Shifting that last bit of blubber
Discussion
I was wondering if the PH masses could help me out?
basically ive been using the gym for over a year got myself down from 22st to 16.7st, i use the gym 4 days a week which consist of 10mins rowing as a warm up, weights for 30/40mins then 20mins of interval cardio. on the other days i play rugby. so im basically working out 6 days a week (sunday is rest day)
i have, however, appeared to hit a plateau. Ideally id like to loose a stone to flatten up my belly,(the rest of my body has definition just not my stomach which still hangs out about an inch, waist where my trousers are is 30inches but my belly is 32?????) but nothing i seem to be doing is working...i eat less than 1500cals a day, this includes protien shakes. for example a typical work day:
breakfast
1 x protien shake
2 x slices of wholemeal bread with low fat peanut butter
morning snack
1x apple
lunch
2 x small ham rolls
afternoon snack
1 x banana
Dinner
1/2 cup of rice and chicken
1 x apple
1 x protien shake post gym/rugby
i also only drink water/milk
ive done searches on google and most say i need to be comsuming 3000cals to loose weight(which doesnt make sense to me)
does anyone have any tips to re-start the weight loss/or an explaination as to why its stopped?
apoligies for the essay...
basically ive been using the gym for over a year got myself down from 22st to 16.7st, i use the gym 4 days a week which consist of 10mins rowing as a warm up, weights for 30/40mins then 20mins of interval cardio. on the other days i play rugby. so im basically working out 6 days a week (sunday is rest day)
i have, however, appeared to hit a plateau. Ideally id like to loose a stone to flatten up my belly,(the rest of my body has definition just not my stomach which still hangs out about an inch, waist where my trousers are is 30inches but my belly is 32?????) but nothing i seem to be doing is working...i eat less than 1500cals a day, this includes protien shakes. for example a typical work day:
breakfast
1 x protien shake
2 x slices of wholemeal bread with low fat peanut butter
morning snack
1x apple
lunch
2 x small ham rolls
afternoon snack
1 x banana
Dinner
1/2 cup of rice and chicken
1 x apple
1 x protien shake post gym/rugby
i also only drink water/milk
ive done searches on google and most say i need to be comsuming 3000cals to loose weight(which doesnt make sense to me)
does anyone have any tips to re-start the weight loss/or an explaination as to why its stopped?
apoligies for the essay...
Tiggsy said:
A minor thing but...10mins rowing to warm up? Thats a workout on it's own!
Why not just do some light sets first of whatever weights you are doing? Rowing for 10 mins seems pointless.....unless you just love rowing!
Hardly a workout 10 mins on the rower.Why not just do some light sets first of whatever weights you are doing? Rowing for 10 mins seems pointless.....unless you just love rowing!
I use this to warm up myself before doing a workout. I then follow the same routine as the OP. I`m not on 6 days per week though, so I don`t think your going wrong there.
I`m learning lots about nutrition due to my diet at the moment and cutting carbs.
Have you tried cutting out carbs after 5pm eg the rice? Maybe having say turkey slices (fresh) at lunch instead of the ham rolls.
I`ve been told to cut out the fruit too due to the natural carbs.
BenM77 said:
OP, if you measure 32" around your belly at 16 stone 7 then you ain't fat 
Unfortunately if you have been fat, it is harder to get the last bit off without nailing the diet.
Hopefully ordinary_chap will spot this post, he has achieved this and will give good advice
Heh, I try not to post in every of these threads but thanks Ben. There are plenty of others on here who know more than I about things. I'd put Goldblum, 996SPS, Lost_BMW, mcelliot, ballders118 and several others above myself in knowledge and experience. I have quite narrow field of knowledge in that I know how to change people's body compositions and muscle levels.Unfortunately if you have been fat, it is harder to get the last bit off without nailing the diet.
Hopefully ordinary_chap will spot this post, he has achieved this and will give good advice
I actually think your diet could be improved a lot, I also don't think you're eating enough given your weight and activity level and the penalty from consistently under-eating is the body clinging on to fat reserves.
I tend to recommend people use the Harris benedict equation.
Starting here to get the base number;
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/
And then onto the equation here;
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harri...
It's important however to remember this is a guide and not a fact.
Example;
If I work on the basis you're 230lbs (16.4s) and 5'7 (I don't know how tall you are!) with a heavy exercise level then you'd need 3700 calories a day to main current weight so even if you dipped below 3,000 on a good diet you should lose weight (in this example).
Weight loss will absolutely stop if you massively under-eat since one of the bodies survival mechanisms is to store fat when it doesn't have enough food.
There are lots of other ways to lose weight in addition to this but I think you need to start eating more.
Once you get to close to your ideal weight then it becomes a challenge to continue losing and I tend to combat by changing training, doing things like fasted cardio and also adding in some supplements.
Edited by Ordinary_Chap on Thursday 27th October 07:51
BenM77 said:
Unfortunately if you have been fat, it is harder to get the last bit off without nailing the diet.
^^^^^This, coming from a layabout student who slept all day to a working out 6/7 days a week...
i saw the initial drop and have kept the same diet from the begining(September '10). The BMR calculations suggest i eat just under 4000 cals a day. Ive been reading alot of books recently that suggest eating more lean meat at meals and having 5 meals a day, and replacing the bread at lunch with chinese cabbage!? I suppose if diet is where im going wrong i may need to continue reading books and adjust & sit down with a trainer/dietition and figure out how to imrpove it.
Thanks for the advice guys
Hi Alex,
Below are some links of places I like to read from (I'm very selective because there is so much junk out there);
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/
- Ultimate Diet 2.0 is such a fantastic read, it explains in great deal how and why the body stores fat then of course how to not do so!
http://www.brinkzone.com/
Here is some outline info from Will Brink;
Anyway there's tons of ways to do this other than the ways I've previously recommended.
Below are some links of places I like to read from (I'm very selective because there is so much junk out there);
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/
- Ultimate Diet 2.0 is such a fantastic read, it explains in great deal how and why the body stores fat then of course how to not do so!
http://www.brinkzone.com/
Here is some outline info from Will Brink;
article said:
Will Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition
by Will Brink
Introduction
When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even "Theory of Everything," they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.
Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.
Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as stated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients. One school, I would say the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.
The other school, I would call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence. This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.
Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:
A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.
A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.
Continued here; http://bodybuilding.about.com/od/nutritionbasics/a...by Will Brink
Introduction
When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even "Theory of Everything," they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.
Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.
Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as stated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients. One school, I would say the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.
The other school, I would call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence. This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.
Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:
A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.
A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.
Anyway there's tons of ways to do this other than the ways I've previously recommended.
From my own direct experience - supported by the findings/research of others including the things OC has done/posted - I'd suggest cutting out the bread/carbs (except leafy veg/salad etc.) at least for a few days a week. Keeping my body guessing often seems to help.
Also supersetting cardio with weights/ circuit training and interval work has helped me get over sticking points. For example cycling or jogging on the spot between sets of upper body work or doing things like leg press-lats-leg press-lats etc. That sort of thing has kick started my metabolism/ burned fat and cost little muscle or strength.
Also supersetting cardio with weights/ circuit training and interval work has helped me get over sticking points. For example cycling or jogging on the spot between sets of upper body work or doing things like leg press-lats-leg press-lats etc. That sort of thing has kick started my metabolism/ burned fat and cost little muscle or strength.
I was going to say drop the carbs too - the body finds them easy to use as energy. Make it work at it some and it'll start burning off fat, so perversely it'd probably be better to take in your calories as fat (which has to be broken down and rebuilt into different fat to be turned into body fat, all taking energy) as then your path of least resistance is to burn off the belly.
^^^
Also, people worry about cholesterol. Probably unnecessarily unless you have some genetic or biological disposition to having unbalanced ('good' and 'bad' lipid levels) and high levels.
As Charles Bass proved with his high-in-eggs diet and regular testing, including something like <4% body fat for extended periods, the body quickly adapts and restores the balance (his levels rose for a short while then returned to his normal range), plus it is a necessary building block/precursor of testosterone.
My levels were tested twice by the GP and came out at 2.6 - something like half the national target and way below the average despite loads of milk, cheese etc. The high level of exercise plus lucky genes likely the reason for my tolerance to dietary fat.
Also, people worry about cholesterol. Probably unnecessarily unless you have some genetic or biological disposition to having unbalanced ('good' and 'bad' lipid levels) and high levels.
As Charles Bass proved with his high-in-eggs diet and regular testing, including something like <4% body fat for extended periods, the body quickly adapts and restores the balance (his levels rose for a short while then returned to his normal range), plus it is a necessary building block/precursor of testosterone.
My levels were tested twice by the GP and came out at 2.6 - something like half the national target and way below the average despite loads of milk, cheese etc. The high level of exercise plus lucky genes likely the reason for my tolerance to dietary fat.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff