Why don't we weight even MORE?
Options
Replies
-
Using my numbers but at a 300 pound weight (weighing 300, do I get bonus points now for using both?) my maintenance is still only 3066. If I was over this for years on end I should have weighed (X3 bonus points?) much more.
Oh, and unrelated but I just wanted to mention that I am a very happy daily weigher and tracker. (I know it is not a real word but I am shooting for 4X now!)0 -
Absolutely no basis for this other than my own thoughts - I think at some point the human body just can't absorb all of calories and passes some of it through. It gets as much as it can and then passes on the rest. For those that get morbidly obese they usually have something going on in their body that isn't right hormonal wise so I think they are exempt from my logic.
This is the same logic I apply to my alcohols consumption. :drinker:0 -
I want to WEIGH less.
My WEIGHT is too high.
Grade four spelling honey. Don't leave it at home.
Get a life...and a better attitude.
To the Op, I must have been eating about 3000 calories a day for quite a few years and my weight ended up not much more than I am now, albeit, more fat than muscle. I never ended up overweight. Genetics, I guess, or maybe because I periodically took up exercising and getting back in control over the years as well.0 -
Using my numbers but at a 300 pound weight (weighing 300, do I get bonus points now for using both?) my maintenance is still only 3066. If I was over this for years on end I should have weighed (X3 bonus points?) much more.
Oh, and unrelated but I just wanted to mention that I am a very happy daily weigher and tracker. (I know it is not a real word but I am shooting for 4X now!)
It's a real word. English is a very flexible language.0 -
Using my numbers but at a 300 pound weight (weighing 300, do I get bonus points now for using both?) my maintenance is still only 3066. If I was over this for years on end I should have weighed (X3 bonus points?) much more.
Oh, and unrelated but I just wanted to mention that I am a very happy daily weigher and tracker. (I know it is not a real word but I am shooting for 4X now!)
IDK what TDEE calculator you are using but it's typically BW x14-16 depending on activity level. No way would a 300lb guy maintain at 3000cals. I'm 184lbs and maintain at 3100 (desk job, 3-4x a week training). So there is part of the numbers discrepancy as well.0 -
Yeah...no. So not true. You can be morbidly obese without having hormonal issues. Your body will absorb what it eats, period. There isn't a calorie cap.
The body will absorb what it will absorb. Period.
Dragging this thread from pedantry, general abuse and sniping (a.k.a. Default Forum Behaviour) back onto an interesting topic ...
I'll go with metabolic up-regulation and a natural desire for homeostasis, i.e. the body maintaining what it thinks is the weight we should be based on hormonal feedback (leptin levels, etc).
Hence the "set point" theory and how it can be so hard to lose fat when the hormones ain't right even in significant energy deficit. And hard to gain weight if required also.
Address the hormones first then worry about the deficit could be a valid approach. Maybe. Dunno.
Back to the abuse ...
Homeostasis was the first chapter of my old nutrition textbook, and my first thought when reading the first post in this thread.0 -
Using my numbers but at a 300 pound weight (weighing 300, do I get bonus points now for using both?) my maintenance is still only 3066. If I was over this for years on end I should have weighed (X3 bonus points?) much more.
Oh, and unrelated but I just wanted to mention that I am a very happy daily weigher and tracker. (I know it is not a real word but I am shooting for 4X now!)
IDK what TDEE calculator you are using but it's typically BW x14-16 depending on activity level. No way would a 300lb guy maintain at 3000cals. I'm 184lbs and maintain at 3100 (desk job, 3-4x a week training). So there is part of the numbers discrepancy as well.
A 300 lb guy might not train at all so that would lower the calories. Plus 300 lbs for me going up meant I was very inactive. 300 lbs going down means I'm much more active. I'm not burning the same now as when I was gaining simply because I'm more active.0 -
Everyone's body has a set-point. It's the weight your body's happy at. It's hard to change from that weight at first, but once you get it going its easier. Well, this is what I think anyway, because unless I'm doing serious hardcore dieting or binging, my weight it very stable.0
-
Using my numbers but at a 300 pound weight (weighing 300, do I get bonus points now for using both?) my maintenance is still only 3066. If I was over this for years on end I should have weighed (X3 bonus points?) much more.
Oh, and unrelated but I just wanted to mention that I am a very happy daily weigher and tracker. (I know it is not a real word but I am shooting for 4X now!)
IDK what TDEE calculator you are using but it's typically BW x14-16 depending on activity level. No way would a 300lb guy maintain at 3000cals. I'm 184lbs and maintain at 3100 (desk job, 3-4x a week training). So there is part of the numbers discrepancy as well.
A 300 lb guy might not train at all so that would lower the calories. Plus 300 lbs for me going up meant I was very inactive. 300 lbs going down means I'm much more active. I'm not burning the same now as when I was gaining simply because I'm more active.
That is true. However, the thermic effect of activity is typically not a great contributing factor to TDEE. BMR is the majority which is based predominantly off height and weight
I just mentioned the amount of training as I didn't think it was that high.0 -
I want to WEIGH less.
My WEIGHT is too high.
Grade four spelling honey. Don't leave it at home.
For some people, English is not their first language, honey. Don't be rude when there is no cause to be.
It wasn't rude. It was informational. If I am going to take the time to answer someone, they could at least take the time to use correct spelling. It takes two seconds to look back over what you wrote.
Sorry, but yes, that was rude, uncalled for, and not even entertaining enough to make up for the complete lack of class it took to post it.0 -
Actually, the answer is really pretty simple, but you have to adjust your thinking a bit. This concept that there's is one single number that is your maintenance calorie level is just plain wrong. If our bodies really were this sensitive to consumption rates, the human race would have died out long ago. Instead, our bodies have mechanisms in place to up-regulate and down-regulate thermogensis as needed to adapt to under or over consumption. If you think about it, this makes sense, because without this, back when food was not nearly as plentiful or regular, starvation would have been much more prevalent.
Obviously there are limits to this capacity, otherwise no one would ever be too fat (or too skinny), but to gain weight, you actually have to eat a lot more than you might think because your body can increase your metabolism in response to the over-consumption.
The interesting thing here is that this same process also explains a LOT of the plateaus we see during weight loss. After a while of basically eating and exercising at the same rate, your body has adapted metabolically and reached a point of stasis. In order to start the weight loss process again, you have to change something.0 -
Actually, the answer is really pretty simple, but you have to adjust your thinking a bit. This concept that there's is one single number that is your maintenance calorie level is just plain wrong. If our bodies really were this sensitive to consumption rates, the human race would have died out long ago. Instead, our bodies have mechanisms in place to up-regulate and down-regulate thermogensis as needed to adapt to under or over consumption. If you think about it, this makes sense, because without this, back when food was not nearly as plentiful or regular, starvation would have been much more prevalent.
Obviously there are limits to this capacity, otherwise no one would ever be too fat (or too skinny), but to gain weight, you actually have to eat a lot more than you might think because your body can increase your metabolism in response to the over-consumption.
The interesting thing here is that this same process also explains a LOT of the plateaus we see during weight loss. After a while of basically eating and exercising at the same rate, your body has adapted metabolically and reached a point of stasis. In order to start the weight loss process again, you have to change something.
Well put!0 -
I always figured that I should 400lbs, I was literally eating myself sick almost everyday. DISGUSTING!
how did you get out of it? I think I am in that boat...:(0 -
I always figured that I should 400lbs, I was literally eating myself sick almost everyday. DISGUSTING!
how did you get out of it? I think I am in that boat...:(
You make one small sustainable change, just for today. Then tomorrow you do that and maybe something more. And you realize that you have a lot of value in the world, so it's worth the time and effort to make you the best that you can be.0 -
IDK but it's only by the grace of God that I didn't get to 500 lbs!! I ate like a pig!!!0
-
I've often thought about this too. Thinking about how much I used to eat, I don't understand how I only weighed 159 lbs and not over 200! It's crazy. But once you weigh more you burn more calories just existing (your BMR is higher) so that may play a role?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions