*** Big Fat Weight Loss Thread ***

Soldato
Joined
19 Jan 2010
Posts
4,017
Not sure on how this fits in to the context of those specific replies but yes, 5'7", my suggestions were for Rossi whos 5'8"/5'9" and wanting to do extreme low cals 1k-1.2k!.

I would expect 78kg to be lightish for someone who is 6' :)
Yea sorry, it seemed a bit out of context but as I'm doing the reverse of what you are suggesting I was wondering if my benchmark was a bit off
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2012
Posts
5,518
Yea sorry, it seemed a bit out of context but as I'm doing the reverse of what you are suggesting I was wondering if my benchmark was a bit off
No worries, when you say reverse, i assume you mean you are looking to put on weight/mass now?
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2012
Posts
5,518
@Liquid_Entity bit of a random one but i see you use mayo, can i suggest you get the lighter than light stuff, its so much less cals and still allows you that mayo treat. I found sauces were a big hidden cost for me and so i am on to the skinny co for some to try as well! love my sauces.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Apr 2006
Posts
6,691
Location
Earth
The mayo was vegan mayo and again, as I said once the stock in the fridge has gone it will be all replaced with lighter stuff.

I bought 2 x skinny Co. Sauces and they taste artificially rank. Garlic n herb sauce is not meant to be so sweet. Over my lettuce it was rank and the caesar salad dressing is also very sweet.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2012
Posts
5,518
Yea. Not too much, just enough to push me to around 85kgs
Yeah im on that course now myself towards the end of the year, i want to slowly gain. Ive just started in to week 2 of establishing my new maintenance cals before i ramp up. Im aiming for 11st / 70kg by the end of the year so 4kg gain.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2012
Posts
5,518
The mayo was vegan mayo and again, as I said once the stock in the fridge has gone it will be all replaced with lighter stuff.

I bought 2 x skinny Co. Sauces and they taste artificially rank. Garlic n herb sauce is not meant to be so sweet. Over my lettuce it was rank and the caesar salad dressing is also very sweet.
Yeap just a suggestion based on what I found.

Yeah some of the skinny sauces are really not nice, but the syrups are spot on :D
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2012
Posts
5,518
Years ago I used chromium+caffeine stacked to burn fat but i gound that caffeine messed up my sleep and diet.
Its less about fat burn and more about it being an appetite supressant, nothing wrong with a well timed cup of caffinated coffee. I have one when in the mornings just to help push out breakfast by a couple of hours.

Timing is whats going to screw your sleep with caffeine, I personally cant have a cup after 2pm-3pm without it having a negative affect on my sleep routine that night.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
20 Dec 2004
Posts
6,787
Location
Tamworth
I hate coffee so that wouldn't work for me, any suggestions?
There's always diet/zero/sugar free calorie cola or energy drinks.

Both Aldi and Lidl do a sugar free energy drink (8 kcals per 250ml can) 75mg caffeine per 250ml for 36p. Cheaper than a pre workout supplement.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
20,018
Location
Екатеринбург
I have a question. The ‘calories burned’ measurement on various bits of fitness equipment, eg bike, treadmill, elliptical - is it accurate?

Following on from that, if one had calculated that 1800 calories were to be consumed in a day, and they did 200 calories of exercise as measured on the aforementioned equipment, would they then be able to consume 200 kcal extra to break even?

A friend was explaining this to me and I thought surely it can’t be that simple?

Would the same measurement by a fitness tracker (e.g. Apple Watch, Fitbit) be more accurate and would the same principle apply?
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Feb 2004
Posts
19,011
Location
Higher Walton
I have a question. The ‘calories burned’ measurement on various bits of fitness equipment, eg bike, treadmill, elliptical - is it accurate?

Following on from that, if one had calculated that 1800 calories were to be consumed in a day, and they did 200 calories of exercise as measured on the aforementioned equipment, would they then be able to consume 200 kcal extra to break even?

A friend was explaining this to me and I thought surely it can’t be that simple?

Would the same measurement by a fitness tracker (e.g. Apple Watch, Fitbit) be more accurate and would the same principle apply?

They generally work of a formula which is probably fairly accurate as a rough guide. You enter your height/weight and it takes an estimation of the amount of energy it would take for that someone with those measurements to undertake the activity based on speed/elevation/effort. It'll be more accurate if you have a device capable of reading your heart rate. I would say a lot of devices probably overestimate which could potentially cause issues for people.

As for the second question, yes, if your maintenance calories are 1800 and you burn 200, then in theory your net calories would only be 1600. You can either take the extra calorie deficit for weight loss or eat more :)


And if you want to be a real pig and eat loads, then you do activities like this :D

ftSMqgu.png
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2012
Posts
5,518
I have a question. The ‘calories burned’ measurement on various bits of fitness equipment, eg bike, treadmill, elliptical - is it accurate?

Following on from that, if one had calculated that 1800 calories were to be consumed in a day, and they did 200 calories of exercise as measured on the aforementioned equipment, would they then be able to consume 200 kcal extra to break even?

A friend was explaining this to me and I thought surely it can’t be that simple?

Would the same measurement by a fitness tracker (e.g. Apple Watch, Fitbit) be more accurate and would the same principle apply?
They are inaccurate especially so for calories burned, and vary from tracker to tracker as well. There are numerous studies out there showing that the trackers are inaccurate for this metric.

Furthermore TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) calculations of how much calories you should be aiming for depending on goal should already factor in activity level which accounts for any activity you do each day, averaged over a week.

Meaning if you calculate you need 2300 calories to maintain based on light activity, and you want to be in a deficit, usually -500 for a steady cut, this ALREADY factors in all workouts / exercise you will be doing based on your choice of activity level. So if you do a gym workout, burn 200 cals (even if you only burned 150 for example) then eat those calories back, you've just ignored the fact your TDEE calculation already factored in the calories burned doing that workout!

Shockingly enough the fitness tracker apps even use these TDEE calculations when helping you set calorie targets, making the fact they show calories burn even worse, and then being inaccurate to boot.

Personally I think this information should only be used as a trend over time comparison to calories you track and eat and weight change based on goals.

Based on my personal experience, the majority of this year I've been eating at 1.7k cals, my daily calories burned averages between 2.6k-3k, this should have equated to weight loss in the region of 2lb per week, yet I've trended around 1.1lb per week. Had I eaten those extra 800-1k+ calories my fitness tracker is telling me I'm burning over my target I'm almost certain I would have put weight on!
 
Top Bottom