Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by kanjii, May 21, 2007.
What'steh best way to lose that tummy? Diet and situps???
You may hate the brevity of this, but in reality:
Eat better (and almost always less), and move (exercise) more!
It's that simple. Situps will have no effect on a fat 'tummy'. The fat is... fat, and must be burned off. This is often the shock to people, people think they can crunch and situp their stomach away, when the truth is that that fat layer is fat, and must be burned through exercise. If you like gyms, then do some weights and some aerobic exercise, if you don't, well just do plenty of aerobic exercise (walking, running if you can, cycling, singles (but probably not doubles), reasonable-pace swimming, etc etc). Be active at least 3 times a week for at least 30mins a time....
There's plenty of threads on here with suggested programs, so have a scroll through the H&F forums and you'll see loads of good advice (and of course, some not-so-good advice).
This is very hard to do, but guaranteed you will get frrom a fat pack to a six pack.
(Kinda bad for body but the body will adapt and drink plenty)
Run 6 miles everyday for a week and take a vitamin, then starve yourself but drink,drink
then put a 25 lb. weight on stomach and do 3 sets of ten
gradually go up
^^^ The above is not recommended.
a. To go from little or no running (most people with a 'tummy' don't run too much) to running 6 miles a day for a week is asking for massive injury, and depending on the age of the person, even risking heart attack
b. Sit-ups are no longer prescribed for fitness training, abdominal crunches are. Sit-ups damage the back, and don't work the abs as much as thought due to back involvement, momentum, etc etc.
c. Take a vitamin? What vitamin? Why? How do you know the OP is even deficient in the vitamin you're recommending?
d. Starving yourself puts the body in starvation mode, meaning that when you eventually eat (and likely binge-eat), the body is more likely to store fat. Yo-yo dieting (which results from starvation diets) actually makes people fatter in the medium term.
e. Putting a weight 'on one's stomach' when doing a situp would achieve little overload (not that situps should be done anyways).
f. I like your advice about drinking water. To be brutally honest, it's the only good advice in your post!
I imagine Mark Vessels is already very fit ... so his advice seems "easy" ... to him.
"Spot" exercising does not really work. You need to devote yourself to a three month program of more (and smarter) exercise ... and much smarter eating habits.
OrangeOne speaks the truth. I tried doing a lot of situps but they produced no result. I later resorted to eating less (and eating healthier food) and exercising more and I began seeing the result after two, three weeks.
Yes, OO, I completely agree with all of your points, especially point d.
To other members who want to know the technical explanation, here it is :
When calories are reduced drastically (starving yourself), the body compensates by reducing many of the hormones involved with thyroid function/metabolic rate (T3/T4, leptin, etc.) and increasing production of an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase, which conserves food energy by storing calories as fat.
In simple terms, when you restrict calories too low your body doesn't necessarily know when your next meal is coming, so it'll take what little calories it is getting and store them as fat for later use.
Unfortunately, metabolic rate is in direct correlation with how much lean body mass (LBM) you have, and given the fact that long duration, low-calorie diets can result in substantial muscle loss — sometimes as much as 45% of total weight loss, you can see how this approach is counterproductive.
Initially the majority of people who restrict calories will make some decent progress for a few weeks as far as fat loss is concerned (but they will also lose muscle). However, there will come a point when progress stalls and no matter how much they lower calories or how much they increase their caloric expenditure through exercise — that little bit of fat on the abdominals or inner thighs will just not go away. Why?
Fat cells have both B1 (beta 1) and A2 (alpha 2) adrenoreceptors (specific to the catecholamines adrenaline and noreadrenaline). B1 receptors send good messages and can be viewed as the "good guys". They activate lipase, which causes the fat cell to break down from a triglyceride to a free fatty acid (which is then transported via albumin to be burned off and used as energy).
Noreadrenaline is a stress hormone and is what is used to "light up" the B1 receptors. For example, when someone drastically reduces calories (initially) or engages in high intensity exercise (a stress to the body), noreadrenaline is released, and it seeks out B1 receptors to break down fat.
A2 adrenoreceptors, on the other hand, are the "bad guys," and are the dominant receptors in stubborn body fat.
They block lipase in the fat cell, which promotes additional triglyceride formation. They also decrease the generation of noreadrenaline, which results in decreased activity with the B1 receptors, which is not that big of an issue because lower body fat doesn't have many B1 receptors in the first place.
And while I'm sure I lost many of you while you were reading the last few paragraphs, I do have a point. Low calorie diets cause an INCREASE in the number of A2 receptors in the body.
To the OP, search my posts. I have given my views on this topic for several times.
EDIT : kanjii, I have done it for you. Click this link :
I stopped reading this thread right here, because this is all one really needs to know. Eat less, exercise more. See results. I never understood how there could be a billion dollar industry devoted to this subject, with fad diets, books on the subject, new products, methods, and on and on, when it's all so simple.
Eat less, exercise more. End of story. Everything else is just window dressing and distraction...
If you don't mind the gentle correct, KK, the phrase you were looking for, in fitness terms, was "spot-reduction" (I mean, spot-exercising works in other ways, strength training only Biceps will give big biceps, aerobically training only legs will indeed produce efficient legs).
I love the 3 month advice though - most people could change their fitness life (and thus the rest of their life) with only 3 months of moderate work. And if they stick to it for 3 months, it becomes a life-long habit...
Agreed. But you know what it's all about? People want (need) to pay for their fitness. We live in such a consumer-society, that unless people hand over money for something, they simply can't see how it can work! It's silly, but while people want to pay me to help them get fit I won't stop them
I sometimes tell people I'm going to go into the diet business someday, and take out ads all over the place for my "guaranteed weight loss method! Call now for my secret formula to weight loss and start losing weight today! Money back guarantee if my method doesn't work for you!" etc. Then when they send in the money, I send them back an index card with these words printed on it:
"Eat less, exercise more".
I have a question about the sit up exercise. Don't people have to do them in order to have a six pack abs ? I don't think eating less and exercising would produce the six pack abs. My boss was an ironman participant and he doesn't even have a six pack abs.
How could you live in the USA and not understand why the diet racket is a multi-billion dollar industry?
To get a six pack, you have to bring your body fat down to 10 % or less. If you are not a naturally skinny person/an ectomorph, you will need "advanced" technique to bring your body fat to a singgle digit.
For an average fat person, just "eat less and exercise more" advice will NOT get you a singgle digit bodyfat. You might end up with a "skinny fat" body (not overweight, but still have plenty of bodyfat).
And to train your abs, you can do crunches and reverse crunches, reverse trunk twist (for your waist) and back raises for your lower back.
So many different things to say:
a. Everyone has a 6pack (well, a 10 pack +). We were all built with abdominal muscles, they are just more easily visible in people of lower bodyfat. Below 10-12% you start seeing significant abdominal definition. If we didn't have those muscles, well, we wouldn't have anything holding our intestines in!
b. For the vaaaast majority of overweight people, living life as an overweight person means they have quite reasonable-sized muscles everywhere - they have to move themselves, and when they eventually remove the layers of fat - whammo - there's a six pack or more.
c. For an ironman competitor - well they're not muscly to begin with - muscle is unnecessary bulk. They are low BF, and depending how low BF they are, you'll always see some definition. I've meet ironman competitors without 6-packs, and I've met ironman competitors who you could use as a washboard (if you chose). Remember too that the externally visible abs are not as key from a functional perspective as the internal abs. Most ironman competitors will have terrific core stability, if not visible external abs. They will rarely have 'large' abs, as large abs aren't required to swim, ride or run...
d. Trust me - muscle definition, including abdominal definition... is all about losing fat, and losing fat is all about eating less and exercising more .
Drink less beer
Which is hard for me but the only thing i love more than beer is sex and tennis. So continue to focus on those two things and kill the beer!
Thanks for the information, OrangeOne & Ano.
u gotta run long distance. Weight training and sit-ups will train your muscle, but the fat will stay. Running and eating less is the only way, besides surgery. Well, u can try surgery, fast but expensive way.
Oh yeah. That's the phrase I was trying to remember. Thanks.
Bingo! You picked-up on exactly my point.
One critical factor in turning your body into a "fat burning machine" is to build and maintain as much muscle as possible. Muscle is your metabolic furnace, the more muscle you have, the more calories your burn, even at rest.
With a higher lean body mass, you'll burn more calories during exercise. If you put two people side by side jogging on a treadmill, one of them with 150 pounds of lean body mass and the other with 120 pounds of lean body mass, the person with 150 pounds of lean body mass will burn more calories from the exact same workout.
The most efficient way to burn more calories and lose more body fat is to gain more muscle. That's why weight training is an important PART of the fat loss equation.
To lose body fat permanently, you should do all of these things : cardio, good eating habit and weight training.
That's what's killing me - the brewskies, especially in the summer - really is there anything better after a good tennis match - I had such a good match yesterday that is was followed with three heineys..
i read in a mens fitness magazine that it takes 250,000 situps to get rid of 1 pound of fat
How about cutting that back to ... just one?
Ok - you'll think I'm nuts here, but I'm a true believer in finding solutions for any problem.
The lowest calorie method of consuming alcohol in a casual environment (ie. other than just shotting it), is spirits + sugar-free soda water / diet soft drinks.
Me, I find a beer refreshing, but I also like a good Vodka and Soda Water (maybe with a splash of lime or lemon). Others like a Jim Beam & Diet Coke, or maybe a G&T. This way, they're low in calories (the only energy comes from the alcohol itself, no additional carbs or sugars), much lower in calories than a good hearty beer....
Agreed, its the beer that does it for me too. That and I eat badly sometimes because I work early or get home late.
As an aside there's a guy I see play quite a bit who must be 350 pounds and he is always saying to people in the pub next door that he doesn't eat that much, while drinking his 9th pint of Guinness. . Good strokes too, just can't move
I believe the average man burns in the neighborhood of 2000 calories/ day. This depends on body weight, age, %body fat etc. I believe this is you Basal Metabolic Rate.
Add to this number what you burn in physical activity: tennis running weights etc.
If you eat less than this number of caolries daily, you lose weight.
If you eat more than this number you gain weight.
Eat the same amount , you stay the same.
It's a balancing act.
This is very simplified, but if you count your calories by adding up everything you eat (be honest!!) and closely estimate your burn rate, You can be pretty effective at controlling your weight.
Do not starve yourself to lose, Eat smartly, exercise rigorously. I like to aim for a difference of about 500 calories burned in excess of what I eat daily if I'm trying to lose weight. This way I lose about a lb /week. The bigger the caloric deficit, the faster you lose. Starve yourself though and your body reacts by lowering it's metabolism and you actually lose weight slower. Eat well and exercise. That's the secret!!!
I watch a lot of folks at the gym who hang our, chit chat and leave looking absolutley great. No sweat, no red face, no hair out of place. You have to DO the gym, not just go to the gym.
I also see alot of folks who leave the gym looking fresh and immediately head to starbucks afterwards for the Vento Mocha Frappacino. That's the equivalent of about 1 hour on the ellipitical at a vigorous pace.
Close, but not quite (well - what is up there is specifically correct, but given what you go on to say...)...
Basal Metabolic Rate is actually only the amount of calories you burn being alive, without any activity, including even digestive processes.
This is why I say you were a little off, definition-wise. If you take only your BMR (for which there are formulas), and then add exercise... well you'll come up very short, as you're missing the calories from activities of daily living (sitting up, moving around, eating, digestion, talking, etc etc).
Yup. It ain't rocket science!
Once again, point-taken, but the person who goes to the gym and then has the Ven... the coffee , well don't forget they're still acres in front of the person who does neither! They're still getting training benefits, both muscular and cardiovascular, and they're also burning more calories post-exercise than they would normally be, and they'll sleep better from the tiredness, etc etc. If people want to train and reward themselves, I'm cool with it as long as they know they impacts of this on their goals. Many people train simply so they can have their Ven... coffee (or beer, or pizza, or whatever)
(And hey - given the silly-cold aircon in some gyms, it's entirely possible for me to do a 20-set hard weights workout, be seen to be standing around for 2/3rds of the time talking (between-set recovery) and leave looking fresh. Get me doing a spin class or on the treadmill, well that's a different story...).
....as J.B said - I'm thinking, I'm thinking..
I agree with Ano's post regarding "starvation mode." I gained about 15 lbs following wrist injury and surgery in January. I began aerobic exercise in earnest in March and restricted my calories to perhaps 1400/day. I did 45-60 minutes on the treadmill each day, along with an exercise tape I like called "Jiggle Free Abs." DIDN'T LOSE AN OUNCE IN 2 MONTHS.
In May, I began tracking my food intake and exercise at www.myfooddiary.comand have lost about 4 lbs so far. The website helps set a target range for calories, based on activity level each day. It also gives very detailed info about the food you are consuming (fat, saturated fat, protein, carbs, sodium etc).
What I found was I needed to consume about 1900 to 2000 calories on most days to avoid going into "starvation mode." I also found it was more productive to do 30 minutes of walking/running rather than 45-60 of moderate aerobic activity.
I'm continuing my daily ab work and hope that when more weight comes off my abs will magically appear!
I can only tell you what worked for me
Low carb diet for 2 months
After that, permanently remove all unecessary carbs from your diet (ie, never or very rarely drink soda, fruit juice (eat fruit, don't drink it), and beer. Switch from white bread to whole grain.
Exercise at least 3 times per week including both weight lifting and cardio. Cardio sessions should either be long or hard (45 minutes or made up of sprints)
I think the fastest factor at removing fat is diet. Exercise is better for maintaining a healthy weight, but it takes much longer to lose the weight through sweat than simply changing your eating habits. Jogging is notoriously bad for for losing weight...if you aren't doing at least 3 miles a day, you aren't really burning fat.
I think that when you get into that routine with your diet and exercise, you find it very easy to stay in shape (that's if you're doing it right of course). The reason why most people fail is because they can't get through that first couple of weeks where it really is a shock to the system but the people who reallywant to do it, push through, and reap the rewards.
Totally! I play about four times per week and after each match I find I have a mental battle with myself not to pop into the supermarket on the way home and buy heineys!
And the other thing I attempt to do (and fail at) is to go for a run every morning. Every morning I set my alarm for 5.00. Every morning I wake at 5.00 turn off the alarm clock and go back to sleep...arrr!!!
haha. I did about 300 sit ups in a day and the next day, I had to use my hands to lift myself out of bed (My back muscles stopped responding).
250k sit ups would kill me
Hi mate, my definition of BMR : total number of calories your body burns for normal bodily functions, INCLUDING digestion, circulation, respiration, temperature regulation, cell construction and every other metaboic process in your body.
In other words, your BMR is the sum total of all the energy used for basic bodily functions, NOT including physical activity.
To estimate BMR, you can use the Harris Benedict formula as follows :
Men: BMR = 66 + (13.7 X wt in kg) + (5 X ht in cm) - (6.8 X age in years)
Women: BMR = 655 + (9.6 X wt in kg) + (1.8 X ht in cm) - (4.7 X age in years)
1 inch = 2.54 cm.
1 kilogram = 2.2 lbs.
Example: You are female
You are 30 yrs old
You are 5' 6 " tall (167.6 cm)
You weigh 120 lbs. (54.5 kilos)
Your BMR = 655 + 523 + 302 - 141 = 1339 calories/day
Now that you know your BMR, you can calculate TDEE by multiplying your BMR by your activity multiplier from the chart below:
Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job)
Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)
Mod. active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)
Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)
Extr. active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.)
Your BMR is 1339 calories per day
Your activity level is moderately active (work out 3-4 times per week)
Your activity factor is 1.55
Your TDEE = 1.55 X 1339 = 2075 calories/day
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure = Calories to maintain weight
Hmm, interesting. I was under the impression that a true BMR is measured after 12 hours of fasting. Not that this really matters, but it's definitionally interesting (if you'll permit me to make up the word 'definitionally' ).
Yeah, it's all coming back in regards to those multipliers. That said, given it's all *sooo* approximate, it's obviously best-used as a guide, and then empirically monitored with a client over a period of time. Eg. If a client is eating a safe amount under their TDEE and not losing weight, then it's probably the TDEE calc that is wrong....
All things I really need to be thinking about as I contemplate training clients again....
Off course, I permit you to make the word "definitionally".
I agree with your second statement. The multiplier can only be used as a rough guideline.
Pal, about the BMR definition, you were right and I was wrong.
BMR does NOT include digestion.
I'm at the office right now, so I can't read my two trusted text books, EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY by McArdle, Katch & Katch and PHYSIOLOGY OF SPORT AND EXERCISE by Wilmore and Costill, so I looked at this link :
I apologized for confusing you with my wrong definition about BMR.
I lost mine by doing this: eating whatever i want (but going lite on the sweets) as long as i drink only water, with lots of tennis, situps wouldnt hurt. but the tummy you speak of is mainly liquid fat. so no soda or alcohol, or any other bad liquids. i did this diet/plan after 3 months i went from 200 to 165 and later added weights with the situps and got up to 170-175 by 6 months
Well then, you better get crackin'...250K sit-ups takes how long to do? Around a week? If you don't sleep, maybe you can squeeze in 4 or 500K this week, and you'll be 2 lbs lighter (and hospitalized).
And any normal person!
If you people must do 250k of anything, do crunches, people, crunches....
No need to apologise. I'd looked at the wiki article - that was where I'd read it! Anyways - to be honest, it's not as if digestion is that relevant.
Err - liquid fat? are you implying that the 'tummy' comes only from fats in drinks? Because that's just wrong, especially given these two facts (and yes, I'm about to bust a fitness myth):
a. Unless I'm forgetting a whole class of drinks, most drinks are zero-fat (it's only milky / creamy drinks that contain fat).
b. Many drinks are high in calories (high in sugar) - soft drinks (you call them sodas I think) and juices. All contain large amounts of energy.
BUT, in all but the very very obese, the body doesn't convert sugars to fats. The fat that you store is from fats that you eat. If you eat too many calories, and some of them are fats, you'll burn the sugars and store the fats. Your body (unless you're very very obese and even then) doesn't convert sugars to fats.
So yeah - you may see the tummy-fat as 'moving' fat, but it's not sourced specifically from drinks.
Oh - so how did you lose weight? You cut down total calorie ingestion, but cutting a huge load of calories in your drinks, which meant you had a calorie deficit, which meant you burned the fat you were ingesting (and a more), instead of having a calorie surplus, and thus storing the excess fat-calories.
I got the impression BlueGrasser drank the beers because he actually enjoyed the taste of cold beers after a match, not because he thinks they are the quickest route to alcohol intoxication with the least amount of calories like the formulas you recommend.
Serve - you seem to have misunderstood me. Hmm - you see the quickest route to alcoholic intoxication with low calories is actually shotting spirits, which I didn't recommend. My recommendations were based on the fact BG wanted to share a libation with friends, but perhaps wanted less calories....
I did recommend having a spirit in a glass of soda etc, which, ironically is actually lower in alcohol than most beers on the market - hell, even many 'lights' in australia sit at .8 or .9 standard drinks.
Personally, I find a G&T or a Vodka-Lime-soda damned refreshing indeed, I really enjoy it and on a hot day you can even ask for it in a 'tall' glass or a (what we call) a 'schooner' glass with plenty of ice too, so it can stay cold over a period of time, vs. a beer which tends to need to be consumed quicker if you like it cold. Personally, and while I enjoy a beer, I find these drinks can taste even more refreshing due to their 'clean & crisp' nature....
Intoxication ? nah - maybe just a little buzz _ interesting, every notice how the beer buzz is different from the wine buzz and the spirit buzz is different from the other buzzes....personally i like the beer buzz, it's the happiest of the three...I know, I'm losing it again...
Separate names with a comma.