Llama
Well-known member
Congratulations! I know it's just a number but it's a pretty awesome milestone regardless.And finally some good news: For the last 2 days now I have dipped below the threshold of "morbid obesity" when based on body fat:
Congratulations! I know it's just a number but it's a pretty awesome milestone regardless.And finally some good news: For the last 2 days now I have dipped below the threshold of "morbid obesity" when based on body fat:
That is great! A better measure than the scales, I believe. I understand the not buying new dress clothes dilemma, I shrunk out of mine months ago and they are long gone now, thankfully. I no longer have sports coats, slacks or a suit, and don't have much need for them. However now that I am in maintenance I am thinking about it. You will get here too, sooner than you might think.My clothes have gone from baggy to dress-like to "don't bend over or they'll fall off." I can't see the point in acquiring a temporary new wardrobe, especially during quarantine, so I've been trying to teach myself how to operate a sewing machine in order to alter my old clothes to get me through the next month or two.
Assuming it is still healthy, I'd much rather maintain enough strength to be able to throw around 100 lb bales of hay than fit a chart in some city slicker's textbook.
I agree with the others, adjusting your goal as time goes along makes sense. For a long time I thought my original 160 goal was not realistic, but now I am a little below it (most days). You will know when you get there.And on that note, my original goal of 160 lbs @ 15% body fat is looking a bit less practical for me. At my current projections, I'm more likely to be 167-170 lbs @ 15% body fat and would have to be closer to 12% body fat to hit 160 lbs. I'll shoot for that, 160 being the top end of "normal" for my height, but 12% body fat may be impractical with my excess skin. Assuming it is still healthy, I'd much rather maintain enough strength to be able to throw around 100 lb bales of hay than fit a chart in some city slicker's textbook.
I used to haul hay in high school, but I don't think the bales were 100 lbs, probably closer to 75. Still loading a hay wagon was a pretty good work out. The gym is a lot cleaner...
Hey Err2,
I just caught up on your thread, that's an amazing accomplishment. I also love Excel sheets, so I'm taking some inspiration from you. I just started my weight cut yesterday.
I know at one point you were using the Navy method to calculate BF% - is that still the case?
That 450 cal/day should be 900 of course but you don´t take it along so the end result is the same.However, when I get to around 200 lbs I project I'll be around 22.5% body fat so I'll "only" have 45 lb of fat in reserve. Times 20 calories/lb/day is 450 calories/day or 6300 per week
I keep learning more and more, but doing so just broadens my awareness of how much I still don't know. Today's report looked at the maximum rate of fat loss using military data on semi-starved recruits from 1950 (you can find the abstract online or the full report bootlegged on bodybuilding forums by searching for the author, Seymour Alpert). Essentially he determined that your body could convert into energy a theoretical maximum of 39 calories per pound of body fat per day, but the young military recruits in the study were actually observed to have a limit of 31 calories per pound of body fat per day. Alpert later estimated 22 calories as the real-world limit for older adults given various activity inefficiencies.
Yeah, they were 36 conscientious objectors (many Amish) who had been drafted into service and volunteered to participate in this study to fulfill their military obligations in a nonviolent manner. The study's aim was to find what rehabbing methods would best help starving Europeans in the aftermath of WW2.Is this the same study that the military members had mental breakdowns? I think there was a study conducted during WW2 where some military members that couldn't serve overseas were just put on calorically restricted diets for more than a year to see how it would impact a deployed serviceperson at that time. I'm pretty sure it didn't end well.
I subscribe to the 80/20 rule: 80% of the results require just 20% of the effort, but the last 20% of results require 80% of the effort. Adjusting calories in to be less than calories out will result in weight loss and will do the lion's share of the work to lose weight. Back in January CICO was all I was concerned with - and it worked...Honest question, and I know the answer would vary for everyone. Do you think all of the extra info you've acquired is going to help - or perhaps muddy things from the basics of CICO (not saying that's happening for you, you have obviously been very successful).
.
But there are a lot of "yeah buts" like that a calorie of protein requires more energy to digest & metabolize than a calorie of fat or that 20-25% of your weight loss will come from muscle unless you make other adjustments. So I'd always recommend starting with CICO because it works and it is plenty to handle for a newbie, but once you start feeling comfortable with calories those who are willing to put in some extra effort might as well start looking at optimizing macros and exercise routines etc in order to achieve their ultimate *long term* goals.
The downside of CICO alone can be seen in The Biggest Loser, where participants largely wrecked their metabolisms and almost all ultimately regained massive weight (many above their starting points).