Diet and physical exercise

May 17, 2013
6
0
Diet and physical exercise are both equally necessary to maintain the health and fitness.
If you take healthy diet but don't go for regular exercise or do regular exercise but don't take healthy and balanced diet you can not maintain your health and fineness level. That's why we say these both things are equally important for the health and fitness point of view.
 
Last edited:
Jul 25, 2012
1,078
0
God's County
I have let both slip in my thirties. Life just tends to get in the way of looking after yourself sometimes. Even so when stepping on the scales about a month or so ago I was shocked to find myself weighing 229 lbs!!!
Couldn't fucking believe it to be fair. I was always fairly tall but thought of myself as skinny. Resolved to do something about it. As usual I did more reading than doing at first, but the last three weeks I've been dieting and exercising and I feel better than ever.

I am using a combination of Martin Berkhan's Leangains approach, Lyle Mcdonald's base amount of protein diet (something like that but with more carbs as I dont want to be a grumpy bastard), and a bit of Insanity fitness thrown in (thank you pirate bay).

I estimated that I was burning around 3,200 calories a day with my new fitness routine, and I am limiting myself to 1,000-1,500 calories a day from monday to friday. Macros are something like 70/20/10 protein, carb, fat.
This gives me around a 10,000 calorie deficit through the week which is more than the aimed for 8,000, and allows me a buffer in case I need it. The weekend is the weekend, and whilst it isn't license to pig out, I dont worry too much about it. I'm probably eating and drinking at around base at the weekend.

It's early days but I have dropped 10 pounds already and it's been a breeze. I feel 10 years younger and I wish I'd done it sooner. Target at the minute is to get under 200 lbs and take it from there.
Those looking to do the same I can highly recommend doing your research first. This probably saved me a lot of time, as I was thinking about the new fad 5:2 diet at first but more thorough research put me off. The end os the day you need a caloric deficit.
Berkhan's Leangains and Lyle Mcdonald's body recomposition websites I can highly recommend. There's loads of good info to find something that works for you.
 
May 17, 2013
1,223
1
Saigon
I have let both slip in my thirties. Life just tends to get in the way of looking after yourself sometimes. Even so when stepping on the scales about a month or so ago I was shocked to find myself weighing 229 lbs!!!
Couldn't fucking believe it to be fair. I was always fairly tall but thought of myself as skinny. Resolved to do something about it. As usual I did more reading than doing at first, but the last three weeks I've been dieting and exercising and I feel better than ever.
I was in a similar situation, though it was made worse by near death by illness a year and a half ago. Viral myocarditis, virus attacked my heart (and lungs), had me in hospital for 2 weeks, then under strict orders to work half time and do no exercise for 3 months, then told to avoid heavy exercise for another 4 or 5 months. So although I wasn't exactly in my prime shape to begin with, my fitness really suffered and I got fatter than I had ever been. I started lifting a bit, with some home equipment, in the last months of last year and 3 months ago began a weigh loss program.

I've got a log of my progress in the Personal training / advice thread, where you can see how over the weeks I've gone from 102kg (224lb) down to, as of last monday, 91kg (200lb). I recommend that you start logging your progress as well.

I am using a combination of Martin Berkhan's Leangains approach, Lyle Mcdonald's base amount of protein diet (something like that but with more carbs as I dont want to be a grumpy bastard), and a bit of Insanity fitness thrown in (thank you pirate bay).

I estimated that I was burning around 3,200 calories a day with my new fitness routine, and I am limiting myself to 1,000-1,500 calories a day from monday to friday. Macros are something like 70/20/10 protein, carb, fat.
This gives me around a 10,000 calorie deficit through the week which is more than the aimed for 8,000, and allows me a buffer in case I need it. The weekend is the weekend, and whilst it isn't license to pig out, I dont worry too much about it. I'm probably eating and drinking at around base at the weekend.
That seems extreme to me. 1000-1500 calories... you've got to be burning up muscle with the fat in that case, it really seems too low for a guy of your size and activity levels. The lowest I go is around 1900/day, and have a number of times lost a decent chunk of weight on 2000. In fact, some who are a lot more knowledgeable about this stuff than me would probably say my deficit may be slightly too big.

By the way, you mention 70/20/10 p/f/c, is that in grams or calories? I don't see how you could be getting 10% calories from fat, so I'm guessing grams. Yet that also seems too low in carbs and fat... the fat you need for proper hormone production, the carbs are fuel for your workouts unless you're going for ketosis or something.

I've been pretty consistent with my macro ratios throughout my program. In calories it's generally about 45% from protein, 25% from fat, 30% from carbs.

It's early days but I have dropped 10 pounds already and it's been a breeze. I feel 10 years younger and I wish I'd done it sooner. Target at the minute is to get under 200 lbs and take it from there.
In my first three weeks I lost 4kg, so just under 9 pounds, and that was on an average of 1900 calories/day the first week (lost 2kg), 2127 calories/day the second week (lost 1.75kg), and 2236/day calories the third week (lost 0.25kg). A lot of that would be water weight of course. But if you go faster than that, especially after the first few weeks, you're going to be burning too much muscle. I mean, everyone's different, maybe your metabolism is even slower than mine (which would be saying something!), but I really think you're being a bit harsh with the deficit.

By the way, it's very important to track your measurements as well. Make sure that your waist is showing the weight loss. That's where it really counts.

Those looking to do the same I can highly recommend doing your research first. This probably saved me a lot of time, as I was thinking about the new fad 5:2 diet at first but more thorough research put me off. The end os the day you need a caloric deficit.
Berkhan's Leangains and Lyle Mcdonald's body recomposition websites I can highly recommend. There's loads of good info to find something that works for you.
Well, it's possible that you and I have just come across different data in our research. There is a lot of contradictory stuff out there. But I do fear that your deficit is too harsh... still, get some measurements and do a week by week review of your intake with weigh-ins and so on, I'm very interested to see your progress.

I'm just finishing up an office weight loss competition. Just over 3 months long, 1 week to go, though I haven't hit my longterm targets yet so I'll keep updating my progress as phase 2 begins.
 
Jul 25, 2012
1,078
0
God's County
[MENTION=1723]Diomedes[/MENTION] my diet is very protein heavy so as to avoid losing to much lean body mass. protein also keeps you fuller. The macros are something like 1000 protein 300 carbs and 200 fat. Roughly I would say.
Though I am doing a bit of the Insanity workout which is very cardio heavy I am only loosely following it and swapping in more bodyweight exercises when I feel like it. I'll increase cardio later on in a couple months when I have dropped more weight.
I think 1000 calories in protein is sufficient daily to cover my lean body mass and ensure I am losing mostly fat. Lyle Mcdonald recommends 1.25 your lean body mass in grams of protein for this. I worked out my lean body mass at 170 lbs so I think I am well covered at 250 grams.
But yeah if I do go over it's mostly with carbs and or fat. Just depends how I feel each day. So far so good. And the weekends is more carb heavy.

I am really enjoying the intermittent fasting recommended by Martin Berkhan too. (16 hours fasting, 8 hours feeding). I dont believe humans were meant to be grazing all day. I think it really keeps your mind alert. I thought it would be the toughest part. It's actually been the easiest.
The research is still in it's infancy on this, but I think after 12 hours or so without food your body starts to burn fat stores. It would only start burning lean muscle after 72 hours or so which is obviously extreme. It also doesn't slow the metabolism until much longer than people think. Again something in the three day region.

I'm certainly open to advice though and if my progress stalls I'll look at it again.
Good luck on reaching your target :cheers
 
Jul 25, 2012
1,078
0
God's County
Diomedes you must have heard this 1lb of fat = 3,500 calories. Why do you think my deficit is too harsh?
I worked out that I was burning 3,200 calories a day and I only comply monday to friday. Given the odd cheat here and there I reckon my deficit to 8,000 calories a week. I dont think 2lbs of fat in a week is too harsh.
 
May 17, 2013
1,223
1
Saigon
[MENTION=1723]Diomedes[/MENTION] my diet is very protein heavy so as to avoid losing to much lean body mass. protein also keeps you fuller. The macros are something like 1000 protein 300 carbs and 200 fat. Roughly I would say.
Though I am doing a bit of the Insanity workout which is very cardio heavy I am only loosely following it and swapping in more bodyweight exercises when I feel like it. I'll increase cardio later on in a couple months when I have dropped more weight.
Are you adding in any weight training as well? Or planning to do so once bodyweight exercises start giving diminishing returns?

I think 1000 calories in protein is sufficient daily to cover my lean body mass and ensure I am losing mostly fat. Lyle Mcdonald recommends 1.25 your lean body mass in grams of protein for this. I worked out my lean body mass at 170 lbs so I think I am well covered at 250 grams.
But yeah if I do go over it's mostly with carbs and or fat. Just depends how I feel each day. So far so good. And the weekends is more carb heavy.
250 is good for protein. With my ratios it averages out to 210g of protein per day, 62g fat, 153g carbs. Which now that I look at it equals 42% from protein, 28% from fat, and 30% from carbs, so my estimate before was slightly off.

I am really enjoying the intermittent fasting recommended by Martin Berkhan too. (16 hours fasting, 8 hours feeding). I dont believe humans were meant to be grazing all day. I think it really keeps your mind alert. I thought it would be the toughest part. It's actually been the easiest.
The research is still in it's infancy on this, but I think after 12 hours or so without food your body starts to burn fat stores. It would only start burning lean muscle after 72 hours or so which is obviously extreme. It also doesn't slow the metabolism until much longer than people think. Again something in the three day region.
I don't know what to think of IF. From what I've read, opinions on it seem very divided.

I'm certainly open to advice though and if my progress stalls I'll look at it again.
Good luck on reaching your target :cheers
Thanks :) By the way, one other thing I strongly recommend - take photos of yourself now. You've already lost 10 pounds, but if you didn't take pics it's still not too late. Trust me. I didn't take any pics when I was at my max and I regret it so much now. The first pics I took were after the first 9kg came off, the halfway point to my longterm goal of 84kg. If I had taken pics earlier, then my before and after would look much more impressive. It's great because if you take pics now and then, under similar lighting conditions and so on, you can ses changes you don't notice from day to day.
 
Last edited:
Jul 25, 2012
1,078
0
God's County
Sticking with bodyweight exercises. I dont want a ton of muscle. And gymnasts and parkour guys seem to do just fine. Functional muscle, rather than muscle for muscle's sake.
And yes, I took photos at 229, my start weight.
 
May 17, 2013
1,223
1
Saigon
Diomedes you must have heard this 1lb of fat = 3,500 calories. Why do you think my deficit is too harsh?
I worked out that I was burning 3,200 calories a day and I only comply monday to friday. Given the odd cheat here and there I reckon my deficit to 8,000 calories a week. I dont think 2lbs of fat in a week is too harsh.
Well, hopefully Smalls or others who are far more experts than I can weigh in, but a common recommendation for those wanting to lose fat but maintain muscle is to aim for 0.5 to 1lb per week. That slow and steady pace is best for preserving muscle, apparently. I've averaged faster than that, about 2lb per week on average on my program, partly driven by the need to win the office weight loss competition, but I originally set out for less than that (blasted through my competition goal way early) and after next week's final weigh in I'll be happy if it's 1lb per week.
 
May 17, 2013
1,223
1
Saigon
Good to hear you took pics! It'll be awesome at the end when you can make up a before and after. My before was about 29-30% bodyfat, and I've got a few clothed pictures and my measurements, but apart from that it'll have to just be a half-way and after set of pics. So pissed off at myself.

Sticking with bodyweight exercises. I dont want a ton of muscle. And gymnasts and parkour guys seem to do just fine. Functional muscle, rather than muscle for muscle's sake.
And yes, I took photos at 229, my start weight.
It depends on how you lift though. There's a world of difference between bodybuilding style lifting and powerlifting and olympic lifting.

Bodybuilding style weight lifting focuses on higher reps at a lower weight (8-15 reps per set sort of thing), and shorter rests between sets. This will increase strength, and with enough calories in will increase size, but the hypertrophy will be more sarcoplasmic, which I understand to mean is more about getting larger glycogen stores.

Lifting for strength in powerlifting or olympic lifting is usually done with a lower rep range, around 5 or so, with a heavier weight. Less volume to the training overall, but it promotes myofibrillar hypertrophy, which I understand to mean growing more muscle fibres, the things that actually generate strength. Training heavy also optimises your nervous system somehow, letting you recruit more of your muscle fibres. And it's more about fast twitch muscle rather than the slow twitch promoted by bodybuilding style training.

That's why you can have guys who are smaller, look less musular, but are stronger than big "bulky" bodybuilders. They've trained heavy, they're more explosive, they can be stronger with smaller muscles.

Now, my explanation will be imperfect and I'm sure others like [MENTION=44]MrSmall[/MENTION] will come along and clarify and correct what I've just said, but lifting weights can be extremely functional. It's used by runners and sprinters, boxers, obviously strongman competitors and loads of other sportspeople because if done right, it really aids their performance.

Here's a chart that outlines what the different styles of training do to your body:



Remember that you won't grow massive "bulky" muscles without a caloric surplus. If you're a newbie, you will gain some muscle, even while losing weight, for a while, but in the longrun you won't be able to put muscle on if you eat at maintenance or below.
 
Last edited:
May 17, 2013
1,223
1
Saigon
The other thing is that bodybuilders usually do a lot of isolation exercises like bicep curls. Other, more functional strength training programs don't usually feature isolation exercises, instead focusing on compound movements that use large portions, or your whole body. Squats, bench press and overhead press, deadlifts, rows, chin-ups or pull-ups etc. When you work all the muscles together it's much better for your strength and also muscular control, from what I understand.
 
Jun 3, 2012
2,145
2
Diomedes you must have heard this 1lb of fat = 3,500 calories. Why do you think my deficit is too harsh?
I worked out that I was burning 3,200 calories a day and I only comply monday to friday. Given the odd cheat here and there I reckon my deficit to 8,000 calories a week. I dont think 2lbs of fat in a week is too harsh.
that's entirely not how it works, even though it may look like it. There are so many other factors at stake as to whether you lose 2lbs a week or not, that it is simply not as straightforward as that maths equation. There are metabolic changes, the fact that protein uses more calories to process than carbs do, some exercises have a greater calorie burn in subsequent hours than others, all sorts of stuff. Plus with such a huge deficit you will be slowing all your body's functions down and your metabolism will give up entirely. This is a classic symptom of people who "diet" and get stuck in the vicious cycle of "eating less is better", because they eat less and less, their metabolism slows down a lot because they aren't eating ENOUGh, and as SOON as they eat a little more, they gain weight, because their metabolism is down, so that just reinforces their wrong mentality of "less is better" and they go back to eating like birds and are stuck at the same fat state of body.

You want a gentle deficit, to keep your body functioning properly while including more exercise, and you will be fine. Patience is key. How quickly did you gain that extra weight? Years? So why would it take a few brutal weeks to get rid of it?

With a 1000+ calorie deficit per day, you will be crippling your progress, if I'm honest. You are 230lbs, not 330lbs. It's like "get rich quick" schemes. Seem good, the numbers add up, but they never work.

How much do you want to weigh? 200lbs or something? Give it 6 months, that's 1lb per week, maybe a little over. The quicker you lose weight, the quicker it comes back.

"Muscle for muscle's sake". It will take you DECADES of work to get to THAT point. Bodyweight exercises are good for children and women, maybe as an endurance test too. If you want to get in any kind of decent shape, go and lift some weights. I am assuming you are talking about aesthetics. Parkour and gymnasts are fine sure. But can you do any actual gymnast moves? Or are you talking about some pushups and bodyweight squats? World of difference. After a few weeks you won't be doing much muscularly, just working on your body fitness sort of thing.
 
Jul 25, 2012
1,078
0
God's County
[MENTION=44]MrSmall[/MENTION] thanks for the advice. I will say you probably dont realise quite how out of shape I am :lol: Bodyweight exercises are PLENTY for me at the minute. I haven't really been active for the best part of 10 years, and I am 38 now. I just dont see myself joining a gym and lifting weights. And bodyweight exercises are scaleable anyway. Pistol squats, one arm push ups/pull ups. I am nowhere near that level yet. Currently just getting back in to some sort of shape.

Re the deficit. Maybe it is a bit harsh, but I think 1,500 GOOD calories is still a lot better than 3,000 BAD calories. It's still early stages for me, less than a month in, but so far progress has been good. I think at least for a couple of months I can benefit from a bit of newbie magic of maintaining/growing muscle and losing fat and weight. Obviously this isn't sustainable in any kind of long run. But my main aim is to lose body fat FIRST. Muscle growth can come after I am in some kind of shape. At 25% body fat that HAS to be my primary concern. If I can get to 190lbs and in the 10-15% fat range then I can take it from there.

You might not agree with everything I am doing, and it's certainly not set in stone as if my progress stalls I'll look at it, but doing SOMETHING is a thousand times better than doing NOTHING.
I just read a book by Jason Ferruggia with Intermittent Fasting as the topic and I think most of the things I am doing are OK so far. But like I say, I'll certainly heed your advice and keep you updated with my progress. :good
 
Jun 3, 2012
2,145
2
You don't understand what I am saying. In the beginning anything will work but your progress will slow down quickly with that kind of deficit and you will be lost. You won't suddenly think "well I need to eat MORE to lose more weight!" as you aren't even in that mentality now, let alone later when progress stalls and you will not know what to do. It has nothing to do with good vs bad calories, and your example of 1500 good cals vs 3000 bad calories is not relevant at all. Why should it be about bad vs good? My point was 1500 good calories is worse than 2000 good calories at your weight. Even 2500 calories is better than 1500 calories, for steadily losing body fat. And building muscle isn't something that needs to be done at a time where you aren't wanting to lose weight. Any time you are exercising and having some resistance to your exercise you will be building muscle. It will happen. what I am saying is that it is an effective helper to the weight loss, it is something in your position you should aim to do in conjunction - not at a later time when you feel more "in shape" and have lost 40lbs.
Bodyweight exercises are fine then, but what you were saying about "building muscle for muscle's sake" will never happen anyway, but with bodyweight exercises you are limiting your progress in time. But if they are challenging, stick at it!