No hope after 7 kids?...

[gf95757]

My dear wife has been working hard for 6 months and is having the hardest time getting results. Her doctor says her body is resistant after all those pregs. She does 30 minutes cardio and strength training 4-5 time a week. I see her work hard in the gym and I know even slight results would motivate her greatly. She is 5'2" 188lbs ~34% bf. Any suggestions would be appreciated. BTW, her calorie intake averages about 2k per day.

[freebirdmac]

Nothing at all in 6 months? Has she been eating 2k cals the entire time? Are there cheat meals/days?

Is that 30 minutes total for both cardio and weights?

[KaraPhoto]

You don't say how old your wife is, but I"m guessing 40ish?

The thing is, my stats are close to hers (I'm an inch taller) and I cannot lose consistently on 2000 cals a day. I have to drop down to 1600-1700 to see results. Plus you say she "averages" 2000 cals a day. "Averaging" doesn't work. You have to eat consistently the same thing.

I'd suggest dropping her down to 1600-1700 cals and see what happens.

[gf95757]

30 minutes of cardio, then strength training. She is 36 years old. The only noticeable result she has seen is fitting into an old outfit that she says she couldn't get into before. I will suggest dropping the calories and focusing on nutrition.

[KaraPhoto]

The only noticeable result she has seen is fitting into an old outfit that she says she couldn't get into before.

So she IS seeing results.

Why do people say they're not seeing results and then go on and say things like this. Obviously if she can fit into clothes that didn't fit before, she's getting results.

What more does she want???

[gf95757]

So she IS seeing results.

Why do people say they're not seeing results and then go on and say things like this. Obviously if she can fit into clothes that didn't fit before, she's getting results.

What more does she want???

Please don't jump the gun here... I only mentioned it because it was something she said. I think she is trying to keep herself encouraged.

[freebirdmac]

30 minutes of cardio, then strength training. She is 36 years old. The only noticeable result she has seen is fitting into an old outfit that she says she couldn't get into before. I will suggest dropping the calories and focusing on nutrition.

Dropping the cals is the last thing you want to do. You want to keep the metabolism hopping and you need somewhere to go when significant weight has come off.

Smaller clothes means fat loss. Maybe she's anxious for faster results?

Does she track everything she eats? Odds are she isn't and at least on some days is eating more. Intensity in the gym is important too. As is her routine.

Any chance she'd get on here and post up her diet and training routine?

[kimm4]

My dear wife has been working hard for 6 months and is having the hardest time getting results. Her doctor says her body is resistant after all those pregs. She does 30 minutes cardio and strength training 4-5 time a week. I see her work hard in the gym and I know even slight results would motivate her greatly. She is 5'2" 188lbs ~34% bf. Any suggestions would be appreciated. BTW, her calorie intake averages about 2k per day.

If she's counting and tracking properly, she should be losing on 2000 calories a day. If not, then she's going over those numbers and doesn't realize it. For a deficit this early in the game, she shouldn't be going any lower then 1800 calories.

[KaraPhoto]

If she's counting and tracking properly, she should be losing on 2000 calories a day. If not, then she's going over those numbers and doesn't realize it. For a deficit this early in the game, she shouldn't be going any lower then 1800 calories.

Kimm .. I totaly respect your data, but I am here to tell you that I have similar stats and I DON'T LOSE on 2000 cals. If I do, it's so incredibly slowly as to be virtually unnoticeable. My maintenance (according to the calculations) is 2200 and I do lose on 1600.

These are my numbers by the books:
Mifflin-St Jeor Equation
BMR Calories 1452
Maintenance Calories 2251
Diet -25% 1688

Why are you saying that she must be losing on 2000? Based on those numbers, eating 2000 cals would put me at a 200 cal deficit per day, which is about .4lb per week. That's practically so small as to be unnoticeable. It would take nearly 3 weeks to lose 1 single pound. I suspect give her stats, she's around the same. Serious question here .. I'd like to understand your perspective and data.

[freebirdmac]

Kimm .. I totaly respect your data, but I am here to tell you that I have similar stats and I DON'T LOSE on 2000 cals. If I do, it's so incredibly slowly as to be virtually unnoticeable. My maintenance (according to the calculations) is 2200 and I do lose on 1600.

These are my numbers by the books:
Mifflin-St Jeor Equation
BMR Calories 1452
Maintenance Calories 2251
Diet -25% 1688

Why are you saying that she must be losing on 2000? Based on those numbers, eating 2000 cals would put me at a 200 cal deficit per day, which is about .4lb per week. That's practically so small as to be unnoticeable. It would take nearly 3 weeks to lose 1 single pound. I suspect give her stats, she's around the same. Serious question here .. I'd like to understand your perspective and data.

By my method I'd have your maintenance at 2300 and the OP's wife at 2400. Kim usually comes in lower than me for women under 5'3" thus her 1800 recommendation.

The real issue here is "no progress". Obviously there has been progress so we an only assume it hasn't been fast enough or the scale hasn't changed much. Even if there was only a 250 cal deficit that equates to 12 pounds over 6 months. So to really get a feel for where she's at and where she needs to go we'd need measurement changes. Ultimately I'd side with Kim at 1800.

As for you, you know the scale doesn't always register fat loss when you are in a heavy lifting routine. So I suspect you are losing at a rate greater than 1 pound a week

[kimm4]

By my method I'd have your maintenance at 2300 and the OP's wife at 2400. Kim usually comes in lower than me for women under 5'3" thus her 1800 recommendation.

The real issue here is "no progress". Obviously there has been progress so we an only assume it hasn't been fast enough or the scale hasn't changed much. Even if there was only a 250 cal deficit that equates to 12 pounds over 6 months. So to really get a feel for where she's at and where she needs to go we'd need measurement changes. Ultimately I'd side with Kim at 1800.

As for you, you know the scale doesn't always register fat loss when you are in a heavy lifting routine. So I suspect you are losing at a rate greater than 1 pound a week

I actually came out higher...I've got 2600 for maintenance. That's why I said should be losing on 2000 to start and I didn't feel comfortable going lower then 1800. The more you lose, then you start to lower calories when needed.

Kara, were you always at 1600-1700 even when you first started your program? That just seems so low to me for your starting point.

I've been using the same old formula that I've used for years with all my clients. I don't even think you can find on the internet...that's how old it is. I occasionally use a couple online to backup/compare to what I have if needed. So I use a total of 3, which are all very close.

[KaraPhoto]

Kara, were you always at 1600-1700 even when you first started your program? That just seems so low to me for your starting point.

No ... to be honest I don't know where I was when I first started. It wasn't until later that I started paying attention and set my calories to 2000, but I still weighed over 200 lbs at that point. After I dropped to 170, I held there for a really long time (over a year, but I really needed a break from the dieting mentality), put on about 10 lbs (mostly thru not paying attention), and then dropped my cals to 1600 to start losing again.

I know what I burn and I know what it takes for me to lose. There is absolutely no way my maintenance is 2600 calories. By my GoWear Fit, I average 2300 a day. That is a true average of about 90 days worth of data. If I were to eat at 2600 cals, I'd blow up like a balloon.

That's why I just think that 2000 might be too high for the OP.

[kimm4]

No ... to be honest I don't know where I was when I first started. It wasn't until later that I started paying attention and set my calories to 2000, but I still weighed over 200 lbs at that point. After I dropped to 170, I held there for a really long time (over a year, but I really needed a break from the dieting mentality), put on about 10 lbs (mostly thru not paying attention), and then dropped my cals to 1600 to start losing again.

I know what I burn and I know what it takes for me to lose. There is absolutely no way my maintenance is 2600 calories. By my GoWear Fit, I average 2300 a day. That is a true average of about 90 days worth of data. If I were to eat at 2600 cals, I'd blow up like a balloon.

That's why I just think that 2000 might be too high for the OP.

For you it came out just shy of 2500 for maintenance.

You know what works for you and like they say "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

[hmcarter2007]

My dear wife has been working hard for 6 months and is having the hardest time getting results. Her doctor says her body is resistant after all those pregs. She does 30 minutes cardio and strength training 4-5 time a week. I see her work hard in the gym and I know even slight results would motivate her greatly. She is 5'2" 188lbs ~34% bf. Any suggestions would be appreciated. BTW, her calorie intake averages about 2k per day.

May I suggest that she warm up for 5-10 minutes, strength train, then do maybe 20-25 minutes of cardio? Also, make sure she is eating several smaller meals a day to help with her metabolism rather than eating two-1,000 calorie meals a day. This is very important...along with getting enough of the right nutrition...protein, good carbs, veggies, fruits, water...you name it.

I once had a friend to tell me that she was only eating 1,600 calories. Then she told me what she had to eat. It was a chicken nugget happy meal and something else (that wasn't healthy). This type of calorie counting is ineffective. You have to make it count!

Good luck!

[Hannah73Louise]

In what possible way would the pregnancies make her resistant to exercise?! The mind boggles! I've had six kids and the only way that's affected me is loose stomach skin....

[heartswild]

Simple answer = eat less. Find her maintenance and get her on 500-750 calories below that.

[sonti]

If Hannah ^^^ has given birth 6 times, there's no reason your wife can't do it.

Hannah you look damn good, and I've only had 1! Amazing.

[kimm4]

May I suggest that she warm up for 5-10 minutes, strength train, then do maybe 20-25 minutes of cardio? Also, make sure she is eating several smaller meals a day to help with her metabolism rather than eating two-1,000 calorie meals a day. This is very important...along with getting enough of the right nutrition...protein, good carbs, veggies, fruits, water...you name it.

I once had a friend to tell me that she was only eating 1,600 calories. Then she told me what she had to eat. It was a chicken nugget happy meal and something else (that wasn't healthy). This type of calorie counting is ineffective. You have to make it count!

Good luck!

She's already doing her cardio and a strength training program. It makes no difference how many meals a person eats in the day. It does not affect getting results. Getting results is all about being in the right deficit and getting your calories.

[KaraPhoto]

make sure she is eating several smaller meals a day to help with her metabolism

This is a dieting myth that has been debunked over and over. There is no metabolic benefit to eating smaller meals. Total calories in vs. total calories out ... that's the only thing that matters.

[SeaSiren]

In what possible way would the pregnancies make her resistant to exercise?! The mind boggles! I've had six kids and the only way that's affected me is loose stomach skin....

Same here ..... six children, so not an excuse. Listen to kimm4, she is a very smart lady

[marioana]

30 minutes of cardio, then strength training.

I suggest doing strength training at the beginning then cardio. Doing cardio first gets her tired and doesn't have enough strength for the weight lifting afterward.

[sweepone]

Kimm .. I totaly respect your data, but I am here to tell you that I have similar stats and I DON'T LOSE on 2000 cals. If I do, it's so incredibly slowly as to be virtually unnoticeable. My maintenance (according to the calculations) is 2200 and I do lose on 1600.

I'm like you. The only way I lose significant weight is 900-1000 below maintenance. I keep very accurate details/charts of my weight loss-even have the cal's of my vitamins and supps added in. Tried 500-600 below maintence-nothing. Maybe 1-1.5 lbs a month-if that . I'm 48 and my metabolism has slowed down to a crawl. I have eaten at maint, 500 below, 500 above and nothing works except significant calorie restriction.

When not dieting I eat on average 2200-2300 per day maybe 2400-2500 per day on weekends and I have very few cheat meals. Anything more than that on a regular basis and the weight starts coming back on and I'm 6'-1". I do 30-40 minutes of cardio 5 times per week and lift hard 4 days.
I usually diet for 3-4 weeks and then eat at maintence for a week or so then go back to dieting.

[freebirdmac]

I'm like you. The only way I lose significant weight is 900-1000 below maintenance. I keep very accurate details/charts of my weight loss-even have the cal's of my vitamins and supps added in. Tried 500-600 below maintence-nothing. Maybe 1-1.5 lbs a month-if that . I'm 48 and my metabolism has slowed down to a crawl. I have eaten at maint, 500 below, 500 above and nothing works except significant calorie restriction.

When not dieting I eat on average 2200-2300 per day maybe 2400-2500 per day on weekends and I have very few cheat meals. Anything more than that on a regular basis and the weight starts coming back on and I'm 6'-1". I do 30-40 minutes of cardio 5 times per week and lift hard 4 days.
I usually diet for 3-4 weeks and then eat at maintence for a week or so then go back to dieting.

Cardio doesn't contribute much to fat loss, so it goes back to diet and lifting. My guess is your time in the gym isn't as caloric productive as some of us. That would put your maintenance at 2400. So your deficit is not as large as you think. Your expenditure is less than you think.

[KaraPhoto]

Cardio doesn't contribute much to fat loss, so it goes back to diet and lifting. My guess is your time in the gym isn't as caloric productive as some of us. That would put your maintenance at 2400. So your deficit is not as large as you think. Your expenditure is less than you think.

Another thing that people do when calculating is double up on their exercise amounts.

Say you figure your BMI and then use an activity multiplier that takes into account that you workout 4-5 times a week. That number gives you 2400.

So they say, ok, I'm gonna cut 400 cals, to 2000, then hey .. I did cardio today for another 400 cals. So I should be at an 800 cal deficit.

But they forget that the 2400 ALREADY includes the 400 cals from working out. So in effect, they're not cutting enough because they're giving themselves double credit for the workout.

[sweepone]

Cardio doesn't contribute much to fat loss, so it goes back to diet and lifting. My guess is your time in the gym isn't as caloric productive as some of us. That would put your maintenance at 2400. So your deficit is not as large as you think. Your expenditure is less than you think.

I am not a novice here............... and no my MC are not 2400 but approx 3200-3600 per day (depending on how hard I work out # of days). And yes I am very productive in the gym. I was a long distance runner for 4 years in HS(cross country and track) and was a hard core cyclist in college and for some years after...and I lift really hard in the gym-so I know what hard work is. When I'm not doing 30-40 minutes of cardio hard in the gym I go to the local state park and take my dog on 2-3 hour walks on the horse trails that you nearly sometimes need rope to climb in areas.

Again I have a slow metabolism-never was that way. In college and for some years after I could eat all I wanted(and did) and I weighed 175-180 lbs. When I got in my mid to late 30's it changed 180 degrees.

For some reason many of you refuse to believe metabolism slow down.

[thedogdidit]

I am not a novice here............... and no my MC are not 2400 but approx 3200-3600 per day (depending on how hard I work out # of days). And yes I am very productive in the gym. I was a long distance runner for 4 years in HS(cross country and track) and was a hard core cyclist in college and for some years after...and I lift really hard in the gym-so I know what hard work is. When I'm not doing 30-40 minutes of cardio hard in the gym I go to the local state park and take my dog on 2-3 hour walks on the horse trails that you nearly sometimes need rope to climb in areas.

Again I have a slow metabolism-never was that way. In college and for some years after I could eat all I wanted(and did) and I weighed 175-180 lbs. When I got in my mid to late 30's it changed 180 degrees.

For some reason many of you refuse to believe metabolism slow down.

I agree your metabolism might slow with age, but isn't that why age is part of the equation in the calculations? It's simple: if your metabolism has slowed, then your maintenance calories have gone down and therefore your intake has to be reduced to maintain a deficit.

It's still calories in and calories out ....

[KaraPhoto]

I agree your metabolism might slow with age, but isn't that why age is part of the equation in the calculations? It's simple: if your metabolism has slowed, then your maintenance calories have gone down and therefore your intake has to be reduced to maintain a deficit.

It's still calories in and calories out ....

Yup. And if your metabolism has dropped by half or more, then that's not just age related .. that's health related. That's not normal. I'd get checked out by a doctor at that point.

[freebirdmac]

I am not a novice here............... and no my MC are not 2400 but approx 3200-3600 per day (depending on how hard I work out # of days). And yes I am very productive in the gym. I was a long distance runner for 4 years in HS(cross country and track) and was a hard core cyclist in college and for some years after...and I lift really hard in the gym-so I know what hard work is. When I'm not doing 30-40 minutes of cardio hard in the gym I go to the local state park and take my dog on 2-3 hour walks on the horse trails that you nearly sometimes need rope to climb in areas.

Again I have a slow metabolism-never was that way. In college and for some years after I could eat all I wanted(and did) and I weighed 175-180 lbs. When I got in my mid to late 30's it changed 180 degrees.

For some reason many of you refuse to believe metabolism slow down.

Because it doesn't. Not the way you and other people seem to think. As we age we lose muscle mass, aren't as active, and can develop medical conditions that result in fewer calories needed. It's not like some magic dimmer switch gets activated simply due to age. If you aren't losing bf according to calculations (allowing for some degree of error) and have to significantly drop cals, then something is wrong. Either healthwise or your diet and routine are not what you think they are.

I don't doubt your word that you work hard in they gym. That is not what I said. I said you were not as calorically productive as others. They do not necessarily equate. Yeah there are some real slackers who say they work out, but I'm not assuming you're one of them.

Let me give you an example. Last night my trainer and I did chest and bi's. While I was pushing myself and working hard, I know for a fact that I did not work as hard as he did. He knows how hard he can push himself on both body parts. I work hard but I am more conservative due to past injuries. Now on leg day I can beat him due to his past injuries but he does work hard and isn't slacking.

That's just one example. There are many others. Rest time, intensity, psychological blocks on raising weight, heart rate (both up and down), etc. The split you do can also affect your efficiency. I know a guy who swore up and down that he had to eat very little in order to lose weight. But when you looked at his routine (one body part a day) and his lifestyle (sedentary, no fidgeting) it was no wonder.

I do think you are over estimating the effect of your cardio. At the most your maintenance cals would be 2700. To get higher than that you'd have to be training like a world class athlete.

I agree your metabolism might slow with age, but isn't that why age is part of the equation in the calculations? It's simple: if your metabolism has slowed, then your maintenance calories have gone down and therefore your intake has to be reduced to maintain a deficit.

It's still calories in and calories out ....

Yep. Age is in the calculations. It's assumed that there has been a loss of muscle mass with age.

Yup. And if your metabolism has dropped by half or more, then that's not just age related .. that's health related. That's not normal. I'd get checked out by a doctor at that point.

I agree. At the least get a thyroid panel.

[KaraPhoto]

Let me give you an example. Last night my trainer and I did chest and bi's. While I was pushing myself and working hard, I know for a fact that I did not work as hard as he did. He knows how hard he can push himself on both body parts. I work hard but I am more conservative due to past injuries. Now on leg day I can beat him due to his past injuries but he does work hard and isn't slacking.

Also exercise just doesn't burn as many calories as most people think it does. I wear a GoWear Fit (BodyBugg, same thing) and I know how many calories I burn.

Last night I did 20 minutes of weights (full body stuff, heavy - squats, bench press, rows, deads, lunges) followed by 25 mins on the elliptical. When I finished I was out of breath, sweating hard, and red in the face. A lot of people put in that kind of effort and think to themselves "Wow. That was a good workout. I burned a TON of cals." And then they reward themselves with food for doing such a great job.

My GWF shows I burned 426 cals.

So ... a lot of people think if they workout, they can eat more and lose weight. It's not necessarily true.

[freebirdmac]

Also exercise just doesn't burn as many calories as most people think it does. I wear a GoWear Fit (BodyBugg, same thing) and I know how many calories I burn.

Last night I did 20 minutes of weights (full body stuff, heavy - squats, bench press, rows, deads, lunges) followed by 25 mins on the elliptical. When I finished I was out of breath, sweating hard, and red in the face. A lot of people put in that kind of effort and think to themselves "Wow. That was a good workout. I burned a TON of cals." And then they reward themselves with food for doing such a great job.

My GWF shows I burned 426 cals.

So ... a lot of people think if they workout, they can eat more and lose weight. It's not necessarily true.

Only 20 minutes of weights?
Seriously though a good routine that puts you through your paces but takes closer to an hour will generate more after-gym burn. You are losing some bennies here.