Initial diet and exercise advice

JackSussmilch

Hi All. First timer here.

I am waiting for an appointment with a nutritionist and so I have kicked things off in the interim. If ppl could take a look at what I'm doing and make some comments/advice it would be greatly appreciated.

I have been tracking my food and exercise in myfitnesspal. Very impressed with it.

Vitalstatistics : 109kg/172cm high, male 48yrs

Objectives : weight loss, build some muscle. Build regime into routine for sustainability.

Diet - kicked off a keto diet 1 week ago. 10% carbs, 40% fat, 50% protein. So far feeling completely satiated - almost needing to force myself to eat. So far so good. Average Calory intake about 1350cals per day ( very consistent). Net calories averaging at 600 according to fitness tracker.

I suspect I am well into ketosis - have ordered breathalyser to check and monitor.

Exercise - 3-4 times per week. 60 minutes each time consisting of treadmill (2×10min walks at 6.5kmph), rowing machine ( resistance level 3 of eight) and weights. 50/50 split between cardio and weights. Using home multigym, rowing machine, treadmill. Weights are 3 sets of 15 reps at 15kg currently. Focussing on different parts of body each time - ie abs, arms,legs,chest. Averaging 3000 steps per day.

What are people's thoughts? Does anything look awry here?

sollyn23l2

If you're protein is that high you're *probably* (read almost certainly) not in ketosis. You're body can and will turn protein into glucose, which is why a ketogenic diet requires about 75% fat. That being said, if you're happy with it, there's really no need to be in ketosis.

JackSussmilch

Thanks. I'll investigate that further

AnnPT77

As a 109kg (240 pound) 172cm (5'10") male 48 years old, exercising around 3-4 days a week, your calorie needs to maintain your weight may be in the upper half of the 2000s or so. If you're truly eating 1350, that's a pretty aggressive calorie deficit, more than 2 pounds (1 kg or more) per week - maybe much more.

At BMI 34 (technically obese), unless you're already pretty muscular, you can probably afford to lose at 2 pounds/1kg per week for a while. But if you go that route, your strength work will add muscle very slowly, if at all, until you decrease the size of the deficit. It will still increase strength, and will help you preserve existing muscle, so it's worth doing. Whether to prioritize fast fat loss at the expense of probable reduced fitness/muscle gain . . . that's your call.

I do think 1350 calories is substantially too low. MFP does not recommend a calorie goal below 1500 for men (ever). I admit I'm a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner, but I lost from class 1 obese ( BMI 30-point-something) to a healthy weight in less than a year as a 5'5", then 60 y/o woman.

As an aside, though I don't know what kind of rowing machine you have: The ones designed to simulate rowing a boat (Concept 2, Waterrower, Hydrow - usually flywheel or water-tank models) don't usually have resistance. They have a setting that people often think is resistance, but it's really more like simulated "boat feel". On that type of rower, a person gets a harder workout by putting more energy into the flywheel/water-tank mechanism - each increment of power is more difficult/challenging because of the way the machine is designed. I know you don't have a Concept 2, because they have 10 levels of damper setting (the thing people think is resistance, and tend to set on 10).

If you're doing all the different body parts at the same reps and weight, I'd speculate that you're under-challenging some muscle groups, and maybe over-challenging others. If you're only hitting each body part once a week (or less?), that aspect is probably under-challenging for best results . . . but strength training is not my expertise. (I'm pretty solid when it comes to rowing.)

I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but I like to see people succeed, so I tend to be very honest. Maybe try to think of me as your concerned internet auntie, since I'm old enough (67) to be?

I feel like you're jumping into the "go hard" lane on diet. That's a very common approach. The down side is that it's very hard to sustain long enough to lose a meaningful total amount of weight (too punitive/restrictive), and it may not build the kind of sustainable change in routine habits that helps a person stay at a healthy weight long-term once they do reach goal weight.

I wish you every success, sincerely!

neanderthin

Yeah, it's quite common on a very low carb diet to feel totally satiated and needing to remember to eat and something that I experience as well. Better than feeling deprived and hungry on a continual basis that's for sure and the main reason for failure, generally, so that's half the battle. There's a learning curve obviously but don't feel the need to be so regimented that your not flexible enough to make adjustments that lead to better compliance, which is again, a key ingredient for success. Let us know how it goes.

JackSussmilch

AnnPT77 wrote: »

As a 109kg (240 pound) 172cm (5'10") male 48 years old, exercising around 3-4 days a week, your calorie needs to maintain your weight may be in the upper half of the 2000s or so. If you're truly eating 1350, that's a pretty aggressive calorie deficit, more than 2 pounds (1 kg or more) per week - maybe much more.

At BMI 34 (technically obese), unless you're already pretty muscular, you can probably afford to lose at 2 pounds/1kg per week for a while. But if you go that route, your strength work will add muscle very slowly, if at all, until you decrease the size of the deficit. It will still increase strength, and will help you preserve existing muscle, so it's worth doing. Whether to prioritize fast fat loss at the expense of probable reduced fitness/muscle gain . . . that's your call.

I do think 1350 calories is substantially too low. MFP does not recommend a calorie goal below 1500 for men (ever). I admit I'm a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner, but I lost from class 1 obese ( BMI 30-point-something) to a healthy weight in less than a year as a 5'5", then 60 y/o woman.

As an aside, though I don't know what kind of rowing machine you have: The ones designed to simulate rowing a boat (Concept 2, Waterrower, Hydrow - usually flywheel or water-tank models) don't usually have resistance. They have a setting that people often think is resistance, but it's really more like simulated "boat feel". On that type of rower, a person gets a harder workout by putting more energy into the flywheel/water-tank mechanism - each increment of power is more difficult/challenging because of the way the machine is designed. I know you don't have a Concept 2, because they have 10 levels of damper setting (the thing people think is resistance, and tend to set on 10).

If you're doing all the different body parts at the same reps and weight, I'd speculate that you're under-challenging some muscle groups, and maybe over-challenging others. If you're only hitting each body part once a week (or less?), that aspect is probably under-challenging for best results . . . but strength training is not my expertise. (I'm pretty solid when it comes to rowing.)

I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but I like to see people succeed, so I tend to be very honest. Maybe try to think of me as your concerned internet auntie, since I'm old enough (67) to be?

I feel like you're jumping into the "go hard" lane on diet. That's a very common approach. The down side is that it's very hard to sustain long enough to lose a meaningful total amount of weight (too punitive/restrictive), and it may not build the kind of sustainable change in routine habits that helps a person stay at a healthy weight long-term once they do reach goal weight.

I wish you every success, sincerely!

Thanks. That's great advice. I will take it all onboard. The rowing machine is old and very cheap, so the increased levels seem to just apply some sort of brake to what I assume is a flywheel.

JackSussmilch

neanderthin wrote: »

Yeah, it's quite common on a very low carb diet to feel totally satiated and needing to remember to eat and something that I experience as well. Better than feeling deprived and hungry on a continual basis that's for sure and the main reason for failure, generally, so that's half the battle. There's a learning curve obviously but don't feel the need to be so regimented that your not flexible enough to make adjustments that lead to better compliance, which is again, a key ingredient for success. Let us know how it goes.

Thanks. I'm stoked to not feel so hungry all the time. It's a long haul, so yeah, I will be updating folks on how I go.

SuzanneC1l9zz

I'm female, 46 years old, 5'6" and 140odd lbs. I maintain on net 1,600ish calories. Eat!

AnnPT77

JackSussmilch wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

As a 109kg (240 pound) 172cm (5'10") male 48 years old, exercising around 3-4 days a week, your calorie needs to maintain your weight may be in the upper half of the 2000s or so. If you're truly eating 1350, that's a pretty aggressive calorie deficit, more than 2 pounds (1 kg or more) per week - maybe much more.

At BMI 34 (technically obese), unless you're already pretty muscular, you can probably afford to lose at 2 pounds/1kg per week for a while. But if you go that route, your strength work will add muscle very slowly, if at all, until you decrease the size of the deficit. It will still increase strength, and will help you preserve existing muscle, so it's worth doing. Whether to prioritize fast fat loss at the expense of probable reduced fitness/muscle gain . . . that's your call.

I do think 1350 calories is substantially too low. MFP does not recommend a calorie goal below 1500 for men (ever). I admit I'm a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner, but I lost from class 1 obese ( BMI 30-point-something) to a healthy weight in less than a year as a 5'5", then 60 y/o woman.

As an aside, though I don't know what kind of rowing machine you have: The ones designed to simulate rowing a boat (Concept 2, Waterrower, Hydrow - usually flywheel or water-tank models) don't usually have resistance. They have a setting that people often think is resistance, but it's really more like simulated "boat feel". On that type of rower, a person gets a harder workout by putting more energy into the flywheel/water-tank mechanism - each increment of power is more difficult/challenging because of the way the machine is designed. I know you don't have a Concept 2, because they have 10 levels of damper setting (the thing people think is resistance, and tend to set on 10).

If you're doing all the different body parts at the same reps and weight, I'd speculate that you're under-challenging some muscle groups, and maybe over-challenging others. If you're only hitting each body part once a week (or less?), that aspect is probably under-challenging for best results . . . but strength training is not my expertise. (I'm pretty solid when it comes to rowing.)

I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but I like to see people succeed, so I tend to be very honest. Maybe try to think of me as your concerned internet auntie, since I'm old enough (67) to be?

I feel like you're jumping into the "go hard" lane on diet. That's a very common approach. The down side is that it's very hard to sustain long enough to lose a meaningful total amount of weight (too punitive/restrictive), and it may not build the kind of sustainable change in routine habits that helps a person stay at a healthy weight long-term once they do reach goal weight.

I wish you every success, sincerely!

Thanks. That's great advice. I will take it all onboard. The rowing machine is old and very cheap, so the increased levels seem to just apply some sort of brake to what I assume is a flywheel.

Quite possibly really resistance, in that case - can't be sure. In any case, you're only setting it a bit over 1/3 of its maximum. Even on a machine (like the Concept 2) where it absolutely is not resistance, 1/3 of the way up would be fine for quite a range of people.

Best wishes!

kshama2001

AnnPT77 wrote: »

...I do think 1350 calories is substantially too low. MFP does not recommend a calorie goal below 1500 for men (ever). I admit I'm a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner, but I lost from class 1 obese ( BMI 30-point-something) to a healthy weight in less than a year as a 5'5", then 60 y/o woman.

@AnnPT77 it seems like you meant to put your own calories during your weight loss time in this paragraph, and if not, please do

spiriteagle99

I agree that 1300 calories is too low for a man. It may feel good over the short term, but it probably isn't going to be sustainable for long. It is also very difficult to get sufficient nutrients at that low a calorie level. Are you eating back your exercise calories? If not, then you are risking some bad health consequences.

AnnPT77

kshama2001 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

...I do think 1350 calories is substantially too low. MFP does not recommend a calorie goal below 1500 for men (ever). I admit I'm a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner, but I lost from class 1 obese ( BMI 30-point-something) to a healthy weight in less than a year as a 5'5", then 60 y/o woman.

@AnnPT77 it seems like you meant to put your own calories during your weight loss time in this paragraph, and if not, please do

Oops, yeah. Most of that time - the most effective of that time - around 1400-1600 plus exercise calories - so around 1800-2000 most days.

Thank you, @kshama2001!

kshama2001

JackSussmilch wrote: »

...Vitalstatistics : 109kg/172cm high, male 48yrs

Objectives : weight loss, build some muscle. Build regime into routine for sustainability.

Diet - kicked off a keto diet 1 week ago. 10% carbs, 40% fat, 50% protein. So far feeling completely satiated - almost needing to force myself to eat. So far so good. Average Calory intake about 1350cals per day ( very consistent). Net calories averaging at 600 according to fitness tracker.

...What are people's thoughts? Does anything look awry here?

I just reread your post. I think people assumed you were netting 1350 calories, which is too low for a man - 1500 is the minimum. But if in fact you are netting 600 calories, that is just way too low.

By way of comparison, Ann, who was older, shorter, and female, lost weight just fine with around 1400-1600 plus exercise calories - so around 1800-2000 most days.

springlering62

kshama2001 wrote: »

JackSussmilch wrote: »

...Vitalstatistics : 109kg/172cm high, male 48yrs

Objectives : weight loss, build some muscle. Build regime into routine for sustainability.

Diet - kicked off a keto diet 1 week ago. 10% carbs, 40% fat, 50% protein. So far feeling completely satiated - almost needing to force myself to eat. So far so good. Average Calory intake about 1350cals per day ( very consistent). Net calories averaging at 600 according to fitness tracker.

...What are people's thoughts? Does anything look awry here?

I just reread your post. I think people assumed you were netting 1350 calories, which is too low for a man - 1500 is the minimum. But if in fact you are netting 600 calories, that is just way too low.

By way of comparison, Ann, who was older, shorter, and female, lost weight just fine with around 1400-1600 plus exercise calories - so around 1800-2000 most days.

Glad you caught that. I was just fixing to go into 😱😱😱 mode.

I eat more than 600 a day just in snacks and dessert. I can’t imagine how OP is even holding his head up at this point if it’s 600 net as stated.

OP, we don’t critique out of meanness. This is our form of loving you into good habits.

AnnPT77

kshama2001 wrote: »

JackSussmilch wrote: »

...Vitalstatistics : 109kg/172cm high, male 48yrs

Objectives : weight loss, build some muscle. Build regime into routine for sustainability.

Diet - kicked off a keto diet 1 week ago. 10% carbs, 40% fat, 50% protein. So far feeling completely satiated - almost needing to force myself to eat. So far so good. Average Calory intake about 1350cals per day ( very consistent). Net calories averaging at 600 according to fitness tracker.

...What are people's thoughts? Does anything look awry here?

I just reread your post. I think people assumed you were netting 1350 calories, which is too low for a man - 1500 is the minimum. But if in fact you are netting 600 calories, that is just way too low.

By way of comparison, Ann, who was older, shorter, and female, lost weight just fine with around 1400-1600 plus exercise calories - so around 1800-2000 most days.

I didn't assume that, actually. But I agree you're right that the net would be incredibly low.

I just compared what he said he was eating with a Sailrabbit estimate of TDEE for his stats, with his exercise in the picture, trying a couple of activity levels since his total activity level wasn't clear.

The main point here - I think we all agree, maybe even him - is that 1350, if even remotely accurate logging, is way too few calories. But yes, if he uses the MFP method, setting activity level based on activity excluding exercise, then he should carefully estimate the exercise calories (or sync a fitness tracker) and eat those calories, too.

JackSussmilch

spiriteagle99 wrote: »

I agree that 1300 calories is too low for a man. It may feel good over the short term, but it probably isn't going to be sustainable for long. It is also very difficult to get sufficient nutrients at that low a calorie level. Are you eating back your exercise calories? If not, then you are risking some bad health consequences.

Thanks. I'll look into that.

JackSussmilch

AnnPT77 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

JackSussmilch wrote: »

...Vitalstatistics : 109kg/172cm high, male 48yrs

Objectives : weight loss, build some muscle. Build regime into routine for sustainability.

Diet - kicked off a keto diet 1 week ago. 10% carbs, 40% fat, 50% protein. So far feeling completely satiated - almost needing to force myself to eat. So far so good. Average Calory intake about 1350cals per day ( very consistent). Net calories averaging at 600 according to fitness tracker.

...What are people's thoughts? Does anything look awry here?

I just reread your post. I think people assumed you were netting 1350 calories, which is too low for a man - 1500 is the minimum. But if in fact you are netting 600 calories, that is just way too low.

By way of comparison, Ann, who was older, shorter, and female, lost weight just fine with around 1400-1600 plus exercise calories - so around 1800-2000 most days.

I didn't assume that, actually. But I agree you're right that the net would be incredibly low.

I just compared what he said he was eating with a Sailrabbit estimate of TDEE for his stats, with his exercise in the picture, trying a couple of activity levels since his total activity level wasn't clear.

The main point here - I think we all agree, maybe even him - is that 1350, if even remotely accurate logging, is way too few calories. But yes, if he uses the MFP method, setting activity level based on activity excluding exercise, then he should carefully estimate the exercise calories (or sync a fitness tracker) and eat those calories, too.

Yep. Got it. I have linked in an exercise tracker. Step count averages about 3k steps per day - although I don't trust the calories burnt from my tracker so I use what the machines estimate. I figure I probably burn 350-400 calories per exercise session.

I am confident that my eating and drinking recording is accurate, so I will work to bump up gross calorie intake to average around 1500.

This first week I lost 2.3kg, which whilst its most likely water weight, my target range is 1.3-2kg, so I will continue to refine the parameters to keep it in that range.

For the record, I was initially targeting a loss of 0.5kg per week over 18 months, but 6 days ago my bloods showed I am officially in type2 diabetic range, so I have bumped up target to 1.3-2kg per week. I suspect the new BP mods are probably playing a part in the appetite.

At the end of the day if I am not hungry, I will listen to my body and the stats and act from there.

Once I get the appointment with the nutritionist, I will have a good track record to show them as well.

AnnPT77

JackSussmilch wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

JackSussmilch wrote: »

...Vitalstatistics : 109kg/172cm high, male 48yrs

Objectives : weight loss, build some muscle. Build regime into routine for sustainability.

Diet - kicked off a keto diet 1 week ago. 10% carbs, 40% fat, 50% protein. So far feeling completely satiated - almost needing to force myself to eat. So far so good. Average Calory intake about 1350cals per day ( very consistent). Net calories averaging at 600 according to fitness tracker.

...What are people's thoughts? Does anything look awry here?

I just reread your post. I think people assumed you were netting 1350 calories, which is too low for a man - 1500 is the minimum. But if in fact you are netting 600 calories, that is just way too low.

By way of comparison, Ann, who was older, shorter, and female, lost weight just fine with around 1400-1600 plus exercise calories - so around 1800-2000 most days.

I didn't assume that, actually. But I agree you're right that the net would be incredibly low.

I just compared what he said he was eating with a Sailrabbit estimate of TDEE for his stats, with his exercise in the picture, trying a couple of activity levels since his total activity level wasn't clear.

The main point here - I think we all agree, maybe even him - is that 1350, if even remotely accurate logging, is way too few calories. But yes, if he uses the MFP method, setting activity level based on activity excluding exercise, then he should carefully estimate the exercise calories (or sync a fitness tracker) and eat those calories, too.

Yep. Got it. I have linked in an exercise tracker. Step count averages about 3k steps per day - although I don't trust the calories burnt from my tracker so I use what the machines estimate. I figure I probably burn 350-400 calories per exercise session.

I am confident that my eating and drinking recording is accurate, so I will work to bump up gross calorie intake to average around 1500.

We're suggesting net calorie intake of at least 1500, and maybe more than that.

To be clear, by net calories, we mean 1500 calories eaten + a sensible estimate of your exercise calories.

Start with whatever calories MFP recommends based on your personal statistics. Set activity level based on pre-exercise activity. Sync your tracker to bring in exercise calories, and eat the adjusted total. (Turn negative adjustments on in MFP for insurance.)

Follow that (as a male) for 4-6 weeks, then adjust base calories if necessary to achieve a sensible average weekly loss rate.

This first week I lost 2.3kg, which whilst its most likely water weight, my target range is 1.3-2kg, so I will continue to refine the parameters to keep it in that range.

At 109kg, I'd recommend your target be more like 1kg per week, tops, unless you're under close medical supervision for complications or deficiencies. 2kg is 2% of your body weight, very very aggressive. I understand that you're in T2D range. Even 1% is at the aggressive end of what we'd usually suggest (0.5%-1%, bias toward the lower end).

For the record, I was initially targeting a loss of 0.5kg per week over 18 months, but 6 days ago my bloods showed I am officially in type2 diabetic range, so I have bumped up target to 1.3-2kg per week. I suspect the new BP mods are probably playing a part in the appetite.

At the end of the day if I am not hungry, I will listen to my body and the stats and act from there.

Once I get the appointment with the nutritionist, I will have a good track record to show them as well.

Here in the US, a nutritionist may not be a degreed professional. Registered dietitians are the degreed professionals. I know the terminology differs in different places, but make sure you're getting the degreed professional, not someone who took a 1-day online course (at most) then hung out a shingle offering services.

springlering62

FWIW, my husband is type 2 and has been on meds for decades.

Six months after he started MFP, he’d lost enough weight was able to come off them.

Be patient. Time passes quickly. You don’t want to risk heart damage or something else from under-eating to offset diabetes, which is already medically controlled.

Moderation in all things, ya know?

AnnPT77

springlering62 wrote: »

FWIW, my husband is type 2 and has been on meds for decades.

Six months after he started MFP, he’d lost enough weight was able to come off them.

Be patient. Time passes quickly. You don’t want to risk heart damage or something else from under-eating to offset diabetes, which is already medically controlled.

Moderation in all things, ya know?

I'd wondered about the advisability of stacking an aggressive deficit's high stress on top of the T2D, but not knowing much about T2D and cumulative stress risk, I didn't mention it. You're obviously better informed, so I'm glad you commented.

springlering62

AnnPT77 wrote: »

springlering62 wrote: »

FWIW, my husband is type 2 and has been on meds for decades.

Six months after he started MFP, he’d lost enough weight was able to come off them.

Be patient. Time passes quickly. You don’t want to risk heart damage or something else from under-eating to offset diabetes, which is already medically controlled.

Moderation in all things, ya know?

I'd wondered about the advisability of stacking an aggressive deficit's high stress on top of the T2D, but not knowing much about T2D and cumulative stress risk, I didn't mention it. You're obviously better informed, so I'm glad you commented.

Oh no, sorry, not better informed. Common sense? Why exchange a controlled, known problem for another, pretty well documented one related to undereating, simply because you’re in a rush?