# Obese, slow weight loss, where am I going wrong?



## Uk86 (Sep 12, 2012)

I started cutting a month ago and I've lost 7lb but it doesn't seem to much considering how much I have to lose and the calorie deficit I should be creating.

My stats 28 years old, 6ft 5, 20st 4lbs / 284lbs, guessing about 35% BF.

Before cutting my weight fluctuated between 290 and 295 for the last year or so, eating average 3400 calories a day, I did desk work with 1 hour walk every day. I'm now on 2350 average and I've increased my exercise to include 40 mins cycling 3x per week. Feels like I should have created a 1000 - 1200 deficit and should be down 10lb, maybe more as weight loss is normally faster for fat guys when you first start cutting right?

I log every food that enters my mouth before eating it (have done for years) and I don't drink calories. Breakdown for the last month is 35.5% carbs, 26.5% protein, 38% fat.

Some advice I received was maybe I should eat more because going too low causes 'starvation mode'. I find this hard to believe when I'm on 2350 a day. I also keep reading 'muscle weighs more than fat', but I find it hard to believe a bit of cycling would build any significant muscle.

any thoughts?


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

well if you removed the 35% BF from 280 lb you get roughly 180-185. at 6 foot 5 your BMR will be around 2000 since most of that weight is bone and organ tbh. thats assuming 35% is correct.

so really you need to eat around 1800kcal a day to really see effective high speed weight loss.


----------



## aman_21 (Jul 29, 2013)

eat more frequently, smaller portions but more frequent


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

Recently I've been eating around 1200 kals a day but burning around 750 off in cardio in the morning n ive lost almost half a stone in 2 weeks.

I was told slow weight loss is better as you've got more chance of keeping it off 

You've gotta fiddle with thing n try things to find what suits you 

Good luck  x


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

aman_21 said:


> eat more frequently, smaller portions but more frequent


this will help how?


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> this will help how?


a nutritionist told me that eating often keeps your metabolism running so your constantly burning cals. If you don't eat for ssy 6 hours it goes to sleep. Could be wrong but it makes sense.

I eat every 3 hours be it a apple n some nuts or a meal. Xx


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Misspinky1983 said:


> a nutritionist told me that eating often keeps your metabolism running so your constantly burning cals. If you don't eat for ssy 6 hours it goes to sleep.
> 
> I eat every 3 hours be it a apple n some nuts or a meal. Xx


so he said if you dont eat for 6 hours your body stops burning kcals since your metabolism has stopped? how do we survive sleep according to him


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> so he said if you dont eat for 6 hours your body stops burning kcals since your metabolism has stopped? how do we survive sleep according to him


it uses your fat supply and what you've eaten in the day.

Whether its right or not its worked for me eating small n often.

If that's incorrect how does your body work then? Why is eating small n often advised by alot of people if its wrong. X X


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Misspinky1983 said:


> it uses your fat supply and what you've eaten in the day.
> 
> Whether its right or not its worked for me eating small n often. X


so it doesnt "go to sleep". honestly i wouldnt listen to this guy, he might know about nutrition but he sounds like eh doesnt know about metabolism and energy use too well.

if it works it works, but dont dont take working as proof of theory and take someones word as true, alot fo factors at play. how people end up suckered into scam products and idea's


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> so it doesnt "go to sleep". honestly i wouldnt listen to this guy, he might know about nutrition but he sounds like eh doesnt know about metabolism and energy use too well.
> 
> if it works it works, but dont dont take working as proof of theory and take someones word as true, alot fo factors at play. how people end up suckered into scam products and idea's


How does it actually work then? What would you advise for weight loss and is the small n often theory BS? x


----------



## kreig (May 12, 2008)

Misspinky1983 said:


> How does it actually work then? What would you advise for weight loss and is the small n often theory BS? x


The best way is whatever you're comfortable with, some people get on better with the little and often some would rather smash their whole calorie count in over 2 big meals so they feel like they're getting something more substantial. In terms of weight loss it really doesn't make a great deal of difference at this level.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Misspinky1983 said:


> How does it actually work then? What would you advise for weight loss and is the small n often theory BS? x


what works best is whats maintainable, no matter how good the theory is you cant keep it up there is no point, small meals often is more of a mental thing for me, keeps you happy more often rather than hunger spikes. the small and often isnt bad, but usually reasons behind it arent too true


----------



## tmacf (Jan 27, 2009)

I eat small and often when cutting. For me personally it is more a case of stopping me from getting hunger pangs and wanting to binge on junk food. Do what ever works for you. To the OP do you train with weights?


----------



## Uk86 (Sep 12, 2012)

Boshlop said:


> well if you removed the 35% BF from 280 lb you get roughly 180-185. at 6 foot 5 your BMR will be around 2000 since most of that weight is bone and organ tbh. thats assuming 35% is correct.
> 
> so really you need to eat around 1800kcal a day to really see effective high speed weight loss.


Yeah, I mean I'm guesstimating with the 35% but seems reasonable, maybe slightly lower. What I don't understand is I was maintaining on 3400 before, so -1000 a day should result WL. I don't think I can go to 1800 straight away (would be hungry non stop) but I think I will drop to 2100 for a few weeks then adjust again if required.

I don't understand the logic behind eating little and often. I've had issues with binge eating in the past and I am trying to move away from a situation where I am constantly thinking about food.... eating frequently just means food becomes an obsession again. Right now I eat 3 meals a day and 1 snack if required, this is pretty average right?

To answer @tmacf , no I don't lift weights at the moment. I'm doing some body weight exercises (sit-ups, squats, push-ups) and some very light dumbbell work but health issues mean lifting proper weights or any kind of high impact workout leaves me in a lot of pain and unable to exercise again for weeks, so I need to build up really slowly.


----------



## Charlee Scene (Jul 6, 2010)

The small and often thing about your metabolism slowing down is bull sh#t lol just do whatever is maintainable for you to eat in a defecit


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Misspinky1983 said:


> a nutritionist told me that eating often keeps your metabolism running so your constantly burning cals. If you don't eat for ssy 6 hours it goes to sleep. Could be wrong but it makes sense.
> 
> I eat every 3 hours be it a apple n some nuts or a meal. Xx


I'm afraid that is an outdated idea, which when studied was found to be false. Eating more frequently does not increase metabolic rate.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

@Uk86 are you weight training as well? Just looking at weight loss is only part of the story, if you might be simultaneously losing fat but gaining muscle.

But if you are not happy with the rate of weight loss I would suggest gradually decreasing your calories, try 50 kcal per week steps and see how you get on. Jumping to too low calories will cause your metabolic rate to drop more than you'd want.


----------



## 00alawre (Feb 23, 2014)

Misspinky1983 said:


> How does it actually work then? What would you advise for weight loss and is the small n often theory BS? x


Small and often is typically advised as it lends towards not binging out because you're starving. Just think about all the people who skip breakfast and lunch, and then pig out at night but still remain overweight. Its because they've binged and overate. By eating small and often, calorie control is more maintainable as you're not focusing on getting as much as you can like you would if you were starving.

I wont go into details because its quite intense, but your metabolism does not sleep, in down regulates over a period of time in which you are severely under eating. Short term fasting can actual reap fat burning benefits and you spend lots more time in a fat burning state; as long as you aren't under eating. That's why Intermittent Fasting works very well.

Also, when you sleep your "burn rate" or amount of calories burnt per hour decreases slightly to support your vital functions. This is essentially your BMR. This differs to a working day as you use more calories typing, thinking, sitting etc. Ergo the reason that a lifestyle factor is used to calculate your daily TDEE without exercise.


----------



## Uk86 (Sep 12, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> @Uk86 are you weight training as well? Just looking at weight loss is only part of the story, if you might be simultaneously losing fat but gaining muscle.


I'm not doing any serious weights. Just some light body weight exercises and dumbbell stuff at home, I can't lift proper weights at the moment. I doubt I'm gaining much muscle from it, but who knows.

I've decided to cut my calories down another 200 per day to see if that kick starts things.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Fu.ck what the experts say.Fu.ck BMR, Calories and associated nonsense.Remove carbohydrates to 50g a day.Eat more saturated fat, and protein.Do NOT do "Cardio" and focus on full body compounds 2/3 times a week.That is Squats, presses, dips deads and chins.The fat will melt away, and you will eventually hit your default fat level.


----------



## Kiwi As (Nov 4, 2013)

Try:

light cardio morning and evening 20mins per session- every day without fail

Heavy resistance training 3-4 times a week

Drink lots of water

Drink lots of green tea

Watch the fat melt away


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Uk86 said:


> I've decided to cut my calories down another 200 per day to see if that kick starts things.


Did you mean 200 kcal per week? 200 kcal per day would be a terrible idea...


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Boshlop said:


> well if you removed the 35% BF from 280 lb you get roughly 180-185. at 6 foot 5 your BMR will be around 2000 since most of that weight is bone and organ tbh. thats assuming 35% is correct.
> 
> so really you need to eat around 1800kcal a day ] to really see effective high speed weight loss.


In case you missed it first time


----------



## spaglemon (Mar 15, 2012)

essexboy said:


> Fu.ck what the experts say.Fu.ck BMR, Calories and associated nonsense.Remove carbohydrates to 50g a day.Eat more saturated fat, and protein.Do NOT do "Cardio" and focus on full body compounds 2/3 times a week.That is Squats, presses, dips deads and chins.The fat will melt away, and you will eventually hit your default fat level.


This

I'm 6'2" was 21 stone 7lb and 36% bf dropped to 12 stone 6lb and 14% bf on very low carb, moderate protein, high fat. lost 1 stone a month for the first 4 months.

Did no cardio as such just daily walks and weight training, that was 3 years ago and this is the first time in my life I've managed to keep weight off permanently.

I have a new normal now and I'm never going back

Cheers


----------



## night06 (May 1, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> so really you need to eat around 1800kcal a day to really see effective high speed weight loss.


True. Follow what Boshlop said. @Uk86


----------



## Kiwi As (Nov 4, 2013)

spaglemon said:


> This
> 
> I'm 6'2" was 21 stone 7lb and 36% bf dropped to 12 stone 6lb and 14% bf on very low carb, moderate protein, high fat. lost 1 stone a month for the first 4 months.
> 
> ...


epic bro congrats


----------



## spaglemon (Mar 15, 2012)

Kiwi As said:


> epic bro congrats


Thanks very much, tbh it wasn't a good look 6' 2" and 12 stone 6lbs lol

now working on adding muscle but it's a bloody slow process.

All I ever wanted was to be skinny but when I got there it wasn't all that, now want to be bigger again but with muscle this time not fat

op, You just have to find something that works for you and that you can stick to going forward, low carb worked well for me but everyone's different, it really curbed my appetite which was great for me and I think the weight training has had a lot to do with me keeping the weight off.

When you really want it you'll get there mate.

Cheers


----------



## Uk86 (Sep 12, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> Did you mean 200 kcal per week? 200 kcal per day would be a terrible idea...


No, I mean another 200 in addition to what I have already done, not 200 total, that would be insane :laugh:. I've gone from maintaining at about 3400, to 'cutting' at 2350 with not much success. Now I'm going to go aim for 2150 and see how that goes, eventually working down to 1800 over the next few weeks as required. I find it easier to reduce calories over a few weeks rather than just one big jump, although obviously this will slow progress a bit.

I managed 2100 and 2075 the last two days. Actually 'gained' 2lb which is probably a good advertisement for NOT weighing daily I guess. Yesterday was not ideal as I didn't drink enough fluids and ended up eating over half those calories after 2:30pm, so I hope it is mainly fluid retention/bloat.

I am increasing weights and resistance stuff but as I already said, heavy lifting and resistance is out of the question at the moment. I need to build up very slowly, will take a few months to get there.


----------



## Uk86 (Sep 12, 2012)

spaglemon said:


> This
> 
> I'm 6'2" was 21 stone 7lb and 36% bf dropped to 12 stone 6lb and 14% bf on very low carb, moderate protein, high fat. lost 1 stone a month for the first 4 months.
> 
> ...


So you had pretty slow progress at first few months then?

How long did it take you in total? Walks and weight training is pretty much what I'm aiming at.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Uk86 said:


> No, I mean another 200 in addition to what I have already done, not 200 total, that would be insane :laugh:. I've gone from maintaining at about 3400, to 'cutting' at 2350 with not much success. Now I'm going to go aim for 2150 and see how that goes, eventually working down to 1800 over the next few weeks as required. I find it easier to reduce calories over a few weeks rather than just one big jump, although obviously this will slow progress a bit.
> 
> I managed 2100 and 2075 the last two days. Actually 'gained' 2lb which is probably a good advertisement for NOT weighing daily I guess. Yesterday was not ideal as I didn't drink enough fluids and ended up eating over half those calories after 2:30pm, so I hope it is mainly fluid retention/bloat.
> 
> I am increasing weights and resistance stuff but as I already said, heavy lifting and resistance is out of the question at the moment. I need to build up very slowly, will take a few months to get there.


don`t over think things.


----------



## spaglemon (Mar 15, 2012)

Uk86 said:


> So you had pretty slow progress at first few months then?
> 
> How long did it take you in total? Walks and weight training is pretty much what I'm aiming at.


took over a year in total, but If I knew then what I know now I'd probably do it a bit differently.

I'd have started with a smaller deficit to begin with as once I'd moved the first half things slowed dramatically and I didn't have anywhere to go if you know what I mean, I'd still recommend low carb but with a smaller deficit and would probably do a fortnightly refeed.

Cheers


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

aman_21 said:


> eat more frequently, smaller portions but more frequent


Lol. That won't make a scrap of difference. Could even be counter productive. Ever heard of intermittent fasting?


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

IGotTekkers said:


> Lol. That won't make a scrap of difference. Could even be counter productive. Ever heard of intermittent fasting?


Intermittent fasting is eating nothingfor so many days a week, not portion control.

......afaik


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

aqualung said:


> Intermittent fasting is eating nothingfor so many days a week, not portion control.
> 
> ......afaik


Na it's having a set time frame daily. For example only eating between 4 pm and 8pm etc


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

IGotTekkers said:


> Na it's having a set time frame daily. For example only eating between 4 pm and 8pm etc


Eating between time frames is for religious purposes such as ramadan where they can only eat after daylight hours, intermittent fasting is not eating at all or eating a very low intake on the fast day ( say 500 cals )

Theres was a program about it on tv not long ago with dr mosley

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/06/14/intermittent-fasting-longevity.aspx

*Saying that there are many fasting programs, so there may well be one with time frames, either way it still has nothing to do with portion control.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Uk86 said:


> No, I mean another 200 in addition to what I have already done, not 200 total, that would be insane :laugh:.


I never thought you were planning to just eat 200 kcal per day! I did misread what you wrote before though, my bad.



> I've gone from maintaining at about 3400, to 'cutting' at 2350 with not much success.


I think you're being too negative, you said you'd lost 7 lb in a month right? That is good progress.

What you need to bear in mind is that your body will adapt to a calorie deficit over time by decreasing your metabolic rate. The best strategy is therefore to diet while eating as many calories as you can whilst maintaining the desired rate of fat loss. This is because for a given calorie intake your progress will slow over time, and if you have kept calories higher this will give you more scope to respond to this by dropping calories and so improve fat loss again. An optimal diet is NOT the one where you eat the least calories you can handle. Try to think long term, not just what you can do to drop the most favourite in the next week.

That said, you do want to measure portion sizes so you can accurately track your daily intake.

Keep up the good work


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

aqualung said:


> Eating between time frames is for religious purposes such as ramadan where they can only eat after daylight hours, intermittent fasting is not eating at all or eating a very low intake on the fast day ( say 500 cals )
> 
> Theres was a program about it on tv not long ago with dr mosley
> 
> ...


Not heard of that type but the intermittent fasting that's practiced in bodybuilding is as I described, it's fairly common practice, the hodge twins even have a seperate youtube channel dedicated to info on it lol.


----------



## Jamieson (Jul 11, 2014)

Misspinky1983 said:


> a nutritionist told me that eating often keeps your metabolism running so your constantly burning cals. If you don't eat for ssy 6 hours it goes to sleep. Could be wrong but it makes sense.
> 
> I eat every 3 hours be it a apple n some nuts or a meal. Xx


I don't want to get in to an argument but this is total nonsense. The need to eat every 3 hours to keep the metabolic fire stoked was debunked years ago, along with the 'body can only digest 30g of protein' myth and the 'breccie is the most important meal of the day'. The level of knowledge of so called fitness and/or nutrition 'experts' is shocking and more often than not, counter productive.


----------



## Jamieson (Jul 11, 2014)

aqualung said:


> Intermittent fasting is eating nothingfor so many days a week, not portion control.
> 
> ......afaik


Not if you follow the Lean Gains system that Martin Berkhan popularised and that the Hodge Twins made more mainstream. In a nutshell, there are no fasting days, simply an 6-8 hour window when you eat all your food and a 16-18 hour window when you fast.


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

Jamieson said:


> Not if you follow the Lean Gains system that Martin Berkhan popularised and that the Hodge Twins made more mainstream. In a nutshell, there are no fasting days, simply an 6-8 hour window when you eat all your food and a 16-18 hour window when you fast.


lol so basically you are not fasting at all and just eating as per normal? ive been doing the above for years as i only eat when i feel hungry rather than having a set time for anything .

how having an 8hr windows can be called 'fasting' i dont know as it means you could be shovelling in whatever you body needs for the day easily enough within that time frame , ive never heard of the system you talk about - but tbh ive never looked ,as i said above - i eat when my body needs it - not because its dinnertime.

if you say the system works thats fair enough though - whatever they want to call it.


----------



## Jamieson (Jul 11, 2014)

aqualung said:


> lol so basically you are not fasting at all and just eating as per normal? ive been doing the above for years as i only eat when i feel hungry rather than having a set time for anything .
> 
> how having an 8hr windows can be called 'fasting' i dont know as it means you could be shovelling in whatever you body needs for the day easily enough within that time frame , ive never heard of the system you talk about - but tbh ive never looked ,as i said above - i eat when my body needs it - not because its dinnertime.
> 
> if you say the system works thats fair enough though - whatever they want to call it.


I've never felt that it was IF in the 5/2 sense, but it is a very effective way of eating for a lot of folk. Each to their own though, if it works for people well that's great, if not then no harm done and try something else. There is a lot more to it then simply 'eat what you like for 8 hours' and there is a lot of research re insulin sensitivity and fat burning during the 16-18 hours fasted state, but far too much to go in to hear.

Cheers.

J.


----------



## Uk86 (Sep 12, 2012)

I'm getting really ****ed off. Reduced my calories since last weekend and I've managed 2020 daily average. I know its not quite the 1800 recommended but still an additional cut of 300 per day. Basically seems like I've made no progress this week at all, scales actually showed a .5 gain this morning.

I don't get it, this is supposed to be very simple maths of calories in vs calories out. For the last 18 months I've been eating 3400 per day and maintaining (maybe slightly more because I didn't log as accurately as now), 5 weeks ago dropped to 2350 and now 2050. I've lost 2lb in the last 4 weeks, not even lost any inches and body fat monitor (fwiw) shows no change. Given the maintenance level and current level I should be down 10lb at least, no including additional exercise I've not counted.

Makes me wonder if the food labeling is accurate or something else is ****ed up. Everything I eat is getting weighted and logged without fail.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Sadly it isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out appears, since your body is a dynamic system that adapts. Try to be more consistant day to day, and then gradually drop calories further.


----------



## Theseus (Feb 27, 2014)

ditch the bike and do squats mate..


----------



## Uk86 (Sep 12, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> Sadly it isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out appears, since your body is a dynamic system that adapts. Try to be more consistant day to day, and then gradually drop calories further.


What do you mean 'more consistent' ? Last few days: 2272, 2097, 1973, 1912, 2052, 1970. :confused1:

@Theseus as I said, squats, high impact and heavy weights is out of the question for the moment. I'm restricted to walking, cycling & maybe swimming.

Other advise I'm getting on another forum is that I should increase my allowance or eat the additional calories gained from exercise to avoid 'starvation mode'. This just seems like retarded advice to me???


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Uk86 said:


> What do you mean 'more consistent' ? Last few days: 2272, 2097, 1973, 1912, 2052, 1970. :confused1:


Your daily intake has a 360 kcal range there, which is pretty big. By more consistant I mean aim to get much closer to your target every day, say within 50 kcal.


----------



## Uk86 (Sep 12, 2012)

Does anyone know an accurate way to measure body fat, or an accurate way to assess BMR?


----------



## Boroboy1980 (Dec 16, 2013)

Don't forget water weight. Most people are not at what their body should be percentage wise. If you are eating healthily and not drinking calories I bet you are topping your body up with the water it was missing

Measure don't weigh.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Uk86 said:


> Does anyone know an accurate way to measure body fat, or an accurate way to assess BMR?


Best you can easily do to track fat changes is to get some calipers. I wouldn't rely on there to give you an accurate % but this actual number isn't really important.

Best way to assess your daily energy needs is to do what you are doing and see how your weight and body fat changes with calories.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Have you tried doing some light weight training BTW? Even squats without a bar given your body weight? Or how about upper body work like bench presses?


----------



## Theseus (Feb 27, 2014)

Uk86 said:


> Does anyone know an accurate way to measure body fat, or an accurate way to assess BMR?


Dexa scan is gold standard but more difficult to find a clinic that will do for you and more pricey of course

BodPod is good enough imo, £40; calculate your body fat percentage much more accurately and it will also calculate your BMR for you after. worth a try...

I don't mind the weight myself, it is body fat percentage that is more important, if you lose fat and gain muscle, you might even be gaining weight as far as scale is concern..


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)




----------



## DaveCW (Dec 9, 2013)

Number one piece of advice i can offer you is weight training is essential on your journey to avoid getting skinny fat.


----------

