"The last 5 pounds are the hardest." Why?
Replies
-
cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »My confusion, to be clear, is due to the different goals people set (e.g. 5'4 aiming for 145 versus same height, 115), so what exactly those last pounds are is arbitrary. If there were some random biological mechanism that really did cue in to the psychological decision of an arbitrary goal weight in measurement increments determined through long tradition rather than nature, yes, it would *totally* strike me as broscience at first, and I would want the studies to convince me it wasn't.
Yes, precisely.
0 -
bump0
-
cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »
Not to be rude, but--if Google and PubMed had helped, I would have had my answer, and not have asked MFP.
My confusion, to be clear, is due to the different goals people set (e.g. 5'4 aiming for 145 versus same height, 115), so what exactly those last pounds are is arbitrary. If there were some random biological mechanism that really did cue in to the psychological decision of an arbitrary goal weight in measurement increments determined through long tradition rather than nature, yes, it would *totally* strike me as broscience at first, and I would want the studies to convince me it wasn't.
Thanks to everyone sharing their experiences and other ideas!
Sorry I didn't mean to be rude either!:
https://helix.northwestern.edu/blog/2012/01/losing-weight-yes-your-body-really-fighting-back
Researchers in Melbourne put 50 overweight or obese people on a very-low-calorie diet for 8 weeks. Most of them lost a substantial amount of weight –at least 10% of their starting weight. After they lost the weight, the researchers followed these individuals for another year while they attempted to maintain their slimmer figures. The researchers weren’t just interested in whether the dieters regained the weight, but if so, why the weight returned.
In addition to subjective measurements like feelings of hunger or thoughts about food, the researchers also measured levels of hormones and other factors within the body that influence appetite. Not surprisingly, levels of hormones related to appetite and energy expenditure were abnormal after losing weight. The more interesting finding, though, was that even a year after losing weight the levels did not return to normal. Basically, their bodies were still acting as if they were starving.0 -
The amount of fat mass that can be oxidized in 24 hours is dependent on total fat mass. Thus, as fat mass reduces, the rate of fat loss diminishes.
A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615
Along with this comes a smaller margin of error when estimating calorie intake.0 -
cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »
Not to be rude, but--if Google and PubMed had helped, I would have had my answer, and not have asked MFP.
My confusion, to be clear, is due to the different goals people set (e.g. 5'4 aiming for 145 versus same height, 115), so what exactly those last pounds are is arbitrary. If there were some random biological mechanism that really did cue in to the psychological decision of an arbitrary goal weight in measurement increments determined through long tradition rather than nature, yes, it would *totally* strike me as broscience at first, and I would want the studies to convince me it wasn't.
Thanks to everyone sharing their experiences and other ideas!
Sorry I didn't mean to be rude either!:
https://helix.northwestern.edu/blog/2012/01/losing-weight-yes-your-body-really-fighting-back
Researchers in Melbourne put 50 overweight or obese people on a very-low-calorie diet for 8 weeks. Most of them lost a substantial amount of weight –at least 10% of their starting weight. After they lost the weight, the researchers followed these individuals for another year while they attempted to maintain their slimmer figures. The researchers weren’t just interested in whether the dieters regained the weight, but if so, why the weight returned.
In addition to subjective measurements like feelings of hunger or thoughts about food, the researchers also measured levels of hormones and other factors within the body that influence appetite. Not surprisingly, levels of hormones related to appetite and energy expenditure were abnormal after losing weight. The more interesting finding, though, was that even a year after losing weight the levels did not return to normal. Basically, their bodies were still acting as if they were starving.
This is very interesting, but it seems like a different issue than the last 5 lbs one.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »His first mention is the shrinking margin of error.
This is definitely true, IMO.
Mine too.0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »
Not to be rude, but--if Google and PubMed had helped, I would have had my answer, and not have asked MFP.
My confusion, to be clear, is due to the different goals people set (e.g. 5'4 aiming for 145 versus same height, 115), so what exactly those last pounds are is arbitrary. If there were some random biological mechanism that really did cue in to the psychological decision of an arbitrary goal weight in measurement increments determined through long tradition rather than nature, yes, it would *totally* strike me as broscience at first, and I would want the studies to convince me it wasn't.
Thanks to everyone sharing their experiences and other ideas!
Sorry I didn't mean to be rude either!:
https://helix.northwestern.edu/blog/2012/01/losing-weight-yes-your-body-really-fighting-back
Researchers in Melbourne put 50 overweight or obese people on a very-low-calorie diet for 8 weeks. Most of them lost a substantial amount of weight –at least 10% of their starting weight. After they lost the weight, the researchers followed these individuals for another year while they attempted to maintain their slimmer figures. The researchers weren’t just interested in whether the dieters regained the weight, but if so, why the weight returned.
In addition to subjective measurements like feelings of hunger or thoughts about food, the researchers also measured levels of hormones and other factors within the body that influence appetite. Not surprisingly, levels of hormones related to appetite and energy expenditure were abnormal after losing weight. The more interesting finding, though, was that even a year after losing weight the levels did not return to normal. Basically, their bodies were still acting as if they were starving.
This is very interesting, but it seems like a different issue than the last 5 lbs one.
True, there may be more on-point studies. The thing is, when we've been overweight our bodies fight us when we reach a lower weight. N of 1, but for me, the lower I go (never losing too fast and always in the healthy weight range) the hungrier I get!0 -
For me, it's because
1) I'm way hungrier. It totally sucks. It was easier to eat 1600 calories when I was losing than 1900 calories now. No joke. Plus my PMS seems way, way worse now and I seriously eat like a crazy person for 2 days every month because I'm SO HUNGRY and it wipes my deficit for a week or two (see #2)
2) With a smaller deficit (which is necessary because of #1), it's easier to underestimate your food intake and wipe it out
3) You probably already look pretty good, so it's easier to have less discipline (I mean, I don't look half bad, it's not a big deal if I have one more cookie, right?)
4) You don't burn that many calories exercising anymore. I'll burn 180 calories on my bike in one hour in a good day...
Basically that's why I've been stuck at 3 pounds from my goal weight for 7 months. And it's not even a really aggressive goal. It totally baffles me how some women my size (5'5") manage to get down to 125 pounds, let alone less than that. But I guess I have a medium/large frame and I'd probably be at my goal weight if I could get all that extra loose skin removed, lol.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »
Not to be rude, but--if Google and PubMed had helped, I would have had my answer, and not have asked MFP.
My confusion, to be clear, is due to the different goals people set (e.g. 5'4 aiming for 145 versus same height, 115), so what exactly those last pounds are is arbitrary. If there were some random biological mechanism that really did cue in to the psychological decision of an arbitrary goal weight in measurement increments determined through long tradition rather than nature, yes, it would *totally* strike me as broscience at first, and I would want the studies to convince me it wasn't.
Thanks to everyone sharing their experiences and other ideas!
Sorry I didn't mean to be rude either!:
https://helix.northwestern.edu/blog/2012/01/losing-weight-yes-your-body-really-fighting-back
Researchers in Melbourne put 50 overweight or obese people on a very-low-calorie diet for 8 weeks. Most of them lost a substantial amount of weight –at least 10% of their starting weight. After they lost the weight, the researchers followed these individuals for another year while they attempted to maintain their slimmer figures. The researchers weren’t just interested in whether the dieters regained the weight, but if so, why the weight returned.
In addition to subjective measurements like feelings of hunger or thoughts about food, the researchers also measured levels of hormones and other factors within the body that influence appetite. Not surprisingly, levels of hormones related to appetite and energy expenditure were abnormal after losing weight. The more interesting finding, though, was that even a year after losing weight the levels did not return to normal. Basically, their bodies were still acting as if they were starving.
This is very interesting, but it seems like a different issue than the last 5 lbs one.
True, there may be more on-point studies. The thing is, when we've been overweight our bodies fight us when we reach a lower weight. N of 1, but for me, the lower I go (never losing too fast and always in the healthy weight range) the hungrier I get!
Yes! Okay, this makes sense. I can see how someone coming from (e.g.) 250 to 145 would be tripped up by the physiological adaptation that would sort of balance out the lesser calorie requirements of someone going from 145 to 125.
Along with all the psychological baggage. (Which probably also serves a protective physiological function...bodies are fascinating.)
(And for all you LMGTFY people--no, I would not have gotten there on my own. I was well aware of that study, but @Jolinia helpfully showed me how it applied to part of my question. Google couldn't--and more to the point, didn't--do that. Sometimes we ask people things instead of asking computers things for a reason!)0 -
None of which pertain to my original question. Again, sometimes asking people is surprisingly useful.
But okay. You can Google (and I'll give you points here; "stubborn fat" was not a search string that would ever have even remotely occurred to me as present in the scientific literature on the topic). Gold star!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions