• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Weight loss and exercise and target weight

LittleGreyCat

Well-Known Member
Retired Moderator
Messages
4,386
Location
Suffolk, UK
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Dislikes
Diet drinks - the artificial sweeteners taste vile.
Having to forswear foods I have loved all my life.
Trying to find low carb meals when eating out.
This could fit with both the Dieting and Exercise fora, obviously.

Having been a bit "relaxed" about diet for a while and watched my weight creep up to 12 stone 9 lbs I decided to bite the bullet and try and get some weight off.

So I cut out the "just a little bit won't hurt this once" treats and all the booze (wail!) and set about some serious cycling.

First results were promising - down from 12 stone 9 lbs to 12 stone 5 lbs in the first couple of days.
This, of course, was just the spare 4 lbs of "glucose in water" which we all tend to carry around under normal circumstances.

So now the hard stuff - each additional pound lost is a "real" loss of either fat or muscle (hopefully fat) which hopefully will be a longer term loss of weight.

Thankfully I am continuing to chip away through not eating masses, and keeping the carbs down. I am now down to 12 stone 3 lbs and haven't yet given in to the various temptations. However there is a near constant underlying feeling of deprivation.

So the next question (assuming I don't run out of motivation and/or succumb to temptation like an invitation to a BBQ with lots of lovely booze and food) is where to stop. Logically as soon as I ease up on the hard core(ish) diet and exercise then the 4 lb store will refill so I should undershoot my target by 4 lbs to allow for this.

My first aim is to stabilise under 12 stone. Ideally I would like to get down to 11 stone 7 lbs but I'm not sure I will ever be strong enough to achieve that.

Another peripheral question - when you exercise where does the fat go from first? At the moment the main obvious area is my bum - but is this due to fat loss or extra muscle tone? Either way it makes sitting on hard chairs a lot more uncomfortable. Equally, if you do a lot of sit ups and get a trim waist does this mean you have trimmed the fat, or just squeezed it flat with a muscle corset, so to speak?

I think that different genetic types store fat preferentially in different areas; some on the thighs, some on the buttocks, some on the belly (not good for T2s) and some lucky ones equally all over.

So does the muscle group you exercise dictate where most of the fat is lost, or does it just go from all over but mainly from your genetically favoured storage location?

I think some genetic types (perhaps including myself) tend to lose fat from other areas of the body in preference to visceral fat. I would certainly like to take a couple of inches off my waist measurement but from previous experience this isn't the first place the weight goes from.

Following on from the stored glucose thing, according to
http://www.livestrong.com/article/264767-how-is-excess-glucose-stored/
(other web sites are available) the body stores about 100 g of glucose in the liver and 500 g of glucose in the muscles. That is about 1.3 pounds in weight. The rest will be water.

According to
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/generic-glucose-pure-7535602
100 g of glucose is 400 kcal so the 600 g of glucose should be 2,400 kcal.
[Noted that the body stores glucose as glycogen.]
This is quite a nice energy reserve to have and also an interesting figure generally.

Allegedly a pound of fat contains 3,500 kcal so to lose a pound (of fat) a week you need to run a calorie deficit of 500 kcals per day. You can do this by either eating less or exercising more and eating the same.

The interesting bit is that if the glucose store is 2,400 kcal in total and weighs 4 lbs then if you are just shifting stored glucose (not fat) then in theory you need to run a calorie deficit of 340 kcals a day to lose 4 lbs in a week.

This is all a bit unscientific and rough figures, but does indicate why you can take the first 4 lbs off quite quickly and then stall.

To look at it another way, if you are running at a 500 kcal per day deficit then you could shift 4 lbs in 5 days and then shift the next pound a week later. And then continue to shift a pound a week. This can be very demotivating!
 
Hi
Just a few observations from one who has lost weight and is still losing.
1.You're unscientific figures align pretty well what my unscientific trawling came up with - but from different sources.
2. Genes dictate where you lay the fat down and if you don't like it stiff cheddar. No spot reductions possible.
3. Yup, you are right as soon a you transition off a diet (VLCD in my case) you put back 2 kilos.
4. It seems that your body will decide where the fat goes from and when and how much and .....
5. The bloody plateaus - I was on one for 5 weeks and nothing happened. Then suddenly some shifted.
6. I moved a fair bit of visceral fat, exercised like an athlete, getting some fairly impressive abs but still waiting for the visceral fat to shift and my waist to get smaller. (I do 15 sets of 15 reps @120kg on the abdominal machine plus row 5x5kms under 23 mins every week). But man oh man, my BG is in heaps better shape.
7. So far lost 18 kgs and still have some way to go.
By the way, the above ramblings have been confirmed by my sports physician/exercise physiologist (who is an eminent sports medico). He assured me that my "exercise programme seems to be very well constructed and appropriate" and that as I was doing the right stuff "just keep doing it - your body will respond in its own way, when its ready". As it cost me $250 for his advice, I think I will accept it and 'just do it'.
I don't know it helps, but hope and patience will get us there.
Regards
PS an older diabetic like me can loose 400-450g of lean muscle tissue per year and similarly with dieting (300-350g per kg lost), so a solid resistance component can be importsnt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello, LittleGreyCat, I can't add any further advice, but all the questions you have are the same as my own. At first I lost weight and gained fitness quite well, but have stalled for weeks now, with no change or prospect of un-stalling that I can find, so far. All that's happening is that one week I can lose about 1lb and half-inch from my waist, and by the next week they are back to where they started! I'm finding things very demotivating at the moment, so I'm tacking onto your questions (if you don't mind ), to see if there's any riveting advice anyone has that can get things moving again
 
Hi LGC

You may find this video interesting (I did!)

It busts a few of the myths that we all believe - e.g the 1lb of fat = 3,500 cal.
- apparently it is based on a double whammy of a mathematical miscalculation, and a simple inaccuracy about how the metabolism works - yet it has been dogmatised into blind faith across the world.

Fascinating stuff.


There have also been some studies recently (sorry, have lost the links, but if I find them, I will post them) demonstrating that while exercise is an excellent thing, its contribution to weight loss is largely fictional. Diet, not calories, or exercise, is the main driver of weight loss at all ages, but especially after around 45 years - especially for those of us with glucose tolerance issues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sadly the only answer is to eat less and exercise more.
 

If you have a look here, you will see that Fung has a whole raft of excellent references establishing that the less you eat, and the more you exercise, the more efficient you teach your metabolism to be - which basically means that you slow your metabolism down - anyone who has done low calorie diets for any length of time has found this out, whether they have exercised or not. It debunks that 'eat less, move more' myth.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/biggest-loser-diet-explained/
 
From one that doesn't exercise over and above my daily not very long dog walks (more like ambles in reality, maybe 2 miles a day) plus some housework, I can categorically say that, in my case, I lost 33% of my body weight from eating a similar amount of food as before, but changed the balance from carbs to fats. I had no plateaux, no gains, and really struggled to stop losing. This all happened in less than a year and my new weight has been maintained for almost 2 years. So , at least in my case, exercise didn't come in to it. It was low carb, high fat with a bit of calorie watching.
 
Thank you both, @Brunneria and @Bluetit1802 for your advice and info. I'll take a look at the refs you give Brun, and see if I can figure just what I need to do more of, or differently. I've recently got Fung's book Obesity Code but haven't started to read it yet, so that might throw some more light on things as well.

I also don't do too much exercise Bluetit1802, because at my age I can't manage it any more but I do try to keep active at home in the garden and by (almost) daily walks that I try to keep 'brisk' as much as poss. I've reduced carbs to less than about 20 per day, I believe, so I'm wondering if maybe my protein is still too high and fat too low. I mostly have salad & protein (ham, fish, cheese, etc.) with half avocado and mayo for lunch. For dinner it's veg with protein in the form of chicken, pork, or similar with butter on the veg instead of gravy that I used to have. I have only the occasional pear or berries with cream after either lunch or my evening meal. Oh yes, - and the occasional temptation of choc or nuts late at night. Can't believe that the odd little treat can undo all that hard work so easily ...... It really isn't all that often, honest
 
@Brunneria - thought I'd let you know. I've just watched the Zoe Harcombe video on YouTube. Excellent. That's one I shall view again, probably several times. One thing I'm pleased about - I enjoy liver! So glad it's still ok for me to eat it.
 
Just shows what a wonderful place the world is - we are all different.
 
Yes its fascinating. As is a person with a maths/economics degree doing research on obesity. Then becoming a dietary/nutritionist expert and publisher without appropriate qualifications. As Dr Spock said - it does not compute.
 
fene48 said:
Yes its fascinating. As is a person with a maths/economics degree doing research on obesity. Then becoming a dietary/nutritionist expert and publisher without appropriate qualifications. As Dr Spock said - it does not compute.
Click to expand...
So, you don't consider a PhD in public health nutrition an adequate qualification? You must have extremely high standards

From Zoe Harcombe's site:
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/about-2/
In 2016, I was awarded a Ph.D. in public health nutrition. My thesis title was “An examination of the randomised controlled trial and epidemiological evidence for the introduction of dietary fat recommendations in 1977 and 1983: A systematic review and meta-analysis.”
 
fene48 said:
Yes its fascinating. As is a person with a maths/economics degree doing research on obesity. Then becoming a dietary/nutritionist expert and publisher without appropriate qualifications. As Dr Spock said - it does not compute.
Click to expand...

Well, the maths/economics degree clearly qualifies her to check the mathematics in the original calculation - and demonstrate the mistakes in it.

And the PhD demonstrates that her in-depth research techniques stand up to scrutiny by experts in the field. I believe that PhDs are still publicly available if you wish to read them and offer your own detailed critique of her work?

Perhaps, @fene48 you would also like to list your own extensive qualifications and research that entitle you to dismiss hers?
 
Yup - no I don't consider it appropriate, as a vast bulk of her 'research' and expert diet advice was done a long time before her PhD (which is post 2013). Probably my shortcoming, but I am unable to find any serious or credible assessment of her opinions on the web (except from ASA and World Cancer Research Fund - neither of which were complementary).
 
None what so ever. Just an old geezer with a well entrenched cynical attitude. I rely on others' expert opinions in this and other areas of my life. However, I do have a distinct leaning towards peer reviewed assessments of 'findings' and 'opinions'. Promise not to trouble you further.
 

With respect, the "eat less move more" isn't a myth. It can't be.

Agreed the values of "less" and "more" may be way outside your comfort zone, but however efficient your body there will be a point where the calorie requirement exceeds the calorie input and you have to use some of your stored fat reserve; that is, after all, what it is there for.

There may be more effective (or at least less painful) ways of persuading your body to shed fat, for example 5:2.

However there is always a point where "income is less than expenditure".
 

In my world, not all calories are equal.

If I use a reduced carb diet, I must eat balancing fat to prevent further weight loss. On the reduced carb diet, my calorific intake is 2000-2500 a day, with the average mid-ish point.

If I up the carbs, I am much more susceptible to weight retained gain, and increased hunger. I haven't run the directly comparative n1 study, but I doubt I could consume 2500 calories, with a significantly higher carb content without a consistent weight gain.

I am 160cm tall and weight c47-48kg. For a little person, wearing size 6 clothing, size 3.5 shoes and child-sized gloves, I think that's quite a bit of troughing to keep my weight up. If I meander to eating more protein than usual and inadvertently dropping back on the fat, I lose weight, and it can happen quite rapidly. If I am dehydrated, my weight drops. If I could do with a bit more smallest room activity (ahem), then the scales may show an extra kilo on the read out, until the issue is resolved.

Of course, I may be an exception to the rule, as there always are some, but I don't think I'm alone in my personal findings.

Just on the PhD; my understanding is her submission will have been examined and question in some detail along the way, including a viva voce element. I can't imagine an examination panel would just shrug and move on if the arguments upon which much of her PhD was based were not robust. Have you sourced and read her whole paper or just taken a knee jerk reaction to the YouTube video?

In the spirit of balance, I haven't read her whole thesis myself.
 

The 'eat less move more' is a myth when people use it simplistically as a mantra.

Weight gain and loss, fat deposits and water retention are all governed by hormones, which are released in response to stimulus. That stimulus comes from diet, stress, sleep deprivation, other hormones, medication and exercise. There are probably many more such stimuli.

There are 6 main hormones that govern weight loss and weight gain. Insulin and its antagonist glucagon, growth hormone and its antagonist, cortisol and its antagonist. Fung discusses this in excellently referenced detail in his book 'The Obesity Code', showing that these factors have been known and understood for decades, with robust studies establishing that the body resets it weight to the level of its insulin resistance, rather than the level of its calorie intake or exercise output.

But it must be nearly impossible for a doctor (or anyone) to find the time and interest to explain this to a patient who arrives at their appointment demanding a simple formula for weight loss. So it has, over the years, been boiled down to absurd sound bites like 'eat less move more', until even doctors and dieticians regurgitate it without thinking..

If you want to read the more detail on the different relationships between the hormones, then some of the Wikipedia articles will give you a taste of the complexity involved, but I am afraid that my brain simply cannot retain the technical detail. I don't rate Wiki particularly highly, but the references at the bottom of each article can make fascinating reading.

Exercise, diet AND stress levels, AND sufficient sleep, AND calorie reduction, AND probably 50 other things are required for weight loss, and for preventing weight re-gain. You only have a very small amount of weight to lose, and you may find that your hormones permit that weight loss by simply reducing calories or increasing exercise. However, if you do not address the root cause of your previous weight gain, and rely entirely on the 'eat less move more' simplistic dogma, then you will probably re-gain.

For instance, carbohydrate intake stimulates insulin production, while caffeine stimulates cortisol. Both of those hormones are designed to lay down fat. The amount of calories involved in a cup of coffee may be negligible, but for a sensitive individual, coffee can block weight loss - because of the cortisol.

You know the statistics on diet failure? Something like 90% of diets fail, only 5% of people hit their target weight, and only 2% of people are still on target 5 years later.
This is just one of many articles examining the stats. It makes sad reading.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA-Researchers-7832

Fung says it so much better than I could:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/how-do-we-gain-weight-calories-part-1/

The 'eat less move more' dogma just muddies the water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All this is to explain how people don't have a single simple way of predicting or achieving weight loss, and preventing weight gain. People of the same weight can lose or gain weight on the same diet. Fine.

However it remains fundamentally true that if you burn more calories than you absorb then you must lose weight.

If you are expending more energy than you are taking in then the extra energy must come from internal sources.

You may not like the spin some people put on the phrase. Fine. That doesn't make it a lie. There will always be a point where, if you keep increasing exercise and keep reducing calories. you will start to lose weight.

How about "do a LOT more exercise and eat a LOT less"?

It is very misleading to label something that is fundamentally true a "myth".

The main issue is that many (most) people don't really understand (or can't cope with) the amount of reduction in calorie intake coupled with the amount of increase in exercise which may be required to reduce weight. It is also painful to contemplate that if you have achieved your target weight by rigorous self denial then you aren't going to be able to relax and enjoy without putting weight back on.

You can't rely on the exercise component either, because bad weather, injury, lack of motivation and a load of other things can make you reduce or quit exercise. So you will have to be extra careful what you eat if you cut back on the exercise. All this is harsh but true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…