Fat loss - how to lose the bulge and gain the ripples

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Saulbadguy

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2003
5,573
10
81
I guess you didn't bother reading the article I posted, so you missed all the key points:

1. "It is well established from longitudinal studies of human starvation and semistarvation that weight loss is accompanied by a decrease in basal metabolicrate (BMR) greater than can be accounted for by the change in body weight or body composition." In other words, your BMR doesn't drop just because you are losing muscle mass, but simply because you are eating too little. Your body actually tries to prevent tissue loss by reducing your energy expenditure in a way you can't control. This is great from a survival perspective, but if weight loss is your goal, it is horrendously inefficient: with too big of a deficit, for every 100 calories that you struggle to cut from your diet, your body reduces its expenditure by 80!

2. Moreover, diets with too much of a caloric deficit are not only inefficient, but also include a ton of negative psychological and physiological effects: lethargy, obsession with food, constant hunger, depression, loss of sexual drive, and so on.

3. Finally, to add insult to injury, it is harder to maintain weight loss from a starvation diet because your metabolic rate may stay depressed: "resting metabolic rate of our obese subjects remained depressed after massive weight loss despite increased caloric consumption to a level that allowed body weight stabilization.”

So, yes, you certainly will lose weight if you starve yourself, but it is an extremely impractical, inefficient, unmaintainable and difficult way to do it.
I read it. I just don't think you hit the dreaded starvation mode by a couple days of fasting per week, or cutting your calories by 1000 off maintenance. IMO, it would take a more drastic diet than that to suffer the negative consequences of starvation mode.

In a nutshell - I think the danger is HYPED up beyond control, where every so called "fitness expert" warns me of not eating enough...when my whole problem is, I ate too damned much in the first place!
 

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
3
0
I just don't think you hit the dreaded starvation mode by a couple days of fasting per week, or cutting your calories by 1000 off maintenance. IMO, it would take a more drastic diet than that to suffer the negative consequences of starvation mode.
And you'd be wrong with your thinking.

In the Evidence for the existence of adaptive thermogenesis during weight loss study, the subjects maintained a deficit of ~700 Calories (2929 kJ), but after weight loss, their metabolism had dropped by 230 Calories/day (for men) OVER what would be expected from weight loss alone. So they are still a long way from the 1,000 calorie deficit you proclaim is safe and already their metabolism is decreasing purely due to changes in adaptive thermogenesis. 25% of the calories they are working hard to avoid eating are now no longer being burned by their body. And we know from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment study that as you continue to increase the deficit, this metabolic drop gets significantly worse. In that study, they dropped caloric deficit by 50%, from ~3200 calories per day to "approximately 1,560 calories per day". The result was "a 40% decline" in their metabolic rate, not to mention the "severe emotional distress," a drastic reduction in "sexual interest", "a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities" and so on.

In a nutshell - I think the danger is HYPED up beyond control, where every so called "fitness expert" warns me of not eating enough...when my whole problem is, I ate too damned much in the first place!
It's not hype. Making too drastic of a change in your diet is a road to failure for most dieters. It can be done successfully with constant medical supervision, but for the average Joe trying to lose the gut, it is impractical.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,484
16
81
To address this guy's ridiculous statements:

BMR has been proven in research to decrease in response to significant decreases in caloric intake. As brikis mentioned, a caloric deficit of even 700 calories can induce a significant decrease in BMR.

Also, there is research that shows some individuals are more able to waste calories as heat as surplus calories increase. This is variable among people, but nearly all individuals maintain the ability to calorie waste. Hard gainers, particularly ectomorphs, are resoundingly good at this. Even those they can increase their caloric intake 500-1000 calories per day above caloric need, they have a hard time gaining weight. That is because the BMR increases.

These are examples of ways how both environment and genetics dictate how the body adapts to caloric intake (whether too high or too low). How do you think Holocaust victims survived for so long with such little food? Their BMR crashed horrendously in response to starvation. This decrease in BMR is not an all-or-none phenomenon. It is a graded response to significantly reduced calories, as demonstrated by my article and brikis' articles.
 

Saulbadguy

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2003
5,573
10
81
I don't think we are too far apart on our line of thinking, here. I just get driven crazy by people telling me to eat more when i'm trying to lose 50+ lbs of fat. Earlier, when I bought in to the huge amount of hype about eating 5-6 times a day to lose weight, and not restricting my calories too much, it hurt me because I was constantly making sure I fell in to that 500 calorie range...which was TOUGH. Tougher than just restricting by 800-1000 calories.

And sure, I slip up every now and then, and that probably keeps me out of "starvation mode". I just wish people would stop stressing it so much and start stressing how to deal with realistic situations.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,484
16
81
I don't think we are too far apart on our line of thinking, here. I just get driven crazy by people telling me to eat more when i'm trying to lose 50+ lbs of fat. Earlier, when I bought in to the huge amount of hype about eating 5-6 times a day to lose weight, and not restricting my calories too much, it hurt me because I was constantly making sure I fell in to that 500 calorie range...which was TOUGH. Tougher than just restricting by 800-1000 calories.

And sure, I slip up every now and then, and that probably keeps me out of "starvation mode". I just wish people would stop stressing it so much and start stressing how to deal with realistic situations.
Right, individuals with large amounts of weight to lose can typically withstand a greater caloric deficit without negative effects to their BMR. It's interesting because most of the people I've dealt with grossly undereat while dieting. I think this thought process comes from the fad/starvation diets that the media frequently advertises as the new weight loss magic. I mention a 500 calorie deficit because 1) everybody loses weight, 2) there's a very low risk of anybody reducing their BMRs, and 3) muscle is very easy to maintain under a deficit like this with weightlifting. When dealing with specific clients, I may set a 500 calorie deficit as a strict goal (for those looking to lose a few pounds). For others, who are overweight or obese, I may give them a 500-1000 calorie deficit range. This allows individuals to abide by a range of values. Some people really want to lose weight and will go the 1000 calorie road. Others will choose to stick around a 500 calorie deficit. It really depends on how much fat people have to lose.

I think you're definitely seeing things from a different perspective than what I deal with. I wrote this article as a general guide that would apply to almost everyone, which it does. The statements are still scientifically sound and work for many people here. A starvation mode is a realistic phenomenon and needs to be mentioned so that it is avoided. I don't stress it that much, but I mention it because it can really demotivate people when they exercise and eat well and don't lose weight. In the situation I set up, this is not really an option.
 

HomerX

Member
Mar 2, 2010
184
0
0
On top of that, did you just call muscle mass unnecessary? People who want to lose weight want to lose fat. They don't want to become the skinny fat person. Maintaining muscle mass is essential (and typically what people expect) for people's self image and strength goals.
No, by no means i think that muscle mass is unnecessary!

I meant that if a highly trained muscular person, say a bodybuilder, starts doing cardio and giving up on heavy weight training, the body views the large muscle mass as unnecessary for the actual demands and starts burning it very fast. In case of an untrained Person, this effect is not as significant!

The more muscle mass you have, the harder it is to sustain them...

I really think that weight training is a great way to loose weight (personally i´m doing much more weight training then cardio!) and everybody who wants to loose fat should start lifting weights.

I think our main difference is in maintaining muscle mass vs cardio.

Maintaining max muscle mass is your main priority and so cardio should not be done on the same day as weightlifting. If a person has not enough time to split weight training and cardio they sould rather cut the cardio.
My Point is, that the danger of loosing a muscle mass when doing cardio on the same day is not as big for an untrained person compared to a muscular person. So in order to loose weight, a combination of cardio + weight training should be better, even when they could not be done on different days.

See, your friend enabled himself through exercise. I'm not here to promote that. I'm here to promote lifestyle changes through nutrition and exercise so that people can live happier and longer.
As do i!
But a lot of people have problems with eating healthy, because they have to travel a lot and can`t cook for themself etc... It can be done, but it needs some time to adapt and the willpower to do so. And the best thing for their willpower is the motivation when they see that they lost 2lbs over the last Week, when they feel that the jeans isn`t so tight anymore.
They see that they are able to do it and so they start with changing their diet, optimizing their training etc etc... a year later they are fitness addicts :)

When it goes too slow in the beginning, a lot of people will loose the motivation and give up.

I will not say that everybody should start doing crazy workouts while still eating crap... but for some people this works better than changing diet first, even it is not the best way to loose weight.
 

jackofalltrades

Senior member
Feb 25, 2007
399
0
76
If you eat the right foods and you increase your activities like cardio, weight training etc... you will loose weight. Yes you can eat 4-5 meals a day of veggies and such not bacon and eggs and ham veggies and fruits are fine. I lost 25 lbs in 3 months and gained inches on my chest and arms and legs. I never stopped losing I had steady 2-3 lbs a week loss with the right diet. When I stopped eating right the weight stayed off now I am trying to get motivated to finish my trip I have 30 lbs more to loose.

No fad diets, no fast weight loss, these don't work in the long run the weight will come back.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,484
16
81
If you eat the right foods and you increase your activities like cardio, weight training etc... you will loose weight. Yes you can eat 4-5 meals a day of veggies and such not bacon and eggs and ham veggies and fruits are fine. I lost 25 lbs in 3 months and gained inches on my chest and arms and legs. I never stopped losing I had steady 2-3 lbs a week loss with the right diet. When I stopped eating right the weight stayed off now I am trying to get motivated to finish my trip I have 30 lbs more to loose.

No fad diets, no fast weight loss, these don't work in the long run the weight will come back.
See, this is why I wrote this thread. Eating the "right" foods does not mean you will lose weight. If you overeat on a diet of veggies, lean meat, fruit, and nuts, you will still gain weight. Activity plays a role, but everyone (except the most active endurance athletes) can out-eat their caloric expenditure. Caloric restriction is the only way to lose weight.
 

jackofalltrades

Senior member
Feb 25, 2007
399
0
76
I beg to differ if you eat veggies with no salad dressing it will not make you gain weight even if you gorge youself on them but you need to be active to burn fat no matter what.
If you drink water eat salads with out dressing cause dressing is nothing but fat, keep the protein levels high so when you loose weight you loose fat not muscle you can eat all the tuna and salads you want everything else needs to be watched very close. I never starved but I lost weight continually until I slacked off on my foods, I must restate though I haven't gained one pound back that is the key loose it right it will not come back. If you loose it fast you will loose muscle and you will get weaker and the long run you will fail. Calorie intake doesn't count for much if it is healthy foods. I keep my intake at 1500 and had seady weight loss it isn't hard to maintain either But you can't eat out many places doing it too many hidden calories.
 

Pantlegz

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2007
4,631
4
81
I beg to differ if you eat veggies with no salad dressing it will not make you gain weight even if you gorge youself on them but you need to be active to burn fat no matter what.
If you drink water eat salads with out dressing cause dressing is nothing but fat, keep the protein levels high so when you loose weight you loose fat not muscle you can eat all the tuna and salads you want everything else needs to be watched very close. I never starved but I lost weight continually until I slacked off on my foods, I must restate though I haven't gained one pound back that is the key loose it right it will not come back. If you loose it fast you will loose muscle and you will get weaker and the long run you will fail. Calorie intake doesn't count for much if it is healthy foods. I keep my intake at 1500 and had seady weight loss it isn't hard to maintain either But you can't eat out many places doing it too many hidden calories.
While natural foods are be more filling, calories are calories and eating the same amount of calories in processed junk and natural food would end in the same result. It's just harder to eat 4000 calories of veggies but one can easily drink 4000 calories of soda a day. You keep losing weight becase you're at a calorie deficit, as soon as you're no long at a deficit you will stop losing weight, thats just the way it works.
 

darkxshade

Lifer
Mar 31, 2001
13,749
4
81
Yea, I'm not exactly sure how the veggies work into all of this. Since i'm counting calories now, I noticed that 2 cups of mixed veggies is nearly 200 calories. That's a lot more than I thought it would be.
 

Pantlegz

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2007
4,631
4
81
It varies depending on what you're eating. Spinach is one of my favorites and it's like 60 calories for 3 cups which is almost impossbly to eat in one sitting. Keeps you full too, like anything else there are veggies that are better and worse for you. I think I read that corn and peas(?) have next to no nutritional value but have quite a few calories.
 

jackofalltrades

Senior member
Feb 25, 2007
399
0
76
What I am trying not so well to explain is that you don't have to starve to lose weight you have to eat plenty of the right types of foods. Too often people advise that you must go hungry to loose weight that is wrong and will sooner or later fail because it takes a lifestyle change to loose weight and to maintain it.
You can in most cases eat large portions of salads and that type of foods and not take in very much calories but a 1500 calorie diet of burger king food or macdonalds food will only cover maybe one meal I can eat well all day on that many calories.
Burger king 1500 calories will be loaded with saturated fats and calories that do not burn as easily or a quick as a 1500 calorie 5 meal day done right. If you eat fried, greasy, high sugar,foods you will eat more and loose nothing in the end no matter how much you exercise.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,484
16
81
What I am trying not so well to explain is that you don't have to starve to lose weight you have to eat plenty of the right types of foods. Too often people advise that you must go hungry to loose weight that is wrong and will sooner or later fail because it takes a lifestyle change to loose weight and to maintain it.
You can in most cases eat large portions of salads and that type of foods and not take in very much calories but a 1500 calorie diet of burger king food or macdonalds food will only cover maybe one meal I can eat well all day on that many calories.
Burger king 1500 calories will be loaded with saturated fats and calories that do not burn as easily or a quick as a 1500 calorie 5 meal day done right. If you eat fried, greasy, high sugar,foods you will eat more and loose nothing in the end no matter how much you exercise.
This is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it's not necessarily the types of food that you eat, but the overall caloric properties of those foods. If you eat a ton of grapes (which are rather calorie dense for fruits) and nuts (great for you, but calorie dense) in conjunction with your normal diet, you may very well overeat. If you overeat, you will gain weight. You're arguing about VOLUME of food, not calories. I understand that calorie density tends to be higher in unhealthy foods, but I'm mentioning that there are people who overeat with healthy foods. Think of foods other than salads, such as lean meats, olive oil, nut, fruits, vegetables, beans, whole grain products, milk, etc. It's very easy to overeat if you don't pay constant attention.

This thread specifically states that a moderate caloric deficit (500 calories) is advisable. I also mention several ways on healthy eating and eating to increase satiety (increased fiber, increased protein and fat intake, decrease sugar consumption, etc). Did you actually read the thread? I'm not supporting crappy diets. I am, however, making the point that 2500 calories of grease filled, sugar laden donuts is the same as 2500 calories of raw fruits and vegetables when it comes to weight loss.
 
Last edited:

jackofalltrades

Senior member
Feb 25, 2007
399
0
76
Well I would have to dissagree about the 2500 sugar laden calories having the same effect as 2500 calories eating a good veggie laden diet. First because the effects of eating sugar laden foods will slow the metabolism will increase your hunger reduce your stamina to excercise and slow the rate of burn of fat there is plenty of facts out there about the effects of a average diet american style. High in fats high in sugars the food you eat even if you have the same caloric intake as the guy eating the right foods you will tend to gain weight because of the side effects and how it is stored in your body.
 

HomerX

Member
Mar 2, 2010
184
0
0
There are probably side effects that affect your BMR... So your BMR is not independent of your nutrition. In Both cases you eat the same amount of calories, but the amount burned by the Body itself is different.

Afaik the exact mechanism of this is largely unknown and i dont know how big the difference between the BMR values can be.

So yes, it can be possible that 2500 calories of Donuts will let you gain weight, while 2500 calories of salat will let you loose weight... The thermodynamics still apply, but the BMR of the Body has changed.

But i think we all agree that the key point in loosing weight is the diet! You must maintain a negative energy level!
And eating healthy food without sugar and low on carbs will make this much easier because the calorie density in such food is relatively low. So you feel full without overeating.

Add some weight training and enough protein and prepare yourself to buy new clothes in a few weeks... :)
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,484
16
81
Well I would have to dissagree about the 2500 sugar laden calories having the same effect as 2500 calories eating a good veggie laden diet. First because the effects of eating sugar laden foods will slow the metabolism will increase your hunger reduce your stamina to excercise and slow the rate of burn of fat there is plenty of facts out there about the effects of a average diet american style. High in fats high in sugars the food you eat even if you have the same caloric intake as the guy eating the right foods you will tend to gain weight because of the side effects and how it is stored in your body.
This is not necessarily true. Firstly, you're using the wrong terms here. Eating 2500 calories period will maintain your "metabolism" (i.e. your BMR). The aspect that is effected by your food intake is called the thermic effect of feeding (TEF). However, this only accounts for ~10% of your caloric intake. It doesn't sway much in any situation. For example, say an individual required 2500 calories for maintenance. Say the TEF for them is 250 calories when they eat moderately well (fruits, veggies, etc). That's a relatively small portion of someone's diet. Now let's say eating 2500 caloires in donuts drops the TEF by 2-3%. That's only a change in 75 calories per day. Considering most people overeat one day and undereat the next, this typically isn't the largest effect. It's the actual calories that they eat. They're going to gain more weight by eating an extra cookie every day (100-150 calories) than by eating the wrong types of food.

The last part of your statement is 1) vague and 2) incorrect. Storage mechanisms don't change at all. The only shift will tend to be water retention. Eating a caloric maintenance of the same calories whether it's bad food or good food will have the same effect on body composition. You can talk all you want about how things will be different, but research proves you wrong. Keep in mind, I sit in a classroom all day learning about this stuff. We talk about common misconceptions about exercise and diet and what you're saying maintains a lot of those ideas. That's fine, but understand that what I'm saying has been published by many, many individuals.
 

Saulbadguy

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2003
5,573
10
81
Well I would have to dissagree about the 2500 sugar laden calories having the same effect as 2500 calories eating a good veggie laden diet. First because the effects of eating sugar laden foods will slow the metabolism will increase your hunger reduce your stamina to excercise and slow the rate of burn of fat there is plenty of facts out there about the effects of a average diet american style. High in fats high in sugars the food you eat even if you have the same caloric intake as the guy eating the right foods you will tend to gain weight because of the side effects and how it is stored in your body.
Sorry dude, that's not true at all.

The problem is eating 2500 calories of donuts, candy, etc - won't fill you up like 2500 calories of a balanced diet, so you will most likely end up eating more than 2500 calories.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,484
16
81
There are probably side effects that affect your BMR... So your BMR is not independent of your nutrition. In Both cases you eat the same amount of calories, but the amount burned by the Body itself is different.

Afaik the exact mechanism of this is largely unknown and i dont know how big the difference between the BMR values can be.

So yes, it can be possible that 2500 calories of Donuts will let you gain weight, while 2500 calories of salat will let you loose weight... The thermodynamics still apply, but the BMR of the Body has changed.

But i think we all agree that the key point in loosing weight is the diet! You must maintain a negative energy level!
And eating healthy food without sugar and low on carbs will make this much easier because the calorie density in such food is relatively low. So you feel full without overeating.

Add some weight training and enough protein and prepare yourself to buy new clothes in a few weeks... :)
Yes, your BMR is independent of your nutrition, if and only if you're getting sufficient calories. It is the TEF that modifies your caloric expenditure in this case. Refer to the post above. Also, if you guys want to discuss this further, PM me. We're cluttering the sticky. This is meant for simple questions and answers, not debates.
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2002
10,484
16
81
Sorry dude, that's not true at all.

The problem is eating 2500 calories of donuts, candy, etc - won't fill you up like 2500 calories of a balanced diet, so you will most likely end up eating more than 2500 calories.
This is a more correct statement. There are tendencies at work. If you eat 2500 calories and you're still hungry, you're going to continue to eat. That 2500 calories then becomes 3500 calories and that's where you're gaining the weight. It's not the 2500 calories that made you gain weight, but the extra 1000. The body works very much like the laws of thermodynamics state. You also have to keep in mind that the TEF is a very low percentage of total caloric expenditure. Therefore, TEF does effect total caloric expenditure, but not significantly and the laws of thermodyamics remain true. 2500 calories is 2500 calories and the 2-3% change in TEF isn't the problem. It's the overeating.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
I have a question. I've been doing a program here where we are connected with a nutrionist - he has a MS in nutrition and has been in the industry for '17+ years'. Since our company paid 90% of this 8 week program, I figured it wouldn't hurt to try it out.
Anyways, my BMR, if I calculate it, is ~2300; he has the same calculation (probably just used the same equation). He set me on a plan for ~1600 calories on my 'non workout' days, and ~1900 calories on my 'workout days'. This is completely contradictory to what is written here as well as what I've read.
My own body's response has been feeling more tired. I can still function and move around and think, but in my workouts (~1 hour and typically weight lifting or high intensity cardio) I definitely feel I am nowhere near as explosive. I also have to sleep more now.
However, I have been losing weight. ~2 pounds a week actually; he also is taking measurements and calcluating my body fat with the calipers method (i'm aware of the tolerances, but i'm looking at the changes) and every 2 weeks I'm losing ~1% bodyfat.
I noticed that on his plan for me, It said if I ate ~2400 (just above my BMR) then I'd lose 1lb a week.
Is this healthy for me to lose that much, am I screwing myself over? Should I move up to my BMR despite his opinions? I've actually been trying to work out a little more because i don't feel that 1600 calories is honestly enough for me....and in my workouts I take another protein shake afterwards because it makes a huge difference for me.
I mentioned if its really okay to eat below one's BMR and he said it was fine so as long as I ate the correct foods and consistently. His plan sets up ~6 meals that vary between 200 and 400 cals, every 3 hours, from 7am till 10pm.

edit:
oh and what makes me doubt what he says is the fact that despite talking about exercising right, and eating right...he has the skinnest calfs/legs/ankle I've seen in a loooooooong time. He goes on and on about balancing and controlling insulin, but how can he not notice that his own body is ridiculously imba?
 

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
3
0
You didn't list your current height/bodyweight, but 1600-1900 calories per day is pretty low and losing 2lbs per week is a bit on the fast side. There are a few disadvantages to eating so little: being tired all the time, as you've already noticed, is one of them. Others include loss of motivation, constantly being hungry and the loss of muscle mass. The last one will be especially frustrating, as it will negatively impact your workouts & strength gains and that despite losing weight, your bf% won't drop as much as it should and you might end up "skinny-fat".

If you are losing 2lbs per week at 1600-1900 calories, you'll probably lose 1lb per week at 2100-2400 calories. Obviously, it'll take a bit longer for you to reach your target weight at this rate, but it's a safer and more effective route for most people.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
You didn't list your current height/bodyweight, but 1600-1900 calories per day is pretty low and losing 2lbs per week is a bit on the fast side. There are a few disadvantages to eating so little: being tired all the time, as you've already noticed, is one of them. Others include loss of motivation, constantly being hungry and the loss of muscle mass. The last one will be especially frustrating, as it will negatively impact your workouts & strength gains and that despite losing weight, your bf% won't drop as much as it should and you might end up "skinny-fat".

If you are losing 2lbs per week at 1600-1900 calories, you'll probably lose 1lb per week at 2100-2400 calories. Obviously, it'll take a bit longer for you to reach your target weight at this rate, but it's a safer and more effective route for most people.
6 foot tall. I was around 225-230. I officially measured @ 227lb, 23.8% body fast for day 1, and the 2 week follow up had me at 222 with 22.6% (although i felt pretty dehydrated). I'm now around 218 (the 5 week follow up is the end of next week) although i'll need to double check that on the same scale to accurately measure changes. I've been keeping up with a lot of physical activity though including lifting weights so i'm hoping that muscle loss is minimal, although I know I might be losing some.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,484
16
81
6 foot tall. I was around 225-230. I officially measured @ 227lb, 23.8% body fast for day 1, and the 2 week follow up had me at 222 with 22.6% (although i felt pretty dehydrated). I'm now around 218 (the 5 week follow up is the end of next week) although i'll need to double check that on the same scale to accurately measure changes. I've been keeping up with a lot of physical activity though including lifting weights so i'm hoping that muscle loss is minimal, although I know I might be losing some.
Yeah... your nutritionist may be very knowledgeable, but he must not know how it feels to be on such a caloric deficit. Typically, a 500 calorie deficit is suggest because you can accommodate for hunger by eating tons of fiber, protein, and a little bit more of healthy fat. You can also continue being active without large symptoms like fatigue, dizziness, or insanity :p I'd say I agree with brikis - up the calories by about 500 and go from there. Sure, you'll lose weight a bit less slowly, but it will consist of more fat (rather than both muscle and fat) and will make you feel a lot better.
 

Powermoloch

Lifer
Jul 5, 2005
10,085
4
76
It's been close 4 months now since I started changing my eating habits (as an asian decent, too much rice in my diet).

I was 222lbs @ 5'10" in height. And currently 187.7lbs (Probably lost alot of water weight :confused: ). So i'm guessing in the neighborhood of 190-191 lbs so far on average last week.

I've been doing squats (air squats, very little equipment on hand or no gym), back exercises, reverse crunch, and also upper weight strength with my bands/15 lb dumb bell. I feel better now, and can see definition on my body (Losing my man boobs to man chest ! :) ). But the belly fat is the only thing that i need the tackle.

I'm losing close to 1.88 lbs week on avg. I'm getting close to my 180lb goal. Should I start eating more to slow down the weight lost?

What would you recommend for me to reach my goal :)?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY