Scientific Approach

Glucocorticoid

Weight loss is never linear and there could be a number of reasons for your plateau.

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?

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?

I don't know what you are talking about.. i'm not even the original person you were attacking. I edited my post to add more information so that others can understand. Why are you so dead set on attacking anyone in this thread with a differing view than your own? If you don't want to understand the science of our bodies, that's fine, but don't call out other people for making stuff up when you can't even take the time to research it yourself.

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?

I don't know what you are talking about.. i'm not even the original person you were attacking. I edited my post to add more information so that others can understand. Why are you so dead set on attacking anyone in this thread with a differing view than your own? If you don't want to understand the science of our bodies, that's fine, but don't call out other people for making stuff up when you can't even take the time to research it yourself.

Then once again tell me how a PSMF works or tell me how this was even possible, because the person had zero fat intake and didn't "trick" his body into burning fat. If you're going to tell someone to research something you should prob make sure you aren't living in a fantasy world and spewing nonsense

382 day fast, lost 276lbs

Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days' duration. Postgrad Med J. 1973 March; 49(569): 203–209.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

digitalsteel

calorie restriction is not the same as zero calories. Your body will not burn fat untill its glucose stores are gone.

Bobby_Clerici

No - :yawn:
I take a simple approach.
Eat Less - Move More
It's very simple but hard. And I have found that most people seeking to complicate this usually have something to sell like Herbalife, Shakology, beach body coaching or some other pyramid business.
BEWARE!

Bentley2718

The words "scientific approach" in this context make me cringe more than a little. However, if you want to figure out what works for you in terms of weight loss (and what doesn't), then changing only one variable at a time would make the most sense. As you point out, if you make lots of changes at once, it is difficult to tell what works, what produces no change, and what is counter-productive. So yes, I think you would be better off changing one variable at a time.

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?

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?

I don't know what you are talking about.. i'm not even the original person you were attacking. I edited my post to add more information so that others can understand. Why are you so dead set on attacking anyone in this thread with a differing view than your own? If you don't want to understand the science of our bodies, that's fine, but don't call out other people for making stuff up when you can't even take the time to research it yourself.

Then once again tell me how a PSMF works or tell me how this was even possible, because the person had zero fat intake and didn't "trick" his body into burning fat. If you're going to tell someone to research something you should prob make sure you aren't living in a fantasy world and spewing nonsense

382 day fast, lost 276lbs

Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days' duration. Postgrad Med J. 1973 March; 49(569): 203–209.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

What? Did you even read this study. The patient started at over 400 lbs and went on a supervised year fast, he was supplemented by doctors with all kinds of nutrients and IV's. In the later parts of the fast, he was have fainting spells and other issues as well. You are literally comparing apples vs. super heroes here. There is nothing in this study that could possibly be used to prove anything for or against a ketogenic diet. This was an extreme example and included fasting, which is not a diet at all.

That's why you first have to get into ketosis, then you lose weight slowly, but steadily. If you cut out the fat, you will suffer immense cravings for carbs, be in a state (literally) of starving, and your body will consume its muscle. You will of course lose if you stop eating fat and carbs, but it's going to be far more unpleasant and far less healthy than it needs to be.

psychobabble78

I do think you need to look at WHAT you are eating, especially if you are trying to:
a. reduce calories
b. increase calories
c. increase activity
d. a combination of the above.

remember: 1g of protein or carbs = 4 cals while 1g of fat=9 cals

your body requires carbs to fuel itself, if you get too many carbs for the fuel it needs your body will store as fat.

if you get too few carbs to fuel your activity levels your body will burn the stored fat as fuel.

I have tried so many things before now, and am honestly finding that this principle is working for me, I have recued my carb intake to 1/3 of my calories and increased my protein to 50%. I have more energy, Always feel satiated and best of all I am no longer eating for the sake of it, craving carbs and especially not craving the bad carbs - white bread, pasta rice etc...My advie would be to play around with the proportions of protein v carbs until you find a balance that supplies enough energy to increase your activity but continue with weight loss...

Acg67

calorie restriction is not the same as zero calories. Your body will not burn fat untill its glucose stores are gone.

So impossible to burn fat if you have any glycogen stored, correct?

There is nothing in this study that could possibly be used to prove anything for or against a ketogenic diet.

Which was never in contention, what was in contention was;

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 l

also http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/do-i-need-to-eat-more-fat-to-burn-fat-qa.html

Glucocorticoid

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?

I don't know what you are talking about.. i'm not even the original person you were attacking. I edited my post to add more information so that others can understand. Why are you so dead set on attacking anyone in this thread with a differing view than your own? If you don't want to understand the science of our bodies, that's fine, but don't call out other people for making stuff up when you can't even take the time to research it yourself.

Then once again tell me how a PSMF works or tell me how this was even possible, because the person had zero fat intake and didn't "trick" his body into burning fat. If you're going to tell someone to research something you should prob make sure you aren't living in a fantasy world and spewing nonsense

382 day fast, lost 276lbs

Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days' duration. Postgrad Med J. 1973 March; 49(569): 203–209.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

What? Did you even read this study. The patient started at over 400 lbs and went on a supervised year fast, he was supplemented by doctors with all kinds of nutrients and IV's. In the later parts of the fast, he was have fainting spells and other issues as well. You are literally comparing apples vs. super heroes here. There is nothing in this study that could possibly be used to prove anything for or against a ketogenic diet. This was an extreme example and included fasting, which is not a diet at all.

That's why you first have to get into ketosis, then you lose weight slowly, but steadily. If you cut out the fat, you will suffer immense cravings for carbs, be in a state (literally) of starving, and your body will consume its muscle. You will of course lose if you stop eating fat and carbs, but it's going to be far more unpleasant and far less healthy than it needs to be.

So to be clear, are you saying PMSFs are "unhealthy" unless you're 400 lbs? What about the thousands of people that use it to to help their efforts of reaching a low BF%? Also, how will your body consume its own muscle when you are doing an appropriate PMSF? One of the main focuses of a PMSF is to consume adequate protein so that does not happen (exercise plays a role here too). And how is fat intake related to any of that?

LesterBlackstone

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

we trick the body into burning that fat by EATING more fat

I think it is biologicaly impossible to exersize more and eat less.

Your body will not burn fat untill its glucose stores are gone.

Pure comedic gold.

thebaconbeast

Well every month or other month, I get tests done to see the levels of amino acids, glucose and ions in my blood, then I try to adjust my diet if I need more or less of something.

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?

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?

I don't know what you are talking about.. i'm not even the original person you were attacking. I edited my post to add more information so that others can understand. Why are you so dead set on attacking anyone in this thread with a differing view than your own? If you don't want to understand the science of our bodies, that's fine, but don't call out other people for making stuff up when you can't even take the time to research it yourself.

Then once again tell me how a PSMF works or tell me how this was even possible, because the person had zero fat intake and didn't "trick" his body into burning fat. If you're going to tell someone to research something you should prob make sure you aren't living in a fantasy world and spewing nonsense

382 day fast, lost 276lbs

Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days' duration. Postgrad Med J. 1973 March; 49(569): 203–209.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

What? Did you even read this study. The patient started at over 400 lbs and went on a supervised year fast, he was supplemented by doctors with all kinds of nutrients and IV's. In the later parts of the fast, he was have fainting spells and other issues as well. You are literally comparing apples vs. super heroes here. There is nothing in this study that could possibly be used to prove anything for or against a ketogenic diet. This was an extreme example and included fasting, which is not a diet at all.

That's why you first have to get into ketosis, then you lose weight slowly, but steadily. If you cut out the fat, you will suffer immense cravings for carbs, be in a state (literally) of starving, and your body will consume its muscle. You will of course lose if you stop eating fat and carbs, but it's going to be far more unpleasant and far less healthy than it needs to be.

So to be clear, are you saying PMSFs are "unhealthy" unless you're 400 lbs? What about the thousands of people that use it to to help their efforts of reaching a low BF%? Also, how will your body consume its own muscle when you are doing an appropriate PMSF? One of the main focuses of a PMSF is to consume adequate protein so that does not happen (exercise plays a role here too). And how is fat intake related to any of that?

What? I never said anything at all about PMSF, I said that the study was based on a 400lb person. He was trying to prove something about a ketogenic diet by using a study that is extreme and not even a sustainable diet without 24/7 medical supervision. You didn't just put words into my mouth, you put an entire paragraph. As far as I understand, the F in PMSF stands for fasting, and once again, you can not compare fasting to a sustainable NUTRITIONAL DIET. (P.S In my opinion, that is an extremely unhealthy method of weight loss and should only be done under medical supervision with superb tracking of health and goals. There are plenty of experiences on the web about those who lost fat, muscle and even their hair on a protein only diet.)

Glucocorticoid

A PSMF is a ketogenic diet. PSMFs focus on sparing muscle, by definition (protein sparing modified fast). And I didn't put words in your mouth, I asked you to clarify. PSMFs and ketogenic diets aren't for everyone, but that doesn't mean they cannot serve as a valuable tool for certain individuals, when done correctly. The fact that you've read about experiences of muscle loss is meaningless because that can happen on any diet if you do enough things incorrectly. And I can point you to countless folks who have had the opposite experience. If it's your opinion that it's "unhealthy" (what does that mean anyway?), then that's fine, but your previous posts came off as factual and had many vague incorrect statements.

Bobby_Clerici

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

we trick the body into burning that fat by EATING more fat

I think it is biologicaly impossible to exersize more and eat less.

Your body will not burn fat untill its glucose stores are gone.

Wow... rubber lips on a woodpecker. :drinker:

Anayalata

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

we trick the body into burning that fat by EATING more fat

I think it is biologicaly impossible to exersize more and eat less.

Your body will not burn fat untill its glucose stores are gone.

Pure comedic gold.

Agreed.

BaconMD

this: http://www.fat2fitradio.com/2008/10/fat-2-fit-show-45-breaking-weight-loss-plateaus/

and this: http://www.fat2fitradio.com/2012/02/fat-2-fit-139-breaking-those-nasty-weight-loss-plateaus/

also this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0IWHxvswLk

texastango

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.

. PM me. I'm answering from my phone and you were referred to me by a mutual friend. I'll give you the science part of it. The information you seek requires more information.