Hit plateau, thinking of increasing calories?

Sued0nim

maillemaker wrote: »

So you are saying that a 6'0 male that was 350 pounds for 10 years and got down to 180 lbs would have to eat 20% less than if he was 6'0 tall and 250 pounds for 10 years and got down to 180 lbs?

No, I'm saying that a person who is was obese and gets down to 180 pounds would have to eat 15-20% less than a person who was never obese and weight 180 pounds.

Rather, that is what Dr. Rudy Libel, Dr. Christopher Ochneremail, et al say.

How long are you going to continue posting stuff about why people fail, why people fail at keeping it off and how it's not the individuals fault they fail as opposed to maybe taking all that "knowlege" you have about the "science" of why we fail and actually apply it so you can have success?

That is exactly what I am doing! I'm taking appetite suppressants to mitigate the increased hunger and eliminate willpower issues.

Once you understand the science behind the problem, you can take steps to address it.

May I ask, assuming that the science is proven and universally agreed which I will not even countenance at present, so what?

So a formerly obese person diets down to a healthy level. If they progressive weight-train to preserve as much muscle mass as possible on this journey they will limit the reduction in calories. If they then continue to be physically active and follow a progressive weight lifting programme they will continue to increase their calorific needs for maintenance and they will be an outlier on this 'scientific research' ...for clearly there must be a bell curve of results ..there always is

You see I live in my own body ...not someone else's

What the feck does it matter that another 5'8 woman needs more or less calories than I do to maintain or that I'm happy at a weight 30lbs more than her...makes no odds to me what other people need to do

It's just what I need to do

Why isn't it what you need to do?

maillemaker

Here is an article by Dr. Jules Hirsch of Rockerfeller University Hospital:

http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39307

Here is an interesting passsage:

The body weight of an obese or nonobese person tends to remain constant. When the system for controlling fat storage is challenged by experimental over- or under-feeding, energy expenditure alters as a counter force “bucking” the change. The overfed person increases fat storage but burns more calories, which acts as a brake on further accumulation of fat mass. The reverse occurs with weight reduction; a decline in body fat storage leads to a decrease in the burning of calories.10 Although we have seen this regulation of caloric expenditure to maintain a “usual” level of fat storage, whether lean or obese, in every subject (more than 50) studied over recent years, we still cannot be certain that it occurs in every obese person forever, regardless of effort to lose or gain weight.

What the feck does it matter that another 5'8 woman needs more or less calories than I do to maintain or that I'm happy at a weight 30lbs more than her...makes no odds to me what other people need to do

The comparison to non-obese people is only to show the difference in metabolism, not to suggest that you need to be like other people.

Let's say that you need to eat 1200 calories to maintain your healthy weight. If you become obese, you must then of course eat fewer calories to get back down to that healthy weight. But once you get back down to that healthy weight, you no longer get to eat 1200 calories to maintain it. You now will probably have to eat only 1080 - 1020 calories to maintain it. So you will probably feel hungry and/or deprived.

From the above article:

After these same patients lost weight, however, they manifested many behavioral and physiological alterations.6 They developed a marked preoccupation with food and dieting; and their physical and mental activity generally slowed down.7 Changes in our patients’ perception of the passage of time suggested that an internal clock had slowed.8 Their body image also became distorted. Weight-reduced patients who viewed photographs of themselves, and could “correct” their dimensions by means of a lens that distorted the image they observed, restored their thinned image to a larger one: their former obese state.9 Other physical signs and symptoms included slowing of heart rate, reduction of white blood cell count, intolerance to cold, and cessation of menstruation—all similar to the effects of starvation. To all appearances, our weight-reduced patients were experiencing starvation, although the level of caloric storage in adipose tissue had been reduced only to a supposedly normal level.

In short, maintenance is miserable, which is probably why most people can't do it.

So far the only mechanism that is known to permanently reset the hormonal and neural responsivity is bariatric surgery. I'm not willing to go that far yet as everyone I know who has done it has had major complications. I'm hitting it with drugs instead. But the problem with the drugs is once you get off the drugs, you're in the same boat as anyone in maintenance and likely to gain back. I suspect I'll be on a see-saw of drug regimen to control weight until some permanent solution comes along.

sijomial

maillemaker wrote: »

Here is an article by Dr. Jules Hirsch of Rockerfeller University Hospital:

http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39307

Here is an interesting passsage:

The body weight of an obese or nonobese person tends to remain constant. When the system for controlling fat storage is challenged by experimental over- or under-feeding, energy expenditure alters as a counter force “bucking” the change. The overfed person increases fat storage but burns more calories, which acts as a brake on further accumulation of fat mass. The reverse occurs with weight reduction; a decline in body fat storage leads to a decrease in the burning of calories.10 Although we have seen this regulation of caloric expenditure to maintain a “usual” level of fat storage, whether lean or obese, in every subject (more than 50) studied over recent years, we still cannot be certain that it occurs in every obese person forever, regardless of effort to lose or gain weight.

What the feck does it matter that another 5'8 woman needs more or less calories than I do to maintain or that I'm happy at a weight 30lbs more than her...makes no odds to me what other people need to do

The comparison to non-obese people is only to show the difference in metabolism, not to suggest that you need to be like other people.

Let's say that you need to eat 1200 calories to maintain your healthy weight. If you become obese, you must then of course eat fewer calories to get back down to that healthy weight. But once you get back down to that healthy weight, you no longer get to eat 1200 calories to maintain it. You now will probably have to eat only 1080 - 1020 calories to maintain it. So you will probably feel hungry and/or deprived.

From the above article:

After these same patients lost weight, however, they manifested many behavioral and physiological alterations.6 They developed a marked preoccupation with food and dieting; and their physical and mental activity generally slowed down.7 Changes in our patients’ perception of the passage of time suggested that an internal clock had slowed.8 Their body image also became distorted. Weight-reduced patients who viewed photographs of themselves, and could “correct” their dimensions by means of a lens that distorted the image they observed, restored their thinned image to a larger one: their former obese state.9 Other physical signs and symptoms included slowing of heart rate, reduction of white blood cell count, intolerance to cold, and cessation of menstruation—all similar to the effects of starvation. To all appearances, our weight-reduced patients were experiencing starvation, although the level of caloric storage in adipose tissue had been reduced only to a supposedly normal level.

In short, maintenance is miserable, which is probably why most people can't do it.

So far the only mechanism that is known to permanently reset the hormonal and neural responsivity is bariatric surgery. I'm not willing to go that far yet as everyone I know who has done it has had major complications. I'm hitting it with drugs instead. But the problem with the drugs is once you get off the drugs, you're in the same boat as anyone in maintenance and likely to gain back. I suspect I'll be on a see-saw of drug regimen to control weight until some permanent solution comes along.

Maintenance is miserable? Sorry but that is a load of cr@p.
I'm loving being at maintenance, after 40 years of having to constantly watch my weight, 20 years being fat I'm having a wonderful time at maintenance.
I'm fit, strong, healthy, most of my aches and pains have gone and I'm full of energy. If the price of that is eating a tiny bit less or moving a little bit more then it's well worth the trade off.

Frankly speaking why you are even thinking of maintenance is beyond me - you simply don't have your head in the game and are looking for reasons not to try.

Seriously you need to put all your analysis paralysis into finding the one thing that is both hard and very personal - adherence. What you are doing now clearly isn't working.

You admit you have problems with willpower so maybe you need to look at breaking your weight loss into phases? Alternate a month losing with a month maintaining?
Research intermittent fasting protocols - they tend to suit people who can be determined short term but struggle with the long haul.

My key to successful adherence was 5:2 - I found it fitted my personality, very determined on short term goals but easily bored with routine and long term restrictions.

PeachyCarol

maillemaker wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm wrong here and for using your post as a jumping off point for my blathering, but isn't the current discussion "one scientist said" and just assuming it to be universal truth?

Not at all. It is not just one scientist, and this is not all new information, though the picture is only slowly coming together, as is always the case with research.

The article from the medical journal The Lancet has four authors. The video is by Dr. Rudy Libel, who co-discovered the hormone Leptin with Dr. Jules Hirsch of Rockerfeller University Hospital. Another doctor who have spoken similarly on this topic are Dr. Sandra Aamodt.

These people are not hacks. Some of these people are heading up research departments at some of the most prestigious institutions in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Leibel

I urge you to invest an hour this weekend and watch the video. There are lots of interesting counter-bro-science nuggets in there besides the idea that the body responds defensively to fat loss. For example they demonstrate that in a strictly controlled laboratory setting diet composition (carbs vs. protein) has virtually no impact on body composition (though it can have an impact on hunger).

It also drives home the message of how critical it is to head off obesity in children because if it is correct that obesity causes permanent physiological damage then it must be avoided at all costs or you are setting yourself up for a lifetime battle.

I can't fathom the mindset of someone finding excuses for not getting somewhere while they're still on the journey.

If you got a flat tire every 100 miles you drove, it would be very important to figure out why you were getting flat tires so you could do something about it. It's also important to figure out if it's only you getting flat tires every 100 miles or if 80-90% of drivers are suffering the same fate. And once you figure it out, you can either yell at the tire for not being good enough, or you can take steps to solve the problem. But it's important to understand both the scope and the cause of the problem.

I'm reasonably convinced, based on the evidence, that there is probably some truth here to the idea that something biologically changes in us when we get fat. It appears that this effect may be long-lasting, or even permanent, at least for some people. All of this is probably an evolutionary mechanism designed to create and preserve fat stores when food resources were plentiful for times when they were not, created in times when food resources were almost never plentiful.

Is the picture fully complete yet? No. In the video Dr. Liebel points out that there are likely dozens of genes and hormones and brain receptors at play here, and very few of them are understood yet. Leptin clearly plays an important signalling role, but it probably does not play the only role. But the overall defensive nature of body fat stores does seem to hold generally true for most people. It may not hold true for all people.

And to all of that I say... so what?

Not one iota of what you said mitigates the fact that someone overweight can and should cut calories, modify their behavior and lose weight. That they can, through vigilant continued behavior modification and exercise maintain that loss. So they might have a harder time of it had they never been obese in the first place. So what?

You know what? I have 3 autoimmune diseases. It's harder for me to lose weight and it's not always ideal for me to exercise. I manage.

I still don't get why you just don't get to it and do what needs to be done with a positive outlook.

PeachyCarol

rabbitjb wrote: »

maillemaker wrote: »

So you are saying that a 6'0 male that was 350 pounds for 10 years and got down to 180 lbs would have to eat 20% less than if he was 6'0 tall and 250 pounds for 10 years and got down to 180 lbs?

No, I'm saying that a person who is was obese and gets down to 180 pounds would have to eat 15-20% less than a person who was never obese and weight 180 pounds.

Rather, that is what Dr. Rudy Libel, Dr. Christopher Ochneremail, et al say.

How long are you going to continue posting stuff about why people fail, why people fail at keeping it off and how it's not the individuals fault they fail as opposed to maybe taking all that "knowlege" you have about the "science" of why we fail and actually apply it so you can have success?

That is exactly what I am doing! I'm taking appetite suppressants to mitigate the increased hunger and eliminate willpower issues.

Once you understand the science behind the problem, you can take steps to address it.

May I ask, assuming that the science is proven and universally agreed which I will not even countenance at present, so what?

So a formerly obese person diets down to a healthy level. If they progressive weight-train to preserve as much muscle mass as possible on this journey they will limit the reduction in calories. If they then continue to be physically active and follow a progressive weight lifting programme they will continue to increase their calorific needs for maintenance and they will be an outlier on this 'scientific research' ...for clearly there must be a bell curve of results ..there always is

You see I live in my own body ...not someone else's

What the feck does it matter that another 5'8 woman needs more or less calories than I do to maintain or that I'm happy at a weight 30lbs more than her...makes no odds to me what other people need to do

It's just what I need to do

Why isn't it what you need to do?

I hadn't read this when I posted similar thoughts. Great minds and all that.

maillemaker

Can't sleep tonight, so I'm going over some of Dr. Liebel's more current research:

http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/223/1/T83.long

Ambient levels (of Leptin) below this concentration trigger hunger and energy conservation in response to centrally perceived critical diminution of body fat. Elevations above the threshold provoke little metabolic or behavioral response. The mechanism is designed to conserve body fat, as in evolutionary terms loss of fat has been a constant threat to fertility and survival. The threshold determines the minimum level of body fat tolerated by the individual. Below this level, ‘reported’ as reduced circulating leptin concentration, homeostatic responses are invoked to restore the fat. In obese individuals, the threshold is set higher than that in lean individuals. The responses of both lean and obese individuals to reductions below these different thresholds are similar if not identical. The threshold is not lowered by chronic maintenance of a reduced body weight (Leibel & Hirsch 1984, Rosenbaum et al. 2008a), but may be raised – in mice – by chronic maintenance of an elevated body weight (Ravussin et al. 2011).

This means that you can raise your set point for body fat but so far there is no known means to lower it.

In-patient and out-patient studies of individuals successful at sustaining weight loss for longer periods of time (>1 year) indicate that this metabolic opposition to keeping weight off does not abate over time (McGuire et al. 1999, Wing & Hill 2001, DelParigi et al. 2004, Wing & Phelan 2005, Rosenbaum et al. 2008a, Phelan et al. 2011, Sumithran et al. 2011).

Your body fighting to return to higher fat levels may be permanent.

Skeletal muscle is the primary effector organ for the disproportionate decline in energy expenditure that occurs in subjects maintaining a reduced body weight. The approximate 20% increase in skeletal muscle work efficiency during low level exercise (pedaling a bicycle to generate 10–25 W) that occurs following 10% weight loss by hypocaloric diet is of sufficient magnitude to account for ∼75% of the decline in non-resting energy expenditure (NREE) (Rosenbaum et al. 2003, Goldsmith et al. 2010).

Apparently your skeletal muscles become more efficient when fat stores decline, so and this accounts for most of the reduced calorie burning.

Systems regulating energy intake are also altered during reduced weight maintenance. Dietary weight-reduced and weight-stable subjects are hungry and show decreased perception of the amount of food eaten and delayed satiation (Kissileff et al. 2012) despite being in a state of energy balance. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of these subjects show increased activity in response to seeing food (vs non-food items) in brain areas related to the emotional and cognitive response to food (predominantly the orbitofrontal cortex) and decreased activity in brain areas related to emotional and cognitive control (restraint) in response to food (predominantly the prefrontal cortex), as well as decreased activity in the hypothalamus (Rosenbaum et al. 2008b).

Fat stores go down, hunger goes up.

The potency of this regulatory physiology – combining coordinate effects on both energy expenditure and drive to eat – is apparent in weight loss studies. Clinically, attempts to lose weight and keep it off are depressingly unsuccessful. In most studies, weight loss achieved by lifestyle intervention (Look AHEAD Research Group 2007, Foster et al. 2010, Wadden et al. 2011), pharmacotherapy (Franz et al. 2007, Ryan et al. 2010, Johansson et al. 2014), or bariatric surgery (Sjostrom 2013) persists for an average of ∼6–8 months and is then usually followed by gradual weight regain with substantial treatment-related variability in the degree of weight loss (surgery>pharmacotherapy>lifestyle intervention) and the proportion of the weight regained (surgery<pharmacotherapy<lifestyle intervention).

Surgery trumps drugs, which trumps lifestyle changes, both in terms of the amount of weight lost and the amount regained.

PeachyCarol

maillemaker wrote: »

Here is an article by Dr. Jules Hirsch of Rockerfeller University Hospital:

http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39307

Here is an interesting passsage:

The body weight of an obese or nonobese person tends to remain constant. When the system for controlling fat storage is challenged by experimental over- or under-feeding, energy expenditure alters as a counter force “bucking” the change. The overfed person increases fat storage but burns more calories, which acts as a brake on further accumulation of fat mass. The reverse occurs with weight reduction; a decline in body fat storage leads to a decrease in the burning of calories.10 Although we have seen this regulation of caloric expenditure to maintain a “usual” level of fat storage, whether lean or obese, in every subject (more than 50) studied over recent years, we still cannot be certain that it occurs in every obese person forever, regardless of effort to lose or gain weight.

What the feck does it matter that another 5'8 woman needs more or less calories than I do to maintain or that I'm happy at a weight 30lbs more than her...makes no odds to me what other people need to do

The comparison to non-obese people is only to show the difference in metabolism, not to suggest that you need to be like other people.

Let's say that you need to eat 1200 calories to maintain your healthy weight. If you become obese, you must then of course eat fewer calories to get back down to that healthy weight. But once you get back down to that healthy weight, you no longer get to eat 1200 calories to maintain it. You now will probably have to eat only 1080 - 1020 calories to maintain it. So you will probably feel hungry and/or deprived.

From the above article:

After these same patients lost weight, however, they manifested many behavioral and physiological alterations.6 They developed a marked preoccupation with food and dieting; and their physical and mental activity generally slowed down.7 Changes in our patients’ perception of the passage of time suggested that an internal clock had slowed.8 Their body image also became distorted. Weight-reduced patients who viewed photographs of themselves, and could “correct” their dimensions by means of a lens that distorted the image they observed, restored their thinned image to a larger one: their former obese state.9 Other physical signs and symptoms included slowing of heart rate, reduction of white blood cell count, intolerance to cold, and cessation of menstruation—all similar to the effects of starvation. To all appearances, our weight-reduced patients were experiencing starvation, although the level of caloric storage in adipose tissue had been reduced only to a supposedly normal level.

In short, maintenance is miserable, which is probably why most people can't do it.

So far the only mechanism that is known to permanently reset the hormonal and neural responsivity is bariatric surgery. I'm not willing to go that far yet as everyone I know who has done it has had major complications. I'm hitting it with drugs instead. But the problem with the drugs is once you get off the drugs, you're in the same boat as anyone in maintenance and likely to gain back. I suspect I'll be on a see-saw of drug regimen to control weight until some permanent solution comes along.

I'm not even finding dieting to be miserable, I highly doubt getting to eat more food will be miserable! In fact, I wonder how I'm going to eat more food. I have days now where I'm more hungry (days after I lift), and I know what it's like to be hungrier. I manage just fine.

Dude, you're shooting yourself in the foot in the starting gate. How do you expect to finish the race? More to the point... why are you even doing this?

maillemaker

Maintenance is miserable? Sorry but that is a load of cr@p.

Sorry, bro, the science backs me up. See the article I cited immediately above.

Weight loss triggers a cascade of physiological changes, including decreased metabolism, hunger, sensitivity to cold, delayed satiation, decreased perception of the amount of food eaten, and more.

And these effects may be permanent.

What you are doing now clearly isn't working.

What I'm doing now is working great. Drugs.

sijomial

maillemaker wrote: »

Can't sleep tonight, so I'm going over some of Dr. Liebel's more current research: blah blah blah

Maybe you would be better spending the time going for a walk instead of sitting on your *kitten* doing "research"?
Fix yourself before trying to fix other people.

PeachyCarol

maillemaker wrote: »

Maintenance is miserable? Sorry but that is a load of cr@p.

Sorry, bro, the science backs me up. See the article I cited immediately above.

Weight loss triggers a cascade of physiological changes, including decreased metabolism, hunger, sensitivity to cold, delayed satiation, decreased perception of the amount of food eaten, and more.

And these effects may be permanent.

What you are doing now clearly isn't working.

What I'm doing now is working great. Drugs.

You do realize that you're on a site filled with people on maintenance who DON'T experience those things?

sijomial

maillemaker wrote: »

Maintenance is miserable? Sorry but that is a load of cr@p.

Sorry, bro, the science backs me up. See the article I cited immediately above.

Weight loss triggers a cascade of physiological changes, including decreased metabolism, hunger, sensitivity to cold, delayed satiation, decreased perception of the amount of food eaten, and more.

And these effects may be permanent.

What you are doing now clearly isn't working.

What I'm doing now is working great. Drugs.

"Bro"? Can I be a bro at 55? Wow - will take that as a backhanded compliment.

Losing 14 pounds in two years when you are grossly overweight isn't my idea of "working great".

I honestly wish you well as you can be a lot happier and healthier but you simply have to make your mind up that you need to do this rather than look for reasons for failure.
Good luck.

Got to go now, I'm off to the gym with the other bros.

PMLeigh

Just eat healthy. Aim for being fit rather than loosing weight, that is my plan this time, let weight loss be the result not the process. Choose foods that are the most worthy, ie give what the body needs, ones you love the taste of, and allow you the most satisfaction from eating them while knowing the addition of all that day will be within your range of allowance. Then you have no "not allowed" foods, but you will stop choosing them as you know the satisfaction level of your intake will not be so high, your body also will end up with a wider range of foods if you are smart, including some treats and it will never suspect there is a shortage of food and go into famine mode. Now this is just my plan, after all the research I have done including the completion of the Syd Uni Dip in Weightloss. So I am not fully qualified to say my plan works until 2 years after I have lost the weight and kept it off. For all of the advise you are given, that should be a strong question, where is the person who has followed that and kept it off for over 2 years. Dr Amanda is one lady who pointed me in this direction, she wrote a book, the don't go hungry diet, and I think it is doable because there is no hard calculations and formulas to the process. Eat better & move more, aim to get healthy, and the weight comes off.

Sued0nim

sijomial wrote: »

maillemaker wrote: »

Can't sleep tonight, so I'm going over some of Dr. Liebel's more current research: blah blah blah

Maybe you would be better spending the time going for a walk instead of sitting on your *kitten* doing "research"?
Fix yourself before trying to fix other people.

QFT!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

maillemaker

"Hey man! Don't bother me with those medical journals! Go run or something!"

lulz. Love the science denialists.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Mr_Knight

KJensen34 wrote: »

...increasing my calories to lose more weight...

Great plan! :drinker:

After all, everybody knows the best way to gain weight is to eat less.

perseverance14

maillemaker wrote: »

Maintenance is miserable? Sorry but that is a load of cr@p.

Sorry, bro, the science backs me up. See the article I cited immediately above.

Weight loss triggers a cascade of physiological changes, including decreased metabolism, hunger, sensitivity to cold, delayed satiation, decreased perception of the amount of food eaten, and more.

And these effects may be permanent.

What you are doing now clearly isn't working.

What I'm doing now is working great. Drugs.

Really? I used to gain if I ate over 1500, back when I was obese, now I can eat 2000 or even over that and not gain...but now I lift weights and I also get some cardio (mostly walking). Your effects will definitely be permanent if you never do anything to change the situation.