Apple calorie burn estimates are horrifying

[Anonymous]

Walking has incredible benefits. Looking at calories is shortsighted.

[Anonymous]

Been skinny in cycles due to diet. It wasn't ever sustainable.

What's working for me is strength classes and upping my protein. Not only did the weight drop off but it raised my base metabolism. Apparently, it takes a lot more energy for our bodies to process protein calories. You''ll have to eat a lot, not to lose muscle. Net result can be you'll weigh a little more than prior skinny days but leaner. Muscle and fat weigh the same, but muscle is more compact. A regular scale has become irrelevant. Track your progress with a gym's Inbody machine or an at home Hume scale. They provide data on fat vs muscle mass. And the minimum calories just to support your metabolic rate (not active calories but the ones your body needs to support your vital functions).

Cardio is very good for your heart. However, as a previous poster said, you would have to be a marathoner for fat loss. By itself it isn't effective for the average exerciser. IMO, an hour lifting hand weights 2-3 hours a week will help the most. Keep up the cardio though. The two go hand in hand.

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the iPhone Health app, walking 3 miles only burned 100 calories. That’s not even a can of soda! It says 8 miles burned 600 calories, which is still depressing. That’s not even a restaurant-size dessert.

If these estimates are in the ballpark of accuracy, no wonder it’s so hard to loose weight. How DEPRESSING!

Well yes, because walking burns next to no calories. You need more intense exercise to crack a burn (and afterburn),

[Anonymous]

BTW - Here's an excellent link on female exercise and nutrition done by experts..https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/dr-stacy-sims-female-specific-exercise-nutrition-for-health-performance-longevity. They mention age group related factors.
The posters on this site didn't share their ages, however what works for a woman in her 30's vs 40's ,50's and 60+ changes due to hormonal changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW - Here's an excellent link on female exercise and nutrition done by experts..https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/dr-stacy-sims-female-specific-exercise-nutrition-for-health-performance-longevity. They mention age group related factors.
The posters on this site didn't share their ages, however what works for a woman in her 30's vs 40's ,50's and 60+ changes due to hormonal changes.

"expert" and huberman lol - hopefully the guest was insightful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To lose weight with exercise is very complicated and walking or running a few miles won’t do it unless you already have the metabolism of a trained athlete.
Below sprint/extreme level is what everyone calls HIIT which is not as intense as sprint training but works almost as well if done without hurting yourself and giving your body enough time to recover.

Most non-athletes or people really out of shape should not jump into sprint training without an ambulance parked next to them.

HIIT can be more toned down, like orange theory or whatever on line.

No personal trainer would/should do sprint training with a non-athlete who has not cleared medical evaluations.
Doing that with a normal person is dangerous if you are going for (literally) windgate levels. It is for high performance training. I am not sure even the military (other than special forces or something) does that level of training anymore. It pushes professional athletes to their limits levels (vomiting, oxygen on hand, etc).

HIIT (not orange theory or some bs) done at 3:1 rest ratio should be plenty for anyone to jump start their metabolism; even that (done properly) is not for most people without several months to build up to an actual HIIT training cycle.