Slightly overweight, advice please?

:plusone:

A woman's calorie intake per day should be 1500 (reducing for a diet). You cannot burn all of them off in one day, you would have to take 3 one hour spin classes a day to break even.

I find I lose more weight when I exercise, try to find some body combat or body attack classes, they keep up your motivation and give you a thorough workout.

Well that wasn't really my point, as you have a basal calorie burn dependent on how active you are (which incidently make thst cals in cals out problem worse as it's very hard to figure out how many cals you'd need).

Your calorie requirements will be different for different activity levels - wildly so, from 1500 as a basic requirement to >6k. When I was training for Ironman I was losing weight at 5k cals a day (and I was training on average for 1-2hrs not training all day). Even now I'm only just putting it back on with consuming 3500 calls a day eating meat, veggies, some fruit and some good fats. No processed food at all (unless you count my couple of bottles of red wine at the weekend processed). What you eat has a far greater impact on what your body does with carbs, protein and fat. It's worth investigating for yourself to understand the long and medium term impacts of how you eat.
 
you have to take that with a pinch of salt though, "overweight" is probably calculated by weight and height by the nurse.

but if youre a short muscley person (muscle weighs more than fat) you could end up calculated as "morbidly obese" :cuckoo:

Gahhhh.

Which weighs more. A kilo of muscle or a kilo of fat? Muscle is denser than fat.

It's also impossible to turn fat into muscle - different tissue types. :p

Pet peeve of mine in case you hadn't guessed. ;)

BMI is a good indicator for the average person. If you're a body builder or similar then maybe not.
 
In the day you move and burn calories but at night you don't burn hardly any as your not moving. It does matter

That's wrong too. You burn calories when you sleep - your metabolism doesn't shut down. The reason to avoid late night snacking is merely to avoid getting into bad eating habits in the first place.
 
So no proof then :shrug:
I'm afraid that the problem with common sense is that it is not that common :)
Cals in minus Cals out is the major part of losing or gaining weight. I would agree that it a bit more complicated than just using arithmetic on the values but keeping things simple is the best way to go.
I understand from surveys that Weight Watchers is one of the best groups to join to lose weight but I sometimes feel that even they try to complicate matters in order to generate more clients.

OK - have a read of this, might help to illustrate the science a bit better...
http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/calories-incalories-out-science-says-no/

Essentially we have erroneously based this assumption (as it was an assumption) on thermodynamics.
 
Well that wasn't really my point, as you have a basal calorie burn dependent on how active you are (which incidently make thst cals in cals out problem worse as it's very hard to figure out how many cals you'd need).

Your calorie requirements will be different for different activity levels - wildly so, from 1500 as a basic requirement to >6k. When I was training for Ironman I was losing weight at 5k cals a day (and I was training on average for 1-2hrs not training all day). Even now I'm only just putting it back on with consuming 3500 calls a day eating meat, veggies, some fruit and some good fats. No processed food at all (unless you count my couple of bottles of red wine at the weekend processed). What you eat has a far greater impact on what your body does with carbs, protein and fat. It's worth investigating for yourself to understand the long and medium term impacts of how you eat.

Interesting, can you recommend any links? Interested in finding out the long term impacts of eating habits.
 
I don't have any articles to hand but not only is it common sense (100cals of brocolli is going to burn differently and have a different impact to blood sugar and hormonally than 100cals of flour) even weight watchers now recognise that cals in minus cals out doesn't have the impact that was once thought. Of course it is part of the situation but it is not a good way to approach your diet (and by diet I mean what you consume rather than what a book says you should eat on a Wenesday).

If you burn 2000 calories a day, then you burn 2000 calories a day. Consuming 2500 a day is going to result in the excess being stored as fat for leaner times, if you consume 1500 then you're going to be dipping into your fat reserves.

Eating vegetables as opposed to suet is more to do with the overall effects on your system - both will provide the necessary calories. Dieticians concern themselves with balancing dietary intake so as to minimise wild swings on your bodies various endocrine responses and to regulate fats in the bloodstream.

To the OP:

A balanced diet that avoids excessive calorie intake and especially high fat/sugar foods, coupled with regular exercise (walking a couple of miles a day briskly enough to get you breathing hard will do the job) will result in gradual weight loss.

Avoid fad and crash diets - they might yield spectacular short term effects but they're almost inevitably unhealthy (Atkins is a good example of what NOT to do) and the weight won't stay off. Dieting is as much about changing your attitude to food and exercise as weight loss. Slow and steady will lead to healthy lifestyle changes and a far higher likelihood of the weight you lose staying off. :)
 
Tony, which 2000 do you burn first? and how does your body v's my body burn fat or carbs, how does my body decide it needs 3500 v's you needing 2000 to stay the same weight, how do you know your body is using 2000 at all? how do you know you're consuming 2500 cals? how does your body turn sugar in to fat? how does you body turn fat in to energy? how does you body repair itself from lots of things but specifically different types of exercise (cycling is not the same as power lifting) etc etc etc. You could probably develop a system to work all that out for yourself over many years and then it would change as your circumstances changed. I'll refer you to the link I posted on #84 for why it's not the case.

EDIT - also while I'm not and advocate of the ATKINS diet it is a better diet than many others that prescribe low calorie, low fat diets.
 
Last edited:
If you burn 2000 calories a day, then you burn 2000 calories a day. Consuming 2500 a day is going to result in the excess being stored as fat for leaner times, if you consume 1500 then you're going to be dipping into your fat reserves.

Not strictly true according to the linky up ^^^^ there.....

You need to eat the correct amount of calories and the correct proportion of food groups to be healthy and/or to lose weight.

If you eat significantly less calories than your body actually needs (especially if you're exercising) the body gets reluctant to release fat and will do it's best to increase the amount of fat it stores.

Therefore the trick is to eat foods that give you enough calories to function that aren't readily "turned" into fat.

A high protein, low carb/fat diet would be a way to do this but not to the extreme of "Atkins"
 
Not strictly true according to the linky up ^^^^ there.....

You need to eat the correct amount of calories and the correct proportion of food groups to be healthy and/or to lose weight.

If you eat significantly less calories than your body actually needs (especially if you're exercising) the body gets reluctant to release fat and will do it's best to increase the amount of fat it stores.

Therefore the trick is to eat foods that give you enough calories to function that aren't readily "turned" into fat.

A high protein, low carb/fat diet would be a way to do this but not to the extreme of "Atkins"

worth a read (fat is not the enemy you think it is)...

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-metabolic-paradigm-shift-fat-carbs-human-body-metabolism/
 
:lol: I fell victim to associating the avatar with the person!
Re: your second post, well done with the change of diet.

Yep, that's me too, October 31st 2008 when I weighed 15st 7lbs, I had just lost 12 stone, in the next 18 months I put on another 14st 9lbs to reach the giddy heights of 30st 2lbs (BMI 60.5).
 
Gahhhh.

Which weighs more. A kilo of muscle or a kilo of fat? Muscle is denser than fat.

It's also impossible to turn fat into muscle - different tissue types. :p

Pet peeve of mine in case you hadn't guessed. ;)

BMI is a good indicator for the average person. If you're a body builder or similar then maybe not.

my bad
 
OK - have a read of this, might help to illustrate the science a bit better...
http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/calories-incalories-out-science-says-no/

Essentially we have erroneously based this assumption (as it was an assumption) on thermodynamics.

But is there any science?
All she has done is stated the laws of thermodynamics and then asserted that they do not apply to the human body without any experiments, peer review, others duplicating the experiments etc.
 
Tony, which 2000 do you burn first? and how does your body v's my body burn fat or carbs, how does my body decide it needs 3500 v's you needing 2000 to stay the same weight, how do you know your body is using 2000 at all? how do you know you're consuming 2500 cals? how does your body turn sugar in to fat? how does you body turn fat in to energy? how does you body repair itself from lots of things but specifically different types of exercise (cycling is not the same as power lifting) etc etc etc. You could probably develop a system to work all that out for yourself over many years and then it would change as your circumstances changed. I'll refer you to the link I posted on #84 for why it's not the case.

EDIT - also while I'm not and advocate of the ATKINS diet it is a better diet than many others that prescribe low calorie, low fat diets.

Again no science that the Atkins diet works because it reduces carbs, there is some suggestion that it is the lower calories that causes the weight loss.
There is also a problem that it may cause high cholesterol.
It is the same as the Banting Diet which was the fad in the late 1800s.
 
Kev - so what your saying is you're right based on no science, but I'm wrong?

Show me the peer reviewed studies that show calories in/calories out works and I'll show you 30 years of it not working. while you're at it show me the corelation between eating high fat or high protein an cholesterol.
 
Tony, which 2000 do you burn first? and how does your body v's my body burn fat or carbs, how does my body decide it needs 3500 v's you needing 2000 to stay the same weight, how do you know your body is using 2000 at all? how do you know you're consuming 2500 cals? how does your body turn sugar in to fat? how does you body turn fat in to energy? how does you body repair itself from lots of things but specifically different types of exercise (cycling is not the same as power lifting) etc etc etc. You could probably develop a system to work all that out for yourself over many years and then it would change as your circumstances changed. I'll refer you to the link I posted on #84 for why it's not the case.

EDIT - also while I'm not and advocate of the ATKINS diet it is a better diet than many others that prescribe low calorie, low fat diets.

There are differences between individuals, no doubt about that but the general principle holds. Base metabolic rates will differ according to relative fitness and other factors and that will affect the rate of calorie consumption and also how those calories are processed from their raw form - but they're still consumed. If you want to look at metabolic processes then it's going to get very complicated very quickly - but again, every human uses the same enzymatic processes and cell chemistry, and the same principles apply.
 
But it is complicated!
I think we're broadly in agreement that of course calories play a part. My thesis is that their measurement is flawed and that there are better control points that benefit folks looking to lose weight and maintain a healthy intake.

Beyond that it's degrees of good (good beef vs grass fed beef, which fats are best etc).
 
? Diet and exercise helps you lose weight?

Yup in response to your earlier post

"Show me the peer reviewed studies that show calories in/calories out works and I'll show you 30 years of it not working. while you're at it show me the corelation between eating high fat or high protein an cholesterol."


Anyway, that's the bottom line. That was the first paper I found (and I think the actual paper is in Spanish) but search on Pubmed (it's free) and you'll find plenty of peer reviewed medical science supporting the principle of calories in < calories out = weight loss.

In order of effectiveness

1. Diet and exercise
2. Diet alone
3. Exercise alone

The correlation between high cholesterol and high fat diet is well researched as well. Again, search Pubmed and you'll find plenty of decent sources ;)
 
But it is complicated!
I think we're broadly in agreement that of course calories play a part. My thesis is that their measurement is flawed and that there are better control points that benefit folks looking to lose weight and maintain a healthy intake.

Beyond that it's degrees of good (good beef vs grass fed beef, which fats are best etc).

Well considering that the calorie is a unit of heat and is somewhat outmoded in itself, there are probably better ways of measuring intake vs output. But then the megabucks industries that make money out of diets and the like would suffer :p

I'd already said in an earlier post that a well balanced diet (plenty of fruit and veg, carbohydrates but avoiding sugars, lower overall fat intake avoiding saturated fats as much as possible) and above all sensible portion control (which is where most people get it wrong!), coupled with an exercise regime that raises your heart and breathing rate for 30 minutes continuously once a day every day (and a 2 mile brisk walk will certainly do this) will result in gradual weight loss, increased cardiovascular efficiency, increased general fitness and more importantly, lifestyle/diet change - vital for maintaining the lower weight.

Cynicism aside, calorie control is what most people know and understand and it generally works.
 
Kev - so what your saying is you're right based on no science, but I'm wrong?

Show me the peer reviewed studies that show calories in/calories out works and I'll show you 30 years of it not working. while you're at it show me the corelation between eating high fat or high protein an cholesterol.

Look at Pubmed as suggested, look at NHS Direct, look at the British Heart Foundation which both have links/references to the original papers.

I can show you 15 years of it working :).
I am 5'10" and weigh 10 stone and have done for the last 15 years since giving up all meat and restricting my total fats - eliminating Saturated as much as possible while using Mono-Unsaturated to fulfill my fat needs.
My cholesterol also dropped from 7.1 to 5.2. However as I am only 1 case I would not use that as proof.

The main problem with Calorie counting is that you can count what you put in but how do you count the Calories out?
 
Hehe, gotta love this thread!
The poor girl asked for some simple advice on how best to lose a few pounds and you lot baffle her with science. :clap:

Someone posted the easiest solution very early on.....eat less, exercise more...plain and simple!
Small changes to what you eat can make a huge difference to your daily calorie intake, reading nutritional info labels is the key. ;)
 
Take a look at weightlossresources its similar to weight watchers but deals with plain and simple calories not points.

most things this day and age show the calories, and it has a comprehensive database, will work out what you gain back from exercise and is easy to use. The important thing of course if you do sign up (think its £9.95) a month is to log your food, that in iteself helps you think about what you eat, knowing how many cals you have left for the day.

There are also lots of great tips and a great community as well so support without the weightwatchers meetings, (not that I am knocking ww, jus found this better for me)

You can get a free 24 hour trial to give it a go.
 
I'm familiar with pub med and can read research papers in enough depth to see their shortcomings. I agree on the fundamental point on exercise + diet is the answer (you seem to be pushing this point over and over again and through the publications you've ref'd). The key issue is the understanding of what you put in your body. I'll give you two scenarios:
Two people both 2st over weight, both are starting the same exercise regime. One is counting and reducing calories an eating the same foods the other is eating whole foods that consist of veggies, whole food protein sources and "good" fats. Are you telling me the guy with the calorie deficit is going to come out best?
 
no you're wrong. he's right.

Think about this:

dave walks an hour to work between 7am and 8am, sits at his desk for 8 hours then walks home at 5pm till 6pm. He sits down until 10pm and then goes to sleep.

during his day he burns 2000 calories.

It's irrelevant whether he takes in those 2000 calories all in one go, all at 10pm, all at 7am or gradually throughout the day. he still takes in the same calories and he still uses up the same number.

I very much doubt you'd burn anywhere near 2000 calories, if that's all someone did all day unless you had an extremely high metabolism. Also consuming 2000 calories in one hit, the body won't be able to make use of what it needs and will just store it as fat.
Eat the wrong food just before bed and you'll have trouble falling asleep and not have a good sleep either. I have a protein shake, made with water, around 1.5 hrs before bed.
 
I very much doubt you'd burn anywhere near 2000 calories, if that's all someone did all day unless you had an extremely high metabolism. Also consuming 2000 calories in one hit, the body won't be able to make use of what it needs and will just store it as fat.
Eat the wrong food just before bed and you'll have trouble falling asleep and not have a good sleep either. I have a protein shake, made with water, around 1.5 hrs before bed.

so instead of getting my point, you decided instead to just be pedantic about the actual numbers I used :cuckoo:

does the trouble sleeping have any effect on your weight?
 
Last edited:
Some very interesting points on this thread and to be honest the online BMI calculators are a waste of time - the only way to measure this effectively is to get a professional to do it using calipers on various parts of the body. 18 months ago I was very overweight, didn't take any exercise and had a BMI of around 32. I was measured again by a sports/nutrition specialist a few months ago and it was somewhere in the region if 21, interestingly the online calculator gave me a reading of 28.

As others have said it is best look at what you are eating, what worked for me was to greatly reduce my carb intake and I also watched what fats I was eating, I combined this with exercise and one of the best things you can do is go for a brisk 30 minute walk every day. You need to go fast enough to be breathing slightly heavily and to have a faint sheen of sweat, apparently this is the optimum for fat burning.

In the day you move and burn calories but at night you don't burn hardly any as your not moving. It does matter

Not quite true, I've been doing quite a bit of circuit training recently which increases your heart rate and metabolism and this can carry on for 24 hours following the exercise including when you are asleep.
 
Not quite true, I've been doing quite a bit of circuit training recently which increases your heart rate and metabolism and this can carry on for 24 hours following the exercise including when you are asleep.

i watched something on TV (probably while snacking :D) about that a little while ago, was quite interesting how exercise can do that even while youre asleep
 
so instead of getting my point, you decided instead to just be pedantic about the actual numbers I used :cuckoo:

does the trouble sleeping have any effect on your weight?

Not being pedantic, just saying that of course it matters if you have all a days calories in one hit or spread over a day. Your body can't cope with it and it won't use it. Quality of sleep is just as important as balancing your calorific intake throughout the day. Do neither and you're likely to make yourself ill. Too much or too little sleep can have adverse effects on your weight. Too little can possibly lead to weight loss, but at expense to health in the long term if allowed to continue.
 
Not quite true, I've been doing quite a bit of circuit training recently which increases your heart rate and metabolism and this can carry on for 24 hours following the exercise including when you are asleep.

That is because the body is repairing itself. If you don't take exercise as such, you won't be burning any calories over night.
 
Maybe the real question you should be asking yourself is.... are you happy?

If you are, then forget what the Nurse said and get on and enjoy life! :)
 
That is because the body is repairing itself. If you don't take exercise as such, you won't be burning any calories over night.

What????

The body HAS to use calories even when you're asleep, how do you think your heart manages to keep beating?

And that's ignoring the fact that there are thousands (more) other vital functions going on that also need calories.
 
no you're wrong. he's right.

Think about this:

dave walks an hour to work between 7am and 8am, sits at his desk for 8 hours then walks home at 5pm till 6pm. He sits down until 10pm and then goes to sleep.

during his day he burns 2000 calories.

It's irrelevant whether he takes in those 2000 calories all in one go, all at 10pm, all at 7am or gradually throughout the day. he still takes in the same calories and he still uses up the same number.

That is TOTALLY wrong - consume 2000 calories at one sitting and your body cannot properly process it all and a larger proportion will be turned into fat than if you had consumed it over 5 - 6 smaller meals.

Consume it at 7am and he will use a lot of it over the day including at least some of the extra fat - consume it at night and he will not.

The trouble with most diets is that your body craves fat because it is the most energy dense medium there is - 1gm fat contains 9 calories while 1 gm protein or carbs each contain 4 calories.

And, unfortunately, because body fat and the fat we eat are chemically fairly similar it is very easy for your body to convert that fat into body fat - this is a mechanism developed over thousands of years of evolution to help our ancestors through the times when food was scarce - it is only in the last 60 years or so that food has been plentiful and our bodies simply cannot cope with that change - we still store fat waiting for famines to turn up because it is the most efficient way to store energy.

Unfortunately our bodies cannot utilise these fat reserves until we have depleted our other energy reserves - notably glucose and glycogen both os which are forms of sugar.

Your body uses glucose as energy but cannot store it but it stores glycogen in both the liver and muscles.

When energy is needed the liver converts glycogen into glucose which is then used as energy - the glycogen in muscles can only be used by the muscles and is not converted back to glucose.

The controller of this is insulin (produced by the pancreas) which when working properly maintains an even glucose level.

If your glucose ( and thus energy) levels fall the pancreas produces glucogen which stimulates the liver so that it converts some glycogen into glucose for the energy needed and if your blood glucose is too high the reverse takes place and some of the glucose is converted into glycogen.

However your liver can only store about 100 gms of glycogen which is about 3-4 hours of normal activity and once that store is full THEN if your blood is still getting glucose coming in from a heavy meal your liver then converts it into FAT

Thus eating a very large meal, especially at nights when exercise is minimal, a large proportion of that 2000 calories will be converted into FAT- and that is a scientific fact.

Eat 5 smaller meals during the day (starting with breakfast) and your glucose levels will remain fairly constant so minimal fat will be produced for your body to store.

But our bodies crave fat so that is why low fat diets usually fail - if you want to lose body fat the best way is with 5 small meals containing approx 15% fat along with approx 45% protein and 40% carbs.

You also need to go into a calorie deficit, meaning that you eat less than you consume as energy - remember that 3500 calories is the equivalent of 1lb in body weight which means that to lose 1 lb/week you need to consume 3500 calories less each week - or 500 calories less each day.

Add extra exercise on top of that and you can lose more than that but once per week you need to come off the diet and have a mild "binge" day otherwise your body will go into "starvation" mode and will start to conserve its stores of fat by reducing its energy levels - and you will start to feel lethargic and lacking energy.

This is only a very small posting on a very large subject but I hope it will lay to rest some of the rubbish which many people seem all too willing to believe on this subject.

.
 
I'm familiar with pub med and can read research papers in enough depth to see their shortcomings. I agree on the fundamental point on exercise + diet is the answer (you seem to be pushing this point over and over again and through the publications you've ref'd). The key issue is the understanding of what you put in your body. I'll give you two scenarios:
Two people both 2st over weight, both are starting the same exercise regime. One is counting and reducing calories an eating the same foods the other is eating whole foods that consist of veggies, whole food protein sources and "good" fats. Are you telling me the guy with the calorie deficit is going to come out best?

If the point is simply to lose weight then the answer is an unqualified YES assuming that the second one is still eating more than the first and thay were both consuming the same amount of calories before they started.

However if they are also exercising then the first man will initially lose more weight.

But if the first one is eating a lot of processed foods with a high GI then because they are digested much faster than unprocessed foods and contain more calories he will almost certainly be feeling at least peckish a lot of the time and will usually give up on this diet sooner or later as the craving for sugar and sweet things defeat him.

If the second man is eating more lower GI foods then because they are digested more slowly he will not feel the same level of hunger because his glucose levels will remain more constant so is more likely to stay on the "healthy" diet much longer and thus in the end lose more weight and be generally fitter assuming he continues to diet.

.
 
Back
Top