How to fix metabolic adaptation?
Replies
-
I checked the OPs posting history to see if there were any clues to what might be going on. And a Nov post mentioned they were an Asian woman who was bulking.
Because OP mentioned in this thread that 2000 would be a deficit for a sedentary man, I assumed OP was male.
OP, if you are a menstruating female, has your cycle been normal during this time of weight gain?
And you still haven't clarified the height issue - did you grow 2 inches in the last 4 months, or were one or both of those heights a typo?
It would also be great if you could clarify what you are doing all day to get the daily step count you are getting.9 -
psychod787 wrote: »60k steps? Hell, you must just walk all day! No way to "fix" metabolic adaptation per se. I mean, unless you want to "repay" the energy gap. Why do I feel like I'm being trolled? 60k steps a day is like 30 miles. If burn 100 cals a mile, you are burning 3k cals before rmr and tef are taken into account.
I thought about this again later. I wonder if one of the issues is that the steps are being counted twice, once on a phone and the second on a watch.
MFP only has setting to select 1 step source, so it should not be getting 2 counts.
If a shorter Asian woman as next post is asking about - perhaps no where near the distance suggested.
I'll pop on Fitbit forums and there are some people really racking the steps up to win challenges. 60K would not win lots of them actually.
3 -
psychod787 wrote: »60k steps? Hell, you must just walk all day! No way to "fix" metabolic adaptation per se. I mean, unless you want to "repay" the energy gap. Why do I feel like I'm being trolled? 60k steps a day is like 30 miles. If burn 100 cals a mile, you are burning 3k cals before rmr and tef are taken into account.
I thought about this again later. I wonder if one of the issues is that the steps are being counted twice, once on a phone and the second on a watch.
MFP only has setting to select 1 step source, so it should not be getting 2 counts.
If a shorter Asian woman as next post is asking about - perhaps no where near the distance suggested.
I'll pop on Fitbit forums and there are some people really racking the steps up to win challenges. 60K would not win lots of them actually.
I didn't recall if the OP was even syncing or just stating the numbers.
Yeah I see these people on the Pacer app too. I imagine they have jobs that are nonstop walking.
The Pacer app, which I assumed might be blowing smoke, always has me in the very top percentage of all users activity at my average 20k steps. Most of the time the app sits on the sync screen but when I do see that screen (just now I am 99.7) it is usually at least 99.5. As a former mega obese person this never seems like it is possible to me.4 -
I take pacer with a grain of salt, I aim for 10k, but I only aim for that as a reason to be active and not the calorie count it says I burn1
-
I’ve recently been wondering about this too, because I’ve just started to push myself to walk more (last 10lbs, petite, older, female, needing the help to drive the last pounds off!).
Looking at the Fitbit communities and seeing fairly regular alleged ‘screenshots’ of Fitbit dashboards claiming well over 100k steps in a day. I don’t understand how that’s even possible! By my reckoning (based on my own numbers that equates to a minimum of 16 hours continuous walking in a day. Who does that!
Also...people whose dashboards show a 6k steps walk but a calorie burn of 3-4k! This morning I walked 6.46 miles (circa 13,000 steps and burned just under 600 calories according to the Fitbit numbers. Of course, I’m moving a small body and larger people will burn more to move a larger mass but I’m imagining an army of 8ft tall Amazonian men and women marching around all over the world when I see some of the numbers!
7 -
People do walk a lot and some people do spend all day doing it.
Whether this is a, generally speaking, healthy thing for them depends on their individual circumstances. For a number of them it could well be a healthy pursuit. I am sure that for some it isn't.
I had no real problem burning 3-4k cal at 6k steps when I was starting up at 172.25cm and north of 280lbs. Maybe not quite 4k, but definitely above 3!
Pacer was more conservative in terms of step count than Fitbit (phone not always in hand) and thus gave slightly fewer calories for me when I was using it a few years back.
I have no reason to think that 20K steps, which are universally considered highly active, are not at the tail end of the distribution. The tail seems to already by a tail by the 15k range, which by the way, I claim exhausts MFP very active based on my observations (for most people). 20K is even further along!5 -
nanamerriman2020 wrote: »Bottom line: if you grew 2" in the past few months, it is very reasonable for you to also put on weight. Trying to get back to the weight you knew when you were shorter is probably not a realistic goal.
Guys tend to reach their full height by age 18, but that is not an absolute.
Yes, my ex grew 8" during college.0 -
I checked the OPs posting history to see if there were any clues to what might be going on. And a Nov post mentioned they were an Asian woman who was bulking.
Because OP mentioned in this thread that 2000 would be a deficit for a sedentary man, I assumed OP was male.
OP, if you are a menstruating female, has your cycle been normal during this time of weight gain?
And you still haven't clarified the height issue - did you grow 2 inches in the last 4 months, or were one or both of those heights a typo?
It would also be great if you could clarify what you are doing all day to get the daily step count you are getting.
I see the Thanksgiving Asian woman bulking post. Confounding me further, OP's profile says male.
OP - would you please clarify all of these points?6 -
If the OP really did gain 2 inches and also was in the process of transforming from a scrawny boy to a grown man, the weight gain may be perfectly normal.
30 miles a day is a lot of walking. Like, 8 to 10 hours a day. Is that really what’s happening?1 -
Something's clearly going wrong here. I'm 5'2". I checked my Fitbit step history and I'm already burning about 3000 calories on day where I'm "only" walking 15k steps. 50k steps would mean well over 5000 burnt calories. You're a bit taller, so you're probably burning a bit more than me. Combine that with eating 2000kcal a day and you should be losing quite a bit, if your logging is accurate.
Also, are you sure you're actually doing 50k steps a day? If you're measuring your steps with you phone, the count might be really off. If it's true, you're walking about 9 hours everyday and that doesn't sound neither correct nor healthy. Additionally, your current weight is actually not far from your ideal weight. Going back to 135lbs would be quite underweight. Definately talk to your doctor about your steps, your calorie intake and your weight/health goals. If you're still growing it's double important to make sure your body gets what it needs.2 -
Lolana1822 wrote: »Something's clearly going wrong here. I'm 5'2". I checked my Fitbit step history and I'm already burning about 3000 calories on day where I'm "only" walking 15k steps. 50k steps would mean well over 5000 burnt calories. You're a bit taller, so you're probably burning a bit more than me. Combine that with eating 2000kcal a day and you should be losing quite a bit, if your logging is accurate.
Also, are you sure you're actually doing 50k steps a day? If you're measuring your steps with you phone, the count might be really off. If it's true, you're walking about 9 hours everyday and that doesn't sound neither correct nor healthy. Additionally, your current weight is actually not far from your ideal weight. Going back to 135lbs would be quite underweight. Definately talk to your doctor about your steps, your calorie intake and your weight/health goals. If you're still growing it's double important to make sure your body gets what it needs.
I agree with you, but I think that there is an element here that is over looked. There is something called the energy constraint model. Hermann Pontzer talks about it. An interview here.
https://youtu.be/QFdPCpVGQV8 2 -
That study he's discussing came up in another thread recently.
They used typical BMR/TDEE statistical formulas for population masses NOT specific to that population to compare to for deciding there must be constraint.
Where other research on examining size of the most metabolically active organs, shows those populations in Africa have smaller less calorie burning organs. Their BMR is smaller using typical formulas.
So trade between BMR and and NEAT you might say.
Still interesting research and discussion of where the body finds extra calories to spare.
Great interviewer to ask the right questions since he was familiar with it.
"that mile has a set cost, that doesn't change .... energy comes from somewhere else"
ETA - compared to the claim the body energy expenditure goes back to a level or is capped - how have all the research studies that caused weight loss by increasing exercise ever worked?
Many with fat loss almost matching exactly the deficit created by the exercise?
Hmmm.5 -
That was a fun video, @psychod787
Interesting back and forth.
You're really all about the whole set point thing.
I mean, I don't really believe the OP's post...I think there is an element of stretching the truth in the OP.
2 -
Unless op can clarify some of the very basic details that are still not clear, I'm not sure reading in new ideas on energy expenditure is necessary. This might not make sense simply because there is missing information, or sadly because it was intended to not be clear in the first place.4
-
cmriverside wrote: »That was a fun video, @psychod787 Interesting back and forth.
You're really all about the whole set point thing.
I mean, I don't really believe the OP's post...I think there is an element of stretching the truth in the OP.
Yes ma'am and no ma'am in the set point. More of an interest in what drive our overall metabolism and how our environment plays into it. While the semi sedentary westerner mentioned can be over weight, the Hadza have ideal body composition even while eating the same calories.Unless op can clarify some of the very basic details that are still not clear, I'm not sure reading in new ideas on energy expenditure is necessary. This might not make sense simply because there is missing information, or sadly because it was intended to not be clear in the first place.
Yes ma'am, I would agree that OP is over estimating EE and unestimating EI, but we have to be careful when ruling out all scenarios. However unlikely they are.2 -
That study he's discussing came up in another thread recently.
They used typical BMR/TDEE statistical formulas for population masses NOT specific to that population to compare to for deciding there must be constraint.
Where other research on examining size of the most metabolically active organs, shows those populations in Africa have smaller less calorie burning organs. Their BMR is smaller using typical formulas.
So trade between BMR and and NEAT you might say.
Still interesting research and discussion of where the body finds extra calories to spare.
Great interviewer to ask the right questions since he was familiar with it.
"that mile has a set cost, that doesn't change .... energy comes from somewhere else"
ETA - compared to the claim the body energy expenditure goes back to a level or is capped - how have all the research studies that caused weight loss by increasing exercise ever worked?
Many with fat loss almost matching exactly the deficit created by the exercise?
Hmmm.
Yes. It's all calories in and calories out, but what controls CICO is far more complicated. Yes, weight loss is almost as predicted in most studies, but degrades over time for amount predicted by the original deficit. Yes, bodies get smaller and they burn less energy, but the is a further down regulation in many studies than would have been predicted for the new size. Hence, AT. I have been wondering if AT is nothing more than this energy constraint model in action. Down regulation in hormones and skeletal fuel efficiency. Now, weight gain studies are even more interesting. When you look at twin studies, different sets of twins gained different amounts of weight in response to the same over feeding. There is also evidence in Liebels lab of an increase in rmr and a decrease in skeletal muscle efficiency in acute overfeed. People also complain of having to eat more and feeling full. I.E. an energy intake constraint.1 -
OP, I'm not sure if this is a typo or not. Are you saying that 4 months ago you were 5'9" and 135 lbs and now you are 5'11" and 175 lbs? Are you still growing?
Regardless, 135 lbs would be quite underweight for 5'9 or 5'11.
I'm just having a tough time getting my head around all your numbers. You are talking about getting a number of steps that would require walking for most of the day, all your calorie numbers are nice round numbers, your weight gain is again round dramatic numbers.
If you have in fact gained 40 lbs in 4 months while eating 2000 calories daily and taking 50,000 steps a day, all I can suggest is a doctor's appointment.
I already asked like 5 different doctors who specialize in dietary fields and nutritionists and all did not have a direct answer. They just pulled the "everyone has a different metabolism " card or something along the lines of it. I was 135 after doing like a 3 day fast to lose those final vanity pounds and just wanted to test myself. But normal weight at the end of my cut was around the 140s0 -
Go see a doctor to confirm you're ok especially with rapid weight gain as described.
In all cases, a daily step count of 50-60K, over 350,000 steps a week, is also something that should be discussed with your doctor in the context of confirming that this is a healthy goal and pursuit for yourself at this time. You should also check the wear pattern on your shoes and mention / show any thing of note to your doctor.
If you're using the walking primarily to burn calories, again this should be discussed with your doctor.
Furthermore you're well into diminishing returns because yes your muscles will get more efficient at performing this same movement and you will comparatively burn a little bit less per step as compared to your untrained self. A bit less does not mean zero.
Ok yes for that last paragraph, how do I "reset" it so that my body DOES burn the average amount of calories burned while walking again?1 -
psychod787 wrote: »60k steps? Hell, you must just walk all day! No way to "fix" metabolic adaptation per se. I mean, unless you want to "repay" the energy gap. Why do I feel like I'm being trolled? 60k steps a day is like 30 miles. If burn 100 cals a mile, you are burning 3k cals before rmr and tef are taken into account.
I thought about this again later. I wonder if one of the issues is that the steps are being counted twice, once on a phone and the second on a watch.
I just use the health app on my phone. No watch
0 -
Personally I think you're just creating human error.. and there is nothing to actually reset9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 416 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions