Secondly, make sure you weigh your pasta accurately and use the right type of weight. If the nutirition says "When cooked" then you need to weigh it afterwards, or if it says "As sold" you need to weigh it before cooking. If you get these the wrong way around, you can end up eating three times the calories you thought you were!
I didnt realise that, will keep a closer eye on it in future.
Thanks.
It's similar with anything you cook in water. Rice, potatoes, oats, etc. If you weigh before cooking, make sure you use the nutrition information related to that particular time.
For example, 100g of pasta weighed beore cooking is approximately 345 calories, but because it will almost triple in size, 100g of cooked pasta is only around a third of that.
yeah checked the sandwich today it was as anthony described, per 100g
the full sandwich is 301 cal
which isn't too bad.
I have sorted out my gym membership and am going for my first session on Saturday, it seems really weird and optimistic at this stage but i am feeling great.
I have a lot more energy, i used be tired all the time, but i have been a lot more energetic. I am not expecting too much until i start the full workout.
Cheers for the advice and response,
i will let you know how i get on sometime over the next week.
Here are a couple of posts that I wrote somewhere else.
Strength training has far more to offer in terms of health benefits than “cardio” ever will.
A “Healthy heart” (whatever that means) and the health of the rest of your internal organs etc is all about eating a healthy diet and steering clear of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. No amount of running around can propel you to some kind of uber health if you are destroying your body with a bad diet and stupid recreational habits.
The other major factor in being healthy is not being overweight. In order to lose weight you don't need to do any kind of traditional cardiovascular activity.
Consider this. You gain fat as you age due to sarcopenia, or age related muscle loss. The loss of muscle mass means a decrease in your baseline metabolism so you burn fewer calories throughout the day. This gets worse over time.
The big problem is that this process is very slow. So slow that people don't notice it and attribute the effects to something else. Starting in your mid 20's you will lose roughly half a pound of muscle per year. You will also gain 1 pound of fat per year. So people aren't exactly withering away and dying overnight. By the time you reach your mid forties however, you will have lost 10 pounds of muscle and gained 20 pounds of fat. Although the difference in weight is only 10 pounds, the effect on both your appearance and your health is dramatic.
My mum was complaining the other day about how she has put on weight in recent years. She put it down to being older and getting tired easily and therefore not being as active. There it is. The common belief that if you remain active you remain lean by burning calories. The fact is that my mum is now carrying around less muscle than she was 10 years ago and so the levels of fat are building up. Couple that with the fact that she eats a little too much of what she fancies and you have the formula for getting steadily fatter as you get older.
Muscle loss is one of the reasons why many pensioners look very weak and frail. I'm suggesting that they could look like a bodybuilder, just that they could be stronger than they are now, and therefore better able to cope with everyday life.
The only way that this muscle loss can be reversed or slowed, is strength training. Couple this with a reduced calorie diet and you have the most efficient and effective way of remaining healthy throughout your entire life.
“Cardio” does nothing to promote muscular growth. In fact it can go as far as promoting muscle loss if you do too much of it to often. Whilst you may not lose 10 pounds of muscle in a year through aerobics or spinning classes, you certainly won't gain any. “Cardio” it has nothing to offer you as you age. Possibly dodgy knees if you persist with running.
People concentrate too much on their heart and not enough on their muscles which are what actually make them mobile and functional.
Muscle is important. It is what makes us move and it is what gives us decent posture.
Lifting weights does not burn any fat. All lifting weights does is stimulate muscular growth. The fat loss side of things is taken care of by eating a reduced calorie diet.
As long as you are in caloric deficit you'll lose weight.
Whilst some folks still champion cardio such as jogging – I can't stand it.
It's not particularly effective, i.e. for the amount of time spent doing it, not much fat is lost compared with what you would lose if you just followed a decent diet.
It does nothing to promote muscular growth. At worst it actually promotes muscle loss. Why the hell would you want to do that? Muscle is what will keep you mobile and fit.
It has the potential to cause joint problems, not necessarily twisting an ankle or shattering a knee, but by very slowly and very gradually wearing away you ankles, knees, hips and spine. They are the kind of injuries that accumulate silently over time, rather than the ones that happen instantly.
Whilst weight training can lead to injuries, I would say that if you use strict form, a controlled speed of movement and reasonably volume and frequency, as well as loads that aren't potentially hazardous then you'll be fine. Heavy weights, sloppy technique and high volume and frequency are a recipe for accidents and overuse injuries.
Some folks still seem to only equate health to heart function. There is the notion that if you raise your heart rate to a certain level for certain lengths of time each week, you will become healthier. This is lame.
What about joint integrity, health of the digestive system, hereditary diseases, loss of eyesight, mental illness, arthritis, osteoporosis etc? Are they not matters of health?
Cardio does nothing for them. Yet cardio is what you think you should be doing because the aerobics craze born in the 70's still lives on today. It's all about your heart and forget everything else.
If you want to keep your heart healthy, you'll be doing pretty much all you can if you're a T-Total, non smoker who avoids illegal drugs, fry ups, takeaways, caffeine, snack and junk food, and does not suffer from high levels of stress at work and in your private life.
It would also help greatly if you don't have a history of heart problems in your family.
If you think that pounding the pavement night after night, or playing the odd game of footy is the way to longevity, think again.
If you ever get to the point where your only reason for "exercising" is to burn calories, you've lost the plot. It's far easier, less time consuming, less stressful and potentially less damaging not to eat the calories in the first place than it is to try and burn them off by spending hours per week 'doing something' that actually yields very few positive benefits in terms of alterations to body composition or improved health.
As far as fat loss is concerned the most important things are probably genetics, diet, strength training and then cardio. Whatever, cardio is not high on the list. If the list was any longer cardio would still be at the bottom. It's redundant.
Don't get me wrong, if you want to be able to run a 4 minute mile, then you are going to have to run. This is fitness. Fitness is about being conditioned so that you are able to perform a specific task like doing 20 consecutive press ups, or perhaps 10 consecutive chinups, or running a marathon or deadlifting 300 pounds. Fitness is not the same as health. In fact, in many instances, fitness is achieved at the expense of some aspects of health.
So to recap - the only effective way to reverse (or at least slow it down) this age related muscle loss and fat gain is strength training coupled with a moderately reduced calorie diet.
Lift weights in order to build muscle, and eat sensibly in order to lose fat. Aerobics or "cardio" of any sort does nothing to promote muscular growth, and if you do too much "cardio" it can actually speed up muscle loss. Muscles are what make you strong and mobile. You want to hang on to them as you age not slowly wear them away.
Forget aerobics. If you want to feel out of breath try lifting weights until you can no longer complete another rep and then move quickly to the next exercise - basically performing the workout in circuit style. You won't know what has hit you.
Remember - The cardiovascular system serves the muscular system, not the other way around. You heart and lungs only respond when your muscles are doing significantly harder work than they normally would. They have no idea what kind of work the muscles are doing i.e. running, cycling, swimming, lifting weights etc. They just respond.
If you ever get to the point where your only reason for "exercising" is to burn calories, you've lost the plot. It's far easier, less time consuming, less stressful and potentially less damaging not to eat the calories in the first place than it is to try and burn them off by spending hours per week 'doing something' that actually yields very few positive benefits in terms of alterations to body composition or improved health.
I dispute this.
I don't think it's easier to go on a reduced calorie diet. I would never want to be on a reduced calorie diet, it would make life more difficult and less enjoyable.
I also disagree that exercising has few positive benefits - it makes you feel good, if nothing else! Not to mention relieving stress, improving your lung function etc etc.
You might be happy limiting your diet and killing yourself in the gym, but there's more than one way to a healthy, attractive looking body - and it's up to the individual to decide what for them, is the best way to go about it.
If you ever get to the point where your only reason for "exercising" is to burn calories, you've lost the plot. It's far easier, less time consuming, less stressful and potentially less damaging not to eat the calories in the first place than it is to try and burn them off by spending hours per week 'doing something' that actually yields very few positive benefits in terms of alterations to body composition or improved health.
I dispute this.
I don't think it's easier to go on a reduced calorie diet. I would never want to be on a reduced calorie diet, it would make life more difficult and less enjoyable.
I also disagree that exercising has few positive benefits - it makes you feel good, if nothing else! Not to mention relieving stress, improving your lung function etc etc.
You might be happy limiting your diet and killing yourself in the gym, but there's more than one way to a healthy, attractive looking body - and it's up to the individual to decide what for them, is the best way to go about it.
weighed myself on Monday morning and i have lost just under a stone. so i am really pleased, been getting on with the gym routine and added in some cardio to my routine.
Been sticking to the diet, but within my "student" lifestyle its quite hard to avoid alcohol, but i have been making sure this is under control and only one night a week, i know this will set back my progress but it's a part of my culture!
cheers for the feedback, and to gary internet for long windily answering my question on cv!
I don't think it's easier to go on a reduced calorie diet. I would never want to be on a reduced calorie diet, it would make life more difficult and less enjoyable.
I find it easier to keep track of what I eat. I find it physically easier than exercise but also psychologically easier. Forcing myself to go running or cycling when I don't really want to.
I don't see how you can lose fat without a reduce calorie diet, cardio or no cardio. If you were eating maintenance calories and create your caloric deficit through cardio alone, you'd have to run yourself ragged. You'd also have no idea how many calories you were burning. Imagine trying to cycle calories by doing varying amounts of cardio instead of weighing and measuring food and controlling the diet side of things. How would you know what was going on?
If you find it hard to be disciplined with your eating you'll never like the concept of losing body fat. It's not fun, but if you want abs, you have to sacrifice something. But I'm aware you don't rate abs, you'd rather have a big upper body. That's fine. But the door swings both ways. There will be a point in the quest for muscular size when you may become sick of eating. Not sick of eating so little, but sick of eating so much. I can cope psychologically with having to eat healthy and eat less. I can cope far better than when I have to force feed myself. You may well be different.
PV wrote:
I also disagree that exercising has few positive benefits - it makes you feel good, if nothing else! Not to mention relieving stress, improving your lung function etc etc.
If want to feel good, there are plenty of other things that I can do. Regarding lung function, fitness is not the same as health. Yes there is some overlap, but the amount of cardio need to boost health is minimal as far as both duration and frequency of cardio is concerned. You can get more than enough cardio to boost health this from weight training if you perform your routines in a certain way.
The mainstream would have you believe that because some cardio is good, more is better. That's where I disagree.
PV wrote:
You might be happy limiting your diet and killing yourself in the gym, but there's more than one way to a healthy, attractive looking body - and it's up to the individual to decide what for them, is the best way to go about it.
Killing myself in the gym would amount to no more than 45 minutes, 3 times a week. I could get by on 20 minutes twice a week, no problems. Not an easy, comfortable 20 minutes, but still only 20 minutes.
I'm just after the safest most time efficient way of doing things. If someone wishes to run or lift weights every day of the week, the can knock themselves out. They could get the same results in less time.
