score:2)
As well as the book, 99% of the posts on this topic are of the form "I have the REAL answer, it's ...."
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE REAL ANSWER. STFU ALREADY.
Advice for Slashdot readers: do not get nutritional / lifestyle advice from Slashdot. Do not get it from books hawked on Slashdot either.
Fitness for non-OCD geeks/nerds/dorks: (Score:2)
- It saves time: 30-60 minutes 2-3x a week suffice for a decent workout.
- It trains your whole body: Don't waste time on machines, you don't need 'em. Let a good trainer show you the popular full-body exercises and practice with low weights until you can do them correctly. It's all you need to bulk up or lose some kg.
- It's not as gruesome as it sounds: Most of the time is spent recovering from the last set, and the short bursts of pushing yourself to the limit are actually enjoyable, once you get into it.
- Increase weights regularly, change exercises and intensity when you hit a plateau.
- Some additional cardio doesn't hurt, obviously.
2) Fix your nutrition
- Don't eat too much crap.
- If you're trying to bulk up, eat something with protein every few hours.
- If you're trying to lose weight, reduce your calorie intake. Complex carbs will keep you from feeling powerless and low-calorie foods will keep you from feeling hungry. Sure, there's always the sense of "I must eat more", but that's just part of the process.
- Generally, complex carbs, fish/poultry & vegetables are good things to put in your face.
3) Sleep 7-8 hours a night
There's really not that much more to it, unless you're a pro-bodybuilder who's despairing because of a slight asymmetry of his pecs. I've met a dozen folks in the local gym who have used very simple workout and nutrition plans, look great, and still get results.
Re:Fitness for non-OCD geeks/nerds/dorks: (Score:2)
I agree. Machines are useless. Free weights exercise your body more naturally. One of the best full body exercises is the parallel squat. Nobody likes them because done properly, they are hard. But you will feel the difference if you do them right. A great book which I used for many years is Super Squats. [amazon.com] If you don't know how to squat properly, another good book to get is Starting Strength. [amazon.com]
Re:Fitness for non-OCD geeks/nerds/dorks: (Score:2)
Machines are not useless. There are advantages to machines and there are advantages to free weights.
I do some things with free weights and some things with machines (for example, I prefer using the seated leg press machine instead of doing barbell squats because I care about not fucking up my back which is a hell of a lot easier to do with squats).
Re:Fitness for non-OCD geeks/nerds/dorks: (Score:2)
The Physics Diet (Score:3)
If you are over-weight, there is only one way to lose weight... Consume fewer calories. End of story. And further, it is preferable that you consume just slightly fewer calories, over a long time-frame.
http://www.muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm [lbl.gov]
In theory, exercise is an alternative, but really, unless you can force your flabby butt to go run a marathon, you won't even make a dent, and even if you do, your body will crave more calories and your increased food intake may eliminate any gains.
There are no alternatives, there are no short-cuts.
All the diet schemes out there are intended to get you to consume fewer calories, when you lack the will power to just jump head-long into it and do so directly...
Diet pills basically exist to make you feel slightly sick, so you won't want to eat so much. Secondarily, they may do the same thing as taking fiber before eating, causing your body to excrete more of the food you eat before it is digested and converted into calories.
Drinking water before a meal will occupy a portion of your stomach with calorie-free liquid, so you will feel you are "full" before you have consumed your normal number of calories of food. Diet foods work this same way... they have the same volume as normal foods, with a lower calorie count, so it takes more effort to stuff your face. This is similar to diets that reduce sugar... Less sugar means less calories, and also less insulin production may affect how soon you feel "full". The down-side of all of these is that your stomach may simply expand, over time, completely compensating for the reduced calorie intake per-volume of food. A similar problem for those who have their stomach "stapled", but aren't dedicated to maintaining a low-calorie diet.
The last option that comes to mind are single-food diets. They work by basically restricting the food you eat to a narrow subset, so you can consume as many calories as you need, but you'll basically get bored of eating the same thing over and over, and hopefully won't over-indulge on the same boring food.
But they all come back to reduced calories, just indirectly. And IMHO, the best option is just to SLIGHLY reduce serving sizes over time.
You can eat all the same greasy and wonderful fast food and junk food you want, you just have to eat LESS of it. Get the single burger instead of the double burger... Or get the burger you want, and just don't get the sides (french fries, onion rings, etc)... Or get all the same food, and just drink water with it, instead of soda/juice/milk. All of which will reduce your calorie intake, and over time, your weight. And since you're still able to eat all the same food, I believe this is, by FAR, the easiest diet to stick to.
I personally lost about 60lbs with this strategy... First it was smaller versions of the same fast food, and/or fewer side dishes (which saved me a lot of money, too... "super-sizing" FEELS like a good value for the money, but in fact spending less is ALWAYS the better deal).
Then it turned into rotating between a few single-course cheap and simple meals at home... rice, potatoes, pasta, ramen, sandwiches, etc. with just the occasional splurging on a quick run for greasy fast food when I had a craving for it. And that became less and less frequent, too.
As a fringe benefit, as you stay just slightly hungry, your energy level goes up, and you have the URGE to exercise (you don't have to force yourself to do so). And as you lose weight, exercise is also easier, and endurance goes up. But most importantly, the added muscle mass will serve you well in maintaining your weight... If you go back to eating poorly, whether for a short or medium term, the muscle will do a great job of helping your body consume the excess calories, turning it into more muscle, or heat, instead of fat.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need a cookie.
Re:The Physics Diet (Score:2)
Avoid sit down restaurants, especially the sit down ones. Outback Steakhouse, Ruby Tuesdays, TGI Fridays, Friendlys, etc. Most of the food served in them are calorie bombs - 1800 calorie salads, 2500 calorie burgers, 2500 calorie fish tacos, 1200 calorie grilled chicken spinach spaghetti, 1700 calorie veggie subs, etc. And avoid milkshakes from any restaurant at all costs - every single one of them has at least 800 calories and some are close to 3000. Read those Eat this, not that [eatthis.com] books. Believe it or not, McDonald's and KFC are some of the healthiest places you can eat.
Re:The Physics Diet (Score:2)
But there is more than one way to lose fat: take in fewer calories, or convert fat into muscle through exercise. So you have to decide, do you want to lose weight, or lose fat? Remember, muscle is more dense than fat, so you can lose inches around the waist even while gaining weight.
Re:The Physics Diet (Score:2)
Actually what works best is a combination of diet and exercise. Just reducing caloric intake will be in large part compensated for by the body reducing its rate of metabolism. You will feel tired an hungry as a result. Not a pleasant situation and the reason most dieters are unsuccessful.
Exercise counters this by increasing your metabolism plus adding muscle, again increasing metabolism. Increased muscle also increases the caloric effect of exercise, both by energy expended but also by the metabolic effects of rebuilding muscle during recovery after exercise. Adding muscle also slightly increases rest metabolism, however this is not a big factor.
Then there is the fact that while you are losing weight, if you don't exercise the weight you lose will be both fat and muscle when you really just want to lose fat.
http://muscleevo.net/muscle-metabolism/ [muscleevo.net]
I already know the benefits of hormesis (Score:2)
Mmmmmm... Bacon....
http://www.hormelfoods.com/newsroom/brandinfo/HormelBaconFS.aspx [hormelfoods.com]
FTC Disclosure (Score:4, Informative)
This review is posted on Amazon as the foremost review of the book, with one difference:
"(FTC disclosure (16 CFR Part 255)): The reviewer has accepted a reviewer's copy of this book which is his to keep. He intends to provide an honest, independent, and fair evaluation of the book in all circumstances.)"
Can we get the courtesy of the same disclosure here on Slashdot?
The Hacker's Diet (Score:2)
Who needs a gym? (Score:3)
For aerobic exercise, there's a free treadmill simulator called "go jogging" right outside your front door. If you want lower impact exercise, bicycling to work will save you money on your commute and give you a lot of exercise for a small marginal cost of time. (If your automobile commute is 20 minutes but your bicycle commute is 45 minutes, you'll get 45 minutes of exercise at a cost of only 25 minutes.)
For weight lifting, $200 will buy you an exercise bench and a set of adjustable dumbbells. You can exercise just about every muscle group [exrx.net] that way.
Re:Just go for a fucking run! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, no.
If someone is morbidly obese, "going for a fucking run" is one of the worst things you can tell them to do.
On the off chance they're actually ABLE to run, the stresses on their joints and muscles will be so extreme they're highly likely to injure themselves. Even jogging is a fairly high impact exercise and can result in unnecessary damage.
For the morbidly (or mildly) obese, the idea exercise would be swimming for low impact full body workouts, but barring that, walking is far better than not moving at all.
Combined with a proper regulated diet in the, say, 2500 calorie range which is still a ton of food (About two fast food meals with 0 cal drinks), the pounds will just drop off. Fast food is hardly the ideal food, but for weight loss all that really matters is calories.
Source: Anecdote from my losing a hundred pounds and going from walking a mile in 20 minutes to running a mile in 7 in the spam of 8 months.
Re:Just go for a fucking run! (Score:2)
+1 Informative.
As someone that's also lost about 100 pounds over the past year through hard work and determination, good job!!
Re:Just go for a fucking run! (Score:2)
How is 2500 kCal "a ton of food"? At 193 cm tall and weighing in around 84 kg I generally consume 2400 kCal on rest days, on days when I go to the gym (4-5 days per week) I up this to around 2600-2800 kCal.
Re:You insensitive clod! (Score:2)
Re:Dumb quote (Score:2)
Besides, it's an easy question to answer: basic hygiene, vaccinations, cheap and widely-available food. Those are really the big factors that explain why we live longer than our ancestors: back in the 19th century we were far more disease-ridden than we are now, and infant mortality was far higher. Starvation also tended to catch more people back then, as regional famines actually prevented people from obtaining any food at all, rather than just having to shell out a few more bucks out of pocket for something grown in another country.
Re:Stop using cavemen to justify your fad diet (Score:2)
Some people genuinely are more "cave man".
It's called genetic diversity. Perhaps you've heard of it.
Re:Stop using cavemen to justify your fad diet (Score:2)
Because people don't know what hunter gatherers ate. So really it becomes a pseudo-scientific way to rationalize whatever food dogma they believe in. For instance, another AC says they mostly ate starchy tubers and not meat. But normal paleo diet says they ate large amounts of meat and ate basically no tubers at all. Classically grains are thought to date back only 6,000 years or so. But recent evidence has primitive man eating grains for at least 100,000 years. Also, how quickly do people evolve? For all the talk about 6,000 years being an evolutionary blip, Europeans were a lot more resistant to pandemics than Native Americans.
If I was to enter my own beliefs, paleo man probably ate a wide range of different diets. And the foods available then bore little resemblance to the foods available today, due to increased trade, increased breeding, invasive species, etc.
Re:Dogs and TV (Score:2)
I have seen dogs take quite the intrest in TV. useually barking at other dogs on it.
Or meerkats [youtube.com].
Re:print "Hello Systema" (Score:2)
most of the folks I know who take Systema are actually geeks.
Some of us are nerds.
Re:Torrent link? (Score:2)
Here y'go. http://www.amazon.com/Fitness-Geeks-Science-Nutrition-ebook/dp/B007UQN22A/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=A24IB90LPZJ0BS [amazon.com]
Just buy the fucking thing.
Re:geek fitness (Score:2)
I'd rather read the rhythmic gyrations of the lycra clad booty in front of me...