5 ms·

How to lose weight the short(ish) version; 1) You need to be in a calorie deficit. (consuming less calories than you use) 2) Use a calorie calculator to find

How to lose weight the short(ish) version; 1) You need to be in a calorie deficit. (consuming less calories than you use) 2) Use a calorie calculator to find out roughly what your maintenance daily calorie allowance is. (eg http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm) 3) Eating less calories than this will result in you being in a calorie deficit and losing weight. 4) Every ~3500 calories under maintenance will result in 1 lb weight loss (so eating 500 less calories than maintenance per day will result in 1 lb/week) 4a) Likewise when bulking 500 calories per day above maintenance will mean you put on 1 lb/week (approx). 4b) 250 calories under maintenance per day, 1750 per week and you'll lose 0.5 lbs in that week. (You get the idea..) 5) A slightly higher protein diet will help hold on to muscle mass while cutting this weight. 6) Muscle mass helps loss weight because the more of it you have the more calories your body consumes. 7) Some general recommendations on macros (protein = 4 calories/gram, carbs = 4 cals/gram, fat = 9 cals/gram) - protein: 0.6g-0.8g/lb of body weight - fat: 0.4g-0.6g/lb of body weight - carbs: fill in the rest of your calorie allowance Example for 200 lb male trying to eat 2200 calories; protein: 200 x 0.8 = 160 gram | 160 x 4 cals = 640 cals fat: 200 x 0.5 = 100 grams | 100 x 9 cals = 900 cals carbs: 900 cals + 640 cals = 1540 | 2200 - 1540 = 660 | 660 / 4 cals = 165 grams Therefore the 200lb male will consume 2200 calories by eating 160g of protein, 100g of fat and 165g of carbs. When and how these calories are consumed doesn't really matter unless your really care about athletic performance.(1-2% to be gained maybe in meal timing and nutrient partitioning) So eat how and whatever you prefer. If that means 1 huge meal or 5 small ones no problem. I'd recommend a balanced diet consisting of fresh natural foods. Also 1 hour of exercise per day (some days cardio, other days weights(focus on compounds; squat, deadlift, bench press, shoulder press, pullups, rows)).

wmil 11y ago
> focus on compounds; squat, deadlift, bench press, shoulder press, pullups, rows This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but recommending pull-ups to someone out of shape who needs to loose weight is just bizarre. If someone was a beginner on the bench press, would you start them at 250lbs and yell at them to push harder? No. That would be stupid and dangerous. Yet somehow fat people are supposed to will themselves to do a pull up, which is basically the equivalent.
- rsync 11y ago
  If I may interject ... Yes, a pull-up is a tall order for someone who is overweight or for most females - and even if you can do one or two pullups, that's not a good basis for working out that part of your body. You should be shooting for 10-12 reps, etc. However, a "pull-up" can really be though of as any compound exercise that requires you to use your lats and biceps to pull yourself up OR pull something down to you. So look for the "lat pulldown" machine and adjust the weight accordingly. It's the same thing.
- will_work4tears 11y ago
  If you "kip up" (jump assist or chair assist) and do a reverse (slowly lower yourself down) it's easier to do and you can build your way up to doing a full pull up. I've done this and I've been as much as 65lbs overweight; I'm not sure how feasible it is for, say, twice that, but at least it's doable at some point of overweight.
- FidesFacitFidem 11y ago
  I kept the training protocol very vague intentionally. Some trainees would be better off simply stretching for a month before doing any resistance training. These details need to be assessed on a case by case basis. This is just an overview. Negative pull-ups or lat pull-down could be used until the required strength is there.
- JeremyNT 11y ago
  Note that the OP also mentions rows in the segment you quoted. Rows are available to all skill levels, and are an effective way to build strength to eventually do pull-ups. I was able to start doing pull-ups after a few months of doing bent over rows with a $25 set of resistance bands. It is very difficult to figure all of the details out, because there is so much money to be made by convincing people to buy into gimmicks. The OP has the right general ideas, though.
hippich 11y ago
nice comment explaining simple math. now a bit trickier part - how to follow it. And to put it simply - to be able to follow it you have to incorporate it into your daily routine. Also, you have to like things you do and eat (that's why restricting all carbs from diet if you love chocolate should not be done.) If you don't like jogging, do several 7 minutes exercises per day, or do some active sport (soccer?.) If you don't like weights - this one is tricky, as I don't know what can really replace it. But you have to find what you like, otherwise it will be too hard to follow.
- rsync 11y ago
  May I recommend walking ? Nothing else. Just walking outside. It's extremely enjoyable and relaxing - as well as mentally stimulating and interesting. In the city, in the country - even in a terrible suburb. 3-4 miles takes about an hour. Pro tip: people who don't walk much at all will experience knee/shin/back pain as a result of walking 2-4 miles per day. The solution is simple: keep walking. Your body was built to walk and the walking will fix those problems for you. You'll be surprised that it only takes 2-3 weeks for this to happen.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Better tip than "just walking" is find a trainer or training group that prepares people for fitness walking (lots of times, local fitness shops will do this for 5K walk/runs, and will have a subgroup focused on walkers.) As with most exercise, proper technique makes a big difference, and even if the human body is built to walk, lots of people (not all, for sure, but a significant fraction of those that would be starting to ramp up from an inactive lifestyle) have developed bad habits and doing it more but still badly won't magically fix them, it will just reinforce them and compound the pain they produce.
  - hippich 11y ago
    it is enjoyable and relaxing for you and may be many out there, but not all. that was a point about finding what your mind and body will not fight. i personally hate walking, but i love to play outdoors with drones and getting better with my training kite. same end result (moving) but much easier to incorporate, since I already want to do it.
CuriouslyC 11y ago
This is the reddit party line, and it's just as much an oversimplification here as it is there. In actuality, people have wildly different metabolic responses to over/underfeeding, and those responses also vary depending on macronutrient composition. What you described is a reasonable way to get a starting point, but the math almost never works out the way you described. Instead, you must track your body's response over a week or two to a very repetitive diet, then change one or two variables at a time and repeat the tracking process until you get the desired result.
- _Wintermute 11y ago
  The basal metabolic rate between individuals is far less variable than most people think. Whenever people start spouting that they have a 'slow metabolism', the effects are actually minimal.
  - CuriouslyC 11y ago
    The research data I've seen suggests that a standard deviation from the mean BMR is about 7.5%. That means that people with the slowest metabolisms burn only about 73% of what people with the fastest metabolisms burn at rest. Additionally, the metabolic response to overfeeding varies greatly between individuals; some people respond to excess calories with a significant rise in body temperature and heightened energy, while others show no change in body temperature and actually get tired after eating. I'm not saying that "slow metabolism" is a legitimate reason someone can't get fit. Only that it isn't fair to assume everyone is the same; some people DO have a much harder time losing fat and staying lean.
    - brador 11y ago
      The advice is universal. You're picking and choosing points you don't like to excuse yourself from the commitment. The best thing you can do right now is sit down and make a meal plan, then go shopping for it, today, right now. Here: chicken , frozen vegetables, water. Cook it all, then eat as much of that to feeling totally full, with your choice of sauce, and you will lose weight. Guaranteed. No exercise required, no limits on how much you can eat.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Every ~3500 calories under maintenance will result in 1 lb weight loss If you are managing to lose pure fat, this is true; in reality, it probably won't be. Its more like 600 calorie deficit per pound of muscle, and, ceteris paribus, the greater the calorie deficit, the greater the proportion of weight loss that will be from muscle. (OTOH, the more overweight you are, ceteris paribus, the greater the percentage of the weight loss that will be from fat, so if you are very overweight, then a very aggressive calorie deficit is more tolerable than when you are less overweight.) Losing muscle is more rapid weight loss than losing fat, but its generally not what people seeking to "lose weight" really want, so its important to not overdo the calorie deficit (what "overdo" means depends on how high your body fat is currently, various things that vary from individual to individual, and to a certain extent what the exercise pattern and particular diet pattern is that you are doing, since that affects maintenance of muscle mass.)
shas3 11y ago
The 500 calorie number is a little sketchy. For it to hold true, here are some questions: 1. How accurately do we know how many calories are needed for maintenance? I would imagine this is highly variable, unless there is evidence to show it is not. People's activity can be quite different day to day. Also is there evidence that metabolism occurs at a consistent rate? If all these add up to an error that is an order of magnitude less than 500, only then can we reliably use the number 500. 2. There is some new research [1] that shows that we may have to rethink the calorie-labels based on how foods are digested. For example cooked food are sometimes digested more completely than raw food, leading to a net intake of more calories. [1] http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/02/have-we-been-miscounting-calories http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/02/have-we-been-mi...

wmil 11y ago

> focus on compounds; squat, deadlift, bench press, shoulder press, pullups, rows This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but recommending pull-ups to someone out of shape who needs to loose weight is just bizarre. If someone was a beginner on the bench press, would you start them at 250lbs and yell at them to push harder? No. That would be stupid and dangerous. Yet somehow fat people are supposed to will themselves to do a pull up, which is basically the equivalent.

rsync 11y ago
If I may interject ... Yes, a pull-up is a tall order for someone who is overweight or for most females - and even if you can do one or two pullups, that's not a good basis for working out that part of your body. You should be shooting for 10-12 reps, etc. However, a "pull-up" can really be though of as any compound exercise that requires you to use your lats and biceps to pull yourself up OR pull something down to you. So look for the "lat pulldown" machine and adjust the weight accordingly. It's the same thing.
will_work4tears 11y ago
If you "kip up" (jump assist or chair assist) and do a reverse (slowly lower yourself down) it's easier to do and you can build your way up to doing a full pull up. I've done this and I've been as much as 65lbs overweight; I'm not sure how feasible it is for, say, twice that, but at least it's doable at some point of overweight.
FidesFacitFidem 11y ago
I kept the training protocol very vague intentionally. Some trainees would be better off simply stretching for a month before doing any resistance training. These details need to be assessed on a case by case basis. This is just an overview. Negative pull-ups or lat pull-down could be used until the required strength is there.
JeremyNT 11y ago
Note that the OP also mentions rows in the segment you quoted. Rows are available to all skill levels, and are an effective way to build strength to eventually do pull-ups. I was able to start doing pull-ups after a few months of doing bent over rows with a $25 set of resistance bands. It is very difficult to figure all of the details out, because there is so much money to be made by convincing people to buy into gimmicks. The OP has the right general ideas, though.

hippich 11y ago

nice comment explaining simple math. now a bit trickier part - how to follow it. And to put it simply - to be able to follow it you have to incorporate it into your daily routine. Also, you have to like things you do and eat (that's why restricting all carbs from diet if you love chocolate should not be done.) If you don't like jogging, do several 7 minutes exercises per day, or do some active sport (soccer?.) If you don't like weights - this one is tricky, as I don't know what can really replace it. But you have to find what you like, otherwise it will be too hard to follow.

rsync 11y ago
May I recommend walking ? Nothing else. Just walking outside. It's extremely enjoyable and relaxing - as well as mentally stimulating and interesting. In the city, in the country - even in a terrible suburb. 3-4 miles takes about an hour. Pro tip: people who don't walk much at all will experience knee/shin/back pain as a result of walking 2-4 miles per day. The solution is simple: keep walking. Your body was built to walk and the walking will fix those problems for you. You'll be surprised that it only takes 2-3 weeks for this to happen.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Better tip than "just walking" is find a trainer or training group that prepares people for fitness walking (lots of times, local fitness shops will do this for 5K walk/runs, and will have a subgroup focused on walkers.) As with most exercise, proper technique makes a big difference, and even if the human body is built to walk, lots of people (not all, for sure, but a significant fraction of those that would be starting to ramp up from an inactive lifestyle) have developed bad habits and doing it more but still badly won't magically fix them, it will just reinforce them and compound the pain they produce.
- hippich 11y ago
  it is enjoyable and relaxing for you and may be many out there, but not all. that was a point about finding what your mind and body will not fight. i personally hate walking, but i love to play outdoors with drones and getting better with my training kite. same end result (moving) but much easier to incorporate, since I already want to do it.

CuriouslyC 11y ago

This is the reddit party line, and it's just as much an oversimplification here as it is there. In actuality, people have wildly different metabolic responses to over/underfeeding, and those responses also vary depending on macronutrient composition. What you described is a reasonable way to get a starting point, but the math almost never works out the way you described. Instead, you must track your body's response over a week or two to a very repetitive diet, then change one or two variables at a time and repeat the tracking process until you get the desired result.

_Wintermute 11y ago
The basal metabolic rate between individuals is far less variable than most people think. Whenever people start spouting that they have a 'slow metabolism', the effects are actually minimal.
- CuriouslyC 11y ago
  The research data I've seen suggests that a standard deviation from the mean BMR is about 7.5%. That means that people with the slowest metabolisms burn only about 73% of what people with the fastest metabolisms burn at rest. Additionally, the metabolic response to overfeeding varies greatly between individuals; some people respond to excess calories with a significant rise in body temperature and heightened energy, while others show no change in body temperature and actually get tired after eating. I'm not saying that "slow metabolism" is a legitimate reason someone can't get fit. Only that it isn't fair to assume everyone is the same; some people DO have a much harder time losing fat and staying lean.
  - brador 11y ago
    The advice is universal. You're picking and choosing points you don't like to excuse yourself from the commitment. The best thing you can do right now is sit down and make a meal plan, then go shopping for it, today, right now. Here: chicken , frozen vegetables, water. Cook it all, then eat as much of that to feeling totally full, with your choice of sauce, and you will lose weight. Guaranteed. No exercise required, no limits on how much you can eat.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Every ~3500 calories under maintenance will result in 1 lb weight loss If you are managing to lose pure fat, this is true; in reality, it probably won't be. Its more like 600 calorie deficit per pound of muscle, and, ceteris paribus, the greater the calorie deficit, the greater the proportion of weight loss that will be from muscle. (OTOH, the more overweight you are, ceteris paribus, the greater the percentage of the weight loss that will be from fat, so if you are very overweight, then a very aggressive calorie deficit is more tolerable than when you are less overweight.) Losing muscle is more rapid weight loss than losing fat, but its generally not what people seeking to "lose weight" really want, so its important to not overdo the calorie deficit (what "overdo" means depends on how high your body fat is currently, various things that vary from individual to individual, and to a certain extent what the exercise pattern and particular diet pattern is that you are doing, since that affects maintenance of muscle mass.)

shas3 11y ago

The 500 calorie number is a little sketchy. For it to hold true, here are some questions: 1. How accurately do we know how many calories are needed for maintenance? I would imagine this is highly variable, unless there is evidence to show it is not. People's activity can be quite different day to day. Also is there evidence that metabolism occurs at a consistent rate? If all these add up to an error that is an order of magnitude less than 500, only then can we reliably use the number 500. 2. There is some new research [1] that shows that we may have to rethink the calorie-labels based on how foods are digested. For example cooked food are sometimes digested more completely than raw food, leading to a net intake of more calories. [1] http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/02/have-we-been-miscounting-calories http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/02/have-we-been-mi...