Morbidly obese. Desperate for advice on where to start.
- Thread starter etwsake
- Start date
rainy said:
I should probably drop this, but the amount of bullshit going around on the subject of weight loss really bothers me.
OP tried your "eat the right type of food" suggestion earlier in the thread. He was eating salads and chicken with lemon, which is about as healthy as you can get.
It didn't take. OP is still miserable.
It's infuriating how people don't understand that what works for a guy who maybe needs to lose 10, 20, or even 30 lbs (Eat less processed crap, maybe go on a short term fad diet like ALL POTATOES ALL DAY) doesn't work for a guy who needs to lose 115. And yes, he knows, I know, and you know, and my dog knows, that junk food is bad for you and if you want to be healthy you should eat more real food. This is not news.
^
People can argue all day over semantics, or which foods you should or should not be eating and often miss the point. I work with dieticians on a near day-to-day basis and although I'm not one myself I can tell you the minutia gets hashed and re-hashed all the time.
Losing weight is a math problem of caloric intake versus calories burned. Regardless of what you're eating, if your intake exceeds a certain point depending on your current weight and activity level, you won't lose weight and may in fact make gains instead (when that's your intent it obviously works). What you are eating is important in terms of overall health, nutritional content, dietary needs, etc. but it's not as important as the math problem itself if your goal is weight loss (long-term health, while very closely related, is a completely different subject).
From http://www.livestrong.com/article/360894-weight-loss-plans-for-a-300-pound-man/
Once you've committed yourself mentally to losing the weight, whether you "count" or not, calories consumed vs. burned is going to largely determine if and how quickly the weight comes off. Using a caloric tool can be useful for planning and gauging whether you are eating enough or not. Our bodies are already burning a couple thousand calories a day going through our normal routines, without exercise. That is why when you're both decreasing intake and increasing activity, weight loss increases too. I'm not saying you "have" to track your caloric intake/usage, but if you focus on improving the two and avoid the extremes and you will see results.
Still at the end of the day, if you aren't committed to the goal and derail from the plan you'll be back to square one. This is why the mental game is about self-discipline and "checking" yourself when you step out of line. If you actually want to lose the weight, figure out the math problem and stop deviating from it. 9 times out of 10, it's the secret snacking and constant cheat meals done in private. Caloric intake skyrockets, you gain weight. It's not rocket science. You know you're doing it but you feel you can't stop. Well, you can... so stop!
People can argue all day over semantics, or which foods you should or should not be eating and often miss the point. I work with dieticians on a near day-to-day basis and although I'm not one myself I can tell you the minutia gets hashed and re-hashed all the time.
Losing weight is a math problem of caloric intake versus calories burned. Regardless of what you're eating, if your intake exceeds a certain point depending on your current weight and activity level, you won't lose weight and may in fact make gains instead (when that's your intent it obviously works). What you are eating is important in terms of overall health, nutritional content, dietary needs, etc. but it's not as important as the math problem itself if your goal is weight loss (long-term health, while very closely related, is a completely different subject).
From http://www.livestrong.com/article/360894-weight-loss-plans-for-a-300-pound-man/
Once you've committed yourself mentally to losing the weight, whether you "count" or not, calories consumed vs. burned is going to largely determine if and how quickly the weight comes off. Using a caloric tool can be useful for planning and gauging whether you are eating enough or not. Our bodies are already burning a couple thousand calories a day going through our normal routines, without exercise. That is why when you're both decreasing intake and increasing activity, weight loss increases too. I'm not saying you "have" to track your caloric intake/usage, but if you focus on improving the two and avoid the extremes and you will see results.
Still at the end of the day, if you aren't committed to the goal and derail from the plan you'll be back to square one. This is why the mental game is about self-discipline and "checking" yourself when you step out of line. If you actually want to lose the weight, figure out the math problem and stop deviating from it. 9 times out of 10, it's the secret snacking and constant cheat meals done in private. Caloric intake skyrockets, you gain weight. It's not rocket science. You know you're doing it but you feel you can't stop. Well, you can... so stop!
I guess I just find it fascinating that Tokyo Joe can just launch himself into this thread calling other people's advice "spectacularly shitty". I then make a post in the larger context of everyone dropping their differing diet advice. He then takes that personally, makes it about him, and erupts, going after me personally and accusing me of being a sperg.
And as he does he gets a stream of likes below his posts. :lol:
So I'm interested, fellas. Tell me, in what universe is that a reasonable course of events? Do I need to buy you all a round of drinks, so I too can come in swinging into threads and still receive that kind of support? :lol:
Ironically in what way, Suits? What particular claims would I need to be vetted for?
I think this thread has illustrated one good reason why I stay anonymous: I enjoy the ability to speak disconnected from my personal ego and popularity. I can appeal to reason over popularity or personality, and speak freely, because I don't have a real life reputation to defend or to use to my advantage. After all, if I could freely say a quarter of the things I've said here in real life, would I even be here in the first place?
Anyway, this unreasonable and unobjective ruckus seems to have at least helped bring etwsake back to the thread, but he should still follow the advice of posting reports unconditionally
And as he does he gets a stream of likes below his posts. :lol:
So I'm interested, fellas. Tell me, in what universe is that a reasonable course of events? Do I need to buy you all a round of drinks, so I too can come in swinging into threads and still receive that kind of support? :lol:
Suits said:
Ironically in what way, Suits? What particular claims would I need to be vetted for?
I think this thread has illustrated one good reason why I stay anonymous: I enjoy the ability to speak disconnected from my personal ego and popularity. I can appeal to reason over popularity or personality, and speak freely, because I don't have a real life reputation to defend or to use to my advantage. After all, if I could freely say a quarter of the things I've said here in real life, would I even be here in the first place?
Anyway, this unreasonable and unobjective ruckus seems to have at least helped bring etwsake back to the thread, but he should still follow the advice of posting reports unconditionally
Phoenix said:
Ironic, because you are the one advocating a method of vetting that would require forum members to submit their medical school graduation diploma before they are permitted to give certain types of advice.
We have a vetting system already. It's called 'meeting each other.'
I've met a ton of forum guys and the guys I know have met a ton of other forum members. If a forum member posts something that I think is a little off, I can find out pretty quick as to whether they are legit or just another Internet tough guy.
There's forum members who have posted stuff that I wouldn't have trusted at face value, but after asking around and learning that the forum member is question was a dude who really walked the talk, I would then give his post further consideration.
There's been other cases where members posted some weird stuff and after checking in with some other members, I learned that the individual in question had attended some meet-ups and his real life reality did not match is tough guy persona on the forum in the least. I then knew I would be best steering clear of his advice.
Phoenix said:
It isn't about ego or popularity. It's easy for most people to talk tough when no one sees their real world reality. Meeting people forces most forum members to be more honest in what they post, because if something doesn't fit with who they actually are, word is going to get around that they and their posts aren't to be trusted.
Phoenix said:
You could say those things if you were hanging with fellow forum members. But you'd only be able to say things that correlated with your real life reality. That's obviously not everyone's cup of tea.
Nevertheless, you post some valuable material here on the forum. I always give your posts special attention.
Nope, if I say "I date supermodels, here's my game advice", there is reason to be skeptical and want to vet me. If I say "Alcohol makes you drunk so don't drive after", do you need to vet that I drink alcohol before you believe it?
Since I wasn't relying on claims (e.g. "believe me because I get results"), but instead sticking to facts (e.g. "correlation doesn't imply causation"), no vetting is required, only to understand and then agree or disagree. Irony needs some incongruity (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irony?s=t), and I'm making no claims that would require vetting, so no incongruity and no irony.
I also don't get your attitude about tough talk, like I can only use that language if I have scars and gold teeth. Mollycoddling doesn't work. If they can't even stomach having that mirror held up to them, such a useful tool, they never really wanted help, they just wanted hugs.
If you're questioning my incentive, I guess I enjoy it. I forgot that Swedish kid's name, rekodig or something, who showed up here a while ago. We opened up on that guy, and it frigging worked. There's something about seeing a loser turn around that makes me feel good, perhaps it's something to do with "renewing my faith in the human spirit" or whatever. The attitude that tough talk be frowned upon is wrong. Tough talk from peers is a powerful tool, a gift even.
And that veiled indirect courtier-style language at the end, if hanging out in real life makes me start doing that, no thanks. It's also bullshit you can talk the same, that people would have no-holds-barred conversations like Travel Museum's whore thread. I really couldn't care less what kind of person people think I am here, I'm engaging here to the extent I find the discourse interesting and like-minded, and any positive feedback I get is a welcome side-effect. Otherwise I'd start posting stories about my Heists (most people don't talk about this) or my Test Pilot career.
The anonymous online forum allows people to share private things, open themselves up to hard criticism, talk politics/race/religion etc, far beyond what they're comfortable doing in real life. It's a powerful tool.
Now etwsake put this thread back on the rails by posting your reports
Since I wasn't relying on claims (e.g. "believe me because I get results"), but instead sticking to facts (e.g. "correlation doesn't imply causation"), no vetting is required, only to understand and then agree or disagree. Irony needs some incongruity (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irony?s=t), and I'm making no claims that would require vetting, so no incongruity and no irony.
I also don't get your attitude about tough talk, like I can only use that language if I have scars and gold teeth. Mollycoddling doesn't work. If they can't even stomach having that mirror held up to them, such a useful tool, they never really wanted help, they just wanted hugs.
If you're questioning my incentive, I guess I enjoy it. I forgot that Swedish kid's name, rekodig or something, who showed up here a while ago. We opened up on that guy, and it frigging worked. There's something about seeing a loser turn around that makes me feel good, perhaps it's something to do with "renewing my faith in the human spirit" or whatever. The attitude that tough talk be frowned upon is wrong. Tough talk from peers is a powerful tool, a gift even.
And that veiled indirect courtier-style language at the end, if hanging out in real life makes me start doing that, no thanks. It's also bullshit you can talk the same, that people would have no-holds-barred conversations like Travel Museum's whore thread. I really couldn't care less what kind of person people think I am here, I'm engaging here to the extent I find the discourse interesting and like-minded, and any positive feedback I get is a welcome side-effect. Otherwise I'd start posting stories about my Heists (most people don't talk about this) or my Test Pilot career.
The anonymous online forum allows people to share private things, open themselves up to hard criticism, talk politics/race/religion etc, far beyond what they're comfortable doing in real life. It's a powerful tool.
Now etwsake put this thread back on the rails by posting your reports
Phoenix, can you explain what bad things you think might happened if OP shifted away from a diet of those awful, awful pizzas he's eating and other junk into something that more closely approximated something a human can eat?
I mean, I understand why you wouldn't want to give exercise advice to somebody in his condition.
But what harm do you think will come of Tokyo Joe's suggestion, or anybody's suggestion that isn't something retarded like a potato starvation diet?
I mean, I understand why you wouldn't want to give exercise advice to somebody in his condition.
But what harm do you think will come of Tokyo Joe's suggestion, or anybody's suggestion that isn't something retarded like a potato starvation diet?
@Samuel Roberts
The potato diet is legit, I've been running it off and on for a few months now. I modified it so that I basically replace all my carbs with potatoes and eat lean meats (because zero protein is retarded and chicken won't make you fat) and the weight loss does happen. Obviously I don't load it up with tons of butter and cheese. Spices are your friend.
The potatoes are filling, they're mostly water and the skins have fiber that keep you full. Average weight loss is a pound or two a week and I only do it maybe three days per week. The results would be much faster if I did it every day. When I started back in March I was around 200 lbs and I've leisurely whittled my way down to 185 without feeling like I'm missing much at all, and I don't even do it that often.
From what I can tell, even when I'm eating "a lot", I'm only getting maybe 1500 calories during the potato days. That looks like three square meals a day, each with a decent sized piece of chicken, beef or fish and three medium sized potatoes on your plate.
Each medium sized spud is about 100 calories and a fatass would have to smash 12 pounds of them a day to gain even maintain his current weight (good luck, lol).
There is no planning, you make your meal and eat potatoes until you're full. I just nuke them in the microwave but the "purists" recommend eating them cold with no spices. I think that's counterproductive at best. If you want to lose weight with your intake, you're better off drinking a gallon of ice cold water than eating your food cold.
So while I would never advocate the potato only diet, a diet where you replace all carbs with potatoes would work and in the OP's case it's way, way better than what's he's doing now, which is nothing. Throw in a salad (no dressing) here and there and it's a fine formula for long term success.
The potato diet is legit, I've been running it off and on for a few months now. I modified it so that I basically replace all my carbs with potatoes and eat lean meats (because zero protein is retarded and chicken won't make you fat) and the weight loss does happen. Obviously I don't load it up with tons of butter and cheese. Spices are your friend.
The potatoes are filling, they're mostly water and the skins have fiber that keep you full. Average weight loss is a pound or two a week and I only do it maybe three days per week. The results would be much faster if I did it every day. When I started back in March I was around 200 lbs and I've leisurely whittled my way down to 185 without feeling like I'm missing much at all, and I don't even do it that often.
From what I can tell, even when I'm eating "a lot", I'm only getting maybe 1500 calories during the potato days. That looks like three square meals a day, each with a decent sized piece of chicken, beef or fish and three medium sized potatoes on your plate.
Each medium sized spud is about 100 calories and a fatass would have to smash 12 pounds of them a day to gain even maintain his current weight (good luck, lol).
There is no planning, you make your meal and eat potatoes until you're full. I just nuke them in the microwave but the "purists" recommend eating them cold with no spices. I think that's counterproductive at best. If you want to lose weight with your intake, you're better off drinking a gallon of ice cold water than eating your food cold.
So while I would never advocate the potato only diet, a diet where you replace all carbs with potatoes would work and in the OP's case it's way, way better than what's he's doing now, which is nothing. Throw in a salad (no dressing) here and there and it's a fine formula for long term success.
SamuelBRoberts said:
His advice was still grounded in science though:
(Holt, 1995)
My point was a general appeal to objectivity, be it through referencing scientific research, or showing evidence of results, or using logical statements to link up known facts, or whatever. Otherwise we're all just yelling at each other, rather than pursuing best outcomes.
Suits said:
:lol:
You really do see those two statements as being at odds with each other, don't you? You can't see how the second statement speaks of moving the advice further from the adviser's personal opinion or reputation, and closer to presentation of objective evidence or a statement of commonly accepted facts learned from professionals (who've in turn had to study prior objective evidence), so snark GIF it is...
That response says more about you than it does about me, so I'm happy to leave it at that. And as I consider your continued snark and weasel-wording to reduce the quality of dialogue on this forum, I'll be removing it with my block list.
Besides, if I wanted to have "dialogue" with liberals I'd be on Facebook, not RVF. Sionara.
Actually I am going to start this one - a prolonged fast.
There are studies linked in the vid.
It explain why I was weaker during my extreme caloric restriction that I did a few months ago. I still took in some 200 calories mostly in protein and some fats.
It is both psychologically as well as physically easier to shift to complete fasts as the body enters ketosis and releases more hormones after the first 2-3 days.
Strangely enough it is easier to fast fully for 10-30 days than to eat a severely restricted caloric diet. There are other factors associated with full fasting that improve the mental capacity.
I will do that and will just add some of my basic supplements.
According to the data I should be able to even workout fully and build some muscle so long as I have some bodyfat left and I am too far away from my target 8% bodyfat.
----------------
I don't want to post here too much on the potato story, but the funny part is that there is a small Japanese area where they eat mostly special potatoes: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/19/japanese-diet-live-to-100
Though part of the reason why it is so effective is due to the nutrient rich earth and potatoes they have there.
Also there is something else going on with the people who eat a tremendous amount of carbohydrates - after 6 to 18 months the body starts to metabolize those natural carbohydrates differently and those individuals can eat even 4000+ calories in vegetables or fruit - and they are thin as can be. Personally I do not advocate that diet, but their nutrient intake is tremendous. Still - there is a lot about the human body and diet that mainstream medicine is not talking about and is not even researching much:
Part of the reason why I don't recommend that diet too much is because you need tremendously pure and organic vegetables for that kind of dietary habit - you are otherwise poisoning yourself with pesticides since fruits and some vegetables have high doses of it and you eat much more of all that when on that diet.
Another reason why this diet is not easy is because you are quite restricted in what you eat and if you add for example some meat, fish or the occasional fried food, then your body reacts wildly to it. An 80-10-10 organic diet (necessary to be organic) may cost you up to 10.000$ in the winter in the West - for one person! And it takes your body 6 to 18 months to transition!
This kind of massive burning of carbohydrates is frankly also not something I love to have, since the volumes of food those people eat are massive - and yes that food can be mountains of potatoes.
I did a 30 day water fast. I lost 15 pounds, it screwed up my metabolism, and it all came back within 2 weeks.
I did a 30 day potato hack. I was never hungry, weak, tired or cold. I dropped 20 pounds and my belt is now 5 notches tighter. 3 months later, the weight is still off, eating whatever I feel like. Might have gained 5 pounds back. Once the belt notches started closing, I didn't need to weigh myself; when you lose fat that fast, it is your belt that is the best measurement. At the end of the day, most of us care about the six pack stomach and looking good more than weight. Weight is a poor proxy, but it is easier to measure than waist size, especially if you are losing 1 pound a week.
I did a 30 day potato hack. I was never hungry, weak, tired or cold. I dropped 20 pounds and my belt is now 5 notches tighter. 3 months later, the weight is still off, eating whatever I feel like. Might have gained 5 pounds back. Once the belt notches started closing, I didn't need to weigh myself; when you lose fat that fast, it is your belt that is the best measurement. At the end of the day, most of us care about the six pack stomach and looking good more than weight. Weight is a poor proxy, but it is easier to measure than waist size, especially if you are losing 1 pound a week.
I tried a 7 day water fast this year. I lost almost no weight (I lost maybe 1 or 2 kilograms but it came back in less than a week) but I felt better after the fast (meant to be good for detoxing) and my palate and food cravings changed. Since the fast I really have not had any strong food cravings for particular foods like I sometimes did before and also my palate is more sensitive, with certain overly processed foods tasting too sweet or too salty now compared to before.
I think a water fast anywhere from 7-14 days is good to detox your body and help you kick start a change in eating habits. Perhaps your palate and food cravings will alter for the better and also psychologically when you know that you have the willpower to go without eating at all for a week then you feel like you easily have the willpower to say no the bag of chips or the ice-cream, etc.
p.s. I drank natural high magnesium spring water when on the fast (you don't want your minerals to be too depleted).
I think a water fast anywhere from 7-14 days is good to detox your body and help you kick start a change in eating habits. Perhaps your palate and food cravings will alter for the better and also psychologically when you know that you have the willpower to go without eating at all for a week then you feel like you easily have the willpower to say no the bag of chips or the ice-cream, etc.
p.s. I drank natural high magnesium spring water when on the fast (you don't want your minerals to be too depleted).
Here is an interesting youtube video by a vegan who argues that a ketogenic diet is unhealthy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzHLAqyO7PQ
I am not sure what to make of the video.
I am not sure what to make of the video.
