Relatively light people trying to get leaner

Thanks so much for some great things to think about. I'm just starting out, and I'm determined to not think of this as a diet or even as "loosing weight". I'm trying to get in the mind frame that I am getting healthier, and that's going to take a while.

Sounds like you have the right mindset. And you're welcome. Thanks for tuning in.

To that end, I appreciated the knowledge that even light weights will aide me in my quest. It will help me not rush for the most weight I can lift, but instead build toward a healthier me.

I'm glad you picked up on that. A lot of folks get very overzealous in the weight room. I don't know if it's ego, a sense of urgency, or what... but they wind up going wayyy heavier than they're ready for. Strength is something to build over time and you shouldn't start adding weight until you're 100% comfortable with how your body is supposed to move in each movement you select.

When you are ready to add weight though, when it comes to relatively lean folks trying to get leaner, it is important to use heavy weights. What's heavy? Well, in exercise science intensity is measured as a percentage of maximum effort. In very general terms, when the time is right, folks should be working out in the 70-95% of max zone, which translates to the 1-12 rep range per set.

If you're not doing enough work above this threshold, it's going to be hard to gain or preserve muscle while dieting after some consistent time spend "under the bar."

And just for the record, I'm not after skeletal, much preferred toned!

You mean the crackhead model look? I'm glad to hear it!

hmmm this is interesting. Well like you said an anorexic person is obviouly not building muscle, but it's strange that I would feel tighter in my regular clothes.
according to MFP, I should be eating 1200 and according to your calculation I should be eating 1500.

1200 would put you at 9-10 calories per pound, and that's not a terrible thing. For fat loss, I suggest a range of 8-12 calories per pound. Obviously the best is to eat as much as possible while triggering appreciable fat loss. But where that falls exactly in terms of cals/lb is going to vary on the person and what he or she is doing.

maybe this whole running and weight lifting thing isn't for me just yet

Running and elliptical are one in the same in my mind. Just differing tools for the same goal - that being improved cardiorespiratory fitness and energy expenditure. Granted, they're biomechanically unique, meaning they exert specific and different stresses on the body... so one may be better suited for someone over the other.

If you're not obese, I think you should be weight training. I typically don't make blanket statements like that... but that's how important I feel it is for health and physique.

Could your calorie intake be off. Humans, by nature, of horrific at tracking calories. How are you measuring? Are you using a food scale? Are you certain you're tracking every calorie that passes your lips? How consistent are you in doing so?

Would you say that a person doing cardio and may or may not be trying to lose weight should increase the protein intake too? or is that only for strength training?

Strength training would require more, in general.

However, protein is important for more than repair and muscle growth. It's the most satiating of the nutrients. It is the most "expensive" to digest and utilize, so there's a slight bump in energy expenditure in higher protein diets compared to lower. And having an extra pool of amino acids floating around the bloodstream will lead to preferential use over your stored amino acids (muscle) which is a good thing as far as body comp goes.

I guess I need to work on my patience

Or your expectations. Or your goals, assuming the only concrete ones you have are scale based.

Thanks, this was awesome.

You're welcome.

well I'm definitely not consistent and I don't have a food scale. But I try to visualize the smallest "cup" possible and pretty much modify everything so it is 1.5 times what I think it is.
I should mention that I am vegeterian and eat a lot of veggies and lentils on a regular basis, but there are days when I have a hard time reaching even a 1200 goal because I'm so full (these being days when I've loaded up on fiber or high water foods, only to wake up the next morning starving).

Well you can take this for what it's worth. But with my clients who are struggling to get the ball rolling... I won't even delve into details until they pick up a food scale and track what's actually passing their lips in weight. You can conservatively eyeball things but the overwhelming majority of research points a very clear picture of just how horrific people are at accurately assessing intake.

I recently read a paper showing how significantly "off" dietitians were who were asked to weigh and track their intake. And these are professionals of diet. The further away from that standard you go in the research, the more "off" people are. Some are off by 60%+.

I've found this to ring very true in my own dealings with numerous clients.

Again, take it for what it's worth. Personally, if I were struggling, my first step would be examining my true intake as closely as I could.

I suppose my problem is the same as the rest. My lowest weight was around 115, and I looked and felt my "best" then. I should probably not aim for the 115 any more and just concentrate on a leaner body rather than a lower weight body. So perhaps, I'm doing the wrong workout programs.

It's hard for me to say without seeing you but it's definitely worth consideration.

I feel the need to apologize... as if I've been giving you a hard time. Hopefully you can respect my conciseness.

Hey. It's funny cause I was going to post something that may fall into this column just before I came across this thread. Basically I always seem to stay the same weight....whether I'm exercising or just eating what I want really. The 9st mark seems to love me! I know that this isn't heavy but I also know that at 5ft3 I could be in better shape.

Google "setpoint" and "settling point"

After my first year of uni I was admittedly my heaviest ever weight at 9st10lbs and I could definately tell! But when I got home I almost instantly lost half a stone...not sure why?

Settling point is a product of your environment. When your environment changes, purposefully or not, your weight tends to change. The food selection was almost definitely different from uni, for instance.

But I wasn't complaining hehe. Then I bought the Iphone and found the fitnesspal app. From this I appeared to be eating a bit too much and cut down to my recommended calorie intake of 1200.

Wow, I've not looked at the tools here at MFP, but why are they telling everyone to eat 1200 calories!? Or so it seems.

I think I have toned up slightly and my family can tell I have slimmed down but tbh it is a bit discouraging knowing that I barely look any different to when I was 9st before and ate what I wanted and didn't do as much.

You're usually the last person to notice change. You see yourself multiple times each and everyday. It's like watching your hair grow.

I really enjoy swimming so I don't mind going but I feel my motivation might get lost when I go back to uni as I haven't had all that good results! =/ I must be doing something wrong? Any advice/help would be appreciated thanks.

If you've read this thread, it should be obvious that you should be adding strength training to the mix.

Sigh. This isn't really what I want to hear. I like doing light weight high rep work because my gym has a class in that category and I like going for the social aspect. Contrast that to doing the resistance components of p90x at home by myself... its much more boring. Still, what you're saying makes sense any my own experience supports it. Its also very clear and enjoyable to read, so thanks!

I hear ya. Those cardio/resistance classes are something I have some beef with. If they advertised them as cardio with weights... that'd be one thing. But of the ones I see... that's not what they do. They promise toning and muscle building and that's bogus.

Here's the deal.

We apply external resistance to our bodies via dumbbells, barbells, kettlebells, bands, etc in order to generate tension in our muscles. The greater the force, the greater the tension (without getting into power, for the nerds who might be reading this). So light weights for a lot of reps will generate low levels of force/tension. Heavy weights for fewer reps will generate greater levels of force/tension.

I believe I said earlier in this thread that a force/tension threshold exists. In order to increase strength and muscle, you need to be using loads that generate force/tension above this threshold.

Here's the kicker though...

Just as our bodies are adaptive to any other stress, they're also adaptive to this threshold. In complete novices or folks who are very detrained... their thresholds are going to be much lower than in folks who have been consistently and progressively training for a year or years. Think about that.

This is why, for beginners, pretty much *anything* works.

Those classes that are cardio with weights will "work" for beginners in that they'll be above the threshold and stimulate some muscle and strength gains (without factoring in nutritional state). As their bodies adapt though, that high rep, pump and tone junk isn't going to cut it. And that's what they don't want you to know because they need to "fill the seats."

After a while, traditional strength training is called for.

Unfortunately, this industry has brainwashed people into believing the only exercise that is worth while are the types that leave you sweating buckets with a jacked up heart rate. If it's not leaving you huffing and puffing and feeling "the burn" then it's not worthwhile. And this couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm about 165lb, 6"0 (male), 31.5" abdominal, 7.7 w/h ratio... very fit in terms of cardio but still have a soft gut. I guess I can do a modified p90x over a shorter time so I don't get too bored with it. Then I can go back to the social class for a while before returning to the higher weight options.

Maybe you should ditch the prepackaged program and think about designing a traditional strength training routine that you'll enjoy that you can do in the weight room of your gym.

One thing I find really hard though at this point is working out how much I should be eating. You mentioned this in your original post, but its not as simple as you implied. I really try quite hard to measure food accurately: I weigh or measure almost everything and count almost everything (some days if I'm at the bar it gets tricky, but that's about once a month at most). But before, when I was aiming for a 500cal deficit, I seemed to be putting on weight (fat, not muscle). I went from 173lb back up to 180lb over a few months. Can my metabolism really be so low that 1770 (that was my target calorie intake) is not a deficit? I've adjusted my target to 1440 and that seems to be working, but I don't want all the lose to be muscle mass. Damn dilemas. How do you work out how much you really need to be eating for a given individual rather than a rule of thumb measure?

The rule of thumb is the only way to approach this.

I determine total daily energy expenditure by multiplying their body weight by 15 or so. This assumes they're working out regularly. I should also note that I'll shift this calculation based on the person, so there is some customization. For instance, I'm currently working with a 375 lb woman. There's no way in hell she's expending 5,625 (375x15) calories per day. It's more than likely 11-12 or so calories per day... so her estimate of TDEE would be 4000 or so.

I'm also working with a very skinny fellow who came to me asking for help "bulking up." He's 6'1 and 140 lbs. In his case, his TDEE is probably somewhere around 17-18 calories per pound.

Either way though, the accuracy of your estimated TDEE isn't all that important. If it's "off" the process will uncover the inaccuracies.

From there, it's a matter of creating a deficit (Daily Calorie Goal) from the TDEE. 30% is a rule of thumb, though there are cases where I go above or below this.

Then I balance out the nutrients that will provide me my DCG.

From there, the process begins. If things aren't heading in the desired direction after a number of weeks, we adjust. This is where the inaccuracies are uncovered and accounted for. Of course, it's not always that the TDEE or DCG was inaccurate. Actually, more than likely, it's the actual calorie intake that's flawed since, as I noted a number of times, people suck at tracking calories... even if they're using a food scale.

But that doens't matter.

The fact remains that they're eating too much to generate a significant deficit.

The advice is to eat less. Within reason, mind you. If they're to a point where their back's against the wall, calorically speaking... meaning if they go lower in calories it'll tap into their ability to derive adequate amounts of nutrition to maintain health... obviously something is wrong.

And that's where I'll refer out to the medical community. I might start by having the client take their waking temperature over a number of days. A reduced temperature is a general indicator of something going on on the metabolism front (thyroid, parasympathetic nervous system output, etc).

Or, if the person has been exercising too much, which is pretty typical, or they've been dieting for ridiculous periods of time without a break, I might gradually and incrementally bring calories up to what should be their maintenance while I reduce the volume of exercise. This will give their bodies a chance to "reset" if you will. Once maintenance is reached, then I'll structure their diets and exercise programming with more sane parameters.

At the end of the day though... if you're not losing weight over the long term eating what you calculated to be a deficit:

1. Your TDEE is wrong
2. Your calculated/tracked intake is wrong
3. Something is going on medically
4. You need to give your body a break

If I had to order by how often I've encountered each of these in my decade plus of doing this... it'd be 2, 1, 4, 3.

I'm not sure if that answers your question or not, but I'm up for more if there are still misunderstandings.