Opinions, please

LeggyBrunette

My husband is trying to lose weight. He is 6ft 1in. Weighs 20 stone.

So heres the food plan we have come up with:

Breakfast (7am)- Scrambled eggs(2 whole eggs and 3 egg whites) a slice of ham, and spinach.

(Early!)Lunch (11am)- Salad; Chicken, milled seeds, spinach, cherry tomatos, 1 egg & cucumber, avocado with some balsamic vinegar.

Dinner (3pm)- Turkey/Beef meatballs with green veg OR Chicken and veg stirfry OR Beef stew & veg OR Turkey burgers with salad

6.30pm- Gym, 4 days a week. 50 mins weights and 10 mins on threadmill (intervals).

Protein shake, after the gym session.

Are there any changes he would need to make? Add more of.... or eat less of.... or a total revamp? Should he have something to eat an hour before gym?

Would he need much carbs?

Thanks in advance.

*looking back at that, should he be eating more than 4 times?*

brianthebard

That sounds good, except he finishes eating at half seven, that leaves a long time between his last meal of the day and the first of the next. Otherwise it looks pretty good, presumably this will be a big change of pace for him so he should lose a good bit of weight on this plan for a while before needing to change it. He could probably eat a few more carbs (rice, pasta, spuds) and still lose weight without it feeling quite as bad, its a pretty low carb diet which can be hard to stick to. Just my thoughts.

LeggyBrunette

brianthebard wrote: »

That sounds good, except he finishes eating at half seven, that leaves a long time between his last meal of the day and the first of the next. Otherwise it looks pretty good, presumably this will be a big change of pace for him so he should lose a good bit of weight on this plan for a while before needing to change it. He could probably eat a few more carbs (rice, pasta, spuds) and still lose weight without it feeling quite as bad, its a pretty low carb diet which can be hard to stick to. Just my thoughts.

Hmm, I never thought of the gap from evening to morning.
Yeah, he may find the lack of carbs, hard.

Thanks for the reply, most appreciated.

MagicMarker

All sounds rather good, me and your husband are in the same position.

I'd stick in a snack in the evening, around 9pm, natural peanut butter is always good, some folk prefer cottage cheese, I like some banana & natural yogurt. Also, there's not a lot of fruit in the diet, maybe include some mid morning?

It could be in my mind, but I find having an apple 30 minutes before the gym helps, that's just me.

Also, try to get in at least 2 litres of water per day, at least 3 litres on work out days, and I'd also recommend some multivitamins and fishoils from a chemist/health food store.

MagicMarker

One more thing, the most important thing!!

Make sure he allows himself one cheat meal a week, when you're starting off you feel terribly guilty and naturally you think you're doing something ''wrong'', or that you won't lose as much weight. We all need treats now and again, the longer we go without one the more likely we are to binge!

The cheat meal is a reward, something to look forward to, a cheat meal is as good for you mentally as a gym session is for you physically.

LeggyBrunette

MM, what would he have with the peanut butter? Just on it's own?

He drinks 2ltr of water a day anyway. I think its cutting out sugar in his tea that he has at lunch that will bother him the most!

Cheat meal is a good idea.

Thanks for the advice.

MagicMarker

Yup, couple of spoon fulls of PB washed down with a mouthful (or 2!) of milk is damn satisfying!!

--amadeus--

I assume he's overweight and wants to lose fat, not muscle?

If so I think that a total revamp of the diet may be needed...

Eggs are great for protein. Nightmare for cholesterol. Overweight people often have higher cholesterol anyway and one egg contains "around 210mg of dietary cholesterol which although less than the previously estimated 275mg, is still more than two-thirds of the 300mg daily limit recommended by the American Heart Association" (link). If your hubby was trying to bulk up then maybe but I'd be going for a nice slow release brekkie like porridge rather than a bunch of eggs and ham.

Early lunch is fine but avocado has a ton of calories in it and with both main meals watch the dressing on the salad, that's where the hidden cals are.

Again if he wants to lose weight rather than gain mass there is no point in a protein shake.

Smaller meals with more roughage, slower release foods (have a read of this to get a handle on the GI), lots of fresh ingredients, fresh fruit and veg and all teh water he can get would be the direction I'd be going, if it were me. Programs like WeightWatchers can be really good.

I'd also flip the exercise plan on it's head and be doing 50 mins of light to medium intensity cardio with a smattering of weights. Outdoor walking / running, step, bike, spinning, rower or whatever.

Your entire program reads like a body builders plan, lots of protein and lifting, which is an ideal recipe to build muscle. But that will add bulk and weight (muscle weighs more than fat) rather than burning off teh fat. Weights will tone muscle and muscle mass will burn more calories at rest but from your OP you aren't there yet.

LeggyBrunette

Oh OK, that's handy.

Thanks again.

LeggyBrunette

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I assume he's overweight and wants to lose fat, not muscle?

If so I think that a total revamp of the diet may be needed...

Eggs are great for protein. Nightmare for cholesterol. Overweight people often have higher cholesterol anyway and one egg contains "around 210mg of dietary cholesterol which although less than the previously estimated 275mg, is still more than two-thirds of the 300mg daily limit recommended by the American Heart Association" (link). If your hubby was trying to bulk up then maybe but I'd be going for a nice slow release brekkie like porridge rather than a bunch of eggs and ham.

Early lunch is fine but avocado has a ton of calories in it and with both main meals watch the dressing on the salad, that's where the hidden cals are.

Again if he wants to lose weight rather than gain mass there is no point in a protein shake.

Smaller meals with more roughage, slower release foods (have a read of this to get a handle on the GI), lots of fresh ingredients, fresh fruit and veg and all teh water he can get would be the direction I'd be going, if it were me. Programs like WeightWatchers can be really good.

I'd also flip the exercise plan on it's head and be doing 50 mins of light to medium intensity cardio with a smattering of weights. Outdoor walking / running, step, bike, spinning, rower or whatever.

Your entire program reads like a body builders plan, lots of protein and lifting, which is an ideal recipe to build muscle. But that will add bulk and weight (muscle weighs more than fat) rather than burning off teh fat. Weights will tone muscle and muscle mass will burn more calories at rest but from your OP you aren't there yet.

Yes, he wants to lose 5 stone.

Oh, I thought weights would be better as they burn more cals?

I'll get him to have a look at these replies and those links you posted. Thanks.

LeggyBrunette

Sorry, I had to quick reply that time.

OK, so this is what I thought.

The more muscle you have the more calories you burn.
If you lift weights, you burn more calories ( and for longer than cardio)
and burn calories for hours after you've finished weights.

And if you want to increase the size of the muscle, you eat alot more. I thought you would not bulk up lifting weights unless you eat like a horse, all day every day.

As I said, I'm looking for opinions and I appreciate all your replies.

Khannie

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

I think its cutting out sugar in his tea that he has at lunch that will bother him the most!

Candarel is grand stuff actually. I use it in my coffee now instead of sugar. I tried a variety of sweeteners and found the candarel tablets the best. edit: If it's actually that much of an issue for him, I'd say leave the sugar in, or maybe try half sugar / half sweetener. Unless he drinks a lot of tea with a lot of sugar I'd say the deprivation of not having it is possibly worse than the calories gained.

I'd echo the other ideas and maybe switch the morning brekkie for porridge or museli and add in a light evening snack too.

Khannie

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

And if you want to increase the size of the muscle, you eat alot more. I thought you would not bulk up lifting weights unless you eat like a horse, all day every day.

That's more or less my understanding too. Muscle is very difficult to build and very very very difficult to build on a calorie deficit.

cardio,shoot me

lifting weights does burn more calories as increased muscle burns more calories while resting.

crotalus667

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

Breakfast (7am)- Scrambled eggs(2 whole eggs and 3 egg whites) a slice of ham, and spinach.

I'd cut the slice of ham. For a start most processed ham is full of crap + with the protein from the eggs the only reason I can see for it is to add flavour , (if you where going to add carbs to the diet to gradually bring him in to the low carb diet instead of going straight into it, I would do it here , some oats either blended with the eggs on their own to make a pancake or a bowl on it’s own made with water)

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

(Early!)Lunch (11am)- Salad; Chicken, milled seeds, spinach, cherry tomatos, 1 egg & cucumber, avocado with some balsamic vinegar..

I’d cut the egg , you already have the chicken as a source of protein and the avocado and seeds as a source of fat , I’d also be concerned about the portion sizes of pre-mentioned food’s , portion size is where most people fall down , it really helps especially starting off if you invest in an electronic scale and a ledger, weigh everything out and record the nutritional value (bodybuilding.com has a list of the nutritional values of most foods I print them out as I need them and keep them in a folder you will find that really only use a had full of the same ones over and over again)

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

Dinner (3pm)- Turkey/Beef meatballs with green veg OR Chicken and veg stirfry OR Beef stew & veg OR Turkey burgers with salad ..

Home made meat balls / burgers??

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

6.30pm- Gym, 4 days a week. 50 mins weights and 10 mins on threadmill (intervals)...

I’d cut the weights to about 40 and add at least another 20 to the cardio (he should also be doing 10-15 mins light cardio as a warm up), weights are great for burning cal’s but cardio really does play a big part and is unavoidable for some one in your husbands position ,

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

Should he have something to eat an hour before gym?)

Ideally his last meal before the gym should be 1-2 hrs

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

Would he need much carbs??
*looking back at that, should he be eating more than 4 times?*

Yes and no it depends on him , some people really cant hack low carb , I personally have a preference for low carb , one thing I will say is make sure he has a load of fibrous veg in his diet (green isle are great for good cheap veg) , I’d also try and split up his daily allowance of food into a meal every 3 hrs , it is optimum for most people (keeps the metabolism revving)

--amadeus-- wrote: »

with both main meals watch the dressing on the salad, that's where the hidden cals are.

I’d get rid of the dressing altogether , a good selection of salad should have enough flavour in it , plus say you use 100 cal’s in dressing twice a day (that’s not a lot ) that’s 200 cal’s a day 1400 a week that’s close to half a pound of fat a week (3500 cals = 1 lbs fat )

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

Oh, I thought weights would be better as they burn more cals?

It’s not exactly that straight forward , both have different benefits (as well as a lot of similar ones) the best option is a combination of both

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

If you lift weights, you burn more calories ( and for longer than cardio) and burn calories for hours after you've finished weights.

That depends on the intensity of the cardio and the intensity of the weights , you can burn cal’s for 14 (ish) hours after weights (the studies that have shown this used people that went to gone to absolute failure) if your husband wants to drop the 5 stone asap high intensity interval training is the best option for cardio combined with a decent weights program

LeggyBrunette wrote: »

I thought you would not bulk up lifting weights unless you eat like a horse, all day every day

that is true, and as most people will tell you it is very hard to but on a lot of lean mass with out adding fat , the bottom line is if your husband wants to lose fat he has to burn more cals than the eats


Hope this helps

--amadeus--

As Khannie said he won't build much muscle on a calorie deficit and if he's trying to lose weight then he has to be on a calorie deficit. And gaining weight (in muscle) to lose weight (in fat) doesn't make any sense.

As for the comparative calorie burn this is a good calculator and it has running burning around three times as many calories as lifting weights for equivalent time. And you get a post excercise "afterburn" of calories no matter what excercise you've done, it's the intensity and duration that matter, not the excercise type (link)

Once the Op has lost weight then lifting to tone up would be great but if they want to lose weight a strict enough calorie controlled diet with lots of slow release foods and a lot of moderate cardio activity is (IMO) the best way to do it.

BossArky

No point in this thread turning into an epic cardio vs weights confrontation.

The important thing to remember is that if you are 20 stone then any kind of exercise at all (cardio or weights) with a sensible diet (no crap) will see the weight fall off.

There are heaps of similar threads.

Some dedication to getting fitter and background reading on nutrition will take your husband a long way. Once he looses a few stone come back and we can all argue the finer details.

gabgab

I have to disagree with Amadeus from my own personal experience. The OP husband is 20 stone, he undoubtedly has a decent amoung of strength just from being that size.

Lots of cardio I imagine will just leave him skinnyfat with the same shape just a smaller version,

OP look up the zone diet, its very effective and has worked wonders for alot of people I know.

MagicMarker

Yep, I'd also disagree with amadeus, weights has been proven to be more effective for fat loss than cardio, it's also a lot more fun! If I had to do 50 minutes of cardio 4 times a week I'd slowly go mad. Right now I do a full body workout (weights) 4 times a week, with a 5 minute warm up/down on the bike, I also have a cardio day that I do once a week. This is absolutely perfect, lifting weights is addictive, that alone is a good incentive to do it.

I don't know about you amadeus but I don't know too many 20 stone guys who can run for a hour;)

Also, 2 whole eggs in the morning and a protein shake after the workout is absolutely fine. Porridge is great and it's what I have myself, but only because I can't boil eggs in work. If your husband wants to aim for a very low carb diet then that's fine, he'll definitely see results. Although I would agree with others and get rid of the ham.

rubadub

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Again if he wants to lose weight rather than gain mass there is no point in a protein shake.

But the shake is just food, I just treat shakes as part of my diet, I count the calories in just like chicken etc. He will probably eat something else anyway as he would be hungry after the gym if he did not have that particular food (the shake).

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I assume he's overweight and wants to lose fat, not muscle?

Exactly, lose fat and retain the muscle he has.

Khannie wrote: »

That's more or less my understanding too. Muscle is very difficult to build and very very very difficult to build on a calorie deficit.

Beginners & esp. overweight beginners are said to be able to build muscle on a deficit, in the beginning anyway. Fact is at 20stone he is already in effect weightlifting. A lot of the additional weight he is carrying is already muscle. It would be a shame to lose it. Even if he is not building new muscle he will have to work hard to maintain what he already has. If he got liposuction tomorrow he would have a lot of muscle left behind, this would naturally atrophy/reduce due to his new found "lightness", he has no real need for all that muscle to haul himself around in the same manner as before. By lifting the body still thinks it needs that muscle.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

gaining weight (in muscle) to lose weight (in fat) doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense to me, i.e. gaining or maintaining muscle. No doubt at 20stone he is fond of his food, so would probably like to be able to eat pretty much what he wants. The new muscle (or current "excess muscle") requires more calories just to maintain it, and 1lb of muscle requires more calories to maintain than 1lb of fat. A 15stone muscular man in a coma needs more calories just to keep that size than a 15stone fat man in a coma.

If he keeps lifting he might drop from say 20stone to 14stone. Now if he did not bother lifting he might have dropped to 13stone, but have 1 stone less muscle. i.e. at both 13 or 14 stone he could have the exact same amount of fat, the only difference being the extra 14lb of muscle. His basal metabolic rate is higher at 14stone so he can get away with eating portions he is used to. Not to mention being stronger and probably looking better.

Also at 20stone I would not be running, resistance training is low impact.

I have heard Transform saying "you can't out-train a bad diet". But if you are insisting on having a bad diet there is no need to just give up and say there is no point in training. I drink a lot and eat some junk and I will not change this, so in that sense I have a "bad diet", what I WILL change is my exercise, so I have built a little more muscle than I would naturally have which in turn increases my metabolism and I can get away with eating and drinking what I want while having a stable weight and fat levels.

Khannie

cardio,shoot me wrote: »

lifting weights does burn more calories as increased muscle burns more calories while resting.

That's a very general statement to be fair. If I run 10K I'm gonna shed about 1000 calories (give or take) and it's not going to take me a long time to recover from that (because I'm already fit). It would be difficult to burn the same number of calories with weights.

MagicMarker

Khannie wrote: »

That's a very general statement to be fair. If I run 10K I'm gonna shed about 1000 calories (give or take) and it's not going to take me a long time to recover from that (because I'm already fit). It would be difficult to burn the same number of calories with weights.

In the hour + it takes me to do my workout I burn approx 1300-1500 calories, depending on the intensity.

crotalus667

MagicMarker wrote: »

In the hour + it takes me to do my workout I burn approx 1300-1500 calories, depending on the intensity.

This is the key phrase , what we need to remember is most of the studies are done on athletes that are pushing themselves to a high level of intensity ,

MagicMarker

What studies are we talking about here?

rubadub

Khannie wrote: »

That's a very general statement to be fair..

It would be difficult to burn the same number of calories with weights.

Yes, since you have to allow recovery you cannot just do weights all day long everyday. If somebody insisted on only going to a gym once a week for 30mins I would have recommend weights, and during the days off during the entire week this 30mins would probably cause the body to use more calories than running for 30mins.

There was a study done, the pdf link is not working now, this is though http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:BKLoh84kdeAJ:www.exercisecertification.com/articles/JAF/Negative%2520Case%2520Study.pdf

Guys did "negative only" resistance training. Just doing 2 or 3 x11min sessions per week with great results.

Eight High School football players were selected for their work habits. All of the athletes were involved in weight training for at least on year....

The workouts were scheduled twice per week, Monday and Thursday or Tuesday and Friday, for six weeks. Each workout consisted of one set of six different exercises, with two different workouts used....

The guide number of repetitions was eight on all exercises except chins and dips, where the guide number was six. Anytime the guide number was meet the weight was increased the next workout. For a repetition to be recorded, the weight had to be lowered in 8-10 seconds. A stopwatch with a verbal count was used. The set was terminated when the repetition was lowered in less than six seconds....

The overall strength gain for the eight athletes was 25.69%, while the average strength gain from the ‘traditional’ strength training classes I supervised in previous years ranged from 10-15%. However, it should be noted that the number of repetitions completed relative to the load in the pre- and post-tests were not identical (as weight increased, repetitions decreased), and the overall average gain of 25.69% may be a slight over-estimate....

The negative workouts averaged 11 minutes per session. From a time standpoint, negative workouts are a very attractive way to train.

crotalus667

MagicMarker wrote: »

What studies are we talking about here?

The studies that count calorie burning , the ones I have seen be quoted seem to always involve athletes that use a high level of intensity and push them selves to the limit , it is commonly quoted that a workout using weights will burn calories for 14 hours after the exercise stops , however most people fail to mention that this is based on some one taking the muscle failure .

--amadeus--

BA is right - at that size any excercise will see gains. Most of what I would have said has been said above but a couple of things...

gabgab wrote: »

I have to disagree with Amadeus from my own personal experience. The OP husband is 20 stone, he undoubtedly has a decent amoung of strength just from being that size.

Lots of cardio I imagine will just leave him skinnyfat with the same shape just a smaller version,

OP look up the zone diet, its very effective and has worked wonders for alot of people I know.

On the bolded part - by that logic the worlds heaviest man must also be the worlds strongest, right? Just because someone weighs a lot doesn't mean they are strong, a fit 12 stone man who works out could probably lift more than a 20 stone man on his first visit.

And I have no idea what "skinnyfat" is?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yep, I'd also disagree with amadeus, weights has been proven to be more effective for fat loss than cardio, it's also a lot more fun! If I had to do 50 minutes of cardio 4 times a week I'd slowly go mad. Right now I do a full body workout (weights) 4 times a week, with a 5 minute warm up/down on the bike, I also have a cardio day that I do once a week. This is absolutely perfect, lifting weights is addictive, that alone is a good incentive to do it.

I don't know about you amadeus but I don't know too many 20 stone guys who can run for a hour;)

I'd be really interested in seeing the links to the studies that prove weights are more effective for weight loss than cardio as it goes against pretty much everything I've read on the subject.

You mention going mad if you had to do more cardio. Well if I have the choice of 30 mins in a room picking up bits of metal and putting them down again or heading out the door for a three hour run then you would not see me for dust I find lifting to be tedious and a lot of people who hate running equate it to running on a treadmill - running outside is a totally different experience. And the key to any excercise program working is finding something you like - in my first replay I mentioned walking, spinning, cycling, step, rowing... Any of those would be great (esp rowing) but if the OP likes weights then thats better than sitting on teh sofa. Any excercise you enjoy is the right kind, IMO.

And I know a guy who must be close to 20 stone who ran a marathon, took him close on 5 hours Actually teh hours running was an example of calories burned versus time spent on running or lifting, anyone starting out would be crazy to do anything intensive for that long.

MagicMarker

--amadeus-- wrote: »

On the bolded part - by that logic the worlds heaviest man must also be the worlds strongest, right? Just because someone weighs a lot doesn't mean they are strong, a fit 12 stone man who works out could probably lift more than a 20 stone man on his first visit.

Well that's obvious, but a 20 stone man could lift a lot more on his first visit than a 12 stone man could on his first visit.

Oh, and completing a marathon in 5 hours isn't exactly running;)

gabgab

The first pic is skinny fat,

I am 6'1 or 6'2 and in that first pic I am about 2kg's lighter than I am today.The second pic I am the same weight as the first pic and in clothes walking down the road I look almost identical,

Plenty of people I know are skinny or slim to look at, but are carrying alot of fat.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055252065

Hanley

The curse of the fitness forum strikes again....

Concerned poster comes on asking about weight loss for someone who is 20 stone. Boards.ie says that study X says this, and study Y says that, your husband should run for an hour, no, he should lift weights for an hour. OP gets confused. People read back on the thread and facepalm because we're talking about a guy who's 20 stone and doesn't need to be bothered with any of that crap.

THIS is the post of the thread;

BossArky wrote: »

No point in this thread turning into an epic cardio vs weights confrontation.

The important thing to remember is that if you are 20 stone then any kind of exercise at all (cardio or weights) with a sensible diet (no crap) will see the weight fall off.

There are heaps of similar threads.

Some dedication to getting fitter and background reading on nutrition will take your husband a long way. Once he looses a few stone come back and we can all argue the finer details.

All ya gotta do is eat less and move more. Pretty much anything at this stage is gonna work. We can assume since he's 20 stone he's not "fit", so cardio is necessary (for the health benefits alone). But at the same time no-one want to lose all that weight and still look soft, so some "tone" from the weights is also important

I would guess the OP's husband would struggle to do sustained cardio with his weight, no big deal, just work on it over time. I would also guess that his weight will make him reasonably strong, so he might like to do some of that too. There's nothing that says you can't do both.

Did anyone ask the OP her husbands exercise preference???

Khannie wrote: »

That's a very general statement to be fair. If I run 10K I'm gonna shed about 1000 calories (give or take) and it's not going to take me a long time to recover from that (because I'm already fit). It would be difficult to burn the same number of calories with weights.

I'd say this is a chicken and egg scenario... how long did it take you to get to the level of fitness you're at where you can burn that many kcals in an hour? A really overweight guy probably couldn't keep up the sustained effort's that required ya know?

rubadub

--amadeus-- wrote: »

On the bolded part - by that logic the worlds heaviest man must also be the worlds strongest, right?

Nope, that is twisting what he meant. Like I already said he is in effect weightlifting. I am just under 13stone, if I put on a 7stone "fat suit", and went about my daily life I would build additional muscle. If you had 2 twins, one 12 stone and one 20stone, the 20 stone one should have more muscle which would usually translate into him being stronger on external weights. By that I mean he could probably bicep curl or deadlift more, yet might not manage a chinup while the 12 stone guy could, so his strength to weight ratio may not be as good. The 20 stone twin could give the 12stone twin a piggy back over a longer distance than the other way around.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And I have no idea what "skinnyfat" is?

A person who is an "Ideal weight", yet still has a lot of bodyfat, i.e. they have very little muscle on their frame and a fair bit of fat, but since many scales like BMI presume a "normal ratio", they can appear to be an OK weight. People going on extreme crash diets can lose a lot of muscle when dieting, many are only concerned with weight when really they want to lose fat.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'd be really interested in seeing the links to the studies that prove weights are more effective for weight loss than cardio as it goes against pretty much everything I've read on the subject.

He said FAT loss, not weight loss. I remained the same weight for over a year while steadily losing fat. I cycle and lift, I found weightlifting resulted in better fat loss, especially for the time involved. The OP goes to the gym 4 days a week, 1 hour at a time, so only 4 hours exercise a week. If I was him at 20stone it would be 3 full body weight workouts, and 1 day of cardio. If somebody paid me a million to lose as much "weight" as I could I would be doing nonstop cardio, you need rest with weights so there is more of a limit to the amount you can do

--amadeus-- wrote: »

You mention going mad if you had to do more cardio. Well if I have the choice of 30 mins in a room picking up bits of metal and putting them down again or heading out the door for a three hour run then you would not see me for dust

Yep, each to their own, as you said any exercise will benefit. At 20stone low impact might be better. I also prefer being outside like you, there are chinup bars etc in a park near me, I cycle a scenic route which has places to do dips & chinups. At 20stone bodyweight exercises will give more than enough resistance to make good progress.