Scientific Approach

neverstray

Has anyone ever taken a very sciendtific approach to their weight loss?

What I mean is, I see here a lot of quick decisions and changing and trying this and that. But, I'm curious if anyone has applied a very slow and methodic method and finding something that works well for them.

I've been at a plateau for a very long time. And, I keep trying different things, but when I decide that what I am currently doing isn't working, I change everything all at the same time, so I always lose the basline and then I have no more reference point. I'm wondering if a better approach is just to start, then wait 6 weeks, even if the weight goes up. Then at the 6 week point, if results are null, change one variable (lower/increase cals by 100, or increase exercise a little). Wait 6 weeks and see. Then if no result, change something again. But, keep tracking the changes so I am sure not to go back to that.

Has anyone done this. It is starting to appeal to me a lot, because the way I keep trying to change things up just doesn't seem to work at all. I'm wondering if a very slow and methodic method would be better and maybe I would get somewhere with it and learn as I go. the only problem is it seems like it could take years. I'm not in a hurry, I'm just determined to figure out whats going on.

spartangirl79

I'm doing this right now.

For YEARS I followed "calories in, calories out, cardio and strength, clean eating & treats in moderation."

However, due to some medical junk, I discovered this method would not work for me, despite what the books and experts all said (I was an "expert" too in that I was a personal trainer, weight management consultant and fitness boot camp owner and operator).

I'm trying a new approach for eight full weeks and hoping to see a significant difference.

If I don't, I'm pretty much at a loss (no pun intended).

Good luck...

digitalsteel

lol, i usualy take a very scientific approach to everything. which usualy leads to "why do you have to make things so complicated".

However that scientific aproach has lead me to my success in weight loss and becoming healthy.

rose313

I think I have used a scientific approach for calculating my maintenance calories. I figured out my maintenance calorie level using trial and error and not using an online calculator. Turns out the MFP calculator was right on the spot whereas the million other online calculators estimated WAY over.

HealthyBodySickMind

I can't speak to a weight loss perspective because I've never tried, but I try to be very methodical to my maintenance. The one part I haven't resolved is Heisenberg’s question.

I think you answered your own question in your post: "I'm not in a hurry, I'm just determined to figure out whats going on." If you are determined to know what's going on then you must take the scientific approach. However DOE might help you reach your conclusion (and goal) faster, by allowing you to change more than one variable at a time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments DOE also allows you to see interaction of multiple variables.

Acg67

lol, i usualy take a very scientific approach to everything. which usualy leads to "why do you have to make things so complicated".

However that scientific aproach has lead me to my success in weight loss and becoming healthy.

Is that what lead you to Taubes, since he's so scientific?

rmartin72

I think I have used a scientific approach for calculating my maintenance calories. I figured out my maintenance calorie level using trial and error and not using an online calculator. Turns out the MFP calculator was right on the spot whereas the million other online calculators estimated WAY over.

I honestly agree with you rose313

vade43113

I have once, and people yelled at me...

Though, my scientific study revolved around proving HgC wrong... Keeping to the diet, just replacing the drop/injections with cups of coffee though out the day and it worked for the 3 or so weeks I did it. I got off of it cause of the number of people yelling at me, that it was bad.... I didn't get a full month study

neverstray

I was reading an online article that said that when you plateau, you have one of two options 1) lower your calories (but not below 1200), or 2) increase your activity.

It's so simple, but I actually have been making it way more complicated.

So, I was thinking of just continuing exactly what I am doing, and every 6 weeks, take off 100 calories until I see the scale move. I know it's not just the scale, but if I could also see my waist size decrease or whatever. When I say scale, I mean all those different variables (inches, etc).

bcampbell54

I think that's why most people are here.
Most.
Certainly not all.
And while I have not resolved the Heisenberg principle, I can say with certainty that the Observer Phenomenon definitley comes into play.

casperuk

I use pure maths.

I eat less calories than I need, I lose weight. Its as simple as that. The other bits and pieces surrounding that i.e. vitamins etc have to be watched, I take a suppliment at the moment until I get to a weight I want to maintain, then I will eat a balanced and healthy diet. I am eating healthier now. Just not perfect. BUt end of the day, I need x amount of calories to live. I eat less than that. I have lost near 50lb doing it.

neverstray

You guys are way over my head. I have no idea what you are talking about. But, thanks for the support.

digitalsteel

I can't speak to a weight loss perspective because I've never tried, but I try to be very methodical to my maintenance. The one part I haven't resolved is Heisenberg’s question.

do you mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

If so, its not realy a question. More an idea that when measuring a particle we need to take into account that light itself alters the measurments. Therefore, we can never actualy see what the measurement is supposed to be, only asume what it is based on the math. - more or less.

Beezil

Science is pretty reliable when used correctly. I would definitely go with the tried and trusted methods over fads, rumors, myths, and hearsay. I would say if you're going to make a change in your diet / exercise routine, trying it for a month would be long enough to determine whether or not the change is making any impact.

So many variables in play though, when it comes to diet / exercise and losing weight. It really is simple, maybe not so easy, but simple. Just eat less and move more.

neverstray

I use pure maths.

I eat less calories than I need, I lose weight. Its as simple as that. The other bits and pieces surrounding that i.e. vitamins etc have to be watched, I take a suppliment at the moment until I get to a weight I want to maintain, then I will eat a balanced and healthy diet. I am eating healthier now. Just not perfect. BUt end of the day, I need x amount of calories to live. I eat less than that. I have lost near 50lb doing it.

Good for you. Been there done that. It all stopped one day. Doesn't matter what I do. So, now I'm left trying to figure out the next step. it's not as easy as 1-2-3. Eventually, everyone hits the plateau that stops them in their tracks. How to go beyond is what's got me stumped. Might be less calories, but might not. Been there done that too. Now, I'm trying more and seeing if that works for me. Most people say that's wrong, but there are a ton of people over on the eat more to lose more site that swear it works, so I'm trying it. If not, then I'll slowly start decreasing calories until I start losing again.

I am ready to face the fact that I may not be willing to do what it takes to get the results I want. I may not be willing to only eat 1300 calories a day or something. I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

digitalsteel

I was reading an online article that said that when you plateau, you have one of two options 1) lower your calories (but not below 1200), or 2) increase your activity.

It's so simple, but I actually have been making it way more complicated.

So, I was thinking of just continuing exactly what I am doing, and every 6 weeks, take off 100 calories until I see the scale move. I know it's not just the scale, but if I could also see my waist size decrease or whatever. When I say scale, I mean all those different variables (inches, etc).

I think it is biologicaly impossible to exersize more and eat less. As you can not run a machine harder without more fuel. You need the nutrition to keep your body functioning properly, and activity should be to increase your ability to remove glucose from your blood so your body can use its fat stores as energy.

Acg67

I was reading an online article that said that when you plateau, you have one of two options 1) lower your calories (but not below 1200), or 2) increase your activity.

It's so simple, but I actually have been making it way more complicated.

So, I was thinking of just continuing exactly what I am doing, and every 6 weeks, take off 100 calories until I see the scale move. I know it's not just the scale, but if I could also see my waist size decrease or whatever. When I say scale, I mean all those different variables (inches, etc).

I think it is biologicaly impossible to exersize more and eat less. As you can not run a machine harder without more fuel. You need the nutrition to keep your body functioning properly, and activity should be to increase your ability to remove glucose from your blood so your body can use its fat stores as energy.

You already said in the same paragraph, fat can be used as energy. So why would it be impossible to eat less and exercise more?

Jay_Jay_

lol, i usualy take a very scientific approach to everything. which usualy leads to "why do you have to make things so complicated".

However that scientific aproach has lead me to my success in weight loss and becoming healthy.

Is that what lead you to Taubes, since he's so scientific?

No idea what this is in reference to (some kind of personal dispute?), but if you're talking about Gary Taubes, he writes about one of the only diets out there that are even based on real biology and science. I would guess, since he is a science reporter, that he writes about things that are, "so scientific." He doesn't actually come up with the science himself.

neverstray

I was reading an online article that said that when you plateau, you have one of two options 1) lower your calories (but not below 1200), or 2) increase your activity.

It's so simple, but I actually have been making it way more complicated.

So, I was thinking of just continuing exactly what I am doing, and every 6 weeks, take off 100 calories until I see the scale move. I know it's not just the scale, but if I could also see my waist size decrease or whatever. When I say scale, I mean all those different variables (inches, etc).

I think it is biologicaly impossible to exersize more and eat less. As you can not run a machine harder without more fuel. You need the nutrition to keep your body functioning properly, and activity should be to increase your ability to remove glucose from your blood so your body can use its fat stores as energy.

Not what I said. I said, the article said you have to either increase activity or decrease calories.

Look, you haven't hit a plateau yet, so it's hard for you to understand.

rodneyderrick

Has anyone ever taken a very sciendtific approach to their weight loss?

What I mean is, I see here a lot of quick decisions and changing and trying this and that. But, I'm curious if anyone has applied a very slow and methodic method and finding something that works well for them.

I've been at a plateau for a very long time. And, I keep trying different things, but when I decide that what I am currently doing isn't working, I change everything all at the same time, so I always lose the basline and then I have no more reference point. I'm wondering if a better approach is just to start, then wait 6 weeks, even if the weight goes up. Then at the 6 week point, if results are null, change one variable (lower/increase cals by 100, or increase exercise a little). Wait 6 weeks and see. Then if no result, change something again. But, keep tracking the changes so I am sure not to go back to that.

Has anyone done this. It is starting to appeal to me a lot, because the way I keep trying to change things up just doesn't seem to work at all. I'm wondering if a very slow and methodic method would be better and maybe I would get somewhere with it and learn as I go. the only problem is it seems like it could take years. I'm not in a hurry, I'm just determined to figure out whats going on.

Yes. I think the majority of people in this for the long term are looking at the scientific method of weight-loss. Since you're suffering through a plateau right now, I think there is something amiss in your diet. I purchased a series of measuring cups, a food scale, and stopped drinking drinks that claimed zero calories. I drink only water most days of the week, and try to never drink soda pop: diet or not. I measure my foods, and made sure I developed a good understanding of what a portion sized looked like. It depressed me at first, because a portion really isn't much at all. In addition, I only record 90 percent of my workout routines, because I would rather understate them than overstate them. Anyway, that's what I'm doing, but I'm more into maintaining these days.

neverstray

lol, i usualy take a very scientific approach to everything. which usualy leads to "why do you have to make things so complicated".

However that scientific aproach has lead me to my success in weight loss and becoming healthy.

Is that what lead you to Taubes, since he's so scientific?

No idea what this is in reference to (some kind of personal dispute?), but if you're talking about Gary Taubes, he writes about one of the only diets out there that are even based on real biology and science. I would guess, since he is a science reporter, that he writes about things that are, "so scientific." He doesn't actually come up with the science himself.

Jay Jay, this has been highly disputed and his papers have been subject to being based on pseudo-science, and not really fact based. He based his theory on some data that was proven wrong by the folks that made the data, but now he wont fess up. that's the story as I understand it. I could give 2 sh*ts, I'm just giving you some background as I understand it.

Jay_Jay_

I was reading an online article that said that when you plateau, you have one of two options 1) lower your calories (but not below 1200), or 2) increase your activity.

It's so simple, but I actually have been making it way more complicated.

So, I was thinking of just continuing exactly what I am doing, and every 6 weeks, take off 100 calories until I see the scale move. I know it's not just the scale, but if I could also see my waist size decrease or whatever. When I say scale, I mean all those different variables (inches, etc).

I think it is biologicaly impossible to exersize more and eat less. As you can not run a machine harder without more fuel. You need the nutrition to keep your body functioning properly, and activity should be to increase your ability to remove glucose from your blood so your body can use its fat stores as energy.

You already said in the same paragraph, fat can be used as energy. So why would it be impossible to eat less and exercise more?

You really need to learn up on biology and how our bodies work, instead of being so hostile on a fitness forum. You can't burn fat unless you have fat to burn. Your body stores fat and it will try and hold onto that fat as long as possible, we trick the body into burning that fat by EATING more fat. If you cut out both carbs and fat, you are cutting out both of the fuels the body can run on. So yes, you can cut out carbs and you can reduce protein, but you need to eat the same amount of fat in energy to make up for the carbs lost.

Think of it like this: Your fat stores are not like a car's fuel tank. Your body doesn't want to drain and burn your stored fat to sustain you the way a car completely empties its fuel tank before refilling. Your body will protest, give you cravings, basically fight you over giving up those fat stores. By eating some fatty food you're giving your body some fuel to burn that is fat, but is not its precious stored fat. You're tricking it into burning fat, and also keeping it from protesting too much. So you get it into that state where it's happily burning fat, and it's happy to burn a little stored fat in order to meet your daily energy needs.

HealthyBodySickMind

I can't speak to a weight loss perspective because I've never tried, but I try to be very methodical to my maintenance. The one part I haven't resolved is Heisenberg’s question.

do you mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

If so, its not realy a question. More an idea that when measuring a particle we need to take into account that light itself alters the measurments. Therefore, we can never actualy see what the measurement is supposed to be, only asume what it is based on the math. - more or less.

No, some other nerd already pointed out that what I really meant was the observer effect, but it's more fun to talk about Heisnenberg. Often the act of measuring changes the measurement, and that comes into play in more than just physics.

digitalsteel

What jay_jay said

neverstray

Has anyone ever taken a very sciendtific approach to their weight loss?

What I mean is, I see here a lot of quick decisions and changing and trying this and that. But, I'm curious if anyone has applied a very slow and methodic method and finding something that works well for them.

I've been at a plateau for a very long time. And, I keep trying different things, but when I decide that what I am currently doing isn't working, I change everything all at the same time, so I always lose the basline and then I have no more reference point. I'm wondering if a better approach is just to start, then wait 6 weeks, even if the weight goes up. Then at the 6 week point, if results are null, change one variable (lower/increase cals by 100, or increase exercise a little). Wait 6 weeks and see. Then if no result, change something again. But, keep tracking the changes so I am sure not to go back to that.

Has anyone done this. It is starting to appeal to me a lot, because the way I keep trying to change things up just doesn't seem to work at all. I'm wondering if a very slow and methodic method would be better and maybe I would get somewhere with it and learn as I go. the only problem is it seems like it could take years. I'm not in a hurry, I'm just determined to figure out whats going on.

Yes. I think the majority of people in this for the long term are looking at the scientific method of weight-loss. Since you're suffering through a plateau right now, I think there is something amiss in your diet. I purchased a series of measuring cups, a food scale, and stopped drinking drinks that claimed zero calories. I drink only water most days of the week, and try to never drink soda pop: diet or not. I measure my foods, and made sure I developed a good understanding of what a portion sized looked like. It depressed me at first, because a portion really isn't much at all. In addition, I only record 90 percent of my workout routines, because I would rather understate them than overstate them. Anyway, that's what I'm doing, but I'm more into maintaining these days.

I'm like a fu*king God. I have every tool, I eat like a God. I do not, nbor have I ever really, drink soda or any of that crap. I really don't eat anything that comes from a package. I eat clean and light. I have occassional overage on weekends, but I usually eat a bit under during the week. I workout hard at least 5 days a week, and also stay somewhat active too.

This isn't new stuff to me. But, the plateau has been hanging on for a year at least, and I'm just getting sick of it. I appreciate the help and analysis, but I'm not really asking for that. i'm asking more about the method of calculating and how you got to the place where things started working for you.

Acg67

I was reading an online article that said that when you plateau, you have one of two options 1) lower your calories (but not below 1200), or 2) increase your activity.

It's so simple, but I actually have been making it way more complicated.

So, I was thinking of just continuing exactly what I am doing, and every 6 weeks, take off 100 calories until I see the scale move. I know it's not just the scale, but if I could also see my waist size decrease or whatever. When I say scale, I mean all those different variables (inches, etc).

I think it is biologicaly impossible to exersize more and eat less. As you can not run a machine harder without more fuel. You need the nutrition to keep your body functioning properly, and activity should be to increase your ability to remove glucose from your blood so your body can use its fat stores as energy.

You already said in the same paragraph, fat can be used as energy. So why would it be impossible to eat less and exercise more?

You really need to learn up on biology and how our bodies work, instead of being so hostile on a fitness forum. You can't burn fat unless you have fat to burn. Your body stores fat and it will try and hold onto that fat as long as possible, we trick the body into burning that fat by EATING more fat. If you cut out both carbs and fat, you are cutting out both of the fuels the body can run on. So yes, you can cut out carbs and you can reduce protein, but you need to eat the same amount of fat in energy to make up for the carbs lost.

Lol que? What would happen on a PSMF then?

neverstray

I can't speak to a weight loss perspective because I've never tried, but I try to be very methodical to my maintenance. The one part I haven't resolved is Heisenberg’s question.

do you mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

If so, its not realy a question. More an idea that when measuring a particle we need to take into account that light itself alters the measurments. Therefore, we can never actualy see what the measurement is supposed to be, only asume what it is based on the math. - more or less.

No, some other nerd already pointed out that what I really meant was the observer effect, but it's more fun to talk about Heisnenberg. Often the act of measuring changes the measurement, and that comes into play in more than just physics.

Great. Now I feel hopeless.

melsinct

I use pure maths.

I eat less calories than I need, I lose weight. Its as simple as that. The other bits and pieces surrounding that i.e. vitamins etc have to be watched, I take a suppliment at the moment until I get to a weight I want to maintain, then I will eat a balanced and healthy diet. I am eating healthier now. Just not perfect. BUt end of the day, I need x amount of calories to live. I eat less than that. I have lost near 50lb doing it.

Good for you. Been there done that. It all stopped one day. Doesn't matter what I do. So, now I'm left trying to figure out the next step. it's not as easy as 1-2-3. Eventually, everyone hits the plateau that stops them in their tracks. How to go beyond is what's got me stumped. Might be less calories, but might not. Been there done that too. Now, I'm trying more and seeing if that works for me. Most people say that's wrong, but there are a ton of people over on the eat more to lose more site that swear it works, so I'm trying it. If not, then I'll slowly start decreasing calories until I start losing again.

I am ready to face the fact that I may not be willing to do what it takes to get the results I want. I may not be willing to only eat 1300 calories a day or something. I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

I agree, it isn't pure math or so may of us wouldn't face plateaus. It is easy to say "it's just math" but come see me when you hit the inevitable plateau. Don't ever get too cocky with weight loss, as your body WILL throw you for a loop at some point. If it doesn't, you are in a small minority who got lucky.

I plateaued for 5 months. Being a scientist by profession and methodical by nature, I kept changing a variable, held it for a few weeks, then changed again when that didn't work. I plateaued when I only had a few pounds left and was eating at a 0.5 lb loss/week. The things I tried (one at a time) were:

Eating at maintenance
Lowering calories to 1 lb/week loss
Increased strength training
Zig zagging calories

Honestly? None of it worked. I ate at maintenance in December through New Year's then went back down to a 0.5 lb/week loss in January and BAM! Hit my goal weight. After all of my methodical calculating and changing variable, I still have no idea what broke the plateau. I guess I just needed to be patient.

Jay_Jay_

lol, i usualy take a very scientific approach to everything. which usualy leads to "why do you have to make things so complicated".

However that scientific aproach has lead me to my success in weight loss and becoming healthy.

Is that what lead you to Taubes, since he's so scientific?

No idea what this is in reference to (some kind of personal dispute?), but if you're talking about Gary Taubes, he writes about one of the only diets out there that are even based on real biology and science. I would guess, since he is a science reporter, that he writes about things that are, "so scientific." He doesn't actually come up with the science himself.

Jay Jay, this has been highly disputed and his papers have been subject to being based on pseudo-science, and not really fact based. He based his theory on some data that was proven wrong by the folks that made the data, but now he wont fess up. that's the story as I understand it. I could give 2 sh*ts, I'm just giving you some background as I understand it.

Yes, like any science, theories can be disputed and argued. It's the reason there is a new health article out every single month saying, "Eggs are bad." "Eggs are good again!" "Eggs will kill your mother!" "Eggs will save baby kittens!" And so forth. Who to trust out there, when even the "experts" (You know, those guys paid by the big corn/farm industry) can't determine if dietary cholesterol is good or bad for you. I speak from personal experience and a loss of 175 lbs when I say the ketogenic diet has worked for me and I personally believe it is sound science that can truly benefit others, especially those like me that were quickly dying with carbohydrates and pyramid based "expert" diets. Good calories, bad calories is not a myth. There are new scientific articles coming out in journals and newspapers saying just that, a calorie is no longer a calorie. We burn calories differently depending on the source of the calories. We were wrong.

HealthyBodySickMind

I can't speak to a weight loss perspective because I've never tried, but I try to be very methodical to my maintenance. The one part I haven't resolved is Heisenberg’s question.

do you mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

If so, its not realy a question. More an idea that when measuring a particle we need to take into account that light itself alters the measurments. Therefore, we can never actualy see what the measurement is supposed to be, only asume what it is based on the math. - more or less.

No, some other nerd already pointed out that what I really meant was the observer effect, but it's more fun to talk about Heisnenberg. Often the act of measuring changes the measurement, and that comes into play in more than just physics.

Great. Now I feel hopeless.

You're not the only one! The only reason I started tracking what I eat and do was so that I could tell the people that liked to tell me how unhealthy I am that, "no actually, I eat x, do x, lift x, etc," and now I find out that that measuring in itself is actually changing how I eat/exercise. And not only that, but it's been wonderful fuel for my naturally neurotic tendencies. My own quest for fitness knowledge will probably kill me.

Acg67

I was reading an online article that said that when you plateau, you have one of two options 1) lower your calories (but not below 1200), or 2) increase your activity.

It's so simple, but I actually have been making it way more complicated.

So, I was thinking of just continuing exactly what I am doing, and every 6 weeks, take off 100 calories until I see the scale move. I know it's not just the scale, but if I could also see my waist size decrease or whatever. When I say scale, I mean all those different variables (inches, etc).

I think it is biologicaly impossible to exersize more and eat less. As you can not run a machine harder without more fuel. You need the nutrition to keep your body functioning properly, and activity should be to increase your ability to remove glucose from your blood so your body can use its fat stores as energy.

You already said in the same paragraph, fat can be used as energy. So why would it be impossible to eat less and exercise more?

Think of it like this: Your fat stores are not like a car's fuel tank. Your body doesn't want to drain and burn your stored fat to sustain you the way a car completely empties its fuel tank before refilling. Your body will protest, give you cravings, basically fight you over giving up those fat stores. By eating some fatty food you're giving your body some fuel to burn that is fat, but is not its precious stored fat. You're tricking it into burning fat, and also keeping it from protesting too much. So you get it into that state where it's happily burning fat, and it's happy to burn a little stored fat in order to meet your daily energy needs.

Lol why edit and make even more stuff up?