Fat Loss Resistance

Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out.

I'm not a fan of the "I did this and it worked, so it works for just about everyone" mentality any more than I'm a fan of blaming hormones without medical proof. Hormonal imbalanc is not terribly uncommon among women, older women especially. But it can be detected with a simple blood test.

Of course it is the jumping off point. My point is that too many people claim it to be the end all be all, when there is more to the story. I haven't read the article yet, the comment was not based on the article or excuses. I agree, people DO use articles and such as excuses. My point is the comments I always see in forums "calories in vs calories out is the law of the land" is of base from reality... there is more to it. Can some people have success only worrying about that? Of course. But many people have more to consider for success.

Cals in < cals out is not off base from reality. It is the reality of what works for MOST people. Some people have other issues, whether they be hormonal, metabolic, etc. But until they eat at a healthy deficit for an extended period of time (longer than two weeks) with no results, (Logging all foods: weighing and measuring, no quick added calories, ketchup counts, recipe builder-type logging). How can they possibly blame hormones/metabolism?

Talk like this does more harm than good. Gives people excuses and outs when the reality it that they just haven't been adhering to a reasonable plan.

PS: In my time here, I have also had trouble. Toyed with the idea that my metabolism was messed up. But then I got real with myself. I wasn't being honest with myself about my adherence to the plan. I think that is probably the case for most of the people who are having trouble.

I'm not a fan of the "I did this and it worked, so it works for just about everyone" mentality any more than I'm a fan of blaming hormones without medical proof. Hormonal imbalanc is not terribly uncommon among women, older women especially. But it can be detected with a simple blood test.

Precisely. ^^

My answers aren't as thorough as I would like being that I am at work, and should be working (I'm sure many sneak in some MFP)

Britzzie, you are making assumptions. I did not give a lot of info on my point of view, but you are defending/commenting on assumptions of my point of view.

YES-for many people the simple science is enough for results.
YES-people need to put in ACTUAL effort and not make assumptions of hormonal issues, resistance, thyroids, blah blah etc. Until you give 100 percent effort for an extended period of time (you said 2 weeks, I say at least a month) your mind shouldn't even fathom these possibilities.
YES-Do I even need to explain that I am not referring to people who aren't being honest with themselves and logging their ketchup?

Simply put, without the added assumptions of my view, is that there are other factors to weight loss that affect a significant amount of people. Wrecked hormone balances, adrenal exhaustion, I could go on and on. Older women is a great example, and so is people who have been yo-yo dieting for years. All of these factors should clearly be an after thought to be determined after true effort for prolonged periods of time. The only point I am making is they DO exist, and I get tired of people in these forums acting like they don't.

I get equally tired of excuses- people crying sabotage, lack of will power and control, lack of results when they aren't even logging food or exercising, or eating nothing but carbs and sugar, etc. And for the record, I lose weight by excercise and eating in a deficit, I have no issues.

Of course it is the jumping off point. My point is that too many people claim it to be the end all be all, when there is more to the story. I haven't read the article yet, the comment was not based on the article or excuses. I agree, people DO use articles and such as excuses. My point is the comments I always see in forums "calories in vs calories out is the law of the land" is of base from reality... there is more to it. Can some people have success only worrying about that? Of course. But many people have more to consider for success.

Cals in < cals out is not off base from reality. It is the reality of what works for MOST people. Some people have other issues, whether they be hormonal, metabolic, etc. But until they eat at a healthy deficit for an extended period of time (longer than two weeks) with no results, (Logging all foods: weighing and measuring, no quick added calories, ketchup counts, recipe builder-type logging). How can they possibly blame hormones/metabolism?

Talk like this does more harm than good. Gives people excuses and outs when the reality it that they just haven't been adhering to a reasonable plan.

PS: In my time here, I have also had trouble. Toyed with the idea that my metabolism was messed up. But then I got real with myself. I wasn't being honest with myself about my adherence to the plan. I think that is probably the case for most of the people who are having trouble.

I'm not a fan of the "I did this and it worked, so it works for just about everyone" mentality any more than I'm a fan of blaming hormones without medical proof. Hormonal imbalanc is not terribly uncommon among women, older women especially. But it can be detected with a simple blood test.

Precisely. ^^

My answers aren't as thorough as I would like being that I am at work, and should be working (I'm sure many sneak in some MFP)

Britzzie, you are making assumptions. I did not give a lot of info on my point of view, but you are defending/commenting on assumptions of my point of view.

YES-for many people the simple science is enough for results.
YES-people need to put in ACTUAL effort and not make assumptions of hormonal issues, resistance, thyroids, blah blah etc. Until you give 100 percent effort for an extended period of time (you said 2 weeks, I say at least a month) your mind shouldn't even fathom these possibilities.
YES-Do I even need to explain that I am not referring to people who aren't being honest with themselves and logging their ketchup?

Simply put, without the added assumptions of my view, is that there are other factors to weight loss that affect a significant amount of people. Wrecked hormone balances, adrenal exhaustion, I could go on and on. Older women is a great example, and so is people who have been yo-yo dieting for years. All of these factors should clearly be an after thought to be determined after true effort for prolonged periods of time. The only point I am making is they DO exist, and I get tired of people in these forums acting like they don't.

I get equally tired of excuses- people crying sabotage, lack of will power and control, lack of results when they aren't even logging food or exercising, or eating nothing but carbs and sugar, etc. And for the record, I lose weight by excercise and eating in a deficit, I have no issues.

I'm sorry if you feel I made assumptions on your position. I certainly did not mean to do that. It seems like our positions are really very similar. If the basics truly aren't working, maybe it's something more complicated, such as the issues you mentioned, which I DO believe exist. It is simply my perception that people can be over zealous with claiming to have such an issue, just based on what I've seen. So...truce? :flowerforyou:

:drinker: We are pretty much on the same page. I completely agree. I think there is just as much over use of excuses and justifications as lack of understanding of real science. It is just a forum with people from all walks of life and backgrounds, so I guess that is to be expected. I should probably wait to comment on something until I actually have time to write a proper post too! It is Friday... my internet is wondering away from work on me.... lol. Truce is absolutely initiated. :flowerforyou:

Bump for later...

The only comment I have is this-I refuse to get into any debates with anyone on this site regarding "calories in, calories out, end of story".

Anyone who thinks it is that simple is far to uneducated to waste the time debating with. The body is extremely complex. Hormones rule how our bodies operate, and there are a billion factors that affect how your body produces and regulates them. Bottom line, there is a lot more to the story of fat loss than calories in and calories out. Thanks for sharing!

reposting from another Brd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiponectin
http://www.livestrong.com/article/549960-glycemic-load-adiponectin/
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=207088

I am sharing links to a fraction of the things I have been reading over the last 10 years. A calorie is not a calorie The quality of your nutrition matters MORE.

Mainstream understanding of nutrition and weightloss must begin to digest current science or it will further resemble "the flat-earth society".

In sum, the first link will sound like doom--if you are overweight you body makes less of what is needed to burn fat. But the light at the end of the tunnel is that exercise and select nutrients will create an environment where your body will begin making more adiponectin.

The other links point to the value of a low-glycemic diet for weightloss.

I began following a low-glycemic diet years ago. It stabilized my weight and although it was not enough for me to have weightloss, my overall health improved dramatically. Naturally, I began following the biological mechanism of cellular energy further back to digestion. I made further dietary forever changes and added moderate cardio to toning and lost 14 lbs & nearly 20" down quickly.

It would be a whole other post to discuss how hard cardio causes weight gain in me and the few studies I found that proved I am not mistaken!

Take a look at low-glycemic diet

Whoa! Not looking to debate... However, calories in calories out is THE jumping off point. If you eat at a healthy deficit, lose weight, and feel generally good, then why even bring the hormone debate into question?

MANY people use articles like this to justify why they just can't seem to get results when the actual problem is their expectations, their plan, or their adherence, which is why I hate this kind of stuff. If the article is completely accurate (which I doubt) then it is applicable to far fewer people who will jump on it and say, "That must be why I can't lose weight!" When the reality is that what they actually do is try to low-carb/Paleo/SouthBeach/EatLiketheDinosaurs diet and lose a few pounds, fall off the wagon, and gain it back. These people are not "weight loss resistant." They need a plan that works in life.