Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
DARRYLP67 Posts: 578
7/16/10 12:01 A


BIGDAVEJ Posts: 819
7/15/10 3:31 P

I am happy when I don't gain. Lost 32 pounds this year with a goal of 50. A week or 2 or 3 of not gaining is OK with me right now. Then I'll have a week of putting in the extra effort and lose a few. Water is also a key for me, especially in this hot weather.

GETNFITGUY SparkPoints: (23,650)
Fitness Minutes: (25,262)
Posts: 734
7/9/10 9:09 A

NHGUY: Don't worry too much about the hardy losses. If you've just started tracking your food and exercising in June it's only been 40 days. You'll start to see some losses soon if you stick with it.

I notice your weight loss meter, and it looks like you might be like me. These last few pounds are the hardest to lose. The weight is going to come off slower as you get closer to your goal or ideal weight. Stick with it! :)

I'm starting to not focus on the scale quite as much, although I still use it to "keep me in check", and I'm starting to focus on body fat and the shape/look of my body. I already weigh what I did in high school when I was lean and mean. I just have some lifting/cardio to do to get me toned up a little bit.

NHGUY78 Posts: 99
7/9/10 1:03 A

Outbacknuts: thanks for your post. I thought I was the only one coming out under the SP recommendation for caloric intake. I get 1200-1600 most days. I am satisfied although I don't get enough K, Ca or Mg. Some days, though, my sodium is a little high but I've been trying to drink more water to offset that. I'm still bouncing around a little on the scale. I have yet to see any hardy losses since tracking and exercising in June.

GETNFITGUY SparkPoints: (23,650)
Fitness Minutes: (25,262)
Posts: 734
7/8/10 9:50 A

HAMMY: How has your progress been recently? The hardest part is that this is a life change, not something to do for a week. It will take time, but if you track everything your eating and exercising at whatever level is difficult for you, you will lose weight. Hit the gym and lift some weights too. Even if you start out doing curls with 5lb weights - that ok. Don't let yourself get discouraged. Changing your lifestyle is probably the hardest part of new eating habits and working out more.

I know everyone's body is different, but I rarely eat over 2,000 calories a day, except around Holidays, that's my weak spot emoticon . I actually try to stay between 1,500 - 1,850 calories. I've actually talked with guys at the gym about this and their usual response is "Why do you eat like a chic?" Well, for me, that amount is satisfying and I make good choices - mostly. I choose my foods wisely and eat things that are fulfilling.

It was hard at first to eat this few calories but your body will adjust. Today my day is as follows:

String cheese
8oz coffee with 2 non-dairy creamer packets and 1 packet of granulated sugar

Midday snack:
1 scoop whey protein powder (130 calories, 2g carbs, 4g fat, 23g protein)
1 peach

1/4lb ground turkey burger leftover from when I grilled last night
1 piece of whole grain bread (split in half for the bun)
1/2 slice of provolone cheese
1 cup cottage cheese
3 cups spinach/romaine lettuce mix
2 tbsp low fat ranch with a pinch of shredded cheddar cheese

Afternoon snack:
1 apple (pink lady)
1 scoop whey protein

Dinner (planning on):
6oz chicken breast
1 cup whole grain rotini
1/3 cup pasta sauce
1 cup watermelon
vegetable, either asparagus, beans or peas

Workout today:
Lift weights over lunch (7 exercises 3 sets of 12,10,8).
Today is my quick run day, after work I'll run 3.5 miles in 25 minutes then after running, swim 1 mile in 30 minutes (35 laps in a 25 meter pool).

Although my calories are under what SP recommends, I won't feel exhausted and I'll have the energy to complete all this.

If I am still hungry later on, I have almonds or beef jerky for a little extra. Stay away from those dang ice cream sandwiches the wife buys the best you can.

Like you've all said, diet is huge. An over weight person can lose weight by staying around 1,800 - 2,000 calories a day and if they exercise at what ever level is 'vigorous' for them they will accelerate their weight loss.

Good luck Hammy, and stay focused. YOU CAN DO IT!!

DARRYLP67 Posts: 578
7/1/10 11:47 P


NHGUY78 Posts: 99
7/1/10 9:08 P

Have you had any additional progress?

NHGUY78 Posts: 99
6/25/10 12:51 A

Ditto to everyone...

I've found that consistancy in weight measurement helps, too. I weigh myself when I wake up AFTER I've relieved myself but BEFORE I eat anything. I keep at that schedule so as to keep a baseline to compare. If you have not had a bowel movement in a day or so, you will be retaining that weight. If you are dehydrated from heat or excessively salty foods, you will retain water weight because of electrolyte imbalances.

Share what you eat so other can help... and good luck!

JOSHTOWNLEY SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (2,620)
Posts: 135
6/24/10 10:11 P

As others have said, use the 'my Nutrition' tool to track your food.
Also, make sure you're doing strength training as well as cardio.

PAZUHO SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (10,075)
Posts: 915
6/24/10 3:56 A

tracking really helps a lot
and maintain a reasonable calorie intake
eating not enough will make you more difficult to lose weight
and track the exercise to see how much you have burnt

GRACEFULIFE Posts: 1,705
6/23/10 6:13 P

The experts in this stuff suggest that no man's calories should be restricted below 1800 calories. I don't necessarily agree with that blanket recommendation, but I do suggest that an 1800 calorie diet can be plenty satisfying (and certainly many 1400 calorie diets can be demoralizing). Especially if one does something like the "density diet" or whatever (not sure what I've heard it called). It's arguable (but possible to be right) to also say that concentrating on eating nutritionally dense food will also get you there. It's difficult to overeat spinach.

If you want a weight ticker to appear you need to do "edit my sparkpage" and tick the box next to "Yes! Show Weight Loss Ticker". I'm not sure how that works if you don't have a sparkpage. Of course you could just create one that isn't shared or whatever.

6/18/10 11:44 A

Thank you Bill and Gracefulife, I'm glad we got that cleared up. I hope the OP gets two messages, apparently: he may be eating more than he thinks, and needs to really count every molecule that passes between the lips, and 8 miles per week does not get you into the zone of significant calorie burn.

After having read all of Bill's links, including the links that were connected to his links, I guess I will say this. For someone who is sedentary like me a calorie counting diet is a form of slow torture. If I need, say, 2200 calories a day, and restrict down to 1400, psychologically that leaves me waiting around for the next not very adequate meal, and the loss may be steady but slow. And there are these discouraging fluctuations which don't have much to do with anything, except maybe you had some salt in something and are now retaining a bit of water for a couple of days.

Active exercise (a) gives me something to do besides wait for the next meal and (b) gives me more room at the top restrict a bit less and eat a bit more. I also find, and have read, that it is *easier* to eat less when one is exercising than when one is not.

Looking at my own dietary history, however, I an definitely say that I was probably eating in excess of 3000 calories a day and had compulsive habits and unconscious eating. I used to come home and lay into the fridge (and I don't mean carrots) while my wife was cooking dinner, then eat the dinner, and have seconds.

And not exercise.

That's bad any way one adds it up.

I think another thing exercise does is it begins to give one some tone even before one has gotten the "physical profile" one hopes to achieve through weight loss. That's encouraging!

So, in terms of maintaining my morale, I find it extremely important. But I also think I need to be in some kind of forum like this one where I can have some public accountability about what I'm doing with myself.

I guess there is the OA (overeater's anonymous) aspect to overweight: people are in denial about how much they are in fact consuming. When I was clocking in at a BMI of 33 I was never under the illusion that I was eating right quantities or right types of food. But I know that some people are under such an illusion. Part of Bill's energetic response about the need to track, I am beginning to see, is he is reacting to the addictive component of food, our ability to give ourselves a pass on what we in fact are consuming.

I still haven't figured out how to enter my daily weight and have it appear on my messages....

Greg N

BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,088)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,114
6/18/10 6:48 A

You're right, I am confusing you with OP, my apologies. But my assertions still ring true about the 80/20 rule. I'm simply suggesting OP give diet 80% of his attention and exercise 20%.

Since you have a plan that works for you, I'm not going to argue. It works, 'nuff said!

GRACEFULIFE Posts: 1,705
6/18/10 1:03 A

I agree. 8 miles a week is very little mileage and very little time. It's possible this is the reason for the stall, yes.

You keep saying the exercise is super important. Bill's point, is that for most people the effect of the exercise is swamped by consumption. It just plain works out that for most untrained people it is difficult, and more time-consuming than most are willing to do, to burn a large percentage of your daily caloric intake with exercise.

You're both right, of course. This is about balance. Exercise will allow you to eat more and still maintain a caloric deficit. In a non-tracking scenario how well this works depends on a host of factors including individual body chemistry, type of exercise, how they plan their eating, etc. Ideally, someone carefully tracking exercise calorie burn as well as intake will be able to get really good idea of their metabolic rate and thus know exactly how many calories they need to achieve what effect upon their body. But if you had to choose where to place your effort, Bill's saying that tracking intake is the place to go because the regular metabolic burn is greater than the exercise, and therefore an easier place to go to create a deficit of some specific absolute value.

6/17/10 9:48 P

Again, I think some people here are confusing my contributions for the original post.

My system is working for me so far. The 90% exercise 1 hr per day is what I'm saying that the original post isn't doing. What you guys have picked up in the original post is that this guy may not be tracking correctly.

What I picked up is that eight miles of running per week does not get a person up to the 1 hr of exercise per day. Eight miles sounds like a lot, but if you think about it, it's probably about 1.5 hours of running per week, way below the NWCR findings that 90% of the members are clocking in at around 7 hours a week.

I'm arguing that this is as important an indicator of why the diet may have stalled as the lack of tracking.

Greg N

6/17/10 9:40 P

Brewmaster Bill:

I have to point out that you're not arguing with the guy who asked for advice, the original post (OP). I'm another guy chiming in with my point of view.

I read most of your links, got one more to go, thanks for posting them. I don't think that calorie restriction prevents weight loss, never said that. BUT, compared to calorie restriction with caloric burn type exercise, if you have one person getting a 10% metabolic reduction, and another person getting a 10% metabolic boost from the exercise regimen, the delta is 20% between the two.

Or put it this way let's say the effective reduced availalbe calories to the body, taking into account the metabolic decline one way and the boost the other, remembering that if there is a small, say 10% metabolic reduction in the person doing only calorie restriction, there is also a small, say 10%, metabolic boost in the person who is doing daily aerobic exercise. The person with the metabolic boost is in effect burning more energy even when sitting on the couch.

So, 2 people reduce 1,000 calories a day

(a) the calorie restriction person effecitvely is not eating 900 calories a day because of the metabolic slowdown effect

(b) the person doing the aerobic exercise is effectively not eating 1100 calories a day on the same 1000 calorie reduction (this is ONLY the metabolic effect)

that's a 200 calorie per day delta, and at the end of the month a 6000 calorie difference between the two diets. (a) will have not eaten at the end of 30 days, 900x30 or 27,000 calories. (B), on the same diet, will have "not eaten" 1100x30 or 33,000 calories. BOTH will be losing weight. (B) will also lose more, because this *metabolic* loss is *added to* the daily expenditure on the actual exercise. If we call that 300 calories a day, that's 9000 calories, so (b) will have an effective total calorie-reduction of 42,000 vs 27,000 for A.

So (B) will lose weight more readily and be less likely to plateau.

If (B) does not eat smart, and consider the calorie content of the food, and uses the exercise as an excuse to drink beer with his ice cream, then of course, (B) will not lose weight.

Greg N

GRACEFULIFE Posts: 1,705
6/17/10 9:31 P

Doing portions, eating higher water content / lower caloric density foods works up to a point. I lost about 20 pounds with those ideas and plenty more. However, I plateaued out at some point and stopped losing weight. I decided to maintain for a while so I haven't been tracking constantly, but I did track one day and it told me (a) I was eating a lot more carbohydrates than I thought and (b) the most effective way to lose further is to track it all. I'm gearing up to track, because I know for a fact that will work. And at some point, tracking (and planning) is going to be easier than trying to be super strict about portions while exercising my purdy little butt off.

I assure you that Bill and I are familiar with the NWCR as one of our dear friends on here is a research scientist who has written many articles about their conclusions. The registry actually says this about exercise:
-94% increased their physical activity, with the most frequently reported form of activity being walking.
There is variety in how NWCR members keep the weight off. Most report continuing to maintain a low calorie, low fat diet and doing high levels of activity.

78% eat breakfast every day.
75% weigh themselves at least once a week.
62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week.
90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day

"The calorie theory of weight loss is 100% good physics and WILL work."

Bill is right on the bunk. Why did you even put those three points down, because you directly contracted yourself. Why not do what you suggest WILL WORK?

Consider tracking to be TRAINING for eating proper portion sizes and what to eat. Some people can get away without it. Some people can do it for a while and then stop, or just do it periodically. But the answer to the "why am I not losing weight" question is inevitably "what are you eating???". And not "here's what I ate" but exactly how much of it. You may not like it, but it works.

6/17/10 9:14 P

I think for us ordinary mortals exercise is NOT the ticket to "eating whatever you want." That's not what I was trying to say. It is true however that some mega-athletes can eat whatever they want because their daily output is so high.

But the caloric burn from exercise in my point of view is *as important* as watching what you eat. You can basically get 500 calories into weight loss mode and another 500 through a 45 minute caloric workout, then you're going to have 2x the weight loss compared to restriction alone.

(And running eight miles a week likely won't suffice to make calorie burning a major part of the weight loss regimen)

The exercise also puts some flexibility in. I ate more than I should have at the Memorial Day picnic and later that day invited a friend over, we went for a long walk on the river. The next day the scale impact wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.

In my system I know that this breakfast:

3 egg omelet w/cheese, two pieces toast with jam, home fries

is a lot less good for me than this breakfast:

2 egg white omelet with low fat cottage cheese filling, 1 cup bok choy sauteed with a habanero pepper

I can't tell you the exact calorie difference but I know that when I eat one way I'm doing what I need to do and when I eat the other way I'm not. But obviously when I put these recipes together I'm using basic knowledge of calorie content (or ignoring it, as the case may be).

Incidentally, I feel as full after eating the right way as I do after eating the wrong way. I've been at a plateau at 202 for the past couple of weeks but the needle seems moving down again now that I'm making a point of hitting the treadmill every day.

I'm going to have to figure out what kinds of indulgences to keep. I'm very fond of beer, but equally fond of ice cream. Haven't had much of either lately.

After two days I'm beginning to see that this group web/site is overwhelmingly oriented towards calorie counting, I'm not sure I'm going to fit in.

Greg N

BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,088)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,114
6/17/10 8:07 P

6/17/10 10:44 A

I did read your message. I respect that you've lost a lot of weight. I don't count calories and am down 28 lbs. (unfortunately this is my 2nd go at this, I lost 45 lbs some years ago, stopped exercising, stopped daily weighing, and got it all back). The exercise is hugely important. I did not recommend 8 miles a day of running, I recommended 30 to 60 minutes a day of calorie burn exercise, and pointed out, that 8 miles per week (original post) could work out to substantially less. The national weight registry (not a support group, a tracking study of people that get it off and keep it off) says that most successful regimens require aerobic workout of one kind or another, and build it into their lifestyle.

When I find I've hit a plateau, it has been because I've been slacking off on the 45 mins/day routine.

I will say that I do *look* at calories. I choose lower calorie foods and read labels and think about food in terms of calories per ounce.

I control portions, try to keep the meat to about the size of a pack of cards, don't take seconds (except for salad), and have some simple small bowls which I use to set maximum portion size on things like rice. These are measurement strategies, just not calories by the gram. I also try to follow simple rules like "no sugar no flour" which steers me away from brownies and pasta.

Muscle building is great stuff, makes for very buff, but if you look at Olympic runners versus the weight lifters and shot putters etc you see the effects are different. Muscle building can lead to a solid buff look and it converts fat to muscle. But if the object is to lose weight.

The calorie theory of weight loss is 100% good physics and WILL work. The problems with it are as follows.

1. Your body thinks you're starving, and slows your metabolism. So you use fewer calories than you did before you started dieting. You get more efficient at pulling the last energy bit out of the food.

2. When you reach your weight and start eating again, you've got the slow metabolism and will respond to food by gaining weight more quickly than before. Plus you're starving, and your body reacts to increased food with the impulse to compensate for past deprivation.

3. People who do calorie burn exercise three to five hours a week set their metabolism at a HIGHER rate. Food is consumed more quickly, and fat is burned off. For some reason the appetite suppression mechanism is also stronger when the metabolism is higher.

So, consciousness of caloric content is extremely important in choosing foods (cheese is lower than peanut butter, pork is lower than cheese), but virtually every 5 year study I know of says that the people who keep their weight off are the ones with some kind of cardio exercise, even if it's walking, and it has to be 3 or more hours a week.

I didn't make all that up, but it seems to be the case for me, that when I exercise I eat less, lose weight, and do better. So my personal experience is in line with the weight registry. Sugar seems especially perilous, regardless of its calorie content, because when it spikes in the blood stream it seems to stimulate more appetite. A diabetic's diet is pretty good for weight loss, but these all come down to the same things: fresh fruit, vegetables, 4 oz meat portions.

A final thought on beer: I love the stuff, like bourbon too, but I have noticed that when I relax with alcohol I also relax my standards about what I eat. It's also true that a lot of grazing occurs (I rearranged a some food storage to discourage it) which we tend not to put on the calorie counting. So if you're taking bites while cooking, or help yourself to some leftovers that your nine year old left on the plate, then if calorie counting helps you catch that stuff, yes by all means.


p.s. the national weight registry is on an honor system, you only sign up if you've lost 10% or more of your body weight and kept it off for a year. It's a heavily studied group among nutritionists.

JOSOP2009 Posts: 1,273
6/17/10 9:34 A

Hammy, DLCJ21 lost 146 lbs. Brewmasterbill lost 75. I've been lucky enough to watch large parts of their journey(s) on these forums, and they really do seem to have the weight loss thing down. They tell people over and over to track everything they put in their mouth.

If you want to quit drinking beer and run like Forrest Gump, go for it. Me, I'd listen to the other two guys.

BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,088)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,114
6/17/10 6:55 A

I'm not sure if you read my previous message, but I completely disagree with your assessment. Exercise IS NOT THE KEY to this. Running 8 miles a day is not a good way to kick this into gear. It's diet. All of the things you're NOT tracking are your downfall. Beer is also not your downfall. I drink about once a week, sometimes twice. Find the calorie content of your beverage and track it!

I know some will debate the simple calories in / calories out, but that's how simple it is. It may vary a bit on individuals, but by and large, if you burn more calories than you consume, you create a deficit and lose weight. You can consume your entire day's worth of calories in beer ... if you consumed less beer calories than you burn, you'll lose weight. You'll feel like crap, but you'll lose weight.

I'm so adamant about this because I went down the exact same path you did. I made a bunch of assumptions (just need to walk more, drink less beer, etc), took some swipes at the problem with no real foundation in facts and failed repeatedly. It wasn't until I understood my burn rate and started tracking that the "magic" began.

Obviously, you can do what you want, but you're walking down a path I've already been down and I'm telling you its a dead end. Believe me and turn around, or keep walking and find out for yourself.

6/16/10 11:11 P

I also have to mention "cut down on beer."

I drink a beer maybe once a month. Some people mean cutting down from eight a day to four. Or two.

Sobriety is, for better or for worse, one of the side effects of keeping your weight down--except for the folks who just drink and never eat.

I haven't figured out how to get my numbers up but this is the second big battle of my life to lose weight, I did it before in the 90s and kept it off for about three years, I'm down 28 lbs since April 1st and have 28 to go.

My biggest indulgences are I don't really keep track of my olive oil that I use for cooking and I use 2% in my coffee.


6/16/10 11:07 P

I also have to mention "cut down on beer."

I drink a beer maybe once a month. Some people mean cutting down from eight a day to four. Or two.

Sobriety is, for better or for worse, one of the side effects of keeping your weight down--except for the folks who just drink and never eat.

I haven't figured out how to get my numbers up but this is the second big battle of my life to lose weight, I did it before in the 90s and kept it off for about three years, I'm down 28 lbs since April 1st and have 28 to go.

My biggest indulgences are I don't really keep track of my olive oil that I use for cooking and I use 2% in my coffee.


6/16/10 10:57 P

I think the key here may be "running 8 miles a week." I don't do running, bad on my knees. But I have checked out the calorie calculations on my very good quality treadmill and noted that the increased burn you get for *speed* compared to what you get for *incline* and *duration* are not comparable. You can run at 8 mph for 8 miles on level ground once a week all you want--that would be one hour a week--I'll beat your calorie burn about eight times over at 2 or 3 miles *per day* and maxiumum 12% incline for the machine.

Now if we have a reasonably fast but not Olympic runner who can do two miles in say 15 to 20 minutes we're talking only 80 minutes of calorie burn a week, right?

But I just read something in the press that weight loss for guys requires one hour of calorie burn *a day*. Last time I had a go at this, 35 minutes of walking worked. I had a backpack and some weights. When I lost 10 lbs I put ten pounds in the backpack. At the end I weighed 172 and was carrying 45 pounds! I have to do that all over I'm now at 200. But it is very sobering to *feel* how much you carried around when you were heavy--and no one said a thing to you about it. So walking with a good quality backpack and weights is a very good alternative to the pounding on your knees and it's a lot cheaper than a treadmill (but you can use a treadmill when it's raining or snowing).

So a four hike (uphill, one way, eight hours round trip) twice a week is going to do in a lot more calories than your running.

Alternatively, look into a treadmill and use it on the incline. Or join a gym. Regrettably good treadmills cost north of $1,000 new, but you can pick them up from discouraged owners sometimes for less. I wouldn't go with a cheap one for a guy, if you're serious, sounds like you are, it will take a pounding. It pays to do some research rather than go to the local Sears or Dick's Sporting goods store. If you can find a specialty outfit that warranties its own treadmills, they tend only to sell what requires the least amount of service to make better money.

To me your eight miles a week sounds like what it is--a maintenance regime on very low caloric intake. If you were doing 45 minutes to one hour a day of calorie burn you'd be losing weight--and probably able to eat a bit more. Even half an hour *a day* is going to be an improvement, even if it is *not* running. That 30 mins a day would be 3.5 hrs a week, potentially double what you're doing now.

One thing to be careful about is that a lot of people's knees--mine--don't like daily running, so incline walking, stair steppers, or swimming are good alternatives.

I will say though that a slow walk on level ground for an hour doesn't burn a lot. But running isn't much better, especially if you're counting by *distance* as opposed to *time.* Try to shoot for an average of 45 minutes a day--30 sometimes, an hour another--and try that backpack with weights. You'll be surprised at the workout that even level ground can give you if you walk fast. Don't ever carry more than totals you up to more than you once weighed, though. You know that you can carry that much. You lived it, right?


DLCJ21 Posts: 1,721
6/16/10 2:14 P

Are you tracking your calories on a daily basis? If you are just eyeballing serving sizes and not tracking them accurately, while you could be eating healthy, you could still be overeating and your exercise is just helping you maintain your current weight instead of creating a deficit.

GBO323 SparkPoints: (31,201)
Fitness Minutes: (18,712)
Posts: 470
6/16/10 1:00 P

Jsut stay on-plan. If you have concerns, talk to the doc!

TSABONIS Posts: 303
6/11/10 11:04 A

as far as I have experienced, weight loss comes down to a formula calories in minus caloris out = x if x is positive you gain, if negative you lose ... you seem to be working out, but yogurt can be high in calories, and you were vague on dinners ... you might want to look at other measurements, like arm, leg and waist sizes as a way to track rpogress until your body skips over hte hump

RCMAPLES SparkPoints: (177,501)
Fitness Minutes: (139,273)
Posts: 4,405
6/11/10 10:33 A

I haven't lost a pound in a year BUT I've noticed the 'cut' of my body is getting more defined.

I workout 4-6 days a week...
I lift 30-45 minutes, 3 days/week
I bike 20 miles/week
I elliptical 6 miles/week
I walk 3 miles/week

I'm 6'2 280 pounds & started at 309 2 years ago.

I'm 60 yrs old & can bench 205 lbs 2 sets of 10 BUT

I haven't lost a pound in over a year!!!

If I was 6'1 & 230 lbs I wouldn't worry too much about my weight but build your endurance & overall muscular definition.

Just my take on things.

Ralph the Draftsman

6/11/10 10:00 A

I have always had a two steps forward and one step back. I have also noticed that even if I watch everything I eat, there are times that I do not lose weight, and it is usually during a stressful time. For some reason if I am stressed out or have a lot on my plate to do, then my body tends to retain weight, even though I may be exercising and eating right.

GBO323 SparkPoints: (31,201)
Fitness Minutes: (18,712)
Posts: 470
6/11/10 9:39 A

While I agree with the guys in thing I've noticed is when I lower my carb intake, it tends to get the scale moving again. Make sure you tell SP what kind of exercise you are doing to ensure it gives you an accurate calories per day.

Another option is to get a measuring tape and see how the body is changing since the scale isn't telling you anything new.

DANSTOUT Posts: 735
6/11/10 6:44 A

Like the previous 2 said. It really comes down to numbers. For real help, set a goal post your stats, or start a spark page, track your intake and your exercise and go from there.

RGRJOE175 Posts: 469
6/10/10 9:49 P

As brewmaster said, can't tell.

From the sound of it, you are probable gaining fat and losing muscle.

I got in that trap buy not eating enough. Then I got into eating enough calories but not eating the right stuff.

Once I started tracking religiously, I was really shocked at how badly I was eating. Started eating enough of the right foods and went from there.

Best investment in my trip was tracking every single thing everyday. I really started to see the changes then.

One of my employees was raising hell with me today about my weight loss. I told her in front of a group that I was not losing weight, in fact I had remained the same. She said but your a lot thinner, I said yep. Because I have been gaining muscle and losing fat. Which I still have a long way to go, but tracking was the key to my success not just the work outs.

Happy tracking

BREWMASTERBILL SparkPoints: (31,088)
Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
Posts: 4,114
6/10/10 8:07 P

Well, you're not sharing your nutritional tracker or anything, so it's hard for me to make specific suggestions, so I'll throw out some rules of thumb. The first three things to do if you're not doing them are track, track, and track. The key to this is tracking. Tracking every bite, no exceptions, no "this doesn't count". Diet, meaning what you're putting in, is 80-90% of this battle. If you have the choice of tracking or exercising, pick tracking every time! You cannot exercise away bad food choices. You CANNOT exercise away bad food choices.

8 miles a week might burn up a whopper, one whopper (all 8 miles). Exercise is not the key, diet is. Exercise is icing on the cake and is good for you, but the biggest gun in your weight loss arsenal is your diet, by far.

Again, I don't know your particulars over time, so I'm just making general statements, not insinuating that you are or are not doing these things. Telling me what you ate today isn't going to tell me why you haven't lost weight over the last 4 weeks.

Would be happy to help further if you have some other information. A lot of the other fellas here have great information and experience too! We'll be more than happy to do whatever we can, sir.

HAMMY21086 Posts: 2
6/10/10 7:38 P

I have been keeping right on pace with my workouts and my diet and i have not lost a pound in 4 weeks. I cut out soda completely. I have cut down on beer alot. I run 8 miles a week. this is seriously how much i eat.

the morning i eat a bowl of ceral, snack at 10am usually either a banana or yogurt, a sandwich with no mayo and a fiber bar, another snack around 2pm either a banana or yogurt. than dinner which is different every night, than i have another yogurt around 9pm. to me this doesnt seem that bad considering i am 6'1 230lbs. what the else could i do?

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other The Guys' Lounge Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Lagging Muscle Groups 8/3/2011 8:21:34 PM
Simple point gain threads. 8/9/2012 5:54:49 PM
Need advice Please 6/8/2012 12:08:55 PM
What would you like to see more of here. 10/29/2012 10:32:47 AM