The motivation weight loss thread

[Ashtennisguru]

@Devonian

Good work mate. It's good that it's taken months - longer term gradual weight loss is sustainable and also far healthier!

You can still enjoy your cruise without creating any damage which needs undoing - keep making smart choices around the dining table and walk that ship - a lot!

[Huertecilla]

The straw has been delivered. 5500 kilos. It needs to be manhandled under roof.
So, no cycling today but hauling bales.
Already done some in the cool of the morning.

First though I need to clean out a stable and the chicken shed so I can cart the loose stuff on the floor of the straw stock in.
The muck from the chickens I cart to the veggy plot, adding up to several kilometers with a loaded cart.

Put on sturdy trousers and shirt to limit the straw getting under my skin. Those trousers were bought fitting 9 months ago. Now they literally drop on the floor! VeryVERY motivating that!!

Will be hard at work till about 11.30 when the sun heats it up too much.
Then a shower, espresso and ... swimming. That will be a great loosening up of the stressed muscles.

Oh, need to ring the plumber. There is a water leak at the back of the far wall. Will be on the roof in the afternoon.

I am sure the two sizes smaller trousers will be too large pretty soon too.

[senwar]

Ive been there many times before and I'm sure most of us have. I was there when I started this thread. I'm now over 2 1/2 stone down but it's taken months.

I think it's hard to get motivated until you can see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel - that may be a couple of lbs, or a good exercise session. Take small steps, commit to say 3 days and see how you feel then. Start today and commit until Friday morning and see how You feel when you wake up Then?

I'm about to go on a two week med cruise (which is what made me commit in the first place), enjoying that, compromising, upping the exercise and undoing any damage will be the really test for me.

Superb work, really good.

As for me - I'm exercising regularly (doing a 10000 per day step challenge at work and regularly walking 6-10 miles a day). Add to this I had 10 personal training sessions and have been going to gym classes, I'd struggle to do much more. I'm also eating healthier as I'm trying to get my cholesterol down naturally

But I'm obviously doing something wrong.

I think part of it is the anger I feel at myself for getting back in this position. When I got down to my best for 20+yrs 3 years ago I said never again. Sigh.

Hopefully I'll look back here in 12 months time saying I did it.

Reading your story is motivating though

[Griswold]

Start weight 15st 4lb. Am working on a steady, (i.e. not rapid), weight loss regime, (target 12st at 1 to 2 lb per week), and am now down to 13 11, (after a blip when my Dad died and I put weight back on).

Gym 3 times a week, (sometimes 4), mostly upright bike, treadmill and cross trainer, some weights. Improved diet, reduced alcohol intake and smaller portions. Using a FitBit Surge to track my steps and exercises.

Feel much better in myself, but the only issue is my waist size is hardly changing. Lost 2lb this last week yet waist size hasn't altered from last week! Same for hips and neck which are my three principal measures along with weight.

[Huertecilla]

Feel much better in myself, but the only issue is my waist size is hardly changing. Lost 2lb this last week yet waist size hasn't altered from last week! Same for hips and neck which are my three principal measures along with weight.

Don't look too much at neither scales nor measurements on the short term. When you stick well to the regime, you know you are changing fat into muscle and the rest is your body making that happen, shape shifting.

Feeling much better with yourself is the real reward. Congratulations with that!

[Omegamanic]

Different things work for different people. When I'm intentially wanting to gain muscle or loss fat, I record my weight twice a day every day, and weigh everything I eat - that way I have full accountability and can can virtually predict a given weight loss/weight gain in a specific time frame.

Obviously, all things being equal and if your weight is static, if you add another 5000 steps a day or equivalent (in either exercise or drop in food intake), then you are going to lose weight.

I just prefer a more structured approach, when I can be bothered. My tendon pain has eased slightly and I'll be back in the gym Monday, I've just started on my improved eating regime - higher protein, higher fats, and lower carbs - 3250 cals per day average whilst dieting/aiming to lose around 10kg, with higher cal days and lower cal days, and even a high carb day for good measure.

[Huertecilla]

Different things work for different people. When I'm intentially wanting to gain muscle or loss fat, I record my weight twice a day every day, and weigh everything I eat - that way I have full accountability and can can virtually predict a given weight loss/weight gain in a specific time frame.

Sweat a bit, drink water and the half day check is basically water management.
On a day like today I will drink > 4 liters and sweat ??? I could easily weigh a kilo too much or too little on the scales.
If I would want to window dress 2 kilos I only need to not drink anything in the evening, a coffee in the morning and then weigh after cycling and swimming.

Have a pool party the next weekend. Although I am quite disciplined in the current regime, it is a useful 'NO!' in a dip and I then grab a carrot. Two carrots plus a glass of water and I have 'put on' a pound according to the scales, whereas it is less than zero.

[MB2]

Don't look too much at neither scales nor measurements on the short term. When you stick well to the regime, you know you are changing fat into muscle and the rest is your body making that happen, shape shifting.

Feeling much better with yourself is the real reward. Congratulations with that!

My friend is a trainer - her advice is watch the diet - especially sugar & carbs so ditch the snacks as much as can, brown rice not white, tuna and eggs etc.

Cardio a couple of times a week and weights/bodyweight session should be enough exercise wise with a sensible diet.

Weigh yourself once every 2 weeks at the same time but take photos in the mirror to see how you are getting on. As you say as trousers get loose and shirts too big but fit better across the shoulders you are making gains.

[wileeeeeey]

Remember not to lose focus! Thought his might be helpful. Spurred me on earlier.

[robt]

brown rice not white

There's actually very little nutritional difference between brown and white rice. Somewhat counterintuitively, brown has fewer bioavailable nutrients, due to increased phytic acid, which is an anti-nutrient. Although it has a tiny bit more fibre, it's all insoluble fibre, which (contrary to many misinformed nutrition blogs) does absolutely nothing to lower cholesterol, unlike that found in oats, cabbage, etc. There's no significant difference in calories or GI. Both are among the worst sorts of starchy carbs, so best kept to a minimum either way.

Potatoes of any sort are much healthier than brown rice.

One thing I sometimes have instead of rice is pearled spelt. It doesn't make a huge difference, but it's easier to eat less of it, with a curry or whatever. Doesn't go as well as rice with everything, but with the right combination, I sometimes prefer it. They're bigger and chewier than rice, and absorb more water so they bulk up better.

[robt]

Remember not to lose focus! Thought his might be helpful. Spurred me on earlier.

WRT size measurements, there's actually only one that counts, which is the one shown in the picture: waist measurement. You can measure other things if you want, but there was a meta-study done a while ago that looked at the different measures that were used across different clinical studies, to see which ones were predictors of heart disease etc. The only one that was useful at all was the waist measurement, which was directly correlated with heart disease.

BMI for example, is terrible. If you're a bodybuilder, it's possible to have a BMI that makes you clinically obese with less than 10% body fat. BMI remains the official measure for determining obesity in spite of this, which is rather stupid.

Personally I don't know that it's super useful to measure things like strength (you should probably measure VO2 Max as well - why go halfway?) unless you are specifically doing strength training. You should monitor your progression based on the type of training you're doing (how much weight can you lift, how far can you run, etc.). What is important is to remember that muscle weighs more than fat, so you can do a balanced diet & exercise programme and gain weight, even though you are losing fat.

I have to say though, it's actually harder to do that than people think it is: it's much easier to either bulk or cut than to do both at once. I've found the best way to do both is to eat slightly less and focus on daily endurance training (low-moderate intensity for a fairly long time e.g., 1 hour every day), not strength training or cardio. The latter two will make you crave carbohydrates to rebuild muscle, and you'll most likely gain both muscle and fat. A little bit of cardio is good for overall fitness, but don't overdo it, as it will end up being counterproductive for weight loss.

I've got scales that measure bodyfat and muscle percentages, in addition to overall weight. IMO, these are the best way to track progress. Unfortunately, you can't buy self-contained ones anymore. They all now rely on some cloud service to store the data. Still, what's important is to make sure you track trends, not point-in-time differences. So in other words, it doesn't matter if you measure daily, weekly or fortnightly (though weekly is probably best) as long as you don't get hung up on a specific figure. What you want is a graph that is going in the right direction. Peaks and troughs happen and don't matter. For example, I know my own weight fluctuates by up to 6lb over the course of a single day. That's not due to changes in body composition, it's all just water weight.

[Ashtennisguru]

I just prefer a more structured approach, when I can be bothered. My tendon pain has eased slightly and I'll be back in the gym Monday, I've just started on my improved eating regime - higher protein, higher fats, and lower carbs - 3250 cals per day average whilst dieting/aiming to lose around 10kg, with higher cal days and lower cal days, and even a high carb day for good measure.

How did you arrive at 3250 cals per day avg? That seems pretty high if the goal is to lose weight?

[Ashtennisguru]

WRT size measurements, there's actually only one that counts, which is the one shown in the picture: waist measurement. You can measure other things if you want, but there was a meta-study done a while ago that looked at the different measures that were used across different clinical studies, to see which ones were predictors of heart disease etc. The only one that was useful at all was the waist measurement, which was directly correlated with heart disease.

More specifically it's the waist:hip ratio that is consider the best marker

[Ashtennisguru]

I have to say though, it's actually harder to do that than people think it is: it's much easier to either bulk or cut than to do both at once. I've found the best way to do both is to eat slightly less and focus on daily endurance training (low-moderate intensity for a fairly long time e.g., 1 hour every day), not strength training or cardio. The latter two will make you crave carbohydrates to rebuild muscle, and you'll most likely gain both muscle and fat. A little bit of cardio is good for overall fitness, but don't overdo it, as it will end up being counterproductive for weight loss.

Couple of questions about this paragraph.

Carbs don't rebuild muscle - amino acids do (proteins), carbs however do help refuel glycogen stores. Endurance training of the sort you describe is more likely catabolic to muscle tissue. Gaining muscle requires muscle fibres to be broken down by resistance training and then repaired through an excess or calories and amino acids.

It is exceeding difficult to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time unless you are a new trainer or are on the smack. One requires a calorie deficit, the other a calorie surplus. The only way to realistically do it would be to operate at a small deficit on non training days and then on strength training days to eat a small surplus, ensuring that on non training days a high enough protein, BCAA's and ECAA's count is maintained to avoid muscle sparring.

[robt]

Couple of questions about this paragraph.

Carbs don't rebuild muscle - amino acids do (proteins), carbs however do help refuel glycogen stores. Endurance training of the sort you describe is more likely catabolic to muscle tissue. Gaining muscle requires muscle fibres to be broken down by resistance training and then repaired through an excess or calories and amino acids.

The point about proteins is true, but what happens first is that you deplete the glycogen stores, which makes you really hungry as your muscles supercompensate over about 48-hours after training. On a ketogenic diet it's a bit different as you won't have the glycogen to deplete in the first place, but that makes real strength training a lot more difficult to begin with.

WRT training types, this is mostly what I have personally found to work and it's mainly to avoid anything high intensity, whether that is heavy weight training or cardio. What I would call endurance training does not significant raise HR, so low-intensity weight training, brisk walking, tai chi, etc., which are not particularly carabolic. I specically do not mean e.g., endurance running which is extremely catabolic: I woukd classify anything like jogging, swimming, etc., as cardio.

This is sometimes referred to as the fat-burning HR target zone: enough to raise your HR slightly, but low enough that you do not get out of breath.

[Ashtennisguru]

^^^ Ah, then your definition of "endurance training" clearly differs to mine :)

[robt]

^^^ Ah, then your definition of "endurance training" clearly differs to mine :)

It's a slightly technical use of the term, yes. I am specifically referring to training muscle endurance, as opposed to strength or hypertrophy.

Similarly anaerobic and aerobic don't actually mean what people think they do either. That's why I would say cardio or CV for high intensity "endurance" training, since it can be both aerobic and anaerobic. Either way if you are training in a higher intensity cardio zone, it will be (a) very catabolic and (b) not necessarily muscle endurance training per se. The two things are orthogonal.

[jeepie]

I made the mistake of watching "What the Health" https://youtu.be/Jf44vLndiRM on Netflix..... really strong advocacy for a plant based diet which I've always rejected on the basis of protein intake.

[robt]

I made the mistake of watching "What the Health" https://youtu.be/Jf44vLndiRM on Netflix..... really strong advocacy for a plant based diet which I've always rejected on the basis of protein intake.

Trailer did not tell me much. it sounds like they could be talking about corn, wheat and fructose, but it sounds like they've latched on to something else.

[MB2]

There's actually very little nutritional difference between brown and white rice. Somewhat counterintuitively, brown has fewer bioavailable nutrients, due to increased phytic acid, which is an anti-nutrient. Although it has a tiny bit more fibre, it's all insoluble fibre, which (contrary to many misinformed nutrition blogs) does absolutely nothing to lower cholesterol, unlike that found in oats, cabbage, etc. There's no significant difference in calories or GI. Both are among the worst sorts of starchy carbs, so best kept to a minimum either way.

Potatoes of any sort are much healthier than brown rice.

One thing I sometimes have instead of rice is pearled spelt. It doesn't make a huge difference, but it's easier to eat less of it, with a curry or whatever. Doesn't go as well as rice with everything, but with the right combination, I sometimes prefer it. They're bigger and chewier than rice, and absorb more water so they bulk up better.

Thanks for that - I often have one of those microwave packets with a can of tuna as a small, healthy meal - it is probably far better than the tuna mayo sandwich I would have made myself but good to know white rice isn't bad too.

[jeepie]

Trailer did not tell me much. it sounds like they could be talking about corn, wheat and fructose, but it sounds like they've latched on to something else.

They're essential "blaming" animal based nutrition for America's obesity epidemic. I'd love to understand whether this program was propaganda or accurate. It was a real education but not sure if it's useful and credible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MB2]

How did you arrive at 3250 cals per day avg? That seems pretty high if the goal is to lose weight?

I expect is a typo as according to this calculator - https://authoritynutrition.com/how-m...ories-per-day/

You would be 170kg at 180 cm to lose weight on 3250 cals / day. I saw Jason Statham in a magazine and he maintains on 2000 but obviously isn't trying to gain bulk muscle.

[robt]

They're essential "blaming" animal based nutrition for America's obesity epidemic. I'd love to understand whether this program was propaganda or accurate. It was a real education but not sure if it's useful and credible.

Unless by animals they are referring to piñata donkeys full of sweets made from HFCS, they are making that shit up.

Admittedly, the US has a huge problem with political lobbying and one example of this is that they brought out some food guidelines a while ago (an updated version of the now massively discredited food pyramid, with surprise surprise, wheat and corn as the biggest part). The new guidelines included red meat alongside "healthy" fish and white meat. They had a separate category for "not so healthy" processed & cured meats, which doctors & scientists said it should have been included in. America loves beef though, so they put it in the "healthy" category. That's partly why they have a slightly increased risk of heart disease though. Wheat and corn is what causes the obesity and T2 diabetes.

[robt]

I expect is a typo...

I'm guessing that the 3250 calories figure is for TDEE, not intake. That would be about right for a typical man who goes running for an hour every day and walks to work, so not unrealistic. If you were to do that, but only eat 2000 calories per day, you'd lose about 11lbs/month.

TDEE = total daily energy expenditure.

[jeepie]

Unless by animals they are referring to piñata donkeys full of sweets made from HFCS, they are making that shit up.

Admittedly, the US has a huge problem with political lobbying and one example of this is that they brought out some food guidelines a while ago (an updated version of the now massively discredited food pyramid, with surprise surprise, wheat and corn as the biggest part). The new guidelines included red meat alongside "healthy" fish and white meat. They had a separate category for "not so healthy" processed & cured meats, which doctors & scientists said it should have been included in. America loves beef though, so they put it in the "healthy" category. That's partly why they have a slightly increased risk of heart disease though. Wheat and corn is what causes the obesity and T2 diabetes.

Crikey.... thanks for the info. It's a bewildering field. The coverage of political lobbying is very interesting in the above documentary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ashtennisguru]

It's a slightly technical use of the term, yes. I am specifically referring to training muscle endurance, as opposed to strength or hypertrophy.

Similarly anaerobic and aerobic don't actually mean what people think they do either. That's why I would say cardio or CV for high intensity "endurance" training, since it can be both aerobic and anaerobic. Either way if you are training in a higher intensity cardio zone, it will be (a) very catabolic and (b) not necessarily muscle endurance training per se. The two things are orthogonal.

I wouldn't say it was a particularly technical use of the term, more 'misleading' in the sense that most people refer to endurance training as being aerobic and CV based, whereas you were using it to mean muscular endurance, but without stating it as such - hence the confusion

[robt]

I wouldn't say it was a particularly technical use of the term, more 'misleading' in the sense that most people refer to endurance training as being aerobic and CV based, whereas you were using it to mean muscular endurance, but without stating it as such - hence the confusion

Point taken. That's just the only way I would use the word myself, so didn't give it a lot of thought.

[Omegamanic]

How did you arrive at 3250 cals per day avg? That seems pretty high if the goal is to lose weight?

I expect is a typo as according to this calculator - https://authoritynutrition.com/how-m...ories-per-day/

You would be 170kg at 180 cm to lose weight on 3250 cals / day. I saw Jason Statham in a magazine and he maintains on 2000 but obviously isn't trying to gain bulk muscle.

I arrived at 3250 by dropping 750cals a day (on average) from my current diet. At 4000 cals per day (or rather approx. 28,000 per week) my weight has been stable.

Jason Statham is around a real life 5.5 maybe 5.6 and I suggest whatever you read about his diet and training in magazines uses some artistic licence. I'm around 184cm.

I used to eat around 5250 per day and then diet on 3150. I going to try and stick to the 3250, which is realistic for me at first, and I know I could stick to it. If I need to reduce it after a few weeks then I will, but it's all about activity level. if you are burning 5,000 cals from total daily activity and eating less, then you will lose weight. I would estimate my daily requiremts are currently around 4000 per day, higher on active days and lower on rest days.

Ive gone as low as 1750 cals some days in the past, but it's not for me and I feel better, function better, train better, look better and sleep better when I'm eating close to 3000 cals. I'd much rather eat more and then exercise more.

I can't see how anyone could be that active and get by on only 2000 calories a day for any length of time - that sounds more like (drastic to me) dieting, for someone who trains/exercises. The goal should surely be to adopt changes that can be used long term.

[MB2]

I arrived at 3250 by dropping 750cals a day (on average) from my current diet. At 4000 cals per day (or rather approx. 28,000 per week) my weight has been stable.

Jason Statham is around a real life 5.5 maybe 5.6 and I suggest whatever you read about his diet and training in magazines uses some artistic licence. I'm around 184cm.

I used to eat around 5250 per day and then diet on 3150. I going to try and stick to the 3250, which is realistic for me at first, and I know I could stick to it. If I need to reduce it after a few weeks then I will, but it's all about activity level. if you are burning 5,000 cals from total daily activity and eating less, then you will lose weight. I would estimate my daily requiremts are currently around 4000 per day, higher on active days and lower on rest days.

Ive gone as low as 1750 cals some days in the past, but it's not for me and I feel better, function better, train better, look better and sleep better when I'm eating close to 3000 cals. I'd much rather eat more and then exercise more.

I can't see how anyone could be that active and get by on only 2000 calories a day for any length of time - that sounds more like (drastic to me) dieting, for someone who trains/exercises. The goal should surely be to adopt changes that can be used long term.

You obviously know what you are doing and it reminds me of military guys on thousands of cals a day - it just seems a bit odd from my experience where I am reasonably active run 5 k 3 times a week, gym once a week and some bodyweight most days and my scales (and experience) suggest about 1600-1800 a day to maintain. 5,10, 75 kg.

I agree the "celeb workouts" are probably just before a film and they also want to make it sound a big deal and hardship but here is the article out of interest.

http://savvystrength.com/jason-statham-fitness/

[Omegamanic]

I'm also a good 30kg+ heavier than you though. The amount of extra cals required to move that additional weight shouldn't be underestimated. Also the amount of energy burnt lifting heavier weights is substantially more than a similar amount of reps with lighter weights - it wouldn't be unusual to burn close to 1000 cals with a very heavy workout, whereas maybe 600-700 would be more like my average. Then put in a work out in the morning (or lunchtime) and another in the evening, and you soon rack up some high energy expenditure; if I cycled at the weekends I'd need to eat a lot more. If I don't go to the gym at lunch, I'll grab a coffee and go for a bit of a walk - I've been walking a lot more since the weather improved.

Also, I like full English breakfasts and cakes, so there is no way I could get by on 1600 cals - I've had a full packet of Stroop Waffles tonight after dinner, which must have been close to that alone ;)

I love that they say Statham is 5.10 - my smallest brother is around 5.8 and towered over him! I would honesty estimate his height at a real 5.6

[robt]

You obviously know what you are doing and it reminds me of military guys on thousands of cals a day - it just seems a bit odd from my experience where I am reasonably active run 5 k 3 times a week, gym once a week and some bodyweight most days and my scales (and experience) suggest about 1600-1800 a day to maintain. 5,10, 75 kg.

That sounds awfully low. You're problably not counting all your calories. That's pretty much your BMR, which would be maintenance if you literally never got out of bed. Average TDEE is about 2400 calories, and that's based on a lot less exercise than you're doing.

[Huertecilla]

Highly informative contributions here.
Thanks.

The contrary requirements of loosing fat and building up muscles I found very thought provoking. Makes total sense. Does not help me with how to tackle that though :-)

Meanwhile I stick to my ´diet´ and keep up the excesize, both varied with recuperation days.

Not weighing myself for another week yet. The clothes are indicating the mentioned looser at the belt, more tought at the shoulders. Motivating! and the party coming up is too!!

[72bpm]

Remember not to lose focus! Thought his might be helpful. Spurred me on earlier.

So true, stuck at 65.4 Kgs since start of this week. Been a not so good week, work related pressures + not had time to cook much dinners have been kind of carb rich. Ended up snacking a bit as well. But happy have still lost 0.5 Kg.
Tomorrow is another day.

[Omegamanic]

I wish my missus was 65kg ;)

[Huertecilla]

But happy have still lost 0.5 Kg.
Tomorrow is another day.

That is the spirit!

[seffrican]

They're essential "blaming" animal based nutrition for America's obesity epidemic. I'd love to understand whether this program was propaganda or accurate. It was a real education but not sure if it's useful and credible.

If you drew a graph of obesity rates vs average sugar consumption you'd find some interesting correlations. Compounded in the US by the fact that almost every foodstuff has added corn syrup.

[Huertecilla]

motivation and priorities again.

Pool party today.
So not watching Le Tour nor the highlights of the F1 later tonight AND spot on the weight target for today.

While the whole party will be on the booze no doubt, I will be on bubbly water. The ´missus´(sub 60 kg.) is taking a bottle of wodka-caramel to make sure they have it.

No matter how late and wild it gets, I will/need be up before the sun to cycle a round/ feed the farm animals.
The missus starts the day at 10.00. I will put a cup of tea at the bed side table and then wake her by throwing chocolate from the door opening.

[Omegamanic]

If you drew a graph of obesity rates vs average sugar consumption you'd find some interesting correlations. Compounded in the US by the fact that almost every foodstuff has added corn syrup.

Forget sugar. If you drew a graph of overeating and obesity...

[robt]

Forget sugar. If you drew a graph of overeating and obesity...

Yes, just like there's a correlation between height and potential energy. Or mass and weight. Although such correlations are also a tad redundant.

Sugar, especially refined sugar, causes a positive feedback loop that encourages over-eating. Fats and proteins do not have that effect.

[Huertecilla]

Managed to stick to water and salad on the party!!!

The morning plan went different. The ´missus´woke me up before the alarm could and later too much wind, a proper storm!, to go cycling so just back from a very brisk walk with her in the evening cool: 10.000 large steps in an hour.

Tomorrow another day and another attempt to go cycling before the sun is over the mountains. Mid day, swimming 1000 meters. The ´missus´ really likes the evening walk so asked me to go with her again tomorrow evening.
This added to the daily farm work spends more calories than even Omegamanic takes in ;-)

Wednesday ditto.

Should shed me some weight and add a bit more of a tan.

Thursday morning ditto but then off to the coast for a five day leisure weekend with the c-company. Bubbly water and lots of dancing should keep things on an even keel till I get back to the farm.

Weighing before and after to keep me honest.

[72bpm]

So true, stuck at 65.4 Kgs since start of this week. Been a not so good week, work related pressures + not had time to cook much dinners have been kind of carb rich. Ended up snacking a bit as well. But happy have still lost 0.5 Kg.
Tomorrow is another day.

That is the spirit!

Not a good week, back at 66 Kg. Planning a short trip to Spain latter half of next month. I'm hoping I'll be under my target weight of 65 Kgs. I'm really hoping to get down to 63 Kgs! Will have to put my full focus weight loss now.

[Devonian]

Well I'm back after two weeks on a med cruise - a few cocktails, a few beers and lots of red wine.

Did 5 2 and fasted every Monday and Thursday and was quite strict on those days but had what I fancied the rest of the time. Lots of walking.

Result = no gain at all 😎 very pleased indeed.

[Omegamanic]

Yes, just like there's a correlation between height and potential energy. Or mass and weight. Although such correlations are also a tad redundant.

Sugar, especially refined sugar, causes a positive feedback loop that encourages over-eating. Fats and proteins do not have that effect.

Can you site me the credible research for that statement please?

[seffrican]

Can you site me the credible research for that statement please?

E_p = mgh. Proof by application of Newton's laws.

[robt]

Can you site me the credible research for that statement please?

This is a good starting point, although it lumps "sugary" and "fatty" foods together, when really the "fatty" foods are things like crisps and donuts, which are high in both fats (and hence calories) and also high-GI starches, which trigger an insulin response, causing a drop in blood sugar:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ing-more-food/

The same thing doesn't happen with foods that are nearly all fat/oil, which has a very high satiation effect and take a long time to digest.

Here's a widely-cited study on the effects of sugary drinks specifically:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/51/6/963.full.pdf

In summary, all subjects saw a drop of around 200 calories from all dietary sources excluding the drinks being studied, when drinking about 2 pints of fizzy drinks per day. However, the group that was sweetened with HFCS rather than aspartame were getting an extra 500 calories of sugar and they all gained significant amounts of weight as a result.

There are further studies, which I'm not going to cite for now, into the issue of a homeostatic setpoint. This is why it is much harder to lose weight than it is to gain weight: the downwards-regulating effect is quite weak, whereas the upwards-regulating effect is quite strong. That basically means that once you have gained weight, your body tries really hard to keep that weight. So that is actually another positive feedback loop: you have to gain the weight in the first place, but refined carbohydrates are what is most likely to cause that, since other macronutrients are better regulated by homeostasis in the first place (i.e., you can gain weight through fats and proteins if you are trying, but with sugar you will not notice).

[Huertecilla]

Small glitch: The charming company is very, VERY adamant that I have lost enough weight. That I should non,NOT shed any more.
With almost 5 to go as my target, that is not motivating at all. Keeping it up though; she does not need to haul the kilos about.

[robt]

Small glitch: The charming company is very, VERY adamant that I have lost enough weight. That I should non,NOT shed any more.
With almost 5 to go as my target, that is not motivating at all. Keeping it up though; she does not need to haul the kilos about.

Have you checked your bodyfat % ? Weight and BMI are pretty poor indicators, if you have hit a healthy BMI you could still have too much body fat if you do not have a lot of muscle. In that case if you do some weight training you will most likely gain weight, but make your BMI less misleading. Conversely you could be heavy but if it's all muscle with a low bodyfat % then trying to lose more weight could be dangerous.

[Huertecilla]

Have you checked your bodyfat % ? Weight and BMI are pretty poor indicators, if you have hit a healthy BMI you could still have too much body fat if you do not have a lot of muscle. In that case if you do some weight training you will most likely gain weight, but make your BMI less misleading. Conversely you could be heavy but if it's all muscle with a low bodyfat % then trying to lose more weight could be dangerous.

I am pretty much ok; not fixating on either weight or BMI. With neither anywhere near a danger zone ;-)
The current excersize regime feels pretty good so I am keeping that up. If that results in more muscle and more weight, than that is all good.
Still have excess fat at the belly and love handles though. That is not so good.
Keeping it up; just a bit less squeezed on the intake.

[robt]

I am pretty much ok; not fixating on either weight or BMI. With neither anywhere near a danger zone ;-)
The current excersize regime feels pretty good so I am keeping that up. If that results in more muscle and more weight, than that is all good.
Still have excess fat at the belly and love handles though. That is not so good.
Keeping it up; just a bit less squeezed on the intake.

Sounds like keeping doing what you are doing is the right approach. So a better interpretation is maybe not "stop losing weight", it is "do not try to lose more weight by cutting more calories". That is, if you are going in the right direction, do not make major changes that will upset that balance, as it could cause you to rebound in the wrong direction. Of course if you aren't seeing a decline in bodyfat % then that could be an incorrect assessment (but you can't gauge that by weight alone).

[Huertecilla]

Sounds like keeping doing what you are doing is the right approach. So a better interpretation is maybe not "stop losing weight", it is "do not try to lose more weight by cutting more calories". That is, if you are going in the right direction, do not make major changes that will upset that balance, as it could cause you to rebound in the wrong direction. Of course if you aren't seeing a decline in bodyfat % then that could be an incorrect assessment (but you can't gauge that by weight alone).

I get it and agree.
Although I would like a few kilos less, the main aim is to loose some more fat while building up muscle; ´shape shifting´.
I have been rather radical, although with slacker intervals.
So, just a bit less radical but keeping as low on the sugar as reasonably possible.