Weight fluctuation but no tangible loss

mataliaadavenport wrote: »

My goal is to loose this weight fast. I have to do it. I'm just getting back on my feet and I have to or I won't be able to join the military in a timely manner. My recruiter wanted me doing the 500 calories and laxitives thing, like I said , that was a no.

If you cannot maintain AR 600-9 in Basic, they will wash you out if you still can't upon recycle. If you can't maintain AR 600-9 during AIT, they will wash you out. If you can't maintain within AR 600-9 once at your duty site, you will be flagged and barred from favorable actions like awards and promotions. If you do not progress within your MOS lifecycle - that is, gain rank on the expected timeline - they will wash you out.

Do you see a trend?

You need to learn not only *how* to responsibly lose weight, but the hardest part: maintain. Otherwise, you will not be in the military for very long. Even if you can score a 300+ on the APFT.

By and by, if you fail to meet your initial ADSO? Any recruitment incentive/bonus you received, the military will recoup. The government doesn't have to take you to court to garnish your civilian wages.

Finally, your recruiter doesn't care about you. You should tell his/her Commanding Officer about him/her telling recruits to starve themselves and take laxatives. If you can get it in an email/text, even better.

johnboy916 wrote: »

Her body isn't holding anything. This is the starvation mode myth. I do agree if she was eating that then she needs more for nutrition but as she is obviously gaining those numbers are wrong.

I have read plenty that starving myth is not a myth. It is your bodies metabolism converting sugars and regular carbs into fat for storage rather than passing it through " burning them off" .... your body knows what it needs for fuel.
We are all different. Our bodies react differently.... I should not have replied so open ended with the assertion we are the same......
[/quote]

It's a myth show me a large person dieing of starvation and not malnutrition. A man literally lost hundreds by not eating for a year under dr. supervision. Why would your body waste time storing energy it could use. Because after that is still needs to use something or else you die. It's not just going to start burning muscle over fat just cause. Fat has a higher caloric rate rate per gram. This won't happen until all the fats gone.

When humans were hunter/gatherers do you think they got fat when they weren't eating during scarce times then slimmed down in the times they had plentiful food.

It just doesn't make sense. And the starvation mode myth is a myth. Real starvation will have a low weight.

Our bodies aren't that differnt. They weren't that differnt 100 to 1000 years ago. Sure mutations happen but we are talking about the very base of the human metabolism. I bet you lose weight on a deficit just like I and everyone else does. It's eat less move more.

johnboy916 wrote: »

You all are off the hook..... if your literally starving of course your going to lose weight..... your body will "eat" its fat, then its muscle tissue, then...... well you get the point....... we can round and round you all posting articles, and I can post articles..... whatever....... I'm not going to debate the definition of starvation compared to one's metabolism slowing to conserve energy...... thanks anyways

With long term fasting there will be a slight drop in metabolic rate but it wont be greater than the deficit created which causes your body to digest fat. We can have differing opinions sure. The problem is that yours is one that can harm other peoples weight goals. Eating more doesn't cause you to gain less.

Here is the study if since you don't want to get into an article siting thing. It does show a metabolic decrease of 8% with fasting. but a drop in metabolism only changes the calories in of the standard CICO equation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

johnboy916 wrote: »

I think perhaps you didn't read what posted from the beginning. .... I initially said she this person needs to eat more..... not less.... the whole "starving" conversation started when some said body storing energy was a myth...
I would never tell anyone to fast...... I eat 1770 calories a day. Broken up into 3 meals, and 3 snacks.......this person is working out 5 hours a day and consuming 1250 calories. .... that's not enough.

You quoted me. I see. the quote broke on a previous post. I said its a myth that your body holds onto materials to store fat over using it to burn and fuel your body AKA the Starvation Mode myth. Its garbage and pushing that misconception here hurts peoples progress. Eating more might be good for her nutrition, but that is separate from weight-loss. You do not EVER need to eat MORE to lose weight.

Weight loss is CICO, however if one is under eating, metabolic rate will reduce. Homeostasis. Take your TDEE and subtract 20%. That's basically how many calories you should eat to lose weight.
But how you measure activity and calorie intake matters. So don't guess, use tools to give a pretty accurate count.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

johnboy916 wrote: »

http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/ttp://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

I will leave these 2 articles here.... each one argues both sides..... believe what you want...... but what I preach isnt bulshit the information is out there.......

I give you a legitimate study and you give me click bait. the second one doesn't even cite anything creditable. The first one cites studies but misconstrues the results to push an agenda. Good find.

johnboy916 wrote: »

You gave a legitimate study? 3 days, six men isnt really a real study........ on top of that..... I'm no scientist (never claimed to be) but what I read in your so called great study; the study agrees with me.... those 6 fellas had a metabolic decrease of 8%....... Correct me if I'm wrong...... what are we debating here? Seems you disagree and say what I say is garbage. yet, your study proves me right. Right?

What you have a problem with is the sample size fine.Also if you actually read the post in the study I agreed to a change in metabolic rate not the idea of magic fat storage. No it doesn't prove you right What is shows is after 3 days of straight fasting (not eating) there was only a minor 8% difference in metabolic rate. That means if you have a BMR of 2000 then while not getting ANY food their BMR only droped by 160. So they were still on a 1840 calorie a day deficit. Meaning their rate or weight-loss would have greatly exceeded any slowdown of their bodies basic functions to preserve energy expenditure.

They would have lost weight. Not gained extra magical stored fat like the Starvation Myth expresses.