I went from morbidly obese to 6 pack abs! Ask me Anything

r_rana7 wrote: »

I have begun the novice ICF 5x5 programme 4 weeks ago, making steady progress on all the exercises so far. I am eating at a calorie surplus of 200 calories, measuring my food etc on digital scales and tracking it on MFP every day. I ensure I am hitting my macro goals and hit my TDEE at least and usually hit my surplus most days.

My stats are 180 cm, current weight is 73.7kg.

Overall I am not looking to lose or gain weight particularly, I am looking to increase muscle and by definition also then lose fat.

I plan to 'bulk' for 3 months with 200 calorie surplus and then 'cut' at a 200 calorie deficit for 2 months. And continue that cycle if effective for at least 12 months.

With your expertise and first hand experience, would you say I'm on the right path?

love reading your posts, absolute legend

While bulking on 200 calories is appropriate, because you want the surplus small to avoid fat gains, cutting on a 200 calorie deficit is too conservative. I usually recommend people start with a 500 calorie deficit and adjust based on results. A 200 calorie deficit will only net around 1 lb lost every 3.5 weeks. That's pretty slow.

joeseph166 wrote: »

did you have the excess skin problem ? how did you deal with it ?

Read back a few pages. I've answered this question probably 5 times and posted a video on the topic within this thread.

blessingsldc wrote: »

What are your workouts like? I'm doing 3-4 days of work outs treadmill and elliptical

I am currently doing Jonnie Candito's 6 week strength training program.

rocket_ace wrote: »

hi Vismal - thanks for all the wisdom. I really like your notes on the IIFIYM technique...but do you have any thoughts "Gary Taubes, Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It", where in part he says the below (the part that confuses me is that he seems to be saying we should all go super low carb....but that isn't in keeping w/ IIFYM right...ie, you say that other than needing a minimum level of Fats and Protein, the rest can be anything .... so basically calories in vs calories out?):

“Of all the dangerous ideas that health officials could have embraced while trying to understand why we get fat, they would have been hard-pressed to find one ultimately more damaging than calories-in/calories-out. That it reinforces what appears to be so obvious - obesity as the penalty for gluttony and sloth - is what makes it so alluring. But it's misleading and misconceived on so many levels that it's hard to imagine how it survived unscathed and virtually unchallenged for the last fifty years.

It has done incalculable harm. Not only is this thinking at least partly responsible for the ever-growing numbers of obese and overweight in the world - while directing attention away from the real reasons we get fat - but it has served to reinforce the perception that those who get fat have no one to blame but themselves. That eating less invariably fails as a cure for obesity is rarely perceived as the single most important reason to make us question our assumptions, as Hilde Bruch suggested half a century ago. Rather, it is taken as still more evidence that the overweight and obese are incapable of following a diet and eating in moderation. And it put the blame for their physical condition squarely on their behavior, which couldn't be further from the truth.”
― Gary Taubes, Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It

Taubes is wrong. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. He says that calories in vs calories out (CICO) is not why people are obese. It is. It absolutely is. People are eating more (calories) and moving less than any other time in history. Taubes like to point to food choices as the culprit. He is very anti sugar. Now don't get me wrong, certain foods are created to make you overeat. Foods today are hyper-palatable. A serving size of Dorritos is 11 chips, yet the food is designed to make you want to eat much more than that. There are countless other examples. Delicious, high calorie, and not very high in "nutrition". One could say these foods are "to blame" and they are partly right. It doesn't negate calories in vs calories out though. This is where Taubes is wrong. It goes right along with CICO.

Mindlessly eating tons of high sugar, minimally nutritious, foods is a very easy way to let calories in get out of hand. Combine that with an all to common desk job and you have a recipe for obesity. Food choices will always matter, but they only matter in the context of CICO. If you have the discipline to actually portion out Dorritos, weigh them on a scale, and eat few enough of them to fit your calorie goals, they are not going to be a problem. You can do this with any high calorie, minimally nutritious food. After you do this long enough you learn a few things. The most important is that those minimally nutritious foods need to be a minority of your diet and things like lean meats, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains need to dominate your diet. Why? It's the only way to stay full! Now 11 dorritos for 150 calories might be something I can work in to my diet, but if hunger is an issue, are 11 dorritos or a full lb of broccoli (also 150 calories) going to be the best choice. This is where IIFYM shines. Anyone who achieves long term success with it will eventually realize that the majority of your diet must come from minimally processed, whole, foods. If it doesn't, you will probably be too hungry to adhere to the diet in the first place.

nancyjay__ wrote: »

Did you clean up your diet entirely? Meaning do you ever eat pizza or ice cream? Is it a super strict diet or are you pretty balanced and flexible?

There are no foods I do not eat. I will work in what I want in moderation on a daily basis.