Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »New York Times story details that a study of Biggest Loser contestants found they regained much of the weight they lost and ruined their metabolism -- all had metabolisms that burned much less than a person their weight should have been burning.
So, OK, it is CICO, but if you're overweight and trying to lose weight, it may mean that your calories in is a lot lower than your calculated BMR or TDEE. So the question is, how do we get our BMR really tested....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
This study debunks the popular myth that metabolism isn't slowed by dieting.
For people who ate an aggressively low number of calories while doing an aggressively high amount of exercise for an extended period of time, yes. Not the conditions the average person diets under.
My body fights to put back weight and I have never eaten aggressively lower than 1200 calories while exercising for an extended time. I'm happy you don't experience this. I struggle to lose pounds and my body seriously wants to put them back as soon as I go back to maintenance mode. It is a battle! Now I actively diet just to stay at maintenance weight, so I feel like I am always dieting. My Body Used To Work INTUITUVELY to maintain. Now I must force it to maintain at my new and lower weight.
This is interesting, and I'm curious what precisely you mean. When you say your body "fights" do you mean you are hungry? Or just that you easily regain when not watching calories? That you think you gain on fewer calories than you should (so that you have had metabolic adaptation)? Have you done the math to see if your TDEE has changed beyond what would be expected over time?
I used to be able to maintain at an acceptable weight without thinking about it at all, and now I cannot, but I don't think the reason is physical. I think it has to do with activity and environment. (And when I'm active and mindful I tend to be able to maintain okay, although if I let one or the other drop I can put back on weight quite easily.)
We have such different experiences that I realize I couldn't possibly explain this sufficiently to satisfy you.
How much weight do you put back on when you transition to maintenance because a few lbs is going to be common. With an increase is calories, you generally also have an increase in carbs (more glycogen), may have more sodium (more water) and greater volume (more waste).
If you were doing 1200 calories and exercise for a good period of time, you could possible have suppressed your resting metabolic rate and lowered your projected or average TDEE. This is one reason to slowly increase calories when going to maintenance.0 -
I don't think carbs are bad. I love carbs! I wish I could be like my 2 vegetarian friends whose diets consist of 80% carbs. They are both believers in eating whole foods, as it turns out. They are both incredible healthy.
Unfortunately I am insulin resistant. I know this because I see an endocrinologist and have had tests which bear this out. I feel better and lose weight more easily on about 60 net g carbs per day.
I am curious...several people on this thread seem to be bent on categorizing one's approach as high this or low that...what category would I fit into? Not that it will make a bit of difference, because I am going to eat what works best for me, regardless of the arbitrary categories that are being discussed. But I have to admit, all this labeling & categorizing has peaked my curiosity. What would a 1200 calorie diet with 65g fat, 60g net carbs, and 90g protein be labeled as?1 -
@lemurcat12 It sounds as if a number of different macro ratios work well for you. I am guessing you didn't experience dry skin, hair loss, constipation, or stupidity on a low fat diet. How many grams of fat were you eating per day? What exactly is a low fat diet, anyway. In fact what the heck are the parameters for low, moderate, and high in each of the macro categories. Is there a resource? This topic is being discussed ad nauseum on numerous threads and I just realized I really don't know the parameters that constitute low or high.0
-
KetoneKaren wrote: »I don't think carbs are bad. I love carbs! I wish I could be like my 2 vegetarian friends whose diets consist of 80% carbs. They are both believers in eating whole foods, as it turns out. They are both incredible healthy.
Unfortunately I am insulin resistant. I know this because I see an endocrinologist and have had tests which bear this out. I feel better and lose weight more easily on about 60 net g carbs per day.
I am curious...several people on this thread seem to be bent on categorizing one's approach as high this or low that...what category would I fit into? Not that it will make a bit of difference, because I am going to eat what works best for me, regardless of the arbitrary categories that are being discussed. But I have to admit, all this labeling & categorizing has peaked my curiosity. What would a 1200 calorie diet with 65g fat, 60g net carbs, and 90g protein be labeled as?
With a name like ketone Karen, I just assumed you were keto. You're eating about 80g (I'm assuming you get around 20ish g of fiber, but that may be an overestimate) of total carbs, so I'd say you're pretty moderate.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »New York Times story details that a study of Biggest Loser contestants found they regained much of the weight they lost and ruined their metabolism -- all had metabolisms that burned much less than a person their weight should have been burning.
So, OK, it is CICO, but if you're overweight and trying to lose weight, it may mean that your calories in is a lot lower than your calculated BMR or TDEE. So the question is, how do we get our BMR really tested....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
This study debunks the popular myth that metabolism isn't slowed by dieting.
For people who ate an aggressively low number of calories while doing an aggressively high amount of exercise for an extended period of time, yes. Not the conditions the average person diets under.
My body fights to put back weight and I have never eaten aggressively lower than 1200 calories while exercising for an extended time. I'm happy you don't experience this. I struggle to lose pounds and my body seriously wants to put them back as soon as I go back to maintenance mode. It is a battle! Now I actively diet just to stay at maintenance weight, so I feel like I am always dieting. My Body Used To Work INTUITUVELY to maintain. Now I must force it to maintain at my new and lower weight.
This is interesting, and I'm curious what precisely you mean. When you say your body "fights" do you mean you are hungry? Or just that you easily regain when not watching calories? That you think you gain on fewer calories than you should (so that you have had metabolic adaptation)? Have you done the math to see if your TDEE has changed beyond what would be expected over time?
I used to be able to maintain at an acceptable weight without thinking about it at all, and now I cannot, but I don't think the reason is physical. I think it has to do with activity and environment. (And when I'm active and mindful I tend to be able to maintain okay, although if I let one or the other drop I can put back on weight quite easily.)
We have such different experiences that I realize I couldn't possibly explain this sufficiently to satisfy you.
My impression is that you have some distorted idea of what my experience is. But I admit I'm curious. You seem to think it's super easy for me, and much harder for you.4 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »I don't think carbs are bad. I love carbs! I wish I could be like my 2 vegetarian friends whose diets consist of 80% carbs. They are both believers in eating whole foods, as it turns out. They are both incredible healthy.
Unfortunately I am insulin resistant. I know this because I see an endocrinologist and have had tests which bear this out. I feel better and lose weight more easily on about 60 net g carbs per day.
I am curious...several people on this thread seem to be bent on categorizing one's approach as high this or low that...what category would I fit into? Not that it will make a bit of difference, because I am going to eat what works best for me, regardless of the arbitrary categories that are being discussed. But I have to admit, all this labeling & categorizing has peaked my curiosity. What would a 1200 calorie diet with 65g fat, 60g net carbs, and 90g protein be labeled as?
I'm not "bent on it," but I'd think of that as moderately high fat, low carb.
When I did 1250 I was lower carb (in my view) too -- around 45 g fat, 100 g carbs, 110 g protein as my goals, although it varied some and I mostly cared about protein. When I started having enough exercise calories to eat more like 1500+ on average, I went to 40-30-30 (or about 150 g carbs, 112 g protein, 50 g fat). Now at maintenance it's more like the MFP default -- 50-20-30, although I'm often a bit low on carbs and high on the other too naturally.1 -
Over time I have had to eat less to continue losing. I have to eat about 250 less per day now to maintain the same amount of weight loss. This is pretty widely known.0
-
I've also heard people on the Biggest Loser were encouraged to do speed and stuff to lose faster for television purposes.0
-
KetoneKaren wrote: »@lemurcat12 It sounds as if a number of different macro ratios work well for you. I am guessing you didn't experience dry skin, hair loss, constipation, or stupidity on a low fat diet. How many grams of fat were you eating per day? What exactly is a low fat diet, anyway. In fact what the heck are the parameters for low, moderate, and high in each of the macro categories. Is there a resource? This topic is being discussed ad nauseum on numerous threads and I just realized I really don't know the parameters that constitute low or high.
Low fat is normally considered under 30%, although very low fat diets like those promoted by people like Ornish and some of the others discussed by Denise Minger in the piece I linked and its sequel are more like 10%.
When I did low fat I wasn't counting precisely (not calories either, although I lost weight easily), but I was eating a lot less fat than when I subsequently did 45 g on 1250. I'd estimate it was like 20%. I suppose I could log some sample days to get a better sense.1 -
Oh, and I agree that a number of different macros work well for me. I find that food choice within the macros makes a lot more difference for me than how much fat vs. carbs I get (I do find that keeping protein around 100 g is helpful).1
-
@auddii I was trying to change my name and a number of options came up on a name finder. I chose several and most of them had been taken. I picked this one and voila could not change it again...my mistake...having said that, I do dip in & out of ketosis, I am sure, as I try to eat mainly protein & fat in the morning & more of my carbs in the evening because it works with my morning insulin resistance better. I don't actually test with the strips but I assume that there are times when I am in ketosis. Makes no difference to me one way or the other.0
-
OK so @lemurcat12 do you mind my asking how many calories you eat on maintenance? If that's too nosy, don't fret. I am just trying to get a grip on what someone who started out around the same calories I am on eats on maintenance.0
-
Wow a 10% fat diet would be 120 calories or 13 grams of fat a day. Ugh. 30% would be about 40g and that wouldn't be so bad. I guess I was on approximately 15%, then, when I was on low fat diet. It was too low for me, I didn't feel well.0
-
I do a lot of cardio and live in a city so walk a good amount in daily life, and can maintain on around 2200 with that.
When I started my maintenance was probably around the same, but I was much more sedentary, so I was lucky enough to be able to raise my calories throughout the time I was losing.0 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »Over time I have had to eat less to continue losing. I have to eat about 250 less per day now to maintain the same amount of weight loss. This is pretty widely known.
You would certainly have a decrease in metabolic functions and maybe have a decrease in NEAT/TEA, but it's not always true. Whether I was 220 or 175 (current), I have always maintained at 3000 calories. Even if my metabolic functions have decreased, I increase expenditure through harder exercise (I have always worked out for 5-6 hours per week, so it would be the fact that I push myself harder) and more daily movements.0 -
@lemurcat12 that is exactly what I have in mind, going to up my exercise from 4-5 Jazzercise sessions a week by adding some StrongLifts & daily walking. My job involves being on my feet all day, so that helps some.1
-
I feel like I'm the only person who got lost in the thread when you guys started using acronyms. TDEE? MDA, MBA, MFAA, TDLFGHAFOWE WTF?3
-
seekingdaintiness wrote: »Over time I have had to eat less to continue losing. I have to eat about 250 less per day now to maintain the same amount of weight loss. This is pretty widely known.
You would certainly have a decrease in metabolic functions and maybe have a decrease in NEAT/TEA, but it's not always true. Whether I was 220 or 175 (current), I have always maintained at 3000 calories. Even if my metabolic functions have decreased, I increase expenditure through harder exercise (I have always worked out for 5-6 hows, so it would be the fact that I push myself harder) and more daily movements.
You work out 5 or 6 hours every day? Wow! Are you a personal trainer or something of that nature?
0 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »seekingdaintiness wrote: »Over time I have had to eat less to continue losing. I have to eat about 250 less per day now to maintain the same amount of weight loss. This is pretty widely known.
You would certainly have a decrease in metabolic functions and maybe have a decrease in NEAT/TEA, but it's not always true. Whether I was 220 or 175 (current), I have always maintained at 3000 calories. Even if my metabolic functions have decreased, I increase expenditure through harder exercise (I have always worked out for 5-6 hows, so it would be the fact that I push myself harder) and more daily movements.
You work out 5 or 6 hours every day? Wow! Are you a personal trainer or something of that nature?
Sorry, I edited my post. I workout 5-6 hours a week. I have a desk job actually.0 -
TDEE=total daily energy expenditure, basically maintenance calories including all activity.
NEAT=I forget what it stands for, but maintenance without intentional exercise but including other daily activity
BMR=basel metabolic rate, or in other words maintenance if you did not move at all but were lying in bed all day with only bodily functions to burn calories
RMR=resting metabolic rate, similar to BMR but more like you are sitting around only vs. in a coma1 -
violajunerose wrote: »I feel like I'm the only person who got lost in the thread when you guys started using acronyms. TDEE? MDA, MBA, MFAA, TDLFGHAFOWE WTF?
TDEE = total daily energy expenditure. This is the level of calories that you maintain at or the average number of calories you burn in a day.
NEAT = Non-exercise activity thermogensis - the calories you burn in daily activity outside of exercise (i.e. - walking to your car, making food, etc..)
TEF = Thermal effect of food - calories burned through digestion
TEA = Thermal effect of activity - exercise calories.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TDEE=total daily energy expenditure, basically maintenance calories including all activity.
NEAT=I forget what it stands for, but maintenance without intentional exercise but including other daily activity
BMR=basel metabolic rate, or in other words maintenance if you did not move at all but were lying in bed all day with only bodily functions to burn calories
RMR=resting metabolic rate, similar to BMR but more like you are sitting around only vs. in a coma
LOL... two of a kind.0 -
violajunerose wrote: »I feel like I'm the only person who got lost in the thread when you guys started using acronyms. TDEE? MDA, MBA, MFAA, TDLFGHAFOWE WTF?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1069278/acronyms-and-terms-for-new-mfp-members-v-6/p10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I also found this series quite interesting (I've linked it before): https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/
On the whole I think macro choice is going to be individual, although I do agree with those who find the Blue Zones compelling evidence against the idea (annoyingly preached by some) that carbs are bad and we should all be low carb.
Did no one else read this link? Waiting for the passionate low-carbers to respond...1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Hell big pharma is the reason why insulin shots exist.
NOPE, the man who won the Nobel for isolating insulin, Dr. Banting, gave his patent away for free because he believed this life-saving drug should be available to everyone who needed it. Big Pharma is the reason new (but not necessarily more effective) versions of insulin are constantly created when patents run out so that they can keep the prices as high as possible.
Insulin is an amazing drug for type 1 diabetics. It's the reason two of my immediate family members are still alive today. Insulin, however, is a horrible treatment for type 2 diabetics, and does nothing to cure the root cause of their disease, but instead exacerbates it.
Lantus was #6 in the top 10 most profitable drugs in 2014, grossing 7.28 billion. http://qz.com/349929/best-selling-drugs-in-the-world/
The diabetes epidemic is nothing but good news to the only 3 companies in the US that produce insulin: Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. With that kind of money on the line, do you think they would be careless enough to share nutrition advice that actually enabled people to prevent their potential or stop their current use of insulin?
That nutrition advice is confusing garbage for good reason.
@psulemon
Searching through the web you can find so many examples of people who stopped T2 diabetes in its tracks by not listening to the stupid ADA, and not listening to their stupid doctor. They simply cut out refined sugar, fruit juice and grains from their diet, limited fruit consumption, and Voila! - no T2 diabetes.
But without funding from Big Pharma, the ADA would be mostly out of business. So they recommend a too-high carb diet, which keeps people or makes people diabetic. It is criminal, and it is a disgrace.
And if you watch cable news, you are inundated with the latest and greatest diabetes drug. And next year there will be another one that reduces blood sugars 1% more than the current one.
Dr. Banting is rolling in his grave.
Totally agree. It's an utter disgrace. The vast majority of people are totally clueless. Even diabetes educators at the hospital know that the ketogenic diet works so much better for T2DM, but their hands are tied and they aren't allowed to teach it. ADA guidelines are taught to protect medicare/medicaid reimbursement.2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Hell big pharma is the reason why insulin shots exist.
NOPE, the man who won the Nobel for isolating insulin, Dr. Banting, gave his patent away for free because he believed this life-saving drug should be available to everyone who needed it. Big Pharma is the reason new (but not necessarily more effective) versions of insulin are constantly created when patents run out so that they can keep the prices as high as possible.
Insulin is an amazing drug for type 1 diabetics. It's the reason two of my immediate family members are still alive today. Insulin, however, is a horrible treatment for type 2 diabetics, and does nothing to cure the root cause of their disease, but instead exacerbates it.
Lantus was #6 in the top 10 most profitable drugs in 2014, grossing 7.28 billion. http://qz.com/349929/best-selling-drugs-in-the-world/
The diabetes epidemic is nothing but good news to the only 3 companies in the US that produce insulin: Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. With that kind of money on the line, do you think they would be careless enough to share nutrition advice that actually enabled people to prevent their potential or stop their current use of insulin?
That nutrition advice is confusing garbage for good reason.
@psulemon
Searching through the web you can find so many examples of people who stopped T2 diabetes in its tracks by not listening to the stupid ADA, and not listening to their stupid doctor. They simply cut out refined sugar, fruit juice and grains from their diet, limited fruit consumption, and Voila! - no T2 diabetes.
But without funding from Big Pharma, the ADA would be mostly out of business. So they recommend a too-high carb diet, which keeps people or makes people diabetic. It is criminal, and it is a disgrace.
And if you watch cable news, you are inundated with the latest and greatest diabetes drug. And next year there will be another one that reduces blood sugars 1% more than the current one.
Dr. Banting is rolling in his grave.
Totally agree. It's an utter disgrace. The vast majority of people are totally clueless. Even diabetes educators at the hospital know that the ketogenic diet works so much better for T2DM, but their hands are tied and they aren't allowed to teach it. ADA guidelines are taught to protect medicare/medicaid reimbursement.
Hogwash7 -
queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Hell big pharma is the reason why insulin shots exist.
NOPE, the man who won the Nobel for isolating insulin, Dr. Banting, gave his patent away for free because he believed this life-saving drug should be available to everyone who needed it. Big Pharma is the reason new (but not necessarily more effective) versions of insulin are constantly created when patents run out so that they can keep the prices as high as possible.
Insulin is an amazing drug for type 1 diabetics. It's the reason two of my immediate family members are still alive today. Insulin, however, is a horrible treatment for type 2 diabetics, and does nothing to cure the root cause of their disease, but instead exacerbates it.
Lantus was #6 in the top 10 most profitable drugs in 2014, grossing 7.28 billion. http://qz.com/349929/best-selling-drugs-in-the-world/
The diabetes epidemic is nothing but good news to the only 3 companies in the US that produce insulin: Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. With that kind of money on the line, do you think they would be careless enough to share nutrition advice that actually enabled people to prevent their potential or stop their current use of insulin?
That nutrition advice is confusing garbage for good reason.
@psulemon
Searching through the web you can find so many examples of people who stopped T2 diabetes in its tracks by not listening to the stupid ADA, and not listening to their stupid doctor. They simply cut out refined sugar, fruit juice and grains from their diet, limited fruit consumption, and Voila! - no T2 diabetes.
But without funding from Big Pharma, the ADA would be mostly out of business. So they recommend a too-high carb diet, which keeps people or makes people diabetic. It is criminal, and it is a disgrace.
And if you watch cable news, you are inundated with the latest and greatest diabetes drug. And next year there will be another one that reduces blood sugars 1% more than the current one.
Dr. Banting is rolling in his grave.
Totally agree. It's an utter disgrace. The vast majority of people are totally clueless. Even diabetes educators at the hospital know that the ketogenic diet works so much better for T2DM, but their hands are tied and they aren't allowed to teach it. ADA guidelines are taught to protect medicare/medicaid reimbursement.
Hogwash
Get a clue.... and you already mentioned you work for Big Pharma, so... I'm not surprised.0 -
That is true about diabetes educators not being able to teach what they know to be true. My endocrinologist has verified this. He does his own teaching.0
-
annaskiski wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I also found this series quite interesting (I've linked it before): https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/
On the whole I think macro choice is going to be individual, although I do agree with those who find the Blue Zones compelling evidence against the idea (annoyingly preached by some) that carbs are bad and we should all be low carb.
Did no one else read this link? Waiting for the passionate low-carbers to respond...
Alas! I am in the swampland...
0 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »That is true about diabetes educators not being able to teach what they know to be true. My endocrinologist has verified this. He does his own teaching.
Yes, I work side by side with these people. I talk to them every day. I even talked to the educator 3 years ago when I first found out about the ketogenic diet--to make sure I wasn't going to kill myself! (I'll admit, eating butter the first few times was scary). Now I'm down almost 30 lbs from where I was after having my last baby, and in the best health of my life. I get comments almost daily from strangers who think I am the babysitter to my 4 children, or from patients who can't believe I've even had kids. People think I'm in my early 20s (I'm in my 30s). The ketogenic real food diet plus intermittent fasting has given me new life. Even type 1 diabetics can do it, as evidenced by my family member who dropped his daily insulin needs and lost 40 lbs while controlling his blood sugars. I'm not saying it works for everyone, but I strongly encourage it for people with insulin resistance. However, looking at the big picture, I do believe that anyone who chooses real food over processed food regardless of macro breakdown is going to vastly improve their health.
As far as avoiding the habit of snacking, I do believe it's important, especially for those with IR, because, as someone pointed out even protein can spike insulin (though not nearly as much as carbs). Having extended periods of low insulin is key to healing resistance and promoting the breakdown of stored fat.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions