Stopped losing weight

you don't need to do any cardio for weight loss. To be fair you don't need to do any exercise for weight loss at all. It's simply a function of calories in - calories out. Exercise will give you a boost to your calorie expenditure and a (small) metabolic raise - along with numerous other benefits but it is perfectly possible to obtain a 6 pack through diet alone. In fact I think there's quite a few bodybuilders who barely do any cardio in the run up to a contest and they can still shed fat like crazy.

I also think that the metabolic slowing or 'starvation mode' is overstated much as many people tend to worry too much about overtraining when it really isn't an issue at the volumes of work they're performing.

If, for example you were to drop your calories to 1000, pop a multi vit and omega 3 caps while ensuring that you maintained 150-160g of protein a day you'd see the weight drop off and you wouldn't be immediately entering 'starvation mode'.

More important than cardio for weight loss is resistance training as this, coupled with a high protein intake, will give your body the tendency to maintain it's lean mass (muscle). a full body resistance program 2-3x weekly while cutting is something I'd recommend.

A planned break in your diet 3-4 days is no bad thing as it can give you a boost in motivation and a little spike in your metabolic response which allows you to diet harder when you come back to it.

Good luck.
 
DanH84 said:
you don't need to do any cardio for weight loss. To be fair you don't need to do any exercise for weight loss at all. It's simply a function of calories in - calories out. Exercise will give you a boost to your calorie expenditure and a (small) metabolic raise - along with numerous other benefits but it is perfectly possible to obtain a 6 pack through diet alone. In fact I think there's quite a few bodybuilders who barely do any cardio in the run up to a contest and they can still shed fat like crazy.

I also think that the metabolic slowing or 'starvation mode' is overstated much as many people tend to worry too much about overtraining when it really isn't an issue at the volumes of work they're performing.

If, for example you were to drop your calories to 1000, pop a multi vit and omega 3 caps while ensuring that you maintained 150-160g of protein a day you'd see the weight drop off and you wouldn't be immediately entering 'starvation mode'.

More important than cardio for weight loss is resistance training as this, coupled with a high protein intake, will give your body the tendency to maintain it's lean mass (muscle). a full body resistance program 2-3x weekly while cutting is something I'd recommend.

A planned break in your diet 3-4 days is no bad thing as it can give you a boost in motivation and a little spike in your metabolic response which allows you to diet harder when you come back to it.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

DanH38 - Thanks for that mate. A very nice and informative post that helps the OP out (and others interested).

Is this something you've researched and discovered through seeing results personally or is it your general opinion?
 
trentlad said:
DanH38 - Thanks for that mate. A very nice and informative post that helps the OP out (and others interested).

Is this something you've researched and discovered through seeing results personally or is it your general opinion?
Click to expand...

Well the bit about calorie deficit being the governing function in weight loss is just the first law of thermodynamics ;)

Apart from that though I'm really no expert but I have done a little reading and experimented with lower calories than are usually recommended in the form of a protein sparing modified fast. I got great results while maintaining (slight increase but i think that was down to neurological adaptation) strength through resistance training twice weekly.

I think if you google PSMF and maybe specifically Lyle Mcdonald who has a bit to say about the subject, it might make interesting reading for anyone. Another thing to check out is intermittent fasting

Also, when I was shifting weight I was doing cardio because it's got tonnes of benefits, it's just not correct to say it is strictly necessary purely for weight loss.
 
DanH84 said:
I don't get your point here? you seem to be disputing that a calorie deficit no matter how it is achieved will continue to cause weight loss?
Click to expand...

Nope I totally agree, but bbers leading up to shows can cut down so drastically and do no cardio while still loosing good amounts of weight because for the most part they are using drugs. If a natural user tried the same it wouldnt get them very far after maybe the first week of initial losses.
 
DanH84 said:
you don't need to do any cardio for weight loss. To be fair you don't need to do any exercise for weight loss at all. It's simply a function of calories in - calories out. Exercise will give you a boost to your calorie expenditure and a (small) metabolic raise - along with numerous other benefits but it is perfectly possible to obtain a 6 pack through diet alone. In fact I think there's quite a few bodybuilders who barely do any cardio in the run up to a contest and they can still shed fat like crazy.

I also think that the metabolic slowing or 'starvation mode' is overstated much as many people tend to worry too much about overtraining when it really isn't an issue at the volumes of work they're performing.

If, for example you were to drop your calories to 1000, pop a multi vit and omega 3 caps while ensuring that you maintained 150-160g of protein a day you'd see the weight drop off and you wouldn't be immediately entering 'starvation mode'.

More important than cardio for weight loss is resistance training as this, coupled with a high protein intake, will give your body the tendency to maintain it's lean mass (muscle). a full body resistance program 2-3x weekly while cutting is something I'd recommend.

A planned break in your diet 3-4 days is no bad thing as it can give you a boost in motivation and a little spike in your metabolic response which allows you to diet harder when you come back to it.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

What sort of condition are you in, and what's your background and experience to be stating all this?

Ant :cool:
 
I'm in pretty good shape although I'm not sure how relevant that is. I am aware you are a fitness professional however I think it would be far more constructive for the sake of the thread if you'd like to point out what bits of my post you disagree with then we can discuss. I already stated that I'm not an expert however i'd be happy to attempt to come up with some kind of sources for what I've said if there's bits you disagree with.

So what is it?
Firstly, is it the assertion that exercise is not strictly necessary for weight loss? I'm pretty sure it won't be that as I'm sure you know the mantra of abs are made in the kitchen. My source for that is anyway pretty strong:

'the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings.'

Is it that if he dropped calories to 1000 while maintaining protein intake and supplementing some omega fats he'd drop weight? I'm going to assume it isn't the bit about dropping weight as that's already covered the bit above so excuse me if I take that you accept that as a given.

So I figure your question relates to why maintain protein and keep up fats while dropping carbohydrates? well for one it's one of the features of the psmf which is in itself a ketogenic diet. Keeping up the protein is intended to produce a tendency of the deficit not coming from your bodies protein stores. Protein and essential fats are vital for your bodies function so it's important that they are maintained, carbs are less so (although no one would dispute they're handy!) as evidenced by the many people who function quite successfully on low carbing.
The effectiveness of PSMF is covered in some of the following studies:
http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/worksheet.cfm?worksheet_id=251116&cms_preview=1 http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/worksheet.cfm?worksheet_id=115733 http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/worksheet.cfm?worksheet_id=250521 http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/worksheet.cfm?worksheet_id=115737http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/worksheet.cfm?worksheet_id=115737

these are clinical studies of Protein Sparing Modified Fasts in various forms, in all of them though you will see a tendency to use some supplementation occurs (multi vits omega 3 as I mentioned -although i neglected to mention about potassium (I did say people should read further though!)).

I'm aware that some people may not find medical studies the most helpful although i think it is important to have access if required so I'll post a link with perhaps more colloquial reports that people may find more useful in 'real terms'
loads of stuff on here haven't linked to the specific article but feel free to browse and look at the authors credentials and there is lots of stuff on the site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ note that there are also support forums attached to the site. Rapid fat loss is the book specifically dedicated to PSMF and Lyle recommends unlimited fibrous veggies.

Google PSMF or Lyle Mcdonald or even something like intermittent fasting if you'd like to read up on this stuff, as well as a counterpoint to the six small meals a day thing that's cropped up over the last few years.

as an aside, and I'm sure Wanton will back me up on this fats and protein are very satiating so by maintaining an intake of these you will help combat hunger.

Is it to do with me saying that more important than cardio for weight loss is resistance training. Now allow me to qualify that, for weight loss the only thing that matters is calorie deficit, however that might be achieved. However in any cut you want to (as I said) produce a tendency for your body to use energy from your fat stores rather than your muscle stores, that's part of the reason you are keeping your protein high so you can stimulate a hormonal response by weight training and keep the muscle in use while providing nutrients to aid in it's repair (not to mention you'll be burning a few calories while working out) the clinical trials I posted early on state that PSMF had a tendency to spare LBM the resistance training is an extension of this. Although it's unlikely that people would have the energy to keep up an advanced split, thus my suggestion of 3 full body workouts. more info on that could be found on the body recomposition site.

I believe you're a personal trainer? I know you do something within the fitness industry, i assume if you had a client on a cut you'd still be advocating maintaining resistance work, you'd probably advocate keeping up cardio as well which is fair enough but on a psmf you will have to make some changes and I think it's preferable in terms of maintaining lbm to keep up resistance training. People can google for more information I'm sure.

So is it taking planned diet breaks occasionally? personally i think they have two main advantages. The first and most important is psychological, firstly it helps keep you sane! psmf is not a lifestyle choice it's hard work and you can only keep it up in it's extreme form in the short term. factoring in diet breaks will give you a carb load, help normalise hormone levels which will deplete over time on low cals and stimulate a metabolic spike. So is it best to just keep going on a diet until you crack, binge and wake up with all the feelings of guilt and demotivation that a lot of yo yo dieters tend to? or is it better to be realistic, plan a break and stick to it, in that way you are making the break a part of your whole dieting plan and you will avoid the downward guilt spiral of unplanned binges. Again anyone who wants to can just google planned diet breaks and read for themselves.

In my second post i think i cleared up that i don't profess to be an expert and stated that I didn't believe cardio was a bad thing. As i said it might be more helpful to any readers if you point out specific areas in which you disagree and I'll try to use my limited knowledge to either give my reasoning or indeed to concede the point!
Until then i stick with the point that there is nothing wrong with slow and steady cuts and they are indeed a great way to promote new long term lifestyle choices but in the short term there are other options available to people as long as they do their reading beforehand and acknowledge that they are still going to have to make long term lifestyle changes.


Cheers :)
 
Hello chappie :) The reason I didn't go at it was because I seem to kill threads these days, I asked because I was interested in your reasoning, and wanted to spark debate as opposed to kill it.

"you don't need to do any exercise for weight loss at all". It depends what you qualify as weightloss, but seeing as you're well read you'll be well aware that our bodies seek one thing, homestasis. This is why adaptation occurs, so the body can become more profficient at a given task through stimulus (resistance, cardio, kilocalorie deficit) and reach once again that balance whereby kcals matches kcals out.

To continously achieve weightloss through diet alone, constant deficit would have to be maintained, and that would mean continously reducing kcals in. Ketogenic, fasting diets are all well and good, and exceptionally effective, but in terms of maintenance, for most, especially those who're either new to the game or trying to maintain a 'normal' (I know I know, define normal yada yada ;)) lifestyle, these are not sustainable long term.

"it is perfectly possible to obtain a 6 pack through diet alone". For many, it is not. If you're gifted with a low propensity for adipose cell fat storage, then good on you. I'd like to think I train damned hard, and maintaining a sixy is not something I could do with only diet, nor is it for 9 out of 10 of my clients.

"If, for example you were to drop your calories to 1000, pop a multi vit and omega 3 caps while ensuring that you maintained 150-160g of protein a day you'd see the weight drop off and you wouldn't be immediately entering 'starvation mode'." This is not good. Simple as. To promote this type of eating focusing solely on weightloss is not healthy, and sends the wrong message entirely. There's also several studies that bring into question the effectiveness of tablet based micronutrient supplementation.


"I also think that the metabolic slowing or 'starvation mode' is overstated much as many people tend to worry too much about overtraining when it really isn't an issue at the volumes of work they're performing." Overtraining is a serious concern, make no mistake. Popping to the gym 4 or 5 times a week and swanning about for an hour and a half perhaps, but I've a number of clients, and so have my colleagues, who've had to be warned off training for a week, and convincing them to do so is no easy feat :p Overtraining hampers progress, increases stress, the liklihood of injury, reduces concentration, disrupts sleep, can increase blood pressure and plethora of other issues. It happens a lot and I've done it myself (and have employed it intentionally before holidays to good effect.)

Starvation mode is just another catchall like toning. There's loads to justify periods of fasting, it's how the body was meant to work and it's why fat stores exist, but it requres careful balance, and someone like you with dedication, knowledge and quite frankly, common sense, to make it a viable, healthy option.

The only time my clients make use of steady state cardio is if they love it, want to look etheopian, or require it for a specific sport or phase of training. Resistance, intervals, explosive circuits and the plethora of other modern techniques are far more effective, so you'll hear no disagreement from me.

I wasn't trying to be an ass, so sorry if I sounded it. And i'm chuffed to bits you've clarified most of your points. But lately there's been an influx of born-again fitness fanatics who're suddenly the next Paul Check. Benny, cut it out :p ;)

Ant :cool:
 
You obviously don't sound an arse, you sound exceptionally knowledgable about your subject. I'd struggle to disagree with any of your points about lifestyle changes or the benefits of exercise. More extreme dieting methods certainly aren't ideal but in my opinion if one is to be followed and you read up and follow the methodology properly then a short term bout of something like psmf is certainly going to be safer than any of these cabbage soup diets or anything like that.

Hopefully this thread will get a few people to go and have a read of some of the material out there and as long as everyone's happy to apply a bit of a critical mindset to everything they read then it will be of benefit.

I'll have another look tomorrow (sunday being my day of general laziness) and see if there's anything else interesting come up in this thread!

Have a cool weekend :)
 
DanH84 said:
you don't need to do any cardio for weight loss. To be fair you don't need to do any exercise for weight loss at all. It's simply a function of calories in - calories out. Exercise will give you a boost to your calorie expenditure and a (small) metabolic raise - along with numerous other benefits but it is perfectly possible to obtain a 6 pack through diet alone. In fact I think there's quite a few bodybuilders who barely do any cardio in the run up to a contest and they can still shed fat like crazy.

I also think that the metabolic slowing or 'starvation mode' is overstated much as many people tend to worry too much about overtraining when it really isn't an issue at the volumes of work they're performing.

If, for example you were to drop your calories to 1000, pop a multi vit and omega 3 caps while ensuring that you maintained 150-160g of protein a day you'd see the weight drop off and you wouldn't be immediately entering 'starvation mode'.

More important than cardio for weight loss is resistance training as this, coupled with a high protein intake, will give your body the tendency to maintain it's lean mass (muscle). a full body resistance program 2-3x weekly while cutting is something I'd recommend.

A planned break in your diet 3-4 days is no bad thing as it can give you a boost in motivation and a little spike in your metabolic response which allows you to diet harder when you come back to it.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, 100%.

Why?

A year ago I was almost 15st, I weighted myself once at 14st 10, and I think the needle was around 15st at one point.

Anyway, a year gone, I weight 11st 10 (and have kept it down), plus it is not all water. I wear a size 30" waist jeans now.

I have NOT been to the gym.
I have NOT been swimming. (That would be a challenge considering I can't)
I have NOT been running. (unless you could jogging to for the train when i am late)

I just eat better, watch my calorie intake.

You can write all kinds of diet and exercise plan, and spin it how you want etc etc etc. Bottom line is that, you can't cheat physics.

That is purely my experience, PERSONAL experience. Granted, I can't play a 90min football match against someone who weight the same as me so in no way i am FIT, but in terms of weight loss. I got there, or getting there.

p.s. I am 5'8 tall.
 
WantoN said:
The only time my clients make use of steady state cardio is if they love it, want to look etheopian, or require it for a specific sport or phase of training. Resistance, intervals, explosive circuits and the plethora of other modern techniques are far more effective, so you'll hear no disagreement from me.
Click to expand...

What do you think of this?

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_...6?s=indexTitle#interval-training-doesn-t-work

I don't really care either way nowadays, I've seen enough of the fitness industry to know that the latest research can help someone but more often than not hinders them.

Personally I love running and find it far more effective than interval training. The reasons for this go beyond simple scientific research; I'm sure there are hundreds of studies that assert HIIT is 200% more effective than steady state etc. etc. but only a fool then disregards steady state as redundant.

With regard to exercise my opinion is that no method should be spurned because research proclaims that it is 'better'. In fact I find such research usually to be prohibitive: 'don't do steady-state you'll turn into an Ethopian!', 'don't eat less than a 500 calorie deficit your muscles will melt off and you'll end up weaker and fatter than before!', 'don't do this, do what we say! Look we've proved it's the best!'. It ends up with people afraid of exercising the wrong way (even though it would work fantastically!) when losing weight rather than getting on with it and seeing results. And results are what motivate people, not the knowledge that their method is concurrent with the latest study espousing a certain method and denigrating all others.

Would it not be better to say 'Steady-state cardio is an effective method of fat loss and anyone who does it regularly will see great results, HIIT is also a great method - and may be even better - but, in truth, the difference is negligible... the most important thing is that you get out and exercise!'.

I mentioned it in another thread, but pragmatism is vitally important when it comes to diet and exercise. Don't miss the wood for the trees and all that.
 
Royality said:
What do you think of this?

I don't really care either way nowadays, I've seen enough of the fitness industry to know that the latest research can help someone but more often than not hinders them.
Click to expand...

Awesome post :) The part that I've quoted is sadly true. It is also however, encouraging people to understand more about their bodies, and to look after themselves. Which can only be good.

I specifically stated that it's my clients that don't do steady state. Primarily because it's ****ing boring and you don't pay a professional to tell you to 'just go out for a run, you'll be fine'. They follow a progressive, phasic training regimen tailored specifically to their goals, condition and preferences :) And in my experience, intervals work.

A regime of resistance, intervals, plyometrics, circuits, KBs et all will still yeild great results, and it's a damned sight more interesting than running for an hour. If however, you love running, then that's great, run :)

The statement I made was in regards to the Dans supposition that I believed steady state cardio was the way forward which we've cleared up now.

The T-nation article with the sensationalist title you've referenced refers to several studies, it's overall outcome is that most of the studies selected were flawed, and that the only one that held true relevance demonstrated that interval training was effective albeit in a slightly different form to that commonly prescribed. He goes on to recommend interval training, just not to stress about it too much. Which is great :)

Whatever works for you, works for you, there is no golden rule and that's why all of us have different techniques and why fitness is such an awesome and interesting subject.

The quote you've referenced at the start however, is a tiny portion of the overall point I was trying to make. What was that about wood and trees? ;)

Ant :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom