New Video of Body transformation - 5.7kg of Fat Loss in 90 Days

S

SamSam

0
I found this transformation on youtube:

[video=youtube;R0Xfv_luBvE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Xfv_luBvE&feature=plcp[/video]

The guy apparently loses 5.7kg of fat in 90 days. It's in fast forward so you see his body change over a few seconds.

I want to get in shape. Do you think this would work for me?
 
Last edited:
412 views and 0 replies...
 
At first glance, it looks like spam, so most people would probably skip over it.

You'd be better off describing what the guy in the video did for his transformation and getting people's opinions that way. Also, there is no information about yourself and your diet/exercise history, etc. in your post, so there's no way for anyone to even give feedback on whether or not they think it would help you.
 
Thanks PLBFitness

I've looked into it recently. Basically I want to lose around 7 kg of fat because that should bring me to around 10% body fat (or thereabouts) and I've never been that lean before. I have a friend who's into the paleo thing for getting in shape and think's that it's the best way to go to get in shape. But I found that video and guide which seems to say that you can eat what you want so long as you track – which is hepful for me because I really like gelato. But this seems contrary to paleo so I'm not sure which is the best for getting in shape and whether it matters.
 
RE exercise history, I've always played sport and never been super fat. I've also eaten well in terms of good 'hearty' meals like meat and vegetables and breakfasts of eggs, yoghurt, muesli and stuff.
 
Ok so the guy in the video says to track what you eat, but you can eat whatever you want? Is there a caloric limit per day? Tracking can be a useful tool, but if you are not putting yourself into a caloric deficit through nutrition and/or exercise, then you will not lose weight. What is "best" is different for each person, so it's actually hard to say what will work better for you. You will have to figure that out by trying different things. Something that really works for one person may not work for someone else because it's too restrictive, they don't have the time, they can't work it into their schedule, etc. My opinion is that both could work for you, it just depends on whether or not you follow through and stick with the plan.

As for trying to lose fat and not muscle, you MUST do some form of strength training to maintain as much muscle mass as possible during a weight loss program. If you don't, you will lose both muscle and fat. Even with strength training during weight loss, you will lose some muscle mass, but to a lesser extent.

People have succesfully reduced their body fat through a variety of means, you just have to find the one that works for you.
 
PLBFitness said:
As for trying to lose fat and not muscle, you MUST do some form of strength training to maintain as much muscle mass as possible during a weight loss program. If you don't, you will lose both muscle and fat. Even with strength training during weight loss, you will lose some muscle mass, but to a lesser extent.

People have succesfully reduced their body fat through a variety of means, you just have to find the one that works for you.
Click to expand...

Interesting. What makes you say this?
 
SamSam said:
Interesting. What makes you say this?
Click to expand...

OK I am not PLB but what she says is spot on.
Muscle burns energy all of the time, even at rest, so the more of it you are carrying the more calories you burn constantly.
If I sit at my desk next to someone my weight and height but without my muscle mass, I will be burning more energy during a work day than they do, even though we are doing the same.
If you are in calorie deficit the body will fall back on reserves. However if you are not using the muscle you have these will be considered non-essential and therefore valid energy reserves. Basically muscle and fat will be broken down for fuel. Our ability to do this is annoying now but for most of our history this has been essential to our survival.

Building muscle and eating less calories than your body is using will result in fat loss. Doing one without the other can work, but is often slower and tends to reverse after the short term this can be maintained for.
 
Thanks CrazyOldMan - I agree with you in that muscle burns energy (and it also seems to be well correlated with BMR).

But what PLB was saying seemed to be that you can't lose pure fat (ie not lose muscle) without training. I wanted to know why he thought this?

The reason is because according to the fat loss guide (i've been reading through it) they say that you can burn pure fat without muscle if you eat a deficit that's your 'maximum fat metabolism'.

Not sure if this makes sense :S
 
SamSam said:
The reason is because according to the fat loss guide (i've been reading through it) they say that you can burn pure fat without muscle if you eat a deficit that's your 'maximum fat metabolism'.
Click to expand...

I am out of date no two ways about it but there were a number of published papers that showed the results of people trying to lose fat with pure dietary calorific deficit. Consider a few of these were using MMR monitoring to find out body constitution, others underwater weighing and a few just scales and callipers.
A few with scales and callipers were inconclusive, but all others showed loss in fat and lean mass. Less lean mass than fat in most cases where the deficit was sensible but in some cases almost equal when extreme.
Other affects shown differences between those using pure diet against those using diet and light to moderate exercise where interesting too. I don't remember all entries but, lower metabolism was an obvious one and measurably reduced reaction times was a more frightening one. One study that was very thorough compared attention span, ability to focus on simple tasks, like reciting the alphabet, or times tables, some results were inconclusive but there were a good number for whom diet alone was having some dramatic effects on what they used to consider simple things.
I would always advise a mix of exercise and diet to lose weight, it is more effective and better for your health. I would also always advise taking sensible time to do so, don't rush weight loss.
 
SamSam said:
Thanks CrazyOldMan - I agree with you in that muscle burns energy (and it also seems to be well correlated with BMR).

But what PLB was saying seemed to be that you can't lose pure fat (ie not lose muscle) without training. I wanted to know why he thought this?

The reason is because according to the fat loss guide (i've been reading through it) they say that you can burn pure fat without muscle if you eat a deficit that's your 'maximum fat metabolism'.

Not sure if this makes sense :S
Click to expand...

The body doesn't like to get rid of the stuff it's made of, so when it has to, it gets rid of the stuff that's least important to its survival. If you're lifting boulders and chasing tigers for lunch every day, then your muscle mass is imminently important for survival. If you're sitting around all day, then your muscle mass becomes more expendible. Your body will usually opt for fat first, because fat is there to be used as an energy source, but if your skeletal muscle isn't being used, then your body can cull it at no imminent risk to survival.
 
Tiger steak good, but not sure about the boulders idea, I'll listen to heavy rock never eat it.

For the record and those who struggle with my twisted sense of humour, I have obviously never eaten tiger. However all of us eat peices of rock daily, we call them minerals.
 
I eat bigger pieces of rock, because I'm a crocodile, and having a pile of stones in my belly helps me digest tigers.

True story.

(not true).
 
I thought I had replied to this thread, but I either didn't or it didn't go through... Thanks Goldfish and CrazyOldMan for answering SamSam's questions!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top