*** Big Fat Weight Loss Thread ***

Just calories for me, although i am very lax with it and will often estimate at how many are in a given meal rather than working out

x grams of chicken
x grams of potatoes

etc

My theory is that i'm only targeting 1500 calories per day and then increase that on days of exercise. So if i'm out by a couple hundred it should put me at max around 1800 and thus still in a deficit for the day.


I think the best thing to do with calorie counting is as i think @AndyCr15 mentioned above. Don't cheat with it. If you've eaten something unhealthy don't chose to ignore it or if you have a bad day, don't decide to not update the app on that day. Accept it as an off day and move on.
 
I type everything in Cronometer. According to the NHS website I should be aiming for about 2100kcals/day to lose weight but I try to stick to about 1800. Huel accounts for about 800 which leaves me with 1000 to play with at night. On average I seem to be eating about 60g net carbs each day and I was producing ketones which must equate to weight loss but I seem to be stuck on a plateau between 99 and 101 kg so maybe I'm not eating enough. Is that a thing?
 
Yes 2100 sound high-ish to do be in a decent cal deficit esp. if your aiming for the harder end and 2lbs per week (options in most guides are normally 0.5 / 1.0 /2.0 ), I lost more than that at end up easily.

If you are normal=ish height and activity I would say 1800-2000 and some days you may eat and feel ok with 1600 depending what it was you ate but that would be limit.
 
ic1male said:
I type everything in Cronometer. According to the NHS website I should be aiming for about 2100kcals/day to lose weight but I try to stick to about 1800. Huel accounts for about 800 which leaves me with 1000 to play with at night. On average I seem to be eating about 60g net carbs each day and I was producing ketones which must equate to weight loss but I seem to be stuck on a plateau between 99 and 101 kg so maybe I'm not eating enough. Is that a thing?
Click to expand...


Yes I lost the weight and went under and became skinny fat due to lots of cardio with no resistance but gained back and as I said bounced about from approx. 84-85 to 90KG and that was walking and exercising like mad but not cutting cals at that stage.

Then I got rid of the Fitbit and decided I was not eating enough and was in starvation mode and that is when I upped Cal and the above mentioned protein and I had a frozen shoulder (old work injury) at this point so it was only walking not exercising and it fell of all way back to my normal weight of about 82.6KG (182lbs).

My mother then took ill with the big C and I lost my sleep routine (added to stress hormone) and was eating lots of bread (easier than meals) and eating at wrong times and again ended up 95KG and I would say my Cal were far less than 2400.

It is extremely hard and takes a long time after any type of "diet" or exercise to try and get your metabolism to stabilise instead of doing a Helter Skelter.

It can take 2-3 years I have read and that would seem right by me as weight and fatty liver was gone in 1 year but I struggled for 2 more to find my old Set Point.
 
Last edited:
ic1male said:
I type everything in Cronometer. According to the NHS website I should be aiming for about 2100kcals/day to lose weight but I try to stick to about 1800. Huel accounts for about 800 which leaves me with 1000 to play with at night. On average I seem to be eating about 60g net carbs each day and I was producing ketones which must equate to weight loss but I seem to be stuck on a plateau between 99 and 101 kg so maybe I'm not eating enough. Is that a thing?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as starvation mode. You can see this anecdotally in actual populations that are starving and wasting away, or more critically in carefully controlled studies like the famous Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

Producing ketones just means you're in ketosis - this has nothing to do with weight loss as a keto diet still adheres to the laws of energy balance like any other diet and depending on your calorie intake you can lose, maintain or gain weight on it. If you're not losing weight then you're not in an energy deficit - either you're tracking your non-Huel food inaccurately or the calories goals themselves are inaccurate for your activity levels.
 
Just thought I would add, not all weight loss is equal.

A deficit can lead to muscle loss as easily as fat loss. The higher your deficit, the less muscle your body will want to sustain and so may choose to break down to fuel your day.

Take away exercise and your body will be asking why it should keep sustain mass you aren't using.

Binge eating a ton of food at once and then not eating for a while will cause the body to store extra cals but will you burn all those extra cals as easy as if you split the binge throughout the day?

Depends on your body. Few activities will burn just fat or just glycogen for fuel. You could binge and then 12 hours later be breaking down muscle as well as fat as easy instant energy when doing intense exercise because you have no glycogen.

Your body is good at finding an equilibrium and making it work. This is very rarely how people want it to work or there wouldn't be strict diets for those conditioning for competition. Diets where your essentially trying to trick your body to adapt.
 
I would beg to differ, starvation mode exist IMO and your body can loose muscle and you can even gain weight, your body is so used of getting all this endless supply of food today it comes to expect/need it.

That is why people who cut too much for too long plateau or even gain weight.

I gave up reading what is 90% BS, I made choices some were BS that I had read and I had to try another choice and it worked in the end for me.

I kept thinking back to when we did not hear of "diets" apart from your mum and her sisters etc taking fads, most people unlike like today were not being overweight in say the 70-90's (before that poverty would play part so probably not a lot of food to eat in first place).
 
Last edited:
I've come down a couple of pounds but, not as fast as I would like. I've not been too strict with my diet which has worked previously. Think the increase in running is slowing any sort of weight loss as my clothes are fitting much better already.
 
b00merang69 said:
Its not just about the scales, if you are gaining muscle you may be same or even heaver but your clothes fit is better so that is what matters.
Click to expand...

This is what I was trying to articulate. My suit fit me loads better today and I was possibly 3 pounds down on my heaviest over Christmas.
 
Kind of basic but look here, same height and weight but:

181864b335c096e1013bda56c18f09a8.png
 
BMI is flawed there was recent study by some Uni (UK) and they worked out your waist should be no more than half your height.

So if your 6' tall (72") your waist should not exceed 36", I am a 34" but can gain same as anyone but that gives you a little leeway and most of todays clothes are sized smaller on the label than they are (Dockers were tested be as much as 4" bigger than label), I will try remember the term used for it.

EDIT: Vanity Sizing.

1-A1wpjf-Mz-ISh4-Tt-E-2ueudw.png
 
I thought this was quite amusing. I've reached the last (first?) whole on my belt... again... so went back to Amazon to order another smaller one. No need for scales to see my weight loss progress...

9dPUAIc.png

Marvt74 said:
Out of interest, how often do people weigh themselves?
Click to expand...

I guess out of interest I've weighed myself at different points through this morning...

7am - Woke up, pee'd and weighed in at 15st 2.5lbs
Ate breakfast (porridge and banana), erm, emptied out....
8am - weighed in at 15st 3.2
9am - Parkrun (4km cycle there too)
10am - 40 minutes lifting in the gym
11am - Weighed in at 14st 13.1lbs

Wow. From 8am to 11am I lost 4lbs!
 
Nice, thanks. International shipping was only $6 and Honey found me a 20% off code, so I've ordered a couple. Come out as about £23 each, which isn't too bad. I'll send this Amazon one back :)
 
Whoop, 99.8kg this morning. I had dipped under 100kg the other week but that was immediately after a run so i didn't believe it to be a true reflection.

Aim is around 90kg which is just over 14st.

Definitely noticed a difference when running, especially up hills!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom