ASK ME ANYTHING ABOUT WEIGHT LOSS!!! GREATEST THREAD EVER!!

bump

The hypothetical 300lb lady probably doesn't have time for the "exceedingly slow" and completely unnecessary way of doing things when she could take 5 minutes to do measurements and calculations and lose weight at 2lbs a week (very safely at that weight) and quickly decrease her chance of death by wasting no time losing 10% of her body weight. I have no idea what circumstance leave you imagining this woman unable to perform day to day functions and starving when she clearly has a vault of body fat to work through.

Obese people don't have many advantages when it comes to fat loss but they do have two very cool weapons in their armoury. The first is the ability to handle steep calorie deficits much better than overweight or leaner folk. They actually tend to lose a greater % of fat to lean mass even with a deficit which for a slimmer person would do exactly the opposite. So if they can handle a much lower calorie diet with no issues: cool beans. They can do exactly that for a while. If they lose more than the usually recommended 2 lbs per week then that's not a problem either (this "rule" is not a rule at all - it simply pertains to the relative energy yields from 1lb of muscle in comparison to 1lb of fat and how that correlates with a calorie deficit. A better estimate could be a loss of 1% total body weight per week.)

Why then would they consider a slower or different approach? Well for greater flexibility down the line as I have already explained. But also, of the other cool advantage obese people have: they have a greater range when it comes to a workable calorie deficit - and in many instances over and above the 1000 calorie below TDEE maximum usually seen recommended.

So for our 300 lbs woman she could eat anywhere from 1, 500 calories and still be in deficit.Or 2000. Or 2,500. Or 3,000. Some obese people excel with low calorie dieting. Some, in fact most I would wager, do not. They feel overly restricted, punished, despondent, low on energy (yes, even despite abundant energy stores) and like failures. This can lead to them falling off the wagon completely. Why shouldn't they utilise every advantage available to them especially given it will slow and surely disappear as they get leaner? A higher calorie approach means the change in their dietary habits doesn't have to be alien and flipped 180, it can be achieved with smaller, more easily incorporated changes. These build on each other to create a structured plan for life.

I feel some horrible messages get pushed at obese people from many angles, to include the random idiocy which is the "Biggest Loser" - that they must pull big weight loss numbers every week or they have failed, they must eat no more than the absolute minimum because of their slow metabolisms (when in fact studies have shown their metabolisms are equal if not quicker than their slimmer peers) that they must do hours and hours of cardio. It's utter rubbish. Fair enough if rapid weight loss is medically necessary (for example due to a high risk of organ failure) but in many case that simply does not apply. Just as obese people did not becomes that way over night so it is the case they do not need to lose it over night either.

As for TDEE calculators, they are not the holy grail. They provide a useful starting point which then have to be adjusted for real world world results - like many other approaches. This is not new. In addition, the additional variables give people more things to obsess about particularly when weight loss stops altogether "zomg - should my activity multiplier have been 1.23455875 instead of 1.37454543? I'm am sedentary except for Tuesdays, Thursdays and Bah Mitzvahs.." The more variables you have when you face a stall the harder it gets to identify the source of the problem. There is a lot to be said for simplicity.

One dimensional thinking rarely improves the world.

...I feel some horrible messages get pushed at obese people from many angles, to include the random idiocy which is the "Biggest Loser" - that they must pull big weight loss numbers every week or they have failed, they must eat no more than the absolute minimum because of their slow metabolisms (when in fact studies have shown their metabolisms are equal if not quicker than their slimmer peers) that they must do hours and hours of cardio. It's utter rubbish. Fair enough if rapid weight loss is medically necessary (for example due to a high risk of organ failure) but in many case that simply does not apply. Just as obese people did not becomes that way over night so it is the case they do not need to lose it over night either.

As for TDEE calculators, they are not the holy grail. They provide a useful starting point which then have to be adjusted for real world world results - like many other approaches. This is not new. In addition, the additional variables give people more things to obsess about particularly when weight loss stops altogether "zomg - should my activity multiplier have been 1.23455875 instead of 1.37454543? I'm am sedentary except for Tuesdays, Thursdays and Bah Mitzvahs.." The more variables you have when you face a stall the harder it gets to identify the source of the problem. There is a lot to be said for simplicity.

One dimensional thinking rarely improves the world.

We've been going back and forth about the morbidly obese, so I don't understand why you've picked something like organ failure as a rare instance of needing to lose weight quickly. "If rapid weight loss is medically necessary..." I don't understand the "if." If someone is morbidly obese...it is medically necessary. I think "rapidly" is also a bit unclear. I'm not advocating a VLCD or anything near Biggest Loser losses. That said, a 10% weight loss can have dramatic effects on diabetes, triglycerides, heart disease, cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose levels, cancer risks, and so on and so forth. So, why wouldn't you advocate that people facing such health risks utilize a more tried and true method. I mean, BMR calculators aren't perfect--that's clear. Even in my case, my actual BMR is significantly under 1200 (common in women with PCOS and insulin resistance), but calculators, flawed as they may be, still come significantly closer to matching my BMR and estimating my TDEE than your method does. I don't think there is any shame in saying that this wiggle room is fine for the average person, but really isn't well-suited or able to properly scale up for obese and morbidly obese individuals. As you said...one dimensional thinking...

Edit to fix quotes.

OK. i guess what I'm really trying to get at is does green tea really help boost your metabolism, etc?

OK. i guess what I'm really trying to get at is does green tea really help boost your metabolism, etc?

it might, there are some studies that have shown elements of anti-oxidants and caffeine increase metabolic capacities. But not by much, by maybe 1.8 - 2% max. Your best bet to increase your metabolic output is resistance training.

advice on weak abdominal wall?

I did this and saw great results. As you progress increase the length of time and number of reps as you feel comfortable to keep your body guessing

I DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :drinker: :drinker: LET'S SEE HOW I FEEL IN A DAY OR TWO. :laugh:

I started it last night.

Hi, I've just perved your profile pics and notice that your starting shape is very similar to my husbands, He's having problems "changing shape" Could you tell me what your exercise routine was to get to your now shape please

Light jogging, no more than 20mins every other night. Not because I think 20mins is optimal, but simply because I'm too lazy and out of shape to do any more than that before curling up into a ball and dying.

Chin-ups, press-ups & sit-ups. I also own a set of dumbbells with which I did some pretty standard lifts like shoulder press, front raises and flyes. Pretty simple stuff.

No cardio or weight-lifting session exceeded 30 mins and I gave up on the whole routine after 2/3 weeks.

Working out sucks.

thanks

1. I was reducing about 1 lbs per week for six months. I was controlling my diet to 1350-1400 cals per day and was burning calories thru brisk-walk and jogging.
2. When I reduced 30 lbs, I decided to focus not only on weight reduction but also increase muscle-mass. For this purpose, I increased my protein intake by having SSN Whey protein supplement giving 22 gms protein per day. Also started alternating between walk-jog and basic level circuit training. I also added butter-milk to my lunch, thus overall calories intake goes to 1500-1550 calories daily.
3. This change is made for past one month.
4. Now while I am feeling the increase of muscle mass, further weight reduction is not happening.Rather weight first increased 4 lbs and now has reduced by those 4 lbs again.
5. My height is 5'11", weight reduced from 195 lbs to 165, age 48 years. I follow Indian vegetarian diet.

May I request you to please address the following queries?
1. Am I doing the right thing? Do you suggest any change?
2. Why is the weight not reducing further? I am intending to reduce it by 7 lbs more.

Request your advise.

May I request you to please address the following queries?
1. Am I doing the right thing? Do you suggest any change?
2. Why is the weight not reducing further? I am intending to reduce it by 7 lbs more.

Request your advise.

1. If your goal is to gain muscle mass, and you are gaining around 0.2 - 0.5 lbs a week, then your doing fine. Due to your are, your testosterone levels are lower than that of a 18,19,20 year old who is building muscle, therefore it is much harder for you. It will take time.

2. You're chasing 2 birds with 1 stone. It is possible but highly unlikely that you can gain muscle while lose fat at the same time. I doubt you have the knowledge or the physiological sensitivity to do so. So focus on one thing at a time.

You use the 10 - 12 cals per 1 lb of total body weight to generate the rough amount of calories you should be eating for fat loss (in other words your calorie deficit level.) It factors in a reasonable amount of exercise so you wouldn't eat back exercise calories.

So, if I weigh 200 lbs I would eat somewhere between 2000 - 2,400 calories per day to start losing weight.

The way it works is this. 10 cals per 1lb of total body weight roughly equates to BMR for women, and 11 cals per 1lb of total body weight roughly equates to the BMR for men.

Therefore if you eat this amount your calorie deficit will be created by all the other elements which amount for the calorie out side of the energy balance equation: daily activity (NEAT/SPA) planned exercise (TEA) and energy cost of eating (TEF)

The higher end of the amount (12 cals per 1lbs of total body weight) does amount to maintenance calories for a completely sedentary person and would therefore be more useful as a calorie deficit starting point for someone who engages in quite a lot of exercise.)

I think it's a great way of getting a reasonable starting point but as said above you don't need to knock anything off it to start losing weight.
[/quote]

Thank you for the info.

Bump

Bump for later