Getting my Fat ass in shape help

[Meat_Lovers_Pizza]

So I need to get back into shape.

I need info on supplements and good routines..

I'm currently about 205, I'd like to get back down to 180-190 and cut up.

what do?

[BB6 SwAg]

Google is your friend. LOW carbs, high protien. Just need a good multi vitiman and protien powder....

[mkbvictory]

I say stop eating after 8pm, eat 5 small meals a day, no and I mean NO soda, cut back on fast food!

[B-18 turbocivic]

Try P90X it works, it is alot of work though not for the weak of heart. After the first couple of weeks you won't be as sore, also if you don't like yoga you won't like the P90X yoga either. Just be ready to work out six days a week and there is alot of cardio, i haven't done it in awhile so i need to get back into just not ready to be sore for the first two weeks, but once i get past that it is all good.

[Nachooooosupreme]

Get mentally fit first then hit the gym. I bought some isolate whey protein from gnc and within a couple days i felt energetic. Ive lost about 2 inches around the waste in 2 months. Of course you have to watch what you eat like breads and starches that have high carbs. Its hard but its also worth it. Just something id thought id share with you. Good luck!!

Discipline is key to life :)

[Spec C]

Pick a game plan you can stick to, and stick to it. All the advice posted is so general it might not even apply to you, your lifestyle, schedule, etc.

You don't HAVE to limit carbs.
You don't HAVE to stop eating at a certain time.
You don't HAVE to eliminate all sugar.

What you do HAVE to do is look at the big picture, and put together a meal plan that takes into account all of these variables. Something you can stick to, 100%, day in and day out FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME, IE FOREVER.

Shit, that kid I posted a few threads below this went from 290+ to 207, and he eats Reeces puffs cereal 3 x a week, and on saturday can eat more or less anything he wants, and however much of it he wants. Most of the time I am yelling at him to eat more poptarts, or rice krispy treats..lmao

[MADEGO]

^^^this is what I'm talking about. I love me some lucky charms cereals.

[Dsquared Upholstery]

Best advice I can give you is read a few books on the subject. If you have a smart phone you likely have a kindle app and can purchase books written by reputable authors for not very much money Or buy a book from the store. Read up on nutrition and strategies to build muscle (workout plans). Bottom line is there are plenty of different meal plans and exercise routines out there, pick one that takes you out of your comfort level and stick with it. Sticking with it is the key.

[Dsquared Upholstery]

[quote=Spec C;2765668]Pick a game plan you can stick to, and stick to it. All the advice posted is so general it might not even apply to you, your lifestyle, schedule, etc.

You don't HAVE to limit carbs.
You don't HAVE to stop eating at a certain time.
You don't HAVE to eliminate all sugar.



I was hoping to see you chime in on some of this rif raf.

[Waffle_Taco]

take hydrroxycut or try jacked it gives u a pump b4 u workout

[Dsquared Upholstery]

take hydrroxycut or try jacked it gives u a pump b4 u workout

Those two do completely different things. the only way to lose weight is to eat less. It's called counting calories

[EG kidd]

never cheat a diet cuz no point in a diet and getting in shape

[rudsone]

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/08/841572464-faj.jpeg

[Nachooooosupreme]

^:like:

[4dreglsv]

I say stop eating after 8pm, eat 5 small meals a day, no and I mean NO soda, cut back on fast food!
ive heard this before i have tried this and it works. and also drink a lot of water!!

[Dsquared Upholstery]

ive heard this before i have tried this and it works. and also drink a lot of water!!

There's people that disagree and agree with this. I personally do think spacing meals out throughout the day is a good idea. The thing is, these are meals not snacks. Yogurt and chips dont count

[4dreglsv]

There's people that disagree and agree with this. I personally do think spacing meals out throughout the day is a good idea. The thing is, these are meals not snacks. Yogurt and chips dont count

i say it does work as long as it is good food not junk food... dont over do it. and drinking water is good too i have heard before u eat to drink water before u eat so u can get full faster and wont eat a lot.... IMO sounds like a good idea....

[Spec C]

What works? You can eat 1 meal a day and if it is more than you burn you will get fat. You can eat 75 meals a day, evenly spaced to the second, and if it is more than you burn you will get fat.

None of this shit works, without EVERYTHING being in check.

[4dreglsv]

What works? You can eat 1 meal a day and if it is more than you burn you will get fat. You can eat 75 meals a day, evenly spaced to the second, and if it is more than you burn you will get fat.

None of this shit works, without EVERYTHING being in check.

5 SMALL MEALS a day work instead of 3 over eaten meals a day............. but thats just IMO...

[Spec C]

5 SMALL MEALS a day work instead of 3 over eaten meals a day............. but thats just IMO...

What is a small meal? 200 calories? 500 calories? "Small" is relative term. Without actually knowing how many calories are in each meal, you are pissing in the wind.

If someone is 250lb 10% bf do you think their "small meals" will be the same size as someone who is 150lb 20% bf?

It only "works" because you did it in a way where you consumed less calories. Of course if you go from gorging yourself 3 meals a day, to eating 5 portion controlled meals, odds are you will lose weight.

BUT

Guess what. If you take those 3 meals a day, and don't gorge yourself, and control the portions of them.......you will lose weight... You don't HAVE to eat 5-6 meals.

Meal frequency is not important(within reason).

[4dreglsv]

What is a small meal? 200 calories? 500 calories? "Small" is relative term. Without actually knowing how many calories are in each meal, you are pissing in the wind.

If someone is 250lb 10% bf do you think their "small meals" will be the same size as someone who is 150lb 20% bf?

It only "works" because you did it in a way where you consumed less calories. Of course if you go from gorging yourself 3 meals a day, to eating 5 portion controlled meals, odds are you will lose weight.

BUT

Guess what. If you take those 3 meals a day, and don't gorge yourself, and control the portions of them.......you will lose weight... You don't HAVE to eat 5-6 meals.

Meal frequency is not important(within reason).

well i guess your right... all we gotta do is eat healthier and it will work for all of us....

[neveragain]

The concept behind eating 5-6 small-er meals a day is that you are keeping your metabolism going throughout the whole day, rather than eating 3 small meals a day. Assuming your calories and foods-eaten are the same in both cases, most often, eating 5-6 small-er meals a day will burn more net calories. It's obviously not a huge difference daily, but over time it would add up.

It goes without saying, though, that everybody is different.

[Spec C]

The concept behind eating 5-6 small-er meals a day is that you are keeping your metabolism going throughout the whole day, rather than eating 3 small meals a day. Assuming your calories and foods-eaten are the same in both cases, most often, eating 5-6 small-er meals a day will burn more net calories. It's obviously not a huge difference daily, but over time it would add up.

It goes without saying, though, that everybody is different.

And what I'm telling you is that is bullshit and recent research shows there may actually be a larger thermic response from larger meals.

It's just something that has been regurgitated throughout the years.

If you prefer to eat 5-7 meals a day, fine, then do so but it is absolutely not nessicary. But eating 3-4,pending calories are the same will yield the same results.

If you take 2000 calories and split it over 6 meals your results will be the same as if you take 2000 calories and split it over 3.

Imo eating 6 meals a day is just a giant pain in the ass. It's fine for a while but do it day in and day out for years, WITHOUT missing meals, then talk to me.

[Spec C]

Some reading on meal frequency.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html

http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html?m=1

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CF0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fbiolayne%2Fo ptimal-protein-intake-and-meal-frequency-to-support-maximal-protein-synthesis-and-muscle-mass&ei=4Xa_T87wFIzXiQLqwK2DCA&usg=AFQjCNEWHH0ECqzidPmUcCQVreBsa8Nqhg

[Dsquared Upholstery]

Here's two opposing sources. I think with this school of thought. I think there's a lot of validity to smaller meals. I eat 4 meals a day so I'm somewhere in between. Bottom line is that the count of calories and source of those calories is a lot more important than number of meals. Lots of pro's eat 6 or more meals a day, I think it's overkill


http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt_60/69_eating_well.html

http://www.abcoasterblog.com/eat-small-meals

[Spec C]

Here's two opposing sources. I think with this school of thought. I think there's a lot of validity to smaller meals. I eat 4 meals a day so I'm somewhere in between. Bottom line is that the count of calories and source of those calories is a lot more important than number of meals. Lots of pro's eat 6 or more meals a day, I think it's overkill


http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt_60/69_eating_well.html

http://www.abcoasterblog.com/eat-small-meals

Sorry but neither of those are worth a damn. The second one is a guys opinion, and the first doesn't even site the study, making it worthless without knowing the details. It doesn't tell us if calories were controlled, etc.

It is very easy to skew a study to benefit your opinion. That is why the study needs to be sited.

If you are eating 7k calories a day, doing so in 3-4 meals might be difficult, so you might need to eat more meals.

You yourself eat 4 meals. That would be considered low by most bodybuilding standards. Typically "broscience" dictates you should be eating 6-7 meals a day..heh

[Spec C]

Actually I found the study:
"Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism."

They drew a conclusion by there being less stable fat and carb oxidation, that it would lead to weight gain. But that is not fact. That is their opinion. The study states there was no consequence.

From the study:
A gorging pattern of energy intake resulted in a stronger diurnal periodicity of nutrient utilization, compared to a nibbling pattern. However, there were no consequences for the total 24 h energy expenditure (24 h EE) of the two feeding patterns

Another study
Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, Kester AD. Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. Br J Nutr. 1993 Jul;70(1):103-15.

Abstract
The pattern of food intake can affect the regulation of body weight and lipogenesis. We studied the effect of meal frequency on human energy expenditure (EE) and its components. During 1 week ten male adults (age 25-61 years, body mass index 20.7-30.4 kg/m2) were fed to energy balance at two meals/d (gorging pattern) and during another week at seven meals/d (nibbling pattern). For the first 6 d of each week the food was provided at home, followed by a 36 h stay in a respiration chamber. O2 consumption and CO2 production (and hence EE) were calculated over 24 h. EE in free-living conditions was measured over the 2 weeks with doubly-labelled water (average daily metabolic rate, ADMR). The three major components of ADMR are basal metabolic rate (BMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and EE for physical activity (ACT). There was no significant effect of meal frequency on 24 h EE or ADMR. Furthermore, BMR and ACT did not differ between the two patterns. DIT was significantly elevated in the gorging pattern, but this effect was neutralized by correction for the relevant time interval. With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated.

Another:
Molnar D. The effect of meal frequency on postprandial thermogenesis in obese children. Padiatr Padol. 1992;27(6):177-81.

The effect of meal frequency on the thermic effect of food (TEF) was studied in six obese boys and five obese girls (age: mean +/- SE, 12.7 +/- 0.6 yr). Post-absorptive and postprandial resting energy expenditure (REE) were monitored continuously by indirect calorimetry. The children consumed one large liquid meal (LM) or three consecutive small meals (SM) at 1.5 h intervals on subsequent days. The first mode of nutrient intake was determined random. The energy content of the LM and one SM was tailored to provide 30% and 10% of the 24 h postabsorptive REE, respectively. The postprandial changes in REE were monitored for 6 h. The postabsorptive REE (mean +/- SE) was 4.86 +/- 0.28 and 4.9 +/- 0.27 kJ/min before the LM and SM, respectively. REE, respiratory quotient, plasma glucose and insulin concentrations increased sooner, steeper and higher with the LM than with the SM. The magnitude of the TEF was greater (p < 0.02) after the LM (11.9 +/- 1.3%) than after the SM (8.5 +/- 0.7%). It is concluded that the frequency of food consumption influences the immediate thermogenic response as well as the changes in respiratory quotient, glycaemia and insulinaemia. However, the complex effect of different meal frequencies on the overall energy balance of obese patients cannot be answered on the basis of the present results.

Another:
Tai MM, Castillo P, Pi-Sunyer FX. Meal size and frequency: effect on the thermic effect of food. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Nov;54(5):783-7.

The effects of meal size and frequency on thermic effect of food (TEF) were examined in seven healthy normal-weight young women. Each volunteer consumed in random order one of two identical meals [3138 kJ (750 kcal), 54.5% carbohydrate, 14.0% protein, 31.5% fat]. One meal was taken over 10 min [large meal (LM)] whereas the other was taken in six equal portions of 523 kJ (125 kcal) at 30-min intervals over a 3-h period [small meals (SM)]. Metabolic rate was measured for 1 h before and every 30 min after the meal started for 5 h. When expressed as either kJ/min (kcal/min) or kJ/5h (kcal/5h), TEF was significantly higher in the LM day than in the SM day (P less than 0.05). We conclude that the temporal pattern in which a mixed caloric load is eaten affects the thermogenic response and may be an important determinant of energy balance after a meal

Another:
Young JC. Meal size and frequency: effect on potentiation of the thermal effect of food by prior exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;70(5):437-41.

Prior exercise potentiates the thermic effect of a carbohydrate meal. The purpose of this study was to determine if meal size or feeding pattern influences this response. Two groups of healthy, normal-weight young women exercised for 45 min on a cycle ergometer at 70% of maximal aerobic capacity. Once aerobic capacity returned to pre-exercise baseline, the thermic effect of food (TEF) was determined by indirect calorimetry over a 2-h period. One group of subjects ingested a 2510-kJ meal and the other a 5020-kJ meal. As a control, subjects ingested the test meal without prior exercise. In addition, subjects ingesting the 5020-kJ meal were studied for an additional 2 h. In a separate trial, these subjects ingested a 5020-kJ meal in two equal portions after a bout of exercise, the second portion 120 min after the first. TEF was less for the 2510-kJ meal compared with the 5020-kJ meal for both the control [mean (SE), 76 (17) vs 158 (19) kJ.2h-1, P < 0.01), and prior exercise [124 (23) vs 197 (24) kJ.2h-1, P < 0.01) trials. However, the same increment in TEF resulted from the prior bout of exercise [48 (9) vs 40 (8) kJ.2h-1 for 2510-and 5020-kJ meals, respectively). TEF was 31% lower when the 5020-kJ meal was given in two portions compared with one [281 (30) vs 369 (41) kJ.4h-1, P < 0.05]. No difference in TEF was found between the first and second 2510-kJ portion.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[Spec C]

Another article, fully sited, with tons of studies.
http://articles.elitefts.com/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-part-1-meal-frequency/

I just want to clarify. I think there are situations when more frequent meals are better.

My only point is to the whole "eat small meals to boost metabolism". That is bullshit..lol

If you want to eat all these small meals all day, and enjoy it, go for it. I personally stick to 3-4.

[neveragain]

So, my only argument here is in the sample sizes. It's 6, 11, and 10 people. These results are unreliable. There is no way to generalize a small group of people as the equivalent to the average person. There are far too many outside contributing factors.

Prospective studies that "cite" a number of different previous studies are also fine, but again with the sample sizes. Even if you were to cite 10 studies with 10, even 100 people each, that's still a tiny sample size in comparison to the ~314 million people in America.

Most importantly, I'm not a nazi about how to eat. Eat however you want. If it works for you, fine.
I've tried eating 3 meals a day and it doesn't work for me. I lose weight faster and am less likely to eat unhealthy foods when I am not ravenously hungry after not eating for ~5 hours. Your first study even said it, itself. More meals per day = less frequent appetite cravings.

Props for getting the studies, though and backing your opinion!

[Spec C]

So, my only argument here is in the sample sizes. It's 6, 11, and 10 people. These results are unreliable. There is no way to generalize a small group of people as the equivalent to the average person. There are far too many outside contributing factors.

Prospective studies that "cite" a number of different previous studies are also fine, but again with the sample sizes. Even if you were to cite 10 studies with 10, even 100 people each, that's still a tiny sample size in comparison to the ~314 million people in America.

Most importantly, I'm not a nazi about how to eat. Eat however you want. If it works for you, fine.
I've tried eating 3 meals a day and it doesn't work for me. I lose weight faster and am less likely to eat unhealthy foods when I am not ravenously hungry after not eating for ~5 hours. Your first study even said it, itself. More meals per day = less frequent appetite cravings.

Props for getting the studies, though and backing your opinion!

First of all we are not talking about psychological reasons. A person not having the will power to eat their allotted food, is besides the point. I never addressed, or argued the physiological aspect. That would be a valid reason for more meals(if that was your issue).

I am speaking about NOTHING MORE THAN the regurgitation of the fallacy that "eating small frequent meals stokes the metabolism" when all the latest research points to the exact opposite.

I said from my FIRST post.. If you ENJOY eating that many times do it, just don't give me the line about the metabolism, because it is nonsense.

Secondly. Sample size is small but we are measuring the thermic response to food, you don't need an extremely large sample size IMO. Would you need to sample 3 billion people to conclude if you drink alcohol your BAC increases?

As to being hungry I can't even begin to speculate as I didn't set-up your diet. MANY factors come to play there. Hunger is an extremely complex reaction.

I know without a shadow of a doubt I could structure a 2-3 meal plan geared toward fat loss and have you not be hungry all the time.. I am confident in this because I have done it time and time again with people. There is just certain things that are important when doing so. Now this is not saying I would recommend it, but certain situations dictate fewer meals, and for those people I would use a similar approach. Some people have very demanding schedules where eating 5-6 times is NOT an option.

Speaking for myself, deep into a diet eating 5-6 meals that are 200 calories leaves me hungrier than 3 larger more satiating meals.

Now again to clarify, I am not even saying I prefer to eat 1-2 times a day, I am just clearing up the mis-information about this "stoking the metabolism with smaller frequent meals". My ideal set-up is 4-5 meals a day for 90% of the people I work with.

If you enjoy eating more often, if it helps you stick to a diet easier, if it fits your schedule better, etc is besides the point I am making. I am all about making things as simple, and enjoyable as you can while still getting the desired results.

Good discussion though...heh

[1badLst]

I love posts like "Hey Im fat and don't want to be fat anymore, what should I do?"

This is not something that someone can just throw up a 3 or 4 sentence answer and cure your fatness.

I secondly love all the idiots that think they know anything about fitness and start spouting ideas like "oh just take hydroxycut and do p90x" It honestly gives me a laugh.

I'd say there's only 3 people on here that I know of that actually know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to fitness/health.

Pizza I wish you the best of luck at losing your weight and getting in shape. My advice, make it a life change, not just a dumbass diet/workout regimen that lasts for a month.

[neveragain]

. Sample size is small but we are measuring the thermic response to food, you don't need an extremely large sample size IMO. Would you need to sample 3 billion people to conclude if you drink alcohol your BAC increases?

haha. That's a good point, but to me, that's like asking if you need a study to tell you that when you eat, your available energy reserves increase. It's more of a given.

It should also be noted that while everybody is indeed similar, in general, everybody's metabolism is genetically structured differently. Not to an extreme, but to an extent. Therefore, what works for one, may not work for everybody, even physiologically speaking. I think the biggest contributing factor here is the psychosomatic aspect of it all. I know you said you weren't mentioning anything about it, but I figured I should at least posit the idea.

Now, let it be known that I'm a high-protein/low-carb fan and it has showed me great results over the years, but if you recall in the 70's and 80's with the running/jogging fad going on, high-carb diets were the "studies du jour" to back. Nowadays, you can justify going on a high-carb diet, especially if you're an athlete that does a lot of cardiovascular activity, and I appreciate that. And as I'm sure you know, carbs break down much faster than protein and fats, so if you're going to use it, you can be more liberal.

For those who don't know, too, it takes more calories to break down protein and fats, so if you ate the same amount of calories of both protein/fat and carbohydrates, your net calories would be a little lower. Not a ton, but a little.

If you were to write a diet that is higher protein/fat/fiber and lower carb, I could definitely see that it would work for some people. It takes longer to break it down. Totally makes sense.

Oh, and a good conversation indeed!

[Spec C]

haha. That's a good point, but to me, that's like asking if you need a study to tell you that when you eat, your available energy reserves increase. It's more of a given.

It should also be noted that while everybody is indeed similar, in general, everybody's metabolism is genetically structured differently. Not to an extreme, but to an extent. Therefore, what works for one, may not work for everybody,

I think it was Jim Wendler who said "you are not a unique snowflake" stop using the 'everyone is different bs"..heh To a degree he is right. While there are certain things that would dictate changes for the vast majority similar approaches will work. I mean you aren't going to put a diabetic on a high carb diet, for example.

But metabolism is something you figure out when working with an individual, and titrate down to suit their specific metabolism. I have an AWFUL metabolism, and I deal with people who have abused their, and pounded them into the ground, so I know all about working with these issues.

Now, let it be known that I'm a high-protein/low-carb fan and it has showed me great results over the years, but if you recall in the 70's and 80's with the running/jogging fad going on, high-carb diets were the "studies du jour" to back. Nowadays, you can justify going on a high-carb diet, especially if you're an athlete that does a lot of cardiovascular activity, and I appreciate that. And as I'm sure you know, carbs break down much faster than protein and fats, so if you're going to use it, you can be more liberal.

I am a higher pro/low-ish carb fan as well. I do put carbs in most of my diet, BUT at certain times only.

For those who don't know, too, it takes more calories to break down protein and fats, so if you ate the same amount of calories of both protein/fat and carbohydrates, your net calories would be a little lower. Not a ton, but a little.

If you were to write a diet that is higher protein/fat/fiber and lower carb, I could definitely see that it would work for some people. It takes longer to break it down. Totally makes sense.

Oh, and a good conversation indeed!

Bad LST!! Good to see you around. This section has been dead..lol

[1badLst]

LOL yeah work is calming down a bit so I can come on here and talk shit some more lol. Only prob is im boxing so much right now its draining me lol

[Spec C]

Ive been dying to get back into BJJ but it is fucking hot right now, and I remember how my strength suffered with all that cardio.

Once I hit these strength goals, I may focus some on BJJ.

Are you still getting time in the gym, or is boxing taking up most of it?

[1badLst]

I'm still getting time in the gym as well. I'm going up in weight so I can't skip the gym lol

[Spec C]

Oh nice. What are you going to fight at?

[1badLst]

205!!!! should be a war

[Dsquared Upholstery]

Make sure you hmu, i want to go and watch