give us your plan here
give us your plan here
Get an annulment
Not eat for a year.
Intermitrent fasting, 16/8 plan. First meal 13.00-13.30, second meal 20.30-21.00. One snack at 16.00-17.00.
Anyone who sticks with I.F. loses a ton of weight as well as improving all health markers.
If I was 100 pounds heavier which means I have a lot more muscle, I’d decide to stop being a runner and live my new life as a beefcake.
?
same thing i did early in 2017 to lose around 60 lbs. just chugged along at 10-11 minute pace as often as i could and ate less. it eventually paid off.
I would have my wife (or preferably her friend, but this one does not like me even now, so) to sit on me during youknow.
go on keto and do some lydiard type easy runs until it falls off.
Did a version this, but I only had about 70lbs to lose. Took me about 4 months to get back into shape where I could genuinely race.
I ran it off with almost no diet change.
Here's what you have to realize: running mileage with extra weight will kill your legs, lead to short-term injuries, if you attempt to run for long periods or at the high intensity that burns fat.
For me, this meant I couldn't lose weight, break through to the next level of fitness, and I was sore all the time.
My solution was to get a Planet Fitness membership, and do this daily: do a variety of light weight leg lifting and hip exercises to strengthen the areas that seemed to be holding me back in running. For me, it was my lower legs and abductors. I'd also throw in minor core and upper body stuff, but this was just to get my metabolism going.
With all my running muscles warmed up, activated, slightly tired, I would hop on the treadmill. There's less shock to your joints on a treadmill, so it's possible to run at a pace/intensity that would beat you up if you tried it on the road. I gauged myself by heart rate watch, which I think does correlate pretty well to burning fat. I built up time and pace week-over week.
I used heart rate as a means of making sure I could keep a high level of work every day. After warming up, I'd try to hold my heart rate at a certain point for as long as possible without letting it get higher. At least half the run at 150-165 bpm was the zone I shot for. If I went over, the run became anaerobic or something, and I would be exhausted the next day. Eventually, your pace will increase as you get fitter, when you are shooting for an intense HR zone.
After losing a few pounds, I added road running, but the bulk of volume was always running on the treadmill until I started to lose a lot of weight.
The odd thing, once I got back to running on roads almost exclusively (after 3 months or so): my legs weren't where they needed to be to do pace work, but my aerobic base seemed quite good, almost like a true mileage base.
This has been my reality twice. On April 7, 2008, I was 34 years old weighed 284 pounds and had a terrible diet. I did not grow up fat, I gained the weight over 10 years starting when I got out of the Army at age 24. Just stopped exercising, eating junk, and had a job that required me to drive many hours a day.
There are some personal reasons why on that day I decided to change my life, but what I did was decide to make two dietary changes, and to ride my road bike as often and as hard as I could, and either I would die doing it or I would be successful. The two dietary changes I made was to greatly curtail my soda drinking. No lie, I was drinking in the neighborhood of 15 cans of Pepsi per day, and I was eating fast food for breakfast and lunch.
To make this shorter, one year later, I weighed 176 pounds for a loss of 108 in a year. For the first six months (into October) I lost 10 or 11 pounds every month. In October I plateaued a bit and only lost maybe 5, at which point I decided I'd start running. I was just a shade under 220 if I recall. I also started spin classes because I couldn't ride much outside due to daylight savings ending, then winter.
That helped and I made it to 201 by Jan 1, so just shy of 9 months in. Continued running and spinning, then in March picked up cycling again. Decided to run a half marathon in May, ran 1:36, then in October ran 1:27. At that point it was a bit over 18 months since I had weighed 284. Words can't express how good I felt and how my life changed for the better in every way. Self confidence, at work, at home, around friends. I was better in every single way.
On Memorial Day 2010 (so 25 months after I began the weight loss journey), I decided to quit cycling so I could concentrate on running. I wanted to run a sub 3 marathon and need to run more than 35 miles per week.
However, I kept getting injured when I would bump mileage up, and without the extreme calorie burning that cycling provided, I gradually began to gain weight because although I had made and stuck to the two dietary changes, I was not necessarily eating well still.
In 2012, even though I was up to 195 pounds, I ran 126 half and 304 marathon. But then divorce, alcohol, depression, and before you know it, I was 210, then 220, then 238, then 250, and now 277 at my last physical.
I am 12 days into no alcohol, still don't drink soda, and I have started cycling again (starting in late July). I'm 272 this morning, only 5 pounds down and a hundred to go. It's a shitty place to be in especially when I've trod this path before and let it all go. I'm 45 years old now so it's going to be that much harder. Only this time, I'll make sure that my entire diet is fixed, and I'll probably always need a variety in my exercise to keep it off.
Ghost1 wrote:
Intermitrent fasting, 16/8 plan. First meal 13.00-13.30, second meal 20.30-21.00. One snack at 16.00-17.00.
Anyone who sticks with I.F. loses a ton of weight as well as improving all health markers.
Fasting has been proven to be bunk pseudoscience at best. The reason people see results on a fast is due to calorie reduction. Period. You can see the same results by reducing calorie intake equivalent to the fast amounts and eat whenever feels right.
To answer the question, I would eat an appropriate amount of calories for someone that is slightly lighter than that weight. I'd also swim 1 mile per day (any/all strokes) until I could do it faster than 40 minutes. Then I would start increasing distance/frequency as appropriate.
As much as I prefer running, I would not want to injure my body by subjecting it to the forces of running given that the joints, connective tissues, etc., had no time to adjust to the newly acquired mass... I'd phase in running slowly when I was less than 40 pounds overweight. Again, knowing injury is a huge factor in progressing, I wouldn't want to risk derailing things.
Hold up, Bro wrote:
Ghost1 wrote:
Intermitrent fasting, 16/8 plan. First meal 13.00-13.30, second meal 20.30-21.00. One snack at 16.00-17.00.
Anyone who sticks with I.F. loses a ton of weight as well as improving all health markers.
Fasting has been proven to be bunk pseudoscience at best. The reason people see results on a fast is due to calorie reduction. Period. You can see the same results by reducing calorie intake equivalent to the fast amounts and eat whenever feels right.
To answer the question, I would eat an appropriate amount of calories for someone that is slightly lighter than that weight. I'd also swim 1 mile per day (any/all strokes) until I could do it faster than 40 minutes. Then I would start increasing distance/frequency as appropriate.
As much as I prefer running, I would not want to injure my body by subjecting it to the forces of running given that the joints, connective tissues, etc., had no time to adjust to the newly acquired mass... I'd phase in running slowly when I was less than 40 pounds overweight. Again, knowing injury is a huge factor in progressing, I wouldn't want to risk derailing things.
BS. A calorie is not a calorie. Once you get above 40 or so, the rules all change. Intermittent fasting is one of three or four supposedly crazy, or nonsensical weight management things that actually work, despite all the studies you cite.
IF
Carbs only
Keto only
The above are the only ones really worth consideration, and one of those techniques will likely work for you.
What you CAN'T do is eat the standard American high fat/high carb diet, no matter how much you limit those calories (via IF or simply eating less).
tarckstar wrote:
Hold up, Bro wrote:
Fasting has been proven to be bunk pseudoscience at best. The reason people see results on a fast is due to calorie reduction. Period. You can see the same results by reducing calorie intake equivalent to the fast amounts and eat whenever feels right.
To answer the question, I would eat an appropriate amount of calories for someone that is slightly lighter than that weight. I'd also swim 1 mile per day (any/all strokes) until I could do it faster than 40 minutes. Then I would start increasing distance/frequency as appropriate.
As much as I prefer running, I would not want to injure my body by subjecting it to the forces of running given that the joints, connective tissues, etc., had no time to adjust to the newly acquired mass... I'd phase in running slowly when I was less than 40 pounds overweight. Again, knowing injury is a huge factor in progressing, I wouldn't want to risk derailing things.
BS. A calorie is not a calorie. Once you get above 40 or so, the rules all change. Intermittent fasting is one of three or four supposedly crazy, or nonsensical weight management things that actually work, despite all the studies you cite.
IF
Carbs only
Keto only
The above are the only ones really worth consideration, and one of those techniques will likely work for you.
What you CAN'T do is eat the standard American high fat/high carb diet, no matter how much you limit those calories (via IF or simply eating less).
First off, I'm over 40.
Secondly, I never mentioned anything about the types of calories. I agree not all calories are created equal. What I do know, and studies have shown, is that you can eat all of those calories whenever you want and be just as successful as a fasting diet. The TIMING of calorie intake doesn't matter. If you want to fast, knock yourself out. All I'm saying is that it is no more beneficial than simply eating the same amount of calories as the fast whenever you want throughout the day.
I'd simply eat about 1500 calories a day until I lost the 100lbs.
Id start off by working out how much I was eating, then cutting it by 200 every few days until I was at the 1500 mark then maintain that. Wouldn't do any sport just maybe walking and some weights.
I wouldn't do anything too extreme. It's not necessary. Mostly just go back to doing what I always do for specific targets because that has kept me good all these years. It's not automatic, and I have gone from almost 220 to under 170 just a few years ago. 168 being super lean "race weight" for me , borderline not sustainable , 185 being my most easily regulated fit weight, say short triathlon ready. 220 getting fat around 25 BMI. I am 6'5" tall almost a senior citizen. Not and never have prone to putting on muscle .
So thats a lot of discipline for under 170. Rare dessert, "eating clean".
More or less 80% decent food 20% junkier food for most other goal weights, 4 or 5 hours of exercise weekly is enough. This is what I would do to lose 100 pounds and while running a small calorie deficit. I would not count calories , just know that I was holding back a little most days, like eat a kid's size dinner, or big a healthy salad with protein for dinner , and have a small snack if I had trouble going to sleep.
I have to be pretty reckless with food and sit around a lot for weight to start creeping out of healthy ranges.
Ghost1 wrote:
Intermitrent fasting, 16/8 plan. First meal 13.00-13.30, second meal 20.30-21.00. One snack at 16.00-17.00.
Anyone who sticks with I.F. loses a ton of weight as well as improving all health markers.
It's really annoying that people have completely redefined the world "fasting". Somehow fasting intermittently can now mean you're eating 3x a day! WTF. You realize this is how sumo wrestlers eat? And I'm not joking you. They skip breakfast then eat a big lunch and dinner. So sumo wrestlers also intermittently fast according to this new age jargon.
Hold up, Bro wrote:
Ghost1 wrote:
Intermitrent fasting, 16/8 plan. First meal 13.00-13.30, second meal 20.30-21.00. One snack at 16.00-17.00.
Anyone who sticks with I.F. loses a ton of weight as well as improving all health markers.
Fasting has been proven to be bunk pseudoscience at best. The reason people see results on a fast is due to calorie reduction. Period. You can see the same results by reducing calorie intake equivalent to the fast amounts and eat whenever feels right.
That's the entire purpose of fasting. Intermittent fasting is mentally easier than eating the same meals but reducing calories.
sumojo wrote:
Ghost1 wrote:
Intermitrent fasting, 16/8 plan. First meal 13.00-13.30, second meal 20.30-21.00. One snack at 16.00-17.00.
Anyone who sticks with I.F. loses a ton of weight as well as improving all health markers.
It's really annoying that people have completely redefined the world "fasting". Somehow fasting intermittently can now mean you're eating 3x a day! WTF. You realize this is how sumo wrestlers eat? And I'm not joking you. They skip breakfast then eat a big lunch and dinner. So sumo wrestlers also intermittently fast according to this new age jargon.
Yeah, but they force themselves to eat all they do. Breakfast is not the most important meal of the day. Most days I don't even eat till dinner, because I'm not hungry till then. I have a BMI of 20.
thanks captain obvious wrote:
Hold up, Bro wrote:
Fasting has been proven to be bunk pseudoscience at best. The reason people see results on a fast is due to calorie reduction. Period. You can see the same results by reducing calorie intake equivalent to the fast amounts and eat whenever feels right.
That's the entire purpose of fasting. Intermittent fasting is mentally easier than eating the same meals but reducing calories.
I know it's obvious. Like you said, fasting may be easier mentally for some. However, people take it to mean that fasting produces better results than simply eating fewer calories. This is patently untrue. Thank you for understanding science (really).
Oh Please wrote:
This has been my reality twice. On April 7, 2008, I was 34 years old weighed 284 pounds and had a terrible diet. I did not grow up fat, I gained the weight over 10 years starting when I got out of the Army at age 24. Just stopped exercising, eating junk, and had a job that required me to drive many hours a day.
There are some personal reasons why on that day I decided to change my life, but what I did was decide to make two dietary changes, and to ride my road bike as often and as hard as I could, and either I would die doing it or I would be successful. The two dietary changes I made was to greatly curtail my soda drinking. No lie, I was drinking in the neighborhood of 15 cans of Pepsi per day, and I was eating fast food for breakfast and lunch.
To make this shorter, one year later, I weighed 176 pounds for a loss of 108 in a year. For the first six months (into October) I lost 10 or 11 pounds every month. In October I plateaued a bit and only lost maybe 5, at which point I decided I'd start running. I was just a shade under 220 if I recall. I also started spin classes because I couldn't ride much outside due to daylight savings ending, then winter.
That helped and I made it to 201 by Jan 1, so just shy of 9 months in. Continued running and spinning, then in March picked up cycling again. Decided to run a half marathon in May, ran 1:36, then in October ran 1:27. At that point it was a bit over 18 months since I had weighed 284. Words can't express how good I felt and how my life changed for the better in every way. Self confidence, at work, at home, around friends. I was better in every single way.
On Memorial Day 2010 (so 25 months after I began the weight loss journey), I decided to quit cycling so I could concentrate on running. I wanted to run a sub 3 marathon and need to run more than 35 miles per week.
However, I kept getting injured when I would bump mileage up, and without the extreme calorie burning that cycling provided, I gradually began to gain weight because although I had made and stuck to the two dietary changes, I was not necessarily eating well still.
In 2012, even though I was up to 195 pounds, I ran 126 half and 304 marathon. But then divorce, alcohol, depression, and before you know it, I was 210, then 220, then 238, then 250, and now 277 at my last physical.
I am 12 days into no alcohol, still don't drink soda, and I have started cycling again (starting in late July). I'm 272 this morning, only 5 pounds down and a hundred to go. It's a shitty place to be in especially when I've trod this path before and let it all go. I'm 45 years old now so it's going to be that much harder. Only this time, I'll make sure that my entire diet is fixed, and I'll probably always need a variety in my exercise to keep it off.
You and the guy that posted above you are pretty inspiring. Check out his post about the Planet Fitness stuff. I think he's dead on when it comes to not running much at all when you aren't a total twig. In my experience the lower legs and abductors are also the weak points. I'm not overweight in the same way you are, but I'm carrying a lot more muscle than is ideal for a distance runner and if I don't keep my calves and abductors super strong I break down really fast if I try running regularly.
If you haven't tried it before, let me just say that steep incline walking (SIW) is an excellent workout for almost everyone but the super fit super thin runner. SIW doesn't have much eccentric component to it so it's way less harsh on the body. Most gyms will have some treadmills that go up to 15% incline and doing that at about 4-4.5mph is quite difficult. Some gym have treadmills that go as high as 30% incline and these are ideal. 30% is too high to walk that fast unless you're the type that just hangs onto the rails, but that's lame. I found that right around 18-21% is the sweet spot while still walking upright and not holding onto anything. Killer workout. Very highly recommended. Virtually no impact.