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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Weight loss per week
Hello, I've recently started to diet, well it's more cutting back than
dieting. I'm 37, male, 6ft tall and I did weigh 17st 5lbs (243lbs). I used to drink pretty much every night, and constantly eat until I went bed. I now only drink at weekends, and have 3 meals a day; breakfast (cereal or toast) lunch (sandwich and fruit) dinner (potatoes/pasta/rice with meat and veg) I been doing this for only 2 weeks. The first week I lost 4lbs, and having weighed myself today, I've lost another 3lbs (I'm 16st 10lbs now) What I'm curious about is what sort of weight should I be losing per week? I guess a good weight for me would be about 15st. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dunston wrote:
Hello, I've recently started to diet, well it's more cutting back than dieting. I'm 37, male, 6ft tall and I did weigh 17st 5lbs (243lbs). I used to drink pretty much every night, and constantly eat until I went bed. I now only drink at weekends, and have 3 meals a day; breakfast (cereal or toast) lunch (sandwich and fruit) dinner (potatoes/pasta/rice with meat and veg) I been doing this for only 2 weeks. The first week I lost 4lbs, and having weighed myself today, I've lost another 3lbs (I'm 16st 10lbs now) What I'm curious about is what sort of weight should I be losing per week? I guess a good weight for me would be about 15st. You have only mentioned food/calories-in - you haven't mentioned exercise at all. The two should not be separated. What exercise do you get? -- Chris |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:24:11 +0100, Chris
wrote: Dunston wrote: Hello, I've recently started to diet, well it's more cutting back than dieting. I'm 37, male, 6ft tall and I did weigh 17st 5lbs (243lbs). I used to drink pretty much every night, and constantly eat until I went bed. I now only drink at weekends, and have 3 meals a day; breakfast (cereal or toast) lunch (sandwich and fruit) dinner (potatoes/pasta/rice with meat and veg) I been doing this for only 2 weeks. The first week I lost 4lbs, and having weighed myself today, I've lost another 3lbs (I'm 16st 10lbs now) What I'm curious about is what sort of weight should I be losing per week? I guess a good weight for me would be about 15st. You have only mentioned food/calories-in - you haven't mentioned exercise at all. The two should not be separated. What exercise do you get? I have a fairly active job, I work outdoors and I'm up and down ladders every day. I've also taken to bike riding for 30mins a couple of times a week. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Dunston" wrote in message ... I have a fairly active job, I work outdoors and I'm up and down ladders every day. I've also taken to bike riding for 30mins a couple of times a week. There are several in the group who use biking for exercise....it's always nice to have another biker join us. Beverly |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Beverly wrote:
"Dunston" wrote in message ... I have a fairly active job, I work outdoors and I'm up and down ladders every day. I've also taken to bike riding for 30mins a couple of times a week. There are several in the group who use biking for exercise....it's always nice to have another biker join us. Beverly What Beverly said! -- jmk in NC |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Completely on a side issue, the Body Mass Index is a bit rough and
ready as an indictor, but according to it, your goal of 150 stone (210 lb) is about 30 pounds north of a healthy weight for your height. At 210, you will be in the top end of the overweight range, almost into the start of what they classify as obese. If you are doing this for your health, any weight loss is great, and 210 is a good mini-goal, but you might want to contemplate revising your ultimate goal south to more like 13 stone (185). You also might want to add some exercise to the mix. Congrats on the 6 lb. Mary G. 5' 6", was 195, now hovering 130. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dunston wrote:
What I'm curious about is what sort of weight should I be losing per week? The time scale for fat loss is month to month, not week to week. Everyone hates this but hating it doesn't stop it from being true. Averaged from beginning to the start of maintenance, it appears that 4 per month is the best rate for keeping it off. I've never been sure whether this is because extreme plans tend to have folks crash off of them so it's the folks who take their time that remain on plan, or if the rate naturally tapers off as you have less to lose and no matter how much you started with it spreads out to 4 per month by the time you hit goal. You're doing fine. Early loss includes water. Fat is 3500-4000 calories per pound (listed as 9 per gram). Carbs are listed as 4 calories per gram but the body stores them dissolved in water. When you add up the glycogen carbs plus the water it's dissolved in, it omes out to around 600 calories per pound. This means that fat loss is gradual (and the reason for the time scale above) and water loss fast and bouncy. Once the body runs out of stored carbs it's gone, though. There's no such thing as 40 pounds of water loss! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Aug 2005 09:10:59 -0700, "Doug Freyburger"
wrote: Dunston wrote: What I'm curious about is what sort of weight should I be losing per week? The time scale for fat loss is month to month, not week to week. Everyone hates this but hating it doesn't stop it from being true. Averaged from beginning to the start of maintenance, it appears that 4 per month is the best rate for keeping it off. I've never been sure whether this is because extreme plans tend to have folks crash off of them so it's the folks who take their time that remain on plan, or if the rate naturally tapers off as you have less to lose and no matter how much you started with it spreads out to 4 per month by the time you hit goal. You're doing fine. Early loss includes water. Fat is 3500-4000 calories per pound (listed as 9 per gram). Carbs are listed as 4 calories per gram but the body stores them dissolved in water. When you add up the glycogen carbs plus the water it's dissolved in, it omes out to around 600 calories per pound. This means that fat loss is gradual (and the reason for the time scale above) and water loss fast and bouncy. Once the body runs out of stored carbs it's gone, though. There's no such thing as 40 pounds of water loss! Ok thanks, I'm only a couple of weeks in so I'll check and see my weight loss over the month. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dunston wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: Dunston wrote: What I'm curious about is what sort of weight should I be losing per week? The time scale for fat loss is month to month, not week to week. Everyone hates this but hating it doesn't stop it from being true. Averaged from beginning to the start of maintenance, it appears that 4 per month is the best rate for keeping it off ... You're doing fine. Early loss includes water ... Ok thanks, I'm only a couple of weeks in so I'll check and see my weight loss over the month. What happens is two curves added together. One is a gradual decline reflecting fat lost across the months. The other is a wild daily up and down bounce of the body storing and releasing carbs and the water the carbs are stored in. There are several approaches that use the scale in a rational way. Getting on the scale daily and thinking the number it gives reflects your current weight isn't in the list. Only getting on the scale monthly is probably an overreaction to the monthly time scale of fat loss. The problem with only weighing monthly is what if you get the bottom of the water swing one month and then the top if the water swing the next two months in a row. You'll think you haven't lost anything in 3 months. It's an overreaction. Simple compromise is to weigh weekly with the mindset that progress is supposed to be monthly. As time goes on that mindset gets easier to acheive but some find it hard early on. Arguably the best way to handle it is to use an arithmatic smoothing formula. The simplist is to weigh 2 days in a row and average them. From there on add today's weight plus yesterday's average. Average those 2 numbers by dividing by 2. Write that one down for tomorrow. This makes the daily bounce of water have much less effect. Even better is to use 3 or 4 in place of the 2's above to get more gradual smoothing. There are very fancy formulas that are a trivial improvement on this simple method. One reason folks like to weigh weekly is to find out if they are doing something wrong. By the time you're on Maintenance that becomes important - It's easy to gradually drift off you system and start gaining and you don't want to be a month in before you catch it. For folks on a published plan, though, if you actually need a scale to tell whether you had a problem means you didn't understand the written plan or you haven't tracked what you've eaten. Who in their loss phase ever cheats without knowing it? Problem is you don't mention a published plan and folks who roll their own don't have that sort of certainly to build upon. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
additional protein limits weight regain | Doug Skrecky | General Discussion | 12 | June 12th, 2005 09:49 AM |
Weight Loss Strategies | Gary Matthews | Weightwatchers | 0 | June 6th, 2005 06:04 AM |
Induction and weight lifting? Comments plz | Slider | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 9 | June 18th, 2004 06:29 AM |
Water: the key to weight loss | Philip Miranda | Weightwatchers | 6 | April 18th, 2004 10:22 AM |
Some WW recipe sites | LIMEYNO1 | Weightwatchers | 1 | January 17th, 2004 04:03 AM |