0

votes

I need to lose 80 pounds.

Commented on November 21, 2013
Created November 14, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I am 5'5" and 240 pounds. I NEED to lose weight! i dont have any health issues besides being obese and I dont want to be. I have been on Paleo for a week now and I just am wondering what are the best steps to maximizing my weight loss.

Ea9cabf81d647bde84f4ccdea85ca0e5

(0)

on November 21, 2013
at 02:28 AM

Congrats! What matters ultimately is what works for each individual. Your plan is thorough, thanks for sharing :)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 18, 2013
at 12:52 PM

Mobilizing adipose for energy certainly is going to be a whole different ballgame than consuming the same number of calories at TDEE.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 18, 2013
at 12:51 PM

Re: #7 & #8: silly superstitions perpetuated by broscience and checkout lane women's magazines.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 18, 2013
at 12:49 PM

Then the scientific literature would support that. Instead there's virtually no difference in weight loss when comparing macronutrients.

F72f802bf64c994e6bdc2f54292859b8

(0)

on November 17, 2013
at 08:59 PM

Here is a great book with tons of simple easy Paleo Recipes, Meal Plans, and more.

Check it out !! [edit by Matt11: spam link redacted, fuck off spammer, seriously]

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 17, 2013
at 04:47 PM

Yes a T2D has a broken metabolism... but how did it get broken?

I'm still interested on your comments on these blog posts http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/sugar-101-how-harmful-is-sugar-part-i http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-can-carbohydrate-restriction-be-healthy-if-it-means-limiting-natural-foods-like-fruits-and-vegetables

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 17, 2013
at 01:20 PM

6 of one, half dozen of the other… 3 times a small number is still a small number. A difference per serving of 3-5 grams carbohydrate is 10-15 grams per 100 grams, which is still hardly any carbohydrate (despite being nearly 25% of the average persons daily calories).

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 17, 2013
at 01:17 PM

Sugars are simple - mono/disaccharides, starches are polysacchrides (chains of sugars dozens long, but digestible), fiber are polysaccharides (indigestible). The missing type are carbohydrates longer than sugars but shorter than starch/fiber, oligosaccharides. They are largely digestible, but don't get a catagory on nutrition labels.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 17, 2013
at 01:14 PM

A dietabetic is broken, do not hold up a broken human as the norm and try to form a comprehensive formula for diet.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2013
at 01:13 PM

I too have wondered about this many times. To be honest, I don't believe the starch count, I think there must be something wrong with it. Many times I have noticed that a starchy food has 0g starch listed and I can't help but question the accuracy, for example: beets http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2348/2, baby carrots http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/3026/2, and rutabagas http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2610/2

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 17, 2013
at 01:13 PM

Why paleo? Because I like the science of it all, and the science does not suggest there's anything magic about fat over carbs.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 17, 2013
at 06:08 AM

i still wonder what the 'missing' item (x) from the udsa db for pistachio is,

eg. fiber+starch+sugars+x=total carbs (US total carbs),

which is 10.3+1.7+7.6+x=28.0 grams...so x=8.4 grams, what is x?

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 17, 2013
at 05:59 AM

yep, i knew that one already. i wonder why the US decided to include fiber (fibre to me) under carbs.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2013
at 05:09 AM

Yes, I know, this is because outside of the US, like in Europe, fiber has already been subtracted from total carbs and what you are looking at are net carbs, which can be tricky since in the US we list total carbs. This post explains it quite well: http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art170597.asp

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 17, 2013
at 04:05 AM

i wonder how accurate the usda db is. possibly pistachios aren't as 'bad' (carb wise) as you thought.

that ANZ db indicates 6.8g per 100g, tho the Finnish db indicates 16.7g per 100g.

& just saw some in a shop, label showed 12.1g per 100g, more info here

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 17, 2013
at 03:01 AM

Hey my accomplishment (30 lbs in 6 months) pales in comparison yours! 4 Hour Body - Tim Ferriss, you can get a used copy on half.com cheap. The book is daunting ~500 pages but for fat loss & muscle gain you only have to read (skim) ~200 pages. He suggests NOT reading it cover to cover. I geeked out & read the applicable section completely, several times.

I highly recommend this blog, writer is a mechanical engineer, MD, athlete, nutrition researcher. http://eatingacademy.com/dr-peter-attia http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 17, 2013
at 02:24 AM

Awesome plan, awesome execution! Very reasonable approach. If works, use it. You might consider intermittent fasting but things are working so well for you, why risk it?

btw what is your current approx daily caloric deficient? Do you have any issues with hunger?

I never counted calories & dropped from 220 to 190 in ~ 6 months. I was never felt "starving". I used techniques from 4 Hour Body.

btw I believe the OP is a female and based on my experience men lose fat easier & faster than women

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 17, 2013
at 12:00 AM

i found a couple of non usda food databases for comparisons, for anyone interested,

a Finnish one here

and an Australia & New Zealand one here

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 16, 2013
at 11:52 PM

interesting. i just added the sugars & starch together, which came to 9.3 grams for pistachios, rather than subtracting fiber from total carbs (17.7 grams).

So there must be some data missing, perhaps an unlisted sugar type?

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 16, 2013
at 09:57 PM

Of course the fat was gained due to excess energy consumption BUT some people as easier gainers & hard losers when it comes to fat.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/5/943S.full

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 16, 2013
at 07:21 PM

Your statement... "Sugar is not toxic and humans are perfectly capable of consuming it and metabolizing it without issue." Is just not nuanced enough. Sugar is very toxic for some people.

I'd be interested on your comments on these blog posts http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/sugar-101-how-harmful-is-sugar-part-i

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 16, 2013
at 06:56 PM

Ignorance is bliss, keep thinking 2000 calories of sugary junk is the same thing as 2000 calories of fat and protein, why do you even bother with Paleo kid? You might as well go on a twinky and soda diet.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 16, 2013
at 06:50 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperglycemia#Signs_and_symptoms

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 16, 2013
at 06:47 PM

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperglycemia#Signs_and_symptoms

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 16, 2013
at 06:44 PM

You have never met a diabetic, have you? Sugar is toxic and this is the reason why hyperglycemia can cause nerve damage, kidney damage, eye damage and blindness, beta-cell damage, hyperinsulinemia and if elevated enough may even induce a coma. If sugar wasn't toxic, then diabetes wouldn't be a disease now would it? Here do some reading, you need it:

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 16, 2013
at 04:49 PM

@Matt 11

I think you might be wrong... not everyone's body performs the same on the same fuel mix.

It's about the person and the fuel mix. Carbs & sugar make me fat.... fat does not.

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic

Just like not all smokers get cancer. My BIL's father died at 85 after smoking for over 60 years, no cancer. Not all carb or sugar eaters get fat but a LOT do.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 16, 2013
at 03:16 PM

Peatatarians say funny things. :)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 16, 2013
at 03:15 PM

Exactly. Comparing nuts to potatoes is a tougher sell than comparing apples to oranges. A food that's 100% carbohydrate versus a food that is largely fat? Now if he were to compare nuts to nuts, you could make the argument that pistachios are more carby than others, but in absolute amounts of carbohydrate, nuts are not significant sources of carbohydrate (save chestnuts).

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 16, 2013
at 03:12 PM

Stay on topic here. Sugar is not toxic and humans are perfectly capable of consuming it and metabolizing it without issue.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 16, 2013
at 03:11 PM

What you eat matters much less than how much you eat, when talking about weight loss/gain/maintenance.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 16, 2013
at 03:10 PM

Weight loss is a starvation process, where output exceeds input. Dieting for weight loss is a controlled (largely sustainable) process.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 16, 2013
at 02:23 PM

Net carbs, in a hundred grams (100g) of pistachios there are 18g net carbs, in a hundred grams (100g) of macadamias there are 6g net carbs. Thats THREE TIMES the amount of carbs in pistachios as there are in macadamias.

Macs: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3123/2

Pistachios: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3135/2

Medium avatar

(15)

on November 16, 2013
at 11:11 AM

Sugary fruits, starchy roots and rice are crap foods? The only thing that's crap here is what you're writing here.

Medium avatar

(15)

on November 16, 2013
at 11:08 AM

You're not avoiding almonds and pistachios because of the carbs. You want to avoid them because of their high Omega-6-PUFA content, which are obisogenic by themselves.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 16, 2013
at 06:29 AM

The dose makes the poison... if the serving size is small so is the effect.

Macro &'s in a food are based on calories not weight. On an energy basis (the way most people compare foods) ...nuts are very energy dense and predominately from fats.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 16, 2013
at 02:38 AM

both serving sizes and weights are important/relevant. comparing weight for weight can be relevant, for some that could mean comparing potatoes & nuts weight for weight. but i don't think many people would compare potatoes with say a spice such as cinnamon weight for weight. so serving size is important/relevant as well

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 16, 2013
at 02:38 AM

both serving sizes and weights are important/relevant. comparing weight for weight can be relevant, for some that could mean comparing potatoes & nuts weight for weight. but i don't think many people would compare potatoes with say a spice such as cinnamon weight for weight. so serving size is important/relevant as well

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 16, 2013
at 02:37 AM

the 'standard' for defining macronutrient percentages is indeed by energy (calories). so pistachios are 20% carb, 67% fat, 13% protein.

but that is niether here nor there. if you are counting (watching) carb grams then count then, the % is irrelevant. it's just about using common sense.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 16, 2013
at 01:57 AM

not sure what the 'serving size' is for nuts (1 oz/28 g ?), but even if you look at 100 grams of those nuts, there only looks to be about 4 or 5 grams difference in carbs (ignoring fiber).

Medium avatar

(1097)

on November 15, 2013
at 11:42 PM

"The Last 30 pounds might take a year itself"...

Basically my experience. And remember, that's okay!

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 11:36 PM

Well, yes I am one of those "paleos", you know the ones that actually follow the "paleo diet". You want your sugar, go ahead, but it sure as hell isn't paleo. Some people have to justify their sugar addiction, I get it, it's cool.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 11:31 PM

. Hormones do matter and what you eat (fat vs. protein vs. carbs) influences the quantities of said hormones, more than calories alone.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 11:31 PM

"I could" does not mean "I do". I stay away form pistachios, carbs are different from fats in the way they are metabolized, I know some people refuse to grab a book and study some physiology and instead repeat the same thing we've heard a million times: "calories in calories out, blah, blah, blah", but please refrain from making such statements without a proper understanding of the body's endocrine system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_system)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 11:26 PM

When you look at a serving sizes the difference between macademias and pistachios is a mere 4 grams of carbohydrate. Hazelnuts and pistachios? 3 grams. How many servings of nuts are you eating in a day to where that matters?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 11:23 PM

You can have the same number of carbs in 2 different foods and one be low in carbs and one be high in carbs, particularly when you're talking about drastically different serving sizes. Let me guess, you're one of those paleos who fret over a tsp of sugar used in your bacon cure? Serving size absolutely matters… wait a sec… are you Mat Lelonde? Only he's silly enough to ignore serving sizes (as he did in his AHS talk).

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 11:17 PM

If you're eating that level of pistachios, the carbs still aren't problematic in light of the fats.

Medium avatar

(1097)

on November 15, 2013
at 11:14 PM

Thank you, Sam! *bows* I want people to feel as amazing as I do. It kills me when people abandon Paleo because they're going at it like they should take lots of pride in abusing themselves and end up feeling like crap.

Medium avatar

(238)

on November 15, 2013
at 11:07 PM

Great attitude breeds success ! Nice post

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 10:59 PM

You're not measuring them by the same standard, the standard is weight. You cannot compare a few grams of one food to a pound of another food. Hence why I use the same measuring criteria, 100 grams. If you use "serving size" you could make the case that a 10 gram serving of sugar has less sugar than a one pound serving of mangos, so therefore sugar is lower in carbs than mango. BS.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 10:53 PM

That is subjective, some people have voracious appetites for certain foods, others can barely eat more than a few bites. I am simply looking at the numbers, you're looking at you own personal food preference. I could eat a bucket of pistachios but you give me a potato and I can barely more than one before I'm full, we're not all the same.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 10:36 PM

Someone whose packing ~140 days of energy and still has access to food is hardly subject to starvation...

calorie restriction for sure (500+ calories per day) but starvation... hyperbole

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 10:30 PM

@Matt 11

I agree with most of your posts but on this comment, you are way wrong.

>>Doesn't matter if the calories are 100% carbohydrate<<< unfortunately, it does matter. I see if I can find the references that back my experience.... too many carbs makes fat gain easy & fat loss hard. :(

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 10:26 PM

Perhaps we differ on the definition of "starvation"? I lost 30lbs (220 to 190) in ~ 6 months... while dropping the first 20 I ate as much as I wanted BUT no bread, no pasta, no grains, no sugar, no soda, no potatoes, no fruit juice, nearly zero fruit and very limited dairy (only cream) or cottage cheese. Meat, fish, chix, good fats (avo, EVOO, coconut oil, grass feed butter & beef, nuts), all the above ground veggies I wanted. I never counted a single calorie & was never starved. When I breached 200 I plateaued. Problem was nuts... quit them lost the remaining 10.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 07:14 PM

Dieting to lose weight is controlled starvation.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 07:12 PM

100 calories of cookies is not the same number of servings as 100 calories of green peppers. A serving of green peppers is a mere 15 calories and 3.5 grams carbohydrate. A serving of chocolate chip cookies is 120 calories and 16 grams of carbohydrate.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 07:08 PM

Bullplop. You have to consider serving size. You don't eat 100 grams of pistachios in a sitting, but you certainly eat more than 100 grams of potatoes in a sitting.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 05:52 PM

If your logic was correct then chocolate chip cookies would be lower in carbs than bell peppers since they are only 53% calories from carbs (see here: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/baked-products/4935/2), ignoring the fact that they contain 62g of net carbs per 100g.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 05:51 PM

By WEIGHT, not calorie percentage. Anything that has more carbs than a potato by WEIGHT is high-carb. Example: green bell peppers are 84% calories from carbs, yet only have 3g of net carbs per 100g (see here: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2536/2), so by percentage they are high-carb but by weight it is extremely low carb.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:39 PM

It wasn't genetics or what food you ate. You simply ate too much.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:38 PM

What a bunch of bullplop. Calories really are all that matter. Doesn't matter if the calories are 100% carbohydrate, as long as diet doesn't exceed TDEE, adipose is mobilized and used for energy.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:32 PM

Reality check: pistachios are 20% carb by calories, potatoes are 92% carb by calories. You cannot call pistachios a high carb food.

5fc68cc618625c6ddb3e0fdaea60349b

on November 15, 2013
at 05:02 PM

@minimalpaleo I know what made me obese. it was genetics mixed with the fact that I ate terrible foods. Everything processed tons of grain, fats, just all the bad things you could eat. And overtime it made me terribly overweight.

I have accepted that it is MY fault that I gained so much weight and I have EVERY intention of fixing it. Being obese is no way to live and i dont want to feel trapped in a fat persons body anymore. I know im suppose to be healthy and not have all these pounds suffocating me.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 04:29 PM

Yes... the lack of nagging hunger that is part of so many fat loss diets makes paleo great! Often I have to "remind" myself to eat.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 04:16 PM

I agree with BobK. Wild salmon and spinach sounds awesome, I'm sure a generous drizzle of olive oil on it also couldn't hurt.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 04:10 PM

This is why I also avoid them, macadamias and hazelnuts are much lower in carbs. I do miss pistachios though, delicious and salty awesomeness.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 04:05 PM

Pistachios are NOT low carb, gram for gram they have more total carbs the same net carbs, and eight times the sugar as potatoes (select 100g from the drop down for the sake of comparison):

Potatoes: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2770/2

Pistachios: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3136/2

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 03:55 PM

Which studies? The ones you hand-picked via confirmation bias or the ones you made up in your head and didn't bother to cite in your comment? I could find studies that confirm Ketogenic diets are great in the long term, too. We could all play that game, so please refrain from making blatantly false and unsubstantiated claims. Here's one just for fun: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/pdf/ecc09200.pdf.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 03:48 PM

The recommendation..... "stay away from "real" crap foods like rice, starchy roots, and super starchy and sugary fruits" does not equate to "controlled starvation".

The OP has plenty of energy to work with, starvation is not likely a concern. Malnutrition, perhaps but not starvation.

Staying away from carbs (like 50 to 75g per day, max) will get the fat loss going.

Wild salmon & spinach sounds like a good place to start... hold the carbs.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 03:31 PM

How did Peter Attia escape the dangers of low carb? http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight Ketosis for ~ 1year...88% of caloric intake from fat, 120g protein, 40 g carbs. I did the same for a number of weeks, I feel & look fine. Most likely OP stored all that fat eating high carb.... not going to lose all that fat continuing to eat high carb.

Show me the data that low carb messes up metabolism Also "short term" ...how about some numbers?

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 03:30 PM

Link to study(s) showing "low-carb is not better than high-carb diets"?

And "better" at what?

Did said low carb diet have sufficient fat for energy & reasonable protein (not excessive as to cause problems)?

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 03:16 PM

thanks!

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 02:59 PM

And nothing does a better job of raising insulin than carbs. Protein does too, but it is essential so we must eat some of it or risk a protein deficiency (an issue for vegans). However carbs, which substantially raise insulin, would only make it harder to break down stored triglycerides by its inhibition of HSL, and make it much more difficult for the OP to achieve the goal of fat loss. Basic physiology.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 02:54 PM

Did I say starve and don't eat? I am pretty sure I said the exact opposite. I said she should most definitely eat, just as long as she stays away from sugar/starch. Someone trying to lose weight (i.e. catabolize stored body fat) needs hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) to be active in order to break down said fats (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone-sensitive_lipase#Function), this is not possible if insulin is elevated, since insulin directly inhibits HSL.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 01:15 PM

But you still need to consume some level of energy and nutrition even under controlled starvation (dieting) conditions.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 01:14 PM

If you're going to say low-carb, say ketogenic, because that's what you're quibbling with.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 01:12 PM

If you misvote, simply reclick and you can remove the vote.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 01:10 PM

The last 30 pounds might take a year itself.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 01:10 PM

Beware: setting deadlines is a recipe for failure. 1 pound per week average is 80 weeks (1.5 years) and that's ambitious!

Medium avatar

(15)

on November 15, 2013
at 12:43 PM

Only in the short term, until they've messed up their metabolism with low-carb. Long term studies show that low-carb is not better than high-carb diets.

Medium avatar

(15)

on November 15, 2013
at 12:41 PM

Matt's suggestion is reasonable. The faster you go, the more likely you're going to fully mess up your metabolism, which blocks further weight loss and may even lead to weight gain in the long term. Go slow, then you'll be successful.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:48 AM

Fixed the down vote....

But, I still disagree with your comment

"Some say limit carbs, but that's a personal preference"

My reading & experience says that carb restriction is important for those wishing to shed fat.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:44 AM

Whether or not ...starchy roots are "crap"... is immaterial to the objective.

Someone needing / wanting to lose 80 pounds does not need any energy dense carbs. Think about it. The OP is carrying a LOT of basal energy... they're ready for the famine.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:38 AM

@alwaysworkingit@Matt suggested two years that's a realistic goal. You might do it in 1.5 year or 1 year. I lost 30 lbs in ~6 months. Some weeks nearly 3 lbs, some weeks none. :(

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:37 AM

@alwaysworkingit@Matt suggested two years that's a realistic goal. You might do it in 1.5 year or 1 year. I lost 30 lbs in ~6 months. Some weeks nearly 3 lbs, some weeks none. :(

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:31 AM

Sorry about the downvote, I upvoted by mistake.

I do disagree with your comment "Some say limit carbs, but that's a personal preference"

My reading & experience says... carb restriction is necessary for fat loss.

4610c234dfda2767451a57501aff983c

(0)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:00 AM

I don't know if I'd consider starchy roots "crap"

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 15, 2013
at 04:19 AM

I would aim for a low-carb approach, but really listen to your body and try to spot any weaknesses before they become issues (easier said than done.) If you need some sugar, get your sugar before it turns into a repeated crash / insulin resistance / hypothyroid. Also, avoid overtraining. You'll figure it out. Good luck!

There's a tendency to feel worse before better with drastic changes.

I also suggest going in for some basic blood work so you can check back and see how your diet affects these measurements. (Add a d3 test to it while you're at it.)

5fc68cc618625c6ddb3e0fdaea60349b

on November 15, 2013
at 04:03 AM

@paleot thanks for the help and advice :)

5fc68cc618625c6ddb3e0fdaea60349b

on November 15, 2013
at 04:02 AM

@Matt 11 I don't have 2 years. and it can be lost by then. I'm doing everything I can to see it through. I can do it!

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 15, 2013
at 03:32 AM

I would argue that calorie counting is expert-level fine-tuning, not to be confused with stuff for noobs. It's the only way you'll ever learn what nutrition actually looks like in your daily life.

Understanding your caloric requirements are just the beginning of learning to wield raw food into ideal balanced macro/micros.

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

14 Answers

0
8c98172e3f8e78eaca36ef7b80cb6899

on November 17, 2013
at 02:46 AM

Thanks! It's working really well.

I don't have any issues with hunger, for me eating whole nutritious foods and high fat keeps me feeling satiated.

My current calorie deficit is about 1,000 to 1,200 calories.

I've looked at IF. I think I do a little as I keep a minimum of 12 hours between the last thing I consume (dinner or after dinner snack) and the first thing I consume (breakfast).

I've never heard of 4 hour body, I'll have to Google it.

Congrats to you on your weight loss accomplishment!

Oh yeah, good point about the OP being female. Men do lose weight faster.

Thanks for the comment.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 17, 2013
at 03:01 AM

Hey my accomplishment (30 lbs in 6 months) pales in comparison yours! 4 Hour Body - Tim Ferriss, you can get a used copy on half.com cheap. The book is daunting ~500 pages but for fat loss & muscle gain you only have to read (skim) ~200 pages. He suggests NOT reading it cover to cover. I geeked out & read the applicable section completely, several times.

I highly recommend this blog, writer is a mechanical engineer, MD, athlete, nutrition researcher. http://eatingacademy.com/dr-peter-attia http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight

0
8c98172e3f8e78eaca36ef7b80cb6899

on November 17, 2013
at 02:01 AM

Hey!

I've lost 70 pounds in the last 4 months. Here's what worked for me:

1. I figured out how many calories I needed a day with my activity level, then I started eating at that calorie level.

2. I eat 60% fat, 25% protein, 15% carbs. All whole foods and completely cut out grains, beans, soy, added sugar (including honey), and potatoes (not that their bad, but not appropriate for me right now as I still have 50 pounds to go).

3. After two weeks I cut my calories by 500.

4. Two weeks after that I figured out how many calories I would need to maintain my goal weight and started eating for that. My goal weight is 215, even though I'm 262 I eat as if I'm 215.

5. Yes I count calories, weight everything, track macros. I have to, I wouldn't lose weight otherwise.

6. I cheat twice a month.

7. I eat half my daily calories at breakfast.

8. I don't eat within 3 hours of going to bed.

I'm not saying this is the way to go, just saying this is what's working for me.

Good luck, you can do it!

0
8c98172e3f8e78eaca36ef7b80cb6899

on November 17, 2013
at 02:00 AM

Hey!

I've lost 70 pounds in the last 4 months. Here's what worked for me:

1. I figured out how many calories I needed a day with my activity level, then I started eating at that calorie level.

2. I eat 60% fat, 25% protein, 15% carbs. All whole foods and completely cut out grains, beans, soy, added sugar (including honey), and potatoes (not that their bad, but not appropriate for me right now as I still have 50 pounds to go).

3. After two weeks I cut my calories by 500.

4. Two weeks after that I figured out how many calories I would need to maintain my goal weight and started eating for that. My goal weight is 215, even though I'm 262 I eat as if I'm 215.

5. Yes I count calories, weight everything, track macros. I have to, I wouldn't lose weight otherwise.

6. I cheat twice a month.

7. I eat half my daily calories at breakfast.

8. I don't eat within 3 hours of going to bed.

I'm not saying this is the way to go, just saying this is what's working for me.

Good luck, you can do it!

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 17, 2013
at 02:24 AM

Awesome plan, awesome execution! Very reasonable approach. If works, use it. You might consider intermittent fasting but things are working so well for you, why risk it?

btw what is your current approx daily caloric deficient? Do you have any issues with hunger?

I never counted calories & dropped from 220 to 190 in ~ 6 months. I was never felt "starving". I used techniques from 4 Hour Body.

btw I believe the OP is a female and based on my experience men lose fat easier & faster than women

Ea9cabf81d647bde84f4ccdea85ca0e5

(0)

on November 21, 2013
at 02:28 AM

Congrats! What matters ultimately is what works for each individual. Your plan is thorough, thanks for sharing :)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 18, 2013
at 12:51 PM

Re: #7 & #8: silly superstitions perpetuated by broscience and checkout lane women's magazines.

0
F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 16, 2013
at 04:39 PM

@Matt 11 @Bukowski@TheGastronomer@samc

Sugar is toxic! Sugar is not toxic!

Here's a more nuanced treatment by my favorite engineer / MD.

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/is-sugar-toxic

I consider sugar, added sugar (as a food ingredient), fruit juice and, to a lesser extent, fruit as things to be avoided.

My experience... sugar / carbs make me fat & keep me fat. If it has HFCS or added sugar in the ingredients list, I make an effort to avoid it.

My guess (based on reading & experience) is that obese people have an inherited or developed inability to handle sugar & carbs.

I think it's all about the dose, duration & one's susceptibility.

Comments?

0
Medium avatar

on November 15, 2013
at 11:03 PM

1. You may be overweight because you're malnourished, NOT just because you eat too much and don't move enough. Paleo helps you stop the reasons for being malnourished so your body can help itself heal. You're weight may just be a symptom of a greater issue.

2. Paleo is about HEALTH not weight loss, and we all want to be healthy FOREVERRRRrrr... *ahem* so, yeah, This isn't a race. This is the rest of your entire life, and you start today.

I've lost 105 lbs in a year and a half. I spent the first 60 lbs just counting calories at a site and eating 'healthy' premade meals. I've lost the rest without a calorie counting site and just eating Paleo. My cardio is walking 3-10 miles a day (yes, that's a huge variation) and some basic body weight exercises.

The best way to lose weight is to TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF. Nourish, move, pay attention, take care of, repeat. And don't stress out. Don't push too hard. This is about preserving yourself, not killing yourself.

Medium avatar

(238)

on November 15, 2013
at 11:07 PM

Great attitude breeds success ! Nice post

0
Medium avatar

on November 15, 2013
at 06:54 PM

OP, insulin, leptin, HSL, it's all interesting, and you should read about it ASAP; but let's follow the KISS directive here.

You want to loose those pounds? You've got to:

* eat real food, in moderation. Don't bother counting calories, but don't binge either; don't enter the Potato Wars, arguing if starchy roots are or not good for you. They are safe under normal conditions, but, right now, we want you to control those insulin spikes. Try to limit your carbs too 100g a day, but don't obsess if you get a little more and don't slow down your weight loss;

* walk as often as you can. Thirty minutes a day, thrice a week sounds ok. I walk roughly two miles everyday, to and from my job. It's a good opportunity to take at least a little care of those Vitamin D levels;

* lift heavy things. Kettlebell training is amazing, because you can control how much of it you can and are willing to lift. Moreover, it's a functional exercise, closer to what our ancestors did than hitting the gym everyday. I'd suggest you to take some classes on the matter (Double Handed Kettlebell Swings), begin with small weights and progressively get heavier tools.

That's it. That's, in a nutshell, my (and Robb Wolf's, and Art De Vany's, and classical Paleo in general) protocol to eat well and loose weight.

I've lost more or less 20lbs in the first month. Interestingly, I've hit a plateau in the first 15 days, then, in the second half of the month, lost almost all of the weight. It's not linear. It depends on too many factors to isolate and discuss here right now.

You just want to Keep It Simple and Straightforward: eat, move and exercise as our ancestors did in the Ice Age, when food was scarce and Marathons were unknown.

0
Medium avatar

(238)

on November 15, 2013
at 03:26 PM

Having done the weight loss multiple times in my life I've finally realized how important it is to eat in a natural way that eliminates cravings and constant hunger. A lowish carb 100g or so daily seems to work best for me. I do 1-2 weight lifting sessions a week of 15 minutes and go pretty easy combined with some 2 mile walks and 2 days of Tabata High intensity sprints and the 16 hour intermittent fasts with only 8 hour eating window. 70 lbs gone in less than 2 years and frankly it was pretty easy and I have no trouble sticking with it. Older but wiser.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 04:29 PM

Yes... the lack of nagging hunger that is part of so many fat loss diets makes paleo great! Often I have to "remind" myself to eat.

0
76026e8ef496039d5075440ff731aa0d

on November 15, 2013
at 09:22 AM

I’m somewhat hesitant to write, because you’ve received some pretty good info and encouragement thus far, but I’ll tell you how I lost 80 pounds and have kept it off for about a year now.

I took a couple of days extra off of work to give myself the time I knew I needed to ready myself for the new adventure that would be Paleo. I began reading more closely about Paleo and how I could see myself living within it and what I had to offer it, because it’s a give and take relationship. I bought coconut oil, fresh veggies (broccoli, carrot, cauliflower, peppers, chive and cilantro) package of pork steak, bacon, fresh eggs and lots of spices (garlic powder, onion powder, cayenne, smoked paprika, etc).

I locked myself away, I had my entertainment and food planned for four days, because I knew in that time of no sugar, no caffeine and no other food choices, I’d throw a hissy fit and want junk and my brain would try to betray me…After four days, the sugar cravings were manageable, I left the house having already eaten and went to the grocery store, grabbed a couple things to restock my food so that I could prep lunches for work, no thought needed, just grab a premade lunch and go, this, is probably one of the biggest hurdles and indicators of success that I can point to and, in my humble opinion , will make or break how well someone will do when it comes to Paleo…it is far easier to grab something quick because you didn’t take the time to ensure you had food on hand when, the tiny child version of you in your head, stomps their feet demanding to be fed.

After my first month, I had lost 15 pounds, but because I had be reading so much Paleo information, I knew that it was mostly water, but it was the result and encouragement I needed to continue, which over the months that passed, I learned how to better prepare meats and vegetables and how to cook them to yield the best taste and most bang for my buck.

In 10 months time, I lost roughly 80 pounds, the majority of it in the first 6 months. I did NOT exercise at all during this time, I walked, and although I personally don’t consider it exercise, I tried to get in an hour walk no less than 3 times a week.

My “secret” was to take the time and effort I spent doing it wrong, and invest the same amount of time and effort doing it right. So call it cold turkey if you like, but I stopped any cheats on day 1, no gluten, or dairy, and absolutely no sugar, even those from fruit...was it hard? I gotta say, it really wasn’t…when you have truly had enough you will find the change you want to see.

Truth.

0
3d7ad776cb81f1e56f77ffd82b7d5eaa

on November 15, 2013
at 04:34 AM

I think we should identify what made you obese first. It is probably a combination of different factors -- genetic, environmental, behavioral. Usually people gain weight because they eat too much in general, and eat mostly the wrong things. WE ALL KNOW THAT, RIGHT? We will need to minimize those obesity-causing factors and develop new habits and create an environment to reach and maintain health. Paleo provides a great guideline. The resources are all out there. We just need to make a commitment to a healthier lifestyle for the rest of our lives. I know it's easier said than done. There is no magic in this. I am sure this is not what you wanted to hear, but you know what you should be doing already.

I am working on it as well. Good luck.

5fc68cc618625c6ddb3e0fdaea60349b

on November 15, 2013
at 05:02 PM

@minimalpaleo I know what made me obese. it was genetics mixed with the fact that I ate terrible foods. Everything processed tons of grain, fats, just all the bad things you could eat. And overtime it made me terribly overweight.

I have accepted that it is MY fault that I gained so much weight and I have EVERY intention of fixing it. Being obese is no way to live and i dont want to feel trapped in a fat persons body anymore. I know im suppose to be healthy and not have all these pounds suffocating me.

0
F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 04:07 AM

@alwaysworkingit You've gotten lots of good answers so far. It took me ~6 or 7 months to lose 30lbs (220 to 190; 6'). Loss was not a straight line. Some weeks I lost close to 3 lbs, some weeks none. :(

Nuts ..pistachios & almonds caused me to plateau. I would recommend staying away from nuts & nearly all fruit (except berries).

If you really want to lose fat fast...try 4 Hour Body, not exactly paleo but his methods worked for me like fat loss magic.

Oh... and forget the heavy / insane cardio exercise. Walking is exercise and at your current weight, an hour a day would be plenty on top of your "normal" activity unless you;re a total desk bound couch potato. Self weight exercise works too.

I highly recommend 4 Hour Body but it seems to work much better for men than women.

Age, gender would be helpful... techniques that work for men are sometimes not the best for women.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 04:05 PM

Pistachios are NOT low carb, gram for gram they have more total carbs the same net carbs, and eight times the sugar as potatoes (select 100g from the drop down for the sake of comparison):

Potatoes: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2770/2

Pistachios: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3136/2

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 04:10 PM

This is why I also avoid them, macadamias and hazelnuts are much lower in carbs. I do miss pistachios though, delicious and salty awesomeness.

0
Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 15, 2013
at 03:24 AM

Intermittent fasting combined with low carb works, screw counting calories thats for noobs who don't want to give up carbs and want to suffer and starve. Just be realistic, if you cheat often (e.g. paleo desserts with agave nectar/honey/dates/coconut sugar/rainbow-colored-hidden-fructose-packed-cute-sounding-unicorn-poop-extract-sugar) you're not going to lose much weight. Do eat "real" foods but stay away from "real" crap foods like rice, starchy roots, and super starchy and sugary fruits. Dairy is not paleo, staying away from that also helps, a lot, specially milk and yogurt. Try not to overdo it in the steak department, those things can stall you. Let go of the fear of fat and indulge yourself. Avocadoes, macadamias, almonds, hazelnuts, coconuts, eggs, olive oil, lard, home made mayo using paleo fats, dips from said mayo, pork rinds, all kinds of delicious veggies (dozens of them to choose from), low carb fruits (berries are awesome), the possibilities are endless just be creative and don't be afraid of fat. Light to moderate exercise, walking is awesome, hiking and camping are great, light cycling is also good and easy on the joints. Best of luck, you'll do great, you already took the most important step :)

4610c234dfda2767451a57501aff983c

(0)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:00 AM

I don't know if I'd consider starchy roots "crap"

Medium avatar

(15)

on November 16, 2013
at 11:11 AM

Sugary fruits, starchy roots and rice are crap foods? The only thing that's crap here is what you're writing here.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 15, 2013
at 03:32 AM

I would argue that calorie counting is expert-level fine-tuning, not to be confused with stuff for noobs. It's the only way you'll ever learn what nutrition actually looks like in your daily life.

Understanding your caloric requirements are just the beginning of learning to wield raw food into ideal balanced macro/micros.

0
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 15, 2013
at 02:48 AM

Do you have realistic expectations? 80 pounds is a 2 year goal. Count your calories and take your time.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:38 AM

@alwaysworkingit@Matt suggested two years that's a realistic goal. You might do it in 1.5 year or 1 year. I lost 30 lbs in ~6 months. Some weeks nearly 3 lbs, some weeks none. :(

5fc68cc618625c6ddb3e0fdaea60349b

on November 15, 2013
at 04:02 AM

@Matt 11 I don't have 2 years. and it can be lost by then. I'm doing everything I can to see it through. I can do it!

Medium avatar

(15)

on November 15, 2013
at 12:41 PM

Matt's suggestion is reasonable. The faster you go, the more likely you're going to fully mess up your metabolism, which blocks further weight loss and may even lead to weight gain in the long term. Go slow, then you'll be successful.

0
4610c234dfda2767451a57501aff983c

on November 15, 2013
at 02:42 AM

Simply eating whole, real foods will keep you on the path to your ideal weight, it's incredible what happens after cutting out all those snack foods like chips/soda/etc.

Some say limit carbs, but that's a personal preference- I hated how I felt on a low-carb paleo, so you'll have to test that out and see what makes you feel better, not what makes you lose weight faster.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:31 AM

Sorry about the downvote, I upvoted by mistake.

I do disagree with your comment "Some say limit carbs, but that's a personal preference"

My reading & experience says... carb restriction is necessary for fat loss.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 15, 2013
at 05:48 AM

Fixed the down vote....

But, I still disagree with your comment

"Some say limit carbs, but that's a personal preference"

My reading & experience says that carb restriction is important for those wishing to shed fat.

0
Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 15, 2013
at 02:19 AM

That's going to take a while to do in a healthy way. I want to say an ideal rate is ~1-2lb/wk. This is essentially a 1-2yr goal with a 500+ calorie deficit every single day.

You have about 280,000 kcal worth of energy stored on your body that you'll have to burn up.

Dial in the curve, get your daily low-intensity exercise, and you'll be looking good next summer.

5fc68cc618625c6ddb3e0fdaea60349b

on November 15, 2013
at 04:03 AM

@paleot thanks for the help and advice :)

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!