You have cited this “effect of small weight loss not much different than effect of larger weight loss maintained over time” in several threads and the clinical research supporting this. If we take these citations as valid studies I am somewhat puzzled how it can be true. As a hypothetical if according to height-weight-build tables my target weight should be around 220 lbs and say I weigh 340 lbs and lose 50 lbs so I’m now carrying around 290 lbs, is it correct to say this research says I will not gain much in the way of real health risk reduction / health benefit by going to 220 lbs? I question the validity this position because at this 290 lb weight I am still on the border of being morbidly obese and all the diabetic, cardiovascular risk, cancer risk , and joint related issues that attend to that. I don’t see how losing just a relatively small amount of weight can be almost the same as getting closer to a normal weight.
I accept that there is research that supports this position but it really does not (IMO) make logical sense. How can weighing 290 lbs not be far more of a risk to your health on multiple levels than weighing 220 lbs?
Thanks for understanding, DSeid. I’m just trying to keep to the oldest, simplest diet ever: eat less and exercise. If you do those in things in sufficient quantities, the rest follows. The hard part is determining what is “sufficient”.
Of course. I’m just trying to not dive into the minutiae of fad diet notions. I’m extremely skeptical of this stuff, and would rather not discuss it. See rule 1: eat less, and exercise. Setting that aside, yes, obviously some things are better to eat then others, either when dieting or in general.
Yup, noted. I’m just starting to branch out from the notion of “ride the bike as much as possible, every day” into more varied exercise, and will keep that in mind.
I can’t disagree with any of that. And I do see this as a long term process, not just a few weeks of agony followed by Krispy Kremes and sofa piloting ever after. I agree, that won’t and can’t work. I have done this before: lost 20-30 pounds over several months, but each time I managed to keep it off for years because I had developed better habits and kept to them for quite some time. So I do see the shape of these things over the long term. I’m just trying to reset myself once again to that better place and try to stay there once I eventually, over probably a long time this time, arrive at a better, more healthy body.
The speculations are based on where fat preferentially first comes off, which is from visceral fat stores (the fat most associated with adverse health risks) and on the independent critical importance of the sustained nutrition and exercise habits. The first 5 to 10% weight loss results in something like a 30% reduction in visceral fat. After that less fat loss comes from visceral stores. Note: the research does not say that being lower would not be better - just that there are substantially diminishing returns. Most (not all) of the benefit is gained with modest loss and sustained good lifestyle habits. More sustained weight lost would potentially gain additional health benefits but the costs to achieve that are greater (frankly achievable only by a very few) and the health benefit per additional pound lost much less. Once that relatively modest lost is achieved the sustained changed habits matter much more.
That’s a damn good question. Since I’ve stopped drinking alcohol and am enjoying low fat food, I feel like I’m already stuffing myself and I’m still losing weight. So I guess I have to figure out how to stop that and maintain weight sensibly. Starting to drink and eating fatty foods doesn’t sound like a good way to do that, so… not sure. But it’s a great problem to have!
Also, and I don’t want to scare anybody, but I may keep going a little. I still have some nagging belly fat that hasn’t melted away yet. I’m still in a good range for my height at 10 pounds lighter than 155, so I’m considering a (far less aggressive) continuation that direction, to maybe 150 or slightly under. Or not - I feel like the pressure is off now and I can take stock and decide what my body should look like going forward. I’m going to have my first steak since sometime last fall, then go back to healthy eating and see where that takes me.
Man it’s amazing how your outlook on food changes after a structured diet. I went to buy that celebratory steak I mentioned above, and my reaction to the cuts on display was, “damn, that’s way too much food!” Eating single (I’m separated just this week) there’s no way in heck I’d cook a regular steak if I don’t want leftovers, and I really don’t want leftovers. Beef is a maybe-every-several-months treat for me, so why waste some? My son is with me next week, so I’ll try to get a cut(s) we can share; since he eats nearly double what I do, that should work perfect.
Damn, I’d really like to cook a corned beef, but after one serving I’d be done and what would I do with the rest? I need to gather some friends for a corned beef party or something.
Exercise is great and vital. It will make you healthier, stronger and feeling better. No doubt.
But if you are serious about weight loss, calorie restriction is the only rational way to go. Keep up the exercise, by all means. But remember - it’s a damn fool’s errand to try to get there by exercise alone.
A 250 lb. man, jogging at 5 mph (pretty leisurely), for 20 minutes. That burns about the equivalent of a McDonald’s cheeseburger. Not a quarter-pounder, not a Big Mac - a cheeseburger. One of those tiny cheeseburgers.
Much easier not to eat that (little) much in the first place rather than trying to burn it off. Exercise is great and you should do it, but exercise for health and well-being. For weight loss reduce intake, perioid.
