Relatively light people trying to get leaner

ecgravatt

Cardio triggers muscle fibers to adapt for aerobic (oxygen-burning) metabolism and endurance.

Now, the clash comes in because these variables are mutually exclusive - they tend to cancel each other out. You can't have a muscle that's optimized for being large/anaerobic and to be energy-efficient and endurance-oriented.

Energy balance is a part of this equation, but there are definitely underlying and conflicting molecular-level adaptations at work and in direct competition.

When training for enhancing body composition (when you're already relatively lean and trying to get leaner), you need to aim towards the big inefficient muscle. Anaerobic optimization is what allows protein to accumulate, making the muscle bigger and stronger - at the cost of aerobic endurance. Aerobic-trained muscles are going to be much smaller (smaller = efficient) and full of the enzymes and cellular junk necessary for contracting over long periods of time.

Now I'm confused. If aerobic trained muscles are smaller and more efficient, then why emphasize exercising to reach anaerobic metabolism, ie heavy weight lifting? Or did I just completely miss the point?

pfenixa

I think Intermittent Fasting is GREAT for someone who is stuck. I also like it just for a change up once a week.

I also cannot believe the amount of people who still eat 1200 calories every day, do an hour of exercise a day and wonder why they have stopped losing weight.

I have been there. Eating less than the recommended amount of calories will eventually stop working.

Also, a number is just a number. I weigh more now and look better than I was at the lower weight. Throw away that dang scale. It just frustrates people. I know it is disconcerting to see a higher weight on the scale, trust me I KNOW that, but it really does not matter. Go by how you look, feel and your clothes feel.

When you say eat 1200 a day and exercise, you mean that they're sticking strictly to 1200 and not eating exercise calories? If that's the case, the last couple of weeks I've been eating 1400-1500 calories and exercising and...stopped losing weight. I don't wonder if it's based on how much I'm eating; I've figured it's more about my body being used to what I'm doing and resisting. Eating 1200 a day for me has been more about making sure that's the minimum I eat. Is the recommended amount of calories you mentioned what comes from the calculations stroutman has posted?

I've been reading the other thread about Eat Stop Eat IF and keep juggling the idea of trying it. But what do you mean by stuck? Weight loss? Or is it tied to just getting leaner? I'm trying to understand if it's the latter because a number is a number.

As far as weight, I know it's just a number. I've figured more that I feel better about my body but I know I still have work I want to do to get rid of fat, and I figure that losing that fat will be weight lost. The original post mentioned a fitness competitor that lost body fat but stayed the same weight. I'm not a super fit person and I assume that when I do lose the fat that I'm going to lose weight as well. I don't assume that I'm going to build a bunch of muscle in it's place and I can't say I know what else I could gain other than that. Is that misguided?
I think I come across that the number is important because it's the goal I set for myself...well, the goal is important to me, but the longer I've been doing this the less important the goal weight feels. I'm not that frustrated that I haven't lost weight alone, but it's more tied with a lack of change in measurements too. And I feel that I can be better. So for the moment the measurements, feeling, and scale number are still tied together in my mind, though the ties get weaker as things improve.

I have it in my head that I'm coming off as argumentative, which isn't my intention. Just trying to understand.

kdiamond

When you say eat 1200 a day and exercise, you mean that they're sticking strictly to 1200 and not eating exercise calories? If that's the case, the last couple of weeks I've been eating 1400-1500 calories and exercising and...stopped losing weight. I don't wonder if it's based on how much I'm eating; I've figured it's more about my body being used to what I'm doing and resisting. Eating 1200 a day for me has been more about making sure that's the minimum I eat. Is the recommended amount of calories you mentioned what comes from the calculations stroutman has posted?

I've been reading the other thread about Eat Stop Eat IF and keep juggling the idea of trying it. But what do you mean by stuck? Weight loss? Or is it tied to just getting leaner? I'm trying to understand if it's the latter because a number is a number.

As far as weight, I know it's just a number. I've figured more that I feel better about my body but I know I still have work I want to do to get rid of fat, and I figure that losing that fat will be weight lost. The original post mentioned a fitness competitor that lost body fat but stayed the same weight. I'm not a super fit person and I assume that when I do lose the fat that I'm going to lose weight as well. I don't assume that I'm going to build a bunch of muscle in it's place and I can't say I know what else I could gain other than that. Is that misguided?
I think I come across that the number is important because it's the goal I set for myself...well, the goal is important to me, but the longer I've been doing this the less important the goal weight feels. I'm not that frustrated that I haven't lost weight alone, but it's more tied with a lack of change in measurements too. And I feel that I can be better. So for the moment the measurements, feeling, and scale number are still tied together in my mind, though the ties get weaker as things improve.

I have it in my head that I'm coming off as argumentative, which isn't my intention. Just trying to understand.

Let me tell you something very important that I learned the hard way. The scale/numbers and getting to the fitness level you want/looks you want will never be the same. You can't be 100 pounds and muscular/athletic - there is no way to achieve this, it isn't possible in nature. So if you're stuck on a number but still trying to achieve a muscular athletic body, you are going to be frustrated for a loooonnnggg time. LOL This was exactly what happened to me. I was 105 pounds but skinny, so I thought, ok maybe I will start training harder, lifting heavier and be 105 pounds of leaner mass. Then I start gaining weight and feel like I am eating too much, so back off the eating a little bit and still training hard. Its a vicious cycle, and your muscles will not grow this way - and now once I realized I have to let go of this "magic" number, the results have been amazing.

Ok, so if you are trying to get to a certain number for your weight loss, go ahead and attempt it...but I would do it through diet, light weights and cardio exercise. Doing major strength training is really only for those who are trying to attain a certain appearance and/or lower body fat and gain strength, and are not concerned with numbers. IMO of course.

But what do you mean by stuck? Weight loss? Or is it tied to just getting leaner?

Weight loss, and/or slower metabolism...basically a kick start to trick your body. Believe me, it gets used to eating 1200 calories a day every day.

ecgravatt

The temp thing you mentioned is interesting. Is this something that would be continually low or spike and then be low? The reason I ask is that I have always had a below normal body temp -- generally almost 2 degrees below.

I too have almost always "run cold" when having my temperature taken, my Dad too. My Mom and sister, on the other hand (the leaner pair) have always run hot. I have had my thyroid tested twice in the last two years and it has always come back within the normal range......

Maybe its time to invest in a thermometer and test this out again.

stroutman81

Now I'm confused. If aerobic trained muscles are smaller and more efficient, then why emphasize exercising to reach anaerobic metabolism, ie heavy weight lifting? Or did I just completely miss the point?

Hmm, I'm confused.

We're actually looking for inefficiency in this case. For a female to obtain the lean, toned look most are shooting for, they need to maximize their muscle mass. In the face of a calorie deficit, few women are going to actually be growing appreciable muscle mass. However, the inefficiency will help maintain what they do have.

And that's what "appears" as fat mass is diminished, thus providing that athletic look we're talking about.

Does that make sense or am I missing your question?

skyley

I was reading the first two pages and I will def read the rest you have great information! I do have a question have you ever heard of the pace program were you will do high intesity workout then rest and it's only like a 10 min workout ... does it work? i am 114 right now and want to be 105 (I'm only 4'11" ) but I would rather be toned then get to 105 and was wondering if this would help

stroutman81

When you say eat 1200 a day and exercise, you mean that they're sticking strictly to 1200 and not eating exercise calories? If that's the case, the last couple of weeks I've been eating 1400-1500 calories and exercising and...stopped losing weight. I don't wonder if it's based on how much I'm eating; I've figured it's more about my body being used to what I'm doing and resisting. Eating 1200 a day for me has been more about making sure that's the minimum I eat. Is the recommended amount of calories you mentioned what comes from the calculations stroutman has posted?

I've been reading the other thread about Eat Stop Eat IF and keep juggling the idea of trying it. But what do you mean by stuck? Weight loss? Or is it tied to just getting leaner? I'm trying to understand if it's the latter because a number is a number.

As far as weight, I know it's just a number. I've figured more that I feel better about my body but I know I still have work I want to do to get rid of fat, and I figure that losing that fat will be weight lost. The original post mentioned a fitness competitor that lost body fat but stayed the same weight. I'm not a super fit person and I assume that when I do lose the fat that I'm going to lose weight as well. I don't assume that I'm going to build a bunch of muscle in it's place and I can't say I know what else I could gain other than that. Is that misguided?
I think I come across that the number is important because it's the goal I set for myself...well, the goal is important to me, but the longer I've been doing this the less important the goal weight feels. I'm not that frustrated that I haven't lost weight alone, but it's more tied with a lack of change in measurements too. And I feel that I can be better. So for the moment the measurements, feeling, and scale number are still tied together in my mind, though the ties get weaker as things improve.

I have it in my head that I'm coming off as argumentative, which isn't my intention. Just trying to understand.

Kdiamond has given you great advice. And I don't think you're coming off as argumentative... not at all. Questioning is good. Learning is good. I'm happy you're intrigued and I actually welcome skepticism. Nobody should take anybody's word as gospel.

If strength training is new to you, there's a chance you can gain a few pounds of muscle. I've seen some cases where 10 lbs were gained in the face of a calorie deficit. Of course this individual had the genetic proclivity to add muscle... she just needed to give her body the reason, which was strength training.

The point is, when you're dealing with someone who has 50, 100, or 200 lbs to lose... of course they're not going to be adding so much muscle that it offsets their fat loss. The number on the scale should be falling for these folks over time.

On the flip side, however, people who have 10 or less pounds to lose run into the territory where the scale isn't all that reliable anymore. Especially when they're new to strength training.

Make sense?

And that's why it becomes more about measurements, pictures, the fit of clothing, etc.

jabdye

I think I fall into that group. I have what I believe to be about 10 pounds that I need to lose. I started weight training in March -- and have since gained 3-4 pounds. The Y that I attend does a body composition analysis with body fat %....and I was fortunate enough to do that right when I started. I'm hoping my next analysis will show the weight gain is muscle. Would you say that is a better way to judge -- BF%? I am working on getting rid of the scale -- and relying more on how I feel than what the scale says -- although I must admit it has the tendency to make or break my day so I just avoid getting on it.

Babbling -- sorry -- just love that I am finally learning and getting the confirmation that I need!

stroutman81

I was reading the first two pages and I will def read the rest you have great information! I do have a question have you ever heard of the pace program were you will do high intesity workout then rest and it's only like a 10 min workout ... does it work? i am 114 right now and want to be 105 (I'm only 4'11" ) but I would rather be toned then get to 105 and was wondering if this would help

I've not heard of it, but sounds shady.

I'd focus on 2-3 sessions of full body strength training using compound exercises each week.

A full body strength training routine for a beginner might look something like:

Body weight squats - 2 sets of 15 reps
Romanian Deadlifts - 2 sets of 15 reps
Reverse Lunges - 1x12
Bench Press - 2x12
Rows - 2x12
Something for core like planks, pallof presses, saxon side bends, etc.

Nothing at all is written in stone here, including exercise selection. It's just a starting point. The reps are higher than I generally like to go but they're high to give you practice with light weights so you form can be mastered. Once you're proficient and comfortable, I'd probably focus on consistently adding weight over time while working in lower rep ranges. Maybe on day using the 4-8 rep range and another day using the 8-12 rep range.

Really... there are endless ways to structure things.

Dial your nutrition in as discussed in this thread.

And add a few sessions of general cardio where you see fit. If you want, one of these sessions can be of high intensity, such as interval training.

That's my very general advice.

dskline1

Bumping this to read it in its entirety later....very pleased to find it. I have been off mfp for a while, but, am looking forward to getting back on to learn more. My weight pretty much stayed the same, but, can say I had my bf tested by a dietician/trainer and it was 19.9% when I started and it has been holding steady at 18.3%. I got away from the heavier exercising and was maintaining by diet alone, but have found that I miss the stress relief received from the exercise. I have begun my hiking and older school workouts about 2 weeks ago and feel on top of the world again.

Again, thanks for this post. I am sure all us petite ladies out there agree that the typical formulas don't always apply to us.

~Sheryl

pfenixa

Ok, so if you are trying to get to a certain number for your weight loss, go ahead and attempt it...but I would do it through diet, light weights and cardio exercise. Doing major strength training is really only for those who are trying to attain a certain appearance and/or lower body fat and gain strength, and are not concerned with numbers. IMO of course.

But what do you mean by stuck? Weight loss? Or is it tied to just getting leaner?

Weight loss, and/or slower metabolism...basically a kick start to trick your body. Believe me, it gets used to eating 1200 calories a day every day.

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.

I'm not under the illusion that if I reach my goal weight and change my strength training that I won't gain weight. Heck, I know that that number will change from day to day just from water. And like I said I completely agree about it becoming how clothing fits, measurements, etc, it's just at this point weight as a number is still loosely tied in there.

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.

skyley

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

cardigirl

Adding to my queue for complete reading later. Thanks for the great information!

stroutman81

I think I fall into that group. I have what I believe to be about 10 pounds that I need to lose. I started weight training in March -- and have since gained 3-4 pounds. The Y that I attend does a body composition analysis with body fat %....and I was fortunate enough to do that right when I started. I'm hoping my next analysis will show the weight gain is muscle. Would you say that is a better way to judge -- BF%? I am working on getting rid of the scale -- and relying more on how I feel than what the scale says -- although I must admit it has the tendency to make or break my day so I just avoid getting on it.

Body fat testing is hit or miss. The only extremely accurate way to tell how much fat there is relative to muscle is dissection. So unless you like the idea of being dead and then cut up.... I'd shy away from that.

Calipers (pinchers) are most common, but there's a pretty high degree of error once you factor in the device, the formula being used, and the tester. If you're using the same device with the same tester each and every time... you'll be able to track a trend. But that doesn't necessarily mean the number is accurate.

You can estimate it with a calculator that you spit your anthropometric measurements into such as this: http://zone.cust.he.net/prothd2.html.

You can use Bioelectrical impedance Analysis which is what all these fancy scales and hand held gadgets use. This sends a small electric current through your body and because different tissues have unique conductivities, it can estimate your ratio of fat to muscle. The problem is these tend to be less accurate than calipers - especially because hydration can really throw things off here.

You can do DEXA scans, which scans your entire body. This uses x-ray imaging to differentiate between bone, muscle and fat.

There are displacement devices such as the bod pod or the dunk tank which measure how much air and water your body displaces respectively. The dunk tank, or hydrostatic weighing is considered the gold standard. Different tissues have varying degrees of buoyancy based on density, which provides a reasonably accurate reading

Believe it or not, there are even more techniques.

Frankly, I don't measure my own. And I rarely measure my clients. I much prefer to rely on measurements, pictures, reflections, and the fit of clothing.

makinitcount44

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

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.

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.
I currently have been running a bit more...3-4x a week between 3-5miles and do some light strengthening on the other days. Nothing too heavy right now...not sure why and I know I should and will be getting back into it ASAP!

My downfall ultimately is my eating...not necessary not enough calories, most likely too many and too many of being not nutritional worthy. Really have been working on that the last few weeks.

Again, thanks for all the great info you've shared!!!

paldal

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

smuehlbauer

Hey - thanks! That was nice of you to say!

ellie_1989

I was scared you'd say this lol....To be completely honest I really do not know how? I cannot physically afford the gym often even at £5.25! :S Is there anything I can buy to do at home or anything? Thanks!

Well resistance is resistance. It doesn't have to come by way of standard dumbbells and barbells. Sure, those things are ideal, but you have to be flexible and adapt to your situations and environments.

Starting out with just your body weight can be a start. Things like squat and lunge variations, pushups, pullups, etc. As your body adapts to lifting your body weight, you'll have to increase the "stress" to force continual, positive changes. That's when you have to add some external form of resistance.

A set of adjustable dumbbells is great. You can use bands too. Or even gallon jugs filled with sand or liquid. I've also had people load up book bags with books or sand and use that.

When you don't have access to a gym, it's time to get creative!

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!

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

stroutman81

Bumping this to read it in its entirety later....very pleased to find it. I have been off mfp for a while, but, am looking forward to getting back on to learn more. My weight pretty much stayed the same, but, can say I had my bf tested by a dietician/trainer and it was 19.9% when I started and it has been holding steady at 18.3%. I got away from the heavier exercising and was maintaining by diet alone, but have found that I miss the stress relief received from the exercise. I have begun my hiking and older school workouts about 2 weeks ago and feel on top of the world again.

Again, thanks for this post. I am sure all us petite ladies out there agree that the typical formulas don't always apply to us.

~Sheryl

Thanks Sheryl! Glad to hear you're feeling good, too.

stroutman81

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.