Obesity is not a choice

ttaskmaster said:
Or you are assuming something that, while commonly occurring and so fairly reasonable to presume, isn't occurring in my particular case. You can look the values up yourself, so the only viable reason is that the food producers are lying on their packaging.
Click to expand...

Yes I am making an assumption, my assumption is that you’re not some magical being and the laws of physics still apply to you as they do to everyone else. It’s a pretty reasonable assumption to make.

Food producers lying on their labels is unlikely to be the explanation here - the source of error here is likely just you.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Yawn.........
Whatever you say, sweetheart. Go **** yourself. I did exactly as described and did not get the results people like you have INSISTED will be the case. Sorry if you've missed something, or it is beyond your ability to diagnose as an internet doctor, but I am not a liar.
Click to expand...

I didn't call you a liar, you didn't pay attention to my earlier post, I said you may have been mistaken etc.. the idea that what you claim is true is BS, that doesn't mean you necessarily lied. It is your lack of attention to detail with regards to what you were consuming and or in measuring yourself that might well be the issue too.

You don't need to be an internet doctor to state that the laws of physics still apply to you as they do to everyone else and that you're probably not some magical being... this point seems to have gone over your head a bit but it still holds.
 
dowie said:
Riiight, so you’re 5’11, bit of fat, ate no more than 750 calories for just over a month and had no noticeable effect...

That’s just pure BS
Click to expand...

Straight up.

I'm 5'11", and at 77kgs my BMR (so doing no activity beyond living) was 1800 calories. A 1k calorie deficit would see me lose about 5kg a month.

Even if he was 60kgs, the BMR would still be around 1500, so a 750 deficit per day, which would be roughly 3kgs lost in a month. That's 5% of total body weight, don't see how it couldn't be noticeable.

Given that half of the calories were supposedly from drinks, I'd wager a significant protein deficiency, so a loss of muscle-mass even with a sedentry lifestyle. But even if that made external appearance not seemingly change (as muscle takes up less volume than fat for the same weight), the scale would still pick up the over all loss of body weight.
 
dowie said:
Riiight, so you’re 5’11, bit of fat, ate no more than 750 calories for just over a month and had no noticeable effect...

That’s just pure BS
Click to expand...


I have eaten less than 1000kcal a day and seen very little weight loss in weeks, the body will adapt and metabolise slower to conserve energy but this happens only after a while as generally though there will be a big weight loss during the first few days but most of this will be water weight
 
krooton said:
Straight up.

I'm 5'11", and at 77kgs my BMR (so doing no activity beyond living) was 1800 calories. A 1k calorie deficit would see me lose about 5kg a month.

Even if he was 60kgs, the BMR would still be around 1500, so a 750 deficit per day, which would be roughly 3kgs lost in a month. That's 5% of total body weight, don't see how it couldn't be noticeable.

Given that half of the calories were supposedly from drinks, I'd wager a significant protein deficiency, so a loss of muscle-mass even with a sedentry lifestyle. But even if that made external appearance not seemingly change (as muscle takes up less volume than fat for the same weight), the scale would still pick up the over all loss of body weight.
Click to expand...


After a sustained period of nearly starving his bmr would drop, probably still lose weight but a lot less than he was hoping
 
JBuk said:
After a sustained period of nearly starving his bmr would drop, probably still lose weight but a lot less than he was hoping
Click to expand...

Possibly, but he said 750 per day, for over a month, and "lost nothing".

That is literally impossible. Even if his BMR slowed down, you'd be looking at at least 2kg lost over the period. A 2kg packet of sugar is not unnoticable. :p
 
krooton said:
Possibly, but he said 750 per day, for over a month, and "lost nothing".

That is literally impossible. Even if his BMR slowed down, you'd be looking at at least 2kg lost over the period. A 2kg packet of sugar is not unnoticable. :p
Click to expand...


Visually 2kg lost from all around the body would not create a noticeable difference on people with a high body fat % , most likely not even require a change in clothes size

You would notice on the scales though unless they were inconsistent

I’ve been up to near 16st and it took over a stone loss before I noticed a change , I then noticed very gradual changes as my fat dissapeared up until I was around 13st and then a few lb loss would be very noticeable as my body fat % quickly got lower
 
Jokester said:
You would be looking like a Japanese POW camp victim if you weren’t losing weight on such a restrictive calorie intake.
Click to expand...

It depends how active a person is and even then if your body fat % is high then it would take a while to look seriously malnourished
 
JBuk said:
Visually 2kg lost from all around the body would not create a noticeable difference on people with a high body fat % , most likely not even require a change in clothes size
Click to expand...

I'm assuming he was a similar weight to me, if he was largely overweight, then his BMR would be even higher.
 
Jokester said:
Yes, but if you’re not losing weight you can’t have much body mass to lose.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s correct, if I was 16st with 35% fat , quite inactive and my base rate was 2000kcal a day then I ate only 1000kcal a day but my metabolism dropped so my base rate was now just over 1000kcal it would take ages to look malnourished

If I was reasonably fit and active , started off at 12st with 18% fat and my base rate again was 2000kcal, ate only 1000kcal and base rate dropped to just over 1000kcal then any small loses in fat and muscle would be a lot more noticeable and would look malnourished a lot sooner

I’m obviously just pulling those values out of thin air but I think my point stands
 
JBuk said:
I’m obviously just pulling those values out of thin air but I think my point stands
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think so, your base rate is essentially a function of your weight (it’s just how much of you you need to keep alive), yes your muscle/fat ratio impacts it but I don’t believe you can drop it by so much to maintain a steady weight.
 
krooton said:
I'm assuming he was a similar weight to me, if he was largely overweight, then his BMR would be even higher.
Click to expand...

I dunno , bmr is hard to track as there’s quite a few variables , a muscly guy with 30% body fat will most likely have a higher bmr than ‘skinny fat’ guy with 30% fat , but the skinny fat guy may lead a very active lifestyle or have a physically demanding job so could end up requiring more calories
 
Jokester said:
Well, I don’t think so, your base rate is essentially a function of your weight (it’s just how much of you you need to keep alive), yes your muscle/fat ratio impacts it but I don’t believe you can drop it by so much to maintain a steady weight.
Click to expand...

I can only liken it to a colleague who is prepping for a bodybuilding contest, he is approximately the same height and weight as me yet I have a much higher body fat %, he’s ridiculously low

If I ate a small deficit from my bmr you wouldn’t notice for ages, if he does the same you will notice quite soon, iirc he eats around 4000+kcal per day, I eat atm around 1300 per day, he does burn a lot more through training but to maintain his physique without training his bmr is probably around double mine
 
ttaskmaster said:
Pretty much the same thing, in this case.


Well, he didn't tend to use scales, on the assumption that any loss of muscle mass would not necessarily reflect loss of fat, in terms of measuring overall weight... and because weight was not the problem spurring the diet - It was the expanding waist size and the trousers that were too tight!


But you're probably a liar, too... ;)
Nah, I might have lowered that metabolism already, from years of only bothering with one meal a day. I certainly could go up to about 6 or 7pm before I started getting at all hungry.


Actually that's not far off what people have said back when I was skinny and stuffing my face, but that's just my normal state.


OK, so how do these numbers compare?
BMI - 16.3
Body fat - 11%
BMR - 1294

Those are just values from internet calculators where you plug in height and weight and some measurements, but that's what I'm currently at.
Click to expand...


I dunno tbh, I ‘think’ I understand some of the mechanics of how the body works and have some experience of my own from losing weight but I never really get into specifics of fat percentage and bmi, I much prefer to weigh myself (just to ensure I’m not losing weight too fast) , keep a check on my waistline and how slack my belt is getting and how I look in the mirror

Strangely enough now I understand a few things and try to optimise my weight loss I find going from day 15st to 13st a lengthy process but 13st to 12st happens very fast, when under 12st I start to get worried how fast I’m losing weight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom