If it's as simple as calories in vs calories out....

jmv7117

How come I didn't lose weight when I ate 945 calories? And here's the real kicker: I had weight loss surgery that makes me only absorb 20% fat, 60% protein, 60% complex carbs. So my absorbed calories was closer to 400. And I gained a pound. This is the regular thing for me - eat less than 1,600, I gain or don't lose. Eat more, I lose. I see people post all the damn time that it's as simple as calories in VS calories out. My BMR is 2,000 cals a day. So if I eat less than 2,000 absorbable calories, by that statement I should lose weight. But I do not when I drop too low.

Soooo....maybe it's not that simple. Just sayin'

I know that others stress the calories in vs calories out but I personally feel there is more to it than that. In theory, if two people the same height, weight, gender and age eat the same calorie deficit then they should lose the same amount of weight at the same rate. In reality, that is not what happens so it is a bit more complicated.

Wonderob

I love it when people (usually men) say that ****. They just think because it works for them it works for everybody. If it were that simple then why can some people eat whatever they want, not exercise, and not gain?

When my sister in law goes shopping she will park outside the shop, spend a few hours casually browsing the clothes rails, standing still on the escalator whilst it takes her to the different levels, browsing some more

When my wife goes shopping she will walk to the shops, up and down the high street quickly in and out of shops, up and down
the stairs, hardly standing still all morning, carry her shopping back home
At the family barbeque my sister in law will say to her "It's not fair, neither of us exercise, yet you can eat what you want and stay slim, whereas I can't"

OliviaCeed

AMEN AND HALLELUJAH!

Nastiness is just that.... nastiness. And I'm not surprised at all that it was taken that way, because that's what it was. When getting pummeled, sometimes you pummel back. I might have done the same.

You are absolutely correct.

OliviaCeed

AMEN AND HALLELUJAH!

Nastiness is just that.... nastiness. And I'm not surprised at all that it was taken that way, because that's what it was. When getting pummeled, sometimes you pummel back. I might have done the same.

You are absolutely correct.

Mr_Knight

"...DS patients require lifelong and extensive blood tests to check for deficiencies in life critical vitamins and minerals. Without proper follow up tests and lifetime supplementation RNY and DS patients can become ill. This follow-up care is non-optional and must continue for as long as the patient lives."

Wonderob

How come I didn't lose weight when I ate 945 calories? And here's the real kicker: I had weight loss surgery that makes me only absorb 20% fat, 60% protein, 60% complex carbs. So my absorbed calories was closer to 400. And I gained a pound. This is the regular thing for me - eat less than 1,600, I gain or don't lose. Eat more, I lose. I see people post all the damn time that it's as simple as calories in VS calories out. My BMR is 2,000 cals a day. So if I eat less than 2,000 absorbable calories, by that statement I should lose weight. But I do not when I drop too low.

Soooo....maybe it's not that simple. Just sayin'

I know that others stress the calories in vs calories out but I personally feel there is more to it than that. In theory, if two people the same height, weight, gender and age eat the same calorie deficit then they should lose the same amount of weight at the same rate. In reality, that is not what happens so it is a bit more complicated.

I don't. The only complex part is the TDEE measurement. It's really just a guess - it's hard to gauge how calories you are burning throughout your daily activities

sahkajs

Are you exercising?

OliviaCeed

I apologize to everyone and the original poster ... I'm rather new at reply blogging in MFP. So it looks like my replies to commentary hasn't gone to individual commentator I was responding to.

Thank you all for providing links.

To those who are obviously mean-spirited in their replies... what can I say. You are mean-spirited.

To those who made comment that this member's situation is unique to her, you are quite right. And it is indeed professionals that should provide her with the advice that could help her out. If not from her current health-care team, then from others.

To those who show phenomenal weight loss - KAPLAH! (Yes, I'm a nerd. Looks GREAT on me.)

To OP... I feel for you. Still, I think you're doing a great job in your lifestyle changes. You made the best decisions you could make at the time you made them. And while it may not seem to you that it's all that you had hoped it to be, give it time. Lots of time. For most of us, the weight didn't come on overnight, so there's no need to expect it will come off overnight either. You have all my best hopes and wishes for sustained success now and to come.

Now... how do I delete all those mispositioned comments?

defauIt

I don't really have anything to link it to you, I saw it on an obesity documentary on discovery channel. Just by Google search I turned up a bunch of articles on it, not sure how you could go about finding where it was published since it was done in Switzerland.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/233672.php

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/01/skinny-gene-discovered-by-scientists/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-genes-skinny-idUSTRE77U4NK20110831

A few major issues with their study:

1) They are looking at a genetic duplication that effects 0.05% of people and using a sample size of just under 100,000 people which means the group they're looking at is under 50 people. Given the ridiculously small sample size this gives us, they would need to be extremely careful over sample size biases which could effect their data. The fact it's so rare means a single community probably had the majority of the instances of that genetic duplication which would cause socio-economic effects to be heavily amplified and cause the data to be skewed in one direction.

2) The numbers they're reporting are highly sensationalized. Men with the duplication are 23 times more likely to be underweight? Given that very few people are underweight (BMI <18.5), a single extra person in the group who is underweight would massively skew the percentages and create these seemingly massive differences between groups. Without being able to see their error bars or whether or not they properly applied a Bonferroni correction factor, I can't really say if their results are valid in any way.

3) Did you read the links? Here's a quick excerpt: "The research also showed a quarter of people with the duplication had microcephaly, a condition in which the head and brain are abnormally small and which is linked to neurological defects and shorter life expectancy." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2032519/It-really-genes-Skinny-people-overdose-chromosomes-lead-underweight.html#ixzz346PX9rM9)

So we have a sample size of around 50 people and around 13 of them have a genetic abnormality which causes physically deformations which would skew their BMI down? Ah, so the secret to being underweight is simply being born with a severe physical deformity which effects your head, brain, life expectancy and comes with a higher incidence of neurological defects. Awesome - where can I sign up?

Also, here's another link about an interview with the guy who published this paper : http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/sep/11/thinness-lean-gene-philippe-froguel

Here's a quick excerpt -

Question: People often explain that they are underweight or overweight because of their "metabolism"…

Answer: In our studies of obesity and leanness we haven't found a single example of a gene that modifies metabolism. Most people who are thin don't each much, but they don't realise it. They eat for show, but when they are alone they don't each much, and it is exactly the opposite for the obese.

So the genes don't even have an effect on metabolism.

1princesswarrior

Let me rephrase. It is impossible for me to gorge myself because I don't eat big portions of anything that doesn't have lots of protein. I can't waste the space. That's why I don't eat lots of veggies....not enough protein. I've had some homemade guac, but only 2 tablespoons with about 5 pork rinds (no carbs) and I couldn't eat anymore. I don't eat that often because it's not dense enough in protein, even though the pork rinds have some. I have to eat lots and lots of meat and cheese. I actually kinda hate it. I miss veggies.

Just catching up so forgive me if I'm repeating this. But you say you can't gorge yourself or eat carbs, eating all the time, etc. Yet when I look through your diary I see 2 slices of pizza, coffee with heavy cream, eating 3 times a day, and nothing is weighed. I don't have anything against the food you're eating but you are not eating what you are telling everyone in this forum you are eating and a lot of the foods you are eating are processed and full of sodium but you are not tracking that.

Yet the one person who says you may be eating more than you think you called stupid and an idiot.

Think what you want of me but the only way to really know what you are eating is to weigh all of your solid foods and measure your liquids.

And not everybody loses weight at the same rate so you may not fall into the norm as far as weight loss. It sounds like part of you regrets having the surgery and I'm sorry if that's the case.

1princesswarrior

Yawn. Saturated fats are not bad. Considering everyone in the DS community has told me on multiple occasions that I need to eat LESS lean meats and more fatty meats, more butter, more hwc, even suggested coffee with butter/coconut oil in it. But I don't like coffee. I have trouble getting the 150g a day in, and almost never make it, but I usually get close enough.
Burgers without buns are perfectly acceptable.
I keep my carbs low, my protein high, and my fat high. And that means I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing.
Meats and fat sources will be my primary food for the rest of my life. Vegetables are only for when I've met my protein for the day.
I take vitamins.
What's healthy for you is not healthy for me any longer.

You are using your macros as an excuse to not make healthier choices in food. I'm sorry but you can buy 20% fat ground beef and fry it up in butter or oil at home and that would be much better than McDonald's or Taco Bell. And I'm betting more protein because it doesn't have any added stuff.

And the processed lunch meat you are eating on a regular basis, why not have a small chicken breast or turkey breast instead? More protein for the same amount of food but it takes a little more work. You could do like a lot of people do on here and make your food on Sunday for the week, weigh it out and put it in containers in the freezer. Then it's just defrost and go.

Or protein shakes using whey protein, those are pretty easy as well.

If you want this surgery to work long term you need to change your eating habits well. And I do know several people who've had WLS and all but one have gained all the weight back because they didn't change their eating habits.