Stopped losing weight

Predator_

Ive lost 20lb over the past 2/3 months doing cardio (about an hour a day) and cutting out rubbish from my diet (pizza, chips etc). However I havent really lost anything over the past 2 weeks. Anyone got any advice, I would like to lose maby another 10lb. Maby weights would do it? Doing more cardio and eating less really isnt an option, I could stop drinking beer I suppose but its probably the last thing I enjoy I havent given up, gave up the fags in the summer aswell. Cheers

hug0

Well done so far thats great. The problem you will find when you get closer to your goal weight is that weight loss slows down. Your body is getting used to the exercise.

I would recommend trying some interval training instead of steady state cardio. So warm up 5 mins, then run 80% for 1 min, jog/walk for one min and so on for 30 minutes. It will give your metabolism a boost.

Definitely do some weights for the rest of the time. You dont need to be doing an hour of cardio. Do a search here for met cons, a good example of short workouts that will rev up the weight loss.

Also maybe post up your current diet. You could be eating the wrong type of foods, and yes maybe too many beers are hindering your weight loss but I know what its like, you need to have a life too!

Predator_

Well my current daily routine is roughly 2 30-40 min sessions on a cross trainer, plus sometimes a 20min walk at night. Im going to try 30mins dumbell/exercise machine and 30 mins cross trainer instead.

My current diet is simply porridge 4-5 mornings a week, corn flakes other mornings. Lunch around 2-3 would usually be a bowl of soup with brown bread or scrambled egg on toast or some sandwiches. Dinner around 6, meat with potatoes and some veg.

Austerity

Predator_ wrote: »

Well my current daily routine is roughly 2 30-40 min sessions on a cross trainer, plus sometimes a 20min walk at night. Im going to try 30mins dumbell/exercise machine and 30 mins cross trainer instead.

My current diet is simply porridge 4-5 mornings a week, corn flakes other mornings. Lunch around 2-3 would usually be a bowl of soup with brown bread or scrambled egg on toast or some sandwiches. Dinner around 6, meat with potatoes and some veg.

don't eat potatoes or porridge, replace them with bacon and eggs or some other sort of fatty meat, saturated fat is good for you, carbs are bad for you.

Frogdog

Austerity wrote: »

don't eat potatoes or porridge, replace them with bacon and eggs or some other sort of fatty meat, saturated fat is good for you, carbs are bad for you.

Excuse me, but WHAT?!?!?! Can you qualify the two above highlighted statements? Do you suggest the OP give up all fruit and vegetables as well as porridge and potatoes? They're all carbs, afterall.

OP, you've hit what's called a "plateau".

Lifting heavy weights are more beneficial to cardio for weight loss in my opinion. Weights machines and dumbbells aren't going to cut it, I'm afraid. Lifting heavy weight on a barbell doing compound exercises are the only way to go - check out "Starting Stregth" for a good beginner's program that includes all the right moves.

As for the poster that mentioned interval training, try this also. Although 30 minutes might be a bit much for you at the start. See how long you can run/cycle/swim/row at max effort for 30 seconds and then go at an easier pace for 1 minute. Repeat this as much as you can. Google "interval training" for more information.

And finally, and most importantly, your diet. How many calories are you consuming daily? Weight loss is as simple as eating less calories than your body needs daily. Calculate how many calories your body needs daily from the calculator on the 2nd post of the 2nd page of this link:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055963342

In fact, read the whole thread, as well as the stickied thread on this forum entitled "Nutrition 101".

Best of luck!

Austerity

Frogdog wrote: »

Excuse me, but WHAT?!?!?! Can you qualify the two above highlighted statements? Do you suggest the OP give up all fruit and vegetables as well as porridge and potatoes? They're all carbs, afterall.

OP, you've hit what's called a "plateau".

Lifting heavy weights are more beneficial to cardio for weight loss in my opinion. Weights machines and dumbbells aren't going to cut it, I'm afraid. Lifting heavy weight on a barbell doing compound exercises are the only way to go - check out "Starting Stregth" for a good beginner's program that includes all the right moves.

As for the poster that mentioned interval training, try this also. Although 30 minutes might be a bit much for you at the start. See how long you can run/cycle/swim/row at max effort for 30 seconds and then go at an easier pace for 1 minute. Repeat this as much as you can. Google "interval training" for more information.

And finally, and most importantly, your diet. How many calories are you consuming daily? Weight loss is as simple as eating less calories than your body needs daily. Calculate how many calories your body needs daily from the calculator on the 2nd post of the 2nd page of this link:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055963342

In fact, read the whole thread, as well as the stickied thread on this forum entitled "Nutrition 101".

Best of luck!

Weight loss is not as simple as calories in < calories out = weight loss. A human body is not a moped. Have you read anything about how insulin stops you from losing weight?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/insulin-and-weight-gain/DA00139

When you eat carbs your body will produce insulin which will make weight loss more difficult. If you eat very few carbs your body will enter a state of ketosis and will instead burn fat for its energy needs.

Vegs such as broccoli and lettuce don't contain many carbs so OP can eat those but he/she should avoid tomatoes and fruits as they have a high sugar content.

Frogdog

Austerity wrote: »

Weight loss is not as simple as calories in < calories out = weight loss. A human body is not a moped. Have you read anything about how insulin stops you from losing weight?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/insulin-and-weight-gain/DA00139

When you eat carbs your body will produce insulin which will make weight loss more difficult. If you eat very few carbs your body will enter a state of ketosis and will instead burn fat for its energy needs.

Vegs such as broccoli and lettuce don't contain many carbs so OP can eat those but he/she should avoid tomatoes and fruits as they have a high sugar content.

You're telling someone to avoid all fruit??? This is the Nutrition & Diet forum, not the Low-Carb forum. Weight loss is as simple as calories in < calories out = weight loss. And I believe that making up those "calories in" should be done by a diet of various nutritious food, including all the macronutrients of protein, fat and carbs. However, I believe low-GI carbs are the ones that should be prioritised over all others, thereby reducing the effects of your dreaded insulin.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Austerity wrote: »

Weight loss is not as simple as calories in < calories out = weight loss. A human body is not a moped. Have you read anything about how insulin stops you from losing weight?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/insulin-and-weight-gain/DA00139

When you eat carbs your body will produce insulin which will make weight loss more difficult. If you eat very few carbs your body will enter a state of ketosis and will instead burn fat for its energy needs.

Vegs such as broccoli and lettuce don't contain many carbs so OP can eat those but he/she should avoid tomatoes and fruits as they have a high sugar content.

bad bad bad advice!

moonage

Frogdog wrote: »

Weight loss is as simple as calories in < calories out = weight loss.

No, it isn't that simple at all.

Frogdog

moonage wrote: »

No, it isn't that simple at all.

Care to explain?

2qk4u

Eat Nuts ! The oils in the nuts helps...

Frogdog

2qk4u wrote: »

Eat Nuts ! The oils in the nuts helps...

Once again, care to explain? Maybe you could expand on that a bit more? :rolleyes:

moonage

Frogdog wrote: »

Care to explain?

It's not that simple because it depends where the calories are coming from.

For example, 2,000 calories a day on a high carb/low fat diet will have different effects to 2,000 calories a day on a low carb/high fat diet. The same number of calories are being consumed but weight loss is more likely on the latter diet. Many trials have proved this.

Catari Jaguar

Frogdog wrote: »

Weight loss is as simple as eating less calories than your body needs daily.

Ridiculous. Every diet scam product from Special K to additive laden milkshakes/ soups to cereal bars, crisps, WW ready meals and "low fat" yogurts are labelled low calorie.

Live off a diet like that and you most likely won't lose a pound after the initial fluid loss.

rocky

moonage wrote: »

It's not that simple because it depends where the calories are coming from.

For example, 2,000 calories a day on a high carb/low fat diet will have different effects to 2,000 calories a day on a low carb/high fat diet. The same number of calories are being consumed but weight loss is more likely on the latter diet. Many trials have proved this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16403234

Nutr Metab (Lond). 2006 Jan 11;3:7.

Comparison of isocaloric very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk.Noakes M, Foster PR, Keogh JB, James AP, Mamo JC, Clifton PM.
CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition, Adelaide, Australia. manny.noakes@csiro.au

BACKGROUND: It is speculated that high saturated fat very low carbohydrate diets (VLCARB) have adverse effects on cardiovascular risk but evidence for this in controlled studies is lacking. The objective of this study was to compare, under isocaloric conditions, the effects of a VLCARB to 2 low saturated fat high carbohydrate diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Eighty three subjects, 48 +/- 8 y, total cholesterol 5.9 +/- 1.0 mmol/L, BMI 33 +/- 3 kg/m2 were randomly allocated to one of 3 isocaloric weight loss diets (6 MJ) for 8 weeks and on the same diets in energy balance for 4 weeks: Very Low Fat (VLF) (CHO:Fat: Protein; %SF = 70:10:20; 3%), High Unsaturated Fat (HUF) = (50:30:20; 6%), VLCARB (4:61:35; 20%)

RESULTS: Percent fat mass loss was not different between diets VLCARB -4.5 +/- 0.5, VLF-4.0 +/- 0.5, HUF -4.4 +/- 0.6 kg). Lean mass loss was 32-31% on VLCARB and VLF compared to HUF (21%) (P < 0.05). LDL-C increased significantly only on VLCARB by 7% (p < 0.001 compared with the other diets) but apoB was unchanged on this diet and HDL-C increased relative to the other 2 diets. Triacylglycerol was lowered by 0.73 +/- 0.12 mmol/L on VLCARB compared to -0.15 +/- 0.07 mmol/L on HUF and -0.06 +/- 0.13 mmol/L on VLF (P < 0.001). Plasma homocysteine increased 6.6% only on VLCARB (P = 0.026). VLCARB lowered fasting insulin 33% compared to a 19% fall on HUF and no change on VLF (P < 0.001). The VLCARB meal also provoked significantly lower post prandial glucose and insulin responses than the VLF and HUF meals. All diets decreased fasting glucose, blood pressure and CRP (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Isocaloric VLCARB results in similar fat loss than diets low in saturated fat, but are more effective in improving triacylglycerols, HDL-C, fasting and post prandial glucose and insulin concentrations. VLCARB may be useful in the short-term management of subjects with insulin resistance and hypertriacylglycerolemia.

Blatter

moonage wrote: »

It's not that simple because it depends where the calories are coming from.

For example, 2,000 calories a day on a high carb/low fat diet will have different effects to 2,000 calories a day on a low carb/high fat diet. The same number of calories are being consumed but weight loss is more likely on the latter diet. Many trials have proved this.

I'm sorry but that isn't true. Trials have proven that whilst on a low carb diet, the initial weight loss was greater. However, these trials have also proven that overall weight loss was equal to the weight loss from a non low carb diet, after a sustained period of time.

Don't be fooled by the 10Ib of water weight you lose in the first two weeks of a low carb diet.

Blatter

cherub rock wrote: »

Ridiculous. Every diet scam product from Special K to additive laden milkshakes/ soups to cereal bars, crisps, WW ready meals and "low fat" yogurts are labelled low calorie.

Live off a diet like that and you most likely won't lose a pound after the initial fluid loss.

Your saying that the calories in vs. calories out system is, in your words ridiculous.

That, as a statement in itself is ridiculous.

I could eat a pile of absolute crap, low fat yogurts, crisps, chocolate, cereal bars etc. and still lose weight, as long as I'm burning more calories than I'm consuming. That is a fact.

Am I advocating this method of losing weight? Hell no, you would look and feel terrible, but you would still lose weight. How do you think Weight Watchers are still around?

rocky

moonage

Is a Calorie Really a Calorie? Metabolic Advantage of Low Carbohydrate Diets:

Abstract

The first law of thermodynamics dictates that body mass remains constant when caloric intake equals caloric expenditure. It should be noted, however, that different diets lead to different biochemical pathways that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics. It is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage. Well-controlled studies suggest that calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption. Biologically speaking, a calorie is certainly not a calorie. The ideal weight loss diet, if it even exists, remains to be determined, but a high-carbohydrate/low-protein diet may be unsatisfactory for many obese individuals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/

rocky

Too bad nobody mentioned low-protein/high-carb as being an equivalent alternative to high-protein/low-carb.

Of course you need adequate amounts of protein (1-1.5g/pound LBM). Once you cover that, varying carbs/fat proportion does not produce better results consistently.

Even the conclusion of the study you quote says:

...one cannot assume that the metabolic advantage (i.e., greater weight loss compared to isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet) will stay the same over a long term.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/5/1055

Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

Lyle McDonald has a few books out on low carb diets http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

[T]his study adds to the data set suggesting that, if calories and protein intake are identical, there is little to no metabolic advantage (in terms of fat or weight loss) to full blown ketogenic diets. They work at least as well, mind you, but not better.

[T]here is too much variance between individuals and their needs to claim that any single diet is inherently superior for all people and all situations. As this study suggests, given identical calories and protein intake, there doesn’t seem to be any inherent metabolic advantage in terms of total fat loss to a full blown ketogenic diet, at least not when compared to a moderate carbohydrate diet with an identical amount of protein.