Slow Losers Unite!

Options
13

Replies

  • Sunny_Bunny_
    Sunny_Bunny_ Posts: 7,140 Member
    Options
    I started on June 1st and have lost approximately one pound a week. I ain't complaining, it's almost thirty pounds down and I the time went by anyway. I have had some bumps and glitches with carb days, and I still at least maintained. Fast isn't better according to many studies I've read. Don't ask me to source, go do your own research.

    Sorry if I sound snippy. I'm feeling snippy. ;)

    Looking at my graph, I've lost 6kg (12 lbs) in 12 months. With no carb "glitches". Keto the whole time. I'm also feeling snippy.

    @EbonyDahlia How many calories are you eating per day? It sounds as if you're eating just slightly under maintenance sometimes and maybe over on other days??

    Nope, I'm eating at a good deficit. After 25 years of CICO and 4 years on keto I'm spot on with the calorie counting. I'm always 100 to 200 under my target each day, other than maybe once a month where I'll eat a bit more (have a 2000 calorie day - but always keto). I've tried more calories, less calories, calorie cycling (1200 some days and 1500 on others) but none of it makes a difference. At 1200 calories I am more hungry but I do not lose more weight.

    I'm with you. Calories are not the be all, end all of weight loss but those that haven't experienced it don't believe. I can actually understand their disbelief to some degree but learning more everyday about gut health, hormones and Epi genetics makes it clear there are more players in the game. I couldn't possibly make such a statement as "it comes down to simple CICO" in good conscience.
  • clawson91
    clawson91 Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    I'm down .4 this week! How are my fellow slow losers doing?
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    clawson91 wrote: »
    I'm down .4 this week! How are my fellow slow losers doing?

    I have fluctuations - down 0.8 vs. yesterday technically, but just a part of standard fluctuations. According to Trendweight, I've gained 0.3 lbs. since 1 week ago. Trendweight lags and I had a couple weeks of slightly higher calories before returning this week to the 1,500 Calories that allows me to lose weight. But also I haven't had much exercise this week, so I am not really losing very quickly - or not at all - now that I've cut back down to 1,500 again.
  • dasher602014
    dasher602014 Posts: 1,992 Member
    Options
    I was down a lb last week. Bouncing around this week but still holding that loss which in the week before Christmas, ain't bad.
  • DietPrada
    DietPrada Posts: 1,171 Member
    Options
    I've gone from 89.0 to 90.4 this week. Only difference is I had a couple of glasses of red wine last Saturday, and a little more cheese than I should have at the work office lunch. Other than that totally on plan and resisted all the things. Meh.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
  • Sunny_Bunny_
    Sunny_Bunny_ Posts: 7,140 Member
    Options
    Just no
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    Just no

    All i can say is it's rung true for me whether keto, low carb or regular macros.

    Every single time I've stalled/gained or lost super slowly i was able to track it back to my food logging, or lack thereof.

  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 6,956 Member
    Options
    Just no

    All i can say is it's rung true for me whether keto, low carb or regular macros.

    Every single time I've stalled/gained or lost super slowly i was able to track it back to my food logging, or lack thereof.

    That's been my experience as well.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    Just no

    All i can say is it's rung true for me whether keto, low carb or regular macros.

    Every single time I've stalled/gained or lost super slowly i was able to track it back to my food logging, or lack thereof.

    I hear that from a lot of people, but it hadn't held true for me until I started eating low carb.

    Keep in mind that the Atwater equation is averages of everyone involved in his study, so each individual is different. Also, nutritional calories are different among the same macro. For example, disachharides have a different nutritional calorie amount than monosacharrides and different amino acids have different nutritional values. So even in the exact same person (who will likely come up different in At water's test than any other person), a gram of protein is not the same calories as another gram of protein with a different structure.

    Then macro measurements are averges, even among the exact same food item. Furthermore, measurement methods contain variances, and nutrition labels contain further variances.

    So on the CI side alone, those of us who measure every gram of food we consume don't really know how many nutritional calories we are getting. The range of error after all of those things are compound ed is quite large. Then, the CO side of the equation is wrought with inaccuracies as well... by large margins.

    So ultimately, CI cannot be accurately measured without first conducting years of tests on you individually and very thorough and specific testing on each piece of food you eat... destructive testing which prevents it from being eaten anyway.

    CO is also impossible to determine precisely without living in a test chamber. Even then, it just gives a much closers guess.

    So even if CICO is perfect, CICO cannot be used precisely or even closely estimated anyway. Your known ranges in practical use is in the hundreds of calories on your best day.
  • Sunny_Bunny_
    Sunny_Bunny_ Posts: 7,140 Member
    Options
    Just no

    All i can say is it's rung true for me whether keto, low carb or regular macros.

    Every single time I've stalled/gained or lost super slowly i was able to track it back to my food logging, or lack thereof.

    I hear that from a lot of people, but it hadn't held true for me until I started eating low carb.

    Keep in mind that the Atwater equation is averages of everyone involved in his study, so each individual is different. Also, nutritional calories are different among the same macro. For example, disachharides have a different nutritional calorie amount than monosacharrides and different amino acids have different nutritional values. So even in the exact same person (who will likely come up different in At water's test than any other person), a gram of protein is not the same calories as another gram of protein with a different structure.

    Then macro measurements are averges, even among the exact same food item. Furthermore, measurement methods contain variances, and nutrition labels contain further variances.

    So on the CI side alone, those of us who measure every gram of food we consume don't really know how many nutritional calories we are getting. The range of error after all of those things are compound ed is quite large. Then, the CO side of the equation is wrought with inaccuracies as well... by large margins.

    So ultimately, CI cannot be accurately measured without first conducting years of tests on you individually and very thorough and specific testing on each piece of food you eat... destructive testing which prevents it from being eaten anyway.

    CO is also impossible to determine precisely without living in a test chamber. Even then, it just gives a much closers guess.

    So even if CICO is perfect, CICO cannot be used precisely or even closely estimated anyway. Your known ranges in practical use is in the hundreds of calories on your best day.

    This is why I will always stand by the idea that it does not come down to simple CICO. Nothing about our bodies is that simple and doesn't do anyone any good to continually suggest that it's just that simple. Sure, there is s certain truth there. But I contend that if we are eating real food, the right kind of food (simply meaning not just everything that tastes sweet and dessert like) that hunger will be under control and calories naturally take care of themselves. The true key is not eating all day long every day of the year. We never ate that way in history. If we eat that way, calories are really gonna add up. If we don't eat that way, it's a non issue.
    You can't watch a girl deteriorate from 205 pounds to 95 pounds in 18 months eating like a crazed animal every minute of the day and come out of that thinking calories are king. There's no way that T1D is the only condition that messes up the body properly using calories. That just makes no sense.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    Just no

    All i can say is it's rung true for me whether keto, low carb or regular macros.

    Every single time I've stalled/gained or lost super slowly i was able to track it back to my food logging, or lack thereof.

    I hear that from a lot of people, but it hadn't held true for me until I started eating low carb.

    Keep in mind that the Atwater equation is averages of everyone involved in his study, so each individual is different. Also, nutritional calories are different among the same macro. For example, disachharides have a different nutritional calorie amount than monosacharrides and different amino acids have different nutritional values. So even in the exact same person (who will likely come up different in At water's test than any other person), a gram of protein is not the same calories as another gram of protein with a different structure.

    Then macro measurements are averges, even among the exact same food item. Furthermore, measurement methods contain variances, and nutrition labels contain further variances.

    So on the CI side alone, those of us who measure every gram of food we consume don't really know how many nutritional calories we are getting. The range of error after all of those things are compound ed is quite large. Then, the CO side of the equation is wrought with inaccuracies as well... by large margins.

    So ultimately, CI cannot be accurately measured without first conducting years of tests on you individually and very thorough and specific testing on each piece of food you eat... destructive testing which prevents it from being eaten anyway.

    CO is also impossible to determine precisely without living in a test chamber. Even then, it just gives a much closers guess.

    So even if CICO is perfect, CICO cannot be used precisely or even closely estimated anyway. Your known ranges in practical use is in the hundreds of calories on your best day.

    This is why I will always stand by the idea that it does not come down to simple CICO. Nothing about our bodies is that simple and doesn't do anyone any good to continually suggest that it's just that simple. Sure, there is s certain truth there. But I contend that if we are eating real food, the right kind of food (simply meaning not just everything that tastes sweet and dessert like) that hunger will be under control and calories naturally take care of themselves. The true key is not eating all day long every day of the year. We never ate that way in history. If we eat that way, calories are really gonna add up. If we don't eat that way, it's a non issue.
    You can't watch a girl deteriorate from 205 pounds to 95 pounds in 18 months eating like a crazed animal every minute of the day and come out of that thinking calories are king. There's no way that T1D is the only condition that messes up the body properly using calories. That just makes no sense.

    I agree macros are important too. If i have too many carbs i find i'm in a constant battle with myself to keep eating and eating and the cravings become front and centre, too little fat and protein and I find myself picking all day. It's definitely a delicate balance finding the right fit. I've spent hours upon hours of tweaking to make my macros and calories work for me.

    I loved being low carb, and the weight fell off easily and my appetite and cravings definitely lowered, but along with that, so did my calories.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    @midwesterner85 CICO ( I do really hate that term) is certainly not perfect, there are inconsistencies on both sides, and no one will get it 100% right, but if i'm losing weight on schedule than i'm close enough. I am by no means a cicophant, macros play a huge role also IMO.
    I most definitely do not support those who say "you can eat nothing but junk food all day everyday and lose weight", while it may be correct in theory, doing this would be a miserable, unhealthy and hungry existence.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    Maybe some can eat junk food in the right quantity and lose weight still. No single thing will work universally. It doesn't work well for me either.
  • RalfLott
    RalfLott Posts: 5,036 Member
    Options
    Maybe it's The Weight Thing that's the problem. :o
  • Shortontime
    Shortontime Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    I've been LCHF since August 2016. I am constantly battling the same 3 lbs. I will lose and lose .5 lbs increments, for weeks, then gain 2 and not lose a darn thing for 2 more weeks... It is SUPER frustrating. I have lost 25 lbs and some inches, but I also don't see that much difference measurement wise for these weeks of gaining and losing the same 3 lbs for the last 2 months.

    I set the goals on MFP to lose 2 lbs per week, my macros are set 5/20/75 (C/P/F) and most days I meet both the macros and the calorie count set for me (which is at a deficit). The projected weight loss and my actual weight loss over time do not match. I'm significantly overweight still (50-60lbs), so I'm not eating at a maintenance level...

    In the past, I've only been able to lose weight when exercising, so I'm impressed that with 0 activity, and poor ADLs, I've lost what I have so far. My next step (n=1) is to add in some basic exercise like walking... and then eventually lift weights.