Ask the guy who lost 200 pounds in 9 months

[SenorBeef]

@DSeid

SB, do you think maybe your past experience is a bit too high of a bar to be holding your current experience up to?

Yeah, probably. I was probably at the edge of what’s physically possible (I mean not in terms of raw weight loss, but in terms of being able to do it while actually gaining lean body mass) when I did it before. Not only was I in better shape to start (I know I was 380, but as I said, I was fairly active, I realize that’s difficult to believe) but also being 17 makes you pretty much invincible physically - it’s just the drive and knowledge of technique that’s required.

The problem is that I don’t have that drive any more. I’d like to be in better shape obviously, but it isn’t that important to me, so I don’t really have the reserves of willpower to just hammer away at it at full blast as long as it takes. So the rate of progress is important - if it doesn’t feel like I’m getting much done for the effort I’m putting into it, it’ll be hard to continue.

Anyway, FWIW, I too think that building a base of fitness at a pace that avoids injury seems like a wise approach, not being lazy.

Yes and no. There’ve been days where I could’ve gone to the gym but invented reasons not to because I just wasn’t feeling that great. I’m sort of making a concious decision to do that - if I only go to the gym when I feel good, then it won’t be such a chore in my mind and I can keep a healthy attitude about it. On the other hand obviously if I don’t go frequently enough I’m not going to make much progress.

When are you stretching? Conventional wisdom has changed a bit over the years. Static stretching before exercise has been shown to be of no help and actually possible harm. You are better off just starting off slower to warm up the muscles before putting in a few laps with more effort. Stretching afterward, gently, may be of some use, but even that not much.

That’s interesting and I did some looking around and it does seem like there’s evidence to support that conclusion. Stretching just seems natural and effective to me - I seem to recall pulling muscles more often if I have to excercise without doing it, but that’s just anecdotal I guess.

I stretch before and after, with most of the effort before.

I have found though that when doing continuous excercise like biking or swimming, going at full blast for 5-10 minutes and then resting completely for 5 minutes before continuing really seems to help, both decreasing the discomfort and increasing the endurance.

Are you considering adding in some weight training too, but easing into it as well? Even starting out with body weight squats and lunges, lighter load bench presses with focus on slow but perfect form? (As tolerated by your shoulder.) Swimming is great but if you want to eventually add weight training back in as well, well … nothing prepares you for the sort you want to get back to being able to do like prepping for that activity in lower intensity kind.

Yeah, that’s part of the plan. I really should start now, but swimming seems to be going well for the most part. I was planning on working up to the point where I could consistently go swimming every other day (in terms of muscle recovery) before moving on to other stuff.

Honestly you seem to be unreasonably hard on yourself. That is pretty significant amount of progress in a fairly short time.

I probably am. By conventional weight loss standards I’m doing great, but again it’s really just the amount of results I’m getting compared to the hassle of putting the work in that concerns me. It won’t be a long term thing if I end up feeling as mediocre as I have been with relatively slow progress.

[SeamusMcCool]

I haven’t seen a definition for a failure in this thread, but I did see a definition for arsehole.

Thanks for sharing, Senorbeef. You’re an inspiration. Too bad somebody had to come along and prove your point about people treating you like shit because you’re fat.

I get that overall it was a success. Definitely battling with 270-330 over 380-400+ is preferable and the long term injuries you mentioned didn’t go unnoticed.

Besides a muscular 6’1 man between 205-270 aged 18-25ish isn’t going to look that fat. There’s be a pot, but you’ll look healthier than a sedentary, non-muscular man who is shorter and the same weight.

[SenorBeef]

Incidentally I’m just now getting to the point where I can actually feel pretty good (tired, sore, but generally uplifted) after a workout rather than like total shit. I actually forgot that could happen. When you’re very out of shape, it’s just nothing but bad - pain, exhaustion, feeling like crap. When you start to get in better shape it doesn’t feel quite so daunting.

Of course when you get to this level you need to increase your workload to keep doing as much as you can, so it’s always somewhat offset, but I’m probably over the worst of it. Then again maybe not - I’m just doing light stuff now in what amounts to remedial excercise. Not sure how I’ll feel when I kick it into high gear.

[DSeid]

SB, I think that as you accomplish building your fitness base you may be the sort who finds the crossfit approach to be of interest. They are all about high gear.

Also to return to the discussion about the potential risks associated with how some implement “low carb” diets (the tendency of some to use that as a reason to go with lots of very fatty red meats often also processed, like hot dogs and bacon, rather than getting their protein in leaner forms, like fish, chicken, and in seeds and nuts) - this article (I hope it is on this side of the wall) may be of interest:

A new study again has found that higher consumption of both processed and unprocessed red meat is associated with a higher risk for stroke, whereas intake of poultry was associated with a reduced risk. … Poultry consumption was associated with a lower total stroke risk, with the relative risk for 1 serving per day in pooled analysis being 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.62 - 0.95; P = .02).

These associations were independent of other major protein sources, fruits and vegetables, and other stroke risk factors. The findings were similar for ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.

When participants lowered their consumption of red meat from baseline, the risk for stroke was significantly reduced. … by substituting 1 serving of red meat with a serving of nuts or fish, the stroke risk was reduced by 17%, and by replacing the red meat with low-fat dairy, the risk went down by 11%. Substituting 1 serving of red meat with a serving of poultry resulted in a 27% reduction in stroke risk. … What is not clear right now is the mechanism by which red meat may raise stroke risk. The recent focus on saturated fat “may not be the entire story,” said Dr. Bernstein. He added that preservatives such as nitrates and nitrites found in processed meats may play a role, as could the sodium content and relatively high iron levels, which may cause inflammation leading to vessel injury.

“Simply…choosing a low-fat red meat may not in and of itself lower one’s risk of stroke; it looks like it may be that what we call the ‘whole protein package’ ups the risk,” he said.

Just for your consideration and possible interest.

[SenorBeef]

I do wonder about results like that because they often don’t do a good job of isolating the various factors that go into them. For instance, people with a high carb diet often have high cholesterol, and the medical studies will test how they do if they eat a certain diet high in dietary cholesterol and when they eat one low in cholesterol. Obviously the lower cholesterol diet is better, because you’re still keeping the carbs the same - you’re not isolating for that factor. So you come to the erroneous conclusion that the best way to handle high cholesterol is to reduce your intake of dietary cholesterol, when actually, reducing your insulin-induced cholesterol liver production is much more effective, as it constitutes the majority of cholesterol in your body.

In the same way, I wonder if adding red meat to a high carb diet, where your metabolism is already out of whack, has different effects than when it’s part of a low carb diet.

[DSeid]

Well what they can say is that they controlled for confounding factors, i.e. it held true after adjusted for the known dietary and nondietary risk factors. Of course there can be unidentified confonders; these studies are always only suggestive of and consistent with particular conclusions, not proof of. Also, if one wants to suggest that greater red meat consumption is indeed associated with increased risk of stroke except in the particular circumstance of low carb, then this study does not prove such to be untrue. But there does not seem to be any evidence to support such a position either. In fact a higher complex carbohydrate/fiber diet seems to lower stroke risk, whereas a high refined carb diet may increase stroke risk.

Studies like this one, and your hypothetical one, cannot say what is “the best way”; they can state what modifying one factor appears to result in keeping everything else the same. It suggests that for any given level of macronutrient balance, such as relatively low carb, less red meat and more poultry will be associated with significantly less stroke risk. It does not say whether low carb is of benefit or not, or how much benefit or harm. Likewise the carb studies can state that highly refined carbs are associated with greater risk and that increase consumption of high fiber carbs is associated with decreased risk, given a fixed macronutrient balance.

The way I read the data we have is that it is suggestive that a diet moderately high in protein, roughly 25 to 30% of total daily calories, coming from lean protein sources that keep red meat sources at most a modest portion of the total and including poultry and fish, high enough in a variety of complex carbs (especially from vegetables and fruits) to allow for adequate fiber and phytochemical intake, and with the rest coming from fats, primarily PUHAs (not missing the omega 3’s) and MUFAs, is likely to lead to the best long term outcomes. Others will read the same data and come to different conclusions, of course.

[drewtwo99]

I don’t really have a question, but I just want to say keep up your current work to maintain a healthy life. You mention that you don’t have the same drive to lose the weight as you did before when you were 17, and that’s totally understandable. But just remember not to focus on the weight, it’s the overall health you are going for. And the more muscle you have, the more you exercise your heart, and the better you eat, the healthier you will be. There are few things in life more important than your health, which I’m sure you know, so just keep that in mind and hopefully that’ll help motivate you to keep working out and eating well. I know it helps me want to exercise thinking about how when I’m sitting around doing nothing, I’m not as healthy as I could be.

But good work and thanks for sharing your inspiring story!

[Stoid]

@SenorBeef

I do wonder about results like that because they often don’t do a good job of isolating the various factors that go into them.

DING DING DING!!!

Not to mention the ENORMOUS mistake of jumping on “an association” as haivng any meaning worth talking about, much less acting upon! Especially when so many factors are questions marks!

Do what you know works and makes you comfortable. And you’re right, it is commitment, one I’m living as well.

One of the most powerful things about carb restriction is the way it keeps your appetite normalized, even depressed, which is virtually mandatory for long term success. But even with that wonderful effect, we are human and of course we want to enjoy other kinds of foods sometimes.

So what I do that works for me (i’m 10 months into a life commitment to this kind of eating as a permanent solution to obesity and the best way to improve my health overall) is give myself breaks, rather than try to weave more carbs into my day every day - it’s way more fun, more effective, and because I know how to go right back, less likely to do long term damage.

I took a few days off at Thanksgiving, three weeks off around Christmas/New Years, two days for my birthday last May, and one day off in the summer when I was making a cake for my dad.During my breaks, I can eat anything and everything that I want, as much as I want, no guidelines at all except that for myself I prefer to actually focus on carbs…why fuck around with protein when I live on that all the time? Why have tacos with the tortilla shell or my burger with the bun when I spend most of my time genuinely enjoying my lettuce wrapped tacos and burgers? Just to set me up to be less satisfied with my lettuce tacos? That would be dumb… Nah, I eat cake. Bread. Pasta. I avoid protein and my usual foods so religiously that I’m happy to return to them after od’ing on sugar a little. And when I have those minor moments during my usual eating when I want to go all carby, it’s no big - passes quickly and I know that in a few months I’ll enjoy some carbitude.

Since eating like this causes me to continue to lose weight, I’m going to have to come up with a way to maintain at some point. Again, rather than try to incorporate just a little more every day, which I really find much more problematic and far less satisfying, I’ll probably do what several friends of mine who maintain their weight this way do: take Sundays off.

Maybe this would work for you. Because it really does need to be a lifetime commitment.

[SenorBeef]

@DSeid

Well what they can say is that they controlled for confounding factors, i.e. it held true after adjusted for the known dietary and nondietary risk factors. Of course there can be unidentified confonders; these studies are always only suggestive of and consistent with particular conclusions, not proof of.
Also, if one wants to suggest that greater red meat consumption is indeed associated with increased risk of stroke except in the particular circumstance of low carb, then this study does not prove such to be untrue.

I understand and it’s not unreasonable. But they use the same sort of methodology to come to the erroneous conclusion that the most effective way to control blood cholesterol level is through reduction of intake of dietary cholesterol - which is a wrong conclusion attacking it from the wrong angle. Insulin controls so much about your metabolism that things really react differently depending on whether or not you’re minimizing it or maximizing it.

That said, it’s entirely possible that it’s correct for all macronutrient balances.

The way I read the data we have is that it is suggestive that a diet moderately high in protein, roughly 25 to 30% of total daily calories, coming from lean protein sources that keep red meat sources at most a modest portion of the total and including poultry and fish, high enough in a variety of complex carbs (especially from vegetables and fruits) to allow for adequate fiber and phytochemical intake, and with the rest coming from fats, primarily PUHAs (not missing the omega 3’s) and MUFAs, is likely to lead to the best long term outcomes. Others will read the same data and come to different conclusions, of course.

I agree that what you describe is most likely the best maintenance/lifestyle diet choice. Red meat, if nothing else, does seem to get a greater amount of processing of from nitrites and nother things to be concerned about. And I don’t mean to shoot down everything you say - I will take what you’ve said under consideration when I decide what to do about maintenance.

The current issue though, with weight loss, I need to keep my carb numbers very low. If I exclude a large category of meats available, this reduces my options even further, which might lead to me not being able to sustain it for as long. The health effect of eating a lot of red meat in the next few months and losing 50-100 pounds is going dwarf the minor effects of the exposure to the long term consequences of eating red meat. So while the issue is relevant long term, the only really relevant issue to me in the short term is weight loss.

That is, unless I’m doing something that’s immediately and drastically unhealthy, like the consumption of a lot of trans fats. But their effect is much more severe and immediate. And in that case, eating fewer processed foods already avoids that fairly well.

[Evil_Economist]

@DSeid

When are you stretching? Conventional wisdom has changed a bit over the years. Static stretching before exercise has been shown to be of no help and actually possible harm. You are better off just starting off slower to warm up the muscles before putting in a few laps with more effort. Stretching afterward, gently, may be of some use, but even that not much.

I completely agree with this. Stretching as a warmup can increase your chances of injury, so avoid stretching while cold. I would even go further and say that you might want to avoid stretching altogether, unless you have specific mobility issues. E.g., if your sport doesn’t require you to do the splits, then you don’t want to practice doing splits. If you’re not having any flexibility problems in your daily life, and you’re not planning on competing in gymnastics, maybe you don’t need to stretch at all. (I understand that this is a controversial topic, and I’m sure that the yoga-as-a-fad crew will argue with me over this).

A good warmup is something that, literally, increases your body temperature. You want to take 5-10 minutes and do some light exercise that makes you break into a sweat. Once you’ve broken a sweat, further general warmup probably isn’t going to do anything for you (except that you might want to do some exercise-specific warmups if you’re going to be doing some intense exercises).

[DSeid]

SB, not to be obnoxious, but “cite please” that low dietary cholesterol was every portrayed as “the most effective way to control blood cholesterol .” Avoiding high dietary cholesterol as part of a package that also focused on limiting saturated fats (with inadequate attention to the now clear harm of increasing highly refined and simple carbs as a result), yes, but that is not the same thing. Here, for example is the 2000 AHA guideline:

Dietary cholesterol can increase LDL cholesterol levels, although to a lesser extent than saturated fat.51 As is the case with saturated fat intake, this response varies widely among individuals.56 Most foods high in saturated fat are also sources of dietary cholesterol and hence reduced intake of such foods provides the additional benefit of limiting cholesterol intake. Cholesterol-rich foods that are relatively low in saturated fatty acid content (notably egg yolks and, to a lesser extent, shellfish) have smaller effects on LDL cholesterol levels.57 58 … Although there is no precise basis for selecting a target level for dietary cholesterol intake for all individuals, the AHA recommends <300 mg/d on average.

Not quite the claim you seem to believe it to have been.

Oh, I get the bit about your concern for now being the weight loss phase. You’ve been very honest that long term health outcomes are not your big worry right now and I deal with that in my patient population all the time. I’m a pediatrician and it is a very unusual kid or teen who is worried about heart attacks or strokes in 40 to 60 years! The short to medium term is far enough for them too: speed off the line in football, able to keep up in soccer, and of course, looks.

And of course job one* is* to get a meaningful amount of the fat off. Now I can point out that from a health perspective losing just 5 to 10% of body mass, kept off, will have tremendous long term health benefits, is a meaningful amount of fat off, and that losing much more than that is not as important as is keeping what is lost off and developing healthy and maintainable long term habits. But sure, more loss may help with whatever functional problems you are currently having and be an ego kick as well. Go for it!

Only you can figure out what method will work for you to lose the fat mass and among a variety of possible long term approaches which ones you will be able to live with. I do not mean to say anything otherwise.

[SenorBeef]

Went to the doctor yesterday. According to their scale, I’ve done 40 pounds in 3 months. Not the ridiculous speed I’d accomplished before, but I’m doing about 1/10th the excercise too, so not bad.

My triglycerides declined from 214 to 105, which is great. My cholesterol actually went up a bit, from 151 to 178, but I also was taking some cholesterol meds pre-diet that I stopped since low carb should take care of the problem. What’s odd is that my HDL declined from 35 to 27 - I guess that could be a result from coming off the meds, but you’d think going from no excercise to regular excercise would offset that and increase my HDL. So my total cholesterol number is okay, but the ratio between LDL and HDL sucks.

I’ve actually been eating very little - when you’re on low carb, you no longer get hungry based on your blood sugar spikes and crashes, so your hunger is based more on what your body actually needs. So when I work out hard, I eat much more - and when I don’t work out at all, one medium breakfast and sometimes one snack later is adequate for me.

[DSeid]

@SenorBeef

Went to the doctor yesterday. …

Considering that your initial goal was to lose 50 pounds, the fact that you are 80% of the way there seems “not too bad” indeed. Hitting a bit more than the standard advised goal of aiming for 2 pounds a week and keeping it up consistently (no sign of the dreaded but usually inevitable plateau) is nothing to sneeze at.

That TG drop is very significant and probably that also is travelling with improved insulin sensitivity as well. The difference in the HDL level not so much so: there is variation just day to day (even within the same day) by as much as 5%, and by season (low levels in winter) by as much as 12%. But yeah, the drop in HDL with the increase in total does mean that your LDL increased some … and yeah, that’s likely from stopping meds.

Obviously you are doing much less exercise than you did back in the day, but do you feel that you are making progress?

How are your other unnamed issues responding to the loss and increased fitness so far?

[SenorBeef]

Well I feel like I’m making progress simply because 40 pounds is a lot of weight. Imagine taking off a 40 pound backpack. I don’t get the same invincible, I could rip apart a bus with my bare hands type of feeling I did when I went nuts before. Not sure how much of that is the lack of excercise, how much is not being 18, any how much is any dietary differences.

My general health seems fine - haven’t had anything scary happen other than a few isolated arrhythias, but definitely fewer than before.

My main concern is that I’m not eating enough - most of the time I just can’t be bothered to do it. I actually try to add calories to my meals when I do eat just to make sure I’m not losing lean body mass.

[DSeid]

Bumping just to see how its going for you another month in SB.

[SenorBeef]

Down another 11 as of last week, so probably 13 now. Pretty steady at 11 pounds a month. Still feel like I should work out to really push it, but also still not feeling like using the time. If I didn’t have a job, I’d probably be working out a lot. Nothing really changed otherwise.

Decided, by the way, when I was at 40, to lose twice as much at least, so I’m going to re-evaluate at 80 total.

[DSeid]

50 to 55 pounds, a pretty steady 2 1/2 to 3 pounds a week, and still no plateau … pretty impressive.

Thanks for the update.

[SenorBeef]

I’ve started wondering if it would help, or hinder, my long term progress to start having breaks, like one freebie weekend a month where I can indulge any high carb cravings I’ve had.

On one hand, the iron clad “you just can’t have this, don’t ever think about it” discipline may make it easier to maintain. If you allow yourself little breaks/treats/whatever, they may become more frequent until it breaks down. It’s also metabolically disruptive - it takes a few days for your body to switch back to a low carb mode. On the other hand, it does let you get cravings and stuff out of your system… I don’t know, never really tried it.

[filmore]

How does it feel to work out when you’re in minimal carb mode? Have you worked out intensely both with a normal diet and a minimal carb diet? How would you compare your energy level in the workout?

I have a normal diet and when I don’t have carbs, my workout is terrible. I feel like I have no energy. But when I have carbs, I can go and go and have no problem doing the workout. I was wondering if someone would have that issue if their body had adapted to a low-carb diet.

[SenorBeef]

When you’re on a high/normal carb diet, you burn your carb reserves at the beginning of your workout - and then when they’re depleted, you have to make a transition to burning fat stores directly. That transition can be a hump that has to be gotten over.

When you’re not in that metabolic mode to begin with, and instead just burn fat as your primary fuel, there’s no transition - you’re already in fat burning mode, so there’s nothing to deplete. That keeps your energy levels steady, and in my experience, increases your endurance.

My experience is that I have more energy, less pain, more endurance, and a much quicker recovery time when I’m low carbing, but I’ve spoken to other people who have a harder time maintaining intensity and duration while low carbing. I don’t know why that would be, but apparently the reaction varies with the individual.