Need advice with losing belly fat.

BiggDaddy58

Here's a Great exercise to burn belly fat!

SingingSingleTracker

chonji4ever wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

chonji4ever wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

chonji4ever wrote: »

Regarless of missinformation you can easily find online, there isn't an exercise, food or suplement that targets belly fat.

The things that actually work. Exercise a few times a week regardless of diet to increase metabolic rate. Cut calories to safe levels for a couple of weeks followed by a couple of weeks of maintenance level caloric intake to reestablish metabolism. Repeat the calorie cut cycle as many times as needed to cut the belly. Don't over do it on cutting calories, because you can and will in time slow down your metabolism making all of this much harder.

I'm actually hitting the gym 3 days a week using this method, and I've dropped 12 lbs, lost almost 4" on my gut, and have added 0.5" on my biceps in a very short period of time. FYI, I'm over 40 and this works.

ok why would you eat at a deficit and then eat at maintenance? all thats needed is a deficit you dont even need to exercise to lose weight. I didnt do much exercise for 2 months and still lost weight.

Yes, if you are in calorie deficit you will loose muscle and fat.

You want to eat maintenance calories on a regular basis to prevent a permanent slowing down of your metabolism. There is a very recent university study of "biggest looser" contestants doing just that, and it has been in the news during the last week or so. However this isn't really new information, as it has been known in the health sciences for quite a few years. I took a lot of Health Science classes in college, but didn't actually major in it. Just studied because I was a competitive athlete for several years.

thats why its recommended to get enough protein and lift weights to prevent a big loss of lean muscle while in a deficit.as for the biggest loser contestants they ate very low calories and exercised at least 6 hrs per day, the reason why they gained weight back is because they were eating more calories and not working out like they were on the show. that happens when you eat more than your body burns,you gain weight.you dont need to eat at a deficit then eat at maintenance and repeat.cutting your calories for a few weeks for a lot of people will not result in any weight loss. it takes time to lose weight and yoyoing like this probably wont help.also with belly fat its usually the last thing most people lose and you cannot spot reduce fat it! it comes off where it wants when it wants, it all comes down to calories in vs calories out. your stating that doing what you are doing will burn off belly fat and you wont lose muscle.

Read my post again...I was discussing prolonged effects of calorie deficit on your metabolism. That is also what the university study was about. Did you read the study?

I also discussed spot fat loss in the 1st sentence of my 1st post.

Btw, I am gaining muscle and loosing fat at the same time, so yoyoing is more than probably working. Yes you are are right about it taking time to loose weight. My results are over about a 2 month period of dedication.

I've read the study. The study was focused on quick, mega-weight loss in a competitive environment. And for the discussion in this thread, we should consider it misinformation.

What, from the study, do you think pertains to the normal rate of weight loss with the target of .5 to 1 pounds, even up to as much as 2 pounds per week? Our body will require fewer calories as we drop the weight and we adjust slowly to that over time. Ideally, one is utilizing a well-rounded exercise program that does include weight lifting or body weight exercises to help maintain as much of our muscle mass as possible during the loss even though we all lose some in the process.

The "study" regarding those that dropped muscle and fat weight at a very, very rapid loss (some lost 20-30 pounds in the first week alone!!!) trying to win the prize is not a weight loss model that applies to the goals here at MFP. If anything, it simply proved what most everyone feels about that show: the absurdity at a time challenged competitive weight loss challenge to win $250K or whatever the top prize is will have anyone doing whatever they can to win the jackpot. Health be damned in the process...

That being said, I urge us to consider that study simply as misinformation. Or in other words - it ain't the way to lose weight!

So your suggestion of 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off seems equally absurd. At the very least, it will simply delay one's weight loss, and if done correctly, would take twice as long to achieve one's end goal. It's much easier to simply target a realistic weekly drop of .5 - 2 pounds, eat at a daily deficit and watch the weight shed. The adjustment in calories as one drops the weight is a given.

chonji4ever

SingingSingleTracker wrote: »

chonji4ever wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

chonji4ever wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

chonji4ever wrote: »

Regarless of missinformation you can easily find online, there isn't an exercise, food or suplement that targets belly fat.

The things that actually work. Exercise a few times a week regardless of diet to increase metabolic rate. Cut calories to safe levels for a couple of weeks followed by a couple of weeks of maintenance level caloric intake to reestablish metabolism. Repeat the calorie cut cycle as many times as needed to cut the belly. Don't over do it on cutting calories, because you can and will in time slow down your metabolism making all of this much harder.

I'm actually hitting the gym 3 days a week using this method, and I've dropped 12 lbs, lost almost 4" on my gut, and have added 0.5" on my biceps in a very short period of time. FYI, I'm over 40 and this works.

ok why would you eat at a deficit and then eat at maintenance? all thats needed is a deficit you dont even need to exercise to lose weight. I didnt do much exercise for 2 months and still lost weight.

Yes, if you are in calorie deficit you will loose muscle and fat.

You want to eat maintenance calories on a regular basis to prevent a permanent slowing down of your metabolism. There is a very recent university study of "biggest looser" contestants doing just that, and it has been in the news during the last week or so. However this isn't really new information, as it has been known in the health sciences for quite a few years. I took a lot of Health Science classes in college, but didn't actually major in it. Just studied because I was a competitive athlete for several years.

thats why its recommended to get enough protein and lift weights to prevent a big loss of lean muscle while in a deficit.as for the biggest loser contestants they ate very low calories and exercised at least 6 hrs per day, the reason why they gained weight back is because they were eating more calories and not working out like they were on the show. that happens when you eat more than your body burns,you gain weight.you dont need to eat at a deficit then eat at maintenance and repeat.cutting your calories for a few weeks for a lot of people will not result in any weight loss. it takes time to lose weight and yoyoing like this probably wont help.also with belly fat its usually the last thing most people lose and you cannot spot reduce fat it! it comes off where it wants when it wants, it all comes down to calories in vs calories out. your stating that doing what you are doing will burn off belly fat and you wont lose muscle.

Read my post again...I was discussing prolonged effects of calorie deficit on your metabolism. That is also what the university study was about. Did you read the study?

I also discussed spot fat loss in the 1st sentence of my 1st post.

Btw, I am gaining muscle and loosing fat at the same time, so yoyoing is more than probably working. Yes you are are right about it taking time to loose weight. My results are over about a 2 month period of dedication.

I've read the study. The study was focused on quick, mega-weight loss in a competitive environment. And for the discussion in this thread, we should consider it misinformation.

What, from the study, do you think pertains to the normal rate of weight loss with the target of .5 to 1 pounds, even up to as much as 2 pounds per week? Our body will require fewer calories as we drop the weight and we adjust slowly to that over time. Ideally, one is utilizing a well-rounded exercise program that does include weight lifting or body weight exercises to help maintain as much of our muscle mass as possible during the loss even though we all lose some in the process.

The "study" regarding those that dropped muscle and fat weight at a very, very rapid loss (some lost 20-30 pounds in the first week alone!!!) trying to win the prize is not a weight loss model that applies to the goals here at MFP. If anything, it simply proved what most everyone feels about that show: the absurdity at a time challenged competitive weight loss challenge to win $250K or whatever the top prize is will have anyone doing whatever they can to win the jackpot. Health be damned in the process...

That being said, I urge us to consider that study simply as misinformation. Or in other words - it ain't the way to lose weight!

So your suggestion of 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off seems equally absurd. At the very least, it will simply delay one's weight loss, and if done correctly, would take twice as long to achieve one's end goal. It's much easier to simply target a realistic weekly drop of .5 - 2 pounds, eat at a daily deficit and watch the weight shed. The adjustment in calories as one drops the weight is a given.

Good thing you read the study! Please explain Mr Carhill's metabolism change. His base metabolic rate is 800 calories per day less than a man of his size/weight.

My results are 1.5 lbs per week spread over a two month period. I'm pretty sure I'm not delaying my weight loss.

bellabonbons

Cardio and if you can. A tummy tuck. I had one and love the results.

jessef593

bellabonbons wrote: »

Cardio and if you can. A tummy tuck. I had one and love the results.

You could run 15 miles a day but if you're in a surplus it wouldn't make a difference.

MissusMoon

peanut80912 wrote: »

Could be what you are eating. I have a 7 day pdf that might help.

NO NO NO. Also, no.

Wicked_Seraph

bellabonbons wrote: »

Cardio and if you can. A tummy tuck. I had one and love the results.

Did you not read where OP said he does "30 minutes of running"? Do you not think running qualifies as cardio?

Running alone will not make you lose weight. It's great exercise and burns some calories but it's virtually impossible to outrun a sh*tty diet.

SingingSingleTracker

chonji4ever wrote: »

Good thing you read the study! Please explain Mr Carhill's metabolism change. His base metabolic rate is 800 calories per day less than a man of his size/weight.

My results are 1.5 lbs per week spread over a two month period. I'm pretty sure I'm not delaying my weight loss.

It's good that you are not losing dramatic and quickly such as the Biggest Loser obesity cases. The study was a small subset and they did not use a control group of obese people who did not lose weight as part of the study. Perhaps it will lead to more studies that do use a control group, and cover a larger number of cases within a study.

Yes, Mr. Cahill indeed does now burn 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size at 295 pounds. Instead of being able to eat 2688 calories for a sedentary lifestyle at his age and weight, he can only eat 1888 calories to maintain his current 295 pounds. Add exercise, and he can up that.

Do we cry a river over it? The amount he now gets to eat is how much I can eat a day (actually a bit more than what I can eat) to maintain my current weight at my age.

Was there no stop gap, self-control, attempt at a lifestyle change along the way to prevent Mr. Cahill from climbing all the way to 430 pounds in the first place to wreck the one and only body he was issued? Cancer, heart disease, diabetes - the three biggies known to wreak havoc on the human body due to excess weight is not a secret. The study at least shows that the obesity, and sudden loss wreaked havoc on the season 8 contestants metabolism as well. Are we surprised considering the other well known issues obesity causes? He ate way more than he needed on a daily basis for years. Are we to feel sorry now that he has to eat a bit less to make up for what he did in the first 40 years of his life?

It certainly is a question we should be asking. Both as a society, and from a medical standpoint.

I don't know the answer, but I don't feel bad about addressing the issue of obesity in the US when more than 1/3 of Americans are obese and 68% are considered overweight.

http://stateofobesity.org/rates/

http://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/obesity/

As "earth shattering" as one might like to make the study - adapting to the lower metabolism and accepting the lifestyle change to remain non-obese is a small tradeoff for the health hazzards of obesity. It sure would be easy, as one of those constants, to just toss in the towel and say to heck with it - I can't win for losing. ;-) Or they could continue to grab the bull by the horns and realize what they have done to their bodies and deal with their new reality.

Dr. David Ludwig said the findings showed the need for new approaches to weight control. He cautioned that the study was limited by its small size and the lack of a control group of obese people who did not lose weight. But, he added, the findings made sense.

“This is a subset of the most successful” dieters, he said.

Until the study covers a broader spectrum of cases, and uses a control group - I would hesitate to bank on the subset that was studied.