PDA

View Full Version : losing too fast?


oregonchick.
September 16th 06, 04:52 PM
Over the last month, I've lost 8 lbs. It's not like I started out very
overweight - I was around 138, now 130. I'm afraid that I'm losing too much
muscle at that speed, even though I've continued to do resistance training
and cardio. I've never been an advocate of losing so quickly, so now I need
to figure out the best way to slow it down. My first instinct is to eat a
couple hundred calories more, but to keep up with the exercise, because I
believe exercise is what keeps my metabolism burning. I wasn't doing
anything really drastic - some days I ate as low as 1000 calories, but my
average is 1300-1400, and once a week I did a refeed, where I pretty much
ate whatever I wanted, and as much as 2500 calories. And I have made the
commitment to burn 300 calories per day in exercise, which I have done every
day in the last month except for about 3 days.

Should I be concerned about losing so quickly, or just happy?

Betsy

Curt James
September 16th 06, 05:03 PM
oregonchick. wrote:
> Over the last month, I've lost 8 lbs. It's not like I
> started out very overweight - I was around 138, now
> 130. I'm afraid that I'm losing too much muscle at
> that speed, even though <snip>
>
> Should I be concerned about losing so quickly, or
> just happy?

You keep journals, yes? Have you lost strength? If your strength is
continuing to climb, although you fear you're losing too much muscle,
then I suspect you should be happy. If your strength - reps performed
in specific exercises - is diminishing then I'd be concerned.

Congratulations? :o/

> Betsy

--
Curt

joanne
September 16th 06, 07:32 PM
oregonchick. wrote:
> I'm afraid that I'm losing too much muscle at that speed, even though
> I've continued to do resistance training and cardio

To really know if its fat and or muscle, get your bodyfat tested. Take
measurements. Hows the clothes fitting? These are better guides than
relying solely on the scale.

> Should I be concerned about losing so quickly, or just happy?

Go with the flow - this may be a one time thing and may not continue.
I wouldnt change anything at the moment if I were you.



joanne

oregonchick.
September 16th 06, 07:40 PM
"Curt James" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> oregonchick. wrote:
>> Over the last month, I've lost 8 lbs. It's not like I
>> started out very overweight - I was around 138, now
>> 130. I'm afraid that I'm losing too much muscle at
>> that speed, even though <snip>
>>
>> Should I be concerned about losing so quickly, or
>> just happy?
>
> You keep journals, yes? Have you lost strength?

Yes and no. In some ways, I am so much stronger than before. My stamina is
way up, I can maintain activities at a much higher intensity for much longer
than before. But with the weights, I sort of topped out and haven't been
able to add any more weight, and in some lifts like squat and dl, I've lost
a bit.

Curt James
September 16th 06, 07:50 PM
oregonchick. wrote:
> "Curt James" wrote
> > oregonchick. wrote:
> >> Over the last month, I've lost 8 lbs. It's not like I
> >> started out very overweight - I was around 138, now
> >> 130. I'm afraid that I'm losing too much muscle at
> >> that speed, even though <snip>
> >>
> >> Should I be concerned about losing so quickly, or
> >> just happy?
> >
> > You keep journals, yes? Have you lost strength?
>
> Yes and no. In some ways, I am so much stronger than
> before. My stamina is way up, I can maintain activities
> at a much higher intensity for much longer than before.

That's all cardio, however.

> But with the weights, I sort of topped out and haven't been
> able to add any more weight, and in some lifts like squat
> and dl, I've lost a bit.

Hmm. Of course, you'll lose a bit of strength as your bodyweight dips,
right? And perhaps you've hit a plateau so far as strength goes.

joanne's "I wouldnt change anything at the moment if I were you,"
sounds like good advice. Or add those "couple hundred calories more,
but to keep up with the exercise" as you mentioned.

That 300 calories per day in exercise burn for the last month sounds
hella impressive, btw.

Best of luck. Looking forward to future reports.

--
Curt

Jason Earl
September 16th 06, 10:06 PM
"oregonchick." > writes:

> "Curt James" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> oregonchick. wrote:
>>> Over the last month, I've lost 8 lbs. It's not like I
>>> started out very overweight - I was around 138, now
>>> 130. I'm afraid that I'm losing too much muscle at
>>> that speed, even though <snip>
>>>
>>> Should I be concerned about losing so quickly, or
>>> just happy?
>>
>> You keep journals, yes? Have you lost strength?
>
> Yes and no. In some ways, I am so much stronger than before. My
> stamina is way up, I can maintain activities at a much higher
> intensity for much longer than before. But with the weights, I sort
> of topped out and haven't been able to add any more weight, and in
> some lifts like squat and dl, I've lost a bit.

You've lost nearly 6% of your body weight (at a relatively low body
weight to begin with) and you are still lifting more or less the same
weight. That's hardly a bad sign. Especially considering that I
would bet you are doing quite a bit of cardio. That alone would make
it difficult to hang onto strength gains.

Jason

jimmy
September 16th 06, 11:34 PM
I've always wondered why people say it's bad to lose weight really
quickly

maybe it's because it's just as easy, or easier to regain the weight?

The only thing that I have heard is that losing lots of weight very
rapidly starkly increasing one's risk of getting gall bladder stones.


oregonchick. wrote:
> Over the last month, I've lost 8 lbs. It's not like I started out very
> overweight - I was around 138, now 130. I'm afraid that I'm losing too much
> muscle at that speed, even though I've continued to do resistance training
> and cardio. I've never been an advocate of losing so quickly, so now I need
> to figure out the best way to slow it down. My first instinct is to eat a
> couple hundred calories more, but to keep up with the exercise, because I
> believe exercise is what keeps my metabolism burning. I wasn't doing
> anything really drastic - some days I ate as low as 1000 calories, but my
> average is 1300-1400, and once a week I did a refeed, where I pretty much
> ate whatever I wanted, and as much as 2500 calories. And I have made the
> commitment to burn 300 calories per day in exercise, which I have done every
> day in the last month except for about 3 days.
>
> Should I be concerned about losing so quickly, or just happy?
>
> Betsy

Curt James
September 16th 06, 11:39 PM
jimmy wrote:
[...]

> maybe it's because it's just as easy, or easier to <snip>

bottom-post?

Hth.

--
Curt

jimmy
September 16th 06, 11:44 PM
oh. you mentioned something about "top posting" being annoying, or
whatever, once to me.

i still have no idea wtf you're talking about

yes, i'm new to usenet groups, but you're no help

offer suggestions instead of whining because I don't know wth you're
talking about

cheers

Curt James wrote:
> jimmy wrote:
> [...]
>
> > maybe it's because it's just as easy, or easier to <snip>
>
> bottom-post?
>
> Hth.
>
> --
> Curt

Curt James
September 17th 06, 12:19 AM
jimmy wrote:
> oh. you mentioned something about "top posting"
> being annoying, or whatever, once to me.
>
> i still have no idea wtf you're talking about

Then allow me to explain. Standard Operating Usenet Procedure allows
that individuals add their response or comments below (or at the
bottom) whoever they're replying to. What you're currently doing is
placing your comments at the top hence the term top-posting. In-line
posting is also acceptable. And, hey, I honestly don't care what you
choose to do. Still, you look like a dope top-posting. Meh.

> yes, i'm new to usenet groups, but you're no help

I've heard that once or twice, yes. ;o)

> offer suggestions instead of whining

(But it's a fine whine! Might I recommend something in a Chagrine?)

> because I don't know wth you're talking about

Ah, you're in good company!

> cheers

Cheers to you as well, jimmy.

> Curt James wrote:
> > jimmy wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > maybe it's because it's just as easy, or easier to <snip>
> >
> > bottom-post?
> >
> > Hth.

Apparently not. :oS

Nevertheless, I hope this post helps. URL assist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html - note 2.3 especially

--
Curt

jimmy
September 17th 06, 12:37 AM
Right now, I am replying to post #10. Your Post.

I read the wikipedia link. According to it, right now I am top-posting
because this that I write is most recent while all the rest follows,
below.

The wikipedia link says that between top-posting and bottom-posting,
the preference is arbitrary.

So I don't really care what you like or dislike. Try adding (OT) for
off topic when you talk about random ****:

Steroids have nothing to do with weight training. Some individuals use
them while exercising but that is IRRELEVANT what druggies do.

"Eating bagged spinach sucks these days" belongs in the rabbit food
usenet group.

OT, off-topic.


Curt James wrote:
> jimmy wrote:
> > oh. you mentioned something about "top posting"
> > being annoying, or whatever, once to me.
> >
> > i still have no idea wtf you're talking about
>
> Then allow me to explain. Standard Operating Usenet Procedure allows
> that individuals add their response or comments below (or at the
> bottom) whoever they're replying to. What you're currently doing is
> placing your comments at the top hence the term top-posting. In-line
> posting is also acceptable. And, hey, I honestly don't care what you
> choose to do. Still, you look like a dope top-posting. Meh.
>
> > yes, i'm new to usenet groups, but you're no help
>
> I've heard that once or twice, yes. ;o)
>
> > offer suggestions instead of whining
>
> (But it's a fine whine! Might I recommend something in a Chagrine?)
>
> > because I don't know wth you're talking about
>
> Ah, you're in good company!
>
> > cheers
>
> Cheers to you as well, jimmy.
>
> > Curt James wrote:
> > > jimmy wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > maybe it's because it's just as easy, or easier to <snip>
> > >
> > > bottom-post?
> > >
> > > Hth.
>
> Apparently not. :oS
>
> Nevertheless, I hope this post helps. URL assist?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
> http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html - note 2.3 especially
>
> --
> Curt

jimmy
September 17th 06, 12:37 AM
Right now, I am replying to post #10. Your Post.

I read the wikipedia link. According to it, right now I am top-posting
because this that I write is most recent while all the rest follows,
below.

The wikipedia link says that between top-posting and bottom-posting,
the preference is arbitrary.

So I don't really care what you like or dislike. Try adding (OT) for
off topic when you talk about random ****:

Steroids have nothing to do with weight training. Some individuals use
them while exercising but that is IRRELEVANT what druggies do.

"Eating bagged spinach sucks these days" belongs in the rabbit food
usenet group.

OT, off-topic.


Curt James wrote:
> jimmy wrote:
> > oh. you mentioned something about "top posting"
> > being annoying, or whatever, once to me.
> >
> > i still have no idea wtf you're talking about
>
> Then allow me to explain. Standard Operating Usenet Procedure allows
> that individuals add their response or comments below (or at the
> bottom) whoever they're replying to. What you're currently doing is
> placing your comments at the top hence the term top-posting. In-line
> posting is also acceptable. And, hey, I honestly don't care what you
> choose to do. Still, you look like a dope top-posting. Meh.
>
> > yes, i'm new to usenet groups, but you're no help
>
> I've heard that once or twice, yes. ;o)
>
> > offer suggestions instead of whining
>
> (But it's a fine whine! Might I recommend something in a Chagrine?)
>
> > because I don't know wth you're talking about
>
> Ah, you're in good company!
>
> > cheers
>
> Cheers to you as well, jimmy.
>
> > Curt James wrote:
> > > jimmy wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > maybe it's because it's just as easy, or easier to <snip>
> > >
> > > bottom-post?
> > >
> > > Hth.
>
> Apparently not. :oS
>
> Nevertheless, I hope this post helps. URL assist?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
> http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html - note 2.3 especially
>
> --
> Curt

jimmy
September 17th 06, 01:05 AM
And now

I can only wonder how many people "Curt James" has chased off this
usenet group with his POINTLESS, OVERBEARING demeanor which is mostly:

LACKING OF USEFUL INFORMATION
LINKS TO ARTICLES HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE READ
FLIPPANTLY DISRESPECTFUL
COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC OR IRRELEVANT; POINTLESS
JUVENILE
WRITTEN IN THE STYLE OF "DEAR DIARY, I EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE
WORDS I'M PUTTING DOWN"


jimmy wrote:
> Right now, I am replying to post #10. Your Post.
>
> I read the wikipedia link. According to it, right now I am top-posting
> because this that I write is most recent while all the rest follows,
> below.
>
> The wikipedia link says that between top-posting and bottom-posting,
> the preference is arbitrary.
>
> So I don't really care what you like or dislike. Try adding (OT) for
> off topic when you talk about random ****:
>
> Steroids have nothing to do with weight training. Some individuals use
> them while exercising but that is IRRELEVANT what druggies do.
>
> "Eating bagged spinach sucks these days" belongs in the rabbit food
> usenet group.
>
> OT, off-topic.
>
>
> Curt James wrote:
> > jimmy wrote:
> > > oh. you mentioned something about "top posting"
> > > being annoying, or whatever, once to me.
> > >
> > > i still have no idea wtf you're talking about
> >
> > Then allow me to explain. Standard Operating Usenet Procedure allows
> > that individuals add their response or comments below (or at the
> > bottom) whoever they're replying to. What you're currently doing is
> > placing your comments at the top hence the term top-posting. In-line
> > posting is also acceptable. And, hey, I honestly don't care what you
> > choose to do. Still, you look like a dope top-posting. Meh.
> >
> > > yes, i'm new to usenet groups, but you're no help
> >
> > I've heard that once or twice, yes. ;o)
> >
> > > offer suggestions instead of whining
> >
> > (But it's a fine whine! Might I recommend something in a Chagrine?)
> >
> > > because I don't know wth you're talking about
> >
> > Ah, you're in good company!
> >
> > > cheers
> >
> > Cheers to you as well, jimmy.
> >
> > > Curt James wrote:
> > > > jimmy wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > maybe it's because it's just as easy, or easier to <snip>
> > > >
> > > > bottom-post?
> > > >
> > > > Hth.
> >
> > Apparently not. :oS
> >
> > Nevertheless, I hope this post helps. URL assist?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
> > http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html - note 2.3 especially
> >
> > --
> > Curt

Curt James
September 17th 06, 01:46 AM
jimmy wrote:
> And now

-=snip!=-

> > "Eating bagged spinach sucks these days"
> > belongs in the rabbit food usenet group.

Or spinach that kills you would be on topic as it relates to the misc
(certainly) or fitness (almost without a doubt) portions of
misc.fitness.weights, okay? Rhetorical.

Oh, dear. I guess I should explain the word rhetorical as the word top
was apparently beyond your grasp. Say, did you include condescending in
your list of my sins?

> > OT, off-topic.

Next time, please add an OT to your Subject line. Tia.

--
Curt

jimmy
September 17th 06, 02:05 AM
There is a good example of how you twist **** around to fit your
version of reality.

Curt James wrote:
> jimmy wrote:
> > And now
>
> -=snip!=-
>
> > > "Eating bagged spinach sucks these days"
> > > belongs in the rabbit food usenet group.
>
> Or spinach that kills you would be on topic as it relates to the misc
> (certainly) or fitness (almost without a doubt) portions of
> misc.fitness.weights, okay? Rhetorical.
>
> Oh, dear. I guess I should explain the word rhetorical as the word top
> was apparently beyond your grasp. Say, did you include condescending in
> your list of my sins?
>
> > > OT, off-topic.
>
> Next time, please add an OT to your Subject line. Tia.
>
> --
> Curt

JMW
September 17th 06, 02:58 AM
"jimmy" > wrote:

>And now
>
>I can only wonder how many people "Curt James" has chased off this
>usenet group with his POINTLESS, OVERBEARING demeanor which is mostly:
>
>LACKING OF USEFUL INFORMATION
>LINKS TO ARTICLES HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE READ
>FLIPPANTLY DISRESPECTFUL
>COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC OR IRRELEVANT; POINTLESS
>JUVENILE
>WRITTEN IN THE STYLE OF "DEAR DIARY, I EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE
>WORDS I'M PUTTING DOWN"

Gee, it looks like Curt made *another* friend!

Pete
September 17th 06, 10:57 AM
"jimmy" > schreef:

> I've always wondered why people say it's bad to lose weight really
> quickly

Because it might be fluid, which was stored in the muscles.
And that will not improve your looks.

If its fat, the body might respond by slowing the BMR. The body has NO idea
what a diet is. The body thinks we are still walking around the Savannas of
East Africa, searching for food.

If its muscle, you end up looking terrible, since the muscle undertneath the
fat gives the body its contoures.
And this will also slow down the BMR, and anything gained back will be
harder to lose.

> maybe it's because it's just as easy, or easier to regain the weight?

Yes.

----
Pete

Pete
September 17th 06, 10:58 AM
Its annoying, jimmy


"jimmy" > schreef in bericht
ups.com...
>
> oh. you mentioned something about "top posting" being annoying, or
> whatever, once to me.
>
> i still have no idea wtf you're talking about
>
> yes, i'm new to usenet groups, but you're no help
>
> offer suggestions instead of whining because I don't know wth you're
> talking about
>
> cheers
>
> Curt James wrote:
>> jimmy wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > maybe it's because it's just as easy, or easier to <snip>
>>
>> bottom-post?
>>
>> Hth.
>>
>> --
>> Curt
>

Pete
September 17th 06, 11:00 AM
"jimmy" > schreef:

> I read the wikipedia link. According to it, right now I am top-posting
> because this that I write is most recent while all the rest follows,
> below.

Okay, so you know?

> The wikipedia link says that between top-posting and bottom-posting,
> the preference is arbitrary.

> So I don't really care what you like or dislike. Try adding (OT) for
> off topic when you talk about random ****:

> Steroids have nothing to do with weight training. Some individuals use
> them while exercising but that is IRRELEVANT what druggies do.

What the **** are you talking about ?!?!?!

----
Pete

Pete
September 17th 06, 11:03 AM
"jimmy" > schreef:

> I can only wonder how many people "Curt James" has chased off this
> usenet group with his POINTLESS, OVERBEARING demeanor which is mostly:

> LACKING OF USEFUL INFORMATION
> LINKS TO ARTICLES HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE READ
> FLIPPANTLY DISRESPECTFUL
> COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC OR IRRELEVANT; POINTLESS
> JUVENILE
> WRITTEN IN THE STYLE OF "DEAR DIARY, I EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE
> WORDS I'M PUTTING DOWN"

He was trying to help you to post correctly, moron.

See where my sentences are?

And all the irrellevant BS below has dissapeared magically?

----
Pete

Pete
September 17th 06, 11:05 AM
"jimmy" > schreef:

> Right now, I am replying to post #10. Your Post.

1) you top post

2) you double post

3) you never snip ANYTHING

4) you are kill-filed

----
Pete

Steve Freides
September 17th 06, 07:32 PM
"oregonchick." > wrote in message
. ..
> Over the last month, I've lost 8 lbs. It's not like I started out
> very overweight - I was around 138, now 130. I'm afraid that I'm
> losing too much muscle at that speed, even though I've continued to do
> resistance training and cardio. I've never been an advocate of losing
> so quickly, so now I need to figure out the best way to slow it down.
> My first instinct is to eat a couple hundred calories more, but to
> keep up with the exercise, because I believe exercise is what keeps my
> metabolism burning. I wasn't doing anything really drastic - some
> days I ate as low as 1000 calories, but my average is 1300-1400, and
> once a week I did a refeed, where I pretty much ate whatever I wanted,
> and as much as 2500 calories. And I have made the commitment to burn
> 300 calories per day in exercise, which I have done every day in the
> last month except for about 3 days.
>
> Should I be concerned about losing so quickly, or just happy?

Many dieters lose a lot of weight quickly. A lot of this has to do with
eating less, which causes you to retain less water, thus the early
weight loss is often called "water weight." It's quite common and it's
nothing to be concerned about as a sign of anything other than that
you're dieting. Quite a few of us here can tell you stories of gaining
5-10 lbs. or more in the course of a couple of days during the "carb up"
phase of a diet, and that weight can go away almost as quickly as it
went on.

Congrats on the progress, keep up the good work.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com