A rant about basic concepts I

A_Y_A said:
low calories is hard and slows metabolism,its the quickest way to lose weight but not for a long term.higher calories diet slow , healty.exercice is important in both cases...i got it...god! losing weight is so complicated.
Click to expand...

It really isn't.

There's a lot of hair-splitting that goes on in communities such as this.... but the backbone of weight loss is and always will be; develop a balanced diet that is sanely calorically controlled and pair this with a structured resistance training program as well as some cardio.

It's really that simple.

but we can cheat metabolism, right?,i mean once it slows downs i go up for a short while (1week 1500 to 1800calories) ...intensify exercices to burn more calories.
Click to expand...

It's not really cheating your metabolism.

Once your metabolism slows to a certain point and weight loss plateaus, you really don't have a choice but to bump your intake back up toward maintenance for a bit to 'reset' some of the things that adapted.
 
It's kind of like you attempting to keep your gas tank on 1/2 full. The more you drive, the closer you get to running out unless you add a little and know around about how many gallons will get you back to the 1/2 point. Calorie counting is really an approximation. Know what you need, know what you burn. If you increase the burning, increase the consumption. But stay balanced with the good stuff.

This analogy sounded better in my head. But I think it worked out. lol

I did not expect to learn all of this when I joined the forum. This is good stuff.
 
I think they do - and most welcome posts, it's encouraged - otherwise the wealth of information can get overwhelming but the stickies are a good starting point..
 
need some advice

Hi Steve,

I read your posts and they were very informative. I have one question though. I read somewhere that in order to lose the belly, one has to do cardio and only cardio. Doing push ups or crunches does not lead to effective weight loss in the abs region but only builds up the muscles there. Can you please clarify this issue?

Cheers,
Newbie
 
bling3 said:
Hi Steve,

I read your posts and they were very informative. I have one question though. I read somewhere that in order to lose the belly, one has to do cardio and only cardio. Doing push ups or crunches does not lead to effective weight loss in the abs region but only builds up the muscles there. Can you please clarify this issue?

Cheers,
Newbie
Click to expand...

Glad you joined the community. Better yet, not afraid to ask questions. :)

What you read is flat out wrong. Unfortunately much of today's media that involves fat loss sucks. Always have your bullshit-filtering-lenses on when reading about this stuff nowadays.

That said, here's a few points to think about in response to what you stated:

1. Calories are energy. There are 3 energetic states we can be in; a surplus, a deficit, or a balance. An energetic deficit must be in place in order to lose fat.

2. Said deficit can come from a multitude of factors; namely less food in, more energy expended, or a combo of the both.

3. Once this deficit is in place, no matter what we do (for the most part), we don't get to pick and choose where the fat leaves our body in what order. Unfortunately, we all lose fat in unique, genetic patterns. In theory.... your problem spots or where you hold fat quickest/most is usually going to be the last place the fat leaves. No exercise is going to change this pattern.

4. As an example, suppose you are eating the exact amount of calories your body needs to sustain it's vital functions and daily activity. Theoretically, you are eating a balance of energy so no weight will be gained or lost. Now you throw weight lifting into the mix that is worth 250 calories per day. Well guess what? Those 250 calories are no different than had you done cardio instead of weight lifting that was = in caloric expenditure of 250 per session.

5. Remember, building muscle while in an energetic deficit is not an easy thing to do. In theory, the only people that can do it to an appreciable extent are very fat and/or very detrained people. Aside from that, adding new muscle is a very intensive process, energetically speaking. And when we're dieting there isn't enough energy to maintain what we have now, so the body sure as shit isn't going to 'like' adding new metabolically costly tissue such as muscle.

Did that clear things up a bit? More questions?
 
yeah...some more questions :-D

3. Once this deficit is in place, no matter what we do (for the most part), we don't get to pick and choose where the fat leaves our body in what order. Unfortunately, we all lose fat in unique, genetic patterns. In theory.... your problem spots or where you hold fat quickest/most is usually going to be the last place the fat leaves. No exercise is going to change this pattern.

4. As an example, suppose you are eating the exact amount of calories your body needs to sustain it's vital functions and daily activity. Theoretically, you are eating a balance of energy so no weight will be gained or lost. Now you throw weight lifting into the mix that is worth 250 calories per day. Well guess what? Those 250 calories are no different than had you done cardio instead of weight lifting that was = in caloric expenditure of 250 per session.

5. Remember, building muscle while in an energetic deficit is not an easy thing to do. In theory, the only people that can do it to an appreciable extent are very fat and/or very detrained people. Aside from that, adding new muscle is a very intensive process, energetically speaking. And when we're dieting there isn't enough energy to maintain what we have now, so the body sure as shit isn't going to 'like' adding new metabolically costly tissue such as muscle.
Click to expand...

So Steve, what you are saying is that there is nothing like spot reduction? It does not matter whether I do 60 minutes of cardio of 45 minutes of cardio and 15 minutes of weight training and floor exercises, I will lose overall only?

Well, as I am a girl, buidling muscle is the last thing on my mind. I am 40 lbs overweight and I want to get rid of it by March end. I work out for 1 hr everday and maintain a 1200 calorie diet (well...try to...he he he). Is the goal I have set for myself achievable? Can you please help me out here...:rant:
 
bling3 said:
So Steve, what you are saying is that there is nothing like spot reduction?
Click to expand...

For the most part, that's what I'm saying. And in the context of this conversation, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It does not matter whether I do 60 minutes of cardio of 45 minutes of cardio and 15 minutes of weight training and floor exercises, I will lose overall only?
Click to expand...

Well it matters in one sense.... let me try to explain.

What I meant was the calories expended doing cardio are no different than the calories expended doing resistance training. Caloric expenditure is caloric expenditure no matter how you slice it.

Again, weight loss requires said caloric deficit.

However, most aren't solely concerned with losing pounds. Most are most interested in losing fat and maintaining or even gaining muscle.

This includes women. Some don't know it, but it's what they're after.

I've said something like this in other threads. It's extremely simplistic but it makes a lot of sense to some:

Good nutrition = A
Resistance training = B
Cardio = C
Total Health and Good Physique = D

A+B+C=D

Take A, B, or C out of the equation and you are operating sub-optimally and giving up unique benefits associated only with the dropped variable.

So yea, losing weight is as simple as creating a deficit. This deficit can come solely from diet, it can come solely from cardio exercise, it can come solely from weight training.

But that's assuming weight loss is the only thing that matters to you. In most, if not all cases things like appearance, health, performance, etc matter more than the simplistic number on the scale. And if that's the case, it's going to take a balanced approach.

Well, as I am a girl, buidling muscle is the last thing on my mind.
Click to expand...

Couple of things with regards to this statement you made:

1. When you're in a caloric deficit, you aren't going to build any appreciable amounts of muscle, period.

2. When you're a woman, you aren't going to build any appreciable amounts of muscle, period. EVEN IF YOU ARE IN A CALORIC SURPLUS (eating more food than your body needs). Women are not hormonally dispositioned to build mass amounts of muscle. Hell, go to the gym and you'll see a majority of guys even who are eat what they think to be right and pounding away on the weights and they are still turds.

3. Maintaining and even adding a bit of muscle is what you should be after if you're looking to 'tone up' your physique. Simply losing weight is a terrible goal. It leaves most, especially women, simply a lighter, softer version of their current selves. I've seen it happen time and time again. They lose the weight.... they're even happy at first simply b/c they've been focusing on the scale for so long. But when it sinks in..... they're frustrated b/c they still don't look the way they had dreamed about. And that's b/c they didn't do the muscle-saving things necessary to enhance physique.

I am 40 lbs overweight and I want to get rid of it by March end.
Click to expand...

That's a steep goal. I'm an advocate of aiming high. Hell, you can't hit what you don't aim at, right?

However, you're leaving yourself 2 months and one week to lose 40 lbs. That's something like 4.5 lbs per week.

My concern is three-fold:

1. This will lead you to eat far less than desired for physique enhancement. Starving yourself is not the answer.

2. Stemming from #1, this could lead you set up for a nasty rebound, thus gaining back all the weight you lost. Maybe some more.

3. Management of expectations is critical. Most don't do it and they are left frustrated and quit. What I mean by that is, it's fine to want to lose 4.5 lbs per week. But expecting it is something totally different. If that's something you expect, than something is off.

I work out for 1 hr everday and maintain a 1200 calorie diet (well...try to...he he he).
Click to expand...

What does your workout consist of?

What made you choose 1200 calories?

Is the goal I have set for myself achievable?
Click to expand...

If your goal is to lose weight quickly with the very real potential of gaining it all back and looking no better than you do now....

Hell yea that's an attainable goal. People do that all the time.
 
But that's assuming weight loss is the only thing that matters to you. In most, if not all cases things like appearance, health, performance, etc matter more than the simplistic number on the scale. And if that's the case, it's going to take a balanced approach.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you Steve. Appearance is what matters in the end. After all, that is the sole reason one tries to get into shape. And yes, it is important to get into shate and not solely lose weight. I get it now. So a little bit of resistance training too is important.

Thanks for going through my personal plan. The way you explain it 4.5 lbs a week does sound too much....:D will have to restructure I guess....

What does your workout consist of?

What made you choose 1200 calories?
Click to expand...

Well, I do 20 mins elliptical, 20 mins cycle, 20 mins treadmill, 2 sets of 20 sit ups, crunches and biceps and triceps.

About the calorie intake, I read at a lot of sites that 1200 should be optimal intake when trying to lose weight. So I trying to stick to 1200 though I overshoot it quite often enough.

But really Steve, I would not like to regain this weight. I am losing weight with a long term perspective. I want to maintain my physique once I reach my goal. I read in a lot of places that 10 lbs a month is the best average one should try to achieve. Going by that, it will take me four months to lose the weight.
Well....no pain no gain...or loss :rolleyes:
 
bling3 said:
I totally agree with you Steve. Appearance is what matters in the end. After all, that is the sole reason one tries to get into shape. And yes, it is important to get into shate and not solely lose weight. I get it now. So a little bit of resistance training too is important.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you 'get it'.

Thanks for going through my personal plan. The way you explain it 4.5 lbs a week does sound too much....:D will have to restructure I guess....
Click to expand...

No problem.

Well, I do 20 mins elliptical, 20 mins cycle, 20 mins treadmill,
Click to expand...

How long have you been doing this? How many times per week do you do this? Have you ever thought about interval training?

2 sets of 20 sit ups, crunches and biceps and triceps.
Click to expand...

Why do you train these small parts of your body (especially arms) and no other muscle groups?

About the calorie intake, I read at a lot of sites that 1200 should be optimal intake when trying to lose weight. So I trying to stick to 1200 though I overshoot it quite often enough.
Click to expand...

That's the oldest myth in the book. There is not one particular caloric intake that one can blanketly recommend to a broad population of people. Caloric intake is dependent on many individual things such as genetics, lifestyle, weight, etc.

The general rule of thumb is maintenance is 14ish calories per pound of bodyweight. To lose weight you should shoot for 8-12 calories per pound. Start at 12 and work down from there.

Going to low will certainly lead to weight loss just as using a more *sane* intake. However.... with too low of an intake you risk things such as noncompliance, loss of muscle, larger metabolic/hormonal disturbance, and rebound.

But really Steve, I would not like to regain this weight.
Click to expand...

Do you think anyone who loses the weight wants to gain it back?

The answer is no.

But unfortunately many do. This is due to a multitude of factors, but dieting incorrectly and losing the weight using the wrong tactics from the start are definitely some of the core contributing factors.

I am losing weight with a long term perspective. I want to maintain my physique once I reach my goal. I read in a lot of places that 10 lbs a month is the best average one should try to achieve.
Click to expand...

Again, blanket statements really don't work like that.

Sure, someone with a lot of excess weight can expect that kind of loss each month. Someone who doesn't have much to lose isn't going to see that though, for the most part.
 
Building muscle is where it's at for men AND women. :waving:

That's if you really want to lose weight and maintain your weight loss in a toned way. Versus being slimmer and untoned, which arguably makes weight loss more difficult and weight gain easier. Even if you don't gain the weight back, the way the weight looks on your untoned body can make you look larger than you are and your clothes will fit different.
 
IHeartExercise said:
Building muscle is where it's at for men AND women. :waving:

That's if you really want to lose weight and maintain your weight loss in a toned way. Versus being slimmer and untoned, which arguably makes weight loss more difficult and weight gain easier. Even if you don't gain the weight back, the way the weight looks on your untoned body can make you look larger than you are and your clothes will fit different.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's pretty much what has been said.
 
Steve said:
What's with the phobia of words as of late around here?
Click to expand...


For me it is not a phobia of words. It is a phobia of what may be unnecessary words. :willy_nilly:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top