Fitness: Weight loss group accountability

**TheTick** · 08-15-20, 18:31

I just stumbled on this thread and I'll say it's pretty cool what you guys are doing... minus the one dude that had to get jettisoned.

One thing I will somewhat touch on is not being so concerned about weight as much as composition. Case in point, I'm 5'10" and the lowest I've weighed in my adult life was 196# and it was terrible. I had restricted my calories chasing a weight-loss after needing hip surgery that basically shut down my working out. It killed my metabolism and energy plus I looked like Skeletor. It actually took a bit of time to recover from the unhealthy way I lost the weight. Further to the point, I've always been a larger-framed dude and also lift on top of it. After finally feeling well enough to start crushing legs again after knee surgery last year, my weight went from 219# to 234# after I got back into heavy sled and squatting work. I'd take my current 234# over the 196# any day of the week, not even a close decision.

The scale is just a number as my body composition looks way better. Now, I do expect the 234# to creep down as the increased muscle mass and over-all muscle density eat more of my daily calorie intake and put it to good use. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the way you look in the mirror is more important than what the scale tells you.

Also, be careful of how LITTLE you eat. People that go on crash diets with severe calorie restriction destroy their metabolism in the long run and there is the possibility that you will actually put on way more fat when you inevitably can't maintain the severely limited caloric intake but now you've added a dead metabolism on top of the issue when you go back to consuming 3,000+ calories a day. You need to eat to lose weight. I haven't measured out my macros in quite a long time, but I know that I regularly have eaten 4-5,000 calories in a day (to include 400 grams of carbs), especially heavy lifting days.

Anyway, stay after it... no matter how slow you go, you're still lapping every person sitting on their couch talking s**t about what you're doing.

**Diamondback** · 08-16-20, 15:08

Not as bad as I feared, ended the week at 190.

Just looked up the current Army height-weight chart the other day trying to get an idea about "healthy" weight difference between ages 20 and 40, and was a little dismayed to see that had today's chart been in effect wen I tried to get into ROTC in GWOT "unable to make weight" would have been one less in my long list of 4-F's. Being unaware of the totality of circumstances, I am of course unsure whether that's a revision of standards with other screenings or just a lowering.

**TheTick** · 08-16-20, 17:34

Originally Posted by Diamondback

Not as bad as I feared, ended the week at 190.

Just looked up the current Army height-weight chart the other day trying to get an idea about "healthy" weight difference between ages 20 and 40, and was a little dismayed to see that had today's chart been in effect wen I tried to get into ROTC in GWOT "unable to make weight" would have been one less in my long list of 4-F's. Being unaware of the totality of circumstances, I am of course unsure whether that's a revision of standards with other screenings or just a lowering.

Meh... I have a BMI of 33.6. Supposedly at 5'10", I should weigh 179# on the heavy end and am therefore obese. Height:Weight standards are trash. I've been told along the way that the "Golden Ratio" of shoulder:waist measurement differential is a better sign of fitness, but I don't know if I buy into that fully either, but it's much better than being told I'm "obese" according to BMI.

Still though. keep after it man.

**Diamondback** · 08-16-20, 19:07

Originally Posted by TheTick

Meh... I have a BMI of 33.6. Supposedly at 5'10", I should weigh 179# on the heavy end and am therefore obese. Height:Weight standards are trash. I've been told along the way that the "Golden Ratio" of shoulder:waist measurement differential is a better sign of fitness, but I don't know if I buy into that fully either, but it's much better than being told I'm "obese" according to BMI.

Still though. keep after it man.

Yup. As it is, I'm ten pounds lighter than I was at half my age; I've been trying to keep perspective by setting the goals in five-pound "bites" and focusing for a big picture not on how much I have to go but how much weight and waistline I've dropped from where I was--fifty pounds, six inches off my pants waistline (was Size 42, now 36) and a shirt size down is a pretty big deal for a sawed-off stubdude, though before I had to fall-back out of XL's it was nice being able to button my shirt collars again.

A mix between Keto/Atkins and six ten-minute miles a week, along with smarter timing on how much I eat when in the day. If I actually start training to build muscle mass I'll need to up the carbs, but right now my diet's mainly high protein high fiber given how sedentary my life is.

**JediGuy** · 08-17-20, 09:04

178.2 on my scale yesterday. Close to accurate, as I was weight on a calibrated scale with shoes on two days earlier, and it balances to be about right.

DB, you are going to pass me soon!

**Diamondback** · 08-17-20, 14:59

Originally Posted by JediGuy

178.2 on my scale yesterday. Close to accurate, as I was weight on a calibrated scale with shoes on two days earlier, and it balances to be about right.

DB, you are going to pass me soon!

Doubtful, bro, I seem to have plateaued--it'd be nice to make 170 or 175, but it's not gonna be a Butthurt if I stay here for a while, as long as I stay on the right side of 200.