Weight loss advice (Plateau)

at 6'3ish, 270ish...you are close to being where you want to be.

Eat 6 to 8 times a day. Everyone should eat 6 to 8 times a day(spread out by 2 hours minimum). I have been doing this recently, and not only does it keep your metabolism hot, but it gives you so much energy. All the nutrients and calories get utilized, not wasted like when you eat a couple oversized meals a day. And you can be realistic when you eat 6-8 times a day. You can put teriyaki on the brown rice and chicken breast. You can eat out, have pasta or steak.

Being a FL guy, I would wake up every morning, have a Whey pro shake and banana, wait 45 mins, and then go jog/walk for a half hour minimum. Cool down another 15 minutes. Then go have breakfast. Egg whites, whole wheat toast, oatmeal. You just knocked off 2 meals in your day.

Other eating: Eat your greens. I take a green supplement, Amazing Grass' "Green Superfood."
Take a god multi and your Omegas. Your meals should be chicken breast, fish, esp wild caught salmon, or lean beef(just a little beef for variety), with brown rice or yams, broccoli or spinach. 2 or 3 meals could be whey shakes with some bananas or raw almonds.

Then you should hit the gym: do a 20 minute cardio warm up, and weight lift in the afternoon/evening 3 or 4 nights a week.

Its a lot, but I promise you will look and be exactly how you want to be. The most important factor for me is food prep and scheduling. Putting the time aside to cook things, and setting myself up for success with my schedule. If you don't have the time for all the exercise, try to do the eating. It will make a huge difference.

"dcafiero wrote:

best place to get it? any specific brand or anything you can suggest?

It's fairly standard stuff, more or less it is the same thing you put on your food if you like it spicy, only more concentrated.

"Sethdaddy8 wrote:

at 6'3ish, 270ish...you are close to being where you want to be.

Eat 6 to 8 times a day. Everyone should eat 6 to 8 times a day(spread out by 2 hours minimum). I have been doing this recently, and not only does it keep your metabolism hot, but it gives you so much energy. All the nutrients and calories get utilized, not wasted like when you eat a couple oversized meals a day. And you can be realistic when you eat 6-8 times a day. You can put teriyaki on the brown rice and chicken breast. You can eat out, have pasta or steak.

Being a FL guy, I would wake up every morning, have a Whey pro shake and banana, wait 45 mins, and then go jog/walk for a half hour minimum. Cool down another 15 minutes. Then go have breakfast. Egg whites, whole wheat toast, oatmeal. You just knocked off 2 meals in your day.

Other eating: Eat your greens. I take a green supplement, Amazing Grass' "Green Superfood."
Take a god multi and your Omegas. Your meals should be chicken breast, fish, esp wild caught salmon, or lean beef(just a little beef for variety), with brown rice or yams, broccoli or spinach. 2 or 3 meals could be whey shakes with some bananas or raw almonds.

Then you should hit the gym: do a 20 minute cardio warm up, and weight lift in the afternoon/evening 3 or 4 nights a week.

Its a lot, but I promise you will look and be exactly how you want to be. The most important factor for me is food prep and scheduling. Putting the time aside to cook things, and setting myself up for success with my schedule. If you don't have the time for all the exercise, try to do the eating. It will make a huge difference.

Thanks a ton for the advice, Although I love greens, I don't eat them as much as I wish I did, it just doesn't happen like I plan, So i'll look into that as well :up:

So, awesomely enough, Walked into the gym the other day, there is a sign up that says 'Try our new heavybag!'

I felt like I was a little kid on christmas morning.

ran to the aerobics room and boom, 100 lb heavy bag, I've been wailing on it ever since. Amazing cardio. I'm stoked.

"dcafiero wrote:

I started trying to lose weight drastically when I was having relationship problems 5-6 months ago or so. (As seen in the outreach forum.). I was around 6'3 or 6'4 and weighed 350 lbs, which is obviously grossly overweight, but I have a history of looking like I weigh a lot less than I really do, it has been that way since I used to play ball and had a lot more muscle mass and was in shape. I guess i'm more dense. Just for examples sake, When I was 350, I had a friend who was 315-320 and I looked near half his size, suprisingly. but thats besides the point.

Anyway, since then i've lost around 80 lbs, i'm around 270-275 now and it's been really tough, but i've been doing well. Only problem is that, up until now, the weight has just been melting off, and now its just stopped. I'll lose 2, gain 3, lose 1 gain 2, etc. I haven't really changed what i'm doing, I just kind of feel like I've reached a plateau and i'm not sure what the best route is to get over the hill.

I've changed what I eat from complete garbage to generally healthier foods, more fruits and vegetables, more whole wheats and whole grains, i drink at minimum 4-5 bottles of water a day and dont drink much else unless its something with zero calories (excluding alcohol on the weekends, even then its not too much), and i've been holding myself to around 1200-1400 calories a day. I try to go to the gym around 4-5 days a week, and on average I probably make it around 3 days a week, which will involve like 20-30 minutes or so of cardio. (at least 1-2.5 miles or so depending on the machine). and mostly upper body oriented machines/free weights, with some legs here and there. Nothing extreme, atleast not yet.

I can be more specific if needed, but I guess I'm just looking for advice on what the best direction would be to get over the plateau i've hit, should i do something different with my diet? do something more specific in or out of the gym? target different areas of my body? or will the ceiling just lift away at some point? I've never really had to deal with this, so i'm not sure. In high school, for me atleast, it was just, "Lift big get big", and it worked. But I was much more fit then, lol.

NOTE: I'm going to just straight up tell you the truth. Don't be offended. I'm probably one of the few who actually knows what I'm talking about here. No offense to anyone offering you advice, but seriously... I don't mean to sound like a cocky prick, but I'm shaking my head in disbelief at this **** I'm reading in this thread.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html
You need to stop dieting for a bit. Your metabolism has adapated to lower calorie intact. Long story short (read the article for a better understanding), your hormone out put changes based on how many calories you're consuming. You need to up-regulate them by eating your baseline/maintenance calorie levels.

Also, you're eating a disgusting amount of calories. You're 6'3", 275lbs, and are eating 1200-1400 calories a day? Obviously, being obese (30% body fat or more) losing the fat rapidly isn't going to hurt you too much. Your body wants to get into a more normal range and not a single **** will be given. But now that you're likely (or close to) being out of obese territory, it's time to get serious about your diet. And that means eating like a grown man and not a 14 year old girl. Because seriously, 1400 calories is eating disorder range for a guy your size. And you're potentially doing long term metabolic harm if you continue eating at such a ridiculous level. A plateau is another way of saying "my hormones have shifted for the worse." Don't dig yourself a deeper hole.

Losing anymore than 2lbs per week, for someone not obese, is dangerous. And really stupid. Everyone wants to look great naked, aint no one wanna do it the right way. Discipline and patience are paramount for long term success. Anyone who says differently, is a moron.

EDIT: Also, don't be a scale watcher. You're causing yourself stress for no reason. Fat loss isn't linear. If you eat 1400 calories a day (ugh, please stop) and gain a 1lb on the scale, do you really think you gained fat? The answer is no. Fat loss occurs when the body tells it to, not on your weekly weighing schedule. And the amount of things that cause weight gain (glycogen, carbs, sodium intake, etc...) are too ridiculous to keep track of. Try weighing yourself every 3 days without judgement. Just the right the number down. In time, you'll see the scale bounce all over, but you'll also see results.

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm
Just a quick calculator to look at. It's an estimate of your daily needs. You should also post your macros (carbs, fats, and proteins) you eat per day. That would be really helpful.

The first thing you need to do is reverse diet/diet break. EDIT: These won't embed???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr0atp9Vo_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkxLLB1iVjY

I highly recommend you subscribe to this guy Jason (Ice cream fitness FTW). I actually post with him on the same forum. Highly reputable and extremely helpful. (And then watch his other videos). He's a "science motherf*cker" within the community and trains like a ****ing animal. Knows his stuff. Also, look for his videos on macros to get rid of your misconceptions about "healthy" dieting. Healthy is a relative term that has more to do with macros/micros and calories than it does the name/look of a food. For example, Pizza is just as healthy as an apple, in the right context. That context being, you can eat pizza/burgers/junk food as long as it doesn't make up the bulk of your diet and put you over your caloric limit.

First, resistance training is of primary importance in dieting. Far more important than cardio. re-read that last part. Do it again. One more time. Good. As far as your training goes, I'm sad to see you want to do "mainly" upper body work. As the lower body work, is far more beneficial. Why? Your muscles in your legs are bigger and stronger for a reason. You use them everyday. Your lower body influences the upper body's growth. It all starts from the bottom up. A great lower body workout is essential to overall muscle growth. Squats are 100% a staple of any legitimate workout. Period. End of story. They're known as the king of lifts for a reason. Complete leg work, core building, back, and some upper body work are all inclusive of this lift. The second best is the dead lift. The deadlift is also known as the king of all lifts. Confused? Some think squats are better because they can be done in high volume. Deadlifts cannot because they stress the central nervous system and if done too frequently, can cause some issues. however, If done 1x per week (5 reps max) there is no other workout that hits lower and upper body muscles like this lift does. It's truly a full body workout, head to toe. If interested, I'll explain more about working out and what I think you should do (A proven workout, not something ridiculous someone made up at the gym, on the spot lulz).

Good luck with your weight loss goals of 2013. http://www.thephins.com/forums/showthread.php?70593-Calorie-Deficit-is-King-%96-A-simple-guide-to-cutting-fat My thread i created a while back, that no one really cared too much about. Science is more of a pain in the ass than old wives tales, apparently.

"dcafiero wrote:

Fair enough, i'll try to stick to 5 meals a day and maybe bump up my calorie intake another 300-400 temporarily and see where that goes.

The number of meals per day has zero influence on gaining weight or losing weight. You can have as many meals or as few as you wish and get the same exact results. The only factors that matter (that you have control of) is calories and macros consumed.

As an example, I do Intermittent Fasting (http://www.leangains.com/). I fast for 16 hours a day and eat all of my calories within an 8 hour window.

"byroan wrote:

Try increasing the amount of time you're doing the cardio but also the intensity of your workout. If you're on a treadmill with an incline, use it. You've worked hard to get where you're at but you'll need to work harder to keep it going.

Are you familiar with the expression, "work smarter, not harder?" Calories in and calories out. As long as his caloric deficit is on point, cardio isn't even needed.

"DePhinistr8 wrote:

Yeah they call that zig-zag dieting. Like 800 one day, 2000 the next, then 1200, then 1500, then 800....basically you go all over the place so your metabolism never gets into a rhythm. I personally have never done that, but I've read it can be very helpful.

Zig zag dieting doesn't really do anything. Your body doesn't change it's hormonal output based on one day. That's what controls metabolism. Eating more or less on day and more or less on another will have negligible results.

"lmeister3 wrote:

Murder the carbs in your diet with extreme prejudice.

Wrong. Carbs will not influence fatloss loss in anyway, shape, or form, unless you have a confirmed metabolic disorder, like diabetes. The only thing eliminating carbs will do is cause you to lose water weight. And get constipation. Neither are ideal.

The premise of burning more than your intake is obvious.

But eating 4-5 small meals a day helps your metabolism burn more calories than fasting.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

The premise of burning more than your intake is obvious.

But eating 4-5 small meals a day helps your metabolism burn more calories than fasting.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

lulz

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9504318
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085170
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17228037
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15640455
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578205

Do you even science, brah?

Seriously, I will never say something about nutrition I can't back up with scientific, peer reviewed, research. I know my ****. Meal frequency is irrelevant. Eat as many or few as you please.

Nutrition is one of those things that are based on theory not fact. Why do you think we have 10,000 different miracle diets.

Same with AM cardio on an empty stomach, all depends on who you ask and wich article you want to copy-paste.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

Nutrition is one of those things that are based on theory not fact.

brb the laws of physics are theory! Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

Why do you think we have 10,000 different miracle diets.

Because a fool and his money are easily parted. The health industry is a multi billion dollar a year enterprise. Hard to sell ab machines, dumbass diet books, and any other ridiculous weight loss tool(s) with scientific truth. Who would buy an ab glider if the truth is (and it is...) that abs are largely a product of body fat %? No one... Who would buy a book about eating carb free if the truth is, energy in vs. energy out (the "theory" of physics, apparently) is really the solution, and cutting out carbs (4 calories per gram...) is simply a by product of eating less energy? No one... So let's complicate the rules, add in some extra steps, and sell ****!

Same with AM cardio on an empty stomach, all depends on who you ask and wich article you want to copy-paste.

Also bull****, fasted cardio has no impact on more or less fat loss. Because of something called the energy balance equation. Which is based on the "theory" of physics. This is why in research, we use peer reviewed research. To eliminate the bull**** that others try and pass off as "science."

Sorry bro, you can't win this argument. Fact is fact.

"Clark Kent wrote:

lulz

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9504318
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085170
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17228037
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15640455
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578205

Do you even science, brah?

Seriously, I will never say something about nutrition I can't back up with scientific, peer reviewed, research. I know my ****. Meal frequency is irrelevant. Eat as many or few as you please.

Pfft, everyone's body reacts differently to changes in diet and increases in exercise, this is one of the reasons why it is better to know how one's body reacts to those things to read a "Study".

Wait long enough, and a different study will contradict whatever the accepted wisdom was for that day.

As an example, a SEAL in training does things that supposedly are the wrong things to do, extreme physical activities, lack of sleep, etc, and yet they are among the most highly condition population on the planet.

I've read conflicting articles on everything you have stated. Am I saying you're wrong? Not at all.

The only FACT is, nobody knows who is right.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

I've read conflicting articles on everything you have stated. Am I saying you're wrong? Not at all.

The only FACT is, nobody knows who is right.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

Sort of, it is provable that reducing caloric intake and increasing physical activity will reduce weight

Question here is more about maximizing an approach

"padre31 wrote:

Sort of, it is provable that reducing caloric intake and increasing physical activity will reduce weight

Question here is more about maximizing an approach

I agree. It's Superman im disagreeing with.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

"padre31 wrote:

Pfft, everyone's body reacts differently to changes in diet and increases in exercise, this is one of the reasons why it is better to know how one's body reacts to those things to read a "Study".

Wait long enough, and a different study will contradict whatever the accepted wisdom was for that day.

As an example, a SEAL in training does things that supposedly are the wrong things to do, extreme physical activities, lack of sleep, etc, and yet they are among the most highly condition population on the planet.

Right. But there's a reason for that and it's not optimal health. In fact, the military usually produces interesting material on fitness stuff. They can push limits and boundaries that researches can't/won't. I read an awesome article about muscle loss from the military not too long ago. Should help influence further research.

As far as everybody reacts differently... To a degree yes. Not the extreme you're thinking of.

Lyle McDonald wrote:

This usually follows them explaining why the good advice that others have used can’t possibly work for them. They are also usually the ones making no progress who won’t even consider trying something else. THEY. ARE. DIFFERENT. Diets play on this of course, hiding the simple fact that they are causing you to eat less in a complicated pseudoscience of macronutrient ratios and such. But there is never any magic to be had when you look at these books critically: it all comes down to making the person eat less, exercise more, or both. It’s just hidden in complex schemes and pseudo-physiology.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

I've read conflicting articles on everything you have stated. Am I saying you're wrong? Not at all.

The only FACT is, nobody knows who is right.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

Fair enough. That said, allow me to clarify the issue at hand. The articles that you've read about fasted cardio being better for fat loss? They're wrong. Articles you've read that suggest meal frequency matter? They're wrong. I'm sure there's a bunch of **** you've heard that's wrong. Which is I posted in this thread. OP had a problem, he needed help, I've laid out what needs to be done to fix the problem. Along the way, I also want to correct the obvious (to me it's obvious, I'm someone who spends way too much time caring about this ****, on an internet forum no less) untruths that were being posted.

If there's anything I've posted you disagree with, OK. You can disagree all you want to. But let me be super(man) clear. What I'm posting is fact, based on proven results, backed by scientific peer reviewed research. There is no flip side to that. If something can be proven, it's not an opinion. We're not talking Bowe vs. Jennings vs. Wallace here.

"Clark Kent wrote:

Right. But there's a reason for that and it's not optimal health. In fact, the military usually produces interesting material on fitness stuff. They can push limits and boundaries that researches can't/won't. I read an awesome article about muscle loss from the military not too long ago. Should help influence further research.

As far as everybody reacts differently... To a degree yes. Not the extreme you're thinking of.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html

Of course, the gentleman does not know me, or that I've done this since 1990 or so, an amorphous link on in the internet trumps my own personal knowledge..

Uhm, yeah.

Been around long enough to recall when the same NIH was touting low fat/high carb diets as the most effective, only to watch that shift to the sort of high protein low carb intake scale of things, wait long enough and the rabbit will circle around again back where it was when it started.

Point being this, nothing trumps personal knowledge of one's own body and how it reacts to what amounts to purposely induced stress on it.

Do agree with:

-Don't be a slave to the scale, it is merely a tool for learning how one's body reacts..over time, it shows a trend.

-Your 8 hr window, this is from personal experience

Where I think conventional advice falls down a bit:

-Think more fiber is needed in diets, especially in the form of nuts
-Think some react better to a higher carb to protein ratio than others do
-A calorie may be a calorie, think eating late at night is a mistake, one eats for energy, there is little need to eat before going to sleep
-Also think people do not work out enough, the human body is capable of amazing things but few push to do them

"padre31 wrote:

Of course, the gentleman does not know me, or that I've done this since 1990 or so, an amorphous link on in the internet trumps my own personal knowledge..

Uhm, yeah.

Been around long enough to recall when the same NIH was touting low fat/high carb diets as the most effective, only to watch that shift to the sort of high protein low carb intake scale of things, wait long enough and the rabbit will circle around again back where it was when it started.

Point being this, nothing trumps personal knowledge of one's own body and how it reacts to what amounts to purposely induced stress on it.

That guy happens to be Lyle McDonald, a nutritional expert. Considered one of the three smartest men out there on the subject, by nutritionalists, bodybuilders, and the fitness community as a whole. He does know more than you. Anecdotal evidence is invalid. You have no idea what to look for, pay attention to, rigorous methodology, etc... to be able to justify any conclusion of "I know myself better than science knows me." You don't. Really, it's the ego talking to suggest otherwise.

And what you're saying about cycles is true... Someone writes a book, dumbasses will read it, and then tout it as the right way, and there will be a shift in how we as a society look at nutrition.

However, in reality, the right way has never shifted or cycled. It's always been truth. Dr. Atkins, Gary Taubes, etc... are fads. They're not legitimate members of the nutritional research community. Their opinions may matter to the less educated, but not to anyone who follows closely. And in this world, there is no cycle. Certainly research evolves, different methodology is used, but there are no drastic changes. Small details at most. Nothing substantial. No game changers. We're bound by the laws of physics. If anyone has an issue with that, take it with the imaginary man in the sky. See if he listens.

I've always said, if it works for you, do it. If you don't want to eat carbs, don't eat them. If you want to eat 6 times a day, OK. Have at it. But when someone passes it off as a factual, when (legitimate)research has dictated otherwise, it should be called out.

"padre31 wrote:

Do agree with:

-Don't be a slave to the scale, it is merely a tool for learning how one's body reacts..over time, it shows a trend.

-Your 8 hr window, this is from personal experience

Where I think conventional advice falls down a bit:

-Think more fiber is needed in diets, especially in the form of nuts
-Think some react better to a higher carb to protein ratio than others do
-A calorie may be a calorie, think eating late at night is a mistake, one eats for energy, there is little need to eat before going to sleep
-Also think people do not work out enough, the human body is capable of amazing things but few push to do them

My 8 hour window was just an example. It is personal preference 100%. It doesn't matter when you eat during the day or how many meals. I'm not trying to say it's better or more efficient, it's not proven to be at all (not yet, we'll see what UCLA's research looks like soon enough).

The late night eating is also bull****. Energy balance equation (AKA physics). Your body is in a constant state of flux of storing and burning fat. Eating at a specific time is irrelevant. Energy will be stored and used as needed. If it all adds up over a surplus, you'll store more fat for that period based on caloric consumption. If it's a deficit, you'll burn more fat for that period of caloric consumption.

I'm not trying to pass of anything as the 'end-all-be-all' fact, I'm just supplying information that has worked for me and dozens of people whom I've helped along the way; which may or may yield the same results for everyone. If it helps, great, if not, at least we'll know that's not to proper course. YMMV

"Clark Kent wrote:

My 8 hour window was just an example. It is personal preference 100%. It doesn't matter when you eat during the day or how many meals. I'm not trying to say it's better or more efficient, it's not proven to be at all (not yet, we'll see what UCLA's research looks like soon enough).

The late night eating is also bull****. Energy balance equation (AKA physics). Your body is in a constant state of flux of storing and burning fat. Eating at a specific time is irrelevant. Energy will be stored and used as needed. If it all adds up over a surplus, you'll store more fat for that period based on caloric consumption. If it's a deficit, you'll burn more fat for that period of caloric consumption.

Disagree, simply b/c consuming food, any food, will spike your blood sugar to some degree, to eat then go to bed would then mean you've spiked your blood sugar only to sleep on it.

"padre31 wrote:

Disagree, simply b/c consuming food, any food, will spike your blood sugar to some degree, to eat then go to bed would then mean you've spiked your blood sugar only to sleep on it.

So? Does that undo the energy output you've contributed prior? No. eating (at night or any other time) will simple be an issue of calories consumed. If eating that late night snack pushes you over a deficit and into a surplus, the yeah. It was a mistake.

Martin Berkhan wrote:

Dietary epidemiology commonly find associations between certain meal patterns and higher BMI / body fatness. However, this association can solely be attributed to lifestyle-related factors and eating behaviors; snacking in front of the TV in the evening, making poor food choices in general, and so forth. People who eat more in the evening simply eat more calories, which explains why they weigh more.

http://www.leangains.com/2011/06/is-late-night-eating-better-for-fat.html

Chalk full of studies with Martin's discussion and commentary. I'll provide sooo much more at your request, if interested.