So, I'm Fat...

[Deeko]

Condensed version: Put down the fork

 

[NGC_604]

You can easily lose weight if you use common sense and limit your intake of processed foods. Eat healthy fats, protein, get your sugars from fruits, eat plenty of vegetables, and stay at calorie deficit and losing weight is simple. Many people who fail at their diet fail because they don't know how to diet. They cut out all fats and wonder why they are hungry all the time, or they start eating 1000 calories a day and wonder why they feel like they have aids. Others just don't pay close enough attention to what they eat and are surprised to learn just how bad the two cans of pop and dipping everything in ranch can be.

 

[StageLeft]

I'm sympathetic to Blackjack200 because I feel like I have some level of addiction to sugar. I do think it's who I am as a person at a molecular level. I have no need for love or eating my way out of being unhappy with life or anything. I simply love the ever living sh*t out of junk food. And not chips, but candy, endless chocolate and ice cream. I find it a constant struggle to fight with.

Limitation of calories is the cornerstone of a weightloss program, but a proper program is a two-legged chair and the other level is physical activity. Activity will make weight loss quicker and it will make end results better, too; e.g. as mentioned you won't chew up all your lean muscle while dieting.

 

[Titan]

OP: if you are serious about losing weight in 3 weeks, check out on the Fast Track Detox Diet

You can find it in any local book store, based off ALG's book, The Fat Flush Plan.

I did the FFP 3 years ago and had remarkable results, I lost over 8 pounds a week for 5 straight weeks, but more importantly felt great doing it. I boosted my metabolism and energy level. I was really big and coming from a place where I drank a lot of soda, had a lot of water weight.

The author of these books is a nutritionist with over 20 years experience and her claims in her books are well referenced and justified.

I agree with the sentiment of Blackjack200 that dieting is complicated and it depends on our individual body chemistry. Certain foods are very addicting I know. It's not as simple as calories in->calories out. That camp has a good attitude and it works. I can say from experience the amount of weight I lost was impossible according to them, unless I doubled my metabolic burn somehow; really I lost a lot of waterlogged tissue.

The important thing is I lost weight and felt great. I am still fat, but less, and I feel good.

I just did the fast track detox and am on day 8, I just did the one day juice fast yesterday after a week of setting myself up and I feel great, I don't crash and have avoided all addicting cravings. I know from experience that I just have to avoid the marketing ala burger king ads.

The author of that book says her slogan is "No diet without detox" because you need to support your detox organs like liver when you diet so you can clean out the toxins that have built up in your fat.

The main camp of calories in, calories out has it right. SC's sticky is a very good guide for consistent results. That is the attitude for long-term success. But the detox aspects can't be ignored. The truth is always somewhere in the middle, especially when it comes to you.

I would give the fast track detox a try, sounds like what you're looking for. But it really depends on where you're at and why you're fat. If it's from junk and fast food and soda, then this will helps a lot. Be prepared to give up all carbs except a bit of fruit, all dairy except whey, all caffeine and alcohol, and to do some serious cleansing things.

As for me, I'm on it and just lost over 1 inch off my waist in 1 week, and have more energy than I've had in a month. So I personally recommend it.

Your alternative to that is to find a nutritionist who will give you a crash diet plan, if you are too lazy to read.

If you mean it, don't put this off. Take action today.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Uh, what? You're kidding me, right? Because exercise, diet, and staying active haven't proven time and time again to help people in their endeavor to lose weight? That addiction needs to be honed in like everything else. Your body craves fats and sugars because those are what have been evolutionarily beneficial for survival. You can have these in your diet, but you just need to keep moderation in mind. It's not an addiction for most people. It's a laziness and a lack of willpower. Your body technically can't be addicted to something it needs for survival. If so, I must be one hell of a water junkie. So in short, you're wrong. What you're doing is losing about 1/2 fat and 1/2 muscle. I hope you enjoy being the skinny fat guy because without a resistance training program, that's exactly what you're going to be.

eits,

I would recommend that you read the literature I suggested and make your own decision. My view is that SociallyChallenged?s weight loss thread is great for athletes and young people trying to lose their freshman 15 pounds. Strictly speaking, there?s nothing in that thread that?s wrong, I just find it limited in scope. It?s pretty obvious to me that SociallyChallenged?s understanding of addiction and the causes for obesity are under developed.

Also, take note of SC?s tone in this post. As a chiropractor, you?re probably already used to dealing with this sort of thing, but just realize that when it comes to weight loss, people get very opinionated and emotional. Some of my immediate family spent hours trying to talk me out of my current diet. Now they try to convince me that I?ve lost enough weight and I need to start eating more again.

Whatever you decide to do, good luck. Again, there?s nothing wrong with SC?s weight loss thread, it just did not work for me. If you?re curious about how I did it specifically, send me a PM.

The problem with your first statement is that you're saying that young and old are different when it comes to exercise. That's not a correct assumption though. The body responds the same way for all ages, unless physical pathology is involved. Also, I clearly understand addiction and obesity. Only 10% of obesity is caused by pathology. The other 90% is estimated by experts to be induced by laziness and lack of activity. I also have a minor in psychology - I know addiction as well.

My tone is such because you are spitting in the face of one science that is fairly proven. Utilizing the law of thermodynamics, if you eat less than you burn, you will utilize fat stores to provide the difference. If it didn't work that way, you would die or starve. I'm not emotional whatsoever. However, I am fervent since this simple idea works for every single healthy or normally weighted person. It's not just limited to a group of people. This is how everyone works unless you have a damaged thyroid or hypothalamus.

To be perfectly honest, I would venture to say it didn't work for you because you were not flexible enough. If you realized you weren't losing weight, you could've done more cardio, cut out a couple hundred extra calories, etc. You have to be able to go with the flow of it. Also, weightlifting has been shown to boost metabolic activity and calories burnt throughout the day so if you'd like to say that it doesn't do anything, you'd be stating that against repeated and provable research. Your anecdotal evidence vs. research that has been done time and time again and shown the same results. Think about it. You are not the lone ranger - you are not the outlier. You were doing something wrong.

On top of you saying you're not losing muscle: it is a biological impossibility to not lose muscle while losing weight. A resistance program limits that to a very small amount lost. However, without a resistance training program, it is physiologically unavoidable to lose low amounts of muscle while losing weight. You may say you look strong and feel strong, etc; but if you got a body fat % test, you would be roughly the same body fat % because as you lose fat, you lose muscle and the muscle to fat proportion stays the same. Talk to everybody who has dieted without exercise or resistance training. Skinny fat is where they end up and it's truly dissatisfying.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Titan
OP: if you are serious about losing weight in 3 weeks, check out on the Fast Track Detox Diet

You can find it in any local book store, based off ALG's book, The Fat Flush Plan.

I did the FFP 3 years ago and had remarkable results, I lost over 8 pounds a week for 5 straight weeks, but more importantly felt great doing it. I boosted my metabolism and energy level. I was really big and coming from a place where I drank a lot of soda, had a lot of water weight.

The author of these books is a nutritionist with over 20 years experience and her claims in her books are well referenced and justified.

I agree with the sentiment of Blackjack200 that dieting is complicated and it depends on our individual body chemistry. Certain foods are very addicting I know. It's not as simple as calories in->calories out. That camp has a good attitude and it works. I can say from experience the amount of weight I lost was impossible according to them, unless I doubled my metabolic burn somehow; really I lost a lot of waterlogged tissue.

The important thing is I lost weight and felt great. I am still fat, but less, and I feel good.

I just did the fast track detox and am on day 8, I just did the one day juice fast yesterday after a week of setting myself up and I feel great, I don't crash and have avoided all addicting cravings. I know from experience that I just have to avoid the marketing ala burger king ads.

The author of that book says her slogan is "No diet without detox" because you need to support your detox organs like liver when you diet so you can clean out the toxins that have built up in your fat.

The main camp of calories in, calories out has it right. SC's sticky is a very good guide for consistent results. That is the attitude for long-term success. But the detox aspects can't be ignored. The truth is always somewhere in the middle, especially when it comes to you.

I would give the fast track detox a try, sounds like what you're looking for. But it really depends on where you're at and why you're fat. If it's from junk and fast food and soda, then this will helps a lot. Be prepared to give up all carbs except a bit of fruit, all dairy except whey, all caffeine and alcohol, and to do some serious cleansing things.

As for me, I'm on it and just lost over 1 inch off my waist in 1 week, and have more energy than I've had in a month. So I personally recommend it.

Your alternative to that is to find a nutritionist who will give you a crash diet plan, if you are too lazy to read.

If you mean it, don't put this off. Take action today.

The best detox you can do for your body is via leafy greens, fruits, veggies, and plenty of water. That is more sufficient than any fad detox anyone can offer.

Sure you may have lost a ton of weight, but was it all fat? Nope. Was it partly muscle? Yep. Was it mostly water? I'd gander to say it was. The healthiest way to lose weight in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing and beneficial to long term health and success is 1-1.5 pounds a week. Slow and steady always wins the race.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Titan
OP: if you are serious about losing weight in 3 weeks, check out on the Fast Track Detox Diet

You can find it in any local book store, based off ALG's book, The Fat Flush Plan.

I did the FFP 3 years ago and had remarkable results, I lost over 8 pounds a week for 5 straight weeks, but more importantly felt great doing it. I boosted my metabolism and energy level. I was really big and coming from a place where I drank a lot of soda, had a lot of water weight.

The author of these books is a nutritionist with over 20 years experience and her claims in her books are well referenced and justified.

I agree with the sentiment of Blackjack200 that dieting is complicated and it depends on our individual body chemistry. Certain foods are very addicting I know. It's not as simple as calories in->calories out. That camp has a good attitude and it works. I can say from experience the amount of weight I lost was impossible according to them, unless I doubled my metabolic burn somehow; really I lost a lot of waterlogged tissue.

The important thing is I lost weight and felt great. I am still fat, but less, and I feel good.

I just did the fast track detox and am on day 8, I just did the one day juice fast yesterday after a week of setting myself up and I feel great, I don't crash and have avoided all addicting cravings. I know from experience that I just have to avoid the marketing ala burger king ads.

The author of that book says her slogan is "No diet without detox" because you need to support your detox organs like liver when you diet so you can clean out the toxins that have built up in your fat.

The main camp of calories in, calories out has it right. SC's sticky is a very good guide for consistent results. That is the attitude for long-term success. But the detox aspects can't be ignored. The truth is always somewhere in the middle, especially when it comes to you.

I would give the fast track detox a try, sounds like what you're looking for. But it really depends on where you're at and why you're fat. If it's from junk and fast food and soda, then this will helps a lot. Be prepared to give up all carbs except a bit of fruit, all dairy except whey, all caffeine and alcohol, and to do some serious cleansing things.

As for me, I'm on it and just lost over 1 inch off my waist in 1 week, and have more energy than I've had in a month. So I personally recommend it.

Your alternative to that is to find a nutritionist who will give you a crash diet plan, if you are too lazy to read.

If you mean it, don't put this off. Take action today.

The best detox you can do for your body is via leafy greens, fruits, veggies, and plenty of water. That is more sufficient than any fad detox anyone can offer.

Sure you may have lost a ton of weight, but was it all fat? Nope. Was it partly muscle? Yep. Was it mostly water? I'd gander to say it was. The healthiest way to lose weight in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing and beneficial to long term health and success is 1-1.5 pounds a week. Slow and steady always wins the race.

For the record I agree with you 100%. I probably did lose some muscle and a lot of water since I was drinking so much cranberry juice. For how heavy I was, weight is weight, and being able to move again is more important that losing only fat sometimes.

Not sure if ALGs stuff can be considered a "fad" diet, she has pretty good credentials and most people I talk to have never heard of the FFP. I can say her books are chock full of tons of information on physiology to help you make your own decisions. Pretty dry actually. It's interesting to read anecdotal evidence on things she has learned form working as a nutritionist for over two decades. So I just say before you judge, look into it. It is the most well-thought out diet I have ever seen.

I'm 6'4, 350 pounds and I don't obsess with one number: my weight; or a second number: my waist. Health is a complicated thing and I for one think people obsess over weight too much. I think it is a much better idea to notice when you start forming bad habits and even physical addictions to things like refined sugar, trans fats, and even certain food combinations that don't digest well (bacon cheesbugers for example). I've struggled a lot more with good eating habits, because eating that crap makes me feel like crap. By the same token, eating really good food and avoiding the crap makes me feel really good. So I am finally learning that you have to be healthy to lose weight, not the other way around.

I don't agree with 1-1.5 pounds a week for everybody. 3.5 pounds a week is only 1% of my body weight and if I can go that fast until I get below 300, I will. No one (including my doctor) can tell me why this is a bad idea other than they just seem to be repeating each other. If I feel good, my metabolism/energy levels don't crash, I go to the gym and work hard 3 times a week and can lose up to 4 pounds a week, I'm going to do it. Overall, I expect a moderate amount of weight loss averaging 2 pounds per week. But on the front-end, I don't see why I can't do more because it will average out when I plateau.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Titan
For the record I agree with you 100%. I probably did lose some muscle and a lot of water since I was drinking so much cranberry juice. For how heavy I was, weight is weight, and being able to move again is more important that losing only fat sometimes.

Not sure if ALGs stuff can be considered a "fad" diet, she has pretty good credentials and most people I talk to have never heard of the FFP. I can say her books are chock full of tons of information on physiology to help you make your own decisions. Pretty dry actually. It's interesting to read anecdotal evidence on things she has learned form working as a nutritionist for over two decades. So I just say before you judge, look into it. It is the most well-thought out diet I have ever seen.

I'm 6'4, 350 pounds and I don't obsess with one number: my weight; or a second number: my waist. Health is a complicated thing and I for one think people obsess over weight too much. I think it is a much better idea to notice when you start forming bad habits and even physical addictions to things like refined sugar, trans fats, and even certain food combinations that don't digest well (bacon cheesbugers for example). I've struggled a lot more with good eating habits, because eating that crap makes me feel like crap. By the same token, eating really good food and avoiding the crap makes me feel really good. So I am finally learning that you have to be healthy to lose weight, not the other way around.

I don't agree with 1-1.5 pounds a week for everybody. 3.5 pounds a week is only 1% of my body weight and if I can go that fast until I get below 300, I will. No one (including my doctor) can tell me why this is a bad idea other than they just seem to be repeating each other. If I feel good, my metabolism/energy levels don't crash, I go to the gym and work hard 3 times a week and can lose up to 4 pounds a week, I'm going to do it. Overall, I expect a moderate amount of weight loss averaging 2 pounds per week. But on the front-end, I don't see why I can't do more because it will average out when I plateau.

Perhaps this isn't a fad diet, but it is far from the optimal. The summary seems like you should use phases for detoxification and such. You can perma-detox with the correct diet. I feel like trying to "jump start" that is more hurtful for the body than learning how to eat correctly in general. Your body will detox itself effectively over time if your diet is in check.

Also, you're very right about 1-1.5 pounds/week not being right for everyone. Someone of your size can stand to lose more per week since the skew is much greater in the favor of fat. However, as you approach weights of ~230-250lbs, it is beneficial for muscle retention to slow the rate down.

Also, I understand that you're not worrying about weight too much. However, weight is a correlate of health complications. Work to be healthier overall and you'll continue to lose weight. I'd just be wary of phasic diets. You should have one diet and stick with it the rest of your life - the healthy one.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

The problem with your first statement is that you're saying that young and old are different when it comes to exercise. That's not a correct assumption though. The body responds the same way for all ages, unless physical pathology is involved. Also, I clearly understand addiction and obesity. Only 10% of obesity is caused by pathology. The other 90% is estimated by experts to be induced by laziness and lack of activity. I also have a minor in psychology - I know addiction as well.

My tone is such because you are spitting in the face of one science that is fairly proven. Utilizing the law of thermodynamics, if you eat less than you burn, you will utilize fat stores to provide the difference. If it didn't work that way, you would die or starve. I'm not emotional whatsoever. However, I am fervent since this simple idea works for every single healthy or normally weighted person. It's not just limited to a group of people. This is how everyone works unless you have a damaged thyroid or hypothalamus.

To be perfectly honest, I would venture to say it didn't work for you because you were not flexible enough. If you realized you weren't losing weight, you could've done more cardio, cut out a couple hundred extra calories, etc. You have to be able to go with the flow of it. Also, weightlifting has been shown to boost metabolic activity and calories burnt throughout the day so if you'd like to say that it doesn't do anything, you'd be stating that against repeated and provable research. Your anecdotal evidence vs. research that has been done time and time again and shown the same results. Think about it. You are not the lone ranger - you are not the outlier. You were doing something wrong.

On top of you saying you're not losing muscle: it is a biological impossibility to not lose muscle while losing weight. A resistance program limits that to a very small amount lost. However, without a resistance training program, it is physiologically unavoidable to lose low amounts of muscle while losing weight. You may say you look strong and feel strong, etc; but if you got a body fat % test, you would be roughly the same body fat % because as you lose fat, you lose muscle and the muscle to fat proportion stays the same. Talk to everybody who has dieted without exercise or resistance training. Skinny fat is where they end up and it's truly dissatisfying.

P1: Strictly speaking this is true, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just don't think older people are as likely to hit the weights or do HIIT. In fact, I tried to get my parents to do SS but was unable to convince them. Frankly, your second statement shocks me. Everything that I have read suggests that obesity is caused by overeating, not laziness or lack of activity. I'll have to research this and get back to. I'd appreciate it if you could source your contention that only 10% of obesity is caused by pathology.

P2: I think you're misreading what said. I didn't say "the program doesn't work". I believe it does, and probably nothing is really better as long as the person can follow it. I was not able to follow it. I believe there is a lack of appreciation among some slimmer fitness experts about the struggle people have with food. Cavalier comments about laziness and the general public attitude toward obesity illustrate this.

Have a soccer tryout now, I'll have to hit the last two paragraphs when I return. Cheers.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

The problem with your first statement is that you're saying that young and old are different when it comes to exercise. That's not a correct assumption though. The body responds the same way for all ages, unless physical pathology is involved. Also, I clearly understand addiction and obesity. Only 10% of obesity is caused by pathology. The other 90% is estimated by experts to be induced by laziness and lack of activity. I also have a minor in psychology - I know addiction as well.

My tone is such because you are spitting in the face of one science that is fairly proven. Utilizing the law of thermodynamics, if you eat less than you burn, you will utilize fat stores to provide the difference. If it didn't work that way, you would die or starve. I'm not emotional whatsoever. However, I am fervent since this simple idea works for every single healthy or normally weighted person. It's not just limited to a group of people. This is how everyone works unless you have a damaged thyroid or hypothalamus.

To be perfectly honest, I would venture to say it didn't work for you because you were not flexible enough. If you realized you weren't losing weight, you could've done more cardio, cut out a couple hundred extra calories, etc. You have to be able to go with the flow of it. Also, weightlifting has been shown to boost metabolic activity and calories burnt throughout the day so if you'd like to say that it doesn't do anything, you'd be stating that against repeated and provable research. Your anecdotal evidence vs. research that has been done time and time again and shown the same results. Think about it. You are not the lone ranger - you are not the outlier. You were doing something wrong.

On top of you saying you're not losing muscle: it is a biological impossibility to not lose muscle while losing weight. A resistance program limits that to a very small amount lost. However, without a resistance training program, it is physiologically unavoidable to lose low amounts of muscle while losing weight. You may say you look strong and feel strong, etc; but if you got a body fat % test, you would be roughly the same body fat % because as you lose fat, you lose muscle and the muscle to fat proportion stays the same. Talk to everybody who has dieted without exercise or resistance training. Skinny fat is where they end up and it's truly dissatisfying.

P1: Strictly speaking this is true, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just don't think older people are as likely to hit the weights or do HIIT. In fact, I tried to get my parents to do SS but was unable to convince them. Frankly, your second statement shocks me. Everything that I have read suggests that obesity is caused by overeating, not laziness or lack of activity. I'll have to research this and get back to. I'd appreciate it if you could source your contention that only 10% of obesity is caused by pathology.

P2: I think you're misreading what said. I didn't say "the program doesn't work". I believe it does, and probably nothing is really better as long as the person can follow it. I was not able to follow it. I believe there is a lack of appreciation among some slimmer fitness experts about the struggle people have with food. Cavalier comments about laziness and the general public attitude toward obesity illustrate this.

Have a soccer tryout now, I'll have to hit the last two paragraphs when I return. Cheers.

Whoops, for the second part of paragraph 1: I stated exercise/activity twice. Meant to say lack of activity and poor diet regulation. Lemme check to see if the CDC has anything on it. It was either stated by a professor or in a textbook I recently read.

 

[dealmaster00]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
If you were on SS, then this was in the another time in your life when you were not trying to lose weight? SS is pretty much based on a caloric surplus to fuel incremental gains in weight from workout to workout. That or you just weren't doing the program long b/c you stalled once physiological adaptation wore out.

This is why I didn't want to get into it too much; it's a long story. I learned about SS in the weight loss thread, and bought the book and read it cover to cover twice. Rippetoe is emphatic that you should focus on strength gains, and if you get strong, your physique will improve. So that's what I did, I got very strong (300 lb. squat) but I didn't like what I saw in the mirror.

In reference to how much weight I have lost since resistance training, none. I have gained weight, with a purpose. I was thin, too thin when I completed dieting. I am now adding weight, muscle and fat intentionally. I watch my diet to ensure I don't explode with fat gains.

This is pretty much exactly what I intend to do. Once I hit my target weight, start putting lean muscle back on. I didn't post it because I have not researched it enough to know if it is good general advice.

It's hard to make any conjecture about your body and what you are doing to it without your height/weight. If you were obese, any loss looks good I imagine. I don't know, so I won't comment I guess.

I was 5'11 240 pounds, now I'm 207 pounds. When I hit 180 pounds I will probably go back to weight training and caloric surplus with the aim of staying around 190 lbs lean.

I'm no expert, but you suggested dropping weights which is in a sense proposing a method, if not just by eliminating the other.

What I suggested is that weight training does not help you lose weight in my experience, and from what I've read in the sources are provided. It seems like your experience was similar. I'm going to have to insist that I have not proposed any "method". If someone told me that they tried to use my method to lose weight based on my posts in this thread, and that they failed, I would be pretty upset. Everyone needs to find their own method.

A 300lb squat at 240lbs is not strong, which could explain why you were not satisfied with your results.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: dealmaster00

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
If you were on SS, then this was in the another time in your life when you were not trying to lose weight? SS is pretty much based on a caloric surplus to fuel incremental gains in weight from workout to workout. That or you just weren't doing the program long b/c you stalled once physiological adaptation wore out.

This is why I didn't want to get into it too much; it's a long story. I learned about SS in the weight loss thread, and bought the book and read it cover to cover twice. Rippetoe is emphatic that you should focus on strength gains, and if you get strong, your physique will improve. So that's what I did, I got very strong (300 lb. squat) but I didn't like what I saw in the mirror.

In reference to how much weight I have lost since resistance training, none. I have gained weight, with a purpose. I was thin, too thin when I completed dieting. I am now adding weight, muscle and fat intentionally. I watch my diet to ensure I don't explode with fat gains.

This is pretty much exactly what I intend to do. Once I hit my target weight, start putting lean muscle back on. I didn't post it because I have not researched it enough to know if it is good general advice.

It's hard to make any conjecture about your body and what you are doing to it without your height/weight. If you were obese, any loss looks good I imagine. I don't know, so I won't comment I guess.

I was 5'11 240 pounds, now I'm 207 pounds. When I hit 180 pounds I will probably go back to weight training and caloric surplus with the aim of staying around 190 lbs lean.

I'm no expert, but you suggested dropping weights which is in a sense proposing a method, if not just by eliminating the other.

What I suggested is that weight training does not help you lose weight in my experience, and from what I've read in the sources are provided. It seems like your experience was similar. I'm going to have to insist that I have not proposed any "method". If someone told me that they tried to use my method to lose weight based on my posts in this thread, and that they failed, I would be pretty upset. Everyone needs to find their own method.

A 300lb squat at 240lbs is not strong, which could explain why you were not satisfied with your results.

Well, you don't even have to be strong to lose weight with a resistance program. I don't want people to think that. However, it does seem that he may have given up a bit prematurely.

 

[eits]

the past two days = running about 2.5 miles and walking .5 miles.

caloric intake = 970 calories, mainly chicken, baked potatoes, green beans

my gf cut me off until i dropped 15 lbs. it's not because she doesn't want it because i'm fat now... it's because of motivational purposes.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: eits
caloric intake = 970 calories, mainly chicken, baked potatoes, green beans

If that number is anywhere near accurate, I give it about a week before you are constantly struggling with being hungry, tired, unmotivated, sick or just quit your diet. This is WAY too few calories for a 200lb exercising male and will put you in starvation mode. Your body will try to conserve energy, start to defend its fat reserves, burn up muscle mass and you will most likely be very unhappy with the results.

Eat a MODERATE caloric deficit (~400-700). Don't starve yourself.


Edit ---> And get some goddamn fat in your diet, you need it to live. Seriously, did you not read the fat loss sticky at all?

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
To be perfectly honest, I would venture to say it didn't work for you because you were not flexible enough. If you realized you weren't losing weight, you could've done more cardio, cut out a couple hundred extra calories, etc. You have to be able to go with the flow of it. Also, weightlifting has been shown to boost metabolic activity and calories burnt throughout the day so if you'd like to say that it doesn't do anything, you'd be stating that against repeated and provable research. Your anecdotal evidence vs. research that has been done time and time again and shown the same results. Think about it. You are not the lone ranger - you are not the outlier. You were doing something wrong.

On top of you saying you're not losing muscle: it is a biological impossibility to not lose muscle while losing weight. A resistance program limits that to a very small amount lost. However, without a resistance training program, it is physiologically unavoidable to lose low amounts of muscle while losing weight. You may say you look strong and feel strong, etc; but if you got a body fat % test, you would be roughly the same body fat % because as you lose fat, you lose muscle and the muscle to fat proportion stays the same. Talk to everybody who has dieted without exercise or resistance training. Skinny fat is where they end up and it's truly dissatisfying.

P3: Executing a program like Starting Strength correctly takes an awful lot of focus. I had a personal trainer to help me with form, I was recording my lifts and critiquing them at home, I was keeping up with discussions here, at Strength Mill, and other forums. All in all, I would say I was spending 14-16 hours per week on the program, which left me little time to do anything else after work. Ultimately, I was not able to do all the things I needed to do for the program to work.

P4: I never said I'm not losing muscle. I am losing muscle and quite a bit. I said that my arms do not look frail.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
To be perfectly honest, I would venture to say it didn't work for you because you were not flexible enough. If you realized you weren't losing weight, you could've done more cardio, cut out a couple hundred extra calories, etc. You have to be able to go with the flow of it. Also, weightlifting has been shown to boost metabolic activity and calories burnt throughout the day so if you'd like to say that it doesn't do anything, you'd be stating that against repeated and provable research. Your anecdotal evidence vs. research that has been done time and time again and shown the same results. Think about it. You are not the lone ranger - you are not the outlier. You were doing something wrong.

On top of you saying you're not losing muscle: it is a biological impossibility to not lose muscle while losing weight. A resistance program limits that to a very small amount lost. However, without a resistance training program, it is physiologically unavoidable to lose low amounts of muscle while losing weight. You may say you look strong and feel strong, etc; but if you got a body fat % test, you would be roughly the same body fat % because as you lose fat, you lose muscle and the muscle to fat proportion stays the same. Talk to everybody who has dieted without exercise or resistance training. Skinny fat is where they end up and it's truly dissatisfying.

P3: Executing a program like Starting Strength correctly takes an awful lot of focus. I had a personal trainer to help me with form, I was recording my lifts and critiquing them at home, I was keeping up with discussions here, at Strength Mill, and other forums. All in all, I would say I was spending 14-16 hours per week on the program, which left me little time to do anything else after work. Ultimately, I was not able to do all the things I needed to do for the program to work.

P4: I never said I'm not losing muscle. I am losing muscle and quite a bit. I said that my arms do not look frail.

The program is secondary to the diet changes. Perhaps your focus was too much on the strength training and less on the diet. I suggest in the sticky to take it one at a time. Usually I suggest honing in diet first, then taking up some sort of training program. I believe that, if you would have followed this plan, things would have worked out better for you.

Fair enough. I'd rather just not lose muscle at all. I'd rather lose pure fat and like the way I look at the end of a cut rather than have to bulk and cut again to feel good about myself.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: dealmaster00

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
If you were on SS, then this was in the another time in your life when you were not trying to lose weight? SS is pretty much based on a caloric surplus to fuel incremental gains in weight from workout to workout. That or you just weren't doing the program long b/c you stalled once physiological adaptation wore out.

This is why I didn't want to get into it too much; it's a long story. I learned about SS in the weight loss thread, and bought the book and read it cover to cover twice. Rippetoe is emphatic that you should focus on strength gains, and if you get strong, your physique will improve. So that's what I did, I got very strong (300 lb. squat) but I didn't like what I saw in the mirror.

In reference to how much weight I have lost since resistance training, none. I have gained weight, with a purpose. I was thin, too thin when I completed dieting. I am now adding weight, muscle and fat intentionally. I watch my diet to ensure I don't explode with fat gains.

This is pretty much exactly what I intend to do. Once I hit my target weight, start putting lean muscle back on. I didn't post it because I have not researched it enough to know if it is good general advice.

It's hard to make any conjecture about your body and what you are doing to it without your height/weight. If you were obese, any loss looks good I imagine. I don't know, so I won't comment I guess.

I was 5'11 240 pounds, now I'm 207 pounds. When I hit 180 pounds I will probably go back to weight training and caloric surplus with the aim of staying around 190 lbs lean.

I'm no expert, but you suggested dropping weights which is in a sense proposing a method, if not just by eliminating the other.

What I suggested is that weight training does not help you lose weight in my experience, and from what I've read in the sources are provided. It seems like your experience was similar. I'm going to have to insist that I have not proposed any "method". If someone told me that they tried to use my method to lose weight based on my posts in this thread, and that they failed, I would be pretty upset. Everyone needs to find their own method.

A 300lb squat at 240lbs is not strong, which could explain why you were not satisfied with your results.

:roll:

According to Rippetoe's chart at the end of Practical Programming, it is strong. Why don't I just listen to him?

300 was also my 5RM, I never did a 1RM

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Titan
OP: if you are serious about losing weight in 3 weeks, check out on the Fast Track Detox Diet

You can find it in any local book store, based off ALG's book, The Fat Flush Plan.

I did the FFP 3 years ago and had remarkable results, I lost over 8 pounds a week for 5 straight weeks, but more importantly felt great doing it. I boosted my metabolism and energy level. I was really big and coming from a place where I drank a lot of soda, had a lot of water weight.

The author of these books is a nutritionist with over 20 years experience and her claims in her books are well referenced and justified.

I agree with the sentiment of Blackjack200 that dieting is complicated and it depends on our individual body chemistry. Certain foods are very addicting I know. It's not as simple as calories in->calories out. That camp has a good attitude and it works. I can say from experience the amount of weight I lost was impossible according to them, unless I doubled my metabolic burn somehow; really I lost a lot of waterlogged tissue.

The important thing is I lost weight and felt great. I am still fat, but less, and I feel good.

I just did the fast track detox and am on day 8, I just did the one day juice fast yesterday after a week of setting myself up and I feel great, I don't crash and have avoided all addicting cravings. I know from experience that I just have to avoid the marketing ala burger king ads.

The author of that book says her slogan is "No diet without detox" because you need to support your detox organs like liver when you diet so you can clean out the toxins that have built up in your fat.

The main camp of calories in, calories out has it right. SC's sticky is a very good guide for consistent results. That is the attitude for long-term success. But the detox aspects can't be ignored. The truth is always somewhere in the middle, especially when it comes to you.

I would give the fast track detox a try, sounds like what you're looking for. But it really depends on where you're at and why you're fat. If it's from junk and fast food and soda, then this will helps a lot. Be prepared to give up all carbs except a bit of fruit, all dairy except whey, all caffeine and alcohol, and to do some serious cleansing things.

As for me, I'm on it and just lost over 1 inch off my waist in 1 week, and have more energy than I've had in a month. So I personally recommend it.

Your alternative to that is to find a nutritionist who will give you a crash diet plan, if you are too lazy to read.

If you mean it, don't put this off. Take action today.

This post sounds like a commercial for this lady and her books. I would be very, very, very wary of people like this who claim to sell a magical solution to weight loss, particularly when their own websites are teeming with advertisements offering to sell you XYZ products. The title and promotional blurbs regarding her books raise even more flags. "Toxins" responsible for weight gain? Detox? Since when does "detox" have anything to do with weight loss? Moreover, what is the physiological justification for fasting or drinking her "special juice?" This seems more for a psychological, rather than a physiological, benefit. It almost seems like her books are a marketing platform for her products! I don't buy it, particularly when there is so much commercialism and upselling involved. That sets off alarm bells.

I am also not convinced about the complete legitimacy of her credentials. Her CNS (Certified Nutrition Specialist) certificate is one issued not only to those with backgrounds in nutrition but to those in "allied fields." In her case, this would be a degree in Nutrition EDUCATION (not clinical nutrition, mind you). I haven't been able to find what exactly her PhD was awarded in, or from where. It doesn't appear to be in Nutrition, because a search of PubMed brings up no publications in her name. She has many affiliations with the alternative/holistic medicine crowd. What does this mean? Tread with caution, whatever said therein say may or may not have solid scientific footing.

Granted, I have not read this book. But on the surface, many of her claims seem fairly outlandish and seem to be unsupported or at the best, weakly supported. The people who provide anecdotal reviews for her book are all accomplished (commercialized) authors whose diet books grace bookshelves and supplement containers.

It just seems that this all another example of people out to make a buck by selling products and fad diets rather than actual good, tangible, helpful information. At the very least, whatever information they provide is likely to be closely intertwined with the commercial side of things. No nutritionist not wanting to compromise the integrity of their services would also sell you supplements, and this all stinks of a rat.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Whoops, for the second part of paragraph 1: I stated exercise/activity twice. Meant to say lack of activity and poor diet regulation. Lemme check to see if the CDC has anything on it. It was either stated by a professor or in a textbook I recently read.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/ne...essive_calorie_in.html

The researchers used their findings to predict how much weight they would expect Americans to have gained over the 30-year period if food intake were the only influence. They used data from a nationally representative survey (NHANES) that recorded the weight of Americans in the 1970s and early 2000s to determine the actual weight gain over that period?

The researchers found that in children, the predicted and actual weight increase matched exactly, indicating that the increases in energy intake alone over the 30 years studied could explain the weight increase.?

For adults, we predicted that they would be 10.8kg heavier, but in fact they were 8.6kg heavier. That suggests that excess food intake still explains the weight gain, but that there may have been increases in physical activity over the 30 years that have blunted what would otherwise have been a higher weight gain,? Swinburn said.?

http://gohealthygofit.com/what...-or-physical-activity/

It's not an exercise issue. It's a diet issue.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Whoops, for the second part of paragraph 1: I stated exercise/activity twice. Meant to say lack of activity and poor diet regulation. Lemme check to see if the CDC has anything on it. It was either stated by a professor or in a textbook I recently read.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/ne...essive_calorie_in.html

The researchers used their findings to predict how much weight they would expect Americans to have gained over the 30-year period if food intake were the only influence. They used data from a nationally representative survey (NHANES) that recorded the weight of Americans in the 1970s and early 2000s to determine the actual weight gain over that period?

The researchers found that in children, the predicted and actual weight increase matched exactly, indicating that the increases in energy intake alone over the 30 years studied could explain the weight increase.?

For adults, we predicted that they would be 10.8kg heavier, but in fact they were 8.6kg heavier. That suggests that excess food intake still explains the weight gain, but that there may have been increases in physical activity over the 30 years that have blunted what would otherwise have been a higher weight gain,? Swinburn said.?

http://gohealthygofit.com/what...-or-physical-activity/

It's not an exercise issue. It's a diet issue.

It is a diet issue? Well, at heart, perhaps. It's a simple matter of caloric excess. But I thought it was also a socioeconomic issue. You see, the problem is that you're trying to pin obesity on ONE thing when in fact it is more multifaceted. Obesity can be a dietary issue, but you can't address the issue of diet without addressing the socioeconomic factors which accompany diet, such as access to transportation, culturally appropriate produce/fresh foods, or access to fresh food, period. You also can't discount genetic factors (e.g. Pima Indians) or precipitating factors like heightened stress, poor support networks, and possibly socially dysfunctional circumstances (divorce, broken household, social isolation, etc.).

Does activity matter? Of course it does - that's the one area of caloric expenditure where you have complete control. The problem is that obesity and inability to participate in physical activity are intertwined in a self-perpetuating cycle. The heavier you are, the more difficult it is to exercise, and the heavier you get. Add in some psychological duress and you have a recipe for disaster. Don't even get me started on the socioeconomic barriers to exercise, particularly for juveniles and adolescents.

Sure, the magic bullet theory is sexy, and it sells books - which is why so many authors have their "grand theories" about how the obesity epidemic came about - for example, the "innate human desire to consume sugar and fat" argument - one which explains why people eat sugar and fat, but doesn't exactly explain why we eat so much of it. Other societies prize foods rich in sugar and/or fat yet consume it in different ways and certainly, in different quantities - so you CANNOT separate the biological/physiolgical from the sociological and psychological.

Finally, I entirely reject the analogy of equivocating fat/sugar addiction to a drug addiction. EVEN if the physiological response is similar, who cares? That doesn't mean it is the same thing, particularly when you go to treat it. To treat a heroin addict, your ultimate goal is to stop him/her from using heroin. Same thing with an alcoholic or a smoker. What do you tell an obese person, to stop eating? Of course not. Your goal is to have them throttle their intake slightly better - something you clearly would not do with a drug addict ("Heroin, but only in moderation"). Changing food habits, particularly long-standing ones, is a mess because they are wrapped up with everything - emotions, memories, culture, traditions - people will happily convert religions, but they cling to their food. As one of my professors put it, the "Italian girl marrying the Jewish guy may learn how to make Gefilte fish, but you can bet she's going to eat pasta until her dying day."

My suggestion to the OP to increase his physical activity level would be to involve the entire family. Do you want to spend more time with your family instead of at the gym? Find a leisure activity which everybody can participate in - the more active, the better. If your kids are young, my advice would be to let them lead. I taught in an elementary school for a year and trying to keep pace with the 1st and 2nd graders was a workout in itself. It is win-win. You stay active, you teach your kids to stay active, and you are building good memories at the same time. THAT can be your motivation, instead of how you look in the mirror.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: eits
caloric intake = 970 calories, mainly chicken, baked potatoes, green beans

If that number is anywhere near accurate, I give it about a week before you are constantly struggling with being hungry, tired, unmotivated, sick or just quit your diet. This is WAY too few calories for a 200lb exercising male and will put you in starvation mode. Your body will try to conserve energy, start to defend its fat reserves, burn up muscle mass and you will most likely be very unhappy with the results.

Eat a MODERATE caloric deficit (~400-700). Don't starve yourself.


Edit ---> And get some goddamn fat in your diet, you need it to live. Seriously, did you not read the fat loss sticky at all?

this is a very temporary diet. i don't plan on doing it for long. i'm only doing it until i can drop more weight so i can run more... then, i'm gonna increase calories slowly. after graduation, i'm gonna start lifting again, which means more calories.

i'm trying to stay away from anything with high fructose corn syrup so it doesn't mess with my satiety.

the fats i'm getting are from the chicken breast as well as the butter on my green beans and baked potato. i also have an egg for breakfast.

as for feeling tired, i don't doubt i'll start feeling it. that's whenever i get up and take the dog for a walk instead of napping.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Kipper
It is a diet issue? Well, at heart, perhaps. It's a simple matter of caloric excess. But I thought it was also a socioeconomic issue. You see, the problem is that you're trying to pin obesity on ONE thing when in fact it is more multifaceted. Obesity can be a dietary issue, but you can't address the issue of diet without addressing the socioeconomic factors which accompany diet, such as access to transportation, culturally appropriate produce/fresh foods, or access to fresh food, period. You also can't discount genetic factors (e.g. Pima Indians) or precipitating factors like heightened stress, poor support networks, and possibly socially dysfunctional circumstances (divorce, broken household, social isolation, etc.).

OK, but it's not reasonable to tell an individual with a weight problem to address his problem at a macro level. There are certainly many reasons that the OP, as well as many others, are consuming too much, but they cannot be satisfactorily addressed in the timeframe he's looking to lose the weight (5-10 years). We are simply looking at the direct causes for obesity and hypothesizing what might be the best treatment. Outside of the genetic factors, which are completely outside my understanding, all the other causes you list are indirect - they are reasons a person might eat more. The direct solution, for weight loss, is to eat less. We cannot tell him to reconcile with his estranged children if he does not volunteer the information.

Does activity matter? Of course it does - that's the one area of caloric expenditure where you have complete control. The problem is that obesity and inability to participate in physical activity are intertwined in a self-perpetuating cycle. The heavier you are, the more difficult it is to exercise, and the heavier you get. Add in some psychological duress and you have a recipe for disaster. Don't even get me started on the socioeconomic barriers to exercise, particularly for juveniles and adolescents.

Heavier people have faster metabolisms than light people, there is no self-perpetuating cycle here. As for the urban youth that don't have access to recreational athletics, I completely agree, and I think it needs to be addressed, but it has nothing to do with the OP.

Sure, the magic bullet theory is sexy, and it sells books - which is why so many authors have their "grand theories" about how the obesity epidemic came about - for example, the "innate human desire to consume sugar and fat" argument - one which explains why people eat sugar and fat, but doesn't exactly explain why we eat so much of it. Other societies prize foods rich in sugar and/or fat yet consume it in different ways and certainly, in different quantities - so you CANNOT separate the biological/physiolgical from the sociological and psychological.

We also consume addictive psychoactive drugs in far greater quantities than other nations, but that does not change that the drug is addictive.

Finally, I entirely reject the analogy of equivocating fat/sugar addiction to a drug addiction. EVEN if the physiological response is similar, who cares? That doesn't mean it is the same thing, particularly when you go to treat it. To treat a heroin addict, your ultimate goal is to stop him/her from using heroin. Same thing with an alcoholic or a smoker. What do you tell an obese person, to stop eating? Of course not. Your goal is to have them throttle their intake slightly better - something you clearly would not do with a drug addict ("Heroin, but only in moderation"). Changing food habits, particularly long-standing ones, is a mess because they are wrapped up with everything - emotions, memories, culture, traditions - people will happily convert religions, but they cling to their food. As one of my professors put it, the "Italian girl marrying the Jewish guy may learn how to make Gefilte fish, but you can bet she's going to eat pasta until her dying day."

You need to understand the similarity between the brain's response to these foods and the brain's response to heroin to appreciate what you are up against. If anything, the fact that you can't have someone 'quit' food makes it even harder to treat.

My suggestion to the OP to increase his physical activity level would be to involve the entire family. Do you want to spend more time with your family instead of at the gym? Find a leisure activity which everybody can participate in - the more active, the better. If your kids are young, my advice would be to let them lead. I taught in an elementary school for a year and trying to keep pace with the 1st and 2nd graders was a workout in itself. It is win-win. You stay active, you teach your kids to stay active, and you are building good memories at the same time. THAT can be your motivation, instead of how you look in the mirror.

This is a good suggestion, and for the weight loss part, he should change his diet.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

OK, but it's not reasonable to tell an individual with a weight problem to address his problem at a macro level. There are certainly many reasons that the OP, as well as many others, are consuming too much, but they cannot be satisfactorily addressed in the timeframe he's looking to lose the weight (5-10 years). We are simply looking at the direct causes for obesity and hypothesizing what might be the best treatment. Outside of the genetic factors, which are completely outside my understanding, all the other causes you list are indirect - they are reasons a person might eat more. The direct solution, for weight loss, is to eat less. We cannot tell him to reconcile with his estranged children if he does not volunteer the information.

That's where you're wrong. Successful obesity treatment (I mean profound cases) will require a comprehensive, multidisciplinary treatment approach which includes a social-psychological component. Simple nutrition education will not solve the problem because even informed, educated people have trouble losing weight. The reason why Weight Watchers works is not because of their system (although that does make things easier) but because they provide a venue for social support - a support network. Someone with no support network or a minimal one at that is set up for failure.

Heavier people have faster metabolisms than light people, there is no self-perpetuating cycle here. As for the urban youth that don't have access to recreational athletics, I completely agree, and I think it needs to be addressed, but it has nothing to do with the OP.

You're glossing over the point entirely. There are multiple barriers to physical activity for the obese, not limited to but including cardiovascular complications, joint complications, low self-esteem, etc. I'm not saying that they all cannot exercise, but you have to recognize the potential that these can create for a self-perpetuating cycle here.

We also consume addictive psychoactive drugs in far greater quantities than other nations, but that does not change that the drug is addictive.

Are you actually reading my posts in full here, or just skimming them? I don't exactly see your line of argument. I am arguing that the simplified theories of obesity gloss over what I think are fairly material causes/factors. I'm not discussing the accuracy of any particular theory.

You need to understand the similarity between the brain's response to these foods and the brain's response to heroin to appreciate what you are up against. If anything, the fact that you can't have someone 'quit' food makes it even harder to treat.

Way to repeat what I just wrote in my previous post.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: eits

this is a very temporary diet. i don't plan on doing it for long. i'm only doing it until i can drop more weight so i can run more... then, i'm gonna increase calories slowly. after graduation, i'm gonna start lifting again, which means more calories.

i'm trying to stay away from anything with high fructose corn syrup so it doesn't mess with my satiety.

the fats i'm getting are from the chicken breast as well as the butter on my green beans and baked potato. i also have an egg for breakfast.

as for feeling tired, i don't doubt i'll start feeling it. that's whenever i get up and take the dog for a walk instead of napping.

I am personally not convinced of the biochemistry which allegedly underlies HFCS' effect on satiety and therefore its connection to weight gain - particularly because it is basically a 50/50 fructose-glucose molecule (granted, there are varying forms such as 70/30, etc.), which is basically sucrose. But I digress. HFCS IS, however, a good marker of low-quality, highly processed foods, so that can simplify reading labels.

Brikis' fat criticism is quite justified. Let's assume you are eating a regular diet (2000 kcal): roughly 30-35% fats. That means roughly 70-80 g fat/day. As it stands, unless you are eating mostly dark meat chicken with skin and dousing your vegetables with butter, you're probably taking in less fat than you should, optimally (the egg is virtually negligible). If you want to cut calories, ideally you'd cut them across the board evenly, proportionally, instead of hacking them out of one food group. Cutting fat is the easiest thing to do, but you CAN cut too much.

Finally...how is your weight interfering with your ability to run? Are you getting joint pains or something like that? Or are you getting out of breath? You don't need to be out of breath to be burning calories - moderate pace. As a matter of fact, you don't even need to be running. A brisk walk with the dog - not a saunter where the dog is sniffing around every tree and fencepost - should do the trick.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: eits
caloric intake = 970 calories, mainly chicken, baked potatoes, green beans

If that number is anywhere near accurate, I give it about a week before you are constantly struggling with being hungry, tired, unmotivated, sick or just quit your diet. This is WAY too few calories for a 200lb exercising male and will put you in starvation mode. Your body will try to conserve energy, start to defend its fat reserves, burn up muscle mass and you will most likely be very unhappy with the results.

Eat a MODERATE caloric deficit (~400-700). Don't starve yourself.


Edit ---> And get some goddamn fat in your diet, you need it to live. Seriously, did you not read the fat loss sticky at all?

this is a very temporary diet. i don't plan on doing it for long. i'm only doing it until i can drop more weight so i can run more... then, i'm gonna increase calories slowly. after graduation, i'm gonna start lifting again, which means more calories.

i'm trying to stay away from anything with high fructose corn syrup so it doesn't mess with my satiety.

the fats i'm getting are from the chicken breast as well as the butter on my green beans and baked potato. i also have an egg for breakfast.

as for feeling tired, i don't doubt i'll start feeling it. that's whenever i get up and take the dog for a walk instead of napping.

900 calories will make you lose less weight than a 500 calorie deficit. It's called starvation mode. Your metabolism sinks like a dead weight and you feel like crap and don't benefit at all. I don't know what your bachelor's degree was in prior to becoming a chiropractor, but I feel you should know this stuff. What you're doing right now is terrible for your body. Please, man, come on. I study this stuff, I live this stuff, people in my life live this stuff. This is my life. I wouldn't tell you to eat more if I didn't think it would be massively conducive to your weight-loss goals and overall health.