Lost weight fast 3x last 10 years but this time.....

[Shol]

Hi there.

Just wanted some thoughts on the below as I am trying to lose weight and keep it off this time for years instead of a little while

I am not a fighter or athlete level, but a 45+ year old male who currently weighs about 210.

I have weighed as high as 230 2 years ago but was able to drop about 25 pounds in a few months by getting rid of sugar, drinking lots of water and running around one hour a day and generally watching what I eat.

Currently I have been around 210 the last 6 weeks of doing workouts similar to the above. I guess I don't eat enough veggies but I limit all my bad foods, and try not to eat as much as I do before. I have a weakness for pasta, and sometimes have 2 bowls of it though have started to use a spinach variation for the noodles.

The difference I am noticing this time around is for 6 weeks I have only lost maybe 2-3 pounds. I feel better and the workout difference is I have introduced at last 20 - 30 minutes of weights and resistance training to my workouts which has resulted in my body feeling less bulky and slightly firmer.

My biggest concern is I am still gut ridden and am used to being able to drop the pounds a lot faster by doing this though perhaps the additional weights/resistance is affecting the actual weight loss as I am still proably 25-30 pound overweight. (5.10 in height)

Any tips/advice for this to help me out a bit.

Thanks!

 

[wufabufa]

Are you calculating your caloric expenditure vs. caloric intake? If you don't know how much you're burning then you're not going to be able to gauge and predict your weight loss accurately.

 

[Shol]

Are you calculating your caloric expenditure vs. caloric intake? If you don't know how much you're burning then you're not going to be able to gauge and predict your weight loss accurately.

Hi thanks for responding. Loosely. I should be losing faster based on what I am eating if it was just calorie deficit related. I did in the past doing the same thing. Perhaps it's because I am getting old

 

[wufabufa]

No worries man.

Loosely probably isn't going to cut it at this point. Get a food scale to be accurate.

You also said you feed your pasta addiction. That's a sure way to spike your insulin and there's a good amount of research that shows that lipolysis is often inhibited in the presence of insulin. I bet if you reduced your carbohydrate intake and increased your fat consumption you'd start utilizing your own body's fat stores a little more efficiently. While calories in vs. calories out still holds true, some foods are more likely to make you retain weight. Personally I see a quick shift in body composition when I keep my carbs under 100g per day. You should start a diet log here, it might help you keep a good count of what you're eating.

 

[Shol]

OK will do. Thanks a lot!

 

[MisterHappy]

First, the bad news, getting older = harder weight loss for most people, even harder if you've dieted many times in the past. The good news is there's still a LOT of room for improvement (several mentioned above) that should get you back on track. I'd suggest along with the food scale signing up at myfitnesspal or something similar (free) to count your calories and get on a bit more strict regimen. In the end, it's math, calories in vs calories spent. I'd also look into weight training. If you haven't done much before it'll do wonders, especially right away. It keeps the metabolism going after you've worked out which is huge. You might gain some weight in muscle while you lose fat so the scale is only part of the equation. Get a cheap handheld body fat analyzer (yes, they aren't nearly as accurate as a pro with skin fold calipers or underwater weighing but it's a general gauge). Keep in mind if you're dehydrated the body fat numbers will vary and go up wildly so try to keep hydration levels as similar as possible and think longer term, not day to do. In the end, personally, I watch the body fat % way more than just overall weight. Good luck and remember, it's a marathon, not a sprint!

 

[Oliver Rupcic]

Reply to title

It's not about losing weight it's about learning to enjoy a healthy life


You gained it 3 times. 3 times just losing weight didn't work. Change the strategy ?

 

[steroid-doc]

good video . Eat less / move more and you'll loose weight , justs til try and have a healthy balanced diet whilst cutting calories.

 

[hangulmalmotayo]

good video . Eat less / move more and you'll loose weight , justs til try and have a healthy balanced diet whilst cutting calories.

It seems that there is a lot of talking past each other between CICO and Keto/LCHF people. At the end of the day, it seems to be a question of whether CICO should take priority over the way certain macronutrients (primarily fats and carbohydrates) are metabolized—not a question of whether CICO (in the long run) is true or not. The position of LCHF, as I understand it, is not that CICO is ultimately untrue, but that it is ultimately unhelpful as the primary way to think about weight loss. And I think the video linked is helpful in explaining why CICO is not the most helpful way to consider fat loss—because there are factors that are extremely difficult to measure when it comes to caloric output. Your BMR and NEAT can vary significantly based on the caloric energy your body is capable of metabolizing efficiently. In the case of deranged metabolisms, exercise may actually cause the body to burn significantly fewer calories and also increase hunger so that it is damn near impossible not to eat (your brain is basically telling you that you're starving). Also, if your brain thinks you are starving, it will automatically prioritize certain more important functions for survival (which is why people sometimes experience things like hair loss, decreased sex-drive, etc. at a caloric deficit).

The idea behind the ketogenic/LCHF diet is that by changing the proportion of macronutrients—specifically, by upping your intake of healthy fats and reducing carbs—you can ultimately change the way your body stores and uses energy. That is, in a ketogenic state, your body's fat stores become accessible as a source of energy: BMR increases, NEAT increases because you're metabolizing previously stored fat much more efficiently. This is why certain people can eat at a caloric surplus and still lose weight, because the calories they're taking in are being more efficiently utilized by the body and their BMR and NEAT is going up to compensate for the excess energy that is being detected. So CICO is not being violated in the long run, but it's not so simple as the sort of immediate and phenomenological experience of calculating caloric intake and output in the span of a day. If your metabolism is the problem, then calculating calories in is not going to do much for you. E.g., if your car has engine problems that cause it to burn fuel inefficiently, calculating the amount of gas you put in is not going to track with how far you can go with it; you need to fix the engine first.

 

[steroid-doc]

It seems that there is a lot of talking past each other between CICO and Keto/LCHF people. At the end of the day, it seems to be a question of whether CICO should take priority over the way certain macronutrients (primarily fats and carbohydrates) are metabolized—not a question of whether CICO (in the long run) is true or not. The position of LCHF, as I understand it, is not that CICO is ultimately untrue, but that it is ultimately unhelpful as the primary way to think about weight loss. And I think the video linked is helpful in explaining why CICO is not the most helpful way to consider fat loss—because there are factors that are extremely difficult to measure when it comes to caloric output. Your BMR and NEAT can vary significantly based on the caloric energy your body is capable of metabolizing efficiently. In the case of deranged metabolisms, exercise may actually cause the body to burn significantly fewer calories and also increase hunger so that it is damn near impossible not to eat (your brain is basically telling you that you're starving). Also, if your brain thinks you are starving, it will automatically prioritize certain more important functions for survival (which is why people sometimes experience things like hair loss, decreased sex-drive, etc. at a caloric deficit).

The idea behind the ketogenic/LCHF diet is that by changing the proportion of macronutrients—specifically, by upping your intake of healthy fats and reducing carbs—you can ultimately change the way your body stores and uses energy. That is, in a ketogenic state, your body's fat stores become accessible as a source of energy: BMR increases, NEAT increases because you're metabolizing previously stored fat much more efficiently. This is why certain people can eat at a caloric surplus and still lose weight, because the calories they're taking in are being more efficiently utilized by the body and their BMR and NEAT is going up to compensate for the excess energy that is being detected. So CICO is not being violated in the long run, but it's not so simple as the sort of immediate and phenomenological experience of calculating caloric intake and output in the span of a day. If your metabolism is the problem, then calculating calories in is not going to do much for you. E.g., if your car has engine problems that cause it to burn fuel inefficiently, calculating the amount of gas you put in is not going to track with how far you can go with it; you need to fix the engine first.

cico is the scientific basis for understanding food and your bodies response , its not a diet .

no matter what diet you do whether loosing or gaining weight cico is still true , even if your metabolism is sht to pieces , that will be taken care of .

 

[hangulmalmotayo]

cico is the scientific basis for understanding food and your bodies response , its not a diet .

no matter what diet you do whether loosing or gaining weight cico is still true , even if your metabolism is sht to pieces , that will be taken care of .

I never denied that CICO is true.

 

[steroid-doc]

I never denied that CICO is true.

no probs .

but you did say
This is why certain people can eat at a caloric surplus and still lose weight"

If your gaining weight its because you are in a calorie surplus , ill accept that some people can burn fat whilst in a calorie surplus but this is time dependant ( ive just spent 7 months or so in a deficit and 3 months in a surplus and ive lost weight ) but since switching from a deficit to a surplus i have gained weight , at no point if I want to loose fat quicker or get stage lean do I increase food and neither do any of my clients or anyone else ive met in 30 years of bodybuilding , its always an increase of activity or a reduction in food .
If you take things to an extreme and say the added food increased neat/TEF so the BMR was higher then this wouldnt mean they are in a calorie surplus , if they are loosing weight its still because they are ina deficit.

 

[hangulmalmotayo]

no probs .

but you did say
This is why certain people can eat at a caloric surplus and still lose weight"

If your gaining weight its because you are in a calorie surplus , ill accept that some people can burn fat whilst in a calorie surplus but this is time dependant ( ive just spent 7 months or so in a deficit and 3 months in a surplus and ive lost weight ) but since switching from a deficit to a surplus i have gained weight , at no point if I want to loose fat quicker or get stage lean do I increase food and neither do any of my clients or anyone else ive met in 30 years of bodybuilding , its always an increase of activity or a reduction in food .
If you take things to an extreme and say the added food increased neat/TEF so the BMR was higher then this wouldnt mean they are in a calorie surplus , if they are loosing weight its still because they are ina deficit.

Fair enough.

By caloric surplus, I merely meant relative to what one ingests that day, which is how people typically tend to calculate these things when dieting. But I don’t disagree with what you’re saying in the long run. My comments were in response primarily to the video.

 

[Renard]

Getting older doesn't slow down TDEE that much, we're talking like 50 calories per decade. So that's not it. Could have to do with your gaining muscle, which weighs more. Could be not counting calories accurately enough. Could be a random plateau, and you need to switch up your routine.

 

[Phlog]

Hi there.

Just wanted some thoughts on the below as I am trying to lose weight and keep it off this time for years instead of a little while

I am not a fighter or athlete level, but a 45+ year old male who currently weighs about 210.

I have weighed as high as 230 2 years ago but was able to drop about 25 pounds in a few months by getting rid of sugar, drinking lots of water and running around one hour a day and generally watching what I eat.

Currently I have been around 210 the last 6 weeks of doing workouts similar to the above. I guess I don't eat enough veggies but I limit all my bad foods, and try not to eat as much as I do before. I have a weakness for pasta, and sometimes have 2 bowls of it though have started to use a spinach variation for the noodles.

The difference I am noticing this time around is for 6 weeks I have only lost maybe 2-3 pounds. I feel better and the workout difference is I have introduced at last 20 - 30 minutes of weights and resistance training to my workouts which has resulted in my body feeling less bulky and slightly firmer.

My biggest concern is I am still gut ridden and am used to being able to drop the pounds a lot faster by doing this though perhaps the additional weights/resistance is affecting the actual weight loss as I am still proably 25-30 pound overweight. (5.10 in height)

Any tips/advice for this to help me out a bit.

Thanks!

My tip is that it gets harder every time you crash diet because the body adapts to the pressure and resists it.

Maintain a proper weight continuously or suffer.