My Weight Doesn't Drop, What should I do?

[wilson1]

Hi all,

It's great to find this forum. Hope we can support each other for reaching our target.

I am 6'2" and 216lbs. My target is to be 180lbs by the end of this year.

The problem is I don't have much time and I only do about 30 push-ups per day plus walk much faster consciously. But it seems my weight is stuck at 98KG~216lbs now.

Can anyone of you suggest some simple exercises that I can do at home without consuming too much time? Is there really any exercise like that? I heard about interval training, which doesn't require too much time but deliver good result. Is it true?

Love to hear from any fellow member here.

Wilson

 

[maleficent]

first place I'd focus on is your food - how many calories a day are you consuming?

 

[wilson1]

Thanks maleficent for your reply.

Actually I don't know. How can I find out?

And I am not sure if there is much thing to do on my diet because

I don't eat snack,
I almost only drink water( about 2-3 litre ),
I almost take no sugar.

I consider myself quite a healthy eater.

The foods I eat are :

Breakfast :
1 piece of toast, 2 eggs without yolk, a bowl of oat, a cup of tea with milk but no sugar

Lunch:
Rice with chicken or pork

Dinner:
Rice with meat and vegatable

 

[maleficent]

you can use an online food diary, like (or one of the many that are available for free) to record your calories - if you accurately weigh and measure your food and record what you eat -it will give you an idea of what your daily rate is..

 

[wilson1]

Hi maleficent,

Thanks for your tips.

I have just created an account.

The food list is a bit overwhelming. But I will record my foods eaten as accurate as I can. Thanks for pointing me to the right direction.

Wilson

 

[Ferolist]

First of all that is no a huge amount of weight to loss. I went form about 220 to 180 in three month's so your goal is totally do able. And keep it in mind that its do able it will help you push yourself to make it.

Are you apposed to lifting weight, or do you have access to weight equipment. "The best way to lose weight is to build lean muscle mass". The next step and this was the hardest for me is to ingress your meal frequency.
Eat the same amount of calories but eat less per meal and eat more meals in a day. 5 to 6 meals is best. That will help kick your metabolism into over drive.

 

[Steve]

First of all that is no a huge amount of weight to loss. I went form about 220 to 180 in three month's so your goal is totally do able. And keep it in mind that its do able it will help you push yourself to make it.

Are you apposed to lifting weight, or do you have access to weight equipment. "The best way to lose weight is to build lean muscle mass". The next step and this was the hardest for me is to ingress your meal frequency.
Eat the same amount of calories but eat less per meal and eat more meals in a day. 5 to 6 meals is best. That will help kick your metabolism into over drive.

While I certainly appreciate what you're trying to do, I can't help but to point out a few things here.

1) Muscle tissue is not as metabolically active as many people think. It is certainly NOT "the best way to lose weight is to build lean muscle mass." I'm not sure where you pulled that quote from?

2) How do you really suggest we build muscle while trying to lose weight? Losing weight requires a caloric deficit. Adding muscle requires a caloric surplus. The novice "lifter" can experience a bit of body recomp (losing fat and gaining muscle simultaneously) but that affect certainly won't last long if at all.

3) While meal frequency (as in increasing it) does have a positive effect on certain bodily mechanisms, increasing meal frequency does NOT have any significant impact on metabolic rate.

 

[Maestro1]

I always read that "You can boost metabolism by adding muscle and loose weight". I tried that approach for a year. Seriously, a full year. I hit the gym every day at lunch. I went from working out with 165 pounds on bench for 8 reps (4 sets) to around 225 pounds for 8 reps (4 sets). I did full body workouts. Squats (good form, DEEP), clean and jerks, presses of all sorts, full arm workouts (even forearm). You name it, I did it. I became a very muscular guy. Kind of like a bull (only 5'5"). I didn't loose a pound. My waistline never shrank. I didn't change my diet. So basically with the diet the same and the introduction of intense weight lifting with no loss in weight or waistline, I conclude that it didn't boost my metabolism at all. Now that's my experience. Maybe others are different.

 

[Steve]

I always read that "You can boost metabolism by adding muscle and loose weight". I tried that approach for a year. Seriously, a full year. I hit the gym every day at lunch. I went from working out with 165 pounds on bench for 8 reps (4 sets) to around 225 pounds for 8 reps (4 sets). I did full body workouts. Squats (good form, DEEP), clean and jerks, presses of all sorts, full arm workouts (even forearm). You name it, I did it. I became a very muscular guy. Kind of like a bull (only 5'5"). I didn't loose a pound. My waistline never shrank. I didn't change my diet. So basically with the diet the same and the introduction of intense weight lifting with no loss in weight or waistline, I conclude that it didn't boost my metabolism at all. Now that's my experience. Maybe others are different.

No, your experience is normal. It's the law of thermodynamics. You can neither create nor destroy energy. Calories are energy. If you are dieting, that means you MUST be in an energy deficit. Building muscle is a very intensive process, energetically speaking, meaning.... it requires a lot more energy above and beyond that which would maintain your current weight. You need to travel into the surplus range of energy balance in order to provide sufficient "fueling" of new muscle growth.

Most likely you didn't really add any appreciable muscle mass. You simply exposed the solid muscle base you had hiding under your fat, giving the impression of a large increase in muscle mass. Many people confuse this with "building new muscle." That said though, as I said above, for the novice lifter, some do realize a simultaneous gain in muscle and loss in fat. But this is short lived and should not be something one banks on.

As for the actual numbers... the latest numbers I've seen is for every lb of muscle you burn 6 extra calories. That means to increase your metabolic rate by 500 calories, you'd have to add an additional 83 lbs of muscle.

Yea, ummmm, that's probably not going to happen tomorrow, LOL. You're better off manipulating diet and energy balances than banking on some "hopeful" muscle mass increase while dieting.

 

[Maestro1]

I wasn't looking for you to qualify my statements. I was actually backing up your statements with my experience. So basically I backed you up, then you backed me up, in order to back yourself up.

 

[Steve]

I wasn't looking for you to qualify my statements. I was actually backing up your statements with my experience. So basically I backed you up, then you backed me up, in order to back yourself up.

Ummm, what on Earth are you talking about. I don't really care what the heck you were "looking" for. This is a public forum and I will respond where I see fit.

And if you want to play that illogical "game," I wasn't looking for YOU to back up MY statements. That is certainly not needed.

But then again, I enjoyed your response b/c it added to the conversation just like BOTH of mine did.

You said something based on your own personal experience to the "group."

I validated your own personal experience of n=1 with my experience from working with hundreds of people.

Case closed.

If you don't like how people respond on a forum, I suggest not posting in a public place.

 

[Wrangell]

While I certainly appreciate what you're trying to do, I can't help but to point out a few things here.

1) Muscle tissue is not as metabolically active as many people think. It is certainly NOT "the best way to lose weight is to build lean muscle mass." I'm not sure where you pulled that quote from?

Just a guess on my part, but could it be that when he says " The best way to lose weight is to build lean muscle mass " he's really referring to the caloric cost involved in the actual process of building 1 pound of muscle ? In other words, it takes a heck of a lot of extra calories ( beyond your maintenance level ) to fuel the process of protein anabolism.

You would know better than I, but would you have any idea how calories of energy it takes to create just 1 gram of protein ( I recall reading once way back it was something like 200 calories per gram , which seemed high to me ) ? Cause if you extend that caloric cost to build 1 gram of protein to the total number of grams of protein you'd find in 1 pound of muscle - somewhere around 100 grams +-/ ?? - then you may need a ton of extra calories ( beyond your maintenance calories ) just to build 1 pound of muscle. And, if you aren't getting the required extra energy to build that muscle from upping your caloric intake, your body will get it from your fat stores.

So, while it is probably true that for an existing pound of muscle, as you said - " for every lb of muscle you burn 6 extra calories " - could it also be possible you might actually burn 10X++++ more calories than that just in the process of building that 1 extra pound of muscle ?

I am seeing this right Steve ? Welcome your thoughts as always.

 

[Steve]

Just a guess on my part, but could it be that when he says " The best way to lose weight is to build lean muscle mass " he's really referring to the caloric cost involved in the actual process of building 1 pound of muscle ? In other words, it takes a heck of a lot of extra calories ( beyond your maintenance level ) to fuel the process of protein anabolism.

Hmmm, in the context of this discussion we were discussing the best way sto lose weight.

To build muscle you must be in a caloric surplus. You need to provide you body with more energy than baseline requirements.

How can you lose weight while also meeting the criteria for adding muscle? Think about it.

You would know better than I, but would you have any idea how calories of energy it takes to create just 1 gram of protein ( I recall reading once way back it was something like 200 calories per gram , which seemed high to me ) ?

I don't have these figures on file nor do I know them off the top of my head.

I remember discussing with a professor about what it takes (energetically speaking) to synthesize pound of muscle. He gave a range, which I can't remember off hand. I know Lyle has said some stuff too.

If I remember correctly, it was around 2500-3500 cals.

But it was a meaningless number since it doesn't take into account individual differences in ability to actually build muscle. Hormonal disposition, age, gender, etc all play a role..... meaning there is more that goes into anabolic processes than simply energy surpluses.

Cause if you extend that caloric cost to build 1 gram of protein to the total number of grams of protein you'd find in 1 pound of muscle - somewhere around 100 grams +-/ ?? -

Yes, about 100 grams, maybe a bit more.

then you may need a ton of extra calories ( beyond your maintenance calories ) just to build 1 pound of muscle. And, if you aren't getting the required extra energy to build that muscle from upping your caloric intake, your body will get it from your fat stores.

In an ideal world this would happen.

In the real world, not so much. Certainly there are circumstances where it happens. I've seen some obese people be in energy deficit and still build a nice bit of muscle... there seems to be a some repartitioning and recomping going on.... but for the average person, you aren't going to see our bodies use fat as fuel to build muscle.

We are geared for survival. Survival requires fat. Not muscle beyond baseline levels.

So, while it is probably true that for an existing pound of muscle, as you said - " for every lb of muscle you burn 6 extra calories " - could it also be possible you might actually burn 10X++++ more calories than that just in the process of building that 1 extra pound of muscle ?

But again, how does that translate to weight loss when you need to be in a caloric surplus in general to add muscle?

I am seeing this right Steve ? Welcome your thoughts as always.

Really, I'm not sure. I'm not sure I see exactly where you are coming from. Digest what I responded with and let me know if I'm reading you correctly. Look forward to hearing from ya.

 

[Maestro1]

Ummm, what on Earth are you talking about. I don't really care what the heck you were "looking" for. This is a public forum and I will respond where I see fit.

And if you want to play that illogical "game," I wasn't looking for YOU to back up MY statements. That is certainly not needed.

But then again, I enjoyed your response b/c it added to the conversation just like BOTH of mine did.

You said something based on your own personal experience to the "group."

I validated your own personal experience of n=1 with my experience from working with hundreds of people.

Case closed.

If you don't like how people respond on a forum, I suggest not posting in a public place.

Dude...WTF?! I thought it was cool that we had the same experiences and was poking some fun with you. I thought you were a cool guy with good experience. I even put a dang smiley to show I was being light hearted! God man, your response wreaked of arrogance and complete disrespect. I'll just stay the hell out of your way man....DAMN.

 

[DMAX2007]

let's back to the original post here guys. Well your exercise routine may not be enough anymore. Brisk walking is a perfect way to get your heart rate going BUT your body will get used to it. It will want MORE and FASTER walking from you.. the average exerciser needs to switch their routine most likely every month (some more, some less).

so, the solution? try some interval training. dont do high intesity version just yet. It may too rough of a transition from walking. so for example,

brisk walk for 1 min, slow jog 1 min, so on.

every couple weeks increase to something like brisk walk 1 min, slow jog 1 min, then fast jog 1 min.. wash rinse repeat. Increase and play around with the intervals to keep things interesting.

push ups are good but may not be enough. Get yourself some dumbells, with a couple of different varying weights. Then do a google search on dumbell exercises. there are quite of a few too. good luck and post back with your results!

 

[Steve]

Dude...WTF?! I thought it was cool that we had the same experiences and was poking some fun with you. I thought you were a cool guy with good experience. I even put a dang smiley to show I was being light hearted! God man, your response wreaked of arrogance and complete disrespect. I'll just stay the hell out of your way man....DAMN.

Good idea.

 

[Steve]

let's back to the original post here guys.

Yes sir.

Well your exercise routine may not be enough anymore. Brisk walking is a perfect way to get your heart rate going BUT your body will get used to it. It will want MORE and FASTER walking from you.. the average exerciser needs to switch their routine most likely every month (some more, some less).

Can you clarify what you mean? Do you think the average novice needs to switch their routine up with regards to resistance training each month, speaking strictly physiologically?

I agree, you need to progressively overload the body with whatever you are doing, from cardio to weights.

But I'm not too sure about having to switch up the routine every month. But than again, I'm not too sure in what context you meant.

 

[Maestro1]

try some interval training. dont do high intesity version just yet. It may too rough of a transition from walking. so for example,

brisk walk for 1 min, slow jog 1 min, so on.

Definately. Intervals are great. Definately worth a shot if you haven't tried them before. Give them a go for a month or two and see how your body responds. Report back and let us know what works for you.

 

[DMAX2007]

Yes sir.



Can you clarify what you mean? Do you think the average novice needs to switch their routine up with regards to resistance training each month, speaking strictly physiologically?


I agree, you need to progressively overload the body with whatever you are doing, from cardio to weights.

But I'm not too sure about having to switch up the routine every month. But than again, I'm not too sure in what context you meant.

Well compared to you, almost all of us are average novices. the routine "switching" is physiologically as well as psychological. I'd be bored with my routine within a month or so if I did the same speed with same incline, same weights, etc. And if i did the same cardio with same resistance for a couple months the weight loss would probably stop (and it did).
now speaking strickly physiologically and only with resistance training, i suppose the routine could be mostly static (although my routines are pretty dynamic). but that is natural for me because the closer a person gets to their target weight, the harder the weight will be to lose....something has got to change, whether its nutrition and/or training.

Keep in mind that I am on Atkins, so my exercise may differ slightly to greatly to most of you.

 

[Steve]

Well compared to you, almost all of us are average novices.

I'm not far past novice stage.

Stage of training readiness is NOT determined by size or years in the gym. Rather, it's determined by how quickly your recover from the stress of training. This rate of recovery dictates the need for complexity in periodization.

And how quickly we progress from novice, to intermediate, to advanced, to expert will vary from person to person.

the routine "switching" is physiologically as well as psychological. I'd be bored with my routine within a month or so if I did the same speed with same incline, same weights, etc.

This need to feel like you have to change something in the novice stage is the biggest mistake I see people make, in reference to strength training.

You say "same weights." A novice should never be working out with the same weights.... and if they are, something is very wrong with their programming.

You see, being a novice, you are able to recover very quickly, locally and systemically. Neural fatigue does not set in as *hard* as a novice simply b/c you are not working with weights at such a young *training age* that will promt massive set backs in fatigue.

That said, the stress/fatigue/supercompensation curve for a novice is very short. This translates into a very useful way of training that we know as straight linear periodization.

Because of this, we should be increasing weights on the major lifts pretty much every single workout, assuming we are using something like a full body routine 3 times per week.

I say this to some people, even some professionals in the industry, and they don't understand it. It sounds complicated, but it really isn't. Novices don't create major stress, hence, they don't experience major fatigue, hence, the most efficient way to get stronger (which is very important in the novice stage) is to optimally train during supercompensation periods. And for the novice, these periods peak every 48 hours or so.

Follow me?

And if i did the same cardio with same resistance for a couple months the weight loss would probably stop (and it did).
now speaking strickly physiologically and only with resistance training, i suppose the routine could be mostly static (although my routines are pretty dynamic).

I'm not quite sure what you mean in terms of physiology. Read above and correlate your line of thinking to what I say above please. If you don't mind that is.

On the cardio side of things, it's a totally different story. I have no issue with switching things up at will.

Keep in mind that I am on Atkins, so my exercise may differ slightly to greatly to most of you.

I'm speaking for anyone really, no matter of dietary patterns.