Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

losing weight- any ideas?


Recommended Posts

In December I was 172 lbs and I'm 5'7", and was categorized as "Obese". I was surprised to be labeled Obese, but it's based on how high your body fat percentage is compared to your total weight. In reality, the terms "obese" and "morbidly obese" are pretty stigmatized and not what people think it is, and my body fat was well over it should have been.

Since December I lost 13 lbs, which doesn't seem like much, but lost 7% of body fat (which is good). I honestly didn't do any neat diets or fads, I just stuck to the basics.

I cut out refined sugar/simple carbs, all sodas and carbonated drinks, as well as processed foods. I now stick to proteins, fresh veggies, good proteins, and LOTS of water. I cut out all red meat for now, and eat mostly fish, chicken, ground turkey, and some pork. I eat a lot of protein because it keeps me full and using better energy than sugars or simple carbs. I agree that pastas and other complex carbs are beneficial, especially after you use a lot of energy (like during exercise) because it gives you energy and feeds your muscles. Also eating 5 smaller meals a day (or 3 small to medium meals and 2 snacks) has helped me stay full and energized throughout the day.

My exercise started simple, you don't have to go out and jog to see results. I HATE running or jogging, you definitely aren't alone! I recommend stretched every morning (to help blood flow) whether you exercise or not (of course stretch before exercise always). I walked 1 to 2 miles 3 times a week, and did simple exercises like crunches, 20 minutes on the elliptical, squats. Starting out "small" helped me get into more intense workouts and gave me the ability to do more and last longer during those workouts.

TBH Pinterest has been my friend. Pinning easy and healthy means, exercises to try, and even motivational quotes has made eating and living healthy a bit easier. I'm still trying to lose body fat and tone my muscles, but my main concern was always doing something that I could keep to for the rest of my life; not just lose weight and gain it back. So far I've seen a lot of positive change in my energy levels, mood, that constant feeling of crappiness, and how I feel about myself as a whole (despite the slow changing numbers on the scale).

ETA
I also wanted to say that my mentality has been pretty simple (and ironically I just said something about it). My goal every day is to eat less CRAP (C) carbonated drinks (R) refined sugar (A) artificial swetener and colors (P) processed foods and eat more FOOD (F) fruits and vegetables (O) organic lean proteins (O) omega 3 fatty acids (D) drink water.

Keeping it day to day makes it an easier fight. Also making exercise schedules and meal plans for the week is SUPER helpful and kept me on goal pretty well.

Edited by Sloane
Added CRAP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My diet is restricted due to allergies anyway, but my gp actually recommends the ketogenic diet. I find that when I'm on it the weight melts off and I feel amazing, my skin is clear and I have a tonne of energy. This is a big read, but it's the complete breakdown of the science: http://josepharcita.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/guide-to-ketosis.html?m=1#33MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Learnt to lift. If you can gain access to either free weights or weight stack machines, learn to weight lift. As already said above, there is a lot of pseudoscience surrounding weight loss. However, there are several things that are important. As Melissa said above, our bodies need some healthy fats to function. By completely starving our body of any fats, our bodies going into a kind of shock. Sounds contradictory....but we need a little good fat in our diet in order to lose weight.

Weightlifting requires using large muscles.....some of the largest of which are in our legs. Using these large muscles burns a lot of fuel. We have other large muscles in our chest , our arms and our backs. There is no way you should start trying to lift anything without someone assessing your baseline level of fitness and tailoring a programme for you with appropriate starting weights and specific exercises. It takes much longer to actually 'lose' weight this way because our bodies need fuel in order to lift and initially people desire a higher calorie intake to cope with the demand of building muscle.

This being said, if you can try and develop a good food regime, that is avoiding excessive manufactured foods, foods high in salt, corn syrup, processed sugars, and 'learn' to eat more foods like vegetables, fruit (not fruit juice), legumes and substitute foods (like dates as a substitute for something sweet), lean meats (like chicken, beef or turkey), whilst weight training, your body will adapt over time and you should lose weight. Somewhat paradoxically, you may not lose much weight according to the scales, however your body will change shape as different muscle groups start to become larger, and others remain relatively the same size. You may end up appearing 'smaller' but not actually weigh a huge amount less than you once did.

Carbohydrates are really important in our diet too. We need them for good cerebral function, so how stuff like No Carb Diets are ever supposed to be sustainable is beyond me. I'm not a dietician nor a PT, however I have had some really great guidance over the years from some people who know their stuff about nutrition and exercise.

 

 

Staying off the booze and weed helps too.

 

 

 

Edited by sprocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, sprocket said:

Learnt to lift. If you can gain access to either free weights or weight stack machines, learn to weight lift. As already said above, there is a lot of pseudoscience surrounding weight loss. However, there are several things that are important. As Melissa said above, our bodies need some healthy fats to function. By completely starving our body of any fats, our bodies going into a kind of shock. Sounds contradictory....but we need a little good fat in our diet in order to lose weight.

Weightlifting requires using large muscles.....some of the largest of which are in our legs. Using these large muscles burns a lot of fuel. We have other large muscles in our chest , our arms and our backs. There is no way you should start trying to lift anything without someone assessing your baseline level of fitness and tailoring a programme for you with appropriate starting weights and specific exercises. It takes much longer to actually 'lose' weight this way because our bodies need fuel in order to lift and initially people desire a higher calorie intake to cope with the demand of building muscle.

This being said, if you can try and develop a good food regime, that is avoiding excessive manufactured foods, foods high in salt, corn syrup, processed sugars, and 'learn' to eat more foods like vegetables, fruit (not fruit juice), legumes and substitute foods (like dates as a substitute for something sweet), lean meats (like chicken, beef or turkey), whilst weight training, your body will adapt over time and you should lose weight. Somewhat paradoxically, you may not lose much weight according to the scales, however your body will change shape as different muscle groups start to become larger, and others remain relatively the same size. You may end up appearing 'smaller' but not actually weigh a huge amount less than you once did.

Carbohydrates are really important in our diet too. We need them for good cerebral function, so how stuff like No Carb Diets are ever supposed to be sustainable is beyond me. I'm not a dietician nor a PT, however I have had some really great guidance over the years from some people who know their stuff about nutrition and exercise.

 

 

Staying off the booze and weed helps too.

 

 

 

While there are essential fatty acids and essential amino acids, there are no essential carbohydrates. It is often claimed that the brain needs 120-130 grams of glucose per day, leading to the recommendation that we should eat at least 120-130 grams of carbohydrate. While the brain will use that much glucose when it is readily available, it is by no means necessary. The brain will hum along quite nicely when most of its energy comes from ketones, which are products of fat metabolism. Indeed, the ketones can be produced locally in the astrocytes of the brain in addition the those produced by the liver. It is unlikely that we would have evolved such a sophisticated mechanism if the brain depended entirely on glucose for fuel. The use of ketones can reduce the need for glucose by 50-75%, so we could make do with as little as 30 grams. 

And that glucose needn't come from ingested carbohydrate, as the body can create its own using a process called gluconeogenesis, typically using protein or glycerol (the molecule that binds fatty acids together into triglycerides). Some other tissues require glucose for proper functioning, notably the retina of the eye and part of the kidneys. Those glucose needs can also be met by gluconeogenesis. And it appears that the brain can also use lactate for fuel, perhaps preferentially to even glucose in some instances, such as when there has been a traumatic brain injury. 

So anyway, the carbohydrate requirement advanced by many dietitians and others is based on an incomplete knowledge of biochemistry. It is actually possible to thrive on nothing by meat, provided it has ample fat content.* This was demonstrated by Vilhjalmur Stefansson and Karsten Anderson during the late 1920s, after spending time with the Inuit. The Masai in Africa likewise subsist largely on animal products, mostly a diet of milk, meat, and blood. Note that such diets may contain some carbohydrate in the form of glycogen when the meat is eaten raw, however.** It's also important to note that such cultures typically use the whole animal, with organ meats such as liver being highly prized. The muscle meat is  sometimes fed to the dogs, in fact. 

*Once again, fat is important, and our brains are actually mostly composed of fat. Rabbits are notoriously lean, for instance, and their exclusive consumption—or that of other overly-lean meat—can lead to 'rabbit starvation.'

**Certain raw flesh also provides vitamin C.

Edited by Flash
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Flash said:

While there are essential fatty acids and essential amino acids, there are no essential carbohydrates. It is often claimed that the brain needs 120-130 grams of glucose per day, leading to the recommendation that we should eat at least 120-130 grams of carbohydrate. While the brain will use that much glucose when it is readily available, it is by no means necessary. The brain will hum along quite nicely when most of its energy comes from ketones, which are products of fat metabolism. Indeed, the ketones can be produced locally in the astrocytes of the brain in addition the those produced by the liver. It is unlikely that we would have evolved such a sophisticated mechanism if the brain depended entirely on glucose for fuel. The use of ketones can reduce the need for glucose by 50-75%, so we could make do with as little as 30 grams. 

And that glucose needn't come from ingested carbohydrate, as the body can create its own using a process called gluconeogenesis, typically using protein or glycerol (the molecule that binds fatty acids together into triglycerides). Some other tissues require glucose for proper functioning, notably the retina of the eye and part of the kidneys. Those glucose needs can also be met by gluconeogenesis. And it appears that the brain can also use lactate for fuel, perhaps preferentially to even glucose in some instances, such as when there has been a traumatic brain injury. 

So anyway, the carbohydrate requirement advanced by many dietitians and others is based on an incomplete knowledge of biochemistry. It is actually possible to thrive on nothing by meat, provided it has ample fat content.* This was demonstrated by Vilhjalmur Stefansson and Karsten Anderson during the late 1920s, after spending time with the Inuit. The Masai in Africa likewise subsist largely on animal products, mostly a diet of milk, meat, and blood. Note that such diets may contain some carbohydrate in the form of glycogen when the meat is eaten raw, however.** It's also important to note that such cultures typically use the whole animal, with organ meats such as liver being highly prized. The muscle meat is  sometimes fed to the dogs, in fact. 

*Once again, fat is important, and our brains are actually mostly composed of fat. Rabbits are notoriously lean, for instance, and their exclusive consumption can lead to 'rabbit starvation.'

**Certain raw flesh also provides vitamin C.

O.k. That is another viewpoint on the subject of carbohydrates and cerebral function. The OP made the self observation that they have relatively undeveloped cardio fitness and are starting to think about lifestyle changes. Without getting into a really scientific discussion about the 'why'....some complex carbohydrates in their diet would probably help them more than hurt them if they are exploring their options for sustainable weight loss.

Edited by sprocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2016 at 1:26 AM, melissaw72 said:

It depends on the kinds of fats a person eats.  The fat from processed foods is the bad fat, but the healthy fats from avocado, nuts. seeds, coconut oil, eggs, etc might actually help weight loss.  Here are some links about it:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/557726-eat-fat-to-burn-fat/

(^^although I don't agree with looking at caloric intake)

http://drhyman.com/blog/2016/01/08/why-fat-doesnt-make-you-fat/

http://drhyman.com/blog/2015/12/27/separating-fat-from-fiction-10-fat-facts-you-need-to-know/

If you google, "why eating fat doesn't make you fat" there are lots more links explaining it.

wow, you've opened me up to a whole new world of dieting ideas!

 

On 4/18/2016 at 1:27 AM, HAL9000 said:

Me endo gave me a diet that works for women called the "Yes Diet"   The idea is that its the easiest doable diet.  It goes something like this (Duckduckgo.com it)

5 servings of fruits and or vegtables   *Check serving size its not 5 plates full its actually not a huge amount.

8??  "Glasses" of water.  Again its not a giant Bugs Bunny sippy cup size its more like a cup.

30 grams?? of fiber.  This can be done a variety of different ways.   Put some fiber jazz in something you blend like if you do smoothies or whatever.  Fiber Cookies are actually pretty good but not every day.

*All of these amounts are probably wrong but - look it up and check it out because if you do the three things then you eat regular stuff.  In other words "Can I eat _______?" Yes...   I asked her if my SO could eat birthcake three times a day and the doc said do the three things and eat whatever.  

Now, she put me on a diet for men that worked that was about as easy and I lost almost 100lbs.

Within an hour of waking eat proteans *Selxed? such as egg, meat, cheese etc.  Eat a big breakfast.  Do whatever you do for lunch and then avoid eating after 6 PM and if you have any will power at all back off on the evening chow fest. 

It sounds weird but the man diet is all engo metobolism magic not all the counting calories etc that men won't ever do for more then a couple weeks.   She told me don't tell women about the man diet it totally won't work for them.

My personal advice is to not obsess on the scale.  Check out whats going on monthly.   The goal is not to crash diet thus screwing yourself up but to gradually dial down.   Its also more likely you will stay at a good BMI not yo yo up and down which is bad for you.

I hope that is of some help

thank you so much for sharing - i dont know that i can hold back on the evening chow fest though. not eating after 6? - how do you do that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 4/17/2016 at 11:33 PM, jt07 said:

Sorry, melissa, I don't believe that. Some fats are better for you than others for sure, but when it comes to losing weight, a fat is a fat.

There is a lot of psuedoscience when it comes to dieting mechanisms that I could write a whole book on it. It really is as simple as basic physics (conservation of energy).

I'm shocked you disagree because any one in the scientific community will tell you that your body must burn through carbohydrates first then it burns through fat. If you are on a high carb low fat diet then your body will be burning carbohydrates mainly as a source of fuel which you don't want unless you are a world class athlete. Nothing pseudo about this science. Its a well known fact. So likewise on a low carb high fat diet your body will burn fat primarily for fuel instead of carbohydrates since there aren't many carbohydrates to burn it goes straight to the fat. If I eat pure fat I won't get fat but if I eat pure carbohydrate I will get fat for the reasons stated above. You may have had success restricting calories on a calorie restricted diet but you starve yourself on such diets. When on drugs like we take you want your body to use fat as its main source of energy and you don't do it with high amounts of carbohydrates but with fat. If you eat carbs your body uses carbs for energy and stores fat. Eat fat and your body uses that fat for energy and burns the excess fat. Pretty simple.

Heres 23 studies on low carb vs low fat diets.

https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

 

And a link you are probably well aware.

Heres the classic article on the subject.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/10/zyprexa_and_fat.html

 

At the end he says " 5.  The immediate clinical consequence of this information is probably (paradoxically) to tell the patients to eat less sugar. 

Unless you dramatically cut fat out of your diet, the body will still churn through what fat you do eat at the expense of carbohydrate.  Better, and easier, to reduce the carb load that lingers in your body (and likely ultimately gets stored.) "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586399/

The LCHF, the most extreme way to reduce appetite, has not been tested at all. Clinicians and researchers may believe that such diets are either too complex to follow or are detrimental to mental health. Also eating large amounts of fat to loose weight seems counter-intuitive. In practice though, most LCHF diets do not contain larger amounts of fat than normally consumed [55]; the proportion of energy derived from fat is increased because of the reduced contribution from carbohydrates. Technically, a low-carbohydrate diet should not pose a greater challenge than a low fat diet or a calorie restricted diet. Intriguingly, the ketogenic diet has occasionally been reported to improve psychotic symptoms in patients suffering from schizophrenia [68, 69]. Given that the ketogenic diet can be used to treat certain form of epilepsies such as myoclonic epilepsy [70] and may even be of value for some patients suffering from autism [71], the question arises whether this diet could be of some benefit in other neuro-developmental and degenerative brain disorders [72] including schizophrenia.

 

Edited by JustGotOut
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JustGotOut said:

I'm shocked you disagree because any one in the scientific community will tell you that your body must burn through carbohydrates first then it burns through fat.

Cite me peer reviewed scientific studies or else I think this is just flat wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jt07 said:

Cite me peer reviewed scientific studies or else I think this is just flat wrong.

Google is your friend.

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+the+body+burn+carbohydrates+or+fat+first&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

This is not a secret. Its so rudimentary that i don't think they even have a study for it. Its just a fact.

 

Theres studies on which burns more fat low carb or high carb which i posted above.

Found this link on which is burned first.

http://www.virtualmedstudent.com/links/healthy_living/understanding_how_the_body_burns_carbs_proteins_fats_simple.html

Edited by JustGotOut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing I'm going to do is to use Google to try to prove a claim that you made. The onus is on you to prove it. Also, Google will return a lot of crackpot theories and psuedoscientific studies along with any real scientific studies.

You didn't post 23 studies. You posted an article. The 23 studies were cherry picked and "analyzed" by the author of that article who has a particular, and in my opinion wrong, point of view.

59 minutes ago, JustGotOut said:

Unless you dramatically cut fat out of your diet, the body will still churn through what fat you do eat at the expense of carbohydrate

This ^ says the opposite of what your claim was. Your claim was that the body burns carbs before fats and this says that it burns fat at the expense of carbs. The issue here is people whose glucose metabolism is affected by Zyprexa. I'm not talking about people with diabetes or pre-diabetes. I'm talking specifically about healthy individuals. Healthy individuals will always do better to cut down on fat first and carbs second.

The last study you cited deals with behavior and diet and the use of diet to improve psychiatric symptoms and is not relevant.

I asked for a study that shows your claim that your body must burn through carbohydrates before it burns through fat. You have not given me that. In fact, you gave me one that says just the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The oxidation of any one fuel at rest or during exercise does not occur in isolation, and many aspects of metabolism are simultaneously active at a given point in time. Both carbohydrate and fat are oxidized at rest to provide the energy required for basal metabolic processes in skeletal muscle, and there is a reciprocal relationship between the utilization of carbohydrate and fat. Fuel shifts occur at rest despite a generally unchanged metabolic demand and are largely driven by the availability of substrate. For example, increasing the availability of blood glucose increases the uptake and oxidation of carbohydrate in skeletal muscle, while decreasing the availability and oxidation of fat, with little change in the metabolic rate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4008806/

In other words, we burn both carbs and fat at the same time, but the ratio utilized can vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is very simple. The body needs X calories to maintain life even if you do no exercise at all. That might vary if you are on antipsychotics or for a variety of reasons. I'm not arguing that point. What I am saying is that:

 

(Calories in) - X  - (Calories expended) 

had better be a negative number or you aren't going to lose weight. It's simple physics.

Now fat has more calories than carbohydrates so it makes sense that you can eat more carbohydrates than fat and still lose the same amount of weight.

And this is not all theory. I lost 100 lbs. on a high carb/very low fat diet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just butting in on this necro thread. 

For the most part weight loss is calories in <calories out

there are all kinds of free apps that make calorie counting easy.

i like myfitnesspal, I just have trouble sticking to eating less calories

a lot of diets are eliminating a macro - low fat, low carb or eliminating certain foods work for some people because it causes them to intake less calories. 

there are health conditions where you may have to eat a certain type of diet. Otherwise, you can eat a variety of foods, just watch the calories.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, jt07 said:

What I'm saying is very simple. The body needs X calories to maintain life even if you do no exercise at all. That might vary if you are on antipsychotics or for a variety of reasons. I'm not arguing that point. What I am saying is that:

 

(Calories in) - X  - (Calories expended) 

had better be a negative number or you aren't going to lose weight. It's simple physics.

Now fat has more calories than carbohydrates so it makes sense that you can eat more carbohydrates than fat and still lose the same amount of weight.

And this is not all theory. I lost 100 lbs. on a high carb/very low fat diet.

Weight loss isn't as simple as saying oh you have a calorie deficit you will lose weight. If that were true then people who eat only 1200 calories a day would all lose weight. But if you look on this forum you will see many people tried the low calorie approach and didn't lose weight. Its possible to be in a state of starvation or calorie deficit and gain fat and weight. So its not that simple at all. Likewise on a low carb high fat diet people generally aren't in a calorie deficit yet lose more weight than those on a high carb low calorie diet. There is a metabolic advantage to low carb that you don't get in high carb. One I recommend anyone who is on psychotropics and dealing with a weight issue or metabolic issue to look into. The other nice thing about low carb is it cures metabolic syndrome which these drugs cause. Its a win win in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...