Post a Picture of Yourself!

It's excersise and diet, both are important. But as I said, you need to adapt the regime to the person starting to losing. And you don't have to run - in fact I wouldn't recommend anyone to start running at 25 kg+. Like Dartagnan said: walking is just fine.

Any increase in activity increases energy consumption and weight loss (if you take care of your eating as well), you don't have workout so and so hard or for so and so long.
 
I was talking about losing weight, and keeping the weight afterwards.

Of course it's about energy intake versus energy consumption (possibly also the metabolic effect of different foodstuffs). And of course, you have to adapt the regime to what works best for each person. If it's impossible to get a person to excersise, then by all means go for diet only. And if meticulously counting kJ's work for you, great. But it doesn't have to be that complicated.

FWIW, I am impressed by you losing 30 kg.

But to say that excersize is of minor importance is wrong. There have been a lot of studies of weight loss regimes, and again and again we find that diet combined with excersise in general give significantly better results than diet alone. It is considered and important factor for weight loss. At least as long as we're talking about healthy regimes.

Maybe you were only sharing your experience, and if that's the case I have no issues with what you wrote. But when you say:

"Excercise is a relatively minor aspect of weight loss."

and

"The most challenging aspect, really, is keeping the numbers straight in your head. Every single thing you put in your mouth, needs to be calculated precisely"

I interpreted it as something more that that, that you were saying something like "this is how it is", and not "this is my experience".

Every single thing I say is based on my experiences.

I don't do well telling people "how it is" - but I also can't be bothered to CONSTANTLY say "In my opinion" - just as you don't do it either.

I know it sounds like I'm saying such things, but I think it's because it's so implicitly obvious that none of us own the objective truth. As such, nothing will ever be anything but our experience - and opinions based on our knowledge.

So, excercise is great - but in my experience, it's definitely not a big thing compared to the diet aspect.
 
Every single thing I say is based on my experiences.

I don't do well telling people "how it is" - but I also can't be bothered to CONSTANTLY say "In my opinion" - just as you don't do it either.
Fair enough. Point taken, and I agree. Which I should have realized a bit earlier.
I know it sounds like I'm saying such things, but I think it's because it's so implicitly obvious that none of us own the objective truth. As such, nothing will ever be anything but our experience - and opinions based on our knowledge.

So, excercise is great - but in my experience, it's definitely not a big thing compared to the diet aspect.
Yepp. Obviously that regime has worked very well for you. Which is good.
 
Yepp. *cough, cough* Page 36. I've lost some weight since then (is there any in the watch who hasn't?) - but you won't see any before and after pictures (at least not until I've installed my painter program and my drawing pad). And you won't see me nekkid (for which you should only be grateful)

Hah!
 
Exercise is great and all, but if you aren't regularly exercising AND you need to lose 25+ kg of weight then attempting to do so by exercise alone (be it lifting weights or a cardio workout) is a very inefficient way to do it. Yes it CAN be done, but just being able to run long enough to start burning fat is pretty damn hard when you're out of shape and carry too much weight around.

That's another pretty common misconception (sort of). You begin to burn fat from the very first minute of workout. The body generates energy primarily from carbohydrates (glycogen depots in the muscles and the liver), fat burning and eventually even protein burning (muscle degeneration).
Sure, as long as the body can generate most of its energy from the glycogen depots, it will not burn fat at full speed but fat is in fact being burned even that early on during a workout session. The body is not a two bit machine that does either/or operations. Carbo and fat burn go hand in hand.
The fat burn then increases as the glyco depots get emptier and emptier so, yes, a long(er) workout is naturally much more efficient for burning fat and losing weight so your sentence should have read... "being able to run long enough to start burning significant amounts of fat is pretty damn hard".
A minor thing, of course, but I thought it might be worth pointing it out since there is a common misconception "out there" that fat burn only sets in after 30 minutes of running or so (which is just wrong).

By the way: You never want to get into the phase where the body begins to generate energy from burning protein. You will always want to fill up your glycogen depots in a workout session before you reach that very unhealthy degenerative stage.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
When you go on a Very Low Calorie Diet, you consume so few calories that the body go into an alternate state called ketosis. At this point you have empty glycogen deposits so it relies primarily on energy from body fat.

For someone who wishes to loose weight, ketosis have two great advantages. You are free from hunger, and you have constant high energy which makes the body feel good. The downer is of course that you cannot eat anything more than the 3-6 liquid meals per day (depending on brand), but I have learned that after a few weeks into the diet you begin to forget your habits and not concerned with all the sensations related to consuming food. Months in (for significant loss) you are in a blank slate, and can begin a new life from scratch, meaning building up new and healthy habits with the old ones forgotten.

I took the last Cappucino milkshake in my coffee this morning and soon I will be off to the first day at the university. The last few days have meant very few meals because I am not really hungry or attracted to food. It will return pretty soon though.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
I'm guessing you went through a lot of toilet paper until your body adjusted to that. :)

Little solid food creates the opposite situation. No salt means liquid pass the body which meant constant worship to the porcelain god, often causing dehydration. "Sharp rocks" describes the other experience, without too much information.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
That's another pretty common misconception (sort of). You begin to burn fat from the very first minute of workout. The body generates energy primarily from carbohydrates (glycogen depots in the muscles and the liver), fat burning and eventually even protein burning (muscle degeneration).
Sure, as long as the body can generate most of its energy from the glycogen depots, it will not burn fat at full speed but fat is in fact being burned even that early on during a workout session. The body is not a two bit machine that does either/or operations. Carbo and fat burn go hand in hand.
The fat burn then increases as the glyco depots get emptier and emptier so, yes, a long(er) workout is naturally much more efficient for burning fat and losing weight so your sentence should have read… "being able to run long enough to start burning significant amounts of fat is pretty damn hard".
A minor thing, of course, but I thought it might be worth pointing it out since there is a common misconception "out there" that fat burn only sets in after 30 minutes of running or so (which is just wrong).
I'm no doctor or nutritional expert so I can't really comment on whether or not fat burning starts immediately or only after a certain period or even if it is different from person to person. I can only speak for myself and my own experiences and as an example I've now gotten back into the routine of regularly taking my bike to work for the past 6 weeks (ever since my summer holiday ended). The distance is 25 kilometers each way so the total is about 150 kilometers a week and the pace is around 30 Km/h, so while it is not exactly a Tour de France pace, it is enough to make me sweat like a pig. On top of that I've also gotten back into the routine of lifting weights 2-3 times a week over the past 6 weeks.

The result? Zilch. Bop-kiss. I've not lost so much as a single pound these past 6 weeks and while I've not (yet) been strictly following the Weight Consultants diet, I have been following the general guidelines (no sugar, lots of vegetables, etc).

Of course, I gain weight just by walking past fattening food and my metabolic rate has always and will always suck (hereditary, passed down from my mother), so I may not fit the standard mold ... or maybe I do. Along with a lot of other overweight people and the problem actually lies in the misconception that every works the same way.

At any rate, it doesn't really matter at which rate fat burning takes place because for people who needs to lose a lot of weight the pace will FOR MOST of them be too slow. We are talking about people who have finally decided that something needs to be done and if you need to lose 25+ kilos and months of hard work "only" leads to a loss of a few pounds, I'm pretty certain a lot of them will lose their motivation to continue. What these kind of people need is something that gets results fast ... and apart from cosmetic surgery the only way to get quick results is through your diet.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
805
Location
Just outside of Copenhagen
The result? Zilch. Bop-kiss. I've not lost so much as a single pound these past 6 weeks and while I've not (yet) been strictly following the Weight Consultants diet, I have been following the general guidelines (no sugar, lots of vegetables, etc).

That's your problem, right there.

You need to be in FULL control of what you eat, if you're not 100% certain.

That's exactly why I suggested the calorie counting method. That way, you can know with absolute certainty (more or less) that you're not consuming more than you burn.

I've been there myself, in the past, and I give you my personal guarentee that you will be SHOCKED, once you find out how much you eat, that you don't really think you eat.

The metabolism thing? Maybe - but I call BULLSHIT ;)
 
Genetics most definitely have a lot to do with bodyweight and metabolism. That doesn't mean a standard diet + excercise won't work, but it takes longer for some people than it does for others.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,228
Location
Florida, US
That's your problem, right there.

You need to be in FULL control of what you eat, if you're not 100% certain.

That's exactly why I suggested the calorie counting method. That way, you can know with absolute certainty (more or less) that you're not consuming more than you burn.

I've been there myself, in the past, and I give you my personal guarentee that you will be SHOCKED, once you find out how much you eat, that you don't really think you eat.
Exactly. Even with more than a fair bit of exercise and "normal" eating habits I get zero results. Only when I control my diet am I able to lose weight, which is why I'm saying that a proper diet is much more efficient than exercise.

The metabolism thing? Maybe - but I call BULLSHIT ;)
Well, I've been struggling with my weight all my life to the point no matter what I do or how much I exercise (within reason) yet my colleague, sitting behind me, eats nothing but burgers, french fries and bucket fulls of sweets while drinking can upon can of cola or other fizzy drinks ... and he's not got an ounce of fat on him even though he doesn't do any amount of exercise at all.

Bullshit or no, there sure is one hell of a difference between our metabolic rates.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
805
Location
Just outside of Copenhagen
Genetics most definitely have a lot to do with bodyweight and metabolism. That doesn't mean a standard diet + excercise won't work, but it takes longer for some people than it does for others.
Yes, to the point where an overweight person looking to lose weight very likely will lose hope long before any weight is lost.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
805
Location
Just outside of Copenhagen
>Originally Posted by GothicGothicness View Post
>I am trying hard to gain weight, but that's almost impossible!
Come on, now!

When I worked as a physician (general practice) I had a couple of patients with that particular problem. In some cases it was caused by increased thyreoidea hormone levels, in other cases we couldn't find a specific reason.

Oh, GG: I'm not suggesting that you suffer from some disease.
 
Last edited:
Yes, to the point where an overweight person looking to lose weight very likely will lose hope long before any weight is lost.

I understand your problem - My mother struggled with overweight throughout all of her adult life.

I assume you've had your thyreoidea function examined, if not I would do that. However, in most cases of seemingly untractable overweight, we don't find any out of reference values for those hormones (as well as a couple of others that may cause weight gain).

Have you tried weight loss together with others, in a group under guidance? In several cases such groups have been very sucessful for people who have tried and tried. And tried. But again, not for everyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom