Dieting and going to the Gym BUT NOT LOSING ANY WEIGHT!

cor_1986

With the past three weeks I have been on a strict diet and going to the gym but I am not losing weight! I weigh 165 pounds and my height is 5.8

I have started eating a lot healthier, I now eat only brown rice/pasta/bread etc and on a limited intake. I have been eating lean meats like chicken and turkey, and oily fish! I have also dramatically increased my fruit and veg intake as well as consuming approx 3 - 4 litres of water a day. On a daily basis I have a calorie intake of between 1200 and 1500 calories. I have also cut alcohol out as I have heard that it makes it much harder to loss weight.
I have been working out, doing Gym sessions 4 - 5 times a week for an hour to an hour and a half a session.

My problem is that I have been doing this for almost 3 weeks and have not seen any difference on either the scales or my measurements. I measured myself before I began dieting and going to the gym so I could track my progress!

Please help me!!!

Spear

Moved from Helpdesk.

JamJamJamJam

As long as you're definitely taking in fewer calories than you need in a day, you should be burning body fat to provide the extra energy. How many calories were you consuming from food/drink previously?

First of all, you're only three weeks in. You'll start noticing bigger differences soon. Weight fluctuates slightly from day to day due to the amount of water in your body or perhaps even due to the food in your gut! So, for instance, if I weigh myself today and then exercise loads and loads, I could weigh myself again to find that I'm even heavier tomorrow. However, if I stick at it, I'll notice my average weight decreases. Additionally, muscle is heavier than fat. Perhaps you've gained a small amount of muscle which has counter-balanced a loss in fat.

What do you do in the gym? Spending a lot of time in the gym can be misleading. You could stay in there for 4 hours, but you could be doing very gentle cardiovascular exercise (such as walking slowly) or purely lifting heavy weights, neither of which are great for fat loss. Then another person could come in, really give it welly (sprinting and going very intensely) and finish after an hour and end up burning a lot more fat in the long run.

What might you eat during a typical day? Different people prefer to diet in different ways when it comes to fat loss - often depending on their own intentions: to put on muscle, to just become stronger without excess muscle, etc. Personally, I like to cut down on foods which are high in carbohydrates as much as possible if I'm just hoping to lose fat. That means breads, sugars, pastas, potatoes, etc. and particularly simple carbohydrates, which are often white (white sugar, for instance). These aren't great for fat loss as they encourage your cells to store fat for a short time.

Honestly, keep it up and you'll start seeing yourself losing the excess fat, becoming smaller, getting fitter, healthier, stronger, more energetic and lively, and feeling better.

syklops

1200-1500 calories sounds like too much of a calorific deficit to me. Assuming you are an adult female, to maintain your weight you should be taking in around 2000 and thats not including your outgoings in the gym. Your body may be metabolising your muscle and keeping the weight on as it is in starvation mode and is conserving fat.

I suggest talking to a dietician to get a professionals opinion on how much you should be eating.

Im not an expert, neither is most people on here but 1200 a day sounds like an unhealthy amount. especially for someone 5'8.

Dotcomdolly

I garee that your calories sounds too low.
Check out www.fat2fitradio.com
they have a good bmr calculator & will suggesta weight loss calorie intake for you. They are all about slow & steady so it will probably be highrer than you
expect.

cor_1986

Hi All,

Thanks for your replies and votes of confidence!

JamJamJamJam - Prior to commencing my diet and exercise regime I consumed approx 2000 calories a day! I did very little exercise so wasn't working anything off!
I do between an hour and an hour and a half in the gym 4/5 days a week. While in the gym I do quiet a bit of cardio usually about 20 - 30 minutes on the treadmile, walking at a speed of 5 - 6 gradually building it into a run and slowing it to a fast walk again, I do this at an inclined of 2. I then move onto the xtrainer, and again do about 20 - 25 minutes at a resistance of 5. I also do a bit of weight training nothing major about 15 goes on the lat pull down, chest press, shoulder press, leg curl and leg press. I cool down by doing 10 - 15 minutes on either the bike or the rowing machine. On average I burn approx 500 calories on a visit to the gym.
I have completely overhauled my diet! For breakfast I have a cereal, usually Special K with skimmed milk and black coffee. I have a piece of fruit about 11. For lunch I have a salad or scrambled eggs with wholemeal bread. I have another piece of fruit or a rice cake in the afternoon, and for dinner I have a salad with a piece of grilled fish or chicken, or a small portion of brown pasta with a mix of tuna, peppers, sweetcorn,onion ect. I drink about 4 liters of water a day. I also take a 20ml shot of Acai juice every day!

Skylops and dotcomdolly, I completed the bmr and was told that I should be consuming 1700 calories a day to get to my goal weight. Before I began dieting I looked it up online and most forums said that a consummation of between 1200 - 1400 daily was sufficient!

I stood on the scales this morning and I have put on a pound since last weekend! It's so frustrating.....

Hanley

cor_1986 wrote: »

Skylops and dotcomdolly, I completed the bmr and was told that I should be consuming 1700 calories a day to get to my goal weight. Before I began dieting I looked it up online and most forums said that a consummation of between 1200 - 1400 daily was sufficient!

I stood on the scales this morning and I have put on a pound since last weekend! It's so frustrating.....

Whatever forums you were reading are obviously a load of crap then, because there's no way that's a sustainable amount of kcals to be consuming and anyone with a good level of knowledge in health and fitness (esp for someone concerned with appearance) would NEVER recommend going that low.

I'd have said start around 1,900kcals and work from there. Eat too little and your body will compensate by decreasing the amount of kcals you burn, and weight loss won't happen.

You could well be under estimating what you eat, or over estimating activity levels.

And you're fat and protein intake is probably too low, with carbs being too high.

Start off around 40% protein, 30% carbs and 30% fat.

ncmc

Skylops and dotcomdolly, I completed the bmr and was told that I should be consuming 1700 calories a day to get to my goal weight. Before I began dieting I looked it up online and most forums said that a consummation of between 1200 - 1400 daily was sufficient!

Are you adding the extra cals from your exercise though? I use Fitness Pal and to lose 1lb per week, it recommends that I eat 1200 cals a day. But if I burn 500 cals in exercise, that increases to 1700 which is much healthier. I am in the same boat as you. I have been really stupid and anal about my cals and have been eating less than 1200 cals per day. I have not lost so much as an ounce in the last 2 weeks.

I have decided to increase my calorie intake, as I reckon my body has gone into starvation mode.

ncmc

Also, do your clothes feel any different? They say that's a more accurate measure than the scales!

cor_1986

Hanley - I have been very careful about counting calories, checking the backs of packs and weighing the amount of food to calculate the calories involved! For fruit and veg I use an online calorie counter that outlines the calories in all fruit and veg!
I calculate the calories I burn from the machines I use, I enter my weight and age and its calculated from there!

ncmc - I haven't been adding the calories lost to my calorie intake. Should I be doing that? My clothes don't fit any better unfortunately! I have stated wearing looser clothes like dresses so I don't get disheartened!

Hanley

cor_1986 wrote: »

Hanley - I have been very careful about counting calories, checking the backs of packs and weighing the amount of food to calculate the calories involved! For fruit and veg I use an online calorie counter that outlines the calories in all fruit and veg!
I calculate the calories I burn from the machines I use, I enter my weight and age and its calculated from there!

ncmc - I haven't been adding the calories lost to my calorie intake. Should I be doing that? My clothes don't fit any better unfortunately! I have stated wearing looser clothes like dresses so I don't get disheartened!

The machine's DEFINITELY over estimated kcals. To quite a large extent in some cases.

When it comes to working out total kcal levels, you should be looking at it as follows: (BMR* + Exercise**) x 0.85 = target kcals

*BMR - the amount of calories you'd burn during the day if you didn't do anything training

**Exercise - the best way to do this is just get total kcals burned from exercise during the week and divide by 7 to give an average daily figure (cos weight loss doesnt' happen on a day to day basis - it's the sum of average effort)

And I said multiply by 0.85 instead of just subtract 500kcals because 500kcals off for me (when my maintenance level is 3,000+kcals a day) and 500 off for you (when your maintence level is circa 2,000kcas) is a completely different prospect.

ncmc

ncmc - I haven't been adding the calories lost to my calorie intake. Should I be doing that? My clothes don't fit any better unfortunately! I have stated wearing looser clothes like dresses so I don't get disheartened!

I think you are supposed to. Your cal intake is supposed to keep you going during the day. If you are burning 500-600 in the gym, that's only leaving you 600 to support you during the day. It does seem like you could be in starvation mode. It's your bodies way of protecting itself when you give it so few cals.

I need to follow my own advice! I have only being eating 1200 per day too and I know in my heart it's not enough. I am going to up that to 1600-1700 per day and see how I get on. I'll report back next week!

BlastedGlute

What are your trying to achieve exactly? And what are you doing in the gym?

SuprSi

One other thing that may have an effect is water weight. A gallon of water (nearly 4 litres) weighs over 8 pounds. I know water passes through your system relatively quickly, but if you drink a lot of water around the time you're weighing yourself, it could temporarily increase your body weight.

Are you weighing yourself in exactly the same conditions each time?

SBWife

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Additionally, muscle is heavier than fat.

Muscle is not heavier than fat. A kg of muscle weighs one kg a kg of fat weighs one kg. It is however denser a kg of muscle will be over a smaller volume than a kg of fat.


Your intensity in the gym doesn't seem to be very high. Going by machine calorie counts can be very misleading. Look up perceived exertion or get a heart rate monitor and use it to help build up the intensity. Also use the incline on the treadmill I pretend to myself that the thing doesn't work below 3% also substitute an Arc trainer for the elliptical it's significantly more intense, and get a free weight and/or circuits program from a PT.

Dan420

SBWife wrote: »

A kg of muscle weighs one kg

read that again... (and if your going to get into some silly junior cert science argument about the definitions of density, weight & mass. 1 Kg weighs ~9.8 newtons :P)


It's intirely possibly that the reason your not losing weight is simply that you're gaining as much muscle mass as you're losing in fat. particlarly if your unacustommed to daily exercise and good nutrition your body could be very rapidly packing on muscle. (all people new to weightlifting or a new training regime will experience this)

As for exercise intensity, the best way to simply burn calories (and increase your heart and lung strength) is through long periods of low intensity exercise such as jogging or swimming ("cardio"). However this expended energy will be easily replaced as soon as you eat any substantial meal.

a More effective method for maintaining a healthy weight is short-medium length periods of High intensity exercise ("anaerobic Exercise",) such as sprinting/weightlifting/circuit training/kettlebell's etc. (for the most hardcore end search "hurricane training", and for the lower end the "trak attack" type courses in your local gym.)

The Benefit's of this type of exercise over "cardio" (aside from, increased strength, balance, flexibility, functional short term endurance, stronger bones) is that aside from the masses of energy it consumes (anaerobic exercise is quite inefficient vs. aerobic exercise, so you can burn large amounts of energy in relitivly short periods of time) is that it is shown to raise your resting metabolism throughout the rest of the day.

Hanley

Dan420 wrote: »

read that again... (and if your going to get into some silly junior cert science argument about the definitions of density, weight & mass. 1 Kg weighs ~9.8 newtons :P)

If YOU’RE going to start debating junior cert science, you should probably get primary school English down first

It's intirely possibly that the reason your not losing weight is simply that you're gaining as much muscle mass as you're losing in fat. particlarly if your unacustommed to daily exercise and good nutrition your body could be very rapidly packing on muscle. (all people new to weightlifting or a new training regime will experience this)

Agreed. In theory. But it doesn’t really wash out when you take measurements into account. If she was losing weight, waist measurements would probably coming down. Plus they don’t seem to have a great structure to their program, which means any gains will be minimal.

As for exercise intensity, the best way to simply burn calories (and increase your heart and lung strength) is through long periods of low intensity exercise such as jogging or swimming ("cardio"). However this expended energy will be easily replaced as soon as you eat any substantial meal.

Swimming’s a poor choice. Most people will gas due to poor swimming technique before they’ve had a chance to burn any kcals.

a More effective method for maintaining a healthy weight is short-medium length periods of High intensity exercise ("anaerobic Exercise",) such as sprinting/weightlifting/circuit training/kettlebell's etc. (for the most hardcore end search "hurricane training", and for the lower end the "trak attack" type courses in your local gym.)

How is the kcals burned during HIIT different to LIT? Does your body somehow magically choose not to replace those kcals “as soon as you eat any substantial meal.”??

The Benefit's of this type of exercise over "cardio" (aside from, increased strength, balance, flexibility, functional short term endurance, stronger bones) is that aside from the masses of energy it consumes (anaerobic exercise is quite inefficient vs. aerobic exercise, so you can burn large amounts of energy in relitivly short periods of time) is that it is shown to raise your resting metabolism throughout the rest of the day.

As outlined elsewhere today, EPOC is going to be minimal for most people because they’re not able to work at sufficient intensities to generate a significant kcals burn once the workout is complete. And even if they are, they won’t be able to repeat that sort of effort too frequently.

Most research that I’ve seen recently seems to point to the effects of EPOC being over estimated by people. And even if it does raise your metabolism, does it really matter if it’s only by a few kcals?

I’ve no idea how it increases ‘balance’ either. But I do know that if someone is relatively inexperienced and carrying a lot of excess weight, jumping in HIIT is a great way to potentially injure oneself.

Dan420

Hanley wrote: »

If YOU’RE going to start debating junior cert science, you should probably get primary school English down first

Can't argue with that... (i am dyslexic and disbraxic though, so i sort of have an excuse)

Swimming’s a poor choice. Most people will gas due to poor swimming technique before they’ve had a chance to burn any kcals.

agreed. (does save you from nasty knee and foot injuries caused by poor running form though)

How is the kcals burned during HIIT different to LIT? Does your body somehow magically choose not to replace those kcals “as soon as you eat any substantial meal.”??

See section below on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption.

As outlined elsewhere today, EPOC is going to be minimal for most people because they’re not able to work at sufficient intensities to generate a significant kcals burn once the workout is complete. And even if they are, they won’t be able to repeat that sort of effort too frequently.

perhaps not at first, but after a few weeks. and if you just sit on your ass you'll never achieve this.

I’ve no idea how it increases ‘balance’ either.

Increased muscle mass => balance & stability. (look at the difference between an Olympic sprinter and marathon runner's upper body for example.)

SBWife

I'm sorry but a woman doing 15 "goes" on the lat machine and on a few other fixed weight machines is unlikely to have added much muscle over a few weeks. Adding muscle for most women is actually pretty bloody difficult, it really takes considerable effort and a structured program over several months. In this regard not having loads of testosterone floating around the system really is a bit of a disadvantage.

IMO what's most likely happening is the OP is underestimating the calories she's taking in and overestimating the amount of activity.

Hanley

Dan420 wrote: »

Can't argue with that... (i am dyslexic and disbraxic though, so i sort of have an excuse)

Maybe the other dude has some sort of science problem

agreed. (does save you from nasty knee and foot injuries caused by poor running form though)

You could learn to run properly, or increase mileage slowly to mitigate. You could do something else like rowing, cycling or hitting the x-trainer.

perhaps not at first, but after a few weeks. and if you just sit on your ass you'll never achieve this.

Not really.

Read this - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-effects-of-exercise-intensity-and-duration-on-the-excess-post-exercise-oxygen-consumption.html

Increased muscle mass => balance & stability. (look at the difference between an Olympic sprinter and marathon runner's upper body for example.)

More muscle = more balance?!

And the difference between a sprinter and marathon runner proves nothing other than if you lift weights, eat more than you consume and are predisposed to being in the top 1% of an athletic population your body will reflect the demands of your sport.

Hanley

SBWife wrote: »

I'm sorry but a woman doing 15 "goes" on the lat machine and on a few other fixed weight machines is unlikely to have added much muscle over a few weeks. Adding muscle for most women is actually pretty bloody difficult, it really takes considerable effort and a structured program over several months. In this regard not having loads of testosterone floating around the system really is a bit of a disadvantage.

IMO what's most likely happening is the OP is underestimating the calories she's taking in and overestimating the amount of activity.

Yup. Occams Razor.

Dan420

SBWife wrote: »

I'm sorry but a woman doing 15 "goes" on the lat machine and on a few other fixed weight machines is unlikely to have added much muscle over a few weeks.

IMO what's most likely happening is the OP is underestimating the calories she's taking in and overestimating the amount of activity.

exactly. she (i'm sure there's a more polite way to address you cor_1986, but as Hanley pointed out i don't exactly have a mastery of the english language.
anyway, She is probobly overestimating the effect of her exercise and dietary changes. in which case her modest muscle gains would balance out her equally modest fat loss.

Dan420

Hanley wrote: »

And the difference between a sprinter and marathon runner proves nothing other than if you lift weights, eat more than you consume and are predisposed to being in the top 1% of an athletic population your body will reflect the demands of your sport.

if that was the case and upper body strength offer no increased stability, then why on earth does usain bolt have shoulders like bowling balls? do you think that an Olympic level athlete would carry around 20kg of extra muscle just to look good if it provided no advantage in his/her sport?
(seen as we're have this whole science'y theme i will point out that sprinting is mostly about acceleration and F=MA where if the force he provides is constant greater mass results in reduced acceleration :P)

The extra muscle offers balance and stability, allowing him to make better use of his energy and accelerate faster.

i'l read the article and get back to you on the other thing..

EDIT: ok, i'm going to be honest, i was too lazy to read the whole thing, but the figure in bold said 80 calories were burnt over the course of the day just from 1 workout per day (so it can be doubled if your exercising morning & evening), and while that might seem insignificant that's a pretty reasonably deficit (for free might I add) when combined with caloric restriction and the energy used during the the workout itself if your cutting weight.

Vegeta

cor_1986 wrote: »

My problem is that I have been doing this for almost 3 weeks and have not seen any difference on either the scales or my measurements.

3 weeks is a very short period of time when it comes to changing your body.

So after 3 weeks there was no change. Therefore you need to take stock, read the advice given above (listen to Hanley) and alter/improve your approach.

cc87

Dan420 wrote: »

if that was the case and upper body strength offer no increased stability, then why on earth does usain bolt have shoulders like bowling balls? do you think that an Olympic level athlete would carry around 20kg of extra muscle just to look good if it provided no advantage in his/her sport?
(seen as we're have this whole science'y theme i will point out that sprinting is mostly about acceleration and F=MA where if the force he provides is constant greater mass results in reduced acceleration :P)

The extra muscle offers balance and stability, allowing him to make better use of his energy and accelerate faster.

i'l read the article and get back to you on the other thing..

Why do people always insist on using elite athletes as examples when trying to make a point??
Usain Bolt could sit on his arse for the rest of his lie and still be faster than most people. What his training is or his muscles mass.... allows him to do is pretty much irrelevant for 99% of the population.

Also, if you asked usain bolt to do something really challenging to balance and stability, id say he wouldnt be too good at it considering he has spent his life training to run really fast in a straight line.

Long Term Louth

Lads,

I know this is a different topic, but can anyone tell me the best exercise for working off "man boobs" ?

Dan420

cc87 wrote: »

Why do people always insist on using elite athletes as examples when trying to make a point??
Usain Bolt could sit on his arse for the rest of his lie and still be faster than most people. What his training is or his muscles mass.... allows him to do is pretty much irrelevant for 99% of the population.

Also, if you asked usain bolt to do something really challenging to balance and stability, id say he wouldnt be too good at it considering he has spent his life training to run really fast in a straight line.

the whole point of that point was not that usain bolt can run really fast (which i'm pretty sure he can) it's that the extra upper body strength must confer some benefit otherwise he wouldn't have it. so the example is perfectly relevant.

and i'm sure he'd do a hell of a lot better than an overweight lad from Ennis.
(just chose a city at random, not trying to pick on anyone)

Dan420

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Lads,

I know this is a different topic, but can anyone tell me the best exercise for working off "man boobs" ?

There is no such thing as spot reduction. all body fat is the same. to get rid of them you'll have to reduce your overall body fat. (altho chest exercises such as pushups will add definition and mask the shape of them)

Vegeta

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Lads,

I know this is a different topic, but can anyone tell me the best exercise for working off "man boobs" ?

Yup, the exercise of self control. Weight loss is the way to get rid of em

ncmc

I got lost somewhere in this thread with all the sceince stuff going on!

Hanley - Do you recommend the gym for weight loss, or is it 90% down to diet? I am in a similar situation to the OP, have really cut down my calories (probably too much) I do a fair bit of cardio (jogging and walking) but was thinking of joining the gym to tone up and get rid of the last couple of stubborn pounds. But I get a bit confused reading these threads, some people seem to suggest that it is only worth while if you are doing serious high intensity stuff.

Long Term Louth

Thanks Lads,

Have lost three stone, the "moobs" are shrinking, but not as fast as other areas, i.e. waste 40" now 34". I am noticing a big difference since started on rowing machine for 1/2 hr, is this the best machine for this area?

Dan420

ncmc wrote: »

Do you recommend the gym for weight loss, or is it 90% down to diet?

i would say half and half. because weight loss or not, exercise is important. (but changing your diet will result in more of a change fat wise)

some people seem to suggest that it is only worth while if you are doing serious high intensity stuff.

not the case, any exercise is MUCH better than no exercise, but if you want to see big results (and end up enjoying exerciseing in the process) then high intensity is the way to go.

I promise you that if you start working out hard for 3 weeks or so, once you'v got over the intense Delayed onset muscular soreness of the first couple of weeks, you'll start to love working out beacause of how awesome all the extra testosterone makes you feel.

Hanley

Dan420 wrote: »

EDIT: ok, i'm going to be honest, i was too lazy to read the whole thing, but the figure in bold said 80 calories were burnt over the course of the day just from 1 workout per day (so it can be doubled if your exercising morning & evening), and while that might seem insignificant that's a pretty reasonably deficit (for free might I add) when combined with caloric restriction and the energy used during the the workout itself if your cutting weight.

Jesus Christ man it’s all there. I’m not going back and rereading to pull exact figures so this is off memory - those 80kcals extra were generated by working at a high VO2 max, about 75-80% of MHR, for 60+ minutes. You need to be exceptionally fit to do that.

You WILL NOT be able to do that 2x per day, hell you won’t be able to do it multiple times per week. So while HIIT may burn more kcals via EPOC after the workout is complete, it absolutely does not matter in the real world because it’s not something you’ll be able to achieve.

I just had a yorkie. That’s 350kcals. That’s over 4 sessions work of EPOC. It’s such a small amount that it REALLY doesn’t matter. It’s less than a slice of bread FFS.

ncmc wrote: »

I got lost somewhere in this thread with all the sceince stuff going on!

There’s no science stuff going on. Just myths and have truths being perpetuated!!

Hanley - Do you recommend the gym for weight loss, or is it 90% down to diet? I am in a similar situation to the OP, have really cut down my calories (probably too much) I do a fair bit of cardio (jogging and walking) but was thinking of joining the gym to tone up and get rid of the last couple of stubborn pounds. But I get a bit confused reading these threads, some people seem to suggest that it is only worth while if you are doing serious high intensity stuff.

Weight loss? Diet’s key.
Fat loss? Diet’s key.

Improving visual appearance? Weights + diet + ‘cardio’ if necessary.

Low intensity cardio is great. It works, it’s low impact, it’s not hard and it can be done frequently. People talk about HIIT like it’s some magic cure, but in reality the number of “normal” people (ie non-genetically gifted athletes) who’ve got in great shape with it won’t be all that high.

Comments like yours really dishearten me because it just shows that people not too knowledgeable on the subject get wrapped up in all the BS ‘science-y’ arguments around it which lack real world application when it’s really not that difficult of complicated.

Hanley

Dan420 wrote: »

you'll start to love working out beacause of how awesome all the extra testosterone makes you feel.

Oh snap.

Dan420

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Thanks Lads,

Have lost three stone, the "moobs" are shrinking, but not as fast as other areas, i.e. waste 40" now 34". I am noticing a big difference since started on rowing machine for 1/2 hr, is this the best machine for this area?

the muscle wise the rowing machine will mostly focus on the general & lower back, biceps, rear deltoid (shoulder), quad's (front of thigh) and glutes (ass).
but it's main focus is as an alternative to jogging/swimming etc for aerobic exercis (and hence fat loss)

me, 5 mins ago.. wrote:

There is no such thing as spot reduction. all body fat is the same. to get rid of them you'll have to reduce your overall body fat. (altho chest exercises such as pushups will add definition and mask the shape of them)

Frogdog

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Thanks Lads,

Have lost three stone, the "moobs" are shrinking, but not as fast as other areas, i.e. waste 40" now 34". I am noticing a big difference since started on rowing machine for 1/2 hr, is this the best machine for this area?

Again, you can't work on reducing fat from a specific area. All exercise works on reducing fat from all over your body. Get your diet in order first and foremost, then add exercise (both cardio and weights) and you'll reach your goal quicker.

Dan420

Hanley wrote: »

JYou need to be exceptionally fit to do that.

I am exceptionally fit.

Comments like yours really dishearten me because it just shows that people not too knowledgeable on the subject get wrapped up in all the BS ‘science-y’ arguments around it which lack real world application when it’s really not that difficult or complicated.

Completely agree, anything will work for you as long as you're consistent and committed.
Being in shape is simple all it takes is a bit of work. (both definitions :P)

anything complicated you can pretty much ignore until your fit enough to go three rounds at max intensity. it's about looking for ways to squeeze the perfect amount/balance into an athlete's schedule, to try and gain the competitive edge. (which 99%+ of people don't need)

Hanley

Since none of my points are being addressed - I'm out.

If anyone else wants to talk about it all, make some contributions and I MIGHT reply.

d'Oracle

cc87 wrote: »

Why do people always insist on using elite athletes as examples when trying to make a point??
Usain Bolt could sit on his arse for the rest of his lie and still be faster than most people. What his training is or his muscles mass.... allows him to do is pretty much irrelevant for 99% of the population.

Indeed.
Also why do people keep using Newtons second law of motion so incredibly poorly?

discus

Hanley wrote: »

- I'm out.

Two words ya never hear... "Hanley quit"

:eek::(

Hanley

discus wrote: »

Two words ya never hear... "Hanley quit"

:eek::(

A collection of words you'll often hear... "Hanley's redirecting his effort somewhere else"

brewster501

I am no expert but surely its obvious, you eat less calories (but not enough to go into starvation mode) and exercise more to improve your stamina and muscle mass so that your body burns more energy and you will lose weight after a reasonable period of time. One pound of fat is approx. 3500 calories so this is the deficit you need to be creating. So, depending on your personal needs (i.e. height, weight and level of normal activity) create a deficit of around 500 cals a day and you will lose a pound a week of fat. If you are exercising more you will gain some muscle and if you do both you will get smaller - over a period of time. I would say that in addition to this you need to plan your meals in advance and stick to them, don't snack in between and don't eat too many simple carbs like white bread, chocolate etc as they will mess with your blood sugar and make you feel hungry. Eat a good balance of complex carbs, protein and good fats and you won't want to snack. If overeating has been your problem in the past, put a bit of time into thinking about why you've overeaten and then deal with that (for example too many carbs or comfort eating).

Good luck and keep at it, you will definitely lose weight eventually - going back to whatever you did to make you gain weight in the first place will just lead to more of the same.

All the best.