Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

No more excuses

1356

Replies

  • PAV8888PAV8888 Posts: 6,728Member Member Posts: 6,728Member Member
    lgfrie wrote: »
    A somewhat less strident, more relaxed "long haul" mindset has taken hold. I remember feeling frustrated one day early in the diet because I was starving and went 125 calories over. Nowadays I don't even blink for a 125 overage. If I'm unusually hungry I just eat more food, log it, and start over the next morning. So things have changed in tone for me over time but the basic program - a calorie target and a 16:8 eating schedule - is still in tact. Except occasionally when it's not LOL It helps that I don't have an end date or a firm goal weight in mind, because when I go a little off the path, it doesn't impact anything. I just get back on the horse the next day and plod forward.

    Just like Novus, seeing this makes me happy because it means you're adjusting. I still think your deficit large, which, based on my own observations and not official research, I believe will mean that you're going to have a bit of a harder fight on your hands the first couple of years at maintenance. But it is a major improvement on the adjustment scale.

    In the end there is only one thing that works... continued mindfulness and willingness to actually take corrective action.

    And the more out of the normal/ordinary, difficult, and hard to implement the corrective action, the more likely one is to postpone implementing it. At least that was my reasoning when I made some of the choices I made for myself.

    Novus I believe the 1% comes more from a few studies that show that there is less lean mass lost when the rate of loss doesn't exceed (variously) 1%, 1.25%, 1.5% when obese. What I do like to point out to people is that because a rate of loss is "safe" = you will not keel over because of major problems this doesn't make it optimal, especially for people who have to engage on it for a long time.

    I, personally, much prefer the deficit off TDEE as an estimation of what is an appropriate and aggressive deficit. With a reference to fat available to be lost in terms of increasing the aggression when there are more energy reserves available. So 25% of TDEE when obese/high overweight. 20% of TDEE mid overweight and normal weight. (I've just realized that for a couple of months now I've been writing 20% and 15% as maxes as opposed to 25% and 20%; oops!)

    Again not necessarily optimal. But happy maximums that combine preserving a high TDEE (and reducing the effects of AT) while also maximizing the rate of loss. But once you hit rates much beyond these you start having some extra issues.

    BTW this is not incompatible with the 250 to 1000 Cal MFP /generic "safe" zone of 0.5 to 2lbs a week.

    It just "personalizes" it a bit more since very active and very big people will have a higher TDEE and a larger potential deficit while still eating more than smaller less active people which probably makes some since since larger people do need to eat more than smaller ones! :wink:

    And it avoids the situation often created on this and other sites when smaller less active people at normal weight pick a 2lb a week loss and try to duplicate the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment by essentially applying a 50% deficit on a 2000 Cal budget.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 3,229Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,229Member, Premium Member
    [quote="PAV8888;c-44665576"]Appetite is suppressed because of over restricting to vlcd levels and initial positive feedback from feeling and being lighter is making any discordant twinges disappear

    Plus some happy brain chemicals so you can function and find food while starving

    The end result of this, if it remains un-modified, is predictable.

    Ask anyone who has fallen for and followed through on an HCG scam (essentially a vlcd diet with the assistance of the placebo effect of taking a drug that was supposed to make it NOT feel like a vlcd because it supposedly did something useful for you, which it doesn't even when the hormone is actually provided)

    In real life I've met several ladies who tried it. They lost lots of weight. They got to the point of gnawing their arms off. They stopped. They regained their original weight within the same 12 month period. Slightly more then half overshot their original start point. None reported any lasting body composition improvement and a couple have said their body composition got worse.

    I mean my real life acquaintances are not a study; but it's not like the results failed to match expectations.

    You can either work with your biology to nudge it a bit towards where you want to go or you can flail around working against it

    You will nudge things along towards the correct path when you're internally ready to make the commitment to change your health trajectory.

    Which means being honest with yourself.

    If you intend to ever eat kebabs, and curries, and chips, but your current plan excludes working with them, you are not honestly addressing your future needs. When exactly are you going to learn how to handle them? When your post weight loss hormononal make up makes them even more appealing than they are now?

    If you make a 100 day commitment to work incredibly incredibly hard in a fashion that's clearly not sustainable long term, and hope that on day 101 you will discover the information and methods and skills that you didn't put in the effort to discover during the previous 100 days, I don't know that you're being honest with yourself.

    You're just, like so many of us have done in the past, flailing around hoping that doing the same thing (make a health commitment, diet hard, lose weight fast) will result in a different outcome this time.

    Let's start with a simple question:

    What do you think has more chances to succeed: something that you make as easy as you can or something that you set out to make as hard as you can?

    Part of the problem of your self talk is that you're setting out to punish and expiate self perceived transgressions.

    Dude: you've stopped moving as much as you did when you were younger and you have enough money, time, and yummy food availability around you to over eat till the cows come home. And from some of the self talk you may also self medicate various stresses using said tasty foods and drinks. So you gain weight.

    Welcome to the club. You don't need to atone or pay for your sins.

    You do need to work with your biology for many years to come to control your energy intake and reduce your energy reserves.

    Weight management takes place before, during, and after trips and vacations. It doesn't start now and end on your departure date.

    100 days of hard work is just a gesture to sop your conscience and convince you that you tried real hard when, as most of us do, you end up regaining.

    5 years of making it as easy as possible on yourself to eat within your calories is what you may want to choose as your path next time around. When you're ready to tackle the actual issue (energy reserves, energy intake and expenditure imbalance) without the baggage that is messing with your head and convincing you that you have to go all out and fall on your sword to expiate your past sins.

    In any case, MFP terms and conditions promote healthy weight loss setups (sometimes I wonder about their blog and advertising content).

    What you're currently doing... isn't.[/quote]

    @PAV8888 Could you send me the research on this. I would be very interested in reading it. Now I know a lot about protein sparing modified fast, but not much on VLCD in general! Thanks brother!
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 3,229Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,229Member, Premium Member
    Ok... this is going to be my last post on the forums for a while. I will never argue that a calorie is a calorie for weight control. The law of thermodynamics applies. So, there is no doubt that a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. As far as VLCD effective on blunting appetite? Couldn't find any relevant data. What I read was there were increases in hormones that would predict hunger increases. Though, a protein sparing modified fast seems to blunt appetite and cause a state a well being feeling. I am going to go out on a limb. I think you have radically changed the "quality" of your diet. IE of onset high on energy dense foods to one that is relatively lower and increased your protein intake? Higher fiber? I "think" that a radical change in diet "quality" can reduce appetite. Making the body "happier" at a reduced adiposity. I am not advocating a VLCD at all, but I suggest just letting diet and lifestyle decide adiposity. I lost a great deal of weight really fast and paid a price. Never had issues until I restrained calories on purpose to "speed" up weight loss.
  • psychod787psychod787 Posts: 3,229Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,229Member, Premium Member
    Also wanted to add this. I didn't see where OP was weighing out food to the gram. If they are not, their 1200 calories could be off up to 50% or more...
  • Nony_MouseNony_Mouse Posts: 5,317Member Member Posts: 5,317Member Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Also wanted to add this. I didn't see where OP was weighing out food to the gram. If they are not, their 1200 calories could be off up to 50% or more...

    Yup, this occurred to me too, and I certainly hope it's the case. Still have alarm bells on other stuff though...
  • PAV8888PAV8888 Posts: 6,728Member Member Posts: 6,728Member Member
    Dalon: anecdotal. Some paid supplement studies with vlcd slightly ahead of LCD. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/019566639390003
    Lots on keto in conjunction with vlcd
Sign In or Register to comment.