Weight loss 2016

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny, I do know how I feel better than you do. I'm not talking 30 minutes, I'm talking some emergency that makes a meal a few hours late. I am not simply hungry, I feel woozy. And no, I am not diabetic or prediabetic or pre pre anything. Maybe just because I am normally so scheduled that a big variation throws metabolism off. But again, I know how I feel, you don't.

And I sure don't have to worry about prostrate cancer since I'm not overweight ... oh wait ... I wouldn't anyway.
 
When you sleep, you don't eat for quite a few hours. Tack on the time between dinner/last snack and bed time. 10+ hours?

During that time, your body creates glucose from body fat via gluconeogenesis.

Diabetic has nothing to do with it :)
 
Denny, I know you really want to mansplain to me how I feel, because you know better than I do. You're wrong about that and wrong on facts. Ever hear of morning depression? It's quite common. People feel mentally low, even if they are otherwise OK (and depressed people feel REALLY low) first thing in the morning. And feel better after eating. Ever had a fasting blood test? It's needed for baseline blood sugar and other labs. If you ever did, I'll bet you felt crummy. People who don't eat in the morning often feel woozy. I had that problem in college when I had an early (6-8) AM job, walked there (1 1/2 miles), worked on my feet 2 hours, then ate before class. I was advised to eat a small snack in the morning. When Jews fast on Yom Kippur, the idea is that it is supposed to be uncomfortable. People are supposed to feel rotten. (But not life threatening, which is why young children, pregnant women, and sick people are exempt.)

I mean, if you are determined to mansplain how I feel, I can't stop you. But I find it pretty funny.
 
When you stuff your face with carb loaded foods and lots of added sugar, you absolutely crave more sugar. I don't dispute that.

That the body needs carbs to create glucose to feed cells and the brain is what I am disputing.

If you didn't stuff your face with carbs and added sugar, you wouldn't crash from lack of food when you're hungry.

That's all there is to it.
 
crandc said:
Denny, I do know how I feel better than you do. I'm not talking 30 minutes, I'm talking some emergency that makes a meal a few hours late. I am not simply hungry, I feel woozy. And no, I am not diabetic or prediabetic or pre pre anything. Maybe just because I am normally so scheduled that a big variation throws metabolism off. But again, I know how I feel, you don't.

And I sure don't have to worry about prostrate cancer since I'm not overweight ... oh wait ... I wouldn't anyway.
Click to expand...

Have you been checked for anemia?
 
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...eatment-weight-loss-fitness-cancer-recurrence

Trial to investigate link between weight, fitness and cancer recurrence
Scientists to test hypothesis that a weight loss programme for breast cancer patients after medical treatment lowers risk of disease returning

A large trial is being launched this summer to establish whether diet and exercise regimes should be prescribed by doctors for women who have had breast cancer in the same way that they prescribe drugs, to prevent the disease returning and potentially save lives.

Women who are overweight or obese have a higher risk of breast cancer. But accumulating evidence suggests that becoming fitter and losing some pounds after a diagnosis could cut the chances of a recurrence and even lower the risk of death.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ercise-are-pointless-for-losing-weight-warns/

Low-fat diets and exercise are pointless for losing weight, warns surgical expert

Low fat diets and exercise are pointless for those wanting to lose weight and obese people should simply eat less, a former shadow health minister told the House of Lords yesterday.

Lord McColl, emeritus professor of surgery at Guys Hospital in London, warned that current health advice to avoid fat was ‘false and misleading’ and was fuelling the obesity epidemic.

Speaking at a House of Lords debate, the former surgeon warned that exercising was useless against the huge levels of calories from carbohydrates and sugars that people are now consuming. He warned that the obesity epidemic was as bad for public health as the 1919 flu epidemic.

(Sugar is the enemy.)
 
Damn BC, you are killing it! 40 is a good amount, I'm sure you are feeling the benefit by now, walking easier, stairs, sweating less, all those things that keep adding up. Awesome.

My update, not much more than holding steady. I've been drinking a lot more wine lately which makes it difficult, but it's also why I am back in school, in a new industry and all that stuff. Balance is difficult. I'm not looking to lose a bunch more at this point, so holding steady ain't bad. But eventually, I'd love to drop another 15lbs or so.
 
Been a while since I posted an update:

I'm down more than 63 pounds and have finally broken the 300lbs barrier; weighed in at 299.4 this morning. This is the first time I've been under 300 since this time around 2003.
 
Last edited:
When you break 200, you're in onederland.

Whatever you're doing is working, so keep it up. And stick with it after you're done losing weight.
 
Denny Crane said:
When you break 200, you're in onederland.

Whatever you're doing is working, so keep it up. And stick with it after you're done losing weight.
Click to expand...

My current setup:

Each morning, I set my base max calories to 1800. But, as I track my activity during the day, I grant myself calories in addition to the 1800. My goal is to end up with 2000 calories allowed during the day. It's very gentle, but the start of a process that will ramp up over time. As I do this more, I'll lower the base calories (say, to 1700 or 1600), and expect more exercise out of myself. It forces both better eating habits and more light exercise.

Holding to a 2000 diet is something I plan on keeping up forever.
 
I don't mean to discourage anyone, but 90% of people who lose weight on diets end up gaining it all back, and then some.

The problem is twofold.

1) Whatever you did to lose weight is something you need to do for life. It's not a "diet" that you go on to lose weight, then go back to eating "normal." Whatever you did before the diet is what got you overweight in the first place. Stick with what lost the weight, just add enough more food/calories to maintain your weight.

2) If you lose weight too fast, you kill your metabolism. The biggest losers lost hundred+ pounds during the season and they're all back to their previous weight. When the researchers looked at their metabolisms, they were significantly lower than they would be for a person of their height, age, and weight. By a lot. This is a giant hole you're already in. It doesn't take _that_ much extra food to really put on the pounds after losing weight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0

After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight
Contestants lost hundreds of pounds during Season 8, but gained them back. A study of their struggles helps explain why so many people fail to keep off the weight they lose.

(the relevant bits follow)

“It is frightening and amazing,” said Dr. Hall, an expert on metabolism at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. “I am just blown away.”

It has to do with resting metabolism, which determines how many calories a person burns when at rest. When the show began, the contestants, though hugely overweight, had normal metabolisms for their size, meaning they were burning a normal number of calories for people of their weight. When it ended, their metabolisms had slowed radically and their bodies were not burning enough calories to maintain their thinner sizes.

Researchers knew that just about anyone who deliberately loses weight — even if they start at a normal weight or even underweight — will have a slower metabolism when the diet ends. So they were not surprised to see that “The Biggest Loser” contestants had slow metabolisms when the show ended.

What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight.

Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
My current setup:

Each morning, I set my base max calories to 1800. But, as I track my activity during the day, I grant myself calories in addition to the 1800. My goal is to end up with 2000 calories allowed during the day. It's very gentle, but the start of a process that will ramp up over time. As I do this more, I'll lower the base calories (say, to 1700 or 1600), and expect more exercise out of myself. It forces both better eating habits and more light exercise.

Holding to a 2000 diet is something I plan on keeping up forever.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a solid approach. The biggest losers, that I mentioned just now, ate at much more massive calorie deficits and that did the real damage.

At 300 lbs, your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is probably over 4000 calories. You might lose 2lbs/week at 3000. FWIW. But at 1800, you're still fine. When you end up eating 2000+ calories a day to maintain, you aren't likely to regain the weight.
 
Denny Crane said:
This sounds like a solid approach. The biggest losers, that I mentioned just now, at at much more massive calorie deficits and that did the real damage.

At 300 lbs, your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is probably over 4000 calories. You might lose 2lbs/week at 3000. FWIW. But at 1800, you're still fine. When you end up eating 2000+ calories a day to maintain, you aren't likely to regain the weight.
Click to expand...

I don't feel like I'm withholding from myself until I get to 1600 calories a day. I experimented with a bunch of different calorie intakes, and 1800 is strict but not leaving me hungry at any time. I just don't get any candy. :lol:

My metabolism is super-low; at 2000 calories, I'm losing 2lbs a week. Thus the stricter base with an exercise reward system. Gotta bump that metabolism up!
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't mean to discourage anyone, but 90% of people who lose weight on diets end up gaining it all back, and then some.

The problem is twofold.

1) Whatever you did to lose weight is something you need to do for life. It's not a "diet" that you go on to lose weight, then go back to eating "normal." Whatever you did before the diet is what got you overweight in the first place. Stick with what lost the weight, just add enough more food/calories to maintain your weight.

2) If you lose weight too fast, you kill your metabolism. The biggest losers lost hundred+ pounds during the season and they're all back to their previous weight. When the researchers looked at their metabolisms, they were significantly lower than they would be for a person of their height, age, and weight. By a lot. This is a giant hole you're already in. It doesn't take _that_ much extra food to really put on the pounds after losing weight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0

After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight
Contestants lost hundreds of pounds during Season 8, but gained them back. A study of their struggles helps explain why so many people fail to keep off the weight they lose.

(the relevant bits follow)

“It is frightening and amazing,” said Dr. Hall, an expert on metabolism at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. “I am just blown away.”

It has to do with resting metabolism, which determines how many calories a person burns when at rest. When the show began, the contestants, though hugely overweight, had normal metabolisms for their size, meaning they were burning a normal number of calories for people of their weight. When it ended, their metabolisms had slowed radically and their bodies were not burning enough calories to maintain their thinner sizes.

Researchers knew that just about anyone who deliberately loses weight — even if they start at a normal weight or even underweight — will have a slower metabolism when the diet ends. So they were not surprised to see that “The Biggest Loser” contestants had slow metabolisms when the show ended.

What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight.

Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.
Click to expand...

This happened to me ten years ago. I weighed 372, then dropped successfully to 325, but over the course of the next three years gained back up to 350, then eventually to 372 again this January. THIS time, through micromanagement (which I'm going to have to do forever) and a reason to be healthy (my children), I'm sticking with it forever.
 
Personally, I swear by cutting out the carbs. I was doing keto diet, Mrs. Crane was doing WeightWatcher's. She started eating my food and gained a few pounds. It was noticeable, and it didn't take long.

Low Carb/High Fat (LCHF) and WeightWatcher's (low fat, high carb) do not mix. High fat and high carbs is the formula for the fastest weight gain - it gets two metabolic pathways working at the same time.

I mentioned to her that she could do a low-ish carb diet, count calories, and eat my food. She tried it and hasn't gone back to eating high carbs. She's eating 100g or less, which allows her to eat apples and bananas, so she's happy.

She counted calories for about 2 weeks then stopped counting. She stuck with the diet and has lost over 30 lbs.

I don't count calories either, just carbs. I've been maintaining my weight at 170lbs for quite a while now.

It's not "all you can eat" by any stretch. More like "eat until you're not hungry anymore."

Whatever you choose to do to lose weight, it's what you've got to do for life to keep it off. I am satisfied to eat steak and burgers and fish along with a few selected vegetables. I'm particularly happy to be able to eat bacon and use butter in cooking.

I lost weight counting calories and eating low fat. This was back in 2000. By the time I started the keto diet, I was up 60lbs from my lowest weight in 2000.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
I don't feel like I'm withholding from myself until I get to 1600 calories a day. I experimented with a bunch of different calorie intakes, and 1800 is strict but not leaving me hungry at any time. I just don't get any candy. :lol:

My metabolism is super-low; at 2000 calories, I'm losing 2lbs a week. Thus the stricter base with an exercise reward system. Gotta bump that metabolism up!
Click to expand...

Yes, the secret to healthy weight loss is to preserve your metabolism while cutting down on the food. It remains to be seen if you can eat 2000 kcal at 200lbs and continue losing weight...

Exercise isn't good for much weight loss. You might burn ~100 kcal per mile you walk or run. That's about as many calories as cutting out a cheese stick.

sargento-snacks-string-cheese.jpg


Exercise is good for you in other ways, so try to get as much as you can.
 
A few weeks ago, my wife finally checked her blood sugar for the first time in several years. It was...not good. Very not good. Doc prescribed diabetes meds, but she hates how they have made her feel in the past, so we've gone virtually no-carb in order to get the blood sugar down drug free. Took a few days, but she's now been in normal range for about the past two weeks.

While her sugars have been going down, my weight has. I was 235 on my birthday (7/30), and was still in that neighborhood when we started. This morning, I was 217. Ultimately, I'd love to get back down to 185 (BMI of 22.5), but wherever I end up, it's going to be based solely on carb cutting and nothing else.

Kind of annoying to my wife that I'm losing weight faster than she is, but I have no control over that.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
A few weeks ago, my wife finally checked her blood sugar for the first time in several years. It was...not good. Very not good. Doc prescribed diabetes meds, but she hates how they have made her feel in the past, so we've gone virtually no-carb in order to get the blood sugar down drug free. Took a few days, but she's now been in normal range for about the past two weeks.

While her sugars have been going down, my weight has. I was 235 on my birthday (7/30), and was still in that neighborhood when we started. This morning, I was 217. Ultimately, I'd love to get back down to 185 (BMI of 22.5), but wherever I end up, it's going to be based solely on carb cutting and nothing else.

Kind of annoying to my wife that I'm losing weight faster than she is, but I have no control over that.
Click to expand...
Yep. Ketogenic diets control blood glucose levels. Amazing how fast it happens, too. It's mind boggling that doctors tell you to eat more sugar if you are diabetic or pre diabetic. Very low carb (VLC), and the body will make enough glucose to fit its needs. Carbs are turned to glucose and is preferred by the body over fat and protein. It is addicting and you tend to be hungry not too long after eating.

If you have more to lose, you will lose it faster early on. Plus VLC causes you to dump a lot of water from your cells. People often see 6-10lbs loss the first week; mostly water.

Use extra salt. If you don't, you'll have electrolyte issues. These can be headache, lethargy, etc. lack of sodium causes the body to use potassium instead, which isn't good.

Since you are eating fat and protein instead of carbs, you should feel full and longer. Fat inhibits gastric emptying and protein metabolizes slowest of the macronutrients. Most people automatically cut calories on VLC because they feel full much of the time.
 
My weight hasn't budged in some time now which sucks a bit, but I'm in the middle of harvest and the work is so physical that I have been allowing myself to eat whatever I feel I need. Harvest will be over in a month, and then it will be back to dropping. On the other hand, I was just walking by a big metal bar that was just overhead, so grabbed it to do attempt a pull up. Did several, and that felt good. When I weighed 100+ more than I do now, the idea of a pull up was so foreign that it really surprised me that I could do that now.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
A few weeks ago, my wife finally checked her blood sugar for the first time in several years. It was...not good. Very not good. Doc prescribed diabetes meds, but she hates how they have made her feel in the past, so we've gone virtually no-carb in order to get the blood sugar down drug free. Took a few days, but she's now been in normal range for about the past two weeks.

While her sugars have been going down, my weight has. I was 235 on my birthday (7/30), and was still in that neighborhood when we started. This morning, I was 217. Ultimately, I'd love to get back down to 185 (BMI of 22.5), but wherever I end up, it's going to be based solely on carb cutting and nothing else.

Kind of annoying to my wife that I'm losing weight faster than she is, but I have no control over that.
Click to expand...
Still going VLC (except for a few special occasions where I felt like splurging) without limiting consumption volume. Down to 203 as of this morning, basically down 25-30 pounds in two months (not sure exactly where I was when we started). My pants had gotten so baggy that my wife made me buy some new 34" waist jeans this weekend. First time this decade I've been there. I'm thinking this has to slow down soon, but I'm going to let my body make that call.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Still going VLC (except for a few special occasions where I felt like splurging) without limiting consumption volume. Down to 203 as of this morning, basically down 25-30 pounds in two months (not sure exactly where I was when we started). My pants had gotten so baggy that my wife made me buy some new 34" waist jeans this weekend. First time this decade I've been there. I'm thinking this has to slow down soon, but I'm going to let my body make that call.
Click to expand...

Congrats bud! This is great news. Funny how easy it is to lose weight when you drop carbs.
 
I've been going the wrong direction - a little bit. Been seriously dating a woman and we've been making large delicious meals every night. It's time to start paying more attention. Starting now.
 
Further said:
I've been going the wrong direction - a little bit. Been seriously dating a woman and we've been making large delicious meals every night. It's time to start paying more attention. Starting now.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear it, both about the serious dating and the resuming of the proper diet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top