Best way to loose stomach?

[WinstonWolf]

Hilts said:

WinstonWolf said:

Hang on, it takes a bit of typing!

I had a comminuted supracondylar-intercondylar fracture of the femur, 4" was missing out of my left leg when I arrived in hospital. Tib and fib were both fractured and my patella was split in two.

I've still got 2" missing out of it, no cartilage, two ligaments replaced with muscle and most of the quad is a mixture of bone and muscle, it's not really one thing or the other.

Can't run but can cycle 100 miles...

Looks messy but considering they gave it five years (I did this in 1984) and I went down for amputation at one point I can't really grumble. Cycling has made a world of difference but I'm very careful to know when to back off. There's definitely good and bad pain...

Holy st! you weren't kidding. Thanks for taking the time out to post that, I feel a bit better now. Not because of what you went through of course but it makes my injury seem a little lightweight even though it was the most painful thing I've ever experienced. I 'only' tore my quad tendon Slowly getting back there though.

Yeah, knees can take a bit to get going again. I was still making improvements 25 years after the original injury. I forgot to mention I also had foot drop for a couple of years thanks to a mis-managed splint, wearing a caliper when you're 19 isn't a good look.

I've found cycling really helps with stability which in turn helps to prevent further injury. Just go easy and make sure your bike is set up correctly

Hope it soon improves.

[Hilts]

WinstonWolf said:

Yeah, knees can take a bit to get going again. I was still making improvements 25 years after the original injury. I forgot to mention I also had foot drop for a couple of years thanks to a mis-managed splint, wearing a caliper when you're 19 isn't a good look.

I've found cycling really helps with stability which in turn helps to prevent further injury. Just go easy and make sure your bike is set up correctly

Hope it soon improves.

Thanks, I'll update my original thread to avoid de-railing this one when I get a minute.

[King Herald]

bulldong said:

King Herald said:

The simplest, most logical, in all aspects, is to eat less food. It makes you lose weight. It saves you money. It defeats this pointless monotony of going to a gym to burn up calories you shoveled down your face an hour before etc etc.

And it is good for the environment, less poo and empty beans tins being thrust upon the world. A win win situation.

What a terrifically narrow minded understanding. There are countless other, well documented, and well researched benefits to exercising, rather than it just being a slog to burn calories. Here to give just two small articles:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/this-exercise-can-...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/10/1...

Thank you so much. My point was that the OP states he does NOT want to go to a gym, indicating in general that he is a bit of a couch potato (no offense meant) so my point IS the most logical, as I stated.

Yes, exercise is better than no exercise, we don't need a Google cut and paste expert to tell us that, but it doesn't sound like he particularly wants to do much. So, eating less calories is basically his easiest simplest option.

[anonymous-user]

King Herald said:

bulldong said:

King Herald said:

The simplest, most logical, in all aspects, is to eat less food. It makes you lose weight. It saves you money. It defeats this pointless monotony of going to a gym to burn up calories you shoveled down your face an hour before etc etc.

And it is good for the environment, less poo and empty beans tins being thrust upon the world. A win win situation.

What a terrifically narrow minded understanding. There are countless other, well documented, and well researched benefits to exercising, rather than it just being a slog to burn calories. Here to give just two small articles:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/this-exercise-can-...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/10/1...

Thank you so much. My point was that the OP states he does NOT want to go to a gym, indicating in general that he is a bit of a couch potato (no offense meant) so my point IS the most logical, as I stated.

Yes, exercise is better than no exercise, we don't need a Google cut and paste expert to tell us that, but it doesn't sound like he particularly wants to do much. So, eating less calories is basically his easiest simplest option.

The OP will remain weak and useless, and will still have a belly. :-)

[chris watton]

I don't think food companies help much. My wife bought a bag of Jordans muesli yesterday, thinking it was low in sugar. however, on closer inspection of the suggested serving size, I thought I'd see what 45 grams looks like in a medium sized breakfast bowl:



About three tablespoons worth!

[RobM77]

Food labelling is often very sneaky with their portion sizes! I think I have about three portions of Bran Flakes for my breakfast!!

[TSCfree]

chris watton said:

I don't think food companies help much. My wife bought a bag of Jordans muesli yesterday, thinking it was low in sugar. however, on closer inspection of the suggested serving size, I thought I'd see what 45 grams looks like in a medium sized breakfast bowl:



About three tablespoons worth!

Huh, it is low in sugar at 8% of RDA! If all three of your meals are at that %.....then guess what....

back to the OP
Exercise - low impact. Every day
Eat Clean- cut the junk

No magic potions, no fad diet - just some effort.....how much do you want it!

[King Herald]

bulldong said:

The OP will remain weak and useless, and will still have a belly. :-)

Oh well, he will have saved some money on food though.

RobM77 said:

Food labelling is often very sneaky with their portion sizes! I think I have about three portions of Bran Flakes for my breakfast!!

I thought I was doing healthy stuff eating a decent sized bowl of healthy grain cereal every morning.....until I saw the calories!!!! 450 calories for a 35gram portion!! That was a single well heaped spoon full, when I weighed it out!!!

[ambuletz]

maybe it's just me but I don't think they're being entirely sneaky. ALL foods have labels that show cals/100g and cals/whatever portion they have decided on. most people have no idea how much of something they are eating. most people will stuff a bowl about 80-90% full regardless of whatever size that bowl is. same goes with plates of food. If anythign i think consumers are to blame. it forces companies to create smaller portion sizes of foods in order to meet some kind of benchmark. like making a kitkat smaller so that it gets under 100cals. as for cereal, it's a dry food, course it is going to be calorie dense.

[King Herald]

ambuletz said:

maybe it's just me but I don't think they're being entirely sneaky. ALL foods have labels that show cals/100g and cals/whatever portion they have decided on.

But when they push their product as a great and healthy way to lose weight, on the TV, and show bowls of their cereals a LOT bigger than a 'portion', then that is sneaky, as far as I am concerned.

They do it that way SPECIFICALLY to deceive the general public, but not so far they are breaking the law as such.

Like selling cigarettes for decades when they knew damn well they were decidedly unhealthy, but they kept that bit to themselves.

[RobM77]

ambuletz said:

maybe it's just me but I don't think they're being entirely sneaky. ALL foods have labels that show cals/100g and cals/whatever portion they have decided on. most people have no idea how much of something they are eating. most people will stuff a bowl about 80-90% full regardless of whatever size that bowl is. same goes with plates of food. If anythign i think consumers are to blame. it forces companies to create smaller portion sizes of foods in order to meet some kind of benchmark. like making a kitkat smaller so that it gets under 100cals. as for cereal, it's a dry food, course it is going to be calorie dense.

Not wholly sneaky, no, but the sneaky bit is that they're almost certainly taking advantage of people who can't or don't do their maths and just rely on the 'portion size'. There are no standard portions as far as I know, so for something really fatty, like Doritos, the manufacturers define a smaller portion to make it look better than it is - that's what I was referring to.

[otolith]

They also do things like displaying prominent calorie information for a 25g "portion" on those little 60g pots of nuts and dried fruit they sell at the checkout.
As if there are people out there measuring out five twelfths of a pot.

[giblet]

RobM77 said:

otolith said:

RobM77 said:

• Exercise builds muscle and that increases your resting metabolic rate, so you'll burn calories even when sat still.

Can do, though it's quite hard to gain muscle while in calorie deficit and you may even lose it. I added in resistance training and maintained a high protein intake to avoid this risk, and did actually gain a modest amount of muscle, but it's not guaranteed.

Thanks. I didn't realise it was a difficult thing to do. For the past year I've been trying to keep my weight constant and gain muscle, which is working so far.

So in theory it's best to focus on shifting ones paunch before doing any weights or can you do a mix of both e.g. alternate days of cardio and weights?

[giblet]

bulldong said:

The truth of the matter is that if you aren't really a motivated person, it is not going to happen if you do it by yourself. To go from belly to toned, takes fricking ages, and so you will probably start off and then think "fk, nothing is changing, I can't be arsed", and then you'll stop.

This is very true, well it is for me. I spent 5 years of occasionally going to a gym but not really putting any effort in. Never bothered with sorting my diet out. Got my arse into gear two years ago and dropped 11kg via a combination of using My Fitness Pal to log my food and exercise and actually exercising at least 3 times a week. At one point I was going to the gym twice a day for 4 days a week. Using a proper hr monitor also helped as you get a more accurate reading of how many calories you have burned.

Sadly I got lazy and I've put the weight back on plus an extra few kilos so it's time to do it all over again. Trouble is I'm not a motivated person. The motivation last time round was flawed so this time I'm using the fact that I turn 30 in roughly 9 months as motivation to get into shape.

[otolith]

giblet said:

So in theory it's best to focus on shifting ones paunch before doing any weights or can you do a mix of both e.g. alternate days of cardio and weights?

Can open, worms everywhere.

Heated debate now likely.

[giblet]

otolith said:

Can open, worms everywhere.

Heated debate now likely.

Yaay

[ambuletz]

There is no reason NOT to do weights.
the main purpose for weight lifting is to retain muscle mass during a calorie deficit. for someone who's fat and not doing exericse they'll lose a fair bit of muscle along with it and end up being 'skinny fat'. new people to weight lifting might make a slight amount of gains, and also strength. nothing feels better then feeling strong. it'll improve your core, your posture (if you lift right), and overhall help with body recomposition.

lift 2-3 times a week + do daily low/moderate intensity cardio (20-60min), eat plenty (but still make sure you're in a deficit).
lets say that's 2500cals while having a -500 deficit

it's a million times better than being sedentry every single day and picking at 2000cals for a -500cal deficit

[King Herald]

giblet said:

Sadly I got lazy and I've put the weight back on plus an extra few kilos so it's time to do it all over again. Trouble is I'm not a motivated person. The motivation last time round was flawed so this time I'm using the fact that I turn 30 in roughly 9 months as motivation to get into shape.

You are me! I've gone from 100+ kg down to 80 or so four times in the last fifteen years, and felt great for it.

But, I get bored of watching my diet, working out all the time, and it eventually goes back on. I'm sure some people naturally gravitate towards a certain weight, as I have to actively concentrate to keep mine down.

I used to like lifting weights, but have no interest any more. I try to go for an hours walk most evenings, as fast as I can go, which must do some good at least. Carrying 100kg along the road for an hour has to be good exercise, right?

[RobM77]

ambuletz said:

There is no reason NOT to do weights.
the main purpose for weight lifting is to retain muscle mass during a calorie deficit. for someone who's fat and not doing exericse they'll lose a fair bit of muscle along with it and end up being 'skinny fat'. new people to weight lifting might make a slight amount of gains, and also strength. nothing feels better then feeling strong. it'll improve your core, your posture (if you lift right), and overhall help with body recomposition.

lift 2-3 times a week + do daily low/moderate intensity cardio (20-60min), eat plenty (but still make sure you're in a deficit).
lets say that's 2500cals while having a -500 deficit

it's a million times better than being sedentry every single day and picking at 2000cals for a -500cal deficit

I agree, but for me it has to be the right weights and done within reason. I personally do actually find that something feels better than being strong: being agile If I could choose any body I liked it would be a diver, F1 driver or triathlete, not a rugby player or a boxer.

PH did a 'hundred pressups' challenge a few years ago, and I followed it, but by the time I got up to about 70 or 80 press-ups I had put on several kilogrammes in muscle, was around a 42" chest and it felt horrible. I couldn't wait to shed it all again. I still do weights, but I do what I can to stay lean and powerful, rather than bulky and strong. If I'm doing regular exercise and weights twice a week, this corresponds to about 70kg for me (I'm 1.77m). There's no way I want to be more than that or more than a 40" chest again.

This is of course all a matter of taste

[anonymous-user]

giblet said:

bulldong said:

The truth of the matter is that if you aren't really a motivated person, it is not going to happen if you do it by yourself. To go from belly to toned, takes fricking ages, and so you will probably start off and then think "fk, nothing is changing, I can't be arsed", and then you'll stop.

This is very true, well it is for me. I spent 5 years of occasionally going to a gym but not really putting any effort in. Never bothered with sorting my diet out. Got my arse into gear two years ago and dropped 11kg via a combination of using My Fitness Pal to log my food and exercise and actually exercising at least 3 times a week. At one point I was going to the gym twice a day for 4 days a week. Using a proper hr monitor also helped as you get a more accurate reading of how many calories you have burned.

Sadly I got lazy and I've put the weight back on plus an extra few kilos so it's time to do it all over again. Trouble is I'm not a motivated person. The motivation last time round was flawed so this time I'm using the fact that I turn 30 in roughly 9 months as motivation to get into shape.

Same as me! lol. I am 30 in July, and although I've always been fairly active and never fat, I had never really done "gym" before. Since starting properly last November, it has helped me in all areas. Business, home life (better mood, less tired, more energy generally), my sports (white water kayaking and skiing), loads of areas. However, I can assure you that if I didn't have a trainer, I wouldn't bother going after two months. Now I have got into the swing of it, I actually look forward to it.

ETA: Bonus is that I haven't really changed anything about my diet, and yet I look miles better, I am much stronger, and have basically got no worries about having a cheeseburger or an extra croissant if I want to. I actually weigh 9kg more than I did as well.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 6th December 10:27