I'm 5'7 and 172lbs. Used to be 210lbs, but I've been losing weight the last few months and am still doing so by eating 1600 calories a day. So I used to be quite fat, and now I'm only a little fat. To control the intake of calories has been my only concern, but generally I eat healthy (vegetables and lean meat mostly). Trouble is I eat two or three meals a day. Quite often I eat only a breakfast (some cereal or some leftovers or some fruit or something, about 400 calories), and then one huge meal later in the day of like 1100 calories.

I realize that this is bad for me, but why is it bad? I'm losing weight, so it's working for me in that regard. Why should I change?

I also don't work out. People tell me that it is bad for me to lose weight without working out. Are they right? I realize that it is always bad to not work out, but is it worse when you are losing weight? (I have very little muscle.)

If it works for you, keep doing it. I assume you have no intention to do any kind of workout.

On a side note I can mention that its healthier to be a little fat and exercising on a regular basis than being skinny and never exercising.

I do intend to start trying to build some muscle when I get thin, but I didn't mention it because realize that what I intend to do now does not necessarily equal what will actually happen, especially given that I am obviously too lazy to exercise regularly in an attempt to get smaller, so it's somewhat likely I will be too lazy to work out to try to get bigger as well.

It's my understanding that trying to build muscle while I'm on a calorie deficit would be pretty futile, so that's why I'm not working out now. Is my plan of waiting until I can start eating enough to build muscle reaterded?

Eh, I do it too, typically in the form of lunch (400-700 calories) and dinner (700-1100), though I frequently eat around 200 calories at breakfast.

I haven't had any problem with it, I think smaller more frequent meals are probably most important for those that are hungry in between meals and thus prone to snack and eat junk.

Yes, it is ******ed to not weight lift while losing weight since you can't build as much muscle. You probably can still build some muscle, but more importantly, you won't lose as much muscle. Not losing muscle at a pound a week is just as big a reason to lift weights as building of a pound of muscle a week.

I normally eat one small meal and one large meal a day (200-300 brunch and 800-1200 large dinner). Lately I'm trying to gain weight, so I try to snack on fruit, crackers, almonds, and whatever else I have throughout the rest of the day. I kinda have to force myself to eat over 1500 cals a day, so I hope it works.

If you intend to lift weights at some point, then by all means start now!

Do you want to lift weights or not? Its actually semi important for the advise...

warrior diet: http://www.warriordiet.com/

getting bigger in the future will be alot easier if u keep as much muscle as possible on while losing fat. losing 10 lbs fat and 0 lbs muscle is alot better than losing 13 lbs fat and 5 lbs muscle in the same time span. and just because something works, doesnt mean its optimal. ..

Yeah I want to lift weights, but I honestly don't have much muscle to lose. I'm sure there is always some to lose, but it's not like I've ever been anything but really weak. I figured I'll be doing a lot of work for small benefits if I start weight lifting while I'm on a calorie deficit, since I have very little muscle to "preserve". I figured wrong?

He's only losing pounds. It's not necessarily working. Some people at 5'7" 172lbs look fat while others look fit. What's the waistline? How much fat can you pinch? You should want to be fit.

You are wrong.

When I started powerlifting some years ago I did the bulking thing, but this other kid i knew stayed at weight, 75 kg, he weighted 75 kg for like 3 years, but after 3 years his raw bench was at 140 kg.

So get started the sooner the better, it doesnt matter if you want to drop some more fat, if you want to lift weights at some point, you should start tomorrow.

Waistline (just measured) is 37 inches. Can pinch quite a lot of fat. I'm definitely not fit.

Might as well start now! I would suggest ditching the scale for the most part, and instead focus on body composition. You can lose weight, be at a good weight for your height, but end up looking skinny fat. There is no good reason to wait, not even that you are running a caloric deficit.

100% agree

Over and over and over, fat guys who want to lose weight say "I'll do weights when I'm skinny". Hell, I remember telling myself that once. No idea WHY. And weight trainers all across the world just shake their heads... it makes NO sense, and you are selling yourself short in a major way.

I'm not saying to jump right into Starting Strength, but doing some basic weight training is going to do wonders as you lose bodyfat

In Japan you would be taxed extra for being fat.
Forget the weight. Not the best way to measure
fitness. Your waist should be 32 inches. Football
players in America have been 5'9" 217lbs but not
overweight. Because their waistline was 32".

Yeah, you figured wrong. What's going to happen is that since you have very little muscle, your metabolism is continually slowing down to preserve that little bit of muscle, and your weight loss will come to a halt soon, much sooner than you want. You'll reach a dead end where you'll be fat and won't be able to lose weight on little calorie intake.

You're at the point where you're an exception to the "no muscle gain on a calorie deficit" norm. You'll actually gain muscle because you're below normal levels. You'll also speed up your metabolism, continue to lose fat, and you'll be satisfied with the way you look after you reach your target fat loss amount. That is a big benefit.

Is that a poem?

Ok good, I'm convinced, which is what I made this thread for to happen. (Though the plan was getting convinced to start forcing myself to eat more frequent, smaller meals, not to start lifting weights.) But I should not jump right into Starting Strength? From reading the sticky (and the link in it), I figured that was what I should be doing if I start lifting weights. What does it mean in this context that I should rather just do some basic weight training? Did you (ActionJeff) just mean that I don't necessarily have to lift 3x a week for it to be beneficial?

Just go light until you have decent form, then start the program (ramping the weights up every workout)

You have the worst advice of any regular here. You wasitline is affected by many different things. Mine has grown dramatically since I was younger and I'm marginally fatter (couple %s). If you want a greek god body, a little pussy 32 inch waistline is gonna get you ****.

While I agree that telling me I am fat and need to get a smaller waist is pretty useless, since I already know it, a 32 inch waistline seems appropriate according to other sources I've read too. I'm short.

The guy is 5'7". To be able to wear a suit right of the rack, one must have a 32" waist. That's for a 38 short.

Your waist size depends on two things 1) Your bones 2) Your muscles... well and at this point your gut. But we can exclude that. A quick and dirty way is to look at your joints. Do you have small joints or big joints?

Regardless your waist size is pretty much in your control. Do a bunch of deadlifts if you want a bigger one.

You do realize the drops for athletic males are much larger? Using mass produced clothing as an indicator of correct body proportions... seems to fit your general method of thinking.

There's no way you can worm your way out of it. For normal males, 5'7", the correct waistline is 32". For those with larger bones 33" is probably okay. But 34" and above is plump. 36" is fat.