Slow Loss - Confused - PCOS
Elly1021
Posts: 16 Member
I've been at this for a month and I've lost 5 lbs. At my size (5'8" and 237 lbs) that isn't a lot. I have lost a few inches in problem areas, and my body fat % has gone down (My 'lean' mass is a surprisingly high #, btw -- 146 lbs. Not sure if that matters). But, it seems like someone my size should be losing more. I can't shake the feeling that something is wrong, but I don't know what.
I am meticulous and over-cautious in recording what I am eating. I weigh my food, and on the rare occasions I can't, I estimate and then add an oz. For nearly a month I've been exercising, mostly cardio, for ~ an hour a day. I've only missed two days, and they were both very early on. I am always well under my calorie limit, and, according to MFP, most days I could eat twice what I do (counting calories earned by exercise) and still expect to lose.
That seems preposterous to me, because I feel like I eat plenty. In fact, I worry that I am eating too much. I've never been a fan of junk food, (haven't had fast food or soda in more than a decade), and I cut out most white carbs two years ago (cane sugar, pasta, potatoes, etc. -- sugar is hard to eradicate completely b/c it sneaks in w/ other foods, but I don't add it to anything). Basically, this isn't too far from what I normally eat, and I've always been this size, so ??. The exercise is new, and I was hoping maybe it was the missing link, but at 5 lbs. lost in a month I'm not feeling very encouraged.
I have PCOS, and maybe that's the explanation. And yet, people lose weight with PCOS. It does happen. So, what gives w/ me? In the past, only low-carb diets were successful for me (I would lose ~ 15 lbs a month), but I can't sustain them (I invariably make myself ill). So, I was hoping to find something that was both effective and long-term.
All you hear, day in & out, is count calories and exercise and you will lose weight. Calories in vs. calories out, etc. etc. etc.--- BS. BS. BS. If I ate as much as MFP says I can, I would gain weight at a pace that boggles the imagination. Especially if they were carbs.
I really don't understand.
I posted before (when I was gaining weight while exercising & eating below calorie limit), and got some good suggestions. I was snacking on tangerines & I cut those out. I've also made an effort to eat kale and drink more water. (I'm still bad w/ the water, but I'm trying.) I stopped gaining, but I still feel like this is not working like it should. (5 lbs. in a month??! Ugh.)
Advice/input is appreciated.
I am meticulous and over-cautious in recording what I am eating. I weigh my food, and on the rare occasions I can't, I estimate and then add an oz. For nearly a month I've been exercising, mostly cardio, for ~ an hour a day. I've only missed two days, and they were both very early on. I am always well under my calorie limit, and, according to MFP, most days I could eat twice what I do (counting calories earned by exercise) and still expect to lose.
That seems preposterous to me, because I feel like I eat plenty. In fact, I worry that I am eating too much. I've never been a fan of junk food, (haven't had fast food or soda in more than a decade), and I cut out most white carbs two years ago (cane sugar, pasta, potatoes, etc. -- sugar is hard to eradicate completely b/c it sneaks in w/ other foods, but I don't add it to anything). Basically, this isn't too far from what I normally eat, and I've always been this size, so ??. The exercise is new, and I was hoping maybe it was the missing link, but at 5 lbs. lost in a month I'm not feeling very encouraged.
I have PCOS, and maybe that's the explanation. And yet, people lose weight with PCOS. It does happen. So, what gives w/ me? In the past, only low-carb diets were successful for me (I would lose ~ 15 lbs a month), but I can't sustain them (I invariably make myself ill). So, I was hoping to find something that was both effective and long-term.
All you hear, day in & out, is count calories and exercise and you will lose weight. Calories in vs. calories out, etc. etc. etc.--- BS. BS. BS. If I ate as much as MFP says I can, I would gain weight at a pace that boggles the imagination. Especially if they were carbs.
I really don't understand.
I posted before (when I was gaining weight while exercising & eating below calorie limit), and got some good suggestions. I was snacking on tangerines & I cut those out. I've also made an effort to eat kale and drink more water. (I'm still bad w/ the water, but I'm trying.) I stopped gaining, but I still feel like this is not working like it should. (5 lbs. in a month??! Ugh.)
Advice/input is appreciated.
0
Replies
-
I feel ya. I've been confuzzled with my weight loss since I too have PCOS and the impossible weight loss that comes with it, yet i have managed to lost 16 pounds since the beginning of february. Unfortunately, the only way I have managed thus far is with keeps my carbs under 114 and reducing my cardio and upping my weight/strength training. Right now I'm in the middle of T25 and it does a good job of giving me my cardio with emphasis on body weight training...I suggest keeping your diet the same since you like it and it works for you but changing your mostly cardio workout to a more weight/strength based workout....2-3 weeks should tell you if its working or not....0
-
so you have lost 1.25lbs a week...that isn't slow that's a great rate, healthy and sustainable.
so these really were not successful...15lbs a month is too fast and not sustainable thereby not sucessful.In the past, only low-carb diets were successful for me (I would lose ~ 15 lbs a month), but I can't sustain them (I invariably make myself ill).
Sucessful means it allows you to keep the weight off for good. Perhaps watching your carbs is what you need to do and not going so low
Regardless of PCOS it is still CICO...you just have to be more careful and patient...0 -
so you have lost 1.25lbs a week...that isn't slow that's a great rate, healthy and sustainable.
so these really were not successful...15lbs a month is too fast and not sustainable thereby not sucessful.In the past, only low-carb diets were successful for me (I would lose ~ 15 lbs a month), but I can't sustain them (I invariably make myself ill).
Sucessful means it allows you to keep the weight off for good. Perhaps watching your carbs is what you need to do and not going so low
Regardless of PCOS it is still CICO...you just have to be more careful and patient...
PCOS is much more than CICO - it's also about macros.
OP, I have roughly the same measurements as you. The low-carb weight loss is always fast at first but it WILL slow down. It's taken me a year to lose 50 pounds, and I have 40 to go. I would suggest increasing fat in addition to tweaking your carb intake until you get to the level that you know will satisfy you but not make you gain. I've found that mine is 40g a day. This will be different for you of course but it took me a lot time to figure out that number.
It's not just low-carb that works for PCOS ; protein is insulinogenic so high protein isn't always going to work either. High fat, low carb and moderate protein might work for you.
We have high expectations when we first start, but loss does slow down. DON'T LET IT GET TO YOU. There have been whole months were I haven't lost and then BAM, I drop like 7 pounds. Weight loss isn't linear.
I will message you if you want.0 -
so you have lost 1.25lbs a week...that isn't slow that's a great rate, healthy and sustainable.
so these really were not successful...15lbs a month is too fast and not sustainable thereby not sucessful.In the past, only low-carb diets were successful for me (I would lose ~ 15 lbs a month), but I can't sustain them (I invariably make myself ill).
Sucessful means it allows you to keep the weight off for good. Perhaps watching your carbs is what you need to do and not going so low
Regardless of PCOS it is still CICO...you just have to be more careful and patient...
PCOS is much more than CICO - it's also about macros.
OP, I have roughly the same measurements as you. The low-carb weight loss is always fast at first but it WILL slow down. It's taken me a year to lose 50 pounds, and I have 40 to go. I would suggest increasing fat in addition to tweaking your carb intake until you get to the level that you know will satisfy you but not make you gain. I've found that mine is 40g a day. This will be different for you of course but it took me a lot time to figure out that number.
It's not just low-carb that works for PCOS ; protein is insulinogenic so high protein isn't always going to work either. High fat, low carb and moderate protein might work for you.
We have high expectations when we first start, but loss does slow down. DON'T LET IT GET TO YOU. There have been whole months were I haven't lost and then BAM, I drop like 7 pounds. Weight loss isn't linear.
I will message you if you want.
I would agree with this. All the women I know, to include my wife, has benefited from a low carbs, moderate protein and high fat diet. I would suggest doing some weight training on top of adjusting the macro's a bit.
And BTW, CICO is working for you right now, so it's not BS. But you will probably benefit more from adjusting macros0 -
I appreciate the responses. I am going to have to look into doing more strength training and tweaking the diet. Eventually I have to find something that works.
Also, saying CICO is working for me is a bit of a stretch. If I ate to my recommended calorie limit it would take me less than a week to gain back every ounce of the 5lbs it took me a month of strenuous effort to lose. I burn a lot of calories a day. I eat a lot fewer calories than I burn. I do not lose a corresponding amount of weight. That is not what working looks like to me.0 -
What helped for me was not just looking at carbs and sugars but WHEN i ate carbs and sugars. Sometimes when you eat is as important as what you eat. Some of my golden rules.
1. Never eat more than 50g of carbs in a single sitting.
2. Try to avoid sugar and carbs during sedentary periods.
3. Decent helpings of carbs and protein after workouts.
The key is understanding how your body uses energy. Basically you have a certain amount of energy floating around in your blood that anywhere in your body can tap into. This is where the energy from food recently digested ends up. Obviously as you digest more food the blood fills up with energy so it looks for places to store it. If your muscles and organs need energy they get it first. In most cases. And if that energy is in excess of what your need it gets turned into fat. So therefore ...
If you eat a large portion of carbohydrates or sugars and sit around doing nothing your body will need no energy. Therefore all those calories will head straight for your waistline. Your body is also unlikely to need protein unless it has healing or muscular repair to attend to. However protein is naturally less destructive as it takes about half it's calories to digest. Carbohydrate .. especially sugar is extremely easy for the body to incorporate especially heavily refined carbs like white bread. This is why people prefer whole grain stuff because it digests slower and releases it's nutrients slower. Making it more likely for it's calories to be used for body function and muscle refueling rather than going to your fat deposits.
Basic rule of thump don't fill your body full of fuel unless it's got a job to do
But make sure to fuel it well when needed. You aren't really helping anything by not feeding yourself after heavy exercise. All you will do is cause lean muscle tissue to atrophy. As your body struggles to bring the energy in your blood up to spec buy cannibalizing it. 0 -
I have been told by my nutritionist that "weight loss success with PCOS looks very different than it does for other people" and now, I believe it. In the thread today about how much weight people have lost in 12 weeks, I realized I am in my 9th week using MFP and have only lost 6 lbs (I've lost more than that before I arrived here, but this was supposed to accelerate my loss, according to my nutritionist)...much different than a lot of other experiences. I know I am losing inches and toning because people have commented on my "fast weight loss." But I really need to drop WEIGHT, just dropping FAT is not enough, because my WEIGHT is hard on my joints.
I feel the same way about "not eating enough" - I know if I ate more I would gain, regardless of what the calculators show my TDEE is. Like you, I also cut out fast food (actually, most restaurant food period) and soda a long time ago, along with most refined carbs (when I cut out gluten). The changes that seem to be helping others shed pounds really fast are things I already did a number of years ago.
I think, for myself, I am going to drop my carb count lower - it's hovering around 40% and probably needs to be closer to 30 - and step up my workouts. In the past, hard exercise has been the main way I've lost weight - although I've never really yo-yo'd. We're talking maybe 10-15 lbs at a time. I believe in MFP - I feel like I am SO much more in control of my eating, which is a very good thing for me psychologically, and I am moving a lot more, which is good for me physically. But at this point, if I lose 25 lbs in six months I will be lucky. But I do need to hold in my mind that this is about health, and not about weight, and I feel like even if I don't end up a lot lighter, at least I will be healthier...
Thanks for sharing your story and your frustration, as I was feeling the same way today. It helps to hear others' stories. Good luck to us both.
0 -
I am meticulous and over-cautious in recording what I am eating. I weigh my food, and on the rare occasions I can't, I estimate and then add an oz.
....
All you hear, day in & out, is count calories and exercise and you will lose weight. Calories in vs. calories out, etc. etc. etc.--- BS. BS. BS. If I ate as much as MFP says I can, I would gain weight at a pace that boggles the imagination. Especially if they were carbs.
Just popping in to throw in an "alleluia!" CICO is true....ish. You can't put on weight if you don't eat, just like you can't lose weight if you stuff your face. BUT over time I've realized I simply have to ignore every calculator and instead track my progress using exact measurements of food, workouts, & macros. At the end of the day, only we can figure out what works for us (esp when we have hormonal problems that make getting healthy even harder).
It can be hard to ignore the fervent CICO crowd that professes to know everything about everyone's body, (because, you know, if we're eating 1400 calories and not losing it must mean we're not weighing our food correctly and/or sleepwalking to the fridge for chocolate in the middle of the night!!) but just know that our lived experiences aren't invalidated by their unwillingness to listen.)
That said.
You're losing weight! That's great. It sounds like you're losing at a sustainable, healthy pace, too. Though MFP is telling you that if you were someone else, you'd have lost more...you're not someone else. You're you. And unfortunately for some of us that means we have to work a bit harder to see the same results someone else might get more easily. Don't get disheartened! You've got the basics figured out and you know how to lose. Start changing small things (like add a weight training routine, as mentioned above) for a few weeks and track your progress -- not just with weight, but with your body measurements. It might be slow, but you've got this) 0 -
I don't have PCOS, but I do have insulin resistance and it's my understanding that most folks that have difficulty losing with PCOS thta's due to the insulin resistance (apparently a lucky few PCOSers don't have insulin resistance but most do). I've had three things that have helped me lose weight/fat with insulin resistance -- it surely has been more than just CICO. For me, cutting back on carbs was essential. For me, I don't have to go low enough to be a keto diet, though I know some that have had to do that. For me, I'm able to be in the 50-80g range per day. I also take metformin and lift heavy twice a week -- 3x5 workout (barbell exercises -- squats, deadlifts, bench, etc.).
I know when I wasn't keeping the carbs low and before metaformin, lifting (and my other exercise) along with a calorie restriction wasn't enough. I was averaging over 700 calorie daily deficit and barely losing (2.2 lbs over 3 months!). Then, I learned of the insulin resistance and both started metformin and started restricting carbs in addition to the calorie deficit. Then, I started to lose like a completely "normal" person.
I also found that refeed every week or two was really helpful -- just a day where I ate at maintenance or even a slight surplus and went above my usual carb limit. When I didn't do that, I hit a plateau, which didn't break until I did a refeed day. I know it's mostly, if not all, water retention issues masking the weight/fat loss, but not seeing any results on the scale for 3-4 weeks is frustrating -- and I was starting to feel a little overtrained (which surprised me). I also have a thyroid issue and many who have the same issue have noticed the same thing with them -- the need to do periodic refeeds or just starting to feel run down. So, that may be more of a thyroid specific issue, but it is something I've seen recommended by many people to keep the hormonal stress response more normal and not impede/mask weight loss efforts.0 -
Have you seen your doctor? Sometimes other issues like thyroid can creep up in conjunction with PCOS. There are also some legitimate medications that help some women with PCOS. When I took Glucophage (Metformin) I lost 20 lbs without doing anything differently...My body was just working correctly.0
-
What helped for me was not just looking at carbs and sugars but WHEN i ate carbs and sugars. Sometimes when you eat is as important as what you eat. Some of my golden rules.
1. Never eat more than 50g of carbs in a single sitting.
2. Try to avoid sugar and carbs during sedentary periods.
3. Decent helpings of carbs and protein after workouts.
The key is understanding how your body uses energy. Basically you have a certain amount of energy floating around in your blood that anywhere in your body can tap into. This is where the energy from food recently digested ends up. Obviously as you digest more food the blood fills up with energy so it looks for places to store it. If your muscles and organs need energy they get it first. In most cases. And if that energy is in excess of what your need it gets turned into fat. So therefore ...
If you eat a large portion of carbohydrates or sugars and sit around doing nothing your body will need no energy. Therefore all those calories will head straight for your waistline. Your body is also unlikely to need protein unless it has healing or muscular repair to attend to. However protein is naturally less destructive as it takes about half it's calories to digest. Carbohydrate .. especially sugar is extremely easy for the body to incorporate especially heavily refined carbs like white bread. This is why people prefer whole grain stuff because it digests slower and releases it's nutrients slower. Making it more likely for it's calories to be used for body function and muscle refueling rather than going to your fat deposits.
Basic rule of thump don't fill your body full of fuel unless it's got a job to do But make sure to fuel it well when needed. You aren't really helping anything by not feeding yourself after heavy exercise. All you will do is cause lean muscle tissue to atrophy. As your body struggles to bring the energy in your blood up to spec buy cannibalizing it.
This isn't have the body works. Your body constantly needs energy as you have basal metabolic requirements. Additionally, even while you are sitting around, most people fidget, got to bathroom, etc... which requires energy. It's already have been proven by many organizations that the timing of meals and quantity of meals is irrelevant to weight loss. The timing of meals can affect workout performance, but what is more important is the overall caloric amount.
In terms of post workout after heavy exercise.. well current science would suggest there is still more information required to evaluate if you need a post meal or if overall consumption throughout the day is just as beneficial. Don't get me wrong, if you enjoy the post workout protein shake, like I do, then great, but it may or may not be necessary.
http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-10-5.pdf0 -
I appreciate the responses. I am going to have to look into doing more strength training and tweaking the diet. Eventually I have to find something that works.
Also, saying CICO is working for me is a bit of a stretch. If I ate to my recommended calorie limit it would take me less than a week to gain back every ounce of the 5lbs it took me a month of strenuous effort to lose. I burn a lot of calories a day. I eat a lot fewer calories than I burn. I do not lose a corresponding amount of weight. That is not what working looks like to me.
What you have to understand is, that body fluctuates water daily, especially with women. It is very common that you lose 1 lb a week and all of a sudden gain 4 lbs back due to many reason; TOM, amount of carbs, sodium, or exercise intensity. The fact is, if you didn't eat 3500 calories per lb gained over your TDEE, then it's not fat.... its water.
It's not a stretch though. The law of thermodynamics does apply. From the information I have found so far, and I am still research, carbs impede the metabolic process in those people with sensitivities or insulin resistance. This is why setting yours to 80-120 net carbs may be beneficial.
And let me assure you, i can understand the frustrations. My wife has Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome; this condition commonly comes with a gluten and carb intolerance. So I am doing my research to maximize her health.0 -
I appreciate the responses. I am going to have to look into doing more strength training and tweaking the diet. Eventually I have to find something that works.
Also, saying CICO is working for me is a bit of a stretch. If I ate to my recommended calorie limit it would take me less than a week to gain back every ounce of the 5lbs it took me a month of strenuous effort to lose. I burn a lot of calories a day. I eat a lot fewer calories than I burn. I do not lose a corresponding amount of weight. That is not what working looks like to me.
What you have to understand is, that body fluctuates water daily, especially with women. It is very common that you lose 1 lb a week and all of a sudden gain 4 lbs back due to many reason; TOM, amount of carbs, sodium, or exercise intensity. The fact is, if you didn't eat 3500 calories per lb gained over your TDEE, then it's not fat.... its water.
It's not a stretch though. The law of thermodynamics does apply. From the information I have found so far, and I am still research, carbs impede the metabolic process in those people with sensitivities or insulin resistance. This is why setting yours to 80-120 net carbs may be beneficial.
And let me assure you, i can understand the frustrations. My wife has Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome; this condition commonly comes with a gluten and carb intolerance. So I am doing my research to maximize her health.
Psulemon -- can you tell me what law of thermodynamics applies? I see people say this a lot on this site, and yet, I've been unable to get one of those people to explain which law of thermodynamics applies -- conservation of energy?0 -
I appreciate the responses. I am going to have to look into doing more strength training and tweaking the diet. Eventually I have to find something that works.
Also, saying CICO is working for me is a bit of a stretch. If I ate to my recommended calorie limit it would take me less than a week to gain back every ounce of the 5lbs it took me a month of strenuous effort to lose. I burn a lot of calories a day. I eat a lot fewer calories than I burn. I do not lose a corresponding amount of weight. That is not what working looks like to me.
What you have to understand is, that body fluctuates water daily, especially with women. It is very common that you lose 1 lb a week and all of a sudden gain 4 lbs back due to many reason; TOM, amount of carbs, sodium, or exercise intensity. The fact is, if you didn't eat 3500 calories per lb gained over your TDEE, then it's not fat.... its water.
It's not a stretch though. The law of thermodynamics does apply. From the information I have found so far, and I am still research, carbs impede the metabolic process in those people with sensitivities or insulin resistance. This is why setting yours to 80-120 net carbs may be beneficial.
And let me assure you, i can understand the frustrations. My wife has Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome; this condition commonly comes with a gluten and carb intolerance. So I am doing my research to maximize her health.
Psulemon -- can you tell me what law of thermodynamics applies? I see people say this a lot on this site, and yet, I've been unable to get one of those people to explain which law of thermodynamics applies -- conservation of energy?
From my understanding its a combination of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st - total energy in < total energy out = weight loss
But to be honest, i guess that can be oversimplified and I don't have the scientific background to expand on it much more than that.
Below is a good article
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html0 -
I appreciate the responses. I am going to have to look into doing more strength training and tweaking the diet. Eventually I have to find something that works.
Also, saying CICO is working for me is a bit of a stretch. If I ate to my recommended calorie limit it would take me less than a week to gain back every ounce of the 5lbs it took me a month of strenuous effort to lose. I burn a lot of calories a day. I eat a lot fewer calories than I burn. I do not lose a corresponding amount of weight. That is not what working looks like to me.
What you have to understand is, that body fluctuates water daily, especially with women. It is very common that you lose 1 lb a week and all of a sudden gain 4 lbs back due to many reason; TOM, amount of carbs, sodium, or exercise intensity. The fact is, if you didn't eat 3500 calories per lb gained over your TDEE, then it's not fat.... its water.
It's not a stretch though. The law of thermodynamics does apply. From the information I have found so far, and I am still research, carbs impede the metabolic process in those people with sensitivities or insulin resistance. This is why setting yours to 80-120 net carbs may be beneficial.
And let me assure you, i can understand the frustrations. My wife has Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome; this condition commonly comes with a gluten and carb intolerance. So I am doing my research to maximize her health.
Psulemon -- can you tell me what law of thermodynamics applies? I see people say this a lot on this site, and yet, I've been unable to get one of those people to explain which law of thermodynamics applies -- conservation of energy?
From my understanding its a combination of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st - total energy in < total energy out = weight loss
But to be honest, i guess that can be oversimplified and I don't have the scientific background to expand on it much more than that.
Below is a good article
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
Yes, that's basically it. Essentially, if you take in more energy than you burn, then it must be stored somehow (fat, glycogen, muscle, etc). If you burn more energy than you take in, you need to burn some of your previously stored energy (fat, glycogen, muscle, etc).
BTW - when people stress CICO, you need to remember that it only applies to your actual TDEE. Not the TDEE estimated for an average healthy person with your height, weight, and approximate activity level. Other healthy people find that their TDEE is not the same as the calculated average. It's not that unusual. If you have a condition that affects your metabolism (PCOS, thyroid issues, stress issues, taking certain steroids, etc), then the estimated TDEE is definitely going to be off. Maybe a lot off.
To put it simply, no matter who you are, if you know the number of calories at which you maintain your weight over a long period of time, that is your TDEE regardless of what some calculator says.0 -
You may not be eating enough, which is messing up your metabolism and will cause muscle loss. Also, with pcos you are likely glucose intolerant which means you should follow low-carb. The best low-carb diet that I've found is South Beach. Try doing the actual meal plan for phase one right out of the book. I find, if I'm stuck that this really works.
Finally, be realistic. Over one pound a week is just right, great actually!0 -
I appreciate the responses. I am going to have to look into doing more strength training and tweaking the diet. Eventually I have to find something that works.
Also, saying CICO is working for me is a bit of a stretch. If I ate to my recommended calorie limit it would take me less than a week to gain back every ounce of the 5lbs it took me a month of strenuous effort to lose. I burn a lot of calories a day. I eat a lot fewer calories than I burn. I do not lose a corresponding amount of weight. That is not what working looks like to me.
What you have to understand is, that body fluctuates water daily, especially with women. It is very common that you lose 1 lb a week and all of a sudden gain 4 lbs back due to many reason; TOM, amount of carbs, sodium, or exercise intensity. The fact is, if you didn't eat 3500 calories per lb gained over your TDEE, then it's not fat.... its water.
It's not a stretch though. The law of thermodynamics does apply. From the information I have found so far, and I am still research, carbs impede the metabolic process in those people with sensitivities or insulin resistance. This is why setting yours to 80-120 net carbs may be beneficial.
And let me assure you, i can understand the frustrations. My wife has Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome; this condition commonly comes with a gluten and carb intolerance. So I am doing my research to maximize her health.
Psulemon -- can you tell me what law of thermodynamics applies? I see people say this a lot on this site, and yet, I've been unable to get one of those people to explain which law of thermodynamics applies -- conservation of energy?
From my understanding its a combination of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st - total energy in < total energy out = weight loss
But to be honest, i guess that can be oversimplified and I don't have the scientific background to expand on it much more than that.
Below is a good article
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
I like Lyle's article, think it's good as a general rule and I think he explains it very well. I'd love for him or someone to write an expansion of it for those who have metabolic issues, to see how that affects the equation. But as of yet, I haven't seen that from anyone.
But the law of thermodynamics are not the same as CICO. The first law requires a closed system and the body is not a closed system. I'm not sure how CICO addresses entropy from the second law at all.0 -
I appreciate the responses. I am going to have to look into doing more strength training and tweaking the diet. Eventually I have to find something that works.
Also, saying CICO is working for me is a bit of a stretch. If I ate to my recommended calorie limit it would take me less than a week to gain back every ounce of the 5lbs it took me a month of strenuous effort to lose. I burn a lot of calories a day. I eat a lot fewer calories than I burn. I do not lose a corresponding amount of weight. That is not what working looks like to me.
What you have to understand is, that body fluctuates water daily, especially with women. It is very common that you lose 1 lb a week and all of a sudden gain 4 lbs back due to many reason; TOM, amount of carbs, sodium, or exercise intensity. The fact is, if you didn't eat 3500 calories per lb gained over your TDEE, then it's not fat.... its water.
It's not a stretch though. The law of thermodynamics does apply. From the information I have found so far, and I am still research, carbs impede the metabolic process in those people with sensitivities or insulin resistance. This is why setting yours to 80-120 net carbs may be beneficial.
And let me assure you, i can understand the frustrations. My wife has Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome; this condition commonly comes with a gluten and carb intolerance. So I am doing my research to maximize her health.
Psulemon -- can you tell me what law of thermodynamics applies? I see people say this a lot on this site, and yet, I've been unable to get one of those people to explain which law of thermodynamics applies -- conservation of energy?
From my understanding its a combination of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st - total energy in < total energy out = weight loss
But to be honest, i guess that can be oversimplified and I don't have the scientific background to expand on it much more than that.
Below is a good article
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
I like Lyle's article, think it's good as a general rule and I think he explains it very well. I'd love for him or someone to write an expansion of it for those who have metabolic issues, to see how that affects the equation. But as of yet, I haven't seen that from anyone.
But the law of thermodynamics are not the same as CICO. The first law requires a closed system and the body is not a closed system. I'm not sure how CICO addresses entropy from the second law at all.
I did see some articles from the NIH that correlated the 2nd law and 1st law for weight loss, but it was more in passing as compared to a discussion. So I didn't post them.0 -
I appreciate the responses. I am going to have to look into doing more strength training and tweaking the diet. Eventually I have to find something that works.
Also, saying CICO is working for me is a bit of a stretch. If I ate to my recommended calorie limit it would take me less than a week to gain back every ounce of the 5lbs it took me a month of strenuous effort to lose. I burn a lot of calories a day. I eat a lot fewer calories than I burn. I do not lose a corresponding amount of weight. That is not what working looks like to me.
What you have to understand is, that body fluctuates water daily, especially with women. It is very common that you lose 1 lb a week and all of a sudden gain 4 lbs back due to many reason; TOM, amount of carbs, sodium, or exercise intensity. The fact is, if you didn't eat 3500 calories per lb gained over your TDEE, then it's not fat.... its water.
It's not a stretch though. The law of thermodynamics does apply. From the information I have found so far, and I am still research, carbs impede the metabolic process in those people with sensitivities or insulin resistance. This is why setting yours to 80-120 net carbs may be beneficial.
And let me assure you, i can understand the frustrations. My wife has Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome; this condition commonly comes with a gluten and carb intolerance. So I am doing my research to maximize her health.
Psulemon -- can you tell me what law of thermodynamics applies? I see people say this a lot on this site, and yet, I've been unable to get one of those people to explain which law of thermodynamics applies -- conservation of energy?
From my understanding its a combination of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
1st - total energy in < total energy out = weight loss
But to be honest, i guess that can be oversimplified and I don't have the scientific background to expand on it much more than that.
Below is a good article
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
I like Lyle's article, think it's good as a general rule and I think he explains it very well. I'd love for him or someone to write an expansion of it for those who have metabolic issues, to see how that affects the equation. But as of yet, I haven't seen that from anyone.
But the law of thermodynamics are not the same as CICO. The first law requires a closed system and the body is not a closed system. I'm not sure how CICO addresses entropy from the second law at all.
I did see some articles from the NIH that correlated the 2nd law and 1st law for weight loss, but it was more in passing as compared to a discussion. So I didn't post them.
I definitely think they're related, don't get me wrong. I think the idea of CICO is based upon the premise of conservation of energy. It's just not a direct 1:1 correlation like some folks seem to think -- "you can't deny the laws of thermodynamics!" The body is full of a lot of chemical and physical processes --- which I'm sure do obey the laws of thermodynamics. But, you've got to keep in mind those limitations, like the closed system (and the body isn't a closed system) or the fact that we don't see or are able to investigate all those processes. We can just compare beginning and end products, note trends and put together hypotheses on what is actually happening in between.
And CICO is a hypothesis -- not a law. I think it's a good hypothesis and makes a lot of sense for those in "normal" parameters. But, doesn't seem to be always true for those outside of normal parameters, and we don't seem to have a really good understanding of why that is. Perhaps there is something that's neutral/silent for "normal" people, so we don't observe it there, but only becomes apparent when people have issues -- whether thyroid, PCOS, insulin resistance, etc. I don't know. But, you see the differences in weight loss for people on different macros with differences in insulin sensitivity, so something has to be up -- it's got to be more than just sheer caloric value or those calories are touching off some process in the body that's greatly shifting the CO part of the equation for reasons we don't completely understand.0 -
I definitely think they're related, don't get me wrong. I think the idea of CICO is based upon the premise of conservation of energy. It's just not a direct 1:1 correlation like some folks seem to think -- "you can't deny the laws of thermodynamics!" The body is full of a lot of chemical and physical processes --- which I'm sure do obey the laws of thermodynamics. But, you've got to keep in mind those limitations, like the closed system (and the body isn't a closed system) or the fact that we don't see or are able to investigate all those processes. We can just compare beginning and end products, note trends and put together hypotheses on what is actually happening in between.
And CICO is a hypothesis -- not a law. I think it's a good hypothesis and makes a lot of sense for those in "normal" parameters. But, doesn't seem to be always true for those outside of normal parameters, and we don't seem to have a really good understanding of why that is. Perhaps there is something that's neutral/silent for "normal" people, so we don't observe it there, but only becomes apparent when people have issues -- whether thyroid, PCOS, insulin resistance, etc. I don't know. But, you see the differences in weight loss for people on different macros with differences in insulin sensitivity, so something has to be up -- it's got to be more than just sheer caloric value or those calories are touching off some process in the body that's greatly shifting the CO part of the equation for reasons we don't completely understand.
I definitely agree. And i know from my personal experiences, my wife has to stay away from carbs and gluten or she struggles to have energy and struggles with weight. As a group, we tend to oversimple the variables because for 90% of the people on this board, there are very little variables outside of creating a deficit.0 -
I definitely think they're related, don't get me wrong. I think the idea of CICO is based upon the premise of conservation of energy. It's just not a direct 1:1 correlation like some folks seem to think -- "you can't deny the laws of thermodynamics!" The body is full of a lot of chemical and physical processes --- which I'm sure do obey the laws of thermodynamics. But, you've got to keep in mind those limitations, like the closed system (and the body isn't a closed system) or the fact that we don't see or are able to investigate all those processes. We can just compare beginning and end products, note trends and put together hypotheses on what is actually happening in between.
And CICO is a hypothesis -- not a law. I think it's a good hypothesis and makes a lot of sense for those in "normal" parameters. But, doesn't seem to be always true for those outside of normal parameters, and we don't seem to have a really good understanding of why that is. Perhaps there is something that's neutral/silent for "normal" people, so we don't observe it there, but only becomes apparent when people have issues -- whether thyroid, PCOS, insulin resistance, etc. I don't know. But, you see the differences in weight loss for people on different macros with differences in insulin sensitivity, so something has to be up -- it's got to be more than just sheer caloric value or those calories are touching off some process in the body that's greatly shifting the CO part of the equation for reasons we don't completely understand.
I definitely agree. And i know from my personal experiences, my wife has to stay away from carbs and gluten or she struggles to have energy and struggles with weight. As a group, we tend to oversimple the variables because for 90% of the people on this board, there are very little variables outside of creating a deficit.
Well, I agree with you in many ways, though I'm not sure I'd say 90% of the people on this board aren't outside of those variables considering over 40% of the US adult population has diabetes or prediabetes.0 -
I definitely think they're related, don't get me wrong. I think the idea of CICO is based upon the premise of conservation of energy. It's just not a direct 1:1 correlation like some folks seem to think -- "you can't deny the laws of thermodynamics!" The body is full of a lot of chemical and physical processes --- which I'm sure do obey the laws of thermodynamics. But, you've got to keep in mind those limitations, like the closed system (and the body isn't a closed system) or the fact that we don't see or are able to investigate all those processes. We can just compare beginning and end products, note trends and put together hypotheses on what is actually happening in between.
And CICO is a hypothesis -- not a law. I think it's a good hypothesis and makes a lot of sense for those in "normal" parameters. But, doesn't seem to be always true for those outside of normal parameters, and we don't seem to have a really good understanding of why that is. Perhaps there is something that's neutral/silent for "normal" people, so we don't observe it there, but only becomes apparent when people have issues -- whether thyroid, PCOS, insulin resistance, etc. I don't know. But, you see the differences in weight loss for people on different macros with differences in insulin sensitivity, so something has to be up -- it's got to be more than just sheer caloric value or those calories are touching off some process in the body that's greatly shifting the CO part of the equation for reasons we don't completely understand.
I definitely agree. And i know from my personal experiences, my wife has to stay away from carbs and gluten or she struggles to have energy and struggles with weight. As a group, we tend to oversimple the variables because for 90% of the people on this board, there are very little variables outside of creating a deficit.
Well, I agree with you in many ways, though I'm not sure I'd say 90% of the people on this board aren't outside of those variables considering over 40% of the US adult population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Well, it's popular to see obesity or pre-diabetes as a personality flaw.0 -
I definitely think they're related, don't get me wrong. I think the idea of CICO is based upon the premise of conservation of energy. It's just not a direct 1:1 correlation like some folks seem to think -- "you can't deny the laws of thermodynamics!" The body is full of a lot of chemical and physical processes --- which I'm sure do obey the laws of thermodynamics. But, you've got to keep in mind those limitations, like the closed system (and the body isn't a closed system) or the fact that we don't see or are able to investigate all those processes. We can just compare beginning and end products, note trends and put together hypotheses on what is actually happening in between.
And CICO is a hypothesis -- not a law. I think it's a good hypothesis and makes a lot of sense for those in "normal" parameters. But, doesn't seem to be always true for those outside of normal parameters, and we don't seem to have a really good understanding of why that is. Perhaps there is something that's neutral/silent for "normal" people, so we don't observe it there, but only becomes apparent when people have issues -- whether thyroid, PCOS, insulin resistance, etc. I don't know. But, you see the differences in weight loss for people on different macros with differences in insulin sensitivity, so something has to be up -- it's got to be more than just sheer caloric value or those calories are touching off some process in the body that's greatly shifting the CO part of the equation for reasons we don't completely understand.
I definitely agree. And i know from my personal experiences, my wife has to stay away from carbs and gluten or she struggles to have energy and struggles with weight. As a group, we tend to oversimple the variables because for 90% of the people on this board, there are very little variables outside of creating a deficit.
Well, I agree with you in many ways, though I'm not sure I'd say 90% of the people on this board aren't outside of those variables considering over 40% of the US adult population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Well, it's popular to see obesity or pre-diabetes as a personality flaw.
Yes, and that's what I've found far too often on this site -- the it's only a matter of willpower approach. For folks with those issues, more information on what would help them maximize their efforts to lose weight/fat would be more helpful than a mere "caloric deficit is the only thing that matters" approach.0 -
I definitely think they're related, don't get me wrong. I think the idea of CICO is based upon the premise of conservation of energy. It's just not a direct 1:1 correlation like some folks seem to think -- "you can't deny the laws of thermodynamics!" The body is full of a lot of chemical and physical processes --- which I'm sure do obey the laws of thermodynamics. But, you've got to keep in mind those limitations, like the closed system (and the body isn't a closed system) or the fact that we don't see or are able to investigate all those processes. We can just compare beginning and end products, note trends and put together hypotheses on what is actually happening in between.
And CICO is a hypothesis -- not a law. I think it's a good hypothesis and makes a lot of sense for those in "normal" parameters. But, doesn't seem to be always true for those outside of normal parameters, and we don't seem to have a really good understanding of why that is. Perhaps there is something that's neutral/silent for "normal" people, so we don't observe it there, but only becomes apparent when people have issues -- whether thyroid, PCOS, insulin resistance, etc. I don't know. But, you see the differences in weight loss for people on different macros with differences in insulin sensitivity, so something has to be up -- it's got to be more than just sheer caloric value or those calories are touching off some process in the body that's greatly shifting the CO part of the equation for reasons we don't completely understand.
I definitely agree. And i know from my personal experiences, my wife has to stay away from carbs and gluten or she struggles to have energy and struggles with weight. As a group, we tend to oversimple the variables because for 90% of the people on this board, there are very little variables outside of creating a deficit.
Well, I agree with you in many ways, though I'm not sure I'd say 90% of the people on this board aren't outside of those variables considering over 40% of the US adult population has diabetes or prediabetes.
I am pretty sure I know the statistic you are referring too and I thought it said its estimated that 40% of Americans will have prediabetes or diabetes within their lifetime... which is far from 40% have diabetes.. but please correct me if I am wrong.
I am sure if you look worldwide, that statistic would be much much lower since obesity isnt as rampant in most countries.0 -
The latest is that cardio is good for the heart and lungs but for weight loss, it is weights and interval training. I have to say that after all my hard-work programs for years and watching the weight creep on, and recently starting with weights and seeing results, weights and interval training seem to work. You only have to do it 3-4x/week, too.
I additionally do yoga, swim, and a woman's overall toning program designed by a physical therapist, as time permits, and because it makes me feel good in my body. But what makes the fat budge is the interval and weight training.
Btw, I am mystified by all the acronyms people are throwing around here. Would be grateful if you all would spell out the entire name before embarking on the acronyms.0 -
I lost 12 kilo's when I had PCOS, but I didn't count calories at all actually. I focused more on the macro side of things, and ate a very low GI diet, almost diabetes type of diet. With the help of the internet and a couple of random low gi cookbooks I picked up at a book store. The only other thing was, I ate smaller portions when I had carbs like rice and pasta (e.g 100g cooked pasta) and I weighed those. Also had those potatoes diabetics can have, and basmati or brown rice. I ate less starchy vegetables while eating low gi as well.
That could be considered carb restriction, I suppose. But I still ate carbs regularly.
Exercise, I did weights and cardio 3-4 times a week
I think what someone else said earlier was spot on-with PCOS it's not just calories in, calories out, it is also the macro side. I think the low gi thing was what really helped me, so if you still don't see results doing as you are in about a month, I don't think it would hurt to have a go with that, in combination with what you're already doing.0 -
I definitely think they're related, don't get me wrong. I think the idea of CICO is based upon the premise of conservation of energy. It's just not a direct 1:1 correlation like some folks seem to think -- "you can't deny the laws of thermodynamics!" The body is full of a lot of chemical and physical processes --- which I'm sure do obey the laws of thermodynamics. But, you've got to keep in mind those limitations, like the closed system (and the body isn't a closed system) or the fact that we don't see or are able to investigate all those processes. We can just compare beginning and end products, note trends and put together hypotheses on what is actually happening in between.
And CICO is a hypothesis -- not a law. I think it's a good hypothesis and makes a lot of sense for those in "normal" parameters. But, doesn't seem to be always true for those outside of normal parameters, and we don't seem to have a really good understanding of why that is. Perhaps there is something that's neutral/silent for "normal" people, so we don't observe it there, but only becomes apparent when people have issues -- whether thyroid, PCOS, insulin resistance, etc. I don't know. But, you see the differences in weight loss for people on different macros with differences in insulin sensitivity, so something has to be up -- it's got to be more than just sheer caloric value or those calories are touching off some process in the body that's greatly shifting the CO part of the equation for reasons we don't completely understand.
I definitely agree. And i know from my personal experiences, my wife has to stay away from carbs and gluten or she struggles to have energy and struggles with weight. As a group, we tend to oversimple the variables because for 90% of the people on this board, there are very little variables outside of creating a deficit.
Well, I agree with you in many ways, though I'm not sure I'd say 90% of the people on this board aren't outside of those variables considering over 40% of the US adult population has diabetes or prediabetes.
I am pretty sure I know the statistic you are referring too and I thought it said its estimated that 40% of Americans will have prediabetes or diabetes within their lifetime... which is far from 40% have diabetes.. but please correct me if I am wrong.
I am sure if you look worldwide, that statistic would be much much lower since obesity isnt as rampant in most countries.
Nope. I believe it's from the CDC, but I can't quite remember off top my head. It's estimated that 8.3% of US adults have diabetes and something like 35.3% have prediabetes. I know for those with diabetes, they believe that one third don't know it yet. I'm not sure what the amount for those estimated to have prediabetes and don't know what yet is. I'll see if I can find the article.0 -
I have PCOS and even when I was 380 pounds it was very rare to lose in excess of 2 pounds a week (and if that happened the next week the losses would be very small) so losing 5 pounds in a month with PCOS at your weight doesnt strike me as odd. I do personally find for myself eating minimal processed foods and ensuring I exercise allows for the best success - best of luck 0
-
I took a look at your diary and I don't think you are eating enough. Now before you dismiss me, I too have PCOS as well as no thyroid so I know how you feel. I lost 30lbs last year, and when I started I stuck to 1200 a day no matter how much I exercised, but wasn't barely losing anything, I upped it to around 1500 on the days I worked out and 1200 on the days I didn't and started to lose on average about 2 pounds a week. I also try to stick limited carbs and to gluten free carbs like quinoa and brown rice which really helps.0
-
Here is the article from the CDC on the diabetes and prediabetes numbers: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/estimates11.htm0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions