Weight loss woo keeps getting worse.
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks?
(If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
Thanks. I'll take a look. You are pretty active. Was that the case as you were in deficit? I don't know that diet breaks would have made your NEAT any higher. I think they primarily make the process of fat loss more efficient and less taxing, both hormonally and psychologically. The effects on leptin when we go into deficit take place fairly soon, within a few days but bounce back fairly quickly.0 -
-
Interesting. Possibly indicative that exercise helps stave off the effects. Would have like it if they referenced to BMR instead of TDEE. I think that would have taken out a variable.stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
Thanks. I'll take a look. You are pretty active. Was that the case as you were in deficit? I don't know that diet breaks would have made your NEAT any higher. I think they primarily make the process of fat loss more efficient and less taxing, both hormonally and psychologically. The effects on leptin when we go into deficit take place fairly soon, within a few days but bounce back fairly quickly.
On the exercise front, active before deficit while obese (for around 10 years), active during deficit, active since. Exercise volume/type hasn't changed much. On the daily activity front (i.e. non-exercise), mostly sedentary throughout.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
This post suggested 6 months - 7 years for it to "heal", if I'm remembering correctly: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
One of the problems with a lot of the research on AT which led to the findings at the higher end is that the participants in them were on extreme deficits.
I looked into this extensively when I first started dieting and had a lot of difficulty finding research on subjects who had dieted with a reasonable deficit and lost weight slowly while taking diet breaks to see if there was a difference.
Given that we don't see people in the maintenance subforum complaining en masse about drastically reduced intakes vs. expected, I always wondered about the data.5 -
Interesting. Possibly indicative that exercise helps stave off the effects. Would have like it if they referenced to BMR instead of TDEE. I think that would have taken out a variable.stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
IIRC, there was a study somewhere with exercise mitigating AT. Brain fuzziness happening at the moment. But yes, it is a thing and a controlled study was done.2 -
sytchequeen wrote: »I get these things on my pinterest all the time. They make me giggle. All you need to have epic poop is spend some quality time on prescription morphine! (trust me... I had to fight them with a stick) tmi, I know.
You must have had a one off reaction.... opioids constipate. Or maybe that's what you meant, that when you are finally able to poop, it's HUGE.1 -
walktalkdog wrote: »
Short for woo-woo, which as far as anyone can tell, comes from the spooky music in a sci-fi show, or maybe from ghosts, or maybe just the noise made by a self-styled-shaman hippie dancing naked around a camp fire at the full moon summoning his spirit animal.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Interesting. Possibly indicative that exercise helps stave off the effects. Would have like it if they referenced to BMR instead of TDEE. I think that would have taken out a variable.stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
IIRC, there was a study somewhere with exercise mitigating AT. Brain fuzziness happening at the moment. But yes, it is a thing and a controlled study was done.
He was replying to a comment that linked one. 0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »walktalkdog wrote: »
Short for woo-woo, which as far as anyone can tell, comes from the spooky music in a sci-fi show, or maybe from ghosts, or maybe just the noise made by a self-styled-shaman hippie dancing naked around a camp fire at the full moon summoning his spirit animal.
Haha not quite!
It's either woo like "yay! woo-hoo!" or woo like "diet-woo" which is sometimes a way to show that you disagree with what was said.
I like yours a LOT better though!1 -
rachelr1116 wrote: »I blame Pinterest for all the crazy things my friend has tried to get me to do to lose weight. She swears that some turmeric drink concoction is magical. And when I told her I'd gained about 15 lbs because I'd stopped tracking my calories she said "no, you just need to poop, you're just bloated." I wish I'd taken a picture of her face when I said "No, I'm not bloated. It is fat, I can feel my butt and my stomach jiggle and that isn't bloat." because anytime she gains weight she swears she's just bloated and all she needs to do is drink some kombucha.
WOW a 15 pile of poop, that'll clog up the toilet1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Interesting. Possibly indicative that exercise helps stave off the effects. Would have like it if they referenced to BMR instead of TDEE. I think that would have taken out a variable.stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.
Maybe:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Look at the CR + Ex arm. Suggestive IMO, not probative.
At n=1, I still wonder why my actual NEAT is so crazy high, despite near a year of deficit with no significant breaks/structured refeeds. Who knows, maybe it would've been even higher if I'd taken the breaks? (If AT is relevant in any way, I think yo-yoing in the reference population is a more likely bet than anything affirmative I ever did. Who knows, though? )
IIRC, there was a study somewhere with exercise mitigating AT. Brain fuzziness happening at the moment. But yes, it is a thing and a controlled study was done.
He was replying to a comment that linked one.
That wasn't the one I was thinking of, though 2 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
livenfree45 wrote: »rachelr1116 wrote: »I blame Pinterest for all the crazy things my friend has tried to get me to do to lose weight. She swears that some turmeric drink concoction is magical. And when I told her I'd gained about 15 lbs because I'd stopped tracking my calories she said "no, you just need to poop, you're just bloated." I wish I'd taken a picture of her face when I said "No, I'm not bloated. It is fat, I can feel my butt and my stomach jiggle and that isn't bloat." because anytime she gains weight she swears she's just bloated and all she needs to do is drink some kombucha.
WOW a 15 pile of poop, that'll clog up the toilet
Where can I get some of that stuff that makes you poop 15 pounds. 3 times and I am done!5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »YepItsKriss wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Side note my aunts back at it. Today she told me she reworked the public school snack program to chocolate chip granola bars and mini sugary cereal boxes with milk off of fresh apples and sandwiches because their lower calorie and shes fighting the obesity problem. By swapping apples for chocolate granola bars. Funnily they are 150-200 calorie bars. The apples they had been using were around 90 calories. Her logic just dumbfounds me
edited to wonder if shell be putting butter on their granola bars
Lol.. Those 60 to 120 calories less will definitely make a huge impact.. Cause it was the granola bars and not the possibility of the parents over feeding them at home. Apple's will totally make a difference
If I understood, aunt is eliminating apples for granola bars. Not vice versa.
that lol0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Sorry to report....did the Norovirus cleanse for a couple of days but have regained all the weight. Tried, tested and failed.
Next please?!1 -
iamthemotherofdogs wrote: »I have a patient who came in here letting us know how she lost her weight by just cutting out anything but leafy greens, citrus fruits, and hot tea.
She tried to give me a print-out about it. I wish I'd taken it.
Don’t you love getting expert advice from patients? Had a extremely overweight gentleman yesterday who INSISTED he had put on 6 pounds since I last saw him because he has been going to the gym once a week to use the treadmill for half an hour....so must have gained 6 pounds of muscle (in three weeks) from his brisk walking!
2 -
iamthemotherofdogs wrote: »I have a patient who came in here letting us know how she lost her weight by just cutting out anything but leafy greens, citrus fruits, and hot tea.
She tried to give me a print-out about it. I wish I'd taken it.
Don’t you love getting expert advice from patients? Had a extremely overweight gentleman yesterday who INSISTED he had put on 6 pounds since I last saw him because he has been going to the gym once a week to use the treadmill for half an hour....so must have gained 6 pounds of muscle (in three weeks) from his brisk walking!
Sad but true: the nutritionist I went to for a while a couple of years ago came up with the same reasoning when my weight stagnated for a couple of month.
"Oh, you started exercising again. It's all muscle!"
I've learned my lesson now... nutritionist does not = registered dietitian...
1 -
French_Peasant wrote: »walktalkdog wrote: »
Short for woo-woo, which as far as anyone can tell, comes from the spooky music in a sci-fi show, or maybe from ghosts, or maybe just the noise made by a self-styled-shaman hippie dancing naked around a camp fire at the full moon summoning his spirit animal.
Haha not quite!
It's either woo like "yay! woo-hoo!" or woo like "diet-woo" which is sometimes a way to show that you disagree with what was said.
I like yours a LOT better though!
She was asking about the actual word under discussion in the thread (which she was mistaking for an acronym), not the button. Just defining how the button is used is not helpful for understanding the broader problems caused by belief in pseudoscience, whether related to diet or something else, like medicine.
http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html2 -
I've talk to 2 people "in the wild" about weight loss this week and got a bunch of woo back...it's out there and it's rampant...
Convo 1:
Bartender: Wow, you look great, how did you lose the weight?
Me. Ate less consistantly over 3 months, logged my food
Bartender: Oh. I started working out more and have gained weight too - I thought if you worked out you lose weight?
Me: Well, no. If you are eating at a surplus for you, you'll still gain.
Bartender: Well my hours make it so I eat at weird times of the day, I think that's it.
Me. No. Meal timing is irrelevant. If you are gaining fat, you are eating too much.
Bartender: Blank stare like I'm a moron.
Convo 2:
Hair Dresser: Oh wow, you look great. What have you been up to?
Me. Ate less consistantly over 3 months, logged my food
Hair Dresser: Really, that's it, you didn't spend hours in the gym, or eat clean?
Me: Yep
Hair Dresser: I started having AVC in the morning with a glass of water, I think it's working.
Me: **oh good lord, get me out of here***5 -
6 -
This content has been removed.
-
stanmann571 wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
Is this what that "refeeds and diet breaks" post was about?
In part but more than just that. Go in a take a look. There is a wealth of info and links in that thread.
I know.... but it's also waaaay above my head for the most part. I haven't had a chance to watch the video but got the cliff notes from some of the early responses.
I'm really glad it cropped up, though. I think it addresses some of what I've been going through lately.
Yes, the very short answer is calorie deficit alters hormones that affect fat loss. This happens more dramatically for women. Taking a diet break and eating at maintenance every 6 to 8 weeks, for women, is beneficial to reset hormones and facilitate continued fat loss and avoid stalls. Some will do 2 days per week at maintenance, refeeds, and find it helpful. There are studies and articles that support both.
And, what gets ignored a lot in the forums is this hormonal role. Like, cortisol. Specifically cortisol.
Teal deer ahead. But in short: Yeah, there's a lot of woo even here.
I totally side-eyed a previous therapist when she pointed out that my -- at that point, almost 20 years of on-and-off-but-mostly-on restriction (at the worst, regularly going from <1000 calories to binge/purge cycles, and at the best, just simply purging through insulin withholding and overtraining) -- were likely doing a number of my cortisol levels which was going to give me the opposite reaction of what I wanted. I thought she was full of it, and that she was simply trying to get me to eat more.
And then this past May happened.
I'd been losing with fantastic regularity, and then broke a toe and ran a half marathon on said broken toe. I dropped my calories back significantly, because I figured that well, I wasn't training, so it was totally OK to skimp on food.
I've generally stalled since then, and have gained 5 percent since where I was before the half -- which is "only" six pounds, but it feels like a lot.
I keep meticulous journals. I weigh everything I eat *and* drink (my scale does liquid ounces and mL). I had some marginal calorie increases when I was upping my running over the summer once I was back to training, but I was also back to training at full force -- and certainly burning more than what I was intaking. When I say training at full force, this is what the week looked like: 20 MPW running, two-to-three barre sessions per week, and another mile swim. Each week.
And while it then evened out, it stalled. Nothing. Certainly not back to my sub-120s that I was maintaining before the race. I haven't gained. My measurements are actually smaller. But I've done no strength training -- just my usual barre, spin, running, and swim.
My new dietitian asked me to have RMR testing done, so that we could see if I was indeed dealing with some adaptive processes due to the years of restriction + overtraining. She suspected it would be lower than predicted. I wasn't sure what to think.
The reality was that it was about 30 percent higher than expected, and 20 percent higher than what my Apple Watch says I should burn.
I then took all of the numbers to her -- my average daily intake, my average daily burn, and what my weight had done.
She pointed out that in that first month of May, my weight was actually *flat* from beginning to end. It weaved around over the summer, but the only months I saw a loss was when I actually reduced my deficit. She accurately noted that even though she wasn't working with me in May, she suspected that I'd cut, and then not restored fully when my body was most needing and wanting it after the half, and when I increased training again.
Enter cortisol. She now wants me to gradually start increasing my calories (we're working on increasing sodium first, since I tend to restrict sodium, and then feel like I disproportionately react when I suddenly eat more of it -- which she explained as the "well, when your body thinks it's not going to get more, of course it's going to hold on" phenomenon), and I've started doing that to a degree now when I'm out, or if I'm just hungry. And sure enough, on those weeks where I've maintained a more "normal" deficit to my actual TDEE, I see some of the weight drop off.
(And, unfortunately, considering that when I went to my GP with some breathing concerns, he'd simply told me I was out of shape -- only to have that correctly diagnosed by another doc as exercise-induced asthma -- I'm not keen on going back to him for cortisol testing.)
Turns out that first therapist wasn't full of it.
But here? I'd posted in other threads asking for advice, and was told that no, I must be recomping, or I must be inaccurate. Except that you have the same people saying that recomp can't happen without strength training. And I don't do strength training.
People don't like to accept when outliers exist, and refuse to acknowledge that hormones can and do play a role and can do a fantastic job masking weight loss for extended periods beyond "oh, it'll straighten out in six weeks."
I said to my therapist that I know that *my* expectations aren't realistic right now. The dietitian told me to expect at least four weeks for the sodium thing to settle out, and I know that I'm also expecting a quick fix to 20+ years of restriction + purging.
Basically, I'm now avoiding most threads except for this and the refeed thread, because I'm so not dealing with broscientists who can't accept situations exist outside their experience realms.
4 -
kristen8000 wrote: »I've talk to 2 people "in the wild" about weight loss this week and got a bunch of woo back...it's out there and it's rampant...
Convo 1:
Bartender: Wow, you look great, how did you lose the weight?
Me. Ate less consistantly over 3 months, logged my food
Bartender: Oh. I started working out more and have gained weight too - I thought if you worked out you lose weight?
Me: Well, no. If you are eating at a surplus for you, you'll still gain.
Bartender: Well my hours make it so I eat at weird times of the day, I think that's it.
Me. No. Meal timing is irrelevant. If you are gaining fat, you are eating too much.
Bartender: Blank stare like I'm a moron.
Convo 2:
Hair Dresser: Oh wow, you look great. What have you been up to?
Me. Ate less consistantly over 3 months, logged my food
Hair Dresser: Really, that's it, you didn't spend hours in the gym, or eat clean?
Me: Yep
Hair Dresser: I started having AVC in the morning with a glass of water, I think it's working.
Me: **oh good lord, get me out of here***
The most important things for weightloss are really the same as for anything you want to accomplish. A reasoned plan, conviction to stick with it and willpower.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »I've talk to 2 people "in the wild" about weight loss this week and got a bunch of woo back...it's out there and it's rampant...
Convo 1:
Bartender: Wow, you look great, how did you lose the weight?
Me. Ate less consistantly over 3 months, logged my food
Bartender: Oh. I started working out more and have gained weight too - I thought if you worked out you lose weight?
Me: Well, no. If you are eating at a surplus for you, you'll still gain.
Bartender: Well my hours make it so I eat at weird times of the day, I think that's it.
Me. No. Meal timing is irrelevant. If you are gaining fat, you are eating too much.
Bartender: Blank stare like I'm a moron.
Convo 2:
Hair Dresser: Oh wow, you look great. What have you been up to?
Me. Ate less consistantly over 3 months, logged my food
Hair Dresser: Really, that's it, you didn't spend hours in the gym, or eat clean?
Me: Yep
Hair Dresser: I started having AVC in the morning with a glass of water, I think it's working.
Me: **oh good lord, get me out of here***
The most important things for weightloss are really the same as for anything you want to accomplish. A reasoned plan, conviction to stick with it and willpower.
Of course it is. Usually when I find someone making a ton of excuses, I say "it's like any other goal, it takes work, a plan and patience". I too have had various excuses why I can't/don't want to do something (heck, I've been saying I'll get my Masters next year for the last 15 years, LOL), but to use "woo" as a reason/excuse, I'll never get.
In that 3 months that I lose 17lbs, I may have "worked out" 5 days. All I did was adjust my diet enough to get results. Honestly, it wasn't hard. But people find "woo" easier. Woo works...1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »The most important things for weightloss are really the same as for anything you want to accomplish. A reasoned plan, conviction to stick with it and willpower.
Not arguing with you, but I think there is an added component to weight loss, and that's the ability to work through the BS.
Finding this place was a godsend to me. Weight loss stopped being about eating what I think my food should eat and it became a math problem. While I kinda understood the whole calories idea, the process was not clear so I kinda winged it. Plus I knew a lot of what I was hearing was BS. Figured if I had done a bunch of extra yard work (I started losing weight because I was fixing a drainage issue in my yard) that meant I could have beer and nachos, cuz I worked hard dammit. Being able to put numbers and counting to the process helped me immensely.
See, I was digging a hole in my front yard and decided to get a Fitbit. Ended up getting a Garmin VSHR instead, but started tracking the calories I burned and keeping an eye on my HR to be sure it didn't go over 200.
There was a link on the Garmin connect to this place. I read through the stickies here and it started to click.
If I was trying to do this without the math, I'd be lost and probably chasing some of the ideas this thread is about.
7 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »If I was trying to do this without the math, I'd be lost and probably chasing some of the ideas this thread is about.
Amen. Do the math. Logging my food forces me to be honest with myself about how much I eat and drink. And that gives me control and a guide for adjusting consumption to meet my goal.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions