Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Losing Weight without losing muscle (the little I have)

The Saltman

By The Saltman,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

The Saltman Apprentice

The Saltman

Posted
Posted

So I have finally decided this beer gut has to go. I know for most men out there the best thing to do is to just eat protein, while keeping carbs and fat to a minimum. Basically weight train to bulk and then go on a cutting phase. But for me I need to lose fat more then anything so going on a bulking phase is not an option at this time.

My plan is to go on a strict 1800-2000 calorie diet with a 5 day workout plan consisting of 3 days of weight training and 2 days of cardio. My only draw back is that Im trying to cut costs at home so I do not have a gym membership. I do however have a bench and dumbbells and will just use them for now for about 6 months. I have already made a meal plan for 24 weeks that I pretty much stole off of the internet which consists of 50% good carbs 33% protein and 17% fat.

So that's my plan so far.

Any suggestions?

P.S. im 29, weighing about 182 lbs and 5'9

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doyle Collaborator

Doyle

Posted
Posted

I've been riding my mountain bike a lot. I ride anywhere from 5-10 miles several times a week. I'm amazed at how much it has toned up my upper body as well as shrank my waist. Not riding on rough trails either - mostly level paved surfaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pstall Newbie

pstall

Posted
Posted

cardio cardio cardio. the BIGGEST misconception in losing a gut or weight in general is to go and lift weights.

gotta burn those calories and fat FIRST salt.

nowadays, grab some dvd's and you can accomplish tons just in your own home. i would also toss playing a sport a couple of times a week. soccer being the biggest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Waldo
      Clowney released

      By Waldo · Posted

      Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • pantherclaw
      Houston Texans... You Suck!!!

      By pantherclaw · Posted

      I have zero issues with this.  
    • MHS831
      Panthers start making cuts to roster

      By MHS831 · Posted

      Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...