The Student Room Group

Lose Weight

Being at Uni, it should be a good time to lose weight. I don't want to end up being really slim, just shed most off the fat off my waist and handles. Being a guy, I've tried lifting weights and obviously that didn't work.

Just wanting some advice on eating plans (diets are welcome) and exercise stuff. What do you guys do or have tried and it worked?

A big thanks in advance.

Scroll to see replies

I'm guessing you are self catering?

Best way to lose weight then, is to be only bothered to cook one meal a day.

I can already feel the weight dropping off.
Reply 2
Lifting weights will help a LOT. Honestly.

Lower your overall calorie intake to 2000 calories or possibly a tad less and reduce carbohydrate intake to no more than 100 grams a day, making the rest of your intake up from protein and healthy fats and you'll lose weight.
Mr.God
Lifting weights will help a LOT. Honestly.

Lower your overall calorie intake to 2000 calories or possibly a tad less and reduce carbohydrate intake to no more than 100 grams a day, making the rest of your intake up from protein and healthy fats and you'll lose weight.

Whenever I do weights i put weight on. When I played rugby and rowed quite seriously I was 15 stone. Since I got injured playing rugby, and stopped doing fitness stuff I lost over a stone of weight.
Reply 4
muscle weighs more than fat - its a fact
Reply 5
Thats cause you're losing muscle? Which weighs more than fat.
Reply 6
Danger's_my_middle_name
Whenever I do weights i put weight on. When I played rugby and rowed quite seriously I was 15 stone. Since I got injured playing rugby, and stopped doing fitness stuff I lost over a stone of weight.

Putting muscle on isn't a bad thing. It'll speed your metabolism up, as does lifting weights in general.

If you find you're putting fat on then you're eating too much. Limit your dietary intake and keep lifting and you'll cut up and look much better than someone who got to the same bodyfat percentage by doing just cardio.
Reply 7
Danger's_my_middle_name
Whenever I do weights i put weight on. When I played rugby and rowed quite seriously I was 15 stone. Since I got injured playing rugby, and stopped doing fitness stuff I lost over a stone of weight.


Muscle weighs more than fat, so you might weigh more but be smaller. Best to go my measurements than weight.
What I meant to say, but didn't do it very well, was that losing both fat and muscle was the best way to lose weight.

Do you need the muscle you are going to put on? If you don't then you are still carrying excess weight.
Reply 9
Danger's_my_middle_name
What I meant to say, but didn't do it very well, was that losing both fat and muscle was the best way to lose weight.

Do you need the muscle you are going to put on? If you don't then you are still carrying excess weight.

I cannot find credibility in anything you say after this.

Losing muscle is a poor idea and will slow your metabolism down and make you physically weaker.

The more muscle you have, the faster your metabolism is, the easier you will find it to burn fat in a more healthy way.

Please OP, do NOT listen to this guy.
u get fat at uni...
Reply 11
I'm not a very sporty person and I have the worst eating habits in the world and even I know that losing muscle is a terrible idea. Danger doesn't seem to know why he is talking about.
Reply 12
Mr.God
I cannot find credibility in anything you say after this.

Losing muscle is a poor idea and will slow your metabolism down and make you physically weaker.

The more muscle you have, the faster your metabolism is, the easier you will find it to burn fat in a more healthy way.

Please OP, do NOT listen to this guy.


Absolutely true. Listen to the man.
Pulse
Absolutely true. Listen to the man.

It's not about the quantity of muscle, its about the quality of the muscle.

You don't see many soldiers with loads of muscle, but they are a hell of a lot fitter (normally) than those who do body building.

If you discredit this, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Reply 14
Danger's_my_middle_name
It's not about the quantity of muscle, its about the quality of the muscle.

You don't see many soldiers with loads of muscle, but they are a hell of a lot fitter (normally) than those who do body building.

If you discredit this, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

If you're talking about fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibre, then you're correct in that they're different types of muscle fibre, but they're identical in the difference they make to somebody's metabolic rate.

As for soldiers' fitness, they are fitter than bodybuilders because they do a lot more more cardiovascular exercise, and they can go for longer because they weigh less. Carrying around 20 stone of weight is exhausting, whether it's muscle or fat. They don't have faster metabolic rates on average, because they're smaller.

Honestly, please stop talking as if you're knowledgable on the subject, because you clearly aren't.
Reply 15
Soldiers do hardly any resistance exercises, its all cardio, thats why they aren't rippling with muscle. That and the fry up's they have every day.
Mr.God
If you're talking about fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibre, then you're correct in that they're different types of muscle fibre, but they're identical in the difference they make to somebody's metabolic rate.

As for soldiers' fitness, they are fitter than bodybuilders because they do a lot more more cardiovascular exercise, and they can go for longer because they weigh less. Carrying around 20 stone of weight is exhausting, whether it's muscle or fat. They don't have faster metabolic rates on average, because they're smaller.

Honestly, please stop talking as if you're knowledgable on the subject, because you clearly aren't.

Clearly I know what I'm talking about, but you're being pedantic.
Reply 17
Mr.God
If you're talking about fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibre, then you're correct in that they're different types of muscle fibre, but they're identical in the difference they make to somebody's metabolic rate.

As for soldiers' fitness, they are fitter than bodybuilders because they do a lot more more cardiovascular exercise, and they can go for longer because they weigh less. Carrying around 20 stone of weight is exhausting, whether it's muscle or fat. They don't have faster metabolic rates on average, because they're smaller.

Honestly, please stop talking as if you're knowledgable on the subject, because you clearly aren't.


I came back here to provide a retort, only to find God himself has already done so for me. Divine intervention perhaps.
Mr.God
If you're talking about fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibre, then you're correct in that they're different types of muscle fibre, but they're identical in the difference they make to somebody's metabolic rate.

As for soldiers' fitness, they are fitter than bodybuilders because they do a lot more more cardiovascular exercise, and they can go for longer because they weigh less. Carrying around 20 stone of weight is exhausting, whether it's muscle or fat. They don't have faster metabolic rates on average, because they're smaller.

Honestly, please stop talking as if you're knowledgable on the subject, because you clearly aren't.

Yeah, but someone who is 20 stone is going to look pretty **** whether it's muscle or fat.
Reply 19
i'm almost 103 KG, hight 178 cm.

I think i'm pretty fat. LOL.

Tired losing it, hard it is.