Lose Weight Than Workout?
I am on a mission to be lean not muscular. I am female, 35yrs, 5'4" and weigh 117 but need to weigh 110 to be back where I started. I have been eating paleo and working out (not hard but running 2 miles most days and doing the 30 day shred for the muscle building exercises). I don't consider this hard core training by any means but I feel like the scale would move more if I wasn't working out... just cutting calories. I tend to eat around 800 cal a day and feel full on this.
I would like some definition in muscles but feel like if I was at my goal weight and then started working out I would be extra lean and then could build muscles according to how "muscular" I wanted to look.
Does this make any sense? Can someone either talk me out of this idea or help explain why this might be a good idea?
From what I understand of PBF, I think that the simplest recommendation would be to ditch the running in favor of briskly walking the equivalent amount time (shoot for 55-75% MHR during this activity) each day EXCEPT one day a week run sprints...ALL OUT SPRINTS. Take that 2 miles and break it up into small chunk (I'd probably go for 8 chunks of 1/4 mile each) and run them full out, then take a break long enough to catch your breath...repeat until you can't take any more (or hit the 2 miles...you might not hit the 2 miles the first time you try, that's OK, focus on going FULL OUT each time you run) and then as far as the "30 day shred" I'm not familiar with it, but if it's a strength/resistance/muscle building type exercise, I would say keep at it so long as it's not some program that has you doing crazy 2 hour workouts 6 or 7 days a week -- try to keep strength work to 2-3x a week.
If you haven't already, I'd recommend downloading and reading Primal Blueprint Fitness (it's free). I did and read it in one sitting and I'm now adjusting my approach to exercise accordingly -- and I'm a recovering "Chronic Cardio"-aholic...
Oh, and for the record...muscular = lean...they are not mutually exclusive. This link demonstrates this point as well as it possibly can be demonstrated: http://primitivestimulus.com/2011/06...ddicts-part-2/
Last edited by tim_1522; 08-05-2011 at 12:41 PM.
Reason: To add that PBF is a free download.
at 800 calories a day you are risking losing lean body mass along with body fat.
Too much CW baggage mixed in there. One, you're obsessed with weight and calories. Muscularity is a function of genetics. Leanness is a function of your diet and metabolism. Don't worry about your weight; there are better health and fitness markers. Go work out hard and see how your genes get expressed.
Originally Posted by rmshill
“BODY BY SCIENCE” — ESPECIALLY FOR WOMEN »
BODY BY SCIENCE TRAINING (VIDEO 7): STEPHANIE ARNOLD - PART ONE »
BODY BY SCIENCE FOR WOMEN WORKOUT VIDEOS »
BODY BY SCIENCE (VIDEO 11): WENDY McGUFF’S BIG 4 WORKOUT (Part 1) »
WOW! Totally missed this part as I was focused on the exercise part of it. Yeah...800 calories a day could be a problem...a big problem. ESPECIALLY if you are doing all that running and "muscle shredding" on top of that....
Originally Posted by moo
i know a lot of girls your age that do exactly the same thing. take a chance and do something different. disregard what you think you know and what youve done up until now because its obviously not getting you the results you are after.
throw the scale in the trash can.
i doubt anyone but you can tell the difference between you weighing 117 and 110. my wife use to be the same way. she would have a panic attack and feel bloated, fat and ready to quit eating if the scale said 137 but if it said 133 then all was well.. thats rediculous. thats literally water weight and the poop in your intestines!
if it is a very noticeable difference in 117 to 110 then its because you lost a bunch of muslce and replaced it with fat when you got "all the way up" to 117. simply gaining 7lbs of fat on top of 110lbs would barely show up if at all. but if you went on a crazy diet before hand that burned up 10 lbs of muscle then after the "diet" you gained fat back up to 117 you might look more fat. you could also be losing muscle and gaining fat at the same time. crazy sounding but it can really happen.
you are going to get the look you want by gaining muscle not losing weight.
you really need to download the above suggestions, get the book and do a little bit more reading. you are not going to "bulk up" or " get more muscular".. well you will be more muscular but you are labeling that look as "defined". that "defined" lean and ahtletic/toned look comes from strength work, eating enough protein and good fats and then not having a lot of fat on top of your strong muscle (notice STRONG not BIG).
you would be surprised at how many girls who want to be "lean" will look at small framed/skinny female athlete and say "i wanna look like that"..then they find out that defined, lean and skinny looking 5'6" girl with a six pack and shapely butt weighs 145lbs and all they pay attention to is the 145lbs part and say "oh my god 145.. well i dont want big muscles" ..but you just said she looked great! ..who gives a shit what the scale says. you WILL get the look you are after if you put on 10lbs of muscle. i know that probably gets you shaking your head and bracing yourself for a gigantic NO but its true. like the above poster mentioned if you are losing scale weight right now its both fat AND MUSCLE. the scale weight is going to plummet and your going to look exactly the same, feel like crap and predispose yourself to fat gain later (not as much muscle burning calories for you all day long..not to mention the metabolic disaster you are predisposing yourself too by eating so little).
youre on the right track with wanting to do something and feel better just keep reading and researching and you will come up with something good. im not trying to be a know it all or pick on you but i have seen so many girls doing the same thing as you..trying so hard and going no where..just getting more and more miserable and more and more over worked. your mind is in the right place its just your tools and methods are faulty. use some of the advice everyone is giving you and just take a chance and try it for 3 months.
let the first month be about eating more, changing your exercise and focus on having very high energy levels all the time. you dont have to "bulk up" and gain a bunch of fat if you want to gain muscle. you can gain muscle and keep your fat or you can gain muscle and then lose fat or gain muscle and lose fat AT THE SAME TIME. your diet will be the main factor in determining how this works out.
if after 3months it doesnt work you can go back to living in hell and checking in with your scale every day
Last edited by ryry; 08-05-2011 at 04:07 PM.
She can run all she wants as long as she keeps her heart rate under 140. If she's very fit, she might be able to knock out 7 minute miles at that HR. Mark made a big mistake with the whole "moving slowly" thing since no one ever bothers to actually figure out what 75% of max HR really is and what it means. Instead, folks think that they can just walk and be fit. Not true. If you're fit, walking and getting your HR up to 55% can be really difficult unless you start going through contortions like speed walkers do. And that's worse for you than running. Seriously.
Originally Posted by tim_1522
Thanks guys. I needed a kick in my butt :>
CW thinking is hard to break!
You seriously have to really work at it and mess with your body in ways you shouldn't to bulk up. Women's bodies just aren't designed that way.
The thing with Primal, too, is that a weight that looked one way on you when you ate CW is probably not going to look the same way now. That's another reason to ditch the scale when you're so close to where you want to be. Go off of how you look, not the number of pounds. And keep in mind that you're 35, so your hormones may be starting to change soon, and hormones have a huge influence on weight and body composition.
Hmmm...well, all I can say is YMMV. And I did qualify that the OP should be shooting for the target HR range. Theoretically, no one knows better they they do how to best get into that range.
Originally Posted by gordo
I'm (as I said before) a recovering "Chronic-Cardio"-aholic (to the tune of 30-40miles of running a week) so I'd say from that standpoint, I'm pretty fit -- my resting pulse has been below 60 for at least the past year (since I've been checking it regularly) and in the week following my last half-marathon(in May), it was below 50 each time I checked it. Since adopting PBF, I can hit the 55-75% MHR (for my "Move Frequently, But Slowly" work with no sweat by just purposefully walking as quickly as possible. No, I'm not contorting myself ala a speed walker, BUT I'm not lollygagging, either...but, for me, that's usually how I walk "normally" -- that "quick, purposeful" way.
When I do exercise that's intend to be "Move Frequently But Slowly", I verify that I'm in the correct range by occasionally verifying my heart-rate -- two fingers to the throat. No, not incredibly accurate, but for hitting a range as broad as 55-75%, it's close enough...and more often it's toward the "high end" of the range (I try to keep it between 17-23 for a 10 second count, I'm 38yo) Of course, if what I'm doing is intended to be "Play", I don't bother with any of this, because that seems to go against what "Play" is supposed to be all about.
I *could* probably lightly jog and keep it below 75%, but I find that with the natural gait I have that I end up going faster than I want to when I try to lightly jog and get out of the zone pretty easily. I'm considering trying to find a heart rate monitor that I can use that I can set a range (based on my 55-75%) and that once my HR gets out of that range, it will beep (or something otherwise annoying) at me. But for now, I'm trying to stay away from the "mechanized, robotic" forms of exercise...which is one of the whole points of PBF -- at least to me anyways.