Why is my weight loss unsuccessful
Replies
-
You just appealed to your own authority and lost me.
Our eyeballs deceive us.
Here's my experience. Look, I can ramble too.
I eyeballed my portions too. My eyes deceive me.
That's why weighing helped me and was useful.
For some people it's helpful if they can't rely on their eyes. It's not forest for the trees, it's helpful in creating a real calorie deficit. ESPECIALLY if they're on the margins with creating a deficit.
The OP might or might not have fallen into this category, but when the scale isn't moving, you need to look at why the scale isn't moving. The usual answer is that a person is eating too much.
I fixed my sleep. I lowered my stress. I was eating wholesome food. I started moving more.
I still ate too damned much because I was grossly underestimating my intake.
Trees man. I really like trees. Trees got me where I want to be.
Looking at forests for 40 years kept me fat.20 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You just appealed to your own authority and lost me.
Our eyeballs deceive us.
Here's my experience. Look, I can ramble too.
I eyeballed my portions too. My eyes deceive me.
That's why weighing helped me and was useful.
For some people it's helpful if they can't rely on their eyes. It's not forest for the trees, it's helpful in creating a real calorie deficit. ESPECIALLY if they're on the margins with creating a deficit.
The OP might or might not have fallen into this category, but when the scale isn't moving, you need to look at why the scale isn't moving. The usual answer is that a person is eating too much.
I fixed my sleep. I lowered my stress. I was eating wholesome food. I started moving more.
I still ate too damned much because I was grossly underestimating my intake.
Trees man. I really like trees. Trees got me where I want to be.
Looking at forests for 40 years kept me fat.
Great response. I can dig it completely.
I don't want people to think I'm popping on here to poopoo their techniques for fat loss. With 1000 different diets, anyone can lose weight.
Consistency over time will show results.
She just hasn't given it enough time.
Congrats on your success BTW.
I love being in my 40s but looking like I'm 30!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's only been two weeks ...2
-
heelie1996 wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »you are likely eating more then 1200 calories.
no......shes not
How can you know?
7 -
One thing I noticed is that the calorie intake you log is often well under 1000 calories. Could it be that with all your exercise, your body may be getting so little fuel that it is in in starvation mode and actually hoarding the food and fat? Our starting weights were roughly the same, but I weigh carefully for the most part and try to stay right around 1200 calories. I actually raised my goal to 1300 calories so I wouldn't feel bad when going slightly over the 1200 mark. Most days I hit 1200 give or take 30 or so calories either way, with minimum exercise. Everyone is different, but that is working for me.
If you don't lose weight because starvation mode, then how do people die of starvation???6 -
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap
...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
I see what you are trying to do here - look beyond the symptoms of overeating and identifying root causes.
Good process for everyone to go through - implementing a "Five Why" approach to problem identification and implementing a solution.0 -
heelie1996 wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »you are likely eating more then 1200 calories.
no......shes not
That's a pretty definitive answer. What are you basing that on?3 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »@KT6377 Can you please link to me this study? Because Starvation mode other then lean muscle loss resulting in Lower BMR based from VLCD is the only thing i have ever heard of.. starvation mode where the body holds onto fat has only ever been proven as a myth.
Here's the first but you'll need access to an academic research database to read the full article (you might have access to one if you are a student):
http://www.jdcjournal.com/article/1056-8727(94)00077-8/pdf
Same deal here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080620195455.htm
While i cant read the first one, the second one uses a lot of words like "Might".. which kind of leads me to believe that this is mostly just a theory. In the two years ive been on this site, so far you are the first person to ever bring up this point of view in regards to 'starvation mode.'.. but i suppose i could of just missed some people mentioning it.. i am not here 24/7
Most academic, peer reviewed articles use that language. Most science is speculation at best and for every piece of research published there is another one trying to disprove it. That's what doing research is all about
No - an emphatic no.
Academic, peer reviewed articles use specific verbiage. Pseudo-science, junk science use vague, non-specific terms to justify positions that are not supported by evidence. "Might" is an automatic disqualifier and is considered "weasel wording".
The word 'might' is very frequently used in academic writing to imply that there is a relationship between two factors but the cause of the relationship is not 100% conclusive. When 'might' is used in this sense it implies that additional research is needed to fully support the hypothesis. It does not in any way indicate that the article is 'junk science'. If you need more examples of the word 'might' being used in scientific research I'm more than happy to provide them for you. If all research findings published were 100% conclusive there would be nothing left to write about.
I eagerly await examples.
I even have a board certified endocrinologist on my team who can explain these examples to this lowly microbiologist.
8 -
kathykrupa297 wrote: »Try changing up your diet. I had the same issue when I started. Wasn't eating enough for the exercise I was doing. You should eat at least 50% of your exercise calories. Try the Keto diet. It's great for a quick start diet. You eat much more calories but it's all protein and fat. Just reduce ur carbs and eat in the morning. Once u go into ketosis the weight will come off quickly. I don't weigh or measure anything and I lost 10lbs in one week and I started at 175lbs.
most of that was water weight due to sodium and glycogen being depleted from your body.as for keto its not a magical way to weight loss,its a way of eating and you can still gain weight if you eat over your TDEE(maintenance).2 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »@KT6377 Can you please link to me this study? Because Starvation mode other then lean muscle loss resulting in Lower BMR based from VLCD is the only thing i have ever heard of.. starvation mode where the body holds onto fat has only ever been proven as a myth.
Here's the first but you'll need access to an academic research database to read the full article (you might have access to one if you are a student):
http://www.jdcjournal.com/article/1056-8727(94)00077-8/pdf
Same deal here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080620195455.htm
While i cant read the first one, the second one uses a lot of words like "Might".. which kind of leads me to believe that this is mostly just a theory. In the two years ive been on this site, so far you are the first person to ever bring up this point of view in regards to 'starvation mode.'.. but i suppose i could of just missed some people mentioning it.. i am not here 24/7
FWIW, there is something between "It's only lean body mass" and "HOLDS ONTO FAT."
Metabolic rates do in fact drop during calorie restriction, and they drop more than would be explained by loss of lean body mass alone. That's not "THE BODY HOLDS ONTO FAT," but it is "the body puts a number of mechanisms into play to reduce energy expenditure." BMR drops, out of proportion to the amount of muscle lost.
2 -
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »
recommended serving sizes are often never right
Look at this photo, the package says "1 muffin" but the gram weight is 20g LOWER then what the muffin actually weighs, making the calories in that muffin much higher then what is listed on the package.
I have to say, this is probably the best proof of advise that I seen on these threads. It is very informative without being attacking. I have always gone by suggested serving size and never even noticed the grams next to it. Going to be changing the way I log my food.
Calorie estimation is extremely difficult and carries an industry wide 20% margin of error. This is why the consistent answer to "Why am I not losing weight?" is "Look to your logging".
The problem is that many are not aware of this information.
Indeed, i have written companies about it too, through email... cereal was a huge one.. the 3/4 cup serving is always more then the gram weight.. when weighing the cereal you realize how little of it you get for 120 calories lol.. i gave up on cereal lol im hungry, i want something im gonna enjoy more of.
Same with a package of macaroons i once bought, the container said 2 cookies (28g) but one cookie was actually 34g.. when i emailed them they responded to me that sometimes they just run out of containers and use a different package for another cookie in its place... i stopped buying them.. because now i wasnt even sure if the 120 calories was even right also if it was meant for another cookie lol
IF you read package labelling laws, you see that there are penalties for incorrect labelling, but they are primarily about making sure the package is AT LEAST as big as the box says. If the cookies are all smaller than it says on the box, then the company can get in trouble for shortchanging you.1 -
kathykrupa297 wrote: »Try changing up your diet. I had the same issue when I started. Wasn't eating enough for the exercise I was doing. You should eat at least 50% of your exercise calories. Try the Keto diet. It's great for a quick start diet. You eat much more calories but it's all protein and fat. Just reduce ur carbs and eat in the morning. Once u go into ketosis the weight will come off quickly. I don't weigh or measure anything and I lost 10lbs in one week and I started at 175lbs.
First of all-most of the weight you lost in the first week was water weight, since you went low carb. Secondly-one has to be at the correct calorie deficit for their weight goals, in order to achieve weight loss (fat loss). If you start eating 'much more calories' and erase your needed calorie deficit, regardless of your macros ratios, you'll start gaining weight. And thirdly-meal timing/frequency is irrelevant for weight loss. If someone likes eating in the morning then sure, eat then. But there's lots of people who are nailing their weight, health and fitness goals and don't eat their calories until later in the day.
And lastly-what happens after the quick start? Is this a plan that's actually sustainable to you for the next 20, 30, 40+ years? Because weight loss means nothing, if the loss cannot be maintained. It's great that you found a plan that you enjoy doing but for many people, including myself, it just wouldn't be sustainable for any length of time.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
sarahrusse_ wrote: »I don't think you have to weigh your food that's ridiculous, nobody is perfect.
It can take almost up to 2 weeks to even notice weight loss! Keep at it.
❤️
How do you measure your food? Cups? Eyeball?
When I used cups I always stressed about how loosely or tightly to pack them. With scales, not only is this not an issue, but I also don't have to wash cups afterwards.
I find using a scale easier and more accurate than cups.
Look, this is a calorie counting site. If you are going to bother counting, why not do it the most accurate way possible?6 -
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
I see what you are trying to do here - look beyond the symptoms of overeating and identifying root causes.
Good process for everyone to go through - implementing a "Five Why" approach to problem identification and implementing a solution.
Yes x5!
Psych major?1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bodies are not *that* different.
It's comforting to think that they are, I understand that.
You know it's funny, I used to think my thyroid was a terrible problem when I weighed 210 pounds. I used to think my thyroid was a terrible problem when I tried countless diets and they didn't perform to my expectations.
Then I faced reality.
I'm 54. I have three autoimmune diseases. I've lost 95 pounds. I stopped making excuses.
My body wasn't different.
I wasn't too old.
My thyroid wasn't a problem
My arthritis wasn't giving me too much fatigue to get out there and move.
I was eating too much and telling myself I wasn't.
Logging accurately and weighing my food to prove how much I was eating opened my eyes to the truth.
I lost weight more quickly now than I did when I was younger because I stopped telling myself lies, embraced the truth, and acknowledged how weight loss actually works.
Thank you!!! I get so tired of people insisting that they are special snowflakes with alien biology compared to us mere humans.4 -
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
I see what you are trying to do here - look beyond the symptoms of overeating and identifying root causes.
Good process for everyone to go through - implementing a "Five Why" approach to problem identification and implementing a solution.
Yes x5!
Psych major?
Microbiologist
I work in pharma and apply a CAPA methodology to everything - it is big on digging past symptoms and identifying the real root causes of problems.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
I understand. With more movement at upped calories, you ended up burning enough calorie to lose weight.
It was really weird because I was really trying to maintain and I just kept losing and increasing calories and was like, "ok...when is this going to stop."0 -
Not unheard of. Your "metabolism" was running high.cwolfman13 wrote: »It was really weird because I was really trying to maintain and I just kept losing and increasing calories and was like, "ok...when is this going to stop."
Happens to me when I am on a cut and switch to maintenance.
For the first few weeks I keep losing weight even though I may be eating 500+ calories more.
I just have to be patient and adjust accordingly.
0 -
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
I see what you are trying to do here - look beyond the symptoms of overeating and identifying root causes.
Good process for everyone to go through - implementing a "Five Why" approach to problem identification and implementing a solution.
Yes x5!
Psych major?
Microbiologist
I work in pharma and apply a CAPA methodology to everything - it is big on digging past symptoms and identifying the real root causes of problems.
This is why I switched from nutrition to psychology. Fix the root cause, everything else starts to fall in place.0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Letters behind names in the medical field could be responsible for third leading cause of death according to this study...
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us
I am not advocating against professionals but it's best to educate onself and don't lean solely on a person who is subject to human error.
Okay, but we need to be careful how we define "educate oneself". Do you mean reading actual scientific literature on the topic because you have the background to understand it (and to recognize the difference between actual scientific literature and pseudoscience)? If so, great! Educate away! Or do you mean taking courses at your local college or university where you will learn from a specialist in the field? Also great!
Unfortunately, too many people think that reading websites with agendas qualifies as "educating themselves". Get educated enough to be able to notice when a professional makes a human error (or seems to make one) so that you can say "hey! that sounds wrong!" - but don't be surprised if, most of the time, they weren't actually wrong; they just understand the topic on a more fundamental level. It's taken me decades to get to this level in my field; don't delude yourself that you can get there in a few days. And, yes, occasionally my words get mixed up - and a student will usually catch me and I'll correct myself. But it's also taken them years to get to the point where *they* know enough to catch the error.
6 -
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
I see what you are trying to do here - look beyond the symptoms of overeating and identifying root causes.
Good process for everyone to go through - implementing a "Five Why" approach to problem identification and implementing a solution.
Yes x5!
Psych major?
Microbiologist
I work in pharma and apply a CAPA methodology to everything - it is big on digging past symptoms and identifying the real root causes of problems.
This is why I switched from nutrition to psychology. Fix the root cause, everything else starts to fall in place.
With all due respect to your position, sometimes things don't always fall into place without education.
With weight issues, there might be emotional, habit-based, environment-based, information-based (or lack thereof), and economic-based factors at play.
You can get to the root of any one of those causes, or even any two or three, and if the others go unaddressed, you can still be left floundering. Everything doesn't just topple over like so many dominoes.
In my case, I had all my ducks in a row and all my root causes sorted, but still didn't know how to achieve my goals because my head was full of misinformation from the media.8 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »Letters behind names in the medical field could be responsible for third leading cause of death according to this study...
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us
I am not advocating against professionals but it's best to educate oneself and don't lean solely on a person who is subject to human error.
Okay, but we need to be careful how we define "educate oneself". Do you mean reading actual scientific literature on the topic because you have the background to understand it (and to recognize the difference between actual scientific literature and pseudoscience)? If so, great! Educate away! Or do you mean taking courses at your local college or university where you will learn from a specialist in the field? Also great!
Unfortunately, too many people think that reading websites with agendas qualifies as "educating themselves". Get educated enough to be able to notice when a professional makes a human error (or seems to make one) so that you can say "hey! that sounds wrong!" - but don't be surprised if, most of the time, they weren't actually wrong; they just understand the topic on a more fundamental level. It's taken me decades to get to this level in my field; don't delude yourself that you can get there in a few days. And, yes, occasionally my words get mixed up - and a student will usually catch me and I'll correct myself. But it's also taken them years to get to the point where *they* know enough to catch the error.
I fully agree with your assessment.
What many people consider education is nothing more than regurgitation of information. It takes time in a discipline to begin to understand all the nuances and specific variations so that synthetic knowledge is possible. A key tell is observing how receptive someone is to being questioned. If people fall back on credentials, this is a bad sign and shows either the supporting data is weak or the knowledge of the data is weak.
Even in the case of this article - this is journalism at its worst. This sensationalistic reporting gets clicks and attention, but says little about the actual cause of death. This is still addressing symptoms and not getting to the root cause.2 -
thats like a few weeks ago someone who claimed they were a paid professional was telling me that if you are at a healthy weight ,that its ok to eat below your BMR(not TDEE but BMR,yep you heard that correctly) for a period of time as long as you get enough protein to lose fat,and that recomp was too slow so it made it ok to go very low calorie. I just said I didnt think that was good advice and I was glad I didnt pay for her advice.Im not saying there arent good paid professionals out there. but in that persons case it scared me to think what is being taught,and no this wasnt on MFP but this person did say that MFP gives out false info and the calculators arent correct and so on.2
-
heelie1996 wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »you are likely eating more then 1200 calories.
no......shes not
Do you live with her?
No one under the age of 55 and over 5' has maintain/gained on 1200, ever.6 -
@cerise_noir "You go girl!" LOL!
I have never seen it myself so I am going to provisionally agree with you here.
0 -
My original post was not to blindly follow professionals that have letters behind their name. They are human and can make mistakes. Same applies to websites they may be selling something.
I can't speak as to how someone can educate themselves as I got a pretty big whopping education here on this forum! I do google and look up what's being discussed to try to further understand studies. But I've learned so much right here about diet myths and then followed up by looking it up myself.
I got an education from experienced sucessful maintainers here.
When I say educate yourself it can mean hearing something and then following up to get both side of the debate however one can do it.
ETA- please see the poster I was responding to who doesn't want to listen to anyone here that doesn't have letters behind their name as well. And my post makes more sense:) otherwise I agree with bing careful.4
This discussion has been closed.
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