Anyone doing Pahla Bs 5-O?

My own experience of calorie c ounting pre and post menopause ( lost in 2013 and maintained since) is that the calorie amount required did not change.

I did lose at 1/2lb per week ( on average) because I set my rate at that and ate that many calories.

Whether 1/2 lb per week is best rate for you depends on your starting weight and how much you have to lose, rather than your age

I lost a bit of weight I had struggled with for years in my menopausal years (at around age 50). I definitely don't thing that it affected my ability to lose weight. I think many of us gradually move less and less as we age and that is the main contributory factor.

LeeH31 wrote: »

@AnnPT77 @paperpudding Pahla B propounds that most of us are so conditioned to the "eat less, move more" that we try to eat too little and exercise too much all at once, which can lead to fatigue and failure to comply. Her basic recommendation is to be content with 1/2 lb. per week loss and not such severe calorie restriction, eat what you like (not excluding categories of foods unless allergic), and to start exercising gently and build up your strength and endurance gradually (her exercise videos are about 25 minutes including warm up) with daily exercise. Also, she is very emphatic about being CONSISTENT with calories and activity.

This is supposed to help you avoid stressing your body with ups and downs of either eating or exercise.

She is also very vocal about the mind/body connection and how your thoughts can affect your progress. Not in a "visualize and it will be so" way. More the "if you think negative thoughts about yourself it causes stress" way.

As for me, I am a 255 lb. (SW 272 lb.), 5' 5", 63 year old fat lady! Lightly active throughout the day. Walk 25 minutes daily, starting to do some very light resistance work so I don't hurt my tendons and ligaments. I would like to lose 100 pounds more. I had been trying to lose 1.5#/wk (1400 cal). But I think I could be comfortable with 1#/wk (1900). 1/2#/wk would frustrate the crap outa me! Patience is NOT a virtue in my repertoire

One of the main benefits I can see from losing slower is less of a jump in calories when transitioning to maintenance.

The rationale is reasonable, and I'm 100%+ behind the bolded being true for many people, perhaps especially women, perhaps especially women our age.

I don't think menopause is all that relevant, though, nor estrogen.

Personally, I don't think consistency per se is all that important either, but that's maybe a "for me" issue. I agree that staying the course in a general sense is important, but I don't eat the same amount daily or do the same amount of activity daily (doesn't suit my preferences or personality), but rather I manage to averages over time instead of to daily consistency. However, a more structured consistency works better for some people, perhaps many/most.

I think that understanding and respecting our individual preferences, inclinations, strengths and challenges is fairly important to success . . . in other words, finding a *personalized* approach that works. If her approach works well for you, and having a set of rules/guidelines is helpful, then that would be perfect.

If 1900-ish sounds workable to you, why not try that? (Be clear with yourself about whether you're doing the MFP thing, i.e., getting a base calorie estimate from MFP using an activity setting based on daily life then logging/eating exercise when you do it (or synching an activity tracker), or using a "same calories every day" TDEE method with a calorie estimate from a TDEE calculator (that averages in planned exercise) or (even better) heybales TDEE spreadsheet. Mixing and matching those sources/methods can trip people up.)

Regardless, use your experience from 4-6 weeks on the new regimen to adjust your intake as necessary, so not losing too fast (or slow). The "calculators", MFP, fitness trackers are all estimates, but our own experience data tells the more precise story.

I included the 2 paragraphs above, BTW, partly because I'm not sure whether you're getting your estimates from Pahla, or some other method.

Some will think this is heresy, but I agree that it can make sense to start with lower weight, perhaps higher rep, strength exercise, and increase cautiously/gradually. I've seen some experts suggesting that's especially a good idea for those of us who are aging. I tend to do that, when I phase strength training back into my schedule, because I've learned that any injury "costs" more than it did when I was much younger: It takes longer to recover, I detrain faster while I'm at reduced exercise during that recovery, then it takes longer to regain full capability again. Avoiding injury, for those reasons, IMO is calendar time efficient, for progress.

All of that said, another thing that I think can plague people, especially aging people, perhaps especially women our age (pre title IX in the US) is low expectations about what we can do physically, or how far we can progress . . . not just low expectations from others, but low expectations of ourselves. Maybe that's a particular case of "think negative thoughts of yourself and it causes problems".

So, there's some balance needed IMO between caution and too-low expectations, and that's kind of difficult to figure out, if new to exercise. (I was a late bloomer exercise-wise, but started being active in my mid-40s after cancer treatment, just stayed overweight/obese for another dozen years or so while active, before losing to a healthy weight and maintaining here for a few years).

If you find that 1900ish works for you, feels sustainable, it seems fine to ride that out for a while. If you have a temporary stretch where things get tough (life challenges, need to heal, whatever), eating maintenance for a while would hold you steady, and also give you some maintenance practice. (Only quitting altogether ends badly!) In the long run, as you approach goal weight, you might even want to slow the loss rate down, eat a bit more, create an off-ramp to coast into maintenance calories.

I'm sure you realize that as you get lighter, your calorie needs theoretically get lower, so calorie goal adjustment may be needed . . . but it's also not unusual for some to find that as they get lighter, they're peppier and more active through the day (especially if they're conscious of trying to be), and the calorie needs don't then decrease as much as they might anticipate based on lower weight alone.

But none of that needs to be figured out let alone handled now. As you continue on a sustainable-for-you course, you'll learn a lot, and gain confidence in your logging/tracking practices, and that will make the process easier, I predict.

Congratulations on your progress so far, and best wishes for continued success!

P.S. BTW, FWIW, I'm also 5'5", but age 65, so we're pretty close demographically . . . it's just that I'm in a different phase, post weight loss, at least post major weight loss, generally maintaining weight these days, other than the occasional few pounds up/down along that route within the healthy range. Also, FWIW, I'm eating 1850 + exercise most of the time, though I'm admittedly a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner for some reason(s), since I'm not very active outside of the exercise.

LeeH31 wrote: »

@AnnPT77 You have no idea how much you just made my day. I have read your posts, and seen the changes you made. Madam, you have my deep respect!

Now that I've brown-nosed you to death, I have to say that I truly do respect your opinion. And I agree very much that each person has to deal with their own metabolism as it works for them.

I was never an athlete, however, I was very strong due to the nature of my work. As I aged, ugly fibromyalgia reared its head and I was told not to exert myself (as that was the thinking of the medical profession at the time). About the same time I discovered I had an irregular aortic valve in my heart, which prompted the cardiologist to warn me about strenuous exercise. As a consequence I changed to a desk job and became rather sedentary at home, which simply made everything worse. Weight accumulated, 'nuff said about that!

Fast forward to the present. The thinking on exercise and fibromyalgia has totally changed. My new cardiologist told me as long as I don't have to hold my breath to do it, then toning resistance work(no power lifting) would be fine. My body responds very quickly to exercise, however, I am aware that my ligaments and tendons are not equal to my muscles and need time to acclimate to the new challenges I am placing on them.


"Some will think this is heresy, but I agree that it can make sense to start with lower weight, perhaps higher rep, strength exercise, and increase cautiously/gradually. I've seen some experts suggesting that's especially a good idea for those of us who are aging. I tend to do that, when I phase strength training back into my schedule, because I've learned that any injury "costs" more than it did when I was much younger: It takes longer to recover, I detrain faster while I'm at reduced exercise during that recovery, then it takes longer to regain full capability again. Avoiding injury, for those reasons, IMO is calendar time efficient, for progress."

Definitely on board with your thinking here! As for expectations (picture me with a wry smirk and rolling eyes) I have mile-high expectations. My Amazon wish list is just packed with weight bars, plates, bench, cage, dumbbells, etc. Right now I am working with resistance bands and using the little yellow 3# one for triceps. 😜 To say I have high hopes is putting it mildly! Wish I had access to a gym and trainer, but alas, not here.

Been studying Delavier's Women's Strength Training and Anatomy book. He cautions about stressing tendons and not trying to do too much all at once, rather to build up slowly.

Anyway, I am upping my calories, slowly adding in more walking, and increasing my resistance incrementally. Wish my knees weren't bad, makes squats and lunges seem impossible. I am doing sit-to-stands though, and can do 15 in a row now.

Sorry for the loooong post. It just made me a little excited that you agreed with what I was thinking but was too unsure of my own opinion (which doesn't happen often, let me tell you!)

Thanks again. Most helpful.

Respectful hugs,

Lee

This whole post ^^^ , plus others above, makes me *predict* success for you. Hugs right back, and best wishes!

P.S. Thanks for the nice comments; I'm blushing!

Side note: I was never an athlete, either . . . until gradually I was, at close to age 50, much to my surprise, not to mention the surprise of my long-term friends.