Losing weight

Señor Arroz wrote:

This might surprise you but it's entirely possible you're UNDEREATING.

At your height, weight, age you need about 3,330 calories daily to maintain your weight.

Where on earth did you get that figure? It's incorrect. A 5'10" male at 220 lbs is considered obese.
Here: ​https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/toolkit/olderadults/OAweight.htm

This site/page is pretty useful as well: ​https://www.lifespanfitness.com/fitness/resources/calories-calculator​​​

Ten years ago at age 33 I lost around 40 pounds in five months (205 => 165), and I've been able to keep it off. I just did it the old-fashioned way -- eat less (way less), exercise more (way more). It would be difficult to exercise now as much as I did then just because of recovery. I started climbing not long after, and this has been a good motivator to keep it off. Here were a few details that I think are pertinent.

- I completely stopped eating out at restaurants for several months. (Yes, my social life was consequently more pathetic than usual.) There is evidence that weight gain is episodic, so that one bad Thanksgiving meal or all-you-can-eat Indian buffet can be responsible for a substantial portion of your weight gain in a year. (Watch out for that creamed spinach, it packs a wallop). It's hard to monitor and control calories at a restaurant, and the food tends to be over-salted compared to what I eat at home.

- I almost completely stopped drinking, cutting my consumption to a beer or two once per week.

- To gauge meal size and frequency, I would eat just enough so that I was always just a little bit hungry.

- My exercise went through the roof. I was working out 6-7 days/week, with each session lasting nearly 2 hours (cardio, weights, and hill sprints). Like I said, I couldn't do this every day any more.

- The good news is that once the weight was off, I could keep it off through through a more sustainable level of eating, drinking, and exercise. So the good news is that the suffering is temporary.

- Most importantly, I did not consult with a professional before embarking on this plan, so this could have been unhealthy. I seem to be fine, though my friends might tell you different. There is also recent evidence from Biggest Loser contestants that rapid weight loss may actually slow your metabolism and be self-defeating. This hasn't been my experience though.

I lost about 15 pounds a year ago. 49 years old, 5'8", was 163, am now in the high 140's. My climbing got a lot better.

I tried to stay in the 1600-2000cal range and eat "heathy" (minimize sugars, make sure I get protein, etc), but not any particular diet. By cutting out all snacking I was able to lose the weight fairly easily. I think about dropping down to 140 sometimes, but my current weight seems to be where my body wants me to be; it's hard for me to drop below this, and it's close enough to where I want to be that I don't worry about it much.

Marc801 C wrote: Where on earth did you get that figure? It's incorrect. A 5'10" male at 220 lbs is considered obese.
Here: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/toolkit/olderadults/OAweight.htm

I didn't say he wasn't. I'm doing basic caloric needs math. A body, regardless of thin or obese, has a number to MAINTAIN (caloric balance). Above that (caloric surplus) a body will GAIN. Below it the body will LOSE (lose). However, bodies are more complicated than simple caloric physics. So if a person shocks their system by suddenly going from, say, 3,000 to 1,500 calories, they're going to both feel like shit and their body is likely to respond by suppressing its metabolism in ways that backfire on the weight loss front. So it's smarter to eat at a reasonable and manageable calorie deficit than to overdo it and have your body try to hold on to its fat reserves because it thinks there's a famine happening.

The easiest way to achieve a reasonable caloric deficit IMO is simply to cut out the crappy food that most of us really like and replace it with good food. It's really hard to overeat with a quality diet.

If you're going to calorie count, though, it pays to be realistic about it. Also, to recalculate when you start losing weight, because your target numbers will shift.

Señor Arroz wrote:

I didn't say he wasn't. I'm doing basic caloric needs math. 

Not quite sure what you are using for your math calculations. OP says he is maintaining his weight at his 2300 calorie diet. You suggest some imaginary number that is not based on any dietary recommendations, then conclude that OP is running 1000 calorie deficit. While maintaining his weight, at the number that would label him obese based on the generic BMI approach.

There is a bunch of unknowns in this - 2300 calorie intake estimate, unknown calorie burn, unknown time interval for stable weight, but one thing for sure - OP is NOT running 1000 calorie deficit, unless he is somehow hitting 220lb with ~5% body fat and has no more fat and muscle mass to loose

FrankPS wrote: There are a lot of fad diets out there (no carbs, no sugar, only protein, etc.). In the end, it is about "calories in versus calories out." People will say that there are "fat-burning foods" and certain calories are different than others, depending on the foods, but I don't think that is supported by science.

As we age, and our metabolism slows down, it becomes more important to limit our caloric intake.

Calories in versus calories out.  Unfortunately, it's more about cutting back on the calories in, as it is difficult to exercise enough to offset your caloric intake. And cutting back on the calories takes self-discipline. That rules me out!

This.  Avoid “empty calories” (sugar), as they will do nothing for you nutritionally but add to the calorie count.  If you drink soda, beer, etc replace these with water.  As much as people like to talk about “dad bods,” I actually lost a lot of weight when I had my first kid, as I didn’t have time to drink but still exercised to keep sane.  Also, don’t be afraid to skip meals or eat really light for one of them...this seemed to (accidentally) do the trick for me, as I had an early lunch break that I would often work through and rarely ate lunch.  This is also really good metabolism training for climbing, as eating a big lunch in the middle of the day is usually not conducive to climbing.

djh860 wrote: I’m at least 30 pounds over weight.  I’m 5’10” and 220lbs.  I’m looking for an easy to follow method to help guide me and track my weight loss effort.  I work out every day mostly boxing and stair master stuff but also Climbing so I don’t think I can burn this weight off.  I consume about 2300 calorie s a day right now.  I’m 58 and my metabolism  seems to have slowed.   Any help appreciated 

This link …  https://caloriecontrol.org/healthy-weight-tool-kit/assessment-calculator/  says you should only be consuming 2006 calories if you want to lose weight.

Justing..... solid post.

​

amarius wrote:

Not quite sure what you are using for your math calculations. OP says he is maintaining his weight at his 2300 calorie diet. You suggest some imaginary number that is not based on any dietary recommendations, then conclude that OP is running 1000 calorie deficit. While maintaining his weight, at the number that would label him obese based on the generic BMI approach.

There is a bunch of unknowns in this - 2300 calorie intake estimate, unknown calorie burn, unknown time interval for stable weight, but one thing for sure - OP is NOT running 1000 calorie deficit, unless he is somehow hitting 220lb with ~5% body fat and has no more fat and muscle mass to loose

The OP is saying what he's eating NOW while trying to lose weight. Not what he's been eating for years to get fat.

Feel free to offer up your alternate math. Basic caloric needs calculators are everywhere. This is a good one. Enter the OP's basic stats, 70 inches tall, 58 years old, moderately active (about 1 hour day on their pull down menu) and see what it says. Then subtract about 500 calories. That would be reasonable starting point for weight loss. 

Counting calories doesn't say how much *you* need to eat to lose weight. 

justing wrote: 
- There is evidence that weight gain is episodic, so that one bad Thanksgiving meal or all-you-can-eat Indian buffet can be responsible for a substantial portion of your weight gain in a year. (Watch out for that creamed spinach, it packs a wallop). It's hard to monitor and control calories at a restaurant, and the food tends to be over-salted compared to what I eat at home.

I think your post, in general, is really spot on. But weight gain is NOT episodic in the sense of a single meal causing "a substantial portion of your weight gain over a year."

People often go to a sodium-laced buffet (like you cite) and think they've gained 5 lbs from it. But that's just water retention from all the salt. And you piss that out the next day once your sodium levels return to normal. When we're talking about "weight gain" we typically mean putting on excess body fat (unless someone is concerned about muscle). To put on a single pound of excess body fat requires a dietary SURPLUS of 3,500 calories. And that's over time, nobody gains a pound of fat overnight just because they ate a gallon of Ben & Jerry's (which isn't even 3,500 calories.)

The key to keeping weight in control is in your regular habits. A Thanksgiving meal or a big birthday desert splurge is almost insignificant in the averaging of time. 

Jared M wrote: Go talk to a nutritionist. Don't rely on anecdotes and ill-informed opinions from MP.

It's easy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9ORsmMB17k Tape worms to the rescue

Marc801 C wrote:
And there’s no reason for anyone to eat 12oz of protein in one meal.  Even 8 is excessive. Think more on the order of 4 - 6 oz.

Ryan Swanson wrote: <Image meme saying "I don't believe you">

Your profile says you're 28 - come back in 30 years when your metabolism slows and you can't eat as much yet you still find you're putting on weight or having a more difficult time losing it.
I'm 63 and noticed a significant change about 2 years ago, but frankly I couldn't eat a 12oz steak even when I was 35 - just too much. These days most restaurants target a protein portion for a dinner entree at 6oz.

Señor Arroz wrote:

The OP is saying what he's eating NOW while trying to lose weight. Not what he's been eating for years to get fat.

Feel free to offer up your alternate math. Basic caloric needs calculators are everywhere. This is a good one. Enter the OP's basic stats, 70 inches tall, 58 years old, moderately active (about 1 hour day on their pull down menu) and see what it says. Then subtract about 500 calories. That would be reasonable starting point for weight loss. 

The problem with that calculator is that it really makes a lot of internal assumptions regarding activity level. In the selection list, you only have activity time/day to specify. It doesn't account for level of activity. Selecting between "less than 1 hr/day" and "more than 1hr/day" results in over a 900 Cal difference.

And of course there's metabolic rate that can vary quite a bit between individuals. I'm maintaining my weight (183lbs, 6'0", 63yrs, male) on ~1900 Cal/day, which includes at least 30 min of moderate exercise / day.

Marc801 C wrote:

The problem with that calculator is that it really makes a lot of internal assumptions regarding activity level.

Of course. It's an online calculator. Most of these use the Harris-Benedict formula to calculate needs. Here's another one with more options on the activity level. 

​https://manytools.org/handy/bmr-calculator/go​​​

Guy Keesee wrote:

Dallas.... if you’re like me, you can gain 10 lbs in a weekend... just go and eat like everyone at BBQ birthday party

Feels like it.  It's definitely easier to put it on than to take it off.  Wasn't always so. 

Señor Arroz wrote:

I think your post, in general, is really spot on. But weight gain is NOT episodic in the sense of a single meal causing "a substantial portion of your weight gain over a year."

I was thinking of periods of time such as the holidays, which is often focused around a small handful of meals, and is found to contribute to long-term weight gain. As in the studies cited here: https://straighthealth.com/holiday-weight-gain/

A larger than normal meal on my birthday (i'm looking at you, three meat barbecue platter with mac n cheese, plus some beer, minus some exercise) can easily lead to a 2000 calorie surplus on a given day. That's almost 2/3 of a pound. Take a few of those per year, and pennies make pounds, as they say.

I've been following this informative discussion, since I fit into this age/weight category of 50(!) Years old and a Clydesdale at 6' 2", 195 lbs.

 I keep getting that nagging feeling that I could improve my performance in small increments if I just employ a tiny bit more dietary discipline. No way I'm giving up my post climbing beers.  

I'm climbing what I want to climb so what's the point? But still, if I could just get down to and sustain 190...would that open up even more possibilities...

Do you think losing just 5 lbs would make any difference for the avg 5.10+ to 5.11, 50 y/o trad wanker?

Thanks for this interesting thread.  

I'm 61 and 5'-10", and though I don't have the same body type as you, I'm still trying to lose some weight. I'm doing the 16-8 fasting strategy. The number one effect has been to cut out morning pastries and post-gym, late night beer. Otherwise, I eat normally (basic Mediterranean eating pattern). The article I linked gives a good overview without hype. I choose it because my spouse recommended it (she's highly knowledgeable in areas of physiology and nutrition, and the science behind it is solid).
I've had to get used to feeling hungry before going to sleep, but that hasn't been that bad. Tea and water do wonders. It's nice because it doesn't really affect my meals. I just eat.

justing wrote: I was thinking of periods of time such as the holidays, which is often focused around a small handful of meals, and is found to contribute to long-term weight gain. As in the studies cited here: https://straighthealth.com/holiday-weight-gain/

A larger than normal meal on my birthday (i'm looking at you, three meat barbecue platter with mac n cheese, plus some beer, minus some exercise) can easily lead to a 2000 calorie surplus on a given day. That's almost 2/3 of a pound. Take a few of those per year, and pennies make pounds, as they say.

Thanks for sharing that article. It's interesting but probably worth noting that they say the "Participants gained 1.06 pounds during the entire holiday season (September through March)." September through March is SEVEN months. It's also winter, which for many people is a time of putting on weight for a number of reasons including lack of exercise, seasonal depression, etc. That hardly nails it down to a single meal or a single holiday, even.

Re. overeating by 2,000 calories on a given day. Luckily, we're not that efficient at metabolizing everything that goes into our mouths. So that one time gallon of Ben and Jerry's actually doesn't turn into 2/3 of a pound of chub. But, yes, regular and systematic overeating is what makes us fat.

By the way, I don't want to present myself as some sort of nutritionist. 90% of what I've learned about nutrition and diet came from my now-deceased friend Steve Edwards.  

I think his bona fides, though, are pretty clear.