Plateau on weight loss

Have you consider CRON (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition)? That
is not possible for everyone, but if it is a possibility for you, you may
find that it is a lot easier to do something postive, i.e., restrict your
calories and upgrade your nutrition, than to try to "diet" and "burn off"
calories with high levels of exercise. Check out the website for the CR
Society at http://calorierestriction.org/. Lots of information there.

mack
austin

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi All -

Since 1/1/2004 I am down more than 130#, throught strenght, cardio and
diet.

I need to drop another 20-25# and have hit a brick wall the past 5-6
weeks.

I have varied my intensity levels of cardio and strenght - and have
varied time of day. I have also changed my modes of exercise - but I
am kind-of running out of different cardio forms at this point. I have
changed diet as well. I have changed up my strenght routine as well.
I literally am "stuck" weight-wise - down 1# one week up 1# next week.

I toyed with the idea of an HRM to focus my cardio levels in the fat
burning zone only. Is there a way to target strenght to fat burn ?

I am also toying with the idea of stopping everything completely for
one week (it will drive my stress levels througt the roof) but I am
running out of ideas.

Apart from the varibles I have changed - what else can I change ?

Any suggestions ?

[email hidden] wrote:
:> Hi All -
:>
:> Since 1/1/2004 I am down more than 130#, throught strenght, cardio
:> and diet.
:>
:> I need to drop another 20-25# and have hit a brick wall the past 5-6
:> weeks.
:>
:> I have varied my intensity levels of cardio and strenght - and have
:> varied time of day. I have also changed my modes of exercise - but I
:> am kind-of running out of different cardio forms at this point. I
:> have changed diet as well. I have changed up my strenght routine as
:> well. I literally am "stuck" weight-wise - down 1# one week up 1#
:> next week.
:>
:> I toyed with the idea of an HRM to focus my cardio levels in the fat
:> burning zone only. Is there a way to target strenght to fat burn ?
:>
:>
:> I am also toying with the idea of stopping everything completely for
:> one week (it will drive my stress levels througt the roof) but I am
:> running out of ideas.
:>
:> Apart from the varibles I have changed - what else can I change ?
:>
:> Any suggestions ?

I have tried eating less? You don't mention it other than to say you've
changed your diet.

What did you do to lose 130 lbs? Do you track your in/output in fitday.com?

[email hidden] wrote:
:> Hi All -
:>
:> Since 1/1/2004 I am down more than 130#, throught strenght, cardio
:> and diet.
:>
:> I need to drop another 20-25# and have hit a brick wall the past 5-6
:> weeks.
:>
:> I have varied my intensity levels of cardio and strenght - and have
:> varied time of day. I have also changed my modes of exercise - but I
:> am kind-of running out of different cardio forms at this point. I
:> have changed diet as well. I have changed up my strenght routine as
:> well. I literally am "stuck" weight-wise - down 1# one week up 1#
:> next week.
:>
:> I toyed with the idea of an HRM to focus my cardio levels in the fat
:> burning zone only. Is there a way to target strenght to fat burn ?
:>
:>
:> I am also toying with the idea of stopping everything completely for
:> one week (it will drive my stress levels througt the roof) but I am
:> running out of ideas.
:>
:> Apart from the varibles I have changed - what else can I change ?
:>
:> Any suggestions ?

Also, have you tried HIIT?

http://www.ruggedmag.com/index.php?type=Text&i=7&a=1

Google for more.

Quoted message said:

Hi All -

Since 1/1/2004 I am down more than 130#, throught strenght, cardio and
diet.

I need to drop another 20-25# and have hit a brick wall the past 5-6
weeks.

I have varied my intensity levels of cardio and strenght - and have
varied time of day. I have also changed my modes of exercise - but I
am kind-of running out of different cardio forms at this point. I have
changed diet as well. I have changed up my strenght routine as well.
I literally am "stuck" weight-wise - down 1# one week up 1# next week.

Changing what sort of cardio you do won't make much difference. Work a bit
harder, do it for a bit longer, and don't eat more afterwards will work.

Quoted message said:

I toyed with the idea of an HRM to focus my cardio levels in the fat
burning zone only. Is there a way to target strenght to fat burn ?

Waste of time. You'll burn more calories if you work harder; although a
smaller _percentage_ of calories burned will come from fat right away,
firstly the absolute amount of fat burned will be greater (20% of 1000 is
more than 25% of 600 sort of thing) and secondly when you next eat something
it will go to replacing the glycogen you used instead of the fat (up till
your glycogen levels are back to normal, anyway).

Alternatively, you could eat even less.

Peter

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi All -

Since 1/1/2004 I am down more than 130#, throught strenght, cardio and
diet.

I need to drop another 20-25# and have hit a brick wall the past 5-6
weeks.

I have varied my intensity levels of cardio and strenght - and have
varied time of day. I have also changed my modes of exercise - but I
am kind-of running out of different cardio forms at this point. I have
changed diet as well. I have changed up my strenght routine as well.
I literally am "stuck" weight-wise - down 1# one week up 1# next week.

I toyed with the idea of an HRM to focus my cardio levels in the fat
burning zone only. Is there a way to target strenght to fat burn ?

I am also toying with the idea of stopping everything completely for
one week (it will drive my stress levels througt the roof) but I am
running out of ideas.

Apart from the varibles I have changed - what else can I change ?

Any suggestions ?

First, congratulations on your progress! Second, don't worry about a
plateau in your weight loss - you've lost almost as much as I weigh, and
there's nothing wrong with spending some time at your current weight
before trying to lose more.

The idea of a fat burning zone, at least for some of us, is a myth,
anyway.

Cyclic dieting, like cyclic weight lifting, works well for many people.
Consider experimenting with further restricting your calories during the
week but letting yourself "refuel" on the weekends - the time periods of
under- and over-eating can vary greatly, e.g., some of us undereat every
day then have a big dinner. See http://www.kbnj.com/wd.htm for more on
this. Also Google "tkd" and "ckd" in combination with "ketosis" and see
if any of that sounds worth trying.

Taking a "back off" week every month or so is an excellent idea. I'd
still keep calories under control but I'd cut down on the training and
let yourself feel like you're recovering a bit. Just take two or three
backoff days if a week feels like too much.

Nothing works forever, and your instinct to change sounds right to me,
and I'd just consider changing to something less steady-state and see if
that works better for you.

Last but not least, consider strength/endurance training - try Bryce
Lane's board here:

http://b4.ezboard.com/btheironworks

or learn more about kettlebell lifting from my site and the links
through there. For some of us, the hybrid of strength/endurance is a
great way to train, and it often has carryover to both pure endurance
and pure strength, too.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Allen said:

[email hidden] wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I toyed with the idea of an HRM to focus my cardio levels in the fat
burning zone only. Is there a way to target strenght to fat burn ?

Waste of time.

Matter of opinion.

Quoted message said:

You'll burn more calories if you work harder; although a
smaller _percentage_ of calories burned will come from fat right away,

True.

Quoted message said:

firstly the absolute amount of fat burned will be greater (20% of 1000 is
more than 25% of 600 sort of thing)

My understanding (which, admittedly, may be deficient) is that would
be incorrect. Once you exceed your anaerobic threshold, all
additional energy comes from anaerobic energy processes. Secondly:
There is evidence to suggest that aerobic exercise above ones AT is
counter-productive to strength training, and that (sub-)AT aerobic
exercise is not. Personally, I do aerobic exercise at my AT twice a
week and HIIT once a week. I'm pretty consistently dropping about
1/2 to 1 lb. in weight and bumping 2 or more weight machines by 5-10
lbs. each week. (Some [?] of this might be newbie losses and gains,
however.)

Quoted message said:

and secondly when you next eat something
it will go to replacing the glycogen you used instead of the fat (up till
your glycogen levels are back to normal, anyway).

This is true for whatever you eat that's carbs, only, not so? Fat
will either be burned or stored as fat. Protein will either go to
building muscle and mitochondria or be converted to fat and stored.
Carbs will either be burned, stored as glycogen, or converted to
fat and stored. Again: This is my understanding, which may be
deficient.

Quoted message said:

Alternatively, you could eat even less.

He (?) could. But, depending on current exercise and nutritional
regimen, that might be counter-productive. ISTM it would be
difficult to make a recommendation to this person without knowing
more specific details about his current exercise regimen and at least
some details about his nutritional program, of which he gave none.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

Runs With Knives said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Allen said:

You'll burn more calories if you work harder;
although a smaller _percentage_ of calories burned will come from
fat right away,

True.

Quoted message said:

firstly the absolute amount of fat burned will be greater (20% of
1000 is more than 25% of 600 sort of thing)

My understanding (which, admittedly, may be deficient) is that would
be incorrect. Once you exceed your anaerobic threshold, all
additional energy comes from anaerobic energy processes.

Probably, but most of the stuff pushing 'fat burning zone' work tells you to
work around 60% MHR. AT is more like 90%; there's a big gap in there.

Quoted message said:

Secondly:
There is evidence to suggest that aerobic exercise above ones AT is
counter-productive to strength training, and that (sub-)AT aerobic
exercise is not.

Even hard aerobic work is probably going to hurt strength training, if you
do enough. However, the OP didn't say they wanted to be a strength athlete,
they said they wanted to lose weight.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I do aerobic exercise at my AT twice a
week and HIIT once a week. I'm pretty consistently dropping about
1/2 to 1 lb. in weight and bumping 2 or more weight machines by 5-10
lbs. each week. (Some [?] of this might be newbie losses and gains,
however.)

Quoted message said:

and secondly when you next eat
something it will go to replacing the glycogen you used instead of
the fat (up till your glycogen levels are back to normal, anyway).

This is true for whatever you eat that's carbs, only, not so? Fat
will either be burned or stored as fat. Protein will either go to
building muscle and mitochondria or be converted to fat and stored.
Carbs will either be burned, stored as glycogen, or converted to
fat and stored. Again: This is my understanding, which may be
deficient.

Most people's diets do involve quite a bit of carbohydrate; and IIRC
proteins can be used to replenish glycogen levels as well. OK, it doesn't
apply if the next meal is a lump of lard, but...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Alternatively, you could eat even less.

He (?) could. But, depending on current exercise and nutritional
regimen, that might be counter-productive. ISTM it would be
difficult to make a recommendation to this person without knowing
more specific details about his current exercise regimen and at least
some details about his nutritional program, of which he gave none.

Agreed. And I don't really like eating less myself; I'd prefer to exercise
more.

Peter

Quoted message said:

:> Since 1/1/2004 I am down more than 130#, throught strenght, cardio
:> and diet.
:>
:> I need to drop another 20-25# and have hit a brick wall the past 5-6
:> weeks.
:>
:> I have varied my intensity levels of cardio and strenght - and have
:> varied time of day. I have also changed my modes of exercise - but I
:> am kind-of running out of different cardio forms at this point. I
:> have changed diet as well. I have changed up my strenght routine as
:> well. I literally am "stuck" weight-wise - down 1# one week up 1#
:> next week.

As you lose weight over time, there are several factors that cause you to
burn fewer calories in the course of your day. (1) you have less body mass
to support. (2) your body gets more efficient at using the calories it
gets. (3) you are older and we burn fewer calories as we age. (4) you lose
some enthusiasm and determination and hedge here and there on
calorie-cutting.

The two most important things for you to do are (1) increase the nutritional
value of the food you eat and (2) decrease your calorie intake. Losing
weight by "burning it off" via exercise is somewhat counter-productive.
Best health and longevity benefits come when you restrict your calories by
not taking them in, rather than by burning them off.

I suggest you read the late Dr. Roy Walford's book, "Beyond the 120-Day
Diet". The new book on CRON, "The Longevity Diet", by Brian Delaney, might
be good for you, too. I have ordered it but have not yet read it.

Most of us, having been raised in an atmosphere where we are encouraged to
gorge constantly, have no idea what it really means to restrict calories.
Portions must be dramatically reduced. Lunch may have to be eliminated.
Many common foods, such as breads and whole grains, must be reduced to very
small amounts or eliminated. With all the food and food propaganda around
us, it is not an easy task. It takes a lot of self-education and then a
huge amount of will, constantly applied, to change habits. But it can be
done.

mack
austin

In article <[email hidden]>, Runs With Knives

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Allen said:

[email hidden] wrote:

firstly the absolute amount of fat burned will be greater (20% of 1000 is
more than 25% of 600 sort of thing)

My understanding (which, admittedly, may be deficient) is that would
be incorrect. Once you exceed your anaerobic threshold, all
additional energy comes from anaerobic energy processes.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, which could lead some readers to
believe there's an on/off switch in the body for the type of energy
processes in use. But there's not. You're always using all of them,
on a continuum. Exceeding your anaerobic threshold doesn't mean you
switch over to anaerobic processes for all additional demands. It
means that you are now demanding energy faster than your aerobic energy
pathways can provide it. That's all it really means. Your anaerobic
energy pathways--which are already in use--can provide energy faster
than your aerobic pathways, so they help pick up the difference. But
you are limited by lactic acid buildup, and the amount of glycogen
available (which is pretty small).

--
Denise denise dot howard at comcast dot net
ACE and AFAA certified fitness instructor
AFAA step and kickboxing certified

In article <[email hidden]>,

Runs With Knives said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Allen said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You'll burn more calories if you work harder; although a
smaller _percentage_ of calories burned will come from fat right away,

True.

Quoted message said:

firstly the absolute amount of fat burned will be greater (20% of 1000 is
more than 25% of 600 sort of thing)

My understanding (which, admittedly, may be deficient) is that would
be incorrect. Once you exceed your anaerobic threshold, all
additional energy comes from anaerobic energy processes.

So? Anything burned there becomes unavailable to be burned
aerobically or stored as fat (or as glucose). Additionally, it's a
much less efficient pathway, which is good in this context.

Seth
--
"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will Brink
Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Seth Breidbart) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Runs With Knives <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My understanding (which, admittedly, may be deficient) is that would
be incorrect. Once you exceed your anaerobic threshold, all
additional energy comes from anaerobic energy processes.

So? Anything burned there becomes unavailable to be burned
aerobically

It wasn't available to aerobic processes anyway.

Quoted message said:

or stored as fat

I didn't know stored glycogen could be recycled into stored fat.

Quoted message said:

(or as glucose).

True, consumed glycogen has to be replaced. But please note my
"secondly" point.

Quoted message said:

Additionally, it's a
much less efficient pathway, which is good in this context.

You lost me there. Which is a much less efficient pathway for
what?

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876