IIFYM/Reverse Dieting Question - Advanced
Options
Replies
-
None of that explains gaining fat in a calorie deficit. I've addressed it below in bold. Metabolic adaptations occur with dieting. No one questions that. What does not happen is a mythical mode of survival in which the body runs on unicorn tears and good intentions and somehow stores fat despite any surplus energy being available to do so. Our bodies require fuel to run. Our bodies require surplus fuel to store fat. In all that you posted you failed to answer my question. Someone in a deficit creates fat with what energy?Uh yes there is its knows by many names. Super Accumulation of Fat BS or AKA survival mode NOT REAL or AKA the dreaded plateau that you just can't break through DOESN'T HAPPEN, or a metabolic shift GREATLY OVERSTATED. 15% AT most, or lowering of your metabolism 15% at most, or my favorite fat storage mode NOT REAL or starvation mode FAKE.
MacLean at the University of Colorado describes this general metabolic behavior: “[When we eat less] metabolic adjustments occur…[which] contribute to a large potential energy imbalance that, when the forcible control of energy intake is relieved…results in an exceptionally high rate of weight regain.” This proves nothing. People diet, they have a metabolic adaptation, they eat too much, they get fat again. This doesn't explain gaining fat in a calorie deficit.
They did a study on rats. Please see their findings below
"The Eat Less Group weighed the most and had the highest percent body fat. Even though they ate less for ten days, they were significantly heavier than those who ate normally all the way through. Eating less led the rats to gain—not lose—body fat." Rats aren't people, enough said.
More articles go on....
"Super Accumulation of Fat
Talk about side effects. Eating less was worse than doing nothing.
Why?
After our metabolism is starved, its number one priority is restoring all the body fat it lost and then protecting us from starving in the future No it isn't. Guess how it does that? By storing additional body fat Where does the energy needed for this fat come from if you are still in a calorie defict?. Researchers call this “fat super accumulation.” From researcher E.A. Young at the University of Texas: “These and other studies…strongly suggest that fat super accumulation…after energy restriction AFTER ENERGY RESTRICTION, NOT DURING! You can gain fat AFTER the deficit but not during it is a major factor contributing to relapsing obesity Relapse meaning after the diet, so often observed in humans.”"
There is another reason: eating less slowed the metabolism By 15% at most. Put the same quantity and quality of food and exercise into a slowed-down fat metabolism system, and out comes more body fat." This assumes the slowing is permanent which it is not.
This is why most individuals on a hard deficit see a plateau. Some not only plateau but they start gaining fat. Which was me. Wrong. Most individuals on a hard deficit plateau because of MASSIVE water retention. People who are actually starving are skin and bones. People who starve to death are not fat, they are basically wasted away.
Below is a graph by Harvard on their test studies and what they concluded. But hey you go on and argue with Harvard. Have fun!
Now I can keep throwing studies and test from Universities and Doctors and how you can change your metabolism and speed it up or lower it but you will keep arguing what is proven as fact is not so I am done. Not a single one of those studies proves or even suggests you can gain fat in a deficit, probably because it's not physiologically possible.
Please note I thought like you did until I started getting older and couldn't do a 90 day shred so fast and stalled out and then started to gain. I would think I was nuts too. Of course this was after 3 c-sections. Perhaps once you get older this will happen to you as well and you will understand how our body isn't a machine. You can't put in one equation and expect it to do exactly what you want. You give it less, it adapts just like it does when you train the same every day it adapts. Or you aren't as good at tracking calories in vs out as you think. I'm going with that rather than the laws of thermodynamics that govern the entire universe being flawed.
Yeah you guys are off your rocker. I'm talking to my friend who's a nutritionalist and certified personal trainer and she's laughing at all of you guys right now with what you wrote..
If your friend is a nutritionist and a personal trainer, why didn't you just ask her about all of this to begin with instead of asking on the forums? Don't you think her advice would be far more helpful?4 -
None of that explains gaining fat in a calorie deficit. I've addressed it below in bold. Metabolic adaptations occur with dieting. No one questions that. What does not happen is a mythical mode of survival in which the body runs on unicorn tears and good intentions and somehow stores fat despite any surplus energy being available to do so. Our bodies require fuel to run. Our bodies require surplus fuel to store fat. In all that you posted you failed to answer my question. Someone in a deficit creates fat with what energy?Uh yes there is its knows by many names. Super Accumulation of Fat BS or AKA survival mode NOT REAL or AKA the dreaded plateau that you just can't break through DOESN'T HAPPEN, or a metabolic shift GREATLY OVERSTATED. 15% AT most, or lowering of your metabolism 15% at most, or my favorite fat storage mode NOT REAL or starvation mode FAKE.
MacLean at the University of Colorado describes this general metabolic behavior: “[When we eat less] metabolic adjustments occur…[which] contribute to a large potential energy imbalance that, when the forcible control of energy intake is relieved…results in an exceptionally high rate of weight regain.” This proves nothing. People diet, they have a metabolic adaptation, they eat too much, they get fat again. This doesn't explain gaining fat in a calorie deficit.
They did a study on rats. Please see their findings below
"The Eat Less Group weighed the most and had the highest percent body fat. Even though they ate less for ten days, they were significantly heavier than those who ate normally all the way through. Eating less led the rats to gain—not lose—body fat." Rats aren't people, enough said.
More articles go on....
"Super Accumulation of Fat
Talk about side effects. Eating less was worse than doing nothing.
Why?
After our metabolism is starved, its number one priority is restoring all the body fat it lost and then protecting us from starving in the future No it isn't. Guess how it does that? By storing additional body fat Where does the energy needed for this fat come from if you are still in a calorie defict?. Researchers call this “fat super accumulation.” From researcher E.A. Young at the University of Texas: “These and other studies…strongly suggest that fat super accumulation…after energy restriction AFTER ENERGY RESTRICTION, NOT DURING! You can gain fat AFTER the deficit but not during it is a major factor contributing to relapsing obesity Relapse meaning after the diet, so often observed in humans.”"
There is another reason: eating less slowed the metabolism By 15% at most. Put the same quantity and quality of food and exercise into a slowed-down fat metabolism system, and out comes more body fat." This assumes the slowing is permanent which it is not.
This is why most individuals on a hard deficit see a plateau. Some not only plateau but they start gaining fat. Which was me. Wrong. Most individuals on a hard deficit plateau because of MASSIVE water retention. People who are actually starving are skin and bones. People who starve to death are not fat, they are basically wasted away.
Below is a graph by Harvard on their test studies and what they concluded. But hey you go on and argue with Harvard. Have fun!
Now I can keep throwing studies and test from Universities and Doctors and how you can change your metabolism and speed it up or lower it but you will keep arguing what is proven as fact is not so I am done. Not a single one of those studies proves or even suggests you can gain fat in a deficit, probably because it's not physiologically possible.
Please note I thought like you did until I started getting older and couldn't do a 90 day shred so fast and stalled out and then started to gain. I would think I was nuts too. Of course this was after 3 c-sections. Perhaps once you get older this will happen to you as well and you will understand how our body isn't a machine. You can't put in one equation and expect it to do exactly what you want. You give it less, it adapts just like it does when you train the same every day it adapts. Or you aren't as good at tracking calories in vs out as you think. I'm going with that rather than the laws of thermodynamics that govern the entire universe being flawed.
Yeah you guys are off your rocker. I'm talking to my friend who's a nutritionalist and certified personal trainer and she's laughing at all of you guys right now with what you wrote..
Credentials are meaningless not to mention a nutritionist is a far cry from a registered dietician . You're both still wrong. And you still refuse to tell me where the energy for stored fat comes from if in a deficit...None of that explains gaining fat in a calorie deficit. I've addressed it below in bold. Metabolic adaptations occur with dieting. No one questions that. What does not happen is a mythical mode of survival in which the body runs on unicorn tears and good intentions and somehow stores fat despite any surplus energy being available to do so. Our bodies require fuel to run. Our bodies require surplus fuel to store fat. In all that you posted you failed to answer my question. Someone in a deficit creates fat with what energy?Uh yes there is its knows by many names. Super Accumulation of Fat BS or AKA survival mode NOT REAL or AKA the dreaded plateau that you just can't break through DOESN'T HAPPEN, or a metabolic shift GREATLY OVERSTATED. 15% AT most, or lowering of your metabolism 15% at most, or my favorite fat storage mode NOT REAL or starvation mode FAKE.
MacLean at the University of Colorado describes this general metabolic behavior: “[When we eat less] metabolic adjustments occur…[which] contribute to a large potential energy imbalance that, when the forcible control of energy intake is relieved…results in an exceptionally high rate of weight regain.” This proves nothing. People diet, they have a metabolic adaptation, they eat too much, they get fat again. This doesn't explain gaining fat in a calorie deficit.
They did a study on rats. Please see their findings below
"The Eat Less Group weighed the most and had the highest percent body fat. Even though they ate less for ten days, they were significantly heavier than those who ate normally all the way through. Eating less led the rats to gain—not lose—body fat." Rats aren't people, enough said.
More articles go on....
"Super Accumulation of Fat
Talk about side effects. Eating less was worse than doing nothing.
Why?
After our metabolism is starved, its number one priority is restoring all the body fat it lost and then protecting us from starving in the future No it isn't. Guess how it does that? By storing additional body fat Where does the energy needed for this fat come from if you are still in a calorie defict?. Researchers call this “fat super accumulation.” From researcher E.A. Young at the University of Texas: “These and other studies…strongly suggest that fat super accumulation…after energy restriction AFTER ENERGY RESTRICTION, NOT DURING! You can gain fat AFTER the deficit but not during it is a major factor contributing to relapsing obesity Relapse meaning after the diet, so often observed in humans.”"
There is another reason: eating less slowed the metabolism By 15% at most. Put the same quantity and quality of food and exercise into a slowed-down fat metabolism system, and out comes more body fat." This assumes the slowing is permanent which it is not.
This is why most individuals on a hard deficit see a plateau. Some not only plateau but they start gaining fat. Which was me. Wrong. Most individuals on a hard deficit plateau because of MASSIVE water retention. People who are actually starving are skin and bones. People who starve to death are not fat, they are basically wasted away.
Below is a graph by Harvard on their test studies and what they concluded. But hey you go on and argue with Harvard. Have fun!
Now I can keep throwing studies and test from Universities and Doctors and how you can change your metabolism and speed it up or lower it but you will keep arguing what is proven as fact is not so I am done. Not a single one of those studies proves or even suggests you can gain fat in a deficit, probably because it's not physiologically possible.
Please note I thought like you did until I started getting older and couldn't do a 90 day shred so fast and stalled out and then started to gain. I would think I was nuts too. Of course this was after 3 c-sections. Perhaps once you get older this will happen to you as well and you will understand how our body isn't a machine. You can't put in one equation and expect it to do exactly what you want. You give it less, it adapts just like it does when you train the same every day it adapts. Or you aren't as good at tracking calories in vs out as you think. I'm going with that rather than the laws of thermodynamics that govern the entire universe being flawed.
Yeah you guys are off your rocker. I'm talking to my friend who's a nutritionalist and certified personal trainer and she's laughing at all of you guys right now with what you wrote..
Credentials are meaningless not to mention a nutritionist is a far cry from a registered dietician . You're both still wrong. And you still refuse to tell me where the energy for stored fat comes from if in a deficit...
Yes cadential's are totally meaningless! Man you are a real piece of work. can you just get off my thread please? And I already answered that question above but you completely disregarded the graph showing at a steady deficit decreasing each week you could steadily gain fat. If you want to figure out how Harvard came to that conclusion in their study why don't you look at the study yourself is a 60 page document. I cannot waste my time with you or whoever just wants to troll message boards. You guys get a life!
@alexis831
Why can't I find where Harvard actually said that? All I can find are some blog posts saying Harvard concluded it.
And from what I can find, would these calorie intakes be self reported?1 -
Where is this Harvard study? What is your source for this graph?0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Why don't you talk to a registered dietitian instead of a nutritionist (anyone can be a nutritionist with a simple weekend course). They definitely will tell you that you don't gain fat (you might retain fluid though) while in a calorie deficit.
Btw I am a recovered anorexic and when I was really sick I ate 500 calories a day and 2 hours of cardio and I lost weight rapidly and consistently. I definitely didn't gain fat.
Tecnically, in some places, including a couple of provinces in Canada(NS and Quebec), "nutritionist" is interchangable with Dietitian. Registered Nutritionist is in AB.
http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Find-A-Dietitian/Difference-Between-Dietitian-and-Nutritionist.aspx
per this site (yes I am Canadian)
Difference Between Dietitian and Nutritionist
Accreditation, education, experience and accountability
Registered Dietitians use their knowledge and skills in food and nutrition to promote good health.
They are health care professionals who have earned a Bachelor’s degree specializing in food and nutrition and have completed supervised practical training through a university program or an approved hospital or community setting.
Dietitians must be registered with Provincial Regulatory Bodies and are the only professionals who can use the titles “Registered Dietitian”, “Professional Dietitian” and “Dietitian”, which are protected by law. Look for the letters R.D., P.Dt. or Dt.P. after the name, indicating that the person is a registered member of the profession.
Dietitians are accountable to provincial regulatory bodies for their professional conduct and the care they provide. For more information, contact the regulatory body in your province.
Dietitians are committed to ethical practice
Learn more
In most provinces there are not regulatory standards to protect the title “Nutritionist.” In provinces where “Nutritionist” is a protected title it usually is “Dietitian-Nutritionist” that is protected by law.2 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Why don't you talk to a registered dietitian instead of a nutritionist (anyone can be a nutritionist with a simple weekend course). They definitely will tell you that you don't gain fat (you might retain fluid though) while in a calorie deficit.
Btw I am a recovered anorexic and when I was really sick I ate 500 calories a day and 2 hours of cardio and I lost weight rapidly and consistently. I definitely didn't gain fat.
Tecnically, in some places, including a couple of provinces in Canada(NS and Quebec), "nutritionist" is interchangable with Dietitian. Registered Nutritionist is in AB.
I should have specified in America.
Love your posts, glad to see you back.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Why don't you talk to a registered dietitian instead of a nutritionist (anyone can be a nutritionist with a simple weekend course). They definitely will tell you that you don't gain fat (you might retain fluid though) while in a calorie deficit.
Btw I am a recovered anorexic and when I was really sick I ate 500 calories a day and 2 hours of cardio and I lost weight rapidly and consistently. I definitely didn't gain fat.
Tecnically, in some places, including a couple of provinces in Canada(NS and Quebec), "nutritionist" is interchangable with Dietitian. Registered Nutritionist is in AB.
http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Find-A-Dietitian/Difference-Between-Dietitian-and-Nutritionist.aspx
per this site (yes I am Canadian)
Difference Between Dietitian and Nutritionist
Accreditation, education, experience and accountability
Registered Dietitians use their knowledge and skills in food and nutrition to promote good health.
They are health care professionals who have earned a Bachelor’s degree specializing in food and nutrition and have completed supervised practical training through a university program or an approved hospital or community setting.
Dietitians must be registered with Provincial Regulatory Bodies and are the only professionals who can use the titles “Registered Dietitian”, “Professional Dietitian” and “Dietitian”, which are protected by law. Look for the letters R.D., P.Dt. or Dt.P. after the name, indicating that the person is a registered member of the profession.
Dietitians are accountable to provincial regulatory bodies for their professional conduct and the care they provide. For more information, contact the regulatory body in your province.
Dietitians are committed to ethical practice
Learn more
In most provinces there are not regulatory standards to protect the title “Nutritionist.” In provinces where “Nutritionist” is a protected title it usually is “Dietitian-Nutritionist” that is protected by law.
"In Nova Scotia, the titles dietitian and nutritionist are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. In order to use either of these titles in Nova Scotia, registration with NSDA is mandatory according to provincial law. "
https://www.nsdassoc.ca
Reserved titles dietitian and nutritionist designate the same profession. Dietitians / Nutritionists are experts in food and human nutrition. (translated. Quebec).
https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://opdq.org/&prev=search
As I said, In AB, it is the dual title.1 -
No, you actually posted a graph only, not the actual study, that provides no context whatsoever. The graph nor you have explained where the surplus energy to store fat comes from if you have been in a prolonged deficit. It's simply unexplainable because it doesn't happen... You came to a public forum asking for advice. Many people told you that your basic ideas about nutrition, diet, and how the body functions are incorrect, you then argued with those who have advice and proceeded to ask people on the public forum to stop replying, I can only assume because you didn't like the advice you got, which was to reassess your understanding of how the body works. Fortunately there are enough knowledgeable members of this forum to not let ideas like starvation mode persist. It confused people who are new to diet and exercise. There is so much misinformation and pseudoscience surrounding weight loss and fitness that when you use it in a public forum like this one, users will always challenge you on it, and rightfully so...None of that explains gaining fat in a calorie deficit. I've addressed it below in bold. Metabolic adaptations occur with dieting. No one questions that. What does not happen is a mythical mode of survival in which the body runs on unicorn tears and good intentions and somehow stores fat despite any surplus energy being available to do so. Our bodies require fuel to run. Our bodies require surplus fuel to store fat. In all that you posted you failed to answer my question. Someone in a deficit creates fat with what energy?Uh yes there is its knows by many names. Super Accumulation of Fat BS or AKA survival mode NOT REAL or AKA the dreaded plateau that you just can't break through DOESN'T HAPPEN, or a metabolic shift GREATLY OVERSTATED. 15% AT most, or lowering of your metabolism 15% at most, or my favorite fat storage mode NOT REAL or starvation mode FAKE.
MacLean at the University of Colorado describes this general metabolic behavior: “[When we eat less] metabolic adjustments occur…[which] contribute to a large potential energy imbalance that, when the forcible control of energy intake is relieved…results in an exceptionally high rate of weight regain.” This proves nothing. People diet, they have a metabolic adaptation, they eat too much, they get fat again. This doesn't explain gaining fat in a calorie deficit.
They did a study on rats. Please see their findings below
"The Eat Less Group weighed the most and had the highest percent body fat. Even though they ate less for ten days, they were significantly heavier than those who ate normally all the way through. Eating less led the rats to gain—not lose—body fat." Rats aren't people, enough said.
More articles go on....
"Super Accumulation of Fat
Talk about side effects. Eating less was worse than doing nothing.
Why?
After our metabolism is starved, its number one priority is restoring all the body fat it lost and then protecting us from starving in the future No it isn't. Guess how it does that? By storing additional body fat Where does the energy needed for this fat come from if you are still in a calorie defict?. Researchers call this “fat super accumulation.” From researcher E.A. Young at the University of Texas: “These and other studies…strongly suggest that fat super accumulation…after energy restriction AFTER ENERGY RESTRICTION, NOT DURING! You can gain fat AFTER the deficit but not during it is a major factor contributing to relapsing obesity Relapse meaning after the diet, so often observed in humans.”"
There is another reason: eating less slowed the metabolism By 15% at most. Put the same quantity and quality of food and exercise into a slowed-down fat metabolism system, and out comes more body fat." This assumes the slowing is permanent which it is not.
This is why most individuals on a hard deficit see a plateau. Some not only plateau but they start gaining fat. Which was me. Wrong. Most individuals on a hard deficit plateau because of MASSIVE water retention. People who are actually starving are skin and bones. People who starve to death are not fat, they are basically wasted away.
Below is a graph by Harvard on their test studies and what they concluded. But hey you go on and argue with Harvard. Have fun!
Now I can keep throwing studies and test from Universities and Doctors and how you can change your metabolism and speed it up or lower it but you will keep arguing what is proven as fact is not so I am done. Not a single one of those studies proves or even suggests you can gain fat in a deficit, probably because it's not physiologically possible.
Please note I thought like you did until I started getting older and couldn't do a 90 day shred so fast and stalled out and then started to gain. I would think I was nuts too. Of course this was after 3 c-sections. Perhaps once you get older this will happen to you as well and you will understand how our body isn't a machine. You can't put in one equation and expect it to do exactly what you want. You give it less, it adapts just like it does when you train the same every day it adapts. Or you aren't as good at tracking calories in vs out as you think. I'm going with that rather than the laws of thermodynamics that govern the entire universe being flawed.
Yeah you guys are off your rocker. I'm talking to my friend who's a nutritionalist and certified personal trainer and she's laughing at all of you guys right now with what you wrote..
Credentials are meaningless not to mention a nutritionist is a far cry from a registered dietician . You're both still wrong. And you still refuse to tell me where the energy for stored fat comes from if in a deficit...None of that explains gaining fat in a calorie deficit. I've addressed it below in bold. Metabolic adaptations occur with dieting. No one questions that. What does not happen is a mythical mode of survival in which the body runs on unicorn tears and good intentions and somehow stores fat despite any surplus energy being available to do so. Our bodies require fuel to run. Our bodies require surplus fuel to store fat. In all that you posted you failed to answer my question. Someone in a deficit creates fat with what energy?Uh yes there is its knows by many names. Super Accumulation of Fat BS or AKA survival mode NOT REAL or AKA the dreaded plateau that you just can't break through DOESN'T HAPPEN, or a metabolic shift GREATLY OVERSTATED. 15% AT most, or lowering of your metabolism 15% at most, or my favorite fat storage mode NOT REAL or starvation mode FAKE.
MacLean at the University of Colorado describes this general metabolic behavior: “[When we eat less] metabolic adjustments occur…[which] contribute to a large potential energy imbalance that, when the forcible control of energy intake is relieved…results in an exceptionally high rate of weight regain.” This proves nothing. People diet, they have a metabolic adaptation, they eat too much, they get fat again. This doesn't explain gaining fat in a calorie deficit.
They did a study on rats. Please see their findings below
"The Eat Less Group weighed the most and had the highest percent body fat. Even though they ate less for ten days, they were significantly heavier than those who ate normally all the way through. Eating less led the rats to gain—not lose—body fat." Rats aren't people, enough said.
More articles go on....
"Super Accumulation of Fat
Talk about side effects. Eating less was worse than doing nothing.
Why?
After our metabolism is starved, its number one priority is restoring all the body fat it lost and then protecting us from starving in the future No it isn't. Guess how it does that? By storing additional body fat Where does the energy needed for this fat come from if you are still in a calorie defict?. Researchers call this “fat super accumulation.” From researcher E.A. Young at the University of Texas: “These and other studies…strongly suggest that fat super accumulation…after energy restriction AFTER ENERGY RESTRICTION, NOT DURING! You can gain fat AFTER the deficit but not during it is a major factor contributing to relapsing obesity Relapse meaning after the diet, so often observed in humans.”"
There is another reason: eating less slowed the metabolism By 15% at most. Put the same quantity and quality of food and exercise into a slowed-down fat metabolism system, and out comes more body fat." This assumes the slowing is permanent which it is not.
This is why most individuals on a hard deficit see a plateau. Some not only plateau but they start gaining fat. Which was me. Wrong. Most individuals on a hard deficit plateau because of MASSIVE water retention. People who are actually starving are skin and bones. People who starve to death are not fat, they are basically wasted away.
Below is a graph by Harvard on their test studies and what they concluded. But hey you go on and argue with Harvard. Have fun!
Now I can keep throwing studies and test from Universities and Doctors and how you can change your metabolism and speed it up or lower it but you will keep arguing what is proven as fact is not so I am done. Not a single one of those studies proves or even suggests you can gain fat in a deficit, probably because it's not physiologically possible.
Please note I thought like you did until I started getting older and couldn't do a 90 day shred so fast and stalled out and then started to gain. I would think I was nuts too. Of course this was after 3 c-sections. Perhaps once you get older this will happen to you as well and you will understand how our body isn't a machine. You can't put in one equation and expect it to do exactly what you want. You give it less, it adapts just like it does when you train the same every day it adapts. Or you aren't as good at tracking calories in vs out as you think. I'm going with that rather than the laws of thermodynamics that govern the entire universe being flawed.
Yeah you guys are off your rocker. I'm talking to my friend who's a nutritionalist and certified personal trainer and she's laughing at all of you guys right now with what you wrote..
Credentials are meaningless not to mention a nutritionist is a far cry from a registered dietician . You're both still wrong. And you still refuse to tell me where the energy for stored fat comes from if in a deficit...
Yes cadential's are totally meaningless! Man you are a real piece of work. can you just get off my thread please? And I already answered that question above but you completely disregarded the graph showing at a steady deficit decreasing each week you could steadily gain fat. If you want to figure out how Harvard came to that conclusion in their study why don't you look at the study yourself is a 60 page document. I cannot waste my time with you or whoever just wants to troll message boards. You guys get a life!
14 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Why don't you talk to a registered dietitian instead of a nutritionist (anyone can be a nutritionist with a simple weekend course). They definitely will tell you that you don't gain fat (you might retain fluid though) while in a calorie deficit.
Btw I am a recovered anorexic and when I was really sick I ate 500 calories a day and 2 hours of cardio and I lost weight rapidly and consistently. I definitely didn't gain fat.
Tecnically, in some places, including a couple of provinces in Canada(NS and Quebec), "nutritionist" is interchangable with Dietitian. Registered Nutritionist is in AB.
http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Find-A-Dietitian/Difference-Between-Dietitian-and-Nutritionist.aspx
per this site (yes I am Canadian)
Difference Between Dietitian and Nutritionist
Accreditation, education, experience and accountability
Registered Dietitians use their knowledge and skills in food and nutrition to promote good health.
They are health care professionals who have earned a Bachelor’s degree specializing in food and nutrition and have completed supervised practical training through a university program or an approved hospital or community setting.
Dietitians must be registered with Provincial Regulatory Bodies and are the only professionals who can use the titles “Registered Dietitian”, “Professional Dietitian” and “Dietitian”, which are protected by law. Look for the letters R.D., P.Dt. or Dt.P. after the name, indicating that the person is a registered member of the profession.
Dietitians are accountable to provincial regulatory bodies for their professional conduct and the care they provide. For more information, contact the regulatory body in your province.
Dietitians are committed to ethical practice
Learn more
In most provinces there are not regulatory standards to protect the title “Nutritionist.” In provinces where “Nutritionist” is a protected title it usually is “Dietitian-Nutritionist” that is protected by law.
"In Nova Scotia, the titles dietitian and nutritionist are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. In order to use either of these titles in Nova Scotia, registration with NSDA is mandatory according to provincial law. "
https://www.nsdassoc.ca
Reserved titles dietitian and nutritionist designate the same profession. Dietitians / Nutritionists are experts in food and human nutrition. (translated. Quebec).
https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://opdq.org/&prev=search
As I said, In AB, it is the dual title.
Interesting...I will have to remember that if I ever move there or AB....won't be going to QC.
I do so wish it was a standard across the country...0 -
As far as I can tell, that Harvard graph came from this site, which references but does not name a study done by Harvard: http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/eating-less-doesnt-cause-long-term-fat-loss/
The study looked at the calorie intakes of 67k people and compared calorie intake to BMI. There's no discussion of exact methodology but I would be shocked if the researchers tracked the calorie intake of that many people rather than using self-reporting, which is extremely flawed. Again, though, no actual citations are provided, unless I totally missed one while reading.5 -
As far as I can tell, that Harvard graph came from this site, which references but does not name a study done by Harvard: http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/eating-less-doesnt-cause-long-term-fat-loss/
The study looked at the calorie intakes of 67k people and compared calorie intake to BMI. There's no discussion of exact methodology but I would be shocked if the researchers tracked the calorie intake of that many people rather than using self-reporting, which is extremely flawed. Again, though, no actual citations are provided, unless I totally missed one while reading.
That's pretty much exactly what I came up with.1 -
Somebody tell me if this makes sense and could account for OP's seemingly contradictory results. Too steep of a calorie deficit can cause the body to catabolize muscle rather than burning fat. This would theoretically be a state that could be described as a "starvation mode" as the body is trying to retain its calorie dense fat stores for future use, at the same time it is reducing energy requirements by eliminating non-critical muscle mass. This state does not cause an increase in fat mass, but it can increase body fat percentage through lean mass reduction.
Simultaneously, the lack of sufficient calories/nutrition results in sub-optimal organ function. This, in turn, creates "inflammation" (I hate that term because it's become such a bandwagon buzz word) bloating and water retention (assuming the excess calorie deficit isn't accompanied by dehydration.) This water retention can in fact create an increase in scale weight as the person is consuming as much as 4 pounds or more of water per day without processing it back out correctly. The overall result is that the person adds pounds, their body fat percentage increases, and they appear more soft and squishy, giving the appearance that they've had in increase in fat mass though they actually have not. Further, it does seem to me this sort of interaction would be most likely to occur in someone who already has very low fat mass and is consuming very low calories, as the fat they have is already down to crucial levels and low calorie diets are more likely to be lacking in important micronutrients as well as macros.
It seems logical to me, in any case.5 -
None of that explains gaining fat in a calorie deficit. I've addressed it below in bold. Metabolic adaptations occur with dieting. No one questions that. What does not happen is a mythical mode of survival in which the body runs on unicorn tears and good intentions and somehow stores fat despite any surplus energy being available to do so. Our bodies require fuel to run. Our bodies require surplus fuel to store fat. In all that you posted you failed to answer my question. Someone in a deficit creates fat with what energy?Uh yes there is its knows by many names. Super Accumulation of Fat BS or AKA survival mode NOT REAL or AKA the dreaded plateau that you just can't break through DOESN'T HAPPEN, or a metabolic shift GREATLY OVERSTATED. 15% AT most, or lowering of your metabolism 15% at most, or my favorite fat storage mode NOT REAL or starvation mode FAKE.
MacLean at the University of Colorado describes this general metabolic behavior: “[When we eat less] metabolic adjustments occur…[which] contribute to a large potential energy imbalance that, when the forcible control of energy intake is relieved…results in an exceptionally high rate of weight regain.” This proves nothing. People diet, they have a metabolic adaptation, they eat too much, they get fat again. This doesn't explain gaining fat in a calorie deficit.
They did a study on rats. Please see their findings below
"The Eat Less Group weighed the most and had the highest percent body fat. Even though they ate less for ten days, they were significantly heavier than those who ate normally all the way through. Eating less led the rats to gain—not lose—body fat." Rats aren't people, enough said.
More articles go on....
"Super Accumulation of Fat
Talk about side effects. Eating less was worse than doing nothing.
Why?
After our metabolism is starved, its number one priority is restoring all the body fat it lost and then protecting us from starving in the future No it isn't. Guess how it does that? By storing additional body fat Where does the energy needed for this fat come from if you are still in a calorie defict?. Researchers call this “fat super accumulation.” From researcher E.A. Young at the University of Texas: “These and other studies…strongly suggest that fat super accumulation…after energy restriction AFTER ENERGY RESTRICTION, NOT DURING! You can gain fat AFTER the deficit but not during it is a major factor contributing to relapsing obesity Relapse meaning after the diet, so often observed in humans.”"
There is another reason: eating less slowed the metabolism By 15% at most. Put the same quantity and quality of food and exercise into a slowed-down fat metabolism system, and out comes more body fat." This assumes the slowing is permanent which it is not.
This is why most individuals on a hard deficit see a plateau. Some not only plateau but they start gaining fat. Which was me. Wrong. Most individuals on a hard deficit plateau because of MASSIVE water retention. People who are actually starving are skin and bones. People who starve to death are not fat, they are basically wasted away.
Below is a graph by Harvard on their test studies and what they concluded. But hey you go on and argue with Harvard. Have fun!
Now I can keep throwing studies and test from Universities and Doctors and how you can change your metabolism and speed it up or lower it but you will keep arguing what is proven as fact is not so I am done. Not a single one of those studies proves or even suggests you can gain fat in a deficit, probably because it's not physiologically possible.
Please note I thought like you did until I started getting older and couldn't do a 90 day shred so fast and stalled out and then started to gain. I would think I was nuts too. Of course this was after 3 c-sections. Perhaps once you get older this will happen to you as well and you will understand how our body isn't a machine. You can't put in one equation and expect it to do exactly what you want. You give it less, it adapts just like it does when you train the same every day it adapts. Or you aren't as good at tracking calories in vs out as you think. I'm going with that rather than the laws of thermodynamics that govern the entire universe being flawed.
Yeah you guys are off your rocker. I'm talking to my friend who's a nutritionalist and certified personal trainer and she's laughing at all of you guys right now with what you wrote..
Credentials are meaningless not to mention a nutritionist is a far cry from a registered dietician . You're both still wrong. And you still refuse to tell me where the energy for stored fat comes from if in a deficit...
She actually said a "nutritionalist". Maybe it is someone super duper qualified who understands all this way better than ALL of the scientists who have studied and documented for years that you can't create energy from nothing...1 -
Add to the above, I seriously doubt the adjustment in the OP's macro percentages had much to do with her results compared to simply achieving more complete nutrition at a higher calorie level. Since the changes in macros and calories were made more or less simultaneously it's hard to isolate results down to one factor. Increasing calories will usually increase micronutrients simply by the fact of eating more stuff. Increasing carb percentage -can- up micronutrient intake if the increase comes from things like fruit.
1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Somebody tell me if this makes sense and could account for OP's seemingly contradictory results. Too steep of a calorie deficit can cause the body to catabolize muscle rather than burning fat. This would theoretically be a state that could be described as a "starvation mode" as the body is trying to retain its calorie dense fat stores for future use, at the same time it is reducing energy requirements by eliminating non-critical muscle mass. This state does not cause an increase in fat mass, but it can increase body fat percentage through lean mass reduction.
Simultaneously, the lack of sufficient calories/nutrition results in sub-optimal organ function. This, in turn, creates "inflammation" (I hate that term because it's become such a bandwagon buzz word) bloating and water retention (assuming the excess calorie deficit isn't accompanied by dehydration.) This water retention can in fact create an increase in scale weight as the person is consuming as much as 4 pounds or more of water per day without processing it back out correctly. The overall result is that the person adds pounds, their body fat percentage increases, and they appear more soft and squishy, giving the appearance that they've had in increase in fat mass though they actually have not. Further, it does seem to me this sort of interaction would be most likely to occur in someone who already has very low fat mass and is consuming very low calories, as the fat they have is already down to crucial levels and low calorie diets are more likely to be lacking in important micronutrients as well as macros.
It seems logical to me, in any case.
Except the OP says she is eating 1650 and burning between 1700-1900.
She is not gaining muscle without heavy progressive load lifting program but "builds muscle fast"
She believes in the "body type" method...smh
feels gaining on a deficit is due to lack of sleep and wrong macro split
believes in starvation mode (storing fat)
There are reasons for "gains" on the scale but it's not fat it's typically water from stress, sodium etc.
but those gains are not fat.
I know that adaptive thermogenisis happens after being in a deficit if you aren't careful and maintain the muscle as much as possible but that happens with all weight loss.
This OP has no clue to be frank and won't listen to very smart people with varying degrees (won't mention who or what) who are smarter than she is.7 -
Whatever you have been doing is working. Great results in less than a month.. have i got that right?0
-
If you're so stressed about this, you should just pay to speak to Layne Norton or Sohee or something.1
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »As far as I can tell, that Harvard graph came from this site, which references but does not name a study done by Harvard: http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/eating-less-doesnt-cause-long-term-fat-loss/
The study looked at the calorie intakes of 67k people and compared calorie intake to BMI. There's no discussion of exact methodology but I would be shocked if the researchers tracked the calorie intake of that many people rather than using self-reporting, which is extremely flawed. Again, though, no actual citations are provided, unless I totally missed one while reading.
That's pretty much exactly what I came up with.
I'm pretty sure this is the study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/5/1214.full.pdf0 -
It's very hard to gain body fat percentages while in a deficit especially if you are doing any kind of resistance training. You would need to be very lean to begin with and have a good deal of lean mass in order for the amount of muscle catabolized to exceed the amount of fat burned enough so to cause an increase in body fat percentage. This is mostly because muscle providers considerably less energy than fat and that body doesn't readily give it up especially when adequate fat stores are present. While under maybe the most extreme conditions it's certainly possible to gain body fat percentages due to lean tissue losses, it is in no way at all the same as the OP's claim that fat can be stored while in a deficit.MarkusDarwath wrote: »Somebody tell me if this makes sense and could account for OP's seemingly contradictory results. Too steep of a calorie deficit can cause the body to catabolize muscle rather than burning fat. This would theoretically be a state that could be described as a "starvation mode" as the body is trying to retain its calorie dense fat stores for future use, at the same time it is reducing energy requirements by eliminating non-critical muscle mass. This state does not cause an increase in fat mass, but it can increase body fat percentage through lean mass reduction.
Simultaneously, the lack of sufficient calories/nutrition results in sub-optimal organ function. This, in turn, creates "inflammation" (I hate that term because it's become such a bandwagon buzz word) bloating and water retention (assuming the excess calorie deficit isn't accompanied by dehydration.) This water retention can in fact create an increase in scale weight as the person is consuming as much as 4 pounds or more of water per day without processing it back out correctly. The overall result is that the person adds pounds, their body fat percentage increases, and they appear more soft and squishy, giving the appearance that they've had in increase in fat mass though they actually have not. Further, it does seem to me this sort of interaction would be most likely to occur in someone who already has very low fat mass and is consuming very low calories, as the fat they have is already down to crucial levels and low calorie diets are more likely to be lacking in important micronutrients as well as macros.
It seems logical to me, in any case.0 -
This is entirely false. You cannot gain fat in a deficit over the long run. It simply isn't possible. Even with very poor sleep, regardless of macros, regardless of activity level, regardless of stress. There is NO SUCH THING as "emergency fat storage mode". You have so many beliefs that do not coincide with actual human physiology that it's hard to offer any actual help. My best advice would be to start gaining a better understanding of how the body actually works. Ponder this, if you are eating less calories per day then you are burning (a deficit) what energy is the body using to function? What energy is it using to create stored fat as you claim is possible. A lb of fat requires roughly 3500 surplus calories. If you are in a deficit then where does the energy needed for the fat come from?I'll echo that somatypes are basically nonsense. Reverse dieting isn't a scientifically sound topic either. I take issue with your story when you claimed that your calories become too low causing you to gain fat. "Eventually with the high fat intake and large deficit I hit a plateau and started going backwards. I got as high as 22%" This doesn't happen. Why would a steep deficit cause fat gain? There is no scientific or physiological way for the body to gain fat when in a prolonged caloric deficit, especially a steep one. My main guess is that you either were eating more then you think, burning less then you think, or both. How accurately do you track calories? Do you weigh 100% of every you eat on a scale? How often do you cheat, eat out, or eat food not prepared and weighed?
You can easily gain on a deficit if you are not careful by not getting enough sleep, being at a deficit for a long period of time, eating the wrong macro’s for your body type/activity type/activity level, and doing the same exercises over and over. Also stress is a huge reason for a weight gain on a deficit. Or how about thyroid issues.
I won’t re-peat sometime that you can easily google and yes I was tracking everything with a scale for goodness sakes. My macros were so upside down I had no energy and was gaining fat fast. Unfortunately for girls we go into an emergency fat storage mode and start storing fat in our butts, hips, and stomach generally. Guys, generally, get off easy and their fat storage mode just hits their tummy… not fair!
As soon as I switched my macros and started reverse dieting, which is a thing BTW and a lot of body builders or physique models use it after a show, you can see from the image above the weight came right off faster than before.
Thank you for this discussion. This post was not a discussion on reverse dieting which I know works or macros which I also know works and are very important or weight gain on a deficit which does happen. This was a discussion about where I should go next for my goals. If you have any opinions on that great, if not I really don’t feeling like explaining myself anymore. If you don't know about these things then please google them.
Uh yes there is its knows by many names. Super Accumulation of Fat or AKA survival mode or AKA the dreaded plateau that you just can't break through, or a metabolic shift, or lowering of your metabolism, or my favorite fat storage mode or starvation mode.
MacLean at the University of Colorado describes this general metabolic behavior: “[When we eat less] metabolic adjustments occur…[which] contribute to a large potential energy imbalance that, when the forcible control of energy intake is relieved…results in an exceptionally high rate of weight regain.”
They did a study on rats. Please see their findings below
"The Eat Less Group weighed the most and had the highest percent body fat. Even though they ate less for ten days, they were significantly heavier than those who ate normally all the way through. Eating less led the rats to gain—not lose—body fat."
More articles go on....
"Super Accumulation of Fat
Talk about side effects. Eating less was worse than doing nothing.
Why?
After our metabolism is starved, its number one priority is restoring all the body fat it lost and then protecting us from starving in the future. Guess how it does that? By storing additional body fat. Researchers call this “fat super accumulation.” From researcher E.A. Young at the University of Texas: “These and other studies…strongly suggest that fat super accumulation…after energy restriction is a major factor contributing to relapsing obesity, so often observed in humans.”"
There is another reason: eating less slowed the metabolism. Put the same quantity and quality of food and exercise into a slowed-down fat metabolism system, and out comes more body fat."
This is why most individuals on a hard deficit see a plateau. Some not only plateau but they start gaining fat. Which was me.
Below is a graph by Harvard on their test studies and what they concluded. But hey you go on and argue with Harvard. Have fun!
Now I can keep throwing studies and test from Universities and Doctors and how you can change your metabolism and speed it up or lower it but you will keep arguing what is proven as fact is not so I am done.
Please note I thought like you did until I started getting older and couldn't do a 90 day shred so fast and stalled out and then started to gain. I would think I was nuts too. Of course this was after 3 c-sections. Perhaps once you get older this will happen to you as well and you will understand how our body isn't a machine. You can't put in one equation and expect it to do exactly what you want. You give it less, it adapts just like it does when you train the same every day it adapts.
@alexis831 you're obviously a big believer in starvation mode. So i will ask you what i have asked every other person who thinks they will gain or hold on to weight on a steep deficit:
How do Anorexics, prisoners of war, people in starving 3rd world countries manage to keep on losing weight, and some die of starvation? If starvation mode were true then why do the above mentioned people turn to skin and bone, why don't their bodies hold onto every little calorie they eat to stop them from further losing weight?
I have asked this question dozens of times and have NEVER received an answer!2 -
1) Start subtracting calories slowly -50 a week until I get down to around 1400 (a 500 deficit) then reverse diet back up.
2) Cut out calories immediately to 1400 and then reverse back up.
3) Do a small cut down to 1500 and slowly go backward back down to 1400 or even 1300 and then reverse diet back up.
4) Or wait on my reverse and get up to 1900 then chose what to do from there.
Your macro change and caloric adjustment have worked well for you.
You've become visibly leaner.
The goal is not weight or a number on a bio-impedence scale, the goal is lean-ness, muscle, strength, and abs
.
The scale bio-impedence measurement is crap. Heck I pay to get myself scanned by DEXA and that too is crap for the percentage differences you are trying to achieve. Unless you're affiliated to a study that will do body composition CT scans for you, visual feedback is going to get you as close to reality as anything else.
So, what you've been doing has been working.
You're not on the clock. There are several potentially negative consequences in regards to caloric restriction for lean people....
the advice is that you keep doing what you're doing now and increasing your calories to as high a maintenance as you can before you start gaining fat. At that point and at that point only do you back off.
Note that past a certain amount of protein you are burning it the same as you would carbs (for energy), only it is a more inefficient source of energy to use and to store, so less of the nominal energy you consume becomes available... but I digress.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions