SarahLou
New member
- Awards
- 0
310 pounds to 169 in 14 months.
She might be tall?wow, lets hear how it was done!
Also, you don't look 169 in those pics, you look 120 at most.
120? i wish! 120-130 is my goal.. working progress. I'm at a massive plateau right now, when I first started I was a strict cardio bunny, but educated myself towards weight training, and body building.. so muscle mass weighs more than fat, sucks on the scale. I've worked out for the last year to presently, six days a week- 1 1/2 hours a day- or twice a day.I have not, eaten bread, pasta, rice (only basmati rice) etc. in approx a year. When I explain it- I cannot stress enough how It's not a diet. It's a lifestyle change, and everyday is a battle.And thank-you everyone! You're all wayyy too kind!wow, lets hear how it was done!Also, you don't look 169 in those pics, you look 120 at most.
She might be tall?
And I would know - I'm 5'5" too and weigh 162lbs. I know what my scrawny butt once looked like when I was 117lbs (in high school) and 125lbs (in college).5"5-Short
You are right about it being a lifestyle. My diet changes when I want to gain or lose muscle but to keep the fat off it takes an entire lifestyle of change. For plateau-busting, my suggestion to you is this:120? i wish! 120-130 is my goal.. working progress. I'm at a massive plateau right now, when I first started I was a strict cardio bunny, but educated myself towards weight training, and body building.. so muscle mass weighs more than fat, sucks on the scale. I've worked out for the last year to presently, six days a week- 1 1/2 hours a day- or twice a day.I have not, eaten bread, pasta, rice (only basmati rice) etc. in approx a year. When I explain it- I cannot stress enough how It's not a diet. It's a lifestyle change, and everyday is a battle.And thank-you everyone! You're all wayyy too kind!
Yes, that makes a lot more sense... a lot different from what i'm doing, thats for sure. I'm also using T3/Clen right now, today is week two.. I've dropped about 7 pounds in the last two months.. which isn't a lot, well not what i'm used to. I never honestly thought of doing a pre-breakfast cardio. Thanks so much! I'm 'new" so generally just do my own thing, and not much educated, but love to pick peoples brains to further my intelligence in the gym! Again.. thank you!You are right about it being a lifestyle. My diet changes when I want to gain or lose muscle but to keep the fat off it takes an entire lifestyle of change. For plateau-busting, my suggestion to you is this:-Eat more clean food for about a week. Actually go into a surplus for a few days (maybe 8-10 days)-After ramping up the metabolism on a higher calorie diet, you can cut it back down to about 10% below your maintenance level or about 200 calories.-Stop eating carbs after 4-5 PM every day-Do light to moderate intensity cardio in the AM pre-breakfast, about 45-60 minutes will do You should start cutting fat again with this setup. Eat like a horse during morning and afternoon and just live on proteins and a little fat (not too much) in the evening. The likely reason you have hit a plateau is because your body's metabolism is shutting down due to caloric restriction. If this is the case, you are actuallyat a stabilized weight which means you need to ramp your metabolism up again, then start performing fat-specific cardio ( before breakfast ) to help burn the fat off. Regardless, I congrats you 100%! You look amazing and I'm proud of you, even thoug I don't even know you.
You are a tuff good looking woman to reach such goals, in so little time, and you can handle your T3/Clen too! Clen puts me in the hospitalized state when I take even a small 20mcg dose lol.Yes, that makes a lot more sense... a lot different from what i'm doing, thats for sure. I'm also using T3/Clen right now, today is week two.. I've dropped about 7 pounds in the last two months.. which isn't a lot, well not what i'm used to. I never honestly thought of doing a pre-breakfast cardio. Thanks so much! I'm 'new" so generally just do my own thing, and not much educated, but love to pick peoples brains to further my intelligence in the gym! Again.. thank you!
One thing to keep in mind is that muscle does weigh more than fat, as you mentioned earlier.Yes, that makes a lot more sense... a lot different from what i'm doing, thats for sure. I'm also using T3/Clen right now, today is week two.. I've dropped about 7 pounds in the last two months.. which isn't a lot, well not what i'm used to. I never honestly thought of doing a pre-breakfast cardio. Thanks so much! I'm 'new" so generally just do my own thing, and not much educated, but love to pick peoples brains to further my intelligence in the gym! Again.. thank you!
so true, so true.One thing to keep in mind is that muscle does weigh more than fat, as you mentioned earlier.
A more accurate goal than scale weight might be a body fat percentage goal. Weight itself doesn't matter for a lean, sculpted, genuinly curvy body.
I don't see 170 pounds on you either, you either carry it well or have some fairly dense muscle mass. Either way, great job so far and keep at it, the last stretch of basically any physique goal is the toughest.
Was just about to type thisAlso, muscle does not weigh more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat, but a pound will always weigh a pound regardless of form.
Was waiting for someone to mention this. 3lbs is 3lbs whether its fat or muscle doesnt matter.Also, muscle does not weigh more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat, but a pound will always weigh a pound regardless of form.
Density, volume, and weight are different. Muscle is more dense than fat and will occupy less volume, but one pound of each will weigh the same amount.And just to be super technical, as long as we are discussing density, volume must be accounted for as well.
It requires a greater quantity of fat to reach one pound than muscle so yes, technically, muscle is heavier.
To say otherwise is like comparing motorcyles to a pick up truck. A truck is definitely heavier than a motorcycle (a standard cruiser, I'm sure somebody has a link to a world record sized bike or something) but if you stack up enough motorcycles, you could technically say motorcycles weigh as much as a truck.
The problem with fat and muscle each being a pound is that you are really comparing 1 lb-1 lb, not muscle volume to fat volume within the given pound.
Let's see if the Bro-science master of Texas understands it from an Engineer:Density, volume, and weight are different. Muscle is more dense than fat and will occupy less volume, but one pound of each will weigh the same amount.
Which is again comparing a pound to a pound.Density, volume, and weight are different. Muscle is more dense than fat and will occupy less volume, but one pound of each will weigh the same amount.
Lol, I post studies when they are called for by people telling me I'm wrong and don't have a study to back up things I say. Then the studies are either ignored, as in the most recent protein conversation, or disregarded as the conversation takes a semantical twist.Let's see if the Bro-science master of Texas understands it from an Engineer:
-Mass = the amount of MATTER , a measurement of inertia in mechanics.
-Volume = three dimensional space occupied by said matter, be it in liquid, solid, gas form (3 of the states of MATTER)
-Weight = UNIT OF FORCE , not the same as mass kg are NOT equal to Newtons and Pounds are NOT equal to SLUGS. Forces are MASS TIMES ACCELERATION , the acceleration of this particular FORCE is GRAVITY.
-Density = the amount of VOLUME (three dimensional space) occupied by said MASS (meaning matter) thus an example: kg/m^3
1 kg of fat = 1 kg of muscle , their densities will NOT be the same but their WEIGHT (meaning force) will still be 9.8 kg*m/s^2 (NEWTONS). Density is different as the APF (atomic packaging factor) within muscle cells and fat cells is different...thus they need more volume.
That should make it easier to understand, in case Mr. TexasGuy doesn't get it or tries to refute it with a "study" one can always quote simple Newtonian Physics...
I didn't realize the saying was, "a cubic foot of fat of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat." Volume is not being discussed; you're the one that brought that in to try to save face saying that muscle weighs more than fat.Which is again comparing a pound to a pound.
A cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. When quantified, muscle is heavier. I don't disagree that a pound weighs a pound, however.
No, I clarified my misunderstood comment. Now you know.I didn't realize the saying was, "a cubic foot of fat of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat." Volume is not being discussed; you're the one that brought that in to try to save face saying that muscle weighs more than fat.
You still don't understand density and mass; they are not interchangeable.No, I clarified my misunderstood comment. Now you know.
Now put that in the context of a human body where volume is a constant.This argument is ridiculous. You're all saying the same thing when you get down to it. If volume was treated as a constant than of course muscle would weigh more than fat due to its density. If you had equivalent masses then fat would take up more space. This isn't even really worth a discussion.
No, but a 45 pound barbell plate weighs more than a 15 pound dumbell, unless you put 3 dumbells together which is what we are doing in this thread.45pound barbell plates weight more than 45 pound dumbells.
/Fixedthread
It's all kind of grey and there will be more arguments based around these questions.Well Gentlemen, Thank-You for clarifying the muscle mass vs body fat.. Makes sense regarding density wise.Now for a question: I want to continue building muscle but yet I want to lose body fat- Doing more reps at a light weight would result in fat loss, correct? Impossible to gain more muscle on a light weight, for a like to challenge myself to fail when in comes to weight lifting, how would I go about this one?OFF TO SMASH JIM.
You'll burn more calories with higher volume and you'll also trigger a larger growth hormone response as well. Both equate to more success in cutting down. You can have some heavy lifting in there as well, but honestly the 12-20 rep range with short breaks in b/w sets would maximize the intensity and increase your likelihood of success.
On a side note, it is absolutely sad that there is always someone who comes onto a thread being a smart aleck rather than just making a simple, educated assumption when another person makes a mistake in regards to a post. EVERYONE KNEW what he meant about muscle and fat. There ought to be mandatory grace-oriented classes offered on this board for the members who are always controversial (regardless of their accuracy or experience in something). Too many people feed off controversy on this board. If someone is wrong, prove it in a professional and courteous way. Your degree doesn't qualify your opinion any more than my experience qualifies me. Plus, stop high-jacking a thread and take OT arguments to PM instead.
What would that be?Texas, I think I just learned something from your last post. I'm speechless, lol.
Gotcha. Just something I've noticed. I don't have a double blind, placebo controlled study to prove it but the pattern certainly repeats itself consistently.The last paragraph was the reality check.
Nope. Just a mirror. So far it isn't me completely disregarding methods for the sake of some kind of "victory", it isn't me ranting about science and then ignoring inconvenient studies or limitations in an on topic conversation (best practice vs. doable acknowledges both arguments), nor am I de-railing threads to pull people in to weird and out of context, not to mention off topic side arguments.So much irony....
Irony is not the word to describe this...I'm sorry dude but I must admit even I missed it. You suffer from Dunning-Kruger...Nope. Just a mirror. So far it isn't me completely disregarding methods for the sake of some kind of "victory", it isn't me ranting about science and then ignoring inconvenient studies or limitations in an on topic conversation (best practice vs. doable acknowledges both arguments), nor am I de-railing threads to pull people in to weird and out of context, not to mention off topic side arguments.
I post to an OP and the same scenario as this thread plays out from training to nutrition and even general chat political sub-forums. Some of the same characters either happen to have uncannily similar interests or an awkard and contrary chip on their shoulder and will ignore context and common sense to play it. It's weird.
If you'll go back through conversations you'll see I've acknowledged the efficacy of IF diets while pointing out limitations, most of which were ignored or avoided altogether, the ability to gain muscle with relatively low levels of protein intake though science shows higher levels to be beneficial to the vast majority of lifters, the importance of biceps which can't really be denied and probably some other arguments Rodja most likely initiated and you and judojosh swing in "randomly" to ride his coat tails or simply start a flame war, every time. My only mistake is to carry on with your bull**** but sometimes it is fun.Irony is not the word to describe this...I'm sorry dude but I must admit even I missed it. You suffer from Dunning-Kruger...
yup that is exactly what I do on this board.If you'll go back through conversations you'll see I've acknowledged the efficacy of IF diets while pointing out limitations, most of which were ignored or avoided altogether, the ability to gain muscle with relatively low levels of protein intake though science shows higher levels to be beneficial to the vast majority of lifters, the importance of biceps which can't really be denied and probably some other arguments Rodja most likely initiated and you and judojosh swing in "randomly" to ride his coat tails or simply start a flame war, every time. My only mistake is to carry on with your bull**** but sometimes it is fun.
Oh, I remember another, aesthetic balance argued on planar terms. It's always semantical bull**** and I don't initiate it, this thread is a perfect example.
Among other things.yup that is exactly what I do on this board.