Anyone else find this interesting as hopeful maintainers?
psychod787
Posts: 4,088 Member
I happened by this article recently, thought I would post it. I am interested on people's take on this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/health/biggest-losers-weight-loss.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/health/biggest-losers-weight-loss.html
0
Replies
-
I would like to see a similar study without the training. That is, these folks lost super fast with hours a day of exercise. Would the same hold true with slower losses achieved with more moderate exercise? I assume exercise would still be important, but would it have to be as much? With half as much to lose, can I still expect to eat 500cal less than the next woman my size for the rest of my life?
That being said, as long as the 80 minutes includes daily activities, there is hope. That is about what I am doing now and I do look at that as a lifestyle change.4 -
I have a few thoughts and will try to organise them. I fall into the category they describe right off the bat, maintaining but averaging about 80 minutes exercise per day - 83 per day for 2017, as a matter of fact. However I think it's important though to separate those of us who ate a varied diet and stayed active and lost at a moderate rate, to those who crashed their way down in a bubble like the Biggest Loser phenomenon, because the mental process and the longevity of your routine is heavily dependent on how you get there, in my opinion.
Now I've seen a few episodes of this show but am by no means a regular viewer, and while I know they take pains to show on camera that they stress being healthful and setting the people up to be able to take care of things when the cameras are off by giving them treadmills and food plans, it's all just scenery. This subsection of losers for me includes those on these forums who use elimination diets for non-medical reasons or gravitate towards VLCD. They are unprepared and uneducated to do anything but achieve while the motivations come from outside sources. Fact is, there's no great television in slow and steady and nothing entertainingly fetishistic about a varied diet.
In the middle of the text is a link to a related article, and the NY times using a provocative headline about how the Biggest Losers' "bodies fought to regain weight" and then shortly after comments about their "slowed metabolism." This is the kind of thing that someone unprepared for a life of being careful with their food will soak up, rather than face the fact that they no amount of "grueling diet and an exhausting exercise program" in the short term is going to allow them to relax back into old comforts after a set time. It's got to be familiar to anyone who's been around these forums a while, the "lifestyle" versus "project" mindset. While the scientific outs of "set weight" and "starvation mode" and the like are floating around as real things, they will be leaned on as they are easier to mentally digest than the *kitten* truth that we have to eat less than we want. Now adaptive thermogenesis is surely a thing, but for the vast majority of people, and notwithstanding rare medical conditions, weight can be managed by reasonable diet and reasonable activity levels.
Quote from the article: Danny Cahill won the “Biggest Loser” competition in Season 8. He lost 239 pounds and exercised two and a half hours a day for four years. Then injuries piled up, and he was unable to keep to an exhausting regimen.
Surprise, right? Extreme anything is not sustainable.22 -
I think, due to the extremes of The Biggest Loser, adaptive thermogenesis is more pronounced and they undoubtedly lost muscle mass.
In regards to exercise and general activity being necessary to maintain weight? I know a lot of people who've never had a weight issue and maintain a healthy weight...do you know what they all have in common? They move...whether it be deliberate exercise or general activity or things like playing basketball or hiking, etc is what they do for recreation. I don't know anyone who maintains a healthy weight who is just a couch potato all the time.
I never had a weight issue in my life until I turned 30 and took a desk job...prior to that I was a pretty active guy. My recreational hobbies included Ultimate Frisbee, Frisbee Golf, hiking, and backpacking and I didn't own a car for most of my 20s and walked and road my bike everywhere. That's how I maintained a healthy weight.
I still have a desk job, so I have to be more deliberate in moving whereas before, it was just life. I don't do anything particularly extreme. I walk my dog most mornings or at least at some point in the day for 20-30 minutes and I typically get in between 8,000 and 10,000 steps per day. I ride my bike 3-4 days per week typically...usually a 10 mile ride will take me in the neighborhood of 35 minutes or so...I lift 2-3x per week and that takes me just over 30 minutes. I don't spend hours working out and have maintained my weight loss more or less for going on 5 years without issue. I typically need somewhere between 2,800 and 3,000 calories per day to maintain which I figure is pretty good for a desk jockey. I haven't logged or otherwise kept a food diary for the entirety of maintenance.6 -
@cwolfman13 That is interesting. I have oftened wondered how much of the slowing metabolism at 30 is actually lifestyle change as folks get into careers and start having kids.
Not everyone I know who is this is active, but my mother in law, for example, will skip meals to keep her weight down. To be fair, she is in her 70s and has a hip issue.
On the other hand, I am active and obese. I am obsessed with french fries and chocolate. I am not big boned, I do not have thyroid issues. I just eat too *kitten* much when I am not tracking. I realize I will likely have to track the rest of my life.
I was just reading some woo on the internet that tried to tell me I did not overrated my way into diabetes. Oh, yes I did. And I am also eating my way out of diabetes.12 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »I have a few thoughts and will try to organise them. I fall into the category they describe right off the bat, maintaining but averaging about 80 minutes exercise per day - 83 per day for 2017, as a matter of fact. However I think it's important though to separate those of us who ate a varied diet and stayed active and lost at a moderate rate, to those who crashed their way down in a bubble like the Biggest Loser phenomenon, because the mental process and the longevity of your routine is heavily dependent on how you get there, in my opinion.
Now I've seen a few episodes of this show but am by no means a regular viewer, and while I know they take pains to show on camera that they stress being healthful and setting the people up to be able to take care of things when the cameras are off by giving them treadmills and food plans, it's all just scenery. This subsection of losers for me includes those on these forums who use elimination diets for non-medical reasons or gravitate towards VLCD. They are unprepared and uneducated to do anything but achieve while the motivations come from outside sources. Fact is, there's no great television in slow and steady and nothing entertainingly fetishistic about a varied diet.
In the middle of the text is a link to a related article, and the NY times using a provocative headline about how the Biggest Losers' "bodies fought to regain weight" and then shortly after comments about their "slowed metabolism." This is the kind of thing that someone unprepared for a life of being careful with their food will soak up, rather than face the fact that they no amount of "grueling diet and an exhausting exercise program" in the short term is going to allow them to relax back into old comforts after a set time. It's got to be familiar to anyone who's been around these forums a while, the "lifestyle" versus "project" mindset. While the scientific outs of "set weight" and "starvation mode" and the like are floating around as real things, they will be leaned on as they are easier to mentally digest than the *kitten* truth that we have to eat less than we want. Now adaptive thermogenesis is surely a thing, but for the vast majority of people, and notwithstanding rare medical conditions, weight can be managed by reasonable diet and reasonable activity levels.
Quote from the article: Danny Cahill won the “Biggest Loser” competition in Season 8. He lost 239 pounds and exercised two and a half hours a day for four years. Then injuries piled up, and he was unable to keep to an exhausting regimen.
Surprise, right? Extreme anything is not sustainable.
I love the long response. The sad thing is, as someone who lost that kind of weight like they did, it just worries me. I lost 140lbs in less than a year. 220 overall. I was a combo of external and internal motivation. I am worried I destroyed myself long term. What is sad/ good was the original article is what sent me down the road to learn about proper nutrition and hopefully long term habits that will help me keep most of it off. I hate to call it soaking it up vs a wake up call to the realities of weight loss, but I do have an obsession with the studies. I have learned that no food is good or bad, some just keep you fuller longer generally with less calories. It is hard for me to quantify how many "minutes" of activity I do. I average 13500 steps a day, yoga 2 days a week, lifting 4 days a week higher reps/ hypertrophy, and 2 5 minute true HITT sessions a week. I also count macros, weigh and measure almost all food. I know I am in caloric surplus now to help regain some weight and am slowing decreasing cals until I hit that "Sweet" spot. I just hope I am active enough. Not sure if all that makes me highly active or not. Thanks Melanie for the response.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think, due to the extremes of The Biggest Loser, adaptive thermogenesis is more pronounced and they undoubtedly lost muscle mass.
In regards to exercise and general activity being necessary to maintain weight? I know a lot of people who've never had a weight issue and maintain a healthy weight...do you know what they all have in common? They move...whether it be deliberate exercise or general activity or things like playing basketball or hiking, etc is what they do for recreation. I don't know anyone who maintains a healthy weight who is just a couch potato all the time.
I never had a weight issue in my life until I turned 30 and took a desk job...prior to that I was a pretty active guy. My recreational hobbies included Ultimate Frisbee, Frisbee Golf, hiking, and backpacking and I didn't own a car for most of my 20s and walked and road my bike everywhere. That's how I maintained a healthy weight.
I still have a desk job, so I have to be more deliberate in moving whereas before, it was just life. I don't do anything particularly extreme. I walk my dog most mornings or at least at some point in the day for 20-30 minutes and I typically get in between 8,000 and 10,000 steps per day. I ride my bike 3-4 days per week typically...usually a 10 mile ride will take me in the neighborhood of 35 minutes or so...I lift 2-3x per week and that takes me just over 30 minutes. I don't spend hours working out and have maintained my weight loss more or less for going on 5 years without issue. I typically need somewhere between 2,800 and 3,000 calories per day to maintain which I figure is pretty good for a desk jockey. I haven't logged or otherwise kept a food diary for the entirety of maintenance.
thanks cwolfman for the response! I agree about movement. Dr. Hill out of Colorado University says the same thing!1 -
concordancia wrote: »@cwolfman13 That is interesting. I have oftened wondered how much of the slowing metabolism at 30 is actually lifestyle change as folks get into careers and start having kids.
Not everyone I know who is this is active, but my mother in law, for example, will skip meals to keep her weight down. To be fair, she is in her 70s and has a hip issue.
On the other hand, I am active and obese. I am obsessed with french fries and chocolate. I am not big boned, I do not have thyroid issues. I just eat too *kitten* much when I am not tracking. I realize I will likely have to track the rest of my life.
I was just reading some woo on the internet that tried to tell me I did not overrated my way into diabetes. Oh, yes I did. And I am also eating my way out of diabetes.
Thanks for the response concordancia. I am pre/ diabetic. A1c of 6.3. My last one was 5.0 lab vs 5.3 at home test. Best of luck with your fight!0 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »I have a few thoughts and will try to organise them. I fall into the category they describe right off the bat, maintaining but averaging about 80 minutes exercise per day - 83 per day for 2017, as a matter of fact. However I think it's important though to separate those of us who ate a varied diet and stayed active and lost at a moderate rate, to those who crashed their way down in a bubble like the Biggest Loser phenomenon, because the mental process and the longevity of your routine is heavily dependent on how you get there, in my opinion.
Now I've seen a few episodes of this show but am by no means a regular viewer, and while I know they take pains to show on camera that they stress being healthful and setting the people up to be able to take care of things when the cameras are off by giving them treadmills and food plans, it's all just scenery. This subsection of losers for me includes those on these forums who use elimination diets for non-medical reasons or gravitate towards VLCD. They are unprepared and uneducated to do anything but achieve while the motivations come from outside sources. Fact is, there's no great television in slow and steady and nothing entertainingly fetishistic about a varied diet.
In the middle of the text is a link to a related article, and the NY times using a provocative headline about how the Biggest Losers' "bodies fought to regain weight" and then shortly after comments about their "slowed metabolism." This is the kind of thing that someone unprepared for a life of being careful with their food will soak up, rather than face the fact that they no amount of "grueling diet and an exhausting exercise program" in the short term is going to allow them to relax back into old comforts after a set time. It's got to be familiar to anyone who's been around these forums a while, the "lifestyle" versus "project" mindset. While the scientific outs of "set weight" and "starvation mode" and the like are floating around as real things, they will be leaned on as they are easier to mentally digest than the *kitten* truth that we have to eat less than we want. Now adaptive thermogenesis is surely a thing, but for the vast majority of people, and notwithstanding rare medical conditions, weight can be managed by reasonable diet and reasonable activity levels.
Quote from the article: Danny Cahill won the “Biggest Loser” competition in Season 8. He lost 239 pounds and exercised two and a half hours a day for four years. Then injuries piled up, and he was unable to keep to an exhausting regimen.
Surprise, right? Extreme anything is not sustainable.
Well said and thank you!0 -
psychod787 wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »I have a few thoughts and will try to organise them. I fall into the category they describe right off the bat, maintaining but averaging about 80 minutes exercise per day - 83 per day for 2017, as a matter of fact. However I think it's important though to separate those of us who ate a varied diet and stayed active and lost at a moderate rate, to those who crashed their way down in a bubble like the Biggest Loser phenomenon, because the mental process and the longevity of your routine is heavily dependent on how you get there, in my opinion.
Now I've seen a few episodes of this show but am by no means a regular viewer, and while I know they take pains to show on camera that they stress being healthful and setting the people up to be able to take care of things when the cameras are off by giving them treadmills and food plans, it's all just scenery. This subsection of losers for me includes those on these forums who use elimination diets for non-medical reasons or gravitate towards VLCD. They are unprepared and uneducated to do anything but achieve while the motivations come from outside sources. Fact is, there's no great television in slow and steady and nothing entertainingly fetishistic about a varied diet.
In the middle of the text is a link to a related article, and the NY times using a provocative headline about how the Biggest Losers' "bodies fought to regain weight" and then shortly after comments about their "slowed metabolism." This is the kind of thing that someone unprepared for a life of being careful with their food will soak up, rather than face the fact that they no amount of "grueling diet and an exhausting exercise program" in the short term is going to allow them to relax back into old comforts after a set time. It's got to be familiar to anyone who's been around these forums a while, the "lifestyle" versus "project" mindset. While the scientific outs of "set weight" and "starvation mode" and the like are floating around as real things, they will be leaned on as they are easier to mentally digest than the *kitten* truth that we have to eat less than we want. Now adaptive thermogenesis is surely a thing, but for the vast majority of people, and notwithstanding rare medical conditions, weight can be managed by reasonable diet and reasonable activity levels.
Quote from the article: Danny Cahill won the “Biggest Loser” competition in Season 8. He lost 239 pounds and exercised two and a half hours a day for four years. Then injuries piled up, and he was unable to keep to an exhausting regimen.
Surprise, right? Extreme anything is not sustainable.
I love the long response. The sad thing is, as someone who lost that kind of weight like they did, it just worries me. I lost 140lbs in less than a year. 220 overall. I was a combo of external and internal motivation. I am worried I destroyed myself long term. What is sad/ good was the original article is what sent me down the road to learn about proper nutrition and hopefully long term habits that will help me keep most of it off. I hate to call it soaking it up vs a wake up call to the realities of weight loss, but I do have an obsession with the studies. I have learned that no food is good or bad, some just keep you fuller longer generally with less calories. It is hard for me to quantify how many "minutes" of activity I do. I average 13500 steps a day, yoga 2 days a week, lifting 4 days a week higher reps/ hypertrophy, and 2 5 minute true HITT sessions a week. I also count macros, weigh and measure almost all food. I know I am in caloric surplus now to help regain some weight and am slowing decreasing cals until I hit that "Sweet" spot. I just hope I am active enough. Not sure if all that makes me highly active or not. Thanks Melanie for the response.
While data and studies from trusted sources will be great to keep you off the questionable woo tracks, you are also a unique individual and you aren't in a race or competition. My loss is only 50lbs from my max weight, but I had that same sinking feeling as you when I understood the mechanics that potentially adapt one's metabolism after having a weight problem. Do try to not worry, as this could guide your behaviour more than more general/overall good sense about your habits and choices. Keep an eye on your what's coming and going and adapt as little as necessary and wait out the patterns.3 -
My two cents - they didn’t teach them HOW to eat or about nutrition really. The producers put them on a massive deficit and hours and hours a day of exercise. They get home, fall back into their routines and bam!
There are lots of folks here who are successfully maintaining- it’s possible.13 -
This isn't the first article I've read about how the Biggest Loser contestants were not able to maintain their weight loss. I've seen a television program about it, as well. While I have no idea whether they truly "ruined their metabolisms" as some have said, many of them openly admitted to falling back into old patterns. After all, they didn't get obese in the first place from healthy lifestyle practices.
I did watch many seasons of the show and cheered on the contestants. However, I always felt they missed an opportunity to really educate people about the nutrition aspect. At the end of each season I think the show basically cut them loose to flounder on their own without a lot of (any?) real nutritional guidance or emotional support. Whatever nutritional education they received during the show (to use Jenny-O turkey products or eat Subway), was based on advertisers and associated product placement. If they taught them anything more, it wasn't episode worthy. I often wondered why they never followed up with people or had continuing challenges for them over time. I would have been interested to see them 6 months or a year later, but maybe that doesn't make for good TV. As far as maintaining, Ali Vincent kept the weight off for 7 years before she regained it all. She admitted that it was mostly due to emotional issues so that really has little to do with metabolism.
Personally, I fall into the slow loser and (mostly) maintainer category. After a lifetime of yo-yo dieting I took nearly a year to reach a healthy BMI because I wasn't in a big hurry. I have managed to maintain now for over 2 years, but I know what it takes to stay there. Making wise decisions about what I eat, portion control and moderate exercise at least 5-6 days a week. When I begin to slack off (fall back into old patterns) the scale begins to creep up. Staying in maintenance is about recognizing those behaviors and DECIDING to get back on track. When I decide to have second helpings, 3 slices of pizza or extra glasses of wine I know exactly what I'm doing. It's recognizing that and not making up a bunch of excuses about it. Everyone makes those decisions now and again, but you don't have to keep doing it until you put all your weight back on again.
12 -
Look. The success rate of a previously obese person maintaining even a 5% weight loss long term is pretty **kitten**. Maintain a meager 5% loss. Not the ~50% you or I may have achieved to date.
You can google all the studies you want. You ain't going to find a high percentage success rate as of this time.
The reasons are varied and whether it is a chicken or egg, situation I am not sure.
I don't want to expand on this right now, but the basic thought process goes along the lines of: did we get to be obese in the first place because of our obesogenic habits or did something inside us push us to create obesognic habits in the first place, or a combination of both.
Think along the lines of nature vs nurture.
During our weight loss which of the above "pre-conditions" changed? And what other new conditions pushing us to regain are now in place? And what structures have we now put in place to avoid regain?
There is one thing I do know with some certainty: most of us previously obese people are unlikely to continue maintaining our loss UNLESS we continue to be active in the management of our weight.
My downstairs neighbour just brought me a plate of home-made dessert worth somewhere close to 1600 Cal. I had just finished eating and would normally not be eating again for at least 4 hours. I scarfed down 2/3 of that plate within 5 minutes.
If I say "I don't care" one too many times... then some level of regain WILL happen.
So, for me the answer, so far, has been a "layered defence" and the realisation that weight maintenance is NOT something I will be doing "naturally" and without some effort and thought.
The rest... just IS.
Yes. I took some care to minimise adaptation as much as possibe once I realized that it was a potential issue. I don't know if I succeeded or if it even matters. I am sure that the guy who made it into the gym and lifted some serious weights did more to counteract adaptation than I did. In any case, yes, there is a good chance that a year or two into maintenance a large degree of those adaptations will reverse but maybe some will remain. Yes, we will probably have to be more active than a never obese person of the same weight/stats/musculature would have to be in order to eat the same amount of calories...
But, really, I don't know that we gain anything by being afraid of all this. The alternative was to stay obese. And that option was not working that great for me!
My Fitbit spits out a TDEE. I know from experience that (based on my logging), this will be from 0% to 5% off long term (single month it has been as far off as 7%, but over a 6 month period no more than 4% so far to date). So, i know approximately how much of my Fitbit TDEE I get to eat without gaining.
It is up to me to keep to it.
I used to read a lot of books. I used to watch a lot of TV. I used to not move from in front of my computer for most of the day. I used to drive to and eat at a variety of all you can eat restaurants.
And I also used to be obese.
Change is never easy, but it does occasionally happen. At least that's the hope.19 -
My two cents - they didn’t teach them HOW to eat or about nutrition really. The producers put them on a massive deficit and hours and hours a day of exercise. They get home, fall back into their routines and bam!
There are lots of folks here who are successfully maintaining- it’s possible.
And for every one of them who has admitted this, there's really no argument to even be started for a "ruined metabolism." How many of them were truly tested and how many just stopped paying attention where it mattered? A year after GW and I am still tracking. I absolutely know I cannot trust myself to wing it.3 -
I’m 63 and I’ve been “watching my weight” since I was 16. I exercise routinely and always have. I would be obese if I didn’t keep in the fight. It’s never been easy and I always, always, have to not just eat what I want for more than a month or two or I’ll be back losing again. MFP has made this more predictable and easier, but it’s still the same process.
I’ve fought to stay in a 25 pound range and now am tightening that up to 7 pounds. People say I have good genes. Haha. No way. I get to eat about 1300 cal a day plus some exercise calories. I think we ALL can do this, if we are prepared for the battle. We also can all keep it off, if we eat the right amount of calories to what we burn. It’s hard, but not magic. Even going through menopause, I kept to it and cut calories. It is totally worth it being a healthy and active senior citizen!8 -
I can speak from my own experience and now almost at 5 years of maintaining my weight. While exercise plays an important role in that for met its not as important as keeping an eye on my calorie intake. As long as I eat at my TDEE (averages 2000), I maintain.2
-
But, really, I don't know that we gain anything by being afraid of all this. The alternative was to stay obese. And that option was not working that great for me!
So much this. ^^
I'm in year eleven of maintenance. Year one I started putting weight back on. I had lost 70, but in that first year gained back 15. I caught it and lost it again. It wasn't so much adaptive thermogenesis (maybe a little bit) as it was eat-all-the-sweets-again.
I'm an admitted sweets freak and it's difficult for me to have any. I would have eaten that whole plate of desserts the neighbor brought, and I have worked at this for ten years. It just doesn't change for me in that regard. My strategy is to not have more than a couple teaspoons of added sugar in a day, and definitely not any baked sweets or candies on a regular basis, because one container is one serving to me. If I decide to have some, I accept this fact and just log it and move on.
My maintenance calories are 1900-2300. According to all the calculators, I should be at 1500-1700. I do get some regular exercise but it's not crazy: an hour walk on hills 3-5 times a week and a little resistance work with bands a couple times a week. I log my food, I use a food scale, I fix 90% of my own meals, and I weigh myself daily and give myself a five pound range. I'm old, but I have a lot of energy. I get eight hours of sleep daily. I've eliminated stressful relationships as much as possible. I think there is a holistic approach to this. A lot of things have to be on point and it's just as much about whole life maintenance.
Being afraid isn't part of that. I know I can do this, so can anyone who puts in a little thought and care.
14 -
There is a National Weight Control Registry of people who have lost significant weight and kept it off. 90% of them exercise at least an hour a day.
For me, exercise makes a huge difference. I can eat pretty much what I want, as long as I get regular exercise. Maybe not as much as I'd like, but I can eat my desserts and drink an occasional beer without having to worry about regaining. When I don't get a lot of exercise (i.e. when travelling) then I put weight back on.3 -
concordancia wrote: »@cwolfman13 That is interesting. I have oftened wondered how much of the slowing metabolism at 30 is actually lifestyle change as folks get into careers and start having kids.
Not everyone I know who is this is active, but my mother in law, for example, will skip meals to keep her weight down. To be fair, she is in her 70s and has a hip issue.
On the other hand, I am active and obese. I am obsessed with french fries and chocolate. I am not big boned, I do not have thyroid issues. I just eat too *kitten* much when I am not tracking. I realize I will likely have to track the rest of my life.
I was just reading some woo on the internet that tried to tell me I did not overrated my way into diabetes. Oh, yes I did. And I am also eating my way out of diabetes.
I think it's huge. My basal metabolism at 43 is only an estimated 120-130 calories lower than it was when I was 23.
I never really thought of myself as active back then...I didn't really "workout" or do any deliberate exercise...everything was just me having fun and transportation...and I worked retail liquor during the school year so on my feet a lot and moving around product and landscape construction in the summer.
I never thought about my weight at all and food wise I just ate whatever I wanted, when I wanted in as big of portions and I wanted and drank copious amounts of beer.
When I started gaining weight, I blamed it on the typical, "well that's what happens when you get older." When I decided to drop weight when I was 38, I really examined my past vs current and came to the realization that I really was a very active guy back then vs almost completely sedentary. I suppose it seems "harder" now for the mere fact that I do have to deliberately move whereas before it was just life and because my exercise and general activity still pales in comparison to what it used to be, I have to be mindful of what I'm eating as well.4 -
So, I played a bit with https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/ <it may get moved in the near future>
Switched to expert mode because I don't like wizards that much
Used my own calculation of activity level factor (actual average calories to maintain divided by BMR value which can be found at: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator)
The expectation for my activity factor and height would be along the lines off:
22 years old, current weight, height, and activity, maintains at: 3186 Cal without weight loss
52 years old, current weight, height, and activity, maintains at: 2904 Cal without weight loss
A 285 Calorie or 9% drop. Insurmountable? Obviously not. Trivial? It is definitely a good snack or drink that goes away. AT THE SAME ACTIVITY LEVEL.
50 year old, current weight, height, and activity, level at my former weight, and reducing to my current weight over two years would maintain at age 52 at: 2542 Cal.
A 362 Calorie or 12.5% drop. Same (HIGH) activity level. Height, etc.
Now, this is where I start to cry out hysterically.
If I change the model and set my start activity level at an estimated 1.2 (pretty effing sedentary, which is where it was) and set the model to build up to my current activity level, which is closer to 2.... well, lets just say that the model and my own figures are VERY VERY close and point to a drop of about 110-120 Calories, or just under 4%
So it seems the model implies that we counteract adaptation by... activity and that we'd better start as overweight slugs as opposed to overweight athletes
2 -
So, I played a bit with https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/ <it may get moved in the near future>
Switched to expert mode because I don't like wizards that much Used my own calculation of activity level factor (actual average calories to maintain divided by BMR value which can be found at: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator)
The expectation for my activity factor and height would be along the lines off:
22 years old, current weight, height, and activity, maintains at: 3186 Cal without weight loss
52 years old, current weight, height, and activity, maintains at: 2904 Cal without weight loss
A 285 Calorie or 9% drop. Insurmountable? Obviously not. Trivial? It is definitely a good snack or drink that goes away. AT THE SAME ACTIVITY LEVEL.
50 year old, current weight, height, and activity, level at my former weight, and reducing to my current weight over two years would maintain at age 52 at: 2542 Cal.
A 362 Calorie or 12.5% drop. Same (HIGH) activity level. Height, etc.
Now, this is where I start to cry out hysterically.
If I change the model and set my start activity level at an estimated 1.2 (pretty effing sedentary, which is where it was) and set the model to build up to my current activity level, which is closer to 2.... well, lets just say that the model and my own figures are VERY VERY close and point to a drop of about 110-120 Calories, or just under 4%
So it seems the model implies that we counteract adaptation by... activity and that we'd better start as overweight slugs as opposed to overweight athletes
Nice. I think there is some research that talks about high activity counter acting some slow down. Also, you have to think about how Hall developed that algorithm. Didn't they give people a drug that made them spill sugar in urine? So, it might not be the best for using activity modifications. That being said, it has me closely pegged as far as I can tell. The problem I see, if it does not take diet composition into account. Thanks pav.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions