Diet ideas - what actually works?

[KrisW]

Personal coaching is good. Signing up with a product or club or brand is bad : those clubs have conflicting goals, in that if you do succeed in losing weight you won't pay them every week anymore.

Exercise won't burn away the fat, but it will stop you grazing on food while you're doing it and for a bit after. Plus it's good for you and it will improve mood.. very good if you find that you overeat because you're bored or fed up. Nothing you need to go to a gym for, just 30 minutes of a good walking pace every day. Just switching from car to public transport (if you've got a choice) will get you a good 10-20 minutes of excercise a day.

If you feel peckish, first drink some water. Sometimes what you think is hunger is actually thirst.

I'm not a great example though, as I am still overweight, but those have helped me become less so.

 

[les24preludes]

Personal coaching is good. Signing up with a product or club or brand is bad : those clubs have conflicting goals, in that if you do succeed in losing weight you won't pay them every week anymore.

I joined weight watchers for a short while. I realised it was pitched at women when I was the only male to attend one meeting and the flyer said..

"Have you ever longed to get into a size 10 dress...?

 

[gez]

How do you get a lot of protein if you're a vegetarian? Personally I eat fish and eggs, so not totally veggie, just not meat.

Apart from just "eat more fish" (which I'd have thought would be rather easy to do as I've always found it less filling than things like beef, chicken etc), you could suppliment with a high quality protein powder. It's not cheap though.

Weight loss is simple (in principle) it's simply a case of eating less calories than you expend. The healthiest and most sustainable way to achieve it is to eat a healthy balanced diet with appropriate portion sizes and overall daily calorific value that will lead to your body shedding weight.

Don't believe anything that tells you there is a "magical" way to lose weight based on eating more or less of any given thing, it's all nonsense. As are ultra low calorie diets as they're unsustainable and far more likely to lead to a rebound when you come off them.

Use a BMR calculator to work out how many calories your body requires, just to exist. 500 calorie deficit a day relative to your BMR + Activity levels will lead to a weight loss of (approximately) 1lb a week. Aim to not lose more than 1% of your bodyweight per week (more than that leads to muscle wastage).

BMR Calculator

This free BMR calculator estimates basal metabolic rate based on well-known formulas. Also, learn more about variables that affect BMR.

www.calculator.net

Walking every day is all that's requried to accelerate the loss of viseral fat (that's the fat within your abdomen) that is of great benefit to reducing risk of Type 2 Diabetes.

 

[Darren L]

Eat less, eat better (non processed foods) and exercise. If you can swim then swimming is great exercise, a bit boring maybe. If you can't swim, go to a class and learn.

 

[les24preludes]

Aim to not lose more than 1% of your bodyweight per week (more than that leads to muscle wastage).

I think 100g per day is a good goal, so 2kg every 3 weeks, 36kg per year. That's more than good enough. 80g per day is enough for most.

 

[Jubal]

It’s all been said in the thread. I did a weekly food diary, and with the help of a nutritionist we chipped away each week at the portion size and made substitutes for the carbs and sugar rich things (like banana).

Repetition then became my friend. Thankfully the family were very understanding and like simple food. I lost 30kg and it’s stayed off mostly.

Despite some health issues I walk everywhere. Maybe 5-6 miles a day with the dog. Knackers me out but otherwise I’d have to cut down even more! No escaping the calorie maths.

 

[gez]

I think 100g per day is a good goal, so 2kg every 3 weeks, 36kg per year. That's more than good enough.

The 1% figure isn't arbitary it's based on proven studies with proper body composition analysis. 0.7% per week is considered a safe slow weight loss that'll maintain muscle mass. 1.4% per week will lose weight (obvioulsy) but you'll also lose a percentage of your muscle. Of course if maintaining muscle is not any kind of priority then any amount of weight loss is possible. But medical science has shown that slow gradual loss is the most likely to be the most sustainable and is definitely the healthiest method.

 

[KrisW]

I joined weight watchers for a short while. I realised it was pitched at women when I was the only male to attend one meeting and the flyer said..

"Have you ever longed to get into a size 10 dress...?

Well, it could be a goal for some..
or it might depend on who was in the dress already.

That said, you were on a hiding to nothing... I reckon an average adult male at a healthy weight would struggle with a women's size 10.

 

[stevec67]

What would you guys suggest as a daily kcal number for a sustainable diet for an older adult male? I'm thinking around 1800kcal?

No way, Jose. 2500 is the stated amount for a 75kg male. 1800 is next to nothing and you will become very thin if that's all you get. Obviously if you are small and light, you need less, more if you are bigger. I had a mate, sadly now deceased, who was around 20 stone for most of his life. When he bothered trying to lose weight he would drop 7lb in the first week simply because you need to eat a LOT just to sustain yourself at 20st. But you have to sustain it, and that's where he failed. He has now sadly paid for it, game over aged 59.

2000, if you sustain it, would see you becoming very thin but still alive. But you won't sustain it to that extent unless you are a pro athlete working hard at keeping their weight very low.

The arithmetic I have done is based on my needing 2500 and eating 2000 for 6 days. so 3000 deficit, less a bit for the Friday blowout, gives ~ 2500 deficit for a week = ~ 500g of adipose tissue. It all stacks up. People talk about the body going into emergency measures, it may do but not while you are overweight. The body looks at the fat reserves you have and if they are adequate it's "ho hum, business as usual, we're a bit short today but I'll just burn 100g of fat. I've got it."

 

[gez]

No way, Jose. 2500 is the stated amount for a 75kg male. 1800 is next to nothing and you will become very thin if that's all you get. Obviously if you are small and light, you need less, more if you are bigger. I had a mate, sadly now deceased, who was around 20 stone for most of his life. When he bothered trying to lose weight he would drop 7lb in the first week simply because you need to eat a LOT just to sustain yourself at 20st. But you have to sustain it, and that's where he failed. He has now sadly paid for it, game over aged 59.

2000, if you sustain it, would see you becoming very thin but still alive. But you won't sustain it to that extent unless you are a pro athlete working hard at keeping their weight very low.

The arithmetic I have done is based on my needing 2500 and eating 2000 for 6 days. so 3000 deficit, less a bit for the Friday blowout, gives ~ 2500 deficit for a week = ~ 500g of adipose tissue. It all stacks up. People talk about the body going into emergency measures, it may do but not while you are overweight. The body looks at the fat reserves you have and if they are adequate it's "ho hum, business as usual, we're a bit short today but I'll just burn 100g of fat. I've got it."

Those diatary figures banded about by the NHS and on the side of food packaging are nonsense and severely out of date. To start with they're based on Men in their 20's back in they days when men did actual physical work (like working in a steel mill or down the coal mine)*. Which was always nonsense as you require less calories as you age so basing daily requirements on that of the young is just dumb to start with. Completely inappropriate for the calorie requirements of modern life, which is almost entirely sedentary.

A 25 year old 75kg male of 175cm height has a BMR of 1,724 calories and a sedentary calorie requirement of a smidge over 2,000 calories. If such a person were to consume 2,500 calories a day they'd put on 19kg in a year.

BMR Calculator

This free BMR calculator estimates basal metabolic rate based on well-known formulas. Also, learn more about variables that affect BMR.

www.calculator.net

*Rembemer that men were far lighter back in those days too which significantly lowers the calorie requirements (an average man back in the 50's weighed about 65kg).

 

[stevec67]

Those diatary figures banded about by the NHS and on the side of food packaging are nonsense and severely out of date. To start with they're based on Men in their 20's back in they days when men did actual physical work (like working in a steel mill or down the coal mine). Which was always nonsense as you require less calories as you age so basing daily requirements on that of the young is just dumb to start with. Completely inappropriate for the calorie requirements of modern life, which is almost entirely sedentary.

A 25 year old 75kg male of 175cm height has a BMR of 1,724 calories and a sedentary calorie requirement of a smidge over 2,000 calories. If such a person were to consume 2,500 calories a day they'd put on 19kg in a year.

BMR Calculator

This free BMR calculator estimates basal metabolic rate based on well-known formulas. Also, learn more about variables that affect BMR.

www.calculator.net

I'm not convinced by that. I based my regime on eating what I estimated to be currently around 3000 calories based on weighing my food. I'm a food technologist for a living so I know I can do the calculations. I then used the 2500 figure as a reference and ate ~2000 a day for 6 days, what I wanted day 7. Food diary recorded it all. Lo and behold, I lost 500g a week for 5 months. Very steady, very consistent. The arithmetic stacks up for me as needing about 2500, eating 2000 and losing weight to the tune of the missing 2500 kcal a week. I'm currently BMI 25.5 ish, about 74kg. Good enough.
The fact that the arithmetic and customary numbers support my own observations (OK, for a sample size of 1, I know) suggests that the 2500 figure is not as far off as all that.

 

[AudioAl]

Stop eating lots , That works

 

[les24preludes]

Those diatary figures banded about by the NHS and on the side of food packaging are nonsense and severely out of date.

A 25 year old 75kg male of 175cm height has a BMR of 1,724 calories and a sedentary calorie requirement of a smidge over 2,000 calories. If such a person were to consume 2,500 calories a day they'd put on 19kg in a year.

That agrees with what I posted earlier - 2,000 to 2,200 for a sedentary male of age 51+.

So a diet would be under 2,000 calories a day. Probably not much under that, though, long term.

 

[John Phillips]

What would you guys suggest as a daily kcal number for a sustainable diet for an older adult male? I'm thinking around 1800kcal?

The NHS suggests 2,500 as a target for a male, but that probably includes exercise and doesn't account for weight loss. Here's a more accurate estimation.

Sedentary male 51+ - 2,000-2200
Moderately active - 2,200-2,400
Active - 2,400 - 2,800

I am sustaining my current weight on about 2,140 kcal/day (calories as advertized on food packaging - which can be misleading). I am probably above "lightly active" on the usual Activity Factor scale but below "moderately active".

According to the modern Mifflin St Jeor equation for Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), the typical BMR for someone resembling me is 1,390 kcal/day. Do note that this is a population average - individuals differ and AIUI the standard error is about 10% (circa 2/3 of the population lies within plus or minus 10% of the average).

The normal Activity Factor numbers for me give:

• Sedentary: 1.2 * 1,390 = 1,668 kcal/day
• Lightly active: 1.375 * 1,390 - 1,911 kcal/day
• Moderately active: 1.55 * 1,390 = 2,154 kcal/day
• Very Active: 1.725 * 1,390 = 2,398 kcal/day

I suspect my real BMR is about 1,460 kcal/day, about 5% higher than the population average. Either that or I am higher up the activity factor scale than I think (but I suspect not).

 

[stevec67]

(calories as advertized on food packaging - which can be misleading).

What are your grounds for suggesting that food pack declarations are misleading? The current norm is for these to be measured by a contract lab based on multiple accurate samples made up to the precisely correct recipe. These are normally accurate enough for mixed food samples. Cue someone saying "yes but what about the sweetcorn effect where it goes through undigested?". Yes, but that's only important if you live on sweetcorn. Otherwise it is lost in the noise.

Even the current bete noire, ultra processed food, has accurate enough calorie figures based on conventional calculations cf analysis.

The biggest cause of errors in calorie declaration in packaged foods is, ironically, poor weight control and resultant product giveaway. You'd be surprised how many packs are fairly significantly overweight and giving away free food and calories.

 

[Fatmarley]

I know what to do, I just don't have the will power to stick to it.

What would work for me is to have someone lock me in a room and control my food intake.

Last time I lost a lot of weight, I thought I was dying of cancer, and because I was so petrified, it put me off eating. I lost about 3 stone, and everyone noticed.
Ironically, overeating will probably kill me, and I've given up trying to lose weight.

 

[John Phillips]

What are your grounds for suggesting that food pack declarations are misleading? The current norm is for these to be measured by a contract lab based on multiple accurate samples made up to the precisely correct recipe. These are normally accurate enough for mixed food samples. Cue someone saying "yes but what about the sweetcorn effect where it goes through undigested?". Yes, but that's only important if you live on sweetcorn. Otherwise it is lost in the noise.
...

That's exactly my point. Calorimetrically measured calories may not correspond to calories absorbed.

AIUI the more a raw food is processed the higher the proportion of the advertized calories for a food get absorbed. Yes on average I don't really care about the noise but my assumption is that if someone changes diet then that may make more of a difference than calorie counting reveals.

However I think you are saying that even that is in the noise too. Do I have that right?

 

[mikemusic]

Permanent lifestyle change
Can be done a bit at a time
Eat less, cut out the rubbish, plant based is good

 

[stevec67]

That's exactly my point. Calorimetrically measured calories may not correspond to calories absorbed.

May not, but generally do to the degree of accuracy required

AIUI the more a raw food is processed the higher the proportion of the advertized calories for a food get absorbed.

Correct, but the delta is 3/10 of naff all and it's lost in the noise.

Yes on average I don't really care about the noise but my assumption is that if someone changes diet then that may make more of a difference than calorie counting reveals.

They would have to *really* change diet. Nobody really does.

However I think you are saying that even that is in the noise too. Do I have that right?

Yes. Calories are an approximation. However it's an approximation that works as accurately as it needs to. It's like working out how much fertiliser you need for an approximately circular lawn if you are applying 10g per sq m and using Pi = 3. Is it precisely right? No. Is the error significant? No. It's close enough for a country job. It's a lawn being fertilised, not the next loop of the Hadron Collider. Likewise you or me on a diet. 500g is the weight of 2 mugs of tea. Do I weigh to that level of accuracy? No. Does it matter? No. If the trend is downwards for 3 weeks out of 4, I'm winning. That's all I need. Calories are the same. 100, more or less, on any given day? Pfft. Take the average, ignore the noise.

 

[stevec67]

I know what to do, I just don't have the will power to stick to it.

This is the alpha and the omega. For all of us. The rest is noise.

Fretting about precisely how many caloroes you *really* get from XYZ is not the point.
Fretting about your friend who eats pies and beer all week and weighs 8st is not the point. What do you eat?
Fretting about what the contribution is from exercise is not the point.

The point is to make your mind tell you to eat what it says on the diet sheet, most of the time. This may not seem enough, but it will be. Everyone bangs on about education. Nobody knows how to have a healthy diet. Bollocks. We all *know* what a healthy diet looks like. We just don't want to eat it, because it's not as bloody good as the feeling you get from a big plateful fo fish and chips.