Calorie In Calorie Out
Replies
-
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS
drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
Assuming a drug like that is coming I wouldn't touch it for about 7 years. I would probably consider weight loss surgery a safer bet.2 -
Err.... yes..... very compliant cat video, that's it!
And I wouldn't want to touch any drugs like that for more than 7 years after, though, if I am still alive when they come online, I might volunteer as a test subject for their cousin drugs, cause, yeah, waiting may not be an option
@cmriverside I would argue that a combination of (default personal) behaviour patterns (due to conscious and unconscious reasons including medical issues) and hormonal push back (size and length and manner deficit was applied) are largely behind the: most of us regain within two years; but, good unicorns who go past the two year mark have more chances to keep going; super special unicorns who get to the 5 year mark have a good chance of becoming energizer bunnies!
And I want to be a bunny like you!
My personal experience was almost 3 years past intense weight loss (almost 2 years past slow loss) and TBH, I think the time of slow loss was instrumental in helping me stabilize in the beginning by keeping me more focused than if I had tried to immediately switch from loss to maintenance.1 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
What? If I starve myself I can be immortal?😳cmriverside wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
But if you just stay the course, leptin is going to resettle.
The answer is already in the DNA. Dieters with AT just need to hang on for few months after hitting maintenance calories.
OR do the diet breaks thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
Now I've gotta go watch your zoomies video. Please tell me it's cats. It's gotta be cats.
I have been looking into this for a couple of years now. I think one of the reasons an elevated weight is sustained is because the hypothalamus becomes resistant to leptin. Thus leptin levels have to stay high for it to be "happy". Though what some of the research suggest, is there are some ways to help dampen this response. If we look at the DIETFIT studies, people lost weight without being prescribed an energy deficit. They just ate less. Inside the Kevin Hall unprocessed vs processed study, the subjects on the less refined diet spontaneously reduced their calories. Now we can argue mechanisms, but I think that lends itself to a less processed diet in general helping the hypothalamus be "happier" at a lower weight. There was a recent study that used a higher protein 1.6g/kg vs 0.8g/kg diet during and post weight reduction of 20% in overweight and obese subjects. They were brought back in a year later and the higher protein diet group shows none of the AT that usually comes with weight loss. That was even with the higher TEF of protein was equated. The "lower" protein group still showed persistent AT a year later. That lends itself to the idea that possibly
the amino acid Leucine having an effect on the hypothalamus. i personally believe now that the amount of deficit is irrelevant to long term maintenance. We see in the NWCR that people used various methods to lose weight and they are still maintaining. I think that one can reduce their adipose levels. Though, the longer one has been at a higher weight, the harder it becomes to maintain a lean level. I personally know that I had some hormonal issues at 240ish pounds. My LH dropped off and became kinda obsessed with food. Not hungry mind you, just obsessed. That's all n=1 data in my case, but lends to the idea that range is higher than the average person. There has been some rodent research that suggest this. I personally held my low weight for 18 months and my body never reset. After slowly regaining, it is getting better. Though I think it may take more for me to live a more normal life. Not complaining about this, just explaining my thoughts. Hugs @cmriverside ...1 -
I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science. Any breakthrough that is announced would need many duplicate studies and in general stand the course of time. Anyone can devise a 6 week study and seemingly proves that weight loss is increased or inhibited by certain criteria but unless it can be replicated over and over it does not make it true. It could easily mean there is a variable in the mix that is being overlooked or purposefully ignored so it can be used as clickbait fodder.
There are some interesting things but most of it deals with minute variations. It doesn't matter if you can burn fat at 3480 calorie per pound instead of 3500. It matters if you can stick to a plan long enough to burn the fat at any amount.
Well, the less processed idea has been shown in humans and animals. I actually find animal research MUCH more interesting. Using humans for research, especially diet studies, can be problematic imho. People will under report calories outside a metabolic ward and may change how much and what they eat inside a metabolic ward to "please" the researchers. Animals, on the other hand, dont. They simply rely on more "primitive" instincts. A rat will eat when offered food if it is hungry. The less processed idea has been repeated in multiple animal studies over the years. One just has to look for the research. While we like to think of ourselves as "above" animals cognitively, the more primitive parts of our brains are not that much different from a rat, even though we diverged from them millions of years ago. We have many of the basic survival instincts they have.1 -
About the only thing I will disagree with you there, is whether less processed means something specifically which I don't think it does or really translates to less hyper palatable and not presented in tiny easy to over-consume packages2
-
psychod787 wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science. Any breakthrough that is announced would need many duplicate studies and in general stand the course of time. Anyone can devise a 6 week study and seemingly proves that weight loss is increased or inhibited by certain criteria but unless it can be replicated over and over it does not make it true. It could easily mean there is a variable in the mix that is being overlooked or purposefully ignored so it can be used as clickbait fodder.
There are some interesting things but most of it deals with minute variations. It doesn't matter if you can burn fat at 3480 calorie per pound instead of 3500. It matters if you can stick to a plan long enough to burn the fat at any amount.
Well, the less processed idea has been shown in humans and animals. I actually find animal research MUCH more interesting. Using humans for research, especially diet studies, can be problematic imho. People will under report calories outside a metabolic ward and may change how much and what they eat inside a metabolic ward to "please" the researchers. Animals, on the other hand, dont. They simply rely on more "primitive" instincts. A rat will eat when offered food if it is hungry. The less processed idea has been repeated in multiple animal studies over the years. One just has to look for the research. While we like to think of ourselves as "above" animals cognitively, the more primitive parts of our brains are not that much different from a rat, even though we diverged from them millions of years ago. We have many of the basic survival instincts they have.
If you are talking about hyperpalatable food it is something that food manufacturers have known for a long time. There may be research there to help prevent obesity but when it comes to losing weight outside of a rigid plan you have to exercise mindfulness.2 -
About the only thing I will disagree with you there, is whether less processed means something specifically which I don't think it does or really translates to less hyper palatable and not presented in tiny easy to over-consume packages
I will even say Hyperpalitable does not mean hyperprocessed or highly rewarding. People can take nova class 1and 2 foods and make higher reward through processing at home. There are foods that are hyperprocessed that I consider unpalatable, such as SPAM. There are less refined foodstuffs I have at home that are Hyperpalitable to me.. aka French fries.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
What? If I starve myself I can be immortal?😳cmriverside wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
But if you just stay the course, leptin is going to resettle.
The answer is already in the DNA. Dieters with AT just need to hang on for few months after hitting maintenance calories.
OR do the diet breaks thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
Now I've gotta go watch your zoomies video. Please tell me it's cats. It's gotta be cats.
I have been looking into this for a couple of years now. I think one of the reasons an elevated weight is sustained is because the hypothalamus becomes resistant to leptin. Thus leptin levels have to stay high for it to be "happy". Though what some of the research suggest, is there are some ways to help dampen this response. If we look at the DIETFIT studies, people lost weight without being prescribed an energy deficit. They just ate less. Inside the Kevin Hall unprocessed vs processed study, the subjects on the less refined diet spontaneously reduced their calories. Now we can argue mechanisms, but I think that lends itself to a less processed diet in general helping the hypothalamus be "happier" at a lower weight. There was a recent study that used a higher protein 1.6g/kg vs 0.8g/kg diet during and post weight reduction of 20% in overweight and obese subjects. They were brought back in a year later and the higher protein diet group shows none of the AT that usually comes with weight loss. That was even with the higher TEF of protein was equated. The "lower" protein group still showed persistent AT a year later. That lends itself to the idea that possibly
the amino acid Leucine having an effect on the hypothalamus. i personally believe now that the amount of deficit is irrelevant to long term maintenance. We see in the NWCR that people used various methods to lose weight and they are still maintaining. I think that one can reduce their adipose levels. Though, the longer one has been at a higher weight, the harder it becomes to maintain a lean level. I personally know that I had some hormonal issues at 240ish pounds. My LH dropped off and became kinda obsessed with food. Not hungry mind you, just obsessed. That's all n=1 data in my case, but lends to the idea that range is higher than the average person. There has been some rodent research that suggest this. I personally held my low weight for 18 months and my body never reset. After slowly regaining, it is getting better. Though I think it may take more for me to live a more normal life. Not complaining about this, just explaining my thoughts. Hugs @cmriverside ...
Call me an ol' skepti-pants, and I know you read more research more carefully than I do, but I'm musing here on the relative sharpness of the in-play Occam's/Ockham's razor.
Sure, biochemistry, and hormones and settling points, those are things (though I'm a little skeptical about the settling points one, still).
But I still don't think it's irrelevant that satiation is time-delayed for most of us, and high-fiber, less-processed foods tend to be a little slower through the eat-cycle; and that those foods tend to be of a physically higher volume, which may have some satiating effect in itself (hormonal, or more literally physical? dunno). For sure, they require more digestive action, highly processed foods being in a sense kind of partially pre-digested for us. Dunno if that has satiation implications either, or if so, what the mechanism would be.
Protein and possibly more loss/maintenance, yeah, but satiation (hormonal or otherwise) and the influence on body comp are pretty gross-grain potential explainers, without necessarily digging down into other hormonal details. Was body comp change - if any - controlled for?
I don't have any proof to offer here, but I also feel like you might be speculating a bit beyond firmly-established research yourself, in ways that are very strongly colored by your personal experience (as don't we all ).
The trouble with non-human research is that they're not humans, of course. Yes, that makes them less psychologically complicated (or so we think), but it also makes them physiologically different in ways we don't really fully understand. In any case, simple stuff like speed of consumption and physical food volume may apply to them as to us, too.
I'm sure I'm over-influenced by my n=1, too: Got fat, obese, lost, now maintain on predominantly the same kinds of foods, foods mostly pretty low on the processing scale, just in noticeably smaller portions, and somewhat different proportions. So-called "hyperpalatable" foods did and still do mostly make me shudder - not even palatable, generally, let alone hyper.
Except old-school Taco Flavor Doritos, of course, and I just stay away from those now, mostly.:drinker: 5 -
FoodBodyChanges wrote: »CI/CO is true in a lab, lol! But not in a living human. Too many variables in play. Dr Greger lists factors other than straight CI/CO influencing weight loss (or gain) known to research in "How Not to Diet." He truly separates the hype from the facts ad only using peer reviewed double blind studies.
Could you explain what you mean by not in living humans? They don't use cadavers for metabolic ward studies that I've seen.
Double blind studies aren't always necessary. There isn't a way for someone to have placebo weight loss - metabolic pathways don't work that way. Which is lucky because blinding someone to their own diet is a pretty hard to sometimes impossible task.8 -
psychod787 wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
What? If I starve myself I can be immortal?😳cmriverside wrote: »I personally do not believe there will be any breakthroughs in calorie related weight loss science.
I both agree and disagree with your statement!
I don't think that there will be any earth shattering revelations in the near term that have not already been covered by past research.
The "game changer" will come together with other medical game changers when we start figuring out ways to tinker with hormones and cellular processes with less side effects as compared to now.
For example, if we accept even a 10% (much less my more favoured 20%) adaptive thermogenesis during a caloric reduction, and you could take a NO SIDE EFFECTS drug that would turn that -20% to ZERO; or something that would counteract drops to leptin... you would have more efficient dieting and less chances of rebound weight gain.
Mind you, people using Caloric restriction seeking AT to slow down cellular regeneration and extend their life span, might misuse that drug, so there is that!
But if you just stay the course, leptin is going to resettle.
The answer is already in the DNA. Dieters with AT just need to hang on for few months after hitting maintenance calories.
OR do the diet breaks thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
Now I've gotta go watch your zoomies video. Please tell me it's cats. It's gotta be cats.
I have been looking into this for a couple of years now. I think one of the reasons an elevated weight is sustained is because the hypothalamus becomes resistant to leptin. Thus leptin levels have to stay high for it to be "happy". Though what some of the research suggest, is there are some ways to help dampen this response. If we look at the DIETFIT studies, people lost weight without being prescribed an energy deficit. They just ate less. Inside the Kevin Hall unprocessed vs processed study, the subjects on the less refined diet spontaneously reduced their calories. Now we can argue mechanisms, but I think that lends itself to a less processed diet in general helping the hypothalamus be "happier" at a lower weight. There was a recent study that used a higher protein 1.6g/kg vs 0.8g/kg diet during and post weight reduction of 20% in overweight and obese subjects. They were brought back in a year later and the higher protein diet group shows none of the AT that usually comes with weight loss. That was even with the higher TEF of protein was equated. The "lower" protein group still showed persistent AT a year later. That lends itself to the idea that possibly
the amino acid Leucine having an effect on the hypothalamus. i personally believe now that the amount of deficit is irrelevant to long term maintenance. We see in the NWCR that people used various methods to lose weight and they are still maintaining. I think that one can reduce their adipose levels. Though, the longer one has been at a higher weight, the harder it becomes to maintain a lean level. I personally know that I had some hormonal issues at 240ish pounds. My LH dropped off and became kinda obsessed with food. Not hungry mind you, just obsessed. That's all n=1 data in my case, but lends to the idea that range is higher than the average person. There has been some rodent research that suggest this. I personally held my low weight for 18 months and my body never reset. After slowly regaining, it is getting better. Though I think it may take more for me to live a more normal life. Not complaining about this, just explaining my thoughts. Hugs @cmriverside ...
Call me an ol' skepti-pants, and I know you read more research more carefully than I do, but I'm musing here on the relative sharpness of the in-play Occam's/Ockham's razor.
Sure, biochemistry, and hormones and settling points, those are things (though I'm a little skeptical about the settling points one, still).
But I still don't think it's irrelevant that satiation is time-delayed for most of us, and high-fiber, less-processed foods tend to be a little slower through the eat-cycle; and that those foods tend to be of a physically higher volume, which may have some satiating effect in itself (hormonal, or more literally physical? dunno). For sure, they require more digestive action, highly processed foods being in a sense kind of partially pre-digested for us. Dunno if that has satiation implications either, or if so, what the mechanism would be.
Protein and possibly more loss/maintenance, yeah, but satiation (hormonal or otherwise) and the influence on body comp are pretty gross-grain potential explainers, without necessarily digging down into other hormonal details. Was body comp change - if any - controlled for?
I don't have any proof to offer here, but I also feel like you might be speculating a bit beyond firmly-established research yourself, in ways that are very strongly colored by your personal experience (as don't we all ).
The trouble with non-human research is that they're not humans, of course. Yes, that makes them less psychologically complicated (or so we think), but it also makes them physiologically different in ways we don't really fully understand. In any case, simple stuff like speed of consumption and physical food volume may apply to them as to us, too.
I'm sure I'm over-influenced by my n=1, too: Got fat, obese, lost, now maintain on predominantly the same kinds of foods, foods mostly pretty low on the processing scale, just in noticeably smaller portions, and somewhat different proportions. So-called "hyperpalatable" foods did and still do mostly make me shudder - not even palatable, generally, let alone hyper.
Except old-school Taco Flavor Doritos, of course, and I just stay away from those now, mostly.:drinker:
Your scepticism is always welcome my "Atlas" of grannies!😘 in fact, I am a sceptic myself. People who are skeptical tend to dig deeper than what is commonly help belief. As far as body composition being controlled, I do not think it was. Which is a limitation of the study. What I did find very interesting is that their rmr was almost exactly the same in both groups. Which leads the reviewers of the study to speculate that the difference in "metabolism" was due to greater NEAT levels in the higher protein group. More speculation here.... we know from Libeil's studies on weight loss, skeletal muscle efficiency increases post weight reduction greater than what can be accounted for in mass loss. Also far greater than the RMR decrease that has been noted.One possibility is that the efficiency of the muscle in the higher protein group was far less. As far as challenging firmly held ideas... well yes ma'am.... I do. One thing that has been touted as showing what happens post weight reduction are the Minnesota Starvation Experiments. I have issues using it for obese and overweight folks. The subjects were lean already. Yes, they overshot their old weights, but eventually when back to near baseline.2 -
Ah. But that's an interesting one.psychod787 wrote: »well yes ma'am.... I do. One thing that has been touted as showing what happens post weight reduction are the Minnesota Starvation Experiments. I have issues using it for obese and overweight folks. The subjects were lean already. Yes, they overshot their old weights, but eventually when back to near baseline.
And contrary to how you are viewing it, I think that aspects of Minnesota applied to you.
Because while you may have started at an obese level, and they didn't, you applied a similar (percentage wise) caloric deficit and for a longer time period.
And even if you did start as morbidly obese, you continued at that deficit through and into the normal weight range if I recall correctly.
And you experienced similar symptoms to the ones experienced in that study, except that you--with a huge amount of effort--controlled your rebound better and longer than they did and, in fact, appear to have successfully contained it.
2 -
Ah. But that's an interesting one.psychod787 wrote: »well yes ma'am.... I do. One thing that has been touted as showing what happens post weight reduction are the Minnesota Starvation Experiments. I have issues using it for obese and overweight folks. The subjects were lean already. Yes, they overshot their old weights, but eventually when back to near baseline.
And contrary to how you are viewing it, I think that aspects of Minnesota applied to you.
Because while you may have started at an obese level, and they didn't, you applied a similar (percentage wise) caloric deficit and for a longer time period.
And even if you did start as morbidly obese, you continued at that deficit through and into the normal weight range if I recall correctly.
And you experienced similar symptoms to the ones experienced in that study, except that you--with a huge amount of effort--controlled your rebound better and longer than they did and, in fact, appear to have successfully contained it.
Yeah, absolutely this.
psychod, you used an extremely aggressive deficit for a long time, then you over-shot and became too lean. You then became (your words) "food obsessed."
Well, yeah.
The body is designed to survive. Not to be fat or overly thin. Work with Nature and things settle down. This is just my own personal belief but I think it's a pretty miraculous system if we don't mess with it by (like Ann says) eating fake food, not enough variety in our meals along with sufficient macros and micros, and as long as we stay in a healthy weight range things work as designed unless there is underlying pathology.
In that case, all bets are off.
I think you messed with the system. This is why we preach and preach about a Reasonable, Not Aggressive weight loss deficit. That is why we post that graphic...where is it...?
6 -
We shall see.. lol... oh @cmriverside .... I agree... it's a case of do as you say, not as I did..
Ah. But that's an interesting one.psychod787 wrote: »well yes ma'am.... I do. One thing that has been touted as showing what happens post weight reduction are the Minnesota Starvation Experiments. I have issues using it for obese and overweight folks. The subjects were lean already. Yes, they overshot their old weights, but eventually when back to near baseline.
And contrary to how you are viewing it, I think that aspects of Minnesota applied to you.
Because while you may have started at an obese level, and they didn't, you applied a similar (percentage wise) caloric deficit and for a longer time period.
And even if you did start as morbidly obese, you continued at that deficit through and into the normal weight range if I recall correctly.
And you experienced similar symptoms to the ones experienced in that study, except that you--with a huge amount of effort--controlled your rebound better and longer than they did and, in fact, appear to have successfully contained it.
But on topic of chrono nutrition, actually read a review of a study last night that showed eating breakfast did not speed up calories burned compared to folks skipping breakfast. Limitations of the study were... small sample size, subjects were lean young men, contained in a metabolic ward.. subjects might have moved around more, food was provided... folks may have eaten less at home...3 -
Reading that about Psychod, I would say I had a similar experience and that it seems reversible. It actually tracks somewhat with the experience of bodybuilders in contest prep.cmriverside wrote: »
Ah. But that's an interesting one.psychod787 wrote: »well yes ma'am.... I do. One thing that has been touted as showing what happens post weight reduction are the Minnesota Starvation Experiments. I have issues using it for obese and overweight folks. The subjects were lean already. Yes, they overshot their old weights, but eventually when back to near baseline.
And contrary to how you are viewing it, I think that aspects of Minnesota applied to you.
Because while you may have started at an obese level, and they didn't, you applied a similar (percentage wise) caloric deficit and for a longer time period.
And even if you did start as morbidly obese, you continued at that deficit through and into the normal weight range if I recall correctly.
And you experienced similar symptoms to the ones experienced in that study, except that you--with a huge amount of effort--controlled your rebound better and longer than they did and, in fact, appear to have successfully contained it.
Yeah, absolutely this.
psychod, you used an extremely aggressive deficit for a long time, then you over-shot and became too lean. You then became (your words) "food obsessed."
Well, yeah.
The body is designed to survive. Not to be fat or overly thin. Work with Nature and things settle down. This is just my own personal belief but I think it's a pretty miraculous system if we don't mess with it by (like Ann says) eating fake food, not enough variety in our meals along with sufficient macros and micros, and as long as we stay in a healthy weight range things work as designed unless there is underlying pathology.
In that case, all bets are off.
I think you messed with the system. This is why we preach and preach about a Reasonable, Not Aggressive weight loss deficit. That is why we post that graphic...where is it...?
Personally, I was obese for pretty much my whole life, got losing with calorie counting and was too successful as I got to a single digit body fat with an excessively aggressive deficit that I came up with on the assumption I had a higher body fat percentage than I did. I had large issues with appetite while losing and even for a while as I let myself regain, and I had troubles regaining at the slower pace I wanted to.
About a year and a half later when I felt like trim back down, I found I had a far easier time losing it, and that I didn't have any excess hunger cues. I was actually pretty surprised at how manageable it was to get to just above the single digits (10.5% according to DEXA) - I was told that staying at that percentage is hard for even people who don't have a history of obesity, but I was fairly comfortable - I didn't even need to use logging, just mentally estimating my calories.
6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Reading that about Psychod, I would say I had a similar experience and that it seems reversible. It actually tracks somewhat with the experience of bodybuilders in contest prep.cmriverside wrote: »
Ah. But that's an interesting one.psychod787 wrote: »well yes ma'am.... I do. One thing that has been touted as showing what happens post weight reduction are the Minnesota Starvation Experiments. I have issues using it for obese and overweight folks. The subjects were lean already. Yes, they overshot their old weights, but eventually when back to near baseline.
And contrary to how you are viewing it, I think that aspects of Minnesota applied to you.
Because while you may have started at an obese level, and they didn't, you applied a similar (percentage wise) caloric deficit and for a longer time period.
And even if you did start as morbidly obese, you continued at that deficit through and into the normal weight range if I recall correctly.
And you experienced similar symptoms to the ones experienced in that study, except that you--with a huge amount of effort--controlled your rebound better and longer than they did and, in fact, appear to have successfully contained it.
Yeah, absolutely this.
psychod, you used an extremely aggressive deficit for a long time, then you over-shot and became too lean. You then became (your words) "food obsessed."
Well, yeah.
The body is designed to survive. Not to be fat or overly thin. Work with Nature and things settle down. This is just my own personal belief but I think it's a pretty miraculous system if we don't mess with it by (like Ann says) eating fake food, not enough variety in our meals along with sufficient macros and micros, and as long as we stay in a healthy weight range things work as designed unless there is underlying pathology.
In that case, all bets are off.
I think you messed with the system. This is why we preach and preach about a Reasonable, Not Aggressive weight loss deficit. That is why we post that graphic...where is it...?
Personally, I was obese for pretty much my whole life, got losing with calorie counting and was too successful as I got to a single digit body fat with an excessively aggressive deficit that I came up with on the assumption I had a higher body fat percentage than I did. I had large issues with appetite while losing and even for a while as I let myself regain, and I had troubles regaining at the slower pace I wanted to.
About a year and a half later when I felt like trim back down, I found I had a far easier time losing it, and that I didn't have any excess hunger cues. I was actually pretty surprised at how manageable it was to get to just above the single digits (10.5% according to DEXA) - I was told that staying at that percentage is hard for even people who don't have a history of obesity, but I was fairly comfortable - I didn't even need to use logging, just mentally estimating my calories.
Are we possibly twins?🤔1 -
psychod787 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Reading that about Psychod, I would say I had a similar experience and that it seems reversible. It actually tracks somewhat with the experience of bodybuilders in contest prep.cmriverside wrote: »
Ah. But that's an interesting one.psychod787 wrote: »well yes ma'am.... I do. One thing that has been touted as showing what happens post weight reduction are the Minnesota Starvation Experiments. I have issues using it for obese and overweight folks. The subjects were lean already. Yes, they overshot their old weights, but eventually when back to near baseline.
And contrary to how you are viewing it, I think that aspects of Minnesota applied to you.
Because while you may have started at an obese level, and they didn't, you applied a similar (percentage wise) caloric deficit and for a longer time period.
And even if you did start as morbidly obese, you continued at that deficit through and into the normal weight range if I recall correctly.
And you experienced similar symptoms to the ones experienced in that study, except that you--with a huge amount of effort--controlled your rebound better and longer than they did and, in fact, appear to have successfully contained it.
Yeah, absolutely this.
psychod, you used an extremely aggressive deficit for a long time, then you over-shot and became too lean. You then became (your words) "food obsessed."
Well, yeah.
The body is designed to survive. Not to be fat or overly thin. Work with Nature and things settle down. This is just my own personal belief but I think it's a pretty miraculous system if we don't mess with it by (like Ann says) eating fake food, not enough variety in our meals along with sufficient macros and micros, and as long as we stay in a healthy weight range things work as designed unless there is underlying pathology.
In that case, all bets are off.
I think you messed with the system. This is why we preach and preach about a Reasonable, Not Aggressive weight loss deficit. That is why we post that graphic...where is it...?
Personally, I was obese for pretty much my whole life, got losing with calorie counting and was too successful as I got to a single digit body fat with an excessively aggressive deficit that I came up with on the assumption I had a higher body fat percentage than I did. I had large issues with appetite while losing and even for a while as I let myself regain, and I had troubles regaining at the slower pace I wanted to.
About a year and a half later when I felt like trim back down, I found I had a far easier time losing it, and that I didn't have any excess hunger cues. I was actually pretty surprised at how manageable it was to get to just above the single digits (10.5% according to DEXA) - I was told that staying at that percentage is hard for even people who don't have a history of obesity, but I was fairly comfortable - I didn't even need to use logging, just mentally estimating my calories.
Are we possibly twins?🤔
Seeing as it is also kind of the experience of contest prepping bodybuilders and possibly just how human physiology works with extreme weight loss, we might be part of millituplets.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 433 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions