Author Topic: Weight Loss Discussion Thread  (Read 831819 times)

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7075 on: May 19, 2020, 06:11:54 pm »
Completely lost the plot last week and ate everything.
Gym classes are starting up next week, so hopefully that will help and then I need to go back onto a structured meal plan again rather than just freewheeling it.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7076 on: June 04, 2020, 05:46:37 pm »
So, back in the gym, stopped baking(!!!!!!!) and things are back on track...I hope.. At least I can see some of the new fat disappearing again and scale is now trending downwards again.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7077 on: June 04, 2020, 06:25:07 pm »
10 weeks of lockdown and stabilised at 11st 1 lb , so 70 kg. No loss of power on bike so all good.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7078 on: July 15, 2020, 04:47:03 pm »
Well here I am, back again. Back to Slimming world.
Quote from: Kim
^ This woman knows what she's talking about.

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7079 on: July 15, 2020, 09:37:24 pm »
Well here I am, back again. Back to Slimming world.

Are they meeting face to face or is it online?
Eating's a serious business. Don't bollocks around wagging your tail.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7080 on: July 15, 2020, 09:53:18 pm »
Well here I am, back again. Back to Slimming world.

Are they meeting face to face or is it online?

Zoom meeting at the moment, which is quite nice because I can get to know them without having to go out. They are planning to be back in classes in mid August, hopefully, although I will probably still be doing it via Zoom for a while I should think.
Quote from: Kim
^ This woman knows what she's talking about.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7081 on: July 16, 2020, 10:31:24 am »
My wife and i got to the stage where we were drinking more wine than we liked and had put on some weight.  I was upto 13stone 13lb which was my highest for many years. (I once touched 14 but generally hovered around 13.3 and 13.7.

We absolutely loved keto and I found I could ride on it and lose some weight but this time we wanted to lose serious weight and I wanted to complete some bucket list rides involving serious climbing.

We therefore started a Very low calorie keto diet on 30 May of 800calories per day.  My weight last night was 12 stone 3 and I have dropped at least a size in trousers. I am aiming for between 11 and 11.7 in the end.

Interestingly although I did not see myself as "pregnant", the first fat to go was the intra-abdominal fat.

We have eaten far more vegetables, loads of chicken, no alcohol and 10grams of Lindt 70% chocolate with sea salt.  I broke the diet when i did 100km ride on Monday and ate well but sparingly.

Keto but counting every calorie is strange but I think we will have to do it forever.  The plan is to continue for another 3-4 weeks and then transition to about 1000Calories and then a 5:2 process. 

My wife who tells me she is NOT a runner is now doing small amounts of jogging to burn extra calories on her walks.  She does not realise but is doing a slow couch to 5k!!!

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7082 on: July 16, 2020, 11:32:16 am »
Inspired (shamed) By Dr Beardy’s shrinkage (she’s lost over 2 stone since Christmas and a couple of dress sizes) I’ve rather half arsedly started dieting. I’ve done the 5/2 in the past to reasonable success, but it’s hard to fit in with Dr Beardy’s eating, so this time I’m Trying the 17/7 which seems to be working slowly. I’d prefer slowly in any case, as it is more sustainable for me. I’m eating between 13:00 and 20:00 which also allows me more time in the morning to get out and run while still fasted. Beer drunk after 20:00 has an almost immediate reversal effect so I’m having to curb my natural tendencies their, but at least I can eat bread during the 7 so it’s not all bad.

At 18 ½ stone I’ve a way to go, but I’m now getting a good feel for what works, so onwards...

I wonder if I shifted my window to 15:00 to 22:00 I could then drink beer for a couple of hours. Hmm.
Sorting my life out, one shed at a time.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7083 on: July 16, 2020, 01:00:43 pm »
Beardy it is certainly not easy.  After a rocky start to the pandemic with a lot of extra work and after my stress earlier in the year, I am in a relatively god place.  With both of us doing the diet and myself doing most of the cooking we have had success so far.

I am not a slow and steady person and have found the results on the scales to be a great motivator.  I am now also seeing the fat disappearing so that my (miniscule) muscles are actually visible. 

Cycling up hills has almost become enjoyable.  I suddenly found that more of my effort when standing was going into movement of the bike compared to just lifting me up off the saddle.  The difference for me was remarkable.  The motivation of a new bike has also helped as we are both reward driven (not necessarily good).  My wife is choosing her new jewellery.  The 84 day wait for the bike to be delivered is also motivating!

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7084 on: July 16, 2020, 04:11:20 pm »
I reckon, at least in my case, abdominal fat ALWAYS goes fairly early in any weight loss campaign.
Water and glycogen go first but those doing keto might have little of this to lose.

Hip & thigh fat are the slow movers in my case. I'm not sure if any type of eating plan changes that. Seems to need a long time on a low intake...

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7085 on: August 06, 2020, 09:41:41 pm »
I see Butterfly is commendably succeeding in this weight loss struggle;
You progress has not been ignored!

pdm

  • Sheffield hills? Nah... Just potholes.
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7086 on: August 08, 2020, 10:27:29 pm »
My SO insisted we invest in new Bathroom Scales (of a good quality variety that does not give wildly different readings each time AND is relatively accurate (1% or better rather than the 4-8%? of the previous ones)...
This has inspired me to weigh the body and take the readings seriously.
After 20 or so years at a constantish 95-97kg despite 2-300km per week on the bike in the Hilly Peaks, I have embarked on a mass reduction program of strict intake (no extras) and increased output (more hours per week on the bicycle)
Seems to be going well. Down to 89kg from 97kg in 11 weeks so far and hope to end up at around 80kg (BMI 22) eventually.
Hopefully the body will then habituate to the new level.
I guess it can be done - not suffering yet!  ::-)

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7087 on: August 08, 2020, 11:31:03 pm »
My SO insisted we invest in new Bathroom Scales (of a good quality variety that does not give wildly different readings each time AND is relatively accurate (1% or better rather than the 4-8%? of the previous ones)...
This has inspired me to weigh the body and take the readings seriously.
After 20 or so years at a constantish 95-97kg despite 2-300km per week on the bike in the Hilly Peaks, I have embarked on a mass reduction program of strict intake (no extras) and increased output (more hours per week on the bicycle)
Seems to be going well. Down to 89kg from 97kg in 11 weeks so far and hope to end up at around 80kg (BMI 22) eventually.
Hopefully the body will then habituate to the new level.
I guess it can be done - not suffering yet!  ::-)
Congratulations it can be done. I have dropped from 13stone13 to 11stone9 in the last 2 months and cannot believe ho much better I feel. We have done strict 800calorie Keto as it suits us. I see no reason why any diet cannot give equal results.

We are noticing how we have changed tastes, thought patterns and desire for food in good ways. I think a 12 week plan for instilling new behaviour patterns is essential.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7088 on: August 14, 2020, 05:35:05 pm »
Well here I am, back again. Back to Slimming world.

Half a stone down!

Keep going!

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7089 on: August 14, 2020, 11:02:36 pm »
I am the heaviest I've ever been, from needing to lose about 15kg at the start of the year I've probably put that much on.  I say probably, I'm not going anywhere near the scales till I can see the reading.  Just back from a few days away where I took clothes that i assumed fit, they didn't.  Diet started today...

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7090 on: August 16, 2020, 09:15:44 am »
For those who have access to PBS on their tv, today and tomorrow at various times there is a programme being broadcast “The truth about fat”. We found it interesting (and in my case a bit depressing - my wife’s been a size 10 for the last 30 years so is generally untroubled by fat issues) and well worth a watch.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7091 on: August 16, 2020, 05:15:45 pm »
A size 10 in 1990 is not the same as a Size 10 in 2020, though neither is fat. A 2020 size 10 could weigh around a stone (6kg) more than a generation ago and the difference is mostly visceral fat.

Of course, older women aren't the same shape as young girls but M&S clothes now fit waists around 15cm larger than when I were a lass, fo a given 'size'.

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7092 on: August 20, 2020, 03:55:45 pm »
A size 10 in 1990 is not the same as a Size 10 in 2020, though neither is fat. A 2020 size 10 could weigh around a stone (6kg) more than a generation ago and the difference is mostly visceral fat.

Of course, older women aren't the same shape as young girls but M&S clothes now fit waists around 15cm larger than when I were a lass, fo a given 'size'.

M&S are ridiculous. Example - here are two skirts I own, both M&S neither of which fit me now because lockdown:



The black one (1991 vintage, says the label) is two sizes *bigger* than the other, which I must have got about 5 years ago.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7093 on: August 20, 2020, 09:09:13 pm »
M&S adjust their clothing shapes and sizes to adapt to their market, which represents the populace...

pdm

  • Sheffield hills? Nah... Just potholes.
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7094 on: August 21, 2020, 12:01:32 pm »
M&S adjust their clothing shapes and sizes to adapt to their market, which represents the populace...

We have found they also seem adapt their stock to the part of the country/city the shop is in...
We went into M&S in Yeoville many years ago (briefly looked at a job there once) - all the clothing appeared to be for shorter people that usual - it seemed a bit odd until we looked more closely at the average height of the punters in the shop and also met the one tall lady in the lift who commented "how nice it was to see vertically unchallenged people for a change"... (Are the folk thereabouts selectively bred to cope with low flying helicopters, I wonder?)

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7095 on: August 21, 2020, 01:16:31 pm »
A size 10 in 1990 is not the same as a Size 10 in 2020, though neither is fat. A 2020 size 10 could weigh around a stone (6kg) more than a generation ago and the difference is mostly visceral fat.

Of course, older women aren't the same shape as young girls but M&S clothes now fit waists around 15cm larger than when I were a lass, fo a given 'size'.

Is it me, or is it a shape change, rather than just size inflation?  The waist to hip ratio seems to be getting progressively sillier. (I know I tend to carry weight on my arse, and I have the thighs of a recumbent cycling champion, but still...)
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7096 on: August 21, 2020, 01:22:11 pm »
A size 10 in 1990 is not the same as a Size 10 in 2020, though neither is fat. A 2020 size 10 could weigh around a stone (6kg) more than a generation ago and the difference is mostly visceral fat.

Of course, older women aren't the same shape as young girls but M&S clothes now fit waists around 15cm larger than when I were a lass, fo a given 'size'.

Is it me, or is it a shape change, rather than just size inflation?

A bit of both, I reckon.

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7097 on: August 21, 2020, 01:35:01 pm »
M&S adjust their clothing shapes and sizes to adapt to their market, which represents the populace...

We have found they also seem adapt their stock to the part of the country/city the shop is in...
We went into M&S in Yeoville many years ago (briefly looked at a job there once) - all the clothing appeared to be for shorter people that usual - it seemed a bit odd until we looked more closely at the average height of the punters in the shop and also met the one tall lady in the lift who commented "how nice it was to see vertically unchallenged people for a change"... (Are the folk thereabouts selectively bred to cope with low flying helicopters, I wonder?)
When I went to teachers' training college in Lancashire in 1972 I was struck by the small stature of the vast majority of my fellow students. To a degree, this might have been accounted for by the fact that I went from an all boys' school to a college where women outnumbered men by at least 2:1. Even so, there were hardly any men in my year who were taller than I was, the one who immediately springs to mind was called Ken Ness. As his name implies, he was Scots and of course they are known to be taller than average for the UK.
Eating's a serious business. Don't bollocks around wagging your tail.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7098 on: August 21, 2020, 02:36:52 pm »
A size 10 in 1990 is not the same as a Size 10 in 2020, though neither is fat. A 2020 size 10 could weigh around a stone (6kg) more than a generation ago and the difference is mostly visceral fat.

Of course, older women aren't the same shape as young girls but M&S clothes now fit waists around 15cm larger than when I were a lass, fo a given 'size'.

Is it me, or is it a shape change, rather than just size inflation?  The waist to hip ratio seems to be getting progressively sillier. (I know I tend to carry weight on my arse, and I have the thighs of a recumbent cycling champion, but still...)

M&S 'waist' sizes have gone up 5-6 inches for a given 'size' since 1980.
Hip sizes have only expanded up to 3 inches.
It's not just you.

ETA I have posted elsewhere about washing machine woes. The result is I'm wearing pants that I've had a LONG time. Today's were bought in bhs in Wolverhampton in 1984. The label states Size 18 to fit hips 43". That's an M&S 16 now and a size 16 M&S size 16 waist is now a whopping 33¾."

If you really want M&S size nerdery, when buying pants, the Russian (ru) size gives a waist, hip and height range in cm on the packaging or label. Us Brits don't get this information as routine...

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Weight Loss Discussion Thread
« Reply #7099 on: August 21, 2020, 02:41:16 pm »
When I went to teachers' training college in Lancashire in 1972 I was struck by the small stature of the vast majority of my fellow students. To a degree, this might have been accounted for by the fact that I went from an all boys' school to a college where women outnumbered men by at least 2:1. Even so, there were hardly any men in my year who were taller than I was, the one who immediately springs to mind was called Ken Ness. As his name implies, he was Scots and of course they are known to be taller than average for the UK.

Whereas, when I started Medical School in 1976, I was one of the shorter women at 5'6"...

Rugby-playing, privileged doctors beget doctors...

The boys were tall too...