The Fat Loss TroubleshootThis is your place to troubleshoot your fat loss problems from nutrition to training. This section is led by Leigh Peele, author of "The Fat Loss Troubleshoot," the ultimate fat loss manual. If your results have slowed or stalled this is the place to come for advice for all your fat loss needs.
In short, it's what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight. You should exercise to improve your health, but be warned: fiery spurts of vigorous exercise could lead to weight gain.
Read the whole article - it was really good... and interesting to see that mainstream science is now realizing what many of us who exercise regularly have also learned - if you're not careful, you're likely to compensate for tough workouts by eating more and/or decreasing NEAT...
This is an excellent article! Timely, too. I was just complimenting a co-worker, who is quite obese, on her recent weight loss. She gets up every morning and hits the gym and has been at it for several months. If I were to guess.....she's probably gone from 300+ pounds to just under 300. Still a long way to go, but she has been making very steady progress. We had a long talk yesterday about how the other 23 hours in the day are just as, if not more, important than the 1 hour daily in the gym. I'm going to forward this article on to her.....
If I knew then what I know now... well, I might be finished!
Amen. This is what always trippped me up in the past and led to weight regain after losing. I would get run down, felt deprived mentally and would start overeating again.
A couple things stuck out. As women we are encouraged to do the weight bearing exercises for our bones, and there was no mention of that. Women who are already "professional" dieters, and aren't getting the nutrients they need, are often the ones who need to exercise so they can eat more to build up their bodies. I'm starting to see that a lot as I'm getting older, the skinny/fat women in their 50's who look like you can break them in half because there isn't a muscle on their bodies, ugh.
My compensation for exercise isn't being more hungry (it will be after a few days of a big deficit, and that can be related to how physical I was) but I definitely slow down. That's something I've really been able to see using my GWF, but now also something I can try to work against.
I do want to tell people sometimes to stop doing so much. I've been on message boards before where they are doing a 1000 cals of exercise a day, and trying to eat "25 points."
I definitely like the endurance I have built up doing my cardio workouts though. A few months back my dance sessions were burning me out. I'd dance one and then have to sit out. Now I can dance without ever taking a break, I'm the sweatiest one in the club, and I love it. So maybe I've gotten more cardio than my body needs, but I need it for myself.
And I want the muscles that come with exercising, I don't want to be skinny/fat and that's what I'd become if I only dieted.
But I do agree, I don't have to kill myself overexercising to do it.
I lost about 40-45 of my 60ish lbs without much exercise at all, maybe just some brisk walking and a few attempts at jogging. By the time I joined a gym in December of 2008 and started workout out regularly I had already lost a lot of weight.
I'm on a private board full of other mothers and we have a weight loss thread. There are one or two women who keep insisting that they are going to lose their weight by exercise alone, because they can't stand to 'diet' or count calories. They insist that by burning more calories in exercise they will lose the weight. It's going very slowly for them, and I keep trying to point out (without being a PITA) that ballpark estimates are that weight loss is maybe 80% nutrition 20% exercise (I know that's an oversimplification, but...). Anyway, maybe I will post this article for them to read.
I work out now because I like it and to make muscles. It does make me hungrier though. I know that if I wasn't counting calories I'd overcompensate. Even with counting calories I tend to overcompensate.
I'm on a private board full of other mothers and we have a weight loss thread. There are one or two women who keep insisting that they are going to lose their weight by exercise alone, because they can't stand to 'diet' or count calories. They insist that by burning more calories in exercise they will lose the weight. It's going very slowly for them, and I keep trying to point out (without being a PITA) that ballpark estimates are that weight loss is maybe 80% nutrition 20% exercise (I know that's an oversimplification, but...). Anyway, maybe I will post this article for them to read.
Yes, you should post it there.
What I see in many coworkers and friends is that people believe exercise will do it because they go from pretty sedentary to more active, which also tends to encourage them to watch their food. So, after a week or two of exercise and light, casual dieting, they see progress of a few lbs.
But that won't last, since food starts creeping back to normal levels since they aren't tracking it or anything. In their mind, it was all that walking that did it, not eating less, and now that's not working either. So, they stop out of frustration.
In a few months or a year, they'll try this cycle again, "confirming" that adding exercise IS what did it. Someone needs to point out the forest for them.
It is a great article, altho I hate that she said "turn fat into muscle" in a few places. *cringe* Almost as bad as the "muscle weighs more than fat" that you see people repeat over and over (not here of course but on other message boards) The WW boards are notorious for that.
Read the whole article - it was really good... and interesting to see that mainstream science is now realizing what many of us who exercise regularly have also learned - if you're not careful, you're likely to compensate for tough workouts by eating more and/or decreasing NEAT...
Mainstream science has known this for quite awhile.
It's mainstream science reporting that hasn't caught up. And that goes for more than just exercise or weight loss topics. You can't learn science from the news.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
It is a great article, altho I hate that she said "turn fat into muscle" in a few places. *cringe* Almost as bad as the "muscle weighs more than fat" that you see people repeat over and over (not here of course but on other message boards) The WW boards are notorious for that.
Neither of these sayings have ever really bothered me that much. I always assume people mean "muscle weighs more than fat, per volume' and 'I want to lose fat and gain muscle'. I mean, I'd assume everyone knows that a lb is a lb. Of course, some people may really think fat transforms into muscle. You never know what crazy things people think. I had a student one time that thought the human penis had a bone in it. I don't know where she got that idea (well, maybe I do).
Don't mean to be a dolt but what would be the point of books like NROLFW and the HIIT training Cosgrove recommends if it is all or even 80% diet.
And I'm asking as someone whos experienced weight loss 150 down to 118-120 with diet alone and some figure skating. And b4 that 145 to 120 by basically eating 1 meal a day for 3 months (major "control" issues i know longer deal with via not eating). BOTH of those however goes against the very book most of us are following.
I'll be honest. Muscle is nice but fitting in my size 4's is what I *really* want. Who wants to be a size 12 but muscular? Makes no sense to me. 18% body fat and size 4 is perfect but any day of the week I'd pick a size 4 over increased strength/muscle. I'm only doing this because of the hope if I do it right I'll accomplish both and stay that way long term and not get bored.
But I am getting discouraged already and I'm still at Stage 1. So if I go over my daily calorie intake is it a waste of time to excercise at all that day (specifically cardio) since there is nothing I can do about the calories I consumed?
Oh, and I don't think you'll need to worry about going from a size 4 to a size 12 based on muscle bulk alone. Maybe Serena Williams can, but I don't think most of us ladies can build that much muscle bulk.
When I started working out I was in a size 12, I think, and I've been doing strength training for 8 months now. Lost an additional 18.5 lbs from what I lost by diet alone, and I've gone to a size 8.
And what if you *don't* eat more, however you manage not to do that, what if you stuff yourself with things that do not increase your appetite and you keep a calorie deficit going. Still can't lose weight?
I guess I'm asking because I don't like to exercise just to exercise. In fact I don't like to do *anything* that is unpleasant or boring unless it gets results that outweigh the negatives and most people are probably like this too.
So I used to figure skate (when and if I ever get light enough that I don't do more harm than good I will go back to that) and it wasn't because it was burning calories. I liked it. I just started tennis. I can only play for an hour or so at a time and I certainly feel like I'm working out but I do it because I like it. I like the competition of it. The only reason I get on the ellipitical is to catch up on TV shows. No tv and it would be hard to get me in a gym. And then there's guilt but that only goes so far.
Makes me think I should just go back to not eating (assming I had that kind of self-control and was that unhappy again) or just eating salmon tofu yogurt oatmeal and salad/vegatables. But I was *tired* I was tired and I was irritable and I was anxious. But people thought I was underweight and some days the irrational part of me says I'd still take it over what I'm doing now.
I have no issues with blood pressure (normal to low) blood sugar (normal to low) diabetes, heart, cholestrerol or any of that stuff. I have mood issues, specifically anxiety (can you tell? ha ha). Possibly thyroid but apparently exercise won't do much about that either.
I'm almost about to believe its really just genes nothing much you can do.
And what if you *don't* eat more, however you manage not to do that, what if you stuff yourself with things that do not increase your appetite and you keep a calorie deficit going. Still can't lose weight?
I guess I'm asking because I don't like to exercise just to exercise. In fact I don't like to do *anything* that is unpleasant or boring unless it gets results that outweigh the negatives and most people are probably like this too.
Look, no matter what you do it always comes down to a negative energy balance. Yeah I know apparently cancer beats thermodynamics now but seriously, the energy that your body absorbs has to be less than the energy your body is using up and/or releasing into the environment.
Dieting is about optimizing that process. As is always said, it's a lot easier to just not eat 1000 cals than it is to burn it up with exercise.
And no, the magic of HIIT and interval training is no exception to this. There are very minor differences RE: partitioning in that intervals tend to be more muscle sparing and might influence fat balance more strongly, but at the end of the day it's about balance.
You will always be able to eat less calories than you'll be able to exercise off.
Yeah, so "research shows steady-state cardio makes you fat". Yeah. Show me those studies and I'll show you exactly why that's a line of garbage.
It's about net energy balance. Simple as that. If you're not losing, then the energy balance isn't sufficiently negative.
Quote:
I'm almost about to believe its really just genes nothing much you can do.
If you're one of those body-dysmorphics that thinks only a tiny slender dancer's body is acceptable, then yes.
If it's about being objectively "fit" and "lean", then no, this is not the case at all.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Don't mean to be a dolt but what would be the point of books like NROLFW and the HIIT training Cosgrove recommends if it is all or even 80% diet.
NROL4W isn't sold as a weight loss book. That's not to say that you can't lose weight with it. I lost weight with it, as did others. No matter what exercise you're doing, it IS primarily about what you're eating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss_jupiter76
I'll be honest. Muscle is nice but fitting in my size 4's is what I *really* want. Who wants to be a size 12 but muscular? Makes no sense to me. 18% body fat and size 4 is perfect but any day of the week I'd pick a size 4 over increased strength/muscle. I'm only doing this because of the hope if I do it right I'll accomplish both and stay that way long term and not get bored.
Hmmm... I'd probably pick the strong and muscular size four if I could pick. (Although those who know me from my time here probably realize that I can't honestly comprehend ever wearing a size 4.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss_jupiter76
But I am getting discouraged already and I'm still at Stage 1. So if I go over my daily calorie intake is it a waste of time to exercise at all that day (specifically cardio) since there is nothing I can do about the calories I consumed?
That's kind of an odd question. If you go over your calorie intake AND don't exercise that just kind of compounds one mistake with another. What it means is that you can't hit the drive-thru on the way home from your workout just because you think you deserved it.
One way or the other you have to create a deficit. The easiest is with food and then adding in some exercise. Just not so much exercise that you can easily talk yourself into eating more.
I guess I'm asking because I don't like to exercise just to exercise. In fact I don't like to do *anything* that is unpleasant or boring unless it gets results that outweigh the negatives and most people are probably like this too.
So I used to figure skate (when and if I ever get light enough that I don't do more harm than good I will go back to that) and it wasn't because it was burning calories. I liked it. I just started tennis. I can only play for an hour or so at a time and I certainly feel like I'm working out but I do it because I like it. I like the competition of it. The only reason I get on the ellipitical is to catch up on TV shows. No tv and it would be hard to get me in a gym. And then there's guilt but that only goes so far.
So, play more tennis. I don't know how much you weigh, but I'd say go skate. There's no one way of keeping active. I started lifting weights because I thought it would help me lose weight. It did, but along the way I discovered I like it. I started walking around the neighbourhood with a neighbour back in April and found that I kind of like longer walks, along routes I've never taken. I went from being someone who hated doing 30 mins on the treadmill to someone who walked down to the lakeshore, down to a couple of parks and back (just shy of 6 miles). I'm still a fair bit over 200 pounds, but you know, I found some things that I enjoy doing. I think next year I'm going to join the local outdoors club (long story, but I'm not a winter person), maybe try a bicycle, definitely join in hikes, etc.
That's the first step (activity). Now, just control what you eat. Okay, it's not always that simple, but it can be.
And what if you *don't* eat more, however you manage not to do that, what if you stuff yourself with things that do not increase your appetite and you keep a calorie deficit going. Still can't lose weight?
If you sit still all day and eat fewer cals than you burn you will lose weight.
Quote:
I guess I'm asking because I don't like to exercise just to exercise. In fact I don't like to do *anything* that is unpleasant or boring unless it gets results that outweigh the negatives and most people are probably like this too.
In a nutshell, this is why exercise books, dvds, programs, trainers, etc. make money. The workouts need to keep you motivated or you won't do them. Are you willing to pay to keep going? Sold.
Quote:
So I used to figure skate (when and if I ever get light enough that I don't do more harm than good I will go back to that) and it wasn't because it was burning calories. I liked it. I just started tennis. I can only play for an hour or so at a time and I certainly feel like I'm working out but I do it because I like it. I like the competition of it. The only reason I get on the ellipitical is to catch up on TV shows. No tv and it would be hard to get me in a gym. And then there's guilt but that only goes so far.
Makes me think I should just go back to not eating (assming I had that kind of self-control and was that unhappy again) or just eating salmon tofu yogurt oatmeal and salad/vegatables. But I was *tired* I was tired and I was irritable and I was anxious. But people thought I was underweight and some days the irrational part of me says I'd still take it over what I'm doing now.
There's health to consider. Inactivity isn't exactly healthy. Not ALL exercise and activities make you hungy enough to eat more than you burned. But maybe "pointless" exercise is psychologically telling you can go ahead and eat up while doing what you enjoy is just fun.
Also, if you're playing tennis and trying to get better, enjoying training for 5Ks, etc. are you eating better to influence your performance? With the gym, you're "buying" your food with exercise and I'm going to assume that since most people have no clue what a calorie is, that they overestimate their burn and underestimate their treat.
BTW, if you were underweight, you were eating too little. Do that again until you lose the weight you want, then eat a little more to level off?
Quote:
I have no issues with blood pressure (normal to low) blood sugar (normal to low) diabetes, heart, cholestrerol or any of that stuff. I have mood issues, specifically anxiety (can you tell? ha ha). Possibly thyroid but apparently exercise won't do much about that either.
I'm almost about to believe its really just genes nothing much you can do.
Just because overweight people are "healthy" now doesn't mean that your body isn't working hard behind the scenes to overcompensate somehow. Hopefully that will last forever, but what if you hit critical mass and suddenly tons of problems appear?
I'm not a scientist, doctor, or internet fitness and nutrition guru, but my vague layman's understanding of longterm exposure to "free radicals" and the effects of ongoing stress on the body may someday result in some disease or syndrome "suddenly" appearing out of the blue. So, maybe we're fine, then one day it's cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, an autoimmune disease, or whatever.
My guess is that longterm overeating causes stress on the body that's one day going to come back to bite.
Look, no matter what you do it always comes down to a negative energy balance. Yeah I know apparently cancer beats thermodynamics now but seriously, the energy that your body absorbs has to be less than the energy your body is using up and/or releasing into the environment.
Dieting is about optimizing that process. As is always said, it's a lot easier to just not eat 1000 cals than it is to burn it up with exercise.
And no, the magic of HIIT and interval training is no exception to this. There are very minor differences RE: partitioning in that intervals tend to be more muscle sparing and might influence fat balance more strongly, but at the end of the day it's about balance.
You will always be able to eat less calories than you'll be able to exercise off.
Yeah, so "research shows steady-state cardio makes you fat". Yeah. Show me those studies and I'll show you exactly why that's a line of garbage.
It's about net energy balance. Simple as that. If you're not losing, then the energy balance isn't sufficiently negative.
If you're one of those body-dysmorphics that thinks only a tiny slender dancer's body is acceptable, then yes.
If it's about being objectively "fit" and "lean", then no, this is not the case at all.
So basically, if you can manage to maintain a defecit by workout or just eating less then you will lose weight but the article is talking about people who eat more because they are working out...so if you don't do that it doesn't apply? There is just a lot of confusing information out there.
As for body-dysmorphics, I think I have a pretty accurate view of my body. At a 150 lbs I'm not "obese" or "fat" or whatever but I am above average, I know b/c the only thing I ever want to wear anymore (that I can fit into comfortably) is sweat pants.
I am 5'3" and so yeah wanting to weigh b/n 110(maybe less) and 125 is perfectly normal with the higher you go the more muscle and "leaner" you are. I'm medium boned and broad shouldered so I will never have a "tiny slender" body but ideally as slim and atheletic as possible, regardless of what label one assigns to that.
So basically, if you can manage to maintain a defecit by workout or just eating less then you will lose weight but the article is talking about people who eat more because they are working out...so if you don't do that it doesn't apply? There is just a lot of confusing information out there.
OK think of it like this.
If you're sedentary, you have X metabolic rate. Therefore you can eat Y calories in a day and lose weight as long as Y < X
If your'e active, you have to factor in the metabolic costs of Activity and Recovery. So now the equation is Y < X + A + R
The confound here is that the R variable can do some wacky things if you're not accounting for it over time. The net effect of fatigue from accumulated stress and/or incomplete adaptation can screw with things.
But even there it's about energy balance; you just have to consider the battle between the need to fuel recovery (R) and the need to have calories low enough to cause weight drops.
Quote:
As for body-dysmorphics, I think I have a pretty accurate view although others might disagree. However I am 5'3" and so yeah weighing b/n 110(maybe less) and 125 is perfectly normal with ethe higher you go the more muscle and "leaner" you are. I'm medium boned and broad shouldered so I will never have a "tiny slender" body but ideally as slim and atheletic as possible, regardless of what label one assigns to that.
Aesthetics aside, anybody w/o a real pathology can get lean. It's just a lot more to do with behavioral and motivational factors than it is with any physiological issues.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
So basically, if you can manage to maintain a defecit by workout or just eating less then you will lose weight but the article is talking about people who eat more because they are working out...so if you don't do that it doesn't apply? There is just a lot of confusing information out there.
Yeah, of course! If you burn ~250 calories in a workout and eat ~250 calories under your maintenance #, then you will be at about a 500 calorie deficit. If you skip working out, but eat 500 less than maintenance you will still be at a 500 calorie deficit.
What this article is saying is that lots of people think. "Oh, I went and worked out today. I can have that Whopper and large fries as a treat". Well, how many calories is that? According to their web site, that's 1250. That's, of course, way more than the average person burns in a trip to the gym.
So, play more tennis. I don't know how much you weigh, but I'd say go skate. There's no one way of keeping active. I started lifting weights because I thought it would help me lose weight. It did, but along the way I discovered I like it. I started walking around the neighbourhood with a neighbour back in April and found that I kind of like longer walks, along routes I've never taken. I went from being someone who hated doing 30 mins on the treadmill to someone who walked down to the lakeshore, down to a couple of parks and back (just shy of 6 miles). I'm still a fair bit over 200 pounds, but you know, I found some things that I enjoy doing. I think next year I'm going to join the local outdoors club (long story, but I'm not a winter person), maybe try a bicycle, definitely join in hikes, etc.
That's the first step (activity). Now, just control what you eat. Okay, it's not always that simple, but it can be.
I'm 5'3"/150 lbs (prob water weight that dropped off during TTOM). If you lost weight (and congratulations) I guess you managed not to exceed necessary calories then? Yeah, I get what was posted below, its not that easy. If you're willing to *earn* that piece of pizza (or in my case brownie) by working it off in the gym, sounds fair to me. More fair than just eating 2 brownies a day and nothing else and not exercising and still losing weight does!
I forget to say that excercise helps with my energy levels and supposedly anxiety/depression so in that way its good...but does it make a difference if i lift 3 x a week or walk around the block? i think its probably the "idea" that I am doing something "healthy" and I'm getting fit, I can call myself an active healthy person and can be proud of the discipline/self-control that helps my mood more than the phsyical effects of activity on the brain.
Yeah, of course! If you burn ~250 calories in a workout and eat ~250 calories under your maintenance #, then you will be at about a 500 calorie deficit. If you skip working out, but eat 500 less than maintenance you will still be at a 500 calorie deficit.
What this article is saying is that lots of people think. "Oh, I went and worked out today. I can have that Whopper and large fries as a treat". Well, how many calories is that? According to their web site, that's 1250. That's, of course, way more than the average person burns in a trip to the gym.
Hi Snarla, no I don't do that (rarely anyway). Even if I don't make it to working out, I say I'm going to eat this brownie or I'm going to eat these cheese sticks and I'm going to work it off. I don't say I'm going to eat this stuff and since I'm working out I'll work it off and then some. But I don't come home and then eat the brownie because then I say to myself oh i just did all this work, i'm not about to blow it.
So thank you for reinforcing its not all hopeless :-)
But I am getting discouraged already and I'm still at Stage 1. So if I go over my daily calorie intake is it a waste of time to excercise at all that day (specifically cardio) since there is nothing I can do about the calories I consumed?
It's not all or nothing. If your assumed calorie burn for that day is 2000 calories and your food allotment for the day is 1600 calories, you have a 400 calorie deficit. If you go over by 300, then don't exercise according to plan (let's say a 200 calorie burn plan), then you just "added" 500 calories to the equation. You just put on weight at that number. If the "oops" was only 400 calories, you're even, if it's 300 you still had a 100 calorie deficit. That's something.
So, let's look at why exercise doesn't make us thin... This is a common pattern. You're not alone. The misconceptions about diet and exercise relationships tend to trip people up. They give up (for that day or maybe someday on their diet and/or exercise plan).
Let's go back to the value of a book, program, or personal trainer. It's motivation for the client/reader and a direction to follow. Yes, some of it is more than is actualy necessary to lose weight, but most programs are going to make give you more than the 20% of the fat loss equation and give you some long term strength, health, body composition changes. You might not have signed up for that, but no extra charge...
I think there's a lot to be said for the psychological effects of working out. First of all it makes you feel like you are doing something positive, that tends to leak over to other aspects of your life like eating healthier. Secondly, it makes you more mindful of the calorie balance. If you know you burned 250 calories then you might not be so cavilier about eating that brownie. Then, among other things, you are burning off some calories, even if it's less than you'd wish, its some.
BTW, I agree with Anne about playing tennis or skating. Both of those burn a good number of calories. I have just started playing racquetball with my husband and I'm averaging about 500 caloires (according to my HRM) for 90 minutes of playing. I know that even leisurely skating burns a lot as well.
Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin
Linear Mode
