Thread: 12 weeks of..."progress"

I thought I'd post these pictures to see if others see the same change I do...as in no change whatsoever. These pictures were taken April 1, May 1, June and July 1 respectively. (I apologize for the picture with underwear...but you guys post pictures of yourselves in ratty underwear all the time! And they were the only pictures I had for that month : P )



No April 1 image

No April 1 image

The April 1st pictures were taken before I cleaned up my diet and started running and strength training (and consuming at a calorie deficit). I run 3 times a week, strength train for an hour twice a week and eat 300+ calories below my daily requirement.

These pictures depress the **** out of me. Why am I doing this again?

have you dropped weight? if not, you were not truly at a caloric deficit.

you dont look bad, dont worry.
what kind of strength training do you do?

Originally Posted by Proteinboy

have you dropped weight? if not, you were not truly at a caloric deficit.

you dont look bad, dont worry.
what kind of strength training do you do?

Agree, you don’t look bad and shouldn’t worry.

Question though you said that you are eating 300+ calories below your daily requirement. Are you also factoring in calories from what you are drinking? I have met a few people that forget to add this into their calorie intake. A few beers, energy drinks, etc.. can easily negate the 300 calories below your daily requirement.

Originally Posted by CPL_C

Agree, you don’t look bad and shouldn’t worry.

Question though you said that you are eating 300+ calories below your daily requirement. Are you also factoring in calories from what you are drinking? I have met a few people that forget to add this into their calorie intake. A few beers, energy drinks, etc.. can easily negate the 300 calories below your daily requirement.

I only drink water.

Originally Posted by Proteinboy

have you dropped weight? if not, you were not truly at a caloric deficit.

you dont look bad, dont worry.
what kind of strength training do you do?

Nope, haven't lost a pound. Haven't lost any inches on the measuring tape either. Also haven't decreased my body fat percentage. I'm telling ya...ZERO change.

I'll post my strength training as a general reply.

My strength training:

I work out two times a week. Usually takes about an hour. I often alternate between exercises that work the same muscle in a slightly different way.

Yes...my routine isn't perfect. These are exercises I'm comfortable with. I do ongoing research into strength training and I'm always tweaking. My goals are basically twofold: remind my body that it needs muscles, so please don't eat them when I'm at a calorie deficit and two, I'd like to be a little bit stronger.

Squats
Pushups
Lunges (these are on hiatus)
Calf Raises
Back Rows weighted
Bicep Curls weighted
Kickbacks or Tricep Extensions weighted
Crunches or Leg Raises
Supermans OR Bird Dogs
Plank OR Side Plank
One Arm Straight Leg Deadlifts

For weighted exercises, I increase weight when I can do 2X14 or 16 without much trouble. Then I usually increase by a kilo. I'm particularly proud of my bicep curls. I started 12 weeks ago curling 1.5kg and now I'm curling 8kg.

if you havent lost weight, that means you really were not on a calorie deficit. the calorie doesnt lie.
how did you calculate your maintenance level calorie intake?
you have to eat less calories if you want to lose weight. :]

Originally Posted by Proteinboy

if you havent lost weight, that means you really were not on a calorie deficit. the calorie doesnt lie.
how did you calculate your maintenance level calorie intake?
you have to eat less calories if you want to lose weight. :]

I used a calculator similar to this one by the Mayo Clinic. I'm 5'9, 150 pounds, 28 years old and female. My daily requirement is 2000 calories. I eat 1700.

Even if I weren't eating at a deficit, I've added cardio and I've been working my muscles. That burns several hundred calories a week that I wasn't burning before. *shrugs*

You look good so keep that in mind.

Aside from diet, what is a normal week of working out and activity like for you? I ask because yo can often see better results with eating 'decent' but increasing activity. I carry about 10% BF year round. Activity levell is what I use to control my weight more than diet. I eat good but cheat also. For me a week looks like:
M- weight lifting - full body routine at 11am /// and often also a 3 mile fast walk at 3pm
T- Tabata Jump rope and 4 mile walk
W - Same as Monday
TH- Same as Tuesday
F - Same as M and W
Saturday - get up and about with kids and bike rides or just games
Sunday - Relax

I get some rest on the weekends but during the week between exercise and work I am non stop.

Originally Posted by tenpercent

You look good so keep that in mind.

Aside from diet, what is a normal week of working out and activity like for you? I ask because yo can often see better results with eating 'decent' but increasing activity.

Thanks!

My week looks like:

Monday Run
Tuesday Strength
Wednesday Run
Thursday Rest
Friday Strength
Saturday Run
Sunday Rest

Strength is the one hour routine I posted above, and running (ok...more like "running") is the Couch to 5K program I'm doing. I'm only up to running for half an hour, but it's half an hour more cardio than I did before and it really gets my heart pumping.

I know it's not some like..Olympic training schedule or anything, but it's reasonable for me and coupled with eating clean and moderately I kinda thought I'd eventually drop back down to a heathier size/shape/weight.

I know I'm not like horribly unfit looking or anything, but I did weigh 15 pounds less just a few months ago. I really thought by tweaking my diet and adding some much needed exercise I'd get back down to my normal weight but for some reason it's really hanging on. I don't even care so much about the weight (the number), I'd just like to look (and be) a bit more fit.

[QUOTE=Proteinboy;375445]have you dropped weight? if not, you were not truly at a caloric deficit.

you dont look bad, dont worry.
QUOTE]

Agreed 100%. Either add in mor cardio or cut back on more food calories.

Originally Posted by Domestika

I used a calculator similar to this one by the Mayo Clinic. I'm 5'9, 150 pounds, 28 years old and female. My daily requirement is 2000 calories. I eat 1700.

Even if I weren't eating at a deficit, I've added cardio and I've been working my muscles. That burns several hundred calories a week that I wasn't burning before. *shrugs*

What does your macro-nutrient allotment in grams look like, approximately?

I am guessing, with your stats (without actually specifically calculating them), that your base rate would about 1500c (maybe higher 1400's), and activity level around or close to 2,000--dependent. So, I believe you are fairly close.

Peace

Best regards,

Chillen

Originally Posted by tic

Agreed 100%. Either add in mor cardio or cut back on more food calories.

Luckily the C25K program is a gradual increase in running so my cardio will only get longer and more intense as I go.

I just figured that some cardio (as opposed to the previous none) which have resulted in some improvement. Apparently it's more like a LOT of cardio = minimal improvement. Good to know!

Originally Posted by Chillen

What does your macro-nutrient allotment in grams look like, approximately?

I have absolutely no idea. I don't have a ratio that I try to stick to. I eat clean and I try to have some protein, carbs and good fats in each meal or snack. I could imagine that I'm maybe higher in carbs that I should be. The whole Atkins hoopla REALLY turned me off the idea of minimizing my carbs so I don't make it a point to avoid them.

Though...I have a question. Maybe you know the answer.

Isn't a calorie just a calorie when it comes to weight loss? I mean, if you eat 1500 calories in fat a day and nothing else...aren't you still going to lose weight? How does the fact that the calorie is coming from carbs or proteins affect weight loss?

Always wondered about that!

Originally Posted by Domestika

The whole Atkins hoopla REALLY turned me off the idea of minimizing my carbs so I don't make it a point to avoid them.

Carbohydrates can sometimes get a bad wrap they do not deserve. Carbohydrates can be "one" of the least understood macro nutrients.

They are extremely-beneficial in our diets, and no one will doubt this.

However, they are also extremely powerful macro-nutrient when manipulated.

Some dieters, will study the calorie allotments, without studying the potential force that the macro-nutrients can play into appropriate fat loss. In actuality, one can have the almighty and all powerful calorie working along side manipulation of the macro-nutrients, and provide a several working forces into the equation of fat loss, instead of one.

And, this is my point. You may not have to avoid/reduce them to lose quality tissue. If you are eating a good quantity of carbohydrates, and keeping the other two macros up, and within a calorie deficit, and you are experiencing fat loss, there is no reason to change.

I am one of those when my BF is high, I can eat them all day long, with no bad feedback (as long as the other two macros are up to snuff, and it doesn't matter the "type" of carbohydrate). But this is not the case for everyone.

Some are more sensitive to them then others: Some are more Insulin resistant and some Insulin sensitive; one or the other can be effected by a plethora of individual influences (genetics, biological efficiency, etc, etc), and lastly one's dietary habits and trend history.

Insulin is another powerful hormone that gets a bad wrap it doesn't deserve, mostly because its just misunderstood, and is multifunctional (its more than a simple storage hormone). Insulin (for example) can be extremely anabolic. Its does more than stabilizing blood sugar or effecting hunger, etc.

I bring this up, because Insulin and the Carbohydrate have a.....relationship. Sometimes its loving, and sometimes not.

A "modified" Atkins (with the right sort of foods), with the correct person, in the right position, isn't a bad diet.

But, this of course can depend.

Isn't a calorie just a calorie when it comes to weight loss? I mean, if you eat 1500 calories in fat a day and nothing else...aren't you still going to lose weight? How does the fact that the calorie is coming from carbs or proteins affect weight loss?

My answer to this question is:

Yes, and no.

Using your example, of consuming 1,500 calories all from forms of fat macro-nutrients, (assuming this is a female, in the right position to post such a deficit). And assuming weight training, and healthy no medical complications.

Two things are missing that are negatives: No protein intake, and no carbohydrate intake. Let's say, that this 1,500 calorie allotment, creates a 500c deficit from the MT-Line.

The body has a "need" of protein with or without weight training. And, the body would prefer carbohydrates for its fuel source. Lets assume Glucose storage is full before starting.

Now I am putting this "extremely" simplistic and a hypothetical way:

The body will covert the consumed fat into energy sources to use for its needs. Additionally, since there is no protein intake--where do you think it will likely take it from? The odds for muscle loss increase. In addition, we have a environment for glucose depletion.

And, after a few days (dependent on activity, training, etc), the person's glucose storage will fall, and deplete over time. IMO, protein is more important in a deficit than one in a surplus. Additionally, (dependent) carbohydrates can have some protein sparing effects.

Therefore in this hypothetical situation, there will be fat loss (most likely, leaving out metabolic adaptions), and increased muscle loss (no increased protein to off-set, dehydration, water loss, (because of no carbohydrate consumption).

With that said, it's a common myth that muscle is primarily protein; skeletal muscle is only about 25% protein, and about 70% water --approximately.

Therefore, (assuming severe carbohydrate restriction trend, and since carbohydrates carry/absorb water), muscle can lose its water, and appear flat and ugly--dependent on amount of loss. Even the glycogen and the rest only makes up a small percentage of the total weight. I'm honestly surprised that no one has ever pushed water as an anabolic source since, strictly speaking, it makes up far more of your muscle volume than protein does.

Not to leave out the possibility that when glucose storage gets to a certain point, the person will (or could, dependent on the person), start feeling lethargy, irritated, get headaches, etc, etc.

Okay: Is a calorie a calorie now?

Open up your focus from the mighty calorie........and macro nutrients, and a whole new world is shown.

Is a Calorie a Calorie? | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald



Best wishes,

Chillen