ToothlessFerret
New member
I'm also 5 foot 8" and cut down over the past year from 193 pounds to 138 pounds (9 stone 13). I lost four stone in British terms. However, that might be a shade light for some people. It depends on a number of personal factors - how much lean body mass that you want being the obvious one. To be honest, theres a flaw with all weight loss. We don't always want to lose weight - what we really want to do is to reduce body fat. Now, a better way to gauge our success is by measuring body fat. There is no cheap reliable way of doing this, although body fat or skin calipers are usually hailed as the best practical method (these electric scales that promise to measure bodyfat using electrical impedance are useless). Alternatively - using a tape measure to take measurements of those fatty areas - most males go apple shaped, so it hangs around the gut and chest. But most of us - myself included simply go for the scales. Just be aware that you are measuring everything on the scales, not just fat, but muscle and organ tissue as well. Some of us are disposed to have more of that lean tissue, hence it being difficult to set some kind of 'standard' for all. Women and men of the same weight for example, will have a different ideal 'weight', because men are likely to have more lean tissue. This is why the BMI is so heavily criticised. Very fit body builders with very low levels of body fat often have obese BMI!
Same problem with calorific allowance. You want to consume less calories than you burn - but how many do you burn? There are calculations around the Net - based on height, weight, gender (your basal metabolic rate) plus what kind of lifestyle that you think that you lead, how much exercise you perform, how hard that you work etc. For example, you could sign up at Fitday.com and that will work it out for you. Hang on though - working out basal metabolic rate (the amount of calories that you would burn if you laid in bed all day, just maintaining your body) is pretty safe, but how hard that you workout is subject to error.
So I find that you have to use these online calculations, make a best guestimate, but be prepared to up and down calorific allowance a bit in order to get it right for yourself. You want to lose between 0.5 and 2 pounds per week. You might lose more the first few weeks, but if you are regularly losing more than 2 pounds per week after the initial rush, then up the calories - you don't want to deplete muscle mass or damage your health.
To lose 1 to 2 pounds per week, with my lifestyle, I consume between 2,200 and 2,600 calories per day. But I'm a 44 year old male, I work long shifts in a power station in a largely manual job, and I lift weights, and I run.
Same problem with calorific allowance. You want to consume less calories than you burn - but how many do you burn? There are calculations around the Net - based on height, weight, gender (your basal metabolic rate) plus what kind of lifestyle that you think that you lead, how much exercise you perform, how hard that you work etc. For example, you could sign up at Fitday.com and that will work it out for you. Hang on though - working out basal metabolic rate (the amount of calories that you would burn if you laid in bed all day, just maintaining your body) is pretty safe, but how hard that you workout is subject to error.
So I find that you have to use these online calculations, make a best guestimate, but be prepared to up and down calorific allowance a bit in order to get it right for yourself. You want to lose between 0.5 and 2 pounds per week. You might lose more the first few weeks, but if you are regularly losing more than 2 pounds per week after the initial rush, then up the calories - you don't want to deplete muscle mass or damage your health.
To lose 1 to 2 pounds per week, with my lifestyle, I consume between 2,200 and 2,600 calories per day. But I'm a 44 year old male, I work long shifts in a power station in a largely manual job, and I lift weights, and I run.
Last edited:
