|
Fat loss (because that's really what you're aiming for) is 90% diet and 10% everything else. Exercise is important, but you will not lose weight through exercise alone. You must change your diet or you're just going to chase your tail forever. Ignore people who say weight loss is A) easy, or B) impossible. They are both almost certainly wrong for you. There is a relatively small percentage of people on the A end, and a vanishingly small percentage of people on the B end. Losing 20 pounds is pretty easy for just about everybody. For the vast majority of people, significant weight loss is difficult, but doable. Drink water, eat whole foods, get lots of fiber, track your calories in/out. It will take some time for you to learn how to do this. Be patient. Long-term weight loss is NOT about willpower, it's about building good habits. You will need some willpower to get started, but use that willpower to build up the habits of tracking your calories and staying within your limits, and those habits will carry you the rest of the way. Credentials: used to weigh 330 lbs, now weigh 220 lbs. Down from "obese" to "overweight" and been in that category for roughly four years. edit: this is the coles notes version, will add more later.
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
fishing with the fam posted:How the hell do people count calories if they prepare their own meals? It seems like you could only accurately count calories if everything you eat is packaged and pre-proportioned. Packaged meals are almost always absolute dogshit. This is why I suggest eating "whole" foods. A chicken breast is a chicken breast, broccoli is broccoli, and a potato is a potato (and despite what you may have heard, potatoes are loving awesome if you don't fry them or drown them in horrible poo poo). All those things are very easy to weigh, are loving fantastic for you, and can be made super-yummy without adding a bunch of calories with add-ons.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
If you intend to lose weight, you should learn about glycogen stores! I believe that lack of understanding of how glycogen works is the primary reason why people give up. When your glycogen stores are depleted that first week of your new diet, the water supporting them is shed at the same time, which is why you lose that quick 10 pounds! It's also the reason why you *don't* lose 10 pounds that second week, and only lose two, because the glycogen stores are gone and there's no excess water to shed. That can be frustrating for people who expect to get the same result for the same effort. Thankfully, there's enough folk wisdom floating around about "water weight" that a lot of people aren't too discouraged by that. It's the opposite condition where the trouble really comes in. People lose two pounds a week, feeling like they're starving themselves, and one day eat a bit more than their maintenance. And then gain five pounds immediately. And then go "WHAT THE gently caress, STARVATION MODE IS REAL, I GIVE UP." No, it's not, it's just your glycogen stores getting refilled, relax. Go back to what you were doing and that five pounds will drop just as quickly as it went on. And then you'll go back to your regularly-scheduled two pounds per week. There are other implications to the whole glycogen cycle. One of them being that you can only turn fat into energy so fast, which is why the glycogen is there in the first place. When we exert ourselves, the glycogen is there to help us keep up with our energy expenditure. So what if we exert ourselves with no glycogen left to pull from? Lotsa protein in them muscles! And what you don't want to do while losing fat is also lose muscle. I mean, you will lose muscle, but let's keep it to a minimum, shall we? How do we do that and still exercise? Lifting a thing is a fine thing to do, and cardio exercise in the "fat-burning zone" is good, just don't get your heart rate too high for long periods of time. You should be able to have a normal conversation without struggling while doing cardio during weight loss. It's also why doctors generally recommend you don't lose more than two pounds a week, because losing more means you're pushing past your liver's ability to keep up and you're gonna lose muscle. Those doctors are pretty smart, listen to them. Plus, the more weight you're losing, the hungrier you will be, and the harder it will be to keep those demons at bay.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Lol you've been overweight for four years straight and you act like some kind of expert on weight loss? Get to a healthy body weight for once and maybe then you'll have something to say Oh? How much weight have you lost? And what were the results of your various research? What parts do you disagree with, and why? BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:You look like poo poo. Post a pic fatso You should go first
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
I strongly suspect that zero-calorie sweeteners gently caress up your satiety response and make it more likely that you'll give up calorie reduction. Your brain needs some way to figure out how many calories are in what you're eating so it knows when to signal to stop, I'm pretty sure that taste is a part of it and that it's adaptive over time. So you eat sweet thing, digestion results in some calories, brain goes "this much sweet yields x calories" and eventually brain goes "hey we've eaten enough combination of sweet/richness/etc, time to stop." Then we eat something sweet that yields no calories and brain goes "wait a feckin minute, what's goin on here???" and eventually brain goes "sweet = no calories, got it" and then you eat an actual piece of cake and brain goes "not much calories there, eat more please" and then you're right hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:hell yeah pineapple is like mana from heaven. It's what I'll eat if I want something super-sweet (which is rarely). Usually if I want sweet I'll have an asian pear, which has a very nice nutrition profile.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
cottage cheese is amazingly good, but holy gently caress is it expensive
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Have you tried keto? It seems pretty bananas to me so far. I've lost like 20 pounds already and I'm not even at the 2 week mark. Only just resumed lifting yesterday too Holy poo poo, how loving fat are you? Are you eating at all?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
feelix posted:Sure as long as you don't use the calorie counter readout to justify eating something extra I'm going to partially disagree with this guy right here! First, the part I agree on: don't use the calorie counter readout on pretty much any device, because they tend to be horribly inaccurate. Instead, use an online calculator, which tend to be more accurate. Measure the time from when you hit your target heart rate until the start of your cool down. Then take the result from the calculator and subtract 10% for margin of error. You'll almost certainly find that if your calorie counter readout says 500 cal, your calculator is more like 300 cal. Now, the part that I disagree on: do eat as many calories as you burned. Or, rather, keep your spreadsheet balanced. If you're aiming for two pounds a week, you're at a 1000 calorie deficit, right? So if your BMR is 2800 cal, you're eating 1800 cal on a day you don't exercise. Well, if you exercise for 300 calories on any given day, you should eat 2100 cal in order to keep an even two pounds per week. I can hear the screaming shitgibbons already, but just ignore them. Why not take the extra weight loss? A couple of reasons: first, keeping the deficit uniform is easier than dealing with more hunger, especially if hunger is an issue for you. Secondly, doctors pretty much everywhere suggest you not lose more than two pounds per week (after the first week, of course) to prevent excess muscle loss. You like your muscle, right? I would also suggest against doing 1000 calories of exercise in two hours on a calorie-restricted diet. Unless you haven't already burned through your glycogen stores, you're almost certainly going to lose muscle along with the fat. That's not ideal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
feelix posted:Yes this guy who pre-emptively insulted anyone who disagrees with him is probably correct, that's how people who are knowledgeable and correct usually behave. Oh no, that's definitely based on historical knowledge. My favorite retort is the report on one guy who didn't eat anything for nearly a year and didn't die. Plus, you know, literally legions of doctors agree with me. edit: I would think that somebody with your question mark results itt would be less critical of somebody else being insulting Tinestram fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jul 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
feelix posted:Attempting to figure out how many calories you burned in one single particular workout has absolutely no place in any reasonable weight loss regimen do you burn all your calories by being angry all the time
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
feelix posted:Thanks for making your lack of credibility completely clear so that nobody is tricked into listening to your lovely advice I hate to break this to you, but lots of people have listened to my advice and seek it regularly. That can happen when you intentionally lose a third of your body weight and keep it off for several years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
feelix posted:I hate to break this to you, but you're probably doing harm because the things you're suggesting are stupid and the fact that they worked for one anecdote (you) doesn't mean anything. alrighty, show me the statistics then
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
feelix posted:Here's an article with a great paragraph about calorie burn and tons of academic references within that paragraph: So, no statistics? Alrighty then! I really enjoy that the quote from the article you posted says not to worry too much about accuracy. Please tell me more about the harm I'm causing. Also, what do you think of that one guy who didn't eat for a year and was fine? Tinestram fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jul 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Dude you're arguing with a mansplaining anime avatar who's demanding statistics while claiming that free online tools let you bootstrap your way into having what you want without undue effort uhh, without effort? wtf Accuracy isn't all that important, please see feelix's article for details.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
feelix posted:Again, you think that you can reliably calculate the calorie expenditure in a single workout with only 10% error and that you should adjust what you eat that day based on that. Are you capable of answering any direct question at all? Or are you going to continue raging because somebody has the temerity to suggest they should listen to actual doctors instead of going with the bro science of "you can lose weight as fast as you like!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
meet girls at the store posted:Down 18 pounds in 2 months, feels good man That is awesome, keep it up!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:You said that was an unhealthy rate of weight loss last page 2 months = ~62 days ~62 days = ~9 weeks 9 x 2 = 18 Seems to be pretty much on target to me. Also, I think you might be misinterpreting how critical I think it is. If it had been 20 lbs instead of 18, I wouldn't expect the results to be dangerous, just potentially not ideal. Plus, depending on how overweight you are, you can potentially go over 2 lbs per week safely, it's just that 2 lbs per week is what's safe for most people. But, like most things health-related, that's something one should discuss with their doctor, especially if they want to go outside the safe zone. edit: to add more context Tinestram fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:If you're fat as all hell, you can lose tons of weight, quickly and safely. That 600 lb. Life doctor tells people "stick to your diet and come back in a month 80 lbs lighter and then we can talk further". I think that probably holds true on a spectrum all the way down to regular obesity (<35 BMI). That 80 lbs in a month seems like a gross exaggeration. A 6', 600 lb man will have a sedentary BMR of around 4500 cal. 31 days of eating nothing would only yield a ~40 lb loss. I'm betting their diet was a little more than nothing (guessing probably in the 800-1200 cal range), which would further reduce the weight loss to more like 30 lbs. But yes, if you fall far outside the norm, you can lose more weight over time. I think the important part here is that they got that advice from a doctor and that they still ate more than nothing over that time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Water weight 50 lbs of water weight? Is that above and beyond just supporting glycogen stores or what?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Kullik posted:What you reckon to cereal bars, i've been going through a lot of cereal bars in an attempt to cut down on unhealthy snacking, They arent exactly low on calories, but a lot lower than potato crisps or chocolate like i would have before. Cereal bars tend to be high in carbs in general, and sugars specifically, without enough fibre to offset the sugars or provide suitable hunger mitigation. However, if you don't have blood sugar issues and you find it easier to hit your daily macro targets with them than without, have at 'er. Fibre is amazingly great for general health and hunger mitigation, by the way. Going back to the ice cream chat; modern ice creams thickened with carrageenan do tend to be good on calories compared to full cream ice creams (like by half). I like having a serving of ice cream with a serving of bran buds on top for dessert sometimes. That's 205 cal total with 13g of fibre. Pretty decent for a filling dessert.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
All-Bran Buds, my bros... the fibre in that stuff is wheat bran and psyllium husks. Good poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Kullik posted:Well since i started tracking calories again and reading this thread for advice, so about a week ago, i've somehow lost 5lbs. Feels a bit high to me since my goal was 2/week, should this level out eventually or is it likely just a measuring error? i didnt even really do that much exercise other than build a flatpack bed, that took me most of monday night. That's the magic of glycogen stores!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 11:56
|
|
|
feelix posted:Hey guys do you still think IF has some magical properties besides being a good way to achieve calorie restriction? Seconding this, CICO is king. If specific timing works for you, that’s great, but it’s not because you found the one weird trick to weight loss.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
tino posted:IF is the most effortless way to practice CICO. For you maybe
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Calories in calories out also must take into consideration inaccuracies in recorded nutritional information. I don't know MyPlate but I wonder if either their information is wrong, or if your serving sizes are too big, or what, but if you're tracking calorie intake and not losing weight then the only thing I can tell you is that at least one of the factors in your math formula is incorrect. This is why I recommend eating “whole” foods as much as possible when on CR. There may be significant variance in slices of a packaged lasagna, but 100g of this potato is going to be the same calories as 100g of that potato. I recommend that people on CR update their BMR every 10 lbs or so (so once a month for the average person). Depending on height/weight/age that could be in the 50-60 calorie range. Not a huge difference on a daily basis, but it can add up over time if ignored.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Weird! I swear I remember a time when American nutrition labels suggested 2000 for men and 1800 for women. And yeah BMR will only be a generalization. But barring like serious illness, the difference shouldn't be that dramatic of a spread should it? It’s been a while since I looked, but I believe the variance was somewhere around 30%. That is, you can have two 6’, 200 lb, 20 year old men, with the same lean muscle mass, and the same sedentary activity level, and one could have an adjusted BMR of 2100 calories while the other is 2700 (and the average is 2400). That’s a pretty significant spread for simple biodiversity. Note that those extremes are just that, and you could expect the examples on either end to be pretty rare. This is another reason why I suggest whole foods; if you’re recording calories accurately, it makes it easier to nail down your personal deviation from average. Tinestram fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Aug 6, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:I mean...no? I did mean a single variety of potato. Also what kind of variation can you expect from long term storage? Got any data on that? As far as packaged goods go, yes, the overall calories should be accurate from package to package, but the distribution of ingredients (especially calorie-dense ingredients like ground beef) can vary wildly from serving to serving. Unless you’re always eating an entire package or something? I don’t know of many decent single-serving packaged foods, but whatever. Not sure what I did to deserve the snipe. Just trying to help people out here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:1 kg a week (which Google tells me is a bit over 2 lbs) is perfectly fine and attainable for a good while but 82½ kg is pretty far. If you don't get there in 15 months but are still going in the right direction and doing your best, you know you can just keep going for however months more. The absolutely worst thing would for you to not manage to hit a goalpost and then getting discouraged. (If you're doing or going to do fairly heavy and very regular exercise you can certainly do it in that time no sweat. ( Gonna agree with Jerry Cotton and advise caution about having a goal of hitting a certain weight by a certain time. You're much better off having a short-term goal of 1 kg per week and a long-term goal of hitting X stone *eventually*. So when you hit X stone, you switch from CR to maintenance, but if that takes two years that's still a really great timeline for losing 40% of your body weight! One other thing to keep in mind is that, because you started at ~23 stone, you're going to have some excess skin, which could be a considerable amount, and you should probably adjust your final target weight accordingly. My doctor told me to stop losing weight at 13 stone 7 lbs. You should talk to your physician about it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2018 14:44
|
|
))
|
feelix posted:If you're actually gaining weight all of the sudden though, it's not some mystery or interesting science, it's still just CICO and you're either eating more or not burning as much Exactly this. If it was a sudden large shift over a short period of time, it's almost certain that you were on CR before, had depleted your glycogen stores, went over maintenance one day, then gained the weight due to glycogen store replenishment.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
feelix posted:This is probably all true but I feel like even this level of detail is overthinking it and distracts from the basics that people need to focus on to reach their goals I find it’s good for people to know why one day of overeating can seem to wipe out a month of diligence. Knowing that it really didn’t upfront can eliminate unnecessary frustration. Edit: it’s not a tough concept, it’s just not very well known, for some goddamn reason. It’s a basic body function that should be taught in grade school. It directly affects every person who intentionally loses weight through CR. Tinestram fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Aug 10, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Are potatoes good?? Potatoes are good. They have a decent calorie:mass ratio, and are a good source of potassium (as well as other things). Just don't fry them in grease and don't put high-calorie poo poo on em like butter or ranch dressing or sour cream or ketchup or whatever else people are slathering on their potatoes. Spices are where it's at! Cook them with onions, garlic, thyme, rosemary... good poo poo my man.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
The Hambulance posted:I'm down 21 pounds in a little over a month just from using a calorie counting app. This is going to sound crazy, but if you're losing a significant amount you *will* have people get upset about you losing weight at all. Some people may even try to sabotage you by bombarding you with horrible advice/constantly challenging your diet/bringing sweets "for everybody!" (you) to the office, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Is it possible that devrloping a bad taste in your mouth is due to losing weight even if you're not specifically on a low-carbohydrate diet? See a doctor, could be diabetes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
UnfortunateSexFart posted:Been walking 10km to/from work with a heavy backpack on every day instead of driving and my weight is plummeting. Who would have thought that exercise was a factor in being healthy Yes, 3.5h of walking would be a decent number of calories.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
ThingOne posted:Everyone I know's been supportive so I guess I'm lucky there but I've noticed people tend to deflate when my magical secret is "counting my calories". I've had a handful of *doctors* ask me what I did, and I'm never sure exactly how to respond.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Randler posted:Is there a reliable estimate on how weight loss affects shoe sizes? I need to buy new dress shoes (and want to buy new boots) and it would royally suck if I spend for quality and then those shoes won't fit in half a year or so. I have the same shoe size now that I did before I lost a third of my body weight, if that helps. I've seen people report shoe size difference after weight loss, but I think it's relatively rare unless you're a super mega fatty. I don't think there's a way to know for sure until you do it, but unless you're like 400+ lbs I think you're probably safe getting the footwear now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 12:36
|
|
|
Kullik posted:well my weight hasnt changed but i need to buy one of those things for poking new holes in belts cause this giant rear end belt i use is now not quite tight enough. I went through three belts. Fortunately, belts are much less expensive than good shoes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Due to being incredibly pissed off and mildly inconvenienced between Thursday and yesterday, I ate everything. Today I went on the scale and had gained 1 kg. That big jump isn't fat, it's partially-replenished glycogen stores.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:skinny fat is extremely unnattractive so please lift some weights I disagree. No matter how much weight you lift, you may never be "attractive". Better idea: lift some weights for better health. By extension of that, I would advise against losing weight to be more attractive; losing weight for better health is far superior. Whether it's weight, or clothes, or hair, or the car you drive, or how much money you make, some people will like you for who you are, and some people won't. You could lose 100 lbs and become horribly disfigured the next day; people may find you ugly, but you'll still be in better health. Being hung up on how others perceive your outward appearance is unhealthy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2018 12:13
|
|