Training harder, sleeping better, eatting beyond clean but not losing weight

theballz · 15-08-2020 5:47pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Do you still eat those snacks but just earlier in the day now?

Yes I do. When I was snacking it was a protein bar or maybe some left over dinner. It’s certainly all relevant but it was never really unhealthy snacking

Alf Veedersane · 15-08-2020 5:54pm

theballz wrote: »

Yes I do. When I was snacking it was a protein bar or maybe some left over dinner. It’s certainly all relevant but it was never really unhealthy snacking

Not chicken fillets or chicken wrap then? Fair enough.

Sos88sos88 · 15-08-2020 6:27pm

theballz wrote:

I was 110kg, as if this morning I was 102.1kg.

theballz wrote:

For the month of August I am taking in 1.8k calories. September will be 1.6k, October 1.4k etc etc

theballz wrote:

The ultimate goal is to get down to 90kg.

Well done!

Cill94 · 15-08-2020 7:41pm

ittakestwo wrote: »

Some people get very offended when suggested that eating in a smaller window of 8 hours is more efficient for the body rather than let say 12 hours.

But look at tribes around the world that have have no western influence and they all eat in windows of 8 hours are less and humans evolved on this. It is in more modern times aided with the invention of electricity that windows have become longer and so has obesity. Humans are at their most efficient when eating in windows of around 8 hours.

Stating a scientific fact in order to educate people isn't the same as being offended. Restricting eating to certain windows may certainly work, but pretending that it's for a reason other than calorie reduction is not helping anyone.

Also to your example, correlation does not equal causation. You're ignoring a swathe of other differences between us and those tribes. You're just cherry picking to suit your bias.

Mellor · 16-08-2020 4:05am

theballz wrote: »

Thanks mate but tbh, I actually don’t think I have reduced calories massively (it at all.) I eat the same just at different times (within 12-8pm.)

You just said you were eating 1.8k calories? That has to be a reduction.

ittakestwo wrote: »

Some people get very offended when suggested that eating in a smaller window of 8 hours is more efficient for the body rather than let say 12 hours.

But look at tribes around the world that have have no western influence and they all eat in windows of 8 hours are less and humans evolved on this. It is in more modern times aided with the invention of electricity that windows have become longer and so has obesity. Humans are at their most efficient when eating in windows of around 8 hours.

The tribes survive on less food as well as shorter windows. Attributing lack of obesity to the window and not a lack of excess food is very odd.

What do you think I “more efficient” means?
As if there was a more efficient way of eating that would result is bigger net energy gain. Which would mean less weight loss not more.

ittakestwo · 16-08-2020 6:51am

Mellor wrote: »

You just said you were eating 1.8k calories? That has to be a reduction.

The tribes survive on less food as well as shorter windows. Attributing lack of obesity to the window and not a lack of excess food is very odd.

What do you think I “more efficient” means?
As if there was a more efficient way of eating that would result is bigger net energy gain. Which would mean less weight loss not more.

Your body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat when it goes longer periods without food. The body loves repetition and if you doing something regularly it gets more efficient at it. In this case longer periods without food will make your body more efficient at taking energy from fat as it is doing it more often. Which will help people trying to lose weight burn off fat. Your body's preference is to take its energy from its recent carb store but the longer you go out without eating will force your body to take energy from fat aswell.

Mellor · 16-08-2020 7:13am

ittakestwo wrote: »

Your body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat when it goes longer periods without food. The body loves repetition and if you doing something regularly it gets more efficient at it. In this case longer periods without food will make your body more efficient at taking energy from fat as it is doing it more often. Which will help people trying to lose weight burn off fat. Your body's preference is to take its energy from its recent carb store but the longer you go out without eating will force your body to take energy from fat aswell.

If a body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat (or from food) that means that it loses less energy in the process. Therefore it needs to burn less fat. I don’t think efficient is the word you mean. As increased efficiency would hinder weight loss.

So, let’s say you train your body to get increased energy from body fat. What do you propose happens to energy from food? Where does it go instead.

You are just throwing out buzz-words. None of the things you are describing would lead to increased weight loss without an accompanying decrease in energy intake. It still comes back to energy balance, always.

Cill94 · 16-08-2020 11:36am

ittakestwo wrote: »

Your body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat when it goes longer periods without food.

The irony here is that this is a mechanism used by our bodies to avoid losing body fat, like in a starvation scenario. Also happens when people drop their calories drastically.

As mellor has pointed out, efficient calorie usage from our body's perspective = less calories burned, as it ensures survival. Having visible abs is not something our metabolisms care about.

ittakestwo · 16-08-2020 2:04pm

No it gets more efficient as it is able to do it better.

I got this tip when training for marathons. I use to "hit the wall" this is basically when your body has depleted its carb store and cant get take energy from its fat store quick enough to keep you going.

However a tip I got was to run every second long run on an empty stomach. Get up in morning and have no breakfast and go for a run. At first this made no sense. And I felt like **** and would do a terrible time on these runs but it trains your body to take energy from fat. As you do this more often your body gets more efficient at this and gives you energy quicker in situations than if you're not trained. I run sub 3 hour marathons now and dont hit the wall. Could run a marathon without even taking food on now. Body has got more efficient at taking its energy from fat. If you have not trained to this when your body runs out of its carb you're gone.. Body loves repetition. Doing something regularly and it will start recognises what your doing and it adapts to it. Long windows without food will help body to take energy from fat. It will take energy from fat quicker than if you're not trained.

Alf Veedersane · 16-08-2020 2:52pm

Conflating different things there. Plenty of studies that show that while fasted cardio may burn fat to fuel the exercise, it doesn't necessarily mean changes in body composition (comparing with someone on same calories eating before cardio) because the full day picture shows changes in fat oxidation across the day.

theballz · 16-08-2020 3:27pm

Mellor wrote: »

If a body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat (or from food) that means that it loses less energy in the process. Therefore it needs to burn less fat. I don’t think efficient is the word you mean. As increased efficiency would hinder weight loss.

So, let’s say you train your body to get increased energy from body fat. What do you propose happens to energy from food? Where does it go instead.

You are just throwing out buzz-words. None of the things you are describing would lead to increased weight loss without an accompanying decrease in energy intake. It still comes back to energy balance, always.

I agree with both of you, however, your bold wording is probably something that I have not mentioned, I am certainly more drained of energy throughout the day primarily between 10am-12pm, the odd thing is however, I train at 7am and I have more energy then ever.

Again, I’m no expert I can only say what works for me. Reading both your posts is educational tbh

Mellor · 16-08-2020 3:28pm

ittakestwo wrote: »

No it gets more efficient as it is able to do it better.

Yes.
Which would reduce metabolic needs and therefore weight loss.[/quote]

I got this tip when training for marathons. I use to "hit the wall" this is basically when your body has depleted its carb store and cant get take energy from its fat store quick enough to keep you going.

However a tip I got was to run every second long run on an empty stomach. Get up in morning and have no breakfast and go for a run. At first this made no sense. And I felt like **** and would do a terrible time on these runs but it trains your body to take energy from fat. As you do this more often your body gets more efficient at this and gives you energy quicker in situations than if you're not trained.

You are referring to depleting glycogen stores.

I run sub 3 hour marathons now and dont hit the wall. Could run a marathon without even taking food on now. Body has got more efficient at taking its energy from fat. If you have not trained to this when your body runs out of its carb you're gone..

As I suggested above, your are not referring to efficiency. You are referring to output capacity.
And yes, carb restricted training will increase fat metabolism. That’s how keto works.

But the energy used doesn’t change, as you claimed.

Body loves repetition. Doing something regularly and it will start recognises what your doing and it adapts to it. Long windows without food will help body to take energy from fat. It will take energy from fat quicker than if you're not trained.

Except that if you are eating the same food in less hours. Your energy from food is the same, and your glycogen stored is the same, and your body is taking the same energy from fat. So it’s under the exact same stress, so nothing changes.

calfmuscle · 16-08-2020 4:55pm

This is obviously in no way scientific but just an A side. I only eat between 11 and 8 as insulin resistant in the morning. Its in no way keeping me skinny!!! Siggggggh

Cill94 · 16-08-2020 5:19pm

theballz wrote: »

I agree with both of you, however, your bold wording is probably something that I have not mentioned, I am certainly more drained of energy throughout the day primarily between 10am-12pm, the odd thing is however, I train at 7am and I have more energy then ever.

Again, I’m no expert I can only say what works for me. Reading both your posts is educational tbh

By energy he means calories, not how you feel.

Mars Bar · 16-08-2020 5:36pm

calfmuscle wrote: »

This is obviously in no way scientific but just an A side. I only eat between 11 and 8 as insulin resistant in the morning. Its in no way keeping me skinny!!! Siggggggh

Well you won't if you're not eating in a calorie deficit.

Jayesdiem · 16-08-2020 5:54pm

There is some pile of garbage written in here, amongst one or two sane voices. That’s what made the old forum more exciting I suppose. Anyway, to those who have told you, quite simply, that you need a calorie deficit and no more - those are the ones to listen to. Everything else was just pseudoscience or, even worse, personal anecdote. Even if you were counting the cals wrong on a daily basis, that wouldn’t have mattered as long as you were counting them wrong, in a different way, every day - ie you count the 300 cal choc bar as 200 one day and 400 the next. If you count it as 400 every day, despite being incorrect, your inaccuracy wouldn’t have mattered as long as you were reliably inaccurate. I suspect the consistency with which you accurately recorded your caloric intake, whether correct or incorrect, improved. And on the sleep issue, don’t buy the “5 hours isn’t enough” horse dung. If you feel good every day it is enough and the 8 hour number can be disregarded as a junk average from years of research on the topic. Sleep is the same as any other process in the human body. Some need lots, some need a little. It all translates to this simple average that is representative of the wider population, but not necessarily any particular individual. Ask people where they got this 8 hour figure and what the level variance of the statistic is. If they can’t tell you, they simply heard it from someone else and are just parroting it.

calfmuscle · 16-08-2020 6:00pm

Mars Bar wrote: »

Well you won't if you're not eating in a calorie deficit.

That was kinda my point....:D

Mellor · 17-08-2020 1:13am

theballz wrote: »

I agree with both of you, however, your bold wording is probably something that I have not mentioned, I am certainly more drained of energy throughout the day primarily between 10am-12pm, the odd thing is however, I train at 7am and I have more energy then ever.

By energy I meant energy intake, ie food/calories.
But what you describe is normal. On a reasonable deficit you'd expect energy levels to dip a bit to preserve energy a bit.
As you drop calories further it will dip more. There's a limit to how much fat you can burn per day, so decreasing beyond that will affect weight loss more than energy levels.

radiotrickster · 25-08-2020 12:29pm

Jayesdiem wrote: »

And on the sleep issue, don’t buy the “5 hours isn’t enough” horse dung. If you feel good every day it is enough and the 8 hour number can be disregarded as a junk average from years of research on the topic. Sleep is the same as any other process in the human body. Some need lots, some need a little.

Just want to chip in on this as I'd been following the thread due to being in the same situation (eating better, less calories, exercising more and not losing weight).

The past week, I've seen loads online about how not sleeping enough doesn't give the body all the time it needs to lose weight (or something like that).

Usually I go to sleep around 12:30am, wake up at 7. I went to sleep an hour earlier last night and I've been pure exhausted since I woke up. I'll try sleeping extra for the rest of the week but honestly I think 6.5 hours is right for me!

Cill94 · 25-08-2020 1:18pm

radiotrickster wrote: »

The past week, I've seen loads online about how not sleeping enough doesn't give the body all the time it needs to lose weight (or something like that).

Usually I go to sleep around 12:30am, wake up at 7. I went to sleep an hour earlier last night and I've been pure exhausted since I woke up. I'll try sleeping extra for the rest of the week but honestly I think 6.5 hours is right for me!

Poor sleep is associated with an increase in stress hormones, which will impede fat loss.

As with anything, quantity and quality matter for sleep. Quality is dependant on how many sleep cycles you get in a night and what phase of the cycle you wake up in.

If you wake in the less deep phases of the sleep cycle, you will feel better than if you had slept longer but woke up during heavy REM sleep.

I'm no sleep expert though, so I may stand corrected by someone more knowledgable.

Alf Veedersane · 25-08-2020 8:03pm

Slight aside but this Joe Rogan podcast is largely about sleep and is really interesting.

Bandara · 25-08-2020 11:03pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Slight aside but this Joe Rogan podcast is largely about sleep and is really interesting.

I presume your talking about the podcast he did with the brilliant Matthew Walker, the foremost authority of sleep in the world.

An absolutely fascinating and essential listen,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pwaWilO_Pig

Enjoy.

the baby bull elephant · 25-08-2020 11:33pm

Bandara wrote: »

I presume your talking about the podcast he did with the brilliant Matthew Walker, the foremost authority of sleep in the world.

An absolutely fascinating and essential listen,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pwaWilO_Pig

Enjoy.

https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/

That one?

I admit I have no real interest or knowledge of Walker but I remember coming across that criticism because it is quite... thorough.

Alf Veedersane · 26-08-2020 3:00am

Dan Pardi was also on one of the earlier Sigma Nutrition podcasts as well.

https://sigmanutrition.com/episode38/

There's a transcript there as well.

scilover · 26-08-2020 3:28am

theballz wrote: »

Hi All

I am a 31 year old male, my weight since my late twenties has been an issue but I love training and have gone up and down in weight over the years.

Cliffs: when I train I see results

This time round however is different.
I train 5 days a week (2 upper body workouts, 2 lower body, 1 full body,) burning around 500-600 kcals per session with avg heart rate between 120-130bpm

I eat clean, salad for lunch and salad for dinner. Protein in both servings with a small portion of carbs. I train early in the morning before work and have 2 scoops of whey protein. I don’t have any breakfast outside of that

I sleep well 5-6 hours an night and my stress levels are average (covid has been a challenge,) my wellness and mental health in general is good. I take some time to excerise my mind daily by reading and I meditate for about 20-30 mins a day.

Overall, I feel better than ever before. I am lifting heavier than ever before, I am enjoying training more than I ever have and my body shape is changing (muscle growth.)

However, with all of this in my mind. I cannot seem
to shift the fat. I think my issue is I eat late at night, snack until 10pm (chicken fillets, chicken wrap.)

Any ideas?

I got you, I also face the same kind of problem. Why is it the problem actually?

rubadub · 27-08-2020 2:10pm

If sleep or intermittent fasting effect weight are farmers taking advantage of it? alarm clocks waking up cows all hours of the night so they don't lose weight, and/or making sure they are fed their set amount of food in small amounts all day long so they do not lose weight by any fasting mechanism.

theballz · 31-08-2020 10:08am

theballz wrote: »

-Update-

Thanks to all for the advise.
I made some adjustments to my diet 7 days ago and I have lost 4.2kg.

In short, I have keep the diet the same, excerise the same but began intermittent fasting. 16 hour fast daily - working wonders and delighted with the early results

- Update -

6 weeks into training

Total weight loss: 12.4kg

Plan: Workout 6 days a week (5 days - 7 am in gym) burning 700-850 calories per session (as per apple watch), Saturday Pilates.
Overall burn between 1600-1800 calories a day, between workout and walking (12k steps average.) Calorie intake for August was 1,600

Strategy for Sept:
- Strict Calorie intake (1400)
- Including cardio finisher with gym workout (avg. BPM per workout 130)
- Strict 7 day intermittent fast (continue)

Goal for Sept:
- Loss 4-5kg

atilladehun · 31-08-2020 12:30pm

Brilliant stuff.

What does 1600 cals look like for you?

theballz · 01-09-2020 10:39am

atilladehun wrote: »

Brilliant stuff.

What does 1600 cals look like for you?

Well I use an apple watch to measure, i give myself a 40% delta on inaccuracy reading. So I am for 2,100-2,000 cals a day on the watch.

In the morning in the gym I will burn 1000-1.2k calories, I do a HIIT session (this morning was focused on benching, pull ups and push excerises for about an hour.) Then I do 30 minute cardio (assault bike and rowing machine.)

I try to do 14k steps throughout the day, my average is 12.2k and ultimately that will roll up to the 2.1/2.2k (1.6k reality that I give myself.)

Mellor · 01-09-2020 11:24am

theballz wrote: »

I try to do 14k steps throughout the day, my average is 12.2k and ultimately that will roll up to the 2.1/2.2k (1.6k reality that I give myself.)

Where are you getting the notion of 1600 being reality?

Your calorie burn couldn’t possibly be that low.
Do you wear the watch 24/7?

theballz · 01-09-2020 11:27am

Mellor wrote: »

Where are you getting the notion of 1600 being reality?

Your calorie burn couldn’t possibly be that low.
Do you wear the watch 24/7?

Becasue Apple have a 40% error delta, Fitbit is the most accurate - it's not a notion.

I wear my watch 20-23 hours a day. I wear it as I sleep and charge it for an hour or two in the evenings around 8-9pm.

Why couldn't my "calorie burn be that low?"

01-09-2020 11:38am

theballz wrote: »

Becasue Apple have a 40% error delta, Fitbit is the most accurate - it's not a notion.

I wear my watch 20-23 hours a day. I wear it as I sleep and charge it for an hour or two in the evenings around 8-9pm.

Why couldn't my "calorie burn be that low?"

If i sit on the couch all day and don't move, my calorie burn is 1800+
It seems very unlikely that's your 24 hour calories
have you tried a few tdee calcs to get a rough guide?

theballz · 01-09-2020 11:42am

bluewolf wrote: »

If i sit on the couch all day and don't move, my calorie burn is 1800+
It seems very unlikely that's your 24 hour calories
have you tried a few tdee calcs to get a rough guide?

I can't speak for anyone else mate, this strategy is working for me and the weighting scales is saying the same.

01-09-2020 11:52am

theballz wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else mate, this strategy is working for me and the weighting scales is saying the same.

just curious, your progress is brilliant obviously and not saying you should change anything

Mars Bar · 01-09-2020 5:01pm

bluewolf wrote: »

If i sit on the couch all day and don't move, my calorie burn is 1800+
It seems very unlikely that's your 24 hour calories
have you tried a few tdee calcs to get a rough guide?

Jesus, lucky you! If I st on the couch all day and don't move my calorie burn according to my fitbit would be between 1,100 and 1,200!

alanhiggyno1 · 01-09-2020 7:12pm

get yourself a myfitness pal account.excellent for losing weight and connects to apple watch/fitbit etc.does absoutely everthing and has a in built barcode scanner to scan everything u eat and is 100 percent accurate

01-09-2020 8:00pm

Mars Bar wrote: »

Jesus, lucky you! If I st on the couch all day and don't move my calorie burn according to my fitbit would be between 1,100 and 1,200!

Jaysus maybe I'm a weirdo so

Mellor · 02-09-2020 12:46pm

theballz wrote: »

Becasue Apple have a 40% error delta, Fitbit is the most accurate - it's not a notion.

I’ve heard of errors where apple didn’t consider a person weight or the way it tracks active vrs resting cals. But 40% would be massive.

Although 2100 to 1600 is 24% drop.

I wear my watch 20-23 hours a day. I wear it as I sleep and charge it for an hour or two in the evenings around 8-9pm.

I was just checking if sleep calories were included. Appears they are.

Why couldn't my "calorie burn be that low?"

1600 calories burn would be about right for a 50kg female training as much as you. (I don’t know what you weigh, but assume it’s not 50kg)

Quite simply. If you were only burning 1600-1800 and eating 1600. Then you wouldn’t be losing weight, maybe only 500g for the month.
But you’ve lost 8kg in August, (I think). Which is huge. And relates to about a 2000 cal deficit.
By any chance is the Apple Watch displaying “active calories” rather than total?

Regardless of real numbers, what you’re doing is working. I certainly don’t see the point in decreasing intake further. There is a limit to how much fat you can lose, after that your just losing muscle.

Mellor · 02-09-2020 12:54pm

Mars Bar wrote: »

Jesus, lucky you! If I st on the couch all day and don't move my calorie burn according to my fitbit would be between 1,100 and 1,200!

If don’t wear my Fitbit for a day, the app says 1740 cals. that’s about what I’d burn if I stayed in bed.

Mars Bar · 02-09-2020 3:36pm

Mellor wrote: »

If don’t wear my Fitbit for a day, the app says 1740 cals. that’s about what I’d burn if I stayed in bed.

I am a 4ft 11 and 44kg female in fairness...

theballz · 09-01-2021 9:21am

Quick update:

6 months in. 22kg lost

Please PM if you are looking for any tips (I’ve learned a lot over the last 6 months!)

Training harder, sleeping better, eatting beyond clean but not losing weight

Comments