I need objective opinions (but don't yell at me, I'm fragile)

[Minotaur]

OK I'm fat. There, I said it. 200 lbs; 23% body fat measured using a couple of different methods, all pretty bang on; waist 40" neck 17, biceps 16, chest 46, thigh 24. My avi is old, and I should probably change or remove it. I kind of let myself go since then.

My goal by June is 170-175; about 15% body fat; 34" waist. If 1" = 4-5 lbs lost, losing 6" puts me at about 170-175. Calorie requirements using Katch-McArdle (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/girard2.htm) give me (roughly) BMR = 1754, BMR+Activity = 2455, calories to lose = 1964. I know numbers can lie.

I'm setting my calories @ ~2000; 35/35/30 (pro 175g, carb 175g, fat 67g). My workouts are 3-4x week, weights ~50 mins. and cardio 30-40 mins. I could probably add more cardio.

So what I'm asking, because I've overthinking it and need an objective opinion... is this a sound plan? What would you tweak? Is this science fantasy, and am I delusional?

[Tmax55]

If you've completely let yourself go, any kind of reasonable plan is going to show results. I didn't workout for two years and I've been back for four months, that's been my experience.

I don't know what kind of person you are, perhaps you require that much precision in your plan.

I've tried to keep it simple. Lifting four days a week and two strictly cardio days with intervals only if I feel good prior to the cardio session, if I feel tired just steady pace cardio. I make sure I get enough protein and avoid carbs in the evening other than Yams. That's it and its working great so far. As I am not preparing to compete, I find if I am too precise on what I have to do that I feel very bad when I deviate a little bit from it (and my family thinks I am a nut job) - so its better for me to stick with basics.

If you can be precise and feel bad enough to not deviate much, but not too bad so you get discouraged then be precise.

[ironwill2008]

OK I'm fat. There, I said it. 200 lbs; 23% body fat measured using a couple of different methods, all pretty bang on; waist 40" neck 17, biceps 16, chest 46, thigh 24. My avi is old, and I should probably change or remove it. I kind of let myself go since then.

My goal by June is 170-175; about 15% body fat; 34" waist. If 1" = 4-5 lbs lost, losing 6" puts me at about 170-175. Calorie requirements using Katch-McArdle (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/girard2.htm) give me (roughly) BMR = 1754, BMR+Activity = 2455, calories to lose = 1964. I know numbers can lie.

I'm setting my calories @ ~2000; 35/35/30 (pro 175g, carb 175g, fat 67g). My workouts are 3-4x week, weights ~50 mins. and cardio 30-40 mins. I could probably add more cardio.

So what I'm asking, because I've overthinking it and need an objective opinion... is this a sound plan? What would you tweak? Is this science fantasy, and am I delusional?

Running your numbers through Katch-McArdle (200 lbs/23%/moderate activity level) has your "lose fat" calories/day at about 2400. Nothing wrong with going for a little less at first; just evaluate after 3-4 weeks, and adjust so that you're losing about one pound of body weight per week. Providing that you're also weight training and working hard, that conservative rate of weight loss will allow you to lose mostly fat while retaining muscle mass.


Using 'ratios' to figure macros isn't accurate enough; they'll usually leave you eating too much of some and not enough of others.


Instead, use this rule-of-thumb to fill your daily calorie/macro totals:

*1 gram of protein per pound of body weight (4 calories per gram)

*1/2 gram of fat per pound of body weight (9 calories per gram)

*Remainder of daily calorie requirement can then be made up of carbs, more protein, more fat, or any combination of the three that you enjoy.

[Minotaur]

If you've completely let yourself go, any kind of reasonable plan is going to show results. I didn't workout for two years and I've been back for four months, that's been my experience.

I don't know what kind of person you are, perhaps you require that much precision in your plan.

Thanks. I have ocpd and low-end Asperger's, so I tend to overthink things, and need structure. That said, what I consider letting myself go is slacking off on workouts for the past few months because of another back problem (a lumbar disc I had surgery on was/is herniating again). I not only didn't reach my goal I set last year, I put on about 12 lbs.

[Minotaur]

Running your numbers through Katch-McArdle (200 lbs/23%/moderate activity level) has your "lose fat" calories/day at about 2400.

Wow, how did I miss that!? That's about 300-400 cals. more than I came up with. I'm definitely on-board with that much. But srsly I know I can't get crazy.

Edit: I underestimated my activity, I used a lower number to err on the side of caution.

Nothing wrong with going for a little less at first; just evaluate after 3-4 weeks, and adjust so that you're losing about one pound of body weight per week. Providing that you're also weight training and working hard, that conservative rate of weight loss will allow you to lose mostly fat while retaining muscle mass.

I'm definitely concerned about not losing muscle, so that's good to know. My goal is indeed about 1 lb/week fat loss, average. I know sometimes it will be more, sometimes less. If you recall, things went to hell in a handbasket when I had to stop working out before my shoulder surgery in Sept. 2012. I could have done cardio, but the whole thing messed with my head, so I said fark it all. On top of that I was doing Weight Watchers which is really pretty protein poor. I lost 30 lbs in 6 months, but before the shoulder issue I was doing a lot of high intensity (TRX, Body Pump). I was getting skinny. But I actually gained some back when I started back at the gym this year.

Using 'ratios' to figure macros isn't accurate enough; they'll usually leave you eating too much of some and not enough of others.


Instead, use this rule-of-thumb to fill your daily calorie/macro totals:

*1 gram of protein per pound of body weight (4 calories per gram)

*1/2 gram of fat per pound of body weight (9 calories per gram)

*Remainder of daily calorie requirement can then be made up of carbs, more protein, more fat, or any combination of the three that you enjoy.

Great, thanks for that. I will work it out using that. I know percentages are not the best, they are too generic. I think I read the method you said in a post by Emma-Leigh, a long time ago. It sounds familiar.

Btw, when we say per lb of body weight, is it lean body weight, total body weight, or goal body weight? I could never get it right.

[x-trainer ben]

OK I'm fat. There, I said it. 200 lbs; 23% body fat measured using a couple of different methods, all pretty bang on; waist 40" neck 17, biceps 16, chest 46, thigh 24. My avi is old, and I should probably change or remove it. I kind of let myself go since then.

My goal by June is 170-175; about 15% body fat; 34" waist. If 1" = 4-5 lbs lost, losing 6" puts me at about 170-175. Calorie requirements using Katch-McArdle (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/girard2.htm) give me (roughly) BMR = 1754, BMR+Activity = 2455, calories to lose = 1964. I know numbers can lie.

I'm setting my calories @ ~2000; 35/35/30 (pro 175g, carb 175g, fat 67g). My workouts are 3-4x week, weights ~50 mins. and cardio 30-40 mins. I could probably add more cardio.

So what I'm asking, because I've overthinking it and need an objective opinion... is this a sound plan? What would you tweak? Is this science fantasy, and am I delusional?

Since you have the "math" down let me add some common sense tips/tweaks that i have found which helped me over the years:
1. meat and veggies are a weight loss friend( not saying no carbs) but it sure speeds up the process. flushing water
2. if you feel good 1 day do more cardio and more volume ( you are an experienced lifter so you won't break)
3. direct stomach work, often, strengthens your back and feels good ( gets you used to a tight waist)
4. new shoes and great fast music make a world of diff
5. use the mirror every morning to monitor yourself as the scale can fk with your head
6. don't kill yourself..... if your "numbers" aren't dropping fast at age 56, just tweak things for faster results and remember what you tweaked.
7. enjoy it!

[induced_drag]

Looks like you are close. As others have said, track and observe. Only one thing, I think you are pretty far off on your BF estimate if you are asking for constructive criticism. No way a 40" waist is 20% bf. (at 5'5) Also if your pic is accurate, I would add another 10% to that. I am guessing you are 30% +. At a real 15%bf I am guessing you will be in the high 150's low 160's if you carry a lot of mass. No point in starting out with unrealistic ideas of where you are.

Good luck

[Minotaur]

Since you have the "math" down let me add some common sense tips/tweaks that i have found which helped me over the years:
1. meat and veggies are a weight loss friend( not saying no carbs) but it sure speeds up the process. flushing water
2. if you feel good 1 day do more cardio and more volume ( you are an experienced lifter so you won't break)
3. direct stomach work, often, strengthens your back and feels good ( gets you used to a tight waist)
4. new shoes and great fast music make a world of diff
5. use the mirror every morning to monitor yourself as the scale can fk with your head
6. don't kill yourself..... if your "numbers" aren't dropping fast at age 56, just tweak things for faster results and remember what you tweaked.
7. enjoy it!

Thanks...

1. I have to limit the wheat because it really does bloat me and give me the sharts. I try to use whole- or multi-grain bread and pasta. Even then it's limited.
2. My lifting has moved more towards volume (says the guy who always hated volume ).
3. Yep, a natural weight belt.
4. New shoes are definitely needed; I use the treadmills at the gym, set it to a hill climb, fast pace, put the earphones in and get into it. When the weather is good I go 3-4 miles outdoors in about an hour =/-.
5. I hate the scale, I use the tape measure and the mirror.

[Minotaur]

Looks like you are close. As others have said, track and observe. Only one thing, I think you are pretty far off on your BF estimate if you are asking for constructive criticism. No way a 40" waist is 20% bf. (at 5'5) Also if your pic is accurate, I would add another 10% to that. I am guessing you are 30% +. At a real 15%bf I am guessing you will be in the high 150's low 160's if you carry a lot of mass. No point in starting out with unrealistic ideas of where you are.

Good luck

I don't disagree with you... I've thought the body fat sounded too good to be true also. I think the on-line calculators and even the hand held Omron or Omicron or whatever they are at the gym are bull****. Obsessive-compulsive as I can be, I'm actually less concerned about an absolute number for bf % and weight as I am about where I want to be with measurements, and what I want to see in the mirror. So I should just forget the bf % and get on with it.

[EjnarKolinkar]

The hard part is consistency over these long diets. Good luck with it. Managing a consistent deficit by tracking and eating less has got me where I wanted to go better than anything else.

You can set up 1g per pound of body weight protein intake and .5g pounds fat per pound body weight of your target weight for your diet as minimums.

This is common for an overweight person. And easily solves the should I use LBM or BW question.

[ironwill2008]

Btw, when we say per lb of body weight, is it lean body weight, total body weight, or goal body weight?

Unless the trainee is obese (and you're not), it's simplest/best to go by total body weight. So, for you, your protein intake would be about 200 gms/day, and your fat intake would be about 100 gms/day. As above, after totaling these two calorie amounts, you'd then be free to fill the remainder of your 2400 calories with any combination of macros you choose (with a slant towards micronutrient requirements as well).



If the trainee is obese, he'd use his target body weight as his guide.

[Rt8961]

[QUOTE=Minotaur;1183492001]I don't disagree with you... I've thought the body fat sounded too good to be true also. I think the on-line calculators and even the hand held Omron or Omicron or whatever they are at the gym are bull****. Obsessive-compulsive as I can be, I'm actually less concerned about an absolute number for bf % and weight as I am about where I want to be with measurements, and what I want to see in the mirror. So I should just forget the bf % and get on with it. [/QUOT


I get a bf test on an average once a month or two months for the past year and the Omron is usually off 3-4% from the actual skin caliper I get done. I'm 5'9 weigh 182 and the skin calipers state I'm at 15% and the Omron reads 19%. I started out I believe at 28% last Dec and the Omron stated 31% and has been off 3-4% every test all the way down to where I am now.

[Brackneyc]

OK I'm fat. There, I said it. 200 lbs; 23% body fat measured using a couple of different methods, all pretty bang on; waist 40" neck 17, biceps 16, chest 46, thigh 24. My avi is old, and I should probably change or remove it. I kind of let myself go since then.

My goal by June is 170-175; about 15% body fat; 34" waist. If 1" = 4-5 lbs lost, losing 6" puts me at about 170-175. Calorie requirements using Katch-McArdle (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/girard2.htm) give me (roughly) BMR = 1754, BMR+Activity = 2455, calories to lose = 1964. I know numbers can lie.

I'm setting my calories @ ~2000; 35/35/30 (pro 175g, carb 175g, fat 67g). My workouts are 3-4x week, weights ~50 mins. and cardio 30-40 mins. I could probably add more cardio.

So what I'm asking, because I've overthinking it and need an objective opinion... is this a sound plan? What would you tweak? Is this science fantasy, and am I delusional?

I'm on day two of my "cut." IMO, trial and error (with diet esp) will afford you the best long-term results where diet is concerned. IMO (again), anything short of a true 500 cal a day (food only) deficit is going half-speed on an initial weight loss journey.

Several years ago I entered a journey where at the end of it all, I had dropped a hair over 90lbs. I don't have nearly that much to lose now (a tiny fraction of that actually), but I will employ the same strategy.

[Minotaur]

The hard part is consistency over these long diets. Good luck with it. Managing a consistent deficit by tracking and eating less has got me where I wanted to go better than anything else.

In the beginning tracking is a pain in the ass, but after a while it becomes 2nd nature. I've done it on and off over the years. The longest I've gone is about a month or two to get a feel for what I was eating. I eat pretty much the same things all the time. I used Fitday, but now I use Myfitnesspal. I like MFP for all it's tools and toys.

Unless the trainee is obese (and you're not), it's simplest/best to go by total body weight. So, for you, your protein intake would be about 200 gms/day, and your fat intake would be about 100 gms/day. As above, after totaling these two calorie amounts, you'd then be free to fill the remainder of your 2400 calories with any combination of macros you choose (with a slant towards micronutrient requirements as well).



If the trainee is obese, he'd use his target body weight as his guide.

Ah, gotcha... thanks. This will be easy to plug into MFP to track.

I get a bf test on an average once a month or two months for the past year and the Omron is usually off 3-4% from the actual skin caliper I get done. I'm 5'9 weigh 182 and the skin calipers state I'm at 15% and the Omron reads 19%. I started out I believe at 28% last Dec and the Omron stated 31% and has been off 3-4% every test all the way down to where I am now.

I thought they were off by a few % points. I think the two most accurate are hydrostatic and DEX scan. For me, I don't think it's necessary. It's really just a curiosity.

I'm on day two of my "cut." IMO, trial and error (with diet esp) will afford you the best long-term results where diet is concerned. IMO (again), anything short of a true 500 cal a day (food only) deficit is going half-speed on an initial weight loss journey.

Several years ago I entered a journey where at the end of it all, I had dropped a hair over 90lbs. I don't have nearly that much to lose now (a tiny fraction of that actually), but I will employ the same strategy.

Best of luck cutting.

I did drop a total of about 40 lbs from about 2 1/2 years ago, but put back about 12. I went from 230 to 188, back up to 200. I was in 42 pants, and now between 38-40s, so I did make some good progress and still get compliments. Now I have to turn up the flame.

[bradandblake]

Is there any particular reason you are in a hurry to lose the weight? I mean... why not a two-three year plan?

[Minotaur]

Is there any particular reason you are in a hurry to lose the weight? I mean... why not a two-three year plan?

Not really any reason other than it's about 1 lb/week to lose 25-30 lbs in 6-7 months. That seems about the right pace.

[bradandblake]

Not really any reason other than it's about 1 lb/week to lose 25-30 lbs in 6-7 months. That seems about the right pace.

I meet people trying to lose weight everyday, and these shortcut to weight loss plans usually end in two-three months because they are burnt out or sapped out and I never them in the gym again. I mean, the end result and goal isn't the problem. Its that they refuse to make the lifestyle change, to make their goal stick into the future.

A longer term goal, imo, makes the "getting fit" part normal to you.

just my two cents...

[DocHoss]

Good luck Minotaur!

Aim for a pound a week - if you're not getting it, then cut back a bit more. Once you are in a routine (aka lifestyle change) it should be simple (remembering that you will have to adjust down as you lose more weight).

[Minotaur]

Edit: responding to bradandblake's post.

Don't misunderstand... I'm not one of those New Year's Resolutioners looking for a quick and easy fix. I don't think 1 lb a week is unreasonable. In fact, I'd be alarmed if I lost more than that. I've been at this for almost 20 years, and gained a lot of muscle. I'm too weak to be a powerlifter and too fat to be a bodybuilder, but that's how I trained, gaining fat along with the muscle. In 1994 I was 37 years old and 137 lbs. when I started. I went from a 14 1/2 shirt collar and 39 jacket to a 17 1/2 shirt collar and 48 jacket. I had probably 12-13" biceps in 1994, now 16" cold flexed (pretty hard, not fatceps, because most of my fat is in my midsection). I also ran, having done a marathon, a couple of half marys and 5 milers, and mountain biking. So I'm far from unfit. The problem is that I never got a handle on proper dieting. I know what to eat and what not to eat, I don't eat junk food or fast food, but I just threw caution to the wind as to how much I was eating. Now it's time to get serious about controlling the diet.

[Minotaur]

Good luck Minotaur!

Aim for a pound a week - if you're not getting it, then cut back a bit more. Once you are in a routine (aka lifestyle change) it should be simple (remembering that you will have to adjust down as you lose more weight).

Thanks, it really is a matter of discipline and establishing a routine. Yeah, I'd be happy with 1 lb/week. I don't think more than 1 lb/week is realistic for not losing muscle. When I started Weight Watchers in Jan. 2012 I followed it religiously and lost 30 lbs. Unfortunately WW is not designed for weight training, so I lost the wrong kind of weight. WW is too carb-heavy and protein-poor, so it was not sustainable, at least not for weight training.

[bradandblake]

Edit: responding to bradandblake's post.

Don't misunderstand... I'm not one of those New Year's Resolutioners looking for a quick and easy fix. I don't think 1 lb a week is unreasonable. In fact, I'd be alarmed if I lost more than that. I've been at this for almost 20 years, and gained a lot of muscle. I'm too weak to be a powerlifter and too fat to be a bodybuilder, but that's how I trained, gaining fat along with the muscle. In 1994 I was 37 years old and 137 lbs. when I started. I went from a 14 1/2 shirt collar and 39 jacket to a 17 1/2 shirt collar and 48 jacket. I had probably 12-13" biceps in 1994, now 16" cold flexed (pretty hard, not fatceps, because most of my fat is in my midsection). I also ran, having done a marathon, a couple of half marys and 5 milers, and mountain biking. So I'm far from unfit. The problem is that I never got a handle on proper dieting. I know what to eat and what not to eat, I don't eat junk food or fast food, but I just threw caution to the wind as to how much I was eating. Now it's time to get serious about controlling the diet.

Gotcha... And good luck to you!

[Minotaur]

Thanks.

[Tmax55]

Your weight loss goal is achievable - you just have to want it.

When I started lifting no-one believed in me because I was so scrawny and weak...no one believed in me - except - me. If I could do it then. I'll do it again. If I could do it then (when I say I was weak I was the guy that everyone laughed at and made fun of) you can do it now.

There was a Rocky 4 song that explains the pure beauty of this - its you against you.

All that matters is today. Do the right thing today.

[Minotaur]

Your weight loss goal is achievable - you just have to want it.

When I started lifting no-one believed in me because I was so scrawny and weak...no one believed in me - except - me. If I could do it then. I'll do it again. If I could do it then (when I say I was weak I was the guy that everyone laughed at and made fun of) you can do it now.

There was a Rocky 4 song that explains the pure beauty of this - its you against you.

All that matters is today. Do the right thing today.

Yep, the saying is "how bad do you want it?"

Thanks for the encouragement.

[vikingbro]

you look much fatter than 23%

[Minotaur]

you look much fatter than 23%

I don't think the 23% is right either. None of the on-line calculators are anywhere near accurate, except maybe the US Navy version which is definitely higher. Skinfold calipers can be way off if the person taking the measurements doesn't know what they're doing. That's why I'm not even going to worry about percentage.

[Brackneyc]

you look much fatter than 23%

Where's your pic?

[orangegoblin]

Where's your pic?

He's a Viking, man. Like all the rest of teen misc who are not currently Spartans. Cameras did not exist in his timeline.

Minotaur, good luck on your cut. I know you have a lot of experience with this stuff...but remember that slow and steady is the best way to go. Sounds like you are right on target.

[Minotaur]

Where's your pic? And you're 19.

Fixed.

Seriously, I did ask. However, as a thought experiment, because we know I don't care anymore about the percentage I'll concede to 26-28%.

[Minotaur]

Minotaur, good luck on your cut. I know you have a lot of experience with this stuff...but remember that slow and steady is the best way to go. Sounds like you are right on target.

Thanks. I have to get my butt in gear and finally make a go of this, not getting discouraged. One of the reasons, aw hell, the only reason, I've been laying low around here is because if I can't walk the walk, then I shouldn't talk the talk.