Work out 6 times a week, eat healthy, not losing weight

LiminalAscendance

Let me get this straight...

You know you're eating 1200 cals/day (although I'm not certain how, since you're not logging your intake consistently).

Despite the fact that you have no idea how many calories you're consuming, you're certain that the fact you're not losing weight is due to some strange phenomenon (outside the realm of all this "sciencey" stuff), and not that you're eating more than you're burning.

With such certainty regarding your situation, and reluctance to accept opposing viewpoints, why did you post on a public forum (full of strangers) to ask for advice (which you're not interested in following)?

(Oh, I just re-read your OP. It appears you want to "reboot" your system, or some such thing? There are many sites out there that can help you with that, believe me; this just isn't one of them.)

captmiddy

Just because it's simple doesn't make it wrong.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diets-weight-loss-carbohydrate-protein-fat/
Harvard's response

"The results showed that, regardless of diet, weight loss and reduction in waist circumference were similar. Participants lost an average of 13 pounds at six months and maintained a 9-pound loss at two years. Weight loss primarily took place in the first 6 months; after 12 months, all groups began to slowly regain weight, a finding consistent with other diet studies. However, the extent of weight regain was much less, about 20%, of the average regain in previous studies. Waistlines were reduced by an average of two inches at the end of the two-year period."

In correct coorelation, this study talks about how well people kept off weight after based on dietary changes. This did not talk about how quickly they lost weight based on those dietary differences in fact based on just the excerpt you posted both deficits resulted in the same loss.

Or this

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/diet-and-weight/

"Conventional wisdom says that since a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source, the best advice for weight control is simply to eat less and exercise more. Yet emerging research suggests that some foods and eating patterns may make it easier to keep calories in check, while others may make people more likely to overeat."

Again not about weight loss but about maintaining a healthy weight after loss or never gaining to begin with. Again this is about caloric makeup outside weight reduction. They suggest it is easier to maintain your calorie targets if the blend is right. This reduces overeating which obviously leads to a caloric surplus. So neither of these articles talk to what you stated.

Escape_Artist

/nvm

bcattoes

I didn't read all of the replies, but many of them don't make a lot of sense.

The only way to know if you are in a calorie deficit is NOT logging. That is a good method of determining your approximate calorie intake.

But, assuming you have no medical conditions that alter the general rules (hypothyroidism, PCOS, other), you will know if you are in a deficit by the fact that you lose weight. You will know you are in a surplus if you gain weight. If your weight remains constant, then likely you are eating at maintenance.

stumblinthrulife

I didn't read all of the replies, but many of them don't make a lot of sense.

The only way to know if you are in a calorie deficit is NOT logging. That is a good method of determining your approximate calorie intake.

But, assuming you have no medical conditions that alter the general rules (hypothyroidism, PCOS, other), you will know if you are in a deficit by the fact that you lose weight. You will know you are in a surplus if you gain weight. If your weight remains constant, then likely you are eating at maintenance.

Precisely this. The logging gives you an estimate, comparing the actual and predicted results tells you how good that estimate is.

Or to put it another way - if you are not losing weight, you are consuming more calories than you are burning. Period. Fin. Finito. Ende. Ha sikum. 完.

slowbutsure2

Sorry that's just not true. I track all my calories and I'm not eating less just because I'm eating less carbs. I have replaced the carbs with protein, calorie for calorie.

The deficit only, 'this Is science' is too simplistic. 'Science' depends on which scientists you consult and all real science is evolving and not in a finished state. I 'think' the way protein and carbs effect insulin levels is different, which effects fat storage.

While you might feel this way, and it may very well be working out for you for various reasons, there has been little to no scientific proof that 1 calorie protein versus 1 calorie carb are significantly different on a daily consumption basis. If you are at a deficit you will consume the calories you consume first then calories you stored. If you are in a surplus then yes the makeup can have a significant impact on how your body changes, but in a deficit not so much.

So saying that it is definitively true that you will lose more by doing what you say just isn't accurate. I have lost all the weight I have using the original MFP ratios almost exactly with no modification. If anything I come up short on protein from time to time as I am a vegetarian and don't always plan properly to get my protein levels up. I have averaged about 1.8lbs per week for the last 45 weeks using the straight calorie in versus calorie out setup.

If someone is not losing weight it is because their deficit is not where they think it is, or they have some medical (very low chance) condition that is hindering their loss.

Thanks for the thoughts. I still don't buy it though. I do not buy that its as simple as calories in verses calories out. And thats certainly not the only theory out there. Have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jch-2UJkwUE

He is worth doing some research on, I think his main book is called, Good calories Bad calories.

jonnythan

Sorry that's just not true. I track all my calories and I'm not eating less just because I'm eating less carbs. I have replaced the carbs with protein, calorie for calorie.

The deficit only, 'this Is science' is too simplistic. 'Science' depends on which scientists you consult and all real science is evolving and not in a finished state. I 'think' the way protein and carbs effect insulin levels is different, which effects fat storage.

While you might feel this way, and it may very well be working out for you for various reasons, there has been little to no scientific proof that 1 calorie protein versus 1 calorie carb are significantly different on a daily consumption basis. If you are at a deficit you will consume the calories you consume first then calories you stored. If you are in a surplus then yes the makeup can have a significant impact on how your body changes, but in a deficit not so much.

So saying that it is definitively true that you will lose more by doing what you say just isn't accurate. I have lost all the weight I have using the original MFP ratios almost exactly with no modification. If anything I come up short on protein from time to time as I am a vegetarian and don't always plan properly to get my protein levels up. I have averaged about 1.8lbs per week for the last 45 weeks using the straight calorie in versus calorie out setup.

If someone is not losing weight it is because their deficit is not where they think it is, or they have some medical (very low chance) condition that is hindering their loss.

Thanks for the thoughts. I still don't buy it though. I do not buy that its as simple as calories in verses calories out. And thats certainly not the only theory out there. Have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jch-2UJkwUE

He is worth doing some research on, I think his main book is called, Good calories Bad calories.

Taubes is an engineer-turned-author trying to sell books by scaring you with the The Truth about the Demon Nutrient of the Month. In this case it's carbs.

It's nonsense. Remember how the Demon Nutrient was fat for so long? Now it's sugar. Uh huh. It's not.

When you supply your body with more energy than it uses, it saves the rest for later. When your body uses more energy than you eat, it breaks down body mass to generate the rest. Taubes is something of a dirty joke around MFP (and dietitians).

slowbutsure2

Sorry that's just not true. I track all my calories and I'm not eating less just because I'm eating less carbs. I have replaced the carbs with protein, calorie for calorie.

The deficit only, 'this Is science' is too simplistic. 'Science' depends on which scientists you consult and all real science is evolving and not in a finished state. I 'think' the way protein and carbs effect insulin levels is different, which effects fat storage.

While you might feel this way, and it may very well be working out for you for various reasons, there has been little to no scientific proof that 1 calorie protein versus 1 calorie carb are significantly different on a daily consumption basis. If you are at a deficit you will consume the calories you consume first then calories you stored. If you are in a surplus then yes the makeup can have a significant impact on how your body changes, but in a deficit not so much.

So saying that it is definitively true that you will lose more by doing what you say just isn't accurate. I have lost all the weight I have using the original MFP ratios almost exactly with no modification. If anything I come up short on protein from time to time as I am a vegetarian and don't always plan properly to get my protein levels up. I have averaged about 1.8lbs per week for the last 45 weeks using the straight calorie in versus calorie out setup.

If someone is not losing weight it is because their deficit is not where they think it is, or they have some medical (very low chance) condition that is hindering their loss.

Thanks for the thoughts. I still don't buy it though. I do not buy that its as simple as calories in verses calories out. And thats certainly not the only theory out there. Have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jch-2UJkwUE

He is worth doing some research on, I think his main book is called, Good calories Bad calories.

Taubes is an engineer-turned-author trying to sell books by scaring you with the The Truth about the Demon Nutrient of the Month. In this case it's carbs.

It's nonsense. Remember how the Demon Nutrient was fat for so long? Now it's sugar. Uh huh. It's not.

When you supply your body with more energy than it uses, it saves the rest for later. When your body uses more energy than you eat, it breaks down body mass to generate the rest. Taubes is something of a dirty joke around MFP (and dietitians).

Well, pragmatically his approach makes me lose weight and yours doesn't. I decreased carbs keeping the same amount of calories and lost weight. I don't know which theory is right or wrong. But it really doesn't matter - what gets results is what matters, after all - thats why we are all here. I presume you have read his books?

jonnythan

I decreased carbs keeping the same amount of calories and lost weight. I don't know which theory is right or wrong. But it really doesn't matter - what gets results is what matters, after all - thats why we are all here. I presume you have read his books?

A lot of people say this and no one has proved it with their diary and progress.

So here's my challenge to your claim: open your diary and provide a list of all your weigh-ins. Tell us the dates you did "my way" and the dates you did Taubes' way and let us compare.

I'll start. My diary is already open, logging every day all the way back to January. Here's my weight loss, through August, at which point I switched to maintenance and now bulking.



Your turn.

p4ulmiller

Thanks for the thoughts. I still don't buy it though. I do not buy that its as simple as calories in verses calories out. And thats certainly not the only theory out there.

The thing about science is that's its true whether you believe it or not.

If you want to lose weight, you need to be in a calorie deficit. If you want to gain weight, you need to be in a calorie surplus.

Whether you lose fat, muscle, glycogen or water depends on the macro and micro nutrients concerned.

That's all there is to it.

psuLemon

Just because it's simple doesn't make it wrong.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diets-weight-loss-carbohydrate-protein-fat/
Harvard's response

"The results showed that, regardless of diet, weight loss and reduction in waist circumference were similar. Participants lost an average of 13 pounds at six months and maintained a 9-pound loss at two years. Weight loss primarily took place in the first 6 months; after 12 months, all groups began to slowly regain weight, a finding consistent with other diet studies. However, the extent of weight regain was much less, about 20%, of the average regain in previous studies. Waistlines were reduced by an average of two inches at the end of the two-year period."

In correct coorelation, this study talks about how well people kept off weight after based on dietary changes. This did not talk about how quickly they lost weight based on those dietary differences in fact based on just the excerpt you posted both deficits resulted in the same loss.

Or this

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/diet-and-weight/

"Conventional wisdom says that since a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source, the best advice for weight control is simply to eat less and exercise more. Yet emerging research suggests that some foods and eating patterns may make it easier to keep calories in check, while others may make people more likely to overeat."

Again not about weight loss but about maintaining a healthy weight after loss or never gaining to begin with. Again this is about caloric makeup outside weight reduction. They suggest it is easier to maintain your calorie targets if the blend is right. This reduces overeating which obviously leads to a caloric surplus. So neither of these articles talk to what you stated.

Regardless of the context of the study, the simple science, that calories in vs out apply. It's even noted in the studies. Specifically the one below which talks not only about weight loss but the long term adherence to those type diets.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diets-weight-loss-carbohydrate-protein-fat/

psuLemon

Sorry that's just not true. I track all my calories and I'm not eating less just because I'm eating less carbs. I have replaced the carbs with protein, calorie for calorie.

The deficit only, 'this Is science' is too simplistic. 'Science' depends on which scientists you consult and all real science is evolving and not in a finished state. I 'think' the way protein and carbs effect insulin levels is different, which effects fat storage.

While you might feel this way, and it may very well be working out for you for various reasons, there has been little to no scientific proof that 1 calorie protein versus 1 calorie carb are significantly different on a daily consumption basis. If you are at a deficit you will consume the calories you consume first then calories you stored. If you are in a surplus then yes the makeup can have a significant impact on how your body changes, but in a deficit not so much.

So saying that it is definitively true that you will lose more by doing what you say just isn't accurate. I have lost all the weight I have using the original MFP ratios almost exactly with no modification. If anything I come up short on protein from time to time as I am a vegetarian and don't always plan properly to get my protein levels up. I have averaged about 1.8lbs per week for the last 45 weeks using the straight calorie in versus calorie out setup.

If someone is not losing weight it is because their deficit is not where they think it is, or they have some medical (very low chance) condition that is hindering their loss.

Thanks for the thoughts. I still don't buy it though. I do not buy that its as simple as calories in verses calories out. And thats certainly not the only theory out there. Have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jch-2UJkwUE

He is worth doing some research on, I think his main book is called, Good calories Bad calories.

If you want to test Taubes theory, go eat 5000 calories of meat and fat for 1 month and then see if you come back weighing more.