-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Weight Loss Before/After Thread! (with pics)
- Thread starter lsslave
- Start date
Zoe
Member
Your target should be something you can maintain after you've lost the weight. Otherwise you'll fall into an endless cycle of dieting.
And he posted his complete diet in the fitness thread. He's either eating too clean or has something else holding him back.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
So how do I make sure I'm not hungry at night? just eat a bigger lunch? or is it ok to feel hungry at night and eat something?
What else do you disagree on? if you know better, share it with us please
I'd suggest skipping the morning meal, eating a good sized meal around noon, and then eating a good dinner within a few hours of your going to bed. You might be eating dinner too early if you're getting hungry again before going to sleep.
A low carb diet is the easiest and fastest way to lose fat, in my opinion. The ease factor will depend heavily on how much you like eating protein and fat. If you go low carb, the weight will drop fast. Going very low carb for a prolonged period of time will kill your metabolism, though, and you'll hit a plateau at some point (after losing a lot of weight if you started pretty heavy). That's when it becomes it a good idea to do a carb refeed one night every week or so and really go crazy with the carbs to kind of kick start your metabolism again. You won't be able to get fat from those carbs if it's just one night after your body has become acclimated to using fat as its primary source of energy, but the sudden and dramatic spikes to insulin will get your metabolism up and release a bunch of fat burning hormones of which the effects will last for quite a few days.
Is this some kind of chronological blindness?
People weren't as fat 50 years ago, while carb intake was still fairly high.
Portion control and caloric deficit is the essence of reducing body mass. There's no iffy pseudo science around this. Its almost a tautology.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
No real science, either. Calories in/calories out is a stupid oversimplification of a very complicated issue that has a ton of variables.
People weren't as fat 50 years ago for a wide variety of reasons.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I don't see where I claimed that at all.
If all you want to do is lose body mass--completely ignoring what type of mass it is--then yes, you can achieve that through starvation.
You ever hear of the person who lost all their lean body mass while retaining their fat?
When you are constantly moving around 250-300 lbs of body, you probably will lose lean body mass along the way. When you are making a lifestyle change like that, worrying about lean vs. fat body mass is trivial. This can certainly be important for someone into fitness that wants to make sure they are losing what is essentially useless or undesirable weight.
This isn't a fitness thread though. Very few people in here are asking for help on shedding 5-10 lbs of fat while retaining the lean body mass they work hard to gain in the gym.
What this pseudo science stuff does is confuse the hell out of fat people trying to lose a significant portion of their body mass. They get special rules that helps them rationalize or discount eating too many calories.
If a person weighing 250+ pounds if having trouble losing weight, it's not an issue of sugar in the morning, too many carbs, or anything similar. They need to get the will to put the fucking fork down.
When you are constantly moving around 250-300 lbs of body, you probably will lose lean body mass along the way. When you are making a lifestyle change like that, worrying about lean vs. fat body mass is trivial. This can certainly be important for someone into fitness that wants to make sure they are losing what is essentially useless or undesirable weight.
This isn't a fitness thread though. Very few people in here are asking for help on shedding 5-10 lbs of fat while retaining the lean body mass they work hard to gain in the gym.
What this pseudo science stuff does is confuse the hell out of fat people trying to lose a significant portion of their body mass. They get special rules that helps them rationalize or discount eating too many calories.
If a person weighing 250+ pounds if having trouble losing weight, it's not an issue of sugar in the morning, too many carbs, or anything similar. They need to get the will to put the fucking fork down.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Are you saying that documented hormonal reactions are psuedo science?
You sound like you're just another person buying into the conventional wisdom and pinning the obesity problem on the individual and his or her lack of willpower. That's unfortunate, because that mentality is what helps perpetuate the problem.
It doesn't even make sense to assume that all calories are exactly the same regardless of their source and that the the body uses them in the same way. The body does not even use calories. It breaks down food and processes the different macronutrients (which also are not the same regardless of their source) to be used for energy and all other bodily functions. There are so many factors at play here, that oversimplifying things as if it's some kind of basic math equation is absurd.
I don't think that willpower is the problem for most people. It's what they are eating. Obviously the amount of what they are eating is a factor, too, but most importantly it's the "what" part.
A person weighing 250+ pounds needs to change what he or she is eating. That person needs a complete reevaluation of their diet. They don't need to just eat less of whatever they ate to get to 250+ pounds. That's a straight path to failure.
This.
And if someone has read Gary Taubes' book "Why we get fat and what to do about it?", he proposes an interesting idea (though it's not his own). It's that we don't get fat because we over eat, we over eat because we are getting fatter. Sounds backwards but there's a logic to it.
When our fat metabolism gets fucked up from eating the wrong kinds of foods, our fat cells become greedy. The fat cells hog up all the food we eat leaving little to the rest of our tissues. That's when you get hungry all the time and can't seem to satisfy it. Your fat tissue absorbs everything while leaving little leftovers to your other tissues. That's also why you can be obese AND extremely malnourished at the same time.
And many people have such a fucked up fat metabolism that the only way is to go for zero carb. It's also the fastes (and easiest) way for the rest of us IMO.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
What kind of food do you like? Where do you live?
Anyway, I highly recommend you at least give "Why We Get Fat" a read. It's a short book that will get you started down the right path. It's written in a way that's pretty easy to digest, too. It's not perfect, but it's a very good primer if you're interested in learning more about how to effectively lose body fat.
I live in Israel. If there's any specific product you mention, if it's not found here, I'll try to look for something similar.
What food do I like? not sure how to answer that... I like all the normal stuff? meat, milk, fruits, vegetables
I can avoid/eat less of certain things if it means I eat healthier and start losing weight
I'll try looking into that book, it would be great to have some knowledge on this subject.. I'm tired of being a fatty ;p
Well, yes. But they need to kill the urge to pick up the fork to make things easier and sustainable. I'm not going to say carbs cause everything. They are one of many rewarding food properties.
PushingButtons
Member
So I've dropped from 230lbs to 195lbs as of last week. Most of the fat is now just clinging to my belly/moobs. It's a little frustrating though. I'm happy with my progress and I've had a few compliments and people asking "Have you lost weight?". Which is all good and all, but over the last week I've had two close friends ask if I'm sick. One said "You look unhealthy and your face looks gaunt".
Damned if you do damned if you don't
Damned if you do damned if you don't
Horseticuffs
Full werewolf off the buckle
Yeah, I work in a healthcare facility and get this shit all the time. People asking if I've been ill or saying I've gotten too skinny (I'm 187 lbs at 5' 7". FFS), or saying my face looks too thin. I think these are just the reactions of people who are used to seeing you a certain way and maybe are experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile how you look now.
Just remember that, whatever they say, it's easy enough to find out the standard, healthy weight for a human your height and regardless of how it looks to them that that weight is roughly what is "normal" for you.
If people are busting my balls at 187 for looking too skinny I can imagine I'm going to hear some static when I hit 155 but I know what weight I need to be at to be normal for a dude my height so I ain't even going to sweat it.
Just enjoy the journey, and congratulations.
reggieandTFE
Member
Those comments can be frustrating (especially when you hear them from family), but they go away in time as you maintain the weight loss.
Horseticuffs
Full werewolf off the buckle
Awesome work! You look like a new man.Before
After
For this statement to be true, it must *always* be true. I propose to you this concept:
Person A eats 1500 calories a day of nuts, fruit, veggies, and bread. Lets say the fruit and bread account for half or more. Maybe even ~300 calories of nutella a day on that bread.
Person B eats 4000 calories of keto-friendly stuff.
Who loses body mass? Only an idiot would say person B, and that's my point. I know you don't think Person B does.
What you eat is certainly important. It's extremely important to being healthy while losing weight. If you cut down to 1400-1800 calories and eat shit, you will feel like crap and probably fail the diet. It's a really important component, but this is so common sense that I don't think it even registers as something that needs to be explained.
But so many people think that eating healthy is the key. It's not. I ate really healthy while I was at 280-300 pounds, it was just that I ate a lot of it. Portions and calories are the essence of weight loss. What you eat in that reduced calorie amount is very important to maintaining that diet, but that's step B.
You can eat like shit and lose weight as long as calories are down. It might be unhealthy, but you *will* lose weight. You can't eat a ton of healthy food and lose weight.
Ridiculous example. Of course calories matter somewhat but your example is just stupid. 1500 cal vs. 4000 cal. Really?
The person you quoted didn't say that calories don't matter at all. He said that what you eat is more important and he's right. Eating 1500 calories would have drastically different outcomes for person A and B. As well as eating 4000 calories would have drastically different outcomes again for both of them.
I'm getting an idea that you don't really know how these nutrients work in our body. Carbs drive insulin drives fat. You can't get fat on a keto diet. It's extremely unlikely since there isn't any force to drive fat accumulation. If person eats over maintenance on keto it's more likely that their metabolism ramps up so that they burn what they eat.
If we want to compare we need to take two diets with similar calorie intake but with different macronutrient ratio. So 2000 calories of low carb vs. 2000 calories of standard "balanced" diet. The low carb wins always and is more healthy anyway for weight loss since muscle is spared.
The person you quoted didn't say that calories don't matter at all. He said that what you eat is more important and he's right. Eating 1500 calories would have drastically different outcomes for person A and B. As well as eating 4000 calories would have drastically different outcomes again for both of them.
I'm getting an idea that you don't really know how these nutrients work in our body. Carbs drive insulin drives fat. You can't get fat on a keto diet. It's extremely unlikely since there isn't any force to drive fat accumulation. If person eats over maintenance on keto it's more likely that their metabolism ramps up so that they burn what they eat.
If we want to compare we need to take two diets with similar calorie intake but with different macronutrient ratio. So 2000 calories of low carb vs. 2000 calories of standard "balanced" diet. The low carb wins always and is more healthy anyway for weight loss since muscle is spared.
Wiktor
Member
I assume you lost weight solely by dieting? Because 1300 calories would be very unhealthy for people who work out. That's the ammount people who just sit whole day should attempt.
No, it's not stupid. For one to claim that what is being eaten is more important than calories, it has to always be true. It can't be true 'once calories are the same', as that defeats the entire purpose of the claim that *what* is being eaten is more important than *how much*. Do you not see this?
Yeah, the first 75ish lbs until I felt I was getting to the point where I could exercise without killing my joints. I hate the gym with a fierce passion that burns in me. I love exercising outside though. Maybe it's a byproduct of spending too many hours in the gym during junior high and high school for football and wrestling. After I was about 220-225, I increased my calories to around 1800 and started running. I noticed myself craving more protein, so I started eating more of that too. Now at 3 miles 4 times a week, and ~5-10 miles once a week. I probably eat closer to 2k calories now, but I have stopped counting for the most part. I generally just listen to my body now that I have my appetite under control.
I hate this, too. A lot of my good friends congratulate me, but all of my extended family, (granted they are all obese themselves), consistently criticize me, saying stuff like "you look anorexic", or "you're really unhealthy, you looked better when you were bigger", bullshit like that. They even had the audacity to ask if I was purging since I needed to use the restroom after dinner once.
You just gotta roll with the punches, I guess. Congratulations s on your weight loss, though!
Chittagong
Gold Member
Any of you guys look back at old pictures and get this feel that you were living inside a fat suit?
No. You can't compare two numbers one of which is much lower than standard man's BMR and the other is almost double that. It doesn't make sense.
If you want to compare two things then the situation has to be identical. Identical situation can be achieved by having both of them eat the same amount of calories. Whichever type of diet accomplishes more fat lost with the same calories is clearly superior. And if you can lose more fat by eating 2000 calories on keto, than eating the same amount "normally", then you can argue that there's something else in play here than just calories. If calories were all that mattered then these two persons would lose the exact same amount. But this is not the case as studies have shown. Low carb/ULC always comes on top in terms of fat lost even without any restriction on calories.
About as much sense as someone claiming that what is being eaten is far more important than how much. That's the point of my example. It's as ludicrous as the statement it exists to debunk.
Yes, if you are comparing two different types of food. Which we aren't. Maybe you should go back and re-read the discussion at hand.
Cliff Notes: I say drop calories to a guy who is on a well balanced, healthy diet to help drop BODY MASS (not to be confused with just fat, because everyone in here will need to drop lean and fat). Keto dude wrapped up in Religion of Grilled Chicken says what food is being eaten is more important than anything. I call him silly and give an example where his claim is false, which therefore falsifies the entire statement. People drop in and start arguing semantics and say 'but lean protein > sugar, c'mon man', to which I throw my hands up in exasperation as the goalposts and entire topic has moved from the original point.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I can only answer that I don't know. It depends on the person and a wide variety of other factors. I do think there are scenarios where person A would be putting on body fat while person B could lose weight or maintain his or her weight.
I get the feeling that you're using your own experience, where you found success by simply reducing amounts of food consumed, and saying that is the truth and it's no more complex than that. I wholeheartedly disagree with you, and I don't think obesity is an "energy imbalance problem" like so many in the calories in/calories out camp like to claim.
For it to be simply an energy imbalance problem, hormones would have to not matter at all, and we know for a fact that they very much do matter when it comes to the body's ability to regulate body mass.
Wiktor
Member
But calories do not all work the same way. You will lose a lot more fat by eating 1500 calories of protein than by eating 1500 calories of carbs.
Not to mention that if you are cutting your calories then eating high carbs food doesn't make much sense as cards won't do you any good. They are essentially worthless calories. So it's simply better to use those calories on food that's actually benefical to your body.
Did you type this with a straight face?
You can't change the discussion to argue about something.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Absolutely. If a guy is lifting a few days a week, for example, he could probably easily get by eating that much food.
If a person is completely sedentary, I think they would find it very difficult to consume 4,000 calories worth of keto-friendly food in a single day.
In the end, it really comes down to the individual and many other factors of their day to day life.
He's just illustrating the point that you can't treat all calories as the same. Hell, you can't even say that protein, fat, or carbs are the same regardless of source. Your body uses different nutrients in different ways and also depending on a wide variety of external factors, different hormonal reactions are triggered depending on what you eat, timing is also a factor. There's so much at play here that it's just naive to say something like "I can run on the treadmill until it says I burned 100 calories to eliminate the effects of that cookie!"
Wow.
You need to go into politics. I'm seriously impressed here.
I get the keto thing, I understand nutrition.
I think the issue I have is that people can stay fat and 250+ lbs while eating really healthy. I was there at one point. Even when I went on the keto diets in the past, it's really easy to say 'oh, well I can eat another half of a chicken breast because it's okay to eat', and you end up having way too many fucking calories and not making progress.
The amount of what you eat is the core of any loss in BODY MASS (this is not the same as fat, I'm not talking about fat). What you eat can certainly change the effectiveness of it. So we should high five and agree that people should eat healthy.
You need to go into politics. I'm seriously impressed here.
You're totally right.
I get the keto thing, I understand nutrition.
I think the issue I have is that people can stay fat and 250+ lbs while eating really healthy. I was there at one point. Even when I went on the keto diets in the past, it's really easy to say 'oh, well I can eat another half of a chicken breast because it's okay to eat', and you end up having way too many fucking calories and not making progress.
The amount of what you eat is the core of any loss in BODY MASS (this is not the same as fat, I'm not talking about fat). What you eat can certainly change the effectiveness of it. So we should high five and agree that people should eat healthy.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I'm sorry that you haven't looked into this stuff enough to realize that it's not as simple as you think. I know you've found success doing your method of reduction and running, but I think it would be foolish to use your own personal experience as some kind of evidence that you've got it all figured out.
it pretty much is as simple as calories in calories out, you can eat whatever you want and you won't be putting on mass at 1500 calories a day.
Just like you won't drop weight eating 4000 calories a day, unless you are extremely active, but that's not what's being argued here.
Just like you won't drop weight eating 4000 calories a day, unless you are extremely active, but that's not what's being argued here.
Pretty much....at least for me.
After I reached my ideal weight a while ago, I eat pretty much what I want. I do eat healthy, since I prepare most of my food. At the same time I go to a buffets, bars, I love cheesecake etc..
My weight has stayed exactly the same. I stay at the same caloric intake and don't worry about gaining weight. I have been checked by my doctor 2-3 times since then, and everything is normal and I am healthy.
Again tho, everyone is different.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's a lot more that goes into it, yes, but that's my point.
*edit*
Zefah, I think you are trying to discount the laws of gravity to help shine light on what you think is a really important component. Maybe if you approached it in a different manner your message would begin to make a lot more sense.
There's a lot more that goes into it, yes, but that's my point.
*edit*
Zefah, I think you are trying to discount the laws of gravity to help shine light on what you think is a really important component. Maybe if you approached it in a different manner your message would begin to make a lot more sense.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
So how would you explain all of those teenagers and college kids out there who aren't terribly active but regularly consume well over what most people would consider the maintenance level for their height and weight while never getting fat.
For all of those arguing that it is calories in/calories out, can you explain what's actually occurring in the body? What is the mechanism at play that determines certain calories won't be used for energy but will instead be stored as fat? How often does this occur? What's your window for using up calories that you consumed before they are chosen to be stored as fat?
Explain how I am discounting the laws of gravity here. What are you even talking about?
Wafflecakes
Member
Everyone has different maintenance levels obviously, but generally I have found that the calories theory holds up in practice. Though all calories may not REALLY be equal..... I think it is close enough in a practical sense.
faster metabolism? I don't think anyone here said that everyone has the same caloric needs
Appeal to ignorance argument? Really?
Wafflecakes
Member
I think that those questions are perfectly legit.
Though the intention behind the questions may be suspect. I cannot speak to that.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Exactly. And what determines your metabolism?
I don't see how I am making an argument from ignorance. If you're so confident in this calories in/calories out stuff, surely you must understand how it works. Why do you look at calories on a day-to-day basis, for example? Does that mean that as long as you do enough exercise in that same 24-hour period, you can negate all fat-accumulating effects of the food you ate, regardless of when you ate it in that 24-hour period?
I think your argument is terribly flawed, so I'm asking you to try to explain it more. If you believe so strongly in calories in/calories out, surely you have a decent understanding of it, don't you?
Wafflecakes
Member
I think you are oversimplifying.
Many things go into determining metabolism. Height, weight, standard body temp, resting heart rate, rate of breathing, general body efficiency, etc. What types of calories you are consuming probably has an effect as well, but it is unproven as to how much of an effect there is.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Suspect how?
I just don't see how the statements "all things being equal in terms of age, weight, height and activity level, different people have different caloric needs" and "calories in/calories out is the ultimate determiner of weight gain or weight loss" are compatible.
I don't think I am. The root of the issue is whether or not your body can metabolize the food you consume without putting on excess adipose tissue. Your metabolism is ultimately what determines if you're going to get fat or not. It would seem like a pretty good idea, then, to find out how you can affect this metabolism to work more in favor of the goals you have.
Wafflecakes
Member
Ummm, did you even read my post? I said "I cannot speak to that", because I cannot know your intent. Therefor it is impossible for me to tell one way or another whether you are really appealing to ignorance as accused.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
You still chose to write that "they may be suspect," kind of implying that you can imagine certain scenarios where my intention would, in fact, be suspect. I was asking you what those scenarios might be.
A multitude of factors, many completely unrelated to what you eat? I'm not sure I'm following you here.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, indeed. Many unrelated to what you eat, but also a good many that are very much related to what you eat.