I really like this article.

neanderthin

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12396160

In this study they compared caloric intake from 10 female registered dietitians and 10 women of comparable weight who were not dietitians and the study compared the energy intake obtained from 7-day food records with energy expenditure measured over the corresponding 7-day period using doubly labeled water.

Participants were told that the goal was to record food intake as accurately as possible, because it would be compared with the simultaneous measurement of energy expenditure determined by doubly labeled water.

Dietitians underreported their food intake by an average of 223 calories per day, while the non-dietitians underreported their intake by an average of 429 calories per day.

Justact1

I also read this article and agree for the most part. I also, however agree that if you are logging everything correctly and not seeing the progression as you think you should or, in my case, no progression at all, it is time to visit a doctor. I have been actively logging everything that passes my lips (via scale and measuring cups, as well as liquids, mostly water, but the occasional coffee drink as well, which can/will pack on the calories if you let them),for close to a year, however, was seeing very little progression. I was between 1200-1500 calories a day and was doing weights, zumba, kickboxing as well as running and not losing. Well, went to my regular doctor (who told me eat less, exercise more), which could not be done without spending 8 hours a day in the gym, and then eventually found a chiropractor who also dealt with nutrition and weight. Anyway, after a round of blood work and 2 weeks, I was down 17 pounds. Turns out I had a hormonal imbalance which was causing me to hang on to the weight. Once we got that figured out, it was all down hill.

DanaDark

Too many people think they are special snowflakes.

It is true everyone's metabolism varies based on MANY factors... but that is mostly minor. Some people may have hormonal problems due to the way they've been eating (or not been eating) which will make things quite difficult.

Everyone should read this.

And of course, there are the cases where someone has something medically wrong, which is the exception, not the rule.

MarshaMole

bump

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

Is there anything to the idea that stress, such as over-training combined with a calorie deficit, can halt fat loss, as in this article:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html


We do see a lot of people who are exercising a lot, or at least what seems like a lot to a lightweight like me, and who are eating 1200 calories/not eating back their exercise calories. I always wonder if the stress on the body could be the problem.

BurtHuttz

I think AT happens, it's just to a varying degree.
How do you know for a fact that her intake measurement was accurate if you don't mind me asking.

I know her personally. She can eyeball the difference between 18 and 20 grams of ice cream. She's a former biology professor and laboratory research assistant.

Edited to clarify: It's a combination of personality type, intellect, and a distinct powerful set of life-long concerns regarding this issue in particular.

DPernet

I think AT happens, it's just to a varying degree.
How do you know for a fact that her intake measurement was accurate if you don't mind me asking.

I know her personally. She can eyeball the difference between 18 and 20 grams of ice cream. She's a former biology professor and laboratory research assistant.

and you were doing so well until you said 'eyeball' :drinker: :laugh:

BurtHuttz

and you were doing so well until you said 'eyeball' :drinker: :laugh:

Yes, yes, how can one see mass. You know what I mean! :grumble: :laugh:

a778c466

Bump so I can read later.

Izzwoz

Hmm, not sure. 600 years ago, there would have been a blog stating all the arguments for why the earth really is flat.

I really am special.

RamoZimm

Makes sense although now I have issues with Mr Rogers who always insisted I WAS a special snowflake!

BurtHuttz

My anecdotal friend example is just an example. The reason that I think adaptive thermogenesis is a likely culprit is because of the sheer quantity of people I've seen on MFP who do not lose @1200 and start losing when they increase their calories.

Granted my observations are hardly a valid study but I think that measurement error is unrelated to consumption - if they measured incorrectly @1200 they wouldn't begin measuring correctly all of a sudden @1800 intake.

If one is consuming below ones' BMR, then one should see loss, assuming consumption and BMR are accurate figures. In so many instances we see folks consuming below what you might derive their BMR to be, to the extent that either BMR figures from online calculators are routinely overestimating by 25% at least, or people who measure 1200 but consume their BMR at 1600 would make a similar measuring error when they increase to 1700 or 1800 - and see loss - when they're actually consuming 2400 (holding that their measurement error is roughly consistent.)

This is all conjecture: I resist the temptation to imagine that our bodies are simple linear algebraic equations; as evidenced by the lethargy, cold, etc one feels when one is undernourished, the body is dynamically adapting its energy utilization to what is provided. Beyond a certain consumption excess energy is stored as fat. In an optimal range, fat is burnt for fuel. Below that optimal range, fat is not burnt for fuel but you see adaptive thermogenesis. Beneath that zone is where actual starvation occurs and the fat loss is more pronounced.

ladyraven68

yes, I like this one too.

Coincidentally, I posted the link in the 1200, VLCD, EM2WL thread earlier, but I think it got lost (ignored) amongst the arguing.

and that's a shame as they are probably the people that needed it most.

SideSteel

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12396160

In this study they compared caloric intake from 10 female registered dietitians and 10 women of comparable weight who were not dietitians and the study compared the energy intake obtained from 7-day food records with energy expenditure measured over the corresponding 7-day period using doubly labeled water.

Participants were told that the goal was to record food intake as accurately as possible, because it would be compared with the simultaneous measurement of energy expenditure determined by doubly labeled water.

Dietitians underreported their food intake by an average of 223 calories per day, while the non-dietitians underreported their intake by an average of 429 calories per day.

Thanks!! I've been looking for this exact study. You rule.

neanderthin

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12396160

In this study they compared caloric intake from 10 female registered dietitians and 10 women of comparable weight who were not dietitians and the study compared the energy intake obtained from 7-day food records with energy expenditure measured over the corresponding 7-day period using doubly labeled water.

Participants were told that the goal was to record food intake as accurately as possible, because it would be compared with the simultaneous measurement of energy expenditure determined by doubly labeled water.

Dietitians underreported their food intake by an average of 223 calories per day, while the non-dietitians underreported their intake by an average of 429 calories per day.

Thanks!! I've been looking for this exact study. You rule.

I thought you'd like that.

LoraF83

Thank you SS for spreading the knowledge :happy:

Sarauk2sf

My anecdotal friend example is just an example. The reason that I think adaptive thermogenesis is a likely culprit is because of the sheer quantity of people I've seen on MFP who do not lose @1200 and start losing when they increase their calories.

Granted my observations are hardly a valid study but I think that measurement error is unrelated to consumption - if they measured incorrectly @1200 they wouldn't begin measuring correctly all of a sudden @1800 intake.

If one is consuming below ones' BMR, then one should see loss, assuming consumption and BMR are accurate figures. In so many instances we see folks consuming below what you might derive their BMR to be, to the extent that either BMR figures from online calculators are routinely overestimating by 25% at least, or people who measure 1200 but consume their BMR at 1600 would make a similar measuring error when they increase to 1700 or 1800 - and see loss - when they're actually consuming 2400 (holding that their measurement error is roughly consistent.)

This is all conjecture: I resist the temptation to imagine that our bodies are simple linear algebraic equations; as evidenced by the lethargy, cold, etc one feels when one is undernourished, the body is dynamically adapting its energy utilization to what is provided. Beyond a certain consumption excess energy is stored as fat. In an optimal range, fat is burnt for fuel. Below that optimal range, fat is not burnt for fuel but you see adaptive thermogenesis. Beneath that zone is where actual starvation occurs and the fat loss is more pronounced.

I find that when people start getting questioned about the accuracy of logging, much of the time they are not weighing their food or have cheat meals/days much of the time.

BurtHuttz

I find that when people start getting questioned about the accuracy of logging, much of the time they are not weighing their food or have cheat meals/days much of the time.

I could believe that the propensity to cheat declines and accuracy of logging increases when one is not starving themselves at 1200 calories. Perhaps I underestimate our capacity for self-deception . . . especially relative to obesity.