Your questions, hypotheses, and curiosities?

BFDeal wrote: »

You hear all the time "even if the scale isn't moving maybe you're lost inches." OK, so assuming the person in question is in a deficit (and therefore of course can't build muscle) someone explain this logically. How does one get physically smaller but not lose weight? Second, can the opposite occur? As in, can one GAIN inches (again, in a deficit) but have the scale drop? Go.

It's definitely possible because I'm eating at a deficit and have lost inches (and pounds) everywhere except my calves. I've gained close to half an inch in both of my calves (more in my left one for some reason, a bit less on my right). I am training for a long hike and am doing lots and lots of hill walking and stair climbing. All my skinny jeans now gap at the waist but are tighter in my calves! Good thing it's not tall boot season I guess because I had trouble finding ones that fit before. Now I'm really screwed.

(my stats in my profile are not updated. I'm tracking elsewhere which I suppose we probably aren't supposed to link to)

BFDeal wrote: »

You hear all the time "even if the scale isn't moving maybe you're lost inches." OK, so assuming the person in question is in a deficit (and therefore of course can't build muscle) someone explain this logically. How does one get physically smaller but not lose weight? Second, can the opposite occur? As in, can one GAIN inches (again, in a deficit) but have the scale drop? Go.

I think this is mostly used in the context of water weight or the like masking a loss when the scale is the only measure being considered.

maidentl wrote: »

Something I pondered on my walk today. In a recent thread, some people mentioned that walking burns practically nothing and isn't even worth logging. SO, I was thinking, MFP gives me 1200 at sedentary. I get 200-300 more if I get my booty up to 10K steps. But if walking, especially "just walking around your house" burns nothing, is my Fitbit giving me too many calories? I know, only time will tell . . .

My observation, just for my own body, is that moderate walking alone does very little for weight loss. However, I seem lose and maintain better when I am adding extra walking on TOP of my regular hour/per day of more intense working out. So if I swim, do dance fitness, run, or lift AND walk 12,000+ steps/day, I do better than just doing the more intense workout and not getting much walking throughout the day.

I also notice that several bursts of activity throughout the day seem more effective than just one long workout.

Giving yourself extra calories for a normal amount of walking (10,000 steps) doesn't make a lot of sense.

girlviernes wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Some of mine:

I have read over the years that eating a high fiber diet can slightly reduce the number of calories that your body absorbs because everything is moving through your intestine faster. I have no idea if this is true or if it has ever been tested.

Why do people have such dramatically different experiences with which types of foods cause satiety?

Interesting, I had never heard that about a high fiber diet. Some thing I have heard (perhaps from Michael Pollan) is that high fiber may facilitate healthy gut bacteria which may impact us in various ways.

I like your question about satiety... hmmm... I also wonder with this to what extent placebo comes into play.

Not a question or a hypothesis, but I would like to know a lot more about the microbiome. I'm very curious to see how an increased understanding will inform actual treatments over the next 10-20 years.

DeguelloTex wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

Giving yourself extra calories for a normal amount of walking (10,000 steps) doesn't make a lot of sense.

For the longest time, my goal was 10,000 steps. I'm not sure that's "normal" but, regardless, it's been worth about .75 pounds a week for me over the last year. More when I was heavier, less now, but not insignificant.

Interesting. Are you doing more intense workouts in addition to the walking?

This brings up another question that I have wondered about. Do different individuals have different set-points for activity?

I am very active again now, but really I am just back to what was normal for me before I had health problems which forced me to be sedentary. The amount of exercise that seems to be sufficient for most people to maintain weight loss is not NEARLY enough for me. Some of this is due to metabolic illness in my case, but there seems to be more to it than that.

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

Giving yourself extra calories for a normal amount of walking (10,000 steps) doesn't make a lot of sense.

For the longest time, my goal was 10,000 steps. I'm not sure that's "normal" but, regardless, it's been worth about .75 pounds a week for me over the last year. More when I was heavier, less now, but not insignificant.

Interesting. Are you doing more intense workouts in addition to the walking?

This brings up another question that I have wondered about. Do different individuals have different set-points for activity?

I am very active again now, but really I am just back to what was normal for me before I had health problems which forced me to be sedentary. The amount of exercise that seems to be sufficient for most people to maintain weight loss is not NEARLY enough for me. Some of this is due to metabolic illness in my case, but there seems to be more to it than that.

I'm lifting weights, but the way I understand it, that's basically rounding error as far as TDEE calories go.

There are those who say that walking speed doesn't matter, but probably 7,500 of those steps were from walking about 4.5 miles at 13:30 pace. Other than that and the lifting, I was pretty sedentary.

I've bumped up my target and am now walking 14K+ steps and it's made a noticeable difference in what I've lost, but it's a very, very short sample time, so I'm not jumping to any conclusions.

BlackScorpio91 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Some of mine:

I have read over the years that eating a high fiber diet can slightly reduce the number of calories that your body absorbs because everything is moving through your intestine faster. I have no idea if this is true or if it has ever been tested.

Why do people have such dramatically different experiences with which types of foods cause satiety?

Probably because we're all different from each other and every person is unique...like how one person might need more carbs than another person or to eat less fat than another person. It depends on your goals.

You mean, depending on activity level?

I wonder how many calories we can get from of body fat fat per hour.
I wonder where the tipping point is where we begin to lose muscle mass.
I wonder what the fat to carb burn ratio is at various energy expenditure is.
I wonder why academia keeps studying the reasons obesity is on the rise when most people on MFP could easily answer this.

harpsdesire wrote: »

Is it true that people can have a 'slow metabolism' even if they don't have an obvious metabolic disease? Or is that just kind of an excuse?

Well, a lot of people have metabolic diseases that are not properly diagnosed, which is probably part of the answer.

When my pituitary failed, it took YEARS to get a real diagnosis. There was a lot of shrugging of shoulders and giving up on the part of the doctors that I saw. Most of them were pretty content to just let me go home and die.