[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by ampere

See this post. (In our own forum we have folks who have gained immensely from Ketosis)

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifti...ml#post3582980


Ketosis has mainly worked wonders for obese guys to come down quite dramatically. The question how to sustain it once you are down. Thats where all the troubles start. The maintenance mode should also be sustainable for an easy lifestyle.

I agree. Ketosis does work wonders but it's not necessary. Personally I never went into ketosis, nor do I find it necessary. A calorie deficit with a balanced macro ratio works equally well. From what I can see, a couple of my American friends find keto much easier because they can eat a lot more of the things they grew up liking (meat, cheese, butter..). I grew up liking sambar and potatoes. I adapted into a meat eater recently, but I don't crave meat. I crave rice . So personally, keto isn't appealing to me. Maybe once I get down into a low body fat percentage, an ultra low carb diet will work better if I want to go even lower. Let's see. At this point, 14-15% is good enough.

When I do go into maintenance without tracking, I'll just eat like I do now but in higher quantities and without supplements. One meal dominated by veggies, one meal dominated by meat and some sugary (or spicy) snacks in between. Everything in moderation. If weight goes up, cut back, that's really all needed. Alcohol say once a week or once in two weeks. Gym regularly even if not as intense, at least to a minimum level. A lot of people do this, it's sustainable. But that's a maintenance lifestyle, not a transformation lifestyle. Transformation is a short-term thing, in my opinion we do need to go really intense to see changes. It is worth investing that six months (or a year, or three years, depending on goals) to get to a point where I like how I look for the rest of my life.

Originally Posted by bblost

@rajushank,

Please don't take it the wrong way but what is the use of a six pack on a body that can't even do a couple of pullups and bench more than its own weight?

Isn't strength increase the whole point of working out.

Otherwise it's just a beautiful car with a weak engine.

I would rate an ugly fat car with a powerful engine significantly higher. But that's just me.

Again a humble request to not take my post in a bad way.

There's nothing to take in a bad way, bro! In my opinion six pack is useless, I don't even want it. All I want is a flat midsection. But people go after six packs for the sake of aesthetics and a sense of pride. Also, you can't have a decent looking six pack without being muscular (it's not just lack of fat, those abs need to be built!), so all the guys I see with six packs also have huge arms and a huge chest. They can do pull-ups easily and bench huge plates. They do pull-ups for warmup. At least the guys I see in my gym and in my team.

On cars don't even get me started. Too many BMWs and Mercedes with a weak four-cylinder engine that can hardly keep up with a v6 accord. Who am I to judge, my friend (with an Audi Q5) frankly says all he needs is the badge, he doesn't care about what's under the hood. He's also really into fashion, style and bling and spends more money on watches and sunglasses than on his car. It works for him, who am I to judge .

To be honest if there were a shortcut way for us guys to look good by just losing weight (like girls do) I'd just take it. Unfortunately that doesn't look good in my opinion. You need size. Its all subjective though.

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by bblost

I would rather that the big tummy guy took up a proper exercise regimen that helps build strength. Which in turn will shape the body.

Rather than shape the body and then increase the strength.

Well, that's the classic "bulk first" or "cut first" argument that even fitness professionals and coaches can't seem to agree on. But most of them say "cut first", mainly because if you are a newbie at working out, you will see strength gains regardless - even as you are cutting. But bulking when you are already fat will make you look even worse, and you will have so much fat at the end of it that any significant cut after that would mean you would also lose all the gains you made when you embark on that epic cut (because you would panic and cut too fast). On the other hand if you cut first, once you lean down you will look fairly "ok" (not great but still better-looking than when you started out), and then when you lean-bulk over a year or more you will continue to look good, so the motivation level to keep going would be a lot higher. But I think cutting first or bulking first is a personal choice and both would work over the long run.

There are also in-betweens. Some people do recomps (stay at the same weight, increase muscle while losing fat) and some people do extremely small (4-6 weeks) bulk and cut cycles (check out Layne Norton).

All of these approaches will work .

[mallumowgli]

Amitoj/Samurai and others : Isn't it silly that when even scientists are yet to have the last word on diet/nutrition and health, we are here trying to push our opinion down others throat?

Wouldn't it be better, if we limit ourselves to 'what I did, based on this, and this is what I got'. Getting too scientific is not going to help anyone, when science itself is incomplete in this case

As for me, I've never counted calories. I eat till am full - but I follow a kind of modified Paleo diet (basically normal Kerala diet, but with strict control only on the rice part. Absolutely no sugar, no junk)and it has worked for me. Weight reduced from 76 to 60 and slowly climbed to 67-68kgs. (174 cms tall). Last few months I've not been doing any workouts and I find that my weight has gone down by 2kgs. My waist size was 34 before the start of the diet and now has come down to 30-31

If you ask my why Paleo diet? Sorry, I will not try to justify it here. It has worked for me. My cholesterol profile was topsy-turvy, but now it is getting normal(not yet though, my HDL is low, but has increased from an abysmal 30s to 50+). I feel energetic throughout the day.

Personally am not very convinced about the evolutionary theory brandished by Paleo diet aficionados, but then in this diet I need not keep a look out for the quantity, but the quality and am loving it!!

So relax guys, and just share your experiences

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Amitoj/Samurai and others : Isn't it silly that when even scientists are yet to have the last word on diet/nutrition and health, we are here trying to push our opinion down others throat?

I agree, that is why I am against pushing one agenda over the rest. People want to lose weight for many reasons. There is no one formula for everyone. Genes have a heavy influence on what these measurements mean to each individual.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Amitoj/Samurai and others : Isn't it silly that when even scientists are yet to have the last word on diet/nutrition and health, we are here trying to push our opinion down others throat?

So relax guys, and just share your experiences

Actually, the opinions on ill effects of high body fat %age are pretty much unanimous in the scientific community. It is not my personal opinion. It is backed by numerous studies.

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by amitoj

Actually, the opinions on ill effects of high body fat %age are pretty much unanimous in the scientific community. It is not my personal opinion. It is backed by numerous studies.

True - but what is fat percentage? The figure we are measuring (whichever method you may suggest) is based on a predictive technique based on certain assumptions about a healthy individual, and the base data is a western individual. Am not saying that the measure is useless (it can be quite good when measuring your progress, in a linear fashion - due to the consistency of the measure rather than the accuracy).

I'd started this discussion in the exercise thread but left it. Among the three fats that alpha1 mentioned, which value does any of the given method provide? Not a rhetorical question, but a genuine doubt.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Genes have a heavy influence on what these measurements mean to each individual.

As a third party observer, I find both sides having their own agendas, lol!! You and alpha1 say genes, the other side says genes are over-emphasised!!

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

True - but what is fat percentage? The figure we are measuring (whichever method you may suggest) is based on a predictive technique based on certain assumptions about a healthy individual, and the base data is a western individual. Am not saying that the measure is useless (it can be quite good when measuring your progress, in a linear fashion - due to the consistency of the measure rather than the accuracy).

I completely agree with you w.r.t. using it as a measure of your progress. That's what I have also done and said in my various posts. But its standalone value also should not be trashed because, even though it is not 100% accurate, it is pretty much in the same ballpark most of the times.

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

I'd started this discussion in the exercise thread but left it. Among the three fats that alpha1 mentioned, which value does any of the given method provide? Not a rhetorical question, but a genuine doubt.

I'd think it gives an overall number. There is no way one can reduce only one type of body fat and keep the other IMO. But it is nearly impossible to fall below dangerous levels on normal diet and exercise regimen. It is definitely possible to get the overall number into a healthier range though.

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

As a third party observer, I find both sides having their own agendas, lol!! You and alpha1 say genes, the other side says genes are over-emphasised!!

In my own opinion, genes are somewhat responsible but not to the point that they be used as an excuse.

Genetic excuse for obesity 'is a myth'

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

As a third party observer, I find both sides having their own agendas, lol!! You and alpha1 say genes, the other side says genes are over-emphasised!!

Agenda? I don't know that anyone has any agenda here, other than an intention to help anyone who might come across this thread with an intention to lose weight. I (and apparently hundreds of others) found the "how to lose fat for noobs" thread the same way and tried it the first time in my life, so similarly I want this thread to have all the information for anyone making a genuine effort to read it through. I don't believe anyone has any personal agendas here. I didn't see any posts ending with "subscribe to my 30 day program and paypal me ".

On the other hand, this is not a debate, and if it is, I'm not doing that. The way I see it, I'm just a bystander who has been lost, then found my way somewhere and if someone is lost, I can help show which way - if you want. If you want me to prove that the way leads there, not really . Sure I agree, "my way"(?) is not the only way, there are several ways to reach a certain place.

("My way" is in apostrophes because all I'm stating is really just common knowledge, not some outlandish theory: calorie deficit causes weight loss, calorie excess causes weight gain, workout + protein give you muscle gain/retention, and weight loss without muscle retention causes muscle loss.)

I don't see the point of blaming genetics, how does that help? That's like having a "how to get rich" thread, and then stating that the biggest thing you can do is choose your parents carefully. Sure, but you've got to play the hand you're dealt. It's easier for some of us than the rest of us, but the same basic principles work.

Congrats on your weight loss!

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

Agenda? I don't know that anyone has any agenda here,

Just to clarify - I was not the one who used the word agenda, And I was never part of any debate. So am not clear why you quoted me

"My way" is in apostrophes because all I'm stating is really just common knowledge, not some outlandish theory: calorie deficit causes weight loss, calorie excess causes weight gain, workout + protein give you muscle gain/retention, and weight loss without muscle retention causes muscle loss

In my case, I did not go about calculating the calories. I let my body do that for me. I just ate the right food (at least what I considered right). I increased my fat and protein consumption (Your vilified ghee became part of my daily diet), changed the source of carbs (like un-ripe plantain, un-ripe jackfruit and the like).

I don't see the point of blaming genetics, how does that help?

I never mentioned anything about genetics

Congrats on your weight loss!

Thanks

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Just to clarify - I was not the one who used the word agenda, And I was never part of any debate. So am not clear why you quoted me



In my case, I did not go about calculating the calories. I let my body do that for me. I just ate the right food (at least what I considered right). I increased my fat and protein consumption (Your vilified ghee became part of my daily diet), changed the source of carbs (like un-ripe plantain, un-ripe jackfruit and the like).



I never mentioned anything about genetics



Thanks

Actually, you did . It's right there in the post I quoted. It doesn't matter who used a word first, I'm not taking exception to use of a certain word. I'm just clarifying that there's no agenda here on anyone's part (that I'm aware of) other than to share information.

Nope, I never vilified ghee. I eat ghee and butter a lot. Ghee is great.

Being able to stay in a low-calorie state with low-carb, high-fat high-protein without counting calories is baller! Hats off. The guy in my office I mentioned earlier (who lost 130 pounds) does the same thing too. He doesn't count anything, he just eats protein and fat and avoids carbs altogether. It works great. He's a beast in the gym too.

Unfortunately that doesn't work for me because I want my carbs, I love my carbs . I love my junk food too and I eat rice every other day. So I find counting and fitting it in is easier than committing to eat a certain way.

But whatever works! Our body doesn't know whether we are counting or not, all that matters is what goes in and more importantly, how much goes in!

[nareshov]

[studies]
Let me confuse you even more: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...me+and+obesity
[/studies]

[news report]
Saw an article today in the papers about how the rural population too is getting obese. (alternate link: http://www.thequint.com/health-fitne...-child-obesity )
[/news report]

[personal opinion]
The way I approach this weight maintenance / loss problem is by remembering that most of my peers eat a diet more apt for a farmer or a physical labourer when we do most of our day-to-day work sitting in front of a computer. Either we do more physical work or avoid eating very carb-rich food all the time (or do both as long you can sustain it). And keeping in mind the latest studies linking the gut flora with obesity - try to incorporate more probiotic foods.

I like @bblost's method of keeping tab on waist size.

Coming to fitness: I like the classic 5 point description that looks at muscular strength, muscular endurance, cardio-endurance, flexibility and body fat composition (I'd monitor waist-size for this).
[/personal opinion]

[experience]
Earlier when I'd spend three days a week at the gym and once in two weekends on the cycle, I probably had better strength and endurance compared to flexibility.

These days, with three hours of martial arts training a week, an hour of bodyweight training (with weighted squats) a week, and maybe 20 min of sprint or slow run per week, I'm looking at a more well rounded approach to my fitness which I intend to sustain. I do look at my macros but don't go overboard with the "eat more protein" approach and don't care about cholesterol as much I care about blood sugar.
[/experience]

So, coming back to my earlier opinion about inappropriate diet for the kind of day-to-day physical activities one can sustain to do, I chose a bit of both in a manner where I can sustain it for years. Some go to extremes of a strict diet and daily bodybuilding regimen and sport six-pack abs and a beach ready body (like my brother-in-law) whereas some can live by adjusting only their diet and some make efforts only on the physical activity front while having a large belly.

And some who do incorporate more physical activity don't necessarily balance their strength efforts or endurance efforts (only bodybuilding/strength training only vs. only runs or cycling vs. yoga/ballet (flexibility part))

[rajushank84]

@nareshov I think that's an excellent way to summarize it. We eat not only food fit for a farmer, PLUS we eat modern snacks on top of it. So it's like we are eating for 2 people but working for half a person .

[avdhesh15]

I have been following this thread but didn't want to comment until I reached my target.

Rewind 1 year back to June 2015. I was at 90kg with fat 27% and muscle 40%.
Fast forward to June 2016: I am at 75kg with fat less than 20% and muscle 45%.

My advice: eat right, exercise regularly, and have the cheat days.

Being vegetarian, I have incorporated eggs into my diet in order to take up the protein intake. I surely have my cheat days with the weekend binges!

I exercise 4-5 times a week. In the gym what worked was a combination of cardio (running, zumba) and weight training.

Result: Apart from having to buy a new wardrobe, people commented that I have started looking at least 5-7 years younger! Feels good to be honest . I myself feel much more active and energetic (e.g. I could barely jog 2km a year back and today I can easily run 20km in 2 hours).

Having said this, I will take a shot at answering some of the comments on this thread and welcome any questions / brickbats on my responses!

Originally Posted by Samurai

In this thread, lots of weight/fat shaming happens because of stupid formulas like BMI.

Agreed - BMI is the worst indicator standalone. It has to be taken with other parameters such as fat ratio, muscle ratio and waist:hip ratio.

Originally Posted by rajushank84

Ok slight change of topic. I found my colleague using almond milk to mix in his protein shake, I've never tried this before. Is it good for making Indian style tea/coffee? Anyone tried? Seems to be only 30 calories per cup (as against regular milk which is 180). Any downsides? (Like they say soy milk will affect testosterone)

I have totally stopped full fat milk. It's only no/low fat for me even for making paneer and curd.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Just take the BMI myth, how did 25 become the threshold for everybody?

LOL – this is just how the level of fasting diabetes was reduced from 140 to 126 mg/dl in 1997 and millions of people around the world became diabetic overnight!

Originally Posted by Samurai

And guess what? Breakfast skipping is associated with a significantly increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

Agreed - the worst sin you can do to yourself is to skip breakfast. Please eat a health breakfast to kickstart the day. Considering erratic work schedules, this might be the only meal of the day in which you can provide your body with a lot of “fuel” to last the day.

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by bblost

I would rather that the big tummy guy took up a proper exercise regimen that helps build strength. Which in turn will shape the body.

Rather than shape the body and then increase the strength.

Originally Posted by avdhesh15

I have been following this thread but didn't want to comment until I reached my target.

Rewind 1 year back to June 2015. I was at 90kg with fat 27% and muscle 40%.
Fast forward to June 2016: I am at 75kg with fat less than 20% and muscle 45%.

My advice: eat right, exercise regularly, and have the cheat days.

Being vegetarian, I have incorporated eggs into my diet in order to take up the protein intake. I surely have my cheat days with the weekend binges!

I exercise 4-5 times a week. In the gym what worked was a combination of cardio (running, zumba) and weight training.

Result: Apart from having to buy a new wardrobe, people commented that I have started looking at least 5-7 years younger! Feels good to be honest . I myself feel much more active and energetic (e.g. I could barely jog 2km a year back and today I can easily run 20km in 2 hours).

Having said this, I will take a shot at answering some of the comments on this thread and welcome any questions / brickbats on my responses!

Agreed - BMI is the worst indicator standalone. It has to be taken with other parameters such as fat ratio, muscle ratio and waist:hip ratio.

I have totally stopped full fat milk. It's only no/low fat for me even for making paneer and curd.

LOL – this is just how the level of fasting diabetes was reduced from 140 to 126 mg/dl in 1997 and millions of people around the world became diabetic overnight!

Agreed - the worst sin you can do to yourself is to skip breakfast. Please eat a health breakfast to kickstart the day. Considering erratic work schedules, this might be the only meal of the day in which you can provide your body with a lot of “fuel” to last the day.

Good stuff, congrats on the loss! 15kg is a huge difference, I can imagine how you feel! Hats off

Though I disagree on the whole breakfast thing , I'll refrain from harping on it. Whatever works, man! Nothing speaks louder than results.

+1 on the fat-free milk. I went from 2% milk to fat-free milk to no milk now. But sometimes when I feel like a chai, fat-free milk is a godsend.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by avdhesh15

My advice: eat right, exercise regularly, and have the cheat days.

Congratulations on your weight loss!
What do you do on cheat days? Eat what you wouldn't normally eat or skip the gym?