Support NeoGAF

[ipukespiders]

?:

if the body prioritizes fat before muscle/organs for energy use when fasting, why not just do progressively longer water fasts?

Because I like to eat.

 

[Esch]

?:

if the body prioritizes fat before muscle/organs for energy use when fasting, why not just do progressively longer water fasts?

There are lots of different fasting protocols for this reason- there's no real consensus on what the 'ideal' length of a fast should be. I currently do 16fast/8feeding and feel pretty ideal on that- I've gone for longer and shorter intervals but i keep going back to that setup.

 

[nickcv]

So it's normal, that's good to hear.



So do you guys listen to your bodies and skip a meal if you're not hungry? Or just eat a snack instead?

to keep in track my metabolism i prefer to never skip a meal.
try to have a normal dinner anyway, but not if that's going to make you feel bloated.

 

[cyberheater]

Vincent Regan lost 40 lb in 8 weeks to get ready for filming The 300. Impressive. He is my inspiration.

Full article here:-

http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge/article/36/

He was basically on around 1700 calories a day. Apparently a cottage cheese and grape diet and a ton of exercise.

 

[Revoh]

to keep in track my metabolism i prefer to never skip a meal.
try to have a normal dinner anyway, but not if that's going to make you feel bloated.

Will do.

Bealost, I'm not counting calories, but if I have to guess I would say I eat about 1200 calories a day

 

[Zoe]

to keep in track my metabolism i prefer to never skip a meal.
try to have a normal dinner anyway, but not if that's going to make you feel bloated.

There's no real consensus that you have to eat at a consistent rate throughout the day to keep your metabolism up though.

 

[Ettie]

There are lots of different fasting protocols for this reason- there's no real consensus on what the 'ideal' length of a fast should be. I currently do 16fast/8feeding and feel pretty ideal on that- I've gone for longer and shorter intervals but i keep going back to that setup.

Could you give some detail on your experience please?

 

[nickcv]

There's no real consensus that you have to eat at a consistent rate throughout the day to keep your metabolism up though.

i know that but for me works that way

anyhow i think that while there's no consensus that skipping a meal is bad for you there sure is consensus that no skipping a meal is not bad for you.

why take the risk?

 

[Zoe]

i know that but for me works that way

anyhow i think that while there's no consensus that skipping a meal is bad for you there sure is consensus that no skipping a meal is not bad for you.

why take the risk?

I'd say that if being forced to stick to a schedule makes you prone to overeat, then it's bad for you.

 

[nickcv]

I'd say that if being forced to stick to a schedule makes you prone to overeat, then it's bad for you.

i agree, but if skipping a meal makes you prone to undereat that's bad for you as well.

in medio stat virtus.

 

[Esch]

Could you give some detail on your experience please?

I've tried eat stop eat before. It's okay. I much much prefer leangains. It's very easy to manage.

 

[bengraven]

I've wanted to post this before, but was always chicken and kind of embarrassed. I used to weigh 360 pounds, this pic is 8 years old a few weeks after my son was born...

This is me 4 years ago, with my son obviously....

And this is me, sorry for crappy 3ds pic but I don't have a camera...

I'm down to about 180...
So the moral of the story is, don't get diabetes (but yay for not being fat!!)!

Holy shit.

Holy SHIT. You're me, but the me is the first picture and the bottom is what I want to be

 

[Bealost]

Will do.

Bealost, I'm not counting calories, but if I have to guess I would say I eat about 1200 calories a day

I don't know what your maintenance would be, so I don't know if that is drastically low or not. As long as you are keeping track and can see when you are dipping too low. For a reference, when I started (I'm 5'11'') I weighed well over 260 lbs. Since February my daily target intake was about 2k cal, I'd usually go over by a couple hundred, but my maintenance intake would be closer to 3k. I eat more on very active days, and almost never less than 2k/day. I'm now down to 205, and still eating a little over 2k/day. My deficit was actually a little bit larger than recommended (people say 500 is good). But I KNEW I would go over my goal routinely, so I set my goal a little bit low.

?:

if the body prioritizes fat before muscle/organs for energy use when fasting, why not just do progressively longer water fasts?

The answer is that your body DOESN'T prioritize fat. The more bodyfat you have, the more you will use it first. But your body would prefer to keep the low maintenance fat over that silly calorie hogging muscles. Not only that, but if you fast for a long time (more than a few days) Your body goes into emergency mode and will start to severely limit its energy use (slows your metabolism way down) in order to survive.

 

[Cmagus]

I've wanted to post this before, but was always chicken and kind of embarrassed. I used to weigh 360 pounds, this pic is 8 years old a few weeks after my son was born...


This is me 4 years ago, with my son obviously....



And this is me, sorry for crappy 3ds pic but I don't have a camera...


I'm down to about 180...
So the moral of the story is, don't get diabetes (but yay for not being fat!!)!

Damn great job man keep it up

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'll never understand people who focus on or even pay attention to calories.

 

[Einbroch]

I'll never understand people who focus on or even pay attention to calories.

Its fantastic when starting, I believe, to count calories. It may open your eyes. Once you get in the groove, yeah, it's kinda pointless.

 

[Zoe]

I'll never understand people who focus on or even pay attention to calories.

Some people like numbers.

 

[Ettie]

I've tried eat stop eat before. It's okay. I much much prefer leangains. It's very easy to manage.

Dude I thought you meant 18/6 days. Gotcha now though.

 

[dralla]

I have a gift from the gods for my healthy bros, Nugo Slim bars. These are brand new and fantastic for people who want a good tasting, filling snack with no artificial ingredients. There are currently 3 flavors - Brownie, Peanut Butter and Raspberry, here's the website - http://store.nugonutrition.com/category/nugo-slim.html

Basically what makes them so good is,
Taste - They are damn good, it's hard to eat just one [I've only had the Brownie]
All Natural - No artificial sweeteners or sugar alcohols, they are covered in real Dark Chocolate
15 grams of Protein
9-10 grams of Fiber
only 2 grams of sugar from the Dark Chocolate and they only have a small effect on blood alcohol levels

The only down side is that they are expensive. I'm hoping Amazon will add them to subscribe and save. They're also too small for a meal replacement bar, 45gs and 180 Calories. But you can take a tablespoon of peanut butter and spread it on top to make it even more amazing.

 

[Bealost]

Zefah, I understand your position of as long as you eat healthful/non-processed foods you can eat as much as you want and not be fat. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Can we just agree to disagree on the calorie counting front? I'm with you on the you shouldn't eat processed garbage front including bread. But I also believe that you should be keeping track of the amount of energy you put into your body. No matter what food you eat your body WILL store excess energy from your diet.

Just about every article I have read online says that a caloric deficit leads to weight loss. There are many ways to get to that deficit. (eliminating carbs from your diet is the new, and possibly best one.) I would bet you money that I could get fat eating nothing but boneless skinless chicken, but this is the internet and even if I did it you wouldn't believe me. (I've lost over 60 lbs so far, and am getting near my goal, I REALLY don't WANT to do it).

I have repeatedly posted sources saying that caloric restrictions lead to weight loss. As of yet, you haven't posted a single source saying that eating any amount of whole foods you want leads to weight loss.

Until I'm given some evidence of your position, I see no reason to change mine.

Now a caveat- Counting calories isn't a necessary part of losing weight. You can eat at a deficit while not counting calories. Counting calories (which isn't that hard once you know whats in most of the food you eat) is a GREAT way to keep track of how much food you eat. And knowing how much you consume is a big step in controlling your diet.

 

[Bealost]

I have a gift from the gods for my healthy bros, Nugo Slim bars. These are brand new and fantastic for people who want a good tasting, filling snack with no artificial ingredients. There are currently 3 flavors - Brownie, Peanut Butter and Raspberry, here's the website - http://store.nugonutrition.com/category/nugo-slim.html

Basically what makes them so good is,
Taste - They are damn good, it's hard to eat just one [I've only had the Brownie]
All Natural - No artificial sweeteners or sugar alcohols, they are covered in real Dark Chocolate
15 grams of Protein
9-10 grams of Fiber
only 2 grams of sugar from the Dark Chocolate and they only have a small effect on blood alcohol levels

The only down side is that they are expensive. I'm hoping Amazon will add them to subscribe and save. They're also too small for a meal replacement bar, 45gs and 180 Calories. But you can take a tablespoon of peanut butter and spread it on top to make it even more amazing.

Your only 2 grams of sugar line is misleading.

Amount per Serving % D/V
Calories 180
Calories from fat 55
Total Fat 6g 9%
Saturated Fat 2.5g 13%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg 0%
Sodium 135mg 6%
Total Carbohydrate 21g 7%
Dietary Fiber 9g 36%
Sugar 2g
Protein 15g

One bar still has 12 net carbs. and 15g of protein for 180 calories isn't awesome.

I also don't see any claims of them being sugar alcohol free or all natrual on the site.

 

[teh_pwn]

Zefah, I understand your position of as long as you eat healthful/non-processed foods you can eat as much as you want and not be fat. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Can we just agree to disagree on the calorie counting front? I'm with you on the you shouldn't eat processed garbage front including bread. But I also believe that you should be keeping track of the amount of energy you put into your body. No matter what food you eat your body WILL store excess energy from your diet.

Just about every article I have read online says that a caloric deficit leads to weight loss. There are many ways to get to that deficit. (eliminating carbs from your diet is the new, and possibly best one.) I would bet you money that I could get fat eating nothing but boneless skinless chicken, but this is the internet and even if I did it you wouldn't believe me. (I've lost over 60 lbs so far, and am getting near my goal, I REALLY don't WANT to do it).

I have repeatedly posted sources saying that caloric restrictions lead to weight loss. As of yet, you haven't posted a single source saying that eating any amount of whole foods you want leads to weight loss.

Until I'm given some evidence of your position, I see no reason to change mine.

Now a caveat- Counting calories isn't a necessary part of losing weight. You can eat at a deficit while not counting calories. Counting calories (which isn't that hard once you know whats in most of the food you eat) is a GREAT way to keep track of how much food you eat. And knowing how much you consume is a big step in controlling your diet.

I don't think he's arguing that some sort of caloric deficit with regards to body fat isn't needed. Rather that consciously counting calories isn't needed to reduce food intake to create that deficit. It's the same as disagreeing that guns kill people when really some people use guns to kill people.

I think becoming aware of how many calories are in something can be good feedback in deciding which foods to completely avoid. If for example you find that a biscuit or glazed chicken is 500 calories and it doesn't fill you up, then it's broken food and avoid it. To give a low carb example, atkins endulge peanut butter cups left me hungry.

 

[PandaPandaPanda]

Holy shit.

Holy SHIT. You're me, but the me is the first picture and the bottom is what I want to be

get up and start exercising(even small amounts as everyone has to start somewhere) and stop wishing? If you really want something you'll find ways to make your way toward it in most cases (eg things like wanting a Bugatti Veyron isn't realistic but wanting to be in better shape is a realistic goal if you make the effort toward it.)

 

[dralla]

Your only 2 grams of sugar line is misleading.

Amount per Serving % D/V
Calories 180
Calories from fat 55
Total Fat 6g 9%
Saturated Fat 2.5g 13%
Trans Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg 0%
Sodium 135mg 6%
Total Carbohydrate 21g 7%
Dietary Fiber 9g 36%
Sugar 2g
Protein 15g

One bar still has 12 net carbs. and 15g of protein for 180 calories isn't awesome.

I also don't see any claims of them being sugar alcohol free or all natrual on the site.

it's not misleading at all, it's not claiming to be a no-carb bar. not everyone follows that type of diet.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Going back to sub 100 carbs a day + exercise.

Gonna try to get this shit down this year.

 

[ipukespiders]

The reason counting calories is silly is that we can't figure out our daily calorie needs accurately, so how do we get that 500 cal deficit?

 

[Zoe]

The reason counting calories is silly is that we can't figure out our daily calorie needs accurately, so how do we get that 500 cal deficit?

You can at least figure out your BMR.

 

[ZackieChan]

You can at least figure out your BMR.

Maybe he's saying that it's not exact?

 

[ipukespiders]

You can at least figure out your BMR.

Oh really? Then what is yours?

 

[Bealost]

The reason counting calories is silly is that we can't figure out our daily calorie needs accurately, so how do we get that 500 cal deficit?

You can't calculate your daily needs accurately, but you can figure it out if you count calories for awhile. Count calories for three weeks and keep track of your weight. Weigh yourself every day, throw it into a spreadsheet put a linear regression on it, look at the coefficient of x, and BAM an average amount of wieght change daily. If you don't feel three weeks is enough than do a month, or two months, whatever makes you feel better.
Once you know how much your weight has changed and the average number of calories you ate each day is simple arithmetic figuring out how much of a deficit/surplus you had.

EDIT::
What makes you think the human body is so mysterious that we can't figure it out? Short of the brain the human body is largely understood. I'm not saying we know everything about every process or that there are no opposing opinions in the area, but the basics on things like nutrition have been experimented with for a long time among people like athletes and bodybuilders. People making their living by making their body the best it can be in some specific area. And science and their experience is generally in agreement when it comes to caloric intake.

 

[ch0mp]

You can't calculate your daily needs accurately, but you can figure it out if you count calories for awhile. Count calories for three weeks and keep track of your weight. Weigh yourself every day, throw it into a spreadsheet put a linear regression on it, look at the coefficient of x, and BAM an average amount of wieght change daily. If you don't feel three weeks is enough than do a month, or two months, whatever makes you feel better.
Once you know how much your weight has changed and the average number of calories you ate each day is simple arithmetic figuring out how much of a deficit/surplus you had.

EDIT::
What makes you think the human body is so mysterious that we can't figure it out? Short of the brain the human body is largely understood. I'm not saying we know everything about every process or that there are no opposing opinions in the area, but the basics on things like nutrition have been experimented with for a long time among people like athletes and bodybuilders. People making their living by making their body the best it can be in some specific area. And science and their experience is generally in agreement when it comes to caloric intake.

Have you actually read the science? Restriction/starvation is short term, and usually ends in a severe rebound.

 

[teh_pwn]

You can't calculate your daily needs accurately, but you can figure it out if you count calories for awhile. Count calories for three weeks and keep track of your weight. Weigh yourself every day, throw it into a spreadsheet put a linear regression on it, look at the coefficient of x, and BAM an average amount of wieght change daily. If you don't feel three weeks is enough than do a month, or two months, whatever makes you feel better.
Once you know how much your weight has changed and the average number of calories you ate each day is simple arithmetic figuring out how much of a deficit/surplus you had.

EDIT::
What makes you think the human body is so mysterious that we can't figure it out? Short of the brain the human body is largely understood. I'm not saying we know everything about every process or that there are no opposing opinions in the area, but the basics on things like nutrition have been experimented with for a long time among people like athletes and bodybuilders. People making their living by making their body the best it can be in some specific area. And science and their experience is generally in agreement when it comes to caloric intake.

This is a total wishy washy argument. No the science isn't clear that calories are calories when it comes to a causal impact of body composition. The human metabolism is complex as is the regulation of body fat by the brain. We know that the brain regulates fat mass with leptin by inversely controlling hunger in relation to the amount of body fat present. We also know that the hunger inhibition effects of leptin in the prefrontal cortex can be overcome with a greater dopamine stimulus. We know that sleep deprived people have elevated ghrelin, and will lose primarily lean tissue on a caloric restriction diet.

So no it isn't generally known to be effective on it's own. You've got to eat the right foods in the right amounts, sleep, exercise, and listen to your body. You cannot get consistent results by simply restricting calories without changing food for every person. If the brain is adament about hitting 20% body fat, it will stress the body to get there by elevating hunger, reducing free energy and by disproportionately using lean tissue as a fuel source. Eventually body fat will be used, but let's not ignore efficiency and total health.

The science is also nothing close to final. It's poorly funded thanks to the dogma of "eat less and move more", which is like telling kids "don't use condoms, just don't have sex" in response to a teenage pregnancy crisis.

And really, the only calories that are pure calories are carbohydrates. Lipids and amino acids are building blocks to tissue, not just fuel.

 

[bigboss370]

Holy shit.

Holy SHIT. You're me, but the me is the first picture and the bottom is what I want to be

you can do it man, its just willpower

 

[Zoe]

Oh really? Then what is yours?

My thyroid levels have been normal every year, and I'm not a body builder. I have no reason to believe that I'm some fringe minority for whom the average doesn't apply.

So, 1600.

 

[Dabookerman]

It's been a while since I've visited here.. but I'm looking into trying to lose weight again through dieting (with christmas coming up.. this will be a tough task...)

Anyhoo, should I take it that Low Carb is still recommended? I did that last time and lost a stone over about 2 months.. but I managed to pile that shit back on pretty quickly (thanks crunch..).

 

[Bealost]

This is a total wishy washy argument. No the science isn't clear that calories are calories when it comes to a causal impact of body composition. The human metabolism is complex as is the regulation of body fat by the brain. We know that the brain regulates fat mass with leptin by inversely controlling hunger in relation to the amount of body fat present. We also know that the hunger inhibition effects of leptin in the prefrontal cortex can be overcome with a greater dopamine stimulus. We know that sleep deprived people have elevated ghrelin, and will lose primarily lean tissue on a caloric restriction diet.

So no it isn't generally known to be effective on it's own. You've got to eat the right foods in the right amounts, sleep, exercise, and listen to your body. You cannot get consistent results by simply restricting calories without changing food for every person. If the brain is adament about hitting 20% body fat, it will stress the body to get there by elevating hunger, reducing free energy and by disproportionately using lean tissue as a fuel source. Eventually body fat will be used, but let's not ignore efficiency and total health.

The science is also nothing close to final. It's poorly funded thanks to the dogma of "eat less and move more", which is like telling kids "don't use condoms, just don't have sex" in response to a teenage pregnancy crisis.

And really, the only calories that are pure calories are carbohydrates. Lipids and amino acids are building blocks to tissue, not just fuel.

"No the science isn't clear that calories are calories when it comes to a causal impact of body composition."
I wasn't making an the argument that a calorie is a calorie as far as its value to the human body, only that the total number of calories DOES MATTER. And it matters enough that it is worth keeping track of what you eat.

"If the brain is adament about hitting 20% body fat, it will stress the body to get there by elevating hunger, reducing free energy and by disproportionately using lean tissue as a fuel source. Eventually body fat will be used, but let's not ignore efficiency and total health."
There are many factors the effect how hungry you feel and the ratio of fat to lean tissue used as fuel. What you eat and how much you train being the obvious ones. Again I'm simply saying that counting calories is a way to keep track of how much you eat. I'm not saying you should go on a twinkie only diet, that would just be stupid.

Have you actually read the science? Restriction/starvation is short term, and usually ends in a severe rebound.

I'm not talking about starving yourself. Your body needs to have a reason to use the fat it has stored as fuel. The only reason its going to get is that it is not receiving enough fuel from your diet.
And to answer your question directly I have not, only articles reviewing some studies and such. I would love some direct links to studies.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'm not saying you should go on a twinkie only diet, that would just be stupid.

Except, ultimately, you are implying that it is okay to go on an all twinkie diet when you put an emphasis or focus on calories.

If you eat the right kinds of foods and behave in the right ways (avoid extreme physical and mental stress, get sleep, get some light to moderate exercise), your body will moderate things properly. You won't have to focus on calories, and in fact, you shouldn't, because your body will tell you when you should or shouldn't eat.

Then again, people should do what works for them, but I'll just never understand the focus on calories. I liked the little story that Gary Taubes used in his book as an analogy to the focus on calories. It was something about a drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight because that was where it was lightest.

 

[jts]

Vincent Regan lost 40 lb in 8 weeks to get ready for filming The 300. Impressive. He is my inspiration.

Full article here:-

http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge/article/36/

He was basically on around 1700 calories a day. Apparently a cottage cheese and grape diet and a ton of exercise.

I love this. I think I'm like him on week 4 or a bit less but I haven't progressed in months. I'd love to go the extra mile like that. Unfortunately I can't see it happening though. Too many variables involved.

 

[Bealost]

Except, ultimately, you are implying that it is okay to go on an all twinkie diet when you put an emphasis or focus on calories.

I'm actually not implying that at all. In fact I stated that was not the case. My whole argument here is that the amount of energy you consume matters. For some people, hunger is simply not a good indication of when they should eat. When I started my diet, before my body adjusted to the new food intake, I was hungry ALL the time. Saying that you can just eat x and then eat as much as you want is doing a disservice to people trying to lose weight.

 

[ipukespiders]

My thyroid levels have been normal every year, and I'm not a body builder. I have no reason to believe that I'm some fringe minority for whom the average doesn't apply.

So, 1600.

Well you might as well throw that number out the window. Hell, even drinking a glass of cold water burns calories.
You start restricting calories, body functions may start to shut down, bringing that 1600 down.

edit: teh_pwn said it better than I could.

 

[Zoe]

Well you might as well throw that number out the window. Hell, even drinking a glass of cold water burns calories.
You start restricting calories, body functions may start to shut down, bringing that 1600 down.

edit: teh_pwn said it better than I could.

Maybe you should leave it to other people because you're not making much sense.

Who cares if you burn more than the BMR? Burning more than that is good!

Body functions shutting down at BMR? That's funny. I didn't see any change in my metabolism when I was doing it. Didn't see any drops in energy or cognitive functions.

 

[Kingbrave]

Holy shit.

Holy SHIT. You're me, but the me is the first picture and the bottom is what I want to be

I'm not gonna lie, I'd still be that big if not bigger if not for the diabetes.

 

[Bealost]

Once again, my point is that if calories are being strictly controlled, the source doesn’t appear to make a humongous difference in terms of body composition changes. As well, once you get protein intake to proper levels, fooling around with carbohydate and fat ratios (within the context of identical caloric intakes) don’t seem to make a huge amount of difference either. The bottom line still comes down to calories in versus calories out; it’s simply that it may be easier to affect calories in (food intake) or calories out (through activity) with different macronutrient breakdowns.

As well, the source of calories can affect other aspects of physiology beyond body composition. Health, energy levels, hunger/appetite and all the rest interact here. So while a calorie controlled diet of jelly beans, butter and protein powder might very well work to lose weight/fat, it probably wouldn’t be as healthy compared to a diet of low GI carbohydrates, healthier oils and lean protein sources.

Understand me here? Issues such as hunger control, long-term adherence, individual variance, athletic performance, and a few others all go into the determination of what food might or might not be a better choice under a given set of circumstances. So while a calorie might be more or less a calorie under somewhat artificial conditions (where calories are or can be strictly controlled), it’s a little more complex than that in the real world. Other issues interact. The next few chapters will adress those other issues.

From: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

So can we meet somewhere it the middle zefah?

 

[Gary Whitta]

188lbs -50lbs from when I started!

 

[Shaneus]

Black 4S? Bahahaha.

Only kidding Looking awesome, btw. Good to see the weight's come off fairly evenly. I still have horrendous tuckshop lady arms

 

[_Isaac]

The new iphone's out already?

 

[Ripclawe]

Calorie counting if nothing else gives you a target/goal to lose weight. not calorie counting and eating healthy is fine but there needs to be in your mind an end goal with the means to get to it.

 

[lsslave]

Calorie counting if nothing else gives you a target/goal to lose weight. not calorie counting and eating healthy is fine but there needs to be in your mind an end goal with the means to get to it.

Calorie counting, while having its own problems involved (A broken system tbh) keeps you conscious of what you are eating, and that has its own benefit.

Plus it works really well with the guilt of eating junk food and puts the thought of willpower into it. Yes, that chocolate bar has 300 calories, but you can look at it as a candy bar treat OR 1/5th of your daily intake for a tiny candy bar. Makes the willpower conscious is the best reason for it!

 

[Keylime]

Alright...so I think I'm finally going to post my before/after pictures even though I'm not yet done with where I want to be.

They are pretty gruesome at the start, so my apologies up front

RubxQub @ 254 Pounds...March 23rd, 2011
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a278/Rubxqub/Rubx_254_03_23_11.png

How I let myself get to this point, I'll never know. I'm a married man and have been with my wife for almost 10 years now (married for 3). I guess I just stopped maintaining my body since I was a claimed man. I was about 180 in early high school, although I had hardly any muscle.

RubxQub @ 227 Pounds... May 15th, 2011
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a278/Rubxqub/Rubx_227_05_15_11.png

My wife and I decided to go on what is referred to in the "40 Hour Body" book as a Slow Carb diet. Basically eating clean foods: meats, vegetables and beans primarily. I probably was eating close to 1000 calories a day, if that. We would have cheat days every Sunday and go nuts, as well. I could never have been able to adjust my lifestyle without the help of my wife. She's awesome (and lost a crap ton of weight herself although she looked much better than I did weight-wise, comparatively...no you can't see her :lol).

RubxQub @ 203 Pounds... August 8th, 2011
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a278/Rubxqub/Rubx_203_08_07_11.png

Nothing new being done, just continuing our diet. It was at this point that I decided that I wanted to start working out in addition to properly dieting. Started doing P90X on this day.

RubxQub @ 197 Pounds... August 30th, 2011
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a278/Rubxqub/Rubx_197_08_30_11.png

I started doing P90X, and this is my Day 30 picture. Admittedly it's a bit of a bullshot, since I have my boxers pulled up over my love handles a bit and covering the bottom of my stomach. I only include it since it was one of my official progress pictures I took. My diet changed at this point to include a lot more calories...but eating the same types of clean foods as mentioned before.

RubxQub @ 188 Pounds... November 13th, 2011
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a278/Rubxqub/Rubx_188_11_13_11.png

This was me yesterday. I'm calling this my P90X complete picture since I'd finished my 90 days going through the process. I have all sorts of arm/back muscles that don't show up here, but to keep the look consistent this is the picture I took.

...

So there it is, my transformation in almost 8 months. I'm hoping that by my 1 year mark I continue to make great progress and go from looking "OK" to "awesome". The goal that I've set for myself is that I want people who don't know I used to be huge to look at me and think I look great....meaning I just want to look great. By the time the summer rolls around I want to be the guy that's shirtless on the beach for the first time in literally over 5 years and have people check me out, or at least blend in with all the other great bods there. I know that sounds vain, but I've always considered myself to be a decently attractive person (I wasn't always 254 pounds), but have never had the body to match my mind.

I'll update again along the way, but had always told myself that I'd post my results in this thread post P90X.

Be gentle, GAF. I'm not done yet!

 

[Angry Fork]

^That's amazing dude, your face looks like a completely different person before and after. Good shit. That p90x workout is a beast.