[Samurai]

How does one lose only fat and not muscle? If there is a program like that, I'll sign up.

[avdhesh15]

Originally Posted by Samurai

How does one lose only fat and not muscle? If there is a program like that, I'll sign up.

Strength training (say thrice weekly) will help in building muscle and burning the fat.

Currently I am going weights 3x weekly and cardio 3x weekly. I have been able to slowly build my muscle mass (very slowly as I already have lot of muscle) and drastically reduced my fat. My sample routine is as follows:
Mon: Strength: Chest, Shoulders, Triceps
Tue: Cardio: Zumba / HIIT
Wed: Strength: Legs
Thu: Cardio: Zumba / LIIT
Fri: Strength: Back, Biceps
Sat: Cardio: Zumba / HIIT

My instructor wants me to do cut down the cardio but I go against him as I enjoy the zumba... the class is around 45 minutes and is a total stress buster. Also, apparently I burn 800-1200 cals!

[Samurai]

Hmm, I took a look at Zumba in youtube. I'll have to replace the Zumba with some sword kata I think. I am already set with the strength training part. Thanks.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

Just came across this new article explaining what I already thought was fairly obvious: Exercise isn't man's best friend when it comes to losing weight - diet is. http://www.vox.com/2016/6/29/1205152...calories-video

The article is somewhat flawed. It doesn't address the fact that exercising regularly, building more muscle and losing fat can and does increase your basal metabolic rate. In fact, this article links to another one that says exactly that!
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/1168525...er-weight-loss

One of the variables that affect your resting metabolic rate is the amount of lean muscle you have. At any given weight, the more muscle on your body, and the less fat, the higher your metabolic rate. That's because muscle uses a lot more energy than fat while at rest (see the graphic in section one).

So the logic is if you can build up your muscle, and reduce your body fat, you'll have a higher resting metabolism and more quickly burn the fuel in your body.

Here's the kicker. This is mentioned in point 5 under the heading "You can't really speed your metabolism up for weight loss"

Their reasoning for this? Because they think people will eat more and negate the effects of higher metabolism. Or that they wont be able to sustain the effort. That's a lot of assumptions to prove their point.

Bottomline: If there are articles sponsored by "health and fitness industry" then there are also articles sponsored by the junk food industry that tend to promote their own cause. Take everything you read with a bucketful of salt. Not literally, because that would be too much salt then

[rajushank84]

I agree the article focuses more on weight loss than fat loss, I wouldn't suggest that. But three things:

- Running or other forms of cardio don't do anything for muscle retention either. They just contribute further to a calorie deficit than eating less does. To do 100 calories worth of cardio is exactly the same as eating 100 calories less, from weight loss perspective (that's why runners typically look skinny, not muscular)

- Weight training and protein are what help with muscle retention (most of it, not all of it) while on calorie deficit, so that fat gets lost but muscle (mostly) is retained.

- The reason I posted the article is, Calorie deficit is what actually causes weight loss. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking a more active lifestyle would cause it. While that is theoretically correct, without a diet change that's typically very difficult and won't happen. Because, when we are eating say 3000 calories and our body is burning 1800 per day. If we add a couple of walks into it, climb a few stairs, we would burn say 1900 instead of 1800. We would still be in a sizeable excess, and fat loss won't happen. Even if we add say 200 worth of cardio into it (which is hard!), we are still in excess. My point here being, diet is the first thing we need to fix when trying to lose weight. Exercise comes on top of that to prevent muscle loss- not as an alternative to food portion control.

I thought I'd mention because I hear a lot of people saying (not on here but in general) that they can't control food, but they'll burn it off with exercise - and then not see any results for all that running. There's only so much you can burn off with exercise, sure if you are already eating reasonable amounts that would work. But not if you're in a bigger excess than what you burn from exercise (which typically tends to be a small amount).

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Samurai

How does one lose only fat and not muscle? If there is a program like that, I'll sign up.

all aspiring Olympian wrestlers do just that, bulk up before the competition and 2 months bring their weight down to their competition weight category, apparently they only lose water and fat content and not muscle mass.

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by avdhesh15

Strength training (say thrice weekly) will help in building muscle and burning the fat.

Currently I am going weights 3x weekly and cardio 3x weekly. I have been able to slowly build my muscle mass (very slowly as I already have lot of muscle) and drastically reduced my fat. My sample routine is as follows:
Mon: Strength: Chest, Shoulders, Triceps
Tue: Cardio: Zumba / HIIT
Wed: Strength: Legs
Thu: Cardio: Zumba / LIIT
Fri: Strength: Back, Biceps
Sat: Cardio: Zumba / HIIT

My instructor wants me to do cut down the cardio but I go against him as I enjoy the zumba... the class is around 45 minutes and is a total stress buster. Also, apparently I burn 800-1200 cals!

Wow that's intense man. Nice! I wish I could do so much. I need my rest day between workouts. Whenever I do something on my rest days, the next day's workout suffers. But then I'm getting old .

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Samurai

How does one lose only fat and not muscle? If there is a program like that, I'll sign up.

You can try to prevent muscle loss while undergoing weight loss/fat loss (=calorie deficit) by using heavy weights in all your movements.

Yup, even simple thing like walking around with 40 kg backpack will help you prevent muscle loss from legs and back. Walking around with 80 kg backup will help you prevent even more.
But one cannot say before hand how much weight loss will be fat and how much will by muscles.

Does this translate well to reps too? Say someone does body weight exercises and if he increases the reps, will he be able to prevent the muscle loss? Well you need to experiment on your self

Originally Posted by lurker

all aspiring Olympian wrestlers do just that, bulk up before the competition and 2 months bring their weight down to their competition weight category, apparently they only lose water and fat content and not muscle mass.

In the rough order of increasing effectiveness, taken by most sports folks:
1. Caffeine
2. Ephedrine
3. Clenbuterol
4. Trenbolone or chose any other non bloating, non aromatizing steroid
5. Growth Hormone
6. Iodothyronines (like T3, T2, T4 etc)
7. DNP

Water can be removed via diuretics.

[WindRide]

Not sure if this the right thread.. but this move by Kerala Govt is sure to result in forced weight control for many Keralites - Govt to tax junk food.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/cash-...s-2881662.html

Karnataka govt should follow suit, if you ask me!

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by WindRide

Not sure if this the right thread.. but this move by Kerala Govt is sure to result in forced weight control for many Keralites - Govt to tax junk food.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/cash-...s-2881662.html

Karnataka govt should follow suit, if you ask me!

I think that's a height of ignorance on the Kerala government's part.

So I could be lean and athletic, and I have to pay a "fat tax" to enjoy a pizza. While an already obese person doesn't pay it as he gorges on rice, potatoes and alcohol, going from obese to extremely obese.

Sounds like a fancy scheme to get the fast-food-eating crowd (typically upper middle class) to put some more money into the government's hands. Nothing (arguably) wrong with that, just don't call it a "fat tax". Call it a "fancy food tax".

[WindRide]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

..scheme to get the fast-food-eating crowd (typically upper middle class) to put some more money into the government's hands...

True, and every other state should implement the same

[rajushank84]

Back from my binge-fest. Gained eight pounds and 1.5 inches on my waist. It was my birthday week followed by a vacation in Hawaii. So lots of donuts, Asian food, a lot of alcohol, pizza and hamburgers.

No regrets though. Cut starts again. I think I'll need 2 months to work off the damage from 2 weeks.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

Back from my binge-fest. Gained eight pounds and 1.5 inches on my waist.

Belated happy birthday!

Agreed that we all need to cut ourselves some slack. But 1.5 inches in 2 weeks? Isn't that too much? We know we can get back. But still cant that urge be controlled better?
Because to me it looks like too much of a variation in too small a time. We should strive to attain a state where local deviations like these should not have a big effect on our global state.

Thoughts?

[avdhesh15]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

Back from my binge-fest.

Originally Posted by ampere

Thoughts?

Agreed - 1.5" and 3.5kg sounds a lot. I think it is the bloat and the water retention combined with bowel movement which is at play here. Can you state the figures after 3-4 days of detox?

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by avdhesh15

Agreed - 1.5" and 3.5kg sounds a lot. I think it is the bloat and the water retention combined with bowel movement which is at play here. Can you state the figures after 3-4 days of detox?

Originally Posted by ampere

Belated happy birthday!

Agreed that we all need to cut ourselves some slack. But 1.5 inches in 2 weeks? Isn't that too much? We know we can get back. But still cant that urge be controlled better?
Because to me it looks like too much of a variation in too small a time. We should strive to attain a state where local deviations like these should not have a big effect on our global state.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I expected that. Two of those eight pounds are gone, so its a six pound increase. Also its a one-inch not 1.5 inch increase after 2 days of low-carb (water gone). Six pounds is still a lot of fat though .

@ampere - Thanks! Actually I didn't even try to control my urges, I wanted to see how far I will go unrestricted. I wanted to see the worst that will happen. My relationship with food is complicated . My body didn't need this break at all, my mind did. Well maybe even my mind didn't "need" it, more like... felt like it.

I'm not surprised. In this vacation I did things like - go to a donut store, get a dozen donuts and finish half of that in the parking lot itself. Double hamburgers with triple cheese, that too between meals. Six or seven cocktails in a row. And then dinner. It was pretty epic.

There was also some activity - a lot of hiking and snorkeling, but that probably doesn't add up to much in terms of energy expenditure. I have no idea how much exactly.

No regrets though. I will remember this vacation fondly. About a month of intense cutting and I should be back where I was before the break.

(Off topic) Side note, food in Hawaii is awesome. A lot of Korean, Chinese, Thai and Japanese food, and Hawaiian food itself feels a lot like Asian food. Some nice Japanese fine-dining places with sushi and sashimi, and a local dish called "loco moco" which is basically a beef patty served on a bed of rice with a fried egg on top. And mai tais, oh man.

I don't know when I'm going to Hawaii again, but I'm just glad I didn't track and went all out when I was there. Next vacation, I'll cut down on the extremes (no dozen donuts in between, for example, and maybe cut down on the alcohol) but I think I'll stop tracking when I'm on vacation. Life is all about balance.