The theory we immediately gain weight after sudden weight loss is a false and heres why.

Need2Exerc1se

TL:DR

But is the subject line an actual theory? I mean, I know statistically most who lose a lot of weight will regain some or all of it, but I've never heard of it as a theory or that it happens immediately.

Hornsby

piperdown44 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Hornsby wrote: »

Yet, 4000 is what I am maintaining on which is why blanket recommendations don't work.

Read the whole thread, only thing I got out of this was the above and total admiration....
4000 calories a day........ wish I was so lucky.......

It it's weird, was at 3400-3600 for about a year. Then cut on 25-2800 for a few weeks. Then started bumping up. Now I'm higher than before the cut. I don't get it. It's only been 2 weeks though so we'll see. But yea, I lift a lot and ride a bikes a lot.

Wicked_Seraph

LMAO classic MFP.

Someone comes in with Brand New Information(TM) and tells everyone else who has lost weight that We're Doing It Wrong and Sugar is Evil.

Dude, I'm losing weight and carbs are literally most of my diet? I admire people who can monitor macros because calories alone are hard enough to track when you're a lazy vegan. My body apparently doesn't give a flux about macros because the weight is coming off, albeit slowly.

Just admit ya dun goofed rather than resort to insults.

philippakate197

TR0berts wrote: »

show previous quotes

johnturnerbradley wrote: »

Im deleting this post your all idiots who cannot read.

How is this post still here?

Is it so people can laugh at him calling us idiots while he completely obliterates the English language?

And I'm embarrassed to be from the same country. We UK folk can spell, honest! I even know the difference between your and you're because I'm very clever.

sijomial

philippakate197 wrote: »

show previous quotes

TR0berts wrote: »

johnturnerbradley wrote: »

Im deleting this post your all idiots who cannot read.

How is this post still here?

Is it so people can laugh at him calling us idiots while he completely obliterates the English language?

And I'm embarrassed to be from the same country. We UK folk can spell, honest! I even know the difference between your and you're because I'm very clever.

MissusMoon

johnturnerbradley wrote: »

Sugar is evil if over consumed especially when combines with high carbohydrates. I.e Various branded Sauces we combine with pasta, rice, potatoes. Sugar and Carbohydrates are both high energy sources, if over consumed consistently together there is only one result... weight gain.

If ANY food is over consumed you will gain weight. I over consumed fine imported cheeses and ribeye steaks and got ridiculously fat.

samhennings

Hornsby wrote: »

show previous quotes

johnturnerbradley wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

Yet, 4000 is what I am maintaining on which is why blanket recommendations don't work.

of course you must have a certain amount of mass to maintain.

I'm 175lbs at 7%... Let me know when not eating added sugar gets you there...

#proofisinthepudding

But puddings have sugar!

samhennings

JaneSnowe wrote: »

show previous quotes

johnturnerbradley wrote: »

rankinsect wrote: »

It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.

When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".

The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.

But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.

This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.

I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the bolded portion.

I think "moralism" is meant to be like "More-ish". WHen you get the munchies, and want a little more...
I could be wrong though.

The breakfast thing I get. If I eat breakfast Im starving by mid-morning and likely to snack/eat a big lunch. If I dont eat breakfast my hunger just doesnt kick in and Im happy to have a moderate lunch, its something that helps me with adherence.

That said, obviously most of everything else he has said is nonsense.

richln

cmriverside wrote: »

show previous quotes

Zella_11 wrote: »

johnturnerbradley wrote: »

Im deleting this post your all idiots who cannot read.

The fact of the matter is, as only some of you have read properly it is about water weight and how people do not account of water when they stop training. Man i don't know what they feed you in your country but it sounds like a big spoon full of stupid!

Insults are not necessary.

I tried to stay out. Now we're talkin'.

Guy comes on with 35 posts. Decides to take on [yet another] debate about carbs - for the 20,000th time - this month... Cannot gain traction. Gets mad, throws insults, threatens to take ball and go home. Have I got the cliff notes?

You missed the conclusions section from the theoretical diet composition study conducted on identical twins. I thought that was an important contribution.

piperdown44

Hornsby wrote: »

show previous quotes

piperdown44 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

Yet, 4000 is what I am maintaining on which is why blanket recommendations don't work.

Read the whole thread, only thing I got out of this was the above and total admiration....
4000 calories a day........ wish I was so lucky.......

It it's weird, was at 3400-3600 for about a year. Then cut on 25-2800 for a few weeks. Then started bumping up. Now I'm higher than before the cut. I don't get it. It's only been 2 weeks though so we'll see. But yea, I lift a lot and ride a bikes a lot.

Had a good discussion and laugh over the TDEE calculators with some lifting friends. They truly are only a starting point and you have to dial in on your own individual needs. Most of them put me at 2700 to maintain...pffftttt, I gain on 2700, maintain at around 2500.
Of course I don't ride nor run so I'm not burning the cals like you are.

JaneSnowe

samhennings wrote: »

show previous quotes

JaneSnowe wrote: »

johnturnerbradley wrote: »

rankinsect wrote: »

It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.

When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".

The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.

But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.

This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.

I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the bolded portion.

I think "moralism" is meant to be like "More-ish". WHen you get the munchies, and want a little more...
I could be wrong though.

The breakfast thing I get. If I eat breakfast Im starving by mid-morning and likely to snack/eat a big lunch. If I dont eat breakfast my hunger just doesnt kick in and Im happy to have a moderate lunch, its something that helps me with adherence.

That said, obviously most of everything else he has said is nonsense.

Thanks. I read that repeatedly but for the life of me I can't figure out if he is saying we must eat breakfast or not..I believe he means that we should, based on his "5 meals a day" idea, but I read his breakfast sentence two different ways and it is confusing!

sijomial

JaneSnowe wrote: »

show previous quotes

samhennings wrote: »

JaneSnowe wrote: »

johnturnerbradley wrote: »

rankinsect wrote: »

It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.

When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".

The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.

But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.

This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.

I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the bolded portion.

I think "moralism" is meant to be like "More-ish". WHen you get the munchies, and want a little more...
I could be wrong though.

The breakfast thing I get. If I eat breakfast Im starving by mid-morning and likely to snack/eat a big lunch. If I dont eat breakfast my hunger just doesnt kick in and Im happy to have a moderate lunch, its something that helps me with adherence.

That said, obviously most of everything else he has said is nonsense.

Thanks. I read that repeatedly but for the life of me I can't figure out if he is saying we must eat breakfast or not..I believe he means that we should, based on his "5 meals a day" idea, but I read his breakfast sentence two different ways and it is confusing!

@samhennings @janesnowe

My guess is the word was supposed to be metabolism.
Which would complete the BS bingo card of dieting myths in this thread.

samhennings

Quite possibly!

Full house!

WinoGelato

sijomial wrote: »

show previous quotes

JaneSnowe wrote: »

samhennings wrote: »

JaneSnowe wrote: »

johnturnerbradley wrote: »

rankinsect wrote: »

It's true that there's often an initial bounce in water weight after raising your calories, largely from carrying more glycogen stores. There's also a mental component of people who think their "diet is over". However, there's another effect that explains some of the weight regain : hunger.

When you are on a prolonged deficit and then begin to eat at maintenance again, you will actually get a lot hungrier than you were on the deficit - there's a rebound hunger effect as your body is now trying to put on weight to prepare for the next time you "starve".

The transition from loss to maintenance is not easy. Statistically speaking it's much harder than losing in the first place.

But your stomach is smaller so you would not be able to consume in the initial phase. The reason why people get hungrier is due to moralism kicking in, its the same if you eat breakfast you are more likely to be hungrier if you ate breakfast by lunch time than if you did not have breakfast. The initial rebound is water weight which could add 6-8lb.

This is one of many reasons why it is more beneficial to eat 5 meals a day as opposed to 3.

I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the bolded portion.

I think "moralism" is meant to be like "More-ish". WHen you get the munchies, and want a little more...
I could be wrong though.

The breakfast thing I get. If I eat breakfast Im starving by mid-morning and likely to snack/eat a big lunch. If I dont eat breakfast my hunger just doesnt kick in and Im happy to have a moderate lunch, its something that helps me with adherence.

That said, obviously most of everything else he has said is nonsense.

Thanks. I read that repeatedly but for the life of me I can't figure out if he is saying we must eat breakfast or not..I believe he means that we should, based on his "5 meals a day" idea, but I read his breakfast sentence two different ways and it is confusing!

@samhennings @janesnowe

My guess is the word was supposed to be metabolism.
Which would complete the BS bingo card of dieting myths in this thread.

You are like the woo whisperer!