I pretty much agree with everything that guy says.
Thought I'd just chime in with some personal experience here. I'd let myself get to a pretty sorry state, top end 118 kg. I basically said enough was enough, and got my bike out of the shed and started riding to work - a breezy downhill 10 minute ride in to work, a more difficult 30 minute climb home.
So, last week of September 2009, my 33rd Birthday, 118 kg. Right now, 16th of March, 96.6 kg.
Basically I do about 30 minutes cycling 5 days a week (work commute). And maybe 1 - 2 hours of "liesure" riding on a Saturday or Sunday (~50km distance).
In terms of working out - I don't go to a gym, and never will. I do pushups (close hands, wide hands), squats (varying on weights in hands/arm positions), pullups, and I bought a 1.5m piece of latex rubber that I throw around a pole and pretend I'm on a rowing machine. I work out for 30 - 40 minutes, 2 - 3 times a week.
I gave up drinking beer _every_ day. And I might have a couple over a weekend. I still have pizza and chocolate bars, but I limit the intake of said items. I also started practising intermitten fasting (Basically you have dinner on the thursday night, and on the friday you skip breakfast and lunch, and eat dinner again on Friday night)
The only thing that I can suggest to you, is, that whatever you choose to do, you have to enjoy it, it must NOT be a chore, and you need to keep doing it indefinitely. Going to the gym was definitely OUT as far as meeting those goals, but getting up before my kids, and spending 30 minutes doing calisthenics, 2 or 3 times a week? I can do that for the rest of my life.
The only time I didn't have problems keeping my weight down was when I cycled to work - roughly 10 miles, uphill and into the prevailing wind in the morning and easier back at night. In summer I'd often take a detour through a local range of hills for an additional couple of hours off road fun.
Was much faster than the bus and I didn't have a car at the time.
Now I have a 25 minute walk to work - but it's not the same.
Would love to bicycle to work. Here in the USA, very few people do so because (A) there's almost no room on the road and (B) motorists are almost always in a big hurry and not paying attention to anything except lights, police, and other cars.
I lived near a university once where there were some bike paths and it was really great.
"The eat low-fat advice was the biggest health disaster in the last 30 years"
Literally everywhere I look this appears. Research (that I've seen) has been ridiculously supportive of this, and I find myself edging towards primal more and more (cutting out grains and sugar whenever I can) but I still can't believe why this whole anti-fat movement came about. It can't be all politics, can it?
While "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (great book, hate the title) is generally known for being a "low-carb book", actually the bulk of the book is an in-depth examination of exactly how we got to the point where "low-fat diet = good" is not just a dominant hypothesis but borderline religion. If you are truly interested in an answer to that question, this is it in book form.
The short answer is, indeed, politics, but I actually blame scientific politics rather than traditional government politics. The latter enabled the former to really spread its influence, but had the strongest personalities in the dietary movement agreed that fat is harmless, the government would never have ended up rubber-stamping the low-fat dietary dogma. The longer answer is, as sliverstorm said, the look-under-the-lamppost problem; we got a couple of cheap measurement tools early and then extrapolated the hell out of the small, small, oh-so-small view of the complex system we had.
Incidentally, we do that all the time and continue to do that. Almost every article I see online about how X is bad for you or how Y is good for kids can be traced back to a study that boils down to a point sample in the n-dimensional space of like; such things are often only marginally better than nothing, all of our best scientific controls notwithstanding. The next great revolution in science as a whole is going to have to be figuring out some way to get a holistic view of more things, we're drowning in data points that often add up to nothing.
It's not all politics. What I've read so far says it happened because scientists figured out how to measure blood cholesterol, and learned that fats increased it. That was (iirc) the core of the 'health disaster'.
According to "Sugar: The Bitter Truth", a YouTube video previously featured on HN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM), low-fat diets were mainly a result of a key and influential study that failed to eliminate confounding: the diet it looked at did increase cholesterol and was high-fat, but it was also high in grains/sugar.
In an organic chemistry class in '85, a (admittedly fairly bright and clued in) professor described to us that while people were worrying about saturated fats, research was starting to show that partially hydrogenated oils (aka "trans fats") might well pose a much larger health risk.
It only took 20 years to work its way into the public/popular media. (In the meantime, a lot of margarine was sold -- and a lot of angioplasties and bypasses.)
Running was supposed to destroy one's joints. Now, we learn that when it is not overdone (too much in too short a period of time or with too little prior conditioning), it actually strengthens joints.
I've become increasingly skeptical of new health effect claims, particularly when they aren't backed up by detailed, specific (to the aspect of health under consideration), and longitudinally significant evidence.
(Oh, and remember when vitamin D was considered one of the less significant vitamins (once you had enough in your diet to prevent rickets)?)
[Meta: Sigh, I have indeed become that "grumpy old man".]
[Meta: Sigh, I have indeed become that "grumpy old man".]
I don't know. Assuming you went through the normal college course straight out of high school I'm ~12 years younger than you but I've been coming around to the same conclusions. Personally I think between the internet and some other things it's just that we're getting the data now that says that we need to tune our trust of science down a bit. I still think it's the best way of learning there is, it just isn't as powerful in practice as we'd like.
I remember thinking in the 1990s that as I read about the history of various sciences, the only fields where the dominant consensus didn't spend long periods of time being dead wrong were fields too young to have a dominant consensus. (Perhaps not in those words at the time, but along those lines.) I recall seeing the casual assumption that all that stuff was in the past, and wondered what major sciences were actively wrong. It turns out that in fact they weren't all exactly right and indeed I think that some entire major fields were wrong at the time.
(Bringing up the interesting question of who is wrong today? Back then I could mouth the words but hadn't really internalized the idea, but now I seriously wonder, who is wrong today in a way that I don't even suspect? The odds of it being "nobody" are basically zero.)
I am not talking about popular reporting of science. I am talking about science.
Recently a paper went by on how something like 90% of medical studies are not able to be replicated in follow-up studies. If you really understand science qua science (as opposed to science-as-religion-substitute), you should understand this isn't a minor interesting tidbit to be discarded, this is a dagger to the heart of the field. Other fields seem to be having similar problems.
I reiterate, science is still the best we've got and I don't anticipate a replacement. But the evidence strongly suggests that the quality of the real science being done is a lot lower than it may appear at first glance, or what some people would have you believe.
Coincidentally, this just came up: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1199230 It is almost exactly what I mean. Unfortunately, if the results are sufficiently bad there's actually no salvaging the science; meta-analysis can improve things but still requires good data to start with.
Science itself isn't at fault, because science isn't really a thing. In this case, it was the institution of medical science that we trusted erroneously.
Actually, it's really amazing how many dangerously wrong ideas medicine has come up with over the years.
There's some good things and some bad in this post, but because he doesn't back things up it's basically just a list of opinions. That's what causing the problems in the first place, people relaying on catchy one liners instead of doing the basics right.
I think a lot of his points follow the back-to-the-basics line. Especially that simple running and push-ups at home can be a better step towards health than joining a gym. I eventually got tired of paying hundreds in gym fees and havin go find at least an hour a day to go to one. All that only made me slack off. So made a decision to simpply a few miles each day. Right out of my office door with no excusses.
Some people likes the routine of going to the gym, others rather do something at home. Whatever works for the moment and keeps you enjoying it is great.
What I mean by doing the basics right is that if you're out of shape, there's no need to be guinea pig.
Eat or drink less of stuff that has too much or too quick energy i.e. fat and sugar. Avoid too much alcohol. Eat normal amounts of protein and carbohydrate with high GI and drink water, keeping you from having cravings. Exercise both anaerobically and aerobically, with warm-up and stretching. Get enough rest. Do it all regularly and measure the progress.
First, the crowd there acts as an informal support group. Seeing others working hard to improve their own health is motivating for oneself.
Second, a gym offers much more than simple pushups can offer. Sure, pushups are great for getting started, but you'll eventually grow strong chest and triceps muscles and the rest of your body will fall behind.
The gym you attend is also important. I drive ~15 minutes to the nearest Gold's Gym, because the local Palo Alto gym (4 blocks away) is basically a rich housewife's social club. Gold's is packed with serious lifters, and only $10 (!). It makes a huge difference for me; definitely the difference between going and not going for many, I think.
Eat or drink less of stuff that has too much or too quick energy i.e. fat and sugar. Avoid too much alcohol. Eat normal amounts of protein and carbohydrate with high GI and drink water, keeping you from having cravings. Exercise both anaerobically and aerobically, with warm-up and stretching. Get enough rest. Do it all regularly and measure the progress.
... and embrace whatever helps you do this, instead of shoehorning yourself into the "best" approach. Know yourself and know what works for you. Don't sweat it if the thing you enjoy doing several times a week is different from the thing all the cool kids are doing.
Eat normal amounts ... of carbohydrate with high GI...
You can't call that getting the basics right, as if it's some well established fact. Citation needed.
EDIT: The modern diet, with all its refined white flour, has a much higher GI than in the past. (White flour has a much higher GI than fruits and vegtables, for a start). What do you think is responsible for the rising diabetes epidemic?
I'm sorry, I of course meant low GI. Which is in line with "less of stuff that has [...] too quick energy" and "keeping you from having cravings", i.e. keeping your blood sugars stable. But I didn't write that, so good of you to call me out on it!
Nah, exercise won't get rid of your fat. The important basics (which he does mention) is diet. Eat better and in the right amounts, and you'll lose weight. Don't, and you won't (no matter how much you exercise).
Diet is 85% of where results come from…..for muscle and fat loss. Many don’t focus here enough.
I'm blown away by friends and acquaintances who put so much effort into exercise and are unwilling to change their diet. Cutting out sugar and flour, for example, will lead to greater weight loss than jogging an hour a day (for the average American male).
Average caloric intake from sweeteners alone: 152.4 lbs/yr / 365 days/yr * 453.6 g/lb * 4 calories/g = 757 calories
Average calories burned in an hour of jogging for an average-weight male: 728 calories
IMO more people should lift weights and listen to what bodybuilders have to say about health and fitness. They know the ins and outs of "building" the body, yet everyone looks at them with disgust. Listen to their advice and understand that you will never look that way unless you have good muscle building genes and you deliberately work to attain that physique.
Why would bodybuilders know more about health and fitness than triathletes, tennis players, or powerlifters? They read a lot of sciencey-sounding material, but are they savvier consumers of information than the average dieter? The faddishness of bodybuilding routines and bodybuilding nutrition doesn't build much confidence, and the nature of bodybuilding competition doesn't test whether a body has any functional capacity. I'm not saying bodybuilders aren't fit, just that their hobby doesn't demonstrate their fitness the way a triathlon demonstrates that a triathlete has good endurance and cardiovascular capacity, or squatting a heavy weight demonstrates that a powerlifter is strong.
In general, my good sense rebels at the notion of connecting bodybuilding with health. Bodybuilding is the game of hacking one particular, and particularly superficial, way of judging health and fitness. That's fine and good -- anything that gives people fun and satisfaction is great -- but there are many other ways of judging health and fitness that seem prima facie far superior to an obsession with body fat and muscularity. And there are many people busy hacking those superior measures: triathletes, powerlifters, soccer players, boxers, wrestlers, tennis players, and so forth. You have to assume that nutritional knowledge in those sports is pretty far behind bodybuilding before you would assume that an ideal powerlifter's diet is as healthy as an ideal tennis player's diet.
Strength is perhaps the single best predictor of longevity and health. That's not to say vigorous strength training has been clinically shown to increase lifespan, but strong people are much healthier than weak people overall. Geriatric care givers get dramatic results out of strength training. I don't think one can make a similar case for jogging or tennis, or whatever. Strength training has uniquely powerful benefits.
"Body Building" as an aesthetic goal or a "sport" is stupid. But there a ton of reasons to think everyone should try to keep up a respectable ten rep bench/squat.
All of the sports I mentioned benefit from strength training, and I mentioned powerlifting twice. I know strength training is valuable. The thing is, a bodybuilder caring how much he can lift is like a poker player caring how well he can roll chips on his knuckles: it might correlate with dedication and therefore indirectly with performance, but it doesn't win him any points in competition.
Lifting weights is great and most people could benefit from a sensible diet and a regime of weightlifting involving correctly performed compound exercises (ie squats, deadlifts, military press, bench press, pull/chin ups).
Can't say I agree with listening to bodybuilders though. Bodybuilders are (generally speaking) genetic freaks who are taking exogenous testosterone, HGH and insulin. They're also using training/diet programs appropriate for people who're in their circumstances.
This is completely incorrect and frankly your statement mirrors the problem. A "Bodybuilder" isn't only a professional (and even then your statement about substances is not grounded in fact). It can be anyone who is deeply interested in getting results out of their bodies. Most bodybuilders don't take steroids and other substances, they are just in tune with what makes their body build muscle and burn fat.
1. Proper nutrition and eating habits.
2. Proper sleeping and recovery habits.
3. Proper weight training regimen.
It's better to miss out on a training session than miss a meal or not get enough sleep. So in this way yes, bodybuilders are certainly not just gym rats.
Most people don't want nor need to train and look like a bodybuilder. Bodybuilders do things that might be great for aesthetics, but not always necessarily straight forward nor healthy for the beginner. If you feel that you are at a decent level of fitness and want to take it to the next level, I would first look at the strength and conditioning programs of "normal" athletes.
The GP isn't saying people should want to look like a bodybuilder, he is saying that we all have something to learn from people who are able to affect such drastic changes in their own bodies (bodybuilders).
Most "normal" athletes simply live a lifestyle unbeknownst to them. It's just "natural" to be that way. Any bodybuilder has had to actively shape their appearance, which is the ultimate test for anyone actively wishing to modify their fitness or appearance.
It is funny. Whenever people ask for nutrition advice I refer them to forum.bodybuilding.com because they have a couple of dedicated support forums for nutrition / weight loss.
Most people almost never listen or bother to do. For some reason they have an aversion to taking advice from body builders even though those guys spend more of their time on fitness and nutrition than others.
Body builders (specifically that forum) have some good and some bad information. The problem I've noticed over the past year or so is with the amount of people answering questions based on "what they heard", not what has been proven or tested. Cliches aside, it's a giant case of citation needed. I find it mind-boggling how many "body builders" make claims to the effect of, "nutritionists don't know what we need, they're not the ones in the gym and they don't have testimonials." Yes, serious athletes (including body builders) have specific requirements, but basing your logic on individual testimonials instead of thorough trials is a bit presumptuous.
I think the most important thing you can do to make exercise a persistent part of your life is to make it a social activity. At this point, I don't run to stay fit. I do it because it's a great way to hang out with my friends while doing something fun. Physical activity doesn't have to be medicalized or mandatory -- it's actually much more enjoyable as an activity you share with others. Going for a comfortable run with a few friends or going rock climbing with a buddy is addictively fun -- I just wish I had the time to meet up for it daily instead of only 1-3 times per week.
If you're in Boston and thinking about starting to run, I've had a great time running with The Most Informal Running Club Ever on Saturday mornings -- http://informalrunning.com . Nothing beats getting together with 30-60 new and old friends, running by the Charles at a distance and pace of your choosing, and then hanging out with them all for a potluck breakfast.
Our culture for some reason thinks exercise is prescription medicine that should be taken in secret. It turns out that exercise is just like food -- best enjoyed in a convivial group.
Making it social is very effective. People who have a history of giving up on exercise often find that it's much harder to let other people down than to let themselves down.
Being social enough to benefit from this idea but not social enough to enjoy making smalltalk with a bunch of strangers, I never liked the club idea. For those who are less social like me, competitive amateur sports leagues that are segregated by ability and age are a nice alternative. Typically, facility access requires games to be strictly scheduled, ensuring that people play instead of chatting. The competitive aspect ensures a good workout, and there are options to play as an individual (singles tennis and racquetball) or as part of a team (softball, soccer, basketball.)
Team sport leagues usually provide some way of signing up as an individual. Either they'll place individuals with teams who need players, or they'll create "house" teams made entirely of people who signed up as individuals. You might be embarrassingly bad, but you probably won't be the worst. If you're playing in the lowest skill level for your age, nobody can really complain -- if they want better teammates, they should "level up" and play in a higher category.
I think lots of people have lost basic common sense when it comes to fitness and health.
I got used to my colleagues complaining about how much I ate, somehow I deserved to be fat and yet wasn't.
Now, I hate walking with a passion, can't stand it. After ten years of living in London I'd also got rather bored of taking the tube everywhere. So I cycled everywhere: my daily commute, going out socialising, visiting friends, going to get the shopping and so on. So I was getting - as a minimum - 30 minutes of healthy exercise 5 days a week. At the weekend, sometimes I'd go for a cycle, but pretty much well only if I was going to meet someone, so again it was pretty short, maybe 10 minutes in each direction.
Then a colleague started to copy me. Guess what? Taking exercise - no matter if it's only 20 minutes - that often really works. Stop going to the gym for hours at a time, just spend 20 minutes working out somewhere every day and you'll be able to eat what you want and make other people jealous ;-)
On the other hand I keep hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day and that instead you should eat very light diner. If key to proper fitness (and body building) according to the original article is proper nutrition, why would you skip the most important meal? Of course, breakfast should be healthy and not a load of pancakes on top of waffles on top of sausages that is considered breakfast in many diners.
About skipping breakfast. The concept is Intermittent Fasting. Ideally if we consume less refined carbohydrates which are quick to deplete, getting energy from "slower" sources, the natural tendency would be to reduce the need for more frequent meals.
It doesn't have to be breakfast. If I'm going to skip anything, I'd rather it be dinner. That way half the time with less readily available energy, I'll be asleep, rather than thwart my cognitive abilities when they matter most, usually in the morning.
I'd like to see some evidence or more of an explanation about the skipping breakfast thing.
The accepted wisdom and fitness/nutrition and breakfast is that until your first meal of the day, your body is in sleep mode and won't start metabolizing yet.
Why not? Caffeine works more efficiently when taken in more frequent and smaller doses. Furthermore constantly taking in caffeine will suppress hunger. If you're concerned about the sugar in many drinks, you should call that out.
Water works the same as you mention about caffeine without any side effects or potential thereof: energy leveler and producer + appetite suppressant.
I'm not calling sugar out what-so-ever. I said avoid diet and low-fat anything... normally things are low fat and diet because they have a sugar substitute. Maybe you missed that? What I was calling out is stay away from artificial.
Sorry dude you are totally wrong. Bodybuilders are not natural. It is impossible to achieve even 20% of the mass that they have accumulated naturally. Being in the industry and meeting/knowing numerous professional bodybuilders the reality is JUICE. Natural growth is a rare phenomenon unless you are deficient in myostatin. Or first time weight lifters can achieve noticeable increases in mass but the drop off rate is huge and maintenance is nearly impossible. Every physical body that you see and say ohh man I wish I looked like that is probably a product of steroid use.I'm not talking about Brad Pitt in fight club because thats just a function of low bodyfat (even then he could have took a cutter like winstrol or anavar, who knows with hollywood. Go talk to the 300 cast about juice) The silly thing is a lot of people do not know they may have used steroids. For the past 12-15 years many supplements marked as pro-hormones (think andro, poor mark mcgwire) were sold as legal products and once the slow ass FDA catches on it gets added to the wonderful reference book of anabolic steroids. Many legal supplements are still in the pipeline and on their way over to the illegal garbage bin. Another reason why following bodybuilders is pointless b/c the workouts they throw in Flex magazine are too difficult and can result in over-training for the average/normal person.
ultimately its about incentives. The fitness industry is a SHAM. Most supplements will not work unless they are some form of endogenous test. Creatine what a joke.
At the end of all this I am not promoting living a non-healthy life style. There are wonderful benefits to moderate cardio and low calorie diets.
I can go on and on and on. But I just hate not having the truth out there and the whole world fooled.
Lyle mcdonald at www.bodyrecomposition.com is the real deal. The guy has great advice and he is a no nonsense dude. The only thing we disagree on is natural growth. I feel as if his assumptions for growth are too high. www.steroidology.com is another great site for users and non. I work with a few natural folks and some add 20 lbs but it is not that noticeable (b/c its never pure lean body mass). The only way to naturally mimic roid effects is through protein timing which has a 1% success rate.
Reality is, what you want to look like is impossible. If you want to shed 20 lbs of fat sure thats doable naturally but achieving a sick looking fitness cover body requires 250 mgs of test to the upper right glute area twice a week. Good luck folks.
"Every physical body that you see and say ohh man I wish I looked like that is probably a product of steroid use"
This is absolutely insane. I've been bodybuilding for 10 years. I workout 9 times a week. I have a crazy strict diet. I have abs, and consider myself someone with a good amount of mass. Spending this much time in the gym, I know plenty of people like myself. To say "they're all on roids" is something a lazy person would say as a reason why they can't accomplish that. I've never taken roids and I never plan to.
Nutrition, weight gain/loss, is all science. Roids are not needed. It's just hard work and commitment - something most people do not have.
Becoming huge take someone who is an "easy-gainer," very patient (like 10 years), dedicated and works with their body. The body adapts to what you give to it, give it enough of it, and you'll see those adaptations.
I pretty much agree with everything he says too. But the most important one liner he tells is "All diets fail over the long run….but lifestyle changes last". I was 115 kg or over 5 months ago and now I'm 85 or lower (170cm height).
Just lowered my daily meal sizes and unsafe food intake (like fries or rice). I still eat chocolate or deserts. But rarely and not much. I do still eat chips but few. Doing daily 30-45 minutes of home exercises.. I'm still overweight but with this life style I will not be for longer.. I really like the dialogue of Mr.Hel's and Mr.Diamonds from Travenian's Shibumi: "You don't drink, Mr. Hel? he asked. But I do, as you see. It is only that I don't find two sips of wine more delicious than one..."
Looking to your wardrobe and finding your clothes are not wearable because they are too big is priceless!
Eating 6x a day provides no metabolic advantage for losing weight than 2-3x a day…it’s still about calories and blood sugar/insulin control
I totally disagree with this one. I've used this technique in the past and just started using it again with good results. I have not started eating less, I just break each meal into 2 parts and eat them 2 hours apart. So, instead of over-eating and sometimes feeling really full, I feel "just right" alll day. I have also noticed that I don't get those wild cravings for something to eat, which usually results in a bag of cookies from a machine. I've also lost 4 pounds since I broke up my meals.
As usual, lifestyle guidelines only apply to the portion of the population that the author is from.
There is growing evidence that genetic regulation of satiety is quite strong, and therefore people with a worse genetic profile may benefit from an increase in meals.
There are also many potential benefits to increasing eating frequency to those predisposed to poor blood glucose control, which we know is highly genetic.
I feel like I've seen pretty good evidence against a few of his points. I wish he provided more qualification and references. It makes me not want to trust anything else he says.
squats. standard, hindu, with extra weight, without extra weight, squats with raised arms, squats with arms in a Y shape.
squats squats squats.
I try and do at 3x50 sets for 150 squats 2 - 3 times a week. Basically first set of 50 is without weights, second set of 50 is with 10 kilos of weight plates in my hands. 3rd set of 50 is with 20kg of weight plates in my hands. The 3rd set hurt.
Think of it as hacking your body. Think of it as a long-running science experiment where you are your own test subject, and where you can measure and graph your progress every day, where you can test hypotheses and see their result, etc.
Fructose, sucrose, ethanol, metabolised differently to glucose and via pathways which cause increased energy storage as fat, decreased ability to sense fullness and stop eating, decreased ability to release energy from fat and use it, and more unpleasant byproducts.
You eat the wrong things, hence you don't feel full as you should, hence you eat too much, hence a belly. (Maybe).
I haven't read the article after reading the comments. But this actually is a rather naive view on nutrition. Just recently I read that in ancient Egypt priests had the very same diseases we have because of the unhealthy food they ate. Sugar is around since ... so are sweets.
Thought I'd just chime in with some personal experience here. I'd let myself get to a pretty sorry state, top end 118 kg. I basically said enough was enough, and got my bike out of the shed and started riding to work - a breezy downhill 10 minute ride in to work, a more difficult 30 minute climb home.
So, last week of September 2009, my 33rd Birthday, 118 kg. Right now, 16th of March, 96.6 kg.
Basically I do about 30 minutes cycling 5 days a week (work commute). And maybe 1 - 2 hours of "liesure" riding on a Saturday or Sunday (~50km distance).
In terms of working out - I don't go to a gym, and never will. I do pushups (close hands, wide hands), squats (varying on weights in hands/arm positions), pullups, and I bought a 1.5m piece of latex rubber that I throw around a pole and pretend I'm on a rowing machine. I work out for 30 - 40 minutes, 2 - 3 times a week.
I gave up drinking beer _every_ day. And I might have a couple over a weekend. I still have pizza and chocolate bars, but I limit the intake of said items. I also started practising intermitten fasting (Basically you have dinner on the thursday night, and on the friday you skip breakfast and lunch, and eat dinner again on Friday night)
Here's a chart for the last few months of weight loss: http://www.arcturus.com.au/weight_trend_%28kgs%29.png
The only thing that I can suggest to you, is, that whatever you choose to do, you have to enjoy it, it must NOT be a chore, and you need to keep doing it indefinitely. Going to the gym was definitely OUT as far as meeting those goals, but getting up before my kids, and spending 30 minutes doing calisthenics, 2 or 3 times a week? I can do that for the rest of my life.
ps I hate to run.