Up my calories?

Aaron_K123

SSL_Runner: I agree we do need a calorie deficit, BUT the current model isn't true. We do NOT loose a pound for every 3500 calories burned. Not all bodies respond to calorie deficit in the same way, and in fact having too great of calorie deficit sets MANY people up for a lifetime of obesity. So, what I am saying is the "simple" idea that ALL you need for weight loss is calorie deficit and no other factors matter is what is false. There are other factors including hormones, sleep, medications, stress, emotional state, sex, age, weight, past history of dieting, vitamins, the types of foods you eat, your bodies biofeedback mechanisms, etc. etc. and etc. , that all come in to play. If the ONLY think that matters is calorie deficit, then how can the side effects for many medications be weight gain or weigh loss..... even when the patient doesn't eat more or less????? There are MANY more factors. It is NOT a simple mathematical formula that you can apply to all people. This is what I am saying.

All the things you list are just things that make gauging your true caloric intake and output difficult. Calorie in calorie out remains true and caloric deficit still remains the only effector of weightloss.

MelodyandBarbells

SSL_Runner: I agree we do need a calorie deficit, BUT the current model isn't true. We do NOT loose a pound for every 3500 calories burned. Not all bodies respond to calorie deficit in the same way, and in fact having too great of calorie deficit sets MANY people up for a lifetime of obesity. So, what I am saying is the "simple" idea that ALL you need for weight loss is calorie deficit and no other factors matter is what is false. There are other factors including hormones, sleep, medications, stress, emotional state, sex, age, weight, past history of dieting, vitamins, the types of foods you eat, your bodies biofeedback mechanisms, etc. etc. and etc. , that all come in to play. If the ONLY think that matters is calorie deficit, then how can the side effects for many medications be weight gain or weigh loss..... even when the patient doesn't eat more or less????? There are MANY more factors. It is NOT a simple mathematical formula that you can apply to all people. This is what I am saying.

I guess what you're saying almost went without saying because "barring any medical issue, calories in calories out" is something you will see on the boards over and over again. Whenever people mention having PCOS or other issues they are often directed to groups that have people dealing with that sort of thing for specific tips. Another one you will see frequently is if an individual has a sensitivity to a specific item, duh, it's practically poison to them at that point and their diet obviously cannot feature said item, calories or no

Orangesky50

"This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?"

This idea comes from Biology.


Our body has biofeedback mechanisms that helps it to stay in homeostasis. ( For instance, we shiver when we are cold.) I think that as we begin to understand these biofeedback mechanisms in the area of weight loss, we will begin to be more successful in helping people loose weight. In reality, people's bodies, can literally change their metabolism so they can live on less and less food. In other words, the body becomes more and more efficient at getting energy from our calories and stores the rest for future use. It is an evolutionary mechanism that helps us survive when we are faced with frequent famines. It is these biofeedback mechanisms which are causing obesity in many people, in my opinion. This is why the men in the starvation experiment gained more weight and had a new "normal" weight that was higher than their original weight, after their period of starvation. Our body wants to find a place of stability. We can actually CAUSE illness by starving ourselves. Then we no longer fit in your bell shaped curve, but rather become "special snowflakes" who cannot loose weight to save our lives.

You are referring to adaptive thermogenesis which at most can reduce your BMR temporarily by 40%. At no point does this make it impossible to lose weight and only occurs to that extent under true starvation conditions.

You are pointing to a real effect but assuming it does more than it can do. Adaptive thermogenesis will nrver make you maintain forever it will just slow dramatic weightloss during longterm starvation.

Not I am not talking about adaptive thermogenesis. You are able to starve yourself to loose weight- for the sort term. However, my concern is the biofeedback mechanisms that kick in after people diet, which cause them to gain more weight back after a diet. I am talking about the process by which we eat at a deficit calorie, and then our body resets its inner ability to use calories more efficiency and/or our hunger signals are change, so if we need to lose weight at a later date it is more difficult. If the current model of weight loss actually worked over the LONG HAUL, most of us would not be struggling so much. However I don't think there will be many studies done to find this out... why people who diet actually get fatter. The truth is most weight studies are conducted by those who profit by keeping people fat. LOL "Helping" people loose weight is a very profitable business. : ) It is also the perfect model, professional people do all that they can to "help" people, but then the poor, lazy, undisciplined and ungrateful people who just gave them thousands of dollars, will not heed to the wonderful "scientific" advice and simply "choose" to be fat. LOL

Again you are using exact percentages in talking about thermogenesis..." which can AT MOST, reduce your BMR temporarily by 40Percent" Again, there are no studies that look at all people, all ages, etc. I would actually be interested in the studies that you have found that talk about thermogenesis...I am interested in this also. Please share.

Aaron_K123

"This idea that your body "holds on" to fat if you don't eat enough to sustain your body makes no sense. Where do you get that from?"

This idea comes from Biology.


Our body has biofeedback mechanisms that helps it to stay in homeostasis. ( For instance, we shiver when we are cold.) I think that as we begin to understand these biofeedback mechanisms in the area of weight loss, we will begin to be more successful in helping people loose weight. In reality, people's bodies, can literally change their metabolism so they can live on less and less food. In other words, the body becomes more and more efficient at getting energy from our calories and stores the rest for future use. It is an evolutionary mechanism that helps us survive when we are faced with frequent famines. It is these biofeedback mechanisms which are causing obesity in many people, in my opinion. This is why the men in the starvation experiment gained more weight and had a new "normal" weight that was higher than their original weight, after their period of starvation. Our body wants to find a place of stability. We can actually CAUSE illness by starving ourselves. Then we no longer fit in your bell shaped curve, but rather become "special snowflakes" who cannot loose weight to save our lives.

You are referring to adaptive thermogenesis which at most can reduce your BMR temporarily by 40%. At no point does this make it impossible to lose weight and only occurs to that extent under true starvation conditions.

You are pointing to a real effect but assuming it does more than it can do. Adaptive thermogenesis will nrver make you maintain forever it will just slow dramatic weightloss during longterm starvation.

Not I am not talking about adaptive thermogenesis. You are able to starve yourself to loose weight- for the sort term. However, my concern is the biofeedback mechanisms that kick in after people diet, which cause them to gain more weight back after a diet. I am talking about the process by which we eat at a deficit calorie, and then our body resets its inner ability to use calories more efficiency and/or our hunger signals are change, so if we need to lose weight at a later date it is more difficult. If the current model of weight loss actually worked over the LONG HAUL, most of us would not be struggling so much. However I don't think there will be many studies done to find this out... why people who diet actually get fatter. The truth is most weight studies are conducted by those who profit by keeping people fat. LOL "Helping" people loose weight is a very profitable business. : ) It is also the perfect model, professional people do all that they can to "help" people, but then the poor, lazy, undisciplined and ungrateful people who just gave them thousands of dollars, will not heed to the wonderful "scientific" advice and simply "choose" to be fat. LOL

Again you are using exact percentages in talking about thermogenesis..." which can AT MOST, reduce your BMR temporarily by 40Percent" Again, there are no studies that look at all people, all ages, etc. I would actually be interested in the studies that you have found that talk about thermogenesis...I am interested in this also. Please share.

And now we have donned the tin-foil hat and gone full conspiracy mode. Yeah I am done with this conversation, good luck to you.

Mischievous_Rascal

How long have you been at the plateau? Have you changed the type of exercising you are doing? Not necessarily longer, just trying something different? Have you run your TDEE for your new levels? If so, is the result close to what your mom says your calorie goal should be? You can try upping your calories, and even if you initially gain a couple pounds, it will likely stabilize and you will start losing again.

Bottom line: a plateau can last for quite a while and then you will finally break through it. Patience is needed.

You've done great at reaching a healthy BMI. Congratulations!

Umm, about 2-3 weeks? And yes, I do change my excercises regularely or make them more intense.
I've never calculated my TDEE level before, just did right now, and it appears to be 1900 calories which sounds like A LOT to me. But anyways, I think I'll first try upping my calories to 1400 and see what happens then. Thanks!

Two-three weeks isn't a plateau. Weight loss is far from linear. And increasing the intensity of your workouts can cause water retention, which masks any losses you may have had the past few weeks, and this is going to happen over and over again as you lose weight, so the earlier you know and accept that, the better it will be for your outlook.

As to the second part of your response here, I'm almost twice your age, five inches shorter and don't work out nearly as much as you do and my maintenance calories are 2450, so no, 1900 is not a lot. Did you calculate your TDEE using the sedentary "desk job" modifier? If so, 1900 sounds about right and a 20% deficit from that would be around 1500. You would also need to eat back those exercise calories, though, or you will just end up burning out. MFP overestimates exercise calories, so maybe start with eating just half of them back, just to ensure you're still in a deficit.

Best of luck to you!