Your questions, hypotheses, and curiosities?
Options
Replies
-
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?
I haven't seen the research myself, but Lyle MacDonald was discussing on a recent podcast about the observation that individuals seem to vary in the degree to which their caloric burn adjusts to calorie deficit or calorie surplus. With some people when they are in calorie deficit you will see a pretty dramatic drop in leptin which will make it harder to lose increase hunger, whereas other people do not have nearly as much of a drop (and they tend to lose weight more easily). Similarly, some people in calorie surplus will naturally start burning more calories throughout the day through fidgeting, being active, etc, while others you don't see this same effect. The same people who get the quick drop in leptin also are less likely to naturally ramp up activity, and vice versa. This might partially explain why some people have a hard time gaining weight and lose it very quickly, while others put weight on easily and struggle to lose any.
I wonder if this would be the case regardless of starting body fat levels or if it only occurs when you go above or below a certain range.
0 -
I wonder about the inches associated with water weight versus fat loss/muscle. We know fat is denser than muscle, but is water denser or less dense than fat? If you lose 5 lbs of fat but retain an extra 5 lbs of water, will you be smaller, bigger, or redistributed?0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm lifting weights, but the way I understand it, that's basically rounding error as far as TDEE calories go.azulvioleta6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.azulvioleta6 wrote: »Giving yourself extra calories for a normal amount of walking (10,000 steps) doesn't make a lot of sense.
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.
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.
It really depends on how active you were to begin with. Someone who was only walking 1-3K steps per day would get significant balance from bumping that up to 10K. I think the tricky thing with Fitbit and MFP food intake estimates is that most people aren't going to calculate a baseline before they start the process of losing weight.0 -
marissafit06 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm lifting weights, but the way I understand it, that's basically rounding error as far as TDEE calories go.azulvioleta6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.azulvioleta6 wrote: »Giving yourself extra calories for a normal amount of walking (10,000 steps) doesn't make a lot of sense.
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.
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.
It really depends on how active you were to begin with. Someone who was only walking 1-3K steps per day would get significant balance from bumping that up to 10K. I think the tricky thing with Fitbit and MFP food intake estimates is that most people aren't going to calculate a baseline before they start the process of losing weight.
Yeah I wonder to what degree the calorie burns may become more overestimated over time as your body becomes adapted to the movement.
0 -
I have a question, I had a gastric sleeve and started walking 1.5 miles a day at a very brisk pace 3,5 miles per hour, I have lost a total to date ( 5 months after surgery) and am down 104.2lbs! I've hit a plateau, and don't seem to be losing anymore weight! I walk 7-9 times a week, some nice days I walk outside, cold or rainy days on treadmill. What can I do to start losing weight again?? Should I start to being with weights or bands, or should I just use my body weight. And what type of exercises should I incorporate??0
-
girlviernes wrote: »I wonder about the inches associated with water weight versus fat loss/muscle. We know fat is denser than muscle, but is water denser or less dense than fat? If you lose 5 lbs of fat but retain an extra 5 lbs of water, will you be smaller, bigger, or redistributed?
I've just come out of a month long stall, a lot of which was attributable to water retention (with a bit of eating close to maintenance thrown in at the end
). I did my measurements at one point and they were the same. I've actually noticed in the past week or so that I feel squishier, guessing because my cells aren't pumped up with water. Sooooo, maybe if you're holding on to water your measurements won't really change? 0 -
I always figured it was but I recently had my fasting blood sugar tested for the first time (and I couldn't get in until 11am so that was like 15 hours of fasting) and everything was perfect. So now it's a mystery.0 -
I always figured it was but I recently had my fasting blood sugar tested for the first time (and I couldn't get in until 11am so that was like 15 hours of fasting) and everything was perfect. So now it's a mystery.
Well, I have insulin resistance but my fasting glucose and A1C have always been fine. Not to suggest you have any issues, but they won't always show on that test.
0 -
Oh, just did my measurements and yep, everything is down a bit
. 0 -
...0
-
wnlbutterfly wrote: »I wonder about the one variable that we can't measure that is metabolism. We know things like the older we get the slower it goes and that we can rev it up...but as far as I know it is still not measurable. It's the wild card in the equation in my opinion.
You should do some research as your assumptions are not accurate.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Oh, just did my measurements and yep, everything is down a bit.
First off, nice! I speculate there are patterns to it. I think if I am retaining due to muscle repair I see those inches up, waist and hips seems to go up with hormonal shifts, not sure about a pattern with extra sodium or carbs.0 -
My UP24's estimate of calorie burns -- passive and active -- seems to have gotten pretty close to my actual burns, as reflected in weight loss versus intake. Even assuming perfect logging and ideal loss of weight per 3500 calories of deficit, it's overestimating my 173 calories a day, on average. On an estimated burn of 23,103 a week or 3300 a day, that's not bad at all.girlviernes wrote: »marissafit06 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm lifting weights, but the way I understand it, that's basically rounding error as far as TDEE calories go.azulvioleta6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.azulvioleta6 wrote: »Giving yourself extra calories for a normal amount of walking (10,000 steps) doesn't make a lot of sense.
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.
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.
It really depends on how active you were to begin with. Someone who was only walking 1-3K steps per day would get significant balance from bumping that up to 10K. I think the tricky thing with Fitbit and MFP food intake estimates is that most people aren't going to calculate a baseline before they start the process of losing weight.
Yeah I wonder to what degree the calorie burns may become more overestimated over time as your body becomes adapted to the movement.
Obviously, that's something I'd have to take into account if I were relying solely on the UP24, but I think it definitely has me in the ballpark. I'll be interested to see how it tracks once I go into maintenance and then a surplus.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »
I always figured it was but I recently had my fasting blood sugar tested for the first time (and I couldn't get in until 11am so that was like 15 hours of fasting) and everything was perfect. So now it's a mystery.
Well, I have insulin resistance but my fasting glucose and A1C have always been fine. Not to suggest you have any issues, but they won't always show on that test.
Interesting to know - maybe I will ask a doctor one of these days..thank you!0 -
girlviernes wrote: »
I always figured it was but I recently had my fasting blood sugar tested for the first time (and I couldn't get in until 11am so that was like 15 hours of fasting) and everything was perfect. So now it's a mystery.
Well, I have insulin resistance but my fasting glucose and A1C have always been fine. Not to suggest you have any issues, but they won't always show on that test.
Interesting to know - maybe I will ask a doctor one of these days..thank you!
Yeah it is something I really pay attention to because I had multiple signs of insulin resistance for at least 10 years and repeatedly broached the topic with my doctors but because my blood sugar wasn't high they always disregarded my concerns. The thing about IR is that if you are producing a ton of insulin you may not have elevated sugars. The doctor who finally diagnosed was a reproductive endocrinologist, and she measured several hormone levels including insulin at a particular point in my cycle.0 -
One of my takeaways is not to assume your primary doctor knows this stuff, if you have signs of metabolic dysfunction see an endocrinologist.0
-
[/quote]I was 35.89. I'm going to be a special snowflake who maintains his loss.
[/quote]
Go special snowflake! lol
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »I was 35.89. I'm going to be a special snowflake who maintains his loss.
We are sooo gonna kill it!
(Mind you Canadian snowflake vs Texas snowflake.... I don't know: you may need to find a better paradigm....)0 -
girlviernes wrote: »One of my takeaways is not to assume your primary doctor knows this stuff, if you have signs of metabolic dysfunction see an endocrinologist.
I don't even have a primary doctor lol...one of these days maybe...0 -
girlviernes wrote: »One of my takeaways is not to assume your primary doctor knows this stuff, if you have signs of metabolic dysfunction see an endocrinologist.
I don't even have a primary doctor lol...one of these days maybe...
Well at any rate, it is a good thing your blood work so far has come back looking good!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 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
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions