Is it possible my body doesn't want to lose more?

Options
124

Replies

  • jrochest
    jrochest Posts: 119 Member
    Options
    jrochest wrote: »
    It is only when you have a very pronounced and consistent deficit or surplus that you weight will actually begin to change. For instance, I seriously doubt that one could manage to lose consistent weight on a deficit of, say, 100 calories, even if you were able to somehow get an exact, precise intake of those calories, such as a medically monitored liquid diet for instance. Your body would simply adjust. The deficit would need to be big enough that it would override these mechanisms (which is why the 'starving people' argument doesn't count here - you WILL lose if you starve, yet you may not lose if your deficit is too small for you, a rate which probably differs between people too).

    I would love to see this studied. I find it reasonable that there’s a “homeostasis mode” ;) where 100 or so calories either way will not trigger weight loss or gain but would instead lead to minor metabolic adaptations. This, as you pointed out, wouldn’t challenge the general truth that is CICO. It would add some slight complexity to it though and could perhaps help people choose a more effective caloric deficit and activity level.

    I just need to stress -- this quote is misattributed! It's from Nettiklive's response to my post, not from my post itself.

    I agree with it, completely! But it's not something I said.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    After reading everyone's input I feel a lot more confident moving forward. I am going to follow the advice given and tighten up on my logging and give myself some more time to adjust to my new routine. I guess it just gets scary when I am not seeing the results I expected, but it seems to be what this is. It's a waiting game, but now I can make some small adjustments to hopefully help myself reach my goal!

    If you haven't already, you might also benefit from making a list of non-scale victories - there's a massive thread over in the success forum that can be a big help with ideas. It's definitely frustrating not to see results right away, but the only way to fail is to give up.

    @janejellyroll @AnvilHead *clears throat, throws meaningful glances at debate forum*

    I beg your pardon! The recent re-emergence of the sun and temperatures over 30 have got me frolicking like a child.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    nettiklive wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    nettiklive wrote: »
    Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.

    This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)

    First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."

    I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
    Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
    Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.

    b2y3fuc24kdl.jpg

    Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:

    That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.

    It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.

    When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.

    Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!

    From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.

    So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)

    But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.

    The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.

    In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.

    Yes, this kind of stuff was exactly what I meant. People on a deficit also tend to feel colder, have less energy etc. Of course the body is limited in just how much energy it could conserve that way, but it is something, so if your deficit is very small like those 100 calories, it could very well compensate for it.
    If you don't believe that's the case, then answer this: WHY exactly do all those changes take place, like feeling colder, having slower nail and hair growth, less energy etc? Why does the body not just burn fat to keep all these things going as usual? Yet it doesn't. I think that shows that the fat-burning process isn't quite as straightforward as people here claim. And fat-burning alone is not efficient enough to provide for all of our energy needs, otherwise overweight people could survive with zero food until they reached their desired weight, yet they can't. Even increased hunger signals and our preference for rich, calorie-dense food are evolutionary mechanisms designed to conserve energy stores. So it's a bit shortsighted to claim that 'the body doesn't 'want' to do anything, it's all all your habits'. That's not to say you can't consciously override all these things but they are present as part of the body's evolutionary makeup.

    Really sad that people with no clue about the science of fat burning and fat for energy are giving such horrible and B.S. advice on forums like this. Your body can and will and would rather live from running on energy from burning fat than that of glucose. Do some research on intermittent fasting and ketogenics and keto adaptation and see how successful and happy people are that follow those lifestyles ONLY running on burning fat for energy. And the whole caloric deficit rule is crap when it comes to having a keto adapted metabolism too. Burn as much fat as you want if you are in ketosis and intermittent fasting. The state our bodies should all be in while still taking in perfect nutrients every day. And build muscle at the same time if you want to. The way society is today and the crap that fills our groceries is the reason diabetes and obesity is the highest it's ever been in the world. Humans are not designed to be grazers eating processed, sugar filled garbage multiple times a day. Not any kind of food multiple times of day. Have you heard of evolution of species? How old is the human? Not old at all. We have not evolved past our hunter gatherer set up genetic make up of that kind of metabolism. We are designed to not eat all the time. Get your body into a fat burning metabolism and never look back. When you reach your fat % and lean body mass you want then adjust your macro's to where you stay that fit body ratio and you'll be set. And please don't listen to the B.S. all over some of these posts that say only lose 1 to 2 lbs per week for "healthy" weight loss. That's more crap based on old science and based on a non fat burning metabolism. Research, research, research yourself. And don't trust what any one says on a forum. Learn from up to date doctors. Not old B.S. outdated science and people that just re post what they heard from others here. Go on youtube and look up Dr. Eric Berg and Dr. Fung and Diet Doctor pages. I've lost 47 lbs in 77 days and have gained lean muscle mass while doing it and have more energy every day than I ever have in my life and I'm 44 years old. Body runs on pure fat burning every day. But again...don't take my word for it. Research it. Then do it.

    Berg is a chiropractor, not an authority on nutrition. He is way out of his field of expertise and has run afoul of the law for his questionable practices in the past. Fung is a laughingstock amongst evidence-based researchers and his silly theories have been shot out of the sky numerous times by people who actually know something about physiology. Dietdoctor is a keto propaganda website so full of woo that it makes Dr. Oz look credible.

    I'd agree with the advice to "research it" - but the above sources are not "research", they're ketovangelist propaganda. 99% of what you wrote in your post above is physiologically incorrect and does not accurately describe how the body works, nor how keto actually works.

    Come on, losing 47 pounds in 77 days while adding muscle mass to the body is seriously impressive. I'm heading to YouTube to catch up on all this research and learn more! Just have to unhook my grazing bag so I have a full view of the computer screen.
    You will see my journal pictures on here soon :) I'm just one of 10's of thousands of people living this way and getting in shape this way. Yes 47 lbs in 77 days. And I get body composition imaging scans for my body fat and lean body mass % ratio's. I don't use scales or calipers to measure fat loss. They are not near as accurate as body comp imaging. And I am now lifting weights 3 to 5 times a day and I do cardio of hiking and mountain biking. And I just went for an updated blood/urine lab work to also keep close track on how my body is responding to changing my life style and having a 100% fat burning metabolism. In the words of my doctor "I have never seen someone lose this much fat in this little time without surgery. Amazing and wonderful. Don't stop doing what your doing" ....And that was at my last consult when we filled out the forms for the lab tests we wanted to get done. If there are any negative results I will be honest about it. But I feel the best I've felt in my life.

    That you have found personal success with your method doesn't mean that everyone else on earth is wrong.
  • skinnyjingbb
    skinnyjingbb Posts: 127 Member
    Options
    I know that if you eat less calories than you expend you will lose weight. This principle has worked for me. However, I was looking at my weight over the last 3 years and whether I was trying to lose weight or not trying, I have remained at roughly 150 lbs. Even now that I am trying, I can't seem to break much lower than that. I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts.

    Screenshot_20180419_115325.png

    I am in the similar situation, my goal is also 120lbs. At least you are good at maintaining the current weight, i actually had regained back lots weight before. Now, I lost all the extra weight and back to the 150 range, I am struggling again. I don't know what's the best way to reach my goal, still testing out different method.
  • Poisonedpawn78
    Poisonedpawn78 Posts: 1,145 Member
    Options
    I'm always baffled by the lengths some people will go to in order to not take responsibility for their choices.

    Alien polar bear migrations and old world order plots are the reason fuzzy peaches are so tasty and why i cant stop myself from eating them.

    And you cant tell me any different!
  • chuckncherylboltz
    chuckncherylboltz Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    Here's my theory on this....I had Gastric Bypass 10/21/14, I have lost & maintained a 105 lb weight loss. THE lowest I ever saw was 184 for 2 days, then right bk up i sat between 195 & 203 UGH My surgeon re tested me via endoscopy & my pouch is as tight as the day I had surgery. He said I am a success & they see this a lot with patients, "their body decides where i wants to be & that's it!!!!! " Um, NO!

    I will never accept that. I am still weighing between 195 & 203 & i have done IF, started @ 203, down to 196 in 5 days. I feel miserable @ this weight & am adding keto in with IF. This, just as my surgery will not be a diet, but will be a lifestyle change & commitment.

    Where I'm confused is I see people all the time with my same stats pre & post op that don't comply, eat junk, drink, don't listen & they weigh in @ 150 & under. I comply, never eat the food not on my plan & i never saw under 184??? Even though I'll never accept it, with this is mind, could my surgeon be right? I also called another Bariatric clinic for a 2nd opinion & they said the same thing as my surgeon :/

    1st pic day of surgery / last May
    2nd pic wedding 2012 / last June
    3rd pic 2 days ago

    9p5dfuw3qeeo.jpg
    x6hg8y1g0ddr.jpg
    eqs5c29qn6e3.jpg
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,485 Member
    edited April 2018
    Options
    jrochest wrote: »
    I'm always baffled by the lengths some people will go to in order to not take responsibility for their choices.

    My food diary is public; you can see every choice I make, because I log everything I eat. I'm keeping it below 1200, ideally below 1000.

    What you can't see is that my weight loss is slowing, after 10 weeks, to a minimal amount, and at 175 I'm still 30 pounds above a BMI of 20, and 40-50 pounds over what I'd like to end up at (and where I've been before). So what that implies is that I'll have to drop well below 800 calories a day? 600 calories a day? to get to a healthy weight? I mean, I can do that, and I've done it before, in some cases for months at a time -- like I say, I'm old -- but I'm damned if I'll be able to live on that for the rest of my life...

    I've not had this problem prior to this period of dieting, so I'm assuming it's age.

    Age has nothing to do with it. MFP takes this into account so your calorie goal will be appropriate for your weight, height, and age.

    The biggest influence in weight loss when older is lack of movement (we do slow down as we age), which in turn drops our muscle mass. This can lead to a lower BMR than someone 20 years younger (50-100 cals per decade). But again MFP has taken this into account.

    Make sure you are active (MFP sedentary is office type work, housework, and expects 3500 steps) and doing some type of resistance training to preserve muscle.

    I looked at your diary. You are logging everything but, you are not using a digital food scale and a number of your entries may be inaccurate. For single ingredient food use the USDA data base. For packaged foods, including single serving items and slices of bread, weight them then compare against the package info, or scan the info into MFP and weigh.

    Get a scale and weigh every single thing that passes your lips. Measuring cups and spoons for liquids. You will get much better results.

    Not sure of your age, but if you are in the menopause range it would be worth having a full checkup and blood work done if you, once you have tightened up your logging, are not losing on at least 1200 cals plus exercise.

    (Make sure you have the correct goal. For 30 lbs a loss of 1 lbs a week is appropriate, you could start (for a short time) at 1.5 if you had 50 to lose)

    All people have a slightly different BMR than the calculators estimate, but barring a medical problem you should lose at a higher intake than your logging is showing.

    (I am old, so I do understand that you don't get the calories you would have when you were 20, unless you move as much, and have the muscles, of a 20yo)

    Cheers, h.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    jrochest wrote: »
    I'm always baffled by the lengths some people will go to in order to not take responsibility for their choices.

    My food diary is public; you can see every choice I make, because I log everything I eat. I'm keeping it below 1200, ideally below 1000.

    What you can't see is that my weight loss is slowing, after 10 weeks, to a minimal amount, and at 175 I'm still 30 pounds above a BMI of 20, and 40-50 pounds over what I'd like to end up at (and where I've been before). So what that implies is that I'll have to drop well below 800 calories a day? 600 calories a day? to get to a healthy weight? I mean, I can do that, and I've done it before, in some cases for months at a time -- like I say, I'm old -- but I'm damned if I'll be able to live on that for the rest of my life...

    I've not had this problem prior to this period of dieting, so I'm assuming it's age.

    Had a diet break in awhile?

    Though it may appear that's what's going on now with no weight loss.

    There's a smart purposeful backing off of deficit to keep the body unstressed.

    Then there's the body basically forcing it on you by other adaptations.

    Kind of like if you jump into working out too hard with little recovery - sooner or later most people get the recovery, because the body breaks in some way and it's forced on you.

    Just the first 2 pages needed.

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks