Re: After two weeks of strict diet and heavy exercise, I haven't lost a pound!

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jeannie Sanderson said:

David Cohen said:

"Jeannie Sanderson" <[email hidden]> wrote

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This seems liek a lot of work and little
food and I am 140 lbs still. I don't understand.

1) You have underestimated what you ate. Or...
2) You have overestimated what you expended. Or...
3) Your scale is inaccurate. Or...
4) You lost fat and gained muscle, which balanced each other out. Or...
5) The Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to you in your Universe.

David thank you,
I am very sure it is #5, but I hope #4. The only way to know is use
tape measure I tink.

If it's #5, I'm sure scientists the world over will be quite anxious
to see you. More likely #1, #2, #4, or a combination of those
three. (The scale doesn't have to be accurate, to show change, just
repeatable.)

Btw: You've only been doing this for about two weeks. Give it a
chance.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jeannie Sanderson said:

David Cohen said:

"Jeannie Sanderson" <[email hidden]> wrote

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This seems liek a lot of work and little
food and I am 140 lbs still. I don't understand.

1) You have underestimated what you ate. Or...
2) You have overestimated what you expended. Or...
3) Your scale is inaccurate. Or...
4) You lost fat and gained muscle, which balanced each other out. Or...
5) The Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to you in your Universe.

David thank you,
I am very sure it is #5, but I hope #4. The only way to know is use
tape measure I tink.

If it's #5, I'm sure scientists the world over will be quite anxious
to see you. More likely #1, #2, #4, or a combination of those
three. (The scale doesn't have to be accurate, to show change, just
repeatable.)

Btw: You've only been doing this for about two weeks. Give it a
chance.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jeannie Sanderson said:

David Cohen said:

"Jeannie Sanderson" <[email hidden]> wrote

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This seems liek a lot of work and little
food and I am 140 lbs still. I don't understand.

1) You have underestimated what you ate. Or...
2) You have overestimated what you expended. Or...
3) Your scale is inaccurate. Or...
4) You lost fat and gained muscle, which balanced each other out. Or...
5) The Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to you in your Universe.

David thank you,
I am very sure it is #5, but I hope #4. The only way to know is use
tape measure I tink.

If it's #5, I'm sure scientists the world over will be quite anxious
to see you. More likely #1, #2, #4, or a combination of those
three. (The scale doesn't have to be accurate, to show change, just
repeatable.)

Btw: You've only been doing this for about two weeks. Give it a
chance.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

Jeannie Sanderson said:

David thank you,
I am very sure it is #5, but I hope #4. The only way to know is use
tape measure I tink.
Jeannie

As David implied, you need to measure bodyfat more than weight. I'll
also throw in a long shot possiblity which is that something, such as
salt intake, has caused you to retain water.

Cut out the carbs, decrease the weight training increase the cardio, and
stop looking at the scale!

Last but not least honey - measure yourself!
Keep track using a diary

"David Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jeannie Sanderson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I am a 39 year old woman at 5'1" and 140 lbs. My doctor said I should
wegh under 100 lbs to be good size with my small stature. I begin to
eat under 1000 kkal a day Monday 6-13. I use a postal scale to verify
all quantities, and only water is not recorded. I used a elliptical
trainer 6 days a week and it reads 250 kkals when I stop. Every other
day I a;lso have a triner push me on universal machines until I am
exhaused. About 90 minutes. This seems liek a lot of work and little
food and I am 140 lbs still. I don't understand.

1) You have underestimated what you ate. Or...
2) You have overestimated what you expended. Or...
3) Your scale is inaccurate. Or...
4) You lost fat and gained muscle, which balanced each other out. Or...
5) The Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to you in your Universe.

David

In article <7Cixe.139279$El.121400@pd7tw1no>,

CCTV said:

Cut out the carbs,

To what, zero?

Quoted message said:

decrease the weight training increase the cardio,

So she can achieve the fat-skinny look?

Quoted message said:

and
stop looking at the scale!

That's actually the best advice so far.

Quoted message said:

Last but not least honey - measure yourself!
Keep track using a diary

Measure what? Pant size or actual bodyfat? The former is of little use
compared to the latter.

Over simple advice ("cut the carbs"😉 often creates as many problems as
being over complicated, not to mention cross posts to those groups + mfw
is a flame war waiting to happen...

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

Quoted message said:

stop looking at the scale!

That's actually the best advice so far.

Quoted message said:

Last but not least honey - measure yourself!
Keep track using a diary

Measure what? Pant size or actual bodyfat? The former is of little use
compared to the latter.

Au contraire, waist fat is key. Visceral fat is important, subcutaneous fat is
just a vanity problem. 28" waist is perfect.*

T

* math nerd humor, sorry. A perfect number is one where the divisors add up to
the number. 6: 1,2,3. *28*, 1,2,4,7,14. 496, left as an exercise**

**Or I'm lazy.

In article <[email hidden]>,

T said:

WillBrink said:

Quoted message said:

stop looking at the scale!

That's actually the best advice so far.

Quoted message said:

Last but not least honey - measure yourself!
Keep track using a diary

Measure what? Pant size or actual bodyfat? The former is of little use
compared to the latter.

Au contraire, waist fat is key.

Wrong, and testing "waist" fat is not done by simple belt size measure
but actual direct methods

Quoted message said:

Visceral fat is important,

Yes.

Quoted message said:

subcutaneous fat
is
just a vanity problem.

Err, wrong again. Visceral fat is associated with some specific risks,
that does not mean sub Q fat is a "vanity problem."

Quoted message said:

28" waist is perfect.*

Even with the humor, it's a goofy statement.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

T said:

WillBrink said:

>stop looking at the scale!

That's actually the best advice so far.

>Last but not least honey - measure yourself!
>Keep track using a diary

Measure what? Pant size or actual bodyfat? The former is of little use
compared to the latter.

Au contraire, waist fat is key.

Wrong, and testing "waist" fat is not done by simple belt size measure

That would be false, lots of epidemiological studies correlate waistline with
health risks.

Quoted message said:

but actual direct methods

Dissection?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Visceral fat is important,

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

subcutaneous fat is just a vanity problem.

Err, wrong again. Visceral fat is associated with some specific risks,
that does not mean sub Q fat is a "vanity problem."

Tape measure is better than the mirror, better than the scale, better than calipers.

In article <[email hidden]>,

T said:

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

T said:

WillBrink wrote:

>>stop looking at the scale!
>
>That's actually the best advice so far.
>
>>Last but not least honey - measure yourself!
>>Keep track using a diary
>
>Measure what? Pant size or actual bodyfat? The former is of little use
>compared to the latter.

Au contraire, waist fat is key.

Wrong, and testing "waist" fat is not done by simple belt size measure

That would be false, lots of epidemiological studies correlate waistline with
health risks.

Which has zero to do with your statement. How much epi research have you
done and do you know it's limitations? Direct intervention studies are
far more useful and do find visceral fat is a risk factor for many
pathologies. Has little to do with my point and your statement.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but actual direct methods

Dissection?

There are a few others. Look them up perhaps.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Visceral fat is important,

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

subcutaneous fat is just a vanity problem.

Err, wrong again. Visceral fat is associated with some specific risks,
that does not mean sub Q fat is a "vanity problem."

Tape measure is better than the mirror, better than the scale, better than
calipers.

The tape measure can and will lead a person down the same problematic
road as the scale and mirror (though both have their uses) and direct
measurements of LBM and BF changes using calipers, DEXA, etc. are
superior and look at what actually matters: fat loss vs weight loss. As
with the scale, tape measure will never tell you what you lost exactly,
bone, water, muscle, and you hope, some fat. Having worked with a few
thousand people at this point, it's not uncommon to see the scale go
down as well as inches lost, with the person actually getting fatter,
that is, they lost LBM and fat and ended up a smaller version of their
former self with just as much BF, if not more, then when they started.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

OR you are both morons. Two weeks isn't enough time to gauge anything.