Progress??

tigs2010

Hey there,

I am 5ft 11 and weigh 168lbs - in the last two weeks or so I have started walking 4 miles 6 days a week which is no problem as I am fit enough to do this. But I have only seen a 2lb decrease in 2 weeks. I appreciate that some of this may be fat turning to muscle but would I get more of a result if I did the same amount of time (approx. 45 mins) on an exercise bike? I have cut down on sugars, snacks etc. but I realise now that I will need to get rid of the white bread and a lot of pasta/potatoe, etc. as well. I have holidays etc coming up in 4 weeks and am desperate to get sorted for the summer and then maintain thereafter. Any advice would be appreciated

Satanta

1lb a week is good.

Duck's hoop

As Satanta said, 1lb a week is good going.

The same time spent on the bike might very well be more effective, depending on the effort you expend on it.

I'm fairly sure fat doesn't turn to muscle though.

There are some very useful stickies in here!

MiNdGaM3

tigs2010 wrote: »

Hey there,

I am 5ft 11 and weigh 168lbs - in the last two weeks or so I have started walking 4 miles 6 days a week which is no problem as I am fit enough to do this. But I have only seen a 2lb decrease in 2 weeks. I appreciate that some of this may be fat turning to muscle but would I get more of a result if I did the same amount of time (approx. 45 mins) on an exercise bike? I have cut down on sugars, snacks etc. but I realise now that I will need to get rid of the white bread and a lot of pasta/potatoe, etc. as well. I have holidays etc coming up in 4 weeks and am desperate to get sorted for the summer and then maintain thereafter. Any advice would be appreciated

At your height and weight, you probably need around 2,200kcal each day on average to maintain your weight without any exercise.

Are you completely sure it's 4 miles you walk in 45 minutes? That would mean an average speed of over 5.3mph which is more akin to a slow jogging pace?
Anyway, if we say the walking adds an extra 300 calories per day then that has you up to 2,500kcal for you to consume each day without gaining any weight, 2,000kcal/day to lose 1 lb per week. You're best bet if you wan't to lose more weight is to up your exercise intensity levels (so you burn more calories) rather than starving yourself.

As has been mentioned, 1lb/week is quite good going, but if you want to up that a little, your best bet is to check the stickies, eat healthy, try to stay around your 2,000kcal/day and increase your exercise intensity. At that you should be able to lose weight a little quicker, around 1.5lbs to 2lbs each week if your strict about it.

NotExactly

Satanta wrote: »

1lb a week is good.

Sorry for posting here,I didn't want to start a new thread. But anyway i'm male,160lbs, 19 years old, 5 foot 11. Is 1lb a week a good target? Would I be able to keep gaining 1lb a week for a few months or should I reduce my target as the weeks go on? My goals are strength and size gains.

TimeToShine

Count your calories using livestrong.com/myplate.

3500 calories in a pound.

If you operate a 500 calorie deficit you will lose in or around 1lb a week.

Going over this deficit for someone who's already at around 15% BF like you isn't recommended. Also, you can't turn fat into muscle. If you want to put on muscle while losing fat, you'll have to lift weights as well as cardio.

TimeToShine

NotExactly wrote: »

Sorry for posting here,I didn't want to start a new thread. But anyway i'm male,160lbs, 19 years old, 5 foot 11. Is 1lb a week a good target? Would I be able to keep gaining 1lb a week for a few months or should I reduce my target as the weeks go on? My goals are strength and size gains.

Yes 0.5-1lb a week when bulking is a good target. You should judge it more by your bodyfat% rather than weight as waterweight etc can swing things either direction. You will inevitably gain fat as well so when you see you're getting a bit too chubby you can start cutting down then.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

that should tell you what you can expect to gain, that whole site is really good actually, has lots of interesting articles

NotExactly

TimeToShine wrote: »

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

that should tell you what you can expect to gain, that whole site is really good actually, has lots of interesting articles

The site says:

1 Year of Proper Training
Potential Rate of Muscle Gain per Year
20-25 pounds (2 pounds per month)

:eek: That's half of what I was hoping for (1 pound per week). Is that 'cause half of what i'm gaining is fat?

TimeToShine

At least half will be fat, but you're underestimating the impact even 10lbs of muscle will have on your physique. Putting on fat shouldn't be an issue as you can always burn it off. Muscle should be your main priority, it is difficult to put on, and 0.5lbs of muscle a week is pretty damn good. You may put on more, depending on your genetics. The guy who made the SS program that you're doing had a kid called zach who put on 55lbs in 12 weeks, 30lbs of which was muscle. granted he was eating like 6k calories a day but still, quite a phenomenal achievement and the reason why people should start with SS to maximise muscle gains.

Mellor

NotExactly wrote: »

The site says:

:eek: That's half of what I was hoping for (1 pound per week). Is that 'cause half of what i'm gaining is fat?

Not its not because half of what you are gaining is fat, its because you expectations were too too high. (see "zach" example above)

TimeToShine wrote: »

At least half will be fat,

Not true. It's possible to put on weight without putting on much fat.
The amount of fat you put on could be anything. It's certainly not always 50% or more.

The guy who made the SS program that you're doing had a kid called zach who put on 55lbs in 12 weeks, 30lbs of which was muscle. granted he was eating like 6k calories a day but still, quite a phenomenal achievement and the reason why people should start with SS to maximise muscle gains.

That guy would of made gains no matter what he did. Seriously a genetic freak (even Rip says this).

Skinny novice + SS + genetic freak + GOMAD* = sick gains

*Might have even been 2GOMAD

tigs2010

The same time spent on the bike might very well be more effective, depending on the effort you expend on it.

Thanks I've changed to doing the bike for 45 mins - 1hr every evening and can feel the difference from the extra exercise! We'll see how that fares out on measurement day

marathonic

NotExactly wrote: »

20-25 pounds (2 pounds per month)

:eek: That's half of what I was hoping for (1 pound per week). Is that 'cause half of what i'm gaining is fat?

I'm pretty new to weight training (especially with freeweights) but I'd be very happy with the above rate of muscle gain. Building muscle is a marathon, not a sprint and you shouldn't be setting goals for how much you'd like to gain over the next 1-2 months.

Personally, I want to cut before the silly season starts at Christmas so, going by the rate of gain above, I'll have 5 months to build 10 pounds of muscle followed by a month of cutting most of the fat I've gained.

I don't know what the difference in my appearance will be with 10lbs of muscle and the same bodyfat % will make but, hopefully, by Christmas I will know.

Duck's hoop

tigs2010 wrote: »

The same time spent on the bike might very well be more effective, depending on the effort you expend on it.

Thanks I've changed to doing the bike for 45 mins - 1hr every evening and can feel the difference from the extra exercise! We'll see how that fares out on measurement day

I think the single most important training aid you can invest in is a heart rate monitor. You can pick them up for 50 quid these days, basic Polar model.

It gives you a solid, unbiased and accurate reading of how much work you are actually doing. Like some days you might feel you're killing yourself but actually, you're not. And vice versa.

It can be a good motivator, and can help avoid overtraining.

Nice one on the bike! Good luck.

NotExactly

marathonic wrote: »

you shouldn't be setting goals for how much you'd like to gain over the next 1-2 months.

Personally, I want to cut before the silly season starts at Christmas so, going by the rate of gain above, I'll have 5 months to build 10 pounds of muscle followed by a month of cutting most of the fat I've gained.

Are short term goals not better for motivation and are more realistic though? Would you not wait to cut until April or May? Are you gonna stay 'cut' right through until the end of summer?

Duck's hoop wrote: »

I think the single most important training aid you can invest in is a heart rate monitor. You can pick them up for 50 quid these days, basic Polar model.

The Gym I go to has a heart rate monitor on the treadmills and bikes that you hole for about 10 seconds. Would this be sufficient? Instead of forking out 50 euro.

marathonic

NotExactly wrote: »

Are short term goals not better for motivation and are more realistic though? Would you not wait to cut until April or May? Are you gonna stay 'cut' right through until the end of summer?

Sure short term goals are good to keep you motivated but, IMO, not a short term goal involving muscle gain due to the fact that it's so slow and difficult to judge. Instead, just have a constant short term goal of increasing the weights you are lifting. That way, you see your progress from week to week and the size gains will fall into place eventually.

Regarding my personal goals, I've just finished my first cut and started my first bulk. I cut about 20 - 25 pounds of fat since last September and, over the past few weeks, have upped the calories I'm eating in an attempt to increase the weights I'm lifting in the gym.

By starting a bulk now, I think I'll have added quite a bit of fat prior to Christmas so that's why I want at least one cut before the end of the year.

If I do it correctly, I may be able to continue with another bulk from Jan - April and then start my pre-summer cut. All I really need to do is keep motivated enough and have consistency in my training.

Mellor

NotExactly wrote: »

The Gym I go to has a heart rate monitor on the treadmills and bikes that you hole for about 10 seconds. Would this be sufficient? Instead of forking out 50 euro.

Not even close to comparible.
A HRM isn't a must. It's only useful if you know how is utilise it and/or interpit the data

Duck's hoop

Mellor wrote: »

A HRM isn't a must. It's only useful if you know how is utilise it and/or interpit the data

I reckon it's a must if you want to get even half way serious about training Mellor. It helps you get to know your body better, if you know what I mean. Sometimes percieved effort and actual effort are quite a way apart and a HRM highlights this.

Almost every weekend warrior in running, cycling, triathlon etc has been using them for the last 15 years or more, and I think they'd all agree it's a great training aid.

Using it's not difficult. And interpreting the data isn't honours maths either. It might not be indispensable for every individual depending on their goals, but for anyone even semi-serious I'd say it's very useful.

Mellor

I know they can be great, I just don't considering checking the max and/or average heartrate to gauge effort for a session as using it properly. I'd be talking about targeted HRs and such.