Relatively light people trying to get leaner

stroutman81

thanks so much for the response I will def not do that then I am not able to get to a gym though do you reccomend any at home things like P90X or insanity

I have not seen insanity. Someone sent me p90x in the mail because they wanted me to critique it and frankly, it's a decent set up. It's nothing special and personally I'd much rather belong to a gym with a weight room so I could customize the workout to my liking. But I'm not a prepackaged program kind of guy. Hell, designing customized programs for people is what I do for a living.

pfenixa

Unless I'm mistaken she said/meant that if all you care about is the number on the scale, then sure... just do low calories, light weight and high rep weight lifting and cardio.

If you actually care about what you look like, then you're going to have to add more serious strength training.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

And the idea of waiting to start strength training after you reach a goal weight is misguided. Strength training is in place during a fat loss regiment to help preserve the muscle mass you currently have. If winding up a lighter, yet still soft version of your former self is what you're shooting for... then ignore me.

Like I said, I am doing some strength training and it's because I understand the idea of preserving muscle mass during fat loss. What I'm not doing is heavy or intense strength training with a focus on gaining muscle. It's not that once I reach my goal I want to add strength training entirely, but that I would shift my focus and intensity.

I feel like maybe I'm being a little hard-headed so I'll probably make some changes and then I'll realize just what all you and Kdiamond have been saying and Then I'll get it. I'm just one of those types that takes everything and has to feel it out on my own, even if it takes longer that way, lol. If that is the case, at least I'm getting the info now rather than later.

Yup. And I would bump them up.

I'm gonna do just that. Thanks for all of the help and info.

stroutman81

Great information!!! I was wondering about the same thing for lifting? I have the programs p90x and Chalean Extreme and was wondering what you thought for using them as lifiting guides. They both recommend heavy lifting with 9-12 reps for muscle fatigue depending on the individual and their ability. Oh and I also have used the New Rules of LIfitng for Women also.

See above for my thoughts pertaining to p90x. I don't like the fancy marketing and BS science they use to sell the product, but the actual set up of the program isn't bad.

I've not seen Chalean Extreme.

I've also not read the NROL for Women but someone did send me the NROL regular for my critique and it actually was half decent. However I wouldn't pay for it simply b/c much of the info can be found on the web for free and more importantly, the one author I have an issue with. He plagiarized a number of professionals in the industry and sold it as his original work.

If you read my article in my MFP blog, you can use that to gauge the efficacy of other programs. Does "the program" abide by the "rules" I outline in the article?

Here is the link again since this thread is turning into a monster and I'm sure stuff is getting hard to find:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/stroutman81/view/resistance-training-foundation-19725

And this follow up article would help as well:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/stroutman81/view/more-random-thoughts-on-resistance-training-19945

I do pay attention to the scale but honestly would much rather see a lean and toned body then focus on what that darn scale says. I am 5'3'' and currently 144ish and ultimately have a weight goal of 133-134lb but like I said Id rather be toned and focus on inches.

One formula that some people like to toy around with is the "what you'll weigh when you reach your goal body fat?"

To use the formula though, you need to know your body fat %.

For instance, if you're 140 lbs and 25% body fat:

Your fat mass is (140 x .25) 35 lbs.

Your fat free mass is (140 - 35) 105 lbs.

Now suppose your goal body fat % is 18%.

You then divide your Fat Free Mass (FFM) by you're goal body fat % as a decimal from 1. Sounds confusing, but it looks like this:

FFM / (1 - goal body fat % as a decimal)

Using the example above, the math would look like this:

105 / (1 - .18) = 128

128 is what you would weigh if you reached 18% body fat without losing any muscle.

jabdye

what is a lean body fat% for women?

oh -- and thanks for all those numbers

stroutman81

I'm back!
I've been a quiet reader for a little while to give other's a chance to ask their questions as well.
I'm really confused about what I should be eating now, from all these posts.
Sure this site says I should be eating 1200, but from your calculation on the first post, I should be eating 125x12 = 1500. I feel like I have trouble maintaning my 1200, so how would the 1500 help me? I'm obviously doing something wrong, because I'm not seeing any results, not with the scale and not with the body toning. I'm definitely at a good weight, and I do look good for my height, but I'm surely not as fit as the next guy.

It's important to note that 12 cal/lb is my starting point for most folks with the goal of fat loss. I've seen it have to go as low as 8 cal/lb. 10 is generally the sweet spot, but I like to have people eating as much as possible while still seeing progress toward their goals consistently.

In your particular case, you're already right around 10 cal/lb. I'd hate to see you drop from there.

I'm confused by who's who now as I've talked to so many people in this thread and via private message because of this thread. So forgive me if I already asked you this... but how long have you been eating 1200? And how certain are you that you're actually eating 1200 day in and out?

There comes a point where losing more weight isn't the answer and focusing on building muscle is. That might be where you're currently at. Very few people get to reach their goal weights, even when doing things perfectly, and be content. More often than not it takes cycles of focusing on muscle building alternated with cycles focusing on fat loss. In very general terms, these require a calorie surplus and a calorie deficit respectively.

If that's not where you're at, then I'd say:

1. Your calories are higher than you believe.

2. You've been eating in a deficit and exercising for too long without a break and your body is rebelling.

3. You're not being patient enough.

I'm just throwing the possibilities out there. I can't put my finger on the exact problem, unfortunately. That's on you to figure out.

And when you say light weights, what's considered light? What's the least "light" weight any person should be lifting?

I can't give you an absolute value. When assessing "heavy enough" we need to look at things as a percentage of maximum. In order to realize the sort of adaptations we're talking about here (increased strength and muscle growth/maintenance) you generally need to be exercising using 70-95+ % of your maximum ability. This generally translates into 1-12 reps per set.

So for instance, if you're maximum effort in the bench press is 100 lbs, that'd mean you can do 100 lbs for 1 rep only.

You'd want to be using weights in the 70-95% range, so 70-95 lbs.

The heavier the weight relative to your max, the fewer reps you can do per set.

Now this would require you to know your maximum in each and every exercise, which isn't realistic.

So my suggestion for most folks is to start very conservatively using weights that keep you in the 6-12 rep range. You want it to feel very light at first while you learn the various movements. Once you're 100% comfortable with the movements, you can start adding weight slowly and gradually from workout to workout. Maybe only 5-10 lb jumps. Eventually you'll be in the sweet zone of 70-95%.

You don't ever want to be failing, meaning the weight is so heavy that you literally fail to lift the weight and it must be taken for you or it falls on you. That's unnecessary. Rather, you want to have the weight "feel" heavy enough where you're leaving 1-2 reps left in the tank by the end of your set.

This probably sounds confusing... I feel like I'm doing a poor job of explaining it. If that's the case, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I suppose another way of looking at it is using RPEs or rating of perceived exertions. A great book written by Mike Tuchscherer. He lays out an RPE scale in that book that I use with my own clients:

o 10: Maximal, no reps left in the tank at end of set
o 9: Last rep is tough but still one rep left in the tank
o 8: Weight is too heavy to maintain fast bar speed but isn’t a struggle; 2–4 reps left
o 7: Weight moves quickly when maximal force is applied to the weight; “speed weight”
o 6: Light speed work; moves quickly with moderate force
o 5: Most warm-up weights
o 4: Recovery; usually 20 plus rep sets; not hard but intended to flush the muscle
o An RPE below four isn’t important.

We'd want to be around a 8 or a 9 most of the time.

pfenixa

Oo, another formula. Well this is interesting.

I used the earlier idea of 14-16 calories per pound with a deficit of 30%.

15 x 125 = 1875

1875 x .3 = 562.5

1875 - 562.5 = 1312.5

Not that much more than I'm eating now. Then for body fat percentage I did a test a couple weeks ago that put me at 23.6% (we'll be safe and say 24%). So if I aim for 20%:

125 x .24 = 30

125 - 30 = 95

95 / (1 - .2) = 118.75.

Again extremely close to what I was already aiming for. I know these formulas aren't exact science or perfect for everyone, but in general I have the right idea going. From the looks of it it goes back to the original post: I need to stick with it and not get discouraged because it's coming slowly. I feel like I'm on the right track.

stroutman81

Ok thanks I might have a go at a few things. I already do pull ups so I might try push ups. Also I think my dad has some dumbbells so I might have a go with those. Thing is how can I work my legs? My arms really are no problem to me as they're the smallest thing on my body. My legs/thighs/bum is where the weight goes and takes some shifting!

First, keep in mind that muscle doesn't turn into fat and fat doesn't turn into muscle. We're not able to spot reduce fat. So while strength training your legs is important... it's not going to preferentially burn the fat in your problem areas.

Secondly, are you looking for specific exercises you can do for your legs. If so, youtube any of these:

body weight squats
goblet squats
dumbbell squats
reverse lunge
walking lunge
alternating lunge
glute bridge
hip thrusts
suitcase deadlifts
conventional deadlifts
romanian deadlifts
step ups
single leg squats
box squats

I could go on and on.

Also I'm confused by this 1200cal thing. It doesn't seem too difficult for me. I never ate more than 1500cals before anyway so it really isnt a big cut down. Could this means that it suits me? I eat most of my exercise cals back too. But the slow progress....does this indicate I should eat a little more even if it's an extra apple etc a day? Thanks

I'm confused. If you're eating your exercise calories, you're actually eating more than 1200 calories. No?

And yes, fruit does good things for women and fat loss.

stroutman81

Like I said, I am doing some strength training and it's because I understand the idea of preserving muscle mass during fat loss. What I'm not doing is heavy or intense strength training with a focus on gaining muscle. It's not that once I reach my goal I want to add strength training entirely, but that I would shift my focus and intensity.

Yea, I got that. But her original point was if you're interested in the scale only, focus on LIGHT weights.

If you're interested in looking toned, focus on HEAVY weights.

That's the distinction you're missing. Or I'm not making my point clear enough.

Simply moving weights around without paying attention to intensity (defined as a % of maximum effort) doesn't cut it as far as muscle preservation goes.

stroutman81

what is a lean body fat% for women?

oh -- and thanks for all those numbers

Well, women genetically carry more fat than men. Essential fat is between 9-12%. That's the stuff you need to maintain health. It's a tough question to answer b/c different women "wear" different body fat % differently. So 20% covering up a nice base of muscle might look great while 20% on someone else with terribly low levels of muscle mass might look crappy.

The female bodybuilders and figure competitors probably come in on stage around 10% or so.

I doubt anyone here is going for that look.

15-20% is probably a very good look on most women who have done the right things, muscularly speaking.

stroutman81

Oo, another formula. Well this is interesting.

I used the earlier idea of 14-16 calories per pound with a deficit of 30%.

15 x 125 = 1875

1875 x .3 = 562.5

1875 - 562.5 = 1312.5

Not that much more than I'm eating now. Then for body fat percentage I did a test a couple weeks ago that put me at 23.6% (we'll be safe and say 24%). So if I aim for 20%:

125 x .24 = 30

125 - 30 = 95

95 / (1 - .2) = 118.75.

Again extremely close to what I was already aiming for. I know these formulas aren't exact science or perfect for everyone, but in general I have the right idea going. From the looks of it it goes back to the original post: I need to stick with it and not get discouraged because it's coming slowly. I feel like I'm on the right track.

I'm happy for you

stroutman81

Phew, you guys are keeping me on my toes! If I missed any questions, please ask again. I'm trying to get to everyone's questions as fast as I can. And if you haven't read the two articles I linked to from my blog here at MFP, please do so before asking questions about strength training.

Thanks!

kdiamond

I see where our disconnect is and I think it's my fault, lol. While I do partake in strength training I'm not doing anything major. Just like you said the way you would do it I'm working on weight loss through diet, light weights, and cardio. I do want to increase my strength but that's something I want to focus more on once I've changed weight and body fat.

Unless I'm mistaken she said/meant that if all you care about is the number on the scale, then sure... just do low calories, light weight and high rep weight lifting and cardio.

If you actually care about what you look like, then you're going to have to add more serious strength training.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

And the idea of waiting to start strength training after you reach a goal weight is misguided. Strength training is in place during a fat loss regiment to help preserve the muscle mass you currently have. If winding up a lighter, yet still soft version of your former self is what you're shooting for... then ignore me.

I think my stall is from my body getting used to those 1200 calories. What I've been debating lately is if I should go ahead and start upping my daily calories. I know that could slow the scale down even more and potentially put a couple pounds on, but I'm more concerned about actually moving forward (even if it takes longer) rather than getting to the weight I want and trying to bump up from there and potentially backtracking my progress. Does that make sense? lol.

Yup. And I would bump them up.

Yes, that is what I was saying, thanks for reiterating.

And for the record, as soon as a couple of weeks/3 weeks after I bumped up my calories (and I am only talking 100 calories a day, nothing major), I had weekly strength gains and from taking measurements, noticed a definite change (1/2 inch on my arm, 1/2 inch off my waist) and overall I could see my shape improving. I have stopped weighing myself more than every few weeks now because it is meaningless. The cellulite on the back of my thighs has disappeared, and I feel better. This is so much more of a reward than the number on a scale. I hate to keep repeating myself, but I am that happy about it! )

amy1612

I think perseverence really is key when it comes to getting leaner. In the past few weeks my thighs seem to have finally "popped" and now the outer part is really hard and muscular . The inner thigh is still a bit soft though,I do sumo deadlifts,squats,and lunges,but is there anything REALLY great for strengthening and working the inner thigh?

paldal

This probably sounds confusing... I feel like I'm doing a poor job of explaining it. If that's the case, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I suppose another way of looking at it is using RPEs or rating of perceived exertions. A great book written by Mike Tuchscherer. He lays out an RPE scale in that book that I use with my own clients:

Not confusing at all. Makes perfect sense! I guess that's the problem with a lot of people on the "last 10 lbs". We get so bogged down with the number on the scale, that when we don't see results we give up.
I definitely need to start measuring and strength training rather than just getting upset with the scale. Thanks!

Also, I know there is a lot going on with strength training on this post, but I just wanted to switch gears into the cardio zone, which is just as important for anyone, right?
I've seen a lot on TV (ahem...biggest loser) and read a lot of articles that say if you need to hold on to the rails you probably need to step down a notch on the treadmill. I just saw the trainer at our work gym walking on the treadmill, at the highest incline, and holding on to the rails. So, is it ok? Or it is just ok for him since he obviously knows what he is doing?

chrisdavey

I think perseverence really is key when it comes to getting leaner. In the past few weeks my thighs seem to have finally "popped" and now the outer part is really hard and muscular . The inner thigh is still a bit soft though,I do sumo deadlifts,squats,and lunges,but is there anything REALLY great for strengthening and working the inner thigh?

I can't think of any specific inner thigh muscle related exercise but I suppose if you hold 2 db's and go into a side stretch (one leg out and knee bent and other leg straight) then raise up and switch to other side. It sounds a bit like you are wanting to "tone" that area though and as has been said you can't spot reduce fat (and it doesn't magically turn into muscle :P). I would stick with the basic movements and add the above if you want.
squat
Deadlift
front squat
bulgarian squat

They're my favourites.

stroutman81

I think perseverence really is key when it comes to getting leaner. In the past few weeks my thighs seem to have finally "popped" and now the outer part is really hard and muscular . The inner thigh is still a bit soft though,I do sumo deadlifts,squats,and lunges,but is there anything REALLY great for strengthening and working the inner thigh?

We don't get to pick and choose where the softness leaves, which I'm sure you know.

That said, your adductors will get trained with the exercises you're using. Give them time. You might also consider throwing in some single leg work such as bulgarian split squats, lunges, single leg squats to a box or bench, single leg DB romanian deadlifts, etc.

stroutman81

Also, I know there is a lot going on with strength training on this post, but I just wanted to switch gears into the cardio zone, which is just as important for anyone, right?

Hmmm, I'd actually argue it's not as important for people in this particular thread in the context of getting lean. Sure, it's great for other things like cardiorespiratory health, endurance, caloric expenditure, etc. But let's remember that becoming lean is a function of fat loss and muscle gain/preservation. Cardio isn't required for either of those. Nutrition can take care of the fat loss and strength training can take care of the muscle.

Now I'm not saying I don't recommend cardio. Not even close. I'm simply saying it's not "just as important" as you put it. At least for not the intended audience of this thread. Someone who has 50+ lbs to lose... well then things change.

I've seen a lot on TV (ahem...biggest loser) and read a lot of articles that say if you need to hold on to the rails you probably need to step down a notch on the treadmill. I just saw the trainer at our work gym walking on the treadmill, at the highest incline, and holding on to the rails. So, is it ok? Or it is just ok for him since he obviously knows what he is doing?

First off, most trainers don't know what they're doing. This industry is in shambles. And that's an understatement.

As for your question, it's tough to say. Ideally you don't alter natural biomechanics much when doing repetitive stuff like walking on a treadmill. However, I doubt it's going to cause him or anyone else terrible problems unless it's overdone. The real question is why use an intensity you're not ready for without using proper form.

ryanifer

I think this is me. I'm 5'7" and was 105 pounds. Now at 109 pounds, I am the same size, but I can run 15 miles at a time and lift weights three times a week. I am in better shape even though I weigh more.

amy1612

Thanks for the advice guys

kdiamond

Also, I know there is a lot going on with strength training on this post, but I just wanted to switch gears into the cardio zone, which is just as important for anyone, right?

Hmmm, I'd actually argue it's not as important for people in this particular thread in the context of getting lean. Sure, it's great for other things like cardiorespiratory health, endurance, caloric expenditure, etc. But let's remember that becoming lean is a function of fat loss and muscle gain/preservation. Cardio isn't required for either of those. Nutrition can take care of the fat loss and strength training can take care of the muscle.

Now I'm not saying I don't recommend cardio. Not even close. I'm simply saying it's not "just as important" as you put it. At least for not the intended audience of this thread. Someone who has 50+ lbs to lose... well then things change.

[/quote]

Agreed. I was spinning my wheels when I was doing too much cardio. I wasn't gaining muscle. It was creating a deficit I didn't want. Now I only do a couple HIIT sessions a week (20 mins top)...strictly for endurance, NOT for weight loss. Realize that an hour of cardio a day is going to create another 500 calorie deficit, so if you want that, fine, but if not, it is just stripping your muscle gain away...

kdiamond

Nutrition can take care of the fat loss and strength training can take care of the muscle.

I try to tell everyone I know this!! As I have said in another post, you can't out train a good diet!! So instead of doing endless hours of cardio, just fix your nutrition, and it will do its job for you!

stroutman81

What sort of wonky things can be caused by high volume of cardio? Do you mean messing with hormones as you referred to in your initial post? My body has been out of wack since I started with my running and weight loss so I am curious what you mean...

Yup, primarily hormones. A friend of mine who's a brilliant trainer (Matt Perryman of ampedtraining.com) puts it like this. Think of our bodies stress capacities like a sink. The actual capacity is the bowl. The spicket and flow of water depict your ability to recover from stress. The drain is the use of recovery.

Suck too much water out, faster than the spicket can replace it, and things are going to backfire. We aren't machines that we can beat on indefinitely.

This isn't an immediate event, I should note. Take a look at this thread. I'd be willing to bet that many of the women who are experiencing plateaus in this thread are eating too low of calories over extended period of times. They're exercising with high volumes of cardio (which circuit training falls into this camp too). They're more than likely perfectionists. Maybe not in general, but when it comes to diet and exercise they need to be "on" all the time. No cheats. No processed foods. Always anxious about diet, etc. Many of them are more than likely mothers, working, etc.

Stress is accumulative. And your body sees all stress the same. Genetics can dictate how quickly that water runs out of the sink... but if you're overdoing it, it'll eventually happen. This is why everyone realizes results at first. "Oh, I'll just jack down my calories super low and run my *kitten* into the ground. Isn't that what works for fat loss?" Sure. For a while. But based on the above... hopefully you're starting to see the problems here.

To quote Matt here, since he put it great:

Here’s where people trip up, though: they assume that the running is just calorie-wasting. Well, it is – but it’s also a powerful stress on the body. Now compound this with a diet. When you’re training for a sport, nutrition is there to help keep the sink full. When you go on a diet, you turn the faucet off. The sink might have been balanced, or at least draining very slowly, before. When you diet, the sink is just emptying out.

Remember one thing: getting in shape is a different matter from staying in shape. The former requires hard training and recovery – to include nutritional support – and is not really compatible with dieting. The latter is just a matter of paying attention to diet; you’re already in shape, and thus don’t have to use up any water (recovery ability) to stay there. Someone that wants to get in shape is going to have to tap into that reserve.

Obviously getting in shape for a sport, even if it’s something that sounds harmless like a half-marathon, is just not compatible with dieting to drop fat. And yes, I’m writing this specifically to target the group of people that want to get in shape while training to run in a marathon. It’s an admirable goal, but realize that it is not compatible with weight loss.

Ideally you’d want to include some conditioning work in your training; what I’m saying here is not to go overboard with it. You can’t just say “aerobic cardio doesn’t work”; obviously it does, as bodybuilders have used it to get lean for decades. It may not be the best approach from the standpoint of muscle retention, but it does work.

Program design isn't just about picking a nutritional and exercise strategy. It's also about balancing stress with recovery. This latter concept is actually the backbone of all programming.

The "wonkiness" that I spoke of is hormonal. It's neurochemical. And many "parts" of the body are affected downstream from these things.

stormieweather

This 'overstressing' of ones body due to too much dieting and lifestyle is what I have been working on for months now. I was tired all the time, and no amount of coffee or sleep could eliminate it. So, in addition to taking several months off from working out, I cut out all stimulants (also stresses the adrenal glands), began taking more vitamin supplements (D, C, amino acids) and upped my calories a few hundred per day to near maintenance. I gained 3 pounds from cutting out the stimulants and then leveled off. Eventually (2 months), the 3 pounds went away and I felt human again. I have gone back to the gym 3x a week, lifting heavy and am limiting my cardio to no more than 20 minutes of as high intensity as I can manage (max on the machine, usually). I feel good again The weight will do whatever the weight is going to do. I'm concerned with my health and body shape more than the scale.

stroutman81

This 'overstressing' of ones body due to too much dieting and lifestyle is what I have been working on for months now. I was tired all the time, and no amount of coffee or sleep could eliminate it. So, in addition to taking several months off from working out, I cut out all stimulants (also stresses the adrenal glands), began taking more vitamin supplements (D, C, amino acids) and upped my calories a few hundred per day to near maintenance. I gained 3 pounds from cutting out the stimulants and then leveled off. Eventually (2 months), the 3 pounds went away and I felt human again. I have gone back to the gym 3x a week, lifting heavy and am limiting my cardio to no more than 20 minutes of as high intensity as I can manage (max on the machine, usually). I feel good again The weight will do whatever the weight is going to do. I'm concerned with my health and body shape more than the scale.

Unfortunately this is far too common of an experience. And even worse, people aren't even recognizing it. They write it off as part of dieting or part of aging or whatever.

Glad to hear you figured things out!

jabdye

if you can get lean with diet and weight lifting -- is it wrong to assume that adding some cardio will allow you to be a little more lenient with the diet?

unknownndoll

bump for later =]

stroutman81

if you can get lean with diet and weight lifting -- is it wrong to assume that adding some cardio will allow you to be a little more lenient with the diet?

Nope, not wrong.

Suppose you need 1500 calories per day to cover all energy costs (digestion, respiration, exercise, sleep, etc.)

And suppose that exercise only consists of strength training, which does burn calories.

Now suppose you want to lose some fat. Well, in theory, you could simply add cardio to the mix and not change your intake of 1500 and you're now running a slight deficit since the energy out side of the equation went up while the energy in side remained the same.

This is very generalized... but you get the point.

The fact that cardio acts as a buffer to the nutritional side of things aiding in the control of calories is on of it's best attributes. Not to mention the health benefits, possible partitioning benefits of where calories are going and coming from (depending on the structure of the exercise), possible hunger blunting effects (though for others it stimulates it), etc.

karissastephens

bump to read lata!

jabdye

if you can get lean with diet and weight lifting -- is it wrong to assume that adding some cardio will allow you to be a little more lenient with the diet?

Nope, not wrong.

Suppose you need 1500 calories per day to cover all energy costs (digestion, respiration, exercise, sleep, etc.)

And suppose that exercise only consists of strength training, which does burn calories.

Now suppose you want to lose some fat. Well, in theory, you could simply add cardio to the mix and not change your intake of 1500 and you're now running a slight deficit since the energy out side of the equation went up while the energy in side remained the same.

This is very generalized... but you get the point.

The fact that cardio acts as a buffer to the nutritional side of things aiding in the control of calories is on of it's best attributes. Not to mention the health benefits, possible partitioning benefits of where calories are going and coming from (depending on the structure of the exercise), possible hunger blunting effects (though for others it stimulates it), etc.

That's why I love cardio -- it allows me to eat a little more:bigsmile:

GiGi76

bumping for later!!! :bigsmile: