Getting a nice physique

[obscene]

SmartManDan said:

I've cut down to half a teaspoon of sugar, I'm sure I can get down to zero

Ok, today (and virtually every day)

Breakfast - 4 x eggs plain omlette. (400 calories?)
Snack - Apple (80 calories?)
Lunch - 1.5 chicken breasts grilled (Pack is 400grams/3 pieces and says about 120 calories per 100g) so 180 calories?
Lunch - Pack of microwave steamed veggies - Think it says about 80 calories
Snack - Banana (80ish?)
Dinner - Same as lunch or 300g of salmon, grilled + veggies.
Snack - Banana and a weightwatches (I like the taste) yogurt at 61 calories

Plus all the tea and coffee, oh and perhaps a small handful of almonds (20 actual nuts max)

400(breakfast)+ 80(Apple) + 180(Chicken) + 80(veggies) + 80(Banana) + 180(Chicken/salmon) + 80(Veggies) + 80(Banana) + 60(Yogurt) = 1220 Plus the handful of nuts + tea + coffee

Lets hope I'm just making a schoolboy error somewehere.

Without knowing your exact calories you're going to have a hard time, but for the sake of ball parking it. EAT MORE. 1200 isn't enough. Try 1700. You will be fine. 1600 if you really want but 1200 is silly. Women should eat that to lose weight.

[Flibble]

6 cups of tea at half a teaspoon of sugar per cup is around 200 cals if you have milk in it, maybe more if you like it very milky.

2L of water thing is from a 50s study which said on average people need 2-3 litres of water per day, which is mostly provided by food. If you're drinking 6 cups of tea you're not short of fluids.

[SmartManDan]

Thanks for all the replies. I'll work on the calories a little more and see how I get on at the end of the month again.

[Gwagon111]

bonkbonk said:

Just a heads-up, 400/2 is 200g so you're getting 240kcal from your chicken. 300g of salmon will probably have close to 500 kcal in int also

Also probably 200kcal from 20 almonds! I'd say you're probably underestimating by ~3-500kcal.

Yep . You're probably under estimating the cals in the fruit as well. The supermarkets are selling some monster sized apples and bananas these days. They are probably closer to 125 Kcals each.

[SmartManDan]

Fair enough. Points and advice taken. So with the additional calories it sounds like I', up to around 1600 a day, is that too much then? (Given say 300/400 calories worth of exercise every other day)

[bonkbonk]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable diet for someone of your size & activity to lose weight on but no one can really offer you much more information than that. Your best bet is to stop speculating, implement it for a few weeks, see what happens to your physique and adjust (or not) accordingly!

[SmartManDan]

Thanks for that. It's only been two weeks, so will give it another 3, till the end of Jan and lets see what happens. Need to cut down on tea/coffee anyhow so will work on that too.

[HonestIago]

ram7577 said:

Diet needs to be 5 or 6 meals a day. Small and often me ants higher metabolism, constant nutrients to function and no hunger pangs. Cut out all processed carbs and you should probably cut out all carbs out after 3 ish. Meat veg and salad for tea.

Puuuu-lease stop spouting such utter broscience. Meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. Regular small meals INCREASE hunger pangs, intermittent fasting all but eliminates them. Carbs should be eaten later in the day for both body composition, improved insulin sensitivity and most importantly,enjoyment! They do not make you fat if you eat them in the evening!!

[Gwagon111]

HonestIago said:

Puuuu-lease stop spouting such utter broscience. Meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. Regular small meals INCREASE hunger pangs, intermittent fasting all but eliminates them. Carbs should be eaten later in the day for both body composition, improved insulin sensitivity and most importantly,enjoyment! They do not make you fat if you eat them in the evening!!

Yep, spot on . There is a lot of 'bro science' out there. There is no such thing as 'big boned' .

[LostBMW]

Gwagon111 said:

HonestIago said:

Puuuu-lease stop spouting such utter broscience. Meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. Regular small meals INCREASE hunger pangs, intermittent fasting all but eliminates them. Carbs should be eaten later in the day for both body composition, improved insulin sensitivity and most importantly,enjoyment! They do not make you fat if you eat them in the evening!!

Yep, spot on . There is a lot of 'bro science' out there. There is no such thing as 'big boned' .

You should see the size of my ankle, knee, elbow and wrist joints... bro!

[amare32]

HonestIago said:

Puuuu-lease stop spouting such utter broscience. Meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. Regular small meals INCREASE hunger pangs, intermittent fasting all but eliminates them. Carbs should be eaten later in the day for both body composition, improved insulin sensitivity and most importantly,enjoyment! They do not make you fat if you eat them in the evening!!

How it is broscience? Eating more regular does work for a lot of people too so there's not a one fits all solution to eating right and obtaining the right results. No eating carbs later in the day does not make you fat if you expend the calories before or after but that doesn't mean eating a 22" pizza in the middle of the night on a regular basis is going to give you that chiselled body either

[Hoofy]

Depends if you work off that 2500 calories from the pizza or not. FWIW I don't think I could fit a 22" pizza in my mouth in one sitting.

Given the body doesn't have an internal clock unless you swallow a Seiko SKX007, you can eat at any time and you will still lose weight if there's a deficit overall. In the last 6 months, I've eaten 1000 calories after 7pm including a lot of EVIL SATANIC carbs and lost weight.

Your mother lied. You aren't a unique snowflake.

[Flibble]

amare32 said:

How it is broscience? Eating more regular does work for a lot of people too so there's not a one fits all solution to eating right and obtaining the right results. No eating carbs later in the day does not make you fat if you expend the calories before or after but that doesn't mean eating a 22" pizza in the middle of the night on a regular basis is going to give you that chiselled body either

Eating just before bed makes no difference to eating early. What you eat is important, when really isn't.

[bonkbonk]

Flibble said:

Eating just before bed makes no difference to eating early. What you eat is important, when really isn't.

While you're always going to lose/gain weight on a calorie deficit/surplus, when it comes to body composition and other aspects of health the timing and frequency of your eating certain does "make a difference".

[Gwagon111]

bonkbonk said:

While you're always going to lose/gain weight on a calorie deficit/surplus, when it comes to body composition and other aspects of health the timing and frequency of your eating certain does "make a difference".

Nope, the only thing that matters is what comes after eating. If you keep strange hours, and, after eating late, you then have a few hours of activity, no problem. Likewise, if you keep 'regular' hours, your activity will be after eating early. So therefore you want to be eating earlier. What you want to avoid is eating followed by a period of inactivity / sleep.

Edited by Gwagon111 on Saturday 12th January 23:01

[bonkbonk]

Gwagon111 said:

Nope, the only thing that matters is what comes after eating. If you keep strange hours, and, after eating late, you then have a few hours of activity, no problem. Likewise, if you keep 'regular' hours, your activity will be after eating early. So therefore you want to be eating earlier. What you want to avoid is eating followed by a period of inactivity / sleep.

Edited by Gwagon111 on Saturday 12th January 23:01

What's the reasoning behind your theory?

[Flibble]

bonkbonk said:

While you're always going to lose/gain weight on a calorie deficit/surplus, when it comes to body composition and other aspects of health the timing and frequency of your eating certain does "make a difference".

You're right, in fact here's a study which links late night eating with better muscle mass preservation in a restricted calorie diet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548
Here's another where eating carbs mostly at dinner caused greater weight loss: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137
And yet another where fat burning was higher with a meal eating in the evening rather than morning (no difference in weight loss observed though): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3508745


So given all that, I'm not sure why evening eating is so demonised.

[bonkbonk]

Flibble said:

You're right, in fact here's a study which links late night eating with better muscle mass preservation in a restricted calorie diet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548
Here's another where eating carbs mostly at dinner caused greater weight loss: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137
And yet another where fat burning was higher with a meal eating in the evening rather than morning (no difference in weight loss observed though): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3508745


So given all that, I'm not sure why evening eating is so demonised.

Quite. On top of all that you don't have to go to bed feeling hungry and can have a big meal at a more sociable time!

[Hoofy]

Bottom line is: every time you hear a diet tip, research it before believing it. Apparently, you need to eat healthily to lose weight.

[Gwagon111]

bonkbonk said:

What's the reasoning behind your theory?

Eating large, carb rich meals, followed by deliberate sleep / inactivity, is how Sumo wrestlers bulk up. So we know that eating followed by inactivity is a poor idea, unless you want to put weight on.