Request: take a quick look at this weight loss regimen and comment, please
 

I am at 216 or so and want to get back to my "fighting weight" of 190 by Thanksgiving (10 weeks). I am in my late 30s and in slightly above average shape, I'd say.

My base metabolic rate is about 2200 kcal and my recommended daily caloric intake is about 3300 kcal. Both figures are calculated from height/weight/activity level/age.

I have knocked intake back to 1800 kcal and have increased exercise by about 250 kcal / day. This represents a net reduction of 12,250 kcal/week below maintenance and should result in a loss of 3.5 lbs/week. Even if I hit a plateau or overeat a few days, I should hit the goal.

Diet is mostly cereals/grains with a little lean meat and some dairy in the form of cheese. The main focus is on calorie count.

Any comments on the above? Is my analysis on the mark? Any suggestions for improvement?

Thanks.

PS. I know that the rate of loss moderately exceeds that typically recommended but I'm not worried about that.

You're going to lose a fair amount of muscle mass with a caloric intake that low. If you're 216 now, your maintenance level, without exercise, is probably around 2400 or 2500 calories. If you're doing 800 calories a day in exercise, I'd keep your calorie intake at around 2200, just to minimize the loss of lean mass.

Hope you're doing some weight training as well!

I successfully went from almost 220 to 190 about 2 years ago. I'm hovering just under 200 right now and occassionally have to reduce my intake to drop a few pounds back off.

When I made the reduction, I probably overdid my intake reduction, as I would experience some light headedness after standing up during the day. It would pass quickly but it was a sign that I was well below my required intake. I was also riding and running 3-5 times a week.

Something I had heard and took to heart was the concept that the body will start to adjust to the lower caloric intake and therefore, the weight loss will slow. To counter that, I would increase my caloric intake on the weekends. I'd make sure I consumed some extra fat and carbs to remind my body that it should not lower its consumption rate. I wouldn't gain any weight over the weekend and it seemed to make the next week's weight loss more constant.

Oh...and water...I drank a lot of water.

Oh...and you didn't mention that you're...what...6' 5"? You're gonna be skinny as a rail once you hit 190.

Pizza and ice cream on the weekends. Oh yeah.

Sparkpeople.com ......I lost 30lbs... It just made it easy to count calories in or out. Plus it gives you a calorie range ie 1800-2250. Try it. I firgure more tools in the wieght loss tool box the better. Oh and it's free.

Thanks for the tip.

2200 BMR is pretty high. How did you get that number?

12k kcal deficit per week is huge. The problem with dropping that weight so quick is definitely the muscle mass you're going to lose. Losing muscle mass fast means you could essentially increase BF %, lowering your metabolic rate. Just something to consider anyway. Additionally, a diet plan that puts you hungry all the time (which I would be starving at 12k kcal per week deficit) means you increase the odds that you'll binge when you decide to splurge. Dangerous habit to get in to.

The typical max weight loss recommended per week is 2 lbs, and you're almost double that. IMO, based on my experience with my own trial/error, is that your plan is a recipe for yo-yo-ing your weight, and a likely regain in weight once you reach your goal.

I've started doing this, too. Eat like a bird during the week, then Cici's Pizza buffet on the weekends. I love living a nice, balanced life. :rolleyes: :D

Your going to have some serious energy issue's if you dont have a balanced diet.

the issue of losing weight is not nessaserily about how much you eat but what you eat.

The best way to lose fat and not muscle is quite simple really,

You should eat every two hours roughly, and increase your wrok rate.

30 mins 3 times a week will see a decrease in weight.

But remember for energy you need to eat carbs at a rate of 200/300 grams per hour you intend to work.

and protein in the form of tuna/chicken will help your muscle recover quicker.

Good lord, man, you're talking about 1200 calories for each hour of work you intend to do. So, for a 3-hour bike ride, you're saying 900 grams of carb? Or 2,700 calories?

edit: oops, that would be 3600 cals.

WELL YOUR TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING DIFFERANT TO THE OP.

He is talking about tha ability to lose weight.

Your talking about getting on a bike and riding for three hours,

the two have no corolation to each other.

for what its worth i took in an average of 2800 calories a day in 2006 and still dropped 70 pounds. i stopped eating crap. i ate more fruit and veggies and i ate more often. cutting the crap and portions down was key for me. i used fitday.com to track it all. good luck. later.

Maybe I was confused by this quote, then:

I assumed you meant work to be cycling, or just exercise in general. Maybe I'm just totally off-base. Either way, 1,200 calories is quite a bit.

You have to understand that most people dont just eat a meal then go out and do three hours of work ( cycling).

You eat a few power bars, drink an energy drink or what ever suits u.

This guy wants to lose weight,

Maybe you're right. I usually don't eat on a ride unless it's over 50-60 miles. Over 3 hours, and I may have a granola bar or something. Even the highest estimates I've seen recommend 400 calories per hour of exertion. I doubt the OP would be burning off 1200 calories per hour, unless he were 400 pounds, riding a mountain bike with flat tires, at a 21% grade, at 22 mph. Okay, maybe that's a little extreme, but there's no way he's burning more than 800 calories per hour.

edit: maybe 200-300 CALORIES per hour is what you meant to type. Considering 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, though, 200-300 grams of carb is pretty intense.

well an average man should be eating 2500 calories a day.

If i at 154llbs was to cycle for 3 hours at a speed of 14-16 mph i would burn about 2102 calories

So in theory i'm doing the right thing to lose weight.

The reality is something totally differant, thats why you need to sort out a diet and fitness regime to suit you and not follow one that you get from someone else.

I calculated it here:

http://health.discovery.com/tools/ca...sal/basal.html

Use inputs male, 6'5", 216#, 39

It's actually closer to 2100. My bad rounding.

As for your other comment, I've never had a weight yoyoing problem. I've gradually gained this weight over the past 10 years; I'm just sick of being fat and want to lose it all at once, and quickly. I've made some fundamental dietary changes and for me this is just about focusing on portion control.

Losing fat and "losing it all at once, quickly" are two different goals. It's very unlikely you'll be able to do both simultaneously.

You would be much better served with a well rounded program of weight lifting (compound exercises with free weights and/or body weight) and cardio, along with loss of around 1 pound per week, which comes to a deficit of 500 calories per day.

The alternative is to get to 190 lbs., but to keep your body fat percentage exactly where it is now.

I don't understand. Could you please summarize the science behind your statement?

Having a food surplus is something our genes are not set up for. Basically, we survived as a species by storing fat, and using it during the all too often times of shortage. Consequently, the first thing our body does, when faced with a caloric deficit, is to use lean body mass as fuel.

It actually requires a smaller caloric deficit, coupled with compound muscle weight training, to initiate the muscle repair process without causing catabolism. For the vast majority of people, it is possible to get their bodies to spend some of those precious calories repairing muscle fibers that have been "damaged" through weight training. It is not possible, for almost everyone, to get your body to build new muscle (hypertrophy) while you are in a caloric deficit.

That's why the best you can hope for during a weight loss regimen is to maintain the lean muscle mass you have. However, if you go into too large a deficit, your body simply will not have enough calories to do that. In fact, the real problem "extreme dieters" have is that their deficits are so large that they screw up their metabolism. Their bodies think they are starving (remember, these are genetic patterns that have developed over millions of years), and they do everything possible to preserve fat.

This is why people who lose weight too rapidly have that "skinny fat" look.

Some people dispute that you cannot build new muscle while losing weight. However, most of the time this is confusing strength gain with hypertrophy. Especially if you are new to weight training, you definitely will get stronger, but this is a process of your muscle and central nervous system becoming more efficient. Significant strength gains can be accomplished with no growth in the muscle tissue at all.

By the way, at 6'5" and 216 pounds, if you don't like the way your body looks, I suspect your biggest problem is your body fat percentage, not your weight. Body fat percentage is a much better way to get to your "ideal" weight anyway. I have no idea what body type you have, but you might find that you could just drop 5 or 6 pounds, but through a solid weight training program, get down to 12% body fat, which would be pretty darned good for someone your age.

Thanks. That all makes sense.