Fat Loss Resistance
Guinevere_22
Posts: 14 Member
I just read a very interesting article on how our metabolisms are affected by dieting; it raises some interesting questions about why some people (me included) struggle to lose weight. Let me know what you all think...
Link below:
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/
Link below:
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/
0
Replies
-
Bump for later...
The only comment I have is this-I refuse to get into any debates with anyone on this site regarding "calories in, calories out, end of story".
Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out. Thanks for sharing!0 -
I read it.. there might be some good points in there.. but its pretty sketchy.. Eat below your RMR to lose weight.. low cal diet.. The reason why most dieters regain their weight isn't because of all the questionable things in there.. its because of their low calorie lifestyle isn't sustainable in the long run.. meaning its not a lifestyle change..
You can end the article right there, no need to go into all the bull Dr Oz talk.0 -
Thanks, OP. The article was interesting. Had some things I agreed with and some things I didn't.
I think that mainly people struggle to lose weight for three reasons: they start out with expectations that are way to high and quit OR they start out with a plan that they can't adhere to and quit OR they have correct expectations and a great plan, but they just quit.
Certainly, there could be some medical reasons as well.
Bottom line though: Reasonable expectations + Good plan + Adherence = Fat loss
Just my two cents : )0 -
makes sense. always wondered why after a month of losing, i would stall or gain....i am going through this right now. i already upped the protein and lowered my carbs....and increased my fats. hoping this will help!!!! It's discouraging though that I may be a part of this. I just wish I could just lose weight as easily as other people.0
-
Bump for later...
The only comment I have is this-I refuse to get into any debates with anyone on this site regarding "calories in, calories out, end of story".
Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out. Thanks for sharing!
Whoa! Not looking to debate... However, calories in calories out is THE jumping off point. If you eat at a healthy deficit, lose weight, and feel generally good, then why even bring the hormone debate into question?
MANY people use articles like this to justify why they just can't seem to get results when the actual problem is their expectations, their plan, or their adherence, which is why I hate this kind of stuff. If the article is completely accurate (which I doubt) then it is applicable to far fewer people who will jump on it and say, "That must be why I can't lose weight!" When the reality is that what they actually do is try to low-carb/Paleo/SouthBeach/EatLiketheDinosaurs diet and lose a few pounds, fall off the wagon, and gain it back. These people are not "weight loss resistant." They need a plan that works in life.0 -
Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out.
THIS!0 -
Bump. Good article.0
-
my scale not budging either, I am not usually a dieter,...I am 39 yrs old...and the weight isnt coming off as easy as I would like! I run in morning, do 30 day shred in afternoon and ride my bike 6-7 miles in the evening every other day! I do follow the south beach, ph 1. if i follow it perfect i lose, if i cheat i maintain...it drives me crazy! so I decided to do you and raw 21 day raw food reset. I feel amazing, its green juice, green juice smoothies, protein smoothies, and aweseome salads. I am on day 5, and I feel great! I am curious once I finish if I will gain all back or be able to maintain?0
-
Bump for later...
The only comment I have is this-I refuse to get into any debates with anyone on this site regarding "calories in, calories out, end of story".
Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out. Thanks for sharing!
Whoa! Not looking to debate... However, calories in calories out is THE jumping off point. If you eat at a healthy deficit, lose weight, and feel generally good, then why even bring the hormone debate into question?
MANY people use articles like this to justify why they just can't seem to get results when the actual problem is their expectations, their plan, or their adherence, which is why I hate this kind of stuff. If the article is completely accurate (which I doubt) then it is applicable to far fewer people who will jump on it and say, "That must be why I can't lose weight!" When the reality is that what they actually do is try to low-carb/Paleo/SouthBeach/EatLiketheDinosaurs diet and lose a few pounds, fall off the wagon, and gain it back. These people are not "weight loss resistant." They need a plan that works in life.
Of course it is the jumping off point. My point is that too many people claim it to be the end all be all, when there is more to the story. I haven't read the article yet, the comment was not based on the article or excuses. I agree, people DO use articles and such as excuses. My point is the comments I always see in forums "calories in vs calories out is the law of the land" is of base from reality... there is more to it. Can some people have success only worrying about that? Of course. But many people have more to consider for success.0 -
Bump for later...
The only comment I have is this-I refuse to get into any debates with anyone on this site regarding "calories in, calories out, end of story".
Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out. Thanks for sharing!
Lollercoaster, perhaps hormones and their effects are taken into account in the energy balance equation?0 -
Of course it is the jumping off point. My point is that too many people claim it to be the end all be all, when there is more to the story. I haven't read the article yet, the comment was not based on the article or excuses. I agree, people DO use articles and such as excuses. My point is the comments I always see in forums "calories in vs calories out is the law of the land" is of base from reality... there is more to it. Can some people have success only worrying about that? Of course. But many people have more to consider for success.
Cals in < cals out is not off base from reality. It is the reality of what works for MOST people. Some people have other issues, whether they be hormonal, metabolic, etc. But until they eat at a healthy deficit for an extended period of time (longer than two weeks) with no results, (Logging all foods: weighing and measuring, no quick added calories, ketchup counts, recipe builder-type logging). How can they possibly blame hormones/metabolism?
Talk like this does more harm than good. Gives people excuses and outs when the reality it that they just haven't been adhering to a reasonable plan.
PS: In my time here, I have also had trouble. Toyed with the idea that my metabolism was messed up. But then I got real with myself. I wasn't being honest with myself about my adherence to the plan. I think that is probably the case for most of the people who are having trouble.0 -
It thought it was a pretty good article. Informative and in laymen terms.0
-
Of course it is the jumping off point. My point is that too many people claim it to be the end all be all, when there is more to the story. I haven't read the article yet, the comment was not based on the article or excuses. I agree, people DO use articles and such as excuses. My point is the comments I always see in forums "calories in vs calories out is the law of the land" is of base from reality... there is more to it. Can some people have success only worrying about that? Of course. But many people have more to consider for success.
Cals in < cals out is not off base from reality. It is the reality of what works for MOST people. Some people have other issues, whether they be hormonal, metabolic, etc. But until they eat at a healthy deficit for an extended period of time (longer than two weeks) with no results, (Logging all foods: weighing and measuring, no quick added calories, ketchup counts, recipe builder-type logging). How can they possibly blame hormones/metabolism?
Talk like this does more harm than good. Gives people excuses and outs when the reality it that they just haven't been adhering to a reasonable plan.
PS: In my time here, I have also had trouble. Toyed with the idea that my metabolism was messed up. But then I got real with myself. I wasn't being honest with myself about my adherence to the plan. I think that is probably the case for most of the people who are having trouble.
I'm not a fan of the "I did this and it worked, so it works for just about everyone" mentality any more than I'm a fan of blaming hormones without medical proof. Hormonal imbalanc is not terribly uncommon among women, older women especially. But it can be detected with a simple blood test.0 -
I'm not a fan of the "I did this and it worked, so it works for just about everyone" mentality any more than I'm a fan of blaming hormones without medical proof. Hormonal imbalanc is not terribly uncommon among women, older women especially. But it can be detected with a simple blood test.
To be clear, I'm not saying that because cals in < cals out worked for me, it will work for just about everyone. I'm saying that it will work for just about everyone because it is proven science. Also, I'm not saying that because I wasn't adhering to the plan, that is what other people are also doing. I'm saying that people do it all the time. We all see it on the forums and our news feeds. Adherence is a very common problem. More common than hormonal/metabolic disorders. Therefore, if someone is having a problem losing weight, perhaps examining adherence is more reasonable and effective than suggesting they have a metabolic/hormonal disorder.0 -
Of course it is the jumping off point. My point is that too many people claim it to be the end all be all, when there is more to the story. I haven't read the article yet, the comment was not based on the article or excuses. I agree, people DO use articles and such as excuses. My point is the comments I always see in forums "calories in vs calories out is the law of the land" is of base from reality... there is more to it. Can some people have success only worrying about that? Of course. But many people have more to consider for success.
Cals in < cals out is not off base from reality. It is the reality of what works for MOST people. Some people have other issues, whether they be hormonal, metabolic, etc. But until they eat at a healthy deficit for an extended period of time (longer than two weeks) with no results, (Logging all foods: weighing and measuring, no quick added calories, ketchup counts, recipe builder-type logging). How can they possibly blame hormones/metabolism?
Talk like this does more harm than good. Gives people excuses and outs when the reality it that they just haven't been adhering to a reasonable plan.
PS: In my time here, I have also had trouble. Toyed with the idea that my metabolism was messed up. But then I got real with myself. I wasn't being honest with myself about my adherence to the plan. I think that is probably the case for most of the people who are having trouble.
I'm not a fan of the "I did this and it worked, so it works for just about everyone" mentality any more than I'm a fan of blaming hormones without medical proof. Hormonal imbalanc is not terribly uncommon among women, older women especially. But it can be detected with a simple blood test.
Precisely. ^^
My answers aren't as thorough as I would like being that I am at work, and should be working (I'm sure many sneak in some MFP)
Britzzie, you are making assumptions. I did not give a lot of info on my point of view, but you are defending/commenting on assumptions of my point of view.
YES-for many people the simple science is enough for results.
YES-people need to put in ACTUAL effort and not make assumptions of hormonal issues, resistance, thyroids, blah blah etc. Until you give 100 percent effort for an extended period of time (you said 2 weeks, I say at least a month) your mind shouldn't even fathom these possibilities.
YES-Do I even need to explain that I am not referring to people who aren't being honest with themselves and logging their ketchup?
Simply put, without the added assumptions of my view, is that there are other factors to weight loss that affect a significant amount of people. Wrecked hormone balances, adrenal exhaustion, I could go on and on. Older women is a great example, and so is people who have been yo-yo dieting for years. All of these factors should clearly be an after thought to be determined after true effort for prolonged periods of time. The only point I am making is they DO exist, and I get tired of people in these forums acting like they don't.
I get equally tired of excuses- people crying sabotage, lack of will power and control, lack of results when they aren't even logging food or exercising, or eating nothing but carbs and sugar, etc. And for the record, I lose weight by excercise and eating in a deficit, I have no issues.0 -
Of course it is the jumping off point. My point is that too many people claim it to be the end all be all, when there is more to the story. I haven't read the article yet, the comment was not based on the article or excuses. I agree, people DO use articles and such as excuses. My point is the comments I always see in forums "calories in vs calories out is the law of the land" is of base from reality... there is more to it. Can some people have success only worrying about that? Of course. But many people have more to consider for success.
Cals in < cals out is not off base from reality. It is the reality of what works for MOST people. Some people have other issues, whether they be hormonal, metabolic, etc. But until they eat at a healthy deficit for an extended period of time (longer than two weeks) with no results, (Logging all foods: weighing and measuring, no quick added calories, ketchup counts, recipe builder-type logging). How can they possibly blame hormones/metabolism?
Talk like this does more harm than good. Gives people excuses and outs when the reality it that they just haven't been adhering to a reasonable plan.
PS: In my time here, I have also had trouble. Toyed with the idea that my metabolism was messed up. But then I got real with myself. I wasn't being honest with myself about my adherence to the plan. I think that is probably the case for most of the people who are having trouble.
I'm not a fan of the "I did this and it worked, so it works for just about everyone" mentality any more than I'm a fan of blaming hormones without medical proof. Hormonal imbalanc is not terribly uncommon among women, older women especially. But it can be detected with a simple blood test.
Precisely. ^^
My answers aren't as thorough as I would like being that I am at work, and should be working (I'm sure many sneak in some MFP)
Britzzie, you are making assumptions. I did not give a lot of info on my point of view, but you are defending/commenting on assumptions of my point of view.
YES-for many people the simple science is enough for results.
YES-people need to put in ACTUAL effort and not make assumptions of hormonal issues, resistance, thyroids, blah blah etc. Until you give 100 percent effort for an extended period of time (you said 2 weeks, I say at least a month) your mind shouldn't even fathom these possibilities.
YES-Do I even need to explain that I am not referring to people who aren't being honest with themselves and logging their ketchup?
Simply put, without the added assumptions of my view, is that there are other factors to weight loss that affect a significant amount of people. Wrecked hormone balances, adrenal exhaustion, I could go on and on. Older women is a great example, and so is people who have been yo-yo dieting for years. All of these factors should clearly be an after thought to be determined after true effort for prolonged periods of time. The only point I am making is they DO exist, and I get tired of people in these forums acting like they don't.
I get equally tired of excuses- people crying sabotage, lack of will power and control, lack of results when they aren't even logging food or exercising, or eating nothing but carbs and sugar, etc. And for the record, I lose weight by excercise and eating in a deficit, I have no issues.
I'm sorry if you feel I made assumptions on your position. I certainly did not mean to do that. It seems like our positions are really very similar. If the basics truly aren't working, maybe it's something more complicated, such as the issues you mentioned, which I DO believe exist. It is simply my perception that people can be over zealous with claiming to have such an issue, just based on what I've seen. So...truce? :flowerforyou:0 -
Of course it is the jumping off point. My point is that too many people claim it to be the end all be all, when there is more to the story. I haven't read the article yet, the comment was not based on the article or excuses. I agree, people DO use articles and such as excuses. My point is the comments I always see in forums "calories in vs calories out is the law of the land" is of base from reality... there is more to it. Can some people have success only worrying about that? Of course. But many people have more to consider for success.
Cals in < cals out is not off base from reality. It is the reality of what works for MOST people. Some people have other issues, whether they be hormonal, metabolic, etc. But until they eat at a healthy deficit for an extended period of time (longer than two weeks) with no results, (Logging all foods: weighing and measuring, no quick added calories, ketchup counts, recipe builder-type logging). How can they possibly blame hormones/metabolism?
Talk like this does more harm than good. Gives people excuses and outs when the reality it that they just haven't been adhering to a reasonable plan.
PS: In my time here, I have also had trouble. Toyed with the idea that my metabolism was messed up. But then I got real with myself. I wasn't being honest with myself about my adherence to the plan. I think that is probably the case for most of the people who are having trouble.
I'm not a fan of the "I did this and it worked, so it works for just about everyone" mentality any more than I'm a fan of blaming hormones without medical proof. Hormonal imbalanc is not terribly uncommon among women, older women especially. But it can be detected with a simple blood test.
Precisely. ^^
My answers aren't as thorough as I would like being that I am at work, and should be working (I'm sure many sneak in some MFP)
Britzzie, you are making assumptions. I did not give a lot of info on my point of view, but you are defending/commenting on assumptions of my point of view.
YES-for many people the simple science is enough for results.
YES-people need to put in ACTUAL effort and not make assumptions of hormonal issues, resistance, thyroids, blah blah etc. Until you give 100 percent effort for an extended period of time (you said 2 weeks, I say at least a month) your mind shouldn't even fathom these possibilities.
YES-Do I even need to explain that I am not referring to people who aren't being honest with themselves and logging their ketchup?
Simply put, without the added assumptions of my view, is that there are other factors to weight loss that affect a significant amount of people. Wrecked hormone balances, adrenal exhaustion, I could go on and on. Older women is a great example, and so is people who have been yo-yo dieting for years. All of these factors should clearly be an after thought to be determined after true effort for prolonged periods of time. The only point I am making is they DO exist, and I get tired of people in these forums acting like they don't.
I get equally tired of excuses- people crying sabotage, lack of will power and control, lack of results when they aren't even logging food or exercising, or eating nothing but carbs and sugar, etc. And for the record, I lose weight by excercise and eating in a deficit, I have no issues.
I'm sorry if you feel I made assumptions on your position. I certainly did not mean to do that. It seems like our positions are really very similar. If the basics truly aren't working, maybe it's something more complicated, such as the issues you mentioned, which I DO believe exist. It is simply my perception that people can be over zealous with claiming to have such an issue, just based on what I've seen. So...truce? :flowerforyou:
:drinker: We are pretty much on the same page. I completely agree. I think there is just as much over use of excuses and justifications as lack of understanding of real science. It is just a forum with people from all walks of life and backgrounds, so I guess that is to be expected. I should probably wait to comment on something until I actually have time to write a proper post too! It is Friday... my internet is wondering away from work on me.... lol. Truce is absolutely initiated. :flowerforyou:0 -
Of course it is the jumping off point. My point is that too many people claim it to be the end all be all, when there is more to the story. I haven't read the article yet, the comment was not based on the article or excuses. I agree, people DO use articles and such as excuses. My point is the comments I always see in forums "calories in vs calories out is the law of the land" is of base from reality... there is more to it. Can some people have success only worrying about that? Of course. But many people have more to consider for success.
Cals in < cals out is not off base from reality. It is the reality of what works for MOST people. Some people have other issues, whether they be hormonal, metabolic, etc. But until they eat at a healthy deficit for an extended period of time (longer than two weeks) with no results, (Logging all foods: weighing and measuring, no quick added calories, ketchup counts, recipe builder-type logging). How can they possibly blame hormones/metabolism?
Talk like this does more harm than good. Gives people excuses and outs when the reality it that they just haven't been adhering to a reasonable plan.
PS: In my time here, I have also had trouble. Toyed with the idea that my metabolism was messed up. But then I got real with myself. I wasn't being honest with myself about my adherence to the plan. I think that is probably the case for most of the people who are having trouble.
I'm not a fan of the "I did this and it worked, so it works for just about everyone" mentality any more than I'm a fan of blaming hormones without medical proof. Hormonal imbalanc is not terribly uncommon among women, older women especially. But it can be detected with a simple blood test.
Precisely. ^^
My answers aren't as thorough as I would like being that I am at work, and should be working (I'm sure many sneak in some MFP)
Britzzie, you are making assumptions. I did not give a lot of info on my point of view, but you are defending/commenting on assumptions of my point of view.
YES-for many people the simple science is enough for results.
YES-people need to put in ACTUAL effort and not make assumptions of hormonal issues, resistance, thyroids, blah blah etc. Until you give 100 percent effort for an extended period of time (you said 2 weeks, I say at least a month) your mind shouldn't even fathom these possibilities.
YES-Do I even need to explain that I am not referring to people who aren't being honest with themselves and logging their ketchup?
Simply put, without the added assumptions of my view, is that there are other factors to weight loss that affect a significant amount of people. Wrecked hormone balances, adrenal exhaustion, I could go on and on. Older women is a great example, and so is people who have been yo-yo dieting for years. All of these factors should clearly be an after thought to be determined after true effort for prolonged periods of time. The only point I am making is they DO exist, and I get tired of people in these forums acting like they don't.
I get equally tired of excuses- people crying sabotage, lack of will power and control, lack of results when they aren't even logging food or exercising, or eating nothing but carbs and sugar, etc. And for the record, I lose weight by excercise and eating in a deficit, I have no issues.
I'm sorry if you feel I made assumptions on your position. I certainly did not mean to do that. It seems like our positions are really very similar. If the basics truly aren't working, maybe it's something more complicated, such as the issues you mentioned, which I DO believe exist. It is simply my perception that people can be over zealous with claiming to have such an issue, just based on what I've seen. So...truce? :flowerforyou:
:drinker: We are pretty much on the same page. I completely agree. I think there is just as much over use of excuses and justifications as lack of understanding of real science. It is just a forum with people from all walks of life and backgrounds, so I guess that is to be expected. I should probably wait to comment on something until I actually have time to write a proper post too! It is Friday... my internet is wondering away from work on me.... lol. Truce is absolutely initiated. :flowerforyou:
Nice to see people behaving like civilized adults on a forum. Cheers to us! :drinker: :bigsmile:0 -
Indeed!
0 -
Bump for later...
The only comment I have is this-I refuse to get into any debates with anyone on this site regarding "calories in, calories out, end of story".
Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out. Thanks for sharing!
reposting from another Brd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiponectin
http://www.livestrong.com/article/549960-glycemic-load-adiponectin/
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=207088
I am sharing links to a fraction of the things I have been reading over the last 10 years. A calorie is not a calorie The quality of your nutrition matters MORE.
Mainstream understanding of nutrition and weightloss must begin to digest current science or it will further resemble "the flat-earth society".
In sum, the first link will sound like doom--if you are overweight you body makes less of what is needed to burn fat. But the light at the end of the tunnel is that exercise and select nutrients will create an environment where your body will begin making more adiponectin.
The other links point to the value of a low-glycemic diet for weightloss.
I began following a low-glycemic diet years ago. It stabilized my weight and although it was not enough for me to have weightloss, my overall health improved dramatically. Naturally, I began following the biological mechanism of cellular energy further back to digestion. I made further dietary forever changes and added moderate cardio to toning and lost 14 lbs & nearly 20" down quickly.
It would be a whole other post to discuss how hard cardio causes weight gain in me and the few studies I found that proved I am not mistaken!
Take a look at low-glycemic diet
Whoa! Not looking to debate... However, calories in calories out is THE jumping off point. If you eat at a healthy deficit, lose weight, and feel generally good, then why even bring the hormone debate into question?
MANY people use articles like this to justify why they just can't seem to get results when the actual problem is their expectations, their plan, or their adherence, which is why I hate this kind of stuff. If the article is completely accurate (which I doubt) then it is applicable to far fewer people who will jump on it and say, "That must be why I can't lose weight!" When the reality is that what they actually do is try to low-carb/Paleo/SouthBeach/EatLiketheDinosaurs diet and lose a few pounds, fall off the wagon, and gain it back. These people are not "weight loss resistant." They need a plan that works in life.0 -
Bump for later...
The only comment I have is this-I refuse to get into any debates with anyone on this site regarding "calories in, calories out, end of story".
Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out. Thanks for sharing!
reposting from another Brd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiponectin
http://www.livestrong.com/article/549960-glycemic-load-adiponectin/
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=207088
I am sharing links to a fraction of the things I have been reading over the last 10 years. A calorie is not a calorie The quality of your nutrition matters MORE.
Mainstream understanding of nutrition and weightloss must begin to digest current science or it will further resemble "the flat-earth society".
In sum, the first link will sound like doom--if you are overweight you body makes less of what is needed to burn fat. But the light at the end of the tunnel is that exercise and select nutrients will create an environment where your body will begin making more adiponectin.
The other links point to the value of a low-glycemic diet for weightloss.
I began following a low-glycemic diet years ago. It stabilized my weight and although it was not enough for me to have weightloss, my overall health improved dramatically. Naturally, I began following the biological mechanism of cellular energy further back to digestion. I made further dietary forever changes and added moderate cardio to toning and lost 14 lbs & nearly 20" down quickly.
It would be a whole other post to discuss how hard cardio causes weight gain in me and the few studies I found that proved I am not mistaken!
Take a look at low-glycemic diet
Whoa! Not looking to debate... However, calories in calories out is THE jumping off point. If you eat at a healthy deficit, lose weight, and feel generally good, then why even bring the hormone debate into question?
MANY people use articles like this to justify why they just can't seem to get results when the actual problem is their expectations, their plan, or their adherence, which is why I hate this kind of stuff. If the article is completely accurate (which I doubt) then it is applicable to far fewer people who will jump on it and say, "That must be why I can't lose weight!" When the reality is that what they actually do is try to low-carb/Paleo/SouthBeach/EatLiketheDinosaurs diet and lose a few pounds, fall off the wagon, and gain it back. These people are not "weight loss resistant." They need a plan that works in life.
Please be open to the contribution of others. I wish I could copy-paste their insight about how the impact of certain diseases and the functioning of metabolism. Yet, they might be inclined to post here IF things remain respectful and friendly. What has been said about PCOS and a variety of auto-immune diseases is instructive.0 -
Article was an interesting read.0
-
I REALLY thought I would never be able to lose and keep off the weight I finally did. It has taken a loooong time. I have made diet adjustments, exercise 7 to 9 hours a week, mix up exercise and amount of calories I eat per day (within a range), track my calories as much as I can (shooting for daily) make sure I eat enough at lunch and that I eat an early, filling, full of protein dinner, and try my best to eat more fruit, vegetables, and protein and less processed foods in general. I have listened to my body and my body tells me to eat Greek yogurt, egg whites, chicken, fruit and vegetables, etc. Things like bread, cereals, etc., are processed so they are less nutritious, more calorie dense, and mess with your hunger signals/body insulin response. I do believe what we eat affects our weight loss because it affects our hormones, hunger signals, etc. This belief comes from research AND a life long experience of trying almost every diet on the face of the planet. I DO think that everyone is different and different bodies respond to food differently for many complex reasons that we are only beginning to understand. I Do know that what I am doing is working for ME, as long as I forget about how long it takes, and just trust in the process, and the results that I have seen over time. After a lifetime of wanting what I have now, no one will EVER convince me that it is simple.0
-
I REALLY thought I would never be able to lose and keep off the weight I finally did. It has taken a loooong time. I have made diet adjustments, exercise 7 to 9 hours a week, mix up exercise and amount of calories I eat per day (within a range), track my calories as much as I can (shooting for daily) make sure I eat enough at lunch and that I eat an early, filling, full of protein dinner, and try my best to eat more fruit, vegetables, and protein and less processed foods in general. I have listened to my body and my body tells me to eat Greek yogurt, egg whites, chicken, fruit and vegetables, etc. Things like bread, cereals, etc., are processed so they are less nutritious, more calorie dense, and mess with your hunger signals/body insulin response. I do believe what we eat affects our weight loss because it affects our hormones, hunger signals, etc. This belief comes from research AND a life long experience of trying almost every diet on the face of the planet. I DO think that everyone is different and different bodies respond to food differently for many complex reasons that we are only beginning to understand. I Do know that what I am doing is working for ME, as long as I forget about how long it takes, and just trust in the process, and the results that I have seen over time. After a lifetime of wanting what I have now, no one will EVER convince me that it is simple.
Thank you. We need more voices like yours!0 -
^^thisBump for later...
The only comment I have is this-I refuse to get into any debates with anyone on this site regarding "calories in, calories out, end of story".
Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out. Thanks for sharing!
Whoa! Not looking to debate... However, calories in calories out is THE jumping off point. If you eat at a healthy deficit, lose weight, and feel generally good, then why even bring the hormone debate into question?
MANY people use articles like this to justify why they just can't seem to get results when the actual problem is their expectations, their plan, or their adherence, which is why I hate this kind of stuff. If the article is completely accurate (which I doubt) then it is applicable to far fewer people who will jump on it and say, "That must be why I can't lose weight!" When the reality is that what they actually do is try to low-carb/Paleo/SouthBeach/EatLiketheDinosaurs diet and lose a few pounds, fall off the wagon, and gain it back. These people are not "weight loss resistant." They need a plan that works in life.0 -
Wonderful article, explains why I was, at one point, eating 150-300 calories (yes, I had an eating disorder) for months, maintaining a bodyfat percentage of 17%, which wasn't bad but for eating something akin to air, wouldn't add up logically. I mean, one bowl of clear tomato soup for MONTHS and 17-FRICKIN-PERCENT? Skin and bones, yes, but NOT DEAD YET? (Although I was dead in the mind).
Thank you so much, I will try out the suggestions in the article, all of which were actually sensible and do-able. Anyone interested in results I will report back in about 17 days' time (hey, I can't help my crazy OCD ways with numbers).0 -
I really don't think there is much reason to believe that more than 1 out of 1000 people has a hormone problem that makes them fat. 999 out of 1000 people have an over eating under exercising problem. Even if they have hormone problems, it's overwhelmingly a thyroid issue, thyroid drugs are easy enough to buy so that's really not a good excuse either. The only other problem is maybe that they eat all their calories from sugar and they always have lots of insulin in their blood.0
-
It is not an article, it is part of an extended advertisement.
Whilst much of what they say is true they still have a sales pitch. And some of what they espouse is tut - they do that great sleight of hand thing, like comparing kcal usage of sprinters and marathon runners to question why sprinters are leaner. Well any of my students could answer that one in a nano second..... energy system and fuel utilisation, Easy, not a surprise at all!
And if you don't like that example - why is it, they ask, that a gym bunny who is super duper fit gets all bothered climbing 2 flights of stairs. Again, my 16 year old students would answer that one or fail the test - training specificity!
I am not saying hormones play no part but please... the book is just a money making effort and is laughable in many of its explanations. Anyone with any any higher education in exercise physiology will find themselves shouting and tearing their hair out if they try reading this - I only Looked Inside and got palpitations!0 -
Bump0
-
I have been a big fan of Metabollic Effect for some time. They have done their research and published a book which I have found is very helpful.
It is much more FOR ME than cals in/out. I eat mostly paleo, have a very active lifestyle, and it has taken me several years to get to the level I am currently at. I'm not done, but I can't count calories and expect that to do it for me.
To OP, I buy into their philosophy and I like what they have to say.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions