So I have been stuck at the same weight for close to 3 weeks now after losing close to 20lbs during the first 4 weeks. My calorie deficit and BMR have been adjusted to my new weight and I range between a 600-900 deficit daily (not counting calories burned, just intake.) I am sure that some of the weight has been replaced by lean muscle mass, but at my current weight
(205lbs) there is plenty of fat to be lost.

my macro breakdown has typically been 35-40% protein, 35-40% carbs, and 25-30% fats.

In terms of workout, I have been doing a FBW comprised of compound movements like deadlifts, squats, barbell presses, etc. I do this workout every other day and add an additional 30 minutes of cardio after the workout. On the off days, I am doing 30 minutes of HIIT.

I have been considering the following options and would like some feedback on any of them, or if there is something Im not thinking of.

1. cutting carbs to 50-75 grams a day and increasing my protein and fat intake further.

2. Bumping up my calorie intake by 200 calories to see if I can jumpstart my metabolism.

3. Increasing the cardio above what I normally do, and changing my full body workout to add more supersets instead of single sets.

Provided your estimates are correct, I would go with option #2. Add more calories for two weeks, minimum. See what happens. 600-900 as a daily deficit seems too high and it seems like your body might be trying to tell you that.

My other question would be: has something changed in what you eat or how you track your food? In other words, are you getting your deficit amounts correct in a relative sense? If you're eating something new or different, you might be estimating "wrong" and not producing the same deficit you used to be.

Last...do you know your body fat%?

I will try bumping the calorie intake and see what effect it has.

In terms of your first question, I use fitday, measure food, and check the labels to ensure accurate tracking (as accurate as possible).

As to the body fat %, I have an electronic scale which is supposed to measure bodyfat. I know they arent worth anything...I need to either buy some calipers or a tape measure to do measurements.

Your body has adapted to your exercise; it does it more efficiently and without burning as many calories. Your body has also adapted to your lowered caloric intake as well.

I'd be far more concerned with your body-fat percentage; it's a significantly more accurate guage as to what's really happening then the scale.

You made a LOT of fast progress with huge results, I think things are just balancing out. Don't panic; stay the course. Maybe try changing-up your cardio...wasn't there some moron in your journal babbling about that???

Yeah I think someone mentioned that. I actually have changed it up a bit, I have added the elliptical to the cardio arsenal so now I am doing 3 different types of cardio (bike, treadmill, and elliptical) during the week and I also try and swim on the weekends.

I have dropped weight many times for fights and helped others do the same and I learned that busting through plateaus and forever improving your body comes from variety, variety, and variety. It is all about variety in routine and diet. If I were you I would start first off by switching my cardio to mornings on and empty stomach since you burn 300% more calories that way. I would also change my workout routine. Compound lifts like that will usually put on mass and weight. I would do more high intensity workouts with more core being involved. I could give you some awesome routines if you like...The second thing I would do is change up both your calories and your carb intake. Calories in and calories out is how you lose weight. I would go on a zig zag diet for about 2 weeks and see how it works. It will definately speed up your metabolism. It consists of; high carb day, medium carb day, no carb day. I personally would do 300, 150, 0. The first and second day speed up your metabolism and keep it going strong so that on the 3rd day it is still running fast and will burn up mostly fat for energy. I would repeat it for 2 weeks and see how it works.

The bike will work your legs, the treadmill will work your legs and...let's see, the elliptical will work your legs.

Row, swim....fire-up these muscles that aren't used to doing cardio; you'll see some muscle-gain, bump in metabolism and some nice upper-body development!!!

I'm facing the same thing: exercise is HIGH, calories are LOW and my weight-loss has been very slow...sometimes there is no weight-loss, BUT there's been a consistent loss in body-fat percentage. Don't let it frustrate you; you're down to the nasty stubborn pure fat. You're body doesn't know you're deliberately trying to lose it....it just knows you're going through change and let's be honest; it's not getting as many calories as you're burning....you don't think some instinctive/genetic survival mode isn't gonna kick in???

Trust me, the fat you are burning now has been on your body for a long time and you've blown past your easy-fluff fat.

Let me elaborate:

There's this trainer at the gym and for the last year he was busy taking care of his sick mother. He gained about 35 pounds. Then there's me, heavy all my life (years of this fat being part of my body). Both this guy and I eat about the same, but I cardio longer and weight-train more. All this guy had to do was cut-back his calories a bit and do some cardio, and the 35 pounds he gained literally just fell off his body!!!! Me, I have to fight each stubborn ounce. His fat was recent, mine was life-long aquired.

I know, fat is fat....but I don't care what books may suggest; some fat comes off easier then other fat. Perhaps it's just the body's "programming" or just our own intrinsic nature in terms of how things work...but I can assure you of this: you have no choice but to continue on and work that fat off your body an ounce at a time. And it's like a slope that keeps getting steeper: your body will do the cardio using less calories over time, you'll have to work harder & harder to get more strength from weights and your body will learn to cope with 2,100 calories per day. Yes indeed, it gets tougher. You're not doing anything wrong.

Stay the course.

And, uh.....ROCK ON!

Fitnessvoice--Does it actually burn 300% more calories to work out in the AM, or more fat? Why would it be different based on the time of day. I can understand that more fat would be burned because the blood sugar is low with an empty stomach, but why is the calorie count affected?

My FBW is hitting upper body moreso then lower body with the exception of the inclusion of squats or leg presses with each workout so I try and gear more of my cardio and HIIT towards the lower body. I do add in some swimming on weekends, but due to time constraints during the week it usually isnt feasible. As for the rowing machine, I will try and add that in here and there.

Hey Greenhorn Gal It burns 300% more calories and more fat. The reason for this is that in the morning on an empty stomach you are not burning through carbohydrates since you have not eaten any yet, you are burning your stored fat. Carbohydrates consist of 4 calories per gram and Fat consists of 9 calories per gram. That is why the calorie count is affected. Also that is why morning is the best time to do your cardio since you are burning mainly stored fat. There's quite a bit of scientific literature supporting that doing cardio prior to eating carbohydrates will burn more stored body fat and like you said the blood sugar levels are low, so glycogen is not being burned.
I hope I explained that well enough.

TFV,

There is some accuracy that in the morning your blood-sugars tend to be lower....but the theory of doing cardio on an emtpy stomach has more or less been debunked and considered "old-school". Enter the new notion that "Fat burns in a carbohydrate flame"....heard of that?

Fact of the matter is, the body maintains an even-keel glucose-level in the blood. If your sugar level goes up (by eating), then insulin is released from the pancreas and the excess glucose is stored, provided your glycogen storage in the liver & muscle are full, as fat.

If your blood-sugar level goes down, the body merely uses it's reserves to maintain a proper level. My understanding is that this generally comes from fat...that's mostly what you're burning while you sleep in fact...but at a very slow rate.

The bottom-line is that your body will keep your glucose level at a set ideal amount, so you don't wake-up with a low glucose level, you just wake-up at a standard level...not elevated from eating, not depleted from working-out. Simple as that.

Granted, if you consume food...that food will be broken down and it's energy will generally be used towards exercise if you are exercising. By not eating that food you may start getting right into your stored glycogen & fat a bit sooner....but in little time you'll feel weak & tired.

Myself...I've woken-up at 6am and gone on 3-hour bike rides involving steep hills. Riding on an empty stomach quickly finds me weak, slow and lathargic....overall I may burn a total of 1,750 calories. What I've found is that by eating a reasonable breakfast...some low-sugar oatmeal, 1/2-apple and some protein shake...I'm riding on my bike MUCH faster and harder: I definitely get in some HIIT and my overall calorie burn is 2,350......so even though I'm taking in some 250 calories in breakfast, I'm burning-up, overall, 350 more calories under "fueled" conditions.

300% more fat by doing it in the morning....just isn't right. An airplane has a fuel-selector switch that allows a pilot to select from which fuel tank he wishes to draw upon...but our bodies aren't like that. We burn, at any given time, a combination of fat, glycogen and ATP/Creatine-Phoshate. The combination changes according to demand, but it's always a mix of all fuel resources!

Once you get into a routine, it doesn't take long before it's all burning. Fat is a very slow-burning fuel and anything more then a slow walk will easily access glycogen for energy, but even walking burns glycogen.

Working-out on an empty stomach.....it's disco, old-school....almost as bad as when coaches would force their athletes to workout without drinking anything! Put a few hundred calories in your stomach, you'll have more energy throughout the workout AND burn more calories overall. You can't induce 300% more fat-burning by running on an early-morning empty stomach....it just doesn't work that way.

Hey BSL, how are you calculating how much your burning on your runs?

So, are you saying that if I do a 30 steady state minute run in the morning after eating some quick carbs before I run and burn 350 calories in the process, if I do the same run - but on an empty stomach - I will burn " 300% more calories " ?

Does that mean I'd burn 3 ( i.e 300% ) X 350...... or 1,050 calories instead of 350 calories simply by not eating eating carbs ? Am I understanding your math correctly ?

And if I don't eat carbs before I run, I burn " O " glycogen - " glycogen is not being burned " ...is that correct ? Also, how can you not burn any glycogen during HIIT cardio, when HIIT cardio is primarily an anaerobic exercise ?

For what it's worth, with respect to the notion that eating carbs may impair fat burning, Alan Aragon would take issue with that sort of ' broad brush ' conclusion....

" • At low intensities (25-50% VO2 max), carbs during exercise reduce fat oxidation compared to fasted trainees.

• At moderate intensities (63-68% VO2 max) carbs during exercise may reduce fat oxidation in untrained subjects, but do not reduce fat oxidation in trained subjects for at least the first 80-120 minutes of exercise.

• Carbohydrate during exercise spares liver glycogen, which is among the most critical factors for anticatabolism during hypocaloric & other conditions of metabolic stress. This protective hepatic effect is absent in fasted cardio.

• At the established intensity level of peak fat oxidation (~63% VO2 max), carbohydrate increases performance without any suppression of fat oxidation in trained subjects. "

Myths Under the Microscope Part 2: False Hopes for Fasted Cardio - AlanAragon.com


.....by which he suggests that fasted cardio has benefits perhaps in only limited situations.

.

From the article: "At moderate intensities (63-68% VO2 max) carbs during exercise may reduce fat oxidation in untrained subjects, but do not reduce fat oxidation in trained subjects for at least the first 80-120 minutes of exercise."

I do fasted cardio. I would consider myself mildly trained. I would never have time to do 80-120 mins of cardio before breakfast. I wake up too early as it is. I do roughly 40 mins fasted cardio in the morning, and 40 mins cardio with some complex carbs in the evening. Every second day I workout for one hour (weights).

The above quote tells me that fasted cardio is an advantage for me if my goal is fat loss (scarily enough it presents some dooming conclusions for liver glycogen and catabolism!)

There are very few right or wrong answers, there is only what works for your body. Give fasted cardio a try - see how you respond. Same thing with carb cycling. I am infront of my computer now, at work, eating raw cauliflower - I never thought I would, but you know, it isn't that bad, and I am getting good results (my goal is fat loss).

RE: the first post

You are in a deficit of 600-900 cal before cardio? you are burning many calories, but you have not given us enough information to deduce the probability you are in starvation mode, workout your BMR etc., read about starvation mode.

About BikeSwimLaugh's reference to fat you have had for a long time being harder to get off - while his/her explanation -could- explain your situation there are other more scientific explanations that are also possible:

--You are burning many calories. You have lost alot of weight. Your body may be going into starvation mode. Look it up.

--Secondly, about his/her personal trainer - this person probarbly has alot amount of muscle under the fat, which makes their bodies a more efficient fat burning machine. Many of the miracle fat loss before and afters you see are cases of this type of physiology. Hence why cardio is not the only long term answer for fat loss. If you have more muscle you will burn more fat.

Actually, it would appear that " fasted cardio is an advantage " only if ( according to Alan at least )......

1) you train at at low intensities (25-50% VO2 max)

2) you're " an untrained " ( i.e 63-68% VO2 max ) trainee

..........cause in those cases, having carbs before cardio has an adverse impact on fat oxidation.

In the other cases Alan mentioned, it appears fat oxidation is not impaired by having carbs before cardio.....so, doing " 40 mins fasted cardio in the morning ' is not dissimilar ' fat burning wise ' to doing 40 mins non-fasted cardio in the morning.