Jump to content

Weight Loss Support Thread


TaleSpinner
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Losing weight slowly is actually better.

 

It is more likely to stay off when you lose a pund or two each month opposed to crash and loose a lot in one go.

 

Providing, eating and excercising habits are maintained..

That is exactly what happened to me when I started to go to the gym regularly. A few pounds lost quickly, and then a slow loss, but that loss stayed off!

 

Until Halloween bulk buys came. Having bags of gummy candy and chocolate within arms reach while at the computer is never a good idea.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah. I was very sternly told that if I lost too much weight too fast...

 

Actually, never said what would happen, which just makes me fear more... :unsure:

The most visible effect can be that your skin won't be able to spring back into a shape that envelops the thinner form fast enough, and your new, thin body, won't "fit". A slower rate of weight loss gives your body more time to adapt, and while it can be frustrating, it ends with a more appealing body, which is often a main drive behind weight loss, so sabotaging your look makes no sense.

 

If you're like me and are losing weight for health reasons and not to go to the beach and not be sad, you want to look at the non-visual impacts of maintaining a high caloric deficit for a long time.

 

There are metabolic effects that the body develops when it runs into a very large caloric deficit - not the dreaded "Starvation mode" that is really mostly a scare tactic and only kicks in at extreme caloric deficits, and isn't going to kick in when you're still overweight. (To be fair, starvation mode isn't binary, either, it's effects creep on slowly as your body begins to starve. But a body such as mine with 30-50 pounds of accessible fat isn't starving, and this response isn't occurring. If you want to see people for whom the starvation response has picked in, google concentration camp survivors or the malnourished in impoverished areas. If you aren't that thin or almost that thin, you aren't starving, and your body's entry into starvation mode will be fractional enough as to mean very little).

 

The other serious risk behind rapid weight loss is nutritive. At extreme caloric deficits, it can be nearly impossible to get the nutrients your body needs, and research is beginning to emerge that suggests that vitamin pills may be in a form which is not as readily absorbed by the body as thought, so they may not be as helpful as imagined. As always, health and nutrition studies should be examined carefully to determine if they are valid, and I admit to not having done my due diligence on this one.

 

Increased risk of gallstones is often reported with those losing more than 3 lbs/week, as is possible liver damage, presumed to be by the large amount of fats now in your bloodstream.

 

Additionally, your overall metabolic rate will suffer (and this is what people mean when they starvation mode, and they are WRONG) as your body will lower your resting metabolic rate (that is, the number of calories you burn while sleeping or otherwise doing nothing, mostly to respirate, circulate, and maintain body temperature). This reduced BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) makes one lethargic and increases the risk that extra calories above the new level of intake might be added back to replenish the fat stores the body is lacking. The lethargy also has the side effect of making one really resist, on a physical level, working out, which is further detrimental to weight loss.

 

And of course, some research suggests that the amount of water and fat in your tissues changes the electrolyte balance (mostly salts) and other minerals whose presence is necessary to maintain proper organ function, and may increase the risks of heart attack or minor organ damage. Water is a key ingredient in the chemical process that allowed your body to retrieve energy from stored fat, so more rapid weight loss means more water is needed and used, and more water and fat are filling your tissues. This would mean a similar increase in salts and potassium, magnesium, iron, etc. are all needed if this increase is to be sustained over a long term or you may begin to show symptoms of insufficient mineral content, such as anemia, etc.

 

Most nutritional studies recommend maxing out at 2 lbs a week (my personal goal is 2 lbs a week, but in practice I end up closer to 1.6) although fast track plans to jump start weight loss that include up to two weeks at 6 lbs a week can be found, and can be supported by doctors and even the mayo clinic. Note that these kinds of diets are done with doctor's supervision, and are tailored to ensure that nutritive requirements are met during this period. None of the researchI found supports these fast track plans for any time period longer than 2 weeks.

 

What I've seen recommended most often is to use 2-4 different online calculators to calculate your current BMR. That is, the amount of calories you'd need to maintain your current weight. We'll call that your Maintenance Calories. We know that 3500 calories is 1 lb of body fat, so to lose 1 lb a week one must create a caloric deficit of 500 kcals a day, and 1,000 kcals to lose 2 lbs. If your Maintenance Calories is 2,000 then you should be eating 1,000-1,500 calories a day, right? NOT SO FAST! a 50% drop below the maintenance threshold is one of the things that causes the effects above to kick in. So you should be looking at something between 10% and 40% of a drop - 1,400 kcal is probably your lowest "safe" intake. Mind you, 2,000 calories a day for most people is pretty darn close to an ideal weight, and somebody like me, at 201 lbs has a Maintenance Calories of 2,450 a day.

 

Note that I'm not calculating my intake at my goal weight yet. Some people start there, so that when they're done, they've already been eating at that weight level for a long time. The Mayo Clinic site suggests that as long as I continue my workouts 3-4 times a week, my daily intake should be close to 2,100 calories. I could reduce my intake only to 2,100 and I'd still technically lose weight, although at 350 calories a day, It's take 10 days to lose each lb, a frustratingly low pace that might become discouraging.

 

Why different calculators? Because different nutritional theories exist behind the math of each one, and each person's metabolic reactions are different. Formula A might work for you, and formula B might not. And at the end, of course, if you aren't seeing the suggested results, one of two things is true. Either your calculated intake is not correct for your body and metabolic "type" and you might consider trying a different calculated value, OR you aren't counting your intake our output calories correctly, (forgetting to count the calories from the creamer in your coffee, or the ketchup on the fries or the ranch on those carrot sticks). Eventually those little +35, +60 calorie "hits" throughout the day add up, and if this is exacerbated by overestimating your workout calories (as a general rule, you burn 7-10 calories per minute your heart rate isn in the "calorie burning zone" on the American Heart Association's heart rate charts (can easily be found on google). So your 30 minutes on the treadmill is only 210-300 calories, and doesn't gift you enough "bonus calories" to eat that cheesecake, no. Not unless you ran in the yellow zone the entire time...

 

You can create this caloric deficit with diet alone, exercise alone (SUPER HARD) or both. Forget the intake for a moment and let's focus on the deficit. You want a deficit between 500 and 1,000 calories per day, right? Occasional dips above or below is ok (today my deficit is 300 and tomorrow it's 1,200 - as long as you're not 1,200 below every day you're fine, the "starvation mode" things we talked about earlier kick in over sustained periods, not sporadic days).

 

For purposes of this Wall of Text Diatribe, We're going to claim Sophie's Base Maintenance Calories are 2,100. Sophie overindulged on human suffering for many, many years, and has 30 lbs to lose before she can pose for the new Christmas Card.

 

Sophie can eat less, workout, or eat less & workout in combination.

 

Sophie decides working out is for wood elves and she decides to eat her way to her old, svelte self. She must be careful to intake 1,100-1,600 calories per day, making sure to absorb overages (where she overeats) within 3-4 days, and underages (because consistency is key). 1,100 calories a day is hard, and she's left hungry all the time. this may even begin to affect her sleep patterns if she tries to eat that little over the 15 weeks needed to lose 30 lbs at 2 a week, and that can leaver her more lethargic and irritable. Nobody wants an irritable demoness. Obviously under this plan, 1,600 is an easier goal to achieve, but progress would eb 1 lb a week, which can feel slow.

 

Sophie decides instead to exercise. Now she's getting 210 calories on the treadmill 3 days a week, and an additional 420 calories 4 days a week at her Pilates for Succubi class (includes Wing Extensions). She can eat more because she worked out. On running days she can have 1,310 calories, and on Pilates days she can have 1,520 calories. Or she could average the 7 workouts together, and simply have 330 additional calories each day (1,430). And now she's working out AND eating less, so it's little easier. That 1,430 caloric intake makes her feel more full than 1,100 did, so weight loss is less stressful for her. Since Sophie's getting more food overall, and more nutrients, she's healthier and has more energy.

 

What would be really difficult is to eat all 2,100 calories and work out to create the entire 500-1,000 calorie deficit. For me, it takes a 90 minute run of a distance of 6 MILES to achieve a 1,200 burn, it's not hard to extrapolate that I'd have to run slightly more than hour every single day AND still have to count my intake to not exceed 2,450 cals to lose weight with exercise alone. I'm still technically watching what I eat and counting calories, so it's easier at that point to run slightly less (30-45 minutes a day most days, 20 on others, and 1-1.5 hours on still others) and eat slightly less (but more than diet alone!)

 

End of rant.

 

 

So...

 

Down a pants size. Not buying a lot of new clothes right now, but had to get new pants. :ph34r:

My rule of thumb is to get 2 new pairs of pants every 15-20 lbs, So I have 2 pair of the new, slimmer size, and 2 of the slightly larger size, and then I get rid of everything bigger than that. it means I'm in a belt half the time, and half the time my clothes fit. By the time I'm down the next bracket of 15-20, I'm in belt 100% of the time again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For purposes of this Wall of Text Diatribe, We're going to claim Sophie's Base Maintenance Calories are 2,100. Sophie overindulged on human suffering for many, many years, and has 30 lbs to lose before she can pose for the new Christmas Card.

 

Sophie can eat less, workout, or eat less & workout in combination.

 

Sophie decides working out is for wood elves and she decides to eat her way to her old, svelte self. She must be careful to intake 1,100-1,600 calories per day, making sure to absorb overages (where she overeats) within 3-4 days, and underages (because consistency is key). 1,100 calories a day is hard, and she's left hungry all the time. this may even begin to affect her sleep patterns if she tries to eat that little over the 15 weeks needed to lose 30 lbs at 2 a week, and that can leaver her more lethargic and irritable. Nobody wants an irritable demoness. Obviously under this plan, 1,600 is an easier goal to achieve, but progress would eb 1 lb a week, which can feel slow.

 

Sophie decides instead to exercise. Now she's getting 210 calories on the treadmill 3 days a week, and an additional 420 calories 4 days a week at her Pilates for Succubi class (includes Wing Extensions). She can eat more because she worked out. On running days she can have 1,310 calories, and on Pilates days she can have 1,520 calories. Or she could average the 7 workouts together, and simply have 330 additional calories each day (1,430). And now she's working out AND eating less, so it's little easier. That 1,430 caloric intake makes her feel more full than 1,100 did, so weight loss is less stressful for her. Since Sophie's getting more food overall, and more nutrients, she's healthier and has more energy.

OK, now we need an aerobics Sophie mini or drawing.

 

Or is Fires of Hell hot yoga more her thing?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been slacking since trying to locate new job and leave soul sucking job.

Nothing kills your motivation to live like hating the place you have to go everyday.

On a poitive note, I have just under 2 weeks left here :)

I haven't been motivated to paint or do anything really. Terrible cycle of being depresed you don't do anything so you don't do anything which makes you depressed...

 

I have one week between jobs. I will be decluttering my life during that week. Hopefully that will give me a push to get my butt moving.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah. I was very sternly told that if I lost too much weight too fast...

 

Actually, never said what would happen, which just makes me fear more... :unsure:

 

The most visible effect can be that your skin won't be able to spring back into a shape that envelops the thinner form fast enough, and your new, thin body, won't "fit". A slower rate of weight loss gives your body more time to adapt, and while it can be frustrating, it ends with a more appealing body, which is often a main drive behind weight loss, so sabotaging your look makes no sense.

 

If you're like me and are losing weight for health reasons and not to go to the beach and not be sad, you want to look at the non-visual impacts of maintaining a high caloric deficit for a long time.

 

There are metabolic effects that the body develops when it runs into a very large caloric deficit - not the dreaded "Starvation mode" that is really mostly a scare tactic and only kicks in at extreme caloric deficits, and isn't going to kick in when you're still overweight. (To be fair, starvation mode isn't binary, either, it's effects creep on slowly as your body begins to starve. But a body such as mine with 30-50 pounds of accessible fat isn't starving, and this response isn't occurring. If you want to see people for whom the starvation response has picked in, google concentration camp survivors or the malnourished in impoverished areas. If you aren't that thin or almost that thin, you aren't starving, and your body's entry into starvation mode will be fractional enough as to mean very little).

 

The other serious risk behind rapid weight loss is nutritive. At extreme caloric deficits, it can be nearly impossible to get the nutrients your body needs, and research is beginning to emerge that suggests that vitamin pills may be in a form which is not as readily absorbed by the body as thought, so they may not be as helpful as imagined. As always, health and nutrition studies should be examined carefully to determine if they are valid, and I admit to not having done my due diligence on this one.

 

Increased risk of gallstones is often reported with those losing more than 3 lbs/week, as is possible liver damage, presumed to be by the large amount of fats now in your bloodstream.

 

Additionally, your overall metabolic rate will suffer (and this is what people mean when they starvation mode, and they are WRONG) as your body will lower your resting metabolic rate (that is, the number of calories you burn while sleeping or otherwise doing nothing, mostly to respirate, circulate, and maintain body temperature). This reduced BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) makes one lethargic and increases the risk that extra calories above the new level of intake might be added back to replenish the fat stores the body is lacking. The lethargy also has the side effect of making one really resist, on a physical level, working out, which is further detrimental to weight loss.

 

And of course, some research suggests that the amount of water and fat in your tissues changes the electrolyte balance (mostly salts) and other minerals whose presence is necessary to maintain proper organ function, and may increase the risks of heart attack or minor organ damage. Water is a key ingredient in the chemical process that allowed your body to retrieve energy from stored fat, so more rapid weight loss means more water is needed and used, and more water and fat are filling your tissues. This would mean a similar increase in salts and potassium, magnesium, iron, etc. are all needed if this increase is to be sustained over a long term or you may begin to show symptoms of insufficient mineral content, such as anemia, etc.

 

Most nutritional studies recommend maxing out at 2 lbs a week (my personal goal is 2 lbs a week, but in practice I end up closer to 1.6) although fast track plans to jump start weight loss that include up to two weeks at 6 lbs a week can be found, and can be supported by doctors and even the mayo clinic. Note that these kinds of diets are done with doctor's supervision, and are tailored to ensure that nutritive requirements are met during this period. None of the researchI found supports these fast track plans for any time period longer than 2 weeks.

 

What I've seen recommended most often is to use 2-4 different online calculators to calculate your current BMR. That is, the amount of calories you'd need to maintain your current weight. We'll call that your Maintenance Calories. We know that 3500 calories is 1 lb of body fat, so to lose 1 lb a week one must create a caloric deficit of 500 kcals a day, and 1,000 kcals to lose 2 lbs. If your Maintenance Calories is 2,000 then you should be eating 1,000-1,500 calories a day, right? NOT SO FAST! a 50% drop below the maintenance threshold is one of the things that causes the effects above to kick in. So you should be looking at something between 10% and 40% of a drop - 1,400 kcal is probably your lowest "safe" intake. Mind you, 2,000 calories a day for most people is pretty darn close to an ideal weight, and somebody like me, at 201 lbs has a Maintenance Calories of 2,450 a day.

 

Note that I'm not calculating my intake at my goal weight yet. Some people start there, so that when they're done, they've already been eating at that weight level for a long time. The Mayo Clinic site suggests that as long as I continue my workouts 3-4 times a week, my daily intake should be close to 2,100 calories. I could reduce my intake only to 2,100 and I'd still technically lose weight, although at 350 calories a day, It's take 10 days to lose each lb, a frustratingly low pace that might become discouraging.

 

Why different calculators? Because different nutritional theories exist behind the math of each one, and each person's metabolic reactions are different. Formula A might work for you, and formula B might not. And at the end, of course, if you aren't seeing the suggested results, one of two things is true. Either your calculated intake is not correct for your body and metabolic "type" and you might consider trying a different calculated value, OR you aren't counting your intake our output calories correctly, (forgetting to count the calories from the creamer in your coffee, or the ketchup on the fries or the ranch on those carrot sticks). Eventually those little +35, +60 calorie "hits" throughout the day add up, and if this is exacerbated by overestimating your workout calories (as a general rule, you burn 7-10 calories per minute your heart rate isn in the "calorie burning zone" on the American Heart Association's heart rate charts (can easily be found on google). So your 30 minutes on the treadmill is only 210-300 calories, and doesn't gift you enough "bonus calories" to eat that cheesecake, no. Not unless you ran in the yellow zone the entire time...

 

You can create this caloric deficit with diet alone, exercise alone (SUPER HARD) or both. Forget the intake for a moment and let's focus on the deficit. You want a deficit between 500 and 1,000 calories per day, right? Occasional dips above or below is ok (today my deficit is 300 and tomorrow it's 1,200 - as long as you're not 1,200 below every day you're fine, the "starvation mode" things we talked about earlier kick in over sustained periods, not sporadic days).

 

For purposes of this Wall of Text Diatribe, We're going to claim Sophie's Base Maintenance Calories are 2,100. Sophie overindulged on human suffering for many, many years, and has 30 lbs to lose before she can pose for the new Christmas Card.

 

Sophie can eat less, workout, or eat less & workout in combination.

 

Sophie decides working out is for wood elves and she decides to eat her way to her old, svelte self. She must be careful to intake 1,100-1,600 calories per day, making sure to absorb overages (where she overeats) within 3-4 days, and underages (because consistency is key). 1,100 calories a day is hard, and she's left hungry all the time. this may even begin to affect her sleep patterns if she tries to eat that little over the 15 weeks needed to lose 30 lbs at 2 a week, and that can leaver her more lethargic and irritable. Nobody wants an irritable demoness. Obviously under this plan, 1,600 is an easier goal to achieve, but progress would eb 1 lb a week, which can feel slow.

 

Sophie decides instead to exercise. Now she's getting 210 calories on the treadmill 3 days a week, and an additional 420 calories 4 days a week at her Pilates for Succubi class (includes Wing Extensions). She can eat more because she worked out. On running days she can have 1,310 calories, and on Pilates days she can have 1,520 calories. Or she could average the 7 workouts together, and simply have 330 additional calories each day (1,430). And now she's working out AND eating less, so it's little easier. That 1,430 caloric intake makes her feel more full than 1,100 did, so weight loss is less stressful for her. Since Sophie's getting more food overall, and more nutrients, she's healthier and has more energy.

 

What would be really difficult is to eat all 2,100 calories and work out to create the entire 500-1,000 calorie deficit. For me, it takes a 90 minute run of a distance of 6 MILES to achieve a 1,200 burn, it's not hard to extrapolate that I'd have to run slightly more than hour every single day AND still have to count my intake to not exceed 2,450 cals to lose weight with exercise alone. I'm still technically watching what I eat and counting calories, so it's easier at that point to run slightly less (30-45 minutes a day most days, 20 on others, and 1-1.5 hours on still others) and eat slightly less (but more than diet alone!)

 

End of rant.

 

So...

 

Down a pants size. Not buying a lot of new clothes right now, but had to get new pants. :ph34r:

My rule of thumb is to get 2 new pairs of pants every 15-20 lbs, So I have 2 pair of the new, slimmer size, and 2 of the slightly larger size, and then I get rid of everything bigger than that. it means I'm in a belt half the time, and half the time my clothes fit. By the time I'm down the next bracket of 15-20, I'm in belt 100% of the time again.

Actually it was said because we were talking of my weight loss and I said it wouldn't happen overnight. My friend's a nurse and has no wish to see me in a hospital.

 

You are quite right. 1-2 pounds a week is a decent goal and I should not get frustrated when I slow a bit. The initial pounds are always easy.

 

Exercise is tough. Between my back and knee, I have limits on what I can do. I need a decent chair so I can use my chair exercise video (useful for the disabled) and chase the kids out of the room more often! :D

 

I'm not in this to be my svelte, ultra skinny 20 year old self again. If I can reach 200, I can be satisfied. Goal, however, is 180. That's actually when I was happiest/healthiest.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly what happened to me when I started to go to the gym regularly. A few pounds lost quickly, and then a slow loss, but that loss stayed off!

 

Until Halloween bulk buys came. Having bags of gummy candy and chocolate within arms reach while at the computer is never a good idea.

I'm chewing on pumpkin seeds, got a few large bags of them at the grocery. They are good for mindless snacking at the computer. Low carb, fiber, and enough work I can't really overeat them.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is exactly what happened to me when I started to go to the gym regularly. A few pounds lost quickly, and then a slow loss, but that loss stayed off!

 

Until Halloween bulk buys came. Having bags of gummy candy and chocolate within arms reach while at the computer is never a good idea.

I'm chewing on pumpkin seeds, got a few large bags of them at the grocery. They are good for mindless snacking at the computer. Low carb, fiber, and enough work I can't really overeat them.

 

 

Yes! Pumpkin and sunflower seeds are amazing. I'm chomping on some right now.

 

I really enjoyed the workout Sophie story. I was really tickled by all the descriptions and kept trying to explain them to my husband. He laughed more at me than the story, I think....

 

It's been about a month for us this time around. My better half has lost 10 pounds! I'm really excited for him!  :bday:  :bday:  :bday:   ... I've lost 4, and I eat half the amount of food that he does.  :zombie:  Ah well. A pound a week would mean 12 pounds off by PAX, and that would still put me pretty close to the goal weight I had for that date!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That is exactly what happened to me when I started to go to the gym regularly. A few pounds lost quickly, and then a slow loss, but that loss stayed off!

 

Until Halloween bulk buys came. Having bags of gummy candy and chocolate within arms reach while at the computer is never a good idea.

I'm chewing on pumpkin seeds, got a few large bags of them at the grocery. They are good for mindless snacking at the computer. Low carb, fiber, and enough work I can't really overeat them.

 

 

Yes! Pumpkin and sunflower seeds are amazing. I'm chomping on some right now.

 

I really enjoyed the workout Sophie story. I was really tickled by all the descriptions and kept trying to explain them to my husband. He laughed more at me than the story, I think....

 

It's been about a month for us this time around. My better half has lost 10 pounds! I'm really excited for him!  :bday:  :bday:  :bday:   ... I've lost 4, and I eat half the amount of food that he does.  :zombie:  Ah well. A pound a week would mean 12 pounds off by PAX, and that would still put me pretty close to the goal weight I had for that date!

 

It is my understanding that women have a harder time losing weight than men. Apparently it's common, at the very least. I know my wife's goal is to stay below my weight, and while she has been successful, I have narrowed the gap significantly over the months. 

 

I've found some useful calculators and educational paragraphs about the calorie stuff in my Sophie examples at shapesense (dot) com. There's a nice metabolic rate calculator that gives you your caloric intake, and explains why calculations based off your treadmill's calculator are a little bit off (basically, I burn about ~83 calories per hour simply being alive. If I run for one hour, the activity might record as 420 calories, which s true, but it includes the 83 I would have spent without running, so I really only added 340 calories to my deficit). Forgetting to calculate that correctly might mean a daily intake of more calories than I intended, and couple that with typically 2-300 calories in uncounted foods (did you count every ship at the median restaurant? What about the .25 cups of salsa? What about the lemon slice you squeezed over the grilled fish? It all adds up, 20+20+20+20+20+83 is a bigger number than it felt like at the time and that slows your weight loss down!)

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.   Restore formatting

  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...