Weight Loss Thread

Ubiquitrips_sl said:

See, this is one area where I am somewhat confused. If you aren't hungry, should you still eat that many calories?

Click to expand...

If your TDEE is 2700 then if you ate 2700 calories you will not gain or lose weight. You could eat 2000, 2200, 2400, 2500 and still lose weight, obviously the weight loss will be slower the more you eat but it will still be weight loss. Eating 1500 just seems way too low and you're just depriving yourself of nutrients. Eat 2000-2200 and analyse your current meals to see what you're lacking, eg if you're cutting back on meat then add more meat for protein, maybe you're short of veg so add these back in etc

Denaut_sl said:

I've mentioned this before, but counting Calories alone it not sufficient for long term weight control. The secret to weight loss being "Calories in < Calories out" is in fact largely a fiction.

Click to expand...

I've spent the last 6 months not counting calories on a low carb none processed food approach, dropped 6-7kg and 10% body fat. HOWEVER, I've just pre planned all my meals for this week and am making sure that I eat -30 maintenance on none training days and -10% maintenance on training days, whilst of course still tracking macro nutrients. Since coming back from Glastonbury my results have been a little inconsistent and I want to get back to losing minimum 0.5% a week.

I'm not a fan of calorie counting. Although Ive done it and been successful with it, it's too much of a hassle for me long term. The other issue is how inexact counting is. From human error in screwing up the weights and numbers to the huge variables like metabolism, calorie expenditures and the rest. If you watch the body builders who get to sub 5% body fat, a lot of them simply eat less and less to account for the shitty metabolism they have from eating less and less.

Pick what you want to do. Count, weigh and measure, or food choices, or both. If you have a lot to lose almost anything works so choose what you like and then track progress. If you stall for a couple of weeks reassess and change things up.

I find that counting calories is actually great if you are trying to lose weight, even with human error. Before I counted calories, I would eat whatever I wanted and go "hmm that seems like a reasonable amount". Now, even though I don't measure in exact portions sometimes (don't weigh chicken breast, etc), I find myself really examining what I eat a lot more. My real downfall has always been peanut butter M&M's, they are absolutely great. I could eat an entire 55oz bag at once probably. So I decided I would have some one day and looked up the calories... I was eating close to 700-1000 calories in one sitting each time. I don't even eat them any more, because it's not reasonable to eat such a small amount.

I don't usually go exactly to what my calorie goal is everyday, but I stay within reason. And I also find that if I want to be more satisfied and "full" from what I eat, I find myself choosing healthier, heartier options.

Maybe it won't work for some, but those are my reasons anyways. It sort of steered me towards a more healthy eating lifestyle.

It may be a good idea to read this article if you haven't already. All of you. I am not expecting it to change your minds or bring down any acceptance, but read it. I thought it was interesting and something to think about. It is also 10 years old, but like I said, these types of diet's have been around for a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/ma...g-fat-lie.html

I don't want everyone to convert to this type of diet, but I do think the my way or the highway approach to weight loss is stifling. Isn't there room for improvement or different ideas (like technology) or is it just slight improvements to a proven formula? You all argue for dieting like Apple fanboys waiting for the next iPhone .

Deathwing_sl said:

People are uppity, myself included about things like paleo because the reasoning is stupid. We've been over this again and again with Dashel that he basically gave up trying to convince us. It's basically Atkins light. Which by itself is fine. But don't try to shovel bullshit about how cavemen lived healthier lives and then back it up with vague and ambiguous evidence(not saying you specifically did this).

BTW, "deviating from the norm" pretty much is the definition of "fad".

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am talking about. No where did I say cavemen were healthier, simply using the word Paleo brought up some witch hunt. All I know so far by trying this is that I, personally, am healthier.

A 'fad' is short timespan, Atkins itself has been around for decades. Paelo / Bulletproof are just modifications to this type of diet. If you look at the core concepts, not the name, you end up with very similar plans.

Itlan_sl said:

It's not a matter of open mindedness, it's about practicality. You're more likely to lose weight, maintain weight loss, and be happy with a change in lifestyle that suits you best, rather than latching on to some fucking "diet" that has strict parameters. I've lost 28 pounds since February, and I'm not on a "diet" ... I just changed the way I ate.

Click to expand...

Which is why I am attempting this diet. I have found that this method of eating is very easy for me to follow on a day to day basis. Dieting status quo wise I have never enjoyed.

Should I stop using the word 'diet'? Just using this word made people jump on the 'must be restrictive' platform, can't possible work, just eat healthier buddy! You know what? Calorie counting, eating chips on the sofa, your power lifting food intake, Atkins, Paleo, whatever are all diets. The outcome is what is different.

Changing the way you ate was changing your diet. I have done the same and I have lost weight doing it. What is the difference? I don't believe it is sustainability because it is not a restrictive way to eat (to me).

arkktheseaotter_sl said:

And here we arrive at the inevitable, where the obese, perpetually out of shape person takes a stand and tells the people who are trying to help that their radical, completely unnecessary way of losing weight is totally viable and more conventional, EASIER, and sustainable methods are really not all that great.

And "all the talk" of surpluses and deficits are what made you fat, and what will make you lean if you live on one side of the fence or the other.

As usual, anyone who stepped on the scale in the morning before and after they took a shit, and lost weight, is an expert.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Go fuck yourself. You are not helpful or constructive at all. Christ, Elurin at least has interesting things to say rather than just plain shite even if he despises diets like this. I am fine with criticism of an eating habit. I understand that it is not for everyone. I am not perpetually overweight, I am not an expert, I did not take a shit and claim I am on the route to success.

I am also not saying that the traditional approach of losing weight wouldn't work, or that the way I am trying to lose weight is better. I am saying that the way I have adopted works for me. I am also saying that a higher fat / protein diet that is low carb is not a fad. This high level diet type has been around for a long time.

Ubiquitrips_sl said:

Seriously? Go fuck yourself. You are not helpful or constructive at all.

Click to expand...

Just ignore Arkk, he is the text book definition of an internet expert and has the same credentials as an aborted foetus.

Paleo is a "rule of thumb" (along with some marketing) for eatingfoodand avoiding the Western Global Industrial diet. That is pretty much the key to it. Alternatively you could follow the "Great-Grandmother" diet, which is a similar rule where you shouldn't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize, which is Michael Pollan's rule. It isn't as sexy but the advice is equally as sound as most Paleo advice.

The point is that people, especially Americans, need to move away from the religion of "Nutritionism."

Deathwing_sl said:

Miss the part in parentheses?

Are you healthier? You said the coffee made you retch and you had no appetite for a whole day. Yum! Give me more of that shit. What's your proof that it's ok to starve your body this way without depriving it of nutrients and/or energy it needs?

Click to expand...

Bah, that post is coming back around again, I should have explained better. It wasn't the coffee itself that made me do it, it was only drinking the coffee for 3.5 days straight as my only form of nutrition (with vitamins, etc). I stopped doing that and did 'normal' (BPC for breakfast, food elsewhere) eating habits for the other 5.5 weeks of that diet. I am drinking my morning BPC right now and it is no different than any other day.

As to starving, I don't think I am doing that either. I will keep track of what I eat this week in a more calorie conscious way and report back. The reason I estimated 1500 is because I am not counting at all and it seemed right. I could definitely be off.

Ossoi_sl said:

Just ignore Arkk, he is the text book definition of an internet expert and has the same credentials as an aborted foetus.

Click to expand...

How's your 4 year plan to reach the bodyfat levels of an active high school kid going?

arkktheseaotter_sl said:

How's your 4 year plan to reach the bodyfat levels of an active high school kid going?

Click to expand...

see my second to last post you cretin

And there's also like zero chance that Ubiqutripsosjjdwidnwhateverthehell is going to change what he wants to do. People post here for justification, and he's getting it by people saying it sucks. In his mind its "I will show them!" So when he starts the diet and he's losing weight, in his mind he already won. What he doesn't realize is that he would lose weight doing anything because he's obese, and that's the point of my original post.

The Internet, where listening to a monk for fat loss advice, instead of the dozens and dozens of real experts who coach people, make YouTube videos, write articles, and so on is a good idea.

Ossoi_sl said:

see my second to last post you cretin

Click to expand...

I really don't need to, and I'm on my phone so I won't, but good to know your money is well spent

Ubiquitrips_sl said:

It may be a good idea to read this article if you haven't already. All of you. I am not expecting it to change your minds or bring down any acceptance, but read it. I thought it was interesting and something to think about. It is also 10 years old, but like I said, these types of diet's have been around for a while.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/ma...g-fat-lie.html

I don't want everyone to convert to this type of diet, but I do think the my way or the highway approach to weight loss is stifling. Isn't there room for improvement or different ideas (like technology) or is it just slight improvements to a proven formula? You all argue for dieting like Apple fanboys waiting for the next iPhone .

Click to expand...

I'm a firm believer in everything in moderation. Carbohydrates have an important place in our diets. They're used for quick energy. If you're always pulling from fat reserves, you're going to be miserable. Look at people who reduce their daily carbohydrate level below 100 grams a day. They'll fucking murder you.

Do whatever you want. It's your body. But I highly recommend you do more research into what you're doing. By that I mean more than just this diet; I mean learn what it is you're doing when you have any type of diet (diet in this sense just being what you eat).

I'm telling you right now though, this bulletproof coffee thing is a scam. Some quick Googling and that's readily apparent. The toxins thing? Any specialty coffee will be similar. Why grass fed butter? Because grass fed is the new trendy organic "good for you" alternative. Heck, a lot of it reads similar to the new super fruit or whatever that comes out every year. There's nothing special about any of this shit.

Elurin_sl said:

Why grass fed butter? Because grass fed is the new trendy organic "good for you" alternative. Heck, a lot of it reads similar to the new super fruit or whatever that comes out every year. There's nothing special about any of this shit.

Click to expand...

I can address the grass-fed butter. Grass fed meat and dairy is significantly better for you due the the lipid and nutrient profile. Ruminants that eat grass (like they are supposed to) haveincreased plasma and platelet n-3 PUFA(PDF).

Not to mention grass-fed cows are usually pastured and therefore live in vastly improved conditions than feedlot animals.

Denaut_sl said:

I've mentioned this before, but counting Calories alone it not sufficient for long term weight control. The secret to weight loss being "Calories in < Calories out" is in fact largely a fiction. The human body is not a Calorimeter that treats all Calories equally and if you eat the right number you will magically lose fat tissue. WHAT you eat is more important than HOW MUCH you eat. Especially since what you eat directly influences how much you eat.



I also highly recommendDr. Lustig's book Fat Chance

Click to expand...

You're going to have to back that statement up with more than a YouTube video that doesn't say what you think it does. That video is talking about insulin resistant people, which I'll admit, could very well be anyone here trying to lose weight.

The problem is he says "You have no choice but to eat more, your hormones are telling you to!" Which is a guy (who's trying to sell his ideas) giving people an excuse for why it's not their own fault. Why is it impossible to eat less calories than your body wants? Because Dr. Lustig says so? Sorry, but that's bullshit. People have willpower to make changes. I have a hard time taking someone seriously when one of the firsts things they say is "We discovered a new hormone called leptin recently."

I also don't think any of us advocating calories in < calories out have ever advocated that the types of food you eat aren't important. Saying "what you eat" is more important than "how much you eat" is ridiculous though. So if I eat 4000 calories worth of whatever magical ratio of foods you say I should eat, that's better than eating my TDEE? Shit, the video I posted 6 posts before yours goes IN DEPTH into why it's important to have variety in your diet. The difference is I watch your videos, apparently you don't watch mine.

RE Carbs.

My understanding is that for someone with pure fat loss goals and who isn't weight training, then low/zero carb is optimal. But for someone that wants to build muscle and burn fat, adding carbs at specific times e.g post workout is optimal.

Elurin_sl said:

Look at people who reduce their daily carbohydrate level below 100 grams a day. They'll fucking murder you.

Click to expand...

LOL no, low carb is easy if you fully commit to it (ie no slipups) and once your body adapts.

Ossoi_sl said:

RE Carbs.

My understanding is that for someone with pure fat loss goals and who isn't weight training, then low/zero carb is optimal. But for someone that wants to build muscle and burn fat, adding carbs at specific times e.g post workout is optimal.



LOL no, low carb is easy if you fully commit to it (ie no slipups) and once your body adapts.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with its easy, I don't think it's hard, but I don't think it's practical either. I'm talking keto too, I've done it before and once you adjust it's easy, to me at least.

And Keto is the *fastest* for straight up weight loss, assuming you aren't over eating. But everyone's body is diff.

Denaut_sl said:

I can address the grass-fed butter. Grass fed meat and dairy is significantly better for you due the the lipid and nutrient profile. Ruminants that eat grass (like they are supposed to) haveincreased plasma and platelet n-3 PUFA(PDF).

Not to mention grass-fed cows are usually pastured and therefore live in vastly improved conditions than feedlot animals.

Click to expand...

That's making an awfully big assumption that omega-3's (n-3) are necessarily "better" for you. Omega-6's (n-6) are important, it's just that the Western diet is heavier in 6 than 3, so most people are deficient. But if you're already getting enough 3, does it really make a difference what kind of butter you're eating? In fact, you could end up eating too much 3 and throwing off your ratio (the ideal ratio being 1:1).

By all means, eat grass fed butter because you think it tastes better or you think it's better for the cows or whatever. But to say that bulletproof coffee has to be made with grass fed butter because it's somehow incredibly superior is ridiculous. It's playing into the latest trend and it's not backed up by any science. I'd imagine if you actually investigated it, you'd find that absolutely nothing about bulletproof coffee is backed up by any real science.