Mustachian principles applied to dieting

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Sounds like you’re stuck in a pink collar cardio regime. Which, if equating back to MMM principles, is like sticking all of your savings into a money market or bond. You’re money won’t keep up with inflation, and your cardio isn’t keeping up with whatever your caloric intake and metabolism are doing.
Lifting some weights is like sticking that money into the stock market. The higher muscle mass will require more calories. That muscle mass will give you the choice between eating more (nom!), or eating the same and losing weight (baller).

So I would disagree with this attitude 100%. First of all, the idea that muscle mass burns extra calories has been thoroughly debunked.  From 40 cal/lb to more like 4 cal/lb.  Weight lifting by itself is also a poor calorie burn - all that time sitting around recovering from lifting weights.

Okiedoke. You’re thread, your rules.

Not remotely an expert in this, but after many gym years and following trainer plans and all that, I found I lost more weight and gained more muscle by doing cardio. Weights simply didn't work for me. I could go up weights in some areas like legs, but never in my arms. The whole regimen left me feeling exhausted, sore and underachieving for MONTHS. I know weights work well for men. I sometimes wonder if there's been any research at all into how this all works for women. We're not the same creatures, as much as the pc brigade would like us to me.

As long as we're using anecdotes; weights work better for my wife than they do for me. She gains strength and maintains energy better than I do in this aspect when we do the same routines.

There's a really good chance your nutrition and workout routing aren't working together well if you're feeling exhausted for months from lifting. It's probably not a gender thing; it's probably an execution thing. There is a lot of variance in bodies in general, and some people are more sensitive to poor nutrition for recovery. It's impossible to know any of this over the internet, but based on experience that's the first thing I would look at if you said you were tired from lifting.

There are certainly significant differences biology, which play out on a many levels including synapse response, fast twitch muscle, muscle building, testosterone, etc. but your comment sounds of "weights aren't for women" misconception. They definitely are, and I've seen countless women respond absolutely positively to weight routines.

I'm also not suggesting that cardio isn't best for you (it very well could be!), what I'm suggesting is that it's much more to do with your personal system rather than generic gender differences.

You're right - I did have to overhaul my diet and add in more lean meat, I felt better after that. You're also right in saying that it's really only myself I can talk about. However, I've heard the same thing from dozens of other women. I'm not saying that weights aren't for women, I just think it's possible they might have a slightly different application. Generally speaking. Weight training isn't required for muscle development - look at ballet dancers. Yes, yes I know they do weights these days but the bulk of their training isn't weight based.

My personal belief is that men are better at expending large amounts of energy in short bursts, and women are better at moderate amounts of energy over long periods. That may be entirely wrong, but it's what I think.

[Runrooster]

I think a lot of us are just thrown by a standard 2hours/day for cardio for someone who isn't a fitness nut and is struggling with weight. It's just seems like there are optimization issues.

A person could do MUCH more with 1 hour of meal planning and research combined with 1 hour of more intense cardio.

I'm not sure what you mean by "meal planning and research", but I don't need to spend much time cooking or prepping because of my home situation. I shop for food, someone else is paid to chop it up, a third person cooks veg daily.  I meal prep the chicken, and oh yeah a fourth person makes my morning omelet.  I have to make my own salads, except they've been coming from work pre-made.

I don't think there are optimization issues so much as 1. I have a baseline of maybe 1100 calories as a short, old, female.
2. I'm working out about as hard as I can - okay I'm not doing wind sprints, but 90 minutes of less intense cardio beats 20 minutes of super intense cardio. I trained for marathons about 8 years ago, and I never got to even a 6mph pace.  I'm slower now.  I discussed my lunch time walk elsewhere.
3. some of the weight gain has come from weeks here and there that I took off exercising.  sad about this, stressed about that, working two jobs blah blah.  I can easily put on 2 lb/week when this happens, and even though I get back on track within 2 weeks, it adds up over 2 years.
4. You can't outtrain a bad diet, and my diet has plummeted worse than I realized.
5. The closest gym is 15-20 minutes away, depending on traffic.  One sister has a gym in her apartment complex, another has one "up the street" close enough to jog there.  I don't.  Adding more commute time to my life in exchange for body pump sounds like a poor trade to me.

FWIW, I'm still in a bmi of 27, so not exactly "walking heart attack" as red_pill suggested.

Would you rather have one donut for $1 or one dozen donuts for $1?  Until your answer is the first one, the allure of "free food" will blow up your goals.  I've been there.

Well the only donut I eat is the free donut, but I hear ya.  I'm open to advice on how to change my mentality other than "just do it".  In a way, it's worse than free, it's part of my pay.

[Metalcat]

Well, part of the problem *is* actually the insane amount of exercise in the absence of having good eating habits.

As you've already noted, you are setting yourself up to gain every time you can't exercise your typical several hours.

The focus really needs to be on portion control. I think a basic calorie tracker would solve your problem. Go ahead and eat the free food, but track how many calories you are eating and keep it below a certain level.

My work often provides these massive sandwiches. I'll eat half for lunch and take the other half home for dinner or for DH's lunch the next day.

Just because free food is available doesn't mean you have to eat excess calories.

[StashingAway]

My personal belief is that men are better at expending large amounts of energy in short bursts, and women are better at moderate amounts of energy over long periods. That may be entirely wrong, but it's what I think.

This is the belief that I'm pushing against, for two reasons.

1) It's based on anecdotes and cultural norms as you've mentioned... it very well could be true, but to what degree and how significant those differences are you don't know. You're speaking as though they shouldn't hold the 100 meter dash in the Olympics for women because women just don't do those kind of workouts. But they do! And those women are built much more like the 100 meter sprinters than they are to you or me! Which leads to my second point...

2) There is more variance within the genders than between them, so gender shouldn't be a reference point when talking about personal fitness. In general there are some categories that you'll notice more or less of these differences. In an ultra-run, it's not uncommon for women to win outright, whereas for power lifting there won't be any comparison. I can find thousands of women who are better at short bursts than me, and I can find thousands more that I can moderate a long run better than. But then put me on a bike and all of the sudden I'm behind the middle of the pack.

We notice gender differences because we're sensitive to them as humans, but if you were to step back and look at all of the other animals on the planet, what would perform most similar to a female human? A male human. It's not like one of us has genetics more similar to a gorilla and the other more similar to a gazelle. Overall, we are built for roughly the same environment.

My point is that I think your belief significantly limits what you can do! I'm not trying to degrade your opinion, I'm trying to expand your options! I think your current worldview is based on a small subsection of anecdotes and there's a lot of evidence that points the other direction!

[StashingAway]

I think a lot of us are just thrown by a standard 2hours/day for cardio for someone who isn't a fitness nut and is struggling with weight. It's just seems like there are optimization issues.

A person could do MUCH more with 1 hour of meal planning and research combined with 1 hour of more intense cardio.

I'm not sure what you mean by "meal planning and research", but I don't need to spend much time cooking or prepping because of my home situation. I shop for food, someone else is paid to chop it up, a third person cooks veg daily.  I meal prep the chicken, and oh yeah a fourth person makes my morning omelet.  I have to make my own salads, except they've been coming from work pre-made.

I don't think there are optimization issues so much as 1. I have a baseline of maybe 1100 calories as a short, old, female.
2. I'm working out about as hard as I can - okay I'm not doing wind sprints, but 90 minutes of less intense cardio beats 20 minutes of super intense cardio. I trained for marathons about 8 years ago, and I never got to even a 6mph pace.  I'm slower now.  I discussed my lunch time walk elsewhere.
3. some of the weight gain has come from weeks here and there that I took off exercising.  sad about this, stressed about that, working two jobs blah blah.  I can easily put on 2 lb/week when this happens, and even though I get back on track within 2 weeks, it adds up over 2 years.
4. You can't outtrain a bad diet, and my diet has plummeted worse than I realized.
5. The closest gym is 15-20 minutes away, depending on traffic.  One sister has a gym in her apartment complex, another has one "up the street" close enough to jog there.  I don't.  Adding more commute time to my life in exchange for body pump sounds like a poor trade to me.

Sounds good, thanks for the response! I'm on board with you for 1 and 3-5, and my different view on #2 is certainly overruled by your effort to retrain your diet habits, so I don't want to push back too hard. I just want to plant the seed that perhaps there are other workout routines, many 30 minutes or less that would very likely produce better results than the one you're doing now. I, personally, don't even think about walking as working out goal... it's more of a meditation or social activity or excuse to get fresh air. I like my workouts hard, short and effective for the most part. My mother is in her 60's and lifts weights, rides her bike up mountains, hikes technical trails, etc, so I'm saying this stuff with the reference that it can be done.

Good luck with the diet; I do like the idea of counting calories first to see what you're actually getting!

[Kris]

1. What you are doing isn’t working.
2. Therefore, you have to change what you are doing.

“Weight training” does not have to be training with actual weights. It could be largely body weight exercises.

I recommend HIIT.  You could do this in your home.

I just started with the basic Body Boss book about 2 weeks ago. I couldnt’t even start with the actual training because it was too tough. So I started with the pre-training workouts.

I’ve shifted 3.5 pounds as of this morning. And this is after having struggled to move the scale in a downward direction since Christmas.

Plus, I can definitely see a difference in my body.

The routine is MWF, for less than an hour each day (much of which is stretching before and after). Tue/Thur, they have you go on a walk/run or do some other “old school” exercise.

There are a couple of exercises where you need small dumbbells on a couple days, but honestly, you could find cans in the kitchen of the same weight.

3. And calorie counting or portion control. Way easy to eat too much without “seeing” it. But after a while of counting calories, you get a feel for how much you should be eating at lunch, e.g., and control for that.

[mm1970]

Well, part of the problem *is* actually the insane amount of exercise in the absence of having good eating habits.

As you've already noted, you are setting yourself up to gain every time you can't exercise your typical several hours.

The focus really needs to be on portion control. I think a basic calorie tracker would solve your problem. Go ahead and eat the free food, but track how many calories you are eating and keep it below a certain level.

My work often provides these massive sandwiches. I'll eat half for lunch and take the other half home for dinner or for DH's lunch the next day.

Just because free food is available doesn't mean you have to eat excess calories.

Again, Malkynn nails it.

I'm not a fan of how many (mostly 20-something men) blithely talk about "calories in vs calories out" because that often works, but does not always work.  However, it's almost always a good place to start so you know where you are starting from.

As a 49 yo female, I feel the OP.  Even with counting calories I've had to do much tweaking over the years, and YMMV.
- 1200 cal a day was not nearly enough for the exercise I was doing.  Body held onto weight - I needed at least 1500+ when losing weight.
- Simply substituting the type of carbs I was eating caused weight loss of 6 lb/month instead of 2 lb/month.  I would keep the same # of calories, but instead of having a piece of toast for breakfast and 1/2 cup pasta for dinner - I ate oatmeal for breakfast and brown rice for dinner (or beans), and lost more weight.
- Likewise, subbing equal calories of protein and fat for carbs caused me to drop weight faster.

But at the most basic level, whenever I needed to drop some weight I had to start counting calories to get a reality check.  (It was later on, nearing goal weight, where the tweaks come in).

Again, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with 2+ hr a day of walking.  I love walking and it's TOTALLY exercise - (ignore the nay-sayers on that one).  But an effective workout program will involve HIIT and weight training. 

As Kris said, it can be body weight training.  The 7 minute workout.  A few minutes of burpees for HIIT.  Done.

[StashingAway]

Again, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with 2+ hr a day of walking.  I love walking and it's TOTALLY exercise - (ignore the nay-sayers on that one).  But an effective workout program will involve HIIT and weight training. 

I might be coming across wrong here (if you're referencing me). I don't disagree that it's exercise. I love walking as well, and I think is incredibly good for your health. I'm only using it to emphasize your last sentence... you can get a lot from HITT, weight training, etc. that you cannot get from walking... especially if you're trying to create a calorie deficit.

And you make good points about calories- it's not nearly as simple as [in vs. out], but it is a good baseline for reference.

[mm1970]

Again, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with 2+ hr a day of walking.  I love walking and it's TOTALLY exercise - (ignore the nay-sayers on that one).  But an effective workout program will involve HIIT and weight training. 

I might be coming across wrong here (if you're referencing me). I don't disagree that it's exercise. I love walking as well, and I think is incredibly good for your health. I'm only using it to emphasize your last sentence... you can get a lot from HITT, weight training, etc. that you cannot get from walking... especially if you're trying to create a calorie deficit.

And you make good points about calories- it's not nearly as simple as [in vs. out], but it is a good baseline for reference.

Not referencing you in particular.  I hang out with a lot of runners...and many of them poo poo walking as if it doesn't count.  Or as if running is superior.  It's not, it's just different.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

1. What you are doing isn’t working.
2. Therefore, you have to change what you are doing.

“Weight training” does not have to be training with actual weights. It could be largely body weight exercises.

I recommend HIIT.  You could do this in your home.

I just started with the basic Body Boss book about 2 weeks ago. I couldnt’t even start with the actual training because it was too tough. So I started with the pre-training workouts.

I’ve shifted 3.5 pounds as of this morning. And this is after having struggled to move the scale in a downward direction since Christmas.

Plus, I can definitely see a difference in my body.

The routine is MWF, for less than an hour each day (much of which is stretching before and after). Tue/Thur, they have you go on a walk/run or do some other “old school” exercise.

There are a couple of exercises where you need small dumbbells on a couple days, but honestly, you could find cans in the kitchen of the same weight.

3. And calorie counting or portion control. Way easy to eat too much without “seeing” it. But after a while of counting calories, you get a feel for how much you should be eating at lunch, e.g., and control for that.

I am neither in my 40s nor a female, but I was also going to suggest that if you're not into weight lifting to perhaps add simple body weight exercise to the day. I was going to the gym more but have had difficulty getting there, and this has helped. It's made a difference to me to simply do 40 pushups (after weeks of working up to this) twice a day, use a pull up bar, do planks and other core exercise, etc. I'm not as much interested in losing weight, but it has helped with that. More than that, though, it's made me feel a lot better.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

My personal belief is that men are better at expending large amounts of energy in short bursts, and women are better at moderate amounts of energy over long periods. That may be entirely wrong, but it's what I think.

This is the belief that I'm pushing against, for two reasons.

1) It's based on anecdotes and cultural norms as you've mentioned... it very well could be true, but to what degree and how significant those differences are you don't know. You're speaking as though they shouldn't hold the 100 meter dash in the Olympics for women because women just don't do those kind of workouts. But they do! And those women are built much more like the 100 meter sprinters than they are to you or me! Which leads to my second point...

2) There is more variance within the genders than between them, so gender shouldn't be a reference point when talking about personal fitness. In general there are some categories that you'll notice more or less of these differences. In an ultra-run, it's not uncommon for women to win outright, whereas for power lifting there won't be any comparison. I can find thousands of women who are better at short bursts than me, and I can find thousands more that I can moderate a long run better than. But then put me on a bike and all of the sudden I'm behind the middle of the pack.

We notice gender differences because we're sensitive to them as humans, but if you were to step back and look at all of the other animals on the planet, what would perform most similar to a female human? A male human. It's not like one of us has genetics more similar to a gorilla and the other more similar to a gazelle. Overall, we are built for roughly the same environment.

My point is that I think your belief significantly limits what you can do! I'm not trying to degrade your opinion, I'm trying to expand your options! I think your current worldview is based on a small subsection of anecdotes and there's a lot of evidence that points the other direction!

I understand what you're saying. I'm not taking my ideas that seriously - it's a huge generalisation and I'm aware of that. I'm also very aware that most of the "understood" research into human physiology has been done on men or mixed groups, by men. Women have entirely different symptoms to many common conditions. Women aren't just smaller versions of men. Anyway, regardless of what anyone else says, I'm going to do what works for me personally.

[kpd905]

5. The closest gym is 15-20 minutes away, depending on traffic.  One sister has a gym in her apartment complex, another has one "up the street" close enough to jog there.  I don't.  Adding more commute time to my life in exchange for body pump sounds like a poor trade to me.

Bodyweight exercises can be more than enough.  Here are a bunch: https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/the-42-best-bodyweight-exercises-the-ultimate-guide-for-working-out-anywhere/

[StashingAway]

I'm just having conversation here, so if you're uninterested, feel free to dismiss it ;)

I'm also very aware that most of the "understood" research into human physiology has been done on men or mixed groups, by men.

How much do you think this affects our understanding of physiology? Or, rather, our misunderstanding of women physiology?  I'd agree that 100 years ago it was much bigger problem, but I'm curious about how much this plays into your worldview.

The fact that the research was done by men sounds quite sexist to me. If it's good research, it shouldn't matter the gender who does it (as a baseline). I'm on board with the idea that humans are fallible and our personal views can taint the research, but the idea is that the scientific process tries to remove all of that. And as we develop our processes, journals and the peer review process are pretty much a competition of correcting each other until we have the most accurate, predictable knowledge set. It's not as thought we don't know anything about the gender differences... I've read pregnancy and infant books... we aren't exactly doing zero research. We know a lot about the hormones and development process of babies, mothers and all that goes with it (as an example). And I've lived with a personal trainer... there are certainly a lot of knowledge about things like muscles and tendon recovery and nutrition that he would adjust based on gender and goals (not just "shrink and pink" for women, actual ratios of vitamins and such).

I'm open to the idea that the research is weighted/biased/whatever, but I suspect that you're putting too much emphasis on it (although I could be reading you wrong or just outright wrong myself!)

Women aren't just smaller versions of men.

There are a ton of physiological differences between the two sexes. Many of them significant differences! I'm on board with all of that... it only takes a glance at Olympic lifters to see the physical differences. But when we're talking about general overall fitness, what works for one works for the other. Lifting weights is good for men and women. Cardio is good for men and women. The closest performing creature to a human female in this world is a human male. I'm trying to emphasize that I think gender should not be the first consideration when designing a workout program... it should be a second tier consideration at best (until we get to things like competitive sports, where small differences become huge on the field/mat). And I only want to emphasize it because it can quickly become an excuse or crutch ("oh, he's a guy so he's not supposed to work on flexibility").

I just want everyone to be the healthiest, happiest person they can be, and to nip some of these preconceptions in the bud because of how much I have seen them limit human potential.

I'm going to do what works for me personally.

Yes! I just hope that I can convince you that personal differences don't just have to be about gender... there are lots of other factors... and gender conceptions might limit activities that could be potentially really good for you.

[tyrannostache]

Exercise is important in a lot of ways. It really is. Weightlifting is awesome, and you can do a lot with bodyweight exercises alone. But as you have acknowledged, no amount of exercise will compensate for poor diet.

I haven't seen this mentioned yet: have you considered intermittent fasting? It's arguably one of the most mustachian diet plans. And before you dismiss it because of the word "fasting," it doesn't mean depriving yourself for days on end. It just means changing the timing of when you eat.
EDIT: I see now that @Greystache mentioned it upthread.


If you're interested, don't just google intermittent fasting--you'll come up with a whole bunch of garbage websites and useless "I did it for 10 days!" articles (IF got really trendy with silicon valley startup culture, which led to a proliferation of chatter, including some articles that claim IF is bad for women, without really having any decent studies to support that claim). Look into some videos by Dr. Jason Fung, or see if your library has a copy of his book on obesity. He does a really good job of laying it out. 


I share this because it seems to be working for me. I'm female, over 40, and in 2019 my BMI tipped into the overweight range for the first time in my life. I regularly lift weights, and over the summer I added running, too, but my weight was still creeping upwards. Starting in October, I spent about 2 months doing calorie counting with my fitbit and the associated app. I was supposedly running a 500-calorie deficit that would see me losing about a pound a week, but nothing changed. (Yeah, I may have been doing it wrong). I hated having to record every single thing I eat, and I eventually got discouraged and gave up.

Starting in January, I worked my way into daily intermittent fasting. I started with 12 hours a day, then 14, then 16. For the last 2 weeks, it has been mostly 18. Since January 6, I have dropped 5 lbs and more than an inch off my waist just by restricting my eating to about 6 hours per day (aka 18/6). Basically, I skip breakfast and don't snack after dinner. Evening snacking was a place where calories tended to add up for me. And because most of the free, sugary treats in my workplace appear in the AM, it also helps to limit that kind of excess, too. I find it much easier to say "no, I'll eat at 1pm" than to have to make a decision or exercise willpower every single time I walk past the break room.

I'm not here to debate the nutritional or metabolic merits or problems of intermittent fasting--I'm not an expert, just a user. So far, it seems to be working for me. My energy level and mood are great. My workouts are just as strong as ever. And I can actually zip up my pre-pregnancy jeans again.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I'm just having conversation here, so if you're uninterested, feel free to dismiss it ;)

I'm also very aware that most of the "understood" research into human physiology has been done on men or mixed groups, by men.

How much do you think this affects our understanding of physiology? Or, rather, our misunderstanding of women physiology?  I'd agree that 100 years ago it was much bigger problem, but I'm curious about how much this plays into your worldview.

The fact that the research was done by men sounds quite sexist to me. If it's good research, it shouldn't matter the gender who does it (as a baseline). I'm on board with the idea that humans are fallible and our personal views can taint the research, but the idea is that the scientific process tries to remove all of that. And as we develop our processes, journals and the peer review process are pretty much a competition of correcting each other until we have the most accurate, predictable knowledge set. It's not as thought we don't know anything about the gender differences... I've read pregnancy and infant books... we aren't exactly doing zero research. We know a lot about the hormones and development process of babies, mothers and all that goes with it (as an example). And I've lived with a personal trainer... there are certainly a lot of knowledge about things like muscles and tendon recovery and nutrition that he would adjust based on gender and goals (not just "shrink and pink" for women, actual ratios of vitamins and such).

I'm open to the idea that the research is weighted/biased/whatever, but I suspect that you're putting too much emphasis on it (although I could be reading you wrong or just outright wrong myself!)

Women aren't just smaller versions of men.

There are a ton of physiological differences between the two sexes. Many of them significant differences! I'm on board with all of that... it only takes a glance at Olympic lifters to see the physical differences. But when we're talking about general overall fitness, what works for one works for the other. Lifting weights is good for men and women. Cardio is good for men and women. The closest performing creature to a human female in this world is a human male. I'm trying to emphasize that I think gender should not be the first consideration when designing a workout program... it should be a second tier consideration at best (until we get to things like competitive sports, where small differences become huge on the field/mat). And I only want to emphasize it because it can quickly become an excuse or crutch ("oh, he's a guy so he's not supposed to work on flexibility").

I just want everyone to be the healthiest, happiest person they can be, and to nip some of these preconceptions in the bud because of how much I have seen them limit human potential.

I'm going to do what works for me personally.

Yes! I just hope that I can convince you that personal differences don't just have to be about gender... there are lots of other factors... and gender conceptions might limit activities that could be potentially really good for you.

Well, for example, I'm hypermobile. Both men and women can be hypermobile, but women's hypermobility is expressed differently. We tend to have spine and elbow issues. We're waaaaaay more at risk for those areas than men are. I've never met a gym trainer or physio yet that could grasp that fact - and I believe it is fact. My doctor printed out a couple of scientific studies regarding the difference between men and women with hypermobility. So when you say women should do weights, although I agree in principle, I do not agree with blindly giving women free weights and 10 minutes of instruction as a classic gym trainer tactic. If a hypermobile man screws up his form on a tricep exercise, he doesn't get the full benefit of the exercise. If a hypermobile woman does it, she dislocates. Ask me how I know! And then ask me how my hypermobility was diagnosed, haha.

I wasn't suggesting that men can't do stringent studies about women's health, more that people tend (like yourself) to extrapolate the data from men to women (and vice versa). It's not that simple. I mean, it's nice that there's a great deal of research into mother and baby physiology but women are different their whole lives and not just when they're pregnant.

Regarding my world view, I have a boy and I've noticed how some areas are very gender led. Primary schooling for example. From my perspective, it's very female dominated. The thinking behind many teaching or disciplinary tactics is very female led. Take discussing how we felt when we were naughty and why we did things. The small boys I know have no idea why they did something. Seemed a good idea at the time and they were rather thrilled by the results - until they got in trouble for it. Not an acceptable answer! And requiring them to understand and self reflect at that age isn't useful. My personal view on the raising of small boys is less words, more known consequences. Little girls seem far more emotionally intelligent than wee boys of the same age. I sometimes wonder if this kind of beginning is partly behind any differences in learning that are seen in the teenage years. Anyway, enrolled my boy in a boy's school - hierarchy, discipline, quite a lot of running off energy and he thrived.
So, while both men and women can do anything etc etc ad nauseum, the paths we take can be different.... because we are different.

[StashingAway]

Well, for example, I'm hypermobile. Both men and women can be hypermobile, but women's hypermobility is expressed differently. We tend to have spine and elbow issues. We're waaaaaay more at risk for those areas than men are. I've never met a gym trainer or physio yet that could grasp that fact - and I believe it is fact. My doctor printed out a couple of scientific studies regarding the difference between men and women with hypermobility. So when you say women should do weights, although I agree in principle, I do not agree with blindly giving women free weights and 10 minutes of instruction as a classic gym trainer tactic. If a hypermobile man screws up his form on a tricep exercise, he doesn't get the full benefit of the exercise. If a hypermobile woman does it, she dislocates. Ask me how I know! And then ask me how my hypermobility was diagnosed, haha.

I'm going to suggest how I interpret this post, from reading it over the internet (but it could just be because these forums aren't very good at conveying intent):

I'm seeing the goalposts being moved in the conversation. I had no indication that you personally were hypermobile or with your personal experiences in the gym. All I was talking about before was general ability of the genders doing fitness activities. Now it feels like we're comparing your personal ability to the general male ability, something which I would never have signed up for had I known that's what we were comparing...

I did point out that you should do what works for you, personally, which I feel should cover this type of situation ;)


In the gym, you cannot expect trainers to know everything about every condition. I have a heart condition. I know way more about the condition than any trainer I've met, because it's my condition. I know the dangers of it and how to treat it when triggered (it's exercise induced SVT). It affects some of my workouts. I don't get frustrated that trainers don't understand it, and often they get worried when they hear "heart" although it's probably more safe than your hypermobility.

I do not agree with blindly giving women free weights and 10 minutes of instruction as a classic gym trainer tactic.

Neither do I, and nor did I ever say I did. I also don't think this should be done for men, either. What you're describing is a bad trainer, not biological ability of genders.

I wasn't suggesting that men can't do stringent studies about women's health,

Again, just my interpretation, but in a way you did suggest this when you said the studies were done by men. I'm being pedantic, but I wanted to point it out. It honestly leaves me out of the conversation at the end of the day, I'm male, I won't understand women's health (if interpreted the way I have). And I can't change my gender, so there's a permanent roadblock in any ability to understand I can have. It's probably why I'm coming across a bit combative... there is no benefit of the doubt that I can defend.

it's nice that there's a great deal of research into mother and baby physiology but women are different their whole lives and not just when they're pregnant.

It was just an example of a situation that could only be interpreted as women-specific knowledge. We're throwing anecdotes around here I'm not going to list all of the differences we know about women's biology. I'm in agreement that there are general differences throughout their lives. I'm not the PC brigade that you think I am. I don't think women and men should be treated exactly the same

All I'm saying is that women can lift weights, and in general it's good for them. Look into how it helps osteprosis (something which plagues women more than men)

[LWYRUP]

Reading through all of this again, I'm realizing that I was a bit off track (as well as the thread in general)-

Dieting is certainly the first thing to look at when trying to lose weight. And it's a super important part of a healthy lifestyle.


I think a lot of us are just thrown by a standard 2hours/day for cardio for someone who isn't a fitness nut and is struggling with weight. It's just seems like there are optimization issues.

A person could do MUCH more with 1 hour of meal planning and research combined with 1 hour of more intense cardio.

Honestly, if weight is the issue, the minimum recommended physical activity guidelines + diet will get you there.  (Five hours moderate intensity a week, which could include a brisk walk or gardening).  More exercise is better for other reasons, but you can't exercise away a bad diet.

The only things I've ever seen consistently work for people are:

1) Consistently tracking calories (e.g., myfitnesspal) for long stretches of time (months)
2) Consistent periods of planned food deprivation (e.g., intermittent fasting) followed by normal, healthy eating (not binging on pizza)

I think the old adage of "portion control" with no actual tracking really doesn't work.  There are too many temptations and it's too difficult to track volume.  Personally, if you put a pile of french fries and beer in front of me, I'm not going to limit myself to 250 calories.  So I need to avoid the temptation and only eat them as special treats and treat them as such. 

Meal planning and batch cooking healthy food is amazing for weight loss and health and budget.  Definitely a great ROI vs. that extra 30 minutes on the treadmill, followed by pizza, cupcakes, etc.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Well, for example, I'm hypermobile. Both men and women can be hypermobile, but women's hypermobility is expressed differently. We tend to have spine and elbow issues. We're waaaaaay more at risk for those areas than men are. I've never met a gym trainer or physio yet that could grasp that fact - and I believe it is fact. My doctor printed out a couple of scientific studies regarding the difference between men and women with hypermobility. So when you say women should do weights, although I agree in principle, I do not agree with blindly giving women free weights and 10 minutes of instruction as a classic gym trainer tactic. If a hypermobile man screws up his form on a tricep exercise, he doesn't get the full benefit of the exercise. If a hypermobile woman does it, she dislocates. Ask me how I know! And then ask me how my hypermobility was diagnosed, haha.

I'm going to suggest how I interpret this post, from reading it over the internet (but it could just be because these forums aren't very good at conveying intent):

I'm seeing the goalposts being moved in the conversation. I had no indication that you personally were hypermobile or with your personal experiences in the gym. All I was talking about before was general ability of the genders doing fitness activities. Now it feels like we're comparing your personal ability to the general male ability, something which I would never have signed up for had I known that's what we were comparing...

I did point out that you should do what works for you, personally, which I feel should cover this type of situation ;)


In the gym, you cannot expect trainers to know everything about every condition. I have a heart condition. I know way more about the condition than any trainer I've met, because it's my condition. I know the dangers of it and how to treat it when triggered (it's exercise induced SVT). It affects some of my workouts. I don't get frustrated that trainers don't understand it, and often they get worried when they hear "heart" although it's probably more safe than your hypermobility.

I do not agree with blindly giving women free weights and 10 minutes of instruction as a classic gym trainer tactic.

Neither do I, and nor did I ever say I did. I also don't think this should be done for men, either. What you're describing is a bad trainer, not biological ability of genders.

I wasn't suggesting that men can't do stringent studies about women's health,

Again, just my interpretation, but in a way you did suggest this when you said the studies were done by men. I'm being pedantic, but I wanted to point it out. It honestly leaves me out of the conversation at the end of the day, I'm male, I won't understand women's health (if interpreted the way I have). And I can't change my gender, so there's a permanent roadblock in any ability to understand I can have. It's probably why I'm coming across a bit combative... there is no benefit of the doubt that I can defend.

it's nice that there's a great deal of research into mother and baby physiology but women are different their whole lives and not just when they're pregnant.

It was just an example of a situation that could only be interpreted as women-specific knowledge. We're throwing anecdotes around here I'm not going to list all of the differences we know about women's biology. I'm in agreement that there are general differences throughout their lives. I'm not the PC brigade that you think I am. I don't think women and men should be treated exactly the same

All I'm saying is that women can lift weights, and in general it's good for them. Look into how it helps osteprosis (something which plagues women more than men)

I think you might be taking what I say a bit seriously. Those are my genuine views, but I'm open to others! I'm not completely set in my ways. It's more like our lives all teach us different things, and this is what my life has taught me. Doesn't mean that mine is the only way or the only viewpoint that works! I don't think that I've shifted the goalposts in this conversation. My world view is still the same regarding this conversation, but now you know some of what I base it on.

I don't think I'm particularly sexist but I can see how my comment came across that way. I was more trying to get across that people tend to generalise their experiences. You and I are both doing it on this thread! I tend to generalise how I experience the world to men, and I'm pretty sure men generalise how they experience the world to women. And we all do it to children. There's nothing wrong with that!

At the end of the day, human beings can and should engage in some weight lifting activities for their health. Also some flexibility activities and some cardio activities. I like cardio and I like flexibility stuff because those are easy for me. The weights are more difficult so I tend to avoid them. A lot of men I know find weights easy and flexibility stuff far more difficult. That's the real reason why I'm into certain activities at the gym! I'm gonna go ahead and extrapolate that to other human beings because I know that we're all kind of lazy at heart! I'm pretty sure any gender divide at the gym isn't because we don't think we "should" do weights or flexibility or whatever; it's just cos it's haaaaaaaaard *whiny voice*

[mspym]

Heck you don't even need to go down the intermittent fasting rabbit hole, just not eating between meals yields gradual but sustainable results.

There was a British show called Secret Eaters which showed that people are genuinely blind to how much they are unconsciously eating. It's not that we are stupid or lying to ourselves, it's that each instance gets filed as a discrete aberration from the norm so the cumulative impact of all of those individual instances passes unnoticed. This is why people often lose weight if they get invisalign - since they need to clean the brace everytime they eat, it becomes something they become conscious of doing.

[horsepoor]

There was a British show called Secret Eaters which showed that people are genuinely blind to how much they are unconsciously eating. It's not that we are stupid or lying to ourselves, it's that each instance gets filed as a discrete aberration from the norm so the cumulative impact of all of those individual instances passes unnoticed. This is why people often lose weight if they get invisalign - since they need to clean the brace everytime they eat, it becomes something they become conscious of doing.

I think this is why just the act of tracking/food journaling helps too.  The thought of having to write it down if it goes in my mouth will make me think twice.

[StashingAway]

...At the end of the day, human beings can and should engage in some weight lifting activities for their health. Also some flexibility activities and some cardio activities. I like cardio and I like flexibility stuff because those are easy for me. The weights are more difficult so I tend to avoid them. A lot of men I know find weights easy and flexibility stuff far more difficult. That's the real reason why I'm into certain activities at the gym! I'm gonna go ahead and extrapolate that to other human beings because I know that we're all kind of lazy at heart! I'm pretty sure any gender divide at the gym isn't because we don't think we "should" do weights or flexibility or whatever; it's just cos it's haaaaaaaaard *whiny voice*

I think we've discussed our way to an agreement! It's a bit too easy for me to take people too seriously on the internet... mostly just because it's the internet.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

...At the end of the day, human beings can and should engage in some weight lifting activities for their health. Also some flexibility activities and some cardio activities. I like cardio and I like flexibility stuff because those are easy for me. The weights are more difficult so I tend to avoid them. A lot of men I know find weights easy and flexibility stuff far more difficult. That's the real reason why I'm into certain activities at the gym! I'm gonna go ahead and extrapolate that to other human beings because I know that we're all kind of lazy at heart! I'm pretty sure any gender divide at the gym isn't because we don't think we "should" do weights or flexibility or whatever; it's just cos it's haaaaaaaaard *whiny voice*

I think we've discussed our way to an agreement! It's a bit too easy for me to take people too seriously on the internet... mostly just because it's the internet.

It's an increasingly weird world that we live in, with the massive rise of communication with people all over the globe..... but only by text....

[meghan88]

Thought I'd weigh in on this (no pun intended), FWIW, as a short (5'2") 60-yr-old female.

I am no toothpick, but I'm in good shape IMO - size 4.  My weight has been a constant over the last 30 years or more.

FWIW, here's what's worked for me:

- All commuting and errands (grocery etc.) by cycling or walking
- Eat clean; avoid foods I didn't prepare, processed foods, and most things in boxes - I eat loads of fresh veg and fruit
- Weight/resistance training at least twice a week; each session 1 to 1 1/2 hours; loads of functional exercises and minimal rest time - more on this below
- One or two 30-45 minute runs per week; used to average 6-7 mph, now it's 5.5-6 mph average, plus faster speed for intervals if and when I feel like doing them

Re. the weight training:  I swear by it.  Here are some typical exercises I do, usually x 3 sets with another exercise in between to work another group of muscles:
- clean and press:  50-60 lb bar:  8-10 reps
- kettlebell swings, or sumo squats into upright rows:  35 lb kettlebell
- bench press:  65-85 lbs, depending on the # of reps per set
- full push-ups: 12-14 reps
- burpees
- tricep dips (body weight), or tricep pull-downs (65 lbs)
- military press: 40-50 lbs

Keeping a constant pace keeps my heart rate up, and I make sure I do the following during weight/resistance training:

- change up my exercises all the time from session to session because no two (or three) exercises are alike:  e.g., for triceps, I mix up dips, kickbacks, pulldowns etc. and for chest, I mix up bench press, dumbbell press, incline press, dumbbell flies, cable flies, etc.
- work a few functional exercises, like burpees or jump squats into every circuit

My workouts and errands etc. take up maybe 8 hours a week, which leaves 160 hours in the week for everything else, and it's the kindest and best thing I can do for myself.  Is it always convenient, and do I always like it?  Hell no.  But 8 hours out of 168?  IMO it's not much to ask of myself.  Or should I say:  GIVE TO myself.

If I had no gym nearby and no equipment, I'd still put together routines using bodyweight exercises:  squats, pushups, crunches, bird-dogs, lunges, leg raises, body rows, tricep dips, etc., plus I'd go for runs to get my cardio.

I am not a "natural athlete" and I have other problems; I've had injuries, aches, sprains, strains, inflammatory/environmental sensitivities and I have chronic internal health issues as well (heart and gastro).  If I were bedridden (heaven forbid), I'd figure out a way to do crunches, hip bridges, whatever, in bed.  I am **NOT** going to spend my last 10 years wallowing in fat and self-despair.

So - OP, I get that you only want to do what works for you, but since you posted and asked for advice, I'd offer the following:  try to push yourself harder, and try to mix it up.  You don't need a gym, or special equipment, to do so.

[Vibrissae]

Hrm, Mustachian principles:

1. Track everything you spend/eat. Otherwise it's far too easy to let things trickle past you a few dollars/a few hundred calories at a time.
2. Like investing in the stock market, you can have ups and downs without stressing out too much, as long as you generally progress in the right direction.
2. Accept that you need to maintain consistency in your practice over the long term, or else you'll eventually lose all you've gained/gain all you've lost.

Source: I (49-50F) lost about 75 pounds in slightly under a year and have kept it all off for about a year at this point. No exercise, no restricting broad categories of food, no fasting--I did it solely by tracking calories. I had luxuries like pizza, chocolate, and sweet drinks, but only in amounts that fit into my budget. I stopped tracking recently, and I probably need to go back to it, because I've started slipping a bit, although for the most part I've managed to maintain those eating habits well enough to keep me out of trouble. (I need to catch up on my budget tracking too, honestly.) YMMV, because different people's bodies can work in different ways, but this is how it worked for me.

[GuitarStv]

Being cheap has always been great for my health.  It's cheaper to cook at home, so I don't buy food from restaurants or take out places more than a few times a year.  Brown rice, lentils, vegetables, oatmeal, millet, buckwheat, are all hella cheap . . . and you have to work hard to get fat eating 'em.  Riding your bike or walking places rather than using a car lets you to eat much more food than you would otherwise be able to consume.

[js82]

Reading through all of this again, I'm realizing that I was a bit off track (as well as the thread in general)-

Dieting is certainly the first thing to look at when trying to lose weight. And it's a super important part of a healthy lifestyle.


I think a lot of us are just thrown by a standard 2hours/day for cardio for someone who isn't a fitness nut and is struggling with weight. It's just seems like there are optimization issues.

A person could do MUCH more with 1 hour of meal planning and research combined with 1 hour of more intense cardio.

Honestly, if weight is the issue, the minimum recommended physical activity guidelines + diet will get you there.  (Five hours moderate intensity a week, which could include a brisk walk or gardening).  More exercise is better for other reasons, but you can't exercise away a bad diet.

The only things I've ever seen consistently work for people are:

1) Consistently tracking calories (e.g., myfitnesspal) for long stretches of time (months)
2) Consistent periods of planned food deprivation (e.g., intermittent fasting) followed by normal, healthy eating (not binging on pizza)

I think the old adage of "portion control" with no actual tracking really doesn't work.  There are too many temptations and it's too difficult to track volume.  Personally, if you put a pile of french fries and beer in front of me, I'm not going to limit myself to 250 calories.  So I need to avoid the temptation and only eat them as special treats and treat them as such. 

Meal planning and batch cooking healthy food is amazing for weight loss and health and budget.  Definitely a great ROI vs. that extra 30 minutes on the treadmill, followed by pizza, cupcakes, etc.

I'm going to use myself as a counterpoint to this example.  I lost my weight(~110 lbs from heaviest to lightest, ~95 lbs sustained) mostly "organically" - while there was a period of forcing myself to exercise at the start, most of it was the product of moving to a foreign country for work, where I ate less junk food and had more low-intensity/non-exercise activity - i.e. spending more time on my feet and walking more as part of my job/as a mode of transportation on days off.

I also eventually ended up exercising quite a bit, but the primary vehicle for weight loss was being in an environment where I burned extra calories and consumed fewer as a part of my daily routine.  Back in the U.S, in a less walkable neighborhood it takes me considerably more effort to maintain my weight - I do it, but it requires more attention to consistent exercise, and sometimes calorie counting.

The more you can make small aspects of your environment and daily routine conducive to weight loss, the more effortless it will feel.  Having a routine that includes lots of low-level(but cumulatively significant) activity, and choosing foods(typically high-fiber/high-protein) that are filling in order to control your hunger are straightforward, sustainable steps that can help with weight loss without being too focused on counting everything.

*this is my N=1 experience.  I'm no expert in this field and don't know the specifics of everyone's circumstances, but I firmly believe there is value in finding ways to tweak your environment/incorporate habits into your routine that help facilitate weight loss.

[wenchsenior]

This is a tangential question, but a legit one.

How is going 12 hours without eating considered special dietary restriction (ie intermittent fasting)?  Or even 14 hours?  It's a very rare person in my family that doesn't naturally go 12-14 hours without eating just b/c of how evening routine/life works, not b/c we're on a special dietary regimen.  Eat at 8 or 9 pm, sleep, get up, have coffee, many people either don't like breakfast or simply aren't hungry when they first get up...Maybe get peckish midmorning, but usually wait to have first meal around lunchtime (11-12 pm). 

Most of the people I talk to seem to be practicing 'intermittent fasting' if that's the criterion...but most of them have been doing so automatically for most of their lives, and most of them still struggle with weight. Alternatively, I do it automatically by default and don't have weight issues.  I am skeptical of this sudden cultural focus on it as a key to weight loss for everyone.

[mm1970]

This is a tangential question, but a legit one.

How is going 12 hours without eating considered special dietary restriction (ie intermittent fasting)?  Or even 14 hours?  It's a very rare person in my family that doesn't naturally go 12-14 hours without eating just b/c of how evening routine/life works, not b/c we're on a special dietary regimen.  Eat at 8 or 9 pm, sleep, get up, have coffee, many people either don't like breakfast or simply aren't hungry when they first get up...Maybe get peckish midmorning, but usually wait to have first meal around lunchtime (11-12 pm). 

Most of the people I talk to seem to be practicing 'intermittent fasting' if that's the criterion...but most of them have been doing so automatically for most of their lives, and most of them still struggle with weight. Alternatively, I do it automatically by default and don't have weight issues.  I am skeptical of this sudden cultural focus on it as a key to weight loss for everyone.

I'm going to guess that it's the switch that makes the difference.  If you are used to eating at 7, 10 (snack), 12, 3 (snack) and 7, then switching to IF (most people I read about are doing 16 hr)...
Then you are going to go from 7 pm to 11 am with no food.  You are thus dropping TWO meals (breakfast and snack).  I assume that means you don't "make up" those calories fully in the rest of your meals.

People who already eat this way probably eat poorly a lot of the time.  Just like most people I know (myself included), your habits drift over time, and often not in a good way.

@js82 and @Vibrissae both sort of made those points.  Working exercise and health into your daily habits, but also doing a "check-up" so to speak.

I've read a bunch about IF, but I also know it's not for me. 

[mm1970]

@meghan88  I just wanted to say that your workout is impressive, and I only hope I'm that active still 10 years from now!

[GuitarStv]

This is a tangential question, but a legit one.

How is going 12 hours without eating considered special dietary restriction (ie intermittent fasting)?  Or even 14 hours?  It's a very rare person in my family that doesn't naturally go 12-14 hours without eating just b/c of how evening routine/life works, not b/c we're on a special dietary regimen.  Eat at 8 or 9 pm, sleep, get up, have coffee, many people either don't like breakfast or simply aren't hungry when they first get up...Maybe get peckish midmorning, but usually wait to have first meal around lunchtime (11-12 pm). 

Most of the people I talk to seem to be practicing 'intermittent fasting' if that's the criterion...but most of them have been doing so automatically for most of their lives, and most of them still struggle with weight. Alternatively, I do it automatically by default and don't have weight issues.  I am skeptical of this sudden cultural focus on it as a key to weight loss for everyone.

I'm going to guess that it's the switch that makes the difference.  If you are used to eating at 7, 10 (snack), 12, 3 (snack) and 7, then switching to IF (most people I read about are doing 16 hr)...
Then you are going to go from 7 pm to 11 am with no food.  You are thus dropping TWO meals (breakfast and snack).  I assume that means you don't "make up" those calories fully in the rest of your meals.

People who already eat this way probably eat poorly a lot of the time.  Just like most people I know (myself included), your habits drift over time, and often not in a good way.

@js82 and @Vibrissae both sort of made those points.  Working exercise and health into your daily habits, but also doing a "check-up" so to speak.

I've read a bunch about IF, but I also know it's not for me.

I figure it's the same as most fad dietary things.  Usually the most religiously zealous people get great results when they try the method . . . but this almost always happens at a time where they change many things in their life.

Like the person who regularly ate chocolate cake for breakfast, then went Atkins and lost a lot of weight/feeling better.  The Atkins didn't solve the problem as carbs weren't the real issue . . . it was the eating of chocolate cake.  But Atkins solved the problem in a roundabout way.  Doesn't mean that keto makes sense for everyone, or that it's a particularly great diet to follow.

[horsepoor]

This is a tangential question, but a legit one.

How is going 12 hours without eating considered special dietary restriction (ie intermittent fasting)?  Or even 14 hours?  It's a very rare person in my family that doesn't naturally go 12-14 hours without eating just b/c of how evening routine/life works, not b/c we're on a special dietary regimen.  Eat at 8 or 9 pm, sleep, get up, have coffee, many people either don't like breakfast or simply aren't hungry when they first get up...Maybe get peckish midmorning, but usually wait to have first meal around lunchtime (11-12 pm). 

Most of the people I talk to seem to be practicing 'intermittent fasting' if that's the criterion...but most of them have been doing so automatically for most of their lives, and most of them still struggle with weight. Alternatively, I do it automatically by default and don't have weight issues.  I am skeptical of this sudden cultural focus on it as a key to weight loss for everyone.

From what I've read, the benefits of IF don't really kick in until 15 hours, so I don't consider not eating for 12-14 hours an IF.  16 hours is pretty much the minimum, IMO, and leaves an 8-hour eating window.  12-14 is just not snacking or eating super early or late.

[meghan88]

@meghan88  I just wanted to say that your workout is impressive, and I only hope I'm that active still 10 years from now!

That's kind, thanks!  Age is just a number.  And being a girly-girl has never been my thing.

I believe that the human race has evolved to a life of couch-potato-ism to its detriment.  We are made to move, and modern life makes moving a chore, when it shouldn't be.