Is this a thing? (losing more when eating more calories)
justanotherjenn
Posts: 64 Member
First let me preface by saying I know about weight fluctuations, that the scale isn't always super accurate, and especially for women, our weight can be all over the place.
My question is basically: does eating too few calories cause stalls/can eating within what you are recommended to eat allow you to lose more steadily?
I have had calories everywhere between 1,000 a day and 1,800 a day. I went through the normal phases of restricting too much assuming I would lose more weight that way (I didn't), and being scared to eat too much or I will gain or won't lose (also incorrect).
I would gradually lower my calories, my weight would "Stall". Not really a stall, basically just the scale not moving for a few days. This was before I realized that was super normal. But during those dumb moments, I kept trying to eat less and less until it was maybe 1,100 calories a day. This was on days with exercise and me being in the 250s.
Yet when I now eat around 1,600 calories a day (before exercise) like MFP tells me to do, and I don't stubbornly resist, suddenly I am losing the 1-2 lbs a week I intend to.
I have heard people talk about how if you eat too little, your body holds on to the fat it has, or something like that. Is that still true or is this just a total coincidence?
I guess it doesn't matter, I was more just curious. And happy I can eat more.
My question is basically: does eating too few calories cause stalls/can eating within what you are recommended to eat allow you to lose more steadily?
I have had calories everywhere between 1,000 a day and 1,800 a day. I went through the normal phases of restricting too much assuming I would lose more weight that way (I didn't), and being scared to eat too much or I will gain or won't lose (also incorrect).
I would gradually lower my calories, my weight would "Stall". Not really a stall, basically just the scale not moving for a few days. This was before I realized that was super normal. But during those dumb moments, I kept trying to eat less and less until it was maybe 1,100 calories a day. This was on days with exercise and me being in the 250s.
Yet when I now eat around 1,600 calories a day (before exercise) like MFP tells me to do, and I don't stubbornly resist, suddenly I am losing the 1-2 lbs a week I intend to.
I have heard people talk about how if you eat too little, your body holds on to the fat it has, or something like that. Is that still true or is this just a total coincidence?
I guess it doesn't matter, I was more just curious. And happy I can eat more.
6
Replies
-
when body adjust to new weight you no longer lose it, then after few days on the same deficit you get the lose effect again.22
-
justanotherjenn wrote: »
I have heard people talk about how if you eat too little, your body holds on to the fat it has, or something like that. Is that still true or is this just a total coincidence?
This is not true - the body burns calories whether you feed a certain amount or not. Your body will not 'hold on to fat' like this.9 -
justanotherjenn wrote: »
I have heard people talk about how if you eat too little, your body holds on to the fat it has, or something like that. Is that still true or is this just a total coincidence?
This is not true - the body burns calories whether you feed a certain amount or not. Your body will not 'hold on to fat' like this.
That's one of the things I was curious about. There is so much misinformation out there.0 -
No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.12
-
No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.
For sure. I had "calorie fear" for so long because it's like everyone touts 1,200 calories being some magical number for everyone, that if I was given more than that, I would be like.. nooo that's too much for me.
4 -
From personal experience, eating too little has a noticeable effect on my NEAT. Not to the point I don't lose weight, but I can see how someone might perceive it that way in the short term.
I'd rather eat more and in return feel better and move more while getting essentially the same results.19 -
From personal experience, eating too little has a noticeable effect on my NEAT. Not to the point I don't lose weight, but I can see how someone might perceive it that way in the short term.
I'd rather eat more and in return feel better and move more while getting essentially the same results.
Definitely! I am soooo much happier eating those extra 400 calories a day, that I don't even know how I managed to eat so little.4 -
I think the myth comes from people having diet/food stress and probably scale stress that causes water retention and masks losses. When a person eats and believes it will result in weight loss one or both of those things probably relaxes the person and the water is released.
I do my entire week's deficit in 6 days and eat maintenance on the 7th and I find it very relaxing. When I have been unable to do it because life is messy I feel the impact of it immediately.12 -
justanotherjenn wrote: »First let me preface by saying I know about weight fluctuations, that the scale isn't always super accurate, and especially for women, our weight can be all over the place.
My question is basically: does eating too few calories cause stalls/can eating within what you are recommended to eat allow you to lose more steadily?
I have had calories everywhere between 1,000 a day and 1,800 a day. I went through the normal phases of restricting too much assuming I would lose more weight that way (I didn't), and being scared to eat too much or I will gain or won't lose (also incorrect).
I would gradually lower my calories, my weight would "Stall". Not really a stall, basically just the scale not moving for a few days. This was before I realized that was super normal. But during those dumb moments, I kept trying to eat less and less until it was maybe 1,100 calories a day. This was on days with exercise and me being in the 250s.
Yet when I now eat around 1,600 calories a day (before exercise) like MFP tells me to do, and I don't stubbornly resist, suddenly I am losing the 1-2 lbs a week I intend to.
I have heard people talk about how if you eat too little, your body holds on to the fat it has, or something like that. Is that still true or is this just a total coincidence?
I guess it doesn't matter, I was more just curious. And happy I can eat more.
Not in the sense that the body just holds onto fat...but the human body strives for homeostasis and in a large energy deficit the human body will shut down or slow down non-essential functions like growing hair, nails, and in some cases loss of menstrual cycle, etc. This helps the body conserve energy and thus decreases the CO part of the equation...all of your body's basic functions require energy (calories)...and quite a lot of them.
Additionally, most people in a steep deficit will notice a decrease in their NEAT if they're paying attention...decrease in involuntary movements like fidgeting...more lethargic and fatigued in general so less general movement, etc. Exercise also tends to not be as productive.
Large deficits also really mess with your hormones and throw everything out of whack, and while a calories are far and away the biggest factor in weight management, hormones also play a roll. In a large deficit, cortisol in particular is elevated which can inhibit fat loss and also cause water retention.19 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »justanotherjenn wrote: »First let me preface by saying I know about weight fluctuations, that the scale isn't always super accurate, and especially for women, our weight can be all over the place.
My question is basically: does eating too few calories cause stalls/can eating within what you are recommended to eat allow you to lose more steadily?
I have had calories everywhere between 1,000 a day and 1,800 a day. I went through the normal phases of restricting too much assuming I would lose more weight that way (I didn't), and being scared to eat too much or I will gain or won't lose (also incorrect).
I would gradually lower my calories, my weight would "Stall". Not really a stall, basically just the scale not moving for a few days. This was before I realized that was super normal. But during those dumb moments, I kept trying to eat less and less until it was maybe 1,100 calories a day. This was on days with exercise and me being in the 250s.
Yet when I now eat around 1,600 calories a day (before exercise) like MFP tells me to do, and I don't stubbornly resist, suddenly I am losing the 1-2 lbs a week I intend to.
I have heard people talk about how if you eat too little, your body holds on to the fat it has, or something like that. Is that still true or is this just a total coincidence?
I guess it doesn't matter, I was more just curious. And happy I can eat more.
Not in the sense that the body just holds onto fat...but the human body strives for homeostasis and in a large energy deficit the human body will shut down or slow down non-essential functions like growing hair, nails, and in some cases loss of menstrual cycle, etc. This helps the body conserve energy and thus decreases the CO part of the equation...all of your body's basic functions require energy (calories)...and quite a lot of them.
Additionally, most people in a steep deficit will notice a decrease in their NEAT if they're paying attention...decrease in involuntary movements like fidgeting...more lethargic and fatigued in general so less general movement, etc. Exercise also tends to not be as productive.
Large deficits also really mess with your hormones and throw everything out of whack, and while a calories are far and away the biggest factor in weight management, hormones also play a roll. In a large deficit, cortisol in particular is elevated which can inhibit fat loss and also cause water retention.
This is super helpful. Thank you!1 -
I was wondering the same thing.I was at 205 pounds I'm 5'3" & I'm stuck in a rut at 155.5 pounds.I've been on SlimQuick Regular Strength was losing 1-5 pounds a day & best of all NO EXERCISE.I went off of the drug for 4 months I gained only 1-5 pounds I was LIKE WOW cool.I'm on a 1200-1400 calorie a day diet Sugar Free,Fat Free & Reduced Fat.I can make a grilled cheese 100 calories.I use Butter Spray,Kraft 30 calorie cheese slice fat free,& 2 slices Aunt Millies bread 70 calories for 2 slices their 35 calories each.I need to lose just 15-25 pounds according to BMI either 140 pounds or 130 pounds.Right now slightly over weight.So any help or guidance to get my metabolism to work would be great.This is a great site thanks for creating it for us.Oh I also love Smart Ones & Healthy Choice meals those are helpful.19
-
what some people find is that an increase in calories - they move more (more steps, more fidgiting) as well as sleeping better and working out more effectively - all of which contribute to increased weight loss14
-
I was wondering the same thing.I was at 205 pounds I'm 5'3" & I'm stuck in a rut at 155.5 pounds.I've been on SlimQuick Regular Strength was losing 1-5 pounds a day & best of all NO EXERCISE.I went off of the drug for 4 months I gained only 1-5 pounds I was LIKE WOW cool.I'm on a 1200-1400 calorie a day diet Sugar Free,Fat Free & Reduced Fat.I can make a grilled cheese 100 calories.I use Butter Spray,Kraft 30 calorie cheese slice fat free,& 2 slices Aunt Millies bread 70 calories for 2 slices their 35 calories each.I need to lose just 15-25 pounds according to BMI either 140 pounds or 130 pounds.Right now slightly over weight.So any help or guidance to get my metabolism to work would be great.This is a great site thanks for creating it for us.Oh I also love Smart Ones & Healthy Choice meals those are helpful.
I took a balanced macro approach (actually heavier in fat than most) and ate regular food in quantities that fit my calorie goal. I also slowed my rate of loss intentionally when I got near the healthy BMI range because I'm just not happy on 1200-1400 calories.
I'm 5'2.5 and maintaining in the low 130s, for the record. Not logging currently, but seem to maintain on 1800-1900 calories per day based on when I was logging. Knocking 250 per day off that (to lose 1/2 pound per week) still left me with enough calories for treats when I wanted them and no need to eat special "diet" foods.5 -
I was wondering the same thing.I was at 205 pounds I'm 5'3" & I'm stuck in a rut at 155.5 pounds.I've been on SlimQuick Regular Strength was losing 1-5 pounds a day & best of all NO EXERCISE.I went off of the drug for 4 months I gained only 1-5 pounds I was LIKE WOW cool.I'm on a 1200-1400 calorie a day diet Sugar Free,Fat Free & Reduced Fat.I can make a grilled cheese 100 calories.I use Butter Spray,Kraft 30 calorie cheese slice fat free,& 2 slices Aunt Millies bread 70 calories for 2 slices their 35 calories each.I need to lose just 15-25 pounds according to BMI either 140 pounds or 130 pounds.Right now slightly over weight.So any help or guidance to get my metabolism to work would be great.This is a great site thanks for creating it for us.Oh I also love Smart Ones & Healthy Choice meals those are helpful.
Losing 1-5 pounds per day is very, very much a health risk. I would not recommend it. Eat a sensible number of calories, don't try to lose more than 0.5-1 pounds a week at your current weight.
If I underate that severely, I would seriously reduce my daily life activity through fatigue and weakness. If that's your issue, taking a formal diet break at maintenance calories could be helpful. Info is here:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks
Are you eating enough protein (hitting your MFP protein goal as a minimum, at least)? Are you eating any vegetables and fruits (a bare minimum of 5 servings daily would be a good plan)? Are you getting enough healthy fats (it sounds like you're trying to be reduced fat with everything, but an essential minimum of fat is required for adequate nutrition, as much of it as possible from sources like nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, etc.)?
Calories determine weight loss, period. But over the long haul, excessively low calories or inadequate nutrition can affect your energy level, health, and body composition, in ways that largely show up on the "calories out" side of the CICO equation.
The classic advice to improve weight loss and let you eat more would be exercise or NEAT improvement. (It's entirely possible to lose weight without adding exercise, but exercise is important to health and especially to healthy independent aging. As someone who believes in finding exercise that's fun, and who's successfully done that, I have to admit I Can't Even with the idea of "best of all NO EXERCISE". But that's just me.)
If not exercise, consider this:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss
BTW, your metabolism works. Metabolisms don't break . . . well, they do, but that's called "dead". Your metabolism is the end-point summation of your body processes' energy consumption, that's all. If you're breathing, heart beating, thinking, etc., your metabolism is fine - especially true if you're generally healthy.
Best wishes for reaching your goals!16 -
When I started here, I was at 1200 calories for a 2 lb/week loss. I was hungry and a little stressed and changed to 1370 calories for a 1 lb/week loss. That's when the weight started coming off.
Oh, if it matters, this was a plant based diet with seafood, eggs and some dairy (pescatarian). I don't eat lite this or no fat that. No reason to.2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »what some people find is that an increase in calories - they move more (more steps, more fidgiting) as well as sleeping better and working out more effectively - all of which contribute to increased weight loss
It can also help with overall satiety and adherence.3 -
From personal experience, eating too little has a noticeable effect on my NEAT. Not to the point I don't lose weight, but I can see how someone might perceive it that way in the short term.
I'd rather eat more and in return feel better and move more while getting essentially the same results.
I think this is really that kernel of truth that the myth is built around. Most people don't think about the calories they burn all day. So someone under-eats and simply moves around less all day, has less effort to give their purposeful exercise, and so their CO goes down way more than they realize. Then they eat a couple of hundred calories more, their body goes "Yay! I have fuel! Let's do stuff!" and they burn way more calories. To someone not thinking about NEAT, they just see the end result - they ate less and lost very little, they ate more and lost more - and it probably feels like magic
This is basically how I've been building up my maintenance NEAT over the last year. I focused on eating as many of my calories as possible as I was losing, which gave me more energy, which made me more active, which gave me more calories, which I made sure I ate, which gave me more energy, which made me more active, which gave me more calories... etc.12 -
jjpptt2 No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.
I agree and disagree.
I've known many family members and friends who either miscalculate food quantities, leave out food, or cheat on almost every 'diet'. Many eat 50-75% of the programmed food quantities, and then add another 500-1500 calories on top of the program. Maybe they're good for 3-5 days, then they run to fast food, happy hour, or ice cream.
But its likely more complex than that when one adds in cardio, weights, etc. I stalled at 286-87, tall guy, big boned. MFP members told me to up my calorie intake (I was way under eating at 800 - 1,000 CPD, cucumber gonzo, little protein). So I upped my CPD to 1700-2100 (TDEE says I burn 2800 a day w/ no exercise), hiking, treading water, and just started light lifting 3 days a week. I lost 4-5 pounds, and then 2 back on. Technically, this shouldn't happen. I'm trying to figure it out.
Last night I posted a new science article about a protein in the body that can kick in, and prevent fat loss. (In The Atlantic.) It was spurred by virtually all of The Biggest Losers contestants gaining all of their weight back, and more.
One new component I learned - for me -is that swimming promotes a larger water weight loss, short term. I don't recall the medical term. When we swim, blood surrounds core organs, probably to retain heat. "Our body senses this increase in blood volume in the chest and interprets it as too much blood/water. This sends signal to our kidneys to get rid of this excess water. Therefore our kidneys produce more urine and we have to pee."
Here to learn. Break a leg!
Edit: halfway to goal weight.6 -
I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?8 -
TallGent66 wrote: »jjpptt2 No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.
I agree and disagree.
I've known many family members and friends who either miscalculate food quantities, leave out food, or cheat on almost every 'diet'. Many eat 50-75% of the programmed food quantities, and then add another 500-1500 caliries on top of the program. Maybe they're good for 3-5 days, then they run to fast food, happy hour, or ice cream.
But its likely more complex than that when one adds in cardio, weights, etc. I stalled at 286-87, tall guy, big boned. MFP members told me to up my calorie intake (I was way under eating at 800 - 1,000 CPD, cucumber gonzo, little protein). So I upped my CPD to 1700-2100 (TDEE says I burn 2800 a day w/ no exercise), hiking, treading water, and just started light lifting 3 days a week. I lost 4-5 pounds, and then 2 back on. Technically, this shouldn't happen. I'm trying to figure it out.
Last night I posted a new science article about a protein in the body that can kick in, and prevent fat loss. (In The Atlantic.) It was spurred by virtually all of The Biggest Losers contestants gaining all of their weight back, and more.
One new component I learned - for me -is that swimming promotes a larger water weight loss, short term. I don't recall the medical term. When we swim, blood surrounds core organs, probably to retain heat. "Our body senses this increase in blood volume in the chest and interprets it as too much blood/water. This sends signal to our kidneys to get rid of this excess water. Therefore our kidneys produce more urine and we have to pee."
Here to learn. Break a leg!
To the bolded: That's just water weight fluctuation, not fat loss, so who cares?
Absent a serious medical problem that causes pathological water retention so requires medical management, people should not be trying to manipulate their water weight for "weight loss". That's not healthy, and water weight manipulation is fake weight loss. Fat loss is the thing we actually want.
Understanding our water retention (why it happens, how long it lasts, etc.) helps us manage our weight loss, by keeping us calm and on course during water-weight fluctuations. That's all.11 -
I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
"In a study of former contestants on a season of the weight-loss reality show The Biggest Loser, scientists found that years later, the contestants not only had gained back much or all of the weight they’d lost on the show, but also had far weaker metabolisms than most people their size. The contestants’ bodies had fought for years to regain the weight, contrary to the contestants’ efforts and wishes. No one was sure why."
"Along with a team of researchers, Ann Marie Schmidt, an endocrinologist at the New York University School of Medicine, has been unraveling the mystery. In a new study published today, Schmidt and her team have unlocked a molecular mechanism controlling weight gain and loss in mice: a protein that shuts down the animals’ ability to burn fat in times of bodily stress, including when dieting or overeating. This discovery might hold the key to understanding why it’s so hard for humans to lose weight, and even harder to keep it off."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
FWIW.
I've watched "My 600-pound Life", and it seems like many lose large amounts of weight when they stick to the program, even with minimal excercise.7 -
Sure, there's definitely more to it than just correctly estimating intake... I didn't mean to gloss over that. Energy balance is about everything the body does that impacts calories burned and everything we do that impacts calories consumed... and that can be a HUGE umbrella. Calories burned through exercise, calories burned through daily living, and calories consumed through eating/drinking isn't the entire equation, but it is 90% of it for 90% of people... which is why we always start there with these types of discussions.TallGent66 wrote: »I agree and disagree.
I've known many family members and friends who either miscalculate food quantities, leave out food, or cheat on almost every 'diet'. Many eat 50-75% of the programmed food quantities, and then add another 500-1500 calories on top of the program. Maybe they're good for 3-5 days, then they run to fast food, happy hour, or ice cream.
But its likely more complex than that when one adds in cardio, weights, etc. I stalled at 286-87, tall guy, big boned. MFP members told me to up my calorie intake (I was way under eating at 800 - 1,000 CPD, cucumber gonzo, little protein). So I upped my CPD to 1700-2100 (TDEE says I burn 2800 a day w/ no exercise), hiking, treading water, and just started light lifting 3 days a week. I lost 4-5 pounds, and then 2 back on. Technically, this shouldn't happen. I'm trying to figure it out.
I'm curious how biggest loser contestants (their situations, experiences, successes, failures, etc) relate to most of us. It's like me saying that Dwayne Johnson eats 5000 cals per day and is huge, so clearly I should to.TallGent66 wrote: »Last night I posted a new science article about a protein in the body that can kick in, and prevent fat loss. (In The Atlantic.) It was spurred by virtually all of The Biggest Losers contestants gaining all of their weight back, and more.
I'm not sure managing water weight is a wise strategy for weight loss. Understanding it, sure. But...TallGent66 wrote: »One new component I learned - for me -is that swimming promotes a larger water weight loss, short term. I don't recall the medical term. When we swim, blood surrounds core organs, probably to retain heat. "Our body senses this increase in blood volume in the chest and interprets it as too much blood/water. This sends signal to our kidneys to get rid of this excess water. Therefore our kidneys produce more urine and we have to pee."
10 -
TallGent66 wrote: »jjpptt2 No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.
I agree and disagree.
I've known many family members and friends who either miscalculate food quantities, leave out food, or cheat on almost every 'diet'. Many eat 50-75% of the programmed food quantities, and then add another 500-1500 caliries on top of the program. Maybe they're good for 3-5 days, then they run to fast food, happy hour, or ice cream.
But its likely more complex than that when one adds in cardio, weights, etc. I stalled at 286-87, tall guy, big boned. MFP members told me to up my calorie intake (I was way under eating at 800 - 1,000 CPD, cucumber gonzo, little protein). So I upped my CPD to 1700-2100 (TDEE says I burn 2800 a day w/ no exercise), hiking, treading water, and just started light lifting 3 days a week. I lost 4-5 pounds, and then 2 back on. Technically, this shouldn't happen. I'm trying to figure it out.
Last night I posted a new science article about a protein in the body that can kick in, and prevent fat loss. (In The Atlantic.) It was spurred by virtually all of The Biggest Losers contestants gaining all of their weight back, and more.
One new component I learned - for me -is that swimming promotes a larger water weight loss, short term. I don't recall the medical term. When we swim, blood surrounds core organs, probably to retain heat. "Our body senses this increase in blood volume in the chest and interprets it as too much blood/water. This sends signal to our kidneys to get rid of this excess water. Therefore our kidneys produce more urine and we have to pee."
Here to learn. Break a leg!
To the bolded: That's just water weight fluctuation, not fat loss, so who cares?
Absent a serious medical problem that causes pathological water retention so requires medical management, people should not be trying to manipulate their water weight for "weight loss". That's not healthy, and water weight manipulation is fake weight loss. Fat loss is the thing we actually want.
Understanding our water retention (why it happens, how long it lasts, etc.) helps us manage our weight loss, by keeping us calm and on course during water-weight fluctuations. That's all.
well said. quoted for emphasis/agreement/reiteration.5 -
I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
Unfortunately, the Biggest Loser study is often cited to support a lot of stuff it doesn't. Those contestants lost weight incredibly fast, by under-eating and over-exercising over several months. This most likely leads to some adaptive thermogenesis. In addition, they are then cut loose, and end up having difficulty sticking to the diet and exercise they learned while on the show. So they went from eating way too much to way too little, from being sedentary to aggressive exercise. All of this conspires to lower their TDEE dramatically and leave them with no plan, and weight gain is the result. Applying this to the average person makes no sense, other than perhaps a cautionary tale that losing weight aggressively has some definite downsides.
I agree that I see no connection between the Biggest Loser study and the study in the Guardian article. I think that's an example of a reporter either not understanding what they were reporting on, or purposefully using hyperbole and dubious references to pump up the article.12 -
he didn read with enough comprehension. Its a bout protein builded into cells of mice that prevents fat loss. Not protein intake that inhibit it.I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
2 -
TallGent66 wrote: »I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
"In a study of former contestants on a season of the weight-loss reality show The Biggest Loser, scientists found that years later, the contestants not only had gained back much or all of the weight they’d lost on the show, but also had far weaker metabolisms than most people their size. The contestants’ bodies had fought for years to regain the weight, contrary to the contestants’ efforts and wishes. No one was sure why."
"Along with a team of researchers, Ann Marie Schmidt, an endocrinologist at the New York University School of Medicine, has been unraveling the mystery. In a new study published today, Schmidt and her team have unlocked a molecular mechanism controlling weight gain and loss in mice: a protein that shuts down the animals’ ability to burn fat in times of bodily stress, including when dieting or overeating. This discovery might hold the key to understanding why it’s so hard for humans to lose weight, and even harder to keep it off."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
FWIW.
I've watched "My 600-pound Life", and it seems like many lose large amounts of weight when they stick to the program, even with minimal excercise.
Speaking of "My 600 Pound Life", I've watched about half of the current season and everyone who was either on a controlled diet in a hospital setting or have the mental wherewithal to be able to control their diet themselves lost weight as expected.
Many go through a period of denial in which they tell themselves that they are eating 1200 calories a day but the scale shows they are not. Dr. Now threatens them with death, and that gets through to many of them.
I think they should all get therapy and other tools much earlier in the process though. "Eat 1200 calories or you will die" isn't adequate as far as I'm concerned. It's like saying "Stop smoking or you will die" - while that may work for some, many need more tools than that.6 -
No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.
Another thing that trips people up is that fluctuations in water weight and the weight of food passing through our digestive systems can easily, in the short term, mask the small amount of actual body mass (fat + lean body mass) that you can lose in a day or a week.4 -
I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
Unfortunately, the Biggest Loser study is often cited to support a lot of stuff it doesn't. Those contestants lost weight incredibly fast, by under-eating and over-exercising over several months. This most likely leads to some adaptive thermogenesis. In addition, they are then cut loose, and end up having difficulty sticking to the diet and exercise they learned while on the show. So they went from eating way too much to way too little, from being sedentary to aggressive exercise. All of this conspires to lower their TDEE dramatically and leave them with no plan, and weight gain is the result. Applying this to the average person makes no sense, other than perhaps a cautionary tale that losing weight aggressively has some definite downsides.
I agree that I see no connection between the Biggest Loser study and the study in the Guardian article. I think that's an example of a reporter either not understanding what they were reporting on, or purposefully using hyperbole and dubious references to pump up the article.
Yeah. I have to say that any writer who attributes cognition, emotions, and goals to bodily functions -- as in the quoted passage form the Atlantic that has the body battling against the dieter to achieve its own separate goal of regaining the weight -- shouldn't be writing about science.7 -
Would be willing to bet the Biggest Losers who gained all the weight back did so not because of protein molecules and altered metabolisms, but because they got tired of their unrealistic and punitive eating patterns, ended up face down in a pepperoni pizza with extra cheese, and said I'll get back to the diet tomorrow...and tomorrow became next week and then next month and a year later, the weight was back and then some. Seems like a simpler explanation.17
-
Would be willing to bet the Biggest Losers who gained all the weight back did so not because of protein molecules and altered metabolisms, but because they got tired of their unrealistic and punitive eating patterns, ended up face down in a pepperoni pizza with extra cheese, and said I'll get back to the diet tomorrow...and tomorrow became next week and then next month and a year later, the weight was back and then some. Seems like a simpler explanation.
I definitely would. I remember seeing them eat their tiny meals from day 1, and WAY over exercise while being yelled at to keep going, even while several of them came close to (or did) faint from exhaustion. I would immediately go home and binge everything in sight. They didn't really pick up any healthy habits as far as I could tell. Nobody could go back to work full time and exercise like that, and I know from personal experience, eating low calories like that doesn't last very long.
5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions