i am a 20 year old girl, and i currently weigh 116 lbs. i'm 5'5 in height.
last year, around october, the parties lined up almost everyday, and as a result, i gained around 6-8 lbs. even before that, i guess i hadn't really kept track of what i was eating, as i was used to having a slim body and felt i could eat as much without gaining as much. however, i think the food binge was what did me in.
i used to have a totally flat stomach, and a 27inch waistline. now it's got a little bulge, and my waistline is now up to 28.5inches. my hips measure around 36.5inches.

i recently started working out on the crosstrainer, and i manage 30minutes before getting dead tired, and im working to get my minutes up. i also do free weights only for around 10minutes tops because i'm not very sure which lifts would be best and which are easy to do (and do right). suggestions of easy and effective lifts are welcome too!


so how should i set my goals? i want to get down to around 106lbs, but i don't know if this would actually really decrease my waistline. furthermore, i've tried eating less, as recommended, but not to the point that i would starve myself. (counting my calories - 1200/1300 a day)

do you have any advice on what i could do about this and if i should make any more changes?
i used to never exercise but i feel its importance, specially since i have a slightly higher resting heart rate than normal, usually around the 120s.

any advice/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. thank you so much.

If you lose 10 lbs you will be underweight. Don't bother counting calories just eat more and do more exercise.

1) Get your body fat checked so you know exactly how much FAT to lose. A healthy goal would be 20% body fat - that would be pretty darned lean for a woman. Get a tape measure and track your progress. You can lose weight, but if your diet and exercise is wrong it'll be muscle you're losing, and you'll be thin but flabby.

2) Increase your weight training. No, it's not fun. In fact, I pretty much hate weight training, but it really works to trim down those last few pounds and tone up at the same time. If it's not uncomfortable for your last few reps, you're wasting your time, so make the intensity high enough that it hurts. Ouch, painful truth.

3) It sounds like you're terribly out of shape if your RHR is in the 120s. Is this your true resting heart rate? Invest in a good heart rate monitor (Polar makes good ones), strap one on and sit around watching tv for a while, like 20 minutes or so, and then check your heart rate. If it's still 120 I would be a little concerned.

4) Slow down on the cross trainer. If you want to burn fat, take the intensity down (so you can stay on it longer) and increase duration. Keep your heart rate no higher than 160-ish. If you can watch TV while doing this you'll soon forget you're working out because the intensity isn't so high that you're huffing and puffing.

6) Don't just count calories and think that eating less will make you lose the right weight!! You have to have a good balance of protein, carbs, and fats. Don't eliminate any one of those from your diet because they are ALL important. Reducing down to 1200 a day is fine so long as you're not spending an hour in the gym every day (in which case you should eat more because your muscle demands are higher and you need more protein/ fuel to support your body). I strive for 40/30/30 balance: 40% of calories from carbs, 30% from protein, 30% from fat.

5) Be more active - walk instead of drive on short trips, etc.

6) Lay off the booze. Seriously, there is a TON of calories in pretty much any alcohol, even the so-called "light" ones. This is because alcohol itself is metabolized for its calorie content - about the same calorie content as fat if I remember correctly. "Light" just means less carbs, but the alcohol content is the same. This isn't a well advertised fact. Why the government doesn't mandate nutrition labels on alcohol is beyond me, but even if they did, the alcohol wouldn't be listed as a calorie contributor anyway.

7) If you're gaining weight mostly in your mid-section, it's a dead give-away for gaining visceral fat. You can research blood sugar, insulin, visceral fat, diabetes, and the glycemic index / load of foods to understand what foods are causing this weight gain and how to reduce them and your belly fat.

8)Lastly, fat doesn't fall off overnight. For pure fat loss, don't expect more than a pound a week. For more overweight people, 2+ pounds is common in the early stages of "dieting", but in your case you don't have much to lose so it's not going to melt off!

alcohol has 7 kcal/gram (fat 9, protein/carbs 4). most light beers have less calories than the original - typically around 90-100 vs 120-130. although some "light" beers (ie, sam adams light) have more calories than non-light beers (guinness). the nutrition information is often available on the websites.

also, if your RHR is really in the 120s, go get your thyroid checked.

I absolutely 100% disagree with this. Longer duration cardio causes your body to metabolize muscle as your body will attempt to "lighten the load" in terms of energy dependence if it thinks that long sustained periods of burn are the norm and fat doesn't burn calories... it just sits there while your muscles work, and your muscles work whether you're in the gym or in bed all day.

If your goal is to lose fat and not muscle, you shouldn't do more than 30 to 45 minutes of cardio and it should be high intensity, preferably intervals as those trigger your body to build muscle which is the best way to burn fat as increased muscle mass means an increased metabolism.

Intervals don't allow your body to find a pace, so it "shocks" your muscles into growth, and your body will continue to burn calories AFTER you finish working out. Lower intensity/higher duration cardio sessions pretty much stop burning calories when you stop running or get off the machine; and that afterburn from intervals (and weight lifting) is a result of your muscles repairing themselves which is where muscle increases come from.

Lifting is also much more important for fat loss than what folks give it credit for, for the same reasons. Calories are burned for up to 48 hours after your workout and increasing muscle mass, again, increases your natural calorie burn.

A lot of people, women especially, will argue against lifting saying that they "don't want to get big and bulky" but the truth is that women have a very uphill battle to increase in size. Your body simply doesn't generate enough testosterone to bulk up quickly, hell, if you talk to guys who are trying to bulk up they'll tell you just how hard it is. The truth is, gaining GOOD weight is just as hard as losing weight. Besides that, lifting alone doesn't lead to icnreased size; your diet is a much bigger factor... if you're not eating in significant excess (especially protein) then you simply will not put on size.

Don't focus so much on your calorie intake or your weight as those are only a small part of the bigger picture. If you really want to track those numbers, make sure you track your body fat % as well, as reducing your calories and only watching the scale can and often does lead to "unhealthy" loss (significant muscle loss) when people start feeling "desperate" to make the needle on the scale move. I'd probably recommend (other than tracking body fat) that you take measurements and/or do a weekly photo log so you can visually see your own progress over time; it's difficult to see progress on a daily basis.

On an unrelated note, does anything else find the irony hilarious that the text editor for the forums of a fitness site (Traineo) thinks that the words "cardio" and "Traineo" are misspelled?

....No.

Anyway, Angie and Clifford are dead on. Both types of exercise (weightlifting and cardio) are important for fitness and weight loss.

A RHR of 120 sounds like tachycardia. I would double-check and if it's right, then go see a doctor. You'll need to consider that when exercising.

Also, keep in mind you want to exercise regularly, not just after you've lost the pounds you want to lose.

P.S. Clifford, it's probably your browser's spellcheck that is flagging 'cardio' and 'Traineo.' Besides, cardio isn't really a word; it's an abbreviation of one.

...Yes.

More calories = more muscle!

Too many people imagine that counting calories and cutting those down is some magic wand that will wipe fat off your body when it's honestly not that simple. Calories are not the enemy. This isn't to say that you should eat everything you see; but eat smart and don't fill up on empty calories or things like trans fats and ultimately you'll be feeding your body what it needs and it will respond.

That being said, I half agree with your dissent on the quote, don't overdo the exercise or your body will go into overtraining mode which will have the same effect on your muscle mass as starving yourself: you'll lose muscle and gain fat.

Completely agreed on that point. I just think that "don't bother counting calories" is the same as "don't pay attention what you eat."

In general, "eat more and work out more" is a statement that, when unqualified, can cause more damage than help. I'd prefer to present a more balanced perspective as you did. Diet is SUPREMELY important. Counting calories is important as well.

I'm not one of those people that thinks you should starve yourself. But eat right.

Ok... let me clarify... I didn't mean that she should eat whatever she wants and not pay attention to good nutrition.

What I meant is that she doesn't need to lose weight, she needs to get fitter and more toned - so she shouldn't cut down on calories, she should focus on eating enough GOOD food and doing plenty of exercise.

If she cuts down on calories to lose those 10 lbs her BMI will be 17. IMHO I think she should actually avoid losing any more weight.

Cliff, I've read too many articles on the subject. Your body does metabolize protein after about 90 minutes of aerobic activity, true, but it's a very small amount when compared to the amount of fat burned. People read that it burns muscle and get all freaked out and think they shouldn't work out for more than 30 minutes... baloney I say. You are only partly informed.

In about 700 calories burned, 30 or 40 of those were from amino acids - very easily replaced by a meal or protein shake directly afterwards.

Less than 50% VO2 max and you are primarily burning fat, even with long sustained periods of activity. Hence the reason I said to turn down the intensity and increase the duration. You don't necessarily have to build muscle to burn fat. You don't even have to strive for increased cardiovascular fitness either. You could simply walk and be guaranteed that you burned fat and didn't wear yourself out in the process.

Of course, if you can find an article from a reputable source, with references, that speak contrary to what I've just said, please send me a link, and I will stand corrected.

Losing excess body fat is never a bad thing. Having said that, depending on her frame, she might could stand to gain a bit of muscle.

Yes that's what I'm trying to say! Anyway good luck Angel

all good information..

Do you have access to a gym?

If so, I would simply recommend -

*get the RHR issue checked w/ a Dr
*Do Stronglift's 5x5 beginner program (or similar; focus primarily on compound lifts with perfect form) for weight training and eat accordingly
*Listen to Cliff on the cardio part. While you do indeed burn a higher percentage of fat at lower intensity, you simply do burn more fat at a higher intensity because of how much more energy you require.

Do that for 2 months and track BF and measurements. Don't even think a second about BMI, it is medical bunk and has no value.

a note on eating. Angie mentions the 40/30/30 (and she will provide some great advice on how to eat better if you ask nice I'm sure) - this is a great ratio to start out with, but also consider making the 40% protein, and the 30/30 carbs/fat. As long as you drink a lot of water and spread this out through the day, it will definitely help you add muscle and burn fat. I do, however, caution that you eat more than you currently are (follow more closely what you will see on the stronglifts website).

.... but don't get burned out on exercising by killing yourself for 30 minutes on the cross trainer. If it's not an enjoyable, sustainable experience I can bet you won't stick with it for long. You'll burn more fat in the long run by taking measures to make it a more pleasant experience.

this is true, though I don't think you'll see a ton of results from cardio in general - these will likely come more from increases in LBM. Assuming it's an all-clear for exercising and you want to do cardio, I would recommend something like the couch-to-5k program which gets you running intervals. If it's difficult, it will be a much better workout, and there will come a point in those where you get that endorphin rush from the intensity.

I tend to not believe everything I read, especially on this subject; after all, the "facts" change every few years or so (water is bad for you now? now it's good for you? SO CONFUSLED), what I do believe in is what lined up with what worked for me, I've found that my body was metabolizing muscle at a much faster rate when I was doing 45 minutes to an hour of cardio; once I reduced that to 30 minutes at a higher intensity I continued to see the same overall trend in weight change (~3lbs/week) but the loss was a significantly higher percent of fat and most weeks was purely fat. I should note that of all the variables under my control when I was experimenting with this, the ONLY thing that I changed was the duration and intensity of my cardio.

I'm not trying to brag, but just for reference/credibility, I've lost 67lbs to date sine Christmas and 13.5% body fat and, while that hasn't been a ton of time, I have experimented quite a bit.

I've done quite a bit of reading (and since you didn't cite sources, I won't spend time trying to find these articles again either ) that talked about this on both sides of the argument, one of the areas that they agreed on was that your body is primarily burning glycogen during the first 25-30 minutes of cardio, which is to say that your body is using fuel from food you ate THAT day when you run. The articles that encouraged longer runs used that "fact" to argue that you'd NEED to run for 45 minutes to an hour in order to get your body to burn fat. Your body will not go primarily to fat stores for energy when there is immediate energy available. Your body keeps fat around for periods when it needs energy and there isn't any available, so it's not going to tap into it's reserves if it doesn't need to.

There certainly are ways to lose fat without building muscle, but I would argue that anything else is far from being the most efficient way to do it (and I'm not saying that my way is THE OMFG BEST WAY, I'm sure it isn't). Again, not to brag, but my personal experience and numbers are a big argument for high intensity, lower duration and most (keyword being "most") of the other people I know who have either undertaken this journey in a similar way in the past or have taken my advice and just started are all seeing a very similar trend. I also have friends who are big runners and their workout run is probably at least a 5k, probably closer to 10k or more, and they're also the ones that I hear complaining about how much they work out without seeing results (love handles, etc.)

45 minutes at what intensity? What heart rate? Less than 50% VO2 max and you're primarily burning fat.

I'm arguing on the side of sustainability. No doubt higher intensity will burn more calories per hour! But when the exercise isn't fun (and this girl doesn't seem to be particularly enjoying it) or rewarding, you quit. So I still say drop down the intensity to make it more pleasant, and increase duration. More fat burned, less burning out on exercise.

I've linked to one article that I know of on traineo regarding amino acid digestion. Unfortunately this POS forum doesn't give the ability to search for posts, which would be handy for all these people that ask the same questions over and over again. I'll see if I can find the link and again and send it to you.

Also, not to brag or anything, but I've lost 20 lbs in the last few months pretty much doing nothing strenuous, and gained a few pounds of muscle in the process. Just a bit of walking and eating right. GASP! (Much more fun in my opinion.) While couch-to-5k sounds like it would be a great fit for a lot of people, my knees hurt every time I squat or walk up and down stairs. Running is probably not the best activity for me. Hell, even the elliptical makes my knees feel weird sometimes.

hey guys, let's keep it positive, ok? we're all on the same side. not everything works for everybody.

I think that is the Key.. Each person's body is different in the way it reacts to exercise and diet. It depends a lot on body makeup etc. We have to be careful when offering suggestions to others on diet and exercise and also when taking suggestions. Try out different things and work out what seems to work for you.

I think the first thing and top priority is getting the HR checked out by a doctor because if it is indeed that high there might be some restrictions on the intensity of cardio that can be done. From there you should take a look at all the suggestions given (I think there is good info in what everyone said) and make your own plan of attack, and be flexible... If something is not working for you, or you are not happy with the results, try something different.

Just keep at it. And always always remember to be positive, don't obsess and enjoy life.

Touche. I think the point we can both agree on is that whatever you can stick with is what's going to work best for you. My personal attitude is that cardio is never fun if it doesn't somehow involve a ball and score (potential for contact/tackles is a plus) so I'd rather get that intensity up and get it over and done with quicker; which is why probably a third to a half of my cardio sessions are HIIT and over in 15-18 minutes. My friends who run long distances get that runners high, so they love it and, while they may complain about stubborn fat areas, they are certainly in great shape, so I may have used taht argument out of context.



No! You're a jerk! Your mom goes to college!

I don't think we've been particularly negative, just debating our own sides; while it may be easy to interpret our enthusiasm and passion for those beliefs as "negativity" towards the other side, I don't think that's the case... While Angie is WRONG and a BAD PERSON (*wink* ;)) for not agreeing with me, I don't think the gloves have come off yet

I agree. I love reading posts from both Clifford and Angie, because both have been very helpful to my own goals. I only needed to lose about 20 lbs, then I stalled at about 10 lbs away from my goal... And after taking suggestions from both, I began to lose fat again.

There's really no hard and fast rule that I've learned from being on Traineo, EXCEPT THIS: keep your body guessing. Try new things. It's not only mentally fun, it's physically challenging.

I'm guilty of doing some 'non strenuous' days at 50% intensity (using the Karvonen method) when I felt like I was going to throw up... and 65% intensity on the days when I felt great. Just do what you can and your threshold will go up. But don't fall into a pattern, or your results will slow down.

Wrong?! I am not WRONG! I am always right. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you'll fall in line with the rest of my minions,
muhahahahahaha!!!

I agree, I thought we were getting along just fine?

BTW, I haven't gotten around to linking to articles yet because I've been entertaining guests all weekend. I'll see if I can find time today...

While this is true, the part of the studies that you are leaving out is that steady state work only burns extra calories while you exercise. HIIT continues to burn extra calories for up to 24 hours after you're done exercising. Not only that, but since you but so much more during your workout that things quickly swing in favor of HIIT.

Ultimately a routine you can stick to is best.

I don't think it was a question of getting along, everything that's posted above would have been great in a "which kind of exercise is better" thread but sometimes in efforts to help people we get a little excited, and it seemed like the OP of this thread might have gotten a little alienated by the people who were intending to help her as it turned into "THIS is the way to do it, no THIS is the way to do it". that's all.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-Aerobic-Exercise-Ca use-Muscle-Wasting?&id=657920
http://www.weightlossforall.com/aerobic%20exercise .htm

Summary: Aerobic exercise doesn't contribute to muscle loss as long as your diet is sufficient. The exact same thing can be said for weight training, as explained in the articles.

One thing to note is that aerobic exercise increases mitochondria in muscle cells (which increase aerobic endurance), but doesn't contribute to increase in muscle fiber size. Hence the reason many body builders shy away from aerobic exercise, since aerobics will slow their perceived rate of muscle growth. Another interesting point is that vast amounts of time spent doing aerobics will limit the amount of time you have left to lift weights. I think we can all agree that a combination of the two is the most effective means for weight loss. So, don't spend all of your time doing aerobics, and throw some weights in the mix.

Shawn, you are absolutely correct. Again, I am arguing on the side of sustainability, and the fact that aerobic exercise doesn't mean you'll lose muscle.

thanks for all your input, everyone!
it was fun (and HELPFUL) reading all your replies.. thanks also for all the advice.

thanks, thanks, thanks, a million thanks!!

I'll fall in line behind that logic (used your metaphor!) Whatever you stick with is ultimately going to lead to results, and one of the best ways to stick with a routine is to mix it up. The only "rule" that I personally believe is true for EVERYBODY is simple: NOTHING works for EVERYBODY - you have to experiment to find what works best for you.