Really? 2 months no difference...

[Corporate Thug]

change your cardio to HIIT... 40 minutes to burn 300 is barely moving. I can do a calculated 300 in 16 minutes on my octane.

Also, try to do the cardio on the days you don't lift. If you must do it the same day, make sure you ALWAYS do it after you lift.

my other thoughts -> you aren't eating enough. and 2 months may seem like a long time, but if you haven't been working out for a while it might be the time your body needs to make an adjustment to the change.

are your lifts going up/are you getting stronger?

I'm pertty sure that figure is wrong. I'm 5'11, 167 and I burn about 450 in 45 minutes with incline set to half of the machines max, walking at 3.3 mph

 

[KIAman]

I'm pertty sure that figure is wrong. I'm 5'11, 167 and I burn about 450 in 45 minutes with incline set to half of the machines max, walking at 3.3 mph

You burn 10 calories per minute walking? Even with an incline, that seems like a LOT to me.

I'll do a 20 minute HIIT session and burn 450 calories and trust me, I am coughing my lungs out after the 20 minutes,

 

[rga]

You burn 10 calories per minute walking? Even with an incline, that seems like a LOT to me.

I'll do a 20 minute HIIT session and burn 450 calories and trust me, I am coughing my lungs out after the 20 minutes,

In 50 minutes of low intentsity steady state cardio I burn about 500 calories with an incline of 8 and a speed of 3.7 mpsh, so yes, it is possible that he's burning 10 calories per minute. I always set my age and weight on treadmills that accept it, and while I know the calories it says I've burned is just an estimate, I feel it's a pretty good one based on the calories I'm eating and the rate of my weight loss.

 

[Grim281]

There is no accurate way of knowing what you are burning without knowing what your heart rate is. The best way is buy a hr strap monitor. I burn 625-675 on the elliptical per 50 minutes depending on how fast I am going.

 

[RFE]

Personally, I'd stop the drinking, even your limited one evening drinking. Boozing doesn't really fit into the goals that you've outlined.

Timing of your dinner and/or late night snacks, taking care not to eat anything past a certain number of hours before you go to sleep.

Perhaps some green tea a couple of times per day.

It sounds like you're working out for over two hours each workout session - if that's the case, I'd try to get the workouts to between 1 and 1.5 hours. Do your extended cardio on one day, weight training the next.

The other people posting in your thread had very helpful advice, especially counting the calories.

Based on what you've shared, you're really working hard! Stay motivated!!

 

[nwo]

Eat healthy. Having a proper workout routine and a crappy diet is like taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back. Don't go on a diet because of the short term goals, pick a diet that you can physically and mentally handle and stick with it. Don't rely on the scale to tell you how much progress you have made, the results will come with time.

Also, in my opinion, it's usually better to lift weights first, and then do the heavy cardio, or just do the cardio on your off days. You want to save all your strength and stamina for the weight training so that you don't half ass it. What I would recommend is that you warmup for 5-10 minutes on the treadmill, hit the weights, and then go back to doing cardio after you're done lifting.

If you're really struggling with your diet, using this site may help to keep track of your meal portions, macro and micro nutrients, and caloric intake: https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/default.aspx

Also, this article should help guide you into the right direction:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/betteru23.htm

 

[Doppel]

OP obviously eats too much and if he has somehow figured out how to not lose weight by eating too little, then he has solved starvation and also broken the laws of thermodynamics.

Remember, starvation mode is mostly a myth. This has been proven by empirical analysis. The body just doesn't cut down the metablism much on a caloric deficit until it's gone on for a while and/or calories cut hard. If you want to read more about it I recall a great deal of links to analysis at the bodybuilding forums, where some people are religious about this stuff (and they look the part). "Not losing weight because you're not eating enough" is a total myth. In any case, it definitely won't happen off the bat. If you're not noticing even a loss of a pound at the beginning of any diet before any possible adaptation has occurred, you never even started a diet.

I would bet good money that OP is eating way more calories than he thinks. Way more.
This stuff is really not rocket science. It's very easy and even lay people know one thing accurate about dieting: eat less, you lose weight. The antithesis of what caused you to gain it to begin with.

If you're not noticing a real difference on the scale on a weekly basis you are not making progress.

Cardio is a bonus, but it's not the problem here. Your diet is. Diet is the alpha and omega of fat loss or gain.

Agree with above about what you eat, you said what you eat not how much. A fistful of almonds--just 30 almonds!--is 200 calories. I can easily eat a thousand calories of almonds in a sitting, is not a challenge at all. They are ultra calorific (though tasty).

 

[SociallyChallenged]

OP obviously eats too much and if he has somehow figured out how to not lose weight by eating too little, then he has solved starvation and also broken the laws of thermodynamics.

Remember, starvation mode is mostly a myth. This has been proven by empirical analysis. The body just doesn't cut down the metablism much on a caloric deficit until it's gone on for a while and/or calories cut hard. If you want to read more about it I recall a great deal of links to analysis at the bodybuilding forums, where some people are religious about this stuff (and they look the part). "Not losing weight because you're not eating enough" is a total myth. In any case, it definitely won't happen off the bat. If you're not noticing even a loss of a pound at the beginning of any diet before any possible adaptation has occurred, you never even started a diet.

I would bet good money that OP is eating way more calories than he thinks. Way more.
This stuff is really not rocket science. It's very easy and even lay people know one thing accurate about dieting: eat less, you lose weight. The antithesis of what caused you to gain it to begin with.

If you're not noticing a real difference on the scale on a weekly basis you are not making progress.

Cardio is a bonus, but it's not the problem here. Your diet is. Diet is the alpha and omega of fat loss or gain.

Agree with above about what you eat, you said what you eat not how much. A fistful of almonds--just 30 almonds!--is 200 calories. I can easily eat a thousand calories of almonds in a sitting, is not a challenge at all. They are ultra calorific (though tasty).

You state that there is empirical evidence proving that a starvation mode doesn't exist - would you like to provide some research articles? Because I have personally read 3-5 that say dropping the calories excessively can cause the BMR to decline by up to 30%.

Granted, I don't think that's necessarily the problem in this case, but the body does make SIGNIFICANT changes when starved of calories.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I think that, if you're being honest about what you're eating, those 5-7 tallboys once a week aren't really hurting you. If you are lifting as heavy as you say you are, perhaps the weight you are losing in fat is being replaced by muscle. Measure yourself and see. If your weight is staying constant but your waist is shrinking you're probably on the right track.

Well, hold on. If he is taking in this (inlduing beer twice a week):
day 1: 1900
day 2: 2900
day 3: 1900
day 4: 1900
day 5: 2900
day 6: 1900
day 7: 1900

Thats a total of 15300 calories. 2185 calories a day.

But let's look at 15,300. Assuming a sentry job (desk job), let's say that 2000 calories is the burn. On exercise days, let's say there is a 700 calorie burn. or 2700 total.

That's 2700 4 days a week. and 2000 the other days. That's 16,800 calories.

16800-15300 is 1500. That's good for less than 1/2 pound a week in weight loss.

Stop drinking beer and start exercising 6 days a week. You'll loose weight.

----
Or do what my neighbor said I could do (as a joke sort of). Run 9 miles a day and eat whatever you want. You'll loose weight

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

You state that there is empirical evidence proving that a starvation mode doesn't exist - would you like to provide some research articles? Because I have personally read 3-5 that say dropping the calories excessively can cause the BMR to decline by up to 30%.

Granted, I don't think that's necessarily the problem in this case, but the body does make SIGNIFICANT changes when starved of calories.

I read up on starvation mode.

bah, forget it. This is more like lost in the woods type of starvation that I read up on.

Regardless, the OP is no where near starvation mode.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Thinking about what the OP says he eats daily. OP, do you actually measure out your intake? You eat 7 almonds? You eat 2.5 ounces of chicken? etc etc? When estimating, always overestimate?

My intake on good days is similar to the OPs but I skip breakfast. And I still do 1500-1700 calories.

 

[BeeBoop]

You state that there is empirical evidence proving that a starvation mode doesn't exist - would you like to provide some research articles? Because I have personally read 3-5 that say dropping the calories excessively can cause the BMR to decline by up to 30%.

Granted, I don't think that's necessarily the problem in this case, but the body does make SIGNIFICANT changes when starved of calories.

I'm curious. How does the body slow down BMR and what would create this perfect scenario? My level of knowledge on metabolism only goes up to biology 101 on the creation of ATP by way of aerobic respiration. Is there a new mechanism created by starvation for ATP?

 

[Blackjack200]

You state that there is empirical evidence proving that a starvation mode doesn't exist - would you like to provide some research articles? Because I have personally read 3-5 that say dropping the calories excessively can cause the BMR to decline by up to 30%.

Granted, I don't think that's necessarily the problem in this case, but the body does make SIGNIFICANT changes when starved of calories.

Coincidentally, I'm reading a book about calories and their impact on diets right now. It's called "Why Calories Count".

They talk about two experiments done on total starvation over several weeks.

In both experiments the subject lost a huge amount of weight in the first few days due to the release of water from glycerol, and release of salt (accompanied by release of water) from the kidneys. After that the subjects, despite having vastly different starting weights, both settled in to a 0.3kg/day weight loss rate, body fat being the primary source of energy and the breakdown of body proteins also contributing.

About the BMR, the author of the book says that after one to three weeks the BMR begins to reduce as the weight loss slows down the body's energy requirements. The result is that it takes less energy to support body functions. The basal metabolic rate drops in direct proportion to to the loss in body weight.

That's the author's take. I have not read the study myself to check on it; but here it is.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274154/


Now, I've always been suspicious of the claims of "starvation mode". Mainly because I've never seen it quantified, demonstrated, or explained in a way that really made sense to me. An arbitrary rate of weight loss where the body suddenly says 'oh no... that's too fast, I need to do something...' vs. a more gradual weight loss that is gentle enough that the body doesn't even notice it? It just never rang true for me.

I know I have some confirmation bias here, so if there are some studies that you can point me to that support starvation mode, I'm happy to read them.

 

[BeeBoop]

In both experiments the subject lost a huge amount of weight in the first few days due to the release of water from glycerol, and release of salt (accompanied by release of water) from the kidneys. After that the subjects, despite having vastly different starting weights, both settled in to a 0.3kg/day weight loss rate, body fat being the primary source of energy and the breakdown of body proteins also contributing.

So according to this research, even though two individuals could be in entirely different weight classes, they will both lose the same amount of weight during an extended fast? I find that interesting as it would mean that a larger individual requires the same amount of energy to live as a smaller individual. Was activity level taken into account?

 

[Blackjack200]

So according to this research, even though two individuals could be in entirely different weight classes, they will both lose the same amount of weight during an extended fast? I find that interesting as it would mean that a larger individual requires the same amount of energy to live as a smaller individual. Was activity level taken into account?

I would not interpret it that way. I should have been more clear, but this was not a single study, it was two studies conducted about twenty years apart. Also, with only one subject in each study, you can't control for individual variation. My guess is that in general a lighter person would lose weight slower than a heavy person in these conditions.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Coincidentally, I'm reading a book about calories and their impact on diets right now. It's called "Why Calories Count".

They talk about two experiments done on total starvation over several weeks.

In both experiments the subject lost a huge amount of weight in the first few days due to the release of water from glycerol, and release of salt (accompanied by release of water) from the kidneys. After that the subjects, despite having vastly different starting weights, both settled in to a 0.3kg/day weight loss rate, body fat being the primary source of energy and the breakdown of body proteins also contributing.

About the BMR, the author of the book says that after one to three weeks the BMR begins to reduce as the weight loss slows down the body's energy requirements. The result is that it takes less energy to support body functions. The basal metabolic rate drops in direct proportion to to the loss in body weight.

That's the author's take. I have not read the study myself to check on it; but here it is.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274154/


Now, I've always been suspicious of the claims of "starvation mode". Mainly because I've never seen it quantified, demonstrated, or explained in a way that really made sense to me. An arbitrary rate of weight loss where the body suddenly says 'oh no... that's too fast, I need to do something...' vs. a more gradual weight loss that is gentle enough that the body doesn't even notice it? It just never rang true for me.

I know I have some confirmation bias here, so if there are some studies that you can point me to that support starvation mode, I'm happy to read them.

Single subject studies, while they provide some sort of evidence, are particularly weak in quality. I've been really busy at work lately so it may take me a couple of days to conjure them up, but I believe I have at least two higher quality randomized controlled trials (much higher up on the pyramid of evidence) that represent and document the phenomenon.

In the studies I've read (it's been a while so bear with me), I believe they showed that BMR dropped independently of weight (like I said 30% without significant weight loss). I'll have to see if I can find them, but I've had this argument before and I found some pretty good evidence that the body does modify it's caloric expenditure based on its intake.

 

[Blackjack200]

The authors did mention that when test subjects in various studies are subjected to severe calorie restrictions (not the total starvation that the two individual studies dealth with), the subjects would become almost completely sedintary with very little unnecessary movement.

I think if you have a person who is fairly active that severly restrics their diet, that reduction in movement can pretty significantly impact the average calories burned in a day without necessarily changing the BMR much.

Don't worry about the studies, I didn't mean to give you homework. I'll see what I can find on my own...

 

[JumBie]

So it has been two weeks, and I read every ones post and would like to thank you all for your time. I have not had a single alcoholic beverage in the past two weeks and guess what! The scale has gone down 5lbs.

To those who asked, I was not counting the portions but I can guarantee I was overestimating my calories to give my self wiggle room. Maybe the over consumption of alcohol was affecting me in some way,shape, or form? For example with almonds It was a snack for me, I would eat 2-4 almonds every 3 or 4 hours just to keep me going, so I know I wasn't over consuming on them.

I am starting to consume more fruits and vegetables, and sticking with chicken as my main source of protein along with eggs. I have started to introduce sea weed to my diet and I am feeling the benefits mentally, and physically from my healthy diet.

 

[Doppel]

I feel bad i was asked earlier for the empirical evidence I spoke about regarding starvation myth and I've not gotten back with anything yet. I recall some things at bodybuilding.com one regarding a study the US military did a few decades back involving very low calories for a bunch of people, but if one reviews the losing fat forum they can see more. Or, they can call me a bullshitter because at this point I haven't gone back to get the data, and that's fair until I do.

 

[spamsk8r]

I wouldn't be surprised if it is at least partly hormonal to some degree. Alcohol consumption, in particular, has been shown to reduce testosterone levels, and things like thyroid hormones, cortisol levels (stress hormone), leptin, and sex hormones are extremely important when trying to reduce bodyfat. If you're stressed at work/school, you need to find ways of managing that. If you're not sleeping 8-9 hours a night in a dark room, you need to fix that. Vitamin D levels need to be in line as well, I personally take 6000IU/day and work in an office, and my levels just tested in the good range. Gluten and dairy tend to be problematic for many people; try cutting them out completely. This should cover your bases, if you want to dig deeper get your doctor to do a full blood work-up with thyroid and go from there.

 

[Koing]

So it has been two weeks, and I read every ones post and would like to thank you all for your time. I have not had a single alcoholic beverage in the past two weeks and guess what! The scale has gone down 5lbs.

To those who asked, I was not counting the portions but I can guarantee I was overestimating my calories to give my self wiggle room. Maybe the over consumption of alcohol was affecting me in some way,shape, or form? For example with almonds It was a snack for me, I would eat 2-4 almonds every 3 or 4 hours just to keep me going, so I know I wasn't over consuming on them.

I am starting to consume more fruits and vegetables, and sticking with chicken as my main source of protein along with eggs. I have started to introduce sea weed to my diet and I am feeling the benefits mentally, and physically from my healthy diet.

Congrats mate! Keep it up!

Koing

 

[cbrunny]

Height: 6ft 1
Weight: 205lbs
Age:23

BMR 2082.7


Breakfast:
Black coffee
3 eggs, 3 pieces turkey bacon
1 piece of 12 grain toast (some carbs for the day)

Lunch:
Chicken salad
Apple
Water

Dinner:
Chicken breast
Little bit of brown rice or quinoa
broccoli, cauliflower, spinach

Snacks:
Almonds
Cranberries
Apple

That is basically what my meals consist of usually lunch and dinner change up with fish, or beef.

Usually my caloric intake is between 1700-2000
I treadmill on 15 incline for 40 minutes. (300 calorie burn)
Lift weights for about an hour and a half (Heavy)
These both occur roughly 4 times a week.

I drink plenty of water throughout the day, and take a multivitamin, omega 3, b12, and pro biotic in the morning. I don't feel any healthier, nor do i look any better.

I will admit, I do drink at least once a week. When I do drink, its beers and I drink pretty heavy. I do not however eat junk or eat more even when I consume alcohol. Id venture to say i drink 5-7 tall cans of beer usually try to make them all Coors light but if not they are premium imports. I'd say that I consume around 1100 calories of beer. On the day that i drink, my diet is the same, exercise regime is the same. So i probably consume at most 3000 calories total on drinking days.

When I did my diet a year ago and lost 40lbs I cut off all drinking during that time, maybe I need to cut out drinking for good?

1 egg = 72 calories
1 piece of turkey bacon = 31 calories
Breakfast = 309 calories

Chicken Salad = 417 calories
Apple = 72 calories
Lunch = 489 calories

1 serving brown rice = 216 calories
1 serving broccoli (no seasoning) = 27 calories
1 serving spinach (no seasoning) = 41 calories
1 serving cauliflower (no seasoning) = 14 calories
1 chicken breast (no seasoning) = 141 calories
Dinner = 439 calories

1 serving almonds, unsalted = 163 calories
1 serving cranberries = 51 calories
1 apple = 72 calories
Snacks = 286

Average day = 1523 calories

1 tall boy, coors light = 137 calories
1 tall boy, premium import (Becks, Heineken, Fosters) = ~150 calories

Average day with alcohol = 1523 + (150 * 7) = 2573 calories.

Solution = Count calories. Just do it. 1200 calories per day, plus any calories that you burn while working out. Do this, track it well, and it will drop off.

 

[wirednuts]

1 egg = 72 calories
1 piece of turkey bacon = 31 calories
Breakfast = 309 calories

Chicken Salad = 417 calories
Apple = 72 calories
Lunch = 489 calories

1 serving brown rice = 216 calories
1 serving broccoli (no seasoning) = 27 calories
1 serving spinach (no seasoning) = 41 calories
1 serving cauliflower (no seasoning) = 14 calories
1 chicken breast (no seasoning) = 141 calories
Dinner = 439 calories

1 serving almonds, unsalted = 163 calories
1 serving cranberries = 51 calories
1 apple = 72 calories
Snacks = 286

Average day = 1523 calories

1 tall boy, coors light = 137 calories
1 tall boy, premium import (Becks, Heineken, Fosters) = ~150 calories

Average day with alcohol = 1523 + (150 * 7) = 2573 calories.

Solution = Count calories. Just do it. 1200 calories per day, plus any calories that you burn while working out. Do this, track it well, and it will drop off.

lol, in his case if he just replaced alcohol with weed he would lose weight

 

[blackdogdeek]

lol, in his case if he just replaced alcohol with weed he would lose weight

What about the munchies?

 

[Wyndru]

Solution = Count calories. Just do it. 1200 calories per day, plus any calories that you burn while working out. Do this, track it well, and it will drop off.

Woah, 1200 calories per day? I'd be starving.