Can I lose 1 stone in 2 months?

Gloomendoom

supermassive wrote: »

All this yammering on about what works and what doesn't is silly. Don't look at diets, look at science.

Food, essentially, is fuel. The other use for food is to provide vitamins etc.

What you get from potatoes, rice and wheat is very little nutrition for the amount of energy it provides. This is bad because you're unlikely to be using up that energy and it will store itself as fat. That's what fat is - too much fuel stored up with no place to go.

Calorie control works if you don't particularly care about the way your body works and just want to look nice after 6 months or so, but because there are calories in everything, you never know what kind of nutrition you're actually getting unless you look at the nutritional content - which would show you the carb/fat/sugar/calories anyway.

Ignore calories. When I was losing weight 10 years ago (and kept it off other than a "calorie controlled" period last year where I gained 2 stone from poor nutrition) I was eating probably way over my calorific allowance for the day on most days, but because I was exersizing and because my body was using the fuel/fat for all of its energy (most of it, at least) the fuel was never stored and I wasn't about to get fat.

Foods that'll stand you in good stead are Broccoli, spinach etc
Eggs are a god-send.

A great tip is to identify if things are man-made (not meant to be consumed in nature) or natural (yay) and if they've been altered to become edible (potatoes).

"Has it been alive?" (fruit/veg/meat etc have all been living organisms)
Yes? Proceed to next question.
No? Leave well alone.

"Does it have a skin?" (skin/peel whatever. Custard skin doesn't count as skin btw haha)
Yes? Proceed to next question
No? Leave it!

"Does it have any colour?" (Colour means colour, not magnolia/beige/fawn)
Yes? Put it in your mouth.
No? Well it's unlikely to do you any good, then. Leave it.


Simple 3 question guide to losing weight. It will never fail.

Unless you eat too much of it, of course.

onlyroz

fluffnutter wrote: »

What is true is that some food is more satiating than others. A high protein lunch with a few carbs and a bit of fat thrown in will keep you feeling fuller for longer than a mars bar even though the number of calories may be similar.

The point is that if you eat food which doesn't satiate you for very long then you will want to eat more - hence you eat more calories than you "need" and you'll get fat.

So it is as simple as "calories in minus calories out" - however you'll do better if you pick foods which satisfy you for longer and reduce the cravings for more snacks.

onlyroz

fluffnutter wrote: »

This is about as scientifically meaningful as banging on about 'chemicals' in food.

I think the point is that the modern diet of high-fat high-carb foods (cake, pies, pastries, chips, choccie bars) does not exist in nature, and our evolution has not yet caught up with this change in diet. We are optimised to eat the "natural" foods and so to me it makes a lot of sense to avoid heavily processed food and to go back to preparing things for ourselves. Also, recent evidence has shown that food manufacturers can't be trusted to label their food correctly - at least if I prepare it myself I know what's gone into the meal.

valk_scot

If I was a healthy weight for my height and build (I'm not, believe me) but still dissatisfied with my body I'd look at ways of toning up, building some muscle and reshaping myself, within reason. It's quite astonishing how quickly a bit of serious weight work at the gym and/or something like Bodypump will change your body, as long as you eat healthy foods alongside and include enough protein to fuel all the muscle development. Changing your fat % is what it's all about, there are women who are the right weight who look flabby and untoned and there are women who are perhaps a few pounds heavier than ideal but who look fantastic and fit because they have good muscle tone and a lower range fat%.


There are limits of course but it's an extremely good start if you're already at a healthy weight. Folk pay far too much attention to the scales, it's the muscle-fat ratio that's important and how it's distributed.

purpleshoes_2

valk_scot wrote: »

If I was a healthy weight for my height and build (I'm not, believe me) but still dissatisfied with my body I'd look at ways of toning up, building some muscle and reshaping myself, within reason. It's quite astonishing how quickly a bit of serious weight work at the gym and/or something like Bodypump will change your body, as long as you eat healthy foods alongside and include enough protein to fuel all the muscle development. Changing your fat % is what it's all about, there are women who are the right weight who look flabby and untoned and there are women who are perhaps a few pounds heavier than ideal but who look fantastic and fit because they have good muscle tone and a lower range fat%.


There are limits of course but it's an extremely good start if you're already at a healthy weight. Folk pay far too much attention to the scales, it's the muscle-fat ratio that's important and how it's distributed.

I personally would take the lifting weights over a class like body pump every day of the week. Its basically an exercise to music class that doesn't do very much for people, because you cant put enough weights on the bar for anything you do in the class to be very effective (I know some people put 20kg or so on but much more than that you need a squat rack).

Not enough weights for strength and not enough reps for endurance, but I see people posting on their facebook pages about how they are getting ripped from doing body pump and the like. Les Mills and similar have their place, but Id definitely say if someone does want to do body pump, or attack or combat it should be as well as lifting weights and HIIT or not at all.

I used to do a lot of body attack and it got me fit but that's all I did, I definitely feel better with strength training, HIIT and some boxing classes.

supermassive

fluffnutter wrote: »

This is about as scientifically meaningful as banging on about 'chemicals' in food.

How is it not scientifically meaningful?

Manmade food isn't food at all, but a food-like product. It contains all manner of hidden nasties that'll not only make you fat, but effect you in other ways, too.

Natural food - what's been available since forever to consume - is the only stuff we were really supposed to eat. We haven't evolved through the years by eating Pie-in-a-can. Not successfully, at least.

It's pretty logical. You wouldn't feed your dog a regular meal of the crap that most people feed themselves, yet people don't look at their diets as simply as they look at that of a dog, even though it's the same thing.

supermassive

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Unless you eat too much of it, of course.

That also depends. You get to a certain point of eating high-water/high-fibre vegetables (Celery, Broccoli, spinach) and you can eat as much as you like because it's coming out the other end within the hour!:rotfl:

Gloomendoom

jaylee3 wrote: »

Hmmm yes I agree. I think for a height of 5 foot 5 to 5 ft 7; nine stone to ten stone is a good healthy weight.

Being 8 stone or under at that height is not a healthy weight for anyone, no matter what size their 'frame' is.

Any weight chart you look at will tell you that.

How about this weight chart? Notice the chronic disease risk for those with a BMI below 18.5. It's not just average as you would expect for normal range BMI people, it's low. There is increased mortality and morbidity from other causes but that is to be expected as many serious illnesses result in severe weight loss before death. I believe the phenomenon is termed reverse causality.

OrkneyStar

I don't own scales, and weigh myself rarely (which was a problem when I had a sick bug for 2 weeks, ending up on a drip, and I couldn't really say my normal weight, or when I was pregnant lol). I judge by how my clothes fit (obviously washing can shrink things over time and jeans can be tighter after a wash, but on the whole it works for me, on average). I know I have changed shape recently though, because all my jeans were getting loose and I realised I could fit in the next size down easier than I thought (my mum often bought me the smaller size and they fitted fine mostly!). I have been eating a bit healthier (proper regular meals, less junk but still treats occasionally), I don't drink, I do walk a bit and so on, so that's probably why. I have never really been hefty, was too thin in my early 20's (I was a size 8 which wasn't right for my frame, now a 10-12), but on the whole fairly happy with my weight, however my incentive for eating better is more related to dental health.

166million

I want to lose 24 lbs. Give myself a deadline of 24 July that's 1 lb per week. Hopefully be much quicker than that.