Tips on Fat and Weight Loss Please

njs030

DisneyLover wrote: »

He's a medical doctor yeah. Think he's the only Irish acupuncture doc who works in a hospital - Think he works in the Matter ? Also has a place atm in Donny Carney but he's moving to Howth.

An acupuncturist isn't a medical doctor op, it's not a field of medical study like cardiology or neurology.
If you want thyroid tests run as a few people have suggested you need to see a proper gp with a medical degree.
If you don't want to then that's fine just ignore the suggestions!

whoopsadoodles

notjustsweet wrote: »

An acupuncturist isn't a medical doctor op, it's not a field of medical study like cardiology or neurology.
If you want thyroid tests run as a few people have suggested you need to see a proper gp with a medical degree.
If you don't want to then that's fine just ignore the suggestions!

Some medical doctors also do acupuncture.

njs030

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

Some medical doctors also do acupuncture.

I googled the acupuncturist in the mater and he isn't a doctor.

Edit sorry I see your correct. I found some in Dublin, interesting.

whoopsadoodles

notjustsweet wrote: »

Do you know of any? I couldn't find any and definitely not any gps that will do a thyroid test while doing acupuncture in a hospital setting.

I googled the acupuncturist in the mater and he isn't a doctor.

http://www.dublinmedicalacupuncture.ie/dr-brendan-fitzpatrick.html

http://www.drchanmullen.com/about/

I've been to the 2nd one, she's a medical doctor and GP as well as an acupuncturist. And funnily enough, I went to her about fertility treatment where she ran blood tests - for thyroid function among other things. Prescribed chlomid....and administered acupuncture.

BoatMad

GeorgeStobort wrote: »

No you think your in a deficit. Your not . We can disagree night and day . But the proof is you not losing

1700 calories may not be enough , as the body compensates

It worth noting that patients post barriatric surgery have intakes that are dramatically lower then these typical ranges. ( is their dinner fits into a small glass )

In my experience reducing calorific intake slighty may result in temporary weight loss but the body self stabilises

If you have any suspicion of under functioning thyroid , have that sorted first as it can significantly impede the process

Excercise in moderation , you cannot shed large amounts of weight solely through exercise ( and keep it off ) excessive excercise can be damaging

njs030

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

http://www.dublinmedicalacupuncture.ie/dr-brendan-fitzpatrick.html

http://www.drchanmullen.com/about/

I've been to the 2nd one, she's a medical doctor and GP as well as an acupuncturist. And funnily enough, I went to her about fertility treatment where she ran blood tests - for thyroid function among other things. Prescribed chlomid....and administered acupuncture.

Yeah I edited it, perhaps there is two in the mater.
That's very interesting, did the acupuncture help? I'd hate the needles

whoopsadoodles

notjustsweet wrote: »

Yeah I edited it, perhaps there is two in the mater.
That's very interesting, did the acupuncture help? I'd hate the needles

Nothing helped unfortunately but that's life

I've had acupuncture and dry needling for other issues and have found it fantastic.

GeorgeStobort

BoatMad wrote: »

1700 calories may not be enough , as the body compensates

It worth noting that patients post barriatric surgery have intakes that are dramatically lower then these typical ranges. ( is their dinner fits into a small glass )

In my experience reducing calorific intake slighty may result in temporary weight loss but the body self stabilises

If you have any suspicion of under functioning thyroid , have that sorted first as it can significantly impede the process

Excercise in moderation , you cannot shed large amounts of weight solely through exercise ( and keep it off ) excessive excercise can be damaging

It compensates by taking what it needs from stored fat

Blacktie.

GeorgeStobort wrote: »

It compensates by taking what it needs from stored fat

Not necessarily. There's also reductions in NEAT levels that happens with prolonged calorie restriction.

runawaybishop

BoatMad wrote: »

1700 calories may not be enough , as the body compensates

Not much at that weight it doesn't. OP is probably overestimating calorie intake, as suggested numerous times.

cbmonstra

Your calories allowance at 1700 - 2200 seems very high.

I think you need to change the activity settings in MyFitnessPal from Active to Sedentary.

Most people who use MFP, regardless of their exercise levels during the week will have it set to Sedentary.

For example, I go to the gym 4 times a week and a brisk 60 minute walk every day, but I still use Sedentary.

Also, can't stress enough the importance of weighing everything. I used to think I could eyeball my food too. Was astounded when I got the scales and started using them properly, you really will notice the difference.

Scraggs

Hi OP,
I've read this thread and the thread you've previously posted. I would make an appointment with your GP to discuss the stomach pains you've been experiencing esp with a history of kidney issues and an eating disorder. It will be a good opportunity to rule out any medical issues that may be affecting your weight loss but also an opportunity to get a referral to a dietician (if you want) and general advice. Don't bury your head in the sand, follow the advice people here have taken time to write about weighing food and increasing exercise. But first I would see a professional about the pains!

DisneyLover

cbmonstra wrote: »

Your calories allowance at 1700 - 2200 seems very high.

I think you need to change the activity settings in MyFitnessPal from Active to Sedentary.

Most people who use MFP, regardless of their exercise levels during the week will have it set to Sedentary.

For example, I go to the gym 4 times a week and a brisk 60 minute walk every day, but I still use Sedentary.

Also, can't stress enough the importance of weighing everything. I used to think I could eyeball my food too. Was astounded when I got the scales and started using them properly, you really will notice the difference.

I walk 5-12000 steps a day. Workout 4/5 days a week, Im very fit. I can run miles too not doing it atm because of my weight.

1700-2200 isn't a lot. Im 16 st 10 pounds. Im active and Im 5 foot 11 lol.

DisneyLover

runawaybishop wrote: »

Not much at that weight it doesn't. OP is probably overestimating calorie intake, as suggested numerous times.

Not over eating though. Went over my my fitness pal and it was 1500-1800 all week which isnt enough.

DisneyLover

Scraggs wrote: »

Hi OP,
I've read this thread and the thread you've previously posted. I would make an appointment with your GP to discuss the stomach pains you've been experiencing esp with a history of kidney issues and an eating disorder. It will be a good opportunity to rule out any medical issues that may be affecting your weight loss but also an opportunity to get a referral to a dietician (if you want) and general advice. Don't bury your head in the sand, follow the advice people here have taken time to write about weighing food and increasing exercise. But first I would see a professional about the pains!

I found out that the doctor and accupunture guy deals with stomach pains, ibs and anxiety so might just go to him Im on anti depressants for social anxiety but theyve stopped working now which isnt helping me at all. Thanks for your reply !

Rodin

There are definitely too many calories going in OP.

I lost 25 lbs at start of year in 6 weeks.
Probably less than 1500 kcal a day.
Drank alcohol on 2 days in 2 months.

I dont believe in cheat days or treats.

If you want to get the weight off be serious about it.

whoopsadoodles

Rodin wrote: »

There are definitely too many calories going in OP.

I lost 25 lbs at start of year in 6 weeks.
Probably less than 1500 kcal a day.
Drank alcohol on 2 days in 2 months.

I dont believe in cheat days or treats.

If you want to get the weight off be serious about it.

OP, ignore this advice.

If this person didn't believe in cheat days or treats they wouldn't have needed to lose weight in the first place.

Take it slowly. Weigh your food and be accurate and see how you get on.

Alf Veedersane

DisneyLover wrote: »

Not over eating though. Went over my my fitness pal and it was 1500-1800 all week which isnt enough.

The problem is what you're putting into MyFitnessPal isn't accurate

njs030

DisneyLover wrote: »

I walk 5-12000 steps a day. Workout 4/5 days a week, Im very fit. I can run miles too not doing it atm because of my weight.

1700-2200 isn't a lot. Im 16 st 10 pounds. Im active and Im 5 foot 11 lol.

You're not losing weight though so either your estimates are wrong or your daily calories are too high.

The best thing to do is to weigh every single thing for a few weeks and find out for sure what you're actually eating.

Genuine question- how do you know you can run for miles if you aren't doing it?

DisneyLover

notjustsweet wrote: »

You're not losing weight though so either your estimates are wrong or your daily calories are too high.

The best thing to do is to weigh every single thing for a few weeks and find out for sure what you're actually eating.

Genuine question- how do you know you can run for miles if you aren't doing it?

I could do it a few weeks ago but my legs started getting bad and wasnt doing anything for me as in walking and cycling was the same so dont want to hurt my legs and with the excess weight too. I dunno even with weight on Im very fit. My Dads the same.

And going to start weighing food on Monday getting a scales Sunday before work! I dont think Im that off though but cheers for the advice

njs030

DisneyLover wrote: »

I could do it a few weeks ago but my legs started getting bad and wasnt doing anything for me as in walking and cycling was the same so dont want to hurt my legs and with the excess weight too. I dunno even with weight on Im very fit. My Dads the same.

And going to start weighing food on Monday getting a scales Sunday before work! I dont think Im that off though but cheers for the advice

I get you, I was wondering how you knew

Good luck with it, maybe you're not wrong and you could look at lowering your calories instead- at least you'll have ruled out one potential problem.

livedadream

id question who worked out your maintenance calories and deficit calories...
i'm much shorter than you and weighed significantly more than you i'm just 5ft and was over 20 stone.
my deficit was much less than yours and my maintenance is much lower depending on the day and ive successfully kept the weight off (7 stone)
my BMR when i first started was just over 2000  and my maintenance calories are now around 1600 to 1800, this goes up then depending on if its a long run day or whatnot and i am very active. i run nearly every day as well as spinning, strongman classes etc
also you asked about the monitoring of calories on MFP, i do this too BUT you have to be really careful with it some of the stuff is just plain wrong, remember anyone can add foods to the app so you need to make sure it matches whats on the food your eating.
meats its always cooked weight, pasta is the cooked weight, think of it this way 40g of cooked pasta is only around 15-20 grams of dried pasta. it makes a huge difference.
you mentioned you also had a disordered relationship with food, the best thing i can recommend is to go to an actual dietician, remember in Ireland the only actual person who is properly qualified to give you advise on this is the one who spells it with a  'C' dietician not dietitian. The one with the C is a protected term, dietiTian you can do a weekend online course and be good to go ie a nutritionist , DietiCian you have a degree are registered with the medical board in Ireland it very closely regulated.

bucketybuck

DisneyLover wrote: »

No its not though. Im 5'11 and 16 stone 10 lbs and Im active so its not, 2200 was recommended for weight loss and 1900 was recommended for losing 2 lbs a week

This doesn't seem right, I was a 16 stone man with a muscular build and an active lifestyle and I was eating 1700/1800 calories a day to drop a bit of weight. Even now I'm just maintaining weight and would usually have less than 2200 calories a day, if you are eating 2200 then you are eating more than I ever was.

Triceratops Ballet

livedadream wrote: »

meats its always cooked weight, pasta is the cooked weight, think of it this way 40g of cooked pasta is only around 15-20 grams of dried pasta. it makes a huge difference.

That's madness! It's always the raw weights, as there are so many variables that impact the cooked weight! The raw weight is what's labelled on the packaging! sure then people would be throwing out tonnes of food each day cos they had to cook it before they would weigh it! Even 50g of dry pasta will come out different weights depending on how long it's cooked, like if you cook it al denté it will weigh less than if you let all the water boil off!!

Op weigh first then cook, when searching for foods on MFP just search chicken breast raw, or wholegrain rice dry weight for example, if the results don't match the packaging you have just add your own and make it recognisable so you can use it without thinking the next time.

livedadream

dottie_lottie wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

meats its always cooked weight, pasta is the cooked weight, think of it this way 40g of cooked pasta is only around 15-20 grams of dried pasta. it makes a huge difference.

That's madness! It's always the raw weights, as there are so many variables that impact the cooked weight! The raw weight is what's labelled on the packaging! sure then people would be throwing out tonnes of food each day cos they had to cook it before they would weigh it! Even 50g of dry pasta will come out different weights depending on how long it's cooked, like if you cook it al denté it will weigh less than if you let all the water boil off!!

Op weigh first then cook, when searching for foods on MFP just search chicken breast raw, or wholegrain rice dry weight for example, if the results don't match the packaging you have just add your own and make it recognisable so you can use it without thinking the next time.

are you for real? if you use the raw weight your not taking into account the way you cook the meat,
a deep fat fried chicken breast is significantly higher in calories than a grilled chicken breast, or a fried breast in rapeseed oil v dry fried. are you saying a raw chicken breast which is approx 120 calories v a grilled chicken breast 100 calories (both the same weight obviously) v 260 in a fried chicken breast. that only counts if you eat it raw.
when your counting calories of course its the cooked ones you use, your not eating raw chicken breast or 50g of dried pasta are you? not your eating a grilled chicken breast and 100g of of cooked pasta. no wonder people cant lose weight.
i dont care if you weigh it before or after as long as you log it correctly, the OP is struggling so is clearly missing a trick when logging her food.  there no point logging that your eating 50g of pasta when your not, your doubling your calories without realising it.

Macy0161

It's more accurate to weigh uncooked and then take into account cooking method and/or cooking additions. It's not always practical, but for things like pasta and rice it's not that hard. Or a baked or grilled chicken breast.

bladespin

livedadream wrote: »

are you for real? if you use the raw weight your not taking into account the way you cook the meat,

MFP already does this for you, enter the food's raw weight then select cooking style - simples.

livedadream

bladespin wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

are you for real? if you use the raw weight your not taking into account the way you cook the meat,

MFP already does this for you, enter the food's raw weight then select cooking style - simples.

i know, but im trying to help the OP who seems to be eating to many calories so assumed she might not know.

Triceratops Ballet

livedadream wrote: »

are you for real? if you use the raw weight your not taking into account the way you cook the meat,
a deep fat fried chicken breast is significantly higher in calories than a grilled chicken breast, or a fried breast in rapeseed oil v dry fried. are you saying a raw chicken breast which is approx 120 calories v a grilled chicken breast 100 calories (both the same weight obviously) v 260 in a fried chicken breast. that only counts if you eat it raw.

Yes I'm for real, One chicken breast, fried in 1tsp of oil, log the chicken log the oil? I don't I don't know what's unbelievable about that at all!

livedadream wrote: »

no wonder people cant lose weight.
.

Plenty of people lose weight by weighting, measuring and logging all of the ingredients of a meal. cooked weights require too much adjustments for cooking method and time. The easiest way to do it is to say ok this meal requires 100g raw chicken, 2 tsp oil, 1 clove of garlic, 20g green pesto, 50g tomato and 50g dry pasta. Add all those things to mfp and that's the cals for the meal. I don't see what you think that's complex or odd

livedadream

dottie_lottie wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

are you for real? if you use the raw weight your not taking into account the way you cook the meat,
a deep fat fried chicken breast is significantly higher in calories than a grilled chicken breast, or a fried breast in rapeseed oil v dry fried. are you saying a raw chicken breast which is approx 120 calories v a grilled chicken breast 100 calories (both the same weight obviously) v 260 in a fried chicken breast. that only counts if you eat it raw.

Yes I'm for real, One chicken breast, fried in 1tsp of oil, log the chicken log the oil? I don't I don't know what's unbelievable about that at all!

livedadream wrote: »

no wonder people cant lose weight.
.

Plenty of people lose weight by weighting, measuring and logging all of the ingredients of a meal. cooked weights require too much adjustments for cooking method and time. The easiest way to do it is to say ok this meal requires 100g raw chicken, 2 tsp oil, 1 clove of garlic, 20g green pesto, 50g tomato and 50g dry pasta. Add all those things to mfp and that's the cals for the meal. I don't see what you think that's complex or odd

with respect i think your missing my point. the OP is not losing weight, i suggested that perhaps she is logging the foods incorrectly. ie logging a raw chicken breast instead of a fried or grilled one, or logging 50g of pasta when it is in fact 100g cooked pasta. or logging a grilled chicken breast instead of a fried one.

it was a suggestion to help someone. no need to get all worked up over it. i successfully lost 7 stone by logging and monitoring my food as well as a few other things it was hit or miss for a while because if your not used to being aware of your consumption you can miss some simple things.

Macy0161

livedadream wrote: »

with respect i think your missing my point. the OP is not losing weight, i suggested that perhaps she is logging the foods incorrectly. ie logging a raw chicken breast instead of a fried or grilled one, or logging 50g of pasta when it is in fact 100g cooked pasta. or logging a grilled chicken breast instead of a fried one.

The OP has already they said they were estimating not weighing. It wasn't the "complexity" of cooked or uncooked.

livedadream

Macy0161 wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

with respect i think your missing my point. the OP is not losing weight, i suggested that perhaps she is logging the foods incorrectly. ie logging a raw chicken breast instead of a fried or grilled one, or logging 50g of pasta when it is in fact 100g cooked pasta. or logging a grilled chicken breast instead of a fried one.

The OP has already they said they were estimating not weighing. It wasn't the "complexity" of cooked or uncooked.

dude chill out, no one said it was complex of not but if you dont know and are unaware of the difference then you can get caught out. shes not losing weight, theres something not right.
she also said she had an ED so was basically the rain man of calories and was always on point with them, i doubted it and gave some examples of how she might be going wrong.
no need to be on the massive defensive. its all just to help someone. chill.

stefanovich

Day Lewin wrote:

Is it possible, that your food, exercise, height and size are now in balance - neither gaining nor losing - you may be already at your optimum weight; and if healthy and strong, maybe you could turn your attention away from this topic?

Nearly 17 stone. Encouraging someone to remain at that weight is not good advice. It's just not healthy.

bladespin

stefanovich wrote: »

Nearly 17 stone. Encouraging someone to remain at that weight is not good advice. It's just not healthy.

Hmmm, how do you know? 240lbs could be quite a reasonable weight for some, for others it would be morbidly obese.

Mellor

livedadream wrote: »

are you saying a raw chicken breast which is approx 120 calories v a grilled chicken breast 100 calories (both the same weight obviously) v 260 in a fried chicken breast. that only counts if you eat it raw.

If a breast is 120 cals raw, then it will be 120 cal when grilled.
Cooking doesn't change the calories of the actual chicken.

nhunter100

bladespin wrote:

Hmmm, how do you know? 240lbs could be quite a reasonable weight for some, for others it would be morbidly obese.

You're generalizing a specific response.

bladespin

nhunter100 wrote: »

You're generalizing a specific response.

Think you're the one who generalized assuming 17st was overweight, the poster you criticize could be perfectly right.

bucketybuck

bladespin wrote: »

Think you're the one who generalized assuming 17st was overweight, the poster you criticize could be perfectly right.

Sure, the 17 stone poster asking for help losing fat and weight could be perfectly healthy, it is possible.

nhunter100

bladespin wrote:

Think you're the one who generalized assuming 17st was overweight, the poster you criticize could be perfectly right.

Since I don't know the waist measurement of the OP I can only use the BMI scale to give an indication. Given her weight and height she is classed as obsese with a BMI of 32.*. I prefer the newer waist measurement but as I said the BMI is an indication. Plus I'm dealing with what the OP has stated not with what might or might not apply to others.

bladespin

bucketybuck wrote: »

Sure, the 17 stone poster asking for help losing fat and weight could be perfectly healthy, it is possible.

I don't refer to the OP, merely the comment you made in response to another's post who could very well be right, though it is a stretch in the OP's case, asserting that 17st is overweight is not necessarily the correct assumption, there are many out there who weigh that or more who could never be described as overweight, think Lomu, Thorpe.

nhunter100 wrote: »

Since I don't know the waist measurement of the OP I can only use the BMI scale to give an indication. Given her weight and height she is classed as obsese with a BMI of 32.*. I prefer the newer waist measurement but as I said the BMI is an indication. Plus I'm dealing with what the OP has stated not with what might or might not apply to others.

I agree, personally I think BMI is a bit stupid but it this case it's fine, we're not talking 1 or 2 points.

bucketybuck

bladespin wrote: »

I don't refer to the OP, merely the comment you made in response to another's post who could very well be right, though it is a stretch in the OP's case, asserting that 17st is overweight is not necessarily the correct assumption, there are many out there who weigh that or more who could never be described as overweight, think Lomu, Thorpe.

I didn't make the original comment, I just think its a rather pointless place for such pedantry and serves little purpose in this instance.

bladespin

bucketybuck wrote: »

I didn't make the original comment, I just think its a rather pointless place for such pedantry and serves little purpose in this instance.

Lol, and two semi bad advice posts mage a good advice post?

Trouble for the likes of OP is that there's lots of conflicting rubbish out there, that's too much, that's too little etc etc. Certainly found this myself, sometimes BS just has to be called, maybe it comes across as petty but believe me it's not.

Anyhow, we are only trying to help I agree so not arguing any further, in this case yes, I think 17st is on the heavy side.

Elemonator

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

I'm not against exercise but fat loss has more to do with the diet. I do zero exercise and went from a 43 inch beer gut to 32 inches no gut by only changing my diet.

Impressive. May I ask, how long did that take? Asking for a friend.........

livedadream

Mellor wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

are you saying a raw chicken breast which is approx 120 calories v a grilled chicken breast 100 calories (both the same weight obviously) v 260 in a fried chicken breast. that only counts if you eat it raw.

If a breast is 120 cals raw, then it will be 120 cal when grilled.
Cooking doesn't change the calories of the actual chicken.

the original post i mentioned it in, mentioned frying and deep fat frying compared to grilled backed, dry fried or raw. please dont pick and choose what you read.

Mellor

bladespin wrote: »

I don't refer to the OP, merely the comment you made in response to another's post who could very well be right, though it is a stretch in the OP's case, asserting that 17st is overweight is not necessarily the correct assumption, there are many out there who weigh that or more who could never be described as overweight, think Lomu, Thorpe.

Maybe I'm stating the obvious here. But Thorpe and Lomu are men. The comment you are suggesting "could have been right" was specifically aimed at a women. It's extremely different.

The chances of a women being 17 stone and a healthy weight is very small. I don't want to say impossible, but I'm struggling to think of a female athlete who is that size and apparently healthy.

bladespin

Mellor wrote: »

Maybe I'm stating the obvious here. But Thorpe and Lomu are men. The comment you are suggesting "could have been right" was specifically aimed at a women. It's extremely different.

The chances of a women being 17 stone and a healthy weight is very small. I don't want to say impossible, but I'm struggling to think of a female athlete who is that size and apparently healthy.

I didn't suggest the comment was correct just that stating 17st (for anyone) was overweight might not be correct either.

F**k me, where's the eject button?

Mellor

livedadream wrote: »

the original post i mentioned it in, mentioned frying and deep fat frying compared to grilled backed, dry fried or raw. please dont pick and choose what you read.

I quoted your post word for word and bolded the relevant part.
Did you say that raw was 120 cals and grilled was 100?
That's the part I'm talking about. It's incorrect.

Grilled, baked, dry frying, BBQ, poached etc are all the same calories as when raw.
Deep frying doesn't actually change the calories of the chicken, it just comes out covered in oil.

livedadream

from OP's first post:   24 years , 5 foot 11 and 16 stone 10 lbs, thats almost 17 stone.   = 234 lbs
shes not a man and shes not made of pure muscle like a rugby player weighing almost 17 stone.
to visualize it Paul O'Connell was 17 stone and he was 6 4, now imagine a woman that size but shorter.

Based on the Robinson formula (1983), ideal weight is 149.3 lbs
Based on the Miller formula (1983), ideal weight is 150.0 lbs
Based on the Devine formula (1974), ideal weight is 156.1 lbs
Based on the Hamwi formula (1964), ideal weight is 153.7 lbs
Based on the healthy BMI recommendation, recommended weight is 132.6 lbs - 179.2 lbs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19050139
fun link to see what olympic athletes you most resemble

livedadream

Mellor wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

the original post i mentioned it in, mentioned frying and deep fat frying compared to grilled backed, dry fried or raw. please dont pick and choose what you read.

I quoted your post word for word and bolded the relevant part.
Did you say that raw was 120 cals and grilled was 100?
That's the part I'm talking about. It's incorrect.

Grilled, baked, dry frying, BBQ, poached etc are all the same calories as when raw.
Deep frying doesn't actually change the calories of the chicken, it just comes out covered in oil.

my registered clinical dietician disagrees with you but each to their own. i defo don't log that ive eaten 120 calories of chicken if ive had a deep fried chicken breast.
deep frying soaks up oil, chicken isnt impermeable to oil, it doesnt just roll off it so you dont ingest it.

bladespin

livedadream wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19050139
fun link to see what olympic athletes you most resemble

:cool:
Aww, a badminton palyer, seriously?
Can you link the calculators?