The *Official* FretBoard Celebrity Fat Club Weigh In and Diet thread.

ThePrettyDamned

monquixote said:

octatonic said:

monquixote said:
I actively hate eating in the morning it's only when i rejected the "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" advice that i started losing weight. 

Food timing has been disproven in the last few years- it doesn't matter when you eat the calories.
The thing about eating a large breakfast, moderate lunch and small dinner is it does work if you stick to it, because ultimately you are eating fewer calories than you otherwise would.
You could just as easily eat the same number of calories spread throughout the day but some people find that hard to maintain.
Find what works for you and do that.

I ate a decent breakfast (cereal, fruit), small lunch (various soups and salad, or a sandwich) and decent sized dinner (anything from stir fry, to tangines, to meat and 3 veg) and I lost weight- 3 stone in the last 4 years- although I ran almost every day too.

Yep that's it.

The best thing on health I read on health was a paper by a guy who consulted for various elite athletes on nutrition etc. He basically lived his life trying out different diets to evaluate if they could give athletes​ an edge. His conclusion was that excluding some diets that were dangerous like juice fasts etc the bulk of them were broadly the same, none of them went beyond basic physics and the most important factor was your​ ability to adhere to them for a long time.

Yup. Girlfriend swore by slimming world, I assumed it was faddy but actually it just encourages bulking on vegetables, controlling fat and carb intake and common sense eating. 

FelineGuitars

Chuffola said:

Current weight: 19st 2lb  (fattest by a distance here!)

Target weight: Let's get down to 18st first and take it from there

Eat less crap, drink less alcohol, wank walk more,

Good luck everyone

I've got you beat at 21st 5lbs

I'd love to get down to 17st (15 would be fab but a distant dream ) 

My Doctor wants me to be 11-12st, but last time that happened I was 13 years old 

I intend to swim nearly every day (apart from when I am away from home), and maybe progress to some gym work (might even get back on my bike if PC Plod would stop drivers texting and driving)
Diet wise I thinkI will try the Slow carb diet again that I read about in Tim Ferris' 4 hour body book.

Tavernor

Current: The scales are upstairs, about 15st 4 I'm pretty sure though and 6'3" for scale. Last trousers I got were 38inch but I was 17 stone then and could still fit into an old pair of 34" jeans but not my 34" suit trousers by quite some margin. Sizes are inconsistent, the 38" jeans are far too big now but I'll use my old suit trousers as a benchmark and presumed accurate size.

Target: 13stone, ideally a bit less and a 34 inch waist. Only negative is I splashed out on a very expensive suit just before Christmas when I was at my heaviest! I used to be obscenely healthy in my late teens and weighed about 12 stone with virtually no body fat, be nice to get back to that but I'm going to predominantly diet rather than hit the gym. Having said that I'm pretty lucky genetically in that I put muscle on pretty easily and don't seem to lose it for a long time even without exercise.

Method: A lot of you won't approve but it's going to be largely due to a drastic calorie deficit. After Christmas I was eating a sandwich/one small meal a day and dropped two stone in two months. Had a 'normal' diet since then and not put any weight back on due to my body going into so called starvation mode so it works for me. I'm pretty bloody minded if I have a goal so willpower isn't going to be an issue; this thread is enough to keep me dedicated out of fear of losing face if I don't lose the weight. I doubled the dog walk time today so I'll maintain that too, he's meant to lose a couple of kgs so double benefit there. No more 3am snacks and drinking 2 pints of milk a day either.

The selfie phenomenon is narcissistic and winds me up but I'll take a photo of myself tonight and another in a couple of months. Don't panic, I won't be posting it tonight but be nice for me to be able to objectively see any gains (or rather losses!) I make. I'd recommend it to others for the same reason. If the first one distresses you it should provide more motivation and will make any improvement more satisfying.

Tavernor

Am I wrong in thinking that weight loss is a much simpler thing than people make it out to be (with whatever diet is fashionable at the time)?

Use more calories than you consume = weight loss. Surely that's pretty much the crux of it?

Clarky

Gassage said:

OK:
Rules are simple:

Post weight.
Post target
Post your planned diet
Post once a week.
Post tips.

Gassage:

17stone 11lbs
15stone 11lbs
High protein, low carb low sugar
Using CLA's.

GO!

mine in finished now.. so I'm just trying maintain where I'm at and I've been here for about 3 years now
my starting weight was similar to yours, but I had no target weight.. just a target of not being a fat boy any more..

starting weight. 17 stone 10 lbs / starting waist. 46"
lowest weight. 12 stone 8 lbs / waist. 31.5" <-- didn't like this cos I ended up looking a bit gaunt 
settled at. 12 stone 13 lbs to 13 stone 3 lbs range / waist 33" <-- works for me and is an easy target to hit
currently. 13 stone 1 lbs / waist 33" <-- happy here
Post your planned diet. high protein, low carb
once a week. average loss of about 2 lbs per week until I hit about 14 stone, then it starts to reduce
Post tips. weight training 2 to 3 times per week,
Saturday is fat boy day from about 15:00 until bed time
enjoy your Saturday but go careful with the beer cos it's hard to shift [just one beer for me and not every week either]..

RedRabbit

Okay, weighed myself so I'm ready to start this.

Start weight - 15st 1lb (honestly thought it would be more)
Target weight - 12st 7lb

Plan - calories tracked through Myfittnesspal with the aim of losing 2lb/week initially and then slowing to 1lb then 1/2lb as i get closer to my goal. I won't be cutting anything out as - as long as the calories are below target then I'm fine with it. Also aiming to do 30 minutes of exercise 6 times a week. Probably going with couch to 5k and some body weight training and some yoga. 

Tips - none really, i know what works for me and it's outlined above. The only thing i will say is that you need to be able to have bad days occasionally and still stick to the plan afterwards. All to often I've started a diet only to have a party or similar put me completely off track. 

EricTheWeary

Just on the breakfast thing :a few years ago I watched a documentary about boxers and they all missed breakfast. I think the idea is that our bodies are in feast or famine mode so once you start eating you want to eat more and to rest so they liked to train whilst still in famine/survival mode. Not sure that proves anything but they felt it worked for them. 

Heartfeltdawn

Tavernor said:

Am I wrong in thinking that weight loss is a much simpler thing than people make it out to be (with whatever diet is fashionable at the time)?

Use more calories than you consume = weight loss. Surely that's pretty much the crux of it?

That doesn't take into account the form of the calories you eat. Think of it this way: if you lived on 2,000 kcals a day of spinach versus 2,000 kcals of lard, you know one would be better for weight loss and general health than the other. 

samzadgan

Weight: 97kg

Target: 90kg

Planned diet: cut out milk, more water (get it closer to 2.5 liters a day), less Pizza and Crisps. Eat less meat, more veg and fruit.

Exercise: Extend my cycle commute by 10-15km...and get back into 100km+ rides once a month.

Tip: I dont believe in strict diets, for me they're not sustainable, and the shock to the system from going into it and those times when you give yourself a cheeky day off i believe does more harm then good in the long term. Its more about moderation for me...as long the exercise is there.

monquixote

EricTheWeary said:

Just on the breakfast thing :a few years ago I watched a documentary about boxers and they all missed breakfast. I think the idea is that our bodies are in feast or famine mode so once you start eating you want to eat more and to rest so they liked to train whilst still in famine/survival mode. Not sure that proves anything but they felt it worked for them. 

Yeah works for me I've just run 7k on no breakfast and i don't feel hungry or weak at all.

professorben

monquixote said:

EricTheWeary said:

Just on the breakfast thing :a few years ago I watched a documentary about boxers and they all missed breakfast. I think the idea is that our bodies are in feast or famine mode so once you start eating you want to eat more and to rest so they liked to train whilst still in famine/survival mode. Not sure that proves anything but they felt it worked for them. 

Yeah works for me I've just run 7k on no breakfast and i don't feel hungry or weak at all.

I feel slightly weak reading that. 

samzadgan

Ok so...on the boxer thing...just something to remember...skipping breakfast for a professional athlete may be doable as they dedicate their life to training and eating therefore their meals throughout the day will make up for the lack of breakfast. 

If you go to work on a daily basis, especially to an office job where you're brain is being heavily used, the majority of energy that your body uses is for the brain, and although you wouldn't think it, your brain actually consumes a lot of energy. If it doesn't have the energy it needs under stress it will fire off triggers for quick fixes, eg sweets, and you'll have very hard time trying to keep yourself away from that stuff. 

It's really old wisdom, my grandmother use to say..."for breakfast eat by yourself, eat your lunch with friends and dinner with enemies"

basically eat eat a lot for breakfast, and reduce the amount in subsequent meals. I usually eat 2 scrabbled eggs for breakfast and a slice of Vegemite toast. 

Within all of that, my biggest issue is that I have a good breakfast, usually a salad/veg lunch...but where I screw up is dinner.

edit: btw, I'm not an expert and this is my opinion and what works and makes sense to me...so YMMV

RedRabbit

Heartfeltdawn said:

Tavernor said:

Am I wrong in thinking that weight loss is a much simpler thing than people make it out to be (with whatever diet is fashionable at the time)?

Use more calories than you consume = weight loss. Surely that's pretty much the crux of it?

That doesn't take into account the form of the calories you eat. Think of it this way: if you lived on 2,000 kcals a day of spinach versus 2,000 kcals of lard, you know one would be better for weight loss and general health than the other. 

Not sure about that.  Both are supplying the same amount of energy and I'm yet to be convinced that the source of the energy makes any difference in terms of weight loss.

ThePrettyDamned

RedRabbit said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Tavernor said:

Am I wrong in thinking that weight loss is a much simpler thing than people make it out to be (with whatever diet is fashionable at the time)?

Use more calories than you consume = weight loss. Surely that's pretty much the crux of it?

That doesn't take into account the form of the calories you eat. Think of it this way: if you lived on 2,000 kcals a day of spinach versus 2,000 kcals of lard, you know one would be better for weight loss and general health than the other. 

Not sure about that.  Both are supplying the same amount of energy and I'm yet to be convinced that the source of the energy makes any difference in terms of weight loss.

The lard would contribute to poor health - 2000 cals of spinach at least gets you some nutritional value. 

Also, that much spinach would keep you full. In fact, it'd be damn hard to eat that much. Try eating a massive bar of chocolate and it's much easier, yet far more energy dense. 

Substituting fatty, energy dense (including white bread, for example) foods that don't keep you full for vegetables and healthier alternatives (eg quality wholemeal bread, wholemeal pasta) means you'll be fuller, and thus eat fewer calories. 

If you take a plate of food and make two thirds vegetables and one third lean meat, fish then it'll fill you up for a good while and be fewer than 500 cals, while also providing you with tons of quality nutrients. 

Slimming world force a portion of dairy (or alternative) and fibrous carb (wholemeal bread, pasta, olive oil can be substituted occasionally) to ensure you get enough of necessary food groups but restricting them to amounts you need. I've seen people eat two entire sandwiches in one go, each being 500 calories. Try eating 1000 calories of fish and salad. 

Gassage

Can anyone confirm if Marlboro lights have less calories than reds? Thx.

TheBlueWolf

Gassage said:

Can anyone confirm if Marlboro lights have less calories than reds? Thx.

Yes, as long as you smoke like a king at breakfast etc

Gassage

So today:

4 coffees, 3 chicken drumsticks...

RedRabbit

ThePrettyDamned said:

RedRabbit said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Tavernor said:

Am I wrong in thinking that weight loss is a much simpler thing than people make it out to be (with whatever diet is fashionable at the time)?

Use more calories than you consume = weight loss. Surely that's pretty much the crux of it?

That doesn't take into account the form of the calories you eat. Think of it this way: if you lived on 2,000 kcals a day of spinach versus 2,000 kcals of lard, you know one would be better for weight loss and general health than the other. 

Not sure about that.  Both are supplying the same amount of energy and I'm yet to be convinced that the source of the energy makes any difference in terms of weight loss.

The lard would contribute to poor health - 2000 cals of spinach at least gets you some nutritional value. 

Also, that much spinach would keep you full. In fact, it'd be damn hard to eat that much. Try eating a massive bar of chocolate and it's much easier, yet far more energy dense. 

Substituting fatty, energy dense (including white bread, for example) foods that don't keep you full for vegetables and healthier alternatives (eg quality wholemeal bread, wholemeal pasta) means you'll be fuller, and thus eat fewer calories. 

If you take a plate of food and make two thirds vegetables and one third lean meat, fish then it'll fill you up for a good while and be fewer than 500 cals, while also providing you with tons of quality nutrients. 

Slimming world force a portion of dairy (or alternative) and fibrous carb (wholemeal bread, pasta, olive oil can be substituted occasionally) to ensure you get enough of necessary food groups but restricting them to amounts you need. I've seen people eat two entire sandwiches in one go, each being 500 calories. Try eating 1000 calories of fish and salad. 

I'm not disputing any of that but that's not what you said.

if you lived on 2,000 kcals a day of spinach versus 2,000 kcals of lard, you know one would be better for weight loss

If that's all you're living on (other health issues aside) then your energy intake is the same regardless and I'm yet to see anything the truly convinces me that weight loss is any more complicated than calories in versus calories out regardless of the source.

If you are more hungry on the lard diet and end up eating more because of it then you've exceeded the 2,000 calories and you'll fail to lose weight due to the extra intake.  That doesn't mean lard calories are worth more than spinach calories, it just mean the lard diet is harder to stick to (though I'm not sure the spinach diet would be a lot of fun either).

fretmeister

Neither lard nor spinach has enough of the other nutrients needed. Somewhat pointless debate.

You'd die from a deficency of something no matter how many calories you ate of either.

fretmeister

So far today...

Tinned tomatoes on toast for breakfast

And a surprisingly good weight watchers meal of Spaghetti bolognaise, with a bit of salad for lunch.

My wife is tucking into massive fresh;y baked bread sarnies loaded with cheese and branston. I am jealous.