How does one lose inches?
sarahwinston2
Posts: 20 Member
May be a stupid question, but how does one lose inches? I am in a calorie deficit
1
Replies
-
By reducing body fat.4
-
-
sarahwinston2 wrote: »May be a stupid question, but how does one lose inches? I am in a calorie deficit
Unfortunately you can't choose where the fat comes off. You eat and workout to stay in a calorie deficit, and your body burns fat from wherever it will. You keep on keepin' on until you get to a place where aesthetically you are satisfied with what you see, or until you get to a point where you don't want to lose anymore weight, and then you focus on muscle building to even up and continue to shape everything.10 -
Walking is the best way to reduce fat (and lose weight). Also, I've been doing pilates two times a week and weight training two times a week and I have noticed that (although my weight loss has slowed) I have lost inches. As stated above...you can't choose where on the body the fat will fall! Build lean muscle!3
-
fdlewenstein wrote: »Walking is the best way to reduce fat (and lose weight). Also, I've been doing pilates two times a week and weight training two times a week and I have noticed that (although my weight loss has slowed) I have lost inches. As stated above...you can't choose where on the body the fat will fall! Build lean muscle!
A calorie deficit is the best way to reduce fat and lose weight.18 -
If you're like me, you get older, lose cartilage, and start to shrink on the height charts.10
-
fdlewenstein wrote: »Walking is the best way to reduce fat (and lose weight). Also, I've been doing pilates two times a week and weight training two times a week and I have noticed that (although my weight loss has slowed) I have lost inches. As stated above...you can't choose where on the body the fat will fall! Build lean muscle!
Walking is helping you be in a calorie deficit. But that is just one of many ways to do so.12 -
fdlewenstein wrote: »Walking is the best way to reduce fat (and lose weight). Also, I've been doing pilates two times a week and weight training two times a week and I have noticed that (although my weight loss has slowed) I have lost inches. As stated above...you can't choose where on the body the fat will fall! Build lean muscle!
Given you've stated best to reduce fat and lose weight, there's a potential implication of losing far and gaining or maintaining weight. Seems that would be better than walking because it would be a large change in composition.4 -
Good way: Lose fat. Bad way: Muscle atrophy. Personally I find that switching off your gym days with cardio one day and weights one day is best for not losing muscle.6
-
Sometimes body sculpting is better for this you tend to eat a diet not particularly lose weight but lots of inches. Something like 90 day obsession or Jillian Micheal a 30 day shred follow the diet plan and do the exercises2
-
I would have thought the best way to lose inches is to firm up your muscles through strength training or callisthenics. I know when I squeeze my muscles in, I look several inches thinner, so if they were firm and taut I'd look thinner full time.2
-
I feel you. I've lost 20 lbs this past year and my waist size is still the same as it was. *groan* It's all coming off around my face and thighs.
I'd say keep on keeping on and do a bunch of whatever exercise that you're hoping to lose inches from. Then that way when you finally get to that point of burning fat there your muscles will pop and it will make it that much more worth it!6 -
I would have thought the best way to lose inches is to firm up your muscles through strength training or callisthenics. I know when I squeeze my muscles in, I look several inches thinner, so if they were firm and taut I'd look thinner full time.
Your muscles don't really "firm up". When people get generally more fit by following a regimented exercise program, they tend to look firmer because the increased activity both burns more calories and causes them to generally be more careful about their diet - in other words it puts them in a slight calorie deficit. So they slowly burn off the layer of fat that was covering their muscles. At the same time they might build a little bit of extra muscle, making those muscles even more prominent.
Your muscles change shape when they are flexed or not flexed, they can get stronger without any visible change, and they can get bigger. But if they have a layer of fat over them, it doesn't matter what you do to your muscles, you will still first see that layer of fat.
Most people who say they want to lose inches need to lose a little fat.7 -
Thanks guys!0
-
Now if I could ask you how to lose body fat...2
-
sarahwinston2 wrote: »Now if I could ask you how to lose body fat...
Calorie deficit11 -
sarahwinston2 wrote: »Now if I could ask you how to lose body fat...
Food scale. Accurate entries logged. Stay within your MFP deficit. Eat back about half of your exercise calories. Adjust as you see a weight loss trend.3 -
sarahwinston2 wrote: »May be a stupid question, but how does one lose inches? I am in a calorie deficit
6 -
There is quite a lot of evidence that suggests visceral fat is tied to cortisol and stress. Just like insulin impacts your ability to store fat, meaning that *what* and when you eat matters, your body has mechanisms that determine where and how it stores or burns fat. I believe that, along with genetics, some weight-loss and lifestyle plans are more effective at targeting visceral fat than others. The stress on your body from intermittently fasting on top of maintaining a calorie defecit might help target belly fat. Especially if you choose to exercise in a fasted state, I believe you have a better chance of losing belly fat faster. Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating.
keywords for research: visceral fat, cortisol, fasting, exercise2 -
michaelwrightkindle wrote: »Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating.
If someone is exercising without paying attention to how many calories one needs or using extra activity as an "excuse" for eating, that has the potential to create major stress for the body. If it's true that this impacts fat stores, wouldn't we want to minimize that?
5 -
@sarahwinston2 Read this thread. It's got everything a beginner needs.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p1
And maybe this one...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1161603/so-you-want-a-nice-stomach/p13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »michaelwrightkindle wrote: »Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating.
I feel like you could just as easily argue that dieting leads to anorexia or other eating disorders.
I mean, any glance at any public forum dedicated to weight loss or dieting or exercise shows you that there are a tremendous number of people trying to use a Fitbit as an oracle. It's counterproductive and "rule of thumb" generalizations like "eat back half" are pretty arbitrary and meaningless without context. You're not going to fall out if you go from sedentary to doing a daily aerobics class or walk without compensating with a protein shake or an energy bar. But it would be trivially easy to undermine your weight-loss efforts if you equate working out more to eating more, especially when diet is the major factor. Maybe I'm wrong for assuming someone adhering to the kind of training regimen an elite athlete might use would present differently, though, and the average person on a dieting forum is genuinely at risk of doing themselves harm by overexertion? Nah.2 -
michaelwrightkindle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »michaelwrightkindle wrote: »Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating.
I feel like you could just as easily argue that dieting leads to anorexia or other eating disorders.
I mean, any glance at any public forum dedicated to weight loss or dieting or exercise shows you that there are a tremendous number of people trying to use a Fitbit as an oracle. It's counterproductive and "rule of thumb" generalizations like "eat back half" are pretty arbitrary and meaningless without context. You're not going to fall out if you go from sedentary to doing a daily aerobics class or walk without compensating with a protein shake or an energy bar. But it would be trivially easy to undermine your weight-loss efforts if you equate working out more to eating more, especially when diet is the major factor. Maybe I'm wrong for assuming someone adhering to the kind of training regimen an elite athlete might use would present differently, though, and the average person on a dieting forum is genuinely at risk of doing themselves harm by overexertion? Nah.
I'm not telling anyone to "eat back half" and I'm not recommending that people consume protein shakes or bars unless they like them.
What I'm arguing is that people should understand how their activity contributes to their overall calorie needs and take that into consideration when determining how much to eat. I realize that's not as fun to argue against as what you imagine I'm recommending, but why on earth wouldn't you want to consider your overall activity level when deciding how much to eat, especially if the goal is to reduce unnecessary stress on the body?14 -
michaelwrightkindle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »michaelwrightkindle wrote: »Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating.
I feel like you could just as easily argue that dieting leads to anorexia or other eating disorders.
I mean, any glance at any public forum dedicated to weight loss or dieting or exercise shows you that there are a tremendous number of people trying to use a Fitbit as an oracle. It's counterproductive and "rule of thumb" generalizations like "eat back half" are pretty arbitrary and meaningless without context. You're not going to fall out if you go from sedentary to doing a daily aerobics class or walk without compensating with a protein shake or an energy bar. But it would be trivially easy to undermine your weight-loss efforts if you equate working out more to eating more, especially when diet is the major factor. Maybe I'm wrong for assuming someone adhering to the kind of training regimen an elite athlete might use would present differently, though, and the average person on a dieting forum is genuinely at risk of doing themselves harm by overexertion? Nah.
Except equating working out to eating more is literally how MFP works.
The argument often comes up that one can use not logging exercise as a buffer for logging errors. But if you're assuming your food logging is so off that you need a 150-250 calorie buffer, and you are completely ignoring your exercise calories, you're just accepting that your diary is a work of fiction. How can you expect to learn from it a month from now if you aren't at least attempting some sort of accurate representation of your calorie needs?
I see that you are relatively new to these forums (welcome ). We get a lot of posters here who eat just their MFP calorie goal, while ramping up their exercise because that's what the diet industry tells them to do, and they can't understand why they are fatigued and hangry and starting to struggle with bingeing. A couple of hundred calories can certainly make that difference, especially for shorter females.
I ate my MFP calories, synced my Fitbit, ate my exercise calories, logged all my food all the time using a food scale whenever possible. When I'd hit a stall, I could look back at my diary as an accurate picture of my calorie intake and expenditure and learn from it. That is the entirety of how and why I succeeded. I know others succeed with much looser logging, but I think striving for accuracy at least in the beginning so you can understand your numbers and how your body reacts is an incredibly useful and advantageous strategy.13 -
michaelwrightkindle wrote: »There is quite a lot of evidence that suggests visceral fat is tied to cortisol and stress. Just like insulin impacts your ability to store fat, meaning that *what* and when you eat matters, your body has mechanisms that determine where and how it stores or burns fat. I believe that, along with genetics, some weight-loss and lifestyle plans are more effective at targeting visceral fat than others. The stress on your body from intermittently fasting on top of maintaining a calorie defecit might help target belly fat. Especially if you choose to exercise in a fasted state, I believe you have a better chance of losing belly fat faster. Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating.
keywords for research: visceral fat, cortisol, fasting, exercise
Visceral fat is exactly the kind of fat that won't cause a loss of inches. Belly fat =\= visceral fat. Belly fat is subcutaneous fat located at the belly.7 -
michaelwrightkindle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »michaelwrightkindle wrote: »Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating.
I feel like you could just as easily argue that dieting leads to anorexia or other eating disorders.
I mean, any glance at any public forum dedicated to weight loss or dieting or exercise shows you that there are a tremendous number of people trying to use a Fitbit as an oracle. It's counterproductive and "rule of thumb" generalizations like "eat back half" are pretty arbitrary and meaningless without context. You're not going to fall out if you go from sedentary to doing a daily aerobics class or walk without compensating with a protein shake or an energy bar. But it would be trivially easy to undermine your weight-loss efforts if you equate working out more to eating more, especially when diet is the major factor. Maybe I'm wrong for assuming someone adhering to the kind of training regimen an elite athlete might use would present differently, though, and the average person on a dieting forum is genuinely at risk of doing themselves harm by overexertion? Nah.
Except equating working out to eating more is literally how MFP works.
The argument often comes up that one can use not logging exercise as a buffer for logging errors. But if you're assuming your food logging is so off that you need a 150-250 calorie buffer, and you are completely ignoring your exercise calories, you're just accepting that your diary is a work of fiction. How can you expect to learn from it a month from now if you aren't at least attempting some sort of accurate representation of your calorie needs?
I see that you are relatively new to these forums (welcome ). We get a lot of posters here who eat just their MFP calorie goal, while ramping up their exercise because that's what the diet industry tells them to do, and they can't understand why they are fatigued and hangry and starting to struggle with bingeing. A couple of hundred calories can certainly make that difference, especially for shorter females.
I ate my MFP calories, synced my Fitbit, ate my exercise calories, logged all my food all the time using a food scale whenever possible. When I'd hit a stall, I could look back at my diary as an accurate picture of my calorie intake and expenditure and learn from it. That is the entirety of how and why I succeeded. I know others succeed with much looser logging, but I think striving for accuracy at least in the beginning so you can understand your numbers and how your body reacts is an incredibly useful and advantageous strategy.
Well said.
I would say that the average dieting person is less at risk at doing herself harm by undereating for an extended period of time (although that certainly is a risk for some), the risk for most is that they will set an aggressive calorie goal, exercise on top of that, and then get tired and hungry and quit because dieting is "too hard." These are the people who conclude that counting calories doesn't work or that they just can't lose weight. So when we tell people to make sure they account for exercise, it's not really because we're afraid that they're going to exercise themselves down to nothing. The average person is going to quit well before that -- that's exactly what we're trying to help people avoid, quitting.9 -
What I said (after what I felt was a thoughtful summary of my research on the correlation between fasting,stress,cortisol, and belly fat) was "Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating." You literally quoted that before disregarding it and going on a spiel equating it to "do not consider your overall activity level when deciding how much to eat." I won't publicly speculate on why you might've been triggered. Regardless, this conversation is over.1
-
michaelwrightkindle wrote: »OK, pal. What I said was "Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating." You literally quoted that before disregarding it and going on a spiel equating it to "do not consider your overall activity level when deciding how much to eat." I won't publicly speculate on why you might've been triggered. Regardless, this conversation is over.
If you're not tracking your exercise calories, how are you going to account for them when understanding how much to eat? What's the point of the comment about them being an "excuse" for "guilty eating" (whatever that is)?
You haven't "triggered" anyone. I disagree with your approach and I don't think it will be helpful for OP. This isn't an emotional thing.17 -
michaelwrightkindle wrote: »What I said (after what I felt was a thoughtful summary of my research on the correlation between fasting,stress,cortisol, and belly fat) was "Just don't get too caught up on tracking exercise calories or using them as an excuse for guilty eating." You literally quoted that before disregarding it and going on a spiel equating it to "do not consider your overall activity level when deciding how much to eat." I won't publicly speculate on why you might've been triggered. Regardless, this conversation is over.
Seriously doubt a single jimmy was even nudged, let alone anything rustled, or "triggered". Perhaps you should speculate with yourself why you read the conversation that way.21 -
I'm also prone to the "not losing inches" thoughts.
I found some articles on Livestrong.com that helped me feel a little more at ease about weight loss/fat loss/lost inches (and loving words from my fiancé about the progress I have made). Visceral vs subcutaneous fat, etc.
I weigh and measure all my food to ensure I'm in a calorie deficit. I follow a lifting routine with progressive overload 4x / week. I have lost 18 lbs in 4 months.
While I want the inches lost to occur most in my core (bust/waist/belly), it seems that is the last place my body wants to let it go from. I just have to be patient and eventually inches will drop from those areas like they have from my arms, thighs, etc.8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions