How to choose a target weight

So a friend of mine used low carb to get down to 220 (from only 240).
He's 6'1" and looks good at 220. Here's the problem. I'm 6'5" and I
set my target weight to 210. We're similar builds. I've also noticed
that my weight loss has slowed way down. I've been thinking that
maybe my target should be 230 or so. If that's the case, I only have
10lbs to go. I feel great, but I still want to get rid of the gut.
To add to my confusion, when I got married 12 years ago, I weighed
180. This is sort of why I set the weight so low. So what is a good
weight to stop at? The government charts seem way off. Should I stop
when I can count stomach muscles? This is where I was 12 years ago.
Or maybe it's when my wife complains that I'm too thin. :-) Any
ideas?

brian
290/240/210?
july 8th, 2003

Yes....stop when you and your wife think you look good nekkid, assuming you
are both reasonable people and you are not obviously still fat.

brian lanning wrote:
:: So a friend of mine used low carb to get down to 220 (from only 240).
:: He's 6'1" and looks good at 220. Here's the problem. I'm 6'5" and I
:: set my target weight to 210. We're similar builds. I've also
:: noticed that my weight loss has slowed way down. I've been thinking
:: that maybe my target should be 230 or so. If that's the case, I
:: only have 10lbs to go. I feel great, but I still want to get rid of
:: the gut. To add to my confusion, when I got married 12 years ago, I
:: weighed 180. This is sort of why I set the weight so low. So what
:: is a good weight to stop at? The government charts seem way off.
:: Should I stop when I can count stomach muscles? This is where I was
:: 12 years ago. Or maybe it's when my wife complains that I'm too
:: thin. :-) Any ideas?
::
:: brian
:: 290/240/210?
:: july 8th, 2003

brian lanning wrote:
So a friend of mine used low carb to get down to 220 (from only 240).
He's 6'1" and looks good at 220. Here's the problem. I'm 6'5" and I
set my target weight to 210. We're similar builds. I've also noticed
that my weight loss has slowed way down. I've been thinking that
maybe my target should be 230 or so. If that's the case, I only have
10lbs to go. I feel great, but I still want to get rid of the gut.
To add to my confusion, when I got married 12 years ago, I weighed
180. This is sort of why I set the weight so low. So what is a good
weight to stop at? The government charts seem way off. Should I stop
when I can count stomach muscles? This is where I was 12 years ago.
Or maybe it's when my wife complains that I'm too thin. :-) Any
ideas?

brian
290/240/210?
july 8th, 2003


If you are also working out and increasing your muscle weight, you can
weigh more overall. How you look at any particular weight will depend
on body fat percentage. Have you measured that lately?

Rebecca

brian lanning wrote:
So what is a good weight to stop at? The government charts seem way off.
Should I stop when I can count stomach muscles? This is where I was 12
years ago. Or maybe it's when my wife complains that I'm too thin. :-)
Any ideas?

As my fitness buddies would say: Lose weight and then get it
ALL back, only not in form of fat but in the form of muscle.

The stomach muscles are seen when your body fat % is 8% or less, and
that is certainly a good target. Actually that's my target: 8%-5%

The weight training pays off very much, because you'll have more defined
muscle structure, and anything below 10% body fat is good definition.

Exactly the above is the reason it's not important how much you weigh.
I'll be dropping a few pounds now but I plan to get at least 50% of them
back by the summer in form of muscles. Makes wonders in the looks
department.

As an added bonus: More muscle tissue = higher metabolic rate = you can
eat more and *NOT GET FAT*!

Gram of muscle tissue burns more callories than gram of fat tissue,
and that's a fact.

--
B-D_
Atkins since 11/24/03
199/191/165

B-D_ wrote in message ...
As my fitness buddies would say: Lose weight and then get it
ALL back, only not in form of fat but in the form of muscle.
The stomach muscles are seen when your body fat % is 8% or less, and
that is certainly a good target. Actually that's my target: 8%-5%

That's probably on the low side. I think I would need to be around
180 to 190 to get that body fat percentage. I think I'm 28.5% at the
moment.

The weight training pays off very much, because you'll have more defined
muscle structure, and anything below 10% body fat is good definition.
Exactly the above is the reason it's not important how much you weigh.
I'll be dropping a few pounds now but I plan to get at least 50% of them
back by the summer in form of muscles. Makes wonders in the looks
department.
As an added bonus: More muscle tissue = higher metabolic rate = you can
eat more and *NOT GET FAT*!
Gram of muscle tissue burns more callories than gram of fat tissue,
and that's a fact.

I haven't been exercising at all. I was walking a lot when I started,
but the ice is too treacherous for that. I'll start up again in the
spring. I plan on lifting again once I lose all the fat.

brian
290/238/210
july 8, 2003

brian lanning wrote:
:: I haven't been exercising at all. I was walking a lot when I
:: started, but the ice is too treacherous for that. I'll start up
:: again in the spring. I plan on lifting again once I lose all the
:: fat.

Big mistake. Start lifting now. You can lose fat and gain some muscle at
the same time. And lifting will help you keep what muscle you have now while
losing fat...otherwise you'll lose muscle and fat as you lose. Also, if you
lift now, you'll look much better once the fat is gone. Lifting also
increases your metabolism for about a 12 hour period after you lift, causing
your body to burn more energy in the period afterwards. Waiting to life
until later is a big mistake and frankly, a big excuse if you have no other
reason than just losing the fat. BIG MISTAKE. **** -- you may never lose
all the fat....but the benefits of lifting will still be present.

(brian lanning) wrote in message . com...
The government charts seem way off.

They're generally considered to be unreliable for heights above 6'2".

Should I stop
when I can count stomach muscles?

That seems like a good metric. Regardless of your weight (after all,
a pound of muscle takes up a LOT less space than a pound of fat), if
your waist and abdomen appears trim, you are unlikely to be
endangering your health.

Fitness should trump scale weight, every time!

Keep up the good work.

T.

Roger Zoul wrote:
Big mistake. Start lifting now. You can lose fat and gain some muscle at
the same time. And lifting will help you keep what muscle you have now while
losing fat...otherwise you'll lose muscle and fat as you lose. Also, if you
lift now, you'll look much better once the fat is gone. Lifting also
increases your metabolism for about a 12 hour period after you lift, causing
your body to burn more energy in the period afterwards. Waiting to life
until later is a big mistake and frankly, a big excuse if you have no other
reason than just losing the fat. BIG MISTAKE. **** -- you may never lose
all the fat....but the benefits of lifting will still be present.

Good point. I would just add that you have to give yourself a bit
higher % of protein grams than now, because while weight training you
create micro-scars in your muscle tissue. And if body has enough protein
available, it will heal those scars and muscles will grow. On the other
hand, if the protein % is too low, then your muscless won't grow and
will even start to get smaller because of the same little scars that
won't get fixed and will be gone along with a bit of muscle tissue.

Bottom line: Weight training and low-protein don't mix. Atkins diet with
a little tendency to overeat proteins is perfect for weight training,
because, not only will you be losing fat, but also because of it's
remarkable anticatabolic (anti muscle loss) properties that help you
to keep your muscle tissue and with the high protein counts in the diet
the muscle tissue has nice way to heal it's micro-scars and grow.

--
B-D_
Atkins since 11/24/03
199/189/165