If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Also new...
"Lavender, Lord of Darkness" wrote in message ... "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... Gallstones & possible gall bladder surgery Heart Palpitations Reduction of muscle. At such low calorie levels the body has no choice but to burn muscle in addition to fat. It's much healthier to lose slower. Check the government food pyramid for recommended calorie levels for losing and maintaining. A 6 foot male will need significantly more than 2000 calories per day to maintain for example. If you are exercising you will need even more. Just a quick check of the (US) government food pyramid shows about 2000 calories for a sedentary male to lose weight and somewhat more to maintain. I see. I'll probably do 2500 or whatever it is to maintain, when I get there. At this point, I genuinely haven't done much research on what's the proper calorie intake for a 75 - 80kg 6' male. I vaguely remember checking one calculator, just out of curiosity, which said a 77kg, 6' male has a BMR of about 1700 (plus calories for walking, exercise and all the rest) I do wonder about the food pyramid thing, if it's only saying 2000 calories for any 6' male. A 70kg man and a 270kg man will have vastly different calorie requirements, even if they're the same height. Yes it is different but I was taking a male at roughly your weight. You can put in your own numbers and come up with values to lose and values to maintain appropriate to your age, height, and current weight. The website is www.mypyramid.gov. It is a US site but that should not matter as I believe it does allow you to input weight in KG. Point is, the 'maintaining' number of calories I mentioned was chosen almost at random. There's far too many variables for me to figure out, now, how many calories I'll need to eat once I'm at my ideal weight. (And that will change, too, depending on how much I want to continue with bodybuilding, if I take up any other sports, etc.) The food pyramid site gives you a starting point and allows you to factor in activity. There are LOTS of other sites on the internet that also help you out there. First start figuring out your initial calories required to lose (and you will need to redo as you lose weight). Then when you get to the weight you wish to be, calculate that with one of the sites. Again they allow you to enter in activity. Then see how it goes and make adjustments to stabilize. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOOT IN THE DARK. The info is out there. Also, I don't think I mentioned, but I'm only 26. That's part of why I think it's so crucial for me to lose weight now, while it's reasonably easy for my body to handle it. Even young people can develop gall bladder issues and heart palpitations if they diet too severely. The alternative, realistically, would be for me to continue having little attempts at dieting for the next 5 or 10 or 20 years (just like the last five years,) lose a little weight, gain a little, etc. and eventually realise that a serious diet like this is the only thing that can work for me. (Of course, realising that when I'm 30 or 40 or 50 would mean my body would be even less capable of taking the strain) Good, healthy weight loss is slow weight loss regardless of age at a rate of 1/2 to 2 pounds per week. Faster puts you at risk even if you are young. I am 58 and have lost 69 pounds since the beginning of March 2009. As you all probably know, good dieting is as much (actually, I think, more) about the psychology than it is about the physical. I know (from 5 or 6 years trying) that a 'physically' ideal diet (losing weight a kilogram or two a month) simply will not work for me 'psychologically.' It would be reasonable and healthy to lose a kilogram every week or two. No matter how you lose the weight, you will need to make permanent changes to your eating habits anyway to keep it off. So might as well lose the weight sensibly and quit fretting about the rate. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Also new...
Lavender, Lord of Darkness wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... This is an unhealthy level of restriction. You may be fine now but longer term you are probably in for some health issues from it. How do you mean 'longer term'? I estimate reaching my goal-weight somewhere between 2 and 4 months from now. Then it's exactly 1 week without any worrying about diet, followed by a more healthy diet for the rest of my life (probably 2000cal, if I keep up the body-building) i am curious about your desire to loose so quickly. What is the motivator to risk a less healthy weight loss? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Also new...
Lavender, Lord of Darkness wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... Gallstones & possible gall bladder surgery Heart Palpitations Reduction of muscle. At such low calorie levels the body has no choice but to burn muscle in addition to fat. It's much healthier to lose slower. Check the government food pyramid for recommended calorie levels for losing and maintaining. A 6 foot male will need significantly more than 2000 calories per day to maintain for example. If you are exercising you will need even more. Just a quick check of the (US) government food pyramid shows about 2000 calories for a sedentary male to lose weight and somewhat more to maintain. I see. I'll probably do 2500 or whatever it is to maintain, when I get there. At this point, I genuinely haven't done much research on what's the proper calorie intake for a 75 - 80kg 6' male. I vaguely remember checking one calculator, just out of curiosity, which said a 77kg, 6' male has a BMR of about 1700 (plus calories for walking, exercise and all the rest) I do wonder about the food pyramid thing, if it's only saying 2000 calories for any 6' male. A 70kg man and a 270kg man will have vastly different calorie requirements, even if they're the same height. Point is, the 'maintaining' number of calories I mentioned was chosen almost at random. There's far too many variables for me to figure out, now, how many calories I'll need to eat once I'm at my ideal weight. (And that will change, too, depending on how much I want to continue with bodybuilding, if I take up any other sports, etc.) Also, I don't think I mentioned, but I'm only 26. That's part of why I think it's so crucial for me to lose weight now, while it's reasonably easy for my body to handle it. The alternative, realistically, would be for me to continue having little attempts at dieting for the next 5 or 10 or 20 years (just like the last five years,) lose a little weight, gain a little, etc. and eventually realise that a serious diet like this is the only thing that can work for me. (Of course, realising that when I'm 30 or 40 or 50 would mean my body would be even less capaI think you are making a mistake thinking ble of taking the strain) Many people have lost weight without the eextremities to which you want to go. I think you are making a mistake to think your only two choices are extreme and failure. Have you tried follwing a diet *prograam*? I am currently starting weight watchers tomorrow. I lost a boat load of wewight a few years ago. But i stopped eating as well and have gained a teeny bit. I want to nip that in the bud. I like it because it is prescibed so that all you have to do is DO it. You plan meals and track your intake etc.. one I liked better was the Zone Diet and is likely a good choice for a body builder. There is protein in every meal, and that is necessary to support your muscle development. Before you do this sextreme starvation thing, take a real sturdy look at why you were unsuccessful at meeting your fat loss goals with the dieting you have been doing that, and solve *that* problem. In my opinion, only, of course. As you all probably know, good dieting is as much (actually, I think, more) about the psychology than it is about the physical. I know (from 5 or 6 years trying) that a 'physically' ideal diet (losing weight a kilogram or two a month) simply will not work for me 'psychologically.' I don't think the psychology is set in stone either. In iorder to eat ridiculously small amounts, you will have to calculate and track. Calculate and track at healthy levels. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|