Quick way to get the weight going down!!
Options
Replies
-
Lindsey, that's not true. Did you see the poster who said that she doesn't have a thyroid therefore she has to make adjustments to find her correct calorie intake. It's not that conditions don't exist, because they do, but that the following is the same for everyone:There's no point in arguing with some of these people. They simply don't understand the complexity of the human body and the role that certain hormones and metabolic pathways come into to play with weight loss. They don't understand that a greater deficit can actually impede weight-loss due to the body's stress response. They don't understand that if you have malfunctioning glucose metabolism that will affect your calorie balance and the macros you need to eat to see results.
They don't understand it, so they declare that doesn't exist. Luckily, reality is not dependent upon the limited understanding of such people.
In their reality, the world is flat.
If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
If you eat about the same amount of calories you burns, you will maintain your weight.
With certain medical conditions, you will have to work with the numbers to find the correct TDEE for you and subtract from.0 -
Lindsey, that's not true. Did you see the poster who said that she doesn't have a thyroid therefore she has to make adjustments to find her correct calorie intake. It's not that conditions don't exist, because they do, but that the following is the same for everyone:There's no point in arguing with some of these people. They simply don't understand the complexity of the human body and the role that certain hormones and metabolic pathways come into to play with weight loss. They don't understand that a greater deficit can actually impede weight-loss due to the body's stress response. They don't understand that if you have malfunctioning glucose metabolism that will affect your calorie balance and the macros you need to eat to see results.
They don't understand it, so they declare that doesn't exist. Luckily, reality is not dependent upon the limited understanding of such people.
In their reality, the world is flat.
If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
If you eat about the same amount of calories you burns, you will maintain your weight.
With certain medical conditions, you will have to work with the numbers to find the correct TDEE for you and subtract from.
I respectfully disagree with you on this. An easy example is someone with a carb sensitivity like insulin resistance.
Do you think they will lose weight with the same caloric deficit as someone that is not insulin resistant?
Because if that was the case, then you wouldn't have studies that show drastically different weight losses based on different macros for insulin sensitive and insulin resistant woman. There is one where 4 groups of women were given 2 different diet macros. All diets were calculated to have a 400 calorie deficit. Insulin sensitive women eating 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat lost nearly twice as much as other insulin sensitive women who ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat. How do you explain that if a calorie deficit is all that matters?
It was the exact opposite for insulin resistant women. Those that ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 40% fat lost nearly twice as much weight as the insulin resistant women that ate 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% carbs.
If total caloric value was all that mattered in weight loss, then you'd see fairly similar results across all groups. But the study showed nearly twice as much lost in two groups as opposed to the other two on calorically equivalent diets.
Once again, how do you explain that if caloric value/deficit is all that matters?0 -
Here's a link to the referenced study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Is it fundamentally flawed? I don't know. It doesn't appear to be.
I will also say that this was also what I found to be from my own personal experience. I was cutting at an over 700 calorie average daily deficit and losing virtually no weight (2.2 lbs over three months). I had my RMR checked (that whole gas mask thing). It was lower than I thought, but not drastically -- it meant that my deficit was closer to 600 than 700, but still didn't line up with my lack of weight loss. But I still should have lost well over 12 lbs and instead was less than 3.
After a frustrating medical path, I finally learn that I have both a thyroid disorder and insulin resistance. I receive medication for both. About half way up to dosing up for both, weight starts coming off like a "normal" person -- in line with my deficits. I had my RMR checked again. It has increased (likely due to the thyroid)-- up to near what I thought it was originally -- so resulting in the 700+ daily caloric deficit I originally calculated. And I was losing weight almost perfectly in line with that.
So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed, that says to me that it's more than the mere calorie deficit as before I should have been losing a lot more but that only occurred once I took meds to treat the thyroid and the insulin resistance.
Some people here don't believe that or don't understand how that's possible. If you look into how insulin resistance affects glucose metabolism, it makes a lot of sense and why people with those issues -- whether prediabetes, diabetes, PCOS, etc. -- struggle with losing weight, especially if they can't find a medication that helps with the glucose/insulin issue. And why limiting carbs (especially high glycemic carbs) is often very important to them to lose weight --- it's often a combination of a calorie deficit AND carb restriction that works.
I'd personally love for it all to be about easy CICO calculations for everyone, but I've found that not to be the case for ALL people. For some, it is about a lot more than just a sheer calorie deficit. And for those that don't know they have a medical condition (like I didn't know for YEARS), it can be very frustrating and downright dangerous for them to think that it's all about a calorie deficit as they could keep cutting and really get themselves into trouble and potentially further exacerbate their underlying problem.0 -
Lindsey, that's not true. Did you see the poster who said that she doesn't have a thyroid therefore she has to make adjustments to find her correct calorie intake. It's not that conditions don't exist, because they do, but that the following is the same for everyone:There's no point in arguing with some of these people. They simply don't understand the complexity of the human body and the role that certain hormones and metabolic pathways come into to play with weight loss. They don't understand that a greater deficit can actually impede weight-loss due to the body's stress response. They don't understand that if you have malfunctioning glucose metabolism that will affect your calorie balance and the macros you need to eat to see results.
They don't understand it, so they declare that doesn't exist. Luckily, reality is not dependent upon the limited understanding of such people.
In their reality, the world is flat.
If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
If you eat about the same amount of calories you burns, you will maintain your weight.
With certain medical conditions, you will have to work with the numbers to find the correct TDEE for you and subtract from.
I respectfully disagree with you on this. An easy example is someone with a carb sensitivity like insulin resistance.
Do you think they will lose weight with the same caloric deficit as someone that is not insulin resistant?
Because if that was the case, then you wouldn't have studies that show drastically different weight losses based on different macros for insulin sensitive and insulin resistant woman. There is one where 4 groups of women were given 2 different diet macros. All diets were calculated to have a 400 calorie deficit. Insulin sensitive women eating 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat lost nearly twice as much as other insulin sensitive women who ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat. How do you explain that if a calorie deficit is all that matters?
It was the exact opposite for insulin resistant women. Those that ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 40% fat lost nearly twice as much weight as the insulin resistant women that ate 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% carbs.
If total caloric value was all that mattered in weight loss, then you'd see fairly similar results across all groups. But the study showed nearly twice as much lost in two groups as opposed to the other two on calorically equivalent diets.
Once again, how do you explain that if caloric value/deficit is all that matters?
So each woman ate [/i]both[/i] diets at an isocaloric level (taking the thermic effect of food into account) for the same period of time and experienced different weight loss results on the two different diets? Otherwise, it is not a well-designed study.0 -
I think you may have hit upon something there. The measuring methodology does not work for all populations equally well. Why should that be surprising?So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed0 -
bump0
-
Lindsey, that's not true. Did you see the poster who said that she doesn't have a thyroid therefore she has to make adjustments to find her correct calorie intake. It's not that conditions don't exist, because they do, but that the following is the same for everyone:There's no point in arguing with some of these people. They simply don't understand the complexity of the human body and the role that certain hormones and metabolic pathways come into to play with weight loss. They don't understand that a greater deficit can actually impede weight-loss due to the body's stress response. They don't understand that if you have malfunctioning glucose metabolism that will affect your calorie balance and the macros you need to eat to see results.
They don't understand it, so they declare that doesn't exist. Luckily, reality is not dependent upon the limited understanding of such people.
In their reality, the world is flat.
If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.
If you eat about the same amount of calories you burns, you will maintain your weight.
With certain medical conditions, you will have to work with the numbers to find the correct TDEE for you and subtract from.
I respectfully disagree with you on this. An easy example is someone with a carb sensitivity like insulin resistance.
Do you think they will lose weight with the same caloric deficit as someone that is not insulin resistant?
Because if that was the case, then you wouldn't have studies that show drastically different weight losses based on different macros for insulin sensitive and insulin resistant woman. There is one where 4 groups of women were given 2 different diet macros. All diets were calculated to have a 400 calorie deficit. Insulin sensitive women eating 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat lost nearly twice as much as other insulin sensitive women who ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 20% fat. How do you explain that if a calorie deficit is all that matters?
It was the exact opposite for insulin resistant women. Those that ate 40% carbs, 20% protein and 40% fat lost nearly twice as much weight as the insulin resistant women that ate 60% carbs, 20% protein and 20% carbs.
If total caloric value was all that mattered in weight loss, then you'd see fairly similar results across all groups. But the study showed nearly twice as much lost in two groups as opposed to the other two on calorically equivalent diets.
Once again, how do you explain that if caloric value/deficit is all that matters?
So each woman ate [/i]both[/i] diets at an isocaloric level (taking the thermic effect of food into account) for the same period of time and experienced different weight loss results on the two different diets? Otherwise, it is not a well-designed study.
Where do you ever see that happening? That someone has the same people eat both sets of diets? Are they suppose to eat one diet, lose the weight, then regain the weight and try the second diet? That's sort of a silly idea.
If you really meant to say what you said, then you pretty much consider every comparative diet study invalid as virtually none of them do what you suggest (nor does what you suggest make any sense). Moreover if diet wasn't a causual factor in the different results, then the results should have been random across all 4 groups. And they weren't -- at all. Two groups lost dramatically different amounts of weight compared with the other two.0 -
I think you may have hit upon something there. The measuring methodology does not work for all populations equally well. Why should that be surprising?So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed
I have never heard of this. Do you have any information to speak to this?
In either case, since I was the test subject in both tests, the flaw would be consistent and relative (if such a flaw exists). Plus, on the second go around, I was losing in line with those calculations. So once again, your theory doesn't make much sense.0 -
Theory? That's awfully generous of you. It was an off-the-cuff observation.
I think you may have hit upon something there. The measuring methodology does not work for all populations equally well. Why should that be surprising?So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed
I have never heard of this. Do you have any information to speak to this?
In either case, since I was the test subject in both tests, the flaw would be consistent and relative (if such a flaw exists). Plus, on the second go around, I was losing in line with those calculations. So once again, your theory doesn't make much sense.
I missed the part before where you mentioned you were part of the study. Is it usual for subjects to be so intimately familiar with the methodologies of a study?
Anyway, I didn't mean specifically RMR measurements. I meant the general observation that measurement methods are not equally accurate for all populations. For example, the whole max heart rate being equal to 220 - your age. That's not really a good model. I think just maybe it's possible that the RMR experiments don't properly control for all variables, and they may not know what all the sources of error are. I'm not actually an exercise physiologist, just an amateur scientist employing my skepticism and critical thinking.0 -
Maybe we do things differently in the physics world compared to the exercise/nutrition physiology world. If I wanted to see how two different diets affected individuals, I would design the experiment so that each individual would eat each diet for a set period of time and observe the results from each trial. I remember being a prospective subject for a study on the effects of dairy on weight, and it required individuals to trial a diet which did not include any dairy for a period of time, and then trial a diet which included a specific form of dairy. I wasn't about to give up all dairy for any length of time, but the point is, each individual had to trial both diets. How else can you compare apples to apples?Where do you ever see that happening? That someone has the same people eat both sets of diets? Are they suppose to eat one diet, lose the weight, then regain the weight and try the second diet? That's sort of a silly idea.
If you really meant to say what you said, then you pretty much consider every comparative diet study invalid as virtually none of them do what you suggest (nor does what you suggest make any sense). Moreover if diet wasn't a causual factor in the different results, then the results should have been random across all 4 groups. And they weren't -- at all. Two groups lost dramatically different amounts of weight compared with the other two.0 -
Theory? That's awfully generous of you. It was an off-the-cuff observation.
I think you may have hit upon something there. The measuring methodology does not work for all populations equally well. Why should that be surprising?So, unless our ways of measuring RMR is deeply flawed
I have never heard of this. Do you have any information to speak to this?
In either case, since I was the test subject in both tests, the flaw would be consistent and relative (if such a flaw exists). Plus, on the second go around, I was losing in line with those calculations. So once again, your theory doesn't make much sense.
I missed the part before where you mentioned you were part of the study. Is it usual for subjects to be so intimately familiar with the methodologies of a study?
Anyway, I didn't mean specifically RMR measurements. I meant the general observation that measurement methods are not equally accurate for all populations. For example, the whole max heart rate being equal to 220 - your age. That's not really a good model. I think just maybe it's possible that the RMR experiments don't properly control for all variables, and they may not know what all the sources of error are. I'm not actually an exercise physiologist, just an amateur scientist employing my skepticism and critical thinking.
There are two separate things going on. RMR was also tested in the study as the docs said that they couldn't account for the higher weight loss in the two groups that lost nearly twice as much weight. I was not part of this study.
I had my own RMR tested before and after the thyroid and insulin resistance diagnoses, where I was not not losing in line with my calculated deficits until I received medication for the conditions and began restricting carbs. That was what I was refencing as to RMR testing being deeply flawed, though I suppose it could refer to the study too as they did RMR testing as well.0 -
Oh! That makes more sense. So, when your condition was untreated, your RMR was measured as the same as afterward, when your condition was treated? I didn't get that from your earlier posts.There are two separate things going on. RMR was also tested in the study as the docs said that they couldn't account for the higher weight loss in the two groups that lost nearly twice as much weight. I was not part of this study.
I had my own RMR tested before and after the thyroid and insulin resistance diagnoses, where I was not not losing in line with my calculated deficits until I received medication for the conditions and began restricting carbs. That was what I was refencing as to RMR testing being deeply flawed, though I suppose it could refer to the study too as they did RMR testing as well.
So here's another idea that just popped into my mind. They talk about the thermic effect of foods, but much like the maximal heart rate thing, I bet that varies across individuals.
Not that it would settle the question, but some 6 week trials of a large number of individuals on several different macro ratios might shed light on it. The difficulty is that these studies are just so difficult to control and very expensive to control.0 -
Maybe we do things differently in the physics world compared to the exercise/nutrition physiology world. If I wanted to see how two different diets affected individuals, I would design the experiment so that each individual would eat each diet for a set period of time and observe the results from each trial. I remember being a prospective subject for a study on the effects of dairy on weight, and it required individuals to trial a diet which did not include any dairy for a period of time, and then trial a diet which included a specific form of dairy. I wasn't about to give up all dairy for any length of time, but the point is, each individual had to trial both diets. How else can you compare apples to apples?Where do you ever see that happening? That someone has the same people eat both sets of diets? Are they suppose to eat one diet, lose the weight, then regain the weight and try the second diet? That's sort of a silly idea.
If you really meant to say what you said, then you pretty much consider every comparative diet study invalid as virtually none of them do what you suggest (nor does what you suggest make any sense). Moreover if diet wasn't a causual factor in the different results, then the results should have been random across all 4 groups. And they weren't -- at all. Two groups lost dramatically different amounts of weight compared with the other two.
The problem with that is that you're not comparing the same things as they'd have different start weights, and that may prejudice the results (i.e. may lose more weight in first diet merely because they have more weight to lose and haven't had effects of prolonged caloric restriction). So instead they take a variety of individuals with specific attributes -- bf in a certain range, insulin sensitivity or resistance in a certain range, etc. -- in an attempt to control only the variable, which is difference in diet specifically. Then they average the results between groups to see trends as obviously there will be variation from person to person.0 -
Oh! That makes more sense. So, when your condition was untreated, your RMR was measured as the same as afterward, when your condition was treated? I didn't get that from your earlier posts.There are two separate things going on. RMR was also tested in the study as the docs said that they couldn't account for the higher weight loss in the two groups that lost nearly twice as much weight. I was not part of this study.
I had my own RMR tested before and after the thyroid and insulin resistance diagnoses, where I was not not losing in line with my calculated deficits until I received medication for the conditions and began restricting carbs. That was what I was refencing as to RMR testing being deeply flawed, though I suppose it could refer to the study too as they did RMR testing as well.
So here's another idea that just popped into my mind. They talk about the thermic effect of foods, but much like the maximal heart rate thing, I bet that varies across individuals.
Not that it would settle the question, but some 6 week trials of a large number of individuals on several different macro ratios might shed light on it. The difficulty is that these studies are just so difficult to control and very expensive to control.
Did you read the study? Because I believe they discuss this as well, and was part of the reason why protein macro is the same in both diets. I believe protein has the biggest difference in thermic affect relative to carbs and fats (and is another reason why all calories aren't the same).0 -
As a newcomer/outsider reading this thread, it is painfully obvious to me that you guys (who are arguing) are basically going around in circles. All people are identical in that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Whether a person is in said deficit or how deep in the deficit depends on your CO. This is where all people are not the same. The CO is what can be affected by a medical condition (or personal activity level, exercise, etc...). You just simply need to figure out how your medical issues affect your CO so you can plan and accurately weigh/measure your CI.
My $.02, take it for what its worth.0 -
Welcome to the argument. The basic issue is that some people are denying that this is true.As a newcomer/outsider reading this thread, it is painfully obvious to me that you guys (who are arguing) are basically going around in circles. All people are identical in that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Whether a person is in said deficit or how deep in the deficit depends on your CO. This is where all people are not the same. The CO is what can be affected by a medical condition (or personal activity level, exercise, etc...). You just simply need to figure out how your medical issues affect your CO so you can plan and accurately weigh/measure your CI.
My $.02, take it for what its worth.0 -
As a newcomer/outsider reading this thread, it is painfully obvious to me that you guys (who are arguing) are basically going around in circles. All people are identical in that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Whether a person is in said deficit or how deep in the deficit depends on your CO. This is where all people are not the same. The CO is what can be affected by a medical condition (or personal activity level, exercise, etc...). You just simply need to figure out how your medical issues affect your CO so you can plan and accurately weigh/measure your CI.
My $.02, take it for what its worth.
As an old timer, welcome. And yes, you are spot on.0 -
As a newcomer/outsider reading this thread, it is painfully obvious to me that you guys (who are arguing) are basically going around in circles. All people are identical in that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Whether a person is in said deficit or how deep in the deficit depends on your CO. This is where all people are not the same. The CO is what can be affected by a medical condition (or personal activity level, exercise, etc...). You just simply need to figure out how your medical issues affect your CO so you can plan and accurately weigh/measure your CI.
My $.02, take it for what its worth.
I think you're right in part and wrong in part. I think you're correct on the CO part in general terms (at least for healthy individuals -- for those with conditions, this seems less clear), but what a lot of people don't seem to want to address is how different calories affect the CO. So that different input calories (such as carbs for people with carb sensitivity issues) drastically either change the CO equation or behave differently because assumptions that are true for healthy people are not true for people with such issues. From what I've seen, that seems to be very much up for debate, as demonstrated by the study I cited.
The researchers couldn't account for the dramatically different weight loss rates, at least by our current measurement standards for CO activities. So either our way of measuring the CO part of the equation as pertains to RMR and other energy expenditures is deeply flawed, which only becomes obvious with these sorts or issues, or there is something else that contributes to equation, which is either not currently captured in the CO part of the equation or may simply not apply and hasn't been found yet.
Because for people with such issues, a caloric deficit is often not enough for weight loss results. Oftentimes they have to restrict carbs as well -- so how they create that deficit can be just as, if not more, important than the deficit itself. This is the issue that a lot of the CICO purists won't address -- that not all calories are equal for all people.0 -
Sigh - i feel like i read so many different opinions on these threads that i get sooo confused about what is true and what isn't. sometimes a deficit stops working for me and then i up my calories for a few days....then when i go back to 1200 for a few more days i lose like crazy....
what seems to work for me is tricking my body. that's how i get weight off really fast. 1800 one day, 1100 the next, 1300 the next day, 1000 the next, 2000, 1600, 1200, 800, 1600 etc etc. (exercising 4-5 days per week for at least 30 mins)
i do think everyone is different. some people need small deficits, some need large. some need a 5:2 diet. some need to just add exercise.
as for losing it quick? good luck in finding what works for you. in my experience, i didn't put it on overnight so i cant expect to lose it overnight. my mom always told me that the slower you lose, the easier it will be to keep it off. the quicker you lose, the easier you could put it back on. i know that's not professional advice, but my mom is pretty freaking amazing
good luck ox0 -
Sigh - i feel like i read so many different opinions on these threads that i get sooo confused about what is true and what isn't. sometimes a deficit stops working for me and then i up my calories for a few days....then when i go back to 1200 for a few more days i lose like crazy....
what seems to work for me is tricking my body. that's how i get weight off really fast. 1800 one day, 1100 the next, 1300 the next day, 1000 the next, 2000, 1600, 1200, 800, 1600 etc etc. (exercising 4-5 days per week for at least 30 mins)
i do think everyone is different. some people need small deficits, some need large. some need a 5:2 diet. some need to just add exercise.
as for losing it quick? good luck in finding what works for you. in my experience, i didn't put it on overnight so i cant expect to lose it overnight. my mom always told me that the slower you lose, the easier it will be to keep it off. the quicker you lose, the easier you could put it back on. i know that's not professional advice, but my mom is pretty freaking amazing
good luck ox
This is frustrating. OP, I understand your confusion. But the fact is, regardless of weak arguments to the contrary, if you are in a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Period. You can't trick your body, it is physics. If you are on the negative side of the energy equation, you lose weight, it is impossible to do otherwise. If you are not losing weight, you are on the positive side of the equation. Consume fewer calories. No, it makes no difference where the calories come from.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions