Man of Honour
There's no way you need that much protein, personally I'd drop that a little and up the carbs. Fat looks ok where it is.
Personal Log to losing weight
- Thread starter Ace Modder
- Start date
There's no way you need that much protein, personally I'd drop that a little and up the carbs. Fat looks ok where it is.
Soldato
I'm literally cutting down bread, potato and pasta to a minimum but that's because I am not doing any exercise as yet, apart from walking. I get plantar fasciitis when running at moment, small ankles carrying all this weight so until I have lost a stone then I will run/football/cycle etc.
Soldato
Just substitute protein for carbs - they're both 4kcal/g so you can go like for like and as tom said protein is a bit higher than it needs to be.
25% carbs, 40% protein and 35% fat - it's original
Try 40/40/20 or 40/35/25
Percentages have no relation to individual body stats; protein intake should be based off either bodyweight or lean bodyweight if you know it, fat can be set as a % of overall calories or based off bodyweight, then the rest of calories from carbs. After that you can adjust carb/fat numbers based on food preferences, athletic endeavours etc.
^This.
130-150g of protein would be ample as (softly put) your lean mass as a % of your overall weight will be relatively low by comparison to someone with a high musculature. That said if you find yourself preferring protein rich sources of food that's fine but it can be expensive and isn't necessary to achieve your goal.
As you're not really concerned with composition or athletic performance currently I would just 'yolo' fats/carbs ensuring a sufficient amount of each with particular emphasis on carbs around any intense exercise bouts.
You'll get greater flexibility like this and minimise restriction within your diet and ensure its sustainable and adherable.
Glad to see you have bumped your calories up slightly too
though I'd go to 2,000 personally.
130-150g of protein would be ample as (softly put) your lean mass as a % of your overall weight will be relatively low by comparison to someone with a high musculature. That said if you find yourself preferring protein rich sources of food that's fine but it can be expensive and isn't necessary to achieve your goal.
As you're not really concerned with composition or athletic performance currently I would just 'yolo' fats/carbs ensuring a sufficient amount of each with particular emphasis on carbs around any intense exercise bouts.
You'll get greater flexibility like this and minimise restriction within your diet and ensure its sustainable and adherable.
Glad to see you have bumped your calories up slightly too
though I'd go to 2,000 personally.
I have switched to the following rough target
170g carbs
140g protein
50g fat
170g carbs
140g protein
50g fat
Last edited:
Man of Honour
A touch under 1600kcals seems low for your weight, I'd aim for 2000kcals at least to start and adjust from there.
You have dropped 100 cals between your old and new macro's?.. 1690 vs 1802
oh yeah... just checked my app, and cos i updated my new weight this morning it decided it would lower target cal count by 100 pts on its own (i only played with the % on the macros)
Drop the protein and up the carbs. Not only are their many negative health outcomes with high protein but it is liekly to increase your weight not lower it.
High or low carb diets reduces weight relativity equally over the long term:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25007189
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23587198
Man of Honour
This is more like it though the kcal you're missing I'd stick back into carbs.
Personally I would say you could get away with more like 110-120g of protein too (stick the rest in fat/carbs but as BennyC said, don't worry too much about those ratios).
Seems far to low, aim for 2200-2300 for 2-3 weeks and see what happens to your weight. If you loose weight keep it there, once you plateau drop another 100.
Multiple posters have suggest that less is more when it comes to calorie restriction and not to cut too much.
Well my body feels fine, and I'm not hungry on around 1700 cals at the moment. So I think for now I'm happy to continue around this level. My fat % on my belly is the worst bit and I know this will help to drop it fairly quickly. I look like a tellytubby. The odd thing is I'm very over weight, but my arms and legs are very skinny still. The weight is all just in two places; my belly and my neck. Even my chest is not really very fat.
This doesn't look like the arm of a 35 year old almost 18 stone man.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
You feel ok now but where are you going to go when you stop losing weight? Your only option will be to smash unsustainable amounts of exercise because you certainly don't want to drop your kcals anymore than 1600 to be honest.
I don't understand why I need to decrease my cals once I've lost weight. It doesn't make sense.
The below table is an example of what I need to maintain my weight at each interval.
So In theory I will keep losing weight if i eat 1600 cals... once i get to 13 stone (target weight) I aim to be adjusted to around 2235 cals by starting to increase my cal intake in small amounts from 14 stone.
It means that the weight loss will be slower from 14 to 13... but it will allow me to find roughly what my actual body needs to remain at around 13 stone once I achieve that.. (working out what the exact number is for me once at 13 stone by a few weeks of trial and error)
The below table is an example of what I need to maintain my weight at each interval.
So In theory I will keep losing weight if i eat 1600 cals... once i get to 13 stone (target weight) I aim to be adjusted to around 2235 cals by starting to increase my cal intake in small amounts from 14 stone.
It means that the weight loss will be slower from 14 to 13... but it will allow me to find roughly what my actual body needs to remain at around 13 stone once I achieve that.. (working out what the exact number is for me once at 13 stone by a few weeks of trial and error)
Last edited:
You will stop loosing weight when your body adapts to 1600 calories.
If you want to be healthy and fit for the rest of your life you need to look at long term changes and not short term gains. From your own table 2200 calories a day will also ensure you loose weight to your goal and will be maintaining that. its going to be much easier to do long term, and gives you plenty of lee-way to cut further as and when need be You are just starting out, so 1600 may feel OK now, but how about next week, next month, next year?
If you want to be healthy and fit for the rest of your life you need to look at long term changes and not short term gains. From your own table 2200 calories a day will also ensure you loose weight to your goal and will be maintaining that. its going to be much easier to do long term, and gives you plenty of lee-way to cut further as and when need be You are just starting out, so 1600 may feel OK now, but how about next week, next month, next year?
I am thinking of long term as once I'm at my target weight, I intend to continue to eat less calories than I was when putting on weight. Adjusting to suit once closer to my target.
Is there proof a body adjusts to what calories I give it? surely if a body adjusts down with less, it should counter adjust up if you feed it more.
If my body "adapts to 1600cals" then this BMR calcuation is not the same for all individuals, as each person calculation would/could vary due to eating factors. I was told in this thread earlier than it remains the same for all same height and weights etc pretty much, now your saying that isn't the case...
I'm confused.
Last edited:
It's like a car, throw out the spare wheel and the back seats and your mpg goes up.
Ahh I see, the adaption to calories, the mythical plateau with a calorie deficit. The only way there can be any truth in this is if your metabolism was in a hole, and re-feeding for a couple of weeks could correct that. Mostly plateaus are because when you thought you were eating 1600 you were really on 2400. It's easily done.
Remember feek on here ate 1500 kcals and ate back any exercise he did (walking mostly). So if he calculated he'd used 400 kcals walking he ate 1900.
You seen his pictures? Why didn't his body adapt?
Ahh I see, the adaption to calories, the mythical plateau with a calorie deficit. The only way there can be any truth in this is if your metabolism was in a hole, and re-feeding for a couple of weeks could correct that. Mostly plateaus are because when you thought you were eating 1600 you were really on 2400. It's easily done.
Remember feek on here ate 1500 kcals and ate back any exercise he did (walking mostly). So if he calculated he'd used 400 kcals walking he ate 1900.
You seen his pictures? Why didn't his body adapt?
The way I see it.
I'm eating 3 meals a day (all healthy). Before I was eating 2 meals but often poor meals - kebabs/pizza/curry 2-3 times a week.
If my body gets hungry in between I fuel it with something which is not full of sugar/fat (healthy). Before I would eat crisps/chocolate/cakes.
I have swapped 2-3 beers a night for 2-3 bottles of water.
I'm losing weight. Before I was putting it on for years.
Even if my current intake is maybe a little under what is deemed "best" for me, surely it is still better than risking staying at 18 stone (or even continuing to put more weight on) and risking heart attack at 45 or diabetes etc.
I feel people get to hung up on doing it by the book etc.
I'm eating 3 meals a day (all healthy). Before I was eating 2 meals but often poor meals - kebabs/pizza/curry 2-3 times a week.
If my body gets hungry in between I fuel it with something which is not full of sugar/fat (healthy). Before I would eat crisps/chocolate/cakes.
I have swapped 2-3 beers a night for 2-3 bottles of water.
I'm losing weight. Before I was putting it on for years.
Even if my current intake is maybe a little under what is deemed "best" for me, surely it is still better than risking staying at 18 stone (or even continuing to put more weight on) and risking heart attack at 45 or diabetes etc.
I feel people get to hung up on doing it by the book etc.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I'll leave the adaptation/plateau talk to others but in regards to eating at too high a kcal deficit being bad for you the question has already been answered - your body isn't just going to burn your body fat in that situation. It will also burn some of your lean body mass and potentially reduce skeletal density. This isn't a good thing and you should take steps to avoid it.