Please read - 4 week no progress
Replies
-
Why are you lifting?...Do you weigh/log everything? Are you sticking to a 500Cal minimum daily deficit?
Best advice: Stop lifting. Do 30 days of cardio (30 Day Shred is a good place to start), Stick to a Calorie deficit Diet. Eat balanced. Eat every 2-3 hours. (Bfast>Fruit snack>Lunch>Fruitsnack>Dinner>Protein Shake>Snack). Train for 4 days, take one day off. Rinse and repeat.
If you are trying to get a toned athletic look, then you need to reduce your body fat percentage before you start trying to build/improve muscle definition, otherwise your never going to see any real difference. And as for Calorie Burn, 60 mins of Cardio will burn about 1000 calories, whereas 60 mins of intermittent Lifting will burn about 400 Calories. High Intensity Cardio Interval Training is the best way to Burn calories/fat/energy and improve heart/lung function as well as toning muscle.
This is horrible advice!! Lifting helps increase your metabolism and in the long run, you will lose body fat lifting. It wouldn't hurt for you to add in cardio as well and mix it into your lifting routine. The only reason to not lift weights is because you want to be as skinny as possibly and actually being healthy and fit doesn't matter to you. "There is no firming and toning, only getting stronger or weaker." Keep it up!0 -
fattymcfatterson2121 wrote: »It's open. I have been completely honest so it could look quite ugly. Fear.
Your diary looks good, if a little short on protein. Could you stand to sacrifice some carbs in favour of protein? It's really important, at deficit, for helping retain lean mass.
You should be losing on 1500 so maybe lockdown your measuring/weighing AND be patient, it could just be fluctuations.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »cdiponio87 wrote: »Running/Jogging (4 times a week) in conjunction with 1500 cals daily = weight loss.
So does a calorie deficit alone or lifting 4 times a week with a calorie deficit or sitting around every day with a calorie deficit.
In actuality, exercise is not needed for weight loss, it's simply an added plus with many health benefits.
That's very true but, for me at least, weight loss without exercise sucks in so many ways.
Oh gosh, don't get me wrong. I weight lift three times a week, run three times a week, and do the elliptical cross-trainer. I love exercising. However, to say a certain exercise will lead to weight loss is poor advice.
It's never the exercise itself that leads to weight loss, but the calorie deficit. And the calorie deficit can be achieved without exercise.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Actually yes I do think it is accurate. I have used several different GPS units and they agree within about 1%. I've also measured the route I use on a bike and it agrees. So, unless they are all wrong the same amount they are pretty accurate. And, I did not say it was AVERAGE, I said it was possible.
So how far are you actually running in an hour and how much do you weigh?
She said she runs 5 miles in a hour for that burn. Also implied she's 50lbs overweight (the 50lb backpack comment), but not her actual weight.
Needless to say, if she's burning ~1000 cals running 5 miles, she's either running up a pretty good incline, or (if completely on the flat) she weighs right around 300 lbs.
I'm not saying either option is impossible. But it's not likely.0 -
This may sound like a stupid question, but what is TOM?0
-
-
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »cdiponio87 wrote: »Running/Jogging (4 times a week) in conjunction with 1500 cals daily = weight loss.
So does a calorie deficit alone or lifting 4 times a week with a calorie deficit or sitting around every day with a calorie deficit.
In actuality, exercise is not needed for weight loss, it's simply an added plus with many health benefits.
That's very true but, for me at least, weight loss without exercise sucks in so many ways.
Oh gosh, don't get me wrong. I weight lift three times a week, run three times a week, and do the elliptical cross-trainer. I love exercising. However, to say a certain exercise will lead to weight loss is poor advice.
It's never the exercise itself that leads to weight loss, but the calorie deficit. And the calorie deficit can be achieved without exercise.
Oh, I wasn't saying anything in particular about you, just that for me I could do it without exercise but I would hate life. 0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »cdiponio87 wrote: »Running/Jogging (4 times a week) in conjunction with 1500 cals daily = weight loss.
So does a calorie deficit alone or lifting 4 times a week with a calorie deficit or sitting around every day with a calorie deficit.
In actuality, exercise is not needed for weight loss, it's simply an added plus with many health benefits.
That's very true but, for me at least, weight loss without exercise sucks in so many ways.
Oh gosh, don't get me wrong. I weight lift three times a week, run three times a week, and do the elliptical cross-trainer. I love exercising. However, to say a certain exercise will lead to weight loss is poor advice.
It's never the exercise itself that leads to weight loss, but the calorie deficit. And the calorie deficit can be achieved without exercise.
Oh, I wasn't saying anything in particular about you, just that for me I could do it without exercise but I would hate life.
well what is easily sustainable.
calorie deficit 500 calories a day for one pound per week or
calorie deficit 250 exercise 250 a day for one pound per week.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Actually yes I do think it is accurate. I have used several different GPS units and they agree within about 1%. I've also measured the route I use on a bike and it agrees. So, unless they are all wrong the same amount they are pretty accurate. And, I did not say it was AVERAGE, I said it was possible.
So how far are you actually running in an hour and how much do you weigh?
She said she runs 5 miles in a hour for that burn. Also implied she's 50lbs overweight (the 50lb backpack comment), but not her actual weight.
Needless to say, if she's burning ~1000 cals running 5 miles, she's either running up a pretty good incline, or (if completely on the flat) she weighs right around 300 lbs.
I'm not saying either option is impossible. But it's not likely.
That's about it, and if you are talking net calories it's pretty easy to guage. For me, at 152, I would have to run 10miles in an hour to get to that 1K and I'm not that strong of a runner. I can do 10K in about 52 mins and that's probably faster than what most people can do so it's unlikely that most people can burn 1K in an hour of running. Other cardio can be even more taxing.
Note: For someone who runs at my speed they could do about 7.5 miles in an hour so to get 1K net calories they would be 200 pounds. Or me with a 50 pound backpack (this is what a full ruck weighs) but I wouldn't be running that speed with a full ruck on.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »cdiponio87 wrote: »Running/Jogging (4 times a week) in conjunction with 1500 cals daily = weight loss.
So does a calorie deficit alone or lifting 4 times a week with a calorie deficit or sitting around every day with a calorie deficit.
In actuality, exercise is not needed for weight loss, it's simply an added plus with many health benefits.
That's very true but, for me at least, weight loss without exercise sucks in so many ways.
Oh gosh, don't get me wrong. I weight lift three times a week, run three times a week, and do the elliptical cross-trainer. I love exercising. However, to say a certain exercise will lead to weight loss is poor advice.
It's never the exercise itself that leads to weight loss, but the calorie deficit. And the calorie deficit can be achieved without exercise.
Oh, I wasn't saying anything in particular about you, just that for me I could do it without exercise but I would hate life.
well what is easily sustainable.
calorie deficit 500 calories a day for one pound per week or
calorie deficit 250 exercise 250 a day for one pound per week.
I'll take door number FTW!0 -
Thanks again to all for your time and encouragement. i am feeling empowered! (also feel like i really need to pee - been downing the water!)0
-
Joncgilliam wrote: »Maybe take a look at your carb or sugar consumption (you can use the my fitness pal reports), and try to scale those back. Sugar can trigger an insulin response that triggers your body to put on fat. I was eating boxed cereal for breakfast, and even though it was a lower-sugar cereal, and when I started checking out my stats, that was a huge amount of sugar and carbs. It was hard to do, because my body was addicted to the morning sugar, but I switched that out for 3 eggs and a can of tuna for breakfast, and that accelerated my fat loss. It took several days before I was no longer craving the cereal though. Note that 3 eggs is more than the recommended allotment, but more recent research on eggs is tending to say they're more healthy than previously thought. I also get a heafty allotment of mercury with the canned tuna, but I try to buy the more expensive ones that are lower (and the research on how bad mercury is for non-pregnant adults is saying that's not as bad as they hype would suggest).
Please also ignore this. If you're having problems feeling hungry all the time and it leads you to overeat, then consider more nutrient dense food that keeps you feeling full longer. If not, continue eating as you like. Sugar intake does not matter.
Actually sugar does matter. I'm sorry but 300 calories of chicken and 300 calories of pop tarts affect you much differently. Sugar, for one, makes you retain water. Now I'm not saying that a fully ketogenic diet is the way to go (I lost ~20 pounds on one), but everyone is different. One thing will not work for everyone. So, follow whatever discipline you choose, but don't say that sugar intake doesn't matter.0 -
fattymcfatterson2121 wrote: »Thanks again to all for your time and encouragement. i am feeling empowered! (also feel like i really need to pee - been downing the water!)
Good for you! Sounds like you're on the right track and you definitely just need to give it more time. Be consistent and pay attention to how your body changes, not just weight-wise.
Also, a lot of this is mental, so maybe just a silly suggestion but perhaps it is time to change your screen name to something more positive to reflect your great progress so far!0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »Joncgilliam wrote: »Maybe take a look at your carb or sugar consumption (you can use the my fitness pal reports), and try to scale those back. Sugar can trigger an insulin response that triggers your body to put on fat. I was eating boxed cereal for breakfast, and even though it was a lower-sugar cereal, and when I started checking out my stats, that was a huge amount of sugar and carbs. It was hard to do, because my body was addicted to the morning sugar, but I switched that out for 3 eggs and a can of tuna for breakfast, and that accelerated my fat loss. It took several days before I was no longer craving the cereal though. Note that 3 eggs is more than the recommended allotment, but more recent research on eggs is tending to say they're more healthy than previously thought. I also get a heafty allotment of mercury with the canned tuna, but I try to buy the more expensive ones that are lower (and the research on how bad mercury is for non-pregnant adults is saying that's not as bad as they hype would suggest).
Please also ignore this. If you're having problems feeling hungry all the time and it leads you to overeat, then consider more nutrient dense food that keeps you feeling full longer. If not, continue eating as you like. Sugar intake does not matter.
Actually sugar does matter. I'm sorry but 300 calories of chicken and 300 calories of pop tarts affect you much differently. Sugar, for one, makes you retain water. Now I'm not saying that a fully ketogenic diet is the way to go (I lost ~20 pounds on one), but everyone is different. One thing will not work for everyone. So, follow whatever discipline you choose, but don't say that sugar intake doesn't matter.
When it comes to strictly fat loss, it doesn't.0 -
But it can... When you ingest carbs, it creates an insulin response. In the mornings, one is very insulin sensitive. The hormone insulin indiscriminately grows tissue (grows both muscle and fat). "strictly fat loss" doesn't make sense because, fat cells, water, etc, it's all tied together. Maybe I'm missing your point?When it comes to strictly fat loss, it doesn't.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You are missing the factor to the equation that we all have peaks and valleys when it comes to fat storage. If you are in a caloric deficit you will burn fat. That is just the way the body operates.Tydeclare44 wrote: »
But it can... When you ingest carbs, it creates an insulin response. In the mornings, one is very insulin sensitive. The hormone insulin indiscriminately grows tissue (grows both muscle and fat). "strictly fat loss" doesn't make sense because, fat cells, water, etc, it's all tied together. Maybe I'm missing your point?When it comes to strictly fat loss, it doesn't.
Also, you can go and use the strawman of chicken vs pop tarts. That is not how this works. You need to look at the overall contents of the diet. So what if I have a pop tart or 2 for dessert. You can't compare it to chicken because who's to say that I didn't eat 6 or 8 oz of chicken breast for dinner? What am I going to do, eat more chicken for dessert?
We are arguing different points. I'm not saying peak and valleys aren't there (cause they are), I'm also not saying just eat chicken (you need a well balanced diet (macros AND micros). I'm just saying that your sugar intake isn't irrelevant. It has an effect on your body.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
6 months with about 2 pounds lost here. I'm certainly in vastly better shape than I was when I started though. It's discouraging, but short of starving and doing unsafe things, it's life.0
-
Someone please tell me what this cardio is that burns 1000 calories in 60 minutes because I am all over that.0
-
JenMaselli wrote: »Someone please tell me what this cardio is that burns 1000 calories in 60 minutes because I am all over that.
Hot sex0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »
You are missing the factor to the equation that we all have peaks and valleys when it comes to fat storage. If you are in a caloric deficit you will burn fat. That is just the way the body operates.Tydeclare44 wrote: »
But it can... When you ingest carbs, it creates an insulin response. In the mornings, one is very insulin sensitive. The hormone insulin indiscriminately grows tissue (grows both muscle and fat). "strictly fat loss" doesn't make sense because, fat cells, water, etc, it's all tied together. Maybe I'm missing your point?When it comes to strictly fat loss, it doesn't.
Also, you can go and use the strawman of chicken vs pop tarts. That is not how this works. You need to look at the overall contents of the diet. So what if I have a pop tart or 2 for dessert. You can't compare it to chicken because who's to say that I didn't eat 6 or 8 oz of chicken breast for dinner? What am I going to do, eat more chicken for dessert?
We are arguing different points. I'm not saying peak and valleys aren't there (cause they are), I'm also not saying just eat chicken (you need a well balanced diet (macros AND micros). I'm just saying that your sugar intake isn't irrelevant. It has an effect on your body.
Yes it does have an effect on your body, just like fat and protein do. That's besides the point. In terms of weight loss yes it is irrelevant. In terms of optimal health macronutrients are important. You cannot single out sugar and say it is relevant without looking at the overall diet which will then make looking at 1 factor alone irrelevant.
I see what you're saying, but by the same logic, wouldn't an overall diet be incomplete without considering the contents of an item?
I'm a big believer in the quality of the food one eats as well. In my opinion, nothing beats natural choices like getting protein as close to wild caught as possible. Along these lines, I don't see how a diet high in HFCS and other sugars can create a positive environment for weight loss, human optimization, etc. There are well documented diets grounded in low carb principles, which leads to weight loss
This really isn't the forum for this discussion, so I'll leave it at this: These are just my beliefs. Do whatever you want to for your diet; not much will beat hard work and sticking to a plan. No one should try to tell you that one diet is much better than another if it is grounded in theory and scientific evidence.0 -
JenMaselli wrote: »Someone please tell me what this cardio is that burns 1000 calories in 60 minutes because I am all over that.
running like you are being chased by someone trying to kill you. That might have a 1000 calorie burn in a hour.
0 -
JenMaselli wrote: »Someone please tell me what this cardio is that burns 1000 calories in 60 minutes because I am all over that.
Hot sex
Is that like hot yoga? Sadly, my boyfriend's brother and the two of us were just having a conversation about this the other day. He wants to develop a strip club similar to hot yoga. I'm not sure why he thought it was a good idea, but things got more and more ridiculous. Like the girls on the poles would need magnetic gloves to not fall off...0 -
-
Tydeclare44 wrote: »
But it can... When you ingest carbs, it creates an insulin response. In the mornings, one is very insulin sensitive. The hormone insulin indiscriminately grows tissue (grows both muscle and fat). "strictly fat loss" doesn't make sense because, fat cells, water, etc, it's all tied together. Maybe I'm missing your point?When it comes to strictly fat loss, it doesn't.
and wrong again ...
protein causes in insulin response as well....should that be avoided?
calorie is a unit of energy ..so all calories = calories; 100 calories of apples = 100 calories of twinkies0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »Tydeclare44 wrote: »
You are missing the factor to the equation that we all have peaks and valleys when it comes to fat storage. If you are in a caloric deficit you will burn fat. That is just the way the body operates.Tydeclare44 wrote: »
But it can... When you ingest carbs, it creates an insulin response. In the mornings, one is very insulin sensitive. The hormone insulin indiscriminately grows tissue (grows both muscle and fat). "strictly fat loss" doesn't make sense because, fat cells, water, etc, it's all tied together. Maybe I'm missing your point?When it comes to strictly fat loss, it doesn't.
Also, you can go and use the strawman of chicken vs pop tarts. That is not how this works. You need to look at the overall contents of the diet. So what if I have a pop tart or 2 for dessert. You can't compare it to chicken because who's to say that I didn't eat 6 or 8 oz of chicken breast for dinner? What am I going to do, eat more chicken for dessert?
We are arguing different points. I'm not saying peak and valleys aren't there (cause they are), I'm also not saying just eat chicken (you need a well balanced diet (macros AND micros). I'm just saying that your sugar intake isn't irrelevant. It has an effect on your body.
Yes it does have an effect on your body, just like fat and protein do. That's besides the point. In terms of weight loss yes it is irrelevant. In terms of optimal health macronutrients are important. You cannot single out sugar and say it is relevant without looking at the overall diet which will then make looking at 1 factor alone irrelevant.
I see what you're saying, but by the same logic, wouldn't an overall diet be incomplete without considering the contents of an item?
I'm a big believer in the quality of the food one eats as well. In my opinion, nothing beats natural choices like getting protein as close to wild caught as possible. Along these lines, I don't see how a diet high in HFCS and other sugars can create a positive environment for weight loss, human optimization, etc. There are well documented diets grounded in low carb principles, which leads to weight loss
This really isn't the forum for this discussion, so I'll leave it at this: These are just my beliefs. Do whatever you want to for your diet; not much will beat hard work and sticking to a plan. No one should try to tell you that one diet is much better than another if it is grounded in theory and scientific evidence.
your beliefs are off ...
so the protein from a wild caught hog is superior to protein in store bought chicken, really?
who is arguing for a diet high in sugar? Again, what Mr m is saying is that overall diet an dosage is what matters, not individual foods.0 -
Why are you lifting?...Do you weigh/log everything? Are you sticking to a 500Cal minimum daily deficit?
Best advice: Stop lifting. Do 30 days of cardio (30 Day Shred is a good place to start), Stick to a Calorie deficit Diet. Eat balanced. Eat every 2-3 hours. (Bfast>Fruit snack>Lunch>Fruitsnack>Dinner>Protein Shake>Snack). Train for 4 days, take one day off. Rinse and repeat.
If you are trying to get a toned athletic look, then you need to reduce your body fat percentage before you start trying to build/improve muscle definition, otherwise your never going to see any real difference. And as for Calorie Burn, 60 mins of Cardio will burn about 1000 calories, whereas 60 mins of intermittent Lifting will burn about 400 Calories. High Intensity Cardio Interval Training is the best way to Burn calories/fat/energy and improve heart/lung function as well as toning muscle.
Several people have already said as much, but it bears repeating....the above is HORRIBLE advice. Totally disregard.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions