Drinks
Aside from a fact I think we can all acknowledge, which is when you are drinking you tend to eat more, drinks by themselves are a diet killer. You can assume between 150to 175 calories for the average drink. That’s at least 300 wasted calories for the day in just two drinks. Liquids also don’t register in the body in the same way as food does, as a feeling of fullness.
Frozen margarita 246 calories
Margarita on the rocks 182 calories
Long Island iced tea 275 calories
Vodka Tonic: 175 calories
Martini: 175 calories
Champagne: 160 calories
Best Bets:
Bloody Mary 115 calories (5oz)
Light Beer 100 calories (12oz)
White Wine 120 calories (6oz)
Red Wine 130 calories (5oz)
Just as last week’s diet killer #1: EATING OUT showed, drinks are offsetting your progress. Am I suggesting never to have a drink, not at all, but you have to acknowledge what is helping and hurting your progress. On days you may have a drink keep your calories in-line including drinks and stay on track with your exercise.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
TOP FIVE Diet Killers! 1 of 5
Diet Killers
#1 Eating Out
A study published in Reviews of Agricultural Economics showed that both fast food and table service meals feature more calories than the food prepared at home.
The average fast food meal contains 500 calories but, fast food meals are smaller, and have less calories than an average meal from a restaurant. If you are eating out, even fewer calories in healthier choices are likely to be offset by the amount of food and drinks consumed.
Think about this: It takes 500 fewer calories per day to lose a pound in a week. Five hundred fewer calories is 3500 less calories per week or the equivalent of 1 pound of fat. Eating out just twice a week sets you back up to 4 days of calorie counting or more. If you eat out twice a week assume at least 500 calories over your goal. The next two days on track offset the two days out or bring you back to even. Now you have 3 days to get to a 3500 deficit to see ONE POUND loss on the scale or nearly 1200 fewer calories each of the three days. Is it any surprise that this doesn’t work and is a big reason why weight loss is a battle?
#1 Eating Out
A study published in Reviews of Agricultural Economics showed that both fast food and table service meals feature more calories than the food prepared at home.
The average fast food meal contains 500 calories but, fast food meals are smaller, and have less calories than an average meal from a restaurant. If you are eating out, even fewer calories in healthier choices are likely to be offset by the amount of food and drinks consumed.
Think about this: It takes 500 fewer calories per day to lose a pound in a week. Five hundred fewer calories is 3500 less calories per week or the equivalent of 1 pound of fat. Eating out just twice a week sets you back up to 4 days of calorie counting or more. If you eat out twice a week assume at least 500 calories over your goal. The next two days on track offset the two days out or bring you back to even. Now you have 3 days to get to a 3500 deficit to see ONE POUND loss on the scale or nearly 1200 fewer calories each of the three days. Is it any surprise that this doesn’t work and is a big reason why weight loss is a battle?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Wii FIT?
Is playing Wii really a fitness activity?
Docshop.com shared the experience of their reporter who(from the article she sounds to be a fit, probably younger woman) burned 180 calories in an active half hour playing Wii boxing, 170 calories playing Wii tennis for 30 minutes and 39 calories per half hour playing Wii bowling. The key here is an ACTIVE 30 minutes, its not sitting moving the remote for gentle racket play, its playing as you would competitively play the real game.
I think the real point here is anything can be fitness and burn calories which is approached as fitness. Strolling around the block after dinner three times a week is not a bad idea, but its not fitness. Deliberately going out and walking three mornings a week for exercise counts as fitness. The difference is approaching something as an exercise activity most likely increases the intensity of the activity and burns more calories.
What separates an activity considered exercise from any other activity is INTENSITY. For a cardio activity like walking, the goal is to increase your heart rate and keep that increased level for a sustained period of time, say 20 to 30 minutes, working the heart muscle, training it to become stronger and more efficient.
So is playing Wii exercise, absolutely, if its done intensely which most likely is not how it is played by anyone seeking to use it as their only exercise, but, included as part of an exercise routine, approached as exercise or with some intensity, I’d say its exercise, otherwise it is just fun, and that’s ok too.
PS - You can burn 44 calories in 30 minutes just sitting and reading too.
www.docshop.com
Docshop.com shared the experience of their reporter who(from the article she sounds to be a fit, probably younger woman) burned 180 calories in an active half hour playing Wii boxing, 170 calories playing Wii tennis for 30 minutes and 39 calories per half hour playing Wii bowling. The key here is an ACTIVE 30 minutes, its not sitting moving the remote for gentle racket play, its playing as you would competitively play the real game.
I think the real point here is anything can be fitness and burn calories which is approached as fitness. Strolling around the block after dinner three times a week is not a bad idea, but its not fitness. Deliberately going out and walking three mornings a week for exercise counts as fitness. The difference is approaching something as an exercise activity most likely increases the intensity of the activity and burns more calories.
What separates an activity considered exercise from any other activity is INTENSITY. For a cardio activity like walking, the goal is to increase your heart rate and keep that increased level for a sustained period of time, say 20 to 30 minutes, working the heart muscle, training it to become stronger and more efficient.
So is playing Wii exercise, absolutely, if its done intensely which most likely is not how it is played by anyone seeking to use it as their only exercise, but, included as part of an exercise routine, approached as exercise or with some intensity, I’d say its exercise, otherwise it is just fun, and that’s ok too.
PS - You can burn 44 calories in 30 minutes just sitting and reading too.
www.docshop.com
Saturday, August 8, 2009
FITNESS in a shoe?
MBT stands for Masai Barefoot Technology which is the leading brand of shoes marketed as having health and fitness benefits. According to About.com, the shoes are designed to simulate walking in sand.
Standard characteristics on these shoes (also sold as boots, sandals and sneakers) are layered, curved soles which create an uneven walking surface. This technology is meant to make the core strengthening muscles more active, creating better posture and increasing shock absorption for joints.
About.com also reports an interesting endorsement that the shoes have been used to train Olympians and other athletes.
Do they work?
Similar to working on a stability ball, these shoes very likely do force you to engage more stabilizing muscles in the body therefore working muscles you wouldn't normally work.
Similar to working with ankle weights, if your shoes are heavier you have to work harder (burn more calories) and use more muscles when walking in them. So do they force you to burn more calories? Probably more calories are burned but perhaps not in any significant way.
Maybe all of these benefits combined are valuable though. I wouldn't recommend these as a singular way to improve your fitness level or if you are on a budget but I really like the idea of using them as a tool during normal activities to increase the intensity of these activities.
You may have heard these shoes cost upward of $200 but in following the links on About.com to Footwear etc, there were offerings for around $150 or less, still a lot of money for a sneaker. Sketchers similar offerings are priced closer to $100 but look for the same quality in the sole as in other higher priced offerings.
According to walking.org, “Shape Ups make sense”, referring to the new sketchers line of “fitness shoes” because they, “make sure that the wearer is working their foot the way nature intended, but all while working the supporting muscles further up the body. So by optimizing the way we walk, Shape Ups also enhance the benefits of walking.” Walking.org also mentions that sketchers, like MBT “are recreating the effect of walking on soft sand.” We can assume that walking.org would also find the same benefits in similar shoes.
Want to try these out without the big expense? www.harrietcarter.com offers “exercise slippers” for only $15 and www.peltzshoes.com sells flip flops with a, “micro-wobbleboard effect” for $50 a pair.
www.about.com
www.footwearetc.com
www.walking.org
Standard characteristics on these shoes (also sold as boots, sandals and sneakers) are layered, curved soles which create an uneven walking surface. This technology is meant to make the core strengthening muscles more active, creating better posture and increasing shock absorption for joints.
About.com also reports an interesting endorsement that the shoes have been used to train Olympians and other athletes.
Do they work?
Similar to working on a stability ball, these shoes very likely do force you to engage more stabilizing muscles in the body therefore working muscles you wouldn't normally work.
Similar to working with ankle weights, if your shoes are heavier you have to work harder (burn more calories) and use more muscles when walking in them. So do they force you to burn more calories? Probably more calories are burned but perhaps not in any significant way.
Maybe all of these benefits combined are valuable though. I wouldn't recommend these as a singular way to improve your fitness level or if you are on a budget but I really like the idea of using them as a tool during normal activities to increase the intensity of these activities.
You may have heard these shoes cost upward of $200 but in following the links on About.com to Footwear etc, there were offerings for around $150 or less, still a lot of money for a sneaker. Sketchers similar offerings are priced closer to $100 but look for the same quality in the sole as in other higher priced offerings.
According to walking.org, “Shape Ups make sense”, referring to the new sketchers line of “fitness shoes” because they, “make sure that the wearer is working their foot the way nature intended, but all while working the supporting muscles further up the body. So by optimizing the way we walk, Shape Ups also enhance the benefits of walking.” Walking.org also mentions that sketchers, like MBT “are recreating the effect of walking on soft sand.” We can assume that walking.org would also find the same benefits in similar shoes.
Want to try these out without the big expense? www.harrietcarter.com offers “exercise slippers” for only $15 and www.peltzshoes.com sells flip flops with a, “micro-wobbleboard effect” for $50 a pair.
www.about.com
www.footwearetc.com
www.walking.org
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)