Things are going well for me, I've actually added couple hundred cals to my target now (now just over 2,400). Started the year 227.2 lbs, weighed in at 210.7 this morning. (103.1kg to 95.6kg)
*** Big Fat Weight Loss Thread ***
- Thread starter AndyCr15
- Start date
I have two questions... is there a question in there? Also, what cardio do you do?
I used to watch quite a lot of Jeff's videos as I like the way he usually includes scientific evidence or studies in what he talk about.
A good video, but at the same time, nothing particularly ground breaking/surprising, I wouldn't say?
A good video, but at the same time, nothing particularly ground breaking/surprising, I wouldn't say?
You're specifically after a fad?!
My suggestion, the good old fashioned 'move more, eat less'...
My suggestion, the good old fashioned 'move more, eat less'...
Exactly. Just make something up yourself? "I'm not going to eat chocolate for a month", "I'm not going to have lunch for a month", "I'm going to eat just 1,000 calories every other day", "I'm going to run 3 5k's a week". Take your pick surely?
I'm going to be very honest, which might lead to me sounding like a d*ck... what you want to do doesn't sound like a particularly healthy way to approach things, so I (and maybe others) are struggling to get on board Although this thread is about weight loss, I feel it's more about being healthy. (Hence my suggestions of going out for a run and other folk encouraging a healthier way to lower your weight with control) I feel it's almost taking the mickey out of the serious effort a lot of people have put into improving themselves?
Although this thread is about weight loss, I feel it's more about being healthy. (Hence my suggestions of going out for a run and other folk encouraging a healthier way to lower your weight with control) I feel it's almost taking the mickey out of the serious effort a lot of people have put into improving themselves?
I personally don't think so. I don't think anyone has been hostile or aggressive have they? As I say, I think people are just trying to persuade you to achieve your goals a healthier way. I don't think that's an unhealthy attitude. I would say it's the opposite.
Despite cycling over 220 miles in Mallorca this weekend just gone... I put on almost 4lbs due to the all you can eat breakfast and dinner 
I'm expecting that will probably drop back down over the next couple of days. Also interesting I had a lower body fat % measurement than I've had in some time...
I'm expecting that will probably drop back down over the next couple of days. Also interesting I had a lower body fat % measurement than I've had in some time...
Despite cycling over 220 miles in Mallorca this weekend just gone... I put on almost 4lbs due to the all you can eat breakfast and dinner
Yep, the buffet affect has passed and the 4lbs have dropped back off...
I'm a bit confused by this? I lost 6½ stone cycling?! It had a massive impact on my weight?! (Okay, I made a joke above, but that was about how much buffet food I'd had!) When have I said it doesn't have the impact I want?
I just dropped 19lbs in a couple of months ready for this latest cycling trip, it's having exactly the impact I want and expect...This also confuses me and maybe you mean just that HR is important. Surely It's HR over the time that counts. (Or you could argue power over time. It's making the power that makes the body burn calories to produce more power. Power and HR are very closely linked anyway, so either works well enough.) You say HR is the better indicator, but then state raise it for an hour.... so clearly time does matter?! I would still say time is the more important factor. 170bpm for 10 minutes, or 130 for 3 hours? Clearly the latter will burn a lot more calories.
Not offended, honestly confused. As I see the impact, I know exactly how it effects me and I have great control over my weight. I can only think you just saw me saying I'd put on weight while cycling loads of miles in Mallorca, but as said, that was more of a joke about how much buffet food I ate!
I think it depends how low the low impact is. I do trust Strava quite a lot (I usually give it HR and power data to help). I remember going for an hours ride with a neighbour who turned out to be a lot slower than me. Looking at the numbers after, my average heart rate was around 106 and Strava said I'd burnt something like 300 calories. Normally in an hours ride I would burn 700+ cals with a HR of 140iish, so it was a really good lesson learnt for me. Low intensity is fine, as it allows longer 'fat burn' sessions (I'm talking 3 or 4 hours) but too low and you might as well just go for a nice walk!
I think Strava's 'Relative Effort' is quite interesting too. This is a number that suggests how much stress you put on your body and therefor how much you might want to recover. I can go for a nice steady 3½ hour ride and have an RE of 93 (this Sunday) or a high pace 3½ hour ride with an RE of 385 (the day before!) OR... a high intensity hour workout indoors and have an RE of 100. So Strava is saying I put more strain on my body in a high intensity workout of an hour than a 3½ casual ride. Which I completely believe. As for calories, the hour was still only just over 700 but the casual 3½ was 2,200. All really interesting stuff, but if your sole target is to loose weight, I would still recommend steady and long... (Mind you, the fast pace 3½ from Saturday burnt almost 3,500 cals, so intense and long is even better!
)
It sounds obvious and almost silly, but you're right. Just not buying the wrong stuff in the first place makes it much easier not to eat it
Mind you, to my credit, I've had a bag of chocolates in my cupboard for a month or so now. I'm waiting for a time to treat myself
One thing I think about is calories per cubic cm AND calories per minute. So, rice cakes are a reasonable size and take a little while to eat at only 70 cals for a couple = GOOD. Even those low calorie ice creams. Half a tub is 160 cals and takes me a good 10 minutes to eat (I'm very slow with things like ice creams and yogurts) = GOOD.
Handful of almonds, although healthy are 100 cals and literally gone in seconds = BAD
I think most of is go through that tbh. Personally, tracking EVERYTHING meant I just had to stop snacking. It does come down to will power though. For me, seeing the numbers clock up makes me just not snack, but this might not work for everyone. I don't think there's any secret to it, it's going to be hard.
Having said that, often when I'm hungry I have a coffee or a glass of water and it can stave off some of the hunger.
I actually find working from home makes it easier, but then I used to work in a supermarket where it wasn't uncommon for nice things to be given away or sold so cheap you might as well buy them! I have better control and less temptations at home.
Can you throw a little exercise in too? Even if it's just a 20 minute brisk walk? Work up from there?
Having said that, often when I'm hungry I have a coffee or a glass of water and it can stave off some of the hunger.
I actually find working from home makes it easier, but then I used to work in a supermarket where it wasn't uncommon for nice things to be given away or sold so cheap you might as well buy them! I have better control and less temptations at home.
Can you throw a little exercise in too? Even if it's just a 20 minute brisk walk? Work up from there?
I'm honestly not sure what's wrong? You seem to think you offended me? No, I was confused, which I did state a few times. I thought you might explain, "oh, it's just you said..." and I would then at least understand and could have corrected/explained it, but never mind, it's fine. Don't hold back if you have things that can help people, please, post away!
I would generally agree with what you've said too, in that I think you're saying add in some specific exercise on top of the eating well.
Tbf, I didn't read it like he was suggesting what I know as 'spot reduction', I thought he was suggesting just being more specific about exercise, but I could be wrong.
As far as I'm concerned, it's just the total calories that count. I then tend to just keep protein as high a proportion as possible.
I guess there are a couple of things that I struggle with here. Firstly that it's carbs that matter to weight loss, not calories. Secondly, that carbs are not a good way to get energy to your muscles for exercise?
It does come across a little like he's trying to recruit us into a cult...
Likewise. I feel great these days too. Not that I eat loads of veg. I generally don't cut anything out, I just eat in moderation and control my calories.
Not that I'm trying to dissuade anyone. If it works for you, great! But I wouldn't generally push any one way of doing it onto someone. Different things work for different people. Just find what works for you
(I think all of them will come down to a calorie deficit though)
Yes, I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't work. It was just suggested that it might not work for everyone and everyone needs to find what works for them. It has been suggested there is more than one way to achieve it and it just feels like you're trying to say this is the only way.
Again, I don't think anyone is saying your way is wrong, well done for what you've achieved. Others use different ways and that's fine too.
To me personally, it doesn't seem logical to eat calorie-dense foods. I try and do the opposite. It makes sense to me that you feel full when your stomach fills up, not when you eat a certain amount of calories. I also seem to get hungry 2 hours after eating, almost no matter what I've eaten...
