Weight Loss 2020

[rosy]

Honestly? Disappointed. I know I should be pleased, it's 3lb, but I thought I'd lose more in the first week of dieting. Ah well. Water and dust between the hours of 12 and 6 it is! (kidding)

[Morganna]

May I join in? I don't know if it's post-Christmas or thyroid, but I need to shift the spare tyre that I lost but have regained all of a sudden. I am not looking for miracles, but I bought new smaller clothes, and they are getting tight.

I don't have a strategy yet, but will look again through the thread and see what suits me best. I might be joining you on the water and dust diet, rosy.

[Morganna]

Right, I am going to look into the fasting thing. I can't moderate with anything, so that is probably best. I think my sister did something where she ate five days a week or something, so I'll ask her about that, and if I don't like the sound of it I'll think about restricting to certain hours. I don't really eat a lot during the day. I have a small breakfast and often skip lunch, or if I do eat at lunchtime I hardly eat anything in the evening.

I must be doing something wrong though. Having said that, I am getting zero exercise because of breathlessness, so that won't be helping, and my thyroid is buggered, so there's that, too.

[ParisGal]

It's a great result, rosy, but if you're used to week1 being more impressive I can see it could be frustrating. I've never done serious dieting and even when I make quite an effort to be sensible the results on the scale seem fairly random, so it sounds amazing to me

[happyhighlandcoo]

Well done, dizzy and rosy. Sorry you were hoping for more, rosy but it is still the right direction and it all adds up.

Sorry you're finding it tough, PG. Afternoon/early evening snacking is my downfall too. I'm trying to have an apple or fruit pot, or a dried fruit and chocolate mix, or dark chocolate rice cakes and the poppadoms you microwave are very low calorie.

I can do OK for 1200 but find 1400 gives me more flexibility for snacks and a little sweet thing after tea. I tend to have cereal and raisins for breakfast for 200 calories, a soup or salad for lunch around 400 calories, evening meal around 450-500 calories which leaves 150-350 calories for snacks. Evening meals tend to be pasta, chilli, Mexican rice bowl, stir fry, all of which come in around 500 calories. I'd rather have those 200 extra calories and lose a bit slower than constantly feel deprived.

I also hate the mental energy of it all but a good set of digital scales and a few little bowls for doing a quick portion of cheese etc have made it easier. I also try to save meals in MFP so I can just quick add from pre-planned and calculated meals.

Anyway, that all sounds great in theory but I'm not currently back on it. I lost over a stone before Christmas but have been on a bit of a bender since Christmas with snacks and no exercise. I haven't gained anything but I really do need to get back in the zone. I'm at a party today though so maybe tomorrow...

[Marth]

That's really good, Rosy. I can never really lose more than a pound a week, and that's really trying!

[nineseven]

3lb is good, Rosy!

I have been the same weight every day for more than two weeks so I had a cheat meal yesterday to try and break the mini stall. It's worked in the past. I'm not weighing again until Tuesday.

[ParisGal]

Sorry you're finding it tough, PG. Afternoon/early evening snacking is my downfall too. I'm trying to have an apple or fruit pot, or a dried fruit and chocolate mix, or dark chocolate rice cakes and the poppadoms you microwave are very low calorie.

I've been eating dried fruit too, but am aware that except for the fibre, it's not really that different from eating sweets. My mango slices are so delicious though!

Yesterday I went for a brisk walk / "run" at about 4pm and managed to only eat about 10 almonds when I got back. I think I'll get some sugar-free squash so I can drink lots of that and feel like it's a treat when I'm bored-hungry rather than real-hungry. I'll also look at making some protein balls or something for when I actually need a snack.

I have no idea how many calories I'm eating. What smalex said upthread about 2000 calories being completely wrong for the average woman has shocked me though. I'm 5'5" and a bit, so slightly above average height, and just about a healthy weight, and my maintenance calories only go up to 2000 if I put daily exercise / intense (= 45-120 minutes of elevated heart rate activity) 3 or 4 times a week. Who is the average woman who needs 2000? Especially as this "average" has been around for decades so presumably was calculated at a time when women were at healthier average weights and probably shorter too. Unless the average woman was doing intense exercise every day?

[ParisGal]

I'm going to estimate my lunch:
5 corn cracker/cake things (125)
vegan spread (no idea? a 10g portion is about 50)
1 slice of chicken ham (50)
1 soy fruit yoghurt (80)

So around 300 kCals. My breakfast was probably about 400, I will weigh the cereals tomorrow to see how far off 30g I am but if memory serves I'm probably closer to 60 than 30g

I drink several cups of tea with soy milk throughout the day so those calories will add up of course.

My downfall is definitely the afternoon snack, and after dinner snacking. My evening meals used to sometimes be quite high calorie with cheese and cream, and sometimes much healthier, but I've had to cut out the cheese and cream so should be much more consistently healthy on those points. I expect portion size for (GF) pasta and rice is still a problem though.

[geek_kitten]

It doesn't need to be intense exercise. For someone of my age and weight, gentle moderate movement most of the day (let's say cooking, cleaning, walking to the shops and maybe taking care of a toddler) would easily put calorie requirements at or over 2,000. It's one (of many) reason why weight loss gets harder with age, because people tend to move less (outside of intentional exercise).

I have pretty definite views about diet, calorie requirements and exercise (especially for women). I'm a bit wary about discussing them though since they're somewhat at odds with what's been talked about; friends or people at work sometimes ask me about diet and weight loss and almost always get annoyed when I tell them what I think! I'm happy to share some thoughts from a different viewpoint if it would be useful though (backstory: lost around 7-8kg about a year or so ago, changed my general body composition and so far have comfortably sustained it while eating around 2,000 cals plus a day).

[Disco]

The average woman was doing housework without vacuum cleaners and washing machines etc much much more active than the average sedentary pen pusher.

[sally maclennane]

I have pretty definite views about diet, calorie requirements and exercise (especially for women). I'm a bit wary about discussing them though since they're somewhat at odds with what's been talked about; friends or people at work sometimes ask me about diet and weight loss and almost always get annoyed when I tell them what I think! I'm happy to share some thoughts from a different viewpoint if it would be useful though (backstory: lost around 7-8kg about a year or so ago, changed my general body composition and so far have comfortably sustained it while eating around 2,000 cals plus a day).

I would be interested to hear, geek.

[nineseven]

Me too. I have my doubts about calorie theory being as literal as calories in vs calories out as the body isn't a closed system and it uses different nutrients in different ways, but it's hard to articulate.

[Morganna]

I'd be interested too, geek. My weight gain is pretty much all on my middle, which is always where it goes. I wish I knew how to target that, as it's also the last place if comes off when I lose weight.

[Texaco Shirley]

Ultimately if you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight. I think the errors come in estimating the net calorie content of food.

[mojojojo]

Ultimately if you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight. I think the errors come in estimating the net calorie content of food.

And probably the calories burned in exercise - I always take what MFP or Strava say with a massive pinch of salt.

[geek_kitten]

Ok, I’ll post something later on

[ParisGal]

I'd be very interested too, geek. But from the few times I've read your posts on the fitness thread, I thought you did quite a lot of intensive exercise. The counter I used was https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html which defines exercise as:
Exercise: 15-30 minutes of elevated heart rate activity.
Intense exercise: 45-120 minutes of elevated heart rate activity.
Very intense exercise: 2+ hours of elevated heart rate activity.
I suppose traditional housekeeping activities including walking to school & shops could mean over 2 hours of elevated heart rate every day.

IIRC calorie content is measured by burning dried versions of the food (or calculated from the amounts of various ingredients) but there must be a lot of other factors that affect the real amount you get out of it.

Morgs, I was reading yesterday that there is nothing you can do about where you lose fat from, (or gain it), it's determined by genetics. There was something about A1 and A2 fat receptors, and A1s (or 2, I forget ) are the first to get fat, and the last to lose it, which is important as the A1s include places you need fat in order to accomplish basic body functions (like nerves transmitting or something). Sorry, this is very much as I recall it and not necessarily fully right, but I've always read that spot fat reduction is a myth.

[Morganna]

That would explain a lot, PG, thanks. I think I'm wasting my time a bit just now, as my exercise is so limited, and there is nothing I can do about it. Still, I do have control over what I eat, so I'll have to concentrate on that.

[geek_kitten]

Sorry it's taken an age. For those that are interested, here is a mammoth post with some stuff on the approach that has worked for me. Hopefully there are bits that might be useful and I'm happy to discuss anything in more detail if that would be useful.

This is about diet and exercise for fat loss, which is different to exercise and diet for health (there’s a significant overlap, but there are differences). Also, I’m assuming no underlying health conditions (such as thyroid problems, PCOS, etc – I think many of the same principles will apply but my reading and knowledge hasn’t touched on those in much detail so I won’t comment on them). It’s also different if you want to get very lean, or need to make weight for competitive reasons, but those are outside the considerations for normal healthy weight loss.

This process involves heavy weight training and a small calorie deficit. It is certainly not the only way to lose weight, and it’s not a particularly quick one. It’s very effective, however, and it leaves you in a good position to maintain the fat loss once the dieting cycle is complete because you make fundamental changes to your body composition as part of the process (and hopefully have made long-term changes to your diet as well). Plus, since it doesn’t put you in a significant calorie deficit, it’s relatively easy to stick to in terms of hunger!

Why is it effective?

When you lose weight, you lose both fat and muscle, and you don’t regain the muscle once you stop dieting unless you give your body a reason to gain it.

Muscle is a significant player in your metabolic powerhouse (it’s one reason why male calorie requirements are higher than for women) so the muscle loss from extended or frequent periods of dieting can adversely affect your metabolism over the long term (it’s also one factor why weight loss becomes harder as you age, because we naturally lose muscle as we get older).

The idea behind this specific fat loss process is to persuade your body to lose as much fat, and as little muscle, as possible during the dieting cycle (in fact, if you’re a complete beginner to heavy lifting, you may well find that you gain some muscle during this process, even in a small calorie deficit).

Basically, you want your body to think that it needs the muscle to survive, so it tries to keep as much of it as possible. Heavy weight training is one of the simplest and most effective ways of doing this (and has other important health benefits, particularly for women).

Setting your maintenance calories

In terms of a small calorie deficit, I mean no more than 10-20% of your maintenance calories. Working out your maintenance calories is, frankly, a bit of a guessing game because there are so many individual variables that affect it.

The best approach I’ve found is to take the calculations from a few and average them to get a starting point, which you can then tweak up or down as needed.

I like this calculator:

https://www.precisionnutrition.com/nutrition-calculator

Diet

Nothing is forbidden (including wine, takeaways, chocolate or whatever your particular vice happens to be). The diet fundamentals for weight loss are: meet your calories, and get enough protein. Clearly there’s a bit more to it, in terms of general healthy eating; I’ve set the key principles out in (more or less) order of importance for weight loss:

1. Meet your calories (aim to meet an overall weekly target, not a daily one).

2. Increase protein (aim for around 100g a day), and try to get as broad a range of protein sources as you can.

3. Eat loads of veggies (I’ll put oil or butter on these but that is personal preference).

4. Mostly eat wholegrain carbohydrates (both potatoes and sweet potatoes are fine).

5. Try to incorporate carb sources that also have a reasonable amount of protein (pulses, chickpea pasta, etc).

6. After that, your macro splits matter less – go with whatever works best for you. For instance, while I don’t low carb I’d rather have less in the way of pasta or bread and have some olive oil on my salad, whereas other people might prefer to have more carbs.

There’s no particular advantage to eating small frequent meals or larger less frequent ones, so go with whatever works for you. I prefer to eat two or three meals a day, and rarely snack.

Exercise

Diet is the first key component of weight loss, obviously, but the second aspect under this approach is the type of exercise you do, which is heavy weight training.

I’m not talking about the kind of weight that you’d lift during a body pump class or something similar, incidentally – that kind of higher-rep weight-based endurance/cardio workout has important health benefits and will improve your overall strength (especially at first), but for most people it will eventually not give you enough progressive overload.

The kind of lifting I mean centres around big, old-fashioned basic compound lifts – deadlifts, squats, bench press, lunges, rows – with substantial weights. In terms of the kind of weight I’m talking about, a reasonable initial goal for most women is to work towards a deadlift and squat equal to their own body weight. It might easily take a year or more of training to be able to do that if you’re starting from scratch.

Don’t you need cardio to burn fat?

You can certainly use cardio to accelerate fat loss as part of this programme, but it’s not essential. You could see results with a good diet and three committed heavy lifting session per week, plus a session or two of whatever cardio you enjoy (you could do no cardio at all and get good fat loss results with just lifting and diet, but clearly you’d want to do some for the other health benefits).

Weight training does definitely boost your general overall calorie needs, but I’m not sure that the process is fully understood (and it probably varies considerably between individuals). Partly it’s because muscle requires more energy to maintain than fat, perhaps around three times as much, but I don’t think that explains the full effect. I personally also think that if you’re frequently stressing the muscle by weight training, calorie demands go up because your body needs energy to repair the damage (outside of the calories burned during the workout itself). That’s not science fact though!

To illustrate the effect: based on my fitness tracker (which is probably as accurate as anything) I probably use around 2,000 – 2,500 cals a week through exercise (perhaps 1,500 of those through cardio). Without exercise, my daily calorie requirements are generally estimated at about 1,400. So in total, based on calories burned through exercise, my daily maintenance calorie requirements theoretically are around 1,600 – 1,800. Yet I lose weight on around 1,800 – 2,000 and can sustain my weight on 2,000 – 2,500.

Me

And finally, in case it it's of interest to anyone, this is what I did.

About 18 months – two years ago I weighed around 74-75kg, and felt slow, fat and weak. I wasn’t inactive at this point; I was doing regular HIIT and light weight workouts several times a week (because I could do those easily at home). Over the next 6-8 months I lost around 7-8kg, as a result of a small change in diet and a significant change in the way I trained. I was eating around 1,800-2,000 cals a day on average, and went back to heavy lifting. I was also doing a couple of high intensity padwork classes and a 1-1 Muay Thai session each week as well.

(It should be noted that I already had a good fitness and strength base to work from, and that my programming was done by my coach – I certainly don’t recommend starting at this frequency and intensity and, as mentioned above, it isn’t necessary to do so anyway).

Fast forward to now, and nothing has changed particularly. I weight train three times a week (give or take), and do maybe 2-3 boxing or Muay Thai sessions a week as well for cardio (plus a couple of short HIIT finishers every so often). I probably eat 2,000 – 2,500 cals a day on average and weigh around 67kg which is technically overweight according to the BMI. But my waist measurement is within the healthy limits and I have some modest muscle definition so I don’t think my bodyfat is at an unhealthy level. It also feels sustainable and comfortable, with little mental energy required to stay at this weight and size. V