Losing fat for noobs

[Bluesftw]

thats fantastic topic, gonna start my diet now... oh look chocolate! ;s

[Darkrulerxxx]

I feel like I'm on the right track at the moment, not really paying that much attention to my diet but I'm making sure I don't eat garbage food as much as I used to. Going to the gym twice a week now, starting with a bit of cardio and then some of the strength training "machines" if you get what I mean. I also play squash once a week.

If I'm really looking to lose weight fast and hold on to that weight loss, do you guys think this is the right way to go atm?

def getting rid of junk food is good for you.....watch your portion control and if you are only going twice a week with some other activity...def watch how much you eat....i currently go 6 times a week 1 hour of cardio (for 4 months) in combination of counting calories and eating a diet consisted of a lot of protein, some carbs, and some fats. and i've lost 30 pounds so far.....

[Brianjosel]

Carbohydrates are essential for healthy brain function.

True, parts of the brain require glucose as fuel, rather than ketones. However, the body can produce glucose from protein. Dietary carbohydrates are not a required macronutrient to survive.

Some time ago I was on a high fat, moderate protein, very low carb diet. I functioned quite well. Could run 10 miles no problem. No weird blood profiles or energy issues. I am not saying carbs shouldn't be eaten. I feel like they could complement a well thought out fitness regimen quite nicely when eaten smartly. I personally have noticed that all of my long aerobic activities seem easier to do when I was on low carb though.

I do think grains are to be used extremely sparingly by people. I am of the mindset that there is no such thing as good bread, regardless of how it is marketed.

[Spectral]

I do think grains are to be used extremely sparingly by people. I am of the mindset that there is no such thing as good bread, regardless of how it is marketed.

Why? I feel most comfortable on long runs (15+ miles) on days after I've eaten significant amounts of grains. I have not noticed any adverse health effects from them at all.

[Brianjosel]

Why? I feel most comfortable on long runs (15+ miles) on days after I've eaten significant amounts of grains. I have not noticed any adverse health effects from them at all.

Well, for most people grains do is play heavily with insulin levels. And with so many of the diseases in this country afflicting people falling under the blanket of metabolic syndrome, I feel like it would serve people well to avoid them. Even whole wheat flour spikes insulin heavily.

That being said, my experience has been that people that train extremely heavily are afforded much more leeway with how they eat. Maybe grains are great for you. Do what works for you. Your level of training makes you an exception to the general population however.

I have found that when I am ketogenic and I run for very long distances, I never seem to hit the proverbial wall. Usually my leg muscles just give up. When I am on a diet with more carbs ( like I have been for a few months), I find I personally hit a wall sooner. On low carb, I could see myself not needing energy gels mid run. Probably could get away with just water on the longer runs. I have never gone 20 or more though.

I do notice better numbers lifting when I have carbs in my diet though. I try to get them from fruit and nuts.

[Deleted]

This is essentially SL 5x5 with deadlift and rows switched.

Wich is stupid since he mixes push/pull.. You can even add pushups 1 day pullups the other to SL 5x5. But he was also trying to redo the SL 5x5 after 6 months of training.

Personally I don´t really see the need for all these calculators and numbers. Make your training and diet simple, back to basics to start out. Otherwise people easily get overwhelmed if they need to track this and that while getting a solid program etc.

Diet wise, if you really want to get serious = NO ALCOHOL

- - - Updated - - -

Nice post. Amen to the bit about the digital scale. Best purchase I ever made. Measuring what I ate helped me lose like 20lbs without adding excercise at all.

I'd have to get a gym membership to do weights, and I'm not super keen on that after the last one. I do have access to an eliptical, excercise bike, and heavy bag at home though. Any recommendations there as to most bang for buck?

I enjoy the heavy bag workout when I can make myself do it. It's mostly the lengthy wrap-up that keeps me from bothering. That, and if I eff up the wrap I'm almost guaranteed to have scraped up my knuckles pretty bad.

Check out a guy named Funk Roberts, awesome for bodyweight excersices.

[TurkeyJurkey]

I feel like most people on I diet fall into the trap of over thinking everything until it becomes a HUGE stress

[Vanesmith]

def getting rid of junk food is good for you.....watch your portion control and if you are only going twice a week with some other activity...def watch how much you eat....i currently go 6 times a week 1 hour of cardio (for 4 months) in combination of counting calories and eating a diet consisted of a lot of protein, some carbs, and some fats. and i've lost 30 pounds so far.....

A lot has been said & yes Sting wrote a good point, junk food is a total no. I have myself taken this new year resolution to quit eating junk food and have started eating on reliable diet such as lot of salads, oatmeal and one thing more drinking a lot of water is essential. I also came to know from my grandmother to drink hot water and mixing honey in it that is most effective to lose fat.

- - - Updated - - -

Wich is stupid since he mixes push/pull.. You can even add pushups 1 day pullups the other to SL 5x5. But he was also trying to redo the SL 5x5 after 6 months of training.

Personally I don´t really see the need for all these calculators and numbers. Make your training and diet simple, back to basics to start out. Otherwise people easily get overwhelmed if they need to track this and that while getting a solid program etc.

Diet wise, if you really want to get serious = NO ALCOHOL

- - - Updated - - -



Check out a guy named Funk Roberts, awesome for bodyweight excersices.

Well said Ban, and thanks for the tip to check out Funk Roberts body weight exercise schedule

[Deleted]

If that is all so easy, why do we even have nutritional science? Why do we have thousands of books on this? Why do these topics even pop up week after week? Why do these topics extend over pages with everyone having their own 100% solution?

Blood sugar levels? Vitamins? It is all calorie in, calorie out like you are an oven?

Fair enough, if it is all about burning calories, then you can easily lose weight on just 100 grams of white sugar and 100 grams butter a day.

I found staying away from a good deal of carbs works a charm. No pasta, no potatoes, no sweets, no sweet or sweetend drinks, no alkohol. See..I also have something that worked 100% for me, lost 25 kilos over 3 months.

At the end of the day the question is: Why did you gain the weight in the first place. Losing it can happen in many ways. Now the hard part is: Keep it off until the end of your life.

well said. The no alcohol is really where "the magic" happens.

My Ex´s mother was on this weight watcher like program where she very steadily lost 1kg pr week. If she had just 2 glasses of wine with dinner 1 night, her loss for the next 2 weeks would be off and maybe only 700grams pr week.

[Spectral]

If that is all so easy, why do we even have nutritional science? Why do we have thousands of books on this? Why do these topics even pop up week after week? Why do these topics extend over pages with everyone having their own 100% solution?

Mostly because people don't want to just exercise discipline. Well, nutritional science can inform us about healthy options, to be fair, but weight loss largely is just burning more calories than one takes in.

Fair enough, if it is all about burning calories, then you can easily lose weight on just 100 grams of white sugar and 100 grams butter a day.

Yes, this person would lose weight, unless they were extremely small and sedentary. They'd also be starving. Do you realize how little food that is? They'd be spectacularly malnourished, have no energy, and be constantly hungry, so it's not a good idea at all, but they would lose weight.

[Vanesmith]

A discipline schedule of exercise definitely helps to burn calories but diet is equivalently important factor for losing weight. Doing yoga, cardio exercise, running is best for this purpose. I have got a spinning bike which my hubby got for myself, actually he got for himself as he has no time to go to gym and concentrate on his fitness so what he does is every morning he rides that bike which he got from spinning.com and while doing that he is making calls or else reading newspaper, what my point here is that he still got some god results as that bike reveals, the time duration spent on that bike, distance a user rode, calories burned and in the time of month, I have seen a remarkable difference in him. I also do it for a while but as I go to the gym, I spent much time on elliptical, running on treadmill which helps me keep myself fit.
I also take care of my diet, drinking lots of water, eating salads, taking protein rich diet, more fruits that are citrus like oranges, pineapple it helps cutting fat and losing weight.

[Delekii]

I always cringe when I read threads like this. I question whether it is worth the time of day to respond.

Let me just put in a couple of small quotes, which I think sufficiently answers your initial presupposition.

Causes of individual differences in BMR[edit]
The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ/day) to as high as 2499 kcal/day (10455 kJ/day); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal/day (6279 kJ/day). Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3% of this variation was explained by differences in fat free mass. Other factors explaining the variation included fat mass (6.7%), age (1.7%), and experimental error including within-subject difference (2%). The rest of the variation (26.7%) was unexplained. This remaining difference was not explained by sex nor by differing tissue sized of highly energetic organs such as the brain.[9]
Thus there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR.[10] For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ/day) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ/day). This difference of 715 kcal/day (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day.[10]

To tl:dr the above, in the studies quoted, some 23.7% of people have varying base metabolic rates that are not explained by body mass, fat/muscle content or age, with a potential variance of up to 32% in calories burned during equal activity.

The primary organ responsible for regulating metabolism is the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is located on the diencephalon and forms the floor and part of the lateral walls of the third ventricle of the cerebrum. The chief functions of the hypothalamus are:
control and integration of activities of the autonomic nervous system (ANS)
The ANS regulates contraction of smooth muscle and cardiac muscle, along with secretions of many endocrine organs such as the thyroid gland (associated with many metabolic disorders).
Through the ANS, the hypothalamus is the main regulator of visceral activities, such as heart rate, movement of food through the gastrointestinal tract, and contraction of the urinary bladder.
production and regulation of feelings of rage and aggression
regulation of body temperature
regulation of food intake, through two centers:
The feeding center or hunger center is responsible for the sensations that cause us to seek food. When sufficient food or substrates have been received and leptin is high, then the satiety center is stimulated and sends impulses that inhibit the feeding center. When insufficient food is present in the stomach and ghrelin levels are high, receptors in the hypothalamus initiate the sense of hunger.
The thirst center operates similarly when certain cells in the hypothalamus are stimulated by the rising osmotic pressure of the extracellular fluid. If thirst is satisfied, osmotic pressure decreases.

Obesity and leptin resistance[edit]
Although leptin reduces appetite as a circulating signal, obese individuals generally exhibit an unusually high circulating concentration of leptin.[36] These people are said to be resistant to the effects of leptin,[35] in much the same way that people with type 2 diabetes are resistant to the effects of insulin.[112] The sustained high concentrations of leptin from the enlarged adipose stores implies leptin desensitization. The pathway of leptin control in obese people might be flawed at some point, so the body does not adequately receive the satiety feeling subsequent to eating.[33]
The main target of leptin action is the leptin receptor that is located in the hypothalamus. In order for circulating leptin to reach its receptor in the hypothalamus, it must first cross the blood-brain barrier. Studies on leptin CSF levels in humans have provided untowardly evidence for leptin obesity-relevant targets being located in brain structures such as the hypothalamus, but the subject remains controversial. For example, in humans leptin in the CSF correlates with BMI but the ratio of CSF to serum leptin decreased with increasing BMI.[43] Also the efficiency of leptin uptake(measured as the CSFlasma leptin ratio) was lower in human subjects in the highest as compared with the lowest plasma leptin quintile (5.4-fold difference).[113]
Although showing a sluggish leptin-transfer function from plasma to CSF, obese subjects with very high plasma leptin values (300% higher than normal) have 30% more leptin in the CSF than lean individuals,[114] but such abnornally high leptin concentrations in CSF have not prevented their obesity. Since the amount and quality of leptin receptors in hypothalamus of obese humans appear normal (as judged from leptin-mRNA studies),[115] it is inevitable to conclude that leptin resistance in obese individuals is likely to be due to a post leptin-receptor defect, similar to the case of type 2 diabetes, where insulin resistance is due to a post-insulin receptor defect.[34]
Some researchers attempted to explain the failure of leptin to prevent obesity in modern humans as a metabolic disorder, possibly caused by a specific nutrient or a combination of nutrients not present or uncommon in the prehistoric diet. Some proposed "villain" nutrients include lectins[116] and fructose.[117]
A signal-to-noise ratio theory has been proposed to explain the phenomenon of leptin resistance.[81] In healthy individuals, baseline leptin levels are between 1 and 5 ng/dl in men and 7 and 13 ng/dl in women.[81] A large intake of calories triggers a leptin response that reduces hunger, thereby preventing an overload of the inflammatory response induced by caloric intake. In obese individuals, the leptin response to caloric intake is theorized to be blunted due to chronic, low-grade hyperleptinemia, depressing the signal-to-noise ratio such that acute leptin responses have less of a physiological effect on the body.
Although leptin resistance is sometimes described as a metabolic disorder that contributes to obesity, similar to the way insulin resistance is sometimes described as a metabolic disorder that has the potential to progress into type 2 diabetes, it is not certain that it is true in most cases. The mere fact that leptin resistance is extremely common in obese individuals suggests it may simply be an adaptation to excess body weight. The major physiological role of leptin is suggested to be not as a “satiety signal” to prevent obesity in times of energy excess, but as a “starvation signal” to maintain adequate fat stores for survival during times of energy deficit,[118][119] and leptin resistance in overweight individuals is the standard feature of mammalian physiology, which possibly confers a survival advantage.[120]
A different form of leptin resistance (in combination with insulin resistance and weight gain) easily arises in laboratory animals (such as rats), as soon as they are given unlimited (ad libitum) access to palatable, energy-dense foods,[121] and it is reversed when these animals are put back on low energy-density chow.[122] That, too, may have an evolutionary advantage: "the ability to efficiently store energy during periods of sporadic feast represented a survival advantage in ancestral societies subjected to periods of starvation."[123] The combination of two mechanisms (one, which temporarily suspends leptin action when presented with excess of high-quality food, and the other, which blunts the processes that could drive the body weight back to "normal"), could explain the current obesity epidemic without invoking any metabolic disorders or "villain" nutrients.
Although the notion of obesity as a state of 'leptin resistance' has become ingrained in the minds of many researchers, some observations do not directly support this contention. For example, the work of Rudolph Leibel at Columbia University has shown that, in both obese and lean individuals, leptin injections do not reduce body mass. Despite the lack of response in obese and lean subjects, there is little argument that lean subjects are also leptin-resistant; hence, whether obese subjects are in fact resistant to leptin remains to be empirically demonstrated. This finding also underscores the notion that the brain is not designed to respond to increased leptin by decreasing food intake; rather, as discussed above, lack of leptin acts as a signal to increase food intake. Indeed, Leibel's work has shown that the decreases in serum leptin that occur post-weight-loss constitute a state of leptin deficiency, which drives increased appetite. As such, leptin injections in weight-reduced patients can prevent the increases in appetite and thereby allow patients to maintain weight loss. These studies therefore demonstrate that leptin treatment may be a useful strategy to treat obesity in humans, if not by driving weight loss directly then by allowing weight loss (as a result of diet and exercise) to be more readily maintained.

It's all on wikipedia, you can go and read it and follow through the sources.

So, in summary: A significant portion of the population do have significantly lower metabolic basal rates, and the vast majority of obese people almost definitely have some form of acquired leptin resistance as a result of their obesity, but which makes it no easier to fix from the point of view of the person in question. Unfortunately, there isn't yet an analogue of insulin and insulin-reception modulation for obesity that works in lieu of leptin; if there were, obesity would be a much smaller (pun intended) problem than it is.

I always have to ask the question in threads where people imply that people choose to be fat: do you honestly think that if someone could make that decision and follow through on it with action, they would be fat? Without moving into an area of philosophy somewhat akin to fate vs. determinism, many (thin) people imply that with just good choices and determination, everyone can be thin! I always want to answer that with just good choices and determination, everyone can be smart! Only, when I think rationally, I wonder why anyone would choose to be stupid when it is so easy to be educated, which follows on to the realization that it musn't be that easy, or perhaps even not possible, for some people to make and follow through on those choices.

[re1gn1te]

The best thing you can do for yourself is drink a Gallon of water a day.

The Liver has two functions, the primary function is to detox the body. If you avoid putting crap in the body that needs to be detoxed, Alcohol ect, and give the Liver plenty of water to flush the toxins out, then the Liver can check it's primary function off, and move to it's secondary function. Burning Fat.

The Liver is a Fat Burning machine when it is freed from it's detox duty. The Liver will burn 3500 calories of Fat a Day, releasing that energy into the body. Guess what the by product of burning that Fat is? Water.

By drinking a gallon of water a day and limiting your toxic intake you will literally pee the Fat away.

Lastly, the best part about drinking that much water is your skin. Many times people who lose a lot of weight have folds of lose streached out skin.

If you drink a gallon of water a day it tightens the skin. I love 100 lbs and had NO loose skin.

This caused me to have an aneurysm. I didn't know a sentence could be wrong in so many ways.

So.... whos right?

[Keosen]

The best thing you can do for yourself is drink a Gallon of water a day.

By drinking a gallon of water a day and limiting your toxic intake you will literally pee the Fat away.

Welcome to the internets, where anyone can write anything, in the place where everything comes true, you can even pee your way out of being fat.

[Delekii]

The best thing you can do for yourself is drink a Gallon of water a day.

I don't know how much a gallon is, but yes, water intake is important.

The Liver has two functions, the primary function is to detox the body. If you avoid putting crap in the body that needs to be detoxed, Alcohol ect, and give the Liver plenty of water to flush the toxins out, then the Liver can check it's primary function off, and move to it's secondary function. Burning Fat.

The Liver is a Fat Burning machine when it is freed from it's detox duty. The Liver will burn 3500 calories of Fat a Day, releasing that energy into the body. Guess what the by product of burning that Fat is? Water.

By drinking a gallon of water a day and limiting your toxic intake you will literally pee the Fat away.

Lastly, the best part about drinking that much water is your skin. Many times people who lose a lot of weight have folds of lose streached out skin.

If you drink a gallon of water a day it tightens the skin. I love 100 lbs and had NO loose skin.

The rest of this is pure hogwash. Insulin metabolises glucose in the blood stream into glycogen, which is stored in the liver, ready to be accessed. This reduces your blood sugar level (since the sugar is converted to glycogen and stored in the liver). When your BSL gets lower, the pancreas reduces its insulin output and increases glucagon output, which metabolises the glycogen in the liver into glucose, which is then re-released into the blood stream to be used by the cells. This in turn increases the blood sugar levels, which increases insulin production and decreases glucagon production.. and so on. In a person without diabetes, this is a self-regulating system, where the balance produces the output, and the output affects the balance. When you eat food, your BSL goes up and stimulates insulin production. When you use energy, your muscles metabolise glucose and reduce your bsl, stimulating glucagon production.

If, and ONLY if the liver does not have stores of glycogen when stimulated by glucagon, the glucagon instead reaches and stimulates fat cells to release fatty acids, which are then metabolised by the liver into ketones (ketogenisis), which are also able to be used as energy by the body, but which are potentially dangerous if allowed to reach levels that are too high.

Water "flushing" the liver is an important function of the organ, but has very little to do with its function as an energy battery. A lot of "wellness" type websites try to point at the liver as a major fat-burning instrument, but the liver is little more than a storage space when it comes to sugars.

So.... whos right?

Not that guy.

[Nirurt]

Calories out > Calories in.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Move. Lift if you want, walk if it's all you can do, throw in some push-ups or burpees.

It really isn't that hard to do.

[Deleted]

if i remember correctly from the time when i was training quite regularly and eating well to keep fit, your proposed protein intake is way too high and you would tax your liver. You can "get away" with a lot less grams of protein. Hell, i know vegans who do crossfit and eat less than 90gr easily. 200? I htink you re asking for trouble in the long term.

[Mavecryst]

Thought I'd ask this in this thread instead of creating a new one, so here goes.

First some brief history: I gained a lot of weight during my uni studies, went from 62 kg to 75 kg in 3+ years of very little physical activity. At some point since then, about a year ago, I started exercising very regularly and have managed to tone down to about 64 kg, which I am very comfortable with. I am not looking to lose weight, per se.

However, what is bothering me is that I have yet to lose a large amount of lower back fat. It's like the last bits of evidence of that 3 year slackness, and it's clinging on for dear life. I'm fairly toned otherwise, and while I'm not going to obsess over losing it all, I'd like to lose a good portion of it.

I exercise about 5-6 times a week; switching between running, climbing and core exercises. So I'm either doing it wrong, expecting results too fast, or maybe eating wrong? I don't watch my diet very carefully to be honest, but just ensure I don't overeat... a standard portion of rice, meat and veggies is enough for me. Every few days after dinner I may indulge in a couple of packets of chips (small packets, not those huge ass ones that could be a meal by themselves), or some chocolates or something. I go drinking twice a week maybe, but am normally limited to max 3 drinks; I rarely exceed that.

Are there any good ways to zone in on that lower back? Or do I just need to stick with it and wait a couple more months for results? Or cut down on indulgences entirely?

[Velaniz]

Thought I'd ask this in this thread instead of creating a new one, so here goes.

First some brief history: I gained a lot of weight during my uni studies, went from 62 kg to 75 kg in 3+ years of very little physical activity. At some point since then, about a year ago, I started exercising very regularly and have managed to tone down to about 64 kg, which I am very comfortable with. I am not looking to lose weight, per se.

However, what is bothering me is that I have yet to lose a large amount of lower back fat. It's like the last bits of evidence of that 3 year slackness, and it's clinging on for dear life. I'm fairly toned otherwise, and while I'm not going to obsess over losing it all, I'd like to lose a good portion of it.

I exercise about 5-6 times a week; switching between running, climbing and core exercises. So I'm either doing it wrong, expecting results too fast, or maybe eating wrong? I don't watch my diet very carefully to be honest, but just ensure I don't overeat... a standard portion of rice, meat and veggies is enough for me. Every few days after dinner I may indulge in a couple of packets of chips (small packets, not those huge ass ones that could be a meal by themselves), or some chocolates or something. I go drinking twice a week maybe, but am normally limited to max 3 drinks; I rarely exceed that.

Are there any good ways to zone in on that lower back? Or do I just need to stick with it and wait a couple more months for results? Or cut down on indulgences entirely?

What's your height? So we have a rough idea of what your frame looks like.

Also, spot-fat removal isn't really naturally possible. You're going to have to cut fat off throughout your entire body. Your goal is hence to lose weight, something which, in a nutshell, boils down to calories in < calories out.

I spotted a major red flag in your post that is likely a huge reason why you're not seeing the results you want quick enough. You said you weren't properly tracking your diet? Calorie-counting is something that you have to be adept at. Lots of people wonder why they aren't losing weight despite exercising a lot. Most of these people are also not counting their calories properly. You absolutely have to make sure you're at a reasonable deficit. Your body isn't impervious to the laws of thermodynamics. If you impose a deficit on your body, it will react by tapping into the excess stores of energy in your body (your fats). The problem here is you aren't even sure if you're in a deficit or not. That's what I'd look into fixing first. Be meticulous about it, and track everything you eat and drink. Even the absurd amounts of milk/sugar some people like to put in their morning coffees can bump it up another 300 calories.

Keep doing what you're doing, count your calories, make sure that you're in a reasonable deficit (you also need to know your TDEE) and then track weight loss over the following weeks. Chances are you'll see the results you want soon enough.

[Mavecryst]

What's your height? So we have a rough idea of what your frame looks like.

Also, spot-fat removal isn't really naturally possible. You're going to have to cut fat off throughout your entire body. Your goal is hence to lose weight, something which, in a nutshell, boils down to calories in < calories out.

I spotted a major red flag in your post that is likely a huge reason why you're not seeing the results you want quick enough. You said you weren't properly tracking your diet? Calorie-counting is something that you have to be adept at. Lots of people wonder why they aren't losing weight despite exercising a lot. Most of these people are also not counting their calories properly. You absolutely have to make sure you're at a reasonable deficit. Your body isn't impervious to the laws of thermodynamics. If you impose a deficit on your body, it will react by tapping into the excess stores of energy in your body (your fats). The problem here is you aren't even sure if you're in a deficit or not. That's what I'd look into fixing first. Be meticulous about it, and track everything you eat and drink. Even the absurd amounts of milk/coffee some people like to put in their morning coffees can bump it up another 300 calories.

Keep doing what you're doing, count your calories, make sure that you're in a reasonable deficit (you also need to know your TDEE) and then track weight loss over the following weeks. Chances are you'll see the results you want soon enough.

Cheers, appreciate the thought out response. My height is 174 cm, and as I mentioned earlier my weight hovers around 64 kg. Pretty slim frame I think, but not thin.

And damn, wanted to avoid calorie counting :P I figured I really don't eat all that much, but that must be it if I'm still not losing that fat.