Forum menu
This diagram?
[img] 
?w=1806&h=1626[/img]
Well I'm convinced! Who needs science when you have a nice diagram from someone trying to sell you something.
I have lost over 2 stone in the past 15 months by eating clean and keeping hydrated.
I've lost 2 stone in 9 months whilst enjoying sausages, bacon, crisps and processed foods.
you're eating too much. stop eating.
Lots of different advice as usual, with the same old chestnuts trotted out once again, [i]as usual[/i]. It really is not as simple as 'eat less than you burn' if you want to get maximum weight loss.
I've tried most of the current and 'old' methods at some point or another and the only thing which has been sustainable for me is a combination of idave, low carb, regular eating (eat something with protein every 4 hours and before you go to bed), good quality low saturated fat food, loads of water and most important of all, only low to moderate levels of exercise ie. mainly walking/gentle bike rides for the first few weeks of any change in eating. I can't remember the exact physiology for this but it works, as I lost the weight in just 3 months with very little effort or increase in exercise.
I dropped 2 1/2 stone 2 years ago and it only increases slowly if I've been a serious pig for weeks. A couple of 3 day 'strict' spells, eating whatever I fancy on day 4, sheds 1/2 a stone for me in a week and I'm 53!
did you see how christian bale lost weight to become "The machinist"? from a proper hefty bloke solid muscle. he stopped eating apart from an apple or a tin of tuna a day. He lost a shitload of weight and had a HUGELY SLIM BODY. TERRIBLY SLIM. wHICH IS GOOD
Love these threads, always fun.
Back to the OP, don't think of it as either a marathon or a sprint. It's a lifestyle change, if you're gaining weight it's a permanent change that's required not a temporary one.
I'm sure all these fancy dancy new fangled weight loss techniques can shift weight (although anecdotal evidence suggests the weight returns in examples I know from friends). But what you want is a permanent dietary and exercise shift that is healthy to maintain until you are on you death bed.
15 days is nothing, absolutely nothing.
I'll be very interested to see what the OP is actually eating (and when) after re-reading this again now I'm properly awake!
I can see why he is frustrated at a relatively low weight loss after halving calories (are you absolutely sure about that?) and upping exercise. Is there any difference in waist size/body shape? 2 weeks is a very short space of time and all it might take is a little tweek or adjustment of how the carb intake is achieved.
What piemonster says
is the keywhat you want is a permanent dietary and exercise shift that is healthy to maintain
[i]In any case, I am 5'10", and weigh just under 15 stone (or about 94 kgs).
I want to be 12 stone (or around 75 kgs, which is what I was when I first came to the UK 10 years ago (and stayed like that for about 3 years after).
[/i]
From your original post you kinda implied that you'd halved your daily calories to 2000. So if you've been on (upto) 4000 calories for +5 years, then it'll take a fair few weeks for your body to start adjusting.
Also, these calories, are they decent fresh ones of out of a packet?
You've done really well. Seriously.
As above, loosing weight, and keeping it down it about a life style change, and that one is hard to do.
Just keep what you are doing, and also, keep a diary of what you are eating and drinking.
That way, you can look back and see, what you need to change.
Me, I have a sugar problem (which I solve by having just banana and milk for one (the whole day) and that cures me for a couple of weeks)
The other, is Alcohol, but I haven't got the Mother in Law to leave the house yet.
Keep going..
You may find you are not eating 1900 but 2300 or more. You really have to be pedantic if you want to count calories.
Also you need to aim for 1600 cal to get more off.
Initially you should be able to shifty 1kg a week for a month then it will slow as you body adjust. You need to up you excerise to compensate.
it's great eh, makes me wonder what the people that are so slim in parts of africa are doing, those slim people with nothing to eat. I reckon people are slim cos they don't have stuff to stick in their gob. I don't know how to turn that into a succesful modern western diet program though.. the not having enough to get fat diet?....
Great thinking kevevs.
He wants to speed up his wait loss, so following on from your your logic, I would suggest the OP pops over there and picks up one of the endemic diseases to kick-start things. Nothing with too many long term debilitating effects of course (that [b]would[/b] be silly) - something like amoebic dysentery should fit the bill quite nicely 8)
y'know, I knew it had some negatives..
180cm/74.5kg. Jan 1 unsurprisingly same height but 83.2kg. MFP, 1800 calories, no booze in the week, cook all our food, more fresh veg and fruit etc. Smaller plates - this definitely helps. Target weight was 77kg but I kept going. Rode two/three times a week and did a bit more walking.
In the last couple of weeks I've relented a bit and scoffed a bit of chocolate and the odd bag of crisps. Weight has stayed about the same. So while it all is a bit complicated, I'm a simple bloke and just eat less but make it good stuff, make sure treats are treats and go exercise. It's made a massive difference to me on the bike.
Can't see me going back now, always been a bit weak willed but the improvements in riding bikes which I love and feeling a whole load better far outweighs (!) getting back on the beer and pies.
OP should just crack on for a bit longer and see what happens. You're certainly not doing yourself any harm!
3500 cals per pound, or 7000 per kilo, or thereabouts
you are guessing your BMR and your calorie intake, but probably overestimate the former and underestimate the latter.
I started on mfp just after new year,targeting 1600cals per day. I found mfp great not just for the 'absolute' numbers but also to show me where stuff I thought wasn't so bad actually was,so I now have a better understanding of which foods are regular vs sometimes vs rarely. However, i also found sticking to 1600cals per day quite hard with my lifestyle, I enjoy eating out with my family and I also travel with work and eating out with colleagues and customers when you are counting cals is hard.
So 4 weeks back, I switched to the 5:2 plan, which suits me way better. I think the things I learned from mfp are still useful, my intake even on eating days is usually pretty close to the 2500 +/- that is about normal for a man of my build, rarely exceeds except on special occasions, and is generally just healthier (less refined carbs/ bread, less red meat, more veg, etc). The fast days are no problem, porridge for breakfast and then grilled fish or chicken plus shedloads of veg for dinner. And the weight's coming off still at the same healthy rate of 1-2lbs per week; so far about 20 lbs gone in 9 weeks ( had a couple of big losses in WK 1 and 2 which wasn't a surprise since i went on to 1600cals per week after eating my own bodyweight in Christmas goodies the week before!!), now much more regular and stable.
You'd have to eat around 10 kilos of cabbage to get to 2100 kcal
You would also need to live by yourself! 😈
Lols.......
woody have you seen american psycho?
woody have you seen american psycho?
Nope, Why do you ask and would you recommend it?
There is some right old cobblers on this thread.
Yes, the body is a complex chap but the following is simple and true: if you eat fewer calories than you need to maintain your weight you will lose weight.
Eat less, move more, stick to a balanced diet. That's all there is to it.
I know, easier said than done, but that's how it is.
Carry on.
There is some right old cobblers on this thread.
There's a fair bit in that post.
You cut your calories almost in half and still get 1900! That was a chunk of overeating.
The big thing I find is people underestimating portions. "Oh that's about 50g so that's 200 kcals" when infancy it's more like double...
That link to Huffington Post is the biggest load of guff I've read in a long time!!
Fat. All fats release nine calories per gram when burned. But omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life, while trans fats clog your arteries, leading to a heart attack. Because a calorie is not a calorie.
Calorific value is not directly related to nutritional value, HOLD THE ****ING PRESS you heard it here first folks
The big thing I find is people underestimating portions.
Yep!
A set of digital kitchen scales was a major eye-opener for me.
Lots of foods have big stars on them boasting [i]"only X calories per serving"[/i] - but the scales reveal that their [i]"suggested serving size"[/i] wouldn't feed a baby robin.
Yep!A set of digital kitchen scales was a major eye-opener for me.
Lots of foods have big stars on them boasting "only X calories per serving" - but the scales reveal that their "suggested serving size" wouldn't feed a baby robin.
Digital scales told me that I was actually eating [b]two[/b] servings of breakfast every day. D'oh!
I was more like 3 servings!
Switched to Oats So Simple. Nice measured amount, relatively low calorie and slow release energy.
(I usually pep it up with 20g of currants to add some flavour and some faster release)
[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/ ]This study[/url] seems to demonstrate that it is NOT simply a case of calories in vs calories out.
Two groups on calorie restricted diets, one low fat and one very low carb ketogenic. The ketogenic group lost more weight despite taking on more calories.
Like I said, I have no doubt that reality is a lot more complex than "Calories In vs Calories Out" BUT that simplified model is easy to follow and does work.
Also, carbs are tasty.
Easy to follow? I seriously don't think so, since everyone knows it and most people fail to follow it.
[i]Also, carbs are tasty.[/i]
Perhaps so, certainly more so that a prescribing a dumb-down strategy of calorie restriction combined with a bit of shooting in the dark.
😉
Easy to follow? I seriously don't think so, since everyone knows it and most people fail to follow it.
Sorry, I meant "follow" as in "comprehend", rather than "adhere to".
But surely if folk have difficulty adhering to a simple calorie reduction - where the calorie information they need is pretty readily available and plenty of good alternatives exist - then I suspect they struggle much more with "low carb ketogenic" or any other more complex and restrictive system?
Well no, I don't think so. The problem with low calorie diets is that you can get really hungry. When you're hungry, it becomes more and more difficult to avoid eating high energy snacks. Your digestive tract is a significant part of your nervous system, and has a huge hold over your brain and consequently your actions. This is why calorie restriction is hard, because you get really hungry.
Eating carbs makes you MORE hungry in the long run, which makes it worse. Eating higher protein or fat diets make hunger far more manageable, which means either you can deal with the hunger or cravings much more effectively, or you just don't feel like eating any more.
Easy to follow? I seriously don't think so, since everyone knows it and most people fail to follow it.
It's easy to follow if you track exactly how much you eat and know what the calorific value is AND have the willpower to not overeat.
It is not easy to follow if you enjoy the taste of cakes. I think that's almost certainly the overriding factor!
[i]But surely if folk have difficulty adhering to a simple calorie reduction - where the calorie information they need is pretty readily available and plenty of good alternatives exist - then I suspect they struggle much more with "low carb ketogenic" or any other more complex and restrictive system?[/i]
I'll admit, some folk are [i]turned off[/i] by the science. However, surely some things in life need to be understood. Its not like you can defer any knowledge of the highway code, until after you have obtained your driving license.
Some of the [i]issues[/i] I see with [i]simple[/i] calorie restriction are.
1. Too many calories from foods which do not satiate the subject. Will leave them feeling hungry and so more inclined to break their daily, weekly, caloric allocation. This may be endured by the subject, short term, but will cause issues longer term, I'm thinking.
2. Caloric provenance. Some foods, mostly the processed stuff is just generally not too good for a person. Getting your self determined daily caloric allowance from sources which may include or rely heavily upon processed foods may yield a smaller waistline, but how well will it leave a person, on the inside ?. As has been mentioned before, waistline dims, scale weights are basic, possibly even crude markers of good overall physical health. imo.
Also, once the subject reaches their desired weight, how do you calculate your weight maintenance cals ?.
In Taubes example, even eating just 20 cals more than your energy neutral requirements will have you several pounds over weight, over 5, 10 years.
Can one really eat, everyday, within 20 cals of their daily, energy neutral requirement ?.
In my opinion, its a bit more than cal counting.
Yet it seems to suit some people.
So fair play.
🙂
As has been mentioned before, waistline dims, scale weights are basic, possibly even crude markers of good overall physical health. imo
Yeah, but I'll have abs and then all the girls will think I'm fit. That's the point, right?? 😛
This is why calorie restriction is hard, because you get really hungry.
Maybe if you restrict far too much, which isn't really sustainable in the long term anyway and will just lead to yoyo-ing.
I'm on a 500kcal deficit (the sensible recommended amount from MFP) and I can't say that I find myself really hungry.
(188cm/86kg. MFP Target:1850kcals. 2 stone lost since I started it)
have the [b]willpower [/b]to not overeat.
Yay - the magic word!
[i]It's easy to follow if you track exactly how much you eat and know what the calorific value is AND have the willpower to not overeat.[/i]
Very good. I almost envy folk who can put it into such a short sentence.
🙂
But to my mind, there are a few significant and negative caveats there though.
I'm not likely to carry a set of scales with me, wherever I go, to the pub, to the restaurant in order to track exactly with I'm eating.
Nor am I likely to memorize the calorie stats for many different foods and as for will power.
Its been clinically demonstrated that hormonal responses to caloric deficit can influence a subjects decision making process. Thus exposing them to exceeding their caloric allocation.
[i]Yeah, but I'll have abs and then all the girls will think I'm fit. That's the point, right??[/i]
Could well be.
😀
[i]188cm/86kg. MFP Target:1850kcals. 2 stone lost since I started it)[/i]
You seem happy about that and I can't comment on those stats.
But how healthy are you on the inside ?, systemic inflamation, blood stats, etc.
I'm not likely to carry a set of scales with me, wherever I go, to the pub, to the restaurant in order to track exactly with I'm eating.
That's an issue with [i]any[/i] system though: when you eat out you have a less clear idea about what and how much you are eating. (Also social groups tend to encourage over-eating)
Nor am I likely to memorize the calorie stats for many different foods
Which is why apps like MFP are good because they give you those calorie stats instantly.
I'm on a 500kcal deficit (the sensible recommended amount from MFP) and I can't say that I find myself really hungry.
Well good for you. However that's not everyone's experience. It's easy to bleat on about willpower, but given our hormone profiles are all different, in some people the drive to eat is far greater than others. Just look at my two kids, both under 4 and had nothing but normal healthy diet all their lives. One eats loads, the other just doesn't care and has to be really encouraged to eat enough nutrition.
If your drive to eat is less, then you need less willpower to succeed. What affects your drive to eat? Well psychology is a factor, as is brain and blood chemistry. Those things are influenced by what you've been eating for years, genetics, the type of exercise you do, and probably lots of other things.
That's an issue with any system though: when you eat out you have a less clear idea about what and how much you are eating.
Not any system. The point about idiet and similar is that you can eat as much as you want, within reason. So all you have to do when you go out is have vegetables instead of potatoes/chips, and you're fine. Or dahl instead of rice with your curry etc etc. It's really quite easy, and I eat out a lot when I'm away for work. Ok so the variety of dishes is reduced, but not by that much.
[i]That's an issue with any system though: when you eat out you have a less clear idea about what and how much you are eating[/i]
I'd respectfully differ with you there. I avoid certain food types which I know will stimulate a larger insulin response. I dined in an Indian restaurant last night.
I did not have rice, I did not have a naan bread. I had lots of very tasty veg and meat. A great meal, over which I didn't fret about cals.
Obviously, I do not eat like this each night, but then as a consequence (doh !) of my infrequent attendance at my local curry house, I needn't fret over cals when I do go there and I can leave my phone at home.
[i]Which is why apps like MFP are good because they give you those calorie stats instantly.[/i]
May be, but perhaps I don't want to be staring into my phone while, say for example, I'm attending that social event you describe ^^.
Looking up cal stats when I should be relaxing and chatting, etc.
As I posted, if it gives the result someone wants, then good for them.
🙂
You seem happy about that and I can't comment on those stats.
I am - but I'm just supplying them cos someone said it would be a useful thing to see on the diet threads. Separates the talkers from the walkers.
But how healthy are you on the inside ?, systemic inflamation, blood stats, etc.
I have absolutely no idea. All I can say is I feel considerably better than I did when I was obese.