Weight loss

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Rhetoric is all well and good, but you are not backing it up with anything. I've stated that currently I'm on about 1100-1600 per day, then burn between 400-600 4 times per week on short bike rides or runs. I've lost weight, I'm not ill, I'm functioning fine (in fact I've never had such... "focused" mental ability), leading a normal life fine (working 8-9 hours per day, looking after 2 young kids, looking after a house etc). If I went back to 2500 calories per day I would be massive again. That would be an extra 7500 per week!

It's all great until it goes wrong fella.

 

[LosingFocus]

So still nothing to back up this "going wrong" thing..

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

So still nothing to back up this "going wrong" thing..

Selective reading,I like it

 

[LosingFocus]

Selective reading,I like it

Your entire reply was a quote of me and the line "ok all ok until it goes wrong" or similar. Still nothing more the rhetoric...

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Your entire reply was a quote of me and the line "ok all ok until it goes wrong" or similar. Still nothing more the rhetoric...

Actually it said "It's all great until it goes wrong fella" I've bolded the important word for you. Do you know why you put weight on when you eat more?

 

[LosingFocus]

Actually it said "It's all great until it goes wrong fella" I've bolded the important word for you. Do you know why you put weight on when you eat more?

That's a bit like saying "Well, I was winning the race until I lost"; a pointless, throwaway statement designed to infer some sort of presumptive hindsight so the sayer can look back and say "well, I was right" no matter what the outcome. If it goes wrong you say "told you so"; if it doesn't you say "well, it will" ad infinitum... weasel wording I believe is the modern term for it.

What you need to do, to stop yourself falling down a dark hole of rhetoric and cliché, is to provide a back up of what could go wrong, when it could go wrong and why. Any chance?

You put weight on as your eat more - kinda self explanatory really...

 

[Sittingduck]

You need to build deficits yep. I would try to do this by eating a sensible amount and doing as much exercise as possible. I lost a lot in a comparitively short space of time and can count the number of days I consumed less than 2000 cals on my fingers and have digits leftover!

Different things for different people, I suppose but I believe the best way is to make losses by sheer hard work and sensible, controlled eating. Maybe this is because I'm natrually a greedy guts but have no problem doing a lot of exercise. Most people are the other way round, in my experience.

 

[black'n'yellow]

Yes, eat less that I used to. I used to eat about 2.5k per day, ballooned to almost 16st. Now, controlling intake I have dropped to just over 11st. Not rocket science. Unless you are really really active, you dont need 2.5k or 3k calories per day.

how are you measuring your calorie intake, out of interest..?

 

[Powely]

I am probably 2st overweight (14st vs 12st ideal) but its been constant for the past 4 years.

Just out of interest, what height are you?

 

[LosingFocus]

how are you measuring your calorie intake, out of interest..?

Recording on MyFitnessPal but using exact figure obtained from label rather than wild guesses. As for calories out, I take the average figure from across 3 different apps (track gps and hrm) and ten subtract 10%

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

That's a bit like saying "Well, I was winning the race until I lost"; a pointless, throwaway statement designed to infer some sort of presumptive hindsight so the sayer can look back and say "well, I was right" no matter what the outcome. If it goes wrong you say "told you so"; if it doesn't you say "well, it will" ad infinitum... weasel wording I believe is the modern term for it.

What you need to do, to stop yourself falling down a dark hole of rhetoric and cliché, is to provide a back up of what could go wrong, when it could go wrong and why. Any chance?

You put weight on as your eat more - kinda self explanatory really...

Currently you are technically heavily calorie restricting which slows metabolism down (this is rather common) when you begin eating more -weight gain is pretty much a given. It's a starvation response often referred to by the ignorant as "starvation mode" When the body is deprived of calories it will quite happily metabolise stored fat leading to weight loss,when there is nothing else it has to slow down to compensate for the intake. 1100-1600 is NOT a sustainable intake for an active male,no book,study or leaflet you find will ever state as such.

Great you lost weight! But you like many others before and many to come have found out the hard way in that - you now cannot eat normally. Your weight loss was really quick wasn't it?

Congratulations

 

[LosingFocus]

I did reply last night but it seems the forum bummed out.

Your weight loss was really quick wasn't it?

Quick? Not really, unless you consider just over a stone in just over a year quick...

1100-1600 is NOT a sustainable intake for an active male,no book,study or leaflet you find will ever state as such

Sustainable? Well, seems to be for me, didnt know all people were exactly the same. In fact, it's quite obvious that they are not, as a friend of mine can eat and eat and eat and not put a pound on.

But you like many others before and many to come have found out the hard way in that - you now cannot eat normally.

I eat normally too, 3 meals per day plus snacks, just not large portions. Hell, I have days when I have a large breakfast or I know I'm having a large dinner, so I compensate by eating less at the other meals.

Currently you are technically heavily calorie restricting which slows metabolism down (this is rather common) when you begin eating more -weight gain is pretty much a given. It's a starvation response often referred to by the ignorant as "starvation mode" When thqe body is deprived of calories it will uite happily metabolise stored fat leading to weight loss, when there is nothing else it has to slow down to compensate for the intake.

I've highlighted the point for you. I'm currently just over 11st, and trust me I have a lot of fat left to go. When I'm at a healthy weight, I will slowly increase the calorie consumption by a few hundred to I maintain the weight level. So your point is kind of loss. You lower you calorie in take so your body burns up the fat to make up for the loss. When said fat is gone, you increase the calorie intake. Pretty bloody obvious to me.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Quick? Not really, unless you consider just over a stone in just over a year quick...

Nope that is incredibly slow

Sustainable? Well, seems to be for me, didnt know all people were exactly the same. In fact, it's quite obvious that they are not, as a friend of mine can eat and eat and eat and not put a pound on.

We aren't that different. Seems to be sustainable? It's evident that you aren't actually sure yourself now,thats a good thing. Your friend at this point has no relevance to the conversation.

I eat normally too, 3 meals per day plus snacks, just not large portions. Hell, I have days when I have a large breakfast or I know I'm having a large dinner, so I compensate by eating less at the other meals.

1100-1600 calories for a grown man is not normal. Thats barely more than the average intake for a woman. Are you a woman? ( No need to answer this because I know you aren't)

I've highlighted the point for you. I'm currently just over 11st, and trust me I have a lot of fat left to go. When I'm at a healthy weight, I will slowly increase the calorie consumption by a few hundred to I maintain the weight level.

You will put on weight.

So your point is kind of loss. You lower you calorie in take so your body burns up the fat to make up for the loss.

Yes you lower it, not half then still take some off. What do you expect to do when loss stops (if it hasn't already)? Lower your intake to an even more dangerous level?

When said fat is gone, you increase the calorie intake. Pretty bloody obvious to me.

No. By keeping intake high yet within sustainable deficit the body is much happier to allow fat to be burned. By keeping intake high when plateau hits (ie: when weightloss stops) you can further reduce the cals slightly to continue. As your weight decreases so does the required intake to maintain current weight. Reducing cals so dramatically is a really good way to ensure you put weight back on again when calorie intake is raised again.

You can't do any of this. The net result when you begin increasing calories is : weight gain

 

[Andrius.B]

I see what you are saying T.M.H.N.E.T. pieces of the puzzle are slowly coming together...
Couple of more pages of posts and I might have the full picture.

Keep talking guys

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

I see what you are saying T.M.H.N.E.T. pieces of the puzzle are slowly coming together...
Couple of more pages of posts and I might have the full picture.

Keep talking guys

Getting info outta this chap is like getting the last bit of toothpaste out of the tube, without using scissors.

What pieces are you currently missing Andrius?