Why is my wife not losing weight? [Forum Archive]

-->

Pages: 1

Why is my wife not losing weight?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: gizmo

Hi

I am asking a question on behalf of my wife if that's OK.

She has put on a bit of weight since quitting smoking 6 months ago and wants to lose about 28 lbs. At 5ft 2" she is over her BMI quite a bit weighing in at 11 stone. She wants to get down to 9 stone ideally.

She started up the gym last week and went 5 times for about an hour. Of those hour sessions, a good 45 minutes were spent doing cardio work on cross-trainers, steppers, rowing machines etc. In addition she did some abdominal exercises

In addition, she is on the Weight Watchers plan (basically she gets to eat 20 points a day) which she has stuck to. In other words, she is eating well, she has reduced her calories (not drastically but enough to spurt weight loss without putting her body into famine mode) and she is doing lots of exercise. Her previous lifestyle consisted of an office job, sitting on the settee at home etc. Her exercise was cleaning - so she was not massively active.

When we weighed her yesterday she had only lost one pound. She is obviously rather upset thinking that, of all the weeks, she would see the most changes in the first week with such a drastic change from doing hardly nothing to quite a lot or aerobics.

Can anyone explain what has happened? And more to the point if she continues will she eventually start to lose the weight? In previous years she lost weight without much trouble (2 lbs a week usually) but she smoked back then whereas she does not now.

Any help appreciated

Ted

Posted by: Gazhole

These things take time, weight loss might not actually kick in for a few weeks. What you should watch is the loss of water early on rather than fat, tell her to go by the way she looks rather than judging by the scale. All weight is not equal, she wants to lose FAT not MUSCLE or WATER.

I wouldnt go to the gym 5 times a week either, 3 or 4 at the most. It might be worth posting something in the training section about a good program. I reccomend some sort of combination of cardio and weight training.

Good luck to you both

Posted by: ironman13

if possible stick to cardio 7 days a week atleast once, then there is no room for error. even if you just run for 2 or 3 mins.

Posted by: Dale Mabry

Quote:

Originally Posted by gizmo

Hi

I am asking a question on behalf of my wife if that's OK.

She has put on a bit of weight since quitting smoking 6 months ago and wants to lose about 28 lbs. At 5ft 2" she is over her BMI quite a bit weighing in at 11 stone. She wants to get down to 9 stone ideally.

She started up the gym last week and went 5 times for about an hour. Of those hour sessions, a good 45 minutes were spent doing cardio work on cross-trainers, steppers, rowing machines etc. In addition she did some abdominal exercises

In addition, she is on the Weight Watchers plan (basically she gets to eat 20 points a day) which she has stuck to. In other words, she is eating well, she has reduced her calories (not drastically but enough to spurt weight loss without putting her body into famine mode) and she is doing lots of exercise. Her previous lifestyle consisted of an office job, sitting on the settee at home etc. Her exercise was cleaning - so she was not massively active.

When we weighed her yesterday she had only lost one pound. She is obviously rather upset thinking that, of all the weeks, she would see the most changes in the first week with such a drastic change from doing hardly nothing to quite a lot or aerobics.

Can anyone explain what has happened? And more to the point if she continues will she eventually start to lose the weight? In previous years she lost weight without much trouble (2 lbs a week usually) but she smoked back then whereas she does not now.

Any help appreciated

Ted

It is an error in energy balance, as is always the case. Let's start with some basics. Let's assume she is doing an hour of exercise 5 times a week as you have said. Well, if she spends one hour a day but goes home and collapses on the couch, she may not be burning as many calories throughout the day as when she was doing sporadic housework before. This is typically the case with the people that pop on a machine and enter the fallacious fat burning zone 5-6 times a week.

IMO, duration dictates what substrate is used, and intensity dictates how much of that substrate you use. You get what you put in. So, go for 20 minutes and you will burn a significant amount of fat. Run it at 60% as fast as you can run it and you will get 60% of the results you could be getting. Of course, people new to exercise need to gradually introduce intensity to the equation, but too many people take it too gradually.

Eventually she will want to do intervals, but that is probably a month down the road, if not more.

On the other end, people often significantly under-report how many calories they are eating, so she may be not adding some things in that are bringing her numbers up.

Posted by: Biggly

Weight scales on their own are a killer, for the exact reason you just described. Get yourself a cheap pair of skinfold calipers and a measuring tape.

Don't forget muscle is a lot heavier than fat, if she's weighing 11 stone and only 5'2" then that exercise is mild weight training, especially on un-trained legs. She may have lost 5lb and gained 4lb of lean tissue (muscle is 6 times heavier) hence calipers as well as a tape.

Step messing about with points and count her calories for a week, divide the daily totals by 7 and see what her actual average intake is. Then compare to what it's supposed to be. She needs to be at least 400 calories below her maintenance figure on a consistent basis for 2 weeks to really dig into the fat, then a mild refeed (one day) and do it again.

If there's soy in her diet get rid of it.

Main things to watch for are things that include fat and sugar at the same time (cakes, doughnuts etc).

She has a lot of fat to lose and needs a LOT of water to help that.

Best of luck and keep us posted!

B.

Posted by: gizmo

Thanks a lot guys - that all makes sense. I'll let you know how we get on!

Ted

Posted by: gizmo

She's weighed herself today and now she 11st 2lbs - a gain of 2 lbs.

She asked the gym trainer yesterday for some help. She told her that doing cardio exercises is not as demanding as weight training and ideally she should combine her sessions with both - as GazHole said initially, above. Her quote was something like "Weight training will burn off in 2 minutes what aerobics burns off in 10 as it places more demands on the heart". This is not how I thought the process worked but I guess it makes sense - I've done weight training most of my life and generally look better doing that than when I just do cardio stuff.

Anyway, suffice to say is very upset today (despite what we told her about scales not being entirely right) because regardless of how she looks she doesn't want to weigh this much. She wants to be 9 st. We are going to give this new schedule a try (basically it's an hour session comprising about 25 mins of cardio with 35 mins of weight training. Will let you know how we get!

Posted by: Biggly

Cardio with weight training? Erm... Can I suggest weight training, followed by a post-workout meal, an hour's gap and THEN some cardio?

Doing cardio before the weights means A. she'll hate the weights and B. the weights will hate her. Alternatively go for HIIT cardio, ie sprint, get breath back, sprint, breath back, sprint etc. 15 mins of that is plenty.

You do reach a point though that you just cannot do it for someone. For example early morning cardio on an empty tummy, science or not, burns fat. Is she willing to do that? If not, there's your answer.

"You can lead a horse to water..."

B.

Posted by: FitnessRubber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Cardio with weight training? Erm... Can I suggest weight training, followed by a post-workout meal, an hour's gap and THEN some cardio?

Doing cardio before the weights means A. she'll hate the weights and B. the weights will hate her. Alternatively go for HIIT cardio, ie sprint, get breath back, sprint, breath back, sprint etc. 15 mins of that is plenty.

You do reach a point though that you just cannot do it for someone. For example early morning cardio on an empty tummy, science or not, burns fat. Is she willing to do that? If not, there's your answer.

"You can lead a horse to water..."

B.

Cardio always was easier after weights for everyone I've known to do both... far far more effective

Posted by: Jack P

Don't worry about the scale. Take a tape measure and use that on hips and waist once a week. Because muscle weights more than fat the scale can be very misleading when you first start to lose weight. It's quite possible, if you don't have a lot to lose, to weigh more when you are in shape but still go down a clothing size.

Posted by: Built

I have lived your wife's life - I was fat for over twenty years doing low fat diets and lots of cardio. It doesn't work because it can't.

Have her read my blog, and please have her track everything she puts in her mouth for a week on FitDay - Free Weight Loss and Diet Journal

I need to see exactly what she's eating.

She should NOT be concentrating on cardio. Cardio is absolute crap for fat loss.

The easiest way to think of it is that weight loss (muscle and fat) is diet.
Fat loss is diet with some way to convince the body to maintain muscle (heavy-for her weight training in low-rep, low-volume workouts, sufficient protein and fat to maintain and support lean mass).
Cardio is good for your heart, but convinces the body to become an efficient fat burning machine. You know what that means, right? It teaches the body to need LESS FUEL.

Tell her she can't exercise off the weight, and not to try.

Posted by: hardasnails1973

She needs to examine life styles and proper nutrition evalution, plus check your thyroid and adrenals.

Posted by: gixxer0.6g

From years and years of work I've learned this and it seems so obvious now; Muscle burns fat, cardio doesn't build muscle, and legs are the easiest place to build muscle. This for me was the key to cutting body fat. This proves itself over and over again because I see overweight people spend hours on treadmills with little weight loss while the ones lifting weights and doing strength training drop weight so much faster.

So in conclusion, focus on building muscle through strength training involving multiple muscle groups and keep in mind nutrition is at least 80% of the battle. NO SUGARS!!

Posted by: skitzo

if shes at the gym for 1 hour and does cardio for 45 mins that may be the problem, correct me if I'm wrong but to lose weight the most efficient way you must follow the priorities 1. diet 2.weight training 3. cardio. Maybe she should stay at the gym for a extra half hour and do a little more weights imo.. anyways good luck to her.

Posted by: Biggly

I wouldn't go so far as to say no sugars, just cut down on them but you do need carbs to exercise well in the first place.

Jack P is right about the scales, they are worse than useless on their own. However as well as a tape measure get some skinfold calipers, for directly measuring fat levels. If you hunt around you can get them for less than $10 for a cheap plastic thingy.

B.

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by gixxer0.6g

From years and years of work I've learned this and it seems so obvious now; Muscle burns fat, cardio doesn't build muscle, and legs are the easiest place to build muscle. This for me was the key to cutting body fat. This proves itself over and over again because I see overweight people spend hours on treadmills with little weight loss while the ones lifting weights and doing strength training drop weight so much faster.

So in conclusion, focus on building muscle through strength training involving multiple muscle groups and keep in mind nutrition is at least 80% of the battle. NO SUGARS!!

Sort of… you're definitely on to something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skitzo

if shes at the gym for 1 hour and does cardio for 45 mins that may be the problem, correct me if I'm wrong but to lose weight the most efficient way you must follow the priorities 1. diet 2.weight training 3. cardio. Maybe she should stay at the gym for a extra half hour and do a little more weights imo.. anyways good luck to her.

You clearly understand the order of operations here - diet is paramount.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

I wouldn't go so far as to say no sugars, just cut down on them but you do need carbs to exercise well in the first place.

Jack P is right about the scales, they are worse than useless on their own. However as well as a tape measure get some skinfold calipers, for directly measuring fat levels. If you hunt around you can get them for less than $10 for a cheap plastic thingy.

B.

Scales aren't useless - they tell you exactly what it is that you WEIGH. (muscle, fat, water… poo…)

Now. Let's pull out the salient points here. For the purpose of discussion, I'm going to tell you a few good lies: diet is 100% responsible for your WEIGHT (muscle and fat). Cardio is good for your heart, but burns zero calories. Resistance training directs calorie traffic. Use this as a mental image and the rest will follow a little better in your mind.

1. Muscle building - cardio vs weights
She's cutting. Cardio will burn fat and muscle, and stimulate appetite. Lifting will risk manage muscle and force the body to lose fat instead. This actually slows WEIGHT loss (a pound of fat holds 3500 calories. A pound of sirloin is what, 600?) but speeds FAT loss.

2. Even if she DID gain muscle, it won't be much - maybe a few ounce in a month at the most while dropping fat. Watch the scale - it'll tell you what you need to know if you track the trend over time.

3. She needs to plan out how she will do this. First up, FitDay - Free Weight Loss and Diet Journal to find HER calories, not some calculated value but her OWN actual average from a few days or a week. Then drop this figure by about 20%, making sure to keep protein and fat up.

4. Women are invariably insulin resistant relative to men, and it's worse of course when we're fat. Low fat diets are a disaster for us because of this, as is excessive cardio because both conspire to make us hungry. Tell her to drop her carbs and increase her protein and her fat, and her veggies.

5. Short, heavy-for-HER workouts with low-rep sets (say 20 sets in total, reps between 5-8 for all exercises) three times a week is all the exercise she needs for this. It's just to hang onto muscle while the body drops weight - this will ensure most of the weight she loses will be fat and not muscle.

6. An hour of moderate cardio burns about what, 300 calories for a woman of average size? A pound of fat has 3500 calories. How much freaking cardio is she thinking she'll do? Short story tell her she can't cardio off her diet. She's better off just eating a little less, lifting heavy things and then going home to watch tv while continuing to eat a little less.

Posted by: gixxer0.6g

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Well said. Is the reason for the higher fat diet to fill you up more and keep you from getting hungry? My g/f is always trying to cut out all the fat from her diet. She's in great shape and is a very serious weight lifter. Should she be eating more fat?

Posted by: Biggly

Quote:

Scales aren't useless - they tell you exactly what it is that you WEIGH. (muscle, fat, water… poo…)

Sure, which is worse than useless on their own.

Precisely because people get discouraged by the fact the scales may not change much, despite their physique changing.

Quote:

(a pound of fat holds 3500 calories. A pound of sirloin is what, 600?) but speeds FAT loss.

Do you actually know what you're talking about? There are 9 calories per gram of fat, 4 calories per gram of pure protein, not that a pound of sirlion is pure protein. A trimmed and lean sirloin steak is around 700 calories, if braised, so you're not far off on that but WTF is this:

Quote:

Cardio is good for your heart, but burns zero calories

???

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you mean it doesn't burn and thus reduce bodyfat, not calories? Even so, that's BS. Cardio is extremely good at burning bodyfat. The biggest problem is people rely on it too much and don't change what they're doing. If you just keep doing 20 mins of the same thing every day your body will adapt but if you mix it up, throw in some HIIT sprints and so on, it shreds fat like a lawnmower.

Quote:

An hour of moderate cardio burns about what, 300 calories for a woman of average size?

What? A full hour, on for example an exercise bike, and you're looking closer to 700. She's overweight, make it 800-900

There's some nuggets of sense in what you're saying but seriously dude, read the stickies or something.

B.

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Sure, which is worse than useless on their own.

Not really. Women bloat a lot, and our weight fluctuates - but once you understand this it's easy to manage around. Put it this way - you gain three pounds overnight, it's water. You gain three pounds over two weeks and don't see the scale drop off - you're gaining fat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Precisely because people get discouraged by the fact the scales may not change much, despite their physique changing.

The scale really does tell you most of it. If the scale isn't moving and it's been two months, what do YOU think is going on?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Recall I began by saying I was about to tell you a good lie? It's a good lie. Don't try to cardio off your weight. I pretend cardio burns NOTHING. That way I'm not thinking "oh, I had a cheeseburger. I'll go for a run and it'll be GONE!"

If you go to the USDA nutrient database, you'll note that a pound of raw sirloin has about 700 calories. A pound of bison has about 500. Bison's leaner. Let's split the difference and call it 600 calories in a pound of muscle-meat.

A pound of bodyfat holds about 3500 calories.

Suppose you diet wrong and overtrain. Where a 3500 calorie deficit could burn off only ONE pound of bodyweight, you could, at least in theory, burn off almost 6 pounds of muscle.

Welcome to math class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

???
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you mean it doesn't burn and thus reduce bodyfat, not calories? Even so, that's BS. Cardio is extremely good at burning bodyfat. The biggest problem is people rely on it too much and don't change what they're doing. If you just keep doing 20 mins of the same thing every day your body will adapt but if you mix it up, throw in some HIIT sprints and so on, it shreds fat like a lawnmower.

You can't seriously think HIIT will lean out an obese woman. You can't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

What? A full hour, on for example an exercise bike, and you're looking closer to 700. She's overweight, make it 800-900

If she's obese, she won't be able to keep up that kind of intensity. A 200 lb woman at a brisk walk will burn what, 200 calories in an hour? MAYBE 300? She's not going to be able to jog. If you think she's going to burn off 900 calories in an hour you're on some serious drugs. Please send me some.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

There's some nuggets of sense in what you're saying but seriously dude, read the stickies or something.

I mod three bodybuilding boards. One was developed by and for a group of obese women who have and are working our ways out of obesity. I have documented my own entire process and give it away to the world for free on my blog: Got Built? ? It takes a while…

I've published articles and a monthly column on a men's bodybuilding board, and I've been an obese woman myself. I spent ten years as a fat jogger - I ran 10k 3x a week through most of my thirties trying to get my weight down.

You need to learn to read. I wasn't impolite to you. You on the other hand have acted shamefully toward me - why the venom?

Oh, by the way - I looked like thiswhen I jogged.

I looked like this and this when I followed the advice I just gave.

Sticky THAT.

Posted by: Biggly

Well I do apologise, I scanned your post and didn't notice you started off admitting your post would be BS.

The woman in question wants to lose around 28lbs, so fat but not so obese she couldn't do HIIT (I always try to answer the actual thread questions, not just provide cliches).

Quote:

I spent ten years as a fat jogger - I ran 10k 3x a week through most of my thirties trying to get my weight down.

Yep, like I said if you keep doing the same thing you get good at it as you adapt. I bet you could run for hours on a single muffin?

Regarding the scales I stick with what I said, on their own they are worse than useless. A lot of trainers will actually tell you to hide them in the basement or somewhere to stop you jumping on them and getting discouraged.

You keep on about how fat has more calories than protein (just over twice) yet seem to ignore the fact that dense muscle is around 6 times heavier for the same volume?

You gain a square inch of muscle and lose an inch of fat and your weight will go up, not down.

Weight is not the issue, body composition is what matters. A weight scale is a useful tool only if you can get in the habit of using it in conjunction with other methods. On its own it will discourage newbies.

I'm pleased for you that you discovered that weight training is a powerful means of fat loss, and I truly didn't notice that you were expressing a way to look at it rather than presenting facts. I mean no offence but when someone posts "cardio doesn't burn calories" I'd be doing the OP and everyone else a disservice to let that go.

As a mindset, concentrating on more bodybuilderish techniques instead of Womens Weekly's advice of eat lettuce and cardio until you drop, then sure. We're on the same page.

That doesn't mean to say the OPs wife should just ignore cardio though. It does work, IF you mix it up a bit. Dude.

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Well I do apologise, I scanned your post and didn't notice you started off admitting your post would be BS.

The woman in question wants to lose around 28lbs, so fat but not so obese she couldn't do HIIT (I always try to answer the actual thread questions, not just provide cliches).

I've been 28 lbs overweight. Hell, I've been FORTY pounds overweight lol!

I would NOT have an overweight, out of shape woman doing HIIT. I hate cardio so much I wrote an entire article on it, including a protocol for easing INTO HIIT. You should read it.

It was also published on WBB, along with some of my other stuff.

SOME cardio can be beneficial for health and conditioning - it just isn't an effective way to lean out.

It's a great addition to overall conditioning, don't get me wrong: I do sprint intervals, bicycle intervals and complexes each once a week - I know they're excellent as an adjunct to an overall fitness protocol. But flat out, diet is key here. She needs to get leaner and fitter before the HIGH intensity interval work will be of benefit.

I'd ease her into it with lower intensity interval work, things like hill repeats to bring up her heart stroke. Read my article, you'll see what I mean. If you go to the end, you'll see I have a sample month of lifting, cardio and diet all worked out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Yep, like I said if you keep doing the same thing you get good at it as you adapt. I bet you could run for hours on a single muffin?

Hell! I ran for hours on my own bodyfat. Thing is I just kept replacing it - cardio makes me hungry. Does this to a lot of people, in fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Regarding the scales I stick with what I said, on their own they are worse than useless. A lot of trainers will actually tell you to hide them in the basement or somewhere to stop you jumping on them and getting discouraged.

Not me, not on MY board. And I've helped hundreds if not thousands of people - mostly women - lose weight. If you don't weigh you simply do not know. And with the misinformation surrounding what level of recomposition is possible, it's very easy to get bogged down without the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

You keep on about how fat has more calories than protein (just over twice) yet seem to ignore the fact that dense muscle is around 6 times heavier for the same volume?

I don't ignore this. Muscle is denser, to be sure.

6 times denser though? Got a source for that? Because my sources tell me that the density of human muscle is about 1.06 grams per mililiter, as compared with human fat at about .9 grams per mililiter.

Using these figures, muscle is about 18% more dense than fat - which is awesome, but not the 600% you're suggesting.

But it's a moot point - she's not going to gain any appreciable amount of muscle. Not even if she bulks - and especially not while cutting.

Do you know how much muscle a woman CAN gain in a month, on a BULK?

Lyle McDonald suggests it's under a pound. In my own experience it's less than this: my last bulk I gained 12 lbs in 4 months.

I had a DEXA at the end of cut, October 30, 2005 at 14% bodyfat, and another at the end of bulk, March 1st, 2006 at 20% bodyfat.

Guess how many pounds of muscle I gained on my BULK?

Give up? For my 12 lb gain - from 130 lbs to 142 lbs, training hard, lifting heavy, eating over maintenance, lots of protein, healthy fat, careful weight gain of less than a pound a week, I gained a WHOPPING 2.5 lbs of muscle!

Women SUCK at gaining muscle, and that's even while BULKING.

Now, I'm the first to admit we ALL gain it better initially than once we're well-developed - provided we're not on sub-maintenance calories. Still, I'd be surprised if I have gained more than 12-15 lbs of muscle in the seven YEARS I've been training, I've BULKED several times, and my lifts are not light: I do weighted chinups with 15-25 lbs hanging off me, front squats I can triple 165 ass to floor, I can hang-clean 120 lbs, RDL 185, and I weigh 138 lbs as of this AM. I train hard with free weights and I confirm my results by x-ray.

I started at 170 lbs and 40% bodyfat.

I ended at 130 lbs and 14% bodyfat.

Translating:
At 170 lbs I had 102 lbs lean mass and 68 lbs fat mass
At 130 lbs I had 112 lbs lean mass and 18 lbs fat mass

In dropping from 170 lbs to 130 lbs I lost 50 lbs of fat and gained 10 lbs of muscle.

This took me four years.

Trust me, the scale told me what I needed to know.

If she is able to replace fat with muscle, while not losing any weight, all 28 lbs of it, well, I'll be delighted to see her gain 28 lbs of muscle while operating in a deficit.

I'll want confirmatory DEXAs, but really, I'll be just delighted!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

You gain a square inch of muscle and lose an inch of fat and your weight will go up, not down.

Not in a deficit it won't. No way. (I think you mean "cubic inch", I'm sure that was a typo but just for clarification)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Weight is not the issue, body composition is what matters. A weight scale is a useful tool only if you can get in the habit of using it in conjunction with other methods. On its own it will discourage newbies.

Not at all. If I had not weighed myself every morning empty, unfed and naked I could NOT have stayed motivated through my journey from obese to lean. Tracking daily and understanding both fluctuation and trend kept me sane.

And I mod a whole board full of women who agree with me. Come visit if you like. I'll send you an invite by PM.

I've seen too many women spin their wheels training for months, not losing weight and figuring they've really gained 10 lbs of muscle and lost 10 lbs of fat. Worse yet, GAINING weight and thinking they've lost 10 lbs of fat and gained 15 lbs of muscle.

In a deficit? Muscle gain that outstrips fat loss? Net GAINS?

I'd love to see THAT theory of thermodynamics!

<sigh>

I'm sure none of this is news to you. But the simple fact of the matter is that for anyone with more than 10 lbs to lose, the scale keeps us honest. If you're cutting properly (not too great of a deficit, sufficient protein and fat, lifting heavy in short, intense workouts to maintain muscle mass, not doing excessive cardio), tracking the trendline and your caloric intake will tell you what you need to know. I learned this by having DEXAs done. I now know how little muscle a woman can gain once she's maxed out, and I know how much she can reasonably max out. It's not much. Cut the right way and the losses really are mostly fat. And you can't expect to gain any significant amount of muscle in a deficit. Especially not a woman, especially not without AAS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

I'm pleased for you that you discovered that weight training is a powerful means of fat loss,

Not at all. I discovered it's how to stay hard and maintain muscle while dieting off WEIGHT. Not ENTIRELY the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

and I truly didn't notice that you were expressing a way to look at it rather than presenting facts. I mean no offence but when someone posts "cardio doesn't burn calories" I'd be doing the OP and everyone else a disservice to let that go.

You did everyone a disservice by not reading my post before mouthing off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

As a mindset, concentrating on more bodybuilderish techniques instead of Womens Weekly's advice of eat lettuce and cardio until you drop, then sure. We're on the same page.

Of course!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

That doesn't mean to say the OPs wife should just ignore cardio though. It does work, IF you mix it up a bit. Dude.

I do so little cardio it's noteworthy. The biggest deal by far is diet. Weight training and a good walk is plenty of cardio. It's really a disaster to consider the tiny bit of calories burned off by cardio as being anything but a very slight bonus. Quite honestly, I'd leave off anything but recreational walks for the cardio component, at lest in the beginning. Leave the higher intensity stuff to the end.

I wrote about this here.

You bring up some interesting points, but you have a little reading to do if you wanna keep up with a former fat chick, babe.

Peace.

Posted by: Irons77

Damn that's alot of reading lol

Posted by: Biggly

Too much reading. I'm way too sleepy for all that.

I think I'll concede on the "6x" thing as that's just a figure thrown around a lot that I've never looked into too deeply. One often hears things such as "3 x the volume" (example) which would indeed suggest a much lower density and weight by volume.

One point worth noting is that there is a big difference between truly lean hard-trained lean muscle and that of the average couch-spud that will be riddled with lard.

Sniffing around (among the hundreds of articles warning about relying on scales...) I couldn't find a clear definition of the weight of fat.

Being bored but sleepy enough to be silly I did an experiment. I weighed 200 ml of water, and as you'd expect it was 200g. I then weighed 200ml of canola, one of the thinnest veggie oils going (I couldn't go by the label as it just said "1 kg") That weighed around 170 grams, around 15% lighter. Now that's a liquid, meaning it's about as dense as fat can get. Animal fat, including human, is nowhere near that dense.

For the fun of it I then stuck a lump of chicken fat in the oil to see it it would float, sink or be stable. Bobbed around like a cork. Figures.

Muscle, normal everyday muscle, not especially lean, is around 70% water.

At this point it looks like there's not much difference but we have to remember we're talking volume. That makes a big difference, for a noticable increase in size makes for a huge difference in volume.

Consider an ellipsoid, if you measure a little muscle for example 10cm long, 5cm high, 5cm across, that's a volume of about 130ccm. Double the length, height and width, just double, and the volume goes up to over 1000.

So in terms of pure cubic inches or centimeters or whatever, probably not 6x, however in terms of changes to body shape there is a massive difference. If one substance weighed just 5% more than the other there would be a 25% difference in weight for that shape change. If 14% as your souce suggests, then an even bigger difference.

The human body is not a perfect sphere or cube and the main thing we're looking at is shape and to a lesser degree, size. So while I'll agree 6x is overkill in terms of math, I'd say the difference to your physique is something like 3x.

In short, a small gain of visible and shape changing lean muscle will add a lot of weight, while a large loss of visible and shape changing fat would barely shift the scales. For the same change in shape, yeah, 3x, maybe 6x, whatever.

Anyway, that's enough silliness for now, I'm off to bed. You say I did a disservice by not reading your post closely enough but really, does it help newbies to give them false information? If I'm wrong I'll cheerfully admit it, rather than defend some right to give BS on the basis "Well I mentioned it was BS". What use is that?

Sheer volume doesn't make for an argument but 10/10 for effort I guess.

Peace.

Edit - I knew there was something I forgot. You mention this yourself so I'm a little confused - women, more so than men, tend to bloat with water retention at different times of the month, making scales alone even less useful for women.

By the way, this forum is sponsored by Tom Venuto's "Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle", who, on page 10, sez:

"Weight loss and fat loss are not the same thing. You must learn to distinguish
between the two. The scale can be very misleading if it’s the only criteria you use for
measurement. For example, a woman could weigh 105 pounds and have 33% body fat.
That’s what I call a “skinny fat person.” In contrast, a female bodybuilder could weigh
160 pounds and be quite lean, with body fat in the low teens.
With this in mind, your goal should never be weight loss. Your goal should be
losing fat while maintaining muscle. As long as your body is solid muscle, then you
shouldn’t worry about what the scale says. Your ratio of muscle to fat is what really
counts."

Tom knows his stuff

Posted by: Biggly

OK, I really am off to bed now but bys the way, in case you think I'm dissing you completely, I scribble the odd article too:

biggly.com - women bodybuilding

Like I said, we're on the same page, I just don't think you should dismiss cardio on the basis you wasted a lot of time with it.

B.

Posted by: Built

Because women bloat, it is that much more important to use the scale as a primary tool when monitoring fat loss.

Here's the trick: diet properly, train properly -and assume you'll only lose fat since you are using a good system. Trust the process.

For a woman, since we can gain so little muscle even when we try, this is not a bad option.

Track intake, monitor weight, and track the trendline.

If you don't lose, you're eating too much. If you lose faster than the deficit you think you're running, you may be losing muscle, or you may not be tracking your intake or very well.

And while TV may have a system that works, hell, LOTS of things work. I'm all about the one that works optimally.

That means minimal discomfort. Since cardio burns so little and stimulates so much hunger, frankly, I'd rather just eat one less potato and be done with it for the deficit.

Regarding the lean 160 lb woman (let's assume 10% bodyfat, that would be 144 lbs lean mass) vs the 105 lbs woman (at 33% bodyfat, that means 70 lbs of lean mass) - okay. I'll ask the question: how does a 105 lb, 33% bodyfat woman go about gaining 74 lbs of muscle?

Because if you can tell me how I can do that, I'll be ALL OVER THAT PLAN. <drools>

Posted by: Biggly

Quote:

I'll ask the question: how does a 105 lb, 33% bodyfat woman go about gaining 74 lbs of muscle?

Here's the trick: diet properly, train properly...

Of course defining "properly" is the tricky bit.

Posted by: Built

Not really.

Once you understand the process, it's no biggie.

Diet is your weight. Eat more than you need, you gain. Eat less than you need, you lose.

Heavy-for-you lifting in short, intense workouts directs calorie traffic. Eat more than you need and lift this way, you gain muscle (and hopefully, not too much fat). Eat less than you need and lift this way, you lose fat (and very little muscle).

High intensity cardio helps build heart stroke and helps mobilize subcutaneous fat - but you have to be damned fit to do it. Leave it to the end of your cut.

Cardio (low to moderate intensity) is good for your heart, builds capillary and mitochondrial density, helps move off some of the metabolites from your workouts. It burns very little fat and tends to convince the body to become efficient - so you do some, but not very much.

There. No secret.

Posted by: Dane

Biggly, you're not making a very good impression. As a matter of fact, the more I read your posts, the worse it gets. Please try to go back (now that you've gotten a good night's sleep

) and READ what Built wrote--READ and try to comprehend. You're either totally skimming it and not paying attention, or your reading comprehension skills suck, at which point I'd question why you're even a mod, if you're not going to bother READING before you post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Too much reading. I'm way too sleepy for all that.

Weak. You obviously had enough energy to write about your experiments in the kitchen--you'd have been better served to go back and read what she wrote.

Saying stuff like

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Don't forget muscle is a lot heavier than fat,

REALLY kills your credibility, by the way.

and this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

I'll ask the question: how does a 105 lb, 33% bodyfat woman go about gaining 74 lbs of muscle?

Here's the trick: diet properly, train properly

So you're saying it's possible for a woman to gain 74# of muscle? Srsly? To get that much LBM is going to take faaaar more then eating right and training right, my friend. She'd be needing the "special vitamins" to even dream about gaining half that.

By the way, I read your article for women--aside from the fact that you skim the truth in a lot of what you say, your tone and choice of words is creepy and slimy. IMO. You should reread Built's posts and try to educate yourself more if you intend to successfully help women recompose.

Dude.

Posted by: B-Cubed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Sniffing around (among the hundreds of articles warning about relying on scales...) I couldn't find a clear definition of the weight of fat.

I'll give you a hint. A pound of fat and a pound of muscle weigh the _____.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Being bored but sleepy enough to be silly I did an experiment. I weighed 200 ml of water, and as you'd expect it was 200g. I then weighed 200ml of canola, one of the thinnest veggie oils going (I couldn't go by the label as it just said "1 kg") That weighed around 170 grams, around 15% lighter. Now that's a liquid, meaning it's about as dense as fat can get. Animal fat, including human, is nowhere near that dense.

For the fun of it I then stuck a lump of chicken fat in the oil to see it it would float, sink or be stable. Bobbed around like a cork. Figures.

It's called buoyancy. When an object is totally submerged in a fluid of density pf, the upward buoyant force is given by
B=pf*Vo*g,
where Vo is the volume of the object and g is gravity. If the object has a density po, its weight is equal to
w=m*g=po*Vo*g.
The net force on the object is
B-w=(pf-po)*Vo*g.
Hence, if the density of the object is less than the density of the fluid, the unsupported object will accelerate upward. If the density of the object is greater than the density of the fluid, the unsupported object will sink.

Buoyant force is directly related the difference in densities. Water has a density of 1g/ml Human muscle tissue has a density of 1.06g/ml and fat has a density of .9g/ml. No need to get your kitchen all messy. Science tells us exactly what will happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Muscle, normal everyday muscle, not especially lean, is around 70% water.

At this point it looks like there's not much difference but we have to remember we're talking volume. That makes a big difference, for a noticable increase in size makes for a huge difference in volume.

Consider an ellipsoid, if you measure a little muscle for example 10cm long, 5cm high, 5cm across, that's a volume of about 130ccm. Double the length, height and width, just double, and the volume goes up to over 1000.

Of course we are talking about volume. denisty = mass/volume. You can't really talk about density w/o talking about volume.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Sheer volume doesn't make for an argument but 10/10 for effort I guess.

Neither do experiments in your kitchen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Edit - I knew there was something I forgot. You mention this yourself so I'm a little confused - women, more so than men, tend to bloat with water retention at different times of the month, making scales alone even less useful for women.

Quite the opposite actually. Knowledge, as it turns out, is a very powerful thing.

Dane, I couldn't agree more. Very weak.

Posted by: Biggly

Weak? From someone who comes out with the old gag:

Quote:

A pound of fat and a pound of muscle weigh the _____.

Yeah and a kilo of feathers and a kilo of steel weigh....?

What is this, the playground?

Yes of course fat has a lower density and weight, what I wanted to see for myself was exactly how much difference.

As for "diet properly and train properly", who's not reading closely now? I was quoting 'built', with some gentle sarcasm. Besides, you have to be deliberately obstructive to fail to grasp Tom's point that weight is not the primary issue, it's body composition.

Personally I find someone getting their girly friends to come back them up when they get called on for something as dumb as "cardio doesn't burn calories" to be, well rather "creepy".

Now about this water retention thing, do tell, do you mean to say that whilst bloating a woman's skinfold measurement changes?

Women store excess water in their skin?

Because the point I made was that scales are only useful if used in conjunction with other methods such as a tape measure and especially skinfold calipers.

If your weight bounces up and down but the calipers say no change then go take a dump or something, or measure again later - or consider the idea of water bloat.

What I don't understand is how scales are going to say "Hey, gained 2lb but don't worry, it's water"? Are you talking about those crappy impedance things?

Like I said, sheer volume doesn't make for an argument. Let's review the basics:

I already covered the fact that a difference of 1.06 compared to 0.9 is actually a large difference when it comes to the volumes required to change your physique in terms of shape.

There are thousands of articles and trainers out there that will tell you NOT to rely on your scales alone - I'm not exactly off the wall with that idea

No-one has explained just how skinfold calipers are less accurate than weight scales when it comes to water bloating

and "this is bullshit but listen up anyway.." doesn't really cover telling a newby that "Cardio doesn't burn calories".

Answer the actual points instead of reverting to the girly "well you're creepy ner ner" of the playground.

B.

Posted by: Biggly

You know, I was just guessing at the "let's get my sistas to gang up on him" and presumed you'd gone running off to get your girly friends from this site - but just noticed both posters supporting you have post counts of exactly "1"

Are you actually joining under different names to back yourself up or something? Because if so that is seriously SAD.

And creepy.

B.

Posted by: gixxer0.6g

I must be bored at work because I've managed to read this whole thing and I think it would have been a waste of time if I didn't chime in with my two pennies. Biggy, you seem to know what you're talking about but you're arguing with an obvious professional who knows a ton more then you. I’m with her on the scale. It’s a vital tool to keep you honest and give you a day-to-day measure of your progress. Sure, some days you’ll put on some water weight and some days you’ll be lighter but over the long haul it’s going to track your progress…especially for women.

I myself was an overweight kid and weigh the same right now as I did in the 6th grade. The only difference is I’m a foot taller. I’m now down to single digit fat percentages and I did this by exactly what she’s talking about. I weight myself every day and write it down and it gives me a great idea of what I'm doing right/wrong in my programs. She knows her stuff and you could learn a lot from her.

Posted by: fufu

On the whole scale arguement -

Weighing yourself everyday is not healthy behavior IMO. Significant changes in body composition do not happen daily. Notable changes occur in longer time periods. I agree, checking your weight on the scale in a scheduled manner is a good method to make sure you are on track with progress. Along with what I previously stated, included with the weight fluctuations of water retention, weighing yourself everyday serves more negative than positive (generally). It can be disillusioning to watch stare at those numbers everyday. I think it is a fair comparison to chronic self imaging and the progression of body dysmorphia. Staring at your body critically everyday can significantly effect the way you "really" look to yourself.

I didn't read through the entirety of everyone's arguements so I may be reiterating some opinions.

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by gixxer0.6g

I must be bored at work because I've managed to read this whole thing and I think it would have been a waste of time if I didn't chime in with my two pennies. Biggy, you seem to know what you're talking about but you're arguing with an obvious professional who knows a ton more then you. I’m with her on the scale. It’s a vital tool to keep you honest and give you a day-to-day measure of your progress. Sure, some days you’ll put on some water weight and some days you’ll be lighter but over the long haul it’s going to track your progress…especially for women.

I myself was an overweight kid and weigh the same right now as I did in the 6th grade. The only difference is I’m a foot taller. I’m now down to single digit fat percentages and I did this by exactly what she’s talking about. I weight myself every day and write it down and it gives me a great idea of what I'm doing right/wrong in my programs. She knows her stuff and you could learn a lot from her.

Gixxer, that's great!

I've met more than a few people who have won this battle - all of us have used the scale as a tool for success.

So wonderful that you were able to get your weight under your own control while you were young.

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by fufu

On the whole scale arguement -

Weighing yourself everyday is not healthy behavior IMO. Significant changes in body composition do not happen daily. Notable changes occur in longer time periods. I agree, checking your weight on the scale in a scheduled manner is a good method to make sure you are on track with progress. Along with what I previously stated, included with the weight fluctuations of water retention, weighing yourself everyday serves more negative than positive (generally). It can be disillusioning to watch stare at those numbers everyday. I think it is a fair comparison to chronic self imaging and the progression of body dysmorphia. Staring at your body critically everyday can significantly effect the way you "really" look to yourself.

I didn't read through the entirety of everyone's arguements so I may be reiterating some opinions.

Have you ever been overweight? I don't mean a few pounds - I mean medically obese, and suffering the health effects that come from it?

Posted by: Biggly

I try not to go on about my own software here; I consider the sig link is plenty enough but sometimes I just have to say something. I am FULLY aware that tracking over time is vital, that is a major point of what Biggly does, graphing your gross weight, lean body mass and physicial measurements, along with skinfolds, calorie intake, carbs, protein etc etc.

Along with workouts etc.

So yes, spotting trends and knowing in advance you're going to swell a bit at a certain time is helpful - but that still doesn't answer the skinfold thing. Can someone actually confirm that a woman's skinfold increases during this water bloat or not?

If so I'd like to know that. If not then my point stands, scales alone just tell you your gross weight, which is on its own is just a number. Like an aircraft cockpit panel that tells you your height but gives no indication which direction you're headed.

I can go zero carbs for 3 days and drop 5lbs - but it's mostly water weight. But it's working right, lost 5lbs!? No, the calipers say "nee nee, no change".

But eat too many carbs and I gain fat - both the scales AND the calipers say "Oi! Cut the carbs!"

No-one's saying don't use scales, just use other methods as well. Scales only tell you your weight. Nothing else.

I drink a large latte I just gained a pound. I take a dump I just lost a pound. And? Tell that to skinfold calipers. You get gas you belly measurement goes up. Tell that to the calipers? Break wind your belly measurement goes down. And the calipers?

Weight is a useful measure but relying on weight alone can be misleading. Ignoring cardio, even though I'm the first to say it should also not be done by itself, is plain silly. Sure, some people can get slim without cardio, many different things can work if done intensely enough or if you're not used to them but thousands upon thousands of people out there have stripped the fat off their bodies - with cardio.

Yes, it can make you hungry. Of course it does, because you're burning calories.

Relying purely on weight lifting is as daft as relying purely on cardio, it takes both to build a great body. To rely purely on scales to track your progress is also too simplistic.

The ridiculous thing is on the whole we agree with each other, women should do more weights, less cardio and monitor what works best for them over a period of time. Yes.

But to throw away such powerful tools as calipers and cardio? No.

To ignore the fact that small muscle gains can make up the weight difference to the point that the scales might not move? That's so well-known it's a cliche.

This thread is boring me now as it seems more a matter of scoring points than actually helping the OP.

B.

Posted by: gixxer0.6g

B, you're missing the point because I'll bet you've never been obese. We're not talking about a pound here or a pound there. We're talking 20 lbs here and 20 lbs there. We are talking MAJOR weight loss. And there are several tools to measure this....and a really good one for obese people is the scale. Watch the Biggest loser. These are truly obese people and the one and only tool the use to measure their success is the scale. And has it worked? It's probably one of the most successful programs out there. Do they do cardio? Yes of course, but I'll bet you the majority of their weight loss and figure changes comes from their strength training. I myself think of cardio simply as a health improver, not a fat burner.

B, you've got some great info and the only reason I'm arguing with you is because I disagree with you fully when you say the scale is useless. It's the one thing all people have and one of the best tools to monitor your WEIGHT LOSS.

Posted by: fufu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Have you ever been overweight? I don't mean a few pounds - I mean medically obese, and suffering the health effects that come from it?

Nope.

Technically, I have. In actuality, no.

Posted by: Triple Threat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

You know, I was just guessing at the "let's get my sistas to gang up on him" and presumed you'd gone running off to get your girly friends from this site - but just noticed both posters supporting you have post counts of exactly "1"

Are you actually joining under different names to back yourself up or something? Because if so that is seriously SAD.

And creepy.

B.

Dane has a join date of May 2006.

Posted by: Biggly

Yeah and the spam for a porn site this week had the same join date, Vbulletin isn't too great on that stuff. Who joins a site and doesn't post anything for 2 years?

Wrong Join Date Found - Can This Be Corrected? [Archive] - vBulletin Community Forum

Regardless, volume or shouting doesn't alter the facts nor answer the only question this thread has left for me - does water bloating affect skinfold measurements?

Yes or no?

If no-one knows then fine but I've no desire to keep arguing when I've made my points known. If someone wants to follow the advice of ignoring cardio and only using bathroom scales for guidance, fine. I've said my bit, they can get on with it.

B.

Posted by: Biggly

Blackwell Synergy - Scand J Med Sci Sports, Volume 1 Issue 3 Page 147-150, September 1991 (Article Abstract)

Fluctuations in regulatory hormones, body temperature and other physiological mechanisms during the menstrual cycle cause individual symptoms, including a perceived weight gain. This study determined the effects of a normal menstrual cycle on body weight, percentage body fat (% fat by hydrostatic weighing), respiratory measures of vital capacity and residual volume by spirometry, and the sum of 7 skinfolds (triceps, subscapula, axilla, chest, suprailium, abdomen and thigh). Twenty regularly menstruating (23- to 35-d cycles) subjects (aged 20–30 years) volunteered for this study. Measures were duplicated on days 1, 7, 14, 21 and 28 after the onset of menstrual flow. Repeated-measures analysis of variance indicated no significant differences for any measured parameter between the 5 assigned days. Therefore, body composition in this age group was not affected by normal menstruation.

Never mind.

B.

Posted by: Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple Threat

Dane has a join date of May 2006.

Thank you for noticing--I was just getting ready to point that out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Yeah and the spam for a porn site this week had the same join date, Vbulletin isn't too great on that stuff. Who joins a site and doesn't post anything for 2 years?

Lots of people--we're called "Lurkers". I am a member of many fitness boards where I just read or occasionally lurk, and an active member of a handful where I spend most of my posting dollars. I joined this particular board long ago, but the atmosphere hadn't been one I felt much like contributing to. Until now.

I've e-known Built for almost 4 years, and her information has always been quality stuff, practical and science based. She's helped me learn to apply the knowledge to myself--without the aid of a paid trainer I've dropped 70# of weight in the past year, and built a strong muscle base.

She knows her stuff, and when I found out that Prince had recruited her from another board to mod this one, I decided to follow her over here and give this place another chance.

Built definitely doesn't need ANY help in "defending" herself--she has nothing to defend! But some of the stuff you were spouting, Biggly....... well you got me, you pulled me out of LurkDom.

Quote:

But to throw away such powerful tools as calipers and cardio? No.

To ignore the fact that small muscle gains can make up the weight difference to the point that the scales might not move? That's so well-known it's a cliche.

No one said to throw away calipers or cardio. The whole cardio argument is retarded--Built was trying to make a point that people trying to cut should focus on DIET to lose weight, LIFTING to ensure that more of that weight lost will be fat and not muscle, and THEN CARDIO as an afterthought, as a little extra calorie burn.

The thing about calipers is that a single-site measurement isn't as accurate for women, because of our fat distribution, not to mention you need to have someone who's really good at using them to take your measurements consistently. I don't have that at home--the scale is a much better indicator for me. As for calipers--really, all I need to know is to look in the mirror--Fat?/NotFat? If the scale is going down, I'm lifting heavy, and my protein rquirements are being met, then that's all I need to know.

Quote:

Regardless, volume or shouting doesn't alter the facts nor answer the only question this thread has left for me - does water bloating affect skinfold measurements?

Yes or no?

I believe it does--but I'm no expert and don't have any studies on hand to back me up at the moment. When I visit Lyle's board, I'll see if he has any research I can toss your way. Something to consider--if water doesn't affect skinfold measurements, then why do BB'ers try to avoid coming in "smooth"? Do you know what that means?

Posted by: Biggly

Yes, it means avoiding carbs/creatine due to the water retention but that's below the skin and not usually picked up by calipers.

If I'm wrong on that or you get more information please do tell.

Quote:

The thing about calipers is that a single-site measurement isn't as accurate for women, because of our fat distribution, not to mention you need to have someone who's really good at using them to take your measurements consistently.

Even scales have to be used consistently, such as first thing in the morning. Single-point measuring, usually over the hip, is remarkably accurate for both sexes but why restrict yourself to single point? Some methods use 7 points, including over the shoulder blade which is tricky by yourself but there are other multi-point methods that can be done alone. If anything doing it yourself can be more consistent, as you tend to do the same thing every time. Getting someone else to do it may be more accurate technically but the whole point is simply to monitor trends and changes over time. That doesn't require much precision.

Nor do you really need a helping hand with a tape measure.

As for the mirror, yes, valuable things, especially for spinach in your teeth. However for a monitoring system they suck, badly. How you look will depend very much on how you feel at the time. If you just skipped a workout and feel lethargic I guarantee you that you'll look like crap in the mirror. If you know you've been working out hard lately and you just broke your bench record, you'll look so good it's freaky.

That's why, especially in this age of cheap digital photography, I urge peope to take pics. Comparing one pic to another taken in the same manner is proof positive, regardless of your mood at the time. A snappy boss and a long commute can put 10lbs on - in the mirror but not the camera. Cameras don't care what mood you're in, they just record what's there.

Likewise scales don't care about your bench record, your stronger bones, better endurance, slimmer waist and firmer arms, they just record gross weight.

OK, let me give an example. Recently I did the anabolic burst, it's where you basically starve yourself silly for a couple of weeks then stuff yourself stupid for a couple of weeks. The ratio between muscle lost and gained compared to fat lost and gained, mostly due to the crazy hormone swings you create, means in theory you gain muscle and lose fat, as an overall balance at the end. That's the plan.

Monitoring closely, with scales, calipers and tape. I was able to easily spot the point when it was no longer just fat weight coming off, at which point I piled on the food and was able to again spot when it was not just lean tissue being added. The system worked for me, not 14 days by 14 days, more like 9 days by 10 for me personally. Had I relied on nothing but scales when do I quit cutting? I was losing weight all the time, how far should I have gone?

BECAUSE I was using calipers and a tape as well I could spot the switchover, when my body went beyond using fat reserves - a scale could not tell me that.

Same with bulking.

Sure, if you're a fat blimp and just want to shed pounds, a scale will work. No need for anything fancy when you're that fat, just cut down on calories and you can't help but lose weight. So if we're just talking slimming, fine, diet and scales.

If you're talking balancing fat loss with muscle growth, that takes a little more care and balancing, but again not so much at high fat levels. The body is not good at using stored fat for muscle growth but you don't need to keep the calories so high either.

OK let's compromise - if you're a fat blimp and want to shed weight, diet and scales will do. If you're already fairly lean and wish to get ripped and muscular, scales and diet, even with working out, is too blunt a method. You might still get there but can easily head in the wrong direction or just quit making gains. Certainly you'll have to choose between bulking or cutting, I don't see how you could walk the tight-rope of holding onto gains while shedding fat if your only guide is a bathroom scale.

For a lot of people just cutting calories and getting slim is all they desire - or need.

Throw in some weight training and its even better, sure.

But if that's all you've got in your entire arsenal of tricks and techniques, it aint gonna get you much beyond 'slim'. If you're lucky and that's all your genetics required. We don't hear so much from those that failed.

I've far too many people who've struggled with weight, mostly guys it's true, that have spent a fortune on cutting supplements, worked out 5 or 6 days a week. "How much cardio do you do?" "Er.."

On the treadmill or elliptical a couple of times a week and hey, a 6 pack!

Who'd have thunk?

If anything women do too much cardio and should do more weights, true. Men are the opposite, they do more weights and little cardio. Both sexes benefit from doing a bit of the other.

But no, I don't accept the idea that 'cardio doesn't work' (or doesn't burn calories!). It DOES work, IF you mix it up a bit and don't do the same damn thing all the time. However the exact same thing applies to weightlifting, do the same thing all the time and that stops working too.

B.

Posted by: B-Cubed

First, let me just say that if anyone does not NEED backup, it's Built. She's quite capable of decimating you all on her own. Personally, I find it hard to watch her credibility called into question by someone who quite clearly does not understand or refuses to understand what she is telling them.

As for the pound of fat vs. pound of muscle comment...you left yourself WIDE open for that one with these TWO statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Don't forget muscle is a lot heavier than fat...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Sniffing around (among the hundreds of articles warning about relying on scales...) I couldn't find a clear definition of the weight of fat.

Both of which demonstrate a lack of understanding of the relationship: density = mass/volume. That said,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Like I said, sheer volume doesn't make for an argument. Let's review the basics:

I already covered the fact that a difference of 1.06 compared to 0.9 is actually a large difference when it comes to the volumes required to change your physique in terms of shape.

I think you are referring to this post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

At this point it looks like there's not much difference but we have to remember we're talking volume. That makes a big difference, for a noticable increase in size makes for a huge difference in volume.

Consider an ellipsoid, if you measure a little muscle for example 10cm long, 5cm high, 5cm across, that's a volume of about 130ccm. Double the length, height and width, just double, and the volume goes up to over 1000.

So in terms of pure cubic inches or centimeters or whatever, probably not 6x, however in terms of changes to body shape there is a massive difference. If one substance weighed just 5% more than the other there would be a 25% difference in weight for that shape change. If 14% as your souce suggests, then an even bigger difference.

The human body is not a perfect sphere or cube and the main thing we're looking at is shape and to a lesser degree, size. So while I'll agree 6x is overkill in terms of math, I'd say the difference to your physique is something like 3x.

Again, your lack of understanding of the relationship between volume, mass, and density is astounding.

Here, let me elucidate it for you with some basic math.

The real question, as you put it, is the difference in volume. How much volume does a lb of fat take up verses how much volume does a lb of muscle take up? I assure you that the shape of this volume does not matter in the least.

Well, let's find out! 1 lbs = .45 kg (approximately). This will make our conversions easier, but we'll convert back at the end for all the non-metric people out there.

The density of fat is .9 g/ml = .9g/cm^3 = .0009 kg/cm^3.
The density of muscle is 1.06 g/ml = 1.06g/cm^3 = .00106 kg/cm^3.

How much space (that's volume folks) does a one lb of fat take up? How much space does one lb of muscle make up?

Well, since density = mass/volume, volume = mass/density, you with me?
So, for fat...
.45kg/(.0009kg/cm^3) = 505 cm^3
And for muscle...
.45kg/(.00106kg/cm^3) = 429 cm^3
Converting back into American units by dividing by (2.53 cm)^3 (since 2.53 cm = 1 inch), we have that 1 pound of fat takes up 30.8 in^3 and that 1 pound of muscle takes up 26.2 in^3.
So, in terms of cubes....
30.8 in^3 = a cube that is 3.13 inches per side.
26.2 in^3 = a cube that is 2.96 inches per side.
In terms of spheres....(volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3, just in case you forgot)..
1 lb of fat = 30.8 in^3 = sphere of radius r = 1.94 inches
1lb of muscle = 26.2 in^3 = sphere of radius r = 1.84 inches

Posted by: Biggly

Of course the shape doesn't make a difference to the math; I just used a shape rather than a cube, because people aren't cube-shaped.

I also used the most appropriate shape, the closest to a muscle. I see you've used a cube and sphere, both of which hide the volume shift more than an actual limb or muscle shape. Whatever, I've already conceded the point regarding volume, though muscle certainly is heavier and has less volume as a result. That seems to be agreed, though the extent seems less than the vast majority of peeps seem to think. OK already, but about the idea that cardio doesn't burn calories and skinfolds versus scales alone?

For someone who doesn't need backup she seems to be getting some from the other forum.

B.

Posted by: Built

I am getting some nice backup <waves to her peeps and smiles>.

Nice to have you here.

Posted by: bruisin

I think that you are just awesome, built!

I have learned more by reading your blog & by reading your posts here than you may ever realize!

thank you so much for all your hard work & dedication to offer these suggestions to all of us, much appreciated!

this post has also educated me so! I'm glad that this question was asked!

Posted by: Built

bruisin - thank you so much for reading my blog! I'm delighted to have helped you.

Posted by: Biggly

Posted by: nadirmg

pay no heed to biggly, bruisin. he's got a couple of disorders.
penis envy for one. and built doesn't even have one.

Posted by: bruisin

I promise to overlook his thinly veiled attempts against built. Do you think it's not penis envy as much as it may be over success envy?

I don't care who the person is/isn't if they take the time to put so much effort into helping others, a thank you is the least we could say to them.

Posted by: nadirmg

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruisin

I promise to overlook his thinly veiled attempts against built. Do you think it's not penis envy as much as it may be over success envy?

heh, that's what i was alluding to

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruisin

I don't care who the person is/isn't if they take the time to put so much effort into helping others, a thank you is the least we could say to them.

yeppers, built has helped me out a lot too! i'm using her 'baby got back' split routine and what i've learned from 'got built' has helped me improve my diet greatly.

Posted by: Built

Aw shucks. Thanks kids.

There are a LOT of ways to diet.

Mine's comfortable, uncomplicated, and requires very little cardio. Lazy glutton that I am, this appeals to me.

Bodybuilders have been getting jacked and shredded for a long time on low-fat, 6-meal-a-day plans with lots of cardio. It works.

I offer an alternative that also works.

So great to have choices!

Posted by: Irons77

Yes it is , thanks

Posted by: silvister

for weight loss only exercise are not work, you have make a diet plan with the proper exercise, means she has to take care about the calories ,how much caolores she take , and how much is required for her, these are some tips she can follow these

focus on fitness not fatness
Walk more each day
Never miss breakfast & don’t eat after 8pm
use baked potato rather than chips & apple rather than apple juice
Drink plenty of ice cold water
avoid suger

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by silvister

for weight loss only exercise are not work, you have make a diet plan with the proper exercise, means she has to take care about the calories ,how much caolores she take , and how much is required for her, these are some tips she can follow these

focus on fitness not fatness
Walk more each day
Never miss breakfast & don’t eat after 8pm
use baked potato rather than chips & apple rather than apple juice
Drink plenty of ice cold water
avoid suger

I would have to disagree. I focussed on fitness for years. I ended up an obese jogger.

Walking is okay, but not enough on it's own.

I ALWAYS put off breakfast and I ALWAYS eat at bedtime. I wear a size two. Bottom line: you have 24 hours, and a calorie budget. Spend it any time you like - but when it's gone, it's gone. There's nothing magical about the calories you eat after 8 PM.

Ice water is a little hard on the stomach, no?

Any food can fit into a plan if you track your calories. Including chips, juice and sugar. On a deficit, these will tend to make you hungry though - so if satiety is important, for most, these foods won't be major players.

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37