Slow Loss - Confused - PCOS
Options
Replies
-
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
-
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.
"From the beginning of the article.
Total: 25.8 million people, or 8.3% of the U.S. population, have diabetes.
Diagnosed: 18.8 million people
Undiagnosed: 7.0 million people
In 2005−2008, based on fasting glucose or A1c levels, 35% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had prediabetes (50% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population in 2010 yields an estimated 79 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
That 35% doesn't have diabetes.. they are at risk of developing diabetes. But footnote: The diagnostic criteria for diabetes and prediabetes have changed over time. They are currently based on the results of 3 blood tests—the fasting blood glucose test, the oral glucose tolerance test, and the hemoglobin A1c test. All of these tests identify people with diabetes or at risk of developing diabetes. However, the number of people that these tests identify and their characteristics vary between the 3 tests. For example, A1c varies by race/ethnicity independent of blood glucose levels. The implications of demographic differences in estimates of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes when using different laboratory tests are not known."
So while I don't disagree, people have to be a little more concern, but just because someone is at risk of diabetes, doesn't mean they have it. Its not different than me having an increase chance of developing skin cancer because it runs in my family, so I wear sunblock.0 -
The first law requires a closed system and the body is not a closed system.
You can do 1st law analysis over any system boundaries. Energy in = Energy out + Accumulation.
It's just a question of definitions.0 -
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.
"From the beginning of the article.
Total: 25.8 million people, or 8.3% of the U.S. population, have diabetes.
Diagnosed: 18.8 million people
Undiagnosed: 7.0 million people
In 2005−2008, based on fasting glucose or A1c levels, 35% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had prediabetes (50% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population in 2010 yields an estimated 79 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
That 35% doesn't have diabetes.. they are at risk of developing diabetes. But footnote: The diagnostic criteria for diabetes and prediabetes have changed over time. They are currently based on the results of 3 blood tests—the fasting blood glucose test, the oral glucose tolerance test, and the hemoglobin A1c test. All of these tests identify people with diabetes or at risk of developing diabetes. However, the number of people that these tests identify and their characteristics vary between the 3 tests. For example, A1c varies by race/ethnicity independent of blood glucose levels. The implications of demographic differences in estimates of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes when using different laboratory tests are not known."
So while I don't disagree, people have to be a little more concern, but just because someone is at risk of diabetes, doesn't mean they have it. Its not different than me having an increase chance of developing skin cancer because it runs in my family, so I wear sunblock.
Right. That's why I said over 40% of American adults have diabetes and prediabetes -- not just diabetes. That's what this shows, right?0 -
You have lost weight...normal healthy loss is 1-2lbs a week an you are within that. I have PCOS too and it is unbelievably slow - last month I only lost 1.4lbs and I am meticulous about it too! Just keep at it, slow and steady wins.0
-
The first law requires a closed system and the body is not a closed system.
You can do 1st law analysis over any system boundaries. Energy in = Energy out + Accumulation.
It's just a question of definitions.
But don't you need a way to capture/measure all of that energy? For example, we certainly give off energy in the form of body heat -- and some of that is captured by the calories burned/expended to heat the body, but is it all captured that way? I don't know, but I thought that was why a closed system was important. Perhaps someone with greater physics skills than me can explain -- I may be off on this.0 -
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.
"From the beginning of the article.
Total: 25.8 million people, or 8.3% of the U.S. population, have diabetes.
Diagnosed: 18.8 million people
Undiagnosed: 7.0 million people
In 2005−2008, based on fasting glucose or A1c levels, 35% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had prediabetes (50% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population in 2010 yields an estimated 79 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
That 35% doesn't have diabetes.. they are at risk of developing diabetes. But footnote: The diagnostic criteria for diabetes and prediabetes have changed over time. They are currently based on the results of 3 blood tests—the fasting blood glucose test, the oral glucose tolerance test, and the hemoglobin A1c test. All of these tests identify people with diabetes or at risk of developing diabetes. However, the number of people that these tests identify and their characteristics vary between the 3 tests. For example, A1c varies by race/ethnicity independent of blood glucose levels. The implications of demographic differences in estimates of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes when using different laboratory tests are not known."
So while I don't disagree, people have to be a little more concern, but just because someone is at risk of diabetes, doesn't mean they have it. Its not different than me having an increase chance of developing skin cancer because it runs in my family, so I wear sunblock.
Right. That's why I said over 40% of American adults have diabetes and prediabetes -- not just diabetes. That's what this shows, right?
But prediabetes =/= diabetes. Prediabetes = a warning or potential issue that can be quickly mitigated. And if you are going to talk statistics, you can't include the maybes. That doesn't even include the fact that the way it's measured varies. You would be right to say that 8.3% actually have diabetes, but to assume the other 35% have or will have diabetes is an assumption. Also, keep in mind that governments use this statistics to get funding. It's a lot easy to get funding when there is a possible chance of 40% of people could have it or might get it as compared to only 8.3% of people have it.0 -
In looking at your diary you are not even coming close to your daily goal.0
-
I have pcos .. and endo and ive lost 250 lbs ... what worked for me is whole foods and cardio
I eat everything fat carbs protien sugars .. I limit my processed and refined food
nothing in a box or a can no bleached or unbleached flour no granulated or brown sugar (unless it is raw and unprocessed ) but any recipe that calls for sugar can be imporvised (honey molasses apple sauce bananas)
Processed foods include low fat and fat free ( everyone has their opinion however do some research newer studies are showing low fat and fat free foods can infact lead to heart diseas and cancers)
I dont eat anything with less than 2 % mf and I try to avoid margarine sometimes I use it but typically stick with butter
Do your research on the glycimic index certain foods we think are healthy *rice cakes* are.really not
I eat my daily intake of carbs which is around 200g however like someone else said I try not to go over about 40g in a meal
And I eat frequently every 2 -3 hours and try eating majority of your calories before6pm with a light snack like some soup or something after that
And watch birthcontrol people with pcos tend to take bc to help hormones however In my experience I didnt start losing weight untillI went off them and about 8 months ago went back on and gained back 3 lbs . I stopped taking them last montj and already back down 9 lbs so if you take bc pills maybe come off them for a bit and see how that goes ?0 -
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.
"From the beginning of the article.
Total: 25.8 million people, or 8.3% of the U.S. population, have diabetes.
Diagnosed: 18.8 million people
Undiagnosed: 7.0 million people
In 2005−2008, based on fasting glucose or A1c levels, 35% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had prediabetes (50% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population in 2010 yields an estimated 79 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
That 35% doesn't have diabetes.. they are at risk of developing diabetes. But footnote: The diagnostic criteria for diabetes and prediabetes have changed over time. They are currently based on the results of 3 blood tests—the fasting blood glucose test, the oral glucose tolerance test, and the hemoglobin A1c test. All of these tests identify people with diabetes or at risk of developing diabetes. However, the number of people that these tests identify and their characteristics vary between the 3 tests. For example, A1c varies by race/ethnicity independent of blood glucose levels. The implications of demographic differences in estimates of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes when using different laboratory tests are not known."
So while I don't disagree, people have to be a little more concern, but just because someone is at risk of diabetes, doesn't mean they have it. Its not different than me having an increase chance of developing skin cancer because it runs in my family, so I wear sunblock.
Right. That's why I said over 40% of American adults have diabetes and prediabetes -- not just diabetes. That's what this shows, right?
But prediabetes =/= diabetes. Prediabetes = a warning or potential issue that can be quickly mitigated. And if you are going to talk statistics, you can't include the maybes. That doesn't even include the fact that the way it's measured varies. You would be right to say that 8.3% actually have diabetes, but to assume the other 35% have or will have diabetes is an assumption. Also, keep in mind that governments use this statistics to get funding. It's a lot easy to get funding when there is a possible chance of 40% of people could have it or might get it as compared to only 8.3% of people have it.
Except that a lot of people DON'T mitigate it until they finally develop full-blown diabetes. And CICO by itself doesn't always curb the risk. Including pre-diabetics in these stats is relevent.
Also, lets be clear that we're discussing Type 2s or potential Type 2s that can actually do something about it. That 8.3% shouldn't include Type 1s.0 -
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.
"From the beginning of the article.
Total: 25.8 million people, or 8.3% of the U.S. population, have diabetes.
Diagnosed: 18.8 million people
Undiagnosed: 7.0 million people
In 2005−2008, based on fasting glucose or A1c levels, 35% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had prediabetes (50% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population in 2010 yields an estimated 79 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
That 35% doesn't have diabetes.. they are at risk of developing diabetes. But footnote: The diagnostic criteria for diabetes and prediabetes have changed over time. They are currently based on the results of 3 blood tests—the fasting blood glucose test, the oral glucose tolerance test, and the hemoglobin A1c test. All of these tests identify people with diabetes or at risk of developing diabetes. However, the number of people that these tests identify and their characteristics vary between the 3 tests. For example, A1c varies by race/ethnicity independent of blood glucose levels. The implications of demographic differences in estimates of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes when using different laboratory tests are not known."
So while I don't disagree, people have to be a little more concern, but just because someone is at risk of diabetes, doesn't mean they have it. Its not different than me having an increase chance of developing skin cancer because it runs in my family, so I wear sunblock.
Right. That's why I said over 40% of American adults have diabetes and prediabetes -- not just diabetes. That's what this shows, right?
But prediabetes =/= diabetes. Prediabetes = a warning or potential issue that can be quickly mitigated. And if you are going to talk statistics, you can't include the maybes. That doesn't even include the fact that the way it's measured varies. You would be right to say that 8.3% actually have diabetes, but to assume the other 35% have or will have diabetes is an assumption. Also, keep in mind that governments use this statistics to get funding. It's a lot easy to get funding when there is a possible chance of 40% of people could have it or might get it as compared to only 8.3% of people have it.
I understand that there is a difference, but I think the differentiation used (at least in this example) has to do with insulin resistance levels. At a certain range, they go from normal (below 5.6) to pre-diabetes (5.7-6.4), then if they get high enough (6.5+), it's considered diabetes. So, pre-diabetes isn't just a "warning sign", it's a lower level of insulin resistance which is still higher than the normal range. Considering insulin resistance makes losing weight harder, especially in regard to carb consumption, this is not an insignificant thing.
I wasn't saying that all 40+% will get diabetes, but currently over 40% of people either have diabetes OR prediabetes (and the elevated insulin resistance levels). If you go back and look at my initial statement, you'll see that.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions