Getting rid of middle age belly fat!

bompington

reacher wrote:

That's only part of it, you see plenty of skinny guys with a pot belly, I'v seen guys diet right down and the pot stays virtually the same

No, a skinny guy with a pot belly is not actually skinny. Body fat can be distributed differently in different individuals, but it's still fat. And if you eat less calories than you use, it will decrease.

birdie23

keef66 wrote:

Whoever said "Eat food, not too much, mainly plants" had it about right. By food he meant things made from fresh ingredients your grandparents would've recognised.

Along these lines (though some may call them 'fads') read about paleo, ketogenic and other low carb, high fat diets and try and apply some of those things to your own diet. None of them are exactly the same but they mostly promote the same ideas of unprocessed food, a moderate amount of meat and fish with a good amount of veg and a minimal amount of carbs with little to no sugar.

Plan your diet to be a deficit if you have weight you want to lose, plan your diet to maintain your weight once you've reached where you want to be. Most importantly, make it a lifestyle but also don't treat yourself like a prisoner - you are allowed special occasions and having a burger or a pizza once in a while won't suddenly turn you into the michelin man.

I'm no expert and I still have (and am aiming to lose) excess weight to be at what I believe to be my ideal weight but I have been there before and I can see where I've gone wrong since to not be there anymore.

defever

Hello Rock bus,

Some great advice here to help you re-shape your belly!

I think the bottom line is to re-visit your normal lifestyle and habits. It’s already great that you’re acknowledging that you need to do something about it.

I think you eat junk food more than you realise (meal deal, ready-made sauce, biscuits, and others you haven’t mentioned). We are all guilty of being delusional about this, to some extent. What do you really think?

Why don’t you eat much fruit & veg? What does your wife eat? Do you guys cook from scratch?

What’s your height (cm) and weight (kg)? It’ll give us a bit more indication on where you are in terms of your height-weight ratio.

One question:

• Do you think you can cycle to work (whole leg or part)? Active travel is one of the many options to get more exercise within our busy headless-chicken lifestyle.

Two suggestions from my personal experience:

• Down a glass of water (250-300ml, I guess) just before you eat your breakfast, lunch, dinner, whenever you are about to eat. You’d be surprised how much it tricks you to feel a bit full. And hydration is good anyways.
• Do you have Strava on your phone? You might think it’s daft (and it might not work for you), but it’s a good motivation to get you out on a bike and “secretively” race with other fellow cyclists, runners, swimmers, whatever. Free version is more than plenty to stalk who’s been on your route and see who you’ve beaten!

Keep us posted how you get on!

daniel_b

I like the water idea a lot - I have changed my daily habits recently and attempt to make sure I drink between 3 and 4 pints of water a day. 1 before breakfast, another mid morning, one with lunch, and one with dinner.
That is on top of any fluids I consume during workouts etc etc, and or tea\coffee etc etc

Would definitely like to hear how the OP gets on, I too have a tum, and although I have reduced it a reasonable amount, still want to make it flatter.

I was doing a 5 minute tummy flattening exercise regime off of youtube, which in essence I think basically strengthened your core (Never a bad thing, especially for those with not top quality backs such as I) and just held it all a lot better. I need to get back on with that, and try and stick to it until Christmas at least, and see if it makes any difference, and then maybe carry it out once a week or so.

This is the vid I used - well in all honesty I just took some screenshots and stuck them in a document, with some instructions, once you've done them a few times though, you need no reference material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrpW5PliIdU

Yes she is annoying, but I could certainly feel them working.

keef66

That workout stuff will certainly improve your core / abdominal muscles, but if they are obscured by a layer of flab nobody but you will know. You'll still need to lose weight by eating / drinking less.

The bigger question for me is why is her dog wearing a coat indoors?? It's clearly too hot judging by the panting

daniel_b

keef66 wrote:

That workout stuff will certainly improve your core / abdominal muscles, but if they are obscured by a layer of flab nobody but you will know. You'll still need to lose weight by eating / drinking less.

The bigger question for me is why is her dog wearing a coat indoors?? It's clearly too hot judging by the panting

LOL at the last line!
The dog was panting on her behalf perhaps?

With your first I agree completely, but i have gotten down to pretty much the lowest weight I can reasonably expect to - (74.4kg down to 63kg with a BMI of 20, though currently back up to 64.5, but am aiming for 62.5 to have a bit of wiggle, or should that be, wobble room) so am hoping if i can tone my midsection, it might be the boost it needs - might well be a million miles off there of course

For the old school among you, 63.5kg = 10 Stone, or is it Stones?

keef66

Spooky! My target weight is 10 stone dead, but I'm currently a couple of pounds over. And I can see where the extra pounds are lurking...

Impressive weight loss for you!

daniel_b

keef66 wrote:

Spooky! My target weight is 10 stone dead, but I'm currently a couple of pounds over. And I can see where the extra pounds are lurking...

Impressive weight loss for you!

Spooky indeed! May I ask how old you are, and what height?
I'm 41, and 5ft 10 - fairly sure, that the last time I was definitely 10 Stone was in my teens - may have held that up until my early 20's though, never took any effort back then, just how I was.

So easy when you get older for it to creep up, lb by lb though, too little exercise, or quality exercise, that extra bit of cake here, a few biscuits here, and it creeps and creeps and creeps, and before you know it, your a couple of stone over your ideal weight :shock:

I'm pleased I caught it when I did, and also pleased it was not a huge battle to get it down, just went slowly but surely.
There have been the odd blip, and a few ups, but the trend is down.
Have always said to myself I would never follow a diet per se, and personally would never ever try a fad\huge weight loss in a few weeks diet - can't believe that could ever be good for your body in the long run.
All this was was really cranking up the exercise a LOT, cutting out or reducing sweet treats, and bringing in my own recipe (Hacked about from one I found online) for a breakfast smoothie.

I admire people who can run with the 5:2 plan, or the 16:8 (Hours) one I saw someone on here mention recently, not sure I would have that level of commitment though!
Luckily it appears I should not need to though, I'm a lucky chap.

Do you run at all?

And do you carry out interval training on your bike?
I expect some high intensity, especially first thing in the morning, efforts, or over\unders could contribute to helping you hit your target - less than 1kg to go for you?

keef66

Just turned 60, and 5’6” last time I looked. I was 9 1/2 stone when I was a teenager but I have no delusions of dropping to that weight again. Cycling and dog walking are my only forms of exercise these days; 3 lots of cartilage surgery put paid to my football, squash and the occasional half-hearted run. Can’t say i’ve ever done interval training on the bike; I just go out whenever I get the chance, and if i’m feeling good i’ll push myself on the hills to give my heart and lungs a good workout, and for that hard to define feeling of wellness.

I’m not worried too much about weight this close to Christmas, I usually pig out for 10 days then moan about the consequences come January

rock_bus

Thanks for all the great tips and ideas (maybe not the sarcastic just eat less!)
Bit more info about me to answer some of the queries.
I’m 5ft 10 andweigh about 11 stone 4 so most wouldn’t call me anywhere near overweight. Have a very slim build and don’t need to lose weight anywhere except on my belly. When I’ve tried cutting down on food before I’ve tended to end up looking quite drawn and not well.

Realise my diet could improve, don’t eat veg as just hate the taste - Pathetic I know but that’s just the case.

Actually like fruit but surely eating that is just more sugar (even though arguably ‘good’ ones).

Ironically my wife is a vegetarian!
Most meals are home cooked rather than using pre prepared sauces as I know they are full of sugar.

I’ve actually knocked off the bike riding (I know not the thing to say on here!) to concentrate on higher intensity running. Earlier in year was cycling c 60miles per week and did a couple of 100 mile sportives.

can compete at 5 aside with kids half my age so still relatively fit.

My waist is only 32 inches same as it’s been since I was in my twenties and when I had a health check couple of years ago my body\fat ratio was apparently only a couple of % off that of an athlete!

Despite that still can’t shift weight that sits on my belly...all damn annoyingly!

birdie23

Rock bus wrote:

Thanks for all the great tips and ideas (maybe not the sarcastic just eat less!)
Bit more info about me to answer some of the queries.
I’m 5ft 10 andweigh about 11 stone 4 so most wouldn’t call me anywhere near overweight. Have a very slim build and don’t need to lose weight anywhere except on my belly. When I’ve tried cutting down on food before I’ve tended to end up looking quite drawn and not well.

Realise my diet could improve, don’t eat veg as just hate the taste - Pathetic I know but that’s just the case.

Actually like fruit but surely eating that is just more sugar (even though arguably ‘good’ ones).

Ironically my wife is a vegetarian!
Most meals are home cooked rather than using pre prepared sauces as I know they are full of sugar.

I’ve actually knocked off the bike riding (I know not the thing to say on here!) to concentrate on higher intensity running. Earlier in year was cycling c 60miles per week and did a couple of 100 mile sportives.

can compete at 5 aside with kids half my age so still relatively fit.

My waist is only 32 inches same as it’s been since I was in my twenties and when I had a health check couple of years ago my body\fat ratio was apparently only a couple of % off that of an athlete!

Despite that still can’t shift weight that sits on my belly...all damn annoyingly!

The problem is still likely that you eat too many carbs. Carbs and sugar are predominately what makes people fat. (Even if that is skinny fat)

bompington

birdie23 wrote:

The problem is still likely that you eat too many carbs. Carbs and sugar are predominately what makes people fat. (Even if that is skinny fat)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHH



EATING MORE CALORIES THAN YOU CONSUME
IS WHAT MAKES PEOPLE FAT

birdie23

bompington wrote:

birdie23 wrote:

The problem is still likely that you eat too many carbs. Carbs and sugar are predominately what makes people fat. (Even if that is skinny fat)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHH



EATING MORE CALORIES THAN YOU CONSUME
IS WHAT MAKES PEOPLE FAT

Yes, especially so if those calories are from carbs and sugar.

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Edit: Basically you are over simplifying it. Yes in>out will make you fat but not all calories are created equal. https://www.bornfitness.com/do-carbs-make-you-fat/ this is a good read on why carb intake should be made relative to your needs at a particular time.

haydenm

meursault wrote:

Get a heart rate monitor, work out your zones.
More than two hour rides in low zones will optimise fat burning.

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/01/becoming-a-better-fat-burner.html

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/12/the-fat-burning-myth.html

If your local riding is anything like mine in Hertfordshire, there are hills everywhere, so impossible to always stay in low zones. So you get the equivalent of intervals anytime you ride. The best of both worlds!

Genuine question as I see this recommended often, I understand that a higher percentage of fat is burned at low zone exercise but would he not still burn a lot more calories (and presumably lose more weight) if he did the same rides but pushing quite a bit harder rather than sitting back to keep in low hr zones? Does the increase in fat burning actually make up for the larger calorie deficit when riding harder?

I feel like I would lose more fat if I pushed hard everytime I go out, although there would be no hard in my adding a few hours of low zone per week if I had the time

bompington

birdie23 wrote:

https://www.bornfitness.com/do-carbs-make-you-fat/ this is a good read on why carb intake should be made relative to your needs at a particular time.

1. TLDR
2. OK I did read it. Its main message seemed to be "carbs are not evil"
3. OK, that wasn't its main message. The main message was "pay for my services"
4. But most of all it doesn't anywhere explain how 100 calories from carbs make you fatter than 100 calories from fat.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

HaydenM wrote:

meursault wrote:

Get a heart rate monitor, work out your zones.
More than two hour rides in low zones will optimise fat burning.

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/01/becoming-a-better-fat-burner.html

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/12/the-fat-burning-myth.html

If your local riding is anything like mine in Hertfordshire, there are hills everywhere, so impossible to always stay in low zones. So you get the equivalent of intervals anytime you ride. The best of both worlds!

Genuine question as I see this recommended often, I understand that a higher percentage of fat is burned at low zone exercise but would he not still burn a lot more calories (and presumably lose more weight) if he did the same rides but pushing quite a bit harder rather than sitting back to keep in low hr zones? Does the increase in fat burning actually make up for the larger calorie deficit when riding harder?

I feel like I would lose more fat if I pushed hard everytime I go out, although there would be no hard in my adding a few hours of low zone per week if I had the time

My own take on it, rightly or wrongly, is that high intensity riding will burn more calories overall. Not just during the ride itself, but afterwards as well due to the increased metabolic rate. Low intensity rides will burn less calories, but a larger percentage of those calories will be fat.

However, as I found out the hard way, you can only do high intensity rides for so long without taking food out with you. When I began to do high intensity rides over ~90mins without food, I would get home and empty the cupboards and fridge, eating far more than I really needed because my body was craving fuel.

birdie23

bompington wrote:

4. But most of all it doesn't anywhere explain how 100 calories from carbs make you fatter than 100 calories from fat.

Because, yet again, you're over simplifying it. It depends on many factors to do with the individual.

bompington

birdie23 wrote:

bompington wrote:

4. But most of all it doesn't anywhere explain how 100 calories from carbs make you fatter than 100 calories from fat.

Because, yet again, you're over simplifying it. It depends on many factors to do with the individual.

So in some individuals, depending on "factors", eating the same amount of calories from different sources causes different weight change then?

haydenm

NitrousOxide wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

meursault wrote:

Get a heart rate monitor, work out your zones.
More than two hour rides in low zones will optimise fat burning.

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/01/becoming-a-better-fat-burner.html

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/12/the-fat-burning-myth.html

If your local riding is anything like mine in Hertfordshire, there are hills everywhere, so impossible to always stay in low zones. So you get the equivalent of intervals anytime you ride. The best of both worlds!

Genuine question as I see this recommended often, I understand that a higher percentage of fat is burned at low zone exercise but would he not still burn a lot more calories (and presumably lose more weight) if he did the same rides but pushing quite a bit harder rather than sitting back to keep in low hr zones? Does the increase in fat burning actually make up for the larger calorie deficit when riding harder?

I feel like I would lose more fat if I pushed hard everytime I go out, although there would be no hard in my adding a few hours of low zone per week if I had the time

My own take on it, rightly or wrongly, is that high intensity riding will burn more calories overall. Not just during the ride itself, but afterwards as well due to the increased metabolic rate. Low intensity rides will burn less calories, but a larger percentage of those calories will be fat.

However, as I found out the hard way, you can only do high intensity rides for so long without taking food out with you. When I began to do high intensity rides over ~90mins without food, I would get home and empty the cupboards and fridge, eating far more than I really needed because my body was craving fuel.

A very good point, I'm certainly guilty of that. I've seen a few articles recently about fat burning zones but I'd be a bit worried that some readers might take away a 'ride slower to burn fat' message rather than 'add some low intensity miles to your week'.

wongataa

bompington wrote:

birdie23 wrote:

4. But most of all it doesn't anywhere explain how 100 calories from carbs make you fatter than 100 calories from fat.

People will absorb different amount of energy from different foods. Different people will absorb different amounts of energy from the exact same food. The amount you absorb will be dependant on your particular biology, gut flora, health, medication, etc. The calorie measure on food packets is derived from burning the food. People don't do that in their digestive tract to release the energy from food. The calorie measure of foods is just a guideline.

You could well absorb more energy from carbs than fat despite the same notional calorie level and therefore put more weight on from the carbs.

webboo

I was of the belief that exercise at low intensity so you burn fat was a scam invented for fat people who didn't really want to exercise anyway.

bompington

wongataa wrote:

You could well absorb more energy from carbs than fat despite the same notional calorie level and therefore put more weight on from the carbs.

OK, so I had to look that up. And you're half right...

...except that it turns out that carbs give you fewer available calories than fat.

joey54321

Daniel B wrote:

keef66 wrote:

reducing sweet treats, and bringing in my own recipe (Hacked about from one I found online) for a breakfast smoothie.

I admire people who can run with the 5:2 plan, or the 16:8 (Hours) one I saw someone on here mention recently, not sure I would have that level of commitment though!
Luckily it appears I should not need to though, I'm a lucky chap.

I might be one of those people who you mentioned does running on the 16:8 plan (as I do). I find it the opposite, its literally no commitment at all which is the reason I do it and I feel great, as opposed to grumpy and sluggish which is what happens if I just try and 'cut down'. I find it a real struggle to just minimise each meal, trim calories here and there throughout the day. I find it so much easier just to ignore food for 18 hours, I often forget about it completely, I don't get hungry, I don't crave food and have very even energy levels. Then I go for a run and feel absolutely fine, good even. Then I can eat whatever I like in the afternoon (in terms of quantity, I still eat high-quality stuff) knowing that I have a fair calorie deficit to get through.

meursault

HaydenM wrote:

NitrousOxide wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

meursault wrote:

Get a heart rate monitor, work out your zones.
More than two hour rides in low zones will optimise fat burning.

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/01/becoming-a-better-fat-burner.html

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/12/the-fat-burning-myth.html

If your local riding is anything like mine in Hertfordshire, there are hills everywhere, so impossible to always stay in low zones. So you get the equivalent of intervals anytime you ride. The best of both worlds!

Genuine question as I see this recommended often, I understand that a higher percentage of fat is burned at low zone exercise but would he not still burn a lot more calories (and presumably lose more weight) if he did the same rides but pushing quite a bit harder rather than sitting back to keep in low hr zones? Does the increase in fat burning actually make up for the larger calorie deficit when riding harder?

I feel like I would lose more fat if I pushed hard everytime I go out, although there would be no hard in my adding a few hours of low zone per week if I had the time

My own take on it, rightly or wrongly, is that high intensity riding will burn more calories overall. Not just during the ride itself, but afterwards as well due to the increased metabolic rate. Low intensity rides will burn less calories, but a larger percentage of those calories will be fat.

However, as I found out the hard way, you can only do high intensity rides for so long without taking food out with you. When I began to do high intensity rides over ~90mins without food, I would get home and empty the cupboards and fridge, eating far more than I really needed because my body was craving fuel.

A very good point, I'm certainly guilty of that. I've seen a few articles recently about fat burning zones but I'd be a bit worried that some readers might take away a 'ride slower to burn fat' message rather than 'add some low intensity miles to your week'.

Read and research is the key. Doing any cycling or exercise has to be good for you. My limited understanding of zonal riding, is that different intensities, affect different chemicals in the body. Cardio, muscular etc. It seems to me, that the best training, is to get a combination of intensity versus endurance and any other type. Like diet, I eat anything I want, but in moderation and try to 'listen' to my body. I think Joe Friel is a good source of knowledge though.

daniel_b

joey54321 wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

keef66 wrote:

reducing sweet treats, and bringing in my own recipe (Hacked about from one I found online) for a breakfast smoothie.

I admire people who can run with the 5:2 plan, or the 16:8 (Hours) one I saw someone on here mention recently, not sure I would have that level of commitment though!
Luckily it appears I should not need to though, I'm a lucky chap.

I might be one of those people who you mentioned does running on the 16:8 plan (as I do). I find it the opposite, its literally no commitment at all which is the reason I do it and I feel great, as opposed to grumpy and sluggish which is what happens if I just try and 'cut down'. I find it a real struggle to just minimise each meal, trim calories here and there throughout the day. I find it so much easier just to ignore food for 18 hours, I often forget about it completely, I don't get hungry, I don't crave food and have very even energy levels. Then I go for a run and feel absolutely fine, good even. Then I can eat whatever I like in the afternoon (in terms of quantity, I still eat high-quality stuff) knowing that I have a fair calorie deficit to get through.

Fair play to you Sir, and great it works for you so well - I guess the key here is to try different things, not give up, until you find the method that works for you personally, both in terms of mind and your body makeup.

And yes I think it must have been you I referred to, as I had not heard of it prior to this thread, only the 5:2 weekly one.

Actually, weirdly when I think about my day, I have breakfast split between 09:30 and 11:30 roughly, only water before that, then lunch at about 13:30, and as we have a young daughter, we generally eat at about 17:00, finishing by 17:30 - which coincidentally is 8 hours!

Having said that, it's not unheard of for me to have a smallish bowl of cereal mid evening, or a piece of bread and jam, and I guess that is where I would really struggle - though on occasion I do make it through the evening without eating, often depends on whether I have cycled during the day.

mrfpb

bompington wrote:

birdie23 wrote:

bompington wrote:

4. But most of all it doesn't anywhere explain how 100 calories from carbs make you fatter than 100 calories from fat.

Because, yet again, you're over simplifying it. It depends on many factors to do with the individual.

So in some individuals, depending on "factors", eating the same amount of calories from different sources causes different weight change then?

Different diets have different effects on the body over time. It is known that crash dieting will make the body react by significantly cutting the metabolic rate, so you burn less calories per day than you did at the start. Also, I had prescribed tablets earlier in the year that caused weight gain as a side effect - despite containing no calories.

Different things can have odd effects on the metabolic rate, that's why calories in/calories out is an oversimplification. We can't truly accurately measure calories out over a 24 hr period unless we are hooked up to some devices, so we don't know where we are at with the in/out equation when a month or so into a diet or exercise regime.

birdie23

bompington wrote:

birdie23 wrote:

bompington wrote:

4. But most of all it doesn't anywhere explain how 100 calories from carbs make you fatter than 100 calories from fat.

Because, yet again, you're over simplifying it. It depends on many factors to do with the individual.

So in some individuals, depending on "factors", eating the same amount of calories from different sources causes different weight change then?

Yes, exactly that.

You've also got to remember that if you plan for most of your calories to be from carbs that you may not find the carbs you eat filling enough and you end up snacking. Higher fat food sources tend to be more filling and might help you stay disciplined.

birdie23

bompington wrote:

wongataa wrote:

You could well absorb more energy from carbs than fat despite the same notional calorie level and therefore put more weight on from the carbs.

OK, so I had to look that up. And you're half right...

...except that it turns out that carbs give you fewer available calories than fat.

But fat makes you feel more full, whereas processed carbs make your blood sugar rise and can cause you to feel hungry (gross simplification). This is why you can often find that fast food isn't filling even if you eat it in a large quantity.

simon_e

bompington wrote:

birdie23 wrote:

https://www.bornfitness.com/do-carbs-make-you-fat/ this is a good read on why carb intake should be made relative to your needs at a particular time.

1. TLDR
2. OK I did read it. Its main message seemed to be "carbs are not evil"
3. OK, that wasn't its main message. The main message was "pay for my services"
4. But most of all it doesn't anywhere explain how 100 calories from carbs make you fatter than 100 calories from fat.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209489/

This may also be TLDR for your attention span but it really depends on whether you want to learn anything or just waste time and pixels repeating rubbish.

bompington

Simon E wrote:

it really depends on whether you want to learn anything or just waste time and pixels repeating rubbish

Wel, you've clearly won the argument there

I suppose I was being ever so slightly trollish, mainly because of the rather over-intense attitude that some people seem to display on this topic. It's easy to present a stick for people to grab the wrong end of and beat a straw man to death with...

So it wasn't entirely accidental that I made my point more contentiously and less clearly than I might have ;-)

I am well aware of the basic principles of physiology, and I am aware that the rate at which people burn calories varies for many reasons. Not sure that theories about "mild cold stress" are that relevant here though.
I have also been aware that the stated calorie content of different food groups is not always the same as the energy available to us. Interesting to look up and quantify that, so this discussion has helped me learn that much at least.

So anyway, I can only conclude that my overly formatted caim that "eating more calories than you consume is what makes people fat" was what people objected to.

Exactly which part of that statement is wrong then?