Achievable weight loss

[Emoco]

In a nutshell, if you prefer larger meals, just skip 500 or so calories you have for breakfast, cut out sugar in coffee and tea, eat your normal meals and you'll still be cutting out at least 3,500 cals a week by giving up nothing other than sugar and breakfast.

3,500 cals equal one pound in weight loss. You may lose more at first due to water retention since you'll be fasting longer in the morning.

 

[Neil]

If you read more into the slowed down metabolism myth you'd find that skipping breakfast barely does anything to your metabolism. The whole idea of eating 6 small meals a day is unrealistic. I've experimented with it myself and found I lost more weight skipping breakfast even when I was at a stable weight with low-ish body fat. It's good for your body to fast (as it does through the night) and adding a few hours onto the fast is good for you and gives your digestive system a chance to rest.

You can go a very long time without eating before it slows down your metabolism and even then it won't change much.

You are conflating fasting, with sustained negative, calorific equity.

I'd agree, that often people find fasting approaches work. But make no mistake, metabolic slowdown is very real, doesn't take many days at all to start (a handful) and will occur after sustained, below maintenance, calorific intake.

To be honest, you could probably lose a lot of weight quickly just adjusting your calories in and leaving your calories out the same.

Well scientific studies have shown that calorie restriction cases metabolic slowdown, problems with satiety, and adherence. Actually, for most, as a generalism, it's better to increase activity than reduce calories.

 

[IDB1]

Sorry chaps.. the last post took a few changes and I missed the in between ones..

If you read more into the slowed down metabolism myth you'd find that skipping breakfast barely does anything to your metabolism. The whole idea of eating 6 small meals a day is unrealistic. I've experimented with it myself and found I lost more weight skipping breakfast even when I was at a stable weight with low-ish body fat. It's good for your body to fast (as it does through the night) and adding a few hours onto the fast is good for you and gives your digestive system a chance to rest.

You can go a very long time without eating before it slows down your metabolism and even then it won't change much.

To be honest, you could probably lose a lot of weight quickly just adjusting your calories in and leaving your calories out the same.

You're having carbs every night it seems, including lots of high GI food (that is if you're eating white rice and pasta) swap the spuds for sweet potatoes, and try skipping on white rice and pasta for a bit and replace it with green veg. Eat as much as you want within reason. Hi GI foods raise your blood sugar levels and when this happens your body stops burning fat.

Stop putting sugar in coffee/tea. They're just empty calories.

A lot of your hunger feelings probably aren't hunger, just your body used to your eating habits and also maybe because the food you are eating takes so long to digest that your body still thinks it's hungry.

If you do have breakfast, have eggs, omelette or scrambled etc. Maybe have them for other meals too.

If you want no BS weightloss info and exercise advice check out fitnessblackbook dot com.

Interesting.. thanks ..

And Neil

And secondly, for people who start diets, typically, initial weight loss can often be misleading and merely water loss.

Couldn't agree more.. and, I'm not sure if this is fact, but I've been told (by people who have studied diet, nutrition, exercise etc.) that this can be up to a stone in some cases..

I'm not about to embark on a strict diet.. a stone (and a half if I'm good) isn't a big ask since I don't have that bad a base to work from..

Losing some podge (belly and love handles

) may take a little longer though, unfortunately...

 

[Neil]

Registering interest.

Need to drop some weight too.

Currently about 217lbs (according to the scales in the vets )

Could do with being more like 190lbs.

Less weights more cardio :x :x

Hate cardio :twisted: :twisted:

If you want to get leaner, but still retain what muscle you have, then continue weights.

When you want to lose weight - in the assumption you want to retain as much muscle as possible - you need to signal to your body that you still need your muscular development. That won't happen by dropping, or significantly reducing the stimulus.

 

[Emoco]

If you read more into the slowed down metabolism myth you'd find that skipping breakfast barely does anything to your metabolism. The whole idea of eating 6 small meals a day is unrealistic. I've experimented with it myself and found I lost more weight skipping breakfast even when I was at a stable weight with low-ish body fat. It's good for your body to fast (as it does through the night) and adding a few hours onto the fast is good for you and gives your digestive system a chance to rest.

You can go a very long time without eating before it slows down your metabolism and even then it won't change much.

You are conflating fasting, with sustained negative, calorific equity.

I'd agree, that often people find fasting approaches work. But make no mistake, metabolic slowdown is very real, doesn't take many days at all to start (a handful) and will occur after sustained, below maintenance, calorific intake.

To be honest, you could probably lose a lot of weight quickly just adjusting your calories in and leaving your calories out the same.

Well scientific studies have shown that calorie restriction cases metabolic slowdown, problems with satiety, and adherence. Actually, for most, as a generalism, it's better to increase activity than reduce calories.

Not saying you're wrong or right, I'm always happy to learn something new, but could you point me in the direction of these studies? I know metabolic slowdown happens, but I don't believe skipping breakfast makes enough of a difference to jeopardise the metabolism compared with cutting those breakfast calories out.

 

[Neil]

If you read more into the slowed down metabolism myth you'd find that skipping breakfast barely does anything to your metabolism. The whole idea of eating 6 small meals a day is unrealistic. I've experimented with it myself and found I lost more weight skipping breakfast even when I was at a stable weight with low-ish body fat. It's good for your body to fast (as it does through the night) and adding a few hours onto the fast is good for you and gives your digestive system a chance to rest.

You can go a very long time without eating before it slows down your metabolism and even then it won't change much.

You are conflating fasting, with sustained negative, calorific equity.

I'd agree, that often people find fasting approaches work. But make no mistake, metabolic slowdown is very real, doesn't take many days at all to start (a handful) and will occur after sustained, below maintenance, calorific intake.

To be honest, you could probably lose a lot of weight quickly just adjusting your calories in and leaving your calories out the same.

Well scientific studies have shown that calorie restriction cases metabolic slowdown, problems with satiety, and adherence. Actually, for most, as a generalism, it's better to increase activity than reduce calories.

Not saying you're wrong or right, I'm always happy to learn something new, but could you point me in the direction of these studies?

Search pubmed - fill your boots.

I know metabolic slowdown happens, but I don't believe skipping breakfast makes enough of a difference to jeopardise the metabolism compared with cutting those breakfast calories out.

It doesn't - and you are most likely right on that count, I merely responded to your "slowed down metabolism myth" comment - since I wouldn't want that to mislead people into believing that the metabolism doesn't slow down.

The breakfast thing will be more down to satiety and hormone response than metabolic slowdown. Some people respond very well to short-term fasting. Others struggle with it greatly - so there's no panacea, there.

 

[paininthe]

Get a good calorie counter and stick to 3000cals a day . Slow / fast metabolism, exercise, big meals, little meals is all tosh. Your final calorie intake is what counts.

Lose the fats, sugar, white flour and white rice they are all "empty calories" they do nothing to keep you well, fit or thin.

Try http://www.myfitnesspal.com as a calorie counter without changing anything and see what your intake is.

Oh how I wish I could practice what I preach

 

[Emoco]

If you read more into the slowed down metabolism myth you'd find that skipping breakfast barely does anything to your metabolism. The whole idea of eating 6 small meals a day is unrealistic. I've experimented with it myself and found I lost more weight skipping breakfast even when I was at a stable weight with low-ish body fat. It's good for your body to fast (as it does through the night) and adding a few hours onto the fast is good for you and gives your digestive system a chance to rest.

You can go a very long time without eating before it slows down your metabolism and even then it won't change much.

You are conflating fasting, with sustained negative, calorific equity.

I'd agree, that often people find fasting approaches work. But make no mistake, metabolic slowdown is very real, doesn't take many days at all to start (a handful) and will occur after sustained, below maintenance, calorific intake.

To be honest, you could probably lose a lot of weight quickly just adjusting your calories in and leaving your calories out the same.

Well scientific studies have shown that calorie restriction cases metabolic slowdown, problems with satiety, and adherence. Actually, for most, as a generalism, it's better to increase activity than reduce calories.

Not saying you're wrong or right, I'm always happy to learn something new, but could you point me in the direction of these studies?

Search pubmed - fill your boots.

I know metabolic slowdown happens, but I don't believe skipping breakfast makes enough of a difference to jeopardise the metabolism compared with cutting those breakfast calories out.

It doesn't - and you are most likely right on that count, I merely responded to your "slowed down metabolism myth" comment - since I wouldn't want that to mislead people into believing that the metabolism doesn't slow down.

The breakfast thing will be more down to satiety and hormone response than metabolic slowdown. Some people respond very well to short-term fasting. Others struggle with it greatly - so there's no panacea, there.

I should have been more clear about the metabolism slowing from skipping breakfast alone.

The OP skips breakfast anyway.

 

[Neil]

Get a good calorie counter and stick to 3000cals a day .

eh? 3000 calories, for some, would be way to high to lose weight?

Best ballpark, 10 x <your weight in pounds> as a starting point for losing weight.

Slow / fast metabolism, exercise, big meals, little meals is all tosh. Your final calorie intake is what counts.

Big meals / little meals, may be all tosh, but metabolic rate isn't, nor is exercise - just look at what you wrote "calorie intake is what counts" - well how, then, can how many calories the body expends, be tosh?

It can't, that's how.

CICO is the bottom line, no doubt. But there are variables. Metabolic rate varies (so how much energy the body consumes over time - so calories out, then, compared with intake); as does adaptations to sustained calorie restriction (below maintenance) - so what happens, as a trend, over time with calories out; partitioning varies (ie where / how the calories get used - some people are more genetically predisposed to create muscle, some to store fat); rate of absorption varies, too.

 

[IDB1]

Get a good calorie counter and stick to 3000cals a day . Slow / fast metabolism, exercise, big meals, little meals is all tosh. Your final calorie intake is what counts.

I'm not convinced that metabolic speed is tosh.. unless somebody can prove otherwise.. in fact, it seems to be quite real and very relevant..

Lose the fats, sugar, white flour and white rice they are all "empty calories" they do nothing to keep you well, fit or thin.

I'll cut down on sugar but some fat is essential and since I can't practically cook one meal for the family and another for me, the rest will have to stay too.. maybe a little juggling of the numbers (but bear in mind already saying that rice and pasta are only once a week so cutting down is going to be minimal )