Hey doods, I say am body fat is drop, me not loose it, it are here. Me am smrt. U iz dumm. After body fat drop, I r pick up. Only dum dum think I am lose!
Weight Loss Thread
- Thread starter Sean_sl
- Start date
Denaut
Trump's Staff
- 2,739
- 1,279
Assuming you used Bioelectrical impedance to measure your body fat (which is pretty standard), 1.5% is WELL within the margin of error for such a measurement.
"This is an important consideration when calculating body composition: percentage of body fat varied by ...9.9%from the highest to the lowest measurement in men."
Generally speaking using those gizmos aren't worth much, the "mirror test" is probably just as or more accurate.
"This is an important consideration when calculating body composition: percentage of body fat varied by ...9.9%from the highest to the lowest measurement in men."
Generally speaking using those gizmos aren't worth much, the "mirror test" is probably just as or more accurate.
McCheese
SW: Sean, CW: Crone, GW: Wizardhawk
- 6,893
- 4,274
Ossoi
Tranny Chaser
- 16,054
- 7,903
You guys are hilarious and stupid!
There is more than one way to alter the % of a component in a total mass without touching that specific component directly. If I pour 33.33g of blue sand, 33.33g red sand and 33.33 white sand into a bowl the total mass will be 100g. If I then pour more red sand and white sand into the bowl the total mass will increase, the % of red and white sand that make up the mass will increase and the % of blue sand will go down.
Therefore a 100kg guy who puts on 5kg of muscle will have a lower body fat % then he did before, even though the physical amount of fat he is carrying with him has not changed. AND BEFORE YOU JUMP DOWN MY THROAT LIKE THE INTERNET BRUCE BANNERS/INCREDIBLE HULKS THAT YOU ARE (because clearly you're all supremely intelligent and muscular), THIS IS NOT ME SAYING I INCREASED MY MUSCLE MASS.
All I said was that my bf % was down 1.5% from the week before and you seem to think this is me saying I lost 2-3lbs of fat...lol RETARDS!
My theory, even though I don't owe any of you nerds an explanation: It's well known that low carb dieters lose a lot of water weight in the first few weeks...a couple of days of eating carbs again could have lead to an increase in water weight which was still with me when the measurements were taken. An increase in water weight over the previous week could easily resulted in a reduced bf % for the reasons explained above!
Oh and P.Shttp://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_pound.php
"A pound of body fat equates to approximately 3500 calories. So if you have a calorie deficit of 500 calories (meaning that you burn 500 calories more than you eat each day) you would lose approximately one pound per week:
500 x 7 = 3,500
It's easy to see that a calorie deficit of 1000 calories would mean that you'd lose approximately two pounds per week. And that's a good number to remember, because two pounds a week is commonly accepted as the maximum rate of weight loss that is healthy. Losing weight too quickly has other disadvantages, too, and we'll be discussing this in the next topic."
Schooled.
Be sure to tune in next week when I get my bf% measured again!
There is more than one way to alter the % of a component in a total mass without touching that specific component directly. If I pour 33.33g of blue sand, 33.33g red sand and 33.33 white sand into a bowl the total mass will be 100g. If I then pour more red sand and white sand into the bowl the total mass will increase, the % of red and white sand that make up the mass will increase and the % of blue sand will go down.
Therefore a 100kg guy who puts on 5kg of muscle will have a lower body fat % then he did before, even though the physical amount of fat he is carrying with him has not changed. AND BEFORE YOU JUMP DOWN MY THROAT LIKE THE INTERNET BRUCE BANNERS/INCREDIBLE HULKS THAT YOU ARE (because clearly you're all supremely intelligent and muscular), THIS IS NOT ME SAYING I INCREASED MY MUSCLE MASS.
All I said was that my bf % was down 1.5% from the week before and you seem to think this is me saying I lost 2-3lbs of fat...lol RETARDS!
My theory, even though I don't owe any of you nerds an explanation: It's well known that low carb dieters lose a lot of water weight in the first few weeks...a couple of days of eating carbs again could have lead to an increase in water weight which was still with me when the measurements were taken. An increase in water weight over the previous week could easily resulted in a reduced bf % for the reasons explained above!
Oh and P.Shttp://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_pound.php
"A pound of body fat equates to approximately 3500 calories. So if you have a calorie deficit of 500 calories (meaning that you burn 500 calories more than you eat each day) you would lose approximately one pound per week:
500 x 7 = 3,500
It's easy to see that a calorie deficit of 1000 calories would mean that you'd lose approximately two pounds per week. And that's a good number to remember, because two pounds a week is commonly accepted as the maximum rate of weight loss that is healthy. Losing weight too quickly has other disadvantages, too, and we'll be discussing this in the next topic."
Schooled.
Be sure to tune in next week when I get my bf% measured again!
My theory, even though I don't owe a fucking retard like you anything is:
Your first statement of:
*Maybe you do not know what this word means...
You got caught out saying something stupid, then defended it by attacking the person that pointed it out rather than admitting your stupidity.
To anyone suggesting to eat 1000 calories under maintenance... I would suggest reading up on Starvation Response. Unless of course you are a fatty fat fat. But I will let you do the reading and figure out why its important for normal people trying to lose some weight and unimportant to landwhales.
Your first statement of:
Indicates a relationship between the action you did and to your stated to result of:
Which was NOT your expected result indicated by your use of despite in the following statement:
So yes, your stupid post tried to imply that your strongman training for the week (3 sessions) led to a drop of 1.5% of your body fat, despite* eating dominoes and drinking soda and cider.
*Maybe you do not know what this word means...
You got caught out saying something stupid, then defended it by attacking the person that pointed it out rather than admitting your stupidity.
To anyone suggesting to eat 1000 calories under maintenance... I would suggest reading up on Starvation Response. Unless of course you are a fatty fat fat. But I will let you do the reading and figure out why its important for normal people trying to lose some weight and unimportant to landwhales.
Ossoi
Tranny Chaser
- 16,054
- 7,903
Thanks for the analysis, any point you might have had was destroyed by the stupidity of your last point. Eating 500 cals under maintenance and burning 500 cals through exercise is perfectly achievable. 500+500 = 1000, easy
Not that I even bother to count cals, with my diet and exercise regime there's simply no need
Not that I even bother to count cals, with my diet and exercise regime there's simply no need
And again the retard train continues... maybe you should figure out what maintenance means.
After that you should probably see why counting calories is MORE important to someone with a diet and exercise regime...
Not like you had credibility before, but you are just reaffirming why people have such a huge problem losing weight... they keep on dropping it but not actually losing it!
Ossoi
Tranny Chaser
- 16,054
- 7,903
Lol credibility? As far as I can see I'm the only putting himself out there, full disclosure into my diet, exercise and results. After all, it's only at the top of the page that someone was asking how everyone is getting on. I can't help it if every time I post some internet-Bruce Banner can't wait to jump over every post and twist it.
Ossoi
Tranny Chaser
- 16,054
- 7,903
Macronutients > Calorie intake
If you're trying to imply that I'm losing weight and not losing body fat you could not be more wrong. Rough figures, 83kg in feb and 23% body fat, today 80kg and 15.7%, goal is 10% by mid June.
So I am following the new ossoi diet. Gonna post my first log to let people know how its going.
Minute 1:
Did my first weigh in, 204 pounds, body fat by electrical impedance 11%.
My Ossoi trainer had me drink water and carry weights in a backpack for my next weighin, my body fat dropped by 4% in just 4 minutes! Despite all the weight in my backpack!
Minute 5
Second weigh in: 304lbs, body fat by electrical impedance 7%.
I know I am wasting my time as Ossoi is the Lumie/Merlin of the Weight loss thread.
Minute 1:
Did my first weigh in, 204 pounds, body fat by electrical impedance 11%.
My Ossoi trainer had me drink water and carry weights in a backpack for my next weighin, my body fat dropped by 4% in just 4 minutes! Despite all the weight in my backpack!
Minute 5
Second weigh in: 304lbs, body fat by electrical impedance 7%.
Nope, that is not what I was implying at all.
I know I am wasting my time as Ossoi is the Lumie/Merlin of the Weight loss thread.
Celebrindal
Golden Squire
- 516
- 11
All of you who are not professional bodybuilders or athletes are fucking stupid try hards counting your calories and bodyfat%. Just train hard and eat right.
Ossoi
Tranny Chaser
- 16,054
- 7,903
- 16,429
- 7,440
Celebrindal
Golden Squire
- 516
- 11
Putting too much effort into it. Protein, vegetable, fruit. How is it so hard to make a portion x6 with that?
- 16,429
- 7,440
It's not that much effort. Once you have most of the food and recipes you frequently eat entered into whatever program you would use to track, it's 5-10 minutes a day, tops. And most of that can be done while you're watching a tv show that doesn't require full attention.
I'd rather control my diet that way than restrict what I eat(each meal) to make it easier to tabulate on the fly in my head. For example, this morning I had 2 buttermilk biscuits, 3 slices of bacon, and two fried eggs. Fails easily on the fruit and vegetable part of your suggested portion, but I'll be fine because the program I use let's me know what I need to hit calorie, protein, fat, and carbs wise for the rest of the day.
I'd rather control my diet that way than restrict what I eat(each meal) to make it easier to tabulate on the fly in my head. For example, this morning I had 2 buttermilk biscuits, 3 slices of bacon, and two fried eggs. Fails easily on the fruit and vegetable part of your suggested portion, but I'll be fine because the program I use let's me know what I need to hit calorie, protein, fat, and carbs wise for the rest of the day.
Most people have a tendency to underestimate how many calories they're actually eating. Counting at least teaches you how much your portions are worth, even if you "learn" it and don't continue doing it meticulously forever. Like I basically know what I'm getting out of an 8 oz boneless/skinless chicken breast at this point.
Body fat percentage, yeah..never cared much about that. My ideal body fat percentage is "fit into the same pants size I wore 5 years ago" basically.
Body fat percentage, yeah..never cared much about that. My ideal body fat percentage is "fit into the same pants size I wore 5 years ago" basically.
Celebrindal
Golden Squire
- 516
- 11
McCheese
SW: Sean, CW: Crone, GW: Wizardhawk
- 6,893
- 4,274
Telling people not to count calories unless they're athletes is silly. Maybe I'm wrong, but you sound like someone who has been in pretty good shape for his whole life, or at least someone who was never really, really fat.
I bolded the key word in your quote: portion. How big, exactly, is a portion? I guarantee if you ask some fatty what a healthy "portion" of chicken is, he'll tell you something WAY more than you would consider eating. It's hard to know what a "portion" is unless you count calories for a little while to figure out how much you should be eating. For example, until I started counting calories I had no idea how big a "portion" of chicken should be. One of the big reasons so many people are fat nowadays is because a "portion" for most people--even of lean meat--has become way bigger than it should be, which provides way too many calories than are needed. If you've been relatively fit and healthy your whole life you probably don't have a problem with this, but for people who used to be fat (i.e me) you'd be surprised how skewed an idea of what a "portion" looks like we can have.
When I first got serious about getting healthy and started counting calories I wasshockedat how many calories were in stuff that I'd considered "healthy" before. Before, a "portion" of brown rice for myself was probably 2 - 3 times more than what I should have been eating...but I had always been told brown rice was healthy, and I was eating the same amount I'd get in restaurants. I, like most fat people, knew fuck all about what healthy eating really means.
Once I counted calories carefully for a few months I learned about how big 250 calories of chicken looks, and 300 calories of rice, etc. so I'm able to easily eyeball it now without going too far under/over my "portions". But unless I had counted calories in the first place I'd have had no idea how big the meals I was eating should be.
So there's no reason to count calories for an eternity, but it is hugely useful to do for a while in order to learn just what "healthy" amounts of food look like.
*Edit* I will agree that it is silly to focus on body fat percentage and even scale weight. The only things that matter should be 1) how you feel and 2) how you look. Body fat percentage is infamously hard to accurately measure, and scale weight is incredibly misleading.
*Edit 2* Just in case you ask me, yes, I'm in decent shape. Not pro athlete level or anything of course, but above average for a late 20s guy (judging by what my peers look like).