Weight Loss Thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
Ossoi a lot of the stuff you say isn't wrong at all it's just your presentation of it is extremely adversarial and aggressive. I think people find themselves arguing with you just because you come off as a prick. You don't give bad advice but you might tone down the delivery.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Caliane said:
remind me/us on age, exercise program, and what the diet was exactly?

Drinking enough fluids? did you make changes to exercise lately?
Fluids (lack of) can cause pain. I would really doubt keto would.
Click to expand...

No exercise to speak of, I walk more and take the stairs whenever possible, that kind of shit. I drink a ton of fluids. Back when I was in the gym a few months ago it was all low impact stuff, elliptical and weight machines. I'm 36 so not exactly an old timer yet.

I really, really doubt it's the diet. But that's the only major change I have made in lifestyle so my mind immediately goes to that.
 
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,329
11,629
ok. yeah, doesnt sound like an exercise related pull or muscle issue. slept on it wrong /shrug.
Checked for arthritis... did they do a blood test for lyme?
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
No, basically he checked for arthritis and sent me to a physical therapist for a month to see if that improves it, otherwise next step is doing an fMRI.
 
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,329
11,629
interesting. I had "arthritis" like symptoms in my knee 10 years ago or so. hard to walk, constant ache, and pain. first thing the doctor said, was "too young for arthritis" lets do a blood test for lyme disease.

it was.
Of course, I live in CT, so ground zero of Lyme Disease. and it is rare in midwest, etc.
 
Last edited:
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Went to the dr to make sure I dont have gout or lyme disease. He humored me, gave me some mild pain pills, and kicked me out.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Gilgamel

Gilgamel

A Man Chooses....
2,869
52
Done that HIIT workout the last two days. I can't finish it in one setting and I can't do burpees but goddamn does it get the heart pumping. Gonna keep doing it every other day til I can do everything he does.
 
Burren

Burren

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,360
5,886
Gilgamel said:
Done that HIIT workout the last two days. I can't finish it in one setting and I can't do burpees but goddamn does it get the heart pumping. Gonna keep doing it every other day til I can do everything he does.
Click to expand...

Good. Take rest days. Working out 7 days per week isn't going to be nearly as healthy as 4 or 5 hard days (as has been mentioned).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ossoi

Ossoi

Potato del Grande
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
17,714
8,756
Gilgamel said:
Done that HIIT workout the last two days. I can't finish it in one setting and I can't do burpees but goddamn does it get the heart pumping. Gonna keep doing it every other day til I can do everything he does.
Click to expand...

Burren said:
Good. Take rest days. Working out 7 days per week isn't going to be nearly as healthy as 4 or 5 hard days (as has been mentioned).
Click to expand...

Yep, do that HIIT workout or similar 4-5 times a week, no more than that. 10-12 calories per lb of body weight.

If you had carbs post workout then I guarantee you'd find that workout easier and probably finish it. You can go keto the rest of the time.

After 4 weeks to build fitness then I would start adding weights.
 
Zaide

Zaide

TLP Idealist
3,904
4,751
What's more important, total calories or the content of the calories?

I'm looking at different types of bread and have always read that whole grain is better but it's typically a higher calorie count than white or whole wheat bread.

Right now I'm looking at 110 calories per slice w/ whole grain vs 60 with whole wheat.

What wins out here, should I aim for the lowest net calories or the higher quality carb?
 
Rezz

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
Generic answer is "it depends" when it comes to calories. For strict absolute weight loss, less calories means more weightloss. But if you are doing physical activities (not just leading a desk job lifestyle) you want certain macro nutrient quantities. If you do lots of cardio-esque stuff, then you want more protein in your diet. Same goes with people who lift weights and want to maintain strength; having low protein means you don't repair as fast as a high note, and as a low note you go catabolic regarding muscle to fuel day to day activities. If you're a keto kid, this is an actual serious concern -every- day you're in keto.

If the content of your calories is empty shit like Starbucks or pasta (and I f'n love pasta, but it isn't a good idea for people on diets in general) then the content is actually more important than the total amount. But if you are even remotely balanced, ie eating fats/proteins/carbs to varying levels but not wholesale axing one or another? Yeah, the number of calories is waaaay more important than the specific macro counts.

Your bread issue is a non-issue. If 50 calories (lets say 100 since you're using two slices for a sandwich) is a legit issue with your weightloss, then something else is way off. Like either working out too much on an incredibly limited diet or the rest of your macros are incredibly anorexic-ish. White bread has effectively zero satiation attached to it, so while the absolute caloric value doesn't matter at all, you're probably going to feel hungrier eating 100g of calories in white bread vs. 100g of calories in wheat bread. In the end, if you consume x calories, you lose if x is less than whatever it takes to keep you alive/maintenance calories. The "quality" of calories mostly impacts how you feel about that intake, and whether or not you feel hungry or not. This is where the keto diets come in, as since you skip "empty" carbs, you end up with a lot of longer digesting food in your system. This has zero impact on weightloss in a vacuum, but if the satiation aspect keeps you from eating more, you will notice a downward trend in weight as long as the net calories are negative.

TL;DR: for weightloss, total calories are the most important statistic, unless you have a legit medical issue that requires certain macro nutrient combinations/ratios.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Deruvian

Deruvian

Lord Nagafen Raider
659
123
My thoughts are that you need to be thinking about balancing calories, satiation, and the food's impact on insulin levels. I usually try to think 'how long will this keep me full per calorie?' and 'Will eating this cause an insulin crash that will lead to bad decisions'?

In regards to carbs, I usually find that the higher the fiber per cal, the lower the impact on insulin and the longer it takes to digest. I believe in your bread example, the two will be quite similar and I would personally go for the lower cal one.

There's also a discussion about macro's that factors into this, but it's a little far afield for your question.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,329
11,629
Rezz said:
Generic answer is "it depends" when it comes to calories. For strict absolute weight loss, less calories means more weightloss. But if you are doing physical activities (not just leading a desk job lifestyle) you want certain macro nutrient quantities. If you do lots of cardio-esque stuff, then you want more protein in your diet. Same goes with people who lift weights and want to maintain strength; having low protein means you don't repair as fast as a high note, and as a low note you go catabolic regarding muscle to fuel day to day activities. If you're a keto kid, this is an actual serious concern -every- day you're in keto.

If the content of your calories is empty shit like Starbucks or pasta (and I f'n love pasta, but it isn't a good idea for people on diets in general) then the content is actually more important than the total amount. But if you are even remotely balanced, ie eating fats/proteins/carbs to varying levels but not wholesale axing one or another? Yeah, the number of calories is waaaay more important than the specific macro counts.

Your bread issue is a non-issue. If 50 calories (lets say 100 since you're using two slices for a sandwich) is a legit issue with your weightloss, then something else is way off. Like either working out too much on an incredibly limited diet or the rest of your macros are incredibly anorexic-ish. White bread has effectively zero satiation attached to it, so while the absolute caloric value doesn't matter at all, you're probably going to feel hungrier eating 100g of calories in white bread vs. 100g of calories in wheat bread. In the end, if you consume x calories, you lose if x is less than whatever it takes to keep you alive/maintenance calories. The "quality" of calories mostly impacts how you feel about that intake, and whether or not you feel hungry or not. This is where the keto diets come in, as since you skip "empty" carbs, you end up with a lot of longer digesting food in your system. This has zero impact on weightloss in a vacuum, but if the satiation aspect keeps you from eating more, you will notice a downward trend in weight as long as the net calories are negative.

TL;DR: for weightloss, total calories are the most important statistic, unless you have a legit medical issue that requires certain macro nutrient combinations/ratios.
Click to expand...


To be fair, bread is delicious, and if one bread really is 60cal/slice. that can add up. I had tuna sandwiches the other night. 4 slices. (400bread, 180tuna,40mayo,150 cheese=750-800 total.)if I had one for lunch as well.. 6slices in a day. 300-360cal variance. that would be meaningful.

on the macro nutrient issue. Can someone explain the seemingly insane protein suggestions from tdee? I always assumed plenty of protein, since I eat so much eggs, milk, cheese and meat. (mostly beef.) but, that normal adds up to like 80-100g of protien/day. Even with protien shakes, I am not hitting 200+. Other sites I am seeing weight x.06-.09 for building muscle.
Calories Needed for a 39 year old, 175 lb Male

Protein shake lunch has been far more satisfying then previous lunches. Largely eliminated afternoon snacking/hunger. Protein itself is 150cal. 1/2c-1cup of whole milk up to +160cal. +150cal banana/strawberry if I feel like it that day.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Rezz

Rezz

Mr. Poopybutthole
4,486
3,531
Generic concept of protein intake for people who are athletic or want to fuel muscle maint./growth is -roughly- 1g per lb of weight. I've heard 1g per kilo which can seem low (and to me it does; you end up having to consume a lot more fat/carb stuff to make up caloric totals) but the answer, again, varies. Super active people who don't want to go catabolic because they are low/medium cal and low/medium fat should consume more proteins and earlier in the day before a lifting session or "event" to make sure that when the real fuels run out that the proteins in your system vs. the proteins in your muscles get used. But if you're sitting around most the day and then lift occasionally? As long as you're not doing stupid "IF" bullshit, you should be fine leading up to those sessions, and might be able to get away with a lower protein intake.

A thing that a lot of people don't get is that proteins and fats take a -lot- longer to digest (their primary weightloss benefit, really) and that you can't just eat a steak after a huge lifting session and think that the protein from what you consumed is being processed to avoid catabolism. If your pre-workout intake doesn't include enough carbs to keep you on track, you'll go to fats first. Fats are -terrible- as an energy source compared to sugars, and your body knows this. So there is a better than zero chance that the next step is incorporating proteins in your energy usage. If you don't have them to spare already absorbed in the system, and you're outpacing your fat usage? You're catabolic and consuming your muscles. You do -not- eat something and it is available 10 minutes later unless you got some gastro things going on. Especially if that something is proteins or fats. That shit takes -hours- to be absorbed, while simple carbs take 30m-ish on the low end.

But really, these are issues for people in performance sports or who have highly active/healthy lifestyles already. People outside Caliane (regarding recent posters, that is) are not going to have this issue. The primary idea of consuming protein is to cut down on your desire to eat other shit. Focus on that, as unless you are already a light guy who is doing some weird cut phase or sport stuff, the fact that you are eating less calories is >>>>>>>>>>> the macro content of your intake.
 
Ossoi

Ossoi

Potato del Grande
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
17,714
8,756
Had my first two sessions back at my PT gym. I'm at 80kg, probably around 15% body fat. Aim is to get to 73kg and sub 10% in 12 weeks.

Session today was:

10 squats, 1/0/4/0 (1 second up, no pause, 4 seconds down, no pause). 50kg on the bar.
90s
8 leg curl, 1/2/4/0 (1 second up, hold for 2, 4 seconds down, no pause) 41kg
90s rest

Repeat for 10 sets of each
 
Gilgamel

Gilgamel

A Man Chooses....
2,869
52
Upped my calories over 2000 this week and still lost over 2 lbs in 6 days. Wish it was faster but whatever.
 
Gilgamel

Gilgamel

A Man Chooses....
2,869
52
Ossoi said:
And how much better is it eating more and still losing weight?
Click to expand...

I can't tell a difference satiety wise. Eating more tasty stuff is always good. I went from 8:30 PM Wednesday til after 11PM Thursday without eating and wasn't even that hungry when I got home. I upped the calories because it's apparently better for me and because dropping them super low wasn't giving me amazing results anymore, but I'm pretty confident I could eat 500 calories a day and be fine if it meant I'd lose like 6 lbs a week. I just don't think about food in that way right now, all I care about is getting the weight off. Once I get down to where I want to be and I start bulking back up then I can start relishing it again.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Dude, I can't say this enough, you don't want it to be too fast. I know you're impatient, I know the feeling when you have made the decision and have the will but you have to wait and wait. But, statistically, 1-2 per week is what you want for long term success and for your health.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.