training/weight loss supplements help

[Terminator666]

It is something i will get done at my local gym-There's a guy there who does it and i still have plenty of fat to get rid of.

I think i could possibly make the super feather limit LOL.

[TempleSlave]

If I can also suggest something: hi-protein, low carb (I mean starchy carbs) diet is considered more effective and healthier than low fat one. It will also promote lean muscle tissue and overall health and well-being.

[Terminator666]

It is something iam loooking at now but i went on a low fat diet originally as fat contains more then twice the amount of calories as protein and carbs so you can possibly end up taking on too many calories. I find also i can put more on a plate when it's not took up with fat calories but i incorporate lean chicken/ham and mincemeat for protein.

[TempleSlave]

The choice pretty much entirely depends on whether you like meat/fish and veggies enough to eat them more, at expense of starches (bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, all flour products). If you do like them, then you're lucky: meat and veg diet + exercise (ideally intense weight training + short and intense CV work) will inevitably make you healthy, strong and lean. The only exception would be if you were endurance athlete training many hours a day or if you were doing hard physical work (ie. demolition, digging) every day. In this case you'd need (some) starches. Otherwise, carbohydrates obtained from veg and fruit should be enough.
Calorie counting can be misleading. There were studies in which people were divided into different groups. Can't remember details but for sure one group had 60% carbs in their diet, another had just 30 or 35%. Even though both diets contained equal amount of calories (I think it was sth like 1800/day), the carb group lost much less (maybe 1/3) then the other group. Conclusion: calorie doesn't equal calorie.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

It is strange though as in China - the people there eat a very carb laden diet with very little protein. They eat a rice and noodle heavy diet with little bits of fish, meat and vegetables and most of them are very slim.

What is starting to make the Chinese fat is the introduction of western fast food. I am not a food scientist (I fornicating should be as I study and eat enough food) but when I think of Asia and what they eat and the amount they eat - I come to the conclusion that 'carbs are bad' is a myth also.

[TempleSlave]

It is strange though as in China - the people there eat a very carb laden diet with very little protein. They eat a rice and noodle heavy diet with little bits of fish, meat and vegetables and most of them are very slim.

What is starting to make the Chinese fat is the introduction of western fast food. I am not a food scientist (I effing should be as I study and eat enough food) but when I think of Asia and what they eat and the amount they eat - I come to the conclusion that 'carbs are bad' is a myth also.

I don't know the exact macroelemental proportions in traditional Chinese cuisine so won't argue here. I'm sure there exist some good explanation to that. It can be racial. Far-east Asian races were also not growing very tall (at least until recently) and not very stocky/muscular. On the other hand black people have generally more often tendencies to be overweight/obese but also more muscular. However one should be careful here as Africa is meant to be genetically very diverse.
Anyway - the questions 'why?' will be probably best answered by antropologist or nutritionist of which I am none. What I know for sure though, as a health and fitness professional, is that when I make my client ditch the grains (not carbs!) and up their protein and veg intake, the result is that they become leaner quickly. They also start feeling better, in many different aspects.
Also, there exist quite a few books on the topic, in case you're interested.

[GAV]

Losing weight over a period of time comes down to the simple matter of burning off more calories than you intake during a day/week/month/year.

To say that eating more fats will help you burn more fat is nonsense. Also, saying that eating starchy carbs will make you put on weight is nonsense.

It is possible to eat only junk food, doughnuts, cakes, and mars bars during a day and lose weight. The trick is not to eat them in such a quantity that puts you in a calorie positive state at the end of the day. Professor Mark Haub ate nothing but crap and lost just shy of 2-stone in 10-weeks. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rob-lyo ... 45288.html

Now, while Professor Haub showed that this type of food did not have a negative effect on his health, it has been shown in many other studies that continued consumption of foods of this nature will lead to health problems. The reason Prof. Haub did not see negatives was because his body was benefitting from the weight loss.

Your diet does not have to be "healthy" it has to be balanced. In that, it needs to have the correct ratio of protein, carbohydrate and fat. It is better to get Carbohydrate from starch than from sugars because that will prevent rapid insulin spikes in your blood sugar. Saturated fat is ok in your diet but should be no more than 10% of your dietary intake of fat.

[TempleSlave]

Losing weight over a period of time comes down to the simple matter of burning off more calories than you intake during a day/week/month/year.

To say that eating more fats will help you burn more fat is nonsense. Also, saying that eating starchy carbs will make you put on weight is nonsense.

It is possible to eat only junk food, doughnuts, cakes, and mars bars during a day and lose weight. The trick is not to eat them in such a quantity that puts you in a calorie positive state at the end of the day. Professor Mark Haub ate nothing but crap and lost just shy of 2-stone in 10-weeks. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rob-lyo ... 45288.html

Now, while Professor Haub showed that this type of food did not have a negative effect on his health, it has been shown in many other studies that continued consumption of foods of this nature will lead to health problems. The reason Prof. Haub did not see negatives was because his body was benefitting from the weight loss.

Your diet does not have to be "healthy" it has to be balanced. In that, it needs to have the correct ratio of protein, carbohydrate and fat. It is better to get Carbohydrate from starch than from sugars because that will prevent rapid insulin spikes in your blood sugar. Saturated fat is ok in your diet but should be no more than 10% of your dietary intake of fat.

Just one quote from your 'highly scientific' article:
'There's nothing particular to processed or convenience food that makes it unhealthy.'


I honestly suggest you do some serious reading dude. Someone may actually think you're right and get into serious health problems.

[GAV]

Losing weight over a period of time comes down to the simple matter of burning off more calories than you intake during a day/week/month/year.

To say that eating more fats will help you burn more fat is nonsense. Also, saying that eating starchy carbs will make you put on weight is nonsense.

It is possible to eat only junk food, doughnuts, cakes, and mars bars during a day and lose weight. The trick is not to eat them in such a quantity that puts you in a calorie positive state at the end of the day. Professor Mark Haub ate nothing but crap and lost just shy of 2-stone in 10-weeks. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rob-lyo ... 45288.html

Now, while Professor Haub showed that this type of food did not have a negative effect on his health, it has been shown in many other studies that continued consumption of foods of this nature will lead to health problems. The reason Prof. Haub did not see negatives was because his body was benefitting from the weight loss.

Your diet does not have to be "healthy" it has to be balanced. In that, it needs to have the correct ratio of protein, carbohydrate and fat. It is better to get Carbohydrate from starch than from sugars because that will prevent rapid insulin spikes in your blood sugar. Saturated fat is ok in your diet but should be no more than 10% of your dietary intake of fat.

Just one quote from your 'highly scientific' article:
'There's nothing particular to processed or convenience food that makes it unhealthy.'


I honestly suggest you do some serious reading dude. Someone may actually think you're right and get into serious health problems.

I never said the article was scientific. I was just linking it so people didn't think a story about being able to lose weight eating crap was something I had just made up.

If you do some reading of my post you'll find I state that this type of food WILL lead to health problems through continued consumption.

Just for the record, I've done plenty of reading thanks, and writing for that matter too. Thats what affords me the opportunity to work with the professional athletes I do and to educate people on matters such as nutrition.

I suggest you learn to understand what has been written before you start trying to question the knowledge of people you know nothing about.

[ushnikov]

Hi-Just to say i have lost 38 pounds in the last 4 and a half months--I was 13.9 and am now 10.13 and still losing weight.

I have done this by cutting calories down to around 1800-1900 most days and a low fat diet. Also doing a lot more exercise then before.

Great stuff!!

I am interested in your training volume.

I have been trying to go from 15.00 to 12.00 this year but got stuck at 14.00 stone.

Did 19st to 12st a few years ago using eat less and moving a lot more but this time it seems more difficult as finding it hard to fit in the required training volume.

Only aiming for 1lb a week and after reading this thread I have switched to one carb free day a week and it seems to have some effect. Doesn't feel right though!

[Terminator666]

Hi- Running twice a week for 35- 40 minutes followed by 50 minutes in the gym doing mainly upper body exercises (not too heavy)

Twice a week running for 35 mins to an hour followed by some sit ups and stretching.

Every day walk for around 2 and a half hours a day though not all at once.

I'm trying to build some basic fitness and stick with it so on days when i'm tired or not in the mood make sure to do something even if it's not quite as much.

BTW I'm 44 if that maakes any difference.

[GAV]

Hi-Just to say i have lost 38 pounds in the last 4 and a half months--I was 13.9 and am now 10.13 and still losing weight.

I have done this by cutting calories down to around 1800-1900 most days and a low fat diet. Also doing a lot more exercise then before.

Congratulations on the weight-loss. That is a fantastic amount to have lost in a relatively short period of time. By the sound of your exercise and diet plan you have been going about it the right way so keep it up!

Do you have a target weight?

Only aiming for 1lb a week

1lb if body weight is equal to approximately 3500 calories. The general advice for someone looking to lose 1lb a week is to eat 500 calories less than they expend each day. 500cals x 7days = 3500 cals a week.

If you use this Total Energy Expenditure calculator http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy- ... e-advanced and enter your age, height, weight and modify the dials for sleeping and levels of activity then you should get a calorie value for the day.
Subtract 500 calories from the Total Energy Expenditure value and that is how much you should be eating each day to lose 1lb in a week.

[Terminator666]

I'm guessing around 9.7 give or take but i'm not prepared to eat less to achieve that target, so thinking see how much i can lose on the current amount of calories i consume. I'l probably re-evaluate things down the line though.

[GAV]

I'm guessing around 9.7 give or take but i'm not prepared to eat less to achieve that target, so thinking see how much i can lose on the current amount of calories i consume. I'l probably re-evaluate things down the line though.

That sounds like the right idea. Congratualtions again on the weight loss

[TempleSlave]

Losing weight over a period of time comes down to the simple matter of burning off more calories than you intake during a day/week/month/year.

To say that eating more fats will help you burn more fat is nonsense. Also, saying that eating starchy carbs will make you put on weight is nonsense.

It is possible to eat only junk food, doughnuts, cakes, and mars bars during a day and lose weight. The trick is not to eat them in such a quantity that puts you in a calorie positive state at the end of the day. Professor Mark Haub ate nothing but crap and lost just shy of 2-stone in 10-weeks. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rob-lyo ... 45288.html

Now, while Professor Haub showed that this type of food did not have a negative effect on his health, it has been shown in many other studies that continued consumption of foods of this nature will lead to health problems. The reason Prof. Haub did not see negatives was because his body was benefitting from the weight loss.

Your diet does not have to be "healthy" it has to be balanced. In that, it needs to have the correct ratio of protein, carbohydrate and fat. It is better to get Carbohydrate from starch than from sugars because that will prevent rapid insulin spikes in your blood sugar. Saturated fat is ok in your diet but should be no more than 10% of your dietary intake of fat.

Just one quote from your 'highly scientific' article:
'There's nothing particular to processed or convenience food that makes it unhealthy.'


I honestly suggest you do some serious reading dude. Someone may actually think you're right and get into serious health problems.

I never said the article was scientific. I was just linking it so people didn't think a story about being able to lose weight eating crap was something I had just made up.

If you do some reading of my post you'll find I state that this type of food WILL lead to health problems through continued consumption.

Just for the record, I've done plenty of reading thanks, and writing for that matter too. Thats what affords me the opportunity to work with the professional athletes I do and to educate people on matters such as nutrition.

I suggest you learn to understand what has been written before you start trying to question the knowledge of people you know nothing about.

OK, so again:
There have been several studies conducted that proved that what you eat in terms of macro-elemental contents matters more than calorific value. Subjects divided into groups would get diets containing the same number of calories but of different proportions of macro-elements and results were very different. In all the studies the group fed diet richest in carbs would lose least weight.
Therefore your statement: 'Losing weight over a period of time comes down to the simple matter of burning off more calories than you intake during a day/week/month/year.' is FALSE.
Guess you don't even have to be professor to know that if you eat below your resting metabolic rate (RMR), then no matter what it is, will make you lose weight. French fries are horrible food but eat 5 of them a day and you'll get skinny in no time. The only problem with eating below your RMR it that as a long term result it will lower the RMR itself and contribute to more effective fat storing. Also, what you'll lose both if you eat below RMR and if proportions of macro-nutrients in your diet are inappropriate, will be muscle tissue. Neither are good thing for someone looking for long term body composition improvement.
You state: 'To say that eating more fats will help you burn more fat is nonsense. Also, saying that eating starchy carbs will make you put on weight is nonsense.'
However, if we connect those two and say: 'Eating more fats and no carbs will make lose weight' then we have true statement. Atkins' Diet proved it!
Now I'm far from advocating Atkins' Diet. But if you follow the simple principle of nutritional density of everything you eat, then starchy foods just don't fit in here. Carbohydrates you're getting from veggies and fruit are enough. If you train hard and want to maintain/increase fairly high lean muscle mass then you can also add 1-2 carb loading days a week. But that's it.

[GAV]

TempleSlave, I'm not on here to question your knowledge but you do need to interpret things better.

In all the studies the group fed diet richest in carbs would lose least weight.
Therefore your statement: 'Losing weight over a period of time comes down to the simple matter of burning off more calories than you intake during a day/week/month/year.' is FALSE.

My statement was that less in than out would result in weight loss. I never said it would optimise weight lost in a given time frame did I? So what I said was not false because it is element 1a of weight loss. More energy out, and less in results in weight loss. A TRUE statement the world over.

It is the very basics of weight loss, but it is far from all there is to it. To highlight this I gave an example of someone eating foods perceived as ones to make you pile on weight, in a calorie controlled manner, and losing weight. I then said that continued eating of foods of that nature will have long-term health consequences.

Guess you don't even have to be professor to know that if you eat below your resting metabolic rate (RMR), then no matter what it is, will make you lose weight. French fries are horrible food but eat 5 of them a day and you'll get skinny in no time. The only problem with eating below your RMR it that as a long term result it will lower the RMR itself and contribute to more effective fat storing. Also, what you'll lose both if you eat below RMR and if proportions of macro-nutrients in your diet are inappropriate, will be muscle tissue. Neither are good thing for someone looking for long term body composition improvement.

I have never stated to the contrary

You state: 'To say that eating more fats will help you burn more fat is nonsense. Also, saying that eating starchy carbs will make you put on weight is nonsense.'
However, if we connect those two and say: 'Eating more fats and no carbs will make lose weight' then we have true statement. Atkins' Diet proved it!

I addressed both statements individually as they were written. If someone had written the connection you had I would not have questioned that statement.

Now I'm far from advocating Atkins' Diet. But if you follow the simple principle of nutritional density of everything you eat, then starchy foods just don't fit in here. Carbohydrates you're getting from veggies and fruit are enough. If you train hard and want to maintain/increase fairly high lean muscle mass then you can also add 1-2 carb loading days a week. But that's it.

Starchy foods do not HAVE to be eliminated to promote healthy balanced weight loss to those seeking long-term health improvement. They also do not have to be rationed to 1-2 loaded days a week. You can eat them EVERYDAY in MODERATION.

Thank you for the post you made and teaching me all that I already know . I'm not on here having a go at your level of knowledge on any subject, because I can see that you do know your stuff. I will critiscise you for again not reading things clearly.

[TempleSlave]

TempleSlave, I'm not on here to question your knowledge but you do need to interpret things better.

In all the studies the group fed diet richest in carbs would lose least weight.
Therefore your statement: 'Losing weight over a period of time comes down to the simple matter of burning off more calories than you intake during a day/week/month/year.' is FALSE.

My statement was that less in than out would result in weight loss. I never said it would optimise weight lost in a given time frame did I? So what I said was not false because it is element 1a of weight loss. More energy out, and less in results in weight loss. A TRUE statement the world over.

It is the very basics of weight loss, but it is far from all there is to it. To highlight this I gave an example of someone eating foods perceived as ones to make you pile on weight, in a calorie controlled manner, and losing weight. I then said that continued eating of foods of that nature will have long-term health consequences.

Guess you don't even have to be professor to know that if you eat below your resting metabolic rate (RMR), then no matter what it is, will make you lose weight. French fries are horrible food but eat 5 of them a day and you'll get skinny in no time. The only problem with eating below your RMR it that as a long term result it will lower the RMR itself and contribute to more effective fat storing. Also, what you'll lose both if you eat below RMR and if proportions of macro-nutrients in your diet are inappropriate, will be muscle tissue. Neither are good thing for someone looking for long term body composition improvement.

I have never stated to the contrary

You state: 'To say that eating more fats will help you burn more fat is nonsense. Also, saying that eating starchy carbs will make you put on weight is nonsense.'
However, if we connect those two and say: 'Eating more fats and no carbs will make lose weight' then we have true statement. Atkins' Diet proved it!

I addressed both statements individually as they were written. If someone had written the connection you had I would not have questioned that statement.

Now I'm far from advocating Atkins' Diet. But if you follow the simple principle of nutritional density of everything you eat, then starchy foods just don't fit in here. Carbohydrates you're getting from veggies and fruit are enough. If you train hard and want to maintain/increase fairly high lean muscle mass then you can also add 1-2 carb loading days a week. But that's it.

Starchy foods do not HAVE to be eliminated to promote healthy balanced weight loss to those seeking long-term health improvement. They also do not have to be rationed to 1-2 loaded days a week. You can eat them EVERYDAY in MODERATION.

Thank you for the post you made and teaching me all that I already know . I'm not on here having a go at your level of knowledge on any subject, because I can see that you do know your stuff. I will critiscise you for again not reading things clearly.

OK, no worries dude. I do admit I may have been a bit extreme in my judgement and approach and maybe made a few far-fetched assumptions. Just had a feeling that you relativise things too much in your posts which gave a picture that was a bit unclear ;;-)

Oh, and I really swear by no grain diet! I'm having great results with my clients who follow it - they are becoming leaner and stronger really fast.
Myself, when I was still eating grain foods I could never go below 10% body fat without compromising muscle mass. Also I would have a few really annoying energy slumps during the day. Now I'm 8,5%, only supplementing with protein shakes and if I go for some fat loss aimed supplement protocol I think I could drop to 7%. Recently I actually put on lean 2 kg in 4 weeks, just by increasing my protein intake. I'm carb-loading once a week. In terms of energy levels I feel really great throughout the day even though I train quite hard: usually 7 intense weight sessions + 3 boxing workouts every week.

[Terminator666]

Templeslave-Out of interest, do you know roughly how many calories you consume a day in the diet you mention--Including any supplements?

[ushnikov]

Aware about the 3500 calories and 3500/7 = 500 less calories per day but that is very dependent on knowing exactly what is your personal daily calorific requirement. Personally I don't lose weight on 1800 calories per day.

My previous weight loss (95lbs) was based around cycling for long periods per week 6-10 hours or as much as I possibly could.

Time is sometimes constrained these days and I was hoping there was a way I could trick my metabolism hence the interest in the restriction of starchy carbs. Probably best to hedge my bets though so off for a 2 hour bike ride now.

Read this the other day which I was interesting but the example of 38lbs in 4.5 months shows that this is not always the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14882832

[GAV]

Oh, and I really swear by no grain diet! I'm having great results with my clients who follow it - they are becoming leaner and stronger really fast.
Myself, when I was still eating grain foods I could never go below 10% body fat without compromising muscle mass. Also I would have a few really annoying energy slumps during the day. Now I'm 8,5%, only supplementing with protein shakes and if I go for some fat loss aimed supplement protocol I think I could drop to 7%. Recently I actually put on lean 2 kg in 4 weeks, just by increasing my protein intake. I'm carb-loading once a week. In terms of energy levels I feel really great throughout the day even though I train quite hard: usually 7 intense weight sessions + 3 boxing workouts every week.

No problem. I get accused of being a bit grandiloquent at times so I like to try and keep things brief when I can. Obviously when discussing weight loss and any other aspect of nutrition I should really have covered all the bases.

I've tried quite a few different types of diets in the past. Mainly because I don't like to advise people on the matter of something I haven't tried myself. That's why I almost cried when you mentioned Atkins. I tried Atkins for a month and spent the last 2 weeks of that month as a cranky zombie. I could only stay awake for about 4 hours at a time. It was quite funny thinking back.

I have yet to try a no grain approach but I think from your recommendation I will make it my next experimental phase. Are you following the Dr. Mercola outline or have you just modified your own version?

[TempleSlave]

Oh, and I really swear by no grain diet! I'm having great results with my clients who follow it - they are becoming leaner and stronger really fast.
Myself, when I was still eating grain foods I could never go below 10% body fat without compromising muscle mass. Also I would have a few really annoying energy slumps during the day. Now I'm 8,5%, only supplementing with protein shakes and if I go for some fat loss aimed supplement protocol I think I could drop to 7%. Recently I actually put on lean 2 kg in 4 weeks, just by increasing my protein intake. I'm carb-loading once a week. In terms of energy levels I feel really great throughout the day even though I train quite hard: usually 7 intense weight sessions + 3 boxing workouts every week.

No problem. I get accused of being a bit grandiloquent at times so I like to try and keep things brief when I can. Obviously when discussing weight loss and any other aspect of nutrition I should really have covered all the bases.

I've tried quite a few different types of diets in the past. Mainly because I don't like to advise people on the matter of something I haven't tried myself. That's why I almost cried when you mentioned Atkins. I tried Atkins for a month and spent the last 2 weeks of that month as a cranky zombie. I could only stay awake for about 4 hours at a time. It was quite funny thinking back.

I have yet to try a no grain approach but I think from your recommendation I will make it my next experimental phase. Are you following the Dr. Mercola outline or have you just modified your own version?

Actually, until now I've never followed any particular fixed diet as none of them so far presented convincing evidence to support its premises. I've always liked to test things (on myself first), collect experiences and use the ones that bring good results and make me feel good.
I'm eating 5-6 medium size protein and veg rich meals a day + 1 night time protein shake + 1 protein shake after each weight session.
Regarding what to eat I try as much as I can stick to Paleo Diet rules. But then again it's probably because even before I came across Loren Cordain's book, I was already quite close to eating this way. More on P.D. here:
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html
Caveman legends aside, the principle that everything you eat must present certain nutritional density sounds scientific and is convincing for me. Also I like the fact that it is not some kind of freaky diet you need to do in phases but you can simply carry on with it for life. Of course it's quite hard to follow P.D. 100% unless you don't mind to double your veg and triple your meat bill. In P.D. you're supposed to eat everything organic and your meat ideally should also be grass-fed. Simply organic meat is not good enough because if the animals were fed (even organic) grains then that makes you indirectly a grain-eater.
I do admit that it's probably not for everyone. If you don't like meat/poultry/fish enough but you love your pasta, then it can be hard. On the other hand, when you give it a go and experience benefits - improved health, mood and body composition then this can provide enough motivation to carry on. Also there's always a place for cheat meal from time to time

[TempleSlave]

Templeslave-Out of interest, do you know roughly how many calories you consume a day in the diet you mention--Including any supplements?

Hah, the beauty of it is that as (according to my information an experience) the macro-elemental profile is more important than calorific contents, you don't really need to count calories.
1.You're eating a lot of hi protein foods (basically meat), and protein doesn't turn into body fat easily and energy-wise is quite costly for the body to digest.
2.You're eating loads of (preferably green) veggies - products very rich in micro-elements and fibre, containing on average 20-40kcal/100g - that'd be hard to over-eat
3.You're eating low G.I. fruit - medium portion with every meal - another nutritionally dense food
4.Seeds and nuts - high in calories but also nutritionally dense, rich in healthy fatty acids - when eaten in moderation and not accompanied by starch, won't make you put on weight

If you make sure you're getting your micro-elements and avoid nutritionally empty and fattening grain products or potatoes then you should be gradually achieving your desired lean physique. It may happen quite rapidly or more gradually but if there's no change or it happens too slow, then you can start counting calories. Because you're eating many (5-6) small/medium meals it's easy to take some of ingredient that is high in calories off your every meal. This way you won't really notice the change in quantities whilst the overall change will be significant.

[TempleSlave]

Hi- Running twice a week for 35- 40 minutes followed by 50 minutes in the gym doing mainly upper body exercises (not too heavy)

Twice a week running for 35 mins to an hour followed by some sit ups and stretching.

Every day walk for around 2 and a half hours a day though not all at once.

I'm trying to build some basic fitness and stick with it so on days when i'm tired or not in the mood make sure to do something even if it's not quite as much.

BTW I'm 44 if that maakes any difference.

Great level of activity.
If I could suggest something, then if you want to make it more effective for fat loss, consider following adjustments:
-do your RT (weights) first, then cardio - proven to promote better results gains from both (RT&CV) components of your workout
-do your weight training with free weights and do it hard - go for failure in each set after up to 12 (upper body) or 15 (lower body) reps
-superset lower and upper body
-make your cardio sessions shorter (up to 20 mins) and more intense - ideally sprint intervals - for the start something like 2mins moderate/30sec fast, then you can progress by shortening the moderate part
-make sure the whole session is not more than 60 mins long

Good luck!

[Old bones Ian]

Well i've just been watching the american show Cops, and by the looks of it the best weight lose supplement over there is Methamphetamine

[Brute]

When I was a child Ford Pills were advertised as a good way to lose weight.

They were a powerful laxative.