MFP Change of Stance?

dammitjanet0161 wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

Too many people have said they were strict with their restriction, then ate some more and dropped pounds...they can't all be lying. There must be something to it.

Anecdotally this happens a lot doesn't it? How many times have you heard people complain when they have been "good" all week or month and haven't lost weight or only lost a negliable amount, and then they'll say they were scared to weigh in one week because they had a blowout for some reason but then they lose more than they have in a while.

I don't know the science behind it, but I'm glad I found MFP and the people on here who promote finding the level where you can still lose weight while eating a sustainable amount rather than the usual strict 1000 calorie quick fix diets touted in magazines etc

I believe the current theory is that when you've been restricting, you're placing your body under stress. Chronic stress translates into chronically raised levels of cortisol which causes water retention. Overeating for a little bit, especially carbs, relieves the stress, lets cortisol levels drop and you drop the water weight.

So you never stopped losing fat, you just kept packing on more water. Eventually, the fat loss would win out over the water retention and you'd see it on the scale, but it would take a loooong time.

I had this happen to me a couple of weeks ago - except I compounded the problem by also steadily increasing some fairly demanding exercise over 2 months (half-marathon training + Starting Strength). Weight was not changing. I started to feel run down, so I ate more. Should specify, I ate my TDEE for a couple of days. Did not just cut loose. Lost 4 pounds in one day - at 118 lbs, so no way was that fat. Plus, my ankles and knees that had been stiff from mild edema - gone.

Now that I'm cutting again, I put 2 of those lost pounds back on. In one day again.

I'm not convinced that cortisol is the whole explanation, because there's just too much variability in the subjects' responses. Something else (maybe many something elses) is probably in play as well. But chronic under-eating and or over-exercise -> stress -> water retention masking fat loss? Especially slow fat loss? That I can get behind.

Oishii wrote: »

GauchoMark wrote: »

That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.

I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.

you read my quote backwards. we are saying the same thing - "slow" and "fast" are regarding metabolism, not weight loss rate - so the high end of the calorie window would be when your metabolism may be faster and your physical performance is better, i.e. you feel better and have more energy.

sofaking6 wrote: »

GauchoMark wrote: »

Oishii wrote: »

GauchoMark wrote: »

That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.

I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.

you read my quote backwards. we are saying the same thing - "slow" and "fast" are regarding metabolism, not weight loss rate - so the high end of the calorie window would be when your metabolism may be faster and your physical performance is better, i.e. you feel better and have more energy.

One thing that is pretty consistent is that people seem to only relate metabolism to consumption, and I never see any threads where it is related to muscle mass and/or energy expenditure. I guess fitness is wholly unrelated to BMR?

Because that requires actual body analysis, and then they'll find out they're mostly flab, and that means that they, in fact, have to eat less to lose weight.

Kalikel wrote: »

Too many people have said they were strict with their restriction, then ate some more and dropped pounds...they can't all be lying. There must be something to it.

Part of it is Berkson's Paradox aka Berkson's Fallacy. Because the people posting aren't representative of the entire population of people trying to lose weight, you get spurious correlations when you look at the restricted pool of posters.

Part of it is that weight loss isn't linear, and people are hard-wired to identify patterns even when no such pattern exists. "I ate 3000 calories in a day and saw downward scale movement the next day; eating more causes weight loss" is the same erroneous pattern identification as "I ate 700 calories in a day and saw upward scale movement the next day; eating less causes weight gain."

Part of it is that gut feel and anecdotes are no substitute for data. Unless you're doing a bunch of data analysis in Excel, you're probably wrong. If I take the 105 days of data I have handy, during which time I saw exactly 15.0 pounds of downward scale movement, and calculate the correlation between calories consumed on Day 1 and change in weight from Day 1 to Day 2, I get 0.11. That's close to zero (which would imply that daily fluctuation is essentially random), but still positive (which means that lower intake generally results in downward movement and higher intake in upward movement).

During that same time, I saw 2.2 pounds of upward movement after consuming 1430 calories, and 2 pounds of downward movement after consuming 1875 calories, but the data as a whole shows that those days were statistical outliers, rather than being representative of the actual relationship between consumption and scale movement.

You don't have to be lying in order to be mistaken.

herrspoons wrote: »

The facts don't change.

Understand your calorie allowance and eat at it to maintain, below it to lose, and above it to gain weight.

Try to eat a reasonable diet whatever you're doing.

And that's it. Anything else is window dressing.

THIS

jellybaby84 wrote: »

I used to log here very regularly months and years ago (keep coming and going) and, when I came to the boards then, most threads were full of people saying that you had to 'eat more to weigh less' and warning of 'starvation mode'. Many people even said that eating too little made them GAIN weight! As someone who had/has an eating disorder I thought it was crazy but there were loads of personal stories appearing to endorse this. The idea of calories in vs calories out was widely decried and people who suggested someone eats less to lose weight were either mocked or told off.

I've just come back again over the last couple of weeks and it seems totally different. Those saying 'eat more to break your plateau' are now in the minority and are being ridiculed by people saying all you have to do is eat in a deficit and you can't help but lose weight.

Has anyone else noticed this change or was I just reading different threads at different times?

Which philosophy do you agree with?

I found early in my journey, when I would hit a plateau, increasing my calories broke it every single time! I think it really is a mix of both. You do need to eat at a deficit to lose weight but at the same time, you do not want to put your body in the position where it feels it needs to hang on to fat. I have been maintaining for several years now so I must be doing something right

I guess I haven't been on the forums long enough to see the change (2 years or so). It has pretty much been the same for those 2 years.

RGv2 wrote: »

esjones12 wrote: »

Fortunately MFP does not hand out degrees in nutrition. If you want to know the real deal - go pay money to get the scoop from a real nutritionist or dietitian. The ones I've talked to would fall off their chairs laughing at the advice on this forum.....

I've done the same reading some of the advice reportedly given by nutritionists and dietitians as well, so there is that too.

Isn't it something like a 6hr course...if that...for some of these certifications?

Registered Dietitians have a college degree. Nutritionists...I don't know. I think I could be one, lol.

But Dietitians study the hell out of nutrition for a long time. Like everyone else, they probably forget a lot of what they don't use, but it's no half-assed program for them.