|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2023 23:15:31 GMT -5
I'm a breatherian. I can fast for 30 hours and gain half a pound.   Maybe you are bringing balance to the force after Life produced all those waif like Indian gurus! Need a pesronalized "great reset". "You vill eat nothing! and vee happy!  ". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 3, 2023 5:14:25 GMT -5
We're back to writing for the healthy, you, versus writing about the unhealthy, me. I already had-have insulin resistance, so I'm in the process of repairing it, and maintaining. From Bikman's account, I've probably had insulin resistance for at least 20 years. (All those years my Mother had me check my blood sugar once a year, would NEVER have discovered high levels of insulin in the blood, which is basically what insulin resistance is. Already discussed several times). But, wanted to share another past weight loss strategy. I called it: Don't Feed the Fat. If you're overweight (and over 50% of us are), part of what you eat goes merely to maintain the fat. So, I came up with the plan to eat the number of calories to maintain the weight you want to be. Thus, don't feed the fat. So, for me now, that would mean to eat to maintain 176 pounds. I never got past that much, just knew I had to eat less calories than I then-was eating. But, just on the fly. Say 2,400 calories a day now maintains 226 pounds. Just set up an equation: 226/176 is to 2400/?x. x = 1,869 calories a day. But I'd rather do inavalan's 1,400 calorie a day. How does that sound to you lolly? I could even figure how long it would take to lose that weight. That would be 2 pounds a week, approximately. That would be six months, approximately. I've proved, 1974-1975, I can easily lose 40 pounds in 8 months (but I'm not 22 now). I'll just lower my goal of 14 months to one year, so, one pound a week. I will give a monthly update, mostly just as a way of keeping myself accountable. One pound a week would put me nearly at the = 1,869 calories a day. So 1,400 would be a daily goal to shoot at. I think I trade mark "Don't Feed the Fat". The new DFTF diet. But, question, from your experience, what would be the daily calories to maintain 176 pounds? Maintaining average muscle mass. I keep saying I don't advise special medical diets. It's just that losing-fat will have positive effects on insulin resistance. Eating to the weight you want to be is probably a good idea. 1800 cals sounds reasonable if a little low. It's be around about basal metabolic rate for an average sized male. As I said before, employing a large calorie deficit will result in a high percentage of muscle loss and ideally, if you cut to between 10-20% below maintenance calories, you lose weight more gradually but a higher percentage of that weight is fat.
There is a large variance between individual's maintenance calories so it's hard to throw out numbers. When I take on a client with weight loss goals, I don't tell them, but I don't worry about that goal for a few months. I just say weigh yourself 3 times a week naked after ablutions and before eating in the morning, and take the average weekly. Apart from that I just start a resistance training program that progresses from simple isolation movements to heavy barbell exercises. I call the program General Physical Preparation, and it takes at least 4 months to get through it, older people take longer, but once a person completes GPP, they have the exercise skill and knowledge to achieve any fitness goal they want. Toward the end of GPP I usually find people are happy with their improved physique, but that's when I really start talking about food. It's very rare that a client will weigh portions and track calories, but if feasible that's the best way to do it. It is a good way of learning what is in the food you already eat, and there's no point adjusting the things that are already on track. A person can also see for themselves where the excessive calories are coming from. For example, if ZD tracked nuts he'd see that his intake waslike 700 cals a day or whatever. Weighing portions is the best learning tool. Most won't do it so during training we just talk about food and employ ideas like keeping things simple and reducing/replacing/removing useless calories, which naturally ups nutrients. For example, if Andrew has a sweet tooth, then sweet thing with a fruit base like apple pie might be a better option than a slab of chocolate mud cake. I have a fruit smoothie with oats and protein powder which is very sweet, but a right powerhouse of nutrients. That's better than a sweet breakfast cereal for example. I mean that's the sort of thing we talk about. The person does their training and starts to change a few things just through talking about it. I have a fair idea of what's going on number-wise and might say, "is it possible to get some protein into your breakfast?" or something like that, They'll have an idea, and I think 'better' - that's good enough. We talk a lot about how hungry or satisfied they feel and try to make meals more sartisfing. EG, liquid calories like my smoothie aren't very filling, and if hunger was a problem, something solid might be a better idea.
We want to restore a person's response to their hunger cues. People lose touch with that and eat for a lot of different reasons - apart from being hungry - and they learn that losing say 700g in a week on average they have to feel 'this hungry'. Some of the highly processed foods interfere with that sense. The manufacturers research and constantly make that food more and more palatable, and the flavour rush becomes a strong desire on its own. They sometimes add caffeine to make it more addictive. I've never had to worry about that because once a person realises that nutritional balance leaves very little room for 'empty calories', they automatically reduce food, or replace it more nutritious alternatives.
There is discussion about acellerating average metabolic rate, but that's 90% sleeping well. I also have tricks up my sleeve to prevent or ameliorate metabolic adaptation to fewer calories, but it's usually not necessary because they seem to happen by themselves.
In my mind it's all numbers. A client is losing 500g a week on average so I know they are in a deficit of about 500 cals a day. The client only knows how hungry they have to feel to sustain that rate, but as their nutrition improves, they don't feel as hungry as they once would have, and because they realise they don't really a have 'spare calories' for junk, they reduce/replace/remove without even thinking about it. Whereas they might have a couple of glasses of wine, they become conscious and 1/2 a glass is good enough. Generally speaking the more-informed client just feels their way along and that seems to work just fine. My success rate with clients is very high because I don't have a magic diet, and my basic principle is to restore their sensitivity to their sensations of hunger and specific nutrients. Since it's principled, clients often change things up a bit, changingtheir diet while still adhering to the principles. That flexibility is essential for positive improvement
I don't even come close to special medical diets. I defer to a proper dietitian for that (not an MD), but I never had a client with metabolic/blood pressure issues that didn't reduce their meds or go off them (doctor approved). It's just the outcomes you are looking for depend on a set of priorities and do not depend on diet guru magic. That doesn't mean their diet is bad, so I encourage any good diet or even the slightest improvement. Go for 1800 cals and see what happens. Don't go for 1400 because a higher percentage of weight lost will be muscle mass andyou risk metabolic maladaption. A regular sized male should have a BMR around 1800 and a maintenance of maybe 2500. It varies considerably between individuals. Don't reduce calories by more than 20% below maintenance.
There is a trainer like on You Tube. She's a very simplistic girl, very easy to grok, but it's obvious to me she has a good scientific foundation. No time to edit today soz
Thanks lolly, sounds most excellent. I'll look at the video later. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 3, 2023 5:29:43 GMT -5
We're back to writing for the healthy, you, versus writing about the unhealthy, me. I already had-have insulin resistance, so I'm in the process of repairing it, and maintaining. From Bikman's account, I've probably had insulin resistance for at least 20 years. (All those years my Mother had me check my blood sugar once a year, would NEVER have discovered high levels of insulin in the blood, which is basically what insulin resistance is. Already discussed several times). But, wanted to share another past weight loss strategy. I called it: Don't Feed the Fat. If you're overweight (and over 50% of us are), part of what you eat goes merely to maintain the fat. So, I came up with the plan to eat the number of calories to maintain the weight you want to be. Thus, don't feed the fat. So, for me now, that would mean to eat to maintain 176 pounds. I never got past that much, just knew I had to eat less calories than I then-was eating. But, just on the fly. Say 2,400 calories a day now maintains 226 pounds. Just set up an equation: 226/176 is to 2400/?x. x = 1,869 calories a day. But I'd rather do inavalan's 1,400 calorie a day. How does that sound to you lolly? I could even figure how long it would take to lose that weight. That would be 2 pounds a week, approximately. That would be six months, approximately. I've proved, 1974-1975, I can easily lose 40 pounds in 8 months (but I'm not 22 now). I'll just lower my goal of 14 months to one year, so, one pound a week. I will give a monthly update, mostly just as a way of keeping myself accountable. One pound a week would put me nearly at the = 1,869 calories a day. So 1,400 would be a daily goal to shoot at. I think I trade mark "Don't Feed the Fat". The new DFTF diet. But, question, from your experience, what would be the daily calories to maintain 176 pounds? Maintaining average muscle mass. It doesn't work that way. And this is good news. The formula is 3,500 calories ~= 1 lb of fat, calories out vs. calories in. In my experience, as illustrated by the graph I posted, over the 13 months in which I dropped from 295 lbs. to 165 lbs, while maintaining the same lifestyle (activity), and taking in the same number of calories daily, my weight-loss drop was almost linear. This suggests that the intake of calories needed to maintain weight was about the same at 295, and 165 lbs. It is likely that one explanation is that (for the same kind of activity) when you're heavier you spend more calories, so as you slim down, your difference calories out vs. calories in decreases, when you intake the same amount of calories. I said good news, because all this means that you need to significantly restrict calories only to loose weight, and after that, if you maintain the same lifestyle (activity), you return to about the same number of calories needed to maintain your weight, as you do now. Can you please explain this. I'm not understanding something. I thought you said earlier you ate 1,400 calories a day, to lose weight. Here you say you took in the same number of calories (, weight loss was almost linear). I read your whole post 4 times. Understand you also said this. I'm going to assume you eat more nutritious food now? Almost no empty calories? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 3, 2023 8:01:53 GMT -5
lolly, have you worked with people 70+ years old?
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 3, 2023 11:50:53 GMT -5
It doesn't work that way. And this is good news. The formula is 3,500 calories ~= 1 lb of fat, calories out vs. calories in. In my experience, as illustrated by the graph I posted, over the 13 months in which I dropped from 295 lbs. to 165 lbs, while maintaining the same lifestyle (activity), and taking in the same number of calories daily, my weight-loss drop was almost linear. This suggests that the intake of calories needed to maintain weight was about the same at 295, and 165 lbs. It is likely that one explanation is that (for the same kind of activity) when you're heavier you spend more calories, so as you slim down, your difference calories out vs. calories in decreases, when you intake the same amount of calories. I said good news, because all this means that you need to significantly restrict calories only to loose weight, and after that, if you maintain the same lifestyle (activity), you return to about the same number of calories needed to maintain your weight, as you do now. Can you please explain this. I'm not understanding something. I thought you said earlier you ate 1,400 calories a day, to lose weight. Here you say you took in the same number of calories (, weight loss was almost linear). I read your whole post 4 times. Understand you also said this. I'm going to assume you eat more nutritious food now? Almost no empty calories? I meant that those 13 months I ate about 1,400 calories each day. "The same" meant the same amount, 1,400 calories, every day. I didn't vary the number of calories as I was losing weight. This showed that to a very large degree, my weight dropping didn't reduce the number of calories needed . I don't think in terms of "empty calories" or such when I count calories for weight-loss. Surely, for my health I pay attention to what I eat, but for weight management "a calorie is a calorie". The 1,400 calories per day amounted to a deficit of about 1,000 calories per day, which translates in 7,000calories per week, or about 2 pounds of fat, which my graph shows. This had the same effect when I was 290 pounds, and when I was 170 pounds. The basal metabolism decreases a little with age, and it is a few hundred calories lower for women. It also varies function of the level of activity a little. If you workout, then it stays raised for a few hours. This is why it is a little more efficient to workout in the morning than in the evening. I was weighing myself every single day, in the morning. EDIT:  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 3, 2023 13:31:04 GMT -5
This is interesting: BMR Calculator"A 2005 meta-analysis study on BMR* showed that when controlling all factors of metabolic rate, there is still a 26% unknown variance between people. Essentially, an average person eating an average diet will likely have expected BMR values, but there are factors that are still not understood that determines BMR precisely."www.calculator.net/bmr-calculator.htmlYou can play around with values and scenarios, and gives some explanations too. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 3, 2023 15:01:38 GMT -5
This is a meaningful formula, that shows that the effect of the Weight on the BMR decreases with the increase in body Fat. It might be the explanation of the quasi-linearity of my weight-loss graph. BMR for 295 lbs, 40% fat is 2,104 BMR for 295 lbs, 20% fat is 2,682 BMR for 165 lbs, 40% fat is 1,340 BMR for 165 lbs, 20% fat is 1,663 Katch-McArdle Formula: link
BMR = 370 + 21.6(1 - F)W
where: W is body weight in kg; F is body fat in percentage EDIT: Body Fat Calculator link |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 3, 2023 18:32:20 GMT -5
Can you please explain this. I'm not understanding something. I thought you said earlier you ate 1,400 calories a day, to lose weight. Here you say you took in the same number of calories (, weight loss was almost linear). I read your whole post 4 times. Understand you also said this. I'm going to assume you eat more nutritious food now? Almost no empty calories? I meant that those 13 months I ate about 1,400 calories each day. "The same" meant the same amount, 1,400 calories, every day. I didn't vary the number of calories as I was losing weight. This showed that to a very large degree, my weight dropping didn't reduce the number of calories needed . I don't think in terms of "empty calories" or such when I count calories for weight-loss. Surely, for my health I pay attention to what I eat, but for weight management "a calorie is a calorie". The 1,400 calories per day amounted to a deficit of about 1,000 calories per day, which translates in 7,000calories per week, or about 2 pounds of fat, which my graph shows. This had the same effect when I was 290 pounds, and when I was 170 pounds. The basal metabolism decreases a little with age, and it is a few hundred calories lower for women. It also varies function of the level of activity a little. If you workout, then it stays raised for a few hours. This is why it is a little more efficient to workout in the morning than in the evening. I was weighing myself every single day, in the morning. EDIT: View AttachmentOK, that's clear (now). |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 3, 2023 20:13:49 GMT -5
Most people have metabolic down regulation as body-weight drops mostly because underfeeding makes the body conserve energy in unconscious activity (non-exercise activity thermogenesis or NEAT). Exercise of course increases calories burned, but we're finding the body tends to compensate for that, too. Hence lighter activity such as walking is quite effective when compared to higher intensity cardio, and I rate just walking best for weight loss cardio.
The biggest issue with weight loss is muscle loss, which isn't so bad for younger people who can easily rebuild muscle, but for mature age people who experience sarcopenia (age related muscle loss) muscle retention is a high priority because sarcopenia is the primary cause of falls and disability in old age.
With older clients say 55-65+ I'm more wary of calorie deficits, but the training is pretty much the same. They just have to manage fatigue and recovery better, and although I've never recommended a weight loss nutrition plan to anyone over 65, they still have significant improvements in body composition. The same conversations about food, hunger and social circumstances take plcse but we talk about protein and muscle retention more than calories and fat loss. It's mostly about prevention for the oldies. We don't want them taking a tumble of deteriorating in independent living ability.
For example, one guy in his 80's loved dining and enjoyed his lavish social lunches with beer and wine etc. His doctor told him to lose weight and he had all sorts of issues like fluid in the legs and unable to pee etc. Ideally he could have lost 20 kilos and been better off on paper, but then his social enjoyment would be compromised. I said he might order simple food without elaborate sauces, but he prided himself as the expert on Chinese cuisine and would order for everyone to blow their minds, so going simple was out of the question. He said he's really not interested in losing fat, and I was like, fine, lets lift some heavy things and be happy. He first came to be because he was struggling with the stairs at the station, and was scared to go down stairs lest he fall. In two years he was barbell back squatting, dead lifting from the floor, doing walking lunges and single leg drinking birds. His bench press of military press were also on point. He could take the stairs no problem at all and had no qualms about walking back down. I don't think he lost a kilo that whole time (never weighed in), and it surprised me how strong he got. I think lavish lunches with too much alcohol was his ironic secret to success.
|
|
Maybe you are bringing balance to the force after Life produced all those waif like Indian gurus!
".
