Weight Loss Thread

chaos_sl said:

He's gonna be fuckin ripped. Like a sexy coconut.

Ubibro, reading that eating schedule made my head hurt. Why not just make some diet changes, moderate intake, and up your physical activity?

Click to expand...

The starvation diet principle is why I stopped the rapid fat loss protocol. I may not have explained it right above, but half a week into that protocol I bailed and started eating normally again. I had been doing some reading on minimum calories, etc. and I wasn't convinced I would get enough on that method.

When I switched back to the Intermittent Fasting protocol calorie intake went up, I haven't been counting but I would say minimum 1500 per day. The coffee alone is around 400 - 500 calories depending on how rich it is.

The reason I didn't do what you suggested is that is generally what I do, make too many changes, and not stick with it. This time around I am making smaller changes over a longer period of time to make sure I stick with each portion of the program. This week I am starting the Yoga and when I get under 250 I intend to get a membership at a gym for BJJ.

As to the Bulletproof Coffee thing, all I can say is try it. I am sure it is not the only thing that works and I am sure it is not the sole thing that causes weight loss on this program. However, the principle of filling the morning with fats rather than carbs is sound. The abatement in hunger is also something that is amazing. Other breakfasts that I had eaten in the past would leave me hungry by 11am again. With the caffeine and fat it lasts much longer. The way the caffeine is digested is also interesting. I described it to a co-worker as 'it feels like I have never drank coffee before'. I don't think the focus it brings is shenanigans, it feels reel.

Also, the amount of butter / oil that he puts in his coffee is nonsense. I end up doing approximately 1-2 tbsp butter, 1 tbsp MCT oil. The thought of drinking a stick of butter in the morning doesn't sound good taste wise much less health wise.

Elurin_sl said:

Wow. I just spent some time reading about this, and that's one of the biggest crocks of horseshit I've read recently. So not only are you starving yourself on this retarded diet, but you're also paying out the ass for this bullshit coffee. Well done.

Click to expand...

The coffee isn't that expensive if you purchase the 5 lb bag, at least not an amount that I worry about. It is still cheaper than getting Starbucks or something on the way to work. Also, RFLP is silly, but the other stuff isn't anywhere near starvation nor do they encourage it.

Boiled is 46. Baked is 94. GI index is on a scale from 0-100 so it makes a huge diff. On phone ATM but just google gi sweet potato. Whfoods.com and livestrong and FDA all seem to agree.

Ubiquitrips_sl said:

I am optimistic that I will lose between 2 - 4 lbs per week depending on how good I am at following the diet. We shall see.

Click to expand...

I think that's the bottom line for you. If you just eat foods they recommend, really in whatever quantities that satisfy you, I think you'd be very successful long term. I'm looking at this:http://www.bulletproofexec.com/the-c...letproof-diet/

Stick with the "eat" side of those charts and I'd say you're in good shape. At 282 you have plenty of time to tweak things, you shouldnt be in a rush and I would not do anything drastic like the rapid fat loss. Slow and steady.

I grill my sweet potatoes.

I cut them into thick steak fries, bit of olive oil on top, salt and pepper then bake in the oven. So good. Or just microwave them.

I've been doing keto for almost 3 months now too and make my own bulletproof coffee 2-3 times a week, weight loss is pretty slow but I am only slightly overweight - down from ~235 to 220 lbs, 6'2" - no real exercise at all except walking my dog every day. For bulletproof coffee in the summer, I prefer to turn it into a shake by mixing 2 cups of french pressed coffee, 2 tablespoons of coconut oil (95% similar to MCT and way easier to find), a pat or two of kerrygold UNSALTED (important!) butter, a few pours of heavy cream (maybe 3-4 tablespoons?), and some walden farm chocolate syrup (0g of everything, weird shit tbh). Mix it in a blender, put it in the fridge, an hour later pour it over some ice and its basically a chocolate coffee frappe. In winter I'll drink it warm.

The coffee really is a substitute for a meal, I find it keeps me pretty full and sated for a good 8-12 hours, but doing it more than 3x a week makes me absolutely sick of the taste. The only real rule (besides no carbs/junk food) I stick with is if I'm hungry, I eat a meal instead of snacking. Most of the time I am eating 1 meal a day, a few times a week I'll be hungry enough to eat twice a day. Once I get back down to my college weight of 210 I'll lift but I wanted to get these diet changes in first without also introducing exercise. I've adapted really well to keto/paleo, don't miss carbs at all and most of the time I feel much sharper while eating a lot less. And I am a very stereotypical gamer who used to live on piles of Mt Dew, doritos, pizza, twinkies, and all that shit. Don't miss it at all.

My blood pressure seems to be slightly lower and I'll be doing a blood panel test in a few weeks to see how that is.

Ossoi_sl said:

So you're doing Intermittent Fasting/Lean Gains, 282lbs and eating minimum 1500 cals a day? Dude, surely that's way too low...I don't know the rest of your stats but if I put in 282lbs with my height/age on the IF calculatorhttp://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/it says that my TDEE is 2700...aka if I eat 2700 cals I won't lose or gain weight. If you're getting 1500-1800 then that's way too low and you're just depriving yourself of extra food

You could eat 2000 cals a day and still be 30% under your maintenance limit...once you start exercising then that will give you even more calories to eat whilst still losing weight.

Click to expand...

See, this is one area where I am somewhat confused. If you aren't hungry, should you still eat that many calories?

That is what I like about this diet primarily, I am not hungry. After a week of figuring out the difference between not hungry, not full, actually hungry was to my body I was set. I was under the impression that as long as I was above approximately 1000 calories per day I should stay out of starvation. If that is the case, is there a difference between 2000, 2500, 2700, and so on? I honestly have no idea how many calories I eat in a day either. I know approximately 400-500 for coffee and then it depends on lunch so the 1500 may not be accurate at all.

Dashel_sl said:

I think that's the bottom line for you. If you just eat foods they recommend, really in whatever quantities that satisfy you, I think you'd be very successful long term. I'm looking at this:http://www.bulletproofexec.com/the-c...letproof-diet/

Stick with the "eat" side of those charts and I'd say you're in good shape. At 282 you have plenty of time to tweak things, you shouldnt be in a rush and I would not do anything drastic like the rapid fat loss. Slow and steady.

Click to expand...

Yep, that is what I have been using to get my eating straightened out. I bought his little $10 ebook with the version 3 of that diet so I have it on my phone. If I am ever wondering if it is good or not, the charts generally contain anything I am wondering about.

Are you honestly going to eat like this forever? No, it's fucking stupid.

Just change your lifestyle and quit it with the fad diet nonsense.

Yeah, I mean, best case scenario is that you reach your target weight, whatever that is. Then what? At some point you have to make lifestyle changes and learn to eat healthy and live healthy.

Someone linked this nerdfitness.com site a while back, and I signed up for the newsletter. A lot of what that guy says is retarded and awkward. But one really good philosophy I think he has is "do something every day towards your goal." Just one thing. Go to the gym, or learn to cook one healthy staple, or learn something about nutrition, or whatever it is. Always be closing. Every day you should end it a more improved person than you were the day before. Think of it like Baby Steps by Dr. Leo Marvin and apply it to your real life.

Ubiquitrips_sl said:

See, this is one area where I am somewhat confused. If you aren't hungry, should you still eat that many calories?

That is what I like about this diet primarily, I am not hungry. After a week of figuring out the difference between not hungry, not full, actually hungry was to my body I was set. I was under the impression that as long as I was above approximately 1000 calories per day I should stay out of starvation. If that is the case, is there a difference between 2000, 2500, 2700, and so on? I honestly have no idea how many calories I eat in a day either. I know approximately 400-500 for coffee and then it depends on lunch so the 1500 may not be accurate at all.

Click to expand...

I feel like middle schools should take a month and teach people about nutrition. I know I took a health and nutrition class in high school, but it was a giant waste of time.

Anyway, spend an hour or two in the next week reading about how caloric requirements work. If you need help, I can find some and link them. But no, if you're not hungry that doesn't automatically mean you're getting enough calories. Go find a BMR calculator and find out what your BMR calories are. Then figure out an estimate of how many calories you burn daily through activity. Just ballpark this figure, it doesn't need to be exact. Now, take that number of calories and subtract 500. Start counting your calories religiously and try to hit that number exactly.

After a month, if you end up losing more than 1 pound a week, you know you're eating more than 500 calories below your maintenance. If you lose less, you know you're eating less than 500 below your maintenance. Now you have a much better idea of what your actual caloric requirements are. If you want to adjust so you're losing 2 pounds a week, you have a good idea of what you need to do to get there.

The way you're doing it absolutely works. Just like every fad diet that has ever existed. The problem is, it only works for so long before you body says fuck you and revolts. What you're doing is eating so far below your maintenance calories that you're starving yourself every day. Eventually your metabolism will crash and be unable to recover. At that point, you're going to gain the weight back (and possibly more) and the next time you try to lose weight it will be even harder...because you fucked your metabolism up.

I posted this in the weight lifting thread last week, but maybe it'll do more good here. If you can't sacrifice a few hours of your year to educate yourself, well, enjoy being fat for the rest of your life.



And sorry if I'm being a bit harsh. But diets like yours really irritate the shit out of me. You're trying to change your life for the better, and you're essentially falling for snake oil.

Elurin_sl said:

And sorry if I'm being a bit harsh. But diets like yours really irritate the shit out of me. You're trying to change your life for the better, and you're essentially falling for snake oil.

Click to expand...

Nothing seems too harsh, it does seem like Paleo / Atkins / Bulletproof bring out some extremely strong opinions is all.

I am just wondering though, what makes this a non-viable long term diet? Why can't this be the life changing experience? Let's assume that I get approximately 2-2.5k calories per day when the weight loss is complete. It is achieved by eating largely fats and proteins. Breads, sugars, and processed items are cut out as much as possible. What is so wrong with that? Where is the fad in that? Sounds like good choices to me. I think concentrating on butter coffee, the name or brand of the diet, who is repping them or however these proteins, fats, etc. are delivered is too low level and distracting from the overall change that it is merely a component of.

All of the calorie talk and deficit / surplus and such just seems so traditional. The moment you deviate from that type of thought pattern it instantly becomes a fad. What I have noticed is that there isn't much open mindedness in the traditional crowd and if you don't follow the tried and true methods you will be a fatty forever or you will fail. I don't think that is true, I think both diet types can co-exist and provide value to whomever chooses them.

It's not a matter of open mindedness, it's about practicality. You're more likely to lose weight, maintain weight loss, and be happy with a change in lifestyle that suits you best, rather than latching on to some fucking "diet" that has strict parameters. I've lost 28 pounds since February, and I'm not on a "diet" ... I just changed the way I ate.

Ubiquitrips_sl said:

All of the calorie talk and deficit / surplus and such just seems so traditional. The moment you deviate from that type of thought pattern it instantly becomes a fad. What I have noticed is that there isn't much open mindedness in the traditional crowd and if you don't follow the tried and true methods you will be a fatty forever or you will fail. I don't think that is true, I think both diet types can co-exist and provide value to whomever chooses them.

Click to expand...

And here we arrive at the inevitable, where the obese, perpetually out of shape person takes a stand and tells the people who are trying to help that their radical, completely unnecessary way of losing weight is totally viable and more conventional, EASIER, and sustainable methods are really not all that great.

And "all the talk" of surpluses and deficits are what made you fat, and what will make you lean if you live on one side of the fence or the other.

As usual, anyone who stepped on the scale in the morning before and after they took a shit, and lost weight, is an expert.

I feel like we're having a discussion where you're just not informed enough to make it a level conversation. Please read up on what calories are and how the body uses them. Then also read about what fats, carbohydrates, and proteins are for, and why you need a certain amount for different daily functions. After that, if you still want to argue that what I'm saying is somehow the "traditional" viewpoint and not biology, we can continue.

But honestly, it's like we're discussing evolution. There's no way to have a common ground when one party is completely ignorant on the subject.

I've mentioned this before, but counting Calories alone it not sufficient for long term weight control. The secret to weight loss being "Calories in < Calories out" is in fact largely a fiction. The human body is not a Calorimeter that treats all Calories equally and if you eat the right number you will magically lose fat tissue. WHAT you eat is more important than HOW MUCH you eat. Especially since what you eat directly influences how much you eat.



I also highly recommendDr. Lustig's book Fat Chance