|
Post by eloneen on Oct 13, 2017 2:36:43 GMT
babyzoomer Wow! I'm incredibly impressed! You are really serious about this!! Great work!! Be careful, though! You still need to feed yourself! What type of exercise do you do? I'm afraid to be really drastic in changing my diet, but small changes may work for me... like the snacking bit.... I was very, very skinny until my mid thirties, when I finally started to gain enough weight to be happy with how I looked. I think I looked my best then. I have pretty much been able to not worry about caloric intake until about age 50, when unwanted pounds began to stick to me. With my family history, even the little bit of extra weight I'm carrying is kind of dangerous. I eat well balanced meals with lots of veggies and some fruit. I make a point to drink almost no calories- mostly green tea, water and occasional almond milk. The "food problem" for me is snacking... and not exercising enough. I've always enjoyed walking, even long distances, but have consistently disliked any other type of sports or exercise, except maybe using small weights and resistance bands while watching TV or talking to someone to pass the time. I'm pretty reasonable in most areas of my life, but I'm totally spoiled here, and I readily admit it. I just have to pick myself up and get back at it again! (There's still some Dr. Who discussion here every now and then.
|
|
|
Dr WHO
Oct 13, 2017 2:52:31 GMT
Post by babyzoomer on Oct 13, 2017 2:52:31 GMT
Alas due to various injuries incurred in my wilful youth I am unable to do serious exercise without the danger of further injury. I am also one of those people with a super-efficient digestive system; any more than a bare minimum of food (never mind drinky-poos!) and I inevitably put on weight. I put up with it until my shape (and the negative effects of being tubby) disgusts even me (fortunately I'm a very tolerant person!) - then I go on 'the diet'. I've done it twice before in the last 15 years - sad to think that I've actually lost more than my own body weight over that time.
As for nutrition - a vitamin tablet, a few fibre pills and the odd stick of celery (covered in salt); and 2 cups of loverly creamy coffee (plus lots of water) get me thru the day - as long as I stay busy. The hard part is that I still have to cook meals for my twins; otherwise I could forget about food.
|
|
|
Post by eloneen on Oct 13, 2017 3:09:36 GMT
Although I don't think I want to limit my food intake the way you have (I'm from Louisiana for heaven's sake!!!), I could probably do with snacking less and more wisely. That is certainly more efficient for me than trying to work it off, but I need to exercise for overall health anyway...so no getting around it. Sounds like you know what it takes to be successful at this! I WILL POST AGAIN ABOUT THIS WHEN I HAVE GOOD NEWS TO REPORT. UNTIL THEN I WILL STOP THE WHINING!
|
|
|
Post by Helmut83 on Oct 13, 2017 3:24:07 GMT
17,4? That's some serious progress! Congratulations, babyzoomer. 2,5 kgs. per week is crazy. Are you helping it with excercise? I'm going to state the obvious, but it's the best way to lose weight, much better than just trying to not eat.
|
|
|
Dr WHO
Oct 13, 2017 4:06:31 GMT
Post by babyzoomer on Oct 13, 2017 4:06:31 GMT
2.5kg/week is typical for VLCD (very low calorie diets). The two main side effects to worry about are gallstones (which I am not prone to, but my wife had to have her gallbladder removed 20 years ago as a result of dieting) and heart failure (when you diet, you lose as much muscle as fat - and the heart is a muscle). I have had the ok from my Doctor (no, not The Doctor); and in any case I watch my BP and heart rate carefully. The only exercise I get is running around after the kids and housework (I am the twin's primary carer and a 'housedad') - which is about all I can handle anyway.
I find going 'cold turkey' with food to be easier than trying to just cut back a little...the same with alcohol.
(MMMMMMMmmmmm, turkey.......).
|
|
|
Post by Timeblue on Oct 13, 2017 8:38:45 GMT
I wish I had the same willpower as you mate....
|
|
|
Post by eloneen on Oct 13, 2017 9:54:39 GMT
2.5kg/week is typical for VLCD (very low calorie diets). The two main side effects to worry about are gallstones (which I am not prone to, but my wife had to have her gallbladder removed 20 years ago as a result of dieting) and heart failure (when you diet, you lose as much muscle as fat - and the heart is a muscle). I have had the ok from my Doctor (no, not The Doctor); and in any case I watch my BP and heart rate carefully. The only exercise I get is running around after the kids and housework (I am the twin's primary carer and a 'housedad') - which is about all I can handle anyway. I find going 'cold turkey' with food to be easier than trying to just cut back a little...the same with alcohol. (MMMMMMMmmmmm, turkey.......). I was wondering about gallstones when you mentioned how much you were losing...Running around trying to keep up with teenagers is no joke! I'm sure you're burning lots of calories that way!
|
|
|
Post by unomusette on Oct 13, 2017 20:53:41 GMT
I'm in awe of anyone who can stick to a diet for more than two consecutive days so massive congrats to babyzoomer and good luck to eloneen
|
|
|
Post by Timeblue on Oct 13, 2017 22:49:09 GMT
I'm in awe of anyone who can stick to a diet for more than two consecutive days so massive congrats to babyzoomer and good luck to eloneen Two consecutive days? it's two consecutive meals for me....
|
|
|
Post by Helmut83 on Oct 14, 2017 2:30:30 GMT
I used to be seriously overweight. I weighed as much as 105 kgs. (231 lbs.), and went at about that for a few years. One day I decided I wanted to get rid of that fat belly and started eating less from that very moment. My aim was 88 kgs. but once I got there I was already used to eating less so involuntarily kept on going down as far as 83 kgs. (182 lbs.). That's 22 kgs. (38 lbs.) in total, maybe a little more than adviceable. I did it slowly, moderately, without heroic abstinences but kept a regular pace. And once I got there, I was able to keep it for several years until now, so I could say I'm a reasonably successful case.
What worked for me was not a diet mentality but an overall "eat less" mentality. Except for people who have a genetic predisposition to chubbyness, the rest of us eats like pigs, way more than needed. With a minimal bit of will power you can always eat a bit less of everything and lose weight that way.
The thing with diets is that they are always seen as something temporary -because no one can condemn himself to eating diet/light food for the rest of their lives- when in my opinion what's needed is a permanent change of mentality towards food if you want to go down and then maintain yourself there. That's why diets end up failing in a big majority of the cases: "now I'm on a diet", "now I'm not". You starve yourself with the diet, then as soon as you are not on a diet any longer, you are back to eating like a pig. And the rebound effect is terrible: you've been suffering so much because you couldn't eat this or that for so long that as soon as you break the diet you stuff yourself up with chocolate, etc... No middle ground. And middle ground is what works best in my opinion (besides, personally I couldn't live without some beer, peanuts, cheese, pizza, candies...). Eating every kind of food, but in smaller amounts. Well, that's what worked for me, but of course it doesn't mean it has to work for everyone else. I'm just sharing my experience because I've been there too.
|
|
|
Post by eloneen on Oct 14, 2017 2:49:52 GMT
Helmut83 I agree with you, but I also think that some people who have more weight to lose feel more encouraged at the beginning when they see the pounds dropping quickly while on a diet. Sustainable changes in eating habits after that can lead to long-lasting weight loss.
|
|
|
Dr WHO
Oct 14, 2017 3:22:40 GMT
Post by Helmut83 on Oct 14, 2017 3:22:40 GMT
Could be, eloneen . Yes, it's true, quick results can encourage people and are gratifying to see. But at the same time if you drop pounds too fast it's because you've been starving yourself on a miserable diet, and that's what I think is really hard to sustain in time and eventually leads to point zero again.
|
|
|
Post by babyzoomer on Oct 14, 2017 4:19:57 GMT
I agree totally; however there is a simple arithmetical imperative: (note the 'you' in these statements refers to me)
If you eat more calories than you use in a day, your body will store the excess as fat. This fact is inescapable. If you eat many, many more calories than you use in a day, you will not gain a proportional amount of fat because your body can only cope with a limited number of calories - the excess above what your body can store as fat will be excreted.
If you consume less calories than you use in a day, you will (tend to) lose weight; however our bodies are honed by millennia of evolution to fight this weight loss tooth and nail - the main 'defence mechanism' that your body will use (to modify your behaviour) is HUNGER.
If you eat 50 calories a day more than you need everyday, you will gain weight slowly but inevitably - and in a few years you will be overweight. The only solution is to eat exactly what you use every day (impossible); or to 'oscillate' by gaining and losing weight alternatively.
I understand that there are people who neither diet nor gorge - who don't have to watch what they eat because they have an in-built 'petrol gauge' which turns them off food when they have 'had enough'. I am not lucky enough to be one of those people.
I let my weight get out of control (and my drinking); at my peak I weighed 131 kg - my target is 80-85kg. I hope to maintain that weight when I get there (and I will get there); however I have a very stressful life (with absolutely no hope of that stress going away, and I tend to 'eat my stress'). I have come to terms with the need for weight oscillation; I am resolving to keep it under better control in the future.
|
|