Analyzing the data: what is most important for weight loss?
Replies
-
SophiaSerrao wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »
I guess that's the big question I was interested in answering. My data suggest that calories from sugar could lead to weight gain more than other calories. But, as others pointed out, this is correlational and only data for one person over 6 months. So I'd be interested in any other data people have to bring to bear on this.CICO, that is all.
Funny, I started tracking my sugar intake lately and kind of noticed the same thing. In my case too, sugar intake seems to really affect weight loss from day to day. It kind of sucks, becasuse I'm finding sugar to be present in everything... but I'd rather know than ignore! However, the sugar I consume is from fruits and dairy, so I'm not worrying about it too much. I'm hoping it won't affect the overall trend
It's not the sugar!
Weight loss day to day is not an appropriate measure ....bodyweight fluctuates with sodium, hormones, exercise
Again there is a basic failure in understanding how to use the data available
Just because you can add X and Y doesn't mean you should and you certainly shouldn't draw conclusions from doing so0 -
Consistent REASONABLE calorie deficit.
end thread.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
onelentilatatime wrote: »Would love to hear from anyone who has done (or seen) similar analyses
For me it's exercise - if I go below a minimum threshold, my deficits tend to go *poof* in a binge of non-adherence.
0 -
SophiaSerrao wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »
I guess that's the big question I was interested in answering. My data suggest that calories from sugar could lead to weight gain more than other calories. But, as others pointed out, this is correlational and only data for one person over 6 months. So I'd be interested in any other data people have to bring to bear on this.CICO, that is all.
Funny, I started tracking my sugar intake lately and kind of noticed the same thing. In my case too, sugar intake seems to really affect weight loss from day to day. It kind of sucks, becasuse I'm finding sugar to be present in everything... but I'd rather know than ignore! However, the sugar I consume is from fruits and dairy, so I'm not worrying about it too much. I'm hoping it won't affect the overall trend
It's not the sugar!
Weight loss day to day is not an appropriate measure ....bodyweight fluctuates with sodium, hormones, exercise
Okay, okay... That's pretty much what I'm saying, anyway. I just discovered sugar intake to affect the day to day progress (just like sodium, which I knew about), but I suppose it doesn't affect the overall weight loss. It's just observations.. Cheers!
0 -
Calories mapped against weight loss over time 0
-
onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
The problem is the work I'm doing this week won't show this week. It might take a week or two for the deficit I create now to kick in.
You can't look at it like: If I'm in a 3500 calorie deficit for this week, by Sunday, I'll have lost a pound. That's just not how this works. For me, I really only lose weight about one week a month - the rest of the time, I'm the same weight. I lose a lot in that week so it averages out to a predictable, healthy rate of loss.
You might see an immediate stall/slight gain if you have a high sugar day, but that's likely water weight (from the carbs) and not actual fat gain.
You really have to examine overall trends, not week to week trends.0 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »
Err no the OPs attempt at analysis is so deeply flawed and full of stupid, that its obviously going to get him into trouble, leading him to unproven and wrong conclusions. Hence I suggested he not become an analyst. If the analysis he presented made some valid or insightful points, then it might be worth debating over but instead the way he has gone about it is just depressing. the difference between correlation and causation being a point in hand.
I dont have anything against analysis for my sins I used to be one and my woprk still involves a substantial amount of analytical work. If I presented a report with the conclusions that have been made then it wouldnt have gone down well at all. One persons record keeping isnt much to be basing anything on and presenting it as a theory.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
The problem is the work I'm doing this week won't show this week. It might take a week or two for the deficit I create now to kick in.
You can't look at it like: If I'm in a 3500 calorie deficit for this week, by Sunday, I'll have lost a pound. That's just not how this works. For me, I really only lose weight about one week a month - the rest of the time, I'm the same weight. I lose a lot in that week so it averages out to a predictable, healthy rate of loss.
You might see an immediate stall/slight gain if you have a high sugar day, but that's likely water weight (from the carbs) and not actual fat gain.
You really have to examine overall trends, not week to week trends.
And even more, not day to day trends.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
onelentilatatime wrote: »I just analyzed 6 months of data to understand what leads to the largest weight loss in a given week. I found that four factors were important. Here they are in order of importance:
1) Last week's weight loss (if you lost a lot of weight last week it's harder to lose this week)
This would support the "whoosh" hypothesis of fat cell depletion.2) Consistency - more important than total calories (or net calories) was - How many days net calories come below maintenance calorie target
This would support the "water weight through glycogen replenishment" that would come with less inter-day consistency.3) Binging is bad, even if I compensated the next day (the measure was the maximum calorie intake on any given day)
As above.4) Sugar intake
Would need to decouple this one from the above two - if sugar intake upticks correlate with inconsistent deficits, then 2-4 are likely different aspects of the same thing.
0 -
The problem is that you haven't (and probably can't without tools you don't have easily available) analyzed changes based on fat loss vs. changes based on water fluctuations.
For example, you conclude that binging outweighs actual net calories. But there are some obvious possible explanations: One is that binging is associated with increases in refined carbs or sodium, both of which cause water retention. A second is that it could lead to stomach upset and related issues on average. A third (okay, if you were a woman, so consider this just a hypothetical) could be that binging is more likely to occur at certain times of the month which happen to correspond with water retention or slower weight loss/weight gain.
One thing I noticed in analyzing my own results was that until I was quite close to goal I lost pretty consistently and never experienced a whoosh, but I did almost always have two weeks in the month (immediately after my TOM began, which is the opposite of many) where I lost really well--more than my average--and two other weeks where I lost less well, with the worst loss almost always coming the week before TOM.
Oddly enough, the pattern continued but got less significant as I got closer to goal, and was replaced with some whooshing--2-3 weeks of nothing and then a 1.5-2 lb loss when I was only losing on average about .75 lbs. There was nothing of note about my eating or exercise within the weeks to explain the differences.
Another thing I've noticed is that if a take a "deload" week or simply am super busy and miss workouts and exercise less but also adjust my calories (as when I was eating back exercise) that I tend to lose extra well. When I first add a new exercise or increase the intensity of my exercise routine I tend to loss less. This happens even when the change is more cardio, not simply with weights. (But I certainly would not conclude the exercise did not help me lose or was not important for increasing fitness and motivation, etc.)
I think trying to come up with an explanation for why we lose more in one week than another despite consistent calories and exercise is usually an exercise in futility, although I agree it can be interesting. You have to accept that sometimes it just happens and not assume that you did something right or wrong and that otherwise fluctuations would not happen. They just do.0 -
onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
I think you can focus less on analysis and more on a caloric deficit. This may also explain why you are here trying to lose the same 50 pounds. . .for the 3rd time. At least this is what you have written on your profile.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
I think you can focus less on analysis and more on a caloric deficit. This may also explain why you are here trying to lose the same 50 pounds. . .for the 3rd time. At least this is what you have written on your profile.
Man, you guys can be really agressive to someone who only took the time to provide what he thought would be a helpful insight. Jeez... I mean, he wasn't even a prick about it.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
SophiaSerrao wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
I think you can focus less on analysis and more on a caloric deficit. This may also explain why you are here trying to lose the same 50 pounds. . .for the 3rd time. At least this is what you have written on your profile.
Man, you guys can be really agressive to someone who only took the time to provide what he thought would be a helpful insight. Jeez... I mean, he wasn't even a prick about it.
It's great that he tried to help but that does not mean false information slides unchallenged just because he was nice about it.
It's not the challenging of the information that bothers me, not at all, it's the aggressiveness of it. The hostility. The mocking. I genuinely wouldn't treat a nice person that way. Not even at my moodiest. But whatever. Different folks, different strokes.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Aggressive?!? He wrote on his profile he failed at losing the same 50 pounds. . .twice. Paralysis of analysis isn't something to be slighted. Focus on a deficit, lose weight. Simple. Boring and non-dramatic but simple, measurable, and honestly the only analysis you need.SophiaSerrao wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
I think you can focus less on analysis and more on a caloric deficit. This may also explain why you are here trying to lose the same 50 pounds. . .for the 3rd time. At least this is what you have written on your profile.
Man, you guys can be really agressive to someone who only took the time to provide what he thought would be a helpful insight. Jeez... I mean, he wasn't even a prick about it.0 -
SophiaSerrao wrote: »SophiaSerrao wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
I think you can focus less on analysis and more on a caloric deficit. This may also explain why you are here trying to lose the same 50 pounds. . .for the 3rd time. At least this is what you have written on your profile.
Man, you guys can be really agressive to someone who only took the time to provide what he thought would be a helpful insight. Jeez... I mean, he wasn't even a prick about it.
It's great that he tried to help but that does not mean false information slides unchallenged just because he was nice about it.
It's not the challenging of the information that bothers me, not at all, it's the aggressiveness of it. The hostility. The mocking. I genuinely wouldn't treat a nice person that way. Not even at my moodiest. But whatever. Different folks, different strokes.
Nothing aggressive about his own data. Facts are just those, facts. No hostility. No mocking. They are his facts. If he wants to lose 50 pounds for the last time he will have a greater success just eating at a deficit and learning how and what to do to avoid the behaviors so he does not repeat the pattern.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »SophiaSerrao wrote: »SophiaSerrao wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
I think you can focus less on analysis and more on a caloric deficit. This may also explain why you are here trying to lose the same 50 pounds. . .for the 3rd time. At least this is what you have written on your profile.
Man, you guys can be really agressive to someone who only took the time to provide what he thought would be a helpful insight. Jeez... I mean, he wasn't even a prick about it.
It's great that he tried to help but that does not mean false information slides unchallenged just because he was nice about it.
It's not the challenging of the information that bothers me, not at all, it's the aggressiveness of it. The hostility. The mocking. I genuinely wouldn't treat a nice person that way. Not even at my moodiest. But whatever. Different folks, different strokes.
Nothing aggressive about his own data. Facts are just those, facts. No hostility. No mocking. They are his facts. If he wants to lose 50 pounds for the last time he will have a greater success just eating at a deficit and learning how and what to do to avoid the behaviors so he does not repeat the pattern.
That's what his analysis is showing him how to do.
0 -
0
-
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »You may be overthinking this.*
That's what works for some people.
Doesn't work for other people.
It's all good...
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »SophiaSerrao wrote: »SophiaSerrao wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
I think you can focus less on analysis and more on a caloric deficit. This may also explain why you are here trying to lose the same 50 pounds. . .for the 3rd time. At least this is what you have written on your profile.
Man, you guys can be really agressive to someone who only took the time to provide what he thought would be a helpful insight. Jeez... I mean, he wasn't even a prick about it.
It's great that he tried to help but that does not mean false information slides unchallenged just because he was nice about it.
It's not the challenging of the information that bothers me, not at all, it's the aggressiveness of it. The hostility. The mocking. I genuinely wouldn't treat a nice person that way. Not even at my moodiest. But whatever. Different folks, different strokes.
Nothing aggressive about his own data. Facts are just those, facts. No hostility. No mocking. They are his facts. If he wants to lose 50 pounds for the last time he will have a greater success just eating at a deficit and learning how and what to do to avoid the behaviors so he does not repeat the pattern.
I agree with what you're saying, but, truth be told: you came off as a prick to me. Mentioning that it's the third time he tries to lose the same 50 pounds.... which he didn't even tell us about in this thread, you saw it in his profile! (Public, yes. Still. Low blow.)
Buuuut, as the other member said: it is what it is. (My life motto, by the way, for real )
...I'm probably coming off as a righteous drama queen to y'all, lol.
A nice Sunday to all! = )0 -
This content has been removed.
-
No. Just no.
Why are you making this so complicated?
0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »
How many days net calories come below maintenance calorie target
This is the only thing important for weight loss
BAM!0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »You may be overthinking this.*
That's what works for some people.
Doesn't work for other people.
It's all good...
You seem to use this quote quite a bit. Isn't this pretty much 'not one size fits all'? Or maybe not. . . then again. . .
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »You may be overthinking this.*
That's what works for some people.
Doesn't work for other people.
It's all good...
You seem to use this quote quite a bit. Isn't this pretty much 'not one size fits all'? Or maybe not. . . then again. . .
One size doesn't fit all, even with CICO. The underlying principle of CICO is, of course, rooted in the physical world and inviolable....because science etc. But there are many, many paths to actually getting to a place where someone can put CICO into successful practice for their own context.
Successful weight loss is a poster child for "Easy in theory, hard in practice".
If the OP needs a spreadsheet and a graph to internalize the non-linearity of whooshing and weight loss...it's totally cool.
:drinker:
0 -
SophiaSerrao wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »SophiaSerrao wrote: »SophiaSerrao wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »onelentilatatime wrote: »Your analysis doesn't make sense to me
Calorie defecits work over time and weight loss is not linear so analysing by single days seems redundant
Well, my analysis was for calories, nutrients over the course of a week. I could do it for 2 weeks at I time I guess, but harder to make the case for how calories you ate 2 weeks ago affect how much weight you lose this week.
I think you can focus less on analysis and more on a caloric deficit. This may also explain why you are here trying to lose the same 50 pounds. . .for the 3rd time. At least this is what you have written on your profile.
Man, you guys can be really agressive to someone who only took the time to provide what he thought would be a helpful insight. Jeez... I mean, he wasn't even a prick about it.
It's great that he tried to help but that does not mean false information slides unchallenged just because he was nice about it.
It's not the challenging of the information that bothers me, not at all, it's the aggressiveness of it. The hostility. The mocking. I genuinely wouldn't treat a nice person that way. Not even at my moodiest. But whatever. Different folks, different strokes.
Nothing aggressive about his own data. Facts are just those, facts. No hostility. No mocking. They are his facts. If he wants to lose 50 pounds for the last time he will have a greater success just eating at a deficit and learning how and what to do to avoid the behaviors so he does not repeat the pattern.
I agree with what you're saying, but, truth be told: you came off as a prick to me. Mentioning that it's the third time he tries to lose the same 50 pounds.... which he didn't even tell us about in this thread, you saw it in his profile! (Public, yes. Still. Low blow.)
Buuuut, as the other member said: it is what it is. (My life motto, by the way, for real )
...I'm probably coming off as a righteous drama queen to y'all, lol.
A nice Sunday to all! = )
I don't know you, and how I come off to you is well, your opinion. More then entitled to it. And since I do not know you - - ->righteous and drama and queen may be extreme. I read the opening of the thread and then realized I ought to check the profile. It saves a lot of frustration. I am glad he has it open and posts where he is. It does help with the oh so difficult task of an internet conversation. Some people provide context and others avoid it. Either way, if they want help, placing things in context help since I can't hear their voice inflection, see their body language and facial expression, etc. Too many times on MFP people avoid just answering questions to help get to where they want to go.
- And finally, yes, have an enjoyable Sunday.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »You may be overthinking this.*
That's what works for some people.
Doesn't work for other people.
It's all good...
You seem to use this quote quite a bit. Isn't this pretty much 'not one size fits all'? Or maybe not. . . then again. . .
One size doesn't fit all, even with CICO. The underlying principle of CICO is, of course, rooted in the physical world and inviolable....because science etc. But there are many, many paths to actually getting to a place where someone can put CICO into successful practice for their own context.
Successful weight loss is a poster child for "Easy in theory, hard in practice".
If the OP needs a spreadsheet and a graph to internalize the non-linearity of whooshing and weight loss...it's totally cool.
:drinker:
Actually, I think your post is pretty cool also.
and I agree. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions