I just don't get it

PaulaWallaDingDong

dcristo213 wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

This New York Times article on the Biggest Loser Show gives you a good perspective on how severely limiting your calories does not work.

That's why you're not supposed to severely restrict unless your state of health warrants it and you're under a doctor's supervision, or you're on a tv show trying to make money.

Iamnotasenior

middlehaitch wrote: »

1200 Cal is too little even for smaller people. I don't know how people keep up their energy daily on 1200.. couldn't and won't do it!

[/quote]

I am 182 pounds (Started at 204), 58 years old and am mostly sedentary because of chronic back and hip issues. I have been at 1200 calories a day for three months now and have lost 22 pounds. I eat three meals and two snacks every day and although I strive for 1200 cals a day, I don't beat myself up if I go over a little (1300 to 1500 for the day). Mostly, I listen to my body. On days where I am craving ice cream or chips, I eat ice cream or chips, log it, and then get back to my plan the next day. If I am just extra hungry, I eat slightly larger portions or have a little more protein. Everyone is different and every body is different, the important thing is to find what works FOR YOU and try not to focus too much on what others are doing. We are all on our own journeys.

middlehaitch

@lamnotasenior you have miss quoted me. I would never make a statement like that.

It was @kokonani that made the original statement that you reacted to.

This was my reply to the quote you have miss-attributed to me.

'Good for you. You don't have to do it.

For me, 5'1 100-105lbs 63yo, 1200 is MFP maintenance when sedentary, not even to lose.
That isn't what I eat but the number was quite accurate when I started maintenance 7 years ago.

1200 is headlined so much in mags etc that a lot of women come here and override the MFP recommendations and do 1200 to lose fast. All those lose 10 lbs and lose 5in off your waist in a week headlines are selling a myth too many women buy into.

Cheers, h.

Cheers, h.

ugofatcat

The “After ‘The Biggest Loser’, Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight” is an example of journalists misrepresenting studies to push their own agenda.

From the actual study:
Resting metabolic rate at the end of The Biggest Loser was, on average 1,996 calories/day, with an average weight loss of 126 pounds. Total energy expenditure was 3,002 calories a day. Six years later, the average participant gained 90 pounds. This means despite burning 3,000 calories a day, they created enough of an energy surplus to gain 90 pounds.

Six years later and 90 pounds later, their resting metabolic rate was 1,903 calories/day but their total energy expenditure was 3,429. So while their resting metabolic rate was actually slightly lower, their total energy expenditure was still really high.

Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

So why did they gain weight? Here are some quotes from the New York Times article that I think are enlightening:

“He would starve himself, then eat a whole can of cake frosting with a spoon.”

“He opens a bag of chips, thinking he will have just a few. “I’d eat five bites. Then I’d black out and eat the whole bag of chips and say, ‘What did I do?’”

By the way, in the original research, the authors did not compare the Biggest Lower contestants to real people, they compared their metabolisms to predicted calculations.

Here is an article that did compare obese individuals who lost weight to similar weight counterparts who never lost the weight and this is what they found:

RESULTS:
A stepwise multiple regression found lean mass, fat mass, age, and sex to be the best predictors of RMR in both groups. After adjusting RMR for these variables, we found no significant difference in RMR (5926 +/- 106 and 6015 +/- 104 kJ/d) between the 2 groups (P = 0.35). When we adjusted fasting RQ for percentage body fat and age, the reduced-obese group had a slightly higher (0.807 +/- 0.006) RQ than the control group (0.791 +/- 0.005, P = 0.05). This may have been due to the consumption of a diet lower in fat or to a reduced capacity for fat oxidation in the reduced-obese group.

CONCLUSION:
These results show that in at least some reduced-obese individuals there does not seem to be a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10357738?dopt=Abstract

Remember, you are in complete control of what you choose to put in your body. Don’t blame your metabolism, genetics, or hormones. Take control of your life and health. Be empowered.

PAV8888

ugofatcat wrote: »

CONCLUSION:
These results show that in at least some reduced-obese individuals there does not seem to be a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10357738?dopt=Abstract

Remember, you are in complete control of what you choose to put in your body. Don’t blame your metabolism, genetics, or hormones. Take control of your life and health. Be empowered.

There is a complete thread referencing a much more complete bibliography of peer reviewed studies which examine adaptive thermogenesis and weight loss in great detail.

It is part of the stickies, and can be found here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1

While "at least some reduced-obese individuals [do] not seem to [have] a permanent reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass" there is more than sufficient evidence that for many other people adaptive thermogenesis is a thing.

Discussing how to minimise might be more profitable than loudly proclaiming one's empowerment to ignore the issue.

lkpducky

amusedmonkey wrote: »

Another problem may be trusting MFP's food database. It's not their fault sometimes, just inexperience with the app and blind trust.

Exactly. How big is that wrap (or serving, piece, slice, etc) in the database, anyway? I weigh the serving of shawarma (or other exotic food) and can't find any foods that have weight units.

amusedmonkey

lkpducky wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

Another problem may be trusting MFP's food database. It's not their fault sometimes, just inexperience with the app and blind trust.

Exactly. How big is that wrap (or serving, piece, slice, etc) in the database, anyway? I weigh the serving of shawarma (or other exotic food) and can't find any foods that have weight units.

For what it's worth and from my own curiosity driven shawarma deconstructing adventures, chicken shawarma has roughly similar calories per gram to pizza. 2.2 to 2.9 calories per gram depending on the condiments, bread included. I don't know about beef since I don't eat it. The one on the left appears to be a lettuce wrapped one, which a new user may not know (even an experienced user may not pay attention sometimes).

InkAndApples

lkpducky wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

Another problem may be trusting MFP's food database. It's not their fault sometimes, just inexperience with the app and blind trust.

Exactly. How big is that wrap (or serving, piece, slice, etc) in the database, anyway? I weigh the serving of shawarma (or other exotic food) and can't find any foods that have weight units.

What I often do it search for the food and put g at the end eg "chicken schwarma g" which often brings up a different set of entries, which have gram masses for them. (Note, haven't actually tried it with schwarma though!)

Mr_Knight

stahlhaus wrote: »

Your body can go into a "starvation mode" and make it hard to lose...

No, it can't.

AnnPT77

Meaganinsardinia wrote: »

dcristo213 wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

This New York Times article on the Biggest Loser Show gives you a good perspective on how severely limiting your calories does not work.

Wow! Of course the sample size was small but they found after the weight loss the contestants were burning significantly fewer calories in their resting metabolism for what would be expected for their size and weight. One person over 800 fewer!! Also multiple hormones leading to increased hunger and inability to feel full while in the lower weight range. So interesting. Of course it is about what goes in your mouth but this research highlights what an incredibly uphill battle it can be against Biology not "just will power" once the weight has been lost.

Compassion means to not want suffering. Have compassion for yourself. Have compassion for others.

Meaganinsardinia wrote: »

dcristo213 wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

This New York Times article on the Biggest Loser Show gives you a good perspective on how severely limiting your calories does not work.

Wow! Of course the sample size was small but they found after the weight loss the contestants were burning significantly fewer calories in their resting metabolism for what would be expected for their size and weight. One person over 800 fewer!! Also multiple hormones leading to increased hunger and inability to feel full while in the lower weight range. So interesting. Of course it is about what goes in your mouth but this research highlights what an incredibly uphill battle it can be against Biology not "just will power" once the weight has been lost.

Compassion means to not want suffering. Have compassion for yourself. Have compassion for others.

Meh.

Keep in mind that that small sample consisted entirely of people who had done something really, very, extremely extreme. Besides that, this study drew quite a bit of technical critique.

So, yeah, adaptive thermogenesis is a real thing, but research suggests there are some pretty doable ways to avoid major problems.

Consider this, a really nice analysis by a fellow MFP-er of a different research study with a small sample size (and pay particular attention to the CR+EX arm):

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251

P.S. The "compassion" part of your post? Endorsed!