Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004
Gym
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mike - 20 Mar 2004 19:02 GMT <vent on> So I took the leap and joined a gym to help lose some weight. I've been on/off/on/off for so long that I really need to kickstart myself again with exercise and Atkins.
During the 'fitness test', the weight trainer insisted how bad Atkins is for you, that you are going to end up with permanent organ damage, etc. He studied it in school :).
Not wanting an argument I just said, OK, I'll hear your side of what I should do. He recommended 6 meals a day with a balance of carbs, proteins, and minimum of fat.
He then took my current weight, my body fat % and my blood pressure. Of course he was late arriving so I had been on a bike and the stairclimber for 20 minutes. My BP was a bit high. Anyway, that was basically the 'fit-test'. What a waste of time, he didn't even setup an exercise program or show me a single piece of equipment.
If anyone has a spot to start for weight training, I'd appreciate it. The gym is useless unless you pay $220 for four training sessions every two months. </vent off>
So anyway, to the group, my question is this. My current weight is 237, my body fat is 30.9%, fat weight = 73lbs, so what should my target weight be? If I don't lose any muscle, 0% body fat would be 164. I'm thinking about 185. Is this realistic? I've always been heavy, I've always played sports, I've been to the gym before and I can bench press my weight (at least last year at 225).
Thanks for any info. Mike 237/237/??
Roger Zoul - 20 Mar 2004 19:21 GMT :: <vent on> :: So I took the leap and joined a gym to help lose some weight. I've [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: The gym is useless unless you pay $220 for four training sessions :: every two months. http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
:: </vent off> :: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: heavy, I've always played sports, I've been to the gym before and I :: can bench press my weight (at least last year at 225). How tall are you? I'm not sure I'd believe that bodyfat number -- it could be low or high. If I were you, I'd pick my target weight based on what I see in the mirror when naked. Sure, you can use 185 for now, but once you get close to that number, just look in the mirror and be honest with yourself. if you can see what you think is unslightly fat, then keep going. If you think you look fine, then you've reached your goal. Either way, you'll likely be better off for the long term.
carla - 21 Mar 2004 16:02 GMT > :: If anyone has a spot to start for weight training, I'd appreciate it. > :: The gym is useless unless you pay $220 for four training sessions > :: every two months. > > http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html Just what I was going to say. :-) Mike, the site is directed primarily at women, but since one of the author's main points is that women don't need to train differently from men, the advice and instruction she offers is great for any beginner.
carla
JC Der Koenig - 20 Mar 2004 19:21 GMT http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
> <vent on> > So I took the leap and joined a gym to help lose some weight. I've [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Mike > 237/237/?? The Queen of Cans and Jars - 20 Mar 2004 19:40 GMT > So anyway, to the group, my question is this. My current weight is > 237, my body fat is 30.9%, fat weight = 73lbs, so what should my > target weight be? If I don't lose any muscle, 0% body fat would be > 164. I'm thinking about 185. Is this realistic? I've always been > heavy, I've always played sports, I've been to the gym before and I > can bench press my weight (at least last year at 225). 0% bodyfat?
what are you smoking? no one, but no one, has 0% bodyfat.
Roger Zoul - 20 Mar 2004 20:08 GMT :: Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: :: what are you smoking? no one, but no one, has 0% bodyfat. That's why he's thinking about 185 -- about 21 lbs of fat.
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 20 Mar 2004 21:02 GMT > :: Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: > :: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's why he's thinking about 185 -- about 21 lbs of fat. i got that, but why would anyone in their right mind even reference ZERO percent bodyfat? it doesn't exist. to use it as a point of reference for one's goals is just kooky.
Roger Zoul - 20 Mar 2004 21:16 GMT :: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: ZERO percent bodyfat? it doesn't exist. to use it as a point of :: reference for one's goals is just kooky. Well, if you remove fat, the rest is LBM...so it is reasonable to figure what you should weigh by adding LBM and fat. So 0% bf = LBM.
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 21 Mar 2004 04:15 GMT > :: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > :: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Well, if you remove fat, the rest is LBM...so it is reasonable to figure > what you should weigh by adding LBM and fat. So 0% bf = LBM. i'm no scientist, but i'm pretty sure there's more to the body that fat and lean body mass. i mean, we've got bones and stuff, right? connective tissue? organs?
in any case, not even professional athletes have 0% bodyfat. because it is an impossible state to achieve, to use it as a point of reference is, i reiterate, kooky.
TavliGal - 21 Mar 2004 06:30 GMT >> Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> fat and lean body mass. i mean, we've got bones and stuff, right? >> connective tissue? organs? Lean Body Mass = everything except water and fat. Your organs and bones are included in the LBM. hth :)
Monica
 Signature Started 01/20/04 362/328.2/250 ________________________________________________________ "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack. - Harry Emerson Fosdick
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 21 Mar 2004 07:01 GMT > >> Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > included in the LBM. > hth :) like i said, i'm no scientist :)
carla - 21 Mar 2004 16:04 GMT > > :: Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: > > :: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > percent bodyfat? it doesn't exist. to use it as a point of reference > for one's goals is just kooky. No, I understand what he's doing, Queen - I do the same thing to think about what my ultimate goal might be in pounds. As in, right now my body fat percentage is such and such, so my lean body mass is X, and if I'm aiming for 20% body fat I will therefore ultimately weigh X * 1.2, assuming no change in LBM. It's not an unreasonable way to get an estimate of one's goal weight. It doesn't mean that one is ever aiming for 0% body fat.
carla
DJ Delorie - 21 Mar 2004 16:58 GMT > for 20% body fat I will therefore ultimately weigh X * 1.2, assuming no Just because I'm a math geek, I need to comment on this. If you want to be B percent body fat, and your LBM is X, you need to weigh X/(1-B) total to get there. Or, divide your LBM by percent LBM - For example, my LBM is 130. For 15%bf I'd need to weigh 130/(1-0.15) = 153. 1.2x LBM works out to 17%bf. 20%bf is 1.25x, an easier goal.
JC Der Koenig - 21 Mar 2004 17:05 GMT > > for 20% body fat I will therefore ultimately weigh X * 1.2, assuming no > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my LBM is 130. For 15%bf I'd need to weigh 130/(1-0.15) = 153. 1.2x > LBM works out to 17%bf. 20%bf is 1.25x, an easier goal. That's a nice theoretical exercise, but your LBM is not static. This is a good reason for the mirror to be a reality check.
carla - 22 Mar 2004 14:12 GMT > > for 20% body fat I will therefore ultimately weigh X * 1.2, assuming no > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my LBM is 130. For 15%bf I'd need to weigh 130/(1-0.15) = 153. 1.2x > LBM works out to 17%bf. 20%bf is 1.25x, an easier goal. Yes, you're right, with the unstated assumption that the LBM didn't change during the fat loss process. I oversimplified, because my point was that I understood why the OP had reference 0% bodyfat. Thanks for the correction.
carla
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 21 Mar 2004 17:10 GMT > > > :: Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > :: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > change in LBM. It's not an unreasonable way to get an estimate of one's > goal weight. It doesn't mean that one is ever aiming for 0% body fat. i never thought it was his goal. i think it's slightly insane to use an impossible state as a point of reference.
Roger Zoul - 21 Mar 2004 17:25 GMT :: carla <cmtlevy@yahoo.com> wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] :: i never thought it was his goal. i think it's slightly insane to :: use an impossible state as a point of reference. I would agree if that were a point of reference for his true weight. However, it is a point of reference for LBM.
carla - 22 Mar 2004 14:13 GMT > > > > :: Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > :: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > i never thought it was his goal. i think it's slightly insane to use an > impossible state as a point of reference. *shrug* for the reasons I stated above (subject to DJ's correction) I don't think there's anything insane about it.
carla
CarbAddict - 20 Mar 2004 21:06 GMT >> Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> been to the gym before and I can bench press my >> weight (at least last year at 225).
> From: The Queen of Cans and Jars (Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:40:51 GMT) > MsgId: <1gay09b.9n20n7xicgz1N%dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> > > 0% bodyfat? > > what are you smoking? no one, but no one, has 0% bodyfat. It takes a special person to insult someone over something he didn't even say. Perhaps you have more than a passing interest in what he's smoking.
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 20 Mar 2004 21:07 GMT > >> Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It takes a special person to insult someone over something he didn't even > say. Perhaps you have more than a passing interest in what he's smoking. which part of "If I don't lose any muscle, 0% body fat would be 164." did you not catch?
CarbAddict - 21 Mar 2004 02:35 GMT >>>> Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>> been to the gym before and I can bench press my >>>> weight (at least last year at 225).
>>> From: The Queen of Cans and Jars (Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:40:51 GMT) >>> MsgId: <1gay09b.9n20n7xicgz1N%dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> >>> >>> 0% bodyfat? >>> >>> what are you smoking? no one, but no one, has 0% bodyfat.
>> CarbAddict <CarbAddict@atkins.invalid> wrote: >> >> It takes a special person to insult someone over something he didn't even >> say. Perhaps you have more than a passing interest in what he's smoking.
> From: The Queen of Cans and Jars (Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:07:31 GMT) > MsgId: <1gay4bc.18ls0hr1728n5uN%dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> > > which part of "If I don't lose any muscle, 0% body fat would be 164." > did you not catch? The part where he said "... and I want 0% body fat." Everybody else missed it too, which was easy to do because he never said it. The fact that you fixated on something ("0%") he used only as a reference point -- and it was as valid a reference point as any -- is your issue. It does not make him kooky or anything else. What is kooky is your need to insult people as your first interaction with them.
JC Der Koenig - 21 Mar 2004 02:54 GMT > >>>> Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > kooky or anything else. What is kooky is your need to insult people as your > first interaction with them. What's kooky about that?
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 21 Mar 2004 04:12 GMT > >>>> Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > kooky or anything else. What is kooky is your need to insult people as your > first interaction with them. i see. you lack reading comprehension skills. carry on!
LCer09 - 21 Mar 2004 08:02 GMT
>> The part where he said "... and I want 0% body fat." Everybody else missed >> it too, which was easy to do because he never said it. The fact that you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >i see. you lack reading comprehension skills. carry on! Hardly. 0% was a reference for where to add fat from. Nothing more or less. Everyone else on the planet got that.
LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 5'7" 265/219/140 & hubby- 6' 310/238/180
Paper - 22 Mar 2004 11:34 GMT >> >>>> Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >i see. you lack reading comprehension skills. carry on! You would be the expert on that. How hard can it be to say 'ooops. I missed the point'? Get over yerself fer gawd's sake.
DJ Delorie - 20 Mar 2004 20:40 GMT > He recommended 6 meals a day with a balance of carbs, proteins, and > minimum of fat. Warning, that's a muscle building diet. If you're training to limit losses during dieting, you'll need something different. Oh wait - you alread have something different ;-)
> He then took my ... body fat % That was probably worth the aggravation.
> So anyway, to the group, my question is this. My current weight is > 237, my body fat is 30.9%, fat weight = 73lbs, so what should my > target weight be? If I don't lose any muscle, 0% body fat would be > 164. I'm thinking about 185. Is this realistic? I've always been > heavy, I've always played sports, I've been to the gym before and I > can bench press my weight (at least last year at 225). If your body obeyed the simplistic mathematical models we use, it's like this: 25% of the weight you lose is LBM (LBM is not all muscle; expect to lose some). So, for 73lbs fat there's 24lbs LBM that goes with it, leaving you with 140 lbs LBM if you diet down to zero fat (yeah, right). Working up to 15%bf (ideal for men) from that gives you 175lbs (149 lbm, 26 fat).
I don't know if that's realistic or not, but that's what you get for using mathematical models.
Roger Zoul - 20 Mar 2004 21:03 GMT :: Mike <weightloss99a@yahoo.com> writes: ::: He recommended 6 meals a day with a balance of carbs, proteins, and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] :: (yeah, right). Working up to 15%bf (ideal for men) from that gives :: you 175lbs (149 lbm, 26 fat). 25% of 73 = 18.25 lbs LBM. So that 73+18=91lbs, or about 146 lbs LBM. Still, I think it's all pointless. Looking in the mirror is good enough.
DJ Delorie - 20 Mar 2004 21:57 GMT > 25% of 73 = 18.25 lbs LBM. So that 73+18=91lbs, or about 146 lbs LBM. No, 25% of the weight you lose is LBM. The 73lbs of fat is the other 75%. Not that I'm arguing that my model is better, that's just the one I used.
> Still, I think it's all pointless. Looking in the mirror is good enough. Yeah, that too ;-)
Roger Zoul - 20 Mar 2004 22:42 GMT :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes: ::: 25% of 73 = 18.25 lbs LBM. So that 73+18=91lbs, or about 146 lbs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: 75%. Not that I'm arguing that my model is better, that's just the :: one I used. Oh, is that your model? Interesting. What did you based it on?
::: Still, I think it's all pointless. Looking in the mirror is good ::: enough. :: :: Yeah, that too ;-) DJ Delorie - 21 Mar 2004 01:10 GMT > :: No, 25% of the weight you lose is LBM. The 73lbs of fat is the other > :: 75%. Not that I'm arguing that my model is better, that's just the > :: one I used. > > Oh, is that your model? Interesting. What did you based it on? It was just the number that stumbled into my head when I thought about the problem (i.e. I thought I read that somewhere). It varies a lot depending on current %bf, caloric deficit, diet type, exercise regimen, etc.
Can't find any specific references at the moment.
Mike - 20 Mar 2004 21:05 GMT Thanks.
Roger asked earlier my height. I'm only 5'-8" but I'm going to shoot for 185 initially and then drop more if I need to. The instructor was 178 and was in phenominal shape. I'd guess he was 5'11" or so.
>> He recommended 6 meals a day with a balance of carbs, proteins, and >> minimum of fat. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >I don't know if that's realistic or not, but that's what you get for >using mathematical models. Jean M. - 20 Mar 2004 21:19 GMT >So anyway, to the group, my question is this. My current weight is >237, my body fat is 30.9%, fat weight = 73lbs, so what should my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Mike >237/237/?? I read somewhere yesterday that 1.20 - 1.25% of the no fat weight is ideal. I can't tell you how this was decided or how near to being good it is.
-- Jean M. New food of the week: water chestnuts
Do away with flipfloping to e-mail.
DJ Delorie - 20 Mar 2004 21:59 GMT > I read somewhere yesterday that 1.20 - 1.25% of the no fat weight is > ideal. I can't tell you how this was decided or how near to being good > it is. Ideal is 15%bf for men, 22%bf for women. Your number is between those (1.17x to 1.28x), so it sounds right.
carla - 21 Mar 2004 16:06 GMT > I read somewhere yesterday that 1.20 - 1.25% of the no fat weight is > ideal. I can't tell you how this was decided or how near to being good > it is. That's probably a good range for women, but in men it should be a little lower.
carla
Jean M. - 21 Mar 2004 19:17 GMT >> I read somewhere yesterday that 1.20 - 1.25% of the no fat weight is >> ideal. I can't tell you how this was decided or how near to being good [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >carla You are right, Carla. I was reading a women's site.
-- Jean M. New food of the week: water chestnuts
Do away with flipfloping to e-mail.
The Windsors - 21 Mar 2004 04:14 GMT Mike: this is a good place to start http://www.bodyforlife.com/bfcalc.shtml This guy really knows his stuff.
RRzVRR - 21 Mar 2004 20:57 GMT > He then took my current weight, my body fat % and my blood pressure. > Of course he was late arriving so I had been on a bike and the > stairclimber for 20 minutes. My BP was a bit high. Anyway, that was > basically the 'fit-test'. What a waste of time, he didn't even setup > an exercise program or show me a single piece of equipment. I hope that he didn't do a caliper BF% test on you after you had been exercising for 20 minutes, it could effect your skins thickness and therefore give a higher BF% result.
> So anyway, to the group, my question is this. My current weight is > 237, my body fat is 30.9%, fat weight = 73lbs, so what should my > target weight be? If I don't lose any muscle, 0% body fat would be > 164. I'm thinking about 185. Is this realistic? I've always been > heavy, I've always played sports, I've been to the gym before and I > can bench press my weight (at least last year at 225). Something to help you consider where you want end up as a BF% goal: for men 26%+ is considered obese, acceptable is between 18-25%, fit between 14-17%, athletic between 6-13%, and essential between 2-4%. I go by the American Council on Exercise, other sources use just slightly different numbers.
At 185 its hard to say what you're BF% might be. Its dependent upon how you train and eat. You could be anywhere from 20% to 10% BF at 185.
I think that you're going to be losing a small amount of muscle with your fat loss since you're not new to WT. I would suggest that you might want to set two goals. The first would be to see were you're BF% is at when you hit 200lbs. I would hope that you wouldn't be any higher than 23% (that would be were your LBM loss to total loss would be under a 25%). If you're % is higher then you might want to rethink diet and exercise plan to keep as much LBM as possible. At 23% you'll also get you into an acceptable range and that will let you decide just how aggressive you want to work toward a lower BF%. Setting number goals aren't realistic at the start if you don't know how much you're willing to work toward them.
Than I would suggest that you consider test your BF% every 10lbs to see where you're going and if you're losing too much LBM then to do what you can to build it back up again without adding too much fat. From my point of view its better to have more muscle mass than to see a scale number go down because in the end if you're at a low scale number but are unable to maintain that eating level because you've lost so much muscle mass your in worse shape than when you started.
And who knows, maybe you're lucky and blessed and you might be able to add some LBM, which will make the whole process easier.
Good luck.
 Signature Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata
Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm
|
|
|