310 pounds to 169 pounds

Page 1 of 9 123 ... Last
  1. 310 pounds to 169 pounds


    310 pounds to 169 in 14 months.








  2. Way to go!
    •   
       


  3. Absolutely amazing work, good job, great dedication!
    OBSESSED is a word the LAZY use to describe the DEDICATED.
    Beast Mode RECOMP: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/224356-beast-mode recomp.html

  4. Fascinating and absolutely wonderful. This is a true inspiration and something to show people to drop the excuses and just seize their goals!

    I clap, applaud, celebrate and salute this! You are an inspiration .
    >SNS-Glycophase<
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Rep

  5. Incredible work! Very inspiring.
    PEScience Representative
    http://pescience.com/insider http://facebook.com/pescience
    •   
       


  6. wow, lets hear how it was done!

    Also, you don't look 169 in those pics, you look 120 at most.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    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?

  8. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    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!

  9. Quote Originally Posted by beastybean View Post
    She might be tall?

    5"5-Short

  10. Quote Originally Posted by SarahLou View Post
    5"5-Short
    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).

  11. Great job! I agree that you are an inspiration
    After a year off, I'm back

  12. Quote Originally Posted by SarahLou View Post
    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!
    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.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    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.
    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!

  14. ^ This website will then be the perfect place for you to expand your knowledge base and pick peoples brains haha i've already done much of that myself
    OBSESSED is a word the LAZY use to describe the DEDICATED.
    Beast Mode RECOMP: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/224356-beast-mode recomp.html

  15. Don't even know what to say but wow!True inspiration as everyone has said!Great work!
    SERIOUS NUTRITION SOLUTIONS
    mack @ seriousnutritionsolutions.com
    "Revolutionizing Sports Nutrition, One Product At A Time"

  16. Quote Originally Posted by SarahLou View Post
    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 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.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by SarahLou View Post
    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.

    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.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    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.
    so true, so true.

  19. Truly amazing transformation that you've made. I agree that it doesn't look like you weigh as much as you say you do, but, remember, the scale is only a number and lies many times. Don't worry too much about that number and focus on maintaining your health.

    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys

  20. Re: 310 pounds to 169 pounds


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post

    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.
    Was just about to type this



    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    Was waiting for someone to mention this. 3lbs is 3lbs whether its fat or muscle doesnt matter.
    Psalms 62:1-62:2
    Body Performance Solutions Rep

  22. Jesus. Within a given area muscle will take up less room, creating the illusion of being lighter than the scale shows compared to someone weighing the same amount with a higher fat content, assuming all other variables are the same.


    Either way, a body fat percentage is most likely a better goal than a particular scale weight.

  23. 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.

    Edit: To be clear, one cubic foot of muscle will weigh more than the exact same quantity of fat. It is heavier.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    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.
    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys


  25. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    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...
    >SNS-Glycophase<
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Rep

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.

    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.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Celorza View Post
    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...
    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.

    I appreciate the text book definitions of weight, volume et cetera.

    We are again on a semantical twist, however.

    A cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. The gravitational pull on a cubic foot of muscle will be greater than the gravitational pull on a cubic foot of fat.

    Failing to quantify amounts doesn't give an accurate comparison given that a human body requires volumetric measurement in context.

    I'm not going to go down a semantical tangent again. We are discussing the subjects of volume and weight from opposite sides of the fence. Yes, 1 lb is 1 lb though more of one substance is required to reach one pound but that isn't the point I'm making. It's an unqualified comparison.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    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.
    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys


  29. 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.

  30. ya'll hijacked her thread... lol
    OBSESSED is a word the LAZY use to describe the DEDICATED.
    Beast Mode RECOMP: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/224356-beast-mode recomp.html
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-04-2012, 04:29 PM
  2. My Quest to 1000 Pounds
    By Ryno703 in forum Workout Logs
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 12-24-2008, 11:57 PM
  3. New Member, wanting to loose 5 pounds
    By Wendy21 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-08-2007, 01:11 PM
  4. Trying to loose 20 pounds of flubber
    By nidan in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-23-2005, 07:41 PM
  5. I have started to cut, 5 pounds down and more to go....
    By windwords7 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-02-2003, 06:32 PM
Log in
Log in