- This topic has 63 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
im like 125lbs, 5’2.
Im 125lbs, 5’2.
Hehe, yeah… the truth often disappoints folks.
You guys fail to realize (among other things) that body fat is a legitimate source of nutrition. Your body can utilize approx 30 calories per pound of bodyfat daily, so anyone with 10 lbs of fat to lose can easily get 300 calories of nutrition per day from it.
And you’re grossly over-estimating the amount of calories burned during exercise, which is not that much above normal cell maintenance.
But I’m about done here. Clients want a magic fix to weight loss and there just isn’t one. And coaches want them to keep coming back.
I gave her a realistic long term fix. Working out 11 times per week on even 1200 calories is what you suggested; giving her a crash course to “see results in a week”
It’s not about the energy burned during exercise, it’s about the energy burned during and AFTER exercise
You’re right about one thing: No magic here.
– Coach Tony
I’ve no idea why you say I suggested 11 workouts per week, as I certainly did not.
I posted the following: “In reality, physical activity has very little effect on fat loss, which probably depends 95% (or more?) on your diet. However, a couple of brief, heavy workouts per week can help prevent muscle loss.”
I spent 8 months on CNS and lost 30-40 pounds. I’ve lost half that in a month counting calories, with no loss of strength in my workouts.
Everyone’s maintenance level is different, so body charts have very little value. You find your true maintenance level by determining the calorie level that maintains your weight.
Again, your body cannot create its own fuel. It operates on nutrient intake and/or bodyfat. And without a calorie deficit, it has no reason to access those fat stores.
While I agree that gain/loss comes from energy surplus/deficit, setting a specific number (hint: calories) is somewhat absurd. The whole “caloric number” was established many decades ago and there’s no scientific proof of those values. Our bodies do not operate on the first law of thermodynamics alone – they are MUCH more complicated than that.
What also needs to be taken into consideration are the different factors and backgrounds of the individuals. For example, a person who is mostly sedentary outside of the gym with a lot of fat to lose can do well on an aggressive approach. But then saying, “I lost weight reducing calories, so you should too,” to an experienced who doesn’t have much fat to lose and very active is as ridiculous as a novice lifter saying, “Hey, I got stronger on Starting Strength, so you should too,” to an advanced/elite lifter.
Activity, the types of food, hormones, stress, lifestyle, etc… all of those things play some role in affecting the energy input and energy output. I’ve personally found that the more active I am, the better progress I had from eating more. If weight manipulation was as simple as “counting calories” I think we’d see almost everyone being ripped to shreds.
Training Log: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vuwHRdBaPVILxxLhXly_N1Ys66Hcwk4j-bM7nvKSLrI/edit?usp=sharing
– MT wrote:
“While I agree that gain/loss comes from energy surplus/deficit”Great! At least we can agree on something. 🙂
– MT wrote:
“setting a specific number (hint: calories) is somewhat absurd.”And yet I’m guessing you have no problem with using macros as a cornerstone measurement of food intake (hint: protein and carbs are 4 calories per gram, fat is 9 calories per gram).
– MT wrote:
“The whole ‘caloric number’ was established many decades ago”The wheel was established many centuries ago. What’s your point?
– MT wrote:
“What also needs to be taken into consideration are the different factors and backgrounds of the individuals. For example, a person who is mostly sedentary outside of the gym with a lot of fat to lose can do well on an aggressive approach.”No argument here. Didn’t I say everyone’s maintenance level is different?
– MT wrote:
“But then saying, ‘I lost weight reducing calories, so you should too,’ to an experienced who doesn’t have much fat to lose and very active is as ridiculous as a novice lifter saying, ‘Hey, I got stronger on Starting Strength, so you should too,’ to an advanced/elite lifter.”Apples and oranges. Most folks in the fitness world know (or should, anyway) that beginners gain muscle at a greater rate than experienced lifters, unless those experienced lifters haven’t worked out in a good while (in which case “muscle memory” becomes a factor). But this has nothing whatsoever to do with fat loss.
However, experience is generally the cornerstone by which advice is validated. In other words… if you’ve never been overweight, why should anyone listen to your advice on weight loss?
– MT wrote:
“I’ve personally found that the more active I am, the better progress I had from eating more.”So folks should listen to your experience and ignore mine? A fascinating (and somewhat egotistical) point of view… which doen’t change the facts in any case.
– MT wrote:
“If weight manipulation was as simple as ‘counting calories’ I think we’d see almost everyone being ripped to shreds.”No, we’d see people trying to find shortcuts, trying special or “newly discovered” diets, and any other thing proposed to work with little effort on their part.
Oh wait, you can already see that. 😛
Once again… Your body does not, cannot, under any circumstances, create its own fuel. It functions solely on nutrient intake (foods/drinks) and/or stored fat.
And if nutrient intake meets or exceeds the body’s expenditures, there is no reason to access that stored fat.
Hmm, I honestly didn’t think giving some of my view points would call for such nit-picky evaluations and criticisms.
Mac, (this feels weird, that was my nickname in high school) I could respond to everything you’ve criticized from my comment, but I’m not here to start an argument/debate on someone else’s post. I’d be willing to clarify my points somewhere else, but I’m just gonna say that it seems like you’re jumping to conclusions without really reading everything I wrote in context. That’s fine, you do you. What do I know about fat loss, after all, I’m just a former fatass who lost weight.Training Log: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vuwHRdBaPVILxxLhXly_N1Ys66Hcwk4j-bM7nvKSLrI/edit?usp=sharing
Jeanice,
Based on your height and weight, you aren’t overweight for a girl who lifts. What exactly are your goals? I think the reason you are having trouble losing body fat is because you do not have much to lose.
What I would do is keep your food intake roughly the same and cut down on the exercise. I think you adapted to all the cardio and it really isn’t burning the calories that you think it is.
If you are trying to be really lean all the time it is going to take much longer than two months and your strategy of forcing a huge calorie deficit just isn’t sustainable.
Once again I have to agree with Ibob. Couple of other things going on too I suspect: all that cardio is driving cortisol to chronic levels I’m sure. Then there is electron steal from mitochondria…
The eyes can't see what the mind doesn't understand.
– MT wrote:
“Hmm, I honestly didn’t think giving some of my view points would call for such nit-picky evaluations and criticisms.”Neither did I. Annoying as all get out isn’t it?
– MT wrote:
“I’m just gonna say that it seems like you’re jumping to conclusions without really reading everything I wrote in context.”Right back at ya. You might even try considering my post as legitimate replies to the points mentioned, rather than “criticism.”
I actually did read your post, and even agree with some of it, as mentioned. Apologies if my reply came off as more flippant than intended (admittedly, I was a bit annoyed).
But “calorie” isn’t the bad guy here, it’s just another tool to monitor food intake (and simpler than trying to juggle macros IMO).
I just wish someone had advised me to lower calories a bit rather than keep telling me I wasn’t eating enough.
Apologies for the thread hijack, Jeanice. I’ll bow out now. 🙂
Once again… Your body does not, cannot, under any circumstances, create its own fuel. It functions solely on nutrient intake (foods/drinks) and/or stored fat.
And if nutrient intake meets or exceeds the body’s expenditures, there is no reason to access that stored fat.
False & False.
1) In a calorie deficit, before accessing fat stores, internal organs & muscle gets hit first by scavenging amino acids unless appropriate measures are taken.
2) nutrient intake is never a constant (unless you are fed by an IV I guess). We eat, then do other things, we store fat if appropriate mechanisms are in place then metabolize fat stores again if appropriate mechanisms are in place until we eat again. This happens both in a calorie deficit & surplus.This is basic physiology…
The eyes can't see what the mind doesn't understand.
Lol, this is basic nonsense for healthy folks on 1000 calories per day or more. We’re not talking about 3rd world starvation levels here.
But go right ahead and peddle these extreme possibilities. People seem to love any excuse, and I’m sure you’ll be popular as a result.
I’m done. Have a nice day. 🙂
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.