PDA

View Full Version : Diets that break the laws of physics


Love2Lift
May 2nd 04, 09:13 AM
Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.

I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.

My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
apple or orange.

I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.

I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
lower and higher calorie days.

This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
pounds day to day and that's normal.

I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
this.

Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
the same.

I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
MFW peanut gallery?

David Cohen
May 2nd 04, 09:28 AM
"Love2Lift" > wrote
> Well, not really.

Exactly.

> It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.

Yup.

<snip stuff>

> I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
> but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
> measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
> first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have
gone
> down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than
a
> quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
> BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
> out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that
if
> I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
> this.

You have had some small positive changes. The laws of physics still
rule.
>
> Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
> laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm
doing,
> eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty
much
> the same.
>
> I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was
doing
> reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> MFW peanut gallery?

Eat less, exercise more.

"But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"

Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.

Really. No kidding. It's strictly a calorie in/calorie out thing.
Everything else is detail.

Maybe some reading:
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html

David

David Cohen
May 2nd 04, 09:28 AM
"Love2Lift" > wrote
> Well, not really.

Exactly.

> It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.

Yup.

<snip stuff>

> I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
> but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
> measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
> first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have
gone
> down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than
a
> quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
> BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
> out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that
if
> I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
> this.

You have had some small positive changes. The laws of physics still
rule.
>
> Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
> laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm
doing,
> eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty
much
> the same.
>
> I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was
doing
> reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> MFW peanut gallery?

Eat less, exercise more.

"But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"

Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.

Really. No kidding. It's strictly a calorie in/calorie out thing.
Everything else is detail.

Maybe some reading:
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html

David

Larry Hodges
May 2nd 04, 10:17 AM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
>
> I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
> do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
> but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
> and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
> sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
> with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
> poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
> out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
> for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
> and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
> the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
> exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
>
> My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
> maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
> weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
> 5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
> cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
> 3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
> steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
> bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
> oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
> Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
> apple or orange.
>
> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
> but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
> do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
> be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
> steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
> dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
> enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
> cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
> indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
> cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
> grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
>
> I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> lower and higher calorie days.
>
> This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
> that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
> at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
> pounds day to day and that's normal.
>
> I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
> but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
> measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
> first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
> down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
> quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
> BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
> out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
> I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
> this.
>
> Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
> laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
> eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
> the same.
>
> I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
> reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> MFW peanut gallery?

I hear your frustration, but stay with it. Even though you can't see it on
the scale or with the tape, your body composition is changing. If you were
/ are 180, that's pretty large for a woman. I'm not at all making fun of
you, and in fact am proud of you. But rather than look at your gains in
terms of a few months, try to see what you'll be like in a year. Maybe two
years. This is a lifestyle change, NOT a few months of lifting to get that
Bowflex body. Just keep doing what you're doing girl...it will pay off if
you stick with it. I've been lifting for three years now, and am finally
seeing the results I want..

The biggest mistake I see women make is expecting results too soon. It
takes longer than you think. There is no quick fix. You are doing
everything right from what I can see.

You don't want to create too much of a caloric defecate, because this will
cause your metabolism to go into conservation mode. Determine what your
maintenance caloric intake is, and shoot for 500 calories under that, but no
less. Eating every two hours or so is great. Stay with that.

Give it a year. Cheat days are ok, if not in fact good. They tell your
body that things are fine, so don't go in to "conservation mode". Just keep
them to a minimum. View you caloric intake in terms of a week by week basis
rather than day by day. This way, cheat days fit into your diet.
Understand that you will have to make up for cheat days on the other days in
the week. Ultimately, it still boils down to a simple in / out calculation
for calories and weight loss. Nothing magic about it. If you eat under
your maintenance caloric intake, you WILL lose weight...simple as that.

Best of luck,
-Larry

Larry Hodges
May 2nd 04, 10:17 AM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
>
> I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
> do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
> but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
> and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
> sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
> with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
> poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
> out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
> for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
> and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
> the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
> exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
>
> My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
> maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
> weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
> 5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
> cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
> 3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
> steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
> bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
> oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
> Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
> apple or orange.
>
> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
> but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
> do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
> be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
> steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
> dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
> enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
> cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
> indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
> cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
> grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
>
> I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> lower and higher calorie days.
>
> This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
> that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
> at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
> pounds day to day and that's normal.
>
> I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
> but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
> measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
> first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
> down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
> quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
> BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
> out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
> I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
> this.
>
> Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
> laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
> eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
> the same.
>
> I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
> reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> MFW peanut gallery?

I hear your frustration, but stay with it. Even though you can't see it on
the scale or with the tape, your body composition is changing. If you were
/ are 180, that's pretty large for a woman. I'm not at all making fun of
you, and in fact am proud of you. But rather than look at your gains in
terms of a few months, try to see what you'll be like in a year. Maybe two
years. This is a lifestyle change, NOT a few months of lifting to get that
Bowflex body. Just keep doing what you're doing girl...it will pay off if
you stick with it. I've been lifting for three years now, and am finally
seeing the results I want..

The biggest mistake I see women make is expecting results too soon. It
takes longer than you think. There is no quick fix. You are doing
everything right from what I can see.

You don't want to create too much of a caloric defecate, because this will
cause your metabolism to go into conservation mode. Determine what your
maintenance caloric intake is, and shoot for 500 calories under that, but no
less. Eating every two hours or so is great. Stay with that.

Give it a year. Cheat days are ok, if not in fact good. They tell your
body that things are fine, so don't go in to "conservation mode". Just keep
them to a minimum. View you caloric intake in terms of a week by week basis
rather than day by day. This way, cheat days fit into your diet.
Understand that you will have to make up for cheat days on the other days in
the week. Ultimately, it still boils down to a simple in / out calculation
for calories and weight loss. Nothing magic about it. If you eat under
your maintenance caloric intake, you WILL lose weight...simple as that.

Best of luck,
-Larry

Love2Lift
May 2nd 04, 03:40 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote :
> Eat less, exercise more.
>
> "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
>
> Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.

As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric deficit
plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
lifting.

I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't usually
a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do that
until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.

Love2Lift
May 2nd 04, 03:40 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote :
> Eat less, exercise more.
>
> "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
>
> Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.

As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric deficit
plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
lifting.

I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't usually
a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do that
until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.

Love2Lift
May 2nd 04, 03:50 PM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote

> The biggest mistake I see women make is expecting results too soon. It
> takes longer than you think. There is no quick fix. You are doing
> everything right from what I can see.

I did not expect to look like a fitness model in 30 days. I had what
I thought was a realistic expectation of seeing some small results in
a month, a difference of a couple pounds or half an inch maybe. Not
seeing any results at all is quite discouraging. I do weigh myself
every few days, but I'm looking at general trends rather than small
day to day fluctuations.


> You don't want to create too much of a caloric defecate

Er, isn't that eventually what happens with everything you eat anyhow?
lol


> Determine what your
> maintenance caloric intake is, and shoot for 500 calories under that, but no
> less. Eating every two hours or so is great. Stay with that.

Doing exactly that, not making any progress that I can see. *sigh*
But thanks for the comments. Maybe I'll see some progress by next
month.

Love2Lift
May 2nd 04, 03:50 PM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote

> The biggest mistake I see women make is expecting results too soon. It
> takes longer than you think. There is no quick fix. You are doing
> everything right from what I can see.

I did not expect to look like a fitness model in 30 days. I had what
I thought was a realistic expectation of seeing some small results in
a month, a difference of a couple pounds or half an inch maybe. Not
seeing any results at all is quite discouraging. I do weigh myself
every few days, but I'm looking at general trends rather than small
day to day fluctuations.


> You don't want to create too much of a caloric defecate

Er, isn't that eventually what happens with everything you eat anyhow?
lol


> Determine what your
> maintenance caloric intake is, and shoot for 500 calories under that, but no
> less. Eating every two hours or so is great. Stay with that.

Doing exactly that, not making any progress that I can see. *sigh*
But thanks for the comments. Maybe I'll see some progress by next
month.

JC Der Koenig
May 2nd 04, 04:08 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> "David Cohen" > wrote :
> > Eat less, exercise more.
> >
> > "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
> >
> > Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.
>
> As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
> counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric deficit
> plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
> lifting.
>
> I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
> hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
> no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
> consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't usually
> a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
> maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do that
> until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.
>

If you already know so much, then why are you still so fat?

What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?

JC Der Koenig
May 2nd 04, 04:08 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> "David Cohen" > wrote :
> > Eat less, exercise more.
> >
> > "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
> >
> > Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.
>
> As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
> counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric deficit
> plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
> lifting.
>
> I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
> hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
> no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
> consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't usually
> a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
> maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do that
> until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.
>

If you already know so much, then why are you still so fat?

What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?

Barry Wong
May 2nd 04, 04:18 PM
Love2Lift > wrote:

> I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> lower and higher calorie days.
>
> This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
> that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
> at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
> pounds day to day and that's normal.

> I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
> reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> MFW peanut gallery?

CW says that if you aren't losing weight, you're still taking in more
calories than you're burning. If I were you, I'd measure all of your
food portions for every meal. I know that's tedious, but as you've
already said, you're diet seems pretty reasonable. So that leads me to
wonder if the portions aren't right some of the time. Once you're
measuring everything meticulously, you can begin adjusting your calorie
goals (a little at a time -- don't cut drastically) as needed.

I also note that you've cut down your cardio, and I think I understand
why, but all I can say is that when I was in weight loss mode, the
cardio part was pretty important. In my case, that meant wind sprints,
though I'm sure you could still do some sort of interval training that's
appropriate to your situation.

Finally, I'm wondering if you're on hormone (e.g. birth control) pills.
If I understand correctly, that'll make it much harder to get lean. Not
saying that you have to go off of them, but if it's possible, that might
help you change your body composition as well.

Barry Wong
May 2nd 04, 04:18 PM
Love2Lift > wrote:

> I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> lower and higher calorie days.
>
> This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
> that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
> at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
> pounds day to day and that's normal.

> I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
> reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> MFW peanut gallery?

CW says that if you aren't losing weight, you're still taking in more
calories than you're burning. If I were you, I'd measure all of your
food portions for every meal. I know that's tedious, but as you've
already said, you're diet seems pretty reasonable. So that leads me to
wonder if the portions aren't right some of the time. Once you're
measuring everything meticulously, you can begin adjusting your calorie
goals (a little at a time -- don't cut drastically) as needed.

I also note that you've cut down your cardio, and I think I understand
why, but all I can say is that when I was in weight loss mode, the
cardio part was pretty important. In my case, that meant wind sprints,
though I'm sure you could still do some sort of interval training that's
appropriate to your situation.

Finally, I'm wondering if you're on hormone (e.g. birth control) pills.
If I understand correctly, that'll make it much harder to get lean. Not
saying that you have to go off of them, but if it's possible, that might
help you change your body composition as well.

elzinator
May 2nd 04, 04:18 PM
On 2 May 2004 07:50:45 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>
>> The biggest mistake I see women make is expecting results too soon. It
>> takes longer than you think. There is no quick fix. You are doing
>> everything right from what I can see.
>
>I did not expect to look like a fitness model in 30 days. I had what
>I thought was a realistic expectation of seeing some small results in
>a month, a difference of a couple pounds or half an inch maybe. Not
>seeing any results at all is quite discouraging. I do weigh myself
>every few days, but I'm looking at general trends rather than small
>day to day fluctuations.

Haven't been following this thread, but I assume you are weight
training? If not, you should be.

If so, your scale weight may not be the best indicator. Newbies (if
that is what you are) often add lean body mass while losing body fat,
so they may not see the expected drops in scale weight.

Also, it takes more than a month to see any real tangible changes in
body composition, especially for women. Be patient and give yourself
more time.

>> Determine what your
>> maintenance caloric intake is, and shoot for 500 calories under that, but no
>> less. Eating every two hours or so is great. Stay with that.
>
>Doing exactly that, not making any progress that I can see. *sigh*
>But thanks for the comments. Maybe I'll see some progress by next
>month.

BTW, eating every 2 hours is not necessary. On the other hand, fasting
for 6-8 hours during the day is not good either. Moderation is the
key.

I suspect what Larry meant is determine what your maintenance energy
(food/calories) intake should be and then subtract 500 calories to use
as a goal for daily caloric intake. You can modify that with exercise
because it alters your energy expenditure. For example, if you
exercise a lot on a daily basis, you can increase your caloric intake.

Remember that:
Energy balance = energy input - energy output.

Both sides of the equation can be manipulated. To lose body fat,
energy balance should be a negative (~-250-500 kcal/d).


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 2nd 04, 04:18 PM
On 2 May 2004 07:50:45 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
>"Larry Hodges" > wrote
>
>> The biggest mistake I see women make is expecting results too soon. It
>> takes longer than you think. There is no quick fix. You are doing
>> everything right from what I can see.
>
>I did not expect to look like a fitness model in 30 days. I had what
>I thought was a realistic expectation of seeing some small results in
>a month, a difference of a couple pounds or half an inch maybe. Not
>seeing any results at all is quite discouraging. I do weigh myself
>every few days, but I'm looking at general trends rather than small
>day to day fluctuations.

Haven't been following this thread, but I assume you are weight
training? If not, you should be.

If so, your scale weight may not be the best indicator. Newbies (if
that is what you are) often add lean body mass while losing body fat,
so they may not see the expected drops in scale weight.

Also, it takes more than a month to see any real tangible changes in
body composition, especially for women. Be patient and give yourself
more time.

>> Determine what your
>> maintenance caloric intake is, and shoot for 500 calories under that, but no
>> less. Eating every two hours or so is great. Stay with that.
>
>Doing exactly that, not making any progress that I can see. *sigh*
>But thanks for the comments. Maybe I'll see some progress by next
>month.

BTW, eating every 2 hours is not necessary. On the other hand, fasting
for 6-8 hours during the day is not good either. Moderation is the
key.

I suspect what Larry meant is determine what your maintenance energy
(food/calories) intake should be and then subtract 500 calories to use
as a goal for daily caloric intake. You can modify that with exercise
because it alters your energy expenditure. For example, if you
exercise a lot on a daily basis, you can increase your caloric intake.

Remember that:
Energy balance = energy input - energy output.

Both sides of the equation can be manipulated. To lose body fat,
energy balance should be a negative (~-250-500 kcal/d).


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 2nd 04, 04:21 PM
On Sun, 02 May 2004 15:08:01 GMT, JC Der Koenig wrote:
>"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
>> "David Cohen" > wrote :
>> > Eat less, exercise more.
>> >
>> > "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
>> >
>> > Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.
>>
>> As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
>> counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric deficit
>> plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
>> lifting.
>>
>> I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
>> hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
>> no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
>> consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't usually
>> a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
>> maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do that
>> until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.
>>
>
>If you already know so much, then why are you still so fat?
>
>What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?

So I stopped eating and I exercised all day and I dropped dead. How
come that didn't work?



Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 2nd 04, 04:21 PM
On Sun, 02 May 2004 15:08:01 GMT, JC Der Koenig wrote:
>"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
>> "David Cohen" > wrote :
>> > Eat less, exercise more.
>> >
>> > "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
>> >
>> > Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.
>>
>> As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
>> counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric deficit
>> plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
>> lifting.
>>
>> I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
>> hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
>> no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
>> consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't usually
>> a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
>> maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do that
>> until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.
>>
>
>If you already know so much, then why are you still so fat?
>
>What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?

So I stopped eating and I exercised all day and I dropped dead. How
come that didn't work?



Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

JC Der Koenig
May 2nd 04, 04:24 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 May 2004 15:08:01 GMT, JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "David Cohen" > wrote :
> >> > Eat less, exercise more.
> >> >
> >> > "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
> >> >
> >> > Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.
> >>
> >> As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
> >> counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric deficit
> >> plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
> >> lifting.
> >>
> >> I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
> >> hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
> >> no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
> >> consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't usually
> >> a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
> >> maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do that
> >> until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.
> >>
> >
> >If you already know so much, then why are you still so fat?
> >
> >What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?
>
> So I stopped eating and I exercised all day and I dropped dead. How
> come that didn't work?
>
>

It did work. The weight fell right off you.

JC Der Koenig
May 2nd 04, 04:24 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 May 2004 15:08:01 GMT, JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "David Cohen" > wrote :
> >> > Eat less, exercise more.
> >> >
> >> > "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
> >> >
> >> > Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.
> >>
> >> As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
> >> counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric deficit
> >> plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
> >> lifting.
> >>
> >> I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
> >> hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
> >> no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
> >> consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't usually
> >> a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
> >> maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do that
> >> until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.
> >>
> >
> >If you already know so much, then why are you still so fat?
> >
> >What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?
>
> So I stopped eating and I exercised all day and I dropped dead. How
> come that didn't work?
>
>

It did work. The weight fell right off you.

MJL
May 2nd 04, 06:46 PM
On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:


>I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
>the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
>about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
>weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
>track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
>cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
>lower and higher calorie days.
>
>This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
>that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
>at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
>pounds day to day and that's normal.

>I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
>reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
>MFW peanut gallery?

Well, if you really must lose weight then there are only two options
(and you can use either to whatever degree you choose).

1) Ratchet down caloric intake until it is low enough that you begin
to lose weight slowly.

2) Increase caloric expenditure over time such that you can measure an
aggregate increase over some reasonably long period of time (a week,
for example).

Your goal, IMO, ought to be to combine the two such that you suffer as
little as possible while still achieving your goal of slowly losing
weight.


--
"Hey, I ain't no Mike Massey."

MJL
May 2nd 04, 06:46 PM
On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:


>I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
>the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
>about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
>weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
>track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
>cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
>lower and higher calorie days.
>
>This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
>that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
>at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
>pounds day to day and that's normal.

>I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
>reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
>MFW peanut gallery?

Well, if you really must lose weight then there are only two options
(and you can use either to whatever degree you choose).

1) Ratchet down caloric intake until it is low enough that you begin
to lose weight slowly.

2) Increase caloric expenditure over time such that you can measure an
aggregate increase over some reasonably long period of time (a week,
for example).

Your goal, IMO, ought to be to combine the two such that you suffer as
little as possible while still achieving your goal of slowly losing
weight.


--
"Hey, I ain't no Mike Massey."

Hugh Beyer
May 2nd 04, 07:00 PM
(Love2Lift) wrote in news:92e2973e.0405020013.44339b57
@posting.google.com:

> I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> lower and higher calorie days.
>

Your problem here is that you're eating at maintenance, so you're not losing
weight. Sucks, doesn't it?

You have to take all those methods of calculating maintenance calories with
cups of salt. They might get you into the ballpark, but then you have to find
out what your maintenance really is by eating at a given rate and seeing if
you gain or lose. Congratulations--you've found maintenance; now reduce what
you're eating.

You haven't said how tall you are, but I'm a guy and 1400-1900 calories would
be just low enough for me to lose slowly. If I want to go below 165" I'd have
to eat less still. As a woman, I'd expect your requirements to be less.

So butch up, stop anticipating all kinds of bad consequences, and keep
dropping the calories bit by bit until you start losing.

Hugh



--
Help! My myofibrillar material is disorganized!

Hugh Beyer
May 2nd 04, 07:00 PM
(Love2Lift) wrote in news:92e2973e.0405020013.44339b57
@posting.google.com:

> I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> lower and higher calorie days.
>

Your problem here is that you're eating at maintenance, so you're not losing
weight. Sucks, doesn't it?

You have to take all those methods of calculating maintenance calories with
cups of salt. They might get you into the ballpark, but then you have to find
out what your maintenance really is by eating at a given rate and seeing if
you gain or lose. Congratulations--you've found maintenance; now reduce what
you're eating.

You haven't said how tall you are, but I'm a guy and 1400-1900 calories would
be just low enough for me to lose slowly. If I want to go below 165" I'd have
to eat less still. As a woman, I'd expect your requirements to be less.

So butch up, stop anticipating all kinds of bad consequences, and keep
dropping the calories bit by bit until you start losing.

Hugh



--
Help! My myofibrillar material is disorganized!

Larry Hodges
May 2nd 04, 08:08 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 May 2004 07:50:45 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
> >"Larry Hodges" > wrote
> >
> >> The biggest mistake I see women make is expecting results too soon. It
> >> takes longer than you think. There is no quick fix. You are doing
> >> everything right from what I can see.
> >
> >I did not expect to look like a fitness model in 30 days. I had what
> >I thought was a realistic expectation of seeing some small results in
> >a month, a difference of a couple pounds or half an inch maybe. Not
> >seeing any results at all is quite discouraging. I do weigh myself
> >every few days, but I'm looking at general trends rather than small
> >day to day fluctuations.
>
> Haven't been following this thread, but I assume you are weight
> training? If not, you should be.
>
> If so, your scale weight may not be the best indicator. Newbies (if
> that is what you are) often add lean body mass while losing body fat,
> so they may not see the expected drops in scale weight.
>
> Also, it takes more than a month to see any real tangible changes in
> body composition, especially for women. Be patient and give yourself
> more time.
>
> >> Determine what your
> >> maintenance caloric intake is, and shoot for 500 calories under that,
but no
> >> less. Eating every two hours or so is great. Stay with that.
> >
> >Doing exactly that, not making any progress that I can see. *sigh*
> >But thanks for the comments. Maybe I'll see some progress by next
> >month.
>
> BTW, eating every 2 hours is not necessary. On the other hand, fasting
> for 6-8 hours during the day is not good either. Moderation is the
> key.
>
> I suspect what Larry meant is determine what your maintenance energy
> (food/calories) intake should be and then subtract 500 calories to use
> as a goal for daily caloric intake. You can modify that with exercise
> because it alters your energy expenditure. For example, if you
> exercise a lot on a daily basis, you can increase your caloric intake.
>
> Remember that:
> Energy balance = energy input - energy output.
>
> Both sides of the equation can be manipulated. To lose body fat,
> energy balance should be a negative (~-250-500 kcal/d).


Sorry about the "potty talk" last night. It was suppose to be deficit. But
I had a good half a bottle of rum while playing BFV on-line with some
buddies before dropping by here. I should've just gone to bed. :)

OTOH, I had a really fun night of drunken abandon and laughed until my face
hurt playing the game. Good times...

Let's see...120 cal per jigger X ...ummmm...errr....**** it. Let's call it
200 calories total shall we?

-Larry

Larry Hodges
May 2nd 04, 08:08 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 May 2004 07:50:45 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
> >"Larry Hodges" > wrote
> >
> >> The biggest mistake I see women make is expecting results too soon. It
> >> takes longer than you think. There is no quick fix. You are doing
> >> everything right from what I can see.
> >
> >I did not expect to look like a fitness model in 30 days. I had what
> >I thought was a realistic expectation of seeing some small results in
> >a month, a difference of a couple pounds or half an inch maybe. Not
> >seeing any results at all is quite discouraging. I do weigh myself
> >every few days, but I'm looking at general trends rather than small
> >day to day fluctuations.
>
> Haven't been following this thread, but I assume you are weight
> training? If not, you should be.
>
> If so, your scale weight may not be the best indicator. Newbies (if
> that is what you are) often add lean body mass while losing body fat,
> so they may not see the expected drops in scale weight.
>
> Also, it takes more than a month to see any real tangible changes in
> body composition, especially for women. Be patient and give yourself
> more time.
>
> >> Determine what your
> >> maintenance caloric intake is, and shoot for 500 calories under that,
but no
> >> less. Eating every two hours or so is great. Stay with that.
> >
> >Doing exactly that, not making any progress that I can see. *sigh*
> >But thanks for the comments. Maybe I'll see some progress by next
> >month.
>
> BTW, eating every 2 hours is not necessary. On the other hand, fasting
> for 6-8 hours during the day is not good either. Moderation is the
> key.
>
> I suspect what Larry meant is determine what your maintenance energy
> (food/calories) intake should be and then subtract 500 calories to use
> as a goal for daily caloric intake. You can modify that with exercise
> because it alters your energy expenditure. For example, if you
> exercise a lot on a daily basis, you can increase your caloric intake.
>
> Remember that:
> Energy balance = energy input - energy output.
>
> Both sides of the equation can be manipulated. To lose body fat,
> energy balance should be a negative (~-250-500 kcal/d).


Sorry about the "potty talk" last night. It was suppose to be deficit. But
I had a good half a bottle of rum while playing BFV on-line with some
buddies before dropping by here. I should've just gone to bed. :)

OTOH, I had a really fun night of drunken abandon and laughed until my face
hurt playing the game. Good times...

Let's see...120 cal per jigger X ...ummmm...errr....**** it. Let's call it
200 calories total shall we?

-Larry

Ellen Young
May 2nd 04, 10:21 PM
On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:

>Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.

I hear you. I'm in a similar situation, although not quite. I spent
quite a bit of the last year not feeling like much was happening as
far as getting my body smaller, even while I was working out heavy
with weights and tracking all my food on fitday. Some progress, but
very slow.

Recently, I decided to eat less and exercise more. I lowered my
calorie intake from 10x bodyweight to 8x bodyweight. I added more
cardio. Thirty minute sessions, five times a week. I kept my weight
workout the same, as that seemed adequate.

I lost eight pounds pretty quickly. Then I stopped. Haven't lost a
pound in four weeks. However, I'm wearing clothes that have been
sitting in my closet for four years waiting for me to return. So
obviously, I've changed my body and am smaller. This is great.

I've been poking around this site and the body recomposition site the
past couple of days, searching for those eternal verities that somehow
still elude me. I see that Lyle says that sometimes women do too much
cardio and this can screw up their fat loss. I don't quite get that.
I was doing too little before, but perhaps I added too much. I'm
thinking right now that I'll do cardio only on non-weights days. Two
or three days of weights, full body, and then three or four days of
thirty-minute cardio. One day of rest. And I'll keep my calorie
intake the same. That should do it! That should be the final answer.
I'm sure of it. This time.

I've also become better at controlling my cheat days. I'm much more
aware than I used to be of when I stray off the plan, and I log
everything so I'm not deluding myself too much. Not that you are.
Just saying. It happens. But I do understand your frustration. I
find it hard to plug away day after day with either none or rather
mild results. And yet, I think of how much better it is to lose a
size in a year instead of gaining one.

And even though a calorie is a calorie, I'm a middle aged woman also,
and I think being a middle-aged woman does make it a bit harder. That
doesn't make it impossible though. But it's not an easy slide.

--Ellen

>
>I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
>do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
>but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
>and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
>sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
>with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
>poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
>out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
>for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
>and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
>the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
>exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
>
>My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
>maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
>weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
>5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
>cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
>3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
>steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
>bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
>oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
>Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
>apple or orange.
>
>I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
>but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
>do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
>be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
>steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
>dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
>enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
>cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
>indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
>cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
>grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
>
>I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
>the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
>about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
>weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
>track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
>cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
>lower and higher calorie days.
>
>This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
>that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
>at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
>pounds day to day and that's normal.
>
>I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
>but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
>measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
>first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
>down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
>quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
>BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
>out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
>I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
>this.
>
>Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
>laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
>eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
>the same.
>
>I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
>reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
>MFW peanut gallery?

Ellen Young
May 2nd 04, 10:21 PM
On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:

>Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.

I hear you. I'm in a similar situation, although not quite. I spent
quite a bit of the last year not feeling like much was happening as
far as getting my body smaller, even while I was working out heavy
with weights and tracking all my food on fitday. Some progress, but
very slow.

Recently, I decided to eat less and exercise more. I lowered my
calorie intake from 10x bodyweight to 8x bodyweight. I added more
cardio. Thirty minute sessions, five times a week. I kept my weight
workout the same, as that seemed adequate.

I lost eight pounds pretty quickly. Then I stopped. Haven't lost a
pound in four weeks. However, I'm wearing clothes that have been
sitting in my closet for four years waiting for me to return. So
obviously, I've changed my body and am smaller. This is great.

I've been poking around this site and the body recomposition site the
past couple of days, searching for those eternal verities that somehow
still elude me. I see that Lyle says that sometimes women do too much
cardio and this can screw up their fat loss. I don't quite get that.
I was doing too little before, but perhaps I added too much. I'm
thinking right now that I'll do cardio only on non-weights days. Two
or three days of weights, full body, and then three or four days of
thirty-minute cardio. One day of rest. And I'll keep my calorie
intake the same. That should do it! That should be the final answer.
I'm sure of it. This time.

I've also become better at controlling my cheat days. I'm much more
aware than I used to be of when I stray off the plan, and I log
everything so I'm not deluding myself too much. Not that you are.
Just saying. It happens. But I do understand your frustration. I
find it hard to plug away day after day with either none or rather
mild results. And yet, I think of how much better it is to lose a
size in a year instead of gaining one.

And even though a calorie is a calorie, I'm a middle aged woman also,
and I think being a middle-aged woman does make it a bit harder. That
doesn't make it impossible though. But it's not an easy slide.

--Ellen

>
>I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
>do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
>but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
>and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
>sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
>with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
>poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
>out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
>for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
>and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
>the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
>exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
>
>My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
>maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
>weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
>5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
>cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
>3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
>steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
>bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
>oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
>Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
>apple or orange.
>
>I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
>but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
>do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
>be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
>steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
>dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
>enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
>cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
>indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
>cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
>grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
>
>I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
>the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
>about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
>weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
>track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
>cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
>lower and higher calorie days.
>
>This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
>that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
>at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
>pounds day to day and that's normal.
>
>I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
>but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
>measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
>first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
>down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
>quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
>BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
>out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
>I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
>this.
>
>Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
>laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
>eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
>the same.
>
>I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
>reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
>MFW peanut gallery?

Ellen Young
May 2nd 04, 10:42 PM
On Sun, 02 May 2004 14:21:37 -0700, Ellen Young
> wrote:

>On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:
>
>>Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.

> I
>find it hard to plug away day after day with either none or rather
>mild results. And yet, I think of how much better it is to lose a
>size in a year instead of gaining one.

You know, on reading this, I want to restate it. I don't find it hard
plugging away, not at all. I not only like the weight workouts, I've
come to really like the cardio workouts too. What's more, I even like
eating less. Weird but true.

What I don't like is slow results. But even there, I'm kind of
enjoying being patient. What is happening to me? Is this the wisdom
of old age I've heard so much about? :-)

--Ellen

Ellen Young
May 2nd 04, 10:42 PM
On Sun, 02 May 2004 14:21:37 -0700, Ellen Young
> wrote:

>On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:
>
>>Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.

> I
>find it hard to plug away day after day with either none or rather
>mild results. And yet, I think of how much better it is to lose a
>size in a year instead of gaining one.

You know, on reading this, I want to restate it. I don't find it hard
plugging away, not at all. I not only like the weight workouts, I've
come to really like the cardio workouts too. What's more, I even like
eating less. Weird but true.

What I don't like is slow results. But even there, I'm kind of
enjoying being patient. What is happening to me? Is this the wisdom
of old age I've heard so much about? :-)

--Ellen

David Cohen
May 2nd 04, 11:22 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote :
> > Eat less, exercise more.
> >
> > "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
> >
> > Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.
>
> As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
> counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric
deficit
> plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
> lifting.

OK, I was too subtle. We are assuming you live in THIS Universe, at
the macroscopic level, so that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply, and
sub-atomic quantum weirdness can be ignored. Which means, if you are
not losing weight, you are either: 1) eating more than you burn, or 2)
burning less than you eat. My way-to-subtle point with the celery is
that most people VASTLY underestimate the amount of calories that they
are eating, and GROSSLY overestimate the number of calories they are
burning. But the end result of the equation doesn't lie.
>
> I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
> hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
> no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
> consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't
usually
> a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
> maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do
that
> until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.

What's happening here (assuming your measurement technique is
accurate) is that you are eating more than you think, or exercising
less that you think. Or you are a muon.

Don't read. Study:
http://www.trygve.com/mfw.html
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com/rustiron.htm
http://www.exrx.net/

David

David Cohen
May 2nd 04, 11:22 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote :
> > Eat less, exercise more.
> >
> > "But I'm already only eating half a stalk of celery a day"
> >
> > Well, then, eat a quarter stalk.
>
> As I understand it, the quarter stalk of celery thing is a little
> counterproductive. I am aiming for a 250-750 per day caloric
deficit
> plus burning calories by doing cardio and maintaining muscle mass by
> lifting.

OK, I was too subtle. We are assuming you live in THIS Universe, at
the macroscopic level, so that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply, and
sub-atomic quantum weirdness can be ignored. Which means, if you are
not losing weight, you are either: 1) eating more than you burn, or 2)
burning less than you eat. My way-to-subtle point with the celery is
that most people VASTLY underestimate the amount of calories that they
are eating, and GROSSLY overestimate the number of calories they are
burning. But the end result of the equation doesn't lie.
>
> I could drop my calories more, but this would result in a) being
> hungry and miserable all the time b) having crappy-ass workouts with
> no energy and c) possibly bad metabolic and body recomposition
> consequences. The research I've read indicates that it isn't
usually
> a good idea to drop your calories that far below maintenance, but
> maybe that would be indicated in my case. But I don't want to do
that
> until I have a better idea of what's really happening here.

What's happening here (assuming your measurement technique is
accurate) is that you are eating more than you think, or exercising
less that you think. Or you are a muon.

Don't read. Study:
http://www.trygve.com/mfw.html
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com/rustiron.htm
http://www.exrx.net/

David

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 12:40 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote

> What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?

What part of "I'm waiting to get some input from people who seem to
know what they are talking about" did you not understand?

My maintenance level where I neither gain nor lose weight when I am
not working out is about 2000. That seems reasonably consistent with
published indexes as well as my actual recorded experience. I figured
on dropping from there and adding exercise, with 3-4 weekly weight
training sessions and about the same number of cardio workouts.

Unlike people who seem to think that short, rude answers are the mark
of great wisdom, I am trying to pay attention to what the experienced
folks have been saying about dieting and body recomposition. I don't
think it would necessarily be a good idea to immediately drop my
calories below 1400. I may need to stay right around 1400 and not
cyclically raise calories as I have been doing to prevent the usual
problems associated with dieting. I may need to do a different range
of calorie cycling that periodically goes lower. I don't know yet. I
do know that starvation is not the answer. In general it's correct
that eating less and exercising more will work, but there is a point
beyond which this answer becomes counterproductive.

There are hard workout days when I don't particularly want to eat
anything, but I choke down the food and the whey drinks anyhow. I've
worked my ass off in the weight room and I don't want to shoot myself
in the foot by losing muscle instead of fat. It's not so much about
"butching up" as it is about trying to diet intelligently. If it will
really further my long term goals to drop my calorie level below 1400,
that won't be a major problem.

While I appreciate the advice from experienced folks who have
extensive knowledge of body recomposition, I expected that some random
garbage would be spewed from the mouths of people who simply had
nothing better to do. Fortunately it's been easy to separate the
garbage from the quality advice, and there has been much more of the
latter than the former. So, thanks everyone. Or almost everyone.

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 12:40 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote

> What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?

What part of "I'm waiting to get some input from people who seem to
know what they are talking about" did you not understand?

My maintenance level where I neither gain nor lose weight when I am
not working out is about 2000. That seems reasonably consistent with
published indexes as well as my actual recorded experience. I figured
on dropping from there and adding exercise, with 3-4 weekly weight
training sessions and about the same number of cardio workouts.

Unlike people who seem to think that short, rude answers are the mark
of great wisdom, I am trying to pay attention to what the experienced
folks have been saying about dieting and body recomposition. I don't
think it would necessarily be a good idea to immediately drop my
calories below 1400. I may need to stay right around 1400 and not
cyclically raise calories as I have been doing to prevent the usual
problems associated with dieting. I may need to do a different range
of calorie cycling that periodically goes lower. I don't know yet. I
do know that starvation is not the answer. In general it's correct
that eating less and exercising more will work, but there is a point
beyond which this answer becomes counterproductive.

There are hard workout days when I don't particularly want to eat
anything, but I choke down the food and the whey drinks anyhow. I've
worked my ass off in the weight room and I don't want to shoot myself
in the foot by losing muscle instead of fat. It's not so much about
"butching up" as it is about trying to diet intelligently. If it will
really further my long term goals to drop my calorie level below 1400,
that won't be a major problem.

While I appreciate the advice from experienced folks who have
extensive knowledge of body recomposition, I expected that some random
garbage would be spewed from the mouths of people who simply had
nothing better to do. Fortunately it's been easy to separate the
garbage from the quality advice, and there has been much more of the
latter than the former. So, thanks everyone. Or almost everyone.

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 12:51 AM
elzinator > wrote

> Also, it takes more than a month to see any real tangible changes in
> body composition, especially for women. Be patient and give yourself
> more time.

Thank you, this is valuable information. Yes, I am lifting weights
3-4X weekly and doing cardio on most days I'm not weight training.


> BTW, eating every 2 hours is not necessary. On the other hand, fasting
> for 6-8 hours during the day is not good either. Moderation is the
> key.

I space meals from 2.5 hours to 4 hours apart as a rule, averaging at
3 hours. If my records are correct on my maintenance level with no
exercise, and I think they are, I have a 100-600 cycling calorie
deficit plus whatever is burned by 45 minutes to an hour of intense
exercise. I take one rest day a week and have one higher calorie
cheat meal every one to two weeks.

Someone else asked if I was on birth control pills. I'm actually on
Depo Provera. How evil is that stuff for women trying to lose weight
and gain lean body mass?

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 12:51 AM
elzinator > wrote

> Also, it takes more than a month to see any real tangible changes in
> body composition, especially for women. Be patient and give yourself
> more time.

Thank you, this is valuable information. Yes, I am lifting weights
3-4X weekly and doing cardio on most days I'm not weight training.


> BTW, eating every 2 hours is not necessary. On the other hand, fasting
> for 6-8 hours during the day is not good either. Moderation is the
> key.

I space meals from 2.5 hours to 4 hours apart as a rule, averaging at
3 hours. If my records are correct on my maintenance level with no
exercise, and I think they are, I have a 100-600 cycling calorie
deficit plus whatever is burned by 45 minutes to an hour of intense
exercise. I take one rest day a week and have one higher calorie
cheat meal every one to two weeks.

Someone else asked if I was on birth control pills. I'm actually on
Depo Provera. How evil is that stuff for women trying to lose weight
and gain lean body mass?

JC Der Koenig
May 3rd 04, 12:52 AM
You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several times
already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is not
rocket science or magic.

--
You take stupid to a new level. -- MFW


"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> "JC Der Koenig" > wrote
>
> > What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?
>
> What part of "I'm waiting to get some input from people who seem to
> know what they are talking about" did you not understand?
>
> My maintenance level where I neither gain nor lose weight when I am
> not working out is about 2000. That seems reasonably consistent with
> published indexes as well as my actual recorded experience. I figured
> on dropping from there and adding exercise, with 3-4 weekly weight
> training sessions and about the same number of cardio workouts.
>
> Unlike people who seem to think that short, rude answers are the mark
> of great wisdom, I am trying to pay attention to what the experienced
> folks have been saying about dieting and body recomposition. I don't
> think it would necessarily be a good idea to immediately drop my
> calories below 1400. I may need to stay right around 1400 and not
> cyclically raise calories as I have been doing to prevent the usual
> problems associated with dieting. I may need to do a different range
> of calorie cycling that periodically goes lower. I don't know yet. I
> do know that starvation is not the answer. In general it's correct
> that eating less and exercising more will work, but there is a point
> beyond which this answer becomes counterproductive.
>
> There are hard workout days when I don't particularly want to eat
> anything, but I choke down the food and the whey drinks anyhow. I've
> worked my ass off in the weight room and I don't want to shoot myself
> in the foot by losing muscle instead of fat. It's not so much about
> "butching up" as it is about trying to diet intelligently. If it will
> really further my long term goals to drop my calorie level below 1400,
> that won't be a major problem.
>
> While I appreciate the advice from experienced folks who have
> extensive knowledge of body recomposition, I expected that some random
> garbage would be spewed from the mouths of people who simply had
> nothing better to do. Fortunately it's been easy to separate the
> garbage from the quality advice, and there has been much more of the
> latter than the former. So, thanks everyone. Or almost everyone.

JC Der Koenig
May 3rd 04, 12:52 AM
You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several times
already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is not
rocket science or magic.

--
You take stupid to a new level. -- MFW


"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> "JC Der Koenig" > wrote
>
> > What part of "eat less, exercise more" did you not understand?
>
> What part of "I'm waiting to get some input from people who seem to
> know what they are talking about" did you not understand?
>
> My maintenance level where I neither gain nor lose weight when I am
> not working out is about 2000. That seems reasonably consistent with
> published indexes as well as my actual recorded experience. I figured
> on dropping from there and adding exercise, with 3-4 weekly weight
> training sessions and about the same number of cardio workouts.
>
> Unlike people who seem to think that short, rude answers are the mark
> of great wisdom, I am trying to pay attention to what the experienced
> folks have been saying about dieting and body recomposition. I don't
> think it would necessarily be a good idea to immediately drop my
> calories below 1400. I may need to stay right around 1400 and not
> cyclically raise calories as I have been doing to prevent the usual
> problems associated with dieting. I may need to do a different range
> of calorie cycling that periodically goes lower. I don't know yet. I
> do know that starvation is not the answer. In general it's correct
> that eating less and exercising more will work, but there is a point
> beyond which this answer becomes counterproductive.
>
> There are hard workout days when I don't particularly want to eat
> anything, but I choke down the food and the whey drinks anyhow. I've
> worked my ass off in the weight room and I don't want to shoot myself
> in the foot by losing muscle instead of fat. It's not so much about
> "butching up" as it is about trying to diet intelligently. If it will
> really further my long term goals to drop my calorie level below 1400,
> that won't be a major problem.
>
> While I appreciate the advice from experienced folks who have
> extensive knowledge of body recomposition, I expected that some random
> garbage would be spewed from the mouths of people who simply had
> nothing better to do. Fortunately it's been easy to separate the
> garbage from the quality advice, and there has been much more of the
> latter than the former. So, thanks everyone. Or almost everyone.

David Cohen
May 3rd 04, 01:02 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote
> You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several
times
> already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is
not
> rocket science or magic.

It could be rocket surgery.

David
--
"This is the worse forum alive."- kev2112

David Cohen
May 3rd 04, 01:02 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote
> You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several
times
> already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is
not
> rocket science or magic.

It could be rocket surgery.

David
--
"This is the worse forum alive."- kev2112

JC Der Koenig
May 3rd 04, 01:12 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "JC Der Koenig" > wrote
> > You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several
> times
> > already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is
> not
> > rocket science or magic.
>
> It could be rocket surgery.
>

Or Brain Salad Surgery.

JC Der Koenig
May 3rd 04, 01:12 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "JC Der Koenig" > wrote
> > You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several
> times
> > already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is
> not
> > rocket science or magic.
>
> It could be rocket surgery.
>

Or Brain Salad Surgery.

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 01:15 AM
Hugh Beyer > wrote

> Your problem here is that you're eating at maintenance, so you're not losing
> weight. Sucks, doesn't it?

Well, this is the weird part. I was eating over 2000 calories a day
on a low carb diet, not exercising and not gaining weight, for months
on end. I added some cardio exercise and lost a little weight. I
didn't think I was losing fast enough, so I got more serious about
weight lifting and switched to a high protein, moderate carb, low fat
diet with more carefully restricted calories. That was when I stopped
losing weight again.


> You have to take all those methods of calculating maintenance calories with
> cups of salt. They might get you into the ballpark, but then you have to find
> out what your maintenance really is by eating at a given rate and seeing if
> you gain or lose. Congratulations--you've found maintenance; now reduce what
> you're eating.

That's basically what I did. At 2K I don't seem to gain or lose
weight. So I started calorie cycling, trying not to go below 1400 or
above 1900.


> So butch up, stop anticipating all kinds of bad consequences, and keep
> dropping the calories bit by bit until you start losing.

It's not so much about butching up as not wanting to lose the lean
body mass I've worked so hard in the weight room to gain. There are
days I have to force myself to eat or at least drink whey shakes.
Hard workout days especially when I do squats leave me sweating and
shaking and wanting to puke at the very idea of food. It would be
awfully easy to not eat much of anything on those days, but I am
guessing that would not be helpful to my long term body recomposition
goals even if it did produce rapid pound loss that appeared on the
scale.

If I'm wrong about my 2K maintenance level, or if that's changed since
I stopped doing the low carb high fat moderate protein thing, then I
can drop calories a little further. There was a few months where I
was weighing all my food every day with a digital scale and working
pretty hard to collect the data on what I was actually eating and
weighing. I don't think I did too awful a job at data collection, and
the figures seemed to remain pretty consistent over time.

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 01:15 AM
Hugh Beyer > wrote

> Your problem here is that you're eating at maintenance, so you're not losing
> weight. Sucks, doesn't it?

Well, this is the weird part. I was eating over 2000 calories a day
on a low carb diet, not exercising and not gaining weight, for months
on end. I added some cardio exercise and lost a little weight. I
didn't think I was losing fast enough, so I got more serious about
weight lifting and switched to a high protein, moderate carb, low fat
diet with more carefully restricted calories. That was when I stopped
losing weight again.


> You have to take all those methods of calculating maintenance calories with
> cups of salt. They might get you into the ballpark, but then you have to find
> out what your maintenance really is by eating at a given rate and seeing if
> you gain or lose. Congratulations--you've found maintenance; now reduce what
> you're eating.

That's basically what I did. At 2K I don't seem to gain or lose
weight. So I started calorie cycling, trying not to go below 1400 or
above 1900.


> So butch up, stop anticipating all kinds of bad consequences, and keep
> dropping the calories bit by bit until you start losing.

It's not so much about butching up as not wanting to lose the lean
body mass I've worked so hard in the weight room to gain. There are
days I have to force myself to eat or at least drink whey shakes.
Hard workout days especially when I do squats leave me sweating and
shaking and wanting to puke at the very idea of food. It would be
awfully easy to not eat much of anything on those days, but I am
guessing that would not be helpful to my long term body recomposition
goals even if it did produce rapid pound loss that appeared on the
scale.

If I'm wrong about my 2K maintenance level, or if that's changed since
I stopped doing the low carb high fat moderate protein thing, then I
can drop calories a little further. There was a few months where I
was weighing all my food every day with a digital scale and working
pretty hard to collect the data on what I was actually eating and
weighing. I don't think I did too awful a job at data collection, and
the figures seemed to remain pretty consistent over time.

John M. Williams
May 3rd 04, 01:54 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote:
>
>"David Cohen" > wrote:
>>
>> "JC Der Koenig" > wrote
>> > You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several
>> > times
>> > already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is
>> > not rocket science or magic.
>>
>> It could be rocket surgery.
>
>Or Brain Salad Surgery.

According to the Giger pics on the front of the package, that should
make you pretty lean.

John M. Williams
May 3rd 04, 01:54 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote:
>
>"David Cohen" > wrote:
>>
>> "JC Der Koenig" > wrote
>> > You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several
>> > times
>> > already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is
>> > not rocket science or magic.
>>
>> It could be rocket surgery.
>
>Or Brain Salad Surgery.

According to the Giger pics on the front of the package, that should
make you pretty lean.

Hugh Beyer
May 3rd 04, 01:58 AM
(Love2Lift) wrote in
om:

> Hugh Beyer > wrote
>
>> Your problem here is that you're eating at maintenance, so you're not
>> losing weight. Sucks, doesn't it?
>
> Well, this is the weird part. I was eating over 2000 calories a day
> on a low carb diet, not exercising and not gaining weight, for months
> on end. I added some cardio exercise and lost a little weight. I
> didn't think I was losing fast enough, so I got more serious about
> weight lifting and switched to a high protein, moderate carb, low fat
> diet with more carefully restricted calories. That was when I stopped
> losing weight again.
>
>
>> You have to take all those methods of calculating maintenance calories
>> with cups of salt. They might get you into the ballpark, but then you
>> have to find out what your maintenance really is by eating at a given
>> rate and seeing if you gain or lose. Congratulations--you've found
>> maintenance; now reduce what you're eating.
>
> That's basically what I did. At 2K I don't seem to gain or lose
> weight. So I started calorie cycling, trying not to go below 1400 or
> above 1900.
>
>
>> So butch up, stop anticipating all kinds of bad consequences, and keep
>> dropping the calories bit by bit until you start losing.
>
> It's not so much about butching up as not wanting to lose the lean
> body mass I've worked so hard in the weight room to gain. There are
> days I have to force myself to eat or at least drink whey shakes.
> Hard workout days especially when I do squats leave me sweating and
> shaking and wanting to puke at the very idea of food. It would be
> awfully easy to not eat much of anything on those days, but I am
> guessing that would not be helpful to my long term body recomposition
> goals even if it did produce rapid pound loss that appeared on the
> scale.
>
> If I'm wrong about my 2K maintenance level, or if that's changed since
> I stopped doing the low carb high fat moderate protein thing, then I
> can drop calories a little further. There was a few months where I
> was weighing all my food every day with a digital scale and working
> pretty hard to collect the data on what I was actually eating and
> weighing. I don't think I did too awful a job at data collection, and
> the figures seemed to remain pretty consistent over time.
>

Well I dunno, and there are others here more expert than I. But the
impression I've gotten is that you have to expect some downregulation of
the metabolism as you lose weight, and you have to expect to lose some
lean mass, and that as long as you're not losing weight too fast and as
long as you'rre lifting, you're probably doing as well as you can expect.

Hugh


--
Help! My myofibrillar material is disorganized!

Hugh Beyer
May 3rd 04, 01:58 AM
(Love2Lift) wrote in
om:

> Hugh Beyer > wrote
>
>> Your problem here is that you're eating at maintenance, so you're not
>> losing weight. Sucks, doesn't it?
>
> Well, this is the weird part. I was eating over 2000 calories a day
> on a low carb diet, not exercising and not gaining weight, for months
> on end. I added some cardio exercise and lost a little weight. I
> didn't think I was losing fast enough, so I got more serious about
> weight lifting and switched to a high protein, moderate carb, low fat
> diet with more carefully restricted calories. That was when I stopped
> losing weight again.
>
>
>> You have to take all those methods of calculating maintenance calories
>> with cups of salt. They might get you into the ballpark, but then you
>> have to find out what your maintenance really is by eating at a given
>> rate and seeing if you gain or lose. Congratulations--you've found
>> maintenance; now reduce what you're eating.
>
> That's basically what I did. At 2K I don't seem to gain or lose
> weight. So I started calorie cycling, trying not to go below 1400 or
> above 1900.
>
>
>> So butch up, stop anticipating all kinds of bad consequences, and keep
>> dropping the calories bit by bit until you start losing.
>
> It's not so much about butching up as not wanting to lose the lean
> body mass I've worked so hard in the weight room to gain. There are
> days I have to force myself to eat or at least drink whey shakes.
> Hard workout days especially when I do squats leave me sweating and
> shaking and wanting to puke at the very idea of food. It would be
> awfully easy to not eat much of anything on those days, but I am
> guessing that would not be helpful to my long term body recomposition
> goals even if it did produce rapid pound loss that appeared on the
> scale.
>
> If I'm wrong about my 2K maintenance level, or if that's changed since
> I stopped doing the low carb high fat moderate protein thing, then I
> can drop calories a little further. There was a few months where I
> was weighing all my food every day with a digital scale and working
> pretty hard to collect the data on what I was actually eating and
> weighing. I don't think I did too awful a job at data collection, and
> the figures seemed to remain pretty consistent over time.
>

Well I dunno, and there are others here more expert than I. But the
impression I've gotten is that you have to expect some downregulation of
the metabolism as you lose weight, and you have to expect to lose some
lean mass, and that as long as you're not losing weight too fast and as
long as you'rre lifting, you're probably doing as well as you can expect.

Hugh


--
Help! My myofibrillar material is disorganized!

TB
May 3rd 04, 02:06 AM
On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:

>Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
>
>I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
>do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
>but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
>and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
>sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
>with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
>poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
>out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
>for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
>and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
>the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
>exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
>
>My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
>maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
>weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
>5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
>cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
>3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
>steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
>bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
>oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
>Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
>apple or orange.
>
>I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
>but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
>do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
>be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
>steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
>dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
>enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
>cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
>indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
>cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
>grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
>
>I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
>the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
>about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
>weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
>track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
>cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
>lower and higher calorie days.
>
>This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
>that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
>at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
>pounds day to day and that's normal.
>
>I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
>but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
>measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
>first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
>down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
>quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
>BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
>out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
>I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
>this.
>
>Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
>laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
>eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
>the same.
>
>I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
>reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
>MFW peanut gallery?

I'm a 52 year old guy who has lost 35 lbs in the last 4 months. I'm
doing pretty much the same as you. There are a few differences.

Your estimate of your daily calories is 1400 to 1900. Is this because
it varies or because you guess it's in there somewhere?
If you are guessing you need to tighen up on the calories. You should
measure more carefully and know within 20-30 ish calories what is
going in your mouth per day. If you are middle-age and 180 lbs, my
guess is your maintenance cal is just under 2000 cal/day. So I would
keep your intake at 1350-1400 cal.

As for low cal intake...
When I was eatting 4000 cals per day I was eatting fat and sugar and
little real food. My body was starving for food at 4000 cal. Now, at
217 lbs, I eat 1600 cal per day but it's good food, good protein, good
fat, good carbs. Some would say I'm too low in calories but my body
says, "thanks for the food." When I get down to 180 lbs I will
probably be in the 1350-1400 cal range myself.

As for the exercise plan...
I would forget the fancy stuff on the treadmill and put your heartrate
in the fat-burn zone (for me 108-112 beats/min) and do 30 minutes, 3
times/week. Keep workouts to 1 hour, 3 times/week. Forget the
treadmill warmup and have about 30-40 grams of carbs in your system
before you workout for energy. (but don't go in on a full tummy) And
the carbs you take after a workout might not be the best idea unless
you need the energy for your next activity. (I workout in the evening
so I use my carbs in the gym then go home near empty).

I also think you are pushing a bit too hard, what with shaking and all
after a workout. Why do that? This works without the extremes.
Sweat, yes. Sore muscles, sure. Shaking, no.

Hang in there. The name of the game is "tweaking." You'll get it
right.

By the way, I know this response will bring on a torrent of stuff from
the experts. I responded because no one else seemed to be helping.

Good luck,
Tom

TB
May 3rd 04, 02:06 AM
On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:

>Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
>
>I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
>do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
>but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
>and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
>sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
>with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
>poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
>out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
>for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
>and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
>the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
>exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
>
>My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
>maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
>weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
>5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
>cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
>3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
>steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
>bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
>oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
>Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
>apple or orange.
>
>I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
>but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
>do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
>be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
>steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
>dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
>enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
>cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
>indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
>cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
>grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
>
>I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
>the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
>about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
>weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
>track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
>cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
>lower and higher calorie days.
>
>This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
>that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
>at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
>pounds day to day and that's normal.
>
>I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
>but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
>measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
>first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
>down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
>quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
>BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
>out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
>I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
>this.
>
>Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
>laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
>eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
>the same.
>
>I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
>reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
>MFW peanut gallery?

I'm a 52 year old guy who has lost 35 lbs in the last 4 months. I'm
doing pretty much the same as you. There are a few differences.

Your estimate of your daily calories is 1400 to 1900. Is this because
it varies or because you guess it's in there somewhere?
If you are guessing you need to tighen up on the calories. You should
measure more carefully and know within 20-30 ish calories what is
going in your mouth per day. If you are middle-age and 180 lbs, my
guess is your maintenance cal is just under 2000 cal/day. So I would
keep your intake at 1350-1400 cal.

As for low cal intake...
When I was eatting 4000 cals per day I was eatting fat and sugar and
little real food. My body was starving for food at 4000 cal. Now, at
217 lbs, I eat 1600 cal per day but it's good food, good protein, good
fat, good carbs. Some would say I'm too low in calories but my body
says, "thanks for the food." When I get down to 180 lbs I will
probably be in the 1350-1400 cal range myself.

As for the exercise plan...
I would forget the fancy stuff on the treadmill and put your heartrate
in the fat-burn zone (for me 108-112 beats/min) and do 30 minutes, 3
times/week. Keep workouts to 1 hour, 3 times/week. Forget the
treadmill warmup and have about 30-40 grams of carbs in your system
before you workout for energy. (but don't go in on a full tummy) And
the carbs you take after a workout might not be the best idea unless
you need the energy for your next activity. (I workout in the evening
so I use my carbs in the gym then go home near empty).

I also think you are pushing a bit too hard, what with shaking and all
after a workout. Why do that? This works without the extremes.
Sweat, yes. Sore muscles, sure. Shaking, no.

Hang in there. The name of the game is "tweaking." You'll get it
right.

By the way, I know this response will bring on a torrent of stuff from
the experts. I responded because no one else seemed to be helping.

Good luck,
Tom

Steve Freides
May 3rd 04, 02:25 AM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
>
> I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
> do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
> but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
> and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
> sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
> with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
> poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
> out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
> for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
> and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
> the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
> exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
>
> My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
> maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
> weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
> 5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
> cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
> 3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
> steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
> bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
> oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
> Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
> apple or orange.
>
> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
> but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
> do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
> be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
> steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
> dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
> enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
> cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
> indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
> cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
> grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
>
> I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> lower and higher calorie days.
>
> This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
> that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
> at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
> pounds day to day and that's normal.
>
> I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
> but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
> measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
> first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
> down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
> quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
> BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
> out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
> I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
> this.
>
> Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
> laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
> eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
> the same.
>
> I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
> reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> MFW peanut gallery?

Your conversation with David and company has been fascinating, but allow me
to ask for a little more information.

You say you lift "hard and heavy" - please quantify that for us. I recently
started training a guy at the Y and I confess his concept of what's "hard
and heavy" is quite different from mine. He's an ex-Marine who has, no
doubt, been through some serious physical training in his day, but he's been
using 50 lbs. on the chest press machine and now that I've got him up to 70
lbs. he's saying it seems heavy to him. I am skinny, small, and a lousy
presser and I have no problem pushing 150 lbs. on the chest press machine -
I picked that number only because it's what I weigh. So, if you'll forgive
the above ramble, it would be very helpful if you'd post specific numbers on
what sort of weights you're using on what exercises and for what sets/reps
and on what rest periods between sets and how many days a week, etc. (If I
left anything out, please tell us everything that could be relevant here.)

Second, your description of your diet sounds awfully low in fats to me and,
by extrapolation, probably too high in carbohydrates and too low in protein.
Non-fat foods, while they work for some people, aren't what most of the
current wisdom in weight management recommends. Personally, I won't eat
low-fat anything nor will I ingest artificial sweetener of any kind if I can
possibly avoid it. Again, detailed information about your eating would be
helpful here but, to save us all doing a lot of lookups and math, you should
figure out approximate percentages of fats, protein, and carbs in your diet.

David's point is correct - it's all about calories in versus calories out -
but there are lots of things you can do to make the calories you take in
more satisfying to both your taste buds and your nutritional needs. Doing
that can help you learn to eat fewer total calories. In any event, it
sounds like you're ready to try something different, so I vote for eating
fully-fatted cottage cheese, leaving the skin on the chicken breast, and
putting the dressing back on the salad.

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

Steve Freides
May 3rd 04, 02:25 AM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
>
> I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
> do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
> but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
> and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
> sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
> with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
> poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
> out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
> for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
> and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
> the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
> exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
>
> My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
> maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
> weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
> 5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
> cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
> 3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
> steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
> bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
> oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
> Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
> apple or orange.
>
> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
> but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
> do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
> be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
> steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
> dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
> enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
> cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
> indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
> cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
> grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
>
> I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> lower and higher calorie days.
>
> This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
> that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
> at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
> pounds day to day and that's normal.
>
> I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
> but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
> measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
> first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
> down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
> quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
> BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
> out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
> I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
> this.
>
> Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
> laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
> eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
> the same.
>
> I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
> reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> MFW peanut gallery?

Your conversation with David and company has been fascinating, but allow me
to ask for a little more information.

You say you lift "hard and heavy" - please quantify that for us. I recently
started training a guy at the Y and I confess his concept of what's "hard
and heavy" is quite different from mine. He's an ex-Marine who has, no
doubt, been through some serious physical training in his day, but he's been
using 50 lbs. on the chest press machine and now that I've got him up to 70
lbs. he's saying it seems heavy to him. I am skinny, small, and a lousy
presser and I have no problem pushing 150 lbs. on the chest press machine -
I picked that number only because it's what I weigh. So, if you'll forgive
the above ramble, it would be very helpful if you'd post specific numbers on
what sort of weights you're using on what exercises and for what sets/reps
and on what rest periods between sets and how many days a week, etc. (If I
left anything out, please tell us everything that could be relevant here.)

Second, your description of your diet sounds awfully low in fats to me and,
by extrapolation, probably too high in carbohydrates and too low in protein.
Non-fat foods, while they work for some people, aren't what most of the
current wisdom in weight management recommends. Personally, I won't eat
low-fat anything nor will I ingest artificial sweetener of any kind if I can
possibly avoid it. Again, detailed information about your eating would be
helpful here but, to save us all doing a lot of lookups and math, you should
figure out approximate percentages of fats, protein, and carbs in your diet.

David's point is correct - it's all about calories in versus calories out -
but there are lots of things you can do to make the calories you take in
more satisfying to both your taste buds and your nutritional needs. Doing
that can help you learn to eat fewer total calories. In any event, it
sounds like you're ready to try something different, so I vote for eating
fully-fatted cottage cheese, leaving the skin on the chicken breast, and
putting the dressing back on the salad.

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

elzinator
May 3rd 04, 04:28 AM
On 2 May 2004 16:51:43 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
>elzinator > wrote
>
>> Also, it takes more than a month to see any real tangible changes in
>> body composition, especially for women. Be patient and give yourself
>> more time.
>
>Thank you, this is valuable information. Yes, I am lifting weights
>3-4X weekly and doing cardio on most days I'm not weight training.
>
>
>> BTW, eating every 2 hours is not necessary. On the other hand, fasting
>> for 6-8 hours during the day is not good either. Moderation is the
>> key.
>
>I space meals from 2.5 hours to 4 hours apart as a rule, averaging at
>3 hours. If my records are correct on my maintenance level with no
>exercise, and I think they are, I have a 100-600 cycling calorie
>deficit plus whatever is burned by 45 minutes to an hour of intense
>exercise. I take one rest day a week and have one higher calorie
>cheat meal every one to two weeks.
>
>Someone else asked if I was on birth control pills. I'm actually on
>Depo Provera. How evil is that stuff for women trying to lose weight
>and gain lean body mass?

There's the culprit. I'm sorry, but to be succinct: you're ****ed. DP
should come off the market. It ****s up women's hormones for a long
time.

Weight loss is going to be a long uphill battle for you.


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 3rd 04, 04:28 AM
On 2 May 2004 16:51:43 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
>elzinator > wrote
>
>> Also, it takes more than a month to see any real tangible changes in
>> body composition, especially for women. Be patient and give yourself
>> more time.
>
>Thank you, this is valuable information. Yes, I am lifting weights
>3-4X weekly and doing cardio on most days I'm not weight training.
>
>
>> BTW, eating every 2 hours is not necessary. On the other hand, fasting
>> for 6-8 hours during the day is not good either. Moderation is the
>> key.
>
>I space meals from 2.5 hours to 4 hours apart as a rule, averaging at
>3 hours. If my records are correct on my maintenance level with no
>exercise, and I think they are, I have a 100-600 cycling calorie
>deficit plus whatever is burned by 45 minutes to an hour of intense
>exercise. I take one rest day a week and have one higher calorie
>cheat meal every one to two weeks.
>
>Someone else asked if I was on birth control pills. I'm actually on
>Depo Provera. How evil is that stuff for women trying to lose weight
>and gain lean body mass?

There's the culprit. I'm sorry, but to be succinct: you're ****ed. DP
should come off the market. It ****s up women's hormones for a long
time.

Weight loss is going to be a long uphill battle for you.


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 3rd 04, 04:35 AM
On Sun, 2 May 2004 21:25:35 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:

>David's point is correct - it's all about calories in versus calories out -

She's on the Hormones from Hell (Depro Provera), which changes the
'rules.' Seriously, she's going to have a tough time losing weight,
even if she ceases the injections. It can take up to one year for
endogenous hormone levels to readjust to baseline. The simple equation
above is not so simple anymore.

One attack that may work best (and I say this with depredation because
even this has not worked in many women on DP) is to use a lowcarb
diet. You are battling skewed hormones and the only way is to attack
indirectly. A lowcarb diet may (or may not) be more effective. But it
won't hurt to try it.


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 3rd 04, 04:35 AM
On Sun, 2 May 2004 21:25:35 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:

>David's point is correct - it's all about calories in versus calories out -

She's on the Hormones from Hell (Depro Provera), which changes the
'rules.' Seriously, she's going to have a tough time losing weight,
even if she ceases the injections. It can take up to one year for
endogenous hormone levels to readjust to baseline. The simple equation
above is not so simple anymore.

One attack that may work best (and I say this with depredation because
even this has not worked in many women on DP) is to use a lowcarb
diet. You are battling skewed hormones and the only way is to attack
indirectly. A lowcarb diet may (or may not) be more effective. But it
won't hurt to try it.


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 10:40 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote

> You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several times
> already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is not
> rocket science or magic.

You write in few words that convey nothing.

I appreciate the intelligent, helpful advice offered by people who
have an excellent track record of knowing what they're talking about.
Changing how far up I cycle my calories and keeping the cycle focused
longer on the lower end, slowly racheting down calories and/or
increasing energy expenditure, measuring more carefully on a daily
basis instead of every 3-4 days to keep myself on track, not expecting
to see visible changes too soon, checking my hormone profile, etc, all
this stuff was helpful and intelligent.

Losing pounds of weight on the scale is about exercise more, eat less.
Losing body fat while preserving or gaining lean muscle requires a
little more fine tuning. If you are not able to address the
legitimate questions about body recomposition, not just about "losing
weight", leave it to the people who are qualified to do so. Several
of them are already doing an excellent job.

Part of my plan is collecting more data. I'm looking into the least
expensive ways to get a regular and accurate reading of my own bf% so
I can fine tune and tweak my diet with better feedback. Again, I
don't want to "lose weight", I want to drop my bf% and gain lean body
mass. Subtle but important difference here. It's still about diet
and exercise, but it's not about suddenly dropping calories through
the floor with no intelligent lower limit.

My lower limit without negative effect may well be below 1400,
especially if I cycle up and down periodically rather than just eating
1200 or 1000 or 800 calories a day. I've been fairly conservative so
far in setting that lower limit, but this may change.

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 10:40 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote

> You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several times
> already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is not
> rocket science or magic.

You write in few words that convey nothing.

I appreciate the intelligent, helpful advice offered by people who
have an excellent track record of knowing what they're talking about.
Changing how far up I cycle my calories and keeping the cycle focused
longer on the lower end, slowly racheting down calories and/or
increasing energy expenditure, measuring more carefully on a daily
basis instead of every 3-4 days to keep myself on track, not expecting
to see visible changes too soon, checking my hormone profile, etc, all
this stuff was helpful and intelligent.

Losing pounds of weight on the scale is about exercise more, eat less.
Losing body fat while preserving or gaining lean muscle requires a
little more fine tuning. If you are not able to address the
legitimate questions about body recomposition, not just about "losing
weight", leave it to the people who are qualified to do so. Several
of them are already doing an excellent job.

Part of my plan is collecting more data. I'm looking into the least
expensive ways to get a regular and accurate reading of my own bf% so
I can fine tune and tweak my diet with better feedback. Again, I
don't want to "lose weight", I want to drop my bf% and gain lean body
mass. Subtle but important difference here. It's still about diet
and exercise, but it's not about suddenly dropping calories through
the floor with no intelligent lower limit.

My lower limit without negative effect may well be below 1400,
especially if I cycle up and down periodically rather than just eating
1200 or 1000 or 800 calories a day. I've been fairly conservative so
far in setting that lower limit, but this may change.

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 10:53 AM
(Barry Wong) wrote

> If I were you, I'd measure all of your
> food portions for every meal. I know that's tedious, but as you've
> already said, you're diet seems pretty reasonable. So that leads me to
> wonder if the portions aren't right some of the time. Once you're
> measuring everything meticulously, you can begin adjusting your calorie
> goals (a little at a time -- don't cut drastically) as needed.

Good advice, thank you. I'll be going back to the digital scale now.
I'm also looking into getting regular bf% measurements, hopefully as
cheaply as possible and as accurately as possible. That probably
means buying a pair of calipers and learning to use them, unless I can
find somewhere that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to do a dunk tank.
More data is better for successful fine tuning.


> I also note that you've cut down your cardio, and I think I understand
> why, but all I can say is that when I was in weight loss mode, the
> cardio part was pretty important. In my case, that meant wind sprints,
> though I'm sure you could still do some sort of interval training that's
> appropriate to your situation.

I do three types of cardio - interval training on a stationary bike,
brisk walking with or without hand weights, and aerobics usually with
light weights. A few days a week, I do 45-60 minutes of cardio. A
few days a week I do 15-20 minutes of HIIT cardio, sometimes in the
morning when I'll be lifting in the evening. I usually take at least
one rest day a week where I don't do cardio or lifting. I am no
longer doing marathon 2.5 hour cardio/weight sessions; those were
counterproductive.


> Finally, I'm wondering if you're on hormone (e.g. birth control) pills.
> If I understand correctly, that'll make it much harder to get lean. Not
> saying that you have to go off of them, but if it's possible, that might
> help you change your body composition as well.

Depo-Provera.

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 10:53 AM
(Barry Wong) wrote

> If I were you, I'd measure all of your
> food portions for every meal. I know that's tedious, but as you've
> already said, you're diet seems pretty reasonable. So that leads me to
> wonder if the portions aren't right some of the time. Once you're
> measuring everything meticulously, you can begin adjusting your calorie
> goals (a little at a time -- don't cut drastically) as needed.

Good advice, thank you. I'll be going back to the digital scale now.
I'm also looking into getting regular bf% measurements, hopefully as
cheaply as possible and as accurately as possible. That probably
means buying a pair of calipers and learning to use them, unless I can
find somewhere that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to do a dunk tank.
More data is better for successful fine tuning.


> I also note that you've cut down your cardio, and I think I understand
> why, but all I can say is that when I was in weight loss mode, the
> cardio part was pretty important. In my case, that meant wind sprints,
> though I'm sure you could still do some sort of interval training that's
> appropriate to your situation.

I do three types of cardio - interval training on a stationary bike,
brisk walking with or without hand weights, and aerobics usually with
light weights. A few days a week, I do 45-60 minutes of cardio. A
few days a week I do 15-20 minutes of HIIT cardio, sometimes in the
morning when I'll be lifting in the evening. I usually take at least
one rest day a week where I don't do cardio or lifting. I am no
longer doing marathon 2.5 hour cardio/weight sessions; those were
counterproductive.


> Finally, I'm wondering if you're on hormone (e.g. birth control) pills.
> If I understand correctly, that'll make it much harder to get lean. Not
> saying that you have to go off of them, but if it's possible, that might
> help you change your body composition as well.

Depo-Provera.

Hoff
May 3rd 04, 10:56 AM
"Steve Freides" > wrote in message
...
> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
> >
> > I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
> > do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
> > but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> > I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
> > and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
> > sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
> > with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
> > poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
> > out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
> > for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
> > and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
> > the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
> > exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
> >
> > My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
> > maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
> > weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
> > 5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
> > cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
> > 3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
> > steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
> > bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
> > oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
> > Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
> > apple or orange.
> >
> > I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
> > chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
> > steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
> > Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
> > but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
> > do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
> > be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
> > steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
> > dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
> > enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
> > cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
> > indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
> > cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
> > grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
> >
> > I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> > the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> > about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> > weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> > track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> > cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> > lower and higher calorie days.
> >
> > This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
> > that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
> > at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
> > pounds day to day and that's normal.
> >
> > I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
> > but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
> > measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
> > first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
> > down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
> > quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
> > BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
> > out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
> > I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
> > this.
> >
> > Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
> > laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
> > eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
> > the same.
> >
> > I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
> > reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> > MFW peanut gallery?
>
> Your conversation with David and company has been fascinating, but allow
me
> to ask for a little more information.
>
> You say you lift "hard and heavy" - please quantify that for us. I
recently
> started training a guy at the Y and I confess his concept of what's "hard
> and heavy" is quite different from mine. He's an ex-Marine who has, no
> doubt, been through some serious physical training in his day, but he's
been
> using 50 lbs. on the chest press machine and now that I've got him up to
70
> lbs. he's saying it seems heavy to him. I am skinny, small, and a lousy
> presser and I have no problem pushing 150 lbs. on the chest press
machine -
> I picked that number only because it's what I weigh. So, if you'll
forgive
> the above ramble, it would be very helpful if you'd post specific numbers
on
> what sort of weights you're using on what exercises and for what sets/reps
> and on what rest periods between sets and how many days a week, etc. (If
I
> left anything out, please tell us everything that could be relevant here.)
>
> Second, your description of your diet sounds awfully low in fats to me
and,
> by extrapolation, probably too high in carbohydrates and too low in
protein.

Damn -s-, you nailed it.

>> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt.

Sure sounds like high carb, low protein to me.

Hoff

Hoff
May 3rd 04, 10:56 AM
"Steve Freides" > wrote in message
...
> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
> >
> > I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
> > do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
> > but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> > I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
> > and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
> > sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking. I am not messing around
> > with little pink dumbells either. I lift hard and heavy. Well, my
> > poundages are crap compared to what other people are doing, but as an
> > out of shape middle aged woman, what I am lifting is hard and heavy
> > for me. I like to be sweating and shaking at the end of a workout,
> > and really sore the day after. I add more weight and/or more reps to
> > the sets as soon as I can do 5 X 8 without failure. I like compound
> > exercises like squats and bench presses and focus around those mostly.
> >
> > My goal is to lose weight and get healthier. Gaining (or at least
> > maintaining) my lean body mass seems like the way to go, therefore
> > weight lifting. Besides, lifting is cool and I like it. I am eating
> > 5 or 6 small meals a day comprised of 3-4 oz lean protein, 1/2 to 1
> > cup fibrous green vegetables, and for some but not all meals 1/4 to
> > 3/4 cup starchy carbs from sources like boiled barley, brown rice,
> > steel cut oatmeal, plain baked sweet potato, whole grain organic
> > bread, etc. I get a small amount of healthy fat from flax and olive
> > oil and the occasional sprinkle of almond slivers over my broccoli.
> > Maybe twice a week I'll have a small piece of fruit like a slice of
> > apple or orange.
> >
> > I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
> > chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
> > steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
> > Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt. I have occasional cheat meals,
> > but they are few and far between, and well planned out so that I don't
> > do too much caloric damage. Once every 7-14 days, a cheat meal might
> > be a few pieces of pizza with a salad for lunch, or an 8 oz portion of
> > steak with a dinner roll and veggies and a sugar free dessert for
> > dinner. I drink a LOT of ice water and pretty much nothing else. I
> > enjoy an occasional cup of coffee and might have a diet soda with a
> > cheat meal, but mostly I stick to plain water. Other than the rare
> > indulgence in a small (1/2 cup) portion of sugar free dessert with a
> > cheat meal, I don't eat sweets. I do take some dextrose (about 10-20
> > grams) immediately post workout in my protein shake.
> >
> > I journal everything that goes into my mouth without fail, including
> > the cheat meals. I don't measure my food portions daily, since I eat
> > about the same quantities every day, but every 3-4 days I carefully
> > weigh and measure and calculate all my food so that I am staying on
> > track. I am taking in from 1400 to 1900 calories a day, except on
> > cheat days where I get from 2000 to 2400 calories. I try to cycle
> > lower and higher calorie days.
> >
> > This sounds like a reasonable prescription to lose weight. Except
> > that it isn't. I started this diet at 180 lbs 30 days ago, and am now
> > at 183. I might actually be at the same weight. I fluctuate a few
> > pounds day to day and that's normal.
> >
> > I would like to fantasize that this is because I am gaining muscle,
> > but my measurements are not going down. My torso and tummy
> > measurements are all exactly the same from several months ago when I
> > first started lifting but still had a crappy diet. My thighs have gone
> > down less than a quarter of an inch, my arms have gone up less than a
> > quarter of an inch. I don't know how to use calipers to estimate my
> > BF%, though I expect that this would be a logical next step to find
> > out if any recomposition is actually happening. I would think that if
> > I was losing fat and gaining muscle, my measurements should reflect
> > this.
> >
> > Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
> > laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
> > eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
> > the same.
> >
> > I'm not sure what I could be doing differently. I thought I was doing
> > reasonably okay with the diet and workout plan. Any ideas from the
> > MFW peanut gallery?
>
> Your conversation with David and company has been fascinating, but allow
me
> to ask for a little more information.
>
> You say you lift "hard and heavy" - please quantify that for us. I
recently
> started training a guy at the Y and I confess his concept of what's "hard
> and heavy" is quite different from mine. He's an ex-Marine who has, no
> doubt, been through some serious physical training in his day, but he's
been
> using 50 lbs. on the chest press machine and now that I've got him up to
70
> lbs. he's saying it seems heavy to him. I am skinny, small, and a lousy
> presser and I have no problem pushing 150 lbs. on the chest press
machine -
> I picked that number only because it's what I weigh. So, if you'll
forgive
> the above ramble, it would be very helpful if you'd post specific numbers
on
> what sort of weights you're using on what exercises and for what sets/reps
> and on what rest periods between sets and how many days a week, etc. (If
I
> left anything out, please tell us everything that could be relevant here.)
>
> Second, your description of your diet sounds awfully low in fats to me
and,
> by extrapolation, probably too high in carbohydrates and too low in
protein.

Damn -s-, you nailed it.

>> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt.

Sure sounds like high carb, low protein to me.

Hoff

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 11:09 AM
TB > wrote

> Your estimate of your daily calories is 1400 to 1900. Is this because
> it varies or because you guess it's in there somewhere?

It's because I deliberately cycle my calories so I'm not staying too
low all the time or too high all the time. I'll do a few days at
1400, then go up by 100-150 calories at a time every few days until I
hit 1900 for one day, just under or maybe at my maintenance level.
Then I drop back down again and start over.


> If you are guessing you need to tighen up on the calories. You should
> measure more carefully and know within 20-30 ish calories what is
> going in your mouth per day. If you are middle-age and 180 lbs, my
> guess is your maintenance cal is just under 2000 cal/day. So I would
> keep your intake at 1350-1400 cal.

I had lapsed to weighing and measuring every 3-4 days instead of every
day, since I basically eat the same ^%$#@ crap every day out of the
same dishes. I think I'll tighten up on that score and measure daily.
My maintenance seems to be about 2K based on the data I recorded
several months earlier.


> I would forget the fancy stuff on the treadmill and put your heartrate
> in the fat-burn zone (for me 108-112 beats/min) and do 30 minutes, 3
> times/week. Keep workouts to 1 hour, 3 times/week. Forget the
> treadmill warmup and have about 30-40 grams of carbs in your system
> before you workout for energy. (but don't go in on a full tummy) And
> the carbs you take after a workout might not be the best idea unless
> you need the energy for your next activity. (I workout in the evening
> so I use my carbs in the gym then go home near empty).

Good advice, thanks. I'm doing HIIT (high intensity interval
training) on a stationary bike for most of my cardio, plus taking some
brisk walks with hand weights or doing aerobics with hand weights. I
don't have a treadmill.


> I also think you are pushing a bit too hard, what with shaking and all
> after a workout. Why do that? This works without the extremes.
> Sweat, yes. Sore muscles, sure. Shaking, no.

I only shake when I try to stand upright in the shower after squat
day. Legs just don't want to work any more and get all twitchy on me.
Or if I try to lift anything heavier than a cup of ice water after
bench day. The tightness, twitching and shakiness goes away a few
hours after the workout, then the soreness sets in about a day later.

Thanks again for the help!

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 11:09 AM
TB > wrote

> Your estimate of your daily calories is 1400 to 1900. Is this because
> it varies or because you guess it's in there somewhere?

It's because I deliberately cycle my calories so I'm not staying too
low all the time or too high all the time. I'll do a few days at
1400, then go up by 100-150 calories at a time every few days until I
hit 1900 for one day, just under or maybe at my maintenance level.
Then I drop back down again and start over.


> If you are guessing you need to tighen up on the calories. You should
> measure more carefully and know within 20-30 ish calories what is
> going in your mouth per day. If you are middle-age and 180 lbs, my
> guess is your maintenance cal is just under 2000 cal/day. So I would
> keep your intake at 1350-1400 cal.

I had lapsed to weighing and measuring every 3-4 days instead of every
day, since I basically eat the same ^%$#@ crap every day out of the
same dishes. I think I'll tighten up on that score and measure daily.
My maintenance seems to be about 2K based on the data I recorded
several months earlier.


> I would forget the fancy stuff on the treadmill and put your heartrate
> in the fat-burn zone (for me 108-112 beats/min) and do 30 minutes, 3
> times/week. Keep workouts to 1 hour, 3 times/week. Forget the
> treadmill warmup and have about 30-40 grams of carbs in your system
> before you workout for energy. (but don't go in on a full tummy) And
> the carbs you take after a workout might not be the best idea unless
> you need the energy for your next activity. (I workout in the evening
> so I use my carbs in the gym then go home near empty).

Good advice, thanks. I'm doing HIIT (high intensity interval
training) on a stationary bike for most of my cardio, plus taking some
brisk walks with hand weights or doing aerobics with hand weights. I
don't have a treadmill.


> I also think you are pushing a bit too hard, what with shaking and all
> after a workout. Why do that? This works without the extremes.
> Sweat, yes. Sore muscles, sure. Shaking, no.

I only shake when I try to stand upright in the shower after squat
day. Legs just don't want to work any more and get all twitchy on me.
Or if I try to lift anything heavier than a cup of ice water after
bench day. The tightness, twitching and shakiness goes away a few
hours after the workout, then the soreness sets in about a day later.

Thanks again for the help!

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 11:36 AM
"Steve Freides" > wrote

> You say you lift "hard and heavy" - please quantify that for us.

I push myself as hard as I can, going to absolute muscle failure
fairly frequently during a high intensity workout. When I can do 5 X
8 reps twice in a row without failure, I add more weight or more reps.
The pounds I am using are pretty puny compared to what strong young
men can do, but they are always getting heavier and they have improved
a lot on what they were a few months ago. I am committed to
increasing my strength and health by constantly increasing the weight
I lift and challenging myself every time. That is what I mean
personally by hard and heavy. Not that I can bench press 350. LOL


> it would be very helpful if you'd post specific numbers on
> what sort of weights you're using on what exercises and for what sets/reps
> and on what rest periods between sets and how many days a week, etc. (If I
> left anything out, please tell us everything that could be relevant here.)

Bench press - started at 30, is now 80.
Deadlift - Started with an empty bar, is now 80 (usually do only 3
sets)
Squats - Started with body weight, is now 100
Curls - Started with 8lb dumbells, now curl 15 (can curl 20 for 1 or 2
sets but not for 5 sets yet)
Calf raises - alternate double and single legged with 100 lb barbell
One arm dumbell rows - 35 lbs
Upright rowing - 45 lbs
Lying tricep presses - 20 lbs
Leg extensions - 100 lbs (both legs together)
Hamstring curls - 35 lbs
Military presses, front of the neck - 50 lbs
Lateral raises - 10 lbs each arm
Tricep extensions behind the head - 15 lbs each arm

I split upper and lower body days. I include back exercises with
upper body and do ab crunches on cardio days and sometimes with lower
body. I usually do 5 X 8 with 10-20 seconds rest between sets. I
try to focus on the compound exercises first. I try to periodize a
little, doing two high intensity workouts every week (upper and lower
body) and two workouts of lower intensity where I don't always go to
failure. On lower intensity days I might only do 3 X 8 instead of 5
sets.


> Again, detailed information about your eating would be
> helpful here but, to save us all doing a lot of lookups and math, you should
> figure out approximate percentages of fats, protein, and carbs in your diet.

I do try to add some healthy fats from olive oil, flax seed, almonds,
natural peanut butter, etc. My macronutrient ratio currently is
usually 40-50% protein, 25-35% carbs, 20-25% fat. I was on Atkins for
a few months and lost some weight doing that, but I'm not convinced
that it is the best diet for weight training.


> I vote for eating
> fully-fatted cottage cheese, leaving the skin on the chicken breast, and
> putting the dressing back on the salad.

What would you recommend as a macronutrient profile, percentage wise?

Thank you very much for your help. It's appreciated.

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 11:36 AM
"Steve Freides" > wrote

> You say you lift "hard and heavy" - please quantify that for us.

I push myself as hard as I can, going to absolute muscle failure
fairly frequently during a high intensity workout. When I can do 5 X
8 reps twice in a row without failure, I add more weight or more reps.
The pounds I am using are pretty puny compared to what strong young
men can do, but they are always getting heavier and they have improved
a lot on what they were a few months ago. I am committed to
increasing my strength and health by constantly increasing the weight
I lift and challenging myself every time. That is what I mean
personally by hard and heavy. Not that I can bench press 350. LOL


> it would be very helpful if you'd post specific numbers on
> what sort of weights you're using on what exercises and for what sets/reps
> and on what rest periods between sets and how many days a week, etc. (If I
> left anything out, please tell us everything that could be relevant here.)

Bench press - started at 30, is now 80.
Deadlift - Started with an empty bar, is now 80 (usually do only 3
sets)
Squats - Started with body weight, is now 100
Curls - Started with 8lb dumbells, now curl 15 (can curl 20 for 1 or 2
sets but not for 5 sets yet)
Calf raises - alternate double and single legged with 100 lb barbell
One arm dumbell rows - 35 lbs
Upright rowing - 45 lbs
Lying tricep presses - 20 lbs
Leg extensions - 100 lbs (both legs together)
Hamstring curls - 35 lbs
Military presses, front of the neck - 50 lbs
Lateral raises - 10 lbs each arm
Tricep extensions behind the head - 15 lbs each arm

I split upper and lower body days. I include back exercises with
upper body and do ab crunches on cardio days and sometimes with lower
body. I usually do 5 X 8 with 10-20 seconds rest between sets. I
try to focus on the compound exercises first. I try to periodize a
little, doing two high intensity workouts every week (upper and lower
body) and two workouts of lower intensity where I don't always go to
failure. On lower intensity days I might only do 3 X 8 instead of 5
sets.


> Again, detailed information about your eating would be
> helpful here but, to save us all doing a lot of lookups and math, you should
> figure out approximate percentages of fats, protein, and carbs in your diet.

I do try to add some healthy fats from olive oil, flax seed, almonds,
natural peanut butter, etc. My macronutrient ratio currently is
usually 40-50% protein, 25-35% carbs, 20-25% fat. I was on Atkins for
a few months and lost some weight doing that, but I'm not convinced
that it is the best diet for weight training.


> I vote for eating
> fully-fatted cottage cheese, leaving the skin on the chicken breast, and
> putting the dressing back on the salad.

What would you recommend as a macronutrient profile, percentage wise?

Thank you very much for your help. It's appreciated.

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 11:49 AM
elzinator > wrote

> There's the culprit. I'm sorry, but to be succinct: you're ****ed. DP
> should come off the market. It ****s up women's hormones for a long
> time.

Thanks for the information, as painful as it is. Is there any way I
can get un-****ed? Would medical supplementation with other hormones
be of any help?

Would you be willing to explain a little more about exactly how I'm
****ed and what impact Depo will have on my trying to gain lean body
mass as well as losing body fat? Or point me to some research I can
read on the subject? I've tried looking up progestin but I have not
been able to find any helpful information that specifically addresses
the effect of Depo Provera on attempts at body recomposition. I have
read the Contrarian Endocrinology articles by Ullis and Shackman and
was quite intrigued.

I discussed my concerns with my doctor when I first started on Depo
about a year ago. He said something like, "Oh, some women gain five
pounds or so, but it's just temporary. Diet and it will go away.
Depo is harmless."

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 11:49 AM
elzinator > wrote

> There's the culprit. I'm sorry, but to be succinct: you're ****ed. DP
> should come off the market. It ****s up women's hormones for a long
> time.

Thanks for the information, as painful as it is. Is there any way I
can get un-****ed? Would medical supplementation with other hormones
be of any help?

Would you be willing to explain a little more about exactly how I'm
****ed and what impact Depo will have on my trying to gain lean body
mass as well as losing body fat? Or point me to some research I can
read on the subject? I've tried looking up progestin but I have not
been able to find any helpful information that specifically addresses
the effect of Depo Provera on attempts at body recomposition. I have
read the Contrarian Endocrinology articles by Ullis and Shackman and
was quite intrigued.

I discussed my concerns with my doctor when I first started on Depo
about a year ago. He said something like, "Oh, some women gain five
pounds or so, but it's just temporary. Diet and it will go away.
Depo is harmless."

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 12:08 PM
elzinator > wrote

> One attack that may work best (and I say this with depredation because
> even this has not worked in many women on DP) is to use a lowcarb
> diet. You are battling skewed hormones and the only way is to attack
> indirectly. A lowcarb diet may (or may not) be more effective. But it
> won't hurt to try it.

I did successfully lose weight on Atkins, but I'm not convinced that
it is a long term healthy diet. What macronutrient ratios would you
recommend for a healthy low carb diet that supports regular weight
lifting?

I am curious about the exact mechanisms by which skewed hormones foul
up weight loss. What key words would you recommend searching and in
which medical databases? I haven't had too much luck so far trying to
research it on my own.

Thanks again for all your help and advice,

Love2Lift

Love2Lift
May 3rd 04, 12:08 PM
elzinator > wrote

> One attack that may work best (and I say this with depredation because
> even this has not worked in many women on DP) is to use a lowcarb
> diet. You are battling skewed hormones and the only way is to attack
> indirectly. A lowcarb diet may (or may not) be more effective. But it
> won't hurt to try it.

I did successfully lose weight on Atkins, but I'm not convinced that
it is a long term healthy diet. What macronutrient ratios would you
recommend for a healthy low carb diet that supports regular weight
lifting?

I am curious about the exact mechanisms by which skewed hormones foul
up weight loss. What key words would you recommend searching and in
which medical databases? I haven't had too much luck so far trying to
research it on my own.

Thanks again for all your help and advice,

Love2Lift

JC Der Koenig
May 3rd 04, 12:12 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
m...
> "JC Der Koenig" > wrote
>
> > You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several times
> > already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is not
> > rocket science or magic.
>
> You write in few words that convey nothing.
>

Since you're going to stay fat, perhaps you can spend some time learning
English. At least you'll have accomplished something.

JC Der Koenig
May 3rd 04, 12:12 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
m...
> "JC Der Koenig" > wrote
>
> > You write many words that convey nothing. You've been told several times
> > already to drop your calories until you start losing weight. This is not
> > rocket science or magic.
>
> You write in few words that convey nothing.
>

Since you're going to stay fat, perhaps you can spend some time learning
English. At least you'll have accomplished something.

gman99
May 3rd 04, 12:40 PM
Have you added up the calories in and calories out ??

gman99
May 3rd 04, 12:40 PM
Have you added up the calories in and calories out ??

Helgi Briem
May 3rd 04, 01:32 PM
On Mon, 3 May 2004 05:56:26 -0400, "Hoff" >
wrote:

>>> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>>> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>>> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>>> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt.
>
>Sure sounds like high carb, low protein to me.

On which planet do you live, Hoff?

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Helgi Briem
May 3rd 04, 01:32 PM
On Mon, 3 May 2004 05:56:26 -0400, "Hoff" >
wrote:

>>> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>>> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>>> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>>> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt.
>
>Sure sounds like high carb, low protein to me.

On which planet do you live, Hoff?

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Lee Michaels
May 3rd 04, 01:43 PM
"Helgi Briem" > wrote

> On Mon, 3 May 2004 05:56:26 -0400, "Hoff" >
> wrote:
>
> >>> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
> >>> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
> >>> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
> >>> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt.
> >
> >Sure sounds like high carb, low protein to me.
>
> On which planet do you live, Hoff?
>
That would be the SARCASM planet Helgi.

Lee Michaels
May 3rd 04, 01:43 PM
"Helgi Briem" > wrote

> On Mon, 3 May 2004 05:56:26 -0400, "Hoff" >
> wrote:
>
> >>> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
> >>> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
> >>> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
> >>> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt.
> >
> >Sure sounds like high carb, low protein to me.
>
> On which planet do you live, Hoff?
>
That would be the SARCASM planet Helgi.

Helgi Briem
May 3rd 04, 01:55 PM
On Mon, 03 May 2004 12:43:46 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"Helgi Briem" > wrote
>
>> On Mon, 3 May 2004 05:56:26 -0400, "Hoff" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>> >>> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>> >>> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>> >>> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt.
>> >
>> >Sure sounds like high carb, low protein to me.
>>
>> On which planet do you live, Hoff?
>>
>That would be the SARCASM planet Helgi.

Doh!

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Helgi Briem
May 3rd 04, 01:55 PM
On Mon, 03 May 2004 12:43:46 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"Helgi Briem" > wrote
>
>> On Mon, 3 May 2004 05:56:26 -0400, "Hoff" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I eat a lot of nonfat cottage cheese, water pack tuna, skinless
>> >>> chicken and turkey breast, salad type vegetables (no dressing),
>> >>> steamed or baked fish, cruciferous vegetables, egg whites or Egg
>> >>> Beaters, oatmeal and nonfat yogurt.
>> >
>> >Sure sounds like high carb, low protein to me.
>>
>> On which planet do you live, Hoff?
>>
>That would be the SARCASM planet Helgi.

Doh!

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Peter Webb
May 3rd 04, 01:59 PM
Reading this thread, some people flaming you, you getting defensive, all
very frustrating.

1. You weigh 183 pounds.
2. You complain that you have been on a diet for 30 days and it hasn't
worked.
3. You also say that you force yourself to eat (eg protein shakes) when you
are not hungry.

All of this stuff you go on about ... theoretical macronutrient ratios,
effect of birth control pills, bf%, is pure FFID (Fat **** In Denial)
material. FFS, you weigh 183 pounds and you are a chick. Potential loss of
muscle is the least of your worries.

Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have plenty
of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back later; or
don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look than
fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
contraceptives would suggest).

Eat way less than maintenance for a long enough time to see weight loss, and
use this as your baseline. Go hungry. Don't eat (or drink protein shakes)
unless you are hungry. Go back on Atkins if it makes it easier. See how
little you have to eat to lose 1 - 2 pounds a week, and try and eat only
that. Forget about calculating what your theoretical maintenence level is,
the calories per serving of skinless chicken, or the impact of different
birth control pills. This is all theoretical stuff. If you say the theory
isn't working for you, well, don't use the theory. Just eat less.



"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> elzinator > wrote
>
> > One attack that may work best (and I say this with depredation because
> > even this has not worked in many women on DP) is to use a lowcarb
> > diet. You are battling skewed hormones and the only way is to attack
> > indirectly. A lowcarb diet may (or may not) be more effective. But it
> > won't hurt to try it.
>
> I did successfully lose weight on Atkins, but I'm not convinced that
> it is a long term healthy diet. What macronutrient ratios would you
> recommend for a healthy low carb diet that supports regular weight
> lifting?
>
> I am curious about the exact mechanisms by which skewed hormones foul
> up weight loss. What key words would you recommend searching and in
> which medical databases? I haven't had too much luck so far trying to
> research it on my own.
>
> Thanks again for all your help and advice,
>
> Love2Lift

Peter Webb
May 3rd 04, 01:59 PM
Reading this thread, some people flaming you, you getting defensive, all
very frustrating.

1. You weigh 183 pounds.
2. You complain that you have been on a diet for 30 days and it hasn't
worked.
3. You also say that you force yourself to eat (eg protein shakes) when you
are not hungry.

All of this stuff you go on about ... theoretical macronutrient ratios,
effect of birth control pills, bf%, is pure FFID (Fat **** In Denial)
material. FFS, you weigh 183 pounds and you are a chick. Potential loss of
muscle is the least of your worries.

Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have plenty
of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back later; or
don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look than
fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
contraceptives would suggest).

Eat way less than maintenance for a long enough time to see weight loss, and
use this as your baseline. Go hungry. Don't eat (or drink protein shakes)
unless you are hungry. Go back on Atkins if it makes it easier. See how
little you have to eat to lose 1 - 2 pounds a week, and try and eat only
that. Forget about calculating what your theoretical maintenence level is,
the calories per serving of skinless chicken, or the impact of different
birth control pills. This is all theoretical stuff. If you say the theory
isn't working for you, well, don't use the theory. Just eat less.



"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> elzinator > wrote
>
> > One attack that may work best (and I say this with depredation because
> > even this has not worked in many women on DP) is to use a lowcarb
> > diet. You are battling skewed hormones and the only way is to attack
> > indirectly. A lowcarb diet may (or may not) be more effective. But it
> > won't hurt to try it.
>
> I did successfully lose weight on Atkins, but I'm not convinced that
> it is a long term healthy diet. What macronutrient ratios would you
> recommend for a healthy low carb diet that supports regular weight
> lifting?
>
> I am curious about the exact mechanisms by which skewed hormones foul
> up weight loss. What key words would you recommend searching and in
> which medical databases? I haven't had too much luck so far trying to
> research it on my own.
>
> Thanks again for all your help and advice,
>
> Love2Lift

Steve Freides
May 3rd 04, 02:46 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steve Freides" > wrote
>
> > You say you lift "hard and heavy" - please quantify that for us.
>
> I push myself as hard as I can, going to absolute muscle failure
> fairly frequently during a high intensity workout. When I can do 5 X
> 8 reps twice in a row without failure, I add more weight or more reps.
> The pounds I am using are pretty puny compared to what strong young
> men can do, but they are always getting heavier and they have improved
> a lot on what they were a few months ago. I am committed to
> increasing my strength and health by constantly increasing the weight
> I lift and challenging myself every time. That is what I mean
> personally by hard and heavy. Not that I can bench press 350. LOL
>
>
> > it would be very helpful if you'd post specific numbers on
> > what sort of weights you're using on what exercises and for what
sets/reps
> > and on what rest periods between sets and how many days a week, etc.
(If I
> > left anything out, please tell us everything that could be relevant
here.)
>
> Bench press - started at 30, is now 80.
> Deadlift - Started with an empty bar, is now 80 (usually do only 3
> sets)
> Squats - Started with body weight, is now 100
> Curls - Started with 8lb dumbells, now curl 15 (can curl 20 for 1 or 2
> sets but not for 5 sets yet)
> Calf raises - alternate double and single legged with 100 lb barbell
> One arm dumbell rows - 35 lbs
> Upright rowing - 45 lbs
> Lying tricep presses - 20 lbs
> Leg extensions - 100 lbs (both legs together)
> Hamstring curls - 35 lbs
> Military presses, front of the neck - 50 lbs
> Lateral raises - 10 lbs each arm
> Tricep extensions behind the head - 15 lbs each arm
>
> I split upper and lower body days. I include back exercises with
> upper body and do ab crunches on cardio days and sometimes with lower
> body. I usually do 5 X 8 with 10-20 seconds rest between sets. I
> try to focus on the compound exercises first. I try to periodize a
> little, doing two high intensity workouts every week (upper and lower
> body) and two workouts of lower intensity where I don't always go to
> failure. On lower intensity days I might only do 3 X 8 instead of 5
> sets.

Thanks. A few comments - you mention going to failure; that's a strategy
which most around here will agree is not as effective as the alternatives.
You might want to do a little reading, or even start a new thread, that
includes the detailed lifting information and also talks more about going to
failure and when you do and don't do this in the course of a week.

There are all sorts of ways to train; for me, training for strength has
given me the results I want, and training for strength without muscle size
gain for me means short sets of heavy weights done on long rests and
performed frequently throughout the week. We could go into this in some
detail but suffice it to say that you should read up on training strategies.

> > Again, detailed information about your eating would be
> > helpful here but, to save us all doing a lot of lookups and math, you
should
> > figure out approximate percentages of fats, protein, and carbs in your
diet.
>
> I do try to add some healthy fats from olive oil, flax seed, almonds,
> natural peanut butter, etc. My macronutrient ratio currently is
> usually 40-50% protein, 25-35% carbs, 20-25% fat. I was on Atkins for
> a few months and lost some weight doing that, but I'm not convinced
> that it is the best diet for weight training.
>
>
> > I vote for eating
> > fully-fatted cottage cheese, leaving the skin on the chicken breast, and
> > putting the dressing back on the salad.
>
> What would you recommend as a macronutrient profile, percentage wise?

Elzi's comment raises concerns Have you asked your doctor about switching
to something else? Many women, including my wife, have used birth control
pills and lost weight. I think that ought to be your main focus for the
time being.

I wouldn't want to suggest a specific set of percentages to you. I think
eating enough fat and protein leaves one satisfied and helps in reducing
overall calorie intake. The less processed the food, the better, and if
you're eating plenty of meat, fish, eggs, etc., and fruits and vegetables,
you should be fine. I follow an approach to eating called the Warrior
Diet - here's a link if you want to read more. http://www.kbnj.com/wd.htm -
if you care, my wife does this, too.

> Thank you very much for your help. It's appreciated.

Good luck.

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

Steve Freides
May 3rd 04, 02:46 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steve Freides" > wrote
>
> > You say you lift "hard and heavy" - please quantify that for us.
>
> I push myself as hard as I can, going to absolute muscle failure
> fairly frequently during a high intensity workout. When I can do 5 X
> 8 reps twice in a row without failure, I add more weight or more reps.
> The pounds I am using are pretty puny compared to what strong young
> men can do, but they are always getting heavier and they have improved
> a lot on what they were a few months ago. I am committed to
> increasing my strength and health by constantly increasing the weight
> I lift and challenging myself every time. That is what I mean
> personally by hard and heavy. Not that I can bench press 350. LOL
>
>
> > it would be very helpful if you'd post specific numbers on
> > what sort of weights you're using on what exercises and for what
sets/reps
> > and on what rest periods between sets and how many days a week, etc.
(If I
> > left anything out, please tell us everything that could be relevant
here.)
>
> Bench press - started at 30, is now 80.
> Deadlift - Started with an empty bar, is now 80 (usually do only 3
> sets)
> Squats - Started with body weight, is now 100
> Curls - Started with 8lb dumbells, now curl 15 (can curl 20 for 1 or 2
> sets but not for 5 sets yet)
> Calf raises - alternate double and single legged with 100 lb barbell
> One arm dumbell rows - 35 lbs
> Upright rowing - 45 lbs
> Lying tricep presses - 20 lbs
> Leg extensions - 100 lbs (both legs together)
> Hamstring curls - 35 lbs
> Military presses, front of the neck - 50 lbs
> Lateral raises - 10 lbs each arm
> Tricep extensions behind the head - 15 lbs each arm
>
> I split upper and lower body days. I include back exercises with
> upper body and do ab crunches on cardio days and sometimes with lower
> body. I usually do 5 X 8 with 10-20 seconds rest between sets. I
> try to focus on the compound exercises first. I try to periodize a
> little, doing two high intensity workouts every week (upper and lower
> body) and two workouts of lower intensity where I don't always go to
> failure. On lower intensity days I might only do 3 X 8 instead of 5
> sets.

Thanks. A few comments - you mention going to failure; that's a strategy
which most around here will agree is not as effective as the alternatives.
You might want to do a little reading, or even start a new thread, that
includes the detailed lifting information and also talks more about going to
failure and when you do and don't do this in the course of a week.

There are all sorts of ways to train; for me, training for strength has
given me the results I want, and training for strength without muscle size
gain for me means short sets of heavy weights done on long rests and
performed frequently throughout the week. We could go into this in some
detail but suffice it to say that you should read up on training strategies.

> > Again, detailed information about your eating would be
> > helpful here but, to save us all doing a lot of lookups and math, you
should
> > figure out approximate percentages of fats, protein, and carbs in your
diet.
>
> I do try to add some healthy fats from olive oil, flax seed, almonds,
> natural peanut butter, etc. My macronutrient ratio currently is
> usually 40-50% protein, 25-35% carbs, 20-25% fat. I was on Atkins for
> a few months and lost some weight doing that, but I'm not convinced
> that it is the best diet for weight training.
>
>
> > I vote for eating
> > fully-fatted cottage cheese, leaving the skin on the chicken breast, and
> > putting the dressing back on the salad.
>
> What would you recommend as a macronutrient profile, percentage wise?

Elzi's comment raises concerns Have you asked your doctor about switching
to something else? Many women, including my wife, have used birth control
pills and lost weight. I think that ought to be your main focus for the
time being.

I wouldn't want to suggest a specific set of percentages to you. I think
eating enough fat and protein leaves one satisfied and helps in reducing
overall calorie intake. The less processed the food, the better, and if
you're eating plenty of meat, fish, eggs, etc., and fruits and vegetables,
you should be fine. I follow an approach to eating called the Warrior
Diet - here's a link if you want to read more. http://www.kbnj.com/wd.htm -
if you care, my wife does this, too.

> Thank you very much for your help. It's appreciated.

Good luck.

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

ray miller
May 3rd 04, 03:32 PM
>Part of my plan is collecting more data. I'm looking into the least
>expensive ways to get a regular and accurate reading of my own bf% so
>I can fine tune and tweak my diet with better feedback.

You may be being to anal about it. Buy an omron/tanita device. Measure
yourself every night and average over the week. Then track the weekly
figure over time. That will be consistent enough to tell you if what
you are doing is working or not.

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/196/182

ray miller
May 3rd 04, 03:32 PM
>Part of my plan is collecting more data. I'm looking into the least
>expensive ways to get a regular and accurate reading of my own bf% so
>I can fine tune and tweak my diet with better feedback.

You may be being to anal about it. Buy an omron/tanita device. Measure
yourself every night and average over the week. Then track the weekly
figure over time. That will be consistent enough to tell you if what
you are doing is working or not.

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/196/182

Barry Wong
May 3rd 04, 04:16 PM
Love2Lift > wrote:

> (Barry Wong) wrote
>
> > If I were you, I'd measure all of your
> > food portions for every meal. I know that's tedious, but as you've
> > already said, you're diet seems pretty reasonable. So that leads me to
> > wonder if the portions aren't right some of the time. Once you're
> > measuring everything meticulously, you can begin adjusting your calorie
> > goals (a little at a time -- don't cut drastically) as needed.
>
> Good advice, thank you. I'll be going back to the digital scale now.
> I'm also looking into getting regular bf% measurements, hopefully as
> cheaply as possible and as accurately as possible. That probably
> means buying a pair of calipers and learning to use them, unless I can
> find somewhere that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to do a dunk tank.
> More data is better for successful fine tuning.

Yes, it is, but I wouldn't be too precise about your body measurements.
All you need is relative measures; IOW, if you can learn to do the
caliper thing consistently, then all that matters is that the skinfold
measurement is getting smaller. I wouldn't bother with a digital scale.
I don't know that they're any more accurate than the old-fashion kind.

> > I also note that you've cut down your cardio, and I think I understand
> > why, but all I can say is that when I was in weight loss mode, the
> > cardio part was pretty important. In my case, that meant wind sprints,
> > though I'm sure you could still do some sort of interval training that's
> > appropriate to your situation.
>
> I do three types of cardio - interval training on a stationary bike,
> brisk walking with or without hand weights, and aerobics usually with
> light weights. A few days a week, I do 45-60 minutes of cardio. A
> few days a week I do 15-20 minutes of HIIT cardio, sometimes in the
> morning when I'll be lifting in the evening. I usually take at least
> one rest day a week where I don't do cardio or lifting. I am no
> longer doing marathon 2.5 hour cardio/weight sessions; those were
> counterproductive.

Seems like plenty of cardio. Again, makes me wonder about those food
portion measurements. I _would_ be very precise about those.

> > Finally, I'm wondering if you're on hormone (e.g. birth control) pills.
> > If I understand correctly, that'll make it much harder to get lean. Not
> > saying that you have to go off of them, but if it's possible, that might
> > help you change your body composition as well.
>
> Depo-Provera.

I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in general, I've
heard the pill will increase a woman's bodyfat percentage by something
like 5%. Can anyone give more accurate/substantiated information?

Barry Wong
May 3rd 04, 04:16 PM
Love2Lift > wrote:

> (Barry Wong) wrote
>
> > If I were you, I'd measure all of your
> > food portions for every meal. I know that's tedious, but as you've
> > already said, you're diet seems pretty reasonable. So that leads me to
> > wonder if the portions aren't right some of the time. Once you're
> > measuring everything meticulously, you can begin adjusting your calorie
> > goals (a little at a time -- don't cut drastically) as needed.
>
> Good advice, thank you. I'll be going back to the digital scale now.
> I'm also looking into getting regular bf% measurements, hopefully as
> cheaply as possible and as accurately as possible. That probably
> means buying a pair of calipers and learning to use them, unless I can
> find somewhere that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to do a dunk tank.
> More data is better for successful fine tuning.

Yes, it is, but I wouldn't be too precise about your body measurements.
All you need is relative measures; IOW, if you can learn to do the
caliper thing consistently, then all that matters is that the skinfold
measurement is getting smaller. I wouldn't bother with a digital scale.
I don't know that they're any more accurate than the old-fashion kind.

> > I also note that you've cut down your cardio, and I think I understand
> > why, but all I can say is that when I was in weight loss mode, the
> > cardio part was pretty important. In my case, that meant wind sprints,
> > though I'm sure you could still do some sort of interval training that's
> > appropriate to your situation.
>
> I do three types of cardio - interval training on a stationary bike,
> brisk walking with or without hand weights, and aerobics usually with
> light weights. A few days a week, I do 45-60 minutes of cardio. A
> few days a week I do 15-20 minutes of HIIT cardio, sometimes in the
> morning when I'll be lifting in the evening. I usually take at least
> one rest day a week where I don't do cardio or lifting. I am no
> longer doing marathon 2.5 hour cardio/weight sessions; those were
> counterproductive.

Seems like plenty of cardio. Again, makes me wonder about those food
portion measurements. I _would_ be very precise about those.

> > Finally, I'm wondering if you're on hormone (e.g. birth control) pills.
> > If I understand correctly, that'll make it much harder to get lean. Not
> > saying that you have to go off of them, but if it's possible, that might
> > help you change your body composition as well.
>
> Depo-Provera.

I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in general, I've
heard the pill will increase a woman's bodyfat percentage by something
like 5%. Can anyone give more accurate/substantiated information?

DRS
May 3rd 04, 04:37 PM
"Ellen Young" > wrote in message


[...]

> You know, on reading this, I want to restate it. I don't find it hard
> plugging away, not at all. I not only like the weight workouts, I've
> come to really like the cardio workouts too. What's more, I even like
> eating less. Weird but true.
>
> What I don't like is slow results. But even there, I'm kind of
> enjoying being patient. What is happening to me? Is this the wisdom
> of old age I've heard so much about? :-)

Could be. It sounds like you're becoming more process-oriented than
goal-oriented, which generally is good. If you get the process right the
good results will happen anyway but you're not going to stress out over not
reaching some arbitrary number you once decided was worth obtaining.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS
May 3rd 04, 04:37 PM
"Ellen Young" > wrote in message


[...]

> You know, on reading this, I want to restate it. I don't find it hard
> plugging away, not at all. I not only like the weight workouts, I've
> come to really like the cardio workouts too. What's more, I even like
> eating less. Weird but true.
>
> What I don't like is slow results. But even there, I'm kind of
> enjoying being patient. What is happening to me? Is this the wisdom
> of old age I've heard so much about? :-)

Could be. It sounds like you're becoming more process-oriented than
goal-oriented, which generally is good. If you get the process right the
good results will happen anyway but you're not going to stress out over not
reaching some arbitrary number you once decided was worth obtaining.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

bc
May 3rd 04, 05:54 PM
TB > wrote in message >...
> On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:
>
> >Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
> >
> >I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
> >do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
> >but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> > I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
> >and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
> >sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking.

> As for the exercise plan...
> I would forget the fancy stuff on the treadmill and put your heartrate
> in the fat-burn zone (for me 108-112 beats/min) and do 30 minutes, 3
> times/week. Keep workouts to 1 hour, 3 times/week.

Why do you think the ill-named "fat-burn zone" is where she should do cardio?

- bc (And don't say, "because that's how you burn more fat" either.)

bc
May 3rd 04, 05:54 PM
TB > wrote in message >...
> On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:
>
> >Well, not really. It just seems that way because I'm that frustrated.
> >
> >I lift for 45 to 60 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. I used to lift and
> >do HIIT cardio for more like 90 to 120 minutes at a time 3 X a week,
> >but I figured out early on that this was stupid and counterproductive.
> > I still do some cardio, 5 to 15 minutes to warm up before lifting,
> >and 2-4 weekly sessions of either 15-20 minute variable intensity
> >sessions or an hour's worth of brisk walking.

> As for the exercise plan...
> I would forget the fancy stuff on the treadmill and put your heartrate
> in the fat-burn zone (for me 108-112 beats/min) and do 30 minutes, 3
> times/week. Keep workouts to 1 hour, 3 times/week.

Why do you think the ill-named "fat-burn zone" is where she should do cardio?

- bc (And don't say, "because that's how you burn more fat" either.)

DRS
May 3rd 04, 06:49 PM
"Valkyrie" > wrote in message

> "Peter Webb" > wrote in message
> u...
>> Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
>> seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you
>> have plenty of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to
>> get it back later; or don't bother, because slim and slightly
>> muscled is a way better look than fat and muscular (assuming you are
>> not a butch dyke, as your use of oral contraceptives would suggest).
>
> Using oral contraceptives suggests that one is a butch dyke?

No, that's femme dykes. Butch dykes use intravenous contraceptives.

Sheesh.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS
May 3rd 04, 06:49 PM
"Valkyrie" > wrote in message

> "Peter Webb" > wrote in message
> u...
>> Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
>> seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you
>> have plenty of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to
>> get it back later; or don't bother, because slim and slightly
>> muscled is a way better look than fat and muscular (assuming you are
>> not a butch dyke, as your use of oral contraceptives would suggest).
>
> Using oral contraceptives suggests that one is a butch dyke?

No, that's femme dykes. Butch dykes use intravenous contraceptives.

Sheesh.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Lyle McDonald
May 3rd 04, 06:51 PM
Kathy wrote:

> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>as an
>>out of shape middle aged woman....
>
>
> I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
> 40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all by
> itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
> nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
> around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm full
> of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm still
> convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in the
> long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
> count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've given
> up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."
>

I have noticed this occur over many years (yes, Roger, empirical
evidence), there is often a 'lag time', moreso in women's bodies than
men where you see nothing for some time span and then a drop in fat loss
that is seemingly impossible.

So at hte 4 week mark of proper eating/training, nothing.
By 8 weeks, more has happend than shoudl be realistic.

I've kicked around a lot of ideas as to why this may occur, nothing is
super concrete and I have nothing but a lot of speculation to back it
up. But something is going on.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 3rd 04, 06:51 PM
Kathy wrote:

> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>as an
>>out of shape middle aged woman....
>
>
> I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
> 40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all by
> itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
> nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
> around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm full
> of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm still
> convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in the
> long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
> count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've given
> up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."
>

I have noticed this occur over many years (yes, Roger, empirical
evidence), there is often a 'lag time', moreso in women's bodies than
men where you see nothing for some time span and then a drop in fat loss
that is seemingly impossible.

So at hte 4 week mark of proper eating/training, nothing.
By 8 weeks, more has happend than shoudl be realistic.

I've kicked around a lot of ideas as to why this may occur, nothing is
super concrete and I have nothing but a lot of speculation to back it
up. But something is going on.

Lyle

Lee Michaels
May 3rd 04, 07:02 PM
"Lyle McDonald" wrote

> Kathy wrote:
>
> > "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>as an
> >>out of shape middle aged woman....
> >
> >
> > I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
> > 40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all
by
> > itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
> > nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
> > around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm
full
> > of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm
still
> > convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in
the
> > long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
> > count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've
given
> > up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."
> >
>
> I have noticed this occur over many years (yes, Roger, empirical
> evidence), there is often a 'lag time', moreso in women's bodies than
> men where you see nothing for some time span and then a drop in fat loss
> that is seemingly impossible.
>
> So at hte 4 week mark of proper eating/training, nothing.
> By 8 weeks, more has happend than shoudl be realistic.
>
> I've kicked around a lot of ideas as to why this may occur, nothing is
> super concrete and I have nothing but a lot of speculation to back it
> up. But something is going on.
>

Which is why the conventional diet advice based on a linear universe is so
flawed and non realistic.

I can't tell you the number of folks I have helped over the years by simply
have them adopt a periodic refeed day. For a long time, there was no
apparent logic for it. Now we know more about leptin, etc. I always told
folks that it was a way to **** with the fat gods. That seemed like as
plausibe explanation as any that I have heard over the years.

Lee Michaels
May 3rd 04, 07:02 PM
"Lyle McDonald" wrote

> Kathy wrote:
>
> > "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>as an
> >>out of shape middle aged woman....
> >
> >
> > I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
> > 40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all
by
> > itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
> > nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
> > around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm
full
> > of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm
still
> > convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in
the
> > long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
> > count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've
given
> > up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."
> >
>
> I have noticed this occur over many years (yes, Roger, empirical
> evidence), there is often a 'lag time', moreso in women's bodies than
> men where you see nothing for some time span and then a drop in fat loss
> that is seemingly impossible.
>
> So at hte 4 week mark of proper eating/training, nothing.
> By 8 weeks, more has happend than shoudl be realistic.
>
> I've kicked around a lot of ideas as to why this may occur, nothing is
> super concrete and I have nothing but a lot of speculation to back it
> up. But something is going on.
>

Which is why the conventional diet advice based on a linear universe is so
flawed and non realistic.

I can't tell you the number of folks I have helped over the years by simply
have them adopt a periodic refeed day. For a long time, there was no
apparent logic for it. Now we know more about leptin, etc. I always told
folks that it was a way to **** with the fat gods. That seemed like as
plausibe explanation as any that I have heard over the years.

Kathy
May 3rd 04, 07:09 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> as an
> out of shape middle aged woman....

I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all by
itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm full
of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm still
convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in the
long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've given
up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."

Kathy

Kathy
May 3rd 04, 07:09 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> as an
> out of shape middle aged woman....

I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all by
itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm full
of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm still
convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in the
long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've given
up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."

Kathy

Lyle McDonald
May 3rd 04, 07:12 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Lyle McDonald" wrote
>
>
>>Kathy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>
>>>>as an
>>>>out of shape middle aged woman....
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
>>>40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all
>
> by
>
>>>itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
>>>nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
>>>around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm
>
> full
>
>>>of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm
>
> still
>
>>>convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in
>
> the
>
>>>long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
>>>count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've
>
> given
>
>>>up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."
>>>
>>
>>I have noticed this occur over many years (yes, Roger, empirical
>>evidence), there is often a 'lag time', moreso in women's bodies than
>>men where you see nothing for some time span and then a drop in fat loss
>>that is seemingly impossible.
>>
>>So at hte 4 week mark of proper eating/training, nothing.
>>By 8 weeks, more has happend than shoudl be realistic.
>>
>>I've kicked around a lot of ideas as to why this may occur, nothing is
>>super concrete and I have nothing but a lot of speculation to back it
>>up. But something is going on.
>>
>
>
> Which is why the conventional diet advice based on a linear universe is so
> flawed and non realistic.

Sadly. At the same time, at the end of a diet (i.e. contest
bodybuilders), it's not uncommon to see linear, almsot daily, changes in
body comp which are visible and measurable.

This makes me think that at least part of the problem with fatter
individuals is simply that any change is such a tiny percentage of the
total as to be immeasuarable,invisible. Couple that with changes in
water balance and small changes in bodyfat (a few pounds) can easily be
overwhelmed.

That is to say this:
Say someone has 50 lbs of bodyfat, a 1-2 lb loss is noise, 2-4% of the
total. You can't measure it, you can't see it (especially if it comes
off of the body relatively evenly) and water balance issues (something
else I suspect goes goofy on a diet) will easily cover it up.

Take someone with only 5-10 lbs of bodyfat and a 1-2 lb drop (which may
all be coming from one area) may be 10-20% of the total or higher and
will be significant.

The water balance issue: I think this is a big factor. Years ago my ex.
phys prof told us taht fat cells would refill with water after they were
emptied of triglycerides. It makes sense intuitively, glycerol is
hydrophilic and the rapid drop in water (what the ASDLC ****s call
'whooshes' support something being dumped rapidly) that happens every so
often seems to support that indirectly. I have looked for data in
support of that for over 10 years and the first study to examine it (to
my knowledge) just came up and sort of supports that.

couple that with all kinds of changes in hormones on a diet and I
suspect water balance goes all goofy. Considering every else funky
about women's bodies and I'd expect the problems to be worse (hell, a 5
lb menstrual cycle water weight gain will completely overshadow even a
reasonable monthly fat loss).

>
> I can't tell you the number of folks I have helped over the years by simply
> have them adopt a periodic refeed day. For a long time, there was no
> apparent logic for it. Now we know more about leptin, etc. I always told
> folks that it was a way to **** with the fat gods. That seemed like as
> plausibe explanation as any that I have heard over the years.

My 8th grade bio teacher would often answer 'voodoo, bub' in response to
questions he didn't know the answer to. Better yet, that was acceptable
on a test.

I have no problem with that.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 3rd 04, 07:12 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Lyle McDonald" wrote
>
>
>>Kathy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>
>>>>as an
>>>>out of shape middle aged woman....
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
>>>40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all
>
> by
>
>>>itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
>>>nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
>>>around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm
>
> full
>
>>>of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm
>
> still
>
>>>convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in
>
> the
>
>>>long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
>>>count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've
>
> given
>
>>>up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."
>>>
>>
>>I have noticed this occur over many years (yes, Roger, empirical
>>evidence), there is often a 'lag time', moreso in women's bodies than
>>men where you see nothing for some time span and then a drop in fat loss
>>that is seemingly impossible.
>>
>>So at hte 4 week mark of proper eating/training, nothing.
>>By 8 weeks, more has happend than shoudl be realistic.
>>
>>I've kicked around a lot of ideas as to why this may occur, nothing is
>>super concrete and I have nothing but a lot of speculation to back it
>>up. But something is going on.
>>
>
>
> Which is why the conventional diet advice based on a linear universe is so
> flawed and non realistic.

Sadly. At the same time, at the end of a diet (i.e. contest
bodybuilders), it's not uncommon to see linear, almsot daily, changes in
body comp which are visible and measurable.

This makes me think that at least part of the problem with fatter
individuals is simply that any change is such a tiny percentage of the
total as to be immeasuarable,invisible. Couple that with changes in
water balance and small changes in bodyfat (a few pounds) can easily be
overwhelmed.

That is to say this:
Say someone has 50 lbs of bodyfat, a 1-2 lb loss is noise, 2-4% of the
total. You can't measure it, you can't see it (especially if it comes
off of the body relatively evenly) and water balance issues (something
else I suspect goes goofy on a diet) will easily cover it up.

Take someone with only 5-10 lbs of bodyfat and a 1-2 lb drop (which may
all be coming from one area) may be 10-20% of the total or higher and
will be significant.

The water balance issue: I think this is a big factor. Years ago my ex.
phys prof told us taht fat cells would refill with water after they were
emptied of triglycerides. It makes sense intuitively, glycerol is
hydrophilic and the rapid drop in water (what the ASDLC ****s call
'whooshes' support something being dumped rapidly) that happens every so
often seems to support that indirectly. I have looked for data in
support of that for over 10 years and the first study to examine it (to
my knowledge) just came up and sort of supports that.

couple that with all kinds of changes in hormones on a diet and I
suspect water balance goes all goofy. Considering every else funky
about women's bodies and I'd expect the problems to be worse (hell, a 5
lb menstrual cycle water weight gain will completely overshadow even a
reasonable monthly fat loss).

>
> I can't tell you the number of folks I have helped over the years by simply
> have them adopt a periodic refeed day. For a long time, there was no
> apparent logic for it. Now we know more about leptin, etc. I always told
> folks that it was a way to **** with the fat gods. That seemed like as
> plausibe explanation as any that I have heard over the years.

My 8th grade bio teacher would often answer 'voodoo, bub' in response to
questions he didn't know the answer to. Better yet, that was acceptable
on a test.

I have no problem with that.

Lyle

jmt
May 3rd 04, 07:33 PM
Valkyrie wrote:

> "Peter Webb" > wrote in message
> u...
>
>>Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
>>seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have
>
> plenty
>
>>of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back later;
>
> or
>
>>don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look than
>>fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
>>contraceptives would suggest).
>
>
> Using oral contraceptives suggests that one is a butch dyke?


Dear ValleyGirl;
Dykes that break the Laws of Physics???
Kinky;
jmt
>
>

jmt
May 3rd 04, 07:33 PM
Valkyrie wrote:

> "Peter Webb" > wrote in message
> u...
>
>>Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
>>seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have
>
> plenty
>
>>of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back later;
>
> or
>
>>don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look than
>>fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
>>contraceptives would suggest).
>
>
> Using oral contraceptives suggests that one is a butch dyke?


Dear ValleyGirl;
Dykes that break the Laws of Physics???
Kinky;
jmt
>
>

Ange
May 3rd 04, 08:12 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> elzinator > wrote
>
> > There's the culprit. I'm sorry, but to be succinct: you're ****ed. DP
> > should come off the market. It ****s up women's hormones for a long
> > time.
>
> Thanks for the information, as painful as it is. Is there any way I
> can get un-****ed? Would medical supplementation with other hormones
> be of any help?
<snip>
>
> I discussed my concerns with my doctor when I first started on Depo
> about a year ago. He said something like, "Oh, some women gain five
> pounds or so, but it's just temporary. Diet and it will go away.
> Depo is harmless."

Agree with Elzi. Depo is bad. FWIW, my doctor said the same thing, but
couldn't explain the 15 lbs I gained within a month of beginning Depo. I did
cardio 5 days a week and ate well, and didn't lose a single pound. I lost 20
pounds within 6 weeks of stopping Depo Provera (no diet/exercise changes in
that time frame), and my doctor *still* insisted the Depo wasn't the cause.

You might consider a lower-dose BCP like Dianette (Yasmin in the US). I take
Yasmin and have had zero weight gain (in fact, I lost a bit).
--
~ange

Ange
May 3rd 04, 08:12 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
> elzinator > wrote
>
> > There's the culprit. I'm sorry, but to be succinct: you're ****ed. DP
> > should come off the market. It ****s up women's hormones for a long
> > time.
>
> Thanks for the information, as painful as it is. Is there any way I
> can get un-****ed? Would medical supplementation with other hormones
> be of any help?
<snip>
>
> I discussed my concerns with my doctor when I first started on Depo
> about a year ago. He said something like, "Oh, some women gain five
> pounds or so, but it's just temporary. Diet and it will go away.
> Depo is harmless."

Agree with Elzi. Depo is bad. FWIW, my doctor said the same thing, but
couldn't explain the 15 lbs I gained within a month of beginning Depo. I did
cardio 5 days a week and ate well, and didn't lose a single pound. I lost 20
pounds within 6 weeks of stopping Depo Provera (no diet/exercise changes in
that time frame), and my doctor *still* insisted the Depo wasn't the cause.

You might consider a lower-dose BCP like Dianette (Yasmin in the US). I take
Yasmin and have had zero weight gain (in fact, I lost a bit).
--
~ange

Lyle McDonald
May 3rd 04, 09:31 PM
Ange wrote:
> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>elzinator > wrote
>>
>>
>>>There's the culprit. I'm sorry, but to be succinct: you're ****ed. DP
>>>should come off the market. It ****s up women's hormones for a long
>>>time.
>>
>>Thanks for the information, as painful as it is. Is there any way I
>>can get un-****ed? Would medical supplementation with other hormones
>>be of any help?
>
> <snip>
>
>>I discussed my concerns with my doctor when I first started on Depo
>>about a year ago. He said something like, "Oh, some women gain five
>>pounds or so, but it's just temporary. Diet and it will go away.
>>Depo is harmless."
>
>
> Agree with Elzi. Depo is bad. FWIW, my doctor said the same thing, but
> couldn't explain the 15 lbs I gained within a month of beginning Depo. I did
> cardio 5 days a week and ate well, and didn't lose a single pound. I lost 20
> pounds within 6 weeks of stopping Depo Provera (no diet/exercise changes in
> that time frame), and my doctor *still* insisted the Depo wasn't the cause.

Note that when it comes to the weight gain issue, docs tend to lie a lot
about it. Birth control, psychotropics, a doc knows that if he tells a
woman "This will help you but you'll gain 15 lbs" the average woman
won't take it.

So they lie.

Oh no, ****ing estrogen/progesterone pills won't make you fat.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 3rd 04, 09:31 PM
Ange wrote:
> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>elzinator > wrote
>>
>>
>>>There's the culprit. I'm sorry, but to be succinct: you're ****ed. DP
>>>should come off the market. It ****s up women's hormones for a long
>>>time.
>>
>>Thanks for the information, as painful as it is. Is there any way I
>>can get un-****ed? Would medical supplementation with other hormones
>>be of any help?
>
> <snip>
>
>>I discussed my concerns with my doctor when I first started on Depo
>>about a year ago. He said something like, "Oh, some women gain five
>>pounds or so, but it's just temporary. Diet and it will go away.
>>Depo is harmless."
>
>
> Agree with Elzi. Depo is bad. FWIW, my doctor said the same thing, but
> couldn't explain the 15 lbs I gained within a month of beginning Depo. I did
> cardio 5 days a week and ate well, and didn't lose a single pound. I lost 20
> pounds within 6 weeks of stopping Depo Provera (no diet/exercise changes in
> that time frame), and my doctor *still* insisted the Depo wasn't the cause.

Note that when it comes to the weight gain issue, docs tend to lie a lot
about it. Birth control, psychotropics, a doc knows that if he tells a
woman "This will help you but you'll gain 15 lbs" the average woman
won't take it.

So they lie.

Oh no, ****ing estrogen/progesterone pills won't make you fat.

Lyle

Valkyrie
May 3rd 04, 09:43 PM
"Peter Webb" > wrote in message
u...
> Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
> seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have
plenty
> of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back later;
or
> don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look than
> fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
> contraceptives would suggest).

Using oral contraceptives suggests that one is a butch dyke?

Valkyrie
May 3rd 04, 09:43 PM
"Peter Webb" > wrote in message
u...
> Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
> seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have
plenty
> of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back later;
or
> don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look than
> fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
> contraceptives would suggest).

Using oral contraceptives suggests that one is a butch dyke?

Joe Laughlin
May 3rd 04, 09:51 PM
Barry Wong wrote:
> Love2Lift > wrote:
>
>> (Barry Wong) wrote
>>
>>> If I were you, I'd measure all of your
>>> food portions for every meal. I know that's tedious,
>>> but as you've already said, you're diet seems pretty
>>> reasonable. So that leads me to wonder if the portions
>>> aren't right some of the time. Once you're measuring
>>> everything meticulously, you can begin adjusting your
>>> calorie goals (a little at a time -- don't cut
>>> drastically) as needed.
>>
>> Good advice, thank you. I'll be going back to the
>> digital scale now. I'm also looking into getting regular
>> bf% measurements, hopefully as cheaply as possible and
>> as accurately as possible. That probably means buying a
>> pair of calipers and learning to use them, unless I can
>> find somewhere that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to
>> do a dunk tank. More data is better for successful fine
>> tuning.
>
> Yes, it is, but I wouldn't be too precise about your body
> measurements. All you need is relative measures; IOW, if
> you can learn to do the caliper thing consistently, then
> all that matters is that the skinfold measurement is
> getting smaller. I wouldn't bother with a digital scale.
> I don't know that they're any more accurate than the
> old-fashion kind.
>
>>> I also note that you've cut down your cardio, and I
>>> think I understand why, but all I can say is that when
>>> I was in weight loss mode, the cardio part was pretty
>>> important. In my case, that meant wind sprints, though
>>> I'm sure you could still do some sort of interval
>>> training that's appropriate to your situation.
>>
>> I do three types of cardio - interval training on a
>> stationary bike, brisk walking with or without hand
>> weights, and aerobics usually with light weights. A few
>> days a week, I do 45-60 minutes of cardio. A few days a
>> week I do 15-20 minutes of HIIT cardio, sometimes in the
>> morning when I'll be lifting in the evening. I usually
>> take at least one rest day a week where I don't do
>> cardio or lifting. I am no longer doing marathon 2.5
>> hour cardio/weight sessions; those were
>> counterproductive.
>
> Seems like plenty of cardio. Again, makes me wonder about
> those food portion measurements. I _would_ be very
> precise about those.
>
>>> Finally, I'm wondering if you're on hormone (e.g. birth
>>> control) pills. If I understand correctly, that'll make
>>> it much harder to get lean. Not saying that you have to
>>> go off of them, but if it's possible, that might help
>>> you change your body composition as well.
>>
>> Depo-Provera.
>
> I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in
> general, I've heard the pill will increase a woman's
> bodyfat percentage by something like 5%. Can anyone give
> more accurate/substantiated information?

I'd like to hear some more information on this... first time I've ever heard
of it.

Joe

Joe Laughlin
May 3rd 04, 09:51 PM
Barry Wong wrote:
> Love2Lift > wrote:
>
>> (Barry Wong) wrote
>>
>>> If I were you, I'd measure all of your
>>> food portions for every meal. I know that's tedious,
>>> but as you've already said, you're diet seems pretty
>>> reasonable. So that leads me to wonder if the portions
>>> aren't right some of the time. Once you're measuring
>>> everything meticulously, you can begin adjusting your
>>> calorie goals (a little at a time -- don't cut
>>> drastically) as needed.
>>
>> Good advice, thank you. I'll be going back to the
>> digital scale now. I'm also looking into getting regular
>> bf% measurements, hopefully as cheaply as possible and
>> as accurately as possible. That probably means buying a
>> pair of calipers and learning to use them, unless I can
>> find somewhere that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to
>> do a dunk tank. More data is better for successful fine
>> tuning.
>
> Yes, it is, but I wouldn't be too precise about your body
> measurements. All you need is relative measures; IOW, if
> you can learn to do the caliper thing consistently, then
> all that matters is that the skinfold measurement is
> getting smaller. I wouldn't bother with a digital scale.
> I don't know that they're any more accurate than the
> old-fashion kind.
>
>>> I also note that you've cut down your cardio, and I
>>> think I understand why, but all I can say is that when
>>> I was in weight loss mode, the cardio part was pretty
>>> important. In my case, that meant wind sprints, though
>>> I'm sure you could still do some sort of interval
>>> training that's appropriate to your situation.
>>
>> I do three types of cardio - interval training on a
>> stationary bike, brisk walking with or without hand
>> weights, and aerobics usually with light weights. A few
>> days a week, I do 45-60 minutes of cardio. A few days a
>> week I do 15-20 minutes of HIIT cardio, sometimes in the
>> morning when I'll be lifting in the evening. I usually
>> take at least one rest day a week where I don't do
>> cardio or lifting. I am no longer doing marathon 2.5
>> hour cardio/weight sessions; those were
>> counterproductive.
>
> Seems like plenty of cardio. Again, makes me wonder about
> those food portion measurements. I _would_ be very
> precise about those.
>
>>> Finally, I'm wondering if you're on hormone (e.g. birth
>>> control) pills. If I understand correctly, that'll make
>>> it much harder to get lean. Not saying that you have to
>>> go off of them, but if it's possible, that might help
>>> you change your body composition as well.
>>
>> Depo-Provera.
>
> I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in
> general, I've heard the pill will increase a woman's
> bodyfat percentage by something like 5%. Can anyone give
> more accurate/substantiated information?

I'd like to hear some more information on this... first time I've ever heard
of it.

Joe

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 12:14 AM
"Peter Webb" > wrote

> All of this stuff you go on about ... theoretical macronutrient ratios,
> effect of birth control pills, bf%, is pure FFID (Fat **** In Denial)
> material. FFS, you weigh 183 pounds and you are a chick. Potential loss of
> muscle is the least of your worries.

Elzi was the one who was discussing the hormone issues, after someone
else on the thread brought it up. I hadn't really considered it as a
factor until she pointed to it. Would you like to call Elzi a fat
**** in denial?

Nobody is responsible for my weight today but my own choices. I made
poor choices about diet and exercise over the last twenty years that
changed me from being young and slim to being old and fat and out of
shape. I am choosing now to do intelligent body recomposition. Note
that the key word here is "intelligent". Folks who are much better
educated than me on this topic (like Lyle McDonald) have pointed out
that women who diet by cutting calories very drastically are basically
shooting themselves in the foot and really not helping their cause in
the long run.

Do I need to cycle my calories still lower, even more than 500
calories below maintenance? Very possibly, but before I do that I'd
like to make sure I've researched the situation thoroughly. According
to the writings of folks like Elzi and Lyle, it's not a great idea.
So I am reluctant to do something that some very knowledgeable people
have clearly said is stupid and counterproductive.

Calories are unquestionably the bottom line, but paying attention to
macronutrient profiles is important for a number of reasons that other
people are much more qualified to explain than me. Being concerned
with this stuff is not being a fat **** in denial. It's being an
intelligent fat **** who reads Lyle McDonald.


> Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
> seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have plenty
> of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back later; or
> don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look than
> fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
> contraceptives would suggest).

I happen to be heterosexual, but I think it's okay for a woman to be
large and muscular if she is otherwise healthy (eg, not just fat like
me). People who label women as "dykes" for transgressing societal
norms of appearance seem to have personal and social issues that
reflect more deeply on them than on the women they are labelling. May
I direct you to Krista Scott-Dixon's excellent research page on the
subject?

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 12:14 AM
"Peter Webb" > wrote

> All of this stuff you go on about ... theoretical macronutrient ratios,
> effect of birth control pills, bf%, is pure FFID (Fat **** In Denial)
> material. FFS, you weigh 183 pounds and you are a chick. Potential loss of
> muscle is the least of your worries.

Elzi was the one who was discussing the hormone issues, after someone
else on the thread brought it up. I hadn't really considered it as a
factor until she pointed to it. Would you like to call Elzi a fat
**** in denial?

Nobody is responsible for my weight today but my own choices. I made
poor choices about diet and exercise over the last twenty years that
changed me from being young and slim to being old and fat and out of
shape. I am choosing now to do intelligent body recomposition. Note
that the key word here is "intelligent". Folks who are much better
educated than me on this topic (like Lyle McDonald) have pointed out
that women who diet by cutting calories very drastically are basically
shooting themselves in the foot and really not helping their cause in
the long run.

Do I need to cycle my calories still lower, even more than 500
calories below maintenance? Very possibly, but before I do that I'd
like to make sure I've researched the situation thoroughly. According
to the writings of folks like Elzi and Lyle, it's not a great idea.
So I am reluctant to do something that some very knowledgeable people
have clearly said is stupid and counterproductive.

Calories are unquestionably the bottom line, but paying attention to
macronutrient profiles is important for a number of reasons that other
people are much more qualified to explain than me. Being concerned
with this stuff is not being a fat **** in denial. It's being an
intelligent fat **** who reads Lyle McDonald.


> Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
> seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have plenty
> of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back later; or
> don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look than
> fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
> contraceptives would suggest).

I happen to be heterosexual, but I think it's okay for a woman to be
large and muscular if she is otherwise healthy (eg, not just fat like
me). People who label women as "dykes" for transgressing societal
norms of appearance seem to have personal and social issues that
reflect more deeply on them than on the women they are labelling. May
I direct you to Krista Scott-Dixon's excellent research page on the
subject?

elzinator
May 4th 04, 01:37 AM
On 3 May 2004 04:08:54 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
>elzinator > wrote
>
>> One attack that may work best (and I say this with depredation because
>> even this has not worked in many women on DP) is to use a lowcarb
>> diet. You are battling skewed hormones and the only way is to attack
>> indirectly. A lowcarb diet may (or may not) be more effective. But it
>> won't hurt to try it.
>
>I did successfully lose weight on Atkins, but I'm not convinced that
>it is a long term healthy diet. What macronutrient ratios would you
>recommend for a healthy low carb diet that supports regular weight
>lifting?

What's 'long term'?
You can safely use a cyclic ketogenic diet (which I think may be the
best approach here considering), commonly referred to as a CKD. The
refeed attenuates many of the purported health and boredom issues. Or
just reduce your carb intake down to 100 g/day, with an additional
50-75 on days that you lift weights (not cardio), depending on your
intensity. Your goal right now is weight loss, not achieving a record
bench press (like my goal). So you may not be building alot of
strength, but keeping your glycogen levels low (which will induce
utilization of fat for fuel).

Drink lots of water and take a good multi-vitamin/mineral supp.

Be sure to include a balanced fat composition of monounsaturated,
polyunsaturated and some saturated fats. Olive oil and fish are your
friends.

I don't think adding yohimbine at this point would make much
difference. Progesterone/progestins are estrogen antagonists; you
don't have much to be a concern. It might be useful later when you
start mobilizing fat stores.

>I am curious about the exact mechanisms by which skewed hormones foul
>up weight loss. What key words would you recommend searching and in
>which medical databases? I haven't had too much luck so far trying to
>research it on my own.

Depo Provera is a synthetic progestin.

It is documented to cause an increase of 5 lbs of weight gain in the
first cycle (the first 3 months) and ~8 lbs in the 2nd cycle (the next
3 months). It increases appetite and hunger.

The effects of DP are 'reported' to last up to 12 weeks, but many
women report lack of periods, and other side effects, up to 1-1.5
years after their last injection. Most women report weight gain, and
for some of these women, it takes considerable time and effort to
reverse it. Some claim it is 'irreversible', but I'm not sure I
believe that.

In the body, progesterone, the endogenous hormone, is pulsatile, with
peaks and valleys in blood levels throughout the day and month. A shot
of DP is like taking a massive overdose that chronically elevates the
progesterone levels for 12+ weeks (metabolism varies). Add to that, it
is a synthetic progesterone (in the family of compounds commonly
referred to as 'progestins') made from an androgen. So its a
schizophrenic compound that doesn't know if it should act like an
androgen or a progesterone-like substance. So compound (that's a pun)
that with chronically high levels and you have Hormone Hell.

Most pharmaceutical progesterones are synthesized from androgens and
they aren't progesterones. They aren't metabolized the same, they
don't have exactly the same activity. Granted, trying to administer
the 'real thing' (actual progesterone) is problematic for several
reasons. However, transdermal application/administration is the most
successful despite it's inefficiency.. Considering the alternative,
it's still the safest.

Some women have to be prescribed an estrogen-containing compound after
cessation of DP. For most, the best approach is to give the body and
hormone system time to reset itself. Hopefully it does.

I've worked with a few women (as their trainer) who had either just
stopped DP or had their last injection up to a year prior. ALL had
gained significant weight as body fat (one gained 60 lb), and all were
desperate because they had tried many approaches to lose the weight
gain. In most, it budged very very slowly.

I found that they had to do more exercise than I would normally have a
client do for weight loss. The simple Energy Balance equation didn't
apply for them; they had to have a greater energy deficit in the form
of exercise than a lower cal/lb intake. Those women that I could
convince to use a lowcarb diet (which was sometimes like pulling teeth
and nails) had better success and allowed a higher intake of calories
than those who would not eat low carb. I am convinced that the
chronically high progestin levels ****s up carb metabolism, but I
can't really substantiate that. The ephedrine/ephedra was useful for
blunting appetite (and it helped their mood).

The worst scenario was one client who had gained 45 lbs on DP, got
depressed about the weight gain, and her doc then put her on
anti-depressants, which made her gain even more. She finally said
"**** that", stopped both and exercised like a banshee (she was also
an ex-gymnist), did a CKD and eventually alot of the fat disappeared.
But it took over a year (during which time she also divorced her
husband, started a real estate business and dyed her hair blonde). She
was determined as hell and that is what really made her succeed. (and
she was anal retentive; she kept a log of everything she ate,
exercised, weighed, measurements, etc in what ended up as two
journals. I thought I was bad.....).

The one thing that can bend the laws of fysicks is hormones......


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 4th 04, 01:37 AM
On 3 May 2004 04:08:54 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
>elzinator > wrote
>
>> One attack that may work best (and I say this with depredation because
>> even this has not worked in many women on DP) is to use a lowcarb
>> diet. You are battling skewed hormones and the only way is to attack
>> indirectly. A lowcarb diet may (or may not) be more effective. But it
>> won't hurt to try it.
>
>I did successfully lose weight on Atkins, but I'm not convinced that
>it is a long term healthy diet. What macronutrient ratios would you
>recommend for a healthy low carb diet that supports regular weight
>lifting?

What's 'long term'?
You can safely use a cyclic ketogenic diet (which I think may be the
best approach here considering), commonly referred to as a CKD. The
refeed attenuates many of the purported health and boredom issues. Or
just reduce your carb intake down to 100 g/day, with an additional
50-75 on days that you lift weights (not cardio), depending on your
intensity. Your goal right now is weight loss, not achieving a record
bench press (like my goal). So you may not be building alot of
strength, but keeping your glycogen levels low (which will induce
utilization of fat for fuel).

Drink lots of water and take a good multi-vitamin/mineral supp.

Be sure to include a balanced fat composition of monounsaturated,
polyunsaturated and some saturated fats. Olive oil and fish are your
friends.

I don't think adding yohimbine at this point would make much
difference. Progesterone/progestins are estrogen antagonists; you
don't have much to be a concern. It might be useful later when you
start mobilizing fat stores.

>I am curious about the exact mechanisms by which skewed hormones foul
>up weight loss. What key words would you recommend searching and in
>which medical databases? I haven't had too much luck so far trying to
>research it on my own.

Depo Provera is a synthetic progestin.

It is documented to cause an increase of 5 lbs of weight gain in the
first cycle (the first 3 months) and ~8 lbs in the 2nd cycle (the next
3 months). It increases appetite and hunger.

The effects of DP are 'reported' to last up to 12 weeks, but many
women report lack of periods, and other side effects, up to 1-1.5
years after their last injection. Most women report weight gain, and
for some of these women, it takes considerable time and effort to
reverse it. Some claim it is 'irreversible', but I'm not sure I
believe that.

In the body, progesterone, the endogenous hormone, is pulsatile, with
peaks and valleys in blood levels throughout the day and month. A shot
of DP is like taking a massive overdose that chronically elevates the
progesterone levels for 12+ weeks (metabolism varies). Add to that, it
is a synthetic progesterone (in the family of compounds commonly
referred to as 'progestins') made from an androgen. So its a
schizophrenic compound that doesn't know if it should act like an
androgen or a progesterone-like substance. So compound (that's a pun)
that with chronically high levels and you have Hormone Hell.

Most pharmaceutical progesterones are synthesized from androgens and
they aren't progesterones. They aren't metabolized the same, they
don't have exactly the same activity. Granted, trying to administer
the 'real thing' (actual progesterone) is problematic for several
reasons. However, transdermal application/administration is the most
successful despite it's inefficiency.. Considering the alternative,
it's still the safest.

Some women have to be prescribed an estrogen-containing compound after
cessation of DP. For most, the best approach is to give the body and
hormone system time to reset itself. Hopefully it does.

I've worked with a few women (as their trainer) who had either just
stopped DP or had their last injection up to a year prior. ALL had
gained significant weight as body fat (one gained 60 lb), and all were
desperate because they had tried many approaches to lose the weight
gain. In most, it budged very very slowly.

I found that they had to do more exercise than I would normally have a
client do for weight loss. The simple Energy Balance equation didn't
apply for them; they had to have a greater energy deficit in the form
of exercise than a lower cal/lb intake. Those women that I could
convince to use a lowcarb diet (which was sometimes like pulling teeth
and nails) had better success and allowed a higher intake of calories
than those who would not eat low carb. I am convinced that the
chronically high progestin levels ****s up carb metabolism, but I
can't really substantiate that. The ephedrine/ephedra was useful for
blunting appetite (and it helped their mood).

The worst scenario was one client who had gained 45 lbs on DP, got
depressed about the weight gain, and her doc then put her on
anti-depressants, which made her gain even more. She finally said
"**** that", stopped both and exercised like a banshee (she was also
an ex-gymnist), did a CKD and eventually alot of the fat disappeared.
But it took over a year (during which time she also divorced her
husband, started a real estate business and dyed her hair blonde). She
was determined as hell and that is what really made her succeed. (and
she was anal retentive; she kept a log of everything she ate,
exercised, weighed, measurements, etc in what ended up as two
journals. I thought I was bad.....).

The one thing that can bend the laws of fysicks is hormones......


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

Hugh Beyer
May 4th 04, 02:03 AM
(Love2Lift) wrote in
om:

> Do I need to cycle my calories still lower, even more than 500
> calories below maintenance? Very possibly, but before I do that I'd
> like to make sure I've researched the situation thoroughly. According
> to the writings of folks like Elzi and Lyle, it's not a great idea.
> So I am reluctant to do something that some very knowledgeable people
> have clearly said is stupid and counterproductive.
>

I'm wondering if the kind of cycling you're doing makes sense. What most
people seem to do is to stay pretty close to their target calorie intake
every day, with a refeed or carb-up every week or two. You seem to be varying
your intake on a day-to-day basis.

If it all averages out over the course of a week it probably doesn't make any
difference, but I should think it would be very easy to get more calories
than you need more days than you think.

Hugh


--
Help! My myofibrillar material is disorganized!

Hugh Beyer
May 4th 04, 02:03 AM
(Love2Lift) wrote in
om:

> Do I need to cycle my calories still lower, even more than 500
> calories below maintenance? Very possibly, but before I do that I'd
> like to make sure I've researched the situation thoroughly. According
> to the writings of folks like Elzi and Lyle, it's not a great idea.
> So I am reluctant to do something that some very knowledgeable people
> have clearly said is stupid and counterproductive.
>

I'm wondering if the kind of cycling you're doing makes sense. What most
people seem to do is to stay pretty close to their target calorie intake
every day, with a refeed or carb-up every week or two. You seem to be varying
your intake on a day-to-day basis.

If it all averages out over the course of a week it probably doesn't make any
difference, but I should think it would be very easy to get more calories
than you need more days than you think.

Hugh


--
Help! My myofibrillar material is disorganized!

TB
May 4th 04, 02:27 AM
One key, I believe, is to zoom in on what your cal maintenance really
is. This link helped me to better figure mine.
http://www.weight-loss-i.com/calorie-needs-harris-benedict.htm
Tom

TB
May 4th 04, 02:27 AM
One key, I believe, is to zoom in on what your cal maintenance really
is. This link helped me to better figure mine.
http://www.weight-loss-i.com/calorie-needs-harris-benedict.htm
Tom

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 03:12 AM
(Barry Wong) wrote

> I wouldn't bother with a digital scale.
> I don't know that they're any more accurate than the old-fashion kind.

When you're measuring 1/2 an ounce of cheese they definitely are. But
for weighing yourself, the regular kind is fine.


> Seems like plenty of cardio. Again, makes me wonder about those food
> portion measurements. I _would_ be very precise about those.

Well, every 3-4 days I was putting all my food for the day on a
digital scale and/or into a cup measure, and entering the amounts into
Fitday to calculate what I was eating. Since I ate pretty much the
same crap every day from the same small dishes, I figured my portions
were not changing enough to make it worth the hassle of measuring
every single day. But I'm back to measuring every day now.


> I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in general, I've
> heard the pill will increase a woman's bodyfat percentage by something
> like 5%. Can anyone give more accurate/substantiated information?

Elzi mentioned that this may be a factor. I'm still not sure what the
exact mechanism is by which progestin messes with efforts at weight
loss.

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 03:12 AM
(Barry Wong) wrote

> I wouldn't bother with a digital scale.
> I don't know that they're any more accurate than the old-fashion kind.

When you're measuring 1/2 an ounce of cheese they definitely are. But
for weighing yourself, the regular kind is fine.


> Seems like plenty of cardio. Again, makes me wonder about those food
> portion measurements. I _would_ be very precise about those.

Well, every 3-4 days I was putting all my food for the day on a
digital scale and/or into a cup measure, and entering the amounts into
Fitday to calculate what I was eating. Since I ate pretty much the
same crap every day from the same small dishes, I figured my portions
were not changing enough to make it worth the hassle of measuring
every single day. But I'm back to measuring every day now.


> I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in general, I've
> heard the pill will increase a woman's bodyfat percentage by something
> like 5%. Can anyone give more accurate/substantiated information?

Elzi mentioned that this may be a factor. I'm still not sure what the
exact mechanism is by which progestin messes with efforts at weight
loss.

Peter Webb
May 4th 04, 03:36 AM
<SNIP>


> Do I need to cycle my calories still lower, even more than 500
> calories below maintenance? Very possibly, but before I do that I'd
> like to make sure I've researched the situation thoroughly. According
> to the writings of folks like Elzi and Lyle, it's not a great idea.
> So I am reluctant to do something that some very knowledgeable people
> have clearly said is stupid and counterproductive.
>

You don't get it, do you? You have put on 3 lbs in 30 days. Therefore you
are not currently eating below maintenance, BY DEFINITION. You don't want to
"cycle my calories still lower, even more than 500 below maintenance". You
want to aim for 500 Calories below maintenance, which is 500 Calories less
than what you are eating now. You can jokingly talk about "diets that break
the laws of physics" or seriously talk about all the other excuses and
reasons you give for not losing weight, but here is the bottom line. Your
current calorie intake is almost exactly your maintenence level. To lose
weight you have to eat below maintenance. To lose 1 pound a week requires
you to cut your calories consumption by about 500 Cals per day. Its really
that simple.


> Calories are unquestionably the bottom line, but paying attention to
> macronutrient profiles is important for a number of reasons that other
> people are much more qualified to explain than me. Being concerned
> with this stuff is not being a fat **** in denial. It's being an
> intelligent fat **** who reads Lyle McDonald.
>

No, you are still a fat **** in denial. You deny that the problem is that
you eat too much to lose weight. And BTW, saying "somebody else told me this
is important for reasons I don't understand" is a poor argument.

>
> > Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
> > seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have
plenty
> > of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back
later; or
> > don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look
than
> > fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
> > contraceptives would suggest).
>
> I happen to be heterosexual, but I think it's okay for a woman to be
> large and muscular if she is otherwise healthy (eg, not just fat like
> me). People who label women as "dykes" for transgressing societal
> norms of appearance seem to have personal and social issues that
> reflect more deeply on them than on the women they are labelling. May
> I direct you to Krista Scott-Dixon's excellent research page on the
> subject?

I didn't label you as a dyke for "transgressing societal norms". I merely
identified that hetereosexual women are more attractive to potential sex
partners if they lose weight even at the cost of loss of LBM, but this may
not be true of some lesbians.

I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are really at
fault if they think this is important) and spend more time trying to lose
weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.

HTH


Peter Webb

Peter Webb
May 4th 04, 03:36 AM
<SNIP>


> Do I need to cycle my calories still lower, even more than 500
> calories below maintenance? Very possibly, but before I do that I'd
> like to make sure I've researched the situation thoroughly. According
> to the writings of folks like Elzi and Lyle, it's not a great idea.
> So I am reluctant to do something that some very knowledgeable people
> have clearly said is stupid and counterproductive.
>

You don't get it, do you? You have put on 3 lbs in 30 days. Therefore you
are not currently eating below maintenance, BY DEFINITION. You don't want to
"cycle my calories still lower, even more than 500 below maintenance". You
want to aim for 500 Calories below maintenance, which is 500 Calories less
than what you are eating now. You can jokingly talk about "diets that break
the laws of physics" or seriously talk about all the other excuses and
reasons you give for not losing weight, but here is the bottom line. Your
current calorie intake is almost exactly your maintenence level. To lose
weight you have to eat below maintenance. To lose 1 pound a week requires
you to cut your calories consumption by about 500 Cals per day. Its really
that simple.


> Calories are unquestionably the bottom line, but paying attention to
> macronutrient profiles is important for a number of reasons that other
> people are much more qualified to explain than me. Being concerned
> with this stuff is not being a fat **** in denial. It's being an
> intelligent fat **** who reads Lyle McDonald.
>

No, you are still a fat **** in denial. You deny that the problem is that
you eat too much to lose weight. And BTW, saying "somebody else told me this
is important for reasons I don't understand" is a poor argument.

>
> > Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
> > seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have
plenty
> > of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back
later; or
> > don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look
than
> > fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
> > contraceptives would suggest).
>
> I happen to be heterosexual, but I think it's okay for a woman to be
> large and muscular if she is otherwise healthy (eg, not just fat like
> me). People who label women as "dykes" for transgressing societal
> norms of appearance seem to have personal and social issues that
> reflect more deeply on them than on the women they are labelling. May
> I direct you to Krista Scott-Dixon's excellent research page on the
> subject?

I didn't label you as a dyke for "transgressing societal norms". I merely
identified that hetereosexual women are more attractive to potential sex
partners if they lose weight even at the cost of loss of LBM, but this may
not be true of some lesbians.

I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are really at
fault if they think this is important) and spend more time trying to lose
weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.

HTH


Peter Webb

elzinator
May 4th 04, 03:49 AM
On 3 May 2004 19:12:09 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
(Barry Wong) wrote

>> I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in general, I've
>> heard the pill will increase a woman's bodyfat percentage by something
>> like 5%. Can anyone give more accurate/substantiated information?
>
>Elzi mentioned that this may be a factor. I'm still not sure what the
>exact mechanism is by which progestin messes with efforts at weight
>loss.

The most known mechanism, as I mentioned already, is increasing
appetite. Progestins are used in some clinics to increase appetite in
HIV/AIDS and cancer patients (and anorectic).

If I recall, progesterone does influence metabolism, but the only
'report' that is claimed for progestins in the literature is that they
'slightly affect carbohydrate metabolism." Funny, in that diabetics
have to use more medication or insulin to control their glucose levels
if they use progestins. And two epi studies found a high association
of DP use to development of T2 diabetes.

Yet another mechanism may be that progestins have been demonstrated
(albeit in vitro, i.e. adipocytes removed from monkeys given
progestins) to increase the size of fat cells.

So, guess what this means?


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 4th 04, 03:49 AM
On 3 May 2004 19:12:09 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
(Barry Wong) wrote

>> I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in general, I've
>> heard the pill will increase a woman's bodyfat percentage by something
>> like 5%. Can anyone give more accurate/substantiated information?
>
>Elzi mentioned that this may be a factor. I'm still not sure what the
>exact mechanism is by which progestin messes with efforts at weight
>loss.

The most known mechanism, as I mentioned already, is increasing
appetite. Progestins are used in some clinics to increase appetite in
HIV/AIDS and cancer patients (and anorectic).

If I recall, progesterone does influence metabolism, but the only
'report' that is claimed for progestins in the literature is that they
'slightly affect carbohydrate metabolism." Funny, in that diabetics
have to use more medication or insulin to control their glucose levels
if they use progestins. And two epi studies found a high association
of DP use to development of T2 diabetes.

Yet another mechanism may be that progestins have been demonstrated
(albeit in vitro, i.e. adipocytes removed from monkeys given
progestins) to increase the size of fat cells.

So, guess what this means?


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 4th 04, 03:52 AM
On Tue, 4 May 2004 12:36:28 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
><SNIP>
>> > Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
>> > seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have
>plenty
>> > of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back
>later; or
>> > don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look
>than
>> > fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
>> > contraceptives would suggest).
>>
>> I happen to be heterosexual, but I think it's okay for a woman to be
>> large and muscular if she is otherwise healthy (eg, not just fat like
>> me). People who label women as "dykes" for transgressing societal
>> norms of appearance seem to have personal and social issues that
>> reflect more deeply on them than on the women they are labelling. May
>> I direct you to Krista Scott-Dixon's excellent research page on the
>> subject?
>
>I didn't label you as a dyke for "transgressing societal norms". I merely
>identified that hetereosexual women are more attractive to potential sex
>partners if they lose weight even at the cost of loss of LBM, but this may
>not be true of some lesbians.
>
>I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are really at
>fault if they think this is important) and spend more time trying to lose
>weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.

But we might have fun sticking a dog's dick in your ass.


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

elzinator
May 4th 04, 03:52 AM
On Tue, 4 May 2004 12:36:28 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
><SNIP>
>> > Eat less. Maybe you will lose some LBM; I doubt it, as unless you are
>> > seriously strong or seriously tall, at 183 pounds and female you have
>plenty
>> > of fat to lose. And so what if you did. Pretty easy to get it back
>later; or
>> > don't bother, because slim and slightly muscled is a way better look
>than
>> > fat and muscular (assuming you are not a butch dyke, as your use of oral
>> > contraceptives would suggest).
>>
>> I happen to be heterosexual, but I think it's okay for a woman to be
>> large and muscular if she is otherwise healthy (eg, not just fat like
>> me). People who label women as "dykes" for transgressing societal
>> norms of appearance seem to have personal and social issues that
>> reflect more deeply on them than on the women they are labelling. May
>> I direct you to Krista Scott-Dixon's excellent research page on the
>> subject?
>
>I didn't label you as a dyke for "transgressing societal norms". I merely
>identified that hetereosexual women are more attractive to potential sex
>partners if they lose weight even at the cost of loss of LBM, but this may
>not be true of some lesbians.
>
>I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are really at
>fault if they think this is important) and spend more time trying to lose
>weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.

But we might have fun sticking a dog's dick in your ass.


Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

Lyle McDonald
May 4th 04, 05:07 AM
elzinator wrote:


> In the body, progesterone, the endogenous hormone, is pulsatile, with
> peaks and valleys in blood levels throughout the day and month. A shot
> of DP is like taking a massive overdose that chronically elevates the
> progesterone levels for 12+ weeks (metabolism varies). Add to that, it
> is a synthetic progesterone (in the family of compounds commonly
> referred to as 'progestins') made from an androgen. So its a
> schizophrenic compound that doesn't know if it should act like an
> androgen or a progesterone-like substance. So compound (that's a pun)
> that with chronically high levels and you have Hormone Hell.

I know progesterone has cross talk with the AR, I thought it acted as a
competitive inhibitor to endogenous androgens, though. Which might
explain why women with high progesterone both put on lots of fat and
have trouble gaining strength/size. thats's always been my thought
process anyhow.



> I've worked with a few women (as their trainer) who had either just
> stopped DP or had their last injection up to a year prior. ALL had
> gained significant weight as body fat (one gained 60 lb), and all were
> desperate because they had tried many approaches to lose the weight
> gain. In most, it budged very very slowly.

I had a client years ago who had been on DP (for severe endometriosis).
Couldn't lose a pound no matter what she ate. SAid her sister had
been on it and took a year for anyting to move. Nasty nasty drug.


> The one thing that can bend the laws of fysicks is hormones......

I don't know if that's what's going on. But considering the role of
those hormones, I suspsect it drastically affects partitioning
(negatively) and might exacerbate the normal female issues relevent to
dieting: to whit, the larger scale drop in metabolism taht tends to occur.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 4th 04, 05:07 AM
elzinator wrote:


> In the body, progesterone, the endogenous hormone, is pulsatile, with
> peaks and valleys in blood levels throughout the day and month. A shot
> of DP is like taking a massive overdose that chronically elevates the
> progesterone levels for 12+ weeks (metabolism varies). Add to that, it
> is a synthetic progesterone (in the family of compounds commonly
> referred to as 'progestins') made from an androgen. So its a
> schizophrenic compound that doesn't know if it should act like an
> androgen or a progesterone-like substance. So compound (that's a pun)
> that with chronically high levels and you have Hormone Hell.

I know progesterone has cross talk with the AR, I thought it acted as a
competitive inhibitor to endogenous androgens, though. Which might
explain why women with high progesterone both put on lots of fat and
have trouble gaining strength/size. thats's always been my thought
process anyhow.



> I've worked with a few women (as their trainer) who had either just
> stopped DP or had their last injection up to a year prior. ALL had
> gained significant weight as body fat (one gained 60 lb), and all were
> desperate because they had tried many approaches to lose the weight
> gain. In most, it budged very very slowly.

I had a client years ago who had been on DP (for severe endometriosis).
Couldn't lose a pound no matter what she ate. SAid her sister had
been on it and took a year for anyting to move. Nasty nasty drug.


> The one thing that can bend the laws of fysicks is hormones......

I don't know if that's what's going on. But considering the role of
those hormones, I suspsect it drastically affects partitioning
(negatively) and might exacerbate the normal female issues relevent to
dieting: to whit, the larger scale drop in metabolism taht tends to occur.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 4th 04, 05:10 AM
elzinator wrote:

> On 3 May 2004 19:12:09 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
>
(Barry Wong) wrote
>
>
>>>I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in general, I've
>>>heard the pill will increase a woman's bodyfat percentage by something
>>>like 5%. Can anyone give more accurate/substantiated information?
>>
>>Elzi mentioned that this may be a factor. I'm still not sure what the
>>exact mechanism is by which progestin messes with efforts at weight
>>loss.
>
>
> The most known mechanism, as I mentioned already, is increasing
> appetite. Progestins are used in some clinics to increase appetite in
> HIV/AIDS and cancer patients (and anorectic).
>
> If I recall, progesterone does influence metabolism,

It is involved in the slight elevation of metabolic rat eduring that
part of the cycle (luteal phase deficient women don't show the normal
boost in metabolism because of dysregulated progesterone levels, see all
that **** by Loucks).

But the increase in appetite usually more than balances it out. It
seems *plausible* that really controlling calories during that phase of
the cycle might lead to decent fat loss. Or not.


> Yet another mechanism may be that progestins have been demonstrated
> (albeit in vitro, i.e. adipocytes removed from monkeys given
> progestins) to increase the size of fat cells.

Progesterone is very lipogenic, far more of a player in fat storage
(IMO) than estrogen although estrogen primes the progesterone receptor
(makes progesterone affect fat cell metabolism more). So it's a double
whammy.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 4th 04, 05:10 AM
elzinator wrote:

> On 3 May 2004 19:12:09 -0700, Love2Lift wrote:
>
(Barry Wong) wrote
>
>
>>>I don't know one birth control pill from another, but in general, I've
>>>heard the pill will increase a woman's bodyfat percentage by something
>>>like 5%. Can anyone give more accurate/substantiated information?
>>
>>Elzi mentioned that this may be a factor. I'm still not sure what the
>>exact mechanism is by which progestin messes with efforts at weight
>>loss.
>
>
> The most known mechanism, as I mentioned already, is increasing
> appetite. Progestins are used in some clinics to increase appetite in
> HIV/AIDS and cancer patients (and anorectic).
>
> If I recall, progesterone does influence metabolism,

It is involved in the slight elevation of metabolic rat eduring that
part of the cycle (luteal phase deficient women don't show the normal
boost in metabolism because of dysregulated progesterone levels, see all
that **** by Loucks).

But the increase in appetite usually more than balances it out. It
seems *plausible* that really controlling calories during that phase of
the cycle might lead to decent fat loss. Or not.


> Yet another mechanism may be that progestins have been demonstrated
> (albeit in vitro, i.e. adipocytes removed from monkeys given
> progestins) to increase the size of fat cells.

Progesterone is very lipogenic, far more of a player in fat storage
(IMO) than estrogen although estrogen primes the progesterone receptor
(makes progesterone affect fat cell metabolism more). So it's a double
whammy.

Lyle

Ellen Young
May 4th 04, 05:54 AM
On Mon, 03 May 2004 18:09:59 GMT, "Kathy" > wrote:

>"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
>> as an
>> out of shape middle aged woman....
>
>I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
>40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all by
>itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
>nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
>around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm full
>of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm still
>convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in the
>long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
>count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've given
>up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."

Okay, I'm taking you as my standard. I'm 49. Female. Progress is
intermittent, but it's real. As for the energy, I have tons, and I
feel great.

--Ellen

Ellen Young
May 4th 04, 05:54 AM
On Mon, 03 May 2004 18:09:59 GMT, "Kathy" > wrote:

>"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om...
>> as an
>> out of shape middle aged woman....
>
>I'm sure Elzi is right about the Depo Provera, but if you're female and
>40-60 or so, your body may well be able to bend the laws of physics all by
>itself. At 50, I swear mine does. I'll eat clean and work hard and have
>nothing to show for it but exhaustion and catching every bug that goes
>around the office. Three months later, still doing the same thing, I'm full
>of energy and losing more fat than could technically be possible. I'm still
>convinced that lifting heavy, eating right, and staying patient works in the
>long run. I used to weigh myself daily so I could watch my progress and
>count the days until my diet and exercise program was done. But I've given
>up on both - on constant weight watching and on ever being "done."

Okay, I'm taking you as my standard. I'm 49. Female. Progress is
intermittent, but it's real. As for the energy, I have tons, and I
feel great.

--Ellen

Helgi Briem
May 4th 04, 10:06 AM
On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:12:54 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>My 8th grade bio teacher would often answer 'voodoo, bub' in response to
>questions he didn't know the answer to. Better yet, that was acceptable
>on a test.

When I was doing undergraduate physiology we used to joke
that to any physiology question you could always answer:
"X is regulated by the relative concentration of Calcium ions"
and be pretty likely to be marked correct.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Helgi Briem
May 4th 04, 10:06 AM
On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:12:54 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>My 8th grade bio teacher would often answer 'voodoo, bub' in response to
>questions he didn't know the answer to. Better yet, that was acceptable
>on a test.

When I was doing undergraduate physiology we used to joke
that to any physiology question you could always answer:
"X is regulated by the relative concentration of Calcium ions"
and be pretty likely to be marked correct.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 11:01 AM
"Peter Webb" > wrote

> No, you are still a fat **** in denial. You deny that the problem is that
> you eat too much to lose weight. And BTW, saying "somebody else told me this
> is important for reasons I don't understand" is a poor argument.

Has anyone ever explained to you the difference between fat and
stupid? Fat people can lose weight. Your problem isn't correctable.

I understand quite clearly why macronutrients are important, in large
part thanks to the excellent books and articles published by Lyle
McDonald and Elzi Volk. But considering these folks are participating
in this thread, it is obvious that they are far better qualified to
explain these things than I am. I just read the stuff. They write
it.


> I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are really at
> fault if they think this is important) and spend more time trying to lose
> weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.

Somebody is jealous of women who are smarter and stronger than him.
LOL

Clueless, too. Fat is equally not-OK in men and women because it is
not healthy. However it is interesting to observe the dual standard
of societal norms and tolerances in regards to fat men and fat women,
particularly those in the slightly as opposed to grossly overweight
range. It is also interesting to observe how it is much too easy to
push some people's buttons to produce the expected, albeit
intellectually limited, range of responses. :)

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 11:01 AM
"Peter Webb" > wrote

> No, you are still a fat **** in denial. You deny that the problem is that
> you eat too much to lose weight. And BTW, saying "somebody else told me this
> is important for reasons I don't understand" is a poor argument.

Has anyone ever explained to you the difference between fat and
stupid? Fat people can lose weight. Your problem isn't correctable.

I understand quite clearly why macronutrients are important, in large
part thanks to the excellent books and articles published by Lyle
McDonald and Elzi Volk. But considering these folks are participating
in this thread, it is obvious that they are far better qualified to
explain these things than I am. I just read the stuff. They write
it.


> I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are really at
> fault if they think this is important) and spend more time trying to lose
> weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.

Somebody is jealous of women who are smarter and stronger than him.
LOL

Clueless, too. Fat is equally not-OK in men and women because it is
not healthy. However it is interesting to observe the dual standard
of societal norms and tolerances in regards to fat men and fat women,
particularly those in the slightly as opposed to grossly overweight
range. It is also interesting to observe how it is much too easy to
push some people's buttons to produce the expected, albeit
intellectually limited, range of responses. :)

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 11:07 AM
Hugh Beyer > wrote

> I'm wondering if the kind of cycling you're doing makes sense. What most
> people seem to do is to stay pretty close to their target calorie intake
> every day, with a refeed or carb-up every week or two. You seem to be varying
> your intake on a day-to-day basis.

Periodic cycling with at least one higher calorie day a week seems to
work well for me in avoiding the tired, depleted, constantly hungry,
no energy feeling that does not do my weight workouts any good. I may
move to Lyle's version of the CKD, or a TKD. Or I may cycle lower for
a longer period of time and see how far I can cut calories without
ruining my workouts. Still researching.

Thanks again!

- Love2Lift

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 11:07 AM
Hugh Beyer > wrote

> I'm wondering if the kind of cycling you're doing makes sense. What most
> people seem to do is to stay pretty close to their target calorie intake
> every day, with a refeed or carb-up every week or two. You seem to be varying
> your intake on a day-to-day basis.

Periodic cycling with at least one higher calorie day a week seems to
work well for me in avoiding the tired, depleted, constantly hungry,
no energy feeling that does not do my weight workouts any good. I may
move to Lyle's version of the CKD, or a TKD. Or I may cycle lower for
a longer period of time and see how far I can cut calories without
ruining my workouts. Still researching.

Thanks again!

- Love2Lift

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 11:21 AM
elzinator > wrote

> You can safely use a cyclic ketogenic diet (which I think may be the
> best approach here considering), commonly referred to as a CKD. The
> refeed attenuates many of the purported health and boredom issues. Or
> just reduce your carb intake down to 100 g/day, with an additional
> 50-75 on days that you lift weights (not cardio), depending on your
> intensity.

A CKD or TKD sounds like my best bet. I understand that there may be
some useful modifications for women (like, fewer carbs on the carb-up
days and fewer calories overall) that Lyle has only mentioned briefly.
Any additional suggestions?


> I don't think adding yohimbine at this point would make much
> difference. Progesterone/progestins are estrogen antagonists; you
> don't have much to be a concern. It might be useful later when you
> start mobilizing fat stores.

Would any of the suggestions in this article be of specific help to
me? http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/ullis/contrarian-endocrinology-01.htm


> Add to that, it
> is a synthetic progesterone (in the family of compounds commonly
> referred to as 'progestins') made from an androgen. So its a
> schizophrenic compound that doesn't know if it should act like an
> androgen or a progesterone-like substance. So compound (that's a pun)
> that with chronically high levels and you have Hormone Hell.

Wow, I guess that means I'm already on steroids. Not something I
would have chosen if I had taken the time to get better informed.


> I found that they had to do more exercise than I would normally have a
> client do for weight loss. The simple Energy Balance equation didn't
> apply for them; they had to have a greater energy deficit in the form
> of exercise than a lower cal/lb intake. Those women that I could
> convince to use a lowcarb diet (which was sometimes like pulling teeth
> and nails) had better success and allowed a higher intake of calories
> than those who would not eat low carb. I am convinced that the
> chronically high progestin levels ****s up carb metabolism, but I
> can't really substantiate that. The ephedrine/ephedra was useful for
> blunting appetite (and it helped their mood).

My blood pressure is high enough that I don't think I should do an ECA
stack or any ephedrine product right now. But I can certainly
increase the exercise. Is there any upside to this? Can I safely
increase my exercise significantly without as much catabolism? Or is
the progestin only "protecting" my fat cells with no protein sparing
effect?

Much gratitude for the research help!

- Love2Lift

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 11:21 AM
elzinator > wrote

> You can safely use a cyclic ketogenic diet (which I think may be the
> best approach here considering), commonly referred to as a CKD. The
> refeed attenuates many of the purported health and boredom issues. Or
> just reduce your carb intake down to 100 g/day, with an additional
> 50-75 on days that you lift weights (not cardio), depending on your
> intensity.

A CKD or TKD sounds like my best bet. I understand that there may be
some useful modifications for women (like, fewer carbs on the carb-up
days and fewer calories overall) that Lyle has only mentioned briefly.
Any additional suggestions?


> I don't think adding yohimbine at this point would make much
> difference. Progesterone/progestins are estrogen antagonists; you
> don't have much to be a concern. It might be useful later when you
> start mobilizing fat stores.

Would any of the suggestions in this article be of specific help to
me? http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/ullis/contrarian-endocrinology-01.htm


> Add to that, it
> is a synthetic progesterone (in the family of compounds commonly
> referred to as 'progestins') made from an androgen. So its a
> schizophrenic compound that doesn't know if it should act like an
> androgen or a progesterone-like substance. So compound (that's a pun)
> that with chronically high levels and you have Hormone Hell.

Wow, I guess that means I'm already on steroids. Not something I
would have chosen if I had taken the time to get better informed.


> I found that they had to do more exercise than I would normally have a
> client do for weight loss. The simple Energy Balance equation didn't
> apply for them; they had to have a greater energy deficit in the form
> of exercise than a lower cal/lb intake. Those women that I could
> convince to use a lowcarb diet (which was sometimes like pulling teeth
> and nails) had better success and allowed a higher intake of calories
> than those who would not eat low carb. I am convinced that the
> chronically high progestin levels ****s up carb metabolism, but I
> can't really substantiate that. The ephedrine/ephedra was useful for
> blunting appetite (and it helped their mood).

My blood pressure is high enough that I don't think I should do an ECA
stack or any ephedrine product right now. But I can certainly
increase the exercise. Is there any upside to this? Can I safely
increase my exercise significantly without as much catabolism? Or is
the progestin only "protecting" my fat cells with no protein sparing
effect?

Much gratitude for the research help!

- Love2Lift

Hugh Beyer
May 4th 04, 12:19 PM
(Love2Lift) wrote in
m:

> Hugh Beyer > wrote
>
>> I'm wondering if the kind of cycling you're doing makes sense. What
>> most people seem to do is to stay pretty close to their target calorie
>> intake every day, with a refeed or carb-up every week or two. You seem
>> to be varying your intake on a day-to-day basis.
>
> Periodic cycling with at least one higher calorie day a week seems to
> work well for me in avoiding the tired, depleted, constantly hungry,
> no energy feeling that does not do my weight workouts any good. I may
> move to Lyle's version of the CKD, or a TKD. Or I may cycle lower for
> a longer period of time and see how far I can cut calories without
> ruining my workouts. Still researching.

OK, it sounded like what you were doing was more random than that.

FWIW, I think Peter-the-dog's-dick is right that if you've stayed at
essentially the same weight for the last month, you have, by definition, been
eating at maintenance for the past month. Lyle and Elzinator can jump all
over me, but I think all the hormone problems are just changing what
"maintenance" is and altering the body's propensity to put on muscle vs. fat.
So to lose, you have to go 500 cal/day below where you're at now.

Hugh


--
Help! My myofibrillar material is disorganized!

Hugh Beyer
May 4th 04, 12:19 PM
(Love2Lift) wrote in
m:

> Hugh Beyer > wrote
>
>> I'm wondering if the kind of cycling you're doing makes sense. What
>> most people seem to do is to stay pretty close to their target calorie
>> intake every day, with a refeed or carb-up every week or two. You seem
>> to be varying your intake on a day-to-day basis.
>
> Periodic cycling with at least one higher calorie day a week seems to
> work well for me in avoiding the tired, depleted, constantly hungry,
> no energy feeling that does not do my weight workouts any good. I may
> move to Lyle's version of the CKD, or a TKD. Or I may cycle lower for
> a longer period of time and see how far I can cut calories without
> ruining my workouts. Still researching.

OK, it sounded like what you were doing was more random than that.

FWIW, I think Peter-the-dog's-dick is right that if you've stayed at
essentially the same weight for the last month, you have, by definition, been
eating at maintenance for the past month. Lyle and Elzinator can jump all
over me, but I think all the hormone problems are just changing what
"maintenance" is and altering the body's propensity to put on muscle vs. fat.
So to lose, you have to go 500 cal/day below where you're at now.

Hugh


--
Help! My myofibrillar material is disorganized!

DRS
May 4th 04, 02:51 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 4 May 2004 12:36:28 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:

[...]

>> I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are
>> really at fault if they think this is important) and spend more time
>> trying to lose weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista
>> Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.
>
> But we might have fun sticking a dog's dick in your ass.

He wouldn't feel it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS
May 4th 04, 02:51 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 4 May 2004 12:36:28 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:

[...]

>> I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are
>> really at fault if they think this is important) and spend more time
>> trying to lose weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista
>> Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.
>
> But we might have fun sticking a dog's dick in your ass.

He wouldn't feel it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Lyle McDonald
May 4th 04, 03:07 PM
Helgi Briem wrote:

> On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:12:54 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
>
>>My 8th grade bio teacher would often answer 'voodoo, bub' in response to
>>questions he didn't know the answer to. Better yet, that was acceptable
>>on a test.
>
>
> When I was doing undergraduate physiology we used to joke
> that to any physiology question you could always answer:
> "X is regulated by the relative concentration of Calcium ions"
> and be pretty likely to be marked correct.

Works for me.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 4th 04, 03:07 PM
Helgi Briem wrote:

> On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:12:54 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
>
>>My 8th grade bio teacher would often answer 'voodoo, bub' in response to
>>questions he didn't know the answer to. Better yet, that was acceptable
>>on a test.
>
>
> When I was doing undergraduate physiology we used to joke
> that to any physiology question you could always answer:
> "X is regulated by the relative concentration of Calcium ions"
> and be pretty likely to be marked correct.

Works for me.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 4th 04, 03:19 PM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> (Love2Lift) wrote in
> m:
>
>
>>Hugh Beyer > wrote
>>
>>
>>>I'm wondering if the kind of cycling you're doing makes sense. What
>>>most people seem to do is to stay pretty close to their target calorie
>>>intake every day, with a refeed or carb-up every week or two. You seem
>>>to be varying your intake on a day-to-day basis.
>>
>>Periodic cycling with at least one higher calorie day a week seems to
>>work well for me in avoiding the tired, depleted, constantly hungry,
>>no energy feeling that does not do my weight workouts any good. I may
>>move to Lyle's version of the CKD, or a TKD. Or I may cycle lower for
>>a longer period of time and see how far I can cut calories without
>>ruining my workouts. Still researching.
>
>
> OK, it sounded like what you were doing was more random than that.
>
> FWIW, I think Peter-the-dog's-dick is right that if you've stayed at
> essentially the same weight for the last month, you have, by definition, been
> eating at maintenance for the past month. Lyle and Elzinator can jump all
> over me, but I think all the hormone problems are just changing what
> "maintenance" is and altering the body's propensity to put on muscle vs. fat.
> So to lose, you have to go 500 cal/day below where you're at now.

There are, at heart, two issues here:

a. the actual thermodynamics
b. partitioning: where the calories are going

Hormones can affect both. What people forget is that metabolism is
not static and even if the fundamental law of energy in vs. energy out
always holds, the numbers can change. Energy in, obviously, is food.
that can change because you consciously change it (or unconsciously if
you are in prison and are given a fixed amount of food).

Energy out can change as well. Low thyroid or SNS activity, for
example, will lower basal metabolic rate, the energy out number is now
lower than it was. Hyperthyroid or excessive SNS activity (Think EC)
and it goes up. Lots of other things affect this including environment
and genetics. So although the fundamental law always holds, it's not a
static concept. Someone who is hypothyroid and has a depressed basasl
metabolic rate (and may have low activity from fatigue) has a much lower
maintenance; they can lose weight by cutting below that level, they just
have to work harder. That's part a.


What about part b, partitioning: where the claories are going. Hormones
affect this too. So give someone testosterone or clenbuterol and you
will see a loss of fat and a gain in muscle. A thermodynamic miracle?
Of course not. You're simply pulling calories out of one depot (fat)
and putting it elsewhere (muscle). Training tends to partition in this
way as well. Other drugs (atypical antipsychotic) and conditions
(muscular insulin resistance as a consequence of inactivity and
overeating) partition negatively (less muscle, more fat). Simply more
calories are going one place than another.

this can actually appear to make thermodynamics not hold but that's a
consequence of a misunderstanding. You've probably seen that one pound
= 3500 calories. But that's one pound of fat. One pound of muscle
contains about 600 usable calories and takes somewhere between 1200-2400
calories to synthesize (I've never concretely pinned down this value).

which means that, for a given caloric surplus (or deficit), the amount
of actual bodymass/weight lost will varyy depending on what you're
losing. The same deficit or surplus can generate different changes in
bodymass.

So say you have a 10,500 calorie surplus.
If you were to gain 100% fat, you'd gain 3 lbs of bodymass.
If you were to gain 100% muscle (lusing 2400 cal/lb), you'd gain 4.375 lbs.
If you were to gain half and half, you'd gain 3.7 lbs
etc.

Same for a deficit in reverse but the numbers are more divergent.
Say you generate a 7,000 cal deficit.
If you lost 100% fat, tht'd be 2 lbs bodymass.
If you lost 100% muscle (at 600 cal/lb), that'd be over 10 lbs bodymass.
Half and half is somewhere in between the two.

Of course, other components of lean body mass have a different value
(i.e. water = zero) and I should really be talking about LBM above.

Many researchers assume a static %change of 25% LBM/75% fat but that's
incorrect: it depends heavily on initial bodyfat percentage and other
factors. now I have to go poop so I'm done with this post.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 4th 04, 03:19 PM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> (Love2Lift) wrote in
> m:
>
>
>>Hugh Beyer > wrote
>>
>>
>>>I'm wondering if the kind of cycling you're doing makes sense. What
>>>most people seem to do is to stay pretty close to their target calorie
>>>intake every day, with a refeed or carb-up every week or two. You seem
>>>to be varying your intake on a day-to-day basis.
>>
>>Periodic cycling with at least one higher calorie day a week seems to
>>work well for me in avoiding the tired, depleted, constantly hungry,
>>no energy feeling that does not do my weight workouts any good. I may
>>move to Lyle's version of the CKD, or a TKD. Or I may cycle lower for
>>a longer period of time and see how far I can cut calories without
>>ruining my workouts. Still researching.
>
>
> OK, it sounded like what you were doing was more random than that.
>
> FWIW, I think Peter-the-dog's-dick is right that if you've stayed at
> essentially the same weight for the last month, you have, by definition, been
> eating at maintenance for the past month. Lyle and Elzinator can jump all
> over me, but I think all the hormone problems are just changing what
> "maintenance" is and altering the body's propensity to put on muscle vs. fat.
> So to lose, you have to go 500 cal/day below where you're at now.

There are, at heart, two issues here:

a. the actual thermodynamics
b. partitioning: where the calories are going

Hormones can affect both. What people forget is that metabolism is
not static and even if the fundamental law of energy in vs. energy out
always holds, the numbers can change. Energy in, obviously, is food.
that can change because you consciously change it (or unconsciously if
you are in prison and are given a fixed amount of food).

Energy out can change as well. Low thyroid or SNS activity, for
example, will lower basal metabolic rate, the energy out number is now
lower than it was. Hyperthyroid or excessive SNS activity (Think EC)
and it goes up. Lots of other things affect this including environment
and genetics. So although the fundamental law always holds, it's not a
static concept. Someone who is hypothyroid and has a depressed basasl
metabolic rate (and may have low activity from fatigue) has a much lower
maintenance; they can lose weight by cutting below that level, they just
have to work harder. That's part a.


What about part b, partitioning: where the claories are going. Hormones
affect this too. So give someone testosterone or clenbuterol and you
will see a loss of fat and a gain in muscle. A thermodynamic miracle?
Of course not. You're simply pulling calories out of one depot (fat)
and putting it elsewhere (muscle). Training tends to partition in this
way as well. Other drugs (atypical antipsychotic) and conditions
(muscular insulin resistance as a consequence of inactivity and
overeating) partition negatively (less muscle, more fat). Simply more
calories are going one place than another.

this can actually appear to make thermodynamics not hold but that's a
consequence of a misunderstanding. You've probably seen that one pound
= 3500 calories. But that's one pound of fat. One pound of muscle
contains about 600 usable calories and takes somewhere between 1200-2400
calories to synthesize (I've never concretely pinned down this value).

which means that, for a given caloric surplus (or deficit), the amount
of actual bodymass/weight lost will varyy depending on what you're
losing. The same deficit or surplus can generate different changes in
bodymass.

So say you have a 10,500 calorie surplus.
If you were to gain 100% fat, you'd gain 3 lbs of bodymass.
If you were to gain 100% muscle (lusing 2400 cal/lb), you'd gain 4.375 lbs.
If you were to gain half and half, you'd gain 3.7 lbs
etc.

Same for a deficit in reverse but the numbers are more divergent.
Say you generate a 7,000 cal deficit.
If you lost 100% fat, tht'd be 2 lbs bodymass.
If you lost 100% muscle (at 600 cal/lb), that'd be over 10 lbs bodymass.
Half and half is somewhere in between the two.

Of course, other components of lean body mass have a different value
(i.e. water = zero) and I should really be talking about LBM above.

Many researchers assume a static %change of 25% LBM/75% fat but that's
incorrect: it depends heavily on initial bodyfat percentage and other
factors. now I have to go poop so I'm done with this post.

Lyle

bc
May 4th 04, 04:13 PM
"Peter Webb" > wrote in message >...
> <SNIP>

>
> I didn't label you as a dyke for "transgressing societal norms". I merely
> identified that hetereosexual women are more attractive to potential sex
> partners if they lose weight even at the cost of loss of LBM, but this may
> not be true of some lesbians.
>
> I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are really at
> fault if they think this is important) and spend more time trying to lose
> weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.

I think Peter's agressive little boy inside is a little repressed. Go
ahead Peter, let it out. It's ok. We understand.

- bc

bc
May 4th 04, 04:13 PM
"Peter Webb" > wrote in message >...
> <SNIP>

>
> I didn't label you as a dyke for "transgressing societal norms". I merely
> identified that hetereosexual women are more attractive to potential sex
> partners if they lose weight even at the cost of loss of LBM, but this may
> not be true of some lesbians.
>
> I recommend you read less about being fat is OK (and how men are really at
> fault if they think this is important) and spend more time trying to lose
> weight. Personally, I wouldn't **** Krista Scott-Dixon with a dog's dick.

I think Peter's agressive little boy inside is a little repressed. Go
ahead Peter, let it out. It's ok. We understand.

- bc

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 06:16 PM
Hugh Beyer > wrote

> FWIW, I think Peter-the-dog's-dick is right that if you've stayed at
> essentially the same weight for the last month, you have, by definition, been
> eating at maintenance for the past month.

That would be a sensible explanation, but then how would I have been
able to take in over 2,000 calories a day on average for a few months
without gaining or losing weight? Could my metabolism have changed
that much within 30 days of switching to a low fat diet? Can a
ketogenic diet (I was on Atkins at the time) really change the
parameters that far? Atkins does claim a metabolic advantage, and
there may be a wee bit of truth to that, but I trust the science
behind Lyle's book a lot more than I do the Atkins claims. Is it
possible that my maintenance level is 2K on a ketogenic diet but much
lower on a low fat diet?


> Lyle and Elzinator can jump all
> over me, but I think all the hormone problems are just changing what
> "maintenance" is and altering the body's propensity to put on muscle vs. fat.
> So to lose, you have to go 500 cal/day below where you're at now.

I'll let the experts argue the hormone issues; I'm just listening and
taking notes.

If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 06:16 PM
Hugh Beyer > wrote

> FWIW, I think Peter-the-dog's-dick is right that if you've stayed at
> essentially the same weight for the last month, you have, by definition, been
> eating at maintenance for the past month.

That would be a sensible explanation, but then how would I have been
able to take in over 2,000 calories a day on average for a few months
without gaining or losing weight? Could my metabolism have changed
that much within 30 days of switching to a low fat diet? Can a
ketogenic diet (I was on Atkins at the time) really change the
parameters that far? Atkins does claim a metabolic advantage, and
there may be a wee bit of truth to that, but I trust the science
behind Lyle's book a lot more than I do the Atkins claims. Is it
possible that my maintenance level is 2K on a ketogenic diet but much
lower on a low fat diet?


> Lyle and Elzinator can jump all
> over me, but I think all the hormone problems are just changing what
> "maintenance" is and altering the body's propensity to put on muscle vs. fat.
> So to lose, you have to go 500 cal/day below where you're at now.

I'll let the experts argue the hormone issues; I'm just listening and
taking notes.

If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 07:00 PM
Lyle McDonald >

> I have noticed this occur over many years (yes, Roger, empirical
> evidence), there is often a 'lag time', moreso in women's bodies than
> men where you see nothing for some time span and then a drop in fat loss
> that is seemingly impossible.
>
> So at hte 4 week mark of proper eating/training, nothing.
> By 8 weeks, more has happend than shoudl be realistic.

A lot of folks are suggesting with varying degrees of helpfulness that
I should change this and that about my diet for better results. What
you're saying seems to suggest that I might be well advised to give
my current regimen another 4 weeks before making drastic changes? My
next move will be to a TKD. The only question is when to make the
move - right now, or after giving the current plan another month to
more fairly prove out?

What I am doing currently seems to fit the parameters of what I've
been reading on how to do intelligent body recomposition (as opposed
to just "losing weight"). Your books and articles and postings have
been very helpful on this subject, thank you! It has not produced any
visible results in 30 days, but apparently this may not mean quite as
much as I thought it did.

Basically I'm eating 5 or 6 small meals/snacks of healthy, minimally
processed and low glycemic index foods, keeping my macronutrient
profile around 40-50% protein, 25-35% carbs, 20-30% fat. I'm aiming
for a daily caloric deficit of 500 most days from the level that I was
neither gaining nor losing at without exercise. I do some calorie
cycling every week with a few slightly lower and a few slightly higher
calorie days, and one cheat meal every 7 to 14 days that raises my
calories right around maintenance or slightly above. I am also working
out with weights 3-4X weekly for 45 to 60 minutes and doing cardio
most days I'm not lifting.

In the light of what you've said about it taking 8 weeks to show
changes, it seems premature to abandon the current project without
sufficient data to draw any conclusion as to whether it's working or
not. On the other hand ketosis may be advantageous, if it is indeed
true that my maintenance calorie level is lower on a low fat diet than
it is on a low carb diet.

Much appreciate your intelligent input!

Love2Lift
May 4th 04, 07:00 PM
Lyle McDonald >

> I have noticed this occur over many years (yes, Roger, empirical
> evidence), there is often a 'lag time', moreso in women's bodies than
> men where you see nothing for some time span and then a drop in fat loss
> that is seemingly impossible.
>
> So at hte 4 week mark of proper eating/training, nothing.
> By 8 weeks, more has happend than shoudl be realistic.

A lot of folks are suggesting with varying degrees of helpfulness that
I should change this and that about my diet for better results. What
you're saying seems to suggest that I might be well advised to give
my current regimen another 4 weeks before making drastic changes? My
next move will be to a TKD. The only question is when to make the
move - right now, or after giving the current plan another month to
more fairly prove out?

What I am doing currently seems to fit the parameters of what I've
been reading on how to do intelligent body recomposition (as opposed
to just "losing weight"). Your books and articles and postings have
been very helpful on this subject, thank you! It has not produced any
visible results in 30 days, but apparently this may not mean quite as
much as I thought it did.

Basically I'm eating 5 or 6 small meals/snacks of healthy, minimally
processed and low glycemic index foods, keeping my macronutrient
profile around 40-50% protein, 25-35% carbs, 20-30% fat. I'm aiming
for a daily caloric deficit of 500 most days from the level that I was
neither gaining nor losing at without exercise. I do some calorie
cycling every week with a few slightly lower and a few slightly higher
calorie days, and one cheat meal every 7 to 14 days that raises my
calories right around maintenance or slightly above. I am also working
out with weights 3-4X weekly for 45 to 60 minutes and doing cardio
most days I'm not lifting.

In the light of what you've said about it taking 8 weeks to show
changes, it seems premature to abandon the current project without
sufficient data to draw any conclusion as to whether it's working or
not. On the other hand ketosis may be advantageous, if it is indeed
true that my maintenance calorie level is lower on a low fat diet than
it is on a low carb diet.

Much appreciate your intelligent input!

DRS
May 4th 04, 07:33 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om

[...]

> If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
> cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
> except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
> calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?

No. It is not a good idea. It would be extremely unhealthy to stay around
1,000 calories per day for more than a few days. Stay around 1,400-1,500
calories per day and figure out what's ****ing your metabolism up so much
and then fix that.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS
May 4th 04, 07:33 PM
"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om

[...]

> If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
> cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
> except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
> calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?

No. It is not a good idea. It would be extremely unhealthy to stay around
1,000 calories per day for more than a few days. Stay around 1,400-1,500
calories per day and figure out what's ****ing your metabolism up so much
and then fix that.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Chupacabra
May 4th 04, 08:13 PM
On Wed, 5 May 2004 04:33:59 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om
>
>[...]
>
>> If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
>> cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
>> except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
>> calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?
>
>No. It is not a good idea. It would be extremely unhealthy to stay around
>1,000 calories per day for more than a few days.

According to whom? Other than you, that is?

>Stay around 1,400-1,500
>calories per day and figure out what's ****ing your metabolism up so much
>and then fix that.

I'm a ~160 lb. man. To lose fat at a rate not approaching zero, I have
to cut calories to 1200 or so. My metabolism is neither ****ed up nor
abnormal. But according to you, I'm killing myself, yes?

Chupacabra
May 4th 04, 08:13 PM
On Wed, 5 May 2004 04:33:59 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Love2Lift" > wrote in message
om
>
>[...]
>
>> If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
>> cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
>> except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
>> calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?
>
>No. It is not a good idea. It would be extremely unhealthy to stay around
>1,000 calories per day for more than a few days.

According to whom? Other than you, that is?

>Stay around 1,400-1,500
>calories per day and figure out what's ****ing your metabolism up so much
>and then fix that.

I'm a ~160 lb. man. To lose fat at a rate not approaching zero, I have
to cut calories to 1200 or so. My metabolism is neither ****ed up nor
abnormal. But according to you, I'm killing myself, yes?

DRS
May 4th 04, 08:22 PM
"Chupacabra" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 5 May 2004 04:33:59 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:
>> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
>> om
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
>>> cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
>>> except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
>>> calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?
>>
>> No. It is not a good idea. It would be extremely unhealthy to stay
>> around 1,000 calories per day for more than a few days.
>
> According to whom? Other than you, that is?

According to lots of nutritionists and doctors.

>> Stay around 1,400-1,500
>> calories per day and figure out what's ****ing your metabolism up so
>> much and then fix that.
>
> I'm a ~160 lb. man. To lose fat at a rate not approaching zero, I have
> to cut calories to 1200 or so. My metabolism is neither ****ed up nor
> abnormal. But according to you, I'm killing myself, yes?

Where do you get the 1,200 figure from? You're only a couple of kilos
heavier than I am and when I run the figures through the spreadsheet even at
the Sedentary activity level I still come up with a loss target
(maintenance - 20%) of about 1,600. Maintenance - 500 would be closer to
1,550. What's your bf%?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS
May 4th 04, 08:22 PM
"Chupacabra" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 5 May 2004 04:33:59 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:
>> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
>> om
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
>>> cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
>>> except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
>>> calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?
>>
>> No. It is not a good idea. It would be extremely unhealthy to stay
>> around 1,000 calories per day for more than a few days.
>
> According to whom? Other than you, that is?

According to lots of nutritionists and doctors.

>> Stay around 1,400-1,500
>> calories per day and figure out what's ****ing your metabolism up so
>> much and then fix that.
>
> I'm a ~160 lb. man. To lose fat at a rate not approaching zero, I have
> to cut calories to 1200 or so. My metabolism is neither ****ed up nor
> abnormal. But according to you, I'm killing myself, yes?

Where do you get the 1,200 figure from? You're only a couple of kilos
heavier than I am and when I run the figures through the spreadsheet even at
the Sedentary activity level I still come up with a loss target
(maintenance - 20%) of about 1,600. Maintenance - 500 would be closer to
1,550. What's your bf%?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Nina
May 4th 04, 09:08 PM
On 4 May 2004 10:16:41 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:

>Hugh Beyer > wrote
>
>> FWIW, I think Peter-the-dog's-dick is right that if you've stayed at
>> essentially the same weight for the last month, you have, by definition, been
>> eating at maintenance for the past month.
>
>That would be a sensible explanation, but then how would I have been
>able to take in over 2,000 calories a day on average for a few months
>without gaining or losing weight? Could my metabolism have changed
>that much within 30 days of switching to a low fat diet? Can a
>ketogenic diet (I was on Atkins at the time) really change the
>parameters that far? Atkins does claim a metabolic advantage, and
>there may be a wee bit of truth to that, but I trust the science
>behind Lyle's book a lot more than I do the Atkins claims. Is it
>possible that my maintenance level is 2K on a ketogenic diet but much
>lower on a low fat diet?
>
>
>> Lyle and Elzinator can jump all
>> over me, but I think all the hormone problems are just changing what
>> "maintenance" is and altering the body's propensity to put on muscle vs. fat.
>> So to lose, you have to go 500 cal/day below where you're at now.
>
>I'll let the experts argue the hormone issues; I'm just listening and
>taking notes.
>
>If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
>cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
>except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
>calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?

You can try it. I've done it. It's not fun, but if it works, then
you know where the lines are drawn and what you have to do. My
thought is is your can eat in the quadruple digits and lose weight,
you're fine. :)

If it doesn't, then perhaps it's time to get tested for thyroid
issues, etc.

I have/am having the same problems. I don't think I'm breaking the
laws of physics, but I do suspect that things have shut down to the
point where I simply can't eat so few calories (read: 500-600 a day +
exercise). But seeing as how I have a host of other symptoms, I have
an idea that something else may be wrong as well. Hopefully I'll get
some answers with my bloodwork.

Cheers,
Nina

delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Nina
May 4th 04, 09:08 PM
On 4 May 2004 10:16:41 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:

>Hugh Beyer > wrote
>
>> FWIW, I think Peter-the-dog's-dick is right that if you've stayed at
>> essentially the same weight for the last month, you have, by definition, been
>> eating at maintenance for the past month.
>
>That would be a sensible explanation, but then how would I have been
>able to take in over 2,000 calories a day on average for a few months
>without gaining or losing weight? Could my metabolism have changed
>that much within 30 days of switching to a low fat diet? Can a
>ketogenic diet (I was on Atkins at the time) really change the
>parameters that far? Atkins does claim a metabolic advantage, and
>there may be a wee bit of truth to that, but I trust the science
>behind Lyle's book a lot more than I do the Atkins claims. Is it
>possible that my maintenance level is 2K on a ketogenic diet but much
>lower on a low fat diet?
>
>
>> Lyle and Elzinator can jump all
>> over me, but I think all the hormone problems are just changing what
>> "maintenance" is and altering the body's propensity to put on muscle vs. fat.
>> So to lose, you have to go 500 cal/day below where you're at now.
>
>I'll let the experts argue the hormone issues; I'm just listening and
>taking notes.
>
>If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
>cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
>except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
>calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?

You can try it. I've done it. It's not fun, but if it works, then
you know where the lines are drawn and what you have to do. My
thought is is your can eat in the quadruple digits and lose weight,
you're fine. :)

If it doesn't, then perhaps it's time to get tested for thyroid
issues, etc.

I have/am having the same problems. I don't think I'm breaking the
laws of physics, but I do suspect that things have shut down to the
point where I simply can't eat so few calories (read: 500-600 a day +
exercise). But seeing as how I have a host of other symptoms, I have
an idea that something else may be wrong as well. Hopefully I'll get
some answers with my bloodwork.

Cheers,
Nina

delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Nina
May 4th 04, 09:15 PM
On Wed, 5 May 2004 05:22:43 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Chupacabra" > wrote in message

>> On Wed, 5 May 2004 04:33:59 +1000, "DRS" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
>>> om
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
>>>> cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
>>>> except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
>>>> calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?
>>>
>>> No. It is not a good idea. It would be extremely unhealthy to stay
>>> around 1,000 calories per day for more than a few days.
>>
>> According to whom? Other than you, that is?
>
>According to lots of nutritionists and doctors.
>
>>> Stay around 1,400-1,500
>>> calories per day and figure out what's ****ing your metabolism up so
>>> much and then fix that.
>>
>> I'm a ~160 lb. man. To lose fat at a rate not approaching zero, I have
>> to cut calories to 1200 or so. My metabolism is neither ****ed up nor
>> abnormal. But according to you, I'm killing myself, yes?
>
>Where do you get the 1,200 figure from? You're only a couple of kilos
>heavier than I am and when I run the figures through the spreadsheet even at
>the Sedentary activity level I still come up with a loss target
>(maintenance - 20%) of about 1,600. Maintenance - 500 would be closer to
>1,550. What's your bf%?

See, this is where "we are all not the same" comes in. Some people
have to cut more than others to experience fat loss. Why is that so
hard to fathom?

Cheers,
Nina

delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Nina
May 4th 04, 09:15 PM
On Wed, 5 May 2004 05:22:43 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Chupacabra" > wrote in message

>> On Wed, 5 May 2004 04:33:59 +1000, "DRS" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Love2Lift" > wrote in message
>>> om
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
>>>> cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
>>>> except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
>>>> calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?
>>>
>>> No. It is not a good idea. It would be extremely unhealthy to stay
>>> around 1,000 calories per day for more than a few days.
>>
>> According to whom? Other than you, that is?
>
>According to lots of nutritionists and doctors.
>
>>> Stay around 1,400-1,500
>>> calories per day and figure out what's ****ing your metabolism up so
>>> much and then fix that.
>>
>> I'm a ~160 lb. man. To lose fat at a rate not approaching zero, I have
>> to cut calories to 1200 or so. My metabolism is neither ****ed up nor
>> abnormal. But according to you, I'm killing myself, yes?
>
>Where do you get the 1,200 figure from? You're only a couple of kilos
>heavier than I am and when I run the figures through the spreadsheet even at
>the Sedentary activity level I still come up with a loss target
>(maintenance - 20%) of about 1,600. Maintenance - 500 would be closer to
>1,550. What's your bf%?

See, this is where "we are all not the same" comes in. Some people
have to cut more than others to experience fat loss. Why is that so
hard to fathom?

Cheers,
Nina

delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

DRS
May 5th 04, 01:53 PM
"Nina" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 5 May 2004 05:22:43 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:
>> "Chupacabra" > wrote in message
>>

[...]

>>> I'm a ~160 lb. man. To lose fat at a rate not approaching zero, I
>>> have to cut calories to 1200 or so. My metabolism is neither ****ed
>>> up nor abnormal. But according to you, I'm killing myself, yes?
>>
>> Where do you get the 1,200 figure from? You're only a couple of
>> kilos heavier than I am and when I run the figures through the
>> spreadsheet even at the Sedentary activity level I still come up
>> with a loss target (maintenance - 20%) of about 1,600. Maintenance
>> - 500 would be closer to 1,550. What's your bf%?
>
> See, this is where "we are all not the same" comes in. Some people
> have to cut more than others to experience fat loss. Why is that so
> hard to fathom?

It's hard to fathom that there should be so great a disparity when he claims
his metabolism isn't ****ed up.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Chupacabra
May 5th 04, 03:46 PM
On Wed, 5 May 2004 22:53:17 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Nina" > wrote in message

>> On Wed, 5 May 2004 05:22:43 +1000, "DRS" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Chupacabra" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>[...]
>
>>>> I'm a ~160 lb. man. To lose fat at a rate not approaching zero, I
>>>> have to cut calories to 1200 or so. My metabolism is neither ****ed
>>>> up nor abnormal. But according to you, I'm killing myself, yes?
>>>
>>> Where do you get the 1,200 figure from? You're only a couple of
>>> kilos heavier than I am and when I run the figures through the
>>> spreadsheet even at the Sedentary activity level I still come up
>>> with a loss target (maintenance - 20%) of about 1,600. Maintenance
>>> - 500 would be closer to 1,550. What's your bf%?
>>
>> See, this is where "we are all not the same" comes in. Some people
>> have to cut more than others to experience fat loss. Why is that so
>> hard to fathom?
>
>It's hard to fathom that there should be so great a disparity when he claims
>his metabolism isn't ****ed up.

160 lbs x 8 = 1280.

Lots of people have to drop to 8 kcal/lb to lose fat at an acceptable
rate.

If you don't, lucky for you.

Lyle McDonald
May 5th 04, 09:43 PM
Love2Lift wrote:
>
> Hugh Beyer > wrote
>
> > FWIW, I think Peter-the-dog's-dick is right that if you've stayed at
> > essentially the same weight for the last month, you have, by definition, been
> > eating at maintenance for the past month.
>
> That would be a sensible explanation, but then how would I have been
> able to take in over 2,000 calories a day on average for a few months
> without gaining or losing weight? Could my metabolism have changed
> that much within 30 days of switching to a low fat diet? Can a
> ketogenic diet (I was on Atkins at the time) really change the
> parameters that far?

No.

> Atkins does claim a metabolic advantage, and
> there may be a wee bit of truth to that,

Wee is an overstatement.

but I trust the science
> behind Lyle's book a lot more than I do the Atkins claims. Is it
> possible that my maintenance level is 2K on a ketogenic diet but much
> lower on a low fat diet?

Maybe if you think that the rapid cahgnes in water balance are relevant.
But in NO study where calories are strictly controlled does changing the
macro content of the diet amount to ****. In one study, hospital
patients had their diet adjusted from 0 to 70% fat (carbs were
reciprocally adjusted) with protein constant. Weight changed minimally,
if at all, despite calories reamining identical (set at estimated maintenance).


> If I go 500 cal/day below where I am now and continue the periodic
> cycling thing, that puts me at 900-1100 calories most of the time
> except for one day a week where I would be eating at the higher
> calorie level of 1400 or so. Would that be considered a good idea?

If you haven't lost anything in a few months, any change would be a good idea.

Lyle's #1 Rule: If it's working, don't **** with it.
Corrolary: If it's not working, change it.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
May 5th 04, 09:44 PM
Love2Lift wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald >
>
> > I have noticed this occur over many years (yes, Roger, empirical
> > evidence), there is often a 'lag time', moreso in women's bodies than
> > men where you see nothing for some time span and then a drop in fat loss
> > that is seemingly impossible.
> >
> > So at hte 4 week mark of proper eating/training, nothing.
> > By 8 weeks, more has happend than shoudl be realistic.
>
> A lot of folks are suggesting with varying degrees of helpfulness that
> I should change this and that about my diet for better results. What
> you're saying seems to suggest that I might be well advised to give
> my current regimen another 4 weeks before making drastic changes?

Assuming that you are a rank beginner engaging in a diet/exercise
program, yes. I have seen changes take longer than 4 weeks enough times
to feel safe in that.

If someone's not in that situation and is 'doing everything right' and
nothing has changed in 4 weeks, it's time to mak ea change to the
program. Because it won't magically start working after that point.

Note that I'm coming into this late and may have missed some details.

Lyle

Slambram
May 6th 04, 02:20 PM
On 2 May 2004 01:13:06 -0700, (Love2Lift) wrote:

>
>Anyhow I'm frustrated. Scotty, beam me down to a planet where the
>laws of physics work. I don't see how I can be doing what I'm doing,
>eating what I'm eating and still have my measurements stay pretty much
>the same.
>

I love the subject too. Classic FFID. They're all convinced they're
using nuclear fusion or chlorophyll to create more energy than they're
taking in.

Stop worrying so much about losing muscle mass. This is for people
who have worked to put on a good amount of muscle and are trying to
lose the few extra pounds of bodyfat that inevitibly come with it. At
your weight, your #1 priority should be to lose weight. Get yourself
back to baseline. If you're careful about what you eat, you can get
the muscle back relatively easily when while gaining very little fat.

Love2Lift
May 6th 04, 05:12 PM
Thank you Lyle. The input is appreciated.

For anyone who has been following this thread, the 3 pound apparent
weight gain was transitory, probably water weight fluctuation. I'm
back at 180. Bought a cheapass Taylor BFA scale to get some ideas on
my bf% trends from week to week, though I know it's not the most
accurate device in the world.

Rather than drop calories too much further, I'm adding another cardio
sesson or two per week and keeping more careful measurements of
everything I eat and drink as well as keeping an eye on bf% trends.
Waiting another month to see results.