Nimm - Member

Nimm

Joined December 2010

Posts

699

Following

Followers

Weight History

Start Weight

174.0 lb

Lost so far: 6.0 lb

Current Weight

168.0 lb
Performance: losing 0.0 lb a week

Goal Weight

192.0 lb

Still to go: 24.0 lb

I'm a 40 y/o guy in the frozen north part of the midwest. Starting in college, my weight crept up slowly, to a high of about 215 a few years ago.

Without knowing any better, I dieted too aggressively and ended up smaller, but "skinnyfat." Since getting down to a low of around 146 pounds, I have begun weightlifting and bulking back up, in an attempt to replace some of the muscle that I lost while crash dieting.

From here on out, I will probably be going through bulking and cutting cycles, where I put on weight (slowly, in theory) and then diet off some of the extra inevitable body fat that goes along with the new muscle.

As of fall 2011, I am bulking. I will probably get my weight up to around 180 before dieting off whatever body fat is added along with the muscle.

I'm a firm believer in an "If It Fits Your Macros" approach to nutrition. Stay within your daily calorie limit, get sufficient protein and fats, and generally favor whole foods over processed - but beyond that, there are no "good" or "bad" foods (trans fats excepted).

Nimm's Weight History

view Nimm's complete history

Nimm's Latest Member Challenges

148

Fitness for Life

status:	Completed
ended:	26 Jun 11
view progress

view all Nimm's challenges

Following

	-Diablo
	last weighin: losing 2.8 lb a week

	mikefarinha
	only visible to followers

	kokusho
	last weighin: gaining 0.9 lb a week

	Heidijoy
	only visible to followers

view all

Nimm's Cookbook

cals: 182kcal | fat: 4.65g | carbs: 14.81g | prot: 20.19g

Lean Beef Chili with Beans

Beef chili packed with fiber and protein that's perfect for warming you up on a cold night.

cals: 215kcal | fat: 2.72g | carbs: 35.31g | prot: 13.61g

Spicy Vegan Lentil Soup with Onions

Simple soup, very inexpensive and healthy. Great source of fiber and vegan protein.

cals: 79kcal | fat: 2.97g | carbs: 12.28g | prot: 1.91g

Oatmeal Banana Chocolate Chip Cookies

Really healthy and good cookies that will satisfy your sweet tooth without expanding your waistline.

cals: 173kcal | fat: 1.69g | carbs: 33.57g | prot: 7.93g

Lemon Blueberry Pancakes

Great pancakes using fat free yogurt that cuts fat and calories, and boosts flavor with minimal effort.

cals: 236kcal | fat: 8.03g | carbs: 18.16g | prot: 23.22g

Lasagna

An easy to make beef lasagna dish.

view complete cookbook

Nimm's Latest Posts

What do vegetarian zombies say?
I have no grain intolerance or celiac disease, so I eat them in moderation when I feel like having them. It's never been a problem. Haven't noticed any differences without them in my diet either.

posted 11 Oct 2013, 12:25

My crazy weight
Remember that weight on the scale includes a lot more than just body fat - and the goal for probably everyone here is to lose body fat, not "weight."

The scale can be higher than it was the day before, even though you have less body fat - water weight and solid mass (semi-digested food working its way through your system) can and often will cause daily fluctuations in your weight, even as much as 10 lbs worth. It is this "noise" in weight measurement that can make tracking changes in actual mass difficult.

By way of example, if you don't eat much carbohydrate for a while or are particularly active, you may lose a few pounds of glycogen and the affiliated water. Eat a big meal with a decent amount of carbohydrate, and you can add several pounds of weight literally overnight through glycogen replenishment (and the affiliated water), even though you may have less body fat than you did 24 hours ago.

It's important not to read too much into daily weigh-ins; changes in actual fat mass usually happen much slower than the changes in transient mass. The trend over the course of 2-3 weeks is a better indicator.

posted 05 Sep 2013, 10:30

Toxic Sugar: Fantastic Video on the Obesity Epidemic from ABC Australia

mummydee wrote:

So, I say, we are all different. but to say that you're setting people up for failure by saying quit it 100% is not always a given. Some need it 100%, like myself, sugar free for 20 years and don't miss it one bit, it is possible.

That's a fair summary. While I don't want to put words in Erika's mouth, I think she was referring to some of the research evidence showing that more restrictive or rigid diet strategies have lower long-term adherence (they are also correlated with eating disorder symptoms and a higher BMI, but that's another matter):

Rigid vs. flexible dieting: association with eating disorder symptoms in nonobese women.

Flexible vs. Rigid dieting strategies: relationship with adverse behavioral outcomes.

Low-fat diets are not immune either:
Better dietary adherence and weight maintenance achieved by a long-term moderate-fat diet.

Quote:

In conclusion, a moderate-fat energy-restricted diet in the long term might have more beneficial effects on weight maintenance and cardiovascular risk factors compared with a low-fat diet. Better dietary adherence with the moderate-fat diet may be the reason for its successful effects.

But as you say, this is just a correlation and not an immutable, universal law. Some people will do better in the long term with more restrictive diets - and it's for that reason that blanket generalizations about diet strategies aren't usually helpful. My opinion is that regardless of which approach someone prefers, it's better to focus on what should be eaten rather what should be avoided - simply because forbidden fruit (no pun intended) is usually harder to resist - but again, there are few absolutes when it comes to finding a successful long-term strategy.

posted 29 Aug 2013, 09:18

Carbohydrates

onedaat wrote:

I do think 100 grams a day of fructose is way too much. It is especially too much if someone is overweight or obese, something Aragon doesn't even consider when he claims that amount is safe.

I'm not sure where you're finding this claim (and perhaps he did make it in a video), but it is at odds with what he has written:

Quote:

So, what’s the upper safe limit of fructose per day (all sources considered)? Again, this depends on a number of variables, not the least of which are an individual’s physical activity level and lean body mass. Currently in the literature is a liberal camp reporting that fructose intakes up to 90 grams per day have a beneficial effect on HbA(1c), and no significant effects are seen for fasting triacylglycerol or body weight with intakes up to 100 grams per day in adults [15]. The conservative camp suggests that the safe range is much less than this; roughly 25-40 grams per day [19]. Figuring that both sides are biased, the middle figure between the two camps is roughly 50 grams for active adults.

Although the tendency is to get hung up on the trivial minutia of an exact gram amount, it’s not possible to issue a universal number because individual circumstances vary widely (this is a concept that baffles anti-fructose absolutists). The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity. Pointing the finger at fructose while dismissing dosage and context is like saying that exercise should be avoided because it makes you fat and injured by spiking your appetite and hurting your joints.

Lustig himself had an exchange with Aragon over the issue, with links and summary here, if you're interested. It also discusses the study you just cited, which Lustig also cited and to which Aragon replied.

100g/day of fructose is roughly 5 12-ounce cans of Coke (39g HFCS/can * 0.55 fructose). I'm an advocate for flexible dieting and fewer restrictions whenever possible, but even if the data weren't there, 5 cans of Coke per day for an obese person is not something I (or hopefully anyone else) would recommend. That's excess, not moderation, and almost certainly displacing essential nutrients in a eucaloric or hypocaloric diet.

posted 26 Aug 2013, 15:08

Carbohydrates
Argument from authority and ad hominems have no place in the debate. It doesn't matter whether one party is a high school dropout and the other is a Nobel Prize winner - their claims should be evaluated on their merits.

If you can rebut the claims, do so. As it stands, many extremely well-credentialed people disagree with Lustig and agree with Aragon. That doesn't matter either, because the point is not who has the most letters after their name. The point is the claims each person is making, and the evidence they offer in support.

posted 22 Aug 2013, 15:40

Nimm has submitted 5 posts

Nimm's Recent Food & Exercise

	1 serving Dannon Light & Fit Yogurt - Toasted Coconut Vanilla
	161 g Apples
	0.86 serving Jack Link's Turkey Jerky
	Driving
	Desk Work
	Sitting

view diet calendar

Nimm's Groups

Everything Beachbody - P90X, INSANITY
This group is for anyone that is doing any of the Beachbody in-home products. Discuss and fitness nutrition

Gain Muscle/Lose Body Fat
Anyone wanting to share tips, ask questions, showcase what their doing in relation to gaining muscle and losing body fat.

What to feed your face? Healthy food database!
Are you apprehensive when trying healthy items?Never again!Here is a list of tried and true foods to keep your diet on track!

view all Nimm's groups

Nimm's Weight History

Nimm's Latest Member Challenges

Following

Nimm's Cookbook

Nimm's Latest Posts

Other Related Links

Members

Nimm's Recent Food & Exercise

Nimm's Groups