Slow Losers Unite!
Options
Replies
-
EbonyDahlia wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »SuperCarLori wrote: »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.3 -
I'm down .4 this week! How are my fellow slow losers doing?3
-
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.0 -
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.1
-
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.0
-
Slow loser here! I've been LCHF since February, 2015. During the first year I had a four month period were I didn't lose any new weight! It was a period were I was getting Splenda out of my system, but yes, no new weight loss! Talk about a trial of patience! I did lose inches during that time, and that, along with the way I felt, kept me on track! I just knew it was working!!
I've been in maintenance since July, 2016, so it took me 17 months to lose 50 pounds!
Don't expect fast, only health! It will keep you on track! Measurements help tremendously too!5 -
3
-
Just no1
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »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.
3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
I liked the comment, "Good info, but you’re kind of a dick…"
In my own case, the constant, irritating refrain, "You're undercounting calories" generally seems to have been true..... I keep a food scale handy, as well as a bunch of measuring cups, to check myself now and then. Sure enough, if I'm wrong, it's always on the side of underestimating.
To make matters worse, stated food values are often not within hailing distance of reality.
Then there are false estimates of how much (little) you're actually burning when you exercise, how much water you're retaining, whether your body comp has changed....
Even assuming CICO is the Way It Is, both sides of the equation are prone to substantial miscalculation, so how good of a tool is it when it comes to precise measurement?
Solution? Well, I might start by throwing the *kitten* scale off a cliff... The bio-electric impedance body fat measurement and occasional body comp scans @midwesterner85 suggests would seem to give better info than whatever *kitten* line your scale is feeding you this week.5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »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.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »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.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »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.1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »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.1 -
@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.1 -
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.0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »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.
You're absolutely right. I totally agree with all of that. I guess I find the idea of continuously looking to calories for the answers of why weight loss isn't happening as the problem. For example, if focusing only the idea that calories are the culprit, in a scenario like you described where eating more carbs made you want to pick all day long, a person might find themselves fighting a losing battle of wills if simply focusing on the calories and not WHY eating all day long is happening in the first place. I agree that both are important.
I guess my perspective comes down to the idea that "calories count, but you don't have to count them". I feel like if you're in a place where you have to choose how much to eat based on some calculation rather than what your body is telling you it needs, that just doesn't make sense to me.
If someone is wanting to lose weight, then eat less certainly makes sense. I don't necessarily think a close calorie count is a must though. Nothing wrong with using it. I did myself for quite a while. And it worked great until it didn't anymore. Did I suddenly forget how to count calories? Can't imagine I just suddenly lost the ability to do that after months of doing it perfectly well. To have the idea that I'm just eating too many calories constantly as the only explanation would've probably made me overlook that I was actually losing bodyfat anyway. I'm just glad we are in a group where that isn't the one and only rule of thumb. I don't mean I believe it's not a factor. It's just not as helpful overall as so many like to think it is as an area of evaluation and measure of success.
I don't completely disagree with it because I do believe that overeating results in weight gain, but I will always be of the thought that looking at the food diary calorie column isn't the data area where the answers for why weight loss isn't happening will be found. I personally think that answer lies more in the "breakfast, snack, lunch, snack, dinner, snack" columns.5 -
Maybe it's The Weight Thing that's the problem.
2 -
We all have our own experiences to bring. I know that during times of no scale weight loss I lost many inches in size. My theory, only FOR ME, is that my body was healing itself (of something I may never know) and losing weight was the last thing it wanted to do at the time. This is why I call them "Healing pauses". I've made it through every one of them, doing the same eating pattern, never trying to force things with fat fasts, or anything of the such. I just knew to keep on doing what I was doing, and the weight loss would catch up!
Now that I'm at the weight I want to be I'm so glad I kept on keeping on and that it worked for me! Considering myself to be a success (for almost seven months now) is a weird place to be but I'm getting used to it. It is pretty cool to not have weight I need to lose! So, whatever journey it takes to get you there is always yours. No two people will have the same results. The only recommendations I give people is to keep doing what's working for them.5 -
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.1
