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

[PrayForDeath]

...but losing 7 pounds in 10 days... it's clearly not fat. It's mostly water weight.

What is the optimal amount of (non-water) weight to lose in 10 days? 4 pounds?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

What is the optimal amount of (non-water) weight to lose in 10 days? 4 pounds?

10 days shouldn't even be a timeline that you should measure weightloss in. Most of the research recommends 1-2.0lbs of fat loss per week. Extrapolate that to 10 days: 1.4-2.8lbs. Granted, there will be a lot of fluctuation so you may or may not see that. You should take overall averages and graph trends, if you're into that kinda thing.

 

[Saint Nick]

My lady wants to do cardio, but the issue here is that she hates running and she isn't able to get to the gym more than three times a week.

Does anyone think the P90X cardio/plyo videos would be good for her to do? She is trying to burn fat and build muscle. She lifts with me the days I go to the gym, but can't go more than that.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Saint,
Cardio 3 days aweek should be fine. If she does the gym, rowing is probably the best thing to do. Just watch the diet!

If buidling muscle, she needs to do weights. She should do a program .... not sure but stronglifts?

PrayForDeath,
Socially pretty much said it. 2 pounds per week over the long term is good progress. A chart makes the most sense so that you can normalize the data.

 

[Saint Nick]

IHMJ:

Thanks. She is doing SS with me and (hopefully) doing the correct diet (low carb, high protein). I tell her to make sure she is using FitDay each day to get the right amount of calories (for her, around 1700) to maintain a 500 calorie deficit each day. The only thing she isn't doing right now is cardio, which I think is hurting her because she definitely hasn't lost any weight. She has gotten stronger, however, thanks to the lifting.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

IHMJ:

Thanks. She is doing SS with me and (hopefully) doing the correct diet (low carb, high protein). I tell her to make sure she is using FitDay each day to get the right amount of calories (for her, around 1700) to maintain a 500 calorie deficit each day. The only thing she isn't doing right now is cardio, which I think is hurting her because she definitely hasn't lost any weight. She has gotten stronger, however, thanks to the lifting.

It's very easy to lose weight without cardio, if your diet is entirely in check. 1700 is actually pretty high. At 20 years old, 160lbs, 5'8", I was cutting on 1800-2200. Is she tracking absolutely everything she eats and drinks? Is she posting it on a journal of some sort? That could definitely be the issue.

Either way, p90x or something would be fine. Just don't let her run herself into the ground. Ease into it.

 

[Saint Nick]

It's very easy to lose weight without cardio, if your diet is entirely in check. 1700 is actually pretty high. At 20 years old, 160lbs, 5'8", I was cutting on 1800-2200. Is she tracking absolutely everything she eats and drinks? Is she posting it on a journal of some sort? That could definitely be the issue.

Either way, p90x or something would be fine. Just don't let her run herself into the ground. Ease into it.

She has a BMR of 1413.5 and a TDEE of around 1950 to 2190 (Age 24, 5' 2", 135lbs).

So you're thinking maybe she should eat around 1500 per day? She would be glad to hear that adjustment because she doesn't like eating 1700...lol.

Also, you surely can't lose stomach/love handle flab by just changing your diet, right (thats what she needs to get rid of)? Wouldn't doing cardio speed the process?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

She has a BMR of 1413.5 and a TDEE of around 1950 to 2190 (Age 24, 5' 2", 135lbs).

So you're thinking maybe she should eat around 1500 per day? She would be glad to hear that adjustment because she doesn't like eating 1700...lol.

Also, you surely can't lose stomach/love handle flab by just changing your diet, right (thats what she needs to get rid of)? Wouldn't doing cardio speed the process?

Becoming skinny is mostly about restricting diet. The exercise is good, in that it stops lean mass loss while this happens, but just becoming thin requires no exercise at all. In fact, for most people who do it casually exercise is counterproductive because they get into a routine of exercising and then treating themselves to more calories than they lose through exercising.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

She has a BMR of 1413.5 and a TDEE of around 1950 to 2190 (Age 24, 5' 2", 135lbs).

So you're thinking maybe she should eat around 1500 per day? She would be glad to hear that adjustment because she doesn't like eating 1700...lol.

Also, you surely can't lose stomach/love handle flab by just changing your diet, right (thats what she needs to get rid of)? Wouldn't doing cardio speed the process?

Yeah, I think something more like 1500-1600cal would be more appropriate.

You can actually. Exercise, however, allows you to maintain your lean muscle mass so you look leaner AND thinner, rather than just thinner. That's why this thread stresses weightlifting - it's much more effective at maintaining lean body mass than than just cardio. The reason why I try to tell people to stay away from cardio as they're trying to lose weight is that it really revs up your hunger drive. It makes you want to eat almost exactly your caloric maintenance, which is good for maintenance, but not for weight loss. Weightlifting and caloric restriction is the best combination I've seen yet and perhaps the most comfortable since there aren't as severe of hunger pains.

 

[Saint Nick]

At 6' 5" and 190 lbs, my BMR is 2057.6. I don't trust these TDEE calcs at all...I feel like I'm never eating enough food and I always try to hit 4500 per day. Is this too much? I have a hard time hitting 4500 per day...

Oh, and what does anyone think about this new routine I'm starting. Trying to build muscle...

AxBxCxx

Legs:
BB Front Squats            4 x 4-6
RDL                3 x 6-10
BB Standing Calf Raise        3 x 6-10
Weight Crunch            3 x 8-15

Push:
BB Incline Bench        4 x 4-6
DB Seated Shoulder Press    3 x 6-10
EZ Bar Skullcrushers        3 x 6-10

Pull:
Deadlifts            4 x 4-6
Pull-ups            3 x 6-10
DB Seated Bicep Curls        3 x 8-12

 

[SociallyChallenged]

At 6' 5" and 190 lbs, my BMR is 2057.6. I don't trust these TDEE calcs at all...I feel like I'm never eating enough food and I always try to hit 4500 per day. Is this too much? I have a hard time hitting 4500 per day...

Oh, and what does anyone think about this new routine I'm starting. Trying to build muscle...

AxBxCxx

Legs:
BB Front Squats            4 x 4-6
RDL                3 x 6-10
BB Standing Calf Raise        3 x 6-10
Weight Crunch            3 x 8-15

Push:
BB Incline Bench        4 x 4-6
DB Seated Shoulder Press    3 x 6-10
EZ Bar Skullcrushers        3 x 6-10

Pull:
Deadlifts            4 x 4-6
Pull-ups            3 x 6-10
DB Seated Bicep Curls        3 x 8-12

In the original sticky, I specifically tell people to ONLY use the BMR value that's calculated, NOT THE TOTAL DAILY ENERGY EXPENDITURE. That measurement is way off on that website and varies greatly between different individuals. Pay attention to your BMR. The TDEE tends to be greatly overexaggerated.

Your program is a little sporadic. I suggest the Stronglifts and Starting Strength programs because they're consistent and down to the nitty gritty. Your program has some pretty big holes in it, depending on how frequently you do each program.

 

[Saint Nick]

Yeah. I've been doing SS for a while and wanted to switch up what I was doing for a while.

 

[angry hampster]

For some reason never realized this thread existed. I started working out and eating more properly back in June of this year, and have since taken my weight from ~260 down to 208lbs. I have gained significant muscle as well. My routine? Lots of cardio (45min) daily, lift weights 3x/week. My diet really hasn't changed, I've just been focusing on not eating as much. I am 6'1" and my target weight is probably 190, though I'm really pretty satisfied where I am now.

 

[angry hampster]

For some reason never realized this thread existed. I started working out and eating more properly back in June of this year, and have since taken my weight from ~260 down to 208lbs. I have gained significant muscle as well. My routine? Lots of cardio (45min) daily, lift weights 3x/week. My diet really hasn't changed, I've just been focusing on not eating as much. I am 6'1" and my target weight is probably 190, though I'm really pretty satisfied where I am now.

To re-state in pictures...


Fat me (with sister):

Less-fat me (with wife):

 

[PrayForDeath]

To re-state in pictures...


Fat me (with sister):

Less-fat me (with wife):

Oh wow big difference, congrats! :thumbsup:

 

[lefenzy]

Have you seen this new article from the NY Times magazine?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

It says that the human body does not like losing weight. A 170 pound man who used to weigh 250 pounds will require less calories to maintain that weight than a 170 pound man who has never been overweight or obese. Medical researchers found that those who have lost significant weight show different brain responses to food stimuli and also more slow twitch muscles tend to develop:

"Muscle biopsies taken before, during and after weight loss show that once a person drops weight, their muscle fibers undergo a transformation, making them more like highly efficient “slow twitch” muscle fibers. A result is that after losing weight, your muscles burn 20 to 25 percent fewer calories during everyday activity and moderate aerobic exercise than those of a person who is naturally at the same weight."

It shows that the body resists weight loss. What's more discouraging is that the research findings suggest that one has been overweight or obese for a long period of time is likely to have undergone physiological changes that make the body want to preserve the weight it has.

I wonder however. Is the development of more slow twitch muscles related to the fact that many people who lose weight rely on aerobic exercise, which tends to build high-endurance, slow-twitch muscle? The article didn't address the idea of losing weight by using weight-training to maintain muscle mass. I imagine the high-intensity workouts demanded by a program such as starting strength, stronglifts, or crossfit would help individuals trying to lose weight maintain a higher metabolic rate.

I am wondering what people think of these findings.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

At work we are talking about meals and metabolism.

So, is it true that 5 smaller meals are better than 3 larger ones (everything else being equal). The common thought is that 5 meals results in a higher metabolism.

Seems like research is inconclusive and that calories are all that reallly matters. Citing any studies are reputable sources would be great.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

At work we are talking about meals and metabolism.

So, is it true that 5 smaller meals are better than 3 larger ones (everything else being equal). The common thought is that 5 meals results in a higher metabolism.

Seems like research is inconclusive and that calories are all that reallly matters. Citing any studies are reputable sources would be great.

No, meals and metabolism aren't correlated. Whether you eat more or less frequently doesn't affect how many calories you burn throughout a given day. I've read several research papers about it, but don't have any on-hand. You can look the topic up on pubmed.org if you're truly interested.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

That's pretty much what my opinion was. But with engineers you need to provide documentation even if the others can't. Seems to be some sort of urban legend.

The thing is, I've heard the 5 meal thing in the past. It is probably a way of keeping your stomach feeling full more of the day so you take in fewer calories than anything else. Kinda like the don't eat before bed thing where doctors/dieticians simply say it in order to help reduce caloric intake.

I'll see if I can find any info the link you provided.

Thanks!

UPDATE:
The ignorance spread through the internet and news outlets is amazing. When you Google for this information, article after article speaks of how superior the 5 meal a day diet is. Even health forums repeat this non sense.

8 week study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.P%20ubmed.Pubmed_Resul%20tsPanel.SmartSearch&log$

Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.

... there were non significant differences between the low- and high-MF (meal frequency) groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

Doesn't even effect appetite. That's the only thing I find surprising.

All I find is hearsay about the benefit of 5 meals a day. No links to actual studies. Found one funny statement that basically says that bodybuilders believe this because it is "bro-science".

 

[SociallyChallenged]

That's pretty much what my opinion was. But with engineers you need to provide documentation even if the others can't. Seems to be some sort of urban legend.

The thing is, I've heard the 5 meal thing in the past. It is probably a way of keeping your stomach feeling full more of the day so you take in fewer calories than anything else. Kinda like the don't eat before bed thing where doctors/dieticians simply say it in order to help reduce caloric intake.

I'll see if I can find any info the link you provided.

Thanks!

UPDATE:
The ignorance spread through the internet and news outlets is amazing. When you Google for this information, article after article speaks of how superior the 5 meal a day diet is. Even health forums repeat this non sense.

8 week study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.P%20ubmed.Pubmed_Resul%20tsPanel.SmartSearch&log$

Doesn't even effect appetite. That's the only thing I find surprising.

All I find is hearsay about the benefit of 5 meals a day. No links to actual studies. Found one funny statement that basically says that bodybuilders believe this because it is "bro-science".

It's absolutely bro-science. Bodybuilders continually take in protein because they think they'll lose muscle mass if they don't have an available amino acid source in their digestive system. At massively high muscle masses, this may be true to a certain degree, but even average weightlifters apply it because it's what they've heard. That's probably where the 5/6 meal per day thing started and people were trying to come up with more reasons as to why it was beneficial. There's no good support for it.

 

[Kaido]

The thing is, I've heard the 5 meal thing in the past. It is probably a way of keeping your stomach feeling full more of the day so you take in fewer calories than anything else.

I like eating a lot of small meals throughout the day so that my energy level doesn't dip. I don't get tired mid-morning or early afternoon when I eat 5 or 6 small meals a day, which is really nice for a normally low-energy person such as myself.

However, I have a friend who does the "eat one big meal a day" thing for his bodybuilding diet and it works for him too. Really interesting to see how food actually works!

 

[Kaido]

bro-science

Omgosh that made my day

 

[PrayForDeath]

I like eating a lot of small meals throughout the day so that my energy level doesn't dip. I don't get tired mid-morning or early afternoon when I eat 5 or 6 small meals a day, which is really nice for a normally low-energy person such as myself.

This is pretty much why I do it. If I space my meals out, I get hunger pangs and end up binging on unhealthy crap.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

PrayFor,

From reading google results it seems as though you need to do what works, which you are. The bottom line though is calories.

Even if there is an advantage in multiple meals in terms of metabolism, it is so miniscule that it is not a reason to move to multiple meals.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

PrayFor,

From reading google results it seems as though you need to do what works, which you are. The bottom line though is calories.

Even if there is an advantage in multiple meals in terms of metabolism, it is so miniscule that it is not a reason to move to multiple meals.

Right, the difference isn't statistically significant in most studies. One thing to keep in mind though is that eating many meals throughout a given day does increase your risk of cavities. With a large meal, you produce significant saliva that helps wash away excess food and bacteria. With smaller meals, you produce less, which leads to stagnant food and higher levels of bacteria. This, in turn, leads to increased risk of cavity formation and I believe gingivitis. It's been a while since I read up on it, but it's something to take into consideration before you eat 5-6 meals in a day, especially if you have pre-existing dental problems.