Help me improve my diet

distortedvision78
distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I am 5 ft 8" and weigh 162kg. I am trying to reduce my calorie intake to 2000cals. I' I am currently doing 2.5 hours in the gym (2 hours cardiovascular and 30mins resistance training) every weekday morning ie 5 times a week.

ve identified that reducing snacks between meals will help me achieve this objective. Problem is I'm Type 2 diabetic. I sometimes get hypos between meals if I don't have a snack.

My objective is to lose 1-2kg of fat per week.

Today's food diary:

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/rupeshpatre78

Replies

  • Lulabelboatx
    Lulabelboatx Posts: 302 Member
    Try going to eatingwell.com and click on meal plans and select the diabetes one. There should be a 2000 calorie plan. Hope this helps


  • HeidiCooksSupper
    HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,831 Member
    My favorite source of information to help develop a healthy diet is Nutrition Source from Harvard's School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/ Click on "what should I eat" and start with the "healthy eating plate."
  • nanastaci2020
    nanastaci2020 Posts: 1,072 Member
    Doing that much cardio: have you been cleared by a medical professional?

    If you need to eat often to keep your blood sugar level, then don't ignore that. For your size and activity level: is 2000 calories daily a realistic goal? Depending on age your total daily energy use BEFORE exercise is approximately 3000 if daily life is fairly inactive/sedentary. Higher if you are more active in your job & hobbies. If you walked 3.0 mph for 2 hours, that would perhaps burn 800-1000 more as a reasonably careful estimate.

    So if you were burning 4000+ daily, eating 2000 should result in 4 pounds per week lost. That is more than the generally recommended 1% of your body weight or 2 pounds, whichever is higher. If you're not able to figure out a way to be satiated and SAFE on 2000 daily, maybe you need to move the goal up? Or reduce the cardio? Otherwise ultimate results are likely to be binging (from being hungry all the time), lack of energy, inability to complete your workouts as well as you should, and potential organ damage. Losing aggressively results in muscle loss in additional to fat loss, and the heart is a muscle.
  • distortedvision78
    distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
    People generally don't see their GP in the UK for such reason. I'm from a family of doctors. I do not see the exercise as being dangerous.

    I'd rather increase my calorific daily intake than reduce my exercise. Maybe 2500 cals is a reasonable compromise.
  • nanastaci2020
    nanastaci2020 Posts: 1,072 Member
    The main reason I asked about seeking medical advice: if you go from inactive to doing 2.5 hours exercise daily, that could put a lot of stress on one's body. Of course, if the exercise/activity is not new that is less concerning.
  • distortedvision78
    distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
    10 years ago. I did this workout regime. Its not new its something I've done in the past.
  • Strudders67
    Strudders67 Posts: 989 Member
    edited September 2020
    I disagree- this is definitely something people clear with their GP. If you haven't done that level of exercise for 10 years, you should chat with a GP before embarking on 2 hours of cardio a day. You may have done it in the past but you're now 10 years older. Every gym I've ever belonged to has signs up about consulting with your GP before embarking on a new exercise regime.

    As mentioned above, losing 2kg a week is excessive and aggressive, which will add to the stress you're putting on your body. At least call the surgery and ask for a telephone consultation.

    Did you enter your details in to the MFP Guided Set up? I don't think it'll allow you to select 2kg a week but at 1kg (which is 2.2lb) a week, how many calories did it give you? I assume you are aware that that's how many calories you should eat before deliberate exercise, so you should also be fueling your workouts on top of that. You'd log your exercise separately and eat those calories too.

    To answer the question you actually asked, if you're at risk of hypos, I'd continue snacking but look to make better choices across all meals / snacks to fit your calorie needs.


    ETA: Go to the NHS's BMI site and enter your details. It recommends how many calories you should eat to help you lose weight. Just remember that that would be before exercise, which you also need to fuel. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-weight/bmi-calculator/


  • Strudders67
    Strudders67 Posts: 989 Member
    Also, your diary is set to Private. You'd need to go in to the set up and change it to Public for people to be able to take a look.
  • distortedvision78
    distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
    I've set my diary to be public.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    rupeshpatre78 wrote: »
    10 years ago. I did this workout regime. Its not new its something I've done in the past.

    After a few weeks off (I see discussions involving 2, 3, and 4 weeks off) one experiences "detraining." So after 10 years, you are definitely detrained and should build back up slowly.

    https://sci-fit.net/detraining-retraining/
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    rupeshpatre78 wrote: »
    10 years ago. I did this workout regime. Its not new its something I've done in the past.

    Trying to go straight to a high level of exercise you did 10 years ago carries a high risk of being counterproductive for weight loss. Poor recovery and fatigue (subtle or profound) can bleed calorie expenditure out of daily life, and stress-related water fluctuations can cause confusing scale results, among other issues. Ten years is a long time. It would be smart, for weight loss, fitness improvement, and health to gradually ramp up to the level you were at 10 years ago.

    If you need snacks to avoid blood sugar problems, then eat snacks. They're not magically injurious: Just make nutritious choices, and include them in your calorie goal. It'll be fine.

    Yes, I can have 558 calories worth of World's Best Chocolate Chip Cookies as a snack, or I can have 138 calories of cottage cheese and fruit (which actually fills me up more.)
  • distortedvision78
    distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
    I'd be grateful if some of you would look at my food diary. I'm currently averaging 3000 cals per day. The problem is clear the snack bars. They are small only 35g and between 150-200 cals. I think there are better snack options as they are not even filling. I could eat more fruit but I'd welcome suggestions for alternative lower calorie alternatives.

    Many thanks!
  • nanastaci2020
    nanastaci2020 Posts: 1,072 Member
    If something is not filling: to me that would not be worth the calories involved. Question: as a diabetic, do you have issues with keeping your blood sugar level due to the quantity of carbs you are consuming per meal? My knowledge is limited, and I know that some diabetics do have this problem. If so, what is your recommended # of carbs per meal?

    Your breakfast seems large to me in terms of quantity of food. I know there is a volume eater's group (or maybe its a discussion thread somewhere) that perhaps someone who knows better can drop in for you. Cutting the cereal & milk quantity in half, maybe adding some spinach/peppers/mushrooms to the eggs can help there.

    Perhaps apple slices + peanut butter. To me that combo is a filling snack. A dab of peanut butter on each slice, weighed out, could be a snack in the 150-200 calorie range.

    Combination of lean meat and some cheese, on its own or on crackers.

    Carrots (or other raw veggies) and hummus.

    Personally I also don't see a reason to 'drink' fruits or veggies. So instead of drinking 150+ calories of carrot juice, I'd have carrots. More of the nutrition and less calories.
  • distortedvision78
    distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
    The reason I have a large breakfast is to stabilise my blood sugars for the rest of the day. My diabetes consultant agreed this was a good strategy. It's the snacks that are the problem. Think I'm going to have to buy more fruit like pears, plums and cut down on the snack bars.

    I juice the carrots in my juicer. It's something in my diet that I really like so I don't want to eliminate it. I'm looking at My Protein Carb Crusher bars as alternative. The problem is that they're so damn expensive.
  • Strudders67
    Strudders67 Posts: 989 Member
    edited September 2020
    Before you buy plums etc, check their carb content. Blueberries and raspberries are lower calorie (and lower carb) fruits to add to cereals than dried fruit. You can buy them ready-frozen or just freeze what you buy fresh; overnight, defrost what you need for breakfast. 

    I make up my own muesli / granola mix, combining a selection of cereals, mostly low sugar ones. Check the carbs-per-100g and buy a selection for variety. Some will be higher in carbs / sugar / fat, some will be higher in protein - by mixing them, I get the best of it all and minimise the worst aspects. I also chop and add a pack or two of wholefood nuts (Tesco). The whole lot goes in to a large Tupperware container. I create a recipe in MFP, add the quantities of each cereal / nuts and then work out how many servings the whole lot added together makes. I weigh out my required portion for breakfast. I then add chia seeds (more fibre, less cals than flaxseeds) and some soya yoghurt.

    Plain Greek yoghurt (or Alpro no-sugar soya yoghurt) might be more filling than milk, so you'd need less cereal than you're currently eating.  My typical breakfast (if I don't have bacon, eggs, mushrooms and grilled tomato) is soya yoghurt + berries + 1/2 serving of my muesli-granola mix + 7g chia seeds.  Sometimes, depending on my plans for the morning, I'll also have a hard-boiled egg.

    A 3-egg omelette with mushrooms, spinach and/or tomatoes would be a lower cal, filling breakfast (or lunch) too. 


    For snacks:
    Consider hard-boiled eggs. 66 cals per egg.  You could have a couple, mid morning. 

    As with breakfast, replace your banana with berries. I assume you're adding this to yoghurt, but if not that's a tasty snack. 

    Add a tbsp (or 2) of chia seeds to 100ml Greek yoghurt, stir, let it sit in the fridge for a few hours or overnight and you've made chia pudding.  You could add berries to that.

    Lentil Curls / lentil crisps are an OK snack for when you're out and about. I like Tesco's own brand and also Asda's ones. They're under 100 cals and although the carb count is high, per 100g, the packs are small so the actual carb count is low. 

    Or look at popcorn. Can't remember the name of the brand, but it's something like Proper Corn (the outer bag is bright yellow) and each bag (sweet & salty ones) is 63 cals.

    Chop up an apple and chop up a small amount of cheese (approx 40g) and mix them together.  Mini babybels are easy to carry. Not especially low calorie, but a couple would be better than a cereal bar.  

    As you like carrots, how about some chopped carrots, perhaps with one of the (really) small pots of homous? M&S and Tesco (and probably others) sell them as a pack of three.

    Or, how about having a can of sardines or tuna? Eat straight from the tin. 

    I agree that you definitely need to look for better meal choices than having 7 snack / cereal bars in one day though.  Replace one bar with an apple and some cheese, one with some yoghurt and berries, one with carrot sticks and homous and another with a couple of hard boiled eggs. Wean yourself off the cereal bars!
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    edited September 2020
    rupeshpatre78 wrote: »
    I'd be grateful if some of you would look at my food diary. I'm currently averaging 3000 cals per day. The problem is clear the snack bars. They are small only 35g and between 150-200 cals. I think there are better snack options as they are not even filling. I could eat more fruit but I'd welcome suggestions for alternative lower calorie alternatives.

    Many thanks!

    I get needing snacks to stabilize blood sugar, and agree with you that you are going over board on your snack bars - @ 4 per day is surely outside of medical necessity.

    Do you still have your diabetes consultant? Have they discussed snacks in the past?

    I personally don't find fruit alone very filling - I like it with protein and fat, so not a whole apple, something like a part of an apple with a small amount of nuts.

    Here is an article discussing 21 snacks to eat if you have diabetes:

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/best-snacks-for-diabetes

    More options:

    http://main.diabetes.org/dorg/PDFs/awareness-programs/hhm/what_can_i_eat-smart_snacks-American_Diabetes_Association.pdf
  • Mithridites
    Mithridites Posts: 600 Member
    I would swap out the cereal. A combo of high-protein (Greek yoghurt or skyr) and a more complex carb like a rye / sourdough multigrain bread would give you more for your calories here. I would also sub in an apple and a small piece of cheese for at least 1 snack. Or a serving of nuts/seeds.
  • distortedvision78
    distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
    I think I might try two slices of Ryebread plus Greek Yoghurt+Blueberries. It would make things slightly varied. But I want to try and keep my diet simple without alot of variation for reasons of convenience. I'm in a professional job plus I have studies to focus on.
  • distortedvision78
    distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
    Today is a good day in dietary terms. No snack bars and intake is 2242cals.
  • Strudders67
    Strudders67 Posts: 989 Member
    I understand keeping things simple. My breakfast is usually one of two things. I have salad for lunch pretty much every day (the protein added to it varies and so do some of the components, but essentially it's salad). I then have a selection of go-to meals and eat them in rotation so that I don't get bored. I also have a selection of snacks available - some (either lentil curls or popcorn) I have every day, others I have if I need to bump up my calories or my protein.

    You can eat all the snacks you like if it's within your calorie goal. You may not feel particularly satiated, but you can do it. Many people find that if they deprive themselves of foods that they like, they'll fail in their weight loss quest quite rapidly.

    I'm going to repeat a point I made previously: Did you enter your details in to the MFP Guided Set up? I don't think it'll allow you to select 2kg a week but at 1kg (which is 2.2lb) a week, how many calories did it give you? I assume you are aware that that's how many calories you should eat before deliberate exercise, so you should also be fueling your workouts on top of that. You'd log your exercise separately (either via a synched fitness tracker or by manually entering to the Exercise tab) and eat those calories too.

    It's not clear how many calories you SHOULD be eating. Nor does it look like you're tracking / eating your exercise calories. If you're eating 2200 calories but burning 1000 with your aggressive exercise, you're eating a net of 1200 calories a day - which is considerably less than the minimum calories recommended for a short, sedentary male. That's actually the minimum for a sedentary, 5' tall female. You're not either. Doing that for a period of time runs the risk of major health issues, including heart failure. That may not do your professional career much good.

    Take a step back, go through the Guided Set-up, see how many calories you should be eating to lose 2lb a week (which at your current rate is not unreasonable) and then play around with different food stuffs to see what you come up with. You can enter different things into your diary in advance to see how they impact your day.

    It's far far better to do this slowly and sustainably than to try to be too aggressive and either fail and find yourself back where you started (or heavier) or fail by making yourself very ill. If you go the the 'General' tab and read the posts at the top of the forum, there's loads of good advice and information that may be useful.
  • distortedvision78
    distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
    edited September 2020
    I actually felt much more satitated today and I had less calorific intake. The change in my diet has worked.
    Yes people always comment about me not eating my calories back but I've always disliked this method. I like routine and I like to eat the same calorific intake a day. If I was eating back the exercise calories reported by my Polar V800 HR monitor - I think I would be eating far too much.

    I did the Guided Setup:

    'Lightly active' - 2,380 Calories / Day
    'Active' - 2880 Calories / Day

    I think realistically I am Lightly Active. I work in finance and spend most of my day sat down at a desk.

    I am tracking my exercise calories with Polar:

    https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/5080880656

    screenshot-37.png



    I'm building back up to the 2.5 hours exercise programme I described above. When I did this previously I aimed to lose 4kg per month. It was an achievable target and most months I achieved that weight loss. I think 2kg a week was not realistic. I feel fine and will continue with my current strategy unless I experience health problems.
  • Strudders67
    Strudders67 Posts: 989 Member
    I'd agree with the Lightly Active or even Sedentary setting for a desk job (that's what mine is set to, for the same reason) - but MFP is designed for you to add your exercise on top of that and eat those calories. Assuming you selected to lose at a rate of 1kg a week, those 2,380 cals have the required deficit built in for you to lose at that rate. If you're exercising and not eating any exercise calories back, you're undereating.

    Do a search for 'Polar' in these forums. Others who know about such things have posted, previously, about the accuracy of various fitness trackers so it may be prudent to eat 50% or 75% instead of 100%. Regardless, you're not burning zero, therefore you need to be eating more than zero additional calories. However, for consistency, if you do the same exercise on a regular basis, calculate what your weekly calorie burn is and just divide that by 7. Manually adjust your calorie requirement in MFP to add that figure on. Eat that many calories a day.

    Do this for 6 weeks - and then compare your weight now to your weight then, and see if you're losing at the required rate. You can then adjust your calories up / down accordingly. Weight loss isn't linear and, if you've just resumed exercise, you'll also have water retention masking fat loss initially. However, with every 10lbs lost, you should also go back to the Guided Set-up and re-Save the settings - as you get lighter, your calorie need will reduce. Similarly, the amount you'll burn with your exercise will also reduce as you get lighter, so you'll need to keep recalculating.

    With cardio, I always entered my stats in to the machine at the start of the exercise and then noted the number of cals burned at the end. Back at home, I played with the number of 'minutes' of exercise I needed to enter to MFP to get that number of cals. It may not be 100% accurate, but at least the machine knows the intensity that I set and the speed I went at. It's fine on most cross-trainers and running machines, but not so good if you're rowing. Strength / resistance training doesn't actually burn that many calories, but the exercise is good for muscles. You could try looking at both sources to see if you can get a more realistic idea of calories burned. Either way, you're not burning zero calories and really need to eat some back to ensure you don't make yourself miserable / crash and burn as that's guaranteed to have you giving up. Fuel your workout and you should find it far easier to lose weight. Good Luck.
  • distortedvision78
    distortedvision78 Posts: 43 Member
    Thanks Strudders67. Excellent advice.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,600 Member
    Strudders67 wrote: »
    I'd agree with the Lightly Active or even Sedentary setting for a desk job (that's what mine is set to, for the same reason) - but MFP is designed for you to add your exercise on top of that and eat those calories. Assuming you selected to lose at a rate of 1kg a week, those 2,380 cals have the required deficit built in for you to lose at that rate. If you're exercising and not eating any exercise calories back, you're undereating.

    Do a search for 'Polar' in these forums. Others who know about such things have posted, previously, about the accuracy of various fitness trackers so it may be prudent to eat 50% or 75% instead of 100%. Regardless, you're not burning zero, therefore you need to be eating more than zero additional calories. However, for consistency, if you do the same exercise on a regular basis, calculate what your weekly calorie burn is and just divide that by 7. Manually adjust your calorie requirement in MFP to add that figure on. Eat that many calories a day.

    Do this for 6 weeks - and then compare your weight now to your weight then, and see if you're losing at the required rate. You can then adjust your calories up / down accordingly. Weight loss isn't linear and, if you've just resumed exercise, you'll also have water retention masking fat loss initially. However, with every 10lbs lost, you should also go back to the Guided Set-up and re-Save the settings - as you get lighter, your calorie need will reduce. Similarly, the amount you'll burn with your exercise will also reduce as you get lighter, so you'll need to keep recalculating.

    With cardio, I always entered my stats in to the machine at the start of the exercise and then noted the number of cals burned at the end. Back at home, I played with the number of 'minutes' of exercise I needed to enter to MFP to get that number of cals. It may not be 100% accurate, but at least the machine knows the intensity that I set and the speed I went at. It's fine on most cross-trainers and running machines, but not so good if you're rowing. Strength / resistance training doesn't actually burn that many calories, but the exercise is good for muscles. You could try looking at both sources to see if you can get a more realistic idea of calories burned. Either way, you're not burning zero calories and really need to eat some back to ensure you don't make yourself miserable / crash and burn as that's guaranteed to have you giving up. Fuel your workout and you should find it far easier to lose weight. Good Luck.

    I won't speak for other brands, but Concept 2 rowing machines are actually one of the more accurate calorie estimators, assuming technique is good (that's a big assumption). Its power metering is well respected. What one needs to know is that the number from the machine needs to be weight adjusted, via an online calculator here: https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/calorie-calculator

    The machine assumes a 175-pound rower. The further you are from that, the more important it is to weight adjust.

    At the gym, after your workout, find the calories *per hour* in the memory. Note that, and the total number of workout minutes/seconds from the memory display. Then use those, plus your bodyweight, in the calculator linked above.

    A word about rowing technique and calorie accuracy: I can't prove it with outside evidence, but as a long term rower (even coaching certified at one point), my very firm belief is that someone with sub-par technique will get a calorie estimate from the machine that is too *low*, i.e., an *underestimate*. Why? Because the machine measures the energy that goes into the flywheel. People with poor technique waste energy, i.e., they do movements (sometimes frantic, very energetic ones) that don't result in accelerating or sustaining speed of the flywheel. The machine won't include that wasted energy in the calorie estimate. (As further explanation: I've looked at the post-workout monitor stats for people with poor technique. From watching, I can see that they're wearing themselves out, moving vigorously, but the pace as measured by the machine is low. That directly translates into lower watts measured by the machine, and a lower calorie estimate.)

    A power-metered bike (measures watts) should also be fairly accurate at estimating calories. If you can get an average watts reading, you can check against standard formulas, rather than simply believing the machine's conversion algorithm. The technique-related efficiency differences on a bike are fairly minor, in contrast to the rower.

Categories