Losing too much weight! page

[Mr.C]

I have been Primal, maybe 85%, since an ablation for afib on 6/22/2012. I have lost about about 20 lbs. I am 57years old and 6'6" and now weigh about 200 lbs. I'm never really hungry. My diet is not varied. Meat, fish, chicken, vegies and salads. I have started walking/running and doing pushups. I am trying to do pull ups, planks, squats. My wife thinks that there's something wrong with me. I am getting too and I'm never really hungry. I have no idea what my chol. numbers are. And here's an add-on, sorry ladies. What about eating a lot of meat and fat and what does that do for prostate health. thanks for the help all...

[gated312]

Well I might not have a ton of insight to offer, but have you tried tracking a couple days here and there with something like FitDay or MyFitnessPal? Not only might this give you a better idea of caloric intake, but also macronutrients etc. Might be a good place to start at.

[Judg]

Are you getting enough fat?

[Mr.C]

Interesting to mention the tracking. A colleague at work, who is also going Primal, mentioned that he's started using paleotrack.com . I am going to take a look. Thanks for the input.

Mr. C

[Mr.C]

I am eating meat all the time. I just don't think that I'm eating enough, but I'm not hungry. I'll just stay the course and see where it takes me. I'm sorry to hear about your CFS. I hope that this lifestyle helps.

[Ripped]

I have been Primal, maybe 85%, since an ablation for afib on 6/22/2012. I have lost about about 20 lbs. I am 57years old and 6'6" and now weigh about 200 lbs. I'm never really hungry. My diet is not varied. Meat, fish, chicken, vegies and salads. I have started walking/running and doing pushups. I am trying to do pull ups, planks, squats. My wife thinks that there's something wrong with me. I am getting too and I'm never really hungry. I have no idea what my chol. numbers are. And here's an add-on, sorry ladies. What about eating a lot of meat and fat and what does that do for prostate health. thanks for the help all...

I don't know what you're so worried about. By the BMI charts, you're considered of normal weight.

And I know a lot of people think that the BMI isn't a good measurement for healthy weight. But I actually think it's pretty accurate if you take it for what its worth. A natural lean and muscular man will be more towards the top of the healthy range or maybe a little bit over, unless he's ripped. A normal and healthy lean woman will be more towards the bottom. Guys with A LOT more muscle will be considered overweight, but realize to get that much muscle requires drug use, it won't happen to naturals unless they're fat, and having that much extra muscle is bad for you anyways.

So I think you're doing pretty good. I wouldn't worry about it. I would keep working out every week to maintain muscle. And if you think you're losing weight too fast, you can always try making a few slight changes to your diet. Adding more fat will always help keep the weight on. You can also try to include more carbohydrates in your diet too.

Speaking of carbs, I usually like to keep a descent amount of carbs in my diet. I always feel much better that way. I only go extremely low on the carbs if I'm trying to cut the calories to lose weight. I like sweet potatoes and a lot and fruit too. At least those are my main staples when I'm trying to eat healthy. Eating carbs from such sources will still keep your carbohydrate intake relatively low, but just not too low. I'm talking less than 150 grams as opposed to the hundreds you'd get when eating foods such as bread, pasta, and juices.

[jfreaksho]

*snip*
Guys with A LOT more muscle will be considered overweight, but realize to get that much muscle requires drug use, it won't happen to naturals unless they're fat, and having that much extra muscle is bad for you anyways.

I have no issues with the rest of what you said, but this sentence is bullshit. A BMI of 25 and up is considered overweight, and that's 190 pounds at 6' tall. A fair number of densely-built guys can easily hit that, even with fairly low body fat. At 5'10", I only need 185 pounds to be "overweight" by BMI standards. Even from where I'm at, at 165, that's not impossible. It'll take some time, some big lifting, and some big eating.

Hitting the "obese" marker of 30 BMI while still being fit would be quite a trick, though.

Also, what the hell is "extra" muscle? If your body has built the muscle, it has received stimulus to build it, and therefore needs the muscle. That is not extra. If you are no longer using the muscle, your body will naturally get rid of it over time, which is generally considered to be a bad thing all around.

[Ripped]

I have no issues with the rest of what you said, but this sentence is bullshit. A BMI of 25 and up is considered overweight, and that's 190 pounds at 6' tall. A fair number of densely-built guys can easily hit that, even with fairly low body fat. At 5'10", I only need 185 pounds to be "overweight" by BMI standards. Even from where I'm at, at 165, that's not impossible. It'll take some time, some big lifting, and some big eating.

Martin Berkhan came up with an equation that is meant to predict one's maximum natural genetic muscular potential at 5% body fat. It's based on statistics of competitive natural bodybuilders, the guys who you'd expect to reach their maximum potential. And because of that, one could expect that they probably won't exceed the prediction. Sure, they might do a little better. But it's a lot easier for purposes of practicality, to know roughly where you'll stand.

The reason why I find this to be so important is because there is a common problem where men have unrealistic goals as to how heavy they should be, only to end up with a lot of extra fat mass. If they actually had more realistic guidelines to go by, they could actually aim to get as lean as possible and realistically having a great body at a descent weight, instead of chasing unrealistic goals and getting fat because of it.

Anyways, I noticed a few things. When I did the calculations for a handful of people that I know who have always worked hard for years and years, people who you'd expect to have reached their maximum potential, the prediction ended up being impressively close to their actual weight. I also ended up noticing one more thing. When I compared the results of Berkhan's equation with that shown on a BMI chart, I noticed that it coincidently ended up being about the top end of the BMI chart.

So I don't consider what I said to be complete BS at all. I do think it's fairly accurate. You might go a little bit over. Giving myself as an example, I'm 176 and around 11% body fat. I'm considered overweight. If I get my BMI down to normal, I'll be around 7-8%. If I get my BMI higher on the other hand, it will be because of a increase in fat. It can't be muscle mass because I've worked very hard over the years and already gained as much muscle as I can naturally; if I were going to gain any more muscle, it would have happened a long time ago.

I have no issues with the rest of what you said, but this sentence is bullshit. A BMI of 25 and up is considered overweight, and that's 190 pounds at 6' tall. A fair number of densely-built guys can easily hit that, even with fairly low body fat.

How about the example with Martin Berkhan? He's 6'1" at 5% body fat, deadlifts 600 lbs for a few reps, and weighs about 195 lbs. (Look up the pictures. The guy is in phenomenal shape!) Take an inch away and a 6' guy will be at around 190 lbs. Like I said before, in the best shape you can be in naturally, you might be at the top of the BMI chart or slightly over. Anything extra will just be fat.

Even from where I'm at, at 165, that's not impossible. It'll take some time, some big lifting, and some big eating.

I don't know how tall you are. But be realistic; a prediction would prove very helpful. I'm not in any way shape or form trying to discourage you from being the best you can be. I am more so trying to encourage it. You'd be much better off being as big and strong as you're going to be AND be leaner than ever.

Giving myself as an example, at 5'9" I thought I'd one day be able to be lean at 200 lbs. I was wrong. I was fairly lean at 200 lbs, but I still had a belly. My belly was flat at 180 lbs. And my prediction is that I'll be ripped at 165 lbs. I'm ok with that because I know I'll still be able to be strong when I get there, and I also know I'll look great!

Hitting the "obese" marker of 30 BMI while still being fit would be quite a trick, though.

Definitely! I've been there and I wasn't in shape. Sure, I was strong and could bench 320 lbs. But forget getting a date! It isn't easy getting a date when you loo like you're pregnant!

Also, what the hell is "extra" muscle? If your body has built the muscle, it has received stimulus to build it, and therefore needs the muscle. That is not extra. If you are no longer using the muscle, your body will naturally get rid of it over time, which is generally considered to be a bad thing all around.

That is absolutely correct. But as previously discussed, you're body is only going to be able to gain so much muscle anyways. Come to think of it, what I have noticed over the last few decades actually matches up with what Mike Mentzer had explained in one of his books. Building muscle is really easy. If you work hard it will happen very fast. You'll reach a large percent of your genetic potential within a few years of hard work. So that pretty much means you can gain up to 50 lbs of muscle naturally within the first few years of working out, IF you train hard and consistently. Most guys who train hard do this, but don't realize it. So they'll gain up to 50 lbs of muscle with a few years, then they'll spend years and years after that trying different programs hoping the right program will deliver them "better" results, when in reality they've gotten about as big as they're going to get no matter how hard they train.

Anyways, to answer your question, I consider "extra" what ever weight you gain after that. Yes, it would be complete BS for me to try to give you an exact number about that. But what I can tell you is that once you have reached your maximum potential, any extra weight will most likely be fat.

And just to set the record straight, as I understand it you can gain a little bit more muscle over the years after your first few years of hard lifting, but it tapers off. So with every year of hard training, the amount of muscle you can gain becomes less and less, and mathematically that number would converge to zero (or just be insignificant).

[jfreaksho]

Ripped,

That was a very logical, well-researched post with a much better "tone" than what I gave you to work with. I appreciate the civility, and I'm sorry for my lack thereof.

I think my immediate reaction was to the word "overweight", because that is at the 25 BMI point. I deal with weight and bodyfat and fitness constantly in the Army, and that is where my standards come from, which are nowhere near ideal numbers like you are thinking. I see a lot of "fit" guys who have to get taped to measure bodyfat, because the don't meet the Army Height/Weight Standards listed in the chart. Most of these guys are fit, but carrying around more fat than they should be.

in the best shape you can be in naturally, you might be at the top of the BMI chart or slightly over. Anything extra will just be fat.

This makes sense now, and I'm not sure why it didn't before. I think I was allowing for a higher tolerance of body fat- up to 15% on a guy isn't excessive for most people, though 10-12 is far better.

Mostly I think we agree on this overall, but the numbers just weren't clicking for me the other day, or your statement just wasn't clear to me.

[Neckhammer]

I'll tell you the same thing I say when people CAN'T lose weight....Only in reverse....Increase your carbs and your calories