Slaying some Myths....

Discussion in 'Fitness Health and Exercise' started by Justin, 3 August 2009 Social URL.

  1. Justin

    Justin Banned

    Posts:
    179
    Likes Received:
    8
    I'm going to take the time to slay a few myths regarding exercise / fat loss / nutrition in general right now. Some of you may be suprised at some points I raise, some of you may agree, but I am about to tell it like it is. Don't say I didn't warn you!


    Myth 1: Crunches for a 'Toned' Stomach.

    I think I've covered my dislike for crunches quite enough aleady, but it always bears repeating. As it happens, I stumbled across some information carried out in a study and published in an old copy of Men's Health magazine. It stated that a person will burn just 1 calorie for every 10 crunches they do. 1 calorie!

    So for those of you performing 200 a day crunches routines, I hope those 20 calories were worth the effort!


    By the way, most static core exercises (such as the ones I described in the Core Conundrum post) burn at least 30 during a set of 10.

    And also, its been joked that the best exercise for a good looking stomach is called the 'table push-away'. Basically, getting a good set of abs is all down to your diet.


    Myth 2: How many calories burned DURING the exercise is important.

    No, its not. Even though I did just point out that a good core exercise would burn 30 calories during exercise, that was for the sake of example.

    Look at it this way: Exercise is BAD for your body. It is. resistance exercise tears your muscle fibres and endurance exercise weakens your joints and ligaments.

    But it is the RECOVERY that heals your body so it grows back to be stronger than before. It is the recovery in which any adaptations take place. Now if you've exercised at a good enough intensity, with the right exercises, then your muscles should be gasping for extra calories to be repaired. This is your metabolism rising, and it is these calories that are burned day to day that account for 80% of your total calorie burn and weight loss (provided you are on a slight caloric defecit).


    Myth 3: "I want to be 'Toned'. But I don't want to put on any muscle!"

    I'm sure someone here is reading this who has uttered those words in the past! I hear it every day pretty much.

    Here's the real deal: To be 'Toned' means you have a good level of lean muscle with little fat around that muscle. So if you want to be toned, you actually need some muscle under the fat. Otherwise, you'll burn the fat away (which in itself is unlikely without an adequate amount of muscle in the first place, since muscle is the only tissue in the body that burns calories!) and be left with a flat, soft appearance. and then its back to 200 crunches a day...


    Myth 4: Weights will make me 'Bulky'!

    Following on from the last point, I also hear this nearly every day, from women of all ages.

    I understand many of you are aware of how much nonsense this statement really is, but for the few who don't:

    Lifting weights will NOT make you bulky. I see 18 year old boys, who have hormones raging, desperately want to get some female attention, lift weights 5 days a week, eat a tonne of calories and still not build muscle.

    Building muscle is a TOUGH. Its a LOT harder than losing fat, thats for sure.

    But here are the main reasons you won't build muscle:

    1. You aren't eating enough (unless, you are eating 3,000 to 4, 000 calories a day? No? I didn't think so.)

    2. you have 10 times less testosterone (the hormone that builds muscle) than men.

    3. You arn't lifting weights that are heavy enough, and you aren't lifitng them with excessive volume, both of which are required to grow muscle.

    And even if you did somehow manage to grow some muscle, its not as if you wouldn't see it coming. it doesn't happen overnight. The above statement is the equivelant of an obese man saying "I don't want to do use a treadmill or I'll suddenly become slim!"

    Ladies, get on the weights, and develop the lean 'toned' look you're always asking for!


    Myth 4: Fasted Cardio

    Another trend that has emerged due to someone taking a scientific study out of context.

    Again, on paper it looks promising: you wake up, having eaten no carbs, so all you have in you to burn for energy is fat, so jump on a treadmill first thing in the morning. Uh, no....

    Did you eat carbs yesterday? The day before? Then unless you performed some immense type of endurance event (like 3 triathlons back to back!) then you still have carbs, stored as glycogen, in your liver and muscles the next morning. It doesn't just dissapear when you go to bed.


    Or, look at it this way. The claims are that fasted cardio burns 30% more calories than non-fasted.

    So if you performed 30 minutes of aerobic exercise 3 times per week, thats about 900 calories you've burned. In 6 months time, that would equate to you burning 23, 400 calories, or just over 6.5 lbs of fat.

    If the 30% statement is true, then you'd burn another 0.07 lbs per week.

    Hardly incredible is it? The fact is that low intesity aerobic exercise doesn't burn any more calories than the small amount you expend during the wrokout. It doesn't challenge your muscles, so your metabolism isn't raised. Eat one chocolate muffin and thats 30 minutes of exercise down the drain.


    Myth 5: 'A calorie is a calorie.'

    Basing a diet solely on how many calories you take in is a daft idea. What the message tells people is that they can get away with eating pretty much what they like, as long the total calorie count is below a certain number.

    So on this basis, if we had a set of twins on the same exercises program for a month, both told they can eat 1900 calories (just under their maintenance) and one eats 1900 kcals of chocolate and ice cream, while the other eats 1900 kcals of fish, lean meat and vegetable, both will have the same results at the end?

    Its not so much how MANY calories you eat, whats more important is the QUALITY of those calories.


    Myth 6: Diets in general

    I really don't see the need for them. We ALL know what foods we should be eating to reach our goals, but not all of us have the self-discipline to do so (myself included, i'll happily admit).

    You can compare all the diets in the world, read every one of those success stories, analyse all the scientific literature, but at the end of the day it comes down to simply this:

    Get your carbs from vegetables

    Get your protein from meat and eggs

    Get your fat from fish.

    Get your fluid from water.

    That's IT. If you were to follow a 'diet' of just natural foods (Meat, fish, fruit & veg, nuts, eggs and water) for 21 days, you would shed lbs.

    If all your carbs came from vegetables, then you would find it almost IMPOSSIBLE to eat more than your maintenance level of calories, as the fibre in veg makes it so filling. Its as simple as cutting out any processed foods and sugars.

    If your ancestors couldn't eat it, you shouldn't either. Thats all you ever need to know about diets.


    Myth 7: Low Carb, Low Fat, Low Protein, Low Calorie, Low -Anything diets.

    These are the biggest offenders of all. the media will always pick on one macronutrient to be the bad guy, and claim it the reason why so many people are overweight. When carbs are singled out, we even have people refusing to eat more fruit because of its sugar content! Its natural sugar, not processed, and your body needs it. Its not as if people have been eating too many apples and thats the reason we have an obesity epidemic is it?


    Myth 8 : VLCDs

    This may be THE biggest offender of all. This strategy can seriously damage your metabolism, and will lead to rapid weight loss initially, but at a price.


    Once again, science has been misconstrued. A lb of fat is equated at 3,500 kcals so it makes sense that subtracting 500kcals a day for week (causing a defecit of 3500) will result in a pound of fat lost? It will work initially, but then it will stop working. So you take a few more calories off per day. then some more and some more, until your eating under a 1000 per day, hoping this will lead to more fat loss.

    Always remember that your body adapts to ANYTHING you do to it in the opposite manner. It doesn't know you're trying to look good in a bikini, all it knows is that it is being starved.

    To counter this lack of energy (calories), your body will lower your metabolic rate, and will store all incoming calories. These calories will be kept for the most important functions of the body: keeping your brain running, and fuelling the muscles that control your heart rate and breathing. In this case, your body does NOT want to burn any fat, and instead it will cling on to any fat for dear life, as a method of preserving what energy it has.

    In simple terms - if you don't let your body have energy, it will store its own and won't let go.

    Subtracting 10-20% from your maintenance level of calories should be enough in many cases. If you don't see results from that, keep subtracting 10% each week until you are steadily burning fat but preserving muscle tissue.


    Myth 9: Lots of Triceps exercises will get rid of my 'bingo wings'.

    Nope, excessive volume of one exercise focused on one part of your body will lead to a gain in muscle size. Which I thought is what women DIDN't want?

    Calories are burned from all over your body. Do you honestly think that if an overweight man simply performed only bicep curls and tricep kick backs for a year, that his arms would be skinny but still had fat stored everywhere else?

    (Answer : In fact he'd be pretty much exactly the same weight as when he started as bicep curls and kick backs don't burn enough calories to have a significant effect on weight loss).

    This also goes for those ridiculous in and out thigh machines. They won't do ANYTHING for you, ladies. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they are a fad, a gimmick created by the fitness industry to attract people to their gyms, without a care in the world for actually getting you the results you want.


    Myth 10: Madonna's Personal Trainer is Good at what she does

    I'd always wondered who trained Madonna, and who was responsible for making her into the unhealthy, skeletal wreck of a woman with unbalanced upper and lower musculature that she is now.

    Then reading a magazine I came across an interview with this trainer. I can't remember her name but after reading a few lines of what she said I was genuinely disgusted. For I knew that many many women would read the garbage she was spewing out and would take it as gospel. These are some of her 'tips' for losing weight and toning:

    - You MUST perform aerobic exercise for at least an hour, 6 days per week

    - Do not eat ANY fat in your diet

    - Women should never lift dumbbells heavier than 2.5kg or they will get bulky! (although a child, a hoover, shopping bags, hell, even a can of bloody soup all weight more than this!!)


    I did some research on this woman and discovered that she is not even a qualified fitness instructor, she only has experience in dance choreography. People, watch out for women and media info like this. A bit of bad information can go a long way.



    Okay, I think I've vented enough for one night. Phew, I'm so glad thats all off my chest!

    Hopefully those of you reading who have been previously uneducated to the above points can now rid yourself of the silly myths and traditions that plague our gyms and media.


    I'd like to hear some of your views on what I've commented upon, and if there is anything I've explained unclearly I'll be happy to discuss it.


    Justin
     
    Last edited: 3 August 2009
  2. Avatar

    MiniMins.com Matched Content

  3. AmandaJayne

    AmandaJayne Trainee Maintainer

    Posts:
    2,221
    Likes Received:
    146
    This has certainly given me food for thought, Justin. AJ
     
  4. W5CHELS

    W5CHELS Member

    Posts:
    47
    Likes Received:
    1
    Start Weight:
    17st1lb
    Current Weight:
    16st5lb
    Goal Weight:
    11st6lb
    Lost(%):
    0st10lb(4.18%)
    Diet:
    My own
    some great info there :)
     
  5. Jettica

    Jettica Shoot to thrill

    Posts:
    308
    Likes Received:
    1
    Start Weight:
    239lb
    Current Weight:
    172lb
    Goal Weight:
    140lb
    Lost(%):
    67lb(28.03%)
    Diet:
    Slimming World
    Brilliant stuff. The exercise part of losing weight has always been toughest for me. There's conflicting information being thrown at use from all angles. This has helped. Thank you.
     
  6. Coley

    Coley Re-starter

    Posts:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    111
    Start Weight:
    13st9lb
    Current Weight:
    11st5lb
    Goal Weight:
    10st0lb
    Lost(%):
    2st4lb(16.75%)
    Diet:
    Cambridge
    Disagree.

    Evidence please? hard...tried, tested, statistical data from a reliable source please.

    Also, bear in mind that this site contains a lot of people who are on VCLD's - which are proven to be effective, do not stop working and have been tested for over 20 years to ensure they are safe and healthy.
     
  7. Prosecco

    Prosecco Full Member

    Posts:
    113
    Likes Received:
    4
    Start Weight:
    17st5lb
    Current Weight:
    15st7lb
    Goal Weight:
    9st13lb
    Lost(%):
    1st12lb(10.7%)
    Diet:
    Exante
    Hi Justin,

    I have read a couple of your posts and just want to say how refreshing it is for someone just to say it how it is, I think you are spot on with your comments, I am 30 years old and I went on my first diet when I was 16 and ever since I have had a nightmare with my weight thanks to WW, Slimming World, Rosemary Connelly, Atkins and the Cambridge Diet (to name a few of the most successful diets that ALL eventually ensured I put it back on and more)making me feel like like I couldn't possibly succeed on my own and distorting my perception of how to eat. I am doing it on my own now with the aid of exercise and I feel the best I have done in years, I am down to a size 16 again and the weight is coming off because I am running 3-4 times a week and eating whole foods. You are star to be giving up your time and knowledge to people like me...for free! Please keep on with your rants I for one really appreciate it.
    Oh and Nicole yes your comment funnily enough suited your mood - cold! Why not read up on the facts yourself! (but not in the WW mag!) I am evidence that these manufactured diets work but only for a short time at which point the MAJORITY of people put weight back on again afterwards, if the dieting industry was so succesful then no one would be fat, no one would fall off the wagon and no one would be a re-starter like you and me and millions and billions of other people.

    Don't take this personally Nicole, its taken me a long time to figure out this. Basic healthy diet and exercise.....
     
  8. Coley

    Coley Re-starter

    Posts:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    111
    Start Weight:
    13st9lb
    Current Weight:
    11st5lb
    Goal Weight:
    10st0lb
    Lost(%):
    2st4lb(16.75%)
    Diet:
    Cambridge
    Firstly...don't do WW, and so don't buy their mag. I also don't feel I need to look up the "facts", since I'm not the one making the claims. I am asking someone to justify their reasoning. I apologise you feel that I am "cold"...not my issue. That's all yours.

    daft point. You do what you've always done, you get what you've always got.

    not the dieting industries fault. It's MY fault and YOUR fault. I hadn't sorted the issues in my head.

    Let me put this straight. You've not offended me...I'm not a stupid little girl. I just want to know peoples reasoning for claiming things.

    And you know......diet and exercise? really? gosh...never would have thought about that.:confused: I'm so very confused...what is this magical thing?

    No amount of diet and exercise will be any good unless I figure out and sort the reasons why I eat. Everyone ruddy well knows the maths. Eat less, move more. In your world then...surely no one would be re-starting or getting fat cause they have the key. Diet and exercise. Wow.
     
  9. KD

    KD Gone fishing

    Posts:
    17,711
    Likes Received:
    757
    Diet:
    Was Cambridge, now maintaining
    :eek::eek: Oh...that's where I went wrong :eek:

    D'oh.
     
  10. Justin

    Justin Banned

    Posts:
    179
    Likes Received:
    8
    Guys, lets not make this into a big argument. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    My aim here is not to prove anyone wrong, but to educate you all based on my knowledge, the knowldege of my peers, colleagues and leaders in the field of exercise and nutrition.

    When there is a difference in opinion regarding a subject, I will never let my bias sway me in a certain way without learning all the facts first. I take these facts from what I have learned and experienced myself, with my clients, and from seeking advice from some of the best minds in the world regarding fitness and diet.

    So what I present to you is based on my opinion, based on what I honestly believe is the right approach for the client's best interests and wellbeing. Now Coley is right on and justified by asking me to present more sources, which I will do here.


    Now, I don't have access to many studies because they usually come at an expensive fee to view the whole study and online journals, but here are some results from studies noted by various leaders in the industry:


    Dr John M Berardi, a PhD candidate in Exercise and Nutritional Biochemistry, and widely regarded as one of the top minds in the nutrition industry among his peers, notes these studies on VLCDs throughout various articles:

    "• Studies by Elliot et al (1989) showed that a modified fast resulted in a 22% reduction in RMR and this persisted even 8 weeks after returning to a mixed, maintenance diet. This means that the metabolism can be chronically depressed after dieting, even when returning to a reasonable energy intake.

    • Coxon et al (1989) showed that diets resulting in a weight loss of 4.18 lbs per week lead to losses of 1.75 lbs of lean mass per week. Very bad!

    • Bogardus et al (1981) showed that a carbohydrate restricted diet (35%P, 1%C, 64%F - 850kcal) chronically decreased muscle glycogen by 50% and as a result, decreases exercise performance by 50% as compared to a carb containing isoenergetic diet (35%P, 36%C, 29%F - 850 kcal). No decreases were seen in the moderate carbohydrate group.

    • Dulloo et al (1990) showed that in calorie deprived (50% below maintenance) rats, weight regain was rapid and nearly all weight regained was fat. The muscle mass that was lost was not replenished with refeeding.
    Therefore, in each of these studies, the prescribed diets lead to a smaller metabolic furnace and the dieters couldn't help but gain the fat back."


    At this point its important to go into a little boring science. Fat cells have two types of receptors that control the mechanisms of each fat cell.

    The first type are B1 cells, which act to release lipase, an enzyme that causes the fat cell to be 'opened up' and releases free fatty acid into the body to be burned for energy.

    The second type are A2 cells, which do the opposite and lock lipase within the fat cell, leading to more fat being stored.

    Now, according to Tony Gentilecore, a Certified Strength & Conditioning Specialist, with a degree in Health Education and a concentration in Health /Wellness Promotion, and also recognized as one of the top trainers in New England, USA,
    Low calorie diets cause an INCREASE in the number of A2 receptors in the body.”


    Dan Duchaine, in his book Underground Body Opus (a groundbreaking book throughout the fitness world on its release) makes these notes regarding VLCDs for fat loss:
    "1. Fat is lost first and fastest at the cells with lots of B1 receptors.

    2. Very little fat is lost in the fat cells that have lots of A2 receptors. For men this is usually the abdominal and lower back regions. For women it's the hips and thighs.

    3. Eventually, your noreadrenaline levels drop, reducing your body temperature (and hence... metabolic rate).

    4. The number of A2 receptors increase. The last of the fat becomes hard to mobilize so that the body will have to use more amino acids (from muscle) for fuel. [Again, low calorie diets have been shown to cause up to 45% lean body mass loss.]

    5. When you finally give up on the diet, even "normal" eating will cause new fat accumulation right in the fat cells that have just increased their number of A2 receptors."


    Here are some websites with more information regarding VLCDs (granted, they are from far less reliable sources than those above) so you can all read up yourselves and make your own conclusions.

    http://www.womenfitness.net/vlcd.htm
    http://www.nowloss.com/weight_loss_made_easy4.htm
    http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/LiquidDiets.htm

    Before I go on, I'd need to point out that studies aren't actually always the best method of looking at things, especially not in the fitness / health industry anyway. Basically for any study I find proving one thing, there is always another study proving the opposite. I've found that the answer to most arguments usually lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.


    However, the information regarding loss of metabolism, the body's fat cell receptors, and the 'starvation mode' are undisputable FACTS of human physiology. there is no respectable physician or physiologist that would dispute the claim that depriving your body of energy will eventually lead to the body storing what fat it has left for life-maintaining energy.

    Again, this is fact and any nutritionalist advisor or anyone otherwise telling you different has got their information deadly wrong.




    So to sum up, I'd like you to take all this information and decide for yourselves. I'll respect alternative opinions, however my stance will not be changed as they are based primarily on the laws of physiology, that in my mind at least, cannot be refuted.
     
  11. KD

    KD Gone fishing

    Posts:
    17,711
    Likes Received:
    757
    Diet:
    Was Cambridge, now maintaining
    Damn, I'm doomed. After an 8 stone loss and 4 years maintenance, I'm going to put it all back on anyway? :cry: Ack, I think not ;)

    But anyway, don't really want to get into this debate this time (makes a change), but too busy at the mo.

    But, may I quickly refer to Lyle McDonald who I feel sure you must know of??

    Talking about VLCDs and starvation mode here
    But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
    In one of the all-time classic studies (the Minnesota semi-starvation study), men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories for 6 months. It measured the largest reduction in metabolic rate I've ever seen, something like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study.

    And also the swansea trials (copying just a bit and hoping I have at least some relevant parts whilst scanning quickly!)

    No evidence of excessive losses of protein during acute weight loss.

    S A Jebb et al. MRC Dunn Clinical Nutrition Centre, Cambridge. Poster presented at 8th International Congress on Obesity, Paris, September 1998
    Conclusion: This four-compartment analysis of changes in body composition provides no evidence of any significant loss of protein in this treatment programme. However if two-compartment models are used to assess changes in body composition during acute weight loss the very significant loss of water will appear as losses of lean tissue.



    Very low calorie diets and sustained weight loss.

    W H M Saris. Maastricht University. Obesity Research 9, Supp 4 Nov 2001
    Conclusion: VLCD with active follow-up treatment seems to be one of the better treatment modalities related to long term weight maintenance success.


    An eight-year experience with a very low calorie formula diet for control of major obesity.

    M A Kirschner et al. Newark Beth Israel Medical Centre, New Jersey. IJO 1988 12(1) pp 69-80
    Conclusion: Our 8-year experience strongly suggests that the VLCD approach using high quality protein supplement and multi-disciplinary counselling provides a reasonable success rate for achieving and maintaining weight loss in the morbidly obese population.

    Long term weight loss maintenance: a meta-analysis of US studies.

    Anderson, Konz, Frederich and Wood. American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 2001
    Conclusion: Five years after completing structured weight-loss programme, the average individual maintained a weight loss of more than 3kg and a reduced weight of more than 3% of initial body weight. After VLEDs, or weight loss of more than 20kg, individuals maintained significantly more weight loss than after HBDs or weight losses of less than 10kg.


    Are you aware of the various VLCDs that many of the members here follow? Probably the most researched diets in the world and approved by NICE etc?
     
  12. Justin

    Justin Banned

    Posts:
    179
    Likes Received:
    8
    Like I said, for every study there's another saying the reverse. The conclusion? VCLDs may work for some, but not for others.

    I should point out that for very short term results (maybe up to 3 weeks) I wouldn't have too much of an issue in using a VCLD. But for long-term health, in the majority of people, Im still hard pressed to say it is the healthiest method.

    since you bring up Lyle McDonald, here are some of the notes from one of his researhc reviews:
    "Most research on long term VLCD's has been done on animals and doesn't necessarily equate to humans, since it's not feasible to track humans over their lifespan.
    Also, the later someone starts restricting calories in life, the less impact it'll have on their lifespan. Unless we start underfeeding our children, I highly doubt this trend will catch on.
    A caloric restriction of upwards of 65% would need to be followed to get the full impact of a caloric restriction diet. As McDonald noted, a male with a predicted maintenance of 2,700 calories per day would be expected to consume 1,350 calories a day for extended periods. A female with a daily maintenance of 1,800 calories would have to subsist on 900 calories per day for extended periods to gain any benefit from caloric restriction."

    So basically, no one truly knows the long-term health risks of VLCDs.


    And I am aware that many here use VLCDs. Im also aware that many here still rely on long distance aerobic exercise as being the most effective method of burning fat (which its not). Im just offering alternatives which are backed by science and research just as strongly as the arguments FOR VLCDs are.


    As I said, I'd rather you come to your own conclusions based on what you instinctively believe is right.
     
  13. tryer

    tryer Silver Member

    Posts:
    570
    Likes Received:
    13
    so in a way what was the point? (some are for; some against, we're still where we started, but with a little more info).
    Anyway, thanks Justin and thanks KD.(Kd i know you have said in numerous posts that weight bearing workouts are better for burning fat, so i know you know what you are talking about and have actually lived life in both shoes).
    on a side note to be honest i think alot of instructors in 2009 and even before this date have advised, weights, or i may just be in a really good part of the world but i think the aerobic, till you drop method went out ages ago in gyms. (even in fitness mags they promote weight bearing exercise)
    thank you both Justin and KD for both putting your sides across, and thanks coley, as well!!!,

    just keep trying , Tryer x
    hope you all have a good night.
    peace
     
  14. Justin

    Justin Banned

    Posts:
    179
    Likes Received:
    8
    Unfortunately, this isnt the case. Im in an environment every day where Im talking to clients and other gym members, and even instructors, and the vast majority of people I come across still rely on steady-state endurance exercise when looking for fat loss.

    Most people I see either don't like higher intensity intervals because they have to actually push themselves and put some effort in, or they are afraid of using free weights because of the 'getting bulky' myth.


    The first evidence of interval training being more effective at burning fat was released over 10 years ago. And as they often say, it takes around 10 years for the public to finally come around to a new trend. Progress is being made in general I think, but like I said its still only around 20% of exercisers that are getting the mesage.
     
  15. Porgeous

    Porgeous Chilling

    Posts:
    7,066
    Likes Received:
    473
    Start Weight:
    14st1lb
    Current Weight:
    8st10lb
    Lost(%):
    5st5lb(38.07%)
    Diet:
    CD SS
    Hiya

    I am a believer in knowledge is power but I urge caution on how you share information. Your original post did come across very much as "fact" rather than your opinion and I think the two are very different.

    Some interesting science quoted but I am not a statistic, or a study, nor indeed a rat. I am me, an actual physical being and I am my own evidence that VLCDs work.

    G
     
    howdy-doody likes this.
  16. howdy-doody

    howdy-doody Eloquent hooligan

    Posts:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    36
    Start Weight:
    14st13lb
    Current Weight:
    13st11lb
    Goal Weight:
    12st0lb
    Lost(%):
    1st2lb(7.66%)
    Diet:
    Lipotrim
    ^^^ What she said :D

    I'm a great believer in taking in knowledge from every source available (irresspective of viewpoint or stance) & assimilating it myself & coming to my own conclusions... so thanks to everyone who's contributed on here :)

    I'm probably going to get tutted at as I'm currently combining a VLCD (approx 500 cals per day), an ECA stack after lunch which carries me through to 6 PM when I leave work & go to the gym to do the regime below:

    4 miles cross trainer (averaging 6 mile per hour, pulse raised to 170)

    All resistance machines below are medium to low weight with high reps as below to define rather than bulk.

    4 x 50 weight shoulder presses
    4 x 50 butterfly presses for me moobs
    5 x 20 arm curls
    4 x 20 side oblique inverted situps for me love handles
    4 x 20 inverted situps
    4 x 20 chest raises (pull up bar on the multigym from stomach height to chin height thaaang)
    6 lengths swimming breast stroke

    I know the VLCD & ECA stack is not a good combo long term & I don't think I could sustain longer than the few months I plan to be on it anyway.

    The end game for me is ALWAYS to finish VLCD & maintain a low calorie, high protein, low-ish carb (all from vegetables & complex carbs) coupled with regular healthy exercise (both aerobic & anaerobic).
     
  17. tryer

    tryer Silver Member

    Posts:
    570
    Likes Received:
    13
    well seems as thoughi am the one goingto differrent gyms in my life time, with my mates, etc etc. it is the case for me and my friends, and to the gym instructors that i have spoke to and set up programmes for me and my friend.

    i don't think it takes 10 years to educate, or pass info on if your a good instructor you will be up on your game.
    i'm not sure who your speaking too but your sample of people and where they have gone seems that everything they say fits to what you are looking for and thus a bias is caused/made straight away.

    i really do like your posts thanks again, but you do some times come accross as preachy and it's your way or no way. and i think this evokes arguement between posters .... it's not needed and i hate to see this happen as i am sure that you are as well.

    please keep posting but please be wary on how things can come accross.

    much love and peace xx

     
  18. howdy-doody

    howdy-doody Eloquent hooligan

    Posts:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    36
    Start Weight:
    14st13lb
    Current Weight:
    13st11lb
    Goal Weight:
    12st0lb
    Lost(%):
    1st2lb(7.66%)
    Diet:
    Lipotrim
    One thing I've started doing is varying the intensity of my cross training... ie every 5 mins I go out hell for leather sprinting for 20 seconds & raise my MPH from 6.5ish to 15 before settling back down to normal pace...

    I am starting to see great benefit both from fitness / stamina point of view as well as fat burning...

    :)
     
  19. tryer

    tryer Silver Member

    Posts:
    570
    Likes Received:
    13
    hey howdy that is a great weight loss in the first week,
     
  20. howdy-doody

    howdy-doody Eloquent hooligan

    Posts:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    36
    Start Weight:
    14st13lb
    Current Weight:
    13st11lb
    Goal Weight:
    12st0lb
    Lost(%):
    1st2lb(7.66%)
    Diet:
    Lipotrim
    Cheers :)

    The 1st week is bound to be a lot of water / glycogen but I think coupling with my daily regime it's going great guns :)

    I've been tutted at by my gym for doing so much whilst taking on only 500 cals a day but so long as I'm getting the results I'll continue to carry on... obviously whilst listening to my body ;)
     
  21. Laura Croft

    Laura Croft Happily maintaining

    Posts:
    1,944
    Likes Received:
    38
    Diet:
    Healthy eating, was CD
    Well said Porgeous and KD. I'm not going to get into an argument with you either Justin but your opions about VLCDs based on "nowledge, the knowldege of my peers, colleagues and leaders in the field of exercise and nutritio" are far from accurate when the diet is followed correctly, and that is the key part.

    And for the record, I agree with a lot of the other stuff you wrote.
     
Popular Forums
  1. MiniMins.com is a weight loss support community helping each other on their weight loss journey. We have a multitude of forums, from Slimming World and Exante, to Success Stories. Click the logo at the top right to return to the forum home page at any time.