ouroborous

I've had an odd, similar reaction. The last few times I went down to visit my family (my father has been very ill, and sadly just passed away), my mom and dad were just blown away at how skinny and "buff" (Dad's words) I was. I felt embarrassed, but proud -- I've worked very hard to lose weight and go to the gym, so it's nice to have some praise! My sister chimed in, but not much. And then, as I was sitting at the family computer trying to fix it (amazing how Mom and Dad can wreck it every single time!) she's behind me and says "oh my god, you're going bald, little brother!" Now... I'm not going bald; I have a thinning spot at the crown of my head, like just about every other guy my age (and besides, I shave my head, so who cares). It doesn't bother me that much, since I know about it and am honest, but my first reaction was -- what an odd, cruel thing to say! My sister is probably in excess of 300 lbs at this point, and since she's a heavy smoker she's just not... looking good. In fact her skin is horrible because (I suspect) she's in early stage diabetes. I've offered to help her get the sleeve surgery, if she wants, I've been a great evangelist for it -- making it clear that it's a great tool for losing weight. But I DON'T preach about weight loss, and I have NEVER criticized her appearance. So this -- and other, similar -- jibes about my appearance were really weird and off-putting, until I realized something: She's jealous! It finally clicked a few days ago (I was telling my mom about the house I just bought, and my sister's comment? Not "congratulations" or "way to go!" but "It's kinda OLD..." I mean WTF?) that she's just jealous of me and all the attention I've been getting lately. So all of a sudden all those little mean comments start to make sense; they're still mean and hurtful, but now I can think "ah, that's just her issues popping up, ignore it." It sucks when friends and family and loved ones are cruel to you, but the older I get, the more I feel that when it happens, I have to realize that that's the monkey on THEIR back. Their insults and mean comments aren't about ME, they're about THEM; when someone says something cruel to you, be nice to them -- it means that THEY are having a hard time with YOUR success, and are taking it out on you. That's the way I TRY to be, anyway. I don't always succeed... the last few times when my sister was insulting to me, I really had to bite my tongue to avoid saying something incredibly hurtful back at her.

Just a quick tidbit. Last week at weigh-in on Friday morning, I was just a tad over 216, which puts me at right around 15 pounds to goal. This morning I stepped on the scale, and was shocked to see 223.7! I KNOW I've been good, eating carefully, exercising a LOT (tons of cardio plus weight training plus calisthenics at home plus now yoga), so there was no reason for that much of a change. On a whim, I stepped off and back on the scale -- hmm, 221.5. Somehow I'd lost two pounds in 30 seconds. Oh right, where you stand on a scale and what your posture is, etc., drastically affects the weight reading. Weighed a couple more times, same number, around 221. So then I thinks "oh wait, I've had one and a half BIG (22 oz) cups of coffee this morning." I know the old "a pint (16oz)'s a pound" adage, but just to be sure, I go weigh a full cup of coffee, and it's almost three pounds. So, I've drank four pounds of coffee -- check. Then I realize: oh, I usually weigh in boxers or in the buff before my shower, and I'm wearing sweat pants and a t-shirt; surely those can't weigh more than a few ounces? No -- they weighed nearly three pounds. So I chuckle, realize that the scale is just not super accurate, and go about my day. I do my morning calisthenics plus my cardio (30 minutes of intense sweating, probably losing another pint of fluid). I go upstairs to shower, and weigh again in the buff, after going pee, using my regular foot positioning and posture -- 216.7. What does it mean? THE SCALE LIES. It's good to keep an eye on your weight, but you simply CANNOT get too hung up on little blips along the way. You can EASILY swing the number a couple pounds in one way or another just by standing differently. For the reading to have ANY use, you have to make sure that every damn thing is the same -- same amount of Fluid, same clothing, same time of day, same position and posture on the scale, everything. Even then, tiny Water weight gains can add or remove a couple pounds in a day, easy -- and when you're further along the weight loss thing, like me, it's good to lose a pound or two (of fat!) per month, so these "little" scale fluctuations can EASILY swallow up your "real" weight (fat) changes, and you simply can NOT let yourself get too hung up. Better is to measure your body fat percentage, if you have access to a body fat scale (or best yet, a dunk tank) since what you really want is not for your weight to go down, but your FAT to go down. Also, measure your shape changes -- tummy, hips, arms, legs, etc. -- so that you can see where your body shape is changing even when your weight isn't (even though my weight has been stubbornly in the 215-220 range for a while now, I can tell that I'm getting *buff*, so it's still progres). Bottom line, the scale lies. PLEASE don't get too hung up on the exact number. It'll drive you nuts! Just keep doing what you're supposed to do (eat lots of lean Protein, lots of good complex carbs, drink lots of water, get lots of exercise) and... live your life! Edit: I should add that my scale is a good, high quality weight watchers scale; it's about as good and accurate (even for larger weights) as you're going to get in a non swing-arm scale (you know, the kind in the doctor's office). It's not just a case of a crappy scale, it's a case of all scales being imprecise, and other factors making as much of a difference as actual fat weight changes.

So -- you've lost 53 pounds in 3 months. That's just over 4 pounds a week, which is an admirable weight loss rate for someone with your starting BMI (I was in the same area) for the first few months. It's quite common to see this in the first 1-4 months, after which it usually slows down to about 1-2 pounds a week for maybe 4-6 months, and then 1-2 pounds a *month* after that for a LONG time, eventually see-sawing to a steady state. Losing 4 pounds a week implies that you run a caloric deficit of about 4 lbs * 3500 cals/lb / 7 days or 2000 calories per day. This is possible because in the first few weeks after surgery you're typically on a very restrictive diet which significantly limits the calories you can consume (plus, most of us are riding a bit of loss from the pre-op diet, and usually we're still being very mindful of carbs, which tend to be among the most calorie-dense foods). Sadly, after the first couple of months, this rate of 4 or even 5 pounds of fat lost per week slows down dramatically. Even so, you were talking about losing 3 pounds in a weekend, which is just not possible if it's fat we're talking about. Losing 3 pounds of fat would require you to run a deficit of about 5200 calories per day. Your resting metabolism is no more than 1700-1900 calories per day if you're very physically active. You'd have to burn another 4000 calories every day to sustain a 3 pounds in 2 days fat loss. That's simply impossible; you'd have to do about 10 hours or more of intense cardio every day -- we're talking about 80-90% max heart rate -- to burn 4000 calories, and I'd guess that you would die long before you burned the calories. No, whether you believe me or not, if you lose 3 pounds in 2 days, the bulk of that is Water lost. You are right, everyone's body is slightly different, but what you're talking about is not a minor difference between body types. It would be a miracle of modern science. I'd guess that most of your 52 lbs lost IS fat, because it's reasonable to lose 52 lbs in 3 months. Breaking the habit of looking at the scale every day is part of how we can train people to have realistic, healthy expectations of weight loss. Daily weigh-ins are not useful for weight loss, and they are actively harmful to some people who obsess over single-pound fluctuations that are utterly out of their control.

IANAD (I am not a doctor), but... this sounds like possible anemia to me. Have you had your blood Iron levels checked recently? Anemia is a serious concern -- but correctable. It's definitely important to stay on top of it.

With respect, you cannot lose 3 lbs of fat over a weekend. It's simply not physiologically possible. I'm not saying you don't see the scale move by that much, and I'm not saying you don't lose SOME weight. But I will flat-out guarantee you that it is not 3 lbs of fat. You would need to run a calorie deficit in excess of 10,000 calories (cf: http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_pound.php) to lose 3 lbs of fat, which is simply not possible in a weekend. You would have to eat NOTHING, and be basically doing flat-out cardiovascular exercise at your max heart rate to run this much of a deficit, and you would collapse and likely die if you even tried. This is why I don't recommend paying too close attention to the numbers on the scale. Almost ALL of the short term (less than one week) fluctuations are Water weight.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. You didn't say that you considered yourself overweight; I just assumed it when you said that you weren't in "maintenance" yet -- my assumption was most people who aren't in "maintenance" think they're overweight (why would anyone want to lose weight if they don't at least think they're overweight?). Obviously I was mistaken! Again, sorry for any offense, it's none of my business.

Errr... your current BMI is 22.5, and you don't consider yourself in "maintenance" yet? 25 is considered the cutoff for "normal" BMI, and IIRC, under 20 is considered "underweight" for women (I'm going by memory, so I may be off on the underweight bit). It's your business, not mine, but I'm always sort of startled to see people in the normal, healthy weight and BMI range still considering themselves overweight! Many of us had BMI's of 40, 50, or more, so considering 22.5 "overweight" in any meaningful sense is baffling to me. But -- your body, your choices, so I'll shut up at that

Well, you're right -- it's not weighing yourself that's the problem. You could weigh yourself every five minutes and it's not like it would be bad. It's just that most of us obsess over the number on the scale. Towards the end of your weight loss journey (when your BMI starts to get closer to that magical "normal" figure), your week-by-week (and sometimes even month-by-month) weight loss can and will sometimes be eaten up by an hour-by-hour fluctuation due to Water weight, going (or not going) to the bathroom, what you just ate, and so on. As a result, the actual number on the scale becomes almost meaningless from the perspective of tracking your overall fitness. That being said, if you can avoid the trap of obsessing over the actual number, and learn to use some science and math to plot the trend over time (so that you can see the overall downwards trend, despite all the bumps along the way), you can still do just fine weighing yourself weekly. I wouldn't really advise anyone weighing more than weekly since the information becomes pretty useless for us. Most people just don't have the self-discipline to not freak out over a slight blip on the scale, which is why I think weighing yourself monthly is about perfect. That's a long enough time to "average out" some of the bumps in the road, and short enough that you're not letting a bad trend get too out of control.

If you can weigh yourself monthly, you'll be MUCH happier, trust me. In the beginning, when the big changes occur, you'll be even happier because you'll see even more weight dropping. And when you get further along on your weight loss journey, you'll also be happier because you won't drive yourself bonkers over normal little weight fluctuations. That being said, most sleevers are glued to the scale at the beginning, with some even weighing themselves daily, and beating themselves up for "not losing a pound yesterday." That's just crazy, in my opinion.

I used to be the biggest Diet Coke fan in the world, and since my sleeve, I've basically completely stopped -- cold turkey -- drinking it, and switched to coffee for my caffeine. The carbonation, oddly, didn't bother me at all. It's the acidity that was the kicker; that stuff gave me reflux like you wouldn't believe. In the end, it just wasn't worth it -- I drink coffee when I need a caffeine boost, and when I want that "ice cold, refreshing" feeling, I drink plain old water!

Being heavy definitely ages you. If you can get away with looking 19 when you're 32, count yourself lucky! I'm 41 and look-- exactly my age. That being said, I'd like to believe that I look like a fit, muscular 41! There are worse things... When I actually WAS 19, my first hardcore lust-crush was for a 41 year-old woman, so... until you hit about 55 or 60, I think it's more a matter of how you look and how you feel than anything else

Sadly, even post-sleeve, finding the right mix of looks good, in the mood, and available is... challenging. Doesn't stop the hormones from acting up, though!

So, I've really been trying to work on strengthening and defining my legs, without too much success. My upper body has gained a LOT of muscle and definition, and, I dare say, I'm getting pretty "buff." Even my abs, under the last little layer of fat (and, sadly, loose skin) are getting pretty darned muscular and solid. But I just cannot for the life of me seem to gain the same definition and bulk in my lower body. I've been trying to go back to basics with my lifting (squats on the smith machine instead of the press machine/extensions machine, etc.) with the thought being that involving my stabilizer muscles might help me focus on the legs more. However, now I'm at a place where I'm stuck -- I'm at just over 200 lbs on the bar when I'm doing squats; that's as much as I currently feel safe doing without a spotter. I don't want to wreck my back or my knees. And it's close to my current limit. But I don't feel like I'm really GAINING that much doing that weight; yes, the reps are hard and I'm huffing and puffing once I do 3 sets of 8 squats w/200, but I don't feel that wobbly legged "burn" that I can get in my other muscle groups. For instance, tonight I also did military presses and rear delt flies, and I can STILL feel it in my deltoids, but my legs aren't even sore! One more thing to throw into the mix; I've been starting some beginning yoga classes to try to improve my flexibility and balance (and tone my stabilizer muscles and core even more) and I've noticed that when I'm holding a leg-centric pose (say, warrior pose) for a long time, my legs get really wobbly and tired. I'm not sure what this means; maybe I'm lifting wrong, and my legs are still pretty weak? Any advice would be appreciated. My legs are pretty muscular, it's just that compared to the rest of my body they're not in balance, and since I've lost so much fat I'm hoping to beef up my quads and butt to fill out some loose skin!

This is just one example, but at about ~1:20 in, you can see the result of numerous studies on numerous patient groups. The results are striking in their similarity: both low-repetition, high intensity (weight) and high-repetition, lower intensity (weight) sets produced equivalent results, when performed to fatigue or failure. Of course, you have to use enough weight to produce SOME kind of challenge, but men, you do not, not, not need to use the biggest stack of weight possible to "get big" and muscular. The big stacks of weight are the result of lots of bulking up, not the cause (confusing these two is like believing that not having dandruff causes people to use anti-dandruff shampoo, instead of the other way around; it's an easy mistake to make if you just connect the dots -- hey, people without dandruff use anti-dandruff shampoo, therefore... -- and scientists/skeptics call this confusing correlation with causation). Similarly, ladies, higher weights will not cause you to bulk up. Most of you ladies (and many of us men) simply lack the testosterone needed to produce significant muscle bulk, so make sure you're using enough weight to be challenging, or all that toning work will be for nothing. Finally, it doesn't really matter how much weight you use (as long as it's enough to be eventually challenging, of course). There's no difference between "toning" exercise and "bulking" exercise -- challenging your muscles through any route will produce the same physiological neuromuscular changes, over the long run. Whether you "tone" (get long, lean muscles) or "bulk" (get large, bulky muscles) is almost entirely due to your physiology and hormones, and NOT due to the type of sets you do. I'd suspected this for a time (some of the biggest, bulkiest bodybuilders at my gym seem to consistently be doing large numbers of lower-weight sets), so it's good to see it confirmed scientifically. I'm sure that some folks will simply dismiss it out of hand, as it goes against the received gospel of bodybuilding. But it's good to know what science says; I'm happy to learn that I don't have to use huge weights that increase my pain and risk of injury, in order to produce the same advantage. The real key -- like with anything -- is consistency, pushing my limits, and arming myself with knowledge of how my body works. Edit: I forgot to mention this, but it's important. This has ONLY to do with muscle fitness and strength. It has NOTHING to do with training for a particular athletic activity. For instance, to be a good basketball player, you need a certain amount of muscular strength, and for that either high weights/low reps, or low weights/high reps will work. But you also need to train the shots, the defense, the strategy, the cardio endurance, and so on. For these things, the equation is completely different. My post is only about bulking/strengthening/toning muscles, where the amount of weight used is irrelevant.

I am a HUGE fan of stretching, especially as I get older. Yoga is basically just "extended stretching," and I'm finding that it really helps my sore lower back and hips!

Yeah, I'd wager that the majority of your routine goes towards aerobic workout/burning calories. You sound like you're predisposed towards bulk (probably higher testosterone than average for women; it's not a horrible thing, actually!), so you've probably self-tuned your workout away from challenging your muscles to exhaustion/failure, and more towards doing cardio work. As I said, whatever works for your body is a good choice, but if you want to strengthen/bulk up specific muscle groups (which it sounds like you do NOT want to do), the weight/reps balance is less important than challenging the specific muscle to exhaustion.

Yeah, you have to find a workout that works for you; if your entire routine takes too long, you may have to play around with the weight/reps equation. The sports physiologist in the first video mentions a "90 second anaerobic window" that I'm trying to parse; she seems to be saying that you have to work to fatigue or failure within a 90 second window to produce optimal strengthening/bulking results. I don't know anything about that, but that's just my ignorance of deep sports physiology showing!

Genetics and steroids I saw some anecdotal evidence that shows that almost all of the top male bodybuilders have used some form of anabolic "help"... And yeah, how your muscles look and how strong they are is very different; genetics play a big role in whether your muscles look "big" (large in the "belly" of the muscle) or "lean" (long, with a small "belly"... I tend to lean towards "big" in the upper body and "lean" in the lower body, but my high school friend and weightlifting partner was exactly the opposite!)