Tips on Fat and Weight Loss Please

Mellor

bladespin wrote: »

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

I was referring to this post, you said they could be right.

bladespin wrote:

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

And Im disagreeing with that specific statement. There's zero chance that poster was right imo.

The bit where a random athletic man might be healthy at 17stone is fine, I'm not disagreeing there. But relevance is a bit weak.

Mellor

livedadream wrote: »

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

This is totally random. I put in my own height/weight. Top of the list was volleyball player with the same name as my girlfriend.

livedadream

bladespin wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

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

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

which calculators?
and if it helps i was hoping for some teeny tiny gymnast but got a Canadian swimmer :-(

bladespin

livedadream wrote: »

which calculators?
and if it helps i was hoping for some teeny tiny gymnast but got a Canadian swimmer :-(

Sorry, the ideal weight calcs.

Was hoping for Judo/Karate gold medalist of something lol

livedadream

bladespin wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

which calculators?
and if it helps i was hoping for some teeny tiny gymnast but got a Canadian swimmer :-(

Sorry, the ideal weight calcs.

Was hoping for Judo/Karate gold medalist of something lol

lolz , yeah sure, i have them on an excel so i dunno if they are online, let me have a look...


sorry found them:

J. D. Robinson Formula (1983)

52 kg + 1.9 kg per inch over 5 feet       (man) 49 kg + 1.7 kg per inch over 5 feet       (woman)

D. R. Miller Formula (1983)

56.2 kg + 1.41 kg per inch over 5 feet       (man) 53.1 kg + 1.36 kg per inch over 5 feet       (woman)

G. J. Hamwi Formula (1964)

48.0 kg + 2.7 kg per inch over 5 feet       (man) 45.5 kg + 2.2 kg per inch over 5 feet       (woman)

B. J. Devine Formula (1974)

50.0 + 2.3 kg per inch over 5 feet       (man) 45.5 + 2.3 kg per inch over 5 feet       (woman)

The World Health Organization (WHO) Recommended Healthy BMI Range

18.5 - 25 for both man and woman

bladespin

livedadream wrote: »

lolz , yeah sure, i have them on an excel so i dunno if they are online, let me have a look...

Cheers, just want to work out mine, see how close/far away I am.

livedadream

bladespin wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

lolz , yeah sure, i have them on an excel so i dunno if they are online, let me have a look...

Cheers, just want to work out mine, see how close/far away I am.

i leave the math to the professionals.... :-) i go in she weighs me, smiles or frowns and im good... lolz
thankfully it was more smiling than frowning...
7 stone down and the last three are lingering... but ill take it im not a rolly polly anymore...

uncle_sam_ie

Elemonator wrote: »

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

It's been three years since I changed my diet and sleep. I really noticed my spare tire beer belly reducing around the six month mark. My and skin and hair started improving a lot around this time too. I think it was about a year until I got to a 32 inches waist. Seeing the positive changes was and still is a big motivator for me.

bladespin

livedadream wrote: »

i leave the math to the professionals.... :-) i go in she weighs me, smiles or frowns and im good... lolz
thankfully it was more smiling than frowning...
7 stone down and the last three are lingering... but ill take it im not a rolly polly anymore...

Cheers, according BMI I'm overweight and 'should try to loose some weight' with a bf% lingering around 10 (yes I would like to drop this a little lol) I have to wonder about how good an 'indicator' it actually is, I'd imagine it puts some pretty unreasonable pressure on.

Edit, I'm male but was still a little pee'd off with the result lol.:eek:

livedadream

bladespin wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

i leave the math to the professionals.... :-) i go in she weighs me, smiles or frowns and im good... lolz
thankfully it was more smiling than frowning...
7 stone down and the last three are lingering... but ill take it im not a rolly polly anymore...

Cheers, according BMI I'm overweight and 'should try to loose some weight' with a bf% lingering around 10 (yes I would like to drop this a little lol) I have to wonder about how good an 'indicator' it actually is, I'd imagine it puts some pretty unreasonable pressure on.

Edit, I'm male but was still a little pee'd off with the result lol.:eek:

the best advise i can give about BMI is that it does serve a purpose, obviously a 5 ft and 20 stone and a bit i was in the serious red red red part, however im not just under 13 stone, (and i mean kissing it really) and my GP is happy with me, yes i would like to lose a bit more and technically im still in the obese catagory, youd look at me and see short strong little legs with a big of jiggle, a rounded tummy toned arms and a normal face, im pudgy not fat. but as another poster has said at 5 ft theres not much room for stuff to go. my body is strong it can lift and flip tyres and a 24kg kettlebell over and over and its run marathons. fast. its perspective as well.

Mellor

bladespin wrote: »

Cheers, according BMI I'm overweight and 'should try to loose some weight' with a bf% lingering around 10 (yes I would like to drop this a little lol) I have to wonder about how good an 'indicator' it actually is, I'd imagine it puts some pretty unreasonable pressure on.

Edit, I'm male but was still a little pee'd off with the result lol.:eek:

If you're a legit 10% then you are fine to go ahead and disregard BMI. It doesn't apply to you. There are better indicators you can use, such as adipose index, but body fat percent is probably the best

bladespin

Mellor wrote: »

If you're a legit 10% then you are fine to go ahead and disregard BMI. It doesn't apply to you. There are better indicators you can use, such as adipose index, but body fat percent is probably the best

Well, rougly it very much depends on which calculators etc I use (I haven't bothered with calipers - though I'm in the right business lol), mirror test suggests I'm very close to happiness lol, just pointing out my issue with BMI

Mellor

Even if you are close on visual inspection I'd ignore BMI.

I just meant as long as it wasn't some handheld gadget that that had down the gym that tells people what they want to hear.
PT telling people losing 4% in a fortnight and the likes.

bladespin

Mellor wrote: »

Even if you are close on visual inspection I'd ignore BMI.

I just meant as long as it wasn't some handheld gadget that that had down the gym that tells people what they want to hear.
PT telling people losing 4% in a fortnight and the likes.

Not really, for me mirror is best right now, tha said your comment above reminded me of a test I did try - one of those bf scale thingies that measures your resistance, was midway through the 90 day thing (feeling like I was looking good etc) so bought one to see exactly where I was - the effing thing told me I was nearly 30%, my heart sank until one of the lads said that was ridiculous and that abs/serratus wouldn't really show if I was above 20.
Fecking thing made me want to jack it for a moment - sensitive soul lol.

Sinister Kid

OP, I have this scales. It's dead handy, the bowl doubles as a case & it fits in my handbag so I can bring it to work with me. When I first started using it I was quite surprised at how small the portion sizes actually are!!

whoopsadoodles

Sinister Kid wrote: »

OP, I have this scales. It's dead handy, the bowl doubles as a case & it fits in my handbag so I can bring it to work with me. When I first started using it I was quite surprised at how small the portion sizes actually are!!

Oh I like that! Might invest for work.

It really is surprising how little food you need.

Today so far I've had bowl of porridge (40g) with 250ml l/f milk, a small portion of fat free greek yogurt with berries, and a small salad with tuna (no dressing or any fats aside from the tuna). Not a huge amount of food by any stretch but I'm already at half my daily calorie goal.

It's very easy to go over your cals while thinking you've had nothing at all to eat.

Things like lattes can be a killer too if you're not counting them.

DisneyLover

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.

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.

Wow 7 stone ? Can I private message you cause its easier. I started weighing food today and Im confused already ! I always get enchiladas from Super Valu Killester. Weighed them at 250 g for two. How do I get the calories for them ?

DisneyLover

bucketybuck wrote: »

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

Eh 17 stone is extremely unhealthy ! Thats why Im here ! 17 stone would be for an extremely tall man !

Im 5'11, female and 16 st 6 lbs - Lost 4 lbs since Monday so thats a start. But yeah, 17 stone is not healthy at all and Im obese, obviously ! Need to lose probably at least 3 stone before Im even a normal weight for my height ! Lol

njs030

DisneyLover wrote: »

Wow 7 stone ? Can I private message you cause its easier. I started weighing food today and Im confused already ! I always get enchiladas from Super Valu Killester. Weighed them at 250 g for two. How do I get the calories for them ?

Are the calories on the packet? What were you doing before now?

bladespin

DisneyLover wrote: »

Wow 7 stone ? Can I private message you cause its easier. I started weighing food today and Im confused already ! I always get enchiladas from Super Valu Killester. Weighed them at 250 g for two. How do I get the calories for them ?

These are approximate:

fatsecret
That's not a very good food type to start with I'm afraid, I'd generally try to avoid high fat, high carb, low protein.

DisneyLover

Thanks for all your help lads.

Going to start weighing food if yous can help me a bit that would be great. Presume Ive to weigh before I cook right ? And do yous get calories on MFP or on Google for stuff withour calories ??

Aiming for now for 14 stone 7 lbs. Lost 4 pounds so Im 16'6 atm. Hopefully it wont take ages to lose.

Going to Portugal in 8 weeks would be nice to be down 8 lbs !

Also going to doctor who looks after ibs, anxiety, weight and accupunture - Hope it works.

Timed my sleep this week. I got 4.5 hours sleep 4 days a week and 10 hours 3 days a week so need to change that asap. And also not drinking enough water !!

Mellor

DisneyLover wrote: »

I always get enchiladas from Super Valu Killester. Weighed them at 250 g for two. How do I get the calories for them ?

What do they say on the packet about calories per porion or per 100g.
Without that info you are really just guessing. As calories will vary with recipe.

As a rough estimate, heres similar ready made enchildas from tesco. Works out as 460 cals for 250g
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=282855075

DisneyLover

Mellor wrote: »

What do they say on the packet about calories per porion or per 100g.
Without that info you are really just guessing. As calories will vary with recipe.

As a rough estimate, heres similar ready made enchildas from tesco. Works out as 460 cals for 250g
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=282855075

They dont say anything ! I once put all the food in my fitness pal - peppers, chicken etc and they round off around 285 cal !

DisneyLover

Sinister Kid wrote: »

OP, I have this scales. It's dead handy, the bowl doubles as a case & it fits in my handbag so I can bring it to work with me. When I first started using it I was quite surprised at how small the portion sizes actually are!!

Oh thats deadly ! So handy ! Can throw in my handbag !

DisneyLover

Also going to try up my step count, keep working out 4 days a week 30-60 mins and going to try keep calories around 1'700/1'800 but allow more once a week for say a very long shift in work or a night out so like 2'000-2'200 once a week.

GarIT

DisneyLover wrote: »

Also going to doctor who looks after IBS, anxiety, weight and acupuncture - Hope it works.

I wouldn't trust any doctor who offers acupuncture, it's much closer to a superstition than a medical treatment and would make me question their judgement.

njs030

DisneyLover wrote: »

They dont say anything ! I once put all the food in my fitness pal - peppers, chicken etc and they round off around 285 cal !

Did you take it apart and weigh everything separately? That sounds really low!!

It's so hard to work out pre-made food on mfp, I gave up ages ago!

Adini

What was in the enchilada? The calorie count sounds far too low, I'd expect it to be far more than that unless it was really tiny

DisneyLover

Adini wrote: »

What was in the enchilada? The calorie count sounds far too low, I'd expect it to be far more than that unless it was really tiny

Chicken, red and green peppers and enchilada sauce ! Going with 350 each.

What do yous do when you dont have calories on the food ? I mean measuring doesnt help much. I used to just check MFP and put in whatever the highest was ! I mean sayI get sweet potato fries that has seasoning on it from the butchers - Do I just weigh it and not count the seaoning / chilli etc ??

Tigger99

I avoid food that doesn't have calories written on it as I suspect they are full of crap and very fatty. I mean the enchilada sauce alone could easily be 200+ calories. You've no way of knowing.

Also re the fries, you've no idea if the butcher has drizzled a load of oil/butter over them.

Triceratops Ballet

DisneyLover wrote:

What do yous do when you dont have calories on the food ? I mean measuring doesnt help much. I used to just check MFP and put in whatever the highest was ! I mean sayI get sweet potato fries that has seasoning on it from the butchers - Do I just weigh it and not count the seaoning / chilli etc ??

What you're doing is better than nothing, but tbh I'd me making them myself. You've no idea what the butcher is putting on them. I rarely eat food I can't log fully

livedadream

Sorry mondays are loooonnng gym sessions! Yeah pm me away...
It took me almost two years so I can't give you a quick fix it's hard work but gets easier...
Message away my dear...

DisneyLover

Lads can I just ask about my workout too for a min !

Like today I did:

20 mins on my bike, changing from level 8 to 14. Says I burned 260 but log it in MFP as 200.

Also did 14 mins of kettlebells: did arms and core. - Normally do 20 mins.

Also did 15 mins of cardio from youtube ? Like mixing up these and more ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcN37TxBE_s&t=588s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnY040imnsE

Will they plus walking help fat burning ??

DisneyLover

Tigger99 wrote: »

I avoid food that doesn't have calories written on it as I suspect they are full of crap and very fatty. I mean the enchilada sauce alone could easily be 200+ calories. You've no way of knowing.

Also re the fries, you've no idea if the butcher has drizzled a load of oil/butter over them.

True ! Got some in Lidl yesterday so gonna try learn how to make them nice from online recipes Thanks !

Mellor

DisneyLover wrote: »

They dont say anything ! I once put all the food in my fitness pal - peppers, chicken etc and they round off around 285 cal !

The wrap alone is probably 150-200 cals.
If you want to have them you're better off making your own. I'd emaginevthe 460 figure us close to correct for ready made ones

whoopsadoodles

I'd say we may have found where you're going wrong with MFP.

You're never going to be accurately able to count food without labeling and this is where your issue with fat loss most likely lies.

I'm sure it must be hard to cook from scratch to begin with if you haven't always done it but these are the kind of changes that will make the difference for you. And imo, food tastes so much better when cooked at home with fresh ingredients.

Enchiladas are quite easy to make and don't have to be high in cals. Ease up on the cheese and go for fat free greek yogurt instead of sour cream

Sweet potatoes wedges can be tossed in teaspoon of rapeseed oil and sprinkled with salt and rosemary or even smoked paprika if you prefer those flavours. There are 40 calories in a tsp of rapeseed oil so these are the kind of places you can lose a lot of cals by guessing.

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.

Apologies, had this confused with the other weight loss thread - for the rugby player

mathie

Calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories.

That's all I see in this thread.

Caloric measurement is at best "close". You cannot be sure the amount stated is correct.
Everything being reduced down to calories means that you can eat 2000 calories of cake and you're grand.

Don't people see the insanity of that?
The idea of all calories being the same suits companies that produce rubbish. Coca-Cola actually used it in an advertising campaign "A calorie is a calorie". WRONG!

Rewind 100 years. Even 50 years. Obesity is going up, up, up.
https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/obesity-graph.jpg

Were people counting calories in the 1950s? 1900s? 1800s? 1700s? Did they even know what calories were?
Obesity rates weren't what they are now. Now we fret about calories.

Most studies that follow calorie counting show it (for most people) does not work.

People need to focus on good quality fruit and vegetables foremost.
Non-starchy vegetables and low fructose fruits.
Good quality sources of fat (nuts, seeds, avocados)
Good sources of protein.

Your plates should be two thirds vegetables.
You shouldn't restrict the amount of food you eat which is what counting calories does.
You should eat as many vegetables and good quality proteins and fats as you like.

People need to ditch the processed foods, the nutritionally void food that has emerged ever since the "low-fat" fad was sparked in the 1970s. "low-fat" generally means "high sugar". Breads, pasta, rice. Nutritionally very low.

People need to focus on the QUALITY of the calories.
If you eat good quality food then your body will work out the rest.

bladespin

mathie wrote: »

Most studies that follow calorie counting show it (for most people) does not work.

Really? Are you saying that if I eat 1000cal of MaccaD's a day I'll put on weight while if I eat 5000cals of meat and veg (god just imagine the qty) I'll loose weight?

Yes food quality and it's macro breakdown is important but much less so at this stage IMO.

Blacktie.

mathie wrote: »

People need to ditch the processed foods, the nutritionally void food that has emerged ever since the "low-fat" fad was sparked in the 1970s. "low-fat" generally means "high sugar". Breads, pasta, rice. Nutritionally very low.

Mentions how low fat has resulted in high sugar foods with 3 low sugar examples :pac:

Alf Veedersane

mathie wrote: »

People need to focus on the QUALITY of the calories.
If you eat good quality food then your body will work out the rest.

Everything isn't being reduce to the caloric number and nothing else. People are suggesting cooking from scratch so that the OP controls the ingredients and improves the quality.

Improving food quality doesn't mean you disregard monitoring calories. Of course improving food quality should mean that you reduce the likelihood of over consumption of calories but that's not a given.

Also most people need to transition from a bad diet to what you're getting at so calorie counting is still important.

mathie

bladespin wrote: »

Really? Are you saying that if I eat 1000cal of MaccaD's a day I'll put on weight while if I eat 5000cals of meat and veg (god just imagine the qty) I'll loose weight?

Yes food quality and it's macro breakdown is important but much less so at this stage IMO.

You said it yourself.
"God just imagine the quantity"
Try overeating vegetables and healthy proteins and fats.
It's incredibly difficult.
You will feel full and push your plate away a long time before you hit 5000 calories.

Now try consuming the same amount of calories from McDonalds.

Lets compare eating your fill of healthy vegetables, fruits, fats and proteins against eating your fill at McDonalds.
Which do you think will be better for you?

mathie

Blacktie. wrote: »

Mentions how low fat has resulted in high sugar foods with 3 low sugar examples :pac:

They weren't examples they were additions.
I see my post could be taken up that way.

I meant avoid high sugar and avoid overly processed carbs.

Alf Veedersane

Most people could put away most of a 200g bag of cashews over the course of a day, grazing away. That's north of 1000 calories.

mathie

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Most people could put away most of a 200g bag of cashews over the course of a day, grazing away. That's north of 1000 calories.

Yeah you can consume a lot of nuts no problem.
I read before that that's the reason why they're generally in hard shells and tough for us to get at. Mass production has put paid to that.
It would have been a lot harder for our ancestors to sit back and eat a bag of nuts.

I'd have nuts and seeds lower on the list than vegetables and protein.
At the top of the pyramid.
As I said earlier two thirds vegetables, then protein then fats.

livedadream

mathie wrote: »

Blacktie. wrote: »

Mentions how low fat has resulted in high sugar foods with 3 low sugar examples :pac:

They weren't examples they were additions.
I see my post could be taken up that way.

I meant avoid high sugar and avoid overly processed carbs.

i have crohns disease so cant eat high fiber or the norm ''healthy foods'' my diet includes a fair amount of carbs (not overly processed but in general carbs) yes calories are just that a measurement of energy, but for a beginner, counting calories is a good way to learn that you were over eating and that you can be satified by a lower amount of food and teaches you to make a more informed choice, ie your  physically hungry at 8pm after your dinner do you grab a packet of biscuits or do you think okay i have 300 calories before i get maxed out so ill have an apple and some peanut butter or an egg to fill my hunger?

Alf Veedersane

mathie wrote: »

Yeah you can consume a lot of nuts no problem.
I read before that that's the reason why they're generally in hard shells and tough for us to get at. Mass production has put paid to that.
It would have been a lot harder for our ancestors to sit back and eat a bag of nuts.

I'd have nuts and seeds lower on the list than vegetables and protein.
At the top of the pyramid.
As I said earlier two thirds vegetables, then protein then fats.

We're not our ancestors though and pyramids are fine as a guideline but nothing wrong in monitoring calorie intake. It's not being touted as a means to allow anyone, much less the OP, to sacrifice food quality.

mathie

livedadream wrote: »

i have crohns disease so cant eat high fiber or the norm ''healthy foods'' my diet includes a fair amount of carbs (not overly processed but in general carbs) yes calories are just that a measurement of energy, but for a beginner, counting calories is a good way to learn that you were over eating and that you can be satified by a lower amount of food and teaches you to make a more informed choice, ie your  physically hungry at 8pm after your dinner do you grab a packet of biscuits or do you think okay i have 300 calories before i get maxed out so ill have an apple and some peanut butter or an egg to fill my hunger?

I think you can make a more informed choice without needing to be a slave to calories.

If you're hungry a couple of hours after your dinner then I'd say you've not eaten a dinner that has provided satiety.

mathie

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

We're not our ancestors though and pyramids are fine as a guideline but nothing wrong in monitoring calorie intake. It's not being touted as a means to allow anyone, much less the OP, to sacrifice food quality.

But that's - by definition - exactly what calorie counting does.
It doesn't care what food you eat as long as you're within a certain calorie range.

livedadream

mathie wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

i have crohns disease so cant eat high fiber or the norm ''healthy foods'' my diet includes a fair amount of carbs (not overly processed but in general carbs) yes calories are just that a measurement of energy, but for a beginner, counting calories is a good way to learn that you were over eating and that you can be satified by a lower amount of food and teaches you to make a more informed choice, ie your  physically hungry at 8pm after your dinner do you grab a packet of biscuits or do you think okay i have 300 calories before i get maxed out so ill have an apple and some peanut butter or an egg to fill my hunger?

I think you can make a more informed choice without needing to be a slave to calories.

If you're hungry a couple of hours after your dinner then I'd say you've not eaten a dinner that has provided satiety.

and I understand that, but we are both coming from a background of knowing what choices to make,

if the OP is almost 17 stone she obviously hasnt that knowledge or if she does doenst know how to apply it in a reasonable way. from an ED to almost 17 stone the knowledge is either eat nothing or restrict heavily so the basics is the best advise we can give her.
that and see a GP and clinical dietician.