So I've been on a diet for a month now because I'm a fat fuck and I don't fit in chairs anymore. At first I lost weight rapidly and now I'm down to about 260 lbs but allready I'm stuck.
I have to eat less than 800 kcal (!) a day to keep losing any weight at all when at my size 1500 should suffice. Is this my body adapting or the infamous "starvation mode" - people always say it doesn't exist or only accounts for a few 100k not a fucking 1000.
Anyways, has anyone on /ck/ encountered a similar problem? Is it even possible to make proper meals if you're down to <800 kcal a day anymore?
>>7485581
>no mention of exercise
found the problem
as I'm sure you are aware, if you burn more calories than you put in then you lose weight. it's fairly straightforward. if you are eating 800kcal a day and not losing weight then you must be either using less than that or mistaken about what you are eating.
also, >>>/fit/
How long have you been stuck at 260? I would venture a guess and say you are giving up too soon. If you weigh yourself when you are dehydrated it can give the sense you've lost a few pounds. If you later weigh yourself on a full stomach it can seem like nothing has happened.
I highly doubt you need to cut your calories down to 800. Starvation mode is so vastly exaggerated. It isn't anything you need to worry about
>>7485584
I excercise bi-daily for ~1 hour on a treadmill to not stress my joints too much (I've been through so many diets in my life I have pretty much any aspect planned out)
I'm not sure how much it helps though...
>>7485581
Go back to the leddit with that stupid bulshit of starting a post needlessly with the word 'so'.
>>7485584
That's not the problem. Weight loss is mainly caloric intake.
>>7485587
Exactly. Either you are lying or you do not have abilitiy to count calories correctly.
>>7485584
>>7485587
>they don't know yet
Calories in calories out is dead senpais. Haven't you heard the news?
Recent studies show that while (moderate) excercise can do amazing things for your health and improve virtually every aspect of your life it is essentially useless for weight-loss.
Why? Because every calorie you take out of your system through excercise is counterbalanced by the body slowing down its functions to reduce your base consumption.
Day 1: no excercise, 1800 base consumption = 1800 kcal
Day 2: 800 kcal excercise, 1000 base consumption = 1800 kcal
To outdo this effect you'd have to excercise several hours a day for long stretches of time which is impossible unless you're a professional athlete or unemployed.
So yeah. Go excercise, it'll probably improve your life. Just don't expect any effects on your weight.
>>7485600
So I've been coming to /ck/ for a while now and it's pretty much just as autistic as the other boards.
>>7485602
You can also lift weights which makes your body put energy into muscle buildage and upkeep which increases your in-rest consumption.
>>7485602
so why can't we solve world hunger by distributing gym equipment?
>>7485581
Try eating only *whole* plant foods for a month, with no more than one serving nuts/nut paste daily. You may reach a lower equilibrium without having to feel deprived. Reductionist nutrition isn't working for you because you don't know how to count calories. There's not way you're maintaining that weight on 800 a day. Your passive heat loss alone would be more than that.
>>7485622
>american reading comprehension
Excercise doesn't reduce your consumption - it just doesn't increase it either.
One of the things the study showed is that african hunter and gatherer tribes who walk/run hours a day have identical consumption (2500 kcal) to western office employees who sit on their ass all day. According to calories in calories out this should be impossible.
>>7485637
warmer climate + smaller bodies?
>>7485641
It was adjusted for body size, obviously.
Nice to see someone of 4chinz who is still capable of critical thinking though.
>>7485581
You can't accurately track your weight over a few days because your water weight throws things off. Stick at 1500 and check again in 2 weeks if you still haven't lost any weight you are either lying to yourself or need to get militant with your food scale.
>>7485678
Negroes have a lower resting metabolism, this has been known for a long time. That's also why they explode like popcorn when exposed to any sort of industrialized society.
>>7485581
You're most likely stalling and it's going to take a couple weeks (or months) to see the number on the scale move again.
OP, I recommend eating at a 20-30% deficit. 800 kcal a day is ridiculously low for someone your size and you're at greater risk to develop several vitamin deficiencies (common symptoms are fatigue and hair loss).
Please don't starve yourself.
>>7485581
You cant lose weight because you are eating animal products. Go raw vegan and dont worry about calories. The weight will just melt off on healthy diet
>>7485741
Nah. Whole grains and beans are worth eating.
>>7485581
you're still losing weight, just slower. yes, your body is adapting some, but you've also just got a lot less superfluous fat and water in your body that just sheds off with minimal effort. also you're probably counting calories wrong.
>>7485591
this
>>7485597
that's maybe 300 calories, depending on speed and incline. if you're actually worried about stress on your knees, use an elliptical instead.
>>7485602
>>7485741
>pic related
>>7485637
also, your average hunter/gatherer who walks/runs all day generally weighs a lot less and isn't as fat as the western office employee who sits on their ass all day. have em sit around like said office employee with same diet and they'll get big quick
>>7485587
Thing I notice with fatties who are "trying" to lose weight. Is they only count calories from their meals, and not from the various 500 calories snacks they eat throughout the day
>>7485786
>use an elliptical
terrible desu
impact is good for you. impact strengthens your body. a fatty shouldn't be trying to run marathons. a fatty should run a little bit every day while on a sustainable deficit.
better yet a fatty should just be taken to the hospital to have the fat cut out of his fatbody, and then his stomach stapled, and his mouth sewn shut. then his fingers can be sewn together so he can't post on the internet about how to "quit soda", whatever that means.
>>7485581
"Starvation mode" only leads to ~100 calories (kcal) lowered energy consumption.
More likely:
Your accuracy of counting calories is limited.
Do you use a kitchen scale?
Also:
Liquid food counts (All drinks besides water).
All Vegetables count.
Medicine may count too depending on type.
Recommended Protein intake: 0.8g/kg Body-weight; Fat-intake ~30% of total daily calorie consumption (daily total decided by you); Carbohydrates are not necessary, but you can still eat them.
Just count calories and try to hit recommended protein-intake. Satiety is influenced strongly by proteins (and in-part by fat). Fructose and artificial sweeteners seem to be detrimental to satiety.
IF YOU EAT LESS ENERGY THAN YOUR BODY CONSUMES PER DAY YOU WILL LOOSE WEIGHT.
Therefore: You somehow eat more than that.
>Weigh 260
>eating 800 per day
You're lying or your metabolism is freak tier. Either way bad plan.
Yes exercise, no don't think it's the primary thing, energy in matters first. Second, don't count per day, count per week. 1500 is a better numbe, but count it as 10,500 per week. Instead of a cheat day, give a cheat week with +1000 calories each month.
This will allow you flexibility every week, and one large feast meal each month.
Also look into Wim Hof method for breathing and fat burning, do the ice water box too.
And look into Arthur Jones HIT for weight lifting, it's God tier.
>>7485683
>>7485786
>>7487608
Thanks for the genuine advice. /ck/ doesn't seem to have as much or as aggressive shitposting as other boards. I like it.
Have this recommendation, a documentary by David Gelb, the guy behind Jiro dreams of sushi, which focuses on the aesthetics of cooking and is just beautiful to watch.
Sincerely, /tv/
>>7487853
If you're eating at a caloric deficit and not losing weight, then you aren't counting correctly and are going over your target calories per day.
t. Someone who has lost 80 lbs doing no exercise and eating around 1900-2100 calories a day (6ft 1).
>>7485603
No we're not!!! What did you say about us mutha fucka!!!! I'll let you know that we take ck seriously and dispense endless amounts of virtual priceless cooking Informaticas itsitsitsotdoyfhcuftfugigsl
>>7485788
Tell me about it, knew a fat fuck who would package up zip lock bags of treats between meals after every meal and eat them 1hr after every meal. He'd cry that he consumed under 2000 calories in meals but never bothered to count the snacks and fucking soft drinks through the day, it adds up and for some reason the fat people have a hard time adding up reality.
>>7485581
At the peak of my weight I was 330lbs. In 2015 I decided to change something but hate exercise so it was a strict diet thing. I was doing 1000 calories a day and got down to 260. But then I plateaued. Cut it to 500 calories a day and got as low as 240 before I got stressed by my bank and just started eating shit again. Went back up to 275. Someone managed to convince a girl to start dating me at the end of the year but we broke up in February.
I made the decision to do things right this time and joined the gym. I do 30 minutes of cardio everyday and lift weights 6 days a week. I use a calorie counter app on my phone and eat about 1200 calories a day. I've gotten back down to 255 but have again seemed to plateau. Just gonna keep with it and either be forever fat or very slowly lose weight. My ultimate goal is 200 flat.
>>7487608
What are good foods to eat to hit recommended protein intake in low-calorie diets? I'm currently trying to lose weight but don't want to sacrifice too much muscle mass/fuck my body up.
>>7489448
You know all those dumb hippies who advocate the avoidance of refined starches (white bread and so on)? Listen to them. Stuff like beans, whole grains, vegetables, and so on will still have plenty of carbs to fuel your body. Carbs are the single best target for running a deficit with minimal adverse effects.
Kill everyone who says "calories in = calories out, nothing else need be considered". Those people are idiots who have never touched a weight in their lives.
>>7489475
>"calories in = calories out
>equals
It's "calories in v calories out" you retard.
>>7489448
If you eat any sort of lean animal products, it should not be a problem to meet the minimal requirements for protein, except if you are really big. In that case, you can just get some more chicken or cottage cheese, whey protein powder is good too (actually a good choice from a health perspective).
>>7485581
800 cals/day is mental
I don't actually believe you its so mental...
You must be cheating hard at the weekends or do less than zero activity.
My advice , keep your 1500 cal/day diet going
Do some light exercise everyday
Don't have cheat days, or at least don't have super mental cheat days, or don't have them so often.
>>7488079
>losing 80lb eating 2000 fucking calories a day
are you a siamese twin person or something?
>>7489488
Do you have a recommendation for a whey protein brand or does it not really mater too much
>>7490243
yes, it matters a lot, google amino spiking
labdoor has some fairly common ones analyzed for amino spiking, I believe isopure is the #1 mainstream brand for quality. I used to use it before I got into nutrabio (which doesn't really seem to have any significant third-party reviews but I took my chances and it comes out a bit cheaper)
aside from the amino spiking which is more about not eating sketchy ass chinese chemicals, the better quality proteins give you less farts, and taste more neutral
>>7490243
Proton shakes are what skinny fags that can't finish a sandwich need.
You have no such issue.
Just eat some real food, and to be honest, you won't need more than 50-70 grams of proteins a day unless you're an IFBB Pro.
>>7490277
ignore this idiot, he's clearly one of those obese hamlards who mistook "being an undisciplined fat fuck" for "I'm a powerlifter"
What are some good calorie counting apps? Some with real measurement units like grams and not cups,stones or whatever
>>7485581
>260lbs
>TDEE of 800 kcal
Doubt.jpg
I'm the same weight and I have a TDEE of 4600kcal, even with absolutely no exercise that gives you a lot to work with
>>7485581
>800 kcal
>not losing any weight
It seems the problem is that you are bad at math
>>7485601
Unfortunately none of you are even barely versed in medical science. Metabolism is a real thing. If people (we all know them) can have a high enough basal metabolic rate to chug sodas and eat ice cream and never gain weight, then the reverse has to be true, particularily for people with thyroid issues as the bodies way of handling steroidal hormones is very influential on energy burnt per successful muscle action
exercise and water, and vitamins. dont worry as much about food
>>7489448
If you already eat a reasonable amount of meat then whey protein is probably the most cost effective and a fairly handy way to get more protein. Myprotein or bulkpowders.com has 5kg bags for around 60 euro and often with up to 35% off
>>7492106
Track the real calorie intake of someone who "can eat anything and not gain weight". Most of them eat way less than you or they realize. I have a friend who eats non stop and is a twig but if you pay attention he also snacks in small portions all day. Their activity level is probably also vastly different from the office she-beasts who bitch while chugging down sodas and twinkies
>>7492106
>Unfortunately none of you are even barely versed in medical science
You seem not to be either. The fact is that studies have been done regarding the basal metabolic rate of humans and the fact is that there is very little variation between people. While there surely exist some outliers here and there, those are incredibly rare.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
>>7492280
This, 100%.
>>7492288
You realize your "proof" shows that two people can be off by a few %?
Nobody is suggesting that I can eat the exact same thing as you, plus an entire wedding cake, every single day, and have the exact same office job, and not gain weight.
But the metabolic rate differences in that article are equivalent to being on a cut or being on a bulk.
I know someone who is obsessed with their caloric intake, that they calculate ice cream into their diet along with deep-fried food, salads, chocolate, chips, and fruit/nut smoothies. This is stupid as fuck, right? Caloric intake doesn't mean dick in the face of 80% daily nutrition of saturated fat from just one meal?
>>7492293
>You realize your "proof" shows that two people can be off by a few %?
Of course. But "a few %" doesn't even come close to explaining how people can claim to eat massive quantities of food yet not gain weight. That would take several tens of %, not "a few".
>>Nobody is suggesting that I can eat the exact same....
Perhaps you aren't claiming that, but I have heard people claim that sort of thing frequently.
>>7492294
Depends on their goals, really.
If all they care about is weight gain (or loss), then they're correct. Calories is all that matters.
From a general health standpoint which is also concerned about nutrition and disease risk then calories alone are only one part of the equation.
>>7490266
Thanks for all the info man, I've looked at whey before but have never come across amino spiking. Gonna pick up a pound of unflavored isopure and see how it goes.
cheers
>7492302
I'm concerned about their health, they're sick often. But their goal is weight loss, so I guess I should shut up. One more question, though. They're close to obese, do calories still matter? Shouldn't they be strictly on salads, nuts, and smooties rather than juggling chips and ice cream?
>>7492345
>They're close to obese, do calories still matter?
For weight loss calories are ALL that matters.
For a great example of this google "Twinkie Professor". This guy ate nothing but junk food yet limited his calories and lost weight & improved his overall health.
>>7492299
Because running a deficit is actually not fun, and even 5% below your TDEE can feel like everyone around you is eating a huge amount of food. Imagine a couple living together. They're 5% off BMR. The lower BMR gains weight. Then to fix the problem they go on a deficit, so now they're a few hundred calories apart. Every day they get to watch their spouse eat a slice of cheesecake while they sip mineral water.
"A lot of food" isn't a number.
>>7492354
I just figure it would be faster/more efficient to cut out the ice cream and chips.
Thanks.
>>7492366
>Because running a deficit is actually not fun
I'm not disagreeing with you about that, anon. I'm just wondering how it is relevant to this part of the discussion? What does your example about people being upset watching their spouse eat dessert have to do with the fact that most human beings have very similar metabolic rates?
metabolic rate are based on 2 things, species and body mass. all humans have the same base metabolic rate and any variance is based on how large they are. The bigger you are the higher your metabolic rate is, so it's just an excuse when fats say thin people have fast metabolisms, that isn't how it works.
more importantly than that the difference between individuals is insignificant, at it's most extreme the variance between calories based on metabolic rate still amounts to less than 200 a day.
>>7492388
I'm saying that you're ranting about a straw man. You heard someone bitching about metabolism, and, with no actual basis in fact, you accused them of being unscientific. You then posted an article that supposedly disproved the metabolism thing, whereas it actually confirmed it.
If I'm wrong, then specifically who has claimed that BMR varies by thousands of calories? I don't think anyone has. Someone made a subjective comment about eating, and you made up some numbers in your head and put it in their mouth.
>>7492425
The only point I am trying to make, anon, is that the metabolic rates between human beings vary very little. And the link I posted supports that claim. That's it. The end.
>>If I'm wrong, then specifically who has claimed that BMR varies by thousands of calories?
I'm not talking about BMR anon, my goal was only to point out that "differing metabolic rates" doesn't explain anything because those differences are small.
