Cant lose the gut!!

SpaceCowb0y

To be fair i havnt been going out too much lately, i had a bad time last october and have been keeping it relatively tame and was sick with swine flu over Christmas so didnt drink at all then. I have been out a fair bit since but nothing to crazy! ! big all weekender in Jan and just the occasional night out otherwise but nothing hectic! I will accept tho that the times i have gone out on a big weekend i have gone through a fair amount of alcohol but surely thats not all thats preventing my gut from shrinking?

GoldRush4821

Well, you say you've been training hard for 2 months so if you haven't been drinking that much over that time then it may not be that. I just can't imagine you'd be incapable of losing the gut when the fat is being stripped off other places, as you've said it has. I don't see a reason why your body would be so desperate to cling onto it. I mean yes its visceral fat and it serves a purpose but that hardly means us humans need a pot belly just to protect our vital organs...

I think, up the intensity of the cardio, keep it strict with the diet and try to avoid alcohol for the month like you said. I would be very surprised if you didn't lose a considerable amount off your stomach, but if not, you can always come back on boards and tell me off for not knowing what I'm talking about!

Good luck with it, hope you can pull it off.

FTA69

SpaceCowb0y wrote: »

but surely thats not all thats preventing my gut from shrinking?

It's by far and away the biggest reason. You'll find the vast majority of those with a six-pack etc are not downing 20 pints a weekend. I was off the sauce for a month until I fell off the wagon last weekend and the difference is huge.

SpaceCowb0y

GoldRush4821 wrote: »

you say you've been training hard for 2 months so if you haven't been drinking that much over that time then it may not be that. I just can't imagine you'd be incapable of losing the gut when the fat is being stripped off other places, as you've said it has.

Yeah ive been wondering the same thing, but i do reckon alcohol consumption is definitely playin its part! Im looking forward to this next month of sobriety and hard training, Ill definitely up the cardio from now on too! Hope i get the results for it! Thanks for all the feedback!:)

Roger Marbles

The thing about alcohol is that it isn't just extra calories (which can be massive), it's also the fact that it diverts your body's metabolism towards body fat storage at the expense of other pathways by increasing levels of NADH in the body. Double whammy.

Mellor

Degsy wrote: »

Cut out the booze for three months.

Ten pints=3000 calories...3000 calories=1lb of fat.
Three months off booze should result in a minimum 14 lbs weight loss regardless of whatever else you are doing.

A beer is about 200 cals, not 300 and its 3500 cals to a lb of fat.

I agree beer can be a problem. But you're exaggerating a lot there.

SanoVitae

Beer has a really bad effect in terms of water retention, not just fat gain. This is what causes the bloated look, not just in the stomach, but also the face.

The stomach tends to bloat up because of the accumulation of sulphur-bearing gases in the in the gut. So apart from the calorie content (not that much when you drink in moderation), it's something to be aware of.

Degsy

Mellor wrote: »

A beer is about 200 cals, not 300 and its 3500 cals to a lb of fat.

I agree beer can be a problem. But you're exaggerating a lot there.

A lot you say?
Sorry if i didnt trawl the internet for exact facts and figures..sometimes its easier and i'm sure the OP will get the point.

Drinking beer causes a beer belly if you do too much of it..a night's drinking can be bad for the belly in more ways than one..how many people do you see thronging Abrakbebra and Supermacs at 4am looking to stuff themselves with shiite to soak up the beer.

boomtown84

Degsy wrote: »

A lot you say?
Sorry if i didnt trawl the internet for exact facts and figures..sometimes its easier and i'm sure the OP will get the point.

Drinking beer causes a beer belly if you do too much of it..a night's drinking can be bad for the belly in more ways than one..how many people do you see thronging Abrakbebra and Supermacs at 4am looking to stuff themselves with shiite to soak up the beer.

how very dare you!

Sparky_Larks

Losing weight does come down to the calorie deficit. The problem is in calculating the calorie deficit.

This is what I do and have found it effective.
1) Set-up an excel sheet to do all the calculations below,

2) Weigh myself on an electronic scales with fat percentage every morning
Use my Body fat and weight to calculate my Basal metabolic rate. 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg.

3) Multiply my Basal by 1.2( as I work in a sedentary job)

4) Log everything I eat and the exercise I do.

5) subtract the Calories out from calories in

If I want to lose weight I make sure I have a deficit of 500 calories, any bigger and I start to lose muscle.

gingangoolu

Years ago when I played rugby and wanted a flat stomach, a trainer told me never eat after 6pm, I didn't and it worked. Obviously, eat less-exercise more is important but if you want a hard stomach then I'd def. reccommend not eating after 6.

boomtown84

gingangoolu wrote: »

Years ago when I played rugby and wanted a flat stomach, a trainer told me never eat after 6pm, I didn't and it worked. Obviously, eat less-exercise more is important but if you want a hard stomach then I'd def. reccommend not eating after 6.

i think you posted in the wrong thread.
this one is probably more suitable: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056180987

gymsoldier

Sparky_Larks wrote: »

Weigh myself on an electronic scales with fat percentage every morning
Use my Body fat and weight to calculate my Basal metabolic rate

And for the people without the fancy weighing scales;

use the Harris-Benedict equation.

Sparky_Larks

gymsoldier wrote: »

And for the people without the fancy weighing scales;

use the Harris-Benedict equation.

I used the Harris-Benedict equation at first but found that it worked out at about 300cal too high. Bought the fancy scales for 27euro in Lidl. The Katch McArdle formula seamed much more accurate.

gymsoldier

Sparky_Larks wrote: »

I used the Harris-Benedict equation at first but found that it worked out at about 300cal too high. Bought the fancy scales for 27euro in Lidl. The Katch McArdle formula seamed much more accurate.

Explain; why did you feel it was 300cals too high?

EDIT: Just used your method, and I came out with the same calories as the H-B equation. My bodyfat precentage came from skinfold measurements taken 2weeks ago. So was the H-B method 300cals too high? Probly not, I think its inaccurate bodyfat estimation on your behalf.

Mellor

Degsy wrote: »

A lot you say?
Sorry if i didnt trawl the internet for exact facts and figures..sometimes its easier and i'm sure the OP will get the point[/B]
Yeah i said a lot. You disagee?
You said 10 pints = 1 lb pf fat
When its actually about 17 or 18,

I didn't trawl the internet the fact that 3500 is roughly 1 lb is pretty well known. i was just correcting an error in your post. No need to get so defensive.

Drinking beer causes a beer belly if you do too much of it..a night's drinking can be bad for the belly in more ways than one..how many people do you see thronging Abrakbebra and Supermacs at 4am looking to stuff themselves with shiite to soak up the beer.

???????
I agreed with you that beer was terrible, it's defo the worst part of my diet.
And obviously food after is just as bad, if not worse.

6 pints and a snack box on the way home is easily the daily calories for an adult

Sparky_Larks

gymsoldier wrote: »

Explain; why did you feel it was 300cals too high?

EDIT: Just used your method, and I came out with the same calories as the H-B equation. My bodyfat precentage came from skinfold measurements taken 2weeks ago. So was the H-B method 300cals too high? Probly not, I think its inaccurate bodyfat estimation on your behalf.

I felt it was too high because I was losing weight at a lower rate than I expected. my calculation had me losing a pound a week(500 cal deficit a day) but it was taking a good bit longer.

I was 5ft 11 217 lbs 28% body fat.
Harris Benidict was 2129 multiplied by 1.2 = 2550
Klatch McArdle was 1870 multiplied by 1.2 = 2244


The results that I saw seamed to imply that the body fat was correct for me
Now at 5 11 195lbs 18.5% body fat the numbers are closer.

Harris benidict is 1995
Klatch McArdle is 1852

Mellor

gymsoldier wrote: »

Explain; why did you feel it was 300cals too high?

EDIT: Just used your method, and I came out with the same calories as the H-B equation. My bodyfat precentage came from skinfold measurements taken 2weeks ago. So was the H-B method 300cals too high? Probly not, I think its inaccurate bodyfat estimation on your behalf.

I imagine you are about 14% BF or so.
How does the accuracy of his bf matter? Surely there are some people at those values, who would get the 300 cal difference.

Two people at the same weight, one at 10% bf and the other at 30% body fat. Have very different BMR values.

Harris Benedict doesn't account for this, so its a widely known flaw.
But it's just a rough guide. It aims to tell you what the BMR is for the average person. Which is about 14 or 15 % afaik. If you are fat it will over estimate, if you are very lean it will underestimate.

To prove this, open up a calculator both. Use the same weight/height/age/sex for each.
Plug in 25% body fat, McArdle is lower right.
now drop this to 8% body fat. McArdle is higher now i bet.

gymsoldier

Sparky_Larks wrote: »

I felt it was too high because I was losing weight at a lower rate than I expected. my calculation had me losing a pound a week(500 cal deficit a day) but it was taking a good bit longer.

I was 5ft 11 217 lbs 28% body fat.
Harris Benidict was 2129 multiplied by 1.2 = 2550
Klatch McArdle was 1870 multiplied by 1.2 = 2244


The results that I saw seamed to imply that the body fat was correct for me
Now at 5 11 195lbs 18.5% body fat the numbers are closer.

Harris benidict is 1995
Klatch McArdle is 1852

You should only reduce calories by 15% according to Bean's law.

Mellor wrote: »

I imagine you are about 14% BF or so.
How does the accuracy of his bf matter? Surely there are some people at those values, who would get the 300 cal difference.

Two people at the same weight, one at 10% bf and the other at 30% body fat. Have very different BMR values.

Harris Benedict doesn't account for this, so its a widely known flaw.
But it's just a rough guide. It aims to tell you what the BMR is for the average person. Which is about 14 or 15 % afaik. If you are fat it will over estimate, if you are very lean it will underestimate.

To prove this, open up a calculator both. Use the same weight/height/age/sex for each.
Plug in 25% body fat, McArdle is lower right.
now drop this to 8% body fat. McArdle is higher now i bet.

My BF is a shade under 8% with BF calapries reading 19.2mm total on four locations using the Durnin/Womersley Caliper Method.

The accuracy of his BF is hugely important when using his K McA method, even you said yourself that HB dosent account for BF therefore making it even more important to have accuracy. I agree though with people at differnt BF will have different BMR. What I was stating though was that when I did both methods, I came out with the same BMR. So I suggest that "Sparky_Larks" starts using BF calipers to determine BF.

Copper23

All great advice here.
The gut is probably one of the last areas to start losing weight and the first to put it on in guys especially so depending how you are made up you might be on track but just have to continue.

Having said that 2 things are helping me now end:

Food scales. I bought a cool little ditigal one on ebay. Cheap. Weight every portion, prepare if you are on the go.

Livestrong.com/myplate : Track every morsel you eat. Set up a realistic goal. Realise what it will take to loose 1-2 lbs a week. Track everything you eat there and using the scales be completely honest about portion size.

No gimmicks, no tricks, this is working for me as long as I'm totally honest about portion sizes.

I know, it seems a pain but I said the same for too long and its working for me now.
The foods your eating seems ok so I'm guessing it's just portion size.
The first 2-3 days you cut calories, you can seem hungry, this takes will power, by day 4-5 you will be back to normal energy with good foods no longer hungry. It works, plenty water too.

Seriously. No gimmicks here, this works. After ages of struggling to understand it, I got confused with diet plans, exact foods to eat and all sorts of workouts. Keep your workout simple. Calculate your goals and stick to it. Nothing else. I used to workout killing myself and then cause myself to actually eat more and it just cancelled it out. I actually don't kill myself with exercise right now, just enough and watch the calories in vs. out.