Losing weight, except for arms?

hey guys, Im trying to lose weight everywhere except my arms and chest. Not
sure exactly what type of excersize & diet regime I should take.

Im 6' 2" and weight 220. Im thinking something along the lines of 150 to
200 grams of protein a day , A low to moderate intake of carbs per day ,
avoidance of fats as much as possible.

and excersize wise, just working on the upper body.

Should I jog aswell? I feel like jogging will lower my available resources
for my arms and upper body when lifting.

any info would be appreciated.

thx
john

Cardio Cardio Cardio...........

If you are sucking down 200 grams of protein a day you won't be losing
weight anytime soon. The old 1 gram per pound of bodyweight is a myth
my friend. Sounds like you need to do an 8 week stretch of
high-intensity cardio (30-45 minutes daily) with light to moderate
weight training. You've got 2 different goals that are working against
each other right now......pack on the muscle up top and lose down
below....will never work.

On Nov 19, 11:30 am, "john" <john111111_2654spammen...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> hey guys, Im trying to lose weight everywhere except my arms and chest. Not
> sure exactly what type of excersize & diet regime I should take.
>
> Im 6' 2" and weight 220. Im thinking something along the lines of 150 to
> 200 grams of protein a day , A low to moderate intake of carbs per day ,
> avoidance of fats as much as possible.
>
> and excersize wise, just working on the upper body.
>
> Should I jog aswell? I feel like jogging will lower my available resources
> for my arms and upper body when lifting.
>
> any info would be appreciated.
>
> thx
> john

Dnia 2006-11-19 john napisa³(a):
> hey guys, Im trying to lose weight everywhere except my arms and chest.

You do not want to lose weight off your back too, even if you aren't
aware of it yet.

> Not
> sure exactly what type of excersize & diet regime I should take.
>
> Im 6' 2" and weight 220. Im thinking something along the lines of 150 to
> 200 grams of protein a day , A low to moderate intake of carbs per day ,
> avoidance of fats as much as possible.

Whatever works for you. Crucial part is calorie restriction. However
you achieve this goal is less important. Try to do it in some reasonable
way without removing any *makro*nutrients out of your diet.

> and excersize wise, just working on the upper body.

Fine. Do you want to go to a gym or do you want to workout at home?

> Should I jog aswell?

Probably. You might find skipping rope, or some kettlebell-like high
rep lifting helpful too.

> I feel like jogging will lower my available resources
> for my arms and upper body when lifting.

Dieting will do this too. Something for something.

> any info would be appreciated.

There is loads of info on the net. Read some, take _everything_ with a
grain of salt, and start _doing_ it today. I mean it.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Nov 19, 8:30 am, "john" <john111111_2654spammen...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> hey guys, Im trying to lose weight everywhere except my arms and chest.

You really cannot spot reduce. Losing bodyfat doesnt work that way. Fat
comes off where it wants to (usually all over) and where you want it to
may be one of the last places it decides to come off (yr abs for
example). If you lost some fat off your arms and chest you will be able
to see more definition of what muscle you already have, so make fatloss
your main goal now and when you lower your bodyfat to single digits
then you can change up your goal to gaining more muscle.

> Im 6' 2" and weight 220.

And you want to weigh what? Scale weight really not a good indicator of
body composition. You could be 220lbs at 30% bodyfat and have major
work cutout for you or you could be 220lbs at 11% bodyfat and need just
some minor diet/exercise tweaking to get your bodyfat into the single
digits to see those abs.
http://www.stumptuous.com/cms/displayarticle.php?aid=84

> Im thinking something along the lines of 150 to 200 grams of protein a day,
> A low to moderate intake of carbs per day, avoidance of fats as much as possible.

IMHO I dont think you may not need quite that much protein, but its not
over the top as thats 600-800 calories a day - only 25-34 grams per
meal if you are eating six smaller meals a day. Instead of the old 1
gram per body weight, why not consider 1 gram per lean weight which to
me is more reasonable because you want the protein to refeed your
muscles (why would you be feeding the fat which is inert?) But every
person is different. Some do well on a 40/40/20 nutritional split but
some may do better with higher carbs, or higher fat and lower protein.
Remember to choose quality carbs, and increase good fats while lowering
the bad fats (there is a difference - just as all carbs are not evil,
lowfat is not the way to go by cutting all fats).
Dieting 101: http://www.stumptuous.com/cms/displayarticle.php?aid=29

> and excersize wise, just working on the upper body.

You really do need to exercise your entire body.
I like how they put the explanation in this article:
http://www.askmen.com/sports/bodybui...tness_tip.html
"Myth 2: You don't need to work out your legs if you jog ..
It seems like when you walk through a gym these days, everyone is
huddled around the free weights doing arms, while there is no one to be
seen at the squat rack. Men often decide to forgo any leg training and
just concentrate on their upper bodies. They figure that since they
went for a run that morning or did some interval training on the bike
the day before, they have already worked their legs enough. The truth
is that working your legs will indirectly help your upper body grow.
Your leg muscles are incredibly large; when stimulated, they release a
large amount of testosterone -- the primary anabolic hormone
responsible for muscle growth -- throughout the body. Thus, you will
benefit your upper body on days you don't even work it out. Also,
having a strong lower body is the best basis for the rest of your
training. Otherwise, it is like trying to build a house without a
foundation -- not very effective. So be sure you don't pass up your leg
training sessions any longer. "

> Should I jog aswell? I feel like jogging will lower my available resources
> for my arms and upper body when lifting.

If fatloss is a main goal, weights 3x a week and some form of cardio
every day is really the way to go for maximum calorie expenditure:
http://www.femalemuscle.com/q_a/question16.htm




joanne

Dnia 2006-11-19 joanne napisa³(a):
>
>
> On Nov 19, 8:30 am, "john" <john111111_2654spammen...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> hey guys, Im trying to lose weight everywhere except my arms and chest.
>
> You really cannot spot reduce. Losing bodyfat doesnt work that way.

He didn't say that he wants to spot reduce. He said that he wants to
keep _weight_ in his upper body while losing it all over. It's doable.

> Fat
> comes off where it wants to (usually all over) and where you want it to
> may be one of the last places it decides to come off (yr abs for
> example). If you lost some fat off your arms and chest you will be able
> to see more definition of what muscle you already have, so make fatloss
> your main goal now and when you lower your bodyfat to single digits
> then you can change up your goal to gaining more muscle.

OP, don't do it. It's bullshit yo-yo dieting advice. Until you secretly
want to be fat and skinny at the same time, then do what joanne
suggests.

>> Im 6' 2" and weight 220.
>
> And you want to weigh what? Scale weight really not a good indicator of
> body composition. You could be 220lbs at 30% bodyfat and have major
> work cutout for you or you could be 220lbs at 11% bodyfat and need just
> some minor diet/exercise tweaking to get your bodyfat into the single
> digits to see those abs.
> http://www.stumptuous.com/cms/displayarticle.php?aid=84

He said nothing about abs.

>> Im thinking something along the lines of 150 to 200 grams of protein a day,
>> A low to moderate intake of carbs per day, avoidance of fats as much as possible.
>
> IMHO I dont think you may not need quite that much protein, but its not
> over the top as thats 600-800 calories a day - only 25-34 grams per
> meal if you are eating six smaller meals a day. Instead of the old 1
> gram per body weight, why not consider 1 gram per lean weight which to
> me is more reasonable because you want the protein to refeed your
> muscles (why would you be feeding the fat which is inert?) But every
> person is different. Some do well on a 40/40/20 nutritional split but
> some may do better with higher carbs, or higher fat and lower protein.
> Remember to choose quality carbs, and increase good fats while lowering
> the bad fats (there is a difference - just as all carbs are not evil,
> lowfat is not the way to go by cutting all fats).
> Dieting 101: http://www.stumptuous.com/cms/displayarticle.php?aid=29

Whole paragraph without an obvious bullshit in it. Good girl!

>> and excersize wise, just working on the upper body.
>
> You really do need to exercise your entire body.

No, he doesn't need to. He can work exclusively on his grip, if he
likes. Ignoring legs is legal.

> I like how they put the explanation in this article:
> http://www.askmen.com/sports/bodybui...tness_tip.html
> "Myth 2: You don't need to work out your legs if you jog ..
> It seems like when you walk through a gym these days, everyone is
> huddled around the free weights doing arms, while there is no one to be
> seen at the squat rack.

How sad.

> Men often decide to forgo any leg training and
> just concentrate on their upper bodies. They figure that since they
> went for a run that morning or did some interval training on the bike
> the day before, they have already worked their legs enough.

And from purely aesthetic point of view, they probably did enough.
Until someones legs are really out of proportions with regard to their
upper body, they will look fine. Interval training on bicycle will
easily prevent someones legs from getting ridiculously out of
proportions.

> The truth
> is that working your legs will indirectly help your upper body grow.

I strongly doubt it. Squats and deadlifts and some such will help, but
because those *exercises* involve upper body. Training legs with
isolation from upper body will do nothing for thicker torso.

> Your leg muscles are incredibly large; when stimulated, they release a
> large amount of testosterone -- the primary anabolic hormone
> responsible for muscle growth -- throughout the body. Thus, you will
> benefit your upper body on days you don't even work it out.

I strongly doubt it.

> Also,
> having a strong lower body is the best basis for the rest of your
> training.

Like what?

> Otherwise, it is like trying to build a house without a
> foundation -- not very effective. So be sure you don't pass up your leg
> training sessions any longer. "

Preaching.

>> Should I jog aswell? I feel like jogging will lower my available resources
>> for my arms and upper body when lifting.
>
> If fatloss is a main goal, weights 3x a week and some form of cardio
> every day is really the way to go for maximum calorie expenditure:
> http://www.femalemuscle.com/q_a/question16.htm

*female*muscle. Again an advice from females for females. joanne,
he's a guy. He wants big towering upper body and legs which do not
look stupid, that's it.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Nov 19, 11:25 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>He didn't say that he wants to spot reduce. He said that he wants to
>keep _weight_ in his upper body while losing it all over. It's doable.

And just how is it 'doable'?
Is he going to be able to commander his fatloss to just the delegated
spots he chooses?
Yeah right ... take it off the butt or waist but dont take any off my
arms and chest ...

>OP, don't do it. It's bullshit yo-yo dieting advice. Until you secretly
> want to be fat and skinny at the same time, then do what joanne
> suggests.

And if he is losing bodyfat just how would he become 'skinnyfat' while
lifting weights?
I am assuming he has *some* upper body muscle because he wants to keep
what he has, altho I will bet he could use some definition and thats
what lowering his overall bodyfat will give him.

> He can work exclusively on his grip, if he likes. Ignoring legs is legal.

Yeah if you want chicken legs. You need symetry.

>*female*muscle. Again an advice from females for females. joanne,
> he's a guy. He wants big towering upper body and legs which do not
> look stupid, that's it.

Just because its a female magazine site doesnt invalidate his points in
the answer which talks about calories and weight/fatloss thru cardio -
the author has his own business website/articles etc but I liked his
answerthere about how much cardio you really need for fatloss. I wanted
to stress to the OP that yes he needs to do some form of cardio, much
more than what he was thinking, to actually be able to reshape his
physique. Male or female, it doesnt matter.



joanne

Thx everyone for all your feedback. Alot of smart people here. I have
saved several threads in the past here because of you guys. Much
appreciated.

>He said nothing about abs.

I forgot to mention about the Abs. Like most people, I also want to reduce
my stomach as much as possible without losing much weight and muscle
upstairs. Is it ok to do 200 crunches a day for 5 days a week...or is that
too much? I learned from you guys that I should only do heavy lifting no
more then 3 days a week. To give the muscles time to heal and regenerate.
Same thing with the stomach or no? I really dont care much about muscle in
my stomach, I just want to lose the stomach. Thats why im thinking about
doing 200 crunches 5 days a week. Not sure if its too much.

John

Dnia 2006-11-19 joanne napisa³(a):
>
>
> On Nov 19, 11:25 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>He didn't say that he wants to spot reduce. He said that he wants to
>>keep _weight_ in his upper body while losing it all over. It's doable.
>
> And just how is it 'doable'?

He builds muscles in his upper body while losing fat all over.

> Is he going to be able to commander his fatloss to just the delegated
> spots he chooses?
> Yeah right ... take it off the butt or waist but dont take any off my
> arms and chest ...

He's guy, not gal. He's probably not obsessed about fat, until it's
really too much of fat.

>>OP, don't do it. It's bullshit yo-yo dieting advice. Until you secretly
>> want to be fat and skinny at the same time, then do what joanne
>> suggests.
>
> And if he is losing bodyfat just how would he become 'skinnyfat' while
> lifting weights?

Vigorous exercise and cardio will make him catabolic (he hinted that he
wouldn't like that). Let's say he'll get into single digits by harsh
diet and a lot of cardio. Even if he doesn't plan to start bulking, his
body will try to go back to where it was before his diet, but you *tell*
him to overeat. What's going to happen? He'll bounce back to where he
started and probably build on top of it.

Replacing some fat with muscles first, without crazy dieting, will work
much better over a long run. It's easier to put on muscles when one is
fat, especially for a beginner. While one has some new built muscles
it's easier to diet down. Maintaining and carrying around muscles
costs calories.

> I am assuming he has *some* upper body muscle because he wants to keep
> what he has, altho I will bet he could use some definition and thats
> what lowering his overall bodyfat will give him.
>
>
>> He can work exclusively on his grip, if he likes. Ignoring legs is legal.
>
> Yeah if you want chicken legs. You need symetry.

Says who?

BTW - make a quiz among your friends. Put in front of them a picture
of a cyclist and a boxer and ask them that if they had to chose, which
body would they prefer. Find male cyclists and boxers for your male
friends and female cyclists and boxers for your female friends. Report
the results.

>>*female*muscle. Again an advice from females for females. joanne,
>> he's a guy. He wants big towering upper body and legs which do not
>> look stupid, that's it.
>
> Just because its a female magazine site doesnt invalidate his points in
> the answer which talks about calories and weight/fatloss thru cardio -
> the author has his own business website/articles etc but I liked his
> answerthere about how much cardio you really need for fatloss. I wanted
> to stress to the OP that yes he needs to do some form of cardio, much
> more than what he was thinking, to actually be able to reshape his
> physique. Male or female, it doesnt matter.

It does matter. Males build muscles *way* easier then females. We can
build 20 lbs of muscles within a year as a beginners (15 lbs easily). We
like this muscles (and you like our muscles too). It's much easier to
get some definition when one has more muscles to show and more weight to
carry around.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2006-11-19 john napisa³(a):
> Thx everyone for all your feedback. Alot of smart people here. I have
> saved several threads in the past here because of you guys. Much
> appreciated.
>
>>He said nothing about abs.
>
> I forgot to mention about the Abs. Like most people, I also want to reduce
> my stomach as much as possible without losing much weight and muscle
> upstairs. Is it ok to do 200 crunches a day for 5 days a week...or is that
> too much?

It's too much. What do you plan on doing? Do you want to join a gym
or do you plan on training at home? You need some balance in exercises
or you'll injure yourself after some time. Give more info.

Overuse injuries are no fun.

> I learned from you guys that I should only do heavy lifting no
> more then 3 days a week.

Not from me. I lift 6 or 7 days a week.

> To give the muscles time to heal and regenerate.

I use the same muscles most days. I use split, but not body part
split, so muscles overlap.

> Same thing with the stomach or no?

The same, which means that frequent stimulation of muscles results in
substantial hypertrophy. But you need some lower back work or you'll
look bad and have weak spine. If you plan to workout at home, buy a
dumbbell, at least.

> I really dont care much about muscle in
> my stomach, I just want to lose the stomach.

You can't spot reduce. Lose fat in general, build some muscles, and
you'll have a six pack.

> Thats why im thinking about
> doing 200 crunches 5 days a week. Not sure if its too much.

It's too much if you do not do any lower back work. Do equal number of
dumbbell snatches (superset one with the other). You'll burn much more
calories than lying on your back, and you'll build some lower back,
traps and shoulders at the same time. All good things.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"john" <john111111_2654spammenott@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thx everyone for all your feedback. Alot of smart people here. I have
>saved several threads in the past here because of you guys. Much
>appreciated.
>
>>He said nothing about abs.
>
>I forgot to mention about the Abs. Like most people, I also want to reduce
>my stomach as much as possible without losing much weight and muscle
>upstairs. Is it ok to do 200 crunches a day for 5 days a week...or is that
>too much? I learned from you guys that I should only do heavy lifting no
>more then 3 days a week. To give the muscles time to heal and regenerate.
>Same thing with the stomach or no?

Treat the abdominal muscles the same as any other. Heavy resistance,
lower repetition, adequate recovery. But realize that the biggest
problem with visible abs is the fat covering them, not the prominence
of the muscles. You may need to be pretty lean before they will show.

Also realize that the rectus abdominis is a spinal flexor, not a hip
flexor. Extending and flexing the spine is what develops them, not
bending at the hips. Concentrate on "crunching," not hip flexion. A
good way to do that is to use a Roman chair, or if you are working out
at home, bend backward over a stool or cross-wise over an armless
chair with your ankles anchored under something. If you can do more
than a dozen or so reps, grasp a weight to your chest while crunching.

Jeff Thompson wrote:
> Cardio Cardio Cardio...........
>
> If you are sucking down 200 grams of protein a day you won't be losing
> weight anytime soon.

Why not? That's only 800 kcals per day!!

> The old 1 gram per pound of bodyweight is a myth
> my friend.

A myth? Please explain further as the OP didn't state why he was intending
consuming 150-200g protein/day!


> Sounds like you need to do an 8 week stretch of
> high-intensity cardio (30-45 minutes daily) with light to moderate
> weight training.

Sounds like he needs to consume less kcals than he burns, whilst maintaining
moderate to heavy weight training.

> You've got 2 different goals that are working
> against each other right now......pack on the muscle up top and lose
> down below....will never work.
>
> On Nov 19, 11:30 am, "john" <john111111_2654spammen...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> hey guys, Im trying to lose weight everywhere except my arms and
>> chest. Not sure exactly what type of excersize & diet regime I
>> should take.
>>
>> Im 6' 2" and weight 220. Im thinking something along the lines of
>> 150 to 200 grams of protein a day , A low to moderate intake of
>> carbs per day , avoidance of fats as much as possible.
>>
>> and excersize wise, just working on the upper body.
>>
>> Should I jog aswell? I feel like jogging will lower my available
>> resources for my arms and upper body when lifting.
>>
>> any info would be appreciated.
>>
>> thx
>> john



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> You really do need to exercise your entire body.

> No, he doesn't need to. He can work exclusively on his grip, if he
> likes. Ignoring legs is legal.

Excellent point.

>> The truth
>> is that working your legs will indirectly help your upper body grow.

> I strongly doubt it.

And rightfully so.

Without a change in hormone levels, you can gain, lets say, 15 kilos of
muscle. How you gain that is up to each individual. If you decide to train
the legs very intense, dont be surprised that the upper body will suffer
from it.

The above is typical BS from that site...

> Squats and deadlifts and some such will help, but
> because those *exercises* involve upper body. Training legs with
> isolation from upper body will do nothing for thicker torso.

>> Your leg muscles are incredibly large; when stimulated, they release a
>> large amount of testosterone -- the primary anabolic hormone
>> responsible for muscle growth -- throughout the body. Thus, you will
>> benefit your upper body on days you don't even work it out.

> I strongly doubt it.

Its bullshit.

I really am gonna blow that fucking myth one of these days.

>> Also, having a strong lower body is the best basis for the rest of your
>> training.

> *female*muscle. Again an advice from females for females. joanne,
> he's a guy. He wants big towering upper body and legs which do not
> look stupid, that's it.

And very possible.

BTW... if your upper body REALLY is making huge gains, your legs will
thicken, even without direct stimulation.

----
Pete

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:

> Also realize that the rectus abdominis is a spinal flexor, not a hip
> flexor. Extending and flexing the spine is what develops them, not
> bending at the hips. Concentrate on "crunching," not hip flexion.

John, are you going against MFW dogma again?

"Use as many muscles at the same time for optimum development"

Seems to me that sit-ups are more "basic" then crunches, which isolate the
abs.
Needless to say, i agree with what you wrote.

For myself, i do something in between. I have a hard time with crunches. I
crunch, but with a little help from the hip flexors. Not nowhere near as
much as with sit-ups, of course...

----
Pete

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> On Nov 19, 11:25 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>He didn't say that he wants to spot reduce. He said that he wants to
>>>keep _weight_ in his upper body while losing it all over. It's doable.

>> And just how is it 'doable'?

> He builds muscles in his upper body while losing fat all over.

Sounds good to me.

>> Is he going to be able to commander his fatloss to just the delegated
>> spots he chooses?
>> Yeah right ... take it off the butt or waist but dont take any off my
>> arms and chest ...

> He's guy, not gal. He's probably not obsessed about fat, until it's
> really too much of fat.

Hehehe...

>>>OP, don't do it. It's bullshit yo-yo dieting advice. Until you secretly
>>> want to be fat and skinny at the same time, then do what joanne
>>> suggests.

>> And if he is losing bodyfat just how would he become 'skinnyfat' while
>> lifting weights?

> Replacing some fat with muscles first, without crazy dieting, will work
> much better over a long run. It's easier to put on muscles when one is
> fat, especially for a beginner. While one has some new built muscles
> it's easier to diet down. Maintaining and carrying around muscles
> costs calories.

I have been telling this to people for YEEEAAAARS in my gym.
Want yo lose fat? Fine. Build muscle tissue first. I even have suggested
that to a few wimmin.

>>> He can work exclusively on his grip, if he likes. Ignoring legs is
>>> legal.

>> Yeah if you want chicken legs. You need symetry.

> Says who?

The IFBB.

If you want to win contests, you need symmetry. If you are not planning to
enter a BB contest, you dont.

Its bullshit.

A lot of top athletes are very *A* symmetrical. Weightlifters are. Speed
skaters are. Cyclists are.

Olympic gymnasts have superb upper bodies with match sticks underneath.

You need symmetry because it pleases the eye.
Most guys in my gym are a-symmetrical. So what?

> BTW - make a quiz among your friends. Put in front of them a picture
> of a cyclist and a boxer and ask them that if they had to chose, which
> body would they prefer. Find male cyclists and boxers for your male
> friends and female cyclists and boxers for your female friends. Report
> the results.

Hehehe...

>>>*female*muscle. Again an advice from females for females. joanne,
>>> he's a guy. He wants big towering upper body and legs which do not
>>> look stupid, that's it.

>> Just because its a female magazine site doesnt invalidate his points in
>> the answer which talks about calories and weight/fatloss thru cardio -
>> the author has his own business website/articles etc but I liked his
>> answerthere about how much cardio you really need for fatloss. I wanted
>> to stress to the OP that yes he needs to do some form of cardio, much
>> more than what he was thinking, to actually be able to reshape his
>> physique. Male or female, it doesnt matter.

> It does matter. Males build muscles *way* easier then females. We can
> build 20 lbs of muscles within a year as a beginners (15 lbs easily). We
> like this muscles (and you like our muscles too). It's much easier to
> get some definition when one has more muscles to show and more weight to
> carry around.

Males can dramatically (okay, maybe not so dramatic...) increase their BMR
by increasing LBM.

Wimmin?

Show me one who has done that.

"Male or female, it doesnt matter."

Yeah, right...

That typical feminist bullshit again.

----
Pete

"Jeff Thompson" <govols@gmail.com> schreef:

> If you are sucking down 200 grams of protein a day you won't be losing
> weight anytime soon.

Yes you will.

> The old 1 gram per pound of bodyweight is a myth
> my friend. Sounds like you need to do an 8 week stretch of
> high-intensity cardio (30-45 minutes daily) with light to moderate
> weight training. You've got 2 different goals that are working against
> each other right now......pack on the muscle up top and lose down
> below....will never work.

Ever saw an Olympic gymnast?

----
Pete

In article <m_KdnYyrt8UtG_3YUSdV9g@ptd.net>, "john"
<john111111_2654spammenott@yahoo.com> wrote:

> hey guys, Im trying to lose weight everywhere except my arms and chest. Not
> sure exactly what type of excersize & diet regime I should take.

Do you reallly think there is a special diet or exercise plan that can
reduce fat from all over but not touch arms and chest?

>
> Im 6' 2" and weight 220. Im thinking something along the lines of 150 to
> 200 grams of protein a day , A low to moderate intake of carbs per day ,
> avoidance of fats as much as possible.

Yes, yes, and no. Learn more about the effects of fat. Hint, some fats
improve fat loss. Avoiding all fats is a mistake.

>
> and excersize wise, just working on the upper body.

Er, no. Whole body must be worked

>
> Should I jog aswell? I feel like jogging will lower my available resources
> for my arms and upper body when lifting.

Are you trolling or do you really think this will work?

>
> any info would be appreciated.

Whole body weight training Mon, wed, Sat. Aerobics, Tue, Thurs, Fri. Sun, off.

Moderate/high protein, moderate/low carbs, moderate fat of the right types.

Done.

>
> thx
> john

Dnia 2006-11-20 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> And if he is losing bodyfat just how would he become 'skinnyfat' while
>>> lifting weights?
>
>> Replacing some fat with muscles first, without crazy dieting, will work
>> much better over a long run. It's easier to put on muscles when one is
>> fat, especially for a beginner. While one has some new built muscles
>> it's easier to diet down. Maintaining and carrying around muscles
>> costs calories.
>
> I have been telling this to people for YEEEAAAARS in my gym.
> Want yo lose fat? Fine. Build muscle tissue first. I even have suggested
> that to a few wimmin.

It really broke my "heart" when I've seen really skinny women trying to
lose what little muscles they had.

>>>> He can work exclusively on his grip, if he likes. Ignoring legs is
>>>> legal.
>
>>> Yeah if you want chicken legs. You need symetry.
>
>> Says who?
>
> The IFBB.
>
> If you want to win contests, you need symmetry. If you are not planning to
> enter a BB contest, you dont.
>
> Its bullshit.
>
> A lot of top athletes are very *A* symmetrical. Weightlifters are. Speed
> skaters are. Cyclists are.
>
> Olympic gymnasts have superb upper bodies with match sticks underneath.
>
> You need symmetry because it pleases the eye.
> Most guys in my gym are a-symmetrical. So what?

No problem for me. They obviously look the way they want, or they
would change something.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2006-11-20 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> The truth
>>> is that working your legs will indirectly help your upper body grow.
>
>> I strongly doubt it.
>
> And rightfully so.
>
> Without a change in hormone levels, you can gain, lets say, 15 kilos of
> muscle. How you gain that is up to each individual. If you decide to train
> the legs very intense, dont be surprised that the upper body will suffer
> from it.

This I also do not really believe. I do not think there is some upper
limit of overall mass one is able to cleanly gain and that putting it
into lower body will limit the amount of what you can gain in upper
body. But on the other hand, I think that in practice it works more or
less how you put it, no matter if it's oversimplified or not.

In practice one has limited amount of training stimulus from which one
is able to recover. If you train legs hard, your arms will suffer. If
you will train equally hard lower and upper body, you will burn out.
It's not possible to specialize on all muscles at the same time.
Emphasizing upper body over lower body is doable, though.

>>> Your leg muscles are incredibly large; when stimulated, they release a
>>> large amount of testosterone -- the primary anabolic hormone
>>> responsible for muscle growth -- throughout the body. Thus, you will
>>> benefit your upper body on days you don't even work it out.
>
>> I strongly doubt it.
>
> Its bullshit.
>
> I really am gonna blow that fucking myth one of these days.

Let's say, that I broke my leg. I do not use it, but my healthy leg is
working double time. It gets stronger and bigger, so my broken leg
also gets stronger and bigger through an indirect hormonal response. I
take off plaster and experience quite a reality check.

>> *female*muscle. Again an advice from females for females. joanne,
>> he's a guy. He wants big towering upper body and legs which do not
>> look stupid, that's it.
>
> And very possible.
>
> BTW... if your upper body REALLY is making huge gains, your legs will
> thicken, even without direct stimulation.

I can imagine. They have to carry all this bulk all the time, after
all.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Nov 20, 6:19 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
> Do you reallly think there is a special diet or exercise plan that can
> reduce fat from all over but not touch arms and chest?
>Yes, yes, and no. Learn more about the effects of fat. Hint, some fats
> improve fat loss. Avoiding all fats is a mistake.
> Er, no. Whole body must be worked
> Are you trolling or do you really think this will work?
> Whole body weight training Mon, wed, Sat. Aerobics, Tue, Thurs, Fri. Sun, off.
> Moderate/high protein, moderate/low carbs, moderate fat of the right types.
> Done.


Geez so similar to what I suggested.
Why not ask Will why you should workout the ENTIRE body?
Funny why AR doesnt challenge him with the bs blah blah ...

joanne

joanne wrote:
> On Nov 20, 6:19 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>> Do you reallly think there is a special diet or exercise plan that
>> can
>> reduce fat from all over but not touch arms and chest?
>> Yes, yes, and no. Learn more about the effects of fat. Hint, some
>> fats
>> improve fat loss. Avoiding all fats is a mistake.
>> Er, no. Whole body must be worked
>> Are you trolling or do you really think this will work?
>> Whole body weight training Mon, wed, Sat. Aerobics, Tue, Thurs,
>> Fri. Sun, off. Moderate/high protein, moderate/low carbs, moderate
>> fat of the right types. Done.
>
>
> Geez so similar to what I suggested.
> Why not ask Will why you should workout the ENTIRE body?
> Funny why AR doesnt challenge him with the bs blah blah ...
>
> joanne

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1333967

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> Geez so similar to what I suggested.
>> Why not ask Will why you should workout the ENTIRE body?

Will has at least one Y- chromosome.

>> Funny why AR doesnt challenge him with the bs blah blah ...

Its NOT BS little missy...

But even if it is, let us guys figure this out, okay?

Will, why should you train the entire body?

----
Pete

Dnia 2006-11-20 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>> Geez so similar to what I suggested.
>>> Why not ask Will why you should workout the ENTIRE body?
>
> Will has at least one Y- chromosome.
>
>>> Funny why AR doesnt challenge him with the bs blah blah ...
>
> Its NOT BS little missy...
>
> But even if it is, let us guys figure this out, okay?
>
> Will, why should you train the entire body?

Yeah, good question. To optimize muscle mass gains? Good for fat loss.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2006-11-20 joanne napisa³(a):
>
>
> On Nov 20, 6:19 am, willbr...@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>> Do you reallly think there is a special diet or exercise plan that can
>> reduce fat from all over but not touch arms and chest?
>>Yes, yes, and no. Learn more about the effects of fat. Hint, some fats
>> improve fat loss. Avoiding all fats is a mistake.
>> Er, no. Whole body must be worked
>> Are you trolling or do you really think this will work?
>> Whole body weight training Mon, wed, Sat. Aerobics, Tue, Thurs, Fri. Sun, off.
>> Moderate/high protein, moderate/low carbs, moderate fat of the right types.
>> Done.
>
> Geez so similar to what I suggested.
> Why not ask Will why you should workout the ENTIRE body?

We did.

> Funny why AR doesnt challenge him with the bs blah blah ...

I wrote what I think in quite many words already. Should I copy&paste
it here?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

joanne <jgrrl2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Will Brink wrote:
>> Do you reallly think there is a special diet or exercise plan that can
>> reduce fat from all over but not touch arms and chest?
>> Yes, yes, and no. Learn more about the effects of fat. Hint, some fats
>> improve fat loss. Avoiding all fats is a mistake.
>> Er, no. Whole body must be worked
>> Are you trolling or do you really think this will work?
>> Whole body weight training Mon, wed, Sat. Aerobics, Tue, Thurs, Fri. Sun, off.
>> Moderate/high protein, moderate/low carbs, moderate fat of the right types.
>> Done.
>
>
> Geez so similar to what I suggested.
> Why not ask Will why you should workout the ENTIRE body?
> Funny why AR doesnt challenge him with the bs blah blah ...

It's because AR is really afraid of Will and his guns...

No, wait. It's because Will didn't suggest that exercising "big
muscles" (e.g. legs) will help building upper body via "releasing
large amounts of testosterone", or any such nonsense.

In article <4561f22f$0$44708$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Pete"
<phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
> >> Geez so similar to what I suggested.
> >> Why not ask Will why you should workout the ENTIRE body?
>
> Will has at least one Y- chromosome.
>
> >> Funny why AR doesnt challenge him with the bs blah blah ...
>
> Its NOT BS little missy...
>
> But even if it is, let us guys figure this out, okay?
>
> Will, why should you train the entire body?

For his goals, it's the best option. Whole body workouts are the most
under rated way of training. For his goals and being new to it, it the
most bang for his buck, works the most muscle in one shot, only requires 2
days per week in the gym, perhaps 3, the rest of which can be focused on
aerobics. A hybrid upper/lower split combined with a whole body workout is
quite effective also and one of my favorites. I thought Alwyn Cosgrove,
Chad Waterbury,
and Christian Thibaudeau did a nice job of covering the pros and cons of
whole body and different splits on T nation:


http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1333967

Dnia 2006-11-20 Will Brink napisa³(a):
> In article <4561f22f$0$44708$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Pete"
><phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>>
>> >> Geez so similar to what I suggested.
>> >> Why not ask Will why you should workout the ENTIRE body?
>>
>> Will has at least one Y- chromosome.
>>
>> >> Funny why AR doesnt challenge him with the bs blah blah ...
>>
>> Its NOT BS little missy...
>>
>> But even if it is, let us guys figure this out, okay?
>>
>> Will, why should you train the entire body?
>
> For his goals, it's the best option. Whole body workouts are the most
> under rated way of training. For his goals and being new to it, it the
> most bang for his buck, works the most muscle in one shot, only requires 2
> days per week in the gym, perhaps 3, the rest of which can be focused on
> aerobics. A hybrid upper/lower split combined with a whole body workout is
> quite effective also and one of my favorites.

I thought you'll go this way, which obviously makes sense. More
muscles trained, more mass gained. Still, I doubt he'll be glad with
the results. Whole body workouts do not leave much time or gas for
arms or even chest. When will he see results closer to his goal of
gaining upper body mass and losing weight? By doing three full body
workouts a week and doing cardio the rest of the week, or by doing
three upper body sessions and doing cardio the rest of the week?

I vote for 3 x upper body. He'll be fresher for his cardio sessions
too. I say, give a guy what he wants. He has a chance to stay
exercising when he'll see his pecs and biceps every day in the morning.
Long term consistency beats slightly better program every time.

BTW - I do upper/whole split, if one wanted to make it a bodypart
split. I like the results too.

> I thought Alwyn Cosgrove,
> Chad Waterbury,
> and Christian Thibaudeau did a nice job of covering the pros and cons of
> whole body and different splits on T nation:
>
> http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1333967

I read the articles and the full threads. There was one problem which
nobody mentioned. If one hires a professional motivator to make
choices for him, things look different than when one has to make those
choices himself. Training legs is hard, no instant reward in mirror.
Many people become suddenly "overtrained" when legs day comes around.
To keep people exercising they must be able to see progress.

Most people start, but never come back. The key is to keep them around
iron.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

In article <ejtdev$4tb$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, Andrzej Rosa
<bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dnia 2006-11-20 Will Brink napisa³(a):
> > In article <4561f22f$0$44708$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Pete"
> ><phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
> >>
> >> >> Geez so similar to what I suggested.
> >> >> Why not ask Will why you should workout the ENTIRE body?
> >>
> >> Will has at least one Y- chromosome.
> >>
> >> >> Funny why AR doesnt challenge him with the bs blah blah ...
> >>
> >> Its NOT BS little missy...
> >>
> >> But even if it is, let us guys figure this out, okay?
> >>
> >> Will, why should you train the entire body?
> >
> > For his goals, it's the best option. Whole body workouts are the most
> > under rated way of training. For his goals and being new to it, it the
> > most bang for his buck, works the most muscle in one shot, only requires 2
> > days per week in the gym, perhaps 3, the rest of which can be focused on
> > aerobics. A hybrid upper/lower split combined with a whole body workout is
> > quite effective also and one of my favorites.
>
> I thought you'll go this way, which obviously makes sense. More
> muscles trained, more mass gained. Still, I doubt he'll be glad with
> the results. Whole body workouts do not leave much time or gas for
> arms or even chest.

Sure they do, if you set them up correctly.

> When will he see results closer to his goal of
> gaining upper body mass and losing weight?

> By doing three full body
> workouts a week and doing cardio the rest of the week, or by doing
> three upper body sessions and doing cardio the rest of the week?

As you may recall, I didn't support that silly goal and never do. I don't
reward lazy people who just want to build/work X muscle. I will always
correct them that they need to work the entire body. Yes, i agree with
you, if he follows that goal of focusing on upper body and fat loss then
training just upper body and doing aerobics would probably get him to that
goal faster then whole body workouts, but as a newbie type, I am not
totally convinced the results would be much different and he would have
some lefs to boot. I don't know of any studies that have looked directly
at this, but it makes sense.

>
> I vote for 3 x upper body. He'll be fresher for his cardio sessions
> too. I say, give a guy what he wants.

I say help re direct him to a smarter goal that will serve him better in
the long run.

> He has a chance to stay
> exercising when he'll see his pecs and biceps every day in the morning.
> Long term consistency beats slightly better program every time.

That's a fair enough point, but personally I would rather see a person
start off on the right footing to begin with.

>
> BTW - I do upper/whole split, if one wanted to make it a bodypart
> split. I like the results too.

I have been doing something like that myself and have been happy with the
results and wished I had done it years ago.

>
> > I thought Alwyn Cosgrove,
> > Chad Waterbury,
> > and Christian Thibaudeau did a nice job of covering the pros and cons of
> > whole body and different splits on T nation:
> >
> > http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1333967
>
> I read the articles and the full threads. There was one problem which
> nobody mentioned. If one hires a professional motivator to make
> choices for him, things look different than when one has to make those
> choices himself. Training legs is hard, no instant reward in mirror.
> Many people become suddenly "overtrained" when legs day comes around.
> To keep people exercising they must be able to see progress.
>
> Most people start, but never come back. The key is to keep them around
> iron.

If keeping them around the iron is supporting them working only the
muscles the chicks dig (arms, chest, and abs) and ignoring all the other
bodyparts, then no, I don't agree.

In article <1163957099.016927.13780@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>, "Jeff
Thompson" <govols@gmail.com> wrote:

> Cardio Cardio Cardio...........
>
> If you are sucking down 200 grams of protein a day you won't be losing
> weight anytime soon.

Not true. High P diets are superior to other diets for fat loss and
retention of LBM

> The old 1 gram per pound of bodyweight is a myth
> my friend.

It's a myth that it's a myth

> Sounds like you need to do an 8 week stretch of
> high-intensity cardio (30-45 minutes daily)

Proper HIIT is not 30-45 minutes per day

>with light to moderate
> weight training.

Nope.

> You've got 2 different goals that are working against
> each other right now......pack on the muscle up top and lose down
> below....will never work.

That much is closer to the thruth, but people new to it can in fact gain
LBM and lose BF at the same time, at least for a while.