Calorie Counter

Message Boards Goal: Maintaining Weight
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

How do you deal with the fear?

2

Replies

  • aries68mcaries68mc Member Posts: 168 Member Member Posts: 168 Member
    No fear here. I have basically changed my lifestyle and am confident I can continue on the new lifestyle. Putting the weight back on is not an option. If something happens and the weight starts to creep up, clothing starts to feel too tight, I will increase my activity and readjust my eating as needed. I no longer own any of my larger clothing and will not buy anything larger than what I am wearing now.
  • barefootbridgeybarefootbridgey Member Posts: 36 Member Member Posts: 36 Member
    I'm almost 38 and this is my second go at this. I lost 50 lbs in 2011and kept it all off until 2015 when I got divorced and gained about 15-20 back. I stayed steady there until I got pregnant in 2017 and have since had the baby and gained it ALL back, plus about 10 more lbs. I'm down about 32 lbs now.

    So. I get that fear.

    But....I don't know. I think sometimes science about weight gain/loss makes me more crazy than it is helpful - it IS depressing to think about how many people gain back what they've lost....for whatever reason. I try to avoid that stuff, because the bottom line is, when I do well and take care of myself, I don't gain back. If I workout like I know I'm supposed to, and eat reasonably well, I don't gain it back. Period. When I've gained back, I've done so while also knowing in the back of my mind the reason I gained it back...whether I chose to admit it or not

    That being said...do I notice that my body seems to "hold" weight on where other people my age have bodies that allow them to lose more easily? sure. But also, I know that I don't always try very hard to stay healthy. that's on me, not on my metabolism or anything else...because again, if I do well, I lose weight and I can maintain it. I don't lose it as quickly, but I do lose it.

    this is a mindset thing (for me). I've chosen a target weight that I know most women might cringe at...but its weight where I like how I look, I like how I feel and I like what I'm able to do. It's a weight I can maintain and not feel like I Have to eat vegetables for every meal in order to maintain it. it's a weight I can maintain long term, its a weight my body "likes". the bottom line is, the only person who decides to put candy and fries in my mouth is me. And when I do those things in excess, I gain weight. If I chose to watch tv and not work out...I gain weight. It is what it is, for whatever reason that it is. And there is not reason to be fearful of that. And as much as nobody wants to gain weight back, if you do, you do. It sucks. I know this firsthand. But if you did it once, you can do it again....now that I'm on my second go around here, I've learned some things about how and why I eat and what is sustainable for me and what is not. I did not learn that when I dropped 50 lbs in 4 months (healthily and using this program/app). I was fueled by watching those numbers drop - which is fine, and I was successful doing that, until I wasn't. and here I am, learning what will keep me successful this time. gaining back is nothing to be afraid of if you've chosen a weight loss method that is sustainable for you. It's always there o return to if you're honest with yourself about when you need to return to it.
  • cmriversidecmriverside Member Posts: 29,984 Member Member Posts: 29,984 Member
    2. Yes, Adaptive theromogenesis is real. The RMR seems to be about an 80 calorie drop greater than what would be predicted no matter how much you lose when lean mass and fat mass are equated. The Biggest drop in energy expenditure post weight loss is in Skeletal Muscle Fuel efficiency. Basically you burn less calories when doing the same activity than someone always at your current size.

    I know we're not in debate, but I'd like to see your sources for that ^^

    I find I eat a full 500 calories above what any of the calculators would suggest I eat at my age, height and activity level - so my N=1 results definitely argue with you!
    edited May 26
  • psychod787psychod787 Member, Premium Posts: 3,400 Member Member, Premium Posts: 3,400 Member
    2. Yes, Adaptive theromogenesis is real. The RMR seems to be about an 80 calorie drop greater than what would be predicted no matter how much you lose when lean mass and fat mass are equated. The Biggest drop in energy expenditure post weight loss is in Skeletal Muscle Fuel efficiency. Basically you burn less calories when doing the same activity than someone always at your current size.

    I know we're not in debate, but I'd like to see your sources for that ^^

    I find I eat a full 500 calories above what any of the calculators would suggest I eat at my age, height and activity level - so my N=1 results definitely argue with you!

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4965234/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12609816/
    lol.... mine is 300 cals over when I track. could be errors in tracking or misjudgments in activity.....
    edited May 26
  • cmriversidecmriverside Member Posts: 29,984 Member Member Posts: 29,984 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    2. Yes, Adaptive theromogenesis is real. The RMR seems to be about an 80 calorie drop greater than what would be predicted no matter how much you lose when lean mass and fat mass are equated. The Biggest drop in energy expenditure post weight loss is in Skeletal Muscle Fuel efficiency. Basically you burn less calories when doing the same activity than someone always at your current size.

    I know we're not in debate, but I'd like to see your sources for that ^^

    I find I eat a full 500 calories above what any of the calculators would suggest I eat at my age, height and activity level - so my N=1 results definitely argue with you!

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4965234/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12609816/
    lol.... mine is 300 cals over when I track. could be errors in tracking or misjudgments in activity.....

    Okay, well then, "Adaptive theromogenesis is real," I agree with BUT have you also read about long-term? Because AT is just a short-term adaptation in my understanding and the RMR of weight-loss subjects after a period of time goes back to the expected calorie needs for their height/weight/age/activity. It's not lowered permanently. I don't have cites for that, I just have my own experience.

    The other thing that happens at the end of weight loss is hunger. A lot of hunger. That gets better and easier as hormones balance.

    We've had this discussion before. It is just missing a whole lot the way you posted earlier. It's not doom-and-gloom-you'll-never-feel-satisfied-again.

    I get plenty of food. I don't go hungry for long period of time during the day. It all balances out after weight loss, just not right away.
  • sijomialsijomial Member Posts: 16,611 Member Member Posts: 16,611 Member

    Okay, well then, "Adaptive theromogenesis is real," I agree with BUT have you also read about long-term? Because AT is just a short-term adaptation in my understanding and the RMR of weight-loss subjects after a period of time goes back to the expected calorie needs for their height/weight/age/activity. It's not lowered permanently. I don't have cites for that, I just have my own experience.

    My experience matches your experience - had a noticable uptick in my calories needed to maintain after 2 to 3 months.
  • sofrancessofrances Member, Premium Posts: 60 Member Member, Premium Posts: 60 Member
    Doesn't it annoy you guys that no one seems to know this stuff for sure? To my mind, the obesity crisis is the second greatest crisis facing humanity, second only to climate change (although I realise that this view may be coloured by my own personal struggles). It feels like it weird that no one knows basic things like "how long does adaptive thermogenesis last".
    edited May 27
  • LivingtheLeanDreamLivingtheLeanDream Member Posts: 12,909 Member Member Posts: 12,909 Member
    I don't think of it as fear, but maintaining does mean keeping on being consistent.
    I'm in my 7th year of maintenance, no longer log my food but have a rough idea in my head of my daily consumption.
    Stepping on the scale regularly keeps me right because my clothes wouldn't tell me I'd gained, probably would have to gain 7 or 8lbs for them to not fit well. I have to say in all my years so far at goal, I've never veered up more than 5lbs which I nip in the bud right away.
  • cmriversidecmriverside Member Posts: 29,984 Member Member Posts: 29,984 Member
    Yeah, like Ann says (and Psychod) there are so many variables. They can't all be pinned down, so I doubt "science" is going to come up with a better answer than, "Log your food. Use a digital food scale. Prepare 90% of your own meals. Take a damn walk. Get eight hours of sleep. Drink a lot of water. Keep stress low. Step on the body weight scale and adjust accordingly. Repeat forever. "

    :drinker: Ta da.

    I mean, that's really the bottom line. Calories, keeping some sort of measurements and being consistent over TIME.
  • PAV8888PAV8888 Member Posts: 7,254 Member Member Posts: 7,254 Member
    Since the android app ate my homework, I will just address a comment about AT being disproved because a person is eating above average calories to maintain.

    Eating above average calories to maintain doesn't prove or disprove whether you, as an individual, have lost some calories to AT. For all you know you could have been maintaining at + or -10% (or whatever figure) more than what you are maintaining at today.

    I will also address another issue which used to really concern me six years ago; but which is no longer a concern.

    The fact that there exists some AT does not mean that you're ACTUALLY going to be PHYSICALLY HUNGRY for the "lost" amount of calories.

    Do you consume the same amount of food when you spend the day sedentary, puttering around the house, or when you're super active, going for a 5 hour hike around the lake? Of course not. Right? Either hunger or simple MFP math tell you to eat more to fuel that hike: because you've spent Calories in order to perform it!

    In my case, I have reasons to suspect a 2.5-3.5% of my TDEE AT which very closely brackets the 80 Cal mentioned by @psychod787. This has persisted a good 5 years post rapid weight loss. BUT, somewhere during the 24 to 28 month post rapid weight loss time period (discussed above as a probable time period during which hormones normalize) there was a marked improvement in my perception of how easy it was to stay within my caloric budget.

    Let me repeat that: if you survive the initial post weight loss adjustment period (the first "two" years where most of us lose the battle), having some AT doesn't mean that you're spending your whole day hungry for lost calories! It does NOT feel like you're in a permanent 80 Cal deficit. It just feels like normal maintenance because your body is NOT ACTUALLY USING these calories in the first place!

    This, of course, does not address "brain hamster issues" given that appetite and desire to eat are not always exact reflections of physical hunger!

    I also note that the restoration of AT to normalcy often observed with full regain + a bit, is probably counterproductive! :lol:
    edited May 28
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 15,511 Member Member, Premium Posts: 15,511 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Since the android app ate my homework, I will just address a comment about AT being disproved because a person is eating above average calories to maintain.

    Eating above average calories to maintain doesn't prove or disprove whether you, as an individual, have lost some calories to AT. For all you know you could have been maintaining at + or -10% (or whatever figure) more than what you are maintaining at today.

    I will also address another issue which used to really concern me six years ago; but which is no longer a concern.

    The fact that there exists some AT does not mean that you're ACTUALLY going to be PHYSICALLY HUNGRY for the "lost" amount of calories.

    Do you consume the same amount of food when you spend the day sedentary, puttering around the house, or when you're super active, going for a 5 hour hike around the lake? Of course not. Right? Either hunger or simple MFP math tell you to eat more to fuel that hike: because you've spent Calories in order to perform it!

    In my case, I have reasons to suspect a 2.5-3.5% of my TDEE AT which very closely brackets the 80 Cal mentioned by @psychod787. This has persisted a good 5 years post rapid weight loss. BUT, somewhere during the 24 to 28 month post rapid weight loss time period (discussed above as a probable time period during which hormones normalize) there was a marked improvement in my perception of how easy it was to stay within my caloric budget.

    Let me repeat that: if you survive the initial post weight loss adjustment period (the first "two" years where most of us lose the battle), having some AT doesn't mean that you're spending your whole day hungry for lost calories! It does NOT feel like you're in a permanent 80 Cal deficit. It just feels like normal maintenance because your body is NOT ACTUALLY USING these calories in the first place!

    This, of course, does not address "brain hamster issues" given that appetite and desire to eat are not always exact reflections of physical hunger!

    I also note that the restoration of AT to normalcy often observed with full regain + a bit, is probably counterproductive! :lol:

    To the bolded: Of course not. But that's not the point.

    The point was: If I wasted a bunch of time worrying about the calories I might have lost to (theoretical) adaptive thermogenesis (or age, hypothyroidism, or any other thing), it would've accomplished nothing positive. If that worry (or sense of AT doom) overtook me before I figured out my personal TDEE was mysteriously but delightfully high, it would've (1) made me feel negative (anxious, stressed) for large stretches of time, completely optionally; (2) possibly have prevented me from doing the productive work to understand actual practical reality; and (3) maybe made me give up entirely before I reached my goals. Even if my personal reality was a low TDEE, all of those things still apply.

    For all I know, I have hundreds of calories of adaptive thermogenesis (despite the mysteriously high TDEE). It still doesn't matter, and I still don't care. All I need to care about is my personal calorie goals, and figuring out how to work with them as happily and healthfully as possible, whether they're high, low, or right on the population average.

    The "high TDEE" cases aren't to invalidate the possibility of adaptive thermogenesis, they're to illustrate one reason that it's not worth worrying about speculatively, in advance: Only your personal, practical case is worth time & energy. Worrying about things we can't influence/control is time and energy (and happiness) wasted.
  • psychod787psychod787 Member, Premium Posts: 3,400 Member Member, Premium Posts: 3,400 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Since the android app ate my homework, I will just address a comment about AT being disproved because a person is eating above average calories to maintain.

    Eating above average calories to maintain doesn't prove or disprove whether you, as an individual, have lost some calories to AT. For all you know you could have been maintaining at + or -10% (or whatever figure) more than what you are maintaining at today.

    I will also address another issue which used to really concern me six years ago; but which is no longer a concern.

    The fact that there exists some AT does not mean that you're ACTUALLY going to be PHYSICALLY HUNGRY for the "lost" amount of calories.

    Do you consume the same amount of food when you spend the day sedentary, puttering around the house, or when you're super active, going for a 5 hour hike around the lake? Of course not. Right? Either hunger or simple MFP math tell you to eat more to fuel that hike: because you've spent Calories in order to perform it!

    In my case, I have reasons to suspect a 2.5-3.5% of my TDEE AT which very closely brackets the 80 Cal mentioned by @psychod787. This has persisted a good 5 years post rapid weight loss. BUT, somewhere during the 24 to 28 month post rapid weight loss time period (discussed above as a probable time period during which hormones normalize) there was a marked improvement in my perception of how easy it was to stay within my caloric budget.

    Let me repeat that: if you survive the initial post weight loss adjustment period (the first "two" years where most of us lose the battle), having some AT doesn't mean that you're spending your whole day hungry for lost calories! It does NOT feel like you're in a permanent 80 Cal deficit. It just feels like normal maintenance because your body is NOT ACTUALLY USING these calories in the first place!

    This, of course, does not address "brain hamster issues" given that appetite and desire to eat are not always exact reflections of physical hunger!

    I also note that the restoration of AT to normalcy often observed with full regain + a bit, is probably counterproductive! :lol:

    To the bolded: Of course not. But that's not the point.

    The point was: If I wasted a bunch of time worrying about the calories I might have lost to (theoretical) adaptive thermogenesis (or age, hypothyroidism, or any other thing), it would've accomplished nothing positive. If that worry (or sense of AT doom) overtook me before I figured out my personal TDEE was mysteriously but delightfully high, it would've (1) made me feel negative (anxious, stressed) for large stretches of time, completely optionally; (2) possibly have prevented me from doing the productive work to understand actual practical reality; and (3) maybe made me give up entirely before I reached my goals. Even if my personal reality was a low TDEE, all of those things still apply.

    For all I know, I have hundreds of calories of adaptive thermogenesis (despite the mysteriously high TDEE). It still doesn't matter, and I still don't care. All I need to care about is my personal calorie goals, and figuring out how to work with them as happily and healthfully as possible, whether they're high, low, or right on the population average.

    The "high TDEE" cases aren't to invalidate the possibility of adaptive thermogenesis, they're to illustrate one reason that it's not worth worrying about speculatively, in advance: Only your personal, practical case is worth time & energy. Worrying about things we can't influence/control is time and energy (and happiness) wasted.

    @AnnPT77 aunt granny. How is the holy hell do I manage to open a can of worms everytime I post? 🤣 God forbid I mention set point theory or Dr.Jason Fun... nope... nope....not saying his name!
    While I agree with everything you have said, i think there are twot ypes of peopl when it comes to issues like. Some are ok with... yep it works..... then there are folks like me and @PAV8888 , we like to see what makes things tick...
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 15,511 Member Member, Premium Posts: 15,511 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Since the android app ate my homework, I will just address a comment about AT being disproved because a person is eating above average calories to maintain.

    Eating above average calories to maintain doesn't prove or disprove whether you, as an individual, have lost some calories to AT. For all you know you could have been maintaining at + or -10% (or whatever figure) more than what you are maintaining at today.

    I will also address another issue which used to really concern me six years ago; but which is no longer a concern.

    The fact that there exists some AT does not mean that you're ACTUALLY going to be PHYSICALLY HUNGRY for the "lost" amount of calories.

    Do you consume the same amount of food when you spend the day sedentary, puttering around the house, or when you're super active, going for a 5 hour hike around the lake? Of course not. Right? Either hunger or simple MFP math tell you to eat more to fuel that hike: because you've spent Calories in order to perform it!

    In my case, I have reasons to suspect a 2.5-3.5% of my TDEE AT which very closely brackets the 80 Cal mentioned by @psychod787. This has persisted a good 5 years post rapid weight loss. BUT, somewhere during the 24 to 28 month post rapid weight loss time period (discussed above as a probable time period during which hormones normalize) there was a marked improvement in my perception of how easy it was to stay within my caloric budget.

    Let me repeat that: if you survive the initial post weight loss adjustment period (the first "two" years where most of us lose the battle), having some AT doesn't mean that you're spending your whole day hungry for lost calories! It does NOT feel like you're in a permanent 80 Cal deficit. It just feels like normal maintenance because your body is NOT ACTUALLY USING these calories in the first place!

    This, of course, does not address "brain hamster issues" given that appetite and desire to eat are not always exact reflections of physical hunger!

    I also note that the restoration of AT to normalcy often observed with full regain + a bit, is probably counterproductive! :lol:

    To the bolded: Of course not. But that's not the point.

    The point was: If I wasted a bunch of time worrying about the calories I might have lost to (theoretical) adaptive thermogenesis (or age, hypothyroidism, or any other thing), it would've accomplished nothing positive. If that worry (or sense of AT doom) overtook me before I figured out my personal TDEE was mysteriously but delightfully high, it would've (1) made me feel negative (anxious, stressed) for large stretches of time, completely optionally; (2) possibly have prevented me from doing the productive work to understand actual practical reality; and (3) maybe made me give up entirely before I reached my goals. Even if my personal reality was a low TDEE, all of those things still apply.

    For all I know, I have hundreds of calories of adaptive thermogenesis (despite the mysteriously high TDEE). It still doesn't matter, and I still don't care. All I need to care about is my personal calorie goals, and figuring out how to work with them as happily and healthfully as possible, whether they're high, low, or right on the population average.

    The "high TDEE" cases aren't to invalidate the possibility of adaptive thermogenesis, they're to illustrate one reason that it's not worth worrying about speculatively, in advance: Only your personal, practical case is worth time & energy. Worrying about things we can't influence/control is time and energy (and happiness) wasted.

    @AnnPT77 aunt granny. How is the holy hell do I manage to open a can of worms everytime I post? 🤣 God forbid I mention set point theory or Dr.Jason Fun... nope... nope....not saying his name!
    While I agree with everything you have said, i think there are twot ypes of peopl when it comes to issues like. Some are ok with... yep it works..... then there are folks like me and @PAV8888 , we like to see what makes things tick...

    Oh, I'm fascinated by how it works. Learning about it is fun, and potentially useful.

    But IMO OP is getting bogged down in stressing over fear of regain, the idea that science can't say how long AT lasts, over "lots of depressing articles about how few people keep weight off, "metabolic adaption", microbiome changes associated with obesity, and all that stuff."

    That stuff is academically interesting, some of it can be useful.

    But fear, worry, annoyance, stress over it? Not helpful. The practical part one needs for base success is pretty simple. One maintains by understanding (within a certain error tolerance) how much to eat for one's own personal body's needs, and adjusts by watching the scale (or the fit of a particular pair of jeans or something).

    To say "Worrying about things we can't influence/control is a waste of time and energy" is not the same as saying "Learning about - and considering whether one can apply - research and theory is a waste of time and energy."

    It's the stress, the fear, the worry that's optional, completely unnecessary and unhelpful; not the liking or wanting to know how stuff works.
  • PAV8888PAV8888 Member Posts: 7,254 Member Member Posts: 7,254 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    To the bolded: Of course not. But that's not the point.

    The point was: If I wasted a bunch of time worrying about the calories I might have lost to (theoretical) adaptive thermogenesis (or age, hypothyroidism, or any other thing), it would've accomplished nothing positive. If that worry (or sense of AT doom) overtook me before I figured out my personal TDEE was mysteriously but delightfully high, it would've (1) made me feel negative (anxious, stressed) for large stretches of time, completely optionally; (2) possibly have prevented me from doing the productive work to understand actual practical reality; and (3) maybe made me give up entirely before I reached my goals.

    <SNIP! <-- I so wanted to do this with one of your posts Ann!!!! <evil laugh>>

    Only your personal, practical case is worth time & energy. Worrying about things we can't influence/control is time and energy (and happiness) wasted.

    I think we're more in agreement than you appear to credit!

    In fact I thought that my post was saying similar things to your post: you take what precautions you can to minimize bad stuff within your personal context and tolerances (same as with strength training) and then you move forward.

    After spending decades making uneducated attempts to lose weight and/or deep down believing that it was impossible to lose and maintain (thus either not trying, or trying and regaining+friends) I feel somewhat compelled to mention that even though there may exist AT after weight loss, even though there may exist a hormonally induced push towards regain after weight loss (and not just simple personal will-power failings), these things are not necessarily permanent and forever (ergo there is light at the end of the tunnel), nor is the battle necessarily lost ahead of the game.

    Forewarned, forearmed, taking precautions, and being prepared to react, and adjust, and win are good. Paralyzed and debilitated... not good.

    As with so many things, balance seems to be the way forward!
    edited May 28
  • ninerbuffninerbuff Member, Greeter Posts: 42,902 Member Member, Greeter Posts: 42,902 Member
    sofrances wrote: »
    I haven't yet reached my maintenance goal, but I'm having serious anxiety issues related to fear of putting the weight back on. Partly this is because I fear the health consequences of doing so (weight loss is not primarily about looks for me at this stage in my life, although I'll take looking better as a bonus :smile: ). Partly because I have read lots of depressing articles about how few people keep weight off, "metabolic adaption", microbiome changes associated with obesity, and all that stuff. Also because I lost all the weight once before, but then watched it creep back on over the years until I was heavier than ever (although I was never doing proper calorie counting at that point).

    How do you deal with the fear?
    You're speaking of fear of failure. When failure happens, it should be a learning experience. So if the weight crept back up, it's because you neglected to be consistent. It's then really an easy fix. Be consistent. If you do that, you shouldn't have to fear weight regain.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
Sign In or Register to comment.