Tips on Fat and Weight Loss Please

bucketybuck

bladespin wrote: »

I don't refer to the OP, merely the comment you made in response to another's post who could very well be right, though it is a stretch in the OP's case, asserting that 17st is overweight is not necessarily the correct assumption, there are many out there who weigh that or more who could never be described as overweight, think Lomu, Thorpe.

I didn't make the original comment, I just think its a rather pointless place for such pedantry and serves little purpose in this instance.

bladespin

bucketybuck wrote: »

I didn't make the original comment, I just think its a rather pointless place for such pedantry and serves little purpose in this instance.

Lol, and two semi bad advice posts mage a good advice post?

Trouble for the likes of OP is that there's lots of conflicting rubbish out there, that's too much, that's too little etc etc. Certainly found this myself, sometimes BS just has to be called, maybe it comes across as petty but believe me it's not.

Anyhow, we are only trying to help I agree so not arguing any further, in this case yes, I think 17st is on the heavy side.

Elemonator

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

I'm not against exercise but fat loss has more to do with the diet. I do zero exercise and went from a 43 inch beer gut to 32 inches no gut by only changing my diet.

Impressive. May I ask, how long did that take? Asking for a friend.........

livedadream

Mellor wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

are you saying a raw chicken breast which is approx 120 calories v a grilled chicken breast 100 calories (both the same weight obviously) v 260 in a fried chicken breast. that only counts if you eat it raw.

If a breast is 120 cals raw, then it will be 120 cal when grilled.
Cooking doesn't change the calories of the actual chicken.

the original post i mentioned it in, mentioned frying and deep fat frying compared to grilled backed, dry fried or raw. please dont pick and choose what you read.

Mellor

bladespin wrote: »

I don't refer to the OP, merely the comment you made in response to another's post who could very well be right, though it is a stretch in the OP's case, asserting that 17st is overweight is not necessarily the correct assumption, there are many out there who weigh that or more who could never be described as overweight, think Lomu, Thorpe.

Maybe I'm stating the obvious here. But Thorpe and Lomu are men. The comment you are suggesting "could have been right" was specifically aimed at a women. It's extremely different.

The chances of a women being 17 stone and a healthy weight is very small. I don't want to say impossible, but I'm struggling to think of a female athlete who is that size and apparently healthy.

bladespin

Mellor wrote: »

Maybe I'm stating the obvious here. But Thorpe and Lomu are men. The comment you are suggesting "could have been right" was specifically aimed at a women. It's extremely different.

The chances of a women being 17 stone and a healthy weight is very small. I don't want to say impossible, but I'm struggling to think of a female athlete who is that size and apparently healthy.

I didn't suggest the comment was correct just that stating 17st (for anyone) was overweight might not be correct either.

F**k me, where's the eject button?

Mellor

livedadream wrote: »

the original post i mentioned it in, mentioned frying and deep fat frying compared to grilled backed, dry fried or raw. please dont pick and choose what you read.

I quoted your post word for word and bolded the relevant part.
Did you say that raw was 120 cals and grilled was 100?
That's the part I'm talking about. It's incorrect.

Grilled, baked, dry frying, BBQ, poached etc are all the same calories as when raw.
Deep frying doesn't actually change the calories of the chicken, it just comes out covered in oil.

livedadream

from OP's first post:   24 years , 5 foot 11 and 16 stone 10 lbs, thats almost 17 stone.   = 234 lbs
shes not a man and shes not made of pure muscle like a rugby player weighing almost 17 stone.
to visualize it Paul O'Connell was 17 stone and he was 6 4, now imagine a woman that size but shorter.

Based on the Robinson formula (1983), ideal weight is 149.3 lbs
Based on the Miller formula (1983), ideal weight is 150.0 lbs
Based on the Devine formula (1974), ideal weight is 156.1 lbs
Based on the Hamwi formula (1964), ideal weight is 153.7 lbs
Based on the healthy BMI recommendation, recommended weight is 132.6 lbs - 179.2 lbs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19050139
fun link to see what olympic athletes you most resemble

livedadream

Mellor wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

the original post i mentioned it in, mentioned frying and deep fat frying compared to grilled backed, dry fried or raw. please dont pick and choose what you read.

I quoted your post word for word and bolded the relevant part.
Did you say that raw was 120 cals and grilled was 100?
That's the part I'm talking about. It's incorrect.

Grilled, baked, dry frying, BBQ, poached etc are all the same calories as when raw.
Deep frying doesn't actually change the calories of the chicken, it just comes out covered in oil.

my registered clinical dietician disagrees with you but each to their own. i defo don't log that ive eaten 120 calories of chicken if ive had a deep fried chicken breast.
deep frying soaks up oil, chicken isnt impermeable to oil, it doesnt just roll off it so you dont ingest it.

bladespin

livedadream wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19050139
fun link to see what olympic athletes you most resemble

:cool:
Aww, a badminton palyer, seriously?
Can you link the calculators?

Mellor

bladespin wrote: »

I didn't suggest the comment was correct just that stating 17st (for anyone) was overweight might not be correct either.

I was referring to this post, you said they could be right.

bladespin wrote:

Think you're the one who generalized assuming 17st was overweight, the poster you criticize could be perfectly right.

And Im disagreeing with that specific statement. There's zero chance that poster was right imo.

The bit where a random athletic man might be healthy at 17stone is fine, I'm not disagreeing there. But relevance is a bit weak.

Mellor

livedadream wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19050139
fun link to see what olympic athletes you most resemble

This is totally random. I put in my own height/weight. Top of the list was volleyball player with the same name as my girlfriend.

livedadream

bladespin wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19050139
fun link to see what olympic athletes you most resemble

:cool:
Aww, a badminton player, seriously?  :(
Can you link the calculators?

which calculators?
and if it helps i was hoping for some teeny tiny gymnast but got a Canadian swimmer :-(

bladespin

livedadream wrote: »

which calculators?
and if it helps i was hoping for some teeny tiny gymnast but got a Canadian swimmer :-(

Sorry, the ideal weight calcs.

Was hoping for Judo/Karate gold medalist of something lol

livedadream

bladespin wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

which calculators?
and if it helps i was hoping for some teeny tiny gymnast but got a Canadian swimmer :-(

Sorry, the ideal weight calcs.

Was hoping for Judo/Karate gold medalist of something lol

lolz , yeah sure, i have them on an excel so i dunno if they are online, let me have a look...


sorry found them:

J. D. Robinson Formula (1983)

52 kg + 1.9 kg per inch over 5 feet       (man) 49 kg + 1.7 kg per inch over 5 feet       (woman)

D. R. Miller Formula (1983)

56.2 kg + 1.41 kg per inch over 5 feet       (man) 53.1 kg + 1.36 kg per inch over 5 feet       (woman)

G. J. Hamwi Formula (1964)

48.0 kg + 2.7 kg per inch over 5 feet       (man) 45.5 kg + 2.2 kg per inch over 5 feet       (woman)

B. J. Devine Formula (1974)

50.0 + 2.3 kg per inch over 5 feet       (man) 45.5 + 2.3 kg per inch over 5 feet       (woman)

The World Health Organization (WHO) Recommended Healthy BMI Range

18.5 - 25 for both man and woman

bladespin

livedadream wrote: »

lolz , yeah sure, i have them on an excel so i dunno if they are online, let me have a look...

Cheers, just want to work out mine, see how close/far away I am.

livedadream

bladespin wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

lolz , yeah sure, i have them on an excel so i dunno if they are online, let me have a look...

Cheers, just want to work out mine, see how close/far away I am.

i leave the math to the professionals.... :-) i go in she weighs me, smiles or frowns and im good... lolz
thankfully it was more smiling than frowning...
7 stone down and the last three are lingering... but ill take it im not a rolly polly anymore...

uncle_sam_ie

Elemonator wrote: »

Impressive. May I ask, how long did that take? Asking for a friend.........

It's been three years since I changed my diet and sleep. I really noticed my spare tire beer belly reducing around the six month mark. My and skin and hair started improving a lot around this time too. I think it was about a year until I got to a 32 inches waist. Seeing the positive changes was and still is a big motivator for me.

bladespin

livedadream wrote: »

i leave the math to the professionals.... :-) i go in she weighs me, smiles or frowns and im good... lolz
thankfully it was more smiling than frowning...
7 stone down and the last three are lingering... but ill take it im not a rolly polly anymore...

Cheers, according BMI I'm overweight and 'should try to loose some weight' with a bf% lingering around 10 (yes I would like to drop this a little lol) I have to wonder about how good an 'indicator' it actually is, I'd imagine it puts some pretty unreasonable pressure on.

Edit, I'm male but was still a little pee'd off with the result lol.:eek:

livedadream

bladespin wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

i leave the math to the professionals.... :-) i go in she weighs me, smiles or frowns and im good... lolz
thankfully it was more smiling than frowning...
7 stone down and the last three are lingering... but ill take it im not a rolly polly anymore...

Cheers, according BMI I'm overweight and 'should try to loose some weight' with a bf% lingering around 10 (yes I would like to drop this a little lol) I have to wonder about how good an 'indicator' it actually is, I'd imagine it puts some pretty unreasonable pressure on.

Edit, I'm male but was still a little pee'd off with the result lol.:eek:

the best advise i can give about BMI is that it does serve a purpose, obviously a 5 ft and 20 stone and a bit i was in the serious red red red part, however im not just under 13 stone, (and i mean kissing it really) and my GP is happy with me, yes i would like to lose a bit more and technically im still in the obese catagory, youd look at me and see short strong little legs with a big of jiggle, a rounded tummy toned arms and a normal face, im pudgy not fat. but as another poster has said at 5 ft theres not much room for stuff to go. my body is strong it can lift and flip tyres and a 24kg kettlebell over and over and its run marathons. fast. its perspective as well.

Mellor

bladespin wrote: »

Cheers, according BMI I'm overweight and 'should try to loose some weight' with a bf% lingering around 10 (yes I would like to drop this a little lol) I have to wonder about how good an 'indicator' it actually is, I'd imagine it puts some pretty unreasonable pressure on.

Edit, I'm male but was still a little pee'd off with the result lol.:eek:

If you're a legit 10% then you are fine to go ahead and disregard BMI. It doesn't apply to you. There are better indicators you can use, such as adipose index, but body fat percent is probably the best

bladespin

Mellor wrote: »

If you're a legit 10% then you are fine to go ahead and disregard BMI. It doesn't apply to you. There are better indicators you can use, such as adipose index, but body fat percent is probably the best

Well, rougly it very much depends on which calculators etc I use (I haven't bothered with calipers - though I'm in the right business lol), mirror test suggests I'm very close to happiness lol, just pointing out my issue with BMI

Mellor

Even if you are close on visual inspection I'd ignore BMI.

I just meant as long as it wasn't some handheld gadget that that had down the gym that tells people what they want to hear.
PT telling people losing 4% in a fortnight and the likes.

bladespin

Mellor wrote: »

Even if you are close on visual inspection I'd ignore BMI.

I just meant as long as it wasn't some handheld gadget that that had down the gym that tells people what they want to hear.
PT telling people losing 4% in a fortnight and the likes.

Not really, for me mirror is best right now, tha said your comment above reminded me of a test I did try - one of those bf scale thingies that measures your resistance, was midway through the 90 day thing (feeling like I was looking good etc) so bought one to see exactly where I was - the effing thing told me I was nearly 30%, my heart sank until one of the lads said that was ridiculous and that abs/serratus wouldn't really show if I was above 20.
Fecking thing made me want to jack it for a moment - sensitive soul lol.

Sinister Kid

OP, I have this scales. It's dead handy, the bowl doubles as a case & it fits in my handbag so I can bring it to work with me. When I first started using it I was quite surprised at how small the portion sizes actually are!!

whoopsadoodles

Sinister Kid wrote: »

OP, I have this scales. It's dead handy, the bowl doubles as a case & it fits in my handbag so I can bring it to work with me. When I first started using it I was quite surprised at how small the portion sizes actually are!!

Oh I like that! Might invest for work.

It really is surprising how little food you need.

Today so far I've had bowl of porridge (40g) with 250ml l/f milk, a small portion of fat free greek yogurt with berries, and a small salad with tuna (no dressing or any fats aside from the tuna). Not a huge amount of food by any stretch but I'm already at half my daily calorie goal.

It's very easy to go over your cals while thinking you've had nothing at all to eat.

Things like lattes can be a killer too if you're not counting them.

DisneyLover

livedadream wrote: »

with respect i think your missing my point. the OP is not losing weight, i suggested that perhaps she is logging the foods incorrectly. ie logging a raw chicken breast instead of a fried or grilled one, or logging 50g of pasta when it is in fact 100g cooked pasta. or logging a grilled chicken breast instead of a fried one.

it was a suggestion to help someone. no need to get all worked up over it. i successfully lost 7 stone by logging and monitoring my food as well as a few other things it was hit or miss for a while because if your not used to being aware of your consumption you can miss some simple things.

Wow 7 stone ? Can I private message you cause its easier. I started weighing food today and Im confused already ! I always get enchiladas from Super Valu Killester. Weighed them at 250 g for two. How do I get the calories for them ?

DisneyLover

bucketybuck wrote: »

Sure, the 17 stone poster asking for help losing fat and weight could be perfectly healthy, it is possible.

Eh 17 stone is extremely unhealthy ! Thats why Im here ! 17 stone would be for an extremely tall man !

Im 5'11, female and 16 st 6 lbs - Lost 4 lbs since Monday so thats a start. But yeah, 17 stone is not healthy at all and Im obese, obviously ! Need to lose probably at least 3 stone before Im even a normal weight for my height ! Lol

njs030

DisneyLover wrote: »

Wow 7 stone ? Can I private message you cause its easier. I started weighing food today and Im confused already ! I always get enchiladas from Super Valu Killester. Weighed them at 250 g for two. How do I get the calories for them ?

Are the calories on the packet? What were you doing before now?

bladespin

DisneyLover wrote: »

Wow 7 stone ? Can I private message you cause its easier. I started weighing food today and Im confused already ! I always get enchiladas from Super Valu Killester. Weighed them at 250 g for two. How do I get the calories for them ?

These are approximate:

fatsecret
That's not a very good food type to start with I'm afraid, I'd generally try to avoid high fat, high carb, low protein.