Question about P90X

[lennon3]

Both P90X and insanity are awesome workouts. Insanity is more cardio and involves no extra equipment. All you really need for p90x was some dumbells and a pull up bar, which you can get for pretty cheap. P90X is definitely more time consuming as when you get into the second month your working out upwards two or more hours a day.

I've seen people on other message boards that have created a hybrid version which I think would be awesome to try since they are both good workouts.

Also the message board I always used for them was Workout Videos & Home Fitness Programs - Beachbody.com and they have forums for both insanity and p90x.

 

[im4cyclones]

Done both Insanity and p90x. As others have said, Insanity is more cardio. The cardio in p90x isn't it's strength, in my opinion. That being said, I like it better personally because I like the lifting exercises.

The best thing I did was download a diet tracking app for my iPod. There are a lot of free ones out there. I record everything I eat and by that change alone (no change in exercise), I have dropped 12 pounds since Christmas. I never realized how all my snacks added up throughout the day. Now I see it. Make sure the app you download has a bar code scanner. Way easier.

 

[dmclone]

I did 1 round of Insanity, 1 round of P90x, and am now doing a hybrid of both. 3 days of P90x weights and 2 days of Insanity.

Make sure you wear a heart rate monitor when doing Insanity. I get to some scary levels.

 

[Gunnerclone]

Insanity is insane

 

[Gunnerclone]

I always go on a strict NO carb diet and do P90X starting about this time for summer awesome bodyness. I smell like **** from the ketosis but my calves just look soooooo gggoooooodddddd.

 

[3TrueFans]

Not necessarily. When I decided to lose weight, I needed to eat more, because I wasn't eating on a steady schedule. I went from one real meal each day to 3 balanced meals and dropped 50 pounds.

Sometimes, just eating less means that your metabolism slows down to hold onto what you did eat. Eating steadily is better than just eating less.

The whole eating more meals thing so you keep your metabolism up is mythtastic. Calories in vs. calories out.

 

[Clonefan94]

The whole eating more meals thing so you keep your metabolism up is mythtastic. Calories in vs. calories out.

This. Most of the time, eating 3 sensible meals can be better for you than one big meal a day, because a lot of times, if you add up what you are eating, you are taking in less calories on 3 meals a day. I did the one meal thing for a while, and found that I'd actually snack more during the day because I was always hungry. A few nuts here a bite of pizza there adds up and then I would justify a giant meal at dinner because I wasn't eating anything all day.

Eating 3 sensible meals worked out a lot better for me. It's calorie count not how much you actually eat. It's why sugar is so bad. You are usually getting a meals worth of calories in a small snack.

 

[flander1649]

Yeah, but some people, like me, won't push themselves without someone telling them too. I would never do at the gym what I do with Horton or Shaun T telling me to do it. That makes a difference for me.







No equipment, that's the best part. Like I said it's a lot of cardio and a little bit of strength and flexibility. Listen, the ab workout is 16 minnutes and has no crunches or sittups. Most of the stuff isn't hard to do and I'm clumsy. I just really like it.

You sound a little like me to a lesser extent. I'm 6'1 and I stepped on a scale a year ago to see 270. So, I spent some time on the eliptical, ate better, lifted and now I'm down to 220. I started Insanity three weeks ago at probably 225 or so. Like I said, with Insanity, they don't make you feel bad for not killing yourself. They are constantly telling you to take breaks when needed and know your boundries. Are you going to get the max out of it right away? No, but I don't know how else to get there quicker. I did P90X a few years ago and there just wasn't the cardio push.

This is the biggest thing. Last July I was at 317 I weighed in yesterday at 233. I started going to the gym and about 4 or 5 days a week. I spent time on the eliptical, bike, stairs and lifted a few days for about an hour total. I also started eating better and less.

I still drank when I wanted and had a few un-heathly meals here and there because once your body gets it's metabolism going it can handle your guilty pleasures. I did limit my heavier beers but have them in moderation.

 

[Senolcyc]

Agreed. Insanity>P90x

Linsanity>Insanity.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

The whole eating more meals thing so you keep your metabolism up is mythtastic. Calories in vs. calories out.

Actually, those are the largely the same concepts.

The mantra "calories in vs calories out" requires some type of duration of time. Eating less calories more frequently better matches supply and demand, which when facotring in fluctuating metabolism, will give many people better weight loss results then the mindset "calories in vs calories out". For example, if you eat 2000 calories "a day", you are likely to have a deficit for the day, but also a surplus around your meal that to some bodies may signal fat storage. Then when fasting for the next 23+ hours, your body will be fasted into ultra efficient starvation mode.

If your goals are akin to a 14 year-old girl, your starvation plan and only "calories in vs out" mindset can work. However, it will not bring as good of results in terms of weight-loss, and especially body composition, as eating the calories spread throughout the day. 3-4 meals is sufficient for most, which is what the poster suggested.

Personal anecdote, for lean muscle growth I have had the best results with having my first 1500 an hour with-in lifting (500 an hour before, 50 right before, 500 right after lifting, 450 an hour after last weight). Equates to 1500 calories over 3-4 hours. I then have another 1500 calories spread throughout the day, 200 calories every two hours, except around my cardio, when I use the extra 300 calories before and after as needed.

 

[Gonzo]

If you go p90, just rotate between plyo and cardio. If you're not dead, the weight'll come off.

 

[3TrueFans]

Actually, those are the largely the same concepts.

The mantra "calories in vs calories out" requires some type of duration of time. Eating less calories more frequently better matches supply and demand, which when facotring in fluctuating metabolism, will give many people better weight loss results then the mindset "calories in vs calories out". For example, if you eat 2000 calories "a day", you are likely to have a deficit for the day, but also a surplus around your meal that to some bodies may signal fat storage. Then when fasting for the next 23+ hours, your body will be fasted into ultra efficient starvation mode.

If your goals are akin to a 14 year-old girl, your starvation plan and only "calories in vs out" mindset can work. However, it will not bring as good of results in terms of weight-loss, and especially body composition, as eating the calories spread throughout the day. 3-4 meals is sufficient for most, which is what the poster suggested.

Personal anecdote, for lean muscle growth I have had the best results with having my first 1500 an hour with-in lifting (500 an hour before, 50 right before, 500 right after lifting, 450 an hour after last weight). Equates to 1500 calories over 3-4 hours. I then have another 1500 calories spread throughout the day, 200 calories every two hours, except around my cardio, when I use the extra 300 calories before and after as needed.

How is calories in vs. calories out a "starvation plan"?

The need to eat more meals throughout the day to increase your metabolism and lose more weight is old science.

 

[Gonzo]

Not necessarily. When I decided to lose weight, I needed to eat more, because I wasn't eating on a steady schedule. I went from one real meal each day to 3 balanced meals and dropped 50 pounds.

Sometimes, just eating less means that your metabolism slows down to hold onto what you did eat. Eating steadily is better than just eating less.

I've always heard this, but then I watch Survivor and see all the fatties on there lose tons of weight eating nothing but tiny portions of bugs and rice. Starvation mode seems to work for them.

 

[ChrisMWilliams]

I own both products and admittedly do not use either the way they are supposed to. I did the P90X thing last year and while it helped and I got results, I also got bored to tears with it.

What I've been doing lately is making up a workout schedule on Sunday night for the entire coming week and making a vow to stick to it no matter what. I'll schedule P90X on days that I don't think I'll be too busy and insanity on my crazy days. On weekends, I just jog outside.

By no means do I look like the people in the videos but it works for me.

 

[3TrueFans]

If you eat less calories than you burn it is physically impossible to not lose weight. It might not all be fat if you eat too little, but you will lose weight.

 

[cyhiphopp]

Coincidentaly, I just ordered Insanity yesterday. Here are some of the reasons I decided to invest in it.

I got it cheaper than from the infomercial by buying it off e-bay.
Not having to have extra equipment is big for me.
The thing with Insanity that is an improvement over other workout plans, is that there are a LOT of different DVDs. By changing up the routine, you aren't supposed to hit that plateau as hard.
I'm the type of person that does better when someone is pushing me. I've worked out at a gym by myself and after a while, I ended up doing a small variety of lifts and not really pushing myself.
Insanity works because it is hard as ****. I've seen some clips of guys about my size doing some of the vids and they are dying. However, you can survive by taking breaks as you need to. The exercises are hard as hell, but you do only as much as you can and then build up to being able to do them all full out. The instructor Shaun T is ridiculously ripped and on the videos, he even gets winded.
I've done other workout videos with varying success. They worked for a while, until I hit a wall and got frustrated or bored and stopped. Other videos don't have the variety or the intensity.


Right now I am 6'2 240. Last summer, through diet and exercise I got down to 211 and then gained it all back. I could try just doing any old exercise and some dieting and get on the same cycle, but if I commit to Insanity, I think I will get faster results.
After ordering the program last night I found the Insanity Fit test online.
It is a set of 8 excercises. The test is to do each excercise as many times as you can in 1 minute. The excercises are fairly simple, but they use a lot of muscles. After doing each of the 1 minute excercise sets (with breaks in between) I was more tired than doing one of my other 45 minute excercise videos. If I'm that beat just from the fit test, then I get the feeling that I will get results from the videos.

 

[CycloneErik]

This. Most of the time, eating 3 sensible meals can be better for you than one big meal a day, because a lot of times, if you add up what you are eating, you are taking in less calories on 3 meals a day. I did the one meal thing for a while, and found that I'd actually snack more during the day because I was always hungry. A few nuts here a bite of pizza there adds up and then I would justify a giant meal at dinner because I wasn't eating anything all day.

Eating 3 sensible meals worked out a lot better for me. It's calorie count not how much you actually eat. It's why sugar is so bad. You are usually getting a meals worth of calories in a small snack.

You said "this" and then argued the opposite point. Did I read that wrong?

 

[cyhiphopp]

If you eat less calories than you burn it is physically impossible to not lose weight. It might not all be fat if you eat too little, but you will lose weight.

This is true.

However, your body will burn fat and you will lose wieght more efficiently if you spread those calories out over the day.

It's all about how your body works. Your body doesn't burn calories just 2 or 3 times a day when you eat. It is constantly burning calories. If you eat a few couple meals and then fast in between, your body starts to burn calories and fat at inefficient rates. When you are fasting, your body will slow down it's metabolism to conserve energy because it thinks you aren't going to eat any more. Then, when you eat your big meals, it will try and store up the energy. That's why sometimes you feel really sluggish after a big meal and drained during the big stretches of time in between meals.


If you eat the same amount of calories, but spread them out over the day, your body has food to digest more often and wont freak out like during a fast. Your metabolism should burn at a more consistent rate.

Then, if you introduce an excercise regimen, it ramps up your calorie burning but your body still has that consistent supply of total calories. It is advised that you have a post workout recovery drink, be it a protien shake or whatever. I read that just drinking a glass of skim chocolate milk after a workout will put some nutrients, good calories, and protien into your system.

I'm starting a diet of eating smaller meals, with a couple of health snack in between. I'll take in a modest amount of calories in the entire day, but by spreading them out, my stomach never feels completely empty and my body always has something to burn and should keep my metabolism up.

 

[nhclone]

Actually, those are the largely the same concepts.

The mantra "calories in vs calories out" requires some type of duration of time. Eating less calories more frequently better matches supply and demand, which when facotring in fluctuating metabolism, will give many people better weight loss results then the mindset "calories in vs calories out". For example, if you eat 2000 calories "a day", you are likely to have a deficit for the day, but also a surplus around your meal that to some bodies may signal fat storage. Then when fasting for the next 23+ hours, your body will be fasted into ultra efficient starvation mode.

If your goals are akin to a 14 year-old girl, your starvation plan and only "calories in vs out" mindset can work. However, it will not bring as good of results in terms of weight-loss, and especially body composition, as eating the calories spread throughout the day. 3-4 meals is sufficient for most, which is what the poster suggested.

There's no measurable change in metabolism for a normal human being over a days time due to variations in eating habits. Your macronutrient intake and workouts will be the deciding factor in your body composition during weightloss. The frequency of meals is largely irrelevant.

 

[3TrueFans]

This is true.

However, your body will burn fat and you will lose wieght more efficiently if you spread those calories out over the day.

It's all about how your body works. Your body doesn't burn calories just 2 or 3 times a day when you eat. It is constantly burning calories. If you eat a few couple meals and then fast in between, your body starts to burn calories and fat at inefficient rates. When you are fasting, your body will slow down it's metabolism to conserve energy because it thinks you aren't going to eat any more. Then, when you eat your big meals, it will try and store up the energy. That's why sometimes you feel really sluggish after a big meal and drained during the big stretches of time in between meals.


If you eat the same amount of calories, but spread them out over the day, your body has food to digest more often and wont freak out like during a fast. Your metabolism should burn at a more consistent rate.

Then, if you introduce an excercise regimen, it ramps up your calorie burning but your body still has that consistent supply of total calories. It is advised that you have a post workout recovery drink, be it a protien shake or whatever. I read that just drinking a glass of skim chocolate milk after a workout will put some nutrients, good calories, and protien into your system.

I'm starting a diet of eating smaller meals, with a couple of health snack in between. I'll take in a modest amount of calories in the entire day, but by spreading them out, my stomach never feels completely empty and my body always has something to burn and should keep my metabolism up.

That's not what this says

Increased meal frequency does not promo - PubMed Mobile

We conclude that increasing Meal Frequency does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.