Is it possible my body doesn't want to lose more?
Options
Replies
-
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive 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.
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.
Here's one of many sources which directly addresses Fung's drivel and counters it with actual, real, research-backed science: https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/
LOL typical brain washed dribble from someone that hasn't lived it and done it. REAL SCIENCE IS DOING IT. Don't talk about it if you don't live it. I live it and you will see my journal pictures and not just that but you want more science. I have body composition imaging scan reports, blood and urine lab test results. That is science lol. Typical saying that when you "read" stuff you dismiss it but 10's of thousands of people living intermittent fasting keto adapted bodies are walking and living proof. You keep believing what you believe. And I'll live the reality lol.
Lol whats it like to be so clueless? Like does it feel warm and fuzzy or more like insanity ?13 -
You will see my journal pictures on here soonjanejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive 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.
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.
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. 20 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
You will see my journal pictures on here soonjanejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive 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.
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. 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.
Try and remember to post those pictures in your own thread instead of highjacking someone else's, like you did here.
Just sayin...15 -
singingflutelady wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive 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.
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.
You joined mfp just to post this?
Next question - what's he selling?8 -
Chunkahlunkah 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.
1 -
nettiklive wrote: »As far as I can tell, if I eat a 'reasonable' amount of food and am reasonably active, my body will sit at at a 33 BMI for all eternity. It's really really good at regulating me in the 200 pound range
On the other hand, if I want to have a 'reasonable' weight -- under 25 or lower BMI -- I have to eat below 1300 calories a day. If I eat my TDEE -- or what the calculators say it is -- I gain. I don't consider eating less than 1000 calories a day (and yes, I weigh and measure) to be 'stuffing food down my throat'.
Being a short woman over 55 sucks, but that's the brutal truth. I'm really hoping I can deal with this this time, but it's *kitten* infuriating.
You'll have lots of people jumping on you and me for saying this but in spite of everything, I fully believe that it is much easier for the average person to maintain a certain weight (not necessarily any specific weight, but any weight, period) than it is to either lose or gain, depending on what the person is more predisposed to based on metabolism, activity, NEAT etc. The vast majority of people out there are not measuring every bite with a food scale; most of them aren't even tracking calories at all or very very loosely (and I was one of them for years), which means their daily intakes probably vary wildly yet they aren't gaining and losing all over the place, they're typically keeping a fairly stable weight within a few lbs. People who majorly overeat will keep gaining, and anorexics may keep losing, but a large majority maintains without a second thought. I had that same experience personally - both at a higher weight where I struggled to lose, and at a lower weight where I was happy, didn't track and didn't gain. Yet if you come on here, people will tell you the calorie difference between your weighed banana and a banana from a database is why you can't lose weight. Say what you will, this makes no sense to me. I think the body tries to sustain homeostasis in weight, and it probably makes slight adjustments in how much it burns based on your daily intake to try and maintain. 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 nutritional shake 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).
So the whole obesity epidemic is just made up and everybody is a normal weight and maintains there without difficulty?
Or have people just somehow evolved over the last 50 years or so to just maintain at an overweight/obese bodyweight?
Uh, no -- people stabilize at the weight their body wants to be, not the weight our culture thinks we should be. I can maintain 200 pounds effortlessly, with almost no deviation, no matter how much I eat.
But I don't *like* being 200 pounds. I like being 125 pounds, am socially acceptable at 125 pounds, can buy clothing at 125 pounds.
But the older I get, the harder it is to reach and maintain a weight that I had no trouble at all maintaining at the age of 25. That's all.
17 -
singingflutelady wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive 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.
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.
You joined mfp just to post this?
Next question - what's he selling?
Feed bags with eye holes.6 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »PrincessSlytherin wrote: »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.3 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
LOL there are not only two options. I never said that and that's also typical of a forum warrior to say lol. Everybody lives in their own body and can chose whatever way they want to lose, maintain weight, gain lean mass etc.. I am pointing out that some of the crap I read on this forum is utter outdated B.S. and EVERYTHING EVERY PIECE OF ADVISE given here should be researched and further than that. LIVE IT and see if the stuff is true or not.janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive 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.
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.
Yes, those truly are the only two options available to us . . . go keto or eat garbage continuously throughout the day. No middle ground, no other options, we all must decide which of the two lifestyles we'll adopt. Quality 2nd post, my man.
Forum warrior? Sweet talk is pleasant, but it still won't get me to accept that all non-keto approaches are BS.
I've been living non-keto weight loss/maintenance for years now. I don't need further proof to convince myself it's possible.6 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »
You will see my journal pictures on here soonjanejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive 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.
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. 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.4 -
PrincessSlytherin wrote: »Your diary shows weighing food which is good, but you eat higher some days and lower other days. Does these calories at the the end of the week put you in a 'weekly deficit' according to what you set up MFP to lose weight?
In any regard, if you want to lose more weight you can. Consistency with your intake and your activities/exercise (if you exercise) is all you need.
I looked at my weekly deficit for the past month and a half and I have been under, although sometimes not by a lot. I go to the gym 5 days a week, and do roughly 30 minutes of cardio and 45 minutes of weight mschines. I track my calorie expenditure using fitbit.
When I started the gym I was concerned about severely under eating, so I was eating back my exercise caloroes. Should I try to limit those calories to 25% eaten back? I don't want to undereat, but I don't know how much my fitbit could be overestimating by.
Manually log on Fitbit - Weightlifting - for time taken if 5-15 reps and 2-4 min between machines for recovery.
That's smaller than Fitbit HRM-based calorie burn would be, and more correct.
Is the cardio first or after the lifting?
(is hard cardio making the lifting not as effective?)
If after and a good lifting workout - HR will be elevated from stress, and the inflated HR will give inflated calorie burn for cardio too.
If before workout - is it steady-state that HR-based calorie burn should only be used for anyway?
Same HR for 2-5 at a time, no intervals?
You should be able to eat back all your Adjustment calories.
Ever confirmed Fitbit is getting your average daily pace walking distance correct - since that probably adds up more than exercise?
Walk a known distance at really avg daily pace (not grocery store shuffle, not exercise pace - in the middle) - did Fitbit get the distance correct?
That can at least allow you to use a tool to get better estimates, especially as seasonal changes make their impact to daily activity levels.
If that doesn't happen much, then others' comments about how to adjust is easier way.5 -
PrincessSlytherin wrote: »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.
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.1 -
nettiklive wrote: »As far as I can tell, if I eat a 'reasonable' amount of food and am reasonably active, my body will sit at at a 33 BMI for all eternity. It's really really good at regulating me in the 200 pound range
On the other hand, if I want to have a 'reasonable' weight -- under 25 or lower BMI -- I have to eat below 1300 calories a day. If I eat my TDEE -- or what the calculators say it is -- I gain. I don't consider eating less than 1000 calories a day (and yes, I weigh and measure) to be 'stuffing food down my throat'.
Being a short woman over 55 sucks, but that's the brutal truth. I'm really hoping I can deal with this this time, but it's *kitten* infuriating.
You'll have lots of people jumping on you and me for saying this but in spite of everything, I fully believe that it is much easier for the average person to maintain a certain weight (not necessarily any specific weight, but any weight, period) than it is to either lose or gain, depending on what the person is more predisposed to based on metabolism, activity, NEAT etc. The vast majority of people out there are not measuring every bite with a food scale; most of them aren't even tracking calories at all or very very loosely (and I was one of them for years), which means their daily intakes probably vary wildly yet they aren't gaining and losing all over the place, they're typically keeping a fairly stable weight within a few lbs. People who majorly overeat will keep gaining, and anorexics may keep losing, but a large majority maintains without a second thought. I had that same experience personally - both at a higher weight where I struggled to lose, and at a lower weight where I was happy, didn't track and didn't gain. Yet if you come on here, people will tell you the calorie difference between your weighed banana and a banana from a database is why you can't lose weight. Say what you will, this makes no sense to me. I think the body tries to sustain homeostasis in weight, and it probably makes slight adjustments in how much it burns based on your daily intake to try and maintain. 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 nutritional shake 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).
So the whole obesity epidemic is just made up and everybody is a normal weight and maintains there without difficulty?
Or have people just somehow evolved over the last 50 years or so to just maintain at an overweight/obese bodyweight?
Uh, no -- people stabilize at the weight their body wants to be, not the weight our culture thinks we should be. I can maintain 200 pounds effortlessly, with almost no deviation, no matter how much I eat.
But I don't *like* being 200 pounds. I like being 125 pounds, am socially acceptable at 125 pounds, can buy clothing at 125 pounds.
But the older I get, the harder it is to reach and maintain a weight that I had no trouble at all maintaining at the age of 25. That's all.
But why would your body "want" you to be 200 lbs?5 -
nettiklive wrote: »As far as I can tell, if I eat a 'reasonable' amount of food and am reasonably active, my body will sit at at a 33 BMI for all eternity. It's really really good at regulating me in the 200 pound range
On the other hand, if I want to have a 'reasonable' weight -- under 25 or lower BMI -- I have to eat below 1300 calories a day. If I eat my TDEE -- or what the calculators say it is -- I gain. I don't consider eating less than 1000 calories a day (and yes, I weigh and measure) to be 'stuffing food down my throat'.
Being a short woman over 55 sucks, but that's the brutal truth. I'm really hoping I can deal with this this time, but it's *kitten* infuriating.
You'll have lots of people jumping on you and me for saying this but in spite of everything, I fully believe that it is much easier for the average person to maintain a certain weight (not necessarily any specific weight, but any weight, period) than it is to either lose or gain, depending on what the person is more predisposed to based on metabolism, activity, NEAT etc. The vast majority of people out there are not measuring every bite with a food scale; most of them aren't even tracking calories at all or very very loosely (and I was one of them for years), which means their daily intakes probably vary wildly yet they aren't gaining and losing all over the place, they're typically keeping a fairly stable weight within a few lbs. People who majorly overeat will keep gaining, and anorexics may keep losing, but a large majority maintains without a second thought. I had that same experience personally - both at a higher weight where I struggled to lose, and at a lower weight where I was happy, didn't track and didn't gain. Yet if you come on here, people will tell you the calorie difference between your weighed banana and a banana from a database is why you can't lose weight. Say what you will, this makes no sense to me. I think the body tries to sustain homeostasis in weight, and it probably makes slight adjustments in how much it burns based on your daily intake to try and maintain. 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 nutritional shake 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).
So the whole obesity epidemic is just made up and everybody is a normal weight and maintains there without difficulty?
Or have people just somehow evolved over the last 50 years or so to just maintain at an overweight/obese bodyweight?
Uh, no -- people stabilize at the weight their body wants to be, not the weight our culture thinks we should be. I can maintain 200 pounds effortlessly, with almost no deviation, no matter how much I eat.
But I don't *like* being 200 pounds. I like being 125 pounds, am socially acceptable at 125 pounds, can buy clothing at 125 pounds.
But the older I get, the harder it is to reach and maintain a weight that I had no trouble at all maintaining at the age of 25. That's all.
Your body will "stabilize" within a weight range, if you let it. But we don't (rarely) let it. Furthermore, this concept is fundamentally different than what you're talking about with your 125lb vs 200lb example.
Your body will stabilize based on your habits, lifestyle, and tendencies. This... this we do all the time and is likely the primary factor in the example you gave.7 -
I'm always baffled by the lengths some people will go to in order to not take responsibility for their choices.6
-
ladyhusker39 wrote: »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!2 -
ladyhusker39 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.
5 -
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
1 -
ladyhusker39 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.3 -
ladyhusker39 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-breaks4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions