INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER
Options
Replies
-
2
-
Wetcoaster wrote: »
Ok, the end of that got kind of funny.2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
BMI says Obesity = 35.7 - ha ha thats motivating!
That is were I clocked in at two years ago. One Day At a Time comes to mind. Best of success.2 -
I agree with Dr. Norton based on past podcasts/videos. I agree in this video that while IF works that I might not be idea for people currently dealing with eating this order but that could be a generic concern with any WOE with any ED.
https://youtu.be/l272mz5j0zE link to the above video.
Personally I find after eating LCHF for the last two years that in my case it is IF by default due to no carb cravings I get busy and skip meals. Before LCHF it was not easy to do IF because I would get the strong carb cravings in just a few hours. I get hungry still but still no cravings. Like Dr. Norton states over and over if it works to help on cut calories then it is a good option but not magic.2 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »
Ok, the end of that got kind of funny.
Got off on a tad bit of a rant lol.0 -
OP, if you start to exercise you should probably increase calories a bit, especially since you want to make this a long term game. Honestly, i would get a food scale and have my calories at 1500. At 4 weeks you can reassess your progress. I sid something similar and found i was able to push harder and make more progress at 2300 calories as compared to 1800.
This game is not just cutting calories low, its about finding an overall balance between a deficit and an amount of calories that will allow for long term sustainment.
If you do stay with 1200 take not of any changes in energy or awareness. If there is decline, inclease calories.4 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »
Ok, the end of that got kind of funny.
Wow!! I like that he said to question everything, including him, and to not turn into an a jerk about your particular way of eating.
1 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »
Ok, the end of that got kind of funny.
Wow!! I like that he said to question everything, including him, and to not turn into an a jerk about your particular way of eating.
Actually, it did seem rather harsh but he wasn't talking about all vegans but rather the vitriolic troll vegans that treat food like a religion and believe you are evil if you eat meat and love to post comments to that effect. He wasn't very diplomatic but if you want to see the some of what he was referring to you can look on YouTube for people like Vegan Gains, Durian Rider, and Freelee the banana girl to see how bad it can be. Also look at how they went after Alex Jamieson, ex-wife of Morgan Spurlock and well-known vegan chef, when she admitted to eating meat after years of veganism.
I don't think he personally has an issue with the vegan diet but rather certain zealots who like to get into your face and tell you how morally superior they are to you.4 -
OP, if you start to exercise you should probably increase calories a bit, especially since you want to make this a long term game. Honestly, I would get a food scale and have my calories at 1500. At 4 weeks you can reassess your progress. I did something similar and found I was able to push harder and make more progress at 2300 calories as compared to 1800.
This game is not just cutting calories low, its about finding an overall balance between a deficit and an amount of calories that will allow for long term sustainment.
If you do stay with 1200 take note of any changes in energy or awareness. If there is decline, increase calories.
Thanks for that advice - I do want this to be sustainable of course - but the on the other hand I want to reach the goal post quickly, as I am focused on my wedding in April (this time doing it for myself), so I guess I am aiming for a reasonably quick loss with 27 weeks to get down at least into the 70's.
Do you mind me asking whether your cals are set higher - is that the exercise?0 -
Happy Day Light Savings - Spring has Sprung!
Weighing-in in the mornings may not be entirely accurate as it seems to go right back up during the day, but it's keeping me motivated seeing the little losses anyway - I just want the scales to be fluctuating on the 90's side by the end of the month instead of in the 100's!
SW: 103.40 kg - 227.95 lbs.
GW: (for this month) 99.60 kgs - 219.58 lbs.
Need to lose 4.0 kgs - 8.8 lbs. (1kg per week or 2.20 lbs. per week)
Weigh in dates:
09/03 Sat: 103.40kg - 227.95 lbs.
09/10 Sat: 102.10kg - 225.09 lbs. (- 2.86 lbs.)
09/17 Sat: 101.50kg - 223.76 lbs. (- 1.33 lbs.)
09/24 Sat: 100.40kg - 221.34 lbs. (- 2.42 lbs.)
09/30 Fri:
5 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »Happy Day Light Savings - Spring has Sprung!
Weighing-in in the mornings may not be entirely accurate as it seems to go right back up during the day, but it's keeping me motivated seeing the little losses anyway - I just want the scales to be fluctuating on the 90's side by the end of the month instead of in the 100's!
SW: 103.40 kg - 227.95 lbs.
GW: (for this month) 99.60 kgs - 219.58 lbs.
Need to lose 4.0 kgs - 8.8 lbs. (1kg per week or 2.20 lbs. per week)
Weigh in dates:
09/03 Sat: 103.40kg - 227.95 lbs.
09/10 Sat: 102.10kg - 225.09 lbs. (- 2.86 lbs.)
09/17 Sat: 101.50kg - 223.76 lbs. (- 1.33 lbs.)
09/24 Sat: 100.40kg - 221.34 lbs. (- 2.42 lbs.)
09/30 Fri:
Congrats on your progress!2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »OP, if you start to exercise you should probably increase calories a bit, especially since you want to make this a long term game. Honestly, I would get a food scale and have my calories at 1500. At 4 weeks you can reassess your progress. I did something similar and found I was able to push harder and make more progress at 2300 calories as compared to 1800.
This game is not just cutting calories low, its about finding an overall balance between a deficit and an amount of calories that will allow for long term sustainment.
If you do stay with 1200 take note of any changes in energy or awareness. If there is decline, increase calories.
Thanks for that advice - I do want this to be sustainable of course - but the on the other hand I want to reach the goal post quickly, as I am focused on my wedding in April (this time doing it for myself), so I guess I am aiming for a reasonably quick loss with 27 weeks to get down at least into the 70's.
Do you mind me asking whether your cals are set higher - is that the exercise?
Psulemon is wise to advise sustainability. Pick numbers that are comfortable for you to lose on. You have to set your sights at slowly working towards eventually eating at maintenance level for your goal weight. Knowing that calorie range ahead of time will keep you at your eventual goal weight and prevent you from gaining weight.
As I am near goal I try not to go over maintenance calories when I take a diet break. Then I go back to reducing if I go up in weight by 2 pounds. But I'm not too drastic because my body rebels big time with strong urges to eat and cravings if I cut to vigorously. And because my deficit is small now I can easily gain weight if I frequently go over maintenance calories. You are doing terrific, BTW!2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »OP, if you start to exercise you should probably increase calories a bit, especially since you want to make this a long term game. Honestly, I would get a food scale and have my calories at 1500. At 4 weeks you can reassess your progress. I did something similar and found I was able to push harder and make more progress at 2300 calories as compared to 1800.
This game is not just cutting calories low, its about finding an overall balance between a deficit and an amount of calories that will allow for long term sustainment.
If you do stay with 1200 take note of any changes in energy or awareness. If there is decline, increase calories.
Thanks for that advice - I do want this to be sustainable of course - but the on the other hand I want to reach the goal post quickly, as I am focused on my wedding in April (this time doing it for myself), so I guess I am aiming for a reasonably quick loss with 27 weeks to get down at least into the 70's.
Do you mind me asking whether your cals are set higher - is that the exercise?
Psulemon is wise to advise sustainability. Pick numbers that are comfortable for you to lose on. You have to set your sights at slowly working towards eventually eating at maintenance level for your goal weight. Knowing that calorie range ahead of time will keep you at your eventual goal weight and prevent you from gaining weight.
As I am near goal I try not to go over maintenance calories when I take a diet break. Then I go back to reducing if I go up in weight by 2 pounds. But I'm not too drastic because my body rebels big time with strong urges to eat and cravings if I cut to vigorously. And because my deficit is small now I can easily gain weight if I frequently go over maintenance calories. You are doing terrific, BTW!
Great points. Different people take different approaches. Loss rate is much slower for me now than 40 years ago.
Some shoot for 1/2 pound a week just to learn a new way of eating at first. Actually if one can not make that work then 2 pounds per week is going to be a struggle. Seldom is weight loss the same week after week. Best of continued success.3 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »OP, if you start to exercise you should probably increase calories a bit, especially since you want to make this a long term game. Honestly, I would get a food scale and have my calories at 1500. At 4 weeks you can reassess your progress. I did something similar and found I was able to push harder and make more progress at 2300 calories as compared to 1800.
This game is not just cutting calories low, its about finding an overall balance between a deficit and an amount of calories that will allow for long term sustainment.
If you do stay with 1200 take note of any changes in energy or awareness. If there is decline, increase calories.
Thanks for that advice - I do want this to be sustainable of course - but the on the other hand I want to reach the goal post quickly, as I am focused on my wedding in April (this time doing it for myself), so I guess I am aiming for a reasonably quick loss with 27 weeks to get down at least into the 70's.
Do you mind me asking whether your cals are set higher - is that the exercise?
If you want to see the biggest changes in your body, then I will highly recommend lifting. Every person I know and work with has see huge improvements when they lift. Also, when you work to maintain muscle mass, there will be larger changes in body fat %. And honestly, body fat % > weight reductions. Heck, I can't tell you how many underweight people we work with in the gaining weight section and many have issues with stomach fat. It's because they have poor body composition. It's one of the reasons I would suggest a slightly smaller deficit, higher amounts of protein and a progressive resistance program like strongcurves or even a body resistance program like you are your own gym.
In terms of my calories, I maintain at 3000. I am currently doing an aggressive cut @ 2100 calories with protein between 1g per lb of lbm and weight, full a custom 3 day full body routine and add 2 to 3 days of HIIT/flexibility training (all with a desk job). One day a week, I do tend to bump calories to around 2500 to 2700 (last night 3100) for sanity.6 -
I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?1 -
I just wanted to share this, because there's a lot of anti-science talk going on on this thread.
Scientific claims aren't "always changing" the way they're being talked about here; they are in a constant state of refinement. We're not going to find out tomorrow that the sun revolves around the earth. It's just not going to happen. We may find out that it doesn't do this EXACTLY how we thought it does, but it still doesn't revolve around the earth. And that's no support for the idea that because "Science is always changing" that science is somehow unreliable or a waste of time. Science RARELY just up and changes it's mind on a set of facts. When science "changes" what it's doing is refining the statement it has made to be clearer, more correct, more accurate. But the basis of that statement remains true. We knew atoms existed before we could actually see them, and when we could finally see them, we confirmed a few things we believed about them as well as ADDED information that we didn't formerly have. But we didn't find out we were totally wrong and atoms do not in fact exist. We just found out more information about their existence That's what "science is always changing" really means. Not that we're gonna find out tomorrow the earth really was flat after all, but that maybe rather than perfectly spherical, it's a little oblong. Science changes by adding information to already existing bodies of facts, modifying them a LITTLE, not changing their minds entirely. The scientific method is the greatest tool we have for understanding the world around us. If there are errors it is self correcting. The only thing that will ever prove a scientific finding wrong is just better science.
When you read a "Shocking new discovery made by scientists!" in the paper, you're not hearing the Facts. You're not hearing something that is in line with the current model commonly accepted by the scientific community. You're hearing an over-stated, overblown, exaggerated all to hell HYPOTHESIS. The hypothesis is what the papers and magazines print because it's interesting. When a scientists says "hey I wonder if the coffee is what's killing them? Let's test that" the magazine reports "Coffee is killing us all! A shocking new study says that drinking coffee may be the reason you're fat and gonna die of heart disease!". That article may have NOTHING at all to do with the study, because what sells papers is that headline. The Hypothesis makes for the most interesting read, and science editors gotta make money, so that's what makes it into the article. Not the 30 following studies showing how the first study was totally flawed. Not the actual scientist who ran the study saying "but hey wait, I only tested 30 people, and even then there's a margin of error, and more importantly, I was trying to see if coffee is killing specifically this subset of people who consume fewer calories due to coffee, and specifically, those who are already underweight and at risk for X". When you see "Science is changing all the time" you're seeing *hypotheses* changing. Which they're supposed to do. What changes all the time (again, by design) are hypotheses -- not theories (a grouping of FACTS that describe one model of how X works, in science, theory means something very different from how we use it in the common tongue), and certainly not facts. A hypothesis is, after all, an early part of the scientific method; a tentative explanation for something which is then tested by experimentation and more observation. And science doesn't make claims about hypotheses, it TESTS them. Then, if the hypothesis can be repeatedly, rigorously tested and proven over and over and over again, then and only then, it can be accepted as a truthful statement about reality.
And most importantly of all, if you come across a "scientific claim" that seems to completely contradict an existing model (body of facts) stop for a minute and nerd the heck out of that claim. It is incredibly rare, so rare we're talking almost never (think back to Galileo), for some single new piece of evidence in some single study to completely change an already existing scientific model of reality. No one is gonna come up with anything tomorrow that will completely disprove CICO. All that will happen is that that portion of thermodynamics might be refined to be EVEN MORE accurate than it already is. We're REALLY SURE the earth revolves around the sun. Positive. If tomorrow something in science "changes" that, it will only "change" it in such a way as to make it more accurate than it already is. "The earth revolves the sun AND... BY... BECAUSE..." Science "changing" is simply the addition of a modifier, and is Frequently the addition of SUPPORTING evidence for the already existing model.10 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?
I found the learning curve was steep in my case as well. The math is a 'guess' at best. While I counted up my calories using the best guess info out there it was helpful since I had no idea about what kind of calories was in what kind of foods.
For the past two years I just weigh myself each morning. That gives me the net results of my eating as in CICO which really can never be totally calculated at home anyway. If I am gaining my net CI is greater than my net CO. If maintaining then CI=CO and if losing naturally my CI is < CO. This cuts out all food weighing and calorie counting for the most part.
Counting and weighing can be a real learning process on the start and I am not anti food weighing or calorie counting but after yo yo dieting for 40 years I made a commitment this time around to stop dieting and just eat to improve my health markers. For 18 months I have maintained at 200 with a range of 195 to 205 without counting or food weighing, any cravings or going hungry causing me to think about food between meals and often I go 10 hours without eating almost daily.
While this works for me just keep doing what you are doing and modify your WOE as needed. I do eat around 2500 calories daily with my macro so I stay stuffed most all of the time. The macro does vary but it is more or less 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% mostly saturated fats. PUFA's fats I try to avoid.
#1 in my case I had to figure out the best Macro of Carbs/Protein/Fats then I looked at the about of calories making up my macro. I did all this for pain management and found I needed to keep my daily carbs <50 grams and in my case I left off sugar and all grains. 30 days later my pain dropped from levels of 7-8 to 2-3 so I knew I had hit pay dirt. My weight loss of 50 pounds early on was really just a side effect of my successful pain management way of eating (WOE).2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?
Maintenance is just eating at your TDEE. TDEE is just another way to think of the sweet spot where calories in = calories out. No weight loss or gain. There are several TDEE calculators online. TDEE at your current weight minus about 500 should be your weight loss daily goal calories. A 500 calorie deficit for 7 days gives you a 3500 calorie weekly deficit. 3500 calories is a pound. One pound per week is about as fast as you should lose to be sustainable. Hope that helps.2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?
Collect data for another 3 weeks and then we can actually figure out your average maintenance. I generally do not include the first 2 weeks worth of data due to huge swing. And then you continue to recalculate as you go to refine your maintenance or TDEE. Below is how that math is working out for you currently. Hopefully going forward you can just plug the formula into an excel and modify based on current results.
Since I don't have access to your food diary, i have to extrapolate your intake based on what you said.
Calories in
Average daily intake: 1200
Calories out
((2.86 + 1.33 + 2.42)/3) = 2.203333
Calories in a lb = 3500
Estimated weekly deficit
2.203333 * 3500 = 7,711.666667
Estimated daily deficit
7,711.666667/7 = 1101.666667
Estimated daily maintenance
1200 + 1101.66667 = 2301.666667
So that is how the math plays out. But what this data shows you, is that as long as you eat under 2300 calories, you should lose weight. Now, this is a continuous feedback loop, meaning that something like this needs to be updated throughout your weight loss because your TDEE will go down (generally, even though mine didn't) because as you weigh less, your body will burn less calories through daily activities (NEAT) and exercise.
As noted earlier, this would confirm that eating 1500 calories would still put you in a good position to lose weight, but it will also provide you a little extra room to get more nutrition to support long term goals.1 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions