What do y'all think about this diet/exercise plan?

pokerbunny
pokerbunny Posts: 3 Member
edited November 2024 in Food and Nutrition
I'd really like to lose about 30-40 lbs this year. I'm a woman, 5'6 and 167 lbs. For the past 2 weeks, I've done the below and have found it to work very well with my appetite, schedule, and lifestyle. I don't have a problem eating the same foods again and again, but was wondering, if any of you had any thoughts or experiences to share about my food and exercise plan.

Meals:
Breakfast - 1 whole apple or spinach/apple smoothie (blended, not juiced with chia and flax seed)
Mid-Morning - 5 walnuts (raw, unsalted)
Lunch - Salad (spinach, tomatoes, crushed walnuts), an olive oil dressing.
Afternoon snack - a bag of snap peas on its own. Maybe 1/2 lb? A full ziplock (I love snap peas!)
Dinner (usually at 6pm) - spinach/apple smoothie, a can of tuna or 2 scrambled eggs, a smaller side of salad
Before bed - drink a glass of water, sometimes I am hungry, but I'll eat a few raw walnuts and it fills me up

Exercise:
Everyday - run/walk/run for an hour - I don't know the KMs because I can't map out my neighbourhood path.
Twice a week - spend 10 minutes on the weight lifting machine, mainly for lat pulldown, tricep curl, etc.

I've done this for the past 2 weeks and have lost 10 lbs already and find my energy level very high and sleep very well. However, with a long term focus to shed 30-40 lbs in total, will this meal and exercise suffice? Am I eating too little protein? Will I stop losing weight no matter my meals if I do the same running routine for the next few months?

Appreciate your response in advance - thank you!
«1

Replies

  • pokerbunny
    pokerbunny Posts: 3 Member
    Thank you! For some reason, I get very full after I complete a run or workout, so it's hard for me to build my appetite to eat even a whole can of tuna. I'm not sure why. I'll try to enter in my food into MFP again, but the reason why I haven't this time around is that the last time I went through this - while sort of succcessful - it felt like my whole life revolved around losing weight. It became almost obsessive and I didn't like that and stopped. I think I'll add some black beans to my salads to help with the protein :)
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    pokerbunny wrote: »
    Thank you! For some reason, I get very full after I complete a run or workout, so it's hard for me to build my appetite to eat even a whole can of tuna. I'm not sure why. I'll try to enter in my food into MFP again, but the reason why I haven't this time around is that the last time I went through this - while sort of succcessful - it felt like my whole life revolved around losing weight. It became almost obsessive and I didn't like that and stopped. I think I'll add some black beans to my salads to help with the protein :)

    The black beans are a good idea.

    I would pay attention to your weight of loss. If you continue to lose 2+ pounds a week, you should figure out ways to eat more. You could try more walnuts, some hummus or dressing with your snap peas, nut butter in your smoothie, things like that. When I'm not hungry due to exercise (it happens to me sometimes too), I find calorie-dense foods go down pretty easy. But if you are at a high deficit, you could also find that your hunger comes back after a couple of weeks. Sometimes our bodies find it easy to go low at first and then we get really hungry (that was what happened to me -- I was okay eating very low calorie until suddenly I wasn't -- all I could think about was food and I was hungry all the time).

    Good luck!
  • perkymommy
    perkymommy Posts: 1,642 Member
    I couldn't survive on what you are eating. I don't eat a ton more per meal but you aren't getting much protein. I say try to eat whatever you like but make sure you are measuring/weighing everything. Eat realistically for how you know you will eat for many years to come.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    ^Starvation mode is a myth.

  • UGET1LIFE
    UGET1LIFE Posts: 9 Member
    CBD92 wrote: »
    Hi there!

    Just reading through the comments and the first couple things I thought was "I don't think this person is eating enough protein" and also you mentioned you don't know why you feel full quickly after running! When it comes to eating after training, it's best to do it slowly. Throughout the day there's a whole lot of blood flow to the stomach to aid with digestion of your food. When you are training, a lot of that blood goes to your muscles so you just don't simply have enough blood in your organs to digest food at the normal rate. So this makes you feel full quickly or it makes you feel absolutely sick when you eat. While timing of food intake after exercise is important, it's not so important that you need to eat immediately after. Try doing a nice long stretching/relaxation session after your training (I stretch for 20 min, but sometimes that's just not possible for people) and really focus on your breathing and calming your body down. Inhaling naturally speeds up the heart rate, and exhaling naturally slows it down. So focus on night long steady exhalations throughout your cool down. This will help bring your body back to pre workout mode. Sip water the whole time and it will really help you to eat after!

    As far as how much you're eating, I'm not too sure because I can't see the amounts but it sees to me like you might not be getting enough calories. You eat SO many vegetable and that's so awesome! But it'll really Help you so much to add in some other nutrients in there. For example, I don't really see any non-veg and fruit carbs such as bread, grains, potatoes etc. Is there a specific reason you're staying away from carbs?

    One thing I'll say about low carb diets (not saying that's what your plan is, but just in case) is this...Carbs are stored mainly in the muscles (a bit in the liver) and they are stored along with water. They are stored as units called glycogen. For ever1 g of carb stored, another 3 g of water is stored with it. So if you think about that, carbs are what keeps our muscles hydrated! When people go on low carb diets, they see DRASTIC weight loss, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are los my fat. It's just water weight that they'll gain back as soon as they hydrate. So you see, carbs play a very important role in health! So don't be shy. Too make fad diets claim to make you lose all this weight by cutting carbs, and it's true. You do lose weight! But what would you rather...see results in your body image by reducing your fat, or see results in the scale by reducing your hydration? The scale is, in my opinion, one of the worst inventions haha. It's just all false hope!

    Okay, so if I haven't lost you yet, the last thing I wanna talk about is your BMR. Every person has a different BMR based on their height, age, weight and gender. BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the number of calories your body burns at rest over 24 hours. For example, my BMR is 1633, which means if I did nothing but sleep for 24 hours, my body would burn 1633 calories! This calorie burn comes from your heart pumping blood, lungs breathing, metabolism running, and all your other organs working/immune system fighting etc. So if you do not eat your BMR, you're actually starving your body and it won't be able to function at its peak! It may seem logical, "eat as little as possible and you'll lose more weight" which is true to a certain extent, but only if you're meeting your BMR at least. So for example, I eat 1633 calories every day, I don't retain a single calorie because my body burns it all just to function! So any other exercise/walking/cleaning I do during the day counts as a total calorie deficit and all that I burn will count towards weight loss!

    What happens when we don't hit that BMR, we actually go into starvation mode. Your body holds onto as much fat as it can because it is trying to conserve energy as it is afraid it won't get more energy. It's a defensive mechanism. Also, the metabolism (along with other bodily functions) cannot work properly, and the slower your metabolism, the slower your weight loss! To add even more to that, when you starve yourself (by a little or a lot) this puts extreme stress on the body. When you're stressed you have an over production of the stress hormone "cortisol". Cortisol itself promotes weight gain and makes it extremely difficult to lose weight.

    There are a thousand more reasons to eat your BMR, but these are just a few of the weight loss reasons! As you lose weight, your BMR will change. So keep checking it so make sure you're never eating too much but always eating enough! I've seen the best results I've ever seen once I started making sure I ate my BMR and didn't go too far over it. And the results are permanent!

    I hope that wasn't too long/didn't bore you and I hope it helps! Feel free to add me if you ever want to chat more. Always happy to help! :)
    Cheers
    M
    there is a lot of great info.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • JohnnyPenso
    JohnnyPenso Posts: 412 Member
    edited March 2017
    Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »
    As @cerise_noir said, starvation mode does not exist, otherwise there would be no anorexics.
    The U.S. National Library of Medicine disagrees with you. Adaptive thermogenisis is real. It doesn't mean your body shuts off when you lose weight or reduce caloric intake but it does slow down:

    The responses of lean and obese individuals to experimental perturbations of body weight suggest that the magnitude of stored energy, particularly fat, is defended by central nervous system-mediated mechanisms that are similar, if not identical in lean and obese individuals. In both lean and obese individuals, there is potent “opposition” to the maintenance of reduced body weight that is achieved by coordinated regulation of energy intake and expenditure mediated by signals emanating from adipose, gastrointestinal, and endocrine tissues, and integrated by the liver and by central nervous system (see Table 1).

    It's also true that a formerly obese individual must consume less calories, all else equal, than a never obese person, to maintain the same weight after weightloss:
    Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass 11, 12. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. Studies of individuals successful at sustaining weight loss indicate that reduced weight maintenance requires long-term lifestyle alterations 9. The necessity for these long-term changes is consistent with the observation that the reduction in twenty four hour energy expenditure (TEE) persists in subjects who have sustained weight loss for extended periods of time (6 months – 7 years) in circumstances of enforced caloric restriction in the biosphere 2 project 13, bariatric surgery 14 and lifestyle modification 15.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    Yes, adaptive thermogenesis is real, but "starvation mode" as the poster mentioned a few posts above is a myth. The body will not hold onto all its fat on low calorie. If it did, no one would die from starvation.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited March 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    JohnnyPenso wrote: »
    Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »
    As @cerise_noir said, starvation mode does not exist, otherwise there would be no anorexics.
    The U.S. National Library of Medicine disagrees with you. Adaptive thermogenisis is real. It doesn't mean your body shuts off when you lose weight or reduce caloric intake but it does slow down:

    Read the post they were replying to. Adaptive thermogenesis certainly does exist, but the "starvation mode" bunk about the body holding onto every bit of fat it can is completely incorrect. It's a myth that often gets regurgitated around here, but repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
  • JohnnyPenso
    JohnnyPenso Posts: 412 Member
    edited March 2017
    As I said in my post, AT doesn't mean your body shuts down and holds on to all fat, but it does attempt to hold on to what it's got. Call it by whatever makes you feel good, but "potent opposition to reduced bodyweight" and formerly obese individuals having to eat 300-400 less calories per day than someone who is never obese to maintain the same bodyweight, could easily be called or mistaken for a starvation mode in lay terms.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    JohnnyPenso wrote: »
    As I said in my post, AT doesn't mean your body shuts down and holds on to all fat, but it does attempt to hold on to what it's got. Call it by whatever makes you feel good, but "potent opposition to reduced bodyweight" and formerly obese individuals having to eat 300-400 less calories per day than someone who is never obese to maintain the same bodyweight, could easily be called or mistaken for a starvation mode in lay terms.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
  • pokerbunny
    pokerbunny Posts: 3 Member
    Thanks everyone! Especially CBD92 :) I'm just going to see a nutritionist next week and get their "official" help in meal planning. It doesn't help that I'm an extremely picky eater (I've always been) but for the time being, I've added some whole grain toast, cauliflower or lentil soup to lunch or dinner. Thanks again!!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    JohnnyPenso wrote: »
    As I said in my post, AT doesn't mean your body shuts down and holds on to all fat, but it does attempt to hold on to what it's got. Call it by whatever makes you feel good, but "potent opposition to reduced bodyweight" and formerly obese individuals having to eat 300-400 less calories per day than someone who is never obese to maintain the same bodyweight, could easily be called or mistaken for a starvation mode in lay terms.

    But the point being made was not that AT does not exist, but that starvation mode as it's usually used on MFP (and was being used in the post at issue) does not exist. Specifically:
    What happens when we don't hit that BMR, we actually go into starvation mode. Your body holds onto as much fat as it can because it is trying to conserve energy as it is afraid it won't get more energy....

    This is incorrect. Your body does not hold on to as much fat as possible (the idea that we stop losing fat if we eat too little is wrong). Instead, if you eat at a deficit over time (varying depending on how low, the amount of time, and how much fat you had when doing it), you will get some degree of AT, but never to the point of not losing weight and it is NOT the the same thing the body "holding onto fat."

    Also, it absolutely does not happen just because you go below BMR. You body can't tell if you are at BMR or not, as BMR is a hypothetical number, an estimate of what you'd maintain on if complete sedentary (i.e., in a coma). What matters is whether a deficit is too aggressive, but that depends on deficit from TDEE and total body fat and how much you have to lose. Many people who are not that active or who have lots to lose are fine below BMR.

    That said, I agree that OP is probably eating less than she should be, but not because of "starvation mode." More immediate concern is that it's likely not healthy and will exacerbate muscle loss.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited March 2017
    CBD92 wrote: »
    ...What happens when we don't hit that BMR, we actually go into starvation mode. Your body holds onto as much fat as it can because it is trying to conserve energy as it is afraid it won't get more energy. It's a defensive mechanism...

    I'm still waiting for somebody who believes in this "theory" to explain why we don't have a bunch of fatties walking around in third world countries where food scarcity is a fact of everyday life. And why everybody in concentration camps didn't weigh 300 pounds. And why anorexics (who eat WAY below BMR on a daily basis for extended periods of time) somehow end up getting skinny.
  • JohnnyPenso
    JohnnyPenso Posts: 412 Member
    edited March 2017
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for somebody who believes in this "theory" to explain why we don't have a bunch of fatties walking around in third world countries where food scarcity is a fact of everyday life. And why everybody in concentration camps didn't weigh 300 pounds. And why anorexics (who eat WAY below BMR on a daily basis for extended periods of time) somehow end up getting skinny.
    Happy to help you with that. Because it's not an absolute thing. The key phrase is, the body holds on to as much fat "as it can". There are limits as to how much your metabolism can slow to help reduce energy output. You can't go to zero unless you are dead. But science tells us that your metabolism can and does slow in response to reduced caloric intake, and also that in formerly obese individuals, they must consume less calories than a never obese person of the same body composition in order to maintain their weight.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    pokerbunny wrote: »
    Thanks everyone! Especially CBD92 :) I'm just going to see a nutritionist next week and get their "official" help in meal planning. It doesn't help that I'm an extremely picky eater (I've always been) but for the time being, I've added some whole grain toast, cauliflower or lentil soup to lunch or dinner. Thanks again!!

    Really?

    Don't go to a nutritionist, see a DIETITIAN. They're more qualified (3-4 years at Uni as opposed to a weekend course.)
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    JohnnyPenso wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for somebody who believes in this "theory" to explain why we don't have a bunch of fatties walking around in third world countries where food scarcity is a fact of everyday life. And why everybody in concentration camps didn't weigh 300 pounds. And why anorexics (who eat WAY below BMR on a daily basis for extended periods of time) somehow end up getting skinny.
    Happy to help you with that. Because it's not an absolute thing. The key phrase is, the body holds on to as much fat "as it can". There are limits as to how much your metabolism can slow to help reduce energy output. You can't go to zero unless you are dead. But science tells us that your metabolism can and does slow in response to reduced caloric intake, and also that in formerly obese individuals, they must consume less calories that a never obese person of the same body composition in order to maintain their weight.

    I fully understand what metabolic adaptation is and I acknowledge that it exists and has been scientifically proven. That's an entirely different thing from the "starvation mode" people who claim that you will stop losing, or even gain, weight in response to a severe caloric deficit. That simply does not happen - unless, as you said, you are dead. In which case you have other, more pressing issues to worry about. Then decomposition takes priority over recomposition.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • pamfgil
    pamfgil Posts: 449 Member
    I'd be interested to know what the people they used to work that out had done, cause if they lost muscle and far while losing weight, and did not do enough strength training, I could see them having a lower maintenance level
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • JohnnyPenso
    JohnnyPenso Posts: 412 Member
    Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »
    JohnnyPenso wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for somebody who believes in this "theory" to explain why we don't have a bunch of fatties walking around in third world countries where food scarcity is a fact of everyday life. And why everybody in concentration camps didn't weigh 300 pounds. And why anorexics (who eat WAY below BMR on a daily basis for extended periods of time) somehow end up getting skinny.
    Happy to help you with that. Because it's not an absolute thing. The key phrase is, the body holds on to as much fat "as it can". There are limits as to how much your metabolism can slow to help reduce energy output. You can't go to zero unless you are dead. But science tells us that your metabolism can and does slow in response to reduced caloric intake, and also that in formerly obese individuals, they must consume less calories that a never obese person of the same body composition in order to maintain their weight.

    I turn 31 years old in 17 days.
    I used to be 300 pounds and was 250-300 pounds since my early teen years.
    Before that i was still obese for my age, height
    At 9 years old the doctor told my mother i was very over weight and needed to lose. I was already over 100 pounds by then.

    So.. @JohnnyPenso
    I am maintaining my 117 pound weight loss with a maintenance of 2300 a day based on my TDEE. Without exercise if i follow MFPs NEAT method my maintenance is 1820

    I put my stats into calculators all over and while the numbers vary slightly i get the same numbers anyone would get for my age weight height and activity level.. So how much more formally do i need to be obese before the need for less calories applies? There is clearly more to it then just randomly blurting out this same phrase in regards to adaptive thermogenesis, you're not really explaining anything more into it you are just repeating yourself twice and it's still not starvation mode in any sense, my body isn't holding on to fat anymore then someone who has been normal weight their whole life, i am now the same size as my friend Tasha and her and i went to school together since early jr high and shes never been big, so when does the starvation mode start out of curiosity?
    Anecdotes don't disprove science. Science is about measuring larger groups and exposing trends and and statistical probabilities in a general population. The resulting predictors don't apply to everyone, individually and exactly equally, just to the group as a whole. What happens to you may not happen to everyone, that's not how it works.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • brdnw
    brdnw Posts: 565 Member
    spending 10 minutes of time lifting isn't enough effort, spending more time lifting would be more beneficial to fat loss than walking aroudn your neighborhood. I think you need more protein in your diet too
  • cathipa
    cathipa Posts: 2,991 Member
    You need more protein, fat and calories in general for the amount of activity you plan to do. As far as the activity swap the time doing cardio for weight training and you will see results.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,106 Member
    JohnnyPenso wrote: »
    Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »
    JohnnyPenso wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for somebody who believes in this "theory" to explain why we don't have a bunch of fatties walking around in third world countries where food scarcity is a fact of everyday life. And why everybody in concentration camps didn't weigh 300 pounds. And why anorexics (who eat WAY below BMR on a daily basis for extended periods of time) somehow end up getting skinny.
    Happy to help you with that. Because it's not an absolute thing. The key phrase is, the body holds on to as much fat "as it can". There are limits as to how much your metabolism can slow to help reduce energy output. You can't go to zero unless you are dead. But science tells us that your metabolism can and does slow in response to reduced caloric intake, and also that in formerly obese individuals, they must consume less calories that a never obese person of the same body composition in order to maintain their weight.

    I turn 31 years old in 17 days.
    I used to be 300 pounds and was 250-300 pounds since my early teen years.
    Before that i was still obese for my age, height
    At 9 years old the doctor told my mother i was very over weight and needed to lose. I was already over 100 pounds by then.

    So.. @JohnnyPenso
    I am maintaining my 117 pound weight loss with a maintenance of 2300 a day based on my TDEE. Without exercise if i follow MFPs NEAT method my maintenance is 1820

    I put my stats into calculators all over and while the numbers vary slightly i get the same numbers anyone would get for my age weight height and activity level.. So how much more formally do i need to be obese before the need for less calories applies? There is clearly more to it then just randomly blurting out this same phrase in regards to adaptive thermogenesis, you're not really explaining anything more into it you are just repeating yourself twice and it's still not starvation mode in any sense, my body isn't holding on to fat anymore then someone who has been normal weight their whole life, i am now the same size as my friend Tasha and her and i went to school together since early jr high and shes never been big, so when does the starvation mode start out of curiosity?
    Anecdotes don't disprove science. Science is about measuring larger groups and exposing trends and and statistical probabilities in a general population. The resulting predictors don't apply to everyone, individually and exactly equally, just to the group as a whole. What happens to you may not happen to everyone, that's not how it works.

    So, how many people were in the study you quoted from, but neglected to provide a citation or link for? I'll be shocked if it wasn't either
    1) a pretty small number, not "a large group" or
    2) it relied on individual recollections of past weight, past food intake, and probably even current food intake.

    Science is also about replicable results. Was the study a one-off, or have other researchers been able to replicate the results?

    I'll add my anecdote to Kriss's. I was obese for about 20 years before using calorie counting to lose 15% of my BW. Three years into maintenance, my NEAT is about 100 calories higher than it was when I first started losing the weight (based on my actual calorie intake both times, not on any calculator), and it's significantly higher than the averages predicted for someone with my stats. I have a desk job, no kids to chase around or anything else to make me especially active in my off hours, I log pretty much all the outside walking I do as "exercise," and I still have to tell MFP I'm "active" to get its estimate of my NEAT to be close to (but still about 200 calories under) my actual NEAT.

    I lifted during the weight loss and first two and half years of maintenance, but with nearly enough consistency and progression to be gaining any meaningful amount of muscle.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,311 Member
    OP does not need to do lifting to lose weight though - she just needs to eat less than she burns.

    For the sake of health, nutrition and long term adherence, not too much less though - ie her deficit seems too aggressive, I agree.

    OP put your stats into MFP and tell it you want to lose 1lb per week and eat as accurately as possible to that calorie level.
    Aiming to have a variety of mostly nutritious foods that you enjoy and aim to hit roughly the default macro settings - but don't stress about doing this bit too exactly.

    In short, don't make it more complicated or difficult than it really is.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories